Calls for poll reforms legitimate - EU envoy

Ambassador Kristian Schmidt. PHOTO BY ABUBAKER LUBOWA

What you need to know:

European Union head of delegation to Uganda Kristian Schmidt, in an interview with Sunday Monitor’s Eriasa Mukiibi Sserunjogi, says European countries support the call for electoral reforms and that Uganda should not lift gay rights above other rights.

You must have heard recently that planned rallies by opposition politicians and members of the civil society were broken up by the police [before the opposition and government struck a deal on handling rallies]. What is your take?
I will answer that question but let me start with the general EU-Uganda relations. One of my concerns is this sort of one-dimension focus on homosexuality. It is important for our partners to understand that our relationship is not about just human rights or even development cooperation, it is trade, remittances of Africans, Ugandans in Europe and in fact if you look at those figures, they are bigger than foreign direct investments coming to Africa. So our continents are intertwined. Half the Ugandan population is young and with an uncertain economic future. It is in the young age that you are so creative and the purpose of this [last] week’s conference at the European Union headquarters in Brussels is to see how Africa and Europe can graduate from the aid relationship to one of trading partners at a level footing.
So when the president says, for instance, that Uganda is very rich, he is very right. Uganda is rich in potential. But in terms of entrepreneurship, youths need to have hope, they have to be free of fear, and believe in the future.

There have been relations before between Uganda and the EU like Everything But Arms (EBA). To what extent would you say it was a success?
Everything But Arms was the best possible trade deal that Europe could give to Africa and other Least Developed Countries. It means that any commodity producer in Africa or any other LDC has access to the European market. But it doesn’t offer what we call regional accumulation. EBA did not encourage regional integration and this is where in Europe’s experience you have to go first, you have to compete within your region, build your competitiveness and then graduate to the international market. And I think Uganda’s economic policy is spot-on, because it is pushing for the East African Community, the regional integration, and after that you can compete for the global market. Uganda should not remain an LDC forever.

There has been concern that Europe has done a lot of work in Africa yet China takes the trade and commercial deals. Is that an issue that concerns you?
I think we should welcome the Chinese in Africa because Africa needs many different partners, not just the Europeans, and we are all complementary. But if I was African, I would look at where sustainable growth is coming from. Is it from exporting raw materials along the colonial lines to China which is industrialising and therefore needs these raw materials or to deal with Europe which has already industralised? And what we are looking at is strong, permanent sustainable links coming from Europe to Africa, to stay and build sustainable jobs, and develop the markets locally.
There are different models and if you talk about European development cooperation, almost all (the aid) coming from Europe are grants and what others are offering are all loans. Now Uganda is not so much in debt but you have to make sure that every single shilling that you borrow is used productively, otherwise the debt would just increase your levels of inflation and interest rates.

Do you subscribe to the view that for a country to develop, it needs to fix its politics first because the politics determines everything?
I do and I will come back to what I said first – investors and money don’t like noise. I am quoting your Finance Minister [Maria Kiwanuka] and she is actually right. Noise created by politicians and other issues scares away investors. So I think there is a challenge.

That brings me back to what I started with – the recent squabbles over electoral reforms. Is the EU engaging the relevant parties on this?
We have engaged and your archives show that since the last elections we have made clear recommendations, we were invited to observe the 2011 elections and out of them came very clear recommendations on how to improve the next elections in 2016.

How do you rate the progress on what has been done so far; it is now three years down the road?
Yes, the progress is very insufficient. The questions that were raised were about the perceived independence of the Electoral Commission and the Electoral Reform Bill is much awaited not just by me, but by the Ugandan public, the politicians and the Speaker of Parliament, etc. Now is the window of opportunity to set the scene for free and fair elections in 2016. But it means getting the discussion into Parliament.

Recently the activists were stopped to hold rallies by the police basing on the Public Order Management Act. What do you say?
We followed very closely the adoption of the Public Order Management Act and we noted that it was substantially improved. Every country needs a Public Order Management Act and in that there is nothing shocking. But it is clear that the procedure followed in allowing rallies and political campaigns to take place is open to interpretation. At the time we made it very clear that adopting the law was fine but how it would be interpreted would need a vibrant and constructive exchange of ideas. I find the way the various political leaders are making a case for free and fair elections productive, peaceful, constructive and legitimate because if the country can come together on the rules of the game then the best woman or man will win and the country will come together.

