A debate on the northern Uganda peace process, led by APPG chair Eric Joyce MP. Click here to download a full record in word format. Online version available here, or follow the 'read more' link below.

23 Jan 2007 : Column 442WH

Uganda

1.30 pm

Mr. Eric Joyce (Falkirk) (Lab): The great lakes region of Africa is emerging from a long and terrible period of violence and dictatorship. Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and now the Democratic Republic of the Congo have democratically elected Governments. The economies of Uganda and Rwanda in particular are being kick-started and there are many reasons to be mildly optimistic about the future of the region. Eastern Congo remains lawless, of course, and the writ of the Kinshasa Government does not yet run there in any true conventional sense. That lawlessness as a function of civil war, poverty and history continues to be fuelled in no small part by the existence of marauding bands of bandits formally associated with neighbouring countries that have at one time or another occupied parts of the country.

Today I want to focus on the problem of the Lord’s Resistance Army, which still occupies part of eastern Congo and has conducted a 20-year campaign in and around northern Uganda. In that time many children have been abducted and forced into military service, many people in northern Uganda have lost limbs and many have lost their lives. The suffering of the people of northern Uganda has been beyond expression at times.

I come to the subject as chair of the all-party group on the great lakes region and genocide prevention. Just over a year ago, a delegation from the all-party group, including my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), visited northern Uganda and met President Yoweri Museveni. The report of the visit reiterated the extent of human suffering the conflict in northern Uganda has caused. At the time many thought that the International Criminal Court indictments of the leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army, Joseph Kony, and of several of his close associates, which were delivered while the mission was still in the field, signalled that the window for possible peace talks between the Lord’s Resistance Army and the Ugandan Government had closed. Kony seemed unprepared to talk and President Museveni had urged the ICC to take up the case.

When the group subsequently met President Museveni in London, it seemed that little had changed. The president had decided that if the LRA would not lay down its arms and if Uganda were not to be permitted by the international community effectively to invade the Democratic Republic of the Congo, it was up to the ICC to take charge of the situation. The ICC did that and there has apparently been a considerable turnround in many respects. The LRA has apparently taken part in talks in Juba, although—to put it in the most positive way—things are moving extremely slowly.

It is estimated that 1,000 people a week in the region are dying as a result of the conflict. Children are still the principal victims of the violence: an estimated 1,500 are still in LRA ranks and at least 10,000 remain unaccounted for. It is worth emphasising the abominable extent of the crimes conducted in the course of the conflict. Some 20,000 to 25,000 children have been abducted and made to work as field wives,
23 Jan 2007 : Column 443WH
child soldiers, and porters of weaponry; often they have been forced to mutilate or kill friends and relatives. Tens of thousands of other people in the region have become night commuters, walking long distances every night into towns to try to avoid attack. Members of the all-party group met some of those children at the Noah’s Ark shelter in Gulu. The founder of the Concerned Parents Association, a remarkable non-governmental organisation formed in response to the abductions and killings, told the all-party group the harrowing tale of her daughter: kidnapped by the rebels in a notorious attack on the Aboke girls’ school, she was forced to become the wife of a commander and was held for seven years before she managed to escape and return home.

The group’s visit to Koch Goma internally displaced person camp was perhaps the most striking and depressing experience of its time in Uganda. As at other camps, the inhabitants live in fear. The day before the visit, residents who had gone to tend nearby fields had fled in panic after coming across signs of LRA presence. At a memorable meeting with the group, residents described an incident in May 2005 in which 16 people were killed and two abducted when the LRA attacked the camp. When the assembled crowd was asked who had lost someone to the LRA through murder or abduction, virtually every hand went up.

I believe it is incumbent on anyone who wants to help alleviate that suffering to put the present victims at the top of the international agenda. If there is a way to make it stop, we have to help to find it and the sooner the better. There is another agenda, however, and that is to seek to prevent such things from happening in future. There is another agenda, however, and that is to seek to prevent such things from happening in future. That agenda is served by making it clear that the perpetrators of the world’s worst crimes against humanity are held responsible and punished for the atrocities that they commit. The present situation in northern Uganda, with a temporary ceasefire in place while negotiations take place to make it permanent, I hope, is therefore extremely sensitive.

