|
Coup In Kenya: Part II
[You may want to read Coup in Kenya – Part I and the comments to that piece first]
—
Exploring U.S. influence in the Kenyan Elections
by b real
The U.S. contribution to the crisis:
Seeing it as a key ally in the “war on terror,” the Bush Administration has built a close military relationship with the Kibaki government; The U.S. has played a central role in building up Kenya’s weaponry and internal security apparatus, now being deployed in the crisis. Current U.S.-Kenyan relations are a product of 24 years of U.S. support to the Daniel arap Moi dictatorship that jailed, exiled or disappeared those opposed to the regime. The legacy of these politics remains institutionalized within the political process itself and creates huge barriers to democratic freedom and political participation. Overall, the current turmoil in Kenya is the clear result of colonial rule, external intervention, and detrimental foreign aid policies.
— Association of Concerned Africa Scholars,
Press Statement on the Crisis in Kenya, January 5, 2008
It was a quick mention that was almost swallowed in a larger, more pressing narrative, but — for those who did pick up on it — has since proved to be an omnious foreshadowing of how the elections have played out in Kenya over the past weeks. Last April, in an interview with the independent syndicated news program Democracy Now discussing the events taking place to Kenya’s north in Somalia, of which the former nation was very much involved, Kenyan Daily Nation columnist Salim Lone stated that "one leading opposition … candidate in Kenya, said that the US has promised to support the government in the elections at the end of this year in exchange for the terrible things it has been doing" as a favored partner nation in the so-called global war on terror (GWOT).
Considering the holiday wrath the U.S., along with its proxy partners, brought down upon the citizens of Somalia in December of 2006, ringing in a new year that saw thousands dead, one-and-a-half million displaced, and more than a year of continuing military occupation by a hostile neighbor, the citizens of Kenya, by and large, could regard themselves as lucky. That’s small consolation though, for those suffering in Kenya. Conservative figures put the current deaths there between 600 to 700 people, with roughly 500,000 uprooted by violence throughout the country following the presidential coup by the incumbents.
While the role of the United States in destabilizing the Horn of Africa (HOA) has been documented widely over the last year, little has been written on its role in the 2007 presidential election controversy. It certainly merits closer scutiny and investigation.
A Regional Anchor for Maintaining Order
Interestingly enough, Kenya is not even in the HOA — it’s an East African nation — though that doesn’t stop the U.S., and especially the Department of Defense (DOD), from quite often grouping it as such.
In his December 7th remarks to the conference Working Toward A Lasting Peace in the Ogaden, the director of the Office for East Africa, Bureau of African Affairs, James Knight offered the following points on U.S. policy in the HOA specifically regarding Kenya:
Kenya’s Northeast Province is home to ethnic Somalis with ties to clans in Somalia. Kenya’s Somali community is a magnet for Somali refugees fleeing violence in Somalia and Ethiopia’s Ogaden. Kenya closed its border with Somalia in January, but more than 1,000 refugees still arrive each month. A significant number of Oromos reside in northern Kenya as well. Oromos are the largest ethnic group in Ethiopia, which further ties northern Kenya to Ethiopia.
Kenya’s 2002 elections were an important step on Kenya’s path to full democracy. This year’s national elections on December 27 should consolidate those gains. The U.S. is providing elections training to civil society organizations, political parties, and youth and women candidates, as well as supporting the Electoral Commission of Kenya [to] ensure that these elections are smooth, free, fair, and transparent.
Viewing a stable Kenya as a frontline bulwark against the Somali communities, which are universally Muslim, the U.S. has made Kenya a key partner in the GWOT.
From a Washington Times article dated January 7, entitled Kenya ‘critical’ to U.S. military:
"For the eastern portion of Africa, Kenya is critical," said retired Marine Lt. Gen. Michael DeLong, a former deputy commander of U.S. Central Command, which oversees U.S. military operations on the Horn of Africa.
"They are strategically located in the area bordering Somalia," he said. "They were critical for us in Somalia in the early 1990s. Without them, we could not have operated. They allowed us to use their bases while we were conducting operations in and out of Somalia, and they still allow us to use those bases today."
Not surprisingly the Washington Times article omits the role of Kenya in the current U.S. actions in Somalia, though plenty of other sources are available.
For instance, on Kenya’s role in sealing off their borders to all Somali’s fleeing the ruthless invasion (done in violation of all international laws), according to Thomas Barnett’s largely unbalanced Esquire feature, The Americans Have Landed, from June:
When the invading Ethiopians quickly enjoyed unexpected success, Centcom’s plan became elegantly simple: Let the blitzkrieging Ethiopian army drive the CIC, along with its foreign fighters and Al Qaeda operatives, south out of Mogadishu and toward the Kenyan border, where Kenyan troops would help trap them on the coast. "We begged the Kenyans to get to the border as fast as possible," the Centcom source says, "because the targets were so confused, they were running around like chickens with their heads cut off."
Once boxed in by the sea and the Kenyans, the killing zone was set and America’s first AC-130 gunship went wheels-up on January 7 from that secret Ethiopian airstrip. After each strike, anybody left alive was to be wiped out by successive waves of Ethiopian commandos and Task Force 88, operating out of Manda Bay. The plan was to rinse and repeat "until no more bad guys," as one officer put it.
As Human Rights Watch, among many others, later drew attention to in a March 2007 press release People Fleeing Somalia War Secretly Detained:
(New York, March 30, 2007) – Kenya, Ethiopia, the United States and the Transitional Federal Government of Somalia cooperated in a secret detention program for people who had fled the recent conflict in Somalia, Human Rights Watch said today.
In a March 22 letter to the Kenyan Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Human Rights Watch detailed the arbitrary detention, expulsion and apparent enforced disappearance of dozens of individuals who fled the fighting between the Union of Islamic Courts and the joint forces of the Transitional Federal Government and Ethiopia from December 2006 through January 2007.
“Each of these governments has played a shameful role in mistreating people fleeing a war zone,” said Georgette Gagnon, deputy Africa director of Human Rights Watch. “Kenya has secretly expelled people, the Ethiopians have caused dozens to ‘disappear,’ and US security agents have routinely interrogated people held incommunicado.”
Human Rights Watch’s recent research in Kenya indicates that since late December 2006, Kenyan security forces arrested at least 150 individuals from some 18 different nationalities at the Liboi and Kiunga border crossing points with Somalia. The Kenyan authorities then transferred these individuals to Nairobi where they were detained incommunicado and without charge for weeks in violation of Kenyan law.
Human Rights Watch recognizes that Kenya may have valid security concerns regarding people seeking refuge within its borders. Nonetheless these concerns must be addressed through a fair process in accordance with international law, not arbitrarily at the expense of fundamental human rights.
US and other national intelligence services interrogated several foreign nationals in detention in Nairobi, who were denied access to legal counsel and their consular representatives. At least 85 people were then secretly deported from Kenya to Somalia in what appears to be a joint rendition operation of those individuals of interest to the Somali, Ethiopian, or US governments.
And quoting Salim Lone, who now serves as spokesperson for Kenya’s opposition Orange Democratic Movement (ODM), from that same Democracy Now interview:
… this whole enterprise-the kidnappings on Kenyan streets, the grabbing refugees coming across the border-has a “Made in America” stamp on it, because you’ve seen it all happen before. And these secret prisons, the US denies any responsibility in this whole operation. And yet, we know that CIA and FBI officials are in those prisons interviewing the inmates.
We also know, by the way, that many of the people who have disappeared are not in those secret prisons. Where are those people? Have they be killed? Are they being tortured somewhere else? This is, you know, utter lawlessness.
So Kenya has been intricately involved in the ongoing destabilization of the HOA, allowing external, rogue powers to operate freely inside its borders. ODM, in the runup to the December elections, was able to utilize much of the opposition to the Kenyan government’s actions in uniting various factions on these issues. Several Muslim communities in Somalia, very well-aware of the context and victims of the GWOT, endorsed ODM’s platform for change. Obviously, though, it was not in everyone’s interest to see a popular regime change threaten existing relationships with the risk of instability – "stability" implying an established order & accountability.
The U.S. has a lot of interests on the line in Kenya, which is listed in the 2002 National Security Strategy (NSS), along with Nigeria, South Africa and Ethiopia, as one of four "anchors for regional engagement." According to a study, U.S. Arms Exports and Military Assistance in the “Global War on Terror, compiled by the Center for Defense Information at the World Security Institute last September:
Kenya is considered a vital U.S. ally in the war on terror and has supported U.S. counterterrorism efforts by sharing intelligence, providing overflight rights and granting access to airfields and bases. The State Department considers Kenya to be a “front-line state” in the war on terror and this counterterrorism cooperation has yielded an increase in U.S. military assistance for Kenya since Sept. 11, 2001.
In the five years after Sept. 11, Kenya received nearly eight times the amount of military assistance it received in the five years prior to Sept. 11.
In addition to the figures listed in that study, Daniel Volman, Director of the African Security Research Project in Washington, DC, while pointing out that "the US is heavily invested in stability in Kenya", has summarized some of this assistance in his January 5 article, U.S. Military Activities in Kenya, posted on the website of the Association of Concerned African Scholars.
Indeed, Kenya is "a major African recipient of U.S. miltary assistance."
Democracy Promotion and the ECK
Returning to the remarks of James Knight outlining U.S. policy in the HOA, he mentioned that:
"The U.S. is providing elections training to civil society organizations, political parties, and youth and women candidates, as well as supporting the Electoral Commission of Kenya ensure that these elections are smooth, free, fair, and transparent."
This is almost exactly the same message delivered by Deputy Assistant Secretary for African Affairs James Swan four months earlier to the 4th International Conference on Ethiopian Development Studies on August 4, 2007:
The U.S. is providing election-related training to civil society organizations, political parties, and youth and women candidates, as well as supporting the work of the Electoral Commission of Kenya to ensure that these elections are free, fair, and transparent.
From public records, it is clear that, overtly, the State Department works most closely with the International Republican Institute (IRI), the National Democratic Institute (NDI), the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in thier "democracy promotion" programs throughout the world.
A RightWeb profile of IRI explains, its reach is vast:
The IRI is the indirect product of a democratic globalism effort spearheaded in the late 1970s by neoconservatives and their allies in the AFL-CIO, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and in the two main U.S. political parties. This project, which aimed to create a quasi-governmental instrument for U.S. political aid that could replace the CIA’s controversial efforts to do the same, came to fruition in 1982 when President Ronald Reagan proposed a new organization to promote free-market democracies around the world, the NED. In 1983 Congress approved the creation of NED, which was funded primarily through the U.S. Information Agency (USIA) and secondarily through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Designed as a bipartisan institution, NED channels U.S. government funding through four core grantees: IRI, National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDIIA), Center for International Private Enterprise, and the Free Trade Union Institute-the AFL-CIO’s international operations institute that is currently known as the American Center for International Labor Solidarity.
…
Like NED and the other core grantees, the early focus of IRI was Central America and the Caribbean-a region that in the 1980s was the cutting edge of the Reagan administration’s revival of counterinsurgency and counter-revolutionary operations. After the Soviet bloc began to disintegrate in 1989, according to IRI’s website, the institute "broadened its reach to support democracy around the globe." The IRI has channeled U.S. political aid to partners-which like itself are often creations of U.S. funding-in some 75 countries, and it currently has operations in 50 countries. Most recently, it has expanded its operations into Central Asia, having opened offices in Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan. In Latin America, IRI has offices in Guatemala, Peru, and Haiti. In Africa, IRI has offices in Kenya, Nigeria, and Angola. IRI’s offices in Asia are found in Cambodia, East Timor, Indonesia, and Mongolia. In Central and Eastern Europe, IRI has offices in Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Macedonia, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, and Turkey. There is also an IRI office in Moscow.
IRI’s leadership spans the center right, far right, and neoconservative factions of the Republican Party.
Both USAID and IRI have been actively involved in preparations surrounding the 2007 Kenyan elections, however a general search does not uncover much information linking NED.
