Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20-36)
MR GARETH
THOMAS MP, MEG
MUNN MP, MR
ERIC HAWTHORN
AND MR
ROBIN GWYNN
4 JULY 2007
Q20 Hugh Bayley: What is the role
of traditional justice in promoting reconciliation and reintegration
of LRA combatants?
Mr Thomas: Traditional justice
has a role. I do not think it has a role in relation to the leadership
of the LRA—I think the scale of the crimes that they have
committed must be outwith the traditional justice mechanisms.
But for those combatants who are Acholi particularly, then the
Mato Oput form of traditional justice has had a positive impact
already in helping people face up to the atrocities perhaps that
in some cases they have been forced to commit, and has helped
the communities from which they came who would otherwise perhaps
not be willing to receive them back to come to terms with what
has been done against them by particular combatants. So it has
played an important role in reconciliation efforts to date, and
I do think it has a role to play in further reconciliation attempts,
albeit I have to say with the caveat of the leadership, those
against whom the ICC warrants have been levied, being outwith
that process. I should perhaps just say, too, that the Amnesty
Act was specifically amended to exclude the five, now the four,
people against whom the warrants have been imposed by the ICC,
from being covered under the terms of that Act.
Meg Munn: Again, just for the
avoidance of doubt it should be clear that it would be the ICC
judges who would consider whether any domestic prosecutions altered
the basis on which they had issued the warrants, and our view
is it seems unlikely but obviously that is a much longer process.
Q21 Hugh Bayley: Can I come back
to this issue of double jeopardy? Is it really for judges thousands
of miles away in the Hague, working in a situation that the victims
of these crimes have no understanding of whatsoever, in effect
to judge the Ugandan judges, if the four leaders or others responsible
for serious crimes were brought before the Ugandan courts?
Meg Munn: The situation, to go
back to it, is that it was the Government of Uganda who approached
the International Criminal Court, and having done so the International
Criminal Court has come into play; they oversee the process now;
and it is therefore for them to judge whether a credible prosecution
conforming to international norms, wherever that happened, could
take place. That is the process. So it is not about double jeopardy:
it is about whether what has been set in train is the appropriate
place, and that is now with the International Criminal Court judges.
Q22 Chairman: On that point, and
this is a delicate issue, is there any indication what Joseph
Kony and his three colleagues are expecting or looking for? What
worries me is you can dance around on the head of a pin here,
but are they expecting some kind of minor punishment and release,
or are they accepting that there will be a serious issue which
they will have to face up to? Secondly, will they have confidence
that they would then get whatever was the expectation properly
delivered by the courts of Uganda, given some of the issues that
have arisen around the question of independence of those courts?
Mr Thomas: The LRA leadership
need to be in no doubt that we as a Government support the International
Criminal Court having levied those warrants and, as I said in
answer to earlier questions, there can be no question in our judgment
about any sense of impunity being allowed to carry on in terms
of the crimes those five—now four—people have committed.
Q23 Chairman: Are we confident that,
given the history of the difficulties of dealing with them at
all, they are engaged in this process with a clear understanding
of that?
Mr Thomas: Well, the agreement
in terms of principles that was negotiated on Friday which Mr
Bayley referred to had, in terms of the negotiations, an LRA delegation
at the table. There is now a month's break in which we expect
that LRA delegation to be talking to their leadership about how
the process moves forward, which is also one of the reasons why
we cannot give more information to the Committee about how the
principles can be translated into a reality moving forward. But
they are aware of the international pressure on them; they are
aware certainly of the United Kingdom's Government view that they
have to take responsibility for the crimes that they have committed
personally and which have been committed in their name; and it
is clear that they are aware of the discussions that have been
taking place. There has been an LRA team in the negotiations and
that team we expect over the next month to be consulting with
their leadership.
Q24 Sir Robert Smith: Obviously this
conflict has devastated the region and the Peace Recovery and
Development Programme must be a crucial part of rebuilding some
kind of normality. What is the United Kingdom Government doing
to promote and support the implementation of the Government's
programme in Uganda?
