FDC distinguishes itself again this year with a unique race for party flag bearer that demonstrates clear, principled leadership. We are a party that practices what it preaches. We have two formidable leaders competing for the position of flag bearer and I will support Kizza Besigye simply because he is the leader best positioned to unite the opposition and galvanize the population to cause change in 2011. The reason that we are able to exercise internal democracy within the party is because he has encouraged it and made it possible for anyone to take a shot at any and all positions of leadership in the party including his own. He has taken the lead in explaining that democracy demands that we are all challenged and that competition is in fact an essential ingredient of democratic leadership. He has prepared us for his departure by publicly speaking about it and promising to step down when his term ends in a few years.
Mugisha Muntu has deepened the party's democratic credentials by presenting himself early, before the party president steps down; making it possible for us to test Kizza Besigye’s credibility and authenticity. Where the Ugandan experience has taught us to expect animosity between candidates we are witnessing candidates that have a profound respect for each other competing in a free and fair contest. Whoever loses this election should not feel bereft of hope because their participation has already benefited us all and Ugandans are the winners regardless of the outcome. There will be many in the yellow camp (ruling party) who will scratch their heads in awe and wonder whether FDC is up to some trick because it is unimaginable for them that an incumbent would subject themselves to ‘unnecessary elections.’
It is nonetheless our onerous duty as FDC leaders to choose between two outstanding candidates for flag bearer for the 2011 presidential elections and my choice is made. I will once again campaign by Internet and phone to convince FDC delegates to elect Kizza Besigye and God willing I will join them in April to cast my own ballot for him. Here is why:
Kizza Besigye is a brand. A unique and valuable brand that has withstood tempestuous weather and severe testing on Uganda’s political market. His brand has become so successful that it has taken opposition party leadership from being the most dangerous and ridiculed job in the land to one of the most sought after positions. If one were to put a price on his brand it would be pretty high for it was built through great personal suffering, loss and sacrifice. Kizza Besigye’s brand invokes concrete values including trust, hope, selflessness, persistence, honor, valor, patience, courage and leadership. Perhaps with time Mugisha Muntu might build confidence in his own brand but speaking today, just 13 months before a presidential election; I know that the choice is between going to the market with an established brand and building a new brand. We simply do not have the time.
Kizza Besigye’s detractors complain about his aggressive and brutal honesty in dealing with the oppressor which they claim strikes so much fear in President Museveni and his supporters that they will go to extremes to stay in power for fear of vengeance. They argue that more people are likely to be drawn to Mugisha Muntu’s soft-spoken style and President Museveni would be more likely to hand over power to him. This group believes they can massage Museveni out of power.
There are three problems with that particular argument. First and foremost anyone who has witnessed the extent to which this government will go to hang onto power, will find the argument extremely naïve. As Mary Karoro pointed out, why would Museveni ever want to hand power to the opposition? A logical question, particularly as he has shown no inclination to hand over power even within his own party where there are numerous masseurs that would gladly massage him out in unfettered comfort?
Secondly those who argue that Muntu would attract new voters from the Movement are simply starting their search for opposition votes in the wrong place. They could start by organzing to guard the votes they already have so that after they are cast they are actually counted and accuratey reported. They may find that they already have more than enough to win an election. Thirdly, any new votes will most likely come from freshly disgruntled constituencies in places like Buganda and Bunyoro and the mood in those constituencies is not to massage the oppressor.
The massage approach does not resonate well with those who want both change and justice. It would only entrench the mistaken but long held view that FDC is made up of disgruntled Movement apologists who want to replace Museveni; an image that we have struggled to correct for years. We have come a long way in defining ourselves and the moderate attitude which every Movement sympathizer has asked us to embrace is exactly what will isolate us from our grassroots supporters. They are trusting us to deliver social and economic justice and not to bargain a compromise with the oppressor.
Another popular argument against Besigye is that he is sticking to the chair like super glue! Detractors argue that KB has run twice against President Museveni and it is time for him to let another candidate have a go. I am confident that Kizza Besigye will leave FDC Presidency at the end of his current term and I dare say he is anxious to set an example of a peaceful hand over of leadership. Moreover, the analogy that compares Kizza Besigye’s ten years of sacrifice to President Museveni’s 25 years of privilege is lame. I have argued elsewhere that it is tantamount to saying that Nelson Mandela should have stepped aside when he left jail and allowed a fresh face to run for ANC and South African presidency because Mandela was a leading ANC figure for too long prior to South Africa's 1994 elections. Ridiculous!
Those who support Mugisha Muntu have an uphill task of convincing FDC delegates that they have a superior brand for the current political market. Eleven months ago they managed to convince 53 delegates out of 709 that their candidate was the best to lead the party. They now have 3 months to achieve a miracle and I can only wish them luck.
Their biggest huddle will be Besigye’s outstanding performance as a leader. Kizza Besigye leads from the front. His leadership is visible and accessible for all and delegates will benchmark other leaders against his record. Besigye does not disappear from public view between elections only to reappear around election time. He is right there at the frontline battling alongside activists not in the confines of Parliament or in selective sanitized dialogues but right there where activism meets oppression. You will find him leading demonstrations, visiting activists in jail, supporting candidates in by-elections, consulting grassroots supporters, mobilizing Diaspora support, engaging the media, fundraising for the party, building and seeking international recognition and support for Uganda’s opposition. He does not make pledges to the party that are dependent on his being elected. He did what he was supposed to do without strings attached even before there was a party to speak of.
When Kizza Besigye leaves office in a few years FDC will have an opportunity to leap forward and make a clean break from the past while tapping into a new market of voters who are ready to bury the rhetoric of the last two and a half decade. Uganda’s politics is currently stuck in a rut of the Luweero ‘bush war.’ Political dialogue has narrowed down to a debate between those who think the war created heroes and those who believe it created villains those who think it was a just war and those who believe it was an opportunistic war.
As long as leaders emerging from that war continue to lead our party and country we can expect those relationships to continue to dominate and define our political dialogue. Reports that Muntu is being backed by veteran politicians Amanya Mushega and Richard Kaijuka further strengthens my resolve to support the bush candidate that is about to step down and immediately embark on a campaign to challenge the old narrative while offering a fresh perspective.
We need a fresh perspective that is removed from the sentiments and fall-out of the bush war. Replacing Kizza Besigye with Mugisha Muntu simply prolongs the bush war narrative.
Anne Mugisha
Deputy Secretary Regional and International Affairs
Forum for Democratic Change
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Anne Mugisha, Next President of Forum for Democratic Change
Anne holds the position of Deputy Secretary for International and Regional Affairs and coordinates FDC's external relations, liaising with democracy activists based in the Diaspora and drawing international attention to the democracy deficit in Uganda. She is a lawyer and human rights activist who has held diplomatic and management positions in Uganda's civil service and in the NGO sector. She is also a Reagan-Fascell Democracy Fellow and a regular contributor of democratization and human rights OP-EDs in Uganda's media.
Anne joined active opposition politics in November 2000 as a publicity Secretary for the Elect Kizza Besigye Task force which offered the first serious challenge to President Yoweri Museveni’s government in an election that was ranked as Uganda’s most violent election. She stood for Parliamentary elections and contested for the seat of Uganda’s capital city, Kampala in May 2001. Shortly after the presidential and parliamentary elections Anne left Uganda following constant harassment and threats from security operatives. She stayed briefly in South Africa where she continued to interact with other Ugandan dissidents and opposition politicians leading to their founding of Reform Agenda; a political pressure group established to advocate for democratic reforms in Uganda.
