The Foreign Service Journal, June 2023

THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL | JUNE 2023 41 Annie Pforzheimer: Here is something I have always wanted to know: When activists make requests of the U.S. government, are those the actual things they want or are they positioning something extreme in order to get to a worthwhile compromise? Heather Barr: Those are things Human Rights Watch, at least, actually wants. Our compass is always international human rights law, and it’s clear and usually fairly strong. For example, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) states that parties must take all steps to guarantee women “the exercise and enjoy- ment of human rights and fundamental freedoms on a basis of equality with men.” There isn’t a single country on the planet that has achieved this, but that’s what the convention says, and that’s what we want. The United States has signed but not ratified CEDAW, which is shameful. But women in the U.S. want full equality, too; and we want it for them. A frequent internal discussion is how to react when there is an opportunity for partial reform. We always want to think care- fully through how we can be as helpful as possible to activists in-country who are working for smaller goals, while still being consistent about always calling for full respect for the rights people have under international law. So no, when we walk into a meeting with a diplomat, we aren’t thinking, “Let me ask for something super extreme, and then maybe we’ll get to some midpoint, which is what we really want.” I remember when I interviewed for my job, and they asked me how I manage frustration when nothing seems to work. I said it’s about managing your own expectations of what success looks like—sometimes success can even be things getting worse a tiny bit more slowly because of your efforts. On Afghanistan today, I dream of that kind of “success.” So here’s one for you. How much space is there for diplomats to argue internally for principled approaches to human rights, and what pushback do diplomats face when they do so? And will human rights always be deprioritized under other interests such as national security? AP: “It depends.” Classic State Department answer. Human rights are a worthwhile policy consideration and are usually treated as such, both as a standalone “right thing to do” and also because they are key to big-picture goals of regional stability, national prosperity, and representational governments. Many specific U.S. laws and policies enshrine human rights. And we’re required to write an annual report evaluating their status. That “Human Rights Report” represents an opportunity within embassies and the department to talk to local dissenting voices and criticize even friendly governments, and to create an objec- tive and agreed-on U.S. government record of what is actually happening, which is the best basis for policymaking. I respect what you say about the importance of international law, but in practice the space to argue this can depend on a wide variety of factors. As they say in government-speak, those factors include but are not limited to: the mood of the White House or Congress toward having an activist foreign policy; the relative importance of a country and what else the U.S. looks for in the relationship; the latest headlines; where we are in an electoral cycle; a crisis somewhere else that requires our tools of inter- national influence; the history of what we’ve tried previously; trends in policymaking; the existence of international media on the scene; classified information that makes the situation more complicated than it looks to the public; whether or not there is a principled and nonviolent movement for human rights in that country. Finally, with respect to priorities within foreign policy, national security—per the Constitution’s phrase “provide for the common defense”—is the U.S. government’s highest task, but I’d argue that human rights is national security. Governments that respect their own citizens are better allies, bring stability to their regions, and work with us to protect other American interests. So what do you think: Should human rights be seen as one issue set among many, or are they foundational to all the others? HB: We see them as very much foundational. A good example of this is the discussion about transitional justice. We saw this clearly in Afghanistan, where survivors and activists were calling for accountability for human rights violations perpetrated by many different governments and international actors, stretching back decades. The Karzai and Ghani administrations in Afghanistan shut down those efforts, with strong support from a lot of foreign diplomats who often told us privately that there were more pressing issues—that there How much space is there for diplomats to argue internally for principled approaches to human rights? –HB