ODINGA Funded Post Election Violence -Ocampo Witness
U.S Negative Economic Rating
On Monday, Standard and Poor’s pinned a “negative” rating on the United States fiscal outlook. US stock markets reacted poorly. The Dow fell 140 points (1.14%) and the other major indexes suffered similar declines.The S&P report and the market’s reaction puzzled some analysts. “The idea that the U.S. public finances are on an unsustainable trajectory is hardly new news,” said Capital Economics (as reported in New York Times).Indeed, the fiscal situation might be a little rosier now given that both sides have started pushing plausible plans to reduce the debt. But those plans and the rhetoric surrounding them don’t necessarily fuel optimism. The Republican plan, put forward by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, basically reiterates the party line that the debt is a spending problem alone and that tax increases must not be part of the solution. The president’s plan repeats the campaign pledge to finance debt reduction with new taxes only on millionaires. While there’s more encouraging news coming from the Senate, it’s not at all clear what will keep us from driving off the cliff.The bottom line is that the news about the S&P report scared me. Yeah, it is probably a false alarm. It might even serve the salutary purpose of frightening the political establishment into working together to prevent a debt crisis. But it might also mark the point at which the bubble in the market for Treasury securities bursts.
The bubble scenario is this: US Treasuries are a safe asset only as long as investors believe they are. As the safe asset, they command incredibly low interest rates. The Treasury can borrow short term at an interest rate of ¼ percent. As long as interest rates stay really low, Treasuries are completely safe. The US can always roll over its debt as it comes due and interest payments will be manageable for a very long time.The problem arises if people start to believe that Treasuries might be risky, say because of a negative report from a ratings agency or some other kind of shock. If the market started thinking that way, they would demand a higher interest rate, but at higher rates, our debt becomes much less manageable. There’s also fallout for the private sector, which might be thrust back into a recession. That would depress tax revenues and add to spending pressures, further adding to the debt. If markets figure this additional risk into their assessment, they’d raise rates further, which would just make the problem worse. Very quickly, the US government might not be able to borrow at any reasonable rate.
At that point, we become insolvent. If the debt crisis occurred now, we’d probably muddle through, although not without serious damage to our fragile economy. And given that our debt, while large, could be easily managed in a less dysfunctional policy environment, I’d bet that this isn’t “the big one.”But the scary thing is that the bubble will burst eventually, when financial markets lose confidence in us. It’s probably not now, but that means that the bubble could get much bigger before it explodes. As the saying goes, “the bigger they are, the harder they fall.”Warranted or not, I’m hoping that the S&P report serves as a wake-up call.
Diplomatic Disaster: Ping, Odinga In Public Spat At AU Headquarters
Addis Ababa — THERE was high drama at the African Union headquarters here yesterday when Commission chairman Dr Jean Ping publicly clashed with his controversially-appointed mediator to Cote d’Ivoire, Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga after the latter held a Press conference ahead of the Peace and Security Council Summit that was convened to discuss the situation in Cote d’Ivoire. Procedurally, Mr Odinga was supposed to brief his superiors in the Peace and Security Council first after which they would deliberate on his report and any other reports pertinent to the Cote d’Ivoire crisis before holding a Press conference to announce their decision.Dr Ping — who sources said faced a rapping from the leaders over his handling of the Cote d’Ivoire issue including the decision to appoint Mr Odinga, a lowly premier to mediate between a president and an aspirant — was naturally peeved by Odinga’s breach of protocol and summoned AU security details to stop Odinga’s Press conference.
There was some shouting, pushing and shoving with the clearly discomfited Kenyan premier attempting to rush through his statement before handing out copies to journalists who were being dispersed after which he left the scene in a huff.In his statement, Mr Odinga — who was rejected by incumbent Cote d’Ivoire President Laurent Gbagbo’s camp for openly siding with challenger Mr Alassane Ouattara — accused Mr Gbagbo of clinging to power.”Cote d’Ivoire symbolises the great tragedy that seems to have befallen Africa, whereby some incumbents are not willing to give up power if they lose.”This refusal is particularly egregious in Cote d’Ivoire’s case, since never has there been such internal, regional and international unanimity among independent institutions about the outcome of a disputed election in Africa.”Mr Odinga, who was initially unequivocal that Mr Gbagbo should step down then, ended his statement on a conciliatory tone, urging the summit to encourage dialogue between the Gbagbo and Ouattara camps.”This summit must send a strong and unequivocal message that the two parties must negotiate face-to-face,” he said.Diplomatic sources said the West’s meddlesome hand was evident in the manner the AU secretariat had invited foreign ministers of seven Western countries — among them France and Australia — to address foreign ministers of the Peace and Security Council all of whom were amazed by the turn of events that was without precedent in the history of the AU.The Peace and Security Council, as the most powerful union organ by nature, has no room for outsiders yet western foreign ministers were invited to attempt to set the tone for deliberations over Cote d’Ivoire.Unconfirmed reports indicated that French and American warships were patrolling the waters off the Cote d’Ivoire coast in the wake of a visit by an Ecowas delegation to the United States to pursue the option of military action against Cote d’Ivoire.The US and France have been at the forefront of trying to force President Gbagbo to step down. The UN has also sent peacekeeping troops to Cote d’Ivoire.
ECOWAS had threatened military action if President Gbagbo did not concede defeat by stepping down. The Ecowas ultimatum passed without incident with analysts saying the bloc risked getting discredited by resorting to such threats without seeking a peaceful solution to the crisis in Côte d’Ivoire.Sources close to deliberations in the PSC said Sadc had expressed real consternation at the fact that Ecowas, the AU and the UN had all hastily taken a position before investigating developments in Cote d’Ivoire.
“They moved to dictate not to mediate, something quite contrary to the AU and UN traditions and to common sense,” quipped a southern African diplomat.The Peace and Security Council, which convened at Presidential level here, was still in session last night under the chairmanship of Mauritania.President Mugabe joined other heads of state and government at the PSC summit that had only one item on the agenda, the political situation in Cote d’Ivoire following the disputed presidential run-off election result that created two parallel governments.The PSC is the only AU organ tasked with enforcing union decisions.Cote d’Ivoire, which ironically was supposed to sit on the PSC before its recent suspension from the AU, was thrown into turmoil after last November’s elections that had both PresidentGbagbo and former prime minister Ouattara claiming victory and appointing their own governments.Ouattara’s nationality is also being challenged as he is said to come from Burkina Faso.Zimbabwe was elected into the powerful Peace and Security Council for a three-year term in January last year.The PSC has three representatives from Central Africa, three from East Africa, two from North Africa, four from West Africa and three from Southern Africa namely Zimbabwe, South Africa and Namibia.
Report by Caesar Zvayi, 31 January 2011
Another Parallel President: Destabilizing Africa
LIBREVILLE, Gabon —Morgan Tsvangirai, Raila Odinga, Alassane Ouattara & now Andre Obame.Gabon’s government dissolved the country’s main opposition party Wednesday, accusing members of high treason after their leader declared himself president of the oil-rich nation, a government minister said.Opposition leader Andre Mba Obame took the oath of office late Tuesday declaring himself the new leader of Gabon, challenging the authority of President Ali Bongo, the son of Gabon’s longtime dictator who died in June 2009 after a 41-year rule.Obame came in third place in the Central African country’s August 2009 elections, which opposition candidates said were fraudulent.African Union chairman Jean Ping condemned Obame’s actions in a statement Wednesday, saying the declaration comes 17 months after a presidential election monitored by international observers. Obame’s announcement “hurts the integrity of legitimate institutions and also endangers the peace, the security and the stability of Gabon,” said Ping, who is from Gabon.
