When you grow up in Poland, you know when you know. Poland, a country that has endured centuries of Russian aggression — cultural, military and political. We were partitioned, occupied, Russified, and silenced. Our intellectuals were often imprisoned or executed, our histories rewritten. My family, like many others, lived under the oppressive, dishonest Soviet propaganda.

To be Polish is to know intimately and painfully that Russian power is often built on the systematic denial of human rights. And today as I watch what is happening in Ukraine, I am reminded that what we are witnessing is not a new story. It is a continuation of an old one.

Russia’s 2014 occupation of Crimea should have been a turning point. Instead, it became just another example of Western rhetoric without resolve. President Barack Obama spoke forcefully about international law and sanctity of borders — but meaningful consequences never followed. No serious deterrent was established. Russia took note.

Now, in 2024, we are watching history repeat, only worse. The current administration quietly negotiates with Putin behind closed doors — deals with the devil made in the name of “realism” or “de-escalation.” The problem is that appeasement by any name is still appeasement. And any honest Eastern European knows where this road leads.

A Legacy of State Violence

Russia’s atrocities are not historical accidents — they are patterns of statecraft. In the Soviet Union, the gulag system imprisoned millions for “counter-revolutionary” thought, including entire ethnic groups — Chechens, Crimean Tatars, Volga Germans, and Ethnic Poles, totalling over 3,000,000 people. It is also where over 20,000 Polish officers and intelligentsia were executed by the NKVD (a Soviet secret police, a forerunner of the KGB). This is just one example of how the Soviet state dealt with perceived threats: with murder, denial, and impunity.

After World War II, Poland was again carved up, this time not by Nazi Germany, but by a victorious Soviet Union that imposed new borders and a communist regime without consent. Half of Poland was handed over to Stalin. The other half became a Soviet satellite in everything but name. We lost territory, and decades of democracy and freedom.

Today, I watch with deep unease as the same playbook unfolds in Ukraine. Russia has illegally annexed Crimea and large parts of Donbas. It speaks openly of “reintegrating” historically Russian lands. The goal is not just military victory — it is partition. A fractured Ukraine that can never become fully sovereign again. Just like Poland after 1945.

The Price of Strategic Amnesia

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the West rushed to welcome Russia into international order. Trade deals, G8 summits, UN security council! All these gestures were made in the name of stability. But stability built on forgetting is not peace. It is denial.

There was no truth commission for Soviet crimes. No international tribunal. No real reckoning. Instead of justice we offered investment. Instead of accountability, we accepted ambiguity. And Russia has learned the lessons well: violence would be met with statements, not sanctions; atrocity with analysis, not action.

The West’s failure to respond meaningfully to earlier aggressions — Chechnya in the 1990s, Georgia in 2008, Crimea in 2014 — has emboldened the Kremlin. The invasion of Ukraine in 2022 is not an anomaly. It is a result.

A Policy Shift is Long Overdue

If the international community wants to stop this cycle, it needs to stop treating Russian atrocities as isolated crises and start addressing them as symptoms of sustained, state-driven assault on human rights.

This means a shift in policy away from reaction and towards long-term strategy.

War crimes must be prosecuted with urgency and rigor. The International Criminal Court must aggressively analyze and not be afraid to broadcast the misdeeds committed by Russia.

The days of treating Putin as a misunderstood partner must end. Russia is not a flawed democracy; it is a totalitarian state that weaponizes repression at home and abroad. Any diplomatic engagement that ignores this reality is not pragmatism — it is complicity.

The lack of reckoning after the Cold War was a mistake. We need institutions that preserve memory, document abuses, and educate future generations about the true costs of authoritarianism. This includes supporting historical archives, transitional justice initiatives, and survivor testimony.

Memory alone is not enough; we also need structural change. The United Nations, which was founded to prevent future atrocities, now finds itself paralyzed and corrupted by the very powers it was meant to constrain. How can an institution claim to uphold human rights while allowing Russia, a country actively engaged in war crimes, to sit on the Security Council with veto power? This is not diplomacy. It is a theater. The UN needs urgent reform. At the very least, the world’s worst violators of international law should not be allowed to block accountability for their crimes.

Our own government should be ashamed for legitimizing regimes like these through backdoor deals and empty statements. Making compromises with authoritarian states while preaching values at home is not just hypocritical, it is dangerous. It teaches future tyrants that power matters more than principle, and that democratic governments will choose convenience over conviction every time.

The Personal is Political

For me, this isn’t abstract. It is my history. I carry the stories of those who lived under occupation, who endured censorship, who learned to live with fear. And I carry the obligation to speak out — especially now. History only repeats when we refuse to interrupt it. The time to interrupt is now.

In the photo, Interim Director Joe Eggers of the Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies at the University of Minnesota stands with Natalie Flaherty and Aga Fine, a student assistant at the Center, beside the newly planted Anne Frank tree—a powerful symbol of remembrance and hope.

Interview conducted Monday, June 3, 2025

Two weeks ago, a living tribute to history and resilience was planted in Fairmont, Minnesota: an Anne Frank Tree. Behind this remarkable project is Natalie Flaherty, an 11-year-old student whose compassion and initiative have already left a lasting mark on her community.

