The
great American poet Walt Whitman said, “Either define the moment or the
moment will define you.” Will the election of Uhuru Kenyatta as
president of Kenya define President Barack Obama in Africa or will
President Barack Obama use the election of President Kenyatta to define
his human rights policy in Africa?
Following the presidential election in late December 2007 and the
Kenya Electoral Commission’s hurried declaration of incumbent President
Mwai Kibaki as the winner, supporters of opposition presidential
candidate Raila Odinga in the Orange Democratic Movement alleged
widespread electoral fraud and irregularities. For nearly two months
following that election, ethnic violence and strife in Kenya raged
resulting in more than 1200 deaths, 3,500 injuries, and the displacement
of over 350,000 persons and destruction of over 100,000 properties.
In March 2011, Uhuru Kenyatta was indicted by the International
Criminal Court (ICC) on various counts of crimes against humanity
arising from the post-election violence. The
details of the ICC charges against Kenyatta and other defendants are
set forth in exhaustive detail in a 10-count indictment.Kenyatta
allegedly conspired, planned, financed, and coordinated violence against
the supporters of Odinga’s Orange Democratic Movement. He allegedly
“controlled the Mungiki organization” and directed the commission of
murders, deportations, rapes, persecutions, and other inhumane acts
against civilians in the towns of Kibera, Kisumu, Naivasha, and Nakuru.
Kenyatta’s trial is scheduled to start at The Hague on July 9. Kenyatta’s
election running mate and vice president-elect William Ruto as well as
other top Kenyan officials are part of different ICC cases. Ruto’s trial has been postponed to May 28.
Kenyatta and Ruto are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Kenyatta’s
lawyer Steven Kay claimed the ICC charges were “determined on false
evidence, evidence that was concealed from the defense and the facts
underlying the charges have been put utterly and fully in doubt.”
U.S. efforts to ensure free and fair elections in Kenya after 2008
The U.S. was among the first nations to recognize the validity of
Kenya’s 2007 presidential election. At the time, U.S. State Department
Spokesman Robert McInturff announced, “The United States congratulates the winners and is calling for calm, and for Kenyans to abide by the results declared by the election commission. We support the commission’s decision.”
But U.S. validation of that election was completely unwarranted since
there was substantial credible evidence of rampant electoral fraud and
vote rigging in favor of Kibaki and considerable doubt about the
neutrality and integrity of the Kenya Electoral Commission.
Over the past two years, the U.S. has made significant investments to
promote free and fair elections in Kenya and prevent a repetition of
the 2007 violence. According to the U.S. State Department,
“since 2010, the U.S. Government has contributed more than $35 million
to support electoral reform, civic education, and elections preparation
in Kenya. In addition, since 2008, we have provided more than $90
million to support constitutional reform, conflict mitigation, civil
society strengthening, and youth leadership and empowerment, all of
which contribute significantly to the goal of free, fair, and peaceful
elections in Kenya.”
Obama’s defining moment in Africa?
The March 2013 presidential election in which Kenyatta won by a razor
thin margin of 50.7 percent is not entirely free of controversy. Raila
Odinga, who received about 43 percent of the votes, has rejected the
outcome of the election and filed action in court alleging collusion
between the Kenyatta and the electoral commission, not unlike what
happened in 2007. This time around, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry
offered only half-hearted congratulations and assurances to the people
of Kenya and applauded the fortitude of those who counted the ballots.
But his congratulatory statement belied an apparent disappointment as
manifested in his omission of the names of the election victors. “On
behalf of the United States of America, I want to congratulate the
people of Kenya for voting peacefully on March 4 and all those elected to office…
I am inspired by the overwhelming desire of Kenyans to peacefully make
their voices heard… We … will continue to be a strong friend and ally of
the Kenyan people.”
Prior to the election, it seemed President Obama and his top African
policy man Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Johnnie
Carson were playing a bit of the old “good cop, bad cop” routine.
