Africa Faith and Justice Network Position on LRA Bill

Washington, DC — “We applaud the commitment of the bill [in the U.S. Congress] to bring about stability and development in the region. However, we as the Acholi religious leaders whose primary concern is the preservation of human life, advocate for dialogue and other non-violent strategies to be employed so that long term sustainable peace may be realized. Let us learn from the past experiences where we have seen that violence only breeds more violence.” – Acholi Religious Leaders Peace Initiative

Like the Acholi religious leaders, many long-time analysts and advocates for peace in northern Uganda welcome action by the U.S. Congress and non-governmental groups that are lobbying Congress this week for support for reconstruction in northern Uganda. But with few exceptions they are also very skeptical of proposals by Congress and the Enough Project for a new military initiative to end the conflict by targeting Lord’s Resistance Army leader Joseph Kony, who last November backed off from concluding a peace agreement negotiated over the previous two years.

Few would mourn the demise of Kony, acknowledged to be the perpetrator of forced recruitment of child soldiers and horrific crimes against civilians, including most recently against civilians in the Democratic Republic of the Congo where his forces have sought sanctuary. But advocates of U.S. support for another Ugandan military assault, or for an unspecified U.S. military initiative with some combination of regional forces, seem naively optimistic that such action could “end” the conflict and unduly dismissive of the likely counterproductive consequences.

In the words of Uganda analyst Ronald Atkinson, who analyzed the recent U.S.-backed Ugandan military offensive “Operation Lightning Thunder” in Uganda’s Independent (http://www.independent.co.ug) earlier this month, “Any future incursion will almost certainly remain a poor risk and poor option, better left undone. The US government should have been a prime candidate to have advised Uganda that this was so. It is unfortunate that it did not. We can only hope that the new US administration will not be so reckless.”

This AfricaFocus Bulletin contains a statement by the Washington-based Africa Faith and Justice Network, a participant in the coalition lobby effort for the bill, but an outspoken opponent of the military option; the full statement from the Acholi Religious Leaders Peace Initiative; an open letter from Resolve Uganda stressing the need for U.S. support for reconstruction; and additional references to recent analytical background material from the Enough Project, Conciliation Resources (London), Institute for Security Studies (Pretoria), and Ronald Atkinson’s two-part series in the Independent.

Also of relevance, although references to Africa are very few, is the recent book by prominent Australian counterinsurgency analyst David Kilcullen, who has served as a top advisor to the U.S.military in Iraq and Afghanistan. Drawing on his experiences in East Timor, Afghanistan, and Iraq, Kilcullen counsels against relying primarily on “enemy-centric” strategies that may kill enemies but have counterproductive side effects and reinforce neglect of diplomacy and population-centric civilian protection strategies.

See David Kilcullen, The Accidental Guerrilla: Fighting Small Wars in the Midst of a Big One. 2009.

http://www.africafocus.org/books/isbn.php?0195368347

The text of the act “Lord’s Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009,” (S. 1067) is available at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.1067:

For previous AfricaFocus Bulletins on Uganda and related background links, visit http://www.africafocus.org/country/uganda.php

AfricaFocus FYI

http://www.africafocus.org/fyi/recent.php

Congresswoman Waters introduces bill to stop VULTURE Funds / U.S. Sudan envoy Scott Gration on Sudan situation

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

AFJN Opposes Military Language in Northern Uganda Bill

By Beth Tuckey

Africa Faith and Justice Network

http://www.afjn.org [this text at http://tinyurl.com/mvwkch]

June 23, 2009

A few weeks ago, two of AFJN’s core issues – AFRICOM and northern Uganda – came together in a bittersweet piece of legislation by the U.S. Congress. While it provides crucial development aid and support for transitional justice, the new bill (S. 1067, H.R. 2478) also includes a statement of policy that may allow the U.S. military to pursue Joseph Kony and the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) in D.R. Congo.

AFJN strongly supports many parts of the legislation. However, we believe that allowing AFRICOM to assist in an attack against the LRA is a recipe for disaster. We ask you to go to [http://tinyurl.com/l94ntk] to learn more and sign our petition to Congress, thereby voicing your support for a peaceful approach to ending the LRA conflict.

Fortunately, we’re not alone. There has been a strong outcry from many religious groups and communities in northern Uganda, including several AFJN members. Over the weekend, the Acholi Religious Leader’s Peace Initiative (ARLPI) released a statement that clearly denounces the military option and suggests that not all non-violent solutions to the LRA crisis have been exhausted.

The text of the legislation does not mandate that the U.S. military engage in an attack, but it does leave the door open. Despite the bill’s admirable language about a multilateral, interagency approach against the LRA, we are well aware that the military far outweighs diplomacy and development in U.S. foreign policy today.

Even suggesting that AFRICOM could help the Ugandan military execute a strike is a dangerous proposition – particularly as it involves supporting a dictatorial regime’s armed forces. The U.S. would be repeating its Cold War folly of sacrificing long term democratic ideals for short-term solutions.

In essence, AFJN believes that a military strike against Joseph Kony and the LRA is likely to be disastrous for civilians and abducted child soldiers, and is unlikely to result in Kony’s capture. The precedent set by Operation “Lightning Thunder” in December 2008 does not give us hope that there can be an effective military operation against the LRA and we therefore advocate for a peaceful resolution to the crisis. Those who push for a military solution often cite the failure of peaceful alternatives; however, this ignores the clear fact that a military option also failed and that killing Kony alone might not be the end of the LRA.

Although the Juba Peace Process (2006-2008) ended, it was a rare window of peace in LRA-affected communities. The LRA committed few attacks and there was genuine engagement from all sides. Many will argue that Kony was never serious about the peace talks and simply used it as an opportunity to re-arm – an opinion with which we do not disagree. However, there were also many spoilers during the peace process and a lack of trust between parties, particularly due to the International Criminal Court indictment. Those who say that Operation “Lightning Thunder” was unsuccessful and just needs to be better planned and executed next time are not applying the same standard to the peace talks. AFJN believes that there can be a more effective approach to dialogue and negotiation in the future.

Reports from the ground suggest that affected communities are attempting to contact the LRA to broach a locally-led peace process. We commend this action and encourage regional bodies and the African Union (AU) to continue thinking about non-violent means of creating peace in D.R. Congo. As indicated by the ARLPI, there are many other rebel groups and conflict areas in Congo; striking one with military action will not create a stable environment for peace.

Although we praise the legislation’s writers for including transitional justice and development aid to the north, AFJN is saddened to hear such a strong emphasis from Congress and some NGO’s on section three of the bill. AFJN cannot support a section of a bill that may divert much-needed development assistance to an expensive military option. If the affected countries or the AU decide to take military action, that is their choice, but the U.S. should not be involved. Instead, we ask the U.S. Congress and Administration to think critically and creatively about how to support a diplomatic solution to the LRA conflict.