[Joint House and Senate Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
PREVENTING MASS ATROCITIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND
COOPERATION IN EUROPE
U.S. HELSINKI COMMISSION
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 13, 2021
__________
Printed for the use of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in
Europe
[CSCE117-1]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via www.csce.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
60-799 WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE
U.S. HELSINKI COMMISSION
U.S. SENATE U.S. HOUSE
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland STEVE COHEN, Tennessee Co-Chairman
Chairman JOE WILSON, South Carolina Ranking
Member
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
Ranking Member EMANUEL CLEAVER II, Missouri
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut BRIAN FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona
MARCO RUBIO, Florida RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin
TINA SMITH, Minnesota MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
THOM TILLIS, North Carolina
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Department of State - to be appointed
Department of Defense - to be appointed
Department of Commerce - to be appointed
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
COMMISSIONERS
Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin, Chairman, from Maryland................. 1
Hon. Roger F. Wicker, from Mississippi........................... 3
Hon. Richard Hudson, from North Carolina......................... 3
Hon. Tina Smith, from Minnesota.................................. 4
Hon. Steve Cohen, Co-Chairman from Tennessee..................... 17
Hon. Marc A. Veasey, from Texas.................................. 21
WITNESSES
Professor Timothy Snyder, Richard C. Levin Professor of History,
Yale University................................................ 5
Naomi Kikoler, Director, Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention
of Genocide, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum........... 7
PREVENTING MASS ATROCITIES
----------
COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN
EUROPE,
U.S. HELSINKI COMMISSION,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Thursday, May 13, 2021.
The hearing was held from 9:32 a.m. to 11:04 a.m. via
videoconference, Senator Benjamin L. Cardin [D-MD], Chairman,
Commission for Security and Cooperation in Europe, presiding.
Commission Members Present: Senator Benjamin L. Cardin [D-
MD], Chairman; Senator Roger F. Wicker [R-MS]; Representative
Richard Hudson [R-NC]; Senator Tina Smith [D-MN]; Co-Chairman
Steve Cohen[D-TN]; Representative Marc A. Veasey [D-TX].
Witnesses: Professor Timothy Snyder, Richard C. Levin
Professor of History, Yale University; Naomi Kikoler, Director,
Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide, United
States Holocaust Memorial Museum.
OPENING STATEMENT OF BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, CHAIRMAN, U.S. SENATE,
FROM MARYLAND
Chairman Cardin: Well, good morning, everyone. I am waiting
to make sure we have a cue that we are all set up and we are
hearing each other. I think we are okay to go? Senator Wicker
is giving me a green light, so if I get a green light from
Senator Wicker, I know I am okay to go.
Let me first welcome everyone to the first meeting of the
Helsinki Commission in this Congress. I am honored to chair the
Commission this year as the chairmanship goes to the United
States Senate. As I think members of this Commission know, I
have a partner on the Senate side in Senator Wicker. The two of
us have worked together seamlessly on behalf of the principles
of the Helsinki Final Act. It is a pleasure, again, to have
Senator Wicker as a partner as we start this two-year cycle of
the Helsinki Commission.
I also want to acknowledge new members. I see Senator Smith
is on the phone. We welcome her to the Commission. It is good
to have you as a member, and we look forward to your active
participation. I also acknowledge that Congressman Hudson is
with us today. I know other members will join us, and I will
talk a little bit about his leadership in regard to chairing
the first committee.
I need to start by acknowledging the loss of Alcee
Hastings, who was a long-time member of the Helsinki
Commission, rose to become the president of the OSCE
Parliamentary Assembly, was a person who was extremely active
on all of the issues concerning the Helsinki Commission, and
really increased the stature of U.S. participation globally on
human rights issues. We will miss him. His legacy will live on,
and I know that he is smiling at us today as we continue the
work of the OSCE and the Helsinki Commission.
I also want to just acknowledge that our work during this
Congress will involve the work in the Congress itself, as we
are having this hearing today to deal with atrocity prevention
issues. We will also be the arm that will work with the U.S.
participation in the OSCE itself, and we will be actively
engaged in the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly. In that role, we
are very proud that Senator Wicker--who has risen to vice
president of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly--represents us in
the leadership of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly.
Congressman Hudson chairs the all-important First Committee
of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly. That committee deals with
one of the three baskets, the security basket, which has been
extremely challenged during this time of Russia's aggression in
Ukraine, its continued occupation of parts of Georgia, and the
list goes on and on and on. The challenges in Belarus are
getting even worse as we speak. The aggression of so many
issues of security. Which brings us to the issues of the other
two baskets.
The basket dealing with the economic issues has been much
more challenged as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, and we
will be actively engaged on that. The third committee, which
deals with the human rights dimension has also obviously been
very much in the news. We have the challenges of an OSCE
country such as Turkey, which has seen a tremendous erosion of
the rights of its people. We also have some of our closest
allies who we see backsliding, including Hungary and Poland.
We have a very active engagement as it relates to these
agenda areas. One of those areas that we are going to talk
about today is the focus on preventing mass atrocities,
including genocide and other mass killings. In the aftermath of
World War II, the world rejected the view of national
sovereignty which had taken, in the Holocaust, to its most
horrific extreme. Today there are few international legal
principles more firmly established than the prohibition on
genocide, which is among the laws binding on all nations. The
1948 genocide convention goes further than just condemning this
crime. It recognizes not only the right but the obligation of
the community of nations to prevent and punish the crime of
genocide.
In 1991, the OSCE-participating states explicitly
recognized that human rights, democracy, and the rule of law
are matters of international concern and not merely internal
affairs. As a member of the Helsinki Commission, I have long
worked with others in Congress to strengthen U.S. efforts to
prevent mass atrocities and to respond when they occur, and to
hold states and individuals accountable for such crimes, as we
did by supporting the international criminal tribunal for the
former Yugoslavia. While response and accountability--while
response and accountability are critical, I am convinced that
genocide and mass atrocities are preventable, not inevitable.
The United States must do more to stop such crimes from
occurring in the first place.
That is why I worked with Senator Todd Young of Indiana to
pass the Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act of
2018--bipartisan legislation to ensure the U.S. government
works in a coordinated matter using its full range of tools to
help prevent mass atrocities. That was a very important bill.
Today, I hope during this hearing we will talk about how well
it is working and whether there are areas that we can improve,
either through Congress or through implementation, the purpose
of the Eli Wiesel Atrocities Prevention Act. At issue is how we
can improve early warning. How do we marshal the political will
to counter escalating risk factors? How can we build more
effective alliances of shared values, so the United States does
not have to go alone, spend massive resources, or resort to
force? How can we avoid being stuck with only risky and costly
options?
The occurrence of risk of mass atrocities remains gravely
high, despite the global consensus behind the principles
embodied in the Genocide Convention that formally binds 152
countries. The COVID-19 pandemic has made matters worse, and
the factors are correlated with mass killings, including
economic instability, widespread unemployment, and resource
shortages--all with disparate impacts on minorities and the
most vulnerable. Access to justice and other remedies have been
limited by the pandemic. According to the Freedom House most
recent Nations in Transit report, attacks on democratic
institutions are spreading faster than ever in Europe and
Eurasia and coalescing into a challenge to democracy itself.
The memory of the 20th-century atrocities has been weaponized
for 21st-century political skirmishes.
We have two very distinguished witnesses to help us in this
discussion. Before I formally introduce them, let me turn first
to Senator Wicker--who got caught off-guard.
STATEMENT OF ROGER F. WICKER, U.S. SENATE, FROM MISSISSIPPI
Senator Wicker: [Off mic]--atrocities continue to occur,
and it is not just in the--in the European region, which we
have a specific jurisdiction over. What is happening in China
is--should be a concern around the world, and if you have been
to Yugoslavia, as Ben and Richard and I have, you know that
feelings are still there under the surface. There is a concern,
even in our hemisphere. I appreciate Senator Cardin convening
this hearing. I am eager to get into the witness testimony. I
will yield back on that but, this is a good topic for May of
2021. Thank you.
Chairman Cardin: Congressman Hudson, any opening comments?
STATEMENT OF RICHARD HUDSON, U.S. HOUSE, FROM NORTH CAROLINA
Representative Hudson: Well, I will just very briefly say
thank you for your leadership, Senator Cardin. Thank you for
convening this really important hearing. Also, I want to
acknowledge Alcee Hastings. He was a real mentor to me, and
really pushed me to be more engaged internationally. He is
sorely missed, but he will never be forgotten. Thank you for
mentioning that at the outset. Just want to thank our
witnesses. I look forward to hearing your testimony. You know,
this is an issue that we have a long history in our country--
with Republican and Democrat leadership--of recognizing the
need to engage to prevent mass atrocities. I just look forward
to hearing from the witnesses and working together on this--on
this important issue. Thank you.
