Wazua
»
Investor
»
Economy
»
IMF: Kenya's economy self reliant, don't need EU
Rank: Veteran Joined: 1/4/2010 Posts: 1,668 Location: nairobi
|
@Guru..so long as China and Russia have vetoe powers in UN, EU and US cant use the UN as a tool for their political wars. Same for AU. Commonwealth and World Economic Forum is their forte, of which have diminished economic impact in the current international trade arena. http://www.telegraph.co....alth-return-by-2011.htmlAs Iron Sharpens Iron, So one Man Sharpens Another.
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 11/14/2006 Posts: 1,311
|
guru267 wrote:Liv wrote:guru267 wrote:Liv wrote:guru267 wrote:Liv wrote:guru267 wrote:Liv wrote:A picture has been painted that electing UK and WR will result in sanctions for Kenya....and yet all this is based on an assumption that they will not cooperate. Why are you passing the message here that electing them = sanctions then? @liv here's the thing! 1. These guys have to implement the constitution to the letter! By attending trial at the Hague as a sitting president UhuRu would be violating the constitution... 2. I know you don't believe everything you hear as they say they will co operate! 3. The West will cut ties with Kenya whether UhuRuto co operate or not due to their own laws that require them to keep a distance from suspected warlords! Isn't this a form of sanctions given how much we need them?? @Guru,
Do you really know what our constitution say about the protection of the president from legal proceedings?
Article 143 deals with this matter. Sub-article(4) says:The immunity of the President under this Article shall not extend to a crime for which the President may be prosecuted under any treaty to which Kenya is a party and which prohibits such immunityWhat is your understanding of this sub -article... I guess it says the opposite of what you have said above.
In my opinion if UK becomes president he will have no option than to cooperate with ICC. The constitution removes any immunity with regard to protection from the ICC treaty to which Kenya is a signatory. @liv Thanks a lot for the education... I was merely quoting someone credible on wazua about the constitution! Sounds to me like you are ok with the west cutting ties so long as it doesn't carry the name "sanctions"?? @Guru,
What does "cutting ties down to essentials" mean?
I have heard about "maintaining only essential contacts with the ICC suspects"
Do these 2 mean the same? Yeah.. I'm talking about the same thing! So are you ok with that arrangement?? The US & EU have said that they will maintain their policy. This policy says... maintaining only essential contacts with the ICC suspects @liv Currently the none of the four are in any ublic offices.. If Uhuru tried to remain in the finance ministry maybe we would have seen an example of what they can do.. In fact Uhuru leaving the finance ministry is a clear demonstration that both he and baks know that the west ain't playing! Once they become president & deputy of Kenya everything changes! 1. Will the president of Kenya be able to attend UN summits? 2. Will the president of Kenya be be to attend Commonwealth meetings? 3. Will the president of Kenya be able to attend the annual world Economic forum?? 4. Will the president of Kenya be able to attend AU meetings?! etc etc etc etc etc Even if there are no sanctions I don't need that drama... @Guru,
As long as he is the President he can choose to attend all those meetings, he doesn't have to.
I guess you have seen Presidents Mugabe, Ahmadinejad whose countries are in serious sanctions attending UN meetings in New York. Even Gadaffi used to attend.
As president he can choose to attend any international meetings as UN protects all heads of state with respect to that. The only time a President cannot travel freely is when a warrant of arrest has been issued by ICC.
So there will be no drama with respect to Uhuruto Presidency as long as they cooperate with ICC.
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 11/14/2006 Posts: 1,311
|
@Guru,
Our Constitution stipulates that there is a difference between appointive and elective offices. Uhuru Kenyatta had to resign as Finance Minister because this is an appointive position. But he did not resign from the position of Deputy Prime Minister because this is an elective position.
The office of the President and deputy President are elective positions. To remove an elected President from power he has to be impeached through the Senate.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 1/21/2010 Posts: 6,675 Location: Nairobi
|
Liv wrote:The office of the President and deputy President are elective positions. To remove an elected President from power he has to be impeached through the Senate. @liv you seem to really be downplaying an Uhuru victory.. Are you assuming the current travel bans on UhuRuto will be lifted or you are misunderstanding "only essential contact"?? Do you think one just simply walks into a UN summit or do you have to be invited?? "Essential contact" may mean they stop development aid but continue food and health aid! "Essential contact" may mean withdrawal of diplomats! "Essential contact" may mean you are not needed at summits! Just for the record i will only believe this "co operation" story when I see it after he wins...I find it hard to believe a man who goes back on signed contracts! Impeachment will be very likely if he spends his 1st 100days at the Hague as the nyayo kids wait in vain! Mark 12:29
Deuteronomy 4:16
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 4/2/2011 Posts: 629 Location: Nai
|
Liv wrote:@Guru,
Our Constitution stipulates that there is a difference between appointive and elective offices. Uhuru Kenyatta had to resign as Finance Minister because this is an appointive position. But he did not resign from the position of Deputy Prime Minister because this is an elective position.
