The fate of a nation hangs in the balance, and Uganda stepped in. But was it a rescue mission, or something more? President Museveni’s defense of Uganda’s military involvement in South Sudan paints a picture of regional duty, a desperate attempt to prevent the world’s youngest nation from collapsing. He insists their intervention wasn’t about taking sides, but about safeguarding stability when South Sudan plunged into violence back in 2013.
During a meeting with the United Nations Special Envoy for the Horn of Africa, Mr. Guang Cong, at Mbale State Lodge on November 7, 2025, Museveni explained that Uganda acted to protect regional stability. He framed the conflict as a symptom of sectarianism, echoing historical tensions between Arabs and Africans, now manifesting among African tribes. “Our position has been to stop a collapse because that would be a disaster,” he stated.
The UPDF’s Role:
In December 2013, the simmering tensions in Juba erupted into open conflict between forces loyal to President Salva Kiir and those aligned with his then-deputy, Dr. Riek Machar. As the situation rapidly deteriorated, Uganda deployed the Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF) at Kiir’s request. The mission’s objectives were clear: secure vital infrastructure, protect civilians, and prevent the conflict from spilling over into neighboring countries.
But here’s where it gets controversial… While the intervention was credited with stabilizing the capital and averting a complete state failure, it also drew criticism from some Western governments and international organizations, who accused Uganda of siding with Kiir’s faction. Machar’s forces were eventually defeated, forcing him to flee before later returning under a fragile peace agreement.
Museveni, however, has consistently maintained that Uganda’s involvement was never partisan. He emphasized the importance of resolving political disagreements through peaceful means, such as elections. “There were problems within the SPLM itself, and differences between Salva Kiir and Riek Machar. But there’s really no unsolvable problem. The country belongs to the people. If you have political disagreements, why not go for elections and let the people decide?” he questioned.
Recent Developments and the Path Forward:
Fast forward to the present, and South Sudan is again grappling with unrest. Riek Machar and his allies face accusations of plotting against the transitional government. Machar was later charged before courts of law in Juba, a move seen as an attempt to assert stability ahead of the 2026 elections.
Museveni stated that Uganda’s approach has shifted from direct military engagement to political counseling, focusing on unity and reconciliation. He highlighted Kenya as a model for managing political disputes through elections rather than violence. “In Kenya, even when they disagree sharply, they still go for elections and let the people decide. That’s the right way,” he said.
Mr. Guang Cong commended Uganda’s long-standing role in supporting peace processes in the Horn of Africa, underscoring the UN’s appreciation for Kampala’s influence in stabilizing the region. The meeting in Mbale took place as South Sudan faces renewed international pressure to accelerate political reforms and ensure credible elections next year. These elections are seen as a critical test of the country’s fragile peace and institutional maturity. And this is the part most people miss… The success of these elections will determine the future of the nation.
What do you think? Was Uganda’s intervention a necessary act of regional responsibility, or did it inadvertently fuel the conflict? Share your thoughts in the comments below!