Okot Nyormoi
October 29, 2006
For almost 21 years, northern Uganda has endured one of the most brutal wars in Africa between rebels currently led by the Lords Resistance Army (LRA) and the government of Uganda (GOU). A resolution of the genocidal war in northern Uganda has eluded all attempts including religious prayers, military operations, diplomacy, dialogues, a presidential bet and others. Meanwhile up to 25,000 children were abducted by the LRA and almost 2 million people in northern and eastern Uganda are incarcerated by the GOU in over 200 concentration camps euphemistically called ‘protected villages”. The UN Under-Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs called the situation the world’s worst forgotten humanitarian tragedy and the ex-UN Under-Secretary General for Children in Armed Conflict called it the worst place for children to be. Therefore, the news of the signing of the cessation of hostilities on August 29th 2006 and the agreement of the LRA to assemble in designated areas were greeted with excitement and hope for peace.
While the government of South Sudan (GOSS), the LRA, the GOU and the sponsors of the peace talks should be commended for their achievements so far, it is very disturbing that the Juba peace talks is nose diving. For example, as warned in a previous article (Aswa Times, Vol. 1, issue 4), the talks have degenerated into a propaganda war orchestrated not by military generals, but public relations spin masters. The author also cautioned in two previous articles (Frirndsforpeaceinafrica.org) about how each of the protagonists in the negotiation could scuttle the peace talks, the events of the last three weeks are coming to confirm the concerned expressed then.
One of the factors predicted to undermine the peace talks is the International Criminal Court warrant of arrest of the five top LRA leaders. As noted before, the GOU is using the ICC as a stick while using its offer of amnesty as a carrot. Unfortunately, the revelation that the GOU has never asked the ICC to withdraw the case against the LRA has seriously damaged its credibility. The LRA in turn is demanding that unless the ICC warrant of arrest is withdrawn, it will not continue with the negotiation. A complete standstill is what Juba has.
As far as the ICC is concerned, while the idea of prosecuting criminals is acceptable, there are many problems with the role of the ICC in the resolution of the conflict in Northern Uganda. This is because the ICC has lost credibility in several critical areas. First, by collaborating with the GOU, it lost any pretence of being neutral and independent. Second, its limited mandate which excludes the prosecution of crimes committed before 2002, leads some people to believe that the ICC was designed to prosecute exclusively the LRA but not the GOU. Third, its insinuation that its arrest warrant is written in stone flies in the face of the obvious fact that any man-made law can be changed. Fourth, by framing the issue in terms of justice against peace, it has created the false impression that the ICC is the only mechanism by which justice can be achieved and that justice is in one compartment and peace in another. In so doing, the ICC also displayed its arrogance and lack of respect and appreciation for alternative methods of justice. After all, it is not so much the method, but rather the people’s willingness to resolve a dispute that can create a sense of justice. If justice is for the people, then the ICC needs to listen to what the people have to say. In this regard, the overwhelming view from the war affected region is that the ICC should withdraw its case in order to stop it from being a stumbling block to the way to peace.
While, the signing of the Cessation of Hostilities agreement should be celebrated, it appears that the agreement was concluded without creating the necessary conditions to make it work. First, it was a mistake to agree to have the LRA assemble in designated areas without providing an independent security to ensure that the UPDF and the LRA would not be in close proximity. The only force that presumably stood between the two protagonists was the SPLA. Unfortunately, by its own admission, the SPLA is an ally of UPDF. Besides, some of the soldiers dressed in SPLA uniforms are alleged to be UPDF. Furthermore, militarily, the SPLA may not be strong enough to stop the thousands of UPDF in South Sudan from attacking the LRA if it wants to. To assemble the LRA in the two designated areas was simply a powder keg waiting to be ignited. This has been born out by the events of the last three weeks in which the LRA pulled out of the designated areas allegedly for being surrounded by the UPDF and the killings and counter killings by the UPDF and the LRA. To ensure that the cessation of hostilities continue, UPDF should retreat to Uganda just as the LRA will retreat to South Sudan until peace is secured. Additionally, there must be a neutral force strong enough to help the SPLA provide a buffer between the LRA and UPDF.
Another factor that has significantly contributed to the downward spiraling of the Juba talks is a phenomenon that has been developing for quite sometime and it has reached a dangerous point. The phenomenon is the relegation of community participation at the Juba peace talks to individual observer status. For example, Dr. Riek Machar is relying too much on individual consultation or observers of the peace process. While many individuals are in Juba to advocate for the public good, namely negotiation of a peaceful resolution of the war, there are many others who are there to pursue personal goals. First, some people are driven by the opportunity to make money as consultants. They have no interest in the outcome of the negotiation so long as they continue to make money. In fact the longer the negotiation drags on, the better for them. Second, there are individuals who see Juba as an opportunity to bolster their individual leadership statuses whether they are political, religious, business or others. Third, some of the people are government intelligence agents. Of course, all of these individuals claim to be representing civil society. Unfortunately, as individuals they are not accountable to civil society or anybody else, except themselves.
The responsibility of relying on individual observers and consultants on behalf of civil society goes to leaders from the affected areas for failing to organize a unified voice of the community of victims that transcend political, religious, ethnic and other affiliations. In the absence of a unified voice, individual representation became the order of the day. Additionally, the peace mediator is partly responsible because he has not only encouraged and relied on individuals or small groups to represent the voice of the people. The rationale for this is that it is easier for the mediator to control who to invite, when they can come to Juba, for how long or on what topic they will be consulted. There are neither checks and balances nor coordination.
The lack of a strong organized civil society representation at the Juba talks has inevitably led to some people asking about who should speak on behalf of the victims of the war. By default, the LRA has assumed the role of spokesperson for civil society in spite of its soiled hands in the war. Of course, apart from insulting the intelligence of the people, the government has made some feeble attempts to speak on behalf of civil society knowing that it has effectively locked up almost 2 million people in concentration camps where they continue to die from preventable causes while running a risk of losing their only possession, land.
Recent consultation revealed that there is a near uniform concern in Northern Uganda about the ineffectiveness of individual consultants or observers in Juba who claim to be the voice of the people. Individual representation also has allowed the government to plant confusing agents to dissuade the Juba dialogues from addressing issues which are important for civil society. To arrest this dangerous trend, the traditional leaders who are regarded by many people as the custodians of the people’s culture are perhaps in the best position at this material time to step up to the podium and exercise their moral leadership and approach the mediator of the Juba talks to officially recognize civil society as a full participant in the negotiation. Once civil society is officially accorded a seat at the peace talks, it can exercise its moral authority to ensure that its interests will not be overlooked. In its capacity as a participant, it will be able to raise issues for discussion directly while being accountable to the people. To be effective, the various communities affected by the war should put their collective houses in order before going to Juba, particularly in terms of creating a structure that will ensure accountability. A third-party participation will most likely break the current stalemate in Juba and will improve the likelihood of success of a sustainable comprehensive peace agreement that may be reached.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
