[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 147 (Tuesday, September 16, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8846-S8847]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                 AFRICA

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am very concerned that one of Africa's 
most gruesome and longstanding conflicts is once again falling off the 
radar screen of this Congress and this administration. For 22 years, 
northern Uganda has been caught in a war between the Ugandan military 
and rebels of the Lord's Resistance Army, leading at its height to the 
displacement of 1.8 million people, nearly 90 percent of the region's 
population. Just a few years ago, an estimated 1,000 people were dying 
each week in squalid camps, and northern Uganda was called the world's 
worst neglected humanitarian crisis. The rebels for their part are 
reviled across the world for their horrific brutality. Over the course 
of the conflict, they have reportedly abducted more than 66,000 
children, forcing them into sexual slavery or child soldiering.
  In March of 2007, the Senate passed a resolution I introduced 
recognizing this crisis and calling on the administration to support 
the ongoing peace negotiations. These negotiations--which began in 2006 
in Juba, Southern Sudan, and were mediated by the Government of 
Southern Sudan--brought a cessation of hostilities and offered the best 
opportunity in a decade to bring an end to the war. At the urging of 
this Congress and thousands of concerned Americans, the State 
Department finally appointed a senior diplomat to coordinate U.S. 
support for this peace process. That diplomat, Tim Shortley, played a 
crucial role over the last year in moving the negotiations forward. In 
March 2008, the parties reached an agreement that was one of the most 
comprehensive of its kind, including provisions for truth-telling, 
disarmament and demobilization, reconciliation and accountability.
  Unfortunately, the leader of the Lord's Resistance Army--LRA--Joseph 
Kony, has refused to sign the agreement. Far more disturbing, his 
rebels now operating almost entirely outside Uganda and instead in the 
border region between Central African Republic, Congo, and Southern 
Sudan have resumed attacks and abducting children. They are easily 
exploiting the region's porous borders and ungoverned spaces a problem 
which, in my view, constitutes a threat to international peace and 
security. Yet rather than intensify efforts to engage and pressure Kony 
to accept the agreement, the United States and others in the 
international community have downscaled our efforts. Instead of 
mustering the tremendous resources at our disposal to press the rebels 
to accept a political solution, we have turned our attention elsewhere 
again.
  As a result, there is now a haphazard military operation underway to 
contain the rebels by the Congolese military a force not known for its 
success in defeating armed groups or for respecting civilians caught in 
the crossfire. Yes, the U.N. Peacekeeping Force in Congo, known by its 
French acronym MONUC, is supporting the Congolese military, but MONUC 
is already overwhelmed by its inability to fully address its primary 
task: controlling the persistent violence in the eastern Congo. I 
visited that region last summer and it is a region desperately in need 
of greater security. Without expanded resources and capacity focused

[[Page S8847]]

on this problem, a completely new offensive runs a high risk of 
exacerbating the region's volatility rather than addressing it. We have 
seen too many times in this part of the world how rash and 
uncoordinated ``military solutions'' have fueled the flames of conflict 
and generated new political grievances.
  This is not to say that security measures aren't needed to protect 
civilians in the region and thereby bring permanent peace to eastern 
Congo and northern Uganda. They are. Until we are able to build the 
capacity of national and regional institutions, the LRA and other armed 
groups will continue to exploit the region's borders and wreak havoc 
throughout these four countries. We need more inter-agency 
collaboration to consider how we can bolster sustainable long-term 
civilian protection mechanisms, while in the meantime devising creative 
short-term strategies to help fill the gaps.
  The calm brought by the Juba peace process presented an unprecedented 
opportunity in this conflict's history to rebuild northern Uganda's 
institutions, which is the surest safeguard against future violence and 
instability. I fear that this opportunity is being squandered. Since 
the cessation of hostilities was signed two years ago, nearly half of 
the people displaced have returned to their original homes and begun to 
restore their livelihoods. However, this process has increasingly been 
fraught with problems. The lack of access to basic services in the 
villages and transit sites, such as clean water, health care and 
education, has broken up families and hindered recovery. The lack of a 
capable and competent police force and judiciary has left women and 
girls vulnerable to sexual violence. Finally, the lack of programs to 
address underlying grievances and psychosocial trauma has allowed 
tensions to fester.
  Responsibility for managing northern Uganda's transition lies first 
and foremost with the Government of Uganda. I realize that the 
government has limited capacity, but it seems there has been a distinct 
lack of high-level leadership. In October 2007, the Ugandan government 
launched a three-year $600-million recovery plan for the war-torn 
region, but that plan has been mired in confusion. Its partial 
implementation only began 2 months ago. Moreover, there continues to be 
a lack of coordination between the government, donors, U.N. agencies 
and non-governmental organizations. I urge the Ugandan government to 
show leadership at the highest levels and demonstrate its willingness 
to fulfill the promises it made to the people of northern Uganda over 
the last year.
  If the Ugandan government leads and takes measures to prevent 
corruption, the international community should back it up with the 
necessary financial and technical support. To signal that commitment, I 
call on the administration to help convene a high-level conference of 
Uganda donors. Such a conference can coordinate an effective donor 
strategy to support recovery efforts and hold the Ugandan government 
accountable. This conference, though, must only be the beginning of 
reinvigorated institutional engagement by this administration and the 
next to bring this conflict to its conclusion, which is finally in 
sight after 22 years. Let us make it clear once and for all that the 
United States is resolved to see peace secured in northern Uganda.
  Too often this Administration has leapfrogged from one crisis to 
another in Africa, trying to put out fires but not addressing the 
underlying factors driving these conflicts. This is not a result of 
lack of interest or dedication from our diplomats, for I have seen 
first-hand their resourcefulness and hard work. But the reality is that 
the State Department's Africa Bureau is overwhelmed and under 
resourced. For places like northern Uganda or eastern Congo or the 
Niger Delta, we do not have the personnel or on-the-ground presence to 
respond comprehensively to insecurity. We in Congress must give greater 
attention in the coming months and years to ensuring our diplomats have 
the resources they need to operate in these neglected conflict areas. 
However, that process begins with us committing to these places, not 
just whenever they hit the headlines but because they are important to 
our collective security and to basic American principles.

                          ____________________