UNITED STATES FUNDS STUDY OF BIOFUELS IN UGANDA
GRANT TO ANALYZE POTENTIAL FOR A BIOFUELS MARKET IN UGANDA

The U.S. Trade and Development Agency (USTDA) and the Ugandan Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development have signed a USD 572,000 grant to analyze the potential for a biofuels market in Uganda.

The grant, signed on August 28, 2008, will provide cost-benefit analysis on potential biofuel resources and technologies, as well as recommend appropriate industry regulations and potential incentives for the development of safe and responsible biofuel production. 

Uganda's demand for energy is growing rapidly.  At the same time, the country has experienced prolonged drought, reducing production at its hydroelectric power plants.  These factors, along with rising global fuel prices, have led to substantial increases in energy costs that may constrain Uganda's economic growth if new energy investments are not made.  The Ugandan Government has passed the Renewable Energy Policy to encourage the development of the country’s abundant renewable energy resources, especially biofuels.

An important objective of the agreement is to advise the Government of Uganda on how to mitigate the environmental and social impacts that may arise from the unregulated development of an indigenous biofuels sector.  The two most serious risks are rainforest destruction and possible negative impacts on food supply and food prices. 

"This grant supports Uganda’s Renewable Energy Policy, and particularly enhances the government’s efforts to design a regulatory framework that will encourage the development of a biofuels industry and increase energy security without jeopardizing the country’s food supply,” said U.S. Ambassador Steven Browning, who signed the grant on behalf of USTDA at a ceremony held at the Ministry of Energy.

Fred Kabagambe-Kaliisa, Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development, signed on behalf of the Government of Uganda.

U.S. companies interested in providing the assistance outlined in the grant USTDA awarded today should visit the Federal Business Opportunities website at www.fbo.gov.  Interested U.S. firms should submit proposals according to the instructions contained in the Federal Business Opportunities announcement.  The Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development will select the U.S. contractor that will provide the USTDA-funded assistance.

About the U.S. Trade and Development Agency (USTDA)

USTDA advances economic development and U.S. commercial interests in developing and middle-income countries.  The agency funds various forms of technical assistance, early investment analysis, training, orientation visits and business workshops that support the development of a modern infrastructure and a fair and open trading environment.  USTDA’s strategic use of foreign assistance funds to support sound investment policy and decision-making in host countries creates an enabling environment for trade, investment and sustainable economic development.  In carrying out its mission, USTDA gives emphasis to economic sectors that may benefit from U.S. exports of goods and services.

The 2008 HIV/AIDS Implementers’ Meeting opened on June 3 in Kampala, drawing more than 1,700 HIV/AIDS implementers from Uganda and throughout the world.  More than 70 countries are represented at the meeting, a testament to the global partnerships to fight the HIV/AIDS pandemic, and a reflection of the conference theme, “Scaling Up Through Partnerships: Overcoming Obstacles to Implementation.”

H.E. Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, President of the Republic of Uganda, opened the meeting noting “I would like to salute the human race who have confronted AIDS and scored some achievements.”  He added, “Here in Uganda, we were able to analyze this sickness in the early years and came to the conclusion that it was stoppable.”

“You, the global implementers of HIV/AIDS and your partners, have proven the skeptics wrong,” said Ambassador Mark Dybul, PEPFAR Coordinator.  “You knew what the skeptics did not – that seemingly ordinary people who appear to be without hope can do extraordinary things with a little support.  As we step forward to meet the challenges before us, let’s do so with even more enthusiasm and hope.”

The meeting is being hosted by the Government of Uganda and co-sponsored by the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR); the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria; UNAIDS; UNICEF; the World Bank; the World Health Organization (WHO); and the Global Network of People Living with HIV/AIDS (GNP+).

“All partners present here in Kampala are driving a quiet revolution in the fight against AIDS, ” said Dr Michel Kazatchkine, Executive Director of the Global Fund. “Through our collective work, millions of people have been reached with effective treatment and care and are alive today thanks to this effort. Prevention activities are helping millions more to avoid HIV infection. By sharing lessons and coordinating our work better, we will eventually be able to control this pandemic.”

“In recent years, there has been significant progress and real results in scaling up HIV prevention, treatment, care and support,” said Dr Peter Piot, Executive Director of UNAIDS. “But for every two people starting treatment another five are newly infected with HIV. We must work in partnership to scale up this response, continuing to strengthen progress in treatment, as well as focusing attention upon the critical need to prevent new infections."

During the five-day conference, more than 200 abstracts will be presented by representatives from governments, non-governmental organizations including faith- and community-based groups, multilateral organizations, the private sector, and groups of people living with HIV/AIDS. Through presentations, dialogue and networking, participants will discuss critical barriers and share information that will directly impact HIV/AIDS program implementation in the coming years.

"We already know some of the difficulties in bringing to scale the prevention strategies necessary to reach an AIDS-free generation, provide treatment for children who need it, and care for those who have lost parents to AIDS,” said Jimmy Kolker, Chief of the HIV/AIDS Section at UNICEF. “But there are some outstanding examples of overcoming the obstacles and bottlenecks in order to reach our ambitious targets. By integrating services that benefit children and by acting together at the community as well as national level, we can ensure that children are no longer the invisible face of the HIV epidemic."

Recognizing the rapid expansion of HIV/AIDS programs worldwide, the focus of this year’s meeting is on building the capacity of local HIV prevention, treatment, and care programs; enhancing program quality; and promoting coordination among partners.

An archived webcast of sessions from the meeting will be provided by kaisernetwork.org, a free service of the Kaiser Family Foundation. The webcast and related online resources will be available following the meeting at: http://www.kaisernetwork.org/hivimplementers2008.

For more information on the meeting, please visit www.hivimplementers.org.

###

Media Contacts:
Kristin Pugh (PEPFAR) +256 (0)714 101 054; Kirsi Viisainen (The Global Fund) +41 79 477 0310; Chiara Frisone (UNAIDS) +27 82 880 4729; Chulho Hyun (UNICEF) +256 (0)772 222 347;
Pat Leidl (WHO) +41 79 619 8525

Information about the host of the meeting:

The Government of Uganda through the Ministry of Health and the Uganda AIDS Commission (UAC) ensures a focused and harmonized response to the HIV/AIDS epidemic by the Government of Uganda.  UAC provides strategic leadership by ensuring effective harmonization of the HIV/AIDS-related activities of the various players within agreed policy and program parameters.  For more information about UAC, please visit www.aidsuganda.org/.

Information about the sponsors of the meeting:

The U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) employs the most diverse prevention, treatment and care strategy in the world, with an emphasis on transparency and accountability for results. The goals of the Emergency Plan’s first five years include support for treatment for two million HIV-infected people, support for prevention of seven million new infections, and support for care for 10 million people infected or affected by HIV/AIDS. For more information about PEPFAR, please visit http://www.pepfar.gov/.

The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria is a unique global public/private partnership dedicated to attracting and disbursing additional resources to prevent and treat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. This partnership between governments, civil society, the private sector and affected communities represents a new approach to international health financing. The Global Fund works in close collaboration with other bilateral and multilateral organizations to supplement existing efforts dealing with the three diseases.  For more information about the Global Fund, please visit http://www.theglobalfund.org/.

UNAIDS, the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, is an innovative joint venture of the United Nations, bringing together the efforts and resources of the UNAIDS Secretariat and ten UN system organizations in the AIDS response. The Secretariat headquarters is in Geneva, Switzerland—with staff on the ground in more than 80 countries. Coherent action on AIDS by the UN system is coordinated in countries through UN theme groups, and joint programmes on AIDS. UNAIDS’ Cosponsors include UNHCR, UNICEF, WFP, UNDP, UNFPA, UNODC, ILO, UNESCO, WHO and the World Bank. Visit the UNAIDS website at http://www.unaids.org/.

UNICEF is on the ground in over 150 countries and territories to help children survive and thrive, from early childhood through adolescence. The world’s largest provider of vaccines for developing countries, UNICEF supports child health and nutrition, good water and sanitation, quality basic education for all boys and girls, and the protection of children from violence, exploitation, and AIDS. UNICEF is funded entirely by the voluntary contributions of individuals, businesses, foundations, and governments.  For more information, please visit http://www.unicef.org/.

The World Bank is engaged in the fight against AIDS, which is threatening to reverse the gains of development, to further its mission of fighting poverty. The World Bank provides comprehensive and sustainable financing for AIDS programs worldwide and to date has committed more than US $3.7 billion since 1988. For more information on the World Bank’s response to HIV/AIDS, please visit www.worldbank.org/aids.

The World Health Organization is the directing and coordinating authority on international health work and takes the lead in the United Nations system in the global health sector response to the AIDS epidemic. For more information, please visit http://www.who.int/.

The Global Network of People Living with HIV/AIDS (GNP+) is a global network for and by people living with HIV/AIDS (PLHIV). Its overall aim is to improve the quality of life of PLHIV. The work of GNP+ is guided by the Global Advocacy Agenda, which consists of three key areas: (i) Promoting universal access to HIV/AIDS care, treatment and prevention; (ii) Combating stigma and discrimination; and (iii) Promoting the greater and more meaningful involvement of PLHIV. GNP+ is the only international network representing the diverse voices of all PLHIV. As a network based on emancipation and self-determination, GNP+ nurtured the development of six fully independent regional networks of PLHIV covering Africa (NAP+), Asia (APN+), the Caribbean (CRN+), Europe (GNP+ Europe), Latin America (REDLa+) and North America (GNP+ NA). Elected representatives from these networks form the GNP+ Board. For more information, please visit http://www.gnpplus.net/.

U.S. Embassy Corrects Information Regarding Military Recruitment

The United States Embassy in Kampala, Uganda wishes to clarify and correct information that was contained in an article reported by the Daily Monitor on April 5, 2008 regarding the recruitment of Ugandan citizens into the U.S. military. 

Only American citizens or U.S. Legal Permanent Residents may enlist in the U.S. military services.  The April 5, 2008 article implied that Ugandans seeking nonimmigrant visas to attend the Ugandan North American Association (UNAA) convention in the United States would be eligible for recruitment into the U.S. military.  This information is false.  The U.S. Embassy has been notified that U.S. military recruiters do plan to attend UNAA, but the Embassy wishes to make very clear that foreign citizens in nonimmigrant status are not eligible to join the U.S. military as suggested in the April 5th article.

In order to immigrate to the United States foreign citizens must have an American citizen or U.S. Legal Permanent Resident relative that files an immigrant petition on their behalf, and the applicant must meet the eligibility criteria for the visa as defined in the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act.  Alternatively, an applicant may seek to immigrate to the United States via the annual Diversity Visa Lottery Program.  Additional information on how to immigrate to the United States and eligibility criteria can be found on the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Citizenship and Immigration Service website at www.uscis.gov and the U.S. Department of State website at www.travel.state.gov.

USAID Administrator Henrietta Fore Visits Uganda

USAID Administrator Henrietta Fore Visits Uganda
Emphasizes Value of Private-Public Partnerships

Henrietta Holsman Fore, Administrator of USAID and Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance paid her first visit to Uganda as USAID Administrator from March 12 to March 16.  Mrs. Fore was accompanied on her visit by a delegation from Washington including Katherine J. Almquist, the Assistant Administrator for the Bureau for Africa.

Administrator Fore's program emphasized the value of public-private partnerships.  Visiting Royal VanZanten Flowers (RVZ), she learnt more about the “Health Initiatives for the Private Sector" (HIPS) program. HIPS is a three-year, $8.6 million program that supports the Ugandan business community to design and implement comprehensive workplace health programs that maximize access and utilization of HIV/AIDS, TB, Malaria prevention and treatment, Reproductive Health and Family Planning services for company employees, their dependents and the surrounding community members. 

In 2006 USAID assisted RVZ in drafting an AIDS policy for employees and developing an expanded AIDS prevention program for dependents and the surrounding community under a Memorandum of Understanding between RVZ, International Air Ambulance (IAA) and USAID.  Since the inception of this program, USAID has worked with RVZ to develop a comprehensive Workplace Health Program, employee health education programs, trained company doctors and nurses, increased community access to onsite clinic services, as well as other technical assistance and partnership support.