From a A Report to Members of the Committee on Foreign Relations United States Senate titled Nongovernmental Organizations and Democracy Promotion: "Giving Voice To The People"’ from December 2006, the U.S. agencies are openly listed as:
KENYA
U.S. Embassy: Ambassador Michael Ranneberger
Deputy Political Counselor Craig White
USAID Stephen Haykin, Mission Director
USAID Jaidev "Jay” Singh, Sr. Regional Conflict, Democracy and Governance Advisor
…
U.S. NGOs:
Peter Meechem, Director, IRI
Sioghan Guiney, Resident Program Officer, IRI, Parliamentary Strengthening and Reform
Moses Owuor, IFES, Program Officer–Capacity building programs with the Electoral Commission
Fred Matiangi, Country Director, State University of New York, Parliamentary Strengthening and Reform
…
Democracy NGOs are prevalent and are not hampered significantly by government regulation or restrictions.
…
The majority of U.S.-funded democracy efforts are coordinated through the USAID office in Nairobi.
…
U.S. democracy promotion programs work to a great degree in building political party capacity.
An idea of the funding involved is available from USAID’s Congressional Budget Justification FY07: Kenya [pdf]:
Program Title: Democracy and Governance
FY 2006 Program:
Promote and Support Credible Elections Processes ($448,200 DA; $2,425,000 ESF). USAID provides technical assistance, commodities, and training to the Electoral Commission of Kenya (ECK). USAID anticipates supporting domestic and international observations, including training for both party agents and domestic observers, allowing them to assess whether the presidential and parliamentary elections are non-violent, transparent, and competitive. USAID further anticipates monitoring media bias in the run up to the 2007 elections. Principal contractors and grantees: ECK, the International Foundation for Election Systems (IFES), local CSOs (primes).
FY 2007 Program:
Promote and Support Credible Elections Processes ($460,200 DA; $1,455,000 ESF). USAID will continue to support local election observers, political party agents, and strengthening the ECK. Principal contractors and grantees: Same as FY 2006.
The International Foundation for Election Systems (IFES) is another name that is closely associated with U.S. democracy promotion electioneering. The IFES profile at RightWeb is from 1989 but details its early rightwing & CIA connections. A Kenya project webpage on their site informs the reader that:
The communications network has assisted the Commission in its general operations and in results reporting. In May 2003, the ECK used the equipment successfully in the collation and transmission of results in three by-elections in the Naivasha, Wajir West and Yatta constituencies. The by-elections served as an opportunity for IFES and the ECK to improve the performance of the communication network used during the December 2002 presidential elections. The use of satellite phones improved communication between poll workers and the computerized tabulation of votes enabled election results to be announced the same day. Overall, the equipment has greatly improved communication and efficiency between the ECK headquarters and its district offices.
Current activities focus around the implementation of the ECK’s Strategic Plan and Organizational Development, computerization of the Commission’s operations, review of the Commission’s structure and policies, assistance with the polling station infrastructure study, and support to the improvement and implementation of the Communications Protocol.
IFES and IRI both began working in Kenya in 1992, the first year of multiparty elections, and appear to have been involved in some capacity in each 5-year election since then. In 2002, IRI was credited with accurately predicting the presidential elections results from polling "3,000 Kenyan registered voters in the eight provinces". (see IRI Poll Correctly Predicts New Kenyan President.) It was also the first year that IRI conducted exit polls in a presidential election.
On the U.S. role in nurturing the ECK, from USAID’s webpage on the 2002 elections:
In 2000, the ECK was widely perceived as lacking credibility and independence and no bilateral donors were willing to take a risk and provide any substantial direct funding. However, the U.S. decided that this risk was worth taking and embarked on a substantial program that not only included technical assistance and commodities, but intensive diplomatic efforts to ensure that certain safeguards were in place to level the electoral playing field. Through the International Foundation for Election Systems (IFES), USAID began implementing this program in March 2001. One significant element was the design and provision of a communication system that enhanced the ECK’s ability to ensure public security and provide secure transit of ballots and electoral results. As the perception of the independence and credibility of the ECK increased, other bilateral donors became willing to provide some support, leveraging USAID’s funding.
Current partners, domestic and foreign, are listed on the ECK’s Partner-Relationship web page:
Foreign Partners/International NGOs
ECK collaborates with various national and international organizations especially those that lay emphasis on matters of governance and democracy in her various activities such as voter education, training of election officials, funding of voter education programmes e.t.c. These organizations include the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), USAID, IFES, the Royal Netherlands Embassy (RNE), DFID, CIDA, National Democratic Institute (NDI), the European Union (EU), the Carter Centre, International Republican Institute (IRI), African Union (AU), and other Foreign based missions, and donor agencies in Kenya.
A controversy recently arose when it was revealed that IRI had conducted exit polls during the 2007 election which showed that Raila Odinga won the presidency by an 8 percent margin.
Kenyan president lost election, according to U.S. exit poll:
An exit poll carried out on behalf of a U.S. government-backed foundation indicates that Kenyan President Mwai Kibaki was defeated in last month’s disputed election rather than being re-elected as he claims, according to officials with knowledge of the document.
The poll by the Washington-based International Republican Institute – which hasn’t been publicly released – further undermines an election result that many international observers have described as flawed.
…
Opposition leader Raila Odinga led Kibaki by roughly 8 percentage points in the poll, which surveyed voters as they left polling places during the election Dec. 27, according to one senior Western official who’s seen the data and requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue. That’s a sharp departure from the results that Kenyan election officials certified, which gave Kibaki a margin of 231,728 votes over Odinga, about 3 percentage points.
…
The head of the International Republican Institute – a nonpartisan democracy-building organization whose work in Kenya was funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development – said the data weren’t released because of concerns about their validity.
The institute contracted an experienced Kenyan polling firm, Strategic Public Relations and Research, which had done two previous national-opinion polls for the institute last year. But on election day the institute’s staff found that pollsters weren’t gathering information in some areas.
…
The senior Western official, who reviewed partial results, described them as credible. The survey included a sufficient sample of voters from around the country, and Odinga’s lead was comfortably outside the expected margin of error for a poll of that size, the official said.
Strategic Public Relations & Research Limited is the same firm commissioned by IRI in 2002 when they took credit for successfully predicting that year’s presidential elections by polling 3000 voters. The IRI issued a press release on January 15th stating that "For IRI to rush to release a poll that was incomplete and very likely inaccurate would have been irresponsible and dangerous given the situation in Kenya." What may have changed between 2002 and 2005 was not addressed.
At a minimum, the role of all of these organizations need to be included in any investigation of the "voting irregularities" in the 2007 presidential elections. Were the sponsored polls used at all in adjusting the outcome? Do they contain data that paints a picture no longer helpful to certain interests? Which was more rigged – the final totals or the entire system? And how do all of these pieces fit together? These questions, among many others, need to be raised and addressed.
"The US confidence in Kenya as a regional strategic partner has not been threatened by the crisis and will not be"
Finally, there are the machinations of the diplomatic front – the public face put on by state officials. By now everyone is familiar with the U.S. State Department’s rush to congratulate Mr. Kibaki on Sunday after it looked like he was able to pull off the coup:
”We obviously congratulate the president on his election," department spokesman Rob McInturff told AFP.
"Again we would call on the people of Kenya to accept the results of the election and to move forward with the democratic process," he said.
— AFP, US congratulates Kenyan president on re-election, December 30, 2007
"The United States congratulates the winners and is calling for calm, and for Kenyans to abide by the results declared by the election commission. We support the commission’s decision."
— Reuters, Kibaki wins Kenya’s presidential election, December 30, 2008
This was followed by the about-face on Monday morning:
"We do have serious concerns, as I know others do, about irregularities in the vote count, and we think it’s important that those concerns… be resolved through constitutional and legal means," department spokesperson Tom Casey said.
"I’m not offering congratulations to anybody, because we have serious concerns about the vote count," he added after another State Department spokesperson on Sunday had congratulated Kibaki.
…
"What’s clear to us is that there are some real problems here and that those need to be resolved in the Kenyan system, in accordance with their constitution, in accordance with their legal system"
— AFP, US withdraws congratulations, December 31, 2007
In these seemingly contradictory messages one can observe two themes that now, more than two weeks later, have become easily recognizable as orchestrated talking points — moving on, and, in an incomplete interpretation of the legal standings on the matter, the election results have been announced, so the law says if you want to challenge them, take it to court.
Both of these fit into the U.S. efforts to prevent a recount or rerun.
As the U.S. Ambassador to Kenya Michael Ratteberger told the audience at a CSIS forum [transcript and audio available] on January 16th, "our position so far is to say that Kibaki was named winner by the ECK regardless of how flawed the election was, and so he’s the president." It should be pointed out that when Kibaki was declared the winner and then immediately sworn in, there was a precedent for it — two actually — in 1992 and 1997, the last two terms of Daniel arap Moi’s "re-election". As mentioned earlier, not only was 1992 the first year that multiparty elections were held in Kenya, but it was the first year that both IRI and IFES became involved in that country. For obvious reasons, neither of these two items gets mentioned in the "free" press.
On the talking point that Kibaki was sworn in by the ECK and thus any challenges must go through the courts – it is patently false. As explained in an article on the Mars Group Kenya Blog:
On receiving [the counts] the ECK gives all parliamentary and presidential candidates 24 hours to lodge complaints, if any, including demanding a recount or retallying.
The ECK is obliged to, within 48 hours, allow the recount or retallying. All candidates and the ECK therefore have 72 hours to resolve any disputes. It is only after the period that the ECK can announce the winners of each of the 210 parliamentary seats and issue a certificate known as Form 17 to each elected MP and Form 18 to the elected president. The results are then gazetted.
With due respect to Mr Kivuitu, it was irregular, unlawful and void in law to announce the results on December 30 and swear in the President on the same day. The ECK boss announced the results when he did not have the original Forms 16, 16A and 17A from each constituency, refused to allow the 24-hour period for candidates to lodge complaints and declined to allow retallying. He told the world that his returning officers had gone underground, and that he did not have powers to order retallying.
On the day the results were being announced, Special Gazette Notice No. 12612 was issued declaring Mr Kibaki the president. Mr Kivuitu deliberately misled the world and subverted the law.
Section 5 of the Constitution states that the president shall be elected in accordance with the Constitution and the National Assembly and Presidential Elections Act, Cap 7. Non-compliance with the mandatory provisions vitiates the process.
In law, the fundamental principle is that a void process does not confer legitimacy. A public officer acting in compliance with the law must comply with the substantive, formal and procedural conditions laid down and at all times act in good faith and for the public good.
The Law Society of Kenya, "the premier bar association and legal development agency in Kenya," is only one organization among many that makes up the coalition Kenyans for Peace with Truth and Justice which has just released documentation, titled Count Down to Deception: 30 Hours that Destroyed Kenya, detailing many of the issues which made the election results null and void:
We provide a table of these anomalies, malpractices and illegalities committed in at least 49 constituencies across the country. Instructively, in the constituencies these electoral offences occurred, the presidential election results announced by the ECK do not tally with those released at the constituency tallying centres as reported on Kenya Television Network (KTN) and/or observed by the Kenyan Election Domestic Observers Forum (KEDOF).
Again, we reiterate that the electoral anomalies, malpractices and illegalities noted were sufficient to alter the outcomes of the Presidential election. To this extent, the counting and tallying process for the Presidential election cannot be called free and fair. And the incumbent cannot be said to be in office legitimately or legally. An independent investigation into this process is necessary to bring the country to closure on this issue. Such an investigation must be a priority for the mediation process.
However, the talking point about taking any complaints to court began almost immediately following the swearing in and consecutive ban on live media coverage in the country — which just happend to cut off a live broadcast of an ODM press conference — and continues to get parroted in certain circles. On January 15th, an article in the East African Standard, on the nonsense that the hardliner John Michuki spit out last week, couldn’t help but stating the obvious:
Michuki’s tune fell in line with what appears to be a well-choreographed tune in Government that goes thus: "Kibaki won the elections fairly; any aggrieved party should go to court".
Others who have adopted this line in the past include Justice minister Ms Martha Karua and Government Spokesman Dr Alfred Mutua, who went to the extent of saying Kufuor jetted in "to have tea" with his longtime friend, President Kibaki.
Of course, the list is longer than that. For instance, there’s the Foreign Affairs Minister on the 14th — "President Kibaki was voted for by Kenyans, declared a winner by a competent Electoral Commission, sworn in and has formed Government. Any challenge to that has to be made by a court of law. The claims are untenable and illegal" — or, better still, in an article on January 8 from the same paper, on statements by the U.S. Assistant Secretary of African Affairs Jendayi Frazer during her extended stay in Nairobi:
Asked about the options during negotiations and whether a presidential run off was expected, Frazer responded that it was up to the two leaders to hammer out a compromise.
