The West Better Get It Right Re Politics In Kenya

[Omwenga]

In Our Development Partners Better Get It Right published in the Star today, www.the-star.co.ke/news/article-101631/our-development-partners-better-get-it-rightI urge our development partners especially those in Kenya to get it right in what they share with their respective bosses back in Washington, London or as the case may be.

As I note in the column, a reliable source tells me a small select group of individuals has been putting together a report commissioned by the US White House (not Obama, he emphasises) that is supposed to provide an assessment of the political climate in Kenya and the prospects for the various candidates, especially Raila and Uhuru.

What is very disturbing, if not annoying about this report—which the source has shared some parts, is how glaringly wrong this group has it both in terms of information and analysis.

It is obvious from this report that those contributing to it have bought much of the propaganda being put forth by Uhuru, Ruto and their allies.

While it goes without saying that Raila and his team must obviously counter the propaganda directly with our development partners and the US in this particular case, it would also be prudent for those who have friends and contacts with any of these partners to make sure they know what the truth and reality is as it's obviously contrary to the propaganda they may be prematurely buying into.

As I also note in the piece, it's not unusual for the US or our other development partners to make mistakes in assessing our political situation in Kenya or elsewhere as they initially did during PEV but much as we managed to have them shift their policy by showing them facts and making the case they were wrong in their own assessment, so too are we called upon to make sure this time around we prevent them from making the same mistake of misreading the situation and political developments in the country.

A handful or so of concerned Kenyans will soon be making rounds in Washington to meet with key policy makers to share with them our views as to what the stakes are in this election, where things stand and what our development partners can do to make sure we have an open and transparent election in Kenya.

This is a non-partisan effort informed by the fact that what we need as Kenyans and what will have us finally breaking with the past and its evils to a bright future of peace and prosperity is not and cannot be any different regardless of what coalition or alliance one is affiliated with.

For example, unchaining many from the yoke of hate, tribalism and negative ethnicity must be a common objective for anyone who cares about peace or prosperity for our country regardless of party affiliation and this is at the core of this mission which does not end in Washington, but an ongoing effort everywhere until victory against this vice is declared come March 4, 2013.

Any efforts to reward or do the contrary must be rebuffed at every point and vigorously so, which shall come to pass if Kenyans of goodwill and love for our country have anything to do with it.

[OtishOtish]

Omwenga:

Might you be indulging in your own bit of propaganda? ;D That the White House would want an "assessment" is hardly surprising. Indeed, that is one of the functions of the appointed ambassador (see, for example, Wikileaks). Except from Kenya ... did I ever tell you about the ambassador I met (in a Western country) who in the 1990s was still wearing polyester bell-bottoms and, by way of his "ambassadorial duties" and "promoting Kenya", giving the local lasses The Kenyan Experience in a very direct manner. ;D I think he probably helped Kenyan tourism---quite a few of his conquests later went to the source, for more of the same---but still! (The "direct" approach might have its strong points, but for an ambassador!)

But I digress ...

What I find disturbing about your comments are things like this: "It is obvious from this report...". You claim to have seen parts of the report. And you claim the parts you have seen are "disturbing". But you do not share anything with us. "Naturally", you will cite confidentiality and top-secret this and that. That's fine, as far as it goes, but not if you really expect us to get worked up about any of this. Jukwaaists tend to be a thinking lot and, "as a rule", prefer to make up their own minds. (That is why, for example, when I comment on happenings at the ICC, I provide links to the original: people can read and make up their own minds.)

I do not have access to White-House or State-Department types. But it seems quite clear to me that Obama's government is very committed to the ICC and can be expected to support its dealing with our local lot. A couple of examples will suffice to explain my view:

(1) Contrary to the popular image of the USA being always anti-ICC, and not so widely known, the USA (under Clinton) did in fact sign-up on the Rome Statute. But, under Bush, the Senate never ratified the signing, and most of the animosity towards the ICC came under Bush, who killed the ratification process.

(2) Even lesser known is that since Obama came to power, the USA is always represented at the big ICC meetings. And, as in many things, when the USA makes its views known people stand to attention and listen. (We may deplore that, but that's another matter.) What's more, it's prepared to back words with action: at the recent Kampala meeting, the USA promised to do something about Kony, and soon after USA forces arrived in Uganda to help in the hunt for the fellow.

Even Wikipedia, questionable though it may be at times, shows a different approach under Obama:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Court

On a related matter, one thing that surprised me about Kalonzo's shuttle diplomacy was the fact that GoK failed to do even the most basic homework and did not understand that under Obama any such effort would fail.

In the only case where deferral under Article 16 has taken place, it was in relation to the USA threatening to use its veto powers over a UNSC extension of the mandate of peacekeepers in Eastern Europe. That was widely seen as a deliberate attempt to undermine the court, and it has since become clear that the current US government would not act in the same way. Indeed, we are now approaching 3 years since Sudan asked for a deferral but is still struggling just to get its request onto the UNSC agenda. I find it very amusing to read, as I did the other day, about Raila being a possible path to a deferral. Other than Raila making political hay out of that one, it's pretty much dead in arrival. As far as the Kenyan cases go, it's great to have our boy back in the White House.

But to get back to my main point ... if you have the goods, then weka hapa hapa. We'll read and make up our own minds. But this somebody who knows somebody whose cousin recently talked to the aunt of somebody ... hmmmm. ;D

[Omwenga]

Jan 5, 2013 23:56:28 GMT 3 OtishOtish said:

Omwenga:

Might you be indulging in your own bit of propaganda? ;D That the White House would want an "assessment" is hardly surprising. Indeed, that is one of the functions of the appointed ambassador (see, for example, Wikileaks). Except from Kenya ... did I ever tell you about the ambassador I met (in a Western country) who in the 1990s was still wearing polyester bell-bottoms and, by way of his "ambassadorial duties" and "promoting Kenya", giving the local lasses The Kenyan Experience in a very direct manner. ;D I think he probably helped Kenyan tourism---quite a few of his conquests later went to the source, for more of the same---but still! (The "direct" approach might have its strong points, but for an ambassador!)

But I digress ...

What I find disturbing about your comments are things like this: "It is obvious from this report...". You claim to have seen parts of the report. And you claim the parts you have seen are "disturbing". But you do not share anything with us. "Naturally", you will cite confidentiality and top-secret this and that. That's fine, as far as it goes, but not if you really expect us to get worked up about any of this. Jukwaaists tend to be a thinking lot and, "as a rule", prefer to make up their own minds. (That is why, for example, when I comment on happenings at the ICC, I provide links to the original: people can read and make up their own minds.)

I do not have access to White-House or State-Department types. But it seems quite clear to me that Obama's government is very committed to the ICC and can be expected to support its dealing with our local lot. A couple of examples will suffice to explain my view:

(1) Contrary to the popular image of the USA being always anti-ICC, and not so widely known, the USA (under Clinton) did in fact sign-up on the Rome Statute. But, under Bush, the Senate never ratified the signing, and most of the animosity towards the ICC came under Bush, who killed the ratification process.

(2) Even lesser known is that since Obama came to power, the USA is always represented at the big ICC meetings. And, as in many things, when the USA makes its views known people stand to attention and listen. (We may deplore that, but that's another matter.) What's more, it's prepared to back words with action: at the recent Kampala meeting, the USA promised to do something about Kony, and soon after USA forces arrived in Uganda to help in the hunt for the fellow.

Even Wikipedia, questionable though it may be at times, shows a different approach under Obama:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Court

On a related matter, one thing that surprised me about Kalonzo's shuttle diplomacy was the fact that GoK failed to do even the most basic homework and did not understand that under Obama any such effort would fail.

In the only case where deferral under Article 16 has taken place, it was in relation to the USA threatening to use its veto powers over a UNSC extension of the mandate of peacekeepers in Eastern Europe. That was widely seen as a deliberate attempt to undermine the court, and it has since become clear that the current US government would not act in the same way. Indeed, we are now approaching 3 years since Sudan asked for a deferral but is still struggling just to get its request onto the UNSC agenda. I find it very amusing to read, as I did the other day, about Raila being a possible path to a deferral. Other than Raila making political hay out of that one, it's pretty much dead in arrival. As far as the Kenyan cases go, it's great to have our boy back in the White House.

But to get back to my main point ... if you have the goods, then weka hapa hapa. We'll read and make up our own minds. But this somebody who knows somebody whose cousin recently talked to the aunt of somebody ... hmmmm. ;D

Otis,

A few things in response to your post above:

First, I am at a loss why you have gone on and on about the ICC cases that I neither said anything about nor even remotely implied in my column or re-posting here.

Second, I did not say neither did I leave an impression it's surprising that the US is conducting the cited assessment.

Third, I have my reasons why I chose not to share parts of the assessment I have seen not the least of which I am not interested in putting something out there and it's immediately cited in bar discussions and elsewhere how the Americans view the political landscape, which in essence will be perpetuating the faulty assessment.

Please note strictly speaking the target audience for the message in the column are the very individuals involved in the preparation of this report who already know the content of the report.

And the message to them is as the title of this thread suggests.

I share in general with everyone else if anything to do what I have also urged and that is make sure our friends are well informed about the goings on beyond their circle of information collection, which it may surprise some of you that the extent of it is some form of bar gossip between these diplomats and their drinking buddies.

Okay, let me be diplomatic and say the extent of it is these diplomats and their friends in the city.

Fourth, my blogging on this issue or anything else for that matter in which I have learned from a reliable source is not the case of "somebody who knows somebody whose cousin recently talked to the aunt of somebody;" rather, it's good old fashioned reporting I am happy to share.