Senator Cardin: Thank you.
Senator Smith, welcome. Wonderful to have you on the
Commission. By tradition, if you would like to make an opening
comment you may, or you may defer.
STATEMENT OF TINA SMITH, U.S. SENATE, FROM MINNESOTA
Senator Smith: Well, thank you so much, Senator Cardin and
Senator Wicker. It is a real honor for me to join the Helsinki
Commission for my first hearing. I want to just note that this
committee has a distinguished history of advancing important
initiatives on human rights and democracy, environmental,
economic, and military cooperation throughout Europe and the
world. Certainly, today the number of threats to rule-based
international order is growing. We see the increasing incidents
of mass atrocities, terrorism, great-power competition, and
nuclear proliferation. These are just some of the challenges
that we face.
The work of this Commission feels more important to me than
ever before. I am grateful to have a chance to serve with all
of you. I am very grateful to--our testifiers today and look
forward to hearing more.
Thank you so much, Senator Cardin.
Chairman Cardin: Thank you, Senator Smith. Again, we look
forward to working with you on the Commission.
I am going to introduce both witnesses and then we will
hear first from Mr. Snyder. Timothy Snyder is the Levin
professor of history at Yale University and a permanent fellow
at the Institute for Human Sciences in Vienna. He is the author
of dozens of books, including bestsellers "On Tyranny," "The
Road to Unfreedom," "Black Earth," the "Bloodlands." His work
has been translated into 40 languages and has received numerous
prizes, including the literature award of the American Academy
of Arts and Letters.
Naomi Kikoler is the director of the Simon-Skjodt Center
for the Prevention of Genocide at the United States Holocaust
Memorial Museum. I am a proud representative to the United
States Senate on the Holocaust Memorial Museum. Ms. Kikoler has
led the center's policy engagement with the United States
government on work on bearing witness to countries, including
undertaking the documentation of the genocide committed by
ISIS. The museum's bearing witness trips to places that are
experiencing ongoing atrocity crimes observe firsthand
conditions on the ground, assess current and future risk to
civilian populations, and formulate recommendations for future
protection efforts. I am so proud of the museum's work not only
to preserve our history but to use the past as a guide for
preventing future atrocities and protecting human rights.
We will start first with Professor Snyder. Your full
statements will be made part of the record. We ask that you
summarize so we have time for questions from the members of the
Commission.
Professor Snyder, please go ahead.
TESTIMONY OF TIMOTHY SNYDER, PROFESSOR, RICHARD C. LEVIN
PROFESSOR OF HISTORY, YALE UNIVERSITY
Mr. Snyder: Thank you. Senator Cardin, Senator Wicker,
Senator Smith, and Congressman Hudson, it is a great pleasure
to, in the company of Naomi Kikoler, make a few arguments about
what we know and what we do not know about the origins of
genocide. I am--I am a historian. In my brief remarks, I will
be drawing from what I think I understand about the 1930s and
the 1940s. The brief that I have been assigned involves
preventing mass atrocities--topic number one. Sustaining
alliances, is topic number two. The possibility of knowing if
mass atrocities have been avoided successfully, is number
three.
Number three is the hardest. I will--I will get to it. I
want to start by just noticing the logic around it. From a
historical point of view, it is very hard to know if you have
done good. Just like it is very hard to know if you have
prevented crime. You can look at a city where crime rates have
decreased significantly, and you can say that is a very good
thing. It is very hard to point to the specific crimes that
have been prevented. We have the same problem with genocide
prevention, looking historically. No doubt, there were
historical scenarios that could have unfolded under which there
would have been more genocides. It is hard to say just what
they were.
Where this logic leads are where a lot of other logics
lead. Naomi Kikoler will have more to say about this, I am
sure. Where this logic leads is toward prevention. Insofar as
we understand some of the historical conditions of mass
atrocity, then we are--then we have the capacity to build
policies that would restrict and restrain some of these
preconditions. I am going to mention four of them.
The first precondition of mass atrocity is the lack of
information on the presence of disinformation. I will cite an
example that is rarely mentioned, which is the Ukrainian famine
in the Soviet Union of 1933. The United States established
diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union right after this
mass atrocity, which at the time was the worst such episode in
the 20th century. This event was inadequately reported, and it
was subject to very substantial and effective disinformation on
the part of the Soviet Union. I am not saying that the United
States in 1933 could or would have intervened. This was a very
different country in 1933. What I am suggesting is that this is
a very powerful example of the importance of information and
disinformation, and it has implications for the present.
One implication for the present is that we need more
foreign correspondents. The United States of America needs to
have more actual physical reporters in foreign countries. We
lack that. The second implication has to do with
disinformation. Facebook and other social media technologies
permit local actors to carry out powerfully polarizing
disinformation which, for example, in the case of the Rohingya
I think had a pretty decisive consequence.
Point number two is time. I am afraid this is a historian's
point. We tend to look at genocide, and mass atrocity,
retrospectively. We build museums to commemorate what happened
after we know what has happened. At the beginning of a mass
atrocity, there is very often this sense that there is no time,
that time is running out, that a catastrophe is coming. Often
this catastrophe is an ecological catastrophe. This is the
aspect of Hitler's Holocaust which I think is most often and
most, I think, substantially overlooked in our discussions.
When Hitler was talking about why Germany had to carry out
policies of mass killing, and why it had to displace and
murder, his argument was that time was running out, and there
are not enough resources. It follows from this, I think, in the
21st century that we want to avoid situations where people
think that they are pressured in terms of land or water or
access to other critical resources. From that, of course, it
follows that we want to avoid the reality, and therefore the
perception, of a climate disaster.
Number three is state membership. What the social
scientific literature says is that ethnic cleansing happens not
when states are strong but when states are weak, when states
are falling apart. The exception to this is party states. Party
states--Communist, Nazi--also carry out policies of mass
killing. The most extreme policy of mass killing, the
Holocaust, was the result of a party state, Nazi Germany,
destroying other states and creating a colonial zone where
otherwise unthinkable things could take place.
What follows from this is that a policy that aims to
prevent genocide would be a policy that aims to support states
to support the rule of law within states, and to support
democracy within the rule of law. When we look at U.S. history,
and we look back at the 1930s, we have a kind of self-
examination where we realize we could have offered more state
protection to more people than we did. Many of the rescuers in
the Holocaust were, in fact, diplomats. Sadly, not that many of
them were ours.
The fourth category is human rights. When the state no
longer functions--or, when the state no longer recognizes its
own people, the category of human rights, as the Senators have
already emphasized, is what we have to fall back on. The United
States has to model human rights and not just use the term. It
has to use the terms anti-Semitism and racism as the classic
examples of the opposite of human rights.
Here, very importantly, I think, is history. As has already
been noted, the history of the 20th century is being
weaponized. In Russia, for example, in order to justify further
aggression and create conditions of risk for atrocity in the
21st century. We tend to be on the back foot. We are less
interested in history. We tend to get distracted or maybe even
overwhelmed by others historical propaganda. The final thing
that human rights implies is the notion of humanity as a legal
concept, which is a little weak on the American side.
Do we know if we prevented--if we prevented mass
atrocities? We prevented some. The War Refugees Board certainly
saved people from the Holocaust. Our intervention in the Second
World War led Romania to change its policies, which saved tens
of thousands of lives. In general, as has already been
suggested, by the time you get to military options it is too
late. The historical logic leads back to where a lot of other
logics lead, which is prevention.
Thank you very much for your attention.
Chairman Cardin: Professor, thank you for your comments.
Ms. Kikoler.
TESTIMONY OF NAOMI KIKOLER, DIRECTOR, SIMON-SKJODT CENTER FOR
THE PREVENTION OF GENOCIDE, UNITED STATES HOLUCAUST MEMORIAL
MUSEUM
Ms. Kikoler: Thank you so much, Senator Cardin. Thank you
to the Commission for hosting this incredibly timely discussion
about the importance of prevention and early action. As an
independent federal establishment created by Congress, the
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum serves as a living
memorial to the victims of the Holocaust. The museum teaches
that the Holocaust was preventable, and that individuals and
governments can save lives through effective early warning and
corresponding preventive action. We work to stimulate our
national conscience and worldwide action to prevent and halt
acts of genocide.
Part of our goal is to do for victims today what was not
done for Jews of Europe during the 1930s and 1940s. I will be
touching on some of the themes that Professor Snyder discussed,
including the absence of political will, in my presentation. It
explain also what we understand today in regard to what are
early warning risks and warning signs, as well as a quick
assessment of U.S. government efforts and the importance of
transatlantic partnership. We have a longer testimony that will
go into the record. I am happy to talk at length about each of
these issues.
