By Daniel Solomon, STAND Advocacy Coordinator

President Obama and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s Syria discussion on Monday night, amidst a thorough discussion of horses and bayonets, raised an important question: what is the strategic impact of mass atrocities prevention, and how can we conceive of the United States’ role in atrocities prevention policy? Two summers ago, in his presidential directive on mass atrocities, President Obama described mass atrocities prevention as a “core national security interest” for the United States. The President’s declaration was, in some sense, momentous: towards the end of his second administration, President Clinton initiated a similar, if smaller-scale early warning effort; Obama’s presidential directive, however, marked the first public, official recognition of the causal interaction between mass atrocities and threats to U.S. national security.

Human rights organizations, including the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum’s Committee on Conscience, and the Genocide Prevention Task Force have previously identified the national security/mass atrocities link; but, when the commander-in-chief describes atrocities prevention as a U.S. national security interest, it’s a bit easier to take him at his word. Except, of course, when it’s not. The link between mass atrocities events and U.S. national security is, at best, tangential, and certainly not causal. In previous discussions of the interaction, human rights advocates have identified outbreaks of terrorism, regional instability, and transnational trafficking operations as mass atrocities events’ malicious step-twins. Sudan, where Osama bin Laden staged Al Qaeda’s nascent operations between 1992 and 1996, is an oft-cited example, as is Somalia, where statelessness has fostered contagious extremism, regional spillovers, and an intractable humanitarian crisis.

Where mass atrocities occur, the logic goes, U.S. policymakers should anticipate the gradual, expedited, or contemporary emergence of palpable threats to U.S. foreign interests. For advocates of the national security/mass atrocities link, preventing, mitigating, and halting atrocities–through preventive diplomacy, as in Kenya, or military intervention, as in Libya–will enhance the United States’ strategic posture in key crisis arenas and, over the long-term, strengthen U.S. soft power in conflict-affected regions.

Unfortunately, the argumentative logic of a national security-infused atrocities prevention agenda lacks analytic rigor. Mass atrocities may occur as direct consequences of political instability, but, as James Fearon implies, the strategic logic of discriminate violence against civilians differs widely from that of political insurgency, conventional conflict, and organized crime. Mass atrocities may occur alongside terrorism events, but they are neither the cause nor the consequence of state failure, insurgency growth, or transnational crime. They are, first and foremost, a unique political technology, which merit distinct attention from the varied forms of political violence that captivate national security practitioners.

In spite of the non-linkage between mass atrocities and U.S. national security threats, foreign policy analysts have described atrocities prevention as a third-tier “national interest.” If the first tier characterizes direct threats to U.S. safety, security, and collective livelihoods, and the second tier describes extended threats to U.S. foreign interests, the third tier might incorporate a broader perspective on U.S. foreign policy priorities, including strategic collaboration and cooperation with foreign allies, soft-power priorities, and the credible promotion of U.S. normative, commercial, and economic interests abroad. The third tier encapsulates a set of policy priorities that, over the long-term, maintain U.S. leadership, security, and normative credibility. Atrocities prevention, as a mechanism for soft-power promotion, as well as a moral responsibility for U.S. policymaking, clearly fits the bill.

In parsing the role of atrocities prevention in a broader framework for U.S. national interests abroad, it’s worth remembering that, while members of the defense, intelligence, and diplomatic communities play a key role in preserving the first and second tiers of U.S. national interests, a relatively limited subset of U.S. local, regional, and federal agencies, institutions, and organizations strengthen a broader base of U.S. national interests, whether through norm diffusion, commercial activity, or institutional support. Foreign aid initiatives, in some respects, represents an essential component of this latter community of political actors. As Charles Kenny has demonstrated, foreign aid programs operate most effectively when geared towards “tangible results,” rather than idyllic, practically unachievable normative priorities. Atrocities prevention programs, including localized mediation, preventive diplomacy, and peacebuilding initiatives, are well-poised to play this role. As advocates continue to press for varied interventions in atrocities events, this is worth bearing in mind: atrocities prevention is worthwhile not because of its national security implications, but because, in Kenya, South Sudan, and Kyrgyzstan, it works.

