Understanding the Depth Behind Uganda’s Ocean Access Discourse.

 

Exploring Africa’s oceans: equity, UNCLOS, and strategies for coastal and landlocked states to ensure fair, sustainable, and secure access to the blue economy

When President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni of Uganda recently declared that “if the question of access to the ocean is not addressed, the world could face unnecessary future conflicts,” the statement resonated far beyond Kampala’s policy circles. It was more than a national concern; it was a philosophical and geopolitical signal. In a single line, Museveni touched upon one of the least discussed yet most consequential questions in modern international relations — who truly benefits from the oceans, and how long can inequality in access to them persist without friction?

Africa’s oceans represent a vast and underutilized frontier for economic transformation, regional integration, and strategic security. Yet access to these resources remains uneven, particularly for landlocked states whose participation in the blue economy is constrained by geography, infrastructure, and diplomatic dependencies. The renewed continental focus on maritime governance—driven by both opportunity and necessity—requires a deeper interrogation of legal frameworks, institutional mechanisms, and cooperative strategies that can ensure inclusive benefit-sharing.

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) provides a foundational legal architecture for ocean governance. For African landlocked states, UNCLOS affirms the right to access the sea and participate in the sustainable use of marine resources through transit rights and equitable benefit-sharing provisions. However, translating these legal entitlements into practical economic gains demands more than treaty ratification—it requires coordinated infrastructure development, regional diplomacy, and institutional capacity to navigate complex maritime arrangements.

Security and conflict risks associated with unequal access to Africa’s oceans are not hypothetical. They manifest in the form of corridor instability, maritime crime, and geopolitical friction between coastal and inland states. Where access is perceived as exclusionary or exploitative, it can fuel resentment, disrupt trade, and undermine regional cohesion. Museveni’s warning reflects a broader concern: that unresolved maritime inequities could become flashpoints in future continental disputes unless proactively addressed.

The African Union and regional institutions such as the East African Community (EAC), Southern African Development Community (SADC), and Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) have a critical role to play in promoting equitable participation in the blue economy. Through harmonized policy frameworks, joint infrastructure investments, and inclusive governance platforms, these bodies can help bridge the gap between legal rights and economic realities. Their effectiveness, however, depends on political will, resource mobilization, and the ability to mediate competing interests.

Coastal and landlocked African nations must adopt deliberate strategies to implement fair, sustainable, and inclusive maritime governance. These include developing joint ventures in fisheries and offshore energy, investing in multimodal transport corridors, digitizing customs and port operations, and embedding equity clauses in bilateral and regional agreements. Security cooperation, climate resilience planning, and knowledge-sharing initiatives are equally vital to ensure that ocean access becomes a driver of unity rather than division.

In sum, the discourse on ocean access—sparked by Uganda’s leadership—offers a timely opportunity for Africa to reimagine its maritime future. Equity, sustainability, and strategic foresight must guide this journey, lest the continent replicate historical patterns of exclusion in a new frontier of opportunity.

At first glance, President Yoweri Museveni’s recent remark appeared to align with Uganda’s well-worn narrative of self-reliance and regional integration. Yet, a closer reading reveals a deeper undercurrent—one that resonates far beyond Uganda’s borders. His words tap into a growing unease among Africa’s landlocked nations and other marginalized states: a disquiet with a global order that continues to privilege geography over justice, coastlines over cooperation.

The ocean, which spans more than 70 percent of the Earth’s surface, is often described as the planet’s ultimate commons. It is a shared domain that facilitates global trade, moderates climate systems, and holds vast, untapped resources essential to humanity’s future. But beneath this aspirational vision of collective stewardship lies a stark and enduring inequity: access to the sea—and to the wealth it harbors—is far from equal. Some nations are born with coastlines and ports; others are encircled by landlocked borders that restrict their direct engagement with maritime economies.

President Museveni’s cautionary note reopens a conversation that many global and regional policymakers have long chosen to sidestep: the unresolved tension between sovereignty and equity, between the formal guarantees of international law and the lived realities of global power asymmetries. His intervention challenges the assumption that legal access is synonymous with meaningful participation.

Uganda, by both definition and geography, is a landlocked country—surrounded by Kenya to the east, Tanzania to the south, South Sudan to the north, and the Democratic Republic of Congo to the west. Yet its economic arteries are inextricably tied to maritime access. Every barrel of oil intended for export, every container of imported goods, and every strategic investment in its future must traverse foreign territory to reach the sea—primarily through the ports of Mombasa in Kenya or Dar es Salaam in Tanzania.

This structural dependency is not unique to Uganda. Sixteen African countries share landlocked status, collectively home to over 300 million people. Despite ambitious national development plans and regional integration efforts, these states remain disproportionately burdened by their geography. They face higher transport costs, slower access to international markets, and a reliance on often fragile diplomatic and infrastructural arrangements for port access and trade facilitation.

Thus, when Museveni warned of “future wars,” his tone was not belligerent but cautionary. It was a sober reminder that economic exclusion—if left unaddressed—can morph into geopolitical instability. His words echoed the logic of history: when access to vital resources is distributed unequally, nations will inevitably seek redress. Sometimes through negotiation and alliance-building; other times, through confrontation.

The Unspoken Context: Oceans as the Next Strategic Frontier

The 21st century has quietly transformed the ocean’s role in global affairs. No longer seen merely as a conduit for ships and trade, the ocean has emerged as a strategic and economic frontier—home to fisheries, seabed minerals, renewable energy sources, and the undersea data cables that power the digital age. The concept of the “blue economy” has gained traction in policy circles from the United Nations to the African Union, representing not just economic opportunity but also geopolitical leverage.

It is within this evolving context that President Museveni’s recent remark gains deeper resonance. His statement implicitly challenges a global system in which access to ocean resources remains largely determined by geography, rather than by the shared humanity and principles of equity that international law seeks to uphold. Museveni’s intervention invites a critical reassessment of whether global governance frameworks—particularly the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)—have kept pace with the realities of interdependence and the need for inclusive benefit-sharing.

Revisiting the Foundations of Access.

UNCLOS, adopted in 1982, provides a detailed legal framework for the governance of ocean spaces. It grants coastal states sovereignty over their territorial seas and exclusive economic zones (EEZs), affording them privileged access to marine resources. Landlocked states, by contrast, are accorded rights of transit and participation in resource sharing—rights that hinge on cooperative arrangements with neighboring coastal states.

While this structure was intended to promote fairness, its implementation often reinforces asymmetrical power dynamics. Landlocked nations remain dependent on the efficiency, stability, and goodwill of transit states to access global markets. When these corridors are disrupted—whether by political tensions, infrastructural limitations, or rising costs—the economic consequences can be severe and far-reaching.

