The war in the north has been going on for close to twenty years. People have been displaced in a maneuver code-named as ‘Operation Scorched Earth’ implying that the government wanted nothing alive in the Acholiland. There should be no living things except government soldiers. At that time, Museveni would now accept that there are no more rebels. In this way the Acholi have been regarded as the Rebels: not the LRA. As soon as the people were forced out of their homes, they were herded in concentration camps where there was not housing or sanitation. People had to begin building from scratch living in the open fields without any protection. This situation can drive you to commit all sorts of inhuman acts. And this was instituted under the watchful eyes of Museveni and his western Uganda commander who constituted 99.9 percent of the army. It was through indiscriminate bombings of the land that people were forced to move because if you did not move you would be considered a rebel and treated accordingly. At this point it would be instructive to ask the Museveni government how many Rebels were there? Why did they have to bombard the whole land in order to move the people out of their villages? Where else in the world or in their campaign, have they used a similar tactic? And what were the results?
These questions are still relevant today and we want get answers to them. Uganda government is being operated in several tiers: the private wing consisting of Museveni and his original groups from the bush war period, and the parliamentary groups. What took Museveni to the bush was not loss of election through rigging, but disdain for the rule of law. This attitude has never left Museveni. In Museveni world, he is the ‘law’. So, whenever you are dealing with Museveni, you must bear this in mind that Museveni is the law. In order to gain support from the southern tribes in Uganda, Museveni had to turn them against the tribes from the north, initially. His said, “We are tired of these northerners, the Okellos...” That was early in 1986 just before the capture of Kampala. The actions of bombarding villages, inciting people to commit murders in the name of tribes, targeting a tribe for liquidations are crimes and are prosecutable by the ICC.
For more than twenty years under Museveni, Uganda has been in war every single day of that period. No mention have been made of indicting Museveni at the Hague. On the other hand, President Bashir of Sudan has been indicted by the same body, the ICC.
The case of Joseph Kony or LRA (Lord's Resistance Army) is very much the case of man versus computer in a game of chess. All the people who joined Museveni thinking his war was a revolution to change Uganda for the better, have been liquidated. The only people who have survived in the NRM (National Resistance Movement) or alive outside the organization are the people who come from Museveni’s tribe or inner circle.
Prior to going into the bush, Museveni had already perfected a method of causing dislike or hatred of the government by attacking people at night and blaming it on government soldiers which he was part of. Attacks in Luwero were stage-managed to implicate government soldiers. Whether people believed it or not, did not matter. But it provided Museveni with a way to ‘purge’ himself of his conscience to do despicable things; and he did many. The story in Acholi follow the same pattern. And Museveni has been forced to negotiate against his will. He has done everything to wreck the peace process to no avail for almost two years. But Recently he decided to go back to what he knows best, which is fighting wars. That is why he hurriedly attacked the LRA camps on flimsy charge of failing to sign the peace agreement. He himself had not sign it. So, one wonders why did he attack the LRA in Congo? Wherever Museveni sends soldiers, there will always be disproportionate civilian death. Suddenly, it is the LRA massacring civilians and Museveni knows all about it in details. No independent journalists are allowed in the area. And the news out of Uganda is nothing but opinion of the writers!
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Dangerous Sycophant in Uganda
The article written by John Nagenda in the New Vision of Friday, December 19, 2008 shows how bias and sycophantic he is. There are ample information about Museveni and his behavior in peace negotiations which really point to the fact that he is not interested in peace in the country (Uganda). It has been Museveni who would introduce new issues as he did in the Nairobi peace talks until the talks collapsed. The resumption of war or fighting has always been from his side as he again did with the Kony attack in Garamba.
If John Nagenda had cared to research Museveni’s method, he would have found out easily why we have war in Uganda for the last 27 years. If anyone is interested in non biased analysis of Museveni’s modus operandi, check out this site http://www.c-r.org/our-work/accord/northern-uganda/reaching-nairobi-agreement.php.
A little snippet is included here.
About Bethuel Kiplagat:
Ambassador Kiplagat is presently the Director of the Africa Peace Forum, Kenya. At the time of the 1985 Nairobi agreement he was Permanent Secretary in the Kenyan Ministry of Foreign Affairs and played a key role in facilitating the negotiations. He has extensive peacemaking experience in Africa, including a prominent role in the Mozambican peace process.
