The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting yesterday published a statement in the daily newspapers purporting to lay out the truth about the controversial Kenya Communications Amendment Bill, 2008.

We note with concern that the ministry has not responded to the specific objections raised by the media industry about the Bill, but has resorted to generalised statements accusing the media of impure motive.

The statement was replete with inaccuracies and distortions about the implications of the Bill and the consultations which took place before it was passed by Parliament, without most of the amendments Dr Bitange Ndemo had promised the media industry representatives would be included in the final document.

There were numerous meetings held between media stakeholders and the Ministry of Information and Communications, the Parliamentary Committee on Energy and Communications, Prime Minister, Vice President, Justice and Constitutional Affairs minister and other interested parties.

But we were dismayed that many important proposals and amendments made by the industry to make this Bill democratic and respectful of free communication were ignored.

Of particular concern is the manner in which the Bill was sneaked into Parliament for passage on December 10 despite the media industry being assured that it would be held back pending agreement on contentious issues.

The ministry states that the Government remains committed to media freedom and has no intention of gagging the media. That is far from the truth. The effect of a law that gives the minister and the CCK authority to issue guidelines and edicts on broadcast content and programming amounts directly to interference with the operations of the media and its editorial independence

The media industry recognises that it is necessary to update the Kenya Communications Act, 1998, to embrace new developments in communications.

But the regulations proposed for the Broadcast media under the new amendments, particularly in regard to ethics, standards and complaints, are already provided for under The Media Act, 2007, which established a Complaints Commission under the Media Council of Kenya. Yet the Bill creates a parallel regulatory mechanism controlled by the minister that duplicates the work of the independent Media Council.

SECTION 88
Section 88 of the current Communications Act allows the minister for Internal Security to declare any situation "a public emergency" or cite "interests of public safety and tranquility" in order to raid broadcast stations and seize equipment.

The media industry repeatedly proposed an amendment which would ensure that such action could only be taken under a State of Emergency declared by the President in the manner defined by the Constitution. But in its selective amendment of the Act, the ministry ignored the proposals and the excessive powers of the Minister for Internal Security were left intact
This law has been abused before — in the police raid against The Standard Group and to justify the ban on live broadcast after the disputed elections.

Section SB: Independence of the commission
The ministry's statement avoided reference to the industry's concerns about the lack of independence of the Communications Commission of Kenya.

The commission's independence is a mere declaration under section 5B.

The Commission is executive-appointed without the participation of stakeholders. Parliament or any other interest groups — The Chair of the Commission is appointed by the President, four of its members are Permanent Secretaries (again Presidential appointees) and the remaining seven are ministerial appointees.

This all-powerful commission will receive "policy guidelines" on the broadcast industry "of a general nature". Shouldn't members of the Commission's Board be approved by Parliament? And given its level of expertise, should the minister issue guidelines to or take advice from the board?

Section 46 (c, h): Programming
This section gives the Communications Commission of Kenya unilateral powers to prescribe to broadcasters, without consulting them, what time, type and manner of programmes to air. A programme code as proposed is desirable but it has to be agreed between the industry and the Commission in order to guarantee editorial independence. Enforcement of the Code of Ethics and Practice, and complaints over media content, should be left to the Media Council of Kenya.

Section 46 (i): Responsibility and Good Taste
It is an unquestionable responsibility of broadcasters to ensure content is not immoral or vulgar. But under section 46(i), the ministry seeks to legislate good taste as a standard upon which a broadcaster can be held criminally liable. In a country with 42 ethnic groups, the media will promote national unity and cultural diversity.

This cannot be achieved by imposing on broadcasters legislation to cultivate an abstract "Kenyan identity" and a value of what is good or abhorrent as defined by the Information Ministry.

Section 46 (c, d) Licensing of broadcasters
The Commission is given sweeping powers to issue or deny licences. Under this section an applicant can be denied a license for failing to fulfill, among other requirements, "such other conditions as may be prescribed".This clause is too open-ended and is susceptible to abuse by a Commission that is only answerable to the minister.

