|
Post by gulavi on Aug 28, 2010 11:10:09 GMT 3
My take on this is that it was done on purpose. The aim is to rattle the ICC and then get into a confrontation with ICC. Down the line break ties with ICC and in the end not handover the Kenyan murderous to Hague or Arusha. At the moment, the show of arrogance to start this, by inviting Bashir the buthcher is now been accomplished. Kibaki will work hard never to handover the criminals during his term even with sanctions threatened on Kenya, by the way its only two years to next elections.
Ongalo Makokha
|
|
|
Post by yawneyawn on Aug 28, 2010 12:50:47 GMT 3
This is the result of 'chinese arm twisting' on behalf of their big potential oil supplying 'colony' , interesting times ahead ! The zionist infiltrated Southern US Baptists who held sway in the 'Dumbya' administration have no say anymore, hence Darfur has disappeared from being the US flavour of the month for the Islamophobes. Alas the ICC has been left holding the propaganda baby, but this business of picking on the nearest 'giriama' scapegoat available whilst Bush/Blair are unindicted, has left the ICC with a credibility problem. Unfortunately we do not get to be the judges. .. we signed on to be instruments in the process of bringing to accountability those who are indicted. This was a moment for us to show what our signature is worth ... sorry, we said it is worth NOTHING. We aint the ICC judges, and the signature we put down was absolute ... it did not say that we will deliver only iff dubya or Blair is delivered ... ! Seen? Yes but the ink turns invisible the minute you have selective justice. Its like if the ICC were to commence proceedings on the RV PEV incidents and conveniently forget the already proved 'state house counter strategy meeting ', they would not hold any water. Ama?
|
|
|
Post by abdulmote on Aug 28, 2010 14:10:30 GMT 3
Wanajukwaa,
I can understand what everyone is saying about this Bash fellow. But let me ask you one tiny question, and in answering that, please try to put yourself in the Kenyan leadership shoes, be it for a few seconds!:-
If you had such an important occasion in your country about to take place and you were thinking of who to invite amongst your 'important' and influencial 'neighbours'; If you were to ponder on the need to influence any or all of those important neighbours, whether immediately or in the near future or be able keep open such option as a useful window for days to come, on matter of mutual interest, be they economic or security affecting both your country and your critical neighbour's and the people you may lead within; if you ever thought that maintaining a 'talking' relationship with your important neighbour, who is in power and a good degree of control of your neighbouring nation; if you were to keep your options open, taking into consideration that one day you may need to talk to the same, communicate in a positive way or be able to influence the same, irrespective of how evil that neighbour may have been to others, the neighbour who is still in power...
Would you invite him or not??!!
Come on, and be realistic!
I dare say that most of those prominent guys within the dias have blood on their hands, one way or another!
Unfortunately, International relations and politics mostly move in opposite directions to popular desires envisaged by the masses, or so theycan be.
|
|
|
Post by reporter911 on Aug 28, 2010 18:15:04 GMT 3
Wanajukwaa, I can understand what everyone is saying about this Bash fellow. But let me ask you one tiny question, and in answering that, please try to put yourself in the Kenyan leadership shoes, be it for a few seconds!:- If you had such an important occasion in your country about to take place and you were thinking of who to invite amongst your 'important' and influencial 'neighbours'; If you were to ponder on the need to influence any or all of those important neighbours, whether immediately or in the near future or be able keep open such option as a useful window for days to come, on matter of mutual interest, be they economic or security affecting both your country and your critical neighbour's and the people you may lead within; if you ever thought that maintaining a 'talking' relationship with your important neighbour, who is in power and a good degree of control of your neighbouring nation; if you were to keep your options open, taking into consideration that one day you may need to talk to the same, communicate in a positive way or be able to influence the same, irrespective of how evil that neighbour may have been to others, the neighbour who is still in power... Would you invite him or not??!! Come on, and be realistic! I dare say that most of those prominent guys within the dias have blood on their hands, one way or another! Unfortunately, International relations and politics mostly move in opposite directions to popular desires envisaged by the masses, or so theycan be. Why look at other peoples or countries failures? shouldn't Kenya as a nation set examples? are we to believe that those Kenyans who were massacred and slaughtered in 2007-2008 clashes died in vain? I seriously hope not! ICC or not some flaunting Omar Bahsir in the Kenyan peoples faces should not weaken the resolve of Kenyans to get Justice for 2007-2008 murdered Kenyans!