This imbalance has led scholars to describe a “geopolitical bottleneck,” where physical geography compounds economic inequality. Museveni’s warning, then, can be interpreted not as a provocation, but as a call for structural reform—an appeal for mechanisms that transform interdependence into genuine partnership, rather than perpetuating hierarchy.

A Diplomatic Warning, Not a Threat.

Museveni’s words should be understood as a strategic prompt for dialogue, not as a threat of confrontation. Just as the global conversation on climate justice demands equitable treatment between industrialized and developing nations, the emerging discourse on ocean justice calls for meaningful inclusion of both coastal and landlocked states.

His phrasing—“if the question is not addressed”—signals that the opportunity for proactive cooperation remains open. It is a diplomatic invitation to institutions such as the African Union, the United Nations, and the International Seabed Authority to rethink access frameworks in ways that prevent future tensions and foster shared prosperity.

In this light, Uganda’s stance reflects strategic foresight. By raising the issue before it escalates, the country positions itself as a thought leader in the evolving debate on maritime equity. This approach echoes earlier African advocacy for fair resource distribution—from the 1960s campaign for Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources (UNGA Resolution 1803) to contemporary calls for just climate financing.

Why This Moment Matters.

The global order is undergoing a profound transformation. The convergence of three major shifts—the transition to green energy, the race for critical minerals, and the digitalization of trade—is reshaping the architecture of power. In this emerging landscape, oceans are no longer peripheral. They are becoming central arenas for extraction, transportation, and data transmission. From seabed mining to undersea cables, maritime spaces are now strategic assets in the global competition for influence and resilience.

In such a world, the exclusion of any group of nations from meaningful participation is not just unjust—it is strategically shortsighted. The stability of tomorrow’s global system will hinge on inclusive governance of shared spaces. President Museveni’s recent remarks, therefore, should not be dismissed as a complaint from the geopolitical margins. Rather, they represent a timely and strategic contribution to the evolving global conversation about the commons.

By raising this concern early, Uganda—and by extension, Africa’s landlocked states—are asserting their stake in the future of ocean politics. The question they pose is both urgent and profound: Can international law evolve to reflect the moral logic that the benefits of the planet’s commons—oceans, atmosphere, cyberspace—belong to all humanity, not just those with territorial advantage?

Setting the Stage for Deeper Inquiry.

This thought paper takes Museveni’s intervention as a point of departure for a broader investigation into the intersection of law, diplomacy, and equity. It seeks to unpack how existing international frameworks—particularly UNCLOS—govern access to ocean resources, and whether they are equipped to handle the demands of a more inclusive and interdependent world.

It also examines the role of African institutions in shaping a maritime future that reflects continental priorities and values. From the African Union to regional economic communities, the paper explores how diplomatic architecture can be leveraged to promote equity, prevent exclusion, and mitigate the tensions Museveni warned about.

Ultimately, this is not merely a Ugandan issue, nor even an African one. It is a global human question: How do we govern shared resources in a world where geography continues to divide opportunity?

The Legal Compass — UNCLOS and the Architecture of Access.

Analyzing Africa’s oceans, UNCLOS rights, and the blue economy: strategies for equitable access, security, and sustainable participation for both coastal and landlocked states to prevent conflict and drive shared prosperity

When delegates from around the world convened in Montego Bay in 1982 to adopt the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), few could have predicted that, four decades later, the same treaty would become central to Africa’s evolving discourse on inclusion and equity. At the time, UNCLOS was celebrated as one of humanity’s most ambitious legal undertakings—a constitution for the oceans. For African nations, many of them newly independent and eager to assert their sovereignty, it offered a promise: that the seas would no longer be monopolized by the powerful, but governed in the spirit of fairness and shared benefit.

Yet, in the lived realities of trade, resource extraction, and diplomacy, the treaty’s elegant provisions often collide with geography. While most African countries enjoy coastlines, sixteen do not. For these landlocked nations, development aspirations hinge on a legal framework they cannot fully control. To grasp the deeper tension behind President Museveni’s recent remarks, one must first understand the architecture of UNCLOS itself.

1. Drawing the Lines of the Sea.

UNCLOS delineates the ocean into distinct legal zones, each conferring varying degrees of sovereignty and access:

Maritime Zone	Distance from Coast	Rights of Coastal States	Relevance to Landlocked States
Territorial Sea	0–12 nautical miles	Full sovereignty — navigation, fishing, security	None directly, except right of innocent passage
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)	12–200 nautical miles	Sovereign rights over natural resources, living and non-living	Access only through bilateral or regional cooperation
Continental Shelf	Up to 350 nautical miles	Rights to seabed minerals and drilling	Participation possible via joint ventures
High Seas	Beyond EEZ	Common heritage of humankind; regulated by ISA	Potential indirect benefit through ISA revenue-sharing

On paper, these distinctions appear balanced. In practice, they divide the world into two categories: those who possess maritime sovereignty, and those who must negotiate it.

2. The African View: Between Coast and Continent.

African states approached UNCLOS with a shared philosophical foundation rooted in two guiding principles:

• Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources: The conviction that every state, regardless of geographic constraints, should control and benefit from the resources essential to its development.
• Common Heritage of Mankind: The belief that areas beyond national jurisdiction—such as the high seas and deep seabed—belong to all humanity, with special consideration for developing nations historically excluded from maritime power.

For coastal African nations, UNCLOS offered a pathway to extend their sovereignty offshore. For landlocked African states, it represented a lifeline—a legal and diplomatic bridge to global participation. Countries like Uganda, Rwanda, Mali, and Niger supported the treaty not because they had direct access to the sea, but because it affirmed their right to be part of the maritime future.

Articles 69 and 70 offered a moral guarantee — that their lack of coastline would not forever dictate their economic fate.

Yet the African interpretation of those provisions has always been aspirational rather than operational. The articles speak of the “right to participate, on an equitable basis, in the exploitation of the living resources of the exclusive economic zones of coastal States of the same region or subregion.”
What UNCLOS does not provide is the mechanism: Who decides the quota? How is “equitable” defined? What happens when regional politics get in the way?

3. The Practice Gap.

In East Africa, the corridor linking Uganda to Mombasa Port illustrates both the promise and the weakness of UNCLOS for landlocked states. Legally, Uganda enjoys freedom of transit. Politically and economically, that freedom depends on the stability of Kenya’s infrastructure, customs systems, and regional relations. A single truck strike or port fee revision can ripple through Uganda’s economy within days.

The same story repeats across the continent:

·        Ethiopia relies on Djibouti for 95 percent of its trade.

·        Zambia depends on Tanzania’s Port of Dar es Salaam and Mozambique’s Beira.

·        South Sudan, the youngest state, remains hostage to the politics of its transit neighbors.

These dependencies show that while UNCLOS protects the right of access, it cannot guarantee the quality of access. The treaty assumes a spirit of cooperation; geography often tests that spirit.

4. Beyond Access: Participation in Ocean Wealth.

Another underexplored clause of UNCLOS concerns equitable participation in marine resources. Theoretically, landlocked states in a region can join coastal partners in exploiting fisheries or seabed minerals. But few African countries have operationalized this idea. Reasons include:

·        Technical capacity gaps: Inland governments often lack marine expertise or fleets.

·        Funding limitations: The cost of exploration and licensing is beyond most national budgets.

·        Political hesitation: Coastal states fear dilution of sovereignty or profit.

Despite these obstacles, there are emerging precedents worth watching. The Southern African Development Community (SADC) has proposed joint marine resource management projects that include inland members. The African Union’s Blue Economy Strategy explicitly calls for “inclusive participation of landlocked and island states” in maritime industries. These initiatives hint at a gradual reinterpretation of UNCLOS through an African lens — one that emphasizes solidarity over strict territoriality.

5. Institutions as Navigational Tools.

For landlocked Africa, the treaty’s promise will remain rhetorical unless translated through institutions that bridge land and sea. Several efforts stand out:

·        The African Union Commission on Maritime Affairs — advocates for integrated ocean policy and could evolve into a continental platform for equitable resource access.

·        The African Development Bank’s Africa Blue Economy Fund (ABEF) — designed to finance marine and coastal projects, potentially including inland stakeholders through logistics and research.

·        Regional Economic Communities (RECs) like the EAC and COMESA — their protocols on transport and trade could serve as legal extensions of UNCLOS’s transit provisions.

By embedding ocean governance within continental frameworks, Africa can give real substance to the UNCLOS principle of cooperation.

6. Reading Between the Articles.

Africa’s interpretation of UNCLOS has always been guided by pragmatism. When Article 125 grants “freedom of transit,” Africans read it not as charity but as interdependence. When Article 69 mentions “equitable participation,” they interpret equity not as uniformity but as opportunity — a fair chance to develop.

This pragmatic reading aligns with the continent’s diplomatic tradition: cooperative sovereignty — a philosophy that sees state independence not as isolation, but as shared agency. It is the same logic that underpins the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA): individual borders exist, but prosperity flows best when borders cooperate.

Thus, when Museveni speaks of “future conflicts” if access is not addressed, he is implicitly urging the world to honor UNCLOS not just in letter but in spirit.

7. The Unfinished Agenda.

Forty years after its adoption, UNCLOS is being tested by new realities — climate change, seabed mining, and the digital economy. For Africa’s landlocked states, these developments pose both risk and opportunity.

·        Climate Impact: Rising sea levels threaten ports and coastlines, potentially disrupting transit corridors.

·        Seabed Mining: The International Seabed Authority is licensing exploration in the Indian Ocean; equitable benefit-sharing could include inland nations through regional funds.

·        Digital Oceans: Submarine data cables, now essential to trade and security, raise new questions about access and governance.

In all these domains, Africa’s landlocked states must insist that participation in the blue economy is not an act of goodwill from coastal neighbors but a right grounded in global law.

8. The Compass and the Course Ahead.

UNCLOS remains the compass, but the course must be charted by those who sail — and those who cannot. Its principles give legitimacy to the demand for fairness; its silences invite innovation. For Africa, the next frontier is to reinterpret the convention in ways that reflect continental realities: shared seas, shared markets, and shared responsibility.

In the end, treaties alone do not guarantee justice; institutions, partnerships, and political will do. If coastal and landlocked states treat ocean governance as a collective enterprise, the seas could become Africa’s greatest connector instead of its newest divide.

Geography as Destiny — Economic and Structural Barriers.

When President Museveni highlighted the potential for “future conflicts” if ocean access is not addressed, he was pointing less to the law on paper and more to the realities of geography. In Africa, geography is destiny: it dictates trade routes, determines economic dependency, and shapes political leverage. For landlocked countries like Uganda, Rwanda, and Malawi, legal rights under UNCLOS are only the starting point. The actual journey from a policy principle to a functional maritime economy runs through a labyrinth of infrastructure, political agreements, and regional coordination.

1. The Continental Map: A Spatial Challenge.

Africa’s landlocked states — 16 in total — collectively account for over 300 million people, and they are economically tied to neighboring coastal nations for virtually all international trade. To illustrate the scale of this dependency:

 

Landlocked Country	Primary Port(s)	Distance to Coast (approx.)	Dependence Notes
Uganda	Mombasa (Kenya), Dar es Salaam (Tanzania)	1,200 km	Relies heavily on transit agreements; road and rail corridors critical
Rwanda	Dar es Salaam, Mombasa	1,600 km	Limited rail connectivity; relies on cross-border cooperation
Malawi	Beira (Mozambique), Durban (South Africa)	900–1,700 km	Coastal ports vulnerable to political and weather-related disruption
Zambia	Dar es Salaam, Beira	1,000–1,800 km	Trade corridors involve multiple transit states; customs bottlenecks common
Ethiopia	Djibouti	900 km	Nearly all trade flows through a single port; infrastructure upgrades critical

This table shows that access is not merely a function of law — it is a function of distance, infrastructure, and regional stability. Even with guaranteed transit rights under UNCLOS, a landlocked state’s economy can be slowed or derailed by bottlenecks hundreds of kilometers from its own borders.

2. Infrastructure: The Hidden Gatekeeper.

Physical infrastructure is the first and most visible constraint on ocean access. Roads, railways, and inland dry ports determine how effectively landlocked nations can translate transit rights into real economic gain.

• Road Corridors: Many African highways are poorly maintained, prone to flooding, and subject to delays at border crossings. The Northern Corridor linking Uganda and Rwanda to Mombasa has improved significantly, but political disputes and congestion continue to affect throughput.
• Rail Links: Rail modernization is uneven. Tanzania and Kenya have invested in standard-gauge railways, yet many landlocked states remain under-served. Freight costs remain high, reducing competitiveness for exports.
• Dry Ports & Inland Logistics: Inland dry ports act as staging grounds for containerized trade. However, their capacity is often limited, and customs clearance systems are slow or inconsistent, undermining efficiency even when transit agreements exist.

Infrastructure thus acts as a gatekeeper, determining whether UNCLOS’s promise of equitable access becomes an operational reality.

3. Political Geography and Regional Dependencies.

Legal transit rights do not erase political realities. Landlocked African nations are acutely aware that their access depends on the stability and cooperation of neighboring coastal states. Consider a few scenarios:

• Uganda–Kenya: Trade depends on the Northern Corridor and port of Mombasa. Strikes, port congestion, or political tensions in Kenya directly affect Ugandan imports and exports.
• Rwanda–Tanzania: Multiple checkpoints and variable regulatory enforcement create delays that significantly increase costs for landlocked exporters.
• Ethiopia–Djibouti: Nearly all Ethiopian trade relies on a single port. Any disruption—natural, political, or economic—poses a strategic vulnerability.

