The Foreign Service Journal, September 2013

THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL | SEPTEMBER 2013 13 ‘buying fans’ who may have once clicked on an ad or ‘liked’ a photo but have no real interest in the topic and have never engaged further.” (The Diplopundit blog flags similar short- comings involv- ing the bureau’s 150 social media accounts.) OIG also identified the issue of over- lapping Farsi-language outreach efforts, as both IIP and the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs have separate Facebook and Twitter accounts geared to Irani- ans. Commenting that it “is not efficient for the department to have competing Persian-language Facebook and Twitter sites,” the report suggests NEA take the lead. —Steven Alan Honley, Editor The Atrocities Prevention Board: Off to a Slow Start I n the 1990s, genocides in Bosnia and Rwanda served as painful reminders that atrocities can still take place, even in an era characterized by relative peace. The tragedies unfolding in Syria and the Democratic Republic of the Congo are just the latest examples. To focus more resources on combat- ing this ongoing problem, the Obama administration issued a Presidential Study Directive on Mass Atrocity Preven- tion (known as PSD-10) establishing the Atrocities Prevention Board on April 23, 2012. The APB brings together officials at the assistant secretary level or higher from State, the U.S. Agency for Interna- tional Development, the U.S. mission to the United Nations, Defense, Treasury, Justice, Homeland Secu- rity, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Office of the Vice President. Chaired by the National Security Council’s senior director for multilateral affairs and human rights, the board develops proposals for prevent- ing atrocities. But rather than creating policy as a body, the board was designed as a process by which members would discuss policy options at APB meetings and then initiate them from within their respective agencies. In the board’s first year, this approach has led to new sanctions by the Treasury Department, asset seizures by Justice, and atrocities prevention training pro- grams for FSOs in both State and USAID. Though the Center for American Progress i s among organizations that have applauded the board’s efforts to raise the profile of these issues, in June th e CAP released a report identifying major flaws in the APB’s structure and implementation. Among them: a reluc- tance to share unclassified information and exhibit transparency (for instance, the APB lacks a website), and a dearth of engagement with Congress. Further- more, by declaring itself “budget neu- tral,” the APB has severely constrained its ability to advocate U.S. government action. Others question the APB’s role in ongoing humanitarian crises. Writing for the Seattle Times , John Roth and Samuel Totten observe that the board and rel- evant agencies have done little to noth-