I saw a post from a Facebook friend about our new initiative to improve gay rights in Africa, hence this post. Gays in Africa are treated brutally. In several countries homosexuality is deemed not to exist, and in many homosexual behavior is punishable by imprisonment or even death. Superficially it sounds like a great idea to work for the betterment of gay people in Africa, but it raises questions about our national behaviors and values.
American foreign policy has often been tied to the internal behavior of other countries. One example was the isolation of South Africa. This strikes me, however, as more equivalent to the sanctioning of Iran, a multi-national, communal action against a single nation, not a single nation action against an entire continent (or group of nations). A closer comparison is our insistence on 'human rights compliance' from trading or other partners, or depending on the administration, the withholding of contraception funds if the country uses them for abortion. We apply this quite selectively, however, ignoring obvious mistreatment of women and religious minorities in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan while condemning African nations for their treatment of gays.
We have an odd way of expressing our outrage at the mistreatment of other people. We rise to defend the rights of homosexuals in Africa but ignore near slave labor conditions among those who make our shoes, shirts and other clothing. There are millions more people living in dormitories, separated from their families, making trinkets and sneakers for America, than there are gay men and women in Africa being persecuted. Why is the latter a cause and not the former? It seems to me we are willing to object unless our comfort and convenience is at stake. It is very easy to complain about Africa's treatment of gays because it costs us nothing. Complaining about working conditions in factories that make our goods would alter economic dynamics appreciably.
While on the one hand we condition our morals to our needs, on the other we cut off our noses to spite our faces. China is not trying to make religious converts, or change how African countries run their affairs. It has more nationals in Africa than any other nation. We refuse to trade with countries whose internal values don't match what we think they ought to be. While we moralize, they are making deals, getting resources, building things.
We are doing the same thing with the environment. The failure to build Keystone XL has not prevented the development of the Canadian tar sands. While we worry about the environment and our 'guilt', the Chinese have purchased land to the tune of 5 billion dollars to run a pipeline from the Alberta tar sands to a new terminal facility on the Pacific coast. All we have done is let the Chinese buy Canadian oil instead of US coal. At the same time, while moralizing about global warming, the US imports from the largest polluter in the world, China, and does not insist upon environmental compliance from them. We have regulated refineries to the point that no new one has been opened in the US in 39 years, but we import the refined products of other countries' filthy refineries. We decline to break our own ships, but pay no attention while those same ships are run up on the shores of Africa (!) and Bangla Desh. There, workers without safety equipment cut the ships to pieces without regard to oil, metal or asbestos contamination of water, earth and workers. We claim environmental superiority while exporting our dirty work to other countries. We have not reduced environmental burden, but we have reduced US heavy employment opportunities.
If we are going to inject morality into what is otherwise a financial transaction, I wish we did so consistently. Instead, we are both hypocrites and harming ourselves. Africa, and every country, has its own values and needs. I don't think it's our place to impose our values on someone when we visit or trade with them. That seems like moral colonialism to me.
Ted
American foreign policy has often been tied to the internal behavior of other countries. One example was the isolation of South Africa. This strikes me, however, as more equivalent to the sanctioning of Iran, a multi-national, communal action against a single nation, not a single nation action against an entire continent (or group of nations). A closer comparison is our insistence on 'human rights compliance' from trading or other partners, or depending on the administration, the withholding of contraception funds if the country uses them for abortion. We apply this quite selectively, however, ignoring obvious mistreatment of women and religious minorities in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan while condemning African nations for their treatment of gays.
We have an odd way of expressing our outrage at the mistreatment of other people. We rise to defend the rights of homosexuals in Africa but ignore near slave labor conditions among those who make our shoes, shirts and other clothing. There are millions more people living in dormitories, separated from their families, making trinkets and sneakers for America, than there are gay men and women in Africa being persecuted. Why is the latter a cause and not the former? It seems to me we are willing to object unless our comfort and convenience is at stake. It is very easy to complain about Africa's treatment of gays because it costs us nothing. Complaining about working conditions in factories that make our goods would alter economic dynamics appreciably.
We are doing the same thing with the environment. The failure to build Keystone XL has not prevented the development of the Canadian tar sands. While we worry about the environment and our 'guilt', the Chinese have purchased land to the tune of 5 billion dollars to run a pipeline from the Alberta tar sands to a new terminal facility on the Pacific coast. All we have done is let the Chinese buy Canadian oil instead of US coal. At the same time, while moralizing about global warming, the US imports from the largest polluter in the world, China, and does not insist upon environmental compliance from them. We have regulated refineries to the point that no new one has been opened in the US in 39 years, but we import the refined products of other countries' filthy refineries. We decline to break our own ships, but pay no attention while those same ships are run up on the shores of Africa (!) and Bangla Desh. There, workers without safety equipment cut the ships to pieces without regard to oil, metal or asbestos contamination of water, earth and workers. We claim environmental superiority while exporting our dirty work to other countries. We have not reduced environmental burden, but we have reduced US heavy employment opportunities.
If we are going to inject morality into what is otherwise a financial transaction, I wish we did so consistently. Instead, we are both hypocrites and harming ourselves. Africa, and every country, has its own values and needs. I don't think it's our place to impose our values on someone when we visit or trade with them. That seems like moral colonialism to me.
Ted
Not only is it moral colonialism, but from a pragmatic standpoint, it doesn't work.
ReplyDeleteAs for the next to last paragraph in this blog entry, we could also talk about the U.S. policy of timber harvesting to meet the demand for wood products. The U.S. forests have grown over the last century, partially because so much wood is exported from abroad. This means that reforestation at home = deforestation abroad; "Better you than us" could be the U.S. (and Japanese, who are one of the largest wood product importers in the world) chant except that so many environmentalists wag their fingers at other nations who are cutting down their forests.
(Here are the hard data: the year-End 2013 statistics released by the USDA Foreign Ag Service (USDA FAS) showed an 18.5% increase in overall forest products imports compared to the same period in 2012 (Jan-December).
Forest products imports were valued at $14.71 billion for 2013 compared to $12.42 billion for year-end 2012. Hardwood lumber increased 5%, softwood lumber increased 29%, hardwood flooring decreased 20% while assembled flooring panels decreased 3%, softwood flooring increased 203%, hardwood plywood up 5%, and softwood plywood up 34%.
-D-