BY YANTA DANIEL ELISHA
To resolve the longstanding and recurrent dispute at the Uganda-South Sudan border amidst accusations of the media flaring up violence, journalists must practice peace journalism.
The border conflict between Uganda and South Sudan has had a significant negative impact on the lives, property, and livelihoods of the two friendly interdependent economies since 2014.
The need for peace journalism to protect fundamental international intermarriages or families across borders is crucial.
About 1.4 percent of married Ugandans; that is 642,600 individuals of the current population of Uganda of 45.9 million, have their spouses from South Sudan as of a 2014 study by the Uganda Bureau of Statistics. Such figures must have increased in the 2024 Uganda population census. What about the multiple products of international intermarriages like nieces, nephews, cousins, uncles, and in-laws across borders? This is an unbreakable natural bonding beyond political boundaries and government policies on immigration and calls for cosmopolitanism; that is global citizenship.
What is national citizenship for, apart from identification, entitlement, responsibility, sense of belonging, loyalty, protection, and participation purposes, according to philosophers; John Locke, Benedict Anderson, Thomas Hobbes, and Aristotle?
The attitude of global citizenship is ideal and realistic for a journalist to embrace peace journalism beyond national borders.
UNESCO’s Global Citizenship Education Programme encourages individuals to think beyond national borders and engage with diverse cultures. Such is supreme and genuine for journalists and inhabitants of border regions.
The two countries, Uganda and South Sudan contest over a territorial boundary stretching along Lamwo, Magwi, Nimule in the east, Kajo-Keji, Moyo, Yumbe at the mid-west or central corridor, Koboko, Arua and Vurra in the western areas of the sunset direction.
This belt is historically and contemporarily occupied by related ethnicities, tribes, clans, and lineages of Acholi, Aringa, Gimara, Kakwa, Kuku, Ma’di, Lugbara, and Reli among others, who are now pitted against one another through a colonial arrangement; inherited by sovereign African governments without a popular consultation.
The Equatoria and West Nile Belt, about 470 square kilometers, which was known in history as “The Ladu Enclave” had exchanged imperialistic hands between the British and the Belgians in 1910 following an agreement in 1907. The imperialists determined the territorial fate of the land, and they initiated a scramble, without the knowledge, consultation, and consent of the landlords; the original inhabitants. A mess, that media professionals and informed Africans of the modern century should never be entangled in.
Why and how should the media have a hand in such bloodshed and destruction of human settlement and livelihood through war journalism style?
The territorial contest has cost about 200 lives lost in vain, with scores injured, wounded, and displaced from both Uganda and South Sudan in recent times. Homes, businesses, and socio-economic and physical infrastructures worth ten million US Dollars have been damaged according to media and humanitarian reports. Trade, agriculture, and livestock production have been disrupted to the level of untold human suffering. There are increased social tensions, community conflicts, and mistrust; posing psychological and economic impacts on the socio-economic ties of the two nationalities. Is this really what the media is up to?
Yet, in a recent May 2023 border conflict along the Moyo- Kajo-Keji western corridor and Kajo-Keji’s Liwolo Payam-Aringa North County corridor, some stakeholders, among others, the military, politicians, and religious fanatics have blamed the media for escalating the conflict situation through war journalism contrary to peace journalism.
“The media exaggerates reporting, putting capturing headlines like…breaking news: Ugandan troops invade South Sudanese territory…” Colonel Robert Koch recounted.
“Be cautious and accurate when reporting sensitive issues to avoid escalating conflicts and causing further harm,” the military officer advised in a recent Cross-Border Peace Engagement Conference in Moyo’s Penthouse Inn.
Even, the Holy Scriptures command us to embrace peace journalism as they state;
“The Lord hates… one who stirs up conflict in the community”, Proverbs 6: 19.
“…And say: ‘The truth has come, and falsehood has vanished”, Quran 17:81 (Sahih International).
Peace journalism is a style of journalism that prioritizes reporting on conflicts in a way that promotes peace, understanding, and reconciliation. It provides more nuanced and balanced perspectives on the conflict; highlighting the human impact and experiences, while exploring potential solutions and peace initiatives.
Unlike war journalism, which prioritizes dramatic violent, and provocative aspects of the conflict; focusing on military strategies, tactics, technology, level of violence, and glory of the war, peace journalism aims at reducing violence, promoting understanding and empathy, encouraging dialogue and reconciliation, supporting peace-building, conflict resolution initiatives and providing a platform for marginalized voices in the conflict situation such as women, children and persons with special needs.
War journalism portrays the other side of the conflict as enemies, inhumane evils and not deserving respect and dignity, which is against human rights.
It fuels hatred, polarisation, fear, mistrust, military action, and aggression, thus preserving stereotypes, prejudices and biases.
War journalism provides a specific agenda, which reflects nationalistic or ideological biases thus compromising the media principle of impartiality.
Are the friendly people of Uganda and South Sudan in need of hatred, fear, mistrust, aggression, or war?
Much as war journalism seems more mass appealing and selling the media outlets and individual journalists, humanity overrides monetary value and self-actualization.
Henceforth, practicing peace journalism means media practitioners in the best public interests of Uganda and South Sudan should do conflict analysis while reporting to create an understanding of the root causes and complexities of the border conflicts, present diverse perspectives and voices, focus on human impact, highlight possible solutions and peace efforts, challenge stereotypes and unfounded assumptions, use inclusive language to promote inclusivity and respect in conformity with the media, government and the lawful standards.
The billion question and answer to the contrast and controversy of peace journalism and war journalism is, what is the ultimate role of the media in a conflict situation such as a border dispute?
The answer is, the media provides accurate, unbiased information to enlighten the public about the conflict, its causes, and its impact according to BBC’s Guidelines for Reporting in Emergencies; promotes understanding and empathy by sharing human stories and experiences; highlighting the impact on civilians and vulnerable groups according to The New York Times, “The Human Toll of War” and encourage dialogue and reconciliation through facilitating discussion and debate as a platform for diverse perspectives and voices, according to Al “Jazeera’s The Stream”.
The roles of media in conflict here highlight the typical practice of peace journalism.
There is no single doubt that peace journalism is ethical.
“Peace journalism is a way of reporting that focuses on the underlying conflicts, the people involved and the possibilities for peace”, Johan Galtung, a Norwegian Sociologist, and Peace Researcher, the founder of Peace Journalism in the 1960s argued. Galtung opposes war journalism; “War journalism is a way of reporting that focuses on the violence, the winners and losers, and the escalation of the conflict”.
Are journalists really war commentators?
War journalism normalizes war, making it seem a routine, normal, entertaining game rather than highlighting the devastating consequences as Andrew Hoskins points out in his publication, “War and the Media”.
The Holy Scripture is furious about war journalism to the extent that it commands; “Drive out the mockers, and out goes strife, quarrels, and insults are ended”, Proverbs 22:10. This suggests why some governments deport or detain journalists, politicians, or activists. The Holy Scripture also commands us specifically the journalists to; “…Speak truth to one another…” Zechariah 8: 16. Such lawful instructions emphasize the necessity and mandatory nature of peace journalism especially to resolve border conflicts.
Success stories of staging peace journalism to resolve border conflicts have been documented across the continents of Africa, Europe, Asia, and North America. Why not the Uganda-South Sudan Border Conflict? Moreover, the two nations in conflict are sisterly, even though it is natural that two sisters can fight over a handsome, loving, wealthy, promising lover. God forbids!
Ugandan and South Sudanese journalists should never be driven by emotions without the balance of logic and reasoning. Journalists are noble professionals set aside to profess the truth. Journalists, like Jesus Christ, should show the way, the truth, and the life at least if not divine enough to become the way, the truth, and the life themselves.