Bethuel wrote:
They began the talks by hurling insults at each other and continued to do so throughout the proceedings. Museveni denounced previous regimes in Uganda as ‘primitives’ and ‘backward’. He initially refused to negotiate with the Military Council delegation, dismissing them as ‘criminals’. He in turn was accused by the Military Council of delaying the negotiation process unnecessarily. He then failed to show up for three consecutive days, having left for Europe through Dar es Salaam. On his return, Museveni and the NRM/A raised new demands for the agenda. Once agreement was reached on an agenda item, Museveni would change his position the following day, or put forward new demands on the same matter. For instance, at one point he insisted that, as he was the head of the NRM/A, Tito Okello was merely the commander of another factional army, not a head of state, although Okello’s status had been agreed earlier as a basis for the negotiations moving forward. President Moi considered this demand ‘disrespectful’ and overruled it. But Museveni’s repeated reintroduction of supposedly resolved issues prolonged discussions considerably.
To recapitulate, the war in Uganda is a result of Museveni’s intense desire to be an absolute ruler in Uganda because he considers the people of Uganda to be fools and in particular to eliminate all the people of Acholi because they pose the gravest threat to his continued rule. They are the people who have the reasons to remember every dirty tricks like the mass murder committed by Museveni’s forces at Corner Kilak where people were asked to assemble to be addressed by Fred Rwigyema, the then overall commander of NRA in Northern Uganda. Many such information are available about how Museveni operated with child soldiers, bank robbery and many dubious and unlawful methods, to achieve power. Now that he is in power all those methods become acceptable to him and his supporters! Uganda has a long way to go to achieve a national character.
Museveni achieves his aims through wars and other people’s abhorrence of wars.
If John Nagenda had cared to research Museveni’s method, he would have found out easily why we have war in Uganda for the last 27 years. If anyone is interested in non biased analysis of Museveni’s modus operandi, check out this site http://www.c-r.org/our-work/accord/northern-uganda/reaching-nairobi-agreement.php.
A little snippet is included here.
About Bethuel Kiplagat:
Ambassador Kiplagat is presently the Director of the Africa Peace Forum, Kenya. At the time of the 1985 Nairobi agreement he was Permanent Secretary in the Kenyan Ministry of Foreign Affairs and played a key role in facilitating the negotiations. He has extensive peacemaking experience in Africa, including a prominent role in the Mozambican peace process.
Bethuel wrote:
They began the talks by hurling insults at each other and continued to do so throughout the proceedings. Museveni denounced previous regimes in Uganda as ‘primitives’ and ‘backward’. He initially refused to negotiate with the Military Council delegation, dismissing them as ‘criminals’. He in turn was accused by the Military Council of delaying the negotiation process unnecessarily. He then failed to show up for three consecutive days, having left for Europe through Dar es Salaam. On his return, Museveni and the NRM/A raised new demands for the agenda. Once agreement was reached on an agenda item, Museveni would change his position the following day, or put forward new demands on the same matter. For instance, at one point he insisted that, as he was the head of the NRM/A, Tito Okello was merely the commander of another factional army, not a head of state, although Okello’s status had been agreed earlier as a basis for the negotiations moving forward. President Moi considered this demand ‘disrespectful’ and overruled it. But Museveni’s repeated reintroduction of supposedly resolved issues prolonged discussions considerably.
To recapitulate, the war in Uganda is a result of Museveni’s intense desire to be an absolute ruler in Uganda because he considers the people of Uganda to be fools and in particular to eliminate all the people of Acholi because they pose the gravest threat to his continued rule. They are the people who have the reasons to remember every dirty tricks like the mass murder committed by Museveni’s forces at Corner Kilak where people were asked to assemble to be addressed by Fred Rwigyema, the then overall commander of NRA in Northern Uganda. Many such information are available about how Museveni operated with child soldiers, bank robbery and many dubious and unlawful methods, to achieve power. Now that he is in power all those methods become acceptable to him and his supporters! Uganda has a long way to go to achieve a national character.
