ABUSE OF KENYA'S SOVEREIGNTY

The International Criminal Court has mentioned six potential Kenyan suspects of the heinous killings pursuant to the 2007 post election violence that cost lives of more than1,300 people, destroying property worth billions of Kenya shillings and displacing over 600,000 Kenyans. Indeed the events leading to the political crisis need a critical mind to accord justice not only to the victims but to the facilitators of the violence as well. Justice should not only be done, it should be seen to be done. Justice however applies both ways, both to the offender and the offended. Public opinion may stand an obstacle to the way of justice, as evidenced by the acts of mob injustice. Though a majority of Kenyans seem to be supporting the International Criminal Court in its pursuits of Kenyans who sponsored and financed the post 2007general election violence, various issues need attention as we consider the course of action.

The International Criminal Court itself is an institution established on the principles of international law. As this institution is under consideration, caution should be taken in understanding the operations of the court. In expressing the standpoint of the United States of America in relation to international law, former envoy John Bolton stated categorically that international law is subservient to the law of the United States, and that it is merely international morality, and not obligation. Should this be considered as a reason as to why the United States is not a signatory to the Rome Statute, of which it is the reason, then equality principle of states in the international arena should be reconsidered. China and Israel are other notable states not signatory to the Rome Statute. This means that the most powerful states of the world are not party to the Rome Statute. It leaves the grand institution expected to accord justice internationally to armature states of Africa, Latin America, Eastern Europe and Asia. Logically, it follows that the institution is a tool of the central powers to force the periphery to submission. Stated differently, it is a form of neo-colonialism of the west to impose decisions on the peripheral states.

Several facts have to be stated clearly to shed light on the argument. This argument begins with the disputed presidential result of the 2007 general election. It was a surprise that despite the reports by the international observers that the declaration of the election results by the electoral commission was suspect as to who really won, the American envoy in Nairobi congratulated Kibaki for the ill-gotten victory. Whereas Ranneberger was busy congratulating the incumbent for the stolen victory, the United Kingdom parliament decried the declaration of the presidential result. After wide international outcry, the United States changed its position to question the presidential result. The then Secretary of State Dr Condoleezza Rice called for a real power-sharing deal between the contending parties, that of the Orange Democratic Movement of Raila Odinga and the incumbent Mwai Kibaki’s Party of National Unity. Rice called for a real power-sharing deal, a position that was shared by the European Union. Actually Dr Rice was for the interests of the United States, and not for the suffering masses in Kenya. Kenya is a centre for many American interests in eastern, central and the Horn of Africa, and so the United States could not sit back as they watch Kenya deteriorating into chaos. The coordination of Somali and Sudan offices could be thrown into disarray. Besides, the piracy business in the Indian Ocean coast would thrive.
It is a strategic choice for the developed world to subject the developing world into a state of perpetual poverty and dependence through conditional loans and donations. Should the developing world empower its citizens to self sufficiency, then the North, as the industrialised world is known in International Relations would loose its influence.

The Ocampo six comprise of the head of Kenya’s civil service and secretary to the cabinet Ambassador Francis Muthaura, who mention is an assault to the Presidency of the Republic of Kenya. Due to lack of a strong sense of nationalism by the Kenyan citizenry and the effects of brainwashing through the undiplomatic activities and tendencies of western diplomats notably Mr Michael Ranneberger, a majority of Kenyans believe that the acts of Moreno Ocampo the ICC Chief prosecutor are for the good of Kenya and Kenyans. It is an assault on Kenya’s sovereignty, condemning the state into a failed pariah entity, comparing it to Somalia. By negatively mentioning the secretary to the Kenyan cabinet is a clear indication that the whole structure of Kenya is ailing. Mr Francis Muthaura, alongside former police commissioner Major General Hussein Ali, and a journalist are three non-politicians in the list. This balances three other politicians, Cabinet minister Henry Kosgei, the Chairman of the Orange Democratic Party and Minister for Industrialisation, a close confidant of the Prime Minister. Another notable personality is Uhuru Kenyatta, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance, son to the founding President of Kenya and presidential contender in 2012. He comes from President Kibaki’s Kikuyu ethnic group. The third politician is William Samoei Ruto, deputy party leader of the Orange Democratic Party, and a nemesis of the Prime Minister, from the Kalenjin community like Henry Kosgei. From this list, the ICC Prosecutor made calculations to have three pro-ODM and three pro-PNU personalities.