The office of the President and deputy President are elective positions. To remove an elected President from power he has to be impeached through the Senate. You are misleading us Liv. The constitution talks of public office/public service, not elective/appointive. The position of deputy prime minister is also not elective. It is an appointed position. The drama you are dragging us in to is whether vetting under chapter 6 of the consitution should be done by a body such as IEBC, EACC or the courts or whether when wananchi participate in voting, that can be construed to be a vetting exercise. The High Court in its ruling implied those who complained about Uhuruto's candidature should have first gone to the IEBC to launch a complaint. The question on whether a candidate's integrity can prevent them from running for elective office (when no criminal conviction exists) has not yet been comprehensively dealt with because as you will remember the High Court ruled that it has no jurisdiction. Remember the petition was whether Uhuruto were qualified to run for the highest office. It was not a ruling on integrity of lack of.
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 7/5/2010 Posts: 2,061 Location: Nairobi
|
I am convinced that Uhuruto will immediately turn back on their word on cooperating with the ICC for these reasons: -They don't inspire trust: - Ask MaDVD. Then there is all these shenanigans with the Jubilee party elections -Impracticality of governing from The Hague: - UK and WSR have not expounded on how they are going to do this. I would very much like to hear such a plan, because I have already done quick mental arithmetic, it is a logistic impossibility, ergo there is no plan in the first place. But suppose they cooperate in full and attend the trial? Perhaps there will be no sanctions, but that does not mean we will be better off. This 'essential contact' business has a dark, foreboding undercurrent about it. However, there will be a power vacuum and a real possibility of an impeachment attempt, or a newly filed chapter 6 suit at the Supreme court. This is a direct threat to Uhuruto power and they are acutely aware of it, hence my conviction that if they win, bye bye cooperation: Now if they don't cooperate, this is where things could get dicey. The ICC could escalate and issue arrest warrants and recommend targeted sanctionsI sought to know more about these targeted sanctions because some seem to think that we could live with them, it will be business as usual. That is a myth. I read about Zimbabwe's targeted sanctions. The writers of this paper http://www.ijbssnet.com/...3_No_5_March_2012/8.pdf
assert this ... Quote:
The argument being that targeted or not, sanctions had far reaching consequences since for over a decade ruined service delivery to Zimbabweans.
Quote:
It is the innocent and the impoverished that have been largely affected by the economic sanctions both directly
and indirectly. This has been the case in Iraq an issue raised by Yaya Jameh, the Gambian president and admirer
of President Mugabe after the invasion of Iraq and hanging of its president in the eyes of the world saying; “today
in Iraq, with all their democracy, oil pipelines are more secure than women and children in the streets of
Baghdad” (Fowale 2010: 10). This verdict serves to show that the strategies being used to ensure an end to human
rights violations leave those to be protected more vulnerable or endangered. Therefore, the progenitors of the
sanction strategy against Zimbabwe need to search for more humane ways of handling the Zimbabwean conflict
without jeopardizing service delivery in education, water and health sectors among other areas hit by sanctions.
Zimbabweans at all levels have been deprived of their rights due to sanctions. The government officials allegedly
targeted by the sanctions, although affected were not dehumanized as did the poor many Zimbabweans. It is
evident from history that sanctions major weakness is that they affect the people they are meant to protect hence
can not be relied upon in securing stability in the international system (Parliamentary Debates 2006: 51). In fact
the sanctions harm the economies of imposers and the targeted state (Kurebwa 2000: 3). Sanctions whether
targeted or not hurt the ordinary people. Boutros-Ghali echoed the same sentiments by noting that “the use of
sanctions raise ethical issues concerning the suffering they inflict on innocent victims…” (Chogugudza 2009: 8).
Make no mistake, the paper slams the EU and US for implementing 'targeted sanctions'. This is because at a superficial level it appears like they will hurt only the leadership, only this is not the case. The population suffers. Somebody argued that Russia and China block unreasonable sanctions; How come these Zim ones have stood for so long? Methinks in a case of absconding by Uhuruto, Russia and China will not be in our corner blocking targeted sanctions from being slapped on us. There is no country slapped with sanctions of any kind that has thrived. Any one with illusions that the West will forgive non-cooperation with ICC if this comes to pass?
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 1/4/2010 Posts: 1,668 Location: nairobi
|
the question is if the ICC cases have merit. As it is, 40 to 50% of Kenyans think the cases have no merit. Also, China and Russia do not support the cases too. Therefore, its impossible for China/Russia/UN sanctions since the cases are already in doubt. The west will simply impose EU sanctions which will also be heavily challenged in EU court by the business community. The ICC has to look for a way to save face and exit from the Kenyan cases somehow. This method of regime change by the west has completely failed. They have been reduced to toothless whining. As Iron Sharpens Iron, So one Man Sharpens Another.
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 11/14/2006 Posts: 1,311
|
guru267 wrote:Liv wrote:The office of the President and deputy President are elective positions. To remove an elected President from power he has to be impeached through the Senate. @liv you seem to really be downplaying an Uhuru victory.. Are you assuming the current travel bans on UhuRuto will be lifted or you are misunderstanding "only essential contact"?? Do you think one just simply walks into a UN summit or do you have to be invited?? "Essential contact" may mean they stop development aid but continue food and health aid! "Essential contact" may mean withdrawal of diplomats! "Essential contact" may mean you are not needed at summits! Just for the record i will only believe this "co operation" story when I see it after he wins...I find it hard to believe a man who goes back on signed contracts! Impeachment will be very likely if he spends his 1st 100days at the Hague as the nyayo kids wait in vain! @Guru,
When the head of states travel for UN meetings they are invited by UN. All such travel is allowed even if the individual is under sanctions.
read below about Mugabe's travel to New York despite the USA sanctions against him.
http://myafrotube.byo24....?id=iblog&iblog=117
The UN conventions protect such travel and every country must facilitate such travel for the head of state. That is the reason USA had give visas to President Mugabe and his entourage despite the sanctions (Travel ban).
You have taken your definition of essential contact too far.... what you are describing above is SANCTIONS. Please take your time to read about sanctions slapped in Zimbabwe and Iran.
Essential contact with the ICC suspects means exactly that. US and EU will seek to see the President or his Deputy (supposing Uhuruto are elected), if they want to discuss matters which in their opinion is essential. But they will not invite them to their embassies for their countries celebrations, etc....it is uneasy friendliness. This essential contact only applies to the individuals and not the Kenyan population.
You say you don't believe Uhuruto will cooperate with ICC. I guess you can believe what you want.... but you have no right to misquote the law to justify your beliefs or to give misleading information (untruths) without any basis.
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 11/14/2006 Posts: 1,311
|
accelriskconsult wrote:Liv wrote:@Guru,
Our Constitution stipulates that there is a difference between appointive and elective offices. Uhuru Kenyatta had to resign as Finance Minister because this is an appointive position. But he did not resign from the position of Deputy Prime Minister because this is an elective position.
The office of the President and deputy President are elective positions. To remove an elected President from power he has to be impeached through the Senate. You are misleading us Liv. The constitution talks of public office/public service, not elective/appointive. The position of deputy prime minister is also not elective. It is an appointed position. The drama you are dragging us in to is whether vetting under chapter 6 of the consitution should be done by a body such as IEBC, EACC or the courts or whether when wananchi participate in voting, that can be construed to be a vetting exercise. The High Court in its ruling implied those who complained about Uhuruto's candidature should have first gone to the IEBC to launch a complaint. The question on whether a candidate's integrity can prevent them from running for elective office (when no criminal conviction exists) has not yet been comprehensively dealt with because as you will remember the High Court ruled that it has no jurisdiction. Remember the petition was whether Uhuruto were qualified to run for the highest office. It was not a ruling on integrity of lack of. Please read the constitution again.
The way you appoint people to offices and the way you remove them are described in the constitution.
If you want to remove the president or governor or MP from office, the methods of doing that are completely different from those of removing appointed officers.
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 1/4/2010 Posts: 1,668 Location: nairobi
|
This is how justice is served at the ICC http://wadr.org/en/site/...harles-Taylor-trial.htm
April 27, 2012 One of the four judges, an alternate judge, who convicted former Liberian President Charles Taylor on Thursday opposed the decision of the UN backed Special Court for Sierra Leone in The Hague. WADR correspondent in The Hague said the microphone of Senegalese judge Malick Sow was switched-off and curtains drawn as he gave a dissenting opinion on the judgment. However, Justice Sow spoke in detail through a statement released after judgment was closed. He was not one of the three judges that had the voting power but legally he had the right to make a statement either in favor or against the judgment, according to legal experts. http://ilawyerblog.com/j...harles-taylor-judgment/
Quote:As Justice Sow made this statement, the other three Judges walked out of the room, while the court technicians cut off an in-house video feed to reporters, turned off the Judge’s microphone and closed the public gallery.