As I have said before, if you see me noting that I have been told or learned from a reliable or impeccable source that such and such is such then you better believe such and such is such for it is.

I wouldn't otherwise say I have sourced the item whatever it is because I am not that type of a blogger and those who have followed me for any length of time will attest to that.

[Daktari wa makazi]

Jan 5, 2013 23:56:28 GMT 3 OtishOtish said:

Omwenga:

Might you be indulging in your own bit of propaganda? ;D That the White House would want an "assessment" is hardly surprising. Indeed, that is one of the functions of the appointed ambassador (see, for example, Wikileaks). Except from Kenya ... did I ever tell you about the ambassador I met (in a Western country) who in the 1990s was still wearing polyester bell-bottoms and, by way of his "ambassadorial duties" and "promoting Kenya", giving the local lasses The Kenyan Experience in a very direct manner. ;D I think he probably helped Kenyan tourism---quite a few of his conquests later went to the source, for more of the same---but still! (The "direct" approach might have its strong points, but for an ambassador!)

But I digress ...

What I find disturbing about your comments are things like this: "It is obvious from this report...". You claim to have seen parts of the report. And you claim the parts you have seen are "disturbing". But you do not share anything with us. "Naturally", you will cite confidentiality and top-secret this and that. That's fine, as far as it goes, but not if you really expect us to get worked up about any of this. Jukwaaists tend to be a thinking lot and, "as a rule", prefer to make up their own minds. (That is why, for example, when I comment on happenings at the ICC, I provide links to the original: people can read and make up their own minds.)

I do not have access to White-House or State-Department types. But it seems quite clear to me that Obama's government is very committed to the ICC and can be expected to support its dealing with our local lot. A couple of examples will suffice to explain my view:

(1) Contrary to the popular image of the USA being always anti-ICC, and not so widely known, the USA (under Clinton) did in fact sign-up on the Rome Statute. But, under Bush, the Senate never ratified the signing, and most of the animosity towards the ICC came under Bush, who killed the ratification process.

(2) Even lesser known is that since Obama came to power, the USA is always represented at the big ICC meetings. And, as in many things, when the USA makes its views known people stand to attention and listen. (We may deplore that, but that's another matter.) What's more, it's prepared to back words with action: at the recent Kampala meeting, the USA promised to do something about Kony, and soon after USA forces arrived in Uganda to help in the hunt for the fellow.

Even Wikipedia, questionable though it may be at times, shows a different approach under Obama:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Court

On a related matter, one thing that surprised me about Kalonzo's shuttle diplomacy was the fact that GoK failed to do even the most basic homework and did not understand that under Obama any such effort would fail.

In the only case where deferral under Article 16 has taken place, it was in relation to the USA threatening to use its veto powers over a UNSC extension of the mandate of peacekeepers in Eastern Europe. That was widely seen as a deliberate attempt to undermine the court, and it has since become clear that the current US government would not act in the same way. Indeed, we are now approaching 3 years since Sudan asked for a deferral but is still struggling just to get its request onto the UNSC agenda. I find it very amusing to read, as I did the other day, about Raila being a possible path to a deferral. Other than Raila making political hay out of that one, it's pretty much dead in arrival. As far as the Kenyan cases go, it's great to have our boy back in the White House.

But to get back to my main point ... if you have the goods, then weka hapa hapa. We'll read and make up our own minds. But this somebody who knows somebody whose cousin recently talked to the aunt of somebody ... hmmmm. ;D

The relationship between the USA [ by extension the West] and ICC is well documented. It is clear it is mainly parasitic than symbiotic. The West uses the ICC when it hopes to gain from its involvement, not the opposite. Key example is Sudan, where the USA decided not to oppose a UN Security Council resolution referring the situation in Darfur to the Prosecutor mainly because Dafur was then in the World arena and to gain political mileage USA jumped on the bandwagon. I seriously doubt that the US government may be willing to cooperate with the Court in its investigations, especially about its own citizens.

Of interest to me, is whether the West will ever allow their leaders to stand trial at the ICC despite their own membership, or lack of, to the Rome Statute and other universal international treaties and convention. Going by Tony Blair cases especially in Iraq, there is no chance in hell.

None other that Desmond Tutu has called for Blair to stand trial at the Hague. Blair committed the offenses: the crime of aggression and a crime against peace. It is defined by the Nuremberg principles as the "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression". This means a war fought for a purpose other than self-defence.

That the invasion of Iraq falls into this category looks indisputable.Blair knew there were just three ways in which it could be legally justified:

1.self-defence,
2.Humanitarian intervention, or
3.UN security council authorisation.

The first and second could not be the base in this case." Blair tried and failed to obtain the third.

Without legal justification, the attack on Iraq was an act of mass murder. It caused the deaths of between 100,000 and a million people, and ranks among the greatest crimes the world has ever seen. That Blair still saunters freely, is a withering indictment of a one-sided system of international justice: a system whose hypocrisies Desmond Tutu had exposed.

[mwalimumkuu]

Omwenga,

What exactly are you talking about? How are we expected to debate on something that we have no any clue or idea about?

[Omwenga]

Jan 6, 2013 8:10:23 GMT 3 mwalimumkuu said:

Omwenga,

What exactly are you talking about? How are we expected to debate on something that we have no any clue or idea about?

Mwalimumkuu,

You'll have to re-read the post and I am sure you'll be able to figure what I am talking about the second time around.

Hint: The post is not intended to be debated but calls for action by and among those who can, the rest its fyi.

[furaha]

Jan 6, 2013 13:54:44 GMT 3 Omwenga said:

Jan 6, 2013 8:10:23 GMT 3 mwalimumkuu said:

Omwenga,

What exactly are you talking about? How are we expected to debate on something that we have no any clue or idea about?

Mwalimumkuu,

You'll have to re-read the post and I am sure you'll be able to figure what I am talking about the second time around.

Hint: The post is not intended to be debated but calls for action by and among those who can, the rest its fyi.

Omwenga,

Understood and granted. But what if all or many of us started to use this forum to communicate with a few insiders without letting all of us in on what the discussion is about? Traffic to Jukwaa would dwindle rapidly.... You cannot blame people for not understanding your posts correctly if you do not share your core concerns and issues.

Perhaps you might consider putting a header above such posts: "Only for insiders" or something like that? Then the rest of us know we don't have to waste our time reading them. ;D

On a more serious note, I am not fond of generalisations (the West this, the West that etc). While not underestimating the relative power of the West, please take note that there is an international community out there, made up of many different actors, be they African, Asian, European, American or whatever who are all looking at what is happening in Kenya at the moment. And not all of them are governments. Quite often the private sector leads the way. They are doing their own analysis and developing Kenya strategies. At the moment many in the private sector have chosen the strategy of fence-sitting. They are biding their time and waiting until the shape and direction of a future government become clear.

The tragedy is that every election year since 1992 has seen a clear drop in Kenya's economic growth. And the way politicians have been conducting themselves since 2012 is such that I would not be surprised if the first two quarters of 2013 will see a strong growth dip. Although, interestingly, the period immediately preceding the elections sometimes shows reasonable growth due to the billions and billions pumped into the economy by political campaigns.... But that kind of growth does not last. It dips in the next quarter.

To me that is the real tragedy. The loss of jobs and opportunities, lower government revenues, inflation, loss of long-term confidence in Kenyan governments' ability to act in the public interest and so on.

Yes, it matters what Obama thinks, what China thinks, what Russia thinks but the decisions most directly affecting people's lives are taken by the private sector. And if I put myself in their shoes I would not bet on Kenya at the moment. And investing in Kenya is expensive. After having paid through the nose under the previous government, they now have to be prepared to accommodate the eating disorders of the next lot.

The US and the EU don't even have to consider calling for economic sanctions. The private sector itself decides whether it is worth their while to invest and operate in Kenya.

Furaha

[Omwenga]

Jan 6, 2013 15:11:32 GMT 3 furaha said:

Jan 6, 2013 13:54:44 GMT 3 Omwenga said:

Mwalimumkuu,

You'll have to re-read the post and I am sure you'll be able to figure what I am talking about the second time around.

Hint: The post is not intended to be debated but calls for action by and among those who can, the rest its fyi.

Omwenga,

Understood and granted. But what if all or many of us started to use this forum to communicate with a few insiders without letting all of us in on what the discussion is about? Traffic to Jukwaa would dwindle rapidly.... You cannot blame people for not understanding your posts correctly if you do not share your core concerns and issues.

Perhaps you might consider putting a header above such posts: "Only for insiders" or something like that? Then the rest of us know we don't have to waste our time reading them. ;D

On a more serious note, I am not fond of generalisations (the West this, the West that etc). While not underestimating the relative power of the West, please take note that there is an international community out there, made up of many different actors, be they African, Asian, European, American or whatever who are all looking at what is happening in Kenya at the moment. And not all of them are governments. Quite often the private sector leads the way. They are doing their own analysis and developing Kenya strategies. At the moment many in the private sector have chosen the strategy of fence-sitting. They are biding their time and waiting until the shape and direction of a future government become clear.

The tragedy is that every election year since 1992 has seen a clear drop in Kenya's economic growth. And the way politicians have been conducting themselves since 2012 is such that I would not be surprised if the first two quarters of 2013 will see a strong growth dip. Although, interestingly, the period immediately preceding the elections sometimes shows reasonable growth due to the billions and billions pumped into the economy by political campaigns.... But that kind of growth does not last. It dips in the next quarter.

To me that is the real tragedy. The loss of jobs and opportunities, lower government revenues, inflation, loss of long-term confidence in Kenyan governments' ability to act in the public interest and so on.