Earlier this week, we had the honor of sitting down with Natalie to hear more about the inspiration behind her work, the story of how the tree came to be, and the lessons she hopes others will take from it.

Getting to Know Natalie

Q: Can you tell us a little about yourself?

Natalie: My name’s Natalie and I’m going into seventh grade. I’m 11 right now and I’ll be 12 in two months. I have a bracelet mission—my bracelets say “Put a Stop to Hate.” I really like to read and write in my journal.

The Spark Behind the Project

Q: How did the idea of planting an Anne Frank Tree come to you?

We saw that Nebraska was planting one, so we traveled down there. I got to be the keynote speaker at their event. As soon as we got back, we applied right away. We filled out the forms and now we have one here—and I’m so happy that we do.

Q: How did you end up being the keynote speaker?

Because of my bracelet project. We asked if I could help plant the tree, and they said, “No, we want you to speak.”

A Connection Across Time

Q: Was there a moment when you first learned about Anne Frank that really stuck with you?

Yes. When I was seven, I went downstairs and saw my mom watching a documentary about her. As soon as I saw Anne on the screen, I felt an instant connection. Her hope, everything—I just felt it deeply, and it’s stayed with me ever since.

Q: Why Anne Frank, out of so many historical figures?

Because she was a victim of hate, and she was a modern girl—just like me. I felt such a deep connection to her.

Q: What does she mean to you?

She was just a regular girl, and I could feel her pain. I’ve had my own experiences like that. I could really relate.

Why the Tree Matters

Q: Why did you want to bring Anne Frank’s story and this tree to Fairmont?

So that history doesn’t repeat itself. And to show people that even one person—even someone young—can make a difference.

Q: What can people today learn from Anne Frank’s story?

That hate and discrimination still exist. If we don’t learn from the past, we might repeat it. We need to honor people like Anne and keep their stories alive.

Community Support and Impact

Q: Who helped you with this project?

My mom helped a lot. And I had support from teachers, friends, our principal, and even the superintendent. A lot of people stood behind the idea.

Q: What do you hope people feel when they see the tree?

I hope they feel a connection to Anne. I hope it inspires them to be kind to everyone.

Q: What would you like kids your age to take from this?

To be upstanders, not bystanders. And to know that they can make a difference, too—even if they’re only seven.

Q: Do you think the project has changed your school or community?

Yes. I’ve seen less bullying and more kindness and inclusion.

Q: Do people still talk about it?

Yes! It’s on the school website and the Visit Fairmont site, too.

Looking Ahead

Q: Do you think you’ll take on more projects like this?

Yes. I want to keep doing projects about kindness—anything that brings people together.

Q: What advice would you give to other kids who want to make a difference?

It might be hard at first, but you can do it. Even one small act can change the world.

A Voice That Will Not Be Forgotten

Q: If you could say something to someone whose family was affected by the Holocaust, what would it be?

That we support you in every way possible—and that we see you.

Q: If you could say one thing to Anne Frank, what would it be?

I would tell her that her voice and her story live on in so many hearts—and that I will not let her story disappear.

The Legacy Grows

Natalie’s efforts have already reached beyond her school and town. Her “Put a Stop to Hate” bracelet campaign has distributed nearly 90,000 bracelets across all 50 states and 49 countries. She also had the opportunity to meet Holocaust survivor Trudy Stroo in Los Angeles, who gave Natalie a rare Dutch doll from the 1940s.

This August, Natalie will travel to Amsterdam and visit the Anne Frank House—another chapter in her incredible journey.

The Anne Frank Tree planted in Fairmont is more than just a symbol of remembrance. It’s a living testament to how one young person’s empathy, courage, and action can ripple out into the world.

Fairmont now has an Anne Frank Tree because of Natalie Flaherty. And thanks to her, the message Anne carried so bravely continues to grow—branch by branch, heart by heart.

Much of Doğukan’s arrest by ICE has been shrouded in secrecy; his name and even the rationale behind his arrest weren’t released until several days into his detainment. On April 8th, Doğukan finally appeared before a judge, appearing from the Sherbourne County Jail, one of five Minnesota counties to sign new agreements with ICE to perform certain functions related to immigration enforcement. Media outlets have suggested that Doğukan will appear before an immigration court on Friday, April 11th. 

This means Doğukan’s hearing will be at the Fort Snelling Immigration Court. The court is one of sixty such courts spread throughout the United States that fall under the Executive Office for Immigration Review, a Department of Justice body. This body is responsible for the process of removal of immigrants, the enforcement of these decisions, and any subsequent appeals. In Minnesota, Fort Snelling is forever connected with the detainment of nearly 1,600 Dakota, almost all of whom were women, children, or elderly, through the winter of 1862-63 before their ultimate forced deportation west from Minnesota to reservations in Dakota Territory (and continued separation from Dakota men). The detainment of Dakota, along with the mass execution of Dakota men in the aftermath of the 1862 war, has been described by many as genocide, including the Minneapolis and St. Paul city councils.

