Mary Creagh, British Member of Parliament for Wakefield, reflects upon International Holocaust Memorial Day by noting President Obama’s August 2011 Presidential Directive on Mass Atrocities, as a “bold step to allow the US government to respond quickly to instances of potential mass atrocities and genocide.”

In a Huffington Post (UK) article, she references the 2008 report of the Museum co-sponsored Genocide Prevention Task Force chaired by Madeleine Albright and former Secretary of Defense William Cohen. That report, which provided a blueprint for the US government to improve its response to genocide, could, she suggests, be a model for other countries to follow.

Read Creagh’s article, "An International Response to Prevent Future Genocides."

Disturbing news emerged from South Sudan this past week as reports surfaced of some of the worst inter-ethnic violence there in months. While the battle among tribes over scarce water and grazing resources is not new in South Sudan, the scale and brutality of the violence and what it portends for broader national unity is cause for alarm. Perhaps of even greater concern is the UN's inability to prevent the violence.

Listen to an NPR interview with the Committee on Conscience's Cameron Hudson and other Sudan experts or read the transcript.

As noted by the UN News Centre, the UN Mission in South Sudan's conflict early warning system anticipated the violence, but with a lack of trained troops and an absence of air assets to get them there, intervention was simply not possible. Although the UN mission has civilian protection as its top and most clearly defined mandate, it cannot realistically accomplish this goal given its lack of resources and the infrastructural challenges in South Sudan. There are currently only 6,000 international peacekeepers on the ground with no access to combat-equipped helicopters, yet they are tasked with covering an area the size of France with few paved roads.

As the UN struggles to engage with the Government of South Sudan to contain and diffuse this current spate of violence, deeper thinking must be done to address the critical gaps that continue to exist between early warning, prevention, and response.

For more on the recent violence, read Jeffrey Gettleman’s New York Times article "Born in Unity, South Sudan Is Torn Again.”

On January 10, 2012, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum hosted the Washington, DC, premiere of In the Land of Blood and Honey, written and directed by Angelina Jolie.

Set against the backdrop of the Bosnian war of the 1990s, the film tells the story of Danijel and Ajla, two Bosnians from different sides of the ethnic conflict in the former Yugoslavia. As described on the film's website, “Danijel, a Bosnian Serb police officer, and Ajla, a Bosnian Muslim artist, are together before the war, but their relationship is changed as violence engulfs the country….[The film] portrays the incredible emotional, moral and physical toll that the war takes on individuals as well as the consequences that stem from the lack of political will to intervene in a society stricken with conflict.”

The events in the Balkans coincided with the opening of the Museum in April 1993. At the dedication ceremony, Museum Founding Chairman and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel delivered a personal plea to then-President Clinton to work to stop the ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia. Perhaps Wiesel saw and understood from his own experiences the danger signs that would lead, within two years, to an internationally recognized case of genocide at Srebrenica.

This film will introduce many people to the events of the Balkan wars in the 1990s. It shows in stark terms the human cost of the international community’s colossal failure that allowed widespread atrocities to take place in the heart of Europe--less than 50 years after the world vowed "Never again" in the wake of the Holocaust. We hope it inspires people to learn more about this history, to recognize that genocide remains a threat today, and to join the Museum’s genocide prevention efforts.

View photos from the premiere, explore the Museum's daily efforts to help prevent genocide around the world, and take our pledge to help prevent genocide.

The Museum and Angelina Jolie previously partnered in raising awareness about the devastating effects of the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. She recounts her reflections from a 2003 trip to the Congo on the Museum’s special website Ripples of Genocide.

First, the good news: in the wake of the Democratic Republic of Congo's disputed presidential election, we have yet to see any instances of mass violence. That's about the only good news, however. Tensions are high, the opposition has rejected the official election results (which gave 49% to incumbent President Joseph Kabila), and opposition leader Etienne Tshisekedi is openly calling on the army to defect to his side and asking them to bring Kabila to him alive. Tshisekedi believes that he won the election with 56% of the vote and has planned his own inauguration ceremony in the capital this Friday. Kabila, meanwhile, will be inaugurated on Tuesday. Tshisekedi and other opposition leaders have called on the Congolese to make Tuesday a day of “ghost cities,” wherein everything will be quiet as people stay home in protest.

