The Foreign Service Journal, June 2023

THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL | JUNE 2023 43 connect versus a student receiving a lecture. Please bear in mind that they are people underneath those suits and badges. Pointed criticisms or rhetoric may sting because that person actually has been trying their hardest. And that can turn into dislike of the messenger or message, or even a sense that “what’s the use, it’s never enough.” Listen hard. The diplomat may be able—and may want—to tell you a lot about where the policy discussion really stands. Some diplomats are allies within the system, as you said, the kind who want to brainstorm options. For your part, do you assume all government officials are lying to you? HB: Definitely case by case. People do lie to us sometimes. That includes perpetrators of atrocities, but it may also include government officials whom we are approaching as potential allies. We know that most people we would hope to engage, which includes U.S. diplomats, would be very careful not to lie, or be caught in a lie, and that partially accounts for discussions that can feel vague and noncommittal. But there are definitely shades of truth. When we ask for the U.S. and other governments to speak out publicly on a human rights issue, sometimes we are told by the person we are in communication with that in their view raising the issue privately is more effective, and we should rest assured that they are indeed raising it privately, emphatically and fre- quently. How would we ever really know for sure, especially if things don’t improve? Have your actions as a diplomat been influenced by human rights advocacy groups, and if so, how? AP: I think that I have been influenced most as a diplomat by groups that emphasize big principles and overall policy direc- tion. They are right, in other words, about the imperatives. That emphasis may have emboldened me to keep pushing something that was difficult within the system and afforded me more space with my superiors to do so. I often was less influenced by advocates’ arguments at a granular policy or program level since these often lacked particular, relevant bits of information or context. That said, diplomats shouldn’t let their knowledge of existing impedi- ments to getting something done blind them to the importance of changing course or reprioritizing U.S. interests, no matter how difficult. How about you? Have you ever changed your mind about an issue after talking to a U.S. government official? If so, why? HB: That’s an interesting question. I have definitely changed my mind about the right strategy on a particular issue, and I have definitely acquired new information in discussions with diplo- mats from the U.S. and elsewhere that has changed my thinking. In my 11 years of doing advocacy for Human Rights Watch I have experienced a whole range of folks, from some U.S. diplomats who came across as racist and rude to many others who were truly interested in working together on a human rights issue. The best meetings are ones where you feel like you are co- conspirators—like you are on the same page and are brainstorm- ing together on how to use your respective roles to reach a goal you share. So, tell me the truth: What do U.S. diplomats think about activists and advocates? Do we seem ridiculously naive? AP: Well … sometimes. I would call out some advocates who think that a national leader’s criticism of the U.S. is proof of their independence of mind or principles: Nope, it’s possible to hate the U.S. and still be a tyrant. Also, there is a holdover view that “name and shame” is the best tool in the international tool kit, despite evidence to the contrary. And, I have a criticism that’s not about naivete: It seems messianic if international human rights advocates take the floor when a local advocate would be more appropriate. As we discussed, I think we disagree on the extent of a focus on human rights within a complex policy relationship. We also may see advocates as being uninformed or manipulated by people with domestic agendas—and just like anyone, they can become wedded to a position and defensive about it, even when faced with evidence of error. On a personal level, and especially when I dealt with indi- vidual researchers and advocates over time, I felt they were bril- liant and idealistic. I wished I could carry out their vision of an absolute prioritization of human rights, but my job was to hold the line for the many other core interests of the U.S. government. That said, advocates are invaluable to the wider policy debate; more extreme and one-sided approaches can help lead to a better, more nuanced overall policy. It’s often useful to state in an interagency policy meeting that you had a “tough” meeting with well-briefed human rights advocates, and introduce their new information, arguments, and recommendations. Speaking of which, does a human rights activist have the same “truth” as a U.S. government official—in other words, are your verification and fact-checking methodologies similar to the State Department’s? What are the gaps in information you often have?