Search

Begin New Search Topic Atrocities Author Daniel Solomon

1. Climate Change, Response, and Mass Atrocities

Author:
Tallan Donine, Madeleine Maclean, and Daniel Solomon
Publication Date:
01-2024
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
Abstract:
This paper aims to stimulate and frame discussion during the Sudikoff Interdisciplinary Seminar on Genocide Prevention about the relationship between climate change, climate response, and mass atrocities. Based on a review of relevant research, the paper surveys current knowledge about how factors related to (1) climate change and (2) climate response measures might contribute to the risk and prevention of mass atrocities. In the coming decade, climate change will pose significant risks for communities around the world (Buhaug et al. 2023). Mitigation and adaptation measures taken in response to these risks will occupy a large amount of international attention and have important consequences for global political events. Effective action to help prevent and respond to mass atrocities will require clear analysis of the risks and opportunities that these trends present.
Topic:
Climate Change, Atrocities, Adaptation, and Atrocity Prevention
Political Geography:
Global Focus

2. Mass Atrocities in Ukraine: Assessing Risks of Significant Escalation

Author:
Daniel Solomon
Publication Date:
10-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
Abstract:
On October 11, 2022, the Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum convened a private roundtable to discuss potential scenarios of mass atrocity escalation in Ukraine. The discussion featured preliminary remarks by three Ukraine experts, followed by a facilitated discussion. The discussion aimed to encourage more systematic thinking about how the current pattern of mass atrocities in Ukraine could escalate, in terms of severity, lethality, and/or systematicity to inform policy makers’ consideration of preventive options. The 2022 United States Strategy to Anticipate, Prevent, and Respond to Atrocities states, “In cases of ongoing atrocities, the [Atrocity Prevention] Task Force supports regional policy processes in developing and monitoring targeted response options and adjusting course as needed.” Assessing potential pathways to escalation is one way to help identify targeted response options that could mitigate atrocity risks. Even in a case like Ukraine, where the core US strategy is to help Ukraine repel Russia’s invasion, additional options may be available to help protect vulnerable populations or head-off future escalation. At the time of the convening, little analysis of this type appeared to exist, despite the substantial attention to documenting atrocity crimes, monitoring day-to-day developments in the war, and anticipating potential future scenarios of the conflict in general. Therefore, the discussion focused on the following prompts: What are the major potential triggers or drivers of potential significant escalation of atrocities in Ukraine over the next year or so? What strategies might policy makers use to anticipate, prevent, or respond to the potential escalation of atrocities? What observable trends or events would indicate increasing likelihood of a significant escalation of atrocities in Ukraine? The discussion took place under the Chatham House rule. This rapporteur’s report summarizes key discussion points and questions without attribution.
Topic:
Atrocities, Armed Conflict, Russia-Ukraine War, and Risk Assessment
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, and Ukraine

3. The Role of Civilians and Civil Society in Preventing Mass Atrocities

Author:
Zachariah Mampilly, Daniel Solomon, Anushani Alagarajah, Dharsha Jegatheeswaran, Nyathon H. Mai, and Congo Research Group
Publication Date:
07-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
Abstract:
This paper synthesizes the results of a one-year, multicountry exploration of the role that civilians play in preventing and mitigating the trajectory of mass atrocity episodes. It is the culmination of a unique collaboration between the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum’s Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide and three partner organizations: Congo Research Group, the Adayaalam Centre for Policy Research, and the Sudd Institute. In consultation with the Simon-Skjodt Center, each country team conducted a subnational comparative study of civilian involvement in mass atrocity episodes. This paper brings together the findings from each country study to offer a general framework for understanding civilian agency and assesses how well existing theories of civilian action can account for the outcomes across cases. In addition, it addresses the conceptual and methodological challenges of studying civilian agency and the role of civil society cross-nationally. The study calls for a reconceptualization of civil society that moves away from traditional concepts in favor of foregrounding the political and economic contexts that civilians navigate during a conflict and its aftermath.
Topic:
Civil Society, Conflict, Civilians, Atrocities, and Atrocity Prevention
Political Geography:
Global Focus

4. 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