FWD Ishaan Tharoo, Map: The risk of genocide round the world, Washington Post, Washington, Monday 21 September 2015

(The world’s countries, as reflected by the risk of mass atrocities in each – Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum)

Communities living in the countries in darker colors on the map [above] are at greater risk of state-led mass violence, according to a think tank connected to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.

On Monday [21 September 2015], the Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide launched a tool aimed at forecasting the risk of state-led mass killings. The Early Warning Project tracks the apparent signs of a potential pogrom or assault on minorities within a state. Its findings stitch annual statistical risk assessments of individual countries — based on a number of models conceived by political scientists — alongside crowd-sourced opinion surveys of regional experts.

The 10 countries at the highest risk of experiencing a future episode of mass killing are as follows:

Myanmar

Nigeria

Sudan

Egypt

Central African Republic

South Sudan

Democratic Republic of Congo

Afghanistan

Pakistan

Yemen

Earlier this year, WorldViews talked to Cameron Hudson, director of the Simon-Skjodt Center, about the threat in Burma (also known as Myanmar). Hudson had been part of a fact-finding mission to the country, studying the risks faced by the beleaguered Rohingyas, a Muslim minority that has been rendered stateless by decades of discriminatory Burmese policies.

A report concluded then that the Rohingya were a people “at grave risk for additional mass atrocities and even genocide.”

“We’re very cautious when we invoke the term ‘genocide,’ knowing that it can be quite polarizing and sometimes even unhelpful,” said Hudson at the time. “But there is a combination of factors — many of which you saw in 1930s Germany and 1990s Rwanda — that are quite concerning.”

The project now is anchored in the Holocaust Museum's moral mission to educate against and prevent future atrocities, says Michael Chertoff, former secretary of Homeland Security and chairman of the museum's Committee on Conscience, in an e-mailed news release.

“No longer can governments say that they 'did not know' as a means of justifying their inaction,” he said.

Ishaan Tharoo is foreign affairs writer for the Washington Post

Twitter@HerbertEkweEkwe

FWD: How does the French invasion of Central African Republic differ from events in the Crimea?

http://re-thinkingafrica.blogspot.com.br/2014/03/how-does-curve-in-c-make-difference.html

Twitter @HerbertEkweEkwe

How does the curve in the “C” make the difference between the Central African Republic and the Crimea?

Last week, Monday 3 March, The Washington Post ran an editorial on the events in the Crimea. Here it likens Russia’s current policy on the peninsular to that of a 19th century conqueror-state. Surprisingly, the editorial does not mention the contemporary world’s lead “19th century-style” invader: France. In the past four years, France has invaded Côte d’Ivoire, Mali and the Central African Republic and co-led the invasion of Libya.

France’s invasion of the CAR is in fact ongoing. This is its second attack and occupation of the country within 11 years and its 52nd invasion of an African state since 1960. It is not inconceivable that before the Crimea affair is resolved, another African country could well be in the sights of yet another of Paris’s now customary invasion of African lands. This it launches through its unrestrained access to the gargantuan financial resources lodged in the Paris bourse by the so-called francophonie African states (http://re-thinkingafrica.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/herbert-ekwe-ekwe-franca-invasao-como.html)

But why the brouhaha, no, major international crisis over Russia in the Crimea but none whatsoever over France in the CAR? Maybe the answers to this can’t be found, easily, within the turgid discourses of international politics. Perhaps I should pop across to the calligraphy department next block and have a word with colleagues there for a solution on this: it just could be that the answer lies with the difference(s) in the shape of the letter “C” in the name “Crimea” and the “C” in “Central African Republic”.

Twitter @HerbertEkweEkwe