LGBT News UK: Uganda’s anti-gay law will damage the country’s international reputation

I've seen people expressing this view on various sites that have discussed this. Whilst I understand the sentiment being expressed, I'm not really sure what (if anything) would be achieved by doing that.

The problem with using foreign aid as a political weapon is that it doesn't actually target the people you want it to, only the vulnerable who rely on it to live. Thankfully many developed countries who provide foreign aid have learnt from past mistakes when they'd simply distribute money to countries in need and allow their respective governments to deal with it. Unfortunately, there's a rather clear correlation between corrupt governments and international poverty, so it's hardly surprising that the countries with dictators or corrupt political institutions are also the ones in need of foreign aid. In the past they'd receive this aid and just use it for their own personal/political gain, whereas in more recent years governments have instead sought to use non-governmental organisations (NGO's) to funnel this money to.

As a result, when people propose cutting off aid to Uganda (or any country), they're essentially proposing to target a non-political charity as a way of making a statement. Governments will still take such threats seriously because they don't want to be seen as making decisions that negatively affects their population, but nobody should be under the illusion that cutting aid will directly affect those who actually make these decisions. This decision has been made by people in an elite political institute, influenced by people in an elite and influential religious hierarchy. Neither are poor and in need, nor will they be affected by such measures no matter how restrictive we make their economy.

To cut aid would be the equivalent to me refusing to donate to Childline because of the actions of the UK Government. The charities that rely on the aid aren't political, so using them as political pawns will only affect those who played no part in the decision and are also suffering from the failings of the government.

Arguably a better solution would be making people accountable for human rights abuses, which this clearly is. Unfortunately, that opens up a whole new can of worms regarding the inefficiencies of the UN and our inability to trial nation leaders for abuses.

 

Well that itself is a different issue altogether. Many of the charities that operate in under-developed countries are international NGO's, so it isn't like you're funding people who played a part in it.

Unfortunately we can't pick and choose how we distribute foreign aid to people. When disaster struck in Haiti, Phillipines, Chile etc, we weren't able to send supplies but only provide them to people if they answered 'yes' to the question of 'Do you support equal rights for LGBT people?'. The best thing about foreign aid is that it remains exempt from political posturing, but that it also opens up political and social dialogue for people. It's not an overnight or quick solution, but it makes progress achievable.

Here in the UK we've had a few documentaries from the BBC about being gay in Uganda, and one of the benefits that aid has brought people is that private and discreet clinics have been funded to help test LGBT people for HIV, STI's etc and provide safer sex resources. I absolutely understand the sentiment people have with wanting to cut aid, but it's unfortunately a lazy and symbolic solution that has the opposite desired effect. We can't realistically cut off aid because the recipients of it may predominantly be anti-gay (they are, after all, a product of their socialisation), nor is it pragmatic to start screening people on social attitudes as a way of testing eligibility.

One final thing to consider is that this bill has come about from outside funding from organisations linked to America. They will continue to fund such extremists views, and they will develop an absolute monopoly on the country if foreign aid is removed. If and when that happens, you'll have laws easily being passed that you only tend to see in Middle Eastern countries that practice the most radical and Conservative interpretations of Sharia Law that we have seen. If we wanted to be economical about this then the first step actually starts at home (for those of you who are American), as the organisations that helped with this legislation also appear to be tax-exempt by the IRS.

 

The last research to come out of Uganda was from the Pew Research Centre, and they found that only 11% of people there thought homosexuality was morally acceptable. It's a clear plurality of opinion, no surprises. However, where does that leave us in establishing policies on aid entitlement? We'd either need to measure it based on a plurality of acceptance to LGBT rights and existence (which would be tricky in itself to define), or we'd have to monitor the laws that seek to establish equal rights.

The reason I mention the above is because I noticed your location and I was curious about Romania and the situation there for LGBT rights. If we were to try and take into account social attitudes and law when distributing aid, Romania would appear to fail that very test. The Wikipedia article on LGBT Rights in Romania summarises two pieces of research, and there's a plurality of people in both research pieces who wouldn't even have a meal with somebody they knew to be gay (54%), and just under 80% wouldn't want to live next door to a gay person. As a result, entitlement to investment that Romania has received from countries such as the USA would seemingly fall short if subjected to the standard that you advocate for, as research on social attitudes in Romania seem to highlight a plurality of homophobia.

Obviously there's a vast difference between moral disapproval of homosexuality and wanting them executed and imprisoned, but we could tie ourselves in knots discussing where we draw that moral line, and that's before we even get onto the more complicated issues of what benefits (if any) aid will have.

I also think it's rather unfair to say any NGO's who operate in homophobic countries are immoral. It doesn't become immoral to minimise the spread of HIV, famine and other poverty nasties just because the country you're doing it in has x wrong with it. If we held all NGO's to that standard then we'd have never gone into Chile, Haiti, Phillipines and so forth when they were dealing with the aftermath of their natural disasters. It would have been immoral for us to stand by and do nothing just for the sake of remaining on our high horse. Furthermore, the countries who actually have minimal homophobia are the ones who aren't dependent on foreign aid, so what we're talking about here would effectively see it removed altogether.

I agree and disagree.

You're right to say that the Government simply tap into social attitudes that already exist, but what they're guilty of is exacerbating them and creating a non-existent threat. Russia, for example, will have long had these deep-rooted homophobic attitudes. However, it's no coincidence that Putin's political monopoly has come under scrutiny both in Russia and across the world, especially with the imprisonment of people such as Pussy Riot and allegations of corruption from opposition parties and supporters.

The consequence of that has been Putin's government developing a moral panic about gay people now suddenly seeking to promote homosexuality and turn young people gay, have pride marches whenever they please, and to adopt children as part of their agenda. Moral disapproval of all those things have been there for ages, but it's a nice political narrative for Russian governments to come up with now to paint themselves as moral saviours. Don't get me wrong, I'm under no delusion that life was never fantabulous for gay people there and that hate crimes still occurred, but it's the recent politically-driven agenda that the Government has pushed that has seen public expressions of homophobia and hate crimes skyrocket.

In regards to Uganda, those same discriminatory attitudes have also been widespread, but its Government and religion (we all know how great that is when you mix the two) that have been the driving force behind this. They're the boogeyman to the extent that they exploit ingrained cultural homophobia by making it a dominant public issue, which is achieved by using propaganda that makes people believe that the West is trying to import homosexuality and recruit people to that 'lifestyle'. Without that there's still widespread homophobia, but it's not at the forefront of public consciousness that causes them to go actively seeking it to repress.

Eastern European countries seem to be good examples of that point I am attempting to illustrate. The European Union has created an interesting situation where countries who have widespread homophobia are essentially being told to enforce certain standards of human rights in order to be valid members of the union. Putting the flaws and failings of this to one side, we've seen political rhetoric on homosexuality become a lot more silenced in places such as Poland. There's still political expressions of homophobia, but not quite the moral panic that Uganda and Russia seem to be preaching. As a result, we've got an interesting situation where there's a plurality of homophobia in countries (such as Romania), but the political establishment aren't acting like the boogeyman by exploiting that, thus creating a 'don't ask, don't tell' type situation.

Agreed. As I said, it's a different can of worms altogether.

Aye, that's pretty good way to sum up the situation.