Sunday, January 19, 2014

Yoweri Kaguta Museveni Speech on 15th January, 2014 in Luoanda, Angola

Good people of the world,
What in the world was Museveni talking about or trying to convey in his speech at Angola in Rwanda. What is the use of boasting that he is the trouble maker in the Region of the Great Lakes because his corrupt interest and greed made him rich from interfering with neighbouring country's internal affairs which is why, he took Migingo by force through Uganda armed invasion and sent
his Uganda troops to invade South Sudan??? What prompted him to brag this way???
Something does not adding up.................
Judy Miriga
Diaspora Spokesperson
Executive Director
Confederation Council Foundation for Africa Inc.,
Ugandan Army Clashes With South Sudanese Rebels
Published on Jan 16, 2014
Ugandan troops are fighting alongside South Sudanese government forces against rebels, President Yoweri Museveni has confirmed.

President of the Republic of Uganda
15th January, 2014Luanda, Angola

His Excellency Eduardo Dos Santos,
President of the Republic of Angola,
Your Excellencies, the Heads of State and Government, Ladies and Gentlemen.
I greet Your Excellencies.
As I said in South Africa, the concept of the Great Lakes is not a new one but an ancient one in our area. Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, Eastern Congo, South Sudan have, since time immemorial, been linked to the East African Coast of Zanzibar through mainland Tanzania. We would get textiles (emyenda), glass beads (enkwaanzi)and guns from or through the Coast and we would send elephant tusks (emiino)to the Coast. We would also send them bark cloth (ebitooma-embugu) and iron-ore (obutare) products (hoes, pangas, spears, arrows, etc). Out of the Congo forest, we would get copper products (emiriinga), animal skin products (amooshe), timber products as well as ivory products (engoro). The word lake is translated as “Nyaanja” or “Nyaanza” in many of the Bantu dialects of the area.
That is why you hear of the Kinyaanjaof Malawi, Zambia and Mozambique and of Nyaanza province in Kenya. Actually, in my other role as a linguist of African dialects, I have proposed that the interlacustrine Bantu dialects of the Great Lakes found in Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, Eastern Congo, North-Western and Western Tanzania, Western Kenya and even, Northern Zambia and possibly Northern Angola, should be given the collective name of Kinyaanja North to distinguish them from the Kinyaanja of Zambia, Malawi and Mozambique. In that connection, I have not yet understood why Malawi and Mozambique are not part of the Great Lakes’ fraternity because, historically and culturally, they are very much part of this region. Therefore, the Cushitic, Nilotic, Bantu and Semitic peoples of this area are either similar or linked culturally. Besides, as mentioned above, they have been trading among themselves for millennia. It was colonialism that interfered, for some decades, with these linkages by establishing Belgian, British, French and Portuguese colonies in the different parts of this vast region.
It is good that we have re-assembled this region under the ICGLR, COMESA and EAC.
The conflicts that have afflicted this area are actually linked. They, essentially, came from three sources as indicated below:

