Time to move on a decision on Uhuru and Ruto eligibility to run for president . . .

The slow grind of the cumbersome ICC process has finally reached the point now, four years after the post-election violence, that charges should be “confirmed” against Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto. And of course the suspects have appealed this preliminary step in the march toward a possible trial as early as sometime in 2013. In the meantime Uhuru and Ruto are offering themselves to save the country from a Raila Odinga presidency in the latest campaign which is already the primary focus of the political elite with an election date that can be expected to take place before the accused finally face trial for “crimes against humanity”.

Kenya’s judicial branch should address and answer in short order the question of whether or not those facing “confirmed” ICC charges of “crimes against humanity” are eligible to run for, and be elected and sworn in as, President of Kenya prior to being convicted. The suspects will be campaigning in the meantime, and the longer it goes on the more dangerous it becomes–and if there is to be no relief from the Kenyan courts, Kenyans deserve to know now rather than later.

Muthoni Wanyeki explains in the East African why Uhuru and Ruto must not be allowed to run for the presidency:

Kenyans are tired of being thrown the sops of reforms (even reforms we desperately wanted) in lieu of individual, personal responsibility for wrongdoing by politicians and public officers. We’ve had enough.

The relative good behaviour we’ve seen from the suspects since the ICC’s intervention is a testament to this fact. Accountability works. The fear of consequence works.

So we must insist that, pending a determination of innocence, they not be allowed to vie for elective office either.

The Sunday Nation has the latest from the campaign trail:

The impending trial of four Kenyans at the International Criminal Court is likely to be a pivotal issue in the next General Election with two of the accused already showing their intention to turn it into a referendum on the trials.

At the rallies they addressed in Eldoret on Friday and in Kiambu on Saturday, Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta and Eldoret North MP William Ruto painted the race to succeed President Kibaki as a battle to stop Prime Minister Raila Odinga from ascending to the presidency.

That emotive pitch to their supporters in their respective backyards is likely to provide the key story line of the succession battle in the months to come.

Mr Kenyatta and Mr Ruto, who have both said they will be running for president, are in a loose alliance of politicians identified with their opposition to Mr Odinga.

However, they have yet to find a formula to pick one candidate to run against the PM.

The duo have consistently attempted to cast the PM as having something to do with the trials, although they have not provided proof for their claims. (READ: Uhuru blames violence on Raila)

Political analyst Karuti Kanyinga warns that such mobilisation could easily take the country back to the dark days of 2007.

Prof Kanyinga points out that the efforts by politicians to use the International Criminal Court (ICC) as an election issue threatens stability.

“The continuing mobilisation of communities and grouping of leaders along ethnic lines is a stark reminder that this can easily push the country to the precipice,” he says.

“The offhand attitude of the leaders towards the ICC ruling and a similarly cavalier attitude to the new Constitution and its institutions are likely to fail the country yet again.”

On Saturday, a group of ODM MPs defended the Prime Minister against attacks by MPs allied to Mr Kenyatta and Mr Ruto.

Assistant minister Alfred Khangati said these individuals were being dishonest because most of them had supported the ICC process in Parliament.

“They were loud in saying let’s go to The Hague and now they are accusing Mr Odinga of scheming for the downfall of some of those whose charges have been confirmed by the court,” Mr Khangati said during the burial of Paul Luyali Khaniri, brother to assistant minister George Khaniri at Kapsotik in Vihiga. . . .

Here is an assessment of the legal and political dynamics of determining the candidate eligibility question from The African.org Blog of the Institute for Strategic Studies:

At the moment, the mood of Kenyans about their suitability or eligibility for presidency are mixed. Whilst a section of Kenyans argue that they can contest, a good section of people hold the view that the named presidential hopefuls need not even attempt it because the ruling questions their integrity for the post of presidency. The possibility of a legal battle ensuing is thus very high in the event of any attempt to bar them from contesting in the next elections and would require legal and academic brains to scrutinise all the laws of the land in search of legislation that may bar or exonerate the two. Already there are on-going debates about the section of the new constitution that may hold the key to prevent them from vying for presidency. Within the growing debate, chapter six of the new constitution has been prominently quoted in this regard.

