COA NonProfit/Current Projects

Developing Connections

2010-05-31T15:59:00.003-04:00

This has been a busy month, with presentations to the staff of the Committee on Conscience at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum, at the Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization in the Department of State, and finally to the Ambassador to the US from the Republic of Georgia, Mr. Batu Kutelia.

The Committee on Conscience, as co-sponsor of the Genocide Prevention Task Force, is a leading voice in the genocide prevention world. Their challenge now is to move society and governments to put the recommendations of that task force into action. The counter-genocide planning framework, as noted in previous posts, is being developed in response to several of these recommendations. State/CRS is the office charged by Presidential directive to be the focal point of all non-defense planning for the US government. Because this is the venue within our government in which the planning framework would be most relevant, their feedback is also very important to its development. My meeting with Ambassador Kutelia stems from his country’s own experience with ethnic cleansing and their desire to ensure that it never happens again. One possible measure is to stand up a center in Tbilisi specifically dedicated to the prevention of genocide and ethnic cleansing. We discussed that possibility and how such a center could function as a bridge between early warning systems and policymakers.

Next month I’ll be traveling to Brussels to give a planning seminar at the European Peacebuilding Liaison Office, and then on to the Salzburg Global Seminar, where I am sitting on a panel entitled “Genocide Prevention: A Blueprint for the Future.” I’m also happy to report that COA NonProfit has been given its largest grant to date courtesy of the forward-leaning Lantos Foundation (www.lantosfoundation.org). The grant comes at an important moment in this fledgling organization’s history as we work to find funding for its continued existence. We here at COA NonProfit are very grateful to Annette Tilleman-Dick, Katrina Lantos-Swett and Denise Perron for their faith in this project, and for their continued efforts to connect COA NonProfit with other sources of funding.

Back From Ottawa

2010-05-04T10:58:00.002-04:00

A week ago I drove up to Canada for the third time this year. This time I was to sit on a panel of experts hosted by the All-Party Parliamentary Group for the Prevention of Genocide and Other Crimes Against Humanity, and discuss the potential benefits of the Mass Atrocity Prevention Planning Guide. The audience numbered about fifty and comprised four Members of Parliament, two Senators, about three dozen staffers and some people from the media. Mr. Paul Dewar, an MP from Ottawa, chairs the Group and also called the meeting. I met him originally when he introduced me at the presentation I made in February at Carleton University.

After I spoke Mr. Broys Wrzesnewskyj, an MP from Etobicoke Centre, asked me to stop by his office and chat with him. We spent an hour discussing how the MAP planning concept can help lawmakers with the challenges they face in developing political will to prevent mass atrocities, and how to calculate risk in taking action against it. Following that I walked over to chat with Senator Dallaire’s staff in their new, temporary spaces. In all of these meetings I was impressed by the desire that Canadians feel to be real leaders in genocide prevention. In my opinion, Canada would be an ideal place for a center dedicated to genocide and mass atrocity prevention, similar to the Budapest Centre, which I have written about in previous blogs. The recent elections in Hungary brought a new political party to power there which one must hope will continue to fund the development of that Centre, as the concept has great potential.

In all, it was a productive trip to Ottawa and I’m confident that the Canadian government will continue to pursue its interest in mass atrocity prevention planning, and that I’ll be making more trips to Ottawa this year.

At the US Capitol

2010-04-24T11:24:00.001-04:00

Last Thursday I received a very special gift from the Lantos Foundation – a unique tour of the Capitol building from Annette Lantos. Mrs. Lantos is Tom Lantos’ widow. Mr. Lantos served in the House from 1981 until his death from cancer in early 2008, and was the only member of the House who was also a Holocaust survivor. Annette’s eldest daughter, Annette Tilleman-Dick, accompanied us on the tour and told me what it was like walking the halls of the Capitol after her father was elected to office.

It was a simple thing really, as all we did was walk up to the visitors’ entrance to the House Chamber and sit down for a little bit. But when someone who is herself an example of living history (Annette senior was married to Tom for 60 years and also survived the Holocaust in Hungary) gives one such a glimpse into the building’s history, then you know that this is quite special. The special quality Mrs. Lantos has was evident from the responses of people throughout the Capitol, from the people at the various security checkpoints who greeted her warmly, to the Senators and Congress members who praised her efforts in continuing the work Tom Lantos started in championing human rights around the world.

