Tag: Uganda
Stevenson’s army, December 16
This is not the worst of what the Russians are doing, but it is still terrible.
– GOP leader McCarthy has postponed votes on committee leaders until after the Jan 3 speaker election, further delaying organization, staffing, and hearings. – WSJ says Russia is wooing Uganda. – Semafor reports interagency fight over China restrictions. – International Crisis Group points to worse problems than Ukraine. – State is expanding China Desk to “China House.” – Senate approved huge NDAA, sending it to the president. Omnibus details won’t be revealed until Monday, ultimate passage likely — after political games. My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I republish here, with occasional videos of my choice. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Kinship and insurgency
Christopher Merriman, a second year student at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, writes:
At a February 12, 2020 talk hosted by the SAIS African Studies department, Assistant Professor of Political Science at George Washington University Janet Lewis proposed a theory that networks of ethnic kinship in Uganda help rebel groups expand from upstart organizations into viable groups.
Lewis’ research looks at 16 incipient rebel groups that have operated in Uganda since 1986. Her research question asks, “What factors enabled four of these groups to become ‘viable’ while the other 12 failed?” Lewis defines a rebel group as “viable” if it reaches a “minimal threshold of threatening the authority of the central government.” This threshold includes being based in the target country for more than 3 months and having at least 100 troops.
Lewis’ study found that the four rebel groups that became viable operated in ethnically homogeneous areas. Meanwhile, all of the 12 groups that failed to become viable operated in ethnically heterogeneous areas. Ethnic homogeneity is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a rebel group to become viable. Not all groups from homogeneous areas became viable but viable groups all came from homogeneous regions.
Lewis grounds her argument in the precondition that incipient rebel groups are vulnerable to civilians telling the government of their existence. Rebel groups depend on civilians to keep their secrets. They are more likely to keep quiet if they have a favorable impression of the rebel group or think that the group will likely become “viable.”
According to Lewis, kinship networks in ethnically homogeneous regions facilitate the spread of positive information about the rebel groups. Members of ethnically-based kinship networks in homogeneous societies are much more likely to pass along information than groups of different ethnicities living in heterogeneous societies. Lewis conducted a study of two villages in Uganda that found that news traveled eight times more widely in a homogeneous village than in a heterogeneous one. These kinship networks will not necessarily spread “good news” about the rebel groups. However, kinship networks are necessary in order to spread favorable views of the rebel groups that prevent civilians from reporting the rebel group to the government. Kinship networks represent a necessary but not sufficient condition for a rebel group to become viable.
Lewis also found that the grievances of rebel groups are sometimes fueled by government responses to initial violence. Local grievances are often cited as a major reason for the formation of rebel groups or insurgencies and for their subsequent success. However, Lewis finds that rebel groups sometimes initiate violence, and only then gain grievances against the government due to government reprisals. She cited this as a reason for studying all rebel groups early on in their formation, not just those who become viable to the point that they become well-known.
Lewis does not consider group ideology a major factor in her analysis. In my view, this as a shortcoming of her model. For example, she compared two groups (one that became viable and one that did not) and argued that the main difference between the two was operating in a homogeneous/heterogeneous area. However, one group was fighting to return deposed president Milton Obote to power. Surely, this affected how the local people viewed this rebel group.
There are currently no rebel groups operating in Uganda. Lewis attributed this largely to the reign of president Yoweri Museveni, who himself started as a rebel. According to Lewis, Museveni understands the importance of controlling the flow of information. As a result, he has installed a “deeply penetrative civilian intelligence network.” Every village in Uganda has a security representative. As a result, no one bothers trying to start a rebel group anymore.
Museveni has been able to maintain security in Uganda by controlling access to information to the point that he can prevent incipient rebel groups from forming in the first place. Lewis, however, noted the negative side of this penetration. Uganda is a very repressive country with few civil liberties or viable opposition parties.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks March 18-22
1. Women Leading Nonviolent Movements | Friday, March 22, 2019 | 9:30 am – 11:30pm | United States Institute of Peace | 2301 Constitution Ave NW, Washington, DC 20037| Register Here |
Women’s leadership in nonviolent movements creates opportunities for new and diverse tactics and often ensures a diversity of participation, increasing a movement’s power. But, women also face specific challenges, such as balancing their activism with their roles at home and the workplace, their vulnerability to sexual abuse, and challenging perceptions of powerlessness.
To celebrate National Women’s History Month, the U.S. Institute of Peace and the 2020 One Woman, One Vote Festival will host an intergenerational discussion among women nonviolent activists. To strengthen future nonviolent movements, leaders must learn from the past challenges and successes. Women leaders from Libya, Syria, Uganda, Afghanistan, the U.S. and Venezuela will speak from their experiences as activists for social change on the challenges they faced as women and how they organize to overcome them.
