The UK never made public threats. There has been no PR campaign. It was only when a right-wing, anti-foreign aid Uk newspaper decided to use the policy – shared by other countries and now by the US – for their own agenda that it ever became something for those activists to react against.

The UK’s handling of this has been piss-poor but the statement by African activists relied entirely on the right-wing media report – hence the ‘aid cut’, not ‘aid redirection’ reference. So they don’t come out of it particularly well either. Also, not everyone signed that statement.

It is also not true that African activists never want their governments publicly threatened. It depends on the country and the situation. This is what some, who do not have ‘bash the British’ at every turn attitude, have been arguing, like David Kuria in Kenya and also see the nuanced Global Equality Council statement.

If the UK (which would have to be done publically) cancels import preferences of Nigerian goods, it would cause some distress in Nigeria. It doesn’t have to be a highly public event. Simply drop the language authorizing the continued import preferences.

A tax on direct remittances between the US/UK/Canada/EU and Nigeria would have an immediate impact as well. Again, it would be public but could be done without much comment. People would find ways around it, but it would be costly to the diaspora and those receiving funds in Nigeria.

Where publicity should be driven, IMHO, is towards entities in the US, the UK, the EU, and Canada that provide financial assistance to those advocating for the denial of human rights. Many of these organizations enjoy taxpayer subsidies (in the form of tax deductability). Saddle up these organizations with tons of paperwork in order to prove that their donations aren’t assisting organizations or individuals engaged in human right violation advocacy.

Nigeria’s elites are the only ones that matter. Take away their European/American vacations and hurt their control over the Nigerian diaspora and you might apply the only kind of pressure that really matters to them…that which impacts them personally.

However, I’m not convinced that this makes them the best situated for making that determination. They are, after all, living in the country’s culture. And sometimes proximity lends itself to its own blindness.

And when it comes to the allocation of the money which I have earned, “what the Nigerian government/people/NPOs/etc. think” is not necessarily my highest priority.

We are fortunate in that we currently have a State Department which is both committed to bettering the global LGBT plight and also knowledgeable and skillful in leveraging our nation’s considerable economic, military, and cultural pressure. Whatever your politics, surely we can all agree that Mrs. Clinton is an immensely skilled diplomat.

But as to Cameron and his criticism. I think it would be troubling if no nations took this issue on publicly. If this were all behind-scenes and handled by assistant secretaries slipping each other dossiers, this too would have an effect on NPOs in Nigeria. If the universal message from the world’s leaders appears to be tolerance of homophobia, then there is no pressure to reconsider this position.

Is UK the right nation to threaten sanctions? I’m not qualified to say.

However, I can’t help but notice something peculiar. I think it fair to say that the UK and the US are presently the most influential nations in Africa – or at least in Nigeria and Uganda. Both are Commonwealth Nations with English as national language and the Anglican Church holds great influence in each. The United States also unquestionably carries tremendous clout as an economic and military superpower, but also because of religious and industrial connections.

And I also find it interesting that while the US and the UK have a shared response, they’ve taken a distinctly different approach. Of course I can’t say it’s a coordinated good-cop, bad-cop scenario; but I would not be surprised to find it to be true.

Yes it’s true that former colonies bristle at perceived heavy handedness by those who once controlled them. But in Uganda and Nigeria it appears to me to be family squabbling rather than hatred towards a foreign oppressor. For as fond as African nations are at declaring what is inherently un-African and decadently Western, I suspect that they are cognizant that a good deal of that hated Westernness has or is going to be theirs. (I was amused to see a picture of the first Nigerian Speaker of the House wearing the ancient and traditionally Nigerian white powdered wig).

Or, as Muhammad Al-Ghazali put it in a satirical opinion at AllAfrica.com today:

As for me, if refusal to accept same-sex marriages smarts of lack civilization or sophistication, please show me the way to the nearest cave. I would rather belong in the Stone Age.

Central to the arrogant disposition of the West on the subject matter is the warped interpretation of what constitutes freedom and individual liberation from all shackles of social oppression. And because rapid advances in science and technology enable them to keep pushing at the frontiers of freedom they live under the illusion that they are more ‘civilized’ than the rest of us. But nothing could be further from the truth.

The West keeps pushing at the frontiers of freedom. So far it has given us the rights to vote and gender equality among others etc.

In fact, that is one of the weaknesses of the approach to tying aid to LGBT abuses in Nigeria’s case. Because of oil, they are much less dependent on foreigh aid and can easily walk away from whatever aid they get. As you say, they not only export goods to other African countries, but they also supply peacekeeping troops to several hot spots on the continent.

The problem is that it’s a kleptocracy that siphons off most of the wealth into the pockets of the ruling class. For that reason alone they don’t deserve any foreign assistance

As for redirection, you are correct. But from the standpoint of governments who build budgets (and yes, graft) from aid, it is a cut, since the net effect to then is a reduction in funds meant for such items as health services, etc.

I’m glad the funds will go to NGOs instead, and I’m not criticizing the policy per se. But the way the policies are being made part of a very public relations campaign has a very predictable result. Africans — as we all do, when we think about it — resent foreign powers telling them what to do. Add to that the history of colonialism, and no African leader looses by rushing to “stand up” to former colonial powers. Only a complete fool would have failed to see the results ahead of time.

Many countries have made similar threats privately to African leaders. Those private threats, I believe, have been persuasive among key leaders. I think this was borne out in the wikileaks cables. But when the same threats are made public, that leader has virtually no choice but to refuse to stand down if that leader wants to remain in power. That’s just the way the real world works. Public statements breed defiance, back channel threats and coercion stands a much better chance of getting results. Every diplomat knows this; many pandering politicians don’t.

The UK’s aid principals include four ‘pillars’, one of which is human rights and part of that is LGBT human rights. The British government has made it clear aid will be *redirected* from government support to other routes should human rights be attacked. This is what happened in Malawi. LGBT issues were a minor point, however they were there. Another country which has been told that aid may be *redirected* is Uganda.

It is mischievous opponents of foreign aid in the UK and anti-gay actors in Africa who have created this meme, although it is not helped by the BBC actually misquoting Cameron with the exact line you’re reporting.

It should also be pointed out that the European Union for at least two years has been discussing similar ‘aid conditionality’ – yet it is not subject to similar attacks as Cameron and the UK are.