adminPerspective Stephen Mpofu
Homosexuality and international capital have become strange bedfellows in post modernity with the former a quiet partner made vociferous as a conditionality for countries seeking financial assistance especially from the imperialist West to improve their less affluent economies.
But for one to accept donor assistance while rejecting same-sex marriages as its companion, bizarre though it is, is regarded by potential international providers of aid money as an act of impunity that scuttles everything.
This Big Brother-knows-well-what-you-need leaves many developing nations short of money to inject new blood into their ailing economies in a quandary.
In 2010, for instance, the Malawian government jailed two men for 40 years following their gay marriage, and the move provoked protests by international donors, while protestant churches urged the government to uphold its ban on homosexuality in the Malawian nation as an unnatural practice.
In Zimbabwe, President Mugabe has in the past not minced words in his denunciation of gays and lesbians whose inverted sex Zimbabweans regard as an ungodly condition.
Just recently Nigeria took a more bolder move when its parliament passed a law banning same-sex marriages altogether. That action may have provoked the West’s ire with threatening hints of Africa’s most populous state being shut out of West Capital.
But impunity or no, African governments must refuse to be intimidated by those external forces that want to use their money as a lever to swing small nations under their imperialist control in order, in most cases to exploit the natural resources that abound in developing countries.
In any case, African governments exist primarily to serve Africans and not other people. As such, they must do that which is necessary to protect their people — and outlawing homosexuality, an unnatural condition that God also regards as an abomination, is one of the responsibilities resting on the governments of African countries whose nations are suffering as a result of Aids, a disease manufactured in the West and exported to the rest of the world where it has become endemic.
It is a known and indisputable fact that the Aids virus resulted from a laboratory experiment that went wild in a certain big Western country.
The experiment reportedly had been designed to produce a virus that would wipe out blacks while sparing people of another colour.
It is no exaggeration to suggest that had an African or other small country been the source of Aids, that country would either have been blotted out of the world map at worst or pariah-ed to prevent people from other states visiting it.
Some people might disagree with this pen’s submission. No quarrel with that as anyone has a right to his or her opinion, however wrong or right that might sound to others.
But if Zimbabwe, for instance, could be punished, and continues to languish under illegal western sanctions for taking the right and legitimate decision to empower its people through land reform, what can stop the same Holier-than-thou West imposing retribution on those who refuse to accept aid that is conditional upon allowing homosexuals free reign?
Actually, were the world we live in morally normal, the country which produced the killer Aids virus should have been under compulsion to compensate smaller poor countries whose people are dying, like flies in some cases, from Aids.
Unfortunately, however, the source of what has become a global life-taker remains untouchable, like a sacred cow.
Returning to the question of Aids, it should be understood that this assistance is not a form of charity, a free donation, but that it is an investment which a recipient country must repay in total with on top of it an interest big or small depending on the terms of an agreement reached between giver and receiver.
That being the case, therefore, it is heinous of any donor to demand that a recipient of aid money must also agree to homosexuality and same sex marriages being stuffed down the throat of its governments.
Does that type of arrogance in fact not impinge upon a recipient country’s “sovereignty” — a concept which, according to the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, refers to “supreme (sovereign power); unmitigated (with sovereign contempt) . . .?”
This being the case, therefore, it is abundantly clear that forcing another country to embrace homosexuality as a condition for receiving aid is an unmitigated interference in the affairs of other states.
Online Reporter