It is important to state upfront that no country is immune
to risks. Our approach to early warning and atrocity prevention
is applicable in any context or country case. If there are four
things that I would like you to leave today with the first is,
as Senator Cardin said, mass atrocity crimes, including
genocide, are preventable. They are not spontaneous events.
They are processes that we can track, disrupt, and ultimately
prevent. The second is that early warning information does
exist. Investing in appropriately assessing that information
allows for lifesaving and cost-effective early action. A
requisite, and an area for continued improvement both by the
U.S. government and within the OSCE, is mustering the political
will to act.
In that regard, Congress plays a critical role in
addressing this gap. Enforcing the legislation that calls on
the United States to prevent atrocities, including the Eli
Wiesel Act, enacting new legislation, such as the crimes
against humanity bill that Senator Durbin has advanced, and
joining us in sounding the alarm when a country is at risk.
Entities like the OSCE and its member governments have a
critical role to play in early warning. The U.S. leads on early
warning internationally, but we know that the U.S. alone cannot
deter atrocities. What is needed is to devise and implement
coordinated transatlantic atrocity prevention efforts. At this
time, our assessment is that those are woefully underdeveloped.
What are mass atrocity crimes and how can we prevent them?
Mass atrocity crimes are acts that shock our conscience. They
are large-scale and deliberate acts on civilians that
constitute acts of genocide, crimes against humanity, ethnic
cleansing, and war crimes. As the OSCE region knows well, which
encompasses much of the lands where the Holocaust was
perpetrated, no country is immune from the scourge of these
crimes. Since the creation of the OSCE, we have seen mass
atrocity crimes perpetrated in the region, including the 1995
genocide committed in Srebrenica.
More recently, we have seen troubling signs in the region,
such as hate speech targeting ethnic and religious minorities,
including rising anti-Semitism, the rise of authoritarian
features and governments in Europe, and existing armed
conflict. To be clear, such indicators do not predict that
genocide is on the horizon in any given setting, but they do
alert us to structural fragility and possible early warning
signs that we can and should aim to understand better and
address. To be clear, atrocity prevention is a goal that can
evoke different diplomatic, security, or development tools and
approaches depending on different contexts and risks arising in
a given country.
At its core, it requires greater attention to and policy
engagement on the early warning signs and root causes of mass
atrocities. We believe that this fits squarely within the best
interests of the United States. As generous as the United
States is in manmade humanitarian disaster response and
conflict response, it is by far cheaper and wiser to invest in
mitigation programming and diplomatic efforts early on before
the crisis unfolds and, sadly, we see loss of life.
We know that mass atrocities have had devastating and
destabilizing effects on communities, regions, and countries
for decades. The OSCE region in particular knows well the
challenges that arise in helping to rebuild societies in the
aftermath of such crimes and has at times been at the forefront
of trying to undertake that work, including in advancing
justice and accountability in the former Yugoslavia.
With regard to talking about early warning risk factors and
warning signs, it is important to not forget that before the
Holocaust--and Timothy Snyder can go into much more detail on
this--Germany was a Western democracy with a liberal rule of
law foundation. The Nazis were in power for eight years before
they initiated industrial-style systematic killings in an
attempt to exterminate all of Europe's Jews. There were many
warning signs before the horrors of the death camps. We can
understand that today. One of the cardinal lessons of the
Holocaust is therefore the imperative of identifying and
addressing warning signs before mass killing or genocide
begins.
The 2008 bipartisan Albright-Cohen Genocide Prevention Task
Force stated clearly that effective early warning does not
guarantee successful prevention, but if warning is absent,
slow, inaccurate, or indistinguishable from the noise of
regular reporting, failure is virtually guaranteed. Now, our
and other research suggests that there are a number of long-
term risk factors and short-term dynamics and triggers that,
though on their own are not sufficient, are often necessary for
atrocities to arise.
What could some of those look like? To complement what
Professor Snyder has stated, we focus on both an analysis of
upstream and more proximate risks. Upstream fragility factors
or structural risk factors help us understand the underlying
communal tensions, and structural and legal inequities that
exacerbate risks over the long run. They help to create an
environment for enablers of violence to organize, resource
themselves, and motivate actions against vulnerable groups. The
existence of one or more does not mean that there will be
inevitably mass atrocities, but it should mean that more
analysis of preventive action is actually done.
Some examples are the existence of armed conflict, prior
discrimination of violence against targeted groups, impunity
for past crimes, and fragile and new democracies. Warning signs
begin to appear when atrocity risks are rising and can serve as
a more imminent early warning. They include such things as
prohibiting free speech, the development of irregular forces
and militias, stockpiling of weapons, and violent tactics for
use against peaceful protest. There are a number of tools that
exist out there to help with assessing risk factors, including
the atrocity assessment framework developed by the Department
of State and our own early warning project.
Briefly, on our early warning project, we were inspired by
the Genocide Prevention Task Force to develop the first major
comprehensive system to prevent genocide and mass atrocities
through launching in 2015 a state-of-the-art quantitative and
qualitative early warning system to identify countries at risk
of new mass killing--i.e., civilian fatalities over 1,000. We
will share a link to that assessment so that you can see our
latest rankings. One component of the project is the
statistical risk assessment that ranks all the countries based
on their risk of a new mass killing by state or non-state
actors within a period of two years.
We divide the world into categories of risks. The top 30
are countries that we consider high risk, 30 to 60 are medium
risk, and below 60 are low risk. One point to note is that all
of the OSCE countries fall within the low-risk categories at
this point. Our hope is that this information helps spur
policymakers to determine where to devote scarce resources. The
Global Fragility Act cites our risk assessment as a resource
for the U.S. government to use in its selection of priority
countries.
We have the early warning. Are we actually acting on it, is
the question that this panel begs. In regard to an assessment
of the U.S. government's efforts thus far, the U.S. undoubtedly
leads the world in developing the tools for atrocity
prevention, including its assessment framework, programming
approaches, online and in-person training for foreign service
officers, and through its establishment of an interagency
coordinating mechanism, now known as the Atrocity Early Warning
Task Force.
Few other governments in the world have this dedicated
amount of human and financial resources to deal with this
complex problem. That said, the full institutionalization of
these processes and the political will to do early prevention
work can still be improved. We are still confronted by two
challenges.
One significant challenge is that there continues to be
reluctance within the Department of State, notably within
regional bureaus, to label a country as potentially at risk. It
can be diplomatically uncomfortable, or unacceptable to the
country in question. Human rights concerns are then often
minimized and put at a lower level of priority than other U.S.
considerations. We do not believe that there needs to be an
either/or in this particular regard. Another factor is embassy
staff may not know what to look for in terms of warning signs,
be overwhelmed by their existing work, or not know who to
transmit the information about early warning to.
We believe that it is important for there to be an improved
and clear reporting channel from the in-country embassy to
Washington, enhanced training in the regular use in, in-country
staff to fully assess and report on atrocity risks. Increased
political signaling or diplomatic demarches when countries are
experiencing increased risk in warning signs. Greater sharing
of intelligence on warning signs and risks with allied
governments and with Congress. More engagement with the United
Nations to advance analysis of preventive action, and,
critically, tasking the intelligence community on specific
questions when risk and warning signs are rising.
Moving briefly to the international response, we believe
that unfortunately, the cooperation within the transatlantic
community is an area that is woefully underdeveloped, but where
there are many opportunities. In 2017 we released a report that
we will share again with all of you on how to enhance and
strengthen atrocity prevention within the transatlantic region.
Our starting premise is that not one government plays a
determining role in averting and halting atrocities, and the
challenge of preventing atrocities is not one that the United
States can or should shoulder on its own. Preventing mass
atrocities requires a coordinated, calibrated, and sustained
effort by local, regional, and international actors.
One point to perhaps draw on in regards to the OSCE, as we
all know and as we have discussed already in this presentation,
the OSCE has had to grapple with the risks and commission of
mass atrocity crimes throughout its existence. More recently in
an area that I worked on was in 2010, the response to the
commission of ethnic cleansing in Kyrgyzstan, where you might
recall between May and June of 2010 there were between 500 and
2,000 ethnic Uzbeks, primarily, who were killed, over 400,000
people displaced. It was unfortunately a glaring example of
where there was a failure to undertake sufficient early
warning, despite the presence of OSCE officials within the
country and also a U.N. regional office dedicated to conflict
prevention, tasked with monitoring that particular country.
