A Critical Review of Museveni's Letter to Britain dated 25th March 2005

Both as a university student in Tanzania and in his early years as president of Uganda, Museveni was well known for his outstanding articles about various socio-political and economic issues in Africa. His views were then considered Marxist – Maoist and Leninist since he had socialistic ideologies.

In reply to a letter (dated 25^th March 2005) by the then British secretary of state for development and corporation, His Excellency President of Uganda Yoweri Kaguta Museveni wrote what has been described as “damning” by Business in Africa Online. In his letter, Museveni writes of an agreement between Ugandan and British governments – how the British were to give the Ugandan government funds to be used in development but instead withheld the funds after a unilateral “governance assessment” by the British government.

Although the letter was in reply to a letter sent to Kampala over the withholding of donor funds, Museveni expounded on it, writing more about donor – Africa relationship.

Donors have the credence to question how the recipients of their funds intend to use it. Museveni agrees to this and other limited parameters. It is however not ethical to conduct unilateral assessments of recipient governments in order to impose some forms of control over them. One of Museveni’s concerns is the alleged government assessment that was conducted on the Ugandan government before it was denied promised funds. It is indeed right to question the British government’s credence in conducting ‘governance assessments’ of governments they intend to give funds. No foreign government assesses the British government. Why would it then unilaterally assess foreign governments?

Museveni was committed to making Uganda economically independent, a belief that he held since he took power and maybe before. Since, however, he has been receiving funds from imperialist donor countries, he has not been consistent with his ideologies therefore policies.

I adore Museveni’s efforts in rehabilitating and reconstructing Uganda. Considering the problems Uganda has faced since her independence up until the end of Tito Okello’s reign, Museveni has made notable developments in Uganda but if he truly believes Uganda can achieve economic independence, how come that has not happened during his long reign? Well, Museveni claims that donors meddling in Uganda’s internal affairs are part of the reason why development in Uganda is impeded. It is indeed true that donor countries interfere with development strategies in less developed countries (LDC’s): it has been their habit to meddle in the affairs of LDC’s hence sometimes impeding their development. An example is western involvement in the Libyan and Ivorian conflicts. Although the two countries have ‘functional’ governments, they experience frequent conflicts. Without peace, no development can take place.

Western countries have vividly shown that they would not like foreign countries to meddle in their internal affairs. For instance, questions were raised when it was allegedly found that former French president Nicholas Sarkozy’s campaign money was partly given by the late Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. Museveni cites the plight of an American politician whose campaign was allegedly funded by the Chinese government. From the two examples, it is clear western powers don’t like other countries to meddle in their internal affairs yet they do meddle in other countries’ affairs. This is not ethical.

Under-development in Uganda cannot entirely be blamed on imperialist countries. Museveni agrees with this statement. Apart from blaming donor countries, Museveni blames African leadership during colonial times and some post-independence leaders for the plight of backward states like Uganda. Although Museveni says his movement has only made tactical mistakes, and not strategic mistakes, this statement is too vague and this is why.

Museveni fails to look at how his policies back home may have affected the possibility of development. For instance, if Museveni knew the western donors practiced suzerainty over aid recipients, why did he accept their funds? He cites how donor countries interfered with Uganda’s counter-terrorism effort by constraining her modest defense expenditure, how they forced Uganda to scrap tax holidays and how they interfered with Uganda’s energy development by forcing her to sequence the construction of dams rather than her preferred option of building two dams simultaneously. Although it’s not clear which (Uganda’s or the donor’s) plan is better, why, despite being aware of donor suzerainty, did Museveni decide to accept donor funding yet he yearned for economic independence and independence in decision making for Uganda? He has not been entirely truthful.

Museveni doesn’t give his reasons for accepting donor funds. By failing to stop asking for donor funds, Museveni seems to be admitting that Uganda is helpless - that it cannot develop without donor funds - hence raising questions of why he has stayed in power for over 25 years yet has not achieved economic independence. Furthermore, Museveni’s way of leadership is controversial.   

Museveni also says that no development can occur as result of aid by western countries. This statement is very true indeed. Development, apart from funds, also requires proper planning, leadership, peace, among other variables.

In conclusion, Museveni, judging from his statements, seems to be a proponent of the dependency theory of underdevelopment. Dependency theorists suggest that underdevelopment is not the fault of LDC’s and their traditional values but rather stemmed from foreign domination and exploitation. Some proponents of the dependency theory believe that a country can still develop while still depending on banks and multinational corporations for loans, investment and technology. Handelman, in his book the challenge of third world development writes “the recent economic miracles in East Asia (especially South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore), however have confounded dependency theorists. These countries have tied themselves very closely to the developed world through trade, credit, investment and technology transfer. Contrary to what the more sophisticated dependency scholars had predicted, however, they have achieved impressive economic growth coupled with comparatively equitable economic distribution.” Despite this, causes of underdevelopment still remain contentious.