The African Union and the new threat of Terrorism

By Rawlings Magede

When the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) was formed some 60 years ago, one of the key founding principles was on the right of the African people to control their own destiny. This was against a background where several African countries were still under the shackles of colonialism. Years later, through its vibrant leaders such as Kwame Nkrumah and Julius Nyerere, independence became a reality in Africa.

In 2002 when the OAU transited to become the African Union (AU) its focus slightly shifted to encourage political and economic integration among member states and to eradicate colonialism and neo-colonialism from the African continent. Although this seemed noble, questions on how it was going to be achieved continued to occupy public discourse. This was so because even after independence several African countries continued to institute disastrous Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs) and kept them in perpetual debt thereby creating a dependency syndrome on foreign capital. Countries like Zambia and Ghana among other countries implemented such programmes in the 1980s while Zimbabwe did so in the 1990s.

The present Day AU faces a myriad of problems.

Economic emancipation and the need to cut loose the dependency syndrome has remained one of the challenges facing the AU. Added to this, an even bigger challenge of terrorism continues to derail peace and security in Africa. This has been fueled by various rebel groups that have set bases on the continent. This continues to expose the fragility of the continent’s peace and security mechanisms. During the 50^th Anniversary of The African Union in May 2013, the AU Assembly of Heads of State and Government adopted a landmark declaration. This declaration spelt out how Africa would not bequeath the burden of conflicts to the next generation and made a commitment to end violent conflicts on the continent by 2020.This was then translated into the AU initiative: Silencing the Guns by 2020.This was followed up by the United Nations (UN) and AU Joint framework for Enhanced Partnership in Peace and Security in  2017 an the Joint Framework for Implementation of Africa’s Agenda 2063 and the 2030 Agenda  for Sustainable Development in 2028.This arrangement has seen the UN and AU collaborating closely, more regular exchange of information and consultations, coordinated action including joint field visits and joint statements.

Since then, the continent has experienced even more violent conflicts and civil wars. In 2021 alone, twelve African countries-Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic (CAR), Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Ethiopia, Kenya, Mali, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, and Somalia saw external involvement in their domestic conflicts. Multiple state-based conflicts in Africa are because of the rise and expansion of the Islamic State (IS). In the same year nine countries in Africa; Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, DRC, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, and Somalia experienced conflicts with IS within their territories. More recently, DRC based rebel group, Allied Democratic Forces (ADF) killed and abducted several students at Kasese District-based Lhubirira Secondary school in Western Uganda. The attack left 41 people dead while several were abducted. This month in Kenya, eight police officers were killed in a suspected attack by Somalia-based rebel group al-Shabab in Garissa County (Eastern Kenya).

The AU Peace and Security Council and its challenges

All these incidences have gravely exposed the inability of the AU to decisively deal with the ever-increasing threat of terrorism on the continent. The Peace and Security Council is saddled by a myriad of challenges ranging from poor funding to the lack of cooperation of member states to deploy forces. The financing challenges facing the AU have important unintended consequences. High levels of donor dependency have weakened ownership in the fight against the new threat of terrorism.

Against such a threat, there is need for the 55 AU member states to design a sustainable funding model that might mean that member states must make annual financial pledges that can be broken down into installments. In the past, this has proved problematic as several countries have reneged on their pledges.

More importantly is the need for AU member states to do anything necessary to address the threats posed by terror. For example, the DRC has become a haven for rebel groups such as the M23, Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) and the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF). These rebel groups have initiated and coordinated attacks from the DRC and easily evade detection due to the issue of porous borders within East Africa. In the long term, the rebel groups might set up bases elsewhere and spread across the continent. This will present an even bigger security problem for the AU.

Current funding arrangements for the AU to deal decisively with the threat of terrorism are neither reliable nor predictable, especially in the wake of an increase in terror attacks. The new challenge facing the continent now more than ever is terrorism which has continued to fuel civil wars and coordinated attacks. To win this war over terrorism requires all hands-on deck by every African country in terms of cooperation to deploy troops and resources.

In the final analysis, financing peace and security in Africa on a sustainable basis is not only an African priority but a global strategic imperative, given the complex and interconnected nature of threats to international peace and security today.

Nyumbani or Kifo!

Rawlings Magede is an International Development Specialist and Rotary International Peace Fellow. He writes here in his personal capacity. Feedback on rawlingsmagede2@gmail.com

Peace Education as a tool for Post-Conflict Healing in Rwanda

By Rawlings Magede

My visit to one of the Genocide memorials

During the past weeks I was holed up in Rwanda visiting memorial sites and villages in a quest to learn more on how the country has recovered years after the 1994 genocide that left more than 800,000 civilians dead. The genocide lasted for hundred days and engulfed the country into a turmoil as organised killings and massacres of the Tutsi escalated.

The colonial practice of ethnic profiling on identity documents aided in the easy identification of Tutsi minorities during roadblocks and targeted searches. Churches that had since time immemorial been credited for speaking truth to power become complicit in the killings and often deceitfully offered “safe” refuge to Tutsis but only alerted the Interahamwe’s (   Hutu militias) who massacred hundreds of thousands in cold blood. The snail’s pace by the international community to intervene and stop the killings further aided the killers and saw the killings stretching up to hundred days. In my Rwandan learning experience, I sought to understand how the country with several genocide memorial sites that are open to outside visitors had managed to overcome this dark past. Most complex is the youth bulge within the Rwandan population. Rwanda has a population of 13.25 million. According to statistics by the United Nations, at the end of the genocide  an estimated 95, 000 children are believed to have been orphaned, were products of rape and were born with some ailment given that in some cases rape by HIV infected Hutus was a weapon of war. How then has Rwanda managed to target young people in its quest for post conflict, healing, and reconciliation?

Anti-genocide laws

Article 16 of the Rwandan constitution provides for Non-discrimination and makes such an act a punishable offence. This important clause is a product of post genocide reconstruction    by the government in trying to heal festering wounds of the 1994 genocide that was instituted based on tribe and ethnicity. Modern Rwanda has managed to transform itself from ethnic identification and this has seen the country discarding ethnic profiling on key documents such as identity documents. Even the people prefer not to be identified by the ethnic origins but rather choosing to be identified as Rwandese. This in my view remains a positive step in reducing future ethnic hostilies. However, this is not without its challenges. For example, it might pose a serious threat to the annihilation of one’s ethnic origins or identity.

Peace Education in schools.

Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO), Aegis Trust developed a model for peace education in Rwanda, supporting tens of thousands of young people across the country with the knowledge and skills to overcome the legacy of genocide. Peace education started as a pilot project at Kigali Genocide Memorial in 2008.In 2014, the Rwanda Education Board announced inclusion of peace and values education as a cross-cutting subject in Rwanda’s new national curriculum.

In the events leading to the 100 days of genocide, Rwanda suffered from the lack of education and other infrastructure for peace. Youth were over-equipped with killing instruments – traditional arms, machetes, guns, etc.  Violent meetings were organized around the country. The media broadcasted violent messages, and hatred was spread around the country. There were warning signs about a possible genocide, and youth were indoctrinated in divisive and genocidal ideology.  Unrest, disorder, prejudice, despair, and instability were the common characteristics in Rwandese communities.

In the aftermath of the bloodshed, the slogan “Never Again” was coined with an objective to never allow the country to slide back into another genocide. In my observation, the country has made steady progress towards healing and reconciliation. Rwandans have demonstrated the power of human resilience. Firm recovery efforts have been made to rebuild the country. Anti-genocide and pro-peace strategies have been established and adopted by the people. While the country still has a lot of ground to cover to attain wholesome healing and reconciliation, the progress made thus far is quite encouraging. The introduction of peace education is a master stroke into the future that will ensure that coming generations understand the importance of peaceful coexistence anchored on ubuntu and human rights respect.

Lessons for Africa

African countries have gone through violent conflicts. While some governments have embraced the past and initiated healing and reconciliation infrastructure such as Truth and Peace Commissions, most of it has been piecemeal and has continued to be subject of rigorous debates among peace practitioners. In East Africa for example, countries such as Uganda continue to trudge on this path. Northern Uganda remains a region in dire need of healing and reconciliation following the war by rebel group, the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) that left thousands of dead, homeless and divided. Efforts by the Ugandan government to issue a blanket amnesty on all LRA returnees has been met with mixed feelings as some returnees still face stigma, exclusion, and labelling within their communities. If not well managed, the country will once again slide back into armed conflicts. In countries such as the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) that have known no meaningful peace since the 1950s due armed  conflicts by various rebel groups, little has been done to initiate a robust healing process for  communities that have been victims to successive rebels particularly in the Goma area. In Southern Africa, Zimbabwe to be specific, communities that have been on the receiving end of state sponsored massacres such as Gukurahundi are yet to fully enjoy the full benefits of any healing reconciliation process. Tribalism and exclusion continue to divide communities already divided by past atrocities such Gukurahundi and post 2000 cycles of election violence.

In the final analysis, Africa must confront its past and legacies of sponsored violence. This entails creating the requisite political will and strengthening institutions and commissions charged with the mandate of building real and genuine peace. Further bickering and interference will only derail any genuine healing and reconciliation processes.

Rawlings Magede is a Rotary Peace Fellow Based at Makerere University, Uganda. He writes here in his personal capacity. Feedback on rawlingsmagede2@gmail.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The ICC and the legacy of the LRA Abductions in Uganda

 By Rawlings Magede

With a former LRA Commander

Over the past weeks, I had  a series of engagements  with representatives from the International Criminal Court (ICC) and former commanders and returnees of Uganda’s notorious rebel group, Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA).The rebel group remains active today and its led   by Joseph Kony.The engagements touched on a number of issues ranging from the conviction of former LRA commander, Dominic Ongwen by the ICC,the issue of reparations for victims of Ongwen and then the integration process of former LRA returnees into communities in Northern Uganda.