Hate speech and post-election violence
We reject the claim by the Information Ministry that the media in its entirety was responsible for hate speech that contributed to post-election violence, and that the Kenyan media is unethical and unprofessional.This is selective indictment of the media calculated to absolve the various elements of Kenyan society, including politicians and government agencies, who were directly responsible for the post-election crisis as documented in the Waki Report.

From the above it is evident that there are fundamental issues that must be addressed in the Kenya Communications (Amendment) Bill, 2008 as passed by Parliament.

It is for this reason that we are asking the President not to assent to the Bill in its present form.

Signed:

The Government is appalled by the false and misleading impression created by sections of the media regarding the Kenya Communications (Amendment) Bill, 2008, that is now awaiting Presidential Assent after it went through Parliament last week.

The Government wishes to take this early opportunity to set the record straight on this matter.
We wish to restate for the umpteenth time that the Government has no intention of gagging the media. Indeed, this Government has remained firmly committed to the freedom of the press and it will continue to be so.

We want to assure the media and the general public that the Government has no intention either in the present or in the future of undermining press freedom.

We have always embraced the spirit of dialogue with the media in the understanding that a true democratic culture demands that we uphold the principles espoused in the art of compromise - not coercion.

It is, therefore, very disheartening to see that at a critical time like this, and on a debate concerning a matter of such importance as the regulation of the broadcasting industry, the media have decided to give a lopsided debate and kill any dissenting views. Indeed, since the Bill went through Parliament last Thursday, the media have decided to black out most of the views in favour of the Bill, giving prominence to sideshows.

We also wish to point out that Section 88 which has become subject of the current debate, is not among the amendments proposed by the Minister for Information and Communications. Rather, this clause is in the Kenya Communications Act, 1998, which has been in existence for 10 years.
Further, the Bill has been wrongly dubbed the Media Bill.

It is in fact a Communications Bill whose intention is to harmonise the converged information and communications sectors.

With the convergence of technologies, it has become necessary to amend the Kenya Communications Act, 1998, to embrace the new and emerging media.

It is important for everyone concerned to know that liberalisation of the media was not accompanied by commensurate policy and legal framework, including guidelines on such issues as broadcast programme content. The proposed amendments are intended to streamline and introduce regulatory provisions in electronic transactions and broadcasting.

The Amendment Bill seeks to address the following policy objectives among others:

a) Create regulatory, advisory and dispute resolution bodies to support the implementatioon of the national information and communication technologies policy.

b) Provide new regulatory framework for broadcasting stations and services.

c) Provide for the licensing of certification service providers and country top level domain administrators; and

d) Provide for electronic transaction-related offences including cybercrime and re-programming of mobile telephones.

In broadcasting, the Bill, inter alia, proposes to empower the Communications Commission of Kenya (CCK) to license and regulate broadcasting service as well as promote the development of local content in addition to allocating frequencies.

The Bill further seeks to enable CCK to set broadcasting standards, and sets up a mechanism for handling complaints by the public.

In Electronic Transactions, the Bill provides a legal framework for e-commerce through legal recognition of electronic records and signatures. It also creates offences with respect to electronic records and transactions including cybercrime, destruction of electronic records and re-programming of mobile telephones.

The Bill also proposes the establishment of the Universal Service Fund to be financed by, among others, levies from licensees.

The Fund will be used to promote information and communication technologies services in rural and other under-served areas.

The Bill also has provisions seeking to empower CCK to ensure fair competition in the sector.
Kenyans will agree that due to the lack of a broadcasting regulatory framework, we have witnessed an unprecedented broadcast of unsuitable content including, I dare say, pornographic content.

The Government has embraced the spirit of dialogue with the media and all stakeholders in this matter and we are dismayed by the lopsided and misleading impression being created by the media, suggesting that the Government has ill motive in publishing this Bill. Indeed, the debate right now is not about media freedom.

