By David Bargueno

Omar Al-Bashir, the current president of Sudan, attended the promulgation ceremony of Kenya’s new constitution on August 27, 2010. Since then, his visit has served as an analytical sieve for domestic and international media to address an impressively wide range of issues. Fiery debates have flared over Europe’s history of selective involvement in African crises, over contemporary divisions within Kenya’s Government of National Unity, and over the future legitimacy and enforcement of human rights regimes. To explore these and other themes, this commentary compares the coverage of al-Bashir’s visit in a random cross sample of twenty recent articles, drawn from select English-language media published in Kenya, South Africa, the United States, and Great Britain. Kenyan news sources assume the spotlight here, partly because of the intended audience, and partly because a few South African and Anglo-American newspapers suffice to serve as meaningful points of comparison. In turn, what emerges from this analysis is a complicated drama: a case study in the contextual biases and “historical silences” inherent to all journalism, particularly the media covering human rights questions.

THE PAST

Typically, three basic facts frame the ongoing controversy. First, Omar al-Bashir has been indicted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for “crimes against humanity,” specifically for his complicity in the mass killings in Darfur since 2003. Second, Kenya is a signatory to the Rome Statute, which founded the ICC and requires that Kenya arrest al-Bashir under its supranational jurisdiction. Third, Kenya did not arrest al-Bashir when he entered the country for the constitution ceremony, thus defying the ICC mandates. Of course, the depth to which each of these factors is explored varies by source and by author.

Not surprisingly, the recent history of the continent’s largest country (Sudan) is most thoroughly addressed in Kenya’s own newspapers, particularly the East African Standard. An article published on September 6, entitled “Why Kenya Chose to Ignore Warrants by ICC and Sup with the Devil,” provocatively explains, “What’s at Stake.” Authors Samantha Spooner and Charles Onyango-Obbo, who are individually identified (unlike the anonymity often afforded to authors in the South African and Anglo-American media reporting on Africa), point to the roughly 300,000 people who have died in Darfur since 2003, and the nearly 100,000 refugees who have fled to Kenya, alone. Instead of explaining the specific crimes for which al-Bashir is accused as an individual, the authors identify Sudan’s capital of Khartoum as “the prime mover behind the campaign of ethnic cleansing and the patron of the Janjaweed militias, which have done most of the killing and destruction in Darfur.” Then the crisis is contextualized in a larger regional history, with comparisons to other interventions made by the United Nations and the African Union in Somalia, Rwanda, and the Congo.

What is most striking about this piece is how the authors choose to frame Kenya’s so-called “act of rebellion,” in terms reminiscent of Samuel Huntington’s now infamous article, “The Clash of Civilizations?” in Foreign Affairs (1993). Not unlike his argument, that “the velvet curtain of culture has replaced the iron curtain of ideology,” Spooner and Onyango-Obbo suggest that this event “represent[s] the growth of two movements: One that could end in institutions like the ICC...becoming largely irrelevant to Africa; a second that would end in a world governed by competing international regimes — one Western and ‘old world,’ the other African-Asian-Middle Eastern-Latin American.” That the African Union openly supported Bashir’s visit, albeit in an unsigned document, evinces this split. Additional evidence stems from the “fact” that regional bodies, and specific African nations, have consistently done more to address human rights abuses on the ground than any of “the Big Boys,” which make the latter’s condemnation of human rights ring hollow. Even though powerful non-African nations may boast the loudest bark in “name-and-shame game” of human rights discourse, many are simultaneously complicit in the perpetuation of these abuses, as demonstrated by the American ambassador’s presence at Bashir’s inauguration and the flourishing bilateral trade between Khartoum, England, and China. In the same skein that the “Big Boys” pursued their own interests in relation to Darfur, the authors contend, so did Kenya “sup with the Devil” to preserve regional stability and promote trade. Thus is the world of “cold realpolitik.”

This article may be exceptional among all media sources for its length, pushing seven online pages, but its criticisms of the ICC and Western “double standards” resurface in many other articles in the local media. In The Standard of August 30, author Mburu Chege asks why George W. Bush, Tony Blair, and their allies walk free after their “illegal war” in Iraq, and further suggests that the ICC serves as “just another excuse for bigger powers to advance their narrow interests against the weaker developing countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America.” His article, “ICC’s Double Standards on Africa,” can be read in tandem with what some commentators consider a more satirical piece in The Daily Nation. An opinion piece, called “How Kenya Gained from Hosting al-Bashir at Constitutional Fete,” lays out some common defences, namely that: 1) the international media finally paid attention to good, rather than bad, news from Africa by mentioning Kenya’s new constitution; 2) his visit made other world leaders “jealous” for not attending; 3) Kenya accomplished a “diplomatic coup,” with al-Bashir agreeing to honour southern Sudan’s election for self-determination; 4) Kenya upheld its commitment as an African nation in the African Union; 5) Bashir’s attendance lent a much-needed air of sobriety to Kenya’s otherwise pie-in-the-sky celebration; 6) al-Bashir may be accused of various crimes, but he is innocent until proven guilty. Most recently, on September 18, The Daily Nation published another piece entitled, “For the West, Human Rights No Longer Universal,” which spotlights the French deportation of the Roma and the banning of the veil as evidence of double standards. As is further explored in the next section, local opinions on the matter are anything but unanimous, but these accounts do help demonstrate the historical questions that inform the current debate “on the ground” in Kenya.

