US Warns of “Consequences” If Uhuru Kenyatta is Elected President of Kenya
NAIROBI, Kenya — Warning repeatedly of “consequences,” the top U.S. diplomat for Africa on Thursday appeared to caution Kenyan voters against electing a president who faces charges for crimes against humanity at the International Criminal Court.
U.S. diplomat Johnnie Carson never named the candidate in question, but the subtext of his words was clear: If Uhuru Kenyatta, one of two top candidates for president, wins, it will affect Kenya’s relationship with the international community.
“Choices matter and they have consequences,” Carson told reporters, adding later: “Individuals have reputations, individuals have images, individuals have histories. Individuals are known for who they are and what they do, what they have said, and how they act.”
15 Comments »
Leave a Reply
Recent Comments
malaya wa kenya on 11 Kenyan Women Caught Having… KANU days r back on The Luxurious “Hustler… Museveni bure sana on Uhuru and Ruto ICC Cases: Who… RutoGate HustlerJet on Uhuru and Ruto ICC Cases: Who… RutoGate HustlerJet on Uhuru and Ruto ICC Cases: Who… NEW: COUNTRY STATS
Elect Uhuru and sanctions will follow, warns Mudavadi
Thursday, February 7, 2013 – 00:00 — BY IBRAHIM ORUKO
The Amani Coalition presidential candidate Musalia Mudavadi has asked Kenyans not to vote for Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto.
Mudavadi cautioned that voting for the two, who are facing crimes against humanity charges at the ICC, will invite sanctions on Kenya and lead to international isolation.
“It is true that we’re a sovereign state and that we need to chart our destiny, but it is a white lie that we can move ahead without the international community engaging us,” he said.
Mudavadi was speaking on Tuesday night when he met members of the Hindu Community at Lohana Centre in Nairobi . He was accompanied by his running mate Jeremiah Kioni and Justice Minister Eugene Wamalwa.
Mudavadi said he experienced serious challenges when he was the Finance Minister between 1993 and 1997 after the international community decided to engage the Moi regime.
“I spent at least two years in international capitals negotiating and begging to convince the international community to open business opportunities for our country,” he said.
The UDF leader said sovereignty should not be used as an excuse to “brazenly” invite international isolation, warning that this could lead to the collapse of the economy.
“For Kenya to achieve the ambitious plans enumerated in Vision 2030, it must be respected locally and internationally,” he said. He said the country has initiated ambitious infrastructural projects, like the Lapsset, which can only be funded through external capital.
“It will take up US50 million dollars to complete the project. Where do you get this kind of money from the Kenyan market?” he posed.
Wamalwa asked Kenyans to vote for the Amani coalition because it guarantees kenya sustainable peace and security after the general election.
“?….Your name sounds like a Kisii name. Here is a simple challenge for you. Move to Central or Rift Valley, purchase a home or land, and then let Raila win the election. Step out of your home and loudly declare that you are a Kisii, residing in these regions, and supporting Raila…and let’s see how long your celebration will last. This is what happened in the last election. Your suggestion that we are a true and open democracy, is laughable. It is for this very reason that these guys are in the gun-sights of the ICC and, by default, the international community. Four years later, and how many trials have you seen conducted by Kenya to seek justice for the thousands killed and displaced? ZERO!! That is the statement we have made to the world community. We lack the moral courage to engage in true justice. So how then, can you realistically expect Kenya to fairly try Uhuru, Ruto and Muthaura? Considering their high profiles in the country? The West owes us nothing. No American killed a single Kenyan in the last election. No American displaced a single Kenyan in the last election. If you want to see who turned against their own brothers and sisters, look in the mirror! WE DID.
whoz carsson or cusson hatumtabui wakenya tuungane n don listen 2 wat US r after juu they want uncircumcsd man 2 rule kenya n i knw wakenya tuko macho ama.
Jumadad, your #5 comment is equal to hate speech which is illegal in any part of the world. You want peace and unity in Kenya yet within the same line exhibit tribal venom that chalks you to the extent of branding others uncircumcised. Circumcision is open to all Kenyan males regardless of their tribe. It is no longer a tribal tool to divide sober Kenyans. If you are taken to task legally, can you prove that USA wants an uncircumcised man to rule Kenya?
There are two Luo presidential running mates to Paul Muite and Peter Kenneth, who are Kikuyus. A third one is running to deputize an ethnic Somali presidential candidate. As far as I am concerned, they were not examined to see if their dicks had faced the knife. Therefore, get out of your rotten, primitive brain and look at others with tolerance. Some of your words can be expensive but you are so thick to know it. Bongo maji wewe.
Whether we elect jubilee or not doesn’t mean we will face any sanctions.in this life everyone has a price and loves money. We should not expect any multinational to leave this country,if they will put sanctions where will they take their stuff to. Don’t forget the banks we have in our country,which one will be willing to leave da money that is flowing in this economy. Simply nothing much will change in our homes.
It is a case of inadequate comprehension. Now let us take is slowly so more
people can understand. Obama’s message requires two level understanding. One,
it is not in the place of the USA to endorse a candidate in another country’s
elections. It does not mean the US may not have preferences. Two, in the case
of Kenya, one ticket is hobbled by accusations of serious transgression of
local and international law. Kenyans are free to choose whomever they like and
the US is compelled to react to that choice based on international law and US
domestic law. The US government cannot interact with an ICC indictee for instance;
neither can the multilateral lending institutions, such as the World Bank and
IMF. So Kenyans the choice is yours. Do as you please. Nobody really cares that
much.
Mercy Mayo: Sanctions will not affect multinationals which trade with the wealthy Kenyan running multi-million dollar businesses. The sanctions if any, will be imposed on the Kenyan Government by donors like EU, World Bank, USAID, etc. They will affect direct budgetary aid and development activities like education, health, economic growth, democracy and governance, peace and security programs. These are the key areas which if the new Government won’t deliver, will attract protests from Wananchi.Inflation will creep in and Government won’t have much money to meet its programs.
Uhuru has mentioned that if he wins, he shall deal with the so-called friendly neighbouring countries and China. But it must be mentioned that China’s non-interference policy in local politics might make Kenyans lose the demcratic gains gathered in recent years, in case of bad governance. Seems Uhuru and Ruto are panicking amidst the warnings by Britain, USA and now France, saying they will only deal with ICC suspects when necessary.
Kikuyus, kalenjins and others have a right to choose Hague suspects – Uhuru and Ruto; then wait for CONSEQUENCES…! Carson spelled out US policy of not dealing with criminals, just like Britain, France stated, and Switzerland stated, etc…
Washington’s Growing Ties With International Court
US steers clear of joining International Criminal Court, but it is now much more aligned with the court’s goals than ever before.
By Blake Evans-Pritchard – International Justice – ICC
ACR Issue 337,
23 Jan 13
Although the United States remains outside the International Criminal Court, ICC, it is increasingly showing support for the court, and more generally for international efforts to bring the perpetrators of atrocities to justice.
Over the past 12 months, the US government has ratcheted up efforts to catch Ugandan rebel leader Joseph Kony, pledged support for Libya’s emergent judiciary, and issued calls for calm in the upcoming elections in Kenya. These are all parts of the world where the ICC is working to end impunity.
However, Washington’s foreign policy goals, and its opposition to American citizens being sent to trial in The Hague, mean there is only so far it can go in cooperating with the ICC.
In November, the US ambassador-at-large for global justice, Stephen Rapp, attended the annual meeting of the Assembly of State Parties – the 121 countries that have signed up to the ICC – as an observer, for the fourth year running. In his speech to the assembly, he praised the work of the court and said that “ensuring the prevention and deterrence of atrocities and making good on the promise of justice to the victims of these crimes is an urgent priority for the highest levels of my government”. This, he said, was both “a moral imperative and a matter of national security”.
Earlier this January, the US House of Representatives approved a Congressional bill that could see the US offering up to five million United States dollars for information leading to the arrest of any fugitive wanted by the ICC. President Barack Obama signed the bill on January 15, entering it into law.
Few believe that the US will ratify the Rome Statute, the ICC’s founding treaty, any time soon. And even supporters of international justice like Ambassador Rapp have concerns about how the court operates.
ICC officials recognise the value of Washington’s support and practical assistance, and have welcomed the alignment of some US objectives with their own.
COOPERATION WITH ARREST EFFORTS
A key area in which the US has already provided significant support is in pursuing individuals charged by the ICC. Rapp told IWPR that he had made apprehending fugitives from justice one of his top priorities.