The agenda being created by the media is clearly a tactic to divert public attention from the salient issues of broadcast regulation by introducing issues such as the taxation of Members of Parliament and the food crisis in the country to demonise this country's leadership.

We wish to inform the public that the Ministry encouraged and maintained a spirit of dialogue and negotiation with media stakeholders since July when we published the Kenya Communications (Amendment) Bill, 2008.

The current heat is obviously intended by its chief proponents to throw away the baby with the bathwater. Today, Kenya is presented with an opportunity to make a vital decision to enact a law that will regulate the electronic media, by promoting ethical standards and enhancing our moral values.

While press freedom is a cardinal pillarof democracy, an unethical and unprofessional media is a threat to peace and can cause great harm as evidenced during the Rwanda genocide of 1994.
Kenya came to the brink of a similar crisis early this year partly due to the airing of hate speeches by some FM radio stations.

That the country is in dire need of a legal framework for the regulation of the electronic media is not in dispute. The responsibility of ensuring that there are appropriate broadcasting policies that promote the national good is our sacred duty.

We must not, as a country, allow the heat of the moment to define our terms of social engagement. Kenyans must be called upon to reject the whipping up of emotions that deny them the fuller view of the issues that are pertinent to their lives.

It is my sincere hope that the media will digest this particular criticism in good faith so that in future they can promote dialogue.

The Government would like to restate that we mean well and remain committed to media freedom.

In addition to this statement, and to further set the record straight, the Ministry hereby reproduces the following:

(i) The broadcasting portion of the Bill

(ii) Section 88 of the Kenya Communication Act, 1998 (this section is not part of the Kenya Communications (Amendment) Bill 2008).

In conclusion, it is saddening to note that the media have gone ahead to publish personalized attacks on the Minister for Information and Communications and other Ministry officials.

This negates the genuine and open engagement that the Ministry and the Government have had with the media in the past:

Dr. Bitange Ndemo
Permanent Secretary
Ministry of Information and Communications

In response to an article appearing in the Sunday Nation on 14th December, 2008 'Millers make millions as Kenyans starve', our clarification is as follows:

'Min of Agriculture virtually giving 400,000 bags of maize, bought at taxpayers' expense free to a cartel of millers. 400,000 bags were to go to contracted millers to make the cheap flour'.

A statement released by the Prime Minister on 1st December 2008, directed the NCPB to release 1.2m bags of maize immediately to registered millers at Kshs 1750 per bag in an endeavor to reduce the price of maize flour within 5-10 days.

Due to time constraints the allocation committee comprising SGR trustees (PS Finance, Special Programmes & Agriculture), millers and the NCPB made a decision to immediately release and allocate 400,000 of the 1.2million bags to available millers. Of the 400,000, only 58,631 bags were allocated to toll milling at Kshs 200 per bag.

The balance 341,369 bags of maize, was sold at a price of Kshs 1750 per bag to the millers who would use this maize for their branded products and sell at Kshs 65 per 2kg pkt ex-factory.

There is no milling cost paid to mill this maize.

'Four millers so far are contracted to mill maize on the Government's behalf and give it back for distribution.

In the interim, the Government identified 8 millers with substantial milling capacities to contract mill in Nairobi and Thika as there was insufficient maize quantities at other NCPB depots in the country. The millers are Unga Ltd, Uzuri Foods Ltd, Mombasa Maize Millers (Nrb), Pembe Flour Mills, Kabansora Millers, Nairobi Flour Mills, Chania Flour Mills and Capwell Industries.

The Government was to introduce contract milling to other parts of the country once adequate maize supplies had been received.

'They will be paid Kshs 80 million for the job'.

The Kshs 200 per 90kg bag paid to the miller for contract milling is lower than village posho mills who charge Kshs 270 to mill a 90kg bag and whose production cost is significantly lower.

Cost of milling 58,631 bags for the Government would be approx 11.8 million shillings.

