I read this article in the Wall Street Journal yesterday, and found myself overheating on the bus to school.
The article discusses the uprising during the 2007 Kenyan elections due to hardlined support for the oppostion, Raila Odgina, against the incumbent, Mwai Kibaki. While the violence shook Kenya and much of East Africa, the two sides agreed on a power-sharing deal which is still sensitive to either side today.
As the WSJ article suggests, "Two years later, however, their coalition government reamains shaky and the country is on edge. The U.S. is increasingly impatient for the government to take steps to punish those responsible for the postelection violence, crack down on corruption and amend the constitution.
'We will not hesitate to give our opinions when we feel that's what needs to be done," Mr. Wycoff* said. "We will take strong actions when we think that's what needs to be done to move the reform process forward.'"
I understand the need for consistent and "safe" support towards the US. I also understand why the US would be concerned if one of their friends was having trouble. I further understand that the article goes on to discuss Kenya's corruption problems, and that it remains one of the US's highly-regarded East African nations.
But I have some questions:
1. Why make disapproval of locally-based problems public instead of work with Kenya to see what is and isn't possible?
2. How is a public show of dismay going to help?
3. Who is in charge of Kenya's borders?
4. What is the US's agenda in Kenya?
5. The article discusses how Kenya is the "bastion of stability in an East African region", and mentions Somalia, Sudan and Ethopia. Are there other states the US can and should be working with in the region? If so, what states are they and how can they work with Kenya? If not, why is there no room for cooperation in the East African region?
*Karl Wycoff is the deputy assistant secretary of state for African Affairs in the US
The article discusses the uprising during the 2007 Kenyan elections due to hardlined support for the oppostion, Raila Odgina, against the incumbent, Mwai Kibaki. While the violence shook Kenya and much of East Africa, the two sides agreed on a power-sharing deal which is still sensitive to either side today.
As the WSJ article suggests, "Two years later, however, their coalition government reamains shaky and the country is on edge. The U.S. is increasingly impatient for the government to take steps to punish those responsible for the postelection violence, crack down on corruption and amend the constitution.
'We will not hesitate to give our opinions when we feel that's what needs to be done," Mr. Wycoff* said. "We will take strong actions when we think that's what needs to be done to move the reform process forward.'"
I understand the need for consistent and "safe" support towards the US. I also understand why the US would be concerned if one of their friends was having trouble. I further understand that the article goes on to discuss Kenya's corruption problems, and that it remains one of the US's highly-regarded East African nations.
But I have some questions:
1. Why make disapproval of locally-based problems public instead of work with Kenya to see what is and isn't possible?
2. How is a public show of dismay going to help?
3. Who is in charge of Kenya's borders?
4. What is the US's agenda in Kenya?
5. The article discusses how Kenya is the "bastion of stability in an East African region", and mentions Somalia, Sudan and Ethopia. Are there other states the US can and should be working with in the region? If so, what states are they and how can they work with Kenya? If not, why is there no room for cooperation in the East African region?
*Karl Wycoff is the deputy assistant secretary of state for African Affairs in the US
Comments
Post a Comment