Dr. Okot Nyormoi, August 14, 2007
For almost 21 years, northern Uganda has endured one of the most brutal wars in Africa between the government of Uganda (GOU) and various rebels groups, but the current Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) which started as a Christian proselytizism movement in 1988, has outlived them all. The protracted violent conflict has had the most devastating impact on the civilian population in modern times to the magnitude of genocide. A resolution of this genocidal war in northern Uganda has eluded all attempts, including religious prayers, military operations, diplomacy, dialogues, a presidential bet and many others efforts. Meanwhile up to 35,000 children were abducted by the LRA and a unknown number of youths conscripted by the government into its army and militia; and almost 2 million people in northern and eastern Uganda are incarcerated by the GOU in over 200 concentration camps euphemistically called “protected villages”.
Since the implementation of the decongestion program, the number of camps has gone up many folds. These camps turned out to be a more effective killing machine against the people than anyone has ever imagined. The gruesome situation was best described by the UN Under-Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs as the world’s worst forgotten humanitarian tragedy and the ex-UN Under-Secretary General for Children in Armed Conflict as the worst place for children to be. Therefore, the maintenance of the cessation of hostilities agreement and the signing of the agreements on comprehensive solutions and on accountability and reconciliation are a welcome sign that it is possible to end the war by peaceful means.
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 are drifting aimlessly. The negotiators supposedly broke off for a month for consultation. The LRA was reported to be ready to withdraw from the talks unless they are given money for consultation. Meanwhile, over a million people still languish in the squalid concentration camps. Even those who are willing and are ready to return to their original homes are not being assisted to return. Instead, the little facilitation provided has been abused by some officials (See: “Gulu to destroy government seeds”. By Cissy Makumbi & Muto-Ono P’Lajur; The Daily Monitor, June 27, 2007). In fact, the government military commander has warned people not to return to their original home yet (See: Gen Nyakairima warns IDPs against resettlement. By Jimmy Kwo, The Daily Monitor, Aug. 14). While the shooting war has stopped for almost a year, deaths from preventable causes in the IDP camps have continued unabated.
So, why is the Juba peace talk drifting? Why is there no peace yet? There is a near unanimous notion that the greatest stumbling block to the peace talks is the International Criminal Court (ICC) warrants of arrest for the five top LRA leaders. This view was well articulated by Martin Ojul, the head of the LRA’s peace negotiating team in his letter to Dr. Riek Machar, the peace mediator (LRA/M Position Paper on Accountability and Reconciliation In Relation to the ICC Indictment – 20-06-2007). Mr. Ojul argued, that, “..as we rededicate the total commitment of our principals to these talks we find ourselves in the embarrassing situation where the fate of these talks may not be in the hands of the parties to the talks but in the hands of third parties. Our task in these peace talks is peculiar in the sense that, unlike all the other peace talks known to us, the parties to the talks are not privileged to enjoy the cardinal principle of the law of contract – freedom of contract. We find ourselves talking with the Rome Statue lurking in the background and the ICC indictments hovering over the heads of the key players in these talks. It is not lost on the stakeholders most affected by the conflict – the people of northern and north-eastern Uganda – that the ICC indictment is the greatest stumbling block to the Peace Talks.
While I understand the popular sentiment expressed above, which I myself abscribed to at some point, upon careful reflection, I beg to differ with the conclusion. With all due respect, the notion that the ICC is the greatest stumbling block to the Peace Talks is misleading. In fact such a notion represents either a gross dishonesty or a gross misunderstanding of the real situation or both. In my view, the greatest stumbling block to the Peace Talks is not the ICC. This conclusion is based on a critical review of the history of the war and the role of the ICC in the context of the underlying causes of the war in Northern and Eastern Uganda.
First of all, the ICC is a tool being used to serve certain interests in the world. In that sense, the ICC in itself cannot be the problem. Instead, it is those who are using it to promote their own interests who are the problem. Of all the countries in the world at war, it was Museveni who referred the case to the ICC. He was the one who sold the war as a simple case of good vs. evil, with him being the force of good and the LRA as the force of evil. It was he who saw the ICC as another stick to wield against the LRA as part of what appears to be the failed four-pronged approach (war, negotiation, amnesty and ICC prosecution). Therefore, it is the persons or organizations behind the ICC case that are the greatest stumbling block to the Peace Talks. Unless they remove the initial considerations which led them to refer the case to the ICC, nothing is going to change, particularly if one thinks that the ICC is the greatest stumbling block. A gridlock in the negotiation is a plus for Museveni, but a minus for the victims of the war.