Anne moved to USA in February 2002 as Executive Director of RESPOND Uganda a Diaspora Organization based in Washington DC that sought to create awareness about political persecution and regressing democratic development in Uganda. It was here that she was awarded the Reagan Fascell Democracy Fellowship at the National Endowment for Democracy in Washington DC. When Uganda instituted a multiparty system of governance, Reform Agenda merged with other newly formed political groups to form Forum for Democratic Change in December 2004. Anne was named External Coordinator and was appointed Special Envoy in the President’s Office at the Party;s first Delegate's Conference in 2005. She remained in the USA from where she assisted in coordinating a communications and fundraising initiative for the 2006 general elections in Uganda. In 2009 Anne was appointed to her current position of Deputy Secretary for Regional and International Affairs at the party’s second delegates conference.
Anne has harnessed the power of the World Wide Web to develop a virtual network of Ugandan political activists who support mobilization and movement building activities at the grassroots in Uganda. She started and moderated a virtual discussion forum in 2002 for the Reform Agenda that brought together over 700 Ugandan activists based in the Diaspora. The forum later became the launch pad for communication and fundraising campaigns for the 2006 elections and was renamed FDC Discussion Forum. In addition to moderating the forum Anne commissioned the design and construction of the the party’s first website www.fdcuganda.org which became an important source of campaign news from the opposition and was a source for the media in Uganda and for Ugandans in the Diaspora during the 2006 election campaigns.
Anne builds and maintains effective partnerships with Donor organizations, think tanks, Diaspora communities and individual rights activists to foster financial, technological and material support for the opposition in Uganda. She plays an important role in communicating with varying stakeholders. Between Oct 2004-2006 Anne was a Program Associate at Women's Learning Partnership in Bethesda, Maryland, USA; where she coordinated leadership training projects for transnational partner organizations working with women living in adverse conditions, including refugee women, women living under Islamic laws, and women living in post conflict communities in Africa, Asia and the Middle East.
For more information visit Anne's Campaign Page on Facebook
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
The anti-homosexuality Bill: Snatching Victory from the Jaws of Defeat
By failing to come out strongly against the Anti-Homosexuality Bill and condemning it clearly as an unnecessary and appalling piece of proposed legislation, the Ugandan opposition conceded another opportunity to lay bare the human rights abuses of the NRM government and afforded Museveni and his government an opportunity to emerge as the voice of reason.
Opposition politicians were divided in opinion about whether to oppose the Bill. Some genuinely supported and even co-sponsored the Bill because their conscience demanded it. Others opposed the Bill privately but preferred to play safe politics fearing the wrath of the majority of their constituents who support the Bill. They knew that all their opponents had to do was to call them homosexuals or gay sympathizers and that would surely wipe out their votes come polling day.
The political leaders whose world view was shaped to believe that homosexuality is so repugnant that they were willing to append their name to legislation that condemned homosexuals to death by hanging are not my target today. They acted according to their conscience however warped we may consider it to be. But what about the rest? The ones who told journalists that they privately opposed the Bill but dare not vote against it when it comes up for hearing; The ones who waited to take the cue from Donors rather than their conscience, and the ones who will now condemn the Bill because it is safe to do since even President Museveni has developed cold feet and turned into a gay rights apologist? What are we to make of those political leaders?
They failed to articulate to the public the difference between supporting the spread of homosexuality and the repressive nature of Bahati's Bill. They were more concerned about the political ramifications of supporting the Bill than on the potential of human rights violations that could result from passing the Bill. The irony cannot be lost on them that it has taken Museveni - with a little help from our development partners (read: Donors) to put this Bill into a human rights perspective. He set aside his personal homophobic inclinations and prevailed over those who were stampeding the nation into embracing this monstrosity of a Bill.
While his intervention is welcome we must not lose sight of the influences that have temporarily subdued his homophobia and transformed him into the voice of reason. It was not because he was suddenly enamored by the gay community or gay rights, it was not because Ugandan voters (his bosses) prevailed over him and begged him to have mercy on the gays, nor was it a change in his conviction that gay rights are human rights but rather it was in deference to Donor country demands that he reframed the issue as a foreign policy issue. The New Vision reports 'Museveni said he had been questioned about the bill by several foreign leaders, including the Canadian prime minister, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. He said Clinton called him for over 45 minutes over the issue.
“I told them that this bill was brought up by a private member and I have not even had time to discuss it with him. It is neither the Government nor the NRM party. It is a private member,” Museveni told the NRM meeting at State House Entebbe. '
Museveni effectively washed his hands and the hands of government of anything to do with Bahati's Bill. He also reframed the issue as a foreign policy (rather than human rights) issue! Nsaba Buturo, should be feeling like an idiot. He is after all a spokesperson of the government on issues of morality and ethics. Ha!
Now some conspiracy theorists may believe that Museveni hatched the whole plan from scratch and put Hon. Bahati and Buturo up to some mischief in order to get where we are today. I personally doubt that Museveni could have predicted how this particular debate would unfold. I tend to agree with those who believe that President Museveni saw an opportunity to get out of a bad situation, grabbed it and snatched victory from the jaws of defeat. The anti-homosexuality debate brought too much unwanted focus on Uganda's political and human rights crises and that is not where Museveni's government wants to be ahead of election time. So his finely tuned political antennae told him to feed Bahati and Buturo to the wolves whilst using the same opportunity to emerge as mediator, the voice of reason, the one who brings back sanity before some extremist elements drive the country over a cliff.
And so there is a collective sigh of relief from the West. Gay activists are appeased and Donor government's like the USA which need Museveni to continue protecting its interests in places like Somalia and sending mercenaries to Iraq, but dare not antagonize the powerful gay lobby at home; are once again at peace. In order for them to continue their game of 'see no evil, speak no evil' in Uganda, the US government must ensure that it's citizens are not agitated enough to put their African partner under closer scrutiny. That scrutiny might uncover more rights abuses, corruption, nepotism, abuse of office, election malpractices and other evils that the US likes to condemn in countries that do not do the US' bidding, or supply it with critical resources like oil or mercenaries.
So what does that say of our politicians and politics in general? To my friends in the opposition who kept tight lipped when their conscience told them otherwise I will quote Abraham Lincoln: To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.
To those who were repelled by the excessive punitive proposals in the Bill but then chose to play it safe for fear of political repercussions I will quote Martin Luther King, Jr: Cowardice asks the question, 'Is it safe?' Expediency asks the question, 'Is it politic?' Vanity asks the question, 'Is it popular?' But, conscience asks the question, 'Is it right?' And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but one must take it because one's conscience tells one that it is right.'
Opposition politicians were divided in opinion about whether to oppose the Bill. Some genuinely supported and even co-sponsored the Bill because their conscience demanded it. Others opposed the Bill privately but preferred to play safe politics fearing the wrath of the majority of their constituents who support the Bill. They knew that all their opponents had to do was to call them homosexuals or gay sympathizers and that would surely wipe out their votes come polling day.
