By BMJ MURIITHI
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
In Summary
Kenya’s
push to have the International Criminal Court cases against President
Kenyatta and his deputy William Ruto deferred is facing hurdles from the
usual suspects. Interestingly, whether it succeeds or not, it will go
down in history as one of the most costly and energy-sapping diplomatic
assignments to be undertaken by the Jubilee administration.
Although no official figures have been made public yet, the cost of the reloaded shuttle diplomacy is likely to be humongous.
If
the numbers quoted in the Kalonzo Musyoka offensive and Deputy
President Ruto’s trans-Africa voyage are anything to go by, then the
cost of the latest pitch could give one Johnny Carson sleepless nights,
wondering how anyone in his right mind would find it so difficult to
understand a simple phrase like "Choices have consequences".
Some
may, however, argue that the end justifies the means and therefore the
cost of not pursuing the deferral would be staggering in the long run.
But
cost aside, what should get Kenyans even more worried is the prospect
of the deferral push coming a cropper. So far, all indications are that
chances of its success are almost nil, Russia and China’s support
notwithstanding. Let me qualify my hypothesis.
In the
many years I have covered the goings-on at the United Nations
headquarters in New York as a journalist, I have observed a trend that
has left even the most prolific of political commentators baffled.
It
is like an unwritten rule — one which appears to have been
inadvertently left out during the drafting of the charter that
established the UN Security Council in 1946: that whenever Russia votes
‘Yes’ on a resolution, the US almost always votes ‘Nay’, and vice versa.
Statistics
at the UNSC also indicate that traditionally, the US, the UK and France
almost always cast their vote on the same side. There is even a joke in
New York that anything the UK says has already been said by the US. And
therein lies the first quandary for Kenya.
The second
problem lies in President Barack Obama himself. The US leader, who has
not been known to sugar-coat his statements while reprimanding purveyors
of impunity, has increasingly been supportive of the ICC.
In
fact, of the three American presidents during whose tenures the ICC has
been in operation, Mr Obama is by far the most sympathetic to the Rome
Statute.
Unlike his predecessor who loathed the Court
so much that he even “unsigned” the Rome Statute, Obama has been vocal
in its support.
Although the US is not a signatory to
the Rome Statute, Mr Obama has been consistent in appealing to states
which ratified it to meet their part of the bargain. Some politicians in
his Democratic Party have on occasion equated his support of the
deferral to an assault on the international wheels of justice.
Any
policy position taken by a US president must have the blessings of his
political party. So far, the Kenyan issue has not been given much
attention like, say, the situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
It
is against this backdrop that Obama would be unlikely to casually
discard his position on the premise of a “counter-terrorism dimension”
belatedly introduced by Kenya and the African Union.
The
argument that Mr Kenyatta’s continued presence in Nairobi can in itself
foil potential terrorist attacks does not seem to convince Obama to go
against government policy.
On the presence of Kenyan
troops in Somalia, the US sees this as a continuous engagement, which Mr
Kenyatta “inherited” from his predecessor.
In the
meantime, everyone is wondering what President Kenyatta would do next
should the UNSC reject his plea. Asked the same question by a Voice of
America reporter in Washington DC recently, Kenya’s man at the UN, Mr
Macharia Kamau, responded; “We have other options... to expect that both
our President and his Deputy President would scuttle off to The Hague
is ludicrous.”
Now, Mr Kamau is not any other guy in
the street. He is arguably one of the most trusted diplomats in
Kenyatta’s administration and someone the President has been heavily
relying on in recent times for advice on international diplomacy.
Therefore, when he says that, Kenya and the AU have alternative options, one needs to think twice before dismissing his remark.
Granted,
I have my own misgivings in the manner in which the ICC prosecution has
handled the Kenyan cases. However, since no one has raised any issue
with the competence of the presiding judges, I would beg to differ with
Mr Kamau.
In the unlikely event that Mr Kenyatta
would seek my advice, I would urge him to quickly begin scouting for
competent Kenyans who are professionals in their field of expertise and
hire them to man the most critical ministries in his government as we
await the verdict from UNSC.
After that, show the world that the prosecutor got the wrong guy by fully co-operating with the International Criminal Court.
Once
you prove yourself innocent, concentrate on initiating a credible local
process so justice may also prevail for the thousands of post-election
violence victims. That is what the world, including the USA, would like
to see.
Mr Mureithi is a US-based journalist. (bmjmureithi@aol.com
No comments:
Post a Comment