Kristen Gyles | ‘He who feeds you, controls you’

On Tuesday the World Bank Group released a statement on their website regarding Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Act 2023, which was signed into law earlier this year in May. An excerpt from the statement is as follows:

“Immediately after the law was enacted, the World Bank deployed a team to Uganda to review our portfolio in the context of the new legislation. That review determined additional measures are necessary to ensure projects are implemented in alignment with our environmental and social standards. Our goal is to protect sexual and gender minorities from discrimination and exclusion in the projects we finance. These measures are currently under discussion with the authorities.

No new public financing to Uganda will be presented to our Board of Executive Directors until the efficacy of the additional measures has been tested.”

In a nutshell, the World Bank seems to be ordering the Ugandan government to implement measures to protect the same LGBTQ+ community it had previously sought to persecute through its Anti-Homosexuality Act. Further, these measures must be implemented well enough to satisfy the World Bank.

What will Uganda do? Only time will tell. But the situation facing the country is one that needs to be considered and deeply analysed jointly by the Jamaican government and the Jamaican people, as the issue is one that is likely to affect Jamaicans, if not sooner, then later.

CANNOT SUPPORT

I can’t support a law that threatens people with life imprisonment because of a lifestyle they choose, which affects no one else in any direct way. That says absolutely nothing about my personal views on homosexuality, which don’t matter at all when we are talking about national laws and policies which are expected to govern all people, including those who don’t share my religious and ethical beliefs.

The Ugandan law is extremely ill-conceived, not simply because it seeks to eliminate a person’s ability to choose a supposedly ‘wrong’ lifestyle, but because it is ridiculously draconian. The law criminalises the renting out of premises to homosexuals, makes the promotion of homosexuality punishable with 20 years of imprisonment, and threatens ‘serial offenders’ with the death penalty. But the law itself is a discussion for another day.

The question for today is what does an independent nation do when it has hardly any resources of its own and has to depend on a bigger boss to fund its operations almost entirely? Can a country really claim autonomy and independence, either with regard to its laws or its culture, when it needs money from external sources to fund the systems it will need to enforce said laws and culture?

Not very far back, an audacious claim was made by the Accompong Maroons in Jamaica. The claim was that the Maroons had a legal right to the land they occupied in the Cockpit Country, and that they had the authority to enforce their own laws and to make their own decisions as a sovereign state. This claim was rubbished by the Jamaican government, which, up until that point, we all assumed had governance over the entire island.

Maroon Chief Richard Currie, in referring to the Jamaican government, said “… You rely on other sovereign nations. In other words, you are receiving funding from others, so please consider human and indigenous rights before you end up defunded as well.”

ON TO SOMETHING

Maybe he was on to something. In the same way that it was inappropriate for the Maroons to claim sovereignty and autonomy (from Jamaica) while almost wholly depending on the Jamaican healthcare system, education system, policing, infrastructure and other resources, how prepared are the Jamaican people to accept that as a country which depends substantially on foreign aid, we might just be the ‘maroons’ to a bigger, more stable economy?

Recently, we got a glimpse, at the very minimum, of what a ‘diplomatic row’ between Jamaica and the United States could look like. At first, we heard that the Jamaican government had refused to grant diplomatic immunity to the spouse of a US diplomat who was to be posted to Jamaica, and in response, the US government rejected a request from the Jamaican government to extend the stay of some Jamaican diplomats in the United States. Some Jamaicans like to say that “if it nuh guh suh, it near guh suh”. However, following initial reports, we heard that it was all a rumour, and I won’t use this article to spread ‘rumours’. Nonetheless, we should start thinking about possible courses of action, in the event that it eventually does ‘guh suh’.

Often when the pride flag is flown at the US embassy, there is islandwide annoyance. The US, through its embassy, may be sending a subtle message that it has earned the right to impose its own values and ideals, as the fairy godfather of developing nations. And as long as it continues to pump foreign aid across the globe to more than 150 countries, its status will remain uncompromised. Let’s not forget that the less than one per cent of the annual US federal budget typically spent on foreign aid is a lifeline for many countries.

The Ugandan government has often referenced African values and culture and public sentiment as the basis of its actions. This is commendable, in light of its posturing as a democratic nation. But when the Ugandan majority who supports an anti-gay law relies on food and shelter supplied by a pro-gay entity, what happens?

As aptly expressed by Thomas Sankara, “He who feeds you, controls you.”

Kristen Gyles is a free-thinking public affairs opinionator. Send feedback to kristengyles@gmail.com.