Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1-19)
MR GARETH
THOMAS MP, MEG
MUNN MP, MR
ERIC HAWTHORN
AND MR
ROBIN GWYNN
4 JULY 2007
Q1 Chairman: Thank you for coming in.
Perhaps, first, you could introduce your team before we start.
Meg Munn: As you know, Mr Bruce,
I have not been in place very long so I think it is safest if
I let Robin Gwynn just explain his role.
Mr Gwynn: I am head of the Africa
Equatorial Department in the Foreign Office. That is the Department
which covers east to west Africa.
Mr Thomas: It is a pleasure to
be back before the Committee. Eric Hawthorn on my left is head
of DFID Uganda.
Q2 Chairman: It is nice to see you all.
You will appreciate that the Committee visited northern Uganda
a year or so ago when we were doing our report on conflict—and
I personally happened to make a subsequent visit in September
but not on behalf of the Committee and we thought it was an appropriate
moment to try and get some kind of update on how conflict resolution
in Uganda was proceeding, particularly in the light of peace talks
having been started and stalled and started again, so we are very
grateful to you for coming in and I appreciate that sometimes
the timings are not perfect but we are where we are.[1]
The first thing I think we noticed when we were there was the
problems that have been faced in the camps, the substantial amount
of money going in from the international community but the appalling
death rates and even since we were there, there have been outbreaks
of cholera, poor provision of education, of healthcare, of policing.
So perhaps, firstly, has that situation improved and has it required
increased contributions from the international community to cope?
Mr Thomas: What I should say is
that we, too, have been concerned about the situation in the camps
and in the north generally, and obviously have been pressing the
Government of Uganda to provide more resources to the north. Since
the Committee visited we have started to see an increase in the
transfer of resources from the Government to northern Uganda.
I would not want to give the Committee the sense that everything
now has completely changed since the Committee visited but I think
there has been a noticeable sense of resources starting to flow
to the north. You mentioned the policing situation. The fact that
the security situation has improved is in part because there are
more police being deployed. Given some of the concerns there have
been about the security services in Uganda in the past, one of
the things that the donor community is doing is to watch extremely
closely the behaviour and the training programmes, et cetera,
for policing the country. So I think it would be right of me to
say that the situation is beginning to improve but it is not obviously
a situation that we are willing to relax about or think we can
be in any way complacent about. Perhaps, Mr Bruce, to give you
some sense of numbers, to try to give you some confidence about
the improvement in the security situation, I should say that about
two years ago roughly 1.7 million people were in camps; about
800,000 have now moved out of the camps, 400,000 having returned
home and another 400,000 having moved out of the camps that you
are referring to—
Q3 Chairman: Does that include Gulu
and Kitgum, that seem to be the worst affected areas?
Mr Thomas: It includes those areas.
As I say, the last 400,000 I was referring to are moving out of
the camps you were mentioning into transitional resettlement and
camps, en route, we hope, to returning home.
Q4 Chairman: How has that affected
the situation? The camps we observed were extremely crowded; the
sanitary conditions were not good, they had had outbreaks of cholera,
but later on there was access to more land to produce more of
their own food from their own resources, because people were moving
further into camps. Has that made a contribution to reduction
in those kinds of health problems and, in particular, child mortality
rates, which were pretty severe? People, and I do not want to
make any invidious comparisons, constantly report on the situation
in Darfur but some of the statistics in relation to Uganda were
pretty bad, if not as bad.
Mr Thomas: We have been very conscious
of the situation for people living in those camps. Let me bring
Mr Hawthorn in, given he would know better the specific camps
you went to see.
Mr Hawthorn: When the Committee
visited that was shortly after there had been a mortality survey
that had been produced by WHO which highlighted very high rates
of mortality in the camps. Since then, as the Minister has been
saying, the situation has improved significantly. People are moving
out of the camps; the humanitarian effort has increased substantially
as a result of what government is doing through its own emergency
humanitarian action plan and the Joint Monitoring Committee which,
with donors, is monitoring the implementation of that emergency
action plan. There has not been a re-run of the mortality survey—we
are planning on helping government do something like that at the
end of this year—but what we do know is that the regular
nutritional surveys which are carried out by WFP[2]
to inform what they are doing through their own food aid programmes
show that malnutrition is well below emergency levels now, so
there is a significant improvement there.
Q5 Chairman: On that particular point,
on my second visit at a time in which DFID had diverted funds
from budget support towards supporting direct aid in the north.