In the aftermath of the commission of the crimes, we saw
the failure between the assertion of ongoing risks and the
translation of that into early action. There was a request that
came from the Kyrgyzstan government for assistance from the
OSCE. In the end, what was decided was that there were going to
be 15 police sent to help stabilize and support local
governance officials. In the end, that never failed to--or, be
deployed. Instead, the mission was changed into a training
mission. It is one small example of a situation in which there
were grave costs due to the failure to actually assess and
anticipate early warning risks within the region, and to
translate those risks into early action that could have saved
lives.
In regards to what is possible going forward, we therefore
suggest that a key feature of U.S. engagement internationally
on this can come through, encouraging governments and regional
entities, including the OSCE, to develop capacity for more
robustly investing in early warning and early action, and two,
in building the political will. Key offices and elements within
the OSCE that require support are the OSCE Office for
Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, and the High
Commissioner for National Minorities--a truly unique position
when we think about the international architecture for atrocity
prevention. Their day-to-day task is identifying the causes of
ethnic tension and conflicts and helping to stem potential
risks. Then, critically, the Conflict Prevention Center, which
theoretically should be responsible for acting as a focal point
for early warning on conflict but could be amended to also
specifically look, additionally, at atrocity prevention more
broadly.
Outside of the OSCE, just in conclusion, the U.S. is a
founding member of the International Atrocity Prevention
Working Group. That includes six other likeminded countries--
Canada, Australia, Germany, the United Kingdom, Denmark, and
Netherlands. It has been a useful group in terms of reasserting
support for key norms that underpin atrocity prevention, but we
feel it is critical that this group begin to--in a more
concreted and robust manner--take specific action to jointly
undertake early warning assessments, share that analysis, and
craft strategies on key cases today--such as Ethiopia, the
Uighurs in China, Burma, and Syria.
Finally, just in conclusion, we know that if we are serious
about preventing atrocities before they begin, we must commit
to acting much earlier on the drivers of risk. I want to just
commend all who are a part of this conversation today for the
remarkable support and leadership you have shown in advancing
the Eli Wiesel Genocide Act and also the Global Fragility Act,
which has made real strides in helping to ensure that we are
taking concrete steps to institutionalize in a lasting manner
atrocity prevention. Thank you.
Chairman Cardin: Let me thank both of you for your
comments. I also want to acknowledge that Congressman Cohen has
joined us. It is nice to have Congressman Cohen with us.
Let me start with an observation. It is absolutely accurate
that our missions in-country are reluctant to label countries
with bad actions. That is true whether it is in the trafficking
reports, as we list them in different tiers, our effort to get
evaluations on how well they are dealing with fighting
corruption, and it is also true in regards to the early signs
of atrocities. This is a challenge that we have. The Eli Wiesel
Atrocities Act was aimed at building up capacity within our
different missions in State in-country to actually be trained
to do this so that we have early warning information that has
made available.
I want to go to the other end for one moment, because to me
if we do not hold actors accountable for their actions, it
makes it more difficult for countries and actors to take
seriously that they will be held accountable for their current
actions. That is when we resolve conflicts, and we do that
because we want to stop tragedies from occurring, usually the
first item that is sacrificed is holding the bad actors
accountable for their conduct. Currently, we have genocidal
conditions occurring with the Uighurs in China, with the
Rohingya population in Burma, and we are all anxious to get
those issues resolved. Are we putting equal energy into
documenting what has happened to hold accountable those who
have violated international standards?
I find all too often the politics of diplomacy that you
were referring to, that happens in mission evaluations of what
is happening in the country, also get involved in resolving
conflicts, to allow accountability to be held as a lower
priority in resolving conflicts. I would appreciate it if both
of you would comment on how important it is for us to hold
accountable those who are responsible for these types of
actions so as to be able in the future to prevent--as we say,
never again--how do you prevent never again if you do not hold
accountable those who are responsible for the current
atrocities?
Professor, you can start.
Mr. Snyder: Sure. The issue you raise, Senator, has been
bound into genocide prevention right from the very beginning.
The Nuremberg trials, which we like to remember and should
remember, had their focus narrowed by politics because of the
participation of the victorious Soviet Union. Thanks to the
Soviet Union, the definition of genocide itself was narrowed so
as not to include crimes of class. From the very beginning, all
of our instruments have in some way been affected by the
politics of who is your ally and who just won a war.
My modest answer to this would have to do with how we
commemorate. The few times when we actually have brought people
to justice, I think that should be a broader part of how we
remember these events. I think making it known, you know, that
such-and-such person was prosecuted at Nuremberg for such-and-
such a thing should be more prominent. When we do actually
prosecute people in the 21st century, I think that has to be
part of the conversation so that they can become negative
examples. That is my one modest idea.
Chairman Cardin: Naomi.
Ms. Kikoler: I really appreciate you raising this
particular issue. I think, as we spoke before, when we look at
future risks a prior history of mass atrocity crimes and
impunity are both risk factors that contribute to the future
commission, in part because it instills in perpetrators the
knowledge that there is a potential that they could commit
these crimes and not be held accountable. I have interviewed
many perpetrators in a number of different countries who have
explicitly stated that they committed crimes before and were
able to get off without any form of responsibility. Those could
be--it could start with smaller crimes. One gentleman I am
thinking of in particular in Rwanda, was the stealing of
cattle, and then that can escalate as a situation further
deteriorates into the killing of individuals.
When we talk about accountability, there are many different
ways to understand and define accountability. I think that it
is important to recognize that there are investments that can
be made in fact-finding. The OSCE has, to a degree, done that.
It remains at times far too politicized as well in terms of
actually getting agreement to do important fact-finding. We see
that internationally in the context of the Uighurs, where
despite the crimes it has been impossible at this state to
actually get an international documentation effort--a robust
one--underway.
We also see accountability in the form of criminal
prosecutions. In the case of ISIS, in the case of Rohingya and
others, we are seeing significant strides aided, in part, by
Congress and by the U.S. government in the support of resources
and also political support to collect material that could be
used for prosecutions. The challenge we face and the question
it begs is: What jurisdiction exists for those crimes to
actually be tried and for individuals to be prosecuted? As
Professor Snyder mentioned, there are also broader transitional
justice efforts around memorializing. We know, especially from
the OSCE context, how incredibly controversial, unfortunately,
that can be, and how important the OSCE forums are for talking
about these particular issues and finding ways to create a
degree of common consensus on their report.
I think it is also important for us to think about where we
have gaps as a transatlantic community in a domestic context in
our own atrocity prevention architecture. As I alluded to
before, one of the gaps that the U.S. government has is that
there is no domestic legislation that essentially criminalizes
the commission of crimes against humanity and can help to
prevent and ensure that the U.S. is not safe harbor to those
who are committing crimes against humanity. Clear examples
would be those who committed crimes in Syria, and those who are
committing crimes against the Uighurs. This has been a
longstanding gap at the domestic level. There are also no
international crimes against humanity treaty.
I put those two things forward because it is also an area
where Congress can actually play a very critical role. You can
enact legislation that fills that gap and is a signal to the
world that the U.S. is taking its commitment seriously and is
encouraging other governments to also look at their domestic
capacity to hold perpetrators accountable and encourage them to
enact similar legislation and steps.
Chairman Cardin: Thank you.
Senator Wicker.
Senator Wicker: Thank you very much.
I really appreciate this. It certainly brings back memories
of things that have occurred, even during my 26 years in
Congress. In 2015 I accompanied former President Bill Clinton
and former Secretary of State Albright, along with Peter King
and Jeanne Shaheen, to Srebrenica to commemorate the 20th
anniversary of that atrocity. It is still stunning to me that
this took place in Europe in my lifetime. In an 11-day period,
8,000 men and boys were killed, the victims of genocide, and I
jump from there to make some observations, and I will just let
you comment if you would like to.
I notice that there are reports that Kosovo is considering
trying to bring a suit against Serbia for genocide. This might
be done in the International Court of Justice. Senator Cardin
and I, along with Senator McCain, were authors of the Global
Magnitsky Act--it began as the Magnitsky Act, and then it
became global. The point there, Ben, as you will recall, was to
bring the sanctions to the individuals who actually caused--
have caused these events to occur. In the case of Magnitsky, it
was not--it was not an act of genocide. It was an atrocity
against an individual who had the audacity to speak up against
his government. It seems to me a better policy, rather than one
country suing a neighbor where maybe there was no
representative government, and the atrocities were caused by
individuals. It seems to me getting to the individuals is
better.
If you comment on those things, and also, was Yugoslavia
more of a surprise than other--than other acts of genocide? It
just seems incredible to me that it devolved so quickly into
this ethnic cleansing and murder, which was not isolated in
Srebrenica but is sort of--that one atrocity exemplifies what
was going on.
