Northern Uganda: The implications of peace or the lack of it
Political analyst Dr. John A. Akec on the Juba peace talks and the potential impact of
lasting peace or continued unrest in the Great Lakes region.
lasting peace or continued unrest in the Great Lakes region.
|
A PEACE PROCESS THAT IS LOST IN A JUNGLE
July 24, 2006 — The best description of peace talks in Juba between the government of Uganda and the LRA is that they are heading nowhere. It appears to me that the Ugandan government’s delegation is there on a face-saving mission at best, and at worst, in attendance with the aim of researching the LRA and then killing the talks. As long as Museveni’s regime believes it is not under military threat, or susceptible to pressure from the international community, it feels it has nothing to lose if talks fail. The government of Uganda’s delegation believes they are there to tell the LRA to disarm, disband, and be reintegrated into Ugandan society. The delegation is not there to acknowledge the authenticity of political grievances that created the LRA in the first place. Despite finally accepting to meet face to face with the LRA delegation, it is still reluctant to recognise the delegation appointed by the LRA high command, preferring to talk to Joseph Kony directly. I will be the least surprised if the Ugandan government’s delegation next demands the right to pick the members of the LRA negotiating team. This is what happens when a regime has been ruling and oppressing its citizens for over two decades. Such leaders-for-life increasingly come to live in ivory towers far removed from reality. The Ugandan political elite has too much faith in their infallibility and would not tolerate being criticised openly. As a Southern Sudanese, there is no trick in the Ugandan government’s book that I have not already witnessed in deployment by the government of Sudan against the insurgency in Southern Sudan. What’s more, the government of Uganda (GoU) has refused to accept the most obvious of requirements and demands of a promising negotiation: namely, a ceasefire. This is a missed opportunity for the government to demonstrate to the world that it is serious about a just peace, and not in Juba simply to negotiate a smooth LRA surrender. Ceasefires are a nice starter strategy that can result in a win for all concerned, (GoU, LRA, GOSS); especially if the negotiating parties are serious about ending the suffering of their people. In this case, while the LRA called for a ceasefire agreement to be reached, the government delegation rejected it out of hand. Dr. Ruhakana Rugunda, Ugandan Interior Minister and head of the government delegation, stated that the LRA would exploit a ceasefire in order to: “Recruit and arm their fighters, re-organise their forces, treat their sick, unearth buried arms and ammos, loot and stock food, rejuvenate collaborators’ networks, and continue with the hostilities unabated.” An ICC official could have issued a similar statement.
This does not take into consideration the fact that many observers have accused the Ugandan government of sabotaging opportunities to negotiate peace with the LRA by issuing ultimatums, ambushing negotiating teams, sowing seeds of division amongst the LRA’s negotiating team, and buying the mediator’s favour. Nor does it take into consideration that Kampala’s government eventually assassinated those opposition leaders who signed agreements with Museveni in the past. Finally, it is not just the LRA who suffers from a credibility deficit; Museveni’s government has been one of worst offenders and abusers of the people’s trust since war began in 1986. We can go on to support this argument with well-documented reasons.
Unless the parties begin a new page and learn to trust each other and start to believe that what will be agreed upon will be honoured; they are wasting Dr. Machar’s precious time. Worst, by refusing to sign a ceasefire, the GoU may be planning to exploit “confidence building” measures and contacts with Kony to locate LRA leaders in order to launch a surprise attack (in coordination with the DRC) on LRA positions, and with luck, settle the problem there by getting rid of Kony once and for all. This may deal a blow to the Acholi resistance, which Joseph Kony has come to symbolise, however, the consequences of that action may come to haunt Museveni for the rest of his life. It will forever eliminate “negotiation” in the equation of ending the war in Northern Uganda. It will be a good ticket for all to engage in an open-ended war that will tear Ugandan society apart.
ACCUSATIONS AND COUNTER ACCUSATIONS
According to media sources, the government delegation was allowed to make the first opening statement, followed by the LRA’s. Most agree that it should have been the other way round. As an organisation with grievances against the status quo, the LRA team should have been allowed to make the first opening statement. LRA representative Martin Ojur summed up the LRA’s grievances as: “Political persecution and marginalisation, demeaning attitude designedly expressed by people in power to insult and demonise some ethnic groups in the country, deliberate imbalance and disparity in the development of our country ...”
Ojur then declared that his movement will demand for the protection of human rights, good governance, halting of state-backed land grabbing and cattle rustling, acceptance of cultural diversity, respect of international law and territorial integrity, and peaceful coexistence with all countries, among others. Ojur also called for the “ethnically-biased” Ugandan army (Ugandan Peoples Defence Force, UPDF), that has been accused of heinous atrocities in Northern Uganda be disband and replaced by a new ethnically balanced army that includes people from Northern and Eastern Uganda, who have been systematically marginalized and by-passed by economic development under President Museveni. HEAL YOURSELF DOCTOR?
For the Ugandan delegation, it was all rage, rage, and rage! The GoU is not accustomed to hearing these kinds of utterances. In true democracy, you can guarantee to hear brutal criticism being heaped on the government by those in opposition on a daily basis. The manifested shock at what might have been considered a typical opposition speech is the litmus test of democratic tolerance in Uganda. There is none. And despite the impressive improvement of economic life in some parts of Uganda, its citizens are anything but free.
Sources in Juba say the government delegation prematurely pulled out of the talks and nearly packed their suitcases in order to head for the Juba airport on their way back to Kampala. It took hours of persuasion from Dr. Riek Machar for them to return to the negotiating table. On Tuesday, the head of the government negotiating team was compelled to issue another statement in response to allegations brought against the GoU by the LRA in its opening statement. The statement praised UDPF as “professional” and the “envy of the region,” further stating that it never committed any atrocities or killed its citizens. He asserted that the current constitution is more than capable of addressing any grievances, including the alleged land grabbing.
