Of Uganda and Trump’s card on foreign aid

While the above statement is still true in as far as Uganda’s irrelevance to America is concerned, Uganda and much of the world has been treated to the rude shock that America means much to the world.

The White House lost no time after the January 20 inauguration to start effecting President Trump’s campaign promises to make America great again, which in this case has the effect of making everyone weak again.

As happened with the first Ronald Reagan administration in the early 1980s, Trump’s White House has gone on a scorched earth drive, cutting and rooting out as many of the social services and identity programmes as it can find. Notable of these is the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

Its operations have been suspended for three months and will most likely remain suspended after the period ends.

Since April 1979 following the Tanzania-Uganda war, Uganda has been a recipient of a stead, modest flow of aid from the United States government.

Germany spends 0.82 percent of its GDP on foreign aid, the UK spends 0.58 percent, while the United States spends 0.24 percent. However, because of the size of the US economy, it dwarfs the other G7 economies.

The US is responsible for about 47 percent of all global aid, that’s why the freezing of aid is causing such ripples around the world.

The Trump administration's gladiatorial foreign policy is disrupting everything from global trade to forcing Europe to consider raising military spending, to shocking the Middle East with a bizarre plan for Gaza’s Palestinians, and the freezing of relief aid.

Some estimates put the amount of US aid frozen at $8 billion.

Not since 1945 has America's effect on the world been felt so strongly.

Cynics are dismissive of Western aid, arguing that it ends up being embezzled by the Uganda government and funding a lavish lifestyle for the social workers in the development aid sector.

While that might be true, these aid programmes serve as an indirect stabiliser of society.

Many who can’t find employment in the civil service, especially the vocal human rights activists, find gainful employment in the NGO sector.

Then comes the scary part.

The US Mission in Kampala or the US embassy, published a report in 2017 titled Report To The Ugandan People, in which it highlighted the different programmes funded or supported by the US government.

From Page 1:

“...the bulk of our assistance – nearly $500m (Shs1.7 trillion) last year [2016] – is dedicated to the health sector. These programmes are reducing mortality rates among mothers and newborns; helping HIV-positive Ugandans live longer, more productive lives; and training a new generation of health professionals to care for their fellow citizens.”

This American funding of Uganda’s public health for all intents and purposes made it the true Ministry of Health.

What’s worrying many of the approximately 1.35 million HIV-positive Ugandans is that infectious diseases like Tuberculosis and HIV do not halt their advance when funding is stopped. Any sudden halt in the drug regimen risks causing potentially fatal drug-resistance.

We can expect worried and desperate HIV-positive Ugandans to take matters into their own hands by pressuring the National Social Security Fund to avail them of their savings to buy antiretroviral drugs, while others might resort to corruption to get extra income for drugs on the market.

The NGO sector, with its many workshops and training sessions, sustains hotels and conference venues, home rentals, children of white-collar NGO workers often enrolled in the most expensive schools, and much more.

Reports are already coming in of employees in this sector receiving termination letters, procurement of relief items suddenly suspended, and American staff of USAID and their families recalled to the United States.

We don’t yet know if the White House will follow the scrapping of USAID with the cancellation of the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA).

If it does, that will be even more misery for Africa’s economies.

China, which African governments tend to view as a Plan B, is facing its own economic headwinds, so it’s unlikely to step in to fill the gap left by America’s withdraw from its multilateral aid programmes.

Many African commentators on social media have said perhaps that is what the continent has needed all along.

The Uganda government, lulled into complacency by decades of Western aid, will now have to step up and foot the public health bill, failure to do which, public pressure and anger will begin to mount.

Governments have claimed GDP growth and improvements in health and education that had nothing to do with their investment.

If last year we saw a merging of various government departments and agencies, the US aid cuts will force the government to merge even more to cut costs.

Will the Ugandan public start demanding more frugality from the government and will there be public protests if corruption scandals continue to make news? The answer is that the public will demand accountability, but the sentiment will not be strong enough to cause masses of protesters as it was with Kenya last year.

Ugandans are too risk-averse and resigned to their 40-year fate to stand up for their own taxes.

Last year’s Parliament exhibition on corruption was received with the usual passivity by the public.

The revelation 20 years ago in 2005 of embezzlement of Global Fund and Gavi Fund money meant for the most vulnerable Ugandans also was passively reacted to.

It is difficult to see what amount of misuse of public funds, massive corruption, and poor service delivery it will take to get Ugandans onto the streets in Arab Spring style and demand an end to it.

Certainly, the NRM government will most likely resort to the familiar tool of sternly cracking down on protests and protest leaders if it were to come to that.