Dear President Kibaki:
Many including this writer did not believe you could have personally conjured or approved a number of things that happened prior to, and immediately following the elections of December 27, 2007 that can be said to be hardline and contrary to your sworn oath of office. This is because your laid-back style of management coupled with your history and background just does not reveal or paint the picture of that kind of hardline, take-no-hostages, shrewd even reckless politician. It simply does not and the writer has this in mind as he writes to you.
Today, the International Criminal Court (ICC), summoned the six Kenyans named as suspects in the post-election violence that brought our country to the brink of a civil war in 2007. These six are commonly referred to as the Ocampo Six because of their number and the name of the ICC prosecutor prosecuting their cases, Jose Luis Moreno Ocampo.
Two of these suspects, your excellency, Uhuru Kenyatta and Francis Muthaura, serve in your administration as your Deputy-Prime Minister and Minister for Finance and Head of Civil Service and Secretary to the Cabinet, respectfully. A third, William Ruto, is now closely allied to you and may as well be one of your closest advisers if not a special feature in your own plan for your successor. The other three have no known close association with you currently but one of them, Hussain Ali, was your Police Commissioner during the 07 elections.
Prior to the ICC issuing summons for the Ocampo Six, you stepped up efforts to lobby the UN Security Council in hopes of having prosecution of the Ocampo Six deferred, contrary to the wishes of a majority of Kenyans and your own previously agreed to commitment to cooperate with the ICC in prosecuting these cases.
A majority of Kenyans are of the view, however, that your stepping up efforts to defer the prosecutions was unnecessary and an exercise in futility, especially given the position taken by the United States and the United Kingdom, namely, that they will veto any resolution granting such deferment. Now that the ICC has issued summonses for the Ocampo Six, therefore rendering moot your efforts to defer, you will agree the taxpayers’ money spent on these efforts was a waste.
That being said, the question now is, what next? What are you going to do, given the ICC has issued these summonses? Are you going to cooperate with the ICC or not? The wise thing to do in the view of this writer and most Kenyans is you need to cooperate with the ICC, otherwise our country which is barely trying to recover from the woes of 2007 will once again plunge into chaos and turmoil or at best emerge as a pariah nation with concomitant undesirable consequences.
It is not difficult, however, to see why making a decision to cooperate is a difficult one; after all, the accused, especially UMR (Uhuru, Muthaura, Ruto) are close to you personally and politically and three of them Muthaura, Ali and Uhuru (MAU) are accused of acting to advance your political interests but oddly Kosgey, Sang and Ruto (KSR) are the odd ones out in this context, given they are accused of acting not in your interest as they were indeed in the opposition at all relevant times.
Complicating this scenario for you, is the fact that the country is gearing-up for the next election circle when your successor is to be elected. The Constitution provides that those elections be held in December 2012 so for purposes of this letter the writer assumes that to be the date the elections will be held. Given all of this, it would appear on the surface that you are indeed in a conundrum but it need not be.
Your excellency, let this writer recommend a course of action that he believes you can undertake consistent with your obligation cooperate with the ICC and to also meet your political objectives without undermining your role as the president of our nation in light of the foregoing facts and that is, bring your partner Hon. Raila in this mix.
You attempted to seek deferment of the ICC prosecution on grounds that were flimsy at best and that’s why the United States and Britain declared your request dead on arrival. There is, however, an opportunity to successfully secure a deferral from the UN. Article 16 of the Rome Statute under which the ICC operates provides as follows “No investigation or prosecution may be commenced or proceeded with under this Statute for a period of 12 months after the Security Council, in a resolution adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, has requested the Court to that effect; that request may be renewed by the Council under the same conditions.”
The primary reason why the US and UK did not agree with you on the deferral and promised a veto is because they did not believe the reasons given for the request were genuine to warrant a deferral under the ICC rules. That Raila did not join you in the request further sealed this fate much to the chagrin of his opponents.
As you recall, and this is the basis of this recommendation, both you and Raila attempted to have a law passed to set-up a local tribunal to try perpetrators of post-election violence locally but a majority in parliament opposed the move all the way resulting in ICC taking up the cases as a matter of last resort.
Your excellency, as you also know, the reason we are in this ICC quagmire now is because the forces of impunity and the absence of a judicial system to try the post-election violence cases locally absent substantial judicial reform combined to force the ICC upon us.
Now that we have since then passed a new Constitution and most recently demonstrated a parting with the old ways and a reaffirmation of our commitment to implement it, it is plausible you and Raila can now come before the UN Security Council and plead the case for deferral on grounds the necessary reforms are underway and that the issue of post-election violence will finally be addressed locally under a new judicial system immune to executive intervention or influence.
If this were to happen, the writer believes the US and Britain will lift their block and allow passage of a resolution granting the deferment under Article 16 of the Rome Statue. This outcome is desirable because it will accomplish 3 things: First, it will unify the country again; at least for now akin to the temporary truces we have seen in the coalition over time albeit this time will be far more significant in what it would avoid.
Second, it will remove Kenya from the international scene and allow us to wallow in the customary local dirty politics in a climate where temperatures are law as opposed to where are now and seem to be heading absent a decisive action by you that takes care of the interests of our nation first such as the one suggested by the writer.
