Look, in 1993, I was one of the earliest journalists in this country to write — and write consistently — about the war in northern Uganda and how it was destroying children and childhood. I was firmly on the bandwagon of trying to end this war through negotiations, in no small part due to the possibility that trying to crush the LRA would mean killing rebels who were victims, too, of kidnapping and conscription. But there should come a point when reality dictates policy. Yes, Ugandan President Museveni has done wrong in this war as well, and has helped fuel it. Bu I believe he has been truly open to ending the wear through talks in the last couple of years. I don’t care about his motivation. It doesn’t matter to me that he may have done so only because allies were pressing their thumbs on him. If Kony had come in from the bush to sign the peace pact that had been painstakingly negotiated, Museveni, I think, would have signed it. But let us be honest: Kony will likely never surrender as long as the International Criminal Court indictment is hanging over his head. And at this point, considering his reluctance to come to the table, there is no reason to withdraw or postpone the indictment.

So what’s left to people of good conscience who want to see this bloody ordeal end? It’s chasing Kony and his top aides down militarily. Now, did the United States, Uganda, the DRC and Sudan have a smart military plan? No, not if they didn’t ring the area where they thought Kony might have been and, thus, allowed him  to escape. That bears a similar ring to how Osama bin Laden and the Taliban were able to flee Afghanistan and enter Pakistan because, in part, the border area in the White Mountains near Tora Bora was open.

Now, the LRA is moving in small groups and terrorizing civilians in the DRC. It is a dreadful development. But it is nothing new — the LRA generally has moved in small groups since its hey day.  We all want it to end, and that’s why this isn’t the time to stop pursuing Kony. Considering the ICC indictment is going to be dropped at this point, the best leverage to get him is chasing him and threatening his personal well-being. This pressure has likely prompted one of the cruelest LRA commanders also sought by the ICC, Okot Odhiambo, to say he will surrender. We must wait and see if that happens. In the meantime, the U.S., Britain and others could help close down the LRA by providing more intel and advice for the chase. The targets should be Kony and his commanders, not the rank-and-file. The timing is obvious: when the intel has pinpointed Kony’s location and a cordon with enough soldiers has surrounded him.

The LRA’s terrorizing of the region has to end. If Kony won’t come to the table after so many opportunities, it’s time to stop wishing and use other means so more children aren’t stolen, more girls raped, more childhoods lost.

INTERNATIONAL LEADERSHIP URGENTLY NEEDED TO PROTECT CHILDREN DURING ONGOING MILITARY EFFORTS AGAINST LRA REBELS

(WASHINGTON, DC, 16 December 2008) – As a major offensive conducted by regional militaries against the Ugandan Lord’s Resistance Army rebels unfolds in the Democratic Republic of Congo, U.S.-based Resolve Uganda is today calling for the international community to act decisively to ensure that operations are targeted only at LRA leaders and take all possible precautions to protect civilians and LRA captives from violence.

The call comes as the United Nations Security Council prepares for a briefing this week by Joaquim Chissano, the UN envoy to regions affected by the rebels.

“It’s a truly tragic situation. While countries in the region cannot sit by as the LRA violently abducts children and terrorizes communities, we must not forget that this is an army comprised primarily of children being held against their will whose lives also hang in the balance,” said Michael Poffenberger, Resolve Uganda Executive Director.

It is unclear what impact the ongoing military offensive will have on LRA forces or the fragile humanitarian situation in the region. There is also growing concern that measures to facilitate the escape or rescue of LRA abductees are inadequate.

“Historically, many LRA captives escape during battle, but at the moment very little is being done to help make this happen. UN forces in Sudan and the DR Congo should take immediate action to encourage and facilitate the defection of LRA captives, including creating reception centers for any escapees. Such efforts would save lives and weaken the LRA,” said Paul Ronan, Resolve Uganda Senior Policy Analyst.

The armies of Uganda, Democratic Republic of Congo and Sudan launched the joint military offensive on December 14.

“The LRA’s biggest weakness is its total reliance on its leader, Joseph Kony. If he can be apprehended, LRA violence in the region would likely be ended,” said Ronan. “The international community has the capacity to make sure this happens, but is instead sitting on the sidelines as poorly trained and equipped regional forces mount an all-out offensive that will result in lives being lost unnecessarily

The situation has escalated in recent months after two years of peace negotiations broke down and the rebel group resumed attacks on civilian communities in the DR Congo and South Sudan, displacing close to 100,000 people and abducting hundreds of children

Noting the increasing urgency of the situation, the organization called on UN Security Council members to act swiftly to ensure protection of vulnerable civilians, apprehension of LRA leaders indicted by the International Criminal Court, and the safe demobilization of children abducted into LRA ranks.

