INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS AND THE KENYAN CONFLICT

Institute of Peace Studies and International Relations

Hekima College

A Constituent College of

The Catholic University of Eastern Africa














International Human Rights Organizations and Kenya’s Post Election Crisis of

2007-2008









Moses Owade Were













International human rights organizations have today become increasingly potent in pursuing their interests across the world. The growing influence of the activities of these organisations has played a major role in shaping the landscape of international relations in contemporary times. The horrors and frequency of the human rights abuses that are highlighted by the International human rights organization keep penetrating the international consciousness and disconcerting the global conscience. The ‘mobilization of shame’ in the face mass violation of the internationally recognized human rights is thus a defining feature of these organizations, their raison d’etre. By lobbying and disseminating information, organizations such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Africa Watch, Asia Watch, Freedom House and other similar bodies have been instrumental in alleviating human rights abuses in many countries across the globe.
In this paper, I am going to examine the role played by the Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, in resolving Kenya’s election crisis of 2007-2008. I will begin with tracing the historical evolution of the process of the internationalization of human rights and its impact on the field of contemporary international relations. I will then embark on a brief historical foray into Kenya’s recent history and the extent to which international human rights organizations have shaped that history. I will then delve into the role that Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, played in influencing the resolution of Kenya’s worst political crisis since independence.
The subject human right is a novel idea in terms of its emergence as an increasingly influential component of international relations. Since the 1648 peace of Westphalia through to 1945, human rights were largely regarded to be within the competence of the nation-state. With the formation of the United Nations in 1945, this was however profoundly changed both in terms of diplomatic practice and in terms of legal theory. The United Nations Charter and its various provisions mandated all the member states “to promote the observance of fundamental human rights without distinction to race, sex, language or religion.”(Article 55 United Nations Charter)
The United Nations has been at the core of the global human rights efforts and initiatives anchored on the Charter addressing human rights. The significance of the UN Charter is that it ‘represented a broad foundational stepping stone’ that set in motion a series of decisions that cumulatively resulted in the internationalization of human rights. That is, after the Charter was ratified by member states, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was passed and this was followed by the creation of the United Nations Human Rights Commission which in turn led to the creation of various regional human rights bodies.
The UN Commission on Human rights was a body set up to monitor the progress of states in fulfilling their pledges vis-a-vie the promotion of human rights. The commissions’ only power is to publicise human rights abuses with the hope that such adverse publicity would compel the relevant states to curtail on their violations of human rights. Finally, the covenant on civil and political rights on the one hand and economic, cultural and social rights on the other came into force between 1967 and 1970 and included many of the global bill of rights that were set out under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Consequently, by 1970, human rights had been internationalized at the global level.
International Relations experienced a major shift between 1945 and 1970 as human rights ceased to be generally perceive as a matter fully under the armpit of the sovereign state. By 1970, various nations had appended their signatures to all kinds of treaties, voted for various resolutions and declarations, and engaged in all kinds of diplomatic practices with the net result of all these being the internationalization of the subject of human rights. The World Conference on Human Rights (1993) that was sponsored by the United Nations declared that “all human rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated.” At the same time, the conference urged that due cognition must be given to “the significance of national and regional particularities and the various historical, cultural and religious when outlining rights and speaking against abuses.
Therefore, by the 1990’s, it was no longer defensible for any dictatorship to argue that the human rights are exclusively the domestic affairs of their sovereign states. Trans-national organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have irrevocably eroded the traditional claim that whatever states do within their own borders is their own business. The emergence and continual expansion of the human rights ideals have definitely shifted the traditional standards of international legitimacy. Regimes and leaders that are given to persistently disregarding the emerging global norms couched in the language of human rights and commit atrocities against their own people will find themselves increasingly shunned as pariahs and hence weakened in a world that is increasingly interdependent.
In independent Kenya, the International human rights organisations have consistently played a significant role in shaping the country’s recent political history. In the 1990’s, Amnesty International was at the forefront in calling for not only the respect of human rights but also exposing the human rights violations by the despotic regime of Daniel Arap Moi, Kenya’s second president. In the same period and under Moi’s watch, organised political violence was institutionalized as a defining factor of the country’s general elections even as the seeds of impunity were being sowed and nurtured.
