Seriously Tho'

Let Us Talk Land

Kirenga Steven Mugabe — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:13:31 -0600

My Political Education teacher used to say that when a concern for the proper governance for society does not come naturally, then it is better to pretend. I wonder what he would say about the current land debate.

If nothing else, it has been a controversial one. Not since Gaetano’s escapades in the Big Brother Africa One competition has the city been this excited. And understandably so. Emotions are easily stirred whenever land ownership is discussed. This seems to be true even for those who do not actually own any land.

Much has been said about the government's handling of this matter but it is necessary, for the sake of clarity, reiterate some of the concerns that this bill is meant to address.

Uganda has a growing population; much of it unskilled. For this reason it is not likely that income tax revenues are likely to grow rapidly over the next couple of decades. The government has to look to other means of revenue generation. Industrialization has been seen as a possible panacea to the low poverty levels. But to become an industrialised nation, Uganda must first address the matter of land distribution and management. It is an inherent short-coming and one that is just as significant a deterrent to foreign investment, if not quite as obvious as the energy crisis facing the country at present. This is the obstacle facing the government.

What is the problem with the system as it stands? Well, for one there is a great deal of bureaucracy involved in the transfer of land ownership (the register of titles, the commissioner of lands, land board, etc.). The current law also gives greater protection to the land lords, leaving tenants with few means of seeking redress for any injustice. Then there is the matter of how land is allocated for various uses. Anyone who has visited Kampala is familiar with the novelty of a private vegetable patch in the middle of an industrial area. (If you haven't been, try Google Earth. You will save about $3000, give or take.) In amending the said law, the government can, with the Office of the Lands Minister, determine and allocate which land is suitable for an industry in an easier less bureaucratic manner.

But for all the talk about the need for better management, this bill is really about money. There is a justifiable expectation is that a better system will bring with it an influx of investment, and not everyone is likely to joy the fruits equally. For years Buganda, being in the central part of the country, has benefited the most from government development projects and investor interest. In this region you will find Kampala (capital city), Mukono (home to Namanve Industrial park), Luzira (proposed EPZ), the list is endless. The fact that the government is intent on increasing industrial projects in this region has not escaped attention. The members of other tribes have taken note of this, and are not pleased with any suggestions that do not attempt to spread the wealth.

And this is what all the talk is about. The district land boards and Baganda, God bless them, hold most of the titles of the marked land in trust, and are not eager to give up any control of the kingdom's "assets". The government cannot just grab the land; it has to follow the law. With the intended amendments though, the government can have the legal right to claim and develop the land without seeking the approval of the court at Mengo.

The damage to the coffers of the King of Buganda would be significant, but it is the symbolic value of its land that Mengo is truly unwilling to relinquish. Land is the single element upon which Buganda's ruling structures were founded; their government exists to manage the land. The clan heads in are known as ‘Abataka’, which loosely translates to "Those of the Land". His Highness the Kabaka is referred to as the ‘Ssebatakka’ which means the owner of all land. To ask the king to lose his land is to ask him to give up his crown. Hence his sudden willingness to make politically charged statements, much to the irritation of Museveni. The last thing the President wanted was a public contest of wills with one of the most popular personalities in the country, but he may not have a choice if he really wants to see this bill passed. For its part the Buganda kingdom wants a public fight. It has set up the Civic Education Commission to enlighten the population on the pros and cons of these amendments. The Mengo establishment armed with an informed lot of subjects, many of who are the sort the government claims to want to help with its bill; the government has its work cut out for it.

Spare a thought for the members of parliament from the central region. They are stuck in a catch-22 situation: Do they support their cultural leader (the Mengo establishment), or do they stand strong with their political leaders in the ruling NRM? The wrong choice may carry more than the loss of livelihood. We have seen in neighboring Kenya how necessary it is to address obvious tribal inequalities. And just like in Nairobi, there are many youths in Kampala with nothing better to do than riot and pillage. The NRM has a great deal of experience in putting down protests, but the region can hardly do with another state on the verge of political collapse. In the long term, the country will benefit more from an articulate debate on the matter than anything else; it is the demonstration that in some way Uganda has a functioning democracy.

In this debate, we as youth should stand up and be counted. What is your say?

Image courtesy of ctsnow on Flickr CC.

Ugandan students should take note of American school shootings

Paschal — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 22:06:31 -0600

It has happened again. The tragic shooting at Northern Illinois University is yet another instance of gun violence on an American university campus and the second this month alone. On February 8th a nursing student at Louisiana Technical College shot two students before turning the gun on herself, and in April last year 33 people were killed by a student at Virginia Tech University. It will be a few days before we know where this latest shooting fits in the spectrum of American tragedies but it is safe to assume that it will reignite America's debate on gun control, which has surprisingly not come up very often in the on-going presidential primaries.

It is a debate that Ugandans need to pay attention to. For over a decade, many middle class and upper class Ugandans have been sending their children abroad for their university education. It is a reaction to the deteriorated standards at Makerere University, once the pride of Uganda's education system. Some have gone to South Africa, some to India, a majority to the UK but a good many have chosen to attend universities and colleges in the U.S.

The specific numbers are not readily available but an estimate in the thousands seems within the realm of reason. According to an article this January in The Weekly Observer, over 4,000 Ugandans were granted American visas in 2006. 26 percent of those visas were immigrant and student visas. The recent shooting on American university campuses raise legitimate concerns about the safety in those institutions, and are a good reason to question whether Uganda's students should be going elsewhere for the education they cannot get at home.

It is not a debate that is likely to happen. There are several more immediate concerns in Kampala. Kenya's crisis and the debate over land reforms have dominated the news headlines of late. The recent arrest of an outspoken opposition MP and the resumption of the ever-difficult negotiations with the LRA will feature prominently over the coming days.

Still if there cannot be a debate about this, it would be good manners and good politics for Uganda's embassy in Washington to acknowledge the tragedies as well as the increasing threat to Ugandans on American campuses, and to offer some advice to prospective students as to which states have lower incidences of gun crimes. That way when Ugandans go looking for a university abroad, they have some guidance as to where they are less likely to wind up a statistic.

Image courtesy of kcdsTM on Flickr CC.

Kibaki 2.0: Making Moi look good

Paschal — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 15:10:14 -0600

When Daniel Arap Moi retired from the Kenyan presidency in 2002, it was clear that he had long overstayed his welcome. Whatever he had achieved for his country in almost a quarter of a century in power, the majority of the Kenyan people had long ceased to appreciate his efforts. Moi must have known as much from the jeering crowds at Mwai Kibaki's inauguration ceremony. Now though, Kibaki's questionable election victory and his decisions over the past two weeks are making Moi appear to be the lesser of two evils.

Moi's rule was synonymous with corruption, a stagnated economy and repression, but never political chaos or humanitarian crisis. It is therefore a telling sign of just how much Kenyans are being affecting by the recent crisis to hear some speak of Moi's rule with a certain longing. "At least with Moi, we knew what we had," said a Kenyan friend who just returned to Canada from Nairobi this past week. She was not alone in her assessment. This comment on a popular Kenyan blog echoes those very sentiments:

Personally, I was too young (or perhaps also too naïve) in the Moi era to know whether he rigged himself in, or won unfairly. People tell me about it and I have no doubt it happened, however, all I remember is that things were still relatively peaceful after elections and life still continued. The one time I remember elections mattering was after the first multi-party elections. When that happened, the effect at a school level, from that point on (sadly), a child’s ethnicity was something that was noticed more. Not necessarily in a negative way, but just that it was now more talked about. Before that we were all Kenyan pupils.
Allan Kirul, on Kenyan Pundit on January 14, 2008.

The nostalgia is logical. For all of Moi's failings as a president (and there were many) his decisions never resulted in such an international embarrassment for Kenyans. Over the past two weeks, Kibaki has done just that: taking the oath of office only hours after a highly suspect election victory; antagonizing the opposition by announcing a cabinet only hours after claiming to be willing to compromise; and snubbing offers of international mediation. In the meantime, the violence has claimed more than 600 lives and displaced over 100,000 people, 6,000 of whom are now refugees in Uganda. For a people who are proud of their stability Kenyans the world over will not find this crisis easy to forget, nor are they likely to remember Kibaki fondly when this is all over.

Some might argue that Kibaki deserves more consideration. He came to power in 2002 after campaigning as the candidate for change (Americans will be familiar with this reference). Since then, he has delivered free primary education, improved wages for civil servants and improvements to infrastructure. Under his rule, the country recovered from years of poor performance to record a real GDP growth of 6.1%, a level not seen in Kenya since 1981 when Kibaki was both finance minister and vice-president (source: The African Report, January- March 2008, 141). These are institutional reforms though and did not bring about any of the political changes that many Kenyans desire. Indeed, the first signs of trouble for Kibaki came when he failed to deliver on his promise for constitutional reforms. The defeat of his referendum in 2005 forced him to dismiss his entire cabinet and really himself with Moi.

Gitau Warigi, a Kenyan columnist, argued as much in his article, Old School:

At the end of the day, Kibaki has always been a beliver in the status quo. His differences with Moi were never about altering this status quo but rather about making it more efficient, especially in economic productivity, where the government has indisputably excelled.

Gitau Warigi in Focus on Africa Magazine, December 2007.

Economic success may be Kibaki's calling card, but he will have to work hard in his second term if he expects Kenyans to remember the good times. The instability has already cost the country's economy over $1 billion dollars and will certainly cause many economic analysts to downgrade their forecasts for Kenya's growth in 2008.

But it is not only among Kenyans that Kibaki is being compared unfavourably to Moi. Ugandans and Rwandans know that the high fuel prices they are facing are a result of the violence in Kenya:

Several, such as south Sudan and Uganda are landlocked, so rely on Kenya's roads and its port of Mombasa for their trade to the outside world. Uganda is particularly jittery. Its president, Yoweri Museveni, wants Kenyan troops to protect oil en route to the Ugandan border and says Uganda must build its own oil terminal to lessen its dependency on Mombasa. While Kenya's big men refuse to compromise, the country's reputation as a beacon of stability in a sea of regional turbulence is in tatters.
The Economist, in January 10, 2008

Kibaki's government is already working hard on damage control with reassures that its ports are back on track, but those efforts are being undermined by the persistent refusal to acknowledge the need for mediation.

Kenya's value in the region remains secure. An under-sea fibreoptic cable in Mombasa in 2009 will boost telecommunications developments and reinforce Kenya's role as a conduit to the outside world for the region. It is Kibaki's legacy that is really at stake.

photo by DEMOSH

Kenya's crisis: Uganda's opposition gets it wrong

Paschal — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 01:41:58 -0600

The on-going crisis in Kenya has backed Museveni into a corner of sorts. Uganda's economy and welfare are tied to Kenya's stability. As such, fuel shortages in Uganda have been disrupting business and causing the kinds of rumblings that are always dangerous to ignore. Museveni might have wanted to stay out of the Kenyan mess, but it was necessary for his government to open up a dialogue with Nairobi to work out a way that will ensure the flow of fuel into Uganda. Unfortunately for Museveni, this dialogue was always going to cost him something from the moment Kibaki started feeling a little alienated. In return for the 60 fuel trucks that arrived in Uganda recently, Museveni had to be the first to publicly congratulate Mwai Kibaki on his disputed re-election. This is shrewd move on Kibaki's part because Museveni's role as the chairman of the East African Community means that his congratulatory gesture carries a little more weight in international circles and puts pressure on other members of the EAC to follow suit. There is a possibility that they may do so, if only to maintain the illusion of unity.

For his part, Museveni recognizes the damage this action has done to him at home and has moved swiftly to position himself as a diplomat in a time of crisis. The fact that Uganda has also opened its doors to Kenya's refugees, Asians among them, will not hurt his efforts.

The opposition, always looking for kinks in Museveni's armour, has jumped at what they think is a chance to take the moral high ground. They would have Ugandans believe that they would have acted otherwise. Speaking on behalf of the opposition, the shadow Foreign Affairs minister called for the isolation of Kibaki and for sanctions on his government :

What has been done to (Robert) Mugabe (of Zimbabwe) should apply to Kibaki...The opposition will hold peaceful protests in Kampala, eastern and northern Uganda and other areas to show their solidarity with the people of Kenya and demonstrate against dictators who want to cling to power at all cost.
Regan Okumu, in the New Vision, January 3, 2007

This is strategy might win some media attention and a couple of points for the opposition among NGOs and humanitarian agencies but ultimately it tells us more about their judgement. Okumu and Latigo seem to assume that Ugandans will not see through this attempt to manipulate a real humanitarian crisis into a political advantage for opposItion. It also demonstrates their inability to prioritize. It is true that Uganda benefits from democracy in Kenya, but any sanctions on Kenya will cripple Uganda's economy as well.

Instead of melodramatic calls to social consciousness, the opposition might be better off putting out that Uganda's capacity for refugees is being stretched thin and that the government really should have anticipated the possibility of what are are witnessing. Ebola is still a threat in the west, and all it will take is one battle in eastern Congo for a new wave of refugees to come across the borer. In the north, the IDP camps are are still a concern, more so now that talks with the LRA are faltering. And North eastern Uganda is still recovering from massive flooding in September last year which destroyed housing and harvests.

This is not to say that Uganda should not be taking in Kenyan refugees. Far from it. Many Ugandans have been sheltered in Kenya in times of crisis and hardship. Rather, it is to prove that the role of an opposition should be to point out legitimate issues and propose a plan to tackle those issues before the government. Then trust the people to notice your hard work and reward you come election time...at least that is the idea.

CHOGM not Uganda's spotlight

Paschal — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 16:43:25 -0600

The Commonwealth Heads of State Meeting of 2007 is being described as a success. During the three-day summit, the organisation suspended Pakistan from its ranks and produced a climate plan. These are both modest achievements with little international impact except to remind the world that when it comes to human rights and the environment, the Commonwealth can still be a relevant association.

Suspension will not trouble Pakistan

Pakistan's suspension did not stop the country's Supreme Court judges from dismissing the final legal challenge to President Musharraf's re-election bid. No one expected otherwise. The suspension may have embarrassed President Musharraf, but it is not the first time he has had to endure the chastisement. Pakistan was first suspended from the Commonwealth for five years after Musharraf seized power in a bloodless coup in 1999. The Commonwealth's members may congratulate themselves on upholding the democratic principles of their association, but Pakistan's leadership knows that any condemnation that does not come from Washington warrants little more than the obligatory protest. This is just as well for Musharraf who has more pressing problems to deal with.

Climate plan only symbolic

Although the Commonwealth represents approximately two billion of the world's people, its climate plan is not likely to bring about any immediate impact. The association failed to reach a consensus on emission cuts and the plan is non-binding. That is not a strong statement to the world's worst polluters (U.S. and China) who are not part of the Commonwealth.

Never really in the lime light

Uganda's leadership will congratulate themselves on hosting a successful summit, but they should not exaggerate its legacy for the nation. While Queen toured select venues in the country, much of the international media attention was elsewhere: the political crisis in Pakistan; the upcoming Israel-Palestine summit in Annapolis; and the woes of the falling U.S. dollar.

For Museveni though, this is a personal triumph. He managed to keep the protesters from upstaging him—they managed to make headline news on BBC—and raising some serious questions about his record on human rights. There was also very little mention of the stalled negotiations with the LRA in the north, or the country's tensions with the DRC.

Uganda, Congo and why the oil will flow

Paschal — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 21:55:37 -0600

Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo have not always treated each other with a great deal of respect. But now that oil has been discovered in Lake Albert, that has only made things more complicated.
[image source: Heritage Oil, 2007]

Uganda and Congo: the background

Uganda's recent tensions with Congo go back to the mid 90s. During the First Congo War (1996-1997) Uganda, Rwanda and Angola supported a coalition of Congolese dissidents and minority groups known as the Alliance of Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Congo (AFDL). The ADLF was the movement that ousted Mobutu Sese Seko and brought Laurent Kabila to power.

