top of page
Search

When Diplomacy Is Threatened!

Updated: 6 days ago

By Kizito Enock | Human Rights Advocate


On Sunday, May 25, 2025, the Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF) made a troubling announcement: it was suspending all defence and military cooperation with the Federal Republic of Germany. This abrupt decision followed a diplomatic engagement between German Ambassador Matthias Schauer and Ugandan opposition leader Robert Kyagulanyi Ssentamu (aka Bobi Wine)—a meeting grounded in the foundational principles of diplomacy: engagement, dialogue, and the protection of human rights.



But what followed exposed a disturbing trajectory in Uganda’s relationship with international norms. Instead of embracing the spirit of mutual cooperation and accountability, senior Ugandan military officials took to social media to issue veiled threats against the German Ambassador. Their language was not just inflammatory—it was intimidatory. This act signified not merely a bilateral disagreement, but a fundamental challenge to the principles of diplomacy and international human rights law.


Diplomacy Is Not a Crime


Ambassador Schauer’s conduct was not extraordinary—it was lawful and expected under international diplomatic norms. In meeting with opposition voices, he was fulfilling a key duty: to observe, report, and foster open channels across political divides. It is diplomacy in its truest form.

Instead, Uganda's hostile response marked a severe overreach. The threats directed at Ambassador Schauer underscore a broader trend in Uganda: the silencing of dissent and the criminalisation of oversight.


But what does the International law say?


Uganda is a signatory to the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which governs the conduct of diplomats globally. While Article 41 of the Convention restricts diplomats from intervening in internal affairs, it does not, and cannot, prohibit them from expressing concern over violations of international human rights obligations—especially when those concerns reflect the commitments Uganda has itself ratified.

These include:

  • The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)

  • The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

  • The Convention Against Torture (CAT)

  • The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights


Under these treaties, Uganda has binding obligations to prevent torture, unlawful detention, enforced disappearances, and political persecution. Raising alarms when those obligations are breached is not foreign interference—it is international responsibility.

The threats issued against a sitting ambassador represent an erosion of both democratic space and international cooperation. If Uganda can punish an envoy for simply meeting with the opposition and expressing concern about human rights violations, then what future remains for diplomacy?


This incident should provoke urgent questions:

  • Will the international community allow diplomacy to be weaponised by authoritarian regimes?

  • Can diplomats still act as mediators of peace, dialogue, and accountability?

  • What message is being sent to other ambassadors—and to the people of Uganda—when silence becomes the safer path?


The truth is clear: if one ambassador is silenced today, the entire international community may be silenced tomorrow. And for the people of Uganda—many of whom depend on external pressure to shine light into dark corners—this silence could be fatal.

To the European Union, the United Nations, the African Union, and every government with diplomatic presence in Uganda: this is not the time for restraint. This is the moment to speak loudly and clearly. To uphold the sanctity of diplomacy. To reaffirm that the world will not look away while human rights are trampled in broad daylight.

Let Ambassador Schauer’s principled stand serve not as a cautionary tale—but as a call to courage.


Because human rights are not political interference—they are a universal duty.

Because Uganda deserves more than threats and silence—it deserves truth, justice, and accountability.

Because diplomacy must not retreat in the face of intimidation—it must rise.

 
 
 

Comentários


bottom of page