Hunger Knows No Borders
Tom Vilsack
U.S. Secretary of Agriculture

This weekend I was in Italy with agriculture secretaries and ministers from the Group of Eight (G8) countries for the first-ever Agriculture Ministerial in G8 history.  What brought the world’s wealthiest countries together for this meeting is a shared commitment to eliminating hunger and making sure food gets into the hands of those who need it most.

The global recession and financial crisis have pushed more and more people to seek assistance feeding their families.  Last year's food riots demonstrate that food insecurity threatens the health of vulnerable populations and puts our nation's economic and national security at risk. Global leadership on this issue is more important than ever as we face the reality of a world population that’s growing by 79 million people each year, a rate that may in our lifetimes challenge our capacity to produce enough food.  Committing to food security is both our moral obligation and a key strategy in promoting economic development and global stability.

America’s proud food aid legacy began after World War II and today we remain the world’s largest food aid supplier.  Over the past 10 years, the U.S. has supplied roughly 55 percent of total food assistance, and America is on track to provide more than $5.5 billion to fight global hunger in 2008 and 2009. This is a remarkable achievement made possible by the U.S. agricultural community, the work of private voluntary organizations and U.S. commodity and industry groups, and our citizens' longstanding commitment to sharing America’s bounty with those less fortunate. Every sector of the U.S. economy — from farmers to processors, truckers, distributors, shippers, and many others — deserves credit for America’s leadership on this important issue.

As the world’s richest nations met to develop strategies to tackle food insecurity and partnerships to deal with future food emergencies, I wanted the world’s hungry to know that President Obama is taking action on the pledge he made in his inaugural address: “To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds.”

Earlier this month, President Obama met in London with leaders of the Group of Twenty to establish a coordinated response to the international economic crisis. At that meeting he announced that he would ask Congress to double U.S. financial support for agricultural development in poor countries to $1 billion in 2010.  A week later, at the International Food Aid Conference in Kansas City, I announced an additional $80 million to fund four more McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition projects in Africa that will feed 655,000 children.  The McGovern-Dole program is an innovative idea authored by anti-hunger leaders Bob Dole and George McGovern that combines food aid and educational development. To date the program has provided meals to more than 22 million children in 41 countries and boosted school attendance by an estimated 14 percent overall, and by 17 percent for girls. I am committed to increasing funding for this important program to ensure that millions more children have access to healthy food and an education.

Why are these actions important?  With his request to Congress, President Obama has demonstrated a commitment to arresting the vicious cycle of poverty and hunger now enveloping more than one billion of the world’s people. The President’s action will help developing countries boost the productivity of their land and build prosperity among their rural poor.

The scourges of malnutrition and hunger know no borders. At this weekend’s G8 agriculture meeting, we worked to tackle this critical issue together.  As I told my counterparts in Italy, and have told our citizens at home, President Obama and I are committed to - and taking action to achieve — a food supply that is safe, sufficient and nutritious for people around the world.

(Tom Vilsack is the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture.)

Barack Obama: A time for global action
By Barack Obama
Tribune Media Services
Monday, March 23, 2009

WASHINGTON: We are living through a time of global economic challenges that cannot be met by half measures or the isolated efforts of any nation. Now, the leaders of the Group of 20 have a responsibility to take bold, comprehensive and coordinated action that not only jump-starts recovery, but also launches a new era of economic engagement to prevent a crisis like this from ever happening again.

No one can deny the urgency of action. A crisis in credit and confidence has swept across borders, with consequences for every corner of the world. For the first time in a generation, the global economy is contracting and trade is shrinking.

Trillions of dollars have been lost, banks have stopped lending, and tens of millions will lose their jobs across the globe. The prosperity of every nation has been endangered, along with the stability of governments and the survival of people in the most vulnerable parts of the world.

Once and for all, we have learned that the success of the American economy is inextricably linked to the global economy. There is no line between action that restores growth within our borders and action that supports it beyond.

If people in other countries cannot spend, markets dry up — already we've seen the biggest drop in American exports in nearly four decades, which has led directly to American job losses. And if we continue to let financial institutions around the world act recklessly and irresponsibly, we will remain trapped in a cycle of bubble and bust. That is why the upcoming London Summit is directly relevant to our recovery at home.

My message is clear: The United States is ready to lead, and we call upon our partners to join us with a sense of urgency and common purpose. Much good work has been done, but much more remains.

Our leadership is grounded in a simple premise: We will act boldly to lift the American economy out of crisis and reform our regulatory structure, and these actions will be strengthened by complementary action abroad. Through our example, the United States can promote a global recovery and build confidence around the world; and if the London Summit helps galvanize collective action, we can forge a secure recovery, and future crises can be averted.