Third, and most importantly, it will remove the ethnic factor in the equation. As stated above, your excellency, the writer does not and neither do most Kenyans believe you are inclined to take a hardline position regardless of what jeopardy it creates for our country.
More specifically, it is not the view of this writer and many others that you will put our country in a position of reverse, after this much we have gone through merely to protect a handful of your pals or your political objectives for that matter; there are certain things greater than an individual or pride and top among them if not the only one in this context is the dignity and respect of a nation.
Finally, your excellency, it goes without saying that thousands of lives were lost, properties destroyed and innocent Kenyans lost their homes and are in camps even to this date. Establishing a mechanism to bring closure to this tragic stain in our history as soon as possible ought to be everyone’s objective but acting in any way that does not take us back there or worse, ought to be paramount in your mind as you decide what to do next.
We obviously hope and pray that your decision will be the right one for the right reasons in the national interest.
Sincerely,
/s
Samuel N. Omwenga, Esq.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Monday, March 7, 2011
PETITION TO THE MEMBERS OF UN SECURITY COUNCIL REGARDING THE KENYAN CASES AT THE ICC
Background:
The Permanent Mission of the Republic of Kenya presented to the United Nations and to all the Permanent and Observer Missions to the United Nations an Aide Memoire titled “Kenya’s Reform Agenda and Engagement with International Criminal Court (ICC)”.
Kenya’s Vice-President, H.E. Kalonzo Musyoka is scheduled to meet the UN Secretary General on February 28, 2011 to discuss the Aide Memoire, alongside the Communiqué of the 17th Extra-Ordinary Session of the IGAD Assembly of Heads of State and Government on Sudan, Somalia and Kenya, and the African Union Decision on the Implementation of the Decisions on the International Criminal Court on the deferral/referral of the Kenyan Cases at the ICC.
It is important for the UN Members, the Security Council and Secretary-General to have a complete view of the situation in Kenya before making any conclusion on the Aide Memoire. This petition presents a set of incontrovertible facts which will help interested parties to understand why the Kenyan Cases at the ICC should neither be deferred nor referred. These facts justify the ICC process.
Fifteen Reasons Why the Kenyan Cases at the ICC must neither be Deferred nor Referred:
• The prosecution of the Kenyan Cases at the ICC does not pose any threat to international peace and security. To the contrary, failure to bring to justice the perpetrators of post-election violence poses grave danger to Kenya’s internal peace and security.
• The ICC process was unanimously approved by the two parties under the Annan-brokered National Accord, and the instruments that paved the way for the process were signed by both the President and the Prime Minister for and on behalf of their respective political parties.
• The great majority of Kenyans support the ICC process as the most credible method to fighting entrenched impunity in their society. Surveys by leading institutions in the country confirm this position.
• Local trials will be exposed to:
o political manipulation by leaders pleading the ethnic card;
o threats to witnesses, their families and friends. Indeed, many witnesses have been hunted and killed by State security agents; and
o undue delays engineered by frivolous and vexatious applications.
• Local trials are not possible at the moment as there is no local mechanism in place to handle the cases. Any such local mechanism must meet the ICC standards for such trials. Kenya’s judiciary does not meet such standards.
• The judicial reforms contemplated under the New Constitution have not been implemented. The judges have not been vetted. The Prosecution Service has not been reformed.
• Local trials will be used to shield the suspects from justice. This was recently demonstrated by the nominations of Mr. Githu Muigai and Mr. Kioko Kilukumi to the positions of Attorney-General and Director of Public Prosecutions respectively, while they are on record as lawyers for two ICC suspects. In addition, an ICC suspect chaired the Panel that identified and nominated Justice Visram to the position of new Chief Justice.
• Since 1992, each general election has been characterized by state sponsored and people-to-people violence leading to deaths, evictions, rapes, arson, etc. While there have been official judicial inquiries on these mass murders, rapes, arson and evictions, no prosecutions have been conducted.
• Extra-judicial killings have increased significantly since 2003. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights has investigated and made his findings (Prof. Alstom). No prosecutions have been conducted.
• Kenya’s Parliament has on two occasions rejected Bills for the establishment of a local tribunal for the cases, and instead declared that the trials should be held at the Hague.
• Unless the cases are prosecuted to the end, the 2012 general elections will not be different and the violence may be unprecedented.
• Given the limited time between now and the next general elections in August 2012, local trials will take the country’s attention from critical and still pending reforms in the electoral system, police and judiciary.
• The request for deferral/referral has been made by one side of the Coalition Government. It is not a joint request of the Coalition Government. As such there is no national unanimity on the issue.
• The request for deferral/referral is intended, if granted, to provide enough lead time for snap general election in which it is planned that two of the ICC suspects will run and win on a joint ticket as President and Vice-President. Election to such high office, it is hoped, will protect the suspects from accountability at the ICC or at any other forum. Because such a ticket must win at all costs, the consequences to Kenya’s peace and security will be grave.
• Unless perpetrators of post-election violence are held to account, the idea of free and fair elections will lose meaning to Kenyans. Their faith in democracy will be irreparable eroded.
