TIMOTHY HILDEBRANDT Early efforts to build a truly global gay movement were forestalled by simple economic and logistical concerns:LGBT activists in the developing world often could not afford the expense of participating in events or were unable to obtain necessary travel documents from their home country or the host government,2 but increased access to the Internet should hasten transnational activism.3 Indeed,the proliferation of Internet-based activism has assuaged some of these concerns, allowing a low-cost means to increase and strengthen ties,a point raised in the introduction to this collection of articles.4 Because the Chinese government remains politically closed and often unresponsive to the demands of society,the presence and effect of transnational LGBT activism might be best explained by the literature on transnational advocacy networks (TANs),'strategically linked activities in which members of a diffuse principled network developed explicit,visible ties and mutually recognized roles in pursuit of a common goal'.15 International activists focused on identity are commonly discussed in the TAN literature:6 and lesbian and gay activism is often considered one of the quintessential identity movements.7 The process by which TANs achieve their goals is explained by the 'boomerang model':when domestic civil society groups are blocked by a closed,unresponsive state,they can develop and draw on ties to global civil society,which,in turn,will lobby other states or international organizations to put pressure on the closed state,thus completing the boomerang effect.The boomerang model is said to be well suited for advocating for the rights of marginalized populations in countries where the state does not address their concerns.Thus,we might expect that Chinese LGBT activists would use TANs to meet their goals.Since gays and lesbians have a shared identity that crosses national boundaries,this should make the TAN more successful. Although there is little empirical evidence to support the use of TANs in strengthening the rights of gays and lesbians in closed polities,Stychin recounts one success story:a Romanian NGO in the mid-1990s linked with other European gay groups and received funding from the Dutch government in its effort to repeal anti- gay criminal laws.20 The TAN compelled European countries,and the EU,to pressure Romania by making its admission into the Council of Europe contingent upon shedding these laws.This case might provide reason to be hopeful that LGBT activists in China can use international linkages and throw a boomerang of their own to affect policy change. 12.Martin F.Manalansan,'In the shadows of Stonewall:examining gay transnational politics and the diasporic dilemma'.GLO:A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 2,(1995).p.429. 13.Michele M.Betsill and Harriet Bulkeley.'Transnational networks and global environmental governance:the cities for climate protection program'.Interational Studies Ouarterly 48.(2004),p.475. 14.Wilson.'Introduction'. 15.Margaret Keck and Kathryn Sikkink.Activists beyond Borders (Ithaca.NY:Corell University Press, 1998).D.6. 16.Betsill and Bulkeley.Transnational networks and global environmental governance';Keck and Sikkink, Activists beyond Borders. 17.Alberto Melucci,Nomads of the Present (London:Hutchinson Radius,1989). 18.Keck and Sikkink,Activists beyond Borders. 19.J.Brecher,T.Costello and B.Smith,Globalization from Below:The Power of Solidariry (Cambridge:South End Press,2002):Keck and Sikkink,Activists beyond Borders. 20.Stychin,'Same-sex sexualities and the globalization of human rights discourse',p.961 848Early efforts to build a truly global gay movement were forestalled by simple economic and logistical concerns: LGBT activists in the developing world often could not afford the expense of participating in events or were unable to obtain necessary travel documents from their home country or the host government,12 but increased access to the Internet should hasten transnational activism.13 Indeed, the proliferation of Internet-based activism has assuaged some of these concerns, allowing a low-cost means to increase and strengthen ties, a point raised in the introduction to this collection of articles.14 Because the Chinese government remains politically closed and often unresponsive to the demands of society, the presence and effect of transnational LGBT activism might be best explained by the literature on transnational advocacy networks (TANs), ‘strategically linked activities in which members of a diffuse principled network developed explicit, visible ties and mutually recognized roles in pursuit of a common goal’.15 International activists focused on identity are commonly discussed in the TAN literature;16 and lesbian and gay activism is often considered one of the quintessential identity movements.17 The process by which TANs achieve their goals is explained by the ‘boomerang model’: when domestic civil society groups are blocked by a closed, unresponsive state, they can develop and draw on ties to global civil society, which, in turn, will lobby other states or international organizations to put pressure on the closed state, thus completing the boomerang effect.18 The boomerang model is said to be well suited for advocating for the rights of marginalized populations in countries where the state does not address their concerns.19 Thus, we might expect that Chinese LGBT activists would use TANs to meet their goals. Since gays and lesbians have a shared identity that crosses national boundaries, this should make the TAN more successful. Although there is little empirical evidence to support the use of TANs in strengthening the rights of gays and lesbians in closed polities, Stychin recounts one success story: a Romanian NGO in the mid-1990s linked with other European gay groups and received funding from the Dutch government in its effort to repeal anti￾gay criminal laws.20 The TAN compelled European countries, and the EU, to pressure Romania by making its admission into the Council of Europe contingent upon shedding these laws. This case might provide reason to be hopeful that LGBT activists in China can use international linkages and throw a boomerang of their own to affect policy change. 12. Martin F. Manalansan, ‘In the shadows of Stonewall: examining gay transnational politics and the diasporic dilemma’, GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 2, (1995), p. 429. 13. Michele M. Betsill and Harriet Bulkeley, ‘Transnational networks and global environmental governance: the cities for climate protection program’, International Studies Quarterly 48, (2004), p. 475. 14. Wilson, ‘Introduction’. 15. Margaret Keck and Kathryn Sikkink, Activists beyond Borders (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1998), p. 6. 16. Betsill and Bulkeley, ‘Transnational networks and global environmental governance’; Keck and Sikkink, Activists beyond Borders. 17. Alberto Melucci, Nomads of the Present (London: Hutchinson Radius, 1989). 18. Keck and Sikkink, Activists beyond Borders. 19. J. Brecher, T. Costello and B. Smith, Globalization from Below: The Power of Solidarity (Cambridge: South End Press, 2002); Keck and Sikkink, Activists beyond Borders. 20. Stychin, ‘Same-sex sexualities and the globalization of human rights discourse’, p. 961. TIMOTHY HILDEBRANDT 848