When compared to Kenya’s domestic media, as well as the Anglo-American coverage, much more of attention is paid to the story of Kenya’s immediate political developments than al-Bashir or the ICC in South Africa’s Mail & Guardian. Two out of the mere four sentences quote Kenya’s Foreign Affairs Minister, Moses Wetangula, in an article published in August; these are repeated in a piece later issued on September 1. In both articles, Wetangula explains that Kenya has “no apologies to make about anybody we invited to this function. He [al-Bashir] was here today because we invited all neighbors and he is a neighbor.” In the headline, al-Bashir is briefly identified as Sudan’s “fugitive president,” who has “tarnished” Kenya’s “second birth” with his attendance. But then he disappears from the second half of the article. In his place, Kenya’s President Mwai Kibaki is quoted as saying that the day marks “the most important day in the history of our nation since independence”; then the most contentious issues in the new constitution (land reform and abortion) are briefly explained. This at once attests to an attempt not to overshadow the constitutional celebrations with al-Bashir’s visit, as well as the relative paucity of additional coverage on Kenya’s constitution in the Mail & Guardian.

Meanwhile, supranational actors eclipse local actors in the British and American media. Two brief articles in BBC News, published on August 27 and September 1, explicitly repeat that the ICC has reported Kenya to the United Nations Security Council “to take any measure they may deem appropriate.” ICC judges are quoted, but not named, as saying that Kenya had a “clear obligation” to cooperate with the court. Across the Atlantic pond, Fox News republished the courts’ quotes in two much longer articles, and further added that the ICC had “fruitlessly pressured authorities here into arresting the man accused of masterminding the genocide” (emphasis added). The United Nations Security Council is mentioned once, but more emphasis is given to the fact that the “ICC has no police force and depends on member states to enforce its orders.” A later article, published on September 1, identified the court’s chief prosecutor by name, Luis Moreno Ocampo, which is never done by the BBC, and then reiterated that the ICC has no police force. Nowhere is Kenya’s current President or Foreign Affairs Minister mentioned in either the BBC or Fox News. Also, among these news sources, the specific criminal charges leveled against al-Bashir – five counts of crimes against humanity and two counts of war crimes issued in 2009, plus three counts of genocide issued this July – are the most clearly outlined by Fox News.

THE PRESENT

As a testament to the new constitution’s enshrinement of free speech and political rights, competing interpretations of Bashir’s visit abound within Kenyan civil society and the government. For instance, on September 6 in The East African Standard, the Executive Director of African Women's Development and Communication Network (FEMNET), Muthoni Waynoka, concedes that “might is right in the international system,” but then she sharply rebukes the idea that this event should mark the emergence of two forms of human rights law. She argues, “we Africans — when all else has failed, domestically and regionally — ourselves call on the international system” and “we have helped shape international law — Africa was fully diplomatically engaged in the negotiations of the Rome Statute, in terms of expert input and advocacy by civil society.” On this basis, her article, called “Don’t Pussyfoot with al-Bashir, Face Reality,” openly condemns the argument that Kenya may first flout the international system for regional security interests, and then may defend this decision as evidence of a “helpless victim” in international society reclaiming “agency.” In this respect, Waynoka openly disagrees with many of the above commentators, not to mention the leader of the Commonwealth. (Secretary General Kamalesh Sharma argued in The Daily Nation that Kenya was entitled to “balance...its obligations to multiple regional and international organizations” in pursuing its own national interests.)