The political leaders whose world view was shaped to believe that homosexuality is so repugnant that they were willing to append their name to legislation that condemned homosexuals to death by hanging are not my target today. They acted according to their conscience however warped we may consider it to be. But what about the rest? The ones who told journalists that they privately opposed the Bill but dare not vote against it when it comes up for hearing; The ones who waited to take the cue from Donors rather than their conscience, and the ones who will now condemn the Bill because it is safe to do since even President Museveni has developed cold feet and turned into a gay rights apologist? What are we to make of those political leaders?
They failed to articulate to the public the difference between supporting the spread of homosexuality and the repressive nature of Bahati's Bill. They were more concerned about the political ramifications of supporting the Bill than on the potential of human rights violations that could result from passing the Bill. The irony cannot be lost on them that it has taken Museveni - with a little help from our development partners (read: Donors) to put this Bill into a human rights perspective. He set aside his personal homophobic inclinations and prevailed over those who were stampeding the nation into embracing this monstrosity of a Bill.
While his intervention is welcome we must not lose sight of the influences that have temporarily subdued his homophobia and transformed him into the voice of reason. It was not because he was suddenly enamored by the gay community or gay rights, it was not because Ugandan voters (his bosses) prevailed over him and begged him to have mercy on the gays, nor was it a change in his conviction that gay rights are human rights but rather it was in deference to Donor country demands that he reframed the issue as a foreign policy issue. The New Vision reports 'Museveni said he had been questioned about the bill by several foreign leaders, including the Canadian prime minister, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. He said Clinton called him for over 45 minutes over the issue.
“I told them that this bill was brought up by a private member and I have not even had time to discuss it with him. It is neither the Government nor the NRM party. It is a private member,” Museveni told the NRM meeting at State House Entebbe. '
Museveni effectively washed his hands and the hands of government of anything to do with Bahati's Bill. He also reframed the issue as a foreign policy (rather than human rights) issue! Nsaba Buturo, should be feeling like an idiot. He is after all a spokesperson of the government on issues of morality and ethics. Ha!
Now some conspiracy theorists may believe that Museveni hatched the whole plan from scratch and put Hon. Bahati and Buturo up to some mischief in order to get where we are today. I personally doubt that Museveni could have predicted how this particular debate would unfold. I tend to agree with those who believe that President Museveni saw an opportunity to get out of a bad situation, grabbed it and snatched victory from the jaws of defeat. The anti-homosexuality debate brought too much unwanted focus on Uganda's political and human rights crises and that is not where Museveni's government wants to be ahead of election time. So his finely tuned political antennae told him to feed Bahati and Buturo to the wolves whilst using the same opportunity to emerge as mediator, the voice of reason, the one who brings back sanity before some extremist elements drive the country over a cliff.
And so there is a collective sigh of relief from the West. Gay activists are appeased and Donor government's like the USA which need Museveni to continue protecting its interests in places like Somalia and sending mercenaries to Iraq, but dare not antagonize the powerful gay lobby at home; are once again at peace. In order for them to continue their game of 'see no evil, speak no evil' in Uganda, the US government must ensure that it's citizens are not agitated enough to put their African partner under closer scrutiny. That scrutiny might uncover more rights abuses, corruption, nepotism, abuse of office, election malpractices and other evils that the US likes to condemn in countries that do not do the US' bidding, or supply it with critical resources like oil or mercenaries.
So what does that say of our politicians and politics in general? To my friends in the opposition who kept tight lipped when their conscience told them otherwise I will quote Abraham Lincoln: To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.
To those who were repelled by the excessive punitive proposals in the Bill but then chose to play it safe for fear of political repercussions I will quote Martin Luther King, Jr: Cowardice asks the question, 'Is it safe?' Expediency asks the question, 'Is it politic?' Vanity asks the question, 'Is it popular?' But, conscience asks the question, 'Is it right?' And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but one must take it because one's conscience tells one that it is right.'
Throughout history the men and women who have distinguished themselves as leaders have not chosen the 'safe' line in defiance of their conscience or the popular line to please voters or Donor. They have instead chosen to stand up and defend what their conscience dictates and usually that aligns naturally with the common good for all humanity. And here is another quote from Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn: 'Justice is conscience, not a personal conscience but the conscience of the whole of humanity. Those who clearly recognize the voice of their own conscience usually recognize also the voice of justice.'
The lesson we learn from this saga is that intense lobbying by Donors can cure an African Head of State of homophobia. Or more to the point the threat of withdrawing funds from critical programs like PEPFAR can deliver a human rights lesson better than any text book on the subject. But let us remain acutely aware of the influences that shape our political decisions and national policies?
This Bill was not stalled because of the voice of Ugandan voters - given its popularity among Ugandan voters. Nor was it stalled because of a 'Saul - to - Paul' moment which touched the conscience of our benevolent ruler making him extremely sensitive to the rights of gay people. Sadly, this saga reminds us that the center of real power is not even in the State House that the opposition is trying to wrest from Museveni.
President Museveni remains as homophobic as he was when he warned the youth a few weeks ago against homosexuality but his conscience like that of my silent colleagues in the opposition is quite accommodating when he senses a potential threat to his political survival.
To the many friends abroad that we have made during this battle I say, do not turn your attention away from Uganda because of this small victory, for as soon as you look away the same forces (read: religious fanatics) that introduced the idea of this Bill will re-emerge and recreate themselves to fight the battle another day in another way. Their disengagement at this point is not based on principle, good will, or deference to their conscience, but on political expedience. It was because you cared enough to look closely at Uganda and to lobby your governments to act that homosexuals have won a temporary reprieve.
Remain focused on Uganda.
Anne Mugisha
Friday, December 25, 2009
A Christmas Gift for Uganda's Gay Community?
Harold Wilson the two-time Prime Minister of the United Kingdom said "A week is a long time in politics": to signify that political fortunes can change extremely rapidly. Well this past week proved his point in Uganda where the ground shifted considerably against the anti-homosexuality Bill, triggering a collective but cautious sigh of relief among human rights activists and great disdain among homophobes. Some major assumptions metamorphosed into unsupported myths and while proponents of the Bill still stand on the firm ground of a deeply ingrained culture of homophobia, they surely realize that Uganda is not island on its own. We are inextricably linked to a global community with differing ideals and persuasions. An issue that is locally popular can be globally repulsive to an extent where local dictators must succumb to external pressure to stop the hysteria.
Rwanda became the first African neighbor to pour cold water on Bahati’s Bill; putting into disarray the alarmist theory that Uganda was leading a wave of homophobia that would have a domino effect throughout Africa causing ‘kill the gays’ legislation to spread like wild fire throughout the continent. Rwanda’s Minister of Justice put a quick end to speculation that his nation would pass a similar Bill. He also struck a fatal blow at the argument that African states had a responsibility to preserve African culture by persecuting homosexuals. The Minister of Justice of Rwanda stated that “The government I serve and speak for on certain issues cannot and will not in any way criminalize homosexuality; sexual orientation is a private matter and each individual has his or her own orientation - - this is not a State matter at all,” Hon. Tharcisse Karugarama thereby demolished the theory that was quickly gaining currency that the proposed Ugandan legislation is popular because it reinforces African anti-gay culture and the belief that homosexuality is an imported phenomenon spread by evil imperialists to debase African dignity. Bahati who tabled the Bill stated that it was meant to “protect the cherished culture of the people of Uganda against the attempts of sexual rights activists seeking to impose their values of sex promiscuity on the people of Uganda".Rwanda obviously disagrees with those who would use legislation to persecute a minority under the guise of protecting culture.