We took a seat in the House Chamber. I noticed that there were a lot of people on the floor, and Annette confirmed that that was an unusual event which only happens when there are a couple of important votes coming up for consideration. As we were discussing that, she pointed out that the medallions along the wall, just beneath the ceiling, were faces of historic lawmakers who shaped American law: from Moses (who is in the center with a full face portrait) to Napoleon (who, like all the others except Moses, is in profile).

As we left the Chamber, we walked past Christy’s painting, “Signing of the Constitution,” and Annette offered a critique of it. She said that you can easily see the famous American leaders of the era in the painting: Washington, Franklin, etc., but in the center is a young man in bright eye-catching red. He was the youngest person in the room and had no official role other than to act as messenger to carry the Constitution to the States following ratification. Annette suggested that the artist placed this historically obscure person in the visually dominant center for a couple of reasons. The first is to underscore the fact that the painting isn’t about the famous people on the scene, but about the Constitution, and that the Constitution is meant for the future generations of Americans.

Hearing this from someone who came to America as a refugee and became a respected icon of the House of Representatives was very moving.

Genocide Prevention Task Force

2010-04-17T12:36:00.003-04:00

"Genocide is not the inevitable result of 'ancient hatreds' or irrational leaders. It requires planning and is carried out systematically. There are ways to recognize its signs and symptoms, and viable options to prevent it at every turn if we are committed and prepared. Preventing genocide is a goal that can be achieved with the right organizational structures, strategies, and partnerships—in short, with the right blueprint."
Genocide Prevention Task Force Report, pp.xv-xvi

The quote above is at the heart of the MAP Planning Guide because it recognizes that mass atrocities and genocides are planned, coordinated and controlled to support a larger strategy. Genocides and mass atrocities never happen spontaneously – they are always a tactic supporting a larger strategy. Those larger strategies could include abrupt and absolute social change within a country (e.g. collectivism in the Soviet Union, return to an agricultural society in Cambodia) or assumption of undisputed political power (e.g. Rwanda), all of which were engineered by a powerful elite. Such overarching strategies entail substantial control and require extensive, wide-spread coordination and direction. These social engineering “directions” are also warning signs to those outside of the society, which can be recognized if they are placed into context. The MAP Planning Guide is a prototype of counter-genocide planning that brings current scholarship, foreign policy thinking and technological changes into a single focus to pierce the curtain of obscurity behind which perpetrators execute their strategy and deny them this tactic.

The GPTF report puts forward more than thirty recommendations for action, including processes to be adapted, new offices to be established, and formal statements to be issued by the President. One consistent theme in this report is the need for a mechanism which expressly connects information from early warning networks with policymakers. This is a large hurdle in developing responses to mass atrocities as they happen, to say nothing of their prevention. The MAP Planning Guide is being developed to fill that gap, both from a US perspective and from a regional view. Task Force recommendation 5.3 (page 90) suggests that the US government “enhance” the capacity of regional organizations to prevent genocides in their neighborhood. The MAP Planning Guide is designed to function at that level, where the most accurate information regarding a potential genocide is gathered and where the risk of inaction is highest.

The MAP Planning Guide is the first step in setting up regional organizations and strategies for preventing genocide – in short it’s the right blueprint.

Current Thinking

2010-03-29T17:04:00.005-04:00

On March 17-19 I attended the “Instability Warning and Genocide Prevention Symposium 2010” sponsored by the National Intelligence Council and hosted by Vanderbilt University Law School. Among many informative presentations was one given by Dr. Paul Stares of the Council on Foreign Relations, which closely echoed the important themes of the MAP Planning Guide, including the necessity of looking “upstream” at the events leading to genocide and the need for a planning tool to inform the development of policy options. It was gratifying to confirm that our project ties in so well to current thinking at higher levels. I have made contact with Dr. Stares in the past at the suggestion of Lawrence Woocher (USIP), and I’m looking forward to discussing MAP planning concepts further with him as the book progresses. I also talked with Dr. Ben Valentino of Dartmouth about his work regarding elites who use genocidal tactics to retain or expand political and economic power, and how the planning process can be used to counter these tactics.