|
|
|
Post by mank on Aug 28, 2010 18:30:53 GMT 3
Wanajukwaa,
I can understand what everyone is saying about this Bash fellow. But let me ask you one tiny question, and in answering that, please try to put yourself in the Kenyan leadership shoes, be it for a few seconds!:-
If you had such an important occasion in your country about to take place and you were thinking of who to invite amongst your 'important' and influencial 'neighbours'; If you were to ponder on the need to influence any or all of those important neighbours, whether immediately or in the near future or be able keep open such option as a useful window for days to come, on matter of mutual interest, be they economic or security affecting both your country and your critical neighbour's and the people you may lead within; if you ever thought that maintaining a 'talking' relationship with your important neighbour, who is in power and a good degree of control of your neighbouring nation; if you were to keep your options open, taking into consideration that one day you may need to talk to the same, communicate in a positive way or be able to influence the same, irrespective of how evil that neighbour may have been to others, the neighbour who is still in power...
Would you invite him or not??!!
Come on, and be realistic!
I dare say that most of those prominent guys within the dias have blood on their hands, one way or another!
Unfortunately, International relations and politics mostly move in opposite directions to popular desires envisaged by the masses, or so theycan be. In the situation you hypothesize, being realistic I would invite Sudan. However, knowing that the president of Sudan has a warrant of arrest on his head which obliges me to arrest him if steps on my jurisdiction, I would ask Sudan not to put me in a situation where I have to be the one turning their president in to the court. The law is on the book, and I would just be telling them that I am bound by it. How you lead a nation into breaking an international law, on a day you are supposed to be leading them in recognizing their own law, is ironic and foolish. Even if Kenya's intelligence found out who was arriving only when the plane landed, Sudan is not that far away ... a worthy dignitary could have started his/her flight from Khartoum while Bashir started his return leg before the public noticed.
|
|
|
Post by abdulmote on Aug 28, 2010 19:23:26 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by mank on Aug 28, 2010 20:03:46 GMT 3
Abdulmote,
The story brings a significant argument into the debate; that Kenya's hosting of Bashir is consistent with AU's opposition to ICC "decision" (I am not sure if that means the decision to indict Bashir, or to require member countries to excecute arrests). This sounds like a defensive argument rather than the actual motivation for the government. Why did Wetangula not make this argument when he explained why Kenya would not arrest Bashir?
It is not clear to me what Kenya would stand to gain by purposely violoting an international treaty it is party to, even if another organization to which it is party has questions over the subject case. What would Kenya have lost if it asked Bashir to stay home and send a less controversial representative?
Or did Kenya offer itself at AU's sacrificial table to confront ICC over a decision the AU opposes? If so, then the questions still remain - how was it determined, and by whom, that it was worth putting the country at loggerheads with The Hague over this issue? The region might have made a point to the international community, but it is at Kenya's expense. And what's AU's point anyway? That no one should stand trial over the Darfur atrocity, or does the AU know that such person is not El Bashir?
It was not a day for Kenya to side with either AU or ICC over Bashir. It was about celebrating a significant Kenyan event. Kenya's state of health, in contrast to that of other countries in the region, it should be reckoned, largely owes to a principle of non-alignment during the cold war. We should not pick wars that are not brought to us. The story you linked seems to be saying that is what we did in this case. In my opinion it is better even to accept fault in inviting the man than trying to rationalize it in the way of the linked story.
|
|
|
Post by merlin on Aug 29, 2010 11:19:44 GMT 3
It seems that Omar Bashir was sneaked into the celebrations of our new constitution just like the words “does not prejudice national security” were sneaked into the constitution document at the Government printers.