As things stand, the government of Uganda does not believe that it is doing anything wrongly which merits an overhaul of its current system of governance. This is Africa’s old problem of lack of compromise, and explains why wars in Europe, America and elsewhere took fewer years to end. We lack the art of compromise in the spirit of coexistence. Everywhere in Africa, Uganda included, we are haunted by a “winner takes all” mentality.
Sudan and Uganda’s old colonial masters, the British, were masters of both craftiness and compromise. History is full of stories of the British fighting decolonisation forces, and then quickly turning around to devise a policy that puts the colonised on the road to independence by making concessions and enacting changes to address and accommodate their grievances. Colonisation has no colour, as John Garang observed. Most African leaders who have been educated in this great British culture have apparently missed the obvious: conflict resolution and the ability to recognise that there are times when future disasters can be avoided by implementing a change in direction and tone. Conflict resolution always requires giving up something in exchange for something. In this case, it is peace and stability in Uganda, Sudan, and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). President Mengistu of Ethiopia was confident enough in his regime’s military might that he flatly refused to settle the Eritrean problem on the negotiating table. Mengistu’s military machine eventually collapsed, and he had to flee the country to a life of exile in Zimbabwe. Similarly, if Siad Bare were wise enough, he would have seen the break up of Somalia coming long before it actually happened. There is nothing new about the Ugandan government’s attempt to dodge the truth.
Though the UPDF may deceptively appear so “professional” and so “smart” that it could be wrongly perceived as capable of finding a military solution to rebellion in Northern Uganda, its fate will not be different from that of the armies that fought to maintain the status quo at the expense of equality and justice -- and eventually lost. Even Alexander the Great’s forces had to retreat at some point. Hitler’s tanks and aircraft did not save him.
Instead of solving its internal problems amicably, the current Ugandan government prefers to pursue its dissidents across its borders into neighbouring territories. Once its army is there, it proceeds to interfere with the security and stability of the neighbour. Uganda only respects Kenya and Tanzania’s borders. It is a respect similar to that of a thief fearing a well-guarded compound. Most recently, Uganda tried to interfere with Rwandan politics, a plan that later backfired badly. Uganda has been exporting wars into the DRC, and its armies roam in large parts of Southern Sudan in search for the LRA. This has made it difficult to differentiate between security breaches by the Ugandan army and LRA.
Apparently, the patient does not feel it needs a doctor. People may interpret the Ugandan government’s refusal to enact radical changes in its political system to accommodate ethnic diversity and combat the feeling of marginalisation in Eastern and the Northern Uganda as an insistence to continue to export its own troubles to its neighbours. In reality, Uganda’s political problems are not dissimilar to those of Sudan, and can be addressed in similar manner.
THE IMPLICATIONS OF PEACE
A peaceful conclusion to war in Northern Uganda will bring great benefits to the region. Uganda will benefit tremendously if there is stability in Southern Sudan and Northern Uganda as trade barriers fall and goods are allowed to flow freely for the mutual benefits of the two countries. As well, for the next few years, the balance of trade worth billions of dollars of exports to Southern Sudan in goods, agricultural products, and services will be in Uganda’s favour. Ugandans will also potentially be employed in large numbers in Southern Sudan. As we speak, the government of Southern Sudan has adopted Uganda’s international code for its new mobile phone company. In other words, Southern Sudan is already a province of Uganda! Furthermore, Southern Sudan will also likely invest in Ugandan agriculture, forestry, fishery, transport systems, electricity and petroleum refining, among other industries. Uganda presents an opportunity too lucrative to be sacrificed on the altar of greed and myopia. THE IMPLICATION OF CONTINUED WAR IN NORTHERN UGANDA
Among the many implications a prolonged conflict will have, the continued development of hostile relationships between Uganda and Southern Sudan may lead to war. Secondly, Nilotics in Eastern and Northern Uganda may potentially decide to fight for independence from Uganda and seek long-term integration with Southern Sudan. A third possibility is what professor Mahmood Mamdani of Columbia University recently warned about: the possibility of the emergence of a new and powerful political movement in the North in alliance with the current political opposition in Uganda against Museveni’s regime which may eclipse the LRA resistance. Between these three scenarios lie a myriad of possibilities, none of which will favour Museveni in medium to long term.
THE WAY FORWARD - UN’S SUPPORT BADLY NEEDED The new government of Southern Sudan has started a vital process, but it lacks the clout and the resources to pressure the warring parties to craft a viable settlement. Even if an agreement is reached, the probability of its implementation will be next to nil. The International community must provide support, pressure, and guarantees to reach a just solution to the northern conflict. Recently, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan expressed the UN’s support of peaceful negotiation. He however appeared helpless in the face of the objection by the Ugandan government to the appointment of a special UN envoy for Northern Uganda. The UN envoy would supervise the talks and act as the eyes of the international community. Presently, it is a no-go area. The matter is regarded as closed, which is very sad indeed.
On the other hand, South Africa has expressed its readiness to act as supervisor and observer of the Juba peace talks if invited by any of the parties. So far, no one has acted on this offer. It is therefore high time for the government of Southern Sudan to be realistic about what it can achieve with its meagre resources. Southern Sudan must call for the support of the international community. In order to achieve real peace and not just a gesture of good will by the international community, more resources and support are needed. There is danger that the Ugandan government will do all it can to strangle tfhe talks. This opportunity must not be allowed to slip away like others in the past.
*Dr. John Akec is a political analyst based in London. He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it . Dr. Akec is also the editor of a blog featuring articles and comments about the Sudan http://johnakecsouthsudan.blogspot.com/. |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