The emergence of organized political violence unfolded against the backdrop of the mounting pressure on the regime of the then president Moi to legalize pluralism. The annual reports of international human organizations like Amnesty International, Africa Watch/Human Rights Watch were instrumental in shaping the opinion of the international community by exposing human rights abuses and in consequently mobilizing the international community and Kenya’s development partners in particular in demanding for change in Kenya. The regime eventually caved in to pressure from both the domestic and international fronts and Kenya reverted to being a multi party democracy in 1991. The Moi government nonetheless remained recalcitrant and continued to subvert the process of democratization as violence erupted and engulfed the multi-ethnic provinces of Rift Valley, Western and Nyanza.
Consequently the paths leading to the multi-party elections since 1992 have been littered with varying levels and degrees of organized political violence that engulfed the country in recurrent orgies of ethnic killings and mass displacements of people. Kenya’s first wave of organised political violence erupted on the 29th October 1991 and came to an end in November 1993 with over 1500 people dead while another 300, 000 had been forcibly driven from their homes. This orgy of ‘ethnic cleansing’ that swept through parts of rural Kenya from late 1991 was largely to blame for the flawed elections in 1992.
In its careful and exhaustive study of this violence, Human Rights Watch, an international human rights organisation, submitted that the Moi government had presided over the organized violence for political gains. The vigilante groups or militias were evidently sponsored by the state to act as a response to the challenge posed by the proponents of multi-party democracy and therefore as a means of perpetuating the hegemonic elite of the ‘one party era’ in power. The government securities forces were at times known to have provided the training, protection and even worked in concert with the militia groups during the attacks. These attacks exclusively targeted ethnic groups associated with the proponents of the multi-party democracy movement.
Prior to 1997, organized political violence was confined to the rural areas of Nyanza, Western and Rift Valley provinces. Four weeks before the 1997 elections, Kenya was boiling over with all manner and forms of communal violence. This violence climaxed on the 13th August 1997 as ethnic clashes erupted in the Coast province leaving over 100 people dead and another 100, 000 displaced from their homes. The militia groups and warriors who carried out the attacks were known to include junior officers from the police, the military and ex-servicemen.
In spite of the mass violations of human rights that resulted from these violence and the reports from the international human rights organizations such as Human Rights Watch, not a single person was ever brought to justice. These reports consistently alleged that high ranking political figures, civil servants and persons close to the heart of the government organized and used violent groups to kill other Kenyans, destroy their property, and intimidate those perceived to be sympathetic to the opposition. Organized violence was used solely for the purpose of securing political power.
Having outlined the evolution of the process of the internationalization of human rights and briefly considered the role of international human rights organization in the face of mass human rights violations in Kenya’s recent history, I now turn my attention to international human rights organizations and Kenya’s post election crisis of 2007-2008.
International human rights organizations is a sub-group within the larger international non-governmental organisations (INGO’s) that today number upwards of 26,000 across the world. These organizations lobby the powerful in order to advance their interests and rally for support through the mass media by gathering and disseminating information promoting their cause. International human rights organizations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have been instrumental in pushing the human rights questions to the top of the agenda of the international community by spreading awareness about human rights abuses in the various countries. Their primary goal is the advancement of the internationally recognized human rights since they derive their raison d’etre from the universal bill of rights.
These organizations help to keep the attention of the international community on human rights through their annual country by country reports on abuses. Careful research and the organizations’ considerable skills in public relations ensure that these reports are influential documents whose findings are widely reported by the global media. As a result of such exposure of human rights abuses by the global media, the international community would be rallied to act. The promotion of human rights across the globe by the United States, the world’s most powerful state, have also contributed immensely to the growing prominence of the discourse on human rights in the international community.
It is almost always impossible to precisely analyse the influence of an international human rights organization or a coalition of such organizations on a given situation. Scientifically, it would be a challenge to factor out the precise contribution of such organisations through general analysis. Nonetheless, it is possible on some given cases to identify some fairly precise influence of international human rights organizations on public policy. With this in mind we turn our attention to the role of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch in relation to the Kenyan post-election crisis.
Human Rights Watch is an international human rights monitoring and advocacy organization known for rigorous, objective, accurate,impartial and reliable human rights reporting in over 70 countries. Each year Human Rights Watch produces over100 reports and human rights briefings that are extensively covered in both the local and international media. With the leverage that such coverage entails, Human Rights Watch is able to with governments, United Nations, regional groupings like African Union, European Union, financial institutions and corporations and is thus able to lobby for changes in policies and practices that promote human rights and justice in across the globe. All this is in keeping with the organizations' is dedication to the protection of human rights of people around the world.
