Conditioning humanitarian aid, including health assistance, should always be a last resort. However, when a country that receives hundreds of millions of dollars of U.S. HIV/AIDS assistance gets busy publicly vilifying homosexuals and even threatening to put them to death, hasn't the last resort been reached?
Charles Francis thinks so. He is an openly gay former member of the President's Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS who thinks it's time to draw a line:
American lawmakers are asked to appropriate billions of dollars through the PEPFAR program to many of the countries now escalating anti-gay rhetoric into a verbal assault with threats to imprison gay Africans and NGO workers. A growing number of PEPFAR countries are considering legislative proposals to criminalize homosexuality with a death penalty, enact bans on homosexual organizations and to imprison homosexual citizens....
This is a critical juncture for PEPFAR before the world community. Will we stand by and let national governments scapegoat a sexual minority for HIV/AIDS while receiving major funding for AIDS relief? Will the U.S. fund radical, anti-gay prevention programs that could become a model for other parliaments and governments?
Read his open letter to the Global AIDS Coordinator here.
9 Comments for “Aiding Homophobia?”
posted by David Skidmore on
I’m very much in favour of conditioning aid. Not one cent of US taxpayers money should go to arming regimes, funding homophobic or sexist organisations or to be siphoned off by corrupt bureaucrats. For example, when the Boxing Day tsunami of 2004, I was totally for rebuilding people’s houses and infrastructure but absolutely against aid money helping government officials help themselves. That’s why I’m very picky about where my charity dollar goes.
posted by Bobby on
I agree, besides, if we can’t even balance our own budget how come we have money for charity crap?
posted by Throbert McGee on
Um, what if a Marxist regime is “verbally assaulting” non-Marxists, or vice versa? Or what if it’s a religious minority, rather than homosexuals, who are being targeted by the regime? Would Charles Francis and Jonathan Rauch be in favor of cutting AIDS assistance to such countries?
I’d also point out that homosexuality isn’t inherently synonymous with any of the following:
(1) anal sodomy (i.e., the one homosexual practice that is particularly likely to transmit HIV)
(2) pederasty (i.e., the sexual exploitation of boys by older men)
(3) male prostitution (i.e., the sex-exploitation of poor men by wealthier men)
But although male homosexuality need not be involved with any of the above three problems, in actual practice there often is an association. So in examining the anti-homosexual policies of these African governments, I would ask:
Is it possible that some of them are responding to the reality of affluent gay male foreigners economically and sexually exploiting local men and boys by encouraging a market for (underage) prostitution?
Or is it possible that they blame foreign gays for introducing and popularizing anal sodomy among local homosexuals who had previously shunned this act in favor of mutual masturbation or “doing it between the thighs”? (In other words, activities that may be homosexual in nature, but that cannot increase the size of the HIV epidemic, unlike anal sodomy.)
If the answer to either of the above is “Yes,” then the impulse of the government to legally harass gays becomes a bit more understandable (although legislating the death penalty for homosexuals is nonetheless an extreme overreaction).
posted by Throbert McGee on
If the answer to either of the above is “Yes,” then the impulse of the government to legally harass gays becomes a bit more understandable (although legislating the death penalty for homosexuals is nonetheless an extreme overreaction)
Just to be clear: I said “more understandable,” not “more justifiable.”
posted by David Skidmore on
In defense of the “charity crap” I’d note the aid that went to Western Europe in the late 1940s was essential in pushing back communism. I’m all in favour of targetted, practical aid that undercuts the attraction of Islamic fundamentalism or communism or any other anti-gay, anti-freedom ideology.
posted by Jorge on
Isn’t it a slap in the face if we give money to a government to solve problems, and instead what they do is blame gays for it?
I don’t think Mr. Francis’s argument is going to work, but it is worth trying. The problem is that pulling out AIDS money may cause greater harm than turning a blind eye to homophobia. Also too many people would argue that who are we to try to control or define a corrupt government or society. These are all things that a lone voice crying out in the wilderness does not have an answer to.
posted by Bobby on
David, spending money in Europe made sense because Europe is a major trading partner with America. Africa isn’t, african nations are ruled by corrupt people and whatever aid you give them is likely to be wasted or stolen.
Ironically, you know who gave the most money to Africa in the history of all US presidents combined? George W. Bush. That is why when he visits Africa people love him there.
Still, I think it’s time for America to get her shit together. We have Obama spending us into bankrupcy with bailouts, cash for clunkers, the “recover” package, etc. Obama has wasted more money in 11 months than Bush did in 10 years. Do you want to end like California? I hear they’re raising everyone’s payroll taxes 10%.
Throbert, Thailand has a lot of sex tourism yet very low HIV rates, why? Condom use, the government has spent millions encouraging the thai and tourist to wear them and it’s working.
posted by taylor on
not prejudice and I think a great critieria silly people. Each one makes oq eu want and if she wants to be gay which is the problem?
posted by Term Papers on
It’s great to see fresh, creative ideas that have never been done before.