THE PRESS MONDAY, APRIL 16, 1979. Amin and Uganda

Press, 16 April 1979, Page 12

THE PRESS MONDAY, APRIL 16, 1979. Amin and Uganda

The years of Idi Amin s rule in Uganda have ended characteristically, though no less horrifyingly, with the finding of emaciated prisoners in the headquarters of the State Research Bureau. One of the tools Amin used to keep his hold on Uganda, the bureau adopted secrecy and terror as its instruments. Secrecy and savagery are evident in that no-one knows how many people were killed by the grisly methods described in reports today.

The additional horror to be found in the discovery of the prisoners, should not, however, blind anyone to the fact that the activities of Idi Amin were widely known before he was defeated militarily. In these days of rapid communications, of exposure to world opinion through international organisations, and of emphasis on numan rights, Idi Amin still flourished. The trouble was not that the world did not know what was going on in Uganda, but that the world knew and did nothing about it. The limits to the powers of international organisations were never more evident. Idi Amin was not only an affront to the Ugandan people and nation, but an affront to the Organisation of African Unity, to the Commonwealth, and to the United Nations. The world has yet to find a way of tackling dictators such as Amin.

With rather more favourable opinion than legality on his side, President Julius Nyerere of Tanzania tackled the problem in his own way. The O.A.U. did not give him its backing as his troops invaded Uganda because it could not condone the invasion. and its doctrine precludes the changing of any frontiers inherited from colonial powers. Not a few members of the 0.A.U., however, were reported to be pleased at the actions Tanzania took. Idi Amin was considered by some of the more sophisticated black African leaders to be a disgrace

to the whole of Africa. Not only did he practise oppression, but by association, he caused other African leaders to be regarded in a similar light. This was not only unpleasant as well as being inaccurate, but it lessened their authority when speaking on such matters as the conflict in southern Africa.

It was to President Nyerere’s credit that he did not try to reinstate Milton Obote as President of Uganda. Dr Obote, who has been resident in Tanzania since he was overthrown by Idi Amin in the 1971 coup, would have been a divisive force in Ugandan politics. So far Professor Yusufu Luie, who has been sworn in as President, appears to have been acceptable, though these are early days. Professor Lule was once Vice-Chancellor of Makerere University, one of the finest universities in Africa before the 1971 coup. The other political leaders chosen are unlikely to form a coherent group, and Professor Lule will be fortunate if he can avoid divisions which have a strongly tribal base. The greatest hope will be that some of the thousands of educated and able Ugandans who have been living in exile, either for fear of their lives or because they preferred to watch the horrors of Amin’s reign from a distance, now return to Uganda to help with the administration. Besides the reflections about the impotence of the O.A.U. which may come out of the events in Uganda, one of the other results may be a set-back for Islam. Idi Amin was a Muslim and killed perhaps more than 100,000 of his own people, all in the name of Islam. It was an interesting aspect of Libya’s relations with black Africa that it preferred to associate itself with Amin in Uganda against Tanzania where there are more Muslims. Libya tends to prefer the countries which are led by Muslims rather than countries in which a large majority of the people- are Muslims.