Ironically one of the consequences of that was that the WFP actually
cut the rations on the grounds that the camps were now reaching
more of their own land; certainly people in the camps were pretty
upset about that. From what you say, was that a legitimate analysis
of the situation? In other words, they were getting better food
and did not require the same rations?
Mr Hawthorn: Slowly over time
WFP have reduced their rations responding to these food needs
analyses which highlight the fact that nutritional status is significantly
improving and responding to the fact that people are getting increasing
access to their own land and able to grow their own food, and
always getting the balance right between making sure that people
have enough to eat but not discouraging them from producing.
Q6 James Duddridge: World Vision
at the end of last year produced a very good report into displaced
children within camps across the whole of the Great Lakes region,
and particularly identified that over a third of the children
in camps in northern Uganda were forced to have sex in return
for basic services. How has that situation changed with the transitional
camps, and has DFID focused any particular money on that problem
in northern Uganda?
Mr Thomas: World Vision were right
to highlight the terrible atrocities that have been inflicted
on many of the children in northern Uganda. It is one of the reasons
why we have a programme supported through UNICEF and Save the
Children to work with children not only in the camps but in northern
Uganda and more generally to try and provide in a sense spaces
of protection, to use the jargon, so that those young people not
only are free from the threat of being kidnapped again by the
LRA[3]
but also within the camps have the sense of security that they
need to go to school and to be able in a sense to begin to recover
from the traumas that have been visited on them. So we do have
funding programmes through UNICEF and Save the Children. More
generally I should say that we are beginning to think through
a social protection scheme, a cash transfer scheme, to look at
the needs of the most vulnerable people in Uganda as a whole,
and obviously those very poor people with children who perhaps
have been most vulnerable in the past to seeing their children
kidnapped or children selling themselves as you describe. Hopefully
the cash transfer programme will help to ameliorate those economic
pressures on them as well.
Q7 James Duddridge: Do you have an assessment
as to the current situation, because a third of boys or girls
entering into sexual relations in return for basic goods seems
immensely high even compared to other African countries in similar
conflicts. Has DFID made any assessment of the numbers affected?
Mr Thomas: The numbers affected
in the sense that they are still having to live with that trauma
will be the same.
Q8 James Duddridge: I was referring
to acts taking place now and in the future.
Mr Thomas: Let me come to that
point in a second, if I may. Because the security situation has
improved, albeit it is a very fragile security situation, and
because people are beginning to be able to return to the areas
that they originally came from, because people are being moved
out of the camps, I think it is safe to say that the situation
is improving. Eric, have there been any further surveys of numbers
of children affected in the last two years or so?
Mr Hawthorn: DFID has done no
work of our own in terms of measuring the kind of thing you are
talking about. I would like to emphasise the role increased civilian
policing is now playing in the camps in providing protection.
A lot of the problems in the past were felt to be associated with
the UPDF[4]
providing security and protection; civilian policing is certainly
improving the position. I guess one indication that children feel
considerably more comfortable about the situation in northern
Uganda now is is that there are virtually no night commuters any
more. A lot of those children who commuted into towns at night
came from the camps and that is not happening, and a lot of that
was not just about protection from the LRA but also about protection
from the environment in which they were, so in that sense we have
that indication that things are considerably better, but we have
done no additional analysis on top of the World Vision report
you have mentioned.
Q9 James Duddridge: On a completely different
subject, for peace to remain and be stable the Lord's Resistance
Army need to know that they can't pull in neighbouring countries
at points in the future. To what extent has the Government involved
the whole region and taken into consideration the full regional
implications of the peace settlement in trying to form a deal?
Mr Thomas: As you will know, Mr
Duddridge, there is a peace process in train which has a series
of observer countries from the African Union supporting that process
and they are part of the mix of countries around the borders of
Uganda, including crucially the DRC.[5]
You will also be familiar with the role, no doubt, of Riek Machar,
the Vice-President of Sudan, and the crucial role he has played.
You will obviously also be aware of the excellent role that Joachim
Chissano, the former President of Mozambique, has played in mediating
between the LRA and the Government of Uganda. So there is very
active engagement by the other players in the region. I think
we need to recognise that the peace process is not at an end by
any stretch of the imagination, but let me give reassurance to
you that we continue to engage with the other countries in the
region so that we are aware of their concerns and, as I say, we
continue to encourage them to play an active role in their work
as observers through the African Union to the peace process.
