By: Aaron Dane
Edited By: Mustafa Ahmad
Pride and GSCM bring together LGBTQIA+ advocates and conflict management professionals to discuss when and how to promote queer inclusion in conflict settings.
LGBTQIA+ people face heightened security concerns in conflict settings. They are frequently scapegoated, they encounter disproportionately high rates of sexual violence, and their rights may recede during and after conflict.
However, there are numerous sociocultural and political hurdles to addressing the needs of LGBTQIA+ folk within conflict resolution and peacebuilding programs. Inclusion activities can also increase the risk of harm by exposing participants to community backlash. The sensitivity of the issue has meant that such considerations are often left off the table, not just in conflict settings but also among policymaking spheres in D.C.
On Thursday, November 9, SAIS Pride and the Global Security and Conflict Management (GSCM) club organized a panel with leaders from the conflict resolution and LGBTQIA+ advocacy communities to address this gap.
“This event was an opportunity for the SAIS community to discuss and learn about clear lessons and dilemmas policymakers and activists face when trying to adopt a do-no-harm approach to supporting queer rights in fragile settings,” says Gabriel Delsol, the president of SAIS Pride.
The event fostered debate about how and when to support LGBTQIA+ folk in conflict settings, with each panelist underscoring the unique challenges that LGBTQIA+ folk face. Neela Ghoshal, a Senior Director of Law, Policy & Research at Outright International, an advocacy organization, emphasized that LGBTQIA+ people become vulnerable in conflict settings, which she said arises “when a group of people is officially or unofficially considered to be second-class citizens.”
Conflict threatens the security of LGBTQIA+ because they become targets. Sometimes, armed groups try to win favor from other segments of the population through a logic of moral cleanings—that they are coming to an area to “purify” it, says Ghoshal. In these situations, movement becomes more challenging because of scrutiny at checkpoints. People may be forced to expose details of their personal lives by revealing their text messages, for example. Sexual violence towards queer folk also increases in conflict scenarios. (Outright International recently published LGBTQ Lives in Conflict and Crisis: A Queer Agenda for Peace, Security, and Accountability, which goes into further detail on these issues and explains risk indicators).
While it may be the case that LGBTQIA+ folk face heightened risks in conflict settings, there are times—particularly when religion and religious communities are central factors—when prioritizing the protection and inclusion of LGBTQIA+ folk may be detrimental to peacebuilding.
“You have to meet people where they are,” says Julia Schiwal, a Senior Program Specialist covering Religion and Inclusive Societies at the United States of Peace (USIP), whose mission is to resolve and prevent violent conflict. “DC is a very secular place. That is in stark contrast to most of the world,” she emphasized.
Beyond socio-cultural limitations, there may be legal limitations to pursuing queer-inclusive peacebuilding agendas. Promoting LGBTQIA+ inclusion is often done within a human rights framework, which may not be applicable in a conflict setting that lacks a functioning civil law system, Schiwal said.
While prioritizing LGBTQIA+ issues over other objectives in conflict settings may not always be an option, leaders can take steps to ensure basic safety of queer folk and to lay the groundwork for future growth.
Jay Gilliam, Senior LGBTQIA+ Coordinator at USAID, emphasizes the importance of upholding the do-no-harm (DNH) principle while remaining proactive about LGBTQIA+ inclusion. Referencing USAID’s 2023 LGBTQI+ Inclusive Development Policy, Gilliam explained that proactive measures include stakeholder engagement, data disaggregation to highlight the impacts of programs on LGBTQIA+ folk, and ensuring accountability to nondiscrimination policies in the implementation of awards.
In peacebuilding scenarios, Ghoshal noted the value of truth and reconciliation commissions in achieving inclusion goals that may have been unattainable during active conflict. She explained that in Colombia, where concern over LGBTQIA+ rights hampered initial peace talks, the Truth Commission report provides a detailed analysis of the root causes of the violence against LGBTQIA+ people in Colombia. The inclusion of LGBTQIA+ advocates on the Truth Commission contributed to this success.
Michael Ferguson, the vice president of SAIS Pride and treasurer of GSCM, believes it is important for students and conflict resolution professionals to hear more about how LGBTQIA+ folk have led in peace processes, as they did in landmark cases like the Colombia-FARC process.
He noted that SAIS, unlike other international schools in the area, currently does not offer courses on LGBTQIA+ issues and expressed a desire for that to change. “I personally am hopeful that the significant interest and response we received for this event demonstrate that discussions about the LGBTQIA+ experience are incredibly valuable in an international relations school,” Ferguson said.