Uganda's participation in Gaza 'stabilisation force' sparks debate in Africa

Uganda's parliament approved the deployment of army troops to the" International Stabilisation Force" in the Gaza Strip at the beginning of August as part of US President Donald Trump's plan. The move marks the first official declaration by an African country of its readiness to participate in Gaza.

The approval came on 6 August after Ugandan Defence Minister Kiria Kiwanuka told lawmakers that Trump had asked President Yoweri Museveni in July for Uganda to contribute to the proposed international force in Gaza.

After the Ugandan parliament's approval, a Ugandan soldier in military uniform posted a video on social media in which he appeared alongside the words, "Gaza, we are coming", indicating that the idea of a military deployment had begun circulating within Uganda's military and media circles.

The Ugandan government has not yet specified the number of troops it may deploy to the territory or when they would be sent.

Israel's public broadcaster reported last Monday, 17 August, that senior officers from Uganda and Burundi had arrived at the US command headquarters in Kiryat Gat in the occupied Palestinian territories as part of advanced talks with the two countries to send hundreds of soldiers to the territory as part of the multinational stabilisation force.

The broadcaster also said last Thursday, 20 August, that Morocco had been chosen to train members of the force.

Ugandan forces in the Gaza stabilisation force has sparked debate inside the Ugandan parliament, with opposition lawmakers calling for more information about the nature of the mission, the number of troops, its funding, and the guarantees provided to soldiers and their families.

The opposition also warned of the security and political risks associated with sending troops to a devastated territory and under highly complex field conditions.

Uganda has extensive experience in peacekeeping operations, particularly in Africa, where its forces participate in missions in Somalia, South Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

The defence minister cited this experience to justify the Ugandan army's ability to participate in a new international mission.

Without African backing

The decision has also raised questions about Kampala's approval of it and whether it has broad African backing or bypasses African consensus by being taken without Uganda consulting its partners in the African Union.

The African Union has consistently supported the Palestinian cause in principle and calls for the implementation of a two-state solution.

However, Israel has built relations with several African countries over decades, viewing the continent as an arena of Arab-Israeli competition.

In 2021, the union accepted Israel as an "observer member", a move that prompted Palestinian and Arab protests and was later revoked.

Uganda's relations with Israel, meanwhile, have continued to grow.

The Ugandan judge Julia Sebutinde, vice-president of the International Court of Justice, has attracted attention after she was described as believing that "God relies on her to stand with Israel". Sebutinde opposed the six rulings imposed by the court in 2024 to protect Palestinians and stop the genocide in Gaza.

Ugandan military leadership also recently said that any attempts to "destroy" Israel, amid the US-Israeli war on Iran, could prompt Uganda to intervene in support of the occupying state.

Uganda is also one of the largest importers of military technology and spyware from the occupying state.

In this context, Sudanese writer and researcher Abbas Saleh, who is based in the Ethiopian capital Addis Ababa, told The New Arab that Uganda's potential participation in the proposed international force for the Gaza Strip reflects a renewed predicament facing the African Union.

Decisions and positions adopted by the continental organisation often appear non-binding on member states, which may adopt unilateral policies that conflict with the union's collective positions.

"Despite the clear positions adopted by the African Union on the Palestinian cause, its rejection of Israeli violations and its repeated calls for an end to the war and the protection of civilians, the involvement of some member states in international security arrangements linked to Gaza could weaken the unity of the African position and expose the organisation's limited ability to turn its political positions into practical commitments by its members," he pointed out.

According to Saleh, Uganda is among the countries whose name has for years been associated with a broad security and military role in Africa, as well as close relations with Western powers, particularly in the Great Lakes region and the Horn of Africa.

He explained that this role "has given it a prominent position in several regional security issues but has at times made its foreign policy a subject of debate over the extent to which its decisions are independent of the calculations of international powers".

"The Ugandan move is significant beyond the participation of a single country, as it could set a precedent encouraging other countries that had been hesitant or reluctant to join the proposed international force, particularly if they are provided with appropriate political and security guarantees or international incentives," Saleh opined.

He stressed that participation in a military mission inside Gaza carries significant risks, given the complexities of the security and political situation, continuing disagreements over the future of the territory and governance and security arrangements, and the sensitivity surrounding the presence of foreign forces in the Palestinian territories.

"Uganda's move places the African Union before a difficult test: how can the organisation maintain a unified African position on the Palestinian cause while each member state has broad scope to make its foreign and security decisions independently?" he added. "The union's ability to deal with these contradictions could be an important indicator of the effectiveness of its political positions, not only towards Palestine, but also towards international crises affecting the continent and the interests of its countries."

Contradictions, differences

Meanwhile, researcher on Sahel and Sahara affairs Mohamed Torshin told The New Arab that the participation of Ugandan forces in the peace process in Gaza clearly reflects the scale of contradictions within the African Union and its limited ability to impose or implement decisions taken collectively, whether at the level of the AU Commission, the Peace and Security Council or the General Assembly.

Although African Union decisions and collective positions are supposed to form a common political framework for member states, the Ugandan position, along with other previous cases, reveals clear differences in the positions of African countries towards several sensitive regional and international issues.

In many cases, these differences push some countries or regional blocs to adopt policies and approaches that conflict with the union's collective position.

According to Torshin, the repercussions are not limited to a particular issue but extend to the effectiveness of African decision-making in general.

When a member state, in his view, adopts a position that clearly contradicts the union's collective position, this weakens the organisation's ability to present itself as a unified political actor and limits its ability to exercise diplomatic influence on issues requiring a coherent continental position.

In this context, Torshin noted that the repetition of such cases could widen the gap between decisions issued by African Union institutions and the policies pursued by some member states at the national level.

"This would gradually weaken the ability of the AU Commission and its political bodies to turn collective positions and decisions into effective and binding policies, making African decision-making more vulnerable to fragmentation and differences between countries and regional blocs," he added.

Torshin pointed out that the lack of protocol and political coordination between different African countries, ministries and institutions, and the absence of unified positions and decisions on common issues, could create space for international parties with interests and programmes in Africa to deal with countries individually and implement their policies and projects according to their own interests, away from the collective frameworks and decisions of the African Union.

He argued that "as this divergence and the multiplicity of positions within the continental organisation continue, international powers may find themselves with greater room to manoeuvre and negotiate with African countries bilaterally, gradually weakening the union's ability to formulate and defend a unified African agenda".

"In the long term, the continuation of this fragmentation could affect the future of African integration, making the implementation of continental policies and projects more closely tied to the interests of countries and external partners, and less subject to the collective vision that the union is supposed to represent," Torshin warned.

Article translated from Arabic by Afrah Almatwari. To read the original, click here.