Mr Thomas: One of the things that
we have been doing is directly advocating for such a plan. The
former Secretary of State for International Development sent me
to Geneva back in March 2006 to be part of a discussion with the
then core group of countries with the Government of Uganda about,
firstly, the humanitarian situation in northern Uganda, how we
can begin to address the humanitarian needs which the Committee
were aware of from their visit and which have been described here,
but also for a process moving forward once a peace process really
began to take hold. What we have worked on with the Government
of Uganda since that time is in a sense a set of principles for
moving beyond the humanitarian assistance phase into the recovery
and reconciliation phase, because the last thing we want to see
is humanitarian assistance being cancelled and the whole focus
being on recovery. So we are continuing to provide humanitarian
assistance, and we are trying it to do it in a more flexible way
than perhaps we would do in other circumstances. For example,
as well as providing funding to enable healthcare to be improved
in the camps we are also looking at the healthcare needs in areas
that people are returning to, and in the resettlement camps that
are developing as people move out of the IDP camps, so we are
working very closely on it, still providing the substantial humanitarian
support necessary but trying also to address the needs of those
returning. Because if the returnees are going to continue to have
confidence in the peace process they have to see a tangible benefit
for their lives in their areas, and that is why I think it is
important that the international community as well as the Government
of Uganda to provide resources to enable facilities to begin to
start being improved in those areas.
Q25 Sir Robert Smith: In an earlier
answer I think you shared a concern that the Norwegian Refugee
Council has that, whilst this has gone through the Ugandan Parliament
it has not necessarily engaged with civil society to see that
the programme meets their understanding of what is needed, or
is engaging civil society in its development? Is that a concern
you share? You have mentioned trying to involve more women. Do
you share that need to engage civil society, and what sort of
action can be taken to improve that?
Mr Thomas: The Government has
started some consultations. I think it would be wrong of me to
say that we thought they were anything like as comprehensive as
we would like to see, and one of the things that Eric and his
team are doing from our office in Kampala is working with the
Government to look at how a more comprehensive consultation exercise
can take place. The Committee may be aware from its visit that
we also fund a number of civil society groups who also can have
a role in making sure that communities are consulted and feel
part of that process to understand how the Peace Recovery and
Development Plan can be taken forward for their area.
Q26 Sir Robert Smith: The other concern
is maybe if you are drawn too narrowly into the region, because
the neighbouring regions also need assistance to recover because
obviously the conflict destabilises those areas around it.
Mr Thomas: I agree that it would
be a disastrous outcome if funding for one particular part of
Uganda was at the expense of surrounding areas, and in a sense
you just displace the anger that is one of the underlying causes.
We are obviously factoring that consideration into the dialogue
we have with government about how they put that plan together.
Q27 Mr Singh: Gareth, you stated
that the humanitarian assistance programme will continue and I
think that is quite right and proper, but what we do know is that
conflicts can recur and that the effects of conflict can last
a very long time, and that any peace process really needs to be
linked to development goals as well so that people can see positive
benefits as you mentioned. Now, have there been any international
commitments to fund this Peace Recovery and Development Plan?
Mr Hawthorn: The Government has
talked about plans to have a consultative group meeting with donors
once they get to the point where they have a final version of
the Peace, Recovery and Development Plan, but at the moment we
are talking about putting in place the financing. Large numbers
of development partners have indicated availability of financing
for the PRDP and other elements which have been very important
such as demobilisation and disarmament. PRDP will provide a framework
for managing those resources.
Mr Thomas: With respect, Mr Singh,
and I hope you will forgive me for saying this, in a sense we
have been trying to run before we can walk, in that we have not
in a sense completed the peace process, so yes, there absolutely
does need to be donor financing of the Peace Recovery and Development
Plan, and we are working on support to the roll-out of that and
the consultation on that. The broader donor conference that would
be appropriate to take place to get behind that plan in a sense
we recognise has got to happen but we want to make sure that the
broader peace process is continuing to move in the right direction,
and that is where I think the bulk of the international community's
focus has been, making sure that continues to move forward at
the same time as we look at these initial steps that we need to
take as people begin to feel the security situation is allowing
them to return home.
Meg Munn: Also there is a real
focus on making sure that these talks continue; there is a real
focus on continuing to work with the Ugandan government on that;
and obviously the eyes of the Commonwealth are going to be focused
on Uganda in November with the Commonwealth Heads of Government
Meeting. The President of Uganda will be the head of the Commonwealth
for two years beyond that, so there is a good international focus
on what Uganda is doing and the role the Ugandan government is
playing, which I think is enormously important. So supporting
that process, supporting the work the Ugandan government are doing,
working with them and continuing to give important messages about
the whole of the issues of governance in Uganda is crucial at
this point in time, and I think that is well understood by the
President of the Ugandan Government.
Q28 Mr Singh: I can see your position
and where you are coming from but I cannot hide a little disappointment
in that approach because this Committee knows how hard it is to
mobilise international donors. We know how hard it is to get them
to co-ordinate their donor effort, and it would appear to me to
be more logical to be putting in the effort to mobilise international
donors now, concurrently, with the peace process, rather than
waiting for one phase to end and then another phase to begin,
because we might lose quite a lot of valuable time in beginning
that development process.
Mr Thomas: If I have inadvertently
given you the impression that there is no conversation taking
place within the international community about exactly that then
I apologise. One of the things set up in March 2006 as a result
of this meeting in Geneva was a Joint Monitoring Committee which
has the key members of the international community based in Uganda
sitting down with the Government on a regular basis to talk about
their resources and about the political needs around the peace
process as well, so there is a substantial conversation taking
place about the finances for the longer term. What there has not
been, as Eric has described, is the formal donor conference consultative
and group meeting taking place as yet, and that is simply a reflection
of where we are in the peace process. So we have not forgotten
about that; there are conversations taking place; we just have
not had that formal meeting at this point in time.
Meg Munn: Really what is important
to say is that the international community has come together in
terms of providing support for these peace talks. Financial support
to the talks is channelled through a fund, the Juba Initiative
Fund, managed by the UN OCHA,[9]
and therefore that commitment is already there. I think what Gareth
is saying is that the international community has come forward,
has recognised the importance of this and is making sure the talks
are taking place. I do not think anybody is walking away saying
"Oh, it has finished." It is not in place but the understanding
that it will need to be in place is there.
Q29 Mr Singh: So how is the United Kingdom
Government linking the Peace, Recovery and Development Plan to
the Ugandan Poverty Eradication Plan and the Ugandan Joint Assistance
Strategy? Are there explicit linkages we are working on?
Mr Thomas: One of the things we
are doing is saying to the Government "You have to put more
resources into the north and to think about the development needs
of northern Uganda as a peace process moves forward", so
the different document processes you describe have to be together,
and increasingly they are. What we are seeing is a steady increase
in government resources going to the north. Figures I have seen
suggest an increase from US $97 million a couple of years ago
to about US $114 million in this financial year going into the
north, so there is a significant increase, and that is from the
Government. Then there is the resource coming in from the international
community. So we are working to link all those processes together
in the way you describe should happen. What I do not want to give
you, Mr Singh, is the impression that everything is perfect as
yet. By definition, because the peace process has not been locked
down, it is not, but we are very conscious of the need to develop
those links between the different processes you describe.
Q30 Mr Singh: In terms of DFID's
approach, are we at the moment doing any budget support or considering
budget support in the future?
Mr Thomas: We have given some
£35 million of budget support to the Government last year.
You will be familiar, Mr Singh and the Committee more generally,
with the decision that the former Secretary of State took not
to increase budget support in the wake of our concerns about the
lack of a level playing field in the run-up to the elections,
and we switched the planned increase in budget support to provide
further humanitarian assistance in the north. We have not made
a decision about levels of budget support, whether there should
be an increase in budget support for this year; that is obviously
something that the new Secretary of State will have to look at.
Q31 Chairman: Given that we are in
a transitional phase and, Gareth, you said that people are beginning
to go back, although the numbers that have actually gone back
to their original land seem relatively small and there are interim
camps, that presents both local government and the national Government
with a real challenge as to just how much money they put behind
those settlements, whether they are temporary or whether they
will get them back on to their own land. What measures are being
put in place to try and assist that process to resolve things
like land disputes? Also, President Museveni had a rather different
idea as to how this would happen from the local communities' view.
When we asked people, "Would you go back to your land?",
they said yes, although when you talked a little more, some of
the people said not quite in the way they used to, they would
have different types of settlements and some of the younger men
in particular wanted to come into the towns. That is all going
to take a lot of resources. Some of it presumably can go on before
peace is concluded because, with greater security, people are
moving back. So are you satisfied that the right kind of resources
are being put behind that and the right kind of co-operation between
the local government and the local representatives in the Government
of Uganda is actually taking place to ensure that it is actually
delivering what we might call a "long-term solution?"
Mr Thomas: If I may dispute your
description of the numbers that are moving out of the camps as
being minor—
Q32 Chairman: No, no, I said moving
back to their actual land, not moving out of the settlements.
Mr Thomas: I think, nevertheless,
they are still significant. We estimate that about 400,000 people
out of the 1.7 million a couple of years ago have returned and,
as you say, there are another 400,000 who have gone into transitional
resettlement camps. What we have discussed in the session so far,
about the importance of the Peace, Recovery and Development Plan
having genuine ownership by not just the Government but by the
people in the communities affected themselves, is going to be
key to in a sense the point you make about how we help people
who do want to move back to their lands but perhaps not in the
way that they used to. As I have described, is it a perfect process?
