Purist vs. Pragmatists: Why the latter usually do better

Moreno-Ocampo, chief prosecutor of the ICC

There has been a lot of debate about the future prospects for peace in northern Uganda in recent years. The debates have tended to focus on two specific mechanisms established by the Ugandan government and the international community to bring an end to the violence in northern Uganda: 1) the Amnesty Act, which would grant immunity from criminal prosecution to members of the Lord's Resistance Army from the lowest to the highest ranks, if individual soldiers agree to lay down their weapons and turn themselves in to the government; and 2) the International Criminal Court's prosecution of members of the LRA, (in particular, Joseph Kony and Vincent Otti) for their crimes against humanity. Anyone who captures these rebel leaders are bound to bring them before the court where they would be tried and prosecuted under international law.

What are the debates? I won't go into the whole set of issues these two mechanisms have ignited, particularly among human rights advocates, policymakers and scholars in recent years - but noting the establishment of recent peace talks being held in Juba, Sudan with the LRA and the Ugandan government, and the increasing pressure placed on countries, including the DRC and Sudan, to arrest Joseph Kony and several of his commanding officers - I have found that those who had bemoaned the role of the International Criminal Court in Uganda may be forced to reflect on the pragmatism of their purist views. The general purist position on the matter goes something like this: the Ugandan government, under President Museveni, has been the perpetrator of massive human rights violations of its own, against the Acholi population in the north. While the LRA has no doubt perpetrated horrible acts of violence and even genocide against these people, the policy of placing these same civilians in internally displaced camps and failing to protect them in any way, makes the government culpable for the perpetration of its own injustices against this vulnerable minority population.

A number of important figures, both within and outside Uganda, have begun to point the finger of responsibility towards the Ugandan government in recent years. The extreme version (promulgated by Joseph Kony, among others - see the posting re. his interview below), states that most of the atrocities committed against the Acholi - have been committed by the government. In some cases, the government has tried to hide its own culpability by blaming the LRA. Few people believe this to be the case. However, many human rights advocates and local Ugandans have begun to criticize the ICC process for not bringing to account the role of the Ugandan government in perpetrating injustice by failing to protect and adequately provide for the needs of the Acholi. A kind of racism, tribalism and exclusion pervades government policies with regard to the North - and has not been addressed by those who are attempting to bring the LRA to justice. Some also argue that the ICC may only perpetuate the violence by interrupting domestic and local efforts at building trust in the amnesty efforts. (see this article for example)

However, while it is clear that the Ugandan government is itself responsible for some of the violence and the poor plight of IDPs in the North, the purist position leads to a renouncing of international efforts to bring the LRA to justice in the name of bringing all guity parties to the table. The purist position denounces attempts to bring one group to justice because the other/real perpetrators are not being held accountable.

My view is that taking the purist position only undermines any effort at promoting peace and justice. Our nature is to want to blame one or another - there are the good guys and there are the bad guys. The debate on amnesty and the role of the ICC has tended to stress the need for justice either with regard to the LRA or the UPDF. The reality is some murky middle. Museveni took power in a coup. It's alleged that his government is quite corrupt and benefits from having the LRA continue its attacks in the North. International aid flows in, government officials wad their pockets with money; and everyone (except the displaced, who have no voice) are happy, at least for the time being.

Well. This is not an ideal state of affairs. But despite the mixed possible results of an ICC in Uganda, progress towards peace is being made. And despite skepticism about how this might impact the LRA given the undermining of the Amnesty provisions, it is clear that the LRA has been backed into a corner and is being forced to negotiate. This is certainly not a clear 'win' for those advocating for the ICC's role, but it does seem to undermine arguments to contrary.

I could say more, but will save more thought on this vein for another time...