Ugandan President, Yoweri Museveni, recently signed the harsh Anti-Gay bill that punishes homosexual acts for up to life in prison. People who may not be homosexual, but promote, advocate, counsel, or defend homosexuals will also be punished. This bill was introduced in 2009 when President Museveni was not always clear on his stance. At first he thought that homosexuality was a sickness that needed to be treated, not put into prison. "He backtracked this month and said he'd sign it [the bill] because scientists had determined that there is no gene for homosexuality and that it is merely a choice to embrace abnormal behavior.
The original bill contained the death penalty for homosexual acts. However, the U.K and other European nations threatened to breech foreign aid. Museveni believes that homosexuality can be "unlearned" and tough bills like this will the way to go about it.
With the U.S. being Uganda's largest donors, President Obama warned that U.S.-Ugandan ties will be affected by the signing of this bill. However, Museveni was not backing down stating that he does not care what the West has to say about this bill. He adamantly says, "We have been disappointed for a long time by the conduct of the West, the way you conduct yourselves there...now you say 'you must also live like us' -- that's where we say no."Museveni assures journalist that if the West no longer wants to support Uganda, that Uganda will thrive on its on with other partners.
President Museveni does make a good point. Museveni states that what the West is doing is "social imperialism...'to impose social values of one group on our society.'" Why is it that the West is able to impose values on developing countries? This is because when a country is a provider and a host for another country, there is a sense of dependance from developing country to developed. With that said, providing foreign developmental aid should not be based on a countries social policies. It is not ethical to leave a country impoverished because they have a different set of laws, or do not promote democracy through Western or American eyes.
With the gay rights movement spreading, there is a thin line between natural righst and social norms. The problem with providing LGBT rights for all countries is the possibility that you are imposing an evolving social norm on another group of people. Can we really be mad at Museveni for displaying the autonomy of his country? He is taking a firm stance against the west, which will further improve his credibility for the future.
The lesson that can be learned from this is that countries can gain more credibilty by not doing what everyone else in the international system is doing.
I completely agree with you that a country's social policies should have no bearing on the aid they receive or give. Unfortunately, this is how many countries decide which states to support and which ones are not "worthy" of their aid. Western countries especially adhere to a universalist perspective mixed with ethnocentrism, in that they believe that every country should hold the same ideals and morals as they do. When states do not comply with this, as Uganda is not, it offends these Western nations and induces threats of aid denial. It is very surprising that Uganda is standing up for itself and its social policies, as it relies heavily on foreign assistance. Standing up for its principles and its policies will send a strong message to the states who do not approve of the anti-gay legislation. It is also surprising that the US is threatening to stop foreign aid over LGBT rights. This country is in the middle of a major debate on gay rights and gay marriage, which is not supported by every American, so it is interesting that the US government is defending LGBT rights abroad and is not strongly advocating for these rights domestically. It will be interesting to see how the US navigates this issue in the coming weeks.
ReplyDeleteWhile I believe both of you present a valid argument, I am going to play devil's advocate for the sake of argument. I think a large factor when thinking about the United States' response, or any country's response for that matter, to this situation is whether or not this can be considered a human rights violation. If not, could it progress to a human rights violation. Some would argue that merely discriminating against homosexuals is a human rights violation. In fact, the main interest group in the U.S. supporting homosexual equality calls itself The Human Rights Campaign. Surely, jailing homosexuals for life must violate some human right. If you're still not convinced, then let's look at another example of human rights violations, such as genocide. Would you criticize the United States for discontinuing aid to Uganda if President Museveni had just decided to violently cleanse his country of homosexuals? I believe some people in the U.S. would even demand immediate military intervention. This presents another question: Should the U.S. intervene when a country commits a major, undeniably violation of human rights or even any instance at all? I don't have answers to any of these questions. I just wanted to illustrate that this matter, as is the case with many other foreign affairs, is not black and white at all.
ReplyDelete