Ubuntu for LGBTQI+ Africans

In recent years, several African nations have enacted legislation to expand the criminalization of homosexuality. These laws pose a grave threat to the lives and freedoms of LGBTQI+ individuals across the continent. These laws not only contravene fundamental human rights principles but also erode democratic values and the rule of law, perpetuating stigma and discrimination against marginalized communities. Notable cases of such anti-LGBTQI+ legislation include Uganda, Kenya, Ghana, and Nigeria, with far-reaching consequences for both LGBTQI+ individuals and the overall socio-political landscape of these nations.

Following the passage of one of the world’s most punitive anti-LGBTQI+ laws in Uganda, Kenyan Member of Parliament George Kaluma commended Uganda’s efforts, ominously signaling Kenya’s intent to embark on a similar path. Despite the existence of colonial-era penal codes already criminalizing homosexuality — codes that remain prevalent in post-colonial societies, especially among Commonwealth members — lawmakers in numerous African countries are unwavering in their pursuit of extending the criminalization of LGBTQI+ activities. This endeavor seeks to suppress any advancements made by the LGBTQI+ community and forestall the recognition of rights based on sexual orientation or gender identity and expression.

For many LGBTQI+ individuals in these countries, who already endure hostile environments due to religious intolerance, disinformation about their identities, threats of violence from non-state actors, and state-sanctioned discriminatory legislation, the escalation of criminalization compounds an already precarious situation. In Uganda, the infamous Anti-Homosexuality Act was enacted in 2014, imposing life imprisonment for same-sex acts. Although subsequently overturned by the constitutional court on procedural grounds, the damage had been done. LGBTQI+ individuals were subjected to harassment, violence, and discrimination, with many fleeing the country in fear. Even after the law’s repeal, the government continued its crackdown on LGBTQI+ rights, leading to the arrest and intimidation of activists. Tragically, Uganda’s president signed an even more oppressive anti-LGBTQI+ law this year, exacerbating the plight of community members and prompting the still-unfolding mass exodus of LGBTQI+ individuals facing an uncertain future.

Regrettably, Uganda’s situation has had a ripple effect on neighboring East African nations. Despite the harsh conditions reported in the Kakuma refugee camp in Kenya, it continues to shelter many LGBTQI+ individuals fleeing Uganda, hoping for a better life through resettlement by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). However, Kenyan lawmakers are currently pushing for even more severe anti-LGBTQI+ legislation. Kenya has an extensive history of anti-LGBTQI+ laws, with the penal code prescribing penalties of up to 14 years in prison for same-sex activity. In 2019, the country’s high court upheld this law, citing cultural and religious beliefs. LGBTQI+ individuals in Kenya face daily discrimination and violence, with many living in secrecy. Kenyan lawmakers seeking to expand criminalization and enact new anti-LGBTQI+ legislation aim to emulate Uganda’s repression, further marginalizing LGBTQI+ refugees.

Ghana has also witnessed a surge in anti-LGBTQI+ sentiment, culminating in a new bill that criminalizes same-sex marriage and LGBTQ+ advocacy; as of this writing, this bill has passed the first of three required readings. This legislation has garnered widespread condemnation from human rights groups and activists who assert that it flagrantly violates basic human rights and undermines Ghana’s democratic and legal foundations. Nevertheless, many proponents of this draconian law have received significant support in a country where LGBTQI+ individuals are socially isolated and often scapegoated for political gain. Ghana’s predicament is not isolated, as Africa grapples with a continent-wide trend of expanding criminalization spearheaded by both local policymakers and well-funded lobbies from the Global North.

Similarly, Nigerian lawmakers have successfully enacted the anti-same-sex marriage prohibition act (SSMPA), another one of the harshest anti-LGBTQI+ laws on the continent, imposing penalties of up to 14 years in prison for same-sex activities. Like Ghana, Uganda, and Kenya, Nigeria’s colonial-era penal code already criminalized same-sex marriage and other activities deemed “against the order of nature.” LGBTQI+ individuals in Nigeria face daily discrimination and violence, often living in fear or exile. However, since the implementation of SSMPA, violence and state-sanctioned arrests continue to escalate, leaving many LGBTQI+ people living in constant fear, hindering public health efforts to provide them with essential information, treatment, and care.

