The security situation of Africa’s Great Lakes Region has remained precarious either as a result of deteriorating inter-state relations and conflicts caused by ethnic, political and or diplomatic challenges. The conflicts between Rwanda and Burundi, Kenya and Somalia, Tanzania and Malawi over the years and of recent Uganda and Rwanda is illustrative. The region’s security development has resulted into a sort of ‘security dilemma’. A security dilemma as was first articulated by Political Scientist John Herz reflects the situation in which actions taken by one state to increase its security cause reactions from other states which leads to reduction in security of States rather than increase.
The inter-state conflict between Uganda and Rwanda since the beginning of this year led to a strain in diplomatic relations and closure of the Katuna border between Uganda and Rwanda in south western part of Uganda. Even though talks reportedly mediated by the leaders of the Democratic Republic of Congo and Angola culminated into a summit held in Luanda, Angola in July this year and the leaders of both countries agreeing to “refrain from actions conducive to destabilization or subversion in the territory of other’’, these efforts have not improved security situations between the two countries but has also exposed the narrow understanding of the concept of multilateralism based on the outcomes of the Luanda accord.
On November 21st 2019, the State Minister for Foreign Affairs in Uganda Hon. Philemon Mateke in his 2nd annual foreign Minister’s address on “upholding multilateralism as a response to challenges of contemporary world’’ delivered during an annual event organized by the Uganda Council on Foreign Relations where the Minister gives an address on the country’s Foreign Policy, the Hon. Minister explained the meaning of the term multilateralism and enumerated the country’s political engagement in international processes such as at the UN General Assembly, at the global effort for the promotion of 2030 agenda, the country’s role in the promotion of south-south relations as well as on the AU ten member committee on UN Reforms amongst others as an explicit illustration of the country’s belief and commitment to multilateralism.
It’s from this point of view that I would like to explore the meaning of the concept multilateralism and show how the narrow understanding of this concept sometimes inadvertently undermines a country’s foreign policy objectives and articulation. I would also situate the current security predicament between Uganda and Rwanda and the efforts of the DR Congo and Angola in bolstering diplomatic efforts as a form in which multilateralism is practiced but perhaps in ‘nominal’ forms. The article will then explain how countries can pursue multilateralism as a concept from the deep understanding of what it actually entails than what it should or ought to be.
In that Foreign Minsters Annual address, the Minister defined multilateralism to mean “approach in international relations in which states act cooperatively with other states’’. The definition resonates perhaps with that of Robert O Keohane (1990) who argues about multilateralism as “practice of coordinating national policies in groups of three or more states through adhoc arrangements or by means of institutions”. The two definitions are limiting and problematic in several ways. First, it may seem to imply multilateral diplomacy and yet multilateralism and multilateral diplomacy are not the same thing. Secondly, the term does not delineate the roles of institutions and the institutional mechanisms in promotion of cooperation among states and thirdly, as John G. Ruggie (1992) argues, the definitions are not qualitative and substantive in character but nominal in the sense of its articulation. Failure to conceptually understand this significant interpretation of the term presents policy challenges and efforts aimed at promotion of multilateral politics.
Ruggie (1992) goes on to argue that “what is distinctive about multilateralism is not merely that it coordinates national policies in groups of three or more states which is something that other organizations do but that it does so on the basis of certain principles of ordering relations amongst states”. He therefore noted that multilateralism can be explained as an institutional form but goes beyond institutional arrangements to coordinate relations among three or more states on the basis of generalized principles of conduct.
As have already been noted, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Angola in pursuit and belief for multilateral politics and in an effort to salvage the declining diplomatic relations between Uganda and Rwanda had been mediating the conflict between the two countries. Rwandan authorities accused Uganda government of backing rebels opposed to Kagame and demanded for the expulsion from Uganda business interests of Rwandan tycoon who is critical of Kagame. Uganda on the other hand accused Rwandan security agents of operating unlawfully in Uganda including in the alleged abductions of Rwandan citizens back home.
It should be noted that whereas the talks were mediated in Angola, normal relations between the two countries have not yet restored. Its also important to note that pursuing multilateralism within the context and understanding of cooperation amongst states alone is limiting and leads to narrow interpretation of problems. In fact, understanding the concept hinged on the fact that certain organizing principles should be the decisive factor in fostering relations amongst state is key. For instance, an understanding by Rwanda and Uganda alongside the mediating countries that the problem of addressing security as a collective good and an indivisible public good for that matter is a collective responsibility and that the same responsibility is undergirded by the need to preserve peace amongst states and not to undermine each other’s security.
The two countries under diplomatic standoff and other countries of the Great Lakes Region of Africa must be able to pursue politics based on principles that guides actions and behaviors as opposed to partularisation and advancement of state interests in a multipolar world. Above all, international conflicts can only be pursued within the grand scheme of international law and norms and where personal interests of political leaders intersects with organized principles of governance, political insecurity and diplomatic strains is likely. Multilateralism should therefore be argued, interpreted and pursued only in its qualitative and substantive forms.
Moses Owiny
Is The Chief Executive of the Centre for Multilateral Affairs