Yes, it matters what Obama thinks, what China thinks, what Russia thinks but the decisions most directly affecting people's lives are taken by the private sector. And if I put myself in their shoes I would not bet on Kenya at the moment. And investing in Kenya is expensive. After having paid through the nose under the previous government, they now have to be prepared to accommodate the eating disorders of the next lot.

The US and the EU don't even have to consider calling for economic sanctions. The private sector itself decides whether it is worth their while to invest and operate in Kenya.

Furaha

Furaha,

I am genuinely puzzled with the inability for all to see what I am conveying in this blog/column; it's clearly not intended for "insiders" only and if that's the impression you're getting, please take it from me it's not.

All I am doing is (a) communicating to those directly involved in the preparation of the faulty assessment that their assessment is faulty and (b) urging those with friends or contacts in the diplomatic corps to make sure they share in a proactive manner what they believe to be the current political environment, especially as to what the mood of the country is that I say they will be surprised how wrong these diplomats can sometimes get it.

That's all I am saying!

I have very little to disagree with the rest of what you have said so I'll leave it there and only note it's day and night criticism coming from someone like you and say, Mwalimumkuu ; I'll take yours and the like all day but Mkuu hata asianze! ;D

[furaha]

Jan 6, 2013 16:01:02 GMT 3 Omwenga said:

Jan 6, 2013 15:11:32 GMT 3 furaha said:

Omwenga,

Understood and granted. But what if all or many of us started to use this forum to communicate with a few insiders without letting all of us in on what the discussion is about? Traffic to Jukwaa would dwindle rapidly.... You cannot blame people for not understanding your posts correctly if you do not share your core concerns and issues.

Perhaps you might consider putting a header above such posts: "Only for insiders" or something like that? Then the rest of us know we don't have to waste our time reading them. ;D

On a more serious note, I am not fond of generalisations (the West this, the West that etc). While not underestimating the relative power of the West, please take note that there is an international community out there, made up of many different actors, be they African, Asian, European, American or whatever who are all looking at what is happening in Kenya at the moment. And not all of them are governments. Quite often the private sector leads the way. They are doing their own analysis and developing Kenya strategies. At the moment many in the private sector have chosen the strategy of fence-sitting. They are biding their time and waiting until the shape and direction of a future government become clear.

The tragedy is that every election year since 1992 has seen a clear drop in Kenya's economic growth. And the way politicians have been conducting themselves since 2012 is such that I would not be surprised if the first two quarters of 2013 will see a strong growth dip. Although, interestingly, the period immediately preceding the elections sometimes shows reasonable growth due to the billions and billions pumped into the economy by political campaigns.... But that kind of growth does not last. It dips in the next quarter.

To me that is the real tragedy. The loss of jobs and opportunities, lower government revenues, inflation, loss of long-term confidence in Kenyan governments' ability to act in the public interest and so on.

Yes, it matters what Obama thinks, what China thinks, what Russia thinks but the decisions most directly affecting people's lives are taken by the private sector. And if I put myself in their shoes I would not bet on Kenya at the moment. And investing in Kenya is expensive. After having paid through the nose under the previous government, they now have to be prepared to accommodate the eating disorders of the next lot.

The US and the EU don't even have to consider calling for economic sanctions. The private sector itself decides whether it is worth their while to invest and operate in Kenya.

Furaha

Furaha,

I am genuinely puzzled with the inability for all to see what I am conveying in this blog/column; it's clearly not intended for "insiders" only and if that's the impression you're getting, please take it from me it's not.

All I am doing is (a) communicating to those directly involved in the preparation of the faulty assessment that their assessment is faulty and (b) urging those with friends or contacts in the diplomatic corps to make sure they share in a proactive manner what they believe to be the current political environment, especially as to what the mood of the country is that I say they will be surprised how wrong these diplomats can sometimes get it.

That's all I am saying!

I have very little to disagree with the rest of what you have said so I'll leave it there and only note it's day and night criticism coming from someone like you and say, Mwalimumkuu ; I'll take yours and the like all day but Mkuu hata asianze! ;D

Omwenga,

Okay, point taken. I guess the confusion lies in the fact that not everyone here necessarily shares your analysis of the present situation. So encouraging all of us to go and speak with our contacts might not yield the outcome you are after. That being said, rest assured, I am doing my bit.

Furaha

[OtishOtish]

Omwenga:

I initially found the post a bit insulting to our intelligence, if we were expected to accept it and react to it accordingly. But you have now clarified that by writing:

"Please note strictly speaking the target audience for the message in the column are the very individuals involved in the preparation of this report who already know the content of the report."

So, let me also take this opportunity to retract and apologize for the poor tone of a couple of my sentences.

Now, I have a question: if your audience is as above, why don't you get your sources to communicate directly to the "individuals" that "people know"? I don't see how a vague comment on Jukwaa helps.

You also wrote:

"it would also be prudent for those who have friends and contacts with any of these partners to make sure they know what the truth and reality is as it's obviously contrary to the propaganda they may be prematurely buying into"

I'm going to assume that that the "those who have friends" are not Jukwaaists and that they have better information than you've given us here. Here, we obviously don't know anything. It might have helped if you'd at least given us some ideas of the concerning parts of

"much of the propaganda being put forth by Uhuru, Ruto and their allies"

I see two broad possibilities here:

(a) The "individuals" preparing the report have bought "much of the propaganda", know it's propaganda, and are putting it into the report. Are they likely to stop because a post on Jukwaa says "we know what you are doing!"?

(b) The "individuals" preparing the report have included some things in the report which they think are appropriate and which they do not think is propaganda. Are they likely to rewrite their report because a vague post on Jukwaa claims they are using propaganda? If they don't know it's propaganda, wouldn't it be more fruitful to contact them directly saying "this specific bit here and that specific bit there are propaganda"? And we too could help if we had a few more details.

In other words, I am very puzzled as to what exactly you are trying to achieve and how you will achieve it by these means.

The reason I immediately latched on to the ICC aspect, perhaps incorrectly, is that I am aware of quite a few Kenyan-Americans (not necessarily including you) who would like Obama to publicly take a stand in support of the Kenyan ICC trials. Obviously that would be inappropriate.

[Omwenga]

Jan 6, 2013 16:20:25 GMT 3 furaha said:

Jan 6, 2013 16:01:02 GMT 3 Omwenga said:

Furaha,

I am genuinely puzzled with the inability for all to see what I am conveying in this blog/column; it's clearly not intended for "insiders" only and if that's the impression you're getting, please take it from me it's not.

All I am doing is (a) communicating to those directly involved in the preparation of the faulty assessment that their assessment is faulty and (b) urging those with friends or contacts in the diplomatic corps to make sure they share in a proactive manner what they believe to be the current political environment, especially as to what the mood of the country is that I say they will be surprised how wrong these diplomats can sometimes get it.

That's all I am saying!

I have very little to disagree with the rest of what you have said so I'll leave it there and only note it's day and night criticism coming from someone like you and say, Mwalimumkuu ; I'll take yours and the like all day but Mkuu hata asianze! ;D

Omwenga,

Okay, point taken. I guess the confusion lies in the fact that not everyone here necessarily shares your analysis of the present situation. So encouraging all of us to go and speak with our contacts might not yield the outcome you are after. That being said, rest assured, I am doing my bit.

Furaha

Furaha,

Buried deep in I disagreeumptions is we, and by that I mean those whose views and analyses are consistent with, and supportive of the interests of our beloved country are in the super majority compared to those whose views and objectives are contrary and designed only to propagate the interests of the few, reckless minority who could care less what comes of our beloved country or even less whether the country went to the dogs so long as they get their way, which in their myopic view is more important and paramount than the country.

So, let us do our part in informing and keeping our friends from the West (East could really care less for they will work with whoever is elected) informed to the extent we know any and I am sure they're smart enough to separate the chaff from the wheat rather than leaving them collecting information from their usual sources that may be tainted as I am sure was the case in the preparation of this report.

Just this last Friday--and after I had submitted this column for publishing with Star, I had dinner with several business associates at my home and our guest of honor was a former World Bank official who shared with me as we were riding from his hotel to my crib how one of his colleagues then stationed in Kenya in a very influential position was fed propaganda by his PNU buddies during PEV and channeled same to his trusting bosses in Washington.

He would later be recalled simply because of transmission of that faulty information and the WB tells he actually asked him why he would do so but got back a shrugging of shoulders.

My point is information is always going to be biased based on the one collecting and their sources and level resistance to propaganda and/or ability to winnow it out but it helps not necessarily to get in their faces but to feed them where possible with a viewpoint that can temper that bias.

Thus, and I state this as an example and not necessarily what's in the part of the aforementioned report I have seen, if those preparing it are told UK and Ruto can be elected because Kenyans don't care about ICC or the fact that they face these serious criminal charges, it behooves someone to tell the same diplomats this is not true for most Kenyans do, indeed, care about the ICC and cannot fathom being led by ICC suspects at best or convicted felons at worst.

OR,

If someone is telling these diplomats that Uhuru and Ruto are brilliantly executing a tribalism based strategy that will see them to office notwithstanding the serious crimes against humanity they face, someone else better tell them brilliant or otherwise, the other side (read Cord) has an even better strategy to win office that's more likely to trump tribalism and prevail in ushering them to office.

Finally but not least, I would not underestimate or dismiss what the West can do to impact our elections.

