Final Interview with Ambassador Jimmy Kolker

The United States Ambassador to Uganda, Jimmy Kolker, ended his tour of duty on September 30 and returned to Washington DC as a top manager in President George Bush's US$15bn Presidential Emergency Fund for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR).  He gave a farewell interview, published in The New Vision Newspaper, on October 2.  The unabridged transcript follows:

Q:  How has your tour of duty in Uganda been like?
A:  It has been a wonderful time. I have loved Uganda. I traveled throughout the country. I have been very warmly received by everyone, everywhere I have gone. I have been also received very well by the President and members of the Government.  When I have requested appointments, they granted them. We had good and open dialogue both at the Government-to-Government level and between the American people and the Ugandan people. I enjoyed very much the warmth and the hospitality of Uganda.

Q:  How different is the Uganda you are leaving now compared to the Uganda you found when you came here?
A:  I should say that I first came here for 4 months in 1971. One of the reasons that I wanted to come back is that I had followed Uganda through some very tough times and now through some better times and so I was encouraged, of course, that Uganda is a secure place and that many of the joys I experienced in Kampala in 1971 have been restored. People can move freely, students are studying, are active and expressing their opinions. At the same time, when I was here in 1971, Amin had just taken over. It actually was a time, not when people felt threatened, but when they actually thought that things would go on well and that they were able to express opinions they had not been able to express during the Obote I government.  That is why I myself was naïve to what I have called red warning lights flashing. I was naïve to them in 1971. But 2005 is very much different from 1971 and I hope that even though people are secure and enjoying freedoms – at least outside of northern Uganda - that they are alert to some of those red warning lights that are flashing indicating political violence and corruption. These are the things that need to be addressed because if they are not, democracy will be incomplete.

Q:  What did you come to do in Uganda for 4 months in 1971?
A:  I was a graduate student. I had a fellowship and I lived in the dorm at Makerere University, but I didn’t enroll in the classes. I was doing an independent study project.  

Q:  What were your expectations of Uganda's political transition?
A:  The expectation now in September 2005 is that the Government and Parliament will move quickly to establish institutions that will be necessary to run free and fair multiparty elections.

Q:  What do these include?
A:  These will include separating instruments of the Movement from the State, establishing some ground rules to ensure that the playing field is as level as possible, questions about the role of the military and punishing any of those who disrespect freedom of assembly or in any way try to intimidate voters or politicians. All of those preconditions need to be established very quickly in order to give the voters a chance to actually find out what the advantages of political parties are, hear the different candidates and have the nominations and election processes proceed smoothly and in a democratic way.

Q:   Have you had any discussions with the Government on the electoral process?
A:  Government officials here, especially ministers and the President, have been very open to me. We have had lots of discussions about events in Uganda on all fields - economic, political, social, health and AIDS, war in the north and lots of other topics whenever I talked to them.

Q:   So what is the U.S. input in Uganda's transition process?
 A:  Constitutions and elections are acts of sovereignty. These are Uganda's processes. We are a friend of Uganda; we find that we have many common interests with Uganda. There are a lot of Americans who are here doing good works and I just met many Ugandans who are in the United States. Our two societies have common interests and have a lot of activities where I think our combined efforts can do good. So certainly we would like to see Uganda's democracy develop and develop in a positive way, to be more open and to be more responsive to the needs of your citizens.  But we don't have any formal role at all in the transition process.  It’s a Ugandan process.

Q: What do you think about the political opposition in Uganda?
A:  Uganda has had a difficult history. Political parties were not necessarily run democratically and they cooperated in tyranny and injustices. So the basis from which political opposition is starting is a difficult one because people aren’t used to loyal opposition or constructive dissent or ways of enlarging the appeal from the core constituency to a larger constituency by political parties. So it is an opportunity now for the political opposition to show that it has an alternative program that it can provide some constructive criticism as well as some new leaders and bring new people into the political process both from the grassroots level and the national level. So there is an opportunity and we'll see how the opposition takes advantage of that opportunity. I think there are some positive signs, but also there are some signs of disarray, confusion and perhaps backsliding by the opposition as well.  I don't think the situation is clear yet, but I am hopeful that multiparty politics in Uganda really will offer the voters more alternatives and will result in better policy.

Q:  Should the Movement organs endorse President Museveni as a candidate?
A:  It is not my role to take a position on that matter.

Q:  Would the U.S. have a position on that?
A:  No.

Q:  What is your comment on the debate or claims from certain quarters that the Uganda Government was shifting the world famous ABC anti-HIV/AIDS strategy in favor of abstinence, or faith against condoms or condoms being promoted against the A & B?
A:  The debate has been going on for a long time. I think it is a healthy debate because we need all possible prevention strategies and Uganda has set the model of finding a lot of ways of preventing the spread of HIV. Certainly ABC, not as A or B or C, but all three of those in different circumstances with different emphasis in different situations has been an effective strategy for Uganda.  New prevention focus  is necessary now because there are so many discordant couples.  We also work on the prevention of mother-to-child-transmission, blood safety and injection safety.  So the U.S. is very pleased that we are supporting all of these interventions for the prevention of transmission of HIV. And it is absolutely essential that because there are drugs, people should not relax about good behaviour or become complacent on the threat of the HIV.  It is a sexually transmitted disease, it is still deadly and it still has no cure.