These two posts are written by Jasmin Kaur and Brian Browne, from George Washington University STAND. Jasmin and Brian were two of the students who helped hand deliver 777 letters to Bob Schieffer’s office, pressing him to ask the presidential candidates how they will prioritize mass atrocity prevention during tonight’s foreign policy debate.

It was another Sunday night STAND E-board meeting at GW. As much as I love all the meetings, this particular one really sparked my interest. The chapter’s STAND President, Ryan Brenner, introduced the National Day of Action initiative. She made it a competition amongst us E-board members to see who could get the most letters, tweets, retweets, etc. to Bob Schieffer. We would be asking the moderator of the Foreign Policy Debate to ask the candidates, “How will you strengthen the United States’ atrocity prevention efforts as president?” Besides the competition, what really got me excited about this campaign was what I, as an individual, could immediately start doing in order to strengthen the country’s response to genocide and other mass atrocities.

I recently read part of Samantha Power’s book, A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide. It discussed America’s responses to previous mass atrocities. As an American, I have always had a positive bias towards America as being the human rights champion of the world. However, this book made it obvious just how pathetic America’s response has been to mass atrocities in the past. It was heartbreaking to read that America’s response to genocide has been consistently absent of action. This is especially disheartening in the case of the Rwandan and Darfur genocides. Even with the labeling by the Bush administration of the situation in Darfur as being a genocide, the action stopped there.

However, it was also while reading this book that I became optimistic. President Obama has recently created an Atrocities Prevention Board. This was the best action taken so far by a U.S. President on atrocity prevention. I knew that it was in the hands of the public to make this Atrocities Prevention Board a staple of the White House and U.S. foreign policy. The U.S. government ‘s strength lies in its reliance on the will of the people. However, it is this will that many in the government cite as being a reason for the U.S. to not actively engage in atrocity prevention.

STAND’s National Day of Action Campaign allowed me to start taking an active role in getting atrocity prevention on the national agenda. Tweeting and letter writing are such easy things to do, but they can also be some of the most effective tools. Everyone knows just how much of an impact twitter and other forms of social media can have on spreading a movement. Whatever the outcome of today’s debate and of the election, there will have to be a constant push on the U.S. government by its people to strengthen atrocity prevention initiatives, and moreover, to take an active role once a mass atrocity does start. As a global leader, the U.S. holds a lot of power. It’s time for the U.S. to start using that power as leverage to help stop some of the greatest tragedies in human history.

By Jasmin Kaur, Conflict-Free Campus Initiative Co-Coordinator, GW STAND

On Friday I walked to the United to End Genocide office in downtown DC from the George Washington University campus to meet with several other STAND members who are also from the DC area. I had just finished writing a letter to Bob Schieffer that I would be personally delivering to his office, located just a few blocks away. Along with hundreds of other students who submitted letters like mine, I was asking him to raise the issue of genocide prevention at the upcoming presidential debate.

This wasn’t the first time I’d taken part in activism for STAND. I joined STAND as a junior in high school and remember making calls to the State Department, writing letters to my congressmen, and raising funds for aid in Darfur. I remember once feeling victorious after watching Senator Menendez mention the meaningful role of New Jersey students in spreading awareness when he met with the Special Envoy for Darfur. As a senior I became the president of the chapter, and learned much more about STAND and other global conflicts. I realized the significance of creating a permanent anti-genocide community, and prioritized teaching my school and my community about the crises in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Burma along with Darfur. We held walks, sold custom tee-shirts, collected pledges, and circulated petitions for these causes, always hoping that we could somehow make a difference.

