The Hague cases facing Uhuru, Ruto must not drive Kenya’s foreign policy

By Makau Mutua

Twitter@makaumutua

Since April, when the Jubilee administration of President Uhuru Kenyatta took command of the state, Kenya has lurched from one foreign policy blunder to the next. Some of the blunders are gargantuan strategic mistakes.

Even to the untrained eye, the silhouette of Kenya’s new foreign policy is unmistakable. A narrative – with many talking points – is clearly emerging. There’s no doubt foreign policy hawks within Mr Kenyatta’s inner Cabinet hold sway.

The defining issue for Kenya’s external relations clearly revolves around Mr Kenyatta’s – and DP William Ruto’s – trials for crimes against humanity at The Hague-based International Criminal Court. Which begs the question – is it wise to base foreign policy on ICC-induced pique? Methinks the answer is an unequivocal “nyet”. Let me state the obvious – Kenya can’t win a pissing match with the West. Those advising Mr Kenyatta appear to be foreign policy greenhorns. They seem to believe – mistakenly – that Kenya is so important to the West that threats will change the fundamentals of the relationship.

That’s not how diplomacy – or geopolitics – works. The so-called Third World is littered with many a dysfunctional state that picked a silly fight with global powers. Sudan and Zimbabwe on the African continent come to mind.

No one is advocating supplicating subservience to the West – or any global hegemon – but pragmatism requires a wise foreign policy. Loud denunciations, or rude pokes in the eye, often lead a country down the path of peril.

There’s a mistaken belief in State House – which is a manufactured charade – that the ICC is “hunting” Africans. Nothing could be further from the truth. Kenya, like 33 other African states, voluntarily ratified the Rome Statute.

Kenya knew that a future sitting head of state could be tried by the ICC. That’s why it boggles the mind why the state is now “shocked” that Mr Kenyatta must stand trial at The Hague. Everyone knew the request by the African Union for a deferral of the Kenyatta and Ruto cases by the UN Security Council was a dead letter. So too was the attempt to delete from the Rome Statute provisions that subject sitting heads of state to the ICC.

The ICC has consumed the nascent Kenyatta administration’s energies. Foreign Cabinet Secretary Amina Mohamed, Attorney General Githu Muigai and key diplomats in important world capitals sleep, dream, and eat ICC. This is a misdirection of resources.

Rather than squander the young regime’s resources fighting the ICC, Mr Kenyatta’s insiders should’ve advised him to do exactly what Mr Ruto has done – submit to trial at the ICC with little fuss. That’s the only way he can clear his name.

Any other strategy to defeat the ICC through technicalities, or diplomatic maneuvers, will leave a cloud hanging over Mr Kenyatta’s head. That’s why fighting with the West – and risking isolation – is truly bad advice. Mr Kenyatta must recalibrate his strategy.

Several choices could damage Kenya’s relationship with valuable global powers. All are based solely on the ICC. You don’t make the pivot of foreign policy on one issue.

The first was Mr Kenyatta’s trip to China. That was fine except it was clear that he was sending a message to Washington that he could dump the Occident for the Orient.

The second was the unusual delay to accept the credentials of new envoys from key Western countries.

This hasn’t gone down well in important global centres.

The third was the highly unusual attack on the ICC and the West at the African Union meeting in Addis Ababa in October.

The fourth instance was Mr Kenyatta’s snub of the Commonwealth meeting in favour of another gathering in Kuwait. That was fine too except its optics sent the wrong message to the United Kingdom.

The fifth was Mr Kenyatta’s reported agreement with Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas to re-open his mission in Nairobi. Again, this is fine except that it came out of the blue and was read as a slap at Washington and its ally Israel.

I think many saw it as retaliation against the United States for failing to support the AU’s request to the UN Security Council for a deferral of the Kenya cases.

Finally, the “eviction” of British diplomats from an Eldoret hotel breached every diplomatic protocol.

None of these spats with the West would mean much by themselves. Except collectively they tell an important story. They are totally uncharacteristic of Kenya’s behaviour.

But they are significant because they simulate the anti-West rhetoric that’s become common fare among Jubilee leaders within the Executive and the Legislature.

The bellicose tone of the attacks on the West signifies a seismic shift. If not checked, the attacks could paint Kenya into a corner it won’t escape.

Only Mr Kenyatta can call off the attacks and change tack.