The European Union has passed a resolution ‘on violations of human rights in Uganda and Tanzania linked to investments in fossil fuel projects’. This resolution focuses on the environmental risks of the oil pipeline and on human right violations associated with NGOs advocating against oil extraction. Although some Ugandans agree with this resolution, it has also caused a backlash against foreign powers dictating how Uganda should use its own resources. The resolution also calls on the French government to put pressure on Total to stop the project. It seems that some activists, who are against Uganda’s oil, have been able to gain the ear of the European Parliament, but is the EU justified in its position?
There are several major areas that the resolution addresses. The first is Uganda’s violation of human rights. Let me make my own position clear: the hassling and imprisonment of those who oppose government policy should stop. Free speech and the right of protest are enshrined in various human rights documents to which Uganda is a signatory, but on the ground the police often take the position that a protester is fair game to be harassed or locked up. And Uganda already has a poor record on its treatment of the political opposition. Human rights violations always backfire, and apart from the pain and suffering inflicted on the individual, Uganda is simply making ammunition for international bodies to shoot us down.
The second issue is environmental. We are in the midst of global warming and pumping yet more carbon into the atmosphere does not seem sensible, but this is not the complete story. We have recently had the steep rise in oil and gas prices because Russia and a few Middle East oil producers hold the world to ransom. So we urgently need to diversify our sources of oil and gas as we ramp up alternative sources of clean energy; therefore one would expect that East African oil and gas should be welcome, at least in the interim.
The EU has also argued that over 100,000 people will be displaced by oil extraction and pipeline activities, but this figure is inflated, since most of the activities are in sparsely populated areas, and both the government and the oil companies must ensure that any residents who are relocated are adequately compensated. There is a claim that the Lake Albert basin is too fragile to sustain oil extraction, but I understand that multiple geological studies have been carried out in this area over a very long period of time. I spoke to the Ambassador of one European country, who informed me that the declaration was not in line with his country’s policy, which may be the case for other EU countries. However, in terms of diplomacy, Uganda does not seem to be able to take advantage of such goodwill.
There is widespread resentment towards the EU resolution in Uganda because of its echoes of colonialism. Right now (when we are being reminded of the colonial history of the British Empire because of the death of Queen Elizabeth), is probably not the best time for the EU to dictate to Uganda how it should develop its own resources.
The bigger question, not raised by the EU, is how the development of the oil sector would affect the future of Uganda. Studies have shown that unless a country is above a certain index of good governance, oil and mineral extraction actually make ordinary people worse off. We only have to look at DRC, Nigeria, Angola, and Equatorial Guinea to see this played out, where oil and minerals have made an elite extremely rich, but have not improved the lives of the masses. The government of Uganda has taken its time to put structures in place for the regulation of the oil sector, so we hope that the same fate will not befall Uganda.
The world is currently experiencing climate change and global warming, but this has been aggravated by dependence on oil and gas from Russia and the Middle East. While it is by no means ideal to extract more oil, it is obvious that we are still dependent on fossil fuels until we develop other sources of clean energy. Therefore there seems little justification for picking on a small country like Uganda, which is offering diversification from the current sources, and using the cash to develop its own country. Some would say that the resolution smacks of neocolonialism where it is to the advantage of rich western countries to keep Africa poor.
Do you have a story in your community or an opinion to share with us: Email us at Submit an Article
