Northern Uganda: The implications of peace or the lack of It

By John A. Akec

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 LRA is that they are
heading nowhere. It appears to me that the Ugandan
government delegation is there on a face-saving
mission at best, and at worst carry out research on
the LRA and then kill the talks. And as long as
Museveni’s regime believes it is not under military
threat, or pressure from the world community, it feels
it has nothing to lose if talks fail.

The government delegation believes they are there to
tell LRA to disarm, disband, and be reintegrated into
Ugandan society. The delegation is not there to
acknowledge the authenticity of political grievances
that created LRA in the first place. Despite finally
accepting to meet face to face with LRA delegation, it
is still unable psychologically to recognise the
delegation appointed by LRA high command, preferring
to talk to Joseph Kony directly. I will be the least
surprised if Ugandan government delegation next time
demands to be allowed to pick the members of LRA
negotiating team. That 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 have too much faith in their
infallibility and would not tolerate being criticised
in the open. As South Sudanese, there is no trick in
the Ugandan government book that I have never seen
been deployed 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: the importance of
ceasefire. This is a missed opportunity for the
government to demonstrate to the world that it is
serious to bring about a just peace and just not in
Juba to negotiate a smooth LRA surrender. Ceasefires
is a nice starter that can be a win-win-win strategy
for all concerned (GoU-LRA-GOSS) specially if the
negotiating parties are serious about ending the
suffering of their people. In this case, the LRA
called for a ceasefire agreement to be reached, the
government delegation rejected it out of hand.
According to Dr Ruhakana Rugunda, Ugandan Interior
Minister and head of Government delegation, the LRA is
going to exploit 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.
All this does not put into consideration the fact that
many observers have more often than not accused the
Ugandan government of blowing up opportunities to
negotiate peace with LRA through the issuing of
ultimatums, ambushing negotiating teams, sowing seeds
of division amongst LRA negotiating team, and buying
the mediator’s favour. That Kampala’s government
eventually assassinated those opposition leaders who
signed agreements with Museveni in the past. That is
not just the LRA who suffers from credibility deficit
but Museveni government is one of worst offenders and
abusers of trust since war began in 1986. We can go on
to support this argument with well documented reasons.

Hence, unless the parties begin a new page and learn
to trust each other and start to believe that what
will be agreed 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 DCR) on LRA positions.
And with luck, settle the problem there by getting rid
of Kony once and for all. This can deal a blow to
Acholi’s resistance, which Joseph Kony has come to
symbolise. But 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 open-ended war that will
tear Ugandan society apart.

ACCUSATIONS AND COUNTER ACCUSATIONS

According to media sources, it was government
delegation that was allowed to make a first opening
statement followed by LRA’s. All agree that it should
have been the other way round. As an organisation with
grievances against the status quo, LRA should have
been allowed to make the first opening statement. The
government should then follow. All the same, it just
happened to take that precedence. Martin Ojur summed
up the 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
protection of human rights, good governance, halting
the state-backed land grabbing and cattle rustling,
acceptance of cultural diversity, respect of
international law and territorial integrity, peaceful
coexistence with all countries, among others. Ojur
also called for the “ethnically-based” Ugandan army
(Ugandan Peoples Defence Force, UPDF), that has been
accused of heinous atrocities in Northern Uganda to
disband and be replaced by a new ethnically balanced
army that include people from Northern and Eastern
Uganda (who have been marginalized and by-passed by
economic development under president Museveni).

HEAL YOURSELF DOCTOR?

For 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 as a duty of
doing the people’s bidding. The manifested shock at
what could have been a normal opposition speech is the
litmus of democratic tolerance in Uganda. There is
none. And despite the impressive improvement of
economic life in some parts of Uganda, the citizens of
that country are anything but free.

Sources in Juba say the government delegation almost
packed their suitcases in order to head for Juba
airport on their way back to Kampala. It took hours of
persuasions from Dr Riek Machar for them to return to
the negotiating table.

On Tuesday, the head of government negotiating team
had to issue another statement to refute the
allegations labelled against the GoU by the LRA in its
opening statement. The statement praised UDPF as
“professional and envy of the region.” That it never
committed any atrocities or killed its citizens. He
asserted that the current constitution is more than
capable to address any grievances, including the
alleged land grabbing.

