The scramble for Africa is being repeated in DRC

Just as Ethiopia participated in the scramble for and colonization of Africa with European nations, Rwanda is participating in the scramble for and re-colonization of DRC with Western nations. During the scramble for Africa European nations were particularly interested in raw materials. Ethiopia which was originally a small territory (Abyssinia) wanted in particular to expand its territory. Western nations are interested in DRC for its raw materials. Rwanda which is a small country is interested in DRC in particular to expand its territory like Ethiopia did during the first scramble of the 19th century.

Western arguments for breaking up DRC and steps being taken

During a mission to DRC in January/February 2010, meetings were held with representatives of some European embassies, United Nations and International NGO organizations and Congolese from all walks of life. All foreigners contacted complained that DRC is ungovernable because it is too big. If one goes by that criterion alone, then the order of breaking up large African states should start with Sudan, the largest (2,505, 813 sq. km) followed by Algeria, the second largest (2,381,741 sq. km) and then DRC the third (2,344,885 sq. km). Right now there are some voices in favor of keeping Sudan together. I have not heard talk about breaking up Algeria.

Rujumbura history must not be repeated

I was trained in and have practiced the art of diplomacy at the highest level in international relations. Simply put diplomacy includes the art of establishing contacts through which problems are solved in a subtle manner or behind-the-scenes if you will. When circumstances force me to speak or to write I have used language – body, spoken or literary – to convey messages without divulging sensitive details or naming names.

As mentioned elsewhere I have studied the history of the Great Lakes Region especially my home area of Rujumbura for over forty years. I have read extensively and listened carefully to oral stories. Because I did not get much information from using questionnaires, I decided to use other techniques including travelling by bus between Uganda’s capital city of Kampala and my home town of Rukungiri – a decision that frustrated many people particularly my relatives because as a senior United Nations staff member I was not expected to travel that way.

Uganda’s economic growth alone is insufficient for poverty eradication

In May 1987, the National Resistance Movement (NRM) government under the leadership of President Museveni signed an agreement with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for assistance. The government opted for the ‘shock therapy’ or extreme version of structural adjustment or Washington Consensus. The agreement called for the abandonment of employment policy in favor of disciplining inflation, promotion of economic growth and export-orientation, privatization of state corporations, retrenchment of public servants, and significant state withdrawal from the economy and virtual abandonment of social policy especially in education and health sectors.

Investments in infrastructure and the economy generally declined considerably. For example in 2008 budget allocation to agriculture, Uganda’s economic mainstay, declined from 4.2 percent in 2007 to 3.8 percent against African Union’s 1993 decision to allocate at least ten percent of national budget to the sector.

The government handed over responsibility for economic management to the invisible hand of market forces and laissez faire (let alone) capitalism as required under the neo-liberal economic ideology. A trickle down mechanism was expected to distribute the benefits of economic growth through employment creation in the private sector. As expected under the Washington Consensus the government focused on law and order by investing heavily in the armed forces, police and intelligence sectors to contain any resistance against the harmful effects of structural adjustment. To mobilize resources for this effort, the government had earlier imposed a 30 percent charge for converting old currency into the new notes against the advice of the IMF.

NRM government must accept responsibility for its actions

On Monday April 19, 2010 President Museveni launched Uganda’s five-year development plan. During the ceremony, he stated that at the beginning of his administration in 1986, NRM had plans to introduce a development plan but it was told that planning was out of date. Instead NRM was told to control inflation, ensure macro stability and leave the rest to the private sector. He did not specify who gave this advice.

When NRM came to power, it soon realized that unless it entered into an agreement with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) first, external funding would be withheld. For almost a year and a half, the government debated various options of engagement with the IMF under Washington Consensus or stabilization and structural adjustment conditions. The debates chaired or attended by the president were dominated by two schools of thought represented by the Ministry of Finance, and the Ministry of Planning and Economic Development. The Ministry of Finance and possibly Central Bank opted for a gradual and sequenced approach to minimize the costs of adjustment drawing lessons from Obote II government’s experience with structural adjustment began in 1981. The Ministry of Planning and Economic Development supported a ‘shock therapy’ alternative that required implementation of all adjustment conditions at once. Finally, the President endorsed the shock therapy alternative.

History has been unkind to Bahutu people

Until 1994 Rwanda – and its Bahutu and Batutsi people – was relatively unknown in international relations. The country is small, not endowed with resources, and until 1994, had no strategic value. It was first colonized briefly by Germany and after World War I and until 1962 – when it became independent – by Belgium under the United Nations trusteeship mandate. The ‘social revolution’ of 1959 resulted in Bahutu replacing Batutsi that had ruled the country since the 16th century. Batutsi went into exile in neighboring countries and immediately started an armed struggle – which intensified from 1990 with external support – to reestablish their hegemony over Bahutu who constitute up to 90 percent of the total population with 9 percent Batutsi and 1 percent Batwa.