The “powers of NO” who keep us enslaved to poverty and injustice are still roaming around freely. Sneaking in Omar Bashir is only their latest symbolic act. They showed in full public that the constitution is just a document without value as even our president did not live up to his vow to upheld and defend the constitution. Under article 2.5 of the constitution (The general rules of international law shall form part of the law of Kenya.) makes the ratified Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court part of the law of Kenya. If the President would have lived up to his vow he should have ordered the arrest of Omar Bashir.
All the pomp and ceremony, the 21 gun salute, the Government seal and the swearing in of the Assembly members, Judges and state officers was reduced to a farce. The message of the symbolic sign by the “powers of NO” tells us that all the vows are just valueless. Moses Wetang’ula explained: “He is a state guest. You do not harm or embarrass your guest. That is not African”
I have heard this explanation of being “not African” in many different wordings before, mainly to justify injustices.
The “powers of NO” are still around us. They are on the dais speaking in sweet voices about reconciliation and unity. They are re-positioning themselves, pushing aside honest hardworking people of integrity to take the glamour and rewards for ’giving’ us a new constitution and to become part of the new system we are building based on our new constitution. They prefer to be unidentifiable under the mantle of ‘reconciliation and unity’ which conceals the lies, divisional hate speech and sneaky tricks they play on us. It makes them look like honest people.
The struggle for an honest and just system of government is not over and we should be alert. The sweet voices of the “powers of NO” will rob us of our vision if we fall in their trap of reconciliation and unity. Only romantic dreamers will let them take part in our nation building. Instead the “powers of NO” should be given a face and isolated like we do with criminals and other elements which are a threat to society. They should be treated in fairness allowing the same new laws valid for all though they should be judged on their actions, lies and hate speech and not on their sweet words, their social position or financial power they posses. A spade is a spade and a thief is a thief even when he tells you that he is your friend.
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Aug 29, 2010 11:52:40 GMT 3
Having been an innocent bystander as Kenyans voted for the constitution and being a proud Kenyan today that saw in the news the jubilation of my fellow countrymen as they ushered in anew dawn for Kenya, I was not surprised that Bashir was on Kenya today.
I showed a colleage out here in Pretoria pictures of Bashir and the Nation report about the whining ICC and my comment was that perhaps if Bashir was to witness the healing and the jubilation in Kenya he may want to look at the weaknesses of his on regime and heal the problems of Darfur and asudan in general.
That is what is required rather than thinking that ICC is the solution for Sudan. But Kamalet, does ICC then not have any value, or are you suggesting that such value is not to be found in the Sudan case? Needless to say, Kenya has the obligation to hand in the man even if it doubts the potential of the ICC to solve the issue. Kenya did not have to put itself in the position of explaining why it cannot arrest El Bashir. This is a problem created by choice ... Bashir did not need to be invited. Inviting him is showing ICC and the international community "the finger". MankFirst I would like to move away from this debate about the right and wrong of having Bashir in Kenya. You challenged me to a question on the role of ICC, and that is what I would like to answer. My views about what happened last Friday are well known and are founded in my response to you. Of course I think the ICC does have a role in the world. But the ICC should not be the tool that is used to perpetuate dictatorships etc. Perhaps you need to look at the role of the ICC with regard to the Liberian case and the effect it probably has had on dictatorships especially in Africa. When the ECOWAS managed to force Charles Taylor out of power and a deal to give him refuge in Nigeria struck, it allowed for peace and democracy to return to Liberia. Africa showed that you could deal with a dictator to leave power. A similar thing happened in Ethiopia when Mengitsu was shipped out to Zimbabwe to allow for democracy to set foot in Ethiopia. Unfortunately and following international pressure, Nigeria was forced to hand