Uganda-Sudan spur in Cairo over rebels

imgres-52When the summit of the O.I.C (Organization for Islamic Conference) met in Cairo recently it was to a spurring between Uganda and its long time enemy the Sudan. Accusations between the two countries are nothing unusual. For many years while the south of Sudan fought a brutal war of independence, Uganda supported its army, the Sudan People’s Liberation Army/Movement that now runs the new government of Southern Sudan. In turn the Khartoum offered sanctuary and then arms and training to the Lord’s Resistance Army still led by the Ugandan “war lord” Joseph Kony.

The diplomatic spurring between Uganda and Sudan is likely to escalate. Relations between the two Sudans are still problematic and there is violence scattered around the old battle lines of their borders.

However Khartoum likely treats Kampala has the surrogate parent of the breakaway south- behind Juba’s desire for a clean severance from the north. South Sudan is East African-looking. It’s applied to join the regional block where Uganda wields some influence. In reported filings with the African Union, Sudan says Uganda has a policy of regime change in Khartoum. It may well be true. The same guys still run the show there that have been opponents on the battlefield.

What transpired in Cairo (while the new protests in Tahrir were going on) was relayed by the Ugandan Prime Minister in some detail during the periodic “tweet-ups” he conducts at which journalists and other techies sit through a no-holds barred conversation with him and then tweet his responses.

According to Amama Mbabazi when the Sudan brought the accusations of support to the OIC it was meant to torpedo the chances of Uganda’s candidate for the OIC General Secretaryship. “ They meant to frustrate our candidate [Isaac Isanga Musumba]” he said. OIC has a rotational leadership and it was Africa’s turn however the Saudi authorities have been shuttling to capitals of countries with candidates in a bid to convince them to cede to Saudi leadership. Musumba had told me months ago that the Ugandans would accommodate the Saudi’s in return for “something else”. It turns out Uganda through Mr.Mbabazi proposed an amendment to the OIC rules to create a new position that of “Deputy Secretary General in charge of Africa”. “ I told the Council of Ministers where Sudan brought its accusations that we were not supporting any rebels. Instead it is the Sudan that is supporting the Lords Resistance Army in South Darfur” Amama said. It gets more interesting. According to the PM who must have been expecting some action by the Sudan, he then presented evidence [or offered to] of Sudan’s continuing support for Mr. Kony but in response his Sudanese counterpart instead complained that the claims Uganda was making were in the “wrong forum”. “ They did not deny that they were supporting Kony,” he said.

The trial on the hunt for Kony is not cold but lukewarm. Reading the current LRA crisis tracker suggests that the rebel group is lying low and far away. Numbers of its Ugandan forces are reducing. Given its location and strategy if the group remains sequestered in Sudan it will likely morph into something other than a Ugandan rebel group. This happened with the ADF, which effectively became more Congolese with time retaining just a number of its original Ugandan talent.  Which begs the question however what happens to Mr. Kony eventually?

LRA’s strengths have always been subject to the alliance making around it. While Sudan relies on the OIC as its primary diplomatic constituency its unlikely that save for extreme circumstances involving a full return to its policy of supporting rebels to destabilize the South that LRA can be in action like it used to. However change is coming very slowly to Khartoum that has to deal with the South as a government nowadays. It’s the same with Juba. A mending of fences with the past may really be in order to dispense with this policy of aggression.

If Musumba does become an OIC Secretary General in charge of Africa one wonders if this should not be a major part of Ugandan diplomacy- to move things forward beyond rebel coalitions and conflict. Uganda is presently undergoing a foreign policy review. We promise to comment on it fully here soon.

To review the rest of the tweetup see #AskthePM

End Notes: On Taylor’s conviction and Africa’s global image

While mulling over the “historical” conviction of Mr. Charles Taylor for war crimes and crimes against humanity I kept thinking of India’s recent lease of a nuclear sub-marine from Russia, its nuclear and space program, and its launch of a long range missile recently.   “Afrika’s” principal challenge is its lack of ambition.