“The Security Council should issue a clear statement following Chissano’s briefing which condemns recent LRA atrocities and charts a clear path forward to end this crisis. Targeted efforts to apprehend rebel leaders indicted by the ICC should be supported by the Council, while the possibility of a negotiated solution should be left on the table,” said Ronan

Resolve Uganda also noted the continued importance of UN diplomatic leadership. Ronan added, “The increased attention paid to this crisis in the past few years has greatly improved prospects for an end to the violence. If Secretary-General Ban opts not to renew the mandate of his envoy for LRA-affected areas, he should make clear that other high-level UN diplomats assigned to the region will continue to help coordinate action to put a stop to LRA crimes.”

Background Information: The war between the rebel LRA and Ugandan government began in 1986, and has been characterized by widespread abuse of human rights by both sides. Thousands of people have been killed during the war, and tens of thousands abducted by the LRA and exploited as child soldiers and sex slaves

The recent Juba peace negotiations between the LRA and Ugandan government began in August 2006 and broke down this year with rebel leader Joseph Kony refusing to sign the final agreement negotiated on his behalf, opting instead to resume attacks on civilians in the region. The governments of Uganda, DR Congo, and South Sudan agreed in June 2008 to take joint military action against the LRA if they refused to sign the peace agreement.

LRA forces moved their base of operations to the eastern DR Congo in 2005, from where they have pillaged communities and abducted children in DR Congo, South Sudan, and Central African Republic. There are outstanding warrants for the arrest of Kony and two of his top commanders, issued by the International Criminal Court in 2005

Resolve Uganda is a U.S.-based coalition of humanitarian, faith-based and advocacy organizations working to get U.S. political leaders to take the steps that will permanently end the war in northern Uganda.