Human Rights Watch is renowned for innovative high profile campaigns and has been successful in affecting the policy of the government of the United States and other influential governments towards regimes, groups and individuals engaged in human rights abuses. Human Rights Watch is known to use statistical research, sett elite photography amongst other new methodologies in addition to on-the-ground-fact-finding hence allowing the organization to remain at the cutting edge of innovative advocacy. The organization not only investigates but also exposes human rights violations and at the same time holds the abusers accountable for their actions. Human Rights Watch challenges governments and those wielding power to end abusive practices and respect the international human rights law. It seeks to enlist the public and the international community to support the cause of human rights for all peoples across the globe.
On the 29th January 2008, in the midst of the raging post election violence in Kenya, Human Rights Watch wrote a letter to H.E. Alpha Konare, the then head of the African Union Peace and Security Council, on the situation in Kenya. In this letter, Human Rights Watch called on the African Union to condemn the violence on both sides of the political divide and issue immediate calls for the cessation of hostilities. Further, the African Union was asked to call for an independent and international audit of the December elections besides emphasizing the need for electoral, legislative and administrative reforms. The letter pointed out that any political settlement to the crisis that obtained in Kenya then had to address its underlying causes.
In this letter, Human Rights Watch spelt out its intention of urging the other international actors especially the European Union and the United States to co-ordinate with the initiatives of the African Union on the same. Moreover, Human Rights Watch stated its intention of lobbying the United States and the European Union to suspend any further direct government assistance and to consider further sanctions that would only be lifted when specific human rights benchmarks are attained.
In addition to the letter to the African Union, Human Rights Watch was, on the 7th of February 2008, invited to participate on the hearing of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, the Subcommittee on African Affairs. On this hearing, Human Rights Watch, represented by Chris Albin Lackey made a presentation on “the immediate and underlying causes and consequences of flawed democracy in Kenya”. In this presentation, Human Rights Watch insisted that the United States and the entire international community has a crucial role play in seeing to it that any political settlement that is arrived at lays the foundation for lasting peace and ensures accountability for the crimes that have destroyed so many lives. Further, it urged that such a political settlement has to be grounded in an unequivocal respect for human rights and the principles of democratic governance.
Human Right Watch recommended that the government of the United States, along with the African Union and Kenya’s other international partners to be at the forefront in applying pressure on Kenya’s political leadership to negotiate a solution to the crisis. The international community was urged by Human Rights Watch to communicate to both parties to the Kenyan conflict that a negotiated solution must include at a minimum an independent and public investigation into the allegations of fraud in the disputed and widely discredited presidential election of December 2007. In addition, it was recommended that the negotiated solution ought to outline a framework for constitutional and electoral reform aimed at addressing the underlying causes of the post-election violence. The government of the United States and Kenya’s development partners were impressed upon to publicly commit that sanctions would be imposed on and against any political leader on either side of the divide who obstructs or subverts a negotiated settlement. Finally, the international community was asked to consider supporting the international component to investigate the post election violence.
The activities of Human Rights Watch in relation to the Kenyan crisis were supplemented by the initiatives of other international human rights organization such as Amnesty International. Amnesty International is a worldwide movement of people campaigning for internationally recognized human rights for all. This organization believes that human rights violations anywhere ought to be the concern of people everywhere. Consequently, outraged by human rights abuses but inspired by the hope for a better kinder world, Amnesty International strives to improve people’s lives through campaigns and international solidarity. The organization conducts research and generates action to end grave abuses of human rights and demands for justice for those whose rights have been violated. The members and supporters of Amnesty International exert influence on governments, political bodies and intergovernmental bodies by mobilizing public pressure through mass demonstrations, direct lobbying as well as on-line and off-line campaigning.
On the 15th of February 2008, Amnesty International issued a press release calling on the government of Kenya and the African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights to prioritize an investigation into human rights violations and abuses perpetrated in the course of the post-election violence and to ensure that the suspected perpetrators are held responsible through trials that satisfy the international standards. While addressing the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights on the same concerns, Erwin van der Borght, the director of Amnesty International’s Africa programmes urged that
“a human rights agenda must be central to any resolution of the political crisis-which means that those responsible for the violence must be brought to justice, and the victims receive reparations. Impunity for human rights violations will only store up problems for Kenya’s future, and we hope that the African Commission will play its role in ensuring that this does not happen.”

