Post by miguna on Dec 15, 2005 4:07:04 GMT 3
Thursday December 15, 2005
Diplomatic furores and politicians on the warpath
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
By Miguna Miguna
A diplomatic furore has predictably erupted over the statement attributed to the German Ambassador to Kenya, Mr Bernd Braun, in which he reportedly called for President Kibaki to dissolve parliament and call snap elections as the only meaningful way of arresting the political crisis. Braun also asserted that fresh polls would allow Kibaki to confirm the people’s confidence in his presidency. This is high octane diplomacy; the kind that the feeble hearted and weak-kneed avoid.
In explaining his statement, the envoy is said to have cited the recent referendum results that saw the Government defeated; President Kibaki’s sacking of his entire Cabinet within days of this humiliating defeat; the unilateral suspension of parliament; and the rejection of Kibaki’s cabinet appointments by some MPs. These, he argued, indicated a deepening crisis facing the Government and a clear sign that President Kibaki’s Government had largely lost the confidence of its people.
Perhaps it was received this way by the majority of Kenyans, if indeed we are to be guided by the referendum verdict. For it was this very referendum verdict that was interpreted by Braun, among others, as a declaration by the majority of the Kenyan people of their repugnance and lack of confidence at the Government’s record of 36 months. The people’s foul mood at the Government was abundantly clear during the referendum campaigns.
It is unlikely — given the (past) record of this government — that Braun would have felt that, as a friend of Kenya, his apparent good faith comments, would have been received without any brouhaha by Kenyan leaders. We suspect that he knew that his comments would be met by a firestorm from those wielding state power, but felt that his rationale was justified, and would therefore be understood by those in power as such.
When all is said and done, Braun must have reasoned that his statement was more valuable uttered than self-censored. That whatever diplomatic fallouts resulted from the statement would be more than compensated for by both its intended and unintended consequences. After all, his predecessor in Nairobi, Mr Mutzelburg, was celebrated by the likes of Kibaki, Kiraitu, Muite, Karua and Koigi for making even stronger statements against then President Moi’s government. The roles have changed. The irony of the situation is starkly dramatic in many ways.
While the German government remains consistent on all the issues it hounded Moi for; the tenants at State House, Nairobi, have changed. Moi and his coterie moved out in December 2002 and in came Kibaki and his crew. Nothing else seemed to have changed for the better.
Kenyans experienced a change of guard but not of systems of administration or governance. The poor governance issues, the grand corruption, the tribalism, the nepotism, the cronyism and the insular elitist sycophancy have persisted, and at times worsened.
No wonder the diplomatic hounds of yesteryear that helped propel Kibaki’s political fortunes have begun charging at him rather than scratching his back. Kibaki has himself to blame for this.
However, the uniform condemnation that Braun’s utterance has attracted from those close to the Kibaki Government shows that the envoy might have been naÔve in his expectations of African politicians, especially those who have tasted power, and are scared of losing it.
From the cantankerous Koigi wa Wamwere to the cartoon character Kalimbe Ndile, the reaction has been swift. Not only have they condemned Braun and the country he represents; they have also conjured up the image of Nazi Germany and accused the Germans of planning a holocaust on the "Kikuyu Government." [Koigi’s words, not mine]. Koigi also referred to the German people and their government as enemies of Kenya (he perhaps meant the Kibaki government).
He insinuated that Ambassador Braun was speaking at the behest of all foreign (he called them "colonial") governments. He implied that Ambassador Braun and all the purported "colonialists" he represented were fighting Kibaki because he was Black and African. But then, his logic broke down completely when he accused Braun of working in cahoots with Raila Odinga and his Orange Democratic Movement in order to grab power from Kibaki. He referred to the Kenyan government, for the umpteenth time, as Kibaki’s "wife" that Raila wants to share with Kibaki, outside marriage.
Not only have Koigi’s statements become incendiary, unreasonable and irresponsibly alarmist, they depict a characteristic response of most illegitimate governments in the face of popular rejection by the people. Koigi’s statement about Germans, Raila and the Kenyan people was sick, vile and completely unacceptable. It is even more astonishing, coming as it did, from a newly appointed member of Kibaki’s "reorganised" government.
Here in Canada, there was a minor diplomatic row as well. Canadians are going to the polls on January 23, 2006. As Prime Minister, Paul Martin, was criss-crossing the country, hammering on his campaign themes of less taxation, more services to the people as well as his strong attack on the US government’s failure to abide by the soft-wood lumber agreements between the two countries, the US Ambassador to Canada, Mr David Wilkins, publicly erupted with statements contradicting the Canadian PM’s election platform on the soft-wood lumber issue, and appeared to have swum right into a hot election issue. Usually, this is considered no-go zone for diplomats.
Under the North American Free Trade Agreements (Nafta), the US is supposed to exempt Canadian soft-wood lumber exported to the US market of certain levies. However, the US has consistently collected hundreds of millions of dollars of these levies in clear violation of Nafta; WTO’s decisions; and International Arbitration Orders. This has been a hot potato in Canada and the US-Canada relations for sometime. And it is currently an election issue in Canada.
However, the reaction in Canada has been mainly from Paul Martin’s political opponents and the media. Not only has no member of Paul Martin’s government attacked the US ambassador, they have limited their response to the issues of trade, soft-wood lumber and unfair tariffs. That is hardly how our Kenyan politicos have dealt with Ambassador Braun’s statement. Diplomatic encroachment into the domestic politics of a sovereign country is delicate and wrought with minefields. However, how we navigate the minefields is what differentiates a society that is ready to embrace progress with that which is stagnant.
