The U.S. has been helping Uganda and other African nations counter the LRA for several years; we’ve provided local militias with training and equipment and have established ongoing humanitarian and civil affairs operations using our military there. One of my colleagues even served one of these deployments to Uganda as a civil affairs specialist with the U.S. Army Reserves. Her posts on her deployment are fascinating and a must-read, and for this reason Uganda has been one country that D&S has followed closely. Indeed, there is much to be said about Uganda and the role of the U.S. military in long-term humanitarian relief. Yet that is another post (and one I am looking forward to!) for another time, because today something else truly takes the cake. It may seem frivolous, but to those of you who, like us, have been following the situation in Uganda, it is certainly news (and cringe) worthy.

On Friday, ”Obama Invades Uganda, Targets Christians,” was the title of a segment on Rush Limbaugh’s radio talk show. If you can’t glean it from the name, Mr. Limbaugh spent the segment lambasting Obama’s military operations against the LRA as persecution of Christians.

 Lord’s Resistance Army are Christians.  It means God. . . . They are fighting the Muslims in Sudan.  And Obama has sent troops, United States troops to remove them from the battlefield, which means kill them. . . . So that’s a new war, a hundred troops to wipe out Christians in Sudan, Uganda, and — (interruption) no, I’m not kidding.  Jacob Tapper just reported it.

He then, and I’m not kidding, starts quoting from the LRA’s stated objectives (“to remove dictatorship and stop the oppression of our people,” for one) in order to back up his argument. This isn’t a blog where we usually comment on bloviating domestic political personalities, so I’d suggest heading over to FP Passport for a great recap and reaction, including some more information about the LRA and their atrocities.

Other

Other

As a U.S. Army Civil Affairs specialist, my whole job is based on the premise that the answer to this question is “yes.”  Civil Affairs soldiers use development projects and aid distributions – mostly on a small scale – to achieve a number of objectives, such as improving relations between the U.S. military and a local population, or enhancing the capacity and credibility of the host nation government.

Most of my experience has been with the latter: in Afghanistan, I worked with the local leaders of Ghazni province to plan and execute small projects or humanitarian distributions based on the needs of the population.  The idea was to enhance the local government’s ability to manage projects and plan ahead, while demonstrating to the people of Ghazni that the government was working for them.

Now in Uganda, my team is again working to build the capacity and enhance the image of another entity the U.S. is partners with: the Ugandan People’s Defense Force.  We work in Karamoja, an area of the country in which the UPDF is carrying out a disarmament campaign that has strained civilian-military relations.

The nature of these assignments alone raises a number of questions; a team of researchers at Tufts University, among others, has started trying to answer them.

A few days ago, the Feinstein Center at Tufts University released a report that challenges many of the assumptions on which my job is based.  Using Kenya as a case study, it challenges the link between how the U.S. military provides assistance and its security objectives.  It asks important questions about civil affairs operations that, in my opinion, the military should pay attention to, and that are arguably long overdue.

One of the report’s main contentions is that “hearts and minds” operations do little to alter people’s perceptions of the United States, which are based on a multitude of factors.  But often, as the report touches on, CA teams are striving not to enhance the perception of the U.S military or the U.S government per se, but rather that of our strategic partners.   And this is usually tied into efforts to bolster the capacity of these partners – be they local government or local military forces – to act responsibly and competently.

I think that over the years, CA probably has contributed positively –if perhaps intangibly – to “good governance” efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere – but as the report suggests, there is no evidence of this.  And in exploring an issue as complicated as DOD efforts to bolster good governance in different environments, I believe there is much more room for input and analysis.  Civil Affairs teams may not contribute to “good governance” in the way or to the extent that is envisioned for them, but I would maintain that they generally go beyond equating good governance with building infrastructure (see p.79).

Which brings me to another point: where is “our side” of the story?  The Feinstein center is doing a great job, I think, of asking difficult question about the growing “militarization” of aid.  Where are the DoD or other reports that show Civil Affairs’ accomplishments throughout Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom, and beyond?  If they are there, bring them out – let’s make this a real conversation, and give this issue the attention it deserves.