Q:  Then why the controversy?
A:  I fear that sometimes our position has been misrepresented. Both the U.S. Government, and I am confident, the Uganda Government believe that condoms have a role and abstinence has a role. Both Governments have been able to support both those interventions for many years.  The U.S. has been supporting both condoms and abstinence in Uganda for 15 years and the Uganda Government has not changed its policy. We are following the one strategy that Uganda has in its multi-sectoral approach to HIV prevention and I have not seen that strategy change because of our intervention. The good news is that we have been able to increase funding for all of the prevention strategies. I don't see condoms and abstinence as being mutually exclusive. They are actually complementary programs and they are both important.

Q:  What is Uganda's fate in the AGOA arrangement?  There has been talk lately that there are forces that want Uganda knocked off the list of beneficiaries.
A:  The U.S. Labor movement  has filed a petition to withhold AGOA and the Generalized System of Preference benefits from Uganda because in those laws - the AGOA law and the US quota and tariff free laws - there are provisions about observing internationally acceptable labor standards. The petition has claimed that Uganda is not observing those standards. But the Uganda Government itself has recognized that its labor laws are out of date and has proposed revisions, which the Cabinet has approved.  So when my staff and I talked to the Uganda Government about this, we agreed that quick action by the Uganda Government to fulfill its own policies in terms of labor laws is the way to address this petition. There were some deficiencies and there are some problems, but in the end the Government, the Parliament and the employers have it within their power to make these changes and ensure that Uganda is adhering to the highest international standards as far as labor is concerned.

Q:  What do you think about the conflict in northern Uganda and southern Sudan?
A:  The conditions in the camps for the displaced people are an outrage.  It is very worrisome.  The conditions are inhuman and they are not improving.  The longer the conflict goes on, the more demoralizing it is for people.  Demoralizing in the sense that people lose hope and that the moral fiber and ethical traditions become eroded because people are living in an unnatural situation.  It is a very troubling situation from the point of view of the people who are the victims of the war.  The U.S., and I personally, have put a high priority on trying to bring the war to an end.  This involves military pressure, trying to meet the LRA to have their leadership come out, to protect the civilians in the camps and to protect the population of Uganda and its borders from attacks.  It also includes supporting the efforts of Betty Bigombe and the Government trying to pursue cessation of hostilities and certainly to provide humanitarian assistance to the victims.  But I have to say that success has eluded us so far. The war is still going on, there are still kids being abducted and there are still vehicles being ambushed. I think it needs our constant attention.  The outrage of the international community is important because these are a million and a half Ugandans who are suffering and perhaps not enough attention is being paid to what all of us could do to address their situation.

Q:  What about the impact of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement in Sudan especially on northern Uganda?
A:  All of us hoped that the peace agreement in Sudan would bring a quicker end to the conflict in northern Uganda and there are some signs that the LRA is in more trouble and that the situation in Sudan is making it more difficult for them to mobilize or to get supplies. On the other hand the war is not over. I don't think we can be in any way complacent that the Sudanese are going to solve Uganda's problem or that the international community is going to solve Uganda's problem. These are Ugandans fighting Ugandans. It is very important that Government gives it full attention to all three aspects of the problem: trying to protect civilians through an effective military posture, humanitarian needs, and trying to find a peaceful solution to the war.

Q:  The African Union cannot help out?
A:  There are many possible intermediaries and scenarios that would involve groups such as the Africa Union, which has taken on a constructive role in African conflict resolution in general. It is something we have encouraged and we have even given them some subsidy from the U.S. side. So it is not to diminish the capacity of the African Union, but it is really up to the Government of Uganda and the LRA to decide how to end the war. It is the LRA that is resistant right now. They are the ones who have not come to the table, have not put forward a program and continue to attack people.  I am not sure that the question of a peacekeeping force or any intervention force is the right intervention right now.  What is needed is some will, particularly on the part of the LRA, to end this war. It could be ended tomorrow if the Government and the LRA could meet as they did last December.  But we all have to work hard for this result

Q:  The Human Rights Watch released its report yesterday saying that both the LRA and the UPDF should be investigated for crimes against humanity.
A:  Sometimes vocabulary gets in the way of what needs be done. I think that anyone who has committed a crime should be investigated for that crime. The LRA has clearly committed atrocities. I think the UPDF has a mixed record. Some of their troops have clearly misbehaved with the civilian population in particular and have not always been held accountable for their actions but I think they are in a different category. The LRA are the protagonists. The LRA were keeping this war going. On the other hand, I hope that the UPDF will do a better job of instilling discipline and professionalism in its troops, as there have been some serious lapses.

