Types of Advocacy Action

There is a wide spectrum of advocacy actions in which Council members can engage to support the Human Rights Watch mission. The following brief examples are outlined in further detail below.

• Write advocacy letters to policy makers
• Participate in advocacy meetings and telephone calls with policy makers
• Draft op-ed pieces and letters to the editor
• Make public statements (e.g. an "open letter" in the New York Times)
• Speak for Human Rights Watch at substantive conferences and events
• Join field missions to assist with research and advocacy in critical areas
• Help to monitor and report on specific violations of international human rights law

Advocacy Letters and Statements

An important tool for promoting HRW positions is the advocacy letter or statement. These statements have several benefits. First, they help HRW to educate and inform relevant policy makers as well as members of the public, including Council members themselves. Second, advocacy letters urge policy makers to act decisively on pressing human rights issues over which they have real decision making authority. A direct and timely letter from concerned citizens with whom the recipient often has a social or professional relationship, can make a very real difference.

Accordingly, the process for generating these letters and statements respects the weight that they carry with policy makers and opinion leaders. While the process for each letter is somewhat different depending on the advocacy objective, divisional directors review all relevant letters, as do lead program staffers with substantive expertise in the relevant area. Regardless of who the direct recipient may be, all advocacy letters are assumed to be "public" unless specifically noted. As such, they may be circulated to audiences other than the specific person or group to whom the letter is addressed.

Advocacy Meetings and Telephone Calls

Face-to-face meetings with policy makers are an extremely effective form of advocacy, especially when Council members participate directly, not only as representatives of Human Rights Watch, but also as concerned citizens. These meetings provide an opportunity to educate and inform as well as to press for specific proposals and to meet any possible challenges, resistance or misinformation head on. Because meetings with leading policy makers can be difficult to secure and manage, it is crucial that Human Rights Watch use its audience with these leaders as effectively as possible.

Is a meeting or personal telephone call the next best step given the current circumstances? Program professionals should be consulted before any action is taken to contact a policy maker on behalf of a specific HRW advocacy objective. Once the determination is made that a meeting would be effective, and a date is secured, a clear and detailed agenda for the meeting should be outlined in advance with relevant staff, and a strategy session with all prospective advocacy participants should be scheduled shortly before the actual advocacy meeting is to take place.

This strategy session is essential for preparing meeting participants. Participants should understand with whom they are to meet, why this person or group may be able to make a difference, and what type of resistance may be encountered. Ideally, talking points would be prepared for the group and speaking roles outlined. Delegation members should understand the specific goals of the meeting, which may differ from the stated advocacy objectives directly identified during the meeting.

It should also be noted that the strategy session is the time to bring up any personal differences a Council member may have from stated HRW policy positions, no matter how subtle the difference may seem. These issues should be thoroughly vetted amongst participants. Where necessary, clarifications should be made, further information gathered or substantive issues brought to the appropriate decision makers.

For obvious reasons, it is important that members of a HRW delegation speak with one voice. When a Council member is not in a position to speak "on-policy" with regard to any specific issue, the message that Human Rights Watch hopes to promote can be clouded, and ultimately the hope of realizing the advocacy objectives at hand can be diminished. Each Council member must assume the responsibility for fully reviewing the relevant position or policy before participating in an advocacy action, and determining that the specific policy or position merits vigorous, if not unequivocal, support.

A delegation leader should be chosen from the group to coordinate meeting details and follow-up with Council support staff and HRW program staff. Correspondence should be managed through the Council staff support structure (i.e. Committee Directors), to ensure effective and inclusive communication.

Op-ed Pieces and Letters to the Editor

Op-ed pieces and letters to the editor are an extremely effective way to engage the public in a specific policy debate. They form part of the formal, public record of the organization's position on any given issue, and should be carefully crafted for maximum impact and effect. Because Council members are recognized leaders in their own communities, their opinions, expressed in a public forum, have a significant impact.

Council members should partner with the HRW Communications Department at the onset of any efforts to draft and place an op-ed piece to ensure that the planned intervention will support Human Rights Watch's overall press relations strategy.

During the course of any given year, Human Rights Watch might hope to have only a handful of op-ed pieces placed in major papers such as the New York Times, LA Times, San Francisco Chronicle or Washington Post. Normally, such pieces would be drafted over the signature of a key organizational leader or program director.

But while these limited opportunities must be strategically managed, there are many opportunities with secondary market papers that have very broad circulation. Depending on the issue and the constituency that HRW seeks to influence, placement in these secondary markets can often yield important support for advocacy objectives.

