Pan – Africanism: The Dilemma of Africa and International Criminal Court - ICC

In 1966 a day after he was overthrown by Ghana’s generals, Kwame Nkrumah sent a telegram from Beijing to his former secretary, Erica Powell, in London, saying “Take heart. I am well and determined.”You know how happy I am in such times and occasions; He remained confident that he would soon return to Ghana, blaming his downfall on the machinations of imperialism. “Don’t forget that world imperialism and neo-colonialism hates my guts and all I stand for. They know I am in the way.”This was the utterance of

Press Conference Chairperson during the AUC summit
27th of May 2013 Photo/AU Website

the third icon who spearheaded the Pan-African movement. He had the urge to unite all Africans within the sphere of Economic, Political and Social-cultural variable with the aim of a united Africa. Was his intention pure? Is a united Africa a world enemy to imperialism and neo-colonialism? These are some of the questions that linger my mind as I follow keenly through the 50^th Anniversary of the African Union summit with the rhetoric’s of Pan-Africanism from all state parties. So many crimes, so many atrocities, so many killings, so many cases of violation of rights have occurred in the past fifty years. How do we redress them?Will prosecution be a solution? Will Pan-Africanism be the twenty first century problem solution? These are some of the ideals that have pricked my ego to date. Therefore I ask. Is the International Criminal Court (ICC) a new threat towards reviving Pan - Africanism?

The mantle of Pan-Africanism movement was founded around 1900, to secure equal rights, self-government, independence, and unity for the African people. It is based on the belief that unity is vital to economic, social and political takeoff for the developing African states. Never again should anybody be killed because of divergent political opinions. Never again should public led and other resources be privileged by the ruling class. These were some of the issues that the movement spearheaded, but is this the case? How did we end up again so stormily raising the cry of Pan-Africanism? Is it for the greater good or did we have a contra ‘agendum’?

Kenya failed in its previous efforts to have Africa government’s withdraw from the ICC after the move was rejected by the African Union. Since then, lobbying and counter-deals on diplomatic alignments have been featured within the top Kenyan diplomats with the view of salvaging “our people” from prosecution by the ICC. This is the cry for a new Africa to unite against the threat of the new western “project”; to launch their ideologies to the African state parties through the ICC. Those pushing for the common African Union position were banking on the mantra that the ICC has politicised the Kenyan cases and that the country has jurisdictions over the two cases on account of the reformed judiciary. The good news on the Kenyan citizenry is that these cases have made the newly elected president Uhuru Kenyatta as the man who “calls the shots” amongst the African states in response to the resolution that was passed with an overwhelmed support from State parties who lobbied against the “western court”. Is this the new foreign policy framework for Kenya? Is Uhuru Kenyatta the new kingmaker in Africans’ foreign policy or the ‘new kid on the block’ considering the echoes of the Africa leaders during the Africa Union Summit? Furthermore during the swearing in ceremony for Uhuru Kenyatta one would think that a "new kind of Bob Marley" revolution has been launched by African leaders. An ally of mine laughed facetiously that president Omar al-Bashir did not have to attend the inauguration that he had already emailed Yoweri Museveni his fair share of the speech, but this is a topic for another day. I recall vividly when Malawian president Joyce Banda stating from the yesteryears forthcoming African Union summit that she will initiate arrest and forward president Omar al-Bashir of Sudan to the ICC  if he steps foot in Malawi to attend the African Union summit. Since then Malawi has been sidelined by the state parties as a pariah to the extent that a transfer of the African Union headquarters from Malawi to Ethiopia was initiated by a unanimous resolution. Is this the new kind of dilemma that ICC is creating within the African Union state parties ?

International Crriminal Court chief prosecutor Fatou Bensouda
during a press conference Photo/AP

Lastly, whereas all state parties acknowledge the above political tête-à-tête judicial quandaries. African states have been keenly restructuring their trade partners with the aim of trading with the Eastern blocs or rather softening trade policies towards the East. Notwithstanding the current headquarters offices of the African Union at Addis Ababa – Ethiopia was fully constructed and funded by China a partner also to the BRICS (Brazil ,Russia, India, China and South Africa) State parties. These facts have contributed to calls from all quarters “whispers” that the new emerging trade block referred to as the BRICS is molesting African states to join them as trade partners. A paradigm shift is on the rise considering a change of foreign policy  from the western blocs by limiting funds to African States which have questionable human rights track records. On the other hand, BRICS have realized this ideological gap and the existence of ICC plight which they are now banking on to woo African states to join them. These colligate was attributed to the extent that Brazil president Dilma Rousseff openly declared that they will scrap or restructure debt amounting to nine hundred billion dollars accrued by the fifteen or so African States. Is the question of ICC a nexus that the BRICS have realized to capitalize to the extent of chipping in incentives? Will we see a future merger from the African blocs such as the East Africa Community, ECOWAS and SADC inter alia considering the ‘big threat’ on their table? These realism reminds me of Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni when he jokily stated “If you have tight teeth, you can chew meat properly, if your teeth are scattered throughout your gums you cannot chew meat properly” in reference to a United African regional State blocs or preferably the call for a united African Union. What will the ICC actuate considering they do not have a standing army to initiate any arrest? Will the arrest warrants be nugatory considering the “political dilemmas” and coup by African states? Is the ICC a new dilemma for a call of a United African Union? Let’s wait and see whether the newly passed African Union resolution will bond pressure to the United Nations Security Council to the point of deferral, referral or terminating the current Kenya cases at the ICC. Only time will tell...........

End................//

By Ombado Obado 

The Geo-Politics of an Indicted Head of State

I was rather disturbed by an article published by one of the dominant leading newspapers in the country. Needless to say, it hit the nail on the head but this was not news. I have been going through the article over and over as the argument progresses. However it is my view that the author spoke too soon, assuming that the presidential aspirant have already qualified for the top job. But that is a story for another day. My concern is that the heated debate on whether accused persons may run as a presidential candidate in a country he/she is accused of the crimes,more so crimes related to humanity.I know  your mind will jog directly to the statutes which I am not concern either about in fact even the legal minds still debate on the interpretation of the Rome statute and the internal constitution tête-à-tête the jurisdiction and admissibly of the same.

Former Liberian president, Charles Taylor,
at the international criminal Court

Explanation abound, and include lack of depth among legal scholars have dominated the scene notwithstanding the fact that the debate will not only be contained under the legality of the cases but also other variable such as the levels of analysis and international system may be introduced on the debate. Hence, international system is the totality of interaction at the global level. A system is a whole consisting of different parts, but those parts constitute the system only if they interact. Mutual behaviour impact, the behaviour of one part affects the behaviour of the other part as well as the other affect the other. The behaviour of the whole affects the behaviour of the part; which include the state and non state units which interact. Why am I am saying this? In simple terms is that the identity of state with recognition of the head of state has both direct and indirect ramification on Political, economic and social takeoff of a state. This in itself should reason enough that the head of state as an actor has the capacity to take its citizens to “hell or heaven” within the international system.

First, politically the conduct of diplomacy involves carrying out activities under the pillars of political-economic and social-cultural analysis. Imagine a situation where a head of state operates under the non-state “hawk eye” like the international criminal court - ICC. Me-think that it is a political suicide more so for the citizens of the nation due to the fact that the world has shrunk from middle to size small and this condition is always encapsulated in word “global village” village which means an increase interdependence among the state actors. For instance, why is the UN taking a different stand to the current civil war in Syria? While in Libya a call by the UN Security Council to use military approach to oust the regime of former leader Muammar Gaddafi lead by the core states? Is this a legal or a political approach between the two state actors? Municipal laws are always applied within the international system and this in turn means the head of state play a significant role between the state and state actors. I was not surprised when the fight to claw away the cases of four Kenyans charged with crimes against humanity from the grip of The Hague based International Criminal Court took a fresh spin when the East African Legislative Assembly (EALA) passed a Motion urging the court to transfer the trials to the East African Court of Justice (EACJ).Why I am I saying this? This approach confirms that legal approach has failed and now a political solution is the only remedy to save the Ocampo 4. Kenya is the kingpin within the East Africa Community and she has the capacity to foreshore other states within EAC to abide by her decisions. Can we then conclude that she also has the capacity of influence the EACJ?East African heads of state have signed to have the East African Court of Justice Extent its jurisdiction to cover Crimes against humanity. Why was this there in the first place?  This leads me to ask was president Jakoyo Kikwete was in “goodwill” when he was amongst the imminent personality who lobbied for a power sharing system in Kenya.