The 2009 election was called to replace the late President Omar Bongo. His son Ali was declared the winner with 41.8 per cent of the vote, but opposition candidates accused him of vote-rigging. Days of rioting and violence broke out in the southern oil hub of Port Gentil in the former French colony.Obame was among the country’s top three opposition leaders who went into hiding after the elections, saying they feared security forces were trying to kill them.A spokesman for Obame said at the time that the opposition was considering forming a parallel government.Late Tuesday at the opposition party headquarters, Obame said it was time for those in Gabon to be directed by someone they truly chose as their leader. He said he would “defend the constitution and the rights of the state.”Obame named a parallel government of 19 ministers, and the group then marched to U.N. headquarters with hundreds of supporters, where they stayed overnight.
The move is likely inspired by events in Ivory Coast, where incumbent leader Laurent Gbagbo has refused to cede power even though the international community recognizes his opponent Alassane Ouattara as president. Ouattara runs a parallel government from a hotel that is being guarded by U.N. peacekeepers.Jean Francois Ndongou, Gabon’s interior minister, said Wednesday that Obame and his co-conspirators had committed high treason, according to a Gabon news website where the government’s statement was published.
In the statement, Ndongou said that Obame and his supporters “made the choice to not respect Gabon’s constitution.”The government said it has dissolved the National Unity party and “has the right to take other legal and necessary measures relative to this situation.”
Ivory Coast Crisis :Video Inside Cote D’Ivoire
Liberal Racism And the Hypocrisy of ‘Neo-Liberal’ AU Leaders
I have been waiting for the military intervention which African leaders, especially, those of the ECOWAS region pledged, as the only alternative to remove Laurent Gbagbo from office. The reason I am on the lookout for this intervention is to justify my long held belief that our leaders in Africa are simply, strings tied to the aprons of some western powers. For me, nothing is as laughable as the military option proposed by AU and ECOWAS leaders. Somehow, those fellows who sit at AU and ECOWAS meetings are confirming to us that they are blind to the realities of sovereignty.
Ivory Coast is a sovereign and the sovereignty rests in whomsoever Ivoirians decide to submit their will. Today, we are being made to see Gbagbo as a sit-tight. Of course, he is, having put in more than 10 years in the leadership of the country. But we have refused or even become deaf to the demands and desires of the greater number of the Ivoirian people. AU and ECOWAS leaders must, before deploying their soldiers to die on Ivoirian fields, first ask to find out what exactly the people of that country want. They must not fall into the trap of becoming pawns on the chessboard of France and some western war lords who are battling to sustain their annexation of an impoverished Ivory Coast.
Besides that, the basic reason I laugh at AU and ECOWAS leaders’ proposal of military intervention in Ivory Coast is the fact that Africa has been living and tolerating Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe. I recall that soon after Charles Taylor was forced into exile in Nigeria on the platform of NEPAD (New Partnership for Africa’s Development), which some people christened Never Expect Peace And Development, a move was made to ease Mugabe out of office. That move was anchored by NEPAD through its peer review mechanism. The proposal was such that Mugabe had become an embarrassment to Africa and for the West to be assured of its interest in Zimbabwe and the aligning nations; Mugabe must be eased out of office.
Some of the details of the proposal were a plan to get Mugabe to introduce an ally, his boy more or less; to AU leaders whose task it would be to market him to the West as suitable replacement. It was then proposed that after a successful marketing tour of America, Europe, Asia and other parts of the world, an election would be arranged in which the Mugabe surrogate would be announced winner and power transferred to him. What happens to Mugabe afterwards would be part of the comic drama. AU leaders had proposed that Mugabe can comfortably go into exile in South Africa or Nigeria and his loot would be transferred to him while his domestic interests would be secured by the new president. The proposal given to Mugabe was such that he could still be president from exile while a new face sits in office.
Interestingly, this proposal was made to Mugabe while Taylor was still “enjoying” his exile in Calabar. However, the same African leaders who accused Mugabe of over staying his welcome as president of a sovereign country, and had successfully removed Taylor in what was more like a coup, were themselves plotting to extend their own tenure. Our own Olusegun Obasanjo, was an integral part of the AU proposal and as a NEPAD advocate, made sure Taylor was removed as President of Liberia at a time he was busy plotting a tenure extension. It was later disclosed that the proposal to Mugabe failed because the Zimbabwean leader saw that those who had sent him a plan to ease him out of office were busy plotting tenure extensions for themselves. He also saw that Taylor, who was removed on mutual agreement, had been handed over to the US for punishment. So, it would have been foolish for him to accept to lose his grip on power and go the way of Taylor. Today, Mugabe is still president in Zimbabwe and those pontifications by AU leaders have come to nothing.
Among AU leaders who pursued the NEPAD cause included Boutefilka of Algeria, Wade of Senegal, Mubarak of Egypt, Obasanjo of Nigeria and Kuffour of Ghana. While Obasanjo lost out to popular will, and Kuffour was voted out at the end of his tenure, those other leaders have been working the constitutions of their various countries to give them longer hold on power. So, why haven’t AU leaders intervened in Algeria, Egypt and Senegal? I am sure that if Obasanjo had his way, he would still be in power till date. Atiku had made detailed expose on why Obasanjo plotted a third term. He had said Obasanjo was not comfortable with the prospect of leaving office when those he left while handing over in 1979 were still there when he came back 20 years later. No denials from Obasanjo yet. In essence, for most parts of Africa, constant regime change does not bode well.
I agree that democracy is about the will of the people expressed in ballot, even when an absolute and an irredeemable idiot gets it. But I think there comes a time when a people decide on the type of leadership that best suits their existential situation. Yes, democracy is good, but certainly, it is unAfrican to foist a western surrogate on a people. In Ivory Coast, democracy has been expressed as the will of France and some western corporatocracy forcefully expressed through allies. I do not think what is happening there at the moment is about an African state. To my mind, it is about western influence and pressure being expressed through AU and ECOWAS leaders, who in themselves will cry foul if the opposition wins in elections in their country. If AU leaders are not being hypocritical, why, for instance, would the Egyptian government not allow the Muslim Brotherhood, a free participation in a general election? Why would Sudan not freely walk into a referendum to decide the fate of Southern Sudan? Why would Wade in Senegal seek constitutional amendment for yet another tenure? And why, also, would the PDP in Nigeria not sincerely and openly honour its own constitutional provision on power rotation in the party?
Let us face the fact. None of these self-serving AU and ECOWAS leaders will willfully quit office if they find themselves in Gbagbo’s shoes. Between the two gentlemen in Ivory Coast, we find a situation where no one is asking the people, for whom power is being exercised, exactly what they want. The concern seems to be more of what France, IMF and World Bank wants. Between IMF and World Bank, you have a corporatocracy that determines who becomes president, when and how, in an African or developing country.
Alassane Quatarra’s background revolves around the IMF and World Bank and the determination to make sure he rules Ivory Coast should, in my mind, be x-rayed against his call for general civil disobedience in Ivory Coast which was largely ignored. But the same people trooped into the streets to demonstrate in support of Gbagbo and against the dictates of France in their country. This, in itself, ought to send some signals to the international community and the United Nations. This is the same international community that backed and defended the fraudulent presidential elections in Afghanistan in which Hamid Karzai clearly lost.
I therefore think that to solve the Ivorian conundrum, those super powers beating the drums of another civil war, including AU and ECOWAS leaders must think less of a military action and seek a better study and understanding of the situation in that country. I know that Nigeria, for instance, will bear the brunt of military intervention for which a resistance by the Ivorian military is certain. Such resistance will surely lead to another civil war causing massive outflow of refugees into neighbouring West African states.
Nigeria will have a good share of them. So, is the Nigerian government prepared to handle such an inflow when it has proved in capable of attending to the needs of internally displaced persons? These are issues too.
Therefore, it is not enough to issue military threats against a sovereign nation. That, in itself, is an invitation to war.AU and ECOWAS leaders must look the way of Iraq to draw lessons from the forceful removal of its government.They must also look toward Liberia to realize that loyalists of Taylor are not entirely happy that their leader was betrayed. AU leaders must also go back to history to note that after the war, there was Nuremberg.
*The Writer is a Nigerian National Copyright© 2011 Daily Champion. All rights reserved.
