Under the Vienna Convention the spouses diplomats with imunuty also have imunity, right? No what happens if Canada or the Netherlands appoint a gay/lesbian Ambassador or Consul? Would we have to give their spouse diplomatic status? What about diplomats from Islamic countries? Have any of the ones with multiple wives ever brought them here to live with them? If so did we recognize all the wives or just the most senior one?
Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, immunities and privileges extend not only to “diplomatic agents” but also to “members of the family of a diplomatic agent forming part of his household”.
A same-sex or polygamous spouse certainly forms part of the household; the only question is whether they count as family members. Since I imagine that most countries would be embarrassed to pass judgments about what did and did not constitute a “family” in other cultures, the obvious practice is to allow the sending state to notify the receiving state of who is the diplomatic agent and who the members of his family are, and I would expect receiving states to accept that without question, unless they feel really, really strongly on the point. My guess? Saudi Arabia would refuse to accord diplomatic family status to a same-sex spouse; the US would not.
Socially, of course, it might be difficult to be an ambassador with a same-sex spouse in a country where this was regarded as absolutely unacceptable, and this in turn might hamper the effectiveness of the ambassador. The real constraint on posting a gay ambassador to, say, Saudi Arabia might not be the refusal of the government but the fact that he would be excluded or disregarded in many important circles.
James Hormel (heir to Hormel meats, and real SPAM, not the stuff you get in your email) was appointed ambassador to Luxembourg by President Clinton. His partner of many years, Timothy Wu, accompanied him there. He was welcomed by the government, and accompanied the ambassador to many diplomatic functions, without any untoward incidents.
Many Muslim countries would object if a woman was appointed as an ambassador.
And apartheid-era South Africa objected very strongly when it was suggested that a black person should be appointed as the ambassador there. There was even suggestions that the South African government would decline to accept his credentials, and so not recognize him as ambassador.
Many? Which ones, for instance?
The only ones I can think of could be some of the gulf monarchies. And even there, I’m not convinced it would be an issue. Women are allowed to run in the current election in Saudi, which is probably the most backward country as far as legal women rights are concerned. If a woman can be elected mayor, why would they object to a female ambassador?
Are you sure about this, clairobscur? I remember reading in the Washington Post newspaper a couple of weeks ago that women were, indeed, going to be allowed to run in elections. Then, about a week after that, I read a small article in the same newspaper, that the right for women to run in this election was being rescinded, due to protests from the imams.
Nope, I’m not 100% certain. Like you, I’m relying on the papers.
My understanding was that their right to vote was going to be rescinded, but that they still be allowed to run.
I didn’t intend to mean that Saudi was highly enlightened re women’s rights, but my point was that if women can run for elections, I assume it would difficult to refuse a female ambassador.
**Paul in Saudi ** Could probably give us an accurate answer.
At this time, countries seem to be having no problem at all passing judgement on gay spouses (by which I mean those legally married in their home country) of foreign diplomats. India is currently not accepting the gay spouse of an American foreign service diplomat as a family member. Even Thailand does not recognize a gay spouse as a family member. Visas can still be obtained, but they are not equal to those of straight married spouses. In some countries, I might be given a visa categorizing me as a member of the house staff.
The question is not which countries will accept my marriage. The question is what will the US State Department do to ensure that I am given equal treatment? Currently, they (DOS) seem somewhat stuck in a backward mindset. The question is not can we make India accept gay marriage. The question is can we (diplomatically speaking) convince India to accept that the US Government views us as married and is willing to present us as such for diplomatic purposes.
Actually, I think the question is, will the US government expend diplomatic or political capital to persuade the Indian government to issue a diplomatic visa to the same-sex partner of a US diplomat? In general, the point of exchange diplomatic representatives is to increase goodwill, not to confront other nations over their differing values or standards. My guess is that this is something that the US would rather not have to deal with, if they can avoid it. They would only take a stand on this if there were a political cost (at home) in not taking a stand.
Speaking from memory - no names, no dates - but back in the nineteenth or early twentieth century the US nominated an Ambassador to Vienna who was Jewish. The Austrian government pointed out that there were many influential circles in Vienna in which, as a Jew, he would not be welcomed, and suggested that it would be better if the US were to appoint an Ambassador who did not suffer from this particular disablity. The US, to its credit, responded that it would appoint this man or no-one, and the Austrians said that of course the US could appoint whoever it saw fit and they had never suggested otherwise, etc, etc, and he was appointed. And if his not being accepted in certain circles in Vienna handicapped him in his work in any way, well, the US put up with that.
The point is, they did have to put up with it. Plus, they obviously burned a certain amount of goodwill with the Austrian government through this public spat. So there is a cost, albeit a modest one, to the sending state in sending a diplomat whose religion, gender, sexual orientation or other characterestic makes waves of this kind. And, being self-interested, states won’t pay that cost unless there is some compensating advantage. The passage of a hundred years or more hasn’t really changed this calculation. All other things being equal, therefore, you’d expect the gay Third Secretary with the same-sex partner to be accredited to a country where gayness and same-sex-partnering isn’t an issue, and their straight colleague to be accredited to India.
I understand that a large part of this is the amount the USG is willing to put itself into an effort of this sort. You seem to assume that a state has no interest in acting on behalf of its employees (and citizens) in an effort to ensure said state itself is offering equal protection and opportunity.
The reality is, what sort of political cost do you think the USG would even possibly suffer? Perhaps ‘modest’ you suggest, I’d say exceedingly modest at best. Especially if they gathered support from Canada, Germany and the others to which this applies (and has applied).
