Category: Uncategorized

By Anna Romandash

Nina Pakhomiuk is a human rights defender and a disability activist working together with the National Assembly of People with Disabilities of Ukraine. She is also the head of a civil society organization “Volyn Perspectives”, which she founded twenty-three years ago. The organization, located in the northwest of the country, close to the Belarusian and Polish borders, supports people with disabilities, as well as survivors of human trafficking and other vulnerable individuals who often find themselves alone with their problems. After Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Nina’s work expanded in its scope – because with the war, many new challenges and risks for Ukrainians appeared.

“I went through difficult trials myself, so I know what it is like having nowhere to go to seek help,” Nina recalls, “For me, helping others is also a way to help myself – because this is what gives me the most energy after decades of work.”

The First Steps on the Hard Way

When Nina launched “Volyn Perspectives” in 2001, Ukraine was a very different place to work – much less familiar to the concept of volunteering or civic activism. There were fewer NGOs, and there was a severe shortage of resources, infrastructure, or professional experience in the field – not to mention a lack of international support. In a society that was just recovering from the constraints of Soviet communism, little was said about dealing with gender-based violence, promoting equality, or about inclusion and support for vulnerable people.

“When I got into this field, I didn’t even know what NGOs were,” Nina recalls, “That was almost a quarter of a century ago. I was almost forty, and I had limited experience volunteering or advocating, having worked as a teacher most of my life.”

“At that time, I had just broken out of a toxic relationship with an abuser and was looking for opportunities to support myself and my children,” she continues, “But when I realized that I could help and support those who have an even more difficult situation than me, it gave me a lot of strength for this work.”

Nina started helping people who were illegally trafficked or enslaved abroad, and who were brought back home and struggled to adapt to the new, post-traumatic reality. She and her team also focused on helping survivors of domestic abuse and gender-based violence – topics which were surrounded by a lot of stigma. Some of the survivors never managed to integrate into their home communities after living in captivity for years – while others were able to recover and rebuild their lives despite the experiences.

Over time, people with different needs began to turn to “Volyn Perspectives”, and Nina realized that her organization should deal with the problem of domestic violence, but also other social challenges, including support for people with disabilities. This work has grown into a focused activity that helps thousands of disabled war victims obtain the material and emotional aid they need.

War and new challenges

“After February 24, 2022, our lives changed forever,” Nina sighs, “It was real chaos. People with disabilities, elderly people who could not get to a safe place on their own, and other vulnerable groups became the easiest target for the Russian missiles. There was little protection for them, and not enough institutional support.”

Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022 turned the lives of millions of Ukrainians into a struggle for survival. According to official data, about 2.7 million people with disabilities lived in Ukraine before 2022. The war brought new challenges for many of them, as most were forced to evacuate in conditions that often did not take into account their needs. In 2022, more than 7 million Ukrainians became internally displaced, including many disabled with limited mobility.

Volyn, the region where Nina works, became a home to many of the displaced people – as well as a transit area for thousands of Ukrainians fleeing further west toward the European Union (EU). As Volyn is bordering Poland, it is considered safer than many other parts of Ukraine – which are much closer to the frontline or regularly targeted in bombardments. As a result, many internally displaced people from the East and South of Ukraine, where the security situation is worse, have arrived in this region.

Nina recalls how her team organized the distribution of food kits and hygiene products for displaced people streaming into her region.

“We even found a restaurant, the owner of which provided premises for free every week so that we could gather, communicate, and support people in need not only with food, but also psychologically,” she shares.

For Nina, who also has a disability, these meetings were a reminder that vulnerable people need not only material support, but also engagement and communication.

“Yes, people sometimes come for lunch but stay for company, to socialize, to share their anxieties,” she adds.

Integration & Advocacy

“We not only try to help financially, but also morally support people who need it,” the activist remarks. She emphasizes that society often knows little about the problems of people with disabilities or pays much attention to their plight during wartime, so many of the organization’s efforts are aimed at raising awareness and actively advocating for the rights of these people.

Nina recalls how, after February 24, 2022, many Ukrainians with disabilities found themselves in critical conditions, which required new approaches to supporting them.

“We realized that we needed not only ordinary food or hygiene kits, but also ensuring their active integration into the life of the community,” she says.

One of the important steps in this direction was joining the Empower Ukraine project. This initiative, launched by the European Disability Forum, provides comprehensive assistance to people from vulnerable groups in different regions of Ukraine. Nina leads this initiative in Volyn, together with the National Assembly of People with Disabilities of Ukraine.

“Empower Project has helped us not only provide support but change our approach to advocating for the needs of people with disabilities,” says Nina. “In the Volyn region, we got the opportunity to help people with disability not only financially, but also in psychological and social aspects. This helped to involve local councils, social protection institutions and, most importantly, the people themselves, who were previously left without assistance due to isolation or lack of awareness of their rights, to work together on inclusion and engagement for all.”

“In particular, we actively organize trainings and meetings with representatives of local authorities, where we discuss the issues of accessibility and protection of the rights of people with disabilities,” she continue. “Previously, many people with limited mobility remained invisible, but the war is changing our perception of inclusivity and accessibility. Now we are talking about the involvement of different groups of people in the reconstruction of Ukraine, even at the smallest, local levels. This is especially important because we see changes even in remote rural areas.”

For example, through the initiative, locals launched art-therapy classes and support groups for people with disabilities and other vulnerable groups located in urban areas and small villages – something that was not in place before the full-scale war. More community members are volunteering to form classes or programs to help fellow villagers. This not only provides an opportunity for people with disabilities to develop skills and creativity, but also unites local residents in their desire to unify their community.

Changing the culture of engagement

“There are times when I think about retirement, but seeing this change makes me keep on working,” Nina smiles, “As a person with disability and someone who experienced a major life change thanks to activism, I find this advocacy work empowering and very much needed for Ukraine today.”

Her dream is to contribute to a society in which everyone, regardless of physical abilities or life circumstances, feels protected and accepted. She believes that thanks to projects like Empower and the daily efforts of her team, Ukraine will step-by-step become an inclusive country where everyone will receive support and the opportunity to live a full life.

One of the most significant outcomes of the Empower project is fostering a culture of integration of people with disabilities. Supporting vulnerable groups, especially during hostilities, has become a matter of national importance. Thanks to the joint efforts of local NGOs and international partners, Ukrainians were able to respond to urgent challenges and help each other even in a situation of war and limited resources.

“Integration of people with disabilities is key, especially as we restore and rebuild our country amid the war,” Nina concludes, “After all, the true strength of our society is measured by how we support the most vulnerable. By helping people with disabilities, we are building a country where dignity is for everyone.”

Anna Romandash is a Ukrainian freelance journalist.

On Wednesday, November 13^th, John K. Roth – Professor Emeritus and founding director of the Mgrublian Center – returned to CMC as the keynote for the Athenaeum dinner program.  Roth, who taught at CMC for 40 years before retiring in 2006, remains an active and engaged member of the Center’s advisory board and gave his remarks on the eve of the start of the 17^th bi-annual Lessons and Legacies (Holocaust studies) conference, which was co-hosted on CMC’s campus from November 14-17^th.  In his remarks, How Shall I Teach the Holocaust This Time?, Roth explored key issues about Holocaust studies and education after the most decisive American election in decades and during the current destructive and divisive Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  Roth implored the audience, which filled the dining room and was comprised of current students, faculty, staff, alumni and members of the local community, to “take nothing good for granted” and was met with a standing ovation upon the completion of his presentation. 