(i)the colonial manipulation of the indigenous castes (occupational specializations) of Rwanda and Burundi in the colonial period, climaxing into the first genocide organized by the Belgians in Rwanda in 1959 and 1960;
(ii)the wrong foreign and domestic policies of Mobutu of, on the other hand, harbouring enemies of neighbours (Angola, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, Brazaville) and, on the other hand, denying the rights of some of their own people as not being Congolese; and
(iii)the failure by the people of Sudan (the former United Sudan) to resolve the issues of their diversity resulting in the prolonged civil war in that country, involving eventually, Uganda.
The Belgian sponsored genocide of 1959-60 in Rwanda created a Tutsi diaspora that dispersed in the region (Uganda, Congo, Burundi and Tanzania).
After being told by Kayibanda and Habyarimaana for 30 years that they can never go back to their country because the people who had remained in Rwanda and taken their property had multiplied and, therefore, there was no space for them in the country of their heritage, they organized (under the RPF) and launched the attack of 1990 on Rwanda. The sectarian and bankrupt Hutu regime, spurred on by the greedy foreigners who are always hovering around with a lot of confusion and shallowness, thought that genocide was the solution to the “Tutsi” problem ─ just like Hitler with the Jews of Europe. Hence, to the bankrupt Hutu regime of Rwanda, there was a “Tutsi” problem, just like to Hitler was a “Jewish” problem in Europe. The second genocide of Rwanda of 1994 did not save the Hutu regime. The Hutu regime fled with a million people to Goma, Congo, with arms. With Mobutu’s support, they were threatening to re-invade Rwanda and finish their genocide programme. That is what started the first Congo war of 1996 that resulted in the down fall of Mobutu. Apart from Mobutu threatening to re-launch the Hutu reactionaries into Rwanda, he had also started a campaign against the Banyarwanda of Eastern Congo, especially the Tutsi ─ targeting a group known as Banyamulenge.
Up to now the presence of the Rwanda genocidaires in Eastern Congo has not been solved ─ leading to endless problems such as the 2ndCongo war, the Nkunda uprising, the M-23, etc. All these have been linked to the original problem of the Rwandese genocidaires in Eastern Congo. Yet, this should never have been a problem if there was clarity. In order to avoid the Hutu diaspora of 1994 substituting for the Tutsi diaspora of 1959, the solution should have involved the right of return by those new exiles but with accountability for the crimes they committed using a graduated scale of separating the misleaders from the misled and being harsh on the former and lenient on the latter. If there are those that did not want to go back to Rwanda, they should have been removed from the border to deep inside Congo and should have been disarmed. This has never been done conclusively. This must be done. All the other eruptions have been the consequences of this mistake and the one of denying the Banyarwanda of Eastern Congo, especially the Tutsi, either overtly or covertly, the inalienable right to the land of their ancestry. To deal with the consequences without dealing with the cause is not a durable solution.
Meanwhile, the failure to handle the issue of diversity in the Sudan had generated a Civil War right from 1956, at the dawn of Independence of that country. The Southern Sudanese who spearheaded the rebellion against the Arab Government of the whole of Sudan after independence were very closely linked to our own Nilotic and Bantu peoples of Uganda, Kenya, Congo, Tanzania and Ethiopia. Therefore, some of the elements in Khartoum were always very suspicious of the neighbours. When our Movement won the protracted civil war in Uganda in 1986, against the fascist dictators of Uganda (Idi Amin and groups), some elements in Khartoum declared it as un acceptable and resolved to remove us, by force of arms from Government. Working with remnants of the old regimes (Obote, Amin, etc), they sponsored two groups: Kony’s so called LRA (Lord’s Resistance Army) claiming to be Christians and ADF (Allied Democratic Front) claiming to establish Islamic fundamentalist rule in Uganda which is 86% Christian and where the tribes mainly practiced symbiosis of barter trade even before colonialism, apart from some few inter-tribal wars that were being promoted by myopic chiefs. We defeated the two groups. Where did they flee to? They fled to the poorly controlled areas of Eastern Congo and CAR. At one time, the Congo Government allowed us to flush Kony out of Garamba National Park.Otherwise, there has been the exercise of terrorism conservation in Eastern Congo supervised by the UN all these years ─ since 2003 when our army withdrew from Congo under the Lusaka Agreement. Fortunately, we are working well with the Congo Government to end the presence of the ADF in Eastern Congo and also our problems with Khartoum have improved.
Last year, the democratically elected Government of CAR was removed by a bankrupt, reactionary group known as Seleka while regional forces looked on. This bankrupt group entered the heavily populated Bangui, murdered people, raped women and looted the meagre properties of those already impoverished people. This is a real betrayal of our people. Why should we allow or tolerate armed groups overthrowing elected Governments in African unless they show that they are fighting genocidaires? After all, we should not forget that Hitler was elected in 1933. Even elected Governments can lose legitimacy if they do not respect, especially, the right to life and property. You cannot say that an elected Government has a right to kill people extra-judicially or loot their property.
Now that that bankrupt regime has collapsed in Bangui, I hope new problems will not be created for the people of CAR by those who are wheeling and dealing targeting the natural resources of CAR. Let the people elect their leaders freely, without interference or manipulation and let the elected leaders respect the legitimate interests of all the citizens of the country without discrimination.
Recently, we had an outbreak of serious fighting in our young brother country of South Sudan . There are two versions of how that fighting started. The Government says that there was an attempted coup which was defeated in Juba but spreading to the Provinces: Bentiu, Jonglei and Malkal. The opposition says that it is the Government that provoked the fighting by trying to disarm some of the soldiers on a sectarian basis. The truth will come out with time. What is clear is that the problem started within the SPLM, the ruling party, as a power struggle. You detect ideological, organizational and discipline issues in this situation. Why should there be sectarian undertones or overtones in a political debate? Why should intraparty matters go public before they are resolved within the party? Why should we have so many reported killings, lootings of people’s property, etc. but never hear of soldiers who are executed for committing those crimes by the different actors in these situations? We were able to stabilize Uganda in security terms but also in politics by disciplining the Army. You kill a person or you rape a woman, you are a dead person in the very place where you committed the crime.
Coming back to the issue of whether there was an attempted coup in South Sudan or not, the question is: “If Riak Macher did not plan a coup in Juba, then why did his supporters capture Malakal, Bor, Akobo, etc?” The SPLA has flushed them out of Bentiu and Malakal. Only the other day, 13th of January, the SPLA and elements of our army had a big battle with these rebel troops at a point about 90 kms from Juba where we inflicted a big defeat on them. Unfortunately, many lives were lost on the side of the rebels. We also took casualties and also had some dead. By yesterday evening, the Government of South Sudan, with the support from our troops, had regained control of Jemeza and the SPLA troops, on their own , had gone ahead to Sudan Safaari. In my opinion, if Riak Machar had not planned a coup and it had all been mistakes on the Government side, he could have done two things: withdraw to a remote area of the country to avoid attack and to start talks unconditionally so as to resolve the problem quickly and not to protract it. The SPLM party should resolve their disagreements within those structures. If some people are not satisfied with the SPLM, they should go out and form another Party and the Government should neither stop them nor impede them. However, to turn a political problem into a military one, having mismanaged the political problem itself in the first place is not acceptable.
In my view, the problems, of the Great Lakes, as already stated have been ideological, organizational and the discipline of the actors. The manipulation of tribes and religions is a pseudo ideology ─ is a false ideology ─ not reflecting the interests of the people but those of the opportunists and parasites ─ spurred on by foreign interests.
I always like to use the example of my tribe the Banyankore, who are cattle keepers and grow bananas, coffee and tea. How does my tribe benefit me as an individual producer of the four commodities? I produce milk and beef and so do my neighbours. They cannot buy from me because they are producing similar products and nor can I buy from them. The people who make me rich and prosperous are the people of Kampala, the people of Kigali in Rwanda, the people of Nairobi in Kenya, the people of Bukoba and Mwanza in Tanzania, the people of Juba in South Sudan, the people of Eastern Congo and Burundi, who buy my milk and beef. The only support the people of my tribe render me, is that by producing similar products in big volumes, they make processing and marketing easy. Even if I only cared about my tribe, I would have to care about the whole of Uganda, the whole of East African, the whole of the Great Lakes because it is those that give us prosperity by buying what is produced in my locality. It is, therefore, the parasites that promote this pseudo ─ ideology. With the conflicts in Eastern Congo and South Sudan, the food prices in Uganda have collapsed to the detriment of the farmers that were getting used to the higher prices because of the bigger demand in the region. It is only the parasites who do not engage in production that do not see these issues.
The last problem of the Great Lakes is lack of infrastructure ─ roads, the railways, electricity, piped water and ICT backbone. It shows you the great potential of the region that business is booming, provided there is peace, even when the infrastructure is absent. What would happen if there was peace, infrastructure and free ─ trade? The sky would be the limit.

