Post by kioko on Dec 9, 2007 22:49:14 GMT 3
ODM, the British and Kenyan Elections
The British are working hard to influence the outcome of the coming Kenyan election and they know it. This week, the British parliament brought more of their important business to a halt for one full hour to urgently debate the Anglo-Leasing scandal in Kenya.
Press reports indicated that Kibaki was roundly criticized by the British MPs. Although Kibaki has not ruined the Kenyan economy like Robert Mugabe has done Zimbabwe’s, and does not bother to respond to the British like Mugabe, the British MPs attack on the Kibaki was reminiscent of the attack the Britons normally reserve for President Mugabe.
The subtext was that Kibaki’s opponent, Raila Odinga, is the preferred candidate for the British. It is noteworthy that the British have not introduced any debates in either the House of Commons or that of the Lords to discuss anything that aids the re-election of Kibaki.
This same week, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) dismissed Kalonzo Musyoka, Kenya’s third presidential candidate, as a “pretty face.” To the British, as to the Luos, the difference between Kambas and Kikuyus is that the Kamba have a slightly better dental formula and their feet are inhabited by fewer jiggers. Otherwise they are Kikuyus by another name.
The British act in parliament was supposed to partly counter the efforts of the Kenyan community in Britain, which is highly organized and supportive of the re-election of President Kibaki. So far, the community has voluntarily contributed upwards of $70,000 dollars to the Kibaki campaign kitty. Many Kenyans in Britain appreciate the fact that most of them immigrated to Britain as a result of tribalistic and segregationist policies of the kind that ODM is currently propagating and would not want their relatives to join them in Britain, which has, in any case, recently tightened its immigration law.
The reason given for the debate in the House of Commons was that the British are an interested party because the phony Anglo-Leasing companies were based in Britain. True enough, but hardly the whole truth. The whole truth and nothing but the truth is that the British are pissed of by the Kibaki’s administration’s policies of economic nationalism.
In addition to attempting to wean the Kenyan economy of donor loans, Kibaki has been trying to save Kenyans some money by expanding and varying the list of suppliers to the Kenyan military and security apparatus to include other European countries such as Spain, and even the United States, Saudi Arabia and Far Eastern countries.
Since independence, the British have enjoyed a monopoly of supplying military and security equipment to Kenya at exorbitant prices. The money lost through this British corruption is probably a thousand times more than could have been lost if all the Anglo-Leasing type contracts had been consummated. Why this has never come to light, you might ask? The answer is that Githongo was an agent for the British, not an agent for Kenya. He was supposed to look out for the British interests, not Kenyan ones.
The British have known about the Anglo-Leasing scandal more than even the Kenyan government and Githongo put together. The Anglo-leasing companies were European companies, some registered in Britain. Some of the perpetrators (members of the Kamani family) were British residents whom the British let slip quietly away when the scandal emerged. And since 2004, the British have had Githongo in their captive possession, ensconced in a British university and guarded by crack British soldiers.
In a word, the British have had the information about this scandal for years to debate it to their hearts content. But what did they do? They waited until 20 days to the election to debate it urgently.
Clearly, their intention is to influence the election in favor of ODM. The debate in parliament, coupled with BBB’s anti-Kibaki reports, amounts to a British war effort against Kibaki during the campaigns.
As was to be expected, nothing new emerged out of the debate. It was a repetition of the same old, hackneyed allegations, but it served the purpose for which it was designed – to spring up the Anglo-Leasing issue back to the front pages. As the Standard put it, the debate in the British Parliament “re-introduced one more agenda for the campaigns.”
This is contrary to how the British would like their latest intervention to be perceived: as an innocuous, accidental occurrence with nothing to do with the coming election. It is a much more brazen attempt to interfere with Kenya’s internal affairs and is a far cry from how Britain’s Githongo tried vigorously to disassociate the release of his dossier with the 2005 referendum.
