Uganda Shuts Down a Newspaper

Yesterday's news from Uganda is a perfect example of a few hundred PtF points, and if this was the old radio show, you can imagine we'd be talkin' it up as our leading story. With my luck, we'd have a couple people from Uganda on board to talk about life in their home country.

In any event, freedom of the press is protected by the First Amendment in the USA. Traditionally, the freedom of the press meant the press could write anything they want without fear of government retribution. Over time, that has somehow evolved into the right to report on anything they want, and this extended right is being used primarily by legions of papparazzi to assault various celebrities in the LA and NYC areas. But I digress from Uganda.

Uganda also has a constitutionally-enshrined freedom of the press. Unlike the USA, Uganda doesn't have much of a tradition of upholding press freedoms. In fact, the constitution of Uganda was only adoped in 1995, but was based largely on the American constitution. But if we want to get a good understanding of the state of Uganda's international relations, we have to rewind and do a historical recap. Only then will this story of a government violating its citizens' press freedoms make full sense.

If you already know Ugandan history, skip to the next set of dashes.
-----

After World War II, European nations started to divest themselves of their colonial holdings. In East Africa, the British release of its colonies was largely spurred on by attempts to balance the wartime checkbook. Efforts at setting up post-colonial governments (around the world) were hampered by:
1) religious groups
2) socialist/communist groups
3) ethnic groups

In different nations, these different influences undermined colonial powers' attempts to establish control over the fledgling governments. The British ideal was to hand temporal and administrative power over to the local nobility. But democracy kept asserting itself.

In Uganda, the focal point for this history lesson has to be Idi Amin. Do yourself a favour and read the overview of his Wikipedia article and the rest of what I write will make sense. The local socialist movement had managed to secure its independence from Britain and spent the better part of the 1960s trying to rebuild the country. However, the local nobility had already trained with the British military and was itself an extension of British power in Uganda.

The human rights being protected by the state was only part of the issue the military nobility took with the socialists. The other part was the socialists' deconstructing of social privilege at the legislative and administrative levels. In more rural districts, there was a sense of corruption from city power centers. So while President Milton Obote went to a meeting in Singapore, Idi Amin claimed power, and held it throughout the '70s.

Amin used brutality rather than respect to instill domestic tranquility and enforce his régime. This turned off Britain and the western allies, so guess who stepped in to fill the funding gap? (Please tell me you guessed the USSR.) It started with Libya, if I recall correctly, and Ghaddafi brought the budding dictator out of the circle of right-wing murderous dictators and into the circle of left-wing murderous dictators. The shift was also brought about by his erratic mental state, which deterioriated with time. In short, Western powers were increasingly embarassed to be seen talking with him.

A Western-backed military coalition consisting primarily of Tanzanian troops reinforced by armed and trained Ugandan refugees invaded Uganda and took out Idi Amin's régime in 1979, and Milton Obote came back to power. But the military nobility continued to see itself as the lawful regime, and retreated into a loose network of guerilla organisations in the North. After four years, the Obote government attempted to quell the uprising through military means, bringing international condemnation of his régime. Obote was deposed in 1985, but his replacement only lasted 6 months before he himself was replaced by Yoweri Museveni, who remains "president" to this day.

The Ugandans drafted a new constitution in 1995. The constitution's primary change was to centralise more executive authority with the president. Of course, since the president is a president-for-life and he is well-connected to the military, it's difficult for us Westerners to see such a constitutional change as more democratic.

Two years ago, the Parliament attempted to pass legislation that would have made homosexuality punishable by death. The international furor over the bill has exposed the relationship between the Ugandan régime and fundamentalist Christians in America, and led to some half-mumbled apologies from right-wing leaders in the USA. It is understandable that the American right wing leadership want to keep their thumb on Uganda, as the relatively small nation has been of strategic importance in regional politics ever since Britain relinquished its claim to the region. But it is really sad to see American money today flowing into the hands of a régime that resorts to physical intimidation and threats against life purportedly in the name of Jesus.
-----

From this mostly turbulent history, you can understand why Uganda's press freedoms are not as solid as America's. It's not that the people of Uganda aren't interested in their own freedom. But how much you want to bet the only reason more than half their nation even knows it's happening is because of the internet presence of global media?

Press freedoms aren't just about respecting individual rights. It's also about a government's image: not making itself look foolish, brutal, and helpless. At some point, the powers in charge of Uganda need to accept that they can't stop every single news report they don't like. They need to realise that stepping on the face of their media is the first step in reverting to a darker period of history. At some point, those in power in Uganda need to realise they will waste more time and money and lose global support by pursuing heavy-handed security initiatives.

Ironically enough, the Obama administration is facing heat for its beat-down of the Associated Press. All the above points apply to Obama, and hopefully he and Museveni are watching one another to learn. If a spy leaks something to the media, go and find him. Just don't shake down the media to get your answer, because that's just a really crummy way to operate.

The larger picture here is not necessarily that the USA and Uganda are operating in a simliar fashion from a similar mentality that fears freedom. (It's an important point but lines of correlation are a separate discussion.) Indeed, the American influence in Uganda is heavy. Uganda's violent past will keep poking into the nation's affairs, and Ugandans will have to continue the struggle for self-control. The larger picture is that the world wants to see a stable, democratic Uganda.

A stable Uganda is needed to help her neighbours keep peace. Simmering racial tensions currently threaten to bubble over the border of every neighbouring nation except Tanzania. Rwanda has been mostly in self-control since its brutal holocaust in the 1990s. The Congo is still swarming with rebel guerillas who like to hide out in Uganda from time to time. To the east, Kenyan leaders are doing their best to contain ethnic strife as competing leaders learn how to cooperate in government management in the wake of the highly-controversial elections in 2007, the grand union of 2008, and the new constitution of 2013. To the north lies South Sudan, a nation not even two years old and still embroiled in conflict with the north, not to mention internal power struggles and more warlords from the Congo taking advantage of the lack of central authority in rural areas.

If any of these powder kegs were to blow, it will require a stable Ugandan government to keep the region at ease. If Ugandans have to question the good intentions of their leaders, any one of those regional conflicts could open up and suck in Uganda.

At some point, we all hope Museveni will recognise that in an internet-connected gobal reality, the Daily Monitor is seen around the world as an extension of the people of Uganda. Anything done to the Daily Monitor is understood globally as an affront to the people of Uganda, even if done with the best of intentions. In this small world we live in, an event as small as a beat-down on a newspaper can put the drop on Museveni's rule the same way the Tanzanian invasion failed Idi Amin and the same way crushing the northern guerillas tanked Milton Obote in the 1980s. Certainly, global perception of the beat-down is where global allies start to decide to choke off "financial support", and then things get slowly worse. I don't think the people of Uganda want that, and I'm pretty sure neither does Museveni.

My message to Museveni: Never focus fire on your own people, focus on fighting the rebels. Don't repeat the past, learn from it. May the people of Uganda find peace.