'the by-product makes up to 15% of every bag. For 400,000 bags, that would make 60,000 bags and 'in theory' translate into a Kshs 54,000,000 extra income for the millers'

The bran portion is 15% of the maize and is sold at a price of Kshs 10 per kg of bran, working out to approx Kshs 7.9 million for the 58,631 bags.

Journalistic prudence warrants the verification of facts before making unsubstantiated claims. The toll milling agreement was negotiated after careful consideration of all the facts and figures in the presence of the Prime Minister, Minister for Agriculture, PS Office of the Prime Minister, PS Agriculture, PS Special Programs, PS Finance, MD NCPB, Cereal Millers Association as well as representatives of individual millers.

To claim that all of the above jointly conspired to defraud the taxpayer and to assert that millers are making profits of Kshs 1.4 billion is not only ludicrous, it is unfair and undermines the efforts of all who have worked tirelessly to reduce the prices of maize flour to benefit the consumer.


Diamond Laji
Chairman - Cereal Millers Association - 16 Dec 2008

Kenya Land Alliance (KLA) is a Network of Civil Society Organizations and Individuals for Effective Advocacy for Land Laws and Policy Reforms in Kenya.

The Kenya Land Alliance, KLA, joins the global community in marking the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UDHR adopted by state members of the United Nations in 1948. The adoption of the UDHR 60 years ago marked a critical milestone in human history towards the official codification, recognition and commitments to the protection of all human rights for all human race.

In the same vein, the member states of United Nations adopted the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, ICESCR, in 1966 that sets out among others, the rights to adequate housing, food, education, health, and social security among other social, economic and cultural rights.

Having ratified both the UDHR and the ICESCR instruments, the 60th Anniversary of the UDHR is of particular importance to Kenya and the world as a whole as it is the year in which UN Member States were finally expected to approve the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, that ought to guarantee a balanced protection to these rights as with other rights stipulated in other equally important international Human Rights Instruments.

Consequently, KLA reminds the Government of Grand Coalition that basic survival and enjoyment of a sustainable livelihood in Kenya by all Kenyans depends greatly on secure access to land as a safety net to the majority poor people. Thus, the Government stands reminded that the resettlement of the recent and old Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) is a transitional justice issue that will confirm the Government's resolve and commitment to permanently address the breakdown of law and order in our country.

Most critically, the continued languishing in IDPs camps, of thousands of Kenyans displaced as a result of the contested Presidential elections of December 2007, illustrates the stark failure of the Government to uphold the right to an adequate standard of living, including food, clothing and housing as affirmed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) Article 25, and ICESCR Article 11.

KLA wish to point out to the Government at this appropriate time that although the UDHR does not specifically mention "land" or "natural resources", the realization of a number of its various rights is dependent on secure access and use of land and other natural resources, as indeed is the realization of other rights stipulated in other International Human Rights instruments.

As we mark this year's Human Rights Day today (10th Dec 2008), KLA wishes to bring it to the attention of the government that secure access to land and other natural resources is one of the fundamental factors for the realization of the right to food, and right to housing. This is not to say that KLA is unaware that the right to food does not always necessitate an automatic right to land as the aim of access to food for all may be achieved through other means such as formal employment or off-farm income.

However, in the Kenyan situation where such other means are limited or insufficient, and the majority of the people living below the poverty line are mostly dependent on land for basic livelihoods especially in rural areas, the rights to land and other natural resources are crucial in order to realize the right to food. And in all circumstances, the production of food for sale in the market for wealth creation requires secure access to land. I

t is for this reason that KLA wished the government good tiding in dealing with the IDPs crisis. But having monitored the "Operation Rudi Nyumbani" since May 2008 when the government embarked on resettling IDPs back to their homes, the true situation is that IDPs have been moved from large IDPs camps only to end up and continue to live in worn out tents in poorly equipped and serviced 'transit' camps close to their farms, a situation that further aggravates their right to shelter, personal development and dignity, sanitation, and security.

