The Emergence of Queer Diplomacy
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
The Emergence of Queer Diplomacy: Navigating Homophobia and LGBT Human Rights in International Relations by Douglas Janoff A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Affairs in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Indigenous and Canadian Studies Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario © 2021 Douglas Janoff ABSTRACT Since 2010, governments from Europe and the Americas have embraced LGBT rights more assertively as a foreign policy objective, leading to “significant policy change” as well as “cultural resistance and policy pushbacks” (Picq and Thiel 2015, pp. 1-2). At least seventy mainly African and Asian states continue to criminalize same-sex conduct: many of these states oppose LGBT rights in multilateral fora such as the UN Human Rights Council, generating conflict with Western and Western-allied states. The student, drawing upon his work as a foreign policy officer – and his experience as an activist and researcher in the LGBT community – argues that no single theoretical perspective can explicate this phenomenon. An interdisciplinary approach is required, bridging key concepts from sociology and cultural studies on queer identity, global sexualities, and LGBT movements with current scholarship in political science, international relations, and human rights. The dissertation’s underlying assertion – that a new queer diplomacy has emerged from the triadic interaction between intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), states and civil society organizations (CSOs) – aims to demonstrate how diplomats work to both strengthen and subvert LGBT rights. The research project employed a reflexive, multidimensional standpoint methodology and involved participant observation at UN meetings in Geneva and New York, and 29 in-depth interviews with diplomats, human rights experts, and IGO and CSO representatives. The data findings suggest Western concepts of sexual and gender identity underlie many approaches used by diplomats and advocates in their international work. To a considerable extent, Western governments, in concert with IGO and CSO ii representatives – have succeeded in mainstreaming LGBT issues into UN human rights policy and programming, as well as areas such as development programming, health, women’s rights, and the criminal justice system: however, many gaps remain. The data reveals the close relationships between CSOs and “like-minded” diplomats, as well as the systemic challenges that impede their progress. However, a more inclusive and coordinated diplomatic and civil society strategy is urgently needed to prevent or at least minimize ongoing human rights violations against LGBT people. Possible avenues include streamlining current initiatives, more clearly defining priority areas, identifying policy and research gaps, and pooling resources. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank all the members and former members of my academic committee, who gave so freely of their time to guide and inspire me. I would also like to thank all my interview subjects, as well as the community members who facilitated my research. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables vii List of Appendices viii Introduction 1 Chapter 1 26 From Western Deviance to Global Homonormativity? Theories of Sexuality and Sexual Diversity Politics Chapter 2 63 International Relations, Human Rights Diplomacy, and LGBT Rights Chapter 3 103 Transnational Resistance to the Human Rights of LGBT Persons Chapter 4 127 Researching LGBT Identities and Diplomacy Chapter 5 185 The Mechanics of LGBT Human Rights Diplomacy v Chapter 6 215 Negotiating LGBT Human Rights in International Fora Chapter 7 267 Case Study: The 2014 UN resolution Chapter 8 289 LGBT Human Rights Diplomacy: An Analysis Conclusion 331 Appendices 341 Bibliography 357 vi LIST OF TABLES Table 1 143 Interview Timetable Table 2 143 Interview Demographics Table 3 143 Interview Coding vii LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A: Waiver form 341 Appendix B: E-mail sent to prospective interview subjects 345 Appendix C: E-mail sent to diplomatic colleagues 346 Appendix D: One-page research summary 348 Appendix E: E-mail sent to UN Special Procedures Mandate Holders 351 Appendix F: E-mail sent to Permanent Representatives in Geneva 353 Appendix G: Interview questions 355 viii INTRODUCTION It is tempting to see the global struggle for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights as a relatively new phenomenon. However, these recent gains are the fruit of many years of struggle. On September 30, 1984, a few hundred activists marched from Christopher Street to the UN Headquarters in New York for the International March on the UN for Lesbian and Gay Freedom. The demonstration is long forgotten; according to Google, only one alternative website in cyberspace acknowledges that it even occurred (The Cahokian 2019)! However, I know it happened because I was there: a skinny, mustachioed 26-year-old wearing tight jeans, a green hoodie and Kodiak construction boots, waving the Maple Leaf. The crowd – mainly white, North American, left-wing activists – gathered on Dag Hammarskjold Plaza, listening to fiery speeches on the need for international solidarity by speakers.1 Here is a list of our demands, as presented by The Cahokian, an alternative politics website: The freedom to live openly as lesbians and gay males from our youth to our old age. An end to violence by governments and institutions against lesbians and gay males, including torture or incarceration in prisons or mental institutions. An end to anti-gay violence on the streets and in our homes. 