 Left: President Museveni_Kibaki and-Kikwete

(East Africa Legislative Assembly meeting)

Secondly, economically the state actor has a big role in determining who associates with whom, when and how within the international system. This means that the head of state will determine the kind foreign donors who will line up for funding agreements on the table. For instance one foreign newsroom states that Nicolas Sarkozy last election was partly funded by Libya – Gaddafi regime in addition to ANC election in South Africa. This adds the answer that South Africa was considered to be the key suspect that Muammar al-Gaddafi could seek refuge during the military intervention in Libya. This is because of the trade relations between the two states. My point is therefore that the international system shapes the state actors based on trade tariffs they can slap sanctions to states whom they consider a “threat actor” thus one will be marked as a pariah within the international system. This demand alignment with economic blocs of strategic importance to forge closer links with strong economic powers will be determined by the key state actors whom are the head of state. You can now imagine a head of state who is indicted; the international actors will desert you which will be a grave yard of sanctions for countries with such a key actors. I highly suspect former Liberia leader Charles Taylor had to step down three months after being indicted by the ICC because of pressure from the international system both state and non-state actors. These liberated the Liberian people from unnecessary economic sanctions. This was also seen when the European Union  -EU threatened Kenya during the disputed 2007 -2008 post election violence which forced both President Kibaki and Prime minister Raila Odinga as the state actors to share power.

And I said then, Now, when we think of voting in an accused head of state let us rethink about the political and economic unforeseen circumstances that come with it within the international system. Let’s not limit our debate only on the legality of the situation but rather the implications that come beforehand within the state and non-state actors and the trickle-down effect to its citizens in form of political and economic trade barriers. Thus, I ask does the Geo-politics of an indicted head of state affect the state relations within international system ? I presuppose Sudan president Omar al-Bashir and Sudan nation could be on a better position to deduce my line of reasoning.

         

End .................//

Ombado Obado 

How Did Kenya Find Herself Before The ICC ?

 The idea of universal justice ensuring that no rules, no junta and no army anywhere can abuse human rights with impunity has inspired the creation of the international criminal court. Serious crimes have been committed in the life of humanity allowing the guilty to continue their life with impunity leaving the victims of the crime and their families severely devastated. All these happened under the watchful eye of the international community due to the absence of a permanent international mechanisms to try these perpetrators. The worst examples are provided by the crimes committed by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia where an estimated three million people were killed and by the former tyrant of Iraq Saddam Hussein who ordered in March 1988 a chemical warfare assault against the Kurdish civilians lining in the town of Halabja in which mustard cyanide and nerve gases were deployed against innocent Kurds.

It took the united nation 50years to adopt a convention on the establishment of a permanent international criminal court. It took this long because the crimes punishable under the jurisdiction of the court are usually committed in internal conflicts. The perpetrators of these crimes should be brought before the national courts. However,in some situations national institutions may have collapsed like in Rwanda and Cambodia or governments are unwilling,reluctant or unable to try these perpetrators before the national courts. This explains the need for the establishment of the international criminal court - ICC.

