Uganda and Rwanda will fight because ‘sugar daddies’ pay the bills

An African saying goes that when brothers fight, strangers inherit their property. By implication, if the brothers are poor, it is strangers who will suffer the burden of their poverty.

According to Bank of Uganda statistics for the Financial Year 2017/18, Ugandan exports to Rwanda were valued at $197 million while the imports from Rwanda were valued at $20 million. This means that Rwanda registered a trade deficit of about $177 million with Uganda.

In the same financial year, Rwanda’s Finance minister Claver Gatete told Parliament that ‘17 per cent of the budget will be funded by donors with the rest coming from internal revenue and borrowing, of which 362.8 billion Francs (about$402,291,505) will be borrowed from outside Rwanda.’ (Reuters).

All the figures above tell us many things, mainly that in the trade relationship between Uganda and Rwanda, the former has more to gain than the latter. This is probably what informs the level of abandon with which Rwanda decided to close its border with Uganda when ‘misunderstandings and suspicion’ cropped up.

It also says a lot about the rather lackadaisical and equivocal stand it has taken towards opening the same to allow hundreds of truck laden with goods, some perishable to enter her territory despite all the attention it has attracted.

The second issue is that bit in Claver Gattete’s budget where Rwanda has the confidence wherewithal to borrow nearly 20 times what it earns from exporting to Uganda in a financial year. It tells us that African countries can forego being productive, innovative and frugal.

They may take good neighbourliness and goodwill for granted in ensuring that their goods and services flow profitably to enable them pay their own bills.
We can fight wars knowing fully well that the donors burdened by guilt of accusations of perpetuation of the evil of slavery, will be on hand like sugar daddies, to provide ‘development financing.’ We may close our borders for days creating financial losses because at the back of our minds, we are sure that there are those willing to intervene with ‘budgetary support’ since in the past they shamelessly stood by while a genocide took place killing thousands of innocent people.

Should we end up with a refugee crisis, we are as sure as day follows night that a donor conference will deliver the much needed food aid and relief. This is because history has put to shame those who colonised and killed Africans, looted their natural resources to the extent that they are now keen to repent of these misdeeds by providing ‘foreign aid’ as a cynical act of reparation.

These same groups will come in as foreign investors to help the same African countries to grow and develop their economies.
Nothing has spoilt African countries like the poisoned chalice that is foreign aid. It is greater consequence is overall poor governance.
Because those who donate their money are keen to protect the borrower so that they are assured of payment of interest and the principal, the focus of the donor countries is on stability as opposed to democratic governance.

Under normal circumstances, either government would be ‘scared’ of the business class making losses from the standoff. They would be concerned that it affects employment of ‘voters’ and that this might lead to disaffection causing them to vote for their political rivals.

By now we would be witnessing shuttle diplomacy and officials having sleepless nights trying to solve the crisis as quickly as possible because of the risk of angry voters. Yet in reality, even if the standoff between Rwanda and Uganda is to go on for months, both President Paul Kagame of Rwanda and Yoweri Museveni of Uganda will be pronounced winners of the next elections.

As is the wont, the election will be run in any way that brings the incumbents back to power. Then influential election observers from the very countries that have sunk in so much money in the two countries will voice hapless concerns about the need for ‘electoral’ reforms and then it will be business as usual. Why? Because the two leaders, once touted among the ‘new breed’ of African leaders at the apex of an ‘African renaissance,’ have shown that they can run economies that keep the cycle of donor funding running in good stead.

So unless African countries are left to their own devices and become the major driving forces of their economies, which will collapse and lead to chaos if they do not ensure productivity, they will continue to act like spoilt children. Should they fight and destroy property, they will not give a damn; daddy will sort out the mess.

On a light note. After nearly seven years without watching an English Premier League (EPL) game, on Sunday I witnessed Arsenal defeating Manchester United, halting a 12 match streak without a loss in the EPL under Ole Gunnar Solskjær. Arsenal won, but looked so ordinary. I recalled the days of Patrick Viera and Thierry Henry with nostalgia.

That said, Arsenal had ‘Visit Rwanda’ on their shirts. Maybe we should talk to the owners of Arsenal to persuade Rwanda to sue for peace with Uganda and never close the border again. But Uganda’s hands must also be clean(ed.)

Arsenal should convince Rwanda that they are doing their best to ‘send’ tourist to that great country of beautiful resilient people, but their efforts are being frustrated by the bad news coming out of the misunderstanding and suspicion’ with Uganda.

Mr Sengoba is a commentator on political
and social issues. [email protected]
Twitter:@nsengoba