Second, the LRA’s assertion that the ICC is the greatest stumbling block is completely self-serving and may have nothing to do with the search for true forgiveness and reconciliation. There is no system in the world where the guilty parties have the right to choose how they will be tried, forgiven and reconciled or punished. I have not found any example, whether traditional or foreign. It is always up to the institution in place to determine how the case can be handled. It would make sense for Civil Society to seek a withdrawal of the ICC case as part of its willingness to forgive and reconcile if it was participating as an organized voice at the Peace Talks. Such a demand would have to be incorporated as part of the peace agreement. However, this comes down to whether the greatest stumbling block to the peace process would allow such a decision to be implemented in Uganda.
In any case, the principle to be observed is that the guilty party cannot be the one to determine how their case should be handled. Just as the commission of the heinous war crimes is totally unacceptable, the abuse of the judicial system by any of the warring factions by dragging its partner in crime to the ICC for self-serving purposes is equally unacceptable. In this case, the perpetrators of the crimes against the people must realize that their effort to restore peace is not a privilege that they are bestowing on the victims of the war. Instead, it is the recognition of people’s right to live in peace. Therefore, anyone who deprives them of peace has an obligation to restore it.
Third, if the LRA and GOU expect other guilty parties in the war to be subjected to foreign practices of reconciliation, including abiding by the National Constitution, then what is the basis of the LRA’s objection to submitting themselves to the ICC? After all, if they are willing to confess their guilt in the traditional or special tribunal, then why can’t they do the same in the ICC? Many people have argued that the ICC warrant of arrest prevents the LRA top commanders from coming out to negotiate peace for fear of being arrested. Such an argument has little to do with justice. Rather, it concerns itself with seeking the best security deal for the LRA commanders. In that sense, it becomes self-serving. The ICC has little to do with justice, fairness or the prevention of the commission of crimes with impunity. For example, without addressing the fundamental causes of the war, there can never be true justice and peace in Northern Uganda. The ICC also does not concern itself with the fact that many people are still dying in the IDPs camps in spite of the fact that the shooting war has ceased for a year or more.
Fourth, just like the LRA rebellion is a symptom of bad governance, the ICC is also a consequence or a symptom of selective justice. The referral of the case to the ICC is a manifestation of Museveni’s bad governance. After all, the war was at its worst when the ICC was not even there yet; tens of thousands of people died gruesome deaths in the hands of President Museveni, his army, the NRA, and various other groups between 1986-2001. It is altogether conceivable that there will be no peace even if the ICC withdraws the case from prosecution. It is, therefore, the conditions that breed rebellion (violation of human rights, sectarianism, economic marginalization etc) which will determine whether there will be peace or not. It is not the ICC, as its top bureaucrat Moreno Campio the Chief Prosecutor politicks.
Of course, I recognize that the ICC as constituted and as it pursues its mission, has lost credibility in several critical areas. First, by collaborating with the GOU, it lost any pretence of being neutral and independent (Museveni refers to them as “their partner in the fight against LRA terrorism”). Second, its limited mandate which excludes the prosecution of crimes committed before 2002, leads some people to believe that the ICC case was designed to prosecute exclusively the LRA, but not the GOU.
Also, the ICC has a very strange definition of “gravity” by which they determine which crimes are defined as war crimes. To this day over 1000 people are dying from the disgusting, abominable conditions of the concentration camps; Museveni has never declared the the IDPs infested region a disaster area; he has never accepted responsibility to improve the conditions in the camps or properly protect the people and the ICC does not see this deliberate negligence as the war crime of the greatest gravity!)
Third, the ICC's insinuation that its arrest warrants are 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. Worse still, Uganda has a functional judicial system facilitated by millions of dollars from the international donor community. So where does ICC get this arrogance? 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 stop being abused as a tool for war, political manipulation, abuse and skewed justice. Otherwise, it will continue to damage its credibility.
In conclusion, while I recognize that the ICC and its mission have some serious shortcomings, for which it should quickly makeup, I suggest that the LRA and the victims of the war should look beyond the obvious. By doing so, they will realize that the ICC is just a tool. As such the tool in itself is harmless until it is put in the service of those who use it to promote their own interests to the detriment of the over a million people who are still incarcerated in the IDPs camps. This means that the greatest stumbling blocks to peace in Northern Uganda are those behind the scene who are using the ICC to promote their own selfish interests, which may have nothing to do with justice and the prevention of impunity.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
