Should the US cut off aid to Uganda?

[Miles]

Pat Leahy is pushing to eliminate aid to Uganda over its new anti-gay law.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Јas]

To Uganda; or to the Government of Uganda?

[afleitch]

It should cut off government aid. Given that this law will make it more difficult to deal with HIV/AIDS for example, should we make it even more difficult by cutting off indirect aid to promote safe sex and condom use?

But giving the government money to update computer systems, or for defence or various other contracts should stop. Impacting on the Ugandan people won't change the government's mind. Impacting on the government and politicians pockets directly probably will. And very quickly.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

We shouldn't be funding governments anyway, but under no circumstances should we eliminate indirect aid for people who actually need it.

[Mordecai]

Not altogether. Maybe just reduce it by half. [/moderatehero]

[Antonio the Sixth]

We should also cut off all aid to Arizona then.

[SPC]

While I don't believe that the internal politics of the country should be a rationale, I agree with the course of action simply because the defense of the United States is not served by giving aid to the Ugandan government.

[Marokai Backbeat]

We should replace government aid to Uganda with airdrops of condoms, pornography, and anti-pro-heterosexual leaflets.

[TNF]

While I don't believe that the internal politics of the country should be a rationale, I agree with the course of action simply because the defense of the United States is not served by giving aid to the Ugandan government.

[The Mikado]

The overwhelming majority of USA aid to Uganda goes to combating AIDS.  I hardly see how we benefit the gays of Uganda by cutting that off.

[Peter the Lefty]

No.  If aid is cut off as a result of the agitations of the gay rights movement, anti-gay sentiment in Uganda will only increase.  It is due to lack of education and understanding that people in these regions cling so fiercely to religion.  If we cut off their only lifeline, they'll cling harder to it.

We should, however, ban all financial aid by private American organizations and individuals to political campaigns in foreign countries which promote bigotry, intolerance, and the criminalization of the existence of a demographic group. 

[Deus Naturae]

While I don't believe that the internal politics of the country should be a rationale, I agree with the course of action simply because the defense of the United States is not served by giving aid to the Ugandan government.

[Redalgo]

No - Uganda is in urgent need of additional development. Refuse to finance their security expenditures but continue to funnel resources into causes that have a positive impact on quality of life there. If Ugandan homosexuals want to escape their homeland as seekers of asylum I would be glad to have them in the U.S.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Our government shouldn't be giving any foreign aid period. If private citizens want to go help improve the lives of Ugandans, I've got absolutely no problem with that. Let's stay out of their internal politics.

[H. Ross Peron]

Only if we cut off aid to Saudi Arabia first.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Only if we cut off aid to Saudi Arabia first.

Everybody at the same time. Simple as that.

[DC Al Fine]

While I don't believe that the internal politics of the country should be a rationale, I agree with the course of action simply because the defense of the United States is not served by giving aid to the Ugandan government.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Yes, we should.

I'm generally skeptical of government aid to foreign countries, not in principle but because I've yet to hear any success stories that can attributed to public, and not private, charity not getting swindled into corruption.  The aid we've given to Africa has only made the countries poorer, more debt-laden, more inflation-prone, more vulnerable to the vagaries of the currency markets, and the economic growth slower.  We take a lot of the blame for the corrupt nature of the "assistance," but until there's reform, I see no reason to maintain the status quo.

[bedstuy]

While I don't believe that the internal politics of the country should be a rationale, I agree with the course of action simply because the defense of the United States is not served by giving aid to the Ugandan government.

Surely, there is a dividing line though.  We couldn't support Sudan through our foreign aid because their regime commits genocide (unless it's some sort of hostage trading scheme ala North Korea and its nuclear program).  The question would be: is this bad enough?  In my opinion, it's not clear that we should cut off aid entirely.  But, we ought to look at our diplomatic options and see how we can influence Uganda towards basic tolerance.

On the foreign aid question in general, it's mostly going to help people in desperate situations.  There are limits to how generous we can be, sure.  But, the cause of lessening human suffering in the third world is a moral imperative for anyone with the means to do so.   

[angus]

I voted no.  There are a number of reasons, but the essential reason is that the dollars go largely to economic development and healthcare.  It's not a huge amount, something like 400 million per year, but it helps them.  Sure, some of it is funneled to corrupt politicians, but much of it goes to programs that assist pregnant women and farmers and entrepreneurs.  On our end, we get help containing Somali rebels.  And I imagine that being malnourished, uneducated, and living in an oppressive autocratic gay-bashing state with USAID, as bad as that must be, is still probably better than being malnourished, uneducated, and living in an oppressive autocratic gay-bashing state without USAID.  

[Storebought]

Once the US, and by extension the rest of the west, leaves Uganda, China will take its place, as it has elsewhere in Africa. Whether that is a good thing is arguable.

[Storebought]

Why is it so difficult for westerners to decouple development in Africa in particular from the these political and paternalistic concepts of aid and grants?

China's development aid and loans actually goes towards that -- the material development of the country. There are dams and power plants being constructed right now in places like Ghana and Zambia only because of Chinese assistance. It comes at the price of Chinese manufactured goods flooding the markets, and Chinese crime gangs poisoning ground water and destroying the environment in digging for gold and poaching wildlife -- but, all the same, the Chinese don't expect Africans to sinecize first, to adopt Chinese Communism, or Chinese irreligion, or Chinese family structures before they initiate a project.

It may be from my ignorance, but I can't think of any western-backed civilian project initiated in Africa through aid, or grants, or loans, or through private capital, that did not involve coercive westernization first. In fact, I can't think of any large project whatsoever started in Africa since the end of colonialism in the 1960s*. If there is one, inform me here, since I draw a blank.

*You are probably thinking about mass vaccination, but that wasn't an undertaking done by US or European governments or private corporations.

[eric82oslo]

Do like Norway, Denmark and The Netherlands have already done and cut off their aid, I say.

[politicallefty]

Yes, and I'd also support economic sanctions.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Yes, we should.

I'm generally skeptical of government aid to foreign countries, not in principle but because I've yet to hear any success stories that can attributed to public, and not private, charity not getting swindled into corruption.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan