Otunnu is good on attacks but very weak on issues

Jul 06, 2009

<b>Karooro Okurut</b><br><i>A literary and socio-political analyst</i><br><br>One of the most scathing attacks on the National Resistance Movement (NRM) government lately has come from the rather unpredictable quarters of former foreign affairs ministe

Karooro Okurut
A literary and socio-political analyst

One of the most scathing attacks on the National Resistance Movement (NRM) government lately has come from the rather unpredictable quarters of former foreign affairs minister and later United Nations under-secretary general Dr. Olara Otunnu.

Otunnu has been widely quoted in the press, challenging the legacy and successes of President Yoweri Museveni’s administration and making very much underhand remarks regarding Museveni’s citizenship and the alleged genocide in northern Uganda.

This is not the first time we are hearing about this business of questioning the ancestry of leaders around here. In fact Otunnu appears to be repeating the unfortunate insinuations of former Lubaga North MP Wasswa Lule made in the 1996 elections about having all candidates show “five graves” of their forefathers. This was in the heat of the electoral battle and the opposition had run out of ideas on how to disable the Museveni onslaught and had therefore decided to become a little “creative” in a very dirty and primitive manner.

But this is also not the first time we are hearing such an attack. Readers will recall the situation in Zambia 13 years ago when then President Frederick Chiluba, under threat from the first President, Kenneth Kaunda who was making a political comeback played dark and dirty. First, he had passed many constitutional amendments that made Kaunda ineligible to stand. Then on Christmas Day 1997 had him arrested and jailed with chicken thieves for an alleged coup attempt two months earlier.

Finally, he had his opponent stripped of citizenship alleging that he was a Malawian! Chiluba conveniently forgot that Kaunda had led Zambia to independence and had led the country for 27 good years!

The trend seems to be that when you see a credible threat that you have no way of beating away, you invent excuses, including and especially citizenship. The time of the bush war (1981-1986) when Museveni was still a guerrilla fighter could have been a more appropriate time to raise questions of citizenship – in the unlikely event that they exist in the first place. But for Otunnu to do so after 23 years in which the country has registered one success after another is ridiculous.

It is like eating three quarters of the food on your plate and then suddenly turning around and declaring that the salt isn’t enough and you will have none of it! Otunnu should have the good graces to let the President’s ancestors rest in peace.

While Otunnu has been away, President Museveni has turned the shambles of a country that he found into a case study of how visionary and strategic approach to leadership can turn a hopeless situation into a prosperous one. When Otunnu returns (and I hope he does, and quickly), he will have to ask for help getting around the city and country, because he won’t recognise either at all, given the immense steps forward that Uganda has registered. He will be like the legendary Rip van Winkle who slept for 20 years and woke up to find that the world had moved and marched on while he was away.

Otunnu’s claims that the President stripped him of his citizenship must be taken with a pinch of salt for the simple reason that the President under the law has no powers to do that. If the President mentioned anything to do with Otunnu no longer being a Ugandan, it could only have been in relation to Otunnu’s acquisition of another citizenship. Now, anybody who read the 1995 Constitution prior to its amendment will know that there was no provision for dual citizenship. The implication therefore was that anyone who acquired citizenship anywhere else had relinquished Ugandan citizenship. That is why the President said then that Otunnu could acquire a Ugandan passport – on throwing away whatever passport he had. More recently anyway, the President said Otunnu was “free to come back”. Which part of that does Otunnu find hard to understand or repulsive?

The worst part of Otunnu’s attack is probably the allegation that this government has carried out genocide in northern Uganda. This should not be taken lightly, especially as Otunnu began this song years ago and has gone around the world defaming government to this effect. Those with good memories will remember an interview in The New Vision about eight years ago, in which London-based lawyer Barney Afako – who was also heavily involved in the Juba Peace Talks – in which he made very contrary claims to Otunnu’s.

When asked about who exactly was oppressing the civilians in the north, Afako was very categorical and unequivocal. He said that according to his research – which was produced in several reports for “African Rights” – what they had observed was that the civilians always and unfailingly fled from the Lords Resistance Army (LRA) rebels into the hands of the army for protection. There was no evidence that people had fled from the army to join the LRA rebels!

What the LRA had in its ranks were basically people who had been abducted and forcefully made to join the rebels. Asked to compare the LRA and the Uganda Peoples Defence Forces, Afako said: “I hesitate to mention them in the same breath!”

Like Otunnu, Afako hails from the northern half of this country. But the key difference is that while Otunnu based his remarks on his bias against the regime and the hearsay from unclear quarters that reached him in the comfort of his offices in America, Afako made his claims based on research he himself carried out in northern Uganda. Nothing armchair about Afako’s claims.

To allege genocide – systemic and programmed decimation of members of an ethnic group – is unthinkable and as a matter of fact, lowers Otunnu’s estimation in the eyes of the right thinking public.

If it is true that Otunnu would like to contest the presidency come 2011, we warmly welcome him to the contest, which unlike his “Genocide in northern Uganda” campaign, has a ring, a referee and rules. If he does join the fray then he brings with him a key weakness and characteristic of most of Uganda’s opposition: weak on issues and strong on attacks against individuals.

This is one of the main reasons the NRM has managed to ward off any electoral challenge in past elections. As a typically progressive mass party, we never have time to attack individuals; we think this country’s destiny must be decided on issues alone.

That is why our investment has been in finding out what Ugandans want and meeting that need.

We are probably unconsciously borrowing from the inventor of the light bulb and many other things, a certain Thomas Edison who said: “I simply find out what the world needs then I proceed to invent it.”

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});