Ethiopians Feel Ignored and Angry By the West/U.S.

[Mintid Farayar]

After Uhuru Comes Diplomatic Trouble [opinion]

by Daniel Berhane

19 March 2013

 

Mar 19, 2013 (Addis Fortune) -- Last week saw the election of Uhuru Kenyatta as President of Kenya, one of the biggest economies in Eastern Africa.

 

Most Ethiopians, however, are more familiar with his rival Raila Odinga, as part of the 2007 Kenyan presidential elections and the ensuing violence that saw him instated as Prime Minister. Of course, arguably, Odinga became a household name after a computer virus, named after him, destroyed Microsoft Word files, including Amharic files, irreparably, until the deployment of an effective anti-virus that made the Information Network Security Agency (INSA) famous.

 

For Ethiopians, who barely follow regional politics, the 2007 Kenyan election caught their attention, as it seemed like a deja vu of the vote rigging claims and violence that marred their election two years earlier.

 

Some individuals within the Ethiopian political opposition envied the Kenyan process, as the opposition candidate, Odinga, managed to squeeze a prime ministerial job from his rival, President Mwai Kibaki. They even went as far as lashing out at their own supporters for not being as firm as the Kenyans - athough the price tag was the death of, by conservative estimates, more than 1,000 Kenyans and the displacement of half a million more. Prominent opposition leaders publicly criticised the senior United States officials engaged in shuttle diplomacy to broker a deal among the Kenyan rivals, while quiet diplomacy was employed in the case of Ethiopia.

 

Predictably, the level of Western involvement and perceived bias towards Odinga did not go down well with those in Addis Abeba. Even the late Prime Minister Meles Zenawi asked visiting United States officials to be firm with Odinga and "not to encourage" him. Meles did not like the precedent that it established, it appears, besides whatever objective assessment he might have made.

 

That is no secret to Odinga, who had never been to Addis as Prime Minister. The grudge he held might be what prompted his preposterous claim last August, during Meles' last days, that he is "very concerned about developments in Ethiopia, knowing how fragile the politics are there".

 

Odinga's unfriendly remark has, however, roots deeper than a personal grudge. That is the short-sighted regional outlook of much of the Kenyan media and political elite. As the very diplomatic description on the Ethiopian Foreign Policy document states, "some Kenyans, who are still stuck on dependency, worry when neighbouring countries make economic progress and experience peace and democracy, thinking that Kenya may lose both the prominence in the eyes of aid donors, and the advantages she has enjoyed for many years."

 

"This leads them to view stability in neighbouring countries as contrary to their interest, and hence, to view the emerging situation with suspicion and some degree of envy." I would add, fortunately, that they do not have the resources to actively pursue such wishes.

 

This mentality is not a small matter.Kenya's share out of American economic assistance is 2.5 times higher than Ethiopia, in per capita terms, according to the February 2011 budget document by the White House. The same year, its military received 33pc higher assistance from the Pentagon than its Ethiopian counterparts, though the Western media expresses the contrary to its readers. Not to forget,Kenya is often portrayed to Western investors as a stable country, some even say "regional stabiliser", despite the fact that its capital was bombed every other week by Al-Shabaab operatives, as a consequence of its year-long endeavour to capture a marginal 120Km piece of Somalian territory, near its border.

 

Of course,Kenya's status as the West's darling came with an opportunity cost. As a Kenyan analyst remarked a few years ago, "it baffles many African observers just how condescending the relationship between Nairobi and Washington is, when they see American presidents lecture Kenyan presidents on how to govern their subjects".

 

But, the Kenyan elite did not seem to mind it much, if comments by their political elite and the headlines of their newspapers are reliable indicators. That must have emboldened the West to the extent of telling Kenyans whom to vote for President.

 

While Obama took the liberty, last month, to give them a televised lecture about elections, other officials, from the United Kingdom,France and Sweden, were more straightforward. In an election where Odinga and Kenyatta were the forerunners, they warned against voting for Kenyatta, as he has been indicted for the 2007 post-election violence by the International Criminal Court (ICC), which curiously skipped Kibaki and Odinga.

 

The Western diplomats defiantly continued warning against voting for Kenyatta, even after the Foreign Ministry demanded them to stop meddling in the internal affairs of Kenya. Something a diplomat in Addis could only dream of doing.

 

In spite of, and partly because of, the Westerners' meddling, Kenyatta secured the job last week. American and European media and officials are contemplating their next move. But, their failure to send a congratulatory note to Kenyatta indicates their relationships will be tough.

 

What does this mean for Ethiopia?

 

The relations between Addis and Nairobi would not have been affected if Odinga was President. Officials in Addis downplay his past remark, citing his public support for the Gil Gel Gibe-III dam, which is opposed by Kenyan civil society groups and their Western patrons, who together prefer him.

 

Kenyatta's Presidency, however, is a dubious one. On one hand, he entails a status quo power, given his affiliation with the ruling party and the personalities that have ruled Kenya since its independence. However, as part of his successful electoral manoeuvre to use the ICC's case and Westerners' opposition for his benefit, he stepped-up a rather nationalist rhetoric. It is to be seen if that will translate into an aggressive position in talks with Ethiopian officials, for example, on tribal border clashes, where Ethiopian militias are often accused by Kenyan newspapers of crossing the border at a whim.

 

President Kenyatta will likely be a strong ally in strengthening regional institutions, like the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) and the African Union (AU), which could serve as his insurance, if push comes to shove with the ICC.

 

A more certain impact of the election last week is not what Kenyatta may or may not do. Each day he spends in office is a reminder to Western diplomats and journalists that their influence is not welcome all the time, even in a country they see as their own backyard. Bashing Westerners has already become commonplace in many Kenyan newspapers, as well as on discussion forums of foreign websites, which portray the new President as a "war criminal" and the Kenyan political system as a "messy affair".

 

One would hope, in the years to come, that there will be fewer and fewer Westerners who take offence at their treatment in Addis Ababa, when comparing it to that of their colleagues in Nairobi.

[Mintid Farayar]

Hence the threat or decision (whichever it is) to pull out of Bay and Bakool. This would leave the whole stabilization/de-Shababization of South Central Somalia hanging in the wind...

 

Let's see how this plays out in the coming weeks...