The problem is not just institutional even if would be helpful if we cracked that one too. Mobilising ambition ala India or China requires institutional architecture for sure. But before that brand Africa needs something else. I met a journalist of Indian origin and told her about this. “ Sure. India has more poor people than Sub-Saharan Africa but it is thought of differently. Its about the tech industry, about Bollywood” she said. I agreed and shared with her some stories of flying to San Francisco on Emirates Air. Ice, the in-house entertainment system has more Bollywood movies than any other. The plane too is often filled with young Indians headed to Silicon Valley. It makes sense. What is Indian may be diverse but there is clarity there too. In this way its weapons program might be seen as justifiable in providing gravitas to brand India- possibly the next superpower.

One feels pity for Mr. Taylor. He is the latest historical reference of something that we were tried to debate this week during the BBC Africa Debate (which ultimately was a collection of defensive voices by Africans and little debate). Taylor’s conviction is a statement also of Africa’s place in the global food chain. It affirms that negative brand. The violence of peasants with guns even if they are led by colorful and sometimes western educated elites is bound to be primordial. But again violence by machetes is viewed differently from that meted out by smart bombs run by professional armies. However both scenes of human suffering are often assigned different moral categories in the discourse.

Those who say the World Court at The Hague is an African court belabor this point differently. It’s not just that these crimes do occur in Africa. It is their reception too. Yes, Taylor may be the most high profile former head of government to face international justice- but these are not the Nuremberg trials.It would be a different day if ever the African constituency departs the court. One wonders indeed whether it would be the court we imagine it to be then.

Mr. Taylor, the evil promoter of the mutilation of innocents, the sleazy womanizer (Naomi Campbell comes to mind for how can he indeed have the gumption I suppose) is seen as a despicable person. Taylor that operator, gunrunner, alleged spy and diamond seller to Antwerp and Tel Aviv is an associate of a world that never survives the history of his own crimes.

In a very African sense his story is valuable for what it has left out. Others will bleed this for bias but whether or not you are one of those who seek out a conspiracy of who made Frankenstein Africa or rather why Africans do not take responsibility period: it remains that his story aids an existing view. Africa is not India, it is not China or Brazil. In fact South Africa is not Africa either.

For what its worth not in gold, esteem or prestige Mr. Taylor’s verdict will resonate loudly in the Great Lakes region for two reasons. He has been found guilty of “aiding and abetting” crimes against humanity. The crimes however were committed in Sierra Leone from his base of power in Liberia. Secondly he will likely also go away for life. While the chain of custody for his crimes may be wider for conspiracy theorists- the transnational aspect is important in these parts.

The Taylor verdict will be looked at as the real watershed in how agency works in war crimes and their prosecution at The Hague.  Jean-Pierre Bemba, former Congolese warlord and one time presidential hopeful is in custody at The Hague for crimes not committed in Congo but rather in Central Africa Republic.  This question of agent versus principal is one of the most pressing challenges for the International Criminal Court and its African suspects.

In almost all cases including that of rebel leader Joseph Kony of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) the alleged crimes are committed partly in service of some kind of patron.  In the case of the LRA its terror muscle was flexed as a component of the military strategy of the government of Omar El Bashir of Sudan. While Bashir is himself an ICC suspect, the first sitting head of state in fact to be indicted, he is being accused of separate crimes, his relationship to the great proxy wars within the Sudan, Northern Uganda and now Congo/CAR have not been connected.

Another Congolese victim of international justice is Thomas Lubanga one of the pageboys for this sort of criminal outsourcing.  All of the Congolese potential war crimes suspects are but agents of the logic of conflict in the Great Lakes. Folks like Bosco Ntaganda, Laurent Nkunda and others are adjutants in proxy wars. This is a well-known fact within the ICC establishment and a subject of several related United Nations reports. However because the ICC works with states parties (basically incumbents governments, their leaders and international donor supporters) it is fed on small fish that are served up strongly in the political symbolism of international justice. Other stronger nations have a bigger say in what happens to and do not have to play the same role in this symbolism. They can make their own narrative.

There is nothing wrong with might. It may not be right but it tells its own story.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 7,456 other followers

%d bloggers like this: