Did Uganda’s gallant men die for a just cause in Somalia?

____________________________________________________________________________

Daily Monitor | By Samuel Baligidde | September 9 2015 | Uganda’s foreign policy has over the years shifted from neutrality, passivity or non-alignment to active involvement in world and regional affairs; taking sides, to the chagrin of some actors, in disputes and conflicts to which the country is not directly a party. Is that diplomacy for development or doom?

Uganda has paid a terrible cost in human lives at the hands of a terrorist attack at a base 90 kilometres South of Mogadishu, leaving 10 Ugandan soldiers dead and an unspecified number of others wounded. According to CDF Gen Katumba Wamala, the al-Shabaab attackers intended to gain ground at Janaale, which had been liberated by Amisom forces in 2013. The attack reopened the psychological wounds of the 2010 twin bombings at Kyadondo Rugby Club and the Ethiopian Restaurant in Kampala by people linked to al-Shabaab, in which 76 Ugandans lost their lives.

Looking for rationale of Uganda’s policy has far-reaching implications in understanding why the USA and its allies turned to Uganda to do the impossible on their behalf in Somalia!
Did Uganda’s gallant men die for a just cause? The answer is invariably affirmative but the explanation is deeply embedded in the paradigm shifts of 30 years of President Museveni’s foreign policy, namely, a departure from the radicalism that characterised post-independence foreign policy rhetoric, to the kind of diplomatic cordiality driving the trade relations that bond the two presidents – Yoweri Museveni and Uhuru Kenyatta – in the so-called ‘coalition of the willing’ coupled with active involvement in the creation of what the Foreign ministry hypes as ‘a prosperous, secure and peaceful world’.

International leadership requires a blend of acumen for strategy, diplomatic persuasion and nimbleness, which President Museveni seems to have acquired in abundance but seems to have utilised for promoting his supposed regional ambitions before the Obama administration, Her Britannic Majesty’s Government and the European Union decided to take a closer look at his paltry performance in democratic governance and human rights in the domestic arena.

The President’s international and regional diplomatic performance is, therefore, some food for thought. Why, for example, has the success story in international affairs not been significantly replicated in domestic politics? Astounding though, is the fact that despite American concerns, Uganda has hosted several high profile international conferences and meetings, including the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, the AU, among others, and bilateral visits by eminent people from across the globe.

This has been a significant paradigm shift from the earlier ostracisation arising from the instability of the 1970s and 1980s when some aspects of Uganda’s foreign policy bordered on the absurd. The challenges for which the NRM government claims to be partly providing leadership and solutions by participating in peace-building, peace-making, peace-keeping and peace-enforcement, all at the same time, in Somalia and South Sudan, are of academic but more so political interest.

Although not a hyper-globalist, President Museveni’s present policy of active involvement in regional policing indicates a previously inconceivable regional paradigm. The re-emergence of pan-regionalist fervour notwithstanding, as the growth of global interconnectedness becomes imminent, the primacy of internationalism embraced and trade diplomacy prioritised, Uganda might be at crossroads in as far as pulling out of both countries – if anticipated – is concerned!

Mr Baligidde is a former diplomat. sahebabogo@gmail.com

_____________________________________________________________________________________