As the Feinstein report points out, over 20% of aid to Africa is currently controlled by the Department of Defense.  With the growing linkages between aid and security, how can we afford not to have more critical discussion on this issue?

Other

But if there is one thing that we have learned in Uganda, it is that it is difficult to limit expectations or manage perceptions – especially in uniform. This is not Iraq or Afghanistan: our ACU uniform does not help us blend in with the landscape or with thousands of other soldiers. We are often the sole representatives of the U.S. government (and certainly the powerful U.S military) in the areas where we work – and by this virtue and others, we are a spectacle everywhere we go. This does not put us in danger, but it means that we must limit the time we spend on the ground assessing a potential project, for example, so that our presence does not start to raise expectations as well as eyebrows.

This is just what we did in Bududa. Alongside our Uganda People’s Defense Force partners, we traveled to the disaster site and the IDP camps, where we briefly observed the goings-on, and spoke exclusively with military and government officials. In the end, our mission consisted of very few hours actually spent on the ground.

Still, we should not have been surprised to find ourselves on the cover of the New Vision – one of the main national newspapers – the following day.  Indeed, the story about us even overshadowed the story about the Pope’s response to the disaster – and this in a country with a largely Christian, and substantial Catholic, population.

Sunday Vision 07MAR2010

According to the article, we had arrived at Bududa to, “assess the situation and coordinate support.” The words are modest enough, but pictures sometimes speak louder than words – especially large, color, front-page type pictures.  As the UPDF Major General in charge of the disaster relief effort told us again and again, whatever we might do, “Expectations from the U.S. Army are very great.”

He mentioned something else too about our presence, and about expectations.  He said that our response was making people think: If the US Army can coordinate a response to Bududa, why isn’t this or that local or national official doing more?  Indeed, with the election year 2011 around the corner, the pressure is on for politicians to respond powerfully and publicly to the Bududa disaster.  In fact, the politicization of the disaster has gotten to the point where local politicians have been barred from the IDP camps so they can’t stir up conflict.

President Museveni himself has flown to the site, and earlier this week he ordered the UPDF to continue digging until all the bodies had been recovered.  All 250+ of them.  Most of them already decayed to the point where they are unrecognizable to their own relatives.  Most of them simply inaccessible to the hundreds of soldiers who have been digging away at the layers of soil and mud for days with a few dozen shovels and wooden stakes.  In fact, local officials and disaster managers had already met last week and agreed that the site should be declared a mass grave, and that focus should be shifted to the IDP camps. Whether any of this informed President Museveni’s decision, I cannot say.

What I can say is that ultimately we came to support the Ugandan government in whatever course of action they deemed appropriate.  Our mission did generate some thoughts on how US military assets might be of service in the short, medium, and long terms: lending immediate airlift support was initially considered, but the focus now will likely be on planning future joint disaster training or medical military-to-military training.  But here I must limit my own expectations.  The military is not the lead actor in the Horn of Africa theater, and our actions must be vetted through the U.S. Country Team (State Department, USAID, etc.), our Ugandan partners, and our chain of command before they gain approval. It is a cautious process.

Whatever the outcome, a cartoon from page two of a recent newspaper seems to signify that our side-mission to Bududa has become part of the national dialogue on the disaster:

New Vision 09MAR2010, p.2. Caption reads: "A team of officers from the US Reserve force on Saturday visited the scene of the tragic landslide that buried three villages in Bududa District."

Becoming a headline is one thing, but certainly none of us were expecting to get spoofed ! – especially in the context of such a tragedy.  It is hard to say whether the cartoonist is questioning our motives for being in Bududa – or in Uganda more generally – or whether his humor is simply motivated by convenient wordplay.  Regardless, it is clear that the Ugandan public has kept an eye on us, and will likely continue to do so as we continue our mission in Karamoja.

