Ugandan double stand and ICC threaten Juba talks

Kampala’s Double Speak and the ICC’s Intransigence
threaten to ruin the best opportunity to bring peace
to Northern Uganda

By John A. Akec*

September 30, 2006 — There was great optimism when a significant progress
was made at peace talks in Juba between the government
of Uganda and the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), under
mediation of the government of Southern Sudan. The
talks resulted in the first ever cessation of
hostilities in 20 years since rebellion broke out in
Northern Uganda in 1986 following the ascendancy to
power of National Resistance Movement of president
Museveni. The war led to death of several hundred
thousand people, abduction of more than 30,000
children, displacement of about 2 million Acholis from
their homelands, and destruction of a whole society
and culture in Northern Uganda.

Despite all this, Western investors (predominantly
British) and the World Bank continued to pump money
into the affluent Southern and Central Uganda,
completely oblivious to the war in Acholiland. The
Western media reported the stories of “night
commuters” and atrocities committed by Lord’s
Resistance Army against Acholi population. Yet this
same media said nothing of the root causes of war, the
abuses by the Uganda army, or how the tragedy might be
halted.

Many featured articles on Uganda and profile reports
by some of the world’s finest institutions spoke of
“Museveni’s economic miracle” which, in reality, is
confined to Southern and Central Uganda. The reports
failed to highlight Ugandan’s counter-insurgency
strategies that uprooted millions of Acholis from
their homes and led to death of so many of them
including children in camps they have been moved to
against their will.

Some commentators referred to the outcome of Uagnda’s
counter-insurgency policy as genocide. Every week a
1000 people die in IDP’s camaps. Like Hitler’s
industrial complexes that succeeded in eclipsing
Auschwitz and Holocaust crimes from the world’s radars
for a considerable amount of time, the profits and
money to be made in peaceful parts of Uganda knocked
at the doors of the rich and powerful far louder than
the moral imperative to act to prevent further
suffering and death of the internally displaced
refugees living in government’s concentration camps in
Northern Uganda.

And despite our newfound optimism, all is not well
with Juba talks. As we need to remind ourselves, old
habits die-hard. In Uganda, they die harder. In what
must have seemed to be a remarkably observed ceasefire
by any standards, the empire of doom-and-gloom in the
region is fighting back. The trees are moving again in
the horizon.

Over the last two weeks, the peace process has been
flying under dark clouds of uncertainty, confusion,
mistrust, obscurity, and tensions. At least three
things stand to threaten the nascent peace process:
the double talk by Kampala, the continued
intransigence by the International Criminal Court, and
the lack of focus and clear direction by the
mediators.

Kampala’s DOUBLE TALK

At first, the political leaders of Uganda seemed very
satisfied with the progress- specially when peace
monitors reported that about 1,600 LRA fighters had
converged at 2 designated assembly points in Southern
Sudan: Owiny Ki-Bul and Ri-Kwangba just within the 3
weeks deadline set by the Cessation of Hostilities
Agreement that came into effect on August 29, 2006.
This is a very significant number.

Furthermore, LRA second in command, Vincent Otti, has
been constantly holding telephone conversations with
Dr Ruhakana Rugunda to the extent that Otti once asked
the Internal Affairs Minister to convey “greetings to
the President.”

“The President has okayed the talks to continue
because he is happy with the progress and the rebels
reporting to the assembly areas.”, noted Dr Rugunda,
the Ugandan government chief negotiator.

But the Ugandan political leaders became increasingly
irritable, impatient, and even hawkish when they could
not confirm that Joseph Kony, LRA Chairman or his
deputy Otti were amongst those who assembled at the
designated camps. This would only raise concerns and
reveal ulterior motives as to why the Ugandan
president is so troubled about uncertainty of Kony’s
where abouts. The sort of treacherous and double-faced
politics that undermined trust between Ugandans in the
last 20 years is still at work. And this is very
unfortunate. In one moment, President Museveni wants
LRA leaders forgiven through Acholi justice system of
mato put. In the next moment he was all rage.

Addressing community leaders at Gulu University in
Northern Uganda, the president told his audience:

“Even if the Ugandan government and you people from
the area say ‘No’, you should remember that Kony
killed so many people including a Briton and UN staff
in the DR Congo.”

“Advise them [LRA] to come out of the bush and stop
talking about irrelevant things in Juba…they [the
rebels] should be hanged for committing many
atrocities. But we want a shortcut to peace.”

President Museveni should be well aware that peace is
not going to come by the mere forgiving of the LRA
leaders. There are issues of injustice and inequitable
distribution of national resources that needs to be
addressed. It is giving up part of the Ugandan
national cake that is going to produce lasting peace.
Inviting ICC to fight his war on his behalf is total
blackmail. It will not bail him out of his
responsibility to clear the terrible mess in his
backyard.

THE ICC’s SCARE-MONGERING TACTICS

And as if we do not have enough challenge, the ICC’s
continued to wave its arrest warrant in the face of
LRA leaders if the report to assembly point or attend
peace talks in person. The New Vision reported on 16
September 2006:

“The court said in a statement on Friday it had asked
its registrar to submit a written report by October 6
on what progress there was in the execution of the
arrest warrants and the co-operation of the relevant
states.”

