Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-20-2019, 01:40 AM
russian heel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,830

Foreign policy if Mayor Pete becomes President


First, before anyone accuses me of an agenda, I would vote for the guy in a heartbeat if the 2020 nominee.

But let’s face facts: many countries are not only homophobic but have horrible laws against homosexuality.

For instance how would allies such as Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, both of which imprison homosexuals, handle a state visit from a gay President?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  #2  
Old 11-20-2019, 01:56 AM
UDS is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 9,017
Your question isn't about US foreign policy, but about the policy of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc.

If they really have a problem receiving a gay US President on a state visit, there's an easy solution to hand; don't invite him. He certainly won't come uninvited.

But I'm not convinced that they would have the problem you think they have. You talk to the President of the United States because he's the President of the United States, not because he's a person of whose personal qualities or proclivities you approve.
  #3  
Old 11-20-2019, 01:57 AM
Nava is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 43,053
Same as they handle visits from those presidents of Iceland or Norway which are or have been in SSMs. Same as countries without polygamy handle visits from heads of state who are polygamous. Same as countries where women must be neither seen nor heard handle visits from female heads of state, or of the female spouses of heads of state, or of other diplomatic envoys. The immense majority of the time, with elegance and courtesy.
__________________
Some people knew how to kill a conversation. Cura, on the other hand, could make it wish it had never been born.
  #4  
Old 11-20-2019, 04:37 AM
PatrickLondon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: London
Posts: 3,663
OP means diplomacy rather than foreign policy. And the art of diplomacy is knowing when to turn a blind eye to something you disapprove of in order to achieve something that's important to you. State and official visits don't happen until both parties are already agreed on the objectives and detailed programme for such a visit.

Last edited by PatrickLondon; 11-20-2019 at 04:39 AM.
  #5  
Old 11-20-2019, 05:29 AM
penultima thule is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,191
You haven't already addressed this issue with a judicious blind eye?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'C.J.' Cregg, "The West Wing" View Post
One in forty American men wear women's clothing and we've had well over forty presidents. I'm just saying, at least one of those guys was probably dancing around the Oval Office in a prom dress. Now let's get to the bottom of that.
  #6  
Old 11-20-2019, 06:49 AM
Smapti is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,434
It's not like a state visit by President Buttigieg to Saudi Arabia is going to conclude with the Religious Police arresting him and sentencing him to decapitation.

From a practical standpoint, if he were visiting a country that wasn't OK with same-sex relations, he'd probably either have Chasten stay home, or they'd stay in separate suites.
  #7  
Old 11-20-2019, 07:05 AM
AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 16,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by russian heel View Post
For instance how would allies such as Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, both of which imprison homosexuals, handle a state visit from a gay President?
We do?
  #8  
Old 11-20-2019, 07:48 AM
psychonaut is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 6,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
We do?
I don't think you do. Homosexual relations are on the books as an offence meriting life imprisonment, but from what I gather, even Western human rights organizations have not been able to point to any recent (i.e., in the past 30 years) convictions, except in cases where the sexual act took place between an adult and a child.
  #9  
Old 11-20-2019, 08:14 AM
SanVito is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 4,860
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nava View Post
Same as they handle visits from those presidents of Iceland or Norway which are or have been in SSMs. Same as countries without polygamy handle visits from heads of state who are polygamous. Same as countries where women must be neither seen nor heard handle visits from female heads of state, or of the female spouses of heads of state, or of other diplomatic envoys. The immense majority of the time, with elegance and courtesy.
This, exactly. Adding the irish taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, to the list, the gay leader who even gave the Saudis a speech on LGBT rights in Eqypt earlier this year.

Last edited by SanVito; 11-20-2019 at 08:14 AM.
  #10  
Old 11-20-2019, 09:02 AM
Wendell Wagner is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Greenbelt, Maryland
Posts: 14,414
Iceland, Belgium, Luxembourg, Ireland, and Serbia have had openly LGBT heads of government (and many others have had officials only just below that level of government, including the U.S. which has had three openly gay governors):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._of_government

This is as close as I can find quickly of a map of the acceptance of LGBT rights around the world:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_r..._UN_(2011).svg

A quick summary is that being LGBT is accepted nearly everywhere in North America, South America, Europe, and the Pacific Rim of Asia, while it's not accepted in North Africa and the Middle East. Yes, I know it's more complicated than this. If you want to write a book giving more detail than I just did, go ahead.
  #11  
Old 11-20-2019, 09:17 AM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 29,271
I think there's a long history of nations tolerating visits from heads of state of differing morals, ethics, and practices. As mentioned, the objectionable things are ignored/not mentioned. The upside of non-war international relations generally outweighs any domestic downsides due to cultural conflicts.
  #12  
Old 11-20-2019, 09:28 AM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 83,119
Saudi Arabia prohibits the practice of Christianity (or any religion other than Islam) but they haven't made an issue of any American Presidents being Christian.
  #13  
Old 11-20-2019, 09:41 AM
psychonaut is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 6,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Saudi Arabia prohibits the practice of Christianity (or any religion other than Islam) but they haven't made an issue of any American Presidents being Christian.
Saudi Arabia does not prohibit the practice of Chrisltianity; it prohibits the public practice of Christianity. Admittedly, the country has an imperfect record in controlling how the rule has been enforced by the Mutaween, which has on occasion broken up prayer meetings in private homes. Still, the government's official public policy is that inconspicuous private worship is OK, and this seems to work in practice for the overwhelming majority of the country's 2 million Christian residents. That said, if a US president came over on an official visit and were stupid enough to start proselytizing in public, this would cause a serious diplomatic incident.

Last edited by psychonaut; 11-20-2019 at 09:42 AM.
  #14  
Old 11-20-2019, 09:47 AM
md2000 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 15,229
I seem to recall that the Saudis had no problem treating Queen Elizabeth during a state visit as if she were an honorary man. Presumably the same would apply to any other state leader whose situation was not in keeping with the stated views of a foreign nation - just ignore the problem. After all, countries that suppress and persecute classes of people will have no problem adding internal dissenters to that list, should someone question their leadership's behaviour.
  #15  
Old 11-20-2019, 10:06 AM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is offline
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 43,608
Let's move this to Elections.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator
  #16  
Old 11-20-2019, 10:42 AM
spifflog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 2,465
As many have posted, his sexual preference shouldn't have any bearing on his being President, as it relates to foreign policy. If that were the case, we'd have to consider that, race, religion, sex and skin color among other things. Just not going to allow our hands to be tied in that way.

I have much more concern that his major, and in some ways only, qualification is being a mayor of a very small mid-western city. But that's for another thread.
  #17  
Old 11-20-2019, 10:51 AM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 29,271
I'll just point out that despite the slimness of his resume, but Buttigieg has more governing experience than the current PotUS did prior to assuming that office. Apparently the concern of the Founding Fathers was that an PotUS be over 35 but they declined to specify any other qualifications whatsoever.
  #18  
Old 11-20-2019, 11:07 AM
Sterling Archer is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,162
I’d just like to point out that people vote based on these flawed misconceptions.

I had some local friends tell me they preferred Hillary over Trump, but voted for Trump because “those middle eastern countries won’t be willing to work with and respect a woman”. My response was something like “so you’re not familiar with Angela Merkel or Theresa May?” Nope, they’d never heard of either of them. Low information voters make decisions like this all the time.
  #19  
Old 11-20-2019, 11:36 AM
AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 16,533
Or Benezir Bhutto?
  #20  
Old 11-20-2019, 12:16 PM
SanVito is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 4,860
Please God tell me they've heard of Margaret Thatcher.
  #21  
Old 11-20-2019, 12:26 PM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Just outside of Titletown
Posts: 23,183
And Golda Meir
  #22  
Old 11-20-2019, 12:28 PM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 14,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by spifflog View Post
As many have posted, his sexual preference shouldn't have any bearing on his being President, as it relates to foreign policy. If that were the case, we'd have to consider that, race, religion, sex and skin color among other things. Just not going to allow our hands to be tied in that way.

I have much more concern that his major, and in some ways only, qualification is being a mayor of a very small mid-western city. But that's for another thread.
Correction, its sexual orientation, not preference.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42
  #23  
Old 11-20-2019, 12:50 PM
muldoonthief's Avatar
muldoonthief is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North of Boston
Posts: 11,174
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
It's not like a state visit by President Buttigieg to Saudi Arabia is going to conclude with the Religious Police arresting him and sentencing him to decapitation.

