On 24 February 2014, President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda signed into law a bill that tightened already harsh anti-homosexuality legislation. There has been uproar from numerous human rights and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) lobby organisations against this new law. Some Western governments and donor organisations have reacted by threatening to cut development aid to Uganda. United States (US) Secretary of State John Kerry stated, “Now that this law has been enacted, we are beginning an internal review of our relationship with the Government of Uganda to ensure that all dimensions of our engagement, including assistance programs, uphold our anti-discrimination policies and principles and reflect our values.”⁽²⁾ This is certainly not the first instance in which Western aid in Africa has been directly tied to human rights issues, particularly LGBT rights.

This CAI paper unpacks the intersection of LGBT rights and Western aid in Africa through an examination of two overarching questions: why does the West insist on respect of human rights if it is to offer financial aid to African states? In what way do “afro-radicalist”⁽³⁾ leaders use this insistence on respect of human and LGBT rights to purport that alternative sexualities are a foreign value? The paper unravels the multi-layered levels of contradictions and potential hypocrisies that can be identified in the handling of LGBT rights in Africa by Western countries, particularly the US.

LGBT rights in Africa

In the first two months of 2014, LGBT rights were dealt heavy blows in at least two African countries. On 7 January, President Goodluck Jonathan of Nigeria signed into law a bill that criminalises same-sex unions, with prison sentences of up to 14 years.⁽⁴⁾ This same law sentences any person or organisation that funds in any way the registration and operation of gay organisations, clubs, or societies to a prison sentence of 10 years. A month later, the president of Uganda, Yoweri Museveni, officially assented to a more draconian bill which Amnesty International (AI) claims “imposes penalties as high as life imprisonment for people engaging in consensual same-sex sexual activity….The Act compels HIV testing in certain circumstances where the person is accused of ‘aggravated homosexuality’ – an offence which criminalizes same-sex sexual activity among ‘serial offenders’, people with disabilities and people living with HIV, among others.”⁽⁵⁾ In response to the passing of the Anti-Homosexuality Act in Uganda, Michelle Kagari, Africa Deputy Director at AI, opined, “This deeply offensive piece of legislation is an affront to the human rights of all Ugandans and should never have got this far. This legislation will institutionalize hatred and discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people in Uganda. Its passage into law signals a very grave episode in the nation’s history.”⁽⁶⁾

These recent repressive legislations in Nigeria and Uganda are, however, all too similar to what has been happening elsewhere in most of Sub-Saharan Africa, as homosexuality is criminalised in 38 out of 54 countries in the region. In Zimbabwe, President Robert Mugabe has vociferously denounced homosexuality and on numerous occasions labelled homosexuals as being worse than pigs and dogs.⁽⁷⁾ Such condemnation is based on the premise that homosexuality is ‘un-African’; Keletso Makofane, a researcher based at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health, argues in this respect that “homophobic rhetoric, and the violence it supports, is often premised on the idea that homosexuality is ‘un-African’ and that it is a degenerate by-product of westernisation.”⁽⁸⁾ This description of homosexuality as a foreign import is, however, ill-informed and grossly ignorant, as numerous historical and anthropological studies have offered detailed empirical evidence showing that homosexuality existed in Africa before the arrival of Europeans.⁽⁹⁾ Dr Neville Hoad, Associate Professor in English at University of Texas, explains that “it may be possible to read homophobic strands in African nationalisms as displaced resistance to perceived and real encroachments on neo-colonial national sovereignty by economic and cultural globalisation.”⁽¹⁰⁾ In the face of possible neo-colonialism, many African nations have found it necessary to protectively safeguard their sovereignty and independence. This has been expressed by the great desire to espouse traditional African values. In this attempt to revive African values, homosexuality has been perceived as a Western value which does not readily fit into African traditions and ethos.

A notable number of African leaders have used the anti-neo-colonialism discourse and rhetoric exceptionally well. These political leaders have been able to garner support and political mileage through a manipulation of the discourse that purports that homosexuality is ‘un-African’. For example, journalist and writer Max Strasser notes in his analysis of the recently promulgated Anti-Homosexuality Act in Uganda that “with inflation at 14 percent and GDP growth at a weak 3.4 percent, according to the most recent World Bank data, Musevini certainly has incentive to deflect attention onto social issues. He hopes to be re-elected in 2016 thanks to the popularity of the anti-gay bill into the next elections.”⁽¹¹⁾ Bernard Debusmann, former Reuters correspondent, news editor and columnist for The Telegraph, echoes similar sentiments in relation to Nigeria as he notes that “some observers have suggested the anti-gay law is being used to draw attention away from Nigeria’s multiple armed conflicts, religious tensions, corruption and under-development, as well as to curry public favour ahead of Jonathan’s expected 2015 re-election bid.”⁽¹²⁾ This certainly points to the manner in which homosexuality is used for political mileage by certain African leaders in their bids to seek re-election and to remain relevant in the political arena.

The homophobic strand that is currently woven throughout Africa reveals a certain level of contradiction and hypocrisy on the part of “afro-radical” leaders such as Museveni and Mugabe, who state that they are trying to uphold African values and cultures by criminalising alternative sexualities. These nationalists led protracted struggles against the colonialism that involved discrimination of individuals on racial lines. Having fought for the human rights of indigenous black populations, these same nationalists have now replaced racial discrimination with other forms of discrimination. Furthermore, anti-homosexuality laws are simply an extension of colonial legislations which criminalised such ‘dissident’ sexualities and modes of being. Michael Mumisa, a PhD candidate and Cambridge special Livingstone scholar at Trinity Hall (Cambridge University), contends that “homosexual practices and identities are not new to Africa. What is new is the campaign for LGBT rights that has arisen in reaction to the revival of a homophobic legal and religious tradition inherited from European colonialism.”⁽¹³⁾ The growing tide of homophobia in Africa can be traced back to the Christian Puritanism and religious education that was introduced and imposed by the imperial rulers. In this light, it is certainly homophobia, and not homosexuality, that is a Western importation. One could argue that if African nationalists are indeed against the West and supposed neo-colonialism, it is the homophobia, not homosexuality that they have to fight and eradicate.

In her analysis of LGBT sexuality in Africa, Udoka Okafor, writer and journalist at The Huffington Post, declares:

LGBT issues in Africa must be approached from multiple angles: political, social, legal, and cultural. For a long time, and even today, the African community has been alienated from telling its own stories by the West. Many of the things understood about the African community, even by some people within the African community itself, are understood through the lens of a culture that was redefined by the West. In my opinion, this, understood jointly with colonial and postcolonial tensions that are experienced by the African community, is the best way to approach the issue of LGBT rights within African society.⁽¹⁴⁾

Interesting as this perspective might be, the main problem with a discourse that is centred on notions of “colonial and postcolonial tensions” is that it obfuscates the histories and cultures of Africa. There is unquestionably a need to shift from viewing and reducing everything about Africa’s present problems and challenges to the colonial legacy. This shift becomes a daunting task when the West vociferously attempts to impose its value systems on Africa. The next section argues that the West has used development aid to demand that African countries respect human rights.

Western aid and LGBT rights

The outlawing of homosexuality in many Sub-Saharan African countries has, in most instances, been followed by vehement reactions from Western governments and donor organisations. In 2011, there was uproar from the global North after a gay couple was arrested in Malawi for attempting to conduct a traditional marriage ceremony. Western donors withheld financial aid amounting to US$ 400 million, citing displeasure with the manner in which issues of human rights and governance were being handled by the Malawian Government. Frank Kufwakwandi, head of the African Development Bank in Malawi, was quoted as saying, “When we talk about human rights, we do not only talk about the majority but also minority groups like the on-going issue of homosexuals which needs to be looked into thoroughly.”⁽¹⁵⁾ It was only after 5 November 2012 that these stringent measures by Western donor funds were relaxed, after the current president, Joyce Banda, suspended all laws criminalising homosexuality. Mark Toner, the Acting Spokesperson in the US Department of State, subsequently announced:

The United States commends the bold actions taken by Malawi’s President Joyce Banda since her inauguration last month. In her State of the Nation address, President Banda articulated a positive vision for Malawi's future. Fulfilling this vision would put Malawi on sounder financial footing, invest more in the potential of its people, and better protect the human rights of its citizens. As Malawi's largest donor, the United States remains committed to working with President Banda and all Malawians to achieve these goals.⁽¹⁶⁾

This reaction of Western governments and donor organisations gives the strong impression that the respect of human rights, especially LGBT rights, is a prerequisite for any possible development aid to Africa. Nor is this kind of reaction solely restricted to the Malawian case. The recent legislation of anti-homosexual laws in Nigeria and Uganda has already sparked off the reaction of Western governments and donors. Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway and the US promptly threatened to cut aid to Uganda upon the enactment of the Anti-Homosexuality Act.⁽¹⁷⁾ In a visit to this East African country, Anders Borg, Swedish finance minister, noted that his country “gives bilateral aid to Uganda. About 70 million kronor (US$ 10 million) of the 250-million annual aid budget goes directly to the Ugandan state, which in turn uses the funds for research, including support for women’s sexual and reproductive health. Nonetheless, Uganda’s official stance on homosexuality could make Sweden question the nature of the aid.”⁽¹⁸⁾ Norwegian donor agencies followed suit and stated that they would be withdrawing US$ 8 million in donor funds to Uganda. In the US, policymakers advised their government to temporarily suspend US$ 456.3 million in aid to Uganda that the Congress had budgeted for the upcoming fiscal year. These threats of withdrawal immediately affected Ugandan money markets, as the shilling depreciated by 2% a day after President Museveni signed the Anti-Homosexuality Act into law.

Western donors have used aid to directly persuade African countries to respect human rights, particularly with regard to the decriminalisation of homosexuality. On 16 February 2014, US President Barack Obama alluded to this connection by stating that American aid is closely linked to “the protection of fundamental freedoms and universal human rights.”⁽¹⁹⁾ Mohammed Adam, journalist and member of the editorial board at Ottawa Citizen, claims that “Western countries are right to withhold aid to countries whose policies and values are at odds with their own. They are right to take measures that send a clear warning that discrimination under any guise will not be tolerated.”⁽²⁰⁾ It is within the power of the Western governments and donors to withhold any funding if they feel that their ideals are diametrically opposed to those of the receiving countries. One could contend, however, that this is simply a case of ‘might is right’, given that the West has numerous social problems with which they themselves are presently grappling. They use their financial prowess to set conditions for any aid that they are giving to Africa.

Solomon Appiah, a public policy researcher, offers a different perspective. He wonders how the West can possibly and convincingly justify “the infliction of hardship on a people by reneging on financial commitments just because the people refused to deny their own convictions as a nation and honour that of foreign powers.”⁽²¹⁾ Although accepting that Western governments have the right to do as they deem fit with their financial resources, he argues that this financial fiat should not be used to fuel neo-colonial tendencies in which African states have their economic and political policies controlled by external forces. Appiah concludes that, insofar as withdrawal of development aid by Western governments is concerned, “The issue here is not whether or not a gay bill should have been passed. The real issue at stake is much bigger than that. It is about Nigeria, Uganda and other independent states in Africa having the freedom to govern themselves the way they see fit through their democratic institutions.”⁽²²⁾ The question to ask in this light is whether the West is using development aid in an effort to genuinely help Africa, or to export its own cultural and belief systems.

Potential hypocrisies

The intersection of LGBT rights in Africa and Western development aid is replete with layers of contradiction and potential hypocrisy. It is worth noting firstly that neither the Western leaders nor the African leaders are cogently consistent on their stated viewpoints regarding homosexuality. For example, when Obama first ran for president, he claimed that he wasn’t in support of same-sex marriage. In an interview with WTTW Chicago public television in October 2004, he specified that “marriage is between a man and a woman and when they get married, are performing something before God.”⁽²³⁾ He has nonetheless over the years supported civil unions between people of the same sex. Museveni has made a similar change of position. When the Anti-Homosexuality bill was initially tabled in the Ugandan Parliament in 2009, he claimed that LGBT individuals should not be punished, because what they had was a congenital mental issue.⁽²⁴⁾ However, in a space of four years, his position has completely changed and he presently calls LGBT individuals “disgusting”⁽²⁵⁾ and has consigned them to lifelong imprisonment. Even though each of these groups may profusely justify their discourses concerning anti-homosexual legislation, it is their real motivations that we must uncover. James Schneider, editor of Think Africa Press, points out that the main motivation behind the reactions by Western leaders, as well as their anti-homosexuality African counterparts, is ‘domestic politics’. He states as an example that “Museveni will gain support – both within his National Resistance Movement and in the country at large – for the hateful law. Obama and co hope to burnish their liberal credentials and keep a key constituency at home happy.”⁽²⁶⁾ There is thus, really, neither defence of human rights nor safeguarding of African culture, values, and sovereignty, but rather, using LGBT issues as a means for political expediency.

There is also potential hypocrisy by some Western governments, especially the US, in criticising other country’s LGBT rights while some American states are considering their own laws that are similarly hostile to LGBT individuals. For example, the Arizona State Senate recently passed a bill that would allow people and businesses to refuse to serve gay customers if it went against their religious beliefs and convictions. This bill was vetoed by the governor of the state, Jan Brewer, after a national outcry.⁽²⁷⁾ It is also worth mentioning that only a portion of American states have legalised gay marriage, and that some still allow discrimination (such as firing from a job) based on sexual orientation.⁽²⁸⁾ These restrictions, although not involving arrests or imprisonments, are little different from the legislations in African countries; in both instances, the laws fan the flames of discrimination against large groups of individuals based on their sexual orientation. Moreover, there is certain hypocrisy in the American stance against anti-homosexual legislation in Uganda when the impetus to impose strict punishment on LGBT individuals has been directly influenced by “American evangelical groups who, increasingly, see Africa as a fertile new frontier for their anti-gay fervour.”⁽²⁹⁾ In March 2009 in Uganda, evangelical activists led by Scott Lively, gave a series of talks running under the theme ‘The gay agenda: That whole hidden and dark agenda’. The talks emphasised the threat posed by homosexuality to the traditional African family as well as biblical values. This series of talks is said to have inspired the Anti-Homosexuality bill which was tabled in the Ugandan Parliament. This bill called for the death sentence to anyone convicted of engaging in homosexual acts. Although Scott Lively opposed the death sentence, he is widely viewed as having ignited the ambers of homophobia in Uganda.⁽³⁰⁾ The US Government cannot simply criticise the draconian Anti-Homosexuality Act in Uganda without acknowledging the role that American evangelical church movements have played in fostering harsh homophobic sentiments in this East African country. These contradictions and hypocrisies show that the question of LGBT rights in Africa is not as simple as one might think.

Concluding remarks

Even though Africa certainly has its challenges in relation to LGBT rights, it is important to remember that the West is still grappling with homophobia and discrimination of sexual minorities as well. Advancing LGBT rights in Africa will only be achieved through engagement of civil society and education on the sacrosanct nature of human rights. Withdrawal and cutting of development aid to Africa by Western governments and donor organisations is not only unsustainable, but hypocritical when those donor governments lack a clean record with LGBT rights in their own countries. Inasmuch as Western development aid is important for the African continent, it should in no way be used as a tool to dictate policy and legislative processes in Africa.

Written by Gibson Ncube ⁽¹⁾

NOTES:

(1) Gibson Ncube is a Research Associate with CAI. His key research interests are in gender and queer studies. Contact Gibson through Consultancy Africa Intelligence's Rights in Focus unit ( rights.focus@consultancyafrica.com). Edited by Kate Morgan.
(2) Kerry, J., ‘Enactment of Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Bill’, U.S. Department of State, 24 February 2014, http://www.state.gov.
(3) Mbembe, A., 2002. On the power of the false. Public Culture 14(2), pp. 629-641. Mbembe explains that “Afro-radicalism” emanated from the encounter between indigenous African and Western ontologies, and that, “drawing its fundamental categories from a Marxist political economy, Afro-radicalism claims to have founded a so-called revolutionary politics, which seeks to break away from imperialism and dependence.”
(4) Ross, W., ‘Nigerian gay people being hunted down’, BBC News Africa, 4 February 2014, http://www.bbc.com.
(5) ‘Anti-homosexuality Bill signed into law’, Amnesty International, 24 February 2014, http://www.amnesty.org.
(6) Karagi, M., ‘Uganda: President Museveni signs Anti-Homosexuality bill’, Amnesty International, 24 February 2014, http://www.amnesty.org.
(7) Moore, J., ‘Uganda gay bill: Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe declares gay rights are not human rights’, International Business Times, 3 March 2013, http://www.ibtimes.co.uk.
(8) Makofane, K., ‘Unspoken facts: A history of homosexualities in Africa’, 19 October 2012.
(9) Epprecht, M., 2013. Hungochani: The history of dissident sexuality in Southern Africa. McGill-Queen’s University Press: Quebec.
(10) Hoad, N., 2007. African intimacies: Race, homosexuality and globalization. University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis.
(11) Strasser, M., ‘From Uganda to Russia, homophobia spreading worldwide’, Newsweek, 27 February 2013, http://www.newsweek.com.
(12) Debusmann, B., ‘Dozens arrested after anti-gay law passed in Nigeria’, The Telegraph, 14 January 2014, http://www.telegraph.co.uk.
(13) Mumisa, M., ‘It is homophobia, not homosexuality, that is alien to traditional African culture’, The Guardian, 19 February 2014, http://www.theguardian.com.
(14) Okafor, U., ‘How to approach the issue of LGBT rights in Africa’, The Huffington Post, 16 October 2013, http://www.huffingtonpost.com.
(15) Ngozo, C., ‘Malawi donor funding threatened by rights, governance issues’, Inter Press Service News Agency, 17 March 2011, http://www.ipsnews.net.
(16) Toner, M., ‘President Joyce Banda's first six weeks’, U.S. Department of State, 21 May 2012, http://www.state.gov.
(17) Plaut, M., ‘Uganda donors cut aid after president passes anti-gay law’, The Guardian, 25 February 2014, http://www.theguardian.com.
(18) ‘Swedish minister meets Ugandan gay activists’, The Local: Sweden’s News in English, 25 February 2014, http://www.thelocal.se.
(19) Obama, B., ‘Statement on the Anti-Homosexuality bill in Uganda’, The White House, 16 February 2014, http://www.whitehouse.gov.
(20) Adam, M., ‘The path to gay rights in Africa’, Ottawa Citizen, 27 February 2014, http://www.ottawacitizen.com.
(21) Appiah, S., ‘Development Aid as a control instrument in Africa’, OpEd News, 27 February 2014, http://www.opednews.com.
(22) Ibid.
(23) Dweyn, D., ‘Timeline of Obama’s ‘evolving’ on same-sex marriage’, ABC News, 9 May 2012, http://abcnews.go.com.
(24) Rice, X., ‘Uganda president hints at softer anti-gay bill’, The Guardian, 13 January 2010, http://www.theguardian.com.
(25) Landau, E., ‘Uganda president: Homosexuals are disgusting’, CNN News, 25 February 2014, www.edition.cnn.com.
(26) Schneider, J., ‘The West’s outcry over Uganda’s hateful anti-gay law may do more harm than good’, The Independent, 25 February 2014, http://www.independent.co.uk.
(27) ‘Arizona Governor Jan Brewer vetoes anti-gay bill’, BBC News, 27 February 2014, http://www.bbc.com.
(28) Liptak, A., ‘A steady path to Supreme Court as gay marriage gains momentum in states’, New York Times, 14 February 2014, http://www.nytimes.com.
(29) Adam, M., ‘The path to gay rights in Africa’, Ottawa Citizen, 27 February 2014, http://www.ottawacitizen.com.
(30) Gettleman, J., ‘Americans’ role seen in Uganda anti-gay push’, New York Times, 3 January 2010, http://www.nytimes.com.