The EU did not react when the Public Order Management Act was passed as when the Anti-Homosexuality Bill was signed into law. Do you have a prioritisation as far as human rights are concerned?
No. Human rights are universal, indivisible and interrelated. And so you are not going to get me to say this human right is more important than others. I would never say the human rights of homosexuals are more important than those of others. And this should be very clear. We have reacted slightly different as I explained because the POM Act as it stands can be implemented in a fair and non-discriminatory manner but it can also be implemented in a biased and partisan manner.
Now coming to the issue of anti-homosexuality. It is very important for us that this is not seen as the only issue we are covering and I hope this is very clear. In every democracy it is the same principle, the majority decides. But there is a risk in that because the majority will rally against the few. Any good constitution, including the Ugandan one, has clear guarantees protecting the rights of minorities, which are not given by the state but are inherent. Unlike the POMB, it was clear in the first draft of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill that it was discriminatory from A-Z. We have made it very clear that this Act is a violation of Uganda’s Constitution. And don’t take our word for it, but that of the human rights committee of Parliament, Uganda Human Rights Commission. That is why there was some sort of difference in the reaction but it is not that there is a hierarchy.

Arguments have been rife that European or North American societies have gone through centuries of evolution as democracies. And for that reason, Ugandan society should be allowed to evolve until it realises that homosexuals too, have rights.
I buy that argument and that is why Europe has not promoted or aggressively pushed (for the rights of homosexuals). We haven’t threatened aid cuts and we haven’t threatened anyone, thinking exactly as you say, one should make this an African discussion, drawing on the tradition of tolerance in Africa, mentalities will evolve. But the act is a step back, it is not a slow movement towards what you are saying.

You say you have not cut aid? But there are reports of aid cuts by European countries as a result of the law.
I want to make this very clear; Europe did not participate in the legislative process or make any threats during the process. We fully respect Uganda’s sovereignty and what has happened after are not threats but reactions. In a few instances member partners have redirected resources from directly supporting the state and channeled it directly through implementing partners.
In those cases, it is normal and it is about 10 per cent of our development portfolio. So the great bulk of the development cooperation from Europe to Uganda is so far unaffected. The press reports that since donors are no longer taking care of HIV/Aids, etc, are completely inaccurate. Ninety per cent of (anti) Aids contribution is donor funded and Europe is responsible for over 50 per cent of the Global Fund, which has just given $490m to Uganda to fight malaria and that continues and it would never cross our minds to cut it off because it is lifesaving support. Likewise, we continue with agricultural support and road development and I am signing contracts almost every day in my office. But what is true is that we are working on the assumption that our aid is appreciated.

Have you received any specific messages from the government that your aid is not appreciated?
No, no, quite the opposite. In our talks with Ugandan ministers, we have confirmed the appreciation for the work that we do together. And as you may know, we are in a political dialogue with the government and that is how Europe reacts, we don’t fire when we are angry. We have an agreement to discuss and we shall see if we have a meeting between Europe and Uganda on this very sensitive issue, but we consider our duty to try to bridge the gap and not to widen it.

The EU represents so many member countries which have embassies here. To what extent do your decisions affect those of individual member countries?
All the EU member states here have been coordinated and united in launching what is called the political dialogue with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs recently. In some cases some individual European countries have redirected some moneys. But these moneys are not actually significant, they are actually big amounts but if you take the overall total, they are not really significant. Take the case of Denmark, which has redirected $10m out of a portfolio of $50m. That is one of the biggest decisions to redirect aid. But a number of the bigger member states are waiting to see the result of the political dialogue that I am chairing. So we are waiting, that is what our partnership calls us to do.

Donors tend to react to problems by cutting aid but some analysts say this is an ineffective strategy since it affects the poor. What is your take on this?
You are right, and that is why the EU is not very enthusiastic on aid cuts. We believe that dialogue can lead to wider reforms and enable us to deal with whatever disagreements may arise without necessarily resorting to aid cuts.


Transcribed by Steven Kafeero