The Congo’s opposition leaders have been very careful to push for peaceful resistance to Kabila’s re-inauguration, but it is unclear if the peace will hold. Security services loyal to Kabila are making a strong show of force in Kinshasa (a Tshisekedi stronghold) and other major cities. They have thus far met attempted protests with a swift and violent response, meaning that protests in the country have been very limited so far, though UN media outlet Radio Okapi reports today that a group of pro-opposition women have been able to stage a peaceful sit-in outside of the U.S. Embassy in Kinshasa in the name of urging the international community to take action.

This makes for a dangerous situation. Both Kabila and Tshisekedi are under tremendous pressure from the international community to keep the situation in DRC peaceful moving forward, and to keep their supporters under control. However, given that Kabila’s forces are preventing most types of protest – peaceful or otherwise – it is unclear whether Tshisekedi or anyone else will be able to keep opposition supporters from resorting to violence to make their voices heard. Few Congolese want violence, but if there is no outlet for peaceful expression of disagreement with the official election outcomes, some could resort to that path. The opposition did challenge the results at the country’s Supreme Court, but the Court (which is heavily stacked with Kabila supporters) found in favor of the official results, meaning that there are no further legal means by which to challenge them.

Outside of Kabila’s administration, there is widespread agreement among domestic and international observers that the Congolese elections were deeply flawed and marked with serious instances of fraud, particularly in the vote tabulation stage. The Carter Center, the European Union, the United States, the Congolese Catholic Church, and other observer groups have all issued critical statements noting that the results lack credibility. As such, a cloud hangs over Kabila’s scheduled Tuesday inauguration and Tshisekedi’s plans for a parallel ceremony. It is highly unlikely that Tshisekedi will be able to leave his house for Saturday’s events, much less hold an inauguration ceremony in the 80,000-seat Stade des Martyrs as is his stated intention. What will happen after that is anyone’s guess.

Laura Seay is an assistant professor of political science at Morehouse College in Atlanta, Georgia where she teaches courses on African politics, conflict, and international affairs. She also maintains an academic blog examining Africa politics, security, development and advocacy at: texasinafrica.blogspot.com. The views expressed here are her own.

In the wake of today’s contested swearing in of Joseph Kabila and competing efforts by Etienne Tshisekedi to continue to contest the polls results, the below statement released by our colleagues is worthy of particular attention.

December 20, 2011

We, the undersigned organizations and individuals, are deeply troubled by the lack of critical engagement that the international community has shown throughout the electoral process in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The Carter Center, the European Union, the Catholic Church and other national election observation organizations found that the elections held on November 28, 2011 were deeply flawed and marred by widespread irregularities. In order to prevent further violence and provide legitimacy to the government, we call on the United States and other members of the international community to take these immediate steps:

1) State clearly that they do not perceive the election results as legitimate and call on President Kabila to delay his inauguration ceremony until steps are taken to address these serious allegations. If the inauguration proceeds as scheduled, the United States and other international missions should consider non-attendance or at a minimum send a lower ranking diplomatic officer instead of the Ambassador.

2) Immediately ask for the deployment of an independent international mediation commission formed under international and regional auspices. The Commission will have a mandate to review the technical aspects of the electoral process and facilitate a solution to the crisis.

3) Call on the appropriate authorities to immediately halt the counting of the parliamentary election ballots until clear guarantees are put in place to ensure the credibility of the tallying process.

4) Make clear statements that the U.S. and other members of the international community are determined to ensure accountability for perpetrators of electoral and post-electoral violence in the appropriate international or national fora. Call on Congolese state security forces, in particular the Republican Guard, to cease immediately all abuses against civilians.

The following organizations and individuals support this statement:

Eastern Congo Initiative
Enough
Humanity United
International Crisis Group
Open Society Foundations
Anthony W. Gambino, Fellow, Eastern Congo Initiative
Mvemba Phezo Dizolele, Visiting Fellow, Hoover Institution
Jason Stearns

Former Côte d’Ivoire President Laurent Gbagbo appeared before the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague on Monday, December 5 after his arrest in Côte d’Ivoire, in accordance with the arrest warrant the ICC issued in November.

