BY DICKENS WASONGA – FREELANCE JOURNALIST – KISUMU, KENYA

Tel. +254721784774

With the recent signing of an historic power-sharing deal between Mwai Kibaki and Raila Odinga, relative calm has now returned to many parts of the country.

It is true that many Kenyans were anxiously waiting to begin to settle down after the month-long violence which rocked the country following the disputed poll results.

Our political leaders from both sides of the political divide have also shown maturity and have taken commendable steps following the signing of the agreement. For the first time they seem to have realised the need to have a peaceful and united country. They must also have realised that this country is bigger than an individual and that there comes a time when the interests of the nation are greater than that of any one of us.

Whether they did so willingly or through other means may not be a matter of much concern to us now. There is a need to caution leaders to be carefull with their statements.

I want to believe that no single Kenyan would wish to see a repeat of the kind of turmoil that we just went through. While we all agree that Kenya must not go back to what we just witnessed, it is important for all of us to ask why it happened and whether it could have been avoided.

Careless statements like the one issued this week by the head of civil service and secretary to the cabinet Mr. Francis Muthaura must not be allowed since they can ignite fire amongst our people.

Every Kenyan must have learnt something from the violence. I wish people like the Muthauras of this nation also did.

If you thought your neighbour was the problem, then you can today confess whether you were indeed right. Whether you hd a godfather in the civil service did not matter much. Many realised that only evil and acts of violence are willingly and equally distributed unlike wealth.

We have taken that road before and please, Mr. Muthaura, what we want now is peace and not clarifications of facts we already have.

If you were in this country when the news of the agreement was made public and saw the way that Kenyans recieved it, then you should have known that it was what they were waiting for. Muthaura aside, I must hasten to point out that this country needs more honest and patriotic politicians than ever before.

As Kenyans, we cannot escape blame because for a long time we have allowed politics and politicians to dominate every sphere of our lives. Agreed, politics and development do go together, but can’t we now force these fellows to polish a bit and show them how we want politics and dvelopment to co-exist?

Not all of them are bad. Not every politician is waiting for the slightest opportunity to incite people to war.

However, a good number of them must style up and exercise a little control on how they play politics so that we do not plunge this country into chaos once again.

I am not suggesting that we go back to the dark old Kanu days of dictatorship where divergent opinions were not tolerated. However, Kenyans must bring sanity back into politics by rejecting people who want to preach hatred amongst us–people who do not get tired of reminding you that you are poor and jobless because you belong to a certain tribe or that some people cannot lead because they are not circumcised.

These are the people who fan ethnic haterd which, if unchecked, leads to what we just went through in the past few months. They must not get a chance to talk to us.

Some of them have made it literally impossible for other Kenyans to be able to work and earn an honest living. You cannot be employed simply because you cannot be trusted anywhere within his family tree and that is all over the country.

We have placed all our hopes and wishes upon our politicians. This must now change for I think it was a grave mistake. As citizens of this great nation, let us try another method for they have let us down many times.

We must now ensure, as Kenyans, that nobody will at any time go for his neighbour’s neck. Never again wil we feel scared simply because someone belongs to a particular community.
Politics of division must not find relevance in our midist. No MP should tell a fellow Kenyan why he or she has no job or access to things like electricity in their homes. Instead, Kenyans now expect an MP who will not only identify a problem but get a solution to it for they can nolonger find solace in blame game when the country is bleeding.

If MPs can agree to hike their pay regardless of their political affilliation then we expect them to also agree to pass laws that will serve the interests of all Kenyans at any time that such a legislation is brought to the floor of the house.

Issues that are so dear to us, such as unemployment, must also be fully addressed. We want to see all Kenyans who qualify for any position given equal consideration whenever there is an opportunity for employment.

Many people believe that many of the much talked about injustices were committed because our system of governance allowed it. There is an urgent need to strengthen our systems by creating strong institutions.

Creating such institutions calls for greater participation by our law makers. We also need to ensure that we build public confidence in these institutions and that they are allowed to operate within the provisions of the law and without external interference.

The truth is that many Kenyans have little or no faith at all in many of our institutions. This is because of the way they have been managed before. Corruption has eaten up a number of them. This is the time to put corruption in reverse gear.

From: Greg Craig, former director, Policy Planning Office, U.S. State Department
RE: Senator Clinton’s claim to be experienced in foreign policy: Just words?

DA: March 11, 2008

When your entire campaign is based upon a claim of experience, it is important that you have evidence to support that claim. Hillary Clinton’s argument that she has passed “the Commander- in-Chief test” is simply not supported by her record.