Left: Moreno Ocampo,President Mwai Kibaki & PM Raila Odinga

How did Kenya find herself before the ICC ? After the disputed 2007 general election party of national Unity- PNU candidate Mwai Kibaki claimed victory but this was disputed by Orange Democratic Movement (ODM)’s Raila Odinga rejected the results. Unprecedented violence ensued,1133 people were killed and over 600,000 others displaced from their homes. The international community got involved and through the panel of eminent African persons from the African Union under the Chairmanship of Kofi Anan brokered a peace deal leading to the signing of the National Accord.A commission of enquiry into the post election violence(CIPEV) was formed on 23^rd May 2007 to investigate the facts and circumstances surrounding the violence, the conduct of the state security agencies in their handing of it and to make recommendations concerning these and other matters. In its recommendations, it provided that a local tribunal be formed to try the perpetrators of the violence or the international criminal court takes over the matter. After several visits by the prosecutor of the international criminal court, Luis Moreno Ocampo to the government of Kenya, no substantial progress was being made by the government to bring the perpetrators to justice.

The prosecutor submitted a request to the pre-trial chamber to open an investigation proprio motu  on the situation in the republic of Kenya. This request was granted and upon completion of investigations, the pre-trail chamber issued on 8^th March 2011,summons to appear for the suspects in case pursuant to article 58(7) of the Rome statute.

It is important to note at this point that several challenges have been filed before the ICC to halt the trial but most have failed. The government even begun a diplomatic offensive in the name of "shuttle diplomacy" to try and lobby the UN security council to defer the case for a period of 12 months pursuant to article 16 of the Rome statute. This too failed like a thud. This set the way for the wheels of justice to begin rolling. After the suspects appeared in accordance with the summons to appear, the pre-trail chamber examined the basis of the evidence provided by the prosecutor and defence teams. Upon complete evaluation the chamber was convinced by a majority decision ratio of 2:1 that there are reasonable grounds to believe that four of the six suspects committed the crimes they are accused of. As such the four cases have been sent to trial and two acquitted by the court.

The suspects whose cases have been sent to trial, unhappy with the decision of the pre trial chamber have appealed the decision. Amongst their prayer was not granted. The president of the ICC has therefore constituted a trial chamber of three judges –Kuniko Ozaki(Japan),Chile Eboe-Osuji(Nigeria) and Christine Van Den Wyngaert(Belgium).

The ICC will have complementary jurisdiction to national criminal courts. This means that the ICC will have jurisdiction only if the competent national authorities will be unable or unwilling to prosecute.

            Under the Rome statute, the jurisdiction of the ICC is based on a two track system.Track one concerns the situation where the security council acting under chapter VII will refer a matter to the ICC.All states will be bound to comply with the security council decision to surrender the individual person or to supply evidence. The security council has already exercised this option for instance regarding the situation in Darfur Sudan, President Omar Al Bashir has already been indicted though he is still at large and other Sudan Military commanders.Track two involves where contacting states or the prosecutor will refer to the court.

        The prosecutor’s power initiate investigations is subject to strict safeguards, including seeking authorisation from the pre-trial chamber as happened in the Kenyan situation. Uganda and Democratic republic of Congo have made self referrals to the ICC.Article 17-states that the ICC will find a case in admissible if;The case is being investigated or prosecuted by a state which has jurisdiction over it unless the state is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution.The person concerned has already been tried for conduct which is the subject of the complaint and a trial by the court is not permitted under article 20 paragraph 3.

The case is not of sufficient gravity to justify further action by the court.

     Challenges to admissibility or the jurisdiction of the court may be made by; An accused or person for whom a warrant of arrest or a summon to appear has been issued under article 58.A state which has jurisdiction over a case on the ground that it is investigating or prosecuting the case or has investigated or prosecutor a state from which acceptance of jurisdiction is required under article 12.It is worth noting that admissibility of a case or a challenge to jurisdiction of the court may be challenged only once by any person or state referred to in paragraph 2.In exceptional circumstances, the court may grant leave for a challenge to be brought more than once or at a time later than the commencement of the trial.