For Immediate Release
December 8, 2008
Contact:  Andrew Hollinger, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.  202-488-6133
                Lauren Sucher, United States Institute of Peace.  202-429-3822
Genocide Prevention Task Force Delivers Blueprint for U.S. Government to Prevent Genocide and Mass Atrocities
Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of Defense William Cohen and other leading figures call on new administration and Congress to make preventing genocide and mass atrocities a national priority
(Washington, DC) – The Genocide Prevention Task Force today released its final report on the eve of the 60th anniversary of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.  The report makes the case for why genocide and mass atrocities threaten core American values and national interests, and how the U.S. government can prevent these crimes in the future.
Jointly convened by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, The American Academy of Diplomacy, and the United States Institute of Peace, the Task Force began its work last November with the goal of generating concrete recommendations to enhance the U.S. government’s capacity to recognize and respond to emerging threats of genocide and mass atrocities. 
“The world agrees that genocide is unacceptable and yet genocide and mass killings continue,” said Madeleine K. Albright, former Secretary of State and Co-Chair of the Genocide Prevention Task Force.  “We believe that preventing genocide is possible, and that striving to do so is imperative both for our national interests and our leadership position in the world.” 
“This report provides a blueprint that can enable the United States to take preventive action, along with international partners, to forestall the specter of future cases of genocide and mass atrocities,” said William S. Cohen, former Secretary of Defense and Co-Chair of the Genocide Prevention Task Force.  “There is a choice for U.S. policymakers between doing nothing and large-scale military intervention.  We hope this report will help us utilize those options.” 
Other Members of the Genocide Prevention Task Force include:  John Danforth, Thomas Daschle, Stuart Eizenstat, Michael Gerson, Dan Glickman, Jack Kemp, Gabrielle Kirk McDonald, Thomas R. Pickering, Vin Weber, Anthony Zinni, and Julia Taft who passed away earlier this year. 
The report, which is entitled “Preventing Genocide: A Blueprint for U.S. Policymakers”, asserts that genocide is preventable, and that making progress toward doing so begins with leadership and political will.  The report provides 34 recommendations, starting with the need for high-level attention, standing institutional mechanisms, and strong international partnerships to respond to potential genocidal situations when they arise; it lays out a comprehensive approach, recommending improved early warning mechanisms, early action to prevent crises, timely diplomatic responses to emerging crises, greater preparedness to employ military options, and action to strengthen global norms and institutions.
 “We are keenly aware that the incoming president’s agenda will be massive and daunting from day one,” Secretaries Albright and Cohen noted.  “But preventing genocide and mass atrocities is not an idealistic add-on to our core foreign policy agenda.  It is a moral and strategic imperative.”
The Task Force calls for the development of a new government-wide policy on genocide prevention, which would include the following specific actions designed to better equip the U.S. government to prevent genocide and mass atrocities:
Having the president himself demonstrate that preventing genocide is a national priority, for example by an early executive order, and continuing public statements on genocide prevention.
Creating an interagency Atrocities Prevention Committee at the National Security Council to analyze threats of genocide and mass atrocities and consider appropriate preventive action.
Making warning of genocide or mass atrocities an “automatic trigger” of policy review.
Developing military guidance on genocide prevention and response and incorporating it into doctrine and training.
Preparing interagency genocide prevention and response plans for high-risk situations.
Investing $250 million in new funds for crisis prevention and response, with a portion of this available for urgent activities to prevent or halt emerging genocidal crises.
Launching a major diplomatic initiative to create an international network for information-sharing and coordinated action to prevent genocide and mass atrocities.
Providing assistance to build capacity of international partners—including the UN and regional organizations—to prevent genocide and mass atrocities.
The report concludes that “a core challenge for American leaders is to persuade others—in the U.S. government, across the United States, and around the world, that preventing genocide is more than just a humanitarian aspiration, but a national and global imperative.”
The Task Force was funded by Humanity United and other private organizations.
About the Convening Organizations:
The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, a living memorial to the Holocaust,
inspires citizens and leaders to confront hatred, promote human dignity and prevent genocide.  Federal support guarantees the Museum’s permanence, and its far-reaching educational programs and global impact are made possible by donors nationwide.
The American Academy of Diplomacy is dedicated to strengthening the resources and tools America brings to managing its diplomatic challenges, and accomplishes this through outreach programs, lectures, awards, and writing competitions. In doing so, the Academy promotes an understanding of the importance of diplomacy to serving our nation and enhancing America’s standing in the world.
The United States Institute of Peace is an independent, nonpartisan, national institution established and funded by Congress. Its goals are to help prevent and resolve violent international conflicts, promote post-conflict stability and development, and increase peacebuilding capacity, tools, and intellectual capital worldwide. The Institute does this by empowering others with knowledge, skills, and resources, as well as by directly engaging in peacebuilding efforts around the globe.
The report and a brochure about the report may be downloaded for free at: www.ushmm.org, www.academyofdiplomacy.org, www.usip.org.

“The situation on the ground has stabilised somewhat, but it remains extremely dangerous for civilians,” Medair stated.

Ugandan rebels attack Congo town, 50,000 flee -UN

But the time has come to put all the pressure possible on Kony and show him that surrendering and signing a peace agreement with Uganda is his only chance — or he will face a United States and Britain committed to catching Kony.

Some steps are necessary for trying to salvage these on-again, off-again peace talks.

The Bush administration has stepped up pressure on Kony by naming him to the most serious U.S. terrorist list.  But for that action to be used as leverage, next must come an unambiguous statement from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice or Undersecretary for African Affairs Jendayi Frazier that, if Kony signs the peace agreement that already has been negotiated by his team and the government and follows through on its provisions, his name will come off that list. The U.S. and others must make clear they are prepared to use their technological expertise to help local governments in the East African region locate and capture Kony and his lieutenants. If the United States could find former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein in an underground spider hole, surely it can find Kony the compadres who no doubt surround him to protect him.

The Ugandan parliament, largely controlled by Museveni, must — with international assistance — establish the laws and mechanisms for charging Kony with crimes against humanity and war crimes, and fairly trying him in a special court within Uganda. The International Criminal Court is only supposed to intervene if a country does not have the ability to try a war crimes suspect fairly and according to basic international legal standards. Part of the peace deal is that Kony could be tried in Uganda, rather than before the ICC in the Hague. If Kony is to be held accountable for his actions during the 21-year war. If such a court could establish, it would give the U.N. Security Council reason to ask that the ICC indictments be delayed, allowing the peace plan to move forward. 

