Washington, DC — Uganda's President Yoweri Museveni was last week in Washington, D.C., on a private working visit. He met travel industry companies to encourage them to bring tourists to his country and signed two public/private partnership agreements with Cisco Systems and the EDS Corporation. During a visit to New York, he spoke passionately at the United Nations General Assembly on the inequalities of global trade, calling African nations 'donors' to Western economies; by exporting their raw, unprocessed materials they allowed rich nations to add value and gain jobs by manufacturing goods. "I am donating nine or ten dollars out of every kilogram I export," he said.
While in Washington, he gave an interview to Akwe Amosu and Charles Cobb Jr. touching on the war in northern Uganda and his relations with the Democratic Republic of Congo. Despite reports this week that Uganda's army deployed on the border with DR Congo citing plans by armed groups to enter Uganda, he said relations were good. He also spoke about the transition to multiparty politics in his own country, the impact on his own political organisation, the Movement, and whether he hoped to run for a third term, if a controversial proposal to remove the limit on presidential terms becomes law. Excerpts:
You are here in Washington, D.C., at same time as the President of the Democratic Republic of Congo, Joseph Kabila. Are you talking to each other while you are here?
He's coming to see me here. Congo and Uganda are the same. You know that.
You mean what by that?
Geographically they are very close. And now we support the transitional government which President Kabila heads. We have no problem with Congo now, because the original problem was [due] to Sudan, which was supporting terrorists against us and using Congo. So both of them are being solved, Sudan is being solved, Congo is being solved - there's no more problem.
Does it seem to you that the Congo government is viable with so many different constituencies represented in it? Four vice-presidents and 35 ministers representing armed groups, old civilian politicians and so on?
Well, but Congo is a variety of people so if there is a variety in the government it represents the situation on the ground. Differences are not a problem if you learn how to handle them.
But that's the question that always surfaces in relation to the Congo!
But this is an interim government. They should be able to hold elections in a few years time and get a proper mandate. Anyone who wants to dominate the political space will look at the election time, not now. This transitional government is to bring peace, stop the war, prepare for elections and also rebuild the state institutions, the army and so on. If they do that they will have achieved their mandate so that the people of Congo will have achieved their sovereignty. You know the people of Congo have never expressed their sovereignty since Lumumba was killed in 1961, forty years ago. So we don't know whom they want but they will say in elections in a few years time.
A recent UN report on foreign plunder in Congo singled out Uganda and Rwanda as being involved in illegal exploitation of natural resources in the DRC: how do you react to those allegations and what you intend to do about it?
Well first of all that report was a lot of nonsense. Even the idea of a report itself, because what was the original problem? In 1959 when there was a genocide in Rwanda, I was in grade 7. I was not there to order the army to go into Congo to look for gold. Who massacred people in Rwanda in 1959? What does the UN say about that? The massacres in Burundi in 1965. the massacre in Burundi in 1972. The hemorrhage caused by Idi Amin. The attacks against us by Sudan since 1986. Where's the UN report about those? Or about the abducted children [in northern Uganda].
All this was taking place before our troops went into Congo. We don't have a UN report on any of those but now we have one on some people who they say were engaged in economic activities as a consequence of our troops, and maybe those of Rwanda and other countries, going into Congo because of the long, festering unresolved issues. I don't think that's serious setting of priorities, first of all.
But secondly, we shall find out who was exploiting those resources [cited in the report]. But to say that this war in Congo is because of resources is nonsense, contemptible nonsense because we know how it all started. 1959 genocide in Rwanda. 1994 genocide in Rwanda. There was no Rwanda army in Congo, there was no Uganda army in Congo, what does the UN say about those? They happened long, long, long before.
So if you find members of your army have been carrying out these 'economic activities' what will you do about it?
I will punish them! but this is a small matter compared to the original problem. Because surely our memories must be sharp enough to remember what happened.
On the question of resources, I have a lot of minerals in Uganda which I cannot dig out of the ground. Why should I leave the minerals that I have in Uganda and go and look for the ones in Congo? That's just absolute rubbish. So if there are some Ugandans who took advantage of the original problem of Congo being a center of chaos in our part of the world, that's a small matter, regrettable, but a small matter that can be handled very easily. That's not a problem at all. So this UN report was a diversion from the real issues.
Uganda is going through a transition from a no-party democracy to a multi-party democracy. What do you expect from this transition?
Well first of all, the transition from unified pluralism - the Movement was pluralistic but under one roof - to pluralism under different umbrellas; originally we didn't want to go for what you would call multi-party politics because of the polarization in society that was not healthy in the past - based on tribes, on religion and so on. However in the last 18 years new forces have come up in Uganda. Someone who was born in 1986 will be 18 years next year and ready to vote so we have got a huge population of young people who were not part of the old system.
Therefore the ground has changed and we don't think it is as easy as it used to be to revive raw sectarianism. So that's why we think now we should go for competitive pluralism.
But also because we want to strengthen the Movement; the Movement should no longer be an omnibus with all sorts of varying ideas. It should be a Movement coalesced around our core issues. So it's a double process. First we want to consolidate ourselves ideologically and at the same time give free space to those who don't agree with us to go away and organize the way they want.
Where does the idea of a third term fit into that, why would it be a useful addition to the present constitution to expand the number of terms that a president may hold office?.
