The Myth of U.S. Engagement In Uganda
The Myth of U.S. Engagement In Uganda
Disengagement isn’t just the Bush administration’s strategy for the Arab-Israeli conflict. At a recent press roundtable following her visit to Northern Uganda, Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Jendayi Frazer claimed that the U.S. is indeed committed to peace in Northern Uganda:
Question: Ambassador Frazer, you said in London that the Bush Administration was going to insure that the LRA [Lord’s Resistance Army] rebellion ends by the end of the year. How do you think that is going to happen?
Frazer: What I was saying is that is our goal – that seems to be a good time frame in which we can focus our actions and that of other international partners and countries to try to end what are clearly the atrocities of the war.
Frazer further enumerated the importance of resolving a conflict that has displaced 1.5 million, abducted 38,000 children, and whose rates of violent death are three times higher than those reported in Iraq following the 2003 invasion:
I think that in terms of assisting the government of Uganda — President Bush has been trying to do that since 2001. I was sent here by Secretary Rice to look into the conditions in northern Uganda, so that I could come back with additional recommendations on how the president and she can assist in bringing this war to an end.
However, the State Department’s Uganda Desk Officer Barbara Yoder has confirmed that the US has no presence at potentially ground-breaking peace talks in Juba between the Lord’s Resistance Army and the Government of Uganda. When asked who is representing the US, the officer replied:
We’re not involved. We’re watching it but we are not involved in that, in the talks themselves. That’s between the LRA and the [Government of Uganda].
Yoder offered thoughts on the peace talks suggesting her level of knowledge was less than stellar:
We’re watching everything with this, but it’s a daily changing thing, so there are a number of elements that are going into this. There is UN action and other things where we are setting the development of things. The Government of Uganda as a sovereign nation is basically taking the lead on this and we support their right to try to solve the problem. That’s really been one of our talking points for a while. It’s to the governments in the region to try and solve this problem. It’s very fluid…that conflict is a day-to-day thing. We have not come out on any strong position on anything other than let the process unfold and we’re watching it.
The only thing clear is that neither the President nor his administration is serious about fulfilling their pledges to help Uganda end its twenty-year war.
– Caroline Andresen and Chrissie Coxon
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
23 Responses to “The Myth of U.S. Engagement In Uganda”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
sorry…uganda has no oil reserves–they are on their own.
the usa does not need what they have: Small deposits of copper, cobalt, iron-ore, limestone, and salt as well as less viable fields of tungsten, beryl, columbo-tantalite, gold, bismuth, tin, limestone and phosphates.
July 25th, 2006 at 12:45 amAs I recall Clenis was the last superleader to have an impact on the genocidal African continent. He of course looked the other way…hell there wasn’t any lube, man. Now, in the tradition of true selective humanitarian intervention, the Great President Boo$h considers this shit as a mere inconvenience to his cunning empire building abilities. D. or R., you’re failing like a bitch. Satan is indeed the God of this sytem of things.
July 25th, 2006 at 12:47 amI concur with posts 1 and 2…………..
July 25th, 2006 at 1:16 am“Now, just where did I put that thingy, you know, that one, nooooo, not that one, the other thingy, you know….”
Continuing on # 1
Bush only cares when the the color black is in the ground and not on the faces of the participants. Think Iraq and New Orleans!
July 25th, 2006 at 1:20 amsorry…uganda has no oil reserves–they are on their own.
Comment by james risser — July 25, 2006 @ 12:45 am
Luckily for them. Lets see some examples of countries that have “received” the altruist assistance of US:
Nicaragua…2nd poorest country in Latinamerica (better than Haiti, which also received some nice gesture of a US landing)
Chile and Argentina…more than 30,000 missing persons abducted by dictatorships supported and trained in Fort Benning, Georgia.
Vietnam, East Timor, Bosnia, Grenade, Panama, etc, etc, etc.
July 25th, 2006 at 1:27 amBush really does not care about most of Africa, except for any African nations that have oil! Uganda as far as I know does not have oil, or diamonds like the Congo, so this is for show!
July 25th, 2006 at 1:50 amSounds like Barbara Yoder is another… Oh, what are those things called? You know those thingy things! I remember now. A Bush Fundraising Pioneer! Another brilliant political crony appointment by Commander Cuckoo Bananas!
