How EU and US are struggling to influence UHURU/ RUTO …. RAILA may have been an easier option

By Katrina Manson.

FOR years after Kenya won independence from the UK in 1963, its former colonial ruler ran its army, navy and air force.

This was because, throughout the 1960s, Kenya’s status as a Cold War battleground goaded the West into action. When Russian-backed Somalia supported the secession of a chunk of Kenya’s northeast and Kenyan Somalis rebelled, the UK offered Kenya firepower in support.

There had been hints Kenya might swing the other way. In 1964, home minister Oginga Odinga negotiated a nine-project deal with the Soviet leader, Nikita Krushchev, and agreed on a $15m infrastructure loan with China. For the West, this was proof of apostasy.

The US characterised Odinga as a communist agent. Western support seemed to deliver: at one point, Kenya shut down a Chinese news bureau and expelled Chinese diplomats. Kenya had picked its lane.

This polarisation suited Kenya’s independence leader, Jomo Kenyatta, as he battled Odinga. Into the bargain, the UK and the US shored up Kenyatta’s regime as it lurched towards authoritarianism.

When the largely non-Kikuyu army mutinied in 1964, the British helped put down the revolt. Press censorship and detention without trial crept in; Kikuyu ascendancy blurred into ethnic chauvinism.

A generation later, the war on terror has replaced the Cold War, western anxiety about China’s rise continues and the West finds itself outmanoeuvred for domestic political gain once again.

Uhuru Kenyatta is just as deft at playing international politics as his father, even with an indictment for crimes against humanity hanging over his head. He is accused of bankrolling ethnic killing squads unleashed after disputed polls five years ago.

While he has since taken a stab at statesmanship, the attack dogs are out with consummate flam. His campaign team, which had British advisers, used the threat of western disapproval at his candidacy to bind support for Kenyatta under the emotive banner of sovereignty.

At his inauguration, Indian and Chinese diplomats were on show. Uganda’s president glowered that backers of The Hague-based International Criminal Court were guilty of arrogance and blackmail.

Foreign officials are penned in by such anti colonial rhetoric, which deliberately miscasts Kenyatta’s adversaries as the West, rather than the millions who voted for Raila Odinga.

Just as in the 1960s, western money is flowing into Kenya and security knits both together. Foreign officials remain intent on protecting western capitals by pursuing threats abroad and Kenyatta reminded them in his inauguration speech that Kenya will remain a key supporter of efforts to stop jihadis.

The US has paid for biometric identification at Kenyan borders; the UK trains Kenyan troops who battle jihadis. Both run counter terrorism operations from the country. This makes Kenya once again seem indispensable, and this time too, justice and ethnic chauvinism may be at stake.

One Kikuyu insider expects Kenyatta’s rule to return to the "brutal politics" of the 1960s. Western governments will remain keen allies of and investors in Kenya. But they may still find themselves being outsmarted.

©2013 The Financial Times Limited