Administrator Fore also visited a private-public partnership strengthening the value chain by linking corporate partners with smallholders at Kyagulanyi Coffee Ltd.  Kyagulanyi has received technical and financial assistance from USAID for a Robusta coffee nursery, field personnel, demonstration gardens, tarpaulins for drying coffee, and the formation of producer organizations (PO) to facilitate the certification of smallholders. 

During Kyagulanyi's partnership with the USAID Agricultural Productivity Enhancement Program (APEP), the number of smallholders has increased from 2,000 to over 3,000.  It was the number two coffee exporter of Uganda's Robusta and Arabica coffees in 2006 and 2007, with a market share of 15%.  APEP has reached nearly 100,000 farmers throughout Uganda, and covers the whole value chain with technical assistance and grants to link coffee producers with exporters under what is termed "sustainable coffee."

Later in her program in Uganda Administrator Fore opened a new Eco-tourism facility that represents another form of public-private partnership supported by USAID.  She also met with key Ugandan government leaders and reviewed the USAID programs underway in northern Uganda during a trip to Gulu.

U.S. Peace Corps Renews Pact with Ugandan Government and Announces New Education Program

Ronald Tschetter, Director of the Peace Corps, announced Monday the signing of a new agreement between the Government of Uganda and the United States.  The agreement  allows for an expansion of the Peace Corps in Uganda, and replaces one signed forty-six years ago. Director Tschetter also announced a new initiative to involve Peace Corps volunteers in the training of Ugandan secondary school teachers. The program will initially involve ten teacher trainers.

During his four days in Uganda, Director Tschetter met with senior officials from the Ministries of Foreign Affairs, Health and Education. He also visited volunteers working in Mukono, Wakiso and Mityana Districts.

There are now 106 Peace Corps volunteers serving in Uganda, with plans to expand the number to 150 by the end of 2008. Volunteers are working as primary education teacher trainers, on health projects, and on community health and economic development projects. The Peace Corps first arrived in Uganda in 1964; since then, nearly 1,000 volunteers have served here. Today, 8,100 volunteers are serving worldwide in seventy-nine countries.

Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Jendayi Frazer Meets With Journalists in Uganda

U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Ambassador Jendayi Frazer visited Uganda from September 4-5, 2007. During her stay, she met with President Yoweri Museveni, MPs and leaders from northern Uganda. Following her meetings, she met with journalists at Ambassador Steven Browning’s residence and responded to their questions concerning U.S. perspectives on northern Uganda, as well as the situations in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan and Somalia. The transcript of her press conference follows:

Assistant Secretary Frazer: Thank you for coming and I would like to thank Ambassador Browning for holding this event at his home, and to thank him and his team for all their excellent efforts here in Uganda.  I especially want to introduce to you Tim Shortley, who’s sitting here. He’s my Senior Advisor for Conflict Resolution.  He was appointed on July 30th to ensure that we support the Juba Peace Process and to respond to the LRA conflict in both a comprehensive and regional manner.

So he will travel, he’s been to Kampala already in his new capacity, he’s been to Northern Uganda and Juba about two weeks ago.  He’s going to travel again to Juba after our meetings here and he will go on to Kinshasa next week to meet with senior Congolese officials to discuss how the US can help ease tensions in eastern Congo as well as address the LRA problem with their  basing in Garamba Park.  And then he will come back to Kampala to address the Tri-Partite-Plus meeting here.  So if you want to talk to Tim you will have plenty of opportunities.  He will be a regular visitor to Uganda.

Of course, it’s good to be back here in Kampala. I’ve had a chance today to meet with President Museveni.  I’ve had a chance to meet with leaders from northern Uganda.  All to discuss how the U.S. can further support the peace process in the north and support reconciliation, reconstruction and development.  We very much support the Juba talks, under the mediation of the Government of Southern Sudan and under the mediation of President Chissano.  We applaud the progress that has been made so far in terms of addressing the cessation of hostilities, the comprehensive solutions and dealing with the principles right now of accountability and reconciliation and that consultative process.  We’re looking forward to the conclusion of this process in a timely manner to address formal cease fire, demobilization and re-integration of the former fighters.  We don’t believe that this should be an open-ended process, so we’re hoping that these current consultations will be the beginning of the end of this Peace Process.  We’re providing about $110 million to emergency and development assistance in northern Uganda.  We’re also providing, that’s within the context of about $450 million that we provide to Uganda as a whole.  So we have a very strong partnership with the country and again we’re very supportive of peace. 

I’m quite happy now to take any questions you might have about my specific visit here or the issues in the region – eastern Congo and other places as well. 

Tim Cocks (Reuters): Hi, I’m Tim Cocks from Reuters.  I have a question about Somalia.  We had reports that the U.S. was unhappy about the negative media coverage of the recent Somalia Reconciliation Conference.  Being on the face of it, it looks like it wasn’t a huge success, the violence got worse, it was attacked with mortars, you had daily fights between insurgents and the government.  And none of the clan leaders that you need to stop this violence were on board.  How do you think it was a success and how?

Frazer: I don’t know why would think that we’re unhappy with the media coverage.  We’re not either happy or unhappy with the media coverage.  Media coverage is what it is.  What we are happy with is that they actually held talks and that people felt the commitment to their country to come to Mogadishu to be part of that, those talks, the delegations that came to Mogadishu under the threat of violence.  So that was an important process.  We were hoping that the Reconciliation Congress would stay open longer to give more opportunity for more of the opposition leaders to be part of those discussions, but we also understand that it is not open ended, especially when you’re facing a violent environment.  And so, I think it’s a mistake to say that there was either failure or success.  It was a part of a process – an ongoing process.  We’re certainly – I should have said before, also important to highlight Uganda’s role in helping with the UPDF serving as the first contingent of the African Union forces and we think that really the end result, the success of Somalia won’t be a single Congress. 

The success of Somalia will be a process that includes further dialogue, further reconciliation, whether that’s through the National Reconciliation Congress or under the framework of the Transitional Federal Charter.  We believe that is clearly important with the outcome being elections in 2009.  We think that success in Somalia will be the AU further deploying forces so that the Ethiopians can withdraw.  That’s part of success in Somalia and ultimately we would hope to see a major reduction in the violence, but it’s not going to be completely non-violent because we know that there are elements, particularly terrorist elements, that have no interest in dialogue.  So, I think that the point of your question is – we think that their National Reconciliation Congress did a good start, it’s an incomplete job, but the whole success of ending violence in Somalia doesn’t- never rested on the Reconciliation Congress alone.

Cocks (Reuters): How did the Islamic Courts manage to do it then, because they seemed to have brought a period of stability and what we had before was rumors that they were harboring terrorists.  Now what we have got is total chaos, and they are – they’re the ones who were rumored to be terrorists and now setting off car bombs Iraq style.

Frazer: Look that’s not a serious question -- that is absolutely not a serious question.  The Islamic Courts did not bring peace and stability to Somalia.  It’s the same violence The violence that’s there today was there before.  They were spreading violence throughout the country as they moved militarily and aggressively forward.  We have named specific terrorists that were being harbored or were part of Islamic Courts and so to suggest that there were rumors, is not a very serious question.

So I will go on to the next person who has a question.  Yes.

Charles Odongtho (Uganda Radio Network): Thank you.

Frazer: I was reaching there but you can go next since you’re next in line.

Odongtho: Thank you. My name is Charles Odongtho and I work with the Uganda Radio Network News Agency.  Secretary, I have two questions, one on Somalia and one on the LRA talks. 

On Somalia you talked about the fact that other countries, the need for other European countries to deploy faster so that the Ethiopian Forces can pull out.  But what comes to my mind is the question of funding.  This has been one of the major problems facing the AU mandate, the mission in Somalia and I know that the U.S. as well as the European Commission are some of the major funders of this.   What’s the problem, why does it take long for the U.S. to give money that can be used to fund other countries so that they can deploy rapidly? 

And then on the LRA, the US is not a signatory to the Rome Statute and we know that ICC is one, perhaps one of those reasons that make the LRA perhaps have reasons to talk peace with the Government of Uganda.  Isn’t it a contradiction in terms of the US policy that you are now pushing for a faster peace talk and yet, the ICC question the U.S. cannot talk so much with authority about it.  Thank you.

Frazer:  Thank you.  On the first question about funding for contingents of the AU force – AMISOM,  we are providing support and assistance.  We are the major funder of the Ugandan troops that have gone in.  We’ve asked our Congress for about $40 million to fund others.  Congress has given us that money, so we actually have it.  What we have said to every country that has offered to deploy that we will provide them at least $2 million just to get the deployment under way.  We are also providing training for many of these countries and that’s actually what is the holdup.  For instance, with the Burundians, is that we’ve been doing more training with them.  It’s not an issue of money, it’s an issue of training. 

The other issue that we find is that countries are hesitant to deploy because of the violence that’s taking place right now in Mogadishu.  So it’s not so much a lack of funding as it is the environment makes country rightly think twice about sending their forces there.  But we are prepared to support anyone who’s prepared to deploy.  And we’ve been encouraging AU members to do so.  We’ve been working very closely.  Burundi has offered for quite a while, but we needed to do further training.  I think that training has been completed and then they were supposed to send a reconnaissance team to Mogadishu so that they could see for themselves where their forces would be based- located, and we were waiting for that reconnaissance team also to go in.  We’ve talked to Uganda as well and we’re working with their planners right now and we’ve been working and talking to the Nigerians as well.  But, I don’t think the failure is on the part of our funding. 

On the question of LRA and the Rome Statute, you’re right, we’re not signatory to the Rome Statute.  We are supporting the Peace Process, we believe that it is one way to end the conflict in northern Uganda and it is the preferred way of the Government of the people apparently of northern Uganda as well as the southern Sudanese.  And so, in that light, we are supporting basically an internal process and an African-led mediation.  It is not the only way to solve the problem and the ICC has indictments on four leaders of the LRA-- only on the four.  We certainly believe that there needs to be some accountability.  As I said when I was here in June of last year, we put a priority on peace and we’re prepared for that accountability to be done through local justice, through national justice systems which is consistent with our position throughout about the International Criminal Court – which is that when countries have national justice and they hold their people accountable – that’s an acceptable route.  But, I think that in the case of the – what I understand from my consultation and what Tim and the Ambassador has also helped me to understand and others that I’ve spoken to here – is that the ICC will require that there be some type of trial.  If it’s done – we believe that this is what the ICC will require.  That there needs to be some type of accountability – credible accountability which may include going through a national justice system to satisfy the ICC.  You know, but I don’t know.  I can’t speak for the ICC, but they do have indictments on the four. The LRA is saying that for them to come out of the bush, they would need those indictments to go away and there has to be a process by which that can happen and I think there is a process under the Rome Statute for that to happen.  That will have to be worked out between Ugandan officials and the ICC.  But I think we can speak with authority in that we support this peace process. 

I hope I answered your question.  Sort of, maybe, not exactly.  You can come back at me if you like.

Felix Osike (The New Vision):Thank you very much, I’m Felix Osike fromThe New Vision.  First, I would like to know what you discussed with the President. 

Secondly, while meeting the U.S. Senator recently the President said he supported the U.S. based on information that Sadam was linked to al-Qaida, but after some time he has realized that, he actually said he regretted that position because there is no link to al-Qaida at all.  So what is your response to this?  Secondly, there are some Ugandans who are deployed there under some arrangement which you are aware of.  We’ve got some information that those people are being exploited.  Actually, they signed agreements here, but when they get there they are paid differently and at different times.  What is your response to that?  Thank you.

Frazer: What did I discuss with President Museveni?  We talked extensively about the Peace Process for the LRA.  We also discussed, I asked him about Congo – eastern Congo in particular.  We had an opportunity to discuss – what else did we discuss?  We did Somalia, of course.  We talked about Somalia and a process for ending the conflict and the President talked a lot about economic development in Somalia.  So those are the three major issues that we discussed.  We touched on the African Union and strengthening its capacity as well. 

On the issue of Iraq and President Museveni saying he supported the United States on the basis of a link with al-Qaida, I don’t know what the basis of his support was. We certainly appreciated it.  I think that President Bush had, was very clear that we believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.  And that that was the fundamental interest of the United States in what was taking place in Iraq and that, he had violated many Security Council resolutions and he had attacked our forces when we were implementing the “no fly” zone.  And that those were all basis for the President’s decision and the U.S. action in Iraq- not a single linkage with any al-Qaida.  So President Museveni may have made his decision on that basis, but the case was a broader case than a link to terror, particularly with al-Qaida.

