WHEN A CREDITOR CALLS TO COLLECT
Many observers of developments in northern Uganda, particularly surrounding the sputtering Juba Peace process, have been taken aback by what is being popularised as its undoing: alleged objections from Acholi Diaspora. The first salvos in this direction of finger-pointing, was fired by a communique issued at Nabanga, a south Sudanese border town in the vicinity of where the LRA have been holed up for the past three or so years. The communique pointedly took up and amplified unsubstantiated accusations, first levelled by disgraced LRM chief negotiator, Nyekorach-Matsanga, that elements of Acholi Diaspora were frustrating the progress of the Juba talks by scaring Kony from appending his signitures on the final agreements. It is needless to point out to serious minded observers that, Nyekorach-Matsanga, is neither a messenger nor bears a message of veracity. It has now been revealed that there were intances when the man actually spoke with and to himself over the mobile and statellite phones, while all along making those around him think that he was engaged in serious interlocution with his principals, the LRA supremo, self-style general Joseph Kony. It turned out, Matsanga made no efforts to contact, consult and compare notes with his clients in the bush on the progress and substantive issues on the agenda of and on the table at Juba. How then did a man who hardly had any contacts with Joseph Kony, know of what adavice and from whom, the LRA leader had given a rapt hearing?
On replacing Matsanga after his disgraceful exit, James Obita, the new LRA chief negotiator in town, who had succeeded his boss, picked up on the refrain of Diaspora peace spoilers. Here is a man, who deputised Matasanga all along but could not detect any hint of a charade on the part of his boss, but played along, fooling the world and the suffering people of Acholi in the death camps that they were busy trying to nail down a much needed and awaited official delcaration that the war is over and peace is at hand. Instead, it was just fine with him, as it was with his boss, to take off in the direction of Nabanga and Rikwangba, but make a u-turn along the bushes and come right back to Juba, to collect their daily allowances for their dutiful toil and hardships in the name of peace. And to make it even believable, they dutifully address the assembled, curious intertnational and local media, how Joseph Kony was, what he said and how he was on his way to Juba. As we all now know, all these episodes were as Shakespearean as they come on the theatrical stage. Both James Obita, Matsanga and their retinue were acting.
If these two men were retained to get the LRA the best deal they could or to make an already bad situation at least bearable for the LRA but failed completely to make genuine attempts to do so, while lying about it all along, why must people shift the blame for the floundering of the Juba process on Acholi Diaspora, when it is clear Matsanga and Obita failed to do their job?
There is no doubt that had Matsanga and Obita been honest with participants at the table in Juba, and also been open and transparent with other stakeholders and clear about their own personal interests in the success of the Juba talks, the controversy and finger pointing the process has generated should have been avoided. If it was difficult for them to access and consult with Kony, they should have said so. And if they had made contacts with Kony, they should have been sophisticated enough to understand whether he was interested in the process, and if his end-game objectives were shared by those from the greater northern Uganda civil society, whom Kony routinely summoned to his base for consultations and feel-good gladhandling. But on all these counts, Matsanga and Obita both stonewalled, played everyone for fools, until it was time for Kony to either sign the agreement in the safety of his bush hideout or make a triumphal entrance into Juba to append his signiture. Riek Machar, the chief Mediator of the process, together with international observers, set up and tent in the bush to assure the LRA chief that he needed not come to Juba. Unfortunately, we have learnt that Kony did not even know he was supposed to be signing anything that day, and naturally, he did not show up, and everyone ended with eggs on their faces.