over Charles Taylor to the ICC for the trial now going on in the Hague and which to me is nothing more than a fiasco. Many in the West cheered the actions of Nigeria and the arrest of Taylor. But what damage did this do? Can anyone imagine a tyrant like Mugabe agreeing to do a deal with any other African country to leave power and allow for democracy and economic growth for Zimbabwe? I do not think so. In the same vein, would a Christian campaign to have Bashir indicted on account of Darfur stabilise Sudan? Do we all forget the attrocities committed by the Sudanese government in the South? Was it not in engaging Bashir that the South is now on the threashhold of self determination? Did you know about the troubles of Darfur before the Southern Sudan got their own Madaraka?? Is not Darfur clamouring for the same autonomy that the South got? Under the circumstances, should the engagement of a troubled president override the distabilisation of the same man by threats of arrest? Finally perhaps you should ponder why the PLO is today an organisation that even Israel wants to sit at the table with whilst in the 1970's they were nothing more than a terrorist organisation. But by constructively engaging its leader, then Yasser Arafat, PLO became a credible organisation to deal with! I believe that doing a similar thing with Bashir may help resolve the Darfur problem than just hauling him to the Hague! History has many lessons for us. Let us learn from them. Kamale
|
|
|
Post by abdulmote on Aug 29, 2010 14:58:40 GMT 3
Kamale,
Your observation is apt! The explanation is quite clear and easy to grasp if one has an open mind, but inevitably the public has only one line of thought. Many, unfortunately are inclined to perceive the whole scenario in a populist way. Others such as Nyon'go readily take the opportunity to exploit the situation. Or would you rather say that such is only a drama being played to us?
Notice Raila's silence on this. I bet the man knew a thing or two but didn't have the guts to pull it off in the open with his 'cohorts'! Or is it, again, just drama?
Wetangula's explanation is good, although it lacked the necessary critical details and 'diplomacy' to be effective and sufficient enough. It is obvious that the two 'Principles' are letting their 'juniors' play the part and leave them safely 'out'. Bottles!
This is a complex issue which is inevitably surrounded by controversy. It is certainly not a move that could easily be grasped, appreciated, understood and accepted by the masses. All people can see is the already 'convicted' Bashir and they want their vengeance. Sadly, the truth and fact is many thousands had suffered a lot and lost their lives. So much blood, tears and heartaches tore the souls of many innocent victims; the old and infirm, women, children and innocent men. It was indeed a brutal and sad affair which absolutely defied any sense of ethical human decency.
Whilst I can understand and truly appreciate the pain such people had to endure. And in solidarity together with pre-requisite compassion I can only express in words on the same. I say this, perhaps with a sense of caution and sensitivity it deserves, is case we have to bear. And in doing that everyone will have to 'play their role' whatever disturbances the masses have to pay for the same!
But in this episode there is also a lesson for the leadership to learn. Readily have the people rose up to demand accountability of what they had 'correctly' perceived as perpetuation of the culture of impunity. Here and now they are saying "NO"! They readily identify their input and part they had to play towards the new Constitution. They are saying "no more to impunity" and whimsical dictatorship! They are reclaiming their rightful role. The Constitution is now theirs!
It is in without doubt difficult a balance to secure. It is inevitably not always possible for a leader, whether good or bad, righteous or otherwise, to please his or her people consistently and without a single failure. Sometimes righteousness is difficult to perceive with ease and clarity of mind. But we have to persevere and preserve what we have with the courage and patience it deserves.
|
|
|
Post by mank on Aug 29, 2010 17:28:58 GMT 3
Mank
First I would like to move away from this debate about the right and wrong of having Bashir in Kenya. You challenged me to a question on the role of ICC, and that is what I would like to answer. My views about what happened last Friday are well known and are founded in my response to you.
Of course I think the ICC does have a role in the world. But the ICC should not be the tool that is used to perpetuate dictatorships etc.
