Nairobi — One of the few places where former president Daniel Moi remains wildly popular is in Juba. When he arrived there for the inauguration of President Salva Kiir in Juba, crowds cheered him enthusiastically.

The affection for Mr Moi in South Sudan is easy to explain.

For all his many failings at home, Mr Moi got it right in shaping Kenya's foreign policy on Sudan.

He was the first president in the region to offer humanitarian aid agencies a base from which to serve the people of southern Sudan as they grappled with the murderous regime in Khartoum during a 22-year war.

Mr Moi was also one of the earliest architects of what became known as the Comprehensive Peace Agreement after convincing--with a bit of American help-- the main combatants John Garang and Omar al-Bashir to come to the negotiating table.

The peace deal signed in 2005 is already seen as one of the more positive aspects of Mr Moi's legacy. But what will history say about Mr Kibaki's stewardship of the delicate path to the endgame of the CPA, the referendum on self-determination expected in January?

That question will be answered in the coming months. It is a vitally important question not just because of what it means for regional peace and future economic progress.

The Sudan peace process is also a chance for Kenya to be on the right side of history in its foreign policy approach toward the rest of Africa.Although they will never say so publicly, many in Tanzania's intellectual class argued in 2008 at the height of the post-election crisis that Kenya was reaping the bitter harvest of the "immoral" foreign policy it had conducted since the 1960s.

The Kenyan elite helped to sabotage the East African Community, partly because of Western fears of close cooperation with the socialist Julius Nyerere.

Kenya was extremely slow to back the more progressive African leaders who took a stand against the apartheid regime of South Africa. While Mr Nyerere hosted training camps for Robert Mugabe's fighters and those from the ANC, Kenya merrily conducted business with South African firms and granted their aircraft landing rights.

Kenya stood idly by while Mr Nyerere decided that Idi Amin's clownish tyranny had to be stopped by invading Uganda and sending Mr Amin into humiliating exile.

All these decisions by successive Kenyan governments did not serve any clear national interest. They merely advanced the personal interest of some Western-friendly politicians, who kept their paymasters in Washington and London happy.

Sudan offers Kenya a chance for redemption. But a disturbing rumour that has been doing the rounds suggesting that some Kenyan officials placed their personal interests before the national interest in taking the decision to invite Mr al-Bashir to Nairobi, raises questions whether Kenya would really stand shoulder to shoulder with the people of Southern Sudan on the road to the referendum.

Mr Kibaki should take personal charge of the process of shaping Kenya's approach to that referendum. Now that the al-Bashir visit is behind us, Kenya should squeeze every ounce of capital it can from the regime in Khartoum.

The red line should be made clear. It is that nations in the region support the demand Mr Kiir outlined in his inaugural speech that the referendum must go ahead on January 9 and not a day later.

If that does not happen, the consequence will be war. And considering that the Southern Sudan government has spent nearly all the billions of dollars it has received from oil revenue in the last five years in equipping its military, the next Sudan war will be much bloodier than the last one because the South will be far better armed.

This is an outcome that must be avoided at all costs. But if the referendum goes ahead peacefully and South Sudan becomes Africa's newest nation, Mr Kibaki and Mr Moi will have gone some way in restoring Kenya's credibility as a major foreign policy player on the continent.

mmutiga@ke.nationmedia.com