Month: May 2024

Taiwan is an Inalienable Part of China: Lai Ching-te Must Climb Down

Posted on By Sino Uganda Research Centre

On 20th this month, Lai Ching-te was inaugurated as the Island’s new leader, taking over from Tsai Ing-Wen who pundits saw as United States of America’s (USA) lapdog. Like Tsai Ing-Wen, Lai Ching-te started his leadership on a confrontational note presenting himself as defender and agent of Washington’s hegemonic interests in the strait of Taiwan.

In his inaugural address, Lai Ching-te clearly presented himself as a separatist stating that; “The Republic of China Taiwan is a Sovereign, independent nation” adding that the so-called Republic of China (Taiwan) is not a subordinate of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). If critically analyzed, Lai’s comments show not just a reckless but a stubborn leader who is not just ignorant of international law but is also willing to raise tension between Chinese brothers and sisters in Mainland China and those living in China’s region of Taiwan.

In that anti-China and separatist speech, Lai ignored the 1992 Consensus between officials of People’s Republic of China and Taiwan which was reached by leaders of both sides.

Also, the 26th session of the United Nations (UN) General Assembly passed Resolution 2758 which undertook; “to restore all its rights to the People’s Republic of China and to recognize the representatives of its government as the only legitimate representatives of China to the United Nations, and to expel forthwith the representatives of the Chiang Kai-shek from the place which they unlawfully occupy at the United Nations and in all the organizations related to it.” Therefore, Lai to proclaim Taiwan as “Republic of China” is not only provocative but is against the international rules based order which his master’s in Washington claim to stand for.

Relatedly, historical facts back PRC’s claim that Taiwan is an inalienable part of China’s territory. The Seaboard Geographic Gazetteer which was compiled 1,700 years ago by Shen Ying of State of Wu highlighting three kingdoms of China is another irrefutable evidence backing China’s claim. The Seaboard Geographic Gazetteer shows that around mid-12th Century, different Chinese governments had administrative bodies exercising jurisdiction over Taiwan. For example, the Song Dynasty had a garrison in Penghu and had Taiwan region under jurisdiction of Jinjiang County in China’s Fujian. Also, Yuan Dynasty had installed a patrol and inspection units in Penghu purposely to administer its territory of Taiwan. Even when the units were abolished, around mid-16th and towards the end of the 16th century, Ming Dynasty reintroduced the units and stationed reinforcements in Penghu to protect the territory from possible foreign invaders.

Further, Qing Emperor Kangxi in 1662 established Chengtian Prefecture on Taiwan thereby expanding Qing Dynasty administration there. In 1927, after reconstituting the Prefecture Administration of Taiwan which incorporated the new Penghu Canton, under Qing Emperor Yongzheng, the territory officially became Taiwan and in 1885, the administration of Qing Emperor Guangxu formally made Taiwan a full province.

From above, it is open secret that going by international law and historical facts, Taiwan is an inalienable part of China’s territory. Therefore, Mr. Lai must come down and embark on uniting the people of the Taiwan strait with the mainland since they are the same people. Indeed, as noted by the former leader of Taiwan Ma Ying-Jeoh last year, “the people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait are Chinese and both are descendants of the Yan and Yellow Emperors.” Lai must know that the so-called unwavering support the United States of America (USA) is promising Taiwan cannot change facts- that Taiwan is part of China.

Therefore, while Lai’s masters in Washington have reacted angrily accusing China of “threatening” Taiwan as a result of joint military drills conducted by People’s Liberation Army’s Eastern Theater Command surrounding the Island calling it a resolute punishment for the separatist acts of “Taiwan Independence,” Lai must know that his anti-China rhetoric could not go unpunished especially that he clearly presented himself as agent of separatists which directly threatens China’s  territorial integrity. In the speech, Lai described Taiwan as a “sovereign, independent nation” before calling for what he described as extensive collaboration with external forces in pursuit of the so-called “independence” to “counter the threat” allegedly paused by Chinese mainland. Calling for external intervention in affairs of a sovereign country is not just unacceptable but a clear attempt to challenge One-China principle which is a deadline for Chinese People. Therefore, to send clear warning to separatist in Taipei is not just a threat but was the right action. It is called the doctrine of civil necessity and Lai should know that Beijing cannot just watch as separatists plant seeds of disunity and directly threatening the country’s territorial integrity.

Lai must come to reality, and understand that Taiwan is part of China and work toward reducing tension in the Taiwan strait. This to be achieved, leaders in Taiwan must stop involving foreign forces for this is China’s internal affair that in case there is need to resolve anything, it must be addressed by the Chinese people on both sides. This to happen, Lai must climb down and understand that being hostile to Beijing in no way favors the island. He must understand that in principle of doctrine of civil necessity, China is free where necessary to take all necessary steps to save its territory from agents of foreign interests. The country suffered humiliation at hands of foreign invaders and colonialists that today, Beijing cannot accept a repeat.

Lai must learn from his predecessor that choosing to stand against Beijing is not in any way good for Taiwan. For example, from 2016 when she came to power to late last year, Taiwan lost 9 diplomatic allies to China. Today, the island has a handful of allies majorly from Caribbean and South Pacific with only the Kingdom of Eswatini in Africa having diplomatic ties. This alone should inform separatists in Taipei that their moves are not only against international rules based order like being against UN’s resolution 2758 and against historical facts including for example the 1992 Consensus reached by officials of People’s Republic of China and Taiwan.

The writer is a senior research fellow at the Development Watch Centre.

Will Africa be Vincicated? The International Criminal Court Faces its Greatest Test Since Formation

Posted on By Sino Uganda Research Centre

By Mpewo Alan Collins

2024 has been an interesting year thus far, and as the world approaches its mid season, more interesting events will keep unfolding. It commenced with an extension of the Russia-Ukraine war that many thought would not last until this day, and the Israel-Palestine war that started in the later months of 2023. The Hague has faced numerous controversies but with fairness, credit has to be accorded to where it has indicted and later successfully prosecuted persons that fall under its jurisdiction purview. Recently, Dominic Ongwen, former commander in the Lord’s Resistance Movement (LRA) that caused unforgettable scenes in Northern Uganda was found guilty of some counts, with more pending conclusion of trial. Such has been an example of how far positive it went.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) goes above than that to also make sure that the victims of the war crimes are repatriated under a repatriation fund it runs. There are also more mechanisms for the victims such as rehabilitation services. All these are timely mechanisms. What was of the end of the Second World War sent a stern message to all countries at the time and those that would come later that accountability should exist even during war. It is of little wonder then, that the Nuremberg trials were held shortly after the Second World war. Commenced in 2002, the ICC is tasked with issuing the close look to all those that participate in war crimes and/or crimes against humanity. The list of indictees has grown with recently some new entrants from Kremlin over war crimes allegedly committed during Russia’s invasion into Ukraine. But has it been all merry for the ICC?

