The Foreign Service Journal, June 2023

42 JUNE 2023 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL needed to be an end to the conflict in Afghanistan and stability in the country. Our response was that failing to deal with past atrocities was a major barrier to exactly the kind of peace and stability diplomats from the U.S. and elsewhere and Afghan gov- ernment officials were saying was a prerequisite. I don’t claim that this dynamic explains the whole human rights disaster that Afghanistan is today, but it certainly didn’t help. Similarly, women’s full participation in all peace processes— for which everyone should be on board since U.N. Security Council Resolution 1325, adopted in 2000, requires it—is forgot- ten all the time. It didn’t surprise anyone working on women’s rights, though, when research by the U.N. and others started to show that women’s participation made it more likely that a deal to bring peace would be reached and that it would be imple- mented. Afghanistan today can, unfortunately, be seen as an example of what happens when rights are not seen as foundational. What has happened there involved a deal—between the U.S. and the Taliban—made without the participation of the Afghan govern- ment and with zero Afghan women at the table. As we know, that deal brought nothing resembling peace to Afghan women. So, Annie: What kind of training do U.S. diplomats get—and what kind of guidance do they receive—from the State Depart- ment and, in particular, the Foreign Service Institute, about the importance of and the role of diplomats regarding human rights? AP: For me, human rights training was incorporated into a three-week “Political Tradecraft” course, with elements on reporting on human rights, drafting the annual reports, and adjudicating the Leahy Law for security training. Human rights training is also available in units regarding gender, atrocity prevention, fundamentals of international human rights law, and religious freedom. But the State Department has a culture of on-the-job training, largely out of necessity: time spent at the Foreign Service Institute equates to a vacant chair somewhere, in tightly staffed offices or embassies. One quibble with the question, though: No one could neces- sarily train you in the “importance” of human rights. As I men- tioned, almost nothing about policymaking is truly calculable in absolute terms without considering it relative to other policy goals. HB: Sigh. That doesn’t seem like much training. Maybe not on the importance, but Human Rights Watch thinks all Foreign Service officers should receive training in international human rights treaty law and customary law, as well as topics like refugee law and basic international humanitarian law. One can’t expect new Foreign Service officers to teach themselves the fundamen- tals of human rights laws and practices. AP: OK, a different topic—have government officials ever changed their mind after talking to you? If so, why? HB: That’s a hard question. How would I know? I guess I have been in meetings where the official we were speaking with seemed surprised and concerned by information we were providing. When someone seems like they’re hearing something new, you think maybe you are going to have an impact and shift their thinking. We really want to work with diplomats who are, in their own role, advocates for human rights. We bring to the table informa- tion, findings, data, detailed ideas for practical solutions, and deep connections with experts and activists. When we are doing our work well, we’re partnering with activists on the ground and helping them be heard in new ways, including by U.S. diplomats. Policymakers should care about what civil society has to say. We see that they often do. They’re overworked and are on the hook to make big decisions about complex matters, and they often look to Human Rights Watch and other organizations for help. Since we’re on the subject, what mistakes do human rights advocates make in their engagement with diplomats? AP: So glad you asked, because it’s vital to make the most of the opportunities to have the impact you just described. A few procedural mistakes come to mind. For example, advocates may waste time in meetings by starting at a too-basic level, such as introducing who is in the room beyond a sentence or two, or going over the history of a problem rather than getting to the heart of the conversation. If you have a meeting with a dip- lomat, especially a formal one, that person already has your bio and a briefing memo on the issue under discussion. Also, treat the diplomat as a respected colleague with whom you want to Almost nothing about policymaking is truly calculable in absolute terms without considering it relative to other policy goals. –AP