Diplomacy’s non-interference paradox and how to crack it: After I wrote about the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, you asked about one of diplomacy's dilemmas: When does advocating for human rights cross the line of "interference in internal affairs"? VCDR Article 41: “[Diplomats] have a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs of that [host] State.” Yet many States have also signed human rights treaties establishing international obligations. This creates what we might call the "Non-Interference Paradox”: tension between the obligation to respect sovereignty and a duty to uphold universal values. The VCDR drafters left "interference" undefined. This ambiguity allows for diplomatic flexibility but creates ethical challenges for practitioners. Some governments hide behind Article 41 when they transgress agreed norms. For long periods leading UK human rights engagement on the ground with North Korea, with Vietnam and with Cuba, I faced in this Catch 22. As ever, the right place to start is smart listening. Dropping assumptions, learning different ways of thinking. Effective diplomats make progress through: ▶️ Connection: building relationships strong enough to withstand frank discussion ▶️ Calibration: private first, public statements when necessary ▶️ Citation: grounding criticism in specific commitments the host nation voluntarily made ▶️ Consistency: applying principles evenly, including acknowledging one's own country's (and one’s own) shortcomings I can’t claim influence over single-party states with which I engaged. They make their own policy. But in each we established a unique role. Article 41 wasn’t intended to silence legitimate dialogue on international obligations. Rather, it prevents diplomats from activities like funding opposition groups, organising political movements, or undermining legitimate governmental functions. Effective human rights diplomacy doesn’t usually present concern as external criticism. It frames dialogue as partnership in implementation of commitments a sovereign nation has made to its own people. But that dialogue should be frank. And sometimes it's necessary to speak publicly, as in Cuba after a crackdown on the first nationwide demonstrations since 1959. Then, focus criticism not on the government, but on its actions.