Evidence is presented to advance the theory that Kenya is a victim of Western destabilisation to stop its growing economic relations with China.
The US, UK and EU are behind the violence in Kenya as part of a campaign of destabilisation that they want to affect black Africa.
The aim is to stop Kenyan's move towards China and African leaders tendency towards self-determination and distance from the West.
This is more likely than the deep-seated ‘tribal violence’ sparked off by a rigged election explanation that the Western media are promoting.
Even Anglo-American think tanks admit that Kenyans do not have strong ‘tribal identity’. This means they are therefore, they are unlikely to engage in the ‘tribal violence’ that has been publicised.
The violence is on going by design through the Anglo-American Establishment backing the current government and the EU backing the opposition.
The likelihood is that Western covert operatives are paying local people who in turn use Somali refugees, other foreigners and local criminals to create the violence. Meanwhile, they use their ties with the security forces to ensure the police do not stop the violence.
Rigging probably occurred on both sides but the government rigging was made obvious to ensure that this would give cover to the destabilisation campaign.
Reuters tried to send a message to Africa in its news article, 'Kenya's crisis spreads gloom over Africa', (
http://africa.reuters.com/wire/news/usnL03651413.html).
The article states:
''Kenya's sudden spiral into chaos after years as a regional anchor has badly set back Africa's democratic progress and will strike a heavy blow against the economies of a wide swathe of neighbouring nations..."This is the greatest setback to Africa's reputation since the 60s. Kenya has an iconic status, seen as synonymous with Africa," said Kenya expert Michael Holman.'
A destabilisation perspective makes more sense than the explanation advanced by commentators and the media in the West.
They offer a racist, right-wing explanation and a liberal explanation aimed at convinced Left-leaning people and black people.
The right-wing explanation blames backward, irrational Africans who in a crisis revert to their tribal past. The liberal explanation has it that ethnic rivalry has reinforced inequality, poverty and corrupt land distribution that took place 40 years ago.
Left-leaning people probably accept the media line that Kibaki and his ruling Party of National Unity has rigged the elections to keep out a more radical Odinga, who leads the Orange Democratic Movement.
There is no explanation for why it has taken 40 years for supposed land disputes among black people to lead to clashes while the dispute with white land owners had disappeared despite lasting for years.
Police action makes no sense. It may make sense to shoot and kill members of the opposition when they demonstrate because they constitute a threat to the ruling party who issue the orders. But why do they shoot above the heads of gangs intent on killing Kikuyu people who support the government?
It is clear that the intransigence of both leaders is allowing the violence to continue. It is also bizarre that no state of emergency has been declared.
Commentators have admitted that people of different ethnic groups have lived together and married one another for years and that there is no history of such brutal ethnic violence.
They have also had to admit that the violence is organised rather than spontaneous and planned by local politicians and business people.
Research by Kenya Human Rights Watch ( http://allafrica.com/stories/200801281649.html) accuses opposition politicians and local elders of planning and organising ethnic-based violence in the Rift Valley. This violence was planned before the election took place.
BBC Online carries reports from local people who say outsiders are forcing others to join their attacks on Kikuyu, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7215107.stm.
Even the main think tank of the US foreign policy establishment, and tool of the Anglo-American Establishment, the Council on Foreign Relations argues: 'Because elections are such high-stakes affairs, political candidates are accustomed to hiring groups of young, armed men to protect their interests (this practice is also common in Nigeria). Each poll since the introduction of multiparty elections—in 1992, 1997, and 2002—has been accompanied by low-level outbreaks of violence...While there was not a history of ethnic violence under British rule, colonial officials fostered divisions among Kenya’s ethnic groups to prevent them from uniting against their rulers.'
(‘Understanding Kenya’s Politics’, Foreign Affairs, January 2008, http://www.cfr.org/publication/15322/understanding_kenyas_politics.html)
They also say:
'News reports were quick to label the violence that followed December 2007 presidential elections as tribal, but some experts say this is a gross oversimplification. Contrary to prevailing attitudes, Kenyans have not traditionally identified themselves by ethnic group and studies have shown they do not have significant feelings of ethnic injustice. In a 2003 Afrobarometer survey, 70 percent said they would choose to be Kenyan if faced with a choice between a national identity and their ethnic group (28 percent refused to identify themselves as anything but Kenyan). Analysts say much of the unrest that erupted after the December 2007 polls was just the latest display of politically organized violence. Political coalitions on both sides hired thugs to do their bidding, and ordinary Kenyans were caught in the cross fire, they say.'
