Skip to main content

US wekas pressure on Kenya

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
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tanzania is not Tasmania

Dear friends: Please let's stop refering to Tanzania as Tasmania. Here is why. Tanzania is located on the coast of East Africa, below Kenya. It is not origin of the the cartoon character from your childhood. Tasmania is an island which is part of Australia. The animal known to exist only on Tasmania is the Tasmanian Devil. Once again, you will see this is not the cartoon character you remember from your childhood. Let's summarize: Tanzania is not Tasmania.
Post a Comment
Read more

Policy Brief 2: Why is Tanzania Poor?

(Policy Brief # 2 Submitted December 6th 2007, for Econ 346 - Economic Development, Lafayette College) Over the course of the 20th century, Tanzania experienced a multitude of social, political and economic changes. It still remains poor today. The WorldBank classifies a ‘low income country’ – such as Tanzania – as one with a Gross National Income per capita of $905 or less (WorldBank Data 2006). As of 1992, Tanzania ’s per capita income was recorded at $110, and average per capita consumption was $0.5 per day (OECD 2000). Several possible factors have been blamed for contributing to current hardships, such as Julius Nyerere’s failed attempts to collectivize agriculture between 1961 and 1975 through his socialist Ujamaa policies as the first president of Tanzania (Pratt 1980). While pre-independence plans “focused on the commercialization of agriculture and the creation of industries that could reduce the need for a variety of imports”, post-independence interventions by the Gov...
4 comments
Read more

Revision rinsed II

When discussing communication for development, we tend to argue against the models based only on diffusion of media technologies. That is, in pursuing a critical approach to development practices, we tend to support participatory approaches to technology use and engagement. Yet, we leave development practice in the abstract. We stop short at revised theory, and consult with practice initiators who attempt to materialize the abstract. Even there, we treat attempts as cases, and recriticize to align with still revised theory. It's time the field of communication for development confessed its efforts to change market-based activities. It's also time that it confessed that power in the market is strong, and at most times, stronger than the power of discourse. Instead, the field of communication for development should hold strong to the assumptions that structuralist development practice has not worked. That's that. Why go further to assume that a new theory is needed, or...
Post a Comment
Read more