Compelling messaging on rights is most important in places where those rights are least respected. In the case of LGBTQI+ rights, such places include many African countries: For example, nearly half the countries that criminalize same-sex acts between consenting adults are in Africa. As one study points out, Africa is the only continent where the movement to decriminalize homosexuality has had relatively little success, with little variation in the percentage of Africans who can legally have same-sex relationships between 1950 (37 percent) and 2020 (36 percent).
Recent years have seen an upsurge in repressive measures. For example, in 2023, Uganda enacted an anti-homosexuality law that, among other measures, restricts healthcare access for LGBTQI+ individuals and criminalizes renting property to them. In July 2024, Ghana’s supreme court upheld a colonial-era law that criminalizes same-sex conduct. Another anti-LGBTQI+ bill approved by Ghana’s parliament but not yet signed into law by the president would impose heavy penalties for same-sex activities and punish people advocating for LGBTQI+ rights. And in October 2024, Mali’s Transitional National Council—the interim parliament set up after the country’s 2020 coup—passed a law that criminalizes homosexuality.
To stem this tide, the United States must adopt carefully designed messaging to persuade those who do not want to be persuaded on rights. In so doing, Washington’s argument in favor of rights must be unimpeachable.
During and since my time as US ambassador to Côte d’Ivoire, I had several constructive conversations with African leaders from the public sector and civil society that gave me a sense of the messaging required. For example, one senior African diplomat once cautioned me that “overreach invites backlash.” And when I raised LGBTQI+ rights with one of Africa’s most senior Catholic prelates, he expressed a willingness to live and let live, explaining that his culture and religion did not allow the approval of homosexuality. Such a sentiment falls in line with the legal bases for LGBTQI+ rights. There are two such bases: one for matters of identity (nondiscrimination) and one for matters of activity (protections for dignity). Neither has anything to do with the approval of homosexuality; it’s about tolerance. The distinction is crucial, and it can be highly useful in Africa, where many societies value the spirit of peaceful coexistence among diverse groups. These bases are essentially the same as the bases for religious freedom, which many Africans pride themselves on respecting.
Properly presented, tolerance fits well with African values, and many Africans may even be proud to exercise such tolerance. I could see this was the case in interactions with some influential religious leaders in Africa: For example, some Muslim leaders had already been advocating for the destigmatization of HIV/AIDS victims for twenty years by the time I met them, even though they strongly disapproved of homosexual activity.
In addition, leaders of Catholicism—practiced by around 20 percent of Africa’s population—have released new guidance or statements embracing tolerance: Pope Francis has said that homosexuality is not a crime but a sin and allowed priests to give an informal blessing to people in a same-sex relationship.
But reactions to such guidance have been mixed. For example, in the Catholic context, a body representing bishops in Africa said that they would not give informal blessings to people in same-sex relationships because it would contradict the “cultural ethos of African communities.” In response, the pope has emphasized that the blessing isn’t for the relationship, it’s for the individuals.
Yet, as another example, Cardinal Peter Turkson of Ghana has said publicly that “LGBT people may not be criminalized because they’ve committed no crime . . . We need a lot of education to get people to . . . make a distinction between what is a crime and what is not crime.”
Opponents of LGBTQI+ rights typically ignore the distinction between tolerance and approval: They simply express vehement disapproval of homosexuality without acknowledging, let alone addressing, the legal principles involved.
Thus, in promoting tolerance on the continent, the United States should point to the fact that LGBTQI+ rights are, indeed, rights—and as is the case with rights, they have a legal basis. There are two legal bases for LGBTQI+ rights, one for matters of identity and one for matters of activity.
The principle of nondiscrimination provides the legal basis for matters regarding identity. That principle is enshrined in several international laws and treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which 174 countries (including all African countries) are states party. The multilateral treaty outlines that each state party will aim to respect and ensure that all individuals in its jurisdiction maintain their rights regardless of any distinction such as (but not limited to) race, color, sex, language, and religion. This principle was reinforced when the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Committee—a group of experts set up by the ICCPR to consider whether states party are complying with the treaty—decided Toonen v. Australia. In that case, an individual challenged legislation in Tasmania that criminalized consensual homosexual activity. The committee said that the criminalization of private, consensual homosexual activity between adults breaches a state party’s nondiscrimination obligations.