On this Human Rights Day we join other human rights groups and organizations on calling the government to bring the whole exercise into line with accepted international standards on comprehensively addressing the Internal Displacement issue.

It is unacceptable that the government up to date has failed on its UN Habitat Agenda commitment on the objective of providing legal security of tenure and access to adequate shelter for all people, including women and children living in IDPs camps all over Kenya. Indeed the right to property was affirmed by the UDHR, Article 17, which stipulates:

..that everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others; and no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of property; a position well domesticated through our own Constitution.

The protection of property rights was equally reaffirmed in the convention concerning Indigenous and Tribal People (Article 16); the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (Article 11, General Comment 7); the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families (Article 15); the Principles on Housing and Property Restitution for Refugees and Displaced Persons ("The Pinheiro Principles") (Principles 5 and 7); and the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (Article 14) which are central to the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement on resettlement matters.

KLA therefore takes this opportunity to point out to the government that while these instruments do not make explicit reference to land and other natural resources, with the exception of the Convention concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, and the Pinheiro Principles, the reality of most Kenyans is that their most valuable property is their land and the houses and structures that are built on it, and the contingent natural resources associated with it.

Thus, KLA puts it to the government that responsible governance of land tenure must guarantee the realization of the fundamental rights of adequate food and shelter, and of property. Good land tenure system that eliminates a rise to violent conflicts is relevant to the attainment of the Millennium Development Goals. Specifically the government need to note that secure access to land and other natural resources is a direct factor in reducing hunger and poverty (MDG 1), promotion of gender equality and empowerment of women (MDG 3) and to ensuring environmental sustainability (MDG 7).

The government in dealing with IDPs crisis need to understand that it is responsible and accountable for its actions and omissions, vis a vis its population (citizenry). The present state of affairs demonstrates that the political will of the state clearly prioritizes the interests of minorities instead of the welfare of overwhelmingly poor majority of the Kenyan population. As we mark the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights these priorities must be set straight.

KLA, the human rights network for land rights calls on the Kenya Government to:

1. Meet its obligations under Universal Declaration of Human Rights and International Human Rights Law, by taking urgent action to settle once and for all, the Internally Displaced Persons as a sure means of respecting, protecting and fulfilling their rights to adequate shelter, and to feed themselves.

2. Take immediate measures to support the finalization and implementation of the National Land Policy, which contains provisions that guarantee redress to land problem of the Internally Displaced Persons and safeguards against recurrence of displacement.

3. Ensure coherence of all food related policies as an obligation under the right to food. In particular, policies on agriculture, trade and investment, development and energy, should contribute to promote and never undermine the full realization of the right to adequate food as is the case today in Kenya.

4. Impose an immediate moratorium on land grabbing and transaction in land and property left behind by the Internally Displaced Persons until their safe return to their homes is guaranteed and/or until such a time that they can transact with it under no duress.

Signed by;
Odenda Lumumba National Co-ordinator,
Kenya Land Alliance 10th December 2008
C.K. Patet Building, 6th Floor Kenyatta Avenue,
P.O.Box 2177 - 20100 Nakuru.
Tel. 254-051-2210398 Fax 254-051-2215982
E Mail: klal@africaonline.co.ke, info@kenyalandalliance.or.ke
Website: www.kenyalandalliance.or.ke

The Eastern Africa Grain Council (EAGC) is a regional member-based organization for the grain value chain stakeholders whose members are farmers, traders, millers and service providers such as banks, warehouse operators and input suppliers from the East African Community (EAC), Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) and Southern Africa Development Cooperation (SADC) regional trading blocs.

The Council promotes structured trading systems and open market grain trade policy. The Council encourages Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) for the sustainable development of the maize sector in the region.

The EAGC welcomes the urgent measures taken by the Government of Kenya to deal with the rising price of maize flour through subsidy and approval of importation of white and yellow maize on duty free basis.

The use of yellow maize for animal feed will go a long way to ease the pressure on white maize for human consumption and mitigate against the projected shortfall for next year as the current harvest is expected to be below the Country's requirement for 2009.