We therefore appeal to you to allow the Kenyan Cases at the ICC to proceed without any delays. Let there be justice for the suspects as well as for the victims.
Background:
The Permanent Mission of the Republic of Kenya presented to the United Nations and to all the Permanent and Observer Missions to the United Nations an Aide Memoire titled “Kenya’s Reform Agenda and Engagement with International Criminal Court (ICC)”.
Kenya’s Vice-President, H.E. Kalonzo Musyoka is scheduled to meet the UN Secretary General on February 28, 2011 to discuss the Aide Memoire, alongside the Communiqué of the 17th Extra-Ordinary Session of the IGAD Assembly of Heads of State and Government on Sudan, Somalia and Kenya, and the African Union Decision on the Implementation of the Decisions on the International Criminal Court on the deferral/referral of the Kenyan Cases at the ICC.
It is important for the UN Members, the Security Council and Secretary-General to have a complete view of the situation in Kenya before making any conclusion on the Aide Memoire. This petition presents a set of incontrovertible facts which will help interested parties to understand why the Kenyan Cases at the ICC should neither be deferred nor referred. These facts justify the ICC process.
Fifteen Reasons Why the Kenyan Cases at the ICC must neither be Deferred nor Referred:
• The prosecution of the Kenyan Cases at the ICC does not pose any threat to international peace and security. To the contrary, failure to bring to justice the perpetrators of post-election violence poses grave danger to Kenya’s internal peace and security.
• The ICC process was unanimously approved by the two parties under the Annan-brokered National Accord, and the instruments that paved the way for the process were signed by both the President and the Prime Minister for and on behalf of their respective political parties.
• The great majority of Kenyans support the ICC process as the most credible method to fighting entrenched impunity in their society. Surveys by leading institutions in the country confirm this position.
• Local trials will be exposed to:
o political manipulation by leaders pleading the ethnic card;
o threats to witnesses, their families and friends. Indeed, many witnesses have been hunted and killed by State security agents; and
o undue delays engineered by frivolous and vexatious applications.
• Local trials are not possible at the moment as there is no local mechanism in place to handle the cases. Any such local mechanism must meet the ICC standards for such trials. Kenya’s judiciary does not meet such standards.
• The judicial reforms contemplated under the New Constitution have not been implemented. The judges have not been vetted. The Prosecution Service has not been reformed.
• Local trials will be used to shield the suspects from justice. This was recently demonstrated by the nominations of Mr. Githu Muigai and Mr. Kioko Kilukumi to the positions of Attorney-General and Director of Public Prosecutions respectively, while they are on record as lawyers for two ICC suspects. In addition, an ICC suspect chaired the Panel that identified and nominated Justice Visram to the position of new Chief Justice.
• Since 1992, each general election has been characterized by state sponsored and people-to-people violence leading to deaths, evictions, rapes, arson, etc. While there have been official judicial inquiries on these mass murders, rapes, arson and evictions, no prosecutions have been conducted.
• Extra-judicial killings have increased significantly since 2003. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights has investigated and made his findings (Prof. Alstom). No prosecutions have been conducted.
• Kenya’s Parliament has on two occasions rejected Bills for the establishment of a local tribunal for the cases, and instead declared that the trials should be held at the Hague.
• Unless the cases are prosecuted to the end, the 2012 general elections will not be different and the violence may be unprecedented.
• Given the limited time between now and the next general elections in August 2012, local trials will take the country’s attention from critical and still pending reforms in the electoral system, police and judiciary.
• The request for deferral/referral has been made by one side of the Coalition Government. It is not a joint request of the Coalition Government. As such there is no national unanimity on the issue.
• The request for deferral/referral is intended, if granted, to provide enough lead time for snap general election in which it is planned that two of the ICC suspects will run and win on a joint ticket as President and Vice-President. Election to such high office, it is hoped, will protect the suspects from accountability at the ICC or at any other forum. Because such a ticket must win at all costs, the consequences to Kenya’s peace and security will be grave.
• Unless perpetrators of post-election violence are held to account, the idea of free and fair elections will lose meaning to Kenyans. Their faith in democracy will be irreparable eroded.
We therefore appeal to you to allow the Kenyan Cases at the ICC to proceed without any delays. Let there be justice for the suspects as well as for the victims.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
My comments and analysis about recent news headlines and stories
February 16, 2011
Headline: Kibaki, Muthaura, security chiefs meet envoys over ICC deferral bid
Any one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council can defeat Kibaki's effort to defer ICC prosecution of the named suspects. Two of the members, US and UK, have stated they will oppose therefore defeat the efforts to defer. What then is Kibaki dispatching Kenya's envoys to do? Clearly it must be something apparent only to him and his team but whatever that is, it cannot be good.
February 17, 2011
Headline: [Speaker Marende’s] Ruling stuns PNU but excites ODM
Speaker Marende's ruling today on the constitutionality of the list of nominees sent to parliament by Kibaki is the correct and right one as a matter of law and no one can disagree if they were serious. The ruling is not only the correct and right one, it is historic and a testament of a country's conciousness as to the meaning of our new Constitution. Speaker Marende must be praised and prayed for in his stewardship of Parliament and its role in the new Kenya.