President Obama in a special video message to the people of Kenya said
that though he is proud of his Kenyan heritage “the choice of who will
lead Kenya is up to the Kenyan people. The United States does not
endorse any candidate for office…” He assured Kenyans that they “will
continue to have a strong friend and partner in the United States of
America.” But Johnnie Carson who was also a former U.S. ambassador to
Kenya, was more blunt in hinting to Kenyans that their “choices have
consequences”. Carson hectored Kenyans that they “should be thoughtful
about those they choose to be leaders, the impact their choices would
have on their country, region or global community.” Does that mean
electing ICC suspects in crimes against humanity could bring about
crippling sanctions?
What is good for the goose is good for the gander?
Now that Kenyatta and Ruto are elected, will the U.S. do what it did
with Omar al-Bashir of the Sudan, another notorious suspect indicted by
the ICC? Or will Kenyatta and his government receive special
dispensation from sanctions and other penalties?
Carson argued that Kenya and the Sudan are two different situations.
“I don’t want to make a comparison with Sudan in its totality because
Sudan is a special case in many ways.” What makes Bashir and Sudan
different, according to Carson, is the fact that Sudan is on the list of
countries that support terrorism and Bashir and his co-defendants are
under indictment for the genocide in Darfur. Since “none of that applies
to Kenya,” according to Carson, it appears the U.S. will follow a
different policy.
U.S. Secretary of State Kerry seemed to provide a more direct
response in his “congratulatory” statement in explaining why Kenya will
get special treatment. “Kenya has been one of America’s strongest and
most enduring partners in Africa… and [the U.S] will continue to be a
strong friend and ally of the Kenyan people.” That is diplomatese for
“we will continue with business as usual in Kenya” come hell or high
water at the ICC. Carson’s predecessor, Jendayi Frazer, cut to the
chase: “Kenyatta knows that he needs the United States, and the United
States knows it needs Kenya… And so I suspect that while it might be
awkward, there won’t be a significant change in our policy stances
toward Kenya or theirs toward us.”
A double standard of U.S. human rights policy in Africa?
It seems the U.S. has a double standard of human rights policy in
Africa. One for those the U.S. does not like such as Bashir and Robert
Mugabe of Zimbabwe, and another for those it likes like the late Meles
Zenawi, Paul Kagame, Yuweri Museveni and now Uhuru Kenyatta.
Following Bashir’s ICC indictment in 2009, Ambassador Susan E. Rice,
U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, demanded his
arrest and prosecution: “The people of Sudan have suffered too much for
too long, and an end to their anguish will not come easily. Those who
committed atrocities in Sudan, including genocide, should be brought to
justice.” Just before her resignation last month, U.S. Secretary of
State Hilary Clinton urged: “Governments and individuals who either
conduct or condone atrocities of any kind, as we have seen year after
year in Sudan, have to be held accountable.” The U.S. has frozen the
assets of individuals and businesses allegedly controlled by Mugabe’s
henchmen because the “Mugabe regime rules through politically motivated
violence and intimidation and has triggered the collapse of the rule of
law in Zimbabwe.”
Legend has it that President Franklin D. Roosevelt once said of
Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza that “Somoza may be a son of a
bitch, but he’s our son of a bitch.” Despite lofty rhetoric in support
of the advancement of democracy and protection of human rights in
Africa, the United States continues to subsidize and coddle African
dictatorships that are as bad as or even worse than Mugabe’s. The U.S.
currently provides substantial economic aid, loans, technical and
security assistance to the repressive regimes in Ethiopia, Congo (DRC),
Uganda, Rwanda and others. None of these countries hold free elections,
allow the operation of an independent press or free expression or abide
by the rule of law. All of them are corrupt to the core, keep thousands
of political prisoners, use torture and ruthlessly persecute their
opposition.
No case of double standard in U.S. human rights policy in Africa is
more instructive than Equatorial Guinea where Teodoro Obiang Nguema
Mbasogo has been in power since 1979. Teodoro Obiang is said to make
Robert Mugabe “seem stable and benign”. The U.S. maintains excellent
relations with Teodoro Obiang because of vast oil reserves in Equatorial
Guinea. But all of the oil revenues are looted by Obiang and his
cronies. In 2011, the U.S. brought legal action in federal court against
Teodoro Obiang’s son Teodoro Nguema Obiang Mangue to seize corruptly
obtained assets including a $40 million estate in Malibu, California
overlooking the Pacific Ocean, a luxury plane and super-sports cars
worth millions of dollars. In describing the seizure action, U.S.
Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer crowed, “We are sending the
message loud and clear: the United States will not be a hiding place for
the ill-gotten riches of the world’s corrupt leaders.” (Ironically,
U.S. law requires the U.S. to return any assets or proceeds from an
asset forfeiture court action to the government from which it was
stolen. In other words, the assets or proceeds from the forfeiture
action against son Teodoro Nguema Obiang will eventually be returned to father Teodoro Obiang Nguema!!!)
But the U.S. has not touched any of the other African Ali Babas and
their forty dozen thieving cronies who have stolen billions and stashed
their cash in U.S. and other banks. For instance, Global Financial Integrity reported in
2011 reported that “Ethiopia, which has a per-capita GDP of just
US$365, lost US$11.7 billion to illicit financial outflows between 2000
and 2009. In 2009, illicit money leaving the economy totaled US$3.26
billion, which is double the amount in each of the two previous years…”
Is there really any one wonder who in Ethiopia has the ability to amass
such wealth or “illicitly” ship it out of the country and where much of
that cash is stashed? Suffice it to say that the dictators in Ethiopia,
Rwanda, Uganda… may be kleptocrats, criminals against humanity,
genociders, election thieves, torturers, abusers of power… , but they
are OUR kleptocrats, criminals against humanity…”
Does the Obama Administration have a (African) human rights policy?
If anyone is searching for the Obama Administration’s global or
African human rights policy, s/he may (or may not) find it in the recent
statements of Michael Posner, the Assistant Secretary of State for
Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor of the United States. Posner said
American human rights policy is based on “principled engagement”: “We
are going to go to the United Nations and join the Human Rights Council
and we’re going to be part of iteven though we recognize it doesn’t work… We’re
going to engage with governments that are allies but we are also going
to engage with governments with tough relationships and human rights are
going to be part of those discussions.” Second, the U.S. will follow
“a single standard for human rights, the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, and it applies to all including ourselves…” Third, consistent
with President “Obama’s personality”, the Administration believes “change occurs from within and
so a lot of the emphasis… [will be] on how we can help local actors,
change agents, civil society, labor activists, religious leaders trying
to change their societies from within and amplify their own voices and
give them the support they need…” But does “engagement” of African
dictators mean sharing a cozy bed with them so that they can suck at the
teats of American taxpayers to satisfy their insatiable aid addiction?
Since 2008, the U.S. Government has spent $125 million to support
electoral reform, civic education, constitutional reform, conflict
mitigation, civil society strengthening, and youth leadership and
empowerment for free democratic elections in Kenya. But just north of
the Kenyan border in Ethiopia, how much has the U.S. invested to support
electoral reform, civic education, civil society strengthening, etc.,
has the U.S. invested? (That is actually a trick question. Civil
society institutions are illegal in Ethiopia and no electoral reform is
needed where the ruling party wins elections by 99.6 percent.)
In May 2010 after Meles Zenawi’s party won 99.6 percent of the seats in parliament, the White House issued a Statement expressing
“concern that international observers found that the elections fell
short of international commitments”; but the statement unambiguously
affirmed that “we will work diligently with Ethiopia to ensure that
strengthened democratic institutions and open political dialogue become a
reality for the Ethiopian people.” To paraphrase William Buckley, “I
won’t insult the intelligence of the White House by suggesting that they
really do believe the statement they had issued.”
“There’s serious evil in the world, and hardship and pain…”
There is a great moral irony in the Obama Administration’s human
rights policy in Africa. The President seems to believe that he is
moving the African human rights agenda forward while appearing to be
backsliding metaphorically similar to Michael Jackson’s “Moonwalk”
dance. My humble personal view, (with all due respect to President Obama
and his office and mindful of my own full support for his election in
2008 and re-election in 2012), is that President Obama needs to straight
walk his human rights talk, not “moonwalk” it. I feel he does not have
the confidence in the power of American ideals that I have as a naïve
academician and lawyer. He is in an extraordinary historical position in
world history as a person of color to advance American ideals in
convincing and creative ways. But it seems to me that he has chosen to
stand his ground on expediency with little demonstrated faith in
American ideals. He now finds himself on a tightrope of moral ambiguity,
which impels his hand to choose expediency over consistency of ideals
and principles every time he deals with African dictators. He has chosen
the creed of realpolitik at a time in global history when the common
man and woman stand their ground on principle and ideals of human
dignity.