In the past week we also saw Bahati’s Bill lose the assumed support of President Museveni as the President caved in to US pressure to veto the Bill. This astounding news was first disclosed by US Assistant Secretary for African Affairs, Johnnie Carson when he told reporters that he has urged President Yoweri Museveni twice since October "to do everything he can to stop this particular legislation." Carson added that it is premature for US government to consider withdrawing aid from Uganda because Museveni himself said he does not support the legislation. And that is how Ugandans first learnt that their President was against Bahati’s Bill. One can be forgiven for not believing Carson after all hadn’t the President’s spokesman stated that: ‘But if the President is associated with a group opposed to homosexuality [I would not be amazed] because he has made his position on homosexuality very clear.” Hadn’t the President urged Uganda’s youth to stand firm and abhor the divergent sexual orientation stating that: "I hear European homosexuals are recruiting in Africa?"
Well, a week is indeed a long time in politics, and by the end of the week we were starting to become familiar with a new image for President Museveni as a fighter for the rights of homosexuals. Carson’s unthinkable claim that President Museveni would veto the anti-homosexuality Bill were repeated more authoritatively by Jon Tollefson, a State Department spokesperson, who told DC Agenda that Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni has pledged on several occasions to the top U.S. diplomat engaged in Africa that he would stop progress on the anti-gay bill. Then Tamale Mirundi spoke to a German Press Agency and stated that "We should not have an extreme position. The president will harmonise the two sides and address the concerns of the Europeans and our other development partners. We should put into consideration the position and concerns of our partners." And there you have it! The full about-turn was complete and no one could list President Museveni among those extremists who would hang gays… no one with a short memory that is!
So here I am on Christmas Day reflecting on what lessons I have learnt from this saga which is far from over. The Bill is still before Parliament and it is too early to celebrate its demise. Double faced duplicity on the part of Uganda’s chief executive is nothing new. We have glaring evidence of such duplicity in the 2001 presidential manifesto where President Museveni pledged he was running for a final term of office then two years later he turned around and supported an amendment of Uganda's Constitution to ensure that he became president for life.
This saga however reaffirms my belief in the power of the international community to influence policy by putting pressure on African regimes aka development partners. It also started me searching deeper for the triggers of international response to a local cause.
My question to US gay activists has been - if they are powerful enough to sway a dictator’s mind half way across the world in the space of a week why have they not used their influence to rescue us when our dictatorial rulers have us shot in the streets, herded into concentration camps, raped and pillaged in armed conflict?
One recurring response is that gay activists feel an affinity to the anti homosexuality issue that they do not feel for other issues we espouse. It sounds like a cynical response but it reveals a sad truth. They explained to us that when wars kill people in Africa, when people are thrown into concentration camps and when pictures of death, hunger and starvation fly across their television screens or computer monitors, they feel a lot of sympathy but no empathy. These other overwhelming issues are viewed as far away African issues so they say to themselves, ‘those poor people,’ and donate a few dollars through their churches and charities; and they feel they have done enough.
It turns out that the gay community can relate totally to persecution of gay people anywhere in the world because the only family they have is one another. They have experienced rejection in their churches, families, schools and communities; and so they have huddled around one another to form a ring of defense against the outside world. This minority whose members are hanged, beheaded, beaten to death and constantly humiliated in all corners of the world has created strong cross-cultural bonds to look out for each other. And it is that strong bond, borne of being ostracized and rejected; that has created one of the most powerful lobby groups in the US.
Our challenge as human rights activists working with the international community is not to create presentations of starving kids and raped women. Nor is it in writing hundreds of petitions and OPEDs; for we have done all these things. The challenge is in demonstrating that our struggles for human rights are not isolated from each other. Uganda will not become a better place, free of oppression and persecution if President Museveni vetos the anti-homosexuality Bill as he has promised the US government (not Ugandans of course!) Uganda will remain plagued with this syndrome of persecuting minorities and mobilizing ignorant masses around socially divisive issues as a diversion from greater political and economic issues, all for the purpose of reaping political dividends.
The power that the gay lobby has demonstrated in this instant should be harnessed to focus world attention on the biting issues in Uganda like poverty, hunger, starvation, disease, drought (climate change), corruption, and political repression.
Our real challenge as activists is to convert sympathizers into empathizers knowing of course that those from whom we seek solidarity may never have experienced hunger, starvation, disease or political repression in the same way that Africans have known them.
The saga has certainly reaffirmed our strong belief that it will take empathetic Africans to find solutions to Africa’s problems…with a little help from our friends.
Anne Mugisha
Rwanda became the first African neighbor to pour cold water on Bahati’s Bill; putting into disarray the alarmist theory that Uganda was leading a wave of homophobia that would have a domino effect throughout Africa causing ‘kill the gays’ legislation to spread like wild fire throughout the continent. Rwanda’s Minister of Justice put a quick end to speculation that his nation would pass a similar Bill. He also struck a fatal blow at the argument that African states had a responsibility to preserve African culture by persecuting homosexuals. The Minister of Justice of Rwanda stated that “The government I serve and speak for on certain issues cannot and will not in any way criminalize homosexuality; sexual orientation is a private matter and each individual has his or her own orientation - - this is not a State matter at all,” Hon. Tharcisse Karugarama thereby demolished the theory that was quickly gaining currency that the proposed Ugandan legislation is popular because it reinforces African anti-gay culture and the belief that homosexuality is an imported phenomenon spread by evil imperialists to debase African dignity. Bahati who tabled the Bill stated that it was meant to “protect the cherished culture of the people of Uganda against the attempts of sexual rights activists seeking to impose their values of sex promiscuity on the people of Uganda".Rwanda obviously disagrees with those who would use legislation to persecute a minority under the guise of protecting culture.
In the past week we also saw Bahati’s Bill lose the assumed support of President Museveni as the President caved in to US pressure to veto the Bill. This astounding news was first disclosed by US Assistant Secretary for African Affairs, Johnnie Carson when he told reporters that he has urged President Yoweri Museveni twice since October "to do everything he can to stop this particular legislation." Carson added that it is premature for US government to consider withdrawing aid from Uganda because Museveni himself said he does not support the legislation. And that is how Ugandans first learnt that their President was against Bahati’s Bill. One can be forgiven for not believing Carson after all hadn’t the President’s spokesman stated that: ‘But if the President is associated with a group opposed to homosexuality [I would not be amazed] because he has made his position on homosexuality very clear.” Hadn’t the President urged Uganda’s youth to stand firm and abhor the divergent sexual orientation stating that: "I hear European homosexuals are recruiting in Africa?"
Well, a week is indeed a long time in politics, and by the end of the week we were starting to become familiar with a new image for President Museveni as a fighter for the rights of homosexuals. Carson’s unthinkable claim that President Museveni would veto the anti-homosexuality Bill were repeated more authoritatively by Jon Tollefson, a State Department spokesperson, who told DC Agenda that Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni has pledged on several occasions to the top U.S. diplomat engaged in Africa that he would stop progress on the anti-gay bill. Then Tamale Mirundi spoke to a German Press Agency and stated that "We should not have an extreme position. The president will harmonise the two sides and address the concerns of the Europeans and our other development partners. We should put into consideration the position and concerns of our partners." And there you have it! The full about-turn was complete and no one could list President Museveni among those extremists who would hang gays… no one with a short memory that is!