Mr. Taylor’s Lead Defence Counsel Courtenay Griffiths Q.C. expressed his concern as to the SCSL’s treatment of Judge Sow, later quoting from the Judge’s speech at a press conference. http://allafrica.com/stories/201205180661.html
Quote:It appears that Justice Malick Sow, an alternative Judge of the UN- backed Special Court for Sierra Leone has landed himself in trouble for opening his mouth too wide with a dissenting opinion on the verdict pronounced against ex-president Charles Taylor.
Not only has he been barred from further sitting in proceedings, but this must just cause him his job as the court's appointing authority has been asked to review his status.
"The plenary declares that Justice Malick Sow's behavior in court on the 26th of April, 2012, amounts to misconduct, rendering him unfit to sit as an Alternate Judge of the Special Court. The plenary recommends to the appointing authority pursuant to Rule 15 (B) to decide upon the further status of Justice Malick Sow. As Iron Sharpens Iron, So one Man Sharpens Another.
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 11/14/2006 Posts: 1,311
|
quicksand wrote:I am convinced that Uhuruto will immediately turn back on their word on cooperating with the ICC for these reasons: -They don't inspire trust: - Ask MaDVD. Then there is all these shenanigans with the Jubilee party elections -Impracticality of governing from The Hague: - UK and WSR have not expounded on how they are going to do this. I would very much like to hear such a plan, because I have already done quick mental arithmetic, it is a logistic impossibility, ergo there is no plan in the first place. But suppose they cooperate in full and attend the trial? Perhaps there will be no sanctions, but that does not mean we will be better off. This 'essential contact' business has a dark, foreboding undercurrent about it. However, there will be a power vacuum and a real possibility of an impeachment attempt, or a newly filed chapter 6 suit at the Supreme court. This is a direct threat to Uhuruto power and they are acutely aware of it, hence my conviction that if they win, bye bye cooperation: Now if they don't cooperate, this is where things could get dicey. The ICC could escalate and issue arrest warrants and recommend targeted sanctionsI sought to know more about these targeted sanctions because some seem to think that we could live with them, it will be business as usual. That is a myth. I read about Zimbabwe's targeted sanctions. The writers of this paper http://www.ijbssnet.com/...3_No_5_March_2012/8.pdf
assert this ... Quote:
The argument being that targeted or not, sanctions had far reaching consequences since for over a decade ruined service delivery to Zimbabweans.
Quote:
It is the innocent and the impoverished that have been largely affected by the economic sanctions both directly
and indirectly. This has been the case in Iraq an issue raised by Yaya Jameh, the Gambian president and admirer
of President Mugabe after the invasion of Iraq and hanging of its president in the eyes of the world saying; “today
in Iraq, with all their democracy, oil pipelines are more secure than women and children in the streets of
Baghdad” (Fowale 2010: 10). This verdict serves to show that the strategies being used to ensure an end to human
rights violations leave those to be protected more vulnerable or endangered. Therefore, the progenitors of the
sanction strategy against Zimbabwe need to search for more humane ways of handling the Zimbabwean conflict
without jeopardizing service delivery in education, water and health sectors among other areas hit by sanctions.
Zimbabweans at all levels have been deprived of their rights due to sanctions. The government officials allegedly
targeted by the sanctions, although affected were not dehumanized as did the poor many Zimbabweans. It is
evident from history that sanctions major weakness is that they affect the people they are meant to protect hence
can not be relied upon in securing stability in the international system (Parliamentary Debates 2006: 51). In fact
the sanctions harm the economies of imposers and the targeted state (Kurebwa 2000: 3). Sanctions whether
targeted or not hurt the ordinary people. Boutros-Ghali echoed the same sentiments by noting that “the use of
sanctions raise ethical issues concerning the suffering they inflict on innocent victims…” (Chogugudza 2009: 8).
