Somalia : Is political Instability Healthy for Kenya ?

Periodic journals have came up with articles and publications in regards to the war-torn Somalia conflict stating that the civil war have caused regional instability and acts as a major hindrance for development within the East African region. From insecurity within the Indian Ocean waters by Somali pirates to the safe haven for Al-Qaida militants within the region. However, not any have argued outside the “black box” and try to figure out whether stability within the region may not be a merit for political, economic and social-cultural development in Kenya. Is their possibility that Kenya may not be as well developed as today regionally more so if all the regional states had established a lasting and stable political system? Thus, is the political instability in Somalia "healthy" for Kenya?

The Somali Civil War is an ongoing civil war taking place in Somalia. The conflict, which began in 1991, has caused destabilization throughout the country and instability within the East Africa region, with the current phase of the conflict seeing the Somalia government losing substantial control of the state to rebel forces. The unrest initially consisted of a series of clashes between various tribalism factions, but with time it took a militant Islamist tone. Somalia's government declared state of emergency in June 2009, requesting immediate international support, and the military intervention of neighboring East African states.However, since the political instability within the region have been an impediment to regional security and stability  more so to front line states like Kenya, Ethiopia and both South and Northern Sudan. In this regard, is the civil war in Somalia "healthy" or a benefactor for economic takeoff in Kenya?

PM Raila Odinga,President Sharif Ahmed,President Mwai Kibaki,
George Saitoti (acting foreign affairs minister-Kenya)
 (Somalia Transitional Federal Government meeting in Kenya)

Kenya as a regional hegemony within the region. It enjoys military, economic and diplomatic instruments that can fore shore states when need be and actually control the trade policies within the region. The point that most regional governments’ looks towards Kenya in times of conflict resolution, it may be considered as the periphery of the periphery within the East Africa region. This was seen during the previous regimes to engage in the spirit of good neighborliness and non-alignment in conflict resolution. In 2004, the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) in Somalia was founded in Nairobi, Kenya when matters were still too chaotic inside Somalia. Kenya has been seen as a mediator during the conflict periods and with full view as a threat to Kenya security from been invaded by the insurgence. We still go ahead and accommodate Somalia Transitional Federal Government (TFG) and gives it authority to the run their government through Kenya boundaries. In these state, we find that Kenyan government will have an upper lip within the region in terms of international community support and economic trade policies within the region.

The geographical factor that Kenya enjoys includes the fact that Kenya and Somalia are marked as littoral zone or states. These states enjoy the benefit of being within the regional waters and have a bargaining power toward the regional waters. Since most East African states are landlocked countries they depend on the Indian Ocean as the only regional water in terms of shipping products. Somalia is at civil-war, Kenya becomes the last option from the region because of the regional geographical territory which is also considered a good area for the establishment of most United Nation regional headquarters for easy distribution of aid relief and is located at the center of the flying zone within the region for easy access by international airlines. This has influenced most international communities to consider Kenya as a soft spot for setting up their regional offices. These benefits are enormous to the point that when Kenya experience political instability (2007-2008) most of the international bodies came in to be able to establish political stability in Kenya leading to a coalition government. This may not be the case when there was a stable political system within the region more so in Somalia. If this were not the case we may be ignored like any other regional governments to establish an internal solution which may not be a lasting solution to Kenya government without the international support.

Moreover, just recently accusations have been raised that Kenya is giving the United states territory within the Northern Frontier Districts (NFD) to attack terrorist regions within Somalia.This influence the nature of US –Kenya foreign policy relations due to the fact that Kenya military is also benefiting from the military training and high tech military weapons in order to improve security within the Northern borders. Most foreign policy scholars have argued that government to government relations are normally influence by state national interest. The US foreign policy is normally influenced by the international security and they go as far as giving military aid in order to get off regimes that are against international security – case study the current NATO bombing in Libya and the support of the international community and the US towards the Libyan rebels to oust the Gadhaffi authoritarian regime. This gives Kenya access to military weapons that she can foreshore regional regimes in terms of diplomatic, economic and political negotiations within the periphery. Thus, the war-torn Somalia act as bait for Kenya to attract international community support in regional negotiations.

Therefore, from the above outset Kenya may be a benefactor to regional political instability not only in Somalia but within the East Africa region. These factors may also be pointed out to the collapse of the first and second East Africa community. But, time will tell when regional stability is established with well run political systems within the East Africa region.

South Sudan: The Implication of Official Development Assistance "Foreign Aid"

South Sudan president Salva Kiir

With a territory as large as France, the Republic of South Sudan became the world's 193rd independent country on July 9 2011. But while the South Sudanese now have an independent state with vast natural resources, they have yet to build a nation out of some 50 different tribes with diverse languages, beliefs and other key characteristics. Many obstacles will impede progress toward this end, and the outcome depends primarily on the South Sudanese themselves. Therefore I ask, will the Official development assistance (ODA) make important contributions to help realize this goal?

Official development assistance (ODA) is the transfer of resources one concessional term, which is undertaken by official agencies (bilateral and multilateral) with the aim of promoting economic development and has a “grant element”. Foreign aid incorporates military assistance, political development programmers’ technological transfer, and transfer of expertise from any aid agency to the poor countries. Foreign aid can also be in terms of money to fund development projects in the receiving country. The agency that is giving aid is referred to as the donor while the country receiving it is known as the recipient country. These multilateral urgencies include United Nations Organizations World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF), European Union (EU), and United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) among others.

Internationally, the major basis for today’s developed aid structures on a government to government basis has inevitably politicized the business to an extend that all actors involved are jealously watching the integrity. As a result, it has become rely difficult to know what the effect of foreign aid is. Is it based on the development of the developing (third world countries) states or based on the national interest of the donor countries. Thus, for instance arguments have been raised whether aid is an integral part of foreign policy; the tendency has been that it has a given profile that reflects the donor country’s general foreign policies. Foreign policy must contain strategies to achieve national interest. Strategies may contain a statement of instrument. A foreign policy of a country cannot be complete without the instruments and strategy in order to achieve the set goal and this has to do with behavior in the international system by choosing an alternative instrument. Foreign policy is an externalized public policy and the effectiveness of foreign policy will depend on the effectiveness of public policy the only thing that differentiates them is because of the territorial. Therefore, a manipulation of the third world internal policies will have a major ramification on the external policies which in turn affects the development of the developing states or the third world states.

South Sudan Celebrations

The shortcomings of foreign aid or official development assistance (ODA) can be divided into four categories: that is, economic, political, ideological, administrative and environmental motives. Each one of these creates distortions that not only limit the effectiveness of foreign aid but also impose serious limitations on recipient governments in Africa to promote development within the third world developing countries.

The economic distortions created by foreign aid base from inclination to most donor governments to tie aid by insisting that the recipient government uses part of the aid for purchase of equipment and services from the donor country. The tendency  among donors to tie a certain part of a given aid programme to purchase on the “home” market has increased in recent years with recession putting a limit to the degree of selfishness exercised in the aid business. In regards to tied aid what the donor country should facilitate among aid advocate who maintain that aid must not be influenced by commercial criteria. It must be allowed to remain an activity of its own in order to avoid the distortion of economic policies of the third world or developing countries.Similary, Norwegian economist Erick Reinsert’s “How rich countries got rich and why poor countries stay poor” shows that all countries that are rich today had an aggressive industrial policy that adopted some form of protectionism. While Britain set out to industrialize in the late 18^th and 19^th centuries, it imposed tariffs and other measures to curb imports and increase exports. It used its colonies for raw materials, but prevented those colonies (including the United States of America) from manufacturing goods using those raw materials. On the same case, the United States fought for independence from the Britain and today subsidizes a whole range of products, form agricultural to high-tech industries. Yet the United States and free market advocates such as the International Monetary Fund –IMF condemn countries that adopt such protectionist policies.

In the recent past, fight against global terrorism especially after the United States of America bombing of September 2001, by terrorist believed to be linked to Al-Qaida Network of Osama bin Laden, a Muslim fundamentalist, became a criterion of giving aid. United States of America and Britain which are usually targets of terrorists intensified their fight against the vice by mainly supporting governments of countries that support their initiatives as far as fight against global terrorism is concerned. President Bush echoed that either you are with them or with the terrorists in this fight. Political motives, therefore, play major roles behind doors’ foreign aid initiatives and politics. It is only of modest effect among the Scandinavian countries since they are not all that involved in high politics that has characterized the globe for several decades. Even though, at times they are equally driven by political motives. One cannot escape the conclusion that a major factor contributing o these growing pressure is that the international aid community, and particularly the donor agencies, have been given too much autonomy as a result of political insulation.

Generally, donor countries are motivated by disparate factors which could be single or a combination not always but also dynamically. In conclusion, it should be noted and emphasized that national economic and political interest of the donor countries have always been the major motives behind their foreign aid policies and initiatives. Environmental donor countries whose taxes have been used to give foreign aid to poor countries. More specifically, moral and humanitarian feelings have always been the drive behind assistance geared toward alleviation of human suffering based on natural disasters and other hazards posing threats to human existence. But time will tell, whether the ODA is a benefactor or a threat to South Sudan nation economic takeoff or based on the national interest of the international community…