Diplomats and gender issues

[KillerMuffin]

The US recently went through a diplomatic stint with Madelaine Albright as the head dip. I didn't like her, sorry.

There are countries out there, most notably the Taliban, who believe women are inferior and will not deal with them. Or if another country were to send a diplomat who is female into their country for amassadorial duties, they would be insulted by the woman.

What's more important in this instance? Equality in the diplomat corps or the host country's gender sensibilities, rather insensibilities? Should a woman ambassador be sent into countries where women are considered inferior? Should cultural significance reign in this instance or should we not consider gender?

Am I even making sense here?

 

[doctor_insanus]

I've wondered the same thing about women in the military. I'm not opposed to it, but the thought of what might happen to any of them who are captured on the battlefield is terrifying.

I do think the perceptions of other cultures should be considered carefully, particularly when appointing someone to a position like the Secretary of State. Regardless of her performance, in some nations she simply won't get the same respect as a man. And that reflects back on the United States.

Sad, but true.

 

[lavender]

 

[Mischka]

On the other hand, a country like the United States has an inherent position of power when negotiating with other countries. The other country may not care for women, but they would have no choice but to accept an American woman as an ambassador/diplomat because they need what the US can offer. I realize the limitations of this exercise, however, and support the need to send men to particularly sensitive countries.

Does anyone know if we even have diplomatic relations with Afghanistan right now?

 

[unusuallyconfused]

Well a women has some serious disadvantages in world politics. I am personally not inclined to force a country to accept a women. Even if you use the US influence to accept the diplomat, I can not see that negotiations would ever be truly effective. If I were the women, I would delegate a male from my office to act in my stead and negotiate based on my preferences and that the president would agree to.

I wish it weren't so, but I don't see how you can change an entire cultures views.

 

[KillerMuffin]

No, I don't think we do have diplomatic relations with them. In fact, the World Food Bank or whatever it's called has just had to sever relations with them over the gender issue. They can't feed without a census and since women are not allowed to work or speak with men aside from immediate family members, then there is no feasible way to conduct a census in Afghanistan. Famine and starvation are predicted, particularly among widows and children.

North Korea, however, is a male dominated society where a male diplomat would get farther than a female one. We sent Albright in to begin talks with them. While she was not oastracised or ignored, I don't think she was nearly as effective as a male counterpart would have been. Since we are the ones asking for something in their instance, the joining of a biological and chemical weapons ban, allowance to inspect suspected arms factories, and the unification of Korea, it would have been more diplomatically intelligent to send a man. I think.

 

[lavender]

 

[Barb Dwyer]

A bit off topic here but tangential to the central premise, I think.

While the world still practices and supports a boy's club mentality, women are making strides towards equality in all areas of diplomatic venues. But I am more concerned with the way these countries still violate basic human rights (which is meant to be inclusive when addressing women's rights issues as well)

We still maintain relations with many countries whose policies discriminate against women, against minorities (and that can mean anything in any country, not just those groups which are minorities in the US) against religion and against civil liberties.

Yet, despite these violations we still keep diplomatic channels open. We maintain dialogues with those who prefer to appear as hostile to the US and relay such rhetoric in the world press. Why do we do this?

Economics would be my guess. Yes, we tolerate, learn to swallow and accept those things which we cannot change or find utterly distasteful simply because we either need resources or products from them, or wish to increase exports of our own goods to them. Our economy is dependent on free trade and favored nation status - even with those countries whose stance we abhor. We have great disdain for their policies, but we love their drachmas, francs, marks, pounds, pesos, and kruggerands!

In terms of the diplomatic corps and assigning women as our spokespersons, we cannot ignore the customs and cultural beliefs of other countries totally. We are guests in their country and, as such, should be courteous and respectful of their wishes. Do we have to like it? No. Do we have to put up with it? Most of the time. That is why it is called the art of diplomacy. Can we get on our high horse, stomp our feet and grab our toys and go home? Sure, but not without repercussions.

The backlash against female diplomats is not necessarily due to religious dogma. Most of the time it is political jealousies, desire for power or tradition that determine the circling of wagons and the rejection of women in these arenas.

 

[SungHi]

Gawd you people know an awful lot. And now I know that this Madeline person used to be Secretary of State but have no idea who is now (was she fired?).

