Kenya After Moi

Joel D. Barkan

From Foreign Affairs, January/February 2004

Summary:  Kenya's fragile government is threatened by factionalism, economic challenges, and rising crime. To ensure Nairobi's involvement in the war on terrorism, Washington must be sensitive to its domestic needs, recognizing that fledgling democracies can be more difficult to engage than their authoritarian predecessors.

Joel D. Barkan is Professor of Political Science at the University of Iowa. From 1992 to 1993, he was the U.S. Agency for International Development's governance adviser to Kenya.

The situation became even more alarming in 2003. In February, the Kibaki government announced that an al Qaeda cell existed somewhere in Mombasa. In response to warnings of a possible attack, the new U.S. embassy, which opened in March, closed at intervals between April and June, and the State Department authorized the departure of all nonessential embassy personnel. British Airways suspended flights to Nairobi from May 15 to July 1, and to Mombasa until September. U.S. travel advisories warning Americans not to travel to Kenya remain in effect. The threat of renewed terrorism has devastated Kenya's tourist industry. Once Kenya's second-largest source of foreign exchange, tourism has now dropped to third place. Hotels both in Nairobi and on the coast are at their lowest occupancy levels in years.

Given these realities, Kibaki's government knows that it has no choice but to join the war on terrorism. It has established a special counterterrorist unit and has stepped up its search, with assistance from the FBI, for al Qaeda agents along the Kenyan coast. The United States has already spent nearly $4 million in antiterrorism assistance to Kenya, including training more than 500 security personnel in the United States. Kenya also hopes to obtain up to one-third of the $100 million counterterrorism money for East Africa announced by President Bush in July 2003 (but yet to be disbursed).

The war on terrorism has become a major domestic political issue in Kenya and has complicated the country's relationship with the United States. The government's search for terrorists has occurred mainly along the Indian Ocean coast, the home of most Kenyan Muslims. Residents of this area have long felt neglected by Nairobi, which they view as being controlled by "upcountry" Kenyans. No prominent leader from the coast has ever held significant power at the center. The Coast Province, nonetheless, voted overwhelmingly for Kibaki and NARC in 2002 in the hope that a new government would pay greater attention to their needs. It has -- but not in the way people imagined. Coastal people now feel singled out and increasingly view themselves as victims. Aggressive interrogations of suspected terrorists by the Kenyan police have exacerbated their sense of grievance at the very time such feelings should be reduced.

The government's introduction of the Suppression of Terrorism Act in the National Assembly in April 2003 has also raised passions. Modeled on a generic draft disseminated by the Commonwealth Secretariat, the proposed legislation is viewed by human rights activists as a threat to civil liberties. Having just emerged from the Moi era, the National Assembly has unsurprisingly refused to pass the bill so far.

Although Kibaki's state visit to Washington was greatly appreciated by his government, the relationship between Kenya and the United States has suffered from what many people regard as the Bush administration's obsession with the war on terrorism. Anti-American sentiment among Kenyan Muslims, once nonexistent, has risen markedly over the last year. Kenyan opinion leaders are also beginning to ask whether their country's problem with terrorism is a result of its close ties with the United States and of U.S. Middle East policy.

The Kibaki government came to power with two basic goals: to consolidate Kenya's decades-long struggle for democracy and to improve the economy. That the terrorism issue has intruded on these objectives does not mean they should be dropped. Just the opposite: the restoration of the Kenyan economy and key state institutions such as the civil service, judiciary, and police are essential for fighting terrorism. Kenyan leaders increasingly wonder whether U.S. policymakers appreciate this complementarity. They worry that although the United States was at the forefront of the international effort to support Kenya's transition to democracy, the task of consolidating democracy has been forgotten as a result of the recent terrorist threats. Kenyans also resent being publicly lectured by the U.S. embassy on their need to do more to combat terrorism. They know Kenya is on the front lines and argue that if the United States wants Nairobi to do more, then it should provide greater assistance toward this end. U.S. support for the passage of the Suppression of Terrorism Act (albeit in a modified form) has also raised a good deal of concern.

Relations have been further complicated by what Kenyans perceive as the Bush administration's "hardball" tactics to secure Kenya's support on other issues. For example, the U.S. threat to cut off military aid (currently $3 million per year) if Kenya ratifies the treaty for the International Criminal Court (ICC) without exempting U.S. servicemen under Article 98 is viewed as an infringement on Kenyan sovereignty. Senior members of Kenya's government, as well as many in the private sector, are particularly upset by the continuation of U.S. warnings against travel to Kenya, even when the British and other European governments have ceased similar warnings. So strong are Kenyans' feelings on this matter that President Kibaki included an appeal to lift the advisory in his after-dinner toast at the White House.

A more nuanced and quieter approach by the administration is required if Washington is to maintain its historically warm relations with Kenya. As noted by Johnnie Carson, the U.S. ambassador in Nairobi from 1999 to July 2003, dealing with a democracy requires more, not less, diplomatic effort than dealing with an authoritarian ruler such as Moi. Indeed, democracies allow a plurality of voices to be heard and should not be expected to automatically follow the wishes of the world's most powerful nation all the time.

The Bush administration must appreciate these realities and remain sensitive to Kenya's domestic politics if it wants to advance its agenda in the region. This means the United States should renew military aid to Kenya without conditions, as is permitted under the presidential waiver provision in the American Service Members' Protection Act of 2002 (which otherwise bans military support for countries that have joined the ICC). The administration should deliver the aid package it has promised for the war on terrorism, rather than getting sidetracked on forcing the equivalent of the U.S. Patriot Act through Kenya's National Assembly. The administration should also consider increasing U.S. development aid, contingent on Kibaki's government's making tough decisions to restore economic growth.

Above all, the United States must recognize that the best way to fight terrorism is to help Kenya consolidate its hard-won democracy. Although democracy is no panacea for the many challenges facing Kenya, its success is essential for the long-term stability and prosperity of this crucial African anchor state.