Following the Q & A, President Hiram Chodosh was welcomed to the Athenaeum lectern where he delivered his own remarks in honor of Professor Roth, as he presented him with the Donald C. McKenna Humanitarian Award.  The esteemed award is reserved for “exemplary interest in education, the improvement of circumstances for peoples of the world, achievement in the humanities, business or the professions, and contributions that have been of significant importance to the College.”  Through his forty years of teaching and his continued service and dedication to CMC and its students, Roth embodies the merits of this award and we (the Center) congratulate him on this much deserved honor.

The full citation of Professor Roth’s award, as presented by President Chodosh:

Whereas you are a leading scholar in the fields of Holocaust and genocide studies, philosophy, ethics, American studies, and religious studies; an acclaimed author, co-author, and editor of more than 50 books and hundreds of articles and reviews; and a passionate and beloved educator for more than 40 years in higher education.

Whereas you are the Edward J. Sexton Professor of Emeritus of Philosophy and were a four-time recipient of the Crocker Award for Excellence, the inaugural recipient of the Claremont McKenna College Presidential Award for Merit in 1987 and again in 2004; were awarded the Glenn R. Huntoon Award for Superior Teaching and the G. David Huntoon Senior Teaching Award; and hold honorary membership in the CMC Alumni Association, which also presented you its highest award, the George C. S. Benson Distinguished Achievement Award in 2004.

Whereas you were awarded a Demonstration Grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities in 1979 to develop two model interdisciplinary courses, “Perspectives on the American Dream” and “Perspectives on the 20th Century: The Holocaust,” both of which became cherished courses and rites of passage for CMC students, and, along with Professors Gordon Bjork and Ward Elliott, established the College’s signature tutorial program in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics in 1985.

Whereas you served as the director of the new Marian Miner Cook Athenaeum from 1985 to 1987, launching a robust and diverse program of distinguished visiting speakers and symposia and creating a community space to model curious inquiry and constructive dialogue, and thereby strengthening CMC’s commitment to an Open Academy.

Whereas you co-founded The Center for the Study of the Holocaust, Genocide and Human Rights, now the Mgrublian Center for Human Rights, in 2003, and have continuously advanced its mission of instilling in students and faculty an understanding of human rights as critical to moral conduct and ethical decision-making in their lives.

Whereas through your interdisciplinary methodologies, eloquent lectures, neatly-typed commentaries on student papers, nuanced questions, empowering mentorship, personal courage, and moral integrity, you have inspired thousands of students, colleagues, and readers to address ethical and humanitarian challenges at home and across the globe, causing you to be known as CMC’s Ethical North Star.

Whereas you served as a member of the United States Holocaust Memorial Council; on the church relations committee at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum; chair of the reading committee for the Elie Wiesel Essay Prize in Ethics, and an editorial board member for the International Journal for Philosophy off Religion, American Journal of Theology & Philosophy, and Holocaust and Genocide Studies, among other notable positions.

Whereas your continuing exploration of the conditions that led to the Holocaust and your recent publications, such as Warnings: The Holocaust, Ukraine, and Endangered American Democracy, call on readers to apply the lessons of World War II to the currently polarized climate in the United States and across the globe because, as you have noted, “we remember the Holocaust to hold ourselves accountable.”

In recognition of your considerable and influential contributions to the national and global conversations around the Holocaust and genocide and your impressive academic career, Claremont McKenna College hereby confers upon you the Donald C. McKenna Humanitarian Award.

Originally published in April 2024 in the Journal of Democracy

By Anna Romandash

Were it not for Russia’s war, Ukrainian citizens would have gone to the polls a few weeks ago to pick their president. They would have voted last year, too, in parliamentary elections scheduled for October. Yet neither contest happened. Ukraine’s constitution prohibits elections under martial law, which President Volodymyr Zelensky declared when Russia launched its invasion on 24 February 2022 and has been in force ever since.

Even without the law, organizing mass elections amid an ongoing invasion poses serious practical challenges: how to run the vote in Russian-occupied territories; how to guarantee voters’ safety; what to do about the millions of refugees abroad; and how to provide the necessary time and space for political campaigning. Plus, running elections costs money, and the Russian assault has cost Ukraine not only invaluable losses in human life and generational trauma, but billions of dollars for defense and reconstruction — with the economic impact of the war exceeding US$51 billion per year. Yet without fair elections, can Ukraine have a just democracy? As the country and its people battle to survive, do elections even matter right now?

Russia’s propaganda machine has been exploiting the idea that without elections Ukraine’s government is illegitimate. The head of the occupation authority in Crimea (annexed by Russia in 2014), for instance, started a campaign against Zelensky, calling his presidency “illegitimate” to discredit the Ukrainian government in the eyes of Crimeans. Similar narratives are being circulated widely online — mostly by Kremlin-linked troll farms.

The illegitimacy claim is not new. Russia also used it in 2014, when pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovych fled Kyiv for Russia and Ukrainians elected the pro-European Petro Poroshenko to replace him. The Kremlin, which did not recognize Ukraine’s 2014 election, claimed that Poroshenko was an “illegitimate” president, too. Of course, the 2014 vote only took place because Yanukovych had unleashed violence against Euromaidan protesters and then fled the country. That left Ukraine with no choice but to select a new president. Today, the logic of Russian propaganda has reversed — Zelensky is labeled illegitimate for not holding elections.

Do the propagandists have a credible claim? Not according to Ukrainians. The Kyiv International Institute of Sociology has found that more than 80 percent of Ukrainians oppose holding wartime elections. Their reasoning is simple: Soldiers wouldn’t be able to vote because they are in the trenches. Polling stations in the rear zone would be easy targets for Russian missiles. And finally, for most Ukrainians, elections and political campaigning are not a priority — but defending every inch of Ukrainian territory is.

Additionally, Ukrainians still maintain an unusually high level of trust toward authorities. For instance, around 64 percent of voters trust Zelensky six years into his presidency. By contrast, his predecessor, Poroshenko, had the trust of around just 14 percent of the people by the end of his single term; other Ukrainian presidents have had similarly low ratings.

Ukrainian attitudes toward parliament have been trending in the opposite direction. Most do not support its activities and consider it to be a weak and inefficient body. Only 15 percent of citizens trust parliament, and this number has been steadily declining. The mistrust stems from the performance of the MPs themselves — their low attendance in parliamentary meetings, slow policymaking, inability to quickly pass important laws, and lack of clear understanding about their wartime roles.

Yet despite their dislike of the current parliament, most still favor keeping it in place — again, because elections are not the priority right now. Ukrainians do not see how electing new lawmakers would help to defeat Russia, and they fear that such changes could create cleavages within Ukrainian society. The people are instead focused on making the government’s activities more accessible and transparent, and on reinforcing citizens’ ability to advocate for different policies. For instance, civil society pushed for reopening state data registries to track public spending and help prevent corruption. Citing security concerns, the government shut these down right after Russia launched the invasion, but quickly restored access after public outcry.