In the Second Congo War (1998-2003) Uganda was one of eight African nations that participated in one of the bloodiest wars to occur on the African continent:

The war [pitched] Uganda and Rwanda-backed rebels based in the east and northwest against DRC troops, supported by Zimbabwe, Angola and Namibia.
IRIN NEWS,irinnews.org

Uganda provided support to both the Rally for Congolese Democracy (RDC), specifically the break-away RDC-Kisangani, and the Movement for the Liberation of Congo (MLC). Over 3.4 million people were displaced and 40,000 rape cases reported during the five year conflict. The MLC, led by Jean-Pierre Bemba, is now the main opposition party in the new Congolese parliament.

Economic imperatives for oil

The Luanda Agreement marked a formal end of hostilities between Uganda and Congo, but in spite of the presence of a UN mission (MONUC), eastern Congo has remained a volatile region, particularly in Ituri, and in North and South Kivu. In October 2007, 8,000 Congolese refugees crossed the border into Uganda following clashes between the Congolese army and a renegade general.

The lawlessness in eastern Congo is a threat to the Ugandan government's plans for the oil and natural gas in the Albert Basin. Uganda's ongoing dependence on oil imports from Kenya exposes the economy to negative supply shocks, which in turn cause prices to rise. The reserves in Lake Albert are an opportunity for the country to control its oil supply, and thereby sustain the momentum of economic growth.

Like Uganda, Congo also is eager to ascertain the potential for oil production on its side of the Albert Basin, albeit for different reasons. Oil exploration in the Congo dates back to the 1960s. However, much of the activity has been in the coastal city of Muanda in the western region of Bas-Congo (Chevron is one of the petroleum companies currently operating there). Given that oil revenues account for 25 percent of the government's budget, the discovery of oil in the Albert basin has created a new impetus for the government to regain control of its eastern region and secure its rights to the resources in its territory.

Escalating tensions

It is for territory, specifically the island of Rukwanzi, that Congolese and Ugandan soldiers have clashed in recent months. In addition to being a rich fishing ground, the island also represents a strategic location for oil exploration in the basin. Efforts by either side to exercise control have left a number of people dead in recent months.

July 29: Congo's army captures four Ugandan soldiers it claims illegally strayed across the border into the Congo
August 3: a Congolese attack on a barge anchored in Ugandan waters leaves a Congolese soldier and a British geologist dead
August 10: Uganda accuses Congolese authorities of harbouring Ugandan rebel groups
September 8: In a meeting in Arusha, Uganda and Rwanda agree to ease tensions over Lake Albert and co-operate on oil exploration
September 24: six Congolese nationals, two Congolese soldiers and one Ugandan soldier are killed in two separate clashes on Lake Albert

On August 23rd, the Economist published an article on the escalating tensions between the two countries. The magazine argued that these tensions would jeopardize Uganda's plans for oil production:

Landlocked Uganda cannot afford instability on the lake if it is to attract the foreign investment needed to extract and export oil.
The Economist, on Congo and Uganda, August 23rd, 2007

Peace and stability would be nice, but violence is unlikely to disrupt the extraction of the oil on either side of the border. As the map below shows, both countries have sold exploration concessions on Lake Albert to Heritage Oil Corporation, a company that has a history of staying the course in troubled regions.

[image source: Heritage Oil website, 2007]

Heritage Oil in Africa: the background

Heritage Oil is a Canadian-based international oil and gas exploration and production company. The company was previously registered in the Bahamas, and Britain before that. Aside from its interests in Uganda and Congo, the company is also operating in Russia, Oman, and Iraq.

It is the company's history in Africa, and its symbiotic relationships with private military contractors (PMCs) that is most relevant here. While operating in Angola and Sierra Leone in the mid 90s, Heritage Oil lobbied for the involvement of Executive Outcomes (EO), a PMC that operated in many of the continent's troubled regions during that decade. EO was founded by South African mercenary Eeben Barlow in 1989, and fought against the UNITA rebels on behalf of the Angolan government in 1994. In 1995 EO helped repel the Revolutionary United Front rebels in Sierra Leone and regained control of the diamond fields.