However, she noted that the law stipulated that once the ECK had announced results, any party contesting the outcome should seek remedy in the courts.
Further inquiry into where this talking point originating would be illuminating. However, the fact that the PNU and the US are using the very same language suggests more than just a harmonious coincidence.
Publicly, the U.S. has insisted that it is a neutral mediator in this crisis yet its positions show otherwise and, in fact, display solid backing for Kibaki.
Both are firmly against any recounting or re-running of the elections. In an interview with the Daily Nation that ran on the same day Ambassador Ranneberger told the CSIS forum that it is the U.S. position that Kibaki is legitimately the President, he also explained that "[t]he idea of a recount is not feasible because documents have gone missing or been altered. A fresh election is not feasible either. It’s not the best thing to put this country through this kind of trauma so soon again." At the CSIS event he opined: "Neither side has the money for it"
Rather than allowing a re-run, the U.S. agenda is to promote the idea of a power-sharing arrangement. A January 9 article in the East African Standard, Frazer opposes fresh polls, describes Asst. Secretary Frazer’s press briefing immediately following her meeting with the Catholic Kisumu Archdiocese wherein the Archbishop advanced the position that "Kibaki has no authority to govern and he should immediately step aside for fresh presidential elections."
US Assistant Secretary of State in charge of Africa, Ms Jendayi Frazer, said she believes a re-run of the elections was not the way forward.
…
"I don’t support calls for a re-run of the elections as the way forward. It is not my responsibility to decide for Kenyans on the matter. It is up to political leaders," she said.
…
She said the way forward was for the politicians to accommodate each other in a power-sharing strategy.
She said the proposed power-sharing plan should also be constitutionalised.
On the very same day, another article ran with the headline, "We oppose poll re-run, says PNU"
The Party Of National Unity (PNU) is against a re-run of the disputed General Elections.
Finance Minister, Mr Amos Kimunya, said the PNU was against the use of the ballot box to sort out the political crisis.
"A re-run is not practical because it would not enable the country to achieve its social and economic designs," he said.
This view, however, appears to be in the minority. In the strongest international pressure yet, the European Parliament resolution of 17 January 2008 on Kenya declares the EU position as follows:
3. Regrets that, despite the broadly successful parliamentary elections, the results of the presidential elections cannot be considered credible owing to widespread reports of electoral irregularities;
4. Deplores the fact that Mwai Kibaki, appointed his cabinet unilaterally, which severely undermined mediation efforts;
5. Calls on Mwai Kibaki, to respect his country’s democratic commitments as enshrined in the Constitution of Kenya, the African Charter of Human and Peoples’ Rights and the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance, and to agree to an independent examination of the presidential vote; urges the Kenyan authorities, in addition, to facilitate such an investigation in order to redress the situation and make the perpetrators of the electoral irregularities accountable for their actions;
…
8. … calls on the Commission to offer to the Kenyan authorities all necessary technical and financial assistance in the process of an independent examination of the presidential elections, as well as in the steps deemed necessary to redress the situation;
…
12. Calls for fresh presidential elections should it prove impossible to organise a credible and fair recount of the votes cast in the presidential election by an independent body;
This is similar to the ODM position, which has requested international assistance to obtain mediation that results in a coalition government for three months until the elections can be conducted again. The mass protests that took place last week were part of that effort, acknowledged by ODM Party Secretary-General, Prof Anyang’ Nyong’o as reported by the East African Standard, "The aim of the rallies to is to make a point to the public and the world that the presidential vote was stolen and we are ready for a re-run."
The U.S. explanations for why a re-run is not possible do not hold water and therefore appear calculated to protect Kibaki and the PNU.
In an article, Kufuor’s whistle-stop diplomacy was only to pave way for Annan, in the East African on January 14, one can find more confirmation of this:
What is emerging … is that the United States and European countries appear to be pulling in different directions in the conflict.
…
Washington’s overriding concern in Kenya is stability. Indeed, ODM stalwarts say US top diplomat Jendayi Frazer, who was last Friday still in the country, has been pushing them to accept Cabinet positions in Kibaki’s government and ignore the genesis of the conflict.
In contrast, the Europeans, through the European Union, are pushing for a re-tallying of the presidential vote and, finally, a re-run of the presidential election.
In Ambassador Ranneberger’s remarks during last week’s CSIS event, he quickly gave his take on both parties positions:
on Kibaki’s side, his people have told him, of course, that time is on their side, that if they simply proceed unilaterally, in essence, all this is going to go away; the country will calm down and they’ll muddle along. On Odinga’s side, he’s counting on international pressure and the threat to make the country ungovernable to force Kibaki to step down or make major concessions.
We told both of them that those kinds of assumptions are dead wrong. The country’s not just going to return to normal and on Odinga’s side we’ve told him that the international community is not going to ride to the rescue and at some point, you know, people will get tired of sort of mass action.
Realising that it’s going to be difficult to get Kibaki and Odinga to agree on a power-sharing structure — as Ranneberger admits, "to be frank about it, I don’t think … it’s inconceivable that [Odinga] would simply want to stay in the opposition and continue to make things difficult for the government" since he’s been burned by Kibaki previously and has little to gain from any permanent power-sharing arrangement — the Ambassador continued on:
So our efforts are sort of directed at trying to corral them or trap them, if you will, into a face-to-face meeting to launch a – (audio break) – and the idea would be that the process would be launched – that by getting a process launched you have to stop the immediate violence and then provide the space that’s needed to address these fundamental institutional issues which, of course, will take time.
Evidently, one of those schemes to "trap them" involved the World Bank and its Kenyan official Colin Bruce in behind-the-scenes attempts to get a power-sharing agreement signed during the visit from Ghana’s John Kufuor. From the January 14 East African article cited earlier:
It was during discussion of the Harambee House meeting that the controversial agreement on power-sharing that eventually caused the talks to collapse came up.
The meeting agreed that the controversial document would form the basis of the truce and consequently the face-to-face meeting between Raila and Kibaki.
Where did this controversial document come from and did President Kibaki know about its contents? Did the president commit to implementing the controversial agreement at any point during the negotiations?
What we have been able to establish is that at the height of the ethnic violence that gripped Rift Valley Province, a group of Mombasa-based businessmen and allies of Pentagon member Musalia Mudavadi joined hands with World Bank country director Colin Bruce apparently to offer freelance secret mediation between Mwai Kibaki and Raila.
We have also confirmed from the diplomatic community that all major diplomatic missions in Nairobi were aware of the parallel mediation process that had begun long before Kufuor came into town.
…
One senior Western diplomat, speaking to The EastAfrican under conditions of anonymity, admitted having been shown the document by Mr Bruce as early as Saturday last week.
It has also emerged that the document was widely circulated to Western diplomatic missions.
Did Colin Bruce have the mandate from Kibaki to work on the agreement?
Who were the other shadowy characters working with the World Bank representative? Is it conceivable that a senior World Bank official should have involved himself in the negotiations so intimately without the knowledge of his hosts? These questions still lack answers.
…
Apparently, Colin Bruce intimated to many Western diplomats that everything was to be done secretly to prevent the hardliners in Kibaki’s Cabinet knowing what was going on.
From the Daily Nation interview with Ranneberger:
Q: One of the reasons leading to the meeting planned for last Thursday between President Kibaki and Mr Odinga being cancelled is said to have been President Kibaki’s refusal to sign the controversial agreement negotiated by representatives of both sides. You were listed alongside your British and French counterparts as witness to the agreement. What exactly was your role?
Ranneberger: We had no role whatsoever in negotiation of that document. I understand what happened is that representatives of PNU and ODM approached the World Bank and asked them to facilitate negotiation of a document that could set agenda for the way forward. That document was negotiated between PNU and ODM representatives.
They said they were in direct touch with President Kibaki and Mr Odinga. At a certain point, ODM asked President Kufuor to present to document to President Kibaki to confirm that he was in agreement with it. It was at that point that it became apparent that President Kibaki had never seen the document.
So I don’t know exactly what happened but there was a huge misunderstanding in regard to that document. We had indicated to President Kufuor that we were prepared to witness the signing of it if the two sides wanted us to. That is how our names appeared on the document.
And from Ranneberger’s remarks at the CSIS forum on the 16th:
The U.S. has been very much at the center of trying to promote dialogue, both by supporting the African Union but also directly, of course. We are uniquely positioned, I think, with credibility on both sides.
…
[On ODM objections to a power-sharing structure]
I certainly don’t think he’s going to be signing any documents without an international witness but, you know, it’s absolutely true that the level of mistrust is tremendous. That’s where I think we, particularly the U.S., comes in, in indicating a willingness to witness. And we’ve sort of avoided the term guaranteed, but I think we’re willing to go pretty far to some sort of an agreement between them.
So that’s where things stand now. The U.S. has sided with the PNU in rejecting calls for a recount — which in all likelihood is no longer possible given the time elapsed since the election, the lax security measures that allowed the inflated counts, and the general mistrust of the ECK’s impartiality — and using its influence to prevent a re-run.
Kibaki so far remains an international pariah, having received official recognition from only a handful of governments (Uganda, Swaziland, Somalia and Morocco), after such a blatant auto-coup literally following in the footsteps of the corrupt and brutal regime of Moi. (The message that will be understood from this has yet to be determined. Autocrats like Yoweri Museveni, Paul Kagame, and Meles Zenawi would probably rather not see a popular democracy movement succeed in Kenya and encourage similar ideas in their own nations.) Odinga, who was imprisoned and tortured under the Moi, knows all too well what is at stake. As do many other.
As the ACAS press release quoted at the outset of this report states:
The U.S. has played a central role in building up Kenya’s weaponry and internal security apparatus, now being deployed in the crisis. Current U.S.-Kenyan relations are a product of 24 years of U.S. support to the Daniel arap Moi dictatorship that jailed, exiled or disappeared those opposed to the regime.
During last week’s mass protests, the world became increasingly aware of the brutality of that internal security apparatus as reports poured in of the regular police, the GSU, and paramilitaries, operating under an informal "shoot to kill" policy, firing live ammunition indiscriminately and killing scores of civilians, including those not even involved in demonstrations.
Under the larger context of the GWOT, Kenya is slipping into a national security state, which, from a historical perspective, fits in with the ideological rationale of the old cold warriors behind the U.S. institutions heavily involved in "democracy promotion" and electioneering in Kenya.
The current U.S. push for a "stable" Kenya involves (1) protecting the imperial presidency of Kibaki, first and foremost, and then (2) calling for internal reforms. Ranneberger described these reforms to the audience at CSIS — "a package that needs to include a commitment to an agenda for institutional reform, meaning constitutional, electoral commission, land reform, the three key areas…"
In her thesis laid out in "Dictatorships and Double Standards", the neconservative academic Jeane Kirpatrick distinguished between left-wing and right-wing dictatorships, arguing that "right-wing ‘authoritarian’ governments are more amenable to democratic reform than left-wing ‘totalitarian’ states," thus providing the "intellectual" justification for continued U.S. support for authoritarian regimes, however brutal they may be. The idea, still accepted in the neoconservative worldview, is that their dictators are more open to external influence than the other guy’s.
How seriously one wants to consider the notion that ODM represents a "left-wing" government, let alone one having totalitarian designs, is of lesser importance than the reality that it does pose a threat to "business as usual." ODM campaigned on the slogan of bringing change, accountability, and a more equitable distribution of the benefits that Kenya’s economical advances have been reaping over the past years. It managed to unite many of the underrepresented and unrepresented populations of a very diverse nation. And therein lay the real threat – maintaining the established order of things. In terms of U.S. interests, which override all other considerations wherever the United States is involved, ODM represents instability.
The current Kenyan government and its foreign partners have much to answer for. Much blood has been shed needlessly. The chaos in the HOA has now spread into East Africa. Obscene amounts of money and efforts will be required just to provide a modicum of humanitarian assistance & subsistance for those displaced and affected by this latest, entirely avoidable, tragedy. Undelivered promises of "free and fair" elections are not to be taken lightly. Blame must be placed accordingly.
Perhaps more light will be shed on the Kenyan government’s roles earlier last year in the secret detentions and other violations of international law and human rights. And perhaps, as more information comes out on the connections of the Kibaki regime in the U.S. GWOT, a fuller understanding and awareness of the U.S. role in the unfolding tragedies that have betrayed all meaningful definitions of the words democracy and sovereignty will develop and attempts at true accountability can begin.
