Kerry/Feingold team up to urge diplomatic efforts in Uganda

[globalvillage]

Uganda: U.S. Demands Role in Talks with LRA Rebel Leader Joseph Kony
September 2, 2006

US senators have written to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice demanding that the Bush Administration takes a more active role in the ongoing peace negotiations between the Ugandan government and the Lord's Resistance Army.

"Elevated attention and support from the United States will be decisive to the success of the negotiations," states the letter written by Wisconsin's Russell Feingold and signed by other U.S lawmakers, including Senator John Kerry, who came close to becoming president in the last election.
...

In an earlier interview with the Black Star News in the US, Senator John Kerry said the U.S. wasn't doing enough to prod the two sides in Uganda's conflict towards peace.

"We can't sit by as tens of thousands of children are abducted to be sexually abused or used as child soldiers," Kerry told The Black Star. "There are an estimated 1.5 million displaced people throughout the region. If all that doesn't cry out for America to stand up and act, I don't know what does?"

http://allafrica.com/stories/200609020044.html

[MH1]

1. What is going on in Uganda is so awful

yet hardly anyone in the US seems to know, or care.

"There are an estimated 1.5 million displaced people throughout the region. If all that doesn't cry out for America to stand up and act, I don't know what does?"

What does - oil. Profits for companies that * and Cheney's buddies own.

:banghead:

Thanks for posting this.

[globalvillage]

2. Nothing in the US media.

I couldn't find anything on this from the US press.
I wasn't aware that Feingold sponsored and Kerry and others co-sponsored the Northern Uganda Crisis Response Act in 2004 that requires a report by the SOS.
Apparently, they've been on this for a while, but I don't recall hearing anything.
Of course, there are lots of Jessica Simpson stories for the media to cover, and we really can't expect them to report on every little story.

[MH1]

3. I hear about Uganda on NPR - probably BBC World News

I didn't hear about the Feingold/Kerry bill at all.

I really wonder if one reason it is kept out of the US press is because the group committing most of the atrocities (or a good portion of them at least) is the "Lord's Resistance Army" - a group that claims to be "Christian", and if I'm not mistaken, is quite fundamentalist.

Yeah, you won't hear a lot in the US press about atrocities caused by militant fundamendalist "Christians", will you? They won't call them "terrorists" either, will they?

[karynnj]

4. This does show how different the world would be if Kerry would have won

Imagine a genuinely moral President who has advocated diplomacy since he was a kid. Add in that he has a curiosity and respect for other cultures - what could have been. :cry:

I really wish this had more attention in the media. It's also great that he and Feingold are working together on this.

[dogday]

5. I am with you

NO word of it in the press... Damn shame.... Kerry and Feingold have teamed up before on a few things... They work well together.... :hi:

[globalvillage]

6. It's a sad reflection on the state of the media.

Google news of Kerry Feingold Uganda and you get two hits, both from African press.
Google news of Jessica Simpson, OTOH ...

I agree, they team up well. Two fine senators, IMO. And credit should also go to the other unnamed senators who are supporting this effort.

:patriot: :patriot:

[dogday]

7. Absolutely a shout to all involved.....

I am just thinking down the line, guess you can see I like Feingold.

Would not mind a Kerry/Feingold ticket.....

[globalvillage]

9. I could get behind Kerry/Feingold

or Kerry/Clark. They are both fine Dems and it would be difficult to choose. I'd also love Kerry/Boxer or Kerry/Gore, but I don't see either happening.

In any case, that's all for later. I'm just happy right now to see them working together on such an important issue. I only wish it would get some media attention.

[karynnj]

10. Same here , I'll take any of those combinations

[karynnj]

8. But the people need to have 4 or 5 cover stories on magazines

a month to keep up with the life and the significance of Jessica Simpson. Seriously, this is why a decade or more after the fact, we heard about Rawanda. This is nice work on the part of the Senators.

[karynnj]

11. This needs one more vote for greatest page

[dogday]

12. And there you go

on to the greatest page :hi:

[Igel]

13. We have no leverage with the LRA, and

didn't they just sign a truce, anyway?

If Sudan's cut off support, LRA's going nowhere.

[globalvillage]

14. Two week cease fire

in advance of the Juba Peace Talks.
Which is why I'd like to know what the letter recommends. I can't find anything. But the letter must have been timed to urge involvement in the talks.

Here's one story on what US involvement might do:

snip

Role of International Community

As talks proceed, elevated attention and more responsible policy by the United States, donor countries and regional institutions can be decisive to their success. First, the international community can monitor the talks, holding actors accountable to the process. In past talks, schizophrenic signals from the government and corruption within the UPDF have undermined talks. High-level monitoring can raise the profile of the talks, pressuring government representatives to remain fully committed to the success of negotiations. The United States and other donor countries should stand willing, at the invitation of the GoSS, to support and encourage the process when needed by sending envoys and making public statements.

As a non-signatory to the ICC, the United States may be able to impact the talks in ways that European countries cannot. The European countries, for their part, can urge the ICC to show restraint and to employ Article 53 of the Rome Statute, which specifically allows for deferral of prosecution if it is in the “interest of victims” or other “interests of justice.” Under Article 53(4), the Prosecutor can reconsider a decision at any time “based on new facts or information.” The ICC should recognize Museveni’s offer of amnesty, which is strongly supported by the local population, as new and relevant information. ICC disapproval of talks not only keeps Kony and Otti from directly participating in the process, but may also derail talks when discussions shift to post-conflict security guarantees. Kony and Otti have already stated their concern to northern leaders about being arrested after giving up arms, similar to what happened with Charles Taylor, the former President of Liberia.

Second, donor governments can help build a peace dividend so that if an agreement is reached, the financial and political resources will be available for its implementation to the benefit of all parties involved. The return of displaced peoples, compensation of victims and reintegration of rebel fighters will require extensive international support. The government’s ability to deliver on these needs may determine the success of peace talks. Finally, the international community can ensure that the ultimate stakeholders, northern Ugandans themselves, are given a voice and priority in the process. Their involvement – through their religious leaders, traditional elders and political officials – will hold all parties accountable. It will further remind all that the priority is peace, not for political gain, but for the people caught amidst the horror of this war.

http://www.ugandacan.org/peacetalks.php

[Igel]

15. That sounds reasonable.

So much of what I've read today about various topics hasn't been, it's refreshing to read something that sounds half realistic.

The ICC is a good thing, but calls for justice are sometimes misguided. The old "Mercy rejoiceth against justice" transposed to a different context, with the same outcome: Sometimes justice is less important than life and getting on with life. Not every wrong, not even every truly horrendous wrong, must be punished. Esp. if a possible outcome of insisting on punishment is continuation of the horror.

If US presence can make a different, great. It sounds like all that's expected is participation, with or without leverage; and coughing up money (the usual suggestion). As long as the US doesn't gum things up, great. I'm still unclear on why having the US not being a signatory to the ICC may make the US likely to impact the talks, though.