Democracy by Other Means

What is the state of democracy in Ukraine after two years of Russia’s full-scale war and without elections in sight? Ukrainians are willing to wait for fair and transparent elections until the war is over and a just peace is reached. At the same time, citizens want and advocate for efficient ways to communicate with the government so that policymakers know how they feel about different political and nonpolitical issues and decisions. Ukraine has a vibrant civil society, mass media, and digital systems; so the people have petitions, communication campaigns, and other tools through which they can tell the government what they want.

If democratic elections are fundamentally vehicles for agreeing on legitimate leaders and voicing popular priorities for government spending and policy, can these be achieved by other means in times of war? Since the invasion, Zelensky’s government has increasingly relied on digital tools to collect citizen feedback and interact with Ukrainians who became refugees overnight. Millions need documents while living abroad, and the demand for online tools to access government services has skyrocketed.

The government has, in response, worked to digitalize Ukrainian democracy by creating (or updating) state-run apps that are accessible to all citizens. The app Diia, for example, now has more than twenty-million users. With Diia, citizens can donate to the Armed Forces, request official documents, and pay taxes, and displaced people can apply for state support. Ukrainians can also use the app to vote in state-run surveys — an easy way to voice their concerns.

Diia was used in February to select Ukraine’s 2024 Eurovision song, with Ukrainians joking that this was a trial run for the presidential election. But that “trial run” also exposed the fragility of digital-democracy tools: The app crashed for a few hours as more than a million Ukrainians rushed to vote for their preferred song, and the government had to extend the polling period so more people could vote.

Any Ukrainian can also publish and vote for petitions on the president’s web portal. Petitions that receive 25,000 votes are automatically passed on to Zelensky or the relevant authorities for mandatory review and response. Petitions are an effective and popular instrument for voicing public opinion on different matters and getting guaranteed feedback from authorities. Even when petitions don’t get enough votes, they let the government know what citizens are concerned about most. Many petitions, for instance, call for investigating how different policies are being implemented or for addressing gaps within existing laws.

Through petitions, online campaigns, and other means, citizens continue to push for different policies, to change laws, and even to oust officials accused of corruption. For instance, Ukrainians petitioned for the minister of culture to be fired due to a variety of complaints, including his wartime spending; Zelensky dismissed him in July 2023. Another successful petition called for restoring the mandatory declaration of assets by Ukrainian public servants. Once the petition had 25,000 votes, both the president and parliament responded, and e-declarations were brought back.

Not every petition gets a quick response. This two-way communication is sometimes slow and limited; yet it shows how democratic processes can be preserved even amid war and a humanitarian crisis. In 2023 alone, Ukrainians registered more than six-thousand petitions. Of these, more than a thousand got the necessary 25,000 votes, and 150 have already received a response from the president; the others are pending. Seeing the popularity of this approach, local governments across Ukraine have adopted it for regional matters, allowing citizens to publish and sign petitions that concern their specific localities, municipalities, or regions.

Petitions and digital surveys cannot replace the elections, yet they do reveal some common popular understandings in Ukraine. Ukrainian citizens do want to choose their leaders, but only once it’s safe to organize elections. In the meantime, they hope to use and build on different channels of communication with the government so that it can follow up on public demands.

For most Ukrainians, elections for the sake of elections is not a sign of democracy but rather a copy of what’s happening in Russia. Russia never fails to hold elections on time — Vladimir Putin was just “elected” for a fifth presidential term in February. Simply holding a vote, however, does not make Russia a democracy. Instead it shows how such contests can be misused to create the façade of democracy when in fact the voting process is neither free nor fair. Conversely, skipping elections due to war doesn’t make Ukraine undemocratic. But it does highlight how war and its consequences complicate normal democratic processes that should be in place in peacetime.

Ukraine’s democracy remains flawed, but it’s still there. And while the government isn’t perfect, it is legitimate, and it continues working in a country badly affected by a genocidal war. Ukrainians are demanding more openness from their government and pushing for more accountability — both in the government’s execution of the war and its handling of the rebuilding process. They don’t always get timely responses, but they still have effective methods for making their voices heard and influencing the government.

The war has forced adjustments to everyday life in Ukraine and made a profound impact on how the country’s democracy operates. Yet even in this harsh reality, Ukrainians can criticize their authorities openly, voice concerns, and achieve significant political and social changes through advocacy and other means — all of which shows the vitality and resilience of Ukraine as a democratic state.

Anna Romandash is an award-winning journalist from Ukraine and the author of  Women of Ukraine: Reportages from the War and Beyond (2023).

Copyright © 2024 National Endowment for Democracy

Photos by Sidney Smith ’25

Story by Anne Bergman

December 6, 2023

On a crisp autumn evening at Claremont McKenna College’s Athenaeum, Professor P. Edward “Ed” Haley was remembered as a teacher and scholar who for nearly 50 years brought the world into his classroom, through his depth of experience and knowledge, as well as his appreciation for the arts.

Reflecting and honoring the late Professor Haley’s impact on the CMC community, the Nov. 28 memorial at the Athenaeum was filled with fond memories, poetry, and a scholarly lecture, “Threats and Promises Across the Nuclear Age,” by Professor Lisa Koch, co-sponsored by the Keck Center for International and Strategic Studies and the Mgrublian Center for Human Rights.

Heather Antecol, Vice President of Academic Affairs and Dean of the Faculty, began by recounting how Haley “was an invaluable mentor and professor to more than four generations of CMC students and a key figure in the development and promotion of CMC’s International Relations program, and in the founding of two CMC research institutes,” the Keck Center for International and Strategic Studies, and the Mgrublian Center for Human Rights (formerly the Center for the Study of the Holocaust, Genocide, and Human Rights).

Antecol noted the care that Haley, who passed away in June 2023 at the age of 83, paid to “his colleagues and his students, many of whom remained lifelong friends once they became alumni, joining advisory boards, attending programs and visiting campus to keep in touch with him” during his time at CMC, which began in 1968 when Haley joined the CMC Government faculty.

Hilary Appel, director of the Keck Center for International and Strategic Studies and Podlich Professor of Government, overlapped with Haley at CMC for approximately 15 years. Appel highlighted how Haley’s teaching “reflected his deep humanity and compassion,” “his curiosity for the world,” and ”passion for learning.”

Appel explained how the evening’s academic lecture by Professor Lisa Koch, who specializes in international relations, on “Threats and Promises Across the Nuclear Age,” was a topic “closely related to Ed’s research and teaching interests.” Koch, Appel said, represents “the continuation  of the kinds of programs that Ed started here because she is teaching many of the courses that Ed introduced to our curriculum many years ago.”

This year, Koch published her first book, Nuclear Decisions: Changing the Course of Nuclear Weapons Programs. In addition, she’s the author of scholarly articles on nuclear proliferation and foreign policy.

Kirsti Zitar ’97 P’26, assistant director of the Mgrublian Center, lived across the street from Haley and his wife, Elaine, in Claremont and worked with Haley from 2011 until his retirement in 2014.