On the issue of Ugandans going into Iraq, I frankly don’t know anything about that, because I don’t cover Iraq and I didn’t, hadn’t heard this before that Ugandans were going there and were going under contracts that were not being honored.  I know that it has nothing to do with the U.S. Government’s official position or role as far as I know because…

Osike: It was Department of Defense.

Frazer: Well I don’t know anything about that.    

Ambassador Browning: It’s not about the Department of Defense. 

Frazer: Yeah, please, go ahead Ambassador.

Ambassador Browning: If you don’t know, these are private contractors and the connection between Ugandan citizens who are in Iraq and U.S. Government is removed by several steps.  They are contracted first and primarily, actually exclusively, by Ugandan companies.  And from my reading of the accounts in the newspapers, the problem is between the relationship between Ugandan guards and the Ugandan contracting companies.  They are the ones who are offering salaries of a thousand a month and delivering only 300 or 350.  The contractors in Iraq have contracts with Ugandan contractors.  So I would recommend that you direct your question for those companies and individuals who have the contracts here.  That would be where the answer to your question lies. 
 
Charles Mwanguhya (Daily Monitor): Thank you, my name is Charles               Mwanguhya, I work with the Daily Monitor newspaper.  From your discussions with President Museveni and the Kinshasa authorities are you concerned that there could be a renewed flare up of regional conflict in eastern Congo? 

Frazer: Well, yes, I am.  But not because of the countries, I’m concerned about the situation right now in Ituri and North Kivu.  I’m concerned that the Nkunda factor, I’m concerned about the FDLR, but I’m pleased that the heads of state and  the Ministers of Foreign Affairs are in diplomatic discussions, including the upcoming meeting between President Museveni and with President Kabila that’s scheduled or that will take place in Arusha.   So, I think the dialogue is open.  Foreign Minister Murigande just traveled to the Congo as well.  The Rwandan Foreign Minister has just traveled to the Congo.  I’ve had an opportunity to talk to now President  Kagame, President Kabila and President Museveni.  And all have stated that they want to work together diplomatically to try to reduce the tension in the region.  And so I think that the diplomatic dialogue is good.  But I am concerned about the continuing activity of negative forces, particularly in the Congo – whether that be the FDLR or the Interahamwe, the LRA, as well as the need for some type of political solution to the situation with Nkunda.  And I think that in talking with President Kabila his effort to deal with an intercommunal dialogue between different ethnic groups in eastern Congo is extremely important.  His continuing to reach out diplomatically to the neighboring countries is important, as well.  And certainly, at some point, his army needs to be properly trained and integrated so that they are able to maintain territorial integrity and sovereignty, i.e., deny the use of their territory to these negative forces and I think he has a challenge on his hands in terms of that, building that national capacity that hasn’t been for, if ever, in the Congo.  So he really does have a big challenge, but we are concerned but we think that there is a process underway to address the problem.

Katy Pownall (Associated Press): I am Katy Pownall from the Associated Press.  You mentioned that Tim had been appointed as a regional Conflict Resolution.  Are we expected to see much greater involvement from the U.S. Government now in the Juba Process and if so, why now? 

Frazer: Well, we’ve had significant involvement from our Ambassador here and the U.S. Mission.  We have a person from USAID who’s based in Gulu, so we’ve been involved and we’re going to continue to stay in a supportive role, because we think it is extremely important to focus on all of our conflict resolution efforts, to situate them behind regional efforts because those are more sustainable over the long term.  My appointment of Tim as the Senior Advisor for Conflict has to do with both with a clear recognition that, especially with Somalia, my own ability to get around is limited.  I spend a lot of time now these days working the Somalia account, working the Sudan account, and I want to give as much attention and devotion to dealing with the LRA in eastern Congo as well.  These are also very discreet challenges.  I think that we clearly have an opportunity for peace with the LRA, and so his focused attention and his ability to move between the countries I think is going to improve the U.S. effort in this regard. And I also think that with the eastern Congo, that’s an intractable problem and it needs real devotion of attention. 

And so again-- Tim comes with a background that I think makes him especially qualified.  A background from USAID which means that he’s looking at the big picture, the long-term picture and the necessity for development which I think is the key.  Secondly, he spent, his last job was at the National Security Council.  And what’s important about the National Security Council is he worked directly with the President, the National Security Advisor.  He’s been responsible for coordinating the interagency. (Unintelligible.)   I see.  He’s been responsible for coordinating the U.S. Government interagency so that he can work with USAID, with State Department, with Defense Department, with the Justice Department and others and so he brings the capacity to do what’s necessary to really give us the opportunity to bring decades old conflicts to an end.

Benon Oluka (The East African): I’m Benon Oluka from The East African.  You talked of President Kabila’s  army, the Congolese Army needing to build the capacity in order to control the whole country.  Is there any role the U.S. government is going to play in this? 

Frazer: Yes.  Yes.  One of the things that Tim will do when he leaves here is he’s going to Kinshasa to consult with officials there including hopefully President Kabila, if he’s available, but others, to find out more what more the U.S. can do to help build the capacity of the Congolese Army, to help increase the professionalism of the Congolese Army as well.  Because, as I emphasize the solution to eastern Congo, especially the Congolese part of it, is the inter-communal dialogue, is some type of political solution.  Clearly, the negative forces that are coming from Rwanda, from Uganda and other places is territorial integrity and sovereignty.  And so that military has to be able to deal with that security at the same time protect the human rights of the civilian population, and so we definitely believe that further training and security sector reform and professionalism will be a benefit.  But I’m saying that, yes we’re prepared to play that role, we need to consult with President Kabila and his government about what they would want us to do and whether they think we can be value-added to them. 

Oluka: Do you believe that the suggestion that the neighbors to Congo, say Uganda and Rwanda, can participate actively in helping the Congolese solve some of these problems that they have. 

Frazer: I think it’s only a regional solution.  So I think that there has to be working together.  That is not to say that I think that the Rwandans or the Ugandans need to deploy into Congo.  That’s not what I’m saying. But I do think there needs to be a regional effort.  That’s the diplomatic – but that’s also could be some type of coordinated operations, if necessary, as well.  And not just the three countries, but MONUC as well, which after all has as its mandate addressing the negative forces.  In the Congo, and we were promised by the Special Representative to the Secretary General, Bill Swing, that after Congo’s election he would turn his attention to addressing the negative forces in the eastern Congo and we certainly continue to expect that.

Tim Cocks: Do you expect that they will be able to get together on this because some of them have been accused of supporting some of these negative elements against each other and they might have to unwind those positions.

Frazer: I think that there has been a history of that certainly and we have, the U.S. has been facilitating a Tri-Partite Plus mechanism that includes Uganda, Rwanda, Congo and Burundi to try to bring the Foreign Ministers and now the Defense Ministers and the Chiefs of Defense Staff or General Staff together to work through some of those challenges and problems to share information and to increase confidence, you know, between them.  So I think that yes, they can cooperate and I think that the more they talk, the more likely they will not make charges against each other that they are supporting forces in each others countries.

Charles Mwanguhya: MONUC last night announced that they are going to back the Congolese forces in the fight against Laurent Nkunda.  What’s your view of that? 

Frazer: What did you ask me? 

Mwanguhya: What do you comment on that? And then the other thing is, what is the genesis of these renewed conflicts from your understanding of the situation?

Frazer: Well, that’s a very good question.  The first part of it is about time we support MONUC working with FARDC to address negative forces.  So, we’re supportive of it.  The genesis of this conflict, you know, you have a déjà vu kind of sense.  I think that the problem is a political one and again, the issue is how do the communities in eastern Congo feel part of Congo as a whole.  Do the minority populations, as one might call them, feel that they have a stake in the Congo as a whole.  So, the Banyamulenge and others, you’ve got to make sure that there’s a political process in place – that’s why I keep saying it’s a political solution.  But you know when you have a rebellion, you have an army that is not well integrated where you have a rebel, you know, officer, who’s able to pull from the different brigades, that’s essentially what you have.  And so, that’s where the strengthening, the security sector reform, the professionalization of that army is important.  And, you know, every country has a right to crush a rebellion of former members of their military that go on rebellion.  Every country has that right, but you know, that’s not to say they have the right to crush communities that are disaffected.  That’s where the political solution comes in. 

Peter Ntimba (WBS-TV): I’m Peter Ntimba from WBS Television. Over now to Darfur. I was just wondering whether Washington may have had anything to do with Khartoum’s change of heart or was it just out – did you put a squeeze on them.

Frazer: Yes, we’ve squeezed them.  We think our sanctions are having a major impact on their calculations.  We’re certain of it.  The point is not to squeeze them, but to solve the problem in Sudan, specifically in Darfur, and to support the Comprehensive Peace Agreement.  We did have a very successful visit of their State Minister of Foreign Affairs.  He met with the Deputy Secretary and others of us. So we’re looking forward to solving this problem so that we can improve our bilateral relationship.  But, the key there is ending the crisis in Darfur, both through political talks, which the Government has said it’s prepared to do, as well as by ending the violence, and the Government has had the major role in creating an environment in which that violence is taking place – you know, attacking villages and other things.  So that’s a key.

Secondly, implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, where we have real problems with the situation in Abyei and demarcating the north-south boundary there so that the wealth sharing is clear.  And also, you know, the state-sponsored terrorism, the Government of Sudan has done a good job in terms of addressing the threat of al Qaeda even recently in Khartoum, but there is lingering suggesting that they may be supporting the LRA so we have to do a serious analysis to see if they have ended all support for the LRA, do they hold the LRA in reserve to undermine Southern Sudan.  So these are important questions and so, yes, we will continue our sanctions until we have had a resolution on all fronts of these issues.

Deputy Public Affairs Officer: This will have to be the last question.

Felix Osike (The New Vision): What options are available if the peace talks fail?

Frazer: Which ones?

Osike: No, the Juba Peace Talks.  What is the U.S. prepared to do?  What kind of help?

Frazer:  Well that’s a good question. First, of course, we don’t want them to fail. But secondly, we have always urged MONUC to take action, and FARDC, the Congolese Army, to take action against the LRA, which is listed as a negative force under the Lusaka Accord, and is listed as a negative force in U.N. Security Council Resolutions. And so we feel we have the basis, especially under the U.N. Security Council Resolution, to assist in efforts to mop up the LRA and to get them out of Congo, out of Garamba Park. And so we will not sit still and just let them live in Garamba Park and cultivate land and kill animals. The Peace Process is their way out, the other way is a renewed effort to apprehend them. We certainly would support those efforts to apprehend them.

Thank you very much.

DAS Swan with reporters

Deputy Assistant Secretary Swan Discusses U.S. Policies in Africa with Uganda Journalists

Visiting U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, James Swan, met with Ugandan journalists on May 8 for a wide-ranging discussion of U.S. policies in Africa and Uganda.  The press roundtable was held at the residence of Ambassador Browning.  Deputy Assistant Secretary Swan noted that U.S. policies in Africa are guided by the March 2006 National Security Strategy for the United States issued by President Bush and by the “Transformational Diplomacy” vision articulated by Secretary of State Rice in January 2006.

The transcript of the press roundtable follows:

MR SWAN:  Thanks very much for coming.  My name is Jim Swan.  I am the Deputy Assistant Secretary for African Affairs at the State Department in Washington and I cover Central and East Africa -- that is my portfolio.  I thought what I might do -- before we get into what may be some questions that you want to raise specifically with respect to Uganda -- is just give an overview of our Africa policy in general at the moment, more as background, but please feel free to use it as you want.

Our policy toward Africa is really driven by two broad policy documents or statements that reflect American policy worldwide.  One is the March 2006 National Security Strategy of the United States, that was issued by President Bush.  If you haven’t read this and you are interested in U.S. policy internationally, I would strongly encourage you to read this document.  It lays out in quite considerable detail what our policy views are on a host of issues in terms of what our interests are and our objectives worldwide.  So that is one core document that drives our Africa policy and I will talk a little bit more about that in a moment.

