UNITED
NATIONS — After Uganda criminalized homosexuality, the White House
immediately warned that the law would “complicate” the country’s
relationship with Washington, and the Netherlands and Norway cut off
bits of development aid.
When
Nigeria banned same-sex unions and began arresting those it suspected
of being gay, the European Union’s Foreign Ministry sternly reminded its
president of his “obligations” under international law.
And
after Russia passed a measure widely seen as an effort to squelch its
gay rights movement, the United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon,
used his speech at the Winter Olympics to condemn attacks on gays and lesbians.
The
issue of gay rights has catapulted up the diplomatic agenda in recent
years, as international organizations have extended rights protections
to gays and lesbians and donor nations have faced new challenges in
dealing with governments that discriminate.
Antigay legislation is nothing new. The United Nations estimates
that 78 countries ban homosexuality, and seven countries allow the
death penalty for those convicted of having consensual homosexual
relationships. Until a few years ago, the issue barely registered in
diplomatic affairs. Global outcry was limited to protest petitions
organized by gay advocacy groups.
“What’s
unique about this moment is the compassion and public attention there
is at the global level,” Jessica Stern, executive director of the New
York-based International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission.
But to what end?
Conservative
governments around the world openly flout the warnings of international
leaders, developing new measures to repress their citizens based on
sexual orientation. There is little that international organizations
like the United Nations can do, except issue statements of concern. And
rich countries like the United States confront awkward new questions
about how to handle important gay-bashing allies.
Take
Uganda, for instance, the recipient of significant American aid, for
both the military and development. The Obama administration has said it
is reviewing its aid programs to Uganda, and Secretary of State John
Kerry said Friday through his spokeswoman that he had spoken to the
Ugandan president, Yoweri Museveni, to reiterate that message.
Mr.
Kerry earlier likened the law to South Africa’s apartheid-era ban on
interracial unions. So did South Africa’s influential Anglican
archbishop emeritus, Desmond M. Tutu.
But whether the United States will impose punitive sanctions on Uganda remains to be seen.
American
development aid includes funding for AIDS treatment, among other
things. Military cooperation is aimed in part at the hunt for the
warlord Joseph Kony and dealings with terrorist groups in Somalia. A
senior administration official said Friday in an interview that United
States policy objectives and the interests of Ugandans were being
weighed in “a thoughtful, deliberate way.”
“We
have not yet made decisions,” the official said, speaking on condition
of anonymity because of rules against public discussion of internal
talks. “We are working on this very intensively. There will be real
consequences.”
At
the United Nations, Mr. Ban expressed alarm. After meeting with the
Ugandan envoy last week, Mr. Ban issued a statement calling on Uganda to
revise or repeal the measure, a prospect that seems unlikely. Even the
United Nations needs Mr. Museveni’s cooperation on many conflicts in and
around Uganda, including the one in South Sudan.
For
his part, Mr. Museveni has so far played to his domestic audience,
rebuffing outside meddling and saying that his country would do fine
without aid. There is plenty of aid to Africa coming from China, which
tends not to wag its finger about human rights.
Mr.
Museveni’s bluster also showed the limits of international influence
and the backlash that international support can engender.
“It’s
quite common, when you see a ratcheting up of pressure from domestic
groups or foreign governments,” said Laurence R. Helfer, a Duke
University law professor who studies international gay rights. “There is
a period of counterreaction; we’re seeing that now.”
The turning point came in 2011, when the United Nations Human Rights Council passed a landmark resolution, led by South Africa, to extend human rights principles to lesbians and gay men around the world.
Mr. Ban became known as a forceful advocate. In January, he issued a statement about the Nigerian law, calling it a breach of fundamental human rights. He also posed for a photograph holding a placard that read, “Human rights are for everyone, no matter who you are or who you love.”
Around the same time, defending gay rights became a foreign policy priority
for the United States and the European Union. European donors
increasingly looked askance at countries that criminalized
homosexuality. And last fall at the General Assembly ministers from 10
countries and the European Union endorsed the statement “Those who are
lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (L.G.B.T.) must enjoy the same
human rights as everyone else.”
It is another thing, though, to deal with countries that violate those principles.
Nigeria’s
president, Goodluck Jonathan, signed into law in January a measure that
effectively outlaws pro-gay organizations; since then, arrests
of gay Nigerians have multiplied. The Obama administration condemned
the law but has so far taken no concrete measures against Nigeria, one
of its most important partners in West Africa.
The
issue is divisive not only with Africa but also with traditional
American allies in the Middle East like Saudi Arabia, where
homosexuality is a crime.
After
India’s highest court affirmed a criminal ban on homosexuality in
December, the Obama administration did not specifically condemn the
court decision, except to express its concern about measures that
criminalized homosexuality.
It
is something of a paradox that some of today’s antigay laws reflect
considerable Western influence. American evangelists have played a
crucial role in fomenting Uganda’s strong antigay sentiments. The Indian
law criminalizing homosexuality dates to the early days of the British
colonial era.
One
of the most difficult issues for donor countries is whether to cut off
aid, especially when it goes to promoting H.I.V. prevention and
treatment in countries like Uganda.
As
for the United Nations, the issue of gay rights remains so complex that
its advocates are moving exceptionally slowly. There is no treaty that
enshrines gay rights, for instance, and therefore nothing to hold
countries accountable to. “There is a recognition that something is
needed,” José Luis Díaz of Amnesty International said. “There is also a
recognition that there is huge resistance, and you need to move ahead on
this very, very carefully.”
The
United Nations is no more than a collection of sovereign nations. And
every country is free to enact its own laws, as Jan Eliasson, the deputy
secretary general of the United Nations, pointed out, even laws that
clash with principles of human rights.
“Our
job is to diminish the gap between the world as it should be and the
world as it is,” he said in an interview, adding, “Our mechanisms of
enforcement are very limited.”
No comments:
Post a Comment