Understanding Uganda-Rwanda crisis through the international relations lenses

For weeks now the story of a crisis between Rwanda and Uganda has occupied both new media and traditional media outlets.  Rwanda accusing Uganda of harboring ill intentions of regime change and Uganda denying doing so, this is said to have been escalated by the deportation and arrest of Rwandans who the government of Uganda accuses of meddling in its internal security and closure of the border by the Rwandan government.

No one seems to know the real cause of this conflict between sister countries, and the leadership on both sides is not committed to present us with the nitty gritty of their differences, however, we can attempt to understand state behaviors benchmarking on the four levels of analysis in international relations.

International relations is the study of the relations of states with each other and with international organizations and certain subnational entities (e.g., bureaucracies, political parties, and interest groups). It is concerned with relations across boundaries of nation-states.

It attempts to explain the interactions of states in the global interstate system and to explain the interactions of others whose behavior originates within one country and is targeted toward members of other countries. In short, it is an attempt to explain behavior that occurs across the boundaries of states, the broader relationships of which such behavior is a part, and the institutions (private, state, nongovernmental, and intergovernmental) that oversee those interactions, and it is becoming increasingly relevant as the world grows more and more interconnected through trade and commerce, migration, the internet and through social media, and concerns about pressing global environmental problems.

International relations, or the relationships and interactions between different nations and ethnicities, is inherently complex, both in theory and practice, however, scholars and diplomats have found it useful to think about the numerous factors that shape international relations by breaking them into different levels of analysis — individual, state and international. These different levels of analysis illuminate different reasons for why countries go to war, sign treaties or pursue alliances — is it due to the personalities of individual leaders, the values of particular nations as a whole or the characteristics of the international system as a whole

International level analysis; the international or systemic level of analysis argues that all foreign policy can be understood without even looking at the internal characteristics of nations or individuals. Rather, characteristics of the international system lead nations to behave in particular ways based upon how much power they hold. The most easily understood example of international level analysis is the Cold War when there was a bipolar system where two nations — the United States and the USSR — both held substantial power. When two nations hold the majority of international power, there will inevitability be tensions between the two nations, and all their decisions will be based on maintaining their power among nations and preventing the other nation from gaining more power. Could this be the reason we are seeing unending conflict between Uganda and Rwanda because each is trying to position itself well in the great lakes region and actually the evidence shows that these are powerhouses in GLR and strategic interests for each state may lead to the conflict as each is trying to outdo another and position itself as the more powerful.

The state-level analysis argues that the international system level tells only part of the story of international relations, but looking at the backgrounds of states — the type of government, economic performance, geography, history, and cultural values — can offer a more complete explanation. In this view, it is important to note that the conflict between Uganda and Rwanda may not be just a conflict between two powerful leaders, but internal state characteristics, where one is following certain acceptable rules and another not, for example, the targeted assassinations and kidnap of those opposed to regime in Rwanda is against accepted values of international system and it sounds wrong to Uganda that finds it detestable for one to go to the length of killing his opponents on foreign soil, in fact, president Museveni’s letter to his Rwandan counterpart has lines that show how Uganda doesn’t agree with the methods Rwanda is using, so these differences alone may lead to cold crisis we are witnessing.

Individual Level; the individual level emphasizes the “great man in history” concept. In this view, the very personalities of leaders shape foreign policy. Leaders are not simply mechanically responding to international or state systems, but taking an active role in determine international relations. Perhaps this could also explain the personality difference between the two great leader of the GLR, whereas president Museveni is very tolerant of his opponents and negative energy directed to him, his counterpart in southwest is not, and one may wonder what would have happened if we had a different person in state-house with all these provocations, we are also told that the Kisangani incidents would have been written  differently had the president of Uganda behaved like his counterpart. So this individual level analysis helps us explain why some nations behave the way they behave towards other nations based on the personal traits of its leader. We all remember Idi Amin and how he would have handled the Rwanda-Uganda crisis.

Organizational Level Analysis; This examines how organizations within a state influence the state’s foreign policy behavior. In other words, organizational level analysis views that organizations—not states—make the decisions that create a state’s foreign policy, these include the way our security forces may influence the behavior of state and we may go to war on false information and because it may fulfill some officers long held vendetta or because it would enrich their bank accounts, USA went to war in Iraq and destroyed that country based on falsified intelligence reports by CIA and guys in Pentagon.

Likewise, if our officers like CMI, ISO, ESO and Rwanda`s equivalent have interest in fighting each other for whatever reason, it would be possible for them to falsify intelligence reports and convince the leadership to sanction a war between sister countries that would have been avoided and unnecessary for that matter.

Critical analysis through the above can explain the causes of the crisis and why we are not likely to see a fully fledged war but also no lasting solutions at hand.

Next time we will explain it using both realism and idealism

For God and the Pearl of Africa