The chapter provides for leadership, integrity and specifically requires state officers to bring “honour to the nation and dignity to the office”, and to “promote public confidence in the integrity of the office.” It also outlines the guiding principles of leadership and integrity to include “personal integrity, competence and suitability.” Within the interpretation of this provision, the real contention may emerge around the definition of integrity and its immediate relevance to the context of the ICC. A section of Kenyans have already begun arguing that the provision for integrity relates to economic crimes and not cases such as the ICC thus preparing the ground for what appears to be an emerging heated debate. Another key issue, which will need to be resolved, relates to whether confirmation of charges necessarily constitutes guilt against the backdrop that in reading out the ruling, Judge Trendafilova emphasised that the burden of prove of guilt lies on the prosecutor should the trial commence.

In the event of a court ruling barring or permitting the two to contest the presidency, the emerging culture of constitutionalism and rule of law will be certainly tested as well. Already, the respect surrounding the High Court ruling on the date for the next election has raised hopes about the rule of law, respect for the supremacy of the new constitution, and the independence of the emerging structures of the state. If a court decision bars the two from contesting in the presidency and all avenues for redress get fully utilised, they may probably take the matter to the “courts” of public opinion which may end up securitizing the sensitivities surrounding the loyalty of people them. However, given the stern warning by the Judge during the ruling against inciting people, their leverage in exploiting the passions of ardent supporters is dealt a huge blow.

Rescue of kidnapped aid workers in Somalia highlights Camp Lemonier, Djiboutti

“Djiboutti Outpost Behind Somalia Rescue is Part of New Defense Strategy”, Thom Shanker, New York Times:

. . . “Djibouti is the central location for continuing the effort against terrorism,” Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said during a visit to Camp Lemonier last month.

The trend in favor of a small American footprint overseas is expected to grow as Mr. Panetta must cut about $487 billion from the Pentagon budget over the next decade, even as he shifts more forces to Asia while not diminishing American deterrence and influence in the Middle East.

This military math may require the size of American forces to shrink in Europe and elsewhere — and bases like Camp Lemonier will be expected to manage the risk at a modest cost.

Jennifer G. Cooke, director of the Africa program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a policy center here, said the mission of the military’s Africa Command originally was to upgrade the abilities of local security forces — “so the U.S. would not be drawn into conflicts or crises.”

“But the United States may not have the leeway of waiting to build up partner capacities to take on these kinds of challenges,” she said. “So, being nimble and flexible with a light footprint in a place like Djibouti, the U.S. military may be required to tackle these crises immediately as they arise.”

Another important military mission that deploys a small force on the huge African continent is in Uganda.

In October, President Obama ordered 100 Special Operations advisers to Uganda to help train regional forces combating the Lord’s Resistance Army, a notorious renegade group that has terrorized villagers in at least four countries with marauding bands that kill, rape, maim and kidnap with impunity.

When Mr. Panetta visited Camp Lemonier, there were about 3,500 American personnel assigned there, up from the several hundred Marines and members of Special Operations forces that landed in 2003 when the Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa relocated. It had been based on a warship when the mission was conceived a year before, dedicated to hunting for remnants of Al Qaeda in the wake of the Taliban’s ouster from Afghanistan.

The units include a headquarters staff, civil affairs teams that include doctors and veterinarians, as well as engineers and military trainers. Mostly invisible to the local population, the task force has responsibility for a vast area of Africa that includes Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen, across the Gulf of Aden — almost 70 percent the size of the continental United States.

“U.S. Swoops in and Frees Two in Somalia Raid”, Jeffrey Gettleman, Eric Schmitt and Thom Shanker, New York Times:

KHARTOUM, Sudan — Around 2 a.m. Wednesday, elders in the Somali village of Galkayo said they began hearing an unusual sound: the whirl of helicopters.

It was the culmination of a daring and risky mission by about two dozen members of the Navy Seals to rescue two hostages — an American aid worker and her Danish colleague — held by Somali pirates since October. The commandos had dropped down in parachutes under a cloak of darkness while 8,000 miles away President Obama was preparing to deliver his State of the Union address on Tuesday night. The commandos hiked two miles from where they landed, grabbed the hostages and flew them to safety.

