Is Britain Really Against Corruption?

Recently the British Ambassador to Kenya Sir Edward Clay violated the diplomatic code of conduct by publicly accusing the Kenyan government of at least 30 cases of corruption.

I believe a diplomat is in his right to criticize, but bear in mind the history of Britain. And pick the tone! As an illustration of the situation the Ambassador said that “the government is vomiting on the Kenyans naked feet’s…”

Investigation to his accusation is still pending, but if he is right he scored an A for his observations. However, for his style of delivery and for the rationale of the message he only scored a C!

Of course the allegations raised by Mr. Clay must be thoroughly looked at by the Anti-Corruption Authority, and acted on. But how come Britain has abandoned “quiet diplomacy” now?

Britain gave good old love to our former corrupt president Moi, to Liberia’s Sergeant Samuel Doe, to Zaire’s Mobutu Sese Seko and of course to Nigeria’s Sani Abacha. It was Margaret Thatcher who said working with dictators like Samuel Doe was “part of democracy as we understand it”.  So to hear the Ambassador saying in full glare of the media that Britain is against corruption in Africa brings forth credulity!

Is there a Kenyan problem that doesn’t have a British cheekiness somewhere at its core? Tribalism: colonial Britain’s divide-and-rule policy. Land inequality: colonial Britain’s white highlands policy. Corruption: colonial and post colonial Britain’s propping up of dictators using the “democracy as we understand it” quasi policy. As Ambassador Clay’s boss, UK foreign secretary Jack Straw admits past British policy is to blame for much disquiet around the world. “A lot of the problems I have to deal with now”, he observed “are a consequence of our colonial past”.

Is the above in any way to justify the corruption taking place in the Kenyan government? Not in the least!

Ministers said to be behind emergent corruption should face the full investigatory and prosecutorial rigor of the state. Ugly baby though it is, one must distinguish between prosecuting corruption and the murky waters of Clay’s thoughts. Procurement illegally done must be transparently investigated and if proved, cancelled with costs. But let us not be blind to British rationale and reasoning.

Let us not think that Sir Edward Clay is doing this without the complete connivance of his government. As former Minister of National Security Chris Murungaru put it “If Britain’s interests are met it is business, if not, it is corruption”.

Let’s just take one example from our history: the 1992 election where 1500 people died, alleged vote ridging and printing of paper money. Britain’s conclusion? The 1992 election was “largely free and fair”.

It lays near the hand to suggest that the reason why the British ambassador raised the corruption claims is that British companies have been loosing out on tenders since we got a new government in 2002. Let us note that Britain has benefited from extensive single sourcing contracts from the Kenyan for the last 40 years.

Our government can be blamed for many things, but the tone and style used by the British is patronizing and two sided.

If we are to provide constructive criticism to the government we need not only to demand action against corruption and constitution, but also acknowledge that the government has started implementing free primary education, better public transport and road safety, training of police, strengthening the agricultural and cooperative sector, etc.

Britain is a big part of Kenya’s problem. It’s time for us to replace them. We ought to engage more with countries whose internal treatment of their own poor provides us with models we can use e.g. Scandinavia and some Eastern countries. Not class-divided states that push the world to war, on vague excuses of non-existent weapons of mass destruction.

Ian Gatere is a Kenyan journalist.  This comment has previously been published in the Danish Magasine Kontakt, which is a publication of MS-Denmark