But for the meantime, as Jendayi Frazer confidently announced to the press during her recent trip to Nairobi:
"The US confidence in Kenya as a regional strategic partner has not been threatened by the crisis and will not be.”
[You may also want to read Coup in Kenya – Part I and the comments to that piece]
daily monitor: Museveni proposes power sharing deal to Raila, Kibaki
PRESIDENT Museveni yesterday handed three proposals, including a power sharing deal, to his Kenyan counterpart, President Mwai Kibaki and opposition leader, Raila Odinga, in his renewed push to quell a polls dispute that has left hundreds dead.
Mr Museveni’s press secretary, Tamale Mirundi told Daily Monitor yesterday by telephone from Nairobi that the first proposal the Ugandan leader tabled was the creation of a judicial commission of inquiry to investigate “areas of contention as provided on both sides, especially on the claims of vote rigging.”
He revealed that the two warring sides had in principal agreed to the proposal “but President Kibaki insisted that the Kenyan government should appoint members of the commission.”
That position, Mr Mirundi said, was out-rightly rejected by the opposition, who said all parties should have a say in the appointment of members.
The last proposal Mr Museveni put forward was a power sharing deal, Mr Mirundi said, but the Kibaki government insisted that it cannot share power with “killers.”
…
…Mr Museveni extended his stay in Nairobi and made the consensual decision not to return home yesterday, because “there was some sort of breakthrough,” Mr Mirundi revealed.
…
Significantly, Mr Museveni later held a second meeting with President Kibaki, but attended by Prof. Anyang’ Nyong’o, the opposition Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) secretary general, Mr Mirundi said.
That meeting brings the number of meetings Mr Museveni has held with Mr Kibaki, to three.
…
Daily Monitor also learnt that Mr Museveni was put on the spot at a meeting with Mr Odinga on Tuesday, over the alleged presence or involvement of Ugandan security operatives in Kenya.
But Mr Museveni reportedly denied the allegation and said he had intially not taken the claims seriously.
new vision: Museveni extends stay in Kenya
PRESIDENT Yoweri Museveni has extended his official visit to Kenya by a day, in order to resolve a political dispute between President Mwai Kibaki and opposition leader Raila Odinga over the December 27 presidential elections.
Museveni, who arrived in Nairobi on Tuesday, was to spend two days in Kenya. Yesterday, Museveni, who is the chairman of the East African Community, met with Kibaki for three hours, as a follow up of an earlier meeting with Odinga on Tuesday evening.
“We are staying longer. It seems there is some positive development after the talks at Nairobi State House with President Kibaki,” the presidential press secretary, Tamale Mirundi, said in Nairobi.
…
According to Tamale, Museveni has proposed power-sharing, a judicial commission of inquiry into the elections and investigations to establish who masterminded the post-election killings.
“Both President Kibaki and the opposition agree on the establishment of the commission of inquiry. However, the government insists that it must appoint the commission of inquiry while the opposition is demanding that it vets the members of the commission,” Tamale explained.
On power-sharing, Kibaki’s side is opposed to it, saying it cannot share power with the killers.
Odinga hinted he may accept the creation of a prime minister post for him. “We are ready to share power with him. He remains president and we take the position of prime minister,” Odinga told Germany’s ARD television.
standard: Chaos as Annan begins talks
Police lobbed teargas canisters at what was a peaceful mass funeral service for those killed in post-election violence, even as a series of meetings aimed at finding a solution to the political crisis began.
Intriguingly, the prayers at Ligi Ndogo grounds on Nairobi’s Ngong Road had been authorised by the Government.
…
Trouble on Ngong Road started when a lorry-load of police officers tried to disperse a group of youths who had taken control of a section of the busy road, harassing motorists and later barricading the road.
Part of the crowd had earlier chased away a contingent of GSU personnel from the scene, saying they were not needed at the funeral service.
However, a reinforcement of regular police, which arrived later, could not entertain the same treatment and responded by firing teargas and live bullets in the air.
Raila was by the time leading mourners in chanting a freedom song with the lines: “Nifungwe pingu, niwekwe jela, nipigwe risasi, nipigwe teke, sitarudi nyuma (Even if I am subjected to arrests, jail, shot at or kicked, I shall not relent)”
But he was cut short when several teargas canisters landed on the main dais, sending the Pentagon team members scampering in different directions.
…
The funeral service was conducted by Rev J. Godia of the Pentecostal Assemblies of God, for 17 victims killed by police bullets during post-election violence.
Coffins bearing their remains had earlier been removed from the City Mortuary and lay under a tent next to the dais where the leaders sat.
Some of the canisters landed on the coffins, which were abandoned by the mourners as they fled. But some elderly women remained rooted next to the coffins of their loved ones wailing as they choked in teargas.
For about 10 minutes, the Ligi Ndogo ground in Woodley was a battle zone as police chased youths.
…
As the fracas intensified, police retreated and the irate youth turned their anger on the nearby Ngong Road Telkom Exchange facility, torching it.
Also burnt were the exchange’s CDMA base station, a store and two cars after the youth brought down the perimeter wall.
About 15 employees of Telkom Kenya, who were trapped in the building, were rescued unhurt by police.
Earlier, Raila had urged ODM supporters to exercise restraint and shun violence and destruction of property.
“Let us not fight each other. Our war is between a small clique of bloodthirsty politicians around Kibaki who want to maintain the status quo and the large mass who are agents of change. Do not burn a poor man’s property. He never stole the election at KICC,” Raila beseeched as he urged Kenyans to embrace peace.
During the mass, the ODM leadership vowed never to relent in their quest for justice over the disputed presidential election.
Raila, who started his speech by singing the National Anthem, reiterated his call on Kibaki to resign before he can engage with the President in dialogue.
“Kibaki must accept that he was beaten and we go to the field for a fresh election. We are ready for a re-run,” he said.
Raila said ODM would not be cowed by the unjust system, saying the liberation struggle would succeed despite Kibaki’s use of brute force.
“There can be no peace without justice. Peace that is not founded on justice is like a house built on quicksand. Peace by the gun will crumble,” said the ODM leader.
Posted by: b real | Jan 24 2008 4:08 utc | 16
re organized violence
the quote that i mentioned (#26) from kaindi was in a january 14 article in the east african standard, GSU sent to quell skirmishes at border
The Government has sent the General Service Unit (GSU) to the troubled Bureti-Bomet-Nyamira border to quell clashes.
On Sunday, Bureti OCPD, Mr Charles Mukira, said least one person was killed in fighting between two communities.
“There is a lot of tension between the two communities, but we are dealing with the aggressors from either side,” he said.
…
Nyanza PPO, Ms Grace Kaindi, said security teams from Rift Valley and Nyanza provinces would patrol the border until peace was restored.
She asked residents to shun external forces igniting the violence and continue co-existing peacefully.
also, the associated press ran an article on january 10,
Human rights workers say politicians paying militias in worst of Kenyan violence
Two leading human rights organization says some of the worst violence in Kenya’s deadly disputed presidential election has been perpetrated by paid militias directed by politicians. They cite a long history of orchestrated political violence in Kenya.
…
Some of the attacks took on an ugly ethnic twist, with other tribes turning on Kibaki’s Kikuyu people.
But the independent Kenyan Human Rights Commission said there is more to it. And it appears to involve politicians from both sides.
“What happened in the Rift Valley was portrayed as some primal irate rising up of (ethnic) communities against each other,” said commission chairwomen Muthoni Wanyeki. “But our investigations indicate it seems to be very organized militia activity … (the violence) very much seems to be directed and well organized.”
As an example, she pointed to the torching of a church where hundreds of Kikuyu were sheltering near Eldoret, a western town. Dozens of people burned to death.
“One group was watching the church, and then another took over,” Wanyeki said. “We say it’s organized because they are working in groups of 10 to 15 people and in shifts.”
She said information that could be used as evidence is being compiled in a report to be published next week and was being given to another body, the state-funded Kenya National Commission on Human Rights, for investigation by appropriate authorities.
“Their (militia) training areas have been identified, some of the people from whom they get money have been identified,” she said. “They are being paid 500 per burning and 1,000 per death.”
…
[Maina Kiai, chairman of the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights] said the government has promised Mungiki future immunity in return for protection for the Kikuyu people. He said his information came from several sources including Mungiki members. In a crackdown last year, police killed dozens of alleged Mungiki.
…
Wanyeki said some Mungiki gangsters have been deployed in recent days to the troubled western towns of Eldoret and Kisumu.
…
Wanyeki said reports from monitors and other sources in the countryside indicated other militias had been activated in Narok, west of Nairobi, Nakuru, northwest of the capital, in Kuresori along the western border with Uganda, and near Kisii along the western border with Lake Victoria.
…
In the run-up to elections, police questioned an assistant Cabinet minister when they found his official vehicle loaded with more than 100 swords, clubs and bows and arrows. The minister said he knew nothing about them.
from a 2002 HRW report, PLAYING WITH FIRE: Weapons Proliferation, Political Violence, and Human Rights in Kenya
The Participation of “Outsiders”
There has been much speculation as to the origin of the well-armed, highly trained soldiers who were described as outsiders. Several reports have suggested they might have been mercenaries from Rwanda or Uganda. Human Rights Watch was not able to establish the background of these men. The raiders’ group clearly included Kenyans with prior military experience on whom they relied greatly, as well as some active duty members of the armed forces. The raiders, however, described one group of experienced fighters in different terms, as outsiders. In one case, a raider said that Bempa had told him the majority of the soldiers were foreigners, which he also believed to be true because of what he observed:
There were soldiers who would come for a few days at a time (about four days) to give training, then they’d shift to somewhere else. There were about fifty of them, some from Kenya, but most were from [abroad…]. Bempa would communicate with these people and he’d arrange for them to come to do the training. These soldiers would do more rigorous training, including exercising a lot (running and jumping) and using guns. They had their own guns, but I don’t know where they got them. Bempa said that when the raid happens we should follow the instructionsof these soldiers, and the commanders, and that once we’d raided we too would get guns and also grenades. […] I don’t know how many of the soldiers were foreign. I just followed orders and didn’t count the number to know for sure. I never spoke to them directly. I just took instructions from them. Some of the soldiers, the ones from Kenya, spoke in Swahili and the others I couldn’t understand. The Kenyan soldiers would translate. Of the whole group, only a few soldiers could speak Swahili.
The testimony of a second raider also supports the contention that this group was formed largely of non-locals, possibly not of Kenyan origin. Speaking separately, he described non-Swahili-speaking soldiers who would communicate orders via the local leaders; the latter could understand the soldiers, perhaps because they were more educated and spoke English. The outsiders, as both raiders explained, only took part in early operations and soon withdrew.
A third raider said that he had heard rumors about soldiers. He said, “We tried to ask Swaleh [bin Alfan] about the soldiers because he’d said he had some. He told us, `You’re not alone.’ But it was a deep secret between him and the top people.” He added that he had heard that “the foreigners” were at another training site. Two raiders indicated they had never seen any outsiders and, while they were aware of such claims, were convinced all the raiders on the South Coast were Digos. This view accorded with that of the authorities, who rejected claims that external actors participated in the fighting.
Posted by: b real | Jan 25 2008 2:28 utc | 31
the standard: Human Rights’ officials threatened
Human rights’ officials fear for their lives following a report released by an international group on post-election violence.
The Human Rights Watch report accuses opposition leaders in the Rift Valley of planning skirmishes in the province. Eldoret human rights organisations said the report was being linked to them yet they did not participate in its preparation.
Led by the Executive Director of the Centre for Human Rights and Democracy (CHRD), Mr Ken Wafula, the officials said their lives were in now danger.
“We are accused of feeding Human Rights Watch with information that led to the compilation of the report,” Wafula told the Press in Eldoret.
…
The Eldoret Centre Against Torture Programme Officer, Mr David Koros, described the report as “biased, lopsided and against one community”.
“The report is dangerous. It singled out one community as perpetrators of the violence and overlooked where other communities were aggressors,” he said.
and the timing of the report makes it highly suspect, too, coming on the same day of the photo op coordinated by mr. annan.
from a sunday article, Facing the bitter truth, in the standard
Annan’s biggest boardroom coup, so far, was on Thursday when he brought Kibaki and Orange Democratic Movement leader Mr Raila Odinga for one-on-one talks.
