East or West? Why this is Uhuru’s worst nightmare

President Uhuru Kenyatta (left) in talks with Kuwait’s Emir Jaber Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al Sabah. [PHOTO: FILE/ STANDARD]

 

By JUMA KWAYERA

[email protected]

 

After nearly five decades of quiet diplomacy, Kenya’s shift to a more aggressive foreign policy has alarmed both friend and foe, drawing comparisons with several other African states that have dared the West.

Whereas political opinion is sharply divided on whether or not to shun the West and embrace the East, economic wisdom is almost unanimous that Kenya’s development interests would be best served from the West.

But with the shadow of possible international isolation looming large, President Uhuru Kenyatta and Deputy President William Ruto, who face crimes against humanity cases at the International Criminal Court (ICC), have launched an aggressive international push for a review of the Rome Statute to immunise sitting presidents against prosecution.

The United Kingdom, a signatory of the Rome Statute and a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council has come under fire in Nairobi for perceived “betrayal” after it abstained from voting for the deferral of the ICC cases.

Consequently, there have been calls for severance of diplomatic relations with London in preference to China, Russian and the Middle East. Experts say the rhetoric in Nairobi is impulsive and not based on pragmatism.

The row between Kenya and UK has elicited massive interest in London, which accounts for a huge chunk of private sector investment in Kenya.

UK-Kenya diplomacy analyst, Alex Vines of Chatham House, a London-based international relations think-tank, says the current row is unlikely to severely affect relations between the governments as a result of longstanding military, investment and trade relations.

“In London Kenya is seen as an exciting investment destination because of an educated middle class. The country’s strategic location and its involvement in Somalia is of great importance to Britain,” Vines told The Standard on Sunday.

The analyst says the row will dissipate, and that diplomatic ties will remain intact.

Kenya has taken a path previously travelled by Zimbabwe, Rwanda and Sudan with disastrous repercussions.

The move by the Uhuru administration marks a complete departure from the back-channel diplomacy used by founding President Jomo Kenyatta and retired Presidents Daniel arap Moi and Mwai Kibaki to engage the West.

Skipped meeting

The full impact of the diplomatic standoff between Kenya and the West will take time to sink in as either side maintains that their relations are still intact.

Kenya appeared to defy Britain further when President Uhuru skipped the Commonwealth meeting in Sri Lanka and chose to attend the Afro-Arab conference in Kuwait.

While in Kuwait, President Uhuru Kenyatta appeared to offend the West more when he welcomed Palestine to open an embassy in Nairobi, triggering instant reaction from Israel, an ally of the US and Britain.

After the UN Security Council failed to vote for a deferral of Kenya cases last Friday – with France, the US and the UK among the countries that abstained – Nairobi upped its anti-Western rhetoric with leaders calling for removal of British and American military bases from Kenyan territory.

Response from Washington and London has been “subdued”, but it has nonetheless elicited strong sentiments at home and abroad. According to Mr Vines the military base, the only one in African, is important because of its strategic location and is currently being renegotiated.

“The UK is renegotiating the agreement for the military training facilities (in northern Kenya). The current dispute will only slow the negotiations. That is an immediate impact,” explains Vines.

The dispute takes place at a time Kenya is preparing to send a high-powered delegation to London to participate in the investment and trade fair at Mansion House. Foreign Cabinet Secretary, Ms Amina Mohammed, is expected to head the delegation. Had the relations soured, Vines points out, President Kenyatta would not be thinking doing business with the UK.

Reckless rhetoric

“Clearly, there is a disconnect between political rhetoric in Nairobi and private sector interests in London,” observes the Chatham House analyst.

In Kenya, former Kenya High Commissioner to Somalia, Mr Mohammed Affey shares Vines’ views. Mr Affey says the row is unlikely to have any serious impact on diplomatic relations between the two countries.

However, he notes that London would handle Kenya’s diplomatic offensive more carefully to protect UK’s strategic interests in Kenya.

“Kenya is important to Britain because of its long history of political stability, centrality in the region and serves as a platform for launching humanitarian assistance in a conflict-prone region and to engage the rest of Africa,” he says and adds that so far there has been no hint of severance of relations between the West and Kenya.

Former assistant minister of State John Keen, a close friend of both former presidents Jomo Kenyatta and Moi, says Kenya is hurtling toward a cul-de-sac in international relations. Mr Keen, a former intelligence officer in the British Army, says Kenya’s diplomatic offensive will be of no consequence in the global arena, where it needs the West more than the East economically.

“The aggressive foreign policy is of no consequence to the West. We sell our flowers, coffee and tea to Europe. It is the West that will buy the oil we have discovered. Had it been Jomo Kenyatta or Moi, they would have been more tactical by preferring quiet diplomacy over reckless rhetoric,” he says.

Kenya being the axis of international humanitarian assistance to countries in distress in East and Central Africa and benefits from a huge portfolio of foreign direct investments, with Britain and the US being the lead sources of the country’s FDIs.

Against this backdrop, political science professor Amukowa Anangwe says the current ant-Western rhetoric is ill advised.

“Although the US and the UK did not support Kenya’s quest for the deferral of the cases, the anti-West rhetoric is ill advised. It would hurt Kenya more than these countries. This is because the bulk of our exports are headed to the European Commission countries. Inversely, the bulk of EC exports are not coming to Kenya. In this kind of asymmetrical relations, Kenya has no chance of succeeding against the West. Kenya now risks a possible pull out from the country by multinationals and non-governmental organisations that provide employment to thousands of people,” he says.

Although Nairobi’s campaign against the ICC has the backing of the African Union, the rhetoric and militancy in use to prosecute its case borrows significantly from Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe, Rwanda President Paul Kagame and Sudan President Omar Hassan Bashir.

Risk of backlash

“On the positive side of the diplomatic row,” Prof Anangwe says, “the Kenyan president has successfully galvanised the African Union to push its agenda, a first in the history of the continental body”. However, there is fear that after rallying AU to its side, Kenya is taking its “luck” too far.

Prof Maria Nzomo, director University of Nairobi’s Institute of Diplomacy and International Studies, says there is a risk of backlash unless Nairobi mends fences with erstwhile development partners.

“Depending on how the matter of the ICC goes, the Kenyatta regime is likely to eventually ‘mend fences’ with the West. The truth is that Kenya needs the West more than the West needs us. As a developing country, it is in our national interest to retain our traditional partners even as we diversify our external relations within the framework of ‘Look East’ policy.” She adds, “It is a good thing to be assertive as a foreign policy/diplomatic strategy; but too much aggressiveness is not sustainable.”