End of a long honeymoon

Why the relationship between Museveni and the West is falling apart and little can be done about it

THE LAST WORD | Andrew M. Mwenda | The honeymoon between President Yoweri Museveni and Western countries, especially the U.S. and UK, is over. It will be very difficult to rekindle the love between these erstwhile allies. The cause of rapture is that the conditions that shaped the love have expired. There is a new realignment of forces, and divorce is almost inevitable. These Western powers are staking everything on the barbaric Anti Homosexuality Act (AHA).

The sanctioning of former Inspector General of Police (IGP) Kale Kayihura by both governments was the first salvo. Now sanctioning our Speaker of Parliament, Anita Among, adds insult to injury. And this is only the tip of an iceberg. I hear the U.S. is planning comprehensive sanctions on Uganda over the AHA. Saner voices are holding brakes in Washington DC., awaiting the decision of Supreme Court, where this barbaric law is being challenged.

On the other hand, Museveni is tired of the lecturing and hectoring characteristic of relations between poor countries in Africa and the rich nations of the West. At 80 years old and almost 40 years in power, he can no longer accept being treated as a permanent pupil who should listen and learn. He wants respect and seeks greater independence of action. He has used the AHA to stick his middle finger in the face of the West. He has done this in large part because the global environment has changed.

The West no longer holds monopoly of global power. The emergence of China, India, Turkey, and the Gulf states as major sources of trade, investment and funding for major infrastructure projects has weakened the hand of Western powers and their institutions like the World Bank and IMF in shaping the behavior of poor countries. Then there is the reemergence of Russia. Though not yet a major source of development finance, trade, investment and tourism, it’s a big arms supplier involved in helping poor countries train and equip their armies without trying to lecture them.

We need to retrace the steps of this impeding divorce. Museveni came to power in Uganda in 1986 when the state and economy had collapsed. He needed money to consolidate power. He needed to reestablish the basic infrastructure of the state, like paying the army and police to ensure law and order and have the state perform basic functions like proving health and education services and running the bureaucracy. He also needed to rehabilitate industries to produce basic goods such as sugar, soap and salt that had become scarce; and of course, to fight armed insurgents then-ravaging northern Uganda.

To get money to do this, Museveni needed to borrow it from abroad since the economy had collapsed. The NRM was a Marxist organisation, and its natural allies were the Soviet Union and its Eastern Block allies. However, this was also the time of Perestroika and Glasnost, and Eastern countries were bankrupt. So, Museveni turned to the West for help. Western countries (led by the U.S. and UK) insisted that any help was conditional on reaching an agreement with the IMF. IMF had a standard answer – Structural Adjustment Programs i.e. to move the economy from state control to the private sector and market forces.

Initially Museveni accepted to swallow his pride and take the bitter IMF pill. He did this out of desperation rather than out of conviction. But as the economy recovered under IMF and World Bank stewardship, Museveni became a convert of neoliberalism. So, he became the most ardent advocate of full scale privatisation, deregulation and liberalisation. Public enterprises were sold, state monopolies disbanded, prices of all goods liberalised. The economy grew. The West responded with praise and cash. Museveni became a darling of the Western donor community. Their corporations took control of the economy. The two lovers were on a honeymoon.

There was a convergence of different but compatible interests between our president and Western donors. During the 1960s and 70s, Western donor organisations, both bilateral and multilateral, had given a lot of cash to African countries. Yet by the late 1980s, Africa had become a basket case of collapsing economies and failing states. Aid fatigue set in as public opinion in the West felt their tax monies were being thrown at corrupt and dictatorial “regimes”. Western donor institutions needed an African success story to justify their existence and Museveni’s Uganda became the poster child.

For Museveni, Western support was important because it brought in cash. However, it was also important because it conferred legitimacy on his government. When London, Washington, Brussels and Paris said his government was good, Ugandan people and domestic audiences in poor countries generally, took it seriously. We had a mutual hostage situation: if donors pulled out their money, Museveni would have found it difficult to consolidate his power. But if Uganda also failed, then the much talked about “African success story” to justify aid programs would be lost.

Today, circumstances have changed. New kids came on the block to claim the economic success story: Ethiopia, Rwanda, Ivory Coast, Senegal, Ghana, Kenya, Tanzania, etc. So, Museveni expanded his importance to the West by playing the role of stabiliser in chief of an otherwise distressful region. Hence, he fought America’s war in Sudan, deployed troops in Somalia, hosted refugees, stabilised South Sudan, etc. He became a leading pillar in the fight against AIDS and promoting women emancipation.

This ability to constantly reinvent himself and remain important for the West marked him as a great pragmatist and strategist. But as he has aged and as other sources of development finance, investment and trade have emerged, his ability to tolerate Western hectoring has significantly diminished.

But also, his government has entered a period of inertia, apathy, fatigue and indifference. There isn’t a central brain able to make strategic considerations when passing policy. Decisions are made based on momentary feelings driven by parochial calculations – like how to get reelected or make money. The national interest has taken a back seat.

That is how our parliament could pass the barbaric AHA, oblivious of the fact that it would alienate key partners in investment, trade, tourism and development finance. If we have gotten new partners in China, India, Turkey and the Gulf states, why should that make us throw away our old partners in the West? The more partners we have, the better. Why alienate a vital constituency because of a law you have always had on your statute books but never prosecuted anyone i.e. a law you are not going to enforce?

*****

amwenda@ugindependent.co.ug