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
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.
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.
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.
You haven’t already addressed this issue with a judicious blind eye?
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.
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.
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.
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):
This is as close as I can find quickly of a map of the acceptance of LGBT rights around the world:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Let’s move this to Elections.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
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.
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.
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.
Or Benezir Bhutto?
Please God tell me they’ve heard of Margaret Thatcher.