What the US has to say about Kenya

Another noteworthy episode of the past couple of weeks was the discussion I went to with the current US Ambassador to Kenya, Michael Ranneberger. The first thing I should note is that it really was a discussion - made possible by the fact that it was only a small group of 20-25 of us or so, which really was perfect. Any more people and it may have turned into a less stimulating lecture, but as it was we could take the Ambassador up on issues, push for clearer answers and genuinely engage in a dialogue about America's intentions and goals in the region. 

The discussion was interesting on two levels. First, content-wise it was of course interesting to hear what the US take on the 2007 post-election violence was and what its hopes and aims for Kenya's future are. For the sake of the KEP-ers reading this (you mock, but I know you do!), I'll see if I can note the main points to come out of the discussion:

• First of all, the ambassador was quick to point out, with significant pride, that the US - when it became apparent during the vote count that things were being fiddled by both candidates - was the only power to push for a political settlement over calling fresh elections which is what Britain and the EU did. The sense of pride he took from this seemed a little odd - lets face it, neither solution was going to stop people feeling bitterly disappointed that Odinga hadn't won, but I'll come back to this a bit later. The other brief aside to add to this is that the elections were a lot closer than the media portrayed, with blatant vote-fixing on both sides. Odinga - contrary to the (utterly flawed) polls - was never going to run away with it.

•  America's current policy with regards to Kenya is to really put pressure on them to implement this new constitution. This is no mean feat seeing as both Kibaki and Odinga essentially just want to preserve the status quo - that is, limited accountability, corruption, personalistic politics.

• In addition, the ambassador himself seems to have a real passion for focussing on the young people in Kenya. In encouraging them to join the equivalent of our youth councils and engaging them in political discussions he seems to have become less than popular among the kenyan elite. I have to say that I think this is the most hopeful thing not just for Kenyan politics but for African politics in general - to cut short a topic I could go on and on about, the most significant obstacle I see to democratic consolidation in Africa isn't the region's poverty but its current political personnel (though thats not at all to imply the two are mutually exclusive).  

• The US isn't concerned about Chinese investment in the region: he recognised that China had no intentions whatsoever to involve itself in the politics of Kenya and that its investment was purely infrastructural. It was interesting that he noted that this was undercutting the emergence of small- and medium-businesses in Kenya which is damaging, yet in the same breath suggested that the US would do well to go back to delivering aid as it used to in the form of infrastructural projects....               

• The final thing of note was his predictions for the 2012 elections: unless the new constitution is properly implemented, he imagines that the potential for more violence in 2012 is significant.  

The second level on which the discussion was interesting was that I feel like it gave me quite a unique glimpse of what an American ambassador is like, and a better understanding of what actually goes on in these discussions with the likes of Odinga and Kibaki behind closed doors. In terms of Ranneberger's frankness and his real willingness to with engage us, I really can't fault him. But at the same time, there was a lot in the way he spoke that I found very difficult to admire or like.  

For example, on recounting a meeting he had been present at with Condoleezza Rice, he proudly exclaimed that: "She just ripped right through them, she tore Kibaki to pieces! It was brilliant, I've never seen anyone speak to anyone like that! She just ripped right through him and told him straight!" More recently, Hillary Clinton also "Tore Odinga to pieces! I'd never dare use such forceful language! It was incredible!" - you get the picture. 

There's a lot wrong with the way so many African politicians go about their business, no doubt. And its certainly true that its absolutely paramount that Kibaki and Odinga don't get away with dragging their feet with respect to implementing the political reforms that they have agreed to. But at the same time, when I hear a US ambassador talking like this I feel just as much - if not even more - despair for the prospects of democracy not just in Africa's fledglings, but those all over the world. Why? Because it smacks of US arrogance, something that countless commentators (most of whom are Americans, I should add) have warned against for a considerable amount of time now. Its because of language like this, no doubt, that so many people in these developing countries view the US with such deep suspicion, and also why leaders of these developing countries are increasingly turning to China for aid: as Senegalese President Abdoulaye Wade has said; "China's approach to our needs is simply better adapted than the patronizing post-colonial approach". 