Kenya Vice-President Kalonzo Musyoka with UN chief Ban Ki-Moon

( During one of the shuttle diplomatic mission visit ) 

Kenya has  repeatedly failed to save her citizens from the ICC.The matter required simple, uncomplicated execution but the state has blown it out of proportion. At the core was whether the state is able and willing to investigate and prosecute suspects of the 2008 post election mayhem. The ICC is a complementary court and only acts when states fail to do so. However the legislature failed to establish a local tribunal of an international stature. This fatal mistake effectively opened the door for the ICC.
   The government’s steps in relation to the ICC have been seen to be hostile and appears to sabotage the court. The ill conceived ridiculous idea of shuttle diplomacy led by the Vice president to rally Africa and the UN to force the ICC to drop the Kenyan cases was fatal.However,the prerequisite for such an action would have been credible investigations and prosecutions in Kenya.Furthermore, the state’s repeated and vexatious challenges of admissibility and jurisdiction to the ICC have dented the Kenyan image.Infact chile Eboe-Osuji while still serving as the legal adviser to the UN high commissioner for Human Rights Dr Navi Pillay advised the Kenyan government against the many frivolous and vexatious challenges to jurisdiction and admissibility. He wrote, Kenya has only one chance to lodge such an admissibility challenge and it would be unwise to squander it.

      Finally going by the above submissions, I rest my case for us to decide on the social-political ramification of the cases at hand.However,we should keep in mind that the victims both the accused and the victims of the atrocities of the 2007-2008 mayhem will receive justice and a fair trial on the accused persons’. I am not going to give a long speech in regards to the jurisdiction and admissibility of the cases because Socrates’ was killed on the same, thus it is up to Kenyan citizen to decide on the direction of the ICC cases.

End...............//

Did The ICC Expose Kenya's Flimsy Foreign Policy?

What was the question again ? It came to the very end that our local and most of the international columnist have made publications dabbed the “Ocampo six”. Making prejudicial utterance in regards to the just concluded confirmation hearing at the Hague-Netherlands. Some even have gone as far as making theoretical justification as to why the charges may or will be confirmed with cogent arguments. Me think that  I will neither call for  hoi polloi or assert it was a Hollywood movie nor agree-use the so called Prof Peter Kagwanjas’ dossier. All in all however, the proceedings have much been analysed to the extent that other articles have even study the body language of both the witness and the defense cum prosecution counsel during the confirmation hearing. Notwithstanding my  observation will only be bounded to the only and only intention that may have been a hitherto to the foreign policy of this “sovereign” country.

Foreign Affairs Minister Hon Wetangula &

PS Foreign Affairs- Thuita Mwangi

Of course, none of us now knows exactly how this ICC business is going to pan out. One suspects that even the defence and prosecution lawyers who were sitting in that courtroom also do not know what the final outcome will be. But there are two things we can now say for certain about these ICC proceedings that may have reflected the flimsy side of our foreign policy.
The first, I was not perplexed when retired major General Ali brought in his immediate assistant as his witness neither will I question Uhuru Kenyatta’s witness.I had a hiccough when I noticed the Permanent Secretary of Foreign affairs Thuita Mwangi came in to the witness stand in defence of the head of public service and secretary to the cabinet Hon Francis Muthaura. Loaded with National Security Advisory Committee (NSAC) minutes and other documentation on reach from his foreign ministry to the extent that the bench judges raised an eyebrow on how he managed to get such “national secret files”.

Why I am I saying so ?My attention was not focused on what he says rather his presence rely downgraded our “effective” foreign policy. My assertion is that the presence of PS Thuita Mwangi at the witness bench send signals that our foreign policy formulations and implementation still or somewhat personalised within the presidency. By this I mean some click of individuals still are the key determinants of Kenya’s foreign policy. Wait a minute am sure you will talk of sovereign ? Lest we forget the then gone days of president Moi “democratic regime” we still had the same cohorts in control of the state machinery, the so called “gorokos” or rather the sharpshooters other termed as the anti-stork theft unit, but still this argument is baseless from my side. Such idiosyncratic variable that have passed from the first two regimes, can we conclude that the same replica exists within our foreign policy tables as much as we have become so “democratic” ? I think that when the history of this country is definitively written, it will say that the ICC proceedings of 2011 marked another turning point in the foreign policy of this country.