February 18, 2011
Headline: Uhuru dares PM to popularity contest [in Parliament]
The function of parliament is to pass laws after reasonable debate by presumably reasonable and well thought out representatives, even though sometimes both remain wanting. It is certainly not a place for popularity contest for the sake of popularity contest as Uhuru seems to believe. Relegating parliament to that level demeans it and one would hope we have matured as a country beyond such antics.
February 18, 2011
Headline: Kibaki fights back
If history teaches us anything, it is how many times we fail to learn from it. Kibaki takes note of his contribution in the promulgation of the new Constitution yet he is acting as if it doesn't exist, preferring to do things the old fashioned way: let's have Gicheru and his other buddies in the judiciary swing this thing his way. The problem is, Gicheru is already on the record saying the nomination in unconstitutional; so has the AG, the Constitutional Court in its preliminary ruling, the Speaker, and all lawyers who have spoken on this, including those not on ODM camp; did the geniuses advising Kibaki not tell him this?
February 18, 2011
Nominations Impasse: let reason prevail [commentary]
One hopes every politician in Kenya, especially those hellbent on pursuing short-sited, selfish and ill-advised objectives with no regard for the public interest get to read and re-read this solemn commentary; the case for common sense, reason and nationalism made in the commentary could not be stated any better.
February 21, 2011
Headline: Wako faults Kibaki nominations
It is said even a dead clock is right once a day; well, Mr. Wako is right on his position re Kibaki's nominees. It is quite telling that Kibaki ignored his counsel and instead hopped on a train that's about to derail and cause havoc, if its momentum is not halted by the only trio that can do so and that is the 3 judge panel. We are all holding our collective breaths and praying for them. Amen.
February 21, 2011
Why Kibaki withdrew list of nominees
Here is how I believe the history books will record this saga: In waging war against the nation, the field generals Uhuru, Muthaura and Ruto ill-advised their Commander In Chief, leading to major defeat of the Commander and his generals who surrendered and sought forgiveness from the nation. A peace loving nation obliged. Now, let's hope a lesson is learned and never again go down this road; this is a new Kenya indeed.
February 27, 2011
Headline: Kenya’s Grand Coalition enters its last lap
It is indeed the final lap of a 3000m 2-man steeplechase race with man eating creatures in the deep ends of the water jumps lurking for a political kill for either of them who falls in it. Never mind Kibaki had an advantage from the start, having falsely started without being disqualified; Raila has done a good job in catching up with him and if they both hang on and cross the finish line, only the man eating creatures will be disappointed.
There is of course the question what happens when the race is over. One would hope Kibaki goes into retirement with some pride of accomplishment everything considered while Raila basks in the glory of victory having finished first in this grueling race.
February 27, 2011
Headline: Uhuru: Raila name soiled with chaos
Uhuru is not a credible presidential candidate for 2012 because (1) he lost miserably in 2002 largely because he was propped up there by Moi and had nothing else (2) he has since failed to show any reason he should not be rejected again (3) his recent table-banging and uncontrolled outburst only go to confirm this. If I were Uhuru I would try to work with Raila as opposed to Ruto and company.
March 2, 2011
Headline: Kosgey trial starts with state calling 22 witnesses
Given the time he has been at the till, Kosgey gets an A for not having a collection of corruption charges but even with these few, he was not charged or otherwise made to pay. The irony of it all is the government will never prove this one case they have brought against him. The case won't even feature in his life story but abandoning Raila for tribal reasons will and that is unfortunate indeed.
March 5, 2011
Headline: Uhuru, Ruto, Raila wars take a new twist.
ODM should expel every single one of these rebel MPs and recruit progress minded candidates to campaign against them. ODM supporters in the diaspora will certainly mobilize and offer support to defeat these renegades. This need not be the case, however; these MPs should come down from their high horses and join their party leader in working to move the country forward.
March 6, 2011
Headline:Kibaki under pressure to drop ODM advisors
Kiunjuri says Ruto's allying himself with PNU has rejuvenated the party. If Ruto's dogged attacks on Raila based on lies, distortions and innuendo is rejuvenating PNU, then the party is in worse shambles than I thought and this confirms that it has no agenda to move the country forward. Plotting to prevent Raila from being reelected president without more is obviously not helpful in that regard.
Headline: Kibaki, Muthaura, security chiefs meet envoys over ICC deferral bid
Any one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council can defeat Kibaki's effort to defer ICC prosecution of the named suspects. Two of the members, US and UK, have stated they will oppose therefore defeat the efforts to defer. What then is Kibaki dispatching Kenya's envoys to do? Clearly it must be something apparent only to him and his team but whatever that is, it cannot be good.
February 17, 2011
Headline: [Speaker Marende’s] Ruling stuns PNU but excites ODM
Speaker Marende's ruling today on the constitutionality of the list of nominees sent to parliament by Kibaki is the correct and right one as a matter of law and no one can disagree if they were serious. The ruling is not only the correct and right one, it is historic and a testament of a country's conciousness as to the meaning of our new Constitution. Speaker Marende must be praised and prayed for in his stewardship of Parliament and its role in the new Kenya.
