Policy memo
Date: July 12, 2012
Subject: structuring of the government to discourage atrocities: considerations for an Atrocities Prevention Board
In early July, the white house under the administration of Obama mandated a study directive for the structuring of an APB to help with the coordination of the entire government approach towards mass atrocity response and prevention. As part of the annual strategy for policy amendments and proposal, the white house convened its employees and specialists to discuss the challenges and prospects encountered during amendments of policies. This was to inform on the approach of a formulation and implementation of a policy mandated structure. The agency considered immediate need of the board and ways in which implementation of top policy priorities might reinforce interagency process. Addressing from perspectives spanning the whole government structure is considerate. This is with other interrelated agencies striving to isolate issues meant to promote government efforts of preventing mass atrocity crimes .
Combating the judicial system, Congress, and other governmental agencies influence on the formulation and implementation of policies is the agency’s inherent mission prior to the invitation from the white house on the agency’s top priority agenda on policy. The existing resentment of agencies has contributed to the downfall of efforts laid down by the white house. Eventually, it ends up making it the top priority of this policy agency to coordinate on gaining the advantageous synergies efforts . Reorganizing these factors of the government to meet any policy amendment requires significant reforms to enact and strengthens the management of the white house on policy programs. Also, expanding interagency capabilities help improve policy amendment relating intelligence.
The agency’s proposal in designate a new level of policy and programs director to oversee interest groups, the media and political parties influence on policy. The designate chairs and coordinates the white house Atrocities Prevention Board committee on policy discouraging atrocities. The committee should also develop interagency strategic plan that may help in achieving priorities and goals. This is to enable assign policy missions on identifying appropriate responsibilities to top priority agencies. The white house also needs to design technological development plan to prioritize and integrate end atrocity users across the government .
The following options should be considerable regarding a path forward with all these political players:
• He should consider proactively mainstream policy focusing on atrocities across the governmental agencies hence rooting atrocity preventive measures as an element instinctively operating.
Participating governmental agencies echoing dichotomy of cases against the agency’s top priority agenda poses situation of imminent mobilization of internal factors. This is to help focus on atrocities and high level of attention in rooting preventive measures. This helps trigger considerate level of concern in consistent policy approach. The significant disadvantage is when high-level attention already exists with the governmental agencies devoted to a vital role. This regards the presented recommendation on policy proposal and amendment nuance to atrocity standing procedure .
• Foster a sense of ownership when handling relevant actors against his core planning agency in both regional and functional groups.
The sense of ownership as a factor when handling participants in policy amendment and proposal helps draw attention to the existing agency structure leading to high-level analysis, mobilization and policy development. The only advantage in handling planning of the agency in both regional and functional groups enables a greater spectrum in presenting policy options. This is with the options having lower execution cost amidst other governmental agencies debates .
• Frame the proposed board as a player operational resource, to help encourage on the opposition feedback to address and support management efforts.
The significance of the option is that it suggests a primary added value in handling atrocity in policy proposal and amendment. Framing the proposed board helps prepare in bringing focus to structural prevention of opposition feedback in addressing barriers to policy proposal and amendment response. The key disadvantage is that the focusing on duality of roles played by the other agencies suggests undermining of existing mechanisms with determination to the ongoing review of policies.
The best recommendable option is:
• One of the agency’s top policy priorities is outline existing channels for direct support to policy at hand. It also coordinates a whole governmental approach to external and internal atrocity risks in policy amendments. Partnering and rallying, other agencies are of merit to focus in policy amendment .
This help in creating architecture designed to expose issues and right questions to discussion to alleviate and evaluate other governmental agencies competing objectives, capacities, prospects and contingencies in policy proposal and amendment. This is advantageous in the generation of awareness on atrocity prevention policy indication a significant level of policy priority. Coherently rationalizing existing channels for direct support and coordinating a whole governmental approach to external and internal atrocity risks in policy amendments proactively bridges in reinforcing policy . Considering the policy priority of the agency as top of its agenda, sustainability and broader policy focus is an angle of encouragement in merit consideration as policy proposal and amendment ideas are structural.
Greater attention is payable to relationship transition on top government agencies during crisis continuum as an advantage. Through this option, different structures are suitable at different scales of time on relationship evolvement to help focus on different phases regarding the government agencies conflict continuum with policy proposal and amendment. Interagency review considers hand-off authority in the development of policies to alternative mechanisms on the proposal and amendment.
Reference
2007. “New EPA Memos Provide Agency Interpretations of RCRA Requirements.” Hazardous Waste Consultant 25, no. 4: 4.1-4.11. Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed July 13, 2012).
Epstein, Gil S., and Shmuel Nitzan. 2006. “Lobbying and Compromise.” Public Choice 126, no. 3-4: 317-330. EconLit with Full Text, EBSCOhost (accessed July 13, 2012).
Hertel, Shareen. 2006. Unexpected power: conflict and change among transnational activists. Ithaca, N.Y. [u.a.]: Cornell Univ. Press.
Meen, David E., and Dominique Turcq. 1992. “Memo to a CEO.” Mckinsey Quarterly no. 3: 95- 102. Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed July 13, 2012).
United States, David C. Humphrey, and Edward C. Keefer. 2006. Foreign relations of the United States. 1969-1976. Vol.2, Organization and management of U.S. foreign policy, 1969- 1972. Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office.
Vogl, Marc. 2007. “Memo to Tomorrow’s Policy Makers: Let the Art In!.” Kennedy School Review 7, 43-47. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed July 13, 2012).