Make no mistake, the paper slams the EU and US for implementing 'targeted sanctions'. This is because at a superficial level it appears like they will hurt only the leadership, only this is not the case. The population suffers. Somebody argued that Russia and China block unreasonable sanctions; How come these Zim ones have stood for so long? Methinks in a case of absconding by Uhuruto, Russia and China will not be in our corner blocking targeted sanctions from being slapped on us. There is no country slapped with sanctions of any kind that has thrived. Any one with illusions that the West will forgive non-cooperation with ICC if this comes to pass? @quicksand,
People have been quick in quoting the Zimbabwe case in these forums. This country changed its land ownership policy.... this turned a country which was a net exporter of food to a food importer. As a result there was no foreign currency inflows as agriculture was the main earner of foreign currency. So Zimbabwe was unable to pay its debt and hence could not get any loans from other countries / IMF. This resulted in hyperinflation as the world decided not to get involved until the land ownership rights were resolved/ restored.
The main sanctions were on arms embargo to the country and financial restrictions to to President Mugabe and those specifically ruling with him.
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 7/5/2010 Posts: 2,061 Location: Nairobi
|
a4architect.com wrote:the question is if the ICC cases have merit. As it is, 40 to 50% of Kenyans think the cases have no merit. Also, China and Russia do not support the cases too. Therefore, its impossible for China/Russia/UN sanctions since the cases are already in doubt.
The west will simply impose EU sanctions which will also be heavily challenged in EU court by the business community.
The ICC has to look for a way to save face and exit from the Kenyan cases somehow. This method of regime change by the west has completely failed. They have been reduced to toothless whining. Unfortunately, there is no platform where Kenyans can directly drive this point home. Take the case of Britons, very pissed with EU's bloated bureaucracy and numerous pissant rules, yet they are unable to do anything. The Brussels establishment munches the contributions and decrees UK cannot block Eastern Europeans from entering the country; These limited EU sanctions you have mentioned have the sting to hurt our economy. It takes years to set these things right once they have been set to motion. In the meantime, incomes and businesses are wiped out. It might not be a catastrophe, but stunted growth is not a good thing. There are sectors, people who will feel it keenly. They are Kenyans. It is their livelihood. Why should they suffer? Allow me to point to the frequent travel advisories that the US issues. I have been to the coast during one of these. Hotel proprietors are always up in arms. Do you know what happens? Insurance and other costs go up, spooked tourists book other destinations, revenues fall and the temporary labour that services the hotels, suppliers, tour operators,...all get cut loose to go till land or something until the US retracts the advisory. And that is just one country issuing a caution. Business should not know emotion, unless emotion is the business itself. I thought being members of an investment forum, wazuans would be particularly conversant with the subject of risk,..to the economy and therefore to income. This is like a profit warning directly to your bottom-line. Anyone remember the wild swings in the inflation/exchange/interest rates? How long did that last? And yet the banks still continue to bleed debtors dry. Anyone whose mortgage rate was adjusted up? How does it feel? Just one volatile factor moving wildly like this and it is blood, starvation and tears. This is why some wazuans staunch support for the Uhuruto ticket defies understanding. Kenya's economy is like an elephant dancing on footballs. Volatile. We need very serious and very prolonged calm. Guys, can't you see this??
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 1/4/2010 Posts: 1,668 Location: nairobi
|
@Quicksand..do you honestly believe the EU and USA are in this ICC hulabaloo for the good of Kenyans? If so, how come Uhuruto can command over 40% of electorate confidence? How come 40% of middle class tv voters as shown in the last presidential debate support Uhuru? This class is the most educated in Kenya. The ICC is simply a regime change tool so as to impose leaders who will allow the country's resources to be looted. The more kenya maintains minimal contact with the west, the more our economy improves. As Iron Sharpens Iron, So one Man Sharpens Another.
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 11/14/2006 Posts: 1,311
|
quicksand wrote:a4architect.com wrote:the question is if the ICC cases have merit. As it is, 40 to 50% of Kenyans think the cases have no merit. Also, China and Russia do not support the cases too. Therefore, its impossible for China/Russia/UN sanctions since the cases are already in doubt.
The west will simply impose EU sanctions which will also be heavily challenged in EU court by the business community.