A second document that again drives American diplomacy worldwide, but also in Africa, is a speech that Secretary Rice made in early 2006 on the topic of what she termed “Transformational Diplomacy.”   The core of this really is first of all that the United States needs to move away from a Cold War structure in terms of how it manages its diplomacy overseas; it needs to look at new regions of the world that are of increasing interest to us that were perhaps not the same focus of attention during the Cold War period, and among those regions is Africa.

The Transformational Diplomacy approach also emphasizes the idea of partnership --  that, as the Secretary puts it, we need to move away from doing things for people and instead focus on doing things with others.  And so I think these two documents are really at the center of our international policy, including our policy toward Africa.  Now going back for a moment to the National Security Strategy, our Assistant Secretary for African Affairs, Jendayi Frazer, who has been through here before on a number of occasions likes to summarize the National Security Strategy as it applies to Africa as being an effort to work with Africans to make the continent, as she puts it, “safer, freer, and better.”  And let me just explain briefly what is meant by those three terms, which I admit are rather general.

Under the safer rubric -- working with Africans to make the continent safer -- we are really talking about the peace and security agenda.  There are many aspects to this but let me just mention a few.  Clearly two priorities for us at the moment in the area of conflict resolution are of course the situation in Sudan and also the situation in Somalia.  Very briefly on Sudan we are essentially pursing a two-track policy that emphasizes on the one hand, political resolution of the conflict in Darfur.  We have been actively encouraging non-signatories to the Darfur peace agreement to cohere around a common agenda and to engage with the Khartoum government in further negotiations using the Darfur peace agreement as a base from which further settlement can be reached.  That is the political track with respect to Sudan.  The other track is of course the deployment of a peacekeeping operation.  On that, we and really the entire international community subscribe to what has become known as the Annan Plan that was agreed in Addis Ababa in November that there should be a three phase move to deployment of a hybrid UN African Union peacekeeping operation in Sudan under UN command and authority.  We are very actively continuing to work to persuade the Khartoum government to accept that plan.

Let me talk briefly about Somalia.  This is still under the rubric of the peace and security agenda.  In Somalia, we think that there is a new opportunity with the routing of the Council of Islamic Courts in December.  That perhaps for the first time since 1991we may be in a position to support international efforts that could lead to reestablishment of a functional Somali government.  Our policy with respect to Somalia is really guided by other multilateral institutions.  We are active supporters of the African Union consensus around the need for deployment of an African peace support operation, AMISOM, to which Ugandans have contributed troops, but also the need to provide support to the Transitional Federal Government and to work with that government to broaden its base to increase its legitimacy within Somalia.  Those are really the three tracks to our policy in Somalia: the AMISOM deployment, support for the transitional government and efforts to get the government to broaden its base.  Our core goal there is a secure and stable Somalia that can respond to the needs of its people, can prepare for the transition in 2009 from a transitional government to a permanent government, and of course, can deny Somalia as a terrorist safe haven that would threaten not only global interests that are affected by terrorists but more specifically interests in the Horn of Africa and East Africa.

So those are a couple of examples under the rubric of making Africa safer on peace and security.   Let me mention a few others: we are also very actively interested in supporting successful post-conflict transitions that need to continue to be nurtured.  These are places such as Liberia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Burundi.

Certainly, in the cases of Liberia and Democratic Republic of Congo, we place heavy emphasis on continuing UN peacekeeping operations until security and political conditions permit those peacekeeping operations to downsize.  Also under the rubric of peace and security, we have a number of other activities including our African Contingency Operations Training Assistance program ACOTA that we have used to train more than twenty thousand African peacekeepers since the inception of the program in 1997.   The intent is to build the capacity of African militaries to respond to UN and African peacekeeping operations.  Also under the rubric of peace and security, or making Africa safer, we have a host of activities in the area of counter-terrorism, including in the Sahelian area, the Trans Sahara counter-terrorism program, and other activities in East Africa as well.  So that is under the general rubric of making Africa safer.

 In the second category of making Africa freer: this is essentially the democracy, governance, human rights agenda.  And here again, across the continent, we continue to support programs that advance democratization defined rather broadly to include not just elections – although we do provide extensive support to countries that are organizing elections, as we did here in Uganda -- but it also includes other institutions that are critical to the effective functioning of democracies including Parliaments, including judicial reform, including working with civil society and media organizations.  Because all of these are elements that are critical to underpinning a functional democracy and that remains again a second core objective that we have continent-wide.

The third category --I mentioned “safer,” which is essentially the peace and security agenda, and “freer” which is essentially the democracy governance, human rights transparency agenda -- and then the final category which is perhaps the most broadly captured in the word “better” -- help Africans to make the continent better.  This is essentially the development agenda.  As some of you may know, U.S. assistance to Africa has more than tripled since 2000, in excess now of $5 billion a year.  This includes obviously a host of development assistance programs.  It also includes very heavy investments in the health sector particularly with the PEPFAR program – the President’s Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief  - a five-year, $15 billion program that has committed very significant resources to focus countries, including Uganda.  Recently the President’s Malaria Initiative was also unveiled to try to address the impact of malaria in certain selected African countries.  Also under the rubric of the development agenda, is the African Growth and Opportunity Act, which has now been extended for an additional period and which essentially allows almost all goods from Africa to enter the United States duty free.  There have been some important niche areas in which African countries have been able to market successfully their products in the United States.  And then, although there are some others, I would like to conclude by mentioning specifically the Millennium Challenge Account.

This is a really an innovative new approach to providing assistance, not just in Africa but also elsewhere, although most beneficiaries so far have been African countries.  But the idea of the Millennium Challenge Account is that countries that meet certain objective criteria in areas such as governing justly and investing in their own people proceed to negotiate a compact with the government of the United States and on the basis of that compact very significant resources are made available to the countries that are successful in meeting the criteria and negotiating a compact.  Under this program, there is also a provision that for countries that may not have fully satisfied all criteria for negotiating a compact, that what is known as a threshold program can be instituted that assists those countries in overcoming remaining areas in which progress needs to be made in order that they qualify for a full compact.  And as I suspect most of you know, Uganda is now a beneficiary of this threshold program in order to assist it in meeting the requirements that would allow it to be eligible for a full blown compact.  But the compacts involve very significant resources, often extended over a period of some years, but for example in the case of Ghana the compact was for $540 million, in the case of Mali it was for $460 million, I believe, so the resources and the benefits that are involved in successful negotiation of a compact program are really quite substantial.  So, again, those are sort of the three broad areas that we are focused on in our African policy – Safer, Freer, Better.

Just to say a word about the Transformational Diplomacy agenda too.  This is the emphasis on partnership and in this regard we are particularly interested not only in working with individual African countries with which we share common interests, but also, increasingly, African regional organizations and institutions including notably the African Union.  Some of you may know, in November we nominated our first ever ambassador to the African Union  and she is now in place in Addis Ababa  to improve our ability to have contact  and to hear from and to influence, obviously, and to present  our views to the African Union.  We now have also accredited in the United States an ambassador of the African Union who is a resident in Washington and who in essence reciprocates our own ambassador to the African Union by representing the interests of the African Union in the United States.  So we are hoping and indeed are committed to continuing to deepen these kinds of partnerships on the African continent.  I apologize for a somewhat lengthy, perhaps, introduction that covers the whole continent when I am sure you have some more specific questions you are interested in but I hope it is useful background as to how we are framing our overall approach to the continent and it us obviously within that context that our policy toward Uganda also should be seen.  So perhaps with that I would be happy to take a few questions.  I don’t know how much time we have -- not too much -- but in terms of what may be on your mind with respect to U.S. policy toward Uganda or any other issue that is of interest to you.

Q:  My name again is Osike from The New Vision.  I am interested in two things: one, as a person who follows, you know, governance issues, as a person who is in charge of the African desk, I am sure you have been following events in Uganda.  This has mostly been issues to do with the opposition where we have some opposition figures, you know, being arrested and there are demonstrations over rights.  I wanted to get your comment if you have been following events here closely – whether you have had contact with the government, whether you have expressed your opinions on what is happening here and whether this, what is happening here, worries the U.S., you know, since Uganda is considered an icon in the region.  And then on Somalia, since you are interested also in Somalia and Darfur, as you may be aware, the operations there are hampered partly by lack of funds and when the commander of the U.S forces visited here some months ago, he told us that the U.S. had released some money to the African Union but as of yesterday we got in touch with our people and said the money has not, they haven’t got the money yet.  So we wanted to find out whether you have any information to that effect.  How much has been released by the U.S. for these operations?  Thank you.
 
MR. SWAN: On the first issue, really it is an issue of the democratization agenda, the governance agenda.  This is a very important issue for us.  It is one obviously of an array of issues about which we are in frequent dialogue with the government.  These issues obviously include many of the others that I already mentioned in my earlier remarks:  issues of development; issues of health, issues of conflict resolution within the country.  But within the context of that array of issues, we follow very closely developments with respect to treatment of the opposition, with respect to human rights.  Overall in regard to relations between the government and various opposition groups, we think it is important that all the actors and the parties here in Uganda work through the institutions of the Constitution.  We know that in some areas, this is a new phenomenon, but at the same time if these institutions are going to be strengthened, if the judiciary and Parliament are going to be strengthened, then it is important that both the government and the opposition work through these institutions as they try to resolve their differences. 
I think we have to bear in mind too that democratic reforms, that improvement of human rights, these are often times long-term projects for any government.  We really never reach a perfect state.  It is often a non-linear process as there is advancement in these areas.  It is important that both sides, both the opposition and the government, not focus so much on day-to-day who is winning, who is losing, but perhaps more on building a long-term record of respect for the democratic institutions that exist here in the country. But it is an issue that we are following very closely.  These are issues that we do raise regularly as part of a broader dialogue in our contact with the government and with other actors here in Uganda and will continue to do so.  On Somalia--
Q:  Let me just before we go to Somalia, what is your opinion on the democratization process, I mean, the multiparty operation now?  What is your opinion, do you think they are moving to the right direction or, what is your assessment?
Swan: Well I think this is more an assessment that Ugandans are going to have to make themselves about the direction it is taking.  Clearly there are new institutions and new means of acting that are now facing various Ugandan political actors.  With the emergence of the multiparty system, I think that both the government and the opposition to some degree are grappling with how they are going to relate in these new institutions: how they can make these institutions more functional; what the relationship is going to be.  And this is a work-in-progress.  I think the multiparty era is now what - approximately one year old -- and clearly they are continuing to work on this.  But as I said, I think that from our perspective, the focus needs to be not so much on day-to-day who is winning, who is losing but more on working through the institutions and using those institutions as a channel for resolving disputes and over time these institutions will become more effective and more viable as political actors use them to resolve their differences.
On Somalia, in this area, it is our view that the government of Uganda opted to deploy forces into Somalia because it sees the Somalia situation and its successful resolution as being a matter of its own national interest, the national interest of the Government of Uganda.  The decision to deploy troops was also in response to a request by the African Union for troop contributors from throughout the continent.  As I had mentioned in my earlier remarks, we see the AMISOM operation as an important component of resolution of the situation in Somalia, a component that also needs to be twinned with or paired with support for the Transitional Government and for a viable, internal political dialogue within Somalia. 
In terms of our assistance, we have indeed provided support to the Government of Uganda under the rubric of its commitment to deploy as an AMISOM contingent in order to support both equipment and airlift and other transportation into Somalia.  That assistance was provided primarily through a U.S. contractor.  With respect to other funds that they may be seeking from other donors through the African Union, that we’re not directly involved in.  But in response to a request and in response to the African Union’s request for external support for the deployment, we have already provided assistance to support the deployment of the Ugandan troops.
Q:  About how much?
Swan:  Well the overall amount that was made available was approximately $19.6 million available for these activities.
Q. This was for Uganda?
Swan: This is AMISOM overall but a portion of that went to Uganda.

Q:  I’m Edris Kiggundu from The Weekly Observer.  My issue concerns Somalia again. When you look at Somalia since the Transitional Government was formed and since the U.S. …[inaudible]… do you think you have achieved your objectives so far?  Because there is a school of thought that the fighting that is going on in Somalia right now is probably worse than it was nineteen years, about fifteen years ago.  And the Transitional Federal Government, I mean people don’t identify with it, because as you very much know, this is a government that was elected in Nairobi, Kenya.  And there are those people within Somalia who believe that the Islamic Courts Union in the brief period that they held power, that despite fears that they had some terrorist links, that they offered the best chance for the country to return to the normal path of peace.  And that the peace that the U.S and other countries like Uganda pledged is going to be enforced, even if it comes, it will never be permanent.  It is just going to be a cosmetic situation.  I don’t know what your view is.

MR. SWAN: We think that the current situation provides a better opportunity for long term peace and security in Somalia than the situation in December when the Courts of the Islamic Council continued to have an active presence in Southern Somalia.  If you look at the situation in late December, you had an Islamic Courts structure that was clearly, increasingly influenced by extremist elements. The election by the Council of Islamic Courts of Hassan Dahir Aweys -- who has appeared on the U.S. terrorist list since 2001, and is also designated as a terrorist by the United Nations Security Council -- was a strong signal that in fact, the extremist elements of the Courts were growing in influence. We also saw during the course of the second half of 2006 that the more radical elements of the Courts, some of them known as the Al Shabaab – the youth wing – were increasingly influential and dominating the military activities of the Courts in Southern Somalia.

The Courts also asserted irredentist claims to Somali-populated areas in neighboring countries, including obviously Kenya, Djibouti and Ethiopia.  The Courts were directly threatening the Transitional Federal Government in Baidoa.  So I think that we see that if we look at the record of the Courts overall, it was not a force for stability.  On the contrary, it created conditions in southern Somalia that made all but inevitable a broader clash in that part of the country.  So in that regard, we do think that, notwithstanding some of the recent violence – which I think it is important to remember has been largely confined to Mogadishu, other parts of Southern Sudan have been quite peaceful – that on balance, if you look at the broad trajectory of developments, that there is progress there.

With respect to the concerns you raised about the level of support for the Transitional Federal Government….

Q: Among the population, within the Somali people…

MR. SWAN:  Yes.  Exactly.  Again, a key pillar of our policy -- the policy of the members of the International Somali Contact Group, endorsed frankly by the African Union, by the United Nations Security Council -- is very much that the Transitional Government needs to increase its efforts to widen its base of support and to reach out to groups, sectors of Somali society, that had not felt previously well represented within the Transitional Federal Government.  This includes some key Mogadishu-based sub-clans; it includes some elements of the business communities.  From our perspective, it also includes some religious leaders and local Courts officials, not affiliated with the Council of Islamic Courts and not affiliated obviously with its extremist wings or those linked to terrorists, but religious leaders who would represent the Islamic community but would need to be included in the process as well.

Q: Our president has been quoted variously – President Museveni – as saying that part of the problem America has failed to pacify Somalia …[inaudible]… is that the internal workings within our continent are misunderstood by America.  …[inaudible]… we Africans, maybe we have our own ways, tried and tested ways, of going about this.  Because my fear is that now if you exclude people like the Islamic Courts Union, that may not again create a permanent solution because if these people have some degree of support, don’t you think they should be involved in the building of the broad-based government?  Don’t you think it will appear like America is trying to impose democracy…[inaudible]…?

MR. SWAN: I think that ultimately the decision as to who is included in the Transitional Government and whatever is agreed at the reconciliation conference is going to be for the Somalians to determine.  But our view is that there is not a place there for extremist elements that have had terrorist links.  That’s our view.

Q: Okay, I’m Michael Wakabi from The East African. If I may take you back a little: Looking at your Cold War relationships with the African governments, one gets the impression that in some way, they really contributed to the entrenchments of dictatorships on the continent.  And now you are engaging with the continent again, under your transformational diplomacy.  What safeguards are you putting in place to ensure that your partners, people like Meles Zenawi, Yoweri Museveni and others, don’t actually abuse this relationship to kind of use your partnership as endorsement for their systems?

MR. SWAN: Well, the safeguard is that we continue to track very closely the progress of these governments on their democratic reform agenda, their respect for human rights, their willingness to accept openness in their societies, their willingness to permit elections to take place and that those feature as an important part of our agenda in our dialogue with these countries.  So, these remain important issues for us that we continue focus on.  I think that in addition to our approach to the issue of good governance, that this is not frankly, just an American approach at this point.

One of the things that we are reassured by is that increasingly the African Union itself is putting emphasis on the need to respect democratic norms.  We certainly saw in the case of the African Union’s response to the coup in Mauritania and previously in the situation in Togo -- that there is a reaction in cases where there is an extra-constitutional change in power.  We see also through the New Partnership for African Development some greater emphasis on governance and transparency.  So we see that our interest in this is very much consistent with broader interests on the continent in safeguarding these democratic processes

Q: What leverages do you have in these situations?  In the past, you could say you were cutting off military aid to Mobutu.  Now what do you have to take away from these regimes today?

MR SWAN: Well, in many cases we have a wide variety of assistance programs and other activities in these countries, but again, I think as I’ve already mentioned we are looking across the continent and across the board at ways in which we can have more of a partnership, in terms of working through what differences we may have over certain aspects of the agenda that we are pursuing in these countries.  So, in terms of a more classic, sort of threatening withdrawal of assistance or some approach like that, we are seeking not so much to do that and more to find ways to look at where we have common interests and to try to advance the agenda together.

Q: Now, the LRA continues to be quite an issue not just for Uganda, but for the Great Lakes Region in general and at some stage, America has featured in talk by politicians. What role are you playing in resolving this conflict and what is your position on the …[inaudible]…the ICC?

MR. SWAN: With respect of the negotiations in Juba with the LRA, in general, we very much support the African-led mediation in Juba, which also benefits obviously from the support of former president Chissano and now from the presence of other African observer countries that are represented in Juba.  We think that this process needs to go forward and we endorse that process.  We also think that it is important that commitments that have been made as part of the process be respected – in this case, notably, the requirement that the LRA proceed to the assembly point at Ri-Kwangba before June 30, so we are very eager to see that happen. 

With respect to the ICC, clearly this is something that is going to have to be worked out between the government of Uganda and the International Criminal Court in terms of determining a way forward.  The U.S. priority in this situation is for peace.  We, as you know, are not signatories to the ICC charter – the Rome Charter – but we believe very strongly that there needs to be justice and accountability for those who committed abuses in northern Uganda.

Q: Maybe, just briefly, a follow-up on the last point you have said.  You talked about justice and accountability.  I don’t know if you are privy to a local justice system here that has been in the debate about the ICC.  Do you look at it, from an international perspective, as being accepted at the wider perspective?  They call it “Mato Oput.”

MR. SWAN:  Yes.  I’m somewhat familiar with it; I’ve been briefed on it.  But again, I think that the issue of what system of accountability or justice is acceptable, is going to have to be worked out between the government of Uganda and the International Criminal Court.  That’s where that conversation and that judgment need to be made.

Q:  I’m Peter.  There was a time when things were so good down here, that the former… former…what was she called?  (Laughter)  Actually, it was the Secretary of State. Albright.  She said that President Museveni -- she described him as one of Africa’s new breed of leaders.  But then all of a sudden, things began going bad.  Third Term coming in and people don’t believe you anymore if you describe our president as one of the new breed of African leaders.  I wonder whether you still share that view.

Then, secondly, there have been criticisms against the U.S. government that you deal with these African countries in a discriminatory manner.  In other words, you judge others as better than others; so while you come down hard on some, you handle others with kid gloves.  Even when the incidences of human rights violations and corruption are well documented by U.S. organizations, you still don’t do anything about it.  I’d like you to respond to those questions.  Thank you.

MR. SWAN: With respect to the description of several African leaders at the time as the new generation or new breed, this was some ten years ago and it is really not vocabulary that we are using anymore in terms of trying to characterize these leaders or others at this time. We are looking at developments in each country with respect to its own context and what sort of progress we are seeing on issues that we are tracking.  At this point, we are not lumping various ones together as “this new breed,” although you’re absolutely right that that was the vocabulary that was being used in the mid to late1990s.

On the criticism that we are not taking action on certain issues such as human rights issues, corruption issues and the like, again, these are issues that we track very closely, we take them very seriously, they are important considerations for us as we look at our relations here as well as with every other country in Africa, frankly, and around the world.  But we are raising these issues in the context of a dialogue with the government on a broad array of questions and we continue to discuss these issues on a regular basis with the government.  But our diplomacy, we are conducting in private.  We are not conducting diplomacy through the media and where we have concerns, we are raising these privately as part of our regular dialogue with the Ugandan government on this broad array of issues where we have shared interests here in the country.

Q: You must have some kind of benchmarks to measure the progress in this relationship. And taking you back to the question raised earlier, there is a lot of pessimism.  Incidentally if you asked the politicians, they will tell you that things are moving from bad to worse.  Using your own benchmarks to gauge the situation, where do you see the country headed?

MR. SWAN: Again, if you look back a good length of time to the mid 1980s, we have clearly seen quite dramatic progress in a host of areas in the country and the country has now embarked on something of a new experiment in the multi-party era.  I think there are still some efforts to try to determine exactly how various institutions are going to function in that multiparty era and in our view, what is important is that the government, the opposition, civil society organizations and others, try to resolve their differences through those institutions as a way not only of ensuring that those differences can be resolved peacefully, but also as a way, over time, of strengthening those institutions.  But clearly, as we see in any kind of democratic system, this is a process that evolves over time and it often is a non-linear process.  I think we are less focused on the day-to-day ups and downs and more interested in encouraging a long-term positive trend by having the different actors here work through constitutional institutions as a way of resolving their differences peacefully.

Q: But you refer to the 80s and the 80s is more than 20 years ago – to some of us. Wouldn’t it be fairer to look at the track record, from say 1986?  Does it make sense any more to compare this regime to its predecessors when they have had such a long time?

MR. SWAN: Well, again I think what we focused on is looking at whether institutions are going to become more functional and are going to successfully reflect a competition of ideas among the government, opposition, civil society and other organizations through those institutions.  And I think on this, the record demonstrates that in some areas we are seeing some progress.  We’ve been quite encouraged in many respects by, for example, a somewhat greater assertiveness on the part of independents, the parliament, on the part of the judiciary and we very much like to see that sort of independence and effectiveness encouraged among these other branches of government.

Q: A follow-up. My name is Charles Odongtho. I work with the Uganda Radio Network.

MR. SWAN: Yes.

Q:   As a follow-up on what he asked about. You have been in the U.S. for all your life, but you have studied the politics in Africa, the politics about Uganda.  If you look specifically at our democracy, starting from independence – of course the country was a bit messed up and then with due credit, Museveni came and turned it around for some years but we now see a lot of negative publicity out there.  And we all know that President Museveni who is now in power has seen off – is it now four presidents in the U.S.?  Three I think.  It started with Bush Sr., now there is going to be Bush Jr.  Reagan, it started with Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton – two terms, then now Bush Jr. two terms.  Four presidents.  And I mean, there is all this concept of think globally but act locally.  I mean, how do you rate our democracy if you compare it with yours?  What grade do we really have to go with?  Are you comfortable that this is happening in a country that you really fund a lot?

MR. SWAN:  How we compare Ugandan democracy to American democracy? I think we see that in our own democracy that there is a constant need for improvement and progress and there are a host of areas in which we see a need for continued efforts to perfect them.  And this is a comment that is repeatedly made by our Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, that we need to get away from the idea that somehow democracy is an end point in itself.  It requires constant nurturing and care and improvement.  I think at whatever stage we are in the democratic process, we need to continue trying to improve it and make it stronger.  I think this is essentially the lesson that we have taken from our own history.  I think it is a lesson that can usefully be applied elsewhere, that what is important is to continue working in terms of trying to improve the institutions and the functioning of those institutions within the context that exists.

Q: But with what has happened, what is now beginning to unfold in Uganda, do you think there is a problem with overstaying in power?

MR. SWAN: I think that this is as issue that Ugandans are going to have to determine based on their own political system, based on their elections, based on their Constitution as to what constitutes overstaying in power.  We had a situation in the United States in the 1930s where the president remained for four terms.  Subsequently, there was a decision by the people through a constitutional amendment to prevent that from happening again.  But, ultimately, in a democratic system, it is the population that is going to have to make the determination on what is acceptable and what is not acceptable in terms of political action or action by any leader of the country.

PAO ALYSON GRUNDER: I think that since all the media houses have had a chance to ask a couple of questions, and it is getting late…

Q: I had wanted to ask him something to do with AIDS. I don’t know if it’s fine?

