Op-Ed Contributor
Justice for Kenya
By KOFI ANNAN
Published: September 9, 2013
GENEVA — ON Tuesday, the eyes of Kenya will be firmly fixed on The
Hague, where the trial of the country’s deputy president, William Ruto,
and his co-defendant, Joshua arap Sang, an influential radio executive,
is set to begin before the International Criminal Court. They have been
charged with crimes against humanity for their alleged roles in the
violence that rocked Kenya in late 2007 and early 2008. Kenya’s
president, Uhuru Kenyatta, will face similar charges in a related case
set for trial in November.
Connect With Us on Twitter
For Op-Ed, follow @nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page
editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow @andyrNYT.
As the world reels from atrocities committed in Syria and Egypt, it may
be easy to forget that nearly six years ago, it was Kenya that was on
fire. In the wake of a contested election result, mobs killed and raped,
and torched homes and businesses. Police officers shot hundreds of
unarmed protesters. At least 1,100 people died, many more were injured
and 600,000 were displaced from their homes.
But Kenyans have not forgotten. Nor have those who intervened to support them in their time of need.
In 2008, I was appointed chairman of the African Union Panel of Eminent
African Personalities and mediated an agreement to end the crisis. I
arrived in Nairobi as the violence was intensifying, prompting fears
that the country could ignite into civil war. The first aim of the
mediation was to stop the violence, which it did. Recognizing the
complex roots of the conflict, the agreement also called for
establishing responsibility for the crimes committed and for
constitutional, electoral and security-sector reforms, so that the cycle
of violence would not be repeated.
One concrete outcome was the Waki commission, a national inquiry into
the postelection violence. It concluded that the violence was not just
spontaneous, but, in at least some areas, a result of planning and
organization, often with the involvement of politicians and businessmen.
This was not surprising — politicians hungry for power have long
exploited Kenya’s ethnic divisions with impunity.
To break this cycle, the commission recommended that Kenya form a
special tribunal to bring to account those most responsible. But the
commission also foresaw that Kenya’s entrenched political interests
might undermine justice, so in the event of inaction, the matter was to
be turned over to the International Criminal Court. Kenya’s president,
prime minister and parliament agreed to these terms. The commission also
gave me a sealed envelope with the names of high-level people allegedly
responsible for the violence.
Sadly, the commission proved prescient. Kenya’s leaders initially agreed
to establish a special tribunal, but proposals for a court were
defeated twice by Parliament. It was on the back of these broken
promises for justice that, in July 2009, I complied with the
commission’s recommendations and handed over the sealed envelope to the
I.C.C. prosecutor. In the absence of national steps toward
accountability, the prosecutor decided, with the approval of the judges
of the court, to open investigations.
There have been active efforts to paint the I.C.C. cases as an assault
on Kenya’s sovereignty. The supporters of Mr. Kenyatta and his running
mate, Mr. Ruto, who won the presidential election earlier this year
despite the charges against them, have spoken often of the meddling of
“foreign powers.”
But the record is clear and there should be no doubt: it was the Kenyan
government’s own failure to provide justice to the victims and their
survivors that paved the way to the I.C.C., a court of last resort.
These trials also do not reflect the court’s unfair targeting of Africa,
as has been alleged. Instead they are the first steps toward a
sustainable peace that Kenyans want, deeply, and can only be assured of
if their leaders are not above the law.
A long road lies ahead. The I.C.C. cases are not a comprehensive
solution to Kenya’s impunity crisis. Kenya’s authorities must also act
to investigate and prosecute additional cases connected to the 2007-8
violence. Making clear that no one is above the law is essential to
combat decades of the use of violence for political ends by Kenya’s
political elite.
This is important not only for the victims of the past, but also for
Kenya’s future. The 2013 elections avoided widespread conflict, but we
should not mistake less violence for peace.
The underlying causes of Kenya’s crisis are as real as ever and may
resurface, since the core reforms that were identified during the
mediation have stalled. I have continued to follow Kenya’s progress, and
there is no question that impunity remains one of the greatest sources
of underlying tensions. If it is not checked, there may yet be future
generations of victims in Kenya.
Mr. Kenyatta and Mr. Ruto pledged to cooperate with the court, but Parliament voted last week
to pull Kenya out of the I.C.C. The decision will have no impact on the
two cases, and will not take effect for at least another year.
Nevertheless, these political moves are an affront to the victims and to
the courage that Kenya showed when it joined the court in 2005. In
doing so, it became one of a growing community of states, including the
majority of African countries, dedicated to tipping the balance in favor
of justice and away from impunity. The people of Kenya should not back
away from that courage now.
No comments:
Post a Comment