At face value, that appears to be a Catch-22 situation. There is no doubt that atrocities have taken place over many years, and that cannot be ignored under any circumstances. That is why the ICC has indicted a number of LRA suspects. However, discussions imply movement on both sides. Such movement brings with it, one assumes, the possibility of damaging the ICC process and the crucial role that it will play in preventing future atrocities. It is essential not to find a messy compromise, but to serve both objectives—to stop the violence, while also holding to account those responsible for violence in the past.

For those on the ground, that will be a challenge of the greatest proportions. For sure, the August 2006 cessation of hostilities agreement has so far led to increased safety, confidence and hope. With assistance from non-governmental organisations such as Christian Aid, Oxfam, Tearfund, and Save the Children, schools are being rebuilt and there is better access to health care. The improved security has allowed NGOs much better access to camps for families who have been forced from their homes by
23 Jan 2007 : Column 444WH
fighting. Displaced people have been able to move to new settlement sites, which are often closer to their homes and have access to farmland. New fighting and a return to terror tactics in northern Uganda could destroy all that progress, so we need to do what we can as an important member of the international community to prevent that from happening, if that is possible.

Mr. David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op): I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and congratulate him on securing this debate. Does he accept that one of the problems is that many of the refugees are based around Juba, in southern Sudan? We all know that Sudan is a unstable country. There is a need to bring the peace talks to an early closure, hopefully with peace at the end of them, so that we can have peace in the whole sub-region.

Mr. Joyce: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is crucial that the talks should come to a successful conclusion, because the whole region is interlinked. My interest extends out of what was a terrible mess in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, which came about through all sorts of terrible events, arising primarily after the Rwandan genocide of 1994. All those problems are interlinked, and we can deal with them only if we deal with them all together. That will sometimes mean a gradational move in each set of negotiations.

Members of the all-party group and I have had the good fortune of meeting both President Museveni and many of the key actors in the region. The latter include the Juba mediation team, the ICC, and various experts who are close to the process. There have been many false dawns and there are many serious obstacles to overcome, but the process has the potential to make more progress than we might have expected a year or so ago.

The talks are delicate and at a critical stage, and many observers perceive a possibly dangerous loss of momentum. I hope that the Government will ensure that anything that can be done to contribute to a successful outcome will be done. I very much welcome the UK’s contribution of £250,000 to facilitate the talks process, but I also note the recent International Crisis Group report, which found that mediation efforts have so far suffered from a lack of capacity. Will the Minister make clear the UK’s continued appropriate support for the peace process, both politically and materially?

Kerry McCarthy (Bristol, East) (Lab): I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and congratulate him on securing this debate. I was in Uganda with Oxfam in September last year. I am sure that he is aware that over the past few days, if not the past couple of weeks, the Lord’s Resistance Army has started to say that it does not have any confidence in the fact that the peace talks are being held in southern Sudan. The LRA does not see the Sudanese Government as impartial and has suggested that another country, such as Kenya, Tanzania or others, could be used to host the talks. Would my hon. Friend comment on that, and also on the fact that the African Union has so far been reluctant to get involved?

23 Jan 2007 : Column 445WH

Mr. Joyce: I thank my hon. Friend for that. Mr. Chissano has been appointed to mediate on that important issue. He will have to face a decision. The LRA has suggested that it might like the comfort of a hotel in Kenya for the next few years, instead of getting on with things in Juba. Sometimes, we have to take rumours as being exactly that. People on the ground will understand what they mean and be able to interpret them. I am concerned by what some of the LRA negotiators may have said recently about continuing at Juba, but at the moment, we must hold fire. They should crack on and continue at Juba because there is a worry that if they move to another location they might simply get bogged down and stay there for the next few years.

On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Kerry McCarthy), it has been suggested—this may be a cynical view—that the current talks are a ruse for the Government of Uganda to keep the heat off until after the Commonwealth Heads of Government conference in November. Supposedly, the Ugandan army has been deploying in sensitive areas, and President Museveni has not given any ground in the talks so far. It is important to note that he is, more or less, the democratically elected president of a UN-recognised state and that the LRA is a somewhat different entity. I put it no stronger than that. There is an argument about moral equivalence. We should not be too hard on President Museveni, who has faced a threat over his border and has not been allowed to pursue the enemy because we have not permitted him to make an incursion into another country.