[Omwenga]

Jan 6, 2013 17:41:13 GMT 3 OtishOtish said:

Omwenga:

I initially found the post a bit insulting to our intelligence, if we were expected to accept it and react to it accordingly. But you have now clarified that by writing:

"Please note strictly speaking the target audience for the message in the column are the very individuals involved in the preparation of this report who already know the content of the report."

So, let me also take this opportunity to retract and apologize for the poor tone of a couple of my sentences.

Otis,

As you can see from my response to you, no offense was taken in what you said but I appreciate your doing what very few people here and notoriously in our political class never do and that's apologizing for something they have said or done.

You earn high marks in my book just doing that even where it wasn't necessary.

Now, I have a question: if your audience is as above, why don't you get your sources to communicate directly to the "individuals" that "people know"?

This has actually been done not only by inboxing the blog but these people read the same papers we do, including the Star where the article appears.

I don't see how a vague comment on Jukwaa helps.

As I noted earlier, this is mostly fyi and if there are those who may get wind of the request I am making and do the necessary by reading this thread--and there are many who read Jukwaa but are not contributors, the so much the better.

Please note the dual purpose stated earlier for the article.

You also wrote:

"it would also be prudent for those who have friends and contacts with any of these partners to make sure they know what the truth and reality is as it's obviously contrary to the propaganda they may be prematurely buying into"

I'm going to assume that that the "those who have friends" are not Jukwaaists and that they have better information than you've given us here.

Wrong assumption.

I am appealing to anyone who reads the blog/column, including those reading it here on Jukwaa. No one has any more information about this than I have shared here other than those who do on their own.

Here, we obviously don't know anything. It might have helped if you'd at least given us some ideas of the concerning parts of

"much of the propaganda being put forth by Uhuru, Ruto and their allies"

I hear you and I have done my best to give ideas as to the nature of it--see my response to Furaha.

I see two broad possibilities here:

(a) The "individuals" preparing the report have bought "much of the propaganda", know it's propaganda, and are putting it into the report. Are they likely to stop because a post on Jukwaa says "we know what you are doing!"?

The post alone is probably not going to do much but I am sure it'll have them re-thinking and re-evaluating but my point is, let's be proactive or even more so in making sure they have good information--at let those who can do so.

(b) The "individuals" preparing the report have included some things in the report which they think are appropriate and which they do not think is propaganda.

It would be wrong to assume just because they have included the information or analysis that therefore they have concluded it's not propaganda; au contraire, the may as well know it's propaganda but they themselves are buying it hook, line and sinker!

And if you really break this down to the very basic, this is what I say is disturbing, if not annoying.

Are they likely to rewrite their report because a vague post on Jukwaa claims they are using propaganda?

I am very confident the blog/column will have the effect its intended.

If they don't know it's propaganda, wouldn't it be more fruitful to contact them directly saying "this specific bit here and that specific bit there are propaganda"?

I am sure and would have to assume this is being done not just by my blogging.

This is what I noted above:

While it goes without saying that Raila and his team must obviously counter the propaganda directly with our development partners and the US in this particular case, it would also be prudent for those who have friends and contacts with any of these partners to make sure they know what the truth and reality is as it's obviously contrary to the propaganda they may be prematurely buying into.

And we too could help if we had a few more details.

All I am saying is if you or anyone reading this knows or has friends in the diplomatic community, especially those from the US, please make sure you are sharing with them the reality of what's on the ground; it may or may not mesh with what they know but it may also potentially help them in avoiding making a faulty assessment which they have in this report but I am confident they will have to reassess and adjust accordingly based on new information.

In other words, I am very puzzled as to what exactly you are trying to achieve and how you will achieve it by these means.

Let me assume you're not puzzled anymore based on my response as above.

The reason I immediately latched on to the ICC aspect, perhaps incorrectly, is that I am aware of quite a few Kenyan-Americans (not necessarily including you) who would like Obama to publicly take a stand in support of the Kenyan ICC trials. Obviously that would be inappropriate.

I agree but don't see that happening anyway.

[podp]

Jan 6, 2013 18:55:06 GMT 3 Omwenga said:

Jan 6, 2013 16:20:25 GMT 3 furaha said:

Omwenga,

Okay, point taken. I guess the confusion lies in the fact that not everyone here necessarily shares your analysis of the present situation. So encouraging all of us to go and speak with our contacts might not yield the outcome you are after. That being said, rest assured, I am doing my bit.

Furaha

Furaha,

Buried deep in I disagreeumptions is we, and by that I mean those whose views and analyses are consistent with, and supportive of the interests of our beloved country are in the super majority compared to those whose views and objectives are contrary and designed only to propagate the interests of the few, reckless minority who could care less what comes of our beloved country or even less whether the country went to the dogs so long as they get their way, which in their myopic view is more important and paramount than the country.

So, let us do our part in informing and keeping our friends from the West (East could really care less for they will work with whoever is elected) informed to the extent we know any and I am sure they're smart enough to separate the chaff from the wheat rather than leaving them collecting information from their usual sources that may be tainted as I am sure was the case in the preparation of this report.

Just this last Friday--and after I had submitted this column for publishing with Star, I had dinner with several business associates at my home and our guest of honor was a former World Bank official who shared with me as we were riding from his hotel to my crib how one of his colleagues then stationed in Kenya in a very influential position was fed propaganda by his PNU buddies during PEV and channeled same to his trusting bosses in Washington.

He would later be recalled simply because of transmission of that faulty information and the WB tells he actually asked him why he would do so but got back a shrugging of shoulders.

My point is information is always going to be biased based on the one collecting and their sources and level resistance to propaganda and/or ability to winnow it out but it helps not necessarily to get in their faces but to feed them where possible with a viewpoint that can temper that bias.

Thus, and I state this as an example and not necessarily what's in the part of the aforementioned report I have seen, if those preparing it are told UK and Ruto can be elected because Kenyans don't care about ICC or the fact that they face these serious criminal charges, it behooves someone to tell the same diplomats this is not true for most Kenyans do, indeed, care about the ICC and cannot fathom being led by ICC suspects at best or convicted felons at worst.

OR,

If someone is telling these diplomats that Uhuru and Ruto are brilliantly executing a tribalism based strategy that will see them to office notwithstanding the serious crimes against humanity they face, someone else better tell them brilliant or otherwise, the other side (read Cord) has an even better strategy to win office that's more likely to trump tribalism and prevail in ushering them to office.

Finally but not least, I would not underestimate or dismiss what the West can do to impact our elections.

you made my Sunday with that sentence.

there is a "conflict of duties" in many of your posts and that makes me refrain from engaging as it would be tough for you to respond. but the above sentence is a rare gem that needs debating in the open and more important secretly too.

what should we do as a people so that we are not always played? we cannot answer such questions by appealing to what people generally think. why do I say so?

do please try to be prepared next time before trying to bait people! embracing the do-anything-it-takes tactics of an increasingly contentious campaign is the future of politics everywhere, Kenya included, and hence we should expect cut throat competition

we must not let our decision be determined by our emotions however dear, but must examine the question and follow the best reasoning. we should try to get our facts straight and to keep our minds clear. we should try to find an answer we ourselves can regard as correct. we must think for ourselves.

should we advocate an overhaul of rudimentary principles to ‘protract thorough political or social reform’ the situation we find ourselves in? the doctrine of multiculturalism is an endorsement of cultural diversity that sees each person as ultimately ‘culturally embedded’, ultimately alone and ultimately unable to identify with and understand others. if that is so, different cultural groups have distinct moral values, religious ideas and political persuasions which make up complete ‘world views’, so there are few – either political or social – collective principles to challenge or rework. so what is this bogey called the West?

from Capital and Its Discontents: Conversations with Radical Thinkers in a Time of Tumult the conclusion below was drawn

Capitalism is stumbling, empire is faltering, and the planet is thawing. Yet many people are still grasping to understand these multiple crises and to find a way forward to a just future. Into the breach come the essential insights of Capital and Its Discontents, which cut through the gristle to get to the heart of the matter about the nature of capitalism and imperialism, capitalism’s vulnerabilities at this conjuncture—and what can we do to hasten its demise.

Capital and Its Discontents does offer a fine selection of the left's most lucid thinking, principally around questions of political economy. tackling basic questions like the nature of historical capitalism, forms of empire and the rise of neoliberalism will help us understand why the rain is still beating us. the current problems of capitalism are not the result of mismanagement -- they have a long history arising from the inherent contradictions of a system based upon ceaseless growth and the relentless pursuit of profits above all else. can we consider alternatives to the current order and touch on the complex history of state-led "national capitalism," the legacy of the Soviet Union, the New Left's relationship to postmodernism and anarchist visions of how to organize society?

the question of "Alternatives?" is a major one. what would one consider China and the rising tigers (South Korea, Singapore etc.) in the above red highlight?

the need to educate people with a systemic critique of capitalism cannot be under emphasized.

[furaha]

Jan 6, 2013 18:55:06 GMT 3 Omwenga said:

Jan 6, 2013 16:20:25 GMT 3 furaha said:

Omwenga,

Okay, point taken. I guess the confusion lies in the fact that not everyone here necessarily shares your analysis of the present situation. So encouraging all of us to go and speak with our contacts might not yield the outcome you are after. That being said, rest assured, I am doing my bit.

Furaha

Furaha,

Buried deep in I disagreeumptions is we, and by that I mean those whose views and analyses are consistent with, and supportive of the interests of our beloved country are in the super majority compared to those whose views and objectives are contrary and designed only to propagate the interests of the few, reckless minority who could care less what comes of our beloved country or even less whether the country went to the dogs so long as they get their way, which in their myopic view is more important and paramount than the country.