In fact the 'dominant' Kikuyu group are not that dominant. The Kikuyu are only 20 percent of the population and are one of 14 major groups. Opposition leader Odinga is said to lead the Luo people who are 12 percent while the Luhya are 14 percent.
Somali is north of Kenya and has been subject to US covert operations under the guise of fighting Islamic fundamentalists (US covert operations underway in Somalia; resource conflict escalates over Horn of Africa, Larry Chin, Global Research, May 2006, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=2524) US military intervention has led to thousands of Somali refugees, including militias, settling in northern Kenya. Some of these Somalis have British and other European passports. (‘Somalia: Humanitarian crisis looms at Kenya Somali border’, East African Standard, January 2007, http://www.thestatesmanonline.com/pages/news_detail.php?newsid=1904§ion=12). Somalis operating under US command have made alliances with local thugs to promote violence in Kenya.
The background to this conflict has not been outlined. Some local Kenyans who support Kibaki claim state revenue needs only 5 percent of aid from EU, and China and most come from local taxes. While EU countries are losing millions because trade they used to monopolise has not gone to China.
In 2004, there were reports that the China-Kenya trade had gone up 34 percent over a year since 2002 representing US$250m,
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-21077401_ITM
The Chinese influence in Africa is also growing. In April 2007, The East African Standard ( http://allafrica.com/stories/200704241123.html) in Nairobi quoted a Chinese official saying:
"Following the principle of equality, mutual benefit and common development, we intend to sustain the growth and strive to achieve the goal of $100 billion (Sh7 trillion) in trade volume with Africa by 2030."
The report went on to say:
'Qinglin drew critics of Chinese ties with Africa to statistics, which show that since its reform and opening-up programme began, it has contributed to 14 percent of annual world economic growth...He noted equally that economic cooperation and trade between China and Africa had grown rapidly in the new century, becoming an engine driving the economic development in Africa.'
This is leading to greater confidence among African leaders who have traditionally bowed to the West. Before the Kenyan election on 15 December, in an article entitled 'Africans united in rejecting European arrogance', the website Race and History ( http://www.raceandhistory.com/Zimbabwe/2007/1512.html) wrote:
'The recent summit between African heads of states and the EU has shown that Europe has failed to move beyond their colonial–era past–times of economic and political bullying. The African delegates gave Europe an unmistakable cold shoulder on the two big issues of the conference: trade, especially the European proposed Economic Partnership Agreements, and European political interference in African affairs, centered on British arrogance towards Zimbabwe.'
They also wrote:
'Europe's ulterior motive behind the summit was candidly admitted by the Financial Times which stated on Sunday 9th December that it was "meant to showcase a new partnership to counter China's growing influence in Europe's former colonies." '
The US is able to influence Kenya’s police and security forces through its financial aid and training programmes. According to the US-based, Association of Concern Africa Scholars:
‘The United States is also providing training and equipment to Kenya's military, internal security, and police forces through several global and regional programs. These include, the:
• The East Africa Counter-Terrorism Initiative established in 2003 as a multi-year program with $100 million in funding to provide training to Kenya as well as to Uganda, Tanzania, Djibouti, Eritrea, and Ethiopia.
• The Anti-Terrorism Assistance (ATA) Program was created in 1983—under the administration of the State Department Bureau of Diplomatic Security—to provide training, equipment, and technology to countries all around the world to support their participation in America's Global War on Terrorism. The largest ATA program in Africa is targeted at Kenya, where it helped created the Kenyan Antiterrorism Police Unit (KAPU) in 2004 to conduct anti-terrorism operations, the Joint Terrorism Task Force in 2004 to coordinate anti-terrorism activities (although the unit was disbanded by the Kenyan government in 2005, and is now training and equipping members of a multi-agency, coast guard-type unit to patrol Kenya's coastal waters. Between 2003 and 2005 (the most recent years for which this information is available), ATA provided training both in Kenya and in the United States to 454 Kenyan police, internal security, and military officers.’
(U.S. Military Activities in Kenya By Daniel Volman, January 5, 2008, http://www.concernedafricascholars.org/080110_volman.php.)
