Author

Caroline Mendoza

Featured History Human Rights National Security Security and Conflict United States

Why the U.S. Could Witness a Mass Atrocity

When prompted with the question of where atrocities are occurring in the modern day, we commonly point to regions in the Global South, namely ongoing genocide in East Turkistan or Myanmar. However, it is rare that we consider the warning signs of mass atrocities and the possibility of mass violence in a country as developed and with the perceived global dominance of the United States.

The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum and Dartmouth College’s Early Warning Project rank the United States as number 66 of 162 countries at risk of a mass atrocity, having risen from number 85 in 2019. While US citizens enjoy, amongst other things, basic freedom of movement, religion, and press, in recent years, the country has seen intensified violence against minority groups, increased political tensions, and explicit expressions of white supremacy. As a collective, these factors have created conditions that historically predicate some form of mass atrocity.

The U.S. is currently witnessing a handful of warning signs of mass atrocities. In April 2021, the International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL) drew from experts in 11 countries worldwide to release a report highlighting police violence against Black people in the US. The IADL references a lack of accountability in police forces, excessive violence against Black people, tazing and chokeholds as forms of torture, and policies like “stop and frisk” to make a case for crimes against humanity occurring in the U.S.. The report concludes with calls for the International Criminal Court (ICC) to open investigations and, more importantly, puts into writing what an atrocity prevention perspective has pointed to for years- that the U.S.’s widespread police brutality and militarized police forces should be considered a warning sign of some form of an international crime. In June 2020, University of Chicago researchers found that, of the 20 police departments studied, zero were in compliance with the bare minimum of international human rights laws. As highlighted in the report, what is perhaps equally concerning is the extent to which US police operations differ from their global counterparts. The US’s discrimination, use of lethal force, and clear targeting of Black and Brown people constitute state-sponsored violence and meet two risk factors of mass atrocities– lack of evenness of civil liberties and social group equality.

Further, the U.S.’s tinderbox political climate contributes to previous factors and works in tandem with police brutality as a warning sign that could worsen as tensions escalate. The US is experiencing arguably unprecedented levels of political polarization that make violence more likely to occur. A study published in 2018 determined that an increase in partisan identity following the 2016 election has caused “lethal mass partisanship” as individuals begin to endorse violence against those from opposing groups. The storming of the Capitol on January 6 is reflective of this extreme division that has not only resulted in violence but makes violence more likely to manifest in the future.

Any evaluation of potential atrocities in the U.S. would be incomplete without noting the country’s direct ties to genocide. The U.S. has a largely unacknowledged history of genocide against Indigenous People, an event with repercussions that have yet to fade from modern day Indigenous plight. One of the most significant predictors of a mass atrocity is if a mass atrocity has occurred in the past. The existence of such an event is not an impossible idea when we consider that the needed conditions- marginalization, discrimination, and, namely, historical precedent- are in place. Indigenous People in the US continue to be denied land back and remain subject to gilded storytelling of their history of forced assimilation, boarding schools, and genocide. Due to Indigenous Peoples’ experiences with discrimination in healthcare, the justice system, and the workplace, all of which stem from a history of mass violence, Indigenous life expectancy is an estimated 5.5 years less than the average US citizen. Indigenous plight serves as a stark reminder of an unresolved history of mass atrocities that could likely manifest in the contentious environment of today.

It is worth noting that the U.S. is surely not alone in its history of genocide- we can look to Australia for a comparable example of a country with past violence against Indigenous populations, given Australia’s history of mass killings of First Nations people. However, the U.S. differentiates itself from other Western nations given the country’s current environment of racial tensions and arguably the most extreme political polarization of the Global North. Combined with historical precedent, these conditions make the U.S. much more vulnerable to some form of a mass atrocity than its’ Western counterparts. Quantitative analyses reflect this as well- the Early Warning Project ranks Australia at 128 of 162 countries, compared to the US at 66.

The U.S. is also grappling with reports of forced sterilizations in Immigrations and Customs Enforcement detention camps that would fit the formal definition of genocide, and it is clear that the U.S. recognizes the severity of such malpractice despite the potential complicity of a federal agency. After evidence of forced sterilization of Uyghur women came to light, the Biden Administration placed additional sanctions on China- as the US actively works to condemn mass atrocity warning signs abroad, the same needs to happen domestically.