February 18, 2011
Headline: Uhuru dares PM to popularity contest [in Parliament]
The function of parliament is to pass laws after reasonable debate by presumably reasonable and well thought out representatives, even though sometimes both remain wanting. It is certainly not a place for popularity contest for the sake of popularity contest as Uhuru seems to believe. Relegating parliament to that level demeans it and one would hope we have matured as a country beyond such antics.
February 18, 2011
Headline: Kibaki fights back
If history teaches us anything, it is how many times we fail to learn from it. Kibaki takes note of his contribution in the promulgation of the new Constitution yet he is acting as if it doesn't exist, preferring to do things the old fashioned way: let's have Gicheru and his other buddies in the judiciary swing this thing his way. The problem is, Gicheru is already on the record saying the nomination in unconstitutional; so has the AG, the Constitutional Court in its preliminary ruling, the Speaker, and all lawyers who have spoken on this, including those not on ODM camp; did the geniuses advising Kibaki not tell him this?
February 18, 2011
Nominations Impasse: let reason prevail [commentary]
One hopes every politician in Kenya, especially those hellbent on pursuing short-sited, selfish and ill-advised objectives with no regard for the public interest get to read and re-read this solemn commentary; the case for common sense, reason and nationalism made in the commentary could not be stated any better.
February 21, 2011
Headline: Wako faults Kibaki nominations
It is said even a dead clock is right once a day; well, Mr. Wako is right on his position re Kibaki's nominees. It is quite telling that Kibaki ignored his counsel and instead hopped on a train that's about to derail and cause havoc, if its momentum is not halted by the only trio that can do so and that is the 3 judge panel. We are all holding our collective breaths and praying for them. Amen.
February 21, 2011
Why Kibaki withdrew list of nominees
Here is how I believe the history books will record this saga: In waging war against the nation, the field generals Uhuru, Muthaura and Ruto ill-advised their Commander In Chief, leading to major defeat of the Commander and his generals who surrendered and sought forgiveness from the nation. A peace loving nation obliged. Now, let's hope a lesson is learned and never again go down this road; this is a new Kenya indeed.
February 27, 2011
Headline: Kenya’s Grand Coalition enters its last lap
It is indeed the final lap of a 3000m 2-man steeplechase race with man eating creatures in the deep ends of the water jumps lurking for a political kill for either of them who falls in it. Never mind Kibaki had an advantage from the start, having falsely started without being disqualified; Raila has done a good job in catching up with him and if they both hang on and cross the finish line, only the man eating creatures will be disappointed.
There is of course the question what happens when the race is over. One would hope Kibaki goes into retirement with some pride of accomplishment everything considered while Raila basks in the glory of victory having finished first in this grueling race.
February 27, 2011
Headline: Uhuru: Raila name soiled with chaos
Uhuru is not a credible presidential candidate for 2012 because (1) he lost miserably in 2002 largely because he was propped up there by Moi and had nothing else (2) he has since failed to show any reason he should not be rejected again (3) his recent table-banging and uncontrolled outburst only go to confirm this. If I were Uhuru I would try to work with Raila as opposed to Ruto and company.
March 2, 2011
Headline: Kosgey trial starts with state calling 22 witnesses
Given the time he has been at the till, Kosgey gets an A for not having a collection of corruption charges but even with these few, he was not charged or otherwise made to pay. The irony of it all is the government will never prove this one case they have brought against him. The case won't even feature in his life story but abandoning Raila for tribal reasons will and that is unfortunate indeed.
March 5, 2011
Headline: Uhuru, Ruto, Raila wars take a new twist.
ODM should expel every single one of these rebel MPs and recruit progress minded candidates to campaign against them. ODM supporters in the diaspora will certainly mobilize and offer support to defeat these renegades. This need not be the case, however; these MPs should come down from their high horses and join their party leader in working to move the country forward.
March 6, 2011
Headline:Kibaki under pressure to drop ODM advisors
Kiunjuri says Ruto's allying himself with PNU has rejuvenated the party. If Ruto's dogged attacks on Raila based on lies, distortions and innuendo is rejuvenating PNU, then the party is in worse shambles than I thought and this confirms that it has no agenda to move the country forward. Plotting to prevent Raila from being reelected president without more is obviously not helpful in that regard.
Kibaki and his futile efforts to defer ICC prosecution of Ruto & Company
March 4, 2011
Headline: Kibaki unleashes five ministers to lobby for deferral of Kenya ICC cases
Any of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council can defeat Kibaki's effort to defer ICC’s prosecution of Ruto and his co-defendants. Two of the permanent members, US and UK, have categorically stated they will oppose therefore defeat any efforts to defer the prosecution. What then is Kibaki and his cadre’s objective for this so called lobbying? There cannot be any good reason for these efforts as far as the country is concerned.
As one who from the very beginning never believed anyone other than those who in fact committed criminal offenses should be prosecuted for events that occurred post-election, including Ruto, I find these efforts to lobby the UN against these odds totally mindless.