Odinga's orange movement is likely to be receiving support from the architect of the colour revolutions, Mark Brezinzski, son of the former National Security Council chief and leading intellectual of the Anglo-American Establishment, Zbigniev Brezinzski.
The Brezinzski family are currently advising US Democratic candidate, Barack Obama. Behind Brezinzski is super-rich financier and ‘philanthropist’ is George Soros. Soros’ millions is working towards undermining pro-Chinese Mugabe in Zimbabwe.
The colour revolutions are sophisticated coup that uses millions of dollars to buy crowds and politicians, uses fake polls and exploits genuine grievances to bring about a government supportive of the Anglo-American Establishment. It is a PR-CIA coup that is far more acceptable around the globe than the traditional Pentagon-CIA coup.
Prominent media reports in the colour revlutions is mass protest but violence goes on in the background. It is the other way around in Kenya because this ensures that the destabilisation is prolonged.
Brezinzski is probably supporting the EU in its attempts to replace Kibaki with Odinga. He in serious conflict with the ‘Neo-Crazy’ faction of the Anglo-American Establishment who are pretending to support Kibaki. Both want the destabilisation to be long lasting.
It may very well be that Kibaki is corrupt and wanted a fraudulent election. But he probably thought he would be allowed to promote good business relations with China and retain good relations with the West. The destabilisation shows he has been mistaken.
The aim is to stop Kenyan's move towards China and African leaders tendency towards self-determination and distance from the West.
This is more likely than the deep-seated ‘tribal violence’ sparked off by a rigged election explanation that the Western media are promoting.
Even Anglo-American think tanks admit that Kenyans do not have strong ‘tribal identity’. This means they are therefore, they are unlikely to engage in the ‘tribal violence’ that has been publicised.
The violence is on going by design through the Anglo-American Establishment backing the current government and the EU backing the opposition.
The likelihood is that Western covert operatives are paying local people who in turn use Somali refugees, other foreigners and local criminals to create the violence. Meanwhile, they use their ties with the security forces to ensure the police do not stop the violence.
Rigging probably occurred on both sides but the government rigging was made obvious to ensure that this would give cover to the destabilisation campaign.
Reuters tried to send a message to Africa in its news article, 'Kenya's crisis spreads gloom over Africa', (
http://africa.reuters.com/wire/news/usnL03651413.html). The article states:
''Kenya's sudden spiral into chaos after years as a regional anchor has badly set back Africa's democratic progress and will strike a heavy blow against the economies of a wide swathe of neighbouring nations..."This is the greatest setback to Africa's reputation since the 60s. Kenya has an iconic status, seen as synonymous with Africa," said Kenya expert Michael Holman.'
A destabilisation perspective makes more sense than the explanation advanced by commentators and the media in the West.
They offer a racist, right-wing explanation and a liberal explanation aimed at convinced Left-leaning people and black people.
The right-wing explanation blames backward, irrational Africans who in a crisis revert to their tribal past. The liberal explanation has it that ethnic rivalry has reinforced inequality, poverty and corrupt land distribution that took place 40 years ago.
Left-leaning people probably accept the media line that Kibaki and his ruling Party of National Unity has rigged the elections to keep out a more radical Odinga, who leads the Orange Democratic Movement.
There is no explanation for why it has taken 40 years for supposed land disputes among black people to lead to clashes while the dispute with white land owners had disappeared despite lasting for years.
Police action makes no sense. It may make sense to shoot and kill members of the opposition when they demonstrate because they constitute a threat to the ruling party who issue the orders. But why do they shoot above the heads of gangs intent on killing Kikuyu people who support the government?
It is clear that the intransigence of both leaders is allowing the violence to continue. It is also bizarre that no state of emergency has been declared.
Commentators have admitted that people of different ethnic groups have lived together and married one another for years and that there is no history of such brutal ethnic violence.
They have also had to admit that the violence is organised rather than spontaneous and planned by local politicians and business people.
