A Comprehensive Approach to Atrocity Prevention and Response

Overview

Purpose and Intent

Executive Order 13729, signed by President Barack Obama on May 18, 2016, aims to establish a comprehensive, government-wide approach to prevent and respond to mass atrocities and genocide. This Order underscores the United States' commitment to integrating atrocity prevention into its national security strategy, recognizing it as a core national interest and moral obligation. By institutionalizing this focus, the Order seeks to ensure that opportunities for early intervention are not missed and that the U.S. government is prepared to act decisively when risks are identified.

Establishment of the Atrocities Prevention Board

Central to the Order is the continuation and formal establishment of the Atrocities Prevention Board (APB). Initially directed by Presidential Study Directive-10 (PSD-10) in 2012, the APB is tasked with orchestrating a cohesive interagency response to potential or occurring atrocities. The Board's mandate includes monitoring global developments, coordinating policy responses, and identifying gaps in current strategies while recommending necessary enhancements to address these gaps effectively.

Policy Directives and Coordination

In aligning governmental agencies, the Order specifies roles for various entities, including the Department of State, Department of Defense, and the Intelligence Community. These agencies are directed to prioritize atrocity prevention in strategic planning and resource allocation. The APB is expected to facilitate coordination among these agencies, fostering shared intelligence and mobilizing resources to deter and respond to threats promptly. This multidimensional approach is intended not only to safeguard civilians but also to uphold international norms and legal standards against mass atrocities.

Focus Areas and Strategies

The Executive Order articulates specific strategies for atrocity prevention, such as enhancing early warning systems, denying impunity through international legal mechanisms, and strengthening partnerships with international organizations like the United Nations. Capacity building within U.S. agencies and among allies is emphasized to improve rapid response capabilities. Furthermore, targeted foreign assistance programs are to be developed to mitigate the risks associated with mass atrocities.

Goals for Practical Implementation

Overall, the Order seeks practical implementation of its goals through structured reporting, public transparency, and systematic engagement with nongovernmental organizations and international partners. This operational framework aims to translate the policy's aspirations into tangible, measurable outcomes.

Legal and Policy Implications

Constitutional and Statutory Framework

This Executive Order operates within the constitutional authority provided to the President to conduct foreign policy and national security operations. It leverages existing statutory frameworks, such as genocide prevention laws and human rights legislation, reinforcing these legal constructs by emphasizing interagency coordination and the use of foreign policy tools to prevent and respond to atrocities.

Interagency Coordination and Mandates

Legally, the Order mandates action without creating new laws but rather optimizing existing structures. By formalizing the APB, it codifies agency responsibilities and interagency collaboration protocols. This formalization potentially strengthens bureaucratic accountability and coherence in policy execution, reducing inefficiencies that might arise from a lack of coordination.

Regulatory and Administrative Changes

Administratively, departments such as the Department of Justice and Homeland Security are encouraged to explore changes in immigration and legal frameworks to deny sanctuary to perpetrators of atrocities. This aligns with a broader policy shift towards using administrative regulations as tools of international justice, leveraging domestic legal systems to uphold global human rights standards.

Integration with Intelligence and Defense Strategies

The Order emphasizes the role of intelligence and defense establishments in identifying and mitigating atrocity risks. It guides the Intelligence Community to align its priorities with atrocity prevention, potentially altering intelligence collection and resource allocation practices. For the Department of Defense, it necessitates the incorporation of atrocity prevention into military doctrine and strategic planning, which could lead to new training programs and operational guidance.

Impact on U.S. Foreign Policy

Policy-wise, this Order signifies a preparatory and preventive stance within U.S. foreign policy. It reflects a shift towards proactive engagement in international human rights protection, possibly influencing diplomatic relations and interactions with international organizations and allies. The comprehensive approach outlined in the Order may serve as a model for other nations, setting standards for international intervention frameworks.

Who Benefits

Vulnerable Populations and At-Risk Communities

The primary beneficiaries are civilians in regions at risk of mass atrocities. By improving the U.S. government's ability to predict and respond to potential genocides and similar humanitarian crises, the Order is designed to provide protection to populations who lack sufficient security from their governments or face threats from non-state actors.

International Human Rights Organizations

Organizations focused on international human rights stand to gain from this Order. It formalizes U.S. support in atrocity prevention, potentially unlocking additional funding, intelligence sharing, and diplomatic engagement that can enhance their efforts to monitor and prevent human rights violations globally.

U.S. National Security Infrastructure

The U.S. national security apparatus may also benefit through enhanced interagency collaboration and resource allocation. This Order provides a framework for improved communication and strategic alignment across various governmental departments and agencies, thereby bolstering the overall efficacy in addressing security threats linked with mass atrocities.

International Diplomatic Corps

For U.S. diplomats, the Order offers clear directives and support structures for engaging with international partners on human rights issues. By making mass atrocity prevention a priority, the Order legitimizes and strengthens diplomatic efforts and arguments in international forums, potentially leading to more robust international coalitions and actions.

Policy and Legal Scholars

Finally, policy and legal scholars focused on international law and human rights may benefit from a richer field of study and engagement. This Order adds to the body of U.S. foreign policy instruments and can serve as a case study for evaluating the efficacy of executive actions in reducing global human rights abuses.

Who Suffers

Perpetrators of Mass Atrocities

The most direct impact is on individuals or groups perpetrating or planning mass atrocities. By enhancing international cooperation and domestic legal frameworks, the Order seeks to deter these actors by denying them sanctuary and holding them accountable through legal and diplomatic channels.

Countries with Weak Governance

Governments in countries prone to mass atrocities might experience increased international scrutiny and pressure. This could lead to diplomatic isolation or economic sanctions if they are seen to be failing in their responsibilities to protect their citizens or if they are complicit in such acts.

Hostile Foreign Entities

Foreign entities antagonistic to U.S. involvement in their internal affairs may view the Order as intrusive, potentially escalating tensions. Countries with authoritarian regimes that resist external influence may perceive U.S. preventive measures as unjustified interference, straining bilateral relations.

Resource-strapped Government Agencies

Domestic agencies might face challenges in reallocating existing resources to prioritize mass atrocity prevention without additional funding allocations. This could strain their current operational capabilities, leading to challenges in balancing this new focus with existing priorities.

Potential Allies and Partners

Potential allies and partners may find themselves at a crossroads, balancing their relationships with the United States against their regional strategies and relationships. Countries aligned with regimes facing scrutiny may have to navigate complex diplomatic landscapes, which could disrupt regional alliances.

Historical Context

Obama Administration's Human Rights Agenda

Executive Order 13729 fits within a broader narrative of the Obama administration's commitment to multilateralism and human rights. The administration frequently emphasized "soft power" approaches, leveraging diplomacy and international institutions in conflict resolution and humanitarian efforts. This Order exemplifies that strategy by institutionalizing atrocity prevention within U.S. national security policy.

Precedent in U.S. Policy

The creation of the Atrocities Prevention Board follows historical precedents where U.S. administration sought legislative or executive solutions to global human rights abuses, such as the implementation of the Genocide Convention and subsequent legislation pertaining to war crimes. This reflects a continued effort to incorporate atrocity prevention into the fabric of U.S. foreign policy.

Legacy of Previous Conflicts

The Order emerges from lessons learned from past failures to prevent atrocities, notably the Rwandan Genocide and the conflict in the Balkans during the 1990s. These events demonstrated the catastrophic costs of delayed international response and informed subsequent policy frameworks aimed at ensuring swifter, more decisive action.

Integration with Global Trends

Globally, there has been a movement towards ensuring accountability and supporting international criminal justice frameworks. This Executive Order reflects and potentially reinforces this trend, aligning U.S. strategy with international efforts such as the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, which seeks to address sovereignty issues related to intervention in preventing atrocities.

Geopolitical Considerations

The geopolitical context during 2016 was marked by complex international conflicts and humanitarian crises, such as in Syria and South Sudan. The Obama administration, through this EO, aimed to address these complexities by establishing a robust internal mechanism for evaluating and responding to such crises, intending to promote a more stable international order through preemptive and coordinated actions.

Potential Controversies or Challenges

Interagency Coordination Challenges

While the Order is comprehensive in outlining interagency roles, practical challenges in achieving effective coordination could arise. Diverse agency mandates and bureaucratic inertia may hinder swift and unified action. Achieving the Order's objectives would require overcoming these structural issues, which have historically complicated interagency efforts in complex policy domains.

Congessional Oversight and Budgetary Concerns

Congress might scrutinize or challenge the executive prerogative in directing foreign policy, particularly in areas with budgetary implications. There could be demands for clear justifications of spending priorities and outcomes, especially if the Order's implementation requires reallocation of resources or new funding that impinges on other congressional priorities.

Diplomatic and Sovereignty Issues

The extraterritorial reach implied by denying sanctuary and prosecuting offenders might raise diplomatic tension with countries concerned about sovereignty. Some may perceive the U.S. approach as an overreach, possibly leading to legal challenges in international tribunals or diplomatic forums.

Legal Challenges and Implementation Hurdles

The executive's ability to create substantial policy shifts without congressional approval could spark legal challenges. Questions regarding the limits of executive power in orchestrating foreign policy and using domestic laws to affect international relations might arise, prompting judicial review.

Public Perception and Political Will

The success of this initiative also hinges on public perception and the political will of subsequent administrations. Changes in priorities or leadership within the executive branch could impact the continuity of the Order's implementation, potentially leading to shifts in focus or resource allocation away from atrocity prevention efforts.