I continued to be apart of the anti-genocide community when I joined STAND in college at GW and took part in several rallies, walks, and other over the past few years. I attended panel discussions with experts on Sudan, Burma, and the DRC, and have done academic research on these conflicts for school. I even had one of my papers posted on a popular South Sudanese blog a friend of mine runs. With my education rising, so was my level of activism, but it was still important to me to stick with the basics. So this Friday, I knew I had a powerful role to play in the effort to bring the topic of genocide prevention to the debate moderator’s desk by delivering the letters.

As the moderator of the foreign policy debate, Bob Schieffer can ask the candidates how they would, as president, strengthen the U.S. government’s capacity to prevent mass atrocities around the world. This is important, first because it highlights the unique position that the United States government has in standing up for peace wherever conflict arises. We, as a global leader, can help people in the Sudans, Burma, the DRC, Syria, and elsewhere who are struggling for basic needs and security. The global community watches our actions, and looks to us for guidance. We can prevent antagonizers from committing atrocities, and we can encourage others to help protect against those that do. Second, the debate is a great opportunity to show millions of viewers where atrocities are currently happening, and what we should expect our government to do about it. Third, by allowing the general public to hear how each candidate plans to prepare for and react to foreign conflicts, we can make a better judgment about who we should vote for. This also shows the candidates that we, as citizens, care about this issue and will hold them accountable to their words.

So as I walked to Bob Schieffer’s office, it was my hope that by delivering the pile of letters, my message would be magnified when presented to him. I thought that our collective voice would stand out and be heard among the countless other letters, calls, and emails his office receives. When we arrived at his office, we handed the pile of letters to the person at the front desk. With an anticlimactic end to a short trip, I still knew that we played a powerful role in the effort to put genocide prevention on the center stage at the next debate. We got our message to stand out, and even if the candidates aren’t asked about genocide prevention, our continued work as student activists in creating a permanent anti-genocide community is strengthened nonetheless. But if we are lucky, millions of voters along with the global community will see how the candidates prioritize genocide prevention and the candidates will know how dedicated its supporters remain.

By Brian Browne, Press Officer, GW STAND, and former President of the Vineland High School STAND Chapter

This piece, written by Danny Hirschel-Burns, from Swarthmore College STAND, originally appeared on his blog The Widening Lens.

Ever since Tuareg rebels defeated Malian forces to create the de-facto independent Republic of Azawad in Northern Mali, foreign military intervention has been on the table. Though it has not happened yet, the UN Security Council laid the groundwork for intervention a few days ago. While most policy makers have stuck to stressing the need to fight extremism, commentators have also highlighted human rights violations by Ansar Dine, a Tuareg Islamist group with links to Al Qaeda in the Maghreb (AQIM). Due to these human rights violations, R2P has also entered the picture (it may well not be cited if an intervention happens, but due to the possibility, its applicability should be analyzed). However, despite numerous executions, destroyed cultural sites, and refugees, the situation in Mali has not reached the level of genocide or a mass atrocity, forcing us to either reinterpret Responsibility to Protect’s (R2P) mandate or discard it as an analytic framework.

The second pillar of R2P states that the international community has the duty to help states protect their citizens. But in Mali, which state does the second pillar refer to? Bamako has no control over Azawad, but the international community does not recognize the legitimacy of the Tuareg state. So who does the international community have a duty to assist when in comes to protecting civilians in northern Mali? By sanctioning an intervention under the guise of R2P, the international community would assert Bamako’s claim to Azawad, and that the Malian government alone can protect civilians in what used to be its territory. An intervention would unwittingly reinterpret the doctrine as not only a mandate for civilian protection, but also one for territorial integrity.