“The ICTY [International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia] charged 161 people and all of those indicted by the ICTY were, over time, brought to justice,” Rapp said. “By comparison, there are at least nine public ICC arrest warrants for persons who are alive and at large. This creates the perception that perpetrators can just thumb their nose at justice and get away with human rights atrocities.”
The ICC recognises that it is hampered by its restricted capacity to arrest suspects, and remains dependent on the international community to put pressure on countries to cooperate with arrest warrants. Its success here has been limited. The authorities in the Democratic Republic of Congo, DRC, have so far failed to send rebel commander Bosco Ntaganda to The Hague, and Sudan continues to shield alleged war criminals including the country’s president, Omar al-Bashir.
“Arresting fugitives is one of the main challenges that the ICC faces,” said Phakiso Mochochoko, head of the ICC’s Jurisdiction, Complementarity and Cooperation Division. “If ICC fugitives are fleeing justice, then an incentive that can lead to their arrest is a positive step towards sustaining international justice.”
The Congressional bill amends the US government’s Rewards for Justice Programme. First launched in 1984 as a way of combating terrorism and drugs trafficking, this programme has gradually been extended to cover fugitives sought by UN-backed courts including the ICTY and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. The new bill allows rewards to be offered for the capture of individuals wanted by other tribunals “for war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide, as defined under the statute of such tribunal”.
This would include ICC suspects who have not been apprehended, such as Ntaganda and Joseph Kony, head of the Ugandan rebel Lord’s Resistance Army, LRA.
The US has already taken concrete steps against the LRA by providing Uganda’s armed forces with the military and technical support they need to track the rebels’ senior leadership. However, this effort has been driven more by foreign policy considerations rather by calls by the ICC to catch those still at large.
Inside the US, domestic pressure is mounting to bring LRA leaders to justice. This has been influenced by high-profile campaigns like the Kony 2012 video launched by the Californian-based advocacy group Invisible Children. Successive US Secretaries of State have made it clear that they regard Kony as a terrorist who is a threat to East Africa’s Great Lakes region.
The US has agreed to hand over any member of the LRA whom they capture to the Ugandan authorities, although there is a general expectation that those wanted by the ICC will end up in The Hague.
“The US has been a crucial component of this operation,” said Thierry Vircoulon, director of the Central African project at the think tank International Crisis Group. “The US has provided core funding, paid for logistics, performed intelligence-gathering and provided air transportation. The [Ugandan military] could not have done this on its own.”
But while US-backed efforts to capture Kony and his associates have been broadly welcomed by proponents of international justice, observers acknowledge that they have not been effective so far.
Some argue that Washington should apply more pressure on governments to ensure that arrests happen.
The US-backed operation is limited in its geographical scope. The Ugandan military is not allowed to enter DRC where there is a lot of LRA activity, or Kafia Kinji, an area of South Darfur in Sudan where some believe Kony may be hiding out.
“Technology and training are important, but they are of limited use if the forces don’t have the capability to go where they need to go,” said Kasper Agger, a consultant working for the Enough Project, which campaigns against genocide and war crimes in the region.
Agger argues that on-the-ground military operations should be combined with high-level diplomatic pressure.
“We know that there have been some efforts behind the scenes to improve access, but we have been a bit disappointed with the political outreach of things. Because the US wants African ownership of the mission, there has been a tendency to sit back a bit,” he said.
As the DRC’s largest development aid donor, the US has leverage in that country.
As Rapp notes, the US recently suspended aid to Malawi in protest at governance failings, and at the country’s decision to host Sudanese president Bashir in defiance of the ICC arrest warrant. Since then, Joyce Banda has replaced Bingu wa Mutharika as Malawian president, and the US has reinstated the aid. In mid-2012, Bashir was blocked from visiting the country.
It is less clear whether American diplomacy can be effective in the case of Sudan, although there has been talk of writing off some of the 2.4 billion-dollar debt the country owes the US as a way of encouraging it to give up Bashir and other indicted persons.
Rapp recognises the positive effect that such diplomatic pressure can have in making international justice work.
“[The success of the ICTY] was largely because of political and diplomatic leverage by countries that were outside the former Yugoslavia,” said Rapp. “Economic assistance and accession to the European Union [for Balkan states] were made conditional on arresting and surrendering fugitives for trial, among other things.”
Some believe US pressure could be helpful in Kenya, where a leading candidate in the March presidential election, Uhuru Kenyatta, and his running-mate William Ruto, are due to go on trial at the ICC in April.
There are fears that should either man win a prominent position, they would be in a position to push for non-cooperation with the ICC.
During a recent visit to Kenya, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed reservations about ICC suspects running for the presidency. Her comments were denounced by the Kenyan candidates as an infringement of national sovereignty.
Some observers say the international community must be unequivocal about the repercussions of electing an indicted individual to the presidency.
“If it can be made clear that there could be serious consequences if there is an ICC suspect in the presidency, then this is something that could affect the whole process. Business people and others involved in politics will listen [to such a warning],” Thomas Hansen, an assistant professor of international law at the United States International University in Nairobi, told IWPR.
While Washington is keen to be seen as an advocate of international justice around the world, US foreign policy is not always on the same page as the ICC. The White House recognises that bringing too much pressure to bear on wayward countries could backfire and cast it as a meddler in national affairs, ultimately damaging its interests abroad.
“The US could arguably do more to add pressure on the Kenyan leadership, but there is also a danger that US pressure is seen as undue interference in national affairs and electoral processes,” Hansen said. “Washington is of course aware of this, and has other interests in the region, for example with respect to ensuring support for its global war against terrorism.”
RELUCTANCE TO CEDE SOVEREIGNTY
The past decade has seen a significant shift in US attitudes towards the ICC. The ink was barely dry on President Bill Clinton’s signature to the Rome Statute when George Bush succeeded him in 2000, and the prospect of Congressional ratification receded into the distance.
Under pressure from powerful lobbies including the armed forces, Bush set about undoing US commitments under the treaty. It was his administration that started the process of negotiating bilateral treaties in which countries around the world were promised concessions in return for a commitment not to send US citizens to The Hague.
John Washburn, convener of AMICC, a coalition of NGOs advocating for the US to join the international court, says that such open hostility to the ICC is now a thing of the past. Recognising that the ICC is here to stay, Washington wants at the very least to engage with it. Meanwhile, a September 2012 poll by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs found that as many as 70 per cent of American respondents thought the US should join the court.
So is the US likely to become a fully signed-up member of the ICC any time soon? Although AMICC has been calling for this for years, Washburn retains a sense of pragmatism.
“In all likelihood, any realistic chance of ratification is several years away at best,” he said. “Nonetheless, preparing in advance for that chance will also require a year or more, since the legal, constitutional, political and bureaucratic obstacles are so severe and complicated.”
Rapp agrees that despite the latest polls, the climate is not yet right for the US to accede to the ICC, and may not be for some time to come.
The US has a mixed record on ratifying international treaties, largely because of the two-thirds majority these require in the Senate. Rapp points out that even the most uncontroversial legislation has difficulty surmounting this threshold.
Domestic legislation, by contrast, typically requires only a simple majority in both houses of Congress. Hence, it is far easier to get measures like extending the Rewards for Justice programme approved than to sign up to the ICC.
Rapp likens the position on the Rome Statute to the United States’ failure to ratify the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. In that case, although the US never signed up, it has made every effort to comply with the convention’s key principles.
Rapp also notes that certain concerns about the ICC would need to be resolved before the US would consider joining. Washington is still worried by the lack of safeguards to protect its nationals – military personnel on foreign operations in particular – from ending up in The Hague.
If the US is going to put its troops in harm’s way – be that as part of a UN force or in roles like supporting Ugandan action against the LRA – then it will want assurances from the ICC that soldiers will not be indicted. This could happen if a case is referred to the ICC, or if the court’s prosecutor launches her own investigation. But while the US remains outside the court and has bilateral treaties in place, that prospect is extremely remote.
US concerns centre on the ICC’s criteria for intervening in a country, which are that the state in question is deemed to be “unwilling or unable” to prosecute crimes itself. While it seems unlikely this would apply to the US, those opposed to ICC membership warn of a scenario where the ICC accused US troops of committing crimes in, say, Afghanistan. If a tribunal in the US investigated such a case, it might well look at different factors to those deemed significant by ICC judges. The different approaches could lead to the US being found “unwilling to prosecute”.
Although the ICC has not prosecuted citizens of states that have robust judicial mechanisms, Rapp says this remains a concern for Washington. However, he believes it could be resolved over time as the ICC matures as an institution.
“In picking cases, the ICC should avoid prosecuting those who are protecting people from mass atrocities but not committing atrocities themselves, and should choose cases that involve widespread and intentional attacks on civilians,” Rapp said. “I think that as the work of the court continues, and more and more judgements are handed down, a lot of the substantive concerns about case selection will be addressed.”
While concerns about the prosecution of US troops have not gone away, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence William Lietzau denied that the Pentagon is hostile to the ICC, insisting it shared the same position as the US government as a whole.
“We fully support constructive engagement with the ICC, and we believe that bringing perpetrators to justice is in line with our national security interests,” he told IWPR. “We do not, however, support ICC jurisdiction that is susceptible to political manipulation.”
BENEFITS MAINLY FINANCIAL
Were it ever to join the ICC through Congressional ratification, Washington’s biggest contribution would be an injection of funds into the cash-strapped court. The ICC uses the same funding rules as the UN, so that contributions from member states are calibrated according to their ability to pay. The US would almost certainly end up paying the most – another reason why Congress remains so reluctant to join.
Beyond funding, it is unclear what additional benefits US membership would bring. One argument is that the ICC would acquire greater credibility, and would be better able to counter the criticism that the ICC is essentially a European-backed court with an excessive focus on Africa.
Well aware that the prospect of Washington joining remains distant, ICC officials simply welcome the current level of cooperation.
“We cannot really ask much more from the US,” said Mochochoko. “We look forwards to the day when every country in the world is part of the ICC, but of course that is a political decision for the countries concerned. The US has moved from a negative position to a point where we are working together. As long as that positive engagement continues, I think the court will be fine with that. We ask for things from them as and when this becomes necessary, and they cooperate with us to the extent that they are able to do so.”
Blake Evans-Pritchard is an IWPR contributor in The Hague.
http://iwpr.net/report-news/washingtons-growing-ties-international-court
General Approach to the ICC
The Obama administration has taken a more positive approach to the ICC than the previous administration. As a candidate, Senator Barack Obama stated that his administration would cooperate with the Court on Darfur and other cases and consult closely with military and legal advisers before making a decision on whether to join the Court.
In response to written questions by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in January 2009, US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton stated that “we will end hostility to towards the ICC, and look for opportunities to encourage effective ICC action in ways that promote US interests by bringing war criminals to justice” (pp. 65-66). On August 6, 2009 Secretary Clinton stated that it is a “great regret” that the US is not a member of the ICC but said that “we have supported the work of the court and will continue to do so under the Obama Administration.”
On September 30, 2009 the UN Security Council, under the presidency of the US and chaired by US Secretary Clinton, adopted resolution 1888 concerning sexual violence in armed conflict. The resolution, drafted by the US, includes a reference to the ICC “[r]ecalling the inclusion of a range of sexual violence offences in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court…” This departs from the Bush administration’s practice of opposing references to the ICC in UN resolutions. US Ambassador to the UN Susan E. Rice announced in August 2009 that the US would no longer oppose such references.
http://www.amicc.org/usicc/administration
Hapa Iko Maneno<<<<<<
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/02/09/288144/iran-to-unveil-stealth-drone-in-april/
Uhuruto killing ICC witness yet the govt is silent and the New IG of Police is being Compromised by Kimemia.
Two KILLED and DUMPED by the roadside in Kericho
The Kenyan DAILY POST County News 06:29
Saturday 9th February 2013 – Residents of Kapkatungor village Kericho County were yesterday shocked after they woke up and found bodies of two young men dumped along Kericho-Nakuru highway.
It is reported that the bodies of the two had deep cuts and were badly mutilated. According to Robert a resident in the area, this was not the first time they had witnessed such an incident. He added that insecurity has been on the rise and they wanted the government to intervene and ensure their safety.
Kipkelion Deputy OCPD Japheth Kioko confirmed the incident saying that the deceased are suspected to have been killed elsewhere and their bodies dumped along the highway. The motive of the killings is still unclear.
Kioko promised to look into the matter and assured residents of their security.
The Kenyan DAILY POST