Zitar shared her own personal memories of Haley, and observed how Haley worked “tirelessly to help ensure the Center’s long-term viability and to provide opportunities that offered the greatest impact to CMC students,” such as study abroad and internship programs. Upon Haley’s retirement in 2014, an endowed internship was established by the Mgrublian Center’s advisory board in his name. The P. Edward Haley Internship attracts students studying conflicts and human rights issues in the Middle East, and allows them to travel there in the summer.

Haley’s daughters, Blythe Nilsson and Kate Haley, concluded the tribute by reading some of their father’s favorite poetry, as well as his own self-published poems, which Nilsson described as addressing “the duality of beauty and suffering in this world.”

Ath Fellow Adrian Flynn ’25 introduced Professor Koch’s in memoriam lecture after describing Haley as an “Ath aficionado” who spoke at the Athenaeum’s current location 15 times. Flynn noted that Koch was making her first appearance at the Ath podium.

Before she began her Ath lecture, Koch paid tribute to Haley and his legacy, saying that while she did not meet Haley in person, she felt as though she got to know him “through his writings. That’s how scholars get to know each other. It’s through our work. And so, I get to enter into conversation with Ed as I read and engage with his works. I brought his book, Strategies of Dominance, with me tonight…. It’s a great example of Ed’s scholarship. It is pragmatic, it is clear-eyed, it is grounded in historical case studies. And it is forward-looking, policy-focused, and tinged with optimism.”

Speaker Quotes

“For this talk, in Ed’s honor, I chose the topic of nuclear threat, as that was important during Ed’s long career, and has generated renewed interest today,” Koch said. “Because of declassified documents, and the work of historians and political scientists, we know more now than we used to about how nuclear threats and promises have played out across the nuclear age.”

Koch then detailed the history of nuclear weapons, their use and escalation, as well as the diplomatic efforts that have averted nuclear warfare.

This current “renewed interest” in nuclear threats, Koch explained, “is due in large part to Russian leader Vladimir Putin’s nuclear threats, which he has made in the context of the Russian war in Ukraine.”

Koch then shared the content of a speech Putin delivered in 2020, in which he did not use the word “nuclear,” but which Koch interpreted as a threat to use nuclear weapons. “You don’t even need to use the word (nuclear) to inspire the fear,” she continued. “Why are these veiled threats so scary? It is because nuclear weapons are so scary.”

Student Question

Daniela Brun Matar, a sophomore at CMC studying international relations and psychology, asked, “How does public perception of nuclear weapons change the way we talk about nuclear weapons over time? I especially wonder if you think that the release of the movie Oppenheimer has changed the way we view nuclear weapons?”

Koch replied that is “a question that I’ve asked in different ways in some of my research. I think there are generational differences in how the public perceives nuclear weapons, their meaning, their threat. I think that because each successive generation knows less about what the weapons can do, that people may treat the possibility of the use of nuclear weapons more cavalierly than they should, or not take them as seriously as they should. ….And I do think the movie Oppenheimer could be somewhat of a corrective to that, on the margins. I think that while the movie is not perfect, it is based on a scholarly biography that’s been sitting on my shelf for years. …And I think that people who’ve seen this movie…, who are getting their introduction to nuclear weapons by seeing this movie, they do come away with the respect that I think is healthy to have.”

Learn more about Professor Haley’s life and legacy.

Posted on CIVILNET

Clashes continued overnight and into Wednesday morning across Nagorno-Karabakh as casualties continued to mount.

As of 9 AM local time, “fighting continued with varying levels of intensity along the entire line of contact,” the Artsakh Defense Army said.

At least 27 people have been killed and more than 200 injured, according to the latest update from Nagorno-Karabakh’s Human Rights Defender’s Office. Those figures include both military and civilian casualties and are expected to rise significantly.

More than 7,000 civilians have been evacuated from the frontlines to relatively safer areas, according to Nagorno-Karabakh’s state-run InfoCenter. It was not immediately clear if that figure included the more than 1,800 people the Russian peacekeepers said they had evacuated.

Civilian infrastructure, including residential buildings, has reportedly been damaged across Nagorno-Karabakh.

Azerbaijani forces began shelling locations across Nagorno-Karabakh around 1 PM local time Tuesday as part of what they falsely called “anti-terrorist activities.” Baku has indicated it will continue strikes until Stepanakert surrenders.

Nagorno-Karabakh’s ethnic Armenian forces “must raise the white flag, all weapons must be handed over, and (the Nagorno-Karabakh government) must be dissolved,” President Ilham Aliyev’s office said Tuesday evening. “Otherwise, the antiterror measures will be continued until the end.”

Azerbaijan’s attack came after Nagorno-Karabakh endured more than nine months of near-total isolation from the outside world. Azerbaijan’s blockade has pushed Nagorno-Karabakh’s roughly 120,000 Armenians to the brink of famine and prompted warnings of genocide from the former chief prosecutor at the International Criminal Court.

What’s been the response in Armenia?

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan said Tuesday Armenia will continue to press Azerbaijan to “ensure the rights and security of Nagorno-Karabakh’s people,” but insisted Yerevan will not intervene militarily, saying, “Attempts to engage Armenia in this military escalation are unacceptable.”

Mass protests broke out in downtown Yerevan Tuesday evening in front of Armenian government buildings, the Russian embassy, and the prime minister’s residence, with hundreds of demonstrators calling on Pashinyan to resign and Russia to respond more forcefully to Azerbaijan’s attack on Nagorno-Karabakh.

Protesters scuffled with police officers posted to government buildings and blocked the entrances and exits to the Russian embassy. CivilNet’s team on the ground reported law enforcement used stun grenades on the demonstrators in at least one case.

18 protesters and 16 police officers suffered injuries in the clashes in Yerevan, according to Armenia’s Health Ministry.

Armenia’s National Security Service issued a statement pledging to “take effective, lawful measures to preserve the country’s constitutional order” and “neutralize any actions that destabilize Armenia’s internal security.”

What’s been the international response?

The powerful United Nations Security Council will hold emergency talks on the crisis Thursday after permanent member France requested the body to convene.

Two previous emergency sessions, one last December and one in August, ended with the council failing to adopt a joint statement or binding resolution, reportedly amid diplomatic infighting between member countries.

The European Union, France, Germany, and the United States have all called on Azerbaijan to refrain from taking any further military action in the region. Russia has called on the “conflicting sides” to cease hostilities immediately, but did not single out Azerbaijan.

The European Union and United States together support one track of Armenia-Azerbaijan negotiations, while Russia coordinates a separate track. Neither has made any discernible progress toward a peace deal.

Published by the New York Times, Sept. 2, 2023

By Nicholas Kristof, Opinion Columnist

With its Russian torture chambers and slaughter of civilians, the war in Ukraine is horrifying enough. But what if another country is taking advantage of the distraction to commit its own crimes against humanity?

Meet Azerbaijan.

You probably haven’t heard of Azerbaijan’s brutality toward an ethnic Armenian enclave called Nagorno-Karabakh, but it deserves scrutiny. The former chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Luis Moreno Ocampo, whom I got to know years ago when he sought accountability for the genocide in Sudan’s Darfur region, now describes what is happening in Nagorno-Karabakh in a similar fashion.

