Tim Allen’s War and Justice in Northern Uganda is a seminal work that carefully evaluates the conflict that has raged in the region for nearly twenty years. Allen is an anthropologist from the Crisis States Research Centre at the Development Studies Institute at the LSE who has been working in Northern Uganda for some time. His work, therefore, is of significant value. He is one of a handful of authors, including Sverker Finnstrom and Chris Dolan, to name only two, whose writing is supported by a deep knowledge and clear understanding of both the social complexities and the political realities of the region.
Allen’s emphasis on the need to draw on local ideas for both conflict resolution and post-conflict resolution is certainly supported by my own qualitative research in this area. Almost without exception, my informants told me that they felt that “western” means and methods simply would not work. Indeed, my previous research into the Ugandan truth commission, the Commission of Inquiry into Violations of Human Rights, reveals this in spades. Allen is, therefore, right to emphasize this aspect.
He also asserts that Acholi culture is not unique in having had “traditional” methods and mechanisms to deal with crime. In my own work, because I was not focused solely on the Acholi, my informants, who were from many different tribal backgrounds within Uganda, revealed that their own groups had particular ceremonies, etc., on which they relied for bringing an end to conflict and promoting harmony between groups. And the research I have done into other African traditions supports this as well. Alcinda Honwana’s work on Mozambique and Angola, for example, supports this; she documents a variety of ceremonies and other traditional mechanisms.
The one problem that I see in the grand scheme of what is being done in the region, and what is being talked about in Uganda these days, surrounds the issue of language. Specifically, the definition of “reconciliation” is really elastic. And I’m not at all convinced that reconciliation is even what we’re talking about here. Those involved (including, especially, us, I’m afraid) need to be really careful to differentiate between actually bringing the conflict to an end, encouraging harmony between groups, forgiveness, acknowledgement, amnesty, rebuilding physical infrastructure, etc. It is my sincere belief that if people were actually talking about the same thing, we might be able to get somewhere faster. Allen alludes to this when he speaks of there being only one Lwo word for both amnesty and forgiveness.
The interest Allen reports in retribution is strong in Uganda. I, too, encountered an interest in retribution among my informants. This is consistent with the views I encountered in my 2001 study of the truth commission. The problem, though, is that they don’t seem to have any readily articulated view of what this kind of retribution should look like. I wonder if it isn’t just a very human desire for vengeance that, because of linguistic barriers, etc., takes shape as a desire for retribution. (In the tradition of Govier and Minow, I distinguish between vengeance, which is to say, “getting even”, and retribution, a societally-approved sanction or punishment.) The thing is that I’m not entirely sure that the people I talked to necessarily wanted one over the other – that is, that they preferred retribution instead of acknowledgement. And I’m beginning to wonder if one by itself is necessarily enough. I taught a course last year called “Justice After Atrocity” and throughout the term my students brought forth the notion of applying only one model of justice as inadequate. It’s something to think about, at any rate. And now that the ICC has indicted Kony and four other senior LRA members, it is suddenly at or near the top of the agenda.
I also find Allen’s brief mention of “forgetting” interesting, especially in light of a really interesting report on Social Forgetting by Rosalind Shaw. Full text of the report found here.
And I agree with Allen’s assertion, too, that the international donor and diplomatic community seems to support movement in this area. My informants at a variety of INGOs and diplomatic missions supported the idea that Museveni has got to take action, and that it should include local traditions to the extent that is possible.
One contradiction between Allen’s informants’ material and mine is that I found fairly striking support, even among young people who had moved away from their gemeinschaft communities, to be respectful of their ethnic traditions and the elders who make decisions. I should say that this is particularly prevalent among those from the eastern areas of Uganda, especially the Karamojong and the Sabiny. But even those from the western areas, professionals in Kampala, indicated to me that they would very definitely respect traditional ceremonies if they were held to address past wrongs.
I gave a talk a couple of months ago about my research, and I ended with the following paragraph: “In the end, then, at least at this stage, the answer to my initial research question, “Are traditional mechanisms of acknowledgement useful in promoting post-conflict resolution?” is a qualified YES. At this point, any such mechanisms have been used on a small scale within local communities. It remains to be seen whether or not they will be incorporated into a national programme of acknowledgement; and if they are, how the various difficulties of such an approach will be accommodated. But the impetus for such a programme is strong, and the indications are promising.” I think that Allen’s report indicates much the same.
See the full text of War and Justice in Northern Uganda.
And one more thing: Two Canadians from Toronto-based group, Athletes for Africa, spent the month of July replicating the walk that some 40,000 children of Gulu, Uganda (called "night commuters") make every night from their villages to the relative security of Gulu town, in the hope of avoiding abduction or murder by the Lord's Resistance Army. On October 22, people in more than 41 cities world-wide will take part in a "Gulu Walk" to raise awareness of this serious issue. Click here for details.
Nice review there!
I think for me, one of the most informative parts of Allen's report is Part 2 (pp.37-65), where he specifically looks at the political effects of the ICC's intervention.
The three questions Allen addresses there are:
(1) Is the ICC biased?
(2) Will the ICC exacerbate the violence and endanger vulnerable groups?
(3) Is the ICC spoiling the peace process?
These are crucially important issues! Especially now, in light of the Oct. 7 announcement by the Ugandan government that the ICC has indicted five leaders of the Lord's Resistance Army.
I am puzzled. Why did the government make this announcement? Why is there no news of it to this day on the ICC's own website?
The day after the announcement was made, Betty Bigombe, the chief mediator between the government and the LRA was quoted by Reuters as saying:
"There is now no hope of getting them (the LRA) to surrender. I have told the court that they have rushed too much... I am really not sure what I will do next."
