Last year, I spent three-and-a-half months living and working in Kampala, Uganda. The anti-gay rights legislation was presented to parliament in the middle of my stay, and came into the national and international spotlight just as I left the country. However, homosexuality was a frequent topic of discussion and debate for me even before this legislation brought such widespread attention to the issue.

Dealing with differing views on homosexuality was the most difficult adjustment I had to make while I was abroad, and I was shocked by some of the common beliefs surrounding homosexuality that my closest Ugandan friends held, including the perception that all gay men are pedophiles. Misconceptions are widespread: in a December 2009 in the leading Ugandan newspaper, New Vision, a reporter stated that he would not be in favor of same-sex couple adoption rights “because the outcome would almost certainly be that those children would take after these parents.” Homosexuality is commonly grouped with other issues such as corruption and ritual murder; a child at a march against homosexuality sponsored by the religious organizations Raising Voices and Children with Mission said in an interview, “I am happy to be part of this demonstration because I do not support homosexuality. Teachers should stop beating us and our parents should take good care us. The government should protect us against defilement and child sacrifice.”

I was even more surprised by the vehement denial and persecution of homosexuality on the part of the government. For the entire history of independent Uganda, politicians and leaders have openly denounced gay Ugandans for their sexual orientation, denied them basic human rights, and punished them for their behavior. Kassiano Wadri, a member of Parliament, stated publicly that he “detest[s] gays in [his] heart.” 

The pending legislation was introduced on October 14 by David Bahati, a member of parliament, and proposes, among other things, a new offence called “aggravated homosexuality,” punishable by death. “Aggravated homosexuality” is considered to be homosexual sex with someone under 18, with someone who is disabled, when the accused is HIV-positive, or when the accused has a previous homosexuality-related offense. Additionally, it would jail anyone who fails to report “gay activity” to police within 24 hours and includes punishment for people who knowingly provide services such as health care to gay people. News broke on December 9th 2009 stating that Parliament would refine the bill, dropping the death penalty and life imprisonment punishments, and promised an edited version of the bill in two weeks time; this version is yet to be seen.

An Imported Cultural War on Ugandan Soil? 

The gay rights situation in Uganda is complicated by the immense power wielded by the nearly overwhelming presence of non-profit and religious organizations in the country, as well as by the influence of countries that provide much-needed aid to Ugandan government programs. These external players motivate and complicate the debate, and people with vested interests are able to exert their influence on Ugandan policy. These pressures are felt in both directions, in efforts towards defending and improving gay rights and in efforts towards destroying them. 

Uganda is a deeply spiritual society, and religious institutions exert a great deal of influence in everyday life, both through spiritual guidance and the provision of important services. Many people see the anti-homosexuality conference that took place in March 2009 as the beginning of this ordeal. Three prominent anti-gay American religious leaders, Scott Lively, Caleb Brundidge, and Don Schmierer, hosted the well-attended, three-day event that discussed, among other things, how to make gay people straight and the hidden gay agenda “to defeat the marriage-based society and replace it with a culture of sexual promiscuity.”

Anti-gay religious groups allege that Western countries are pouring funds into Uganda for the “recruitment” to homosexuality, an accusation to which Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG) responds, “We do not receive any money for ‘recruitment’. It is absurd that some assume we would be paid to do something impossible.” Opponents to gay rights refer to “the homosexualization of Uganda,” the “wave of gay activism flooding in from the West,” and the “danger of the Homosexual Agenda.”

Ladislaus Rwakafuzi, a human rights lawyer involved in the debate, believes that the bill itself may be heavily influenced or directly backed by U.S. evangelicals. David Bahati, who introduced the legislation to parliament, has been tied to U.S. fundamentalist organization The Family.

On the other side of the debate are non-profits and gay rights groups working to fight this legislation, and external pressure in this direction has been effective in thwarting the speed and severity of the bill.  Yoweri Museveni, the President of Uganda, distanced himself from the bill after prolonged pressure from donor countries that have been pouring millions of dollars of aid into Uganda for years and have threatened to cut ties should the legislation pass. National and international human rights groups have become involved, including Sexual Minorities Uganda, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International.

Implications for an “Invisible Population”

The current criminalization of homosexuality and the proposed bill exclude homosexuals from society and do not account for them in many important areas, the most important of which is health. The national HIV/AIDS program makes no provision for sexual minorities, despite the fact that men who have sex with men are more susceptible to HIV transmission. There is no data concerning the prevalence of HIV/AIDS among gay Ugandans, making it impossible to know the state of the epidemic in this group or to adequately target at-risk populations. The spokesman for the Uganda AIDS Commission, James Kigozi, explained that the reason that gays are not considered in the national policy is because the practice of homosexuality is illegal and because they are “marginal; their numbers are negligible.” Jim Muhwezi, the Minister of State for Health, said that gays do not deserve “a special message” in the approach to fighting HIV/AIDS: “they shouldn’t exist, and we hope that they are not there. If they do exist they are covered by the three-pronged approach of ABC [Abstinence, Be Faithful, Condoms].” Ugandan HIV/AIDS policy towards this section of the population is based on a hope that it doesn’t exist in the first place.

Outside players are exerting their influence in the area of health as well. Many blame PEPFAR for a lack of coverage of sexual minorities; during the Bush administration, emphasis was placed on “abstinence until marriage,” which excludes homosexuals as they cannot legally marry in Uganda. USAID was criticized for barring the use of the term “men who have sex with men.” Both programs funded faith-based organizations in Uganda that did not cater to gay populations and that often preached homophobia.

A Ugandan Response

Despite the potentially disastrous effects of this legislation, it is encouraging that there is a movement against this bill, a real grassroots resistance despite its small size. Groups like Gay Rights Uganda and Sexual Minorities Uganda, as well as individual people, like the blogger GayUganda, are putting their lives on the line to defend themselves and others without pressure from foreign interests.
 
Gay rights activists will continue to walk the fine line between defending who they are and risking imprisonment, and international activists will continue to balance between imposing their values on a different culture and ensuring basic human rights for all. It is a historic point for gay rights in Uganda, but despite the outcome, let us hope that it is what Ugandans, not others, want.

A copy of the proposed legislation can be found here.

By Meredith Davis
134 Comments
 
 
Reasons for the new operation Amani Leo:
For the past six months, the Congolese National Army (FARDC) has been criticized by diplomats, civil society and human rights groups concerning allegations of violence against civilians during the military operations Umoja Wetu and Kimia II. Yet, there is new joint military operation between FARDC and the United Nations Peacekeeping Force (MONUC) called Amani Leo. This new operation between MONUC and FARDC is to neutralize and capture the Rwandan Hutu militia (FDLR) operating in DRC who participated in the1994 Rwandan genocide. The FDLR is notorious for attacking villages and civilians in furtherance of their efforts to control territory, which allows them to illegally export valuable minerals out of the DRC and fund their operations.

Previous operations Umoja Wetu and Kimia II:
The Umoja Wetu started in January 2009 after the international community urged Rwandan President Paul Kagame to use his influence on National Congress for the Defense of the People (CNDP) leader Laurent Nkunda to stop CNDP’s 2007-2008 rebellion against the Congolese government. After few weeks of negotiations, President Kagame finally offered to help locate and capture the CNDP leader Laurent Nkunda. In exchange, DRC’s President Joseph Kabila allowed the Rwandan National Army (RDP) to enter the Congo in search of the rebel Hutu FDLR.  During this operation Nkunda was arrested, transferred to Rwanda, and then replaced by another leader Bosco Ntaganda who has a warrant of arrest from International Criminal Court (ICC) on conscripting child soldiers into his militia. Former CNDP combatants were then integrated into FARDC.

In March 2009 the second operation Kimia II started. It was a joint operation by MONUC and FARDC. The Rwandan Government supported the mission, claiming that Operation Umoja Wetu had been unsuccessful and that the FDLR continued to pose a serious security threat to Rwanda. The Rwandan Government requested that the MONUC joins forces with the FARDC to combat the FDRL. The goal of this operation was an attempt to dismantle the FDLR’s military capacity. According to FARDC, the operation was a success at the end. For the first time they were able to dislodge the FDLR from areas where they had been entrenched for years and the critical mining-dependent areas were no longer controlled by FDRL. According to UN statistic, “a significant number of FDLR combatants have been given up their weapons and returned to Rwanda since the start of military operations in January 2009”.  1,798 family members of FDRL and 12,387 Rwandan refugees were sent to Rwanda.

Criticisms of Umoja Leo and Kimia II
Although the Congolese Army took control of mining sites in these operations and disarmed some FDLR combatants, FARDC and MONUC were unable to adequately protect civilian populations.  These two operations have been accompanied by horrendous abuses by both government and rebel forces against a civilian population throughout the eastern Congo. For instance, there are times that the rebel groups may target civilians to punish them for their government’s decision to launch the operations. The FARDC soldiers themselves are also accused of targeting civilians who they feel are collaborating with the FDLR. According to Human Rights Watch, “between January and September 2009, over 1,400 civilians were deliberately killed by the FDLR, the Congolese army, and their allies”. 7,000 cases of rape against women and girls were reported which indicates rates nearly double those in 2008.  And over 900,000 people were forced to flee their homes in Eastern Congo”. Human Rights Watch also reported that, “a comparison of the impact of military operations on the FDRL and the harm to civilians starkly conveys the suffering endured by the population.  84 humanitarian and human rights groups in the Congo Advocacy Coalition reported that for every FDRL combatant that has been removed from combat through being repatriated, one civilian has been killed, seven women and girls have been raped, eight homes have been destroyed, and nearly 900 people have been forced to flee for their lives. This report illustrates the unjustified costs of pursuing a military solution to rebel groups operating in the eastern provinces.

Conclusion
Although, Alan Doss, the UN representative in Congo, announced that the new plan will more focus on the protection of civilians, conducting operations targeting the FDRL in the region, clear strategic areas of negative forces, hold territory liberated from FDRL control, and assist in restoring State authority in these zones; the UN and FARDC still have not specified how this operation will achieve these objectives, and particularly have not specified how they will guarantee protection for civilians.

Military solutions shouldn’t be used to neutralize FDLR. The violence against civilians that accompanies these military operations is unacceptable. Many Congolese have lost their lives in these operations. Women and girls have been raped and near a million of people have been forced to flee their homes.  It is time for the international community and MONUC to put pressure on Rwanda to stop supporting the military joint. The UN and the international community should encourage Kagame to negotiate with the FDRL in diplomatic and democratic ways rather than pursuing only military solutions. The end of FDLR presence in Congo will put end to all types of human rights abuses and curb illegal mineral trades.  The UN should help the Congo build its capacity to monitor and regulate mining to avoid any illegal trades of minerals. For instance, the UN could send a team of independent consultants to audit the mineral supply chain and hopefully, Rwanda and Congo will find ways to collaborate through diplomatic means rather relying on military forces.
118 Comments