“There is an ongoing genocide against 120,000 Armenians living in Nagorno-Karabakh,” he wrote in a recent report.

We tend to think of genocide as the slaughter of an ethnic group. But the legal definition in the 1948 Genocide Convention is broader and doesn’t require mass killing, so long as there are certain “acts committed with intent to destroy” a particular ethnic, racial or religious group.

That is what Azerbaijan is doing, Moreno Ocampo argued, by blockading Nagorno-Karabakh so that people die or flee, thus destroying an ancient community.

“Starvation is the invisible genocide weapon,” he wrote. “Without immediate dramatic change, this group of Armenians will be destroyed in a few weeks.”

“It is critically important to label this as genocide,” Moreno Ocampo told me, and also crucial that the United States and other world powers — including Britain, which has been too quiet — step up pressure on Azerbaijan.

The concept of genocide was developed in part as a reaction to the Ottoman Empire’s mass killing of Armenians in 1915 and 1916, so Azerbaijan’s starvation of Armenians today suggests that history risks coming full circle. The group Genocide Watch has declared a “genocide emergency,” the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention recently issued an “active genocide alert,” and the International Association of Genocide Scholars warned of “the risk of genocide” and called for Azerbaijan to be held accountable for crimes against humanity.

The current crisis began late last year, when Azerbaijanis began blockading the only road into Nagorno-Karabakh, the Lachin corridor to Armenia, on which the territory depends for food and medicine.

The International Court of Justice ordered Azerbaijan to remove the blockade. Instead, the Azerbaijani government established a checkpoint on the road and began blocking even humanitarian aid carried by the International Committee of the Red Cross.

“People are fainting in the bread queues,” the BBC quoted a local journalist as saying from Nagorno-Karabakh. The report added that the Halo Trust, a nonprofit that works to clear minefields, has had to suspend operations “because its staff are too exhausted to work after queuing for bread all night and returning home empty-handed.”

A third of deaths in Nagorno-Karabakh are attributed by the local authorities to malnutrition, the BBC said. I have no way of verifying these reports, but every indication is that the situation is dire — and getting worse by the day.

Yet I fear that the West is fatigued and looking inward, for it has likewise paid little attention to other global crises other than Ukraine, from horrendous atrocities in Ethiopia to Sudan’s warlords’ slaughtering of civilians. For dictators, tragically, this isn’t a bad time to commit war crimes.

The backdrop is that authoritarian Azerbaijan has a mostly Muslim population speaking a Turkic language, while Nagorno-Karabakh has a mostly Christian population that speaks Armenian. When the Soviet Union collapsed, Nagorno-Karabakh sought independence; a war ended with a stalemate in which the enclave operated autonomously but with close links to neighboring Armenia. In 2020, Azerbaijan fought a brief war in which it reclaimed most of the enclave, and it now wants to recover the rest — and, I suspect, to push out much of the ethnic Armenian population.

The world, including Armenia’s prime minister, acknowledges that sovereignty of Nagorno-Karabakh belongs to Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan feels it has a right to integrate Nagorno-Karabakh politically and economically with the rest of the country. Though this is not integration but starvation, and the one point even countries as far apart as the United States and Russia agree on is that Azerbaijan should reopen the Lachin corridor and end the suffering.

One possible compromise to end the looming catastrophe is outlined by Benyamin Poghosyan of the Applied Policy Research Institute of Armenia: Azerbaijan would open the Lachin road and Nagorno-Karabakh would simultaneously open one or more roads into Azerbaijan (which Azerbaijan seeks). The U.S. State Department hinted at this approach in a statement denouncing the blockade. As part of that compromise, Azerbaijan would guarantee the freedom of Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh.

This would be unsatisfying, for it rewards Azerbaijan for starving civilians, and no one could much trust promises from Azerbaijan. But the sad job of diplomats is to devise flawed, much-hated agreements that are better than any alternative outcome, and in this case a defective deal is preferable to the mass starvation and ethnic cleansing of Armenians, again.

Nicholas Kristof joined The New York Times in 1984 and has been a columnist since 2001. He has won two Pulitzer Prizes, for his coverage of China and of the genocide in Darfur. You can follow him on Instagram, Facebook and Threads. His forthcoming memoir is “Chasing Hope: A Reporter’s Life.”  @NickKristof  @@NickKristof • Facebook

BY JENNIFER WEISS-WOLF 

AUGUST 25, 2023 7:00 AM EDT – Published by TIME Magazine

Weiss-Wolf is a contributor to 50 YEARS OF Ms. THE BEST OF THE PATHFINDING MAGAZINE THAT IGNITED A REVOLUTION out on Sept. 19, 2023. She serves as executive director of NYU Law’s Birnbaum Women’s Leadership Center

August 26, 2023 marks the 50th anniversary of Women’s Equality Day. Proposed in 1971 by Bella Abzug, the formidable feminist organizer and federal lawmaker from New York, and passed as a joint resolution by Congress in 1973, Women’s Equality Day recognizes the fight for women’s suffrage and hard-won ratification of the 19th Amendment.

Around the time Women’s Equality Day was first envisioned, Abzug joined forces with other leaders and activists—Gloria Steinem, Shirley Chisolm, and Fannie Lou Hamer among them—to form the National Women’s Political Caucus (NWPC). Through both endeavors they sought to acknowledge that political representation belongs at the center of the quest for gender justice—and, according to the NWPC archives, that “legal, economic, and social equity would come about only when women were equally represented among the nation’s political decision-makers.”

Historically, women in the United States have participated voraciously in civic life, registering and voting at higher rates than men in every presidential election since 1980. Black women show up at the polls and in voter mobilization efforts in even greater numbers, with turnout rates of upward of 66% in 2020. In July 1972, Steinem wrote for the newly launched Ms. magazine, “Black women come out stronger on just about every feminist issue, whether it is voting for a woman candidate, ending violence and militarism, or believing that women are just as rational as men and have more human values.”

The same article by Steinem forecasted, “We’ve been delivering our votes [and] now women want something in return. Nineteen seventy-two is just the beginning …” And in many ways, it was. That year, the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) handily passed the U.S. Senate and seemed destined for swift ratification. Chisolm’s public service—as the first Black Congresswoman, followed by her groundbreaking 1972 presidential campaign—altered the discourse about whether “White Male Only” remained a qualifier to lead the nation. And by January 1973, the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, affirming a constitutional right to abortion.

Fast forward half a century, and Vice President Kamala Harris shattered the White House glass ceiling. Women’s overall leadership on Capitol Hill has continued to climb, reaching an all-time high in the 118th Congress—just over 28% (149 members). In the House, women broke records in the 2022 midterms, with 124 now serving, 27 of whom are Black and 18 are Latin. Women now comprise nearly a third of all legislators and elected executives, including a record 12 serving as governor.

And still, the U.S. remains far from achieving fully representative governance compared to women’s actual population footprint; this is especially so for women of color. The U.S. pales in comparison to women’s political authority in much of the world, too, including among peer democracies.