The sensible approach to address post-election violence has to be faithfulness to, or at least the absence of efforts to frustrate implementation of the new constitution and when that is done or at least when there is an appearance it is being done, then ICC can be persuaded to allow the establishment of a local tribunal to try these suspects who should be acquitted either at the Hague or in Kenya unless they in fact committed criminal offenses.
The irony is only Raila can save this bunch from going to the Hague by joining Kibaki in the quest for deferral and having a local tribunal set up to look into this but I don’t believe he could do so unless he is satisfied the culprits are not engaged in efforts to prevent or frustrate implementation of the new constitution and that there is actual judicial reform unstoppably taking place.
Kibaki’s recent about-face from torpedoing the constitution and imposing cronies in high office is a good first step going in this direction.
Headline: Kibaki unleashes five ministers to lobby for deferral of Kenya ICC cases
Any of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council can defeat Kibaki's effort to defer ICC’s prosecution of Ruto and his co-defendants. Two of the permanent members, US and UK, have categorically stated they will oppose therefore defeat any efforts to defer the prosecution. What then is Kibaki and his cadre’s objective for this so called lobbying? There cannot be any good reason for these efforts as far as the country is concerned.
As one who from the very beginning never believed anyone other than those who in fact committed criminal offenses should be prosecuted for events that occurred post-election, including Ruto, I find these efforts to lobby the UN against these odds totally mindless.
The sensible approach to address post-election violence has to be faithfulness to, or at least the absence of efforts to frustrate implementation of the new constitution and when that is done or at least when there is an appearance it is being done, then ICC can be persuaded to allow the establishment of a local tribunal to try these suspects who should be acquitted either at the Hague or in Kenya unless they in fact committed criminal offenses.
The irony is only Raila can save this bunch from going to the Hague by joining Kibaki in the quest for deferral and having a local tribunal set up to look into this but I don’t believe he could do so unless he is satisfied the culprits are not engaged in efforts to prevent or frustrate implementation of the new constitution and that there is actual judicial reform unstoppably taking place.
Kibaki’s recent about-face from torpedoing the constitution and imposing cronies in high office is a good first step going in this direction.
Murugi and like-minded politicians in Kenya are a perennial nightmare for the country; they are ever so consumed with plotting and scheming against Raila nothing else seems to matter in their lives. However, Murugi is outdoing herself in tr...ying to sully the First Lady Ida Odinga’s name. Yes, I say First Lady and that is no disrespect for the other First Lady, Lucy Kibaki. Let me explain myself: had the elections of 07 been conducted in conformity with the law, to put it mildly, all of these would be non-issues.
The elections were not conducted in conformity with law and thus the creation of the coalition government structure we have of having a president and a co-equal prime minister. Given the constitution recognizes that the two leaders are co-equal under the law, then it follows that their respective wives share equally in their state roles which are nowhere defined in the constitution. Traditionally, however, the wife of the leader of a country, is the First Lady. However, where as in this case, you have two equal leaders of the country under the law, then it follows their wives are respectively First Ladies; in other words, we have twin First Ladies.
This being the case, it follows therefore that both Shaban and Murugi come second to First Lady Ida and First Lady Lucy in all matters protocol and everything else of public interest or concern.
As to the MPs accusing the PM for “misusing” public resources to have First Lady Ida Odinga in the Kenya delegation, all one needs to know to see the hypocrisy and motivation of this bunch is that none of them would have raised the same accusation against the president had it been First Lady Lucy Kibaki who was in the delegation.
The elections were not conducted in conformity with law and thus the creation of the coalition government structure we have of having a president and a co-equal prime minister. Given the constitution recognizes that the two leaders are co-equal under the law, then it follows that their respective wives share equally in their state roles which are nowhere defined in the constitution. Traditionally, however, the wife of the leader of a country, is the First Lady. However, where as in this case, you have two equal leaders of the country under the law, then it follows their wives are respectively First Ladies; in other words, we have twin First Ladies.
This being the case, it follows therefore that both Shaban and Murugi come second to First Lady Ida and First Lady Lucy in all matters protocol and everything else of public interest or concern.
As to the MPs accusing the PM for “misusing” public resources to have First Lady Ida Odinga in the Kenya delegation, all one needs to know to see the hypocrisy and motivation of this bunch is that none of them would have raised the same accusation against the president had it been First Lady Lucy Kibaki who was in the delegation.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
The Birth of A New Country Southern Sudan
The all but certain emergence of a new country to follow the referendum in Southern Sudan, which begins today, has had me thinking: what does it take to raise a country from infancy onwards to maturity? This in turn triggered another question in my mind, why are countries formed; can we all not agree to live and be governed by one government?
Or put another way, can we not have a One World United, let’s call it the United World of the World (UWWW)? So before looking into what does a new country like the one about to be formed in Southern Sudan needs from infancy to maturity, I decided to look into these other questions that came in mind; not all of them. But the two I have mentioned above, namely, why are countries formed and why can we not live under one roof, in one country, that is.
The first thing I wanted to find out is how many countries are in the world as I write only to find out that, while it would appear to be a rather simple matter to determine how many countries there are in the world, it is in fact quite complex. This is due not only to the ever-shifting political landscape, but also because the term “countries” is somewhat fluid and open to interpretation.
A narrow definition of what a country is might look at a well-established group – such as the United Nations – and take its list of recognized members. Going by the United Nations, there are 193 recognized states, with 192 being members of the United Nations, and the Vatican City, which is a permanent observer with all rights of a member, save voting rights.
One could also take an established definition for what a state is, and find all states which match that definition. The most widely-accepted definition is given by the Montevideo Convention, from 1933. By these guidelines, a state must have a government, be in a position to interact with other states diplomatically, have a defined territory, and possess a permanent population.
A rough count of states that meet this criteria places the number of countries in the world at 201. That includes the 193 states recognized by the United Nations, as well as eight additional states: the Western Sahara, Taiwan, Northern Cyprus, Somaliland, South Ossetia, Transnistria, Abkhazia, and Nagorno-Karabakh. These states meet the criteria set out by the Montevideo Convention, but are all in a struggle with another, larger state, for independence, and so far have not been formally recognized by the United Nations.
An even broader definition could include some states which have been recognized by a number of countries, but have either failed to establish a steady government, or have failed to receive recognition by enough fellow states to truly meet the criteria of the Montevideo Convention. By adding in states such as the Cook Islands, Palestine, or the Chechen Republic, one could get to a much greater number of countries in the world – somewhere in the range of 210-230.
Going even broader, one can include countries that are part of a larger country, sometimes referred to as constituent countries. One obvious example of this would be the countries of England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland – all making up the single country of the United Kingdom. In most counts of the countries in the world, these four countries are counted as one, but they could easily be counted as four instead. By including these types of countries there could be many hundreds of more countries in the world.
Similarly, territories – such as the territory of Guam, a possession of the United States – are usually not counted in an official count, but are states by many criteria. These are referred to by the United Nations as Non-Self Governing Territories, and include an additional 16 territories.
So, going back to my question how many countries are there in the world, the short answer is 193 by the count of the United Nations, 201 by a narrow interpretation of the Montevideo Conventions and somewhere over 220 by a looser interpretation of the Conventions.
Having found out the number of countries in the world, I next wanted to know why do we even have these many countries; can we not all live under one country, one global village so to speak? Before I could even engage myself to answer the question, I spontenously thought about the familiar story about the building of the Tower of Babel found in Genesis 11:1-9 about the tower of Babel; could it offer an answer to this question?
The Bible tells us that a united people with one language living after the Great Flood, migrated to the land of Shinar, where they resolved to build a city with a tower "with its top in the heavens." God came down to see what they were up-to and said: “Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.” And so God scattered them upon the face of the Earth, and confused their languages, and they left off building the city, which was called Babel.
Did God intend to create many small nations out of one? I think so; therefore there is no reason to go against His wish and try to go back to the day before the Great Flood in forming one world, one nation so God provided the justification upon which these countries may be created and that is, diversity united by a common goal and purpose to celebrate the differences among as even as we are united in Him. Now, this is but one believe why I think countries are necessary but it is just that; one’s belief. In reality, a quest for political freedom from oppression drives formation of many a country.
That being settled, I come to the question that started all this for me; what does it take to raise from infancy to maturity, a new country like the soon likely to emerge in Southern Sudan? To be sure, a new country faces daunting challenges, not the least of which is stability, especially where those from whence they have been given birth, have unfinished agenda. Setting aside stability challenges related to overall security, there are several other challenges such a country will face and even though some of these challenges are relatively easy to address, such as picking the country’s name (akin to naming a child, except it is not a good idea to pick a name that already exists), or picking a national anthem, ditto, other challenges are complex and require a great deal of money and expertise to successfully tackle. The major ones that come to mind are the following:
• Establishing a political system and corresponding voting rights
• Establishing an economic system
• Establishing a legal system
• Establishing monetary and tax systems
• Establishing an agricultural system not only to feed the nation but also to start off the economy by providing resources for commodities trade.
• Establishing a basic education system, especially vocational education so that the country can build up its working force.
• Establishing a healthcare system to keep everyone healthy to fight the new government
• Establishing law enforcement, both a military to protect from outside forces and a policing force to enforce domestic peace.
• Along with all the setting up, it would be very useful to start trading with other nations as soon as possible.
• Securing and/or expanding relations with influential large nations that would give the new state political, financial, and possible military backing.
• Last but definitely not least - build a new and expanded infrastructure
• Establishing a monetary system
Tackling these challenges is not going to be easy, but, as is in the case of the birth of a new baby where the parents would have taken all the time necessary to study parenting and what comes with it, one can assume Southern Sudan President Salva Kiir has been doing just that relative to the birth of the new country and is ready to nurse and raise the soon to be born country. As is also the case in new births, one hopes family and friends are ready to offer a hand as necessary except changing diapers, which only the brave of the bravest family and friends would dare.
Or put another way, can we not have a One World United, let’s call it the United World of the World (UWWW)? So before looking into what does a new country like the one about to be formed in Southern Sudan needs from infancy to maturity, I decided to look into these other questions that came in mind; not all of them. But the two I have mentioned above, namely, why are countries formed and why can we not live under one roof, in one country, that is.