This event will be moderated by Marie Berry, University of Denver, Kathleen Kuehnast, Director of Gender Policy and Strategy at the U.S. Institute of Peace, Maria Stephan, Director of Nonviolent Action at the U.S. Institute of Peace
Agenda
speakers:
Scovia Arinaitwe, Team Leader, Rhizing Women Uganda
Palwasha Hassan, Afghan Women’s Educational Center
Mariam Jalabi, Founding Member, Syrian Nonviolence Movement
Zahra’ Langhi, Co-Founder and CEO, Libyan Women’s Platform for Peace
Isabella Picón, Founding Member, LaboCiudadano – Venezuela
Judy Richardson, Producer of “Eyes on the Prize”
2. The Future of Nuclear Arms Control | Wednesday, March 20, 2019 | 12:30 am – 2:00pm | Stimson Center |1211 Connecticut Ave NW, 8th Floor Washington, DC 20036| Register Here |
The Trump administration and the Kremlin have given notice of intent to withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. New START may be next on the chopping block. Even if New START can be extended, what steps might usefully follow? Are numerical constraints still feasible? Stimson is convening a series of brainstorming sessions on our nuclear future and how best to shape it.
Panelists
Ambassador Linton Brooks, Distinguished research fellow at the National Defense
University
Dr. Kristin Ven Bruusgaard, MacArthur Nuclear Security Postdoctoral Fellow at Stanford’s Center for International Security and Cooperation.
Dr. Brad Roberts, Director of the Center for Global Security Research at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California.
Heather Hurlburt, Director of the New America Foundation’s New Models of Policy Change project.
Moderator:
Michael Krepon, Co-founder of the Stimson Center.
3. Religious authority in the Middle East: Implications for U.S. policy The Future of Nuclear Arms Control | Tuesday, March 19, 2019 | 12:30 am – 2:00pm | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace|1779 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20036-2103| Register Here |
In a project supported by the Henry R. Luce Foundation, this study maps religious authority and the channels of influence between religious actors in the region and broader populations using a 12-country public opinion survey throughout the Middle East and North Africa. The survey data provides a snapshot of religious authority in various contexts, supplemented by fieldwork that examines specific mechanisms that build and maintain religious authority.
The Baker Institute Center for the Middle East and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace present a daylong conference during which leading Middle East and North Africa experts discuss the implications of the study’s findings.
Conference Agenda
8:00 – 9:00 a.m.
Registration & Breakfast
9:00 – 9:10 a.m.
Welcome
Sarah Yerkes
9:10 – 9:20 a.m.
Introduction
A.Kadir Yildirim
9:20 – 10:00 a.m.
Keynote Address
Shaun Casey
10:00 – 11:00 a.m.
Panel I: The State, Religious Authority, and Legitimacy
Chair:
Nathan Brown
Panelists:
Courtney Freer, Annelle Sheline, Scott Williamson
11:00 – 11:10 a.m.
Break
11:10 a.m. – 12:25 p.m.
Panel II: Non-state Religious Actors and Authority
Chair:
Sarah Yerkes
Panelists:
Sharan Grewal, Mirjam Künkler, Tarek Masoud, Yusuf Sarfati
12:25 – 1:00 p.m.
Lunch
1:00 – 2:00 p.m.
Keynote Address
Peter Mandaville
2:00 p.m.
Closing Remarks
A.Kadir Yildirim
4. Geopolitics, Energy Security, and the US-Japan Alliance | Wednesday, March 20, 2019 | 11:00 am – 12:30pm | Atlantic Council Headquarters|1030 15th St NW, 12th Floor, Washington, DC 20005| Register Here |
Japan’s newest strategic energy plan promises to address long-running domestic structural issues in the context of broader shifts in global trends. If successful, the new strategy will deliver significant improvements in efficiency, emissions, cost, and self-sufficiency by 2030, and again by 2050. However, during a period of rapid change in the Indo-Pacific, how will geopolitical currents shape Japan’s goals, methods, and ultimate outcomes? How will developments in global energy markets and shifting regional security calculations shape Japan’s future? How is Japan going to diversify its portfolio, both in terms of suppliers and sources, to meet its enhanced demands for energy security? Given that Japan still relies heavily on the Middle East, what role can US-Japan cooperation play? Ultimately, how do these all of these questions fit into the broader strategic picture taking shape in the region?
Agenda
Speakers:
Prof. Jun Arima, Professor of Energy & Environmental Policy
Mr. Shoichi Itoh, Manager and Senior Analyst
Ms. Jane Nakano, Senior Fellow, Energy and National Security Program
Mr. Alan Yu, Senior Fellow and Director, International Climate Policy
Moderator
Dr. Miyeon Oh, Director and Senior Fellow, Asia Security Initiative
5. The aftermath of president Bolsonaro’s visit to Washington and prospect of economic reform| Wednesday, March 20, 2019 | 2:30 am – 5:00pm | The Wilson Center |1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20004-3027 | Register Here |
President Jair Bolsonaro will make his first official visit to Washington as president from March 17-19, as the government looks to fulfill its promise of strengthening relations with the United States. Yet the most promising area of bilateral dialogue—economic and commercial relations, including greater U.S. investment in Brazil—will depend heavily on the new government’s capacity to deliver much-needed reforms at home, particularly the approval of meaningful pension reform in the Brazilian National Congress. Talk of a looming China-U.S. trade rapprochement could also create challenges during the presidential visit, not only for the new Brazilian government’s pro-Western agenda, but also because Brazil emerged as one of the largest beneficiaries of the China-U.S. trade dispute.
