Uganda’s recent decision to suspend military cooperation with Germany, accompanied by pointed accusations of “subversive activities” and “meddling in internal affairs” against the German ambassador, marks a significant and potentially transformative moment in its foreign policy trajectory. While this abrupt rupture has sparked debate, it can be analytically understood through the enduring lens of realist international relations theory, particularly the core tenets of state survival and self-help. From Uganda’s perspective, these foundational principles provide a rationale for its actions, but the broader implications for national security, diplomatic standing, and long-term strategic interests warrant close examination.
The Realist Imperative: Safeguarding the State
In the anarchic international system—where no global authority guarantees the security of states—survival is the paramount objective of any sovereign entity. This extends beyond defending borders to encompass the preservation of sovereignty, political independence, and the chosen domestic order. For Uganda, the Uganda People’s Defence Force (UPDF) embodies this mandate: to protect the nation’s territorial integrity and its political system.
Threats to state survival are not limited to overt military aggression. They can manifest as internal destabilization, allegedly orchestrated or supported by external actors. Uganda’s accusations against Germany, framing the German ambassador’s conduct as a direct threat to its internal political order, reflect this concern. In Kampala’s view, external involvement perceived as undermining internal cohesion or challenging legitimate authority constitutes an existential threat.
From this imperative flows the principle of self-help. In a system where states cannot reliably depend on others for security, they must rely on their own capabilities. This necessitates building military strength, enhancing intelligence capacities, and, crucially, asserting sovereign control over internal affairs without external interference. Uganda’s decision to suspend military cooperation reflects this logic—rejecting actions perceived as hostile to its sovereignty, even at the cost of losing beneficial partnerships.
Uganda’s Narrative: A Stand for Sovereignty
Uganda’s official justification for the rupture with Germany invokes themes central to state survival and self-help. The accusations against the German ambassador—of supporting opposition groups or critical civil society actors—are framed as attempts to destabilize the government, thereby threatening the state’s very existence. By severing ties, Uganda signals an uncompromising commitment to safeguarding its political autonomy and resisting foreign influence in its domestic affairs.
This stance asserts a clear message: Uganda will manage its internal dynamics independently, without ceding influence to external actors, regardless of the material benefits at stake. From Kampala’s perspective, the costs of tolerating perceived foreign meddling outweigh the advantages of continued cooperation.
Implications Explored: Costs and Opportunities
While Uganda presents its decision as a principled stand for sovereignty, the consequences—both immediate and long-term—are significant and multifaceted.
1. National Security and Military Capability
- Loss of Specialized Training: Germany has been a key provider of military training, including in crisis response, logistics, and professional development. Without this support, the UPDF risks a decline in operational effectiveness and may struggle to maintain adherence to international standards. While Uganda holds a respectable 23rd position among African militaries (114th globally, per Global Firepower), sustained training is vital to preserve and enhance its capabilities.
- Peacekeeping Impact: Uganda’s significant contributions to regional peacekeeping, notably under the African Union Transition Mission in Somalia (ATMIS), have been supported by German and EU partners. The rupture could strain these efforts, undermining Uganda’s regional influence and weakening collective security in the Horn of Africa.
- Intelligence Gaps: Military partnerships often facilitate intelligence sharing. The suspension risks creating blind spots, particularly regarding transnational threats, including terrorism, that could compromise Uganda’s security readiness.
- New Dependencies: Seeking alternative military partners may diversify Uganda’s relationships but could expose it to new dependencies, potentially with states that offer less transparency or impose more onerous terms, complicating Uganda’s long-term strategic posture.
2. Diplomatic and Geopolitical Repercussions
- Strained Bilateral Ties: The diplomatic fallout with Germany, a major European power and Uganda’s trading partner (with bilateral trade valued at approximately $335 million in 2024), could disrupt economic relations. Uganda’s favorable trade balance—such as the €5.63 million in coffee exports to Germany in February 2025—may be jeopardized.
- Ripple Effect Across the EU: Germany’s influence within the European Union (with a GDP of €4,305 billion in 2024 and a net EU budget contribution of €17.4 billion) means tensions with Berlin could spill over into Uganda’s broader relationship with the EU. This could threaten vital aid, trade preferences, and political engagement.
- Perceptions of Authoritarianism: International critics may interpret Uganda’s move as an attempt to insulate itself from external scrutiny over governance, human rights, and democratic practices, especially in the lead-up to the 2026 elections. This could reinforce narratives of democratic backsliding and further isolate Uganda diplomatically.
- Sovereignty vs. Isolation: While the assertion of sovereignty is legitimate, it risks pushing Uganda into greater diplomatic isolation, potentially driving it toward alternative partners whose interests may not align with Uganda’s long-term goals.
3. Economic and Societal Impact
- Development Aid at Risk: Germany has been a key development partner, supporting critical sectors such as renewable energy, agriculture, civil society, and refugee support. While military cooperation is distinct, diplomatic tensions could jeopardize broader development collaboration, impacting Uganda’s socio-economic stability.
- Foreign Direct Investment (FDI): A strained diplomatic climate may deter FDI, as investors seek predictable and stable environments. German businesses in Uganda may reconsider their presence, potentially slowing economic growth.
- Cultural and Educational Ties: Initiatives such as the Goethe-Zentrum, DAAD scholarships, and German language programs in Ugandan schools could suffer, reducing opportunities for knowledge exchange and people-to-people connections.
4. Domestic Political Dynamics
- Nationalist Mobilization: The government may leverage this standoff to foster nationalist sentiment, presenting itself as the defender of Uganda’s sovereignty. This could serve as a unifying political narrative ahead of the 2026 elections, galvanizing support among citizens who perceive foreign influence as intrusive.
Conclusion
Uganda’s decision to suspend military ties with Germany—framed through the realist principles of state survival and self-help—represents a forceful assertion of sovereignty. Yet, while the theoretical justification is sound, the practical implications are complex and potentially costly.
Uganda may gain a perception of strengthened internal control and foreign policy independence. However, the loss of critical military training, potential reductions in development support, risk of increased diplomatic isolation, and challenges to regional security efforts present significant hurdles. Whether Uganda’s assertive strategy will ultimately enhance or undermine its national interests hinges on its capacity to secure alternative partnerships, manage shifting geopolitical dynamics, and safeguard its domestic stability without forfeiting essential international support.
In the end, the pursuit of sovereignty, while vital, must be balanced against the pragmatic realities of interdependence in an increasingly interconnected world.
Mutesi Mary is a Lawyer and Public Policy Consultant. Email: mutesimary77@gmail.com