Meg Munn: I have nothing particularly
to add on that.
Q10 John Bercow: What is DFID doing
to ensure that in the Juba peace talks there is an active involvement
by women?
Meg Munn: I was, in my previous
role, in Uganda and Kampala for the Commonwealth Women's Affairs
Ministers Meeting, and obviously a big focus of that meeting was
to look at the role of women in many situations. There were some
processes and discussions about the role of women in conflict
resolution and in post-conflict situation, and we did have an
excellent presentation from a Ugandan woman who is very involved
in the north of Uganda looking at the issues there, and the Women's
Minister, the Honourable Saida Bumba, who chaired the Women's
Affairs Ministers Meeting, was very clear that ensuring the role
of women in the future and in the processes is really important.
Now, the Ugandan Parliament achieved 30% of women in parliament
at the last elections which they feel very positive about, and
therefore there is quite a big push in ensuring that the issues
in relation to women are central to what is happening.
Mr Thomas: Can I add to what has
just been said by my colleague? The Peace and Recovery Development
Plan is going to be crucial to supporting a peace process that
is completed, and we are encouraged by the fact that it is being
developed. One of the things we are also clear about is that there
needs to be substantial consultation on the components of that
plan with the communities that are going to be affected. Now,
the Government is beginning to show and demonstrate an appetite
for that type of consultation but I think it would be wrong to
say that the consultation thus far has been perfect, and one of
the things we are clear about is the need to involve women as
key stakeholders in whether or not that plan meets the needs of
those in affected areas.
Q11 John Bercow: First, I was not
aware of the Minister's previous involvement in her earlier capacity,
and I welcome that and I think that is helpful. But the United
Kingdom was after all a very significant mover behind the United
Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security,
and the reason I press the point is that we have encountered,
as I think Gareth knows from earlier evidence sessions on different
subjects, a phenomenon in a variety of different countries of
ostensible lip-service being paid to the notion of women's involvement,
on the one hand, with a manifest absence of evidence of it, to
put it no more strongly, on the other. So that we have gone to
meetings which are about women, or even to women's organisations,
and we have found the speeches—eloquent but usually long—being
delivered by men, and women—in some cases graduates with
master's degrees and all the rest of it—serving the tea.
So although you obviously cannot monitor every minute of the day,
what confidence do you have and what specific steps short of an
imperious domineering interference are you taking to try to ensure
that effect is given to the rhetoric?
Meg Munn: I entirely understand
the point you are making and certainly one of the issues which
the United Kingdom Government were keen to raise, with the support
of people from DFID, was that in terms of the UN Resolution very
little has happened in other places so we were able to demonstrate
the take-ups of the Action Plan that the United Kingdom Government
has done, and that was distributed and discussed. So in terms
of this and, again, perhaps Gareth wants to talk more about the
detail because I only saw what was happening in Kampala, I was
very reassured by the programmes of work which DFID have there
which have a focus on women's involvement and which are about
women's empowerment, and clearly there is a lot of work going
on within Kampala. I am not familiar with the plans or processes
in northern Uganda but I certainly saw some excellent work which
the United Kingdom Government is doing, supporting women in the
prevention of domestic violence, an example where those women
have gone out and trained imams so that the imams within the Muslim
community were talking on how to prevent domestic violence within
their own communities and were doing a really excellent job, so
that is certainly one of the United Kingdom government's priorities
and I have seen it in action there. In terms of the north, however,
that would clearly be more appropriate for Gareth to cover.
Mr Thomas: Mr Bercow, what is
required, as you know, is a revolution in attitudes and we are
not even close to that yet, and that is not just reflective of
the situation in northern Uganda—it is the situation more
generally across a whole range of developing countries. Obviously
we cannot even relax about our own situation. So in terms of northern
Uganda we continue to press through the discussions that we have
around both the humanitarian package of assistance and the Peace,
Recovery and Development Plan for the voice of women to be heard
much more actively than has been heard up to now. There are all
sorts of conversations that our staff are able to participate
in, both in the north and crucially with other donors, with different
players within the Government of Uganda machinery, and then through
international fora such as the UN resolution process that you
are talking about.