So, let us do our part in informing and keeping our friends from the West (East could really care less for they will work with whoever is elected) informed to the extent we know any and I am sure they're smart enough to separate the chaff from the wheat rather than leaving them collecting information from their usual sources that may be tainted as I am sure was the case in the preparation of this report.

Just this last Friday--and after I had submitted this column for publishing with Star, I had dinner with several business associates at my home and our guest of honor was a former World Bank official who shared with me as we were riding from his hotel to my crib how one of his colleagues then stationed in Kenya in a very influential position was fed propaganda by his PNU buddies during PEV and channeled same to his trusting bosses in Washington.

He would later be recalled simply because of transmission of that faulty information and the WB tells he actually asked him why he would do so but got back a shrugging of shoulders.

My point is information is always going to be biased based on the one collecting and their sources and level resistance to propaganda and/or ability to winnow it out but it helps not necessarily to get in their faces but to feed them where possible with a viewpoint that can temper that bias.

Thus, and I state this as an example and not necessarily what's in the part of the aforementioned report I have seen, if those preparing it are told UK and Ruto can be elected because Kenyans don't care about ICC or the fact that they face these serious criminal charges, it behooves someone to tell the same diplomats this is not true for most Kenyans do, indeed, care about the ICC and cannot fathom being led by ICC suspects at best or convicted felons at worst.

OR,

If someone is telling these diplomats that Uhuru and Ruto are brilliantly executing a tribalism based strategy that will see them to office notwithstanding the serious crimes against humanity they face, someone else better tell them brilliant or otherwise, the other side (read Cord) has an even better strategy to win office that's more likely to trump tribalism and prevail in ushering them to office.

Finally but not least, I would not underestimate or dismiss what the West can do to impact our elections.

Omwenga,

Slowly we are getting to the point. Your mention of the World Bank man helps. He was Colin Bruce of Guyana, Country Director for Kenya, based in Nairobi where he rented accommodation in Muthaiga, belonging to one Mwai Kibaki. He worked closely with the mandarins of the Treasury and seems to have truly believed that in the hands of these 'technocrats' Kenya had the brightest future it could possibly have. He gave Kenya high scores despite the serious concerns about corruption that were rearing their ugly heads since appr. 2005 when Bruce took up his position in Nairobi.

Bruce left in January after having tried to negotiate some kind of deal between PNU and ODM but basing himself largely on the information that the mandarins had given him. I think he truly believed that Kibaki had won an that he could play a role in bringing the parties to an early agreement, thus also playing into the hands of Jendaye Fraser, head of the US State Department's Bureau for African Affairs. But he actually made matters worse and was quickly recalled by the bank.

Bruce acted on his own. His sentiments were not shared by others. Some of his colleagues were shocked to find out what he had been doing. And so was the media, in particular the Financial Times that broke the story.

www.ft.com/cms/s/0/70f3806e-37e1-11dd-aabb-0000779fd2ac.html#axzz2HDQ9O1P1

So in general you are right. Their are governments and their diplomats out there who have their own agenda. But in the case of Colin Bruce he was not working on the instructions of his employers. He had not even informed them of what he was doing.

I take your point that there are people out there trying to tell the internationals that Jubilee will win and that they had better accommodate that 'reality'. This could be part of yet another effort to go to the UNSC to obtain a 12 month deferral of the ICC cases. But at this point I do not see a deferral effort going anywhere. It went nowhere at an earlier stage, before the confirmation hearings. Since then 4 individuals had their charges confirmed. They are no longer mere 'suspects', they are 'accused'. The appetite to intervene at this stage will be minimal. Even if the case is made that Kenya would descend into violence if the two have to keep their court date in The Hague, the follow-up question will most likely be: "And what is the Kenyan government doing to prevent such outbreaks of violence? Have you got your act together?"

But by all means let's continue to tell our international friends how we view the developing situation and how they can come down on the side of justice and democracy.

Furaha

[OtishOtish]

Jan 6, 2013 19:29:05 GMT 3 Omwenga said:

I hear you and I have done my best to give ideas as to the nature of it--see my response to Furaha.

I have re-read what your response to Furaha, and the only bit that gives me a hint is this:

[Something about the ICC]

OR

[Other stuff about Uhuru, Ruto, Raila, Jubilee, CORD and who might win on what basis.]

This comes hot on the heels of your asking me why I went on and on about the ICC ;D On that basis, let's skip that one and go to the other part of the disjunction. But that only brings us right back to the first one!

Through their actions at the UNSC, at least three countries with veto power, have (indirectly) made it clear that they want the Kenyan cases at the ICC to proceed along their "natural" path and that they will countenance any attempts (at that "high" level) to derail the process. Will that change if Uhuru and Ruto get elected? I don't think so, and that means trouble if and when and some more if.

[Omwenga]

Jan 6, 2013 19:32:46 GMT 3 podp said:

Jan 6, 2013 18:55:06 GMT 3 Omwenga said:

podp,

First of all let me say I had to laugh after reading your post because you took me back to college days and reminded me of this political science class I took most students avoided because there were two things always guaranteed about this particular course under this professor: getting an A was virtually impossible and half-way through each class period, half, if not more of the class was fast asleep because nobody had a clue what the professor was talking about because he used language one would swear was not English even though it was but deeply philosophical.

When asked why he would so torture his students, the professor would simply retort, how else are they going to learn?

However, if one really tried hard and paid closer attention, one would finally get to understand the myriad of complex and inter-related theories of social and political science he would weave together each lesson such that at the end of the course you either aced the course and abhorred capitalism in favor of socialism as reflected in your term paper or if one didn't he or she was lucky getting by with a C and not a D or straight up F, if they paid any attention at all.

Reading your post at first blush I had no idea what you were talking about but after re-reading and paying closer attention, I somewhat do and will briefly respond as follows:

Finally but not least, I would not underestimate or dismiss what the West can do to impact our elections.

you made my Sunday with that sentence.

there is a "conflict of duties" in many of your posts and that makes me refrain from engaging as it would be tough for you to respond.

I don't know what these "conflict of duties" are or what you mean by "tough" but I would suggest we are all enlightened when we freely express ourselves regardless of others ability to respond to same or lack thereof.

but the above sentence is a rare gem that needs debating in the open and more important secretly too.

Sure, start a thread on the issue and I am sure yours truly and others will give their 2 cents or at least to the extent possible.

what should we do as a people so that we are not always played?

This is a packed question full of assumptions and conclusions that must be unpacked before a meaningful discussion can be had on it.

For example, played by who? The West, our own politicians, friends or family for each type of "being played" requires an individualized response and comes with it more or less limited options as to what can be done to avoid being played but in some cases we can turn being played into an advantage.

It's not being cynical or hugging deceitfulness and chicanery to say being played is is part and parcel of political survival or even success and no one knows this better than Walter Mondale, US Vice President under Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party nominee for President in 1984 presidential candidate who was largely buried by Reagan because he was honest enough to tell Americans a truth they did not want to hear, namely, that increasing their taxes was inevitable under either he or Reagan.

He tried to use this as an example of his high honesty and integrity by noting, "he [Reagan] won't tell you this, but I just did."

The quick thinking Reagan and his strategists turned this honest admission into a noose with which they politically hanged Mondale.

So, at least on this level, asking what people can do to avoid being played is the wrong question; the more apt question is what can we do despite knowing we are always going to be played to make sure we have the better leaders we must have to make a difference in the lives of our people.

we cannot answer such questions by appealing to what people generally think.

I agree but for different reasons other than what you articulate below.

why do I say so?

do please try to be prepared next time before trying to bait people!

Not sure whether this is directed at yours truly or generic but would be happy to respond if that's made clear.

embracing the do-anything-it-takes tactics of an increasingly contentious campaign is the future of politics everywhere, Kenya included, and hence we should expect cut throat competition.

Agreed but there obviously must be boundaries beyond which such cut throat competition cannot or must not go.

we must not let our decision be determined by our emotions however dear, but must examine the question and follow the best reasoning. we should try to get our facts straight and to keep our minds clear. we should try to find an answer we ourselves can regard as correct. we must think for ourselves.

I agree but hasten to add this only applies, or more accurately, only a tiny fraction of the general electorate and even less so of the political class that does or would adhere to these noble principles; the rest either follow the crowd or are clouded with inappropriate considerations such as tribalism that outweighs everything, including rationality and common sense.

It's a goal post that must be set and let's all do our best to drive our people there.

should we advocate an overhaul of rudimentary principles to ‘protract thorough political or social reform’ the situation we find ourselves in?

I think I know what you refer to here but let me not respond until I can ascertain that, if at all--

the doctrine of multiculturalism is an endorsement of cultural diversity that sees each person as ultimately ‘culturally embedded’, ultimately alone and ultimately unable to identify with and understand others.

I do not buy this premise and rather than go into the weeds with it, let me just say were that to be the case, we would not have societies or communities at all or any acceptable rules governing social order if there was any such society or community.

Put another way, it's precisely by identifying and understanding one another that we post-primitive period decided to allow some form of order in pursuing some common good more easily attainable than going it alone thus, it's a false narrative to say otherwise.

if that is so, different cultural groups have distinct moral values, religious ideas and political persuasions which make up complete ‘world views’, so there are few – either political or social – collective principles to challenge or rework.

I don't know how you came from the false premise, at least in my view of how you stated it, to this true conclusion but I'll leave it at that.

so what is this bogey called the West?