It would help if the Government would make it clear that a resolution of the conflict is at the heart of its policy and interests. The spotlight will be firmly on Uganda in November as we approach the Commonwealth Heads of Government conference that it is hosting. A sound and durable peace process would be a huge and laudable achievement to showcase to the world.

In order to reach a solution to the conflict, underlying issues that contributed to it must be addressed, particularly the apparent underdevelopment of services in northern Uganda in comparison with other parts of the country. In many ways, Uganda is a great success story. The film, “The Last King of Scotland”, shows what a mess it was in before President Museveni. Some might say that he has not always done the right thing recently, but there is now universal primary education across Uganda and it leads the region in many laudable ways.

There may be arguments for separating talks on the future of the LRA from discussions on the wider issues of development in northern Uganda. Any such talks should involve not only the LRA, but a wider and, one might argue, far more legitimate representation of the people of northern Uganda. It is particularly important that civil society organisations should attend such talks. Will the Minister reassure us that whenever and wherever appropriate, the Government will be ready to make an appropriate contribution to such efforts quickly, whether to the negotiations or to the relationship between the Ugandan Government and northern Uganda on the ground? I am sure that that
23 Jan 2007 : Column 446WH
has already been done, but it is a good idea to flag up such considerations when one gets a chance such as this.

One of the most difficult issues in the talks is the indictments of the ICC. I flag this up again because it is a core problem. It is imperative that the ICC is supported as a tool of international accountability. The question is whether any overlap exists between the overriding need to maintain the credibility of the court and the need to find a solution in the talks that will end the violence in the region. I know that if such overlap exists, the UK Government will do what they can to assist people to exploit it.

I sense that the ICC does not see itself as a blunt instrument. It is aware of the reality on the ground for the people of northern Uganda, such as the Acholi people. I would like to find a way forward that maintains its authority and does the best for northern Ugandans. The danger is that if the ICC takes an unnecessarily blinkered approach, it may simply say that the writ of the ICC has to be upheld, and people will have to pay for that on the ground. It appears, however, from recent ICC comments and our contact with it, that its position is much more sophisticated than that, which I am extremely glad to see.

Judy Mallaber (Amber Valley) (Lab): It has been suggested that some of the trials could be dealt with in Uganda rather than at the ICC. What confidence does my hon. Friend have that the Ugandan justice system is sufficiently robust to handle such trials?

Mr. Joyce: That question addresses a core point. Let me tie my answer in with the point that I was about to make about separating indictees from non-indictees. The rule with the International Criminal Court is that if a state is unable or unwilling to deal with a case, it should be referred to the ICC. I may be wrong, but as far as I can see, Uganda has the capability, but not the political will, for various other reasons—I do not mean that in a pejorative sense—and that is why the matter was referred. However, President Museveni has now changed his mind and would like to deal with it within Uganda.

My view is that the Ugandan system could deal with the matter, but I think that, in practical terms, it would have to separate off the indictees, who would have to go through a full, proper judicial process, from other processes—perhaps judicial or quasi-judicial processes tied in with traditional justice mechanisms in Uganda, such as we have seen in Rwanda and Burundi. That might be a possibility for the non-indictees. There are 1,500 people, many of whom could be integrated back into Uganda without, perhaps, a formal judicial process. That is why I think that the focus on the indictees needs to be held up.

It is also worth saying that if a proper judicial process was gone through and it was acceptable to the ICC—I am hypothesising here on the basis of relatively little knowledge of the law—President Museveni might well be more influential on what would happen to the indictees were they to be found guilty. He may be able to influence an outcome subsequent to those trials that is appropriate for all concerned.

The international community has a powerful responsibility to get to grips with the situation. There is a window of opportunity. The issue is not something
23 Jan 2007 : Column 447WH
for which the British Government are wholly responsible, but we are an enormous force for good right across the great lakes region. We are the highest funders of foreign aid, arguably, in Rwanda, in Burundi and in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. We have a long and strong relationship with the Ugandans. They are a great success story and I hope that we can help to sort out the problem in northern Uganda in relatively short order.

1.47 pm

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Ian McCartney): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Mr. Joyce) and his colleagues in the all-party group on the great lakes region and genocide prevention on securing and participating in this debate on the northern Ugandan peace talks. I also thank them for their support and endeavours to resolve what is an appalling conflict in a very large part of the African continent. I will try to respond to all the points raised, but I will review the record of the debate and if I have not responded adequately or have missed questions, I will write to my hon. Friend and place the answer in the Library, so that all members of the all-party group can read that it in conjunction with the debate.

The most important thing for us is to address the threats posed by the Lord’s Resistance Army. Ending the conflict in northern Uganda is indeed a Government priority. For nearly 20 years, that vicious insurgency group has abducted children, torn families apart and committed acts of unspeakable cruelty against innocent civilians. At the worst point, more than 2 million people—nearly two thirds of northern Uganda’s entire population—were displaced as a result of its activities. It is impossible not to be moved or angered by the cruel loss of life and the continued suffering of the local communities which my hon. Friend described.

The LRA’s activities have also threatened the stability and security of the wider region, particularly in Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Both those countries are also trying to deal with their own fragile transition processes. As my hon. Friend said, those matters are interlinked. The efforts by the Government of South Sudan to mediate on a resolution between the LRA and the Ugandan Government are to be applauded, and some progress has been made. The signing of a cessation of hostilities agreement, which remains in force, is a genuine achievement and has had a marked impact on the security situation in northern Uganda. That is why the LRA’s announcement on 12 January this year that it would not return to Juba is so frustrating.

What now for the talks? In short, the future of the talks depends on whether the LRA is willing to return to Juba and resume mediation. The Ugandan Government have reiterated their commitment to making progress in Juba, as has the mediator, South Sudan’s vice-president, Riek Machar. The UK is not a party to that regional initiative, but we have welcomed and supported it with a contribution of £250,000 to the UN fund. Along with other members of the international community, we have worked to secure clear statements of support for the talks process from
23 Jan 2007 : Column 448WH
the United Nations and the European Union. The newly appointed UN special envoy for LRA-affected areas, former President Chissano, has just visited the region and he, too, has encouraged all concerned to return to southern Sudan and focus on making progress. UK officials, including our high commissioner, have regularly visited the north to monitor the situation and build contacts with local politicians. It is clear that the talks process is extremely fragile, but it offers a genuine chance for peace. It is now for the parties to demonstrate that this is what they want and to go that extra mile, as it were, to Juba to resume the dialogue.

There have been recurring claims that the Ugandan Government are not interested in negotiating an end to the conflict, but they supported previous mediation efforts, such as those led by former Ugandan Minister, Betty Bigombe, and have engaged strongly over the past six months with the Juba process. Primary responsibility for providing security to the people of northern Uganda and forging a lasting solution to the conflict must rightly lie with the Government of Uganda. Lord Triesman met President Museveni most recently on 20 November 2006 and discussed those issues. The President has consistently assured us that he is committed to getting peace and security in the north, and it is clearly in his interests to do so. The ongoing conflict undermines Uganda’s economic and development gains made over the past 20 years, and it threatens future progress and the security of neighbouring states, to which my hon. Friend alluded.

Uganda has failed to end this conflict militarily, despite aggressive campaigns. The numbers seeking refuge in internally displaced people’s camps actually rose as a result of these campaigns and the LRA attacks continued. That led to the image and standing of the Ugandan Government and their army being undermined, so I do not accept the suggestions that President Museveni is not committed to ending the conflict. It is the only way in which he can resolve not just the conflict but the problem of the international standing and improvement of his Government and armed forces.

The most senior LRA commanders are now subject to International Criminal Court arrest warrants. Some commentators have pointed to the warrants as being a barrier to further progress in Juba, but I disagree. The ICC arrest warrants have brought increased international attention to the conflict in northern Uganda, reduced the logistical support for the LRA, exposed its crimes and pressed it to come to the negotiating table. The UK is a strong supporter of the work of the ICC. There can be no impunity and no deals for those indicted by the International Criminal Court.

