Many foreign militaries allow gays but restrict or discourage service

By Otto Kreisher
   Copley News Service

   WASHINGTON Although one argument in support of President
Clinton's effort to lift the ban on gays in the military is that most
of America's allies have no similar restriction, a survey of foreign
armed services reveals that gays are discouraged from joining many of
them, and they're barely tolerated and tightly restricted if they do.
   Supporters of Clinton's policy cite a General Accounting Office
study generally showing no discrimination against gays in foreign
militaries. But more-comprehensive studies and a reporter's survey
find that only a few allies fully accept open homosexuals in their
armed services.
   In fact, many of the countries that the GAO said accept gays and
lesbians actually impose frequently onerous restrictions on their
service and some actively discourage open homosexuals from enlisting
or being conscripted.
   Italy, for example, which the GAO said had no restriction against
homosexuals, is the more-common example of a country deliberately
avoiding any problems that integrating homosexuals might entail.
   Navy Capt. Mario Salvatorelli, chief spokesman for the Italian
Defense Ministry in Rome, said, "Homosexuals, if they don't want to
be drafted, can avoid service" by declaring their sexual orientation
during induction physical examinations.
   And even in the most socially permissive countries, such as Belgium
and the Netherlands, gays and lesbians in the military must be
discrete in their sexual behavior. Most find it preferable to stay in
the closet to avoid rejection or outright hostility from their peers.
   In Brussels, Lt. Col. Roland Reynaert, an army doctor, said that
while the Belgian armed services are open to gay men and lesbians,
"we accept homosexuals in the army only if we have no problems, no
troubles, with their behavior."
   In fact, surveys show that most of the foreign militaries allied
with the United States treat homosexuals a lot like the "don't ask,
don't tell" compromise proposed by openly gay Rep. Barney Frank,
D-Mass., and being considered by Clinton.
   The president has asked Defense Secretary Les Aspin to recommend by
July 15 a plan that will carry out Clinton's campaign pledge to lift
the ban.
   The conflict between what the GAO said in its report and what other
studies have shown arises from the contrast between policy and
practices, several experts have said.
   "A look at the official regulations and statements rarely captures
the realities of how gays are treated," said Charles Moskos, a
Northwestern University sociologist who specializes in military
personnel.
   University of Maryland Professor David Segal, who has studied
homosexuals in foreign militaries, said he was "surprised at how
great the divergence is in some cases between the stated policy and
actual practice."
   And retired Army Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf said his experiences
with allied countries showed that "most of the armed forces that have
supposedly integrated homosexuals into them practice a blatant form of
hypocrisy.
   "And for anyone to say that these homosexuals have been integrated
into these organizations with no problems at all, no restrictions,
just obviously hasn't studied the subject," the former Desert Storm
commander told the Senate Armed Services Committee.
   The debate was triggered by the GAO report, requested last year by
congressional supporters of ending the ban, which said 11 of the 16
NATO countries and some other Western nations openly accept
homosexuals in their armed services.
   Rep. Gerry Studds, D-Mass., an acknowledged homosexual, said the
Pentagon's opposition to lifting the ban was "further contradicted by
GAO's finding that other NATO countries that do not bar gays from the
military have suffered no ill effect on their military missions."
   The brief survey of other countries, included in a report on the
Pentagon's cost of investigating and discharging homosexuals, said
America, Britain, Greece, Portugal and Turkey were the only NATO
nations that actively bar gay men and lesbians from the military.
   The other 11 NATO members Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Germany,
Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and Spain either openly
accept homosexuals or do not have official policies against their
service, GAO said. It added that Australia, Austria, Finland, Israel,
Japan and Sweden had similar tolerance for homosexuals in their
military.
   But congressional testimony, several published studies and a
reporter's inquiries indicate a much more complex situation.
   Italy, despite a stated policy that homosexuality in the abstract
does not disqualify a person from the military, effectively bans all
known gays from the armed services.
   Salvatorelli, in an interview, said homosexuals are not considered
acceptable for their small professional military cadre and are
released from the 10 months of conscript service if their sexual
orientation is known.
 Studies by Moskos and others showed that Germany, which dropped
criminal sanctions against homosexual activities in 1969, still
aggressively restricts the military service of known gays. They are
exempted from the draft and, if discovered while in the service, are
barred from promotion and access to classified information, and
quietly discharged as soon as feasible, Moskos said.
   Germany, while "inclusive in policy," Segal said, "is the most
exclusionary country I have studied."
   France, which has no official policy on homosexuals, will exempt a
gay from the draft if he feels threatened, Moskos said. "No outward
manifestation of one's gay orientation is allowed" in uniform, but
off-duty activities are not monitored, he said.
   This policy is similar to Rep. Frank's proposal. However, Sen. Sam
Nunn, D-Ga., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has said
he will not support lifting the ban on out-of-uniform, off-duty
homosexual behavior.
   Israel, which frequently is cited by homosexual rights advocates
here as openly accepting gays in its highly regarded military, also
restricts their service, several experts have said.
   While Israeli gays are drafted, they are stationed where they can
go home at night, are barred from elite combat units and access to
intelligence, and "generally are treated much as women soldiers,"
Moskos said.
   The studies also show that even in the countries where
homosexuality is widely accepted in both civilian society and in
government policy, gays are not fully accepted in the military.
   In the Netherlands, where polls show 94 percent of the citizens
support equal treatment for homosexuals and the military actively
attempts to make them accepted, most gays stay in the closet while in
the service.
   Two recent surveys of Dutch military personnel found more than half
of young heterosexuals did not want to share living quarters with gays
and produced numerous reports by homosexuals of harassment and actual
assaults.
   As a result, only 50 Dutch service personnel in a force of 170,000
are openly gay.
   In Belgium, the government said known homosexuals may be restricted
from certain assignments and will be discharged if their sexual
behavior becomes a problem.
   Reynaert, the Belgian army doctor, said no statistics are kept on
the number of homosexuals in the military, although he knew many
officers who are gay.
   Because the country is so small, he said, homosexuals live at home
and they may be restricted from extended deployments if their
homosexuality could cause trouble.
   Many supporters of the U.S. ban on homosexuals say the differences
between the small militaries in the countries that allow gays and
lesbians and the large U.S. armed forces are grounds for ignoring the
foreign experiences.
   "Societies with a high likelihood of national threat, such as
Israel and `Cold War' Germany, or of overseas deployment, such as the
U.S., U.K., France, tend to have more restrictive policies (on gays)
than in the low-risk, stay-at-home militaries," Moskos said.