Follow us on social

Uganda

Time to cut Uganda's Museveni loose from military aid?

Another example of how our post-9/11 counterterrorism interests have emboldened violent leaders who seem to stay in power forever.

Analysis | Africa

On February 23, State Department spokesperson Ned Price was asked a brief question about Uganda’s recent elections and the apparent win by incumbent Yoweri Museveni, who has been in power since 1986.

 “Uganda’s January 14th elections were marred by … abuses by the government’s security services against opposition candidates and members of civil society,” acknowledged Price, before reminding reporters that “Uganda … does have an important role when it comes to some of our interests in the region.” 

Seconds later, Price confidently argued “this goes to the point that we’ve now made even more times throughout this briefing, that we can pursue our interests and pursue our values at the same time.” While being able to simultaneously pursue interests and values in Uganda would be ideal, this clearly does not reflect the reality of the U.S.-Uganda counterterrorism partnership constructed in its fullest form on the heels of 9/11.

Over the past two decades, Uganda has become a major recipient of U.S. military aid and stands as one of America’s closest military allies on the continent. Although such military assistance is difficult to quantify due to the classified nature of certain programs, Ugandan officials in 2016 estimated that Washington provided $170 million per year in military assistance.

As this counterterrorism partnership has flourished, abuses against the political opposition in Uganda have skyrocketed. In 2011, during opposition demonstrations dubbed the “Walk to Work” campaign, tens of people were shot dead and hundreds injured by a joint military-police operation. When student demonstrators protested the lifting of the age amendment that would allow Museveni to run for president again in 2021, military forces shot them; when opposition MPs opposed the same proposal, Museveni sent plainclothes special forces to beat them on the floor of parliament. More recently, the supporters of singer-turned-activist politician Bobi Wine have been tortured and beaten to death. In fact, Museveni himself admitted that security forces killed at least 54 civilians at a November 2020 opposition protest that was sparked by another arrest of Bobi Wine.

Though official State Department reports acknowledge these atrocities, no consideration is given to how the U.S. might be culpable for such abuses given its counterterrorism partnership with the Museveni regime. That would seem a bit hypocritical, however, given its routine condemnation of such behavior in online statements and press conferences.

There are two pathways through which the U.S.-Uganda counterterrorism partnership contributes to human rights abuses. The first is the United States contributing directly to the violations by supporting the Ugandan military which carries them out. The second involves Washington accepting such abuses — at least to the level at which it does not preclude military aid — in order to maintain the counterterrorism partnership, thereby allowing such behavior to continue.

The highly politicized Uganda People’s Defence Force (UPDF) and the paramilitary structures that benefit from the same (or superior) U.S. funding, equipment, and training have tortured and killed opponents of the Museveni regime. Therefore, by supporting the same military units that brutalize dissidents as a result of its counterterrorism partnership with Uganda, the United States contributes to egregious human rights abuses of the country’s political opposition. 

In addition, America’s blunted criticism of numerous human rights violations, which stem from not wanting to strain the counterterrorism relationship with Uganda, allows crackdowns on the political opposition to continue. Even a Congressional Research Service report agrees, making the claim that “President Yoweri Museveni has been a vocal supporter of counterterrorism efforts in the region, but the State Department has documented serious human rights abuses ... in Uganda, and some observers have expressed concern that Museveni’s cooperation on counterterrorism constrains Western criticism for alleged political abuses.”

Although lately the United States has gone further in its condemnations compared to its past use of empty statements, there is no indication that the culpable counterterrorism partnership with Uganda and related military assistance will see any significant change or reduction.

In a 2008 speech, President Museveni confidently stated, “I am a revolutionary; I have never been a terrorist. … When you target noncombatants, you are a terrorist.” While Museveni’s assessment of terrorism is accurate, his negation of identification with the label misses the mark. 

As it was in 2008 as it is today, on any given day in the streets of Kampala, Museveni orders his henchmen to specifically target noncombatants, fearing that any lack of repression of such nonviolent protesters may spell the end of his regime. Despite such actions being correctly identified as human rights violations, it seems as though they also fall under a separate label: terrorism. 

If such is the case, as it appears so using Museveni’s own preached definition of the word, it is worth considering whether America’s counterterrorism policies in Uganda undermine its counterterrorism aims as well.


'Natural Fire 10' exercises opens, U.S. Army Africa, Kitgum, Uganda, Oct. 2010. (U.S. Army)
Analysis | Africa
Lyndon Johnson
Top image credit: National Archives and Records Administration

Church of War: Our faith that lethality has the power to heal

Military Industrial Complex

Since inauguration day, the Trump White House has routinely evoked a deep-rooted Cold War framework for expressing America’s relationship with war. This framing sits at odds with the president’s inaugural address in which Mr. Trump, conjuring Richard Nixon, argued that his “proudest legacy will be that of a peacemaker and unifier.”

From January 2025 on, the administration has instead engaged in a steady drumbeat of aggressive militaristic taunting, threatening real and perceived enemies, foreign and domestic alike. From ordering 1,500 active-duty troops to assist with border patrolling and deportation missions, to the secretary of defense censuring the nation’s armed forces for not focusing enough on “lethality,” the Trump administration is reviving a decades-long trend within an increasingly militarized U.S. foreign policy — a faith in and fear of war and its consequences.

keep readingShow less
Ted Cruz Tucker Carlson
Top image credit: Lev Radin, Maxim Elramsisy via shutterstock.com

Ted Cruz thinks you're stupid

Washington Politics

Rightwing pundit Tucker Carlson recently made Ted Cruz look like a buffoon.

Cruz said during their interview in June, “I was taught from the Bible, those who bless Israel will be blessed, and those who curse Israel will be cursed. And from my perspective, I want to be on the blessing side of things.”

keep readingShow less
'Security guarantees' dominate talks but remain undefined
Top photo credit: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy speaks during a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump, French President Emmanuel Macron, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, and Finland's President Alexander Stubb amid negotiations to end the Russian war in Ukraine, at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., August 18, 2025. REUTERS/Al Drago

'Security guarantees' dominate talks but remain undefined

Europe

President Donald Trump met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and a host of European leaders in the White House Monday to discuss a framework for a deal to end the war. The big takeaway: that all parties appear to agree that the U.S. and Europe would provide some sort of postwar security guarantees to deter another Russian invasion.

What that might look like is still undefined. Trump also suggested an agreement would require “possible exchanges of territory” and consider the “war lines” between Ukraine and Russia, though this issue did not appear to take center stage Monday. Furthermore, Trump said there could be a future “trilateral” meeting set for the leaders of the U.S., Ukraine, and Russia, and reportedly interrupted the afternoon meeting with the European leaders to speak with Russian President Vladimir Putin on the phone.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.