The ramifications of Nigeria’s situation have had adverse effects on neighboring countries where LGBTQI+ individuals already face criminalization. Reports of violence against LGBTQ+ people are on the rise in West Africa, with some incidents documented on social media to incite fear within the community. Cameroon has also witnessed a recent surge in violence against the LGBTQI+ community, rendering many transgender individuals in particular unable to seek refuge in Nigeria.

At a fundamental level, these laws not only contravene basic human rights principles but also subvert democracy and the rule of law, perpetuating stigma and discrimination against an already marginalized community. They fragment local communities, encourage vigilantism, leading to mob violence and injustice, and run counter to the principles of inclusive development necessary for fostering thriving and prosperous societies. Furthermore, these laws have a chilling effect on civil society and the media, which often face intimidation and harassment when speaking out against them.

The efforts to expand criminalization — and, indeed, the perpetuation of existing colonial-era penal codes throughout much of Africa — run counter to the essence of Ubuntu, the concept often championed by Nelson Mandela. At its core, Ubuntu signifies reciprocity, the common good, peaceful relations, the primacy of human dignity, and the sanctity of human life, along with tolerance, and mutual respect.

Last month, on August 8, the World Bank announced a suspension of new public financing for Uganda until the effectiveness of measures implemented in response to Uganda’s new Anti-Homosexuality Act has been evaluated. While existing projects and funding will continue, this measure signifies a temporary halt on new projects pending a satisfactory outcome. Critics, including the Ugandan government, have accused the Bank of imperialism, ignoring the Bank’s anti-discrimination rules adopted after its Safeguards review, encompassed within the Environmental & Social Framework for IPF Operations, particularly those pertaining to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI). The Bank’s stance is unequivocal: discriminatory laws and policies are at odds with its core values and impede efforts to enhance the lives of ordinary Ugandans.

The success of international development initiatives hinges on the inclusion of all, irrespective of race, gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity. This holds true not just for Uganda but for every nation dedicated to improving the well-being of its populace. Thus, these countries must urgently repeal their anti-homosexuality laws and refrain from further endeavors to expand criminalization to ensure the continued success of their public health programs and overall development.

The U.S. government has signaled its intent to respond in kind. Following Uganda’s enactment of the AHA, President Biden swiftly indicated a review of Uganda’s eligibility for the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), along with potential sanctions and entry restrictions to the United States. Simultaneously, the Council for Global Equality (CGE) urged the Biden administration to halt funding for the homophobic government and other entities, impose individual sanctions on those responsible for the draconian law in Uganda, and provide direct support to endangered members of the Ugandan LGBTQI+ community. Similar appeals have been made by various domestic and international organizations, aligning with local Ugandan groups’ demands.

Furthermore, it is fallacious to argue that anti-LGBTQI+ laws are seldom enforced and therefore pose minimal risks and dangers. The laws are being actively enforced — as thoroughly documented by Ugandan activists. Moreover, the moral panic, arbitrary arrests, extrajudicial violence, widespread fear, and chaos ensuing after the enactment of new anti-LGBTQI+ laws bear testament to their immediate adverse impact and the hostile environment they foster, a deliberate outcome sought by the proponents of such laws.

Additionally, the assertion that African countries face complex challenges like poverty, thus relegating LGBTQI+ issues as low priorities, is equally misguided. While it is true that Africa confronts multifaceted challenges, governments must avoid exacerbating the vulnerabilities of those most affected by these issues. According to the United Nations Joint Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), inequalities not only harm individuals but also hinder progress against AIDS, reducing the efficacy of HIV investments and jeopardizing millions of lives.

The phenomenon of “brain drain” resulting from these inequalities is particularly significant. Many LGBTQI+ youth are uprooting their lives, leaving their home countries in search of safety, acceptance, and opportunities to thrive as their authentic selves. Some have no other choice but to flee and seek refugee protection abroad if they hope to survive to adulthood. The specific economic and developmental ramifications of this brain drain on African nations remain uncertain due to the absence of comprehensive data. Nevertheless, some estimates suggest that Africa incurs approximately $2.0 billion in annual losses through brain drain in the health sector alone.

As more African youths depart the continent in droves for various reasons, including persecution based on their sexual orientation and gender identity, this trend undermines Africa’s development efforts and is unsustainable. As Akinwumi Adesina, President of the African Development Bank, aptly notes, “the future of Africa’s youth does not lie in migration to Europe; it should not be at the bottom of the Mediterranean; it lies in a prosperous Africa.” To achieve developmental goals despite the challenges, Africa must harness the potential of all its citizens and create a secure, inclusive society that welcomes everyone, including vulnerable groups like LGBTQI+ individuals.

To genuinely uphold democracy and the rule of law, African governments must repeal these harmful and discriminatory laws. They must also take concrete actions to protect the rights of all individuals, irrespective of their sexual orientation or gender identity. This entails addressing discrimination and violence against LGBTQI+ individuals, promoting education and awareness about LGBTQI+ issues, and ensuring the freedom of civil society and the media to advocate against discrimination while championing equality and human rights. Collaboration with international development partners is crucial to ensuring that no one is left behind, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity and expression.

The proliferation of anti-LGBTQI+ laws in Africa constitutes a perilous trend that imperils the lives and freedoms of countless individuals, placing the continent at a disadvantage. These laws contravene fundamental human rights principles, while also undermining democracy and the rule of law. It is imperative that African governments take decisive action to repeal these harmful and discriminatory laws while actively promoting equality and human rights for all.

Global Equality Today (September 2023)

Happy Autumn! (Almost)

True, neither the calendar nor the temperatures in D.C. quite reflect that fall is upon us. But we’re already diving into what will certainly be a very busy season here in Washington. CGE and its 35 member organizations are hard at work engaging our partners in the Administration and on Capitol Hill to ensure that U.S. foreign policy consistently and comprehensively promotes LGBTQI+ human rights around the world.

There are plenty of challenges in front of us, from the possibility of a government shutdown, the PEPFAR reauthorization stalemate, and the distractions of the 2024 election cycle to a flood of viciously anti-LGBTQI+ legislative efforts, not only here in the United States but in dozens of other countries as well.

But we are not approaching our mission from a defensive posture, no matter how well-organized the movement to roll back the human rights of LGBTQI+ people — and democracy and civil society at large — might be. Instead, with sixteen months to go in this first Biden Administration, we are focused on institutionalizing our victories and expanding our pro-human rights agenda:

• Alongside HRC, we are working with our Hill allies calling for the President’s Budget request to include $40 million for the State Department’s Global Equality Fund (GEF) and $30 million for USAID’s Inclusive Development Hub’s Protection of LGBTQI+ Persons in the FY2025 State and Foreign Operations appropriations bills. We are also partnering with numerous allies in the HIV and SRHR (sexual and reproductive health and rights) movements to pass a clean PEPFAR reauthorization, even in the face of unprecedented attacks from the anti-abortion movement.

• CGE — in collaboration with Rainbow Railroad, ORAM, Immigration Equality, and IRAP, all CGE members — is working with the State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration to ensure that the Biden Administration’s direct referral and private sponsorship mechanisms for refugees are both fully LGBTQI+-inclusive and fully operational. This includes promoting Rainbow Railroad’s referrals to  the new Welcome Corps program that will allow local groups to sponsor LGBTQI+ refugees to bring them to safety in the United States. (You can read more in our World Refugee Day blog.)

• We are excited by USAID’s release of its revised and expanded LGBTQI+ Inclusive Development Policy, and we are looking forward to collaborating with USAID’s Senior LGBTQI+ Coordinator, Jay Gilliam, and his team to make sure that LGBTQI+ concerns are truly incorporated throughout the Agency’s work. To that end, we’ve added meetings with USAID’s regional and thematic bureaus to our annual meetings with State’s regional bureaus. And we are supporting the development of a new accountability mechanism at USAID to ensure that any violations of this groundbreaking new policy — or any other USAID policies ­— are reported and addressed at the local level.  