In Africa, the Kenya-Tanzania border dispute, peace journalism played a crucial role in resolving the matter by providing balanced reporting, highlighting economic interdependence, and promoting people-to-people diplomacy as The East African documents, “Kenya-Tanzania border dispute resolved” (2019). Likewise, peace journalism initiatives such as the Ethiopian-Eritrean Journalists’ Dialogue, facilitated dialogue between journalists from both countries to promote understanding, hence contributing to the signing of the 2018 peace agreement as sourced from the African Union, “Ethiopia-Eritrea Peace Agreement” (2018).
Since such great contributions of peace journalism have happened around us within the continent in our close neighborhood, why not freely buy the ideas for our common good?
In Europe, peace journalism initiatives, such as the Greek-Turkish Journalists’ Dialogue, facilitated dialogue between journalists from both countries to promote understanding, thus contributing to the resolution of the Greece-Turkey Border Dispute as sourced from Greek-Turkish Journalists’ Dialogue, “About Us” (2019). Why can the names of Ugandan and South Sudanese journalists not enter books of history through an undertaking of peace journalism initiatives to resolve the recurrent conflict between us about us? In Asia, India-Pakistan Border Conflict, peace journalism initiatives such as the “Aman ki Asha (Hope for Peace) project, have brought together Indian and Pakistani journalists to report on the conflict constructively, highlighting human stories and promoting dialogue documented as, Amani ki Asha, “A People’s Initiative for Peace” (2010).
Can Ugandan and South Sudanese journalists not do something similar to resolve the recurrent border dispute, which has the possibility of engulfing the whole region, and the continent and probably shattering the integration of the East African Community (EAC) currently headed by President Salva Kiir Mayardit of South Sudan? After all, this is free borrowing of ideas to address a situation at hand. In North America, peace journalism initiatives such as the Border Journalism Network on US-Mexico Border Conflict have brought together journalists from both countries to report on the conflict constructively, highlighting human stories and promoting dialogue as documented in; Border Journalism Network, “About Us” (2020).
Ugandan and South Sudanese journalists, who are on the same planet; earth can have a formal Border Journalism Network like the US-Mexico Border Conflict to resolve the border conflict between Uganda and South Sudan to erase the blackmailing records of fuelling border tensions. Ugandan and South Sudanese journalists should form a Cross-Border Journalism Network (CBJN) as an action point.
Much as the border conflict between Uganda and South Sudan seems to have benefits and beneficiaries including economic benefits for local traders in the form of increased smuggling activities; exploiting the situation as The East African reports; “Smuggling flourishes on Uganda-South Sudan Border.” Be aware that smuggling is illegal and a deadly risky undertaking. Political gains for nationalist groups in both countries in the form of capitalization on anti-foreigner sentiment for political traction as The Independent reports, “Uganda-South Sudan border conflict: A political perspective” are equally detrimental to Pan-Africanism specifically and humanity generally.
The conflict has attracted international attention to the degree of increased humanitarian aid and support for affected communities as Relief Web documents, “UNHCR seeks $150 million for Uganda-South Sudan refugee crisis”. The question is, are Ugandans and South Sudanese up to humanitarian aid? Is being a refugee something desirable or situational?
The border conflict between Uganda and South Sudan has allowed both countries to maintain a military presence in the region as a strategic military positioning to secure strategic interests as the Defence Web documents, “Uganda-South Sudan border conflict: A military perspective”. The question is, are these strategic military interests, the public interests of Uganda and South Sudan as nations, or individualistic and oligarchical? The answers to such questions authenticate the use of peace journalism to resolve the border conflict unquestionably.
The beneficiaries of the evil border conflict are local traders, smugglers, nationalist groups, humanitarian organizations, aid workers, aid recipients, and military and security interests, who may be individualistic, oligarchical, or purely humanitarian responding to save a situation at hand. Yet, the media serves the public interest, thus calling for the practice of peace journalism in the border conflict between Uganda and South Sudan. Increased peace journalism on the Uganda-South Sudan border conflict ushers in smooth cross-border relations; giving an instant birth to enhanced trade opportunities, boosting economic growth and development as The East African reports, “Uganda-South Sudan trade volumes increase.”
