Who will blink first in the Kenya, UK face-off over military agreement?

Kenya and the UK are going through a rocky relationship. They are playing mind games and hardball with each other over the renewal of an agreement that allows British soldiers to train in Kenya.

Souring of relations between the two can be traced to 2003 when the National Rainbow Coalition assumed power and started the so-called Look-East policy by opening up tenders to supply government equipment, vehicles and uniform. After British companies lost this business, the then High Commissioner Edward Clay accused Kenyan leaders of “gluttony that causes them to vomit all over our (donors) shoes.”

It was later revealed that the outburst was motivated partly by the fact that government tenders that the British had monopolised since 1963 had been awarded to Japanese, Korean, Chinese, Portuguese and Spanish firms. But the British insisted that corruption was the only explanation for Kenyans switching to Chinese-made Grand Tigers and Japanese Toyotas from Landrovers for police transport.

In the countdown to the March 2013 polls, and as opinion polls indicated the Uhuruto team to be slightly ahead, British High Commissioner Christian Turner warned that the UK would not “meet ICC indictees, except for essential business” if they won the election.

Over the past two years, the Uhuru administration has been miffed by repeated security alerts warning Britons to avoid coming to Kenya. With more than 200,000 Britons visiting Kenya annually, the advisories have had a big impact on tourism, causing massive job losses and revenue.

The UK also suspended a specialised training project to protect wildlife after President Kenyatta issued an order in June 2014 placing the Kenya Wildlife Service assets like aeroplanes and vehicles at the disposal of the Inspector-General of Police.

Since coming to power, the Jubilee coalition has tinkered with the idea of putting Kenya’s relations with the UK on ice, mainly due to the latter’s views on the ICC cases.

The Uhuru government is returning the favour by openly wooing China, as well as other Asian and Arab states. Chinese companies are increasingly winning tenders for mega projects.

DJIBOUTI AND TANZANIA

Among these projects are the Thika Superhighway and the standard gauge railway. This look-east policy is shaking the UK’s commercial, military and strategic interests in Kenya.

The drawn-out negotiations on renewal of the Defence Co-operation Agreement that will expire this April is straining relations between the two countries. While the UK wants to increase its benefits, the Kenya government wants to drastically change the terms under which the British army operates in Kenya.

In the past few months, a number of high-level British delegations have made a beeline to Nairobi. A mission comprising of 17 firms that manufacture security equipment has been around pitching sales of communications, forensics, border and airport security gadgets, and military vehicles. It held talks with officials in Defence and Interior Ministries.

The emergence of former PM Tony Blair as President Kenyatta’s adviser must be seen in this perspective. The British are telling Mr Kenyatta we can help clean your image in the West but you must also help us on this military training agreement business.

The 40-year-old agreement allows a British Battle Group or Batuk to annually train 10,000 soldiers in a harsh environment and to prepare them for High Intensity Operations. Its headquarters is at Kahawa Barracks. Batuk uses the Archers Post training area as its main operating base. Its air wing operates from Kenya Air Force’s Laikipia Air Base.

According to Lt-Col Nick Thornton, the Kenyan military facilities are “superb because they give us unparalleled opportunities for live firing”.

If Kenya does not renew this agreement, the UK will have to find another “superb” location to prepare its troops for action in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. In April 2014, the UK and Tanzania signed a pact that would allow British special forces to train there. There is also talk that the UK could move its soldiers to Djibouti.

There are a number of sticking issues that have bogged down negotiations to renew the DCA. The British are pushing for “better terms of engagement” that include a long-term extension instead of a few years so that they do not have to go through the same experience whenever the agreement is up for renewal. They also want the right to directly fly their planes to the Nanyuki Air Base without going through customs and immigration procedures.

The Uhuru government, on the other hand, is reluctant to renew the DCA for a number of reasons. First, it is aware that Batuk has left agony to residents of Laikipia and Samburu Counties.

The soldiers have been accused of raping more than 2,000 women and leaving unattended explosives in the field. The government is insisting that soldiers who engage in relationships with Kenyan women and get children with them must pay for the children’s upkeep.