These examples illustrate what scholars call a geopolitical bottleneck: legal access exists, but actual operational control is limited, leaving landlocked states economically and politically exposed.

4. The Cost of Distance

Distance is not just a geographic fact — it is a financial reality. Transportation costs for landlocked African countries are typically 50–100% higher than for coastal neighbors. This affects export competitiveness, domestic pricing, and foreign investment attraction.

For instance, an export of Ugandan coffee to international markets must travel over 1,200 km through road and rail networks before reaching Mombasa. By the time the container reaches a global port, logistics costs can exceed 20–25% of the product’s value, compared to under 10% for neighboring Kenya. These hidden costs highlight the structural inequity underlying ocean access, despite UNCLOS’s legal guarantees.

5. Security and the Fragility of Transit.

Infrastructure and distance aside, security concerns also shape maritime access. Landlocked states often face:

• Cross-border theft or smuggling along long corridors.
• Political instability in neighboring coastal states, affecting port operations.
• Regional disputes over tariffs or customs regulations, which can escalate into broader trade restrictions.

Such risks underscore the broader implications of Museveni’s warning: future conflict is not merely hypothetical, but tied to persistent structural inequalities that make resource access fragile.

6. The Opportunity of Continental Integration

Despite these challenges, geography is not destiny if paired with strategic regional cooperation. Africa is pioneering approaches to mitigate structural barriers:

• African Union Initiatives: The AU’s Blue Economy Strategy explicitly encourages joint maritime infrastructure projects and inclusive participation of landlocked states in resource sharing.
• Regional Transport Corridors: Projects like the Northern and Central Corridors integrate road, rail, and inland ports to streamline access.
• Trade Facilitation Protocols: Agreements under the EAC and COMESA aim to harmonize customs procedures, reduce tariffs, and speed border clearance.

These initiatives demonstrate that the continent can transform geographic disadvantage into shared opportunity, creating corridors of cooperation rather than conflict.

7. From Legal Rights to Practical Empowerment.

The structural barriers faced by landlocked states illustrate a critical insight: legal rights alone are insufficient. UNCLOS grants the right to transit and participation, but Africa’s landlocked nations must pair legal frameworks with practical infrastructure, strong institutions, and regional diplomacy to translate rights into real-world outcomes.

In other words, equity is not realized on paper; it is engineered through investment, coordination, and political will. This is the heart of the challenge Museveni highlighted — if practical access is not strengthened, legal guarantees remain aspirational, and tension over the oceans could deepen.

8. The Broader Implication: Geography Shapes Policy.

Geography has always been a silent architect of foreign policy. For African landlocked states, it dictates diplomatic priorities, trade negotiations, and security planning. Museveni’s remarks remind policymakers that ocean access is not just a logistical issue, but a matter of strategic sovereignty, economic growth, and peacebuilding.

The lesson is clear: while UNCLOS provides a legal framework, the continent must actively bridge the gap between law and reality. Investments in infrastructure, harmonized trade policies, and regional cooperation are not optional — they are the means by which landlocked Africa secures its place in the blue economy.

The Blue Economy and the Inequality of Opportunity.

The ocean has always been more than water. It is a repository of wealth, knowledge, and strategic influence, and in the 21st century, it has emerged as the world’s next frontier for economic growth. The term “blue economy” encapsulates this potential — encompassing fisheries, aquaculture, offshore energy, seabed minerals, and marine biotechnology. Yet, as President Museveni’s warning reminds us, the benefits of this emerging economy are far from equally distributed. Geography, infrastructure, and historical inequities continue to shape who can participate and who remains sidelined.

1. Defining the Blue Economy.

The blue economy refers to sustainable use of ocean resources for economic growth, improved livelihoods, and ecosystem health. Its main sectors include:

Sector	Description	Potential for Africa	Access Challenge for Landlocked States
Fisheries & Aquaculture	Capture and cultivation of fish and other marine organisms	Coastal nations dominate industrial fishing; inland states depend on cross-border agreements for trade	Limited direct involvement; must rely on regional cooperation
Maritime Transport & Ports	Shipping, logistics, and port operations	Major coastal hubs like Mombasa, Durban, Lagos generate trade revenue	Landlocked countries pay high transit fees; dependent on neighboring port efficiency
Offshore Oil & Gas	Exploration and extraction from continental shelves	Significant reserves in Angola, Nigeria, Ghana	Limited direct benefit; joint ventures or revenue-sharing needed
Seabed Minerals	Cobalt, nickel, rare earths from deep-sea mining	Eastern and Southern Africa have potential via Indian Ocean zones	Requires regional agreements; high capital investment needed
Renewable Energy (Offshore Wind & Tidal)	Emerging energy sector to power local grids and exports	Still nascent but high potential along East Africa	Infrastructure and expertise concentrated in coastal nations

The table illustrates a clear pattern: coastal proximity correlates with access and opportunity, while landlocked nations face structural barriers to direct participation.

2. Fisheries: A Microcosm of Inequality.

Africa’s fisheries are a vital source of food security and economic activity, particularly in West, East, and Southern Africa. For example:

• West Africa generates $24 billion annually from fisheries, employing millions of people in coastal communities.
• East Africa’s marine fisheries contribute roughly $1.3 billion annually, but industrial-scale operations are concentrated in Kenya, Tanzania, and Mozambique.

Landlocked nations like Uganda, Rwanda, and Burundi depend on imported fish from regional coastal neighbors. While legal agreements under UNCLOS and regional treaties allow for trade and joint ventures, these arrangements rarely allow inland countries to participate directly in fishing, processing, or export. Consequently, inland states capture only a small fraction of the economic value created — illustrating Museveni’s point about inequality

3. Undersea Minerals: The New Frontier.

The deep seabed holds minerals essential for modern technology — cobalt, manganese, nickel, and rare earth elements. The International Seabed Authority (ISA) governs exploration, asserting that the deep sea beyond national jurisdiction is the common heritage of mankind.

For Africa:

• The Indian Ocean and the South Atlantic feature undersea zones rich in mineral resources.
• Coastal states like Mauritius, Tanzania, and South Africa are in the best position to invest in exploration.
• Landlocked states could theoretically benefit through joint ventures or revenue-sharing agreements, but practical participation remains limited due to capital, technical capacity, and regulatory hurdles.

This pattern mirrors the fisheries example: law provides access, but inequality persists in opportunity.