Always check with the Communications Department regarding deadlines and the feasibility of placement for any given op-ed piece prior to initiating the work process outlined below, and be certain to share information regarding the time frame of relevant deadlines with colleagues.

Regardless of placement or attribution, any op-ed that goes out over the Human Rights Watch name should go through the review process outlined below:

• Identify advocacy opportunity in coordination with Council and staff members
• Consult with the Communications Department
• Strategically target one or more publications
• Identify op-ed drafter (or small drafting committee)
• Prepare initial draft in consultation with relevant HRW divisional director
• Make decision on attribution
• Secure final approval of text and attribution from
  • Communications Department
  • Relevant Divisional Director
  • Council Leadership
• Coordinate op-ed placement efforts with Communications Department

Public Statements

Public statements can take many forms such as an open letter or paid advertisement in the New York or LA Times, or a statement distributed over the Internet via a web site or email list-serve. Public statements can also be in the form of speech or testimony given in public, such as testimony before a city council, official committee, professional association or other body that may have direct or indirect influence over relevant Human Rights Watch advocacy objectives. When Council members lend their name, personal experience or professional expertise to such statements, the effect can be catalytic.

Again, all such statements are part of the formal, public record of Human Rights Watch's positions and policies, and as such, should be approved in advance. If a Council member believes that he or she has an opportunity to promote a particular advocacy objective through such a forum, s/he should contact the relevant committee director for guidance and assistance in securing institutional endorsement.

Representation in Public Forums

Conferences, meetings, lectures, hearings, symposia and other forums relevant to Human Rights Watch's substantive areas of concern occur year-round in cities across the globe. Given its limited resources, HRW cannot possibly represent itself at all of the important gatherings at which it might like to have a presence. Council members can serve the organization's advocacy and program goals by participating in these events, representing HRW's advocacy positions where appropriate and reporting back to the relevant program and advocacy staff as to the nature and outcome of the event.

In some cases, Council members learn of significant events at which the organization should be represented, and in other cases, relevant program or advocacy staff may contact Council leadership or members directly with a specific request, especially where a particular member has a strong degree of relevant expertise and/or interest. Council members should meet with relevant staff well in advance to prepare, and to determine the scope of the intervention. Where relevant, talking points should be drafted. Preparing for such events can involve significant time commitments for both Council members and staff. Staff members must exercise discretion when weighing time invested in preparing for a specific event against other work responsibilities and priorities.

Where possible, this mode of representation is a great opportunity for Council members to educate themselves further about the work of HRW and about specific human rights issues. It is also a way for HRW to ensure that it does not miss important opportunities to advance its cause. Often, Council members can greatly assist program staff simply by reporting back on the outcomes of any given conference or event.

Field Missions

An important part of Human Rights Watch's work is bearing witness to human rights abuses and violations around the world. Sometimes this involves monitoring that is best done by technically trained professionals, especially where issues of international justice are involved. But often, the act of witnessing and surveying the landscape of human rights abuse in a given situation empowers the voice of the committed advocate. When Council members who have a particular social or professional standing undertake such work, their voice can have an important effect on peers and colleagues.

This act of "bearing witness" is itself of great importance. Yet when Council members are invited on mission, the expectations are somewhat higher. Often times Human Rights Watch has specific advocacy work that needs to be done in the country or region in question. This may involve meeting with political leadership on the ground, or liaising with representatives of the international community, such as UNHCR, NATO, OAS, various non-governmental organizations (NGOs) or other stakeholders and decision makers who are actively engaged in the issue or crisis at hand.

The opportunities for this kind of work are limited by a number of factors. While Council members bear the direct costs of such missions, the indirect costs to the organization for mission planning and preparation are an important factor to bear in mind. Because this work is difficult, sometimes dangerous and always resource dependent, it is important that clear goals be established in advance. The goals should include a work scheduled in country and upon return. All proposed missions should be evaluated in terms of the specific pressure points that HRW hopes to effect through the advocacy initiative.

Human Rights Monitoring and Reporting

Well-trained volunteers can do much to support Human Rights Watch's monitoring and reporting initiatives. Because this work involves a significant investment of institutional resources in terms of training and preparation, human rights monitoring and reporting demands the Council member's focused, long-term commitment. Monitoring in an international context is often difficult and dangerous work. To be effective, monitors require a degree of technical training and expertise. Members should be in good health and must be fully inoculated against known diseases in the area of operation. While opportunities are limited, this type of direct assistance is invaluable to HRW, to the participating council member, and to those whose human rights are under attack.