By Rachel Bergenfield

“Gay rights are human rights, and human rights are gay rights,” proclaimed former Secretary of State Clinton in 2011. On the same day, President Obama directed all US agencies involved in foreign policy and development[1] to ensure that their work protects and promotes the human rights of LGBTI[2] people, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon soon added his voice, and many Western countries had made similar statements in the preceding five years. Suddenly, it seemed that many of the most powerful world leaders were committed to improving the wellbeing of LGBTI people, historically one of the most persecuted groups.

More than a year later, my review of the policies of 12 bilateral and multilateral development agencies[3] suggests that many of the concrete steps necessary to turn high-level statements into substantive change have been slow. Of the eight that had leaders who made high-level statements within the past five years, arguably only one has procurement policies and guidelines that explicitly prohibit discrimination toward LGBTI people affected by international programs. [4] This is crucial because most agencies do not implement programs directly, but rather provide contracts and grants to external organizations. The results of not having such protections are severe: In Uganda, the US provided HIV-related grants to Ugandan organizations that had promoted hatred of LGBTI people and had suggested refusing HIV care to them. In post-earthquake Haiti, most agencies provided emergency food aid through external organizations that had policies that unintentionally prevented gay men and transgender people from receiving the aid.

Many development agencies committed to LGBTI issues seem to emphasize “add-on” programs, such as capacity-building for African LGBTI organizations, gay film festivals, funding of pride parades, and high-level awards to LGBTI human rights activists. These add-ons are important, but they fail to address the types of harm LGBTI people have sometimes experienced as a result of development assistance. To address the latter, more systematic reforms and investment in research about the experiences of LGBTI people is needed.

I have encountered three main concerns about why high-level rhetoric on LGBTI rights should not translate into substantive change within development. All are misplaced.

1.     A better deal for LGBTI people is a high-income country privilege.

No one likes to say it this crudely, but the view suggests that there are more important concerns for an impoverished or conflict-ravaged country. I might agree if LGBTI justice were about pride parades and marriage, but in fact it is about violence, survival, and access to healthcare and livelihoods – core domains of development policy. Just as there is no uniform path to a society becoming more prosperous, equitable, and stable, there is also no one moment in a country’s development in which it becomes appropriate to treat LGBTI people better.

2.     It is invasive of the West to engage with LGBTI issues in other countries.

This view suggests that it is an invasion of a country’s sovereignty for western governments to get involved in LGBTI issues. Everyone is entitled to their opinions about whether Western involvement in development is a good thing; however, if you accept the development system in its many imperfections, directing development toward LGBTI issues is no more invasive than business as usual. From family planning to prisoner rights, development agencies already work on the most private and politically-charged issues. They also already link many policy decisions with human rights, such as political or women’s rights. Finally, agencies that transparently state their values rather than use nonpublic criteria to make resource allocations should be preferable to any potential development partner.

3.     Well-meaning Western support does more harm than good.

In some low-income countries, leaders bill homosexuality as a Western export. Under this view, a development agency’s support for a Kenyan LGBTI organization, for example, will reduce the organization’s credibility and acceptance in Kenya. Violent backlash may even occur. This argument may bear some truth, but it robs LGBTI organizations of the opportunity to manage their own strategies. All organizations must decide which funding to accept and which to refuse. LGBTI organizations too are entitled to make this decision for themselves. Western donor countries should still try to mitigate potential harm by treading more carefully when publically intervening and linking LGBTI issues to aid conditionality. If agencies will listen and engage in real reform, LGBTI organizations can provide guidance in making assistance less harmful and more useful.

Converting high-level rhetoric into substantive change is not only crucial for LGBTI people, but also for the development system as a whole. If taken seriously, the new policy emphasis on LGBTI issues compels agencies to cultivate richer understandings of marginalized people while also making practical changes in institutional operations to become more adaptive, accessible, and flexible. This is an opportunity to transform aspects of the at times rigid and insensitive development system in ways that will benefit all.

This opportunity requires uncomfortable but rewarding conversations about what we have been doing wrong. For example, many development agencies employ burdensome grant application policies, such as requiring applications to be submitted in highly technocratic formats. This can cause resources to funnel toward larger, urban organizations that understand development jargon, which may not correlate with quality. The implications of such rigid policies make it especially difficult to work with LGBTI organizations because many are small and underground. If agencies became more open and adaptive in order to make good on new commitments to LGBTI people, this will improve development grantmaking for all.

The most promising path forward is not to focus simply on add-on programs, but rather to reform development agencies and the minds within them. We policymakers and practitioners, led by a cadre of officials who have worked tirelessly on these issues for years, can train ourselves to understand critically how gender expression, gender identity, and sexuality function to further entrench injustices within the political, economic, and social systems in which we try to support positive change. We can ensure that in emergencies we consider how LGBTI people may be unable to access both mainstream aid and their normal channels of support, requiring more thoughtful assistance. And we can advocate within our governments to uphold the Do No Harm Principle: no dollar spent on development should ever harm an LGBTI person again.

The political will and high-level support for LGBTI justice within development is here. It is up to creative and committed policymakers and practitioners to transform this into meaningful change not only for LGBTI people, but also for the whole development system. Let’s not screw up.

About the Author

Rachel is an MA in International Relations student at Yale. She previously worked throughout Sub-Saharan Africa and Central Asia on programs funded by large development agencies. This op ed is based on a longer article she is currently writing for publication; please share your thoughts with her at: Rachel [dot] Bergenfield [at] yale [dot] edu.

Endnotes

1. The term “development” refers to the improvement of social, economic, and political systems, defined and measured in diverse ways, and the corresponding set of policies, practices, and institutions dedicated to these goals. The term is fraught because of its history as justification for colonial exploitation, paternalist undertone, and allusion to a universally good and distinct “end state” (i.e. “developed”).

2. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex. This imperfect term intends to signify to all people whose sexualities, sexual behaviors, or gender expressions don’t conform to social norms. Not all such people identify with this term, nor does it capture all sexuality and gender diversity.

3. This refers to official government development agencies, such as US Agency for International Development, or multi-government development agencies, such as the World Bank. The term does not include private organizations.

4. The EU Buying Social Guide explicitly references sexual orientation, but there is no publicly available procurement policy or guideline for Europe Aid that explicitly prohibits programs implemented by grant or contract recipients from discriminating against LGBTI people. See the Guide: http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=6457&langId=en