Angolan Government denounces defamatory campaign over Côte d’Ivoire crisis ( European Conspiracy Against Côte d’Ivoire)
Luanda, – The Angolan Government strongly condemns the defamatory campaign in circulation, according to which purported Angolan mercenaries or soldiers have been spotted in Côte d’Ivoire.The condemnation is contained in an Angolan Government declaration on the crisis in that West African country, released Friday in Luanda.The declaration considers the news as false and as part of the usual strategy of external interference in matters of the continent, aiming at blackening its leaders and institutions and once again manipulate the public opinion in order to justify the inevitability of the war.
In the declaration, the Angolan Executive stresses that it continues following up, with much concern, the situation that followed the election in Côte d’Ivoire that is on the verge of relapsing into a conflict of unpredictable consequences, liable of threatening stability in West Africa.The source states the fact that West Africa is a stable region, with processes of stabilisation in progress in various countries where the democratic systems are recent, after long lasting wars that tragically marked the sub-region, namely Liberia, Sierra Leone, Guinea-Conakry, Guinea-Bissau and Niger.
The Government states in its declaration that this concerns grow at a time new electoral processes draw near and are exposed to be affected by the situation in Côte d’Ivoire, with the creation of new tragedies on the continent.The Angolan Government says that it learns with much concern the fact that all measures so far adopted by the international community are inexorably pushing Côte d’Ivoire into a war.In this regard, the Government mentions that the pace at which this degenerative process is going is just an indication of the grave abnormalities and factors that before, during and after the elections, contributed and continue negatively affecting the critical situation prevailing in the country.
It adds that “it is strange that within five days radical and extreme measures that we know were intentionally taken, without prior and due attention and evaluation of all complaints about the election itself, in order not only not to unequivocally establish the winner, but also dissuade any dispute and, secondly, without a minimum use of paths for a peaceful resolution of the conflict, through dialogue and negotiation, in line with internationally acceptable norms in such cases.”
After mentioning that the Angolan Executive has been contacted by diverse entities and countries for an eventual mediation, with a view to a search of a solution to the crisis in Côte d’Ivoire, it reaffirms its support for “a peaceful and negotiated solution of the Ivorian conflict.”
On the other hand, the executive deplores that powers external to the continent are currently urging other African countries of the sub-region to precipitate the war as a solution to a problem that, to the Angolan authorities, can and must be peacefully resolved.“It is the Angolan Government understanding that the crisis in Côte d’Ivoire is about an African issue and is, for that matter, up to Africans to take the lead in its treatment. Thus, the African Union must assume the responsibility of this leadership in order to avoid that the present conflict irreversibly elapse into a human disaster, using all investments at its disposal,” reads the Government’s declaration.
Raila Call For Kenyan Gay Arrests- Diversionary Tactic From Grand Corruption
Nairobi — Prime Minister Raila Odinga was on Wednesday put to task in Parliament over corruption in the Cabinet and why some ministers implicated in graft were still holding on to their positions.Mr Odinga, the ODM party leader, was also accused of applying double standards when it came to dealing with MPs from his side of the coalition.
Mr Odinga, the ODM party leader, was also accused of applying double standards when it came to dealing with MPs from his side of the coalition.”Mr Prime Minister, we would like to know your definition of political responsibility because when it is ministers from your party, you defend them, but when they are from the other side you remain silent,” Ms Amina Abdalla, a PNU nominated MP, said on Wednesday.
Gichugu MP Martha Karua challenged the PM to give his position on Immigration minister Otieno Kajwang’, who despite being struck off the lawyers’ roll several times by the Law Society of Kenya over accountability issues was still appointed to the Cabinet.Mr George Nyamweya (MP, Nominated) accused Mr Odinga of applying double standards.
He challenged the PM over why he had suspended then Agriculture minister William Ruto and Education minister Sam Ongeri over alleged fraud in their ministries, while urging patience in the current cases.Mr Njoroge Baiya said Industrialisation minister Henry Kosgey should have resigned over alleged abuse of office and corruption relating to importation of old vehicles.But Mr Odinga said he was not aware of any tainted ministers in the Cabinet. He also said that no one would be spared in the war on graft.
Kenya: From Conservative Oligarchy to Liberal Dictatorship
An Erosion of Rights from Free speech to SIM cards.
The government wants to get into your bedsheets with you. They want to see what you wear when you go to bed, who or what you get into bed with, and why. They want to listen in as you whisper those sweet nothings to whomever or whatever it is that keeps you company. They want to be so far into your business, they will be able to hear you think. Better believe it.While Kenya is gripped with referendum fever over the proposed constitution, the government has declared that compulsory registration of mobile phone Subscriber Identification Module (SIM) cards has begun, and will continue for another month or so. The ostensible reason is that this will help government fight crimes such as mobile phone theft, kidnappings, and the like. This is nonsense.
A traceable SIM card in a stolen phone can simply be thrown away. Similarly, it is ludicrous for the government to think kidnappings will cease merely because text messages can be traced to a given cellphone number. What’s to stop the kidnappers using one of the many free web-based services to send the text message? They could even use the kidnapped person’s own cellphone to send text messages or make calls – what’s to stop them?No, this is not about crime and security. This is about government wanting to listen in, to spy on us, to take us back to the bad old days under the malevolent regime of President Moi, when you could not say anything without a furtive look over your shoulder. It is a massive step back in civil liberties.
Unfortunately, our representatives in Parliament seem to be too busy holding night-and-day referendum meetings to take note of what is happening. It also flies in the face of economic sense. The mobile phone sector in Kenya – and most of Africa – is booming essentially because there is little or no bureaucracy involved in purchasing a mobile phone SIM card.Replacing a lost one is easy, but most people do not bother to go through the hassle of lining up at their service provider’s to wait for this: they simply purchase a new line and advise their contacts to change to the new number. This is what has kept the dynamic mobile phone sector so vibrant and profitable.
The introduction of mobile phone registration will very quickly curtail growth in the sector, as many people will be reluctant to provide their details to the government, knowing that this government has, in the past, actively sought to block citizens from even sending each text messages – as happened during the disputed general elections of 2007.It is virtually guaranteed that a significant proportion of subscribers will let their SIM cards lapse. Corruption will enter the mobile phone sector, as proxy registrations gain ground: indeed, unscrupulous agents with fake identity cards will pop up to help customers register SIM cards falsely. The directive will hit service providers’ bottom lines quite significantly: the massive sales they have witnessed through decentralised, roadside shops will simply stop.
That is not to say there is no place for some form of registration – there is, as the popular M-Pesa money transfer service has shown. However, such registration should be service-related and voluntary, rather than a Big-Brother-style gun-on-your-temple quid pro quo for accessing telephony and similar communication service.Considering that criminal messages can also be passed using email, shall we see the government seek to have people register their computers and email addresses with the CCK? After all, one might want to trace the source of an email if such a facility is used in committing crime. Perhaps we should also have identifiable cyber-café accounts, too.
This SIM card registration directive is wrong and should be re-thought. It is perhaps no coincidence that many of the countries that have implemented such schemes – like Iran, Ethiopia and the like – are among the most oppressive in the world. In the hands of Kenyan security and intelligence forces, SIM card registration will simply become yet another tool of repression and denial of civil rights.
By P. Wanyonyi – published NMDN
Routine Liability
ODM Legal
Background :The grand coalition partners Thursday took their wrangles to the international theatre, clashing over the establishment of an African liaison office for the International Criminal Court.The drama, which ended with a member of the Kenyan delegation being shouted out of the meeting, pitted the Party of National Unity against its partner, the Orange Democratic Movement.ODM accused PNU of working with other African countries to block the work of the ICC in Africa.But Attorney General Amos Wako accused the ODM delegation, comprising Prime Minister Raila Odinga’s adviser Miguna Miguna and University lecturer Mutakha Kangu of “acting out of ignorance” and said the government will abide by its obligations to the ICC
Opinion:Wrangling among the Kenyan delegates at the ICC Conference in Kampala was embarrassing.
