Museveni played big role in Kenya’s political settlement
Mar 05, 2008
IT is good the worrying Kenyan political leaders, President Mwai Kibaki and Raila Odinga, who left their country to descend into post-election violence, have agreed to come to a settlement after a month long mediation by former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.
Ofwono Opondo
IT is good the worrying Kenyan political leaders, President Mwai Kibaki and Raila Odinga, who left their country to descend into post-election violence, have agreed to come to a settlement after a month long mediation by former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.
Unfortunately, and as usual, the regional media and analysts have not been very constructive. They preferred slanted versions of the events leading up to the elections, violence and now the political settlement.
I will restrict myself to the earlier misplaced attacks against President Yoweri Museveni over his alleged role in the Kenyan elections, his prompt congratulations to Kibaki and his initial contact mediation when the violence erupted.
On January 1, Museveni, in line with diplomatic practice, congratulated Kibaki. Uganda that relies heavily on Kenya cannot behave like Tanzania, which has its own sea port.
Our opposition led by Prof. Ogenga Latigo of the Forum for Democratic Change went wild, saying Kibaki was a “thief’. They also said Museveni’s action put the lives of Ugandans living in Kenya to great risks, and demanded he withdraws the congratulation.
“This is unacceptable. It is the saddest thing Museveni has done to East Africa,†Latigo stated, calling for sanctions to be imposed on Kibaki.
The opposition asked then African Union Chairman John Kufuor of Ghana to mediate. As everyone knows, Kufuor and US top diplomat Jendayi Frazer were passing wind.
Fortunately, both Museveni and those who did not congratulate Kibaki have had to deal with him as the president of Kenya, a fact they could not change!
At the time, Odinga and his rough group, the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) were calling Kibaki a “thief,†and “robber.†They led violent protests in which hundreds died. ODM rejected any negotiation or court action, saying the Kenyan judiciary was “full of Kibaki’s cronies.†He refused to condemn the violence or ask for a hold back, saying: “I refuse to be asked to give my people an anaesthetic so that they are raped.â€
ODM firebrand, Prof. Anyang’ said they would file a case of crimes against humanity against Kibaki and his cabinet with the International Criminal Court because Kibaki’s camp is guilty of genocide.
ODM demanded Kibaki’s unconditional resignation. Kibaki and his allies stated that ODM and Odinga in particular were “killers†and architects of “ethnic cleansing†with whom they could not negotiate. Kibaki’s government rejected Kufuor, Frazer and even Annan initially as his supporters called for Odinga’s arrest and prosecution.
It was in that polluted atmosphere that on January 20, Museveni became the first president to brave the eye of the storm. He travelled to violence-ridden Kenya and held series of talks with Kibaki and Odinga for three straight days. He then met them separately with their intransigent supporters and proposed a platform to resolve their disputes.
Although the media has now calculatively forgotten, and instead preferred to praise Annan and Tanzanian President Jakaya Kikwete who all along sat on the fence as Kenya burnt, the agreement that was signed last week was all proposed by Museveni.
During his discussions with Kibaki and Odinga in Nairobi, which preceded Annan’s arrival, Museveni proposed a three-point plank.
These were power-sharing, juridical commission of inquiry into election management and a full investigation into post-election related violence and sanctions for its perpetrators.
He, however, told them that any power sharing arrangement may require constitutional changes to accommodate it.
By the time Museveni ended his stay, he had publicly made it clear to the Kenyan political establishment that nothing short of a peaceful political solution would be accepted as he condemned orchestrated violence against innocent people.
With that, Museveni met Annan and handed him what would later form the basis for the mediation agenda. Therefore, it is surprising that the media has chosen to ignore, trivialise and even dismiss Museveni’s role in the Kenyan settlement. On the eve of signing the coalition agreement, Kenya’s Vice-President Kalonzo Musyoka visited Uganda and briefed Museveni on the progress of the settlement. Annan too came after the deal to re-brief Museveni.