Q: And I have one more question about Sudan (laughter).

Q: Is it okay? Just one.

MR. SWAN: Yes…On AIDS I don’t know how much I’ll be able to help you

Q: What forms my question is in the course of my follow-up on issues to do with the fight against AIDS in the country and more especially with so much that is being brought in, so many initiatives, including the President Bush initiative to fight AIDS, there has been a dramatic change in design of how we fight AIDS.  We had what we used to call the ABC&D method meaning Abstinence, Being Faithful, Condom Use and all that.  But I think there was a change in that when the President Bush funds came in, where the focus was now removed from that and taken towards more of abstinence.  And this brought in an issue, some quarrel, among the people, but I think that politically, people could not come out to say that we are not happy about this.  But I think mainly this could have been driven – and this was the speculation around -- that this could have been driven by the policy of America and President Bush of not supporting condom use, but more of  faithfulness and abstinence.  I don’t know if, because you talked about working with others as a concept and not for others.  I thought that was a beautiful term that the U.S. is designing as a policy to work with Africa and the rest of the world.  But I see a problem is that you try to perhaps copy and you want to paste America’s policy that you think is the best that you want the world to use or in this case, maybe Uganda to use, which is not practically sustainable.

MR. SWAN:  I know that I am not the best one to talk about what’s happening specifically in Uganda.  I do know that here and elsewhere, there is very active effort at consultation with the health community in each country in terms of developing the program.  There is a consultative committee here in Uganda that also works with the PEPFAR organizers in terms of shaping the program.  And of course the program includes not only prevention elements, but it also includes significant treatment elements in terms of supplying anti-retroviral treatment also to people who are already sero-positive.  So, there is a wide range of elements to the program; there is a very active effort to ensure that the program in each country is developed in a consultative way with the professionals in that country.  So, I’m afraid I can’t really address the specific question with respect to where the emphasis may or may not be in Uganda, but I do want to stress overall that it is a very consultative process in terms of developing programs in each country according to what the health community in that country believes to be the most effective way of addressing this issue.

Q: We have seen some degree of intransigence on the part of Khartoum regarding the situation in Dafur.  I was just wondering what options the U.S. can exercise.

MR. SWAN:  When you talk about intransigence, I think you mean intransigence with respect to the deployment of the UN blue-hatted, peacekeeping operation in Darfur.  And as I mentioned, there are two tracks to our policy – one is the political track and the second track is seeking the deployment of this peacekeeping operation.  Our President, President Bush, gave a speech at the Holocaust Memorial on April 18, in which he laid out very clearly our views with respect to the situation in Sudan and Darfur.  He said that the United States wants to see the cooperation of Khartoum in the deployment of this peacekeeping operation.  He said also that the U.S. is prepared to consider sanctions, particularly financial sanctions and personal sanctions, that is identifying individuals, whether within the Khartoum government or among rebel groups, that are impediments to the peace process.  We are indeed prepared to impose those sanctions.  However, at the request of the Secretary General of the United Nations, Ban Ki Moon, who is continuing efforts to persuade Khartoum to accept the full three-phased operations leading to a U.N. blue-hatted deployment into Dafur, that President Bush had determined that we would not proceed at this time with the imposition of sanctions, but unless there was progress in a matter of weeks, that indeed those sanctions would be imposed.  So, the U.S. position is quite clear that we have identified the sanctions that would be appropriate but that we are holding off on taking specific action at the request of the Secretary General of the UN; We’ve also said that at whatever time we might pursue the unilateral sanctions, we would also introduce through the UN Security Council a proposal for multilateral sanctions, UN sanctions against Khartoum.  But all of this is on hold at the moment at the request of the UN Secretary General who is continuing to try and negotiate acceptance on the part of Khartoum.

Q: So a military option is completely out of the question?

MR. SWAN: The military option was not presented by President Bush when he described options that he was considering in terms of more coercive action against Khartoum.

Thank you very much, gentlemen, ladies.

The United States Embassy Public Affairs Office and the Eastern Africa Media Institute (EAMI) announced the results of the 2006 Radio Reporting Awards, at an awards ceremony on February 2 at the U.S. Mission on Ggaba Road.  U.S. Ambassador to Uganda Steven A. Browning and EAMI President Michael Wakabi presented the awards.

The awards, which EAMI and the U.S. government have supported since 2004, honor exceptional radio journalism in Uganda and recognize superior news production and reporting.  The overall aim of the award is to encourage professional excellence as Ugandan radio journalists report important issues of local and national concern.

Awards were made in three categories to the following reporters:

Breaking News
Honorable Mention -- Stella Teta, Impact FM

Interview Category
Winner – Michael Wambi, Voice of Teso
Runner Up – Moses Oguti, Mega FM
Runner Up – George Katongole, Ddembe FM

Features Category
Winner – Ahmed Wetaka, Open Gate FM
Runner Up – Vumiria Collins, Radio West
Runner Up – Michael Wambi, Voice of Teso

There were three separate judging panels for each of the categories, consisting of senior journalists and media educators and trainers, as well as representatives from EAMI and the U.S. Embassy Public Affairs office. The judges listened to each of the entries and scored them according to the criteria set out by the competition rules.  Individual judge’s scores were tabulated to arrive at a composite score for each entry.

Signage.

United States Mission Dedicates New Building Wing;
USAID Co-Locates with Embassy

The U.S. Mission in Kampala formally dedicated a new wing of its headquarters building on November 16, 2006, and welcomed the move of the U.S. Agency for International Development into the newly enlarged U.S. Mission facility on Ggaba road.  The Mission’s “South Wing” addition was inaugurated with an afternoon ribbon-cutting ceremony, building tours and presentations highlighting U.S. foreign assistance to Uganda.  Walter North, the top USAID official for Africa, came to Kampala to participate in the dedication activities; Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Henry Okello Oryem represented the Government of Uganda. 

US Mission Celebrates New Building Wing with AIDS Information Center Troupe.

The building inauguration ceremonies were presided over by U.S. Ambassador Steven A. Browning and USAID Mission Director Margot Ellis.  Ambassador Browning, who has been in Uganda since March of this year, emphasized that the newly expanded U.S. Mission complex represents a major and long-term commitment to the people and government of Uganda as partners in development.  Walter North, USAID Deputy Assistant Administrator for Africa, highlighted the U.S. government’s foreign assistance priorities in Africa, including fighting HIV-AIDS and malaria, resolving regional conflicts and promoting economic growth.  In her speech, Director Ellis provided examples of individual Ugandans who have benefited from U.S. assistance programs.

The U.S. Mission building on Ggaba Road was constructed in two stages; the original North Wing was completed in 2001, and the new South Wing was completed in October 2006.  The building was designed by Morrison Knudsen Corporation, and constructed by B.L. Harbert International, ROKO and Keltron.  The cost of the additions to the Mission complex was approximately $23 million.  The new South Wing has created space in the U.S. Mission building to house some 130 employees formerly working at the long-time USAID headquarters in Nakasero and at the USAID warehouse.  The complex also includes new living quarters for the U.S. Marine Security Guard Detachment. 

The co-location of USAID with the U.S. Embassy coincides with recent initiatives of the U.S. government to strengthen the coordination and cohesion of America’s foreign assistance and development activities.  In Uganda, USAID works alongside many other U.S. agencies to accomplish development and humanitarian goals.  These agencies include the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the Peace Corps, and the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Labor, State and Treasury.

Ambassador Browning poses with religious leaders.

USG Provides $15 Million to the Inter-Religious Council of Uganda for HIV-AIDS Programs

The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), with funding from the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, will provide $15 million over three years to the Inter-Religious Council of Uganda (IRCU) for HIV-AIDS prevention, care and treatment programs.  U.S. Ambassador to Uganda Steven A. Browning officially launched the programs on September 14 in a signing ceremony at IRCU headquarters.  Leaders of Uganda’s major religious organizations were present, in addition to HIV-AIDS policymakers, medical practitioners and people living with HIV-AIDS.  

The Inter-Religious Council of Uganda, a coalition of the five largest religious institutions in Uganda, was formed in 2001 in order to jointly respond to development challenges of common concern, including HIV-AIDS.  The new funding will enable IRCU to greatly expand HIV-AIDS services to local communities through its coordinated network of faith-based health units, non-governmental organizations, churches and mosques. 

The health units affiliated with IRCU – currently offering over 40 percent of healthcare services in Uganda – will deliver the clinical components of the program.  Grassroots faith-based groups and religious institutions will also play a major role in expanding home-based care services.  IRCU will mobilize and train volunteers to facilitate the provision of intermediate HIV-AIDS care, support for anti-retroviral treatment adherence, and referrals for specialized care.

The contract with IRCU builds upon the already-established strong partnerships between the U.S. government and faith-based organizations in Uganda, dating as far back as 1991.  With assistance from USAID, some of the current IRCU partners – including the Islamic Medical Association of Uganda and the Church Human Services AIDS Program – were among the frontrunners in HIV prevention in Uganda.

United States Mission in Uganda Celebrates American Independence Day

On July 4, Ambassador Steven A. Browning hosted some 500 people at his residence in Kololo to celebrate the 230th Anniversary of the Independence of the United States of America.  The Guest of Honor at the event was Uganda’s Third Deputy Prime Minister, Hon. Henry Kajura.  Ambassador Browning’s remarks that evening follow:

Welcome.  It is a beautiful night here in Kampala and it is wonderful to see so many old and new friends who have been gracious enough to join us this evening to celebrate the 230th anniversary of the independence of the United States of America.  My wife Susan and I welcome you to our home, and to this very happy celebration.

Susan and I only arrived in Uganda in March, so this is our first celebration of the Fourth of July holiday in Uganda.  We have had many Fourth of July celebrations together in Africa, however. We have had the opportunity to serve in diplomatic assignments in Uganda’s neighbors Kenya and Tanzania, and in Malawi, where I also had the privilege of serving as Ambassador.

If I have learned anything during my years on this continent, it is that Africans value and cherish their countries’ independence and hard-fought freedoms every bit as much as Americans do.  As President Bush wrote to President Museveni earlier this year, our partnership rests on a “solid foundation of shared values.”  Both of our countries know how carefully our independence and our freedoms must be developed, nurtured and protected.

President Abraham Lincoln was perhaps my country’s most eloquent spokesman on the topic of the how we honor the independence, liberties and ideals on which the United States was founded.  As you may know, Lincoln, our 16th president, guided the United States through some of the most perilous years in its history – a period in which we fought a bitter civil war. 

At Gettysburg, Pennsylvania in November of 1863, Lincoln attended a solemn ceremony to commemorate the fallen on one of that war’s major battlefields.  The main speaker that day spoke for some two hours.  The gathered crowd expected a similarly long oration from President Lincoln.  Instead, he delivered an address of only nine sentences, no more than two minutes in length, that is known to all American students as the Gettysburg Address.

In this remarkable speech, Lincoln called on his fellow Americans to dedicate themselves to what he called the “unfinished work” of building a more perfect democracy so that “a new birth of freedom” could come about, and so that the ideals expressed in our founding documents, our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution, could be realized.

Today, Americans and people all over the world, including the people of Uganda, are more than ever devoted to “the unfinished work” of which Lincoln spoke:  that is, the “great task” of building democracies in which our people live in peace and security, and where liberty and justice and economic opportunity extend to all.

In the close Ugandan/American partnership, we are working together to enhance security in this region, particularly in northern Uganda. 

We are working together to improve the health and well being of the Ugandan people, particularly in the fight against HIV-AIDS and malaria. 

And we are working together to promote democracy, good governance and prosperity.

These are noble goals, and I know that all of you share our commitment to them.

When referring to the work her diplomatic corps carries out, the U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice uses the term "Transformational Diplomacy.”  I want to read you her definition of this term:  “Transformational Diplomacy is rooted in partnership, not paternalism – in doing things with other people, not for them.  We seek to use America’s diplomatic power to help foreign citizens to better their own lives, and to build their own nations, and to transform their own futures.”

The way I see it, transformational diplomacy is an invitation to Uganda -- and to all our other friends and allies -- to join America in our historic struggle to advance our imperfect societies, to further our democratic values and to create communities and nations where our children grow up with a wide world of opportunity before them.

