There are many reasons for northern Kenya arming, but all revolve around cattle raids and protection of livestock.

Over the years, the conflicts have become more frequent, highly unpredictable, exhibit marked escalation in violence and the geographical spread, and appear to defy all efforts at resolution. Underdevelopment and the concomitant unequal distribution of national resources play a major role in causing ethnic tensions.

Proliferation of modern automatic weapons has complicated the fight against crime.

This is manifest in the absence of basic services, perpetual reliance on relief food, as well as lack of opportunities for employment. Yet, arid and semi-arid areas (Asal) constitute 80 per cent of the country’s landmass, host about 10 million people and about 70 per cent of the national livestock herd, with a conservative estimated value of Sh70 billion. These areas are also home to more than 90 per cent of wildlife that supports tourism.

Further, pastoralism provides direct employment and livelihood to more than three million people. Poverty, accentuated by the violent conflict, and vice-versa, has made the pastoralists more vulnerable. Feelings of deprivation and neglect provide fertile grains for ethnic groups to engage in communal violence. As a result, livestock of neighbouring ethnic groups become obvious target.

The proliferation of modern automatic weapons has substantially transformed the structure, content, impact, and actors in pastoralist conflicts.

Communities give various incentives for possessing illicit arms. First, stockpiling of arms is necessary for safety, protection and survival. Second, arms are essential for the protection of communities. Of course the same arms are also used to forcibly and violently dispossess other communities of their stock. The third incentive relates to the economic benefits and profits from criminal activities that the arms seem to guarantee. The state of lawlessness and impunity makes crime an attractive means of survival, particularly to the youth.

This is precisely why all past attempts at disarmament have come a cropper.

However, there is consensus among stakeholders on the need to disarm. Communities are aware of the destructive effects of illicit arms and the paradox of relying on arms; that is, while possession of guns is the source of their security, it is also the cause of conflict.

But it must be remembered that disarmament is not a ‘magic bullet’, and it does not create peace: Political goodwill and dialogue should precede the process. Decisions to disarm communities are often made at high political levels without consultation.

Moreover, disarmament interventions are often constituted in response to dramatic skirmishes and sudden attacks like September’s Kanampiu incident in Samburu.

This knee-jerk approach needs to change and we must acknowledge that disarmament is innately a political issue. Political consensus must be struck within the Government and political leadership not only on the need for disarmament, but also the approach to be taken. Continuing pockets of conflicts in northern Kenya and cross-border incursions pose a serious challenge to any such exercise as they feed small arms into areas that have been disarmed.

Disarmament is also a transitional justice mechanism as it symbolises a break with violence, human rights violation, injustice, lawlessness and impunity, and a concomitant emergence of a culture of peace, justice, rule of law and security. To this end, a focus on the supply side is probably futile, given existing levels of small arms and ammunition available in northern Kenya (with the trade, and prices, ebbing and flowing across all four neighbouring countries), and may in the long term actually fuel demand, since the immediate effect of one-sided forcible disarmament of a community is to increase the likelihood that it will be attacked by its neighbours, thereby increasing the sense of insecurity and the need to get arms for protection.

Current efforts are targeted primarily at small arms confiscation and reducing supply. Continued cross-border small arms and ammunition trade guarantees that any group so disarmed will not stay ‘gunless’ for long.

The dominant approach to disarmament has a State-centric focus on military solution to a civic issue; but no evidence of military precision in execution. For example, what have we learnt from past disarmament exercises?

What is extent and nature of the illicit small arms and light weapons dilemma in the country? Are the security and political situations relatively stable for disarmament? Who are the armed groups and who are the potential spoilers? And what are the measures and mechanisms for compelling recalcitrant actors to comply? Is public support sufficient enough and is there broad ownership of the process at the grassroots? Can disarmament succeed in a context of raging violent conflict? How do you deal with the negative legacy of military operations?

Security cannot be achieved without development, and development cannot be achieved without security. We must use a combination of political, military, development and peace-building approaches to tackle the problems in northern Kenya. Dealing with the consequences of violent conflict is a security imperative, so is dealing with livelihood, humanitarian, political and developmental consequences.