It is from Museveni’s platform that the protagonists assisted by Annan and Benjamin Mkapa hammered out an agreement. These major efforts by Museveni cannot be ignored, even if one does not like him.
IT is good the worrying Kenyan political leaders, President Mwai Kibaki and Raila Odinga, who left their country to descend into post-election violence, have agreed to come to a settlement after a month long mediation by former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.
Unfortunately, and as usual, the regional media and analysts have not been very constructive. They preferred slanted versions of the events leading up to the elections, violence and now the political settlement.
I will restrict myself to the earlier misplaced attacks against President Yoweri Museveni over his alleged role in the Kenyan elections, his prompt congratulations to Kibaki and his initial contact mediation when the violence erupted.
On January 1, Museveni, in line with diplomatic practice, congratulated Kibaki. Uganda that relies heavily on Kenya cannot behave like Tanzania, which has its own sea port.
Our opposition led by Prof. Ogenga Latigo of the Forum for Democratic Change went wild, saying Kibaki was a “thief’. They also said Museveni’s action put the lives of Ugandans living in Kenya to great risks, and demanded he withdraws the congratulation.
“This is unacceptable. It is the saddest thing Museveni has done to East Africa,†Latigo stated, calling for sanctions to be imposed on Kibaki.
The opposition asked then African Union Chairman John Kufuor of Ghana to mediate. As everyone knows, Kufuor and US top diplomat Jendayi Frazer were passing wind.
Fortunately, both Museveni and those who did not congratulate Kibaki have had to deal with him as the president of Kenya, a fact they could not change!
At the time, Odinga and his rough group, the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) were calling Kibaki a “thief,†and “robber.†They led violent protests in which hundreds died. ODM rejected any negotiation or court action, saying the Kenyan judiciary was “full of Kibaki’s cronies.†He refused to condemn the violence or ask for a hold back, saying: “I refuse to be asked to give my people an anaesthetic so that they are raped.â€
ODM firebrand, Prof. Anyang’ said they would file a case of crimes against humanity against Kibaki and his cabinet with the International Criminal Court because Kibaki’s camp is guilty of genocide.
ODM demanded Kibaki’s unconditional resignation. Kibaki and his allies stated that ODM and Odinga in particular were “killers†and architects of “ethnic cleansing†with whom they could not negotiate. Kibaki’s government rejected Kufuor, Frazer and even Annan initially as his supporters called for Odinga’s arrest and prosecution.
It was in that polluted atmosphere that on January 20, Museveni became the first president to brave the eye of the storm. He travelled to violence-ridden Kenya and held series of talks with Kibaki and Odinga for three straight days. He then met them separately with their intransigent supporters and proposed a platform to resolve their disputes.
Although the media has now calculatively forgotten, and instead preferred to praise Annan and Tanzanian President Jakaya Kikwete who all along sat on the fence as Kenya burnt, the agreement that was signed last week was all proposed by Museveni.
During his discussions with Kibaki and Odinga in Nairobi, which preceded Annan’s arrival, Museveni proposed a three-point plank.
These were power-sharing, juridical commission of inquiry into election management and a full investigation into post-election related violence and sanctions for its perpetrators.
He, however, told them that any power sharing arrangement may require constitutional changes to accommodate it.
By the time Museveni ended his stay, he had publicly made it clear to the Kenyan political establishment that nothing short of a peaceful political solution would be accepted as he condemned orchestrated violence against innocent people.
With that, Museveni met Annan and handed him what would later form the basis for the mediation agenda. Therefore, it is surprising that the media has chosen to ignore, trivialise and even dismiss Museveni’s role in the Kenyan settlement. On the eve of signing the coalition agreement, Kenya’s Vice-President Kalonzo Musyoka visited Uganda and briefed Museveni on the progress of the settlement. Annan too came after the deal to re-brief Museveni.
It is from Museveni’s platform that the protagonists assisted by Annan and Benjamin Mkapa hammered out an agreement. These major efforts by Museveni cannot be ignored, even if one does not like him.