Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Cutting foreign aid to anti-gay countries Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Hey everyone, I'll be writing an independent paper for my final semester concerning foreign aid. I would like to get your opinions on the following questions

    Do you think aid should be withheld from anti-gay countries?

    Do you think it is right to ask gay/lesbian/bisexual/queer/trans people in the first world to pay taxes so it can be used to execute, jail and torture their peers in places such as Uganda and many others?

    For those who think aid should be continued can you please elaborate why, the same for those who think it should be stopped.

    Thanks.

    NB--- Thanks to everyone who has responded, i did not expect so much responses, this will really help in my study as the area is very unexplored and i do not have the time to take proper public surveys. No one is right or wrong and i appreciate all sides
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    No, of course it should not be given to anti-gay countries. Additionally, it should not be given to authoritarian or repressive regimes.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Stalin)
    No, of course it should not be given to anti-gay countries. Additionally, it should not be given to authoritarian or repressive regimes.
    Is punishing the people really the answer? Would we not do more harm than good?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    We should continue to donate aid, but we must ensure that it is not simply a cash injection into the state's coffers. It should be used for humanitarian causes and helping the populous, regardless of the regime in place. Politically speaking, we should object to autocracies, but punishing those who are impoverished is not the solution.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Since you're writing a paper.
    Very important distinction to be made.
    - The intention of a policy.
    - The actual consequences of a policy.

    It might be noble, and nice to do something. Doesn't mean it will work.
    Cutting foreign aid to anti-gay countries will only radicalize the regime because social unrest is fuelled by poverty.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    This is a self perpetuating problem though... These countries and their leaders that support homophobia are more often than not idiots anyway as shown by the terrible states of their own countries thus why they need aid.

    Our aid program isn't targeted at 'the people'. Potentially a system that provides loans or capital to foreign or British companies to create jobs by constructing public buildings or carrying out social projects might be better. Almost like a foreign 'Private finance initiative'. Heck... If we're going to give money away might as-well undertake something both beneficial to the country receiving aid and our own.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Is punishing the people really the answer? Would we not do more harm than good?
    so i know this would come up as a point but in the case of gay rights the situation as i have read is a bit different, the population is not being punished because of a bad state the population is blatantly homophobic and violently anti-gay such again as in Uganda.

    what do you think of the other question, should GLBT people pay to have their peers executed?

    thanks. for your response.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I'd say perhaps less aid. But thee shpuld be some to help people, but the pro-gay countries getting money might influence politicians to do the right thing, even if it's for the wrong reasons.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    We should continue to donate aid, but we must ensure that it is not simply a cash injection into the state's coffers. It should be used for humanitarian causes and helping the populous, regardless of the regime in place. Politically speaking, we should object to autocracies, but punishing those who are impoverished is not the solution.
    even when the "impoverished" are violently anti gay and would if given the chance savage and murder those gay persons who the aid comes from?

    what about the other question about having GLBTQ people pay for their peers to be killed?

    thank you so much for your input.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by eLECTROLOSIS)
    This is a self perpetuating problem though... These countries and their leaders that support homophobia are more often than not idiots anyway as shown by the terrible states of their own countries thus why they need aid.

    Our aid program isn't targeted at 'the people'. Potentially a system that provides loans or capital to foreign or British companies to create jobs by constructing public buildings or carrying out social projects might be better. Almost like a foreign 'Private finance initiative'. Heck... If we're going to give money away might as-well undertake something both beneficial to the country receiving aid and our own.
    so yes or no? thanks for the input.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Krov)
    Since you're writing a paper.
    Very important distinction to be made.
    - The intention of a policy.
    - The actual consequences of a policy.

    It might be noble, and nice to do something. Doesn't mean it will work.
    Cutting foreign aid to anti-gay countries will only radicalize the regime because social unrest is fuelled by poverty.
    so you do you think that more aid will lead to less radical regimes?

    and do you think that it is right to have people pay for their peers to be oppressed?

    thank you very much for your input.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Whenever you deliver aid to a country, you always have to look about how it will actually be delivered. Most of the worlds aid goes to the worlds most screwed up countries, so the only major problem won't be anti-gay feelings in the country, you'll also have lack of liberty, no fair court system, corruption, dictatorships, oppressive regimes etc. And all of these things need to be balanced out with the effect of sending aid. Does it not say something about our culture that it is still anti-gay feelings that you want to point out? Why choose this over say, lack of a fair court system or militia gangs killing random civilians?