As for the other advances on the 1972 agenda? The ERA remains unfinished business and is still not enshrined in the Constitution. And Roe was overturned on June 24, 2022 by the Supreme Court’s new conservative supermajority in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

Backlash to the ERA, and the very text of the Dobbs decision, crudely distort the principles undergirding Women’s Equality Day and the goals of the NWPC. Justice Samuel Alito, who authored the majority opinion for Dobbs, claimed women’s political advancement itself is an antidote to the Court’s reversal of a fundamental right. Of this, he wrote, “Women are not without electoral or political power. It is noteworthy that the percentage of women who register to vote and cast ballots is consistently higher than the percentage of men who do so.”

Yes, women are now doing exactly that: running for office on, and voting consistently, overwhelmingly, and successfully for abortion rights everywhere the issue has appeared on the ballot since Dobbs. But there are obvious flaws in Justice Alito’s appeal to women’s electoral and political power—and, for that matter, to the NWPC’s founding documents—suggesting gender parity alone should be a singular or even sufficient metric for achieving feminist goals.

It is exponentially hard to out-run and out-vote anti-democratic maneuvers like partisan gerrymandering, voter suppression—or, as we just saw in Ohio, an attempt to raise the threshold for winning a citizen-led ballot initiative as a way to stymie abortion rights. (The Ohio measure was soundly defeated on August 8 in a special election.) These are not examples of one-off transgressions or piecemeal degradation of our democratic systems, but rather deliberate and systemic mechanisms for defying the popular will. It is why decidedly anti-feminist policy outcomes persist, like book bans in the name of parental rights or the maddening inability to advance common sense gun safety measures. It is how 14 state legislatures succeeded in outlawing abortion since Dobbs, despite public polling in favor of abortion rights reaching record highs.

Women’s Equality Day was initially a way to express the belief that, as noted in public policy scholars Zoe Marks and Erica Chenoweth’s 2023 article in Ms., a democracy in which “half the population is subordinated—politically, socially, economically—is not a true democracy at all.” 50 years later, we must be clear that women’s autonomy, well-being, and rights are inextricably tied to the integrity and durability of our democratic systems.

As we look ahead, two states, Michigan and Minnesota, offer hope. Both have committed to reforms that increase voter participation, fair representation, and direct democracy; in turn, both have seen feminist priorities thrive, from codifying reproductive care and establishing green energy goals, to expanding paid family leave and protecting trans youth.

As we trace the 50-year arc of Women’s Equality Day, among the lessons we might glean today: women’s voices and votes surely matter, transformative change is possible—and the fight for robust democracy is, at its core, a central and urgent feminist goal.

CMC Professor Emeritus and moral philosopher John Roth called it an “oppression-resisting, hope-sustaining, death-defying, life-giving, and joy-creating place.”

Jonathan Petropoulos, the John V. Croul Professor of European History at CMC, called it “the conscience of our campus.”

They were describing the Mgrublian Center for Human Rights, which this year celebrates its 20th anniversary. Roth and Petropoulos were its founders.

From the beginning, the mission of the Center for the Study of the Holocaust, Genocide, and Human Rights—as it was initially called—was aspirational in a poetic way:

“To throw light on human rights atrocities around the world” is how Trustee Board Chair David Mgrublian ’82 P’11 described it in a speech he gave April 10, 2015—on the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide—when the Center was renamed the Mgrublian Center for Human Rights. The Mgrublian family created an endowment honoring “the memory of our ancestors who perished.”

Surrounded by his late parents, Harold and Alice P’82 GP ’11, his wife, Margaret P’11, and daughter, Madlyn, David spoke of the “great obligation” the Center’s mission imparts on all of us, saying: “By instilling in our students an understanding of human rights as central to moral conduct and ethical decisions, we are sending [them] into the world to do something about it.”

This call to action is deeply aligned with CMC’s overarching mission to prepare its students for thoughtful and productive lives and responsible leadership in business, government, and the professions and to support faculty and student scholarship that contribute to intellectual vitality and the understanding of public policy issues.

“Our family is incredibly proud of the Center and the important work being done to provide our students with an understanding of human rights that is central to the moral and ethical decisions they will encounter in their personal lives, their careers, and the public arena,” David said.

Doing Something About It

The Center’s origins lie in Holocaust-focused ethics courses taught by Roth, who was a member of CMC’s faculty from 1966 until his retirement in 2006.

It was common for students to approach the popular philosophy professor after class. “We can’t rewrite history,” they would tell him. “We can’t change what happened in the past. But our study is motivating us to want to do something about the world as it exists now, and as it might exist in the future.”

When Petropoulos, an authority on Holocaust art theft, joined CMC’s history department in 1999, he and Roth combined forces to lobby the College’s president, Pamela Gann, for a new Center.

They envisioned a place to study the Holocaust, genocide, and human rights in a holistic way—viewing past atrocities with an eye toward preventing future ones. That idealism set the CMC initiative apart from existing Holocaust museums, memorials, and research centers, which by definition looked backward.

“The hope is, all the study and research will produce deeper answers that can sensitize people and hopefully genocide will end,” Roth optimistically told The Claremont Courier in 2002.

The idea inspired CMC students. In February 2003, one of Roth’s acolytes, Michael Levy ’03, stood outside Collins Dining Hall with a petition asking the administration to endorse the proposed Center. He collected 638 signatures in a matter of hours.

A year later, Leigh Crawford ’94, founder of Los Angeles-based Crawford Capital, provided the necessary founding gift. Crawford became a life member of the advisory board.

Roth and Petropoulos teamed up as the Center’s founding director and associate director in 2003. They tapped some big names for the advisory board, which assured immediate respect and status for the new Center.

Auschwitz survivor and Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel, who passed away in 2016, joined early on. He and Roth were old friends who collaborated on A Consuming Fire (1979), a meditation on the role of Christian theology in the Holocaust. Roth also enlisted UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson for the board.

Meanwhile, Petropoulos recruited star attorney Stuart Eizenstat, an expert on Holocaust restitution law, whom the CMC professor knew through his work on Nazi art theft. Today, Eizenstat chairs the governing council of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum and is a special advisor on Holocaust issues to the State Department.

Roth, now professor emeritus, continues to serve on the Mgrublian Center’s advisory board.

When the late Professor P. Edward Haley became Center director in 2008, he persuaded Human Rights Watch, famous for having the most selective internship hiring process, to ink a deal effectively guaranteeing it would take at least one CMC student every summer.

“That was a real coup,” recalled current Mgrublian Center Director Wendy Lower, who in 2014 took the baton from Haley (the emeritus professor recently passed away on June 30, 2023). Other top non-governmental organizations (NGOs) made similar agreements. The Center is crucially committed to covering students’ travel and living expenses, making it possible for CMCers to say “yes” when presented with an unpaid human rights internship opportunity.

At last count, the Mgrublian Center sent 230 summer interns to top human rights organizations, said Kirsti Zitar ’97, who returned to CMC as the Center’s assistant director in 2011. Additionally, it has backed 44 undergraduate research fellows and seeded 13 Best Senior Thesis Award-winning projects in under a decade.

Over the years, the Mgrublian Center has enlisted 136 student researchers, hosted 115 Athenaeum lectures, and awarded eight Elbaz Family Post-Graduate Fellowships. The innovative program, introduced in 2018 and funded by CMC trustee Elyssa Elbaz ’94, provides significant grants to new graduates who secure full-time jobs in human rights.

