EAC: It’s diplomatic strategy that can normalise relations

Samuel Baligidde

The stresses of the East African economic community have on the whole been more of a warning against fast-tracking political federation. Although Burundi, DR Congo, Kenya, Rwanda, South Sudan, Tanzania and Uganda have been united or affiliated to a common services organisation and the common market for sometime, the formation of a “Federation of East Africa” has throughout the history of the region been made more or less likely by the disguised mini-trade wars fuelled by economic nationalism. 

Yet a background of economic cooperation would conceivably have made political federation easier. While working abroad, diplomats hailing from East Africa tended to be more conscious of being East Africans than of being Kenyans, Tanzanians, Ugandans or Rwandans because of the commonalities existing between them. We formed a bloc and shared information and supported each other whenever it became necessary. 

Our intimacy had a somewhat pan-Africanist dimension that narrowed down to our region of East Africa. In Khartoum where I was stationed from 1979 to 1986, there was a Rwandan diplomat called Alex, who studied in Uganda and later worked at BADEA [Arab Bank for Development in Africa]. He was multilingual. His command of French and English was perfect in equal measure; spoke impeccable Luganda as well as Swahili and proudly called himself a “Rugandese”, meaning he was both Rwandan and Ugandan. 

Alex openly professed allegiance to both countries, and socialised quite well with Kenyan, Ugandan and Tanzanian diplomats. This solidarity and spirit of nationalistic belonging to East Africa though, doesn’t seem to have survived the unintended consequences of economic competition back home. Pan-Africanism doesn’t seem to have fully conquered Kenyan, Tanzanian, Rwandese and Ugandan economic patriotism. Today, the experience of the economic cooperation in East Africa reveal the risk that the safeguards, which can be taken to prevent economic patriotism mutating into negative variants like tribalism are limited. 

The East African Common Market and Common Services Organisation provided a cooperative framework for competitive trade relationships which seem to be breaking down. The habit of nationalistic competition in trade seems to have grown as Uganda, thanks to mainly Chinese and Indian investors, moves close to parity with Kenya in industrialisation that will make Uganda less dependent on the latter as it used to be generations ago. 

Some analysts have argued that this has caused circumspection about the possibility of being overtaken. But Kenya’s trade patriotism, which seemingly aims at maintaining its decades-old monopoly of terms of trade that favour it, but disadvantages other states in the region, is harming the cause of East African Federation. 

The reality of conflicting interests has been deepened by the recent ban on Ugandan and Tanzanian agricultural produce and processed products like Sugar and Lato-powdered milk.

Although the ban on maize has been lifted, it has left circumspection and an enduringly psychological complexity in Kenya-Uganda trade relations. Political system incongruity in the East African region notwithstanding, an additional trend will complicate the future of political integration in East Africa.

With due respect, neither the super-charged or wordy speeches of the MP from Busia nor the honey-tongued speeches by the Government Chief Whip in Parliament can now reverse it. For a sustainable semblance of a solution only a reflective back channel diplomatic strategy can have a chance for normalising relations. 

East Africa attained Independence as an economic community. Its common market consisted in a free flow of goods between the territories. Its common services included a common currency both of which became a hindrance to Tanzania’s planned economy prompting a secret conference on coordination of economic planning in East Africa at Entebbe in March 1964. A similar strategy might be necessary. You do not need failed ruling party cadres for the assignment because of late, they get carried away and say so much that ain’t true and annoy the other parties to the conflict.