The ICC and LRA

On 16 December 2003, the Ugandan government referred the war crimes by the LRA to the prosecutor of the ICC.Since 1986, the LRA led by its leader, Joseph Kony had wrecked havoc on the Acholi people of Northern Uganda. The move by the Uganda government  was the first time that a state party had invoked Articles 13(a) and 14 of the Rome Statute in order to vest the Court with jurisdiction. These two articles  provide for the Exercise of jurisdiction and Referral of a situation by a state party respectively. The ICC set up an office in Uganda subsequently following this development. In 2005,the ICC issued a warrant of arrest for Kony  and his charges ranged from crimes against humanity,murder,enslavement,cruel treatment of civilians among others. Since then, several warrants of arrest have been issued against LRA commanders such as Vincent Otti.In 2021, the ICC successfully convicted Dominic Ongwen of war crimes and crimes against humanity, including murder, rape, torture, and enslavement and sentenced him to 25 years. Following the conviction, the ICC   plans to roll out a reparations program for victims who suffered at the hands of Ongwen. This has been received with mixed reactions by a cross section of victims of LRA in Northern Uganda. Some of the arguments by survivors is why the ICC reparations program is only targeting victims from the area where Ongwen operated. This has created critical conversations about reparations and the work of the ICC in Uganda. This move, if successful will likely create tensions and conflicts in Northern Uganda, an area that is also beset by a myriad of challenges.

The Ugandan Amnesty Act

In the year 2000, the Ugandan government enacted an Amnesty act as a tool to end rebellions in Uganda by encouraging LRA rebels to lay down their arms without the fear of prosecution for crimes committed during the fight against the government. Amnesties offer communities saddled with intractable conflicts to inevitably seek ways of breaking out of painful cycles of violence. The promise of amnesty and reintergration played a vital role in motivating fighters to escape or defect from the LRA.Following this enactment, several LRA Commanders, child soldiers and children born in captivity took heed of the call and fled LRA camps and fled  back to Northern Uganda.While this was a positive move to weaken the rebel group,a lot of challenges ranging from stigmatization,exclusion and poverty awaited the returnees.

In my engagements with a former LRA Commander, Charles Otim there are a wide range of concerns. Key among these is the lack of integration and inclusion of former LRA commanders in the army of Uganda. If anything, the controversial withdrawal of the 2000 Amnesty by government in 2012 has created serious suspicions among the returnees as they fear future prosecution. His other argument is that most alleged perpetrators within the rank and file of the LRA are victims themselves. In his case, he was abducted by LRA rebels when he was only 12 years old on his way to school and became a child soldier. Many young soldiers who were abducted during forceful conscriptions were subjected to other serious abuses. Otim argued that while the integration LRA senior commanders has posed a complex challenge, Ugandan communities particularly from the North continue to flag this issue with courage. While the offer for amnesty for LRA returnees was a minimum form of reparation from the government, it is issues of exclusion that have continued to fuel disgruntlement among returnees.

For example, another survivor that I met, MS Evelyn Amony highlighted that just like Mr. Otim, she was also a victim who was abducted by the LRA when she was only four years old. She spent more than eleven years held up in a LRA camp and gave birth to three children. She highlighted that since her return, she and her fellow returnees have suffered serious discrimination. Access to documents, especially by returnees, has also been a challenge and attempts to have these issues addressed have been met with stiff resistance even by the authorities. In 2014, through her organisation composed of women returnees, Women’s Advocacy Network (WAN) she petitioned the Ugandan parliament to take swift action and improve the welfare and challenges faced by LRA returnees. To date, there has been no response on the matter from the Ugandan Parliament. More worrying is the failure by government to roll out a robust rehabilitation program for most survivors. According to a 2018 study conducted by the Firoz Lalji Centre for Africa Research titled, “Politics of Return” which explores the return and reintegration of ex-rebels, notes   that poverty and denied access to land for returnees have hampered their reintegration and recovery. The study was conducted in the districts of Gulu, Nwoya and Amuru (Northern Uganda) targeting children born during the LRA war to identify gaps that exist in their birth registration. The findings also revealed that most children born in LRA captivity were born in DR Congo, The Central African Republic, and South Sudan. Getting these children key documents such as birth certificates and identity card documents has proved to be a mammoth task. This, coupled with lack of access to land and exclusion has compounded the modern-day challenges for the returnees.

In the final analysis, while debates on the exclusion of returnees will continue to run, legitimate as it is, such debates should not be allowed to paralyze the need for swift decision making and sound responses to the plight of LRA returnees. For there is, in fact considerable common ground across the population in Uganda that the majority of LRA returnees were first victims before they were forced to become perpetrators. To successfully address and recover from the legacy of the LRA conflict, Uganda needs to retain an official response on the plight of returnees, going beyond the use of force and prosecutions. The ICC needs to revise its reparation program in Northern Uganda and initiate a process that will target all victims of the LRA atrocities. Such a step acknowledges complexity and seeks to meet the needs of victims of all shades. In the words of Ms Evelyn Amony, “peace doesn’t have a language or ethnicity. Everyone has a responsibility to build peace”.

Rawlings Magede is Rotary Peace fellow based in Uganda, Kampala. He is also a Development Practioner.Feedback on rawlingsmagede2@gmail.com