The Fort Snelling Immigration Court is in the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building. Bishop Whipple was an Episcopal Bishop in Minnesota during the 1862 US-Dakota War. In response to the forced removal and the condemnation of 303 Dakota men to death, Bishop Whipple made appeals for clemency to President Lincoln. While Lincoln was ultimately persuaded to pardon all but 38 Dakota men (plus an additional two who were executed at Fort Snelling in 1863), Whipple’s attempts to save the Dakota in Minnesota ultimately came to nothing when Congress abrogated its treaties with the Dakota, and banned Dakota settlement in the state. 

The events unfolding today have connections to events in the past that need to be understood. There’s no shortage of irony that a hearing to decide the immigration status of a University of Minnesota student will be determined in a court named for a site that was instrumental in deporting hundreds of innocent people.

Joe Eggers is the Interim Director of the Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies.

The Center asked Melanie O’Brien, Associate Professor of International Law at the University of Western Australia, shed light on Thursday’s news and what it means for the ongoing investigations into war crimes committed in Gaza. In addition to her role at the University of Western Australia, Melanie is a Visiting Scholar at the Human Rights Center at the University of Minnesota’s Law School and was a Visiting Professor at CHGS last year.

The International Criminal Court has issued warrants for several Israeli leaders, including Netanyahu, as well as leaders of Hamas. This is in addition to ongoing investigation by the ICJ that was announced in January. Is there an overlap between these investigations?

The ICC is a court that investigates and prosecutes individuals for criminal responsibility, while the ICJ is a court that adjudicates disputes between states (countries), so it is about state responsibility. However, obviously, the ICC investigation into the Palestine Situation, and the ICJ case that South Africa has brought against Israel are related to the same atrocities. The difference is that the ICJ case is focused solely on genocide, as it is brought under the Genocide Convention. The ICC investigation can look at war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. The arrest warrants issued only include allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity, but that does not mean that the Prosecutor cannot request additional charges of genocide at various stages of the process. It is also important to note that the ICJ does not conduct investigations, but rather only adjudicates on the facts and legal arguments put before it by states.  

The ICC warrant included findings of crimes against humanity and war crimes, but not genocide. Do you have a sense of why genocide was included in the ICJ investigation but not the ICC warrant?

Genocide is notoriously difficult to prove, and prosecutors tend to be hesitant to charge for genocide, instead preferring crimes against humanity, which have a lower threshold than genocide in terms of what needs to be proven. Genocide requires the ‘special intent’ (dolus specialis in legal latin terminology) on the part of the perpetrators, which is the intent of the perpetrators to destroy a group in whole or in part, and that is what is difficult to prove. The ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan requested these warrants six months ago, and he may have thought that he did not yet have enough evidence collated to request a warrant for genocide crimes. However, this does not mean he cannot add charges for genocide now or at a later stage of proceedings once he is satisfied that he has evidence that can prove these charges beyond reasonable doubt in court.

The ICJ case is about genocide because South Africa brought their case under the Genocide Convention. There is no crimes against humanity treaty under which South Africa could bring a case (negotiations for such a treaty are underway). And there are very technical legal reasons why South Africa did not bring any dispute under international humanitarian law (the laws of war).  

Israel and the United States are not state parties to the Rome Statutes, so given that, what’s the likelihood of anyone listed in the warrant being detained?

One of the biggest challenges for the ICC is that it does not have its own police force, and it relies on states to arrest and surrender persons who have an arrest warrant issued against them. The 124 state parties to the Rome Statute are obligated to arrest these persons and surrender them to the Court. Non-state parties have no such obligation. However, we have seen two instances of state parties ignoring their obligations with regards to heads of state visiting their countries. In 2015, then-President of Sudan, Omar al-Bashir visited South Africa (an ICC state party) and was not arrested, and South Africa was not sanctioned by the ICC. In 2024, Mongolia (an ICC state party) invited Vladimir Putin to visit, and during this visit, did not arrest Putin. This time, the ICC has chosen to refer Mongolia’s conduct to the Assembly of State Parties for sanction, and it remains to be seen what the ASP will do. However, it is important to remember that these heads of state who are under an arrest warrant are not travelling much, which demonstrates that the arrest warrants are having the effect of restricting their movement. A number of states party to the Rome Statute have already stated that they will arrest Netanyahu and Gallant as required under the Rome Statute, but of course it is unlikely they will travel to these countries and risk arrest. Of course, as non-state parties, Israel and the US are not obligated to arrest and surrender, nor are they likely to (and both have already expressed their disapproval at the arrest warrants). Overall, the likelihood of arrest is unfortunately low, but not impossible. 

Yet it is important to acknowledge that this is a significant moment for international criminal justice. The ICC now has arrest warrants out for two sitting heads of state, and one for a former head of state (who was a sitting head of state when the warrant was issued), which represents a shift in the direction of international law, which has long preferred immunity for heads of state.

Do you have an update on the ICJ process for South Africa v. Israel?

In October 2024, South Africa submitted its written memorial, which is its written submission to the court, to make its argument that Israel has violated the Genocide Convention. This has not been made public. The ICJ has issued three provisional measures orders (interim orders) requiring Israel to undertake a range of actions including allowing humanitarian aid into Gaza and allowing UN access to Gaza. These orders remain in force, but for the most part are not being complied with by Israel.

Although Putin’s occupation forces commit many crimes, including war crimes and crimes against humanity, genocidal actions against Ukrainians are increasingly being discussed. 

