Money for the Military Industrial Complex

GLOBAL RECESSION/MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX SPENDING

• World Bank now warning that developing countries face a financing shortfall of up to $700 billion

• Governments are throwing billions into military industrial complexes

• Obama’s Department of Defense budget included $534 billion ($9 billion or 1.7% greater than last year’s budget after adjusting for inflation), as well as $130 billion for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

• China announced would increase its defense budget by 15% over last year’s level.

• India said its increase would be 34% over last year’s level.

• In 2007 (the most recent year for which accurate data is available from the International Institute for Strategic Studies), the U.S. spent more on defense than the next 14 highest spending countries, accounting for 43% of the world’s total defense spending

• U.S. spent 5 times more than China, 8 times more than Russia, 85 times more than Iran, 100 times more than North Korea.

• Fastest Growing Defense Budgets in the World 2005-2007: Kazakhstan-84%; Angola-80%, Ukraine-57%, Jordan-57%, Slovakia-55%.

• The Obama Administration plans to cut 1,000 nuclear warheads, which could yield, when completed, a $14.6 billion savings.

From: “The Worst Kind of Stimulus: Why a global weapons boom is the last thing we need” (by Travis Sharp, Foreign Policy, March, 2009)

OBAMA’S FIRST BUDGET: How does he measure up on defense spending?

• Obama’s Administration has slowed the rate of increase in the base military budget, but still has requested more money for the Pentagon than the Bush Administration ever did.

• Total budget for engaging the world militarily (including the two wars): $663.7 billion

• State Department had slight increase in funding, $4 billion over last year’s budget

• If Obama passed the budget he requested, U.S. would be spending 13 times the money engaging the rest of the world through the military as by any other means.

• Under Obama’s budget, we would be spending $16 on military force for every dollar we spend on homeland security.

• The Unified Security Budget for FY2009 outlines $60.7 billion in cuts.
  

From: “Budget Makes No ‘Sweeping Shift’ in Security Spending Yet” (by Miriam Pemberton and Suzanne Smith, 2/26/09)
How will we know that discipline has begun to return to defense and foreign policy budgeting when the supplemental request arrives? Here are a few benchmarks for the Defense request (likely to be around $75 billion):

• Is Defense asking for funds to replace equipment lost in combat, or is it asking for more equipment than it lost and/or a new generation of equipment? Research by Stephen Abott at the Stimson Center shows that supplementals have been used to replace older helicopters and fighters with new, more expensive V-22s and F-35s. If the equipment is next generation, this need should be debated as part of the regular procurement budget.

• Is the Pentagon asking for funds to replace equipment "stressed" by operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, but not lost in combat? Repairing and replacing worn-out equipment should be included in the planning for the basic budgets for the military depots that do this work.

• Is the department asking to replace weapons with systems they already have in the long-range defense budget plan? Again, these should be considered in the regular budget debate.

• Is Defense asking for training equipment or simulators? All of these should be part of the regular budget debate where training is funded.

• Is the Pentagon seeking funds for health-care infrastructure? Only short-term, combat-related health care should be funded through the supplementals. Long-term health infrastructure investments belong in the basic budget discussion.

• Is the department asking for funds to increase the size of the ground forces or for reconfiguring those forces into brigade units? These are long-term plans that belong in the basic budget discussion.

• Is Defense asking for funds to improve services or repair facilities at U.S. bases from which forces have been deployed in combat? Only the operational costs of forces being deployed to the theater should be in the supplemental request.

• Is the Pentagon asking for funds for the activities of special operations forces anywhere in the world, or just in the Central Command (CENTCOM) area? If used outside CENTCOM, these funds should be part of the regular budget debate.

Similarly, here are some benchmarks for the State and USAID budget requests:

• Are they asking for funding for humanitarian-assistance programs and food aid that are part of predictable State or USAID activity? Or are they asking only for humanitarian funds that are directed at emergencies that weren't known when the fiscal year 2009 budget was put together--a la Gaza? Only the latter belongs in the supplemental request.

• Are they asking for funds to support the budgets of other countries or the Palestinian Authority? If so, these funds should be part of the regular budget discussions at State. Research by Molly Lewis at the Stimson Center suggests that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's commitment of $900 million in budget support to the Palestinians should be considered as part of State's base budget.

