If you read the Kenyan and Ugandan papers or monitor other regional media it would be understandable if you conclude that both countries are about to go to war over a disputed island that is about the size of half of a standard football field, with little room for supporters to watch a match even if it was a 5-a-side. Why would two countries with very warm relations in recent years, who are both committed to further regional integration through an expanded East African Community, who are both members of several regional multilateral organisations (including the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), the InterGovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), and the International Conference on the Great Lakes Region (ICGLR)), and members of the African Union go to war or escalate a border dispute to this level?

I think the explanation for the ease with which the African state is more prone to violent dialogue, as opposed to the peaceful, diplomatic and political settlements of disputes, has to do with the fact that these are states artificially built to satisfy other people’s interests and which are largely unchanged in their anti-people character decades after independence. Otherwise we have to ask ourselves why states that cannot defend their own people from hunger and disease are ready and able to go to war whatever the cost in human and material terms. That is why almost anything threatens the state in Africa, and it has to prove its sovereignty in the negative. This unfortunately leads the citizens for whom the state could not provide basic services to mobilise around a kind of frenetic nationalism.

There are differences between the reaction of Uganda’s and Kenya’s political leadership that show the mentality and political culture of both countries. Kenya has publicly held out the position that this conflict can and should be resolved diplomatically and politically. Uganda says the same but in a way typical of the manner in which President Yoweri Museveni and the NRA/M (National Resistance Army/Movement) came to power: prepare for war while talking peace. The former’s political base is essentially civil while the latter’s essential nature is military.

But the reaction of the media in both countries contrasts with the political responses. In Uganda the media is not that gung ho whereas the Kenyan media is spoiling for war and quite critical of what they see as a weak response from President Mwai Kibaki’s administration. Maybe Ugandans are used to President Museveni’s militarism and therefore it is not that surprising that UPDF (Uganda People's Defence Force) soldiers are occupying the disputed island because many critics will say the same forces have occupied Uganda since 1986 anyway.

Indeed, Uganda has virtually been at war with all its neighbours at one point or another with the exception of Kenya and Burundi (though many in Bujumbura may dispute this!). But Kenya is not known for interstate militarism even though its internal politics has been very violent with ethnic clashes and high profile assassinations, culminating in the violent post-election disputes of 2007–08. So while Kenya’s political elite are violent towards each other in their battles for supremacy they seem to have kept it within their borders, whereas Uganda’s political violence is historically externalised. So why is the Kenya media so militant? Partly because they are already frustrated with the Grand Coalition government for its non-delivery and in particular President Kibaki’s ‘hands off’ approach to many controversies. The president is infamous for remaining quiet in the face of burning issues to such an extent that at times there is an impression that the country is on autopilot. Migingo merely provides yet another opportunity for the media and the wider public to vent their spleen, this time using the threat of aggression by their gun-totting neighbours to whip up patriotism.

It is really sad that our patriotism and nationalism are brought out mostly in the negative. Where is the patriotism of the media in the face of the high- and low-level corruption destroying the country, compromising the delivery of services, the maintenance of roads and leading to deaths in badly maintained hospitals? Where is the media's patriotism in an aspiring middle-income country where 10 million citizens face mass hunger and starvation despite ample food? Why is the media not waging war against corruption and hunger? Hunger in Kenya is not due to a lack of food but rather the fact that the poor do not have the resources to buy it. Middle-class professionals and the indolent political elite, who do not produce anything and merely milk the country dry, have money to buy any food they want, whereas poor and powerless farmers cannot farm due to drought and cannot eat due to lack of economic means. Where is the patriotism in this?

If militarism really works President Museveni should have annihilated Joseph Kony and the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), as he has repeatedly declared for more than 10 years now. As they say, unfortunately a leopard cannot change its spots. This conflict needs to be resolved through legal, diplomatic and political means however. President Kibaki has been pressured into ‘vowing’ to defend Migingo, but ‘defence’ does not and should not mean going to war. It is not a sign of weakness to give politics and diplomacy a chance. All conflicts on this continent eventually are resolved by negotiations, even if one side ‘wins’ militarily. A military confrontation would be a setback for the fast-tracking of East African integration, something of which President Museveni is a key champion.

* Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem writes this syndicated column in his capacity as a concerned pan-Africanist.
* Please send comments to [email protected] or comment online at http://www.pambazuka.org/.