The writer is a Barrister & Solicitor in Toronto, Canada
Diplomatic furores and politicians on the warpath
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
By Miguna Miguna
A diplomatic furore has predictably erupted over the statement attributed to the German Ambassador to Kenya, Mr Bernd Braun, in which he reportedly called for President Kibaki to dissolve parliament and call snap elections as the only meaningful way of arresting the political crisis. Braun also asserted that fresh polls would allow Kibaki to confirm the people’s confidence in his presidency. This is high octane diplomacy; the kind that the feeble hearted and weak-kneed avoid.
In explaining his statement, the envoy is said to have cited the recent referendum results that saw the Government defeated; President Kibaki’s sacking of his entire Cabinet within days of this humiliating defeat; the unilateral suspension of parliament; and the rejection of Kibaki’s cabinet appointments by some MPs. These, he argued, indicated a deepening crisis facing the Government and a clear sign that President Kibaki’s Government had largely lost the confidence of its people.
Perhaps it was received this way by the majority of Kenyans, if indeed we are to be guided by the referendum verdict. For it was this very referendum verdict that was interpreted by Braun, among others, as a declaration by the majority of the Kenyan people of their repugnance and lack of confidence at the Government’s record of 36 months. The people’s foul mood at the Government was abundantly clear during the referendum campaigns.
It is unlikely — given the (past) record of this government — that Braun would have felt that, as a friend of Kenya, his apparent good faith comments, would have been received without any brouhaha by Kenyan leaders. We suspect that he knew that his comments would be met by a firestorm from those wielding state power, but felt that his rationale was justified, and would therefore be understood by those in power as such.
When all is said and done, Braun must have reasoned that his statement was more valuable uttered than self-censored. That whatever diplomatic fallouts resulted from the statement would be more than compensated for by both its intended and unintended consequences. After all, his predecessor in Nairobi, Mr Mutzelburg, was celebrated by the likes of Kibaki, Kiraitu, Muite, Karua and Koigi for making even stronger statements against then President Moi’s government. The roles have changed. The irony of the situation is starkly dramatic in many ways.
While the German government remains consistent on all the issues it hounded Moi for; the tenants at State House, Nairobi, have changed. Moi and his coterie moved out in December 2002 and in came Kibaki and his crew. Nothing else seemed to have changed for the better.
Kenyans experienced a change of guard but not of systems of administration or governance. The poor governance issues, the grand corruption, the tribalism, the nepotism, the cronyism and the insular elitist sycophancy have persisted, and at times worsened.
No wonder the diplomatic hounds of yesteryear that helped propel Kibaki’s political fortunes have begun charging at him rather than scratching his back. Kibaki has himself to blame for this.
However, the uniform condemnation that Braun’s utterance has attracted from those close to the Kibaki Government shows that the envoy might have been naÔve in his expectations of African politicians, especially those who have tasted power, and are scared of losing it.
From the cantankerous Koigi wa Wamwere to the cartoon character Kalimbe Ndile, the reaction has been swift. Not only have they condemned Braun and the country he represents; they have also conjured up the image of Nazi Germany and accused the Germans of planning a holocaust on the "Kikuyu Government." [Koigi’s words, not mine]. Koigi also referred to the German people and their government as enemies of Kenya (he perhaps meant the Kibaki government).
He insinuated that Ambassador Braun was speaking at the behest of all foreign (he called them "colonial") governments. He implied that Ambassador Braun and all the purported "colonialists" he represented were fighting Kibaki because he was Black and African. But then, his logic broke down completely when he accused Braun of working in cahoots with Raila Odinga and his Orange Democratic Movement in order to grab power from Kibaki. He referred to the Kenyan government, for the umpteenth time, as Kibaki’s "wife" that Raila wants to share with Kibaki, outside marriage.
Not only have Koigi’s statements become incendiary, unreasonable and irresponsibly alarmist, they depict a characteristic response of most illegitimate governments in the face of popular rejection by the people. Koigi’s statement about Germans, Raila and the Kenyan people was sick, vile and completely unacceptable. It is even more astonishing, coming as it did, from a newly appointed member of Kibaki’s "reorganised" government.
Here in Canada, there was a minor diplomatic row as well. Canadians are going to the polls on January 23, 2006. As Prime Minister, Paul Martin, was criss-crossing the country, hammering on his campaign themes of less taxation, more services to the people as well as his strong attack on the US government’s failure to abide by the soft-wood lumber agreements between the two countries, the US Ambassador to Canada, Mr David Wilkins, publicly erupted with statements contradicting the Canadian PM’s election platform on the soft-wood lumber issue, and appeared to have swum right into a hot election issue. Usually, this is considered no-go zone for diplomats.
Under the North American Free Trade Agreements (Nafta), the US is supposed to exempt Canadian soft-wood lumber exported to the US market of certain levies. However, the US has consistently collected hundreds of millions of dollars of these levies in clear violation of Nafta; WTO’s decisions; and International Arbitration Orders. This has been a hot potato in Canada and the US-Canada relations for sometime. And it is currently an election issue in Canada.
However, the reaction in Canada has been mainly from Paul Martin’s political opponents and the media. Not only has no member of Paul Martin’s government attacked the US ambassador, they have limited their response to the issues of trade, soft-wood lumber and unfair tariffs. That is hardly how our Kenyan politicos have dealt with Ambassador Braun’s statement. Diplomatic encroachment into the domestic politics of a sovereign country is delicate and wrought with minefields. However, how we navigate the minefields is what differentiates a society that is ready to embrace progress with that which is stagnant.
The writer is a Barrister & Solicitor in Toronto, Canada