From the field: Juba talks remain the best chance for peace in northern Uganda
Kenny Ferenchak, Resolve Uganda's field researcher in northern Uganda, reports from Uganda that despite recent progress at the Juba talks serious obstacles remain ahead.
As the Juba peace talks enter into their final critical stages the parties now more than ever need to show unwavering commitment to silencing their guns. And there is no doubt that recent weeks have witnessed a significant surge of momentum build towards a final agreement. Since the end of January the parties extended the cessation of hostilities and resumed active negotiations, the US and EU became official observers to the negotiations and the (newly reconstituted) LRA peace delegation finally has the backing of LRA chief Joseph Kony. Unfortunately, the outlook is not all so rosy. Actions by both the LRA and Ugandan government, and the international community, continue to jeopardize the negotiations – and the hopes for a lasting peace held by millions of people in the three countries affected by the conflict. The LRA negotiating team entered the latest rounds of talks claiming a renewed sense of urgency in reaching a final settlement with the government. However, the last week has seen them walk out of talks over demands for the economic, political, and military inclusion of northerners in the national picture—a noble cause, but not one for which the LRA is suited after decades of brutal attacks on these very people. The negotiating team has also deemed it appropriate to take a 5-day recess for further consultations in Nairobi, Kenya. Also, reports have surfaced that the LRA is responsible for raids in South Sudan that have killed tens of civilians in recent weeks, though they officially deny involvement.
On the other side of the table, the Uganda government’s resolve to usher in a new era of peace has also appeared shaky. Reports have broken this week claiming that President Museveni has paid hundreds of thousands of US dollars to a Washington lobbyist to convince the American government that, among other things, he is in fact committed to the peace talks. Perhaps a stronger sign of commitment would have been to use this money to improve the lives of the hundreds of thousands people that remain displaced in northern Uganda. Moreover, if the LRA was in fact responsible for the recent attacks in South Sudan, there are several indications that the operations were in direct response to the Ugandan government’s threat to attack the LRA base in the DR Congo at the end of January (the attacks appear to have been focused on securing hidden weapons and supplies). Though any serious military option would cause serious instability throughout the region, the Ugandan government is now threatening another deadline for peace at the end of this month. Anyone claiming that these deadlines are ‘empty threats’ should look to the victims in South Sudan and to the hundreds of thousands across northern Uganda who live in fear of a return to the violence they’ve suffered for decades.
Finally, the mediating role to be filled by the international community leaves room for improvement. In response to the alleged LRA attacks, a member of the South Sudan government, host to the talks, called for an immediate halt to the negotiations. Only days after becoming an official observer to the talks, suspicions that that the US is not fully behind the talks were rekindled when it was revealed that it had drafted a deal to bring a quick resolution to the conflict without the knowledge of the LRA negotiating team.
None of these items spell doom for the Juba peace talks, but they do relay a disheartening message—if the actors that have the ability to bring peace to northern Uganda are reluctant to commit to a peace deal, what can we expect from them when the real work for rebuilding northern Uganda begins?
Whatever deal, if any, comes out of Juba will be a historic step towards peace in northern Uganda. But in all the attention devoted to the drama and stakes at these talks, we must never forget that a deal will be just that—a step. It is worth the time and effort to ensure that the agreement reached is solid enough to stand up to the challenges that will surely come in the future. However, the LRA, the Ugandan government and the international community must bear in mind that Juba is merely a launching point: looking forward, it will be issues of northern recovery, regional security and national reconciliation that truly determine the stability and longevity of the peace.
Even when the prospects are at their dimmest, one would be hard-pressed to find a single northern Ugandan who does not rest all their hopes for peace in a successful conclusion to the Juba process. This may not be the wisest position from a standpoint of political or historical analysis, but these people see no other choice.
There is a tragically long list of indicators which suggest how hard life is for northern Ugandans in the war-affected regions to this day, but the life expectancy figure released in last year’s Human Development Report for the Acholi region speaks pretty clearly—31.86 years. Furthermore, the region is surrounded by large-scale conflicts and potential conflicts in DRC, South Sudan, Karamoja and Kenya that can have a disastrous impact on the LRA-affected regions. The political collapse in Kenya has served as a foreboding reminder of what can happen if the deep fractions underlying the Ugandan state are not addressed by a national reconciliation process.
