In this opinion piece Aoife O’Reilly sets out the argument for continuing overseas development aid to Uganda, despite the recent anti-homosexuality law.

The decision of President Yoweri Museveni to sign into law a bill that imposes life imprisonment for homosexual activity has put Uganda under the international spotlight. Many donor states have announced their intention to terminate or review aid ties, while the World Bank has opted to suspend a loan of $90 million earmarked for health care improvements until it can ascertain whether the new law will hamper development objectives. Uganda’s stance was fiercely criticised by US Secretary of State John Kerry who likened it to anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany, while Tánaiste Eamon Gilmore, in an official statement released prior to the signing of the bill, stated that the move would affect Ireland’s valued relationship with Uganda. Norway and Denmark have already withdrawn financial support, and there have been calls for Ireland to follow suit.

While the efficacy of foreign aid is perpetually debated, Uganda’s anti-homosexual law raises questions about the legitimacy of withdrawing aid because of human rights violations. If we view aid as an international obligation to assist development in the Global South, attaching Western strings to aid may not be appropriate.

Poverty causes human rights deficit

Many argue that more developed countries are obliged to take measures to remedy the deprivation endured by those in developing nations. Thomas Pogge, Director of the Global Justice Program at Yale University, has argued that developed countries are directly responsible for the plight of developing countries through supranational organisations that “foreseeably and avoidably cause at least half of all severe poverty” which in turn is “the greatest contributor to the current global human rights deficit.” Many international human rights instruments, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, require all states to engage in international cooperation in order to be compliant with their human rights obligations. It is certainly arguable that such cooperation necessitates a greater accommodation of those regions that are disadvantaged by the current global economic system.

Aid cuts increase human rights violations

The unfortunate reality is that human rights enforcement is predominately a domestic affair, and outsiders can do little to protect citizens from violations perpetrated by their own governments. The dearth of options open to other countries to respond to human rights abuses makes the use of aid as a negotiating tool appealing, but the long term impact of these threats is questionable and aid reductions are likely to effect the poorest in those societies. Aid suspension conceivably creates its own human rights issues, causing increased poverty and depriving individuals of the basic socioeconomic rights which aid may have secured for them in the past.

Realising rights takes time

The decision of the Ugandan government to publically and deliberately violate human rights creates headaches for donor countries left with an unenviable choice between standing up for civil rights and ensuring that impoverished people attain a basic level of subsistence. Given the progress that has been made on gay rights in many western countries, it is understandable that western donor governments would be unwilling to condone minority persecution of this magnitude in other countries. However the issue with making aid contingent on respect for human rights, and LGBT rights in particular, is that it ignores the evolutionary nature of rights protection. In Ireland homosexuality was decriminalised relatively recently, in 1993. Before this, Ireland defended its own anti-gay legislation, relying on moral and health justifications similar to the ones cited by Uganda today.

Imposing western values

Upholding human rights is essential to development, but donor nations must be culturally sensitive in this regard and avoid imposing western values when making aid human rights-contingent. Decisions to divert aid from Uganda have been labelled as blackmail by Ugandan lawmaker David Bahati who described sanctions as a “price worth paying to protect… moral values.”

The rights of minorities may only improve when the population at large accepts them. Withdrawing aid to developing countries could generate anti-Western sentiment and increased hostility towards the persecuted minorities who may be viewed as responsible for the cessation. It may be preferable to continue to support economic, political, social and cultural development more generally, in the hope that every country will come to the conclusion that minority protection is a hallmark of any equitable society. Cutting ties with such governments can be seen as a shirking of international obligations, and is unlikely to improve conditions for minorities, regardless of the intention.

Author: Aoife O’Reilly

Aoife has just completed a degree in Law and Political Science in Trinity College Dublin. She has an interest in social justice and public policy and has taken part in Suas’s Acceleread Accelewrite Literacy Programme. She was also heavily involved with the Voluntary Tuition Programme, an education initiative catering for Dublin school children, during her time in Trinity College Dublin.

Photo credit: Global Day of Action against Uganda’s anti-gay laws, A. Jones, Creative Commons Licence

Share This