Museveni achieves his aims through wars and other people’s abhorrence of wars.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Kenya Electoral Commission Spoke the Truth
When the Chairman of the ECK said he was pressured by the PNU and ODM-K to announce the result of the election, many people did not believe him. Kibaki as the leader of PNU became the president while Kalonzo Musyoka, the leader of ODM-K became the vice president. This has removed all doubts that that election was rigged. Mr Kivuitu also stated that he saw return from one polling station having a different figure than the one signed at the polling station.
The people of Kenya have been living under various oppressive regimes. This began to change when a coming together of several parties under the rainbow coalition was able to wrest power from Daniel Arap Moi. The first try was defeated because the opposition was so much splintered that they could not obtain a majority against Moi's political machinery. The second time they succeeded when Raila Odinga crafted a cryptic message , "Kibaki Tosha," to unify the opposition.
The NARC coalition broke down when Kibaki did not honor the memorandum of understanding that brought the different parties together. The biggest complaint was that Kibaki had surrounded himself with corrupt people who prevented any meaningful change from occurring. Kenya never got the new constitution as promised. So, when Kibaki announced that election was to take place at the end of 2007, the old coalition, NARC disintegrated and Kibaki was left basically without a party. This is when the opportunists surrounding him seized the time to craft a new political party to enable Kibaki stay in power. They came up with PNU (Party of National Unity). By then the damage was already done. Almost every major party had joined the ODM thereby giving it a national character. Also, there was so much wrangle in the creation and running of the PNU that the only thing that kept it together was not a political idea but protection of vested interest that was being threatened by ascent of ODM to power. It was at this time that Uhuru Kenyatta was frightened out of ODM giving PNU a Gatundu stripe.
The majority of Kenyans are yearning for a change and an improvement in their lives. They pinned their hope on voting out the Kibaki government as was witnessed by the number of minister losing their seats in parliament. During the tallying of the ballots, Raila Odinga was way ahead of Kibaki when things suddenly changed! Results coming into the KICC indicated a higher figures favoring Kibaki on arrival at the center and signatures of party representatives from the polling stations were also missing. Then late on Sunday December 30, 2007 around 5 p.m., the chairman of the ECK went to the state house and announced the result giving victory to Kibaki. Hastily, within one hour and without any member of the diplomatic corps present, Kibaki was sworn in as the president for the second time.
So, when riots broke out, it was because people had lost all hope of a peaceful change and felt betrayed and cheated openly by the people now in government.
To say that the opposition or anybody for that matter, planned the violence is tantamount to ignoring the history of Kenya since independence. Claims of ethnic cleansing or tribal wars are statement from correspondents and people who don't care about the dynamics of the Kenya society. They are too lazy to research the cause of this great misery in a once peaceful nation where every neighboring country sought refuge. In the given situation, if the violence had preceded election it would have been appropriate to call it ethnic or tribal war. But in this case many areas of the country has not received proportional development fund. Corruption is eating up the highest echelon of power and change through the ballot box has been rigged out. Can you also call this ethnic cleansing?
Given that there is a direct correlation between speeches endorsing the election result and violence, would it be better to recruit 30,000 new police or desist from making provocative statements endorsing injustice and unfairness? If one cannot be fare and just in this instance where he is caught red-handed, how can one expect him to be when he can perform his activities out of the public eyes?
The people of Kenya have been living under various oppressive regimes. This began to change when a coming together of several parties under the rainbow coalition was able to wrest power from Daniel Arap Moi. The first try was defeated because the opposition was so much splintered that they could not obtain a majority against Moi's political machinery. The second time they succeeded when Raila Odinga crafted a cryptic message , "Kibaki Tosha," to unify the opposition.
The NARC coalition broke down when Kibaki did not honor the memorandum of understanding that brought the different parties together. The biggest complaint was that Kibaki had surrounded himself with corrupt people who prevented any meaningful change from occurring. Kenya never got the new constitution as promised. So, when Kibaki announced that election was to take place at the end of 2007, the old coalition, NARC disintegrated and Kibaki was left basically without a party. This is when the opportunists surrounding him seized the time to craft a new political party to enable Kibaki stay in power. They came up with PNU (Party of National Unity). By then the damage was already done. Almost every major party had joined the ODM thereby giving it a national character. Also, there was so much wrangle in the creation and running of the PNU that the only thing that kept it together was not a political idea but protection of vested interest that was being threatened by ascent of ODM to power. It was at this time that Uhuru Kenyatta was frightened out of ODM giving PNU a Gatundu stripe.