The ICC has to look for a way to save face and exit from the Kenyan cases somehow. This method of regime change by the west has completely failed. They have been reduced to toothless whining. Unfortunately, there is no platform where Kenyans can directly drive this point home. Take the case of Britons, very pissed with EU's bloated bureaucracy and numerous pissant rules, yet they are unable to do anything. The Brussels establishment munches the contributions and decrees UK cannot block Eastern Europeans from entering the country; These limited EU sanctions you have mentioned have the sting to hurt our economy. It takes years to set these things right once they have been set to motion. In the meantime, incomes and businesses are wiped out. It might not be a catastrophe, but stunted growth is not a good thing. There are sectors, people who will feel it keenly. They are Kenyans. It is their livelihood. Why should they suffer? Allow me to point to the frequent travel advisories that the US issues. I have been to the coast during one of these. Hotel proprietors are always up in arms. Do you know what happens? Insurance and other costs go up, spooked tourists book other destinations, revenues fall and the temporary labour that services the hotels, suppliers, tour operators,...all get cut loose to go till land or something until the US retracts the advisory. And that is just one country issuing a caution. Business should not know emotion, unless emotion is the business itself. I thought being members of an investment forum, wazuans would be particularly conversant with the subject if risk,..to the economy and therefore to income. This is like a profit warning directly to your bottom-line. Anyone remember the wild swings in the inflation/exchange/interest rates? How long did that last? And yet the banks still continue to bleed creditors dry. Anyone whose mortgage rate was adjusted up? Just one volatile factor moving wildly like this and it is blood, starvation and tears. This is why some wazuans staunch support for the Uhuruto ticket defies understanding. Kenya's economy is like an elephant dancing on footballs. Volatile. We need very serious and very prolonged calm. Guys, can't you see this?? I think we have all agreed that sanctions can only come if Uhuruto wins the presidency and then refuse to cooperate with ICC.
Those Sanctions can only be EU sanctions only as the UN back sanctions may not be supported by Russia and China who hold vetoe powers at UN security council.
The EU sanctions can still be challenged in court by various business communities and get overturned.
However we cannot argue here based on the assumption that Uhuruto will not cooperate with ICC.
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 7/5/2010 Posts: 2,061 Location: Nairobi
|
Liv wrote:quicksand wrote:I am convinced that Uhuruto will immediately turn back on their word on cooperating with the ICC for these reasons: -They don't inspire trust: - Ask MaDVD. Then there is all these shenanigans with the Jubilee party elections -Impracticality of governing from The Hague: - UK and WSR have not expounded on how they are going to do this. I would very much like to hear such a plan, because I have already done quick mental arithmetic, it is a logistic impossibility, ergo there is no plan in the first place. But suppose they cooperate in full and attend the trial? Perhaps there will be no sanctions, but that does not mean we will be better off. This 'essential contact' business has a dark, foreboding undercurrent about it. However, there will be a power vacuum and a real possibility of an impeachment attempt, or a newly filed chapter 6 suit at the Supreme court. This is a direct threat to Uhuruto power and they are acutely aware of it, hence my conviction that if they win, bye bye cooperation: Now if they don't cooperate, this is where things could get dicey. The ICC could escalate and issue arrest warrants and recommend targeted sanctionsI sought to know more about these targeted sanctions because some seem to think that we could live with them, it will be business as usual. That is a myth. I read about Zimbabwe's targeted sanctions. The writers of this paper http://www.ijbssnet.com/...3_No_5_March_2012/8.pdf
assert this ... Quote:
The argument being that targeted or not, sanctions had far reaching consequences since for over a decade ruined service delivery to Zimbabweans.
Quote:
It is the innocent and the impoverished that have been largely affected by the economic sanctions both directly
and indirectly. This has been the case in Iraq an issue raised by Yaya Jameh, the Gambian president and admirer
of President Mugabe after the invasion of Iraq and hanging of its president in the eyes of the world saying; “today
in Iraq, with all their democracy, oil pipelines are more secure than women and children in the streets of
Baghdad” (Fowale 2010: 10). This verdict serves to show that the strategies being used to ensure an end to human
rights violations leave those to be protected more vulnerable or endangered. Therefore, the progenitors of the
sanction strategy against Zimbabwe need to search for more humane ways of handling the Zimbabwean conflict
without jeopardizing service delivery in education, water and health sectors among other areas hit by sanctions.
Zimbabweans at all levels have been deprived of their rights due to sanctions. The government officials allegedly
targeted by the sanctions, although affected were not dehumanized as did the poor many Zimbabweans. It is
evident from history that sanctions major weakness is that they affect the people they are meant to protect hence
can not be relied upon in securing stability in the international system (Parliamentary Debates 2006: 51). In fact
the sanctions harm the economies of imposers and the targeted state (Kurebwa 2000: 3). Sanctions whether
targeted or not hurt the ordinary people. Boutros-Ghali echoed the same sentiments by noting that “the use of
sanctions raise ethical issues concerning the suffering they inflict on innocent victims…” (Chogugudza 2009: 8).