The leaders pleaded for peace but there was discordance — it later emerged the speech President Kibaki read with the line “your duly elected President” was not the one the other two present agreed was acceptable for the ‘occasion’ that was meant to defuse national tension.
…
That, sources say, was contrary to a condition the former UN Secretary General had set that his office would ensure the statements coming out of the meeting would be promoting peace and mediation.
Before the meeting, Annan’s team had asked Raila to prepare “a two-paragraph statement” that was to be approved by Annan’s office before the ODM leader could read it to the public.
According to sources, Annan was to do the same with President Kibaki’s statement.
The President’s statement, sources say, turned out to be different from what the mediators had seen.
did annan make any public stmts about that? nothing that i saw reported. surely the wire services would have mentioned that, right?
continuing w/ the article
The key difference between ODM leaders and Kibaki emerged at the meeting where the President is said to have steered clear of mentioning disputes over election.
Sources tell The Sunday Standard that while Raila went to the meeting to discuss the disputed and discredited presidential poll results and how to end its chilling consequences, Kibaki did not mention anything to do with election.
At OP, Kibaki insisted that the leaders needed to discuss stoppage of the violence and resettlement of victims.
“There was no mention by Kibaki of what caused the violence and the use of excessive force by the police,” a source familiar with what transpired said.
ODM, sources say, had yielded grudgingly to meet Kibaki, after they earlier dismissed the talks as a public relation gimmick.
as i said earlier, they got snookered.
on museveni’s meetings,
ODM’s demand for a re-run appears to have been shared by Uganda’s President Yoweri Museveni, whose mediation efforts have been clouded by mystery and public cynicism. He is one of the few leaders who congratulated Kibaki on being declared winner. His government has also been fighting off claims that Uganda soldiers are deployed to harass protesters in western Kenya.
The Sunday Standard established that Museveni presented Kibaki with a proposal in which he argued that he needed “a process that would legitimise his win”.
In the document, Museveni asked Kibaki that one option was to institute a judicial commission of inquiry of prominent personalities from outside Kenya to investigate the polls.
Museveni is said to have told the President that he needed legitimacy to govern. He is said to have even used a football analogy arguing that even in the sport, “you may score a goal but the referee can cancel it”.
When that happens, Museveni argued, “It does not mean you never scored. It only means you never played according to the rules”.
Museveni is said to have suggested that Kibaki allows a team from the Commonwealth to investigate the polls.
He suggested that if such a team agrees that there were problems with the tallying of presidential vote, then Kibaki should organise a re-run.
If the team finds no anomalies, the East African Community chairman argued, it would give Kibaki the legitimacy he needs to rule.
Museveni’s position, sources say, was that with Vice-President Kalonzo Musyoka now with Kibaki, the President should be comfortable with a re-run, counting on the Mwingi North MP to top up his vote tally.
…among others 😉
Posted by: b real | Jan 27 2008 23:03 utc | 44
kenya today: ICJ calls for interim government
The Kenyan chapter of the International Commission of Jurists has proposed that the ongoing negotiations work on the formation of an interim government based on some form of power sharing.
…
The ICJ further argues that the Electoral Commission of Kenya can actually cancel the presidential poll results, saying that section 123 (11) of the Constitution confers holders of public office in Kenya with the powers to invalidate their actions.
The section of the constitution indicated by the ICJ states: “Where a power is conferred by this Constitution to make an order, regulation or rule, or pass a resolution or give a direction or make a declaration or designation, the power shall be construed as including the power, exercisable in the same manner and subject to the same conditions, if any, to amend or revoke the order, regulation, rule, resolution, direction, declaration or designation.”
The ECK has on several occasions indicated that it has no authority to cancel the disputed results unless a court orders the measure be taken.
The ICJ proposal indicates that an interim political settlement is the best option because there was minimal trust in the country’s judicial system, and the ECK had proven to be ineffective going by the way it conducted last year’s election.
ICJ is proposing that the interim government institute legal reforms in the Judiciary and the ECK, and then organise a fresh election. The ICJ proposal states that challenging the election results within the current laws may not help solve the current stalemate.
According to the commission’s chairperson, Mr Wilfred Nderitu, the caretaker government would operate on a power-sharing basis and be made up of persons selected by the two sides, but who are not politically active.
“This government should be made up of civil servants and technocrats, and would be mandated to first stabilise the country and resettle the displaced people,” said Mr Nderitu.
The group is suggesting that the reforms in the Judiciary be structured in line with proposals made in the Bomas Draft Constitution of 2005.
————–
upstream i’ve mentioned the jendayi frazer interview @ CFR a couple times already. time for another citation
Given that Kenya has played such a strong role in both Somalia and in Southern Sudan with the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, where does this leave U.S. policy toward East Africa?
frazer: On Sudan, the most immediate impact of the crisis in Kenya is on our approach to implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement [CPA]. Kenya was the lead of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development—the IGAD countries—which we had hoped would convene a major conference to bring both the north and the south together to see how the region and the international community could address such questions as the impasse over Abyei [disputed oil-rich territory in Southern Sudan], and the issues of preparing for the elections. Now it’s unlikely that conference is going to take place anytime soon, so we will probably have to look at a different approach to mobilizing the region and the international community to support CPA implementation.
monday’s sudan tribune is running this article
Kenya bans critical study on Igad role in Sudan peace process
The Kenyan government banned a critical study on the IGAD mediation of Naivasha peace talks between the Sudanese government and the former rebel Sudan People’s Liberation Movement, Sudan Tribune has learned.
The fact is back to July 2007 when Kenya, chairman of the IGAD, objected the presentation of an evaluation of role of the regional body in Sudan’s peace process commissioned by the IGAD because it was very critical to the role of the mediation team headed by Lazaro Sumbeiywo, Kenya special envoy for peace in the Sudan talks.
The Sudanese researcher, John Young, was surprised to learn when he arrived to present his study at an IGAD meeting held in Mombasa on 9 July 2007 that Kenya took exception of his paper and threatened to cancel the conference if his paper was accepted by the IGAD secretariat.
Young criticized the fade role of the regional organization and said in his paper that the real player was the US Administration and deplored the absence of regional actors.
“The US, and not Kenya, dominated the peace process and that Kenya has for many years been widely held to be under the influence of the US and Britain, and hence represented their interests at the negotiations.” He told Sudan Tribune.
For some months after the conference, IGAD demanded that he makes a series of changes to my paper to satisfy the Kenyans. “Since there was no provision in my contract with IGAD to make any changes, I refused.” He added.
study Sudan Igad Peace Process: An Evaluation May 30, 2007
some excerpts
…
In the wake of the 9/11 attack on the US, the Americans increasingly called upon Kenya to assume a major role in the war on terror because of its strategic location its large Moslem population who lived on the coast across from the volatile Gulf. The terrorist bombing of the US Embassy in Nairobi in August 2000 in which most of the victims were Kenyans served to further link Kenya to the US and its policy objectives in the region. As a result and in addition to British bases that had long been in the country, land was granted to the US military in north-eastern Kenya, Mombassa became a major centre for Western warships patrolling the Gulf, and intelligence cooperation expanded. And with the growing link being drawn in the US between national security and the Sudan peace process, the Americans would be reassured that Kenya was designated to play the dominate role and that the negotiations were to be led by General Sumbeiywo who had received education in the US, previously directed the Kenyan intelligence service, was the head of the army, and developed relations with the leadership of the SPLM/A during the retreat from its bases in Ethiopia in 1991.
…
Although IGAD received the mandate for conducting the mediation, provided the mechanism for the mediation, gave it legitimacy, and received funding, it had the least influence on the mediation of any of the groups considered here. The mandate, as noted elsewhere, was clear in giving IGAD the authority to conduct the mediation and establish a secretariat, but after that power largely passed to the Government of Kenya. IGAD’s continuing role was not made clear and the CPA did not provide for it to play any role in the post-peace agreement period. Moreover, it appears to have had no say in the appointment of the chief peace envoy whose selection was formally made by President Daniel arop Moi. And while the mandate stipulated that Sumbeiwyo must report back to the IGAD Secretariat it would appear that was only a nominal charge and he understood that the real power holders lay elsewhere.
…
For the most part, the influence of Britain, Norway, and Italy was limited, while US influence was widely felt, although not easily calculated. The significance of the US to the peace process was in the words of one diplomat ‘inevitable given its status as the sole super-power’ and also given the timing of its intervention, while Presidential Advisor Ghazi Salahdien said that the US was as integral to the peace process as the SPLM/A and the GoS (Khartoum, 26 May 2004). The US did not usually lead or dominate the actual peace process and there is only minor evidence of direct American manipulation of the negotiations, and hence the claim that it ‘brokered’ the talks is not strictly speaking true. But its influence was felt at many levels and probably most significantly by contributing enormously to the context in which the peace process took place and the climate of the talks.
…
The US oil industry was well placed to influence the Bush Administration since the president and a number of his leading colleagues had close links with the industry. The oil industry was upset that the benefits of its efforts at establishing the industry in Sudan were being reaped by a handful of Asian companies and Talisman Company of Canada. The American oil companies saw, however, that without a peace agreement the US Congressional embargo would continue. Thus it is can be surmised that the oil companies urged Bush to achieve a peace agreement in Sudan that would permit the embargo to end and provide the necessary security for them to consider operating in Sudan. The oil industry’s interests thus dovetailed with government policy which linked US security to diversifying its energy sources away from the unstable Middle East and increasing its share of oil from Africa.
However, in the wake of the Islamist attacks on the US, acquiring information on Islamist groups through cooperation with the Sudanese security services, protecting allies in the region from Islamists, and deepening engagement in the Sudan peace process all flowed from the growing perception that America’s security was linked to the course and outcome of conflicts like that in Sudan. And all of these endeavours could be subsumed as part and parcel of the ‘war on terrorism’. … Against that background, the US found it expedient to heighten its engagement in the peace process by, first, utilising the framework of IGAD; second, operating through a Quartet of loyal allies, and accepting the local management of the process by Kenya, which had long done the bidding of Britain and the US. What had been a genuinely regional peace initiative became, with trappings to provide the necessary legitimacy, an American sponsored, if not led, process.
…
US policy on Sudan was also strongly influenced by the close personal relations of three of their leading officials with Garang –Brian de Silva in the Department of Agriculture, Roger Winters at USAID, and Andrew Natsios, formerly in USAID and currently the special envoy of President Bush. Strongly committed to Garang over many years, they were instrumental in both advising Garang on how to win the acceptance and later support of the USG and to convince the American Government that a rebel leader widely assumed to be a communist could become a valued ally. Indeed, they never failed to boost the image of Garang, to the point that he acquired a personality cult in some circles of the US by the late 1990s.
…
the experience of IGAD has been one of administrative and political weakness on the one hand, and the domination of the resulting peace process on the other by the US and its close allies operating through Kenya, a state which has a history of subservience to Western interests. Although it provided a measure of legitimacy and a formal structure, the IGAD Secretariat had almost no other role in the Sudan peace process. The financing was largely funnelled through the Government of Kenya and GTZ, the Special Envoy reported to Nairobi, and IGAD had no control over him. The Secretariat staff reported to the Special Envoy, the observers were responsible to their respective countries, as were the ambassador-envoys. The Council of Ministers rarely questioned the Kenyan led mediation. Moreover, IGAD had no capacity to structure the peace process, influence its course or objectives, and was not even permitted under the CPA to play a role in the post-conflict
era.
Although not clear in the actual negotiations, the real power behind the peace process largely lay with the US. And the US held contradictory objectives; on the one hand it wanted to build up the mediation and security capacity of the AU and its sub-regional components like IGAD so that they could be given increasing responsibility for security concerns on the continent, in particular the war on terror, and on the other, President Bush and his administration wanted to reap political benefits in the domestic forum for their leadership in the peace process, particularly at a time when the US was being widely criticised for its aggressive policies in Iraq and elsewhere in the Moslem world.
finally, from the study’s exec summary
The conclusion of the US and its allies that their security and the ‘war on terror’ necessitates heightened military and diplomatic involvement in the Horn raises fears that the region could again – as it was during the Cold War – become a focus of competition and conflict for external interests.
reshift your interpretation of the GWOT as ‘the global war on resistance‘. do away w/ much of the specious (& racist) arguments on ‘terrorists’ and just maybe a clearer understanding of the role of proxy nations will take shape.