Attorney General Amos Wako is a Constitutional Office holder and was in Kampala as a legal representative of the Government. That he was embarrassed at an international conference by Prime Minister Raila Odinga’s legal advisor Miguna Miguna is a tragedy of unimaginable proportions.
Kenyans must now ask some hard questions: Who is Miguna in the Government and whom does he represent? Where does he derive the authority to undermine the AG during the course of his official business? Wako, as the AG, should not be ‘shadowed’ by a party legal representative for whatever reason.
If indeed Miguna is a representative of the PM, the later ought to tell Kenyans whether he could have instructed him to contradict and embarrass Wako and why?
Mwenda, Nairobi
We Will Not Shield or Protect Officials
Kenya‘s prime minister, Raila Odinga, said his government “will not shield or protect” senior officials if they are indicted by the international criminal court for crimes against humanity committed during last year’s post-election violence.In an interview with the Guardian, Odinga voiced support for the Hague-based court whose prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, said last week he would pursue a unilateral investigation into the 2008 bloodletting in which at least 1,133 people were killed.
The main suspects include several cabinet ministers, including some from Odinga’s party, who are accused of organising and financing ethnic-based attacks.Odinga’s remarks describing himself as holding “identical” views to Ocampo on the urgent need for justice to prevent future politically-inspired violence put him at odds with powerful ministers on both sides of the coalition, who are desperately seeking to derail the international process.
When parliament reopens they are expected to try to push through a bill creating a special local tribunal, in an attempt to weaken Ocampo’s case when he requests authorisation next month from the ICC’s pre-trial chamber to proceed with investigations. After meeting Ocampo in Nairobi last week, Odinga and Mwai Kibaki, the president, whose widely discredited election win kicked off the violence, released a statement saying they would co-operate with the court. But Odinga has gone further.
“We said that we will not shield or protect people found to have committed crimes against humanity,” he said. “That is what we told Ocampo.”
The ICC’s intervention is a tricky issue for both Kenyan leaders, who want to avoid alienating allies in their respective parties named by the government-funded Kenyan National Commission on Human Rights for allegedly orchestrating the violence. In Odinga’s case, it is ministers from the Rift valley region, who offered crucial election support to his Orange Democratic Movement party, who have the most to fear. The area saw the worst of the violence, as Kalenjin gangs attacked Kikuyu civilians from Kibaki’s party.
Some of the most senior Kalenjin MPs say the Rift valley bloodshed was a spontaneous reaction by Odinga supporters, who thought he had been cheated of victory. But Odinga rejected this, pointing to similar ethnic attacks around elections in the 1990s.”There had been conflict and clashes in some parts of the Rift Valley even before the election. During campaigns, there were fires [attacks] in Molo and Burnt Forest and so on. These were things that had nothing to do with the post-election protests. .. They need to be separated [from genuine protests],” he said. In Kibaki’s party, panic over Ocampo’s move is strongest among some senior MPs from his home region in Central province, who are accused of sponsoring Kikuyu gangs to attack opposition supporters. As part of a peace deal last year, Kibaki and Odinga agreed to establish a local tribunal to try those responsible for the violence. But when they presented a bill to parliament to facilitate this it was rejected.
The legislation was weak, human rights activists say, and Odinga said some MPs – and most Kenyans – had serious concerns that a domestic court would not be independent. But he said politicians involved in the violence had also helped to quash the bill, fearing that a local tribunal would move faster then the ICC.”They thought it would take 50 years before it [the ICC] reached the Kenyan trial. To them the ICC was like a parking place – put it [the case] there and park it there,” he said.Ocampo has said he will seek to bring cases against two to four people, perhaps as soon as next year, in order to prevent further violence during the next election. His decision to move quickly is broadly supported among Kenyans fed up with decades of high-level impunity. Odinga said he shared the concern about further violence in 2012, when he is almost certain to run for president again.
“My position is informed by what we have been through since the introduction of multipartyism … We had these clashes in 1992, then again in 1997 and 2002. This is happening because nothing has been done to stop it. My position is identical to that of Mr Ocampo,” he said.He said the police needed to be held to account for supporting the Kikuyu militias, but refused to be drawn on whether any of his party leaders might eventually be indicted by the ICC.”The mere fact that names have been floated is not sufficient evidence that people are culpable,” he said.
Civil society groups have criticised Odinga and Kibaki for refusing Ocampo’s request to grant him permission to investigate, which would have avoided the prosecutor have to seeking authority from the pre-trial chamber. But Odinga said that granting a referral would have been tantamount to admitting Kenya was a failed state. He insisted that lower-level perpetrators could still face justice domestically.”We told him [Ocampo] that we have not given up on the local process and have embarked on a very major reform of the judiciary and the police to try the bulk of the culprits locally.”
Acceptance of killing of Innocent Kikuyus
*By Wangari Maathai -Nobel Peace Prize winner
With the pervasive demonisation of the Mungiki militia group providing an effective cover for the killing of members of the Kikuyu community – Mungiki and non-Mungiki alike – ordinary citizens are reluctant to speak out, both for fear of being accused of supporting the sect and of the reactions of Mungiki militia to criticism. Calling on the political and religious leadership of the Kikuyu community to face up to the challenge in its midst, Maathai urges the country to heal the growing rift between the community and other Kenyans.
Mungiki
In the course of history everywhere in the world, it is the leadership of the day that guides its people towards peace or war, poverty or wealth, development or collapse, slavery or freedom. And so it is with Kenya’s current leadership, a leadership which is failing to see the signs of anger and frustration of those they govern even though the writing is on the wall. Since the rupture over the infamous Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in 2003, the referendum on the constitution, the general elections and the subsequent fallout from them, Kenya has continued to slide dangerously backwards.
In 2008, thanks to a quick response from the African Union and the international community, Kenya was saved from the brink and a National Accord was arrived at to allow the Party of National Unity (PNU) and the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) to declare a ceasefire, share power and work towards national cohesion and reconciliation. Kenya was given a new lease of life but since then the leadership has wasted away that second chance as it continues to compete and play politics with only 2012 in mind. In the past, the failure to recognise danger signs were the reason why some people expressed shock and dismay that deadly post-election violence could happen in Kenya in 2007-08. Such people had believed that Kenya was a peaceful country. Unfortunately, that perception was because people ignored the danger signs and lived a lie. To such people the tribal clashes of 1991, 1992 and 1997 were quickly forgotten. Yet during those earlier clashes, as in 2007-08, distress calls to the police for help were ignored. Many people died, and more were maimed, raped and displaced, while much property was destroyed. Again, once politicians shared power and privileges, nobody was held responsible for those crimes. Everything was swept under the carpet and was quickly forgotten. As it turned out, the clashes of the 1990s proved to be rehearsals for the post-election violence of 2007-08 and in all cases the violence was largely directed at the Kikuyu community.
Currently, the danger signs are palpable. Instances of citizens being murdered in cold blood in cases where no robbery is involved, or citizens shouting down leaders at public rallies – such as happened during Jamhuri Day (12 December 2008) and Labour Day (1 May 2009) – or youth uprooting the railway, engaging police in gun battles in rural towns, or engaging in killing orgies of defenceless villagers, are all signs of a society that is falling apart and losing respect for the rule of law. The government knows that the violence and killings are largely perpetrated by members of militia groups, which are created and funded by politicians. Different communities have their militia, which bear different names. The government knows these militia groups and knows that politicians use them to punish and defeat their opponents, especially during elections. If they win elections, the same politicians end up in government and become part of the leadership.
