The US, UK and EU are behind the violence in Kenya as part of a campaign of destabilisation that they want to affect black Africa.

The aim is to stop Kenyan's move towards China and African leaders tendency towards self-determination and distance from the West.

This is more likely than the deep-seated ‘tribal violence’ sparked off by a rigged election explanation that the Western media are promoting.

Even Anglo-American think tanks admit that Kenyans do not have strong ‘tribal identity’. This means they are therefore, they are unlikely to engage in the ‘tribal violence’ that has been publicised.

The violence is on going by design through the Anglo-American Establishment backing the current government and the EU backing the opposition.

The likelihood is that Western covert operatives are paying local people who in turn use Somali refugees, other foreigners and local criminals to create the violence. Meanwhile, they use their ties with the security forces to ensure the police do not stop the violence.

Rigging probably occurred on both sides but the government rigging was made obvious to ensure that this would give cover to the destabilisation campaign.

Reuters tried to send a message to Africa in its news article, 'Kenya's crisis spreads gloom over Africa', ( http://africa.reuters.com/wire/news/usnL03651413.html).

The article states:
''Kenya's sudden spiral into chaos after years as a regional anchor has badly set back Africa's democratic progress and will strike a heavy blow against the economies of a wide swathe of neighbouring nations..."This is the greatest setback to Africa's reputation since the 60s. Kenya has an iconic status, seen as synonymous with Africa," said Kenya expert Michael Holman.'

A destabilisation perspective makes more sense than the explanation advanced by commentators and the media in the West.

They offer a racist, right-wing explanation and a liberal explanation aimed at convinced Left-leaning people and black people.

The right-wing explanation blames backward, irrational Africans who in a crisis revert to their tribal past. The liberal explanation has it that ethnic rivalry has reinforced inequality, poverty and corrupt land distribution that took place 40 years ago.

Left-leaning people probably accept the media line that Kibaki and his ruling Party of National Unity has rigged the elections to keep out a more radical Odinga, who leads the Orange Democratic Movement.

There is no explanation for why it has taken 40 years for supposed land disputes among black people to lead to clashes while the dispute with white land owners had disappeared despite lasting for years.

Police action makes no sense. It may make sense to shoot and kill members of the opposition when they demonstrate because they constitute a threat to the ruling party who issue the orders. But why do they shoot above the heads of gangs intent on killing Kikuyu people who support the government?

It is clear that the intransigence of both leaders is allowing the violence to continue. It is also bizarre that no state of emergency has been declared.

Commentators have admitted that people of different ethnic groups have lived together and married one another for years and that there is no history of such brutal ethnic violence.

They have also had to admit that the violence is organised rather than spontaneous and planned by local politicians and business people.

Research by Kenya Human Rights Watch ( http://allafrica.com/stories/200801281649.html) accuses opposition politicians and local elders of planning and organising ethnic-based violence in the Rift Valley. This violence was planned before the election took place.

BBC Online carries reports from local people who say outsiders are forcing others to join their attacks on Kikuyu,  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7215107.stm.

Even the main think tank of the US foreign policy establishment, and tool of the Anglo-American Establishment, the Council on Foreign Relations argues: 'Because elections are such high-stakes affairs, political candidates are accustomed to hiring groups of young, armed men to protect their interests (this practice is also common in Nigeria). Each poll since the introduction of multiparty elections—in 1992, 1997, and 2002—has been accompanied by low-level outbreaks of violence...While there was not a history of ethnic violence under British rule, colonial officials fostered divisions among Kenya’s ethnic groups to prevent them from uniting against their rulers.'
(‘Understanding Kenya’s Politics’, Foreign Affairs, January 2008,  http://www.cfr.org/publication/15322/understanding_kenyas_politics.html)

They also say:
'News reports were quick to label the violence that followed December 2007 presidential elections as tribal, but some experts say this is a gross oversimplification. Contrary to prevailing attitudes, Kenyans have not traditionally identified themselves by ethnic group and studies have shown they do not have significant feelings of ethnic injustice. In a 2003 Afrobarometer survey, 70 percent said they would choose to be Kenyan if faced with a choice between a national identity and their ethnic group (28 percent refused to identify themselves as anything but Kenyan). Analysts say much of the unrest that erupted after the December 2007 polls was just the latest display of politically organized violence. Political coalitions on both sides hired thugs to do their bidding, and ordinary Kenyans were caught in the cross fire, they say.'

In fact the 'dominant' Kikuyu group are not that dominant. The Kikuyu are only 20 percent of the population and are one of 14 major groups. Opposition leader Odinga is said to lead the Luo people who are 12 percent while the Luhya are 14 percent.