Second, In the face of violation of our territorial borders by militants from South Sudan, Ethiopia and Somalia and Uganda army, it is time we candidly re-assess the role of our ministry of foreign affairs. All the attention was focused to the ICC  when the Toposa, Merille, Karamojong and Al Shabaab enter our country with impunity, and Ugandan Police raise their flag in Migingo, then we have become a failed state no matter any claim to the contrary. A failed state doesn’t need to be in chaos like Somalia only a weak Foreign policy that cannot fore show other stated within the abuts. Calls for military intervention and disbandment of the Kenyan military is all over our faces to the extent of even other assert that we enter into "defence umbrella treaties" with the UK, US and Israel in order to guide our territory. My question is, Do we not have an effective foreign policy that can be used as an instrument to guide our territorial integrity instead of calling for “war” within our borders ? My apologies we have a minister of foreign affairs and his PS who has just been “cleared” from the multimillion Japan land scandal and being re-instated to the “political patronage” that they “deserve”. Statement from the witness counsel during the confirmation hearings at the ICC.

In the life of every nation, there comes a time to make monumental changes in its national character.  Kenya’s foreign policy is a product of the co-ordination works of many actors which include heads of state, parliament, foreign affairs ministry, judiciary and other government port-folio which directly or indirectly affects  our foreign policy. The ICC confirmation hearing has already send signals that that our foreign policy is still personalised within the presidency, but time will tell when other scholars dispute the said justification. Still remain to be falsified.

End....................//

Evaluating the International Criminal Court - ICC

ICC Court at the Hague-Netherlands

Nine years after its launch in July 2002, the International Criminal Court has made a promising though problematic start. Some of its difficulties are constitutional in its mission and context. Others have been generated by states' and officials' behaviour. Carrying out the court's mandate to prosecute the perpetrators of humanity's worst crimes would be difficult even in ideal circumstances. Circumstances are not ideal: The ICC is an international organisation that many important states have not joined; it commands a limited budget; it is subject to the political and personal idiosyncrasies common to international organisation's; and finally, its independence is constrained by states' sovereignty. In short, it faces huge challenges as it struggles to build international legitimacy.

The ICC has jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes that take place on the territory of states that have gave in to its founding document, the Rome Statute of 1998, as well as crimes that are committed by citizens of states party to the statute or that take place in conflict situations referred to the court by the United Nations Security Council. For instance the Rwanda case was referred to as “mutual killings” both the Hutus and Tutsi killed each other. Crimes against humanity are issues like murder enslavement,torture,denial of human rights and transfer of a population  by force. War crimes; mistreating prisoners of war, crimes against non-combat or civilians. Crimes of aggression; attacking another state. The ICC is meant to be a venue of last resort when domestic justice systems genuinely fail to investigate and prosecute perpetrators of the crimes over which it has jurisdiction. Although it is formally a legal-judicial institution, its actions can have major political ramifications, and states may seek to use it for political ends. It has no enforcement capacity and depends upon states to apprehend suspects and to permit collection of information on their territories. It has been the target of harsh criticism and ardent support. Adding to the complexity of its mission, in 2010, the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute amended the statute to make a fourth crime, the individual crime of aggression, potentially prosecutable in the future.

Anyone either individuals, governments, groups can bring a case before the ICC and all the signatories of the Rome Treaty are expected to accept the jurisdiction of the court, but prosecutions is forbidden for crimes committed before 1^st July 2002.

Zambian President Banda's concession speech

Outgoing President Rupiah Banda at a press
conference in Zambia

I have called this press conference to say a few words. The election campaign of 2011 is over. The people of Zambia have spoken and we must all listen. Some will be happy with what they have heard, others will not.

The time now is for maturity, for composure and for compassion. To the victors, I say this: you have the right to celebrate but do so with a magnanimous heart. Enjoy the hour but remember that a term of government is for years.

Remember that the next election will judge you also.

Treat those who you have vanquished with the respect and humility that you would expect in your own hour of defeat.

I know that all Zambians will expect such behaviour and I hope it will be delivered. Speaking for myself and my party, we will accept the results. We are a democratic party and we know no other way.

It is not for us to deny the Zambian people. We never rigged, we never cheated, we never knowingly abused state funds. We simply did what we thought was best for Zambia. I hope the next government will act likewise in years to come.