According to an ICC press release, “Mr. Gbagbo allegedly bears individual criminal responsibility, as indirect co-perpetrator, for four counts of crimes against humanity, namely murder, rape and other forms of sexual violence, persecution and other inhuman acts, allegedly committed in the territory of Côte d’Ivoire between 16 December 2010 and 12 April 2011.”

Charges against the ousted former leader stem from the violence that surrounded last year’s presidential election in Côte d’Ivoire where Gbagbo refused to cede power to Alassane Ouattara despite losing the election to him. Some 3,000 people were killed and more than one million displaced during the violence.

Still recovering from a civil war that ended in 2003, Côte d’Ivoire has a long track record of tension among its ethnic, religious, and national groups.

The arrest warrant describes the organized campaigns of violence allegedly orchestrated by Gbagbo, his inner-circle, and pro-Gbagbo forces who implemented the policies he ordered, with the intent to commit crimes against humanity. It characterizes the violence as widespread and systematic attacks that targeted civilians believed to be supporters of Mr. Ouattara, and often directed at specific ethnic or religious communities.

This is the first arrest warrant issued regarding the situation in Côte d’Ivoire and Gbagbo is the first former head of state to be tried by the ICC since its inception in 2002.

By Dave Peterson

It was on Friday evening, on my way to the airport that word came over Okapi Radio that Jacques Djoli, the vice president of CENI, the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s election commission, would announce the preliminary results from three provinces. When he declared that incumbent President Joseph Kabila had won Equateur, Bas Congo and Bandundu by wide margins, we were stunned. All the credible reports we had received from civil society sources suggested the exact opposite: only Bandundu should have been too close to call and Etienne Tshisekedi should have been leading by a wide margin in Bas Congo. It was clear that Kabila and his allies were stealing the election with the complicity of the commission.

Tensions had been building in the capital, Kinshasa, and voters in some areas had already burned down polling stations where ballots pre-marked for Kabila had been discovered. We knew that the pattern of fraud would likely continue, and the country was bound to explode. The final date for preliminary results was December 6, but now all bets were off. My civil society friends would be shutting up their offices and heading for cover soon. Assuming that in the ensuing chaos the government would be moving quickly to settle scores against its political opponents, as well as those in the human rights movement who had dared to criticize it, they had reason to worry.

It didn’t have to be this way.

The universal assessment was that the elections had been a reasonably successful process, despite logistical problems and unfortunate but isolated incidents of violence. Voters had been vigilant and passionate. Poll workers had done their best, and the police had been well behaved.

However, on the first day, certain instructions did not seem to have reached all the polling officials, and voter illiteracy and lack of civic education compounded the problem. Ominously, ballots and results sheets were not secured as carefully as they should have been. Some stations, especially those in opposition areas, didn’t receive enough ballots. The violence seemed consistently to be a product of voters detecting fraud. Although the process went well in Kinshasa and most of the country, there were a number of exceptions. It was reported to the UN that in Kasai Occidental, an opposition stronghold, 145 stations had been burned down, and for this reason the CENI would annul the vote there.

Nevertheless, civil society groups contended that they had been successful in persuading voters not to be seduced by gifts from politicians, but to turn out in massive numbers and vote peacefully for those best able to lead the country and not those who had committed human rights violations. They criticized politicians on all sides who had incited violence during the campaign, and urged Congolese to continue to remain calm. Tshisekedi’s followers in the streets were declaring their willingness to die for him, however, and the attitude among activists also seems to have become more fatalistic.

The international community has not emerged from the election with much credit. International funding for the process was a fraction of what it had been in 2006, and I was dismayed at how many Congolese seemed convinced that the international community favored Kabila because he would protect their interests, and had pre-determined the outcome. I was told that, although Tshisekedi might be unpredictable, and would have to be monitored closely were he to become president, he understood the West and would encourage responsible foreign investment. Some of Tshisekedi’s advisors, such as Valentin Mubake, might be problematic. But simply an alternation of power is needed, even if Tshisekedi is not the ideal president.

Kabila, on the other hand, could be depended on to continue the same system of bad governance, impunity, and massive suffering. His policies have exhausted the country. Should Kabila try to steal the election as expected, the international community would have to intervene to stop him, activists suggested, but that’s a faint hope. There has been some progress in Congo. The police have committed fewer human rights abuses, thanks to international training by the Japanese. The military has suffered as much as anyone during the past ten years, and with the exception of its top leadership, should remain neutral. Congolese are clearly showing a greater understanding of and commitment to democracy.