    Further, the chances are the important people who actually could do something about anti-gay feelings don't really care if you reduce the aid a little bit. What does a corrupt government care if foreign aid is reduced by 25%? They'll just skim 25% more off the top than they used to and still have the same amount of money, it'd only be the poor people who aid eventually gets to that would suffer.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vozhak)
    so you do you think that more aid will lead to less radical regimes?

    and do you think that it is right to have people pay for their peers to be oppressed?

    thank you very much for your input.
    Political science is not about what is right.
    It's not about what should be.
    It is about what is, and what will be.

    It is not right for populations to be in this situation.
    But cutting back on foreign aid is an absolutely terrible and counterproductive way to go about it.

    If anything, more money should be spent.
    On lobbying.
    On advertising.
    On bribes.
    On media coverage.
    That's how you change for the better the cultural landscape of a country plagued by backward cultural beliefs.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    No aid shouldn't be removed from anti-gay countries because if it was a tactic to get the leaders to change a homophobic policy, I feel they would continue regardless. If it wasn't a tactic, removing the aid would likely fuel further poverty, cause more unrest and death if the regime radicalized and became (more) oppressive.

    It is fair, because they don't know EXACTLY where their taxes are going - they know it's going to the government which means it could go to NHS, welfare or other things than foreign aid, as it's not as if you have a tax for each thing. It's not as if they have the choice to say where the money goes.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rubgish)
    Whenever you deliver aid to a country, you always have to look about how it will actually be delivered. Most of the worlds aid goes to the worlds most screwed up countries, so the only major problem won't be anti-gay feelings in the country, you'll also have lack of liberty, no fair court system, corruption, dictatorships, oppressive regimes etc. And all of these things need to be balanced out with the effect of sending aid. Does it not say something about our culture that it is still anti-gay feelings that you want to point out? Why choose this over say, lack of a fair court system or militia gangs killing random civilians?

    Further, the chances are the important people who actually could do something about anti-gay feelings don't really care if you reduce the aid a little bit. What does a corrupt government care if foreign aid is reduced by 25%? They'll just skim 25% more off the top than they used to and still have the same amount of money, it'd only be the poor people who aid eventually gets to that would suffer.
    thanks for your input, that's very interesting. the reason i chose to focus on sexual orientation is because it is an area that is still under explored and other areas such as markets and democratic conditionalities have been looked at in depth.

    next i would like to offer up the stalling of the bill to execute gays in Uganda as an example of how donor pressure was able to effectively kill the bill for the moment. some countries are fully dependent on foreign aid.

    lastly how do you feel about the second question about asking GLBT people to pay to have their peers executed by the state using their money?

    thank you very much for your response.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    How would you argue that persecution of sexual minorities should trump ethnic based persecution or womens rights.

    As already stated the governments of these places don't necessarily give a monkeys about the people receiving the aid - they might even be deliberately trying to starve them, that's happened before.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Forgot to mention this, but :

    - North Korea
    - Cuba

    Complete embargo.
    50 years later...
    Has anything changed ?

    That's why oppressing oppressors rarely works.
    Flood them with money and it will crumble away.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Krov)
    Political science is not about what is right.
    It's not about what should be.
    It is about what is, and what will be.

    It is not right for populations to be in this situation.
    But cutting back on foreign aid is an absolutely terrible and counterproductive way to go about it.

    If anything, more money should be spent.
    On lobbying.
    On advertising.
    On bribes.
    On media coverage.
    That's how you change for the better the cultural landscape of a country plagued by backward cultural beliefs.
    thanks.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    If it's of any interest I colored a map (because I was bored and I'm sad) on who voted for/against the removal of sexuality from the discrimination list. Green is against and for is red. It's sad that the next big "super power" China voted for the removal.

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joinedup)
    How would you argue that persecution of sexual minorities should trump ethnic based persecution or womens rights.

    As already stated the governments of these places don't necessarily give a monkeys about the people receiving the aid - they might even be deliberately trying to starve them, that's happened before.
    I'm not arguing anything trumps anything, sexual orientation is my niche, ethnic persecution and women's rights have been the subjects of study for many years there are thousands of volumes and countless papers on them, while sexuality is un explored and it is becoming a very big variable in International politics, with mention of Uganda and the UN protection of GLBT people vote.

    thanks for you input still.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.