The term “mass atrocity” is not formally defined. It is a word that encompasses the legally defined crimes of ethnic cleansing, war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity. The probability of each form of mass atrocity occurring in the U.S. varies- the term “mass atrocity” is used to generalize what could result from the mass atrocity warning signs currently seen in the U.S.. While the increasing probability of an atrocity in the U.S. is reason enough to analyze current events from an atrocity prevention point of view, this new perspective could also be an opportunity for Americans to rewire their perceptions of their own state. Violence and warning signs of mass atrocities have been and are currently taking place in the U.S., and it is well past time that they are labeled as such.

Moving forward, the U.S. should maintain the focus of the Early Warning Project and related monitoring to ensure that current warning signs do not escalate to mass violence. As for preventative policy reform, given that it is unlikely the Biden Administration will pursue police abolition, the least done should be a formal and exhaustive acknowledgment of and reparations for the genocide of Indigenous peoples and systemic violence against Black and Brown people. Also necessary are extensive investigations of ICE centers and associated medical professionals. By taking the bare minimum steps towards addressing the warning signs of mass atrocities, the US is simultaneously initiating a rebuilding of systems that will prevent mass atrocities for years to come.

June 18, 2021 0 comment

Asia Human Rights Women's Rights

How Cambodian Women Demonstrate the Gendered Dynamics of Genocide

written by Caroline Mendoza

In light of Women’s History Month, it cannot be understated that women in Cambodia are disproportionately and uniquely affected by a myriad of issues, many of which, if not all, are the result of deeply rooted gender inequalities and normalized sexism. One in five Cambodian women aged 14-59 will experience some form of physical violence, and domestic violence is still regarded as justifiable. The consequences of these issues manifest in a number of contemporary phenomena, however it is rare that we consider how these inequalities arrived as a result of the gendered impacts of the Cambodian genocide.

As enshrined in the 1948 Convention on Genocide, the acts that constitute genocide include mass killings, mental and bodily harm, and the transferring of children from the affected group. The definition also notes that preventing births is a crucial factor in the complete destruction of a single group- this final point implicates the necessity of a gendered analysis of genocide to truly understand the crime’s causes, effects, and disproportionate burdens on women.

The impacts of genocide on women are not merely long-lasting, but initiate cultural, structural, economic, and psychological issues that only continue to pile with the passage of time and a lack of justice. Cambodia has witnessed such consequences and continues to grapple with the now generational results of sexual and gender-based violence during the Cambodian genocide.

The Cambodian genocide, which ran from 1975-1979, was initiated following the Khmer Rouge’s seizure of the country and the regime’s goal of a classless society with no competition. This would be achieved through mass killings and “re-education” camps to encourage a new societal structure, and, while it is difficult to report the true number of casualties in any mass atrocity, the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) estimate up to 3 million deaths as a result of the Cambodian genocide. Many of these deaths would come from disease, torture, starvation, and forced labor, during which thousands of women were subject to rape, sexual violence, and forced marriages.

The Khmer Rouge wanted to increase Cambodia’s population to ensure the growth of a new generation of Khmer Rouge cadres, therefore relying heavily on Cambodian women to do so. This resulted in group weddings across the nation, rape by husbands and Khmer Rouge officers, and forced pregnancies under the threat of execution. In a 2015 study published as part of the Women and Transitional Justice in Cambodia Project, 96.6% of respondents reported being forced to marry someone they did not want to wed, and 80.5% reported being forced to have sex following wedding ceremonies. Women were also subject to sexual mutilation and rape as punishment for resistance, with 44.8% of respondents who witnessed rape reporting more than one perpetrator. While it is clear that predominantly women suffer from sexual violence in the context of genocide, it should be noted that men were subject to these atrocities as well, with 3% of respondents knowing of male victims of rape.

With a situation as horrific and scarring as Cambodia’s, it is clear that the effects of such an event can never be truly healed or realized in full. In a post-conflict setting working towards reconstruction, women were, and still are, highly stigmatized and blamed for their experiences during the genocide. Parts of Cambodia maintain that a woman’s value stems from her “purity,” marginalizing those who testify about their experiences. Women also reported a loss of respect from neighbors and community members who felt their marriages were untraditional. Additionally, the vast majority of women forced to marry fell into poverty that has affected their resulting children and lasted for generations.

In addition to social and economic repercussions, the health effects of the genocide are vast. Women who suffered rape and bodily mutilation would never experience properly functioning health systems for the rest of their lives. Psychologically, these women would go on to suffer from insomnia, nervousness, headaches, and perpetual feelings of guilt and shame that have only been enforced by Cambodia’s remaining gender roles and patriarchy.