• Are they asking for embassy construction and security funds for Iraq? These are now predictable and should be part of the basic budget preparation. As the United States expands its presence in Afghanistan, there may be reason to seek emergency construction and security funds there, but only for the first year.

• Are they asking for additional counternarcotics funding for Mexico or current South American programs? If so, these funds belong in the base budget planning process, as they are anticipated requirements.

• Are they asking for additional security assistance for Pakistan? If so, these probably belong in the base budget discussion, as they may not be executable in fiscal year 2009.

• Are they asking for funds to expand State and USAID staff or to increase the size of the planned post-conflict reconstruction corps? If so, these are expected costs and need to be part of regular budget planning.

The point of such an analysis isn't to prevent either Defense or State from planning budgets that include some of these items. They may be important priorities. But all budgets are finite, and programs and activities that are part of the core activity of Defense, State, and USAID should be scrutinized as part of the regular budget planning process in these agencies. That is what long-term strategic and budgetary planning is all about--making choices and setting priorities, given realistic limits on resources. If families have to do this, so should federal departments.
From: “The War Supplemental is Coming Soon” (by Gordon Adams, The Huffington Post, 3/20/09)

Key findings from US Army report on Army Policy on Combat Fitness:

• Confusion exists over who makes the final decision to send a soldier with a health issue to war: a soldier's commander or a medical officer, and the Army has "no clear resolution process" to settle disagreements between a doctor and commander over a soldier's fitness.

• Many commanders and Army doctors are not aware of new Central Command guidelines that add medical conditions that would make a soldier unfit for combat. Last year, the command added vision and hearing loss as conditions to the list of problems that would stop a soldier's combat deployment.

• The Army has "no clear resolution process" to settle disagreements between a doctor and commander over a soldier's fitness, the report says. "This lack of clarity may result in confusion and conflict regarding a soldier's deployability determination."

• Electronic systems containing the medical records that allow commanders to track a soldier's readiness are "not always timely or accurate." Many soldiers are still required to hand-carry to their commanders medical documents explaining their physical limitations.

• Most commanders and the doctors who screen troops to deploy are not aware that a waiver from a war-zone medical commander is required if a soldier with a medical problem was going to Iraq or Afghanistan.

From: “Report targets Army policy on combat fitness” (USA Today, 3/24/09)

GUEST ARTICLES/OP-EdS
“Despite Economic Slump, Global Defense Spending Soars: Key Countries Modernize Militaries, Increase Expenditures” (by Travis Sharp, Common Dreams, 3/19/09)
“U.S. Defense Spending vs. Global Defense Spending” (by Travis Sharp, Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, 2/26/09)
“The Worst Kind of Stimulus: Why a global weapons boom is the last thing we need” (by Travis Sharp, Foreign Policy, March, 2009)
“Signals from President Obama’s first budget” and “Obama’s Budget Signals Modest Correction to Our Highly Militarized Foreign Policy” (Suzanne Smith, Miriam Pemberton, National Priorities Project)
“A Unified Security Budget FY2009” (by Miriam Pemberton and Lawrence Korb, and Task Force for a Unified Security Budget, September 2008)
“The War Supplemental is Coming Soon” (by Gordon Adams, The Huffington Post, 3/20/09)
“Hold the Line on Defense Spending” (by Gordon Adams, The Huffington Post, 2/13/09)
“Groups unite to urge Congress to redirect federal spending to meet human needs and rebuild the economy. They believe the U.S. can trim excess “defense” spending and find new solutions that make the country safer and stronger.” (Women’s Action for New Directions organized this letter, other groups have signed on)
“Is the Next Defense Budget a Stimulus Package?” (by Frida Berrigan, The Nation / New America Foundation, 3/12/09)
“We Arm the World: The United States once again leads the world in exporting weapons” (by Frida Berrigan, In These Times, 1/2/09)
Democracy in Print: The Best of the Progressive Magazine, 1909-2009 (Edited by Matthew Rothschild, University of Wisconsin Press, Spring 2009)
NEWS, OP-EDS and Other Resources
“Gates against the complex” (Globe Editorial, Boston Globe, 3/23/09)
"Contractors Defend Their Programs as Pentagon Cuts Loom" (by Dana Hedgpeth, Washington Post, 3/24/09)
"China criticizes new US report on its military" (Associated Press, 3/25/09)
"Defense Stocks Aren't Safe" (Forbes, 3/26/09)
"Lawmakers, officials see cuts to U.S. missile defense" (Reuters, 3/23/09)
“Miltiary Recruitment 2008: Significant Gap in Army’s Quality and Quantity Goals” (National Priorities Project, 2/18/09)
“Defense Department details stimulus spending plan” (by Tim Kauffman, Federal Times, 3/24/09)
“Pentagon’s Unwanted Projects in Earmarks” (by Jeffrey Smith and Ellen Nakashima, Washington Post, 3/7/09)

Afpak Crisis

Afghanistan:

Political History: Ahmad Shah Durrani unified the Pashtun tribes and founded Afghanistan in 1747. The country served as a buffer between the British and Russian empires until it won independence from notional British control in 1919. A brief experiment in democracy ended in a 1973 coup and a 1978 Communist counter-coup.

The Soviet Union invaded in 1979 to support the tottering Afghan Communist regime, touching off a long and destructive war. The USSR withdrew in 1989 under relentless pressure by internationally supported anti-Communist mujahedin rebels.

Subsequently, a series of civil wars saw Kabul finally fall in 1996 to the Taliban, a hardline Pakistani-sponsored movement that emerged in 1994 to end the country's civil war and anarchy. Following the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks in New York City, a US, Allied, and anti-Taliban Northern Alliance military action toppled the Taliban for sheltering Osama bin Laden.

The UN-sponsored Bonn Conference in 2001 established a process for political reconstruction that included the adoption of a new constitution and a presidential election in 2004, and National Assembly elections in 2005.

On Dec. 7, 2004, Hamid Karzai became the first democratically elected president of Afghanistan. The National Assembly was inaugurated on Dec. 19, 2005.

Economic Snapshot:

Unemployment Rate: 40%

Population below poverty line: 53%

Inflation Rate: 16.3%

Find out More:

“Rebuilding Afghanistan” (CBS News)

CBS News Fast Facts:

UPDATE: Obama chose Lieutenant General Karl Eikenberry as the new U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan. Eikenberry is the former Commander of the Combined Forces Command in Afghanistan and currently is the deputy chairman of the NATO military committee in Brussels, Belgium.

President Obama has ordered the increase of 17,000 troops in Afghanistan, in addition to the 36,000 troops already there. He has also mentioned the possibility of talks with more moderate elements of the Taliban and his administration is working to get more NATO partners involved in the War in Afghanistan.

Pakistan:

Of the 172 million population, 95% of Pakistan is Muslim.

Pakistan is the world’s only Muslim nuclear power.

Only 49.9% of the country is literate

Economic Crisis: The government was forced to borrow $7.6 billion from the IMF last year and has said it will need $4.5 billion more. The government predicts the economic growth in the year ending June 30 will be 2.5 percent, down from 5.8 percent last year.

Time Line:

2007: President Pervez Musharraf fires 60 senior Supreme Court judges including the then-chief justice Iftikhar Chaudhry and declares martial law. Assassination of Benazir Bhutto.

2008: President Pervez Musharraf resigns.

2009: Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was banned from running for public office by the Supreme Court, backed by his rival President Zardari. Sharif has backed protests by lawyers and judges to insist on the reinstatement of judges fired by Musharraf. The protestors are being arrested and detained. Many are concerned that the country cannot take the challenge from the opposition right now and that the insurgency can use the period to launch another attack, like the recent attack on a Sri Lankan cricket team.

Many fear that Pakistan is a failed or failing state and that nuclear weapons will get into the hands of the insurgency.

