Search

Begin New Search Topic Atrocity Prevention

51. From Independence to Civil War: Atrocity Prevention and US Policy toward South Sudan

Author:
Jon Temin
Publication Date:
07-2018
Content Type:
Journal Article
Institution:
Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
Abstract:
Could the civil war in South Sudan have been prevented? Could some of the violence and misery caused by the war have been avoided? Those questions are academic in some ways, as so much damage has been done. But in other ways, seeking answers is vital because patterns of violence in the 21st century suggest there will be more wars that resemble the South Sudan conflict: (a) fought within a country’s borders, (b) fought between multiple groups that regularly fragment and realign, (c) driven in part by access to lucrative natural resources and capture of state coffers, (d) with civilians often targeted, and (e) in which the lines between civilians and combatants are sometimes blurred. When the threat of such state collapse appears elsewhere—and we should expect that it will—lessons from the South Sudan experience will be valuable. This project seeks to identify some of those lessons by examining US policy toward South Sudan in the years leading up to and during the civil war. President Barack Obama’s administration placed an emphasis on atrocity prevention, and South Sudan’s civil war was the source of some of the most egregious atrocities anywhere during his time in office. The author conducted in-depth interviews with more than 30 former and current American officials (from the Obama and George W. Bush administrations), South Sudanese experts, and longtime observers of South Sudan from the think tank, nongovernmental organization (NGO), and academic communities. Through those interviews, the author sought to identify pivotal periods in US policy making, short stretches of time during which events in South Sudan compelled the United States to act—or, in hindsight, times at which the United States could have acted with greater conviction but did not. This report identifies four such periods. For each, the author seeks to identify alternative policies that could have been considered and to assess whether those policies may have been able to prevent or limit violence.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Civil War, and Atrocity Prevention
Political Geography:
Africa, South Sudan, and United States of America

52. Breaking Cycles of Distrust: Preventing Mass Atrocities in Bangladesh

Author:
Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide
Publication Date:
11-2017
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
Abstract:
This report explores scenarios over the next 12–18 months in which Bangladesh could plausibly experience large-scale, systematic attacks on civilian populations. The authors selected Bangladesh for this study because it has consistently ranked in the top 10 percent of countries in the world on the Early Warning Project’s global statistical risk assessment for state-led mass killing; yet, there has been relatively little apparent policy attention to these risks. Staff of the Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide interviewed a wide variety of stakeholders in Bangladesh and elsewhere to identify potential mass atrocity scenarios and the underlying risks and mitigating factors. The risk of mass violence in Bangladesh is rooted in the competition between Bangladesh’s two main political parties and is likely to be particularly acute in the lead-up to and aftermath of the general election scheduled for late 2018. Contested or unclear electoral results present the greatest risk of mass killing. If there is disagreement regarding the election results, allegations of fraud or rigging, or a situation where neither the Awami League (AL) nor the Bangladesh National Party (BNP) receives the required number of seats to form a government, the deeply polarized political environment has created incentives for each major party to react violently. Supporters of the competing party are likely to be the main targets in any mass atrocity scenario; religious minorities face distinct but related risks as well.
Topic:
Civil Society, Elections, Domestic Politics, Dialogue, Atrocity Prevention, and Risk Assessment
Political Geography:
Bangladesh and South Asia

53. Critical Junctures in United States Policy toward Syria: An Assessment of the Counterfactuals

Author:
Mona Yacoubian
Publication Date:
08-2017
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
Abstract:
More than any other foreign policy crisis during the Obama administration’s eight years, the Syrian conflict has engendered enormous debate about what the United States might have done differently: Could this catastrophe have been avoided? In particular, might different decisions at critical junctures in US policy debates have diminished the level of killing and atrocities? This paper explores these questions based primarily on interviews with former US officials and nongovernmental Syria experts.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Syrian War, Atrocities, Chemical Weapons, Bashar al-Assad, Containment, and Atrocity Prevention
Political Geography:
Middle East, Syria, North America, and United States of America

