Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni, currently serving as chairperson of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), has issued a powerful and nuanced statement addressing the escalating tensions between Iran and Israel. His intervention, prompted by recent hostilities and concerns raised by the Iranian Ambassador to Uganda over Kampala’s silence, reflects both historical awareness and a commitment to principled diplomacy.
A Plea for Dialogue and Restraint
Museveni’s central message is unequivocal: the use of force should be strictly limited to legitimate self-defense, not aggression. He urges all actors in the Middle East—specifically Iran, Israel, and their respective allies—to “draw back from the use of force and return to principled diplomacy”. In his view, the persistent reliance on military solutions only deepens instability and suffering in the region.
As chair of NAM, Museveni’s position carries weight aong the 120 member states committed to the Bandung Principles, which emphasize respect for sovereigntym, equality among nations, and non-interference in internal affairs. His call for dialogue is thus rooted in a broader philosophy of international relations that rejects interventionism and identity-based chauvinism.
Critique of All Parties: Iran, Israel, and Western Powers
Museveni’s statement is notable for its even-handed critique of all the principal actors involved in the conflict:
Iranian Islamists: He faults hardline factions in Tehran for denying Israel’s right to exist, describing this as a fundamental error both historically and theologically. Museveni points out that, according to the Bible, Israel’s presence in the region is legitimate, and the 1947 United Nations partition was a just attempt to resolve the land dispute. He dismisses the notion, common among some Iranian and Arab groups, that Israel is a mere Western transplant, arguing that such a view ignores centuries of Jewish history and persecution.
Israel: Museveni is equally critical of Israeli hardliners who refuse to recognize Palestinian rights and persistently block the implementation of a two-state solution. He draws a historical parallel to Uganda’s own past, likening Israel’s denial of Palestinian claims to Idi Amin’s expulsion of Indian-Ugandans—a logic Uganda rejected then and rejects now. Museveni insists that both Jews and Palestinians have legitimate claims to the land, and only a two-state solution can offer lasting peace.
Western Powers: Museveni does not spare the United States and its allies, blaming them for exacerbating the conflict through interventions driven by “selfish interests.” He specifically cites the 1953 CIA-backed coup in Iran as a turning point that fueled anti-Western sentiment and enabled the rise of fundamentalist clerics. He warns that foreign military interventions rarely solve internal political problems and often produce unintended, destabilizing consequences.
Advice to the US and External Actors
Museveni’s advice to the United States and other external powers is clear: abandon interventionist policies and support genuine diplomatic efforts. He stresses that the path to peace lies not in military might or regime change, but in dialogue, mutual recognition, and respect for international law. He calls on the US to use its influence to encourage both Iran and Israel to make necessary compromises—namely, for Iran and its allies to recognize Israel, and for Israel to commit to a two-state solution.
A Vision for Principled Diplomacy
Underlying Museveni’s intervention is a broader vision for international relations. He advocates for a politics based on legitimate interests rather than identity—be it race, religion, or tribe. This outlook, he argues, is essential for overcoming the cycles of violence that have plagued the Middle East for decades.
Museveni concludes with a spiritual appeal, urging all parties to humble themselves, seek wisdom, and pray for the courage to do what is right. His message is one of hope—that through humility, historical understanding, and principled negotiation, the region can move beyond its tragic legacy of conflict.
Conclusion
President Museveni’s statement stands out for its historical insight, moral clarity, and balanced critique. By calling for restraint, mutual recognition, and a return to principled diplomacy, he offers a roadmap not just for the Middle East, but for conflict resolution worldwide. His advice to the US, Iran, and Israel is both timely and timeless: only through dialogue and respect for all peoples’ rights can lasting peace be achieved.