The Foreign Service Journal, June 2015

32 JUNE 2015 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL they not only supported, but needed public U.S. engagement. (A version of the legislation was later passed and then ruled invalid by the Constitutional Court in 2014.) Ugandan activists point to the power of Sec. Clinton’s public pressure on their government as a successful model, and expressed concern about the potential consequences if U.S. public pressure were to wane. With that in mind, missions representing the U.S. government in hostile environments must work hand in hand with the local LGBT community to identify the red line at which point the benefit of U.S. public intervention would outweigh concerns of a backlash. Ideally, Washington would also rally like-minded countries to sign on to the same plan in advance, to facilitate a rapid, multilateral response when crisis-level, anti-LGBT situations arise. Advancing a Public Diplomacy Approach In countries that provide some legal protections for LGBTs, but where violence and discrimination persist, the U.S. gov- ernment can play a strong role in accelerating the spread of tolerance. Diplomatic missions can work to empower the local LGBT community by providing seed grants to nascent organi- zations or to fund joint projects executed by several fractious groups to encourage the consolidation of political power. U.S. embassies can arrange educational exchanges to allow local leaders to seek training in the United States on successful advocacy practices that can then be implemented locally. And by leveraging existing relationships with local law enforcement institutions, missions can conduct human rights training that U.S. missions in hostile environments must work hand in hand with the local LGBT community to identify the red line at which point the benefit of U.S. public intervention would outweigh concerns of a backlash.