Perhaps you need to look at the role of the ICC with regard to the Liberian case and the effect it probably has had on dictatorships especially in Africa.
When the ECOWAS managed to force Charles Taylor out of power and a deal to give him refuge in Nigeria struck, it allowed for peace and democracy to return to Liberia. Africa showed that you could deal with a dictator to leave power. A similar thing happened in Ethiopia when Mengitsu was shipped out to Zimbabwe to allow for democracy to set foot in Ethiopia.
Unfortunately and following international pressure, Nigeria was forced to hand over Charles Taylor to the ICC for the trial now going on in the Hague and which to me is nothing more than a fiasco. Many in the West cheered the actions of Nigeria and the arrest of Taylor.
But what damage did this do?
Can anyone imagine a tyrant like Mugabe agreeing to do a deal with any other African country to leave power and allow for democracy and economic growth for Zimbabwe? I do not think so.
In the same vein, would a Christian campaign to have Bashir indicted on account of Darfur stabilise Sudan? Do we all forget the attrocities committed by the Sudanese government in the South? Was it not in engaging Bashir that the South is now on the threashhold of self determination? Did you know about the troubles of Darfur before the Southern Sudan got their own Madaraka?? Is not Darfur clamouring for the same autonomy that the South got? Under the circumstances, should the engagement of a troubled president override the distabilisation of the same man by threats of arrest?
Finally perhaps you should ponder why the PLO is today an organisation that even Israel wants to sit at the table with whilst in the 1970's they were nothing more than a terrorist organisation. But by constructively engaging its leader, then Yasser Arafat, PLO became a credible organisation to deal with! I believe that doing a similar thing with Bashir may help resolve the Darfur problem than just hauling him to the Hague!
History has many lessons for us. Let us learn from them.
Kamale Kamale, I get your point is that ICC should not be the tool that is used to perpetuate dictatorships etc, and that Africa may have better prescriptions for its dictatorships than the ICC does. You highlight the latter part with a derailment of an ECOWAS solution in Liberia by the ICC. Your thesis as to what signal that might have sent the Mugabe's is compelling. Then you extend that thesis to the Bashir debacle with the ICC. Your argument there is that El Bashir is probably a better asset when engaged in the Sudan process than caged up at The Hague. In that argument too, you may have a point. A philosophical argument. Here is where we may differ. Aug. 27th was not set as a day for Kenya to tell the ICC about our philosophical differences with it. Even while I get bought onto your arguments (as I have stated above), I feel Kenya was violated by those who hijacked the project they had woken up to, with the other project of countering ICC. Perhaps Kenyans would have rallied behind speaking up against the ICC strategy, but on the right occasion. And if someone felt that countering the ICC on Bashir was that important, they did it selfishly yet in Kenya's name. It would have been much more noble if the planners had spelled out, well in time, that they disagreed with the ICC's verdict on El Bashir, and that they were going to host El Bashir and by so doing put the country into violation of its commitment to the treaty that supports the ICC. That would have given time for Kenya to own or disown the anti-ICC project. In this case, Kenya's signature was misappropriated, and the occasion was badly chosen. Finally, what happened on Fri would have been easier to justify if we were in a position where we had to either agree or disagree with the ICC on Bashir. That was not the case - someone chose to go for this show down. I believe all who see the philosophical point you articulated can also agree that its articulation was for another day. Sudan could have sent someone else.
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Aug 29, 2010 17:56:52 GMT 3
Mank
Perhaps you should have a look at the AU statement on this saga.
kamale
|
|
|
Post by mank on Aug 29, 2010 18:28:28 GMT 3
Mank Perhaps you should have a look at the AU statement on this saga.
kamaleIndeed. Thanks for the pointer. I think the issue has been mishandled by the government. If Wetang'ula had stated the case this way, then I would not have thought the issue to be the violation it seemed. As long as AU is standing up for Kenya as Kenya has stood up for it, I think it is a fair show. But the government should learn to appear transparent. Perhaps sheer incompetence has been the problem.
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Aug 29, 2010 18:39:24 GMT 3
Mank Perhaps you should have a look at the AU statement on this saga.
kamaleIndeed. Thanks for the pointer. I think the issue has been mishandled by the government. If Wetang'ula had stated the case this way, then I would not have thought the issue to be the violation it seemed. As long as AU is standing up for Kenya as Kenya has stood up for it, I think it is a fair show. But the government should learn to appear transparent. Perhaps sheer incompetence has been the problem. Mank Statements by Wetangula or anyone else may have masked some of the reality on this issue. At the end of the day any government will jealously guard what it perceives as 'its best interests' and sometimes these 'interests' will only work to piss off someone else!
|
|
|
Post by mank on Aug 29, 2010 20:06:27 GMT 3
But Kamale, transparency would mean that the government, and not individuals, is seen to make decisions. In this case, do you think ODM is acting, or was it actually left out in the invitation move?
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Aug 29, 2010 20:11:41 GMT 3
But Kamale, transparency would mean that the government, and not individuals, is seen to make decisions. In this case, do you think ODM is acting, or was it actually left out in the invitation move? Mank ODM are in government and cannot claim that one side of government does not know what the other is doing. It cannot be such an elaborate plan that includes not letting ODM "people" not knowing about it. When you say government, you must also see the people behind that reference to government. Unfortunately, I think Nyongo & co are only working to make political capital or simple mischief! With the constitution now behind us, we must go back to business as usual in Kenya - and that is politics 24/7
|
|
|
Post by reporter911 on Aug 29, 2010 20:46:08 GMT 3
But Kamale, transparency would mean that the government, and not individuals, is seen to make decisions. In this case, do you think ODM is acting, or was it actually left out in the invitation move? Mank ODM are in government and cannot claim that one side of government does not know what the other is doing. It cannot be such an elaborate plan that includes not letting ODM "people" not knowing about it. When you say government, you must also see the people behind that reference to government. Unfortunately, I think Nyongo & co are only working to make political capital or simple mischief! With the constitution now behind us, we must go back to business as usual in Kenya - and that is politics 24/7 Nice try! we all know who heads the security apparatus in the country with a firm grip, meaning of coalition government does not mean everything is shared equally as most Kenyans sadly come to realize, this time round Kibaki and PNU messed royally even with the backup rubbish letter from AU Bashir affair will not go away someone "Chinese" add Qaddafi advised Kibaki and team knowing full well how it would play out with the other super powers, it was for selfish interest -China has its selfish interests to control Africa and the dead beat African leaders have fallen in the trap? Globally Kenya will not survive, we can't trade with China alone, seeing that China controls Sudan now " OIL" very stupid move Kibaki made in the case of Bashir! Kenya can not afford to be shut off from countries like the USA, UK and EU and depend entirely on China, that would be a foolish move.
|
|
|
Post by politicalmaniac on Aug 29, 2010 20:53:40 GMT 3
reporter911,
The Dailies reported that the Hon Prime Minister was ambused by the Bashir decision, it was fait accompli by the time he got wind of it.
The three mafiya lackeys were in on the deal and did not inform the Hon Prime Minister in real time. That is the reason why that docket is filled with folks from mt kenya pekee, the cabal cant trust anyone who speaks a different language, they are a power unto themselves, suspicious, paranoid and egotistical to boot.
|
|
|
Post by mank on Aug 29, 2010 22:45:07 GMT 3
But Kamale, transparency would mean that the government, and not individuals, is seen to make decisions. In this case, do you think ODM is acting, or was it actually left out in the invitation move? Mank
ODM are in government and cannot claim that one side of government does not know what the other is doing. It cannot be such an elaborate plan that includes not letting ODM "people" not knowing about it. When you say government, you must also see the people behind that reference to government.