The majority of Kenyans are yearning for a change and an improvement in their lives. They pinned their hope on voting out the Kibaki government as was witnessed by the number of minister losing their seats in parliament. During the tallying of the ballots, Raila Odinga was way ahead of Kibaki when things suddenly changed! Results coming into the KICC indicated a higher figures favoring Kibaki on arrival at the center and signatures of party representatives from the polling stations were also missing. Then late on Sunday December 30, 2007 around 5 p.m., the chairman of the ECK went to the state house and announced the result giving victory to Kibaki. Hastily, within one hour and without any member of the diplomatic corps present, Kibaki was sworn in as the president for the second time.
So, when riots broke out, it was because people had lost all hope of a peaceful change and felt betrayed and cheated openly by the people now in government.
To say that the opposition or anybody for that matter, planned the violence is tantamount to ignoring the history of Kenya since independence. Claims of ethnic cleansing or tribal wars are statement from correspondents and people who don't care about the dynamics of the Kenya society. They are too lazy to research the cause of this great misery in a once peaceful nation where every neighboring country sought refuge. In the given situation, if the violence had preceded election it would have been appropriate to call it ethnic or tribal war. But in this case many areas of the country has not received proportional development fund. Corruption is eating up the highest echelon of power and change through the ballot box has been rigged out. Can you also call this ethnic cleansing?
Given that there is a direct correlation between speeches endorsing the election result and violence, would it be better to recruit 30,000 new police or desist from making provocative statements endorsing injustice and unfairness? If one cannot be fare and just in this instance where he is caught red-handed, how can one expect him to be when he can perform his activities out of the public eyes?
Monday, January 28, 2008
Another Deadline for LRA - Military Option Once Again
Museveni has been forced to accept a negotiated settlement to northern Uganda war because the cost has become very high to the people who finance his expedition in the north. He has been working tirelessly to make sure that a meaningful settlement is not reached. But the real reason is very difficult to see unless one looks more closely at the interest and actions of his lieutenants in the north.
Salim Saleh, Museveni half brother attempted to buy land in Acholi but was repulsed and has not been able to find a better way to acquire that land. Next Museveni has tried to come in through Madhvani sugar works but he is facing stiff opposition. He is attempting to go through the paramount chief of Acholi but the members of parliament are in the way.
Above all, Museven's land grabbing plans has included Baganda land where he is meeting stiff resistance and now the Baganda are in similar danger as the Acholi's and therefore are bound to come together threatening Museveni's reign.
So, what can Museveni do? He can use the army and acquire the land by force. There is only one obstacle - Kony and his LRA. So, before he puts any of his plans into action, Kony and the LRA must first be liquidated. That is why he is trying to convince Congo, Rwanda, Burundi and MONUC to help him fight Kony. Once he torpedoes the Juba peace talks, he can then do as he pleases with the few seasoned military men under LRA. Once the people have no land, then they will become beggars whom Museveni can use to perpetrate his reign far into the future.
Museveni is seeking to control all the arable lands in Uganda and give it to his cronies thereby impoverishing the people. This will pave the way for his dynasty in Uganda. To Museveni, the problem and death in Kenya could not have come at a better time! We the people have accepted Museveni's rule til death do us part.
Salim Saleh, Museveni half brother attempted to buy land in Acholi but was repulsed and has not been able to find a better way to acquire that land. Next Museveni has tried to come in through Madhvani sugar works but he is facing stiff opposition. He is attempting to go through the paramount chief of Acholi but the members of parliament are in the way.
Above all, Museven's land grabbing plans has included Baganda land where he is meeting stiff resistance and now the Baganda are in similar danger as the Acholi's and therefore are bound to come together threatening Museveni's reign.
So, what can Museveni do? He can use the army and acquire the land by force. There is only one obstacle - Kony and his LRA. So, before he puts any of his plans into action, Kony and the LRA must first be liquidated. That is why he is trying to convince Congo, Rwanda, Burundi and MONUC to help him fight Kony. Once he torpedoes the Juba peace talks, he can then do as he pleases with the few seasoned military men under LRA. Once the people have no land, then they will become beggars whom Museveni can use to perpetrate his reign far into the future.
