Acholi want Peace: The LRM/A Leaders Should Resolve their own Confusions on Juba!
Despite utterances by Walter Ochora, direct presidential appointee in Gulu, Acholi, and the authors of the Nabanga communique- which were picked up and amplified by local and international commentators-to the contrary, no Acholi inside and outside Uganda opposes the urgent need for the return of peace and stability to northern Uganda.
As Peter Okema Otika pointed out here
http//:www.monitor.co.ug/artman/publish/insights/Scapegoats_of_a_bloodied_land_From_peace_to_war_in_Northern_Uganda.shtml
today, Acholi, like any other social organism, is diverse in terms of demography, gender, class, and many other social categories. Consequently, there are things that will be perceived in particular ways-how it enhances or hurts particular interests. Which is not a bad thing. For instance, the peace process and any settlement raises the concerns of many and varied constituencies-Acholi political leaders, Acholi civil society, Acholi peasants in the conentration camps, Acholi traditional leaders, Acholi former abducted children, Acholi in the Diaspora, Acholi parents and relatives whose children were abducted and have never been seen again, the maimed, the dead, and the LRA in the bush and those who were associated with the LRA in the past, etc. All these groups and categories of voices, certainly have concerns about how their own victimhood will be addressed by any settlement that comes at the end of the peace process. In my opinuion, what is implicated by these diverse groups of victims and stakeholders, is the notion and expectations for A JUST PEACE. That both victims and perpetrators will be treated fairly; with everyone getting their dues.
These different, questioning, searching, and consensus-seeking and multiple conversations and voices among diverse groups of Acholi have been misunderstood and mistaken for opposition to peace by people prone to command and order decision processes. Unquestioning obedience to order and command, is the political culture and style of management that has developed and been espoused in Uganda for the last 22 years. Part of the misunderstanding of the diaspora can be attributable to this clash of style in the policy process-one is by near military decree and the other by recognition of difference and consensus-building to arrive at common goals and action framework. From America to Scandinavia, no Acholi is opposed to peace; every Acholi wants peace, but a just peace. The price Acholi has paid for the peace we now seek, is dearer than that on the invoices for the 1988 Pece Peace Agreement; and those of 1994, 1997/8 and 2004, were they concluded. Therefore, every Acholi constituency is justified in expressing uneasiness with whatever they see as attempts to marginalise certain relevant voices, particularly the vulnerable groups in our society that have neither the capacity nor the ability to assert their claims to just and fair treatments.
Second, accusations and recriminations between James Obita and David Matsanga, have distracted the world and Acholi from focusing on the relevant issues to move the Juba process forward. As I pointed out earlier on this blog in When a creditor calls to collect, the Matsanga-Obita juggling for pre-eminence within the LRM/A political wing, is their business, and that of the peace secretariat at Juba to worry about, not Acholi's business. Acholi business and that of the global peace fraternity is to urge the LRM/A to put its house in order, make contact with the peace mediator and settle their credentials and let the business for peace move on. It is therefore wise, for Acholi inside and outside Uganda, to adopt a more critical and introspective approach to LRM/A utterances, behaviour and actions with regards to the peace process, its leadership, and acreditations and credentials to the Juba process. Acholi should care less, who represents the LRM/A at Juba-Obita or Matsanga or even the Holy Ghost-as long as the peace secretariat at Juba, the UN Representative, and the Chief Mediator have accepted their credentials and they can proceed with transacting peace business.
Third, on a related subject, Friends For Peace in Africa (FPA) -find them here-
http://www.friendsforpeaceinafrica.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=216&Itemid=1
are holding a peace conference in San Diego, California, and on its agenda is an assessment of the Juba process. The FPA conference offers a welcome opportunity for Acholi who are able to attend, to use the opportunity to continue the conversations around the search for a just peace, to do so. However, we should not be unrealistic to expect that the scepticisms and cynissms raised by the Juba process, will be resolved by a one or two day conference, that will bring only a limited number of Acholi, Ugandan, and global peace advocates to the table. Nonetheless, it is an opportunity that those committed to bringing a just peace to northern Uganda cannot afford to pass up.
Rather than be seen as the venue and opportunity to resolve the northern Uganda and Acholi connundrum, the FPA conference hall should be looked foward to as an opportunity for a structured participation to advance the conversations for a just peace in nortthern Uganda a step further than and at least slightly beyond the slimey grasp of the disarray engendered by the May 10th Nabanga fisaco and post-Nabanga Communique. The Acholi elements at FPA should take advantage of the FPA gathering and convene a side-meeting -to build on whatever FPA's general, continental or global agenda, resolutions and declarations in its assessment of the Juba process and peace for northern Uganda- and discuss the urgent need for an All-Acholi Conference, before the end of the year, to build consensus around key Acholi peace agenda and actions.