No, it is not a perfect process. The Government we are starting
to see being willing to have more comprehensive consultations
and part of our responsibility, we think, is to work alongside
the Government to try and make sure that the consultation that
is taking place is more effective and wide-ranging than it has
been to date. The reverse of that as well is to provide support
in a sense from the bottom up by supporting a range of civil society
organisations, as we do, so that they can help communities and
organisations with whom they work have a direct input into the
Government's plans moving forward.
Mr Hawthorn: The JMC now includes,
and this was a suggestion made earlier by development partners
that the JMC included, local government, so all the chairmen of
district councils attend the JMC and actually a lot of the discussion
in the JMC is between those people and central government ministers
and permanent secretaries about what they need in order to improve
the situation for the people living within their districts, so
that is a very important way in which consultation is taking place.
At the more local level in terms of what people do on the ground
and the programmes that are implemented on the ground, there is
something called the District Disaster Management Committee which
is the focus for making sure that districts are involved at that
level where specific investments go. The challenge you identified
of getting the balance right between where you put things and
not standing in the way is a very difficult one, but it is being
managed through that kind of consultation.
Q33 Chairman: There is a Commonwealth
Heads of Government Meeting in Kampala in November, is it?
Meg Munn: November, yes.
Q34 Chairman: Is this likely to be
on the agenda? Indeed, does it not have to be on the agenda, given
where it is taking place?
Meg Munn: No, it is not, not that
I am aware. Clearly, as I said earlier, the fact that the meeting
is taking place within Uganda puts a spotlight on it and on what
is happening there, but, as I understand it, it is not actually
on the agenda of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting.
Mr Thomas: Just to add to that,
I think that is absolutely right, but inevitably in the margins
of an event as massive as CHOGM there are the opportunities then
for a series of conversations to take place. Given that the peace
process is, if you like, a dynamic process, and that is perhaps
the wrong phrase to use, but it is continuing to move forward,
where we are in November may well lead to a series of conversations,
et cetera, but I think we need to recognise that the core players
within the international community, such as the Dutch and the
Americans, are not members of CHOGM and, therefore, that is one
of the reasons why it is not formally on the agenda at this stage.
Meg Munn: Also, the general theme
for the meeting is transforming Commonwealth societies to achieve
development, so broadly within that, as within the legal affairs
meeting that I was at where there was discussion about conflict
resolution and development following the peace process and clearly
there was a focus on what was happening locally, then there is
room for those discussions, but I think the process is very much
as Gareth describes.
Q35 Chairman: The point I am making
is that the Government of Uganda and President Museveni have until
fairly recently taken the attitude that, "It is not a problem,
it is just contained in the north, there are historical reasons
for it, there are just a few guys in the bush and we can deal
with them", and that is the reason for it. But please can
we have your reassurance that you believe that that has fundamentally
changed now and the Government in Uganda recognise that this is
a process that is in their interests to resolve and, accepting
that the LRA are difficult people to deal with, nevertheless,
they have a recognition that it is a national problem that needs
a national solution.
Meg Munn: I think that is absolutely
the case. As I said, I think that focus on the Commonwealth Heads
of Government Meeting is important. For two years following that,
President Museveni will be chair of the Commonwealth, so the focus
will continue to be there. Our discussions with the Ugandan Government
are not just about northern Uganda, they are also about the process
of governance within Uganda itself and the continuing representation
and position of opposition politicians, and the importance of
a multi-party system and democracy there are also ongoing. But,
as I know from my own contacts with the High Commissioner when
I was there just three weeks ago, those are discussions which
are continually ongoing and are important in terms of the whole
issue of Uganda and I think the fact that the heads of the Commonwealth
are there means they will continue to be important.
Q36 Chairman: Mr Thomas, on the basis
that DFID is recognising that this is a long-term commitment both
to secure peace and to secure development after peace, is there
a recognition that those kinds of levels of funding are likely
to have to continue for quite a long time?
Mr Thomas: Certainly we would
not want to walk away from Uganda just at this moment not only
because of the peace process, but because of the substantial poverty
people are experiencing still within Uganda as a whole, so we
have no plans to withdraw.
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed
for giving us your time. This is just a single session, but I
hope that it is one that will focus attention on the peace process
progress and our Government's engagement in it. Thank you.
9 Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs
(OCHA). Back
|