1 One of the speakers was Cherríe Moraga. The year before, she had co-edited This Bridge Called My Back, a seminal feminist text that is still in print: see C. Moraga and G. Anzaldúa (1983). 1 An end to all sexual violence... The declassification of homosexuality as a disease by WHO. Equal rights and equal housing and employment... Our right to have and keep our children. Quality health care... An end to discrimination in any form against people with AIDS, and increased funding for research and treatment... An end to anti-gay immigration laws... The right to speak openly about our lives and the right to meet and organize freely with other lesbians and gay males (The Cahokian 2019) Fast-forward to 2015, and I had returned to UN headquarters to conduct my doctoral research. I had taken academic leave from my work as a Canadian Foreign Service officer and was in the middle of a series of interviews with diplomats, UN officials and human rights advocates who were now referred to as “representatives of LGBT civil society organizations” (CSOs). This time I had less hair, more girth, and was wearing a business suit. Thirty-one years before, I had been an LGBT activist demonstrating outside the UN; now I was an LGBT diplomat on the inside. I remember making my way through the busy foyer, with its low couches, soft lights, and cappuccino bar. People emerged from the adjoining meeting rooms, dragging laptops and talking into their cellphones. In the 1980s, the activists’ colourful garb had made us easy to identify. In 2 2015, however, it was difficult to distinguish the CSO representatives from the diplomats: everyone was now wearing fancy heels and tailored suits. Adam, Duyvendak and Krouwel (1999) note that the European origins of what is now commonly referred to as the LGBT movement have been well-documented and aligned with “Enlightenment values of secularization, science, humanism, democracy and personal autonomy.” At the end of the nineteenth century, the rapidly industrializing economy allowed for greater personal autonomy as “traditional kinship codes” fell by the wayside (Adam, Duyvendak and Krouwel 1999, p. 5-6). After the Nazis’ campaign to exterminate homosexuals – followed by post-War moral panics and McCarthy-era witchhunts – the 1969 Stonewall Riots in New York launched the modern LGBT rights movement, which began in North America and Europe and has emerged in many other regions. By the time I marched on the UN in 1984, a global movement was beginning to stir. Over the past twenty years, though, the movement has made spectacular gains, especially in North America, Europe and Latin America. Unfortunately, as Mendos et al (2020) note, 67 countries still criminalize same-sex conduct. While a group of mainly African and Asian governments continues to resist LGBT rights, “national and international courts, and international and supranational organizations” are increasingly promoting LGBT rights and challenging anti-LGBT policies and laws (Hildebrandt 2013, p. 230). These emerging and ongoing conflicts now unfold within the framework of international institutions and organizations. Symons and Altman believe a critical mass of states supporting LGBT rights has now gained momentum (Symons and Altman 2015, pp. 61-62). LGBT diplomacy now takes place bilaterally – through state-to-state 3 relationships – as well as through an increasing number of multilateral organizations, such as the UN, the World Bank, and the Organization of American States. Nowadays, global LGBT rights are not just debated in international human rights fora: other multilateral processes have broadened the discussion on global LGBT rights into areas such as development, women’s rights, children’s rights, international security, education and criminal justice. Research context According to Weeks (2007), a “profound” sexual revolution has resulted in a “globalization of sexuality” whereby sexual categories from North America and Western Europe “interact and interpenetrate” other sexual cultures which “give rise to new discourses of human rights on a global scale” (Weeks 2007, pp. x-xiii). The merging of discourses of sexuality and discourses of human rights has resulted in scenarios that were unthinkable to me as a young man: e.g., Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau marching in the Halifax Pride Parade in 2017, and United States President Barack Obama publicly criticizing Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta for his country’s criminalization of same-sex conduct in 2015. The assertion of LGBT rights has generated considerable political friction in international fora, part of a broader conflict playing out around human rights.