Writing to President Kibaki on November 22, 2005, John Githongo wrote: “It has been my desire to send the attached summary report to you but I thought it wise to wait until the conclusion of the politically-intense referendum related campaigning period. The reason for this was that my report be not construed to be part of a politically motivated action in favor or opposition to any political formation in the Kenyan context.”
This time round, the British have no qualms about executing a politically motivated action in favor of the opposition.
And here lies the link between ODM and the British. The question is what kind of MOU the ODM have signed with the British and how much it will cost the country.
And it is not as if the British have a high moral ground in speaking against the political scandals of others. Right now, they are reeling from a scandal involving about $600,000 channeled by businessman David Abrahams to the ruling British Labor Party through intermediaries. The money was meant to fund political campaigns, very much like the proceeds from Anglo-Leasing were supposed to have done.
In another scandal, computer data containing personal information for over half of the British population disappeared.
These scandals follow those linked to former Prime Minister Tony Blair such as the “loan for peerages” scandal under which people “bought” state honors more like a Kenyan paying money to be awarded an Elder of the Burning Spear (EBS). Other scandals included the irregular arms supply contracts in South Africa and Saudi Arabia.
But of course the British still have more time to pontificate on Kenyan affairs particularly during the height of electoral campaigns.
As my Kikuyu mother-in-law used to tell my wife and her siblings when they were young, may “they burn in the stomach while dozing or drinking porridge,” whatever that means!
For ODM, the support they are receiving from the Britons adds to their support from other external forces, including America’s IRS fugitive thingy Morris and his Argentinian henchmen, dubious German nationals, shady Nigerians, South African traditional medicine men, and Koreans of unknown nationality.
For a “party of the poor,” the source of ODM’s campaign funds which have enabled them to buy and hire tens of helicopters and international TV time and bring in hundreds of SUVs, in addition to funding parliamentary and civic candidates, remains mysterious, even discounting the amount contributed by the likes of Ruto, Mudavadi, Kosgey, Ole Ntimama, Okemo, Ngilu, Nyaga, and Raila, all of whom have been linked to the pilferage of public funds without the British debating about it.
The British are working hard to influence the outcome of the coming Kenyan election and they know it. This week, the British parliament brought more of their important business to a halt for one full hour to urgently debate the Anglo-Leasing scandal in Kenya.
Press reports indicated that Kibaki was roundly criticized by the British MPs. Although Kibaki has not ruined the Kenyan economy like Robert Mugabe has done Zimbabwe’s, and does not bother to respond to the British like Mugabe, the British MPs attack on the Kibaki was reminiscent of the attack the Britons normally reserve for President Mugabe.
The subtext was that Kibaki’s opponent, Raila Odinga, is the preferred candidate for the British. It is noteworthy that the British have not introduced any debates in either the House of Commons or that of the Lords to discuss anything that aids the re-election of Kibaki.
This same week, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) dismissed Kalonzo Musyoka, Kenya’s third presidential candidate, as a “pretty face.” To the British, as to the Luos, the difference between Kambas and Kikuyus is that the Kamba have a slightly better dental formula and their feet are inhabited by fewer jiggers. Otherwise they are Kikuyus by another name.
The British act in parliament was supposed to partly counter the efforts of the Kenyan community in Britain, which is highly organized and supportive of the re-election of President Kibaki. So far, the community has voluntarily contributed upwards of $70,000 dollars to the Kibaki campaign kitty. Many Kenyans in Britain appreciate the fact that most of them immigrated to Britain as a result of tribalistic and segregationist policies of the kind that ODM is currently propagating and would not want their relatives to join them in Britain, which has, in any case, recently tightened its immigration law.
The reason given for the debate in the House of Commons was that the British are an interested party because the phony Anglo-Leasing companies were based in Britain. True enough, but hardly the whole truth. The whole truth and nothing but the truth is that the British are pissed of by the Kibaki’s administration’s policies of economic nationalism.