Museveni is seeking to control all the arable lands in Uganda and give it to his cronies thereby impoverishing the people. This will pave the way for his dynasty in Uganda. To Museveni, the problem and death in Kenya could not have come at a better time! We the people have accepted Museveni's rule til death do us part.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Remember Museveni in Congo?
Kibaki was never prepared for a second tern in office. He said that he was only going to run one time. Whether this was a bait so that he could be accepted by NARC group or a genuine interest in only serving one term, we can never know. The PNU (Party of National Unity) is certainly a contraption of an active mind bent on staying in the power house, hurriedly put together to enable Kibaki compete a second time. The most interesting show was that of Uhuru Kenyatta abandoning the opposition in order to join the government side. One can only wonder the appeal! Whenever you make this kind of connection, there is danger that one may not honor the agreement. The national character that was embodied by ODM became so troubling that Uhuru Kenyatta was unceremoniously pulled out of the group by clique close to Kibaki. What better message could it be than party of national unity?
Then there was the slogan that a "Luo could not rule" being floated around. There was no politics to go with it. Instead of explaining what they want to accomplice so that the electorate can give them their votes, they (PNU)squandered their chance. Meanwhile ODM was taking it message to all corners of the country. When Raila reached Kibaki's stronghold he was unceremoniously ejected from a hotel belonging to a Kibaki supporter. This was the first glimpse of what could happen in the election. Nowhere else in Kenya did a thing of such magnitude occur, but there were several instances of intolerance. Generally, Kenyans have been patient and watching the going ons but they committed to change through the ballot box. If Kibaki had won "fair and square" without people actually witnessing an open 'rigging,' no one would have resorted to violence. There are reasons why people resort to violence and this election qualified as one. You can put any label on it but it will not change its intensity. It is generally perceived that Kibaki surrounded himself with hardliners and rich people who were able to isolate him from ordinary Kenyans. Other disputes like the memorandum of understanding before beating the Moi government, also have been simmering but the election provided hope that a new administration would usher in better and fair treatment for all. If it was a purely tribal animosity there would be no need to stop momentarily when fairness and wisdom indicate a change in direction. The arrival of the former secretary general of UN, Mr Kofi Anan gave people hope of a resolution of the problem. But as soon as Kibaki again made provocative statement that he was duly elected, violence flared up again and this time it is getting worse because they see that the government of Kibaki is determined to oppress them again for another five years. Evidently preaching politics in the name of tribes alone does nothing but bring in suffering for any group perceived to be allied to the oppressor. Our actions as leaders have far and profound effect on those we lead. There can never be violence where the people feel that they have been treated fairly. Tanzania is a case in point. but even in Tanzania there is a simmering problem between mainland and Zanzibaris.
The history of Kenya is replete with government sponsored killings of opponents. Tom Mboya, Robert Ouko, and J.M. Kariuki were all murdered in the same way by the same group of people in the government. These happened under Kenyatta and also under Moi. Their tribe really did not matter but the fact that they were a threat to the establishment made them all meet the same fate. Tom Mboya was not killed because he was a Luo but because he made a statement in parliament that a clique around Kenyatta was enriching themselves at the expense of ordinary Kenyans. Ouko had easier access to US president than Moi and JM was giving more money at harambee than Kenyatta was doing. People see these actions but have no immediate answer. They absorb it for a long time but never forget it. It gives them clue of the people in power what they can do and how they can be rid off them. That people can so easily label actions in terms of tribes is indicative of a weak system of government prone to corruption.
Now Museveni is angling for a piece of the action in Kenya politic. What better method to assure Kibaki that he would defend him at all cost and that he should not negotiate with 'those killers'? Museveni is also fighting to have Kibaki keep him company of 'democratic dictators.' Museveni also knows that if the people in Kenya succeed in pushing Kibaki out of power, then a similar thing can easily happen in Uganda. That is why he is so far the only leader to congratulate Kibaki on winning the reelection. Then just like in Congo and Sudan, Museveni will send in Uganda troops to 'secure the railway lines.' Just watch and see if Kenya does not resolve the problem through dialogue!
