Originally appeared Feb. 6, 2002, in the Chicago Free
Press.
It was bad enough that Afghanistan's repressive Taliban regime
publicly executed at least five gay men during its brief existence.
Then we learned of Egypt's ongoing arrest, imprisonment and
possible torture of gay men, charging them with "offenses against
religion" (i.e., Islam).
Now we learn that on January 1, 2002, Saudi Arabian authorities
publicly beheaded three gay men after Islamic religious courts in
the southwestern city of Abha declared them guilty of "engaging in
the extreme obscenity and ugly acts of homosexuality, marrying
among themselves and molesting the young," charges obviously
exaggerated to provoke public outrage.
With the defeat of the Taliban, Saudi Arabia is now the world's
most repressive Islamic regime - with its Taliban-like,
truncheon-wielding religious police, a nationwide ban on other
religions, state support for fundamentalist religious schools, and
complete censorship of media and the Internet.
Troublingly, there have been few noticeable condemnations of the
Saudi executions from human rights groups, none from moderate
Islamic groups, no expressions of concern from the U.S. or Western
European governments.
Gay, human rights and civil liberties groups, here and abroad,
should be protesting to the Saudi embassies and the Saudi
government. Gay and gay-supportive groups could picket and
demonstrate outside the Saudi embassy in Washington. Individual
gays and lesbians could send letters of concern and Faxes to the
embassy.
The hope would be to raise awareness of the executions and warn
repressive Islamic regimes that there is declining public support
for American financial or technological aid or military protection
for anti-gay regimes.
The Saudi's American ambassador, Prince Bandar, is a key members
of the ruling Saud family. If he detected growing U.S. disapproval,
with its possible policy consequences, he would transmit that
message back to his government.
We may anticipate that in the short run such protests would have
little or no impact on the Saudis or the Egyptians since the
arrests and execution of gays are generated by a powerful internal
dynamic that we have little ability to influence.
In both nations, particularly Saudi Arabia, corrupt, repressive
and undemocratic regimes try to mitigate internal political dissent
and pressures for social and economic reform by conspicuously
enforcing traditional Islamic law and its strict codes of sexual
morality.
Arresting and executing gays (along with much else) is part of
their means of staying in power. It is meant to reassure a restive
populace that they are pious, uphold Islam, have not capitulated to
Western decadence and do not need to be reformed.
Against such a strong dynamic any direct actions at our disposal
will be frustratingly ineffective. No doubt, too, all the
potentially effective actions are frustratingly indirect.
Nonetheless we ought to try them - because there is nothing
else.
Ultimately tolerance of gays will not happen apart from an
overall moderation and liberalization of Muslim societies. Hence we
should support initiatives that will force, induce or assist
conservative Muslim nations to move toward becoming more tolerant,
pluralistic, open societies.
Writing in the January 2002 issue of "Foreign Affairs" former
ambassador Martin Indyk sketches out several general policy
approaches in dealing with Egypt and Saudi Arabia, which I freely
adapt, alter, and supplement here to gay-specific purposes.
Conservative Islamic governments must stop subsidizing religious
schools that teach an intolerant, fundamentalist version of Islam.
Instead, they must begin providing economic and moral support as
well as media exposure for moderate Islamic spokesmen and
clerics.
They must begin to permit more democracy and popular
participation in order to provide an alternative outlet for dissent
besides support for fundamentalist Islam. In addition, as foreign
policy analyst Joshua Muravchik pointed out, democracy not only
allows legitimate grievances to be addressed but people also begin
to learn the virtues of moderation and compromise.
They must be pressured to promote an independent "civil society"
separate from both religion and government whose institutions would
help create the social and political space for Muslim gays to
breath and begin to articulate their concerns - as they cannot
now.
They must initiate neo-liberal economic reforms to promote
private business and industry that can give people independence
from government and religious control, a stake in social and
economic progress, and personally meaningful work to reduce their
psychological need for religious validation of their lives.
They must be persuaded that their persecution of gays promotes
disrespect and disdain for Islam, damaging the Islamic cause, by
inclining people around the world to view Islam as a narrow,
retrograde and punitive religion rather than as a great religious
tradition worthy of respect and consideration.
They must stop demonizing America and other liberal Western
nations as decadent or Satanic in their state-owned media and
schools and begin portraying America as a humane, successful and
virtuous nation worthy of respect and emulation.
This is particularly important for gays because America is
prominently associated with the acceptance of gays and seen as a
fountainhead of the gay movement. As moderate Muslims gradually
change their view of the U.S., they may come to see persecution of
gays as a cultural excrescence and emblem of social weakness rather
than strength.