• We are working hard with Ugandan activists on the ground and with a global solidarity coalition organizing to overturn the horrific Anti-Homosexuality Act (AHA) assented to by President Museveni in May. The law has a genocidal intent and is already being implemented to disastrous effect. We are simultaneously working with regional colleagues to prevent the passage of similar anti-LGBTQI+ bills in other African countries, including Ghana and Kenya. Likewise, we are monitoring the deteriorating situation in the Middle East, where anti-LGBTQI+ legislation is pending and attacks on the LGBTQI+ communities are escalating, notably in Lebanon and Iraq.

• As part of our work fighting the AHA in Uganda, CGE met with U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai to call for the suspension of Uganda from AGOA, the African Growth and Opportunity Act, which provides preferential trade benefits for qualifying countries. The AHA — the most draconian anti-LGBTQI+ law in the world — clearly contravenes the human rights requirements of the program, as well as the goals and ideals that animate the AGOA trade framework. CGE also has submitted public comments on Uganda, Kenya, and Ghana — in the latter two cases, with the goal of building pressure to scrap proposed anti-LGBTQI+ laws there — and will continue to work with our partners in the Administration and on the Hill to use U.S. trade policy as a tool to promote human rights.

CGE Co-Chairs Julie Dorf and Mark Bromley with U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai, center.

• We will continue to work with U.S., European, and Central Asian partners to push Uzbekistan for full decriminalization of homosexuality and the immediate end to the pervasive human rights violations committed against Uzbekistan’s LGBTQI+ community by state and non-state actors. This spring and summer, CGE and its partners have been meeting regularly with Congressional partners to promote this priority and to oppose rewarding Tashkent with normal trade relations without improving its human rights record. As Senators Murphy and Young introduce legislation to repeal Jackson-Vanik trade restrictions on Uzbekistan and its neighbors, we call on Congress and the Administration to ensure that human rights standards — including the decriminalization of homosexuality — are part of the trade normalization process.

Looking over the last few months, our work has included…

• CGE released an updated and expanded edition of Accessing U.S. Embassies: A Guide for LGBTQI+ Human Rights Defenders, our resource for helping international partners understand and access U.S. embassies and missions and build and maintain productive working relationships with U.S. diplomatic and development staff in around the world. This guide, released in English in June, will soon be available in Spanish, French, and Arabic as well.

• In May, CGE Co-Chair Mark Bromley attended the inaugural meeting of the P7 (for “Pride7”) that brought together LGBTQI+ advocates from the world’s leading industrial democracies to lobby the G7 alliance to promote LGBTQI+ human rights. The P7 meeting, ahead of the full G7 summit in Hiroshima, helped win support for passage of Japan’s first-ever LGBTQI+ rights legislation (as incomplete as the law may be) as well as lay the groundwork for the P7 becoming an officially recognized civil society engagement group attached to the G7.

CGE Co-Chair Mark Bromley joins other advocates at the inaugural meeting of the P7 in Tokyo

• At a June reception, CGE honored former Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI) with our Global Equality Award shortly after he left Congress to lead the Rhode Island Foundation. We had the opportunity to talk with Rep. Cicilline about his leadership with the Congressional Equality Caucus and the Foreign Affairs Committee, the progress we’ve made during his dozen years in Congress, and the opportunities we see and the challenges we’re facing. Additionally, Ambassador Ursu Viorel of Moldova spoke powerfully about being the first openly LGBTQI+ Ambassador from a former Soviet republic and his country’s fundamental commitment to democracy and human rights — even as Russia wages war next door in Ukraine.

Top: former Rep. David Cicilline accepts the Global Equality Award

Bottom: Amb. Ursu Viorel of Moldova speaks to the reception

• In May, we spoke with Alexander Voronov, Executive Director of Coming Out, an NGO that provides legal, psychological, and other direct services to Russia’s LGBTQI+ community. Alex spoke about Coming Out’s continuing work, even in the face of the worsening crackdown on dissent in Putin’s Russia following the invasion of Ukraine — a crackdown that forced him to leave the country and function from exile.