4. Maritime Transport and Trade: Unequal Gateways.

Ports are Africa’s economic gateways, yet they also reflect structural imbalance:

• Mombasa (Kenya): Serves Uganda, Rwanda, and South Sudan. Congestion or political disputes can delay shipments for days or weeks.
• Dar es Salaam (Tanzania): Vital for Zambia and Malawi. Port inefficiencies increase logistics costs significantly.
• Durban & Lagos: Major African hubs with global connectivity, but landlocked partners face higher shipping costs and complex customs procedures.

For inland states, the blue economy is effectively mediated through neighbors’ infrastructure. Legal transit rights under UNCLOS guarantee passage but do not guarantee efficiency or affordability, highlighting the structural inequity Museveni referenced.

5. Renewable Energy and Offshore Development.

Africa’s offshore wind and tidal energy potential remains largely untapped. Coastal nations with direct access to the ocean are positioned to develop renewable energy projects that can power industrial hubs and export electricity to neighboring countries. Landlocked states could theoretically participate as investors or consumers, but capital, expertise, and grid infrastructure remain obstacles.

This dynamic reinforces a broader theme: participation in the blue economy is not simply a legal right — it requires resources, coordination, and strategic partnerships.

 

6. Institutional Opportunities for Inclusion.

Despite these inequalities, Africa is actively exploring frameworks for inclusive ocean participation:

• African Union’s Blue Economy Strategy (2019): Calls for participation of landlocked states in resource planning and revenue-sharing.
• Southern African Development Community (SADC) Initiatives: Promote joint management of fisheries and cross-border investment in maritime industries.
• East African Community (EAC) Protocols: Facilitate inland access to ports, harmonize customs procedures, and promote regional economic corridors.

These institutional innovations demonstrate that structural inequalities can be mitigated, if political will and coordination are strong.

7. Bridging the Gap: Recommendations for Landlocked States.

Landlocked nations can move from passive beneficiaries to active participants in the blue economy by:

1. Investing in Logistics and Transit Infrastructure: Modern dry ports, rail links, and storage facilities reduce dependence on coastal neighbors.
2. Forming Joint Ventures: Partnering with coastal states in fisheries, offshore energy, and seabed mining can ensure revenue sharing and technical knowledge transfer.
3. Capacity Building: Training in marine sciences, maritime law, and port management empowers inland states to contribute strategically.
4. Regional Advocacy: Lobbying through AU and RECs ensures that landlocked interests are integrated into continental blue economy frameworks.

By approaching the ocean strategically rather than reactively, landlocked states can turn geographical disadvantage into coordinated opportunity, reducing the risk of economic marginalization and potential tensions.

8. The Broader Lesson.

The blue economy illustrates the heart of Museveni’s warning: law alone is not enough. The promise of UNCLOS and regional treaties is meaningful only when paired with capacity, infrastructure, and political cooperation. Inequities persist not because landlocked nations are without legal rights, but because the practical levers of opportunity remain unevenly distributed.

If Africa — coastal and inland — can implement inclusive policies, invest strategically, and harness collective bargaining, the continent could transform the blue economy from a site of potential conflict into a platform for shared prosperity and integration.

 

Diplomacy at Sea — Institutions, Treaties, and Power Plays

If Section 4 highlighted inequality in opportunity, Section 5 turns to the mechanisms that govern cooperation and contestation — the institutions, treaties, and diplomatic strategies that determine how Africa’s states, coastal and landlocked alike, navigate the oceans. President Museveni’s warning about potential conflict underscores an essential truth: the law is only as effective as the institutions that enforce it. In Africa, the interplay between regional frameworks, continental policy, and global governance defines whether ocean access is a tool of integration or a source of tension.

1. The African Union and the Blue Economy Strategy.

The African Union (AU) has positioned itself as the central continental actor in maritime governance. In 2019, the AU adopted the African Blue Economy Strategy, a roadmap for sustainable maritime development. Its objectives are clear:

1. Inclusive Access: Ensure that landlocked and island states are integrated into ocean-related economic activities.
2. Sustainable Resource Use: Promote fisheries, renewable energy, and mineral extraction that respect ecological limits.
3. Capacity Building: Develop continental institutions, research facilities, and human capital for ocean management.
4. Regional Cooperation: Strengthen partnerships among coastal, landlocked, and island nations.

For landlocked states like Uganda, the AU strategy represents a framework to translate UNCLOS provisions into actionable regional programs. By aligning with continental priorities, inland states can amplify their bargaining power, participate in shared ventures, and reduce dependence on individual neighbors.

2. Regional Economic Communities: The Middle Layer of Diplomacy.

Africa’s Regional Economic Communities (RECs) — including the East African Community (EAC), Southern African Development Community (SADC), and Economic Community of Central African States (ECCAS) — provide a second, operational layer of maritime diplomacy. RECs focus on:

• Trade Corridors and Transit: Standardizing customs procedures and improving logistics for landlocked members.
• Resource-Sharing Protocols: Coordinating fisheries, joint port management, and maritime security.
• Conflict Mitigation: Offering arbitration mechanisms when disputes arise between coastal and landlocked states.

For example, the EAC Protocol on Trade and Transport enables Uganda and Rwanda to negotiate collectively with Kenya over port fees, customs clearance, and corridor management. Such regional mechanisms operationalize UNCLOS principles at a scale where they matter most: the day-to-day movement of goods and resources.

3. Bilateral and Multilateral Treaties.

In addition to AU and RECs, African states rely heavily on bilateral agreements to secure transit and resource-sharing rights:

• Uganda–Kenya: Mombasa Corridor Agreement outlines port use, tariffs, and transit logistics.
• Rwanda–Tanzania: Dar es Salaam corridor agreements provide formal frameworks for customs, fees, and infrastructure investment.
• Zambia–Tanzania / Mozambique: Multi-port agreements facilitate redundancy and risk management.

While these treaties provide legal certainty, they also illustrate the fragility of ocean access for landlocked nations. Diplomatic goodwill, infrastructure reliability, and political stability remain decisive factors.

4. The International Seabed Authority (ISA).

Beyond regional frameworks, the International Seabed Authority governs deep-sea mining in areas beyond national jurisdiction. For Africa, the ISA represents both opportunity and challenge:

• Coastal states can participate directly in exploration and licensing.
• Landlocked states may only benefit indirectly through regional partnerships or shared revenues, unless they form strategic investment consortia.

The ISA’s regulatory model highlights a key diplomatic insight: equitable access depends on negotiation and coalition-building, not just law. For example, African states are forming regional ISA coalitions to ensure inland participation in deep-sea mining revenue — a model for translating principle into practice.

5. Maritime Security and Cooperative Diplomacy.

Diplomacy at sea is not solely about economics; it is also about security. Piracy off the Somali coast, illicit fishing, and territorial disputes require coordinated maritime governance:

• The African Union’s Peace and Security Council (PSC) has endorsed maritime security initiatives to safeguard trade corridors.
• Joint Coast Guard Operations: Coastal and inland states contribute intelligence and logistics support to protect ports and transit routes.
• Conflict Prevention: Diplomatic frameworks allow disputes over access, fees, or resource sharing to be mediated before escalating.

This cooperative approach demonstrates that maritime diplomacy is not just about asserting rights, but also about building trust, interdependence, and stability.

6. Power Plays and Regional Negotiation.

Even with treaties and institutions, power asymmetry shapes outcomes. Coastal states control ports, infrastructure, and direct resource access, while landlocked states often rely on diplomacy and coalition-building to assert influence. Successful strategies include:

1. Collective Bargaining: Landlocked states negotiating as a bloc with coastal neighbors (e.g., Uganda and Rwanda with Kenya).
2. Institutional Leverage: Using AU or REC platforms to amplify concerns and propose binding agreements.
3. Investment Partnerships: Funding shared infrastructure or maritime projects to gain influence over access and decision-making.

These strategies reflect a realist understanding of power, balanced by a commitment to cooperative development. Museveni’s warning about conflict implicitly advocates for this balance — recognizing power disparities while promoting negotiation over confrontation.

7. Africa’s Diplomatic Innovation.

Africa has demonstrated that law, infrastructure, and diplomacy are inseparable in maritime governance. Some notable innovations include:

• The Mombasa Corridor Coordination Council (EAC): Regular multilateral dialogue to address transit bottlenecks and tariffs.
• SADC Joint Fisheries Management Committees: Coastal and inland nations co-manage shared marine stocks.
• AU Blue Economy Fund Advisory Panels: Ensuring landlocked participation in investment decisions.

These examples illustrate how the continent is reinterpreting UNCLOS through a regional lens, emphasizing inclusion, solidarity, and practical enforcement.

8. The Strategic Implication of Museveni’s Warning.

Museveni’s cautionary statement gains resonance when seen through the lens of diplomacy. The risk of future conflict is not immediate, but the structural imbalances in access and benefit-sharing could generate tension if ignored. By strengthening regional institutions, fostering inclusive treaties, and embedding ocean governance within continental strategies, Africa can:

• Prevent disputes over port use, trade, and resources.
• Enhance bargaining power for landlocked states in global negotiations.
• Transform the ocean from a site of potential conflict into a platform for cooperation.

In short, diplomacy at sea is not about confrontation; it is about designing systems that make conflict unnecessary.

9. Institutions as Anchors.

UNCLOS provides the legal compass; African institutions provide the anchor. The AU, RECs, and strategic bilateral treaties allow inland states to convert legal entitlements into tangible economic and security outcomes. Power imbalances remain, but Africa’s diplomatic architecture demonstrates that cooperation, coalition-building, and strategic investment can reshape inequality into opportunity.

Museveni’s warning is thus less about a looming war than about foresight: the seas will remain a source of wealth and connection only if diplomacy keeps pace with geography, law, and technology.

Security and the “Next Resource War” Hypothesis

When President Museveni spoke of potential “future wars” over ocean access, he was touching on a delicate intersection of law, geography, and security. While his remarks may have sounded provocative, they reflect a deep concern that has long occupied international relations scholars: resource scarcity and unequal access can create conditions for conflict. For Africa — with its mix of coastal and landlocked states, emerging blue economy potential, and fragile infrastructure — this concern is not merely theoretical.

1. Oceans as Strategic Assets.

The global ocean is no longer just a medium for shipping; it is a strategic asset. Consider the following:

• Fisheries: Provide food security for hundreds of millions. Overfishing or exclusion of inland stakeholders can generate tension.
• Seabed minerals: Critical for green technologies (cobalt, nickel, rare earths). Access is concentrated among states with capital and maritime proximity.
• Maritime trade routes: Vital for global supply chains; control over ports and corridors can become leverage.

When access to these resources is uneven or contested, states may perceive threats to their economic and national security. Museveni’s warning reflects a preventive security perspective: addressing inequities now reduces the risk of disputes escalating into conflict later.

2. Realist Perspective: Power, Access, and Conflict.

From a realist international relations lens, conflict arises when states’ interests collide and there is no effective mechanism to balance power. Key points include:

1. Geographic Advantage: Coastal states control the ports, EEZs, and infrastructure. Landlocked states are dependent on neighbors for access.
2. Economic Stakes: The blue economy represents high-value resources; inequitable access increases stakes for all parties.
3. Historical Precedents: Resource competition has driven wars over oil, water, and minerals. Africa itself has experienced tensions related to control over lakes, rivers, and border resources.

Realists would argue that, unless institutions and treaties enforce equitable distribution, power asymmetry could generate the very conflicts Museveni warns about.

3. Liberal Perspective: Institutions as Conflict Mitigation.

Liberal international relations theory offers a complementary lens. It emphasizes that institutions, cooperation, and interdependence reduce the likelihood of war. From this perspective:

• UNCLOS, AU Blue Economy Strategy, and RECs are mechanisms to mediate conflict.
• Trade corridors and joint ventures create mutual economic stakes, incentivizing peaceful cooperation.
• Regional security frameworks (e.g., AU Peace and Security Council) allow for early dispute resolution.

Museveni’s concern is therefore a call to strengthen institutional buffers: the law alone is insufficient; functional mechanisms for cooperation are essential to prevent tension from becoming conflict.

4. Africa’s Landlocked States and Vulnerability.

Landlocked nations are particularly exposed to security risks related to ocean access:

• Economic vulnerability: Any disruption in port access or trade corridors can destabilize national economies.
• Strategic leverage: Coastal neighbors can use tariffs, customs delays, or infrastructure control as political tools.
• Dependency on diplomacy: Landlocked states rely heavily on regional negotiation, which can become contentious if perceived inequities persist.

In short, structural inequality in maritime access is not just a financial or legal problem — it is a security problem.

5. Historical Lessons: Resource Conflict in Context.

Africa and the world offer historical parallels that illuminate Museveni’s caution:

• Water conflicts: Nile River disputes show how resource access between upstream and downstream countries can escalate.
• Oil disputes: Nigeria’s Niger Delta highlights local unrest when resource control is perceived as inequitable.
• Ocean disputes elsewhere: South China Sea tensions demonstrate how maritime resource claims can drive geopolitical friction.

While Africa’s current situation is not directly analogous, the pattern is clear: inequity, combined with strategic value and weak enforcement mechanisms, creates fertile ground for tension.

