"The World Bank has suspended a planned $90m loan to Uganda meant to strengthen its health care system after its president signed into law a bill prescribing harsh jail terms for homosexual offences.
The decision by the global lender comes days after Denmark, the Netherlands and Norway said they would also freeze or change aid programmes for Uganda because of the law." (Al-Jazeera 2/28/14)
Uganda has so far responded by saying it will not bend to financial pressure and that the West should stay out of E. Africa's business. It is an interesting example of how the international community attempts to shape the behavior of states without resorting to violence. (Putting aside the violence of poverty for this facet of the argument). It will be interesting to see how Uganda reacts in the long term. Arizona certainly came to its financial senses quickly.
But Professor Tamara also mentioned that there was a sort of backlash in the gay community (and here I am not sure if she was speaking of Queer theorists or a larger group) about the Western Imperialism of Gay Rights. Edward Said type stuff. So what does this mean for public authority and global governance? It seems like if we seek to go beyond hard-shelled autonomy, we are going to need to adopt some universal understandings. International commerce is already based on the idea of private property, both physical and intellectual. A "Western" idea perhaps, but one that might be more useful in creating an international system. What about human rights? Doesn't the international community have to lay down some universal truths so it can create some international "red lines"? Post-Modernist critique that everything is just a social construct of the dominant paradigm is not helpful if we are attempting to create international structures for permeability or cooperation.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2014/02/world-bank-freezes-aid-uganda-over-gay-law-201422874410793972.html
Hi Amit,
ReplyDeleteI think I'm agreeing with you here. If everything is relativistic and nothing is more than a social construct, then why bother with any of it? I think that a dominant ideology, any dominant ideology, at any size of population, is going to get push-back from whatever the minority viewpoint is, especially when that minority is already disadvantaged in multiple ways.
I think the counter to the Ugandan argument is "Our money comes with conditions, to include human rights. Take it or don't." The counter to that counter is the Chinese, who seem willing to give money to anyone as long as they obtain access to something they need in that particular country. The multi-lateral world is forcing countries to really examine if their values are more important than their influence or access to business or natural resources.
Scott, your illustration of China is excellent. "We do not identify or relate to you morally. Moral evangelism is not our thing. However, if you have forests or oil that we could use, here's the cash. Now you too can engage in environmental destruction in the name of 'development.'" Ecuador has already sold its future to China. It's a very sad state of affairs.
DeleteAmit, forgive the delay in responding! The critical group about which I was speaking was definitely one that consisted of academics only - the same ones that question the push for marriage rights, since, as they were arguing, this is just to strive to belong to the dominant paradigm, and in this way "they" as marginalized group now become a tool for the "universalization" of Western-style norms based on some concept of "modernity" through the organizations about which you speak in your blog. Just some of the unexpected twists and turns of "activism." ;-)
ReplyDelete