Today, the Center employs eight research fellows, four legal research assistants, and 17 student assistants, while serving as a connecting point for all CMCers with an interest in hands-on human rights scholarship, research, and activism.

Student-led innovations, such as the Justice League Task Force, keep pushing the envelope of what’s possible.

“In the past two years, our students also started a mentorship program matching CMCers interested in human rights, genocide, and Holocaust studies with alumni or parents currently working in those fields,” Zitar said.

Many Pathways, All Converging

In this respect, the Center remains a unicorn.

“We were among the very first—and still are one of a very few dedicated research institutes—doing human rights, Holocaust, and genocide studies at the undergraduate level,” said Lower, who in 2017 spearheaded the creation of a North American consortium representing some 200 peer programs.

By now, Lower is accustomed to first-year students telling her CMC was their dream school because they see the Mgrublian Center as a springboard for future careers in human rights.

Some have fulfilled that altruistic ambition. Alumni include Oxfam America senior policy adviser Andrew Bogrand ’09 and USAID employees Austan Mogharabi ’07 and Nicole Southard ’17. Mogharabi is director of the federal agency’s Sahel regional technical office; Southard is an information officer with its Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance.

Of course, many Mgrublian Center alumni pursue other paths while continuing to be inspired by what they learned at CMC.

Take Colin Hunter ’05, an attorney with the Angeli Law Group LLC in Portland, Ore. He was among the first to receive a Center-funded summer internship, which sent him to Rwanda to work with an international NGO on genocide memorials.

“That was a life-changing experience in so many ways,” said Hunter, who was active in the Center all through his college years, serving on the student advisory board and co-founding Students Against Genocide (SAG). The Mgrublian Center sponsored the SAG task force’s trip to Washington, D.C., where team members met with State Department officials to advocate for U.S. intervention in the ongoing Darfur genocide and ramp-up relief work in Sudan and Chad.

After leaving CMC, Hunter became a CIA political analyst, focusing on early warning signs of potential humanitarian violations in armed conflicts. He later switched gears, earning a law degree at UC Berkeley. Alongside his civil litigation practice, Hunter continues to work pro-bono on humanitarian issues such as abortion protections and transgender rights advocacy.

“The experiences that the Center created for me inform my legal practice every day,” said Hunter, who stays connected as a Mgrublian Center advisory board member.

The Way Forward

The Mgrublian Center 20th anniversary celebration kicked off in April with its annual Armenian Genocide-focused Athenaeum speaker event, and it will wrap up in late September, with the ImpactCMC alumni dinner. To mark the milestone, the Center is running an Instagram campaign spotlighting “20 faces”—one for each year—among the hundreds who have passed through the Center.

Despite its important work and best efforts, genocide has not been stamped out, as Roth had once hoped.

“There is much that’s dark and dreary about our world, and yet none of that has to be the way it is. Steps can be taken in creative and constructive ways to address those issues,” he said. It’s why the Center is so important 20 years running—and why it must continue to help today’s CMC students see and seize opportunities “to try and change the world for the better.”

“At any moment, we know that somewhere in the world, right now, someone’s suffering—in Ukraine, in China, in Syria,” Lower added. It’s an administrative challenge “just trying to make decisions about where to focus our attention.”

Still, there’s reason for optimism.

“The world is getting more interconnected,” Hunter said. “Students have the ability to create content and get it out to millions of people, which we didn’t have back in 2005. I don’t think there’s any limit to what the Center and CMC students can do together.”

In a recent interview before his passing, Haley also pointed out that human rights manifest as a constant problem throughout history. “Our founding of the Center 20 years ago was an attempt to address that aspect of human rights along with trying to understand and derive lessons from the Holocaust,” Haley said. It requires of us all the “opportunity to look back and then to look forward. … to be full of hope and energy and idealism.”

Article written by Diane Krieger, originally published on the CMC website homepage on July 19, 2023

The Center is mourning the recent passing of a significant member of its foundation and community, CMC Professor Emeritus P. Edward “Ed” Haley.

Ed joined the CMC faculty in 1968 and was a key figure in the founding of the Center 20 years ago, becoming one of its first advisory board members and affirming his belief that the college needed a Center dedicated to the study of the Holocaust, genocide and human rights.  In 2008 he became director and worked tirelessly to ensure the Center’s long term viability and to expand key programs including the speaker series and the summer internship program.  His scholarship and knowledge in the field of international and strategic studies was equally matched by his stalwart support of human rights causes around the globe.  Upon his retirement in 2014, an endowed internship was established by the Center’s advisory board in Ed’s name. The P. Edward Haley Internship attracts students studying conflicts and human rights issues in the Middle East, and allows them to travel there in the summer.  

During his years at CMC, Ed was also the chair of the international relations program, and a former director of the Keck Center for International and Strategic Studies. In addition to teaching at CMC for 47 years, Ed served on the staffs of members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. He was also a prolific publisher of academic works, including Strategic Foreign Assistance: Civil Society in International Security (Hoover Institution Press, 2006), and Strategies of Dominance: The Misdirections of U.S. Foreign Policy (Woodrow Wilson Center/Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006). His book, Revolution and Intervention: The Diplomacy of Taft and Wilson with Mexico, 1913-1915, won the Premio Sahagun, awarded by the Mexican National Institute of Anthropology and History.

Though his legacy will live on through his scholarship and the Center’s programs, Ed will be greatly missed by many members of the college and CMC alumni. Our hearts and thoughts are with his family, and especially his wife Elaine who was also a pillar of the Claremont community.

Originally published by Cambridge University Press, March 28, 2023

By Ben Kiernan

As the mob incited by President Donald Trump ransacked the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, “saw the Nazi imagery in the crowd.” Milley told his staff: “These guys look like the brown shirts to me. This looks like a Reichstag moment.” He was referring to the burning of the German parliament in 1933, a crucial event in Adolf Hitler’s rise to power.

What can we learn from the history of genocide as we observe current developments ? And how have previous genocide perpetrators learned from history ? The Cambridge World History of Genocide identifies these and other connections between past cases that may help predict or even prevent future repetitions.

In 2017, Donald Trump had visited France for the annual Bastille Day celebrations. He watched the parade in Paris with President Macron. In their book The Divider: Trump in the White House, Peter Baker and Susan Glasser report that a French general overseeing the parade predicted to an American counterpart: “You are going to be doing this next year.” That idea soon took root in Trump’s mind. Baker and Glasser write: “Trump stubbornly wanted a similar military parade to mark the U.S. Fourth of July independence day holiday. But his cabinet staff was less enthusiastic, and it became a point of contention.” Trump privately ”expressed admiration for Hitler’s generals, while calling his own generals ‘fucking losers,’ and subjecting them and others to racist rants… In an exchange with his then White House chief of staff John Kelly, a retired Marine Corps general, Trump reportedly complained: ‘You fucking generals, why can’t you be like the German generals?‘”

Kelly asked which generals, prompting Trump to reply: “The German generals in World War II.” Those German generals, Trump asserted, “were totally loyal to” Hitler – whose expectations of his generals had become a model for Trump.

