Uganda

Part of the debate – in the House of Lords at 8:12 pm on 15 March 2006.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Lord Triesman Lord Triesman Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Foreign & Commonwealth Office, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign and Commonwealth Office) 8:12, 15 March 2006

My Lords, I join others in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and all noble Lords who have participated in a sobering debate.

I can confirm that ending the conflict in northern Uganda is a government priority and remains so. In a sequence of telling illustrations, the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, reminded us exactly why it should remain so. Many of the issues raised by my noble friend Lord Judd and the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, about small arms, remain part of the general agenda, not just that in relation to Uganda. We believe that an international convention is desperately needed to stop trafficking in such arms.

For nearly 20 years, the so-called Lord's Resistance Army has carried out atrocities of unspeakable barbarism and cruelty. Children have been abducted and brutalised, families torn apart, and the insecurity and fear that it has engendered has resulted in about 1.7 million people being sheltered in internally displaced persons' camps—nearly two-thirds of northern Uganda's entire population. No right-thinking person could fail to be moved or angered by the senseless and shameful loss of life and the continued suffering.

Primary responsibility for protecting the people of northern Uganda and bringing this crisis to an end must rightly lie with the government of Uganda. The noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, made the point, with which I agree, that we must continue to support the government there if we want to see growth and development, a spread of democracy and the north embraced in any advances made. That is a difficult proposition, given what is happening.

In all my discussions with President Museveni—and there have now been quite a number—he has consistently assured me that he is committed to seeing peace and security return to the north. He will not accept that any part of his country is a disaster area. When he makes his statements, he does so in a way that, in face-to-face discussion, would convince anybody. I believe him, but I also believe that he has no proven capacity to turn off the war—to use the phrase that my noble friend Lord Howarth did—because experience tells a different story. Aside from the moral imperative, I accept that it is clearly in his and Uganda's wider interest to do that, if it could. The continuing insecurity creates a negative perception of Uganda, its government and its army in the international community. It also undermines the economic and development gains made over the past 20 years—impressive as some of them have unquestionably been—the potential for future gains and the security of the wider region.

However, since Uganda launched Operation Iron First in 2002 with the claim that the LRA would be wiped out in three months, the number of people in the IDP camps has tripled. The LRA's attacks continue, not just in northern Uganda, but in southern Sudan, and more recently in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. My noble friend Lady Whitaker is completely right to remind us of the spread of this scourge into southern Sudan, with, in the past, the collusion of the government of Sudan. The noble Lord, Lord St John, calls it a regional crisis, which are the right words.

I am in the paradoxical position of rejecting the claim that President Museveni is not committed to the end of the LRA, though it is clear that that has not been achieved. What are the reasons for the failure of the government of Uganda and its army? A number have been put forward. The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, mentioned one—corruption in the military. Consistent in all these claims is that elements within the Uganda army and establishment have no desire to see an end to that conflict, for reasons of personal profit, and that abuses among the northern population are being sanctioned and perpetrated by some elements. Those are serious and worrying charges. For the sake of the wider credibility of Uganda, and to build trust among the people of the north, these claims need to be subject to a thorough and transparent investigation and charges brought where wrongdoing is found.

Sadly, questions also surround the capability and effectiveness of the Ugandan army. It is hard not to ask whether it has the capacity for the task. The United Kingdom Government funded a defence review in 2003 designed specifically to deal with these concerns. We believe that full implementation of the recommendations would provide a sound basis to take forward future procurement and training needs. These changes are needed in that army.

Non-military methods are also needed—there is no purely military solution, as a number of noble Lords have pointed out. That is why the United Kingdom, in co-ordination with other international partners, provided technical, logistical and financial support to the efforts of Betty Bigombe, a former Ugandan government Minister for the north, to mediate between the parties. The government of Uganda have supported those efforts. They provided the original tasking and agreement without which the talks would not have taken place. Unfortunately, those efforts did not ultimately bear fruit.

Claims have been made that the government of Uganda did not do enough to support the talks once they were established. I have no doubt, however, that the primary responsibility for the lack of a negotiated settlement rests squarely with the LRA. I have been urged from time to time to think of Kony and Otti as people susceptible to argument and the call for peace and decency, but I see no evidence of that. I see a senseless and gratuitous trail of brutality, murder, disfigurement, torture and rape.

The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, rightly raised the International Criminal Court. The most senior LRA commanders are now subject to warrants from the ICC. The noble Baroness, Lady D'Souza, was right to say that that does not excuse Uganda from its responsibilities and role in making sure that it acts in northern Uganda, and we will pressure it to do so. Let me deal with the ICC. There can be no impunity for the worst human rights offenders. The place for Kony and Otti is in the dock of the ICC, not in some offered honourable retirement for the acts that have earned them worldwide notoriety—my noble friend Lord Anderson is absolutely right about that point.

If peace and security are to return to the north, the Ugandan Government, as the noble Baroness, Lady D'Souza, said, need to ensure that those LRA members who are not subject to the ICC indictments are repeatedly alerted to the existence of the Government's amnesty provisions and given the confidence and reassurance they need to lay down their arms and reintegrate into society. My noble friend Lord Judd also made just such a point. This also means the provision of effective support and assistance in reintegrating into their communities. In a new era of multi-party politics, the elected president, Government and Parliament must address all these concerns.