On Oct. 10, IRIN was reporting this about Bigombe:
"You can no longer talk to the LRA as before, the dynamics have changed. The situation is different and I would not like to talk to the LRA now because the ICC has not yet given me details of the warrant," Betty Bigombe told IRIN on Monday.
Speaking from the Burundi capital, Bujumbura, Bigombe, who for months has tried to persuade both sides to end the war through dialogue said she had not decided what the way forward should be. She, however, would need to make "some adjustments" in the way she had been working. "There is no doubt I need to make some adjustments, but the situation has been made difficult by the warrant. I have talked to the prosecutor [Luis Moreno-Ocampo] to let me know the details but they have not gotten back to me yet," she said.
Also this,
The head of the Uganda Amnesty Commission (UAC), a statutory body set up by the government to give a blanket amnesty to surrendering rebels, also said the decision by the international court had left their work in "total confusion"... "It means we have to start afresh to sensitise them [the rebels] that the warrant is only for a few people and the rest are free to come back home," he said. "The statute establishing the ICC overrides the national laws and the court may decide to issue other warrants of arrest for people we have even issued amnesty to. Where does this leave the amnesty statute, where we derive our mandate?" he added.
The indictment, he added, would give the LRA leadership the tools to consolidate the rebel ranks.
The IRIN reporter, Tim Allen, Joanna Quinn, and all other knowledgeable reporters on the situation make clear that there is a diversity of views among the people of northern Uganda on what needs to be done in the short term, and what broader principles should guide these actions. These issues are not easy to work out, for anyone.
But it strikes me that for a Hague-based organization staffed by experts in international criminal law to be able to have such a huge (and potentially very escalatory) effect on an extremely fragile situation like the one in Uganda is not really what we'd want to see the ICC doing?
Perhaps, though, some other reader can explain why the ICC is doing the right thing?
Posted by: Helena Cobban at October 13, 2005 10:21 AMThe Ugandan situation is particularly tricky, as these things go. To start with, the conflict in the north is seen to principally affect only one of the 56 ethnic groups within the country -- the Acholi. So the other groups in the country have been able to ignore the conflict, for the most part.
But, since the LRA has as its specific goal Museveni's ouster, he has tried several different methods of fighting back: armed conflict using UPDF soldiers; Amnesty Commission; calling in the ICC. He seems not to realize that these methods are all contradictory. And he seems not to understand that each of these methods has a marked trajectory that will ultimately have serious consequences. As an example, he called in the ICC to investigate in 2004, then later asked them to halt their investigation.
As a result, the people in northern Uganda have been getting a mixed message. What they seem most concerned about is that noone is doing anything to stop the on-going conflict. Yet Museveni seems to want to punish their sons and daughters who have perpetrated the abuses of the conflict, many of them as abductees of the LRA.
In the end, it's a complicated situation. Museveni stands to gain if the ICC has, indeed, issued arrest warrants against Kony and the other leaders of the LRA. Unfortunately, the Acholi people stand to lose when it comes to social reconstruction and the all-important business of acknowledgement.
In my humble opinion, to use Uganda as essentially a test case for the ICC is foolish. For the ICC has something to prove. And the Ugandan situation is anything but clear.
Posted by: Joanna Quinn at October 13, 2005 03:12 PMHelena Cobban wants more discussion here. So here I am hot-foot from Helena's Blog (Just World News).
But I find this TJF needs to give a bit more information. The ICC is the International Criminal Court, right? I'm not sure if anyone said so. Who refers cases to the ICC? Or do they have scouts going around looking for suitable places in the world to interfere?
People have got caught up in the scandal of the US refusing to submit to the ICC, without examining the effect on other countries' sovereignty and independence. Actually, this kind of poking in to the affairs of so-called third-world countries is right up the US street. US imperialism wants this kind of thing to be going on. It wants the judgement of the North to be felt in the South, The Hague on Uganda and Germany on Syria.
I don't like it. I would like to know more about the politics and the history, and I don't know how people can judge without that. The major interference in this area is by Christian imperialist missionaries in adjacent Southern Sudan. There was also a period in the late 80s and early 90s when our South African liberation army, uMkhonto we Sizwe ("MK") was accommodated in Northern Uganda.
I would take this ICC intervention not as proof but as "prima facie" evidence of imperialist interference in a process that they want to control, if necessary by frustrating it. That would be normal.
Can you answer this question? If the CIA created Al Qaeda, who created the Lords Resistance Army?
Dominic.
Posted by: Dominic at October 14, 2005 12:42 AMSo many questions! Sorry for the exclusive language -- will try to keep this in mind for future postings. For clarification, the ICC is most definitely the International Criminal Court. You should check out their site for more details: http://www.icc-cpi.int/
Essentially, the ICC can begin investigations in a couple of different ways: the Chief Prosecutor can decide to do so; states parties can refer cases; and the United Nations Security Council can refer cases. In the case of Uganda, the government referred the case to the Chief Prosecutor, who decided to act following an investigation. In the case of Darfur, the Security Council referred the case. Keep in mind that the ICC was essentially "created" by the Rome Statute in 1998, and came into force only in 2002. So this is still extremely new territory!
Like Dominic, I think that international prosecutions have generally operated in a much more "sterile" environment, to the exclusion of many of the relevant social, political and contextual factors; indeed, they are created expressly for this purpose. But, as I wrote in the RLP piece, it does appear that the ICC could take some latitude in this area. It remains to be seen whether or not they will do so.
Posted by: Joanna Quinn at October 14, 2005 08:50 AMDominic, you may also want to look at part 2 of the Rome Statute, particularly articles 11 through 21 which establish the ICC's jurisdiction.
Helena has argued previously (and, I think, persuasively) that the ICC indictment is part of a multi-pronged strategy by the Ugandan government to put pressure on the LRA leadership. I'll have further thoughts on the main post later.
Comments