Sometimes it is easy to overlook the roots of a situation. While working with the women from Kireka, I must regularly remind myself of the circumstances that led to the work they perform today. I don’t forget, but I don’t always think about the fact that these women have not always lived the way they live now. The women are so strong, stubborn, and eager that sometimes it is incredibly difficult to imagine a time when they were ever weak. Thinking of the women in that state is honestly a terrifying mental exercise. However, as a result of recent events I am compelled to look back to a history I have never personally known, but one that is engrained within the women’s lives.
In the face of art, craft, and jewelry we are not typically forced to consider the violent history that pressured these Acholi women to leave their homes in northern Uganda. Yet in light of Obama’s recent mandate for 100 American troops to aid Ugandan forces in the search for Joseph Kony and his band of guerilla fighters, the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), this history should return to the forefront. The LRA has instilled brutal havoc throughout the Great Lakes region of Africa for decades. Not only have they displaced numerous people from their homes, like the women of Kireka, but they are also well known for abducting child soldiers into their ranks. The list of violations is lengthy, but Kony has yet to be apprehended and the violence has yet to be completely suppressed.
There have been mixed reactions to the soldiers sent to Uganda. They have been very clearly and carefully explained as advisors in the hunt for the LRA, and they are absolutely not mandated to engage in any type of combat. They are meant to support existing efforts to track Kony and function as a tangible means of offering the Ugandan government an expanded selection of resources and technology. Human rights groups like Oxfam and the Enough Project have cautiously hailed Obama for sending the troops. At the same time observers have justly explained the situation as further evidence of Obama’s big stick foreign policy trend that started with Libya. While some support the measure as a reasonable effort toward peace and security, others believe the U.S. has interests in Uganda’s oil or Uganda’s assistance in combating terror groups in neighboring countries like Somalia. For those suffering at the hands of the LRA, the reason for U.S. involvement may not matter.
I have yet to speak to the women in depth on this matter, but I look forward to finding out more about their reaction. Whether Americans are in favor of a more isolationist foreign policy approach or not, the troops could make an incredible difference to the situation in northern Uganda and the neighboring countries where the LRA has committed acts of violence. I think James Traub from Foreign Policy magazine best sums up the heart of the matter:
“I asked Tom Malinowski, the Washington director of Human Rights Watch, if he understood why the Obama administration had decided to send troops to Uganda. Yes, he did, he said: “Because they thought it was the right thing to do.”
We’ll see if the women agree.