This interpretation, however, has its priorities in the wrong place. It implies that only “legitimate” governments (i.e. recognized) have the the ability to protect civilians. This is not realistic in Mali’s case. It is not as if a small rebel group temporarily seized a few towns; Bamako has fully lost control of northern Mali, and is no longer the governing power there. While seeing Bamako as the government in Northern Mali doesn’t match up with realities on the ground, there are still other problematic implications with this view. The perception that Ansar Dine is inherently dangerous to civilian populations falls back on the idea of the Islamist bogeyman, where Islamists are universally opposed to democracy and human rights. To be sure, Ansar Dine is a brutal organization that has committed egregious human rights violations, but its presence in northern Mali does not equate to a genocide waiting to happen. Secondly, the idea that a military intervention (also known as a war) is necessary to reestablish the control of a government (in which the leader of a recent military coup still holds power) over a territory it lost so that it can reclaim its role as the legitimate protector of civilians is so ludicrous it doesn’t merit further examination.

If R2P mandates an intervention to retake northern Mali, then that implies that not only does the the international community have a duty to help states eliminate a group within their borders that are committing mass atrocities, but that it also has a duty to regain territory held by a group that might commit mass atrocities in the future. This precedent would lend “legitimate” governments, which includes a lot of brutal dictators, justification for crushing separatist forces, as they might kill civilians in the future. Given the current debate over R2P vs. RwP at the UN, the doctrine doesn’t need any more problems that will hamper its ability to protect civilians.

Applying R2P to Mali implies that governments must control their territory so that they can protect their own civilians, and that if they lose territory, the international community has the responsibility to help governments regain it whether or not mass atrocities have been committed. This interpretation does exactly what R2P isn’t supposed to: it uses R2P as a justification for military actions without an intent to protect civilians. It’s better for the future of R2P if we call the intervention in Mali what it is: an intervention to remove Islamists as part of the global war on terror.

DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO

A confidential report was leaked to Reuters on Wednesday, saying that Rwanda’s defence minister, General James Kabarebe, is effectively commanding the M23 rebellion in the DRC. The report says Kigali has supplied the M23 with heavy weapons and is helping with recruitment for the group. The report goes to to say that Uganda is also backing the M23 rebels in eastern Congo by providing direct troop reinforcements, weapons deliveries, technical assistance, joint planning, political advice and facilitation of external relations. The Chicago Tribune says that the rebellion is also being funded by traders in Rwanda who profit from smuggling tin, tungsten, and tantalum across the border. Both Rwanda and Uganda are strongly denying these allegations.

The M23 rebellion began in April. Since then, nearly half a million people have been displaced by fighting between the M23 and the national army. This would seem to be nothing new: for the past two decades, Rwanda has backed armed groups in eastern Congo to fight Hutu rebels who fled there after the 1994 genocide as well as gain access to natural resources in Congo. The DRC government is hoping that sanctions will be imposed on all of those named in the report.

Excerpts from Report, as noted in the Chicago Tribune:

The RDF (Rwandan army) recruitment for M23 within Rwanda has increased in the past four months," it said. "The main targets for recruitment are Rwandan demobilized soldiers and civilians, as well as Congolese refugees." The use and recruitment of child soldiers by armed groups, notably by M23, has increased," the report said, adding that over 250 children had been recruited. "Furthermore, certain M23 commanders have ordered the extrajudicial executions of dozens of recruits and prisoners of war." M23 uses boys on the frontlines as cover for advancing units, often after a week of training," the experts said. "Others act as porters, intelligence operatives and bodyguards. The rebels use young girls as cooks and as commanders’ wives."

Despite these allegations, Rwanda was voted onto the UN Security Council today.  It was unopposed in its bid for the African seat on the council, and will take the seat currently held by South Africa on January 1, 2013. Rwanda’s Foreign Minister Louise Mushikiwabo stated that her government will be able to offer a unique perspective on matters of war and peace at the Security Council.  The last time Rwanda held a seat on the UNSC was in 1994, when they were able to use their influence to deny genocide allegations.

The DRC is hoping to increase taxes under its mining code in order to boost revenue. The mines ministry says it wants to increase the government’s stake in mining projects from 5 percent and get higher royalty payments from companies. Congo copper output reached 520,000 tons last year, which the mining industry hopes to triple by 2016. Investors in the area say this is a short-term solution to Congo’s problems and thinks it will undermine investment opportunities in Congo. In 2010, the US began requiring companies to disclose use of minerals from Congo, those profiting from the trade have easily adapted to the drop in price for some resources by shifting their focus to gold mining in Congo.

SUDAN

On Monday, Mohamed al-Beel Issa Zayyed, deputy head of the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) announced that JEM clashed with government forces in South Kordofan. According to Zayyed, “dozens of government forces were killed, including the force commander.” He added that the rebels destroyed three army vehicles and seized two another two that were carrying large quantities ammunition and weapons.

Darfur peace partners have said they are willing to settle divergences over security arrangements. The Joint Commission of the DDPD (Doha Document for Peace in Darfur) is set to break the deadlock between the Sudanese government and the former rebel Liberation and Justice Movement over the integration of LJM combatants in the Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration (DDR) process. Issues related to the implementation of security arrangements will be discussed and, partners hope, will be settled within a month.

SOUTH SUDAN

The Safe Demilitarized Buffer Zone (SDBZ) agreement between Sudan and South Sudan has caused widespread misunderstandings among the Dinka Aweil people of Northern Bahr el Ghazal state. A large crowd of civil right activists and residents of the state staged a peaceful procession in Juba on Monday, demanding the “immediate removal” of the 14 mile area from the Zone. Inhabitants of the state see it as an encroachment upon their land.

SYRIA

UN-Arab League envoy Lakhdar Brahimi has called for a ceasefire in Syria during the upcoming Muslim holiday of Eid al-Adha, which begins next Thursday. He has just arrived in Amman, Jordan, after visits to Egypt, Lebanon, Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq. Syria’s state-run newspaper said on Wednesday that the biggest obstacle to a holiday ceasefire is the lack of an authority to sign for the rebels, who have no unified leadership. Yesterday, France hosted a meeting of Syrian revolutionary groups and diplomats to support civilian groups managing rebel-held areas. Diplomats from 20 countries were expected to participate.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reports that on Monday, at least 16 soldiers were killed in fighting near Aleppo, including the driver of a vehicle carrying three tons of explosives. On the Iraqi border, shelling by rebels killed three children, aged six, seven, and 12–these children were among at least 48 people killed nationwide. Rebels have forced Syrian troops from Maarat Al Numan, calling the victory a “major breakthrough.”

The World Health Organization states that fighting has significantly affected health facilities throughout the country, leaving 29% out of service, and damaging 271 out of 520 ambulances, leaving 177 out of service. Meanwhile, the UN World Food Programme notes that prices for basic provisions in the country have nearly doubled since fighting began last March. Though they are feeding 1.4 million Syrians across the country, more remain out of reach because of ongoing violence. The EU has pushed fresh sanctions against the Assad regime, agreeing on an assets freeze and travel ban for 28 Syrians and two firms. This is the 19th round of sanctions, bringing the total blacklisted number of people to 181 and number of companies to 54.

In Turkey, the number of refugees has topped 100,000. Though previously, Turkey stated that they would only take up to 100,000 refugees, they have changed their position, saying that the country will not close its doors to refugees. However, Turkey-Syria relations remain tense. While Jordan has also announced that it will open a second camp, which will allow as many as 250,000 to enter their country, Iraq has begun limiting the number of refugees, saying it lacks the security and resources to hold them.

BURMA

A new proposal to Myanmar’s parliament has called for each of Burma’s states’ greater autonomy. It is being proposed by an alliance of 10 political parties, five of which are those representing some of Burma many ethnic nationalities.

Also, with the recent easing of sanctions towards Burma, the US has said it will not engage in military ties with newly reformed country until its human rights issues are addressed.

On Wednesday, October 17, over 200 hundred lawyers held a demonstration in Burma’s largest city, Yangon. They were protesting the proposed sale of one of the city’s old colonial buildings to Chinese businessmen. Yangon has some of the world’s best preserved colonial architecture for nothing else has been built in their place due to the country’s stagnant economy for much of the past 50 years. The protest is the second major protest in the city this month.