Rob Macaire

UK and Kenya- Replies to some points made

Some thoughtful and thought-provoking comments on my last post.  A couple of them ask questions:

First, Iqbal Halani asks about a Special Tribunal as proposed in the Waki Commission as against the alternative idea of a tribunal set up under existing mechanisms.   It's up to Kenyans to decide what route they want to take towards justice for the post-election violence.  But as far as we are concerned, we remain strong supporters of the National Accord process, of which the Waki Commission was a key part.  And one of the key conclusions of that Commission was that any judicial process was going to have to be credible and independent.  That's why it recommended a tribunal anchored in the constitution.  Would an alternative that is under the existing structures be credible?  Judging by the fact that most Kenyans seem to harbour doubts about even the stronger, Waki version, I can't imagine that a weaker one would be acceptable to many people.  What do you think?

Second, let me answer Alexander's question about the links with the case brought by veterans of Mau Mau.  I think it is absolutely right to point out that transitional justice mechanisms need to link back to history.  At a time when Kenya is setting up a TJRC to look at injustices since independence, it's perhaps a good moment to look back before that, to the colonial period also.  We certainly don't want to impede that debate, and we think it's important to have an open discussion, including of Mau Mau and the Emergency period.  I am afraid that I'm going to duck for now the invitation to make a statement about the case itself: I don't know the details of the claims, so it is difficult to comment in any detail, and since these are before the courts, that's the right place for the discussion to happen.   But a couple of general points:  as I said to the representatives of the Mau Mau veterans when I met them before they left for the UK, I believe that everyone who thinks they have a justifiable claim should have access to the courts to have it heard.  I have faith in the High Court in London to hear it impartially, and of course the British Government will abide by the outcome.  And although I am not sure how much prospect they have of actually winning their case, I don't think it is unhelpful to shine a spotlight on what has happened in in the past, including in the Emergency period which brought a great deal of suffering to people on all sides.

And thirdly, I apologise for not answering earlier Mary Onyango's question about the health sector. Health is, indeed, essential for development.  DFID is funding on average £28 million per year on health and AIDS work, particularly malaria control.  The UK is a development partner in the health sector and we engage in a variety of policy and strategy consultation mechanisms.  We work with civil society as well as government, and concentrate our work in areas of high vulnerability.  We have funded the distribution of 14 million anti malarial bednets to date and provide around 30 million condoms per year.
Of course, there is always more to do.  For another example of our work, see my blog  on a military medical exercise last month.

ends

Posted at 08:18 01 July 2009 by Rob Macaire  |  Comments[0]

UK and Kenya- More thoughts on impunity

When I started this blog three months ago, my first post asked people what they thought about the defeat in the Kenyan Parliament of legislation enabling the creation of an independent Special Tribunal to investigate and prosecute crimes committed in the post-election violence.   There was a mixed response, with some people frustrated and others thinking that the defeat of that bill would accelerate the involvement of the International Criminal Court in The Hague.  

Now here we are, with still no movement towards a tribunal, and Kofi Annan last week stressing the urgency of meeting his August deadline.    I must admit I'm surprised that so many MPs I speak to seem relaxed about rejecting the recommendation of the Waki Commission, which is supported by most legal experts, the whole international community, and the ICC itself (they have said a local tribunal should be set up).  It's effectively turning round to the Kenyan people and saying "we know that we've been asked to set up this tribunal in order to seek justice for the victims of the violence, and deter people from doing the same things again.   But actually we'd rather not".    I certainly don't agree with those who have been quoted saying that "Kenyans have forgiven" and it's time to move on - that's not what people tell me when I visit the affected areas.

I know that some people argue that they don't support a local tribunal because they want the ICC to be involved.  But it's not 'either/or'.   Even if the ICC starts investigations into certain crimes, there is an overwhelming case for a credible, independent special tribunal sitting locally, to investigate all the crimes that the ICC won't be able to.   

If the ICC gets involved, we'll support it strongly, as we always do.   But we'll carry on arguing that if the government and parliament between them shouldn't give up on this key part of the National Accord.   Sure, we'll be criticised by some for arguing this way.  But that won't put us off:  preventing a return to out-of-control violence is too important to Kenya, to the region and to the world - the international community has a legitimate stake in these issues.   Just as we won't stop calling for action on other aspects of official impunity, such as prosecution of the perpetrators of Anglo-Leasing and other grand corruption scandals.  Both are faces of the same curse: impunity.  And people in the UK continue to care about these issues: see a recent debate in the upper house of our Parliament

So three months on from when I first asked the question, what do Kenyans think now about this issue?   

ends

ROB MACAIRE

Posted at 15:51 16 June 2009 by Rob Macaire  |  Comments[6]

UK and Kenya, and impunity

I am delighted that there has been so much response to this new blog.  I wish there was space to come back on every point, and will try to address as many as I can over the coming weeks.  But here are a couple of quick responses for now. 

1.  Hassan talks about where UK strategic interests stop and concerns about Kenya start.  I think that's only an issue when those two collide.  Most of the time, they don't.  What do we want to see in Kenya?  We'd like the country to be more prosperous and stable, fairer, and with less poverty.  That means less corruption, better governance.  Because all of those things will make Kenya a better partner for Britain across the board - whether it's trade and investment, dealing with regional crises, dealing with transnational problems like crime and terrorism, or meeting the Millenium Development Goals.  So if you think about it, what we want lines up pretty well with what wananchi want to see. 

2.  A lot of the comments people have posted are about impunity in one way or another.  My point about justice for the post election violence was not meant to be critical of the ICC - the UK has been a strong supporter of the ICC ever since it was first set up.  And if it investigates crimes in Kenya, we'll back that fully.  My point was just that if Kenya turns its back on the opportunity to set up the sort of tribunal recommended by the Waki Commission (with international judges, international prosecutors and investigators, etc) then it will be missing out on probably the best chance to hold people accountable for their crimes.   That outside input into the tribunal would be necessary to remove the fears people have that it would be manipulated.   But it would also help re-build confidence that justice can be done here, not just in the Hague. That's what Kofi Annan, the Waki Commission, and a lot of ordinary Kenyans feel too.  But this has to be a decision for Kenyans to take.  More broadly, we're doing what we can to help Kenya tackle impunity on issues like corruption.  One way we do this is to exclude from our country senior individuals who have been strongly linked with corruption cases, even if they have not been successfully prosecuted.  I saw that my colleague Michael Ranneberger's announcement yesterday of such a visa ban got a lot of attention.  Most people I meet say this sort of action is effective and welcome and that we should do more of it (we already do it quite a lot).  What do you think?

Posted at 15:47 19 March 2009 by Rob Macaire  |  Comments[16]