GWOT, however, and similar to the imminent communist menace of yore, provides the cover story for more imperialist designs. re kenya, that pretext is outlined in the case study i linked to earlier, from west point’s combatting terrorism center, which operates w/ a specific definition of terrorism — “we use ‘terrorism’ with reference to Islamic ‘extremism'”. concluding the specious attempts at building up the case for GWOT focus on the east african nation, it concludes
Painting Kenya as a stronghold for al-Qa’ida and other terrorist activity is an overstatement. In many ways, it remains East Africa’s leader in both political and economic terms. Yet it is Kenya’s very stature that makes it such a decisive battleground between al-Qa’ida and the West in the Horn of Africa as a whole. Its track record as a target for terrorists, combined with the underlying conditions of weak governance and religious-ideological influence on the Coast, suggest that future terrorist attacks are likely. Efforts to defeat al-Qa’ida will require the U.S. and its allies to wade through a complicated set of actors and issues. Without the predictable operating environment offered by Kenya, it is unlikely that al-Qa’ida would have been able to mount effective operations in the Horn in the past. We therefore believe Kenya is the decisive point in the Horn of Africa.
Posted by: b real | Jan 28 2008 7:03 utc | 47
kenya today: ICJ calls for interim government
The Kenyan chapter of the International Commission of Jurists has proposed that the ongoing negotiations work on the formation of an interim government based on some form of power sharing.
…
The ICJ further argues that the Electoral Commission of Kenya can actually cancel the presidential poll results, saying that section 123 (11) of the Constitution confers holders of public office in Kenya with the powers to invalidate their actions.
The section of the constitution indicated by the ICJ states: “Where a power is conferred by this Constitution to make an order, regulation or rule, or pass a resolution or give a direction or make a declaration or designation, the power shall be construed as including the power, exercisable in the same manner and subject to the same conditions, if any, to amend or revoke the order, regulation, rule, resolution, direction, declaration or designation.”
The ECK has on several occasions indicated that it has no authority to cancel the disputed results unless a court orders the measure be taken.
The ICJ proposal indicates that an interim political settlement is the best option because there was minimal trust in the country’s judicial system, and the ECK had proven to be ineffective going by the way it conducted last year’s election.
ICJ is proposing that the interim government institute legal reforms in the Judiciary and the ECK, and then organise a fresh election. The ICJ proposal states that challenging the election results within the current laws may not help solve the current stalemate.
According to the commission’s chairperson, Mr Wilfred Nderitu, the caretaker government would operate on a power-sharing basis and be made up of persons selected by the two sides, but who are not politically active.
“This government should be made up of civil servants and technocrats, and would be mandated to first stabilise the country and resettle the displaced people,” said Mr Nderitu.
The group is suggesting that the reforms in the Judiciary be structured in line with proposals made in the Bomas Draft Constitution of 2005.
————–
upstream i’ve mentioned the jendayi frazer interview @ CFR a couple times already. time for another citation
Given that Kenya has played such a strong role in both Somalia and in Southern Sudan with the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, where does this leave U.S. policy toward East Africa?
frazer: On Sudan, the most immediate impact of the crisis in Kenya is on our approach to implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement [CPA]. Kenya was the lead of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development—the IGAD countries—which we had hoped would convene a major conference to bring both the north and the south together to see how the region and the international community could address such questions as the impasse over Abyei [disputed oil-rich territory in Southern Sudan], and the issues of preparing for the elections. Now it’s unlikely that conference is going to take place anytime soon, so we will probably have to look at a different approach to mobilizing the region and the international community to support CPA implementation.
monday’s sudan tribune is running this article
Kenya bans critical study on Igad role in Sudan peace process
The Kenyan government banned a critical study on the IGAD mediation of Naivasha peace talks between the Sudanese government and the former rebel Sudan People’s Liberation Movement, Sudan Tribune has learned.
The fact is back to July 2007 when Kenya, chairman of the IGAD, objected the presentation of an evaluation of role of the regional body in Sudan’s peace process commissioned by the IGAD because it was very critical to the role of the mediation team headed by Lazaro Sumbeiywo, Kenya special envoy for peace in the Sudan talks.
The Sudanese researcher, John Young, was surprised to learn when he arrived to present his study at an IGAD meeting held in Mombasa on 9 July 2007 that Kenya took exception of his paper and threatened to cancel the conference if his paper was accepted by the IGAD secretariat.
Young criticized the fade role of the regional organization and said in his paper that the real player was the US Administration and deplored the absence of regional actors.
“The US, and not Kenya, dominated the peace process and that Kenya has for many years been widely held to be under the influence of the US and Britain, and hence represented their interests at the negotiations.” He told Sudan Tribune.
For some months after the conference, IGAD demanded that he makes a series of changes to my paper to satisfy the Kenyans. “Since there was no provision in my contract with IGAD to make any changes, I refused.” He added.
study Sudan Igad Peace Process: An Evaluation May 30, 2007
some excerpts
…
In the wake of the 9/11 attack on the US, the Americans increasingly called upon Kenya to assume a major role in the war on terror because of its strategic location its large Moslem population who lived on the coast across from the volatile Gulf. The terrorist bombing of the US Embassy in Nairobi in August 2000 in which most of the victims were Kenyans served to further link Kenya to the US and its policy objectives in the region. As a result and in addition to British bases that had long been in the country, land was granted to the US military in north-eastern Kenya, Mombassa became a major centre for Western warships patrolling the Gulf, and intelligence cooperation expanded. And with the growing link being drawn in the US between national security and the Sudan peace process, the Americans would be reassured that Kenya was designated to play the dominate role and that the negotiations were to be led by General Sumbeiywo who had received education in the US, previously directed the Kenyan intelligence service, was the head of the army, and developed relations with the leadership of the SPLM/A during the retreat from its bases in Ethiopia in 1991.
…
Although IGAD received the mandate for conducting the mediation, provided the mechanism for the mediation, gave it legitimacy, and received funding, it had the least influence on the mediation of any of the groups considered here. The mandate, as noted elsewhere, was clear in giving IGAD the authority to conduct the mediation and establish a secretariat, but after that power largely passed to the Government of Kenya. IGAD’s continuing role was not made clear and the CPA did not provide for it to play any role in the post-peace agreement period. Moreover, it appears to have had no say in the appointment of the chief peace envoy whose selection was formally made by President Daniel arop Moi. And while the mandate stipulated that Sumbeiwyo must report back to the IGAD Secretariat it would appear that was only a nominal charge and he understood that the real power holders lay elsewhere.
…
For the most part, the influence of Britain, Norway, and Italy was limited, while US influence was widely felt, although not easily calculated. The significance of the US to the peace process was in the words of one diplomat ‘inevitable given its status as the sole super-power’ and also given the timing of its intervention, while Presidential Advisor Ghazi Salahdien said that the US was as integral to the peace process as the SPLM/A and the GoS (Khartoum, 26 May 2004). The US did not usually lead or dominate the actual peace process and there is only minor evidence of direct American manipulation of the negotiations, and hence the claim that it ‘brokered’ the talks is not strictly speaking true. But its influence was felt at many levels and probably most significantly by contributing enormously to the context in which the peace process took place and the climate of the talks.
…
The US oil industry was well placed to influence the Bush Administration since the president and a number of his leading colleagues had close links with the industry. The oil industry was upset that the benefits of its efforts at establishing the industry in Sudan were being reaped by a handful of Asian companies and Talisman Company of Canada. The American oil companies saw, however, that without a peace agreement the US Congressional embargo would continue. Thus it is can be surmised that the oil companies urged Bush to achieve a peace agreement in Sudan that would permit the embargo to end and provide the necessary security for them to consider operating in Sudan. The oil industry’s interests thus dovetailed with government policy which linked US security to diversifying its energy sources away from the unstable Middle East and increasing its share of oil from Africa.
However, in the wake of the Islamist attacks on the US, acquiring information on Islamist groups through cooperation with the Sudanese security services, protecting allies in the region from Islamists, and deepening engagement in the Sudan peace process all flowed from the growing perception that America’s security was linked to the course and outcome of conflicts like that in Sudan. And all of these endeavours could be subsumed as part and parcel of the ‘war on terrorism’. … Against that background, the US found it expedient to heighten its engagement in the peace process by, first, utilising the framework of IGAD; second, operating through a Quartet of loyal allies, and accepting the local management of the process by Kenya, which had long done the bidding of Britain and the US. What had been a genuinely regional peace initiative became, with trappings to provide the necessary legitimacy, an American sponsored, if not led, process.
…
US policy on Sudan was also strongly influenced by the close personal relations of three of their leading officials with Garang –Brian de Silva in the Department of Agriculture, Roger Winters at USAID, and Andrew Natsios, formerly in USAID and currently the special envoy of President Bush. Strongly committed to Garang over many years, they were instrumental in both advising Garang on how to win the acceptance and later support of the USG and to convince the American Government that a rebel leader widely assumed to be a communist could become a valued ally. Indeed, they never failed to boost the image of Garang, to the point that he acquired a personality cult in some circles of the US by the late 1990s.
…
the experience of IGAD has been one of administrative and political weakness on the one hand, and the domination of the resulting peace process on the other by the US and its close allies operating through Kenya, a state which has a history of subservience to Western interests. Although it provided a measure of legitimacy and a formal structure, the IGAD Secretariat had almost no other role in the Sudan peace process. The financing was largely funnelled through the Government of Kenya and GTZ, the Special Envoy reported to Nairobi, and IGAD had no control over him. The Secretariat staff reported to the Special Envoy, the observers were responsible to their respective countries, as were the ambassador-envoys. The Council of Ministers rarely questioned the Kenyan led mediation. Moreover, IGAD had no capacity to structure the peace process, influence its course or objectives, and was not even permitted under the CPA to play a role in the post-conflict
era.
Although not clear in the actual negotiations, the real power behind the peace process largely lay with the US. And the US held contradictory objectives; on the one hand it wanted to build up the mediation and security capacity of the AU and its sub-regional components like IGAD so that they could be given increasing responsibility for security concerns on the continent, in particular the war on terror, and on the other, President Bush and his administration wanted to reap political benefits in the domestic forum for their leadership in the peace process, particularly at a time when the US was being widely criticised for its aggressive policies in Iraq and elsewhere in the Moslem world.
finally, from the study’s exec summary
The conclusion of the US and its allies that their security and the ‘war on terror’ necessitates heightened military and diplomatic involvement in the Horn raises fears that the region could again – as it was during the Cold War – become a focus of competition and conflict for external interests.
Posted by: b real | Jan 28 2008 7:04 utc | 48
it doesn’t take a lieutenant columbo to solve this one…
from the CSIS forum cited previously
Q: ..with regard to parliament, parliament seems to be quite weak in Kenya. What can they [ODM] do if they wanted to make the country ungovernable? I mean, are we talking about holding up the budget? What could they really do? Thanks.
Ranneberger: Well, in terms of parliament, which is important, the parliament does have very limited authority. You’ve got an awfully strong executive; I mean, of course ODM can shut down Kibaki’s desire for a legislative agenda. There were over a dozen pieces of legislation being pushed by the government that were pending in the last session of parliament, that’s one avenue. The other is, of course, the budget; they do have real authority on the budget and that’s about it. And of course, you can also have a push within parliament. I mean, there’s a huge potential there of a vote of no confidence, but that has a real downside. You know, I don’t think ODM will pursue that. It’s only a simple majority, which they’re very close to, they’re within one or two votes and might be able to get that, to have a vote of no confidence. If they have that, then that precipitates a new election.
…
The other is to try to push through an agenda, again, for institutional reform. Some of that would require constitutional changes, which would require two-thirds in the parliament and, you know, all of that but some of it, things like land reform or reform of the electorate commission, some of that as I understand, although we haven’t gone into a lot of detail, but some of that can be done without constitutional change, so they could do that with a simple majority. So, you know, a simple majority gives them the ability to push a lot of different types of legislation, some of which – including on corruption and this sort of thing, some of which might not be to the government’s liking. So it’s a pretty powerful tool if they can get a majority, and that’s going to depend on there’s still three seats that have not been decided because the elections were disrupted. They think they’re going to get two, if not all three of those seats, and they’ve also got the appointed members of parliament that they’ll be doing six. So they’ll be hovering right on the cusp of a majority of 112. So I do think it’s a powerful tool, and that’s why I think it does change the dynamic.
