Gambia dropped from US trade program following introduction of anti-gay law

The Obama administration on Tuesday announced Gambia is no longer eligible to take part in a duty-free trade program amid growing concerns over the country’s LGBT crackdown and other human rights abuses.

Reuters reported the U.S. will also drop South Sudan from the African Growth and Opportunity Act, a law then-President Bill Clinton signed in 2000 that allows sub-Saharan African countries to access U.S. markets. The news agency said the Obama administration will allow Guinea-Bissau to rejoin the program.

The changes take effect on Jan. 1.
Ned Price, a spokesperson for the National Security Council, noted to the Washington Blade late on Tuesday that Gambian President Yahya Jammeh in October signed a law under which those convicted of “aggravated homosexuality” face life in prison.

Reuters earlier this week reported Gambian authorities recently arrested three men they said engaged in same-sex sexual relations. It appears the White House had already decided to drop Gambia from the African Growth and Opportunity Act when the aforementioned report emerged.

“The U.S. Trade Representative has been monitoring the human rights situation in the Gambia for the past few years, with deepening concerns about the lack of progress with respect to human rights, rule of law, political pluralism, and the right to due process,” said Price.

“Reports have surfaced of arrests, detention and torture of individuals because of their perceived sexual orientation or gender identity,” he added.

Jammeh said during a 2013 speech at the U.N. General Assembly that homosexuality is among the three “biggest threats to human existence.” Jammeh earlier this year described gay men as “vermin” during a speech that commemorated Gambia’s independence from the U.K. The European Union earlier this year delayed a 150 million euro aid package to the country after Jammeh failed to implement 17 reforms that include the repeal of the death penalty.

http://www.washingtonblade.com/2014/12/24/gambia-dropped-u-s-trade-program/#sthash.4FTiz7VS.dpuf

It's nice to see the US actively opposing the human rights abuse seen in countries like Gambia. Too often empty threats are made, so it's good to see action actually being taken. However, should the whole of Gambia suffer because of their leader's bigotries?

Respect to Gambia for continuing to reject US imperialism.

I don't quite see how this has anything to do with imperialism? Gambia is independent.

President Yahya Jammeh is standing up against the imperialists and not accepting homosexuality in Gambia.

It's not a matter of imperialism though - it's a matter of money. Gambia can't expect to be given financial aid if they're just going to throw their middle finger up in the US' face when they're asked not to punish homosexuality with lifetime sentences in prison. The Americans don't want to control Gambia, but at the same time they don't want to support a country with unacceptable draconian laws.

Would you take a different view if the US withdrew aid because a country refused to lower tariffs on imports, privatise utilities, and lower taxes?

What if the evidence suggested that that would save more lives than abolishing the death penalty for homosexuality?

Respect to Gambia for continuing to reject US imperialism.

So essentially you're asking me, where do we draw the line? A colossal question in political philosophy! I cannot say where we draw the line between a policy that deserves the withdrawal of aid and a policy that doesn't. However, I think life imprisonment for homosexuality is a worthy policy for the withdrawal of aid if that country has refused to compromise but still expects free aid.

To the best of my knowledge and research, Gambia hasn't used the death penalty for homosexuality. The recent change is from the maximum sentence going from 14 years to lifetime.

Homosexuality shouldn't be imposed in thesse countries. It's the west who think its acceptable.

It's not so much a line. I am asking if there is some special emotional value attached to laws against homosexuals versus economic policy.

Homosexuality shouldn't be imposed in thesse countries. It's the west who think its acceptable.

From a humanist perspective, of course there is. Morality should always be placed in higher regard than some bull**** economic policy.

Widespread malnutrition and disease is, at least to my mind, a moral consideration and essentially an economic question.

You make "humanism" sound an awful lot like a secular religion, like IS that doesn't care how many muslims it butchers so long as the state that comes out ticks all the correct boxes in religious law.

I can see your point, but it's a tricky situation. On one hand, the US could continue giving aid to Gambia and in doing so, be seen to condone an oppressive attitude towards gay people. By doing so, people suffer. On the other hand, they could withdraw aid and condemn an oppressive regime. By doing so, people suffer.

What would you do? I don't know the numbers of it (both financially and the percentage of the populace that it effects), but I would imagine that more people would suffer from the lack of aid than they would at the hands of the law.
So I suppose the more humanitarian approach would be to go with the lesser of two evils and continue giving aid, but at the same time they'd effectively be condemning people who choose to have same-sex relations, which is something that in this day and age any civilized society cannot turn their back on.

However, the ball is now in Gambias' court, and it's their responsibility to do right by their people and get shot of this horrible slight against basic human rights.

I value inherent morality (though that's a debate of its' own) more than I do the man-made concept of economy *shrugs*

It's not a matter of imperialism though - it's a matter of money. Gambia can't expect to be given financial aid if they're just going to throw their middle finger up in the US' face when they're asked not to punish homosexuality with lifetime sentences in prison. The Americans don't want to control Gambia, but at the same time they don't want to support a country with unacceptable draconian laws.

Right, and this is what I was hinting at earlier, that probably the US is inflicting more harm here that it would prevent even if Gambia concedes (which it probably won't, as these laws seem to be very popular in Africa). Meanwhile many people object strongly to this sort of cajoling even when it could have a large positive effect, like with economic reform. In fact I suspect that a lot of the people who will praise this are the same people who would strongly condemn cajoling over economic reforms.

I therefore find the ISIS, or Christian fundamentalist, comparison somewhat apt. You are more interested in the abstract knowledge that the Holy Law is respected than its practical effect on human welfare.

Homosexuality shouldn't be imposed in thesse countries. It's the west who think its acceptable.