Q12 John Battle: Could I ask you
about the role of the International Criminal Court? About six
years ago to the month in a room along the corridor I led for
the Government introducing the signing up of our Government to
the International Criminal Court. At the time it was opposed by
the Americans, who insisted on universal exemption from its provisions
and are still not signed up to it; the Conservative Opposition
voted against it and then the general election was called. But
I think a more serious criticism at the time was that it was a
western inspired universalist idea of justice which would actually
clash with local customs and local laws which would jeopardise
processes of reconciliation. In the evidence we have had, the
NGO memorandum cites statements by senior LRA commanders that
they would not accept a negotiated settlement committing them
to a trial at the Hague. The African commentator and specialist
Richard Dowden says: "if the ICC cannot bring peace and reconciliation
to the victims of war, what is the point of justice?".[6]
Yet in DFID's evidence we read: "We judge the ICC arrest
Warrants have contributed to bringing increased international
attention to the conflict"—well, yes—" reduced
logistical support for the LRA, exposed its activities and helped
to bring the LRA to the negotiating table.[7]
"I sense a kind of conflict between those views. Given that
after six years this is going to be the first test case for the
ICC I think it is vital that it is not a failure. I just wonder,
what is the Government's view of the impact of those ICC warrants
on the prospects for peace?
Meg Munn: If I can answer that
in terms of the ICC, and it is a Government view—you set
out the DFID evidence but it is also the cross-Government view
that ICC arrest warrants have helped to bring the LRA to the negotiating
table. The important thing here is that it was the decision of
the Ugandan government to go to the ICC. I am aware that there
are different views from the evidence that has been submitted
to the Committee as to whether this is helpful or not. It is the
Government view that it is, and it is also the Government view
that it does not preclude within that details of how issues are
dealt with within the local context and within the country, because
obviously these arrest warrants have been issued for a small number
of people at the top but there are a whole range of issues here.
This is a long-running conflict.
Q13 John Battle: How do you answer,
then, the question that if it is a government view obviously the
government is against the LRA, therefore the whole system is biased
against them.
Meg Munn: Sorry?
Q14 John Battle: If it is the government's
view that it is a one-way system, because they are obviously against
the LRA, they say they are in favour of it and it is the system's
bias against the LRA, and not independent, how would you answer
that?
Mr Thomas: As you will know from
your time looking at bringing into force the International Criminal
Court, the ICC is designed in a sense to support national systems.
It is supposed to be complementary to national systems of justice
in-country, so it comes into play where national jurisdictions,
for whatever reason, are unwilling or unable to deal with the
investigation and prosecution that is required. Now, there is
work on-going, as the Committee may be aware, to look at the issue
of the concern of the LRA, and of some of the international community
more generally, that the ICC warrants, important as they are in
creating the pressure on the LRA to come to the negotiating table,
could be a blockage down the line. But what is clear is that the
principles behind the ICC and the Rome Statute have to be upheld.
There cannot be impunity for the four who are still alive for
whom the warrants are being committed. The scale of their crimes
is such that the principles of the ICC cannot just be set aside,
but obviously there does need to be a recognition and an understanding
about what the implications are for the peace process and moving
forward. So there are discussions that are taking place in-country.
I understand as recently as Friday that some general principles
for looking at a possible mechanism to resolve this issue have
been agreed, but I simply say to the Committee what the Government's
position is, that the principles of the Rome Statute of no impunity
have to be adhered to. We also have to recognise that essentially
it is for the Government of Uganda, in conversation with the ICC,
to take forward the resolution of the conundrum you have described.
Q15 Hugh Bayley: The agreement signed
last Friday says, amongst other things: "Formal courts provided
for under the Constitution shall exercise jurisdiction over individuals
who are alleged to bear particular responsibility for the most
serious crimes, especially crimes amounting to international crimes".[8]
In other words, there appears to be agreement between the Government
of Uganda and the LRA witnessed by the three other governments,
Sudan, Kenya, and Tanzania, which suggests that even for the most
serious international crimes the court system in Uganda should
be used to try those who are accused of those crimes. And if trials
take place in Ugandan courts, and if convictions follow the trials,
penalties are imposed by the Ugandan courts. Surely it would amount
to double jeopardy if an international body said these people
must now stand trial again for the same offences in different
courts and face a second series of penalties. Gareth, you said
the ICC comes into play when the national system of justice is
not available, or words to that effect. If there is a competent
process of justice under the Ugandan justice system, would it
be necessary for the cases to go on to the ICC?
Meg Munn: I think it is important
at this point to be clear about just where we are in the process.