54. Evaluating Counterfactual US Policy Action in Syria, 2011-16: A Review of Empirical Evidence from Related Cases

Author:
Daniel Solomon
Publication Date:
08-2017
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
Abstract:
In public and policy debates about the US response to the conflict in Syria, comparisons to past responses to international cases of mass atrocity have become a fixture. In these debates, analysts use lessons from those past responses to forecast the likely consequences of US policy action in Syria or to speculate about the counterfactual consequences of actions not taken at various junctures. Comparisons to historical cases of international response provide important mental models for policy makers seeking to use specific tools and strategies to respond to the risk or occurrence of mass atrocities.2 For example, Barack Obama has said that his unwillingness to pursue military action against the government of Bashar al-Assad in response to its use of chemical weapons in August 2013 resulted in part from his dismay at the instability that followed the military operation that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) led against Muammar Gaddafi’s forces in Libya in 2011.3 For Obama, the risk that even limited military action in Syria could become “another Libya” was enough to remove a range of possible military options from consideration. Which counterfactual US actions, if any, might have prevented or mitigated violence against civilians in Syria? This paper uses a systematic review of empirical studies of international responses to mass atrocities and related phenomena to evaluate these contemporary debates about US policy action in Syria.4 The purpose of this review is to evaluate plausible alternative avenues the US may have taken to prevent or mitigate mass atrocities against civilians in Syria. This analysis centers on “minimal rewrite” counterfactuals, in which a different policy action at a specific, time-bounded juncture in the US policy process on Syria might have led to a different outcome in violence against civilians. “Minimal rewrite” counterfactuals are opposed to socalled miracle world counterfactuals, which would require significant changes to the structural or contextual conditions that shape US policy.5 The paper centers on three policy actions that the US government debated—and in some cases implemented, to a limited degree—at various junctures since the conflict began in March 2011: (a) lethal support to the armed Syrian opposition, (b) limited strikes against Syrian government targets, and (c) no-fly zones. Although those US officials sometimes debated these options during overlapping junctures, the paper addresses opposition support and the direct military options as separate phenomena. The paper uses a review of historical, qualitative and quantitative studies of related cases and policy actions to assess the extent to which these actions may have affected the scope and severity of subsequent atrocities in Syria.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Syrian War, Atrocities, Counterfactuals, and Atrocity Prevention
Political Geography:
Middle East, Syria, North America, and United States of America

55. A Survey of Expert Judgments on the Effects of Counterfactual US Actions on Civilian Fatalities in Syria, 2011 - 2016

Author:
Lawerence Woocher
Publication Date:
08-2017
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
Abstract:
The survey focused on four “minimal rewrite” counterfactuals: (a) President Obama’s not calling publicly for Syrian president Bashar al-Assad to “step aside” in 2011, (b) the vetting and arming of moderate rebels in 2012, (c) the use of airstrikes to enforce the “red line” against chemical weapons use in 2013, and (d) the choice of an “Assad first” strategy instead of an “ISIS first” strategy in 2014.1 Respondents were asked to make probabilistic assessments on whether the counterfactual actions would have resulted in fewer civilian fatalities over the subsequent 12 months. They were also asked to cite the most important factors that led to their assessments and to identify other US government actions that would have been more effective in reducing civilian fatalities at the time. The clearest findings are (a) on average, respondents did not rate any of the four main counterfactuals very highly: neither the median nor the mean response on any of the four key counterfactual estimates was as high as 50 percent; and (b) very little consensus existed among respondents about the effect of the counterfactual actions on civilian fatalities over the subsequent year. The data reveal greater consensus on what the “most important factors” were, yet some striking disagreement on key analytical points. Finally, the most frequently cited ideas of other actions that would have helped reduce civilian fatalities were various types of (direct or indirect) military actions.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Syrian War, Civilians, Atrocities, Counterfactuals, and Atrocity Prevention
Political Geography:
Middle East, Syria, and United States of America

56. Allies Against Atrocities: The Imperative for Transatlantic Cooperation to Prevent and Stop Mass Killings

Author:
Lee Feinstein and Tod Lindberg
Publication Date:
03-2017
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
Abstract:
A generation after Rwanda and Bosnia, many of the world powers who apologized for their lack of an early and effective response to genocide during the 1990s have yet to organize themselves sufficiently to act early and effectively to prevent or stop mass atrocities. The horror of Syria is Exhibit A. As responses to past atrocity crimes show, averting and halting atrocities requires a coordinated and sustained effort by local, regional, and international actors. This report argues that a multilateral response is necessary and that the transatlantic region has a critical role to play in shaping and leading these efforts. The governments of the transatlantic community—the United States, Canada, and Europe—already devote significant resources and political capital to the prevention and amelioration of crises and conflicts, as well as to the pursuit of international development agendas. Without better cooperation among themselves and their like-minded cousins, efforts to address mass atrocities will continue to be reactive, slow, and devastating to human life and potential. Individual transatlantic countries should be involved in those efforts, each bringing its unique capacities to the table. From the vantage point of the report's authors, the United States has a particularly important role to play in encouraging greater transatlantic cooperation among states on this issue. Principle Recommendations: Devise and implement coordinated transatlantic atrocity prevention efforts Internationalize atrocity prevention efforts Improve coordination of financial sanctions Develop an international legal framework adequate to the challenge of atrocity prevention Prioritize civilian protection in military responses that include peacekeeping
Topic:
International Cooperation, Sanctions, Peacekeeping, Civilians, Atrocities, Transatlantic Relations, Atrocity Prevention, and Protection
Political Geography:
Europe, Canada, North America, and United States of America