International Relations Commons^™

A Historical Evaluation Of The Position Of The United States On Genocide Designations: Framing Implications For Xinjiang, Marley Taylor Belanger

Graduate Capstone Projects

This paper evaluates the historical stances of the United States with the international norm against genocide. It further examines how U.S. positions in precedent cases of genocide may help frame the U.S. response to the current crisis in Xinjiang, China. This paper reviews the historical record of the instances when the U.S. government has designated past atrocities to be considered genocides, and identifies patterns of continuity and change in the decision-making process of the U.S. This work then applies the theories of liberalism, constructivism, and realism to interpret the actions of the United States when deciding to recognize genocide formally. …

Book Review: Reluctant Interveners: America’S Failed Responses To Genocide From Bosnia To Darfur, Jeffrey Bachman

Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal

No abstract provided.

Guest Editors’ Introduction: Genocide Studies, Colonization, And Indigenous Peoples, David B. Macdonald, Tricia Logan

Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal

No abstract provided.

Bureaucracy And The U.S. Response To Mass Atrocity, Gregory Brazeal

Gregory Brazeal

The U.S. response to mass atrocity has followed a predictable pattern of disbelief, rationalization, evasion, and retrospective expressions of regret. The pattern is consistent enough that we should be skeptical of chalking up the United States’ failures solely to a shifting array of isolated historical contingencies, from post-Vietnam fatigue in the case of the Khmer Rouge to the Clinton administration’s recoil against humanitarian interventions after Somalia. It is implausible to suggest that the United States would have acted to mitigate or end mass atrocities but for the specific historical contingencies that happen to accompany each outbreak of violence. This essay …

Genocide Myopia: How Reframing Mass Atrocity Could Backfire, Sonia Cardenas

Human Rights & Human Welfare

The United States has long viewed genocide and mass atrocity as tragic, moral problems divorced from national interests. This may be changing under the Obama administration, with genocide and mass atrocity being reframed as problems to be solved pragmatically. Michael Abramowitz and Lawrence Woocher celebrate this “unprecedented breakthrough” in Foreign Policy, urging President Obama to follow up with specific measures: strategic military planning, interagency coordination, firm leadership, and concrete action on Darfur. Despite the promise of overcoming inaction and focusing on prevention, the new vision of genocide and mass atrocity Abramowitz and Woocher depict remains myopic. It is narrowly focused …

A Break From The Old Routine...., Todd Landman

Human Rights & Human Welfare

Abramowitz and Woocher highlight a potentially significant shift in policy discourse in international relations with respect to humanitarianism and the prevention of genocide. For many years, the United States has suffered from the twin problems of the human rights “double standard” and “Catch-22.” On the one hand, particular countries have been seen as vital by the United States for intervention on humanitarian grounds even though many believed other geostrategic interests are at stake (e.g. Kosovo in 1999) and others have not (e.g. Rwanda in 1994). On the other hand, US intervention on humanitarian grounds can be criticized as heavy-handed or …

Do Drones Have A Silver Lining?, David Akerson

Human Rights & Human Welfare

Michael Abramowitz and Lawrence Woocher’s article, “How Genocide Became a National Security Threat,” flags an important milestone in American foreign policy, namely that mass atrocities might now be appropriately viewed as the national security threats that they are. The problem with translating this policy development into action is the next and not insignificant challenge. Aerial drones may be key to overcoming it.

On Genocide And The National Interest, James Pattison

Human Rights & Human Welfare

In the second presidential debate, Barack Obama said, in response to a question about the crisis in Darfur, that “when genocide is happening, when ethnic cleansing is happening somewhere around the world and we stand idly by, that diminishes us. And so I do believe that we have to consider it as part of our interests, our national interests, in intervening where possible.” In a similar vein, Michael Abramowitz and Lawrence Woocher highlight how genocide is increasingly being seen as a security threat by the White House.

April Roundtable: Genocide And Us National Interests Introduction

Human Rights & Human Welfare

An annotation of:

“How Genocide Became a National Security Threat” by Michael Abramowitz & Lawrence Woocher. Foreign Policy. February 26, 2010.

Turks, Armenians, And Genocide: Is Genocide Foreign To Foreign Policy?, Ibpp Editor

International Bulletin of Political Psychology

This article describes difficulties in forging foreign policy consensus on preventing, attenuating, or intervening to stop genocide.