The first thing I wanted to find out is how many countries are in the world as I write only to find out that, while it would appear to be a rather simple matter to determine how many countries there are in the world, it is in fact quite complex. This is due not only to the ever-shifting political landscape, but also because the term “countries” is somewhat fluid and open to interpretation.
A narrow definition of what a country is might look at a well-established group – such as the United Nations – and take its list of recognized members. Going by the United Nations, there are 193 recognized states, with 192 being members of the United Nations, and the Vatican City, which is a permanent observer with all rights of a member, save voting rights.
One could also take an established definition for what a state is, and find all states which match that definition. The most widely-accepted definition is given by the Montevideo Convention, from 1933. By these guidelines, a state must have a government, be in a position to interact with other states diplomatically, have a defined territory, and possess a permanent population.
A rough count of states that meet this criteria places the number of countries in the world at 201. That includes the 193 states recognized by the United Nations, as well as eight additional states: the Western Sahara, Taiwan, Northern Cyprus, Somaliland, South Ossetia, Transnistria, Abkhazia, and Nagorno-Karabakh. These states meet the criteria set out by the Montevideo Convention, but are all in a struggle with another, larger state, for independence, and so far have not been formally recognized by the United Nations.
An even broader definition could include some states which have been recognized by a number of countries, but have either failed to establish a steady government, or have failed to receive recognition by enough fellow states to truly meet the criteria of the Montevideo Convention. By adding in states such as the Cook Islands, Palestine, or the Chechen Republic, one could get to a much greater number of countries in the world – somewhere in the range of 210-230.
Going even broader, one can include countries that are part of a larger country, sometimes referred to as constituent countries. One obvious example of this would be the countries of England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland – all making up the single country of the United Kingdom. In most counts of the countries in the world, these four countries are counted as one, but they could easily be counted as four instead. By including these types of countries there could be many hundreds of more countries in the world.
Similarly, territories – such as the territory of Guam, a possession of the United States – are usually not counted in an official count, but are states by many criteria. These are referred to by the United Nations as Non-Self Governing Territories, and include an additional 16 territories.
So, going back to my question how many countries are there in the world, the short answer is 193 by the count of the United Nations, 201 by a narrow interpretation of the Montevideo Conventions and somewhere over 220 by a looser interpretation of the Conventions.
Having found out the number of countries in the world, I next wanted to know why do we even have these many countries; can we not all live under one country, one global village so to speak? Before I could even engage myself to answer the question, I spontenously thought about the familiar story about the building of the Tower of Babel found in Genesis 11:1-9 about the tower of Babel; could it offer an answer to this question?
The Bible tells us that a united people with one language living after the Great Flood, migrated to the land of Shinar, where they resolved to build a city with a tower "with its top in the heavens." God came down to see what they were up-to and said: “Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.” And so God scattered them upon the face of the Earth, and confused their languages, and they left off building the city, which was called Babel.
Did God intend to create many small nations out of one? I think so; therefore there is no reason to go against His wish and try to go back to the day before the Great Flood in forming one world, one nation so God provided the justification upon which these countries may be created and that is, diversity united by a common goal and purpose to celebrate the differences among as even as we are united in Him. Now, this is but one believe why I think countries are necessary but it is just that; one’s belief. In reality, a quest for political freedom from oppression drives formation of many a country.
That being settled, I come to the question that started all this for me; what does it take to raise from infancy to maturity, a new country like the soon likely to emerge in Southern Sudan? To be sure, a new country faces daunting challenges, not the least of which is stability, especially where those from whence they have been given birth, have unfinished agenda. Setting aside stability challenges related to overall security, there are several other challenges such a country will face and even though some of these challenges are relatively easy to address, such as picking the country’s name (akin to naming a child, except it is not a good idea to pick a name that already exists), or picking a national anthem, ditto, other challenges are complex and require a great deal of money and expertise to successfully tackle. The major ones that come to mind are the following:
• Establishing a political system and corresponding voting rights
• Establishing an economic system
• Establishing a legal system
• Establishing monetary and tax systems
• Establishing an agricultural system not only to feed the nation but also to start off the economy by providing resources for commodities trade.
• Establishing a basic education system, especially vocational education so that the country can build up its working force.
• Establishing a healthcare system to keep everyone healthy to fight the new government
• Establishing law enforcement, both a military to protect from outside forces and a policing force to enforce domestic peace.
• Along with all the setting up, it would be very useful to start trading with other nations as soon as possible.
• Securing and/or expanding relations with influential large nations that would give the new state political, financial, and possible military backing.
• Last but definitely not least - build a new and expanded infrastructure
• Establishing a monetary system
Tackling these challenges is not going to be easy, but, as is in the case of the birth of a new baby where the parents would have taken all the time necessary to study parenting and what comes with it, one can assume Southern Sudan President Salva Kiir has been doing just that relative to the birth of the new country and is ready to nurse and raise the soon to be born country. As is also the case in new births, one hopes family and friends are ready to offer a hand as necessary except changing diapers, which only the brave of the bravest family and friends would dare.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)