Do you find this a difficult time to be EU representative to Uganda?

It is not particularly difficult. In a situation where we have long-term relationships, there are always ups and downs. When questions come up where opinions are different, then a situation can arise where there are certain irritations. In such a case, it is the task of both sides, and in particular myself to see how to overcome the irritations to make sure that all we do and say is well understood.

It is not normal , surely, for a diplomatic representative to find himself drawn into the internal problems of a country?

As far as I am concerned, we have a very clear basis for our role in a country like Uganda. That has been defined in the Cotonou agreement, signed and ratified by Uganda. It says very clearly that we have what we call a political dialogue. So it is not only possible, but also absolutely necessary because this is part of our agreement to be in a dialogue with the government on political issues.

Uganda is one of the poorest countries in the world. How is Uganda's fragility viewed in Brussels?

Uganda has gone through rather far reaching process of stabilisation. One must not lose track of the past. When you look back to the situation Uganda was in until the mid 1980s and where Uganda is now, you can see that there has been a process that has led to a considerable degree of stability.

Is violent conflict not instability in itself?

It is instability in the part of the country where the conflict takes place, but it is what has a tendency to grow and intrude into other parts of the country and could in the long run undermine stability in a much more general way.

There has been disappointment among various groups negotiating the political transition. Is this not a threat to one of the essential elements you've talked about?

The political system as such it is not an essential element. We have not said that a country must have a Westminster style of democracy. When we talk about democracy, we mean the right of people to speak out and to play a role in the decision-making process, that is, to make sure that their opinion is known and heard.

But to be effectively acted upon and not just known and heard?

Of course, it would then be up to those who represent the people to take up messages that come from the population and to transform them into policy.

In Uganda now, you have a situation where a process that started recently is ongoing, which would include a change of the rules of the game. And knowing a little about the world, I would say this is a rather difficult situation because that means a number of people who have enjoyed the privileges of being in power will have to accept that these privileges will be challenged, that there will be alternatives.

The president has said that it is the donor community that has stalled the war in the north because it did not support increases to the defense budget. 

That is a rather delicate and complex discussion because there are very different arguments. But what we have said and are saying is that we are supporting the defense review. We know that the recommendations are there. But we have not been briefed by the government on the details of the outcome of the defense review. And in our discussions internally and bilaterally with the government, we will continue referring to this review and it will not be possible to take any decision as far as our funding is concerned without knowing the details of this review on the one side and the intentions of the government on the other.

The EU has been playing a leading role in northern Uganda, which is a humanitarian disaster. Do you see this conflict developing into another unforeseen conflict?

I wouldn't like to speculate on other conflicts, but the ongoing conflict has a negative impact on the overall performance of Uganda, economically and politically. So the sooner this conflict can be brought to an end, the sooner the people who are living in these impossible conditions can go back or resettle elsewhere. The longer this lasts, the deeper these wounds are in the body politic.

First of all, you have direct economic impact: the fact that the WFP has to spend lots of money to feed people in a region that is fertile.

The message from the government and the EU about how to end the conflict has been ambiguous. What is your comment?

You cannot under any circumstance say that a government would allow rebels to act in the atrocious way they are acting – killing people, maiming them, abducting children – without reacting by force. The government tells us there is a two-pronged approach. We are saying that please make it clearer and take more on the question of dialogue, without being sure that this is going to work. We have no indication that there is real readiness by the LRA and its leader for dialogue.

Religious leaders warn of an impending genocide in northern Uganda. Do you feel this is appropriate?

I would be extremely carefully over terminology. Talking about genocide in Uganda does not seem to be a fitting description. Genocide is what happened in Rwanda. We have had other cases in the Balkans where people were systematically persecuted because they belonged to a certain ethnic group.

That is not what is going on in Uganda. I don't see it coming. However, we have no right to just intervene. The only body that has the right to intervene is the UN, not the EU.

But would you back military intervention, for instance?

This must be very clear. It is not the EU that would be the institution you would bring into a country.
 

 Comments\Views about this article