Mungiki, which is currently making headlines, is the militia group from the Kikuyu community. Information about the group is kept secret, but unconfirmed reports indicate that this militia is split into several groups. The original Mungiki members were only interested in pursuing the Kikuyu form of worship, which prays facing Mt. Kenya. This group does not believe in Christianity and calls for the traditional Kikuyu way of life, including practicing female circumcision. Owing largely to its stand on those two issues, the strongly christianised Kikuyu community has been unsympathetic towards this group and has largely demonised the sect. The banning of the sect by the government has criminalised it, and therefore the community and Kenyans in general have tolerated the extrajudicial killing of its members.The police have taken advantage of this demonisation and criminalisation to kill Mungiki indiscriminately, because they know that they will not be called to account. Why the members of the sect are denied freedom of worship, in a country where everybody else can worship as they please, is not clear. Indeed it is only among the Kikuyu community that worshiping in a traditional way is demonised, criminalised and the killing of followers is tolerated.
The second group camouflages itself as Mungiki but is said to be comprised of militiamen being recruited from thousands of unemployed youth. With the failure of the cash crop economy, impoverishment and the introduction of drugs and illicit alcoholic drinks in the Central region, it has been easy to recruit youth and men into militia groups. Criminality gradually infiltrated some of these militia groups, especially as they sought ways to sustain themselves beyond the handouts from their sponsors. Therefore, they become available to politicians and others for hire. They are the type we encounter protecting grabbed public lands or properties built on stolen land. Sometimes they may receive police protection, an indication of their political patronage.
The third group is claimed to be closely connected to the law enforcement arm of the government and is used to collect information, intimidate and instil fear in citizens, terrorise matatus and silence elements like dissidents, activists and competing elements. It may also provide ‘protection’ or other services for a fee. These are the ones people accuse of hiring police guns to commit crimes.
In some cases the militiamen and the law enforcement arm of the government form a symbiotic relationship, which sometimes goes sour with either of them getting killed. When militiamen are killed they are labelled thieves and members of the Mungiki sect. That is usually an indication that the matter get closed and no further action is expected. Because of the internalised disdain of the Mungiki sect, especially in the Kikuyu community, the expected outcry against their killings has been absent and nobody in the community wants to be seen supporting Mungiki. At the same time Mungiki has instilled so much fear in the community that nobody is willing to speak about them or their actions for fear of immediate elimination.Therefore, when innocent persons are killed and are labelled Mungiki, death is stoically accepted as the will of God and the community internalises the pain. Killing members of Mungiki, irrespective of their innocence, has became so acceptable that all that police have to claim to literally get away with any murder is to say that the victim was a member of Mungiki. Unfortunately, that has degenerated into acceptance of killing of innocent Kikuyus. Currently this is further degenerating into members of Mungiki turning on the community itself in a cycle of vengeance and tit-for-tat.
The recent murder of the son of the former member of parliament for Gatundu North, Hon. Kariuki Muiruri, painfully exemplifies the tragedy and the dilemma that the Kikuyu community faces. The son was shot dead by a plainclothes policeman, who subsequently walked into a police station and wrote in the Occurrence Book (OB) that he had killed a thief who was also a member of the Mungiki sect! Yet the son was on holiday and the two met casually at a social place. Whatever the circumstances that led to the shooting of the son, this was a case of an innocent young man killed by a policeman who knew that nothing would happen to him if he were to record that the man was a member of the Mungiki sect. But for the fact that the victim was the son of a former member of parliament and a former assistant minister, Muiruri’s son would have joined the list of thousands of Kikuyu youth who have been killed under similar circumstances and labelled thieves and members of the Mungiki sect.
The Mungiki phenomenon, almost like the Mau Mau experience five decades ago, is providing cover for extrajudicial killings, intimidation, harassment, criminalisation and the bashing of the Kikuyu community under the pretence that police are protecting citizens from Mungiki. Sometimes police are fully aware of the activities carried out by this group. The killings in Mathira and Kirinyaga, for example, are said to have been committed with full knowledge of the law enforcement arm of the government. Indeed, citizens claim that distress calls to the police for help were never responded to until the killings had been completed. The extrajudicial killings of innocent Kenyans have been attracting international attention. This is because not only is the state perceived to be failing in protecting its citizens, but the police are being blamed for some of the deaths. Promises to carry out a thorough investigation come to nothing, and nobody has been held to account. After all, the police cannot be expected to investigate and incriminate themselves.
Perhaps militia groups like Mungiki have gotten out of hand. But is the right response to militia groups a license to kill them indiscriminately? We are not in a state of war, and nobody should be killed without following the due process of the law of the land, police excuses for self-defence notwithstanding. Police Commissioner Hussein Ali will find it hard to explain how in his era Kenya has experienced a level of carnage at the hands of the police greater than at any other time, even when compared with the colonial era. When the government sends the message that the Mungiki group should be crushed, it is an endorsement for extrajudicial killings. For their part, the militiamen will subsequently go on a killing spree to avenge members killed. This cycle of death has become a common feature, has instilled fear and has given rise to frustration in the people of Central Kenya.
The way I see it, the political and religious leadership of the Kikuyu community should rise to the challenge facing the entire community. This is a community that suffers from accumulated trauma and frustration extending back to the beginning of the colonial era. From the latest attack during the post-election violence, the community has yet to bury their dead, settle the internally displaced persons (IDPs) and send their children back to school. A culture of Kikuyu bashing, criminalisation and isolation is being perpetrated and is quickly entrenching itself, creating a deep rift between the community and other Kenyans. The fact that this is happening when the national leadership in State House is from the community is doubly tragic. How can they be so bashed, so criminalised, killed, displaced and humiliated when their beloved son is in State House? Will he wait until he or members of his family are touched by the tragedy afflicting the community? If they are now encouraged to turn on each other, there will be no shortage of helping hands, including being given guns to kill their own children! For a country awash with militia groups, these are dangerous signs not only for the Kikuyu community, but for Kenya as a whole. The question I would ask Prime Minister Raila Odinga is, have you not heard the cries or seen the tears of these Kenyans in your capacity as the coordinator of government business? Have you not seen the mourning mothers?
Provocateur Exposed:2007 Kenyan Election
When Paul Collier, professor of economics at Oxford, publishes something, it invariably contains some very important ideas. I realised this when I first encountered his paper about civil war and insurgency, “Greed and Grievance”. Collier co-wrote it when head of research at the World Bank, where he developed a rare ability to merge his deep understanding of economics with sober analyses of a rapidly changing political landscape. Put simply, in “Greed and Grievance” he argued that armed rebellion had more to do with access to financial resources than with any deep commitment to ideology.
mong political scientists that particular paper was greeted by murmurs of approval and harrumphing in equal measure. Here was an economist treading on the keenly defended turf of political wonks, and many took umbrage. A few wonks, however, recognised the valuable contribution Collier’s research had to make to the struggle against poverty and political violence.I think some of the harrumphing that followed the publication of that paper might also be ascribed to Collier’s liberal use of baffling mathematical formulae to prove his point. I confess I had to skip a raft of calculus in his earlier work. But I am pleased to report that since he started writing bestselling books, he has dumped the equations in favour of clear prose.
This strategy paid real dividends just under two years ago when he published The Bottom Billion: Why the Poorest Countries are Failing and What Can be Done About It, a fresh and inventive look at chronic underdevelopment, its victims and its winners (the latter being few in number but abnormally powerful). The book was showered with praise as it offered many cogent explanations for the persistence of grinding poverty in a world which was until last September indecently rich. Wars, Guns & Votes carries on from where The Bottom Billion left off.
Apart from the fact that its author is not American, Collier’s work is distinguished from the books of Tom Friedman, Bob Kagan, Fareed Zakaria and several other gurus of globalisation in that it is based on extremely thorough empirical research. This puts him in the same camp as real heavyweights such as the Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz. When Collier asserts that the bottom billion are much more prone to insurgency and civil war than the rest of the world, you can be confident this is not observational anecdote. The chances are that he and his indefatigable team of student minions will have exhaustively examined the data from every civil war since the dawn of time to back his thesis.
This aspect of Collier’s books is powerful, making it hard to refute many of his conclusions, some of which are disturbing, iconoclastic or both. He is destined to upset a lot of people when he asserts at the outset that democracy is bad news for the countries of the bottom billion – it usually ends in tears, not to mention grand larceny, murder and even genocide. On closer examination, he argues that elections alone do not amount to a strong democracy. Without institutions that promote accountability, they are too easily exploited by cynical, greedy elites.