I was happy to see Mr. Don Braum, the Senior Policy Advisor to the Plans Division at State/CRS, whom I have worked with in the past. The conference also gave me the opportunity to continue coordinating with Horacio Trujillo on the future expansion of this networking concept through the Course of Action International project, which will focus on the implementation of mass atrocity prevention planning.

Arusha and Beyond

2010-03-11T10:08:00.000-05:00

It has been a hectic three weeks of travel and presentations, so I am a bit behind on blogging. The 2nd Annual Forum on Genocide Prevention in Tanzania was very worthwhile. I spoke on the panel “Role and Responsibilities of State and International Actors and Ways Forward.” In the audience were the former President of Tanzania, Mr. Mkapa, and Dr. Francis Deng, Director of the Office of the Special Advisor on Genocide Prevention (OSAGP). Several senior ministers and ambassadors from Switzerland, Argentina and Tanzania were there, as well as representatives from the International Criminal Court, the International Tribunal for Crimes in Rwanda, and ministers from other African states such as Rwanda, Sudan and Zambia.

Both before and after this trip to Africa I was in New England for speaking engagements. I presented to Rear Admiral Burhoe and members of his staff, faculty and students at the US Coast Guard Academy. The Jewish Federation of Eastern Connecticut sponsored this talk and another dinner talk at Connecticut College, to an audience of approximately 60 academics, students, businessmen and interested citizens. Mr. Jerry Fischer, president of the Jewish Federation of Eastern Connecticut, made a very gracious host on that trip. On my return to Pennsylvania I was snowed out (for the second time) from presenting at Carnegie-Mellon University in Pittsburgh, and just last night I was again in Connecticut to speak on a panel at Yale law school on the subject of “Intervening to Stop Mass Atrocities.”

I was also fortunate to spend an hour on one of those trips with Dr. Katrina Lantos Swett and Denise Perron, Executive Director of the Lantos Foundation. They are enthusiastic about finding funding for COA NonProfit and the MAP Planning Guide, and with their help I feel very optimistic about the future of this project. The introduction to the book is nearing completion and I am planning a trip to DC in the near future to begin researching supporting material for some of the early chapters. Though advocating for mass atrocity prevention planning is important, my primary job at the moment is to sit and write!

Catching Up

2010-02-12T17:34:00.003-05:00

I’m back at my desk after a productive and interesting series of meetings in Canada. I particularly enjoyed meeting Dr. Frank Chalk at his office in Concordia University and discussing the continuing coordination of mass atrocity prevention planning concepts with the work of the Montreal Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies (MIGS). My presentation in Ottawa at The Centre for Security and Defence Studies of the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, Carleton University, was sponsored by MIGS in conjunction with the All-Party Parliamentary Group for the Prevention of Genocide and other Crimes Against Humanity. Following the presentation I was asked by the executive editor of Vanguard magazine to submit an article elaborating on those concepts for publication. My next trip to Ottawa has been tentatively slated for April, when Parliament will be back in session. On the subject of travel, I’ve been invited to participate in a panel discussion of “Preventing genocide: role and responsibilities of state and international actors and ways forward” at the 2nd Regional Forum on the Prevention of Genocide in Tanzania from 3-5 March. In June/July I will also be attending the first of what is intended to be an annual symposium on “The Global Prevention of Genocide: Learning from the Holocaust”, sponsored by Salzburg Global Seminar in Salzburg.

Housekeeping Note: I have been asked by Mr. Rory Stewart, Director of the Carr Center at Harvard University, to make it clear that “the MARO APF and scenarios were initial products of the MARO Project and do not reflect current MARO Project direction”. The MARO Project website states that its revised product, the MARO Military Planning Handbook, will be available in 2010. The APF, which was the subject of my article published in the African Security Review (see link above), is no longer available on that website. As a courtesy to readers of that article, I will retain it on the COA NonProfit website until this revised handbook is available. Military response capabilities in mass atrocity situations, although important, are peripheral to my current work with the Mass Atrocity Prevention (MAP) Planning Guide. My purpose in leaving the MARO Project in 2009 was specifically to pursue the crucial, but overlooked, need for a planning process that addresses non-military audiences and focuses on prevention of mass atrocities rather than intervention. In an additional housekeeping item, please note that Ms. Lois Andreasen, a member of COA NonProfit’s Board of Directors, has also recently resigned from her position as Executive Director of the Carr Center.

MAP Update

2010-01-27T17:08:00.002-05:00

After a meeting last week at George Mason University’s Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, my book proposal is taking clearer shape. Dr. Greg Stanton and I are going to coordinate our writing projects. Greg, the creator of the Eight Stages of Genocide (http://www.genocidewatch.org/aboutgenocide/8stagesofgenocide.html) and former president of Genocide Watch, is writing a textbook for the high school/college undergraduate level regarding genocides and mass atrocities as specific elements of a particular strategy with a progression that can be identified and predicted, if one knows where to look and what to look for.

My book will be directed at the graduate student/policymaker level with a view to developing feasible options for preventing mass atrocity early in the progression that Greg describes, long before it becomes necessary to mount a military intervention. We’ll use the same historical case studies in the books to intellectually connect the concepts at key points where the genocidal processes could have been (or were) disrupted, and to validate the premise that those strategies are vulnerable to counter action. Greg introduced me to Dr. Andrea Bartoli, the Institute’s director. Andrea is very interested in the concept of our writing books that complement one another and offered to collaborate in any way needed with our effort.

Working with Greg is a great privilege and I’m flattered to have the opportunity. The work he has done in this field in developing a scholarly approach to understanding how mass atrocities come about is unmatched. Our joint efforts, aimed at producing a clear understanding of how genocides progress and how they can be stopped, are a natural combination and could prove to be useful tools in identifying, predicting and preventing mass atrocities.

Mass Atrocity Prevention Planning Guide vs. the Annotated Planning Framework

2010-01-11T17:24:00.003-05:00

Continuing the discussion begun last week: How does the MAP Planning Guide differ from the Annotated Planning Framework (APF)? Though both are based on proven military planning processes, the two main differences are target audience and time frame. The target audience for MAP Planning is non-defense agencies of government, NGOs, peacekeeping centers and academics. This is multi-disciplinary planning that casts a wide net in seeking preventive policy options. As discussed last week, the APF is a military document designed to guide a military intervention.

The other primary distinction concerns the focus of each of these planning efforts along the continuum of mass atrocities. A military intervention, almost by definition, will take place only as a final resort, either just prior to a mass atrocity or after the killing has actually begun. The MAP Planning Guide’s focus is much further upstream, assuming that it is easier to divert a trickle than it is to stem a flood. All planning works on the assumption that the enemy (or would-be perpetrators of mass murder) must follow some reasonably logical, predictable course of action in order to carry out their purpose. If mass atrocities are not random, but are themselves planned events, then they can likewise be planned against. For example, in order for a mass atrocity to occur, there must be weapons available, presumably a money trail that can be tracked, a form of disseminating propaganda and communicating plans, and identifiable leaders. There is likely to be criminal activity involved even before the organized bloodshed. With the help of reliable early warning systems and an analytical process such as the MAP Planning Guide, this is the point at which small but specifically targeted interventions, utilizing the full spectrum of government functions, could interrupt or divert the progression toward genocide before it reaches the point of no return. In this case the term “interruption” may be more descriptive than “intervention” and serve to emphasize the non-military focus of this planning.

The Annotated Planning Framework and the MAP Planning Guide are thus complementary but distinctly different approaches, which both contribute to the institutional capacity to prevent mass atrocities and genocide.

A Good Start!

2010-01-07T13:55:00.001-05:00

The new year has begun in earnest. I spent the holidays writing a 4500 word grant proposal for the Mass Atrocity Prevention (MAP) Planning Guide. I am very fortunate that many colleagues have agreed to act as consultants in developing and reviewing this book, including Dr. Greg Stanton, Dr. Jendayi Frazer, Dr. Frank Chalk, Lawrence Woocher, Dr. Volker Franke, Dr. Don Hubert, Ambassador Istvan Lakatos, and others. The project will take a year to complete.

In writing the proposal I have been thinking about the work that led up to this, much of which occurred in the writing of the MARO Annotated Planning Framework. That framework was truly a seminal effort, for two reasons. One is the simple fact that no attempt had been made before that to specifically plan a military intervention for a mass atrocity, in spite of the fact that this was identified as a specific task on page 17 of the National Security Strategy 2006. The second is that it is one of the first efforts to combine the best of planning processes from throughout the Departments of Defense and State. The Annotated Planning Framework (APF) has attracted interest from the militaries of other countries as well. I hope to be instrumental in introducing it to Canadian military schools when I speak next month in Ottawa and Montreal.

The purpose of the APF is to prepare an effective deterrent to mass atrocities in the form of a military force specifically trained and equipped to intervene if necessary. Of course, if deterrence fails, that force is also prepared to physically intervene and stop the killing. The MARO framework acknowledges the goal of coordinating military operations with other branches of government, and for that it should be commended, but in reality it remains an essentially military document to which the other branches of government are expected to conform. To be fair, a plan for an actual military operation is such a complex and specialized document it could not be expected to be all things to all people. Hence the need for another animal altogether: the MAP Planning Guide, which takes military planning and makes it conform to the needs of the non-military realm, instead of the other way around.

Book Proposal

2009-12-12T12:42:00.001-05:00

As I suspected, the material for the Mass Atrocity Prevention (MAP) Planning Guide is quickly burgeoning into book length. There are too many avenues which deserve greater exploration to treat this to a superficial rewrite. So at this point I am pulling back to assess the full scope of the project and write a formal proposal to obtain funding for a book. A template for book proposals provided by the Smith Richardson Foundation has been helpful in clarifying the future shape of the book and its objectives.

As I have written and studied and continued to meet with a wide variety of people who are involved in genocide prevention, I have become more and more intrigued by the idea of using specifically targeted financial and economic consequences to effectively interdict the progression toward mass atrocity. As General Sullivan pointed out, although having a trained and equipped military intervention capability is a laudable goal, we are many years away from realizing it. But this is not the case with financial/economic intervention strategies. We have the ability right now to analyze the economic centers of gravity that drive potential perpetrators of mass atrocities, so that we can understand and exploit their critical capabilities, requirements and vulnerabilities. This analysis is part of the military planning process that needs to be adapted for civilian use, in order to apply effective financial and economic pressure (both rewards and sanctions) from the appropriate agencies of government to back up diplomatic efforts. As always, coordination of effort is the operative term.

A related (and critical) need is to overlay the analytical planning process with early warning systems in order to ensure that these efforts do not come too little and too late. This is work that I am looking forward to tackling with Dr. Greg Stanton in the next year and that will be an important addition to the planning guide. I’m very happy to report that I will also be giving a presentation in Montreal on February 12, sponsored by the Montreal Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies (MIGS). This presentation will be to academics, NGOs, and Canadian military and represents an initial attempt to assess the MARO planning framework’s utility in coordinating a whole of government approach to mass atrocity prevention. Very exciting possibilities for the coming year.

Networking

2009-12-04T17:58:00.001-05:00

More work on operationalizing the responsibility to protect: results of my visit to DC on Wednesday, 02 December.

I had a morning meeting with General Gordon Sullivan, former Chief of Staff of the Army from 1991-95. We talked chiefly about how to introduce COA NonProfit’s work to non-military audiences in Washington DC. I’ve met the General several times before and am always impressed by his grasp of not only the issue of genocide prevention, which is of course the reason for our meetings, but also his understanding of military history and the political culture of Washington DC. He was gracious enough to say that this is important work we’re doing and that he would work with COA NonProfit to the best of his ability.

I had lunch with Colonel Steve Townsend from the Office of the Chief of Staff of the Army, where he works in the Chief’s strategic planning group. Steve’s a great planner and I hope to use his talents to review our work and give useful insights on how best to describe current planning methods to non-military audiences. After lunch I met with Pauline Baker, President of the Fund for Peace. Pauline’s organization has done some very interesting and useful work on analyzing failed states and their connections to genocidal conditions within specific societies. We discussed opportunities to connect that work with my concepts for an international planning framework that would use early warning information to develop common analytical approaches to the problem of preventing mass atrocities.

I ended the work day with Mr. Don Braum, who is a retired Foreign Service Officer now working for the Department of State’s Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization (S/CRS). We talked about that organization’s work in developing preventative plans for the Department of State and other government agencies, as part of its responsibilities stemming from National Security Presidential Directive 44. He is interested in supporting a connection between COA NonProfit and the Marine Corps schools in Quantico because, as he says, “The Marines are very receptive to new ways of doing things.” He also suggested that I contact the Auschwitz Jewish Center Foundation as a possible funding source.

On a final note, my article in the African Security Review appeared today and can be accessed at the top of the page.

Operationalizing the Responsibility to Protect

2009-11-27T17:19:00.002-05:00

Two conversations I've had this week have served to confirm the urgent need for a mechanism that can bridge the gap between intentions and practice in preventing future mass atrocities. Two major reports that have been published recently in the US and Canada call for such a mechanism to improve communication and generate practical and timely policy proposals when mass atrocities threaten. The Genocide Prevention Task Force, sponsored by the US Holocaust Museum, and the Willingness to Intervene (W2I) Report, out of Concordia University in Montreal, both arrived at similar recommendations: that the US and Canadian governments develop formal mechanisms for recognizing early warning signs in at-risk countries, and that they establish formal offices and agencies specifically dedicated to responding to these situations. Both of these influential reports stress the necessity of incorporating the full spectrum of government, as well as the private sector and NGOs, in developing practical policy recommendations for prevention or intervention, and both also point out the current paucity of such plans and procedures within their respective governments and internationally.

The MARO planning framework, and the non-military version of the framework which I am tentatively calling the MAP (Mass Atrocity Prevention) Planning Guidebook, are tools that can be used to "operationalize" the responsibility to protect, filling the void in procedure identified by these reports with a common vocabulary and analytical process that facilitates coordinated action in response to potential mass atrocities. This was the subject of the conversations I had this week with Mike Abramowitz, Director of the Committee on Conscience at the Holocaust Museum, and Kyle Matthews, Lead Researcher for the W2I Project. These conversations will be continued over the coming months as the MAP Guidebook takes shape and both organizations consider follow-up options to translate their recommendations into effective action.

Writing

2009-11-18T17:10:00.005-05:00

The Lantos Foundation’s screening of the film VLAST, about the Russian government’s jailing of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, was very powerful. The late Rep. Lantos was never a fan of Vladimir Putin. Film maker Cathryn Collins, who attended the screening, is hoping for a large viewing in the US, since she anticipates that European audiences will prefer to continue turning a blind eye to Russian human rights abuses. I believe the film will have its public opening sometime in the coming weeks, and it is well worth seeing.

While at the Capitol for the screening I also met with a staff member of the House Appropriations Committee on Defense, to discuss Congressional support for mass atrocity response planning. The Geographic Combatant Commands, which are the level within the US military which would be charged with carrying out such a response, were established by the Goldwater-Nichols Act in 1986. Congress retained direct oversight of these commands, which is implemented in part through Congressional delegations, thus giving these delegations a very real opportunity to impact the priority given to this planning. The 2006 National Security Strategy dedicates an entire page to genocide, including the following: “Where perpetrators of mass killing defy all attempts at peaceful intervention, armed intervention may be required, preferably by the forces of several nations working together under appropriate regional or international auspices.” Although this is a clear indication that plans should be in place to support this mission, at this time they are not.

I see two primary focuses for COA NonProfit over the coming year. The first is to continue to raise awareness of the need for mass atrocity prevention planning in whatever settings I can access, from the US Congress, to the governments and militaries and peacekeeping organizations in other countries, to NGOs and academia. The second is to write a comprehensive planning guide that distills the principles of this planning for non-military audiences. This is the writing I’m currently immersed in, and it is quickly becoming apparent that there is plenty of material for a book, if I am to do any justice at all to the complexity of this subject. I hope to discuss this next week when I meet with Mike Abramowitz of the US Holocaust Museum. A possible off-shoot of the book would be historical case studies using the planning framework to analyze critical junctures for action that might have been taken during the Jewish Holocaust. But, first things first.

Further Developments

2009-11-11T09:21:00.002-05:00

I’m back at my desk after my trip to Canada and New England. I was disappointed not to meet personally with Senator Dallaire. He, unfortunately, had fallen earlier in the day and re-injured his back. I did have a productive meeting with his legislative assistant, Ms. Marion Lawrence, and was able to brief the Senator through her on COA NonProfit’s current work. I’m looking forward to a return trip to Ottawa when the Senator has recovered.

My presentation to students and staff, sponsored by Professor Erin Corcoran, Director of the Social Justice Institute at the Franklin Pierce Law Center in Concord, went very well. The discussion, which lasted nearly 45 minutes beyond the scheduled conclusion, revolved in part on how to develop the will to intervene among the political elite, a question posed by Dr. Katrina Lantos Swett, President of the Lantos Foundation (www.lantosfoundation.org).

Following the presentation I met with her, Mrs. Annette Lantos, Chairman of the Lantos Foundation, Professor Corcoran and Mr. Cory Smith of Humanity United. Dr. Swett and Mrs. Lantos are the daughter and widow of the late Congressman from California, Tom Lantos. Rep. Lantos was a survivor of the Holocaust and a member of the Hungarian resistance in WWII. Mrs. Lantos was also born in Hungary and maintains close ties with that country. We discussed the proposed Budapest Centre for the International Prevention of Genocide and Mass Atrocities, and how well-positioned Hungary is to act as the nexus of such an effort to connect other elements in the anti-genocide movement. Mrs. Lantos and Dr. Swett were very helpful in suggesting organizations and personalities who might also be interested in COA NonProfit’s work. I will be following up with them next week when I attend their screening of the new documentary film about the Russian government’s treatment of Mikhail Khodorkovsky in DC on 17 November.

I will also be meeting with General Gordon Sullivan (USA-Ret.) in his office at the Association of the United States Army on 02 December. Gen. Sullivan has been very generous with his time and support for the MARO Project. He told me in July that this project embodies exactly the efforts he hoped to foster when he founded PKSOI in the early nineties, namely ones that “connect the Army with organizations outside the military on concepts bigger than the military.” Finally, I’ve confirmed the date I’ll be in New London to give a presentation to the students of Connecticut College and the Coast Guard Academy: 24 February, 2010.

What COA NonProfit is doing

2009-10-22T08:15:00.000-04:00

I was in Cape Town in early October for a conference of the Humanity United-sponsored Global Stewardship Group, which generated several proposals for using the MARO planning framework. The first entails working with the Desmond Tutu Peace Centre (tutu.org) to develop a specifically South African scenario that can be a focus for seminars and simulation exercises once their new building is completed. Another is a concept for developing a process to assess information coming from early warning networks and generate policy recommendations for the Budapest Centre for the International Prevention of Genocide and Mass Atrocities (http://www.kulugyminiszterium.hu/kum/en/bal/foreign_policy/protection_human_rights/bp_nepirtas_megelozesi_kozpont/short_executive_summary.htm). Their goal is to become a nexus for diplomatic, economic, legal and military prevention efforts in Europe and around the world. It's quite ambitious, but the Ambassador running it is very smart and well-connected within the EU and the UN.

Additionally, I'm coordinating with Dr. Greg Stanton, originator of the Eight Stages of Genocide, at George Mason University's Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution (http://www.gmu.edu/departments/ICAR/) to connect an early warning system using both in-country sources and diasporas around the world to collect data and use it to analyze a country's progression along the known track of genocidal evolution. Ideally, connecting the Institute and the Budapest Centre via a consistent planning framework would help both to be more useful and relevant within the broader community. Catherine Woollard, of the EU-sponsored non-profit, the European Peacebuilding Liaison Office (http://www.eplo.org/), was also at the conference and is interested in becoming familiar with a military planning process in order to help them coordinate with NATO and EU planning organizations.

On 02 November I meet with Senator Romeo Dallaire in his office in Ottawa to brief him on COA NonProfit's efforts to operationalize the R2P concept. I'm going to ask him to lend his support with the previously mentioned projects and help in introducing MARO-based products into the Canadian government and military. As the Australians are interested in developing an "across the spectrum" approach to mass atrocity intervention, the two countries could become the spearhead for an effort that would ultimately pull the US in in a supporting role. Back in the States, I'm giving a talk about the evolution of the MARO Project from a military focused effort to one encompassing other nations and private individuals to the Franklin Pierce School of Law on 05 November in Concord, NH, and working with the Jewish Foundation of Eastern Connecticut to present these ideas to Connecticut College and the US Coast Guard Academy scheduled for February.

Lots of work ahead and I'm really looking forward to it.