Down with the pseudo–ideology, down with opportunism, down with parasitism, down with the indiscipline and impunity of soldiers and long live infrastructure development, peace and socio transformation of the Great Lakes.
I am always very happy to come to Luanda, Angola, because I started working with the MPLA in 1967 in Dar-es-Salaam with Dr. Augustinho Noto, Dr. Boavida and other comrades. I am always very happy to associate with the old freedom fighters in Angola, Tanzania, Mozambique, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Namibia, etc. It is always a pleasure to be here.
I thank Your Excellencies.

15th January, 2014Luanda

Ban Slams Threats Against UN Personnel In South Sudan

UNITED NATIONS, Jan 20 (Bernama) -- United Nations (UN) secretary-general Ban Ki-moon has threats made against UN staff in South Sudan, urging all parties in the ongoing conflict to respect the sanctity of UN bases where civilians are seeking shelter.

"Ban is alarmed at the attempt today by senior members of the South Sudan government and army to force entry into the civilian protection site at the United Nations Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS)'s compound in Bor," said a statement issued by Ban's spokesperson.

UNMISS has been providing protection for nearly 70,000 civilians at its bases including in Bor in Jonglei state since conflict erupted in the world's youngest country over a month ago, Xinhua news agency reported.

The statement said Ban is especially disturbed that UN staff were threatened by the South Sudan military after they refused to allow armed soldiers to accompany civilians to visit the UNMISS protection site.

Ban said Sunday's incident is just one of a growing number of violations of the Status of Forces Agreement, making it increasingly difficult for UNMISS to implement its mandate and highly risky for UN staff working in South Sudan.

"The secretary-general calls on the parties and their respective leaders to do far more to ensure that fighters under their command protect civilians and respect international humanitarian law," the statement said.

On Saturday, the South Sudan army said it had recaptured the strategic town of Bor held by rebels loyal to former vice-President Riek Machar.

Since mid-December, South Sudan has witnessed clashes between two military factions -- one descending from the Dinka tribe to which South Sudan President Salva Kiir Mayardit belongs and the other from the Nuer tribe to which Machar belongs.

Clashes have left more than 1,000 people dead and nearly 500,000 civilians displaced.



Facts About President Kiir and M7 Agreement

Uganda's Museveni (left), South Sudan's Kiir (right).Photo credit: Uganda’s Yoweri Museveni and South Sudan’s Salva Kiir (New Vision)
By Kolong Thieng
January 17, 2014 (SSNA) -- My dear readers globally, I would like to bring in to your attention about what is currently going on between the President of the Republic of Uganda and the small dictator in the Republic of South Sudan known by the name Salva Kiir. Many people are asking themselves what is behind the two gentlemen. And for your information, the two have agreed on some terms and conditions in order to make their progress to prosper well.
The agreement entered in to on January 10th last year bears the signature of Defense Minister Crispus Kiyonga on behalf of Uganda and an unnamed South Sudanese official, whose designation is also not shown.
It also makes no mentioned of the signatories and witness by the commanders and foreign affairs officials of the two Countries. Realistically, who is this Commander and foreign Affairs official who signed on behalf of the Republic of South Sudan? Base on my own judgment, the commander was General Hoth Mai, who is the current Chief of General Staff for the Sudan People Liberation Army (SPLA) and the former Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation Hon Nhial Deng Nhial.
The seven page agreement is silent on who would meet the cost of war but mentions that Uganda would use its own military equipment and allow it freely move its militarily gear in to South Sudan. Uganda also undertakes in the agreement to compensate any third party claims arising from acts or omission by its soldiers. But either South Sudan or Uganda shall make any claims suffered by its servicemen or for damage or loss of properties during the war.
It also makes no mention of compensation of families of the UPDF soldiers that might die in line duty.
Base on over issues, will President Kiir and his Counterpart Museveni will survive from International Community?
The objective of the agreement based on the document they signed is to kill Nuer people very well in South Sudan and to use their guys who are money minded persons to help us to fight them and afterward no one will disturb you in leadership because other communities in South Sudan have no legitimacy in term of responding or opposing you, President Museveni told Kiir.
Furthermore, one of Ugandan that I studied with him some years back told me something through phone and sends me an email that entails the agreement between Kiir and Museveni on how they should share oil money in order to achieve their interest in time to come.
The agreement was designed in two ways; one was the money that President Museveni should get from the oil production in 2014 from Kiir government in Juba because Museveni is waiting for 2016 general elections where he is also looking for another term in the office and therefore caution his food friend (Kiir) to look in to that very fast before sending any troops to South Sudan.
Second was the agreement on how much should each soldier get in a day, because incase soldier died in the frontline, they agreed on one hundred dollar per a day to each soldier who will be in South Sudan.
Thirdly was the pocket money to the Uganda members of parliament especially National Resistance Movement stakeholders including the speaker of Uganda and Kiir and Musevni agreed on 3 million Uganda shilling to be send to each individual account so that they can approved the deployment of UPDF forces in the Republic of South Sudan without fail and that indeed happened.
The way am viewing President of the Republic of South Sudan Gen Salva Kiir Mayardit and Museveeni of Uganda, I got confused due to the fact that, they made a gentlemen agreement that have lost many Ugandans in the frontline between Juba and Magala where the forces loyal to Dr Machar and General Gatdet are at the moment. According to rebels they have reported that, they have killed many Ugandans in frontline and captured some of them alive.
Facts about their agreement
President Museeveni was given million dollars to be used as the money for his campaign in 2016 elections and the pocket money for president Yoweri and to convene some of the members of the parliament that might bring noise to the people of the Republic of Uganda but particularly to the National Resistance Movement (NRM) members of parliament excluding the opposition mps of the Republic of Uganda, which happened because on Monday this week, money were send to the various accounts of Uganda Members of Parliament especially the ruling party members.
And within the agreement they have indicated the amount of money to be given to each soldier day and they have signed the memorandum of understanding (MOU) based on the terms and conditions that no one from them will break in one way or the other. Each soldier is getting one hundred (100) dollar equivalent to four hundred and fifty South Sudanese pounds (450) in a black market rate. They further agreed that, the Uganda People Defense Forces (UPDF) and the Sudan People Liberation Army (SPLA) will be given the same uniform and fighting code in order to avoid confusion among the soldiers. They also agreed on the elimination of the Nuer society in the territory of the Republic of South Sudan, by using their men who are money hearted people who will not think of their tribe and the integrity of their community.
President Museveni assures Kiir that, these small Nuer who are still with you in the Army should be motivated in order for them to fight with their people so that, if any one claims we will be able to defend the interest of Uganda and South Sudan properly.
Furthermore, they also agreed on the people who were detained not to be release because two out of the eleven were killed by President Kiir after the meeting of IGAD in Juba last year December 2013. They are fearing to release the rests because question might come where are the rests of the political detainees, therefore they have agreed not to disclosed the information to any one because he (Kiir) and Museveni) are fearing International Community.
What might fail their agreement?
Basically, when you look in to the current fighting that is ongoing between Uganda combined together with Sudan People Liberation Army soldiers that are loyal to President Kiir and the Nuer Society, you will find that, President Museveni and the Ugandans will one day, one time will ask for the compensations from Kiir of his soldiers who have been lost in the fighting especially between Bor and Juba.
Based on what am projecting, Kiir leadership has come to an end even though what might be the perceptions of other people because we can just look at the current fighting that have spread all over the Country. The momentum and the velocity that the forces that are in Central Equatoria especially in Magala from Dr Machar loyalists , you will agree with me that, no Army will defeat them because they have so far defeated more than 30,000 troops from Museveni and Kiir respectively.
Keys recommendations
The only possible way I am seeing, is only for President Kiir to step down like the President of Central African Republic who resign last week because the way I am viewing the all scenario is that most of the Nuer warriors have combined and no one will defeated them I tell you.
Secondly, if Kiir is wise he should apology to the entire Nuer community for what had happened, maybe he should be allow to be in South Sudan territory after Juba is capture.
The author is currently lives in Australia, he can be reached at;


 Juba-Kampala Military Accord Long Planned

South Sudan’s Kiir (left), Uganda’s Museveni (right). Photo credit: Images/File
Kampala, January 16, 2014 (SSNA) -- Uganda’s media reports revealed that South Sudan and Uganda have signed a military contract long before fighting broke out in Juba late last year.
South Sudan, the world’s newest nation entered into military accord with Uganda on the 10th of January 2013, just over eleven months before fighting erupted in Juba on December 15, 2013. The South Sudan News Agency cannot independently verify the date the agreement was signed.
The pact declares that Ugandan soldiers who commit crimes in South Sudan will not be prosecuted or punished and denies benefits to the families of Ugandan soldiers killed in South Sudan, according the Daily Monitor Newspaper (Uganda).
“Member of visiting forces shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the sending state’s law and courts in respect of any disciplinary or criminal offences which may be committed by them in the territory of the Hose state”, the agreement says.
“In case the host State establishes any member of a visiting force has committed any criminal act in the territory of the Host State, the Host State shall promptly inform the sending state of the alleged criminal act of its member and avail the sending state material evidence pertaining to the criminal act alleged”, the document reads in part.
The military pact bears the name of Uganda’s Defense minister, Crispus Kiyonga. However, the treaty does not provide a person's name on behalf of the Republic of South Sudan; raising questions as to why a sovereign nation should sign such a colossal treaty without making it public.
Earlier this week, Uganda’s president Yoweri Museveni admits that Ugandan troops are helping South Sudanese President Salva Kiir fight rebels.
Uganda has been widely suspected of fighting alongside with forces loyal to President Kiir. Most South Sudanese believe that Yoweri Museveni has chosen Kiir’s side. The recent disclosure over Kampala's military participation in South Sudan could further fuel the conflict.


A Ugandan soldier looks worried as he's deployed in no man's land in South Sudan.
A Ugandan soldier looks worried as he’s deployed in no man’s land in South Sudan.
By Nkonge I Ismail in Kampala
Just a few days after the Ugandan parliament moved a motion supporting the sending of Ugandan troops to the embattled youngest country in the world, South Sudan, doubts are being raised as to the relevance and status of the agreement between Uganda and South Sudan to deploy Ugandan troops to the embattled new country.
The London Evening Post has learned that while the agreement presented to parliament by Uganda’s Defence Minister Crispus Kiyonga clearly shows he signed it on behalf of the Ugandan government, there is no sign that Dr Kiyonga’s counterpart, Kuol Manyang Juuk, put pen to paper on the same agreement. Speaking to The London Evening Post, the Vice Chairman of the country’s parliamentary committee on defence, Mr Muwanga Kivumbi said the agreement presented to the House last week by Dr Kiyonga is full of loopholes whereby parliament is still in the dark as to who signed the agreement on behalf of South Sudan.
The discrepancy has forced parliament to recall Dr Kiyonga to explain to the parliamentary committee on defence why South Sudan’s signature doesn’t appear on the agreement. Dr Kiyonga has now been summoned once more to appear before the committee next Wednesday to explain the discrepancies and also state exactly what the Uganda Peoples Defence Forces (UPDF) is doing in South Sudan.
Dr Kiyonga’s summons come a day after his boss, Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni threw the spanner in the works when he admitted Wednesday that the UPDF was actually fighting rebel troops loyal to former South Sudan President Riek Machar. Kivumbi said though bilaterally Uganda is safe, but having the UPDF in South Sudan fighting the very country that has asked Ugandan for assistance, could be rather tricky. Troops loyal to Dr Machar have already accused Uganda of using helicopter gunships to bombard areas under the control of the rebels.
While attending a meeting of the International Conference on the Great Lakes Region (ICGLR) Wednesday, President Museveni boasted his army had bombed and captured rebel-held positions resulting in heavy losses ‘to the rebels’ and some deaths among the Ugandan army. Ugandan officials had previously denied taking any part in combat, insisting their troops were evacuating stranded Ugandans and helping protect the airport and the presidential palace in South Sudan’s capital Juba.
The committee members, most especially opposition members of parliament led by the Forum for Democratic Change’s Semujju Nganda, wondered at the degree of negligence used to sign the agreement which doesn’t cater for casualties, loss of soldiers on the mission and even equipment. He said Ugandan citizens are set to pay for problems of another country. He told the committee that Uganda always gets onto wars only to lose financially. He gave an example of when Tanzania helped fight Idi Amin in 1979. “Up to today Uganda is paying debts to Tanzania even when the agreement is not known to Ugandans.
In the meantime, South Sudan’s rebels have demanded that Uganda stop supporting government forces as a condition for signing a ceasefire to end fighting that has riven Africa’s youngest nation, a spokesman said on Thursday. Kampala’s military involvement has annoyed Ethiopia, which is hosting peace talks, and raised worries that it could expand a conflict that, according to one independent estimate, may have killed up to 10,000 people since it erupted in mid-December. Peace talks aimed at ending the fighting between Kiir’s forces and supporters of Riek Machar, who was sacked as vice president in July, are being sponsored by the regional African body IGAD in the Ethiopian capital Addis Ababa.
“IGAD has our complaint. The foreign troops have complicated the conflict so I think it’s also a matter of common sense for them to withdraw,” said Mabior Garang, a spokesman for Machar’s delegation attending the Addis Ababa talks. “These are sticking points that the government does not want to move away from,” he said. A member of Kiir’s delegation, who declined to be named, said: “We have a military pact with Uganda. The status of our cooperation should only be discussed among the two governments, not with a rebel group.”
The two sides’ delegations have so far made no obvious sign of progress towards a ceasefire deal. The Kiir government has previously rejected rebel demands that 11 detained politicians allied to Machar be released before a ceasefire is signed. Juba insists they must be investigated. The rebels have since said that freeing detainees is not a precondition for a ceasefire. They are now focusing on Uganda’s role and have also demanded the end of a state of emergency imposed by Kiir on the strategic regions of Jonglei state and the oil producing states of Upper Nile and Unity.
Uganda backed the SPLA, now led by Kiir, during the South’s years of war with the Sudanese government in Khartoum. South Sudan declared independence in 2011, after a 2005 peace deal with Khartoum. Machar has accused Uganda of staging air strikes against his supporters. Museveni has threatened Machar with defeat if he does not accept a ceasefire. He has also said Machar should withdraw “to a remote area of the country to avoid attack and to start talks unconditionally so as to resolve the problem quickly”.
The late Col Patrick Karegeya with his wife during happiuer times. He was found strangled in a hotel room in Johannesburg on News Year's Day.
The late Col Patrick Karegeya with his wife during happier times. He was found strangled in a hotel room in Johannesburg on News Year’s Day.
The United States says it is deeply worried about threats made by Rwandan President Paul Kagame against political opponents after one of his exiled critics was found murdered in a hotel room in South Africa. “We are troubled by the succession of what appear to be politically motivated murders of prominent Rwandan exiles,” State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said on Thursday, condemning the recent killing in Johannesburg of Rwanda’s former Director of External Intelligence, Patrick Karegeya.