Karim Khan, an ICC Prosecutor recently shocked the world with the announcement and later application for an arrest warrant against Israel’s premier, Benjamin Netanyahu on alleged war crimes committed in Palestine. The announcement has been followed with earlier applications made by the government of South Africa in the ICJ against Israel’s actions in Gaza since October, 2023. But what has been more interesting, is the discussion around Israel’s premier who issues a communique and video showing discontent in the actions of the ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan. Among other things, Benjamin Netanyahu wrote, “The outrageous decision by the ICC prosecutor, Karim Khan, to seek arrest warrants against the democratically elected leaders of Israel is a moral outrage of historic proportions. It will cast an everlasting mark of shame on the international court.”

Clearly, the ICC has been indicted and the world is awaiting its response which by and large, will have far reaching consequences on how further international relations from global stakeholders will be with the court. But would it be the first time the ICC is being publicly criticized? Definitely not. Sometime in 2016 several African countries pointed intentional fingers at the ICC’s activities. This was on allegations of biased mode of selection of those it prosecutes. Among others were South Africa, Burundi, and The Gambia that threatened withdrawing from being party states to the Rome Statute which operationalized the ICC. Whereas steps were taken by these countries, The Gambia of those, was the immediate one to withdraw. Some truth did exist of the biases, as critics wondered that why since 2002, it has only been Africans indicted by the ICC. From war criminals in (among others) Darfur, to D.R Congo, Libya, and Kenya, it is only until 2023, that non Africans in over 19 years are being indicted. It’s not shocking that the new entrants are from Russia.

More allegations have been around that he ICC is a Western puppet, citing wonder that why, despite all war atrocities committed by most Western powers in the Middle East and Africa, no such leaders have been brought to justice by the same court. In fact, in September, 2020, the USA government issued sanctions against ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda, and ICC official Phakiso Mochochoko for opening up investigations against some USA government officials for war crimes committed whilst the USA conducted activities in Afghanistan and Palestine. As if that’s not enough, upon ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan pronouncing his intention to pursue an arrest warrant against Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, 12 Republican senators in the USA on 24 April, 2024 issued a letter to Karim threatening repercussions should he continue on his pursuit. US Secretary of State has also been put on notice of such intentions and is willing to tow way for the threatened actions.

The ICC is going to have a challenging time ahead now that the allegations have come to fruit. Perhaps the African states were right. Or will the ICC offer a judicially independent but just course of action. This is happening at the peak of heightened frequency instability in international relations. The fight for global dominance is continuously growing, and levels of international accountability seem to be determined by who barks louder. While Benjamin Netanyahu alleges democratic sovereignty, several African leaders were indicted by the same court while still serving leaders such as Yahaya Jameh of The Gambia, Muammar Gadaffi of Libya, and Omar Bashir of Sudan. The ICC’s decision will vindicate its critics, or showcase the independence that was intended by the Rome Statute. By and large, the Hague is faced with the greatest test since its formation.

Mpewo Alan Collins is a Research Fellow at the Development Watch Centre.

 

Global Security Initiative: Securing World Peace

Posted on By Sino Uganda Research Centre

Nnanda Kizito Sseruwagi.

The Global Security Initiative is one of China’s multiple International public governance resources. It was conceived by comrade Xi Jin Ping in an effort to secure world peace by trumping dialogue over duel, partnership over divisive-coalition, and mutual benefit over winner-take-all. China has always articulated its vision for the future of mankind as defined by the shared well-being of the global community.

In this, China views its security as a part of the security of the whole world and seeks not to martial military superiority over other countries as a guarantee of its security, rather it aims to ensure that all countries feel safe and respected. While certain countries seem to monopolize international affairs and build their national defenses behind walls of alliances built on military strength, China has sought multipolarity. Multipolarity should not be misunderstood as disarray or division. It speaks clearly to the objectives and principles of the United Nations Charter of upholding universally recognized basic norms of international governance.

The principles expressed in the Global Security Initiative (GSI) are: Commitment to the vision of common, comprehensive, cooperative and sustainable security; Commitment to respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries; Commitment to abiding by the purposes and principles of the UN Charter; Commitment to taking the legitimate security concerns of all countries seriously; Commitment to peaceful resolution of differences and disputes between countries through dialogue and consultation; And commitment to maintaining security in both traditional and non-traditional domains.

Africa was keenly considered in the formulation of the principles of the GSI. China detailed ways of supporting our security in the Concept Paper that proposed the initiative in ways that empower us to independently and locally address our security challenges through the African Union and regional organizations.

One of China’s strategies to secure world peace and security is by promoting global development. The GSI is interlinked with other initiatives such as the Global Development Initiative. Many of the challenges destabilizing nations are due to underdevelopment. The struggle over scarce resources condemns countries to fight, although these conflicts sometimes may appear along lines of ethnic, religious or other forms of identity politics. But the root causes are often economic. China seems to understand well the complexity of these security challenges. Therefore, the GSI is designed to boldly confront the root causes of these international crises by encouraging combined international efforts to improve global security governance. This is where the promise for a durably peaceful world lies.

In a world of fast-paced change where not only new but much more complex security challenges emerge every day, it is important to establish mechanisms for international security cooperation. The GSI is already working to harness this cooperation in dealing with counter-terrorism, biosecurity, cybersecurity and other non-traditional domains of security. This cooperation involves exchanges in military academies, and sharing training opportunities to prepare experts who will address the world’s future security risks.

If the world is to have a sustainable security architecture, countries must view their security as indivisibly linked to the security of other countries. Israel will find it difficult to find peace unless Palestine finds peace. All countries are each other’s keepers. They should not make the mistake of pursuing national security at the expense of insecurity in other countries.

Peaceful dispute resolution is also a central feature of the GSI. China has recently spearheaded talks between Iran and Saudi Arabia which bore reconciliation. This example set in the Middle East inspired good neighborliness in that corner of the world. There are always peaceful solutions to all of the world’s security troubles. The GSI sees to it that conflicting parties always attempt these solutions. In that spirit, China has called for the de-escalation and finding of a political settlement to the Ukraine crisis; facilitated peace talks to solve the conflicts in northern Myanmar, and published a Position Paper alongside pushing the U.N. Security Council to adopt the very first resolution on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict since it erupted.

Does the global security order need reform? I think yes. It needs to be changed. It is not sustainable to have one global hegemon suspended over the rest of the countries in the world as the dominance of the United States increasingly feels. A more multipolar world is desirable. If international security is national security in the global arena, then all nations deserve to feel secure in the global system. As tempting as it may be, a country with the biggest military fist should not have the final say on international matters/matters of other countries. It is unacceptable that some countries should sit on the global security table while others are merely on their menu. We need inclusive global security. The GSI promises that.

Skeptics have held that these initiatives by China are simply high-voltage propaganda platitudes through which China seeks to establish its global interests. But besides this cynicism, there have been practical fruits harvested from implementing both the Global Security Initiative as well as the Global Development Initiative. And as our president – Yoweri Museveni once remarked, if the Chinese betray the spirit in which our engagement with them has blossomed, they will face similar resistance as we served colonialists. This sentiment was equally shared by one of China’s former leaders, Deng Xiaoping. So, sorry skeptics, for now, we are good.

The author is a senior research fellow at the Development Watch Centre.

CHINA’S DIPLOMATIC BLUEPRINT: HOPE FOR A DYING ART OF DIPLOMACY

Posted on By Sino Uganda Research Centre

By Salim Abila Asuman

In the modern geopolitics, an ugly discovering has been made: the cold-blooded killing of traditional diplomacy of dialogue between nations lies lifeless, its vibrant spirit snuffed out by the hands of indifference and hostility.

The absence of diplomatic discourse has left a void, one that threatens the fabric of peaceful coexistence. As one looks through the wreckages, a narrative of betrayal and neglect begins to unravel, revealing a sinister conspiracy to silence the voice of reason and compromise.

With the menace of conflict looming large, the urgent question resonates: can the echoes of traditional diplomacy of dialogue be resurrected before the drums of war drown out all hope for peaceful coexistence, and how can China be of help in its resurrection?

For generations, conventional diplomacy of dialogue stood as the beacon of hope in a world often besieged by the storms of conflict and discord.

Diplomats used their words with precision, forging alliances and as a result, weaving the delicate threads of international relations with finesse and grace. This was when the world was once where trust was built through the exchange of ideas, where bonds of friendship were forged over shared experiences and mutual respect.

As proof, the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, which not only ended the Thirty Years’ War but also laid the foundation for the modern state system, or the Camp David Accords in 1978, where President Jimmy Charter brokered peace between Egypt and Israel, setting a precedent for diplomatic breakthroughs in the Middle East.

However, as the digital age expanded its dazzling excellence, traditional diplomacy of dialogue found itself at a crossroads, confronting a challenging adversary in the form of rapid technological advancement.

In a world where tweets and hashtags carry more weight than treaties and virtual summits replace face-to-face negotiations, this old guard confrontation struggles to maintain its relevance in an ever-evolving landscape.

From the Korean Peninsula to the heat of Africa, examples overflow of how neglecting dialogue with adversaries only deepens cracks and prolongs suffering.

The Democratic Republic of Congo’s M23 rebellion and the Rwanda Congo situation serves as a stark reminder of this reality that is closest to us. Instead of engaging in constructive dialogue with the rebel faction, a militarised response is opted. The absence of sustained diplomatic efforts not only exacerbated the conflict but also upset attempted to address the underlying grievances fuelling the rebellion, perpetuating instability and human suffering.

Similarly, the standoff between North Korea and the international community underscores the risks of neglecting diplomacy. Despite repeated attempts at negotiations, including multilateral talks and bilateral engagements, the North Korean nuclear issue remains unresolved. The absence of sustained dialogue has led to periodic escalations and heightened tensions, stressing the urgent need for diplomatic engagement.

In the Middle East, from the occupied territories of Palestine to the war-torn landscapes of Syria, the failure to prioritise diplomacy has perpetuated conflict and hindered efforts for peace.

These examples underscore the critical importance of embracing the dying traditional diplomacy of dialogue as a means of resolving global conflicts. While military interventions may offer temporary solutions, they often exacerbate tensions and sow the seeds of future strife.

To address the question that was previously raised; As a significant global force and a central actor on the world’s stage China continues to foster the resurrection of dialogue as the foremost instrument for resolving conflicts and this is how;

Sustained dialogue, grounded in mutual understanding and compromise, remains the most effective pathway to lasting peace and stability and China emerges as a formidable player for its diplomatic strategies that prioritise dialogue and cooperation, even with adversaries.

In the stormy seas of international relations, China’s approach to diplomacy stands as a beacon of stability and pragmatism. Rooted in the time-honored tradition of dialogue and cooperation, China’s diplomatic blueprint offers invaluable lessons for navigating the complexities of our interconnected world.

At the heart of China’s diplomatic philosophy lies a steadfast commitment to dialogue. Amidst differences and tensions, China recognises the indispensable role of communication and negotiation in preventing conflicts and fostering mutual understanding. Whether engaging with adversaries or allies, China’s dedication to dialogue remains firm, serving as a cornerstone of its diplomatic approach.

Territorial disputes, particularly in the South China Sea, exemplify China’s emphasis on diplomatic engagement and regional cooperation. Through platforms like the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), China seeks peaceful resolution and manages tensions, demonstrating the power of dialogue in promoting stability in contested regions.

Ongoing negotiations with neighbouring nations underscore China’s commitment to resolving disputes through diplomatic channels, showcasing a pragmatic and constructive approach to conflict resolution.

Furthermore, China prioritises identifying mutual interests with adversaries to foster cooperation across a spectrum of issues. From trade and environmental protection to global governance, China not only builds trust but also cultivates a conducive environment for sustainable cooperation amidst diverging interests.

