Giant_and_Dwarf-FIN

Low Hanging Fruit. Central Europe and Development Aid for Africaindecent behaviour would force them to terminate their cooperation. Such youthful moraldecay was unacceptable in Kenya.A colleague from Olomouc Jirka Pánek, for a change, enjoys retelling a conversation hehad on the topic of homosexuality during his work in Nairobi’s slum of Kibera. When hedefended the rights of gays and lesbians during this discussion (of course in a one-on-oneenvironment as he wouldn’t have risked such a discussion in a public forum) he arguedthat homosexual behaviour had been observed in the animal kingdom and was thereforea natural phenomenon. His local opponent brought him down to earth with a simple argument:“God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve”. There was nothing left for Jirka todo but to simply quit and give up in the face of such an argument.Calls to recognize the rights for homosexuals in African society are unlikely to simplyfade away. It is quite possible that over time they will become a major source of tension anddisputes between African governments and development aid providers. In October 2011,the British Prime Minister David Cameron gave notice at the Commonwealth Heads ofGovernment Meeting that development aid from Great Britain would consider a country’sstance towards the protection of rights for homosexual minorities. According to Cameronthis wouldn’t decrease overall aid; rather it would be a decrease in “budget support”, orsupport that is not used for specific projects but that flows directly into a country’s budget.This is the kind of support that recipient countries like best as essentially it is money withno strings attached. In 2011, Britain froze a portion of the support intended for Malawi’sbudget and considered similar steps against Uganda and Ghana due to fears over the rightsof homosexuals.A reaction won’t be long in coming from African politicians and the public. 41 of thecountries in the 54 countries of the British Commonwealth have legislation banning homosexuality.The irony of history is that such legislation was inherited from British law datingback to the time of their colonial domination! Ugandan journalist Charles Odongphocommented on Her Majesty’s Government’s initiative with the following words: “This isyour money and you know where you want to put it but we face very serious issues of corruption,poverty, education and hunger. These are the most critical issues for us, not homosexualrights.” Of course the problem with such an argument that it can be used to argue againstany human and democratic rights (for example against female genital mutilation or suffragefor women, which are both “minor” in the face of poverty and hunger) and that suchan argument can be used by any tyrant, elected despot or military dictator. An advisor toUganda’s President took it one step farther by saying the British approach was an expressionof an “ex-colonial mentality” and declared that Uganda was fed up with how it wasbeing treated like a child. He added: “If you have to take your money back, then just take it.”These are brave words in a country where foreign aid represents 10 % to 12 % of GDPannually and where Great Britain is the third largest donor (after the USA and the World227