In my experience, I have found that Africans generally understand the importance of nondiscrimination, if only because their collective history includes so much suffering from massive violations of that principle. Indeed, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights affirms the right to freedom from discrimination. It even says that every individual has a responsibility to contribute to a society of mutual respect and tolerance.
But nondiscrimination applies only to matters of identity, not activity. The principle of dignity and freedom provides the legal basis for respecting the right to privacy of activity for individuals. This, too, is enshrined in various international laws and treaties. The ICCPR states that no one should be subject to “arbitrary or unlawful interference” in their privacy. Toonen v. Australia reinforced this principle as well, as the committee found that adult consensual activity in private is covered under the ICCPR and that criminalizing such activity amounts to a continuous interference with an individual’s privacy.
It is true that in the West, LGBTQI+ activists have had remarkable success pursuing more than mere tolerance, so it is understandably tempting to aim high in Africa too. But there is no right to other people’s approval, as that would erode freedom of conscience widely. In addition, basing a claim of LGBTQI+ rights on approval is likely to be not only counterproductive but also conceptually problematic: It could promote societal division. For example, the intolerant could gain a false impression that supporting the rights of an individual depends on whether there is approval for that individual’s actions—which is not the case. It could also make it seem as though anyone in the tolerating camp actually promotes LGBTQI+ activities and identity, allowing those who vehemently disagree an opportunity to discredit the tolerant as purveyors of immorality. This perception is already commonplace in Africa, and it can undermine Western credibility with regard to human rights issues in general.
In today’s interconnected world, anything one says or does publicly is likely to be noticed widely, not just by the intended audience but by people who disagree with the intended audience. Thus, the United States must ensure that any new messaging it adopts in Africa is threaded throughout all its work, from its wider strategy toward the continent to the daily interactions its diplomats have with African societies.
For example, US embassies in Africa have, in the past, honored Pride month in various ways, from hoisting Pride flags to organizing Pride events. But official participation in Pride events by government representatives such as diplomats sends a default message of approval; that plays into the hands of those who wish to distort and discredit the sound argument for LGBTQI+ rights. Where Pride events are lawful, there is no obvious need for official support from foreign governments such as the United States; where they are unlawful, diplomats’ participation would be contrary to the respect for local laws that is expected of them (an expectation that the US State Department generally takes very seriously). It would also play into the hands of those who accuse the West of trying to impose its cultural values on others.
From what I observed in my thirty-plus years in the US Foreign Service, the overall perspective laid out above is not reliably understood by US diplomats, even those tasked with promoting human rights. The best chance to make progress where it is most needed is in disseminating a disciplined message of tolerance and resisting the temptation to overreach. The State Department should start by insisting on clear, consistent messaging that supports internationally recognized rights—but does not go further by appearing to promote LGBTQI+ activities.
Richard K. Bell is a nonresident senior fellow with the Atlantic Council’s Africa Center. He served as the US ambassador to Côte d’Ivoire from 2019 to 2023.
The Africa Center works to promote dynamic geopolitical partnerships with African states and to redirect US and European policy priorities toward strengthening security and bolstering economic growth and prosperity on the continent.
Further reading
Fri, Jan 24, 2025
Immigration looms large over US-Africa relations in 2025
AfricaSource By Alexander Tripp
Immigration will likely top the United States’ agenda in its relations with African nations in the months to come.
Thu, Aug 1, 2024
Dispatch from the Paris Olympics: The African sports movement is about to take off, if leaders help fuel it
New Atlanticist By Rama Yade
The surge in athletic talent is evidence that its people are committed to a new era for Africa.
Sun, Dec 15, 2024
Opportunity for Africa lies beyond the continent’s youth boom: It’s also in the ‘silver surge’
AfricaSource By Tom Bonsundy-O’Bryan
Africa can set a global standard for dignity and care, proving that its elders are not a burden but a source of prosperity and resilience.
Image: A man reads The Star, a Kenyan Newspaper carrying an article about a proposed law that criminalizes same sex relationships and suggests harsh punishment to offenders. If the bill becomes law, members of LGBTQ community risk up to 50 years in jail, the bill also outlaws gay parades and marches along the streets. Same sex relationships are banned in Kenya. (Photo by James Wakibia / SOPA Images/Sipa USA)No Use Germany.