Posts
President says Buganda caused 1966 crisis
HOIMA - President Museveni has accused the Kabaka of Buganda, Ronald Muwenda Mutebi II, of attempting to divide Ugandans along ethnic lines. This is the first time the President has openly accused the Kabaka of ethnic hatred – another indication of how wide the rift between his NRM government and Buganda Kingdom is growing.
Speaking during the 16th coronation anniversary celebrations of the Omukama of Bunyoro-Kitara Kingdom, Solomon Gafabusa Iguru, in Hoima on Friday, Museveni warned that he “will cut off” the head of any kingdom that oversteps its mandate and takes sides in partisan politics.
The President, speaking two days after two top advisors of the Kabaka, Joseph Mulwamyamuli Semwogerere and Dan Mulika, joined a coalition of opposition parties seeking to unseat him in next year’s elections, said kingdoms should stick to cultural issues and avoid politics.
“I have never baptised anyone, though I know how they baptise. I am a Christian but I do not baptise—that is not my role. We left that role to the clergy; so, cultural leaders should [also] play their roles,” he said.
“If the Kabaka thinks he can disunite our people, he is just dreaming; he should wake up; we cannot allow him even for a minute,” Museveni added.
“Kingdoms should play their roles outlined in the Constitution, Buganda inclusive. If any kingdom crosses its boundaries and interferes with my roles, I will cut off its head and there will be no case to answer,” Museveni said.
Delegations of Banyala from Bugerere and Baruli from Nakasongola clapped and cheered every time the President attacked the Buganda monarch. The Banyala and Baruli have declared autonomy from Buganda Kingdom—a move opposed by Buganda, which accuses the central government of propping up separatist groups in its territory.
The leader of the Banyala (Sabanyala), Baker Kimeze, attended the function during which he was recognised as a cultural leader by Bunyoro with rituals performed on him by Bunyoro’s chief prince, Albert Kasaija Okwir.
Buganda Kingdom, the biggest and best organised in Uganda, was not represented.
1966 CRISIS
The President said the 1966 Buganda crisis was caused by the kingdom itself when the Kabaka started interfering with the role of political leaders. He warned of a similar crisis if Mengo, the seat of Buganda Kingdom, does not stick to cultural issues.
This is the first time the President has accused Buganda of causing the crisis that led to the abolition of kingdoms and forced Kabaka Edward Mutesa II, the father of reigning monarch Ronald Muwenda Mutebi II, into exile. Previously, the President has accused the late former president, Apollo Milton Obote, of igniting the problem by abrogating the constitution. Analysts say the 1966 crisis is partly responsible for Uganda’s troubled history.
“It was not easy to convince my colleagues [in NRM] to have these kingdoms restored. We thought that kingdoms could work with modern governments if well handled, so they play their constitutional roles,” Museveni said.
He added that the Kabaka of Buganda has crossed his boundaries and warned that he might cause gloomy days for his kingdom.
Museveni accused Buganda, his major ally in the Luwero bush war that brought him to power in 1986, of doing nothing to develop the country but only promoting ethnic hatred.
“Mengo has used all [its] time dividing and disuniting people. What has Buganda helped Uganda [to achieve]? We shall isolate them,” Museveni warned.
DONATION
The President donated Shs 200 million to Bunyoro Kingdom for the construction of a perimeter wall around the palace. He said that since the country’s revenue base had grown, he would increase funding to cultural institutions.
The government currently gives cultural leaders Shs 5 million per month. He added that he has already tabled a proposal in Cabinet, seeking to approve increased funding to cultural institutions.
But the host, Solomon Gafabusa Iguru, called for the amendment of the laws governing the sharing the revenue from the newly discovered oil to enable the hosting cultural institutions get a share.
“Article 244 of the Petroleum Bill 2010 should be amended to give us, the cultural institutions, oil share.
The bill shares oil proceeds between the central and the local government, but this should be changed,” Iguru said.
Most of the two million barrels of oil so far discovered in Uganda is to be found in Bunyoro.
According to the king, the bill provides that 85% of the oil proceeds should go to the central government and 15% to local governments, yet cultural institutions that will shoulder environmental and other burdens have been left out.
SABANYALA ON BUGANDA
During the same function, Sabanyala Captain Baker Kimeze said the Banyala have their roots in Bunyoro and not Buganda.
“Our roots are in Bunyoro and not Buganda; so, we are home,” Kimeze said.
“We are the prodigal sons of Bunyoro and not Buganda; so, we have come home,” Kimeze added.
His declaration didn’t go unrewarded, as Bunyoro Kingdom handed him a traditional robe and the head of the Babito (royal clan) in the kingdom wrapped a barkcloth around the Sabanyala, saying it is a ritual that Bunyoro performs for all kings who have ties with Bunyoro.
Top Stories
Written by EDWARD SSEKIKA
Monday, 14 June 2010 05:49
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Friday, June 4, 2010
Briefing on the International Criminal Court Conference in Kampala, Uganda
Stephen J. Rapp
Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues
Harold Hongju Koh
Legal Advisor U.S. Department of State
Via Teleconference
Kampala, Uganda
June 2, 2010
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OPERATOR: Welcome. And I would like to thank you all for holding and inform you that your lines are in a listen-only during today’s conference until a question-and-answer session. At that time, to ask a question, you’ll press *1 on your touchtone phone.
And I’d now like to turn it to Gordon Duguid. Sir, you may begin.
MR. DUGUID: Thank you very much and welcome, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you all for calling in today. We are on the record today with the State Department Legal Adviser Harold Koh and Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues Stephen J. Rapp. They are in Kampala, Uganda working on the International Criminal Court Conference and are happy to take your questions on that subject. As the question comes to you, please remember to identify yourself and your media organization.
We have just about 25 minutes, so please limit your questions to one and that way we can try and get everyone in. Our participants will make a brief statement and then we’ll go to questions.
Professor Koh, would you like to begin, please?
MR. KOH: Yes, hi. It’s Harold Koh and Steve Rapp here from Kampala. We are the co-heads of delegation for an interagency group from the U.S. Government that’s attending the Review Conference for the International Criminal Court. It started on May 31st and it runs through June 11th.
For those of you who are not familiar with the history of the U.S. relationship with the court, in 1995, President Clinton endorsed the concept of an international criminal court. In 1998, in the first conference at Rome, the United States did not sign the statute that was developed there, the charter of the court. But by 2000, President Clinton had signed the Rome statute. In 2002, the Bush Administration sent a document, so-called, unsigning that acceptance. And then in 2005, the United States decided to allow the adoption of a resolution at the Security Council referring the situation in Darfur to the ICC prosecutor, Luis Moreno Ocampo, who’s an Argentinean national. By 2008, the Bush Administration had accepted the reality of the court – that’s their term – and steered away from, what they called – quote – “unnecessary wrangling over the issues that divide the ICC supporters and opponents.” And in 2009, Secretary Clinton said – quote – “We will end hostility toward the ICC and look for opportunities to encourage effective ICC action in ways that promote U.S. interests by bringing war criminals to justice.”
So we are here as part of three broader U.S. foreign policy initiatives. First, a broader diplomatic agenda of principled engagement with international institutions which you’re familiar from – with from our relationship with the Human Rights Council, the Copenhagen climate change talks, and a number of other multilateral diplomatic settings.
Secondly, we’re here as part of our long-term commitment to promoting accountability by supporting the responsible development of international mechanisms of criminal justice, the Yugoslav tribunal, the Rwanda tribunal, the Sierra Leone tribunal, and the Cambodia tribunal.
And third, we are here because of our awareness, as the President said in his Nobel Prize lecture, that at times the use of force must be lawful and necessary in the 21st century and, therefore, the discussion of the crime of aggression, which is being proposed as part of the amendment package, is of particular interest to us.
There are two items on the agenda essentially. There are some other amendments as well, but the key is stocktaking, evaluating the strength of the court in – after 12 years of history. The second is the crime of aggression and whether that crime ought to be adopted by – in whole or in part.
Yesterday, Ambassador Rapp gave an intervention on behalf of the delegation. It was our first intervention. We had previously attended introductory meetings in the Netherlands last November and in New York in March. And I’ll let Stephen talk about the presentation that he gave.
AMBASSADOR RAPP: And our presentation at all of those sessions emphasized the strong support of the United States Government for accountability for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity; our strong support of the Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone courts and other courts in which I myself and so many other Americans were involved; and a recognition that in the future, when it comes to situations where mass atrocities are committed and where there’s no possibility of achieving justice at the national level and you need to go to an international level to have accountability, it is the ICC where that will happen, that the rest of the world is unlikely to create sort of stand-alone institutions, which is the pattern from the 1900s.
For that reason, we want to look for ways to engage with the ICC to make sure that it’s effective. And the four cases that it’s taken on in Africa, through the end of March when we spoke at the conference in New York, in the DRC, in Uganda, in Sudan, in the Central African Republic, are situations that involve mass atrocities against civilians, situations in which it was far more dangerous to be an innocent woman or child than it was to be a soldier.
As the President said last week – and I quoted this in my speech yesterday – in signing bipartisan legislation to assist northern Uganda in recovering from the effects of Joseph Kony and the Lord’s Resistance Army, we support efforts to bring Joseph Kony and the leaders of the LRA to justice. That means for those that are indicted at the ICC that they need to be brought to trial in The Hague. For others, and there are many others and there are some that have been brought here from Congo to Uganda, they need to face justice at the national level. And through our aid and assistance programs, not just now but for the last several years, we’ve been providing assistance to their national justice systems here and elsewhere.
And so the message that we’ve been delivering is support for international justice when it’s focused on atrocity crime and, at the same time, a renewed focus on making sure that our aid and other aid is coordinated so that justice can be delivered at the local level, at the national level where it will have, at the end of the day, a better effect and be closer to the victims and the affected communities.
Harold. Or I guess we’re ready for questions.
MR. KOH: We’re ready for questions.
MR. DUGUID: Thank you, gentlemen. And operator, we are ready to take questions. May I remind our journalists to please identify yourself and your media organization just before you ask your question. Thank you.
Operator, we’re ready.
OPERATOR: Thank you. Again, at this time, if you’d like to ask a question, please press *1 on your touchtone phone. You’ll be prompted by the automated service to state your name to help with pronunciation. Again, it’s *1 to ask a question, *2 to withdraw your question. And one moment, please.
The first question comes from Matthew Lee. Please state your affiliation, sir.
QUESTION: Hi, this is Matt Lee. I’m with the AP. Harold, if I could, can I ask you about this report on drone – on the targeting – targeted killings that’s come out today from this NYU professor, the UN expert? I apologize for this being slightly off topic, but I know you’ve talked about this.
MR. KOH: Yeah, it is. I haven’t read it yet because I’m over here. I think you’ll get a press statement from Washington.
QUESTION: There is – you don’t want to repeat what you said in your speech to the American Society of International Law?
MR. KOH: You can go and quote that if you want. That was on the record, too.
QUESTION: All right, okay.
OPERATOR: Again, if you’d like to ask a question, please press *1. At this time, I show no further responses. I do have one that just came in. One moment, please.
It comes from Lachlan Carmichael. Your line is open. Please state your affiliation.
QUESTION: Hi, it’s Lachlan Carmichael from AFP. And I just wanted to ask what are the obstacles remaining for the U.S. joining the court, and doesn't the fact that you’re not part of – a full-fledged member of the court, doesn't that undermine your support for calls to bring to justice people like Joseph Kony?
