What lessons can be drawn from the Juba peace talks?

The process had many strengths and shortcomings

OPIYO OLOYA
Perspective of a Ugandan in Canada

What are the lessons that can be learned from the Juba peace process which saw the cessation of hostilities between the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) and the government of Uganda?

Were there discernible patterns in the Juba peace process that could be generalised, even used to restore peace in another situation of conflict between state actors and non-state actors like the LRA?

Those were some of the questions that confronted participants at the workshop this past weekend in Gulu. Entitled “The Juba Peace Process: Lessons learned”, the two-day workshop drew academics, civil society, members of parliament and community activists from Uganda and the diaspora. The consensus emerging from the event organised by the Gulu University Institute for Peace and Strategic Studies and the Danish International Development Assistance (DANIDA) seemed to be that the Juba peace process was instrumental in creating the current measure of peace in northern Uganda.

In her opening address to participants, the Ambassador of Denmark, Nathalia Feinberg noted that because of Juba “peace has returned to Acholi, Teso and Lango”. This same theme was echoed in the keynote address by Bishop Dr. Zac Niringiye who pointed out that the holding of the workshop in Gulu was itself a testament to the prevailing peaceful atmosphere now being enjoyed in northern Uganda.

But as participants carefully pointed out throughout the many presentations and panel discussions, the Juba peace process had any strengths and shortcomings.

For example, the involvement of civil society in early 2007 was considered critical to restoring the stalled peace talks. The dded collective voice forced both the LRA and the Government of Uganda delegates to return to the negotiation tables. Many of the hiccups that had prompted the LRA walkout in December 2006 were dealt with in the Juba Peace Conference of February 2007, with many of the resolutions from that meeting being adopted by the chief mediator, Riek Machar.

As Gulu chairman Norbert Mao put it in his presentation, “We learnt that informal engagements with warring parties can lead to breakthroughs.”

However, participants also noted that the overindulgence of civil society in the process, especially the uncoordinated trips by civilians to Garamba forest to meet Joseph Kony created a parallel process that undermined the peace process itself.

Suddenly, everyone seemed to be negotiating their own peace agreement which threw the main peace talks into some disarray.

Obfuscation as one participant underlined is part of the process where there is so much at stake for either parties and nobody wants to lose out.

Then there was the issue of funding of the process. Depending on how one looked at it, there was either too much money floating around or not enough.

There was concern that there were not enough resources to ensure that the basic needs of the peace negotiators were met.

This led to some initial squabbling between the Government delegates and the LRA. The latter felt that there was inequity in the funding of the delegates.

However, according to a former member of the LRA delegation to the peace talks, Major Haruna Andema, money also became a source of conflict among the LRA. He pointed out that the post of head of the LRA delegation came with additional money. Attempts to have the leadership title rotate among the LRA delegates became a source of tension and disagreement among the delegates, something that was never resolved. Everyone, it seemed, wanted a piece of the action, but those already well positioned to receive it were not willing to give up the lucrative post for others.

As it was pointed out by the participants, despite the high profile roles played by the various LRA heads of delegation and Ruhakana Rugunda, head of Uganda Government delegation, true power seemed to be wielded elsewhere. This became a problem as the parties were never sure whether the delegates sitting across the aisle from them spoke on behalf of the principals, in this case, Joseph Kony and Yoweri Museveni.

Some participants pointed out that Museveni mused out loud whether Rugunda was doing what he had set out to do. Similarly, Kony seemed to hire and fire his team depending on his prevailing mood.

Participants agreed that the Juba peace process was left hanging when the LRA failed to sign the final peace agreement, thereby leaving the door open for more violence and fighting between the warring parties. This was not an indictment of either parties to the conflict but rather acknowledging that there was still work left to do even when the rebels have generally stayed out of northern Uganda.

As an exercise in thinking about the past three years, the Juba Peace workshop in Gulu was a success. There were moments of lively discussions, but the atmosphere was generally academic and dispassionate in analysing the peace process. While there was no final resolution (because this was not the goal of the workshop), it nonetheless got many thinking out loud about the prospect of another round of peace talks that would finally lead to the signing of the peace agreements.

Participants who have spoken to LRA leader Joseph Kony in the last few days suggested that he was ready for a new peace initiative.

Opiyo.oloya@sympatico.ca