Kenya becoming more war-torn as time goes on

KENYA

The Standard, Nairobi, Jan. 2: The nation is bleeding. The people are weeping. We are ominously moving towards the picture of war-ravaged nations such as Somalia and the Democratic Republic of Congo. On the international television channels, we are ranked alongside them, and the running order of the clips speaks volumes on how the outside world sees us.

From the day the Electoral Commission declared that President Kibaki had won the elections, at least 164 people have been either shot, hacked or bludgeoned to death in hotspots currently teeming with rage against his victory.

Victory stolen

The Orange Democratic Movement has argued that its victory was stolen. The Party of National Unity has counter-claimed that in some areas where its support was low, the vote was manipulated.

We have said that if the veracity of both claims is not addressed, and the rising ethnic passions stemmed through dialogue, we shall continue to fight with the fury and determination of the Kilkenny cats. In the end, Scottish mythology says, nothing was left of the cats but just the tails.

We have urged both parties to the dispute to find the middle ground. For peace to be realised, it is not enough for the President to call for peace and calm while at the same time extolling his victory as the fruit of democratic choice. It is not enough to be sworn-in, in a hurry and in seclusion at State House, while being witnessed by a few.

It demands far much more to cast the Presidency as a national institution, whose ascendancy should be celebrated. Probably that is why the congratulations to the President have been short.

History will judge us in equal measure for the stands we take today.

DENMARK

Jyllands-Posten, Aarhus, Jan. 2: By the end of 2008, the world will have its third set of leaders steering the world order since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.

While the first set with (U.S. President) Bill Clinton and (Russian President) Boris Yeltsin rode on optimism and cooperation, the next with (U.S. President) George W. Bush and (Russian President) Vladimir Putin was jolted by terror attacks on the United States, while the third set will face the major challenge of restoring an international state of law robust enough to face threats to democracy.

A huge responsibility rests on the shoulders of the new leaders that the United States and Russia elect this year.

Modern totalitarianism

It can already now be established that Russia’s next president will be Dmitry Medvedev. The sad fact is that the opposition in Russia has been silenced and has no chance of being elected because the Russian system of governance is becoming one of modern totalitarianism.

There will be a lot of focus on China as the host of the Olympic Games. ... We can hope that the people of China will begin to demand reforms after gaining greater contact with the outside world.

Changes for the better cannot come fast enough.

BRITAIN

The Observer, London, Dec. 30, 2007: Al-Qaida and George W. Bush agree on at least one thing: Benazir Bhutto was vital to Pakistan’s transition from military to civilian rule. That is why the U.S. laboured behind the scenes to orchestrate a deal between Ms. Bhutto and Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan’s generalissimo President. And that is why Ms. Bhutto was assassinated last week. Claiming responsibility for the murder, an al-Qaida commander said the organisation had liquidated ’Washington’s most precious asset.’ That statement has not been authenticated, but even if just an opportunistic boast, it reveals a simple truth about a complex affair: the West has a clear interest in seeing democracy spread; al-Qaeda has a clear interest in seeing it thwarted.

Crushing jihadi terrorism

But advancing democracy is a long-term goal for U.S. foreign policy in south Asia. The short-term goal is crushing jihadi terrorism. Sometimes the two collide.

The Bush administration’s main motivation in this has been realpolitik. But it is underpinned by an ideological conviction — that the benefits of liberal democracy are self-evident and that no credible alternative exists. This innate optimism led the U.S. to take a dangerously cavalier approach to foreign intervention, assuming its influence is, by definition, benign.

The belief that democracy is the best form of government is unarguably true. But confidence that liberal values are spreading with unstoppable momentum around the world could prove dangerously misplaced, as a number of trends in recent years show. They are set to accelerate in 2008.

JAPAN

Asahi Shimbun, Tokyo, Dec. 31: A “great leap forward” in Japan’s bilateral ties with China seems to be the key phrase of Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda’s diplomacy with China. His predecessor, Shinzo Abe, visited Beijing in October 2006 to “break the ice” in what were then frosty bilateral relations. Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao’s visit to Japan “melted the ice.” Fukuda is apparently keen to build on this momentum so that ties further advance.

China gave Fukuda a red carpet welcome, showing that its leaders are also keen to see further progress in bilateral relations. Wen stood alongside Fukuda during the first-ever joint news conference of Japanese and Chinese leaders. President Hu Jintao, the head of state, held a banquet to welcome Fukuda. That in itself was also unusual.

Expanding economic links

Relations between the two Asian giants began their leap forward many years ago, driven mainly by expanding economic links. Their political ties, however, were poisoned by mutual distrust between the leaders and wild waves of nationalism. But the political atmosphere between the two capitals has finally calmed down and the improvement of political ties has steadily advanced.

Fukuda’s visit did not lead to a settlement of the high-profile dispute over gas fields in the East China Sea, which remains a pending point in bilateral ties. But there is no reason to be pessimistic. It is obvious that diplomatic slogans are not enough to solve such a sticky issue. Diplomacy means finding ways to sort out conflicting interests of nations through tenacious negotiations. And that’s a role and responsibility of political leaders. The current leaders of the two countries deserve credit for their commitment to dealing with the dispute in a pragmatic manner without allowing it to develop into a bitter conflict fueled by nationalistic sentiments.