Unfortunately, I think Nyongo & co are only working to make political capital or simple mischief! With the constitution now behind us, we must go back to business as usual in Kenya - and that is politics 24/7Kamale, You suggested that we go back to business as usual, politics 24/7. I know you were being sarcastic - but I worry we could do exactly that. There are two ways we could do it; one, to have people trying to take advantage of the issue in ways that distort the truth about what happened. The second temptation is to buy into the thinking that this is an insignificant issue which we can ignore and go into more serious issues. Personally I do not think Kenya has anything more serious to attend to, because the heart of this case is a an attempt to make a statement that laws don't matter, and that impunity will continue - it ridicules the very law that was being promulgated. In other words, it is a test to whether what has been branded the Second Republic is anything but the old republic with a new banner. An investigation is in order. We reformed the constitution precisely to break with the old leadership by almighty men. It seems here that a few individuals in government have acted in line with the old habits. Now, if the new law does not stand up, when will it start standing up? We give an inch, we will be asked to give a mile. Then we shall have looped back into what we have been trying to leave behind, and all that dancing and jubilation will have been in vain.
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Aug 30, 2010 8:31:01 GMT 3
Mank
I believe that Kenya must meet it's international obligations to the UN, AU and even regional institutions. Even something as insignificant as the Red Cross or the Olympic movement or FIFA. That we are not arguing about.
However if any of these obligations run counter to the interests of Kenya or regional interests then surely Kenya must make a choice on what to follow. If the AU agrees on a united African effort should Kenya ignore this merely because it is obliged to follow some UN resolution? In 1976 Kenya joined the rest of Africa in boycotting the Montreal Olympics contrary to the Olympic Charter which Kenya subscribed to protest apartheid.
My point? We could have arrested Bashir and shipped him out Occalan style but is that in region's interest? Is it n Kenya's interest?
Unfortunately I do not buy this idea of personalising Kenyan interest and that of Kibaki. He is president and takes the call or fall at the end of the day.
As for the partisan arguement we now have, just how long is a week when the two principals for all intents and purposes were proclaimed for reading from the same script? Either we are being played for fools that the PM was unaware or someone is a complete fool to be taken for this ride. I see thePM has criticised the decision though has not denied knowledge - so it is not clear whether he was paying to gallery or indeed knew about it but did not agree!
|
|
|
Post by yawneyawn on Aug 30, 2010 10:50:27 GMT 3
ABOVE ''My point? We could have arrested Bashir and shipped him out Occalan style but is that in region's interest? Is it n Kenya's interest?''
Incredible , above is a very high level of falsehood,spin and apologism !!?!!!!! At the very least this clown thinks we r fools?
We mwolio !! - HE WAS INVITED (God knows the secret planning/deception that went on behind the scenes) BY YOUR 'MUTURA BROTHERHOOD' - 'could have arrested' does not arise in ANY scenario?!!
|
|
|
Post by merlin on Aug 30, 2010 11:48:03 GMT 3
Mank I believe that Kenya must meet it's international obligations to the UN, AU and even regional institutions. Even something as insignificant as the Red Cross or the Olympic movement or FIFA. That we are not arguing about. However if any of these obligations run counter to the interests of Kenya or regional interests then surely Kenya must make a choice on what to follow. Kamalet, Is this not the difference between integrity and corruption? You stick to the law or prioritise personal interest. You cannot build a prosperous society if everyone prioritises personal interest above committed rules and agreements. This applies for all levels in society, between you and your family, colleagues and neighbours as well as between countries. We cannot build a more human world on corruption. Kenya was dishonest to accept the resolution of the AU on July 2010 in Kampala as it contradicted the Rome treaty it committed itself to on 15 March 2005. It should have negated the Rome treaty before its commitment to the AU resolution (or rejected the AU resolution). AU Resolution Ordinary Session of the Assembly of Heads of State and Government, wherein the Assembly “Decide[d] that in view of the fact that the request by the African Union has never been acted upon (by UN Security Council), the AU Member States shall not cooperate pursuant to the provisions of Article 98 of the Rome Statute of the ICC relating to immunities, for the arrest and surrender of President Omar El Bashir of The Sudan”, which decision was reiterated (decision Assembly/AU/Dec. 296 (XV) by the 15th Ordinary session of the Assembly in July 2010 in Kampala, Uganda.You believe that Kenya must meet it's international obligations though building a more human society is not a believe or religion. In one way or another we all believe in a religion though there is nothing wrong to fail the commitments of that religion as it is an internal affair between you and your Almighty. It is different when you try to live with others and build a human prosperous society. This can only be done based on commitment and integrity. This is why we make constitutions and laws and have to uphold them.