The last Matsanga press release-if we can charitably call such rambles a press release-mulls the idea of a Juba II; a re-boot of the whole process, which not long ago he categorically said he had concluded and there was no longer any need to appoint Obita to lead another negotiation team.
Before anyone from Acholi falls behind the suggestion for Juba II as a way forward out of the impasse of Juba I, we must all agree that every Acholi wants peace, and in case there is any Acholi leader, person or group, that feels that there is or are Acholi who are opposed to peace, let them be given the opportunity to state and support their claims-before a gathering of Acholi united for peace- with credible evidence, not rhetoric and baseless allegations. Once this hurdle is overcomed, the next step is for Acholi united for peace, committed to peace, to define the bottom line for the peace they seek. At this stage, let every voice and shade of opinion be heard. And from among them, identify the key elements of concerns, discuss them and seek consensus on a limited class of MUST HAVE items, that a peace settement must accomplish.
Fourth, with Acholi united for peace and committed to peace, with a consensus on must have objectives for peace in their hands, they must assess whether:
1. These must have peace goodies have already been addressed by the conclude Juba process and all that is needed is to move to implementation. In which case, then what is needed is for efforts to be directed at keeping Juba process alive and pulling all stops to coax final signitures;
2. These must have peace goodies were not adequately addressed by the concluded Juba process, and whether the inadequacies warrant a completely new rounds of negotiations by the parties in order to fully address Acholi concerns, or can be accomplished by modifications at the implementation and administrative process of the settlement. If it is determined that new rounds of negotiations are necessary, then may be a support for Juba II is logical. But if these concerns can be addressed administratively at implementation, then the concluded Juba process may have to be supported and sustained.
The Monitor Editorial put it very well here:
http://www.monitor.co.ug/artman/publish/oped/Peace_for_Northern_Uganda_is_a_must.shtml
There is no half-way about it; peace is a must for northern Uganda. As primary victims of this war, Acholi cannot afford to equivocate on its commitment for peace, and it cannot pretend to have any ability or rights to influence or vet who the LRM/A or Joseph Kony, and similarly, Yoweri Museveni chooses to represent their particular positions at Juba. What Acholi can do, however, is to ensure that whatever self-seeking or dishonest and unscrupulous hatchetman either side accredits to Juba, peace will be the outcome and Acholi bottom lines on peace and post-conflict actions and follow-ups, are fully addressed or will be addressed in a later phase of the Juba settlement. Therefore, whatever squabbles on message, credibility or legitimacy either sides of the beligerents at Juba have, we should have only one, terse and clear message for them: resolve your differences and move on with the business for peace.
As Peter Okema Otika pointed out here
http//:www.monitor.co.ug/artman/publish/insights/Scapegoats_of_a_bloodied_land_From_peace_to_war_in_Northern_Uganda.shtml
today, Acholi, like any other social organism, is diverse in terms of demography, gender, class, and many other social categories. Consequently, there are things that will be perceived in particular ways-how it enhances or hurts particular interests. Which is not a bad thing. For instance, the peace process and any settlement raises the concerns of many and varied constituencies-Acholi political leaders, Acholi civil society, Acholi peasants in the conentration camps, Acholi traditional leaders, Acholi former abducted children, Acholi in the Diaspora, Acholi parents and relatives whose children were abducted and have never been seen again, the maimed, the dead, and the LRA in the bush and those who were associated with the LRA in the past, etc. All these groups and categories of voices, certainly have concerns about how their own victimhood will be addressed by any settlement that comes at the end of the peace process. In my opinuion, what is implicated by these diverse groups of victims and stakeholders, is the notion and expectations for A JUST PEACE. That both victims and perpetrators will be treated fairly; with everyone getting their dues.
These different, questioning, searching, and consensus-seeking and multiple conversations and voices among diverse groups of Acholi have been misunderstood and mistaken for opposition to peace by people prone to command and order decision processes. Unquestioning obedience to order and command, is the political culture and style of management that has developed and been espoused in Uganda for the last 22 years. Part of the misunderstanding of the diaspora can be attributable to this clash of style in the policy process-one is by near military decree and the other by recognition of difference and consensus-building to arrive at common goals and action framework. From America to Scandinavia, no Acholi is opposed to peace; every Acholi wants peace, but a just peace. The price Acholi has paid for the peace we now seek, is dearer than that on the invoices for the 1988 Pece Peace Agreement; and those of 1994, 1997/8 and 2004, were they concluded. Therefore, every Acholi constituency is justified in expressing uneasiness with whatever they see as attempts to marginalise certain relevant voices, particularly the vulnerable groups in our society that have neither the capacity nor the ability to assert their claims to just and fair treatments.