Guest Resources:

Response of Larry Korb to “How to ‘Win’ in Afghanistan” (by Larry Korb, National Journal National Security Expert Blogs, 2/24/09)

“Conflict Between Pakistan’s Political Rivals Prompts Protests, Turmoil” (by Ravi Khanna, Voice of America, 3/4/09)

Friends Committee on National Legislation letter to President Obama on Afghanistan War

Overthrow: America’s Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq (2007)

“Focus on Kashmir” (by Stephen Kinzer, The Guardian, 12/16/08)

Rethink Afghanistan (by Brave New Films, featuring Stephen Kinzer and Carl Conetta among others)

Index of Failed States – Afghanistan ranks 7 and 9 in list of countries that are unstable, both are listed as “Critical” (by Pauline Baker, Foreign Policy, July/August 2008)

Mandate for Change (A project of Institute for Policy Studies, various authors including Erik Leaver, 2009)

“Afghanistan Policy Outlook: 2009” (by Erik Leaver, Foreign Policy in Focus, 3/12/09)

“The U.S. and Afghan Tragedy” (by Stephen Zunes, Foreign Policy in Focus, 2/18/09)

“Holbrooke: Insensitive Choice for a Sensitive Region” (by Stephen Zunes, Foreign Policy in Focus, 1/29/09)

“Obama’s Defense Budget Is on Target” (by Lawrence Korb, Center for American Progress, 2/26/09)

“Advancing a New Strategy for Prosperity and Stability in Pakistan and the Region” (by Caroline Wadhams, Brian Katulis, Lawrence Korb, and Colin Cookman, Center for American Progress, 11/17/08)

“Can Congress Save Obama from Afghan Quagmire?” (by Robert Naihma, Huffington Post, 3/9/09)

“Missing from the Afghan ‘Surge’: A Congressional Debate” (by Robert Naihman, Huffington Post, 2/27/09)

Policy and Issue Resources

“Afghanistan: For Your Reading Pleasure” (by Robert Dreyfuss, The Nation and The Dreyfuss Report, 3/4/09)

Interactive Map: U.S. Airstrikes in Pakistan on the Rise (by Colin Cookman, Center for American Progress, March 5, 2009)

“Threats, Options and Risks in Pakistan” (by Colin Cookman, Center for American Progress, March 5, 2009)

Afghanistan: National Survey (ABC News, 12/30-1/12/09)

Pakistan and Terror: The Eye of the Storm (by Bruce Riedel, Brookings Institution, July 2008)

White House Agenda on Foreign Policy: Afghanistan and Pakistan

Dreaming of Splitting the Taliban (by Helene Cooper, New York Times, 3/7/09)

News:

“Truce in Pakistan May Mean Leeway for Taliban” (by Jane Perlez, New York Times, 3/5/09)

“Pakistan facing ‘mortal threat’” (BBC News, 3/6/09)

“Attack on Sri Lanka cricket team: a sign that Pakistan is unraveling?” (by Ben Arnoldy, Christian Science Monitor, 3/5/09)

“Afghanistan: Losing a No-Win War” (by Steve Weissman, Truthout, 2/5/09)

“Severe economic crisis threatens Pakistan’s stability” (by Saeed Shah, McClatchy Newspapers, 10/13/08)

“Pakistan Policy Detain Protesters as Crisis Widens” (by Khalid Qayum and James Rupert, Bloomberg, 3/12/09)

“Suspected U.S. missile strike kills 15 in Pakistan” (Agence France-Presse, 3/12/09)

“Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan to hold talks” (CNN International, 3/10/09)

“In Afghanistan, A Shifting, Ever-Moving Enemy” (NPR, 3/11/09)

“Biden presses allies on Afghanistan” (Boston Globe/Washington Post, 3/11/09)

“Pakistan’s Sharif capitalizes on lawyers’ march” (by Ben Arnoldy, Christian Science Monitor, 3/13/09)

“Iran to attend Afghanistan talks: spokesman” (Xinhua, 3/13/09)

LGBT Human Rights Abuses

U.S. Government Documents Trend of Severe Human Rights Abuse Against LGBT People

"Top Ten" list of countries where the U.S. should do more

February 2009

(FROM THE COUNCIL FOR GLOBAL EQUALITY)

On February 25, 2009, the State Department released a report to Congress that examines the human rights record of every country around the world. In terms similar to years past, the report reveals a continued crisis in human rights violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity

BACKGROUND

The U.S. Congress requires the State Department to report annually on human rights conditions in all countries (except the United States). In 1993, the instructions on reporting were modified to require all U.S. embassies to include information on patterns of abuse directed at specific minority groups including those based on ethnicity, religion, trade union activity, sexual orientation or other factors. Embassies were also instructed to report on incitement to violence directed against these groups, whether instigated by the government or by other elements of society.