July 25th, 2006 at 2:14 amI agree that the reason the US is not getting involved is because uganda does not have oil . . . but do you and the commenters in this thread think that we should bring militarty forces there and become more deeply involved?
July 25th, 2006 at 3:48 amGRAPHIC VIDEO - Lebanese Doctor Says ‘Phosphorus Weapons’ Cause Suffering
CNN video correspondent, Karl Penhaul, follows a family that had been mistakenly caught in an Israeli air strike. The doctor treating the family says that there is phosphorus in the weapons that cause extremely painful burns on it’s victims.
———————————————————
Lebanon president says Israel uses phosphorous arms
PARIS, July 24 (Reuters) - Lebanon’s president accused Israel on Monday of using phosphorous bombs in its 13-day offensive and urged the United Nations to demand an immediate ceasefire.
“According to the Geneva Convention, when they use phosphorous bombs and laser bombs, is that allowed against civilians and children?” President Emile Lahoud asked on France’s RFI radio.
An Israeli military spokeswoman said arms used in Lebanon did not contravene international norms.
July 25th, 2006 at 6:15 amOutcry as border guards seize British ‘dirty bomb’ lorry heading for Iran
Border guards seized a British lorry on its way to make a delivery to the Iranian military - after discovering it was packed with radioactive material that could be used to build a dirty bomb.
The lorry set off from Kent on its way to Tehran but was stopped by officials at a checkpoint on Bulgaria’s northernborder with Romania after a scanner indicated radiation levels 200 times above normal.
The lorry was impounded and the Bulgarian Nuclear Regulatory Agency (NPA) was called out.
On board they found ten lead-lined boxes addressed to the Iranian Ministry of Defence. Inside each box was a soil-testing device, containing highly dangerous quantities of radioactive caesium 137 and americium-beryllium.
July 25th, 2006 at 6:21 amRight about now, those 40 and over are probably dreaming of the good old days under Idi Amin.
Well, the Jurassic One’s going to be a little silent for the time being while wrestling with a family issue, so please accept Nicholas Kristof and the other NY Times writers as a more than serviceable substitute for the time being.
July 25th, 2006 at 7:26 amJust now, I don’t know if it’s better than Bush engages the USA or not… Afghanistan and Iraq aren’t kindergardens right now…
July 25th, 2006 at 8:29 amI was in Uganda for two months earlier this year. And while this is one of my favorite blogs, this post strikes me as naive. The US has been active in Uganda and has offered military assistance in assasinating or capturing Kony, but those offers have been snubbed by Museveni, who profits far too much from the civil war.
The peace talks in Uganda are a charade and anyone who has spent time in northern Uganda can tell you that. It would take nothing to destroy Kony, who is as easy a target as they come. Through military and humanitarian aid, Museveni profits from the war, and the US does not want to unilaterally assasinate Kony against Museveni’s wishes. So, it’s a catch 22 for the US. Museveni is nearly as much an enemy of the Ugandan people as Kony. What would you propose we do? Begin a new state-building project in Uganda?
July 25th, 2006 at 8:32 amI would like to see more effort placed on the situation in Uganda. As the guerrilla war continues, many children continue to die. For a nation that is english-speaking and run primarily by Christians, it might seem surprising to many that they face the same challenges that are being faced in Sudan. More attention needs to be brought to the matter and more history must be taught (and NOT by the media). When the Brits left, they created a vacuum just like what happened in Sudan. It’s time that more effort be placed in resolving these problems — problems that can be traced back to the liquidation of the African colonies. I’ll be posting something about this topic at Rabbit Stew Lounge.
July 25th, 2006 at 8:50 amI don’t think America and the world have the stomach for any more of Bush and his neocons definition of peace.
