When Rwanda burst in flames in ethnic genocide in 1994,the whole world watched as Hutus butchered the minority Tutsi with no international intervention.Not even the world super-powers,the US included dared to hold any military response to alter this atrocity and animosity directed towards one minority group.The end of it was that over 1 million Tutsis and Hutus lost their lives in just 100 days.
In Sierra Leone,Revolutionary United Front's Foday Sankoh was just another free war lord in the eyes of the international community.Pathetic images of maimed civilians in the regional and international media was what was characteristic of Sankoh's RUF rebels in Sierra Leone.Though the then OAU(Organisation of Africa Unity)member states volunteered to send peace-keeping forces,much could have done earlier to contain the rebels' barbarism on innocent civilians.Though the ICC had issued an arrest warrant on Foday Sankoh,he died before he faced justice.
Although in the concept of international law,it is wrong for a country to interfere with another country's internal affairs,is this the excuse of the international community to watch as countries burn without averting the civil strife in them?
The Somalia case is yet another classic example of the international community's (especially the US and its Western allies) failure to avert the situation or to give a helping hand to the AU member states a helping hand militarily.Since the downfall of dictator Mohammed Siad Barre in 1991,Somalia has become a hotbed of civil unrest.The ever unending internal feudalism between different clans has led to seceding of some parts(for instance Somaliland (which is currently pushing the UN to recognize it as a sovereign republic).The Al Shabaab militia group that has been brn out of prevailing anarchy in this amorphous republic.It has imposed draconian Sharia Laws which havve become a deathbed to civilians who fail to adhere to hem,especially women.
The situation is worse to an extent that ,even the penetration of the international media has occasionally been difficult thus making the rest of the world remain in darkness on the unfolding events in Somalia.
The height of Somalia crisis is so gigantic that it has shaken the world economy for the past two years due to ensuing piracy in the Somalian Coast.Ironically,the world's able countries militarily have ppted to send their securiy forces to contain the piracy menace rathre than double with tha AU peace-keeping forces to return Somalia to social and political sanity.This burden has been left to the unable AU forces to cool the burning Somalia.Does this not portray the West's selectivity in dealing with international crises?
Why should the UN,and specifically the US and its military allies opt to raise up and issue their stances when political upheavals engulf Tunisia,Libya,Egypt,Kenya,
The US is known to establish close ties with dictators in post-independent African states.These dictators are especially those who took over power and declared themselves 'life presidents' in these states.For instance,who could question the cordial diplomatic relations between the US and DRC Congo( then Zaire) dictator Mobutu Sese Seko?
The recently deposed Egypt's Hosni Mubarak has been the US's key point-man especially in the Middlle East's peace process.Many had hoped that the Obama administration would alter the course of the US's policy in the Middle East Crisis.But it is no amazement that its favoritism on Israel hasn't changed yet even with radical changes in Israeli's political landscape.Their diplomatic tie have remained strong though with occasional lapses.
It was very ironical of the US to pressurize Mubarak to resign when the internal and external pressure mounted on him to leave presidency after 31 years of close relations with the US.How can one turn aganist his own friend at the hour of need?
Now the global attention is on Libya's strongman Col.Muammar Gaddafi to resign as Libya's leader.Gaddafi has declared himself a 'revolutionary hero' thus there's no way he can make an exit to a helm he got by liberating Libyans
For 41 years in power,and with close ties with the United States,the very close comrade has turned aganist Gaddafi.The US has been on the front line calling for his resignation and if possible the use of military power to outs him from power.
This way,the US is hypocritically sanctifying itself in the eyes of the international community and the world at large.She wants to be seen as an agent of social,political and economic transformation of African states.But with massive revelation of her degree of hypocrisy through the Wikileaks secret cables,she can't win the battle of sanctifying her diplomatic criminality.
The US has been known to form close friendships with leaders of countries where it has political interests in them-mostly the countries endowed with vast resource reserves,where it can use the rule in power as a shortcut to plunder its resources in return building the administration in power,only to turn their enemies once these administrations are in their worst terms with the countries' citizenry or are removed from power.
Most of the leaders who form close ties with her usually live in political isolation once out of power and even die in untold segregation and paucity.The fate that befell to Mobutu and currently Mubarak.
Indeed,it would even depend on the country's resulting social,political and economic order to benefit herself in the name of overseeing the process of institution of reforms only to take that advantage to hoodwink the world thus exploiting its resources.
What happened in Iraq?Who is now responsible of of running the country's oil reserves?These are just some of a myriad of unanswered questions on US's invasion of Iraq.
Back home.The current ICC debate has caused political shock waves and new alignments are expected.The ICC as a neo-colonial institution as argued by anti-Hague crusaders has also been linked to the US's political interests in Kenya.Firstly,she is not a signatory to the Rome Statute,they argue.
But can the ICC be used as an 'instrument of administering international justice at the expense of advancing the West's political interests in the world?It is a seemingly difficult question to answer.
Whether the argument that President Kibaki is indirectly 'politically' being punished by the West in the camouflage of 'ICC' for his links with the Eastern Countries,is valid or not,the most important thing for Kenya is not be in the list of the countries who have fallen prey of the Wet's sycophancy only to lose their nationhood and sovereignty to the expense of the West's advantage to exploit their natural endowments
Wanderi wa Kamau,