Unfortunately, the “kumbaya” politics of the 1990s held that voting was an end in itself. Western institutions became involved in an electoral circus which often absorbed huge sums. Self-selecting election “monitors” from America and Europe would travel to Armenia one week and the Ivory Coast the next to pass judgment on the validity of the process. By contrast, there was little or no investment in dealing with the consequences of the elections or building the institutions essential to ensuring that the resulting government did not abuse its power. In the former Yugoslavia, unscrupulous populists exploited the plebiscitary democracy in 1990 and 1991 to rip the place apart. And Collier saw this repeated in many countries in Africa, the continent where the great majority of the bottom billion states are found.
It is a brave scholar who asserts that democracy equals bloodshed, but Collier is not afraid of going against the grain. He gives very short shrift to the fashionable cause of self-determination or special status for minorities espoused by the Kosovo Albanians, the Luo in Kenya or the rebels in Darfur. He casts Raila Odinga, the Kenyan prime minister, and not President Kibaki as the provocateur in the country’s last elections (in contrast to most foreign media covering the story).But he mounts a very heartening defence of peace-keeping operations which, using hard facts, he is able to prove unambiguously are extremely good value for money. He then comes close to creating what on the surface looks like a surefire formula for stabilising the countries of the bottom billion, enabling them to begin economic development in earnest.
And this is where the problems arise with his thesis. He proposes a reduction of sales in weapons to governments and rebels in these areas – so far so good, although he skips over the issue of how to police such a regime a little too lightly. It is in his central assertion, however – that fragile democracies in Africa must be allowed to flower under the military guarantee of the United States, France and Britain – that the optimism of his economic modelling clouds the reality of global geopolitics. The “command centre” that the Americans are trying to establish in West Africa is motivated by a need to secure oil supplies, not by an altruistic project to nurture democracy. And his faith in the military strategies of the French in West Africa overlooks much of Paris’s cynical manoeuvring in the region (including the promotion of arms sales and mineral exploitation).
One might argue that British, French and American motives may change; however, after Iraq, Rwanda and Afghanistan (to name but three), the political and moral space for intervention is extremely limited. But it is to Collier’s great credit that he has really opened up a debate that we need to conduct with some urgency. Even as we dither about military strategies and aid for West Africa, for example, the entire region is being captured by Colombian and Venezuelan cartels who are turning Guinea-Bissau, Sierra Leone, Liberia and even Senegal and Ghana into the new Mexico. In economic terms, even after the crash, the world still has more than enough money to raise the bottom billion out of the swamp they are forced to inhabit. As in so many challenges we face, it is political vision and political will that is lacking.
By Misha Glenny
Traditional Political Organisation of the Kikuyu People
Kikuyu political structure
The political organisation of the Kikuyu people was closely interwoven with the family and the riika. A young man after initiation through circumcision automatically entered into the National council of junior warriors(njama ya anake a mumo). After 82 moons or 12 rain seasons after the circumcision ceremony the junior warrior was promoted to theCouncil of senior warriors (Njama ya ita).Together this two councils would be called upon to protect the tribe in case of external aggression. The council of senior warriors was in addition an important decision making organ. The two councils were served by men of 20 – 40 years.Upon marriage a man was initiated into a council called kiama kĩa kamatimo.This was the first grade eldership and it denoted elders who were also warriors. At this stage the man plays the role of observers of senior elders. They are required to assist in proceedings by carrying out menial tasks like skinning animals, being messengers, carrying ceremonial articles or light fires among other tasks.
When a man had a son old enough to be circumcised or a daughter old enough to be married ,he was elevated into another council called the council of peace(kiama kĩa mataathi). On entering this council the man was now a man of peace and no longer of the warrior class. He assumed the duty of peace maker in the community.When a man had had practically all his children circumcised, and his wife (or wives) had passed child-bearing age he reached the last and most honoured status. A council known askiama kĩa maturanguru (religious and sacrificial council).After paying an ewe which was slaughtered and offered in sacrifice to Ngai (God) the man was invested with powers to lead a sacrificial ceremony at the sacred tree (Mũgumũ mũtĩ wa Igongona). The elders of this grade assumed the role of ‘holy men’. They were high priests. All religious and ethical ceremonies were in their hands. In the Agĩkũyũ society the religious,governance and law functions were closely intertwined. With various councils being called upon to perform one of this functions. From the literature I’ve seen it is not quite clear whether women also had councils and what functions these councils served. The initiation ceremony seems to have been organized by a council comprised of both men and women.
Parallel to the said councils the family unit formed a council known as ndundu ya mũcie of which the father was the head. The father as the head of the household then represented the family in the next council called kiama kĩa itora (village council) comprising of all the family heads in the village. This was headed by the senior elder. A wider council called kiama kĩa rũgongo (district council) was formed comprising of all the elders from the district. This was presided over by a committee (kiama kĩa ndundu), composed of all the senior elders in the district. Among the senior elders, the most advanced in age was elected as the head and judge (mũthamaki or mũciiri) of the ndundu. The district councils then came together to form the national council. Among the judges, one was elected to head the meetings.
* by Gikuyu Architecture
This Political Man Called William Ruto
With each passing day, william ruto is becoming more and more belligerent. He is slowly coming out of the closet to air his frustrations with the orange democratic movement, the coalition, the treasury and anything else he can lay his hands on. He is the new kid on the block with the bravado to challenge the system he is serving as a cabinet minister. He no longer thinks collective responsibility among cabinet ministers is a good idea. If he is not blasting connivers and schemers against him within his party, he is training his guns on the treasury that doesn’t think his agriculture ministry deserves more money than the military department. All of a sudden, ruto has become a champion of the poor, the oppressed and the jobless youth. He has found new inspiration in the fight against poverty and inequality; unlike his two superiors who have found comfort in their new relationship. Ruto has a special loathing for the waki report which has driven him to the edge. For this reason, his realization that his boss raila odinga had supported the full implementation of the report amounted to a betrayal of the highest order and a stab on the back by a comrade in arms. 
According to him, the mayhem, murder, rape and displacement of thousands of non- kalenjins in the rift valley was done in the name of raila. Therefore, for better or for worse, raila should be the last person to want to punish the community that stood by him and fought his war. It is true the war cry at the time, at the height of the violent protest all over the country was “no raila! no peace!” back then, most of kenya except central,North Eastern,chunks of Nairobi and eastern provinces believed that raila had won the elections. However, despite this anger with the government machinery for robbing raila of victory, the man never told anybody to kill, maim, rape and rob in his name. He never ordered non- kalenjins to be removed from rift valley or any part of the country. That kind of order would have impacted negatively on the person who wanted to be the president of kenya. Ruto is not alone in being upset with raila. Most mps from rift valley and western province seem to have an axe to grind with their prime minister. The rift valley mps have used every opportunity to vilify and discredit him right from the day the coalition government formed its first cabinet. A number of them who thought they deserved to be in that cabinet but missed have never forgiven raila. Initially they used three bi-elections in kipsigis part of rift valley to punish raila’s odm.
They failed three times. Then they lurched onto the mau forest that raila had promised to clear of settlers and restore the water catchment area. As they struggled with the mau forest saga, waki presented them with a convenient diversion. Now the song in rift valley is that raila has used them to get his premiership and is about to dump them and watch as some of their leaders are rounded up for the hague trials. The question is; can ruto and his kinsmen afford to decamp from odm now if matters got worse? can raila let the kalenjin mps go away should they continue to nag him for all manner of reasons? do they have enough disrespect for him to continue distracting him with their parochial issues? how many of these mps would have been elected on a kanu ticket had they not joined odm? between these noisy mps and raila; who used who to get elected? how many of these characters are electable on their own? if the original narc had held together in 2003 and chose to pursue these characters for their past misdeeds when they were in power for 24 years under daniel arap moi, where would some of them be today? most of these questions can only be answered appropriately by the very mps from rift valley because they know better their recent history. As for ruto; if he is a true leader of his people; if he truly thinks he can no longer serve in a cabinet of incompetent, visionless and self seeking leaders like president mwai kibaki and raila, then the best laudable option is to resign at least from the cabinet.