Mr. Snyder: All right. Thank you, Senator Wicker, for that
very thoughtful set of questions. About Yugoslavia, I will just
make three points, and perhaps Naomi will want to amplify.
Number one, we did have a major warning sign in Yugoslavia,
which was the collapse of a state. The collapse of a state is
very strongly associated with ethnic cleansing. Not with
organized, industrial-level killing, but with ethnic cleansing.
We did have that warning.
Those of us who are historians of the region try to make
the case that there was a very strong second warning signal,
which was the distortion of the history of the Second World
War, which is something that I think still, you know, decades
later, is incredibly important for understanding and predicting
behavior in Eastern Europe. The Croatian state had revied
certain symbols of the Second World War, which were frightening
and offensive to Serbs. Serb mass media, in turn, had massively
exaggerated the scale of crimes that Croatians had committed
during the Second World War.
That provocation back and forth in mass media was a
significant warning sign before the event itself. Another thing
Yugoslavia reminds us of is how difficult it is to decide to
act, even when you are at the moment when "never again" is on
everyone's tongue. We had satellite data, right? We had the
kind of data for that crime that we had not had before. Still
we found it difficult to act.
I would answer your question, I think, in the spirit that
you asked it. I very much agree that prosecution cannot be the
only way that one targets individuals. It is just too difficult
to imagine you can prosecute individuals. In what venue? In
what forum? Are they still going to be alive? How do you
capture them? There are at least two other ways, which I think
you have already suggested, that can matter.
One is reputational, that there is--that there is an
organized stigma that attaches to this that you know that is
going to be attached to you, and to your family, and to your
name forever. The second, which you suggested, is financial,
which I believe would matter to a number of, if not heads of
state, important figures around the OSCE. In addition to the
prosecutorial, reputational, and financial.
Ms. Kikoler: I agree with everything that Professor Snyder
has said. I think that, you know, one of the challenges is that
in hindsight we can see a lot of warning signs that often go
unnoticed. Part of what we are working to try to do--and it is
not exactly a--you know, to talk about institutionalizing
prevention usually puts a lot of people to sleep,
unfortunately. What we are trying to say is actually learning
the lessons of never again. You need to make it rote so that
people are looking for these warning signs.
As we advance our research and understanding of what they
are, we have to also develop muscle memory to, when we see
them, act quickly. If you do not force that within institutions
like the OSCE, if you do not come together, for example, as the
OSCE and actually do a statement on the commitment of the
region to genocide prevention--something that does not exist.
The closest that has come--that the OSCE has come has been in
the assertion of the importance of conflict prevention,
Holocaust remembrance, and promotion of human rights.
Under chapter seven of the Final Act, you have ample room
there to actually, as a community, come together and actually
issue a statement, a declaration, similar to what President
Obama did. That it is in the core interests of the OSCE to
prevent atrocity crimes, to prevent Srebrenica from happening
again, to prevent the crimes in Kyrgyzstan from happening
again. I could go at length on the challenges that exist around
individual perpetrators, but I wholly agree with the assertion
that you made also Professor Snyder on their importance.
It can be challenging, but we have an array of tools that
exist--including targeted sanctions--that are increasingly
being used in a sophisticated matter. We also have cases that
we can point to where they can be impractical, but we have to
always recognize that not all situations are alike. No one tool
can have the same impact in each case. We really have to have a
strong contextual analysis to understand how we can influence
individual perpetrators. You have to have a much more concerted
effort to evaluate all possible policy tools--be it
prosecutions, targeted sanctions, naming, and shaming--to
determine what is right in a particular situation.
Senator Wicker: Let me just follow up briefly. Just--I know
I am way over my time--are both of you surprised at the lack of
international attention--and attention in our mainstream
media--to the plight of the Uighurs?
Mr. Snyder: I am not surprised by it, Senator, because
historically the mainstream media--to use your term--has
generally not been attentive to problems like this. The
mainstream media did not do a particularly good job with Soviet
crimes in the 1930s. It did a better job than people think but
not a very good job, with the Holocaust. We have--we have--it
is been hard for us to have a language about these kinds of
crimes. With China in particular, we are now dealing with--we
are dealing with something which is a little bit different,
which is a huge economic power which people are afraid to
offend.
We are also dealing, Senator, I think, with a moment in
history--despite Naomi's eloquence in her use of this language
--a moment in history where the old concepts, things like the
party state or Leninism, no longer have the kind of resonance
that they once did. I think we lack the language to describe
what is happening. Anyone who wants to say this is a
concentration camp or--to use another told term which is
appropriate--or this is--this is ethnic or racist
discrimination, faces up to the fact that these terms are no
longer as resonate as they once were because we lack the
history. Also, they are going to face a very powerful response
from the Chinese side, which is a novelty, I think. I take your
point. I am not surprised by it, but I am outraged by it.
Ms. Kikoler: Maybe just kind of amend a little bit your
comment, because I think one of the things that we know all too
well is that you can have considerable media attention and
still see inaction by policymakers. There is not necessarily a
direct coalition between action and attention, but we know that
considerable attention does help raise the cost, at times, of
inaction for particular actors. I would say one of the problems
has been in how the media talks about China is that we have
failed for a very long time to, on a regular basis, clearly
articulate what they are, which is an entity that has been
complicit, enabled, and committed mass atrocity crimes,
including genocide, for a very long time.
I think the recent attention, including the sharing of
personal narratives, has helped to humanize for many around the
world the experience of the Uighurs. That is important because
as we know from the lessons of the Holocaust, people have a
hard time coming to terms with the notion that six million Jews
were killed as a result of their identity. I commend a number
of the journalists who have been trying to, in a dogged way,
share their individual stories. Where my outrage comes is
Uighurs should not have to go before the camera, imperil their
lives, and their loved ones lives, to demand action from the
international community.
Governments know and have known for a long time; what China
has been doing and is capable of doing. It is incumbent on
governments to change how they respond. What outrages me is
that China has a seat at the table, has increasingly been very
deft in how it has maneuvered within the United Nations to
minimize criticism, how it has maneuvered even within OSCE
member states to make it less likely that the OSCE can speak
collectively on a particular issue. Of course, there are strong
divides within the OSCE that have increasingly emerged.
That is what outrages me, that we do not see fact-finding
missions that are demanding access to China right now. That we
do not see a coordinated effort to talk about how to stop the
atrocities, and seeking access is only one point. What we are
seeking is actually for these facilities to be closed, for
people to be released, for people to be able to live their
lives. I really appreciate your point. I have just
unfortunately been in a situation all too often where I have
had ambassadors say: Can't you get an op-ed before the New York
Times on the Central African Republic, on Kyrgyzstan?
I will tell you, last night I was reading all of the op-eds
that I wrote on Kyrgyzstan. I was, you know, reflecting
candidly on whether or not it had helped, because our big push
was to get 52 OSCE police officers sent to the country. That
was a number written on the back of a napkin within a U.N.
meeting because we all knew that more needed to be done and
that was the minimum that we thought could happen. You know,
unfortunately, we bring immense humility to this conversation
and are, you know, very hopeful that through the learnings that
we are continuing to undertake, we can help compel more policy
not just attention, but also the action that you are
suggesting.
Mr. Snyder: Can I jump in, because I want to agree with
Naomi and just repeat my point about international reporting.
We are not the powerhouse in international reporting that we
were in the 1970s or 1980s. When Communism fell, there were
American reporters in many of the relevant capitals. On
Tiananmen Square, we had--we had--we had reporters. We do not
have that in the same way now, and that means that we are more
vulnerable to other countries public relations than we were 40
years ago. That puts us on the back foot in genocide
prevention, unfortunately.
I want to also agree with the point that we--there has to
be a face on this. The face is often historical. There is--the
Chinese Communist Party and People's Republic of China has
undertaken a number of ethnic actions, but also other episodes
of mass killing which are simply not known. I mean, that tens
of millions of Chinese citizens were killed between 1958 and
1962 in a famine is just not very well known. That hundreds of
thousands of Chinese died in the terror of the Cultural
Revolution is just not well known. I tend to think that it is
hard for us to make the point about the present unless we--
unless we have some historical memory, which is pushed closer
to the center of the conversation.
Chairman Cardin: Very troubling comments and response. I
will point out that when we had our challenges with torture in
America, it was the reporting and photographs that caused
Congress to take action. Unless you can get it before the
public, unless you can have the facts, the numbers do not--are
not powerful. The individual stories are powerful, and that is
where the absence of reporting becomes so critically important.
Very, very important points.
We have been joined by Congressman Veasey. Nice to have you
with us. I am going to go next to Congressman Cohen and then
Senator Smith.
Congressman Cohen, I think you are on mute. There you go.
STATEMENT OF STEVE COHEN, CO-CHAIRMAN, U.S. HOUSE, FROM
TENNESSEE
Co-Chairman Cohen: I am here. Thank you. Thank you,
Senator.
Thank you for the testimony. It has been very edifying. You
said that--well, first, several questions. First, the Uighurs
might be the most imminent problem we have got as far as mass
terrorism genocide, or atrocity, and if I am wrong, tell me.
Where are the other places you have seen signs that we should
be on the alert for?
Ms. Kikoler: I am happy to quickly speak to that, and I am
sure Professor Snyder will have other comments as well. We will
share with you our latest ranking of countries where we are
concerned about the potential risk of mass killing. We are
extremely concerned as a center about risks in Ethiopia. In
Cameroon, we will be releasing a report on some of the early
warning signs there too. The Uighurs. We continue to be very
concerned about the plight of the Rohingya. As you will see
from our early warning signs, there are a number of countries
where there is the potential risk for mass killing over the
next two-year period. They range from countries like Pakistan
and Afghanistan to the countries that I mentioned.
I think the plight of the Uighurs is one that really merits
very serious engagement. All of them do. I think the unique
challenges, as has been mentioned before, of confronting a P5
power. An entity like China, is something that really puts a
lot of the theories, tools, and approaches to atrocity
prevention to the test. I think that it is really going to be
the challenge of the next few years to try to figure out how we
can address a perpetrator of that scale and that nature.
Mr. Snyder: Congressman Cohen, I would just add that I am
concerned about a scenario involving two OSCE members this
summer, where the Zapad maneuvers of the combined Russian and
Belarusian armed forces take place three days before a
parliamentary election in Russia, in which President Putin has
commanded his party to win by supermajority. I am concerned
about the possibility of some kind of trick there, something
that happens while Russian forces are active in Belarus, and
about the subsequent persecution of people who define
themselves as Belarusians as opposed to members of some kind of
emerging Russian-Belarusian state. I have written five articles
about that in the last few years, which I would be happy to
send along if this is of interest.
Co-Chairman Cohen: I would appreciate you doing that,
Professor Snyder. I have been to Belarus twice, and you know,
it was interesting, to go to the Patriotic War Museum and to
tour around, and they honor the victims of World War II, but
Lukashenko seemed to be sparing in his criticism of the Jewish
victims. There are a couple of Holocaust--Jewish sites, the
ghetto in Minsk and there is a couple of memorials. The big
thing they just built out a-ways is a memorial to the victims
of Nazism is very limited on the Jewish victims. I have written
him, and I talked to him about it, but gotten nowhere. It is
concerning.
Is there anywhere--a lot of what you describe as signs of
potential mass atrocities is authoritarianism, its non-
acceptance of the historical past. We see that in Europe with
Hungary and Poland, and we see it with Russia, and not so
much--I guess with Russia, but more with Hungary, Poland, and
Ukraine, and denial of the Holocaust. Yet, you say everything
is kind of low on the level in Europe. You are not concerned
about--and there is not necessarily an identified ethnic group
that is on the--that is in the scope of the vision or Orban or
the Polish leadership. Is there concern--do you have any
concerns about Poland and Hungary and where they are going?
Ms. Kikoler: My colleagues in the museum who work on
Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism have a lot to say in this
regard because we are very concerned. They are working very
hard. I would be happy to put your office directly in touch
with them to talk about the specifics of those particular
countries. I will only say that in terms of the risk of mass
killing that I was talking about before, the types of crimes
that we are looking at--crimes like genocide--are very rare
occurrences. We have a threshold of 1,000 civilians that are
killed a year, in terms of that is the risk that we are looking
for.
I do not in any way want to suggest that because a country
is low risk there should not be concerted attention. There
should be. It is possible for countries to move up or down
within a ranking based on developments that occur within a
given country. What we hope is that the existence of certain
risk factors will elicit a consideration to do a deeper dive,
to understand the dynamics. Because there might be dynamics at
play that you have highlighted that merit a much stronger
engagement from a prevention perspective.
We do not in any way want to suggest that when there are
risk factors, that a country is ranked low, you should not in
any way be concerned. We hope that elicits more consideration.
We do, with our system, want to be clear that because a country
is on it--including a high-risk space--it does not mean that we
will automatically see mass killing occur. It is a bit of a
technical system. We are very happy to give a much deeper
explanation for you and others who are interested in our early
warning system.
Co-Chairman Cohen: Did either of you see--and that will be
my last question. My time is about up. I see my friend Senator
Wicker is not with us, which is probably just as well. I love
Roger and I would not want to get him too upset. Did any of you
see the denial of the existence of an insurrection, which we
have seen in our own country? Hey, Roger. [Laughter.] The
denial of the existence of an insurrection on January 6, as
something we should be very concerned about.
Mr. Snyder: I am happy to roll with that one. Let me--let
me frame it as something else, if I could, Representative
Cohen. The Holocaust is important not just in its own right,
but because it gives us a language of general human rights. It
gives us a language that goes beyond Hungary, Poland, Belarus,
Russia, or America. It is also important as a touchstone for
these kinds of issues as an early warning sign of reversal of
victimhood. Often the person who is about to do something
terrible first decides that they are the victim. When countries
start to say that the Holocaust was not that important, or
maybe there were more important victims than the Jews, or so
on, I understand that as the beginning of that kind of flip.
For me, that is something that I look for.
With--you know, with events in the United States of
America, it strikes me that regardless of, you know, what
political party you happen to favor or represent, it is very
important to get the question of who the victim was right. When
I look at the history of the United States of America and the
history of voting rights, I do not find that to be
controversial. Uncontroversial, the victim in our history when
it comes to voting rights is not actually Republicans in 2020.
It is actually African Americans since 1877, and that gives us
a place to start when we--when we consider the events, and when
we ask: Who was really the victim and who was really not the
victim?
When you get that story wrong and you claim to be the
victim when you are not, and then you write it into
institutions, you are taking a step towards authoritarianism.
When I--when I look upon American voter restriction, that is
how I think about it. That if you are going to begin from a
step where you have got the facts wrong and you are flipping
the victimhood, and you build institutions on that basis, then
you are taking a step which is--which is quite dangerous. That
is my view, which has to do not with the United States. It has
to do with how I understand victimhood generally, on the basis
of the kind of principles that I hope we all take for granted.
Co-Chairman Cohen: Thank you.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Cardin: Senator Smith.
Senator Smith: Thank you, Senator Cardin. Again, thank you,
Senator Wicker. Thanks so much to our panelists--Professor
Snyder and Ms. Kikoler, for being with us today.
I have a question that relates to the COVID pandemic. I am
going to direct this first to you, Ms. Kikoler. The COVID-19
pandemic and the subsequent economic fallout from that
pandemic--I am thinking globally here, of course--has really
amplified the structural inequities that we have globally
around health care, economic opportunity, social benefits,
human rights. My question is, how are we, or are we, seeing
malign actors exploiting the pandemic to advance undemocratic
agendas or to--maybe a way--based on your testimony maybe
another way of asking this is: Is this creating new sets of
early warning signals that would fit into the system that you
discussed in your testimony?
Ms. Kikoler: Thank you so much for that question. It is
exactly something that we have been tackling with this past
year. We have been undertaking a project that looks at the
future of mass atrocities, and one of the thematic focuses has
been on COVID and pandemics. Unfortunately, we have seen this
period used as a way to dehumanize others, and I am sure
Professor Snyder can speak at this to more length. In
particular, we are very concerned about, for example, the
Rohingya in IDP camps in Bangladesh. There has been at times an
effort to portray them as being those who spread COVID. We
often find in instances where particular communities are being
targeted, often minority communities, they are regarded as
being vectors for the spread of disease. There is some
historical kind of analogies there too.
We have also seen increased use of surveillance and data,
and have concerns about the overstretch of that and, again,
what the impact could be for communities that are at risk.
Under the auspices of providing health care and trying to
monitor, there have been considerable changes in terms of how
communities and individuals are being tracked. I think another
element that we are concerned about is the understandable
international domestic focus on addressing the focus has, to a
degree, diverted attention from some of the very pressing
ongoing threats--be they threats of conflict, or threats of
atrocity. We know that it is very hard to sustain, in the best
of times, a committed, concerted commitment to atrocity
prevention.
In this moment where we are seeing economic decline, less
willingness--this was already happening prior to COVID--of
governments to invest in development and the type of upstream
prevention that we are talking about, we are also tracking what
that impact might be in terms of the response to atrocities
either occurring or in a prevention phase. There are a number
of others, but I think those are some of the most kind of
glaring examples at this particular point. It is exacerbated
trends that were already underway. I think Professor Snyder, I
am sure, has a number of comments in this regard.
Senator Smith: Yes, Professor Snyder, I am really
interested in your take on this too. I was interested in your
testimony how you talked about how bad actors can use time and
urgency to exacerbate their--you know, the bad things that can
happen. You used climate as an example of something that could
create a sense of urgency, but I am curious to know how you
would apply that kind of thinking to what is going on with
COVID.
You are muted, Professor Snyder.
Mr. Snyder: I mean, with climate I am making two kinds of
points. The first is that we already have examples--whether it
is Rwanda, Sudan, or Syria--where climate-associated problems
like drought are one of the factors and probably a necessary
condition--they are not the only factor, but they are one of
the factors which had led us to these late 20th century and
early 21st century disasters.
The second point I am making is a historical one about
Hitler in particular, where Hitler's whole view of the world
was that resources are limited, only the strong survive, and
you have to act first. We are in an emergency, and that kind of
thinking always has a certain kind of attraction. The
attraction's, unfortunately, greater when the resource
constraints are real. Those of us who have lived in the West,
you know, from the 1950s to the 2010s, let us say, have had
lives that did not actually face the kinds of resource
constraints that humanity faced into the first half of the 20th
century. We forget a little bit how resonant that kind of
appeal could be, right? My point is that if we allow climate
change to become a disaster, real and perceived, that then will
set off unpredictable political combinations.
I think COVID's a little bit different because I think
what--and I have very little to add--I think what COVID has
done is it has, again just repeating, it has allowed people to
double down on forms of discrimination which already existed.
Disease is something which is--which is human, right? We tend
to deny it and we tend to push it off onto the other. The only
little point that I would add, little thing which worries me--
and it has only an amplification--is that China is, of course,
making the argument that it had nothing to do with COVID, and
it solved COVID, and therefore authoritarian regimes are
actually better than those messy democracies. Which for me is
an argument as to why the United States should be out front in
2021 with some kind of vaccination foreign policy, which I
think we have the resources to carry out.
Senator Smith: Thank you very much. I think that is an
excellent point, and as we think about what China is doing with
the Uighurs in a complete--you know, those human rights
atrocities that we see on the one hand. Then on the other hand
the work that it is trying to do to step into a potential
vacuum, you know, globally. I worry a lot about how COVID is
exacerbating that also. I appreciate your comments.
Thank you very much, Senator Cardin.
Chairman Cardin: Thank you, Senator Smith.
Congressman Veasey.
STATEMENT OF MARC A. VEASEY, U.S. HOUSE, FROM TEXAS
Representative Veasey: Thank you very much, Senator Cardin.
I wanted to ask Professor Snyder, because I think that he
really touched on a very important, you know, point when he
talked about establishing the victim when it comes to voting
rights, for instance, here in the United States. For countries
to do that successfully with the large population that is very
resistant to unpacking that and actually putting that forward,
how do you go about doing that? I mean, like, for instance, in
the United States instead of establishing who the victim is you
will notice that American politicians here instead to choose to
assuage guilt, right?
Like that is usually the knee-jerk, is to--is to--you know,
and the case now, unfortunately, is it--is to make other people
that are not the victims the victims, but also, to try to
assuage guilt and say we just need to move on. What sort of a
blueprint would you give to countries on--when the people
themselves are hesitant? I think that in some countries where
there are human rights violations the people there would
actually welcome democracy and would actually welcome freedoms.
In the case of constituencies really, you know, accepting the
truth behind all these things, that there are still a large
number of people here in the United States that just do not
want to accept it. It is like they are giving up something. It
is almost like they are giving up something very precious to
them by admitting who really is the victim.
Mr. Snyder: Okay. Thank you for that wonderful question
about U.S. history, which--it gets to the heart of something
very important and dynamic which is present in the U.S., but
not only, which is that racism or discriminatory attitudes are
not only about the obvious victim. They are also about setting
up control within, let us call it, the majority population,
right? If I--if I--to stay in the U.S., if I can convince my
fellow white Americans that Black people are the problem, I
have got a form of politics that might take me a long way. It
will allow me to do things to my fellow white Americans, in
fact. That is kind of the secret to--I think, to racism in the
U.S.
The only way to get around it is to make the argument,
which I think is true, which is that would--we are all actually
better off if we do not have this kind of thing. That when we
limit voting rights, for example, we are not just hurting other
people and carrying out injustice, we are also hurting the
country's future. We are getting ourselves into a kind of
polarization which limits not--which does not just directly
hurt African Americans, it limits white people. It makes white
people different. It makes white people more provincial. It
makes white people less able to think about the future.
You ask how to get around this? You know, my--I mean, when
I look at countries that have been successful--like, for
example, West Germany after the Second World War--it is that
they beat the history into the ground, right? The Germans talk
so much about history that even I, as a historian, find it
sometimes over the top. You have to hand it to them, they have
actually succeeded, and we, in the U.S.--you hit the nail on
the head. We like to move on, and that is a phrase which upsets
historians, because if you just move on the history always
comes back, it comes back, it comes back. You know, before you
know it, somebody--before you know it, somebody's going to be
talking about the 1877 compromise as a good thing unless you
know the history, right? Unless you know the history.
I think we are at a crucial point in American history where
the best thing we can do is get the history right. If we get
the history right, then it does not look like I am losing
something as a white person. It looks like, oh, we have not
ever quite built that democratic republic that we have been
talking about for so long, and if we build that democratic
republic, it would actually be better for everybody. That is
the kind of look backward and forward that I think we need. You
know, it is--but this is a--you know, this is a big subject.
It is, like, it is something where we can learn from abroad
because other--you know, other countries have actually done
better at looking at history and saying: Hey, it is not just
about how we made others victims. It is about how in making
others victims we got the country off on the wrong track.
Germany's the classic example, right? The 20th century should
have belonged to Germany. Why did it belong to us? Because they
messed it up. Because they--you know, they did terrible things.
Those terrible things were not just to the Jews and the Slavs.
Those terrible things were--held back Germany from being the
world power that it should have been.
I think in the 21st century we are kind of--you know, with
all appropriate qualifications--I think we are kind of at that
same moment. Is this going to be our century where we gather
ourselves together on the basis of understanding the past? Or
are we just going to blow our chance? Are we going to let it be
somebody else's century?
Representative Veasey: No, that is amazing. Wanting to
switch gears here quickly on another point that you made a
second ago, you talked about the media. Is what is happening
right now with the media not being able to cover some of the,
you know, atrocities that are taking place and some of the
moves by these dictators--some of the brutal moves by these
dictators, is it a--is it a lack of resources because that
media has changed so much in regards to advertising and
profitability? Or is it because these countries have put up
barriers to now allowing people from the media to come in?
Mr. Snyder: I think Ms. Kikoler will have things to say
about this. I would say number one, it is a--it is a change in
the structure of American print media, where we only cover
national news. We do not cover local news and we do not cover
international news. We only do national news, and that has been
poison for us in a lot of ways because it means that we are
all--we get all polarized. Like, we can agree--we can agree
about things about China. We can also agree about things in,
you know, Clinton County, Ohio. We do not always agree about
national things.
T he second thing which has happened is you do not just
have traditional censorship. You have active disinformation
campaigns which are electronic. Russia and increasingly China
are forming the story before it ever actually gets reported.
This means that, for folks on both sides of the aisle who are
concerned about social media and the power of social media,
this is one more reason to be concerned that it is much easier
to use social media to get a polarizing story out there which
makes it look like there should be a conflict than it is to use
social media to broadcast important facts on the ground about
an oncoming atrocity. Whatever we can do to change that
situation we should be trying to do.
Representative Veasey: Ms. Kikoler?
Ms. Kikoler: It is a great question. Just building on what
Senator Wicker had said before, you know if you have a theory
of change--which was articulated earlier--that greater
attention helps to compel action. We do believe that is an
important component of action. Then we need to facilitate ways
to actually get the information out of hard-to-reach areas. I
think that there are, as you alluded to, a number of
impediments. One is emerging kind of structural challenges, and
you talked about the cost.
There is, from the perspective of--if we were talking to,
you know, someone who wanted to open up a bureau in, let us
say, Dakar. There are challenges around kind of the cost of
doing that. There are security challenges that are increasingly
being raised from the perspective of media outlets. There are
ways around that, there are local stringers that are doing
remarkable work and putting their lives on the line to tell
stories. We can work more to ensure that their voices are being
heard. Professor Snyder talked before about the importance of
supporting outlets like Voice of America and other kind of
entities that help to get information both into hard-to-reach
places and out of hard-to-reach places.
There is also, though, just the challenge, as you noted, of
access. There are parts of the world that we have a very hard
time either physically gaining access--Xinjiang, in terms of
being able to go in an independent and objective way is one
example within China. South Kordofan in Sudan is another, parts
of the Central African Republic. What that means is that we are
not able to pull out the types of images that help to galvanize
attention. Is there a way to, though, do that in a different
manner? Yes. I would argue that when the U.S. government
chooses to declassify satellite imagery that shows the scale
and nature of attacks, or images that came out around the
construction of new centers where Uighurs are being detained,
tortured, and held--that helps to also humanize the experience
and can be used to galvanize.
There are different ways that we can be creative about the
storytelling component. We just have to invest within it. We
also have to continue to work, though, on combatting compassion
fatigue. When we reach out as an institution to journalists
there is often questions about the, well, what can be done?
This seems hopeless. Many of you have seen the Caesar photos
that we house at the museum on Syria. What has been really
fascinating is that it does galvanize some. There is others,
unfortunately, it has the adverse response of leaving them
wondering if anything can actually be done. It is incumbent on
all of us to actually define then what the policy actions
should be when we do actually have the information that has
been released shared with us.
I would say local--supporting local NGOs is a final,
critical component to this because many of them are doing the
work on the ground. They have access to the information, the
data, the stories. All of the investment that goes into civil
society, when it comes to documentation, fact-finding, and
human rights promotion, has the added benefit of helping to
make the case in moments when we cannot have the presence of
reporters and others.
Representative Veasey: Thank you very much. Professor
Snyder, thank you for touching on the nationalization of
politics. I do think for so many of these issues that it is
really bad.
Senator Cardin, I yield back to you. Thank you.
Chairman Cardin: Thank you.
I want to give each of you an opportunity to give us some
advice in regards to the Eli Wiesel Act as to whether there
needs to be attention paid by Congress in the implementation of
that act that is not being adequately done today, or whether
there is needs for changes in the congressional action. You
have already mentioned the--making it a crime to violate the
international human rights standards on atrocities. I got that
recommendation. Are there other suggested recommendations of a
legislative change or more aggressive oversight by Congress on
the implementation of the Atrocities Prevention Act?
Ms. Kikoler: Professor Snyder, I am happy to go first, if
you are comfortable. Just very briefly, I really appreciate
that question and your and others leadership on the Eli Wiesel
Genocide and Atrocity Prevention Act. There were some really
important strides that were made in introducing that
legislation.
I think a key opportunity right now is that when the next
report is released having a hearing to discuss the report and
specifically asking the Department of State to come and report
on what are the prevention strategies that have been
established to address the risks that we hope are going to be
articulated for given states in the report. Without that kind
of accountability and transparency role by Congress--we need
that level of pressure to be able to actually compel a whole-
of-system interagency response to the risks. Such a hearing
would also help to empower civil society to be able to assist
in understanding what are the countries that are perceived at
risk.
A second component that we continue to think is very
important is similarly Congress requesting annual briefings
from the intel community on countries that they believe to be
at risk of genocide and other mass atrocities. Now if there are
security considerations that do not have to be a public
hearing, but we think, again, in the process of trying to make
these types of responses rote and in Congress fulfilling its
accountability and transparency role, this is a very important
thing that can be done.
The inclusion of training for countries that are deemed at
risk for foreign service officers is very important. We think
that there should be expanded training for U.S. government
officials to understand what the early warning signs are, what
atrocity prevention tools are, and that is something that can
be further mandated through future legislation. You know, just
in short three top would be to actually ask the administration
to come before Congress and explain what they are doing to
respond from a prevention perspective to countries at risk,
intel briefings each year annually that talk specifically about
the risk of genocide and mass atrocities, and then expanded
training are just three very top ones. We would be happy--and
in the testimony there is additional recommendations as well.
Mr. Snyder: Forgive me if this is--if this is actually in
the act. I am probably not as up on it as I should be. The one
thing that struck me, Senator Cardin, was the journalists.
There was--there was one reporter who wrote about the famine in
Ukraine in 1933 under his own name--just one. One is more than
zero. His name was Gareth Jones.
What about--what about an award for American journalists--
an annual award for American journalists who write about
genocide or genocide prevention? What about a fellowship which
guarantees that young American journalists who have an interest
in going to countries that are identified as being at risk--
what about an annual fellowship for 10 of those people?
Something like that I think would probably not add very much
cost but might make a difference.
Ms. Kikoler: May I very briefly just build on what
Professor Snyder said, because I think we share a brain on this
one. I think the creation of a Jan Karski award or fellowship,
as you just mentioned, would be a remarkable contribution that
could be made to advancing the gathering of information and
awareness raising. I would expand it beyond our traditional
conception of journalists today because many of those who are
doing the hard work and the storytelling include human rights
defenders. They include those who might be dissenters or
defectors from regimes that are committing these particular
crimes. They have unique vulnerabilities and threats to their
wellbeing.
I would just say that because of the evolution of the way
in which governments restrict access, as was mentioned earlier,
and the challenges of actually reporters telling these stories,
something along that kind of spirit of Jan Karski, or the
individual that you just mentioned, Professor Snyder, I think
would be a welcome addition. It is something we have been
exploring at the museum.
Chairman Cardin: Excellent suggestions. I frequently use
trafficking as a model, because I do think that the U.S.
leadership in dealing with trafficking offered global hope that
we are really dealing with modern-day slavery. As you know,
when the annual report is released we do have a lot of
publicity around it, including at the State Department, and the
awards that are associated with the Trafficking in Persons
Report. We have hearings in Congress. It is brought up at many
of the international forums. We really made a commitment--not
that we solved the problem, but we really are working on
solving the problem. I think the same type of effort needs to
be made on atrocity prevention. I think these are all really
good suggestions.
I think, Professor, your comment about history is so right
on. We really do learn from history, but you have to have
accurate history. Your comparison of what is going on in
Germany today versus what, for example, is going on in Hungary
is--what a contrast. You know, the culpability during World War
II was--you know, Germany was the center. Yet, they take
responsibility. Hungary, which was a participant, has denied
its role. It is an interesting comparison.
I would also point out NGOs, which you have mentioned,
their role in so many countries have been marginalized. We
really have to speak out about civil society. It is not only
reporters that are not getting access or do not have the
resources to report. It is the NGO's ability to freely act in
countries that have been compromised that do not get us the
information that we need that is important. I think all of that
really feeds into it--identifying the victim, is absolutely
right on target. I agree with you. We have to recognize who has
really been victimized by these activities, and dealing with
timely reporting. All this is critically important.
Our responsibility also is to make this issue--atrocity
prevention, genocide prevention--a priority in foreign policy.
Quite frankly, we have been fighting to make human rights a
priority in foreign policy. It is not easy. [Laughs.] I mean,
you are talking about issues on arms control, or security
cooperation, or air rights, or economic issues, these issues
many times get pushed to the side. I am encouraged by the
language of the Biden administration as to making these issues
important. I have not heard about atrocity prevention, and
genocide prevention. I do think we need to make this a priority
within our foreign policy, and for U.S. global leadership. It
is critically important.
Your comments have been extremely helpful. What a way for
our commission to get started. Not that we are encouraged by
what you said, but we find it very helpful in us trying to
carry out our responsibilities as members of the Helsinki
Commission. With that, if Senator Wicker or Congressman Cohen
or Congressman Veasey have any final comments? If not--we are
okay?
Co-Chairman Cohen: Simply thank you.
Chairman Cardin: Let me--
Representative Veasey: Absolutely wonderful.
Chairman Cardin: Let me again add my thanks on behalf of
the Helsinki Commission. With that the hearing will come to an
end, but the issue will--we will move forward on the
recommendations that you made.
Thank you all very much for your participation.
Ms. Kikoler: Thank you, all.
Mr. Snyder: Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 11:04 a.m., the hearing ended.]
[all]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The United States Helsinki Commission, an independent
federal agency, by law monitors and encourages progress in
implementing provisions of the Helsinki Accords.
The Commission, Created in 1976, is composed of nine
Senators, nine Representatives and one official each from the
Department of State, Defense, and Commerce.
All Commission publications may be freely reproduced,
in any form, with appropriate credit. The Commission
encourages the widest possible dissemination of its publications.
WWW.CSCE.GOV
youtube.com/HelsinkiCommission
facebook.com/helsinkicommission
flickr.com/photos/helsinkicommission
twitter.com/@HelsinkiComm