How the EU can promote LGBT rights in the ACP group

also see: Despite opposition, EU Parliament votes for LGBTI rights/trans identity depathologization in gender equality strategy from sister blog GLBTQJA, I however came across this publication excerpted below sent to me via email.

The Cotonou Agreement, the core of political and trade relations between the European Union and the group of African, Caribbean, and Pacific (ACP) states revealed a major issue related to the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) rights. In more than half of ACP states (49 out of 79) homosexuality is illegal and is punished with up to 14 years in jail. In five countries, it warrants the death penalty. 

view here

Promoting democracy and respect for human rights, the EU has immediately expressed concern regarding the dissimilar views and practices between the agreed parties. Although member states differ in particular legislation, all 28 recognise homosexuality and LGBT rights, which are protected under the EU treaties. Capital punishment is prohibited in the EU, per Article 2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Any partnership between EU and ACP states cannot be legitimised without consensus regarding essential human
 and therefore LGBT rights. 

To this end, the EU strives to affect change in the domestic policies of its Cotonou partners which would elevate the legal status and norms regarding their LGBT communities. One way in which the EU could promote its values beyond its borders is through positive conditionality within the framework of the Cotonou Agreement. Political dialogue benefits all parties involved and is the surest approach to foster acceptance of the LGBT community in the ACP group. The message promoted by EU representatives did not resonate with the heads of ACP states, especially in the case of Uganda and Nigeria, which recently adopted new anti-LGBT legislation, expanding the criminalisation of it, and obliging anyone who might be aware of a LGBT person to report it to the authorities.

“Human rights and minority rights are universal, and we cannot accept these laws. It is time for the EU to look at the restrictive measures available under the Cotonou Agreement. Trampling human rights should come with economic consequences.” 

Olle Schmidt MEP, Member of the ACP-EU delegation and Member of the LGBT Intergroup.

Should the EU use sanctions?

Sanctions are used in the belief that economic restrictions weaken target regime access to the vital resources necessary to sustain their political power and domestic order.
When the regime’s coercive power is undermined by public opinion and contested by elites who benefitted from the status quo ante,it is expected that human rights conditions will improve.

The overwhelming majority of sanctions research concludes that sanctions are a largely ineffective policy tool of compelling compliance. Outlined in “Basic Principles on the Use of Restrictive Measures (Sanctions)”, the EU identifies sanctions as a last-resort instrument to ‘name and shame’ its targets. The EU takes care to minimise public suffering by issuing ‘smart’ sanctions targeting individuals wielding political or economic power. However, these elites are able to evade the costly effects of sanctions by deflecting them downward, funnelling the burden disproportionately upon average citizens.

Sanctions would undermine the Cotonou Agreement

A fundamental principle of the Cotonou Agreement is recognition of equality of partnership among EU and ACP countries.

Dictating terms and punishing non compliance neither serves European interests nor aspirations. Public opinion in ACP countries is resolutely in opposition to LGBT rights. They will, in time,come to accept the LGBT community as equal citizens not by force, but of their own volition. The EU cannot expect ACP governments to adhere to foreign demands that are unpopular among their domestic constituencies. Economically punishing ACP countries for human rights violations will impede and reverse progress toward the Agreement’s objectives of eradicating poverty and integrating those countries into the global economy. Sanctions yield an array of unintended and damaging consequences, including an increase in poverty and unemployment as well as deterioration of public health.
Sanctions increase human rights violations.

Political leaders in targeted states perceive and publicly represent sanctions as an affront to sovereignty and national unity. Facing an external threat, they are able to divert public attention and rally it against the sender. Under these conditions, leaders are able to exploit sanctions to broaden their base of support and justify further crackdown against the domestic opposition minority.

A study of the human rights effects of economic sanctions from 1981 to 2000 finds that so-called ‘smart’ human rights sanctions increase the rate of disappearances, extra-judicial killings, political imprisonment, and torture; the scope of the sanctions is positively correlated with the harm caused. Additionally, sanctions produce even more harmful effects when issued multilaterally.

Sanctions would not improve LGBT status

For the use of sanctions to be justified, the EU needs to have a reasonable probability of success. There is little reason to believe that sanctions would stimulate recognition of LGBT rights. The EU must wrest with the fact that regimes discriminating against the LGBT community are reflecting the broad popular sentiment. A 2014 Pew survey finds that 98% of Ghanaians, 93% of Ugandans, 88% of Kenyans, and 85% of Nigerians consider homosexuality immoral.

An ACP government that caves to sanctions would galvanise a majority of the population against the regime. Sanctions undermine the political stability necessary to affect human rights conditions.

For the human rights status to improve for LGBT people in
ACP countries, the people’s hearts and minds must first be won. Economic punishments and threats thereof will not attract any audience to European values and norms.

Conclusions

Before levying sanctions, the EU should thoroughly assess the extent by which LGBT rights violations impede collaborating to attain the objectives of the Cotonou Agreement. Furthermore, the Article 8 of the Agreement clearly specifies a dialogue, which implies a positive level of negotiation that may not result in tangible policy change.

The main risk of applying sanctions is creating a hostile environment for cooperation, which could produce results on the opposite spectrum of those anticipated. It can be expected that, although sanctions would have immediate, short-term results, they would fail to produce significant social change in the long run, since they would be addressing (i) political institutions, not society as a whole, and (ii) the result of certain social prejudices and tensions, not their cause. It should also be seen what the outcome of applying sanctions in other fields was (e.g. arms trade, drugs,organised crime), in contrast to positive conditionality. 

As a solution, EU actions in the fight against sexual and gender discrimination would be more successful by appealing to dialogue. In this manner, the level of the approach would be enlarged, incorporating the engagement with not only the governments, but also with civil society actors and NGOs.

“Recent moves to criminalise homosexuality and to impose severe prison sentences on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) people constitute an unacceptable violation of the basic rights of individuals. Additionally, appropriate measures should be taken against countries who continue to criminalise homosexuality or pass even more repressive laws. LGBTI rights are human rights!”

Martin Schulz, European Parliament President, Fourth EU-Africa Summit, 2014

Some Previous posts:
African, Caribbean & Pacific Countries refuse to include declaration of gay rights in Brussels. 2010

African, Caribbean & Pacific issue declaration to EU "To refrain from any attempts to impose its values which are not freely shared"  2010

European Parliament consents to EU-ACP partnership with reservations on missing sexual orientation discrimination clauses 2013

Historic EU-Africa Summit overshadowed by anti-LGBT laws 2014

EU Parliament human rights report addresses LGBTI criminalisation, trans rights and same-sex unions worldwide

Uganda and Nigeria: European Parliament calls for targeted sanctions over new laws

European Parliament: Include LGBT non-discrimination clause in future agreement with African, Caribbean & Pacific States