WHERE WE STAND ON FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION

Gambia’s parliament recently approved a bill banning female genital mutilation (FGM) and setting high penalties of imprisonment and fines for offenders. The passage of the law came shortly after Gambian President Yahya Jammeh had condemned the practice for not being commanded in the Quran. According to a 2010 report, 63 percent of Gambian woman and children aged from 14 to 49 have been subject to FGM.

FGM was defined in 1997 by the WHO, UNICEF and UNFPA as the “partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.” Procedures for circumcision differ according to the ethnic group, but they include removal of the clitoral hood and clitoral glands, removal of the inner labia, and in the most severe form (known as infibulation) removal of the inner and outer labia and closure of the vulva. In this last procedure, a small opening is left for the passage of urine and menstrual fluid; the vagina is opened for intercourse and opened further for childbirth. FGM is conducted from days after birth to puberty and beyond.

FGM is prevalent in 29 African countries, Yemen, Iraqi Kurdistan, and elsewhere in Asia, the Middle East, and other scattered communities around the world. However, of the more than 125 million girls and women alive today who have undergone the procedure, one in four live in Egypt. That is more than any other country in the world. According to a government report released in May 2015, 92% percent of married Egyptian women aged 15 to 49 have been subjected to FGM. This figure is down from 97% in 2010, probably because FGM has been illegal in Egypt since 2008. However, the practice remains woven into the very fabric of Egyptian society, where many see cutting as a way to “purify” a girl and to show she is ready for marriage.

The practice of FGM has been the subject of international concern and is considered to be a global health issue. FGM has no medical benefits and can cause lifelong physical and emotional trauma for the women who have undergone the procedure. The UN has consistently campaigned for an end to FGM, labeling the practice, among other things, gender-based discrimination, torture, an affront to human dignity and an irreparable, irreversible abuse of the human rights of women and girls. However, FGM has proven to be difficult to eradicate.

Experts that have studied the issue point out that part of the difficulty in the campaigns attempting to eliminate the practice is the common misconceptions around FGM. One misconception is that it is men that force FGM on women. In fact, elderly women often do the most to perpetuate the custom. Many women undergo circumcision voluntarily, and joyfully partake in the ritual. For young girls circumcision becomes a way to prove that they are worthy of the challenge of being a woman. Female circumcision is part of demarcating insider and outsider status. By being circumcised girls become members of a group of elder women who have more power in their community. So, even though the argument is being made that FGM is about the control of women and their sexuality and sexual pleasure, data shows that across Africa, the support for the practice is stronger among women than among men. Women who support the practice justify its perpetuation by saying that FCM is women’s business. As in, it is for women to decide this. In the U.S., adult women are capable of giving consent for surgical procedures, some of which are arguably similar in nature as FGM, consider for instance, a breast reduction, a surgical procedure common in the US and other Western countries. The issue is one of free will. What would it take to get a woman in an African country to be in the same position of being able to give consent? Social pressures in the nations that practice FGM are so strong that no woman could ever opt out. Thus, women who undergo the procedure, even those who seem willing and even proud to participate, might not be doing it really because they want to, but because they feel that to be respected members of the community they have to comply with this custom.

The argument about the lack of free will of those being circumcised is even more powerful in cases where children are forced to have the procedure. In half the countries for which national figures are available, most girls are cut before the age of five. Arguing against suggested similarities between FGM and body shaping in Western countries, philosopher Martha Nussbaum has stated that a key difference is that FGM is often conducted on children using physical force.

It is important to note that FGM is not an individual behavior, such as it could be the decision to undergo a certain surgical procedure for cosmetic reasons. Deciding not to circumcise a daughter is not an individual behavior. That decision would have to be explained to the immediate family (husband, siblings, etc.), to the extended family (the in-laws), and the in-laws would have to answer to their friends throughout the community, which makes the decision particularly difficult to make given the societal pressure.

Perhaps the best strategy to eliminate FGM is to warn about the negative health consequences to the women who undergo the procedure. The dangers and lifelong health problems that women experience after the procedure are particularly serious in communities where the traditional way of circumcision does not include sterilized instruments, antibiotics, and other measures to minimize health complications. So far, it appears that these are the arguments that are most effective in persuading those who believe in tradition that there are some traditions that must be ended, and there has been some progress in the drive to end FGM.