Here I reflect on whether it is possible to talk about genocide now and how Russian actions differ from genocides in the past. Based on a careful analysis of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (the Genocide Convention), determine two possible types of genocide and justify which of them is used by Russia as a tool of imperial assimilation policy.

What Is Genocide and How to Prove It?

Genocide is a systemic and organized crime. It cannot be done accidentally or carelessly. Usually, it is more complicated and difficult to prove than war crimes or crimes against humanity. In order for an act to be legally recognized as genocide, two key conditions must be met and proven:

1. the criminals’ purpose is the intention to completely or partially destroy an ethnic, national, racial or religious group as such;
   
2. the perpetrators had to commit one of the actions against the victims – murder, inflicting serious bodily or mental injuries, creating conditions impossible for survival, forcibly transferring children to another group, or taking measures to prevent childbirth.

Exactly the combination of these two points constitutes the content of the concept of genocide. If at least one of them is not proven, then it is about some other crime, not genocide.

Despite the fact that Russians and its army have repeatedly committed crimes described in the second point, and the entire world has witnessed this, the first component of genocide – the intent – must be proven in a tribunal or court. Until then, we can talk about genocidal acts and signs of genocide, but the court must determine it decisively. 

That is why it is very important now to collect evidence, to document appeals of Russian politicians, and actually to record the genocidal program and incitement to it, which are spread by Russian state propaganda. Equally valuable material is the testimony of the Russian military, who talk about officers’ criminal orders and, in general, about the inhumane atmosphere and setting in the Russian occupation army.

Representative Genocide

The Holocaust is considered the first systematically recognized and condemned genocide in history. After WWII, that term received international legal status, and the Nazi racial policy, which goal was total extermination of the Jews, was recognized as the greatest crime. The author of that term, Raphael Lemkin, had studied for many years the crimes, in which one group aimed to destroy another (especially those long before WWII). However, until 1948, the crime of genocide did not yet exist.

Unfortunately, genocides did not stop even after the Holocaust. Terrible massacres, in which some groups completely or partially destroyed others, broke out in Africa in 1994 (against the Tutsi in Rwanda), in Europe in 1995 (against the Bosnians of the former Yugoslavia), and then in Asia in 2017 (against the Rohingya in Myanmar).

Speaking coldly and somewhat generalized, the ‘standard’ genocide is usually called the one whose purpose is murder, complete or partial extermination. Not intimidation, assimilation, or pacification, but destruction. Actually, the Holocaust, which served as the final basis for the legal formation of the term genocide, was conceived by the Nazis precisely as ‘the final solution of the Jewish question’. That is the complete physical destruction of all Jews without exception. It is quite legitimate to call such genocide ontological or existential because it is designed to irrevocably end the existence of a certain group.

However, there is one important detail here: genocide is not always aimed at killing members of another group.

The Peculiarity of the Russian Genocidal Policy

Given that a nation or religion is not something physically visible and immutable, and that, for example, the forcible transfer of children from one group to another is not physical murder, it can be argued that genocide is also the forcible compulsion to renounce oneself, from their identity and community.

For example, if a person was stolen at a young age and given to be raised in another group, he or she has practically no chance to learn about his or her origin and affiliation. Likewise, a certain religious or national group is de facto exterminated if its representatives are forced to renounce their faith or national affiliation under the threat of death or torture and are scattered among other groups.

All of these things have been happening to Ukrainians on the territories temporarily occupied by the Russians since 2014, and especially brutally after the start of the full-scale Russian-Ukrainian war in 2022.

Moscow’s occupying forces and administrations encourage collaboration in every possible way. They forcibly issue Russian passports and demand public loyalty from the captured local population. This is actively facilitated by Ukrainian political collaborators and Russian agents of influence, who seek to serve themselves in front of the ‘new homeland’ and often demonstrate greater Russianness than the Russians themselves.

Simultaneously, Russians give money and government positions and publicly glorify in the propaganda media those renegade Ukrainians, who are loyal to Russia and ready to renounce their citizenship, homeland, and language. Here, as an example, we can name such odious figures as Oleg Tsarev, Kateryna Altabayeva, Serhiy Tsekov, Olga Bas, Nataliya Poklonska, Serhiy Aksyonov, Volodymyr Saldo and many others.

The destruction of Ukrainian group identity takes place on the ideological basis of so-called “Ruscism.” This is an ideology of Russian military expansionism mixed with ultranationalism, a cult of personality (Putinism), and elements of nostalgia for the Soviet Union.

A clear and unambiguous rejection of Russian identity and the manifestation of belonging to the Ukrainian nation in almost all cases ends for a person on the occupied territories with imprisonment, torture, and physical destruction. The whole world saw this clearly in Bucha, Borodyanka, Izyum, Kherson, and many other settlements that were temporarily captured by Russians and then liberated by the Ukrainian Army in 2022-2023. Similar things have happened, albeit not so massively, but continuously with Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars in Crimea since 2014. However, that time the international community did not react to it properly.

Such behavior of Russians in this war is de facto assimilative genocide. They act not like the Hitlerites, who did not give Jews or Roma people any choice but death. They act ‘more generously,’ because Putin offers Ukrainians a choice: death or joining the Russian group. In this way, they destroy the Ukrainian national group according to all the criteria defined by the Genocide Convention. At the same time, they expand their national group.

