Why US is wary of Uhuru presidency

Mobhare Matinyi, Washington DC. The Citizen, Tanzania. Thursday, 11 April 2013 20:21.

The inauguration of Uhuru Kenyatta, 51, as the fourth President of the Republic of Kenya is one of the worst nightmares that the United States ever wanted to see in Africa at this time. Kenyatta’s rise to the presidency is humiliation, a dilemma and a nuisance to Washington, to say the least.

Speaking to journalists from Washington DC in a telephonic press conference on February 7, the US Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Ambassador Johnnie Carson, cautioned Kenyans explicitly, “choices have consequences”.

Ambassador Carson, who retired last week, was delivering the “real” message despite his diplomatic acknowledgment that echoed President Barack Obama’s statement that the US does not endorse any candidate for office, but instead supports a peaceful election.

This was his argument: “We live in an interconnected world and people should be thoughtful about the impact that their choices have on their nation, on the region, on the economy, on the society and on the world in which they live.”

Carson knows Kenya very well as he worked as an ambassador there between 1999 and 2003 when the country was going through challenging political times. Coincidentally, since joining the civil service in 1971, Carson has only worked in Africa sections of various bureaus, thus, Kenya, which by then was the most significant Western partner in sub-Saharan Africa, was always at his desk. But in this case he didn’t get it right!

What followed after his statement was a well-crafted campaign by Kenyatta and his now deputy president, William Ruto, 46, telling Kenyans that the ICC case is simply a vexatious litigation, and that the big powers led by the US were trying to interfere in Kenyan affairs. Unknowingly, Carson campaigned for them.

After the Kenyatta-Ruto victory, the US Secretary of State, John Kerry, slapped Kenyatta when he chose to only praised Kenyans for holding peaceful elections without naming Kenyatta. On inauguration day, the US, like the United Kingdom, didn’t bother to send anyone from afar as expected if Raila Odinga had won. Kenyatta went on to personally invite African American activist, Reverend Jesse Jackson.

Kenyatta and Ruto are very much aware of the situation facing them because their opponent, Odinga, had succeeded in crafting cordial relations with Obama and the British Premier, David Cameron. Being the inductees of the International Criminal Court (ICC) makes matters even worse for the duo.

Proving that Washington doesn’t want Kenyatta and Ruto walking free, Carson noted: “Accountability for political violence, including that perpetrated during the 2007-08 electoral crisis, is an important part of building a peaceful and prosperous country.”

Taking advantage of the situation, the Chinese sent the National People’s Congress Vice-Chairman, Zhang Baowen, an equivalent of the house deputy speaker. To show solidarity against the big powers, eleven African presidents including Zimbabwean Robert Mugabe, four vice presidents and three premiers, showed up for the occasion although Kenya shied away from Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, currently the world’s most famous fugitive.

No wonder that in his inaugural speech, Kenyatta said, “… the world is made up of many countries, cultures, political experiences and world-views. We must remember that no one country or group of countries should have control or monopoly on international institutions or the 27 interpretations of international treaties.”

That was an obvious response to Carson and British High Commissioner to Kenya Christian Tuner, who said his country would only maintain “essential contacts”, which is fair enough for Kenyatta. Ostensibly, Kenyatta may adopt his predecessor’s motto, like Mugabe, that just forget about the West, and look to the East! But why is the US uncomfortable with Kenyatta and Ruto?

The ICC’s case is complicating the matter. Kenya is a US ally in the region on specific matters that include security cooperation in tracking down terrorists, defence ties that provide the US military an easy ride on Kenyan soil, space and waters, Kenya’s acceptance to fight the dying Al Shabaab, and Kenya’s willingness to prosecute Somali pirates in its local courts.

Thus, for Washington to succeed in its missions it must work with Kenyatta or frustrate the missions.

But on the other side, although Washington is not a signatory to the Treaty of Rome that established the ICC, it would very much like to see the ICC becoming a powerful tool capable of scaring, fixing and penalising trouble makers around the world. Now, how do things move in such a situation where an important ally is an ICC inductee? That’s a headache!

Remember, Kenyatta and Ruto ran for office to avoid being jailed by the ICC, and should they abscond, things will be very tough for everybody including the US and African leaders, who will certainly stand by the duo for their own future security. Will Washington then yield to protect its missions and embarrass itself or will it harass Kenyatta? Let us wait and see.