In taking this gung-ho, "here's what we want and here's what you'l do" approach, the US risks alienating a lot of people - and that would be bad - very bad - for democratic prospects. Taking one issue to highlight this: It's of course correct to highlight human rights abuses, but at the same time US representatives have got to be far more sensitive to the thin line they are walking, and need to realise that often they appear sanctimonious and thoroughly hypocritical (Guantanamo, anyone? Should we make a list?) - not just to political elites, but their populations too.  I found it odd when he claimed that 'Kenyans really love Americans', because thats not the impression I got at all. Granted, they love Obama, but thats very different to liking US policy in Africa. On the whole, I was staggered to find that Kenyans thought far higher of Britons than they did Americans but who knows - maybe I wasn't speaking to the right people. I'm certainly not saying that America has no right to push these political elites for change - of course it does, and it should. But some ways are less damaging than others. 

And I suppose this goes back to my post about Cathy Ashton's lecture and the Chatham House report which said that America would do better to stop trying to lead all on its own as the world's supreme superhero. Unfortunately though, from the 2-hour glimpse I got of Michael Ranneberger I saw no signs of change. In his estimations, America is the only power really taking an active interest in Kenya, the US has all the ideas, and its the one applying all the pressure. In short, its not the amount of pressure being applied that worries me, its far more the manner in which the US is going about it... 

Get out, Britannia!

Once again, it seems like an age since I last wrote... So here's an update of the last couple of weeks. I will break this down into a few posts, otherwise it will be mammoth!

Lexington, Concord and Walden Pond

The other weekend, graced with brilliant sunshine, a group of us decided that it was about time we ventured beyond Cambridge / Boston to see a few other sights that the area has to offer. Here began our roadtrip to Lexington, Concord, and Walden Pond...

Even to those of you who are - like me - unfamiliar with American history, the first two of these places may sound vaguely familiar. The battles of Lexington and Concord were, after all, where it all began to go down hill for America: yes.... independence. Witnessing the first military engagements of the American Revolutionary War, this is where Captain Parker (commander of the Lexington militia) - on the approach of the British advance party - is said to have uttered the famous words: "Stand your ground; don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here." Apparently we meant to have a war and apparently they beat us... apparently.

Anyway - historical grudges aside - Lexington and Concord are two incredibly pretty little towns, well worth a visit if you're ever in New England. I think what I most appreciated about them was the fact that they are obviously enormously important historical sites, and yet - aside from the token Redcoat here and there - the towns weren't spoiled by being horrifically 'gimmicky'. That said, of course, we did have lunch at the 'Colonial Inn'... But still, top marks.

For the remainder of the day we went a couple of miles down the road to Walden Pond, famous for having been the retreat of Henry David Thoreau (writer / transcendentalist / philosopher / abolitionist - the list goes on), who spent two years in the woods here from 1845-47. After walking around the pond on a brilliant autumn day, you couldn't really argue with the fact that Thoreau chose a truly stunning spot at which to conduct his brief flirtation with the hermit lifestyle. I'm not sure if it was while he was here that he first articulated the desire for "not at once no government, but at once better government", but either way, maybe Osborne et al could pop off to the woods for a couple of years and come back a bit more enlightened...  No?!

US Cambridge Vs Cambridge UK

Having just closed a document entitled 'Policy Paradigms, Social Learning, and the State: The Case of Economic Policymaking in Britain', I've suddenly become painfully aware that I will never get back the last two hours of my life. However, in an effort to make the next hour a little more worthwhile (and gently bring myself back round to consciousness) I thought I would finally get around to laying out one or two of the major differences I've found between studying here and studying in the UK...

First of all I should point out the obvious: at Cambridge I studied history, while out here I am studying political science. Certainly, the two subjects really are quite different in their approaches: I don't think it would be unreasonable to suggest that while historians tend to 'problematise' anything and everything, for political scientists its all about boiling big, complicated issues down to their simplest form - or 'putting things in boxes' as I (perhaps unfairly) tend to characterise it. Nonetheless, even with this in mind, I think there are some clear differences worth detailing between studying at Harvard and studying at Cambridge, so here goes....

The first - and most significant - difference I would put my finger on is that of Breadth vs Depth. At Harvard, regardless of the subject undergraduates take four courses per semester whereas at Cambridge - for history anyway - you take one paper per term, be it Africa from 1800 to the present day, India from 1750-2000, or some other quite specific area/time period. At Cambridge, in short, you get depth and specialisation far more than at Harvard where its all about an extensive breadth of information though in no particular depth.

