The One Question That Reveals What States Actually Want
How reverse engineering problems gets you wins. Every single time.
It’s Dubai 2023, I'm in climate negotiations, staring down another dead end.
Asian delegation just shot down Indigenous participation language. Again. The traditional knowledge text they want includes "FPIC of knowledge holders" and "consistent with UNDRIP."
Standard playbook says argue harder. Cite more articles. Get louder about violations.
Instead, I ask one question that flips the entire conversation.
"What is it about traditional knowledge that doesn't work for you?"
They start talking. Really talking. Turns out they're worried about setting precedent for every group claiming knowledge rights. Fair enough.
"What if we remove 'knowledge holders'?" I suggest. "FPIC as reflected in UNDRIP is a collective right."
Dead silence.
"Wait, FPIC is collective?"
They had no clue.
This is a point where Indigenous leaders could stay stuck. They're answering questions nobody asked instead of asking questions that reveal what people actually need.
Why Everyone Gets This Wrong
Walk into any UN meeting, and here’s what generally happens:
"You must support our rights because it's international law"
"We need Indigenous rights in the text"
"You have international obligations"
All true. Helpfull? No.
Here's what actually happens. The delegation nods politely, says something about studying your carefully drafted policy brief, and moves on. You leave thinking maybe you shifted something. They leave having told you nothing.
You just got diplomatically managed.
The problem isn't that they don't understand your arguments. The problem is you're asking them to care about your constraints instead of understanding theirs.
The Question That Changes Everything
"What doesn't work for you?"
Watch what happens next.
Instead of defensive pushback, you get real information. Their actual red lines. The constraints they're operating under. The political pressures they can't ignore.
People will tell you what they want all day. Getting them to share what they need requires the right question.
What You Actually Learn
I've used this approach across climate talks, human rights sessions, ocean negotiations, etc. The answers always surprise people, aside from the regular: “We don’t have Indigenous Peoples in our country.”
"We can't create precedent for every minority group"
"Our domestic law doesn't recognize group rights"
"The industry lobby will kill us if traditional knowledge gets equal weight with science"
"We need votes from countries that hate anything that looks like collective rights"
These aren't evil positions. They're specific constraints you can work around once you know they exist.
Most Indigenous leaders never hear this because they never ask the right question. Too busy being right to get smart.
The Real Example Everyone Misses
That UNFCCC moment I mentioned? Here's why it mattered.
The Asian delegation wasn't anti-Indigenous. They were anti-chaos. In their minds, "FPIC of knowledge holders" meant individual consent from every person with traditional knowledge. Bureaucratic nightmare.
Once I explained FPIC as collective right exercised by Indigenous Peoples, their whole framework shifted. Supporting FPIC consistent with UNDRIP became the clean solution to their administrative headache.
Same outcome. Different path. Way less fighting.
Note: Unfortunately, the line didn’t survive the negotiations that followed.
Why This Actually Works
When you ask what doesn't work, three things happen.
First, you acknowledge they have legitimate constraints. Not moral failings. Actual operational problems they're dealing with.
Second, you shift from demanding action to requesting information. People share information. They guard against demands.
Third, you treat them like problem-solvers instead of obstacles. Humans like being helpful when you frame it right.
The Follow-Up That Actually Gets Intel
Here's where it gets interesting. This was Sharm el-Sheikh. Bilateral, and I'm sitting there with 5 other Indigenous representatives. The delegation on the opposite side of the table thinks we're good for photo ops and probably new to this whole bilateral thing.
Perfect. Instead of swimming against that current and trying to sound smart, I lean into it.
"We're probably missing something, but how does this fit with what you're trying to achieve in Sharm?"
"Can you help us understand the ripple effects this creates for your other priorities."
"What are we not seeing about how this plays out when you take it back to capital?"
My Indigenous team members looked at me like I'm 12 when I asked these questions. Which is exactly what I want. A guy in a suit asking "childish" questions fits the other delegation’s expectations perfectly.
These sound naive enough that delegations don't guard against them. But they're complex enough to require real answers that reveal way more than they planned to share.
Meanwhile I'm checking my assumptions and getting from noise to signal, from thought to actual intel.
How This Changes Your Whole Game
You stop wasting energy on moral arguments that bounce off diplomatic training. You start designing proposals that work within their real constraints.
The magic happens when supporting Indigenous rights becomes their solution to other political pressures.
This isn't manipulation. Every delegation has instructions from capital, domestic politics, and legal frameworks they operate within. Understanding their reality gives you something concrete to work with.
Your moral authority doesn't override their operational constraints. But those constraints aren't permanent walls. They're specific problems with specific solutions.
Different countries have different constraints. Cookie-cutter advocacy gets cookie-cutter rejection.
I use questions to map what each delegation actually needs. Then I reverse engineer approaches that work within their specific limitations.
Am I a sell-out? Nope. Don't convert the unconvertible. You work with delegations who are already your champions by helping them understand how to bring along other delegations who might be flexible.
Before You Go
Stop asking people to support you because it's right. Start asking what's stopping them from supporting you.
The first gets you speeches about complexity and competing priorities. The second gets you roadmaps around actual constraints.
Try it in your next impossible conversation. Their "no" might be way more specific and solvable than you think.
See you next week!
P.S.: Want more? 5 hacks to read minds and win in UN negotiations.