If millions facing these odds are willing to put the past behind them to move forward in the name of peace, is it really too much to ask the same of those in Juba?
As the Juba peace talks enter into their final critical stages the parties now more than ever need to show unwavering commitment to silencing their guns. And there is no doubt that recent weeks have witnessed a significant surge of momentum build towards a final agreement. Since the end of January the parties extended the cessation of hostilities and resumed active negotiations, the US and EU became official observers to the negotiations and the (newly reconstituted) LRA peace delegation finally has the backing of LRA chief Joseph Kony. Unfortunately, the outlook is not all so rosy. Actions by both the LRA and Ugandan government, and the international community, continue to jeopardize the negotiations – and the hopes for a lasting peace held by millions of people in the three countries affected by the conflict. The LRA negotiating team entered the latest rounds of talks claiming a renewed sense of urgency in reaching a final settlement with the government. However, the last week has seen them walk out of talks over demands for the economic, political, and military inclusion of northerners in the national picture—a noble cause, but not one for which the LRA is suited after decades of brutal attacks on these very people. The negotiating team has also deemed it appropriate to take a 5-day recess for further consultations in Nairobi, Kenya. Also, reports have surfaced that the LRA is responsible for raids in South Sudan that have killed tens of civilians in recent weeks, though they officially deny involvement.
On the other side of the table, the Uganda government’s resolve to usher in a new era of peace has also appeared shaky. Reports have broken this week claiming that President Museveni has paid hundreds of thousands of US dollars to a Washington lobbyist to convince the American government that, among other things, he is in fact committed to the peace talks. Perhaps a stronger sign of commitment would have been to use this money to improve the lives of the hundreds of thousands people that remain displaced in northern Uganda. Moreover, if the LRA was in fact responsible for the recent attacks in South Sudan, there are several indications that the operations were in direct response to the Ugandan government’s threat to attack the LRA base in the DR Congo at the end of January (the attacks appear to have been focused on securing hidden weapons and supplies). Though any serious military option would cause serious instability throughout the region, the Ugandan government is now threatening another deadline for peace at the end of this month. Anyone claiming that these deadlines are ‘empty threats’ should look to the victims in South Sudan and to the hundreds of thousands across northern Uganda who live in fear of a return to the violence they’ve suffered for decades.
Finally, the mediating role to be filled by the international community leaves room for improvement. In response to the alleged LRA attacks, a member of the South Sudan government, host to the talks, called for an immediate halt to the negotiations. Only days after becoming an official observer to the talks, suspicions that that the US is not fully behind the talks were rekindled when it was revealed that it had drafted a deal to bring a quick resolution to the conflict without the knowledge of the LRA negotiating team.
None of these items spell doom for the Juba peace talks, but they do relay a disheartening message—if the actors that have the ability to bring peace to northern Uganda are reluctant to commit to a peace deal, what can we expect from them when the real work for rebuilding northern Uganda begins?
Whatever deal, if any, comes out of Juba will be a historic step towards peace in northern Uganda. But in all the attention devoted to the drama and stakes at these talks, we must never forget that a deal will be just that—a step. It is worth the time and effort to ensure that the agreement reached is solid enough to stand up to the challenges that will surely come in the future. However, the LRA, the Ugandan government and the international community must bear in mind that Juba is merely a launching point: looking forward, it will be issues of northern recovery, regional security and national reconciliation that truly determine the stability and longevity of the peace.
Even when the prospects are at their dimmest, one would be hard-pressed to find a single northern Ugandan who does not rest all their hopes for peace in a successful conclusion to the Juba process. This may not be the wisest position from a standpoint of political or historical analysis, but these people see no other choice.
There is a tragically long list of indicators which suggest how hard life is for northern Ugandans in the war-affected regions to this day, but the life expectancy figure released in last year’s Human Development Report for the Acholi region speaks pretty clearly—31.86 years. Furthermore, the region is surrounded by large-scale conflicts and potential conflicts in DRC, South Sudan, Karamoja and Kenya that can have a disastrous impact on the LRA-affected regions. The political collapse in Kenya has served as a foreboding reminder of what can happen if the deep fractions underlying the Ugandan state are not addressed by a national reconciliation process.
If millions facing these odds are willing to put the past behind them to move forward in the name of peace, is it really too much to ask the same of those in Juba?