As the UN Secretary-General’s special adviser on genocide prevention, Juan Mendez, noted in his talk to parliamentarians in December last year, accountability for such crimes is crucial to prevention of similar crimes in the future. Any sense of impunity for crimes already committed breeds insecurity among populations at risk and creates an incentive for repetition among the perpetrators. Mendez noted the particular role the International Criminal Court can play in breaking that cycle of impunity. The northern Uganda warrants were the first to be issued by the ICC.
23 Jan 2007 : Column 449WH
Our efforts to combat impunity, not just in northern Uganda, but in other current and future situations, hinge on our resolve to stand by the court as its faces its first challenges.

Kony and the other senior commanders indicted by the ICC must face justice for the crimes of which they are accused. These are the most serious charges: crimes against humanity and war crimes, including the targeting and killing of civilians, rape, attacks against the camps for internally displaced people and the abduction of civilians, including women and children. However, the vast majority of LRA members not indicted by the ICC can, and do, receive a full amnesty from the Ugandan Government. The UK has supported the work of the amnesty commission in that regard.

The Ugandan Government must do more to encourage those LRA members not facing ICC arrest warrants to give up their arms, leave the bush and seek reintegration into their communities, in the way that my hon. Friend suggested. The international community will support such efforts, and we will support the international community in that regard.

So what else needs to be done? The security situation in northern Uganda has improved enormously since the talks began in July 2006. According to the UN about 300,000 displaced people voluntarily returned to their villages last year. That is significant proof of the benefits the peace process has brought up to this point. However, 1.4 million people remain living in camps for internally displaced people and those communities are still heavily dependent on international humanitarian assistance. That is a continuing concern.

We have consistently called on the Ugandan Government to provide for the needs, and to ensure the protection, of those living and working in the north of Uganda. We welcomed the establishment last year by the Government of Uganda of the joint monitoring committee to oversee the delivery of a prioritised emergency action plan to tackle humanitarian issues in the north. The JMC has made some progress, but more needs to be done. So while we all wish that we were not needed, the UK is one of the largest humanitarian donors to Uganda. Since April 2005, we have committed more than £37 million in humanitarian assistance through UN agencies and the Red Cross. Our aid helps to provide food, health care, water, sanitation, education and protection to vulnerable children, but we want to see the region standing on its own feet. That is why we are working closely with international partners to support the regional initiative in Juba.

The President of the UN Security Council issued a statement on 16 November 2006 welcoming the cessation of hostilities agreement, which remains in
23 Jan 2007 : Column 450WH
force, and efforts to end the long-running conflict. On 1 December 2006, the UN Secretary-General appointed a special envoy for the LRA-affected areas. Former President Chissano has made clear that he sees his role as supporting, not supplanting, that of the mediator at the Juba talks. We welcome his appointment and believe that it offers a chance for fresh impetus in the regional effort to address the conflict in northern Uganda.

We are also working bilaterally with the Government of Uganda to discuss progress and to encourage them to stick with the mediation effort. Our high commissioner in Kampala met the Ugandan Foreign Minister this morning. Lord Triesman also plans to hold discussions with the Foreign Minister when they are both at the African Union summit in Addis Ababa later this week. We will be considering what the African Union can do to participate more fully in the process of bringing talks to a successful conclusion.

My sense, listening to colleagues not just in this debate but over the past few months, is that hon. Members want the UK and the international community to do more to ensure that the Juba peace process is successful. We will do what we can but, of course, a lasting solution can ultimately be delivered only by the parties to the talks, and for the talks to succeed both sides must return to the negotiating table. Ultimately, if the talks fail there is a real risk of a return to violence. The effect of that would be felt across the region as a whole and would impact most heavily on civilians. It is likely that the regional Governments would then unite in working to address the LRA threat. However, we see no prospect for a purely military solution as that has been tried for so many years and has always failed. Indeed, that approach has created an even worse situation to be resolved with the support of the international community.

We will continue to press the Government of Uganda to do everything that they can to ensure that peace and security returns to northern Uganda. Ultimately, it is their responsibility, but we will do what we can to help. In that regard, as well as placing a letter in the Library and writing a personal note to my hon. Friend, I will ask Lord Triesman when he returns from his discussions to have a meeting with him and his group to keep them abreast of events. I hope that that will assist him in the work that he is doing, along with ourselves, to at last bring an end to this terrible violation of human rights and dignity in a way that brings peace, justice and security to the people, not just of northern Uganda, but of the region as a whole.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Two o’clock.