An interesting little article appeared in The Calgary Herald a while back that outlined a US State Department policy shift towards gay and lesbian staff in domestic relationships.
On the surface, the article appeared to be positive in that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has directed The State Department to offer equal benefits and protections to the same-sex partners of American diplomats. She was quoted as stating the new policy addressed an “inequity in the treatment of domestic partners and would help the State Department recruit diplomats, since many international employers already offered [same-sex benefits and protections].”
Apparently, these benefits include diplomatic passports for same-sex spouses, the use of medical facilities at overseas postings, medical and other emergency evacuation, transportation between postings, and training in security and languages.
This is all good, and long overdue.
However, despite the good intentions and fine wording of her memorandum to an association of gay and lesbian Foreign Service officers (a copy of which was supplied to The New York Times by an association member), it reveals an existing and troubling problem.
Take, for example, the item dealing with “medical and other emergency evacuation.” The article mentioned, under current policy, diplomats with same-sex domestic partners “could be evacuated from a hazardous country by the US government while their partners were left behind.”
Left behind??
Imagine being a diplomat, or other diplomatic corps staff, and the country to which you are posted erupts into civil turmoil or outright war. The Americans have always been good at getting their people out of such situations, including any family members of the individual.
Under the existing policy, if your family is your same-sex partner he or she is “left behind” to, it is assumed, get out of the country the best way they know how. How does one do that in an unstable political climate with no assistance from The State Department, any access to planes, helicopters, ships or any of the infrastructures employed in the evacuation of American diplomatic corps personnel, or possessing any sort of official recognition?
Not only that, but it can be safely assumed the attitude towards homosexuals in such a country would be extremely negative, perhaps even dangerous. That The State Department actually has a current policy that would leave one’s same-sex partner behind (or, probably more correctly, not take him or her into account...a sin of omission rather than commission) in a potentially deadly environment borders on the unbelievable.
This is one of those situations people just don’t think about or anticipate even happening.
I lived overseas, albeit not as a dependent of the diplomatic corps; I was an “army brat” who grew up in what was then West Germany in the early 1960’s, and again in the early 1970’s, when my father was stationed there with the Canadian Armed Forces as part of our commitment to NATO. So I am somewhat familiar with how The System dealt with wives and families. It was still an era in which “army husbands” were not a factor since female soldiers – let alone married ones -- were still rare or nonexistent.
I distinctly remember as a young child, probably about age six, the Berlin Wall going up. This action by the Soviet-controlled East German government put all NATO forces on high alert and various security plans were put into place. One of those involved the evacuation of military families in the event the Soviets invaded. The erecting of the Berlin Wall significantly heated up the Cold War and all of Western Europe was on edge.
While the Canadian Army had several large Married Quarter areas in the main brigade areas of Hemer, Iserlohn, Werl, Unna and Soest, many Canadian families, such as mine, also lived in civilian housing in various outlying villages and towns.
I remember several “deuce-and-a-halfs” (two and a half ton military canvas-covered trucks) pulling up in front of the block of apartments housing Canadian families early one morning and loading up wives, kids, and suitcases to take us to one of several Canadian Army bases in the region.
Unfortunately, somebody failed to notify local civilian authorities, let alone the local civilian population, of this exercise. Our German neighbours began running desperately after the deuce-and-a-halfs, trying to get their own children onto the trucks, terrified the Russians were coming and they would be immersed in the horrors of another war. This was 1961; WWII had only ended 16 years before.
I cannot imagine, if the threat had been real, of anyone being left behind to fend for him or herself with no support system or avenue of escape in place. Yet, The State Department’s own policy allows for exactly this scenario when it comes to same-sex partners of Foreign Service employees, including diplomats; so much for diplomatic privilege.
The new policy under Secretary Clinton is an enlightened policy. One would have assumed, partners -- be they opposite-sex or same-sex -- and families of American Foreign Service personnel would be safeguarded and evacuated along with them. I naively could not imagine a policy that would allow for any other contingency.
The article goes on to state, “In the past, The State Department declined to provide some benefits to the [same-sex] partners of diplomats, invoking the Defense of Marriage Act, which limited federal recognition of same-sex unions.”
It is to be remembered the Defense of Marriage Act is one of the legacies of the Bush Administration. While Bill Clinton was popularly perceived as a friend of the GLBTQ communities, the genesis of this Act was likely sowed during his Administration; a logical outcropping of his “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy coupled with the rightwing reaction against the spectre of “gay marriage” in the States.
How ironic it is then, that Hillary Rodham Clinton who, as Secretary of State in the Obama Administration, is the person responsible for tossing out this outlandishly discriminatory policy and instituting a more equitable one in its place. No word, however, on when the new policy will come into effect.
There are American diplomatic corps personnel stationed in such countries as Pakistan, Afghanistan, the Middle East, the Persian Gulf, Central Africa, and other “unstable” regions. As it stands now, if it came to the point where Americans needed to be evacuated, those with same-sex partners would be faced with the unimaginable decision of having to leave their loved one behind in all the confusion and uncertain political climate. In fact, it may well not even be a decision for them to make. The State Department, known for its often-total control in such circumstances, would make the decision for them: You’re coming with us, he (or she) isn’t.
Iran, for instance, takes a very hard stance against homosexuals and homosexuality; gay Iranians have been publicly executed. The North Koreans view homosexuality as an infiltration of Western decadence, so in the event of an invasion of the American supported South Korea, both American and Korean GLBTQ are placed at high risk. Saudi Arabia, while an ally of the United States, is a fundamentalist Islamic state whose version of Islam (Wahabi) is seen even by the Muslim world as extreme; how would they treat a homosexual person stranded in their country who no longer enjoys even a modicum of diplomatic protection?
Coming back to the new policy and its offering of such benefits as a diplomatic passport: Possessing such a document not only ensures immunity against prosecution or persecution for the individual holding the passport, but it would go a long way -- a very long way -- in ensuring a seat on that helicopter lifting off from the roof of the American embassy.
I understand Washington’s view of gay men and lesbians (”don’t ask, don’t tell”), even while I vehemently disagree and think the official view is badly misinformed, shall we say.
Regardless of which party is in power, the bureaucracy itself remains essentially conservative, as it does in Canada. That is the nature of bureaucracies; they are hardly bastions of cutting-edge thought.
However, even given that reality, to have a policy in place that would actively abandon the partners of Foreign Service and Diplomatic Service personnel to their fate in the event of an evacuation is something out of some bad Hollywood conspiracy movie.