So here I am on Christmas Day reflecting on what lessons I have learnt from this saga which is far from over. The Bill is still before Parliament and it is too early to celebrate its demise. Double faced duplicity on the part of Uganda’s chief executive is nothing new. We have glaring evidence of such duplicity in the 2001 presidential manifesto where President Museveni pledged he was running for a final term of office then two years later he turned around and supported an amendment of Uganda's Constitution to ensure that he became president for life.
This saga however reaffirms my belief in the power of the international community to influence policy by putting pressure on African regimes aka development partners. It also started me searching deeper for the triggers of international response to a local cause.
My question to US gay activists has been - if they are powerful enough to sway a dictator’s mind half way across the world in the space of a week why have they not used their influence to rescue us when our dictatorial rulers have us shot in the streets, herded into concentration camps, raped and pillaged in armed conflict?
One recurring response is that gay activists feel an affinity to the anti homosexuality issue that they do not feel for other issues we espouse. It sounds like a cynical response but it reveals a sad truth. They explained to us that when wars kill people in Africa, when people are thrown into concentration camps and when pictures of death, hunger and starvation fly across their television screens or computer monitors, they feel a lot of sympathy but no empathy. These other overwhelming issues are viewed as far away African issues so they say to themselves, ‘those poor people,’ and donate a few dollars through their churches and charities; and they feel they have done enough.
It turns out that the gay community can relate totally to persecution of gay people anywhere in the world because the only family they have is one another. They have experienced rejection in their churches, families, schools and communities; and so they have huddled around one another to form a ring of defense against the outside world. This minority whose members are hanged, beheaded, beaten to death and constantly humiliated in all corners of the world has created strong cross-cultural bonds to look out for each other. And it is that strong bond, borne of being ostracized and rejected; that has created one of the most powerful lobby groups in the US.
Our challenge as human rights activists working with the international community is not to create presentations of starving kids and raped women. Nor is it in writing hundreds of petitions and OPEDs; for we have done all these things. The challenge is in demonstrating that our struggles for human rights are not isolated from each other. Uganda will not become a better place, free of oppression and persecution if President Museveni vetos the anti-homosexuality Bill as he has promised the US government (not Ugandans of course!) Uganda will remain plagued with this syndrome of persecuting minorities and mobilizing ignorant masses around socially divisive issues as a diversion from greater political and economic issues, all for the purpose of reaping political dividends.
The power that the gay lobby has demonstrated in this instant should be harnessed to focus world attention on the biting issues in Uganda like poverty, hunger, starvation, disease, drought (climate change), corruption, and political repression.
Our real challenge as activists is to convert sympathizers into empathizers knowing of course that those from whom we seek solidarity may never have experienced hunger, starvation, disease or political repression in the same way that Africans have known them.
The saga has certainly reaffirmed our strong belief that it will take empathetic Africans to find solutions to Africa’s problems…with a little help from our friends.
Anne Mugisha
Monday, December 14, 2009
‘First they came for ...
‘First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.’
Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892 – 1984.)
During the past week many Ugandan activists have been quoting Pastor Nimöller’s poem and they have good reason. I have spent the last 8 years trying to attract international attention to human rights abuses and the lack of democratic governance in Uganda and in all those years I have never been able to get one paragraph or one minute of interest from major news bureaus, journalists or even activists in the USA. Yet in the last few weeks, because of the anti-homosexuality legislation; I have received more phone calls and expressions of interest in my work than in all the past eight years put together. So like most activists I am cynical of the motives of both those seeking to save us from homosexuality and those seeking to save us from Christian fundamentalists. The anti-homosexual Bill has, for better or worse; drawn Ugandan into the midst of US culture wars and Ugandan human rights activists are unconvinced that the sudden attention has anything to do with genuine concern for Ugandans or their rights.
The questions on our minds are:
Where were they when Uganda was indicted by the International Court of Justice for committing violations of international human rights and international humanitarian law in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and are they aware that the Ugandan government has never compensated DRC or been held accountable by Western governments for the devastation that Uganda’s military committed in DRC?
Where were US activists when millions of Ugandans were herded into Internally Displaced Peoples Camps and kept there for two decades in destitution and inhuman conditions? Horrendous human rights abuses were committed by the military and the government through omission or commission, in these camps for two decades, and yet Uganda's President and officials continued to enjoy the prestigious company and favor of the international community.
Why is there no blip from US human rights activists when Ugandans are brutalized and killed in order to keep the Kampala government in power.
And more recently, where were these so called human rights activists last September when ethnic tensions overflowed and government released its brutal police and military on the streets leaving 30 people dead?
My opposition to the anti-homosexuality Bill is not about taking sides in US culture wars, it stems from my experience with state sponsored persecution in Uganda. I have witnessed legislation and policies being implemented selectively for the sole purpose of isolating and persecuting unwanted elements in society, particularly opposition activists. Many commentators in the US seem unaware of other US sponsored legislation, policy or training that has had an adverse impact on human rights in Uganda.
The US sponsored law on terrorism was used between 2001 and 2006 to scatter the opposition because they were dubbed terrorists by the government. When Uganda's popular opposition leader Kizza Besigye returned to Uganda in 2005 after 4 years in exile, he was charged with terrorism in a military court in addition to trumped up charges of treason and rape in a civilian court. The rape case was dismissed but the treason and terrorism charges linger on before the courts in Uganda. The meddling of US conservative evangelists in Uganda has led the Uganda government to pursue abstinence measures over the use of condoms in curbing the spread of HIV/AIDS and as a result Uganda's fertility rates and HIV/AIDS infection rates are on the rise. The population explosion that has resulted from these abstinence policies has hindered efforts to fight poverty.
I also oppose the Bill because I am not convinced there is need for separate laws for people based on their sexuality. Families and children are protected by our penal code which punishes unwanted and criminal sexual adavnces including rape, sodomy, prostitution and defilement.
Existing laws are not enforced because perpetrators of practices like defilement and forced marriage of underage girls, wife inheritance hide behind culture and religions that allow marriage of minors or perpetrators bribe corrupt enforcement officials to turn a blind eye. So our culture and some religions are invoked selectively to conveniently accommodate certain practices like marriage of underage girls or to persecute minorities like homosexuals. Selective enforcement of the law flies in the face of the principle of equity and Uganda's committment to international human rights treaties and conventions.
I believe that a person who wilfully or forcefully spreads HIV/AIDS through heterosexual or homosexual is hateful and there is no reason why we would punish the homosexual and spare the heterosexual. I think we should be approaching these issues from a compassionate non-discriminatory perspective that emphasizes education and counseling on HIV/AIDS.
I oppose the Bill because the legislation has an ulterior motive of political mobilization. Homosexuality was practiced in Uganda before English missionaries arrived in the country. This is a well documented fact in the story of the Uganda Matyrs who included the Buganda King's pages that embraced Christianity and rejected the King's homosexual advances hence their martyrdom. Yet the state has delibeartely rallied the population to believe that homosexuality is a foreign practice that is being 'imported' into the country. Ugandans are essentially conservative traditionalists and they are being mobilized around this one issue and diverted from real issues like widespread poverty and entrenched pervasive corruption which the government has failed to solve for 24 years.
Finally, I also oppose the law because it can and will be used in the same manner as that the Malaysia and Zimbabwe governments used anti-homosexuality sentiments to persecute and derail the careers of political opponents.
Unfortunately, I can understand why some think that Western interest in the rights of homosexuals exceeds interest in all other human rights abuses in Uganda that have claimed thousands of lives and caused pain and anguish to millions more.
What an irony!
Anne Mugisha
Deputy Secretary, International & Regional Affairs
Forum for Democratic Change
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.’
Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892 – 1984.)
During the past week many Ugandan activists have been quoting Pastor Nimöller’s poem and they have good reason. I have spent the last 8 years trying to attract international attention to human rights abuses and the lack of democratic governance in Uganda and in all those years I have never been able to get one paragraph or one minute of interest from major news bureaus, journalists or even activists in the USA. Yet in the last few weeks, because of the anti-homosexuality legislation; I have received more phone calls and expressions of interest in my work than in all the past eight years put together. So like most activists I am cynical of the motives of both those seeking to save us from homosexuality and those seeking to save us from Christian fundamentalists. The anti-homosexual Bill has, for better or worse; drawn Ugandan into the midst of US culture wars and Ugandan human rights activists are unconvinced that the sudden attention has anything to do with genuine concern for Ugandans or their rights.
The questions on our minds are:
Where were they when Uganda was indicted by the International Court of Justice for committing violations of international human rights and international humanitarian law in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and are they aware that the Ugandan government has never compensated DRC or been held accountable by Western governments for the devastation that Uganda’s military committed in DRC?
Where were US activists when millions of Ugandans were herded into Internally Displaced Peoples Camps and kept there for two decades in destitution and inhuman conditions? Horrendous human rights abuses were committed by the military and the government through omission or commission, in these camps for two decades, and yet Uganda's President and officials continued to enjoy the prestigious company and favor of the international community.
Why is there no blip from US human rights activists when Ugandans are brutalized and killed in order to keep the Kampala government in power.
And more recently, where were these so called human rights activists last September when ethnic tensions overflowed and government released its brutal police and military on the streets leaving 30 people dead?
My opposition to the anti-homosexuality Bill is not about taking sides in US culture wars, it stems from my experience with state sponsored persecution in Uganda. I have witnessed legislation and policies being implemented selectively for the sole purpose of isolating and persecuting unwanted elements in society, particularly opposition activists. Many commentators in the US seem unaware of other US sponsored legislation, policy or training that has had an adverse impact on human rights in Uganda.
The US sponsored law on terrorism was used between 2001 and 2006 to scatter the opposition because they were dubbed terrorists by the government. When Uganda's popular opposition leader Kizza Besigye returned to Uganda in 2005 after 4 years in exile, he was charged with terrorism in a military court in addition to trumped up charges of treason and rape in a civilian court. The rape case was dismissed but the treason and terrorism charges linger on before the courts in Uganda. The meddling of US conservative evangelists in Uganda has led the Uganda government to pursue abstinence measures over the use of condoms in curbing the spread of HIV/AIDS and as a result Uganda's fertility rates and HIV/AIDS infection rates are on the rise. The population explosion that has resulted from these abstinence policies has hindered efforts to fight poverty.
I also oppose the Bill because I am not convinced there is need for separate laws for people based on their sexuality. Families and children are protected by our penal code which punishes unwanted and criminal sexual adavnces including rape, sodomy, prostitution and defilement.
Existing laws are not enforced because perpetrators of practices like defilement and forced marriage of underage girls, wife inheritance hide behind culture and religions that allow marriage of minors or perpetrators bribe corrupt enforcement officials to turn a blind eye. So our culture and some religions are invoked selectively to conveniently accommodate certain practices like marriage of underage girls or to persecute minorities like homosexuals. Selective enforcement of the law flies in the face of the principle of equity and Uganda's committment to international human rights treaties and conventions.
I believe that a person who wilfully or forcefully spreads HIV/AIDS through heterosexual or homosexual is hateful and there is no reason why we would punish the homosexual and spare the heterosexual. I think we should be approaching these issues from a compassionate non-discriminatory perspective that emphasizes education and counseling on HIV/AIDS.
I oppose the Bill because the legislation has an ulterior motive of political mobilization. Homosexuality was practiced in Uganda before English missionaries arrived in the country. This is a well documented fact in the story of the Uganda Matyrs who included the Buganda King's pages that embraced Christianity and rejected the King's homosexual advances hence their martyrdom. Yet the state has delibeartely rallied the population to believe that homosexuality is a foreign practice that is being 'imported' into the country. Ugandans are essentially conservative traditionalists and they are being mobilized around this one issue and diverted from real issues like widespread poverty and entrenched pervasive corruption which the government has failed to solve for 24 years.
Finally, I also oppose the law because it can and will be used in the same manner as that the Malaysia and Zimbabwe governments used anti-homosexuality sentiments to persecute and derail the careers of political opponents.
Unfortunately, I can understand why some think that Western interest in the rights of homosexuals exceeds interest in all other human rights abuses in Uganda that have claimed thousands of lives and caused pain and anguish to millions more.
What an irony!
Anne Mugisha
Deputy Secretary, International & Regional Affairs
Forum for Democratic Change
Monday, December 7, 2009
Unmasking Uganda's 'Born Again' Fad
An interesting fall out of the international outrage at Uganda’s anti-homosexuality Bill has been the unmasking of fundamentalist forces driving the born-again hype in Uganda. Ugandans witnessed a wave of evangelical frenzy across the country as papyrus reed churches mushroomed around the country recruiting people for Jesus and the NRM-O. By the 2000s ‘born again’ churches had become powerful political mobilization centers for the Movement government with the President making appearances alongside ‘born again’ pastors who went beyond praying for sinners to mobilizing them to vote for the government. Some went as far as prophesying election results while predicting evil against the government’s opponents.
By 2000 it was also an open secret that in order to get a job in the right place or marry into certain families one needed to be born again. One dangerous ramification of this trend was the miracle churches that claimed to cure everything from blindness to HIV AIDS. Uganda attracted all kinds of miracle pastors including one from West Africa who was arrested at the Airport with a miracle making machine that transmitted low voltage electricity through the Pastor to unsuspecting sinners seeking a miracle!
In the mid 2000 we saw the entry of the First Lady in elective politics. In her debut campaigns she was known not only to throw around her husband’s name but also the name of God as the power behind her calling to competitive politics. Within a short while of winning a Parliamentary seat she was made a member of the Cabinet and she continued to champion an anti-condom pro abstinence campaign to prevent HIV/AIDS. In the meantime American Pastors continued to pour into Uganda to pray for our sins and make some money while First Daughter Patience Museveni opened her own ‘Born Again Church.
Except for the small nuisances of election theft, political persecution of opponents, massive corruption, state instigated torture and murder; it appeared as though Uganda was set to become a major God-fearing nation.
In the late 2000 a power struggle erupted among the powerful evangelical churches as they tried to win the supremacy and recognition from the First Family and their US sponsors. The struggle spilt over into the press exposing the impropriety of nationally recognized Pastors. Serious allegations that included smuggling and misuse of funds made their way to the papers and ironically Pastors alleged that their colleagues were sodomizing young males under their care. The evangelicals were basically tearing each other apart in order to gain superior recognition over their competition.
So what was the driving force behind this Christian fundamentalism?
It turns out that the country has become an experimenting ground for US right wing fundamentalism and it took the anti-gay law to expose the depth of right wing involvement in our country. Jeff Sharlett has documented the Ugandan First Family’s involvement with ‘The Fellowship’ a secretive Christian right organization that is led by the reclusive Douglas Coe. The Fellowship, also known as The Family is reported to be the real sponsor of the anti-homosexuality Bill currently before Uganda’s Parliament.
But the relationship between Uganda’s rulers and US extreme right leaders is older and deeper than that. Controversial Pastor Rick Warren, the best-selling author of ‘The Purpose Driven Life’ declared Uganda to be a ‘Purpose Driven Nation,’ and was key in drawing the attention of the Bush White House to Uganda’s ABC AIDS strategy. But there was a twist to the ABC that Rick Warren promoted that rattled AIDS activists. Stephen Lewis, the United Nations’ special envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa, told the New York Times that Rick Warren’s activism is “resulting in great damage and undoubtedly will cause significant numbers of infections which should never have occurred.”
Max Blumenthal wrote that… an investigation into Warren’s involvement in Africa reveals a web of alliances with right-wing clergymen who have sidelined science-based approaches to combating AIDS in favor of abstinence-only education… Warren’s man in Uganda is a charismatic pastor named Martin Ssempa. The head of the Makerere Community Church, a rapidly growing congregation, Ssempa enjoys close ties to his country’s First Lady, Janet Museveni, and is a favorite of the Bush White House. In the capitol of Kampala, Ssempa is known for his boisterous crusading. Ssempa’s stunts have included burning condoms in the name of Jesus and arranging the publication of names of homosexuals in cooperative local newspapers while lobbying for criminal penalties to imprison them.’
Blumental continues, ‘When Warren unveiled his global AIDS initiative at a 2005 conference at his Saddleback Church, he cast Ssempa as his indispensable sidekick, assigning him to lead a breakout session on abstinence-only education as well as a seminar on AIDS prevention. Later, Ssempa delivered a keynote address, a speech so stirring it “had the audience on the edge of its seats,” according to Warren’s public relations agency. A year later, Ssempa returned to Saddleback Church to lead another seminar on AIDS. By this time, his bond with the Warrens had grown almost familial. “You are my brother, Martin, and I love you,” Rick Warren’s wife, Kay, said to Ssempa from the stage. Her voice trembled with emotion as she spoke and tears ran down her cheeks.
Joining Ssempa at Warren’s church were two key Bush administration officials who controlled the purse strings of the president’s newly minted $15 billion anti-AIDS initiative in Africa, PEPFAR. Ugandan first lady Janet Museveni also appeared through a videotaped address to tout the success of her country’s numerous church-based abstinence programs…’
A full reading of Blumenthal’s article is absolutely necessary for one to fully appreciate the connection between US right wing and Uganda’s First family. The article sheds light on how veering from the formerly successful ABC program in favor of abstinence only programs led to a rise in new HIV/AIDS infections in Uganda. It is a story of betrayal and confirmation of what we have always suspected: That religion in Uganda is used as a ploy for political mobilization of ignorant masses who take their Pastors and leaders at face value while the usual two-faced suspects use their suffering as an opportunity to get funds for private and political projects.
By 2000 it was also an open secret that in order to get a job in the right place or marry into certain families one needed to be born again. One dangerous ramification of this trend was the miracle churches that claimed to cure everything from blindness to HIV AIDS. Uganda attracted all kinds of miracle pastors including one from West Africa who was arrested at the Airport with a miracle making machine that transmitted low voltage electricity through the Pastor to unsuspecting sinners seeking a miracle!
In the mid 2000 we saw the entry of the First Lady in elective politics. In her debut campaigns she was known not only to throw around her husband’s name but also the name of God as the power behind her calling to competitive politics. Within a short while of winning a Parliamentary seat she was made a member of the Cabinet and she continued to champion an anti-condom pro abstinence campaign to prevent HIV/AIDS. In the meantime American Pastors continued to pour into Uganda to pray for our sins and make some money while First Daughter Patience Museveni opened her own ‘Born Again Church.
Except for the small nuisances of election theft, political persecution of opponents, massive corruption, state instigated torture and murder; it appeared as though Uganda was set to become a major God-fearing nation.
In the late 2000 a power struggle erupted among the powerful evangelical churches as they tried to win the supremacy and recognition from the First Family and their US sponsors. The struggle spilt over into the press exposing the impropriety of nationally recognized Pastors. Serious allegations that included smuggling and misuse of funds made their way to the papers and ironically Pastors alleged that their colleagues were sodomizing young males under their care. The evangelicals were basically tearing each other apart in order to gain superior recognition over their competition.
So what was the driving force behind this Christian fundamentalism?
It turns out that the country has become an experimenting ground for US right wing fundamentalism and it took the anti-gay law to expose the depth of right wing involvement in our country. Jeff Sharlett has documented the Ugandan First Family’s involvement with ‘The Fellowship’ a secretive Christian right organization that is led by the reclusive Douglas Coe. The Fellowship, also known as The Family is reported to be the real sponsor of the anti-homosexuality Bill currently before Uganda’s Parliament.
But the relationship between Uganda’s rulers and US extreme right leaders is older and deeper than that. Controversial Pastor Rick Warren, the best-selling author of ‘The Purpose Driven Life’ declared Uganda to be a ‘Purpose Driven Nation,’ and was key in drawing the attention of the Bush White House to Uganda’s ABC AIDS strategy. But there was a twist to the ABC that Rick Warren promoted that rattled AIDS activists. Stephen Lewis, the United Nations’ special envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa, told the New York Times that Rick Warren’s activism is “resulting in great damage and undoubtedly will cause significant numbers of infections which should never have occurred.”
Max Blumenthal wrote that… an investigation into Warren’s involvement in Africa reveals a web of alliances with right-wing clergymen who have sidelined science-based approaches to combating AIDS in favor of abstinence-only education… Warren’s man in Uganda is a charismatic pastor named Martin Ssempa. The head of the Makerere Community Church, a rapidly growing congregation, Ssempa enjoys close ties to his country’s First Lady, Janet Museveni, and is a favorite of the Bush White House. In the capitol of Kampala, Ssempa is known for his boisterous crusading. Ssempa’s stunts have included burning condoms in the name of Jesus and arranging the publication of names of homosexuals in cooperative local newspapers while lobbying for criminal penalties to imprison them.’
Blumental continues, ‘When Warren unveiled his global AIDS initiative at a 2005 conference at his Saddleback Church, he cast Ssempa as his indispensable sidekick, assigning him to lead a breakout session on abstinence-only education as well as a seminar on AIDS prevention. Later, Ssempa delivered a keynote address, a speech so stirring it “had the audience on the edge of its seats,” according to Warren’s public relations agency. A year later, Ssempa returned to Saddleback Church to lead another seminar on AIDS. By this time, his bond with the Warrens had grown almost familial. “You are my brother, Martin, and I love you,” Rick Warren’s wife, Kay, said to Ssempa from the stage. Her voice trembled with emotion as she spoke and tears ran down her cheeks.