MR. KOH: Well, what are the obstacles? Our signature remains on the statute. There is a letter that was filed in the name of John Bolton in 2002, which said the U.S. didn’t have an obligation to act consistently with the object and purpose of the treaty. To become bound by the treaty, we would need to submit it for advice and consent. Nevertheless, a number of important countries are observer nations, including three members of the Security Council – the United States, Russia, and China – and it’s possible for us to make pledges of support. And indeed, we did yesterday. We’re an important observer nation and our cooperation with the ad hoc tribunals has been very critical to their success.
So it’s obviously a process that will take some time. We should make clear that there is no legal decision involved in our being here. It’s not a decision about whether to change any law, to ratify any treaty, or to change any statute or change any other agreement. But it is part of a broader policy, as I said, for closer engagement with this important international institution.
AMBASSADOR RAPP: Yeah, let me go ahead and talk about our pledges, and keep in mind this is just the beginning of the process of engaging with the court. The first was on this important issue of complementarity. And the ICC is only a court of last resort. In fact, it was one of the issues on which the United States was very persuasive in Rome to understand that what we really want is to strengthen national systems and to have these cases prosecuted close to the victims and the affected communities; and only when there’s no will or capacity should they go to the international level, and then only the most serious offenders with the national system being reinforced to handle the rest of the accountability issue. So in that regard, we renewed our commitment to the rule of law and capacity-building projects in which we have ongoing in each of these – in each of the situations that we discussed earlier.
Tomorrow evening, we’re holding a session here that we’re sponsoring with our Norwegian friends and with the Democratic Republic of Congo Government about strengthening accountability in the DRC, which is a high priority of Secretary Clinton. We visited Goma in August with the thousands of rapes a month being committed in two small provinces of Eastern Congo. The need for decisive action at the national level against these crimes has never been stronger. And we want to reinforce that message with our aid and assistance coordinated with other countries.
We also – in terms of political and diplomatic support for the court, in the President’s statement on the 25th of May called for the indictees in the LRA case, Joseph Kony and his key lieutenants to be brought to justice. And we’ll be following up now with the prosecutor and with the registrar of the court to search for other ways in which we can contribute to justice in these cases.
As Harold said, when you look at what’s happened at the ad hoc tribunals, at the Yugoslavia tribunal, obviously, America was a dues-paying member of the UN and was paying about a quarter of the overhead at those courts and had a lot of Americans on staff, but of critical importance was the assistance that we provided with the law enforcement agencies and intelligence sharing and assistance to victims and other things. Whether we can provide all of that in regard to the ICC is a matter of study under our law, but we’re going to work to try to find ways that we can, consistent with our law, support these prosecutions to make sure that people that are committing these mass atrocities are held to account.
MR. KOH: One thing that I should just add, Lachlan, is that it’s hard to emphasize how happy countries are to see us here. They felt very distressed at the period of U.S. hostility to the court. They’re very excited about the Obama Administration and its renewed commitment to international law and engagement, and they’re just thrilled that we’re here as an observer country.
AMBASSADOR RAPP: And at peril of being accused not to answer the question directly, I mean, if you read what President Obama said during the campaign and Secretary Clinton, they recognize that the United States takes a long time when it comes to international treaties and conventions and studies these things very carefully and a long track record before presidents of either party put these matters forward in terms of U.S. ratification. And we’re nowhere near that point. What we’re here talking about is ways that we can support this court constructively when it works in our interests. And so far, in the cases that it’s taking on, they are in our interest and the interest of all of humankind.
QUESTION: Well, thank you.
OPERATOR: Our next question comes from Charley Keyes. Your line is open. State your affiliation, please.
QUESTION: Hi, Charley Keyes, CNN. Thanks very much. Gentlemen, I was wondering what the response was when you spoke out against the adoption of the crime of aggression, and also whether you could speak to that earlier point about how one of your roles was to evaluate the strength of the criminal court overall. Thank you.
MR. KOH: I think our view, Charley, has been widely shared, not just by many other states parties – many of the states parties, but also by many human rights nongovernmental organizations. What we have analogized this to is the court as a wobbly bicycle that’s just starting to get its legs and roll forward, and the question is whether to add a crime of aggression at this moment might put too much weight on it and transform the nature of its mandate. A lot of other countries have a similar reaction, and many human rights groups, Human Rights Watch, Open Society, a letter that was written by about 40 nongovernmental organizations made clear that this is not the moment, in their judgment, to expand the court’s jurisdiction to include this issue. There’s an op-ed in today’s LA Times that makes that point again, which I think is called a jurisdiction that the court doesn't need.
AMBASSADOR RAPP: Yeah, I mean, the question for this court is a very stark one. At the moment, it has 13 arrest warrants out. It’s only been able to arrest four people. It has a real challenge when it comes to obtaining state cooperation to bring people to justice that are charged with heinous crimes. It needs to have those arrest warrants executed. People accused it of politics, I think unfairly in Africa. Usually, it’s the people who themselves are subject to its indictments that are trying to make this argument, but its indictments are supported by the broad range of the general population.
But when it comes to the crime of aggression, as proposed here and what’s come out of this working group, it would open the floodgates potentially, at least to request to prosecute in all sorts of situations, that could come up of border crossing, of incidents without even significant loss of life but that affected national honor, borders that are ill-defined, non-international, non-state actors crossing borders and attacking and being given hot pursuit. A variety of situations could come to us and, depending on what the prosecutor did, he would find himself alienating one group of countries or another and making cooperation even more difficult.
And what we saw – and obviously, I was involved in the Sierra Leone court where it was eventually possible to get Charles Taylor to trial; we experienced with Slobodan Milosevic – when people commit mass atrocities, it’s eventually possible to build up a level of international pressure and also domestic pressure. People are ashamed of having a leader that’s committing atrocities. Eventually, they’re pushed aside and they’re brought to justice. But someone who’s defending their nation’s borders, if the ICC were to proceed with cases like this, it would end up with indictments that it would be impossible to serve and to affect. So I think a lot of people see that, at this stage, this court doesn’t need it.
Additionally, we’re concerned about the fact that there are sometimes situations where actions are needed to protect people from genocide and war crimes and crimes against humanity, and want to be sure that when nations join together to do that they don’t find themselves being prosecuted for those acts.
So a number of issues that were – I raised yesterday in my intervention. Harold will be speaking on Friday. We’re receiving a very, let’s say, positive reaction from a great many people. And some of those that have – without reflecting on this very long – have been coming up to us and saying these are very good questions; these need to be resolved. And there’s no rush for this conference to go ahead and do this. There will be other positive news coming out of the conference. A great session today on resolving peace and justice, on what needs to be done with victims in affected communities; tomorrow, on what can be done with aid and assistance, the national justice systems, and for the cooperation the court needs to get some more people arrested who’ve been accused of atrocity crimes. And a high-level declaration has gone through, calling for a variety of action, so this conference doesn’t need to finalize aggression. And I think everyone is now saying it’s not critical that it be done at any cost. It’s important to study this matter further.
So that’s the kind of reaction we’re getting. On the other hand, the decision has yet to be made. We don’t have a vote. Others are talking about it and talking with us and we’ll be there through the duration.
MR. DUGUID: Thank you, Ambassador. Operator, I believe we have time for one final question.
OPERATOR: Yeah, our next question comes from Andrei Sitov. Your line is open. State your affiliation, please.
QUESTION: Thank you. My name is Andrei Sitov. I’m with the Russian news agency, ITAR-TASS in Washington, D.C. And thank you, gentlemen, for doing this. I apologize for joining the call a little late. If this already has been raised, the issue that I want you to talk about, I apologize, but please answer it anyway.
Two questions: There was this instance where a journalist, a reporter from Reuters, was killed by American forces in Iraq and – my question is do I understand you correctly that in this situation, the aggrieved party needs to file claims with American courts? And what if they do not believe in the impartiality of the American court in a situation like this, which probably is understandable? What other recourse do they have?
And secondly, I don’t know if it’s been raised or not, but we have a situation now where two countries, Turkey and Israel, are disputing the same set of circumstances. Again, what is the legal mechanism here, if it exists at this point, that should be able to resolve this situation? Thank you, gentlemen.
MR. KOH: Harold Koh. Without addressing the specifics of those two cases, I think the delicate fact that you raised highlights two points. The first is if there is an accountability process available in domestic law, the principle of the court of complementarity, as it’s called, suggests that you should seek relief in a domestic court, only bringing crimes of the gravest international concern to the international criminal court.
The second part is that there are uses of force on a regular basis, some lawful, some unlawful, and the real question is in highly-charged political situations. When is it helpful to the situation, and to restoring peace and security, to have that matter prosecuted before an international criminal tribunal? Take the example of the recent sinking of the South Korean ship, the Cheonan. I think most observers believe that to be a lawless act. But most would also agree that in this very volatile political environment, the introduction of a criminal prosecution and an independent actor in that dialogue would not settle the situation down; it could well inflame it.
MR. DUGUID: And Andrei, Gordon here. (Inaudible) will be addressing the flotilla and Israel and Gaza later on in today’s briefing.
QUESTION: Mm-hmm.
MR. DUGUID: And I think I have to thank everyone for their participation at this point. Thank you, Ambassador Rapp and Legal Advisor Koh. Colleagues in the media, thank you for dialing in. That is all the time we have. We were on the record, just to repeat, and I hope we will see you all later in the daily press briefing.
With that, we shall sign off.
OPERATOR: At this time, that will conclude today’s conference. You may disconnect. Thank you for your attendance.
Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues
Harold Hongju Koh
Legal Advisor U.S. Department of State
Via Teleconference
Kampala, Uganda
June 2, 2010
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OPERATOR: Welcome. And I would like to thank you all for holding and inform you that your lines are in a listen-only during today’s conference until a question-and-answer session. At that time, to ask a question, you’ll press *1 on your touchtone phone.
And I’d now like to turn it to Gordon Duguid. Sir, you may begin.
MR. DUGUID: Thank you very much and welcome, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you all for calling in today. We are on the record today with the State Department Legal Adviser Harold Koh and Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues Stephen J. Rapp. They are in Kampala, Uganda working on the International Criminal Court Conference and are happy to take your questions on that subject. As the question comes to you, please remember to identify yourself and your media organization.
We have just about 25 minutes, so please limit your questions to one and that way we can try and get everyone in. Our participants will make a brief statement and then we’ll go to questions.
Professor Koh, would you like to begin, please?
MR. KOH: Yes, hi. It’s Harold Koh and Steve Rapp here from Kampala. We are the co-heads of delegation for an interagency group from the U.S. Government that’s attending the Review Conference for the International Criminal Court. It started on May 31st and it runs through June 11th.
For those of you who are not familiar with the history of the U.S. relationship with the court, in 1995, President Clinton endorsed the concept of an international criminal court. In 1998, in the first conference at Rome, the United States did not sign the statute that was developed there, the charter of the court. But by 2000, President Clinton had signed the Rome statute. In 2002, the Bush Administration sent a document, so-called, unsigning that acceptance. And then in 2005, the United States decided to allow the adoption of a resolution at the Security Council referring the situation in Darfur to the ICC prosecutor, Luis Moreno Ocampo, who’s an Argentinean national. By 2008, the Bush Administration had accepted the reality of the court – that’s their term – and steered away from, what they called – quote – “unnecessary wrangling over the issues that divide the ICC supporters and opponents.” And in 2009, Secretary Clinton said – quote – “We will end hostility toward the ICC and look for opportunities to encourage effective ICC action in ways that promote U.S. interests by bringing war criminals to justice.”
So we are here as part of three broader U.S. foreign policy initiatives. First, a broader diplomatic agenda of principled engagement with international institutions which you’re familiar from – with from our relationship with the Human Rights Council, the Copenhagen climate change talks, and a number of other multilateral diplomatic settings.
Secondly, we’re here as part of our long-term commitment to promoting accountability by supporting the responsible development of international mechanisms of criminal justice, the Yugoslav tribunal, the Rwanda tribunal, the Sierra Leone tribunal, and the Cambodia tribunal.
And third, we are here because of our awareness, as the President said in his Nobel Prize lecture, that at times the use of force must be lawful and necessary in the 21st century and, therefore, the discussion of the crime of aggression, which is being proposed as part of the amendment package, is of particular interest to us.
There are two items on the agenda essentially. There are some other amendments as well, but the key is stocktaking, evaluating the strength of the court in – after 12 years of history. The second is the crime of aggression and whether that crime ought to be adopted by – in whole or in part.
Yesterday, Ambassador Rapp gave an intervention on behalf of the delegation. It was our first intervention. We had previously attended introductory meetings in the Netherlands last November and in New York in March. And I’ll let Stephen talk about the presentation that he gave.
AMBASSADOR RAPP: And our presentation at all of those sessions emphasized the strong support of the United States Government for accountability for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity; our strong support of the Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone courts and other courts in which I myself and so many other Americans were involved; and a recognition that in the future, when it comes to situations where mass atrocities are committed and where there’s no possibility of achieving justice at the national level and you need to go to an international level to have accountability, it is the ICC where that will happen, that the rest of the world is unlikely to create sort of stand-alone institutions, which is the pattern from the 1900s.
For that reason, we want to look for ways to engage with the ICC to make sure that it’s effective. And the four cases that it’s taken on in Africa, through the end of March when we spoke at the conference in New York, in the DRC, in Uganda, in Sudan, in the Central African Republic, are situations that involve mass atrocities against civilians, situations in which it was far more dangerous to be an innocent woman or child than it was to be a soldier.
As the President said last week – and I quoted this in my speech yesterday – in signing bipartisan legislation to assist northern Uganda in recovering from the effects of Joseph Kony and the Lord’s Resistance Army, we support efforts to bring Joseph Kony and the leaders of the LRA to justice. That means for those that are indicted at the ICC that they need to be brought to trial in The Hague. For others, and there are many others and there are some that have been brought here from Congo to Uganda, they need to face justice at the national level. And through our aid and assistance programs, not just now but for the last several years, we’ve been providing assistance to their national justice systems here and elsewhere.
And so the message that we’ve been delivering is support for international justice when it’s focused on atrocity crime and, at the same time, a renewed focus on making sure that our aid and other aid is coordinated so that justice can be delivered at the local level, at the national level where it will have, at the end of the day, a better effect and be closer to the victims and the affected communities.
Harold. Or I guess we’re ready for questions.
MR. KOH: We’re ready for questions.
MR. DUGUID: Thank you, gentlemen. And operator, we are ready to take questions. May I remind our journalists to please identify yourself and your media organization just before you ask your question. Thank you.
Operator, we’re ready.
OPERATOR: Thank you. Again, at this time, if you’d like to ask a question, please press *1 on your touchtone phone. You’ll be prompted by the automated service to state your name to help with pronunciation. Again, it’s *1 to ask a question, *2 to withdraw your question. And one moment, please.
The first question comes from Matthew Lee. Please state your affiliation, sir.
QUESTION: Hi, this is Matt Lee. I’m with the AP. Harold, if I could, can I ask you about this report on drone – on the targeting – targeted killings that’s come out today from this NYU professor, the UN expert? I apologize for this being slightly off topic, but I know you’ve talked about this.
MR. KOH: Yeah, it is. I haven’t read it yet because I’m over here. I think you’ll get a press statement from Washington.
QUESTION: There is – you don’t want to repeat what you said in your speech to the American Society of International Law?
MR. KOH: You can go and quote that if you want. That was on the record, too.
QUESTION: All right, okay.
OPERATOR: Again, if you’d like to ask a question, please press *1. At this time, I show no further responses. I do have one that just came in. One moment, please.
It comes from Lachlan Carmichael. Your line is open. Please state your affiliation.
QUESTION: Hi, it’s Lachlan Carmichael from AFP. And I just wanted to ask what are the obstacles remaining for the U.S. joining the court, and doesn't the fact that you’re not part of – a full-fledged member of the court, doesn't that undermine your support for calls to bring to justice people like Joseph Kony?
MR. KOH: Well, what are the obstacles? Our signature remains on the statute. There is a letter that was filed in the name of John Bolton in 2002, which said the U.S. didn’t have an obligation to act consistently with the object and purpose of the treaty. To become bound by the treaty, we would need to submit it for advice and consent. Nevertheless, a number of important countries are observer nations, including three members of the Security Council – the United States, Russia, and China – and it’s possible for us to make pledges of support. And indeed, we did yesterday. We’re an important observer nation and our cooperation with the ad hoc tribunals has been very critical to their success.
So it’s obviously a process that will take some time. We should make clear that there is no legal decision involved in our being here. It’s not a decision about whether to change any law, to ratify any treaty, or to change any statute or change any other agreement. But it is part of a broader policy, as I said, for closer engagement with this important international institution.
AMBASSADOR RAPP: Yeah, let me go ahead and talk about our pledges, and keep in mind this is just the beginning of the process of engaging with the court. The first was on this important issue of complementarity. And the ICC is only a court of last resort. In fact, it was one of the issues on which the United States was very persuasive in Rome to understand that what we really want is to strengthen national systems and to have these cases prosecuted close to the victims and the affected communities; and only when there’s no will or capacity should they go to the international level, and then only the most serious offenders with the national system being reinforced to handle the rest of the accountability issue. So in that regard, we renewed our commitment to the rule of law and capacity-building projects in which we have ongoing in each of these – in each of the situations that we discussed earlier.
Tomorrow evening, we’re holding a session here that we’re sponsoring with our Norwegian friends and with the Democratic Republic of Congo Government about strengthening accountability in the DRC, which is a high priority of Secretary Clinton. We visited Goma in August with the thousands of rapes a month being committed in two small provinces of Eastern Congo. The need for decisive action at the national level against these crimes has never been stronger. And we want to reinforce that message with our aid and assistance coordinated with other countries.
We also – in terms of political and diplomatic support for the court, in the President’s statement on the 25th of May called for the indictees in the LRA case, Joseph Kony and his key lieutenants to be brought to justice. And we’ll be following up now with the prosecutor and with the registrar of the court to search for other ways in which we can contribute to justice in these cases.
As Harold said, when you look at what’s happened at the ad hoc tribunals, at the Yugoslavia tribunal, obviously, America was a dues-paying member of the UN and was paying about a quarter of the overhead at those courts and had a lot of Americans on staff, but of critical importance was the assistance that we provided with the law enforcement agencies and intelligence sharing and assistance to victims and other things. Whether we can provide all of that in regard to the ICC is a matter of study under our law, but we’re going to work to try to find ways that we can, consistent with our law, support these prosecutions to make sure that people that are committing these mass atrocities are held to account.
MR. KOH: One thing that I should just add, Lachlan, is that it’s hard to emphasize how happy countries are to see us here. They felt very distressed at the period of U.S. hostility to the court. They’re very excited about the Obama Administration and its renewed commitment to international law and engagement, and they’re just thrilled that we’re here as an observer country.
AMBASSADOR RAPP: And at peril of being accused not to answer the question directly, I mean, if you read what President Obama said during the campaign and Secretary Clinton, they recognize that the United States takes a long time when it comes to international treaties and conventions and studies these things very carefully and a long track record before presidents of either party put these matters forward in terms of U.S. ratification. And we’re nowhere near that point. What we’re here talking about is ways that we can support this court constructively when it works in our interests. And so far, in the cases that it’s taking on, they are in our interest and the interest of all of humankind.
QUESTION: Well, thank you.
OPERATOR: Our next question comes from Charley Keyes. Your line is open. State your affiliation, please.
QUESTION: Hi, Charley Keyes, CNN. Thanks very much. Gentlemen, I was wondering what the response was when you spoke out against the adoption of the crime of aggression, and also whether you could speak to that earlier point about how one of your roles was to evaluate the strength of the criminal court overall. Thank you.
MR. KOH: I think our view, Charley, has been widely shared, not just by many other states parties – many of the states parties, but also by many human rights nongovernmental organizations. What we have analogized this to is the court as a wobbly bicycle that’s just starting to get its legs and roll forward, and the question is whether to add a crime of aggression at this moment might put too much weight on it and transform the nature of its mandate. A lot of other countries have a similar reaction, and many human rights groups, Human Rights Watch, Open Society, a letter that was written by about 40 nongovernmental organizations made clear that this is not the moment, in their judgment, to expand the court’s jurisdiction to include this issue. There’s an op-ed in today’s LA Times that makes that point again, which I think is called a jurisdiction that the court doesn't need.
AMBASSADOR RAPP: Yeah, I mean, the question for this court is a very stark one. At the moment, it has 13 arrest warrants out. It’s only been able to arrest four people. It has a real challenge when it comes to obtaining state cooperation to bring people to justice that are charged with heinous crimes. It needs to have those arrest warrants executed. People accused it of politics, I think unfairly in Africa. Usually, it’s the people who themselves are subject to its indictments that are trying to make this argument, but its indictments are supported by the broad range of the general population.
But when it comes to the crime of aggression, as proposed here and what’s come out of this working group, it would open the floodgates potentially, at least to request to prosecute in all sorts of situations, that could come up of border crossing, of incidents without even significant loss of life but that affected national honor, borders that are ill-defined, non-international, non-state actors crossing borders and attacking and being given hot pursuit. A variety of situations could come to us and, depending on what the prosecutor did, he would find himself alienating one group of countries or another and making cooperation even more difficult.
And what we saw – and obviously, I was involved in the Sierra Leone court where it was eventually possible to get Charles Taylor to trial; we experienced with Slobodan Milosevic – when people commit mass atrocities, it’s eventually possible to build up a level of international pressure and also domestic pressure. People are ashamed of having a leader that’s committing atrocities. Eventually, they’re pushed aside and they’re brought to justice. But someone who’s defending their nation’s borders, if the ICC were to proceed with cases like this, it would end up with indictments that it would be impossible to serve and to affect. So I think a lot of people see that, at this stage, this court doesn’t need it.
Additionally, we’re concerned about the fact that there are sometimes situations where actions are needed to protect people from genocide and war crimes and crimes against humanity, and want to be sure that when nations join together to do that they don’t find themselves being prosecuted for those acts.
So a number of issues that were – I raised yesterday in my intervention. Harold will be speaking on Friday. We’re receiving a very, let’s say, positive reaction from a great many people. And some of those that have – without reflecting on this very long – have been coming up to us and saying these are very good questions; these need to be resolved. And there’s no rush for this conference to go ahead and do this. There will be other positive news coming out of the conference. A great session today on resolving peace and justice, on what needs to be done with victims in affected communities; tomorrow, on what can be done with aid and assistance, the national justice systems, and for the cooperation the court needs to get some more people arrested who’ve been accused of atrocity crimes. And a high-level declaration has gone through, calling for a variety of action, so this conference doesn’t need to finalize aggression. And I think everyone is now saying it’s not critical that it be done at any cost. It’s important to study this matter further.
So that’s the kind of reaction we’re getting. On the other hand, the decision has yet to be made. We don’t have a vote. Others are talking about it and talking with us and we’ll be there through the duration.
MR. DUGUID: Thank you, Ambassador. Operator, I believe we have time for one final question.
OPERATOR: Yeah, our next question comes from Andrei Sitov. Your line is open. State your affiliation, please.
QUESTION: Thank you. My name is Andrei Sitov. I’m with the Russian news agency, ITAR-TASS in Washington, D.C. And thank you, gentlemen, for doing this. I apologize for joining the call a little late. If this already has been raised, the issue that I want you to talk about, I apologize, but please answer it anyway.
Two questions: There was this instance where a journalist, a reporter from Reuters, was killed by American forces in Iraq and – my question is do I understand you correctly that in this situation, the aggrieved party needs to file claims with American courts? And what if they do not believe in the impartiality of the American court in a situation like this, which probably is understandable? What other recourse do they have?
And secondly, I don’t know if it’s been raised or not, but we have a situation now where two countries, Turkey and Israel, are disputing the same set of circumstances. Again, what is the legal mechanism here, if it exists at this point, that should be able to resolve this situation? Thank you, gentlemen.
MR. KOH: Harold Koh. Without addressing the specifics of those two cases, I think the delicate fact that you raised highlights two points. The first is if there is an accountability process available in domestic law, the principle of the court of complementarity, as it’s called, suggests that you should seek relief in a domestic court, only bringing crimes of the gravest international concern to the international criminal court.
The second part is that there are uses of force on a regular basis, some lawful, some unlawful, and the real question is in highly-charged political situations. When is it helpful to the situation, and to restoring peace and security, to have that matter prosecuted before an international criminal tribunal? Take the example of the recent sinking of the South Korean ship, the Cheonan. I think most observers believe that to be a lawless act. But most would also agree that in this very volatile political environment, the introduction of a criminal prosecution and an independent actor in that dialogue would not settle the situation down; it could well inflame it.
MR. DUGUID: And Andrei, Gordon here. (Inaudible) will be addressing the flotilla and Israel and Gaza later on in today’s briefing.
QUESTION: Mm-hmm.
MR. DUGUID: And I think I have to thank everyone for their participation at this point. Thank you, Ambassador Rapp and Legal Advisor Koh. Colleagues in the media, thank you for dialing in. That is all the time we have. We were on the record, just to repeat, and I hope we will see you all later in the daily press briefing.
With that, we shall sign off.
OPERATOR: At this time, that will conclude today’s conference. You may disconnect. Thank you for your attendance.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
ICC prosecutor rejects Otunnu war case
PRESIDENTIAL aspirant Olara Otunnu yesterday failed to convince the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Luis Moreno-Ocampo, that the UPDF and President Yoweri Museveni are partly responsible for war crimes in northern Uganda.
Ocampo instead challenged Otunnu to produce concrete evidence, and not engage in “political debate”.
The two men had earlier met at the Speke Resort Munyonyo near Kampala, the venue of the ongoing ICC review conference, which started earlier this week.
After the meeting, Otunnu called a press conference and said he had asked the ICC to take action and investigate Museveni over crimes committed during the LRA decades-long war in northern Uganda.
“I had a meeting with Moreno Ocampo on his request and I asked him to investigate Mr. Yoweri Kaguta Museveni over crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide and aggression,” Otunnu told journalists.
He said he was disappointed that the ICC had not investigated Museveni, and that despite his protestation, the State Parties had instead selected Museveni to host the review conference.
“It is a travesty and a mockery of the ICC, that Museveni, who has the longest record of impunity, should be the host of the review. I fear that the ICC risks losing its way if it agrees to be used,” he said.
He said Museveni should be investigated for his role in UPDF operations in the DR Congo in 1998, the deaths in the Kampala riots last September and the creation of IDP camps in northern Uganda over the last two decades.
“I have provided all this information and he (Ocampo) has requested for more. I shall be providing more in regard to the atrocities against the people of northern Uganda and Congo,” he said.
Otunnu’s comments prompted Ocampo to call his own press conference at which he said his investigations had found the “LRA responsible for most atrocities”.
“We selected the gravest cases in northern Uganda and it’s a fact that thousands of these were committed by the LRA. It is clear Joseph Kony committed most of the crimes in northern Uganda.”
He described Otunnu’s remarks as “political debate”. “As the prosecutor of the ICC, my role is to ensure the control of massive crimes with tangible evidence,” Ocampo added.
“If he (Otunnu) has information he wants to submit, let him give it to me but I cannot follow political statements. I follow crimes committed after July 2002, which include crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide,” he said.
Ocampo, however, promised to assess Otunnu’s information, provided the alleged crimes were committed after July 2002 when the court was founded under the Rome Statute.
“If we see need to open new investigations we shall, but I will not be bothered with political debates. We are open to more information,” he said.
Ocampo further said he had received complaints against the UPDF, which he is analysing.
However, most of the issues pre-date 2002, meaning the court cannot handle them. In such a case, Ocampo advised, Otunnu should go to the High Court of Uganda.
He also advised Ugandans to only involve the ICC in cases which they feel the national legal system is inadequate to handle.
Otunnu’s remarks also prompted an impromptu press briefing by the deputy Attorney General, Freddie Ruhindi, who advised Otunnu to report the matter to the Police instead of the press if he had a strong case.
Otunnu is also wanted by the Police for alleging that Museveni funded Kony’s LRA rebels and masterminded the northern Uganda war for over 20 years.
The ICC has already issued arrest warrants for the top LRA commanders including their leader Joseph Kony, Dominc Ongwen, Vincent Otti (now dead) and Okot Odhiambo.
The effort, however, has failed since Kony and his rebels fled to the vast Congo jungles and lately to the Central African Republic, leaving a trail of massacres and devastation.
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 7:00 PM, Lawrence Mukasawrote:
Ocampo instead challenged Otunnu to produce concrete evidence, and not engage in “political debate”.
The two men had earlier met at the Speke Resort Munyonyo near Kampala, the venue of the ongoing ICC review conference, which started earlier this week.
After the meeting, Otunnu called a press conference and said he had asked the ICC to take action and investigate Museveni over crimes committed during the LRA decades-long war in northern Uganda.
“I had a meeting with Moreno Ocampo on his request and I asked him to investigate Mr. Yoweri Kaguta Museveni over crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide and aggression,” Otunnu told journalists.
He said he was disappointed that the ICC had not investigated Museveni, and that despite his protestation, the State Parties had instead selected Museveni to host the review conference.
“It is a travesty and a mockery of the ICC, that Museveni, who has the longest record of impunity, should be the host of the review. I fear that the ICC risks losing its way if it agrees to be used,” he said.
He said Museveni should be investigated for his role in UPDF operations in the DR Congo in 1998, the deaths in the Kampala riots last September and the creation of IDP camps in northern Uganda over the last two decades.
“I have provided all this information and he (Ocampo) has requested for more. I shall be providing more in regard to the atrocities against the people of northern Uganda and Congo,” he said.
Otunnu’s comments prompted Ocampo to call his own press conference at which he said his investigations had found the “LRA responsible for most atrocities”.
“We selected the gravest cases in northern Uganda and it’s a fact that thousands of these were committed by the LRA. It is clear Joseph Kony committed most of the crimes in northern Uganda.”
He described Otunnu’s remarks as “political debate”. “As the prosecutor of the ICC, my role is to ensure the control of massive crimes with tangible evidence,” Ocampo added.
“If he (Otunnu) has information he wants to submit, let him give it to me but I cannot follow political statements. I follow crimes committed after July 2002, which include crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide,” he said.
Ocampo, however, promised to assess Otunnu’s information, provided the alleged crimes were committed after July 2002 when the court was founded under the Rome Statute.
“If we see need to open new investigations we shall, but I will not be bothered with political debates. We are open to more information,” he said.
Ocampo further said he had received complaints against the UPDF, which he is analysing.
However, most of the issues pre-date 2002, meaning the court cannot handle them. In such a case, Ocampo advised, Otunnu should go to the High Court of Uganda.
He also advised Ugandans to only involve the ICC in cases which they feel the national legal system is inadequate to handle.
Otunnu’s remarks also prompted an impromptu press briefing by the deputy Attorney General, Freddie Ruhindi, who advised Otunnu to report the matter to the Police instead of the press if he had a strong case.
Otunnu is also wanted by the Police for alleging that Museveni funded Kony’s LRA rebels and masterminded the northern Uganda war for over 20 years.
The ICC has already issued arrest warrants for the top LRA commanders including their leader Joseph Kony, Dominc Ongwen, Vincent Otti (now dead) and Okot Odhiambo.
The effort, however, has failed since Kony and his rebels fled to the vast Congo jungles and lately to the Central African Republic, leaving a trail of massacres and devastation.
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 7:00 PM, Lawrence Mukasa
Monday, April 26, 2010
Ahmadinejad bullish on nuclear bullying
UNMOVED: Iran President Ahmadinejad at the press conference. PHOTO BY STEPHEN WANDERA.
Daily Monitor’s senior reporter TABU BUTAGIRA covered Mr Ahmadinejad’s visit and below, reproduces key parts of his speeches – one at a state banquet on Friday and another at the press conference the next day. The Iranian leader never disappointed those who anticipated his tirade against the West over Tehran’s contested nuclear programme:
Dinner speech highlights
“We think it is the right of all nations to use nuclear energy. No one has a right to deny any nation this right. Iran and Uganda both enjoy this purity and integrity and believe in a world of compassion and stand firm against oppression and aggression against any country that thinks only about their own interests.
We are ready to do everything to invade other countries [that] undermine the independence and sovereignty of all nations; plunder and loot resources of other nations and ignore human dignity anywhere and anytime. We shall stand firmly against all these atrocities.
The era of colonialism is over. It has gone to archives of history. Today is the age of justice, respect for human dignity, morality and spirituality and recognising the right of all nations.
I would like to have a short reference to the nuclear issue and energy. I want to offer a short comparison. For the generation of 1,000 megawatts of electricity through fossil fuels in one year period, you need seven million barrels of crude oil. If we can (calculate) that - the price of crude oil is eight dollars a barrel - for 1000 megawatts of electricity, we need 560 million dollars (Shs620b) while nuclear power plant reduces this to 60 million dollars (Shs120b).
In addition, fossil fuels pollute the environment severely. They (western countries and their allies) want to monopolise nuclear energy and weapons. This is treason and betrayal of mankind. We think it is the right of all nations to use nuclear energy. The main danger to the world is posed by those who have stockpiled nuclear
weapons and continue to threaten other nations. The age of double standard policies and games is over. Today, we have the age of independent nations.”
Answer to a question at the press conference why he thinks the world does not believe Tehran nuclear is only for peaceful purpose.
First of all, I would like to thank the almighty God for giving me the chance to be here in this great, beautiful country and meet my very good friend His Excellency Museveni. I wish to express my sincere gratitude for the warm welcome and hospitality accorded by my very good friend. We are really feeling at home here in Uganda. And we are talking and having dialogue with our brothers and friends. Uganda is the complete manifestation of all beauties of Africa (ovation from ministers) - natural and human beauties. And the most important characteristics of people in this country are: the belief in one God, the belief in justice and the belief in beauties and love.
The two countries have been able to establish profound and friendly relationship. During the time with my very good friend, we discussed a wide range of issues; shared opinions and we have common belief in the administration of justice in the international order and relations. We are determined to extend our cooperation in all fields and possible areas.
Today, the entire international community knows that the nuclear issue of Iran has been politicised. It’s not at all a legal issue or a legal problem because Iran has observed all regulations and laws. But Iran has never enjoyed its rights. The nuclear issue in Iran has turned into a big test for the entire world because it’s going to separate those who commit to international law and regulations and those who are not
going to abide by it.
False pretext
The hostility of the United States and the United Kingdom against Iranians are not something new. They defended and supported the war imposed by [late Iraqi president] Saddam Hussein for 8 years. They defend anything which is against the Iranian people and the Iranian nation. Today they are going to use the false pretext of nuclear weapons programme.
They say they are concerned about the building of a nuclear bomb. But they are lying. They have equipped the Zionist state (Israel) with more than 200 nuclear heads. They provide all technical and financial resources for the Zionist regime. They themselves have thousands of nuclear war heads in their arsenals. But they say: We are concerned about the future of Iran’s nuclear programme; maybe if Iran decides to divert from its peaceful purposes! They repeat the same jokes all the time.
We reiterate that our nuclear activities are based on peaceful purposes. They say no, Iran is diverting. We say that in all reports issued by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), they have seen no diversion in Iran nuclear programme. We ask them: What’s your evidence or document that proves your claims? They say we have no evidence but let’s search everywhere in Iran to find the evidence!
The measures that have been taken or are going to be taken by the US and its allies in the (UN) Security Council lack any legal validity. Of course we have previously announced that we are seeking to cooperate
and this dialogue must be on the basis of respect and justice. We do not submit to and or accept any kind of pressures. And we don’t follow the illegal decisions. We think by issuing resolutions against us, [US President Barack] Obama will suffer more.
The philosophy of Obama’s coming to power was to make a change in the behaviour of the government of the US. Mr Obama came to power to change and improve the double standards and discriminatory policies of the western countries. The fact that he is going to take decisions against Iranian people is an end to his stature.
In fact those who said Mr Obama is nothing more than a mask will prove to be right. They said Obama came to power to hide the real face and nature of the United States. To continue the same policies of the Bush administrations will certainly remove the new mask. Of course we don’t welcome such a thing. We have made great efforts to help President Obama.
Obama’s task
But naturally, we do give all this support with an understanding of justice. While according to laws and the regulations of the IAEA, they have the commitment and obligations to provide the enriched uranium of 20 per cent for our research reactors but we have accepted to exchange fuels with them. The situation has changed now but the principles of the proposal are still on the table.
We hope that President Obama will have a long period of making constructive policies in the country. But he can do so if he remains committed to justice and respect for all. Any policy other than this will not be acceptable (thunderous applause by bureaucrats).
Answer to question on using nuclear technology without foray into weapons manufacture and impact of likely fourth sanctions on Iran’s policy towards Africa.
Our foreign policy about Africa will not change. We are friends with African countries, including Uganda. And we have profound amicable relationships. The major source of concern today is the presence of nuclear arsenals in the West and all American bases throughout the world.
One hundred and eighteen nations of the non-aligned movement have already endorsed Iran’s policies and position as well as other groups in international forum. We think the problem of the world is the continued coercive and intimidating policies of the US because they want to continue monopoling nuclear energy and weapons in the world, deny other nations the peaceful use of nuclear energy and impose their own will on them. A resolution which is going to be based on discrimination has no value. Iran is a powerful and great country. Mr Obama needs us more than we do. So we are not concerned by whatsoever measures of Mr Obama. They are not able to do anything. So we have no worries (ovation).
tbutagira@monitor.co.ug
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Election 2010: Gloves off in second leaders' debate
Fiery clashes in TV leader debateGordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg lock horns in the second prime ministerial TV debate, focused on global affairs.
The gloves came off in the second prime ministerial debate as Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg clashed over global affairs .In fiery exchanges, the three leaders locked horns on Europe, climate change, tax, nuclear weapons and sleaze.
Mr Brown and Mr Cameron agreed less with Mr Clegg than last week and instead stressed policy differences.
BBC Political Editor Nick Robinson said all three performed well and it proved "we are in a tight three horse race".
Opinion polls taken immediately after the debate gave conflicting verdicts over whether Mr Cameron or Mr Clegg came out on top but they agreed that the margins between all three contenders were much tighter than in the first debate.
But BBC polling expert David Cowling said there had been a significant drop in the number of people who thought Mr Clegg won, with Mr Brown having the most improved ratings.
The debate itself was livelier than last week, with flashes of anger from Mr Cameron in particular as he accused Labour of spreading "lies" about Tory policy on benefits for the elderly in election leaflets, telling Mr Brown he should be "ashamed" of them.
'Desperate'
At several points, both Mr Cameron and Mr Brown attempted to take a leaf out of Nick Clegg's book by pointing to the squabbling of the other two.
But they avoided saying "I agree with Nick" in an effort to win the Lib Dem leader over and at one point Mr Cameron even said "I agree with Gordon" over nuclear weapons.
Mr Brown made a point of attacking Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg equally, rounding off his closing statement by telling his two rivals: "Nick you would leave us weak, David you would leave us isolated in Europe."
I think it's quite an insult that we were not represented in that debate
Alex Neil
SNP hAnalysis: 'Game on' in campaign
In quotes: Reaction to debate
Nick Robinson: What a difference
But the Labour leader's main pitch was to tell voters anything other than a Labour majority risked damaging the economy, telling voters: "Don't do anything that puts this economic recovery at risk."
Mr Cameron said Mr Brown sounded "desperate" and accused him of "trying to frighten people". In his closing statement, he said Britain needed a "clean break from 13 years of failure".
Mr Clegg, who was the last to deliver a closing statement, sought to strike an optimistic note, saying "people are beginning to hope that we can do something different this time" and "if we do things differently we can be a force for good in the world".
The three leaders began by calling each other by their first names, but as the debate developed Mr Clegg in particular started calling his rivals by their full names when he addressed them.
'Hypocritical'
Mr Clegg said he believed it was time for a "fundamental debate" on Europe and said "of course there are daft rules, of course it does daft things but it seems to me that we punch above our weight when you stand together in Europe".
Mr Brown said he was determined to work with the "sensible" people in Europe, and accused Mr Cameron of aligning himself with "right-wing extremists" after pulling his MEPs out of the main centre-right European People's Party grouping.
But the Tory leader said it would have been "hypocritical" to stay in the EPP.
HAVE YOUR SAY Thought Labour and Conservative were better prepared tonight, although the complete turnaround from 'I agree with Nick' to 'get real' was interesting, to say the least!
Pippa
Send your comment Mr Clegg weighed in by accusing Mr Cameron of working with "nutters, anti-Semites, people who deny climate change exists, homophobes".
Mr Brown accused his two rivals of behaving like "my two boys at bath time - they are squabbling," gaining him the first laugh of the evening.
He went on: "I am afraid David is anti-European, Nick is anti- American. Both of them are out of touch with reality."
Mr Cameron hit back: "What you are hearing from the other two is, frankly, do not trust the people. Do not ask them when you pass powers from Westminster to Brussels.
"Just give in to everything that comes out of Brussels and do not stand up for your country."
Mr Clegg came under attack from his two rivals over his proposal to include Britain's Trident nuclear deterrent in the strategic defence review which all three parties have promised to hold after the election.
The Lib Dem leader cited a group of retired generals who have warned that replacing Trident could take money away from frontline troops and that US President Barack Obama had identified the threats of the future as terrorism and failed states.
But Mr Brown told him: "I have to deal with these issues every day and I say to you, Nick, get real."
Mr Cameron agreed with the Labour leader, arguing "we are safer having an independent nuclear deterrent in an unsafe world ... a proper replacement for Trident."
There was also lively debate over immigration policy, with Mr Clegg denying he wanted an "amnesty" for illegal immigrants and facing claims from Mr Cameron that his plan for regional targets did not make sense. Mr Cameron faced a similar claim from Mr Brown about his plan for an annual cap on immigration.
Turning to the war in Afghanistan, Mr Clegg said the government had not pursued the right strategy or given the right equipment to British troops.
Mr Brown said British troops were in Afghanistan because there was a "chain of terror" linking al-Qaeda groups across the world to action which could happen in the UK.
Hung Parliament
The leaders also clashed over cleaning-up politics, with Mr Brown saying he was "ashamed" of the way MPs had behaved and Mr Cameron said no party should put itself on a pedestal over expenses.
But the Tory leader insisted there should not be voting reform to get rid of the first-past-the-post system.
"Don't let us give up the way you can sack your government and throw them out, let us not have permanent hung Parliaments."
Mr Clegg urged young people to register to vote, saying they could make it the "most exciting election in a very long time".
Asked about the Daily Telegraph's allegations during the televised leaders' debate, Mr Clegg said: "It's a complete nonsense story... complete rubbish."
The leaders were also quizzed about what they would do in the event of a hung Parliament, with Mr Clegg urging voters to ignore "ludicrous scare stories" about meltdown in the financial markets.
Anti-war protesters were involved in a stand-off with police outside the venue in Bristol which hosted the debate. Six people were arrested for public order offences.
A number of opinion polls placed the Lib Dems ahead of Labour and gaining on the Conservatives after last week's prime ministerial TV debate. Others, such as the YouGov/Sun survey of 20 April, have even put the Lib Dems in first place.
Where's the change when the three Westminster leaders tonight, Cameron, Brown and Clegg, were as one in their support for continuing a war in Afghanistan
Adam Price, Plaid Cymru
dot.Rory: how it unfolded online
Debate uncertainty over world role
It has increased speculation that the general election on 6 May will result in a hung parliament - polls suggest the Conservatives are still slightly ahead but would not have enough seats to get an overall majority.
Thursday's debate was held at the Arnolfini Gallery in Bristol, hosted by Sky's political editor Adam Boulton.
Ahead of the debate the BBC Trust rejected a joint appeal from the Scottish and Welsh nationalist parties against the BBC's decision to exclude them from the prime ministerial debates - separate leaders' debates are being held in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Plaid Cymru's Adam Price branded the prime ministerial debate a "farce", saying: "Where's the choice? Where's the change when the three Westminster leaders tonight, Cameron, Brown and Clegg, were as one in their support for continuing a war in Afghanistan - a war with no end in sight and which has cost us dearly in lives and in funds?"
Angus Robertson, for the SNP, said: "If people in Scotland want to avoid the exclusion of Scottish interest which we saw on display again tonight, the only mention of Scotland came once when the prime minister talked about the weather, that is simply not good enough."
UK Independence Party MEP Nigel Farage, said there had not been a "proper debate about the European Union in this election campaign."
Mr Farage, who campaigns for Britain to leave the EU, said: "Was that it? A ten-minute debate in the entire general election campaign about the institution that now makes 75% of our laws. And what we saw was total agreement that we must be part of the European Union."
Green Party deputy leader Adrian Ramsay said the debate showed the three main parties were "not taking climate change seriously."
Simon Darby, of the British National Party, also complained about the lack of debate on the EU: "There wasn't anybody there suggesting we should remove ourselves from the European Union. On the question on the war in Afghanistan, they are all in favour of the war in Afghanistan. We shouldn't be there."
The English Democrats, who campaign for an English Parliament, said the debate was a "no score" draw for England: "Roll on a hung parliament with representatives from the English Democrats to stand up for England, like the SNP stand up for Scotland."
Monday, March 29, 2010
Obama Signs Historic Health Care Bill: 'It Is The Law of The Land'
The $938 Billion Bill, Facing Fire From Republicans, Brings Significant Changes to American Health Care
After more than a year of negotiations, debate and political drama, President Obama today signed the historic health care bill that could reshape care for millions of Americans while setting up a divisive battle with Republicans that's expected to spill into the November elections and beyond.
"After a century of striving, after a year of debate, after a historic vote, health care reform is no longer an unmet promise," Obama said at an event after the signing ceremony at the Department of Interior. "It is the law of the land."
The president took a direct stab at critics of health care overhaul, saying they are "still making a lot of noise" about what the new law means.
"I heard one of the Republican leaders say this was going to be Armageddon. Well, two months from now, six months from now, you can check it out. We'll look around and we'll see," Obama said to applause.
The president signed the health care bill into law at the White House this morning. He was joined by Americans whose stories have touched the president, and Democrats who voted for the health care bill.
"Today, after almost a century of trying, today, after over a year of debate, today, after all the votes have been tallied, health insurance reform becomes law in the United States of America," Obama said to a standing ovation.
"It's easy to succumb to the sense of cynicism about what's possible in this country. But today, we are affirming that essential truth, a truth every generation is called to rediscover for itself: That we are not a nation that scales back its aspirations. We are not a nation that falls prey to doubt or mistrust," the president added. "We are a nation that faces its challenges and accepts its responsibilities."
The attendees chanted "Fired up, ready to go" -- Obama's campaign slogan -- as the president and Vice President Joe Biden arrived at the East Room.
"Ladies and gentleman, to state the obvious, this is a historic day," Biden said to a cheering crowd before the president took the podium.
As Biden finished his remarks and shook Obama's hand, he was heard on the microphone whispering, "This is a big f-ing deal."
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs tweeted soon afterward, "And yes Mr. Vice President, you're right..."
The president said he was signing the bill on behalf of his mother and those Americans, who like her, had to fight with health insurance companies. Obama also hailed lawmakers for making the tough decision to support the health care bill, and taking "their lumps during this difficult debate," in response to which Congressman Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y., shouted, "Yes, we did."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is credited with bringing together enough Democrats to overcome the final hurdle of passing the bill in the House, received special recognition. As Obama recognized Pelosi as "one of the best speakers the House of Representatives have ever had," the crowd unanimously chanted, "Nancy, Nancy, Nancy."
Vicki Reggie Kennedy, wife of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, was also present at the event. In an interview with ABC News' Jonathan Karl, Kennedy said her husband would've been "exhilarated" and "thrilled" by the passage of the bill. Sen. Kennedy, who was behind many landmark health bills, made health care reform the mission of his long Senate career.
Before the signing ceremony today, Vicki Kennedy gave Obama a plastic blue bracelet that said "TedStrong." The president and several lawmakers were seen wearing the bracelet. The late senator's son, Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., gave the president a copy of the first universal health care bill that his father introduced in the Senate.
But even while there was jubilation at the White House, Republicans promised a tough fight ahead. The Republican National Committee's "Fire Nancy Pelosi" Web site surpassed $1 million in funds raised since the health care legislation passed Sunday evening. Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin unveiled a list of 17 Democratic members of Congress who she wants to target in the upcoming mid-term elections.
"We're going to reclaim the power of the people from those who disregarded the will of the people. We're going to fire them and send them back to the private sector, which has been shrinking thanks to their destructive government-growing policies," Palin wrote in an e-mail to supporters seeking to raise money.
On radio and television, conservative commentators lashed out at the lawmakers who passed the legislation.
On his radio program, Rush Limbaugh said, "We need to defeat these bastards. We need to wipe them out."
Glen Beck said, "This bill is still jammed down the throats of America, just enough spiny, dirty weasels went along with it."
Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who voted 'yes' on the legislation, became a target. Her office in Arizona was vandalized over night.
In Florida, Bill McCollum became the first of 14 state attorney generals to file a lawsuit against the health care law. The states' attorney general are filing suits to block the health care law on the grounds that its requirement that everyone have health insurance is unconstitutional.
The lawsuit is "about forcing people to buy health insurance when there's no provision in the Constitution that allows for anybody to be forced to do something when there's no commerce, no action, you're just sitting there," said McCollum. "And it's about the question of forcing the state of Florida and other states against the sovereignty that's guaranteed in the Constitution to our states to do things that are practically impossible to do."
Four state legislatures have already passed laws blocking the bill. On Wednesday, Virginia's GOP Gov. Bob McDonnell will sign the bill into the state's law, making it illegal for the federal government to require Americans to purchase health insurance.
After more than a year of negotiations, debate and political drama, President Obama today signed the historic health care bill that could reshape care for millions of Americans while setting up a divisive battle with Republicans that's expected to spill into the November elections and beyond.
"After a century of striving, after a year of debate, after a historic vote, health care reform is no longer an unmet promise," Obama said at an event after the signing ceremony at the Department of Interior. "It is the law of the land."
The president took a direct stab at critics of health care overhaul, saying they are "still making a lot of noise" about what the new law means.
"I heard one of the Republican leaders say this was going to be Armageddon. Well, two months from now, six months from now, you can check it out. We'll look around and we'll see," Obama said to applause.
The president signed the health care bill into law at the White House this morning. He was joined by Americans whose stories have touched the president, and Democrats who voted for the health care bill.
"Today, after almost a century of trying, today, after over a year of debate, today, after all the votes have been tallied, health insurance reform becomes law in the United States of America," Obama said to a standing ovation.
"It's easy to succumb to the sense of cynicism about what's possible in this country. But today, we are affirming that essential truth, a truth every generation is called to rediscover for itself: That we are not a nation that scales back its aspirations. We are not a nation that falls prey to doubt or mistrust," the president added. "We are a nation that faces its challenges and accepts its responsibilities."
The attendees chanted "Fired up, ready to go" -- Obama's campaign slogan -- as the president and Vice President Joe Biden arrived at the East Room.
"Ladies and gentleman, to state the obvious, this is a historic day," Biden said to a cheering crowd before the president took the podium.
As Biden finished his remarks and shook Obama's hand, he was heard on the microphone whispering, "This is a big f-ing deal."
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs tweeted soon afterward, "And yes Mr. Vice President, you're right..."
The president said he was signing the bill on behalf of his mother and those Americans, who like her, had to fight with health insurance companies. Obama also hailed lawmakers for making the tough decision to support the health care bill, and taking "their lumps during this difficult debate," in response to which Congressman Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y., shouted, "Yes, we did."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is credited with bringing together enough Democrats to overcome the final hurdle of passing the bill in the House, received special recognition. As Obama recognized Pelosi as "one of the best speakers the House of Representatives have ever had," the crowd unanimously chanted, "Nancy, Nancy, Nancy."
Vicki Reggie Kennedy, wife of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, was also present at the event. In an interview with ABC News' Jonathan Karl, Kennedy said her husband would've been "exhilarated" and "thrilled" by the passage of the bill. Sen. Kennedy, who was behind many landmark health bills, made health care reform the mission of his long Senate career.
Before the signing ceremony today, Vicki Kennedy gave Obama a plastic blue bracelet that said "TedStrong." The president and several lawmakers were seen wearing the bracelet. The late senator's son, Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., gave the president a copy of the first universal health care bill that his father introduced in the Senate.
But even while there was jubilation at the White House, Republicans promised a tough fight ahead. The Republican National Committee's "Fire Nancy Pelosi" Web site surpassed $1 million in funds raised since the health care legislation passed Sunday evening. Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin unveiled a list of 17 Democratic members of Congress who she wants to target in the upcoming mid-term elections.
"We're going to reclaim the power of the people from those who disregarded the will of the people. We're going to fire them and send them back to the private sector, which has been shrinking thanks to their destructive government-growing policies," Palin wrote in an e-mail to supporters seeking to raise money.
On radio and television, conservative commentators lashed out at the lawmakers who passed the legislation.
On his radio program, Rush Limbaugh said, "We need to defeat these bastards. We need to wipe them out."
Glen Beck said, "This bill is still jammed down the throats of America, just enough spiny, dirty weasels went along with it."
Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who voted 'yes' on the legislation, became a target. Her office in Arizona was vandalized over night.
In Florida, Bill McCollum became the first of 14 state attorney generals to file a lawsuit against the health care law. The states' attorney general are filing suits to block the health care law on the grounds that its requirement that everyone have health insurance is unconstitutional.
The lawsuit is "about forcing people to buy health insurance when there's no provision in the Constitution that allows for anybody to be forced to do something when there's no commerce, no action, you're just sitting there," said McCollum. "And it's about the question of forcing the state of Florida and other states against the sovereignty that's guaranteed in the Constitution to our states to do things that are practically impossible to do."
Four state legislatures have already passed laws blocking the bill. On Wednesday, Virginia's GOP Gov. Bob McDonnell will sign the bill into the state's law, making it illegal for the federal government to require Americans to purchase health insurance.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Three killed as President Museveni forcefully enters Kasubi tombs
At least three people were on Wednesday shot dead at the burial grounds of Buganda kings in Kasubi, a Kampala suburb, as the military used force to usher President Museveni to tour the destroyed royal mausoleum.
Four other civilians injured in the shooting were admitted at Mulago Hospital, Lt. Col. Felix Kulayigye, the army and defence spokesman, said.
Daily Monitor, however confirmed that a third person had died in hospital as a result of bullet wounds. Five security officers and firefighters were also injured.
Government has declined to disclose the identities of the victims, saying the next of kin will have to be notified first.
The revered heritage site was gutted in a fire on Tuesday night and thousands of people came to pay their respects at the wreckage yesterday. But the majority of the kingdom loyals did not want a visit from the President with whom the kingdom has had strained relations for years.
At around 11am, hundreds of young men, angrily shouting and chanting pro-Buganda slogans, barricaded the entrances to the burial grounds with large wooden logs, a water truck and reed poles.
One of them, who only identified himself as Julius, 18, told this newspaper that he was angry with the President and would not let him in.
Tensions have risen between central government and the kingdom since last September, with bloody riots in and around Kampala after authorities blocked Kabaka Mutebi from visiting Kayunga District, which is part of his kingdom.
But the soldiers, mainly drawn from the elite Special Forces commanded by Lt. Col. Muhoozi Kainerugaba, the President’s son, overpowered the Buganda subjects and stormed the revered premises under heavy gun fire.
Lt. Col. Kulayigye said an investigation is underway to establish if the tragic deaths, “could have been avoided”.
Mr Museveni, speaking to journalists shortly after a chaotic round-the-tomb tour, said: “I don’t know but I am a bit suspicious whether there was no deliberate act [to torch the burial place] because the people who stay here said they saw fire from behind there.”Hampering investigations But he said investigations could be hampered by the uncontrolled entry of people to the site since the fire began.
“Unfortunately, these people have interfered with the scene of the crime; if they had not gone in, in an uncontrolled way, it would have been easier to see if somebody passed through the fence because there was a reed fence behind,” Mr Museveni said.
“But still we are going to investigate and find out whether there was any deliberate act of arson.”
Some of the agitated Buganda subjects huddled in the skeletal remains of the burnt Muzibu Azaala Mpanga, and blocked President Museveni from accessing the graves of the fallen kings.
Prince Wasswa Wassajja, trapped at the UNESCO-certified World Heritage Site during the melee, condemned the military onslaught.
“It’s a nightmare; it’s very tragic,” he said of the fire incident, adding: “It’s bad enough what has happened to our treasured historical site and it’s another thing that has happened by the forceful entrance.”
He added: “We are the people who would have welcomed our visitors... I am sure they (the government) know who has a lot of stake in this.”
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Feingold Statement on the Fragile State of Democracy in Africa
For the Congressional Record
“The international community should not shy away from pushing for greater democratic space in Rwanda”. Senator Russ Feingold
[Since 1994, the world witnesses the horrifying Tutsi minority (14%) ethnic domination, the Tutsi minority ethnic rule, tyranny and corruption in Rwanda. The current government has been characterized by the total impunity of RPF criminals, the Tutsi economic monopoly, the Tutsi militaristic domination, and the brutal suppression of the rights of the majority of the Rwandan people (85% are Hutus), by the RPF criminal organization.]
Mr. President,
I’d like to note the many challenges to democracy we are seeing across Africa today. I have long said that promoting and supporting democratic institutions should be a key tenet of our engagement with Africa, as good governance is essential to Africa’s stability and its prosperity.Africans are well aware of this and that is why we have seen spirited democratic movements throughout the continent, even against great odds. It is also why African leaders have committed at the African Union with the Declaration on Democracy, Political, Economic and Corporate Governance that they will work to enforce “the right to participate in free, credible and democratic political processes.”
The previous administration spoke often about its commitment to promote democracy in Africa and throughout the world. The current administration too has committed to encourage strong and sustainable democratic governments, though it has rightly acknowledged that democracy is about more than holding elections. In his speech in Ghana, President Obama said, “America will not seek to impose any system of government on any nation – the essential truth of democracy is that each nation determines its own destiny.
What we will do is increase assistance for responsible individuals and institutions, with a focus on supporting good governance – on parliaments, which check abuses of power and ensure that opposition voices are heard; on the rule of law, which ensures the equal administration of justice; on civic participation, so that young people get involved…”
Mr. President,
I agree that we must take a more holistic approach in our efforts to promote and support democracy. Democracy is not just about a single event every few years; it is also about an ongoing process of governance that is accountable and responsive to the needs and will of citizens. And it is about citizens having the space, encouragement, and ability to educate themselves, mobilize and participate in that process. We must help countries build such institutions and encourage such space. And we must be willing to speak out against erosions of democratic rights and freedoms – and not only once a country reaches a crisis point such as a coup.
Mr. President,
while some African countries have made great democratic strides, I am concerned about the fragile state of democracy on the continent, especially within a number of countries set to hold elections over the next 15 months. In particular, I am concerned by the democratic backsliding in several countries that are close U.S. partners and influential regional actors.
It is notable that the Director of National Intelligence included a section on “stalled democratization” in Africa in his public testimony last month to the Senate Intelligence Committee on annual threat assessments. He stated, “The number of African states holding elections continues to grow although few have yet to develop strong, enduring democratic institutions and traditions. In many cases the ‘winner-take-all’ ethos predominates and risks exacerbating ethnic, regional, and political divisions.”
Elections are only one component of the democratic process, but still they are a significant one. The pre- and post-elections periods in many countries are ones in which democratic space and institutions are most clearly tested and face the greatest strains. They can be the periods in which democracy is at its best, but they can also be the periods in which democracy faces some of its greatest threats. This is the case not only in Africa; this is the case here in the United States and that is why I have worked tirelessly to limit the power of wealthy interests to unduly influence our elections.
Among those African countries scheduled to hold national elections in 2010 are Ethiopia, Sudan, Togo, Central African Republic, Burundi, Rwanda, Tanzania and Burkina Faso. Guinea, Madagascar, and Niger, three countries that have recently had coups, have also committed to hold elections this year. And in early 2011, Benin, Djibouti, Uganda, Nigeria and Chad are all scheduled to hold elections.
Mr. President,
of all these elections, Sudan’s is already receiving significant attention, and for good reason. That election – the country’s first multiparty one in 24 years – has the potential to be a historic step toward political transformation in Sudan if it is credible. However, restrictions on opposition parties and the continued insecurity in Darfur have many doubting whether the conditions even exist for credible elections.
Furthermore, increasing violence within southern Sudan is very worrying. In any case, the results of Sudan’s election in April will have a great influence on political dynamics within the country and region for years to come and will pave the way for southern Sudan’s vote on self-determination, set for January 2011. The international community is rightly keeping a close eye on these elections, and we need to continue supporting efforts to make them credible and be prepared to speak out against any abuses or rigging.
Similarly, we need to keep a close eye on the other African countries holding important elections this year. Let me highlight four countries whose upcoming elections I believe also merit close attention and specific international engagement.
Error: 103
The first is Ethiopia, which is set to hold elections in May. In his testimony, the Director of National Intelligence stated, “In Ethiopia, Prime Minister Meles and his party appear intent on preventing a repeat of the relatively open 2005 election which produced a strong opposition showing.” Indeed, in Ethiopia, democratic space has been diminishing steadily since 2005.
Over the last two years, the Ethiopian Parliament has passed several new laws granting broad discretionary powers to the government to arrest opponents. One such law, the Charities and Societies Proclamation, imposes direct government controls over civil society and bars any civil society group receiving more than 10 percent of its funding from international sources to do work related to human rights, gender equality, the rights of the disabled, children’s rights or conflict resolution. Another law, the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation, defines terrorism-related crimes so broadly that they could extend to non-violent forms of political dissent and protest.
Mr. President,
Ethiopia is an important partner of the United States and we share many interests. We currently provide hundreds of millions of dollars in aid annually to Ethiopia. That is why I have been so concerned and outspoken about these repressive measures. And that is why I believe we have a stake in ensuring that Ethiopia’s democratic process moves forward, not backward. With the elections just three months away, several key opposition leaders remain imprisoned, most notably Birtukan Mideksa, the head of the Unity for Democracy and Justice Party.
There is no way that elections can be fair, let alone credible, with opposition leaders in jail or unable to campaign freely. At the bare minimum, the international community should push for the release of these political prisoners ahead of the elections. And if nothing changes, we should not be afraid to stand with the Ethiopian people and state clearly that an election in name only is an affront to their country’s democratic aspirations.
The second country I want to highlight is Burundi. As many people will recall, Burundi was devastated by political violence throughout the 1990s, leaving over 100,000 people dead. Yet, the country has made tremendous strides in recent years to recover and rebuild from its civil war. In 2005, it held multi-party national and local elections, a major milestone on its transition to peace. Burundians are set to head to the polls again this year.
If these elections are fair, free and peaceful, they have the potential to be another milestone along the path toward reconciliation, lasting stability and democratic institutions. This would be good not only for Burundi, but also for the whole of Central Africa. Burundians deserve international support and encouragement as they strive for that goal.
Still, many challenges remain. The tensions that fed and were fueled by Burundi’s civil war have not entirely gone away. And there is some evidence that the parties continue to use the tools of war to pursue their political goals. According to a report by the International Crisis Group last month, “opposition parties are facing harassment and intimidation from police and the ruling party’s youth wing and appear to be choosing to respond to violence with violence.”
Furthermore, there continue to be reports that the National Intelligence Service is being used by the ruling party to destabilize the opposition. If these trends continue, they could taint Burundi’s elections and set back its peace process. The international community, which has played a big role in Burundi’s peace process, cannot wait until a month before the election to speak out and engage the parties these issues. We need to do it now.
Mr. President,
Burundi’s neighbor to the north, Rwanda, is also slated to hold important elections this summer. Rwanda is another country that has come a long way. Since the genocide in 1994, the government and people of Rwanda have made impressive accomplishments in rebuilding the country and improving basic services. It is notable that Rwanda was the top reformer worldwide in the 2010 World Bank’s “Doing Business Report.” President Kagame has shown commendable and creative leadership in this respect. On the democratic front, however, Rwanda still has a long way to go.
Understandably there are real challenges to fostering democracy some 15 years after the genocide, but it is troubling that there is not more space within Rwanda for criticism and opposition voices. The State Department’s 2008 Human Rights Report for Rwanda stated, “There continued to be limits on freedom of speech and of association, and restrictions on the press increased.” With elections looming, there are now some reports that opposition party members in Rwanda are facing increasing threats and harassment.
The international community should not shy away from pushing for greater democratic space in Rwanda, which is critical for the country’s lasting stability. We fail to be true friends to the Rwandan people if we do not stand with them in the fight against renewed abuse of civil and political rights. In the next few months in the run-up to the elections, it is a key time for international donors to raise these issues with Kigali.
Mr. President,
Finally I would like to talk about Uganda, which is set to hold elections in February 2011. Uganda, like Rwanda, is a close friend of the United States, and we have worked together on many joint initiatives over recent years. President Museveni deserves credit for his leadership on many issues both within the country and the wider region. However, at the same time, Museveni’s legacy has been tainted by his failure to allow democracy to take hold in Uganda. Uganda’s most recent elections have been hurt by reports of fraud, intimidation and politically motivated prosecutions of opposition candidates. The Director of National Intelligence stated in his testimony that Uganda remains essentially a “one-party state” and said the government “is not undertaking democratic reforms in advance of the elections scheduled for 2011.”
Uganda’s elections next year could be a defining moment for the country and will have ramifications for the country’s long-term stability. The riots in Buganda last September showed that regional and ethnic tensions remain strong in many parts of the country. Therefore, it is important that the United States and other friends of Uganda work with that country’s leaders to ensure critical electoral reforms are enacted. In the consolidated appropriations act that passed in December, Congress provided significant assistance for Uganda, but also specifically directed the Secretary of State “to closely monitor preparations for the 2011 elections in Uganda and to actively promote…the independence of the election commission; the need for an accurate and verifiable voter registry; the announcement and posting of results at the polling stations; the freedom of movement and assembly and a process free of intimidation; freedom of the media; and the security and protection of candidates.”
Mr.President,
Again these challenges are not unique to Africa. Here in the United States, we too have to work constantly to ensure the integrity of our elections and our democratic processes. But I believe these upcoming elections in a number of African states could have major ramifications for the overall trajectory of democracy on the continent as well as for issues of regional security. I also believe several of these elections could significantly impact U.S. policy and strategic partnerships on the continent. For that reason, I do not believe we can wait until weeks or days before these elections to start focusing on them. We need to start engaging well in advance and helping to pave the way for truly democratic institutions and the consolidation of democracy.
This includes aligning with democratic actors that speak out against repressive measures that erode political and civil rights. The Obama administration has done this well in some cases, but we need to do it more consistently and effectively. In the coming months, I hope to work with the administration to ensure we have a clear policy and the resources to that end.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Mao’s challenge ahead of 2011 polls
He served as guild president during his years at Makerere University, a position that shot him to national politics and served as a launch pad for him to win two parliamentary contests and the chairmanship of Gulu District.
Norbert Mao is now staring at the ultimate prize—national presidency.
Saturday’s Democratic Party delegates’ conference set him on the path to the presidency after he was elected president general and party flag bearer for the 2011 general election.
Party wrangles
But will he have a smooth ride to State House?
The answer is partly provided by the process that resulted in his election in Mbale, where he defeated Kampala Mayor Nasser Ssebaggala.
Mao is taking over DP’s leadership at a time when the party is deeply divided into two major warring factions.
One faction is led by Prof. Joseph Mukiibi, who lost his bid to block the controversial delegates’ conference which elected Mao as the president.
This faction has other individuals like Betty Nambooze, Kampala Central MP Elias Lukwago and Buikwe South MP Lulume Bayiga.
By press time yesterday, this group was still planning to organise its own delegates’ conference, during which it will most likely endorse DP-UK chairman Samuel Lubega as their presidential candidate and Dr. Michael Lulume Bayiga as the secretary general (Mbale re-elected Mathias Nsubuga as Secretary General a position over which the party was dragged to court).
Unity needed
Under the DP constitution, the party chairperson presides over the delegate’s conference. In his absence, the deputy chairperson takes charge. But neither the party chairman nor his deputy attended the Mbale delegates conference, which could mean that Mao has a lot to do to unite this group with the one headed by the party’s outgoing president John Ssebaana Kizito.
