A boy is silhouetted as he walks behind an orange scarf hung up to dry in Lacor camp for internally displaced persons in northern Uganda, June 2007. REUTERS/Euan Denholm
Adrian Bradbury, director of Toronto-based GuluWalk, and Peter Quaranto, senior researcher and conflict analyst for the Washington-based Resolve Uganda campaign, ask why the international community has lost interest in the Juba peace process.Could it be that peace in northern Uganda is once more suffering from the "bystander effect"?
In the 1960s, a young woman on the streets of New York was stabbed to death over a period of 30 minutes while as many as 38 witnesses did nothing, despite her pleas for help. Psychologists explain it as the "bystander effect". In the face of an emergency, a person is less likely to intervene when others are present. It&${esc.hash}39;s our nature to assume the next person will act, thus relinquishing responsibility.
That description sounds a lot like the international community&${esc.hash}39;s response or lack thereof surrounding the faltering Juba peace process to end the 21-year conflict in northern Uganda. The diplomatic corps, hampered by fatigue and impatience, has adopted a wait-and-see approach as events unfold. Yet, when everyone expects the other to take action, no one will.
Meanwhile, the Juba peace process, widely celebrated in 2006 and 2007, now appears to be on the verge of unraveling before our eyes. After achieving two landmark agreements in the span of two months, the parties have been away from the negotiating table for six months.
High-level defections and purges within the Lord&${esc.hash}39;s Resistance Army (LRA) have raised doubts about the rebels&${esc.hash}39; commitment to peace. The government, growing impatient, is now threatening military action against the LRA in Congo if there&${esc.hash}39;s no progress by January 31.
As the spectre of resumed combat grows, the international community seems completely frozen.
The mediation team and its partners have done well to keep the Juba negotiations in motion. However, their efforts are increasingly strained by limited political will and resources.
The chief mediator, South Sudan Vice President Riek Machar, has understandably been sidetracked by tensions with his own country&${esc.hash}39;s fragile peace agreement and is under considerable domestic pressure to spend less time on the negotiations.
U.N. Special Envoy Joaquim Chissano has also been a crucial intermediary in the talks, but his position remains only part-time. As skilled as these individuals may be, it is absurd to expect them to keep this volatile process together without more constant and coordinated support.
STAYING ALOOFWhile the international community clearly realises this, it has stayed publicly aloof as momentum deteriorates. That silence is reducing confidence in the peace process. The United States has even endorsed the January 31 military ultimatum over the objections of northern leaders.
This is a far cry from 2006 when European governments and U.N. departments were falling over each other to support the negotiations. Canada called it then the "best opportunity in two decades" to end the war. The United States, which initially distanced itself from the process, finally fell into line last year and called the talks "critically important".
If the United States and others truly believe in the importance of the peace talks, they should take immediate measures to rebuild public confidence in the negotiations and re-establish momentum toward a final peace deal.
Now more than ever, the Juba peace process needs a coordinated diplomatic surge to restore a sense of irreversibility.
Such engagement could provide the mediating team with the resources and political support it needs to scale up its operations. Such advocacy could restrain rash military provocation, while restricting the rebels&${esc.hash}39; exit options. Such leverage could expedite the LRA&${esc.hash}39;s final consultations, get them back to the table and establish a negotiating timeline with clear benchmarks, instead of arbitrary deadlines.
This is not a call for Western diplomats to overtake the process, but to proactively support it at this vulnerable moment.
Understandably, under-staffed East Africa departments are reeling from the outbreaks of violence in neighbouring Kenya. However, finalising a peace deal in war-ravaged northern Uganda could provide momentum for stabilising the region. A stable Uganda is a crucial catalyst for a wider strategy to secure peace in east Africa.
For too long, international policy has largely demarcated the region&${esc.hash}39;s conflicts, hopping between them when one intensifies. Why not stay invested in a process with the potential to resolve, rather than just mollify, a crisis?
At the same time, the international fatigue with the Juba process looks absurd when juxtaposed with the fatigue of those who have endured this war for over two decades. While the international community is frozen, so too are displaced northern Ugandans.
The impasse in Juba and lack of a final agreement are preventing over one million people from leaving camps and returning to their homes. Even worse, the threat of renewed fighting and military attacks runs a high risk of causing even greater displacement and more deaths.
The great British politician Edmund Burke once said that the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. After 21 years, isn&${esc.hash}39;t it time to stop being bystanders?
Contact Adrian Bradbury at Adrian@guluwalk.com and Peter J. Quaranto at Peter@resolveuganda.org.Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
