Here’s an interesting one.

The German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle is homosexual. He has decided not to take his partner with him on official visits to countries where homosexuality is a prosecutable crime.

His somewhat obscure argument as quoted in the excellent Spiegel Online:

We want to promote the concept of tolerance in the world …

But we also don’t want to achieve the opposite by behaving imprudently. At the same time it is important that we live according to our own measures of tolerance and that we do not adopt the sometimes less tolerant measures of others.

This position prompts an energetic rant from one Henryk Broder:

One doesn’t have to read his remark twice to understand what it signifies: Tolerance is a wonderful thing, but we shouldn’t push our luck. This is more than the usual hot air from a politician. Westerwelle’s words are an example of moral hara-kiri in slow motion, and they’re a disgrace for Germany…

It also isn’t entirely clear whether Westerwelle truly considered the potential impact of his statement or was simply babbling away. How does he intend to "promote the idea of tolerance in the world" by making allowances for the intolerance of his hosts? From his office at FDP headquarters? By giving the opening remarks at the Christopher Street Day event in Cologne?

Or perhaps by covering up his partner in a burqa on overseas trips?

Westerwelle isn’t malicious or stupid. He just has a shocking tendency to speak without reflecting. The very idea that we ought to behave prudently so as not to "achieve the opposite" is wrong. This way of thinking begins with the desire not to provoke anyone, in the interest of preserving the peace, and ends with self-abandonment.

‘Babbling away’? A German!? Unmöglich.

Is Westerwelle right? Mainly yes.

Because one of the ways in which the world works is by people more or less accepting the policies of other countries when they visit them. Diplomats have to especially careful – that comes with the job.

Diplomats based overseas are expected to behave in a way befitting senior guests and (in theory) are under strict instructions to respect local laws, hence periodic flurries over unpaid Embassy parking fines – always a tricky one. But where do local laws merge mysteriously into unspoken and slippery local standards? Not always easy to identify what is ruled in – and ruled out – in practice. 

One way or the other, those venerable (if not venereable) norms of interstate intercourse would be undermined if the Foreign Minister (no less) of the Embassy concerned arrived in the local capital and appeared to be challenging head-on a well-known and controversial law.

Any visit by him + partner to a country where homosexuality is illegal in effect is some sort of act of defiance – I dance on your puny laws and prejudices, o pathetic foreigners.

It puts the host government (who may be edging towards being more flexible in this area) in an awkward spot vis-a-vis their own public opinion: why are you letting foreigners come here and break our laws?

Perhaps above all, it simply creates high-profile controversy of a sort which is likely to make things locally tougher for equality principles in the short term at least, and in any case detracts from if not wrecks completely whatever core objectives an official foreign visit might have.

Look at it another way. Just say Germany legalised cannabis, on the solid basic human rights ground that smoking cannibis was a private matter and none of the state’s business. Would that make it ok for the Foreign Minister to take a joint with him and puff away at official events overseas in countries where cannabis was still illegal?

Obviously not. Not an exact parallel, perhaps, but good enough.

There are other ways to get the message of equality across to foreign governments at a high formal level. The partner can be officially invited to functions hosted in Germany by Herr Westerwelle for foreign dignitaries from ‘intolerant’ countries. In which case Herr Westerwelle might not be surprised if all of a sudden the willingness of foreign dignitaries to attend such events declines sharply – they will not want to be presented in Germany and at home as photo-opportunity fodder for gay rights.

Or the German Embassy in said intolerant countries can organise seminars on gay and other equal rights issues. If, that is, it does not want to deal with demonstrations and protests froth’d up by angry locals annoyed at German ‘interference’ in their internal affairs.

One other angle. How could Herr Westerwelle defend himself against accusations from a homosexual member of the German Embassy in a country he was visiting who had been posted there partnerless to avoid breaking local law: why are you using your seniority to get private privileges your Ministry deny the rest of us?

The hard fact is that some diplomatic issues fall into the Alas, All Too Difficult tray. And this is one of them, even though gay rights are gaining ground round the planet; see this Wikipedia round-up, which brings out just how many, hem, permutations there are in this area.

It all comes back to how and where a country Flies the Flag:

Order all our EU Embassies to fly that, er, MGB GT Flag immediately.”

"A certain circumspection may be in order, Sir. If we establish the practice with some care in EU Europe, we can move on with confidence and ambition and due deliberation elsewhere. North Korea and Belarus suggest themselves for the next decade. Antarctica too, perhaps, subject to close consultation with the other Antarctic Treaty Parties..?”

“Zimbabwe?” 

“We in fact flew the LGBT flag there this morning, Sir. This was done with a view to broadening their horizons away from their current political difficulties, by opening a new national dialogue about tolerance and fair play. This plan alas backfired. The rival political factions united against us, in an unexpected but robust show of unity. Our High Commission was burned down this morning. In the ensuing skirmishes with the mob the flag – alas still attached to the flag-pole itself – was used to impale the High Commissioner in a most unhappy and even theatrical fashion…”