Above all, China places a premium on stability and harmony in international campaigns and prioritising dialogue and cooperation, China contributes to a more peaceful world order. Whether mediating conflicts or participating in multilateral forums, China’s diplomatic judgement promotes prosperity and security for all nations.

In recognising the interconnectedness of our global community, China advocates for diplomatic solutions to conflicts, emphasising the importance of cooperation and mutual respect.

From the Korean Peninsula to the Middle East and Africa, China’s diplomatic engagements exemplify its role as a responsible global actor committed to fostering peace and prosperity.

To sum it all up, China’s diplomatic blueprint offers a compelling narrative for navigating the complexities of international relations. By embracing dialogue, managing disputes, focusing on mutual interests, and prioritising stability, China sets an exemplary standard for fostering a more harmonious and prosperous global community. Its diplomatic wisdom servings as a guiding light towards a more peace world, China’s diplomatic blueprint is hope for this dying art of diplomacy in the face of its death.

The writer is a research fellow at the Development Watch Centre.

 

 

 

Kikuubo Vs Chinese: The dialectics of Uganda’s development

Posted on By Sino Uganda Research Centre

By Nnanda Kizito Sseruwagi

President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni has consistently articulated his vision as well as NRM’s historical mission as the socio-economic transformation of Uganda. This vision/mission entails the transformation of Uganda from a poor, rural, agrarian society to a modern, rich, prosperous, industrial one.

Industrial societies were historically born out of the industrial revolution. The Industrial Revolution succeeded the agricultural revolution as a phenomenon that transformed the global human economy, with an even greater result of overturning the pattern of everyday life.

Human production output greatly increased due to the transition from hand production methods to industrial mechanized factory systems. Although the revolution was sparked off in Britain in the late 18th century, it later coursed like strong wine through the veins of North America in the early 19th century and further spread from Western Europe to Japan in the late 19th century. It is argued that since China had a long history of fluent pre-industrial production methods, it prevented it from experiencing the economic pressure that necessitated the industrial revolution in the West.

Now, let us turn back to Uganda. Over 70% of Ugandans are still peasants cultivating the land. Subsistence agriculture allows them a meal, but nothing extra to sell, participate in the monetary market or contribute taxes to the national treasury. Therefore, the majority of the Ugandan population is absent in the country’s economic production system, but very present in the country’s budget expenditure for public goods and services. This is disastrously unsustainable.

Then enters the billionaires of our economy – the Kikuubo traders. Kikuubo is a long-stretch of retail businesses in an open market in downtown Kampala.

That hyperactive, narrow business corridor is famed for offering all types of domestic goods at fairer prices compared to other retail shops across the country. It attracts retailers who buy imported merchandise cheaply and restock it in their up-country Dukas at a higher price. The transactions traded in that half a kilometer of shops are estimated to be billions of dollars annually. This explains why it is the Mecca of most of Uganda’s successful indigenous entrepreneurs.

Kikuubo is an important piece in the economy of Uganda not only because it has made many of our local businesswomen and men, but also because it takes relatively less capital to compete for business opportunities and gainful employment as compared to agriculture.

Recently, businesspeople under the Kampala City Traders Association (KACITA) have been demonstrating against what they call Chinese retailers who are allegedly taking over their business model in Kikuubo. However, the logistics of executing retail business in a foreign country involves so many factors which make it a very expensive venture. These factors should necessitate us to examine these claims a little further.

These traders met with President Museveni on 19th April 2024, to hear out their concerns. He later wrote a detailed comment about this meeting. I was very pleased to see that he termed it as “historic” because it “involved the debate on whether Uganda should break out of the colonial and neo-colonial slavery of producing what we do not consume and consuming what we do not produce”.  This is a profound debate to have in our country. We should have it more frequently.

The president highlighted two important issues to the traders. But his message might have been delivered halfway because of his indirect approach to communication in the spirit of politeness. But I felt that he was courteously rebuking them. He was showing them that exporting raw material from Uganda to foreign industries while importing manufactured goods back home to Kikuubo, is not a model that would develop our economy and transform our society.

In emphasizing how important their business is, the traders told the President that people travel from as far as Congo (DRC) and South Sudan to buy goods from Kikuubo. But the president wisely reminded them that that is a dangerous trap because “it turns the whole of East and Central Africa, into a dumping ground for foreign consumers and capital goods”.

Mr. Museveni was indirectly defending the factories set up with the help of the Chinese in the Sino-Uganda Mbale Industrial Park. Commissioned by himself in 2023, these 16 new factories covered a range of industries where Uganda lost a lot of money while exporting products such as adhesives, chemicals, jeans, textiles, and electronics. Therefore, through these factories, we are both saving money but also creating jobs for thousands of Ugandans. Most importantly, as noted by the president, these industries will enable us to develop our own industrial capacity. The president decried the incapacitation of African economies which import “big items such as air-crafts etc. and also the most ordinary such as clothes, food, etc.” which stunts our growth.

No country in the world ever transformed from a poor agrarian society as Uganda is to an industrial modern economy as Ugandan aspires to be, through the exportation of foreign goods and reselling them at a profit in one’s home country. It doesn’t matter whether Kikuubo employs a million more Ugandans tomorrow and makes tens of billions of dollars in profit, that model of entrepreneurship has never transformed any country and will never transform Uganda.

Our development will come from national companies. Indigenous capital remains the major, historically known stimulus of transformative economic growth. Since Uganda lacks expertise in manufacturing, our Chinese partners have taken the unenviable task of helping us set up industries that manufacture goods which most other countries would rather only export to us. Ugandan youth are working in these factories, learning how to use industrial machines and also make them. As such, the market is reasonably going to be shocked by the massive production of cheaper textiles and electronic products which are manufactured from Mbale or Kapeeka and from all these industrial parks which the government has set up. We need to either embrace them and start buying and selling Ugandan-made goods, or endure the obvious competition likely to come from these domestic goods. Let us not be trapped by the old ways which international capital accustomed us to get used to.

The author is a senior research fellow at the Development Watch Center.

nnandakizito@dwcug.org

 

 

CHINA’S DIPLOMATIC BLUEPRINT: HOPE FOR A DYING ART OF DIPLOMACY

Posted on By Sino Uganda Research Centre

By Salim Abila Asuman.

In the modern geopolitics, an ugly discovering has been made: the cold-blooded killing of traditional diplomacy of dialogue between nations lies lifeless, its vibrant spirit snuffed out by the hands of indifference and hostility.

The absence of diplomatic discourse has left a void, one that threatens the fabric of peaceful coexistence. As one looks through the wreckages, a narrative of betrayal and neglect begins to unravel, revealing a sinister conspiracy to silence the voice of reason and compromise.

With the menace of conflict looming large, the urgent question resonates: can the echoes of traditional diplomacy of dialogue be resurrected before the drums of war drown out all hope for peaceful coexistence, and how can China be of help in its resurrection?

For generations, conventional diplomacy of dialogue stood as the beacon of hope in a world often besieged by the storms of conflict and discord.

Diplomats used their words with precision, forging alliances and as a result, weaving the delicate threads of international relations with finesse and grace. This was when the world was once where trust was built through the exchange of ideas, where bonds of friendship were forged over shared experiences and mutual respect.

As proof, the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, which not only ended the Thirty Years’ War but also laid the foundation for the modern state system, or the Camp David Accords in 1978, where President Jimmy Charter brokered peace between Egypt and Israel, setting a precedent for diplomatic breakthroughs in the Middle East.

However, as the digital age expanded its dazzling excellence, traditional diplomacy of dialogue found itself at a crossroads, confronting a challenging adversary in the form of rapid technological advancement.

In a world where tweets and hashtags carry more weight than treaties and virtual summits replace face-to-face negotiations, this old guard confrontation struggles to maintain its relevance in an ever-evolving landscape.

From the Korean Peninsula to the heat of Africa, examples overflow of how neglecting dialogue with adversaries only deepens cracks and prolongs suffering.

The Democratic Republic of Congo’s M23 rebellion and the Rwanda Congo situation serves as a stark reminder of this reality that is closest to us. Instead of engaging in constructive dialogue with the rebel faction, a militarized response is opted. The absence of sustained diplomatic efforts not only exacerbated the conflict but also upset attempted to address the underlying grievances fueling the rebellion, perpetuating instability and human suffering.

Similarly, the standoff between North Korea and the international community underscores the risks of neglecting diplomacy. Despite repeated attempts at negotiations, including multilateral talks and bilateral engagements, the North Korean nuclear issue remains unresolved. The absence of sustained dialogue has led to periodic escalations and heightened tensions, stressing the urgent need for diplomatic engagement.

In the Middle East, from the occupied territories of Palestine to the war-torn landscapes of Syria, the failure to prioritize diplomacy has perpetuated conflict and hindered efforts for peace.

These examples underscore the critical importance of embracing the dying traditional diplomacy of dialogue as a means of resolving global conflicts. While military interventions may offer temporary solutions, they often exacerbate tensions and sow the seeds of future strife.

To address the question that was previously raised; As a significant global force and a central actor on the world’s stage China continues to foster the resurrection of dialogue as the foremost instrument for resolving conflicts and this is how;

Sustained dialogue, grounded in mutual understanding and compromise, remains the most effective pathway to lasting peace and stability and China emerges as a formidable player for its diplomatic strategies that prioritize dialogue and cooperation, even with adversaries.

In the stormy seas of international relations, China’s approach to diplomacy stands as a beacon of stability and pragmatism. Rooted in the time-honored tradition of dialogue and cooperation, China’s diplomatic blueprint offers invaluable lessons for navigating the complexities of our interconnected world.

At the heart of China’s diplomatic philosophy lies a steadfast commitment to dialogue. Amidst differences and tensions, China recognizes the indispensable role of communication and negotiation in preventing conflicts and fostering mutual understanding. Whether engaging with adversaries or allies, China’s dedication to dialogue remains firm, serving as a cornerstone of its diplomatic approach.

Territorial disputes, particularly in the South China Sea, exemplify China’s emphasis on diplomatic engagement and regional cooperation. Through platforms like the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), China seeks peaceful resolution and manages tensions, demonstrating the power of dialogue in promoting stability in contested regions.

Ongoing negotiations with neighboring nations underscore China’s commitment to resolving disputes through diplomatic channels, showcasing a pragmatic and constructive approach to conflict resolution.

Furthermore, China prioritizes identifying mutual interests with adversaries to foster cooperation across a spectrum of issues. From trade and environmental protection to global governance, China not only builds trust but also cultivates a conducive environment for sustainable cooperation amidst diverging interests.

Above all, China places a premium on stability and harmony in international campaigns and prioritizing dialogue and cooperation, China contributes to a more peaceful world order. Whether mediating conflicts or participating in multilateral forums, China’s diplomatic judgement promotes prosperity and security for all nations.

In recognizing the interconnectedness of our global community, China advocates for diplomatic solutions to conflicts, emphasizing the importance of cooperation and mutual respect.

From the Korean Peninsula to the Middle East and Africa, China’s diplomatic engagements exemplify its role as a responsible global actor committed to fostering peace and prosperity.

To sum it all up, China’s diplomatic blueprint offers a compelling narrative for navigating the complexities of international relations. By embracing dialogue, managing disputes, focusing on mutual interests, and prioritizing stability, China sets an exemplary standard for fostering a more harmonious and prosperous global community. It’s diplomatic wisdom servings as a guiding light towards a more peace world, China’s diplomatic blueprint is hope for this dying art of diplomacy in the face of its death.

The writer is a research fellow at the Development Watch Centre.

 

 

 

America’s 2023 Country Report on Human Rights Practices: Who Policices the USA?

Posted on By Sino Uganda Research Centre

On 22nd April, 2024, the US Congress with a fore note from the Secretary of State, Antony J. Blinken, issued the 2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for all other countries that are on earth, except itself. It has been a practice it has committed itself into fulfilling since 1977 and not so much can be said as having started with bad intentions. In deed, human rights are a concern supposed to keep every person (individual or artificial) on high attention to either advance, protect or preserve. It’s therefore a commendable practice thus far. Many countries across the globe have its citizens suffering at hands of human rights violators in all forms. Some of these are out of territorial breaches, while others are internally castigated by kinsmen and kinswomen whose jobs it should be to do better. Lives still get lost for example, in many African, Latin America, and the Middle East at hands of both internal and external perpetrators. In unison with the subject reports, this is wrong, and should never be normalised as practice anywhere.