Then there was the slogan that a "Luo could not rule" being floated around. There was no politics to go with it. Instead of explaining what they want to accomplice so that the electorate can give them their votes, they (PNU)squandered their chance. Meanwhile ODM was taking it message to all corners of the country. When Raila reached Kibaki's stronghold he was unceremoniously ejected from a hotel belonging to a Kibaki supporter. This was the first glimpse of what could happen in the election. Nowhere else in Kenya did a thing of such magnitude occur, but there were several instances of intolerance. Generally, Kenyans have been patient and watching the going ons but they committed to change through the ballot box. If Kibaki had won "fair and square" without people actually witnessing an open 'rigging,' no one would have resorted to violence. There are reasons why people resort to violence and this election qualified as one. You can put any label on it but it will not change its intensity. It is generally perceived that Kibaki surrounded himself with hardliners and rich people who were able to isolate him from ordinary Kenyans. Other disputes like the memorandum of understanding before beating the Moi government, also have been simmering but the election provided hope that a new administration would usher in better and fair treatment for all. If it was a purely tribal animosity there would be no need to stop momentarily when fairness and wisdom indicate a change in direction. The arrival of the former secretary general of UN, Mr Kofi Anan gave people hope of a resolution of the problem. But as soon as Kibaki again made provocative statement that he was duly elected, violence flared up again and this time it is getting worse because they see that the government of Kibaki is determined to oppress them again for another five years. Evidently preaching politics in the name of tribes alone does nothing but bring in suffering for any group perceived to be allied to the oppressor. Our actions as leaders have far and profound effect on those we lead. There can never be violence where the people feel that they have been treated fairly. Tanzania is a case in point. but even in Tanzania there is a simmering problem between mainland and Zanzibaris.
The history of Kenya is replete with government sponsored killings of opponents. Tom Mboya, Robert Ouko, and J.M. Kariuki were all murdered in the same way by the same group of people in the government. These happened under Kenyatta and also under Moi. Their tribe really did not matter but the fact that they were a threat to the establishment made them all meet the same fate. Tom Mboya was not killed because he was a Luo but because he made a statement in parliament that a clique around Kenyatta was enriching themselves at the expense of ordinary Kenyans. Ouko had easier access to US president than Moi and JM was giving more money at harambee than Kenyatta was doing. People see these actions but have no immediate answer. They absorb it for a long time but never forget it. It gives them clue of the people in power what they can do and how they can be rid off them. That people can so easily label actions in terms of tribes is indicative of a weak system of government prone to corruption.
Now Museveni is angling for a piece of the action in Kenya politic. What better method to assure Kibaki that he would defend him at all cost and that he should not negotiate with 'those killers'? Museveni is also fighting to have Kibaki keep him company of 'democratic dictators.' Museveni also knows that if the people in Kenya succeed in pushing Kibaki out of power, then a similar thing can easily happen in Uganda. That is why he is so far the only leader to congratulate Kibaki on winning the reelection. Then just like in Congo and Sudan, Museveni will send in Uganda troops to 'secure the railway lines.' Just watch and see if Kenya does not resolve the problem through dialogue!
Monday, March 05, 2007
The Juba Peace Talks
The Juba Peace Talks
The Juba peace talks have been interrupted because the LRA felt that there were grounds to be considered in order to make it a fair exercise. Their contentions were that:
1. Uganda army was attempting to surround LRA in the two designated assembly points,
2. The mediator, Dr. Riek Machar was not neutral.
As a result, they demanded that the mediator be changed and a new venue outside Sudan be found. These followed clearly documented evidences of Uganda government troops being closer to the assembly point than was comfortable(intent to capture LRA and end peace talks) and Dr. Riek Machar making demands that were tantamount to supporting the position of Uganda government.
The aim of negotiation is to find ‘middle ground.’ Dr. Riek Machar has been calling for the top leaders of LRA to attend the peace talks because the next stage required the signing of documents. Yet, at the same time, contentious issues raised by the LRA delegations are brushed aside. So, what documents were Kony and Otti necessary to sign? It is true that the presence of Kony in Juba would indicate how close peace was to northern Uganda. But there is also a chance that the situation could degenerate into far worse scenarios than is currently obtaining.
Given Museveni’s propensities for violating peace treaties and the constant shuttling of GOSS Vice President and mediator between Juba and Kampala, would this not give anyone ground for rejecting Machar as mediator?