Zambia deserves a decent democratic process. Indeed, Zambia must build on her past victories. Our independence was hard won, our democracy secured with blood.

Zambia must not go backwards, we must all face the future and go forward as one nation. Not to do so would dishonour our history.

To my party, to the MMD candidates who did not win, the lesson is simple. Next time we must try harder.

We fought a good campaign. It was disciplined. I still believe we had a good message and we reached every part of the country.

We travelled to all nine provinces and we spoke to all Zambians. To those who worked every hour of the day, I say ‘thank you’. You have done your best. But, sadly, sometimes our best is not good enough.

Do not be disheartened. The MMD will be back. We must all face the reality that sometimes it is time for change. Since 1991, the MMD has been in power. I believe we have done a good job on behalf of all Zambians.

Frederick chiluba led us to a genuine multi-party state and introduced the private sector to our key industries. Zambia was liberated by an MMD ideal but maybe we became complacent with our ideals. Maybe we did not listen, maybe we did not hear.

Did we become grey and lacking in ideas? Did we lose momentum? Our duty now is to go away and reflect on any mistakes we may have made and learn from them. If we do not, we do not deserve to contest power again.

The Zambia we know today was built by an MMD government. We know our place in history and we know that we can come back to lead again in the future. A new leadership will be chosen, and that leadership will be from the younger generation.

My generation -- the generation of the independence struggle -- must now give way to new ideas; ideas for the 21stcentury. From this defeat, a new, younger MMD will be re-born. If I can serve that re-building, then I will.

I must thank my cabinet for delivering on our promises. We did a lot of good for Zambia. Many of our projects will blossom into bright flowers. Some of you will be back to serve Zambia again – I know you will do your best for your party and for your country.

To the civil servants and government officials, it has been a privilege to serve with you. We have worked many long hours together. We did it not for ourselves but for Zambia. Serve your next masters as you did me, and Zambia will be in good hands.

I must thank my family and my wife. They have stood by me and I cannot ask for more loyalty than that which they have displayed. I love you all dearly and I will always be in your debt.

Being president is hard work, it takes long hours of work. And because of it, I have not always been there for you. Yet, still you were there for me.

Words cannot express the depth of my love for you all. All I ask is that my family continues to serve Zambia as i have sought to do.

But my greatest thanks must go to the Zambian people. We may be a small country on the middle of Africa but we are a great nation. Serving you has been a pleasure and an honour. I wish I could have done more, I wish I had more time to give.

Our potential is great. Our resources are impressive.

I urge you all now to rally behind your new president.

Yes, we may have different ideas but we both want the same thing – a better Zambia.

Now is not the time for violence and retribution.

Now is the time to unite and build tomorrow’s Zambia together. Only by working together can we achieve a more prosperous Zambia.

In my years of retirement, I hope to watch Zambia grow. I genuinely want Zambia to flourish. We should all want Zambia to flourish. So, I congratulate Michael Sata on his victory.

I have no ill feeling in my heart, there is no malice in my words. I wish him well in his years as president.

I pray his policies will bear fruit.

But now it is time for me to step aside. Now is the time for a new leader. My time is done. It is time for me to say ‘good bye’.

May God watch over the Zambian people and may he bless our beautiful nation.

I thank you.

Qaddafi's Out, So Who's the Longest-Serving Dictator Now ?

Barring a truly remarkable turn of events, Muammar al-Qaddafi's rule appears to have come to an end. Having taken power 41 years and 357 days ago, Qaddafi had been the world's longest-ruling sitting leader (not counting royals). He fell short of the all-time record of 49 years set by Fidel Castro, as well as those of Chiang Kai-shek (46 years) and Kim Il Sung (45 years.) So who takes the crown now?

According to wikipedia,it's Cameroonian President Paul Biya, at 36 years. However, that's disputable since Biya was actually prime minister for the first seven of those years and only assumed the office of the presidency when the sitting president died in 1982.

Going down the list, there's Mohamed Abdelaziz, president of Western Sahara ,which is not a generally recognized country at 34 years. Then there's Yemen's Ali Abdullah Saleh at 33 years, though his grip on power is bumpy to say the least.

That leaves Equatorial Guinea's kleptocratic President  Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo as the world's longest-serving undisputed ruler at 32 years and 21 days. Jose Eduardo dos Santos of Angola and Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe are close behind him, both at 31 years.

Given that Obiang and dos Santos are both 71 and Mugabe is 87, Castro's all-time dictator longevity record appears to be pretty safe.

Key determinant to the existence of East African Community (EAC)

Migingo Island within the shores of Lake Victoria

I do not know whether to laugh or cry. Perhaps I should mourn. I am mourning  because of the way Kenyans’ have approached the issue of  border dispute that lies within the Kenya  - Uganda islands or rather the so called Migingo & Ugingo islands. Lately ,we have been treated to the theatre of government confusion, opinion polls and even to the extent of the wiki leaks cables on the view on how the presidency handled or should handle the dispute between the two “rocks”. To say the least, I am upset  by the way most Kenyans have approached the matter. Some calling for military enforcements from both states while others for economic sanctions. The issue of regional dispute should be given a broad approach don’t  you think so ? Thus, Is Migingo and Ugingo islands a key determinant for the existence  East African Community ?

The East African Community is an intergovernmental organization comprising the five East Africa countries Kenya,Burundi,Rwanda Tanzania and Uganda. The East African Community was originally founded in 1967 but collapsed in 1977 and again revived in July 2000. The key factors that led to the formation and collapse of the East Africa Community was driven by both political, Economic and social – cultural dimensions so to say. But  have we learnt any lessons from the past experiences ? Then we should focus on the new EAC objectives considering the need to consolidate regional cooperation particularly on matters related to defence,security,economic and conflict resolutions.

The journey towards regional integration should be travelled step by step in order to avoid past mistakes. We should be vigilant in strengthening the EAC using the collapse of former community and the lessons should  be analyzed keenly to avoid a repeat at all costs. Thus, historical lessons should be taken to consideration in order to strengthen the existence of the EAC and the spirit to cohesion that leds to a unison development within the regional states.

From Left to right.Yoweri Museveni,Mwai Kibaki,
Paul Kagame,Jakaya Kikwete,Pierre Nkurunzinza.

The history behind the collapse of the first EAC in 1977 with the current dispute between the islands, there exist some correlation that should not be ignored at all costs. The events in Uganda in 1971 should not be left intact  as a key determinant of why we should consider a diplomatic approach towards the two “rocks”. In 1977,Obote the then president of Uganda was overruled  and Uganda established a military regime under a de facto system of government. Which was characterized by human rights violation and importunity of Uganda threatening territory expansion into Kenya and Tanzania under Idi Amin. By then, Nyerere did not want to sit with Idi Amin in any table meeting. The result of this was for about seven years the East African Community never had any meetings, by this it was increasively clear the East African Community was irrelevant. The spirit of non-interference of other independent countries was realized when Nyerere felt it was the duty of the East African Community to stop the atrocities within the region more so in Uganda. While president Kenyatta of Kenya felt  that he will maintain the spirit of non interference of other states affairs. In 1977 the spirit of East African Community died completely with the invasion of Uganda by Tanzanian forces which contained the tension and led to the collapse of the East African Community. The acrimony with which the East African Community collapsed lead to the eventual closure of the Kenya and Tanzania border. The catastrophe unfolding within these events should be a key determinant of why the security forces or military intervention should be the last option in any regional dispute more so within this period when we are trying to revive the spirit of East African community integration.

In my view, such historical approach should guide us in the spirit of avoiding military approach toward dispute resolutions that can create tension between regional states. Other than diplomatic approach as an instrument of creating cohesion between the two regions and throughout other regional members . Instruments of military and economic approaches should not be within any table meetings in the view of resolving dispute between the two  islands.Therefore,as we try to revive the East African Community,the spirit of good neighbourliness should be the guiding principle towards foreign policy relations. Failure to which, then we should also forget about the existence of the East African Community.

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…