|
|
|
Post by mank on Aug 30, 2010 17:29:36 GMT 3
Mank
I believe that Kenya must meet it's international obligations to the UN, AU and even regional institutions. Even something as insignificant as the Red Cross or the Olympic movement or FIFA. That we are not arguing about.
We are together on that. However if any of these obligations run counter to the interests of Kenya or regional interests then surely Kenya must make a choice on what to follow. If the AU agrees on a united African effort should Kenya ignore this merely because it is obliged to follow some UN resolution? In 1976 Kenya joined the rest of Africa in boycotting the Montreal Olympics contrary to the Olympic Charter which Kenya subscribed to protest apartheid.
Kamale, someone is fooling us. Inviting Bashir into Kenya has nothing to do with choosing between (dis)obeying either the ICC or AU. Neither institution needed be disobeyed here - this is really a chosen war, and the question being answered is not the relevant one. The question to be asked is not "why Kenya did not arrest Bashir". This though is the question the hooligans want addressed because it is the one that can be answered with the AU perspective. The question to be asked is "why did Kenya invite Bashir the person". Sudan is not Bashir; if Kenya just sent an invitation to Sudan, without subsidiary words of assurance that Bashir would return home despite the ICC warrant, Sudan would have come, and not in the body of Bashir. I just hope this issue is investigated and somebody made accountable. If it is not, we all should agree that we are not commited to constitutional progress. No one can claim we do not have the legal institution to address this issue now. Likewise no one can claim that the constitution was not breached on the same day it was promulgated. Politicians can play politics, and they always will, but legally Kenya should take the ball and play. When we do nothing about this we should all be ashamed to think we ever need to "change the constitution becasue powerful people are sitting on us". Someone or some people broke the law, and right now that party is not powerfu; unless we decide to give power to them nevertheless.
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Aug 30, 2010 21:09:23 GMT 3
Mank
I think you and I have said it several times during the constitutional debate that ultimately, the constitution is nothing but a piece of paper if the leadership has no interest in following it to the letter!
But like any covenant that is written without your sayso, you will find yourself adhering to what serves you best and ignoring the rest even with the paid of punishment. That is why we smoked or drunk whilst in school fully aware that it was against school rules. That is why there are adulterers amongst the most staunch christians notwithstanding the ten commandments!
As Bashir, anyone feeling Kibaki violated the constitution has the new document to back him up and have him thrown out of office for violating it. The Big question then will be whether such an action though perhaps correct is in the best interests of Kenya........and I have written this "interest" word so many times!! So let us stop this whining, use the power in your hands to punish Kibaki - or simply shut up and get some work done. That would be my message to all these do-gooders for Sudan.
|
|
|
Post by politicalmaniac on Aug 30, 2010 21:17:48 GMT 3
The panuarer agents of impunity want folks to shut up if they "cant punish" the lame duck P.O.R.K from othaya.
Is that a new standard, that if someone cant be punished folks ought not to call them out?
Yet these same folks keep on calling out ODMers perceived sins.
How does one construct a legal mechanism to punish this serial violator of "MoUs"? Empty rhetoric tuu.
|
|