Acholi delegation to Juba attempting to rejuvenate the peace talks recommends that Juba be the venue. Sudanese governors meeting recommends that LRA be forcibly evicted from Southern Sudan and that the peace talks are carried out elsewhere keeping GOSS as mediator. Both these groups are not really part of the peace talks but they directly benefit greatly from the cessation of war in their areas.
No other party, so far, has even acknowledged the position taken by the LRA as genuine and deserving of immediate attention. At the same time they demand that Kony himself come to Juba to sign some important document that are coming up shortly!! The mediator has threatened the LRA to do what he wants, like Kony coming to Juba to sign documents and that failure on the part of Kony is indicative of his lack of interest in peace in northern Uganda. On the other hand, refusing to accommodate the demands put forth by the LRA on the grounds that ‘it is frivilous’ is really delaying the conclusion of the talks.
There are sentimental reasons for Acholi groups insisting that Juba continue to be the venue of the peace talks and that Dr. Riek Machar continue being the moderator. Museveni, however, has purged himself of all such feelings and therefore ready to subjugate our Acholi people.
Briefly, I find that the LRA delegation is genuine in their demand for change of venue and mediator. It is up to us to clearly state our demands and indicate how far we can go without seeing concrete results before purging our people of those same sentiments that is making us subservient to Museveni who cares nothing about us.
The Juba peace talks have been interrupted because the LRA felt that there were grounds to be considered in order to make it a fair exercise. Their contentions were that:
1. Uganda army was attempting to surround LRA in the two designated assembly points,
2. The mediator, Dr. Riek Machar was not neutral.
As a result, they demanded that the mediator be changed and a new venue outside Sudan be found. These followed clearly documented evidences of Uganda government troops being closer to the assembly point than was comfortable(intent to capture LRA and end peace talks) and Dr. Riek Machar making demands that were tantamount to supporting the position of Uganda government.
The aim of negotiation is to find ‘middle ground.’ Dr. Riek Machar has been calling for the top leaders of LRA to attend the peace talks because the next stage required the signing of documents. Yet, at the same time, contentious issues raised by the LRA delegations are brushed aside. So, what documents were Kony and Otti necessary to sign? It is true that the presence of Kony in Juba would indicate how close peace was to northern Uganda. But there is also a chance that the situation could degenerate into far worse scenarios than is currently obtaining.
Given Museveni’s propensities for violating peace treaties and the constant shuttling of GOSS Vice President and mediator between Juba and Kampala, would this not give anyone ground for rejecting Machar as mediator?
Acholi delegation to Juba attempting to rejuvenate the peace talks recommends that Juba be the venue. Sudanese governors meeting recommends that LRA be forcibly evicted from Southern Sudan and that the peace talks are carried out elsewhere keeping GOSS as mediator. Both these groups are not really part of the peace talks but they directly benefit greatly from the cessation of war in their areas.
No other party, so far, has even acknowledged the position taken by the LRA as genuine and deserving of immediate attention. At the same time they demand that Kony himself come to Juba to sign some important document that are coming up shortly!! The mediator has threatened the LRA to do what he wants, like Kony coming to Juba to sign documents and that failure on the part of Kony is indicative of his lack of interest in peace in northern Uganda. On the other hand, refusing to accommodate the demands put forth by the LRA on the grounds that ‘it is frivilous’ is really delaying the conclusion of the talks.
There are sentimental reasons for Acholi groups insisting that Juba continue to be the venue of the peace talks and that Dr. Riek Machar continue being the moderator. Museveni, however, has purged himself of all such feelings and therefore ready to subjugate our Acholi people.
Briefly, I find that the LRA delegation is genuine in their demand for change of venue and mediator. It is up to us to clearly state our demands and indicate how far we can go without seeing concrete results before purging our people of those same sentiments that is making us subservient to Museveni who cares nothing about us.
Sunday, November 12, 2006
ICC Is 'Monkey Wrench' In Juba Peace Talks
I cannot believe that the most educated and ‘forward’ people cannot understand what the LRA is saying about not assembling at the two locations.