Relatives of the former spy chief and other exiled opponents of Kagame blame the Rwandan president for Karegeya’s murder, saying this the latest in a systematic policy of assassination of foes and defectors by the Kigali government. Kagame and his administration flatly deny any involvement in the death of Karegeya, whose body, apparently strangled after a meeting with a mysterious business associate, was found in a posh Johannesburg hotel on New Year’s Eve. South African police have said they are investigating but have not yet announced any arrests, despite confused reports of a group of Rwandan suspects being detained in Mozambique.
Last weekend, Kagame, who has won Western praise for rebuilding Rwanda after the 1994 genocide there, defended his nation’s right to self-defence against those who “betray”. “We didn’t do it, but my question is; shouldn’t we have done it?” Kagame said at a January 12 prayer breakfast, clearly referring to the Karegeya case but without naming him. “No one will betray Rwanda and get away with it. Regardless of who you are, there will be consequences,” he added.
State Department spokeswoman Psaki said these comments by Kagame were viewed with “deep concern” by the United States. She delivered the diplomatic reprimand as the U.S. military started flying 850 Rwandan troops into Central African Republic, helping to shore up a struggling French and African peacekeeping operation that is trying to halt a wave of killings in the former French colony.
Over the past two decades, several foes of Kagame have been murdered by assassins in Africa and elsewhere, casting a pall of suspicion over his government even as it won lavish praise from Western leaders for being a model aid recipient and a staunch ally in trying to secure peace across restive Africa. Analysts say Kagame bolsters Rwanda’s standing with the West by providing peacekeeping troops for hotspots such as Darfur, South Sudan and more recently, the Central African Republic.
The United States and most of Europe are loath to send their own troops to such zones, wary of domestic pushback. “By doing these kind of jobs the Rwandans do sort of defend themselves against accusations of them being naughty in the DRC, or of being less than democratic at home,” South African defense and military analyst Helmoed Romer Heitman, who is an expert on African peacekeeping, told Reuters. Opponents of Kagame at home and in exile say he runs an authoritarian state that does not flinch from silencing foes.
Kagame’s government has brushed off repeated accusations by U.N. experts that it backed last year’s insurgency by Tutsi-led M23 rebels in neighbouring Democratic Republic of Congo, where Kigali has intervened militarily before on national security grounds. Western officials say Rwanda’s denials are not credible, and U.S. and European governments imposed punitive measures on Kigali to pressure it to halt its support for M23.
While no direct evidence has emerged to link Rwanda’s government to Karegeya’s killing, Kagame’s own comments indicate he is not troubled about angering donors or putting at risk foreign aid when he feels national security is at stake. “I really don’t feel the necessity for politeness on this issue, no need for being diplomatic, of being politically correct,” Kagame said last weekend. “They feel they can operate with a degree of impunity,” a Western security source who knew Karegeya well told Reuters, asking not to be named. “They have gone from hunting genocidaires to hunting their own people,” the source added.
Karegeya fled to South Africa in 2007 after allegedly plotting a coup against Kagame with former Rwandan army chief Faustin Kayumba Nyamwasa, also exiled there. In 2010, Nyamwasa was shot in the stomach as he drove into his Johannesburg home, surviving what his family said was an assassination attempt ordered by Kagame. Kigali denied this.
In 1998, another exiled Kagame opponent, former interior minister Seth Sendashonga, was shot dead in Nairobi. Here too, Rwanda’s government denied allegations it was responsible. Theogene Rudasingwa, Rwanda’s former ambassador to Washington who along with Karegeya, Nyamwasa and others formed the opposition Rwanda National Congress (RNC), told Reuters Western governments shared the blame for Kagame’s policies, because they “protected (him) and have not helped Africa to bring him to account for the crimes he commits”.
The rebuke by Rwanda’s biggest national donor comes as the tiny state – which punches well above its weight in Africa’s turbulent politics – is winning Western plaudits by contributing peacekeepers to yet another conflict zone on the continent, Central African Republic. The U.S. military on Thursday flew a first detachment of Rwandan soldiers into the Central African Republic to bolster African Union peacekeeping efforts, a Pentagon spokesman said.
Colonel Steve Warren told Reuters that 70 Rwandan troops had been transported. He said the operation would last three weeks and would airlift a total of 800 troops from Rwanda into the former French colony using two C-17 U.S. military aircraft based in Uganda. The Central African Republic descended into chaos after a mostly Muslim rebel coalition, Seleka, seized power in March, unleashing a wave of killings and looting that sparked revenge attacks by an “anti-balaka” Christian militia. More than a million people have been displaced by the violence since Seleka installed their leader Michel Djotodia as interim president. More than 1,000 people were killed last month alone in the capital Bangui. France in December hurriedly deployed roughly 1,600 French troops to help African peace keeping forces.
The U.S. airlift operation moving the additional Rwandan forces would be very similar to the mission the American military carried out last month, moving forces from Burundi into the Central African Republic. There has been relative calm since Djotodia’s resignation under intense international pressure last week, but sporadic violence has persisted in Bangui. Neighbouring African states have evacuated more than 30,000 of their citizens. The commander of French forces, General Francisco Soriano, told a video conference in Paris on Thursday that the security situation was improving but remained “extremely complicated and very volatile”.


Uganda: Museveni Admits Uganda Military Involvement in S. Sudan Conflict.

Kampala — President Yoweri Museveni on Wednesday revealed that the Uganda army have been actively fighting South Sudanese rebels led by the former vice-president Riek Machar.
Museveni also disclosed that Ugandan soldiers were killed and others injured when the Ugandan Peoples Defence Forces (UPDF) engaged the rebels just 90 kilometres outside Juba, just a day before Parliament approved Uganda's deployment in the world's youngest nation.
He added that the Ugandan soldiers were killed and others injured when the UPDF engaged the rebels just 90 kilometers outside Juba.
"Only the other day, January 13, the SPLA and elements of our army had a big battle with the rebel troops about 90km from Juba where we inflicted a big lost on the side of the rebels. We also took casualties and had some dead," he added without giving figures.
South Sudan's former vice-president Riek Machar denounced two days ago the direct involvement of the Ugandan troops fighting against his forces alongside Salva Kiir's army. He demanded their withdrawal from the country as a condition to accept the cessation of hostilities.
Machar also said on Tuesday the combined SPLA and Ugandan troops backed by six UPDF helicopter gunships, dozens of tanks and other heavy artilleries were defeated near Mongala in Central Equatoria state on Juba-Bor road.
President Museveni's admission of direct involvement came while he was addressing the heads of state during the International Conference on the Great Lakes Region in the Angolan capital of Luanda on Wednesday.
The admission by President Museveni that Uganda is fighting on the side of President Salva Kiir confirms claims by MPs that Uganda was actively involved in fighting in South Sudan and had lost soldiers in the crisis that started December 15 in Juba.
The army had severally denied it is involved in any combat operations in South Sudan.
Questioned about the developments, Defence minister Crispus Kiyonga deflected the question to the army spokesperson, Lt Col Paddy Ankunda, who said: "Well, the President has said it." He added: "Details are scanty at the moment but all I can say is that our forces had a very successful battle."
Speaking at the International Conference on the great Lakes Region, Mr Museveni said by yesterday [Tuesday] evening, the government of South Sudan, with the support from UPDF, had regained control of Jemeza [in Central Equatoria state on Juba-Bor road].
He also accused former south Sudan vice president Machar of planning and executing the failed coup. "... the question is: "If Riek Machar did not plan a coup in Juba, then why did his supporters capture Malakal, Bor, Akobo, etc?"
However, Machar dismissed the alleged coup attempt, saying the fighting between president guards was used as a ploy by Salva Kiir to get rid of his political opponents within the ruling party. Many South Sudanese also believe that president Museveni masterminded the plan duped as a failed coup.
In testimony to Congress, assistant secretary of state for African affairs, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, on Wednesday confirmed the involvement of the Ugandan army in the current conflict in South Sudan.
Answering a question by Congressman Randy Weber, she said the Ugandan told Washington they want to protect Key structures in Juba Nimule road which leads to Uganda and Juba airport.
"They indicated they have an interest in a stable South Sudan but also said they have an interest in ensuring that a democratically elected government is not overturned by violent means", she added.
Weber was the only congressman during the hearing to raise the Ugandan intervention in the inter South Sudan conflict, others including the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee stopped on the possible Sudanese role in the conflict but Greenfield dismissed any involvement from Khartoum side.
However during her presentation to the committee she was keen to omit mentioning the name of the Sudanese mediator Mohamed Ahmed al-Dabi who is the third member of the IGAD panel of mediators to end the conflict.
"We are encouraged by IGAD's leadership in convening the parties and strongly support the efforts of former Ethiopian Minister Seyoum Mesfin and Kenyan General Lazaro Sumbeiywo to find a peaceful solution through political dialogue", she said.


Why South Sudan fighting is bad news for Uganda
South Sudan president Salva Kiir (R) and his former deputy Riek Machar at t

South Sudan president Salva Kiir (R) and his former deputy Riek Machar at the country’s independence celebrations. Kiir has blamed Machar for the current war in the country, saying he was attempting a coup. Photo by Agencies
By Eriasa Mukiibi Sserunjogi

Posted Sunday, December 22 2013 at 02:00
In Summary
Analysts say, if the conflict in the newly independent state escalates, Uganda could register both human and material loss.

Juba- The fears that greeted the independence of the new republic of South Sudan in July 2011 – that the country could descend into chaos partly due to friction between the two major ethnic groups – has become a reality in the last one week since fighting broke out in the capital Juba.
What President Salva Kiir’s government initially called a coup attempt by a group led by his main rival and former vice president, Mr Riek Machar, quickly spread to other parts of the country, with the key town of Bor – 200km from Juba – falling to the mutineers.
The US and Britain evacuated their nationals and Uganda sent rescue troops to Juba to facilitate the evacuation of its citizens and other nationals which started earlier in the week as the situation threatens to run out of control.
Danger of simmering conflict
The Uganda government statement indicated that Mr Henry Okello Oryem, the state minister for Foreign Affairs in charge of International Affairs, had travelled to Juba as part of an African Union ministerial team “to engage the South Sudan authorities in finding a political solution to the problem”.
Questions may be posed as to whether the most potent delegation to get the rivalling groups in South Sudan to talk should be composed of foreign ministers alone – in Uganda’s case a state minister.
Observers say that the confrontation always seemed imminent since July when President Kiir fired his entire cabinet, including vice president Machar.
The fact that half a year had passed since Mr Kiir fired the cabinet but no major effort had been made to mediate between the rival sides, calls into question the role of key partner states, particularly Uganda and the other countries of the East African Community (EAC).
South Sudan has shown intention to join the EAC and majority of the partner states welcomed it, with Mr Kiir attending some key meetings of the bloc.
Maj Gen Mugisha Muntu, the president of Ugandan opposition party FDC, thinks the EAC states need to “move in fast enough so that the situation does not escalate”.
The EAC needs to craft a common position on how they can help South Sudan,” says Gen Muntu, arguing that the infant country should be guided to learn from history as it manages the early years of independence.
Gen Muntu also says the EAC must be honest. “The EAC countries should engage South Sudan not on the basis of how to outmanoeuvre one another for influence but to genuinely seek to guide the country on how to move forward,” he said.
Uganda and Kenya are thought to be jostling for influence over South Sudan, particularly concerning key partnerships and contracts like the joint construction of an oil refinery.
Uganda wanted to partner with South Sudan to build a refinery but it was outdone by Kenya, with the planned refinery at Lamu expected to handle the crude oil from South Sudan.
Implications of the war
Reports indicate that President Museveni has been in contact with Mr Kiir since the fighting broke out but details on whether the engagements were making any breakthrough were scanty by the time of writing this report.
Uganda is among the principal stakeholders in the South Sudan situation, for should the young country descend into chaos, Uganda will have another front of its border to watch closely.
The tense situation in Eastern DR Congo is a drain on the Ugandan security, and therefore finances, yet a contingent of the Uganda Peoples Defence Forces is still active in Somalia.
An unstable South Sudan could offer sanctuary to rebel groups, like the example of Joseph Kony’s Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) shows.
South Sudan was viewed as a buffer between Uganda and Sudan following the decades-long conflict between the two countries in which Uganda backed the Sudanese Liberation Movement which won the
independence of South Sudan while Sudan backed the LRA.
If, as it is feared, the country is torn apart by ethnic wrangles or bad politics, decades of attempts for independence from Sudan – at great material and human cost – will have been wasted. And should this happen, Uganda will be among the big losers.
History of civil wars in South Sudan
As Sudan prepared to gain independence from joint British and Egyptian rule in 1956, southern leaders accused the new authorities in Khartoum of backing out of promises to create a federal system, and of trying to impose an Islamic and Arabic identity.
In 1955, southern army officers mutinied, sparking off a civil war between the south, led by the Anya Nya guerrilla movement, and the Sudanese government. The conflict only ended when the Addis Ababa peace agreement of 1972 accorded the south a measure of autonomy.
But, in 1983, the south, led by the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) and its armed wing, the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA), again rose in rebellion when the Sudanese government cancelled the autonomy arrangements.
The conflict finally ended with the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement, under which the south was granted regional autonomy along with guaranteed representation in a national power-sharing government. The agreement also provided for a referendum in the south on independence in 2011, in which 99 per cent of southern Sudanese voted to split from Sudan.


