This post was submitted by John "Jolly" Bavoso

As an individual who’s never had much interest in voluntarily joining the military, the debate over Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was always a relatively abstract one for me. Or it was until I had the opportunity to meet one of the women involved in the class-action suit meant to bring down the ban last year. After she explained for over an hour all of the injustice done to her by the military, she closed by noting that, given the chance to return to the Army, she would do so in a heartbeat, despite past wrongs. Her sense of purpose and self left an impression on me and drove home just how life-altering this policy can be for many Americans.

The debate over DADT has once again come to the forefront of the national consciousness with a new President and Congress, poll numbers overwhelmingly in favor of repealing the ban, and the work of scholars such as Nathaniel Frank getting national attention. There are many ways to frame this debate, whether it be in terms of human rights, equality, or national security. Another way to look at DADT is by putting it in its international context.

So it’s interesting that, just as the stars seem to be aligning domestically against DADT, two different countries, Argentina and the Philippines, lifted their own bans on homosexuals serving in the military within days of each other. Any activists looking to create an effective strategy for repealing DADT in the United States should at least ask themselves if there are any lessons to be learned from these and other countries when it comes to achieving equality within America’s armed forces.

The issue of homosexuals serving openly in the armed forces in the US is an interesting one because America is one of the few Western countries which still impose such a ban. This puts the United States in an awkward position regarding its foreign policy. “From the beginning, U.S. foreign policy has been concerned with projecting a positive image of U.S. national identity and values,” writes Julie Mertus in her book Bait and Switch, which examines how the talk of US foreign policy and human rights has often failed to match the walk, “and human rights have long been central to U.S. self-image.” It is this supposed moral superiority which has been used to justify the US’s interventions in the affairs of sovereign nations and has prevented this country from signing onto various human rights documents, claiming that our standards are so high that to sign an international declaration would actually be taking a step backwards.

When countries like Argentina and the Philippines, despite their much smaller and less influential militaries, lift their bans, it presents an indirect challenge to US legislators and emphasizes our position on the issue. By banning sexual minorities from serving openly, America joins only six of the 26 nations in NATO in restricting service, and in terms of the UN Security Council, DADT lumps the US with China and Russia, countries which we’re quick to criticize in terms of their human rights records. Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell falls into a category often referred to as “ambiguous policies” along with Russia’s policy, which does not allow gay men and lesbians to serve during peacetime, but will allow homosexual males to serve during times of war.

So how was it done in Argentina and the Philippines?

In Argentina, the end of the ban on homosexuals came as part of a larger package of policies aimed at reforming the military and bringing it more firmly under the control of the government as part of the process of recovery and reconciliation following almost a decade of dictatorial rule which ended in the early 1980s. The law which ended the ban was actually signed last year, but entered into force in the first week of March. Holding the military to the same laws as civilians has been part of the country’s increasing democratization, reflecting the nation’s desire for more representative and transparent institutions. If there were to be a corollary time in the United States, this era in which Americans have enthusiastically welcomed a new President and Congress under the banner of change would seem to be it.

In that same week, the Philippines, the Asian nation comprised of over 7,000 islands with strong historical ties to the US, also announced the end of its ban on LGBT individuals in the military. The Philippines represents a process of coming to this point which would probably more closely resemble our own in the US. The military in the Philippines has recently been short of almost 7,000 troops and officials saw ending the ban and actively recruiting within the gay community as a practical way of filling out the ranks. Officers have been sure to issue the following stipulation, however: “Once inside the organization, they have to live by a code of ethics and they have to observe decorum if they want to remain as members of the Armed Forces.” While the issuing of such a statement reflects an inherent bias, those individuals who are most likely to join the military in the first place have almost certainly prepared themselves to live in such a manner.

It must be noted, once again, that just because homosexuals are allowed to serve openly in the military doesn’t mean that they will serve without harassment or complication, and the international community should remain vigilent in watching these countries in terms of this policy. But having seen first-hand the way policies like DADT can ruin lives and prevent individuals from living up to their potential, this news gives me hope the US will soon realize that the company it keeps in terms of other countries with similar policies on this issue is getting smaller and less and less similar in terms of the human rights agenda they espouse. As they say in the human rights field, let the “naming” and “shaming” begin.

---

First time here? See what we're all about... Get involved... Send us a tip!...

---