For the American military, the mission was characterized by the same ruthless efficiency — and possibly good luck — as the raid on Osama bin Laden in May, which was carried out by commandos from the same elite unit. Nine Somali gunmen were killed; not a single member of the Seals was hurt.

One pirate from the area who seemed to have especially detailed information about the Seal raid said it involved “an electrical net-trap, flattened into the land,” which presumably was the parachute. “Then they started launching missiles,” said the pirate, who spoke by telephone and asked not to be identified.

Pirates operate with total impunity in many parts of lawless Somalia, which has languished without a functioning government for more than 20 years. As naval efforts have intensified on the high seas, stymieing hijackings, Somali pirates seem to be increasingly snatching foreigners on land. Just last week, pirates grabbed another American hostage not far from where the Seal raid took place.

Another sad tale of why it IS hard to support democracy from inside the Beltway in Washington . . .

“Democracy Digest” from the National Endowment of Democracy reports on a perplexing problem that anyone who is interested in democracy support or promotion should give some serious attention to:

. . . But as President Barack Obama was telling the ruling military [in Egypt] to stop harassing pro-democracy groups, powerful lobbyists were pressing the regime’s case in Washington.

Egyptian security forces seized computers, documents, and tens of thousands of dollars in cash in December 29 raids on the offices of pro-democracy NGOs, including several Egyptian groups as well as the US-based National Democratic Institute, International Republican Institute and Freedom House.

“The lobbyists quickly mobilized to provide Egypt with political cover, touching off a behind-the-scenes battle between K Street interests and U.S. officials — with potentially huge implications for the critical U.S.-Egyptian relationship,” Politico reports.

A lobbyist working for the Livingston Group immediately circulated talking points — which some Capitol Hill insiders suspect were drafted by Egyptian officials in Washington — claiming that the IRI and NDI were operating outside Egyptian law. These lobbyists vehemently opposed any calls for cuts in U.S. aid to Egypt. The United States gives Egypt roughly $2 billion per year in aid, mainly as military assistance.

“[There] are foreign NGOs working in Egypt without being licensed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Social Solidarity. Under this category falls NDI and IRI,” the talking points stated, which were obtained by POLITICO. “No organizations, entities or individuals, national or foreign, should be allowed to operate outside the law.”

IRI, NDI and Freedom House have pushed back hard, with help from their own high-profile supporters. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is the chairman of IRI’s board of directors, while Sam LaHood, son of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and a particular target of Egyptian ire, runs its program there. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright is the head of NDI’s board, with former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) serving as a vice chairman.

“I think what’s concerning about this, about where we are right now, is you have American citizens being hauled into the Egyptian Ministry of Justice and questioned, interrogated, and at the same time, you have American citizens — lobbyists — lobbying on Egypt’s behalf,” said Scott Mastic, IRI’s regional director for the Middle East and North Africa. “It’s very distressing.”

“I think a lot of people were very angry to see Livingston up here lobbying for the Egyptians after all this,” a congressional source told Politico. “Some people up here are pretty pissed.”

“To be prosecuted now strikes us as 100 percent political,” said Les Campbell, NDI’s Middle East program director. “This is more about what is happening in Egypt, and we’re caught in a Catch-22.”

For the record I had an entirely positive experience running the NED-funded portion of the IRI Kenya programming when I was Resident Director of the IRI East Africa office–the controversy that we ended up having was strictly about the Kenyan election observation and exit poll that the Ambassador got funding for through USAID which did not involve NED at all.

At the same time, it has to be noted that IRI certainly has Americans who are lobbyists for foreign governments on its board — including the board member who was the lead delegate for the Kenya election observation. What is being done to IRI and NDI–most especially to their local staffs who don’t have the protections associated with American citizenship–is to me very wrong and unfortunate. But what thuggish foreign government that can afford it does not hire one or more lobbyists in Washington to represent its interests (including opposing pressure for democratic reforms) unless it is prohibited by U.S. law from doing so?

We all read about the Abramoff scandals, etc., etc. I have noted here before some of the people who served this role for the Moi regime in Kenya at the same time IRI was doing an election observation back in 1992. Yes, it would be nice if Americans refused to do this work for foreign governments working at cross purposes with our professed values and our stated policies, but that just does not appear to be a realistic thing to hope for given the long track record of how these things work–this is not a new problem. [Update--it appears that the "naming and shaming" approach may have borne fruit in this case: "Lobbyists Drop Egypt's Government as Client", NYTimes.]