At the end of the day though, our objective is not to generate positive publicity for ourselves, but rather to strengthen the capabilities of our military partners.  For their rapid and dedicated response to the Bududa disaster, the UPDF are really the ones who should be enjoying the spotlight, anyway.

Other

Today I may have a chance to explore that. The police are deployed throughout the city in anticipation of political protests sparked by the decision to keep the CBS radio station closed. The government shut down the station last year – along with several other media outlets – as part of its response to the riots that shook the capital and left 27 dead. The coalition of opposition parties, which is organizing the attempted political actions today, will also be protesting the continuation of the leadership of the highly controversial Electoral Commission.

Since I have been in Uganda I have seen cartoons in the press that have characterized the police as out of control and inclined towards violence. One of them depicted a voter about to grab a helmet to participate in the 2011 elections. Certainly Uganda has many challenges with regard to the rule of law, police discipline being one to which Ugandans are frequently exposed. The police also have a reputation among them of being highly corrupt. Moreover, the police are often irrelevant: mob justice is common here, and foreigners are even advised not to stop if they cause an accident on the road…for their own safety. Up in the region where my team works, Karamoja, crimes as serious as murder are often still dealt with through local elders and traditions (usually involving reimbursement of a certain number of cows) rather than through the Ugandan criminal justice system.

The rule of law is flouted at higher levels too: official corruption, tales of exorbitant spending, and stories of “ghost” soldiers, workers, and even clinics (with “ghost” budgets) routinely make the headlines here in the non-government sponsored papers. The fact that these stories and cartoons are a regular facet of life here is certainly indicative of a level of press freedom and independence. But the decision to keep CBS closed and other tales of media harassment demonstrate that this freedom has limits.

For example: I cannot speak intelligently about Uganda’s experience with freedom, rule of law, etc. in comparison to Rwanda, but Ugandan journalist Andrew Mwenda can, and did in an article in his Independent magazine.  It is one of the most scathing and interesting articles I have read since I have been here. He writes in response to a letter from a Ugandan politician that criticizes him for taking a positive stance on the “authoritarian” regime in Rwanda. “Colin,” he answers, “democracies do not rob their own citizens the way we are witnessing in Uganda.”

After reading his opinion piece I instinctively googled, “Andrew Mwenda death threat.” This lead me to an article in which I learned that Mwenda has been held at gunpoint by government agents, charged with 20 criminal violations including sedition, and has purportedly already survived several plots against him. Still, Mwenda says in the article, “If Museveni were like Idi Amin (the infamous Ugandan dictator), I’d already be dead.”

Now there’s the power of positive thinking. I’m off to see what the papers and the police are up to on the streets of Kampala.

Other

Then there’s China. The New Vision article relates that both Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni and Sudanese President Omar el Bashir attended the China-Africa Summit in Egypt on November 8th, 2009, during which China announced its intentions to dramatically increase loans to several African countries and to step up initiatives ranging from food security to research scholarships. Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao also took the opportunity to deny that China’s interest in Africa is based solely on its need for natural resources. According to the article, he also “[R]epeated that China would not interfere in the internal politics of any African country.”

Foreign aid represents 30% of Uganda’s operating budget, and while this is down from 50% three years ago (due largely to the global recession)(4), Uganda surely does not take alienating the donor community lightly. Carl Gershman and Michael Allen noted as recently as 2006 that, “Uganda appear[s] to be refraining from certain restraints on NGOs in no small part out of fear that foreign aid will be cut off.” (5)

Then again, Mr. Buturo has repeatedly asserted that, “…The integrity of our country and our values are more important than their aid.”(6) I cannot help but wonder if this statement is mere political rhetoric, or if there is (beginning to be) something to it. That is, I wonder if Uganda is better positioned to ignore the West’s moral outcries and monetary threats over illiberal practices due to the rise of China as a significant donor. After all, as Robert Kagan notes, “[China] will [not] impose conditions on aid to African nations to demand political and institutional reforms they have no intention of carrying out in China.”(7) While homosexuality has been de-criminalized in China, the government has essentially ignored campaigns to extend protections and rights to the gay community (8). And China’s human rights record in other respects requires no further comment here.