This work is not limited to governments, however.  Indeed much of the most important work is done outside government—in homes and churches, in the broadcast rooms of small radio stations and the editorial offices of independent newspapers, in schools and community groups.

So it is no accident that if you look around this crowd tonight you will see educators and businesspeople, policemen and clerics, soldiers and artists and government officials.  We all have a role to play in building the society and the world that our children deserve.

And so in this spirit, I and all of my colleagues in the American mission will continue to reach out, to travel this country, and to do our best to get to know you better and work with you more effectively.  And we are truly honored to have this opportunity.

So it is with great pleasure that I ask you to join me in a toast to the health of His Excellence, President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, and to the friendship and partnership between the government and peoples of the United States of America and the Republic of Uganda.

On Tuesday, June 20, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Ambassador Jendayi Frazer, traveled to Gulu, in northern Uganda, where she visited a camp for internally displaced persons and a center for formerly abducted children.  Ambassador Frazer’s trip gave her the opportunity to see first-hand the toll that the long-running conflict with the Lord’s Resistance Army has had on the population of northern Uganda.

She met with numerous officials, representatives of non-governmental organizations, religious and cultural leaders in order to hear the views of stakeholders in northern Uganda's security and humanitarian relief operations.  Following her trip to Gulu, Ambassador Frazer met with journalists in Entebbe and responded to their questions concerning U.S. perspectives on northern Uganda, as well as the situations in Sudan and Somalia. The transcript of her press conference follows:

Public Affairs Officer Alyson Grunder:  This is the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Ambassador Jendayi Frazer.  Because we have limited time, we will begin right away with your questions.  Thank you very much, Ambassador Frazer.

Frank Nyakairu of the Daily Monitor:  Ambassador Frazer, you said in London that the Bush Administration was going to insure that the LRA rebellion ends by the end of the year.  How do you think that is going to happen?

Ambassador Frazer:  What I was saying is that is our goal – that seems to be a good time frame in which we can focus our actions and that of other international partners and countries to try to end what are clearly the atrocities of the war.  Particularly, we are focused on three key elements.  One is obviously to put an end to the war itself by capturing or bringing to justice or -- through some type of negotiated mediation -- ending Kony’s terror against the people of northern Uganda, the people of southern Sudan, and now, in his location in eastern Congo.  So that’s one part.  Secondly, to try to promote reconciliation at all levels between families or within families, within communities, between the north and the south of Uganda.  Basically, clearly, when you have had a 20-year war like the one in which you have such an insurgency, there needs to be reconciliation, rehabilitation of the community.  And then thirdly, to work with the UN to bring international assistance to the people of northern Uganda who have been so affected by this.  And so the strategy is really to work with the government of Uganda, the UPDF, to work with the neighbors, the government of Southern Sudan, the government of national unity in Sudan, and to work with the Congolese government and President Kabila as well as the UN Mission in Congo, MONUC, to try to keep the military pressure on Kony so that he either is defeated in the bush, he is apprehended in the bush, or he decides that the military pressure is too much and he will try to negotiate some type of peace deal which is hopefully what we’re seeing mediated right now with the government of Southern Sudan.

Daniel Wallis of Reuters:  How does the President’s offer to protect Joseph Kony if he surrenders square with the International Criminal Court’s indictment of him in Washington’s view.  And would it be fair to say that the U.S. at this stage is supporting the efforts at talks by the government of Southern Sudan?

Ambassador Frazer:  What we are doing is continuing our three-pronged strategy, which I just mentioned:  reconciliation, military pressure and international humanitarian assistance.  We believe that the priority has to be peace.  And so as for the pursuit of that peace we are quite open on how we achieve it.  But that is the priority:  to stop the war.  And if the government of Uganda can come to some agreement with the LRA that has to be the priority.  Clearly, accountability is extremely important in situations as we have in northern Uganda with all the atrocities, which have occurred.  And I have also said very clearly that this is not simply a case or an issue with the government of Uganda and the LRA because the LRA has also killed citizens from many other countries.  They have killed Sudanese, they have killed Congolese, they have killed Guatemalans, they have killed citizens of the United Kingdom, of Britain.  So the ICC indictment is extremely important and it is part of the process of accountability, and ending impunity but yet the priority has to be on getting him out of the bush – however one does it -- whether they capture him or they talk him out through a negotiation.  We had a similar case, as you’ll recall with Charles Taylor in which to end the war in Liberia there had to be a point at which you could get him out of Monrovia and he took up asylum in Nigeria.  But now today he is on his way to The Hague.  So I think that you can achieve peace and accountability.

Murray Oliver, Canadian Television News:  If I could just take you a little farther afield to Darfur.  The government of Khartoum seems to be dragging its feet again on trying to resolve the crisis, refusing to allow in peacekeepers.  What the heck is the next step for this government?

Ambassador Frazer:  Well, it’s clear that the UN is going to go in.  And it would be in the interest of the government of Sudan, I believe, to be seen to be proactive rather than having been pushed into a situation that is inevitable.  The people of Darfur deserve to live in peace.  The government signed the Darfur peace agreement for that to occur.  The next step is to enhance the AMIS force, the African Union force.  I think that the AU has made a request to NATO for that enabling assistance and to prepare for the transition so that that force becomes blue-hatted under a UN mandate.  So I think that the government of Sudan is again involved in tactics of delay when the inevitable result is apparent and they don’t get the benefit, they don’t get the credit for having allowed the UN.   You will recall that even before the African Union came in there they resisted African forces.  Now they’re saying they only want African forces.  So this is a pattern that is not helpful either to the protection of their own citizens or to the reputation of the Government of National Unity.

Milton Olupot of The New Vision:  You have been to the ground.  You’ve met a number of people down here.  What is your assessment of the situation?  What specifically do you think the government of the U.S. is going to do to assist Ugandans?

Ambassador Frazer:  Thank you for that question.  My assessment of the situation is two-fold.  On the one hand, I’m rather optimistic because I have seen the quality of the leadership and the quality of the community response.   I had the opportunity to meet with the Paramount Chief of Acholi land; I had the opportunity to meet with religious leaders and World Vision and [to observe] the work that Ugandans are doing to reintegrate many of the abductees.  I had the opportunity to meet with the division commander of the UPDF.  So I was quite impressed with the quality of leadership and the commitment of the people to resolve this crisis and to respond to the needs of the population.  On the other hand, I was quite distressed.  Because the crimes [that I heard of] when I met with the abductees – and young kids – it is outrageous, it is inhuman, it is unacceptable.  And for people to live in IDP camps – even the one that I went to which was one of the most, I understand, well-managed of the camps -- people shouldn’t live in those conditions.  And it is unacceptable that they would be living in those conditions in this century, frankly.  So I’m torn between both feelings of optimism and despair.  I hope that you don’t ever become comfortable with what is going on in Northern Uganda in terms of the atrocities that the LRA has committed and the impact that that has had on that community.  I feel very angry frankly about it.  And I think that in terms of assisting the government of Uganda – President Bush has been trying to do that since 2001.  I was sent here by Secretary Rice to look into the conditions in northern Uganda so that I could come back with additional recommendations on how the president and she can assist in bringing this war to an end.

Edris Kiggundu, The Weekly Observer:  [inaudible question]

Ambassador Frazer:  I think that the government is committed to AGOA and its goals which are to further trade – open trade – between countries, especially trying to import into the United States under the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act which provides duty-free access to many, many products – over 6,000 tariff lines.  So yes, I think that the government of Uganda sees the opportunity that is provided by that Act.  I think that clearly in implementing AGOA, we have learned many lessons over the last six or seven years since its enactment.  We have to do more to get investment, to bring foreign direct investment to countries.  We have to do more to link up entrepreneurs and traders to give information on the U.S. market so that people can benefit from the trade.  We are trying to work on [inaudible] requirements so countries can qualify.  There is quite a lot more that needs to be done to implement.  And we just had our AGOA forum – our sixth annual AGOA forum – in which we had trade ministers, foreign ministers, commerce ministers, finance ministers discussing how to move forward so that countries can benefit even more from AGOA.  But I don’t doubt the commitment of the government of Uganda in terms of AGOA.

Daniel Kalinaki, The East African:  You and the U.S. government were critical of the successful move to remove term limits out of the Ugandan constitution.  Have you changed your position on that and can you give us your take on

Ambassador Frazer:  Thank you for that question.  As you know, we continue to have a position that we encourage countries to maintain the term limits and if they’re going to change them, to do so constitutionally.  And we felt that Uganda did do so constitutionally but we still had urged the government not to change the term limits.  And the reason for that was the feeling that there needs to be institutionalization of new leadership and succession.  And that there are many, many capable leaders of Uganda, including the President, but that there are others who should put themselves forward to serve the people.  And so this policy wasn’t directed only at Uganda but is our policy – it’s my policy – across Africa.  Which is that part of the democratization process has to be succession of presidential leadership so term limits are extremely important in that regard.  As far as the progress on multiparty democracy, I had the honor and pleasure of meeting with many members of Parliament at dinner at Ambassador Browning’s house last night.  Many of them were opposition party leaders.  The quality of debate was extremely high and the commitment to this country and the commitment to working with the governing party within the parliamentary system.  And so I was quite impressed with the debate and the issues that were being debated.  Clearly this is a new experiment for Uganda.  I think that this new crop of leadership is going to help define the nature of multiparty democracy.  And to the degree to which they can reach across the aisle and work together yet hold very distinct positions because it helps to have contestation for improving the quality of governance.  So I think that the state of democracy in Uganda, from my impressions over the last two days, is quite healthy.

Frank Nyakairu of The Daily Monitor:  The situation in Somalia is probably one of those things that is at the top of your mind right now. What does the U.S. think is the best solution in terms of that country?

Ambassador Frazer:  Part of the reason I’m here is to meet with the governments in the region to have further consultation.  As you know, we held an International Somali Contact Group meeting in New York in which the U.S., Norway, Sweden, Tanzania, Italy, the AU, the EU and the UN met.  From that meeting, Secretary Rice asked me to come to the region.  I’ve come to Uganda – which is one of the IGAD leaders – I’m going tomorrow to Kenya, then I’ll go on to Djibouti and to Ethiopia to meet with the IGAD countries and to understand better their communiqué, their decisions about the way forward in Somalia.  So we’re in a mode of consultation.  Based on these discussions, I will then go back to the Secretary with certain recommendations.  Clearly what came out of the International Somali Contact Group and what I’ve heard so far being in the region is that we need to give strong support to the Transitional Federal Government, that we need to increase the assistance to the Somali people.  And that we need the Islamic Courts Union and the Transitional Federal Government to enter into a dialogue about the way forward in Somalia.  And for all parties to stop any aggressive moves or actions but rather to sit around the table and decide a future for that country.  So I will know more at the end of my trip than I know at this beginning leg.

Vincent Mayanja, AFP:  Mine is also on Somalia.  This debate has been going on.  Do you want to say that there is no position by the by the U.S. government about the deployment of foreign troops there?

Ambassador Frazer:  Yes there has been debate and I’ve learned more since coming here about the deployment of foreign troops.  You’re talking specifically about IGAD and its decision that Uganda and Sudan will go in to support the Transitional Federal Government.  There isn’t any position from the U.S. because I’m trying to learn more.  In the past as you know the United States opposed that and it was particularly because of concern that one of the frontline countries would deploy into Somalia.  This one – the IGAD decision – takes it away from the frontline countries.  And so we’re looking at this.  This was one of the issues that I had an opportunity to discuss with the chief of defense staff here and with President Museveni about what is Uganda’s view about deploying into Somalia.  And so -- rare as it is – [laughter] sometimes America listens to its friends and its partners in the countries that are most affected to get their assessment before deciding for ourselves about what is the appropriate next step.  And so we’re still in consultation.  I will listen here.  IGAD and the Arab league have been invited to be part of the International Somali Contact Group.  I’ll go back to that group also to consult because the point is to coordinate our policy better.  So we have been advised of IGAD and the AU, and respect the decision, and we’re looking into it.

Murray Oliver, CTV:  Dr. Frazer, the Chinese Prime Minister is on a whirlwind tour across Africa.  There has been a lot of concern raised about the expansion of China into Africa.  They’ll do business with anybody, including Sudan and Zimbabwe.  They’re selling guns to Uganda.  They seem to have absolutely no concern for human rights.  What is your feeling about the Chinese government’s really big expansion into Africa?