In terms of what I think is better, here are my thoughts. For history, I would say that Cambridge has the far preferable system - the fundamental skills of the subject which centre largely on essay-writing and the formulation of arguments is done far more effectively through having to produce an essay every week than it is having to produce an essay once every 6 weeks or so. I cant really imagine studying history here, it would just be a bit of a nightmare I think. In fact, its interesting (and quite satisfying!) that the majority of professors who I've spoken to seem to rate a history degree from Oxbridge extremely high owing to the intensity of the weekly workload in comparison to what undergrads here have to do. The general assumption on the part of the professors is that if there's one thing a Cambridge student will be able to do far better than any Harvard one, its write an essay.

But thats not at all to imply that at Harvard you get less work to do throughout the week. I would say that, on average, for each paper I have about 200-300 pages of reading, often more which feels quite similar to what I was used to at Cambridge, in addition to writing two research papers that have to be in by the end of term. Further, managing your time between the four different papers is a nightmare for someone who has - for the last three years - been used to having a week to answer one question and not have to juggle anything else in between. Thats certainly taking a lot of getting used to...

So down to the more nitty-gritty. One major difference between here and Cambridge is the weekly 'section' for each paper and what is expected of students from it. I suppose its vaguely comparable to a supervision in that its structured time with a teaching fellow, though here its done in classes as opposed to 1:1. Its basically an hour where a group of about 8-10 people discuss the week's readings and lectures, but crucially students are graded on their 'participation' in discussion. I have mixed feelings about this: on one hand, I think its something that was neglected at Cambridge. Sure, we would have to make and defend arguments with our supervisor but its not really the same as having to challenge people and advance arguments in a group setting, which I think there is a lot to be said for skills-wise. And apart from the odd exceptions, I would say that the students here are far faster and far more confident when challenged to think on their feet than students back home... its just a different approach to learning where the emphasis is far more on discussion than on written argument I think.

Having said that though, I hate the notion of grading people for their level of participation. Why? Because it encourages people to talk for the sake of talking, not for the sake of having something useful or insightful to say. I cant even count the number of times someone has raised their hand at the end of a lecture and begun their sentence with "you mentioned [insert something that could be looked up on wikipedia] and I was wondering if you could speak a bit more about it..." Its not useful - people just thinking of questions - any questions - for the sake of being seen to be participating. But then again, even if its quite a large annoyance in the short-term, the bigger picture is that its a way of making people more confident to speak out which can only be a good thing so I should probably stop complaining...

Another nitty-gritty point I will quickly make (its more of a rant, really) goes back to the issue of essays. I had to write my first one this week (hence my protracted blog absence...) which was an incredibly frustrating experience. Not only is the word limit far too constraining, but you also get marked down for reading more than is set on the reading list (in my case, a mammoth list of 4 articles - no not books, articles) which is just a bizarre concept for me... I think its a political science thing. Regardless, its pretty nonsensical.

As a gross generalisation that might well be unfounded, I tend to find myself thinking that the Cambridge learning experience gives you more room to be your own person, to come up with your own individual opinions and really make an argument that is yours. Your taught how to write - and how to write persuasively. Here, on the other hand, because you don't have time to go into anything in any substantial depth, you have to just settle for the various arguments of other people without ever really developing your own. At the same time, however, your taught to engage with each other and participate far more which I do think is incredibly important.

Now, from all this it may sound like I value the Cambridge experience far more than the Harvard one, but its actually too hard a call to make. For example, having been here for however many weeks I feel like I have learnt far more than I did in twice that time at Cambridge. Breadth, then, is in no way a bad thing but actually a very satisfying thing. The sheer variety of stuff you cover in a semester also makes sure that things don't get half as monotonous as they could at Cambridge - three years of weekly essays is not conducive to sanity, I can tell you that much!

However unsatisfactory it may be, then, Im afraid that the only conclusion I can come to is that both have their different strengths and weaknesses and its just too difficult to raise one above the other. For history I would choose Cambridge every time, yet for political science Harvard is literally leagues ahead. What can I say other than I've somehow ended up with well and truly the best of both worlds!