By James Waititu
There are precedents to emulate. Raila’s father jaramogi oginga odinga did just that in 1966. The late joseph murumbi followed him a few months later. Kenneth matiba and kibaki followed the same path two decades later. It is the honorable thing to do when you no longer believe in collective responsibility.
Martha Karua
Martha Karua
When Martha Karua announced in late 2007 that she would be one of the debutantes for the 2012 presidential polls, most of us ignored her.Enter 2008, she has repeatedly reiterated this and proceeded to underpin it with concrete political action. She is now interim chair of NARC-K, the PNU partner boasting the highest number of members in the tenth Parliament. When she therefore asserts that she is no longer interested in PNU unity and wishes to strengthen her party in preparation for 2012, only non-serious political strategists can afford to take her lightly.
Ms Karua is the embodiment of political suave. No one quite understands how she appeared on the political scene. She stands on no historical political legacy akin to Mr Uhuru Kenyatta, Mr Musalia Mudavadi or Mr Raila Odinga, nor was she chaperoned into politics by any national or regional kingpins as was Mr Kalonzo Musyoka. Neither was she born into financial plenty to help her “buy” her way into parliament as many others have had to. And, in the many years she has served from the backbench of parliament and later the front bench as cabinet minister, she has not been embroiled in financial improprieties.
Her tenure as cabinet minister has also been colourful. Those in the Water ministry will tell you that she left a legacy that endures. She is credited with a reform model that has now become a benchmark for reforms in other sectors. And, she was strong and no-nonsense when she served there. Those in the Justice ministry will have stories to tell about her tireless style. She works indefatigably. That’s good for policy formulation and driving.
Raw courage
Her raw courage amazes. Recall when she stoically walked out in broad daylight, cameras zooming, on former president Moi in Kerugoya stadium, that she had been denied a chance to address her people?
Why then would anyone be surprised that she, today, can easily stand her ground against President Kibaki on this small matter of PNU unity? That’s Martha for us.That’s why I think it would be political folly to disregard her current drive for presidential office. Here’s a Kenyan with an unblemished record of public service, occupies a key cabinet office, is leader of a growing political party, has courage and a doubtless clarity of mind.Clearly, she has come from afar to occupy ground earlier reserved for only the likes of Mr Uhuru and Mr Saitoti in taking the mantle from President Kibaki.
Raila Odinga is a disgrace to the African continent
By Susan Chipanga
MARK Twain, an acclaimed American author wrote: “It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt”.
This timeless quote was brought to mind after intolerable criticism of Zimbabwe by Raila Odinga, Prime Minister of the Kenyan Government of National Unity whose ticket to power was signed by the blood of innocent people. Odinga’s moral right to condemn Zimbabwean elections is overshadowed by his coming into office as a result of the death of 1 500 people and the displacement of over 600 000 people.
On December 30, 2007 the chairman of the Kenyan election commission declared Odinga’s opponent, incumbent president Mwai Kibaki, the winner by a margin of about 230 000 votes. Raila challenged the results alleging fraud by the commission, but refused an election petition before the courts and urged protests, which plunged the country into one of the brutal and bloody post-election violence ever to be witnessed in recent history. Shamefacedly, the poor fellow has been blabbering on about Zimbabwe’s elections, violence, peacekeepers and for the country to be barred from regional bodies; a case some may attribute to being overwhelmed by the glare of the media after being in political obscurity for so long. Consequently, the whole of Africa and the world are regaled by the antics of a witless and hypocritical African politician whose propensity to expose himself unearths his want of tact and maturity in African politics.
Some who are not so harsh in their criticism of Odinga’s unwarranted utterances on Zimbabwe are easy to forgive him as he is a product of incarcerations, flights into exile and betrayal by erstwhile political allies which undoubtedly has made him a bitter man mad at the whole of Africa for not intervening on his behalf. Odinga, as a result, has made himself a champion of opposition politics in Africa after his backdoor entry to leadership in Kenya making him an emperor without clothes after Kenya’s recent history which someone said reads like a Shakespearian tale; full of dramatic intrigue, intricate conspiracies and king making plots.
Odinga’s unwarranted criticism of Zimbabwe might be borne from a need to outshine Mwai Kibaki, the Kenyan president who trounced him in the December election. But, Zimbabwe cannot bear the brunt of his inferiority complex in a bid to gain recognition in African politics. Someone should advise Odinga that the route he has taken is a dead end and neither is it going to absolve him of the blood that is on his hands as rightly pointed by the presidential spokesperson, George Charamba, during the recent African Union Summit in Egypt.
Maybe Odinga’s weakness is more to do with not acquainting himself with African history. He should start to appreciate that more is at stake than meets the eye in the Zimbabwean situation. If the sentiments he echoed during his inauguration are anything to go by, then he is in for a rude awakening in his quest to liberate Kenyans from neo-colonialism.
When Odinga was sworn in as Prime Minister of Kenya on April 18 2008, he told the gathering that “we will ensure that power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of many, not the few”. Robert Mugabe whom he is now alleging is a dictator was once the darling of the West until he decided to empower his people by distributing land, which was in the hands of a few whites to the majority of the landless blacks Kenya, like all other African countries, is no exception. It would want to address these historical imbalances and some have alluded that the chaos that Kenya witnessed is the result of historic injustices including land tenure systems and the unequal sharing of resources between the country’s more than 40 ethnic groups.
Other African leaders know that addressing the injustices born out of colonialism is at the core of all African problems and that sooner or later, these issues have to be addressed by each member country. The decisions made by African leaders at the AU summit, that is, wanting Africans to solve their own problems is born out of a realisation that abandoning Zimbabwe at this critical stage will set a bad precedent.
|
Some delusional African politicians like Odinga might not understand that sticking together with Zimbabwe is also for their future well-being. That, Mr Odinga, is the definition of Pan Africanism. It is not about calling yourself a Pan Africanist when your deeds are devoid of “ubuntu” as you were able to countenance the beheading, skinning, raping, murdering and torturing of innocent people for your own political gain.I am no religious fanatic but I do believe the good book offers sound advice in the case of looking at a straw in another’s eye whilst not considering the rafter in your own eye. It is evident Odinga is singing for the few morsels that the United States is dropping on his lap whilst mortgaging Kenya in the process. Reports indicate that the US government is negotiating base access agreements with the government of Kenya that will allow American troops to use military facilities when the United States wants to deploy its own army in Africa. So at the right intervals Odinga has to make the right noises on Zimbabwe so as to appease his benefactors. Shame on you Odinga!
Odinga is a disgrace to the continent, which has produced notable statesmen like Nelson Mandela who spent all his life fighting for the liberation of his people and Robert Mugabe who is fighting for the total emancipation of his people. What has Odinga to show for himself, except bloody hands, which no doubt soiled his reputation of ever being regarded as a statesman. Instead of being fixated with what is happening in Zimbabwe, Odinga should be concerned with healing his own country where thousands still remain displaced, traumatised and reluctant to return to the their former homes because the horrors they witnessed are forever etched in their minds. Odinga will remain an overly ambitious politician who would stop at nothing to achieve his political ends. He should keep his tainted hands off Zimbabwe.
BREAKING NEWS: China and Russia Veto Zim Sanctions.
Zimbabwe Responds ‘Odinga’s hands drip with blood’
The zimbabwe government has responded to kenyan prime minister, raila odinga’s calls for military action on zimbabwe and for the african union to expel the country from the group by saying he is not qualified to speak on zimbabwe as his hands ‘drip of blood’. In response to questions about recent utterances by prime minister odinga presidential spokesman, george charamba said: “you follow politics carefully.
