@Mark, IMO, I think we need to distinguish the conflict aspect first. The 2007/2008 violence is a big deal because no one in the world expected kenyans to do what they did, which was barbaric in these modern times. When a country's citizens turn on each other on the scale of 2008 there is a very big disaster waiting to happen, it is the fire that will fuel unstoppable consequences. Without accountability of such actions, the only glue that holds kenya together is the money flowing into the economy, nothing else. For the perpetrators, they can easily sit on a plane to another country while leaving the country in flames. I think the International Community regard kenyans as extremely resourceful people and know that Kenya's stability and future growth affects other neighbours too. So a lot is expected from us, as regional leaders. We need to accept that we are a global player in many ways, not a local one which probably explains why the presence agencies like the UN at Gigiri. We also need to accept that there are problems that need urgent attention. Me thots.
 
 

 
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 3:59 PM, Mark Mwangi <mwangy@gmail.com> wrote:
my problem with such articles is that it reinforces the notion that 3rd world countries are ruled and inhabited by barbarians and need western help to do anything constructive. So there was violence in 2007/2008, so we still have the perpetrators loose. Big deal. If any conflict makes a country a failed state then no country even the holier-than-though US is exempt. They went through more than enough bloodshed in their infancy for them to take higher ground and publish such reports.

Am not saying the reports are wrong or inaccurate. Am just saying lending them credence and weight is rather timid.