Responsibility to Protect in Kenyan and Darfur Crises: A Critical Deconstruction of the Ideology of AfSol in the Lens of R2P, Normative International Relations Theory, and the Jetliners-Rigs Approach for Peacebuilding and Conflict Resolution

Abstract

Morality, trust, social ties, shared institutions, and social capital are in short supply
after ethnic wars: ethnic identity is prominent; attachment to collective myths and
symbols offensive to other groups is strong; avoidance is legitimate; minority
returnees are not welcome; and disputants harbour deep-seated grievances. How
can peace and culture of tolerance be nurtured in such a social milieu? (Oberschall,
2007:231).
The statement above represents the challenge of this research. Studies indicate
that African conflicts are rooted in complex constructions and conjectures of the
continent’s political economies, social identities, and cultural ecologies, each of
which is derived from local, national, and regional historical experiences and
patterns of engagement with an ever changing world system (Nhema and Zeleza,
2008). These conflicts threaten regional stability, destroy human lives as well as social
and physical infrastructure, and place at risk minorities’ fundamental freedoms
and human rights. Such a precarious state of events calls for timely and informed
interventions to mitigate conflict protraction and virulence. Studies indicate that
a civic culture of tolerance and respect for minorities is not conceivable without
truth and justice in human affairs (Oberschall, 2007). Therefore, the proliferation
of intrastate conflicts around the world has led to the emergence of transitional
justice mechanisms which respond to legacies of collective violence and systematic
human rights violations in a bid to establish the truth about the past, determine
accountability, and offer some form of redress (Van Der Merwe, et al., 2009).
This study investigates the perception and/or experiences of the respondents about
ethno-political violence, transitional justice, and peacebuilding in Kenya. Kenyan
ethno-political challenge led to the formation of the Truth Justice and Reconciliation
Commission of Kenya (TJRC) and the intervention of the International Criminal Court (ICC) both of which are highly critiqued by a section of Kenyans for
their inadequacy to address the Kenyan problem (Rugene, 2010; Barasa, 2009;
Omtata, 2010). Indigenous approaches to peacebuilding, which are thought to be
complimentary forces to the ICC and TJRC have their merits and demerits too.
This study indicates that neither the dualistic model of TJRC and the ICC nor the
Tripartite Hybridity of TJRC, ICC, and indigenous approaches to peacebuilding is
adequate enough in facilitating transitional justice in Kenya.
To complement the gaps of the dualistic and tripartite approaches, this study
has come up with an experience-based grounded model for transitional justice,
peacebuilding and conflict resolution in Kenya informed by the expressed needs
and the recommendations of the study participants. Apart from having the
tripartite hybridity of TJRC, ICC, and indigenous approaches to peacebuilding,
the new model emphasizes the importance of implementing institutional and
policy frameworks that would address historical injustices and structural violence
ingrained in the Kenyan system in order to mitigate ethno-political violence in
the future. If well implemented, the new Kenyan model namely The JET LINERSRIGS
Grounded Approach for peacebuilding and conflict resolution is expected
to nurture sustainable peacebuilding, conflict resolution, and transitional justice
in Kenya.