I assume this is a rhetorical question because the "West" as I use it in the blog is merely a reference to countries other than those from the East that have a stake or interest in Kenyan affairs.

from Capital and Its Discontents: Conversations with Radical Thinkers in a Time of Tumult the conclusion below was drawn

Capitalism is stumbling, empire is faltering, and the planet is thawing. Yet many people are still grasping to understand these multiple crises and to find a way forward to a just future. Into the breach come the essential insights of Capital and Its Discontents, which cut through the gristle to get to the heart of the matter about the nature of capitalism and imperialism, capitalism’s vulnerabilities at this conjuncture—and what can we do to hasten its demise.

This is, of course, the currently raging debate and none other than President Barrack Obama is in the middle of it and perhaps unwittingly so because those on the right accuse him of doing precisely what the likes of Noam Chomsky are advocating.

A thread on this will be an interesting one to see what people make of this debate.

Capital and Its Discontents does offer a fine selection of the left's most lucid thinking, principally around questions of political economy. tackling basic questions like the nature of historical capitalism, forms of empire and the rise of neoliberalism will help us understand why the rain is still beating us. the current problems of capitalism are not the result of mismanagement -- they have a long history arising from the inherent contradictions of a system based upon ceaseless growth and the relentless pursuit of profits above all else. can we consider alternatives to the current order and touch on the complex history of state-led "national capitalism," the legacy of the Soviet Union, the New Left's relationship to postmodernism and anarchist visions of how to organize society?

Again, this is a debate that can be had but not on this thread which is more limited in its scope to calling us to be more vigilant and proactive in making sure our development partners have it right when it comes to our own, Kenyan political situation and developments.

Some of that may interact with these philosophical and ideological concepts but you'll agree that's more on the periphery than central to it even though largely informed by the latter.

the question of "Alternatives?" is a major one. what would one consider China and the rising tigers (South Korea, Singapore etc.) in the above red highlight?

I actually provided my answer to this earlier by noting China, South Korea, Singapore, etc could care less who is elected for they will work with whoever is to advance their increasing interests in the country.

Would they, however, if push come to shove have a preference?

Yes.

the need to educate people with a systemic critique of capitalism cannot be under emphasized.

Agreed.

[Omwenga]

Jan 6, 2013 20:36:42 GMT 3 furaha said:

Jan 6, 2013 18:55:06 GMT 3 Omwenga said:

Furaha,

Buried deep in I disagreeumptions is we, and by that I mean those whose views and analyses are consistent with, and supportive of the interests of our beloved country are in the super majority compared to those whose views and objectives are contrary and designed only to propagate the interests of the few, reckless minority who could care less what comes of our beloved country or even less whether the country went to the dogs so long as they get their way, which in their myopic view is more important and paramount than the country.

So, let us do our part in informing and keeping our friends from the West (East could really care less for they will work with whoever is elected) informed to the extent we know any and I am sure they're smart enough to separate the chaff from the wheat rather than leaving them collecting information from their usual sources that may be tainted as I am sure was the case in the preparation of this report.

Just this last Friday--and after I had submitted this column for publishing with Star, I had dinner with several business associates at my home and our guest of honor was a former World Bank official who shared with me as we were riding from his hotel to my crib how one of his colleagues then stationed in Kenya in a very influential position was fed propaganda by his PNU buddies during PEV and channeled same to his trusting bosses in Washington.

He would later be recalled simply because of transmission of that faulty information and the WB tells he actually asked him why he would do so but got back a shrugging of shoulders.

My point is information is always going to be biased based on the one collecting and their sources and level resistance to propaganda and/or ability to winnow it out but it helps not necessarily to get in their faces but to feed them where possible with a viewpoint that can temper that bias.

Thus, and I state this as an example and not necessarily what's in the part of the aforementioned report I have seen, if those preparing it are told UK and Ruto can be elected because Kenyans don't care about ICC or the fact that they face these serious criminal charges, it behooves someone to tell the same diplomats this is not true for most Kenyans do, indeed, care about the ICC and cannot fathom being led by ICC suspects at best or convicted felons at worst.

OR,

If someone is telling these diplomats that Uhuru and Ruto are brilliantly executing a tribalism based strategy that will see them to office notwithstanding the serious crimes against humanity they face, someone else better tell them brilliant or otherwise, the other side (read Cord) has an even better strategy to win office that's more likely to trump tribalism and prevail in ushering them to office.

Finally but not least, I would not underestimate or dismiss what the West can do to impact our elections.

Omwenga,

Slowly we are getting to the point. Your mention of the World Bank man helps. He was Colin Bruce of Guyana, Country Director for Kenya, based in Nairobi where he rented accommodation in Muthaiga, belonging to one Mwai Kibaki. He worked closely with the mandarins of the Treasury and seems to have truly believed that in the hands of these 'technocrats' Kenya had the brightest future it could possibly have. He gave Kenya high scores despite the serious concerns about corruption that were rearing their ugly heads since appr. 2005 when Bruce took up his position in Nairobi.

Bruce left in January after having tried to negotiate some kind of deal between PNU and ODM but basing himself largely on the information that the mandarins had given him. I think he truly believed that Kibaki had won an that he could play a role in bringing the parties to an early agreement, thus also playing into the hands of Jendaye Fraser, head of the US State Department's Bureau for African Affairs. But he actually made matters worse and was quickly recalled by the bank.

Bruce acted on his own. His sentiments were not shared by others. Some of his colleagues were shocked to find out what he had been doing. And so was the media, in particular the Financial Times that broke the story.

www.ft.com/cms/s/0/70f3806e-37e1-11dd-aabb-0000779fd2ac.html#axzz2HDQ9O1P1

So in general you are right. Their are governments and their diplomats out there who have their own agenda. But in the case of Colin Bruce he was not working on the instructions of his employers. He had not even informed them of what he was doing.

I take your point that there are people out there trying to tell the internationals that Jubilee will win and that they had better accommodate that 'reality'. This could be part of yet another effort to go to the UNSC to obtain a 12 month deferral of the ICC cases. But at this point I do not see a deferral effort going anywhere. It went nowhere at an earlier stage, before the confirmation hearings. Since then 4 individuals had their charges confirmed. They are no longer mere 'suspects', they are 'accused'. The appetite to intervene at this stage will be minimal. Even if the case is made that Kenya would descend into violence if the two have to keep their court date in The Hague, the follow-up question will most likely be: "And what is the Kenyan government doing to prevent such outbreaks of violence? Have you got your act together?"

But by all means let's continue to tell our international friends how we view the developing situation and how they can come down on the side of justice and democracy.

Furaha

Furaha,

I am glad to note we are now at least on the same page.

[Omwenga]

Jan 6, 2013 21:12:48 GMT 3 OtishOtish said:

Jan 6, 2013 19:29:05 GMT 3 Omwenga said:

I hear you and I have done my best to give ideas as to the nature of it--see my response to Furaha.

I have re-read what your response to Furaha, and the only bit that gives me a hint is this:

[Something about the ICC]

OR

[Other stuff about Uhuru, Ruto, Raila, Jubilee, CORD and who might win on what basis.]

This comes hot on the heels of your asking me why I went on and on about the ICC ;D On that basis, let's skip that one and go to the other part of the disjunction. But that only brings us right back to the first one!

Through their actions at the UNSC, at least three countries with veto power, have (indirectly) made it clear that they want the Kenyan cases at the ICC to proceed along their "natural" path and that they will countenance any attempts (at that "high" level) to derail the process. Will that change if Uhuru and Ruto get elected? I don't think so, and that means trouble if and when and some more if.

You'll notice I am trying not to discuss ICC on this thread for its much narrower in its scope and this is true even though I referenced the issue only because I also understand none of these issues can be considered in isolation.

[OtishOtish]

Jan 6, 2013 23:07:36 GMT 3 Omwenga said:

You'll notice I am trying not to discuss ICC on this thread for its much narrower in its scope and this is true even though I referenced the issue only because I also understand none of these issues can be considered in isolation.

Yes, I noticed that. So what was the hint to Furaha that we should pay attention to?

[Omwenga]

Jan 6, 2013 23:39:16 GMT 3 OtishOtish said:

Jan 6, 2013 23:07:36 GMT 3 Omwenga said:

You'll notice I am trying not to discuss ICC on this thread for its much narrower in its scope and this is true even though I referenced the issue only because I also understand none of these issues can be considered in isolation.

Yes, I noticed that. So what was the hint to Furaha that we should pay attention to?

Otis,

I think I have exhausted my thoughts on this thread for now so you either see where I am coming or going with this as Furaha has or we'll just leave it there.

Meanwhile, I find this article in the Daily Nation somewhat relevant, Western Envoys Do Have A Major State In the Contest for Kenya's State House, www.nation.co.ke/oped/Opinion/Envoys-have-a-stake-in-General-Election/-/440808/1658900/-/ldjjxs/-/index.html

[furaha]

Otis,

I think these are the hints

quote

Thus, and I state this as an example and not necessarily what's in the part of the aforementioned report I have seen, if those preparing it are told UK and Ruto can be elected because Kenyans don't care about ICC or the fact that they face these serious criminal charges, it behooves someone to tell the same diplomats this is not true for most Kenyans do, indeed, care about the ICC and cannot fathom being led by ICC suspects at best or convicted felons at worst.

OR,

If someone is telling these diplomats that Uhuru and Ruto are brilliantly executing a tribalism based strategy that will see them to office notwithstanding the serious crimes against humanity they face, someone else better tell them brilliant or otherwise, the other side (read Cord) has an even better strategy to win office that's more likely to trump tribalism and prevail in ushering them to office.

unquote

I myself have also heard rumors that people are doing the rounds telling diplomats that Jubilee will win easily and that they (the i.c.) better start looking how it might accommodate such a win because it is said to be unavoidable. I don't think this would fly with some of the bigger embassies in Nairobi who make their own assessments. But not all embassies have that capacity. Many cover not only Kenya but all of East Africa from the region. They are impressionable.

