A boy is silhouetted as he walks behind an orange scarf hung up to dry in Lacor camp for internally displaced Ugandans in the north, June 2007. REUTERS/Euan Denholm
Peter J. Quaranto, a senior researcher and conflict analyst for the Washington-based advocacy group Resolve Uganda, argues that recent talk about a military solution to the Northern Uganda crisis isn&${esc.hash}39;t helping.For almost three years, I have been part of the growing movement to press Western governments to respond to the crisis in northern Uganda. International neglect, while aid poured into Kampala, has allowed the war to persist for two decades. Today that silence is history; world leaders from Washington to London to Brussels are speaking about the urgency of resolving the conflict.
Yet priority does not guarantee prudence. In fact, many Western officials have begun making reckless military threats that threaten to undermine the ongoing peace process. It leaves activists like myself wondering: have our efforts been counterproductive?
The last month has seen a surge of military rhetoric against the Lord&${esc.hash}39;s Resistance Army (LRA) rebels. In early September, the top U.S. official for Africa urged a timeline for the negotiations and said Washington would support military action to "mop up the LRA" if the talks fail.
Meanwhile, Uganda and Democratic Republic of Congo signed an agreement that allows for joint military operations against the LRA within 90 days. The U.N. peacekeeping force in Congo (MONUC) has announced its readiness to "use force" to push the rebels out of DRC&${esc.hash}39;s Garamba Park. Speaking at the U.N. General Assembly, the Belgian Prime Minister urged international action to arrest LRA leaders.
This military planning and pressure might have been welcome in 2005 when there was little hope of a peaceful resolution to end LRA attacks and abductions. Northern Ugandans were then pleading for someone - anyone - to fulfill the so-called "responsibility to protect". Yet, two years later, there are ongoing peace talks, in which war-affected communities are largely placing their hope.
Though torturously slow, the negotiations in the south Sudanese capital Juba have brought relative calm to northern Uganda, allowing an estimated 400,000 displaced persons to begin returning to their homes and fields. Most Acholi are simply waiting for a final agreement from Juba before they leave the camps. They believe these negotiations offer the best chance to bring them lasting security.
By all accounts, the recent military threats have alarmed these survivors. Too many times in their history, optimism surrounding peace talks has been shattered by sudden military provocation. With every proclaimed "military solution," their families have suffered more severe attacks and displacement. As a result, the recent rhetoric has kept people closer to the camps, restricting their freedom of movement and right to return.
Perhaps international actors calling for military action believe threats will increase the incentives for the rebels to negotiate. Yet this is certainly no sure bet. The LRA have pulled out of talks in the past when they suspected manipulation by the Ugandan government. Moreover, Khartoum may welcome a rekindled relationship with the LRA to destabilise southern Sudan before its 2011 vote on secession. Military rhetoric could give aggressive elements in the LRA the political cover they seek to withdraw from talks, blaming Kampala.
If the LRA does withdraw, can MONUC and the region&${esc.hash}39;s militaries contain and "mop them up"? The answer is uncertain. These forces have failed in the past to overpower the rebels, who travel in small numbers across borders, with small arms caches and superior knowledge of the jungle terrain. The United States has promised valuable intelligence support, but superior technology will not ensure success.
RISK OF REKINDLING VIOLENCEThe consequences of failure not only for northern Uganda, but also the wider region, would be catastrophic. The point is this: why take the risk now when there is a viable opportunity to bring an end to hostilities?
Perhaps most disturbing about the latest round of military rhetoric is the potential role of the Ugandan government. To date, Kampala has shown commendable commitment to the Juba peace talks. However, its recent agreement with Congo and growing threats plays into northerners&${esc.hash}39; suspicion that President Museveni will only settle for a military victory.
Many fear that the President will cast off negotiations after November&${esc.hash}39;s Commonwealth summit in Uganda. The current military rhetoric may provide exactly the right pretext for the Ugandan army to resume operations. Such a move would only further alienate northerners, while risking the escalation of regional violence.
This is not to argue against any future military role for peacekeeping or protection; rather that active military operations should not be employed unless viable peaceful means to end the conflict have been exhausted.
The current military buildup is unhelpful and runs a high risk of rekindling violence. It provides a convenient cover for either the Ugandan government or the LRA to back out of the Juba talks. The negotiations, flawed as they are, still offer the best chance to end the LRA security threat and begin addressing deeper grievances. Western leaders can best help northern Uganda by making sure the peace talks get a full chance to succeed.
The great tragedy in all of these military scenarios is that those most affected by the war are ignored once again. The growing international and regional drive to end this horrific war is encouraging, but external actors should not try to impose their own solutions. Nor should they ignore local voices and knowledge.
What we, the civil society movement, have been urging is an international response that responds first to war survivors. The ill-conceived military solutions now being floated are a far cry from that.
Peter J. Quaranto is currently studying diplomacy at the University of Oxford as a Marshall Scholar. Contact: peter@resolveuganda.orgOur Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