Of concern to Mao, should be the fact that unlike FDC and NRM, the Democratic Party lacks any meaningful structures on the ground, having lost the most coherent and quick-witted members to NRM and FDC.
In reality, to many Ugandans, talking about the opposition is the same as talking about FDC. The ruling party itself sees its immediate threat coming from FDC and not DP or Uganda People’s Conference (UPC). However, Aswa County MP, Reagan Okumu believes Mao’s intention, this time, is to make a mark on the national scene.
“In 2011, what will matter might be who is from which party,” Mr Okumu said. “It is about leadership style and I think that Mao’s outlook is to build the party. He is trying to identify himself as a national leader.”
Mr Mao who has until recently failed to show signs of warming up to the idea of a joint opposition candidate, could in effect serve to help the ruling party by dividing what has been a solid opposition vote in the north.
But Mr Okumu, who is the FDC chief mobiliser in the Acholi sub-region, dismisses this argument saying that Mao has constantly campaigned against Dr Besigye in the past two general elections and the people on the ground have not taken him seriously.
“In 2001, Mao supported Aggrey Awori for president and in 2006, he supported Ssebaana. Mao has never been in FDC,” Mr Okumu said.
“He has always campaigned against FDC. But we in FDC supported him. I don’t see how Mao will reduce Besigye’s votes. It’s not about a tribal game. It is about issues that the party stands for.”
The Inter-Party Coalition that consists of major opposition parties, plans to field a single presidential candidate to compete against the ruling NRM candidate in the 2011 polls.
President Museveni’s Political Assistant Moses Byaruhanga says the NRM’s support in the north has been growing in the past four years and that Mao’s bid cannot have any pessimistic effect on his party’s support.
“DP can not pose any threat to NRM in the north,” Mr Byaruhanga said, adding; “How many MPs from northern Uganda do they have? To me, the biggest opposition to NRM in northern Uganda has been the Joseph Kony war, and since the war ended those leaders who glorified Kony have no message.”
Mao was seen, by the ruling party as one of the young politicians who rode on popular discontent against President Museveni’s handling of the northern war.
“Even some leaders in the north who contested as independents are turning to NRM and it is because they see it as a party which is on the ground to help them get re-elected. Mao will never take any support from NRM. ”
Although Mr Mao has been fighting tribal stereotypes to portray himself as a national leader, there are serious concerns whether he could be able to pull a big following in areas of Buganda, Ankole and Teso, that could as well determine who will be the next president come 2011.
Delivering his key note address to the Buganda Conference this year, Mr Mao said: “We do not choose our tribes. I did not fill an application form to become an Acholi. I detest being judged on the basis of my ethnic origin,’’ he said.
Makerere University political scientist, Dr Simba Ssali Kayunga observes; “His [Mao] election is a positive step because it shows that DP is moving away from Buganda region to gain a national character.”
“But before he can concentrate on defeating Museveni and Dr Besigye in 2011, I think his strategy should be on uniting DP because a divided DP will undermine his chances.”
Sunday, January 24, 2010
New Drug That Kills H.I.V Found
Researchers believe they have found a new compound of drugs that could finally kill HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, and not just slow it down as current treatments do. Unlike the expensive cocktails that 25 years of research have produced, the compound, Caragenins, appears to hunt down and kill HIV.
Leading the research that has come up with the new compound was Dr Paul Savage of Brigham Young University (BYU), located in Provo, Utah in the United States.The private, coeducational research institution started on January 3, 1876 as an academy, before transforming into a fully-fledged university in 1903. Dr Savage said although so far limited to early test-tube studies, CSA-54, one of the family of the compound, mimics the disease-fighting characteristics of anti-microbial and anti-viral agents produced naturally by a healthy human immune system.
DRUG TESTED
Under the study sponsored by Ceragenix Pharmaceuticals, Savage and his colleagues developed and synthesised the compound for Vanderbilt University’s School of Medicine. In his laboratories, Dr Derya Unutmaz, an associate professor of Microbiology and Immunology, tested several CSAs for their ability to kill HIV. While issuing a cautious caveat about his early results, Unutmaz acknowledged on Monday that CSAs could be the breakthrough HIV/AIDS researchers have sought for so long.
“We received these agents [from BYU] in early October and our initial results began to culminate by November 2005. We have since reproduced all our results many times,” he said. “We have some preliminary but very exciting results [but] we would like to formally show this before making any claims that would cause unwanted hype.” Dr Unutmaz added: “We found that CSA-54 potently inhibits HIV infection of primary human CD4+ T cells, the virus’ in vivo targets, and was not toxic to epithelial cells at concentrations significantly higher than those required to kill the virus.”
He said in addition, CSA-54 killed a wide range of HIV isolates, and completely blocked genetically engineered HIV that enters the cells independent of the cell surface receptor that the virus normally uses. What the studies show to date is a compound that attacks HIV at its molecular membrane level, disrupting the virus from interacting with their primary targets, the “T-helper” class white blood cells that comprise and direct the human immune system.
KILLS ALL HIV STRAINS
Further, CSAs appear to be deadly to all known strains of HIV. That would be a welcome development for the estimated 40.3 million people now living with HIV/AIDS globally, including nearly five million newly infected in the past year alone. “We have devoted considerable resources to understand the mechanism of these compounds. We think this knowledge will enable us in collaboration with Dr Savage to design even better compounds,” Unutmaz said. In addition to being a potential checkmate to HIV, the compounds show indications of being just as effective against other diseases plaguing humankind - among them influenza, possibly even the dreaded bird flu, along with smallpox and herpes.
EIGHT-YEAR STUDY
Dr Savage said he and his BYU research team had been studying CSAs for eight years, taking note of the compounds’ value against microbial and bacteria infections. It was only a year ago that they saw the CSAs killed viruses, too. “They kill viruses very effectively and in a way paralleling our own, natural defences,” Savage said. He noted that beyond the obvious use as a weapon against the AIDS pandemic, CSAs could also help many others with non-HIV immune deficiencies.
The compounds appear to have few limits on how they are administered to patients. Although early indications are for application of the CSAs with an ointment or cream, pills or injections may also be developed - if the compound gets to market. The university and Vanderbilt have jointly filed a patent on CSA technology, which has been licensed exclusively to Ceragenix, the pharmaceutical company that sponsored the research.
MORE RESEARCH
Ceragenix Chief Executive Officer and Chairman Steven Porter said only further research would tell. He was, however, optimistic about the application of CSAs in the war on HIV/AIDS. There are indications that it could help battle antibiotic- and antiviral-resistance strains of disease as they manifest themselves.“We are encouraged . . . that CSAs may provide a completely unique family of anti-infectives, potentially active against a wide range of viral, fungal and bacterial targets, including those resistant to current therapies,” he said. Assuming continued positive test results in animal and eventual human trials, Porter estimates it could be three to seven years before the compound is available for prescription.
That transition could be accelerated, however, if the global Food and Drug Administration authorities should decide to fast-track the drug. That day is still a long way off, though. First, researchers plan to publish their results in scientific journals, seeking peer review and independent confirmation of their findings. Assuming no flaws are found, several rounds of testing would follow.
All the AIDS research luminaries reached said they preferred not to comment on the Vanderbilt tests until full results were published.
HIV AND AIDS IN UGANDA
Uganda is often held up as a model for Africa in the fight against HIV & AIDS. Strong government leadership, broad-based partnerships and effective public education campaigns all contributed to a decline in the number of people living with the disease. There are currently an estimated 940,000 people living with HIV in Uganda, and a further 1.2 million children who have been orphaned by AIDS.
THE CURRENT SITUATION
The current HIV prevalence in Uganda is estimated at 5.4 percent amongst adults. According to the Uganda HIV and AIDS Sero-Behavioural Survey, the number of people living with HIV is higher in urban areas (10.1 percent prevalence) than rural areas (5.7 percent). It is also higher among women (7.5 percent) than men (5.0 percent).
It is feared that HIV prevalence in the country may be rising again. There are many theories as to why this may be happening, including the government’s shift towards abstinence-based prevention programmes, and a general complacency or ‘AIDS-fatigue’. It has been suggested that antiretroviral drugs have changed the perception of AIDS from a death sentence to a treatable, manageable disease; this may have reduced the fear surrounding HIV, and in turn have led to an increase in risky behaviour. “People now think that because we have had HIV for so many years, it is a normal condition among the population,” says Dr Kihumuro Apuuli, the director of Uganda Aids Commission.
THE IMPACT OF AIDS ON UGANDA
AIDS has killed approximately one million people in Uganda, and significantly reduced life expectancy. It has depleted the country’s labour force, reduced agricultural output and food security, and weakened educational and health services. The large number of AIDS-related deaths amongst young adults has left behind over a million orphaned children. Women are particularly affected, representing 59 percent of those infected. Ugandan women tend to marry and become sexually active at a younger age than their male counterparts, and often have older and more sexually experienced partners. This (plus various biological and social factors) puts young women at greater risk of infection.
People living with HIV & AIDS in Uganda not only face difficulties related to treatment and management of the disease, but they also have to deal with AIDS-related stigma and discrimination at all levels of society.
WAY FORWARD
Uganda is at an important crossroad in the history of its AIDS epidemic. After a dramatic reduction in HIV prevalence following an early comprehensive HIV prevention campaign, there are signs that the number of people living with HIV in the country may be starting to rise again. More multi-sectoral approaches to curb the prevalence are called for.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Happy New Year.
Amen.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Museveni signs off Land Bill
But Mr Museveni who assented to the Bill from his country home in Rwakitura was unmoved by the controversy the new law has attracted, saying he is happy with the amendment because it will protect people from evictions.
“The President said he does not support taxing idle land, something that is being talked about by some people,” said a State House statement, sent to Daily Monitor last evening.
He signed the Bill in the company of members of the National Bibanja Owners Association.
But Buganda Kingdom Information Minister Charles Peter Mayiga said Ugandans opposed to the new law should not lose hope “as an opportunity will present itself for the law to be amended or even deleted at the right time”.
“President [Idi] Amin introduced the Land Reform Decree in 1975 but 20 years later it was thrown out. People should not lose sleep over this law,” he said
Mr Mayiga said Mengo presented its legitimate position to Parliament on why they are completely opposed to the Bill “and we cannot deviate from that position”.
Buganda Kingdom provided the fiercest opposition to the Bill, introduced to Parliament three years ago. And when it was passed by Parliament on November 26, 2009, the Kingdom Prime Minister, Mr John Baptist Walusimbi, issued a declaration, saying Buganda would not respect the new piece of legislation and would continue its sensitisation about its negative content.
Mr Mayiga’s deputy, Mr Medard Lubega, said; “I can speak with confidence that this law is not in the best interests of Ugandans. It is his (the President’s) law.”
“Pontius Pilate danced to the tune of the gallery. In the end he had to wash his hands and assured himself that he was washing himself clean,” he added.
At yesterday’s signing ceremony, President Museveni criticised those opposed to the new law, saying socio-economic changes will come through education and not through financial coercion.
He thanked members of the government Mobilisation team led by Maj. Jacob Asiimwe, present at the function, for sensitising the masses about the need for the new law.
“The team was appointed by the President after forces opposed to the amendment went to the public spreading untrue and ill intentioned propaganda that the new law was a ploy to grab land from sections of people in Buganda,” the statement said.
The new law will hand down a seven-year jail sentence or a fine of Shs1.9 million, or both penalties, to any individual who evicts or attempts to evict tenants without order of court. The new law will offer tenants a grace period of six months before an eviction order can be effected.
The Bill also empowers the Lands Minister to determine ground rent within six months after district land boards have failed to do so.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