These policy measures need to be temporary and backed up by measures to stimulate the sector. How does Kenya and our regional trading bloc partners meet domestic demand of maize and raise their share in the regional maize market? The answer lies in efficient production of maize.

This in turn depends on willingness of the private sector to invest in the maize value chain - supply of inputs, production, post-harvest handling infrastructure, processing and logistics. Free market policies are a must in eliciting investor response to this opportunity.

The regional trade policy (which Kenya subscribes to through the EAC Customs Union Protocol) encourages an efficient and structured open border trading. By encouraging investments in the maize sector Kenyan farmers and traders could benefit from producing a surplus to meet the regional maize market demand. In 2007, the size of the regional maize market (EAC and COMESA) was estimated at slightly over US$1 billion.

The region's share in this market was a mere 13%. This clearly demonstrates existence of a regional market potential of about 77% which is up for grabs.

Kenya led the way for other regional countries, way back in 1986, in embracing export led trade policies, which gradually led to abolition of commodity and price and market control regimes.

This policy environment has contributed to the success of maize sector, where according to the available statistics Kenya has been able to meet domestic maize demand in most of the years, with production in 2007 having been estimated at 3.1 million tonnes and consumption 3.3million tones, the shortfall was met by importation from the region by the private sector.

This calls for safeguarding the milestones already realized in maize market reform and supporting production in order to meet domestic demand as well as increase Kenya's share in the regional maize market.

Efforts should, therefore be made to enable the vibrant Kenyan maize sector to return to normalcy as soon as possible. A consultative meeting held by EAGC for its Kenyan members made the following recommendations for sustainable structured maize trade:

To address the current maize crisis, the following is recommended: -

1. The MoA should involve EAGC on policy and good governance issues in maize in view of its role as an honest broker by virtue of it being a regional grain Council whose private sector membership includes farmers, traders, millers, input suppliers and other stakeholders.

2. The Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) to immediately establish a Public/Private sector grain consultative forum:

a. To immediately determine the available stock and shortfall.
b. To ensure grain forecasting and preparation of a national balance sheet.
c. This consultative forum will also be an accountability forum on actions agreed.

3. All traders, millers and NCPB to purchase maize from the farmers at market prices.

4. The City Council Cess on maize which is currently KShs40 per bag should be scrapped with immediate effect as this cost is passed on to consumers.

a. Measures to enhance production of maize to address national maize requirements in the future on a sustainable basis.
b. Encourage investments into land consolidation for purposes of large scale maize production
c. Government to provide support to bring down the cost of inputs - diesel, fertilizer.

On fertilizer, the government should allow private sector importation and distribution of the fertilizer under the GoK program on fertilizer. The fertilizer should also be imported and availed to the farmers in time for planting season.

5. The following measures, along with other measures to uphold free market principles should be considered as a matter of priority: -

We should have the support from GoK and other local partners/stakeholders on market information collection, verification, consolidation and dissemination.

6. EAGC Should take lead by working with COMESA and EAC in pursuing the following regional policy options: -

EAGC, in pursuit of its objective of promoting structured trading systems and open market grain trade policy in EAC, COMESA and SADC will be available to facilitate continued engagement between all stakeholders in search for a lasting solution to the current challenge.

Contact

EAGC executive;
Constantine Kandie Hevea Park, Block
P.O Box 218-00606 Nairobi, KENYA
Tel: +254 20 3745840
Fax: +254 20 3745841
www.eagc.org
www.ratin.net

GITAU WARIGI, of the Nation Media Group, brought into light the need for Tanzania leaders, to look beyond 20 years from now, before committing the country into the EA treaty. To describe the Dar es Salaam government as an impediment to the creation of the East African Community reveals that, Mr. Warigi, was not rational on his thinking towards the complication. He failed to employ logic on the reluctance, the ardent nature, and the need for the Tanzanians to study the pros and cons before making a decision.

