Home › Enough Said ›

A Quick Guide to the Lord’s Resistance Army Bill

Posted by Ledio Cakaj on May 05, 2010
 

As the Lord’s Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009 (S.1067/H.R. 2478) moves closer to final passage by both the House and Senate and on to President Obama’s desk, here is a short guide to this important and historic piece of legislation.

1-Q) What is the current status of the bill?

A) The U.S. Senate passed the bill by unanimous consent on March 11, 2010. On April 28, 2010, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs passed the bill with bipartisan support. In the coming weeks, the bill will likely go on the House floor for a full vote. If passed, the bill will then be sent to President Obama.

2-Q) What happens when President Obama receives the bill?

A) Within 10 days of receiving the bill, President Obama will have to either veto the bill or sign it into law. Then, the Obama administration has 180 days to come up with a strategy to deal with the LRA. The strategy will then be presented to Congress.

3-Q) What does the bill call on the Obama administration to do?

A) The bill requires that the U.S. government develop a multilateral interagency strategy “to protect civilians from the Lord’s Resistance Army, to apprehend or remove Joseph Kony and his top commanders from the battlefield in the continued absence of a negotiated solution, and to disarm and demobilize the remaining Lord’s Resistance Army fighters.” The bill also calls for assistance to address the humanitarian needs of victims and to rebuild and rehabilitate communities targeted by the LRA.

4-Q) Does the bill call for direct U.S. military involvement in fighting the LRA?

A) The bill calls for “political, economic, military and intelligence support for viable multilateral efforts” to eliminate the threat of the LRA. While there is certainly a clear call for military support to the strategy for removing the LRA threat, the military component is only one aspect of the multilateral strategy. The bill also emphasizes the need for support to strengthen regional and U.N. efforts to protect civilians, strategies to encourage defections of LRA rank and file, and regional diplomatic efforts.

5-Q) Does the bill ask for support to Ugandan led offensives or preclude potential future peace talks?

A) The bill asks for a “viable plan” to eliminate the LRA threat with a tacit understanding that support will not be given to plans which have failed in the past or have risked civilians’ lives. Senator Russ Feingold, one of the leading authors of the legislation and chairman of U.S. Senate’s Africa Subcommittee explained in an op-ed in the Ugandan Daily Monitor and the Huffington Post:

“Our bill does not, however, encourage a new Ugandan-led military offensive against the LRA and does not sanction any specific military operation. Instead, it seeks to push a comprehensive approach in which military activity would be one component within a larger framework. Such an approach, though, should also include humanitarian components and support for credible diplomatic efforts to press for a viable political solution.”

6-Q) How important is the non-military component?

A) The bills asks the House appropriations committee to allocate up to $10 million to the U.S. State Department and foreign operations for humanitarian purposes in LRA-affected areas in Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, and southern Sudan

7-Q) How does northern Uganda benefit from this bill?

A) The bill asks for $30 million to be allocated to northern Uganda over three years. The money is intended to be devoted to the development of a truth commission, accountability mechanisms for crimes committed by all sides in the conflict, and reparations for victims – provisions agreed to in the Juba Peace Talks of 2007 that have not yet been fully implemented. The bill also asks President Obama to increase aid to basic services programs in northern Uganda but on the condition that the Government of Ugandan honor its promises of investing in the North under its Peace, Recovery, and Development Plan, or PRDP.

For more info, have a look at this memo by Resolve Uganda.

 

Photo: LRA fighters in Congo (AP)

Submitted by jenifer (not verified) on January 13, 2011 - 1:22am.

The military solution to the LRA insurgency has Never worked. This article is excellent in pointing out the fallacies behind "Africom", The Enough Project, Resolve, and Invisible Children(who testking NS0-154 | testking 646-671 are used to advocate for a military solution to the LRA). As past experience has proved there is no solid plan to protect civilians. In putting into effect the testking 70-450 | testking 642-359 "military" solution to the LRA the US is once again propping up its ally corrupt military dictator President Museveni who could care less testking 646-046 | testking 650-195 about human life. He cares only about remaining in power no matter how many innocents die as a result of his policies. It is no coincidence that this further call for a military solution comes in the run-up year to the election in Uganda that he is busy rigging as we speak. All political opponents are his "enemy" and are treated as such! A draconian bill to muzzle free speech is in the works, beyond his attempts to shut down free speech and the media already in effect. It appears that the USA military industrial complex that supports the Museveni's of this world is to be expanded in the form of Africom, under the guise of bringing "peace" to Africa. The miltary industrial complex underpins the economy testking 70-401 | testking 640-460 of the US and so it is in their interest to seek out military solutions around the world...of course they are not solutions, just more WAR, more death, more suffering. No other solutions are seriously considered. The UPDF should withdraw from the DRC. Let's see the US government support true democracy, prosecution of those Ugandan elites responsible for the theft of billions of dollars of tax payers money from donors and Ugandans, and those responsible for human rights abuses and torture.
----------------------------
testking 642-691 | testking 352-001 | testking 70-433 | testking 642-971

Submitted by Niccy (not verified) on January 5, 2011 - 1:23am.

