| Diplomatic romance coming to an end? | ||
| May 20, 2005 | ||
| When you see the donor community coming out to criticise a "darling" government in broad day light, know things are starting to fall apart. The donors, having spent almost two decades in President Muuseveni's "bed", are finally beginning to re-examine the relationship. For the donkey’s years the relationship blossomed, many of them employed public diplomacy to shower him with all the rare pleasantries a single party-state president needs badly to cleanse his image. The donor community went too far with Museveni that some are finding it painfully hard to abandon bed twenty years later. In the 20 years of one party rule, the donors got Museveni used to the old-fashioned traditional diplomacy where hard talk is spared to private diplomacy. The dirty linen of the affair was never washed in the public. It is this departure in "diplomatic romance" that government is finding hard to come to terms with as t he donors increasingly employ public diplomacy to toss in the open the latter's bug-infested political rags.
Last week a senior minister was reported to have met donors over the matter. He reportedly asked donors not to use the media to express "strong" views. Information Minister Mr Nsaba Buturo echoed the same sentiments to the donors through the media, saying this was an international practice. But by talking through the media, he ironically reinforced the inevitability of using the media to communicate diplomatic affairs. In a modern era where almost every aspect of life is mediated, it is simply too difficult to lock out the media from diplomacy. It reinforces the values of public diplomacy as opposed to private diplomacy. Diplomacy or foreign relations is not only about relations between governments. It is at most an intercourse between states, the governments being actors that co me and go even after the so-called third terms. At most, diplomats represent values that their states espouse. This representation is, in a modern world, made even more critical by the universal values that the community of nations has so chosen. It would therefore be failure of representation if a diplomat kept quiet when the host government grossly violated the values his or her country and community of nations espouse. It would even be worse if that diplomat chose to resort to private diplomacy to communicate his or her response to government over such violations. Diplomats are supposed to stand up and be counted when it comes to defending values their states strongly espouse. This is not to say that private diplomacy has no place in foreign relations. It is simply making the case that if there are issues to be communicated through private diplomacy, values that nations espouse openly are certainly none of that restricted content. On January 9, 2002, The Monitor published a story under the headline 'US speaks out on UPC rally, backs right to assemble'. The police had brutally blocked a rally by the opposition UPC. A journalist student Jimmy Higenyi was shot dead by the police in the incident. The US embassy acted rightly in making this comment through the media. Even if the details of this reaction were communicated to the Ugandan government through private diplomatic channels, the Ugandan public deserved the kitu kidogo (small share) they got through the media. It also reminded the Ugandan public that the US government, besides treating the regime in Kampala as friendly, still cared about the helpless and innocent civilians like the late Higenyi whose human rights were violated. The above demonstrates that the media does have some impact in managing relations between nations. It democratises foreign policy and relations. To lock it out completely is to act undemocratically. Some people have argued that the medi a escalated the tensions between Uganda and Rwanda in the recent years. Both regimes, despite being both culprits (Amama Mbabazi and Rutazindwa engaged in "media warfare"), were often too quick to blame each other for acting undiplomatically by resorting to the media to air their differences. But what is rarely mentioned is that the media revelations helped manage the tension. The revelations, debate (public and government officials) and media warfare helped cool and manage the tempers and bloated egos on both sides. In doing so, they involved the public on both sides of the border to understand the issues underlying the tension. Whenever the battle-fields shift from the terrain to the media space, the population is much the safer. Media-war fare is far much better to gun warfare. The Ugandan media has had some impact in managing Uganda's foreign relations. By advancing use of public diplomacy, it connects the public on both sides of the diplomatic divide. It sounds early warning signals, and by involving the national and international public and governments, wars and human rights violations have been delayed or averted in some instances. Former diplomats like Mr Johnnie Carson have valuable experience to help their governments improve on their foreign policies. Any diplomat that has served in Zimbabwe, Kenya and Uganda is blessed with a lot of knowledge and experience. He can predict political developments in these countries with some precision. Contact: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ Ugandanet mailing list Ugandanet@kym.net http://kym.net/mailman/listinfo/ugandanet % UGANDANET is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/