In the “Arab Spring”, ordinary Tunisians, Egyptians, Syrians,
Yemeni’s and others who have always faced privation, oppression,
corruption and destitution rose up and stood their ground on the
principle of human dignity and the rights of Man and Woman. They wanted
basic human dignity more than loaves of bread. It is true that one
cannot eat dignity like bread nor drink it like milk. But dignity is
like oxygen. It is the essence of human existence. If one cannot
breathe, one can neither eat nor drink. Human beings without dignity
merely exist like the beasts of the wilderness — aimless, purposeless,
meaningless, desultory, fearful and permanently insecure.
It seems to me President Obama has crossed over from the strength of
American ideals to the weakness of political expediency. He has chosen
to overlook and thereby excuse the cruelty and inhumanity of Africa’s
ruthless dictators, their bottomless corruption and their endless
crimes against humanity. He says he will “engage” African dictators on
human rights. Some “engagement” it is to wine, dine and lionize them as
America’s trade partners and “partners on the war on terror”! But the
real terror is committed by these dictators on their own people every
day as they smash and trash religious liberties, steal elections, jail
journalists, shutter newspapers, fill their jails with political
prisoners and so on. “Engagement” of African dictators for the sake of
the war on terror and oil has created a monstrous moral complacency
which tolerates and justifies the ends of evil for the illusion of good.
In his first inaugural speech, President Obama served notice to the
world’s dictators: “To those who cling to power through corruption and
deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side
of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to
unclench your fist.” In July 2009, in Ghana, President Obama told
Africa’s “strongmen” they are on the wrong side of history: “History
offers a clear verdict: governments that respect the will of their own people are more prosperous, more stable, and more successful than governments that
do not…. No person wants to live in a society where the rule of law
gives way to the rule of brutality and bribery. That is not democracy,
that is tyranny, and now is the time for it to end… Make no mistake: history is on the side of these brave Africans [citizens and their communities driving change], and not with those who use coups or change Constitutions to stay in power. Africa doesn’t need strongmen, it needs strong institutions.”
Senator Obama before becoming president said: “[Reinhold Niebuhr] is
one of my favorite philosophers. I take away [from his works] the
compelling idea that there’s serious evil in the world, and hardship and pain. And we should be humble and modest in our belief we can eliminate those things. But we shouldn’t use that as an excuse for cynicism and inaction. I take away … the sense we have to make these efforts knowing they are hard.”
Perhaps President Obama has forgotten his philosophical roots. But
Niebuhr’s philosophy has special relevance in dealing with not only the
evils of communist totalitarianism but also the evils of dictatorships,
criminals against humanity, kleptocrats, abusers of power and
genociders in Africa today. I wish to remind President Obama of his
words in his first inauguration speech: “Our Founding Fathers, faced
with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the
rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of
generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience’s sake.”
If I had a chance to have a word or two with President Obama, I would ask him eight naïve questions:
1) On which “side of history” are you?
2) If “Africa does not need strongmen”, why does America need them?
3) Why does America support governments that “do not respect the will
of their own people” and as a direct result have made their countries
failed states (not “prosperous, successful and stable ones”)?
4) Why can’t you help ordinary Africans “end tyranny” in the continent?
5) When will you stop “moonwalking” your human rights talk and actually straight walk your eloquent talk in Africa?
6) What are you prepared to do in the next four years about the
“serious evil” of dictatorship, corruption and abuse of power in Africa
and stop using the war on terror and oil as an excuse for “cynicism and
inaction” ?
7) Do you think the people of Africa will render a “verdict” in your favor (assuming you care)?
8) When will you start living up to the “ideals that light up the world” and give up “expedience”?
Professor Alemayehu G. Mariam teaches political science at California
State University, San Bernardino and is a practicing defense lawyer.
Previous commentaries by the author are available at:
http://open.salon.com/blog/almariam/
www.huffingtonpost.com/alemayehu-g-mariam/
No comments:
Post a Comment