This year’s human rights report, which covers human rights concerns from 2008, is the most comprehensive to date with regards to sexual orientation and gender identity issues (referenced in 190 country reports) and points to a growing crisis in human rights abuse directed against LGBT people around the world. LGBT-related incidents cited by the State Department in this year’s report include arbitrary arrest and detention, police abuse, rape, and even murder. Many of the most egregious abuses have been committed in countries considered to be friends and allies of the United States, including those that receive sizeable U.S. development or security assistance. In many cases, there sadly is evidence of either the complicit or direct involvement of police or other government officials.

Although the facts in some cases are unclear, the Council for Global Equality believes the State Department must move beyond a reporting agenda to an affirmative “protection agenda” that actively seeks to redress these serious and ongoing human rights violations. The following country examples explore specific opportunities for the U.S. to embrace an affirmative agenda by using its political, economic and security arrangements to support human rights for all.

TOP TEN: Opportunities for the U.S. to Respond

Although all of the LGBT-directed human rights abuse cited in this year's report deserve attention, the United States clearly should take action in the following ten cases. We urge the new Administration to respond with appropriate steps aimed at both reaffirming America's leadership in human rights and improving the lives of LGBT men and women abroad.

Egypt

Human Rights Watch has reported the arrest, beating, and imprisonment of men suspected of being HIV-positive. On several occasions, suspected men were tested against their will for the HIV virus and subjected to abusive anal examinations; those who were shown to be HIV-positive were chained to their hospital beds, and were unchained only after an international outcry. Adding insult to (quite literal) injury, the Egyptian Government prevented the non-governmental organization that called international attention to this crackdown from attending a UN high-level meeting on HIV/AIDS.

What can the U.S. do? Egypt was the third largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid from USAID and the State Department in 2008. (Congressional Research Service statistics) Our partnership with Egypt should extend beyond the Middle East peace process: it should require a broad commitment to human rights that includes the rights of LGBT men and women.

Gambia

Gambian President Yahya Jammeh has threatened to “cut off the head” of any homosexual in his country. He further ordered all homosexuals to leave the country and decreed that Gambian security forces should arrest homosexuals.

What can the U.S. do? Both in Washington and in the Gambia, U.S. officials should express our concern over such hate speech. This message should be conveyed at senior levels. Moreover, we should explore using USAID funds to support programs that encourage tolerance, respect for diversity, and a genuine commitment to civil society – all intrinsic American values that should be intrinsic to America’s foreign relations.

Honduras

Judged by information in this year’s report, Honduras was one of the worst violators of gay and transgender human rights in 2008. There were multiple killings or attacks on persons presumably because of their sexual orientation; these included the murder of a leading Honduran transgender rights activist. According to one organization, a number of gay persons fled the country due to fear of persecution by security forces and society. The human rights report notes what it calls “credible reports” that Honduran security officials condoned physical assaults, including rape, on gay detainees. A report by the Center for Torture Prevention and Rehabilitation (a Honduran NGO) found that city and other police routinely rounded up LGBT and other vulnerable youths without cause. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has issued urgent “protection orders” to highlight the dangers faced by LGBT organizations in Honduras.

What can the U.S. do? The U.S. Embassy should offer visible support to LGBT leaders in the country, and should press for accountability within the Honduran government. It should work with Honduran authorities to offer tolerance and diversity training for police and other security forces that are suspected of complicity in human rights abuse. It also should press for a prompt and thorough investigation of the murders and other incidents noted above.

India

This year’s report notes extensive discrimination against gays and lesbians in India, including in employment and education; it also notes that police “committed crimes against homosexuals and used the threat of arrest to coerce victims into not reporting the incidents.” In addition, many reports have documented police abuse directed against transgender people in Bangalore. One, from Human Rights Watch, was of an October 20, 2008 arrest, followed by the detention of representatives of an NGO trying to negotiate their release, and a subsequent attack directed against a group of peaceful demonstrators protesting the arrests. According to the negotiators, who eventually were released, police told them higher-level authorities had ordered the campaign to arrest the transgender individuals.

