Respecting Human Rights: a path towards peace

by Dr Andrew Mawson, Amnesty International

A paper delivered to the Kacoke Madit on 18 July 1998

I would like to thank the Acholi community and the organisers of the Kacoke Madit for inviting Amnesty International to take part in this gathering. We regard it as an honour to be asked to share thoughts, opinions and ideas on the human rights element in the dynamics of the war in northern Uganda with members of the Acholi community from diverse locations and holding diverse points of view.

The duty of Amnesty International and other human rights organizations, whether international organizations or Ugandan organizations such as Human Rights Focus in Gulu, is to make our contribution on human rights with the aim of helping in the search for solutions. This is never easy. I should make clear that Amnesty’s mandate deals primarily with issues surrounding violence and political activity -- and these are the issues I will discuss in this presentation. There are a host of other human rights issues relevant to the situation in Gulu and Kitgum -- the rights to education and development, for example -- but I hope you will forgive me for not touching on these in the limited time available.

In most war situations -- and perhaps especially in a war as historically complex as the one being fought in Gulu, Kitgum and neighbouring parts of Moyo, Apac and Lira -- the reality of conflict and abuse is that everyone is faced by a series of dilemmas. Emotionally, people want to be able to identify clear sides: one side is good and right, the other is evil and wrong. We are innocent victims, they are oppressors and abusers. It is especially easy for those of us who are not living in the immediate situation to paint the issues in black and white.

Unfortunately, in reality things are rarely that simple -- and they are certainly not that simple in Gulu and Kitgum. For the villagers who are trapped in the northern war zone the experience of the war from day to day does not allow easy conclusions about who is right and who is wrong.

I would like to read to you the words, translated into English, of a 15-year old former LRA member who we interviewed in May 1997. He had been forced to kill while with the LRA. However, what I want to read describes the murder of his mother and brother by the LRA and his subsequent encounter with the killer at a trauma centre. He demonstrates and describes several realities more eloquently than anything I can say. He ran from the LRA to his uncle’s house when on an operation in his home area:

While at a counselling centre in Gulu he met the killer of his mother and brother: "Each time our eyes met, he'd turn his head away. One day he called me to speak with him behind the block. "My brother, when I see you I feel unhappy". "What did you do to me?" "I was forced. I killed your mother". Then he began to cry. I told him: "Don't fear me here. I will not tell my relatives you killed my mother". This rebel had not been abducted. His aunt had been killed [by the UPDF] so he joined the rebels to take revenge."

What I hear in his words is the struggle of two young men trapped in a cycle of violence, two young men struggling to deal with their own sense of guilt. One joined the LRA voluntarily because of what the UPDF did to his aunt. The other was abducted. Both became killers. Both have made a personal pact to move beyond what they know they have done by finding a way to reconcile. Let us hope their example can be followed by those who are leaders.

It is very easy for reports of human rights abuses to be used as a stick with which to beat one’s enemies. It is easy for supporters of the government or the LRA (or the opponents of both) to find examples of wrong-doing. It is emotionally easy to excuse the abuses of one side by saying the other side is worse; or to point to abuses that have been committed in previous years and to argue that these both explain and somehow excuse abuses that are taking place now. What then follows is a sterile process of arguing over history to justify the present.

However, here we immediately encounter a dilemma. Uncovering and exposing human rights abuses that have taken place in the past and are being committed now is a necessary part of analyzing events. It is a necessary part of establishing what issues have to be faced for there to be enough consensus about justice for the future to be built on firm foundations. Forgetting the past is not an option. This way of looking at the past, however, is to look at it with the aim of building a future rather than justifying one position or another in the present.

Human rights abuse and the breakdown of justice in northern Uganda are both obstacles to peace -- the theme of this meeting. It is the responsibility of human rights organizations to represent clearly and impartially where and how human rights abuses are taking place -- not with the aim of supporting one side or the other, but in order to make clear and impartial suggestions about issues that need to be faced and mechanisms that need to be created in order for abuses to be prevented.

In turn, dealing with abuses and preventing them from occuring is a vital contribution to building the confidence required for peace. In other words, establishing respect for human rights is not something that should follow the end of war but is part of the process of creating the conditions for war to end. This should be a national priority in a war that is not an Acholi conflict but a national, indeed international, issue.

Last year Amnesty International visited Gulu twice and published a report on human rights abuses by the LRA. The fact is that the LRA is destroying a generation of Acholi children by abducting them, turning them into traumatized killers and forcing them to the battlefield. The LRA has visited extreme violence on villagers, murdering and raping thousands, destroying education and health services and disrupting the economy. Whatever the motive for taking up arms, the LRA’s conduct is in total breach of the human rights standards that the world community has defined in international law.

Amnesty International visited Gulu again in May this year in order to follow up on issues to do with the accountability of UPDF soldiers for abuses for a report currently under preparation. The extreme violence of the LRA over-shadows a complex set of problems associated with the Uganda Government. While not on the same scale as the LRA, UPDF soldiers have also killed and raped villagers. Civilians have been beaten during spot-checks or after arrest. Civilians suspected of being LRA collaborators have been arrested on inadequate evidence.

Some steps have been taken to hold soldiers accountable. These involve soldiers being arrested and then handed over to the police. However, the majority of soldiers arrested are those who are off-duty and who are known to their victims. Offences by soldiers on mobile patrol or in remote detaches are sometimes ignored by their officers. When soldiers are arrested, weaknesses in the administration of justice, in particular the lack of a Resident State Attorney, mean that few are brought to trial. In one high profile incident, the killing of four men by a mob in Gulu town on 16 August 1996, senior army officers were involved and no disciplinary action was taken. This gives the worst possible message to both the people and other soldiers.

In recent months an apparently unconstitutional security unit headed by a presidential adviser has shown contempt for the rule of law by illegally detaining around 14 treason suspects in ungazetted places of detention. These arrests took place without the knowledge and agreement of local officials responsible for security, including the RDC, thereby showing contempt for their efforts to build more trust between rural people and the authorities. The presidential adviser in question, whose behaviour was roundly condemned by the Uganda Human Rights Commission, has not been censured.

What I have described is a snap-shot of some aspects of the current situation. I have not touched on complex issues such as the creation of protected villages, which a fuller presentation would require. Since 1986 the pattern of abuse has ebbed and flowed involving many different actors, some opposing the State and others from the State. At different times one or other party has appeared to be the main human rights problem.

The challenge facing all parties now is to look forwards. This involves taking action to prevent abuses and to protect civilians. It means making those who commit abuses account for what they have done. Systematic action against abuses gives the message that those who commit them will not get away with it. This in itself has a preventive effect.

In law the State has the primary responsibility to protect human rights, whether or not it is the major abuser. This means ensuring that measures to protect people from the violence of the LRA, such as the creation of protected villages, do not themselves result in the abuse of civilians. Soldiers, police officers and other officials who commit abuses should be charged and brought promptly to a fair trial. The armed forces should ensure their full cooperation with the police in the investigation of alleged abuses. There is an urgent need for the administration of justice in the north to be strengthened by the provision of resident State Attorney in Gulu. This would prevent long delays in justice.

The issue of ending impunity, however, also throws up a dilemma. If there is to be justice for the people of Gulu, Kitgum and neighbouring districts, the fact that serious crimes have been by committed by LRA members has to be confronted. Yet many of the worst atrocities have been carried out by forcibly abducted children, relatives of those killed or maimed, themselves subjected to horrifying violence. Thousands of children have fled from the LRA, an unknown number of others have been killed in the attempt.

It is worth reminding ourselves that under Ugandan law (and international provisions), former members of the LRA could be charged with treason or serious crimes against the person, including murder and abduction. The fact that the authorities have recognized that these crimes are committed by children terrorized and brutalized into submission through the systematic abuse of their basic rights should be recognised and applauded. It may be common sense in a difficult political situation -- but it is also humane.

However, without confronting the trauma caused by the violent abuse of human rights it will be difficult to break the cycle of violence existing in northern Uganda. Even children should not be able to do commit abuses with impunity. The provision of culturally appropiate pyscho-social counselling -- an I include here traditional cleansing and other rites -- for escaped or captured LRA members is a positive and creative approach to dealing with a complex social and political - as well as psychological - issue. Many children are wracked by guilt and the process aims to help them come to terms with this. For others, it helps them recognize what they have done. In the end, the objective is to invest in the future by rehabilitating children.

But what about those leadership cadres in the LRA -- the men with overall responsibility for abductions and killings? Should their crimes be over-looked in the search for peace? This is perhaps the most difficult dilemma of all. The issues are clear -- people who fear they will be arrested and sentenced to death are unlikely to commit to peace. Yet on the other hand, experience from all over Africa and, indeed the rest of the world, demonstrates that if serious crimes are not confronted and dealt with (and here I do not mean treason, but mass-murder) injustice remains and peace does not last.

I have no easy answers to this. I can put forward, however, some principles that should guide people as they grapple with this issue. The first is that if the leadership of the LRA is to be brought to account for its actions, senior UPDF soldiers who have been responsible for abuses should be brought to account in the same way. The incident in Gulu town on 16 August 1996 springs to mind. If the authorities are going to claim moral authority, dealing with the officers responsible for that and similar incidents is essential. The authorities have to demonstrate their commitment to justice. This means examining their own record.

Secondly, and very closely related, ending war requires creating justice. This involves dialogue at a much broader level than government talking to the leadership of armed opposition groups. It includes the government building relations of trust with the people of Kitgum and Gulu Districts. It includes investing in opportunities for northerners, particularly in education, training and employment. Dialogue also includes Ugandans from other parts of the country recognizing that improving the human rights situation in the north is a national priority and not just a local concern.

Mechanisms to help ensure accountability have to be put in place to help this happen. People can and do bring complaints about their treatment or situation to the RDC and other authorities. However, in human rights terms there is need for an additional independent body to whom people can turn -- a body that is not part of the political process. The Uganda Human Rights Commission should be facilitated to open an office in Gulu where it can act as an on-the-spot watchdog. It has the powers -- and I believe that its record over its first year of existence shows that it is ready to use them.

The authorities should encourage the role of Ugandan non-governmental organizations and the churches in monitoring human rights and working to bring the different parts of a divided community together. However, NGOs and others should be challenged to overcome their own mutual suspicions first in order to complement each other’s initiatives. No single initiative will resolve war or protect human rights on its own. Organizations with their headquarters in Kampala should be challenged to demonstrate their solidarity with the people of the north by becoming actively engaged in working towards human rights-based solutions. The media working in the northern war should be guaranteed safety and freedom from interference. This is a critical issue: if truth is to be told the media need to be able to work with freedom. If the truth is hidden, long-term problems will remain.

In human rights terms, dialogue includes confronting the past to build the future. This means publicly investigating abuses of human rights by all parties in order that the truth might be known and remedial steps taken. In May 1986 Uganda was a pioneer among African nations when it set up a judicial Commission of Inquiry into human rights violations between independence in 1962 and the coming to power of the NRM in January 1986. This was an important part of coming to terms with the past by allowing a public airing of the hidden tragedy of many Ugandan lives. The aim was less to apportion blame -- although those who committed abuses were publicly exposed -- but more to produce recommendations on practical steps to be taken to prevent the repetition of human rights abuse.

However, history did not stop when the current government took power. The time bar on violations considered by the commission meant that it did not investigate abuses committed after 25 January 1986. What is more, from a human rights perspective other investigations that have focused on the situation in the north have been disappointing. An inquiry set up in 1988 into alleged human rights violations in Gulu District spluttered in and out of existence until 1991 when it produced a confidential work in progress report and then collapsed.

The parliamentary inquiry by the Sessional Committee on Defence and Internal Affairs received a considerable quantity of testimony about abuses. The report paints a devastating picture of the impact of the war on the north but stops short of making recommendations about human rights, other than to call on the Uganda Human Rights Commission to investigate complaints. So far, therefore, there has not been a focused, public confrontation of the human rights experience of people in northern Uganda during the 11-year long war.

Although, as I have made clear, Amnesty international endorses the call on the Ugandan Human Rights Commission to investigate complaints, unfortunately under the terms of the commission's founding statute, it is barred from investigating human rights abuses that took place before the new constitution came into effect, in other words abuses that took place before October 1995. However, for the alienation of the Acholi people to be overcome, the experience of human rights abuses at the hands of both armed opposition and government between 1986 and 1995 must be brought before a public inquiry. Not only do people from the north need the truth to come out -- but it is essential that people in the rest of Uganda learn what has been happening.

Yet I should also point out another dilemma. The Uganda Human Rights Commission has limited resources and to be effective has to be able to target these resources. It is a national institution and cannot devote all its energies to the north. Neither is it desirable that it should do so -- I do not believe people in the north are looking for a special status but recognition that they are fully part of the same nation as all Ugandans. Further, the value of investigating the past would be undermined if it prevented or inhibited day-to-day investigations in the present.

To get round this I believe that the Commission should seek an amendment to its statute to enable it to carry out a one-off, time-limited investigation into a number of important incidents. These should stand as represntatives for other incidents.

This suggestion is contentious and is made in the spirit of stimulating debate and thought. It raises many practical and ethical issues that need to be debated. These include:

• who would define which incidents should be the subject of inquiry. This has to involve a broad debate within the Acholi community.
• what would be the terms of reference and, indeed, the ultimate purpose of such an inquiry. For example, would it be seeking to lead to compensation? What form should compensation take if it is to speak to an entire community and yet be practical, reasonable and affordable?

The rape of women and girls in forced marriages within the LRA, the rape of villagers during attacks and rape of women by soldiers is an integral and formative part of the dynamic of abuse in the north. Rape constitutes a crime against the physical integrity of the victim -- it is not an inevitable by-product of war. Amnesty International believes that the abuse of women's human rights in Uganda deserves special attention, both as a focus of inquiry -- but also as a focus for conflict resolution. Women and children have been the main victims of northern Uganda’s conflict. Their perspective on the present and the future should be a key element to finding a way forward.

Finally, I have made some suggestions about steps the authorities could take. I have suggested that the churches, NGOs and members of the wider community all have a responsibility to confront human rights abuses with an aim of building confidence for the future. What about the LRA? They too have to take responsibility for their actions. The LRA should cease abducting children and terrorizing civilians as a method of war. Those who support the LRA or who have influence with it, whether Ugandan exiles or the Sudan Government, should understand clearly that whatever they are seeking to achieve in relation to the Uganda Government, the organization they are using to promote their goals is destroying northern Uganda’s most precious resource -- the children of Acholi. The Sudan Government in particular has the power to intervene. Action to free children would be a major step towards establishing peace.

In conclusion -- establishing respect for human rights should be seen as part of the process of creating the conditions for peace. This is a challenge for all people involved in the search for solutions to the northern war. Amnesty International will continue to play its part in helping where we can on the human rights element.

Thank you.