American Ambassador: Uganda in Big Trouble Over Third Term The Monitor (Kampala)
July 12, 2005
(Outgoing U.S. ambassador to Uganda Mr. Jimmy Kolker was hosted on Tonight with Andrew Mwenda Live on 93.3 KFM last week and spoke out on the controversial third term campaign for President Yoweri Museveni. Daily Monitor's Emmanuel Gyezaho transcribed the interview.)
You say in your speech celebrating America's 229th Independence anniversary that we must be alert to some red warning lights that are flashing. What are they?
In my speech I talked about two things at first. One is that in procurement, privatisation decisions, the national interest is sometimes sacrificed to personal, partisan interests of some of the decision makers, of the political leadership and that there are some examples where there has been real greed where people have been looking to serve their personal interests rather than national interests.
What is the position of the U.S. government on such warning lights if leaders sell public enterprises to themselves at give away prices when they allocate the budget for their own political advantage?
The question isn't what the U.S. is going to do about it. The question is that Ugandans need to be alert because of your own history, because of the generally good situation that Ugandans find themselves in. This is not a dictatorship; it's not a country in which people do not have access to ways of expressing their views. They do have access to those but at the same time, the warning light is flashing.
The Movement system in Uganda right now is very popular but the government is holding a referendum, when there is no campaigning. Do you think the public will vote for this change or the government is simply trying to hold this referendum as a gimmick to sanctify a continuation of the Movement system?
I hope very much that people will vote. I hope the government and the opposition will campaign and participate in the referendum. I hope that people will realise that multi-party competition offers a tremendous opportunity to Ugandans to influence government policy. I have been disappointed in the campaign in fact I think both the government and those people who are recommending a boycott are missing the point. In the U.S. political competition is a way to strengthen the citizens voice. It's a way to give alternative views, get better ideas into politics. But no one in Uganda is expressing that vision.
What does the U.S. think about the proposed constitutional amendments to remove term limits from Uganda's constitution?
We are a country which has term limits. Term limits are a method by which institutions and democratic principles can survive an individual. It is clear that the current stability and freedom that Ugandans have came after 1986. There has been a steady development, which we recognise and we praise the ability of citizens to influence their government. The question is will that survive the current president?
Is President Museveni the only guarantor that those institutions and that sense of prosperity will continue in Uganda? If so, it's very dangerous because one day he will no longer be president. And if those institutions and those positive aspects of Ugandan society cannot survive him personally, then Uganda is in big trouble.
The term limits gives publics as well as leaders a chance to go out saying, 'I've done my part; here is my successor I would like you to elect. Here is the platform on which that person is going to be elected so that my legacy can continue.' To me this is a very important principle in any country but it is certainly important in a country like Uganda that has never had that happen. You have never had a leader leave power and say, 'Here is my vision which is going to be continued by my successor'.
It's just been the opposite that every successor has tried to erase all the vestiges of the vision of the predecessor and people have suffered for that. It's been a situation in which there are clear winners and clear losers and it seems to me that term limits allows a system in which there can be winners, who are the successors who win power but also those who leave power can consider themselves winners. Because what they have accomplished can be persevered and can be honored by the fact that those institutions and policies survive them.
What is the position of the US in simple terms, does the U.S. favour term limits remaining or being removed?
Constitutions and elections are acts of sovereignty. It would be presumptuous of me to say that on a given vote the U.S. took a position, but we didn't take a position on that vote. But I believe and my country believes that term limits contribute to democracy and that term limits serve a constructive purpose both in my own country and in other countries especially African countries where the questions of succession are so difficult.
What does the US think about the likely consequences, does it see a lot of positive outcome from removing term limits, and does it see warring signs?
We've followed this debate and the process closely - the timetable established by the government, the constitutional review process and the resultant Cabinet White Paper. The deadlines have never been met and the process has dragged on much longer. The question of what is in the constitutional amendment bill has been changed a number of times, whether there is one bill or three bills, whether constitutional amendments will be subject to a referendum or voted by parliament.
All these things have changed so many times that as an observer of Uganda's scene I would say that citizens who wanted to influence their government on this issue would have a hard time doing so because its been hard for me. I have a whole staff that follows these things, I personally take an interest, I read the papers, I live in Kampala, I know the politicians, I talk to people like yourself and its been hard for me to figure out what exactly is going on, what the government's plan is in terms of the transition and I can imagine it would be harder for the average Ugandan who doesn't have all those advantages to figure out what's actually going on. I have to say that we have been uncomfortable with the process.
Does it worry you about Uganda's future, this process, the way it has dragged? Do you live worried or do you live optimistic?
I live with a wonderful sense of Ugandans and the potential of the country. I do live worried that the potential is not being realised and that there are some as I call them warning lights that may mean that it will be harder to reach that potential in the future. But I've enjoyed my time in Uganda. I've felt very free here, I've been able to travel to 46 districts, and I've been able to meet people and say what I want and listen to what they have to say without hindrance. I would look at the positive side. There is nothing here that is hopeless which you can say that oh, the U.S. has to give up on Uganda.
If President Museveni invited you over to State House for coffee and said well, Jimmy you have been here for many years, what advice to do you give me, do you think I should run or retire? What would you tell him?
I thank the President that I have had access to him. I have had coffee at State House and I do give him advice and I don't broadcast that advice over the radio. He has asked my opinion on some things. I have offered opinion when I haven't been asked on other things. He's been a friend of the U.S. and he has been open to U.S. ambassadors historically and he has been to me. He hasn't asked that question and I think that he has in his own mind decided over that question. He doesn't need my advice on that.
When President Museveni visited the White House, U.S. President George Bush did advise that the U.S. would like to see a peaceful transition in Uganda in which case they would prefer to see him retire peacefully and handover to a successor. Is this correct?
I was at the meeting and I am confident in what I say about peaceful transitions and the importance of term limits because I know what my President believes and what he said.
What did President Bush tell President Museveni?
He talked about the American system. What he said is, "Fellow rancher I know you would want to go back to your cattle one day. The Parliamentary report on election violence has not be tabled in Parliament, an election is coming up, which means the government has not addressed the concerns on election violence.
What is your feeling in regard to election violence and electoral malpractices?
Yes I am worried. That is why I brought it up in my speech. This is clearly antidemocratic if people are intimidated. If there is violence in connection with free speech, in connection with campaigning, competing for office, keeping voters from one candidate from voting, encouraging illegal voting by others, as the report indicated. These are serious violations of democratic principles and mean that they are worrying signs.
Urbane Analysis: The art of statecraft throughout the centuries has cultivated a very careful opacity to words spoken by sitting ambassadors in the nations to which they have been sent. Think about it this way, ambassadors are guests in that country. If you were invited to dinner at someone's home, would you criticize the dishes and the curtains? That is why a sitting ambassador going on national radio in that country to speak in this way is clearly a strong signal to the Museveni regime. And no doubt Museveni knows it. And if he doesn't, he should pick up the phone, and call Tony Blair. The British Prime Minister will put it to him quite plainly.
No comments:
Post a Comment