In August 2017, neo-Nazis and white supremacists assembled in Charlottesville, Virginia, for a “Unite the Right” rally. They protested plans to remove a statue of Confederate general Robert E. Lee. Some of them chanted “Jews will not replace us,” and the Nazi slogan “Blood and Soil.” Swastika flags flew on “full display”. One protester drove a speeding car into a group of counter-protesters, killing a woman and injuring nineteen others. The car’s driver, James Alex Fields, Jr., of Ohio, was later convicted of murder. A former teacher of his reportedly described Fields as “fascinated by Nazism.” From his jail cell, Fields texted his mother “a meme of Hitler.”

Several days after the Charlottesville events, Trump stated that “the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists… should be condemned, totally,” as “rough, bad people.” Yet he suggested they had been the targets of the violence: “a group on this side, … you can call them the left, … came violently attacking the other group.” Trump emphasized repeatedly that there was “blame on both sides” and “very fine people on both sides.”

The next year, on another European visit, Trump privately told his chief of staff Kelly that “Hitler did a lot of good things”. Such admiration for history’s best-known genocide perpetrator, once unthinkable, had become commonplace in some US circles.

And it was inspiring mass murder. In August 2018 Patrick Little, a former unsuccessful Republican Senate primary candidate in California, posted on the website Gab his call for the “complete eradication of all Jews.” Robert Gregory Bowers, aged 46, reposted on Gab another statement from Little: “I am organizing protests calling for the demolition of all holohoax memorials. Never again will we let jewish lies be used as a weapon against our children. #NeverAgain”. On October 27, 2018, Bowers murdered eleven worshippers and wounded six at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Bowers’ rampage in turn inspired John T. Earnest, according to a manifesto he posted online, to unleash two attacks in California. Earnest’s manifesto included both antisemitic and anti-Muslim statements. First, in March 2019, he set fire to the Dar-ul-Arqam mosque in Escondido. Then on April 27, Earnest attacked the Chabad of Poway synagogue, near San Diego. Firing an AR-15-style rifle, he screamed that “Jews” were “ruining the world.” He shot dead Ms. Lori Gilbert Kaye, 60, and wounded three other people.

The wealthy African-American rapper and entrepreneur, Kanye West, adopted Trump’s view of the Charlottesville violence. In a video-interview at the TMZ newsroom in 2018, West said: “I want to talk to the guys in Charlottesville on both sides.” Van Lathan of that newsroom engaged West in a video exchange. Responding to West’s assertion that slavery was “a choice,” Lathan mentioned that “12 million people actually died because of Nazism and Hitler”. West then retorted “something like ‘I love Hitler, I love Nazis’.”

Part Two

By late 2020, US national officials were sounding alarms that Donald Trump was following a neo-fascist playbook. After Trump lost the presidential election to Joe Biden, General Mark Milley compared Trump’s false claims of election fraud to “Hitler’s insistence to his followers at the Nuremberg rallies that he was both a victim and their savior”. Milley saw some Trump supporters, the militia group known as the Proud Boys, as “the same people we fought in World War II”. It was the Proud Boys, neo-fascists who call themselves “western chauvinists,” whom Trump had called upon to “stand back and stand by” during his presidential campaign debate with Joe Biden.

In their 2021 book I Alone Can Fix It: Donald J. Trump’s Catastrophic Final Year, reporters Carol Leonnig and Philip Rucker of the Washington Post recount that Milley saw Trump as “the classic authoritarian leader”. This was not only “a Reichstag moment,” Milley told aides, but “The gospel of the Führer.” President Biden stated on August 25, 2022: “It’s not just Trump, it’s the entire philosophy that underpins the – … it’s like semi-fascism.”

Meanwhile Kanye West doubled down. In October 2022, using the name Ye, he wrote on Twitter: “I’m going death con 3 On JEWISH PEOPLE[…] You guys have toyed with me.” Ye added that “the Jewish media blocked me out,” and “Jewish people have owned the Black voice.”

In the ensuing public outrage, Trump claimed that he hadn’t seen West’s comments, but added that Ye was “great to me.” A conservative radio host asked him whether Ye was getting a “fair shake.” Trump replied that Ye had made some “rough statements, on Jewish,” but added: “He’ll be fine”.

On November 22, Trump invited West to dinner at his Mar-a-Lago club in Florida. Ye brought along Nick Fuentes, founder of “America First.” According to The New York Times, Fuentes leads “an annual white-supremacist event,” the America First Political Action Conference. Several weeks beforehand, he had demanded “that Jews leave the country.” Trump asserted that Kanye “arrived with a guest whom I … knew nothing about.” The New York Times reported that they hit it off: “During the dinner, according to a person briefed on what took place, Mr. Fuentes described himself as part of Mr. Trump’s base of supporters,” and that “Mr. Trump turned to the others, the person said, and declared that he liked Mr. Fuentes, adding: ‘He gets me’.”

Did Fuentes “get” Trump ? On October 30, 2019, Fuentes had made a “joke” of the Holocaust, casting doubt on its occurrence while comparing Jews incinerated in death camps to “six million cookies” burned in an oven. Then on May 24, 2021, Fuentes stated: “I don’t see Jews as Europeans and I don’t see them as part of Western civilization.”

Resurgent Nazism and neo-Nazism have combined with a growing white supremacist movement. In 2020, the Department of Homeland Security concurred with the FBI Director that among domestic threats, “racially and ethnically motivated violent extremists – specifically white supremacist extremists (WSEs) – will remain the most persistent and lethal threat in the Homeland.” In March 2023, the Anti-Defamation League reported a five-fold national increase in white supremacist groups’ propaganda activities since 2018, including a 40 percent rise since 2021. Rising racism and ethnic persecution are clear indicators of potential genocide.

The persistent recent evidence of the growing influence of Nazi and racist ideology in U.S. politics and society, and the various outbreaks of Nazism-inspired violence, are far from isolated. Without quick and effective counter-action to combat this dangerous, hateful, accelerating trend, there is only one direction that it can take. In October 2022, the Jewish Democratic Council of America published a digital ad combining images of the January 6 invasion of the U.S. Capitol, antisemitic graffiti, and the recent “Kanye is right” banner hung above a freeway in Los Angeles, all juxtaposed with images of rallies in Hitler’s Germany.

Of course, there are major differences between Nazi Germany and the USA today. But prominent Americans also see significant similarities. Some assert that Hitler’s example offers a positive model, while others note dangerous warning signs in the spread of that viewpoint. The world history of genocides has often been a matter of would-be perpetrators making conscious connections. Trump and the far right’s evocations of these past tragedies must not go unheeded.

Banner image: The Killing Fields, Cambodia, a year after the overthrow in 1979 of Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge regime. This photo of a newly-excavated mass grave at Choeung Ek, near Phnom Penh, shows some of the contents of the first four grave pits excavated there, of an estimated 107 pits containing the bodies of, among others, former inmates of the secret Khmer Rouge prison known by its code-name ‘S-21’. These first four pits yielded over seven hundred skulls, including about three hundred found in a single pit. Photo: Ben Kiernan, September 26, 1980.