{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027600849256900213, 'fraction_numerical': 0.012502948808681292, 'mean_word_length': 5.162790697674419, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
HUMAN SECURITY IN EAST AFRICA: THE EAC'S ILLUSIVE QUEST FOR INCLUSIVE CITIZENSHIP

1. Introduction We are one people ... particularly in this region, the language, the culture ... we are more or less the same. So why not? If at a certain time we were divided along certain lines at different times of history, there is nothing wrong with reconstructing what it is that we lost. So, apart from addressing the issues under the categories of defence, there are so many others ... it cannot only be defence (Ugandan Army Officer 2014: interview) The 2001 incarnation of a revamped East African Community (EAC)--the regional body comprised of Uganda, Tanzania and Kenya, expanded to include Rwanda and Burundi in 2007--was a 'Mark II' version of the failed post-independence effort of the 1960s and 1970s, an institution built upon the post-colonial aspirations of creating a federated entity re-kindling the linkages which imperial powers had divided and ruled over. EAC II, with its heralded ambition of eventual political federation marking it apart from other integration efforts on the continent, was created amidst an international environment keen to champion the post-Cold War notion of human security. By definition a dynamic concept, human security is unquestionably seen as "protecting and empowering people, at the individual and community levels" and "essential to national and international security" (UN OSAa 2005: 2). Outlined clearly in the original 1994 Human Development Report, "to address the growing challenge of human security, a new development paradigm is needed that puts people at the centre of development" (UNDP 1994: 4). In essence, creating valued human security fundamentally requires economic development objectives, which is mindful of--and indeed led by--the people and communities it is aiming to make secure. But what has been at the core of the development and security issues faced by the people of East Africa? And is the revived EAC a people-centred and human security conscious institution that has helped alleviate some of those issues? Based on secondary sources and field research interviews with EAC experts and officials, this article offers an explanation of why thus far, the EAC has failed to create a people-centred approach to tackling the fundamental insecurities faced by the people of East Africa, but nonetheless at least provides an institutional framework offering an opportunity for improvements to occur. Following this introduction, the article provides a brief history of the first incarnation of the EAC's inability to create a regional organisation resistant to the nationalist tendencies of its member states' leaders, and failure to adopt a people-centred inclusive approach to its objectives. A section then follows incorporating analysis from Chikwanha and Oloo, showing that the subsequent human security issues suffered throughout East Africa at their essence have been caused by the continued failure of post-colonial national governments to create an inclusive sense of citizenship for all its member peoples. The fourth section indicates how EAC II apparently sought to increase regional stability by creating a more people-centred institutional framework for integration. Section five indicates how the failure to successfully achieve these goals has created a continued divide between the leaders of East Africa, between EAC II and the people; and between a human security consciousness and security cooperation in the region. Section six provides concluding remarks. 2. EAC I--leader-centric failure In 1948 the British colonial administration created the East African High Commission (EAHC) and the East African Central Legislative Assembly, to control economic and political affairs, and provide a legal institutional framework to the integration efforts already underway between Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyika (which included a customs union, common currency, and the Mombasa-Kampala railway line), (Kimbugwe et al 2012: 61-63). These efforts were of course undertaken to benefit colonial interests, intending to increase markets for British companies or reduce costs of production for settlers, always with an extractive and exploitative agenda (Nabudere 2006: 3). …