So far, 24 of the 29 countries where FGM is concentrated have enacted legislation against FGM. In the countries were FGM is a common practice, the percentage of girls aged 15 to 17 that have had the procedure has dropped from 74.4% in 2008, to 56% in 2015. In May 2015, as one of his final acts as president, Goodluck Jonathan banned the procedure in Nigeria. Somalia recently announced that it will introduce a law that will ban FGM, as well. This is a significant step in the right direction as Somalia has one of the highest rates of female genital mutilation in the world. Egypt has announced a plan to reduce FGM by 10-15% in the next five years. If it works, it will mean that for the first time in decades, “uncut” girls would outnumber those who have had the procedure.

WHAT CAN THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY DO ABOUT AFRICA’S RISING ANTI GAY SENTIMENT?

Last month President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda signed into law a bill imposing harsh sentences for homosexual acts, including a penalty of life imprisonment for “aggravated homosexuality.”  Homosexual acts when one person is infected with HIV, “serial offenders,” and sex with minors, are examples of what is considered “aggravated homosexuality” under the new law.

The Ugandan anti gay law was first proposed in 2009, when an earlier provision, since dropped, proposed the death sentence for homosexual activity in certain cases. Gordon Brown, the then Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, and Stephen Harper, the Canadian Prime Minister at the time, publicly expressed their opposition to the bill. The government of France also criticized the bill, citing a “deep concern.” The European Parliament passed a resolution threatening to cut financial aid to Uganda, and even the Swedish government, which had had a long-term relationship with Uganda, said that it would revoke its $50 million development aid to the country if the bill passed. Dirk Niebel, the Federal Minister of Economic Cooperation and Development in Germany, also indicated at the time that financial aid to Uganda would be cut if the bill passed.

The US response was similar, stating that Uganda’s participation in the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) would be in jeopardy if the anti gay bill became law. Some African countries, including Uganda, benefit from AGOA, US legislation approved by Congress in 2000 for the purpose of helping the economies of sub-Saharan Africa. AGOA reduces tariffs on products imported from some African countries to promote commercial activities and help their economies.

Such strong international opposition resulted in the bill being eventually shelved, and led some to thinking that Uganda’s president would abandon its efforts to continue promoting anti gay policies in the country. However, last month, the new version of the bill which now punishes with life imprisonment some homosexual offenses, was enacted into law in Uganda.

Sadly, Uganda is not the only African nation with harsh anti gay laws. According to Amnesty International, homosexuality is illegal in 38 of 54 African countries, where most sodomy laws were introduced during colonialism. On January 2014, Nigeria’s president Goodluck Jonathan signed into law a new law that mandates a 14-year prison sentence for anyone entering a same-sex union, and a 10-year term for “a person or group of persons who supports the registration, operation and sustenance of gay clubs, societies, organizations, processions or meetings.”

The great majority of Western countries have expressed near-universal condemnation of the new laws. Denmark, Norway, and the Netherlands immediately stalled aid to Uganda over its new law. The World Bank froze a $90 million new loan. When Nigeria’s president approved his country’s new law, the European Union warned that he should not forget his “obligations” under international law. Shortly after Museveni’s announcement that the anti gay bill had become law in Uganda, U.S. President Barack Obama warned that enacting the bill would affect relations between the two nations. He described the proposal as an “affront and a danger to the gay community” in Uganda.

However, despite the response by the international community in opposing African anti-gay laws, in most African countries these laws are overwhelmingly supported by the general public, providing opportunities to win political points for presidents seeking election or re-election. In the cases of both Uganda and Nigeria, lawmakers claimed to be in favor of tougher legislation against homosexuality to counteract the influence of Western lifestyles that risked destroying family units.

The latest development in Uganda happened last week, when a mixed group of Ugandans and NGOs filed a petition against the country’s controversial anti-homosexuality law, saying it is unconstitutional and infringes on fundamental rights to non-discrimination and equality, as well as rights to privacy, freedom of expression, thought, civic participation, assembly and association.

The question remains, what is the most effective response by the international community to such anti gay laws?

Some have suggested suspending visa privileges for officials supporting the new laws; suspending bilateral delegations or exchanges in areas of interest to countries that have enacted anti gay laws; reviewing and potentially revoking participation in AGOA of any African country which criminalizes homosexuality; and ending any other form of economic aid to these countries.

However, some argue that suspending all financial support to these African countries would only be detrimental to those most in need.

Is the international community obligated to act when a nation or group of nations violate fundamental human rights? Are economic sanctions the most appropriate response? As usual, there are no easy answers in international law and relations.