As for your all things equal and what would you might be expecting, that sounds fine and swell in a world where nobody cares at all about equality. Also swell in a world where some diplomats don’t want to be shut out of India and others don’t want to be shoved there in the place of gay diplomats that ‘can’t’ go.
The term is no longer “same-sex partner”… it’s “legally married spouse”.
As for India, it is no longer illegal to be gay here. There are no waves by sending gay diplomats. Just that they do not want to fully acknowledge gay spouses.
Countries usually don’t care about such details unless there are diplomatic points to be scored. No country is going to make a stink about it unless you rub it in their faces,which admittedly Western countries excel at doing.
It’s quite common world over diplomats to have non immediate family members living with them as well as unrelated individuals.
In Russia recently, two men broke into a Dutch diplomat’s house, beat him up and scrawled “LGBT” on his mirror in lipstick. I don’t know if he is actually gay, it could also just be a reaction to… Dutch things that Russians don’t like?
(That came after the Dutch police arrested the drunken Russian ambassador, after they had received three separate phone calls that he was beating his children. His wife was apparently driving so drunkenly she hit several stationary cars in the street. Obviously they were not supposed to arrest a diplomat, but it seems a bit of a damned if you do, damned if you don’t position for the police to be in.)
Anyway, the point… uhhm. I think my point is that there are some difficulties in the balance between diplomatic immunity and the laws and norms of country.
A diplomat from Russia, IIRC, was booted from Canada for drunk driving when he hit someone and claimed diplomatic immunity. Russia, of course, stood by their diplomat and refused to waive his immunity so he could be charged. According to stories in the papers, he did not do well when he got home, though.
I’ll throw my opinion behind the POV that it depends on the country’s state department.
As mentioned, the purpose of ambassadors is to argue for the home state’s cause. If the ambassador choice is a deliberate insult to the host country, they are already at a disadvantage. If it is a very public insult, then they deliberately create ill will where the whole purpose of ambassadorial relations is to create goodwill. Of course, the retaliatory gesture could be for the host to decline to accept the credentials.
Similarly, the USA must consider the 500-lb gorilla effect. Presumably the US would make such a gesture when making a point is more important than having good relations with the country or having an effective ambassador. Other countries in similar situations may not appreciate the bullying or the double standard - “You’ll send a gay ambassador to xxxxx but not to Saudi Arabia because you need their oil, regional support, and military bases.”
We saw something similar in the run-up to the Iraq war when Bush II was threatening some lesser members of the security council that they would withhold all foreign aid unless they voted the right way. Do you think any other third-world country who truly needed aid saw it that now a requirement for that money was to sell your soul? Do you think France gained or lost brownie points with them, when it vetoed the resolution nd made it unnecessary for those lesser countries to vote?
Diplomacy is not a game played in isolation, one move at a time. Every single move and response has repercussions rippling all across the big pond.
Exactly… and India needs to be brought to understand that… much of the developed world now recognizes gay marriage… it’s time India recognizes that the developed world recognizes them by acknowledging me as the spouse of an American Diplomat. They are not being asked to implement gay marriage here… I’m not asking for a damned anniversary gift. I am expecting that the USG stand behind their (our) own words and actions.
The last number 2 in the US Embassy in Islamabad was openly gay (served 2 terms I think and met with essentially every member of the Pak government many times).
Ambassadors are not nor have they ever been exclusively or even primarily about spreading good will.
I know t-bonham@scc.net posted this in 2004, but I was wondering if anyone knew whether it was true. I don’t see how this could have worked without angering every other country in Sub-Saharan Africa, whose ambassadors are presumably mostly black.
While apartheid South Africa was quite popular in western countries ( mostly due to anti-communism), they were reviled everywhere else and were especially unpopular in Africa. The countries which had relations with South Africa did so out of duress of circumstance. It was not a relation of equals.
Moreover, a black ambassador to the Union from say the US or the UK would be seen (and in fact be a) as a big diplomatic fuck you to the South Africans.
Homosexuals are at an advantage to other minorities in that sexual orientation is not (outside context) readily apparent and is private. A government may have no issues with a gay diplomat and his partner. They will if said diplomat starts hosting gay pride events in public on the embassy grounds. Which incidentally is what happened in the Pakistan case when the openly gay diplomats hosted such an event.
Wikipedia has an article on US ambassadors to South Africa, including all of their names. Some have individual pages, including Edward Perkins, who was ambassador from 1986-1989. He is African-American.
Perhaps not, but diplomacy has always been, and will remain, about being diplomatic.
Oh, I completely understand why the individual diplomat would want the receiving country to accept his spouse, and would want his government to back him on this. For that matter, I’d want India to do that as well. But, being realistic and I think only mildly cynical, I don’t see why doing this would be a big priority for the US. Obviously, yes, they’d rather that their personnel assignments were not complicated by this factor, and they like the freedom to assign the right officer to the right post regardless of orientation or marital status. But those are, in the end, not the kind of objectives that will be first on the list of the US’s diplomatic priorities; the US’s foreign relations are not conducted witha view to enabling the State Department to implement the human resources strategies that it, and you, and I, would wish. I think there’s a limit - I suspect quite a low limit - to the amount of diplomatic capital the would be willing to expend on persuading India to accord a diplomatic visa to the same-sex spouse of a US diplomat.
It’s aslso about representing your country, which includes standing up for it’s principles of equality for all.
Please tell me you are not that naive.:rolleyes: