Foreign interests in Kenya's crisis raising eyebrows

By: James N. Kariuki
[

][Post to BookMarks @ AfroArticles.com]

[ Posted On: 2008-03-04 ]

An increasing number of analysts are now convinced that the current crisis in Kenya is not derived from ethnic hatred; it is due to politicised ethnicity. Politicians have conveniently contaminated ethnicity to fulfil their personal ambitions. And the contesting political forces have found themselves hand-in-hand with like-minded external allies.

It was particularly striking to note how quickly and vehemently the European Union jumped to declare the December 2007 vote tally to have been fundamentally flawed. Since rigging is usually associated with incumbent governments, there was a strong "suggestion" in the announcement that the Kibaki regime was guilty of wrongdoing. This no doubt energised ODM's claim of usurpation of a victory.

Immediately thereafter, the Americans joined the chorus of election evaluators. To illustrate how seriously Washington viewed the Kenya crisis, a senior government official was dispatched to the scene. After consultations and preliminary investigation, the Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Jendayi Fraser, unveiled her findings: Yes, there were irregularities in the election procedures, but both sides had been guilty. Consequently, it was impossible to tell who had actually won.

Fraser's statement was more than an indictment of the vote count. It condemned the entire voting and inadvertently made a mockery of ODM's claim that Kibaki had "stolen" the election and Kibaki's counter-claim that he won fair and square.

Presumably, the US and the EU had the same election data in front of them. If so, why did they come to such divergent conclusions? What may appear like a mere disagreement over interpretation of election results may indeed manifest a profound conflict of interest within post-Cold War West.

Several months ago this column discussed how in October last year the EU donated a $2 billion to South Africa as development aid. Yet, SA is classified as one of middle-income countries that normally do not receive foreign aid. Indeed foreign aid constitutes such a small portion of SA's budget that it can easily do without it. What then prompted the EU to part with such a huge donation for a country that does not need it?

Opportunity lost

The EU Commissioner for Development, Mr Luis Michel, says the aid was intended to consolidate EU's relations with SA as a "strategic partner". South Africa's Minister of Finance concurred that the donation indeed reflected deepening partnership between the EU and SA.

But why were "strategic partners" compelling for the EU? Michel says Europe is stuck in a backward mentality that Africa is a burden and a pawn. Meanwhile, the rest of the world has awakened to the reality that the continent is an opportunity. As today's global economic giant, China is particularly threatening because of its easy investments, loans and aggressiveness. The EU needs to organise partnerships with Africans.

To the EU, contemporary Kenya is a disappointing illustration of an opportunity lost. As a result of negative experience with Western donors, Kibaki had quietly set out to make Kenya less international aid-dependent. Today, Kenya prepares its budget without factoring in foreign donations. More dangerously, Kibaki turned East for economic and development co-operation. The Chinese presence is an already obvious fait accompli replacement of Western influence, especially British.

To the EU, the Chinese presence in Kenya is sufficiently ominous to invoke longings for change of leadership. After all, the EU Development Commissioner is on record that he is out to convince Africans that the EU is a more dependable partner than China in every respect. Doubtless, Kibaki would laugh at that logic.

The EU and the US had different priorities. While the EU longed to establish an economic stranglehold in Kenya, the US had its "war on terror" as its preoccupation. On this, Kibaki may have done himself a "favour" by dispatching to Ethiopia Islamic suspects to be questioned by the Americans. This was enough to dampen a desire for change of leadership in Kenya. That is why Uncle Sam was not so sure who won elections.

Article Source: http://www.afroarticles.com/article-dashboard

About The Author: James N. Kariuki - is head of the African Diaspora Unit at the Africa Institute of South Africa in Pretoria.

| View Profile & All Articles By: James N. Kariuki |

		Post Comment
		Blog This Article!
		Discuss Article in Forum(s)
		Publication \| Reprint Terms

Please Rate this Article

Not yet Rated

Click the XML Icon Above to Receive Kenya Articles Via RSS!

| Category Feeds | All-in-one Feed | Other Feed & Syndication Options |

Additional Articles From - Home | Politics | Africa | Kenya

	Print This Article
	Post Comment
	Add To Favorites
	Email To Friends
	Ezine Ready \| Syndication
	Make PDF Article
	Post To del.icio.us
	Post To Furl
	Add To Google Bookmarks
	Submit To Netscape
	Add To Yahoo! My Web
	Add Main Feed To Outlook
	Post to BookMarks @ AfroArticles.com

	Post To BookMarkAfrica.com

Site Home

Article Categories

More Search Options

Site Map

Submit Articles

Top Authors

Most Recent Articles