Other key people involved in the company include Simon Mann and Tim Spicer. Simon Mann is currently incarcerated in a Zimbabwean prison after being arrested for planning an alleged coup attempt in Equatorial Guinea. Another man is Anthony Buckingham, Heritage Oil's CEO.

Some sources link directly with the formation and operation of EO, as well as another PMC:

In 1993 Buckingham, Mann and Barlow registered Executive Outcomes (UK). In order to avoid too open a South African connection, however, they later added a new organisation, Sandline International, which established itself in plush offices in Chelsea, which it shared with Heritage Oil and Branch Energy. To head this, they recruited Colonel Tim Spicer, a recently retired Scots Guards and SAS officer who had been wounded in the Falklands, commanded a battalion in Northern Ireland, for which he was awarded the OBE, and served as director of special operations in Bosnia. In December 1996 Sandline was formally incorporated in London by Buckingham, Mann, Barlow, Spicer, Michael Grunberg and Nic van der Berg, who later took over from Barlow as head of EO. The military network was controlled by shadowy holding companies, called Plaza 107 in the UK (controlled by Grunberg) and the Strategic Resources Corporation in South Africa.
Christopher Wrigley,in Privatisation of Violence: New mercenaries and the state, The Sandline Nexus, March 1999.
[sources cited include: Africa Confidential, 29.5.98, 23.10.98, 15.5.98]

Following the dissolution of EO 1998, its operatives are reported to have joined other PMCs, one of which is Saracen Ltd. According to this PR statement for an MTN marathon, Saracen has been operating in Uganda since 1995, and has offices in South Africa, Angola, and Hong Kong. According to a Daily Monitor article in October 2007, Saracen in Uganda is controlled by Museveni's brother, Gen. Salim Saleh.

Tim Spicer is currently the Chief Executive of Aegis Defence Services, a PMC based in London and contracted to the U.S. Army in Iraq, with control of approximately somewhere between 8,000 and 20,000 private security personnel in Iraq.

For better or for worse

Considering Buckingham's connections and experience when dealing with mineral extraction in conflict zones, it is clear that both Uganda and Congo have selected a company that will deliver on its concession contracts, irrespective of what violence might ensue. In fact, it is possible that Heritage Oil was approved because of, and not in spite of its history of using questionable methods to get the job done. This is an insight into the callous logic often employed by African regimes: the end justifies the means.

Any negative press regarding the company's history has not had any negative financial implications. In less than one year, Heritage Oil's stock on the TSX has risen from less than CAD$30 in January to a peak of just over CAD$70 in July.

On 14th November, the company announced that it had raised CAD$181.5 million by offering 3,000,000 common shares at CAD$60.50 per share.

Tullow Oil: the final player

There is one more player that is worth taking a look at. Thus far, exploration on both sides of the border on Lake Albert is being carried out by Heritage Oil Corporation of Canada and Hardman Resources of Australia. Hardman was acquired by Tullow Oil Plc in January 2007. Tullow Oil is one of the largest oil and gas exploration companies in Europe. The company's headquarters are in London.

While Heritage Oil's activity in Uganda has drawn a great deal of media coverage, Tullow Oil has the more substantial interest in the region.

Tullow Oil is a 50% partner with Heritage Oil on the Ugandan side of the border, but also controls 100% of the block previously operated by Hardman Resources. Tullow Oil therefore controls 200 out of a possible 300 percent of the interest in Blocks 1 through 3A in Uganda, and 96 out of a possible 200 percent of Blocks I and II in Congo, making the London oil explorer the dominant player on Lake Albert. The company expects to begin oil production in 2009.

Rumors that Tullow Oil would acquire Heritage were refuted by the company's CFO Tom Hickney in July.

[source for tables and maps: Tullow Oil, 2007]

Tullow's decision not to acquire Heritage Oil might be motivated by a need to keep a healthy distance from its less scrupulous partner. Should more violence flare up in on Lake Albert, it is Heritage Oil that will likely play the ill-favoured role of hiring PMCs to protect both companies' interests.

Are Ugandans subsidizing the war in Iraq?

Paschal — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:35:25 -0600

Uganda and Iraq have a special relationship. Thousands of Ugandans are making the trip to quaint military compounds in cities such as Baghdad and Tikrit in order to make ends meet, something they have trouble doing back home.