Our efforts must begin with swift action to stimulate growth. Already, the United States has passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act — the most dramatic effort to jump-start job creation and lay a foundation for growth in a generation.
Other members of the G-20 have pursued fiscal stimulus as well, and these efforts should be robust and sustained until demand is restored. As we go forward, we should embrace a collective commitment to encourage open trade and investment, while resisting the protectionism that would deepen this crisis.

Second, we must restore the credit that businesses and consumers depend upon. At home, we are working aggressively to stabilize our financial system. This includes an honest assessment of the balance sheets of our major banks, and will lead directly to lending that can help Americans purchase goods, stay in their homes and grow their businesses.

This must continue to be amplified by the actions of our G-20 partners. Together, we can embrace a common framework that insists upon transparency, accountability and a focus on restoring the flow of credit that is the lifeblood of a growing global economy. And the G-20, together with multilateral institutions, can provide trade finance to help lift up exports and create jobs.

Third, we have an economic, security and moral obligation to extend a hand to countries and people who face the greatest risk. If we turn our backs on them, the suffering caused by this crisis will be enlarged, and our own recovery will be delayed because markets for our goods will shrink further and more American jobs will be lost.

The G-20 should quickly deploy resources to stabilize emerging markets, substantially boost the emergency capacity of the International Monetary Fund and help regional development banks accelerate lending. Meanwhile, America will support new and meaningful investments in food security that can help the poorest weather the difficult days that will come.

While these actions can help get us out of crisis, we cannot settle for a return to the status quo. We must put an end to the reckless speculation and spending beyond our means; to the bad credit, over-leveraged banks and absence of oversight that condemns us to bubbles that inevitably bust.

Only coordinated international action can prevent the irresponsible risk-taking that caused this crisis. That is why I am committed to seizing this opportunity to advance comprehensive reforms of our regulatory and supervisory framework.
All of our financial institutions — on Wall Street and around the globe — need strong oversight and common sense rules of the road. All markets should have standards for stability and a mechanism for disclosure. A strong framework of capital requirements should protect against future crises. We must crack down on offshore tax havens and money laundering.

Rigorous transparency and accountability must check abuse, and the days of out-of-control compensation must end. Instead of patchwork efforts that enable a race to the bottom, we must provide the clear incentives for good behavior that foster a race to the top.
I know that America bears our share of responsibility for the mess that we all face. But I also know that we need not choose between a chaotic and unforgiving capitalism and an oppressive government-run economy. That is a false choice that will not serve our people or any people.

This G-20 meeting provides a forum for a new kind of global economic cooperation. Now is the time to work together to restore the sustained growth that can only come from open and stable markets that harness innovation, support entrepreneurship and advance opportunity.
The nations of the world have a stake in one another. The United States is ready to join a global effort on behalf of new jobs and sustainable growth. Together, we can learn the lessons of this crisis, and forge a prosperity that is enduring and secure for the 21st century.

Barack Obama is president of the United States. A Global Viewpoint article distributed by Tribune Media Services.

The United States Joins Uganda in Commemorating World Tuberculosis

Almost a century ago, America was locked in a battle against tuberculosis (TB), which killed thousands annually and was one of the leading causes of death in the United States. Today, even though a cure for drug-sensitive TB has existed for more than 50 years, TB remains a major cause of death worldwide. It is a disease that hits the poorest and most vulnerable groups, especially women and children. This is why the World Health Organization (WHO) recognizes a day each year, World Tuberculosis Day on March 24th, to call attention to the disease and to mobilize action to combat it.

The American people are making major investments to prevent and control TB in countries around the world where the burden of the disease is highest. Through our active engagement in the STOP TB Partnership, we are a key partner in intense global efforts to achieve the Partnership’s Global Plan targets to halve TB prevalence and deaths by 2015 relative to 1990 levels. There is good news to share. According to The 2009 Global Tuberculosis Control Report, released today by the WHO, TB prevalence and death rates are falling globally, while detection of new cases of TB and access to high-quality anti-TB treatments are on the rise.

In Uganda, TB continues to be a major health problem; it is one of 20 countries worldwide with a ‘high TB burden’ ranking.  Statistically, 60% of TB patients screened in Uganda are HIV positive and overall TB detection rates are below global targets. Estimates are that only 51% of Ugandans with TB are detected (global target is 70%) and 67% of Ugandans are successfully treated (global target is 85%). 

This year, the American people will support the Ministry of Health and districts governments by investing nearly US$11 million in TB funding to deliver integrated services for both TB and HIV.  U.S. funding is implemented through 19 local partners covering 524 service outlets nationwide.

Support includes dissemination of national policy guidelines, training of health workers on intensive case finding and HIV/TB co-management, TB infection control, laboratory quality improvement, and strengthening of logistics and health management information systems at national and district levels.

