“The Indian Ocean belongs to me and if I don’t get access, there will be wars.” Ugandan president
Executive summary
Uganda’s President Yoweri Museveni warned that landlocked countries denied sea access could face “wars” in future, saying “that ocean belongs to me; I am entitled to it,” comments widely reported after a radio interview in Mbale on Nov. 9–11, 2025 [1] [2]. Kenyan leaders immediately downplayed the threat: President William Ruto and government officials said media had exaggerated Museveni’s remarks and assured Uganda it would not be blocked from access through Kenya [3] [4].
1. What Museveni actually said: a forceful rhetorical claim
In a radio interview in Mbale, Museveni argued Uganda is unfairly “locked out” of the Indian Ocean and framed ports and the sea as a common resource for the region, saying “that ocean belongs to me… In the future, we are going to have wars” if access is denied — language carried by multiple African news outlets [2] [5] [6].
2. How regional leaders and governments responded
Kenyan leaders reacted quickly to calm fears. President Ruto accused some journalists of twisting Museveni’s words and stressed Kenya and Uganda are “brothers and sisters,” while the Kenyan foreign affairs office signalled respect for territorial rights and suggested reports had been sensationalised [3] [7] [4]. Kenya’s Foreign Affairs PS also noted Kenya will respect international law and the respective rights of neighbors [8].
3. Media reporting: consistent quotes, divergent framing
Multiple outlets reproduced the same key phrases — “that ocean belongs to me” and the war warning — but editorial frames differed. Some headlines emphasised an outright threat and potential regional crisis [9] [6], while others highlighted government attempts to downplay tensions and blamed sensational reporting [2] [3]. That divergence shows consistent source material but competing narratives about intent and risk.
4. Context: landlocked states, trade and security drivers
Commentators and analysts point to real grievances behind the rhetoric: landlocked states face higher transport costs and strategic limitations, and debates about port access and regional integration have long roots in East Africa [10] [5]. Veteran journalist Charles Onyango-Obbo argued Museveni’s warning taps into a plausible long-term risk of disputes over maritime access [10].
5. Escalation risk versus diplomatic reality
While Museveni’s language was stark, immediate diplomatic reality appears aimed at de‑escalation. Kenya publicly reassured Uganda about access through its coastline and officials stressed longstanding ties and agreements, a pragmatic response inconsistent with imminent military action [4] [8]. Available sources do not mention any troop mobilisations or formal military threats beyond rhetoric.
6. Domestic politics and possible motivations
Some reporting suggests political incentives: strong rhetoric can bolster domestic support and signal toughness ahead of elections or policy negotiations [11]. One outlet explicitly framed the comments as possibly intended to rally domestic audiences and project regional strength [11]. That motive does not negate the substantive grievance but helps explain the combative tone.
7. The role of Museveni’s inner circle and social amplification
Museveni’s son, Gen. Muhoozi Kainerugaba, publicly backed calls for sea access and warned of “big problems” if access is refused, amplifying concern [1]. Social and traditional media then spread excerpts and emotive phrasing that fed both alarmist headlines and official rebuttals [12] [2].
8. Historical precedents and regional memory
Historical episodes — including past Kenya‑Uganda tensions over routes and closures dating back to the Idi Amin era and later cross‑border skirmishes — give Museveni’s remarks resonance in public memory and media coverage [5] [11]. Those memories make such statements more attention‑grabbing than similar rhetoric might be elsewhere.
9. What to watch next: diplomacy, agreements, and follow‑through
Sources report delegations and diplomatic contact followed the flare‑up — Kampala sent a high‑level mission to Kenya days after the remarks — signalling preference for benchmarking and negotiation over conflict [13]. Future indicators of de‑escalation will be concrete agreements on transit, port fees, or security arrangements; continued reciprocal visits and public reassurances will also matter [4] [8].
Limitations and closing note
Reporting is consistent that Museveni issued a stark warning and that Kenyan officials sought to downplay it [2] [3] [4]. Available sources do not mention any verified military preparations or immediate moves to seize maritime territory; they do show political and historical drivers that make maritime access a potent regional issue [10] [5].