The question we must ask is, why were Matsanga and Obita not in constant touch with their principal? Why did they not make the efforts to appraise him of the progress and the point at which the Juba process had reached and what was required of him? Your guess is as good as mine, but that the two should blame Acholi in the diapora for their failure, and Acholi civil society, the traditional leaders, the ICC and the international community should accept such excuse, betrays some secret agenda that some people may be unwittingly abetting. Otherwise it is simply ludicruous that anyone would put their marbles on what Matsanga says. Moreover, if there was any truth to the fact there are LRA ideologues in the diaspora who are unhappy with the peace deal as it is and have the political influence to modify Kony's behaviour, then seriously, efforts must be made to ensure that all factions of the LRA-in the bush, in Uganda and in diaspora-are satisfied and all can sign off onto the deal before their boss seals it with his final signature. We must not forget that the LRA arose as a dissenting faction to a rushed peace in 1988 with the UPDM/A,with took final signitures as ends in themselves. And as we know it, neither peace nor the end of war and violence came to Acholi or northern Ugamda. It would be wise to not make that mistake again.
Among other plausible explanations, the LRA negotiators at Juba may have been serving two masters; one the LRA and the other an interested party that did not want the Juba talks to succeed as intended. It is possible that, there may have been suspicion of exposure and they grew cold feet into venturing to meet Kony, who if such revelations had got to him, is known to deal very dicisively and mercilessly with those who double-cross him or merely contemplate to do so. Moreover, his celebrated extrasensory perceptual powers, may have struck terror into Matsanga and Obita both, if indeed they had entertained or toyed with acts of infidelity towards their man in Garamba. How else would anyone explain why one tasked, paid, housed, fed and feted to deliver on something would be afraid to meet their boss? Only guilty conscience or shame over something untoward you have done would keep you away, hoping some benevolent events or the bell of sorts could save you from infamy. Unfortunately, both masters, creditors of sorts, came calling at the supposed final day of the Juba Process; thus matsanga and Obita's calumnies about Acholi diaspora as conveninet and easy target.
A further question that needs to be asked is whether incriminating Acholi diapora originated from Matsanga and Obita indpendently or someone put it in their heads and mouths. And why did Ochora, and the usual suspects of NRM/A international backers and public relations meisters hardly waste any time to pick and amplify it? Rationally, even if there were such voices in the diaspora, there would be a need to determine if they are part of the LRA or not, in order that whatever deal is worked out in Juba, no disgruntled LRA/A factions are left out to fight another day. We must not forget that the LRA itself was a splinter faction of the UPDM/A that expressed dissention and lack of confidence in the 1988 Pece Agreement, which we all now know, brought neither an end to war and violence nor peace to Acholi. It would therefore be prudent to ensure that every LRA/M element-in the bush, in Uganda and in the diaspora- signs off on any deal before Joseph Kony appends his signiture to a final agreement. This is the only way that a just and sustainable peace can avoid third forces on both sides of the aisle in the peace process.
More seriously, Acholi diapora has been in the forefront of the struggle to end the conflict peacefully. It was none other than Walter Ochora, Museveni and the NRM/A government and their international backers that time and again, dismissed overtures for peace. They argued that the LRA did not have a political agenda, and therefore, there was nothing to negotiate with them but to fight them. Acholi diaspora pointed out that, the LRA did not have to be strong enough to threaten the government before it couuld find it useful to talk with them to end the conflict. We argued that it was reason enough that civilians were suffering, dying, and Acholi society was being decimated. All these felt on deaf ears; but today, Acholi diaspora, whom if anyone had listended to, the conflict would have ended in 1997 or 1998 or 2000. Now they are cast as people who do not care about the suffering of their people and are not interested in the conflict ending. This is simply not true, but pathetic; the hyenas and lions and foxes are telling the lambs, the gazelles and the chickens that they -the creatures that have been preyed upon-are the ones not interested in peace!