The speaker in the parliament, by the way, has a lot of power and basically does pretty much dictate the agenda of parliament. On the other hand, Kibaki’s got a fair amount of power because he has the ability to, you know, to adjourn the parliament after a certain period of time. I’m not quite sure what that is right now, but – so anyway, that’s the answer.
the standard: ODM shock as second MP is killed
The Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) was reeling in shock after another MP from its ranks was shot dead in just three days.
The killing of David Kimutai Too of Ainamoi touched off a fresh wave of violence in Kericho, Eldoret, Kisumu and Kakamega and stunned former UN chief Kofi Annan, who ordered a temporary suspension of mediation talks.
It was another dark day for the Orange party — which has had its majority in the House sliced by two MPs — as it soaked another sledgehammer blow.
Too was gunned down in cold blood by a traffic policeman in Eldoret town. A female traffic police officer, Constable Eunice Chepwony, who was in the company of the MP, was also shot and wounded by the same policeman. She died two hours later at Moi University Teaching and Referral Hospital (MTRH).
With the death coming just four days after another ODM MP, the late Melitus Mugabe Were, was killed in Nairobi, Police Commissioner, Maj-Gen Hussein Ali, moved fast to explain the circumstances of killing, saying initial investigation pointed at what he described as “a crime of passion”.
But ODM and the family of the slain officer last night took offence with the attempt to pass off the crime as a love triangle gone sour, even as it emerged that the killer policeman was married with children.
ODM said it was concerned by losing two MPs in 36 hours, and termed yesterday’s killing a political assassination.
Dismissing the love triangle theory, Pentagon member, Mr William Ruto, said the MP was related to the slain policewoman.
“For the Police Commissioner to conclude the cause of death of the MP without conducting investigations is an insult to the intelligence of Kenyans,” Ruto said while receiving the body of the MP at Wilson Airport, Nairobi, on Thursday night.
…
And the elder brother of the slain policewoman, Mr David Kirui, said: “I have known the late MP as a close friend to late Geoffrey Ng’etich, the husband of my sister, and during his burial, the legislator was the master of ceremonies.”
The family said the MP and the officer were killed as they viewed a parcel of land in Eldoret town, which the legislator wanted to buy.
And the National Assembly has given the Government a 24-hour ultimatum to provide MPs with round-the-clock security.
…
In what seemed to be a mind-boggling coincidence, the news of the MP’s death was received at the ODM headquarters just as party MPs were discussing, among other things, death threats issued to some of them.
Kimutai’s name was top on the list of six MPs allegedly targeted, the ODM Parliamentary Group meeting at Orange House was told.
Other MPs that the party claimed were in the hit list included Ruto, Aldai MP, Dr Sally Kosgey, Kuresoi MP, Mr Zakayo Cheruiyot, Starehe MP, Bishop Margaret Wanjiru, and Kasarani MP, Ms Elizabeth Ongoro.
The meeting was shaken when, at about 11am, news that Too had been shot dead filtered out.
…
While receiving the body at Wilson Airport, Ruto read a political motive to the killings given the slim majority in Parliament.
“All the assassinations going on have a political implication; they cannot scuttle the mediation talks by killing. Blackmail or intimidation or threats will not scare ODM from finding a lasting solution (to the current crisis) and justice,” he said.
The MP’s murder sparked riots in Eldoret town and its environs, with hundreds of ODM supporters jamming the MTRH mortuary to view the body.
the standard: MP family denies Ali’s love theory
Chaos reigned in Kericho town on Thursday as Ainamoi constituents mourned their MP, Mr David Kimutai Too.
…
The MP’s family denied Too was a victim of a love triangle. A family spokesman, Mr Julius Langat, said the MP flew to Eldoret from Nairobi as he could not drive straight to Kericho due to the ongoing post-election violence.
He said a policewoman who was with him, Eunice Chepkwony, was his neighbour.
…
Langat said the MP had gone to inquire about the situation on the roads, adding that Too had complained that his life was in danger.
“Eunice was a neighbour and a family friend. They were not in a love affair as the Police Commissioner claimed,” said Langat.
He continued: “This is a cover-up by the police in an attempt to distort information. The police should tell Kenyans the truth instead of taking us in circles.”
He said the woman was a relative and there was no way they could be involved in an affair.
The news of the death sparked chaos in the town that was regaining calm after days of riots.
Armed youths burnt six petroleum tankers headed for Uganda, as roadblocks were erected on the Kericho-Sotik road.
…
MPs and parliamentary staff huddled together as they discussed the death in hushed tones. “The circumstances in which the MP has died are shocking,” said a staff member who sought anonymity.
the standard: Shocked leaders cry out for protection
MPS abandoned a peace meeting at Parliament Buildings following the killing of Ainamoi MP, David Kimutai Too.
There was confusion in Parliament as MPs walked out of the meeting shouting. Bureti MP, Mr Franklin Bett, said: “How many more are police and thugs going to kill? We are not going to allow this lawless state of affairs.”
Bett said the Amani Forum of Inter-Parties Parliamentary Group suspended its meeting over post-election violence following the MP’s death.
Bett told The Standard that the MPs were shocked over the death of another MP only two days after the shooting to death of Embakasi MP, Mugabe Were.
“This is a sad state of affairs. We cannot continue with a peace meeting when fellow MPs are being killed,” added Bett.
…
Meanwhile, Rift Valley MPs reacted angrily at the way the police were treating Too’s death.
The MPs said the Police Commissioner’s assertion that the MP could have been killed because of a love affair gone sour was an insult.
MPs Jason Kiptanui (Keiyo South), Langat, Mr Joshua Kuttuny (Cherangany) and Mr Boaz Keino (Marakwet West) said the police boss should conduct thorough investigations and stop acting on hearsay.
Too, they said, had received an SMS on his phone threatening him and said matters of love should not be used to cover his killing.
“The MP had received the same SMS that some of our colleagues have received. The police should not joke of the killing,” said Magerer.
Keino showed the Press an SMS he had received threatening him to “keep off somebody’s wife” which he said was calculated at making murders look like they are not politically motivated.
Kuttuny said there was a scheme to reduce the ODM MPs in Parliament especially in Rift valley and many more were on line for killing.
Posted by: b real | Feb 1 2008 3:47 utc | 63
the standard: US, Canada ban threat as talks register gains
Pressure mounted on the warring parties to reach a negotiated settlement to the crippling crisis caused by disputed presidential elections, even as South African negotiator, Mr Cyril Ramaphosa, was sent packing after the Government rejected his involvement.
On Monday, the US and Canada gave the first hints of a plan to ban top leaders considered to be subverting democracy from travelling to their countries.
The United Nations also sent a warning: Sort out this crisis or risk the relocation of the global body’s office from Nairobi.
And as the South African negotiator was leaving in a huff — barely 48 hours after jetting in to give mediation efforts a new impetus — the Kofi Annan-led talks made progress and concluded Agenda Three on the humanitarian crisis. This set the stage for the team to zero-in on the sensitive Agenda Four — the disputed re-election of President Kibaki and the crisis that it plunged the country into, including killings and massive destruction of property.
…
The US and Canada were categorical that some personalities engaged in what the latter described as “subverting democratic institutions and processes” would be blacklisted and denied entry into the two major world economies.
“With respect to official contact and visits, Canadian law precludes the admissibility to Canada of foreign nationals considered responsible for subverting democratic institutions and processes,” said the High Commissioner, Mr Ross Hynes.
On its part, the US said it had identified high-profile personalities — in Government and Opposition — who would be slapped with a visa ban on suspicion of fanning violence.
…
Earlier, Ramaphosa was forced out of Nairobi because he was not agreeable to PNU. Long before he was introduced to the Annan team, a senior Government official had told reporters that they would not accept his inclusion in talks owing to “the interests he represents”.
…
Meanwhile, the Director-General of the UN office in Nairobi, Dr Anna Tibaijuka, said staff had been put on “heightened alert”, meaning that they and their families had been warned against “non-essential mobility”.
Should the mediation talks fail, the UN would take necessary measures, starting with a caution, but ultimately leading to closure and re-location.
Under UN regulations, Kenya is now at Phase Two (Caution) and if chaos persists, it would move into Phase Three (Heightened Alert) at which point staff and their families would have to leave their workstations and be evacuated.
Canada’s envoy Hynes noted that millions of Kenyans had on December 27 performed their civic duty and demonstrated their commitment to democracy by turning out to vote in the presidential, parliamentary and local elections.
“But since then, the voters and millions of other innocent Kenyans have been badly — and tragically — failed by their governing institutions and leaders,” he regretted.
Hynes said only a political agreement between Kibaki and Raila offered any hope. He underlined the urgency at which the two senior protagonists must come to an agreement.
Ranneberger, on his part, described reports that Ramaphosa would not take part in the mediation talks as “unfortunate”, noting that the business magnate was a “good and effective negotiator”.
But the diplomat said as a sign of goodwill, the participation of any person in mediation talks should be acceptable to both parties.
Annan regretted the withdrawal of the negotiator, who he said was unanimously picked by the Panel of Eminent African Personalities to serve as the chief mediator.
annan, among others, appears to be setting the ODM up. word today is that he’s taken a re-run of the elections as a negotiating point off the table. and, supposing the u.s. does back up its threats this time, the suspiciously-timed HRW report two weeks ago could come into play real soon.
the standard: Ranneberger explains US stance on crisis
The United States has identified high profile personalities — both in Government and Opposition — who will be slapped with a visa ban soon on suspicions of fanning violence, The Standard has learnt.
The ambassador to Kenya, Mr Michael Ranneberger, said the US Government would “shortly” contact the affected individuals who would face visa restrictions alongside their families.
The envoy, however, declined to divulge the names of the individuals during an exclusive interview with The Standard at his Nairobi residence, on Monday.
Should the US make good its threat, it would be joining Canada, which has since announced it would deny visas to individuals who undermine democracy and sabotage ongoing mediation efforts.
…
The following are excerpts of the interview:
What is your assessment of the political situation?
… Kenya is an important country to the US. Our relationship is founded on democratic principles. We want to see the country stable and encourage both sides to promote dialogue and support the Annan-led talks so that Kenya can emerge from the crisis a stronger democracy with stronger institutions.
You cannot apportion blame. Both leaders bear responsibility, perhaps of not having exerted leadership earlier enough.
what, pray tell, definition of “democratic principles” is this man operating from? surely not “free and fair elections” or majority rules. what about govt accountablity? of course not. an independent judiciary? ha ha ha. but that’s what he bosses say make up the principles of democracy, which they define, in part, as
Democracy is government in which power and civic responsibility are exercised by all citizens, directly or through their freely elected representatives.
Democracy rests upon the principles of majority rule, coupled with individual and minority rights. All democracies, while respecting the will of the majority, zealously protect the fundamental rights of individuals and minority groups.
Democracies guard against all-powerful central governments and decentralize government to regional and local levels, understanding that local government must be as accessible and responsive to the people as possible.
Democracies conduct regular free and fair elections open to all citizens. Elections in a democracy cannot be facades that dictators or a single party hide behind, but authentic competitions for the support of the people.
Democracy subjects governments to the rule of law and ensures that all citizens receive equal protection under the law and that their rights are protected by the legal system.
Citizens in a democracy not only have rights, they have the responsibility to participate in the political system that, in turn, protects their rights and freedoms.
back to the interview…
Is US considering revoking visas of politicians linked to the on-going violence?
A week ago, I stated that any perpetrator, supporting or inciting violence, and their families, would not be issued visas.
We will certainly be in touch with a number of individuals to tell them that they may be affected by that (directive).
We have taken the lead on that and it is important that Kenyans know that people who do not co-operate to achieve peace and those responsible for violence will not be viewed positively (by US).
Who are these people?
We have identified a number of people that could potentially be subject to these visa restrictions. Obviously I’m not going to disclose names but suffice it to say that the people in question are from both sides. These are, however, cases being reviewed. Those who jeopardise talks will also be considered.
this are probably pressure tactics to force the challenger to compromise away his strengths as the critical negotiations get underway. the PNU blocked the expert, raila seems to be getting strung along, next week the ambassador will have already forgotten his nebulous warnings.
from ranneberger’s remarks in the CSIS transcript from january 16th — back when anyone truly serious about “taking the lead” could have proven so — which i’ve cited throughout this thread
Some of you may have seen the statement that we issued on the weekend, which was pretty strong and got everybody’s attention, by using that phrase no business as usual. And the purpose of that was deliberately to sort of rattle the cage, as you might say, and to make them clear that we’re awfully serious about the need for a political solution and – (audio break) – others. So that’s had a pretty strong impact here.
and his reponse, later, to a question on that
You said that the U.S. and I assume some of the other international community are awfully serious about not permitting the sense that this is business as usual. How serious is that? In other words, you know now who the most recalcitrant are around Kibaki, for example. Is there any possibility that there might be some mention of targeted sanctions against those individuals if they continue to be obstacles to a reasonable compromise?
Yeah. Well, Mark, as you can imagine we don’t want to get into speculation about what, you know, no business as usual means. But what I’ve said, and pretty honestly and publicly as well here, is that no business as usual means that our sole focus is to try to promote a political solution because without that, you know, the country won’t be stable, it won’t be able to move ahead economically or any other way. And I have deliberately said that, you know, sanctions are not on the table at this point and that sort of thing. I don’t think it’s productive to speculate too much about that kind of thing. … I don’t want to speculate too much, but we’ve been delivering certainly some very tough messages.
back to the interview…
The Kenya/US relationship is worth $2 billion in trade, remittances and aid. We want peace with truth and justice.
If the country is not stable, that partnership will be affected. At this point, it is important to give dialogue a chance, although politicians have rapidly resumed their war of words.
…
Raila claims the US is among the countries pushing his quest for the presidency. Is this true?
We are not supporting anyone. In fact, we stated ahead of the elections that we would remain neutral with respect to the candidates, but not the process. We, however, condemned the electoral process, particularly the tallying of the presidential vote that was deeply flawed.
Dr Frazer reportedly said if Kenyans did not resolve the crisis the international community would provide a solution. How is this possible?
If a solution to the crisis is not found, the problem will inevitably become of more concern to the international community. The UN Security Council and the AU will become more involved because Kenya is too important to be left to destroy itself. But we are confident that Kenyans will resolve the crisis.
The US says it supports institutions and Kibaki has instructed the Opposition to take the dispute in court. What’s should happen?
We respected the ECK’s announcement of the winner because the law mandates it. But the ECK is an institution and tallying was flawed, hence the need for a political solution. Even though the Government has urged those disputing results to go to court, everyone knows the courts’ credibility is questionable and all petitions have taken too much time to be resolved.
What do you take of the recent murder of the two Opposition MPs?
Certain elements have not been satisfactorily explained. Within hours of each murders, we (US) offered the assistance of the Federal Bureau of Investigations to work with Kenyan authorities to probe the cases.
Although I have formally notified the Government, it has still not responded to our offer.
good to see, despite all the hypocritical diplomat-speak, the ambassador is backing away from the “take it to court” talking point. after all, he was on the record promoting that propaganda line even before the final result was announced. from the wapo article that b first drew attention to in the foot in mouth thread
U.S. Ambassador Michael E. Ranneberger said that although there were “problems with the process,” the United States would accept Kivuitu’s announcement.
“Look at the U.S.,” he said, just before Kivuitu announced the results. “The results are often disputed, and if there’s a dispute, there are the courts. I’m optimistic that what happens today will not alter the course of Kenya.”
Posted by: b real | Feb 5 2008 4:18 utc | 73
new vision (uganda): EAC may send troops to Kenya
The East African Community is considering sending a peace-keeping force to Kenya as one of the options in case the situation deteriorates, reports Anne Mugisa.
“Currently, there are negotiations within the East African set-up. A decision has not yet been reached but negotiations are on,” Fred Opolot of the Uganda Media Centre told journalists yesterday.
The East African Community, chaired by President Yoweri Museveni, is made up of Uganda, Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi and Kenya.
Opolot, who just returned from Nairobi, said Kenyan President Mwai Kibaki had given assurances for the protection of Ugandan goods transiting through Kenya.
“The Government of Kenya has deployed the police and the army, as well as provided air cover, to enhance the security of the Ugandan goods. As a result, the flow of goods has improved.”
Kampala was supportive of the mediation efforts by former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, he stressed, adding that EAC affairs minister Eriya Kategaya remained in Kenya to facilitate the dialogue which was initiated by Museveni.
…
Uganda, Sudan, Djibouti, Ethiopia and Somalia decided to dispatch their foreign ministers to Nairobi today to show support for “government efforts to restore stability,” said a Kenyan foreign ministry official.
The countries are member states of the Inter-Governmental Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD), chaired by Kibaki.
But the opposition has threatened to hold a big protest if the ministers went, saying they could not meet with Kibaki when “the very legitimacy” of his position was in question.
“If the IGAD meeting goes on in spite of our call for it not to go on, we shall call upon Kenyans to come out in big numbers for a peaceful demonstration in Nairobi to strongly protest,” said Anyang Nyongo, secretary general of the opposition Orange Democratic Movement.
daily nation (kenya): Crisis looms over Igad meet
The Opposition party said Tuesday it is opposed to the holding of a meeting to be attended by Foreign Affairs ministers from member countries of the Inter-Governmental Authority for Development (Igad) in Nairobi on Friday.
ODM secretary-general, Prof Anyang Nyong’o warned that the party will mobilise its supporters to protest against President Kibaki’s Government hosting the meeting while the political impasse occasioned by the disputed presidential election remains unresolved.
But Mr Kofi Annan, the chief mediator in the political crisis, warned against the protests, saying they will be an act of provocation.
…
Speaking on phone, a Foreign Affairs ministry official said Kenya had been chosen to host the regional meeting which will be attended by ministers from the Igad member states of Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi, Ethiopia, Sudan, Eritrea and Djibouti.
…
President Kibaki is the current chairman of the Igad Heads of State summit
…
Asked whether President Kibaki was overstepping his mandate by inviting Igad ministers, Mr Annan said that the Head of State could call any meetings in as long as they were not aimed at mediating in the country’s crisis.
“President Kibaki is free to invite whoever he wants. They are not here to mediate. To the best of my knowledge, there is only one mediation going on and it has the support of the UN, US, European Union and African Union,” he said.
from that study on the sudan IGAD peace process linked in #48 above
..in the wake of the Islamist attacks on the US, acquiring information on Islamist groups through cooperation with the Sudanese security services, protecting allies in the region from Islamists, and deepening engagement in the Sudan peace process all flowed from the growing perception that America’s security was linked to the course and outcome of conflicts like that in Sudan. And all of these endeavours could be subsumed as part and parcel of the ‘war on terrorism’.
…
Against that background, the US found it expedient to heighten its engagement in the peace process by, first, utilising the framework of IGAD; second, operating through a Quartet of loyal allies, and accepting the local management of the process by Kenya, which had long done the bidding of Britain and the US. What had been a genuinely regional peace initiative became, with trappings to provide the necessary legitimacy, an American sponsored, if not led, process.
…
..the experience of IGAD has been one of administrative and political weakness on the one hand, and the domination of the resulting peace process on the other by the US and its close allies operating through Kenya, a state which has a history of subservience to Western interests.
…
Although not clear in the actual negotiations, the real power behind the peace process largely lay with the US. And the US held contradictory objectives; on the one hand it wanted to build up the mediation and security capacity of the AU and its sub-regional components like IGAD so that they could be given increasing responsibility for security concerns on the continent, in particular the war on terror…
connect the dots
Posted by: b real | Feb 6 2008 4:29 utc | 81
the standard: Hope as Kibaki, Raila break fresh ground
The international mediating team led by former UN Secretary General, Dr Kofi Annan, announced the Government’s notable climbdown so far, on Friday, following joint talks with the two protagonists. Annan’s announcement came along with the caution that it was still premature to conclude a peace deal had been struck.
The deal, however, was a far cry from the Government’s long-standing position that the aggrieved should “go to court”.
It also was a major shift from Kibaki’s team’s insistence that the President won and that a political settlement of whatever nature was out of question.
…
Signs that ODM and PNU may have moved closer to a settlement emerged when Annan called for an informal session of Parliament to convene as early as Tuesday, “so that we can brief them on the process where we are and where we are going”.
“This (special session of Parliament) should probably be on Tuesday, but this is up to the President on when he will reconvene Parliament,” Annan, told an international news conference attended by co-mediators, former South African First Lady Graca Machel and former Tanzania President Mr Benjamin Mkapa.
Though the parties recognised the need for a political solution to the crisis details of the scope of the political settlement and its implementation remained scanty.
daily nation: Ray of hope as mediation team clears major hurdles
The team negotiating Kenya’s political crisis Friday cleared major hurdles, paving the way for a possible power sharing formula between the government and opposition.
As part of the deal, the opposition Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) will no longer insist on President Kibaki’s resignation and an immediate election re-run, sources familiar with the talks said.
Instead, ODM will agree on a power-sharing deal incorporating the government Party of National Unity (PNU) together with its affiliate parties including Vice-President Kalonzo Musyoka’s ODM Kenya.
not sure about that – the daily nation still leans PNU, while the east african standard leans opposition
Mr Annan said details of a political settlement would be arrived at early next week and urged patience.
He said a political settlement his team envisaged was one that would establish institutions that would ensure there was no recurrence of the sort of incidents witnessed in the country recently.
“We have agreed that a political settlement is necessary and we are discussing the details which will be made public early next week. We are making progress and we are asking for a little patience,” he said at the media briefing.
He said the mood among the negotiators were “swinging” all the time and urged Kenyans to treat with caution any rumours about the talks.
…
It is expected that the two teams will use the weekend to thrash out the finer details of the agreement to be announced next week. Yesterday’s events were preceded by heavy international pressure on PNU and ODM leaders to reach a negotiated settlement.
The European Union, US, Canada and the UN, exerted pressure pointing out that any party that will undermine the Annan effort would pay for it.
The UN Security Council had asked President Kibaki and Mr Odinga to reach a compromise.
The US and Canada warned that they were watching the situation and any individuals who sabotaged the talks would be targeted for visa restrictions. The restrictions would also apply to members of their families, according to letters sent out to 10 people by the US embassy in Nairobi.
There have also been threats of an aid freeze to the country and diplomatic isolation.
so far, it looks like that’s exactly what the stories about “visa bans” was for – leverage by talking tough. there haven’t been any reports of anyone actually being banned, yet news articles were all over it, w/ reports on thursday that the “bans” were heavily discussed during the negotiations.
the daily nation article also includes this bit, though i’ve not yet seen it verified elsewhere but indicates that the push if for any rerun, if there even is one, to be a few years down the road.
The National Dialogue and Reconciliation Committee which Mr Annan chairs agreed that the Presidential votes would neither be re-tallied nor recounted while the floated proposal of holding fresh elections in a period of six months was also edged out.
Sources at the meeting said the mediation team will from next week focus on the nature of a political settlement that would bring together the Government and ODM sides in a regime whose task would be to enact far-reaching constitutional, legal and institutional reforms in a period of three years.
more stalling, if true. there is already a wealth of groundwork laid for constitutional & institutional reform, as many kenyans have pointed out, so movement in this direction would not be starting from scratch. disbanding the ECK and setting up a replacement for a rerun could easily be done w/i twelve months.
on the state dept psyop move:
daily nation: US declines to reveal the eight in travel ban
The State Department has refused to disclose the identities of eight Kenyans who have been warned that they may be barred from travelling to the US.
But a member of the United States team that monitored the December 27 elections has given the Senate 16 names of reputed “hardliners” associated with both President Kibaki’s camp and the Orange Democratic Movement. The identities of the eight individuals cannot be disclosed “because of the confidentiality of visa records,” State Department spokesman Tom Casey told reporters in Washington on Thursday.
that listing of “hardliners” is in the footnotes of joel barkan’s prepared statement in the senate subcommittee’s hearing on thursday which i linked to in an earlier comment. (in his testimony, barkan stated that one of the individuals is on the list by mistake.)
continuing w/ the daily nation story
Mr Casey indicated that the eight include “a mixture of politicians and businessmen.”
He insisted that eight, not 10, Kenyans had been sent letters indicating that their US visas could be revoked if investigations determine they were linked to the post-election violence.
US embassy officials in Nairobi had earlier indicated that 10 Kenyans had been issued letters of warning.
those embassy stmts appear to have worked – kenyan media ran w/ the headlines that bans had been issued, rumour mills have been working overtime trying to guess who was on the list, and the kenyan govt spokespersons, such as alfred mutua, have gotten mileage out of claiming that ODM leaders were banned due to their involvement in organized violence per the jan 24th HRW press stmt.
Posted by: b real | Feb 9 2008 5:43 utc | 95
|