Steeped in indignation, Waynoka’s tone here parallels that of press releases from two human rights organizations: the second more local than the first. On the day of the event, the immediate response from Human Rights Watch may best be demonstrated by the much-quoted Elise Keppler, a senior counsel in the International Justice Program. She warns “Kenya will forever tarnish the celebration of its long-awaited constitution if it welcomes an international fugitive to the festivities,” and “the Kenyan government should stand with victims, not those accused of horrible crimes” (emphasis added). Meanwhile, in an article released on September 8, the Institute for Democracy & Leadership in East Africa (IDEA) agreed with Waynoka that Bashir’s presence was not only “unbelievable,” but also “disgraceful” and “disrespectful.” But, like Human Rights Watch, the intended audience is far more international: “Donor and international communities including true and real Friends of Africa should not relent in pushing and demanding for democracy and good governance practice no matter what it takes.” Since Bashir’s visit simultaneously undermines Kenya’s commitment “to change the current crop of civilian dictators in Africa,” and demonstrates a disrespect of the ICC’s principles and values, the self-described think-tank and capacity-building institution “advises stern measures on dishonest and other errant member countries going against [ICC] rules for the purpose of re-gaining control, public confidence and credibility” (emphasis added). Clearly, both press releases convey two distinct convergences: first, of moral rhetoric with legal principles and institutional commitments; and second, of condemnation with prescriptions for the future.

True to their historic role as checks on government, these civil society leaders have used Bashir’s visit to question the forethought and coordination within the Kenyan Government of National Unity (or “grand coalition government”), so constituted after election violence from 2007 until 2008. This particular type media attention has been generated largely because of the mixed responses from cabinet ministers themselves, some of whom claim to have known about Bashir’s visit beforehand. On the one hand, Higher Education Minister William Ruto took issue with those who claimed ignorance, arguing in The Standard that the government should stop using this issue for “scapegoats and excuses,” and instead “take responsibility, accept the reality and forge ahead.” On the other hand, in a different article of the same newspaper, Prime Minister Raila Odinga criticized the visit, saying “the invitation and his coming had spoiled the Kenyan party,” a sentiment shared by other significant leaders, such as Lands Minister James Orengo and Immigration Minister Otieno Kajwang’. On this division, one particular Professor of History and International Relations at the United States International University, Munene Macharia, is often cited for analysis. In The Standard, the American-educated professor is quoted for saying: “the problem with the Grand Coalition Government is that leaders from the two coalition partners play politics with everything, even with a serious issue like Bashir’s visit.” After defending Bashir’s visit during an interview in a separate article, released in The African Executive, Macharia argues that the primary “blunder would be if the officials who invited and hosted Bashir did not know of, or consider, the likely political and diplomatic repercussions of their decision. If that were the case, then those officials should not be in office because they do not know what they are doing.” These are fighting words.

Alas, international media sources rarely capture the two divided fronts: the first within Kenya, and the second within the African Union. During al-Bashir’s July visit to Chad, also a full-fledged signatory to the ICC, the Mail & Guardian did publish a piece, called “African Nations Divided over al-Bashir Genocide Charge,” which explained the heated political debate over the AU’s resolution not to arrest Bashir. Within the organization, “the rows often pit northern and western states -- rallied by Gaddafi -- against a group of countries seen by analysts as close Western allies and usually helmed by South Africa.” Meanwhile, articles in Fox News and BBC News do reference the fact that Chad was the first country to host the Sudanese president as an indicted war criminal, usually as the last sentence of the piece. But no articles on al-Bashir’s visit explore the ongoing controversies within the African Union or Kenya. On the contrary, quotes made by Kenya’s leaders are normally preceded by the aforementioned international actors, or with the “words of rebuke” made by “Kenya’s own” President Obama or ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo. Whether this fosters an “us versus them” binary among the American public is open for debate.

THE FUTURE

As an exercise in examining “historical silences,” this kind comparative analysis could – and, arguably, should – continue indefinitely. Four significant themes not addressed here, but volleyed are: first, the “heat” Kenyan ambassadors have felt in Europe for al-Bashir’s visit; second, how his visit will contribute to a peaceful referendum for self-determination of southern Sudan; second, the future roles of thriving Kenyan businesses in southern Sudan; and third, what Kenya’s “act of rebellion” means for the ICC’s nascent investigations into Kenya’s own post-election violence. These debates, not unlike Native Rights and the mission civilisatrice under high colonialism, are voiced by myriad actors, make mutliple moral and legal claims of “legitimacy,” and are ridden by the controversies endemic of any form of politics. A simple takeaway from this piece should be that reading only one newspaper’s coverage of such questions, whether written in the New York Times or FOX News, will serve as only a fleeting glimpse into the Pandora’s box of human rights and international law. Searching for other peep-holes, so to speak, simultaneously helps expose the legs upon which one stands, as well as the characters lurking in the shadows.

SOURCES

BBC News. “Court Worry at Omar al-Bashir's Kenya Trip.” 27 August 2010. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-11117662.

BBC News. “Kenyan Ambassadors Summoned over Omar al-Bashir's Visit.” 1 September 2010. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-11156184.

Barry Malone. “African Nations Divided Over al-Bashir Genocide Charge.” Mail & Guardian. Available at: http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-07-26-african-nations-divided-over-bashir-genocide-charge.

Bernard Amera. “Kenya Erred in Hosting Al-Bashir.” The Citizen. 2 September 2010. http://www.thecitizen.co.tz/editorial-analysis/46-letters-to-the-editor/3945-kenya-erred-in-hosting-al-bashir Biketi Kikechi.

“How Bashir was Sneaked into Kenya.” The Standard. 28 August 2010. Available at: http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/InsidePage.php?id=2000017087&cid=253&story=How%20Bashir%20was%20sneaked%20into%20Kenya.

Edwin Cheserek. “We Knew about Bashir's Visit, Says Ruto.” The Standard. 5 September 2010. Available at: http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/InsidePage.php?id=2000017678&cid=4&ttl=We%20knew%20about%20Bashir%27s%20visit,%20says%20Ruto. Fox News.

“Indicted Sudanese President Visits Kenya, Defies Arrest Warrant on Genocide Charges.” 27 August 2010. Available at: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/08/27/indicted-sudanese-president-visits-kenya-defies-arrest-warrant-genocide-charges/.

Fox News. “Kenya Allows International Criminal Court to Open Office in Nairobi Days after al-Bashir Visit.” 3 September 2010. Available at: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/09/03/kenya-allows-international-criminal-court-open-office-nairobi-days-al-bashir/.

IDEA (Institute for Democracy and Leadership in East Africa). Press Release. “Institute Challenges Govt Committment After Bashir Visit.” 8 September 2010. Available at: http://allafrica.com/stories/201009090096.html.

Jaclyn Belczyk. “ICC Reports Kenya to UN over al-Bashir Visit.” The Jurist Legal News and Research, Paperchase Newsburst. 28 August 2010. Available at: http://jurist.org/paperchase/2010/08/icc-reports-kenya-to-un-over-al-bashir-visit.php.

Kwamchetsi Makokha. “How Kenya Gained from Hosting al-Bashir at Constitutional Fete.” Daily Nation. 3 September 2010. Available at: http://www.nation.co.ke/oped/Opinion/How%20Kenya%20gained%20from%20hosting%20%20al%20Bashir%20at%20constitutional%20fete%20/-/440808/1003338/-/gw9p8y/-/.

Lucas Barasa. “Kenya Tells ICC Why Bashir Was Not Arrested.” Daily Nation. 19 September 2010. Available at: http://www.nation.co.ke/News/politics/Kenya%20tells%20ICC%20why%20Bashir%20was%20not%20arrested/-/1064/1013798/-/89tgda/-/index.html.

Mail & Guardian. “Kenya Defends Inviting al-Bashir Despite ICC warrants.” 27 August 2010. Available at: http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-08-27-kenya-defends-inviting-albashir-despite-icc-warrants.

Mail & Guardian. “Omar al-Bashir Tarnishes Kenya’s Landmark Day.” 28 August 2010. Available at: http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-08-28-omar-albashir-tarnishes-kenyas-landmark-day.

Muthoni Wanyeki. “Don't Pussyfoot with Bashir, Face Reality.” The East African. 6 September 2010. Available at: http://www.theeastafrican.co.ke/opOrEd/comment/-/434750/1004180/-/cdaaez/-/.

Oscar Mann. “Something’s Fishy about the Bashir Saga.” The East African. 13 September 2010. Available at: http://www.theeastafrican.co.ke/opOrEd/letters/-/434756/1009240/-/84h0mgz/-/.

Samantha Spooner and Charles Onyango-Obbo. “Why Kenya Chose to Ignore Warrants by ICC and Sup with the Devil.” The East African. 6 September 2010. Available at: http://www.theeastafrican.co.ke/news/-/2558/1003776/-/opeer0z/-/.

Somaya Abdel Sadig. “Bashir Article was not True Reflection of Reality on the Ground.” The East African. 20 September. Available at: http://www.theeastafrican.co.ke/OpEd/letters/Bashir%20article%20was%20not%20true%20reflection%20of%20reality%20on%20the%20ground/-/434756/1013940/-/121fqmqz/-/index.html

Stephen Makabila. “Cabinet divided over Bashir Visit to Country.” The Standard. 6 September 2010. Available at: http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/InsidePage.php?id=2000017800&catid=4&a.

The East African. “Kenya’s Diplomatic Rubicon.” 6 September 2010. Available at: http://www.theeastafrican.co.ke/OpEd/editorial/-/434752/1004188/-/8wur4bz/-/index.html

Walter Menya. “Club Boss Says Kenya in order Over al-Bashir.” 14 September 2010. Daily Nation. Available at: http://www.nation.co.ke/News/politics/Club%20boss%20says%20Kenya%20in%20order%20over%20al-Bashir%20/-/1064/1011186/-/lenq30z/-/index.html