And finally, some people ask; if there is nothing to the diaspora scapegoating, why would someone as eminent as the Lawi Rwodi of Acholi add his voice to and dignify this nonsense peddled by Matsanga, Obita, and Ochora? This perhaps fits in with our theory of the LRM negotiators possibly serving two masters at Juba-Kony abnd the LRA on the one hand, and the government of Uganda on the other. And this strengthens the belief that the diaspora bashing strategy originated from the Uganda government and those other voices have been cootpted for one reason or the other. As for Lawi Rwodi, unlike in Buganda where their kingdom was restored because of the support Prince Mutebi, their king rendered to the NRM/A by mobilising Baganda to fight in Luwero against Anyanya, and northerners, chiefly households in Acholi were restored on strategic promisory notes. It would seem that on such occasion as the Juba process and land appropriation cases such as for the Madhvani in Amuru, the creditor, Yoweri Museveni and his messengers in Acholi, call to collect. And as debtors, Acholi chiefs and their leaders have no choice in deciding when and how to pay; when a creditor calls, it is time to pay up!
On replacing Matsanga after his disgraceful exit, James Obita, the new LRA chief negotiator in town, who had succeeded his boss, picked up on the refrain of Diaspora peace spoilers. Here is a man, who deputised Matasanga all along but could not detect any hint of a charade on the part of his boss, but played along, fooling the world and the suffering people of Acholi in the death camps that they were busy trying to nail down a much needed and awaited official delcaration that the war is over and peace is at hand. Instead, it was just fine with him, as it was with his boss, to take off in the direction of Nabanga and Rikwangba, but make a u-turn along the bushes and come right back to Juba, to collect their daily allowances for their dutiful toil and hardships in the name of peace. And to make it even believable, they dutifully address the assembled, curious intertnational and local media, how Joseph Kony was, what he said and how he was on his way to Juba. As we all now know, all these episodes were as Shakespearean as they come on the theatrical stage. Both James Obita, Matsanga and their retinue were acting.
If these two men were retained to get the LRA the best deal they could or to make an already bad situation at least bearable for the LRA but failed completely to make genuine attempts to do so, while lying about it all along, why must people shift the blame for the floundering of the Juba process on Acholi Diaspora, when it is clear Matsanga and Obita failed to do their job?
There is no doubt that had Matsanga and Obita been honest with participants at the table in Juba, and also been open and transparent with other stakeholders and clear about their own personal interests in the success of the Juba talks, the controversy and finger pointing the process has generated should have been avoided. If it was difficult for them to access and consult with Kony, they should have said so. And if they had made contacts with Kony, they should have been sophisticated enough to understand whether he was interested in the process, and if his end-game objectives were shared by those from the greater northern Uganda civil society, whom Kony routinely summoned to his base for consultations and feel-good gladhandling. But on all these counts, Matsanga and Obita both stonewalled, played everyone for fools, until it was time for Kony to either sign the agreement in the safety of his bush hideout or make a triumphal entrance into Juba to append his signiture. Riek Machar, the chief Mediator of the process, together with international observers, set up and tent in the bush to assure the LRA chief that he needed not come to Juba. Unfortunately, we have learnt that Kony did not even know he was supposed to be signing anything that day, and naturally, he did not show up, and everyone ended with eggs on their faces.
The question we must ask is, why were Matsanga and Obita not in constant touch with their principal? Why did they not make the efforts to appraise him of the progress and the point at which the Juba process had reached and what was required of him? Your guess is as good as mine, but that the two should blame Acholi in the diapora for their failure, and Acholi civil society, the traditional leaders, the ICC and the international community should accept such excuse, betrays some secret agenda that some people may be unwittingly abetting. Otherwise it is simply ludicruous that anyone would put their marbles on what Matsanga says. Moreover, if there was any truth to the fact there are LRA ideologues in the diaspora who are unhappy with the peace deal as it is and have the political influence to modify Kony's behaviour, then seriously, efforts must be made to ensure that all factions of the LRA-in the bush, in Uganda and in diaspora-are satisfied and all can sign off onto the deal before their boss seals it with his final signature. We must not forget that the LRA arose as a dissenting faction to a rushed peace in 1988 with the UPDM/A,with took final signitures as ends in themselves. And as we know it, neither peace nor the end of war and violence came to Acholi or northern Ugamda. It would be wise to not make that mistake again.