Congo has the resources to emerge from the current disorder. And Congolese civil society will not give up the struggle, as beleaguered as it may be. More emphasis needs to be placed on Congolese youth. The extremely high rates of unemployment, cost of education, and manipulation by politicians, such as Kabila’s sports teams, pose serious challenges. Grassroots education at the communal level and in the schools also seems important given the evident evolution in Congolese attitudes and the need to overcome the culture of corruption. Improving the accountability of local government will become increasingly meaningful assuming Congo is able to hold the provincial elections next year and local elections in 2013.

At this moment, Congo’s future hangs in the balance. Although a firm international stand against rigging by the incumbent, such as occurred a year ago in the case of Cote d’Ivoire, does not seem likely.

Preventing a descent into chaos may be the best we can hope for. Now is the time for some hard, courageous, decisions.

Dave Peterson is senior director of the National Endowment for Democracy’s Africa program. He recently returned from monitoring the election. The views expressed here are his own.

Goma, Democratic Republic of the Congo, November 30, 2011

The Congolese people went to the polls this week to elect a new president and a new parliament. Early indications are that the turnout was generally high with polling booths remaining open for up to two days after official closing time on November 28th. Eastern Congo Initiative (ECI) witnessed a high level of participation in the voting and celebrates that, in spite of great odds, election day was largely peaceful in the east of the country.

Given the Democratic Republic of Congo’s (DRC) vast size and lack of adequate transportation infrastructure, it is not surprising that the elections occurred with a myriad of technical and logistical problems. It seems that in much of the DRC citizens were able to vote under relatively peaceful conditions. We were encouraged by the proactive and peaceful behavior of the voters in the activities that we witnessed.

However, ECI is concerned that throughout the country the voting process was compromised by allegations of fraud, targeted violence and a simple lack of capacity of CENI to implement elections that could be considered accessible, free and fair to the entire electorate.

Represented by Founding Member Cindy McCain and Founding Member and CEO Whitney Williams, ECI witnessed first-hand in North Kivu province that many women were prevented or hindered from going to the polls. In a country where perhaps more than half of all women cannot read or write, the Electoral Commission neglected the need to assist illiterate people in gaining access to the polls. In nearly all of the polling stations we visited, especially in rural districts, many women were clearly confused as they attempted to vote. They were not aware that they could be supported by a literate assistant, and reported that they left the polling stations unable to vote. In some cases, they reported being encouraged to leave the polls but did not, instead staying for many hours hoping for the chance to cast their vote. Unfortunately, this shows that the CENI did not adequately communicate rights to illiterate voters and did not have the resources onsite to support the volume of voters with such needs.

While it is too early to pass definitive judgment on the freeness and fairness of the election, we encourage the Congolese and international observation missions to investigate if there have been any organized efforts to disenfranchise voters, especially women and the illiterate, during the 2011 elections.

As the Congolese people wait for the results of their election, it is time to consider what happens next. Fears of post-election violence are widespread and ECI calls on all parties to refrain from the use of violence to resolve political conflict.

ECI believes in Congolese solutions for Congolese challenges. This election process has shown that the Congolese people want their voices heard and that there is an overwhelming desire for good governance, security, economic opportunity, and social development.

The Congolese electorate deserves a future where their basic rights are respected, including the right to freely elect leaders of their choice and to have full confidence that the reported results accurately reflect their will. We hope that in the coming crucial weeks that these core aspects of the democratic process, which require transparency and openness, are adhered to by election officials.

The Eastern Congo Initiative is a U.S.-based advocacy and grantmaking initiative that believes local, community-based approaches are essential to creating a sustainable and successful society in eastern Congo.

This blog post is the first in a series by several leading analysts on Congo who the Museum has invited to contribute their thoughts, news, and observations regarding potential threats to civilians during Congo's elections and the potentially tumultuous period following the vote. The views expressed are the authors'.

Congolese voters go to the polls choose legislative and presidential leaders for the second time on Monday, November 28. As several analysts have noted, the risk of election-related violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo is significant. The month-long campaign period has already resulted in serious violence, with up to ten dead in Kinshasa over the weekend and several protests being met with violent responses from the police and military. Some Congo-watchers believe violence will be short-term, sporadic, and limited to urban zones, while others fear violence could spread rapidly. Are these fears well-founded?