Equally, reduced tensions and conflicts along the frontiers ensure a safer environment for citizens and businesses as Xinhua reports, “Uganda, South Sudan agree to strengthen border security”. More so, smooth border relations between the two enhance regional integration, henceforward; strengthening ties with the East African Community (EAC) and the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) as The Citizen reports, “EAC countries move to strengthen regional integration”.
How are they moving while in conflict within themselves? This seems an illusion or a fiction. Improved Uganda-South Sudan relations mean increased investment since such creates an attractive business environment, encouraging investments in sectors like agriculture, which does very well along the contested zone, infrastructure like roads, education and medical institutions or manufacturing industries, and tourism as The Independent reports, “Uganda, South Sudan sign investment promotion agreement”. Why is this agreement invisible in a practical sense? Is it Kampala or Juba centred? Why not see investment from the countries’ frontiers? Peace journalism makes it possible and visible once adopted.
Improved people-to-people relations enable cultural exchange by fostering cultural understanding and cooperation as Uganda Radio Network reports, “Uganda, South Sudan agree to promote cultural exchange”. The determination of peace journalism in resolving the Uganda-South Sudan border conflict benefits the general public tremendously, especially businesses, traders, citizens, farmers, agricultural sectors, regional organizations, and the tourism industry; which employs over 600,000 people directly and indirectly in Uganda alone amidst the conflict situation.
Individual journalists and media houses in Uganda and South Sudan, who have embraced peace journalism in principle and practice, and yet are being criticized for some reasons include among others; Charles Onyango-Obbo, Columnist for the Daily Monitor-Uganda, known for his thought-provoking articles promoting peace and reconciliation and the Daily Monitor’s Peace Journalism” series (2013) deserve an applause. “Peace journalism is about giving voice to the voiceless and amplifying the calls for peace”, Onyango-Obbo asserts. Daniel Kalinaki, Editor, of Daily Monitor-Uganda declares; “Journalists have a critical role in promoting peace and reconciliation”. Whereas South Sudan’s Juba Monitor’s Editor, “Peace and Reconciliation”, series (2018), the late Alfred Taban observed that; “Peace journalism is essential in building a culture of peace and tolerance”.
Overall, the individual journalists and media houses trying to champion peace journalism in the two conflicted nations have been criticized for inconsistency, biases, inadequate coverage of conflict-affected communities, limited reach and audience engagement, inadequate coverage of peace efforts in rural border areas, which call for concerted exertions to embrace peace journalism squarely to resolve border conflict between the two countries. Understandably, efforts to practice peace journalism can be bogged down by financial constraints, political interests, nationalistic attitudes as opposed to impartiality and neutrality; fear of reprisal, external interference, threats, censorship, stereotypes, prejudices, biases, several natural limitations like health conditions, restricted movements and access to credible quality information.
However; at most, a journalist must always die for the truth. Embrace peace journalism to resolve the Uganda-South Sudan border conflict to cause positive social, political, and economic impact for the common good of humanity. “Happy are those who work for peace; God will call them his children”, the scriptural beatitude of Matthew 5: 9 declares.
Like others elsewhere, Ugandan and South Sudanese journalists ought to be the great makers of such a remarkable history in the continent.
Steve Maraboli, a behavioral scientist once stated; “Take ownership of your problems. You have created them, now solve them”. The bottom line is that heaven and earth have embraced peace journalism to resolve the border conflicts and so must the media fraternity of Uganda and South Sudan if we are to avoid a looming man-made disaster.
The writer is a journalist, educator, and research fellow of Peace Journalism and Border Conflict at Victoria University, Kampala-Uganda, and can be reached via yanta30dan3@gmail.com.
The views expressed in ‘opinion’ articles published by Radio Tamazuj are solely those of the writer. The veracity of any claims made is the responsibility of the author, not Radio Tamazuj.