What struck me was the terms in which the outcry was phrased. In the UK, much of the outcry seemed to be associated with the fact that Malawi relies on foreign aid, much of it from the UK: that is, the UK sends foreign aid to a state that oppresses queer people.
What was done to Steven Monjeza and Tiwonge Chimbalanga was appalling and inexcusable. The oppression of queer people, of any people, is always inexcusable. This post does not advocate non-intervention, nor do I propose to explore the ins and outs of intervention and circumstances in which it is/is not justified in this post.
Among those commenting on Malawi's status as a receiver of foreign aid, and suggesting or advocating that it could or should be withdrawn: nearly all the news coverage including the Guardian article linked above, The F-Word, the Huffington Post, and the columnist Dan Savage. UK-based gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell is also on the record as saying that the US should withdraw foreign aid from countries that oppress LGBT people, and he has been actively involved in campaigning on this case.
Here's my worry: foreign aid goes to pay for particular services like HIV/AIDS treatment and education, and other medical care. It goes to pay for sustainable development. And when I read Peter Tatchell saying this:
We must urge the US State Department to make foreign aid and trade conditional on the recipient countries agreeing to respect human rights, including the human rights of LGBT people. Tyrannies should not be rewarded: No US aid for anti-gay regimes
I wonder what he means by "human rights". Undoubtedly the human rights of Steven Monjeza and Tiwonge Chimbalanga were violated. Undoubtedly, it is a human right not to be a prisoner of conscience.
Is it not also a human right to have, among other things, enough food to eat, drinking water, access to adequate healthcare, and education? If we remove foreign aid from countries who need them, are we making a bad situation any better? The persecution of queer people undoubtedly makes it harder to deliver HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention services. But so does not having money with which to do so.
Call me naive. Tell me there's no other way to persuade a government not to practice cruel punishments on people who are queer than to threaten the withdrawal of foreign aid. Because if there is, and we're jumping straight to "we'll take away the money that allows the purchase of life-saving medication and sandwiches", well, that's imperialist and it's racist. And if there isn't...well, that's still imperialist. It's not like we get to abdicate responsibility for a history of colonialism and economic exploitation.
And as Renee Martin of Womanist Musings points out, why aren't we asking queer rights advocates in Malawi what sort of international solidarity would be helpful? Why do high-profile (and for the most part, socially privileged) Westerners think they can decide what would be most helpful in a situation they have no experience of?
I know it seems like a novel idea, but how about asking the TLBG community in Malawi what form of support they would like? I am most certain that they would not support an action that would lead to further impoverishment and death. It is not the government of Malawi that will suffer, it is the people.
(NB, some blogs are reporting that Tiwonge Chimbalanga is trans, and the couple is correctly described as a straight couple. I have been unable to find any mention of this in the mainstream news, and I am reluctant to use Western gender or orientation frameworks like "gay" or "trans" or "LGBT" in any case. For that reason, I have not labeled the couple's orientation or gender, and used the term "queer", except where I am quoting other people. If you hear more on this point, please shout in the comments or by email, and I will happily correct my post. I certainly don't want to erase people's self-descriptions.)
--IP
[Crossposted at Modus Dopens]
No comments:
Post a Comment