Defending LGBT+ Rights in Foreign Policy

Relatively recently, the small Southeast Asian Kingdom of Brunei enacted laws to punish homosexuality by death. And it is far from the only country to do so—a litany of hardline reactionary states, particularly in the Middle East and Northern Africa, have also criminalized homosexuality, some sentencing up to life in prison or death for same-sex sexual activity. I think I need not explain the sheer depravity of these laws, but it’s worth remembering when discussing issues like the broad “human rights,” where LGBT issues have often been overlooked or  ignored entirely until recently. 

This is troublesome, both from a moral and foreign policy perspective. Generally speaking, the United States has articulated a foreign policy of human rights, forming strategic partnerships with other nations while recognizing basic civil liberties, freedom of conscience and expression among them. The United States has, generally speaking, been the greatest proponent of an international order bent towards the respect of human rights. The so-called “Pax Americana” has seen a steady rise in the number of democracies worldwide; in the twentieth century, the world saw the building of international institutions to protect human rights and promote development, which improving attitudes towards religious, expressive, political, and often even LGBT freedoms. This century also witnessed the rise of a majority democratic world order—it is estimated that some sixty percent of the world’s nations are now democratic. And yes, American intervention, both economic and military, has arguably speeded up that advance. The United States helped stabilize Europe with economic aid following World War II, defended the democratic governments of South Korea, Israel, and Taiwan from invasion, secured the protection of the Baltic States, provided more financial assistance to Africa and the Americas than any other nation in history, and ushered in the most peaceful period of time in human history. And yes, it is the most peaceful time in human history. Though it may not seem like it, international wars haven’t really occurred with much frequency at all following World War II. The reasons behind this are that global economic systems are more intertwined today than ever, and because international institutions have arisen to address such conflicts. Who funds most of these institutions? The United States. So let me be clear—I do believe that American foreign policy in this century has been, though not perfect, a great lever for global stability in our time.

When America stands up for those rights on a global scale, tremendous things can happen. When the United States and the West writ-large have applied pressure for change, we have oftentimes see real progress occur. One need not look further than democratic support for Poland’s Solidarity Movement to discern as much. Unfortunately, in the process of leading such an international order, the US has often gotten itself into relations with bad actors. The most infamous example here is Saudi Arabia, quite literally one of the most repressive regimes on Earth. There are still legitimate reasons to engage with Saudi Arabia—they remain one of our few Arab partners and a key ally in combating certain terror groups throughout the Middle East. Having stable partners in every region of the world ensures both the safety of Americans and the security of regions, and there absolutely is value to that. 

But at the same time, America often invokes a moral authority when it speaks—one fitting of the “leaders of the free world.” But it is rather hard to hear America condemn human rights abuses in Sudan, for instance, while they continue to support grave war crimes in Yemen with resupply runs. Very similarly, it is very hard to listen to American support for human rights while they turn a blind eye to the gross violation of gay rights. And this dichotomy given in reply, that America must entirely support every action of the Saudi government or declare war on it immediately, is tremendously silly. We can apply pressure on our allies for reform—we do it all the time. In fact, it’s easier to pressure countries with whom we have an established relationship to take a stand for human rights. It is a bargaining chip, and that was the very premise of Obama’s decision to normalize relationships with Cuba.

It’s high time we made it clear to the world that the United States will stand by LGBTQ+ individuals throughout the world—their rights to life, to civil equality, to freedom from discrimination. Real human rights. In addition, we must make clear to our allies that American support is no blank check -- it involves engaging with an agenda for the world rooted in freedom and liberty. That agenda includes eliminating homophobia and transphobia. Yes, Brunei is in ASEAN. Yes, Brunei is part of a crucial counter-balance to Chinese aggression in the South China Sea. But, that does not mean turning a blind eye to the stoning of gay people. Rather, the situation in Brunei is a reminder that the United States must include the LGBTQ+ community in its message—a message that has brought tremendous good for numerous people around the world.