Kony Video May Lead to Deeper Questions

 Although Kony 2012 film largely deals with past events, it could
prompt wider debate about justice.

By Moses Odokonyero - International Justice - ICC



ACR Issue 317,

30 Mar 12





I happened to be in Kitgum, one of the seven districts that make up
the Acholi sub-region, in the same week that the Kony 2012 video was
released.

This region, located in the far north of Uganda, on the border with
South Sudan, was the area worst affected by the two-decade-long
insurgency by the Lord’s Resistance Army, LRA. Over a long period, LRA
forces based in South Sudan used Kitgum district as an entry point to
launch devastating attacks on the civilian population in Uganda.

But that was more than five years ago. Even so, the Ugandan government
has broadly welcomed the film.

The reason I was in Kitgum was to report on a discussion on the future
of the Amnesty Act, a piece of legislation passed by the Ugandan
parliament 12 years ago to pardon people who had engaged in war or
armed rebellion. Most of the beneficiaries of the law are former LRA
rebels.

So it seemed fitting that Kitgum was where I first saw Kony 2012, a
sleek video by the American charity Invisible Children which aims to
make LRA leader Joseph Kony so notorious that governments will take
action to apprehend him.

The film went viral and quickly attracted global attention; at the
time of writing, more than 100 million people have finally viewed the
30-minute documentary.

As a charity, Invisible Children has built dormitories for
schoolchildren, fixed water supplies in schools and sponsored
disadvantaged children to go to university. But all that is dwarfed by
the controversy surrounding Kony 2012.

Critics of the film point to a major disconnect between the message
framed in the video and the current realities on the ground in
northern Uganda.

For instance, camps for internally displaced persons, IDPs, in
northern Uganda have been officially closed, and the government has
said the region has moved into a “recovery and development phase”. The
film, meanwhile, seems to suggest there is an ongoing humanitarian
crisis.

At the peak of displacement in northern Uganda, there were 251 IDP
camps spread across 11 districts. So wretched was life in the camps
that on a visit to northern Uganda in 2003, Jan Egeland, the United
Nations under-secretary general for humanitarian affairs, described
the conflict in northern Uganda as “the biggest forgotten, neglected
humanitarian emergency in the world today”.

At about that time, there were calls by some local leaders in northern
Uganda for the government to declare a state of emergency in the
region as a way of attracting from the international community. The
government dismissed the suggestion outright. In doing so, it was in a
sense rejecting international attention at the very time northern
Uganda needed it most.

It is only now, more than a decade later, the government welcomed the
spotlight that Kony 2012 has placed on the north. It is quite a
turnaround.

In 2003, with about 1.8 million people displaced in the IDP camps, any
international focus on the humanitarian situation in the north would
have exposed the inability and failure of the Ugandan state to protect
its citizens, at a time when the government wanted to create the
impression that it was in full control.

Another reason is that as well as the LRA, the Ugandan army stands
accused of gross human rights violations in the north. Opening the
region to international scrutiny at a time when the authorities were
not even fully in control of the camps they had set up – some
massacres took place in these IDP facilities – would not have been to
the government’s advantage.

These days, the government’s magic wand for northern Uganda is the
Peace, Recovery, Development Programme, PRDP, a multimillion US dollar
initiative funded by external donors and the state itself. PRDP was
launched in October 2007, with implementation beginning in July 2008.
Roads, health centres, police outposts and schools have been built
under the initiative. Clearly, these are positive post-conflict
achievements.

Why, then, would the government of Uganda be happy about a video that
appears to suggest the north is still in the grip of a humanitarian
crisis?

The answer is that unlike in 2003, the government now feels it is now
totally in control of affairs in northern Uganda and can therefore
allow and even welcome greater international attention. External
interest will work in the government’s favour as it looks for more
funding for post-conflict recovery efforts both in this region and in
other poor parts of Uganda.

The video continues to receive criticism from bloggers and journalists
in Uganda. On March 13, an attempt to screen the video in Lira, in the
Lango sub-region – another area affected by the LRA conflict – had to
be stopped when things threatened to turn violent.

The reasons for such hostility could be because the video was not
primarily meant for a Ugandan audience.

Irrespective of the video’s weak points, it could yet lead to deeper
questions being asked about what exactly happened in northern Uganda
during the conflict, and who was responsible.

Outside interest may have come far too late, given that the crisis is
over and reconstruction is moving ahead. But the victims of war are
still crying out for justice. They might be the ultimate beneficiaries
of Kony 2012.

Moses Odokonyero is head of the Northern Uganda Media club, based in
Gulu reporter in northern Uganda.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"South Sudan Info - The Kob" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/SouthSudanKob?hl=en.

Reply via email to