Furaha

Furaha

[podp]

Jan 6, 2013 23:02:25 GMT 3 Omwenga said:

Jan 6, 2013 19:32:46 GMT 3 podp said:

podp,

First of all let me say I had to laugh after reading your post because you took me back to college days and reminded me of this political science class I took most students avoided because there were two things always guaranteed about this particular course under this professor: getting an A was virtually impossible and half-way through each class period, half, if not more of the class was fast asleep because nobody had a clue what the professor was talking about because he used language one would swear was not English even though it was but deeply philosophical.

When asked why he would so torture his students, the professor would simply retort, how else are they going to learn?

However, if one really tried hard and paid closer attention, one would finally get to understand the myriad of complex and inter-related theories of social and political science he would weave together each lesson such that at the end of the course you either aced the course and abhorred capitalism in favor of socialism as reflected in your term paper or one didn't was lucky getting by with a C and not a D or straight up F, if they paid any attention at all.

Reading your post at first blush I had no idea what you were talking about but after re-reading and paying closer attention, I somewhat do and will briefly respond as follows:



I don't know what these "conflict of duties" are or what you mean by "tough" but I would suggest we are all enlightened when we freely express ourselves regardless of others ability to respond to same or lack thereof.



Sure, start a thread on the issue and I am sure yours truly and others will give their 2 cents or at least to the extent possible.



This is a packed question full of assumptions and conclusions that must be unpacked before a meaningful discussion can be had on it.

For example, played by who? The West, our own politicians, friends or family for each type of "being plaed" requires an individualized response and comes with it more or less limited options as to what can be done to avoid being played but in some cases we can turn being played into an advantage.

It's not being cynical or hugging deceitfulness and chicanery to say being played is is part and parcel of political survival or even success and no one knows this better than Walter Mondale, US Vice President under Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party nominee for President in 1984 presidential candidate who was largely buried by Reagan because he was honest enough to tell Americans a truth they did not want to hear, namely, that increasing their taxes was inevitable under either he or Reagan.

He tried to use this as an example of his high honesty and integrity by noting, "he [Reagan] won't tell you this, but I just did."

The quick thinking Reagan and his strategists turned this honest admission into a noose with which they politically hanged Mondale.

So, at least on this level, asking what people can do to avoid being placed is the wrong question; the more apt question is what can we do despite knowing we are always going to be played to make sure we have the better leaders we must have to make a difference in the lives of our people.



I agree but for different reasons other than what you articulate below.



Not sure whether this is directed at yours truly or generic but would be happy to respond if that's made clear.



Agreed but there obviously must be boundaries beyond which such cut throat competition cannot or must not go.



I agree but hasten to add this only applies, or more accurately, only a tiny fraction of the general electorate and even less so of the political class that does or would adhere to these noble principles; the rest either follow the crowd or are clouded with inappropriate considerations such as tribalism that outweighs everything, including rationality and common sense.

It's a goal post that must be set and let's all do our best to drive our people there.



I think I know what you refer to here but let me not respond until I can ascertain that, if at all--



I do not buy this premise and rather than go into the weeds with it, let me just say were that to be the case, we would not have societies or communities at all or any acceptable rules governing social order if there was any such society or community.

Put another way, it's precisely by identifying and understanding one another that we post-primitive period decided to allow some form of order in pursuing some common good more easily attainable than going it alone thus, it's a false narrative to say otherwise.



I don't know how you came from the false premise, at least in my view of how you stated it, to this true conclusion but I'll leave it at that.



I assume this is a rhetorical question because the "West" as I use it in the blog is merely a reference to countries other than those from the East that have a stake or interest in Kenyan affairs.



This is, of course, the currently raging debate and none other than President Barrack Obama is in the middle of it and perhaps unwittingly so because those on the right accuse him of doing precisely what the likes of Noam Chomsky are advocating.

A thread on this will be an interesting one to see what people make of this debate.



Again, this is a debate that can be had but not on this thread which is more limited in its scope to calling us to be more vigilant and proactive in making sure our development partners have it right when it comes to our own, Kenyan political situation and developments.

Some of that may interact with these philosophical and ideological concepts but you'll agree that's more on the periphery than central to it even though largely informed by the latter.



I actually provided my answer to this earlier by noting China, South Korea, Singapore, etc could care less who is elected for they will work with whoever is to advance their increasing interests in the country.

Would they, however, if push come to shove have a preference?

Yes.

the need to educate people with a systemic critique of capitalism cannot be under emphasized.

Agreed.

of the comments on the Star article how would you, if you had the nerve respond to

scanfish • a day ago −
Instead of claiming that there is a report out there with 'wrong' information about Kenya's political situation and expecting us to just swallow it whole as biased, put that report right here so that the rest of us can read and make our own assessment as to whether it is indeed faulty or not. Your patronizing arrogance in making such wild claims and then refusing to share the info on the grounds that doing so is 'neither wise nor necessary' is just so outrageously dishonest and self serving. Why then make the unproven claims in the first place and just who the hell do you think you are in doing so, more so considering the atrocious English language diction in your 'prose'?You really do need to seriously improve your writing skills if you want to be taken seriously.

www.the-star.co.ke/news/article-101631/our-development-partners-better-get-it-right

1st red highlight

that aside, but if you dared the 'conflict of duties' role will come out. it can be philosophical or damning to your future hoped reality or illusion, but to paraphrase you let me leave it at that.

2nd red highlight

do I agree with you? yes i do.

3rd red highlight

thank you for making the question longer. but is it a question we can seek answers to in a time like this? elections are coming and many before Amani led by Mdvd came were adopting the 2007 stance of CORD versus Jubilee and with it the ethnic connotations only that this time the latter are spending all if not most of their energies on non issues i.e. personality attacks

4th red highlight

we need to have our own boundaries and if some or all bypass them they face the music. but with ICC present and Uhuruto doing what we see day in day out are we ready to bury impunity? is it not only the other day IEBC said it was ok for the duo (Uhuruto) to stand yet we have a court case not yet determined or rather exhausted to start drawing conclusions as Uhuruto, IEBC Chairman etc. and is it not such behavior i.e. us disrespecting our own institutions that makes the West as the Star article you authored, have them deciding to deal as you aptly state?

5th red highlight

this one is for all Kenyans of good and bad will and will reproduce it again so there is no mistaken identity case

Quote:
should we advocate an overhaul of rudimentary principles to ‘protract thorough political or social reform’ the situation we find ourselves in?


I think I know what you refer to here but let me not respond until I can ascertain that, if at all--


let us try to go straight to the issue and if we face it apply what is written in The Principles of Destruction in Irregular Warfare: Theory and Practice. the principle of destruction is considered by numerous military theorists to be the best means to achieve victory and a defining characteristic of war itself. that it remains valid in both regular and irregular warfare suggests that their differences have been exaggerated and that military institutions should exercise caution before undertaking drastic reforms because the central competency of regular warfare, destruction of enemy forces on the battlefield, is also a crucial component of irregular warfare. “the aim of disarming the enemy is in fact not always encountered in reality, and need not be fully achieved as a condition of peace".

Mao’s theory of protracted war is divided into three phases. 1st phase has the revolutionary movement at its weakest point and the guerrillas, if they even exist yet, are concerned primarily with survival. revolutionary cadres establish base areas in inaccessible terrain and consolidate them by enacting a political program that gains the support of the population. achieving popular support is the most vital component of Mao’s strategy. 2nd phase is characterized by a state of “equilibrium” between the revolutionaries and the enemy. the guerrilla base areas are relatively secure, but open battle with the enemy forces remains out of the question. thus, a campaign of guerrilla warfare begins in earnest. “Acts of sabotage and terrorism multiply; collaborationists and ‘reactionary elements’ are liquidated. attacks are made on vulnerable military and police outposts; weak columns are ambushed. the primary purpose of these operations is to procure arms, ammunition, and other essential materials. 3rd phase is decisive. The guerrillas have become strong enough that they are able to transform some or all of their forces into regular units capable of regular operations. The revolutionaries take the offensive, seize the initiative, and the campaign culminates with the annihilation of the enemy forces in open battle. In other words, the irregulars abandon guerrilla warfare, and the principle of destruction becomes operative.

using military jargon you may now return to what you consider safe or comfort zone and try the question again

Quote:
should we advocate an overhaul of rudimentary principles to ‘protract thorough political or social reform’ the situation we find ourselves in?


while at it remember war is a political instrument used in pursuit of a political object. “since war is not an act of senseless passion but is controlled by its political object, the value of this object must determine the sacrifice to be made for it in magnitude and also in duration. once the expenditure of effort exceeds the value of the political object, the object must be renounced and peace must follow.” so the nusu mkate deal of 2008 fits here and although not declared as a war between good and bad the GNU was born from a mini war that the West did not allow us to finish and hence the recurring undercurrents.

Quote:
should we advocate an overhaul of rudimentary principles to ‘protract thorough political or social reform’ the situation we find ourselves in?

6th red highlight

well you solve the riddle but if still curious i can gladly elaborate. incidentally Globalization and its Discontents does have answers

7th red highlight

truce taken. a separate thread will evolve when its time comes

[OtishOtish]

Furaha:

Many thanks for directing me to that hint. As for people doing the rounds saying this and that group is going to win, I am not at all surprised; I expect all political parties to go around telling everybody (and their dog) that they will win. On the contrary, I would be surprised if they were claiming otherwise or not claiming their impending victory.

On things that would not fly with the larger embassies, would that include the USA (and its current "troubling assessment") and other Western countries that actually do matter (e.g. France, the UK, Germany, etc.)?

As Omwenga has stated, he has accomplished his goal, so we may let the matter rest. But a little something, by way of closing:

On various walls in my house hang scrolls of Chinese calligrapy. Some of them are "educational", which I find useful: My small kids usually ask me what they mean. I tell them. They forget and ask me again in a few months, which gives me the opportunity to reinforce certain messages. I too find the "reinforcement" to be a useful reminder for me.

This weekend, I was reflecting on one that was written for me, in Shanghai, by a very old master of the art. He decided to write for me some bit of ancient Chinese wisdom that he thought I might later in life find useful. The following is a partial translation.

Title: "Being muddle-headed could sometimes be a blessing".

It is not easy to be clever.
Nor is it easy to be muddle-headed.
It is hard to go from being muddle-headed to being clever.
But hardest is to go from being clever to being muddle-headed.
...
In life, sometimes cleverness is not the path to gain.
....
So one should try not to be too clever.
And God will somehow bless you.

[OtishOtish]

Jan 6, 2013 23:52:55 GMT 3 Omwenga said:

Otis,

I think I have exhausted my thoughts on this thread for now so you either see where I am coming or going with this as Furaha has or we'll just leave it there.

Meanwhile, I find this article in the Daily Nation somewhat relevant, Western Envoys Do Have A Major State In the Contest for Kenya's State House, www.nation.co.ke/oped/Opinion/Envoys-have-a-stake-in-General-Election/-/440808/1658900/-/ldjjxs/-/index.html

Fair enough, my friend. You try to drill into some head, and your drill-bits keep breaking. At some point the smart thing to do is to give up.

For what it's worth, I do my bit (when talking or writing to all sorts of people n all sorts of places) to make sure that people have an accurate "understanding" of Our Great Country and its "leaders". In the last couple of months or so, quite a bit of that has been about ICC issues, and a great deal it has been in relation to Maina Njenga's role in CORD and what it says about Raila.

[Omwenga]

Jan 7, 2013 0:25:46 GMT 3 podp said:

Jan 6, 2013 23:02:25 GMT 3 Omwenga said:

Agreed.

of the comments on the Star article how would you, if you had the nerve respond to

scanfish � a day ago −
Instead of claiming that there is a report out there with 'wrong' information about Kenya's political situation and expecting us to just swallow it whole as biased, put that report right here so that the rest of us can read and make our own assessment as to whether it is indeed faulty or not. Your patronizing arrogance in making such wild claims and then refusing to share the info on the grounds that doing so is 'neither wise nor necessary' is just so outrageously dishonest and self serving. Why then make the unproven claims in the first place and just who the hell do you think you are in doing so, more so considering the atrocious English language diction in your 'prose'?You really do need to seriously improve your writing skills if you want to be taken seriously.

www.the-star.co.ke/news/article-101631/our-development-partners-better-get-it-right

Someone reading the same article comments on the same link as follows:

omutsanis • a day ago

And they "reserve" the right to "The truth is, if the US or the West for that matter deems it to be in its interest to sit by and do absolutely nothing as one or even a whole country perishes, they will do so without breaking a sweat of guilt".

If a fathers' favorite daughter makes a sudden yet very inspiring career change and decides to join the old profession on k-street, should the father hire bodyguards to ensure she is working well and safe?

As long as we make wrong or idiotic political decisions, we must find equally inspiring solutions.Not the east, not the west.

One is a sober, seemingly very intellectual and thoughtful person sharing his or her thoughts upon reflection on the issues raised in the article.

The other is seemingly an angry, certainly less intellectual, far much less less thoughtful and certainly one completely disinterested in the discussion of issues but would rather dive into where all losers in matters intellectual or debate ultimately congregate and that is where hurling ad hominem attacks and insults loom large.

I laughed when this particular angry--I have a choice word to aptly describe him--but let's just say when this angry individual laughably whines about my "atrocious English language diction" and goes on to moronically advise that I should "improve [my] writing skills" if I were to be taken seriously.

You know someone is scraping at the bottom of the barrel with their frustrations and anger when they make useless, irrelevant and baseless assertions like this.

So, to your question what do I say to comments like this, simple.

Nothing.

Not worth commenting in reply that's why I did not say anything in reply to the moron and have only done so for you here since you dragged the comment here and demand to know my thoughts on it so there you have them.

P.S. I know I am hated by many simply because they can't stand what I say or how effective I am in what I do viz doing my part to make sure we have desired leadership from top down come March 4, 2013 but that comes with the territory.

[/quote]

1st red highlight

that aside, but if you dared the 'conflict of duties' role will come out. it can be philosophical or damning to your future hoped reality or illusion, but to paraphrase you let me leave it at that.

I have no idea what you're talking about and I long ago decided it's not necessary to try and understand everything so if I have no idea about what anyone says, all I do if at all is ask for clarification and maybe then I can say or form some opinion about it, which I do here.

2nd red highlight

do I agree with you? yes i do.

Good to know.

3rd red highlight

thank you for making the question longer. but is it a question we can seek answers to in a time like this? elections are coming and many before Amani led by Mdvd came were adopting the 2007 stance of CORD versus Jubilee and with it the ethnic connotations only that this time the latter are spending all if not most of their energies on non issues i.e. personality attacks

No debate there.

4th red highlight

we need to have our own boundaries and if some or all bypass them they face the music. but with ICC present and Uhuruto doing what we see day in day out are we ready to bury impunity? is it not only the other day IEBC said it was ok for the duo (Uhuruto) to stand yet we have a court case not yet determined or rather exhausted to start drawing conclusions as Uhuruto, IEBC Chairman etc. and is it not such behavior i.e. us disrespecting our own institutions that makes the West as the Star article you authored, have them deciding to deal as you aptly state?

Good observation, good rhetorical questions for the answers are obvious.

5th red highlight

this one is for all Kenyans of good and bad will and will reproduce it again so there is no mistaken identity case

Quote:
should we advocate an overhaul of rudimentary principles to �protract thorough political or social reform� the situation we find ourselves in?


I think I know what you refer to here but let me not respond until I can ascertain that, if at all--


let us try to go straight to the issue and if we face it apply what is written in The Principles of Destruction in Irregular Warfare: Theory and Practice. the principle of destruction is considered by numerous military theorists to be the best means to achieve victory and a defining characteristic of war itself. that it remains valid in both regular and irregular warfare suggests that their differences have been exaggerated and that military institutions should exercise caution before undertaking drastic reforms because the central competency of regular warfare, destruction of enemy forces on the battlefield, is also a crucial component of irregular warfare. �the aim of disarming the enemy is in fact not always encountered in reality, and need not be fully achieved as a condition of peace".

Mao�s theory of protracted war is divided into three phases. 1st phase has the revolutionary movement at its weakest point and the guerrillas, if they even exist yet, are concerned primarily with survival. revolutionary cadres establish base areas in inaccessible terrain and consolidate them by enacting a political program that gains the support of the population. achieving popular support is the most vital component of Mao�s strategy. 2nd phase is characterized by a state of �equilibrium� between the revolutionaries and the enemy. the guerrilla base areas are relatively secure, but open battle with the enemy forces remains out of the question. thus, a campaign of guerrilla warfare begins in earnest. �Acts of sabotage and terrorism multiply; collaborationists and �reactionary elements� are liquidated. attacks are made on vulnerable military and police outposts; weak columns are ambushed. the primary purpose of these operations is to procure arms, ammunition, and other essential materials. 3rd phase is decisive. The guerrillas have become strong enough that they are able to transform some or all of their forces into regular units capable of regular operations. The revolutionaries take the offensive, seize the initiative, and the campaign culminates with the annihilation of the enemy forces in open battle. In other words, the irregulars abandon guerrilla warfare, and the principle of destruction becomes operative.

using military jargon you may now return to what you consider safe or comfort zone and try the question again

Quote:
should we advocate an overhaul of rudimentary principles to �protract thorough political or social reform� the situation we find ourselves in?


while at it remember war is a political instrument used in pursuit of a political object. �since war is not an act of senseless passion but is controlled by its political object, the value of this object must determine the sacrifice to be made for it in magnitude and also in duration. once the expenditure of effort exceeds the value of the political object, the object must be renounced and peace must follow.� so the nusu mkate deal of 2008 fits here and although not declared as a war between good and bad the GNU was born from a mini war that the West did not allow us to finish and hence the recurring undercurrents.

Quote:
should we advocate an overhaul of rudimentary principles to �protract thorough political or social reform� the situation we find ourselves in?

I suggest you start a thread on this question, lay the foundation for it or otherwise more clearly define what it is and its parameters for even as I think I have an idea what your inquiry is and have alluded to it, I must take it that's only a small part of what you are trying to espouse particularly given the road you have gone with same in your elaboration, namely, the use of force to effect change or policy and conventional or unconventional war in particular.

Without knowing more, however, I can preliminarily state based on what you have said that all these theories on war are largely inapplicable and irrelevant if what we are talking about is the election of 2013.

I can see where a debate can be made in terms of national security what the new government would or must do to combat the growing threat of terrorism but even there the application is limited in the larger context of things.

Again, feel free to start a thread on this and we certainly can chip in our thoughts.

6th red highlight

well you solve the riddle but if still curious i can gladly elaborate. incidentally Globalization and its Discontents does have answers

See my comment above.

7th red highlight

truce taken. a separate thread will evolve when its time comes

Sawa.