In some telling questions, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked about MONUC. I believe that MONUC has made a brave and strenuous effort to arrest the criminals wanted by the ICC. It is certainly tasked for that. As we have noted, seven Guatemalan troops gave their lives in recent efforts. MONUC is at full strength under its current mandate. The deployment issues about where it goes and how it pursues criminals must be a matter for it on the ground. But it is a sad fact for the immediate future that the majority of the people of northern Uganda will be dependent on the IDP camps and international humanitarian assistance. My noble friend Lord Howarth also talked about how tragic their circumstances are, and I shall return to that in a moment.

So while we all wish they were not needed, the United Kingdom is at the forefront of international efforts in this regard, being one of the largest humanitarian donors to Uganda. In 2004-05, we distributed £11 million in humanitarian assistance. In 2005-06, that figure will be more than £20 million. I do not know whether I can easily say that the sums are proportionate, but they are what we believe we can afford in the range of our commitments to the Commission for Africa. Our aid is primarily disbursed through international aid agencies and NGOs such as the WHO and WFP, and helps provide food. As the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, said, more can be done through the NGOs to provide water, sanitation, shelter and protection. I do not rule out the important point made by my noble friend Lord Anderson about a possible contribution by the smaller NGOs in north-east Uganda.

I say to my noble friend Lord Judd and others on the DfID programme that the majority of the money is delivered, as I think we all know, through direct budget support, governed by the Poverty Eradication Action Plan, agreed in partnership with the government of the north. A considerable part of the £70 million that has been put in so far has gone towards education. The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, asked about that. I say to my noble friend Lady Whitaker that because it is direct support, the decisions about whether specialised health services should be provided have been a matter for the government of Uganda, but there is obviously great sense in taking her advice.

We want to see an end to the need for aid. That is why the United Kingdom is at the forefront of co-ordinating the international effort to assist the government of Uganda in dealing with the LRA. The camps offer only a life of poverty—poor nutrition, no schools, no clothing, no bedding, no healthcare and no sanitation. I have no doubt that they strip the heart out of Acholi society. When I think about why people are still there and why they face this dilemma, I say to my noble friend Lord Howarth that the reason, in my view, is not because somebody has a systematic desire—I do not see much prospect of people being able to go home, given President Museveni's recent statements—but because there is no competent military way of resolving the problem that has been demonstrated that would carry any conviction.

I turn now to the United Nations. With concerted support from the United Kingdom, the Security Council Resolution 1653 was adopted in January this year. It is a positive development; it is the first resolution to detail specific action against the LRA and record its pernicious effect on millions of innocent people. It rightly underscores the primary responsibility of governments in the region to protect their populations, and it requested the Secretary-General to make recommendations to the Security Council on how the United Nations' missions and agencies can assist.

Other suggestions have been put forward in this regard such as the appointment of a special envoy or a Uganda-specific Security Council resolution. Resolution 1653 does a big part of the job; it was a vital step and was supported widely. There was no opposition to the process from China. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, also raised the question about whether there are more developments. I believe that all the developments that have been suggested warrant further investigation. That is well worth doing.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said, we want these proposals to achieve outcomes. They must not just be about process. If the effort is put in, it should be about outcomes. My honourable friend Gareth Thomas will therefore be attending a conference in Geneva on 20 March on behalf of the Government to consider how our partners in the international community can best focus the international engagement. We do not know the date that the Secretary-General's report will be available, but I hope that it will be very soon. I also hope that NePAD will look at Uganda, as the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, suggested. It has quite an extensive programme ahead, but there is no reason why it should not do so.

A number of points have been made in this short debate. I hope that I have responded to the points about the arrest of criminals and the humanitarian response. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked about the UN's cluster response. The cluster approach is currently being trialled. It is too early to say whether it will help in returning IDPs, but the signs at the beginning are relatively encouraging. We are closely involved, and we will watch what is happening.

We were also asked whether we are committed to working with the Ugandan Government to build sustainable peace essential to ensuring the rehabilitation of the north. The community needs to be at the forefront of this effort of improving all the circumstances in the north. The improvement of the road network suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, could be a key part of that. I want to look into that in more detail and if there is more information, I will write to the noble Lord to ensure that he is completely up to date. But the principle is strongly agreed among us.

During this debate, the undercurrent has been that we all need to do more. I could not agree more—the whole of the international community must do more. I hope that I have clarified much of what is happening and what is planned. Right-thinking people and people of any decency in the government of Uganda and the wider international community want to see an end to the LRA's reign of terror. They want to see the arrest of those indicted by the ICC and the reintegration of the child soldiers that it abducted, maltreated and savaged. Only then will the population of northern Uganda be likely to feel safe enough to leave the camps and return to their homes. I have said that I do not anticipate that that is about to happen with any great speed, and that is a candid assessment of what I see.

We will continue to press the government of Uganda. As I outlined earlier, it is their country, it is their responsibility. These atrocities are on their territory. We will do all in our power internationally to help ensure that peace and security returns to northern Uganda. We will try to make the security assessments that are needed to ensure that we do it successfully. It is not a matter of blundering around but, as my noble friend Lord Judd said, of doing it with precision. Ultimately the Ugandans must take primary responsibility for achieving this. We are willing partners, but it is their responsibility and we must hold them responsible for whether they step up to this task or not.