American interests are solely behind its change of heart towards Kenya
What you need to know:
- The meeting turned a renewed diplomatic chapter between President Kenyatta and US President Barack Obama.
- US interests come first. She does whatever it takes to remain in control and feel safer.
- President Kenyatta has managed to coalesce African heads of states around his cause as exemplified by the African Union (AU) special gathering that prohibited ICC from prosecuting sitting heads of state.
The just concluded US-Africa summit in Washington, DC, presented a monumental symbolism against the backdrop of suspicious relations between African heads of states and the United States of America.
The meeting turned a renewed diplomatic chapter between President Kenyatta and US President Barack Obama.
US-Kenya relations, whose diplomatic ties date back to Kenya’s independence, appeared to be nose-diving shortly before and after 2013 General Election.
The fact that the candidate for president and his running mate, William Ruto were, and still are, indicted by the ICC for crimes against humanity, unsettled the West, particularly the US.
Despite the US history on human rights owing to her mistreatment of African-Americans and minorities and her role in promoting slavery and racial discrimination, she prides herself as the modern-day moral voice of conscience in matters of democratic principles, rule of law and human rights.
That may explain why it was opposed to election of leaders accused of committing crimes against humanity. Perhaps the US stand was shaped by the fact that one cannot lead the same people he has been accused of committing crimes against.
In the hope of convincing the people to vote against Uhuru-Ruto ticket, US assistant secretary of state for African affairs Jonnie Carson implored Kenyans to realise that “choices have consequences”.
That phrase was interpreted to mean that a choice for Uhuru-Ruto ticket for president and deputy respectively would precipitate unprecedented consequences that could affect the social, political and economic landscape of Kenya and potentially ruin Kenya-US diplomatic relations.
It is not surprising then that when Obama was asked why he skipped Kenya on his African tour, he asserted that ICC cases facing Kenyan leaders were his reasons.
By and large, America’s strong stance against Uhuru and Ruto is understandable. It was a precedent set in her relationship with ICC indictee, who is also Sudanese president, Omar al-Bashir.
US INTERESTS 'COME FIRST'
To date, US-Sudan relations remain frosty. Perhaps that is why US didn’t invite the Sudanese president to the US-African Summit in Washington DC.
Which begs the question: What has changed since the time Kenyans were warned that “choices have consequences” and today when ICC indictee President Kenyatta enjoys unfettered access to the White House? In principle, nothing much has changed.
President Kenyatta and his deputy Ruto remain leaders of Kenya but indicted by the ICC. The state of corruption in Kenya remains concerning. Insecurity is rampant. Tribal tension hasn’t dissipated, it has skyrocketed.
What has changed in my opinion is that US interests in Africa are under threat. When US interests are threatened, she becomes paranoid. She can do the unthinkable.
Her interests supersede truth, democracy, rule of law and human rights; US interests come first. She does whatever it takes to remain in control and feel safer.
With the imposing presence of China on the continent, the US is steadily being edged out. US-Africa bilateral trade continues to plummet as China’s goes up.
ANTAGONISING AN ALLY
The ongoing restructuring of Al Qaeda-leaning cells in some African countries in the west and in Somalia and Kenya, pose a major threat to homeland security of the US. It must use all means including restoring her fractured relation with Kenya because Kenya is a strategic ally to the US.
Moreover, Uhuru’s message on the integrity of Kenyan and African “sovereignty” has powerfully resonated with his constituency in Kenya and Africa.
He has managed to coalesce African heads of states around his cause as exemplified by the African Union (AU) special gathering that prohibited ICC from prosecuting sitting heads of state. These things have set Uhuru apart as an emerging leader on the continent.
Furthermore, the US seems to have serious concerns about the credibility of the witnesses, evidence presented and the entire judicial process of the ICC.
With a large number of witnesses withdrawing, others being eliminated and a bulk of evidence yet to be substantiated beyond reasonable doubt, the US may no longer have faith in the ability of the ICC to convict President Kenyatta on crimes against humanity.
Instead of antagonising a dependable traditional ally upon whose US interests East Africa is dependent, the superpower could be resorting to a compromised diplomatic approach that aims at protecting her interests in the Horn of Africa.
The writer is a Kenyan working in Philadelphia, USA. ([email protected])