The forewords by Antony Blinken were interesting, especially how they described Kremlin’s actions in Ukraine, versus the description of Israel’s actions in Palestine. Interesting still, the language used to condemn practices by the People’s Republic of China. But while on a look out of a balanced analysis of the report, of all the countries as noted, the US could not bring forth a report on itself and how it’s ‘respecting’ human rights both internally and abroad. So, who polices the US foreign policies? It remains an unsolved question for many years despite many dissenters pointing it out, that while it’s commendable to make focus of other world key players regarding human rights practices, the watch should equally be made on the US, by itself and other state and non-state actors. As noted in the reports’ forewords, it points to major monitoring on states from whom US aid is supplied. That shouldn’t be passed off as a conflicting situation for the recipients, and therefore a compromise on taking equal watch on the donor.

As noted in the report, it coincides with the 75th anniversary of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), and at its inception, Eleanor Roosevelt, one of the authors of the UDHR noted, “The destiny of human rights is in the hands of all our citizens in all our communities.” It is an indictment on everyone to take center attention. The US as it did at the time of inception of the UDHR, committed to preserving human rights especially abroad but 2023 was quite an interesting year regarding the US foreign policies and it remains a non shocking scenario that the US couldn’t publish a similar report on itself and its activities. Rather, as many years before, any such statements on global state of affairs come as justification for their actions rather than self condemnation.

2023 was an equally busy year for the US especially in the middle east, and while the Israel-Palestine and Ukraine-Russia conflicts steal the attention for US actions, in similar measure as it maintained focus on Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Act, and consequential withdraw of funding, Cuba’s regime actions, Nicaragua’s government crackdown on dissent, Russia territorial breach on Ukraine’s border, and much more, the US had a run on Iraq and Syria. For many years now, the middle east has been a military play ground for the US. Many countries have consistently condemned the US involvement in the region’s politics citing instigation of more incitement. Baghdad condemned the strikes by the US on its territory which occasioned deaths and wounding of Iraqi citizens.

Of these attacks in the region since October 7, 2023 since the Israel-Hamas war peaked, there have been reported more than 66 separate attacks in the region. This comes off as though it’s the US so much concerned about stability of the region, using war to being more war. The attacks have been gazetted as warranted and even with the wanton killing of numerous civilians in the region by the US in 2023, it didn’t call for equal urgency to issue a report on its own human rights violations. Much as there are numerous world actors that have consistently showed concern and more especially with the players with valuable commercial interests in the area, not many are willing to raise a finger at the self appointed global police. This happens at a time when the United Nations, a body supposed to be impartial has been spotlighted as running selective interests to the West bloc.

As of April 2024, the US faces internal concerns regarding respecting the freedoms of expression and association that are guaranteed by the first amendment of the country’s constitution. Over 200 students across major Universities have been arrested and more crackdowns are still ongoing on the students protesting Israel’s war actions in Palestine. From the Northeastern University in Boston, to Yale, Columbia, Southern California, and more Universities joining the protests against the ongoing war, many peaceful protestors have been arrested and charged with inciting violence, vandalism, and criminal trespass, accusations many have criticized as unfounded, embarrassing to the national image, and illegal. But just as Anthony Blinken quoted Eleanor Roosevelt, human rights are a concern for all, and it’s only fair that in 2024 and years to come, similar documentation on both triumphs and condemnation be issued against the US by the US as it does annually for other global actors.

Alan Collins Mpewo is a Senior Research Fellow, Development Watch Centre.

What Africa really needs from Development Aid is Socio-economic Transformation

Posted on By Sino Uganda Research Centre

By George Musiime.

April 28-29 coincided with the 2024 International Development Association (IDA) for Africa Heads of States summit held in Nairobi Kenya and similar to the ones before, this year’s summit happened at a time when the continent was still struggling. Struggling to address challenges arising from infrastructure deficiencies,  funding gaps, security threats and threats from climate change, as well as the after-effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.  What was unique about  this summit though,  was that it  took place just a few months after the G77+China summit held in Kampala earlier this year. Thus, it came as no surprise when Africa made a bold call, more so, in a unified voice to IDA regarding what Africa truly needs to realize from Development assistance. This call was driven home through the speech of the Chairman of the G77+China and   Ugandan president, H.E Yoweri Museveni.

A history of the crisis in Africa: In his momentous speech that was in sync with the position of the G77+China, H.E Museveni noted that the crisis in Africa has been brewing since the dawn of Africa’s independence in the 1960s. Surprisingly, so little  had been achieved  in as far as resolving this crisis. In fact leaders at the summit wondered  how after 60 years, no African country had graduated out of the IDA. Moreover, for this little impact, the leaders faulted a financial system designed with profiteering in mind other than prosperity. In other words, leaders at the summit reiterated the pronouncement of the G77+China that the global financial system was out of date, out of touch and out of step with today’s global challenges. In an example, H.E Museveni cited the World Bank’s inclination to finance capacity building which might have rightly been a necessity in an Africa that was starting out on the daunting journey of self-governance. However, he expressed doubt in whether it was what the continent needed to day. Instead, he made the argument that following more than sixty years of capacity building , it was time to turn our focus towards socio-economic transformation.

In line with this, the summit concurred that Africa needed cost effective transportation, power generation, and low-cost manufacturing, as opposed to capacity building as a path to   a transformed Africa. Meanwhile, as the World Bank is ever more likely to fund projects that have minimal impact on the ordinary African, H.E Museveni gave props to China for not merely realizing the continent’s infrastructure needs but also becoming a leader in taking that direction as well.  Today, there is evidence of this all across the continent where Chinese funding has yielded over 13,000Km in new and rehabilitated railways, over 100,000Km in highways, more than 50 large scale power facilities two of which are in Uganda,  and several industrial parks all across  Africa.  Thus china’s cooperation in Africa targets some of the continent’s acute problems including socio-economic transformation and the age-old dilemma of trade deficits.

Moreover, related to China’s vision  of building a community of humanity with a shared future, the leaders agreed that more impactful development financing would work for equality and fairness, hence building a world where the IDA might not be needed. However, this to happen, the world have to be open to doing development financing that was driven by prosperity and not profiteering!

Therefore, in their solemn call  African heads of states   seemed to point it out   to the IDA and other Bretton Woods institutions that it was not hard to do transformative development financing. In fact, there is proof to the fact  that China has been doing the same for the past 20 years, driving socio-economic transformation across the continent through investments that address the  economic bottlenecks that have curtailed Africa’s progress since independence. Thus the leaders implored the IDA and World Bank to consider financing railways for cost efficient transportation alternatives, Hydropower projects, to address current and prospective energy needs of an industrialized Africa, irrigation to mitigate the growing challenges of erratic weather patterns etcetera. In reality, China has been doing this; with railways in Tanzania, Djibouti, Kenya, Nigeria, Ethiopia, etcetera. Also, hydropower stations in Uganda, Nigeria,  Ghana and elsewhere. Moreover, through  the China, FAO and Uganda South-South cooperation as one example, the whole length of the agricultural value chain is being changed and more Ugandans in beneficiary communities have been brought forth into the money economy-a shift from traditional subsistence production.

The need to shake the  confrontational mentality: Whenever China addresses the world, it calls for cooperation and  peaceful co-existence. Two great examples of this are the principle of non-interference in affairs of sovereigns and the Belt and Road initiative which has a footprint almost in all continents of the world. Additionally, the proposal of building a community of humanity with a shared future is centered on building a global community that is beneficial to all of humanity and respect for the UN charter. Unfortunately, some of her peer competitors have assumed this security concept that “presence is deterrence” seemingly hell-bent on getting rid of China as a strategic objective before assisting with socio-economic transformation. At a time when China is calling on the rest of the developed world to cooperate in Africa, everyone else needs to shift their focus from addressing China’s growing influence on the continent towards taking a concerted efforts to  address the challenges Africa faces.

The voices of African heads of states at the IDA summit in Nairobi is the voice of an African continent that is conscious of what challenges the continent faces on its path to socio-economic transformation. In the same light, the props given to the People’s Republic of China is acknowledgement that China’s work on the continent is in sync with the aspirations of the continent.  Therefore, it is about time the rest of the developed world and all multilateral development agencies, if they are not duplicitous and truly mean to put prosperity above profiteering to stop viewing China as a rival on the African tuff but instead, cooperate with and where need be borrow a leaf from China’s approach if we are about building a resilient African continent.

George Musiime is a research fellow at the Sino-Uganda Research Centre.

 

Chinese perspectives on Africa’s late industrialization

Posted on By Sino Uganda Research Centre

By Nnanda Kizito Sseruwagi

Africa and China’s cooperation recedes hundreds of centuries back. Over 600 years ago, East Africa was one of the areas that cross-pollinated with Chinese civilization through interactions with the voyages of Zheng He, one of China’s greatest navigators. Zheng’s navigations to Africa manifested the Chinese traditional philosophy of harmony, a notion that still resonates in Africa-China relations today. I started with a cursory narration of Zheng He’s trips to Africa to lay out a historical context of these two ancient civilizations’ partnership in view of discussing the delayed industrialization in Africa, yet inspired by the quick modernization in China.

We are now in the first quarter of the 21st century – an age increasingly taken over by the fourth industrial revolution, and Africa remains largely a raw material production instead of an industrial production continent. Whereas we make up 18% of the global population, we contribute less than 3% to the global Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

I don’t intend to sound blameful of Africans and African leaders for Africa’s current development burdens as is commonly done by those who reason by analogy. But I cannot escape describing the depressing political anatomy of Africa currently. I believe that Africa is not on its own path to development, since all factors determinant of this have been overshadowed by Western hegemony. In an attempt to walk in the footsteps of Western countries by mimicking their current governance standards, Africa seems to have failed to “catch up” yet the material crisis at hand is that we are still trying to heal from the past, not to catch up with the future.

Chinese perspectives on Africa’s industrial development are key because of the comparative analysis they offer. China has recently trodden the path that Africa is on. Whereas China greatly learnt or reverse-engineered industrial processes from the West, the Chinese retained control over the vision and character of where their country was headed. As for Africa, the elite-capture by Western ideological persuasion and hegemonic institutions like the IMF and World Bank still obtains. Even when Africans genuinely intend to design policies that respond to domestic realities, they are still fraught with Western epistemic prejudices.

The first step to realising our industrial transformation is taking cognizance of who we are and where we want to go. The Chinese are so sure of who they are and where they are headed. They never blink off their course. As for Africans, our social, economic and political agendas remain dictated from Europe or North America. Whereas these agendas were violently determined during colonialism, the legacy of it is that we sincerely believe them and serve their realisation almost willingly today. The average African elite suffers a Stockholm syndrome which makes him/her a subconscious missionary of Western views about Africa which constrains our agency in mapping our development path. We need to decouple from this mental capture in how we view ourselves and our governments if we are to start domestically industrializing our economies. If an African entrepreneur like Joseph Magandaazi Yiga (Jomayi) is struggling, we need to help them save their businesses even if they individually get punished for their legal liabilities. We shouldn’t think of successful African business people like Hamis Kiggundu as fraudsters. This is purely a colonial-victim mindset.

In just 25 years, China sat on the drawing board and designed and executed a policy that saw it become an industrial powerhouse. Had they viewed themselves through Western lenses, all knowledge would guide them on a path that seeks industrialization across a period of not less than a century.  Africa should forget industrialization if all our central banks and ministries of finance remain controlled by Bretton Woods knowledge. We rather should sit on the drawing board as China did, and fix our troubles ourselves.

This does not mean that things will work in Africa as they worked in China. But it guarantees that for the first time, things will work out on our terms and we shall dictate our path to development.

We must also exploit the market we have of 1.4 billion people. Whereas we lack a price-competitive manufacturing labour-force, we can build momentum for a skilled work-force by internally trading and consuming each other’s goods. Research by the Harvard Business Review reveals that the share of intra-African exports as a percentage of total African exports is 17%, which is far below the 69% recorded for Europe and 59% for Asia. We cannot advance if we never trade with each other because we are still in the nascent stages of industrialization to capably compete at the global market.

Poor infrastructure in Africa must urgently be improved to reduce the cost of trade. Fluency in market logistics is the path along which industrialization happens. Africa should develop its seaports, roads, airports and railway lines to enable commerce. If it remains more expensive to trade with each other because of the disastrous infrastructure on the continent, we shall remain consumer colonies of other continents’ exports. We should maximumly exploit the Belt and Road Initiative to develop our infrastructure.

