KAIKAI'S KICKER: On diplomacy, the mask of neutrality was our strength

On Monday this week, Foreign Cabinet Secretary Musalia Mudavadi sustained his defense of the government’s contentious links with the Sudan rebel outfit named Rapid Support Forces (RSF).

The Prime Cabinet Secretary issued a lengthy statement titled Sudan People’s Peace Initiatives, buttressing Kenya’s history as a peace champion in Africa.

The statement, I am afraid, opened on a misleading note, giving the impression that there is some peace initiative in Nairobi bringing together the warring parties in Sudan.

The opening line read: “The signing of a peace agreement, and the process for the formation of a unity government by Sudanese political parties, civil society, and military groups in the Nairobi peace talks is a step in the road to restoring peace in Sudan.”

In the next sentence, the Cabinet Secretary stated: “The government would like to affirm that the Nairobi peace talks are just but part of the Kenyan DNA of problem-solving in the region, and in the continent since its independence.” End of quote.

Now, is it accurate to talk of Nairobi peace talks, and if yes, which parties do the peace talks involve? Are the two main warring parties in Sudan taking part to properly constitute peace talks? The facts around events of the last one or two weeks in Nairobi point to a different reality—a reality that only one side of the two-sided Sudan conflict is represented in Nairobi. And that is the Rapid Support Forces (RSF).

The second crucial party in the Sudan conflict, the Sudan Armed Forces government led by Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, is not part of the so-called Nairobi peace talks. Kenya has instead been accused of picking the side of the RSF in the Sudan conflict, an accusation that in itself takes away a lot from the statement by the Foreign Cabinet Secretary.

The CS then delved into Kenya’s remarkable contribution to various peace processes dating as far back as the 1975 Angolan peace talks in Nakuru, chaired by founding President Jomo Kenyatta. The statement then listed peace processes initiated under subsequent presidents, ending with a list of peacekeeping missions in which Kenya has participated.

Without a doubt, there is so much to be proud of about Kenya’s previous diplomatic engagements, especially in peacebuilding around the region, the continent, and even the world at large. But so many questions abound in the aftermath of the hazy events at the Kenyatta International Conference Centre, where one party—the RSF and its allies—ostensibly signed a peace deal with itself.

The Cabinet Secretary’s statement thankfully drew no parallels between Kenya’s RSF affair and all other previous peace processes because, frankly, there are none.

An impression of neutrality was always Kenya’s greatest strength in all previous peace initiatives. This same Sudan trusted Kenya as the mediator in the 21-year war with South Sudan that later, and peacefully, seceded.

General Hassan Omar al-Bashir or his foreign minister, Ali Osman Taha, would travel to Nairobi, Machakos, and Naivasha for peace talks with the late John Garang because both parties were persuaded we were neutral. Both parties appeared to trust the late President Moi, his envoy, General Lazarus Sumbeiywo, and his foreign affairs minister, Kalonzo Musyoka.

In peace mediation of whatever level, neutrality—even as a mask—fosters trust. That is why it would be interesting to see how we can pull the Sudan peace talks at the KICC from 4 a.m. onwards.

I have seen some diplomatic observers saying our handling of the RSF, an offshoot of the genocidal Janjaweed militia, robbed us of the mask of neutrality and threatens to completely erode what is left of our historical moral authority in peace mediations. I hope they are wrong.