Second, Kenya is opposed to giving British soldiers immunity from criminal accountability. The government is demanding that British soldiers should be liable for crimes they commit while in the country.

The Kenya government is rightly arguing that the soldiers are not diplomats and therefore do not enjoy immunity under the Vienna Convention.

Third, the Samburu community has complained that the British army conducts training on its grazing land instead of the designated area. The soldiers then leave unexploded explosives that have maimed and killed residents. In July 2002, a deal was negotiated for the payment of Sh630 million to 233 Kenyans injured by munitions left by the British.

EAVESDROPPING

Fourth, Kenya is concerned that the current arrangement is not mutually beneficial. In November 2014, Foreign Affairs Cabinet Secretary Amina Mohamed told a parliamentary committee that Kenya wanted to ensure bilateral relations were based on the principle of equality and reciprocity.

Although the MoU does not allocate land to the British army, it allows it to use KDF land for training. Maj-Gen (Rtd) Joseph Nkaissery, the Deputy Defence Minister, shocked Parliament on November 4, 2010 when he said that “the government of Kenya does not get any direct monetary value for the land leased to the British army” since it is KDF land, and the training is on some occasions carried out jointly with the KDF.

The arrangement is supposed to be reciprocal in the sense that the KDF also trains in the UK “free of charge”. Most recently, Kenya had only five Canine Regiment officers training in the UK.

One wonders why it has not demanded reciprocity to access Carver Barracks, Wimbish, Essex, and the Sennybridge and Epynt Way training area to train its troops. It is illogical for Kenya to provide the UK with a “perfect opportunity for realistic training” of its soldiers before deployment to Afghanistan and Iraq for free.

In 2010, Laisamis MP Joseph Lekuton told Parliament that the British army had encroached on the land surrounding the gazetted KDF land and built permanent camps on private land.

Additionally, the British army trains on Mpala Ranch in Laikipia, which is privately owned by British citizens. Batuk is training in at least 11 private ranches in the county. It handsomely compensates these private landowners but not for using public land.

The British war games have had a terrible impact on society, wildlife conservation and tourism.

Batuk trains in the Ewaso ecosystem, which is home to half of Kenya’s black rhino, second largest population of the African elephant and the globally threatened Grevy’s zebra.

The British argue that Kenya benefits immensely by earning Sh8.6 billion annually through supply of services and goods to Batuk.

The presence of British soldiers on our soil is said to stimulate the economy, provide employment for local contractors and suppliers. Its supporters say it brings economic prosperity to communities by providing a market for their goods.

But these “benefits”, including the distribution of mosquito nets and provision of healthcare, are aimed at winning the hearts and minds of poor Kenyans.

There are also questions as to how stable and secure Kenya is with the presence of British troops on our soil. It is feared that Batuk exposes Kenya to terrorist attacks.

Perpetrators of several attacks in Kenya have openly confessed that they targeted the country because of our close links to the West, particularly their military presence.

These foreign troops pose a threat to Kenya’s national security in other ways. For instance, embedded in Batuk are Army Light Electronic Warfare Teams that can eavesdrop on phone calls and jam communications.

After intercepting and eavesdropping on communications, warnings are sent to the British Embassy, which then transmits the information to London. This is how information is generated to warn British citizens about imminent attacks.

The nature, timeliness and level of exchanging such information between British and Kenyan governments remain a contentious issue.

RESPECT KENYANS

Beyond intercepting Al-Shabaab communications, we should also wonder whether communication of our top government officials is being eavesdropped on.

The Jubilee government must bear in mind that it has a primary duty and responsibility of protecting Kenyans. This means that when the interests of locals are in conflict with those of the British, then the President must take the side of Kenyans.

The Kenyan government must have a policy on how Kenyans who are killed, injured or raped by foreign troops on our soil are compensated. Relevant constitutional agencies like the National Security Council and Parliament must assess and appraise this agreement and ensure it does not pose risks to the republic.

On its part, the British government has the moral responsibility and obligation to respect the interests of Kenyans and ensure citizens are not harmed by the presence of its troops in the country. It must also respect the principles of reciprocity, mutual respect and accountability.

Prof Ng’ulia is a security expert. [email protected]