Congolese citizens already live under some of the worst humanitarian conditions in the world. Their country ranks dead last on this year's UNDP Human Development Index, which measures quality-of-life indicators like income, health, and education levels. One in five Congolese infants die before their fifth birthday, more than one in ten infants die in childbirth, and life expectancy for both men and women is less than fifty years. Simply being born Congolese puts a citizen at high risk of dying an untimely death from preventable causes.

These appalling statistics result from a combination of factors, including poor governance, lack of access to employment and financial resources, and the lingering effects of state collapse and of the country's wars. As such, elections are a key marker in Congo's progress towards rebuilding the state, re-establishing governance, and improving the lives of its civilians over the long-term.

The same elections that are necessary to continue D.R. Congo's transition to democracy also pose risks, however, and the potential for post-electoral violence may cause even more problems in the short, medium, and long runs. At issue is the fact that the country is deeply divided in its support for the eleven presidential candidates, including incumbent President Joesph Kabila. Kabila, who came to power after his father's assassination in 2001 and was democratically elected in 2006, is deeply unpopular, particularly in the western Congo, which includes the capital Kinshasa. There, support is divided among ten opposition candidates, the most prominent of whom are the UDPS party's Etienne Tshisekedi and Vital Kamerhe, who hails from the east. Tshisekedi, who stood up to Mobutu and, at 78 is the oldest of the candidates, sees himself as the rightful heir to Congo's presidency. He enjoys strong support in Kinshasa as well as in the Kasai provinces, which are home to the ethnic group from which Tshisekedi hails, the Luba.

Kabila won in 2006 with strong support from the eastern Congo, where voters speak his Kiswahili language and from where his family hails. This year, however, eastern Congolese voters are disillusioned with Kabila's rule. They have not seen as many benefits from Kabila's 2006 promises of increased stability and better infrastructure, and many voters there will not support him at the polls. Because Kabila knows his re-election is at risk, his supporters in Parliament changed the Constitution earlier this year to allow the president to win with a simple plurality of the vote rather than a majority, which means that no candidate has to attain fifty percent plus one of the vote. Rather, whoever gets the most votes will win.

Why might this result in violence? First, few in Kinshasa believe that Kabila can win fairly. Those voters are probably wrong; Kabila is likely to legitimately win 30-35% of the vote nationwide, but almost all of his support will come from outside of Kinshasa. Reality often matters less than perception, however, and the perception in Kinshasa will be that if Kabila wins the election, he must have stolen it. Given that outcome, Kinois voters are likely to take to the streets demanding that Kabila step down, and they will likely be met with a violent response from Kabila's presidential guard.

More potential for violence exists in the reaction of authorities and civilians to perceptions of irregularities and fraud in the voting process. Already, reports are coming in of hundreds of thousands of names being missing from voter rolls and rumors are flying that ballot papers have been pre-marked and that pens at the polling stations are filled with erasable ink. A number of polling stations had not received ballots as of Sunday night, meaning that voters in those regions will be completely disenfranchised. If Congolese civilians do not feel that their votes are cast and counted in an ethical and fair manner, some may take to the streets in protest.

The other potential for violence comes much later. As Chatham House's Ben Shepherd notes, local and provincial elections are scheduled in 2012 and 2013, and these may provoke significantly more violence in more places as voters express their frustrations about the country's lack of progress.

Is violence inevitable in the Congo this week or in the weeks to come? Not necessarily. The country enjoys a distinct advantage over 2006 in that none of the major presidential candidates still maintain private armies, as was the case with Jean-Pierre Bemba's MLC militia last time around. But politics in the country are still not settled on the basis of the rule of law, corruption is still rampant, and few feel that the electoral process reflects their wishes for the country's future. These factors do not bode well for a peaceful electoral process.

Laura Seay is an assistant professor of political science at Morehouse College in Atlanta, Georgia where she teaches courses on African politics, conflict, and international affairs. She also maintains an academic blog examining Africa politics, security, development and advocacy at: texasinafrica.blogspot.com. The views expressed here are her own.