• For IDAHOBIT, the International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia, Interphobia, and Transphobia, we welcomed the U.S. government’s rollout of its Interagency Action Plan dedicated to ending so-called “conversion therapy” (CTP) practices around the world. With this plan, the U.S. government has committed itself to the numerous partnerships necessary to stop these abusive practices. This includes working with LGBTQI+ community groups around the world; with like-minded allies and other partner governments; and with faith leaders, educators, professional associations, and other civil society networks. The U.S. government also plans to work to end CTPs at various multilateral fora, including the development banks and international institutions to which the United States is a party, to ensure that no financial or programmatic support, direct or otherwise, goes towards CTPs.

• For Pride in June — knowing how easy it is to focus on the backlash and the battles we’re fighting — we published a list of 23 recent victories in the movement for LGBTQI+ justice and human rights. We also reiterated how Pride marches are both expressions of fundamental rights to democratic participation and tools for promoting inclusivity, visibility, and acceptance. CGE staff also attended the annual State Department and USAID Pride receptions, meeting with Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Administrator Samantha Power, respectively.

Co-Chair Julie Dorf and CGE member leaders meet with Secretary of State Blinken, left

• Additionally, at the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, CGE promotes accountability and investments that support LGBTQI+-inclusive development. CGE staff helped organize several World Bank meetings over the summer that ultimately led to the freezing of new investments in Uganda following the adoption of the AHA.

Governments and Human Rights

The Council pays particular attention to the role that foreign governments play, or fail to play, in preserving and advancing the rights of their LGBT citizens. In our own country, we’ve seen how policies pursued by this President have helped empower greater respect and protections for LGBT persons. The same could happen in many countries abroad.

Moving the needle on respect for LGBT people is a process, of course. Governments must play a role in that process – in molding attitudes, not just reflecting them, and in forming policies that promote and reinforce cross-society acceptance and cooperation. We believe all governments – ours yes, but also those of every other country, friend and foe alike – should be held accountable for:

• The tone that governing officials’ homo- or trans-phobic public rhetoric sets within society;
• Failure to redress legally sanctioned discrimination or bias-motivated crimes against LGBT individuals;
• The degree to which LGBT individuals are accorded equal access to services and opportunities, including health care, employment, education, and housing;
• Whether LGBT civil society organizations are able to register and function unimpaired;
• The prevalence of transgender-specific violence, abuse, and documentation issues, particularly in cases involving government action or inaction.
• Abuse of government and police powers, e.g. the use of tangential laws regarding loitering to arrest or detain LGBT individuals arbitrarily; the use of foreign agent or tax laws to place disproportionate restrictions on LGBT civil society; physical abuses by police, prison, and hospital officials; and bribery solicited by such officials in order either to provide services or to avoid abusive treatment; and
• The media climate in which LGBT rights are explained to and understood by the public, particularly when government-sponsored or –influenced media outlets are involved.

In addition, we should work with countries to understand intersex issues as a related set of human rights concerns. In this context, governments must be held accountable for policies or practices that unnecessarily and adversely impact the childhood development and adult health and sexuality of intersex persons. Appropriate government officials, including our own, must also enter into a new dialogue with intersex persons to identify best practices in the diagnosis, treatment and lifelong support for intersex health.

We know that the U.S. does not run the world by fiat. But we also recognize our responsibility, as citizens of a country that wields outsized influence in the world, to ensure this influence is put to positive use. We therefore hold our government accountable for encouraging foreign counterparts to guarantee the conditions in which the promise of the Universal Declaration can be realized for all citizens.

If fault is to be found in U.S. human rights policy, it certainly isn’t in our country’s attention to LGBT human rights, as the December 20 New York Times article alleges. Nor is it in failing to listen to the voices of local activists, as the Times article also suggests has been the case: to the contrary, we’ve found this Administration very much attuned to those local voices in framing its diplomatic dialogue and actions.

The fault we find, rather, is in this Administration’s lack of consistency in showing that human rights matter – and that deliberate abuse of those rights damages the fabric of our bilateral relationships.