Such a strategy is not something new in world history, as it was a common behavior of empires when the metropolis seized new provinces and demanded obedience and loyalty from them. Modern Russia was never able to build democracy and returned to its usual imperial form of existence, which is characterized by violent expansion of territories, assimilation of conquered peoples, and brutal destruction of all dissenters who refuse to participate in their imperial project.

To be fair, Russia is not the first empire to use genocidal practices or war crimes as a form of assimilation. The Spanish Empire (via extermination of the peoples of Latin America), the British Empire (via extermination of the Boers), the Kaiser’s Germany (via extermination of the Herero and Nama people), the Japanese Empire (via mass murders of the Chinese) and many others were guilty of this in previous eras.

But Russia is the first to do this systematically and openly in the 20^th – 21^st centuries after the UN adopted the Genocide Convention. Today, millions of Russians under Putin’s leadership have begun to systematically implement and justify the imperial practices of aggression wars and assimilative genocide. While the peoples of other former empires of the world are trying to explore their past, recognize the crimes of imperialism, and atone for the evil done to other peoples, Russia seeks to return to the era of empires, colonies, provinces, and dominions. At the same time, they used the material for building empires – corpses and broken destinies of the non-imperial peoples.

Thus, the real touchstone of the degree of humanity and civilization of our era will be how the world will react to the new imperialism and the inherently imperialist practice of Russian assimilative genocide.

Dr. Anton Drobovych is the Head of the Ukrainian Institute of National Remembrance, the national governmental institution in Ukraine since December 2019. Before that, he directed the educational programs at Babyn Yar Holocaust Memorial Center (2019), was an expert at the think-tank ‘Institute of Social and Economic Research’ (2017-2019), and served as Advisor to the Minister of Education and Science of Ukraine (2016). In 2014, he defended his Ph.D. thesis and until 2019, he worked at the Departments of Cultural Studies and Philosophical Anthropology at the National Pedagogic University. In 2018, he finished his second education and received a Master’s degree in Law. In addition, he is an alumnus of Aspen Institute Kyiv, and the author of more than 50 scientific publications, as well as five educational courses and programs in philosophy, cultural studies, and history of culture. He has published a number of expert materials on social development, education, and culture for the leading Ukrainian media. Since February 24, 2022, he has served as a soldier of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

Dora has always believed in speaking about her experiences and has educated many young people, teachers, and individuals about the Holocaust. If there is a lesson in the Holocaust, Dora believed it was that if you do nothing and ignore the persecution of others, you are no different than those who perpetrate the crimes. Even this last spring, Dora found time to testify at a Minnesota Senate committee hearing on Holocaust education and a class here at the University.

Dora left a lasting impression on the students she connected with, as evidenced by their reflections:

“I enjoyed listening to every single part of your story, to me you are a strong woman, a true warrior. I couldn’t stop thinking about my family and my own mother, your strength is unbelievable. Thank you for letting us know that in moments like the ones we are going through today, we more than ever need to be loud and resist!! On my way back home I couldn’t stop thinking about your experience in Auschwitz. As an immigrant in the United States I know what it’s like to feel unwelcomed and although there are times I feel like some things are impossible, your story has motivated me to keep fighting and striving for the better of our community.”

“I went home and I cried that day. Hearing your story and processing it was difficult for me. But despite that, I’m thankful for having this memory passed on to me. I strongly believe that the best way to combat darkness in our world is to confront it, not avoid it. If we can be strong enough to do that then we can then use it against itself through education. That’s what you’ve done, and that’s the lesson I hope everyone took away from your visit.”

“I thank you endlessly for coming to our class. Sometimes in academia, it’s hard to remind yourself that people truly and wholly suffered at the hands of other people. Studying the Holocaust and genocide is one thing – being faced with a personal story, hearing real emotion, having actual experience is an entirely new realm of learning. I will never forget your presentation, you have left me with so much to think about, and truly struck my soul with your words.”

Sharing his memories of Dora, former CHGS Director Alejandro writes:

“One of my favorite memories of the UMN is when, after Dora and Rosanne spoke in the lecture hall, we went to the CHGS library room with whoever wanted to come from the class. Here, the students conversed with Dora over tea and cookies, shared something about themselves, and the shyer ones opened up. Dora listened carefully and asked about their career paths and backgrounds (“So you are an immigrant like myself!” she once said to a Somali student). Dora also had a wonderful sense of humor. Since I am soft-spoken and she had severe hearing difficulties, the comical situations were always served. I remember emailing home a picture of one of those warm and animated moments when students circled Dora with bright and smiling faces. My mom replied the next day: “You look so happy,” she wrote. Indeed, I am very fortunate to have had the chance to connect Dora and Rosanne with students over the years. Those visits and conversations profoundly impacted them, as they did on me. Thank you, dear Dora, and hasta siempre.”

Dr. Hassan Abdel Salam often invited Dora to speak to her class. He shares:

“Dora was a shining light. I asked her – begged her – to come to several of my classes. She was the highlight of my human rights classes. Dora came to several classes as a guest lecturer in a course entitled “Global Islamophobia.” One of the goals of the course is to examine the links and similarities between antisemitism and Islamophobia. Dora’s presentations were memorable because of her presence – her indomitable spirit expressed through her warmth, sincerity, and deep-seated decency. Students are mesmerized by her first-hand accounts of genocide, the stories of her family in Europe, her struggles when she arrived in Minnesota after the Holocaust, and her continued activism to deepen her understanding of the Holocaust. I remember my students’ captive attention, the many questions one after the other, the flower one student brought, and the feeling that our mere togetherness in class was a stand against hatred and bigotry.

The last class she attended was last semester in the Spring 2023 semester. I would tell students that Dora was a co-instructor of the course. I will miss her. I feel an emptiness that I cannot ask Dora to come to class. I will miss Dora’s laughter and warmth – and the feeling of solace I get from listening to her instructive and inspiring stories. Despite enduring great struggles and suffering, her warmth, charisma, and effortless generosity persist. I hope to continue to learn from Dora and that her influence endures in my students and my continued instruction and work to achieve greater understanding and kindness despite our differences. For now, I grieve the loss of my co-instructor.“

The Center has collected a number of Dora’s memories, which are available to listen to via our digital collections, including testimonies from Dora and her late husband, Jules, and her interview with Felix de la Concha for the Portraying Memory project.

Dora, along with her daughter, Rosanne, have embodied the concept of Never Again. Her passing will leave a hole in the Twin Cities community, but her legacy will live on.

This violence comes in the context of the blockade of the Lachin Corridor, the road linking the people of Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia, which Azerbaijan has blocked since December 2022. 120,000 ethnic Armenians have been unable to leave Nagorno-Karabakh. Those that managed to get out early in the blockade are not permitted to return, indicating ethnic cleansing of the area. Humanitarian aid is desperately needed for those living in the enclave, as food, medicine and fuel have depleted as Azerbaijan blocks entry for any supplies. Electricity is intermittent, and only as much as the citizens of Nagorno-Karabakh can get working themselves. Azerbaijan has blocked gas supplies too. No electricity and gas has been a serious issue during the freezing winter, and so it is hoped there will not be another winter like this. A long line of trucks filled with humanitarian aid sits on the Armenian side of the Lachin Corridor. For some time, not even the International Committee of the Red Cross has not been permitted to enter and bring in much-needed supplies such as food and medicine. This is contrary to Azerbaijan’s obligations under international humanitarian law, including Article 10 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

With a history of many risk factors of genocide, and early stage genocidal actions by Azerbaijan, including hate speech against Armenians, destruction of Armenian cultural heritage sites (such as churches), and the commission of war crimes in recent conflict flare-ups, the situation has been clearly escalating. It is evident that Azerbaijan is targeting the Armenians of Nagorno-Karbakh as an ethnic and/or national group, both of which are protected groups under the Genocide Convention. However, since the blockade of the Lachin Corridor, the deliberate starvation and denial of access to healthcare demonstrates an intent not just to ethnically cleanse Nagorno-Karabakh of Armenians, but to physically destroy them. Denial of food and healthcare only leads to death, and these actions are a crucial part of genocide, which we have seen in other genocides including the Holocaust, the Armenian Genocide, the Cambodian Genocide and the Rohingya Genocide. It has also been made clear to Azerbaijan by the International Court of Justice that the blockade of the Lachin Corridor produces a real and imminent risk to the health and life of the Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh, so Azerbaijan is aware of this and continues the blockade. This is in addition to those killed in this week’s and previous bombings.

Azerbaijan is killing by bombing, starvation and denial of healthcare. Thus, using the definition of genocide, we see an intent by Azerbaijan to destroy, in whole or in part, an ethnic and/or national group (Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh).

Azerbaijan has now claimed it will provide food and fuel to Nagorno-Karabakh. It has also said it will open the Lachin Corridor to allow people- but not to return- which will ethnically cleanse the area of Armenians and likely result in the destruction of remaining Armenian cultural heritage in Nagorno-Karabakh. It is greatly hoped that the promise of food and fuel will be fulfilled, because the only other option is either the ethnic cleansing of the Armenian population from Nagorno-Karabakh, or the genocide by starvation and illness of those who remain.

CHGS urges states and the United Nations to take action against Azerbaijan, to prevent further deaths of Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh, by sanctioning Azerbaijan authorities, calling for a UN peacekeeping operation in Nagorno-Karabakh, and setting up truth-telling and investigative mechanisms to investigate and monitor any past and present human rights abuses and international crimes in Nagorno-Karabakh.

Lasting only 100 days, April 7th, 1994, marked the beginning of the Rwandan Genocide in which over 800,000 ethnic Tutsi and moderate Hutu were killed as the international community and UN peacekeepers stood by. Emboldened by state-sponsored propaganda and armed with rudimentary weapons, ordinary Rwandans of Hutu ethnicity were mobilized into killing militias. Scholars have estimated that the rate of killing was four times that of Nazi Germany and carried out by 175,000 to 230,000 Hutus. Much has been written about the causes and courses of this tragic event, as well as commemoration practices in Rwanda. But today, in honor of the lives lost, I would like to share with you how some Rwandans work to prevent future genocide in the land of a thousand hills.

Twenty-nine years after the conclusion of the genocide, there is now a whole new generation of Rwandans born after 1994. Over the course of five months in 2022, I had the privilege to interview history teachers, education experts, and parents in Rwanda to learn how older generations who experienced the violence teach this newer generation about their nation’s history. The teachers I spoke with emphasized the importance of learning and teaching history to younger generations. Many teachers discussed the importance of learning about Rwanda’s history to create a better future, increase knowledge of Rwandan culture, and prevent future violence. For example, one teacher remarked,

 “[The] history of Rwanda was characterized by the evils and wrongly taught. So, we studied wrongly; they gave us information that is not true about the history of Rwanda. And for me, I said I must change [that] … and this is my contribution to my country, to change this bad history.” 

Before the genocide, schools had been sites of structural violence, where anti-Tutsi propaganda was disseminated and discrimination enforced. And during the genocide, many schools were actual sites of violence. Given this history, teachers understood how easily history may be used and manipulated to mobilize populations into violence. Thus, teachers expressed a commitment to teaching youth about the causes and consequences of genocide.

While in Rwanda, I met with local organizations and individuals dedicated to preventing genocide and promoting peace. I met with PeacEdu Initiative, a local organization that works with communities to foster reconciliation and prevent genocide through peace education. Here, survivors and those who committed genocide crimes come together to learn about genocide and gain new skills. 

I was also fortunate to attend trainings where teachers throughout the country volunteered their time to learn about peace and human rights education. Many of these teachers ran peace and human rights clubs during the weekends at their schools. Finally, I spoke with parents, many of whom placed their faith in education to prevent future violence. As one parent stated,

“…we need now to put reconciliation first and foremost. We shouldn’t be stuck in our zones of thinking [that] we are divided or different. But rather, we should learn about the history and get lessons from it which will help bring national unity.” 

This parent’s comment reflects the sentiments of many others. In fact, many parents who taught their children about the genocide emphasized the importance of reconciliation and national unity. Holistically, parents aimed to teach their children that national identity must be prioritized over all other identities.

I am encouraged by the commitment of teachers, parents, and local communities in Rwanda to ensure younger generations know about genocide. Today, on a day of sorrow and remembrance, I hope you, too, are inspired by their commitment to foster unity and reconciliation in the hope of a more peaceful future. 

Jillian LaBranche is a PhD student at the University of Minnesota in the Sociology Department. She currently holds the National Academy of Education/Spencer Dissertation Fellowship. Her doctoral research examines how parents and teachers in Sierra Leone and Rwanda who experienced mass violence educate younger generations about their nation’s sensitive history. She has broad interests in Genocide Studies, Comparative Methods, and Memory Studies.

University of Minnesota

Twin Cities Campus

Department of Curriculum and Instruction

College of Education and Human Development

March 20, 2023

Chair Cheryl Youakim

Republican Lead Ron Kresha

Members of the Education Finance Committee;

“Why have we never learned about this before?” This question was asked by a high school junior in my Genocide and Human Rights course just last week as we began learning about the Cambodian Genocide. The student, a second-generation Hmong-American whose family members experienced mass violence and came to the United States as refugees, is often frustrated that, until my course, her education has excluded most of the genocides we are covering in the course. Quite frankly, as her teacher, I am also frustrated and disheartened that most of my students have little knowledge of these events and the broader patterns of genocide. Thus, I am writing to support HF 2685 and Holocaust and genocide education in the State of Minnesota. As both a middle and high school social studies teacher and a scholar in the field of Social Studies Education, I have seen firsthand through my teaching and research the power of Holocaust and genocide education. 

I am currently nearing the completion of my 17th year as a classroom teacher. I have taught social studies at every grade from 5th through 12th in public, charter, and private schools in urban, suburban, and rural communities in Minnesota and Wisconsin, as well as two years in Vienna, Austria. As a teacher, I have seen firsthand the unique power of Holocaust and genocide education to engender attitudes of tolerance, justice, and citizenship within a pluralistic democracy. While students often come into my class curious about the topics, they leave inspired to seek a better world both locally and globally. I have also seen how teaching about genocide and mass violence, especially cases that are often absent from middle and high school social studies classes, can affirm students’ (and their families’) identities and lived experiences, as is the case for so many of my students from communities that have experienced mass violence. This is so important for Minnesota, as new and existing refugee and migrant communities seek to see themselves reflected in education and the state more broadly. Importantly, learning about Indigenous genocide provides opportunities for Indigenous and non-Indigenous students to better understand the history of the state and begin to imagine and work towards a more just future. 

However, like most social studies teachers, I came to the profession with little awareness of other genocides and limited knowledge of the Holocaust. Early in my career, when a principal asked that I develop and teach a high school elective course on the Holocaust, I began to seek out professional development opportunities, largely through the University of Minnesota’s Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies (CHGS). Through CHGS’s summer institutes, I was exposed to other cases of genocide, such as those in Armenia, Ukraine, Cambodia, Rwanda, and Bosnia. Importantly, I also learned from scholars and community members about the genocide of the Dakota and Ho-Chunk and the violence perpetrated against the Ojibwe. Soon my Holocaust course expanded to include these and other cases of genocide. HF 2685 stands apart from Holocaust and genocide education in other states in its support of funding for professional development for teachers, who will seek out and use these opportunities to create meaningful learning experiences for their students. 

