In the late 1940’s many western countries had policies regarding segregation and official discrimination on the books. By the 1970’s most of these were gone and S
Africas apharthied policies made it a pariah.
Over the last decade especially homosexuals have found new rights (and acceptance) in many western countries. Many of these recently championed a new UN Declaration. This was opposed by many other countries.
How do you think its going to play out in international diplomacy? Will the status of homosexuals be a reason for diplomatic isolation? Or the fact that homosexuals are a very tiny minority in the first place and the fact that other countries don’t have homosexuals in the western sence* (over here the issue is on homosexual acts as opposed to a lifestyle) mean that it will remain on the sidelines.
That’s confusing. What is “over here” and how do you separate acts from “lifestyle”. Keep in mind that gays don’t have a different “lifestyle”, per se.
At any rate, I think it’s going to be a long time coming before gays gain international acceptance. Too many countries will look askance on homosexuals for too long for there to be any international pressure like there was in South Africa. Who is going to boycott Saudi Arabia as long as we’re still using oil, which we will be for some time to come?
You don’t think it will become an issue? There is already one openly gay head of government, and in western countries it has become a human rights issue.
In addition, S Africa was an important strategic ally and that did not prevent it becoming a pariah.
There’s a high degree of cognitive dissonance on human rights in the USA at the moment. A large portion of the population has somehow convinced itself that there’s a right to marry a person of the same gender while paying little or no attention to human rights issues on the world scale. Most people in America are perfectly willing to buy underwear from China, oil from Saudi Arabia, and other things from other countries that murder, torture, and enslave innocent people by the thousands. The reigning zeitgeist seems to be that as long as globalization occurs, human rights will inevitably follow, yet the evidence suggests otherwise.
The focus on global human rights seems to have declined quite bit in the past generation. When I was younger, the topic frequently appeared on news broadcasts, on the covers of Time and Newsweek, and in other high-profile places. When President Clinton traveled to China in 1998 there was quite a bit of vocal protests about the President visiting a country with such a poor human rights record. Some groups even bought adds in papers and on TV urging him not to go. Nowadays the President can visit Egypt and there’s not a peep of protest. Overall social justice and civil rights movements have shifted away from helping the poorest and most unfortunate members of the human race, and instead are focused on finding new ways that rich, white people can be victims of oppression. (This is not to put down groups like Amnesty International that continue to do good work around the world. Unfortunately only a small percentage of Americans are members of those groups.)
IIRC, AK84 is in Pakistan. And let me note, AK, that you have homosexuals just like we do in the West. You may not treat them very well, but you have them. Homosexuality is not some subjective thing that only exists when the culture recognizes it. You may have a lot of homosexuals who are married to women but do men in secret on the side. They are still homosexuals (or, at least, bisexuals). Just because your society doesn’t value sexual orientation as something to be embraced and acknowledged doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
^
When did I say that there are no homosexuals in Pakistan or anywhere else for that matter. I just said that homosexuality in the western sence is unknown, you have people who indulge in homosexual acts and quite openly, but they would not consider themselves “gay” in the way someone in the US or Europe would. Many people who practice homosexuality would not put themselves in a the rigid boxes that people in the west do of straight or gay, they regarc a homosexual act as being no different from a hetrosexual act and a matter of preferance or even situational.
This is all irrlelvant incidentally, the purpose of the OP is what affect if any will differing attitudes to homosexuality have in international relations.
*Incidentally on how Pakistan treats homosexuals, well we make them TV stars.
Homosexuality is a self description, just like African American or Latino is. Obama is just as much white as he is black yet people will call him African-American. Latinos can be any race. The census for says “Do you consider yourself hispanic or Latino?” There’s no right or wrong here.
The question is does a sex act a homosexual make?
I know a guy who calls himself “Bi.” He used to date girls, in high school. He hasn’t been out with or dated a girl in over 20, but he considers himself “bi.” I consider him a closet case.
Daryl Hall in an interview with “Rolling Stone,” said he had sex with men but he has a girl friend now and prefers women. Is he a straight man, that experiement? Or is he BI or is he a closet case? You’ll never know.
Liberace went to his deathbed denying he was gay and even that he had AIDS. Even after his death his friends went to great lengths to cover it up.
As a gay man, what people of fail to understand is there a levels of accpetance. The Bush administration wasn’t hostile to gays. As long as you did your job and shut up, they’d hire you. Now some people say the simple act of GW Bush calling for legislation for anti-gay things makes him hostile to gay people. But so? How many of us have bosses that treat us like crap. And you STILL put up with it for whatever the reason.
From a personal standpoint, I have found there is a huge difference between being gay and being gay and doing something about it. People who have no issues with you being gay suddenly are uncomfortable if you show up with a same sex date at their party.
So there are always levels.
I would say being gay and a diplomat is much like being a woman. Sure you can have women diplomats to Muslims countries and as long as they observe the rules of Islam they are fine.