Secretary Clinton Outlines U.S. Approaches to Atrocity Prevention

by Andrew Zemlan

In the keynote address to the Symposium on Genocide Prevention on July 24th at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton elaborated on the new Atrocities Prevention Board (APB) and discussed mechanisms the APB will use to prevent mass atrocities. Such a speech from a top senior official, emphasizing the capability to prevent atrocities before they begin, was greatly appreciated by the audience and by those who have awaited further insight into how the APB will work. In particular, the administration’s interest in working with local civil society organizations (CSOs) should be applauded.

In her speech, Secretary Clinton outlined six of the mechanisms that the United States Government can be expected to use:

1. Officer training to be aware of warning signs, talking to the media and the government, and supporting those who counter propaganda.

2. Technology to detect when governments are targeting protesters and to warn the protesters. Additionally, USAID is partnering with Humanity United to support projects aimed at developing new ways in which technology can serve preventing atrocities.

3. Bolstering civilian surge capacity to work with local groups in countries such as South Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo in order to advise U.S. officials and warn of impending atrocities.

4. Working with women and using early warning systems to respond to sexual and gender-based violence.

5. Cutting off resources to those organizing atrocities.

6. Holding accountable those who commit atrocities.

However, one of the inherent troubles in halting ongoing atrocities was seen in Clinton’s speech. That is the question of whether stopping further escalation of ongoing atrocities would require a regime change or not. Secretary Clinton discussed the need to prevent and mitigate atrocities and, in the case of Syria, alluded that President Bashar al-Assad “must step aside.” From the perspective of the Syrian government, this would necessarily create “an existential struggle” to their existence, especially as Secretary Clinton said “[the United States] are also increasing our efforts to assist the opposition.” The result is a heightened level of further atrocities being committed, the very reason for which international assistance is used under the cloak of prevention. A presumption of regime change, as opposed to changing the behavior of the regime, is problematic in itself. Some tools have been discussed for preventing atrocities, such as freezing financial assets to block the ability to commit atrocities in the short-term, but history tells us they do not persuade a government who perceives itself under the “existential threat” that the cessation of violence and restoration of civil liberties are in its own interest for securing a foundation for long-term stability. This is the challenge of operationalizing Pillar 3 of the Responsibility to Protect as well. We will see how the UN General Assembly will treat this thorny issue in its fourth informal interactive dialogue to be held in September, this time dedicated to the topic of “The Responsibility to Protect: Timely and Decisive Response.”