This is not exactly breaking news. Back in May 2005, the BBC held a brief forum on a law firm in Kampala that was recruiting young Ugandans to work as gaurds in Baghdad. The following year, reports of Ugandan guards being mistreated by Coalition troops were covered in CorpWatchand Xinhua(also known as the China View), and dismissed in the New Vision. Although the issue did not make headlines in Uganda, it does not seem to go away.

In September this year, the Daily Monitor published a story by David Herbert in which it was revealed that Dreshak International—a leading recruiter of Ugandan guards bound for Iraq—was being sued by disgruntled Ugandans for breach of contract. A few days later Herbert published some interviews with a few of the Ugandans who have been working as private security guards in Iraq. The story was (unknowingly) recycled by The Economist for their October 18th issue.

Let's talk numbers

It is unclear exactly how many Ugandan citizens have worked or are currently working as contract security personnel in Iraq. According to the Herbert article, Dreshak has over 1,000 Ugandan employees in Iraq:

Dreshak International...currently has 1,800 Ugandans working in 12 bases around Iraq, but there are thousands more looking for these jobs than there are positions available.
DAVID HERBERT, in the Daily Monitor, Sept. 2007

These numbers differ from those cited in a Xinhuaarticle, which puts the number at over 2,000:

More Ugandans joined the Iraq gold rush for better pay as another batch of 169 Ugandans has left for the war-torn country as security guards early this week. The batch left Uganda following a deal between Connect Financial Services, a Ugandan firm and Triple Canopy, a U.S. firm. They will be deployed in the Iraq capital Baghdad.
China View,on Xinhuanet.com, 2007

By either source, the current number of Ugandans in Iraq is larger than the troop numbers of any member of the multinational force in Iraq save for the U.S., the U.K., and Poland.

Money is the motivator

The recruits are tempted by ads promising salaries in the thousands of dollars. In reality, they make about $1,000 a month. Much of this money is remitted to Uganda where it is used to set up small scale enterprises. This is important for an economy that has few opportunities for even the educated, let alone those who have had little or no schooling.

Most of the recruits are police and army veterans. This is not surprising. Their wages are a joke, their work conditions despicable, and they are treated with contempt wherever they go. It would seem that for most of them then, Iraq is an easy choice.

An African affair

And it is not just the Ugandans that are flocking to Iraq. South Africa, that trusty producer of the fabled soldier of fortune, has been struggling to retain its security personnel. In 2005, the Telegraph reported that South African military began imposing leave restrictions to prevent its officers from seeking unofficial employment in Iraq. That article estimated the number of South Africans in Iraq to be between 5,000 and 10,000 men.

Are Ugandans subsidizing the war on Iraq

With almost 4,000 American soldiers killed in Iraq and approximately a trillion dollars spent, the Americans are feeling the cost of this war.

So far, the military has been willing to outsource some aspects of the campaign to private security companies (Blackwater anyone?). Uganda seems to be one of the most reliable sources of manpower for these firms. At $1,000 a month, our citizens are cheaper than the highly trained western ex-military types who earn as much as $1,000 a day. But there is no indication that these firms are passing on the savings to the U.S. government.

Should this be a political issue?

Even in an election year, this issue would not garner any political attention in Uganda. Those who choose to go and seek their fortune in Iraq do so as individuals; they are not sent by the government. And it's unlike that the families of the recruits will protest their involvement in the war; the families benefit from the remittances sent back to Uganda.

That said, there is no denying that the rulingNRM benefits directly when Ugandans are recruited to work in Iraq. By allowing its unemployed citizens to be recruited in such large numbers, the government is relieved of the burden of having to create 2,000 jobs. This convenience is shared with the rest of the population, after all, no one wants that many unemployed police and army vets looking for something to do. Not in Uganda; not with our history.

And this is what makes the relationship between Iraq and Uganda so very special. On the surface of the matter, it may seem that Ugandans are subsidizing the war in Iraq. But we seem to be getting something in return. Whether we are okay with the exchange, is another matter.