In 1994 the shooting down of the presidential plane and the death of Bahutu presidents of Rwanda and Burundi set off the killing – by Bahutu extremists who feared losing power – of moderate Bahutu and Batutsi who opposed Habyarimana government in Rwanda. After hesitation the international community decided that these killings constituted genocide. The Bahutu government was replaced by Batutsi-led regime thereby restoring Batutsi minority hegemony over Bahutu majority in Rwanda.

President Museveni must have been tired

After reading President Museveni’s two-part interview with Daniel Kalinaki, Monitor Managing Editor which was posted on the website on April 11 and 12, 2010, I contacted Monitor readers – Ugandans and non-Ugandans – for their assessment. They all agreed that the president’s performance fell short of expectations especially as he prepares for 2011 presidential elections. Two main reasons were given – either he was tired or he is no longer on top of developments in Uganda. They even wondered why he did not praise his government for controlling inflation, maintaining a high level of economic growth and per capita income, reducing poverty and providing universal primary education which has been extended to secondary education because these have been areas of NRM’s strength. Let me make some observations selectively because Uganda newspapers restrict my articles to around 700 words.

First, on the issue of democracy, President Museveni has allowed presidential and parliamentary elections to take place every five years because development partners have made them a condition for foreign aid and technical assistance. Since 1996, President Museveni’s popularity has declined with each election. This is not the kind of information the President would want to share with Ugandans much less with the outside world which has given him much support particularly for macroeconomic stability.

In Africa colonialism is still alive – and well

I have heard many times including at the United Nations commentators warning Africans to stop blaming colonialism for Africa’s ills. They argue that colonialism ended many decades ago and Africans must begin to take responsibility for their commissions and omissions. Before we decide – definitively – whether or not colonialism has actually ended, we need to examine what colonialism was all about and how colonies were administered.

Western countries colonized Africa in order to obtain cheap raw materials for their expanding industries, cheap foodstuffs for their growing populations, markets for their increasing surplus manufactured products and – to a certain extent – a home for their exploding population. Because European powers wanted to run colonies cheaply, they hired local agents through the indirect rule model. The agents had to be loyal and follow instructions from the few European colonial officers like the governor and district commissioners.

A new revolution for Africa

Countries that have developed into mature societies characterized by economic and social progress and exercise their human rights including the right to elect their representatives freely and hold them accountable went though difficult times: recall the Glorious, the American and the French Revolutions. The people in these countries made huge sacrifices in human lives and property. They were laying a solid foundation for their future generations. They faced many obstacles but worked hard to overcome them – and they did overcome them.

In Africa, the political struggle for independence was hardest in countries with settler communities. Recall the experiences of Algeria, Angola, Kenya, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe. One of the reasons that Belgium – which never thought Congolese would become independent – granted independence so readily in the wake of the 1959 bloody riots in Leopoldville is because it did not want to get dragged into the Algerian-type situation. Those of us who witnessed the struggle at close range in some of these countries, it was very tough but worth it.

DRC – A country created for ruthless exploitation with impunity

The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) – the third largest country in Africa (2,344,885 sq.km) after Algeria (2,381,741 sq.km) and Sudan (2,505,813 sq.km) – is potentially the richest on the continent. Paradoxically Congolese people are among the poorest on earth. According to many Congolese, the principal cause of this paradox is to be found in colonial and post-colonial ruthless exploitation of Congo’s vast human and non-human resources. Ruthless exploitation of Congo with impunity began with the arrival of Portuguese and Arabs. The hunt for slaves and ivory using European weapons resulted in constant armed warfare within and among different ethnic groups and depopulation of vast areas with serious political, economic and social consequences.

Towards economic and social delivery for all Ugandans

The National Resistance Movement Organization (NRM) has already declared that it will win 2011 presidential and parliamentary elections not only convincingly but also with a larger majority than in 2006 because it has delivered. While hosting the Commonwealth Conference, election to the United Nations Security Council for two years, discovering oil, ending the war in northern and eastern Uganda and winning approval to hold the 2010 AU Summit in Uganda are noble deliverables, their value should be assessed in the context of meeting conditions for economic and social development for all Ugandans as called for in Chapter IX of the United Nations Charter. Chapter IX states in part that higher standards of living, full employment, conditions of economic and social progress and development are among the principal goals of the United Nations of which Uganda is a member.

On reading NRM’s economic and social criticism of Obote II government one gets the impression that the drafters were fully aware of Chapter IX. It is therefore important to remind ourselves of what the criticism was and the extent to which NRM government has implemented corrective measures to deliver the desired economic and social results since it came to power in 1986. We shall examine the criticism contained in vol. I no. 3 of October/November 1981 and vol. II no. 5 of December 1984 which were published by the NRM secretariat in 1990 in a book titled “Mission to Freedom”.