6. Emerging Threats: Climate Change and Strategic Competition.

Climate change adds a new dimension to ocean-related security:

• Rising sea levels: Threaten ports and critical infrastructure. Coastal instability can reverberate inland.
• Changing fish stocks: Shifts in fish populations can provoke cross-border disputes or inequitable access.
• Resource scarcity: Deep-sea minerals are increasingly strategic; competition for licensing and exploitation may intensify.

These emerging threats amplify Museveni’s warning: the stakes of maritime inequity are growing, not static.

7. The Preventive Path: Cooperation as Security Strategy.

Museveni’s emphasis on potential conflict can be read not as alarmism, but as strategic foresight. The preventive path includes:

1. Strengthening Regional Institutions: AU, RECs, and corridor authorities must ensure fair access and rapid dispute resolution.
2. Investing in Infrastructure: Modern, reliable logistics reduce vulnerabilities and economic pressure points.
3. Inclusive Blue Economy Policies: Coastal and landlocked states must co-invest in resource development and revenue-sharing.
4. Continental Security Coordination: Maritime patrols, joint exercises, and intelligence-sharing increase trust and reduce the risk of misunderstandings.

By addressing structural inequities proactively, Africa can transform potential flashpoints into zones of collaboration.

8. The Human Dimension of Security.

Resource-based conflict is often framed in terms of state power, but Museveni’s warning also carries a human dimension. Disruption of trade and access directly affects millions of citizens — from fishermen and farmers to traders and consumers. Equitable ocean access is therefore a moral as well as strategic imperative, linking economic justice to peace and stability.

9. Synthesis: Law, Geography, and Security.

The “next resource war” is not inevitable. It is a conditional hypothesis: conflict arises when legal rights, geographic realities, and institutional mechanisms fail to align. Africa’s challenge is to harness law and diplomacy to preempt structural inequities:

• UNCLOS provides the legal framework.
• AU and RECs provide the regional mechanism.
• Infrastructure, trade facilitation, and joint ventures provide the practical leverage.

Museveni’s remarks remind policymakers that preventive governance is as important as reactive diplomacy. Addressing inequity now is cheaper, safer, and more sustainable than managing conflict later.

10. Conclusion: Security as Shared Responsibility.

The oceans connect Africa internally and to the world. They are a potential source of wealth, integration, and cooperation — or, if ignored, a source of tension. By viewing security through the lens of equitable access, infrastructure, and institutional collaboration, Africa can turn Museveni’s cautionary note into a strategic blueprint for peace.

In essence, equity is security, and security is the prerequisite for unlocking the continent’s blue economy.

Charting the Course — Policy Recommendations and Actionable Steps.

After exploring the legal, economic, security, and moral dimensions of Africa’s ocean access, the question arises: what can be done now to turn potential conflict into opportunity? President Museveni’s warning about “future wars” is less a prophecy than a call to proactive policy and regional collaboration. Section 8 lays out actionable steps — a strategic roadmap for landlocked and coastal African states, their institutions, and international partners.

1. Strengthen Continental Institutions.

The African Union and its agencies are the cornerstone for inclusive ocean governance. Recommended steps include:

• Operationalize the AU Blue Economy Strategy: Ensure landlocked states are explicitly included in all maritime economic plans.
• Create a Pan-African Ocean Governance Council: A platform for dispute resolution, oversight of joint ventures, and coordination across RECs.
• Develop Monitoring and Evaluation Mechanisms: Track progress on access, revenue sharing, and infrastructure improvements, ensuring accountability.

Institutions must act not only as arbiters of law but as drivers of inclusion, translating UNCLOS principles into tangible outcomes for all states.

2. Invest in Infrastructure and Logistics.

Equitable access depends on the physical capability to move goods and resources. Recommendations include:

Priority	Action	Expected Impact
Port and Corridor Upgrades	Modernize key transit corridors (Mombasa, Dar es Salaam, Beira) and inland dry ports	Reduce transit costs, improve reliability, enhance landlocked access
Rail Modernization	Expand standard-gauge rail links connecting inland states to ports	Increase cargo capacity, reduce delays, promote competitiveness
Digital Infrastructure	Implement customs digitization and real-time tracking	Improve efficiency, transparency, and revenue collection
Maintenance and Resilience	Invest in climate-proof infrastructure	Mitigate disruptions from flooding, sea-level rise, or extreme weather

Infrastructure investment transforms UNCLOS’s legal rights into operational access, turning law into practical empowerment.

3. Promote Regional Cooperation and Joint Ventures.

Practical equity requires collaboration between coastal and inland states:

• Joint Fisheries Management: Inland states can co-invest in aquaculture and processing facilities.
• Seabed Mining Consortia: Landlocked nations participate through shared investment in mineral exploration projects.
• Energy Partnerships: Collaborate on offshore renewable projects, integrating inland states as investors or energy consumers.
• Trade Corridor Coordination: RECs and bilateral agreements should harmonize tariffs, fees, and customs procedures to reduce friction.

These measures align economic incentives with ethical and strategic objectives, creating interdependence rather than conflict.

4. Build Human Capacity and Technical Expertise.

Equity is meaningless without knowledge and skill. Recommendations include:

• Maritime Law Training: Landlocked states develop expertise to participate in negotiations and governance.
• Marine Science and Technology Programs: Universities and research centers train professionals in oceanography, fisheries management, and renewable energy.
• Trade and Logistics Education: Inland states improve capacity to manage corridors, dry ports, and customs operations.
• Leadership and Diplomacy Programs: Develop negotiation skills for regional and global maritime forums.

By investing in human capital, Africa ensures sustainable participation in the blue economy.

5. Ensure Inclusive Revenue Sharing.

Access without fair benefits fuels tension. Actionable strategies:

• Regional Revenue Pools: Allocate a portion of profits from fisheries, mining, and energy projects to inland states.
• Investment in Inland Projects: Landlocked nations receive infrastructure or economic development funding proportional to shared resource contributions.
• Transparent Governance: Public reporting and auditing of shared revenues to maintain trust.

Revenue-sharing institutionalizes equity, aligning moral principles with economic incentives.

6. Strengthen Security and Risk Management.

Security is essential for operational access:

• Maritime and Corridor Security: Joint patrols, intelligence-sharing, and crisis response mechanisms reduce piracy, theft, and disruption.
• Conflict Prevention Mechanisms: RECs and AU platforms mediate disputes over access, tariffs, or resource allocation.
• Climate Risk Preparedness: Coastal and inland states collaborate on disaster response plans for ports and transit corridors.

Security ensures that ocean access is not theoretical, but protected and reliable in practice.

7. Engage Global Partners Strategically.

Africa cannot act in isolation. International collaboration amplifies equity and opportunity:

• Technology Transfer: Access to exploration, mining, and aquaculture technologies.
• Investment Support: Global financiers fund joint ventures benefiting coastal and inland states.
• Climate and Environmental Aid: Adaptation projects protect ports and marine ecosystems, ensuring long-term sustainability.
• Diplomatic Advocacy: Support African positions in global bodies like the International Seabed Authority.