One factor has been constant in Africa’s underdevelopment – Western interference. There has been an adverse failure of Western development prescriptions for Africa. I don’t understand why we continue to follow such prescriptions to no avail. Western aid and its attendant ideological hegemony continue to promote economic and policy dependence in Africa. If we never seize control of our economies and have autonomy in thinking and designing policies for our continent, how shall we control our future? In whose hands shall Africa’s destiny lie?

The author is a senior research fellow at the Development Watch Centre.

nnandakizito@dwcug.org

 

China-Uganda Cooperation: A Path to Shared Prosperity for Mankind

Posted on By Sino Uganda Research Centre

By Yasiri J. Kasango

The year 2000 marked a pivotal moment in the history of China-Africa relations with the adoption of a collaborative development program between the two friendly sides. The significance of this event was underscored by the adoption of the Beijing Declaration of the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) and the Programme for China-Africa Cooperation in Economic and Social Development. This landmark declaration laid the foundation for a comprehensive framework aimed at enhancing economic and social development between China and African nations. With a focus on mutual cooperation and shared prosperity, it set the stage for a new era of partnership and collaboration, paving the way for substantive progress in China-Africa relations. 24 years later, the collaboration is yielding results tangible results!

The intergovernmental cooperation between China and African nations has been built upon the principles of equality and mutual benefit, diversity in form and content, emphasis on practical results, pursuit of common progress, and amicable settlement of differences. These foundational principles have served as the cornerstone of China-Africa relations, fostering a dynamic partnership that has led to significant developmental growth across the continent. Through collaborative efforts, China and African nations have embraced diversity in their approaches, recognizing the unique needs and circumstances of each country. By prioritizing practical results and tangible outcomes, the cooperation has yielded concrete benefits, ranging from infrastructure development to socio-economic empowerment initiatives. Moreover, the pursuit of common progress has driven collective efforts towards achieving shared objectives, propelling both China and African nations towards greater prosperity and development. Importantly, the commitment to an amicable settlement of differences has ensured that any challenges or disagreements are addressed through dialogue and negotiation, fostering a conducive environment for sustainable cooperation and growth. Overall, the intergovernmental cooperation between China and African nations, grounded in these principles, has been instrumental in driving developmental growth and fostering mutually beneficial partnerships.

The foundational principles that underpin China-Africa relations have found fertile ground for implementation in the evolving partnership between China and Uganda. As Uganda embraces the principles of equality, mutual benefit, and practical results, demonstrated through its active participation in initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and FOCAC, the nation stands poised to reap significant benefits. This burgeoning economic cooperation and deepening diplomatic ties exemplify the commitment to diversity and amicable settlement of differences, fostering an environment conducive to sustainable growth and development. Through collaborative efforts guided by these principles, China and Uganda are not only bolstering their own economies but also contributing to the broader narrative of shared prosperity and mutual advancement, serving as a model for constructive intergovernmental cooperation on the African continent.

In recent years, the relationship between China and Uganda has evolved significantly, marked by burgeoning economic cooperation and deepening diplomatic ties. The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) have served as catalysts for this transformative partnership, propelling Uganda onto a trajectory of economic growth and development. As we navigate the complexities of a rapidly changing global landscape, it is imperative to examine the implications of this strategic alliance and its potential to foster shared prosperity and sustainable development in both nations.

The economic collaboration between China and Uganda has witnessed remarkable growth, underscored by the exponential increase in bilateral trade volume. From a modest $600 million a decade ago to a staggering $1.3 billion by the end of 2023, trade relations between the two nations have flourished, driven by mutual interests and complementary advantages. Uganda’s exports to China have experienced a significant uptick, reflecting the burgeoning demand for Ugandan products in the vast Chinese market.

Key agreements signed during prominent events like the China International Import Expo have further solidified this economic partnership, opening avenues for Ugandan businesses to tap into the lucrative Chinese consumer base. The influx of Chinese investments, particularly in sectors such as agro-industry, manufacturing, ICT, and energy, has injected vitality into Uganda’s economy, creating employment opportunities and driving inclusive growth.

China’s robust investments in Uganda extend beyond trade, encompassing critical infrastructure projects aimed at enhancing connectivity and fostering socio-economic development. Projects such as the Kingfisher and East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) ventures exemplify China’s commitment to supporting Uganda’s energy sector and infrastructure development initiatives. These projects not only facilitate the extraction and transportation of Uganda’s natural resources but also lay the groundwork for long-term economic diversification and sustainability.

Moreover, China’s pledge to finance the renovation and expansion of the China-Uganda Friendship Hospital underscores its commitment to improving healthcare infrastructure and enhancing access to quality healthcare services for Ugandan citizens. By prioritizing investments in healthcare, education, and other social sectors, China contributes to the overarching goal of promoting human development and improving the well-being of the Ugandan populace.

The partnership between China and Uganda transcends mere economic transactions; it embodies a shared commitment to sustainable development and mutual prosperity. By aligning their respective development agendas with the principles of inclusivity, environmental sustainability, and social equity, both nations lay the foundation for a resilient and prosperous future.

China’s emphasis on green energy and environmental conservation resonates with Uganda’s aspirations for sustainable development, particularly in the context of addressing climate change and promoting renewable energy sources. Through initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative, China can contribute expertise, technology, and financing to support Uganda’s transition to a low-carbon economy and mitigate the adverse effects of climate change.

Furthermore, China’s investment in education and skills development initiatives empowers Ugandan youth with the tools and knowledge needed to participate actively in the global economy. By fostering human capital development and nurturing innovation and entrepreneurship, China and Uganda pave the way for a brighter and more prosperous future for generations to come.

The deepening partnership between China and Uganda represents a paradigm shift in international relations, characterized by mutual respect, win-win cooperation, shared objectives, and tangible outcomes. Through collaborative efforts under initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative and FOCAC, both nations have the opportunity to harness their respective strengths and leverage synergies for the benefit of their people.

As we navigate the complexities of the 21st century, it is imperative to cultivate strategic partnerships that prioritize sustainability, inclusivity, and mutual prosperity. By embracing the principles of win-win cooperation and forging ahead with determination and vision, China and Uganda can chart a course towards a future marked by shared prosperity, sustainable development, and enduring friendship.

The writer is a research fellow at the Sino-Uganda