But I just thought I'd toss this in. Sure there are countries where religions and people believe certain things. And the men running them act like they are all over that crap, ya know? But I somehow think that the top men running a country don't think anything like that. They like all the people under them to be afraid of weird gods and follow nonsense rules, but don't ya bet that most a them top guys are doing whatever they damn well please?

Like I heard (or maybe saw a movie, so this is might be a total fantasy) that the Nazi's condemned any art that wasn't German. But then they found that the top Nazi's had tons of French and other kinds of art stashed away, knowing it was better. I mean, they knew that master race stuff was a pile a crap, but it served their purpose huh? Which in my book makes em worse than if they had really believed that evil stuff. Well, I guess there's no way to be worse once you reach that point. But do ya get my point?

Probably not.

My point is! that our Secretary of State doesn't meet with ordinary people right? she meets with these top guys, who behind the closed doors, really don't care about this religious, hugga bugga bullshit, right?

OK maybe it's not right.

Oh and PS? Doctor I (my HH pal)?

"the thought of what might happen to any of them who are captured on the battlefield is terrifying."

Better to worry what happens to any of us who are captured on the parking lot of a strip mall right here at home. That can be terrifying too. Shit, rape me in a parking lot and I'm a lost statistic, rape me as a POW and I'll get elected senator maybe.

Ooops - that sounded kinda snotty Doctor, was not meant that way, promise.





[Edited by SungHi on 05-31-2001 at 06:17 PM]

 

[BlondGirl]

<<<"
"the thought of what might happen to any of them who are captured on the battlefield is terrifying."
">>>

During the Gulf War, a female Army captain(?) was taken as a POW. A biography of her experiences was written and it is really interresting reading. I got it from the library--you might put it on your "to be looked at" list.

She Went to War: The Rhonda Cornum Story

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/A...1360751/sr=1-1/ref=sc_b_1/103-8111840-8407007

 

[Weird Harold]

I think a long standing diplomatic principle is being overlooked here:

An Ambassador doesn't speak with their own voice, but with the voice of the Head of State who appointed them.

All through history, male dominated societies have accepted female ambassadors because of this principle. That doesn't mean an occasional head of state hasn't ignored an ambassador because of her gender, but almost all of them regretted it eventually.

 

[Andra_Jenny]

Third world women are used against us though,
Look at China, where women are truly second class citizens, but notice that they put a woman out front to make statements in a calculated ploy to curry favor, see we are the getle, kind nation that has been attacked by the evil warmongers...

 

[doctor_insanus]

<<<"
"the thought of what might happen to any of them who are captured on the battlefield is terrifying."
">>>

During the Gulf War, a female Army captain(?) was taken as a POW. A biography of her experiences was written and it is really interresting reading. I got it from the library--you might put it on your "to be looked at" list.

She Went to War: The Rhonda Cornum Story

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/A...1360751/sr=1-1/ref=sc_b_1/103-8111840-8407007

I'll have to look into that. Thanks for the info!

And don't worry, Sung Hi! I've had more than a little "snottiness" thrown my way... some of it actually deserved! That was more of a pat on the hand than a slap in the face!

 

[Expertise]

I'm all for gender equality as applied in our own culture. However, our "western" culture and its "norms" are totaly alien to other cultures. Therefore...... pragmatism. If a female ambassador would not be as effective in say Saudi Arabia as a male would... appoint a male. Its not a slight against women, merely realpolitik.

 

[p_p_man]

I used to be a diplomat in another life...

...and it was usually considered that as you were sent abroad to lie for the good of your country then it was no good sending someone who openly challenged the position that country held. Out of diplomatic niceties and procedures the guest would be accepted but not a lot of progress would be achieved.

As someone has already said the individual diplomat represents the accredited country and to insult the host nation by sending an unsuitable representative destroys the meaning of diplomacy itself.

 

[Ally C]

I do think we need to respect cultures when choosing ambassadors. However, which countries truly will feel insulted by a woman being our ambassador? Pakistan, a predominantly Muslim nation, had a female leader with Bhuto. How do we determine this?

I'm guessing on this one, but I think that this may have something to do with countries which have strong matriarchal family and social structures. A lot of the time religion doesn't impede upon the progress of women in all spheres of life as much as we might think, when observing other countries of certain religious persuasions.

The general point is that ambassadors are there to negotiate. Unless the purpose of their visit is to negotiate gender issues then it would serve no purpose to lessen their negotiating position by failing to acknowledge a particular nation's gender bias. Acknowledgment doesn't mean agreement of course. No doubt if progress can be made on one or more ambassadorial issues (trade being the big one), then it can at least be hoped that a climate can be established for the issue of gender to be addressed in the long run.

 

[Mischka]

So how many years (generations?) do we estimate it will take for certain nations to consider women on a more or less equal footing with men? Do nations that actively promote gender equality have any obligation or ability to help the others along? Or would any attempts simply backfire?

 

[Ally C]

Mischka

I'm not saying that we should ignore or relegate gender issues in certain nations. The fact is that some nations do already and, as pragmatic and positive as I'd like to be, I can't see a "Crusade" style form of "enlightening the 'natives' democracy" working - certainly not in countries where the practices involved are extreme.

The above example of food embargos is relevant here: it's the woman and children who will suffer first from such restrictions, as they are considered inferior anyway. The only starting point in these circumstances is to work with the status quo to gradually instigate change, rather than actively attack the status quo through measures which impoverish those most in need of help.

There are other interests involved of course (money / trade), so the equation will never be clear cut along ideas of gender equality, as much as we'd like or wish it to be otherwise. I can't provide a timescale for change in any specific case, and I don't think anyone can. That doesn't mean that the powers that be shouldn't try, even if any plans backfire in the first place. Sooner would be better rather than later of course, but it's never going to be a straightforward venture.

 

[Mischka]

Ally C

I agree - no nation can succesffuly assimilate its opinions in another nation, though many have tried. My post was more rhetorical than anything, though it would be interesting to see what people guess would be the timeframe.

The best way to influence others is through example. If successful (meaning high GDP) nations show their commitment to gender equality and human rights (they are inextricably linked, as Barb pointed out), then developing nations are more likely to follow their lead. Obviously, this is not universal - myopic power struggles will always prevail over the long-term economic growth of a nation - but I believe it is the most probable way of promoting change.

 

[Ally C]

Mischka

That sort of sums up my feelings on the matter.

Just a distracting thought: I'm not too sure if it would be a good idea for anyone to attempt to offer a timescale for such an issue. It would seem to suggest that gender equality was some sort of quantifiable entity which could be recorded and 'cured' through 'science' (for want of a better word / metaphor). I think that such fundamental human experiences are far too complicated to begin to calibrate and then regulate. Using a timescale would dehumanize the issue to a certain extent. Although I don't know much about global economies, I'll paraphrase them by saying that profit and wealth are terms which translate into the vocabulary of different countries a lot sooner than more 'cultural' issues (examples of moves to 'capitalism' abound). Sort of like what you said, I guess.

 

[Closet Desire]

I hate to throw petrol...

...on the fire but...

It's only natural that a citizen of one country thinks it is "better" than the others. When I hear human rights and the US come up in one breath I have to wonder. Here's an excerpt from an interview on CNN about this years report by Amnesty International on Human Rights and the US...

McEDWARDS: And the United States is mentioned in the report, not just because some of the states that have the death penalty, but what else?

GOERING: Beyond the death penalty, and I should mention the United States belongs to the group of five countries that carry out 90 percent of the world's executions along with China, Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. But in the United States we also find growing levels of police brutality in police departments, sheriff departments across the country, large cities and small.

There's a growing prisoner population in the United States, over two million now and along with that comes abuse in prison, the rape of women in custody, widespread -- in certain locations -- custodial sexual misconduct, the rapid spread of electric shock technology, stun guns, electronic riot shields, tasers, torture -- really -- which can be easily inflicted and has been. And with this trend towards punishment and revenge rather than rehabilitation here in the United States, the abuses are on the increase here with respect to prisons.

***

Now, it's easy to say they are biased, they are bleeding hearts, etc. etc., but you've got to ask yourself whose values are skewed.

Just my small contribution...oh...women? Women have played major roles in international relations for many countries and for many years. Often they work behind the scenes (Shirley Temple-Black) in the countries they are sent to. I think you have to appreciate that the diplomats of all countries share a bond no unlike that shared between sailors of all countries. Some things transcend nationality and many countries have strict codes regarding women have no trouble dealing with a woman who happens to be ambassador or diplomat from a country with whom they have relations.

There...I've said enough.

 

[Ally C]

Re: I hate to throw petrol...

There...I've said enough.

But you said it so well. I always welcome 'reality checks', especially if they don't bounce. Well said.