By MAKAU MUTUAPosted Saturday,October 3 2009 at 16:18



Even those who,like me,have been calling for the Obama Administration to put pressure on the Kenyan Government to speed up reforms are dismayed by the manner in which Washington’s man in Nairobi has gone about it.



There is no doubt that I would like the White House to catalyse change in Kenya. But rather than use the vast diplomatic arsenal of the United States to vanquish anti-reformers in the coalition government,Ambassador Michael Ranneberger has chosen to star in a farcical B movie that should make every real diplomat cringe.



It is my opinion that President Barack Obama should consider replacing Ambassador Ranneberger to restore American credibility in Kenya. The ambassador may be a good man,but an effective diplomat he is not.



He is virtually useless as America’s envoy to Nairobi. It is not an exaggeration to say that every threat he makes is hot air. Don’t get me wrong. I believe that the people in the Waki Envelope,and other malignant anti-reformers,deserve to roast in hell.



But you don’t roast hardened criminals with mere rhetoric. Making diplomatic noise and empty threats has never been a good way to achieve desired results. Balozi,speak softly and carry a big stick! Nor does it make sense for you to invoke President Obama’s name every time you issue a flippant threat. You have cheapened the President’s name and made American policy towards Kenya look indecisive and unclear.



I do not want to lecture Mr Ranneberger on diplomacy but,at the very least,envoys must carefully weigh strategies and tactics to maximise effect on policy. In my view,public pronouncements by diplomats – of any state – should be few and well calculated. That is doubly true for the United States,the sole superpower.



It should be enough for the ambassador to send subtle public signals most of the time and reserve public statements for grave occasions. Most of his serious work should be done behind closed doors. Public statements should only be issued for major policy questions and only when quiet diplomacy has failed. But such public statements must be substantive – not empty harangues – to underscore their gravity.



The ambassador should not act like some reckless MP – or a councillor – who feels compelled to weigh in on everything under the sun. Nor should he compete for airtime with other public actors. It is no wonder that known criminals and the corrupt Kenyan political mafia now feel free to dismiss him.



Washington’s clout takes a huge hit every time its ambassador opens his mouth in Nairobi. Kenyans who support American pressure on the coalition government are troubled by the ambassador’s apparent lack of discretion and his disregard for protocol. Kenya may be close to a failed state,but it is a sovereign state. I cannot imagine the Kenyan ambassador in Washington mouthing off at the Obama Administration.



Let’s take the issue of the letters the United States sent to 'anti-reformers' threatening a travel ban. I do not know who advised Ambassador Johnnie Carson,the seasoned Assistant Secretary of State for Africa,to sign the misguided missives. I suspect that the originator was Ambassador Ranneberger.



If he did not originate them,then he should have advised against them. That is not how a superpower – or even a banana republic – conducts foreign policy. What was the rationale by the letters? What were they intended to achieve? While it is the prerogative of the United States to decide who it allows within its borders,it seems too sophomoric to threaten a travel on 'anti-reformers'. The label is both ridiculous and nebulous – after all,Washington lets in thousands of anti-reformers every year.



Rather than play silly games,Washington should instead impose travel bans on corrupt officials and human rights violators. For example,it would be in order for the Obama Administration to impose travel bans on those in the Waki Envelope and the perpetrators of other crimes and frauds such as Goldenberg and Anglo Leasing.



This would send a clear and unambiguous message that President Obama wants to catalyse change in the country of his father’s birth. But it is totally counterproductive to issue empty threats against 'anti-reformers'. It is not a crime to be anti-reform – but it is to be corrupt and violate human rights. The letters were a terrible idea and Mr Carson should never have signed them. Why is the US afraid to take the bull by the horns and call a spade what it is without beating about the bush?



Kenya needs a US ambassador who is an accomplished Africanist. This is critical because US-Kenya relations are at the most pivotal stage since independence for the simple reason that the American President is a Kenyan-American. This moment may never come again,and must not be wasted on a bungling diplomat.



I was very surprised that Mr Ranneberger did not go with the Bush Administration when Mr Obama took office. It is customary that envoys change with administrations. However,I have it on good authority that Mr Ranneberger was granted a year’s extension by Dr Jendayi Frazer,the former Assistant Secretary of State under President George W. Bush.



If so,that is a mistake President Obama should correct. Ambassador Rannenberger should resign his post because Kenya has gone backward under his watch. The vortex of Kenyan politics is clearly too complex and byzantine for him.



Makau Mutua is Dean and SUNY Distinguished Professor at the State University of New York at Buffalo Law School and Chair of the Kenya Human Rights Commission.




The man he thinks he can,and the one who thinks he can't are both right. Which one are you?