Across this Administration’s tenure, the Council has urged that actions by foreign governments that abridge the human rights of any minority group automatically trigger a measured review of how those actions might impact U.S. programs in-country and, of consequence, potential U.S. policy responses.

We know, of course, that U.S. policy goals in any given country sometimes compete against each other. But if support for human rights is a principle, neither it nor its deterrent value should be shunted aside when inconvenient – not even when Nigerian oil contracts, Pacific trade deals, or terrorism concerns are in play.

We also see an urgent need for greater Administration transparency in the funding it provides for LGBT and other human rights programs, and in how those programs are evaluated. The State Department and USAID are embarrassingly far apart in how they measure their LGBT-related programming dollars – no doubt a contributing factor to the highly inflated, erroneous figure of $700 million reported in the New York Times. And unfortunately the World Bank and other multilateral development funders have yet to institute mechanisms needed to include LGBT minorities – who are so often denied basic livelihoods and excluded from the economic life of their own country – in the development opportunities that Bank programs are intended to promote.

Common counting practices, clear programmatic goals, and honestly reflective measurements of program results are basic to good governance.

Joint CSO Letter to World Bank on Discrimination in Uganda’s Health Sector

Dr. Jim Yong Kim
President
The World Bank
1818 H St. NW
Washington DC 20433

Dear Dr. Kim:

We write to follow up on our letters of April 1 and May 6, 2014, regarding concerns about discrimination in Uganda’s health sector and the World Bank’s delay of its US$90 million loan.

We, once again, welcome your commitment to ensure that there is no discrimination in World Bank financed projects in Uganda and public recognition that discrimination is not only wrong, but undermines economic growth.

Six months after your decision to delay the health sector loan, we remain concerned that there are still not sufficient safeguards in place to prevent discrimination in health service provision for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex (LGBTI) patients, or for women, among other groups in Uganda. In this letter, we share recommendations for the World Bank’s next steps in Uganda and request a meeting with your office as you chart a strategic way forward to ensure that World Bank funding does not entrench discrimination via its loans and other financial instruments. On August 26 during a meeting with the Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights and Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG), Uganda’s former minister of health and new prime minister, Dr. Ruhakana Rugunda, made comments that reinforce this concern: he agreed that there is discrimination in the health sector, and that the government is not equipped to monitor the health sector for discrimination or to respond to discrimination when it occurs.

The World Bank: Why It Should Consider Gay Rights

The Council for Global Equality participated in the set of meetings referenced in the article below. The Council also helped bring LGBT human rights activists to Washington DC to attend the week long set of meetings.

Repost from The Economist

THE ECONOMIST ran an editorial recently arguing that “the World Bank’s focus on gay rights is misguided” (“Right cause, wrong battle“, April 12th). We received a lot of letters on the subject, some of which appear in this week’s issue. The following letter is from some of the gay activists who attended the meeting to discuss gay rights with Jim Kim, the World Bank’s president:

SIR – On behalf of the LGBT activists that were at the World Bank spring meeting and who had the opportunity to engage with the president of the bank, Jim Kim, we would like to respond to your leader arguing that Mr Kim’s attempts to address discrimination against gays in Uganda and elsewhere will hurt the bank’s objectives regarding development. You argued against the World Bank’s involvement in “gay rights”, and perpetuated several misconceptions, inaccurately describing the courageous activists that met Mr Kim, and oversimplified their campaign for more effective safeguard policies.

You criticised the bank’s postponement of a loan to Uganda in response to the government’s passage of its Anti-Homosexuality Act, and asserted that the bank was prioritising “gay rights” over poverty alleviation. Although you attempted to downplay the importance of addressing discrimination in Uganda by citing the pervasive discrimination found against women and others around the world, it is precisely this prevalence of discrimination that makes this problem too big to ignore.

In fact, the sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) activists you referred to have asked the bank to address both gender and SOGI together in its efforts on discrimination. These communities face similar structural discrimination and marginalisation that lead to the inability to escape the poverty cycle. A growing body of evidence demonstrates that discrimination can lead to extreme poverty. In India, estimated costs of homophobia could be near 2% of GDP. The bank simply cannot afford to ignore discrimination if it hopes to achieve its goals of ending extreme poverty and boosting shared prosperity.