By Michael Abramowitz and and Mark Sarna

Phnom Penh

A few hours outside of Cambodia’s capital, 58-year-old Taing Kim, a delicate woman who spent several years as a nun, lives in a gray concrete house in the middle of a quiet village amid a sea of rice paddies. She settled in Kampong Chhnang nearly 30 years ago and makes her living by farming and selling firewood. She was married in 1980 but says her husband left her when he learned of her past.

Taing Kim is one of thousands of victims who have filed to be heard in the trial of three of the surviving leaders of the Khmer Rouge, the murderous party in power from 1975 to 1979 that tried to forcibly create an agrarian utopia in Cambodia — and killed some 1.7 million people along the way. Nuon Chea, the No. 2 leader in the Pol Pot regime; Khieu Samphan, the former head of state; and Ieng Sary, who was foreign minister, face charges of crimes against humanity, genocide and war crimes.

When the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia begin opening statements on Monday, it will mark the first time the international community has held senior leaders of the Khmer Rouge to account for the system of torture, starvation, forced marriage and execution they created for people like Taing Kim. The chambers are a hybrid court of Cambodian and international judges, established by a treaty between the Cambodian government and the United Nations. The trial will constitute one of the most significant international legal cases since 1946, when the Nazi high command was tried at Nuremberg and sentenced in less than a year.

These days, the gears of international justice grind more slowly. Great power rivalries and ambivalence have effectively shielded the Khmer Rouge from accountability for three decades. Parties that were ambivalent, or outright hostile, at various junctures include China, the Khmer Rouge’s strongest international patron, and the current government in Phnom Penh, which is led by former Khmer Rouge member Hun Sen. After Vietnam invaded Cambodia in 1978, the United States supported the Khmer Rouge diplomatically because of Cold War politics, but in the 1990s, after Cambodia held U.N.-sponsored elections, Washington became one of the driving forces behind creation of the tribunal.

Along the way, many key perpetrators have died, including Pol Pot, the Khmer Rouge leader who was deposed by Vietnamese forces in 1979. Since the tribunal began its work in 2006, it has had only one trial, that of Commander “Duch,” who headed the detention facility Tuol Sleng, where “confessions” were extracted from thousands before they were sent off to be murdered in the fields outside the city. Duch was convicted last year; his 35-year sentence was shortened to 19 years because of time served and a finding that he was illegally detained by a military court.

The tribunal’s proceedings have been marked by unusual politicking, including charges of corruption, judicial misconduct, government interference and leaks of confidential information. Such maneuverings probably account for the sense of cynicism we found among ordinary Cambodians during a recent trip devoted to talks with survivors, human rights activists, lawyers and others. When we asked Taing Kim about the court, she said she felt “hopeless.” Her story of being raped by Khmer Rouge soldiers while working at a forced labor camp is one of thousands of survivor testimonies that have been collected by the Documentation Center of Cambodia and provided as evidence to the tribunal.

Fueling the suspicion have been the Cambodian government’s efforts to shut down more cases, even though prosecutors have identified other suspects who should be tried. The government, itself accused of considerable human rights abuses, says that additional trials could threaten the stability of a country just recovering from civil war. Representatives of nongovernmental organizations contend that is a smoke screen for a government populated by former Khmer Rouge officials who might face difficult questions if cases proceed. Many fear the octogenarian defendants will die before justice is served or that donor nations will tire of the slow pace and cost of justice (roughly $150 million so far).

The wrangling obscures the larger significance of the tribunal’s work. Finally, we are tantalizingly close to an official reckoning for the slaughter in Cambodia, by sheer numbers one of the worst cases of state-sponsored mass murder since the Holocaust. Victims like Taing Kim should have their day in court, and many young people are only now learning details of the horrors that took place in their country years ago. That improves the chances that such atrocities will be deterred in the future.

Successful trials would also show mass murderers that time will not wash away their culpability. It would be easy for the West to lose interest in the last chapter of a story that mostly took place decades ago in a far-off conflict once described as a “sideshow” to the Vietnam War. But just as there is no statute of limitations on the crimes of the Holocaust, the victims of the “Killing Fields” must see justice, sooner or later.

Mike Abramowitz is director of the genocide prevention program of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. Mark Sarna is a member of the program’s advisory board and a son of Holocaust survivors.This op-ed was originally published in the Washington Post on November 21, 2011.