As things stand, the government of Uganda does not
believe that it is doing anything wrong to merit the
overhaul of the 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 spirit of coexistence. Everywhere in Africa, Uganda
included, we are haunted by “winner takes all”
mentality.

Sudan and Uganda’s old colonial masters, the British,
were masters of both craftiness and compromise.
History is full of British fighting decolonisation
forces, and then quickly turning around to device a
policy that puts the colonised on the road to
independence by making concessions and enacting
changes to address and accommodate grievances of the
colonised. Colonisation has no colour, as John Garang
observed. Most African leaders who have supposedly
been educated in this great British culture have
apparently missed the obvious: conflict resolution and
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 Democratic Republic of Congo (DCR).

President Mengistu of Ethiopia was confident enough in
his regime’s military might that he flatly refused to
settle the Eritrean problem on a negotiating table.
Mengistu’s military machine eventually collapsed, and
he had to flee the country to a life of exile in
Zimbabwe. 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 Uganda
government attempt to dodge the truth.

Yes, 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. Yet, its fate will not be different
from that of the armies that fought to maintain the
status quo on the expense of equality and justice- and
eventually lost. Even Alexander the great forces had
to retreat at some point. Hitler’s tanks and aircraft
did not safe him.

Instead of solving its internal problems amicably, the
current Ugandan government prefers to pursue its
dissidents across its borders into neighbours’
territories. Once their army is there, they begin to
mess up with the security and stability of the
neighbour. Uganda only respects Kenya and Tanzania. It
is a respect similar to that of thief fearing a
well-guarded compound. Otherwise, Uganda tried before
to interfere with Rwandan politics, which later
backfired badly. It has been exporting wars into
Democratic Republic of Congo. Its armies roam in large
parts of South Sudan in search for the LRA. This has
made it difficult to differentiate between the
security breaches by Ugandan army and those of LRA.

Apparently, the Uganda patient does not feel it needs
a doctor. People are going to read the Ugandan refusal
to enact radical changes in their political system to
accommodate ethnic diversity and combat the feeling of
marginalisation in the East and the North of Uganda as
an insistence to continue to export its own troubles
to its neighbours. This is despite the fact that
Ugandan 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 be
amongst the beneficiaries of stability in Southern
Sudan and Northern Uganda as goods can be allowed to
flow freely as trade barriers fall for the mutual
benefits of the two entities. Not only that, for next
few years, the balance of trade will be in Uganda’s
favour. That will be worth billions of dollars of
export to South Sudan in goods, agricultural produces,
and services. Ugandans skills will be hired in large
numbers in Southern Sudan. As we speak, the government
of South Sudan has adopted Ugandan international code
for its new mobile phone company. In other words,
Southern Sudan is already a province of Uganda!

Furthermore, South Sudan will also try to invest in
Ugandan agriculture, forestry, fishery, transport
system, electricity, petroleum refining, among others.
That will be to good an incentive to sacrifice on the
altar of greed and myopia.

THE IMPLICATION OF CONTINUED WAR IN NORTHERN UGANDA

These will be too numerous to count. They include
development of hostile relationships between the two
countries and may lead to war. The Nilotics in the
East and North of Uganda may decide to fight for
independence from Uganda and seek long-term
integration with Southern Sudan. A third possibility
is what professor Mohammed Mamdani of Columbia
University recently warned about: the possibility of
emergence of new and powerful political movement in
the North in alliance with the current political
opposition in Uganda against Museveni’s regime and NRM
that will threaten to eclipse the LRA. Between these
three scenarios lie a myriad of combinations. None of
them 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 chances of its implementation will be nil. The
International community must provide support,
pressure, and guarantees to reaching a just solution
to the LRA war. Recently, Mr Kofi Annan has expressed
UN’s support of the principle of negotiation. He
however appeared helpless in regard to the objection
by the Ugandan government to appointment of a UN envoy
for Northern Uganda who will supervise the talk and
act as the eyes of the international community. As far
as things stand, 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 a supervisor and observer of peace
talks in Juba 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 by itself and
within its meagre resources. It needs to call for the
support of 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
Ugandan government will do all it can to strangle the
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 is also the editor of a blog where he posts articles and comments about the Sudan. http://johnakecsouthsudan.blogspot.com/. Akec can be reached at [email protected].