Make no mistake, the paper slams the EU and US for implementing 'targeted sanctions'. This is because at a superficial level it appears like they will hurt only the leadership, only this is not the case. The population suffers. Somebody argued that Russia and China block unreasonable sanctions; How come these Zim ones have stood for so long? Methinks in a case of absconding by Uhuruto, Russia and China will not be in our corner blocking targeted sanctions from being slapped on us. There is no country slapped with sanctions of any kind that has thrived. Any one with illusions that the West will forgive non-cooperation with ICC if this comes to pass? @quicksand,
People have been quick in quoting the Zimbabwe case in these forums. This country changed its land ownership policy.... this turned a country which was a net exporter of food to a food importer. As a result there was no foreign currency inflows as agriculture was the main earner of foreign currency. So Zimbabwe was unable to pay its debt and hence could not get any loans from other countries / IMF. This resulted in hyperinflation as the world decided not to get involved until the land ownership rights were resolved/ restored.
The main sanctions were on arms embargo to the country and financial restrictions to to President Mugabe and those specifically ruling with him. @Liv,...the paper recognizes the fact that land reforms was the trigger for the economic turmoil, but it also explores in depth the worsening of the situation by the effects of the targeted sanctions reaching the population: Open the link and have a read: Despite advertising the sanctions as targeting just Mugabe and his regime, this what they eventually got round to implementing:(from the paper) Quote:
? November 1998, International Monetary Fund (IMF) imposed unpublicized sanctions under the
instigation of Britain and the US despite its earlier commitment to support Land Reform and
Rehabilitation Phase 11 (LRRP11) in Harare the same year.
? September 1999, IMF completely suspended its support for economic adjustment and reform in
Zimbabwe. The International Development Association (IDA) suspended all structural adjustment loans
to Zimbabwe.
? March 2000, US senate passed the Zimbabwe Democracy Bill (ZDB) which made travel bans and froze
asserts belonging to President Mugabe, his family and other top government officials. It also denied
Zimbabwe access to international loans and called her to withdraw forces from the Democratic Republic
of Congo (DRC) and to respect existing ownership tittles to property.
? May 2000, IDA suspended all forms of lending, leaving Zimbabwe desperate for badly needed funds.
? 2001, Britain cancelled an aid package to Zimbabwe worth US 5 million dollars.
? 2003, US froze assets of seventy-seven government officials. Zimbabwe was expelled from the
Commonwealth. Australia banned one hundred and twenty-seven people from doing business with her
firms and together with New Zealand; they lobbied the UN Security Council to indict President Mugabe
in the International Criminal Court (ICC).
? 2005, then US president G. W. Bush junior signed an “executive order” expanding the number of those
affected by US sanctions including thirty-three institutions, a list which was further widened after the
2008 election upheavals.
Not exactly targeted was it? As you can see, the mouths say one thing, the hands crush the b....
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 7/5/2010 Posts: 2,061 Location: Nairobi
|
Liv wrote:quicksand wrote:a4architect.com wrote:the question is if the ICC cases have merit. As it is, 40 to 50% of Kenyans think the cases have no merit. Also, China and Russia do not support the cases too. Therefore, its impossible for China/Russia/UN sanctions since the cases are already in doubt.
The west will simply impose EU sanctions which will also be heavily challenged in EU court by the business community.
The ICC has to look for a way to save face and exit from the Kenyan cases somehow. This method of regime change by the west has completely failed. They have been reduced to toothless whining. Unfortunately, there is no platform where Kenyans can directly drive this point home. Take the case of Britons, very pissed with EU's bloated bureaucracy and numerous pissant rules, yet they are unable to do anything. The Brussels establishment munches the contributions and decrees UK cannot block Eastern Europeans from entering the country; These limited EU sanctions you have mentioned have the sting to hurt our economy. It takes years to set these things right once they have been set to motion. In the meantime, incomes and businesses are wiped out. It might not be a catastrophe, but stunted growth is not a good thing. There are sectors, people who will feel it keenly. They are Kenyans. It is their livelihood. Why should they suffer? Allow me to point to the frequent travel advisories that the US issues. I have been to the coast during one of these. Hotel proprietors are always up in arms. Do you know what happens? Insurance and other costs go up, spooked tourists book other destinations, revenues fall and the temporary labour that services the hotels, suppliers, tour operators,...all get cut loose to go till land or something until the US retracts the advisory. And that is just one country issuing a caution. Business should not know emotion, unless emotion is the business itself. I thought being members of an investment forum, wazuans would be particularly conversant with the subject if risk,..to the economy and therefore to income. This is like a profit warning directly to your bottom-line. Anyone remember the wild swings in the inflation/exchange/interest rates? How long did that last? And yet the banks still continue to bleed creditors dry. Anyone whose mortgage rate was adjusted up? Just one volatile factor moving wildly like this and it is blood, starvation and tears. This is why some wazuans staunch support for the Uhuruto ticket defies understanding. Kenya's economy is like an elephant dancing on footballs. Volatile. We need very serious and very prolonged calm. Guys, can't you see this?? I think we have all agreed that sanctions can only come if Uhuruto wins the presidency and then refuse to cooperate with ICC.