In 2022, I completed my Ph.D. in Curriculum and Instruction and Social Studies Education, with a minor in Human Rights, at the University of Minnesota. Broadly, my research examines genocide education in high school social studies classrooms and curricula. My dissertation joins a growing body of research that shows the benefits of Holocaust and genocide education. My research also shows the power of legislation in strengthening and advancing Holocaust and genocide education in states which have adopted mandates. In Wisconsin, a newly implemented Holocaust and genocide mandate has spurred tremendous growth in professional development opportunities for teachers, and I have received dozens of requests to share my syllabus and resources with middle and high school teachers who are developing and teaching their own courses or weaving genocide into their existing social studies courses. Specific legislation places importance on the topic. 

I drafted all of the language related to the Holocaust and genocide in the 2021 Minnesota K-12 Social Studies Standards. While I laud the work of the standards committee in securing and expanding genocide education in Minnesota for years to come, I also recognize the limitations of the state’s teaching and learning standards. HF 2685 provides additional, essential safeguards and opportunities to secure and expand genocide education. Naming specific genocides matters. It ensures genocide education about and, importantly, beyond the Holocaust, including Indigenous genocide. Likewise codifying this language in legislation expresses an enduring recognition of the importance and commitment to genocide education within the state. 

HF 2685 is an important piece of legislation for Minnesota’s teachers and, especially, students. For students, this legislation will advance attitudes of tolerance, justice, and citizenship within a pluralistic democracy, affirm their and their families’ identities and lived experiences, and provide a step towards truth-telling in terms of Indigenous genocide within the state. For teachers, this legislation supports professional development opportunities and resources to ensure appropriate and responsible education. The community support for this legislation speaks to the importance of genocide education for Minnesotans of many different backgrounds. Perhaps, the most powerful call for such legislation is from my students when they ask: “Why have we never learned about this before?” This question speaks to the pressing need for such legislation. 

Sincerely,

George D. Dalbo, Ph.D. 

High School Social Studies Teacher

Although the forced transfer of children is explicitly listed as one of the four examples of genocide in the Rome Statute and the UN Genocide Convention, neither Putin nor Lvova-Belova were indicted for genocide. What do the charges mean, and is there any likelihood that Putin or Lvova-Belova will face trial? We asked Dr. Joachim Savelsberg, Arsham and Charlotte Ohanessian Chair and Professor of Sociology at the University of Minnesota, what to make of the news. 

The ICC alleges both Putin and Lvova-Belova are responsible for the war crime of unlawful deportation of a population (children) and that of unlawful transfer of a population (children) from occupied areas of Ukraine to the Russian Federation under the Rome Statute. The Rome Statute also refers to the forcible transfer of children under genocide. Why do you think the decision was made not to charge genocide?

Genocide is a very challenging charge for the prosecution. While the forcible transfer of children is one act that may constitute genocide (a condition that seems to be confirmed in this case), the prosecution needs to prove that it or other “acts [were] committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” To prove such intent is difficult. Generally, the ICC prosecutors have chosen the easiest way in this first step against Putin: the forcible transfer of children can be directly linked to him and his “Children’s Rights Commissioner.” Both have publically propagated this transfer and their intent. Command responsibility is most obvious here.

Several organizations and experts have indicated a high likelihood of genocide being committed by Russian forces in Ukraine. Do you envision a scenario in which Putin or another Russian agent is formally charged with genocide?

That is conceivable. In the case of Omar al-Bashir, then President of Sudan, the arrest warrant was first for war crimes and crimes against humanity. About one year later, he was also charged with the crime of genocide. The first charging decision was made against substantial resistance by various actors, including diplomats from influential countries. The genocide charge had to overcome even greater hurdles. In the case of Sudan, the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, in the works for many years and including a referendum of independence for South Sudan, with the intent to end a long civil war that had cost an estimated three million lives, seemed to be at stake, at least in the judgment of many diplomats (I wrote about this in detail in Representing Mass Violence: Conflicting Responses to Human Rights Violations in Darfur). In the current case as well, chances toward diplomatic negotiations with Putin to end the war seem diminished. They would be diminished even further if he was charged with genocide. Nonetheless, such charges might still be filed should Putin ever lose his grip on power and be ousted from the Presidency.

Like the United States, Russia is not a signatory to the Rome Statute after the investigation of Russian forces in Ukraine in 2016. What does this mean for the likelihood of an actual trial for Putin or Lvova-Belova?

Chances of a trial are currently slim. Should Putin travel to one of the 123 countries that have ratified the Rome Statute, they would be obliged to arrest him and extradite him to the ICC in The Hague. Other countries could do so. Yet, in the case of Sudan/Darfur, al-Bashir traveled to South Africa (a ratifying state), and the South African authorities did not arrest him. Parts of the S African state were close to doing so, but others allowed for his departure shortly before that arrest was supposed to occur. South Africa thereby offended against international law, a sign of its ambivalence vis-a-vis the ICC (shared with many African countries) and possibly of its desire to keep a-Bashir in the game for a potential peace process. Yet, should Putin be ousted, and should forces come to power in Russia that would benefit from Putin being tried, then such a trial might happen.