Research by Kenya Human Rights Watch (
http://allafrica.com/stories/200801281649.html) accuses opposition politicians and local elders of planning and organising ethnic-based violence in the Rift Valley. This violence was planned before the election took place. BBC Online carries reports from local people who say outsiders are forcing others to join their attacks on Kikuyu,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7215107.stm. Even the main think tank of the US foreign policy establishment, and tool of the Anglo-American Establishment, the Council on Foreign Relations argues: 'Because elections are such high-stakes affairs, political candidates are accustomed to hiring groups of young, armed men to protect their interests (this practice is also common in Nigeria). Each poll since the introduction of multiparty elections—in 1992, 1997, and 2002—has been accompanied by low-level outbreaks of violence...While there was not a history of ethnic violence under British rule, colonial officials fostered divisions among Kenya’s ethnic groups to prevent them from uniting against their rulers.'
(‘Understanding Kenya’s Politics’, Foreign Affairs, January 2008,
http://www.cfr.org/publication/15322/understanding_kenyas_politics.html) They also say:
'News reports were quick to label the violence that followed December 2007 presidential elections as tribal, but some experts say this is a gross oversimplification. Contrary to prevailing attitudes, Kenyans have not traditionally identified themselves by ethnic group and studies have shown they do not have significant feelings of ethnic injustice. In a 2003 Afrobarometer survey, 70 percent said they would choose to be Kenyan if faced with a choice between a national identity and their ethnic group (28 percent refused to identify themselves as anything but Kenyan). Analysts say much of the unrest that erupted after the December 2007 polls was just the latest display of politically organized violence. Political coalitions on both sides hired thugs to do their bidding, and ordinary Kenyans were caught in the cross fire, they say.'
In fact the 'dominant' Kikuyu group are not that dominant. The Kikuyu are only 20 percent of the population and are one of 14 major groups. Opposition leader Odinga is said to lead the Luo people who are 12 percent while the Luhya are 14 percent.
Somali is north of Kenya and has been subject to US covert operations under the guise of fighting Islamic fundamentalists (US covert operations underway in Somalia; resource conflict escalates over Horn of Africa, Larry Chin, Global Research, May 2006,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=2524) US military intervention has led to thousands of Somali refugees, including militias, settling in northern Kenya. Some of these Somalis have British and other European passports. (‘Somalia: Humanitarian crisis looms at Kenya Somali border’, East African Standard, January 2007, http://www.thestatesmanonline.com/pages/news_detail.php?newsid=1904§ion=12). Somalis operating under US command have made alliances with local thugs to promote violence in Kenya. The background to this conflict has not been outlined. Some local Kenyans who support Kibaki claim state revenue needs only 5 percent of aid from EU, and China and most come from local taxes. While EU countries are losing millions because trade they used to monopolise has not gone to China.
In 2004, there were reports that the China-Kenya trade had gone up 34 percent over a year since 2002 representing US$250m,
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-21077401_ITM The Chinese influence in Africa is also growing. In April 2007, The East African Standard (
http://allafrica.com/stories/200704241123.html) in Nairobi quoted a Chinese official saying: "Following the principle of equality, mutual benefit and common development, we intend to sustain the growth and strive to achieve the goal of $100 billion (Sh7 trillion) in trade volume with Africa by 2030."
The report went on to say:
'Qinglin drew critics of Chinese ties with Africa to statistics, which show that since its reform and opening-up programme began, it has contributed to 14 percent of annual world economic growth...He noted equally that economic cooperation and trade between China and Africa had grown rapidly in the new century, becoming an engine driving the economic development in Africa.'
This is leading to greater confidence among African leaders who have traditionally bowed to the West. Before the Kenyan election on 15 December, in an article entitled 'Africans united in rejecting European arrogance', the website Race and History (
http://www.raceandhistory.com/Zimbabwe/2007/1512.html) wrote: 'The recent summit between African heads of states and the EU has shown that Europe has failed to move beyond their colonial–era past–times of economic and political bullying. The African delegates gave Europe an unmistakable cold shoulder on the two big issues of the conference: trade, especially the European proposed Economic Partnership Agreements, and European political interference in African affairs, centered on British arrogance towards Zimbabwe.'
They also wrote:
'Europe's ulterior motive behind the summit was candidly admitted by the Financial Times which stated on Sunday 9th December that it was "meant to showcase a new partnership to counter China's growing influence in Europe's former colonies." '
The US is able to influence Kenya’s police and security forces through its financial aid and training programmes. According to the US-based, Association of Concern Africa Scholars:
‘The United States is also providing training and equipment to Kenya's military, internal security, and police forces through several global and regional programs. These include, the:
• The East Africa Counter-Terrorism Initiative established in 2003 as a multi-year program with $100 million in funding to provide training to Kenya as well as to Uganda, Tanzania, Djibouti, Eritrea, and Ethiopia.