From a practical standpoint, if he were visiting a country that wasn't OK with same-sex relations, he'd probably either have Chasten stay home, or they'd stay in separate suites.
I hope that as a head of state, he'd instead tell them "The sleeping arrangements of the POTUS are not subject to your approval, review, or comment."
  #24  
Old 11-20-2019, 01:33 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,784
No nation like Saudi Arabia is going to invite a President Buttigieg only to arrest him upon arrival. That would unleash the mother of all diplomatic kerfuffles.
  #25  
Old 11-20-2019, 06:10 PM
E-DUB's Avatar
E-DUB is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,884
This video seems on point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pE-r_4x9DFQ&t=1584s

(Speech on foreign policy and national security.)

If he were ten years older and, I hate to say it, straight he'd win in a landslide.
  #26  
Old 11-20-2019, 06:30 PM
Hari Seldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Trantor
Posts: 13,227
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
No nation like Saudi Arabia is going to invite a President Buttigieg only to arrest him upon arrival. That would unleash the mother of all diplomatic kerfuffles.
Is that your euphemism for war? Because it would be an immediate casus belli. But they would live with it.
  #27  
Old 11-21-2019, 03:50 AM
AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 16,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by muldoonthief View Post
I hope that as a head of state, he'd instead tell them "The sleeping arrangements of the POTUS are not subject to your approval, review, or comment."
To which hed get a simple reply that of course, but the presence of a foreigner in our country **is**.
  #28  
Old 11-21-2019, 07:43 AM
scr4 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Alabama
Posts: 16,223
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
To which hed get a simple reply that of course, but the presence of a foreigner in our country **is**.
To which the response should be, "Do you really want to risk your relations with the USA over this?"
  #29  
Old 11-21-2019, 08:19 AM
muldoonthief's Avatar
muldoonthief is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North of Boston
Posts: 11,174
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
To which hed get a simple reply that of course, but the presence of a foreigner in our country **is**.
Sure, but my point is that I'd expect if a country dug in its heels, and said "If you bring your SSM spouse we will arrest him, if you give him diplomatic immunity we'll persona non grata him", the response would be "Then the President will not be visiting your country during his term of office, and any upcoming scheduled visits from your head of state are hereby cancelled as well." Not "Oh, OK, we'll gladly cave in to your anti-diplomatic (and anti-human rights) demands."
  #30  
Old 11-21-2019, 08:40 AM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
To which hed get a simple reply that of course, but the presence of a foreigner in our country **is**.
Do you really want to have that fucking conversation?...
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #31  
Old 11-21-2019, 12:11 PM
AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 16,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by muldoonthief View Post
Sure, but my point is that I'd expect if a country dug in its heels, and said "If you bring your SSM spouse we will arrest him, if you give him diplomatic immunity we'll persona non grata him", the response would be "Then the President will not be visiting your country during his term of office, and any upcoming scheduled visits from your head of state are hereby cancelled as well." Not "Oh, OK, we'll gladly cave in to your anti-diplomatic (and anti-human rights) demands."
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Do you really want to have that fucking conversation?...

There is a long and distinguished record of whites telling non whites what to do. I doubt very much that such things would be tolerated. Frankly the way it would be setup is that the US would try and avoid actions that gave offence and the receiving country would ignore any such actions that did.
  #32  
Old 11-21-2019, 12:20 PM
AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 16,533
BTW FYI, under the Vienna Convention on Consular relations the immunities and privileges are to members of the household, not specifically to relations. Chasten is undoubtedly part of the Household.

It has always extends to spouses and children, but also to younger siblings, nephews, nieces, wards, parents or in laws living with a diplomatic family.
  #33  
Old 11-21-2019, 12:50 PM
muldoonthief's Avatar
muldoonthief is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North of Boston
Posts: 11,174
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post

