Originally published on the CGS blog on June 25, 2014.
On Thursday, June 19th, the White House announced that the US will be cutting and redirecting aid to Uganda in response to its harsh anti-homosexuality laws. This comes roughly 3 months after the passage of the law and two weeks after Uganda’s Foreign Minister Sam Kutesa was elected President of the UN General Assembly.
The US’ specific plan includes the following, as outlined on the White House Blog:
- Restricting entry to the United States by implementing a visa ban on Ugandan individuals involved in human rights abuses or corruption
- Ceasing support for Uganda’s community policing program in order to address police abuse related to the anti-homosexuality law
- Redirecting certain financial support for the Ministry of Health (MOH) to other partners by shifting funding to non-governmental organizations, thus untying US aid from the Ugandan government
- Relocating funds for a planned public health institute and other measures relating to health programming to another country within Africa, in addition to relocating the National Institutes for Health genomics meeting to South Africa
The US will not, however, suspend humanitarian support or its commitment to help end the Lord’s Resistance Army.
The response of the Obama administration could not come sooner, as many have criticized Obama for his slow response on this issue. But as Uganda’s anti-gay law continues to gain traction, most recently with a court decision solidifying the government’s power to crack down on LGBT and other civil society organizations that promote homosexuality, the question remains: will these actions be effective? While the White House blog post makes it clear it will not be stopping humanitarian aid to Uganda (simply redirecting it through organizations not affiliated with the government), the Ugandan government maintains that this will only hurt the “the most vulnerable people that the US government purports to support and aims to protect.”
Echoing Sam Kutesa’s message of collaboration in his acceptance speech, Uganda’s foreign affairs ministry maintained that relations would not be harmed, as “there are more areas of cooperation between the Uganda and the US, as the two countries continue to share a lot in common on both regional and international issues.”
Uganda continues to prompt the question of what must be sacrificed in the name of international governance. Will the actions being taken by the Obama Administration have any effect on Uganda’s government officials, or will they only hurt those they are trying to protect? Will Uganda remain amicable regarding “areas of cooperation,” with the US? Most importantly, can intervention be effective without the support of the international community? While the US certainly holds a larger amount of influence than most countries, there is still much room for Uganda to survive without it, particulalry if government officials are not bearing the burden of the cuts to US aid. Without a coordinated, unified response from the international community, can Uganda’s anti-human rights agenda be stopped?