Mr Moreno Ocampo vowed to make Kenya an example of how effective the International Criminal Court can operate. This pronouncement should cautiously be understood as a case where Kenya is made a laboratory specimen for a trial and error experiments. A state celebrating a peaceful constitutional transition giving birth to a Second Republic at a time of peace and stability cannot be a specimen for international political power plays and desire for personal ends of individuals like Ocampo and his ilk. It should be borne in mind that Ocampo himself is a tainted prosecutor scandalled in his efforts to deny justice to suspects appearing before the international criminal court. If he had a clear conscience, it could be expected that he could have investigated two individuals, George W. Bush and Tony Blair. Others to be questioned would include Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powel, Dr Condoleezza Rice, among other people to be implicated in the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.

The fact that Moreno Ocampo did not conduct his own investigations is an indication that he relied heavily on the disputed list compiled in an atmosphere of political intrigues and favouritism. The public mentioning of the names in public is a case of lack of professionalism that results in denial of justice to the potential suspects. It would be advisable to take the names to the pre-trial chambers for them to be approved as suspects before mentioning them in public. Alternatively, the suspects could be informed by the prosecutor in a private manner so that they prepare themselves psychologically without affecting their public reputation. What the ICC has done through its prosecutor is to subject innocent Kenyans into psychological torments, as these individuals have families, friends and relatives who would be disturbed with the mention of the names. It is clear that Ocampo is playing into western politics to bar some powerful individuals from free association. In a leaked cable published by the Wikileaks outlet, the American Government has laid strategies to empower the youths in Kenya to oust the incumbent regime. Several individuals have also been banned from visiting the United States on allegations that they are anti-reformists. It is no surprise then that the ICC is an appendage of the United States congress, up to further the interests of the United States around the world.
The invitation of President Omar Hassan El Bashir of the Sudan to Kenya during the promulgation of the new constitution of the Second Republic of Kenya was highly criticised by the western world as the height of impunity on the side of Kenya. Civil society organisations, sponsored by western nations demonstrated in the streets against the invitation, calling for the Government to arrest El Bashir. It is regrettable that the demonstrators were doing so from the viewpoint of the United States and not the regional circumstances. The invitation was in order for two reasons: Kenya is a custodian of the Sudan Comprehensive Peace Accord, an agreement signed in phases in Kenya to end the decades long civil in the northern neighbour. Kenya could not have invited other countries leaving out one of its neighbours. Secondly, there is no morality in international politics, and this the western world knows pretty well. Kenya had its own security and economic interests in inviting Bashir on this very important and historic occasion. It was a way of telling the world that Kenya is an independent state, fully sovereign, able to make decisions without unnecessary interference from outside. If Kenya committed a crime in international law, then legal procedures could be resorted to rather than diplomatic bickering. Suffice to mention that the United States has flouted myriad of international obligations, and would comply after considering political and economic consequences, not legalese. In the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the United States went against every provision of international law by unilaterally attacking the gulf state in an effort to unseat [resident Saddam Hussein. Undiplomatic language was used to put off ardent opposition to the planned invasion. A case in point is the exchange between then US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld and the French President Jacques Chirac, when the former told off the latter that France may as well through its UN veto power to the toilet. This was amid diplomatic efforts by Secretary of State Colin Powel who was silently opposed to the war, and later admitted that there were intelligence errors leading to the war. It is the same United States that went against international human rights provisions by establishing concentration camps for terror suspects. The Guantanamo Bay case is a clear indication of this, where terror suspects are incarcerated without trial.

Conclusion

The realist approach to international politics holds that states exist to further their own interests. In his Politics among Nations, Hans Morgenthau argues that interest drive the behaviour of states in their international relations. The United States and other European powers are right to force their desires on the developing world. It is the responsibility of the developing world to find ways to counter these forces in an effort to demand relative fairness.
Moreno Ocampo is striving to justify his position and to build his own name internationally. That is why he engages in public diplomacy and politics rather than in curving out ways of countering international crime. Kenya being a regional force ought to lead by example by emphasising its sovereignty. The conduct of foreign envoys in Kenya should be under radar, and any diplomat flouting or interfering with Kenya’s sovereign status should be deported immediately.