• The Anti-Terrorism Assistance (ATA) Program was created in 1983—under the administration of the State Department Bureau of Diplomatic Security—to provide training, equipment, and technology to countries all around the world to support their participation in America's Global War on Terrorism. The largest ATA program in Africa is targeted at Kenya, where it helped created the Kenyan Antiterrorism Police Unit (KAPU) in 2004 to conduct anti-terrorism operations, the Joint Terrorism Task Force in 2004 to coordinate anti-terrorism activities (although the unit was disbanded by the Kenyan government in 2005, and is now training and equipping members of a multi-agency, coast guard-type unit to patrol Kenya's coastal waters. Between 2003 and 2005 (the most recent years for which this information is available), ATA provided training both in Kenya and in the United States to 454 Kenyan police, internal security, and military officers.’
(U.S. Military Activities in Kenya By Daniel Volman, January 5, 2008,
http://www.concernedafricascholars.org/080110_volman.php.) Odinga's orange movement is likely to be receiving support from the architect of the colour revolutions, Mark Brezinzski, son of the former National Security Council chief and leading intellectual of the Anglo-American Establishment, Zbigniev Brezinzski.
The Brezinzski family are currently advising US Democratic candidate, Barack Obama. Behind Brezinzski is super-rich financier and ‘philanthropist’ is George Soros. Soros’ millions is working towards undermining pro-Chinese Mugabe in Zimbabwe.
The colour revolutions are sophisticated coup that uses millions of dollars to buy crowds and politicians, uses fake polls and exploits genuine grievances to bring about a government supportive of the Anglo-American Establishment. It is a PR-CIA coup that is far more acceptable around the globe than the traditional Pentagon-CIA coup.
Prominent media reports in the colour revlutions is mass protest but violence goes on in the background. It is the other way around in Kenya because this ensures that the destabilisation is prolonged.
Brezinzski is probably supporting the EU in its attempts to replace Kibaki with Odinga. He in serious conflict with the ‘Neo-Crazy’ faction of the Anglo-American Establishment who are pretending to support Kibaki. Both want the destabilisation to be long lasting.
It may very well be that Kibaki is corrupt and wanted a fraudulent election. But he probably thought he would be allowed to promote good business relations with China and retain good relations with the West. The destabilisation shows he has been mistaken.
Comments
Hide the following 5 comments
Good article,similar to divide & rule used in Rwana blamed on tribalism
02.02.2008 23:52
Reminds me of divide & rule tactics used by French & American corporations vying for coltan & other resources in Rwanda using Hutus & Tutsi's to fight it out as well as Ugandan & Congo former Zaire security forces.
Darfur is another case where tribalism is sometimes seen as the problem, although vast areas of semi fertile land have turned to dessert due to climate change& China is copying Western colonialism supplying the Sudanese government & Janjaweed with aid & cover in the UN in return for oil.
There is a case for UN intervention if it was really independent & had a force of internationalales, to get there we need a global revolution& transition from corporatism to a international or intergalactic federation as the Zapatistas say, this would end the need the warfare .
Shame World Social Forum couldn't do more & was just on the internet this year.
green syndicalist
Kenya in the wider context of global capitalism
03.02.2008 13:55
The United States has a plan, AFRICOM, to control African countries in a more direct and militarized way, as opposed to controlling the economies in the way it has been done since the 2nd World War. The U.S. want Mwai Kibaki to remain in power because he is compliant with their strategic plans in the region whilst Raila Odinga has plans to alleviate poverty in disadvantaged sections of society and was voted for on those grounds. The U.S. don't want to come out into the open and say they want a compliant leader in power because that would be an admission that they don't support democracy where governments that don't suit their own economic interests are voted into power and that they do indeed support small elites who govern ruthlessly whilst guarding the interests of the U.S.
There are ethnic faultlines in all societies but what pushes people to violence is poverty and desperation to change their unjust situation, yet the mainstream media always concentrate on ethnic strife rather than underlying economic reasons because it is not in the interests of those holding power to have that exposed and unfortunately the consumers of the media seem to have more of a taste for lurid details of ethnic differences than boring economics.