Describing Tanzania as dirt poor country, whose economy is dwarfed by that of Kenya, a country whose leaders spends time strutting the world than they do in their own country, a country that lacks dynamism and skills to drive its economy forward at the pace of its neighbors, amounts to nothing than a direct insult to the Tanzanians whom he is frustrated with, and angrily courting to join the community. Insulting Tanzanian leaders (Including our Head of State) translates to insulting the wisdom of Tanzanians who elected them.

As a Tanzanian, and a patriot, I am OFFENDED. And depicting Gitau Warigi’s, commentary as personal opinion would be naivety and self deceit on the part of Tanzanians, since he is exploiting national (Kenyan) media to let his views of hatred, prejudice, myopic, and stereotype mentality be known. Mr. Warigi, is exposing some of the underlying problems Tanzanians will have to deal with incase the treaty goes through without scrutiny.

Arrogance, superiority complex, recklessness, illogical reasoning, out of scope assumptions and erratic behaviors must be thoroughly weighed before committing our country, into the community. I highly believe he (Warigi) is speaking for the corrupt Kenyan regime, and not the infringed ordinary citizens, whose voices are not represented by the self imposed rulers. Maybe he was forced serve as a mouth piece (conduit) for some forces beyond his control since he has been more or less of rhetorical than logical in his offensive towards Dar es Salaam.

While economic consequences seem to be of greater concern, our security, social, culture and political setting trepidation were neglected by our brother, a Kenyan, and an editor, who failed to address our concerns. Yes, there are benefits of forming treaties or other blocs, within different regions, and these benefits can be realized without compromising a country’s political establishment, culture, and security. Reforming tariff’s system is one of the ways; free movement of people and goods across boarders can be another one.

Mr. Warigi, needs to get his facts straight, and learn more about NAFTA before dictating to Tanzanian’s the course of action. He is failing to understand that NAFTA has been a one sided Treaty, that has simply failed!

In the United States, as economist and a friend, Gary Bollinger details, NAFTA has eliminated some 1,266,000 job opportunities-primarily for non-college-educated workers in manufacturing. Contrary to what the American promoters of NAFTA promised U.S. workers, the agreement did not result in an increased trade surplus with Mexico, but the reverse.

As manufacturing jobs disappeared, workers were downscaled to lower-paying, less-secure services jobs. Within manufacturing, the threat of employers to move production to Mexico proved a powerful weapon for undercutting workers' bargaining power.

This continent-wide pattern of stagnant worker incomes, increased insecurity, and rising inequality has emerged at a time when economic conditions have been most favorable for the success of greater continental integration. The negative effect of increasing trade and investment flows has been obscured by the extraordinary consumer boom in the United States, especially during the period from 1996 through the summer of 2000.

The boom, driven by the expansion of domestic consumer credit and a speculative bubble in the stock market, spilled over to Canada and Mexico. Their economies have now become extremely dependent on the capacity of U.S. consumers to continue to spend in excess of their incomes. As the air seeps out of that bubble, the cost of those nations' reliance on the U.S. consumer market is becoming apparent.

The wave of unskilled workers crossing the boarder into the US, from Mexico, is creating a social time bomb for the hardworking educated American population who are being taxed heavily to provide social benefits for the less educated, and unskilled migrants from Latin America. Neither France nor Germany has gained anything substantial from Slovakia, in their EU integration, AND LAND has never been an issue.

While Kenyan’s were adapting their master’s language, English to be precise, Tanzanians were working towards their national Identity. And this is evident by the national language that has shunned tribalism and brought about pride not only to Tanzania, but for Kenya as well.

Kiswahili, that is, is the source our tolerance, and open-mindedness. It is the source of Tanzania brotherhood.

Many of the so-called Kenyan, semi-literate experts have nothing more than broken English in Tanzania offices, and if GITAU Warigi, feels that Kenya is more developed than Tanzania, then there is no need to cry for the Integration, because it is going to be a one sided game.

Simple mastery of a foreign language does not constitute a viable skill to be proud of.