There is a long and distinguished record of whites telling non whites what to do. I doubt very much that such things would be tolerated. Frankly the way it would be setup is that the US would try and avoid actions that gave offence and the receiving country would ignore any such actions that did.
I have no idea why you're bringing race into it. If a head of state was going to make a state visit to another country, and that country tried to impose conditions on that visit which the head of state found unreasonable and insulting, I'd expect the head of state to cancel the visit.
  #34  
Old 11-21-2019, 01:01 PM
muldoonthief's Avatar
muldoonthief is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North of Boston
Posts: 11,174
Too late to edit: I know that Presidents usually travel without spouses, so yes, this would never come up in the real world - Buttigieg would travel without his husband to keep things smooth and diplomatic. But say some summit of multiple world leaders was going to occur in a country where SSM is illegal, and the host country invited the spouses of every head of state except the one in a SSM. In that case, where it's a deliberate snub, yes, I'd expect that the head of state would raise a stink about it. Of course, I also thought Obama shouldn't have bowed to the Saudi king either, so what do I know?
  #35  
Old 11-21-2019, 08:27 PM
UDS is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 9,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by muldoonthief View Post
Too late to edit: I know that Presidents usually travel without spouses, so yes, this would never come up in the real world - Buttigieg would travel without his husband to keep things smooth and diplomatic. But say some summit of multiple world leaders was going to occur in a country where SSM is illegal, and the host country invited the spouses of every head of state except the one in a SSM. In that case, where it's a deliberate snub, yes, I'd expect that the head of state would raise a stink about it. Of course, I also thought Obama shouldn't have bowed to the Saudi king either, so what do I know?
The President often travels without the First Lady, but also often travels with her. And the question of who will form part of the President's entourage is in the first instance one for the President. So I think it plays out like this:

- Bigotland invites the President of the United States to make a state visit.

- The President plans on bringing his husband (or, she plans on bringing her wife). Bigotland is made aware that the husband will be included in the party during the (entirely normal) advance discussions about the practicalities and details of the visit.

- Bigotland says "we'd much rather that President's husband didn't come. That would create problems for us at home - adverse comment, possibly protests. Could mar the visit, distract attention from the issues we mutually wish to advance, yadda, yadda."

- The US says "The President comes with his husband, or not at all. Your call."

Since this sequence is entirely forseeable before it even begins, in the real world Bigotland doesn't extend an invitation to the President unless they (a) they are happy to host the President with his husband, or (b) they are entirely certain before they even issue the invitation that that the President will come without his husband.
  #36  
Old 11-21-2019, 08:54 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,771
If Buttigieg bombs the shit out of Iran, Saudi leaders would give him a hand job on live tv.

There's large portions of almost all middle east nations that think dealing with the US at all is wrong. I mean is "the US is the great Satan!" really much better than "the US is the great Satan... and gay!"

Last edited by CarnalK; 11-21-2019 at 08:56 PM.
  #37  
Old 11-21-2019, 09:05 PM
ITR champion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,386
Most Americans, it is safe to say, never have to worry about interior conditions in Saudi Arabia, and thus there's rarely any reason for the media, educational institutions, or anyone else to inform us about the matter in detail. But in fact the evidence is, if Buttigieg or any other gay man does become President, Saudi Arabia will find a way to handle it.

Let's be clear, the government of Saudi Arabia is a bunch of violent, psychopathic, intolerant, greedy barbarians. People in the country are either executed or tortured for a vast variety of "crimes": homosexuality, adultery, "blasphemy", "apostasy", women wearing the wrong clothes, ... Since the Khashoggi murder, there seems to be slightly more willingness among mainstream sources to acknowledge these facts.

However, we should not imagine that the religious police relentlessly catch everyone who commits these "crimes". It's more a matter of an occasional display of authority to keep people intimidated, rather than the wild mass-murder that occurred under ISIS and the Taliban. Further, Saudi society is strictly class-stratified. There's the royal family, then the other wealthy oil families, then middle class and poor Saudi citizens, and lastly the foreign workers. Only those low down the chain are really in dangerous of arrest by religious authorities for adultery or something like that. Among the rich and powerful, you're only in danger if you get on the wrong side of the King and his ruling faction. Then, as Khashoggi demonstrated, all bets are off.

The King and the government also know that their existence depends on exporting oil to the rest of the world, importing certain things to maintain a certain standard of living for their people, and importing American weaponry to wage their wars. So there is no chance that they'll break with the USA, over a gay President or for any other reason.

I once worked with a fellow teacher who often traveled with business executive husband to Saudi Arabia. She said that there was a arrangement to simply have enclaves for wealthy westerners in every Saudi city where they might need to travel. Within those enclaves it is simply agreed, largely in an unofficial way, that the crazy rules enforced by the religious authorities don't apply, and that people can dress, have sex, and so forth by the rules of a normal western place. They will not have trouble accommodating President Buttigieg if necessary.
  #38  
Old 11-23-2019, 04:13 PM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 32,368
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
I'll just point out that despite the slimness of his resume, but Buttigieg has more governing experience than the current PotUS did prior to assuming that office.
Arguably, he has more experience with governing than the America-hating fuckstick does, even SINCE his inauguration...

Last edited by kaylasdad99; 11-23-2019 at 04:16 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:00 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017