ICC Confirms Charges Against Four (Ruto, Sang, Kenyatta, Muthaura)–Drops Cases Against Two (Kosgey, Ali)

The 4 and 2 split is consistent with speculation I was hearing last fall at the African Studies Association, but not necessarily with the right defendants confirmed. or dismissed.

It will be very interesting to see how various elements of the Government of Kenya react to this. The Government sought to get the reference withdrawn in the cases and lobbied hard against the cases in the Security Council. Now that the hope of early dismissal has been dashed, the Government will be in a bind, especially with Finance Minister “in the dock”.

Court notes that presumption of innocence continues to apply, but that liberty of the suspects pre-trial is dependent on refraining from incitement and hate speech.

Another 2-1 ruling with a dissenting opinion forthcoming.

Here is the Court’s Summary as released.

Justice, the ICC and Kenyan Politics

Reblogged from Opalo's weblog:

A panel of judges at the ICC will issue their ruling tomorrow afternoon on whether or not six accused Kenyans will stand trial. The six include two declared presidential candidates. Either way the ruling will have a non-trivial impact on the pursuit of justice for the victims of the 2007-08 post-election violence (PEV). It will also significantly shape the politics of coalition building in this year’s general elections. Because of the ICC process, the Kenyan justice system has put on ice its own process of …

BREAKING– “International Colbert Institute” to join America’s Arsenal of Democracy NGOs

Dateline Ocean Springs, MS, USA:  The AfriCommons Blog learned today of plans to form the International Colbert Institute, a new INGO (Individual Non-Governmental Organization).

The mission of the International Colbert Institute (“ICI”), will be to promote freedom, democracy, the American Way and private enterprise with government money worldwide.  ICI will be strictly non-partisan and will have nothing to do with any political party, campaign or candidate in the United States.  Overseas ICI will establish relationships with likeminded “parties of the laugh” said a spokesman who sounded like former Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour but wasn’t, speaking at a not-for-attribution press conference held at an undisclosed location to avoid Egyptian agents.

Asked for comment, Russian President Dimitri Medvedev said, “You’re Putin me on!  Who are these people?  We will leave no stone unturned to expose their subversive agenda and protect a united Russian democracy.”  A Moscow resident, Anna Chapman, said, “Sounds like fun–I’d like to join.”

Plans are in the works to bring American leaders such as Jon Stewart, Herman Cain and Stephen Colbert to dialogue with their counterparts in Afghanistan this spring and get their pictures taken with “the troops.”

In South Carolina, Republican Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich said, “These Colberists are wholly an invented people–they don’t exist except as a creation of the laugh wing media and its anti-colonial Third World bias.  Also in South Carolina, former Governor Mitt Romney, campaigning with Senator John McCain, held a press conference in front of the State Capitol to clarify that his previous appointment of Herman Cain as Secretary of Defense for the People’s Republican of Massachusetts was a matter of “states’ rights” and that he had never been a Colberist.

The ICI plans to focus on Africa because “they have the most countries and lots of elephants and donkeys”.

In other news, Gingrich attacked the State Department for speaking French in the Congo and Ron Paul and Mitt Romney for supporting laissez faire.  Gingrich also challenged Attorney General Eric Holder on his previous statement that Americans lacked the courage to talk about race.  “I talk about race all the time” said Gingrich.  Gingrich said Holder’s rejection of South Carolina’s voter ID law was an insult to the State after the late Senator Strom Thurmond endorsed Ron Paul, saying “We wouldn’t have all these problems if Ron Paul had been President in 1964 and ’65.”

In the meantime, the Kenyan president, Barack Obama, continued his tourist mission to Disney with a town hall meeting with the diaspora at Animal Kingdom.  He said the new constitutional dispensation would not be used to detain elephants and donkeys, but only those reasonably suspected of supporting the Colberists, so long as he was president.

“War, Guns and Votes”? What will be the impact of Kenya’s war with Al Shabaab on the 2012/13 election?

AfriCommons, on Flickr

After three months it is now quite clear, if it wasn’t always, that Kenya’s military offensive against Al Shabaab across the border and into the Jubbaland region will be of indefinite duration rather than any type of quick strike. The fact that Kenya has sought and obtained UN approval for its forces to be added into the AMISOM “peacekeeping” mandate makes it clear that the Kenyan government does not have intentions to achieve any predetermined goals, declare victory and withdraw.

This creates an important dynamic in regard to the Kenyan election that doesn’t seem to be getting the discussion it deserves. A number of questions: will the heightened security requirements associated with the threat of terrorism from Al Shabaab also help secure the country against election violence? Or will security forces be used to intervene in the campaign instead, as in 2007? Will donors and international institutions supporting the election process be that much more unwilling to challenge electoral misconduct for the sake of perceived “stability”? Will Al Shabaab attempt to disrupt the elections or the campaign, or international support efforts? Will his role in the process enhance the campaign prospects for George Saitoti? What will be the impact on other candidates? What will be the impact on the presidential campaigns’ appeals to Muslim voters and organizations and will there be efforts by candidates to mobilize votes on the basis of religious tensions as well as ethnicity? I could go on and will try to explore this in coming posts.

Here is the latest summary on the war from the African Conflict Prevention Program from the Institute of Security Studies in Pretoria:

Somalia: Kenya’s Military Offensive in Somalia

Kenya’s defence minister, Yusuf Haji, has called on the international community to provide logistical and financial support for his country’s on-going military offensive against Al-Shabaab in Somalia, particularly to enable the operation to take over the port-town of Kismayo. In justifying his call, the minister argued that even though Kenya’s Operation Linda Nchi was in response to a provocation by Al-Shabaab, Kenya is acting broadly in the collective interest of advancing international peace and security and fighting terror. It therefore requires the support of the international community in order to meet its objectives. Haji stated that the prime aim of the operation is to create a buffer on the Somali side of the border which should prevent the incursion of armed groups into Kenya. The debates and expectations of taking over Kismayo, in his view, are only imaginary.

The call for resources comes in the wake of developments regarding the United States’ withdrawal from Iraq and the recent United Nations endorsement of the merging of the Kenyan Defence Forces into the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM). Within this context, there are good chances of Haji’s call being heeded by international actors and stakeholders. The uncertainty concerning the taking of Kismayo, however, raises two key issues. Firstly, in the event that the strategically important town remains untaken it would ensure that Al-Shabaab would remain a strong threat. Furthermore, the group can continually access the necessary resources needed to resist Kenya’s incursion. Secondly, given the expectations that have been built among the public about the taking of Kismayo, any delay or a change in strategy needs to be clearly communicated to Kenyans so as to help sustain public support for Operation Linda Nchi. This will help allay the perception that operational challenges and Kenyan fatalities have prevented the taking of Kismayo.

In a related development, Al-Shabaab is reported to have elevated Sheikh Ahmad Iman Ali, a leader of the Muslim Youth Center in Kenya, to the position of supreme leader (Emir) for the Al-Shabaab cell in Kenya. Sheikh Ali and his organisation have in the past been blamed for supporting Al-Shabaab through fundraising and the recruitment of fighters. He is known to have been operating in Somalia since 2009. His elevation appears to be a move by the group to organise its activities in Kenya more robustly in order to be able to take the battle into Kenya. Moreover, this comes in the wake of security alerts by western embassies in Nairobi that a terror plot seems to be underway. Sheikh Ali, has also created propaganda videos and called upon jihadists in and outside Kenya to join his cause. In a recent video produced by Al-Kataib Media Foundation, the official video wing of Al-Shabaab, Sheikh Ali appealed to the group’s loyalists to join the battle, declaring Kenya a war zone and Somalia a land of jihad.

Here is the link to a new policy paper from Ken Menkhaus for the Enough Project: “After the Kenyan Intervention in Somalia”.

Cajun Diaspora

“Cajun Crawfish Invading Africa” from National Geographic news via Africa Files:

It’s a far cry from Cajun country, but a U.S. crayfish used in Southern cooking is now eating its way across Africa, scientists say.  Without any native predators to keep it in check, the Louisiana crayfish, also known as the red swamp crayfish, is gobbling up small freshwater fish, fish eggs, mollusks, crustaceans, and aquatic plants. The 6-inch-long (15-centimeter-long) invader is already widely distributed in lakes and other bodies of water throughout Kenya, as well as in Rwanda,  Uganda, Egypt, Zambia, the Seychelles, Mauritius, and South Africa.