A broad cross-section of Indian activists, cultural leaders and HIV/AIDS workers are also pressing for repeal of the country’s colonially-imposed sodomy law, which reportedly has been used to target the gay and lesbian community. International human rights law now recognizes that the mere existence of laws criminalizing consensual same-sex activity, even if they are not enforced, fundamentally violates human rights. That growing consensus was joined by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2003 (Lawrence decision). In response, however, the Indian Government has actively fought efforts to decriminalize homosexuality.

What can the U.S. do? Given our increasingly close relationship with India, we should express frank concern to the Indian Government over LGBT violence and discrimination. In addition, candid public comments by the U.S. Ambassador or other senior U.S. officials highlighting of the importance of the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down the remaining sodomy laws in the U.S. could be productive in fostering public awareness that just laws must never oppress the fundamental human rights of any segment of society.

Jamaica

The 2008 report cites credible claims of harassment and arbitrary detention of homosexuals by public employees, with little if any investigation by police. There also have been numerous anti-gay mob attacks, at times apparently with direct police complicity; some of these attacks have resulted in murder. In December, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights issued a statement “....strongly condemn(ing) the high level of homophobia that prevails throughout Jamaican society (which) has resulted in violent killings of persons thought to be gay, lesbian, bisexual or transsexual, as well as stabbings, mob attacks, arbitrary detention and police harassment.” Referring to four murders in the past year and a half – including the firebombing of the home of a person believed to be gay, and the chopping to death by machete of another individual who was gay – the statement further notes that “Defenders of the rights of gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transsexuals have been murdered, beaten and threatened, and the police have been criticized for failing in many instances to prevent or respond to reports of such violence.”

What can the U.S. do? Senior U.S. officials should urge Jamaica’s Prime Minister to show leadership by condemning this violence and instituting measures to bring these and any future perpetrators to justice. U.S. police assistance should be targeted toward programs that promote tolerance and the defense of vulnerable groups against mob violence.

Kuwait

The report notes cases of police abuse against transgender individuals. In one such case, “...police arrested two transgendered persons at a checkpoint, made them take off their men's hats and jackets, and hit them on their faces as they stood in their female clothing. Authorities allegedly held them for five days and shaved their heads before releasing them.”

What can the U.S. do? Individual liberties are at the heart of our democracy, and are critical to the development of deep-seated relationships with like-minded friends and allies. We need to encourage this understanding with Kuwaiti and other authorities as part of our dialogue on human rights.

Kyrgyz Republic

The report notes the vulnerability of LGBT individuals to physical and verbal abuse, employment discrimination, and police harassment. It also notes problems of prison abuse of gay men, inflicted by both prison officials and inmates. In a report released last year, Human Rights Watch has described a pattern of beatings, forced marriages, and physical and psychological abuse in the Kyrgyz Republic against lesbian and bisexual women and transgender men. The report concludes that the government refuses to protect these victims and has done nothing to address the atmosphere of intolerance in which these attacks have taken place.

What can the U.S. do? Kyrgyzstan receives significant U.S. foreign assistance – only last year, in fact, the United States signed a two-year, $16 million Millennium Challenge Corporation agreement with that government. Kyrgyz human rights groups had urged the U.S. to suspend the signing of the agreement until “the government proves its commitment” to program objectives of judicial reform and anti-corruption. We need an honest evaluation of the Kyrgyz Republic’s commitment to human rights: if Kyrgyz officials are unwilling to address the problem, we should reevaluate our assistance levels and other bilateral programs.

Lithuania

According to the human rights report, the city of Vilnius (Lithuania’s capital) would not issue a permit for a European Commission display on diversity and discrimination that was to be mounted in the city’s Old City Hall Square. This is one of several instances in which leaders of the capital have embraced homophobic policies. The report further notes that on several occasions, the government denied permits for gay rights groups to organize public parades.

What can the U.S. do? Freedoms of assembly and of association are fundamental rights in any democracy. If Lithuania is to claim its place as a democratic state, it must be challenged to honor these principles in law and in practice.