On the 27th of March 2008, Amnesty International delivered 10,000 petitions to the representatives of the Kenyan leadership, President Mwai Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga. These petitions represented the people who had on the 27th of February 2008 signed up for the Kenya Action Day that was organized by Amnesty International. The petitions called for an end to post-election violence and for the perpetrators of the violence to be brought to justice in fair trials. In addition, over 6000 people signed up on the ‘Reach Out For Kenya’ face book group besides the public actions and demonstrations also organized by Amnesty International in over 12 countries. Thus the activities and the reports of Amnesty International on the unfolding political crisis that was then manifest in Kenya played a crucial role of shaping the perception and informing the actions of the international community.
The process of mediation and negotiation of the Kenyan conflict and the resultant political settlement largely mirrored the recommendations that Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International amongst other organizations spelt out to the Kenyan government, the African Union and the international community at large. In the heat of the negotiations, hardliners on both sides of the political divide were threatened with sanctions and travel bans in the event that they derail the talks. As part of the national accord that was signed by the parties in conflict, both parties agreed to the formation of a commission to independently review the discredited presidential elections. The parties also agreed to the formation of a commission to investigate the circumstances of the post-election violence and the human rights violations that were perpetrated therein. As part of the Agenda 4 of the political settlement, the parties to the conflict committed themselves to the delivery of a new constitution within one year, comprehensive land reforms and the setting up of the Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission to deal with the historical injustices that the Kenyan people have suffered since independence in 1963.
The world today continues to witness ever increasing levels of interactions between states and peoples in almost all areas of endeavour. As these interactions grow, so does the need for regularized behaviour and for the rules to regulate that behaviour. As the ancient roman adage posits that where there is a community, then law necessarily emerges. All the signs in the world today thus point to an increasing respect for international law and greater emphasis on the adherence to certain minimum standards of morality. Consequently, violations of international standards of human rights are today more likely to attract the wrath of the international community. The agenda of internationally recognized human rights will continue to have an increasing impact on the actions of states as the dominant international actors and Kenya is no exception to this damning reality.
There are two key human rights issues that still remain unresolved by the international community. The international community has to contend with the lack of reliable enforcement regime for human rights as an evolving international norm. Secondly, there is the ongoing debate on whether there indeed exists a single universally applicable standard of human rights in the global arena.
















BIBLIOGRAPHY

Amnesty International. http://hrw.org/english/docs/2008/02/07/kenya 18012 html.(accessed October 7, 2008)

Commission of Inquiry Investigating the Post Election Violence Report. (Waki Report, 2008)

Forsythe, David P. The Internationalization of Human Rights (Toronto: Lexington Books, 1991)

Human Rights Watch. http://hrw.org/english/docs/2008/02/07/kenya 18012 html.(accessed October 7, 2008)

Kenya Human Rights Commission. Killing the Vote: The State Sponsored Violence and Flawed Elections in Kenya (Nairobi: Kenya Human Rights Commission, 1998)

Nester, William. International Relations: Politics and Economics in the 21st Century (Belmont CA: Wadsworth Group, 2001)

Rourke, John T., and Mark, A. Boyer. International Politics on the World Stage (New York: McGraw Hill, 2004)

Rutten, Marcel., Alamin, Mazrui., and Francios, Grignon., eds. Out For the Count: The 1997 Elections and Prospects for Democracy in Kenya (Kampala: Fountain Publishers, 2001)

Snow, Donald M., and Eugene Brown. International Relations: The Changing Contours of Power (New York: Wesley Longman Inc., 2000)