U.S.-supported efforts to date are demonstrating significant improvement in their TB/HIV outcomes as a result of technical and financial support in integrating TB/HIV services into their overall district plans. For example, we are seeing rapid improvements in key TB and TB/HIV indicators including TB case detection and treatment success.  In addition, the district joint TB/HIV work plans are proving a strong advocacy tool for resource mobilization and district ownership. We already know that the co-location of TB and HIV services improves access to both services for all patients.
 
During 2008 alone, the United States supported ART funding to 12,770 HIV-positive TB patients and HIV counseling and testing to 17,783 TB patients.
However, much work remains to be done. Neither Africa nor Europe is on track to meet the targets. Because HIV fuels the TB epidemic, the number of HIV-positive TB cases and deaths are twice what was previously thought. Multi-drug resistant (MDR) TB threatens to undermine years of progress in TB control, because the treatment requires different and more costly drugs. New approaches to diagnose TB, coupled with improved health delivery systems and stronger community awareness, are critical to earlier detection and treatment.
The United States remains fully committed to working with all of our partners to renew the charge against TB. The American people have donated US$3.3 billion to the Global Fund (GF) since 2002. Almost US$1.71 billion has been approved by the GF for Phase 1 and Phase 2 TB grants in 91 countries. Global Fund investments have provided 3.9 million people with treatment for tuberculosis.
The United States is the largest single-country bilateral donor for TB, and since 1998 it has provided more than US$777 million to global TB control programs. The United States is a leading donor to the Global TB Drug Facility to expand access to, and availability of, high-quality anti-TB drugs, providing nearly US$15 million in 2008. More than 450,000 patients will benefit from this life-saving assistance from the American people.
On World Tuberculosis Day, the United States renews its pledge to work with countries and the international community to successfully implement the Global Plan to Stop TB. The lives of millions of people across the globe depend on true international cooperation.

 Steven Browning

U.S. EMBASSY KAMPALA HOSTS INAUGURATION NIGHT EVENT
Ambassador Browning urges Ugandans to prepare for democracy in 2011 elections

On January 20, 2009, Ambassador Steven A. Browning hosted an Inauguration Night event at his residence. Guests, who included senior Uganda cabinet ministers, government officials, Members of Parliament, representatives of political parties, academia and media, witnessed the swearing in of President Barack Obama. Ambassador Browning delivered a short speech in which in he celebrated the transition of power in America and urged Ugandans to prepare for their multi-party democracy to hold elections that reflect the people's will in 2011. Following is the full text of the Ambassador’s speech:

Thank you for coming this evening to join us as we observe the inauguration of the 44th President of the United States of America, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois.  Barack Obama will be our 44th President, but this will be our 56th inauguration.  We have never failed, since the beginning of the process, to hold national elections no matter what the state of the Union or the world may have been.

We are here not to celebrate the victory of one candidate or political party over the other.  We are here to celebrate the democratic process and institutions that, though far from perfect, have enabled the United States to conduct elections and peacefully pass power from one President to the next for the last 220 years.

By and large, this has been a process that has put the interests of country and the preservation of the union before the interests of individuals or regions or political parties.  It has been a process in which nearly all Americans have trust and confidence.  It has been a process in which millions of American citizens and a free, competent and responsible press have enthusiastically and actively participated. 

I am acutely aware that it has been not just Americans who have followed this particular election in the United States.  It has been watched closely around the world, but particularly here in Africa.  By electing a man of African heritage to the highest office in our land, a country where American citizens of African heritage comprise only 12% of our population, the United States has taken another step forward in our democratic and cultural evolution.

We Americans have been on a long journey in terms of overcoming our history with slavery and the civil war that almost tore our country apart.  We have been on a long journey overcoming wounds and eliminating race as a factor in our society.  That journey is not over, but the inauguration of Barack Obama today will be an extraordinary step forward.  I know how proud many Africans are to see one of your sons in the White House.  You should know how proud we Americans are, as well.    

Another recent election, here in Africa, was also significant and captured world attention.  Ghana demonstrated to the world, but more importantly to the people of Ghana, that their country also continues its democratic evolution.  A contentious, hotly contested election ended peacefully with a democratic transfer of power that reflected the will of the people.  The people of Ghana should be congratulated for this accomplishment.

In Kenya and Zimbabwe, unfortunately, we saw different outcomes after their recent elections.  Public trust and confidence were broken.  Mistrust and violence ensued.  The legitimacy of leaders was questioned because the veracity of the elections that brought them to power was in doubt.  Governments that lack the mandates of their people cannot govern effectively and have problems promoting social harmony and achieving the development goals that are so important to them. 

Since independence, Ugandans have made great efforts to build a functioning multi-party democracy that serves the needs and desires of its people.  It has been an extremely difficult struggle, however, with most transitions of power marred by violence and insecurity. 

