Uhuru starts wearing EAC’s big boots

President Uhuru Kenyatta (right) with South Sudan President Salva Kiir during a visit to Juba. All eyes are on Mr Kenyatta to help end the South Sudan crisis. AFP 

By Karoli Ssemogerere

In Summary

• As poor Kenyans look to their president for help, so will other poorer East Africans.

President Uhuru Kenyatta’s numbers seem to be dropping—a result of a tight economic environment and major security lapses in Kenya in 2013.

He began his presidency under a cloud of self doubt and ongoing criminal proceedings at the International Criminal Court.

These proceedings tested the legitimacy of the Kenyan government headed by two ICC indictees, but as time wore on, it tested the legitimacy of the Rome Statute as well.

As 2013 wound down, the ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda admitted that ‘‘the case against Mr Kenyatta does not satisfy the high evidentiary standards required at trial.’’

No one questions the unforgettable and unforgivable bloodletting that followed the December 2007 elections. What has been questioned over and over has been the fairness of the process that broke many scruples; unreliable witnesses.

As the list of accused began to whittle down, the ICC found itself becoming like a political court and at inopportune times like the aftermath of the Westgate bloodbath, found the court inserting itself in the internal political affairs of a sovereign country.

Now with the ICC puzzle partly resolved, President Kenyatta has taken the mantle of the chairmanship of the EAC summit and seems to have handled his first regional crisis well—committing the warring sides in South Sudan to peace talks.

A commitment to peace talks does not come with all the bells and whistles of a ceasefire and so on. Warring parties are eager to gain territory and leverage before arriving at the table. Negotiations in South Sudan are likely to be long and treacherous.

Riek Machar, the head of the insurgent movement, has a long history of insurgency himself.

Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM), while unhappy with Salva Kiir, may have second thoughts of a 50 per cent power give-away to an insurgency given the long history it took for SPLM to acquire political power and independence from Sudan.

Mr Kenyatta’s other regional colleagues in Uganda, Tanzania and Rwanda are saddled with a history of involvement in the other big regional conflict, the DRC. So, Rwanda’s pass at the chairmanship of the Summit may have been wise.

Rwanda and South Sudan don’t share a border but similarly don’t enjoy close political ties either.

When it comes to negotiation, Mr Kenyatta has stronger credentials at fostering power sharing or coalition building, this being the dominant method in Kenya than all of his regional colleagues.

In Uganda, power sharing today is interpreted more as window dressing rather than conciliatory. Uganda’s opposition is fragmented and has been splintered in the rough and tumble of Uganda’s politics.

In Kenya, the duo in charge have had the experience of being both in power and in the opposition. In Rwanda and Burundi, no such opposition exists.