July 25th, 2006 at 10:17 amWe recognize that the US has been active in delivering humanitarian aid to Uganda. We don’t dispute that. Instead, in this post, we point to the need for increased diplomatic engagement–moving towards a strategy that provides more than humanitarian bandaids to a situation that demands a comprehensive and sustainable solution. Internationally-legitimized peace talks could help to broker a sustainable peace, and one of the only ways for peace talks to have legitimacy is for the United States, or a multinational institution (EU, AU, UN) to exercise some diplomatic muscle to resolve this deadly conflict. I spent four months in Uganda, most of which was spent in Northern Uganda conducting research, I am not naïve to the realities of the conflict. I understand that any peace talks will be a “charade†if the US, the EU, and the AU don’t get involved. That is what we were arguing for: diplomatic engagement, not military engagement. We are not arguing for another Iraq in Africa. We want smart, direct, and committed diplomacy to end a conflict that has ended too many innocent lives.
July 25th, 2006 at 10:50 amBrutal regimes in Africa are perfectly aware, after “BlackHawk Down”, in which American soldiers were killed in Mogidishu, that there is NO public support to send American troops into undeveloped nations in Africa. Democrats are MOST to blame for this lack of public support, because of their general aversion to sending troops anywhere, which is then reinforced by the public’s lack of interest in nations that have no security or economic importance to the US.
July 25th, 2006 at 11:44 amBUSH has also been stating his intent to help in Darfur since the beginning of his presidency. Actually, he usually states his intent to look at the possibility of helping. But he is definitely serious, very serious and wants the world community to know how just how serious he is.
Here is a mashup of Bush on Darfur
July 25th, 2006 at 1:49 pmUS administrations have always shown indiference to the suffering civilians of Uganda under bad regimes, going back to the horrible days of dictator Idi Amin. When Amin turned his back on the west, western powers turned their back on the plight of the ordinary Ugandans. Most of us prayed in vain for western, especially American and British, intervention. Amin was finally removed becaue he stupidly attacked Tanzania and the latter fought back and toppled him. In 1980s American administrations continued to support the government in Kampala, even though attrocities were being committed by government forces throughout West Nile and Madi regions, and later in Luwero triangle too. Accordingly, refugees from Uganda were not recognized by US governments. In Khartoum, I remember only refugees from socialist or “communist” countries were given access to the US embassy in 1984; we Ugandans were turned away. And of course when the regime in Kampala changed hands, the new kid on the block received support from the American government and he still does, even though his forces, like the rebels, have engaged in gross violation of human rights, especially between 1986 and 1996.
In short, the plight of Ugandan civilians have always been secondary to the US government’s primary support for the regime in power as her foreign policy dictates; this was true whether liberals or conservatives were in power in DC. George Bush is just following the status quo, so I’m not going to castigate him. I point the finger at the Western Media that have fumbled and dropped the ball on Uganda for many years. Let’s hope the current western interest in Northern Uganda isn’t because of the recent discovery of oil in Uganda. Nevertheless, I’m grateful to the media and their willingness to finally tell the story of death and suffering in Northern Uganda, especially in concentration camps. Beetter late than never.
David A. Okuni
July 26th, 2006 at 1:51 pm[…] Uganda—five years since last mentioned here—is still a nation struggling for rule of law, for the safety of its children, for its identity and place on the world stage. Landlocked, Uganda is besieged by threats from without and within, and has been largely abandoned by most all of the world powers and much of Africa, too. There is no oil in Uganda (or there hasn’t been… it seems there’s some reserves only just discovered.) And so unlike the Middle East, instead of being on the brink of war Uganda is for two decades now on the brink of a peace that is always just out of reach. […]
July 27th, 2006 at 10:09 pmThanks Mr. Okuni posting number 19 is the first one to make any sense to me. Since i was young growing up in Uganda it has always been evident to me that the west has never once positively helped us in the civil problems. I remember them praising Amin at the begining of his presidency. In fact there was some military help to Obote’s regime. What is even worse is that i know they have always provided some kind of funding to various rebel groups that have plagued our country. How long did it take the UN to help out in DRC? Compare the responce time to the Balkans and Lebanon conflicts and it should give you an idea that African issues are not of great importance to the west. We will solve the problems ourselves eventually as we have always ended up doing, no thanks to the international community, the west or U.S.A.
August 9th, 2006 at 1:50 pmeddie guerrero death
Thanks for the nice read, keep up the interesting posts..
March 21st, 2008 at 4:15 amGay Sex Gay Ass Gay Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 27th, 2008 at 2:21 am