La diplomacia al servicio del desarrollo. Reflexiones epistemologicas sobre los recientes logros y tropiezos en materia de politica en Uganda.

AuthorBaligidde, Samuel H.

Resumen

El presente artículo se basa en una triangulación de los criterios neorrealista y neoliberal posmodernos para analizar la política exterior, junto con la pre-teoría de Rosenau y los modelos de toma de decisiones de Allison en materia de política exterior que utilizan el método de unidades de decisión, entre otros. Procura estimular la reflexión sobre las bases epistemológicas de los recientes cambios de paradigma de la política exterior de Uganda. Las teorías ayudan a conceptualizar temas y sucesos, creando estándares y estableciendo puntos de referencia para satisfacer el nuevo paradigma universalista de política exterior o responder a interrogantes académicas o prácticas. Se sostiene que en la política exterior del país se ha producido un cambio de paradigma hacia el internacionalismo que apunta a detener el disenso político y al surgimiento de retos socioeconómicos en el plano interno.

PALABRAS CLAVE: Uganda, política exterior, internacionalismo, disenso político, participación militar.

Abstract

This article is guided by a triangulation of neo-realist and neo-liberalist post-modernist approaches to the analysis of foreign policy coupled with Rosenau's pre-theory and Allison's models of foreign policy decision-making using the decision units approach, among others. It seeks to stimulate reflection on the epistemological underpinnings of the new paradigm shifts in Uganda's foreign policy in recent times. Theories will assist in epistemologically conceptualizing issues and events, creating and setting standards and benchmarking conditions for meeting the new universalistic foreign policy paradigm or in answering academic or/ and practical questions. It is contended that there has been a significant paradigm shift towards internationalism in the country's foreign policy to ward off increasing political dissent and emerging socio-economic challenges in the domestic arena.

KEYWORDS: Uganda, foreign policy, internationalism, political dissent, military engagement.

Diplomacy for development or doom? Epistemological reflections on Uganda's recent foreign policy achievements and blunders

  1. INTRODUCTION

Theories are important not only in studying and analyzing foreign policy but also in any intellectual endeavour. They provide an epistemological foundation to answering such questions such as these: Is Uganda's steadfastness in participating in international peace operations motivated by a genuine concern with peace, human rights issues, war against international terrorism, or does it have something to do with aspirations of becoming a regional military superpower and the survival of the regime? Was Uganda's support of the SPLA in its fight with the North and military engagements and skirmishes in DRC that were perceived as being belligerent during the 1990s an attempt to create a cordon sanitaire around her borders? Wasn't Uganda treading on treacherous ground when it sent its troops to Somalia and before that engaged in military adventures with almost all its neighbours thereby violating the International relations principle that contra-indicates creating enemies on more than one frontier at the same time? Whenever diplomats and policy analysts are faced with such questions they scan the environment for causal factors or drivers before they resort to theory. The academic and practical underpinnings of normative theory significantly support a case for a revisitation of the epistemological explanation for Uganda's current foreign policy.

  1. EPISTEMOLOGICAL REFLECTIONS ON FOREIGN POLICY ANALYSIS

    An epistemological case can be made for why a focus on Uganda's foreign policy is gaining ground within international relations, and why it should do so. Looking for the rationale for Uganda's policy towards the United States as done by Okoth (1995:107-110) has far reaching epistemological implications in understanding Uganda's foreign policy paradigm shifts on the one hand, and why the UK and USA should turn to Yoweri Museveni to reign in Libyan strongman Gaddafi or use him to do the impossible on their behalf in Somalia. When a scholar endeavors to appreciate and understand how a small, developing country like Uganda can manoeuvre among the superpowers to extract a living or to enhance its leader's political survival they are clearly within the realm of epistemology: the study of the nature and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and validity.

    For example, with millions of dollars worth of Libyan investments in Uganda coupled with the sentimental feelings of a government that originally came to power in 1986 with the help of Libyan assistance in the form of arms air-dropped in the bushes of the Luwero Triangle at the peak of the bush war, the NATO allied attack on Qaddhafi's troops presented a dilemma to President Museveni who resorted to making contradictory statements about his government's position on what he preferred to call an insurrection supported by western powers to overthrow the Leader of the 1969 September Revolution. Could this be a symptom of a phobia about the possible consequences of the contagion of the example? Libya burst into flames as the civil strife in the Ivory Coast also raged on. Over 3,000 innocent civilians lost lives in Ivory Coast as they awaited the great >. The African Union, whose solution Museveni supports, argues that this is an > which requires an >! As expected, it never came because there is none. The intransigence of Laurent Gbagbo was buttressed by the irresponsible stance of the AU. Gaddafi has been a beneficiary of this selfishness. Each time the AU publicly expresses support for Gaddafi, he murders more of the Libyan citizens, whom he calls >--a detestable phrase that makes many African leaders believe they own the people they lead and so can do with or for them as they wish. There is no such a thing as an >.

    When this author served as a diplomat in Libya in the early 90s, Libya had an excellent road network and other infrastructure such as housing estates and supermarkets. Schools and hospitals were by African standards excellent. There were tar-macadam roads, primary and secondary schools, Mosques and Health Centres equipped to handle general surgery, in every administrative division. An average Libyan family owned two cars. If the Libyans were relatively well off; why would they now want Qaddhafi out? A tyrant cannot be genuinely benevolent; overthrowing a king and establishing a family dynasty is regressive, not revolutionary. But there is a curiously intriguing side to Colonel Qaddhafi: he is neither an intellectual nor a revolutionary.

    To some people, Gaddafi may have been a good man in the past, supported good and progressive causes like the ANC, President Museveni's National Resistance Army struggle and many others but he made many mistakes which even President Museveni himself has at one point acknowledged. After South African money, Libyan money is the next most visible in investments in Uganda. But the people of Uganda and Libya remain oppressed and deprived. Whether Gaddafi outlives the NATO air strikes or not, he is the wrong man for Libya and Africa should facilitate his exit instead of asking NATO to stop the bombing. Africa's Heads of State and governments meet in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, annually and whenever occasion demands, to discuss issues affecting the continent but after each meeting nothing happens. There is virtually nothing to show for all the millions of dollars of taxpayers' money that go into such meetings some of which Gadhafi has been providing.

    Juxtaposed against its explanatory logic one finds realism in foreign policy broadly conceived, and for the sake of simplicity and linguistic consistency scholars refer to this Machiavellian tradition as Realpolitik for which both President Museveni and Milton Obote seem to be and have been consistent disciples and later gurus respectively. Although not opposed to allowing for the play of domestic factors in the pursuit of foreign policy, the major explanatory weight is given to material systemic-level factors in one form or another. However, although this characterization in terms of the classical divide between domestic and international politics has a long historical pedigree, it does have at least one major drawback as a standard for classifying Uganda's and contemporary foreign policy analysis.

    It can be argued that this characterization of the field in terms of these two broad traditions continues to reflect a sub-disciplinary self-understanding of its development; it should be used when analysing the interests of the various stakeholders in the war waged to remove the former Libyan strongman Gaddhafi from power as well as revisiting the current state of affairs in Uganda's foreign policy. But, instead of a standard based specifically on the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT