By a letter signed on October 30, 2023, President Biden had Uganda kicked off the list of African Growth Opportunities Act (AGOA) beneficiaries, citing human rights violations, especially legislation against gay rights. This decision was not the first to be taken by Washington in the enforcement of human rights—the U.S. government has withdrawn aid from countries over the state of human rights violations in the past.
I acknowledge and appreciate the role played by the United States government through its development assistance programs to promote security, democracy, access to medical care, and economic empowerment to African countries, and Uganda in particular.
I do not intend to deny the fact that the government of Uganda has, over time and repeatedly, engaged in human rights violations (and I believe my fellow youths hold the same position), but the decision to remove Uganda from the AGOA beneficiaries is not the best in the circumstances.
First, Washingtson, as a long-time development partner of Uganda, is aware of the crippled democratic practice in Uganda. The voices of the people are rarely adhered to and therefore the actions of parliament and government do not represent the voices of the people of Uganda in general.
Therefore, it is unfair for Washington to condemn young and innocent Ugandans who work day and night to rise to the international market space through economic initiatives because of the actions of the government of Uganda. This is equivalent to punishing “children for the sins of their parents.” Punishing the whole Ugandan population, especially the young people, by withdrawing an opportunity they have already set their eyes on, is counterproductive to the rights of those whom the U.S. government seeks to protect.
Second, the gay community in Uganda whose rights are intended to be protected by this decision will also be victims of its adverse effects when the economic incentives are withdrawn.
Third, apart from the biased government of Uganda, there is no outright manifestation of gay phobia among the people of Uganda, and therefore taking an action that is equally detrimental to all Ugandans amounts to prejudice. The proof of absence of violent gay phobia was exhibited even during the passing of the Anti-Homosexuality Act 2023. More than 100 Ugandans wrote petitions to the parliament against the bill, but these opinions were ignored—moreso not given a hearing. There is substantial proof that Ugandans are not generally homophobic.
Fourth, economically empowered people are better off, ready and able to fight and defend their rights against the government. Any actions that weaken the people’s ability to achieve economic steadfastness directly affect the development of human rights and democracy.
We need to note that while the government of Uganda will definitely benefit from the revenue that might be misused by abusing human rights further, the people of Uganda who are beneficiaries will be empowered financially. On a balance of convenience, the benefit of the people of Uganda will outweigh the benefit of the government of Uganda in terms of taxes. The interests and well-being of the innocent people of Uganda should have been given great concern.
Lastly, history has shown that depriving a country of economic aid and development assistance has not improved the human rights situation. Examples from Nigeria, Haiti, Zimbabwe, Gambia, Sudan, and other case studies can prove this finding.
Therefore, I say that this decision was arrived at without due consideration of all factors and should thus be revised and subsequently reversed. Prosper Ahabwe Julian is a Ugandan lawyer, economic analyst, and a reform activist.
Thank you Prosper Ahabwe. I personally, think you are more than right.
Our rights have been violated day to day, night and the next
However, we don’t need to be denied access to the market.
If there would be change and respect, and protection of the human rights in our land, it will with time. But it must find us alive. We can only be alive if we are doing activities to support life, for example have the basic services. If the government can’t provide, we who can produce; let us be allowed to be in the market.
To the US concerned parties, the ones whose rights are being violated now don’t have market for their goods too.