Implications of the Kenyan Elections on the region of East Africa
The recent victory of Kenya’s opposition leader Mwai Kibaki of the National Alliance Rainbow Coalition as president will play a major role in the changes that the United States has in plan for the Eastern African region, specifically the Muslim countries. By ending Daniel arap Moi’s 24-year hold on power and four decades of control by his Kanu party, the election result was welcomed as a ‘victory for democracy and open elections’.
In reality if one studies the candidates one can conclude it was a clear façade directed by the United States in duping the Kenyan public into thinking that they had made a democratic choice which will bring about a change aimed for their own development. Firstly Uhuru Kenyatta, the candidate of Moi’s ruling KANU party and the son of Kenya’s first president, Jomo Kenyatta was a close and well publicised understudy of Daniel Moi. It was apparent that his policies were to be a continuation of the corruption and subjugation of Moi which had led the Kenyan people to such dissatisfaction. On the other hand the Kenyans were presented with the so called bitter rival of Moi, Kibaki of the NARC. The irony of Kibaki’s opposition is that it was almost forgotten that the 71-year-old himself was Moi’s former finance minister and most significantly his vice president for 10 years up to 1988. So in actuality the Kenyans were merely voting for the same candidate incorporated within several guises.
As for the United States’ involvement, this is quite apparent from their reaction to the Kibaki victory. Colin Powell stated on CNN’s “Late Edition”, “The president-elect has made a commitment to ending corruption, to economic development, to social advancement within the country. If he moves forward on that agenda, it would be good for Kenya, good for the Kenyan people and, of course, good for relations with the United States.” With Kenya and Moi acting as an important ally in the War against terrorism, the United States would have expressed a negative reaction should they have felt any threat from Kibaki’s appointment. In fact quite the contrary as Powell’s statements proved to be very supportive.
In addition Yusuf Nzibo, Kenya’s ambassador to the United Nations highlighted the United States’ interests in the region, “Kenya is the gateway to eastern and central Africa, so we have to look at the question of investment and trade and … continue the process of privatization – to look at the infrastructure.” Additionally the astonishing reaction of the loyal American agent Moi further testified the US approval and involvement in the election. Said Moi, “I have completed my time, and therefore I want to wish the one to whom I am going to hand over well. I hope the people will respect the verdict and the voice of the people.” This is a far cry from the straw -clutching antics of Moi’s counterpart Mugabe of Zimbabwe.
As to why has the United States gone to such efforts to create this false image of democracy and open elections in Kenya, the objectives are several. In recent years Kenya has become the centre point of peaceful delegations and negotiations in relation to several of the East African issues. With regards to the Ethiopia and Eritrea troop withdrawal issue Nairobi has been a regular venue for talks. For example on February 6, 2002, Nairobi hosted the meeting of the Military Coordinating Commission where Eritrea and Ethiopia adopted a “political map” on the redeployment area under the supervision of Legwaila Joseph Legwaila, Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s special representative.
Nairobi and Eldoret are also the regular venues for the IGAD summits dealing with the peaceful reconciliation and resolution of Somalia. Also Machakos and Nairobi have been the venues for many of the recent IGAD peace talks in relation to the Sudan issue. Furthermore the Jimmy Carter Centre, the Atlanta-based foundation has organised many of its meetings in Nairobi between Acholi political and cultural leaders and LRM/A leaders in attempts to end the 16 years of insurgency in Northern Uganda and the Sudanese government’s support of Joseph Kony rebels. In each issue Kenya has not only taken a role as host but also an active peaceful mediator in all of these issues.
Therefore with Kibaki’s victory America has decided to represent Kenya as a newly ‘fully democratic’ African state to act as a model and standard for all the countries it is helping negotiating peace with. The benchmark that Kenya will become for these countries will further be highlighted by an insurgence of American investment and aid starting with the resumption of the IMF suspended budgetary support from late 2000.
New Finance Minister Mwiraria recently said his first task would be to normalise relations with donors by putting in place laws to fight graft hence eradicating corruption and re-establishing investment confidence. Immediately the Kibaki government have put into place two anti-corruption bills which would compel civil servants, including the president and the judiciary, to declare their wealth. Further evidence of the IMF resuming their loans is highlighted by the announcement that director of the IMF’s African department, Abdoulaye Bio-Tchane will visit Kenya soon.
Being East Africa’s largest economy and possessing a nation of 30 million Kenya will be presented as an ideal opportunity for foreign investment and a centre point for trade and development in East Africa. Indications of this are plans to have Kenya import oil from Sudan by the construction of a pipeline linking the Sudanese oil fields to the Mombasa port. Thus making Kenya a democratic and Capitalist role model for the other East African countries while it also negotiates on behalf of the United States in corrupting our countries under the guise of “peace”.