AGENDA
Panel I: The View from the IMF: Boom, Bust, and the Road to Recovery in Brazil
Antonio Spilimbergo, Assistant Director, Western Hemisphere Department at the IMF and Mission Chief for Brazil
Krishna Srinivasan, Deputy Director, Western Hemisphere Department at the IMF
Moderator: Anna Prusa, Associate, Brazil Institute
Panel II: Assessment of President Bolsonaro’s Visit to Washington and the Political Environment Back Home
Roberto Simon, Senior Director of Policy, Council of the Americas
Nicholas Zimmerman, Consultant, Macro Advisory Partners
Thiago de Aragão, Partner and Director of Intelligence, Arko Advice
Mauricio Moura, Founder and CEO, IDEIA Big Data
Moderator: Paulo Sotero, Director, Brazil Institute
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
When displacement isn’t temporary
Kammi Scheeler, a master’s student in my post-war reconstruction and transition course at SAIS, writes:
The World Bank hosted a panel Wednesday on the need for alternatives to refugee camps, as part of its three-day forum on Fragility, Conflict and Violence. Three themes emerged from the speakers’ presentations:
- Displacement should be treated as a development issue, not a humanitarian one. National development planning should take into account all populations in the area, including displaced persons.
- Displaced persons must be recognized as active participants in development with the capacity to contribute to host communities.
- Government capacities to process and support refugees in alternative ways need to be strengthened.
The first presenter on the panel was Steven Corliss, Director of the UNHCR Division of Programme Support and Management. He discussed UNHCR’s policy to seek alternatives to camps in as many circumstances as possible. Where not possible, the UNHCR still works to protect the rights of refugees and create living conditions that foster individual empowerment and dignity.
The UN High Commissioner for Refugees has said “anyone who thinks refugee camps are a good idea has never lived in one.” Camps will not disappear, as they remain needed to meet immediate needs in emergency situations. The problem, Corliss believes, is when camps are used as an automatic response to displacement, or when host governments do not have the tools to provide alternatives.
One of the primary pitfalls of camps is the loss of human capital. Typical refugee camps operate as temporary, emergency relief, providing little opportunity for inhabitants to utilize or develop skills. In protracted situations, their inhabitants lose the ability to manage their own livelihoods.
There is a persistent concern among hosts that allowing refugees to integrate will deter them from returning home. Camps will remain as host governments insist upon them. But when refugees are better integrated into local communities and labor markets, they are able to contribute economically and maintain independent livelihoods, encouraging earlier repatriation and better reintegration upon return.
The second speaker, David Apollo Kazungu, is the Commissioner of Refugees for the Ugandan Government. Uganda’s shared borders with the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda and South Sudan have led to a persistent influx of refugees escaping conflict since the 1950s. Uganda is now host to 415,000 refugees, with more expected from South Sudan in coming months. Refugees in Uganda are predominantly settlement-based, living alongside and sharing resources and services with Ugandan nationals. Although refugee status is meant to be a temporary solution, the persistent conflicts and instability of Uganda’s neighbors has led to more protracted situations.
This has necessitated a shift from humanitarian support to development support. Uganda’s Settlement Transformation Agenda is a uniquely comprehensive and progressive approach to refugee integration. Its key tenets include security enhancement, access to justice, settlement survey and planning, infrastructure development, refugee and host community empowerment, and peace building and conflict resolution initiatives.
Commissioner Kazungu stressed the importance of these last two programs saying, “refugeehood should be a chance to reconcile and learn to live side by side.”Since most of Uganda’s refugees fled their homes due to conflict, the government of Uganda is making a stronger effort to facilitate conflict resolution among diverse refugee populations so that they may create more stable communities upon return to their home countries. Although Uganda has shown a great deal of openness and commitment to receiving and integrating refugees, they face challenges such as encroachment, land inelasticity, and dwindling resources with no signs of decline in refugee inflows.
The remaining panelists included Niels Harild, the lead social development specialist for the World Bank’s Global Program on Forced Displacement, who reiterated the importance of viewing displacement as a development issue rather than merely a humanitarian one. The second half of the event provided examples of alternatives in action, with World Bank project leaders sharing data from programs in Turkey and Azerbaijan. In Turkey, the Bank is assessing the impact of Syrian refugees on host communities and recommending policies for integrating refugees outside camps. Azerbaijan has approximately 600,000 internally displaced persons supported by a Social Fund for the Development of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs). This project provides settlements and services to raise the standard of living for IDPs and also creates income-generation opportunities. Both cases highlight the range of possible ways to incorporate displaced persons into longer-term national development planning.
PS: In response to a comment on this piece, here is Killian Kleinschmidt at TedX Hamburg:
RSS - Posts