Uganda may very well pass this draconian measure, and if it does, what does this signify? Does it mean that Uganda has taken a step “backward” on the path towards becoming a democratic regime that respects human rights and protects citizens who are minorities? Does it mean that Western influence is being trumped by the aid and the attitude of the Chinese?

Until very recently the West – and the U.S. in particular – considered Uganda to be, as Larry Diamond puts it, “[O]ne of the brightest stars of African development.” (9) In my next blog post I will explore some of the reasons why this was case, and some of the reasons why it is the case no longer. Changing assumptions about the democratization process seem to have as much to do with this as developments within Uganda itself.

Sources:

(1) Josephine Maseruka and Agencies. 2009. China Doubles Aid to Africa. The New Vision. 09NOV.

(2) AFP. US Slams Uganda’s New Anti-Gay Bill. 29OCT2009. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jEEJXoeBrTi17hexzYZqvmPgpPxg

(3) Moses Mulondo. 2009. Pray for Replacement of Corrupt Officials. Sunday Vision. 29NOV.

(4) Liz Kobusinge. 2008. Let Us Examine the Role of Foreign Aid. The New Vision. 17NOV. http://allafrica.com/stories/200811180049.html

(5) Carl Gershman and Michael Allen. 2006. The Assault on Democracy Assistance. Journal of Democracy. Vol. 17, No. 2. April. P.46.

(6) Mulondo. Pray for Replacement.

(7) Robert Kagan 2008. The End of Dreams and the Return of History. Knopf. April 28. P.70

(8) The Economist. 2009. Comrades-In-Arms. 20JUN. Vol. 392 Issue 8636, p43-43

(9) Larry Diamond. 2008. The Spirit of Democracy: The Struggle to Build Free Societies Throughout the World. Times Books. P.250.

Other

My other mission is to observe and explore on the ground some of the themes we discuss in the Democracy and Governance program. Uganda is in many ways an opportune place to study the difficulties of consolidating democracy: it is a “partly free” state that introduced multi-party elections in 2006, and that has an election coming up in 2011; like many newer democracies it has a history of ethnic tensions, which even as recently as a few months ago turned violent; and it has recently discovered significant oil and gas reserves, the political and economic repercussions of which have not yet become clear (but have often boded ill for democracy elsewhere). Any like many other states in the region, Uganda suffers from pervasive corruption, with scandals and crackdowns regularly making the headlines here.

In addition to exploring these internal challenges, I will also seek to understand how Uganda’s relations with the international community shape its political development. For example, Uganda, like many other African states, depends heavily on foreign assistance. This dependence has been decreasing in recent years, however, and may decrease even further as revenues from energy resources increase. Another interesting factor is that Uganda is the only African state besides Burundi to contribute troops to the African Union peacekeeping mission in Somalia. And in Iraq, as part of “the most privatized war in history,” Uganda has provided tens of thousands of (cheap) private security personnel to guard U.S. bases and key facilities. For these and other reasons, the U.S. has a measurable interest and investment in a partnership with Uganda, and my team and our mission represent part of that partnership. At the same time, it does not take long to see that Chinese influence here is also significant – and growing (more on this later).  So throughout the year I will be paying attention to how these and other external factors shape (or try to shape) Uganda’s development and policies.

Exploring the challenges and the contexts of Uganda’s political development will be an interesting – and a daunting – experience for me this year.  Besides being out of the country, I am definitely out of my element  (I studied Russian politics as an undergrad, largely because I don’t like hot weather), so feedback from Democracy and Society’s readership would be very valuable to me.  And I hope that I in turn can provide some interesting glimpses into life (and of course politics) on the ground here, as well as perhaps provide some insight into the U.S.’ strategic interests and activities in Uganda.

Next week I will be writing about the international community’s reactions (or lack thereof) to Uganda’s proposed Anti-Gay Bill, which has taken center-stage in national politics.

Sign outside the Electoral Commission in Kampala

Other