Q:  What do you think about the media in Uganda?
A:  I think that sometimes in the rush to get a story and in the way the system is set up to compensate  journalists, there is no special care taken in the accuracy of the stories.  Sometimes the headlines have nothing to do with what is in the story, sometimes there are provocative headlines or leads in stories that are sensational and aren’t justified by what was actually said.  But the media has an important role to play and certainly it is wrong for the government to blame the media for some of its problems.  Right before I came, the Monitor was closed down and when I am leaving, a radio station was temporarily closed down. I think these are mistakes. Democracy requires tolerance for a wide range of opinions expressed in the media. On the other hand, the media itself has not always been professional, but that doesn't justify closing it down and I don’t think there has been a partisan lack of professionalism.  On a number of occasions I personally have been misrepresented and occasionally reporters simply manufacture remarks that I might have said, or they would have wanted me to say.  But I think press freedom is a cornerstone of democracy.

Q:  Where are you going after Uganda?
A:  Back to the U.S.  I am going to work with Ambassador Randall Tobias in Washington DC. This is an office that was set up because of President Bush’s 2003 initiative in which he pledged US$15bn towards the fight against HIV and AIDS, PEPFAR.  Amb.  Tobias, the head of the office is a businessman; number 2 is a medical person from National Institutes of Health and I will be number 3.  I will be the chief State Department person; a diplomat in the office, working on outreach, international affairs and the Global Fund against AIDS, TB and Malaria.

Q:  What is the relationship between the PEPFAR and the Global Fund?
A:  The programs are complementary.  In designing our program we took into account what the Global Fund grants had been intended to do and in implementing PEPFAR we tried to find ways in which we could work together.  Just yesterday I was in Jinja where there was a good example of this partnership.  In Njeru, through PEPFAR, a program called Business PART worked with Nile Breweries to set up a clinic and a testing facility for their own employees and to work on mobilization for prevention strategies and treatment of the Nile Breweries employees. It has been a very good program. We have provided additional training for them to extend the program to the communities in the vicinity of Jinja and Njeru so that people who aren’t employees can come and use the facilities. We are not providing any anti-retroviral drugs to that program, but we have trained medical staff in treatment of AIDS and using anti-retroviral drugs. The drugs would be provided by the Global Fund.

Q:  But Uganda was suspended for alleged mismanagement of the Global Funds.
A:  The sad news is that with the suspension of the Global Fund due to mismanagement of its resources in Uganda there are no new patients being put on treatment through the Global Fund. So we now have a wonderful clinic set up, there are people being mobilized, there are people being tested, but the actual treatment which could help prolong those people's lives may be delayed because of the suspension of the Global Fund activities. The point I made there is that each of us needs to do our part.  Nile Breweries did its part, the community of Jinja and Njeru did its part, the employees there and medical staff themselves did their part and I hope that the U.S. Government did our part.  But there are people within the Ministry of Health who can't account for money and that means that the Uganda Government, using Global Fund money, isn't doing its part.  That is what’s discouraging in this because these are programs which depend on each other to be successful.

Q: Do you think people at the Ministry of Health should take political responsibility for this mismanagement?
A: I haven't seen the full report but some of the charges are very serious and I think there is an accountability question there.  Some of these deficiencies were pointed out to the Government of Uganda last November when the head of the Global Fund, Dr. Richard Feacham, visited Uganda. There are issues that have been of concern to the Global Fund and the international community for nearly a year. So we were not taken by surprise by the findings.

Q:   Did you learn any local languages?
A:  No, I didn't.  But I remember one particular Luganda phrase “Nfunilamu wa?” One of the sad things I see about politics in Uganda right now is that people seem to have applied this phrase to their activities.  They are always asking, “What’s my cut?  What’s in it for me?”  That to me is a very weak basis for advancing Uganda's interest or even for achieving political cooperation. If people's approach to Government is nfunilamu wa, Uganda’s interests will be sacrificed in favor of personal interests and we have seen a number of examples of this.  For instance in privatizations, questions of Parliamentary benefits, questions of electoral law and also just in terms of a culture in which corruption at all levels is growing.  People are looking for per diem as part of a workshop culture. You have to facilitate many civil servants to do their own jobs in their own hometowns.  You have to pay them extra to do their jobs. This is an approach to public life in Uganda which makes it more difficult to establish full democracy. People need to look at national interests ahead of their own interests or as well as their own interests.

Q:  Is there one thing that you will take back to the U.S. that you think Ugandans have to teach Americans.
A:  Yes.  One thing that I noticed in Uganda and throughout Africa is a tradition of greeting everyone you see. The first time that you see someone in the morning, whether it is a gardener or a driver, or colleagues or relatives, you always take time to greet them and acknowledge the humanity of people. In America we are sometimes in such a hurry that we fail to do that. I hope that I and other Westerners who are in Uganda will realize what a wonderful tradition it is to take time to greet each person you see especially the first time you see them each day.  In that way there is a sense of respect and of sharing something as human beings. As developed societies, we sometimes lose that human touch and we take people for granted. That is one lesson I will take back home with me.