Among other plausible explanations, the LRA negotiators at Juba may have been serving two masters; one the LRA and the other an interested party that did not want the Juba talks to succeed as intended. It is possible that, there may have been suspicion of exposure and they grew cold feet into venturing to meet Kony, who if such revelations had got to him, is known to deal very dicisively and mercilessly with those who double-cross him or merely contemplate to do so. Moreover, his celebrated extrasensory perceptual powers, may have struck terror into Matsanga and Obita both, if indeed they had entertained or toyed with acts of infidelity towards their man in Garamba. How else would anyone explain why one tasked, paid, housed, fed and feted to deliver on something would be afraid to meet their boss? Only guilty conscience or shame over something untoward you have done would keep you away, hoping some benevolent events or the bell of sorts could save you from infamy. Unfortunately, both masters, creditors of sorts, came calling at the supposed final day of the Juba Process; thus matsanga and Obita's calumnies about Acholi diaspora as conveninet and easy target.
A further question that needs to be asked is whether incriminating Acholi diapora originated from Matsanga and Obita indpendently or someone put it in their heads and mouths. And why did Ochora, and the usual suspects of NRM/A international backers and public relations meisters hardly waste any time to pick and amplify it? Rationally, even if there were such voices in the diaspora, there would be a need to determine if they are part of the LRA or not, in order that whatever deal is worked out in Juba, no disgruntled LRA/A factions are left out to fight another day. We must not forget that the LRA itself was a splinter faction of the UPDM/A that expressed dissention and lack of confidence in the 1988 Pece Agreement, which we all now know, brought neither an end to war and violence nor peace to Acholi. It would therefore be prudent to ensure that every LRA/M element-in the bush, in Uganda and in the diaspora- signs off on any deal before Joseph Kony appends his signiture to a final agreement. This is the only way that a just and sustainable peace can avoid third forces on both sides of the aisle in the peace process.
More seriously, Acholi diapora has been in the forefront of the struggle to end the conflict peacefully. It was none other than Walter Ochora, Museveni and the NRM/A government and their international backers that time and again, dismissed overtures for peace. They argued that the LRA did not have a political agenda, and therefore, there was nothing to negotiate with them but to fight them. Acholi diaspora pointed out that, the LRA did not have to be strong enough to threaten the government before it couuld find it useful to talk with them to end the conflict. We argued that it was reason enough that civilians were suffering, dying, and Acholi society was being decimated. All these felt on deaf ears; but today, Acholi diaspora, whom if anyone had listended to, the conflict would have ended in 1997 or 1998 or 2000. Now they are cast as people who do not care about the suffering of their people and are not interested in the conflict ending. This is simply not true, but pathetic; the hyenas and lions and foxes are telling the lambs, the gazelles and the chickens that they -the creatures that have been preyed upon-are the ones not interested in peace!
And finally, some people ask; if there is nothing to the diaspora scapegoating, why would someone as eminent as the Lawi Rwodi of Acholi add his voice to and dignify this nonsense peddled by Matsanga, Obita, and Ochora? This perhaps fits in with our theory of the LRM negotiators possibly serving two masters at Juba-Kony abnd the LRA on the one hand, and the government of Uganda on the other. And this strengthens the belief that the diaspora bashing strategy originated from the Uganda government and those other voices have been cootpted for one reason or the other. As for Lawi Rwodi, unlike in Buganda where their kingdom was restored because of the support Prince Mutebi, their king rendered to the NRM/A by mobilising Baganda to fight in Luwero against Anyanya, and northerners, chiefly households in Acholi were restored on strategic promisory notes. It would seem that on such occasion as the Juba process and land appropriation cases such as for the Madhvani in Amuru, the creditor, Yoweri Museveni and his messengers in Acholi, call to collect. And as debtors, Acholi chiefs and their leaders have no choice in deciding when and how to pay; when a creditor calls, it is time to pay up!
Comments