Agreed
Those Sanctions can only be EU sanctions only as the UN back sanctions may not be supported by Russia and China who hold vetoe powers at UN security council.
Maybe. Anyway, as I have already explained, EU-only sanctions will still damage us and continue to damage as we seek their overturn
The EU sanctions can still be challenged in court by various business communities and get overturned.
How long does this take? As they are being challenged, they are still in force
However we cannot argue here based on the assumption that Uhuruto will not cooperate with ICC.
Why not? It is a plausible outcome, this is what probability theory is all about
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 11/14/2006 Posts: 1,311
|
quicksand wrote:
Not exactly targeted was it?
As you can see, the mouths say one thing, the hands crush the b....
@Quicksand,
UK wants to clear his name from ICC. He made that promise during the Presidential debate. Don't think he has not been advised about what the constitution says about the President's immunity with respect to the ICC cases. I think some people would try to have him impeached if he refused to cooperate with ICC.
I therefore consider the discussion about sanctions quite academic... but to answer you...below is my response.
Zimbabwe is not under UN backed sanctions. These are US, UK and EU sanctions....so the UNSC decision was not required. These countries wanted to have Zimbabwe to restore land ownership rights. They were driven by the pain of loss of resources for major companies and individuals some of whom were citizens of these countries and who had invested in Zimbabwe.
However in my opinion, Kenya's case is different from Zimbabwe in the following sense.
1) For US congress to pass a motion / law for sanctions against Kenya, the republicans must cooperate with democrats. This will be a hard sell especially because US is not even a member of ICC.
2) There is no major issue disrupting the the economic production in Kenya unlike Zimbabwe where agricultural production was heavily disrupted.
3) EU / UK are now aware that sanctions can be overturned by the European court especially where it is demonstrated that they are affecting common people and not the targeted leaders.
4) The world has changed since 1999 when these countries started putting pressure on Zimbabwe. China is now the 2nd largest economy in the world, having overtaken the economies of Europe and Japan.
5) EU has its own economic problems.
Therefore the decision to have sanctions against Kenyan duo will not be an easy decision for them if we come to that.
But I would like to discuss this when Uhuruto win the presidency and confirm if they will go t clear themselves at ICC.
Most leaders think the problem is not if they will refuse to cooperate or not....it is obvious they will cooperate.... the major issue is how they will handle both running the country and attending to ICC matters.
|
|
|
Rank: Chief Joined: 8/4/2010 Posts: 8,977
|
Meanwhile UNEP Nairobi becomes the environment capital of world... More foreign bank majors opening offices... More hotel majors setting up... And so forth. Why are locals just seeing doom & gloom. $15/barrel oil... The commodities lehman moment arrives as well as Sovereign debt volcano!
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 2/26/2012 Posts: 15,980
|
hisah wrote:Meanwhile UNEP Nairobi becomes the environment capital of world...
More foreign bank majors opening offices...
More hotel majors setting up... And so forth.
Why are locals just seeing doom & gloom. Political affiliations have become religious to some folks here that they cant stop dreaming, I hope they snap out of it fast before the dreams become wet.. "There are only two emotions in the market, hope & fear. The problem is you hope when you should fear & fear when you should hope: - Jesse Livermore
.
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 7/22/2011 Posts: 1,325
|
Mkeiyd you do make a point about Cuba and Venezuela. But, Cuba was an overt enemy of the US, they even had missiles pointed towards the US. Kenya is in no way a threat to the US, thats why it would not make any sense for the US to target it.
Guru, I see your childish ways dont stop you from hurling insults, you are obviously threatened by me. Yes I did go through the 8-4-4 system and have accomplished way more than you ever will!! The US does not follow what the UK does, the UK is the US's prostitute, so if you are gonna give examples give relevant ones. I think I will take quicksand's advice and ignore your childish rants, I have achieved my goal of debunking your myth that an Uhuru presidency automatically means sanctions. March 5th business will go on as always.
|
|
|
Wazua
»
Investor
»
Economy
»
IMF: Kenya's economy self reliant, don't need EU
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.
|