The Observer
Sunday, June 26, 2011
On June 10 in Brussels, outgoing US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates delivered a fiery farewell speech.
The seemingly frustrated Gates bluntly criticised the individual NATO alliance countries for cutting their respective defence budgets. He also accused them of fearing frontline combat, bearing risks and costs of defence expenditure, rendering the 62- year-old alliance almost irrelevant.
He said the cutting of defence budgets has forced the United States to shoulder almost 75% of all the alliance’s spending. NATO, created in 1949 as a US-led force against perceived Soviet Union aggression, has so far 28 member states. Only five allies now spend the agreed target of 2% of GDP on defence.
Ironically, even though they unanimously backed the decision on Libya at the UN Security Council to go to war and “protect civilians,” less than half of these nations are participating in the conflict. Abstaining powerful member nations include Germany, Netherlands, Poland, Spain and Turkey.
Gates also lambasted them for not fulfilling their commitments in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, on top of imposing tough restrictions on the forces they send. In those theatres, most dirty and risky assignments are taken on by US forces or non-NATO members, like forces from African countries. His speech was a call to European countries to boost their defence spending and strengthen their armed forces.
I would like to bring this argument home by drawing a similarity between the US-NATO situation and the Uganda (UPDF)-African Union one in this discussion. The AU consists of 53 African states. One of its major objectives is to achieve peace and security in Africa.
Uganda, not in the resource rich bracket of countries like the US, or any of the NATO member countries, has single-handedly (probably with the help of Burundi) continued to support the AU by contributing resources and troops to AMISON, the AU military mission that is tasked with pacifying Mogadishu, and maybe later, the whole of Somalia.
Uganda has discharged her mandate effectively in spite of the enormous threats and risks. Our gallant sons and daughters have demonstrated bravery, commitment, and professionalism in discharging their duties in volatile Somalia.
On June 8, Uganda, represented by Defence Minister, Dr Chrispus Kiyonga, signed a memorandum of understanding with the AU Commission in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. The MoU was an agreement between the AU and Government of Uganda on the contribution of troops and resources to the AU Mission in Somalia. The next day, a deal to extend the Somali Transitional Federal Government and the Somali Parliament until June 2012, was signed in Kampala.
As the US worries over the failure of her NATO allies to meet their defence benchmarks, the same is happening to Uganda over other AU states in as far as the Somalia mission is concerned. Like in the US body politic, there is also dwindling appetite within the Ugandan general public for further defence spending in Somalia. While the conflict is of international concern, other states have looked the other way.
Uganda’s National Development Plan clearly articulates our most critical development challenges like urgent need for better infrastructure, education, improved health, housing, roads, among others. We have just gone through a costly national election, the weather has presented long dry spells and we are now experiencing escalating commodity prices and rising inflation.
There are practical demands for northern Uganda’s reconstruction and rehabilitation and threats from Joseph Kony and the ADF rebel remnants cannot just be wished away.
On top of the 2011/2012 fiscal and budget pressures, we are losing too many of our troops in Somalia. These issues override AU interests in Somalia. It is paramount, therefore, that other states join the UPDF and Burundian army in Somalia. Somalia’s security and stabilisation efforts entail an expanded range of tasks, troops and resources.
I, therefore, interpret Gates’ message as also being directed to the AU