At Foreign Policy, Michael Abramowitz and Lawrence Woocher detail the statements of Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair, who on February 2nd included “mass killing or genocide” in congressional testimony on national security threats. The authors argue that Blair’s comments suggest that the security community is finally accepting genocide as more than just a humanitarian tragedy:
“Genocide’s negative consequences for the United States are increasingly plain. Mass violence destabilizes countries and entire regions, threatening to spread trafficking in drugs, arms, and persons, as well as infectious disease pandemics and youth radicalization. When prevention fails, the United States invariably foots much of the bill for post-atrocity relief and peacekeeping operations — to the tune of billions of dollars. And even as Washington is paying, America’s soft power is depleted when the world’s only superpower stands idle while innocents are systematically slaughtered.”
Christopher Albon is a Ph.D. candidate specializing in armed conflict, public health, human security, and health diplomacy.
Want more? Subscribe to Conflict Health through RSS or email.
{ 2 comments }
If these guys like Blair had their way, EVERYTHING would be a national security threat. In the last year I’ve read that fat kids are national security threat because it means not enough of them can pass military medical exams. Climate change has long been said to be a national security threat. The lack of students majoring in science and engineering is a national security threat because we will supposseldy fall behind the rest of the world.
Genocide is not a national security threat. Political violence that spills affects American interests is, and political violence occurs because of a lack of legitimacy when it comes to the existing regime. Genocide is a byproduct, not a root cause or a threat in an of itself.
Agreed RJS. They are framing it wrong.
You hit the nail on the head, it is political violence threatening American interests. That is related to, but not the same thing as, genocide.
Now, the gray area is determining how wide does the “American interest” lie. The ripples of Darfur do have some effect on the American interest, but how much? Is American weakened in any significant way from a genocide in Darfur? Is the region more unstable? Is terrorism more likely to flourish? Does America lose international legitimacy?
Those are tough questions.
Comments on this entry are closed.