The re-introduction of multi-party politics and the re-establishment of political parties provide an opportunity for you to further develop your democratic institutions so they can best serve the needs of all Ugandans.

Your elections to be held in 2011 will be an opportunity for you to show your commitment to the growth and development of your democracy.  I urge you to prepare for these elections in ways that encourage and enable the largest number of Ugandan citizens and the press to get informed and participate freely and actively.  I believe one standard for a good election would be one in which large numbers of well-informed Ugandans enthusiastically and freely participate.

American philosopher and educationalist John Dewey said that "Democracy begins in conversation."  Citizens must be able to speak freely, assemble freely, associate freely, in order for democracy to flourish.  The democratic conversation must extend to the ability of the press to question leaders and inform voters.  The discussion must be a conversation, not a monologue on the part of any single individual or single party.

The U.S. Government and your other development partners stand ready to work with you as you prepare for your elections.  I and my staff welcome the opportunity to discuss with you ways in which we can work together to help you as you prepare for these elections.

So once again, join us in celebrating tonight the inauguration of the 44th President of the United States of America, and another peaceful transition of power.  Join us as we Americans celebrate the historic advance by our multi-cultural society this election represents.  And, let us join you in expectation that in 2011 Ugandans also will be celebrating successful elections reflective of the will of the people.  Thank you for joining us tonight and enjoy the evening.

Peace Begins at Home

The "16 Days of Activism against Gender Violence" campaign runs from November 25 to December 10, 2008. The dates are not accidental: November 25 is the International Day Against Violence Against Women, and December 10 is International Human Rights Day. These 16 days are a bridge between thinking of gender violence as a "women's issue" and understanding it as a human rights concern that touches us all.

Deadly discrimination cuts short women's lives in every country and stalks us at every point in our life-cycle: from before birth, in sex-selective abortion and infanticide; to childhood death from neglect in food and medicine; to genital mutilation; so-called "honor" killings; dowry deaths; sex trafficking; rape; systematic mass rape and torture in war zones; inadequate maternal health care; and socially-sanctioned impoverishment of widows. Taken together, around the globe, one in three women will experience gender-based violence in her lifetime. In some regions of the world, that figure rises to 70 percent.

Across diverse cultures and societies, one element unifies this savagery: the willingness to dehumanize women.

These 16 days affirm women's rights in the world not in terms of what we do for our husbands or families, but simply in terms of who we are: human beings who deserve dignity, and the ability to go about our lives free from violence and fear.

For too many women, the place where we ought to feel most safe is sometimes the most dangerous. Women are more at risk of experiencing violence in intimate relationships than in any other aspect of our lives.

Domestic violence happens behind closed doors, making it easy to dismiss as a private issue or a tragedy of interest only to the affected family.  But, the consequences of violence in the home radiate outward and upward, affecting communities and entire nations.  In the US alone, the economic cost of domestic violence exceeds USD 5.8 billion per year in health care services and lost productivity. A 2004 study in the UK that computed both direct and indirect costs of domestic violence arrived at a figure of GBP 23 billion per year, or GBP 440 per citizen. Regardless of the society in which it takes place, domestic violence ruptures families. It breeds poverty, inequality, instability, and affects the standing of governments in the eyes of the world: the greatness of nations is always measured by how they treat their most at-risk citizens.

Most countries have laws that criminalize the assault component of domestic violence, but, according to a 2006 UN study, only 89 recognize the special combination of physical and emotional brutality – the particular circumstances brought about by the unique personal bonds between perpetrator and victim – that characterize domestic violence. Those laws are urgently needed.

We need partnerships between NGOs and legislative bodies, so their expertise and experience can inform the laws. And we need more thorough data collection, so that policies can be targeted and effective.

But laws and policies are empty gestures without stringent implementation and enforcement. Enforcement must recognize that domestic violence offenses have been separated from assault categories because their characteristics are different, and not because the crimes are any less serious.

We need consistent guidelines and training for police and social workers. We need courtroom procedures that allow privacy and confidentiality for victims – which can be as simple as allowing video testimony, or restricting courtroom access. We need expansion of the proven success of "one-stop centers" that offer interagency health and legal services for victims.

But most of all, we need political will from governments to adhere to international standards and norms. We need leaders who will insist -- loudly, frequently, and persistently – that women have equal worth, equal value, and deserve equal protection and respect.

A scant sixteen days will not accomplish these goals.  But sixteen days are a start – a good start, if they can serve as the fuse that inspires us to examine our attitudes and take action all the other 349 days of the year.

Andrea Bottner is the Director of the State Department’s Office of International Women’s Issues. For more information on International Women’s Issues, visit http://www.state.gov/g/wi/. 

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.