Well these arguments have not yet been resolved because they are still being talked about. They will be discussed. But what I heard, those who want what they call third term - but what they mean is having no limit on presidential terms - say 'first of all, the power belongs to the people so we are the ones who can dismiss a leader either after one term, after two terms, or three, whatever. Since we have the power what are you worried about? Let us decide.'
But my own view is not how many times someone presents himself, because presenting yourself is not the same thing as being elected. You can present yourself and be rejected so I don't see any importance in that. But what I think is important, is the vision. What you want to do for the country; never mind who, but what you want to do.
Now people interested in Africa should encourage that line. You have seen that the Asian countries have transformed themselves in the last 40 years - Singapore, Malaysia, South Korea, Thailand... why have African countries stagnated? Even those which had multi-party politics are stagnant. Senegal is one of them. Those which were peaceful, which never had civil war like Uganda had, they are still stagnant. They have not transitioned. What, then, is the problem?
So those people who concentrate on just form rather than substance are going to make us lose another 40 years and we are not ready to do that. So for me, the starting point is the vision, what vision do you have for transforming Uganda. Once you have answered that then it is easy to look for who to lead. We shall look at the task ahead of us and the most suitable person who can execute that vision.
Are you interested in a third term?
That one we shall talk about when the time comes.
Your political opponents say this process of deciding what multi-party system to have and then having a referendum is unnecessary. They say the constitutional court has affirmed their right to exist and operate freely and the referendum is therefore redundant - and, they believe, liable to be rigged. They say the government should just permit them to operate freely immediately. What's your reaction to the court decision?
You see, the court is not the people. There are people called Ugandans and those who are adults, old enough to decide, are more than 12 million now. So with due respect for the judges, I think the people would speak better for themselves. Because those judges are not always in harmony with the people. So what do [the political parties] fear? If what they are demanding is popular then surely the people will support them. Why are they allergic to popular involvement? When you see someone worry about popular involvement then you should worry about his credentials as a democrat.
But those same politicians complain that this means the rule of law is not being respected in Uganda. Is that the case?
The rule of law? The law comes from the people. Where does the law come from? There are two laws. One is the law of God, which comes from heaven. The other is the law of man which comes from the people. So what rule of law does not take into account of the wishes of the people, especially in political matters?
Can we ask about the situation in the north, the war? Why is it proving so difficult to deal with Kony's LRA rebels?
First of all, we have contained that terrorism because that was sponsored by Sudan as a part of the conflict between Arabs and Africans. It was not a small matter and it has been contained. Congo was also co-opted to destabilize us from the west. But as you know big changes have taken place in Congo and big changes are now taking place in Sudan.
Meanwhile we are also building up the capacity of the army because we had a problem with the donors who wanted us to spend very little on the army. They delayed our preparations. But that one has been resolved now and the bandits are being dismantled. We have killed many of their leaders. Just a few days before I came here we killed the Number three in their group. That leaves us with only two people to kill and the whole thing will be over. Originally those bandit leaders were 10, now we have accounted for eight we are just remaining with two, so this is very good progress, especially taken in harmony with other regional events - peace in Sudan, Congo... For me, I'm very optimistic.
On Agoa [the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act which gives African nations privileged access to U.S. markets], we're hearing that here in Washington, in the aftermath of Cancun [ministerial meeting of the World Trade Organisation held in Cancun, Mexico in September 2003], there is a lot of resentment in Congress and elsewhere about the stance that the Africans took at that meeting which seemed to the legislators to be a walk-out. We're hearing that the resentment is negatively affecting their support for Agoa. Are you here in part to lobby for support for Agoa? And are you worried by this reaction?
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Africa has survived for four million years; such disappointments can't change the future of Africa. But the issue in Cancun was mishandled by many people.
The primary failure lies with the Western countries because they are the ones who have a double language, they are the ones maintaining subsidies. Uganda is a poor country but we don't have a single subsidy on any product and this is due to the pressure we get from Western countries who put conditionalities on us to abolish all subsidies if we are to qualify for World Bank and IMF money.
So when I hear people saying that in the West they cannot get rid of subsidies because they have got domestic constituencies, I'm really amazed because I too have got constituencies that I have got to disappoint. So I don't see why richer countries - where a population is moreover educated and can follow explanations easily if people were to explain to them - should find it so difficult to disappoint those constituencies and yet they are always demanding that we disappoint the constituencies in Uganda. So they bear the primary responsibility.
However, secondly, also the African ministers need to be more thorough. For instance, these Singapore issues. Instead of rejecting them out of hand, they should have said, let's study them. That's what a rational person would do. You don't reject something out of hand.
So Cancun is the responsibility of many players and those Congressmen should not be disappointed, in my opinion. They should be disappointed with their own system.
Also I really want to help you with one thing. This idea that if the West does not work with Africa, Africa will not grow, is a big mistake. In fact, in a way, it's good for Africa to be disappointed because then they wake up.
I saw that in Tanzania when our brothers were fighting the whites in Mozambique, the Portuguese, and in South Africa, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Angola: initially Africans used to petition the British government to solve the Rhodesia problem, petition the West to handle South Africa. Until the Africans were completely disillusioned with the Western leaders; they moved and the whole of Africa was liberated.
So, I'm relaxed. Africa will move, one way or the other. The only difference is those who want to associate with our transition, of course, will get the glory. Or that transition will take place in spite of whatever position they take. So the Congress people have no right to say they were disappointed. Although there were mistakes by the African ministers, I think the biggest mistakes were by the Western countries, US, EU and Japan.
