Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) circular No 72/94, issued by the Equal Opportunities officer of the Personnel Policy Department, is still making its way down the FCO internal mailing list. It begins: 'Circular 266/91 of 25 July 1991 announced that homosexuality was no longer a bar to full security clearance. This circular addresses the management issues which arise from that change of policy, and is based in part on the Administration's experience in dealing with the cases of serving officers whose homosexuality has since come to light.'
In 1991, the ban on clearance of homosexuals in the Foreign Office and the intelligence services was lifted in what John Major described as 'the light of changing social attitudes'. The FCO circular issued then encouraged staff to 'come out' because 'the extent to which an officer is open about his or her sexuality, lifestyle and relationships' was relevant to susceptibility to blackmail.
In the spring of 1993 the FCO sent a memorandum to posts abroad instructing them to compile detailed briefs of local laws and attitudes concerning homosexuality. A year on, the findings have been compiled into a list which forms the basis for Circular 72/94. The preamble speaks for itself:
'The Administration . . . does not wish to limit any officer's postability; besides the impact on the individual officer's career it makes it more difficult to run the Service efficiently. But we have to reconcile this wish with the unavoidable fact that local law in certain countries forbids homosexual practices, and that some countries are less tolerant of homosexual behaviour than the UK.' Sexual orientation will therefore continue to be 'addressed in the security vetting process'.
And so to the list: 'Homosexual officers due for an overseas posting may request from Personnel Security Section . . . a list of countries where their homosexuality might cause particular problems. Any homosexual officer intending to bid for a posting to such a country should discuss this with Security Department who will brief the officer fully on the local laws and attitudes towards homosexual practices, and the potential consequences should these be ignored.'
In other words it is not only much of the Islamic world that may be off limits because 'local laws' make homosexual behaviour illegal. Add to that any countries where attitudes are problematic - perhaps even the United States itself, where militant gay groups constantly threaten hostile 'outings' of public figures.
Short of impersonating a gay diplomat, FCO staff will not get to see the list. Yet the circular makes clear it exists: ' . . . In normal circumstances Heads of Mission will only be informed by Security Department that an officer being sent to them is homosexual if the posting is to a country on the afore- mentioned list, if the officer intends to cohabit at Post, or if the officer requests it . . . '
In the autumn of 1993, Foreign Service magazine published an anonymous account by the first British diplomat to respond to the 1991 reform. He states: 'One would hope that the Administration is coming round to the view that gay officers should be able to bid for any posting in the world regardless of each country's legislation and, more importantly, the attitude to homosexual practices in each country. After all, why should we be treated any differently to drinkers who are posted to countries where drinking is an offence?'
The answer might have to do with the fact that, unlike drinkers, gay officers still have a taboo to fight at home as well as abroad. The diplomat in question chose to withhold his name because, although he had told Personnel he was gay, he had kept the fact from most of his peers. Most of them do not know who he is. Ludicrously, Foreign Service's famed 'coming out' cover sported a silhouette of a man standing on the Foreign Office steps.
Quite correctly, the FCO Circular adds: 'Posts should bear in mind that in no country is homosexuality itself illegal: it is homosexual practice which sometimes is.' Bill Clinton was much maligned for his 'Don't ask, don't tell' reform cop-out on gays in the US army last year. Yet FCO insiders recall that, in the days before gays were encouraged to tell, more than one ambassador known to be homosexual served happily in some of the most homophobic capitals in the world.
Comments