Nigeria

Nigeria continues to criminalize homosexuality. As noted in this year’s report, “...adults convicted of engaging in homosexual intercourse are subject to execution by stoning” in those parts of the country that have adopted Shari’a law. (The report also notes that no deaths by stoning occurred last year.) In northern Nigeria, the report notes repeated delays in the trial of 18 men arrested in 2007 on charges that have veered over time from sodomy to vagrancy to cross-dressing. These repeated delays, and lack of clarity as to the charges at hand, amount to a serious denial of the right to justice, exposing the young men to ongoing discrimination, harassment and abuse in their local community while the trial lingers. The report also mentions that members of the LGBT-friendly House of Rainbow Metropolitan Community Church in Lagos were harassed, with one female member attacked by a group of men, while other members were stoned, beaten, or verbally threatened.

A new “anti-marriage” bill, now pending in Nigeria’s Senate, would ban not only same-sex marriage, but also the "...coming together of persons of the same sex with the purpose of living together .... for other purposes of same sexual relationship." In other words, the bill would criminalize same-sex cohabitation alone – and potentially could cause the arrest of even same-sex individuals who are legally married outside of Nigeria and happen to travel to that country.

What can the U.S. do? The U.S. Embassy is following these issues. We hope it will work with European and other embassies in Abuja to voice strong concerns over this dangerous new bill in the Nigerian Senate.

Uganda

Homosexuality remains criminalized. Police harassed members of an NGO for taking a public stance against sexual discrimination. Police also arrested three LGBT activists in June 4 at the 2008 HIV/AIDS Implementers meeting in Kampala. They were charges with trespassing for protesting the lack of funding any for HIV/AIDS within the LGBT community. At least one of those arrested was mistreated by police officers during 24 hours of detention. (They were acquitted in August.) After two other gays were arrested by police and held without charge for six days, a Ugandan minister said these kinds of arrests would continue, as “we are concerned about the mushrooming of lesbianism and homosexuality.”

What can the U.S. do? Uganda is one of the largest recipients of PEPFAR funding for HIV/AIDS care, prevention and treatment. In Uganda, the money has been used to empower institutions and activists that have led homophobic campaigns in the country. We need to consider whether the US government’s priority focus on abstinence funding is blunting the effectiveness of the money we’re spending, while also discouraging tolerance-based response to the epidemic.

Special Mention: The United States

The United States is not covered by the State Department’s human rights report, of course. But our country takes pride in standing for equality, justice and human rights, and we claim these principles in our foreign policy leadership abroad. For the sake of America’s credibility, we should and must do more to honor these principles at home. We call on the Obama Administration to partner with Congress to pass legislation banning hate crimes and employment discrimination, offer fair benefits to the families of gay and lesbian federal employees, support immigration rights through the Uniting American Families Act, repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the Defense of Marriage Act, and include LGBT organizations among the civil society groups that America sustains abroad. This is a call for consistency and fairness in our foreign policy, and for renewed American integrity and leadership in the fight for human rights.

ABOUT THE COUNCIL FOR GLOBAL EQUALITY

The Council for Global Equality brings together international human rights activists, foreign policy experts, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender leaders, philanthropists, corporate leaders and political strategists to encourage a clearer and stronger American voice on human rights concerns impacting LGBT communities around the world.

The Council for Global Equality is a coalition effort. Our institutional members include many of the most prominent organizations working to promote human rights and LGBT equality in the United States and overseas. This unique collaboration joins the respective expertise and positioning of LGBT and non-LGBT organizations; domestic-focused and internationally focused organizations; as well as advocacy groups, multinational corporations, and research organizations.

Together, Council members seek to ensure that those who represent our country—in Congress, in the White House, in U.S. embassies and in U.S. corporations—use the diplomatic, political and economic leverage available to them to oppose human rights abuses that are too often directed at individuals because of their sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression. The Council also seeks to increase support for foreign LGBT organizations as vital contributors to our country’s national interest through the development of free and vibrant civil societies abroad.

Council for Global Equality

1220 L Street, NW

Suite 100-450

Washington, DC 20005-4018

www.GlobalEquality.org

Phone/Fax: (202) 719-0511