In Kenya there has been growing poverty and a growing wealth gap for about 20 years, as a result of Structural Adjustment Policies imposed by IFIs. There has also been widespread famine exacerbated by severe drought - drought that is probably worstened by climate change. Before the genocide in Rwanda the economy was also devastated - by the fall in world coffee prices when the U.S pulled out of the International Coffee Agreement (this has been written about extensively, for instance Richard H. Robbins, Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism), followed by IMF-imposed SAPS that led to devastated education and health systems with rising infant mortality and malaria. There are parallels all over the world where SAPS have devastated economies and political chaos has ensued.
Corruption and desire for power on the part of political leaders and parties within Kenya is a force driving the violence but East Africa is being systematically destabilised for strategic reasons. Outside forces are behind all the orange revolutions wherever they are and every grassroots movement for change becomes hijacked once it grows big enough to be seriously influential.
megan
Left position on Kenya a problem
03.02.2008 16:47
The Left is likely to support notions of some international force or agency that will control the imperialist tendency of the US. They don't realise that this is is a trap. This force or agency will be controlled by the Anglo-American Establishment. The apparently ‘stupid’ actions of the US is part of a deliberate plan to bring about such a force or agency – i.e. world government. The Neo-Cons are ‘responsible’ for these stupid actions and that’s why they are known as the ‘Crazies’. That is, the Anglo-American Establishment covertly creates global chaos and overtly offers us world government as the solution. (Read Brezizinski’s ‘The Choice’, where he expresses hostility to a world dominated by a one-world government rather than the US.)
The Left position on Kenya is a rouse. They are likely to support more radical Odinga and be against the ‘US-supported’ Kibaki. Yet, the problem with this position is that it is Odinga’s people who are instigating the ethnic or ‘tribal’ violence. The media has admitted this because they portray the violence as anti-Kikuyu, who support.
The Left are also likely to go for the rouse that China is operating as a new imperialist. China is operating in its interest but to say they are currently the new imperialists is bollocks. Chinese investment is going into South America. This is allowing South American countries to become more independent of the West.
The Anglo-American Establishment (particularly the Council on Foreign Relations and the Royal Institute for International Affairs) knows that many white people won’t go for the backward tribes in Africa argument to explain the Kenyan violence. This is so they come up with a more ‘Left’ argument about poverty. This explanation hides their role and supports attacks against the pro-Chinese economics of Kibaki.
Brezizinski, ‘The Choice’, p218:
'A global community of shared interest should not be confused with world government. A world government is not a practical goal at this stage of history. America certainly would not yield its sovereignty - nor should it - to a supranational authority in a world that lacks even the minimum of consensus needed for a common government. The only "world government" currently even remotely possible would be an American global dictatorship - and that would be an unstable and ultimately self-defeating enterprise. World government is either a pipe dream of a nightmare, but not a serious prospect for some generations to come.’
insidejob
another analysis
05.02.2008 05:30
b real
Left unwittingly is Right
05.02.2008 10:19
Firstly, Odinga gives no indication at all that his government would end this collaboration with the US. It is likely it would continue. It is also clear that the so-called ‘tribal violence’ was pre-planned by Odinga’s supporters. Why plan to attack other poor Kenyans if the government is the enemy? Kibaki’s police has killed poor Kikuyu’s who have been demonstrating. The ethnic conflict is meant to create a situation of chaos. And what is this ‘Orange’ Democratic Movement if it’s not part of the colour revolutions organised by Mark Brezinzski? Why did the EU complain about rigged elections if the rigging was done to support the US?
Why is it that for years, the UK has complained about the apparent corruption of Kibaki’s regime? Why did the UK High Commission once speak of the government drinking from pigs swill or some such expression? Kenya is probably no more corrupt than many other governments but we have been fed a diet of corruption stories that is supposed to make us hostile to Kibaki. Why? Because Kibaki wasn’t obedient enough.
The reason why the Neo-Crazy US government immediately came out to back the election was to prompt the Left and liberals to regard Kibaki as a cheat. The Left simply does not address the Western response to increased trade with China. The Left merely regards China as just another imperialist power. When it came down to it the Western elite could depend of the Western NGOs to line up to support them in their ridiculous attack on China for investing in Africa.
Why should poverty lead to such civil war brutality? Poverty exists throughout Africa. There is ethnic conflict, but it doesn't lead to such mindless violence that confirms Western notions of African backwardness.
insidejob