It is important to note that the Khmer Rouge’s gender-specific genocidal tactics are not of their own invention, but rooted in already existing structures of oppression that do not treat women as humans with self-determination but rather as objects for sex or purely reproduction. While this is true of all gender-based and sexual violence, genocide in particular is representative of the immense and urgent change needed to address gender disparities and grapple with the already present results of inequalities.

It is very difficult to think about what steps would need to be taken to begin addressing the vastly intersectional and multifaceted issue that is gender inequality. However, starting with legal justice for the women affected and accountability for perpetrators of the crimes will aid in healing and peacebuilding, and work towards the end goal of preventing genocide as opposed to reacting after the crime has already happened. Pursuing justice and accountability also necessitates formal recognition of the atrocities committed, and will contribute to much needed awareness and visibility efforts.

Justice, however, especially for women who have suffered from sexual violence, is infamously difficult to obtain. Many believe that sexual violence was not part of the Khmer Rouge’s crimes- this misinformation and occasional denialism, combined with the widespread stigmatization of women who do share their experiences, has made the process to even begin to seek justice an immense challenge, leading to the many former Khmer Rouge officials who continue to live in the countryside, sometimes near survivors.

While the UN-backed ECCC was established in 2006 and mandated to prosecute Khmer Rouge officers for their atrocities, the Court has been limited to prosecuting a small group of Khmer Rouge leaders, making accountability for individual perpetrators difficult to achieve. Although the ECCC has acknowledged forced marriages and rape as part of the crimes that formed cases eventually charged as genocide, these are lengthy and long overdue trials, and many have criticized the Court for expenditures reaching up to $300 million only to convict very few people.

In tandem with justice, the role of education should be noted as necessary to both genocide prevention and the closing of gender disparities. In Cambodia, knowledge of and dialogue surrounding the sexual violence during the genocide is generally low. While the topic itself is still very taboo, as time continues to pass and survivors slowly pass away, learning about the genocide and its gendered impacts will serve as a lesson for what cannot be repeated and open conversations on gender equality and issues unique to women.

As we witness the forced sterilization of Uyghur women and mass rape of Rohingya women in contemporary times, these crimes will end in even more dire outcomes than seen currently if the world continues to act only after atrocities occur. While a country should not be defined solely by its suffering, just as the legacies of genocide are still present in Cambodia, similar consequences will root in new nations if we remain ignorant to the true and gendered costs of genocide.

March 9, 2021 0 comment

Asia Human Rights Print Article

With Burma’s Coup, Ethnic Minorities Cannot Be Forgotten

written by Caroline Mendoza

Inspired by the attempted January 6th insurrection in Washington, D.C., “Changing of the Guard” is a series of reflections on transitions of power — the peaceful, the violent, and the era-defining.

On February 1, the Burma (Myanmar) Army successfully carried out a coup d’etat, detaining leaders from the country’s ruling party and declaring a year-long state of emergency. While the news came as a surprise to the international community, for civilians, the threat of a coup and military rule had been long-looming. The Burma Army previously ruled the nation in a military junta from 1962 until 2011, and has since waged a continuous campaign of violence throughout the country, resulting in war crimes, mass atrocities, and genocide.

Tensions between the Burma Army and the National League of Democracy (NLD), Burma’s ruling party, had been brewing since the completion of Burma’s national election cycle on November 8 when the NLD won in a landslide victory. The Burma Army claimed the elections were fraudulent after the military-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party performed poorly in Burma’s 2020 elections, driving the Burma Army to call for constant re-votes until finally carrying out a coup on the morning of February 1. Since then, the Burma Army has cut off and restored internet access, arrested lawmakers, activists, ethnic leaders, and students, caused the nation’s banks to momentarily shut down, and shot and killed 19-year-old protester Mya Thwe Thwe Khaing.

It is much more complicated than disputed election results, however. Burma is home to over 135 ethnic groups, many of which, if not all, have suffered from violence incited by the Burma Army that has gone unchecked and ignored under the NLD’s watch. Since the start of 2021, the Burma Army has forcibly displaced an estimated 4,000 ethnic Karen people after shelling villages in Karen state. In Burma’s Kachin state, close to 100,000 ethnic Kachin are barely surviving in overcrowded and underfunded displacement camps, in addition to the over 200,000 ethnic Chin who have been displaced by clashes incited by the Burma Army since 2018. The same cycle of violence and impunity continues for Shan, Mon, Karenni, and Rakhine states.

The mass atrocities perpetrated by the Burma Army are of significance not only because of the thousands of lives that have been uprooted, but because they are representative of the deeply rooted ethnocentrism and violence that the NLD permits. Since the country’s first free elections in 2015, the NLD has remained in control of the government primarily due to its leadership of Aung San Suu Kyi— a Nobel Peace Prize awardee and long-time campaigner for restored democracy in Burma. While Aung San Suu Kyi was once a shining beacon of hope for Burma and a powerful woman leader to be idolized by the rest of the world, the Noble Laureate’s legacy is tarnished— in addition to ignoring the Burma Army’s abuses, Aung San Suu Kyi defended genocide against the Rohingya, an ethnic Muslim minority, when Burma was tried at the International Court of Justice in January 2020. Suu Kyi is somewhat of a military puppet, however, as despite the NLD ruling the Burmese government, the Burma Army holds significant power under the 2008 constitution, which gives a quarter of parliament seats to the military, and has multiple business deals and foreign investment projects that funnel money into the regime.

Clearly, the NLD is not the democratic force for change that the world once regarded it to be. When former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited Burma in 2011 and announced that the US would no longer block monetary aid from the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, the world was encouraged by Burma and Aung San Suu Kyi’s promises for democracy, leading President Barack Obama to lift sanctions and encourage democratization. While these policies were enacted with good intentions, they were implemented based on Burma’s words rather than actions— lifting sanctions placed a US seal of approval on Burma that caused the international community to believe democracy and security could progress unmonitored in the country. The results of these beliefs have manifested in mass violence, ethnocentrism, and now a military coup.

The abuses committed against Burma’s ethnic minorities cannot be disregarded when speaking on the coup. These abuses represent the extent of the military’s power in Burma and have inflated the egos of a violent and abusive leadership that will affect the entirety of the country, especially ethnic minorities. The NLD’s facade of democracy has allowed the Burma Army to operate unseen by the rest of the international community, and while many policymakers have been quick to report on and condemn the coup, these same experts have stayed silent when it comes to addressing the country’s internal conflict— the root of most, if not all, of the nation’s issues. The coup is not an isolated incident— it is a result of a longstanding history of the Burma Army’s impunity, the NLD’s poor leadership, and the international community’s failure to treat Burma with the urgency it required.

However, it is important to note that while the NLD’s leadership is vastly far from ideal, the election of the NLD is the closest that Burma has come to achieving a true democracy and must continue to be recognized as the official government of Burma throughout the military junta. The coup is a threat to all steps made towards a democratically-ruled Burma, and while it is hard to imagine what a true democracy in Burma will look like, it is a necessary exercise for the future.

In the long term, Burma’s government would need immense reform with diversity to the greatest extent in order to represent all ethnic groups and include ethnic candidates that were previously stifled in their election bids. Currently, ethnic minorities do not have a say in how they are governed but are still forced to follow the government’s policies— ethnic leaders with enhanced decision-making rights are crucial to a democratic end goal and necessary to grapple with the rampant Burmanization that has permeated the NLD. The country would also more than likely need to reform the 2008 constitution, which will otherwise continue to give the military power regardless of who is elected to leadership.

In the short term, the military coup needs to be reined in. This starts with holding the Burma Army accountable for their crimes and effectively ending their violent power-run. Decisive action will also need to be made on behalf of the international community and the US, which would include targeted sanctions on military-owned and controlled companies as well as pressure on the Burma Army to release all detained political prisoners. Ethnic minorities’ struggle for representation and basic human rights can no longer go overlooked— justice and the rule of law are in dire need of implementation.

While current events paint out Burma’s future to be extremely dim, there is hope for a country that has long fought for and is deserving of sustainable peace and democracy. Citizens have taken to the streets in mass protest against the Burma Army’s illegal seizure of power, with the rise of the Civil Disobedience Movement bringing artists, teachers, healthcare workers, and activists together in opposition. Burma has required the world’s attention for far too long— action must be taken to support Burma’s transition to security, peace, and democracy.

February 28, 2021 0 comment

Europe Globalization Human Rights Humanitarian Aid Immigration Populism Syrian Civil War

Greece’s Migrant Crisis: A Combination of EU Policy Failures & Populism

written by Caroline Mendoza

On September 8, Moria, a refugee camp on the Greek island of Lesbos, was engulfed in flames that burned down a majority of the camp and left more than 12,000 Syrian refugees sleeping on the streets of Greece. Although the destruction of the camp initiated promises from European Union officials for new measures to prevent refugee influxes in Greece, it also sparked conversation around the EU’s ineffective policies and Europe’s increase in populist sentiment.

While Syria’s civil war has raged on since 2011, the over 5.6 million refugees that have fled the country exist in a state of limbo between the jurisdiction of multiple countries, perhaps most notably Greece and Turkey. In 2015, the EU experienced a mass influx of close to 100,000 refugees fleeing predominately from Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq, prompting the bloc to form the 2016 EU-Turkey deal- to prevent the entrance of refugees at Greece’s shores, the EU bargained with neighboring Turkey to provide monetary aid in return for Turkey accepting all refugees attempting to seek asylum in Greece. Turkey received 6 billion Euros (6.7 billion USD) to aid the now 3.6 million Syrian refugees registered in the nation.

While the deal worked in Greece’s favor for several years succeeding its conception, recent dynamics have changed- Turkey has expressed that the monetary support from the EU is insufficient compared to the burden of millions of Syrian refugees as well as migrants from Afghanistan. In March 2020, Turkey opened its borders with Greece and openly bused refugees to the nations’ shared northwestern border as a means of exerting pressure on Greece and showcasing the threat of additional refugees. Many have accused Turkey of utilizing the struggling refugees as political pawns, prompting the EU to reassert that the bloc would not be “blackmailed” into exacerbating the migrant crisis for Greece.

While the current situation remains politically fragile and is only heightened with the threat of COVID-19, the challenges Greece is facing as its camps crowd with thousands of desperate migrants are reflective of the EU’s overall structural issues and policies on asylum-seekers. The EU’s Dublin Regulations, which mandates that the first nation an asylum seeker enters must process the asylum seeker’s registration, disproportionately places large responsibilities on Mediterranean states whose borders are common points of entry for those leaving North Africa and the Middle East. While the Regulations were originally conceived to ensure that those registering do not apply to multiple member states, nations, including Italy and Greece, have led the growing opposition to the Dublin Regulations.

In an attempt to create responsibility-sharing and ease pressures off of Italy and Greece, the EU initiated yet another lacking migration policy 一 the EU’s relocation scheme, devised after the 2015 influx of asylum seekers, planned to relocate over 160,000 asylum seekers across member states over two years. By the time 2017 arrived, a mere 29,144 people had been relocated.

In an attempt to remedy this, the EU released a new plan to improve its handling of Greece’s refugees following the incineration of Moria. The EU’s most recent migration pact will expedite pre-entry screening at borders by taking a maximum of five days while increasing responsibility sharing amongst member states by having nations contribute based on their populations and GDPs. Poland, Austria, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, however, expressed a staunch opposition to the plan in stating that the borders of the EU should remain “perfectly sealed.”

While the EU’s policymaking and failure to prioritize the rights of asylum seekers are to blame for situations like Moria, the EU’s member states have experienced a recent rise in populism that hinder the success of any relocation or migration plans. Poland, Austria, Hungary, and the Czech Republic’s anti-immigrant stance is a trend across western Europe. In Denmark, the Danish People’s Party has introduced multiple policies to cut back on welfare for migrants- one law requires that migrant children, or those of a “non-Western” background, take Danish language classes for their families to receive welfare. In the Netherlands, a burqa ban was put in place in August 2019 that restricts face-covering clothing from being worn in areas including public transport, government facilities, and healthcare centers. Similar laws exist in Denmark, Austria, Bulgaria, Belgium, and France, and are representative of xenophobic and discriminatory policymaking implemented to highlight migrants as “outsiders.”

A similar sentiment was also seen in many “Brexiteers”一 for members of the UK’s conservative party, an incentive to leave the EU was that the UK would no longer be part of the EU’s “free movement of persons” right, which allows individuals to move and reside freely amongst the EU member states. The conservative argument promoted leaving the EU to prevent refugees who entered through eastern Europe from residing in the UK. Now that Brexit has passed, the UK has already begun implementing policies to prevent immigrants from entering. A new set of laws will close the UK’s borders to immigrants who do not speak English and are unskilled laborers.

While the EU itself has a history of failed migration plans, there is only so much the commission can do; with raging anti-immigrant sentiment and an increase in European populism, member states are increasingly unwilling to welcome any new migrants, much less carry out responsibility-sharing plans released by the EU. Close to 12,000 asylum seekers will be left on the shoulders of Greece and perhaps exacerbate the already tense relations with Turkey. As the European Commission has already begun financing the construction of new camps to replace Moria, the futures of many refugees may be in cramped, under-resourced camps while the EU attempts to persuade nativist leaders and member states or bribe neighboring states to ease some of Greece’s burdens. Either way, the EU has much work to be done to handle this migrant crisis adequately and humanely, perhaps starting with urgency for more tolerant and inclusive policies in its own member states.

November 9, 2020 0 comment