Month: January 2008

Omens In Kenya

Not good. A reader writes:

While the strong reaction against the stolen election was not so surprising, the extremity of the violence has been shocking. Although Kibaki seems to be effectively utilizing the security forces to maintain a modicum of order in Nairobi, the situation upcountry is more questionable and the main trade route between Kenya and Uganda appears still to be blocked (prices of imported goods in Uganda are skyrocketing accordingly). This may indicate that Kibaki’s hold on power is more tenuous outside of Nairobi. One particularly troubling development is that many members of Kenya’s Asian popluation (which constitutes a sort of "merchant class" in Kenya and much of East Africa) have been fleeing to Uganda. The Asians tend to be pretty tapped into the local situation, and if they’re making a run for it, there may be worse yet to come.

I have to take issue, though, with some of the parallels being drawn with the Rwandan genocide.  I think there are some important distinctions which make such a scenario highly unlikely in Kenya:

— Rwanda is composed of two principal ethnic groups – Hutu and Tutsi, who together constitute the vast majority of the population.  These two groups have for a long time competed violently for political control, with a number of incidents of massacres and ethnic cleansing prior to the genocide in ’94.  The Hutus (who carried out the genocide) were demographically dominant in the country, and had the genocide "succeeded" more fully, they would have totally wiped out their main competitor and thus guaranteed a monopoly on political power.  Kenya, by contrast, is made up of around 40 ethnic groups, none of whom dominate the country demographically and none of whom exceed a quarter or so of the total population.  Thus it would be much harder to for any group to try and exterminate any other group.  And in any case, doing so would not guarantee political control, since by virtue of Kenya’s diversity, any political movement must have some kind of inter-ethnic coalition in order to succeed.

— The Rwandan genocide was not a spontaneous uprising (as seems to be the case in Kenya) but rather was a well-thought-out, heavily planned undertaking.  The Interahamwe (those who carried out the genocide) made extensive preparations well in advance – even discussing the process in national cabinet meetings.  It’s not easy to kill 800,000 people in 100 days, especially if your primary weapon is a panga (machete).  That the Interahamwe were able to do so indicates a tremendous level of prior planning and preparation.  I haven’t heard any evidence of similar preparations by any of the groups in Kenya.

— The genocide was the culmination of a civil war that had been ongoing between Hutu and Tutsi militias for years.  The international community had intervened to push a peace process, but the eventual agreement was not respected and plans by Hutu extremists to eliminate the Tutsis continued unabated.  There is no parallel to this in Kenya; the country has been at peace for years.

That said, small-scale ethnic cleansing could be a possibility – i.e. violently clearing out the Kikuyus and forcing them back to the region perceived to be "theirs" – this seems to be happening already in someareas.  But I don’t think that genocide is likely to occur (note that genocide, which seeks to destroy or wipe out a people, differs from ethnic cleansing, which seeks – often with extreme violence – to push out or relocate a group).

Bainbridge Asks

Some good questions. I answered some of it here. But let me deal with them specifically:

How can a Tory like yourself embrace someone running as a change agent?

Because societies need to change, as Burke understood. The question is whether the change is organic, drawn from the traditions within the society, and responding to felt needs, rather than ideological abstractions. So a Tory could support Thatcher and Reagan – as radical change agents who sought to restore their societies to forgotten principles. It is the greatest canard that conservatives never seek change. They are cautious, yes, but sometimes the right kind of change is necessary.

What specific changes in law, society, or polity, if any, that Obama supports do you also support?

I support a fresh start in foreign policy, a willingness to negotiate where necessary, a new outreach to allies, and prudent, expeditious withdrawal from Iraq. I favor an end to poisonous partisan polarization. I favor strong measures to innovate new energy sources. I favor a restoration of the Geneva Conventions.

Why are those changes “necessary”?

Because the war is draining massive resources, and, despite recent tactical success, is clearly a historic mistake. Because the U.S. is extremely isolated and needs more support in the world, and especially a new appeal to moderate Muslims worldwide. Because the red-blue divide has poisoned our polity to the detriment of practical problem-solving. Because dependence on foreign oil is both environmentally fatal and dangerous for our future security. Because torture gives bad intelligence and is un-American.

What evidence is there, if any, that Obama would be prudent in effecting such changes?

Obama’s legislative record, speeches, and the way he has run his campaign reveal, I think, a very even temperament, a very sound judgment, and an intelligent pragmatism. Prudence is a word that is not inappropriate to him.   

Is It About To Get Nastier?

"Nobody would be happier to see all this [negative campaigning] go away than us. But you can’t ask somebody who is at a breathtaking disadvantage in the information coming to the voters to ignore that disadvantage and basically agree to put bullets in their brains," – Bill Clinton, blaming media bias for his wife’s political woes.

The Transparency Of JPod

He’s still spinning for Rudy:

The result in Iowa could not have been better for Giuliani tactically. Romney has been injured. Huckabee won, but did not apparently win by a huge margin, and there won’t be many other states where evangelicals make up fully three-fifths of the primary electorate.

My italics. Huckabee beat Romney by nine points in a very crowded field. He got ten times the vote of Rudy. That was a huge margin of victory, however you look at it. The final polls showed a three-point lead. He tripled it. JPod may be right about the next few weeks in general, though I doubt it. But you can’t spin away this victory as anything but huge. Benen comments:

I’ve seen blind optimism, but this is ridiculous.