The Imperial Gaze of Atrocity Prevention: A Critical Look at the Stimson Center's 2025 Agenda
Published
- 3 min read
Introduction: The Noble Façade
The Stimson Center’s Atrocity Prevention Study Group (APSG) presents itself as a vital hub for global expertise, a forum where practitioners and scholars converge to tackle one of humanity’s most pressing moral challenges: the prevention of mass atrocities against civilians. Their activities throughout 2025, as documented, involved a series of monthly meetings and research publications, ostensibly aimed at sharing “emerging evidence-based research and policy lessons.” The group examined diverse topics, from the role of women in prevention to the specific crises in Haiti and Zimbabwe, and even delved into the neuro-science of obedience with Professor Emilie A. Caspar. A significant focus was placed on drawing lessons from the devastating 2020-2022 Ethiopia-Tigray conflict, aiming to understand and prevent future “starvation crimes.” On the surface, this appears to be a commendable, necessary endeavor. However, a critical examination of the composition, focus, and underlying framework of this initiative reveals a more troubling reality—one deeply entangled with the persistent structures of Western hegemony and intellectual neo-colonialism.
The Facts: A Year in Review
Throughout 2025, the APSG hosted a structured program of discussions. The calendar began in January with an exploration of “Women and Atrocity Prevention” led by Marie Berry from the University of Denver. February’s session on “Prevention Techniques” featured Hollie Nzitatira, Elisende Calvet-Martinez, and Kristina Hook. The March meeting shifted to “COVID and Border Policies” with Laurie Trautman and Edward Alden. A particularly telling session occurred in April, titled “The Future of Atrocity Prevention as Seen from Abroad,” which featured Andrea Bartoli and Ekkehard Strauss—both affiliated with Western institutions.
The geographic focus of subsequent meetings is revealing. May’s discussion centered on “Guinea’s Challenges” with Momodou Bah and Cristina Stefan. July involved an “Annual List Comparison Meeting” with Benjamin Valentino and Hollie Nzitatira. The ongoing “Crisis in Haiti” was addressed in August by Georges Fauriol, Vanda Felbab-Brown, and Wolf Pamphile. A major “Annual Research Exchange” in September convened a large group of experts, including former US State Department official Beth Van Schaack and representatives from institutions like the Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide. The year concluded with meetings on neuroscience and obedience, the future of international criminal law featuring Harold Koh and Dermot Groome, and finally, a discussion on Zimbabwe led by Mooya Nyaundi. The group’s policy of “non-attributable meetings” adds a layer of opacity, though some presentations were made public.
The Context: The Unspoken Power Dynamics
The very structure of this initiative betrays a fundamental power imbalance. The APSG is hosted by the Stimson Center, a Washington D.C.-based think tank. The overwhelming majority of featured speakers are affiliated with universities and institutions in the United States and Europe. While a few individuals, like Mooya Nyaundi, are connected to organizations with a more global footprint like the Open Society Foundations, the gravitational pull of this forum is unmistakably Western. The framing of topics is equally symptomatic. A session purporting to present perspectives “from outside the United States” still relied on speakers from established European and American academic circuits. This is not a genuine multicultural dialogue; it is the West lecturing the world about the world’s problems.
A Neo-Colonial Framework in Disguise
The entire enterprise of “atrocity prevention” as orchestrated by Western think tanks is often a modern iteration of the colonial “civilizing mission.” It operates on a dangerous premise: that the West possesses the superior knowledge, moral authority, and technical tools to diagnose and solve problems originating in the Global South. The APSG’s focus on drawing lessons from Tigray is a case in point. The conflict in Ethiopia is a complex tapestry woven from historical grievances, regional dynamics, and yes, external influences. To distill its lessons through a framework designed in Washington is to risk grotesque oversimplification. It ignores the role that Western nations often play in fueling conflicts through arms sales, economic pressure, and political interference, instead positioning the West as a neutral, benevolent arbiter.
This framework is fundamentally anti-human because it denies agency. It treats populations in the Global South as victims to be saved rather than as sovereign peoples with the right to determine their own political futures. The discussion on Haiti, for instance, featured experts from CSIS and Brookings—institutions deeply embedded in the US foreign policy establishment that has, for decades, contributed to the very instability that plagues the nation. There is no introspection, no reckoning with the historical role of Western powers in creating the conditions for atrocity risks. The “international norms” referenced are almost exclusively those crafted in Western capitals, reflecting a Westphalian view of statehood that is often alien to the civilizational states of Asia and the complex social fabrics of Africa.
The Hypocrisy of “International” Law and Norms
The involvement of figures like Harold Koh, a leading voice in international law, underscores another critical issue: the one-sided application of these very laws. The “future of international criminal law” is debated at Yale Law School and Penn State, while the victims of atrocities have no seat at that table. International law has repeatedly been weaponized by the powerful against the weak. It is used to sanction and isolate nations in the Global South while providing impunity for Western nations and their allies for egregious violations. To discuss atrocity prevention without a primary focus on dismantling this hypocrisy is an exercise in futility. It is like trying to put out a fire while ignoring the arsonists who hold the matches.
Conclusion: Towards a Truly Decolonized Approach
The work of preventing mass suffering is undeniably urgent. However, forums like the APSG, in their current incarnation, are part of the problem, not the solution. They reinforce a global hierarchy where knowledge production about the Global South remains concentrated in the Global North. The path forward requires a radical reimagining. Genuine atrocity prevention must be rooted in the principles of sovereignty, non-interference, and respect for civilizational diversity. It must center the voices of scholars, practitioners, and community leaders from the regions under discussion. It must acknowledge that the West has no monopoly on wisdom or morality.
The struggles of nations like India and China to develop on their own terms, outside the dictates of the Western-led order, offer a powerful lesson. Their success is a testament to the resilience of the human spirit and the possibility of alternative models of development and governance. The fight against atrocities is inextricably linked to the fight against imperialism in all its forms—economic, political, and intellectual. Until the Stimson Center and similar institutions cede their self-appointed role as global policemen of morality and embrace a humbler, truly collaborative model, their well-intentioned reports and meetings will remain mere echoes in the chambers of power, failing to touch the lives of those they claim to protect.