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.