1. The LRA chief said he couldn’t go to Juba as long as the ICC warrant is in effect.
2. Museveni says he cannot ask the ICC to withdraw the warrants unless the LRA sign the peace deal.
3. ICC says it cannot withdraw the warrants unless Museveni requests it.
All these issues simply stifle the peace negotiation. So is the peace talks being relegated to secondary status?
The negotiation in Juba is not proceeding in good tone otherwise there would be enough trust to defray these three points. We would like to see a comprehensive agreement that is acceptable and enforceable/sustainable before we can comment on the three issues.
LRA chiefs are within their rights to refuse to attend Juba talks unless their fear can be allayed. Uganda government, on the other hand cannot demand a signing of a peace agreement first then granting the LRA protection or requesting the withdrawal of the warrants because it does not affect the contents of the peace talks. If anything, the LRA have the right to fear that the government is bent on trapping them instead of delivering peace to northern region.
Kony's presence cannot boost the peace talk at this time at all because even the LRA have unilaterally adopted a cease-fire that has been kept by them in spite of incitement by government forces. A big delagation from Acholi has visited the general at his hide-out and that should have been all the boost we needed. Right now, there is no agreement to sign to bring Gen. Kony to Juba especially with the ICC warrant in place. If the peace talk is also the venue where ICC arrest will be effected, then there is no need to waste our time negotiating an unsustainable agreement.
Conclusion:
Absence of warrants will allow LRA to have more trust and make negotiation more likely to succeed. However, this will rob Museveni of a method of taunting and attempting to frustrate the LRA to abandon the peace talk.
The third point of ICC withdrawing the warrant is also less important if the government and LRA engage in sincere talks aimed at restoring peace and dignity to all. Only after the talks have been concluded to the satisfaction of all stakeholders should the ICC issues be tackled if they are still relevant then. At that time it will be easy to point out where or how the ICC warrant obstructs the return of peace.
So, there you have it. The bringing of ICC issue at the peace talk serves no other purpose at this time except to scuttle the meeting. That is what it is. No argument can alter that fact!
There are absolutely no scenarios in which the ICC warrant can concurrently exist with the ongoing peace talks in Juba to a peaceful conclusion.
1. The LRA chief said he couldn’t go to Juba as long as the ICC warrant is in effect.
2. Museveni says he cannot ask the ICC to withdraw the warrants unless the LRA sign the peace deal.
3. ICC says it cannot withdraw the warrants unless Museveni requests it.
All these issues simply stifle the peace negotiation. So is the peace talks being relegated to secondary status?
The negotiation in Juba is not proceeding in good tone otherwise there would be enough trust to defray these three points. We would like to see a comprehensive agreement that is acceptable and enforceable/sustainable before we can comment on the three issues.
LRA chiefs are within their rights to refuse to attend Juba talks unless their fear can be allayed. Uganda government, on the other hand cannot demand a signing of a peace agreement first then granting the LRA protection or requesting the withdrawal of the warrants because it does not affect the contents of the peace talks. If anything, the LRA have the right to fear that the government is bent on trapping them instead of delivering peace to northern region.
Kony's presence cannot boost the peace talk at this time at all because even the LRA have unilaterally adopted a cease-fire that has been kept by them in spite of incitement by government forces. A big delagation from Acholi has visited the general at his hide-out and that should have been all the boost we needed. Right now, there is no agreement to sign to bring Gen. Kony to Juba especially with the ICC warrant in place. If the peace talk is also the venue where ICC arrest will be effected, then there is no need to waste our time negotiating an unsustainable agreement.
Conclusion:
Absence of warrants will allow LRA to have more trust and make negotiation more likely to succeed. However, this will rob Museveni of a method of taunting and attempting to frustrate the LRA to abandon the peace talk.
The third point of ICC withdrawing the warrant is also less important if the government and LRA engage in sincere talks aimed at restoring peace and dignity to all. Only after the talks have been concluded to the satisfaction of all stakeholders should the ICC issues be tackled if they are still relevant then. At that time it will be easy to point out where or how the ICC warrant obstructs the return of peace.
So, there you have it. The bringing of ICC issue at the peace talk serves no other purpose at this time except to scuttle the meeting. That is what it is. No argument can alter that fact!
There are absolutely no scenarios in which the ICC warrant can concurrently exist with the ongoing peace talks in Juba to a peaceful conclusion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
