Its now a well known factor that the existance of Ungoverned spaces is the fuel that generates terrorism. The spaces are generated by “experts” that offer solutions for local challenges that do not take into consideration actual local conditions. Iraq was created because apparently the population was waiting to welcome American saviors. Somalia before it was created because the world needed to created a democracy. Yemen is going into the same situation because we are siding with one tribe against the other.
Rwanda is governed because we let them carry their insanity to the ultimate conclusion and woke up to the fact that they need to live and let live. The western world has to stop thinking that they can remake the world in their own image. Second the world has to come to terms to the factor that in most parts of the world the tribe is an institution that they will not polish away. It’s an institution that has been around for eon and it will be around for a long time. The few people who pretentious in public that tribes don’t exist in the Arab and African streets are very loyal to their tribes in private.
The morale of ge story, don’t fight the tribe,forget about civilizing the barbarians, just like a an Israeli is born a Jew, some Kenyans are Kikuyus others are Kalenjins. There is nothing wrong in beiñg a Jews, Kikuyu, Kalenjins, luhya or Palestinian. Or Irish or Italian drawing a line on a map does not change people. What is wrong is thinking and putting policies and procedures in place that say that only certain people are ok but others are not or using the differences to allocate resources. Pretending that tribes don’t exist just gives those in power to discrimate while pretending that it’s merit.
That having been established, ICC and the world are on cause to create an Ungoverned space in kenya unles they listen to the locals not the foreign sponsored NGOs whose shiitake is to push the idea of a tribe less country.
I will let a local think tank talk:
“This month the International Criminal Court opened what they are calling a “preliminary examination of the situation in Palestine”. The US, the world’s only super power and the country which has taken upon itself the responsibility of defining for the rest of us what is right or wrong, stated that it “will continue to oppose actions against Israel at the ICC as counterproductive to the cause of peace”.
America gave the (completely ridiculous) argument that because Palestine is not a state (according to them) then it is not possible for Israel to commit crimes against humanity on Palestinians. However, it then immediately contradicted itself by suggesting that the ICC needs to allow Israel (which it recognises as a state) and Palestine to engage, and insisted that the “the place to resolve the differences between the parties is through direct negotiations, not unilateral actions by either side”.
Let us compare this to the Kenyan situation.
On March 3, 2010 the Office of the Prosecutor released a press statement in which the prosecutor clarified that senior political and business leaders associated with the main political parties — PNU, which was in the government at the time of the violence; and ODM, which was the main opposition party— organised, enticed and financed attacks against the civilian population on account of their perceived ethnic and political affiliation. The OTP then went on to argue that senior leaders from both PNU and ODM were guided by political objectives to retain or gain power, and that they used their personal, government, business and tribal networks to commit these crimes.
This statement underlines what has been the guiding principle behind the ICC Kenyan cases since inception. Moreno Ocampo (and now Fatou Bensouda) built and sustained the two ICC Kenyan cases on the argument that PNU and ODM had an organisational plan and structures to cause violence against the civilian populations of the other. This is the reason they charged Uhuru Kenyatta, Francis Muthaura and Hussein Ali as the PNU side; and William Ruto, Henry Kosgey and Joshua Sang as the ODM side.
However, when the ICC dropped charges against the technocrats and left only the politicians (and Sang), it unknowingly changed the dynamics of what each person represented. The ‘organisations’ were no longer the PNU and ODM political structures, but the Kikuyu and Kalenjin ethnic communities. The ICC had somehow managed to turn what was initially a legal situation brought about by political differences into a much more complicated ethnic conflict that no legal process can solve.
The PNU-now-turned-into-Kikuyu and ODM-now-turned-into-Kalenjin cases were dealt a further body blow when both sides did what America is suggesting ICC should allow Israel and Palestine to do. The Kalenjin and Kikuyu engaged in direct negotiations outside the jurisdiction of the ICC process and came to an understanding which led to the first ever Kikuyu-Kalenjin political alliance in Kenya’s 50 years as a state. This was appropriately called the Jubilee alliance. The sheer audacity of this alliance transformed Kenya’s 2013 election and propelled leaders from the two tribes, who were each ICC-indictees, into the Presidency.
Now the case against ‘the Kikuyu’ has collapsed while the one against ‘the Kalenjin’ continues. The ICC, which admitted right at the inception of the two cases that certain political realities had to be taken into considerations to ‘balance’ the political situation in Kenya now insists that the two cases are independent and that what happens to one does not affect what happens to the other. This is complete balderdash and they know it.
Kenya is in a situation very similar to what the world is facing with Palestinians and Israel. It is no longer about who is right or wrong; or whose actions or reactions were caused by who. It is about avoiding unilateral actions against either. This is how peace will be achieved and prevail in Kenya. The Americans are right on this for Israel-Palestine and it applies for Kenya’s internal politics as well.
This is the uncomfortable reality that the ICC must accept. Continuing to pursue a unilateral action against Ruto after dropping the case against Uhuru is counterproductive to the cause of peace in Kenya. Political instability in Kenya would affect Africa. This is the message the African Union must send to the world from Addis Ababa this week.
Ngunjiri is the director of Change Associates, a political communications think tank.
– See more at