Second, accusations and recriminations between James Obita and David Matsanga, have distracted the world and Acholi from focusing on the relevant issues to move the Juba process forward. As I pointed out earlier on this blog in When a creditor calls to collect, the Matsanga-Obita juggling for pre-eminence within the LRM/A political wing, is their business, and that of the peace secretariat at Juba to worry about, not Acholi's business. Acholi business and that of the global peace fraternity is to urge the LRM/A to put its house in order, make contact with the peace mediator and settle their credentials and let the business for peace move on. It is therefore wise, for Acholi inside and outside Uganda, to adopt a more critical and introspective approach to LRM/A utterances, behaviour and actions with regards to the peace process, its leadership, and acreditations and credentials to the Juba process. Acholi should care less, who represents the LRM/A at Juba-Obita or Matsanga or even the Holy Ghost-as long as the peace secretariat at Juba, the UN Representative, and the Chief Mediator have accepted their credentials and they can proceed with transacting peace business.
Third, on a related subject, Friends For Peace in Africa (FPA) -find them here-
http://www.friendsforpeaceinafrica.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=216&Itemid=1
are holding a peace conference in San Diego, California, and on its agenda is an assessment of the Juba process. The FPA conference offers a welcome opportunity for Acholi who are able to attend, to use the opportunity to continue the conversations around the search for a just peace, to do so. However, we should not be unrealistic to expect that the scepticisms and cynissms raised by the Juba process, will be resolved by a one or two day conference, that will bring only a limited number of Acholi, Ugandan, and global peace advocates to the table. Nonetheless, it is an opportunity that those committed to bringing a just peace to northern Uganda cannot afford to pass up.
Rather than be seen as the venue and opportunity to resolve the northern Uganda and Acholi connundrum, the FPA conference hall should be looked foward to as an opportunity for a structured participation to advance the conversations for a just peace in nortthern Uganda a step further than and at least slightly beyond the slimey grasp of the disarray engendered by the May 10th Nabanga fisaco and post-Nabanga Communique. The Acholi elements at FPA should take advantage of the FPA gathering and convene a side-meeting -to build on whatever FPA's general, continental or global agenda, resolutions and declarations in its assessment of the Juba process and peace for northern Uganda- and discuss the urgent need for an All-Acholi Conference, before the end of the year, to build consensus around key Acholi peace agenda and actions.
The last Matsanga press release-if we can charitably call such rambles a press release-mulls the idea of a Juba II; a re-boot of the whole process, which not long ago he categorically said he had concluded and there was no longer any need to appoint Obita to lead another negotiation team.
Before anyone from Acholi falls behind the suggestion for Juba II as a way forward out of the impasse of Juba I, we must all agree that every Acholi wants peace, and in case there is any Acholi leader, person or group, that feels that there is or are Acholi who are opposed to peace, let them be given the opportunity to state and support their claims-before a gathering of Acholi united for peace- with credible evidence, not rhetoric and baseless allegations. Once this hurdle is overcomed, the next step is for Acholi united for peace, committed to peace, to define the bottom line for the peace they seek. At this stage, let every voice and shade of opinion be heard. And from among them, identify the key elements of concerns, discuss them and seek consensus on a limited class of MUST HAVE items, that a peace settement must accomplish.
Fourth, with Acholi united for peace and committed to peace, with a consensus on must have objectives for peace in their hands, they must assess whether:
1. These must have peace goodies have already been addressed by the conclude Juba process and all that is needed is to move to implementation. In which case, then what is needed is for efforts to be directed at keeping Juba process alive and pulling all stops to coax final signitures;
2. These must have peace goodies were not adequately addressed by the concluded Juba process, and whether the inadequacies warrant a completely new rounds of negotiations by the parties in order to fully address Acholi concerns, or can be accomplished by modifications at the implementation and administrative process of the settlement. If it is determined that new rounds of negotiations are necessary, then may be a support for Juba II is logical. But if these concerns can be addressed administratively at implementation, then the concluded Juba process may have to be supported and sustained.
The Monitor Editorial put it very well here:
http://www.monitor.co.ug/artman/publish/oped/Peace_for_Northern_Uganda_is_a_must.shtml
There is no half-way about it; peace is a must for northern Uganda. As primary victims of this war, Acholi cannot afford to equivocate on its commitment for peace, and it cannot pretend to have any ability or rights to influence or vet who the LRM/A or Joseph Kony, and similarly, Yoweri Museveni chooses to represent their particular positions at Juba. What Acholi can do, however, is to ensure that whatever self-seeking or dishonest and unscrupulous hatchetman either side accredits to Juba, peace will be the outcome and Acholi bottom lines on peace and post-conflict actions and follow-ups, are fully addressed or will be addressed in a later phase of the Juba settlement. Therefore, whatever squabbles on message, credibility or legitimacy either sides of the beligerents at Juba have, we should have only one, terse and clear message for them: resolve your differences and move on with the business for peace.
Comments