Global engagement complements regional strategy, expanding the scope of inclusion and opportunity.

8. Integrate Ethics into Policy.

Finally, policies must embed ethical imperatives into decision-making:

• Fair Participation: Decision-making in resource exploitation includes all affected states.
• Sustainability: Environmental stewardship is mandatory, balancing development with ecological limits.
• Intergenerational Responsibility: Ocean governance protects resources for future generations, not just immediate profit.
• Conflict Prevention: Equity reduces the risk of disputes escalating into confrontation.

Ethical policy ensures that law, infrastructure, and diplomacy are anchored in fairness, fulfilling both moral and strategic goals.

9. Roadmap Summary.

To consolidate, the actionable steps for African states and institutions are:

1. Strengthen continental institutions for oversight and coordination.
2. Invest in infrastructure to operationalize legal access.
3. Promote regional cooperation through joint ventures and corridor management.
4. Build human and technical capacity across inland and coastal states.
5. Ensure inclusive revenue sharing from ocean resources.
6. Enhance maritime and transit security, including climate risk management.
7. Engage global partners for technology, investment, and diplomatic support.
8. Embed ethical principles into all ocean governance policies.

If implemented collectively, these steps transform Museveni’s warning into an actionable strategy, turning the risk of conflict into a blueprint for shared prosperity.

10. Navigating Africa’s Blue Horizon.

Africa’s oceans are not just a frontier for trade or resource extraction; they are a strategic and moral test. By integrating law, infrastructure, diplomacy, capacity building, and ethics, the continent can ensure that landlocked and coastal states alike benefit from the blue economy. Museveni’s caution is a reminder that failure to act decisively may sow discord, but proactive strategy can create cooperation, resilience, and shared growth.

Equity, in the end, is the true compass — guiding Africa toward a future where the oceans connect rather than divide, where law, morality, and pragmatism align, and where the promise of the blue economy becomes reality for all.

Oceans, Justice, and Africa’s Strategic Future.

As we reach the horizon of this analysis, one truth stands clear: Africa’s oceans are far more than water and waves. They are a nexus of law, opportunity, security, and morality — a space where geography and history intersect with human ingenuity and diplomacy. President Museveni’s warning about potential “future wars” over ocean access is not hyperbole; it is a call to anticipate challenges, address structural inequities, and harness the oceans as a unifying force.

1. Law as Foundation, Not Finish Line.

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) provides a legal compass, guaranteeing coastal states sovereign rights over maritime zones and granting landlocked states transit rights and equitable participation. Yet, as this analysis has shown:

• Legal entitlement alone is insufficient for meaningful access.
• Geography, infrastructure, and political relationships mediate the translation of law into economic and strategic advantage.
• Landlocked states remain structurally vulnerable unless legal principles are paired with practical mechanisms.

In short, law is necessary but not sufficient; action and implementation are the keys to turning legal rights into real-world equity.

2. Geography, Infrastructure, and Diplomacy: The Trifecta of Access.

Africa’s oceans illustrate a simple truth: proximity dictates opportunity. Coastal nations naturally dominate fisheries, trade hubs, and seabed exploration. Landlocked states must rely on:

1. Robust infrastructure — corridors, railways, dry ports, and digitized logistics.
2. Cooperative diplomacy — regional, continental, and bilateral institutions that negotiate transit, revenue sharing, and resource management.
3. Strategic investment — human capital and financial resources to participate in the blue economy.

Without alignment of these three factors, geographic disadvantage becomes a structural constraint; with alignment, it becomes an engine for regional cooperation.

3. Security and the Preventive Imperative.

Museveni’s concern about “future wars” underscores the security dimension of inequity. Resource access is inseparable from:

• Political stability of coastal neighbors.
• Reliability and resilience of transit corridors.
• Governance frameworks for fisheries, seabed minerals, and energy projects.

Security is both a prerequisite and a product of equitable ocean governance. Preventive measures — institutional strength, fair revenue sharing, and regional coordination — are investments in peace and prosperity, not just risk management.

4. Equity as Strategy and Moral Compass.

Perhaps the most critical insight of this thought paper is that ethics and strategy converge. Fairness in ocean access is not an abstract ideal — it is a strategic imperative. Equity drives:

• Stability and trust between inland and coastal states.
• Shared economic growth across the continent.
• Sustainability for current and future generations.
• Strengthened bargaining power in global forums and markets.

Equity, therefore, becomes a guiding principle, anchoring policy decisions, investment strategies, and diplomatic action.

5. Operationalizing the Vision.

Africa has a clear path forward. By implementing actionable strategies — as outlined in Section 8 — the continent can:

1. Strengthen AU and REC institutions to enforce equitable governance.
2. Invest in infrastructure to make UNCLOS rights operational.
3. Promote joint ventures and shared investments in fisheries, energy, and seabed resources.
4. Build human and technical capacity to ensure inclusive participation.
5. Embed ethics and sustainability into all ocean-related policies.
6. Engage global partners strategically to enhance opportunity for inland and coastal states alike.

Together, these measures create a resilient, inclusive, and forward-looking maritime ecosystem.

6. The Strategic Horizon.

Looking forward, Africa’s oceans can be a source of unity rather than division, a platform for growth rather than a trigger for conflict. The key is integration across law, diplomacy, infrastructure, security, and ethics. When UNCLOS principles are operationalized through strong institutions, cooperative diplomacy, and inclusive economic planning, the risk of tension diminishes, and the blue economy becomes a continent-wide asset.

Museveni’s caution is thus both warning and opportunity: the seas may pose risks if ignored, but they also hold enormous potential for cooperation, innovation, and shared prosperity.

7. Final Reflection.

Oceans connect nations, economies, and peoples. They are a test of governance, foresight, and moral imagination. For Africa — with its mix of coastal and landlocked states, emerging blue economy potential, and complex infrastructure realities — the challenge is clear: turn inequity into inclusion, law into practice, and warning into action.

If successfully navigated, Africa can demonstrate a model of maritime justice, one in which geography does not dictate destiny, legal rights are fully realized, security is preserved, and equity guides both policy and strategy.

The continent stands at a pivotal moment. The blue horizon is vast, full of promise, and rich with lessons. By combining law, infrastructure, diplomacy, security, and morality, Africa can ensure that its oceans bind rather than divide, sustain rather than deplete, and empower rather than marginalize.

In this sense, Museveni’s remarks are less a prophecy of war and more a strategic invitation: to act decisively, cooperatively, and ethically — for the seas are Africa’s shared heritage, and their future is the continents to shape.