The Eee PC 1015PEM-P introduces the all-new Intel Atom N550 dual-core processor Printer that's specially made to deliver responsive multitasking performance without compromising battery life. With the innovative ASUS Super Hybrid Engine, easily Plustek Opticfilm | Hp Officejet 4500select a power profile and optimize system performance for your task at hand.

The impressive 10.1-inch WSVGA display also utilizes LED-backlit technology for brighter visuals and enhanced energy savings compared to netbooks without it. All of the power-saving features combine to deliver up to 13 hours of Asus Eee Pc 1018P | Dell Latitude D420 battery life between charges.1 Almost double the battery life in most notebooks, you will have more than enough unplugged freedom to outlast the longest plane trips and back-to-back meetings.

Submitted by jenifer (not verified) on December 31, 2010 - 2:06am.

Went back to Marinitas last night for the first time since my last horrible experience there. Service was 70-646 dumps MUCH better and attentive. Had the heirloom tomato salad which was pretty darn good, and my friend had the chicken tacos, which she loved (and she's 70-662 dumps as picky as I am). On the hole, a great dining experience last night, and our server was excellent. 350-018 dumps I will say, I'm glad we came here for "girls night out" last night, but I guess I'm still 642-524 dumps irritated about the last time we were there (ok, I hold grudges, so what?) Even though 70-647 dumps everything was great this time, I still have reservations about going there and getting rude 70-290 dumps service and crappy food. If I have to choose between Marinitas and Taco Janes, I will still pick Taco Janes all the way.
-----------------------------
650-568 dumps | 1Y0-A17 dumps | 642-165 dumps | 640-553 dumps

Submitted by ??????????? ??????? (not verified) on December 5, 2010 - 10:26am.

It appears that you have placed a lot of effort into your article and I require more of these on the net these days.

Submitted by Abby (not verified) on October 27, 2010 - 2:28pm.

So, this is what the US is doing... finally. Are there any other governments following suit? Canada or European countries or anything? Anyone know?

Submitted by Patrick (not verified) on June 22, 2010 - 4:12pm.

It is encouraging that the LRA insurgency may be coming to an end, but I urge the US Government to do more for Northern Uganda than the 30M$. From 1992, LRA war was indeed a proxy war between Government of Sudan and SPLA backed by Uganda and the US. Northern Uganda was the battlefield (grass). Now that Southern Sudan seems to have emerged out as a separate country, Sudan lost and SPLA with their backers won. I think the US should prepare a mini "Marshall Plan" for Northern Uganda if only to say 'thank you for availing us a war theatre', and name it differently from the discredited PRDP. Second thing is that such a program be managed different from the corruption-ridden Uganda system. It will be a dis-service to the American tax-payers to part with hard-earned dollars only for the corrupt officials to construct leaking roofs, cracked walls and shoddy road works and stash the money away through unscrupulous contractors.

Submitted by djemy (not verified) on June 7, 2010 - 12:33pm.

I really just want to help out with anything is there anyway i can help

Submitted by mary freund (not verified) on May 20, 2010 - 4:35pm.

Thank you for your continued support on behalf of the people in Africa...job well done!!

Submitted by Tatiana (not verified) on May 20, 2010 - 9:44am.

Dear Ledio,

This bill is a US Government Bill, not Congolese legislation. In this commentary, you mention Uganda and the possibility of a Ugandan offensive, but at no point do you mention President Kabila's views on this bill or how the US / Uganda will be working with the Congolese Government to realise this bill. Can you elaborate on this point please? Did the US Government work with the Congolese Government when formulating this bill and these new startegies to remove the LRA from Equator Region?

The main concern is that there are already many alien rebel/army groups in the eastern Congo and this has caused a huge upsurge in violence against Congolese Civilians that has over the years increased despite the presence of MONUC. The Equator region does not suffer with the issue of sexual violence for example and we are gravely concerned that a Ugandan led offensive would spread the threat of sexual violence to this region. Another concern is that it would extend the presence of a non-Congolese African military presence in DR Congo which would effectively encompass the whole of the Northen Congo. This to me would resemble a type of 'occupation' of the Congo by Uganda and Rwanda.

Please advise me on these points and concerns.

Kind Regards,

Tatiana

Submitted by Ledio (not verified) on May 24, 2010 - 1:01pm.

Dear Tatiana,

There is a difference between the bill and the strategy it asks the Obama administration to formulate to deal with the LRA. The US government has not been required to work with the Congolese government to formulate this bill, as you say, because the bill is a piece of US legislation. It is debated and passed in US Congress and signed by the President. What happens after the bill becomes law is a different matter.

As part of the strategy stipulated in the bill, I believe that the Obama administration will certainly talk to President Kabila as well as other key actors in the region about how to remove the threat of the LRA.

And yes, Province Orientale has been suffering from the LRA and eastern Congo has been plagued by many armies. It is possible that another Ugandan offensive in the region is far from certain and might not even be contemplated at this point. In any case, I am certain that the US administration will devise a strategy making civilian protection a priority no matter what course of action it chooses to promote.

Best,
Ledio