On his part, Jan Egeland, the UN Undersecretary for
Humanitarian Affairs urged the UN to put its weight
behind Juba peace talks and to come up with ”a
solution that makes peace and justice work together”,
and adding: “I think the ICC indictments will not be a
stumbling block. I think they can actually be an
impulse for future progress for northern Uganda peace
that is now at hand.”

A report by International Crisis Group dated 13
September 2006, observed: “While the ICC prosecutions
have been a factor in bringing the LRA and the
government of Uganda to the table, they now limit the
options available to mediation and parties because the
ICC and the broader international community are
unlikely to accept a deal that provides a broad
amnesty and lacks strong justice and accountability
mechanisms.”

May be. But many well intentioned Africans, including
this author, are unconvinced that a government that
has been accused of committing atrocities against the
very people it claims to protect should exploit the
loopholes in the international justice system to
quench political rebellion at home by using
international bodies such as the ICC as an attack-dog.
If this concept of uncompromising justice system as
adhered to by the ICC and the international community
were apply to all warring parties in Uganda, both LRA
leaders and leaders NRM ruling party would all be in
the dock.

As explained in recent Crisis Group report: “There is
a widespread belief in Northern Uganda that the war
has been prolonged to punish the Acholi for continued
lack of support of NRM [National Resistance Movement
Party of President Museveni] and has been manipulated
by Museveni for his political benefits.”

Hence, while the ICC may have us believe it is
fighting to bring justice to those who suffered in the
hand of LRA in Northern Uganda, the population of
Northern Uganda think otherwise. James Otto, director
of Human Rights Focus, based in Gulu, recently told
Steve Bloomfield, reporter for the UK based newspaper,
the Independent:

“The ICC has dented its own image in not investigating
the Ugandan government which has also committed
atrocities….”

“People have been pulled out of prison and murdered in
cold blood. Girls have been raped. There are people
here who fear government soldiers more than the LRA.
Should justice pursue the weak and leave the strong?
What sort of justice is that?”

Writing from Gulu on 15 September 2006, Steve
Broomfield of the Independence newspaper (in the UK),
related the ordeal of young girls at the hands of
UPDF:

“On a clear summer’s morning, with the sun beating
down on the dirt-red tracks, 12-year-old Jennifer, her
older sister and her mother were walking home. They
had been tending to their small patch of land, just
beyond the borders of the camp set up by the
government to protect civilians from attacks by the
rebel Lord’s Resistance Army.

“…Two soldiers appeared from behind a bush. They took
the girls and their mother to a secluded spot before
forcing the children to undress. Then, with their
mother looking on, the soldiers raped the girls. Once
they had finished, the soldiers swapped…. They were
the UDPF – the government army sent to the camps to
protect people from the LRA.”

Charles Opio a former cook in primary school in
Northern Uganda has his hands amputated by the doctor
after he was arrested by UPDF and held for 3 days with
his arm tight behind his back.

“I went to the doctor [after being released]. My arms
were swollen and my hands were rotting. He had to cut
them off. I am now helpless. Every activity is done
for me, including bathing.”, relates Opio. Nothing was
done to bring the UPDF to justice.

The LRA leaders have so far refused to show where
their troops have gathered at assembly point. The
Ugandan government is furious and accuses the LRA
leaders of violating the ceasefire. The ICC wants the
arrest warrant implemented. Uganda government stands
by the ICC. The ICC in the name of justice ignores the
call by the elders and community leaders of Northern
Uganda for a traditional system of justice called
‘mato put’. It does not take a rocket scientist to
spot which parties are hindering the progress of peace
process in Northern Uganda.

“Just as humanitarian aid has become a dimension among
other dimensions of war in Uganda, the ICC too is now
part of the realpolitik of war”, wrote Sverker
Finnstrom and Ronald Atkinson recently in Sudan
Tribune. Finnstrom is a Swedish anthropologist based
at Uppsala University who have been studying the
effect of war in Acholiland since 1997. He has
published a book on the LRA. Ronald Atkinson is a
historian and author of a book on the origins of
Acholis of Northern Uganda, and is based at the
University of South Carolina in the USA (“The realists
in Juba” , ST, 19 September 06).

The Amnesty International’s senior legal advisor
Christopher Keith Hall recently urged the ICC
prosecutors “to press the United Nations and other
international government organizations to establish
law enforcement teams…” Apparently the Amnesty has now
found its voice when it comes to calling for the LRA
leaders to be persecuted. The rights group has been
prominent for its lip-tight stand on Ugandan’s
concentration camps.

That be the case, the voices calling for the
persecution of the LRA leaders in the international
circles is met by even louder calls in Northern Uganda
to bring UPDF and their commander-in-chief to books.
In other words, if the ICC and its backers insist that
crimes committed during the Ugandan civil war should
be punished, then it is important that those who
suffer from the hands of both the LRA and UPDF should
all be punished.