Ambassador Frazer:  Well, first I think if countries can increase their engagement and bring appropriate investment to Africa, it is a good thing.  I think that we all should participate and engage Africa through the principles established by the AU and its new partnership for African Development which clearly states a new relationship, a new way of doing business across the continent.  And I think that it would be helpful if China and others would engage accordingly and that really is a discussion that has to occur between the Chinese and the countries in which they are engaged as well as the continent as a whole.  It is for the African Union and others to say to them, “Look when you come here, we’re opposed to corruption.  When you come here, we’re trying to promote human rights and good governance.  Work with us to achieve those objectives.  Make that a clear part of your agenda, just as it is part of the agenda that the African Union and the NEPAD plan have established.”  And so I think that we’re trying to find a way to do business with Africa that is mutually beneficial and I would expect that China would be part of those principles of new engagement.

Murray Oliver, CTV:  But I think that they haven’t been responsible.  I mean, the accusation is that China has not been responsible up till now in their engagement.

Well if we look at Sudan for example.  China has been part of all of the UN Security Council resolutions on Sudan, including the one that calls for allowing UN peacekeepers to go in; including the one that calls for sanctions against anybody impeding the peace process; including the one that calls for a panel of experts to look into atrocities and crimes against humanity as far as Darfur is concerned; including the one that allows the UN Mission in Southern Sudan.  So I think that they can be a responsible actor and have been a responsible actor.  I think that the talk about China’s role in Zimbabwe may have been exaggerated.  China probably looked at that market and said there is no way to do business here either.  There is no rule of law.  Why would Chinese risk their investment in such an economy that has clearly failed with over 1000 percent inflation.  And so I actually think that China looked at Zimbabwe but didn’t take the plunge.

PAO Alyson Grunder:  If the Ambassador is going to have any dinner at all…

Ambassador Frazer:  Yes (laughter)

Daniel Kalinaki, The East African:  One last question.  Does the rise of the Islamist Courts Union and the breakdown in the Transitional Government structures represent a failure [inaudible]?

Ambassador Frazer:  No it doesn’t.  We haven’t seen the breakdown of the Transitional Federal Government and I think it is important that we make sure that there isn’t a breakdown in the Transitional Federal Government.  I think that we are all learning more about the Islamic Courts Union.  They were established, from my understanding, especially in Mogadishu, by businessmen who were looking for the rule of law as well as they took on a role of providing social services.  And so there is nothing in opposition for Islamic Courts to come up and our approach, our objectives, for preventing Somalia from remaining a haven for terrorists.   Now the Islamic Courts Union are from my understanding very heterogeneous.  There are moderate elements and there are extremist elements.  There are different courts associated with different clans.  And so it is a very dynamic environment right now and what we are trying to do is reserve our judgment.  But clearly, any partners that we are going to deal with in Somalia, particularly through the Transitional Federal Government, have to have as its objective stability in Somalia, stability in the region and to prevent Somalia remaining a haven.  There are some terrorists that we believe are in Mogadishu who may be protected by various clans, Islamic Courts Union, warlords.  It doesn’t matter what you call them.  And it doesn’t matter to us what you call them.  What we’re saying is that they’re foreign terrorists, they’re in Somalia, they’re responsible for the bombings of our Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, responsible for the bombing of the Mombassa Hotel, they’re part of a core element of Al Qaeda.  All of us need to work together to root out these terrorists.  We need to work with the region to build a regional network to prevent East Africa from becoming a haven of terrorists.  We’re going to work very closely with the government of Uganda, Tanzania, Kenya, Ethiopia, Djibouti, and with the Transitional Federal institutions to achieve that objective.

Thank you.

Ambassador Browning watches as Memory and Henry display their skills.

World Cup Youth Delegation Meets President Bush

Ugandan teens Memory Nampijja and Henry Tumwesigye, participants in the U.S. State Department-sponsored “World Cup Youth Delegation,” met President George W. Bush on Monday, June 12 at the White House. 

Memory, 13, from Masaka and Henry, 14, from Kampala left Uganda for the United States on Friday evening, June 9, to participate in the youth sports exchange program that takes them to both the United States and Germany.  U.S. Ambassador to Uganda, Steven A. Browning met both the teens and their families at the U.S Embassy in Kampala on June 8.

Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Karen Hughes welcomed the delegation, which consists of thirty young soccer players representing 13 countries, in Washington DC. 

While in the United States, the youth athletes will attend soccer clinics and special practice sessions, and take part in a Red Bulls (Major League Soccer) game in New York, learning how the game of soccer is structured and played in the U.S.  They will also participate in tourism activities.

Under Secretary Hughes will then lead the delegation to Nuremberg, Germany for additional program activities and to attend the FIFA World Cup match between Ghana and the United States on June 22.

The World Cup Youth Delegation initiative is working at the grassroots level to help younger players discover how success in athletics – with an emphasis on teamwork, respect, leadership and conflict resolution – can translate into the development of life skills and academic achievement.  The program reflects the theme of this year’s FIFA World Cup – “A time to make friends”, with an emphasis on building international understanding and respect between young people around the world.

The U.S. Embassy in Kampala chose Uganda’s delegates Nampijja and Tumwesigye through consultation by the U.S. Embassy with Ugandan coaches, referees and teachers. In addition to the two Ugandan students, the delegation includes students from Bahrain, Indonesia, Malaysia, South Africa, Uzbekistan, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bolivia, China, Nigeria and Morocco.  

Ambassador Steven A. Browning Presides Over Swearing-in of 33 New Peace Corps

Ambassador Steven A. Browning presided over the swearing-in of 33 new Peace Corps volunteers in a formal ceremony at his official residence on Thursday, May 18. He commended them for their commitment to service in local communities, and he thanked local communities in Uganda for the warm welcome that has traditionally been extended to Peace Corps volunteers.

Fifteen of the volunteers will serve as primary teacher trainers assigned to Core Primary Teachers Colleges throughout central and western Uganda.  The remaining 18 volunteers will work with various community-based and non-governmental organizations focusing on health and HIV-AIDS issues in the same parts of Uganda.

Mr. Sam Onek, Director of Education at the Ugandan Ministry of Education and Sports, accepted the volunteers into service on behalf of the Government of Uganda, while Peace Corps Uganda Country Director, Ms. McGrath Jean Thomas, also made remarks, acknowledging the new volunteers’ successful completion of training, and wishing them well as they begin their two years of service.

The new volunteers first arrived in Uganda on March 6, 2006; they undertook a ten-week, pre-service training program in Luwero prior to the swearing-in ceremony. The training included technical information related to the volunteers’ specific assignments, cultural training and intensive language lessons in Luganda, Runyankore, Rukiga, Runyoro, and Rutooro.  Immediately following the swearing-in ceremony and reception, the new volunteers traveled to their official duty stations, predominantly in rural communities.

The Peace Corps – an initiative of President John F. Kennedy’s administration – celebrates – its 45th Anniversary in 2006.  The first Peace Corps volunteers in Uganda, all secondary school teachers, arrived in November 1964.  Among this first group of teachers was Howard Moses, who taught Chemistry to a young Yoweri Museveni.  Initially the major Peace Corps programming area in Uganda was education, but volunteers have also worked in fisheries, agriculture, vocational education and surveying.  The first health program was initiated in 1968.

For further information about the Peace Corps, please visit: http://www.peacecorps.gov/

US Ambassador to Uganda Steven A. Browning
Presents Diplomatic Credentials to President Museveni

Ambassador Steven A. Browning presented his credentials as U.S. Ambassador to Uganda to President Yoweri Museveni in a State House Ceremony on Wednesday, April 26.  The Ambassador and President Museveni exchanged warm greetings, and recognized the long-standing friendship and ties between Uganda and the United States of America.

Ambassador Browning of Texas arrived in Uganda on March 24, following his
swearing-in as Ambassador to Uganda by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on March 20 in Washington, D.C.  Ambassador Browning was previously U.S. Ambassador to Malawi.  Among his many assignments abroad, the Ambassador has served in both Tanzania and Kenya at earlier points in his career.

US EMBASSY TO FIELD 60 ELECTION OBSERVERS IN UGANDA

The U.S. Embassy will dispatch 60 observers -- including 20 American officers and 40 Ugandan staffers of the Embassy -- to observe voting and vote counting in Uganda's general elections scheduled for this Thursday, February 23.  The U.S. Embassy observers, divided into 19 teams, will cover 13 districts in the central, northern, western and eastern regions of Uganda.  Regional coordinators for the observation teams have already conducted preliminary logistical and fact-finding missions in their areas of coverage.  The Embassy also has organized two training sessions for its observation teams.
 
Since the beginning of 2004, USAID has provided $2.85 million in support of programs related to Uganda's democratization process and the upcoming elections.  Working with the International Republican Institute (IRI), the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI) and IFES, we have supported voter education and awareness and get-out-the-vote campaigns (with special attention to IDP camp residents), political party capacity-building, and programs aimed at increasing participation by women and people with disabilities, among other activities.  NDI has also provided technical assistance to DEMgroup, the consortium of non-partisan domestic monitors.

Chargé d'affaires Bill Fitzgerald said, "This election is for Ugandans to decide.  It is our privilege to serve as neutral observers of Uganda's democratic process.  We obviously hope that the election will be peaceful, fair and transparent, such that all Ugandans, no matter how they vote, will be able to view the final result as credible and democratic."

PRESIDENT BUSH’S MALARIA INITIATIVE LAUNCHES IN KITGUM

State Minister for Primary Health, Honorable Alex Kamugisha, USAID Director Margot Ellis and many other local and national dignitaries launched President Bush’s Malaria Initiative in Kitgum, Uganda on January 25 at Labuje internally displaced person’s camp.  The launch event included the handover of the first 100 insecticide treated nets to camp residents as well as a ceremony recognizing this new, coordinated effort to fight malaria in Uganda.
 
The President’s Malaria Initiative (PMI) of the U.S. government is a five-year,
$1.2 billion initiative to scale up malaria prevention and treatment interventions in highly-affected countries.  The goal of this initiative in three countries—Tanzania, Angola and Uganda—is to reduce malaria-related deaths by 50% after three years of implementation by reaching 85% of the most vulnerable groups – children under five years of age, pregnant women, and people living with HIV/AIDS.  The 2006 PMI budget for Uganda is $9.5 million.  Of this amount, 49% will support the procurement and distribution of nets and other commodities.

In Uganda, the President’s Malaria Initiative will emphasize the distribution of nets in internally displaced persons (IDP) camps in northern Uganda, where vulnerability to malaria is very high.  Interventions will include distribution of Long Lasting Insecticide Treated Nets; indoor residual spraying; intermittent preventive treatment of pregnant women; and provision of malarial treatment.  During the first year of the PMI, more than 300,000 nets will be distributed in the IDP camps.  In other parts of Uganda, the PMI will work to re-treat existing nets.

PMI’s foundation is partnerships: between U.S. Government agencies including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID); with global organizations such as Global Fund, WHO and Roll Back Malaria; with the private sector such as the Gates Foundation, Marathon Oil, and Exxon Mobil; and with African governments, academic institutions, community and faith-based organizations. 

In Uganda, the PMI strategic development and planning were collaboratively conducted by the U.S. Government, the Ministry of Health and other stakeholders in Uganda, in order to ensure that the PMI complements the National Strategy and the work of other donors.   With this launch the U.S. Government demonstrates its commitment to address this priority health concern for the people of Uganda.

U.S. Embassy Donates Books to Ugandan Army Staff College

The U.S. Embassy in Kampala has donated an assortment of books worth $2,500 to the Uganda People’s Defense Forces (UPDF) Senior Command and Staff College in Kimaka, Jinja district. The books were handed over to the college commandant, Maj. Gen. Ivan Koreta by the Embassy’s Public Affairs Officer, Alyson Grunder, on September 14, 2005.

Speaking at the hand over ceremony, Maj. Gen. Koreta praised the U.S. Government’s generous contribution towards the education of the UPDF. He encouraged the Embassy’s Information Resource Center to continue to provide relevant information to the college staff.

The book donation resulted from a visit by top UPDF officers to the U.S. Embassy Information Resource Center in 2004.