In addition to attempting to wean the Kenyan economy of donor loans, Kibaki has been trying to save Kenyans some money by expanding and varying the list of suppliers to the Kenyan military and security apparatus to include other European countries such as Spain, and even the United States, Saudi Arabia and Far Eastern countries.
Since independence, the British have enjoyed a monopoly of supplying military and security equipment to Kenya at exorbitant prices. The money lost through this British corruption is probably a thousand times more than could have been lost if all the Anglo-Leasing type contracts had been consummated. Why this has never come to light, you might ask? The answer is that Githongo was an agent for the British, not an agent for Kenya. He was supposed to look out for the British interests, not Kenyan ones.
The British have known about the Anglo-Leasing scandal more than even the Kenyan government and Githongo put together. The Anglo-leasing companies were European companies, some registered in Britain. Some of the perpetrators (members of the Kamani family) were British residents whom the British let slip quietly away when the scandal emerged. And since 2004, the British have had Githongo in their captive possession, ensconced in a British university and guarded by crack British soldiers.
In a word, the British have had the information about this scandal for years to debate it to their hearts content. But what did they do? They waited until 20 days to the election to debate it urgently.
Clearly, their intention is to influence the election in favor of ODM. The debate in parliament, coupled with BBB’s anti-Kibaki reports, amounts to a British war effort against Kibaki during the campaigns.
As was to be expected, nothing new emerged out of the debate. It was a repetition of the same old, hackneyed allegations, but it served the purpose for which it was designed – to spring up the Anglo-Leasing issue back to the front pages. As the Standard put it, the debate in the British Parliament “re-introduced one more agenda for the campaigns.”
This is contrary to how the British would like their latest intervention to be perceived: as an innocuous, accidental occurrence with nothing to do with the coming election. It is a much more brazen attempt to interfere with Kenya’s internal affairs and is a far cry from how Britain’s Githongo tried vigorously to disassociate the release of his dossier with the 2005 referendum.
Writing to President Kibaki on November 22, 2005, John Githongo wrote: “It has been my desire to send the attached summary report to you but I thought it wise to wait until the conclusion of the politically-intense referendum related campaigning period. The reason for this was that my report be not construed to be part of a politically motivated action in favor or opposition to any political formation in the Kenyan context.”
This time round, the British have no qualms about executing a politically motivated action in favor of the opposition.
And here lies the link between ODM and the British. The question is what kind of MOU the ODM have signed with the British and how much it will cost the country.
And it is not as if the British have a high moral ground in speaking against the political scandals of others. Right now, they are reeling from a scandal involving about $600,000 channeled by businessman David Abrahams to the ruling British Labor Party through intermediaries. The money was meant to fund political campaigns, very much like the proceeds from Anglo-Leasing were supposed to have done.
In another scandal, computer data containing personal information for over half of the British population disappeared.
These scandals follow those linked to former Prime Minister Tony Blair such as the “loan for peerages” scandal under which people “bought” state honors more like a Kenyan paying money to be awarded an Elder of the Burning Spear (EBS). Other scandals included the irregular arms supply contracts in South Africa and Saudi Arabia.
But of course the British still have more time to pontificate on Kenyan affairs particularly during the height of electoral campaigns.
As my Kikuyu mother-in-law used to tell my wife and her siblings when they were young, may “they burn in the stomach while dozing or drinking porridge,” whatever that means!
For ODM, the support they are receiving from the Britons adds to their support from other external forces, including America’s IRS fugitive thingy Morris and his Argentinian henchmen, dubious German nationals, shady Nigerians, South African traditional medicine men, and Koreans of unknown nationality.
For a “party of the poor,” the source of ODM’s campaign funds which have enabled them to buy and hire tens of helicopters and international TV time and bring in hundreds of SUVs, in addition to funding parliamentary and civic candidates, remains mysterious, even discounting the amount contributed by the likes of Ruto, Mudavadi, Kosgey, Ole Ntimama, Okemo, Ngilu, Nyaga, and Raila, all of whom have been linked to the pilferage of public funds without the British debating about it.