If the ICC and its international thinks that it is an
impossible job to undertake, then it has an impossible
task of convincing the rest of us that it is pursuing
justice by its intransigence and its obstruction for
the problem of atrocities in Northern Uganda to be
settled through the traditional African system like
the black South Africans done with their erstwhile
white oppressors. Apparently, the Europeans were quite
happy for the crimes of the apartheid to be forgiven
and forgotten. A South African based political
analysts, John Asworth commented in UK Parliamentary
Briefings magazine:

“In 1994 there was a real fear that an otherwise
successful peace process was about to fail; that
extreme elements within the apartheid security forces
would stage a coup d’etat rather than be held
accountable for their crimes against humanity. In a
move which is still criticised by some former
activists and victims, justice was sacrificed in
favour of peace. The criminals walked free, and South
Africa moved towards a peaceful transformation. In
2006 the same choices face Uganda.”

But alas, in Northern Uganda, different standards
apply. The arguments in support of indictment of LRA
leaders are are nothing but fool-bravery. They expose
European double standards and hypocrisy in the worst
light possible. And to be fair, not everyone is the
West is in support of this kind of hypocrisy
camouflaged as the true “will of international
community.”

Thus, those who back the ICC in its attempt to turn a
political issue into a simplistic problem of break
down of law and order in Northern Uganda have a big
fight in their hands to convince a great majority of
peace lovers around the world that this is not a
political correctness gone mad. None of these bodies
really want anything good for people of Northern
Uganda. What is most important to them is their
straightjacket notion of justice, one sided and alien
to Africa as it is.

And in this respect, John Ashworth in his superb
article on the interference of the ICC in the peace
process in Northern Uganda published in UK
Parliamentary Briefings magazine dated 26 September
2006, has done much to highlight the differing value
systems about justice between the West and Africa
which are being ignored in the current ICC versus LRA
arrest warrant debate. John Ashworth rebuked the
tendency by ‘international community’ to often impose
European values on justice system, which in essence is
based on Western individualistic world-view: “(“I
exist primarily as an autonomous individual”; “I think
therefore I am”)”. In the West, Ashworth explained,
justice system tends to be retributive; while African
justice is system is more inclined towards restoration
of the broken relationship and healing (“I exist
primarily in relationship to others”; “We are,
therefore I am”).

John Ashworth questioned non-compromising,
one-way-street pursuit of arrest warrant against LRA
leaders by the ICC: “If the ICC is initially involved
when a government is unable to deal with an issue, can
it not become uninvolved when that government itself
subsequently solves the problem?”

He reckons the dilemma presented by the LRA arrest
warrant to ICC and all the stakeholders makes a case
for revising the international laws and universal
human rights to reflect not only the Western
world-view, but other worlds views.

To this I will also add my observation that while the
concept of communal ownership of problems and
solutions, as well as the notion of “stakeholder
society” are well embedded in the Western civic
society and governance, they are being denied the
people of Africa. Stakeholder society simply means it
is those affected by a problem that have the upper say
in determining solutions to the problem.

It is time for the West to respect African values.
What Africa needs is Western support to solve its
problems, not propagation of confusion as the ICC is
currently doing for “the good of Uganda.” It should go
without saying that not every Western bureaucrat in
missionary clothes is taken at face value anymore in
21st century Africa. We in Africa can understand and
analyse your message.

MEDIATORS LACK OF EMPHATHY AND DIRECTION

Whereas everyone has failed to persuade both the LRA
and the government of Uganda to embrace a peacefully
negotiated end to the war in Northern Uganda, the
government of Southern Sudan has done remarkably well.
The reason for their ability to make in-roads into
what is perceived to be a political maze has been
attributed by the Sverker Finnstrom and Ronald
Atkinson to the ability of Southern Sudan peace
mediators to navigate their way carefully around the
Ugandan political landscape. However Sverker and
Atkinson warned against some possessive attitude by
the “international community” to take over the peace
talks and start to impose Western solutions, which as
shown in previous attempts such as efforts by Carter
centre, was able to reconcile Kampala and Khartoum and
not Kampala and LRA. The secret for the progress, they
argued, is that so far what has been achieved has come
from stakeholders themselves.

My only concern is that that GOSS mediators need to
stay focused as well as be able to prioritise issues
needing most attention. It would be instructive at
this juncture if the mediators address the havoc being
caused by the ICC scare-mongering tactics in
connivance of Kampala. They should ask the government
of Uganda to either end the war in Northern Uganda on
a negotiating table, or go to settle the dispute in
the ICC’s court. Kampala cannot have it both ways.
What’s more, it is time the government of Kampala be
asked to withdraw its troops from Southern Sudan.

Finally, the mediators should communicate to Ugandan
government in most unambiguous terms possible, that
the government of Southern Sudan will not be a party
to any plans by Ugandan army to massacre LRA soldiers
in the designated assembly points or any parts of
Southern Sudan, nor would they condone any plots to
assassinate LRA leaders.

* 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. He can be reached at [email protected]. To view this article and past works by the author, follow the link to author’s blog: http://johnakecsouthsudan.blogspot.com/