There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton played an important domestic policy role when she was First Lady. It is well known, for example, that she led the failed effort to pass universal health insurance. There is no reason to believe, however, that she was a key player in foreign policy at any time during the Clinton Administration. She did not sit in on National Security Council meetings. She did not have a security clearance. She did not attend meetings in the Situation Room. She did not manage any part of the national security bureaucracy, nor did she have her own national security staff. She did not do any heavy-lifting with foreign governments, whether they were friendly or not. She never managed a foreign policy crisis, and there is no evidence to suggest that she participated in the decision-making that occurred in connection with any such crisis. As far as the record shows, Senator Clinton never answered the phone either to make a decision on
any pressing national security issue, not at 3 AM or at any other time of day.

When asked to describe her experience, Senator Clinton has cited a handful of international incidents where she says she played a central role. But any fair-minded and objective judge of these claims, i.e., by someone not affiliated with the Clinton campaign, would conclude that Senator Clinton’s claims of foreign policy experience are exaggerated.

Northern Ireland:

Senator Clinton has said, “I helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland.” It is a gross overstatement of the facts for her to claim even partial credit for bringing peace to Northern Ireland. She did travel to Northern Ireland, it is true. First Ladies often travel to places that are a focus of U.S. foreign policy. But at no time did she play any role in the critical negotiations that ultimately produced the peace. As the Associated Press recently reported, “[S]he was not directly involved in negotiating the Good Friday peace accord.” With regard to her main claim that she helped bring women together, she did participate in a meeting with women, but, according to those who know best, she did not play a pivotal role. The person in charge of the negotiations, former Senator George Mitchell, said that “[The First Lady] was one of many people who participated in encouraging women to get involved, not the only one.”

News of Senator Clinton’s claims has raised eyebrows across the ocean. Her reference to an important meeting at the Belfast town hall was debunked. Her only appearance at the Belfast City Hall was to see Christmas lights turned on. She also attended a 50-minute meeting which, according to the Belfast Daily Telegraph’s report at the time, “[was] a little bit stilted, a little prepared at times.” Brian Feeney, an Irish author and former politician, sums it up: “The road to peace was carefully documented, and she wasn’t on it.”

Bosnia:

Senator Clinton has pointed to a March 1996 trip to Bosnia as proof that her foreign travel involved a life-risking mission into a war zone. She has described dodging sniper fire. While she did travel to Bosnia in March 1996, the visit was not a high-stakes mission to a war zone. On March 26, 1996, the New York Times reported that “Hillary Rodham Clinton charmed American troops at a U.S.O. show here, but it didn’t hurt that the singer Sheryl Crow and the comedian Sinbad were also on the stage.”

Kosovo:

Senator Clinton has said, “I negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo.” It is true that, as First Lady, she traveled to Macedonia and visited a Kosovar refugee camp. It is also true that she met with government officials while she was there. First Ladies frequently meet with government officials. Her claim to have “negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo,” however, is not true. Her trip to Macedonia took place on May 14, 1999. The borders were opened the day before, on May 13, 1999.

The negotiations that led to the opening of the borders were accomplished by the people who ordinarily conduct negotiations with foreign governments, U.S. diplomats. President Clinton’s top envoy to the Balkans, former Ambassador Robert Gelbard, said, “I cannot recall any involvement by Senator Clinton in this issue.” Ivo Daalder worked on the Clinton Administration’s National Security Council and wrote a definitive history of the Kosovo conflict. He recalls that “she had absolutely no role in the dirty work of negotiations.”

Rwanda:

Last year, former President Clinton asserted that his wife pressed him to intervene with U.S. troops to stop the Rwandan genocide. When asked about this assertion, Hillary Clinton said it was true. There is no evidence, however, to suggest that this ever happened. Even those individuals who were advocating a much more robust U.S. effort to stop the genocide did not argue for the use of U.S. troops. No one recalls hearing that Hillary Clinton had any interest in this course of action. Based on a fair and thorough review of National Security Council deliberations during those tragic months, there is no evidence to suggest that U.S. military intervention was ever discussed. Prudence Bushnell, the Assistant Secretary of State with responsibility for Africa, has recalled that there was no consideration of U.S. military intervention.

At no time prior to her campaign for the presidency did Senator Clinton ever make the claim that she supported intervening militarily to stop the Rwandan genocide. It is noteworthy that she failed to mention this anecdote, urging President Clinton to intervene militarily in Rwanda, in her memoirs. President Clinton makes no mention of such a conversation with his wife in his memoirs. And Madeline Albright, who was Ambassador to the United Nations at the time, makes no mention of any such event in her memoirs.

Hillary Clinton did visit Rwanda in March 1998 and, during that visit, her husband apologized for America’s failure to do more to prevent the genocide.

China:

Senator Clinton also points to a speech that she delivered in Beijing in 1995 as proof of her ability to answer a 3 AM crisis phone call. It is strange that Senator Clinton would base her own foreign policy experience on a speech that she gave over a decade ago, since she so frequently belittles Barack Obama’s speeches opposing the Iraq War six years ago. Let there be no doubt: she gave a good speech in Beijing, and she stood up for women’s rights. But Senator Obama’s opposition to the War in Iraq in 2002 is relevant to the question of whether he, as Commander-in-Chief, will make wise judgments about the use of military force. Senator Clinton’s speech in Beijing is not.

Senator Obama’s speech opposing the war in Iraq shows independence and courage as well as good judgment. In the speech that Senator Clinton says does not qualify him to be Commander in Chief, Obama criticized what he called “a rash war . . . a war based not on reason, but on passion, not on principle, but on politics.” In that speech, he said prophetically: “[E]ven a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.” He predicted that a U.S. invasion of Iraq would “fan the flames of the Middle East,” and “strengthen the recruitment arm of al Qaeda.” He urged the United States first to “finish the fight with Bin Laden and al Qaeda.”

If the U.S. government had followed Barack Obama’s advice in 2002, we would have avoided one of the greatest foreign policy catastrophes in our nation’s history. Some of the most “experienced” men in national security affairs, Vice President Cheney and Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and others, led this nation into that catastrophe. That lesson should teach us something about the value of judgment over experience. Longevity in Washington, D.C. does not guarantee either wisdom of judgment.

Conclusion:

The Clinton campaign’s argument is nothing more than mere assertion, dramatized in a scary television commercial with a telephone ringing in the middle of the night. There is no support for or substance in the claim that Senator Clinton has passed “the Commander-in-Chief test.” That claim, as the TV ad, consists of nothing more than making the assertion, repeating it frequently to the voters and hoping that they will believe it.

On the most critical foreign policy judgment of our generation, the War in Iraq, Senator Clinton voted in support of a resolution entitled “The Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of U.S. Military Force Against Iraq.” As she cast that vote, she said: “This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make — any vote that may lead to war should be hard — but I cast it with conviction.” In this campaign, Senator Clinton has argued, remarkably, that she wasn’t actually voting for war, she was voting for diplomacy. That claim is no more credible than her other claims of foreign policy experience. The real tragedy is that we are still living with the terrible consequences of her misjudgment. The Bush Administration continues to cite that resolution as its authorization, like a blank check, to fight on with no end in sight.

Barack Obama has a very simple case. On the most important commander in chief test of our generation, he got it right, and Senator Clinton got it wrong. In truth, Senator Obama has much more foreign policy experience than either Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan had when they were elected. Senator Obama has worked to confront 21st century challenges like proliferation and genocide on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He possesses the personal attributes of a great leader, an even temperament, an open-minded approach to even the most challenging problems, a willingness to listen to all views, clarity of vision, the ability to inspire, conviction and courage.

And Barack Obama does not use false charges and exaggerated claims to play politics with national security.

Sent by Donald.

Sharing responsibility goes with sharing of power.

In his article, Migosi Macharia Gaitho thinly joins in the ranks of the Muthaura’s of this world by pretending to be offering a solution while in real terms, he is protecting some tribal arithmetic.

I say this with the benefit of hindsight.

In 2003, Kenyans voted in Mwai Kibaki as our president with overwhelming mandate with a clear resolve that the fight against tribalism was one of the immediate issues to be tackled. But upon assuming office, President Mwai Kibaki packed both the Cabinet and the government with his tribal cronies.

We made noise, but then, we were promptly told that those appointed to the various positions were qualified and were thus appointed on merit. It did not then matter that all these people were from Central Province!

We were left to wonder that it was only Central Province that had mothers who could give birth to those qualified and able to be appointed on merit.

As they signed the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, President Mwai Kibaki And Prime Minister-designate Hon Raila Odinga, were in agreement that Kenya could not slide down the forbiden path on account of greed, where one takes all regardless of whether he won the peoples mandate or not.

They decided to forget the past and recreate a new Kenya, and all Kenyans were happy with this new arrangement which gave the two of the protagonists power and responsibility at 50-50 basis, what Condolesa Rice would call real power.

The point is real simple here; they must share power and responsibility so that we have tranquility. If the cabinet will be of 18 ministers, ODM MUST get 9. If we will have 36 Assistant Ministers, ODM MUST get 18.

If we will have 18 Permanent Secretaries, ODM MUST get 9, 30 PCs, ODM MUST get 15, 40 Ambassadors, ODM MUST get 20, and so on.

This is not subject to Muthaura, Karua or Gaitho.

ODM brings into government the rest of Kenyans, people Kibaki had slighted in his first government. And in this sharing of power and responsibility, we MUST support our two leaders who have shown us the way. We must not start creating some red herrings that will make Kenyans go back to the trenches.

It is sad that Gaitho can now proclaim for all to read that ‘we do not need a public service led by fellows whose only qualifications are that they are relatives, cronies, friends and political flunkies of the so called principals.’ This is sad coming from Macharia Gaitho.

Why, was Gaitho in Kenya in 2003 when Kibaki saddled the government  and state appointments with people whose only qualifications were that they were relatives, cronies, friends, political flunkies, and sadly, tribal mates of the president.

Do not be holier than thou when all that Kenyans want is National healing, and an equal share of the cake.

Oto Octavian