Somali is north of Kenya and has been subject to US covert operations under the guise of fighting Islamic fundamentalists (US covert operations underway in Somalia; resource conflict escalates over Horn of Africa, Larry Chin, Global Research, May 2006,  http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=2524) US military intervention has led to thousands of Somali refugees, including militias, settling in northern Kenya. Some of these Somalis have British and other European passports. (‘Somalia: Humanitarian crisis looms at Kenya Somali border’, East African Standard, January 2007,  http://www.thestatesmanonline.com/pages/news_detail.php?newsid=1904&section=12). Somalis operating under US command have made alliances with local thugs to promote violence in Kenya.

The background to this conflict has not been outlined. Some local Kenyans who support Kibaki claim state revenue needs only 5 percent of aid from EU, and China and most come from local taxes. While EU countries are losing millions because trade they used to monopolise has not gone to China.

In 2004, there were reports that the China-Kenya trade had gone up 34 percent over a year since 2002 representing US$250m,
 http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-21077401_ITM

The Chinese influence in Africa is also growing. In April 2007, The East African Standard ( http://allafrica.com/stories/200704241123.html) in Nairobi quoted a Chinese official saying:

"Following the principle of equality, mutual benefit and common development, we intend to sustain the growth and strive to achieve the goal of $100 billion (Sh7 trillion) in trade volume with Africa by 2030."

The report went on to say:
'Qinglin drew critics of Chinese ties with Africa to statistics, which show that since its reform and opening-up programme began, it has contributed to 14 percent of annual world economic growth...He noted equally that economic cooperation and trade between China and Africa had grown rapidly in the new century, becoming an engine driving the economic development in Africa.'

This is leading to greater confidence among African leaders who have traditionally bowed to the West. Before the Kenyan election on 15 December, in an article entitled 'Africans united in rejecting European arrogance', the website Race and History ( http://www.raceandhistory.com/Zimbabwe/2007/1512.html) wrote:

'The recent summit between African heads of states and the EU has shown that Europe has failed to move beyond their colonial–era past–times of economic and political bullying. The African delegates gave Europe an unmistakable cold shoulder on the two big issues of the conference: trade, especially the European proposed Economic Partnership Agreements, and European political interference in African affairs, centered on British arrogance towards Zimbabwe.'

They also wrote:
'Europe's ulterior motive behind the summit was candidly admitted by the Financial Times which stated on Sunday 9th December that it was "meant to showcase a new partnership to counter China's growing influence in Europe's former colonies." '

The US is able to influence Kenya’s police and security forces through its financial aid and training programmes. According to the US-based, Association of Concern Africa Scholars:

‘The United States is also providing training and equipment to Kenya's military, internal security, and police forces through several global and regional programs. These include, the:

• The East Africa Counter-Terrorism Initiative established in 2003 as a multi-year program with $100 million in funding to provide training to Kenya as well as to Uganda, Tanzania, Djibouti, Eritrea, and Ethiopia.

• The Anti-Terrorism Assistance (ATA) Program was created in 1983—under the administration of the State Department Bureau of Diplomatic Security—to provide training, equipment, and technology to countries all around the world to support their participation in America's Global War on Terrorism. The largest ATA program in Africa is targeted at Kenya, where it helped created the Kenyan Antiterrorism Police Unit (KAPU) in 2004 to conduct anti-terrorism operations, the Joint Terrorism Task Force in 2004 to coordinate anti-terrorism activities (although the unit was disbanded by the Kenyan government in 2005, and is now training and equipping members of a multi-agency, coast guard-type unit to patrol Kenya's coastal waters. Between 2003 and 2005 (the most recent years for which this information is available), ATA provided training both in Kenya and in the United States to 454 Kenyan police, internal security, and military officers.’
(U.S. Military Activities in Kenya By Daniel Volman, January 5, 2008,  http://www.concernedafricascholars.org/080110_volman.php.)

Odinga's orange movement is likely to be receiving support from the architect of the colour revolutions, Mark Brezinzski, son of the former National Security Council chief and leading intellectual of the Anglo-American Establishment, Zbigniev Brezinzski.

The Brezinzski family are currently advising US Democratic candidate, Barack Obama. Behind Brezinzski is super-rich financier and ‘philanthropist’ is George Soros. Soros’ millions is working towards undermining pro-Chinese Mugabe in Zimbabwe.

The colour revolutions are sophisticated coup that uses millions of dollars to buy crowds and politicians, uses fake polls and exploits genuine grievances to bring about a government supportive of the Anglo-American Establishment. It is a PR-CIA coup that is far more acceptable around the globe than the traditional Pentagon-CIA coup.

Prominent media reports in the colour revlutions is mass protest but violence goes on in the background. It is the other way around in Kenya because this ensures that the destabilisation is prolonged.

Brezinzski is probably supporting the EU in its attempts to replace Kibaki with Odinga. He in serious conflict with the ‘Neo-Crazy’ faction of the Anglo-American Establishment who are pretending to support Kibaki. Both want the destabilisation to be long lasting.

It may very well be that Kibaki is corrupt and wanted a fraudulent election. But he probably thought he would be allowed to promote good business relations with China and retain good relations with the West. The destabilisation shows he has been mistaken.