I hope you follow kenyan politics closely. Prime minister raila odinga’s hands drip with blood,” said charamba. He continued, ”raw african blood, and that blood is not going to be cleansed by any amount of abuse of zimbabwe.”odinga has become one of the harshest critics of the zimbabwean government. He called for zimbabwe to be suspended from the african union until president robert mugabe allows ‘free and fair elections’ adding that the au would be making a grave mistake if it recognized president mugabe as a legitimately-elected president.he also asked the african union (au) to deploy peacekeeping forces in zimbabwe to protect opposition supporters from alleged harassment and torture.charamba’s response referred to kenya’s recent which saw raila odinga declared prime minister after coalition talks with president mwai kibaki.
The kenyan election was marred by the worst election violence ever seen on the continent, with 300 pre election deaths and over 1 500 people dying post election.the government of president kibaki accused odinga’s party of unleashing “genocide” on the kenyan people. The coalition government in kenya has not been without problems as violence has continued in kenya.kenyan politics is deeply embedded in tribalism with most members of parliament elected on the basis of tribal and community votes.recently tension has been rising in kenya’s rift valley, the epicentre of last january’s post-election chaos
Grand coalition “Kenyan treaty of versailles”
According to the East African standard things in Central Kenya might be looking good for Raila Odinga.
There is soul searching in Central Province with disappointment targeting President Kibaki and elderly politicians who have surrounded him over the years.With the anger and rebellion that for now is being expressed only in hushed tones, the idea of a generational transfer of power initially associated with followers of the outlawed Mungiki sect, is getting a new life and going mainstream.
Anchoring these is the feeling that the General Election last year left the region hugely isolated from the rest of Kenya, in what some upcoming leaders blame on the old guard. They accuse them of using the community to fight the battles of just 100 or so rich people.
Sources told The Sunday Standard that the clamour by some leaders to have the Government negotiate with Mungiki instead of killing its followers is inspired largely by two issues:One, old leaders are trying to catch up with, if not all the same hijack and control the idea of a leadership change.There is also the fear that the youth in this region could soon rally behind Prime Minister Raila Odinga who called for an end to the killing of Mungiki members and advocated for negotiations.Interviews with various sources familiar with the simmering dissent in the region revealed that people here, especially the young, are beginning to take a new look at Raila, especially after he agreed to share power with President Kibaki, then going with him to the camps for the displaced in the Rift Valley.
According to the resident “experts on Kikuyus” Raila Odinga could run away with votes from poor Kikuyus and the children of the Mau Mau because people are resentful of kibaki . It is always amazing how people will spin almost any story to their advantage .The only problem with spin is that its just spin. So lets get the facts straight.Mungiki is what can be considered an ultra nationalist organization(and i dont mean kenyan Nationalism).Mungiki is founded on returning kikuyu people back to their basic beliefs and roots. How Raila can fit into this supreme goal i don’t know. Mungiki is for kikuyu supremacy .If a polite moderate like Kibaki trashed the MOU with Raila . What will the faceless shadows that control Mungiki do .
On a side note
The grand Coalition is like the Treaty of Versailles.Everyone thought it solved all the problems and settled things I don’t need to tell you what happened later.What has the coalition settled apart from sharing out seats none of the underlying historic issues real or imagined have been resolved .Everybody is smiling as we sweep the dirt under the carpet .
Maina Kiai needs to be honest – Billow Khalid
While on US tour, Mr Maina Kiai, the chairman of the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights, and Ms Muthoni Wanyeki asked their American hosts to freeze all military financial assistance to Kenya.They wrote in the Washington Post that “some of the security forces benefiting from this aid and equipment have been killing Kenyan civilians with impunity.There is no doubt that the country has been experiencing ferocious eruptions of violence since December 30, 2007.
The four words, happy, home, peace and prosperity are heavenly music to the ears of traumatised and displaced Kenyans.The Kenya Army has played and will for sure continue to play its rightful role by clearing highways of marauding gangs, securing the national economic arteries,
escorting public transports, and providing medical services.While some 57 brave police officers have died in the violence in the line of public service, I have not heard of a single civilian killed by the military during these public unrest.What got me worried, however, are the serious, unsubstantiated aspersions on the integrity of our Armed Forces coming, as it were, from a highly placed and a jurist of Mr Kiai’s status.
To begin with, the Kenyan qualifying to be a member of the country’s military takes an oath to uphold the Constitution of the Republic and defend the country against all enemies, to bear true allegiance and to discharge well and faithfully, the duties of office.Most of them attend to their duties with fidelity, valour and patriotism. Our security personnel operate under difficult and risky environment.
They are like all public officers, the glue holding the country together.Without their exemplary sense of fidelity, the country could not have endured in its present form since the turbulent times of the 60s.The least the military personnel expect are encouragement, appreciation and understanding of their heroic contributions, not unjustified condemnation for crimes they have not committed.
BILLOW KHALID,
Wajir.
http://billowkhalid.blogspot.com/
The Enduring Power of Ethnic Nationalism
On a visit early this year to Africa , President Bush deplored the genocide in Rwanda in the 1990s, defended his refusal to send U.S. troops to Darfur and decried the ethnic slaughter in Kenya.Following a contested election, the Kikuyu, the dominant tribe in Kenya, have been subjected to merciless assault. People are separating from one another and butchering one another along lines of blood and soil.According to a compelling lead article in the new Foreign Affairs, “Us and Them: The Enduring Power of Ethnic Nationalism,” we may be witnessing in the Third World a re-enactment of the ethnic wars that tore Europe to pieces in the 20th century.”Ethnonationalism,” writes history professor Jerry Z. Muller of Catholic University, “has played a more profound role in modern history than is commonly understood, and the processes that led to the dominance of the ethnonational state and the separation of ethnic groups in Europe are likely to recur elsewhere.”Western Man has mis-taught himself his own history.
“A familiar and influential narrative of 20th-century European history argues that nationalism twice led to war, in 1914 and then again in 1939. Thereafter, the story goes, Europeans concluded that nationalism was a danger and gradually abandoned it. In the postwar decades, Western Europeans enmeshed themselves in a web of transnational institutions, culminating in the European Union.”Muller contends that this is a myth, that peace came to the Old Continent only after the triumph of ethnonationalism, after the peoples of Europe had sorted themselves out and each achieved its own home.
At the beginning of the 20th century, there were three multi-ethnic empires in Europe: the Ottoman, Russian and Austro-Hungarian. The ethnonationalist Balkan wars of 1912 and 1913 tore at the first.World War I was ignited by Serbs seeking to rip Bosnia away from Austria-Hungary. After four years of slaughter, the Serbs succeeded, and ethnonationalism triumphed in Europe.Out of the dead Ottoman Empire came the ethnonationalist state of Turkey and an ethnic transfer of populations between Ankara and Athens. Armenians were massacred and expelled from Turkey.
Out of the Russian and Austro-Hungarian empires came Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. In the latter three nations, however, a majority ethnic group ruled minorities that wished either their own national home, or to join lost kinsmen.
In China, Uighurs, Mongolians and Tibetans all resist assimilation. Tatarstan may be the next problem for Russia. In the Balkans, it is Kosovo. Serbs there and in Bosnia may emulate the Albanians and secede.Many, writes Muller, “find ethnonationalism discomfiting both intellectually and morally. Social scientists go to great lengths to demonstrate that this is a product not of nature but of culture. …”But none of this will make ethnonationalism go away.”Indeed, we see it bubbling up from the Basque country of Spain, to Belgium, Bolivia, Baghdad and Beirut. Perhaps the wisest counsel for Kenya may be to get out of the way of this elemental force. Rather than seek to halt the inexorable, we should seek to accommodate it and ameliorate its sometimes awful consequences.
Audio:Comments By Raila That Triggered Wangige Uhuru Rage
Sunday, February 20th, 2011 .Tononoka Mombasa
Posted in Uncategorized | 28 Comments »