It is too late, in my opinion, to arrange a third-country safe haven for Kony even if what he wants most in order to come out of the bush is a guarantee of his personal safety. Let him have a temporary, guarded safe haven somewhere until a trial begins. He may think he can turn it into a permanent escape from justice. Let him think that — as long as his “hosts” agree to bring him to a court whose procedures and personnel meet international standards. Uganda should accept international expertise in establishing the special court and help throughout the proceedings.

All of these preparations and commitments need to be made clear to Kony. With it, should come a clear commitment from the US and Britain to aid local troops in catching Kony. The LRA leader should know that he will be brought before the full measure of the International Criminal Court if he and his soldiers do not turn themselves in, release abductees immediately, and turn in their weapons to a disarmament program under U.N. auspices. Kony also should know that he will face international punishments should he be found guilty, which are likely to be stricter than punishment meted out by a Ugandan court in a country where traditional customs may blunt the penalty.

If Kony continues to play games, then there should be no hesitation beyond what is necessary to track him down and for local troops to assemble and catch him. This game, so destructive to civilians in three countries now, must not be allowed to go on any longer.

And with either scenario — Kony turning himself in or the international community aiding in his capture, the United States and Britain must compel their ally, Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni, to address the inequities of the central government toward Acholis in the north, and follow through on a transparent, professionalized reconstruction program for the north. Museveni correcting discrimination of the past is the only way to ensure that another Kony does not arise if the man himself is at long last captured.

June 26, 2008

I’ve seen humanitarian issues from both sides of the fence: as a journalist and as a humanitarian worker.

I’ll be focusing on Africa, but media stereotyping is true of impoverished countries around the world, especially when a crisis occurs.

There are levels or layers of stereotyping: Stereotyping countries, stereotyping poverty, stereotyping man-made disasters, including war, and, most of all, stereotyping people caught in disadvantaged circumstances.

I learned intimately about the stereotypes, not as a reporter, but when I worked outside the field. 

For my master’s thesis, I followed children who daily scavenged in the Phnom Penh, Cambodia garbage dump for recyclable materials they could sell. I went to the dump every morning before work. One day, a reporter came. I took enormous pride in the fact that I tromped through the piles of garbage right alongside the children, while the journalists stayed on this path that cut through the middle of the dump. I never saw their story, but I’d bet a week’s paycheck it was a predictable story line that followed the stereotypes of poor, miserable children who needed garbage to live. But did the stories reflect the children’s strategies they had cleverly developed for getting the best recyclables, for figuring out how to set aside a safe play area near the dump. Did the story note the children and their parents had rules to try to be as hygienic as possible at the dump, including not eating food they found in it?

In Macedonia, I managed a refugee camp for ethnic Albanian Kosovars who fled from the former Yugoslavian province of Kosovo. What are the stereotypes of refugees?

The Kosovars had their own stereotypes of refugees. They were poor Africans, dressed in rags, who lived in lean-to’s with blue plastic roofs. NATO helped reinforce a genuine class difference – raising the question of when are stereotypes truths created by other forces or reasons – by building the refugee camps for Kosovars because of NATO’s involvement in fighting Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milosevic. Also inherent in this example is racism – these camps, built for white Eastern Europeans were nicer than any refugee camp I’ve seen in Africa or Southeast Asia. Why did NATO intervene in this crisis? Why did NATO nations help in emergency relief in a way they don’t for other crises?

The camp I managed had sturdy tents instead of lean-to’s, many with wooden floors rather than mud, and stoves with a chimney to keep people warm. They demanded, and got, fresh baked bread every morning. There was a Spanish nongovernmental organization providing free cell phone service anywhere in the world.

A few journalists came to my camp. They talked to camp residents and undoubtedly got stories about how they had fled the oppression of Milosevic. But they didn’t stay around long enough to get to know the Graincafamily, whose mother strove everyday to make the camp and their tent feel like home to her four children. They didn’t learn about the elderly mother who didn’t have the means to care for her grown, severely disabled son, so she just left him in an empty tent one day. They didn’t know about the refugees who preyed on other refugees – you’re not a pure, innocent and good just because you’ve been a victim of violence. There were those in the camp who victimized others, who stole, who assaulted, leaders who were corrupt. A camp is like a city with all that.

The camp I worked with in Rwanda didn’t get treated nearly so royally. The Rwandan government wanted to move some refugees away from the border with the Democratic Republic of Congo, where the Interahamwe still operated, to deeper inside Rwanda. Fine, but the camp wasn’t ready. Refugees ended up having to build their own housing and dig latrines even as their families already were living there.

This brings us back to Africa, and media stereotypes of it. I’ve passed around a couple of essays on the topic written by Africans that are good synopses of problems in media coverage.

I also did a very quick, unscientific content survey of African news headlines from Google news searches.

I searched for “Ghana,” one of Africa’s success stories, and go about 10,000 hits. The top topic was 12 stories on Ghanaian politics, all written by Ghanaian newspapers. Nothing in the American press, even though the United Statesis supposed to be all about democratization around the world. Too inside-poitics? Maybe, but the U.S. media has consistently had a problem with figuring out how to report and write international topics in a way that is interesting to Americans.

My search for “Nigeria” drew 33,935 hits overall. There were 1,336 articles on Nigerian government army clashes with militants in the oil-rich Niger Delta. It’s on economics, which busts one stereotype that African countries don’t have economic successes or strengths, but reinforces another that coverage and concern (they go together) often are driven by oil. Most of those 1,336 stories incidentally, were in foreign or business-specific publications or shows. There was one story in a Lagos newspaper on a nationwide teachers’ strike – something that easily could have been of interest to Americans and told the story about education in another land. There also was one story, in the Christian Science Monitor, on Nigeria’s writes gaining a worldwide audience.

The hottest African news these days is about the political crisis in Zimbabwe. There were 4,976 stories on African nations pressuring Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe to postpone the runoff election tomorrow that the opposition is shunning after government-led violence against it.

Those stories bust another stereotype: showing other African leaders condemning one of their own and urging him to shape up, which connects to a point made in one of the articles I gave you, “Africa’s Road to Better Media Image” by Salim Lone, in which the point was made that Africa needs to “put its own house in order” to help improve the continent’s image in western media. But it reinforces the stereotype of African nations all being a mess.

Let me leave you with these thoughts: You can’t stereotype stereotyping. It’s not purely bad covering humanitarian catastrophes. Coverage informs people about dire situations in isolated pockets of the world, and builds public pressure and public aid to help. We have seen what happens, in Rwanda or in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, when the media is not there to shine an international spotlight on atrocities. Some stereotypes are borne of real situations and biases that help maintain imbalances or bad circumstances.

What’s needed when reporting on or teaching about foreign locales and people is a fuller knowledge and context, and a desire to look behind the sexiest news, information-gathering that the Internet makes much easier these days, and to figure out how to make the mundane interesting and vital – because it is.

The project that is entered in Netsquared’s Mashup Challenge is called Assetmap.org/Uganda

Its aim is to aggregate “information about where development projects happen, what they focus on, and who’s involved so that all of us concerned with supporting community-led efforts to rebuild northern Ugandan civil society can better share best practices, direct support, and collaborate for greater impact,” Whittemore wrote.

That might seem like a no-brainer. Who wouldn’t think information-sharing and collaboration can improve a project and its results? Yet anyone who has worked in international development relief and development know just how little collaboration there can be. Time constraints, and competition for funding, publicity and reputation can steamroll collaboration. So, too, can obliviousness by people on the ground who may have gotten their jobs because they were in the right place at the right time, rather than because they are development or relief professionals who know best practices. Even some of those professionals don’t always act as effectively as they could. Gasp! 

At the same time, Americans or U.S. organizations wanting to donate money or supplies to emergencies don’t always seek out information to make their contributions as effective as possible. When I was the manager of a Macedonian refugee camp for ethnic Albanians who had fled Kosovo in the late 1990s, I received a huge shipment of canned pork and beans from an overseas group. Did I mention the ethnic Albanians were Muslims who eat no pork? We regifted the shipment.

As northern Uganda moves from war to a tenuous peace, development groups are sure to flood into the region to take over from the emergency relief folks. There will be rampant duplication of efforts and donations made that relate to lower priorities. If Assetmap.org/Uganda can use students’ wit and Web prowess to improve development aid, they will themselves have made a tremendous contribution.      

Human rights groups, not to mention the ICC, are unhappy with the agreement since it would sidestep the International Criminal Court indictments against Kony and two others. As I mentioned, this case should not really have come before the ICC, which is supposed to become involved if the country where atrocities have occurred does not have a sufficient national justice system to deal with the perpetrators. Uganda does have a court, though it will require international monitoring to ensure transparent and proper proceedings take place. Postponing the ICC indictments does not mean there will be no justice, or even justice at the Hague. It simply means peace should come first. Then, we can see how justice is found. Still, there is a long way to go before that point.