There are five agenda items for the Juba peace talks, and this
is the third. Where we are now is that there has been an agreement
on the third item, the reconciliation and accountability, about
the broad framework within which that should take place. The details
have not been worked out and are not nailed down.
Q16 Hugh Bayley: There is a great
deal of detail in the document they signed. It is obviously not
a law but it is a ten-page document.
Meg Munn: Of course, and this
is part of the process, but it is not the final stage so it would
not be appropriate at this point to be saying whether that means
that the ICC process would not proceed or not. The ICC warrants
are there; at this point in time it is not a situation where the
Ugandan government would be entering into a discussion about whether
those should proceed or not. They are there; they are proceeding;
and that is the position at the moment.
Q17 Hugh Bayley: The Government of
Uganda asked quite some time ago that the warrants be withdrawn.
If the Government of Uganda maintained that view—I can see
your officials shaking their heads—
Mr Gwynn: As far as we are aware
the Government of Uganda have not withdrawn their request, nor
even discussed that with the ICC.
Q18 Hugh Bayley: I do not know whether
Meg wants to answer or whether the officials should answer but
you were saying, Meg, that the peace process is not finalised
so the outcome as a whole is not clear and it would be premature
to judge that the ICC process should be set aside. But it appears
to me that our Government accepts that, if a peace agreement was
made which provided for those alleged to have committed serious
crimes to be tried by a formal court process within the country,
and the Government of Uganda were to ask the International Criminal
Court to set aside its arrest warrants because it was dealing
with the matter in its own courts, it would certainly be a matter
the Government would consider whether we as part of the international
community would agree to the ICC process being set aside in this
particular case?
Meg Munn: This is a complex area
in terms of the process of the International Criminal Court and
I do not want at all to mislead the Committee on this given my
relative newness to post, so perhaps I can ask the official to
clarify that because the messages on this are really important,
and it is important we get this clear.
Mr Gwynn: Thank you. I think the
scenario you have suggested is a possible future scenario which
we would need to consider at the time. I think in line with what
the Minister has said what we are saying at the moment is that
there is this complicated on-going peace process; there are at
least three items to the talks that have not really been addressed
yet. In a sense nothing is agreed until everything is agreed,
there is a package there. As members of the Committee have said
and our Ministers have said, this emphasises the point that the
ICC warrants are focusing the LRA's minds, if I can put it that
way, and bringing them to talk, not as an equal party but as a
group of people who need to account for what they have done. In
that sense it is very helpful to have the warrants on the table
as part of an on-going process, and that, we believe, is helping
to put pressure on all of the parties to take this process forward.
Mr Thomas: I have one thing to
add to that, perhaps related to a point Mr Bercow made, which
is that we are not an imperialist power any more so this is a
conversation that inevitably the Government of Uganda has to lead
on in terms of discussions with the ICC as things move forward.
Obviously we watch very closely and we are very supportive of
the peace process, but we need to recognise our role and our responsibility.
Q19 Hugh Bayley: The Amnesty Commission
could be faced with dealing with a large increase in the number
of combatants if the peace process is successful. Is it adequately
funded to do that? If it needed more resources to deal with greater
numbers of combatants laying down their arms and coming across
and seeking reintegration, would the United Kingdom Government
provide funding to enable the Commission to fulfil that role?
Mr Thomas: The straight answer
to your question is yes, we would consider it; indeed we are considering
it at the moment. The Amnesty Commission has so far, since its
establishment in 2000, helped to bring out of the bush about 5,000
LRA combatants. We estimate there are, very roughly, about 3,000
combatants still with the LRA leadership with whom, if there were
a completed process, the Amnesty Commission would then have to
work. As I say, we would be willing to look at further financial
support to the Amnesty Commission for that purpose.
1 Sixth Report of Session 2005-06, Conflict and
Development: Peacebuilding and Post-conflict Reconstruction, HC
923. Back
2
The UN World Food Programme (WFP). Back
3
Lord's Resistance Army (LRA). Back
4
Ugandan People's Defence Force (UPDF). Back
5
Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Back
6
Richard Dowden, "ICC in the dock", Prospect Magazine,
Issue 134, May 2007. Back
7
Ev17. Back
8
Agreement on Accountability and Reconciliation between the Government
of the Republic of Uganda and the Lord's Resistance Army/Movement,
Juba, Sudan, June 2007. Back
|