Mind you, It is shameful to celebrate one’s cultural identity, and a form of slavery of some sort, to abandon your own for that matter. It will be prudent for Gitau, to give exact count of Tanzanians in Kenya offices to that of Kenyans in Tanzania trotting with crude and broken English.

Germans, have their own language, so are the Russians and the British. The Spanish and Italians speak their respective languages. Rwandese, Ugandans, and the Burundis both speak, Rwandese, Kiganda and Kirundi, and so are the Tanzanians.

We are proud of Kiswahili; it gives us a unique Identity as Africans and a nation.

A country known globally for her landless and landowners culture, if you will, cannot be allowed to export the pandemic to her neighbors. Tanzania will be committing a crime of a century to her people by following blindly the perilous path of privatizing her land.

We cannot comprehend a situation in which the famous Kikuyu’s tycoons, owning millions of hectors of land in Tanzania, yet the “poor” Tanzanians by their definition, stacked in the replica of Mathare, Kibera, and Kariobangi slums as squatters. Land privatization is a social injustice and pandemic a country whose foundation lies on brotherhood cannot adopt.

In 2007, Kenya, exported to Tanzania, twenty hardcore robbers whom were all armed to their teeth with battle field weaponry, and ready for action. Fortunately, 14, of them were gunned down before they could wreck-havoc to the peace loving Tanzanians.
If these men had same passports or Identity cards as Tanzania’s, no one would have known their country of origin.

I am sure there are many more cross boarder cases of banditry that do not make it to the national spotlight, but meant to frustrate the peaceful Tanzanians. I assume, these are some of the benefits GITAU is rushing us to enjoy, as the fruits of his “cross-pollination.”

Peace and harmony within Tanzania, are not products of coincidence, they are fruits of tolerance; they are social and political forbearance that have evolved through so many years of hard work. Our national pride “Kiswahili” has made the country a model for peace and harmony, as it is next to impossible to identify a Tanzanian by his ethnicity. Yet in Kenya, tribal identity dictates where to do business and where not to, when you belong to a certain tribe. Pathetically it also dictates who to hire for key positions.

Kalenjins and Luos are Kikuyu’s arch enemies, and so are the Kikuyus and Luyas. We don’t want this type of culture within our borders, and I do hope leaders in Dar es Salaam, are reading the signs on the wall, while working for the best interest of the 40 million hardworking, peace loving Tanzanians. There can be integration without losing our national Identity, pride, integrity, or compromising our security. We can also maintain our political tolerance within the unity without adopting the scary land reform proposal from Kenya.

Ages when people jumped into bandwagons without critically thinking or questioning WHY, are long gone. If our Kenyan neighbors are frustrated with us, I guess that will be their business.

Tanzania is NOT a banana republic, it is a free country ruled by logic, reason, and the will of the people and our leaders cannot jump the ship without knowing where it is headed. We are for the integration, but under a conducive environment where we are going to be treated as equals.

At stake is not the mere signing of the treaty, it is the future of the 40 million Tanzanians who can not be let down out of utter ignorance. If Kenyans are unwilling to compromise, they are at liberty to replace Tanzania, her southern neighbor, with Somalia, which is poorer than Tanzania, and both of them will benefit.

Mr. Warigi, it is time to wake up from your long snooze, instead of thinking in the terms of 1961. It may have taken a long time, but we are getting there. Tanzania has changed; her youth are well exposed, new vibrant leaders with mastery of your so called language of pride (generation X) are emerging. Times to dictate to sovereign nations on how to think are long gone, and the main Impediments, and obstacles to the EAC ratification is not Dar es Salaam authorities, it is the hasty, arrogance and your erratic attitude of either you are with us, or against us!

Mungu Ibariki Tanzania!

JOHN MASHAKA,
A TANZANIAN PATRIOT
mashaka.john@yahoo.com

More on the EAC Treaty Debate:
Tom Mshindi: As Tanzania dithers, EA integration must roll on