On the one hand accessibility to another pool of debt is good for a country, esp if its cheap debt, because access to current pools sometimes depend on Officials from these bodies - WB, IMF, EU, etc who may deny a country on the basis of a flawed analysis of need for investment as the President always says, so you wd turn to China in this case, esp since funding bodies tend to work together. It also helps reduce controls of financiers on the way a country is run, which has been put forward as a reason for unending poverty in Developing countries.
But on the other hand, you have to question whether debt is a solution for a country's devt. Does the debt add value to Uganda- look at the donor funds in the health sector, which tend to come with alot of 'technical assistance'? We have to challenge our leaders to continuously analyse Uganda's needs & determine key areas for Aid, otherwise the rest just goes in expenses & the like rather than adding value. This is bcoz alot of aid can come in for the wrong programmes based on poor analysis of development needs in a sector, & the investment shd follow thru in thought throughout the sector so that gains arenot lost
An example is if KCC decide to advertise in US media eg NY about Kla maybe spend $1m, but have not put proper thought/analysis to travel & housing & availlability of public information, etc that impacts on the impressions of the first people that respond to the advert, & thus take back a mixed picture.Some of the value of the expense is lost bcoz the scheme doesnt follow thru the organisation, so long term benefits might be very minimal. the same can happen with Aid in all Govt Ministries.