Conservationists are now concerned the crayfish will reach the East African lakes of Malawi, Tanganyika, and Victoria, which are home to hundreds—and probably thousands—of species found nowhere else. “By removing animals and plants from wetlands, [the crayfish] can upset the balance of ecosystems and reduce valuable ecosystem functions,” said Geoffrey Howard, global coordinator for invasive species for the Species Programme of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

Louisiana crayfish were first imported in the 1970s into Kenya and South Africa, where the species was grown in aquaculture operations.  People bred the species in Kenya’s Lake Naivasha and sold the delicacy to Scandinavian buyers after that region’s native crayfish had been wiped out by disease.  “They are rarely seen or recognized as a threat,” Howard said, “but they have certainly affected the fishery in Naivasha.”  That’s because, “by eating fish eggs and fingerlings, [crayfish] can reduce the populations of fishable fish.” . . .

Friday the 13th Ruling: No Kenyan Election Until 2013 Unless Gov’t Dissolved First says High Court

Here is the story from KBC:

A three  judge bench Friday ruled that the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) sets the date for the general election.

In a one hour ruling by constitutional court judges Isaac lenaola, David Majanja and Mumbi Ngugi, IEBC should set the election date 60 days after the expiry of the current parliament which is January 15,2013.

Going by the ruling, the general election is likely to be held in 2013. The judges who took time to read through the appeals by different petitioners said it was prudent for the IEBC to determine the date since it is the one bestowed with the mandate to conduct elections.

They ruled that the General Election can only be held in 2012 if President Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga agree, in writing, to dissolve the Grand Coalition Government. This would be 60 days after the Principals agree to terminate the National Accord that holds the coalition parties, PNU and ODM, together.

Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta says his KANU party will respect the court’s verdict.

Narck Kenya leader Martha Karua posted her immediate reaction on twitter saying she totally disagree’s with the court’s ruling.

She argues that the term of office must include the election period and that’s the interpretation world over.

“I totally disagree with the court’s ruling. Term of office must include the election period and that’s the interpretation world over.”

.  .  .  .

Sloppy or deliberately ambiguous work on the new Constitution strikes again.  The big picture here is that the Kenyan voters end up having foisted on them a “grand coalition” of all the major players from the last election until an election that is LATER rather than SOONER in the wake of the failure of the 2007 election.  Hopefully civil society, democracy activists and donors will use the extra time productively to push the political class further forward on the reforms required to implement the new Constitution and prepare for a better election.  No reason to be optimistic that extra time will help, but we can always hope>

Related articles

• Preparations for Kenyan Election Kick-Off With Start of Multi-Step Process to Set Constituencies and Boundaries (africommons.wordpress.com)
• Kenya high court delays elections to March 2013 (vancouversun.com)
• The challenge for the West in Kenya’s 2012 election – and how we can learn and do better this time (africommons.wordpress.com)

More Kenyan-U.S. Diplomatic History: Kenyatta’s health and succession; status of whites; military assistance

For those of us who would still like to have a better understanding of what went wrong with the last Kenyan election, and how to do better this year, it’s worth taking advantage of the passage of time (and the declassification and publication of the kind of things that we don’t have yet from 2007) to see more clearly how U.S. and Kenyan leaders have interacted over time.  And in looking at the 1970s, while Kenyatta is no longer with us, he casts a broad shadow, and Scowcroft and Moi are of course very much still around.

MEMORANDUM

• OF CONVERSATION

• PARTICIPANTS:
• Brent Scowcroft
• Ambassador Anthony D. Marshall
• Robert S. Smith

• SUBJECT:
• Current Situation in Kenya

NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL

DATE & TIME: Wednesday – October 13, 1976 5:45 p.m.