You also quoted the bank’s Articles of Agreement, which outline its purpose as an institution focused solely on “economic considerations” and “not a place for political advocacy.” Limiting the bank’s mission to what is written in the Articles, however, would mean that it should still be focused on rebuilding Europe after the second world war. Neither “poverty” nor “shared prosperity”—both goals the bank has adopted over the past two decades—appear in the Articles. The institution has evolved since they were first drafted. The past 70 years have provided a wealth of research and lessons learned that demonstrate the links between poverty and discrimination.

The World Bank has already adopted several social and environmental safeguard polices that “condition” its funds on certain procedures that both it and borrowers must follow. They require due diligence and action plans when a country anticipates having to resettle people for a project, or when indigenous peoples might be affected. These policies have been replicated at nearly all development institutions, and although not perfect, are essential in preventing harm and providing opportunities for affected communities to engage in the development process and share in its benefits.

You think that the safeguards should be eliminated in order to be a more attractive lender. Such a race to the bottom would, however, be counterproductive, and would ultimately undermine the World Bank’s efforts at poverty reduction. Instead it must work in countries to ensure safeguards are effective and responsive to the needs of marginalised communities.

For the first time, the bank is undertaking a comprehensive review of all of its social and environmental safeguard policies. Despite its efforts in recent years to “mainstream gender” in its work, the World Bank has never adopted a mandatory policy on how to ensure its projects and programmes are gender inclusive and avoid exacerbating inequalities that lead to poverty. Furthermore, it has entirely overlooked the inclusion of sexual and gender minorities in its broader agenda.

The Uganda loan demonstrates that the bank currently has no way to ensure its projects avoid inequalities on the ground or contribute to possible human-rights violations on the basis of gender, sexual orientation or gender identity. Rather than being cancelled, the loan has been put on hold to allow the bank time to research the effects that the loan would have on SOGI communities. To make this research systematic prior to this stage in loan disbursement, the World Bank must adopt a safeguard policy on gender and SOGI that would prevent exclusion and recognise these individuals as important stakeholders in its work.

Despite your implication, the activists who visited Washington are not asking the bank to divest from countries like Uganda. Rather they are asking it to go into complex, discriminatory societies with their eyes open and to anticipate the risks before further marginalising vulnerable communities.

We continue to believe that the World Bank should do everything in its power to ensure that its investments are not creating or exacerbating existing inequalities, that it uses its power and influence to encourage its clients to ensure equitable distribution of economic growth benefits, and that the institution itself respects the rights of individuals, regardless of their gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

Andrea Quesada
Bisi Alimi
Hasan Abdessamad
Mirosława Makuchowska
Xiaogang Wei

The Council marks “International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia”

L to R, Joel Gustave Nana, African Men for Sexual Health and Rights; Jaevion Nelson, Jamaican human rights advocate; Val Kalende, Ugandan LGBT rights advocate; Mark Bromley, Council for Global Equality; Philip W. Moeller, Lutherans Concerned/North America; and David Wilson, World Bank. photo courtesy of the World Bank

May 17, 2011, Washington, DC – The Council was pleased today to mark the “International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia,” also known as “IDAHO,” by co-sponsoring a panel discussion at the World Bank to highlight “The Effect of Homophobia on Development.” The panel was co-sponsored by the Council, UN AIDS, World Bank Globe, and the Inter-American Development Bank Globe.

IDAHO is celebrated worldwide on May 17 as the date in 1990 when the World Health Organization removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. One of the themes this year is “As I Am,” which is a response to the daily homophobia and transphobia that seek to deny the individual worth of LGBT people. That theme has a vital development message, and the panel today highlighted the importance of recognizing the individuality of the various communities we seek to support through our development investments. It also comes at a time when leaders in the U.S. Congress are calling on the Secretary of the Treasury to oppose any financial assistance from multilateral development institutions to countries that “persecute people on the basis of their sexual orientation, gender identity or religious beliefs.” (Read more about the Congressional effort here.)