Global discussions or global monologue?

This week has been another interesting chapter in Uganda’s journey towards achieving its first oil production. The recent re-emergence of frivolous allegations against Uganda’s oil project in a Paris Court underscores the increased external interference faced by Uganda. Western NGOs often assume a supervisory role over Uganda’s national institutions, suggesting that foreign judges possess a superior understanding of the country’s needs. Such attitudes reflect an outdated colonial and imperial mindset, undermining the legitimacy of Uganda’s State-approved projects, environmental regulators, and parliamentary endorsement processes.

There is an ongoing global debate, one that many of these groups prefer to conduct outside Africa. The idea seems to be that once a consensus is imposed upon Western elites, Africa will simply fall in line and comply. For instance, the UK campaign group “Just Stop Oil” resorts to disruptive tactics such as blocking cricket games, protesting outside the UK Parliament, or vandalising private property to draw attention to their cause; in an attempt to stop the construction of the East Africa Crude Oil Pipeline (Eacop).

However, it is essential to recognise that Africa’s journey towards oil independence should be guided by its own aspirations and priorities. Evidently, certain NGOs in the West perceive themselves as the contemporary counterparts of the civil rights movement that fought against racism, segregation, and “Jim Crow” laws in America. They liken themselves to the Suffragette movement that campaigned for women’s suffrage despite challenging circumstances. They ask, if resorting to colonial or imperialist methods, vandalising private property, blocking roads, or disrupting peace is necessary to save humanity from the climate emergency, then why not?

In light of these perspectives, it is only fair to examine the solution that these self-proclaimed saviours of humanity propose for the world. Their argument suggests that, in order to save the planet, no new fossil fuel projects should be initiated. They propose maintaining existing projects while allowing current major oil-producing nations such as the US, the Arab World, and Norway to continue their oil production.

They advocate for countries like Uganda to transition immediately to renewable energy sources. They claim that this argument is supported by science. However, we cannot ignore the blatant injustice embedded in their reasoning. While Uganda’s projected production of 250,000 barrels of oil per day is deemed detrimental to the climate, the nearly 13 million barrels produced daily by the US are considered acceptable. Their broader argument is that oil supply needs to be reduced. According to their reasoning, decreased oil supply would compel the world to shift to alternative energy sources by leaving behind fossil fuels.

Contrarily, the International Energy Agency (IEA) predicts an increase in oil demand. The IEA estimates that “global oil demand will rise by six percent between 2022 and 2028, reaching 105.7 million barrels per day due to strong demand from the petrochemical and aviation sectors. What does a rise in demand and a decrease in supply entail? Even the humblest student of economics knows that this leads to a surge in prices. And what happens when oil prices are high? In Uganda, we are well aware of the consequences. As a landlocked country that imports all petroleum products, we understand that higher prices adversely affect consumers. It is essentially a burden on the impoverished population, leading to inflationary pressures and exacerbating poverty. The most vulnerable segments of society are hit hardest by high oil prices.

In 2022, we witnessed record profits for the oil industry due to reduced supply caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Consequently, it becomes apparent that high oil prices favour oil companies but bring untold misery to ordinary people worldwide. Are these anti-oil groups advocating for record profits for big oil while inflicting misery upon ordinary people?

Certainly, we aspire for a world where international cooperation is based on mutual respect and collaboration. We must ensure that Uganda’s path towards first oil is guided by its own aspirations and priorities. However, it is crucial to engage in a realistic global conversation. As Kenyan President William Ruto recently emphasised in Paris, if we do not have a seat at the table, we will find ourselves on the menu. These anti-oil groups are fighting to keep us and all working-class people on that menu.

The writer is an advocate and partner at Kampala Associated Advocates

[email protected]