PLACE: Scowcroft’s Office

Ambassador Marshall summarized the present security and political situation in Kenya. The GOK very much appreciated our moral support during the Uganda crisis. They believe this brought the Ugandans to the conference table. Ambassador Marshall remains pessimistic, however, about Uganda’s capacity for destabilizing Kenya. He does not expect an invasion, but he does see the continuation and increase of terrorist activities from Uganda. Nevertheless, he thinks that the ultimate threat to Kenya comes from Somalia with Soviet support. He also sees Tanzania’s economic difficulties and political policies affecting Kenya.

Ambassador Marshall believes that our interests in Kenya are to see the country remain stable. Military and economic aid and political reassurances from us can help. He sees Kenya as a buffer among the East African states and a means of slowing down Soviet penetration in East Africa. He believes that continuing stability in Kenya might even turn some of the other countries in the region to Kenya’s way of thinking. [Note: Unfortunately, African nations do not learn economic stability from one another.]

Ambassador Marshall said we have excellent bilateral relations with Kenyatta. Kenyatta is very pleased to be receiving our arms aid even though we are one of several suppliers. We have stressed the defensive purpose of our arms aid.

Ambassador Marshall turned over to General Scowcroft a letter from President Kenyatta to President Ford. It covers two principal issues. One is the possibility that the U.S. will provide a “fly past” in Kenya on December 12, Kenya’s independence day. This was discussed by Secretary Kissinger when he was in Nairobi in September. General Scowcroft knew of the proposal but did not know whether there would be an aircraft carrier available in the area at the time. If not, he said the planes could be ferried down.

The second important issue in the letter is Kenyatta’s prospective visit to the United States. Unfortunately, according to Ambassador Marshall, although Kenyatta knew about the trip in advance of Secretary Kissinger’s visit, he had not told his staff about it. The room was full of people when Secretary Kissinger brought it up and the invitation for November 10 drew a laugh from staff members who could not understand the implications of a date which followed our elections. Kenyatta himself did not understand that, in the event that President Ford was defeated, he would still be in office until late January.

General Scowcroft inquired as to Kenyatta’s health and the prospect that he could really travel to the U.S. Ambassador Marshall explained that Kenyatta has a blood clot which occasionally causes total unconsciousness for periods up to one and a half days. This has occurred three times in the past year. The rest of the time Kenyatta is in good health for a man of 84.

Ambassador Marshall noted that a move to change the constitutional provision for a 90-day Vice Presidential succession when the President dies was squashed. Nevertheless, said Marshall, we should not put all our eggs in Vice President Moi’s basket. There are other potential candidates and so far Kenyatta has not named anyone. [Note: There are indications Kenyatta does not favor Moi.] Marshall said that part elections which are expected in early 1977 (for the first time since 1966) may fill three senior vacancies and thus be a clue to the succession.

As to the post-Kenyatta era, Marshall sees the continuation of civilian government, slightly to the left of the present government. There would be tribal disturbances but the situation would remain stable. There is a good civil service and the Kenyans are interested in maintaining foreign investment and a sound economy.

General Scowcroft asked about the status of whites in Kenya and Ambassador Marshall replied that they flourish. Scowcroft was impressed.

General Scowcroft asked about the status of the MAP program and Ambassador Marshall said that it was on schedule and the Kenyans were highly satisfied. We have requested the Kenyans to accept a U.S. Defense Attache but we are not pushing it. General Scowcroft agreed that we should not pushing it. General Scowcroft agreed that we should not push.

There was a brief discussion of the Seychelles, to which Ambassador Marshall is also accredited. The Ambassador referred to the importance of tourism to those islands. The U.S. has an Air Force tracking station there with 300 Americans. [text not declassified] We are concerned that the Prime Minister, Mancham, is flirting with the Communists.

¹ Source: Ford Library, National Security Adviser, Presidential Country Files for Africa, Box 3, Kenya. Confidential. The meeting took place in Scowcroft’s office. All brackets are in the original memorandum. The letter from Kenyatta to Ford, dated September 28, is ibid.

---

Related articles

• A little Kenyan-American history: Kissinger, Waiyaki, Kibaki – getting the F5s, safaris and slums (africommons.wordpress.com)
• So what does the history of Kenya’s military and GSU from the Kenyatta era mean now going into the 2012 elections? (africommons.wordpress.com)
• Kenya’s Kenyatta at Hague, blames Odinga (ibtimes.com)