Joining Ssempa at Warren’s church were two key Bush administration officials who controlled the purse strings of the president’s newly minted $15 billion anti-AIDS initiative in Africa, PEPFAR. Ugandan first lady Janet Museveni also appeared through a videotaped address to tout the success of her country’s numerous church-based abstinence programs…’
A full reading of Blumenthal’s article is absolutely necessary for one to fully appreciate the connection between US right wing and Uganda’s First family. The article sheds light on how veering from the formerly successful ABC program in favor of abstinence only programs led to a rise in new HIV/AIDS infections in Uganda. It is a story of betrayal and confirmation of what we have always suspected: That religion in Uganda is used as a ploy for political mobilization of ignorant masses who take their Pastors and leaders at face value while the usual two-faced suspects use their suffering as an opportunity to get funds for private and political projects.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Who is the real sponsor of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill?
President Museveni’s utterances last month at a Young Achievers Awards Ceremony in Kampala, that: “I hear European homosexuals are recruiting in Africa…You should discourage your colleagues [involved in homosexuality] because God was not foolish to do the way he arranged;” were interpreted to be an endorsement of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill tabled by Hon. Bahati in Uganda’s Parliament.
Some basic Internet research on state inspired homophobia in Uganda clearly shows that Bahati is taking the rap for his President and for fundamentalist right wing idealists. While I could not find any anti-homosexuality sentiments attributed to Bahati prior to the tabling of the controversial Bill last September, I was able to find such reports attributed to President Yoweri Museveni. I have previously stated that the covert purpose of the Bill is political rather than moral. It is an instrument for mobilization of the masses, that is meant to detract from government’s policy failures and eventually it will be used to persecute opposition politicians.
A Human Rights Watch Report states that as early as 1998 President Museveni told a press conference, “When I was in America, sometime ago, I saw a rally of 300,000 homosexuals. If you had a rally of 20 homosexuals here, I would disperse it.”… In September 1999…President Museveni told a conference on reproductive health: “I have told the CID [Criminal Investigations Department] to look for homosexuals, lock them up and charge them.” Several people were jailed in the wake of this mandate.
At the time the only quoted voice in opposition of the President’s pronouncements came from renowned African Scholar Ali Mazrui. He spoke at an International Conference on Constitutionalism in Africa organized by Makerere University and stated that: "The governments of Yoweri Museveni of Uganda and Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe attacking homosexuals sound as though they are more concerned with homosexuality than corruption… That shouldn’t be a matter for the president to make pronouncements on homosexuals and gays shouldn’t be used as scapegoats. Intrusion in the private lives of individuals is unconstitutional,"
Later President Museveni’s links with the US far right ideology became evident in his policy preferences for curbing the spread of HIV AIDS and his attempts to criminalize the spread of HIV AIDS. In mid 2004 President Museveni made a controversial speech at an International HIV Conference in Bangkok, Thailand. His remarks drew the attention of AIDS activists but not the wrath of the LGBT community as the current outrage has done. At the time we focused on how the Bush Administration was influencing Uganda’s HIV AIDS policy and driving it towards emphasis on the A and B (Abstinence and Be-Faithful) while detracting from the C (Use condoms) in the ABC policy; in conformity with far right ideals in the USA. We were also concerned that US funding was undermining the widespread use of cheaper generic drugs in the fight against HIV AIDS.
When he visited the USA in November 2007, Human Rights Watch drew the attention of President Bush to President Museveni’s proposed criminalization of HIV transmission and the Global AIDS Alliance released a statement that said: ‘Museveni announced that because Uganda "has no homosexuals," HIV is not spread through homosexual contact there. However, Uganda not only has homosexuals, but Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have documented that homosexuals have suffered systematic abuse at the hands of the government.’
In 2008 at a service for the consecration of a Bishop of the Church of Uganda, The President once again described homosexuality as ‘mtumbavu’ the Swahili word for ’stupid’ and saluted the Church for resisting this decadent culture.
Hon. Bahati is a sitting duck for the LGBT community because he has become the face of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill in Uganda after he tabled it and his name will forever be linked to the international outrage that Uganda has attracted for proposing to execute gays and lesbians for what the Bill calls aggravated homosexuality. But rights activists need to focus harder and higher on the real source of his inspiration and not just on the Ugandan President but also the fundamentalist interests in the US that sponsor radical right wing idealism in our country.
Some basic Internet research on state inspired homophobia in Uganda clearly shows that Bahati is taking the rap for his President and for fundamentalist right wing idealists. While I could not find any anti-homosexuality sentiments attributed to Bahati prior to the tabling of the controversial Bill last September, I was able to find such reports attributed to President Yoweri Museveni. I have previously stated that the covert purpose of the Bill is political rather than moral. It is an instrument for mobilization of the masses, that is meant to detract from government’s policy failures and eventually it will be used to persecute opposition politicians.
A Human Rights Watch Report states that as early as 1998 President Museveni told a press conference, “When I was in America, sometime ago, I saw a rally of 300,000 homosexuals. If you had a rally of 20 homosexuals here, I would disperse it.”… In September 1999…President Museveni told a conference on reproductive health: “I have told the CID [Criminal Investigations Department] to look for homosexuals, lock them up and charge them.” Several people were jailed in the wake of this mandate.
At the time the only quoted voice in opposition of the President’s pronouncements came from renowned African Scholar Ali Mazrui. He spoke at an International Conference on Constitutionalism in Africa organized by Makerere University and stated that: "The governments of Yoweri Museveni of Uganda and Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe attacking homosexuals sound as though they are more concerned with homosexuality than corruption… That shouldn’t be a matter for the president to make pronouncements on homosexuals and gays shouldn’t be used as scapegoats. Intrusion in the private lives of individuals is unconstitutional,"
Later President Museveni’s links with the US far right ideology became evident in his policy preferences for curbing the spread of HIV AIDS and his attempts to criminalize the spread of HIV AIDS. In mid 2004 President Museveni made a controversial speech at an International HIV Conference in Bangkok, Thailand. His remarks drew the attention of AIDS activists but not the wrath of the LGBT community as the current outrage has done. At the time we focused on how the Bush Administration was influencing Uganda’s HIV AIDS policy and driving it towards emphasis on the A and B (Abstinence and Be-Faithful) while detracting from the C (Use condoms) in the ABC policy; in conformity with far right ideals in the USA. We were also concerned that US funding was undermining the widespread use of cheaper generic drugs in the fight against HIV AIDS.
When he visited the USA in November 2007, Human Rights Watch drew the attention of President Bush to President Museveni’s proposed criminalization of HIV transmission and the Global AIDS Alliance released a statement that said: ‘Museveni announced that because Uganda "has no homosexuals," HIV is not spread through homosexual contact there. However, Uganda not only has homosexuals, but Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have documented that homosexuals have suffered systematic abuse at the hands of the government.’
In 2008 at a service for the consecration of a Bishop of the Church of Uganda, The President once again described homosexuality as ‘mtumbavu’ the Swahili word for ’stupid’ and saluted the Church for resisting this decadent culture.
Hon. Bahati is a sitting duck for the LGBT community because he has become the face of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill in Uganda after he tabled it and his name will forever be linked to the international outrage that Uganda has attracted for proposing to execute gays and lesbians for what the Bill calls aggravated homosexuality. But rights activists need to focus harder and higher on the real source of his inspiration and not just on the Ugandan President but also the fundamentalist interests in the US that sponsor radical right wing idealism in our country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)