Al Jazeera America Op-ed: To understand the crisis in the CAR, beware of familiar narratives

Protestors carry a sign reading 'Resign Djotodia,' in CAR.
Editor's Note: This op-ed originally appeared on Al Jazeera America.
The Central African Republic’s interim president and rebel leader, Michel Djotodia, was forced to resign today at a two-day summit in the Chadian capital, Ndjamena. Djotodia, who seized power through a violet coup last march, has been under immense pressure by former colonial power France and the regional kingmaker Chad for failing to stop bloodshed and establish order in the Central African Republic (CAR).
Until recently, very few Americans had reason to pay attention to the CAR, an impoverished, landlocked country about the size of Texas with 4.4 million people. Shocking reports of mass killings and beheadings of children have opened a small window into the CAR’s most recent upheaval. Unfortunately, the international press has not provided a full and accurate view of the conflict. Observers are explaining the violence in terms of religious polarization between Muslims and Christians. While some of the killings are indeed motivated by religious identity, casting the conflict as principally religious oversimplifies a complex crisis and risks further polarization of an already divided society.
Institutional decay
The CAR has been a scene of both domestic instability and international neglect. It has seen five military coups and several rebellions since gaining independence from France in 1960. In 1966, Jean-Bedel Bokassa — a self-proclaimed emperor and president for life — deposed David Dacko, the country’s first president, and instituted a rule that was emblematic of the hyperpatrimonial African dictators of 1960s and ’70s. The decades that followed brought more military misrule, shallow democratization and a hollowing out of the state, which put the CAR on a downward development spiral. As a result, despite its mineral riches, the country stagnates near the bottom of the U.N. Human Development Index, which measures the level of development around the world using economic and social data. The CAR ranks 180th out of 186 countries on the index.
Years of institutional decay have left most Central Africans at the state’s margins, creating fertile ground for recurrent rebellion and violent coups. But the CAR crisis is not simply the result of domestic failures. External actors have repeatedly destabilized the country by exploiting its institutional weakness and political fault lines. France has consistently influenced political events in the CAR. On several occasions, it deployed French military forces to restore order, to safeguard its economic interests and install friendly regimes. Similarly, in order to serve their economic and regional security interests, neighboring Chad and Sudan had an equally long history of meddling in the CAR’s political affairs through direct military intervention and political support for warring factions. In 2003, Chad deployed soldiers from the elite presidential guard to help its erstwhile ally Francois Bozize overthrow President Ange-Felix Patasse, bringing an end to 10 years of relatively democratic rule — the first relatively stable regime in the CAR’s history.
Last March, the Seleka rebels, a 16-month-old coalition of five rebel groups from the marginalized northern part of the country, supported by mercenary fighters from Sudan and Chad, ousted Bozize without much effort. In a few months, the rebels threw out Bozize’s weak authoritarian regime. But the Seleka did not achieve total victory. To make matters worse, after remaining unrecognized as the CAR’s head of state, Djotodia stepped down amid emerging cracks in his Seleka rebel ranks. The rickety state before the Seleka’s arrival in the capital, Bangui, has now given way to total collapse despite the arrival of French troops and African Union peacekeepers.
Simplistic narrative
Out of this collapse emerges an easy-to-understand story of sectarian violence that pits “Muslim” Seleka rebels against “Christian” self-defense groups. To be sure, distilling complex phenomena down to a few components is journalism’s stock in trade. And the CAR fits a familiar formula — another frothing shambles on the Dark Continent giving in to its supposed primordial violent urges, creating vast numbers of refugees in need of international aid.
The problem here is not so much that these depictions confirm stereotypes of Africa. Of course they do. And it’s not even the intellectual laziness of the comfortable Muslims-versus-Christians narrative. The problem is that these stories risk fueling sectarian violence in a country where, historically, Muslims and Christians have coexisted in relative peace. They also obscure the underlying causes of multiple, overlapping conflicts and their solutions. Ending the “religious” fighting is a minor part of any strategy that would create long-term stability in the CAR.
Christopher Day is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at the College of Charleston.
Kasper Agger is a Uganda based Field Researcher with the Enough Project.
Read the full op-ed on Al Jazeera America.

Photo: Protestors carry a sign reading 'Resign Djotodia,' as they march to call for the president's resignation and the expulsion of Chadian peacekeepers in Bangui, Central African Republic (AP)

No comments: