The House's draft military authorization bill is full of concerning language. What most alarms me, though, isn't a section on military operations in any one country – instead, it's a report that seems to endorse increased activity on the entire African continent.

When “marking up” the text of a bill – such as the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) – a committee will include a report, which offers further detail on their thoughts around the legislation. Though this may not always translate into concrete language in the text of the bill itself, it can inform how appropriated funding is later used (including to support covert or classified activity). This year’s report language from the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) contained the following excerpt:

Specifically, the committee believes that activities that utilize U.S. Special Operations Forces and an ‘indirect approach’ that leverages local and indigenous forces should be used more aggressively and surgically in Africa and the Arabian Peninsula...The committee believes that current indirect activities are not fully resourced and underutilized to counter gains and preclude the expansion of Al Qaeda affiliates in these regions.”

While FCNL feels that counterterrorism and military initiatives have already begun to overshadow other aspects of U.S. policy, this excerpt instead claims that the U.S. hasn't done enough – and that more "aggressive" use of special operations is needed. Though I haven't been able to find any traces of this in HASC’s final version of the NDAA, I’m deeply concerned as to what impact this kind of language and sentiment could have in the long-term. In addition to being hugely vague in its scope – referring to activities in Africa as a whole as well as in the Arabian Peninsula – the statement troubles us for a number of reasons:

Take action! Stay tuned for more as the NDAA process continues, and follow this link in the meantime to advocate for increased investment in the tools of peaceful prevention (rather than those of military might) when it comes to U.S. policy toward Kenya and East Africa.

Last week, the House subcommittee that handles international affairs funding passed the State Department and US Agency for International Development’s budget for fiscal year 2013. The House budget would cut billions from the Administration’s proposal for a variety of international programs.

Even though international affairs funding comprises less than 2% of the federal budget, despite public opinion, it is vulnerable to deep and disproportionate spending cuts. Funds that support the peaceful prevention of deadly conflict were not spared in the House’s bill. Here’s the (semi) good, the bad, and the ugly:

The (semi) good: Conflict Stabilization Operations, which funds the Civilian Response Corps and the State Department’s new conflict prevention bureau, received $43.5 million in the House bill. While this is a decrease from their requested budget ($56.5 million), it maintains last year’s enacted funding level. Unfortunately, this is still a very limited budget for a new bureau to establish itself and begin its work.

The bad: The House budget cuts U.S. dues to the United Nations by $160 million and peacekeeping contributions by $244 million. These funding levels would put the U.S. into debt with the United Nations.

The ugly: The House budget eliminates the Complex Crises Fund (CCF). This is a very short-sighted decision, given this small fund’s ability to flexibly prevent and respond to emerging violence. Research demonstrates that preventing war is 60 times cheaper than late military interventions.

Now that the House has completed its version of the international affairs budget, the Senate will take up the budget later this month. Stay tuned for ways to take action and urge Congress to fully fund tools to prevent war.

A bill that would prevent current planned drawdown of U.S. troops from Afghanistan is set to hit the House floor next week, continuing a policy that has not succeeded in delivering peace and stability to that country.

The fiscal year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which passed out of the House Armed Service Committee (HASC) late last night includes “Sense of Congress” provisions that will maintain a minimum of 68,000 U.S. troops from this summer through the end of 2014. It also calls on the U.S. to maintain a “credible troop presence” after 2014, the current scheduled withdrawal date for the majority of U.S. forces.

The provision (sec. 1216) was put into the bill by HASC Chairman Buck McKeon (CA). It also requires the administration to submit a reduction notification to Congress prior to making any public announcements, as well as “an assessment of relevant security risk metric associated with the marginal reduction in force levels.” An effort to strike the problematic section led by Ranking Member Adam Smith (WA) failed 27-34. The bill passed the committee 56-5.

Congress seems to have given up its authority to declare war, but is now intent on making sure the war in Afghanistan never ends.

A continued military effort sanctioned by Congress is completely at odds with the American public. In a recent Fox News poll, 78% of those polled said they “approve of the U.S. withdrawing from Afghanistan.” What’s more, this is no longer a politically divisive position—63% of Republicans in the poll approved of plans to withdraw troops. This political maneuver to extend the U.S. war should be met with opposition by all sides.

The U.S. military mission has not succeeded in building a stable Afghanistan. It is a $2 billion/week adventure that is unlikely to yield positive outcomes for either the U.S. or Afghanistan. There are no military solutions to Afghanistan’s political problems, which have only been exacerbated by decades of foreign wars in the country. Pursuit of a military solution is simply counterproductive. Under this strategy it will not matter if the U.S. leaves this week or in ten years: the investment in lives and treasure will have been for naught.

When the NDAA goes to the House floor next week, expect to see some substantial discussion about what the U.S. is doing in Afghanistan. There will be an effort to strip this out-of-touch and counterproductive section from the final bill. Congress should hear loud and clear from the American public that dragging out the war in Afghanistan at the cost of life, limb and treasure is irresponsible and misguided.

This article was also published by Truthout here.

I was sitting on the metro listening to a little boy of 10 or 11 years old talk about how he wanted to be a pilot when he grew up. It struck me that the U.S. has been at war the entire time this little boy has been alive and if he has lived in the DC area all of his life I am sure he has seen plenty of military propaganda.

I do not presume to know anything of this child's life but the unfortunate fact is that funding for his education, any welfare his family receives through cash assistance, food assistance, or Medicaid are all in jeopardy of being cut to fund a grotesquely over-funded military. Just yesterday the House approved a bill that cuts $310 billion-mostly from poverty assistance programs-to pay for automatic spending cuts to the Pentagon that are scheduled to occur next year.

Aside from that, if this little boy grows up and joins the Air Force as he says he wants to he could potentially pay the most tragic price with his life or health by simply flying a faulty air craft. The F-22 is the most expensive fighter jet ever produced, yet the jet still suffers basic design problems that endanger pilots. Lockheed Martin, the principle producer of the F-22 Raptor has done rather well for itself with profits of $3.8 billion in 2010. Not too shabby for a company making a faulty device. Aside from general waste, this is another example of how our money is not being spent wisely for the Americans at home or those in the military.

But what about the jobs that Lockheed Martin and the military provide? This is the argument repeated time and time again in relation to military cuts. However, I would like to point out that spending on other government programs such as education, food stamps, infrastructure, and more both create jobs and give direct benefits to a struggling economy at the same time.

I do not need to tell you that the military-industrial complex is running rampant in the U.S. and seems to be growing in power and influence by the day. The sheer size of our military compared to the next biggest military alone shows the beast for what it is.

However, if deficit reduction and getting the economy moving is really the goal of this Congress, shouldn't they be looking in the most obvious spot for savings? What about the future of the little boy I saw on the metro? Will he have an education that allows him to get the job he needs to support himself? Will he get the adequate nutrition and healthcare needed for proper development? This, my friends is the trillion dollar question. What are our values as a nation? What we choose-to pay for fancy fighter jets or meals for hungry children-says something important about our values as a country.

Note: This blog was updated on 5/11 to reflect HASC's passage of the NDAA on 5/9, which still includes the pro-war language, as described below.

The House military authorization bill includes billions for weapon systems designed for saber-rattling toward Iran, and possibly for use in an attack on Iran. The bill would also require the administration to prepare for war by dramatically escalating the U.S. military presence in the Mideast.

While the bill does not explicitly state that the new weapons systems it includes would be used for Iran, a staffer from the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) has reportedly explained that the additional funding for weapon systems 'could be used in a war with Iran'. This detailed weapons and policy outline pushing for a war with Iran is adapted from legislation (H.R. 4485) introduced last month by Rep. Mike Conaway (TX), and has been supported by only 13 Republican co-sponsors.

The Hill reports that the military bill would fund billions in weapons systems, ranging from drones to rockets to heavy artillery systems, designed to be used to 'counter the Iranian threat':

That bill will have roughly $350 million in research and procurement funding for a entire slate of weapons designed to counter the Iranian threat.

If approved, the House version of the fiscal '13 defense bill will finance everything from unmanned intelligence drones and self-guided, shoulder-fired rockets to heavy machine guns mounted on U.S. warships to repel small-boat attacks. The Iranian navy has been known to use fleets of small patrol boats to swarm larger warships steaming near the Iranian coastline.

Floor Vote Week of May 14

While it is unclear to what extent advocacy groups have been involved in advancing these pro-war provisions, the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) has endorsed provisions from the NDAA on Iran.  Shortly after the 'chairman's mark' of the NDAA was released, the Bipartisan Policy Center sent out an invitation for an event on the upcoming U.S.-Iran talks, noting that the NDAA contains some of the BPC's recommendations on Iran:

"Currently, The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is being considered before the House Committee on Armed Services that contains provisions recommended by BPC for halting Iran's nuclear progress."

The military authorization bill, formally known as the "National Defense Authorization Act" or the NDAA, was approved in the Armed Services Committee on Wednesday. The NDAA is expected to be debated on the House floor early next week, during which dozens of amendments are expected to be added to the bill before its final passage.

The Pro-War Package has 3 Components:

1) Billions in anti-Iran weapons systems

2) States that it is U.S. policy to support military action to prevent Iran from threatening other countries with a nuclear weapon:

This provision would declare that it is U.S. policy "to take all necessary measures, including military action if required, to prevent Iran from threatening the United States, its allies, or Iran's neighbors with a nuclear weapon" (section 1221, b).

The legislation fails to mention that Iran has never threatened to use nuclear weapons, that Iran has repeatedly denounced nuclear weapons in the strongest possible terms or that U.S. and Israeli intelligence agree that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon. And certainly no mention that military and intelligence officials from across the political spectrum in the U.S. and Israel agree that attacking Iran would increase the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran, and that diplomacy is the single most effective way to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran and a devastating war.

3) A requirement that the administration prepare for war with Iran:

This legislation would also require the administration to formulate a plan to dramatically expand the U.S. military presence in the Mideast in order to prepare for war with Iran. The committee itemizes the sorts of high-tech weaponry, fighter jets, and military drills that it would want to see spelled out in such a plan, in order to 'underscore the policy of the United States' in the section above--namely that the United States is ready to launch a full-fledged war against Iran.

This reporting provision (section 1222 b) requires the Pentagon to escalate U.S. militarization of the Persian Gulf in order to 'underscore' the U.S. military threat to Iran:

The Secretary of Defense shall prepare a plan to augment the presence of the United States Fifth Fleet in the Middle East and to conduct military deployments, exercises, or other visible, concrete military readiness activities to underscore the policy of the United States described in section 1221(b).

Take Action

You can take action by calling 1-855-68 NO WAR and ask that your representative vote against the NDAA. Stay tuned to this page for updates on the amendments that FCNL is watching on Iran, Afghanistan, nuclear weapons, indefinite detention and other issues here, and see the text of all of the Iran-related sections of the NDAA here.

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is a bill that has been passed by Congress every year for over 50 years. Most authorization bills are taken up once every two to five years, but Congress has a special affinity for the military authorization bill—often calling it a “must-pass” bill. This year will be no different.

Last year, the fiscal year (FY) 2012 NDAA became synonymous with indefinite detention due to provisions included that allow for detention of U.S. citizens by the U.S. military. President Obama signed the NDAA on December 31, 2011, after it was passed by both chambers. Often forgotten, however, are some of the other momentum-building votes on amendments to the FY2012 NDAA.

In May 2011 when the bill was debated in the House, Reps Jim McGovern (MA) and Walter Jones (NC) offered an amendment calling on the Obama administration to give Congress a plan for leaving Afghanistan. The amendment narrowly failed by a vote of 204-215 and has become an anchor of anti-war Afghanistan work. Rep. Barbara Lee (CA) offered an amendment to prohibit the establishment of permanent bases in Iraq and Afghanistan which passed by voice vote.  Rep. John Conyers (MI) offered an amendment that prohibited the deployment of U.S. ground troops in Libya that passed 416-5. In the Senate in November, Sen. Jeff Merkley (OR) offered an amendment to hasten the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan that passed by voice vote as well.

This year on the FY2013 NDAA, we expect to see important votes on Afghanistan, Iran, detention and military trials, military funding (keeping military sequestration on the table) and nuclear weapons issues. It is likely that some hundred or more amendments will be offered and considered. You can keep track of amendments we’re watching here. Expect to hear from us about Afghanistan-related amendments over the next 10 days.

In a Congress where bills we support are introduced and then referred to committees that will never push them to the House or Senate floors, the NDAA has become an important bill for anti-war efforts. This requires a balance of principle and practicality, though. FCNL does not support the authorization of military funds—especially while we are seeing other legislative efforts to undermine human needs spending. This does not mean we cannot support these important initiatives by bipartisan Congressional allies to cut the military budget, end the war in Afghanistan, prevent war with Iran and reduce the U.S. nuclear stockpile.

Our power as individuals and as a faith community comes when we act on our convictions--this idea was affirmed through the theme of "being salt and light" at the World Gathering of Friends just as it is when we live out each day working for peace and justice. I knew that Quaker collaboration to help prevent deadly conflict in Kenya was important before I left; being in Kenya and seeing the transformative relationships between perpetrators and victims of atrocities served to reaffirm the transformative power of non-violence as a response to conflict and the value of public policies that promote peace.

What can we say to our U.S. policymakers about our public policies and this kind of transformative conflict resolution? Many may feel that the work of those building peace in Kenyan communities remains disconnected from U.S. policy in Washington. While it is true that the capacity to prevent renewed electoral violence lies with those in Kenya, there are actions our own government can take to help promote peacemaking and mitigate conditions for deadly conflict.

When we meet with policymakers in Washington, D.C., they are inspired by the testimonies that come from Friends building peace in Kenya. They ask questions about how a small group has been able to train over 1,000 young people in Alternatives to Violence, including some former perpetrators of atrocities who now express a deep commitment to peaceful means. They begin to believe that the peaceful prevention of deadly conflict – in place of an unbounded dependence on military intervention – is truly possible.

Though the U.S. government has made some progress toward improving violence prevention capacities – including the announcement of the Atrocities Prevention Board last week – FCNL remains concerned that the U.S. is not doing all it can to ensure that our government's policies help complement (and do not undermine) Kenyan communities’ efforts toward peace. Rather than emphasizing prevention of violence and peacebuilding, the U.S. is increasingly focused on counterterrorism and military assistance that could undermine stability in the long-term. While the 2013 State Foreign-Operations budget request did not identify direct funding for peace and reconciliation in Kenya, the National Defense University estimates military aid at as high as $300 million per year – aid that goes with little oversight or accountability.

This week, I wrote a letter to President Obama sharing our concerns and recommendations for the year ahead (and following up on some of the key recommendations found in our Kenya policy brief). Some concrete steps that the U.S. can still take include:

My time in Kenya showed me just how powerful community peacebuilding can be. If the U.S. were to truly invest in these capacities – rather than those that can help fuel further instability – it could begin to shift its presence in the world toward one that helps prevent, not fight, war. Starting with support for the incredible work of Friends in Kenya, those of us in Washington D.C. and throughout the U.S. can begin making real change toward this end.

Take action now! Write to your members of Congress about the importance of support for tools of violence prevention and initiatives toward long-term peace in Kenya – rather than the military focus that could do more harm than good.

Bitumen rich tar sand mining is one of the most environmentally dangerous energy resource extraction processes in existence. In recent months, I have written many blog posts about the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline which would transport sands for refinement from the Athabasca region of Alberta down through the heartland of the United States to refineries in the Gulf of Mexico.

In a time when corporate structures have the same rights as individuals, it is even more important for individuals to make their voices heard. Our tax code already supplements big oil’s annual profits with disturbing amounts of tax payer money in the form of subsidies. On top of that, The Hill reports that “the Pentagon pays an average of $400 to put a gallon of fuel into a combat vehicle or aircraft in Afghanistan.” Guess who pays for that? That’s right, you and I do.

We must re-evaluate our country’s dependence on fossil fuels. All of the money that big oil receives annually could be re-allocated to incentivizing alternative energy resources. Imagine what that would do not only for environmental purity, but also for our government’s fiscal concerns. Although a monumental task, redefining energy sourcing and infrastructure financing is a process that America won't be able to avoid in the future. That task is one that many countries worldwide have been working hard on for years now, and it is paying off. Make no mistake, the money is there. The real problem is changing the priorities that determine where money streams flow, particularly where Washington is the point of origin.

There are many viable alternative energy technologies available for implementation. China’s solar industry is so heavily subsidized by its government that the Chinese solar industry controls the international solar market. If China can do it, can the wealthiest country in the world do it? You bet.

Bitumen sands aren’t likely to go away without a serious fight from well educated citizens. A company in Utah will likely be employing the same technology that Transcanada does for oil sands extraction in the U.S. It is likely that the pro fossil fuel jobs and domestic energy security rhetoric will be at work in Utah as well. Many already understand that true security comes from supporting clean industries that will provide good, long term jobs that do not endanger the water, air and soil that support American lives. And there is even more good news on this front.

There is a wealth of pro-fossil fuel mis-information linking jobs and energy security to public opinion. However, this recently released poll from the Yale and George Mason climate change communication programs is revealing.

Brigadier General Jonathan Gensler, a fellow at the Truman National Security Project claims, “the longer the United States remains dependent on fossil fuels – no matter where it comes from– the longer our nation’s security will be vulnerable.”

There is growing understanding of just how deeply the misinformation behind big oil has penetrated our Nation’s psyche. Speak to your friends and family, write a blog, call your representative and ask them to oppose the Keystone XL permit amendment to the surface transportation bill, or write a letter to the editor of a local paper. Do what you can because big oil will do everything they can to make sure that their profits go unchecked, and that the U.S. remains the only country in the developed world that does not have a comprehensive climate change strategy.

After seeing the work of peacemaking at the grassroots level in the Turbo Division and hearing stories of how healing and reconciliation had changed peoples’ lives, I had the opportunity to learn of the institutional side of peacemaking in Nairobi before I left Kenya with the help of Anna Crumley-Effinger of AFSC’s Africa program.

The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) sits on a sprawling campus opposite the US Embassy in Nairobi.  Anna and I met with three key staff who are providing coordination with the Kenyan government and among development partners to assure free, fair and peaceful presidential elections in Kenya.   For all the criticism of the United Nations that we hear from some in Congress who want to defund the UN, they would reconsider if they had the opportunity to talk with these professional staff on the ground who, with their colleagues, have the soft power skills to bolster and backstop efforts underway by the Kenyan government.

Noting that violence around the next presidential election in Kenya could have a major impact on the entire region of East Africa, UNDP explained that following the 2008 violence, they began systematically working to develop infrastructure for peace. This includes education, advocacy and technical assistance with government and non-governmental organizations (NGOs).  From efforts to reduce crowd incitement through crowd sourcing to working on the early notification system with police for possible violence related to elections, UNDP works through the Kenya Partnership for Peace.

UNDP spoke of the flow of small arms into the rural areas of Kenya is a heightened cause of concern.  They work with the Regional Centre on Small Arms and Light Weapons to monitor and educate about this growing source of potential deadly violence that is being acquired by organized criminal gangs.

The next brief stop on Monday was the AFSC Regional Office for Africa. Based in Nairobi, AFSC operates programs in the Dadaab refugee camp (which now counts as the third largest city in Kenya), Somalia, Burundi and Zimbabwe.  It was encouraging to visit with Dereje Wordofa, the director of that office, to hear his hopeful assessment that violence in Africa has lessened over the past 25 years.  The concerns of economic and educational opportunity in regions that have experienced war and depravation are a key priority for AFSC.

Oliver Kisaka Simiyu, Deputy General Secretary of the National Council of Churches of Kenya (NCCK), explained their organization’s humanitarian assistance following post-election violence in 2008 and their ongoing work in the Somali refugee camps of Dadaab and Kakuma.  A large institution that includes 26 Kenyan churches and 12 “para-churches” among its membership, NCCK can count 15 million Kenyans through its member institutions. In addition to serving their member churches through technical assistance and direct aid for community development, NCCK is pursuing efforts to address the economic hardships of people who are poor.

Oliver explained to me the criticism NCCK has experienced as a result of their opposition to the new constitution that was approved by referendum in August, 2010 by 67%.  NCCK is concerned about the inclusion of Islamic codes in the new constitution that would allow Islamic family courts to be used to settle grievances among Muslims.  While I didn’t have the opportunity to fully explore this objection due to the time constraints of having to catch my flight home, it is clear that the institutional body of NCCK doesn’t  necessarily reflect what is happening in communities.  In Turbo, an Interfaith Coalition for Peace that includes the imam from the local mosque meets regularly and plans local events, including the celebration of International Peace Day.

Nonetheless, the ethnic tensions between tribes and between religions simmers through the goading of provocateurs and is often fueled by the politicians themselves.  News reports included coverage of arrests for hate speech and the anticipated next steps in the International Criminal Court’s indictment of four leaders, including presidential candidates Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto.  Civil society in Kenya is robust and is closely monitoring their political leaders in efforts to reform the concentrations of power that have contributed to corruption.

I made a point to talk with taxi drivers and shop keepers about their sense of what is happening in the country.  (It was pretty easy to get into a conversation about politics when I told them I was from Washington DC—where President Obama lives—that brought a big smile to everyone’s faces.  They are very proud of Obama’s Kenyan lineage.)   From these brief conversations, I would say the average Kenyan wants what the average American wants—a good education for their children, a job where they earn a living and securing that comes with peace.

President Obama’s primetime announcement from Kabul, Afghanistan last night has left us all with many more questions than answers.

The President flew to Afghanistan to sign a ten-year pact with Afghan President Hamid Karzai on the one-year anniversary of the assassination of Osama bin Laden. The Strategic Partnership Agreement paves the way for the United States to stay involved in Afghanistan through 2024.

This is a truly staggering amount of time, but is it fair to call this a 23-year long war? What is the “residual force” size going to be? Who is going to foot the annual $4-5 billion bill? What will the U.S. actually do to advance peace and stability for the next decade?

This all largely depends on what comes next. President Obama said “We will shift into a support role as Afghans step forward.” Some believe the 352,000 Afghan Security Forces are woefully unprepared to “step forward,” let alone lead the security operation. It is doubtful they’ll be prepared by 2014, when the force strength is set to drop to 230,000 Afghans. That very likely means the U.S. will have a significant “advise and assist” role in Afghanistan for years beyond 2014.

That raises the question: if U.S. forces remain past 2014, what will they actually do?

This will be determined in the coming months as the U.S. negotiates a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with Afghanistan. Troop levels and operations for the next twelve years will be finalized over the next twelve months. That means we have time to influence what the next decade in Afghanistan looks like—for which I am hopeful. With much concentrated effort, we can help articulate an alternative to a U.S. military presence in Afghanistan.

The apparent lack of political and economic transition strategies is the most concerning part of the agreement. The U.S. seems endlessly focused on the military or security role in Afghanistan and has not paid enough attention to underlying political problems behind the conflict. Moreover, the Afghan economy is simply not viable without considerable foreign assistance. This is not the best way to move forward in Afghanistan. The U.S. must begin to put these strategies in place, and soon.

Put simply, war in Afghanistan will not bring peace to Afghanistan. President Obama believes staying in Afghanistan for another decade will “give Afghanistan the opportunity to stabilize.” Yet, absent an economic and political transition strategy and with a focus dominated on the military side, there can be no stabilization or a lasting peace in Afghanistan or the region. The withdrawal of U.S. troops is necessary to facilitate such a future.

The U.S. should not abandon Afghanistan, but find non-military ways to be involved and aid the coming transition. Without a meaningful political and economic transition strategy, indispensable in preventing further violence and civil war, it is hard to see a positive outcome. The war is not over and may never be if an adequate strategy isn’t put in place.

Several of us who were at the World Gathering have taken the opportunity to travel to Turbo, Kenya with David Zarembka of the African Great Lakes Peace Initiative (AGLI) to learn about and participate in civilian peacemaking trainings.   Located about 8 hours from Nairobi, Turbo, along with El Doret and Mt. Elgon saw some of the greatest conflict following the last presidential election in 2007 when over 1100 people were killed and thousands of people were displaced from their homes that were burned.

As the next presidential election approaches here in Kenya—either at the end of this year or in March, 2013, a number of organizations are ramping up their training programs to try to prevent a recurrence of deadly conflict.

For over a decade, the Alternatives to Violence program has offered a variety of workshops in Kenya, Burundi and Rwanda to help participants directly learn how they can remain non-violent in the face of conflict.   Today I spoke with Douglas, Killen and Caleb, three Kenyan men participating in the transformative conflict program, who told me that people in this region are anxious to participate in these programs that will help mitigate or resolve grievances that often have deep roots.  They recognize that the presidential election cycles here seem to be the time that people turn to violence to settle these long-standing conflicts.  Often the violence, which usually follows tribal lines, is encouraged by political parties, seeking to gain support in the presidential campaign.

These programs of reconciliation and conflict resolution can have a transformational impact on the lives of the individuals who have been victims and perpetrators of violence. I have been asking participants and trainers if they expect to see changes on a community level or even what implications the programs of reconciliation, mediation and peacemaking might have on public policy.  What is the tipping point that creates a culture of peaceful transition at the time of elections here in Kenya?  Or how does every community create the culture that assures grievances are resolved peacefully—without weapons or wanton destruction?

The effect of peacemaking is cumulative, often starting with the individual and family relations and moving out to neighbors andbeyond.   Although several people I have spoken to over the past weeksay it is difficult to imagine this Kenyan election will occur without any violence, many expect it will be mitigated in this region—because these programs have changed hearts and minds.

Moreover, the systems change that will occur with the implementation of the new Kenyan constitution is huge progress for reform.  Many people I speak with talk about the need for civic education to help people understand what is in the constitution, including the devolution of power from the presidency and gender equality as critical steps in advancing political and economic conditions in Kenya.

Kenyans in this area recognize that violence isn’t resolving problems; these programs which have been initiated by Quakers but now involve interfaith participation are vital teaching tools for transformation.

As we come upon the one-year anniversary of the killing of Osama bin Laden, the Obama Administration is poised to sign a US-Afghan Strategic Partnership Agreement that could be a prelude to Afghan civil war. Unless drastic policy changes are started immediately, reorienting US policy toward legitimate political negotiations between Afghan and regional entities, dark days lie ahead. It's time to end the US war, but the United States cannot afford to abandon Afghans.

The Obama administration has been attempting to negotiate a Strategic Partnership Agreement with Afghanistan since last year through the State Department and the Department of Defense (DoD). According to reports about the negotiations, two major sticking points were control over Afghan detainees and US-led night raid operations. The United States and Afghanistan are now poised to sign an agreement before the NATO Summit in May, where the administration plans to roll out the agreement.

Unfortunately, the current negotiations and the agreement between the United States and Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai have been predicated on the US military staying involved in Afghanistan for the next decade, and not on actually providing resolution to the broad conflicts in Afghanistan and the region. Under this agreement, the US military will largely leave Afghanistan after 2014, but some residual forces will remain to "advise and assist" the Afghan military through at least 2024.

The DoD and the Obama administration have maintained that the US war is going well, and that the United States is in the right position to begin to transition out of the lead role by the end of 2014. This directly contradicts information from the ground and from whistleblowers like Lt. Col. Daniel Davis, whose 84-page report has changed the conversation around Capitol Hill. It is clear that assessments regarding progress on the ground given by the military to Congress and the administration have been largely misleading.

The distance between rhetoric and reality is setting up the worst-case scenario.

Here is some forecasting: Congress will continue to take Pentagon rhetoric at face value and fund a plan unable to deliver peace or stability to Afghanistan, dismissing contradictory evidence, despite the knowledge that upwards of 70 percent of the American public is presently polling of in favor of withdrawal. The United States signs a strategic partnership agreement focused on fighting (first by the United States and then by Afghans) an insurgency that has consistently and historically risen to resist foreign involvement in Afghanistan. That agreement leads to a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) that backs the Afghan National Security Forces (presently at 352,000 and projected to be around 230,000 in 2014). This firmly pits the US-backed Afghan military against the Afghan-born, Pakistani-backed, Taliban-led insurgency and effectively deepens the Afghan civil war and regional proxy wars already driving much of the conflict.

Under this unfolding scenario, the United States fails to provide a process for viable political or economic transition. No legitimate regional political plan or Afghan-led reconciliation efforts are put in place. Post 2014, the United States is still making multibillion dollar investments in the Afghan government and security forces with little to show for it. Afghanistan is an increasingly violent and divided place as the civil war deepens and political will in the United States continues to fade. By 2015 or 2016, the United States bails on Afghanistan - full-scale abandonment - fulfilling the most common deeply held fear among average Afghans.

How can this scenario be avoided? Warring on for another so-called "fighting season" at the cost of thousands of lives and billions of dollars will deliver absolutely no additional political leverage, so don't do it. Instead, end combat operations now and begin a military withdrawal. There are only political solutions to the political problems of Afghanistan and the region. The United States must immediately begin robust political negotiations predicated on ending the conflict on the Afghan and regional levels (Pakistan, India, China, Iran, etcetera) - an investment in peace that will have guaranteed dividends.

The latter scenario is the only hope for staving off civil war in Afghanistan. The current war strategy will not deliver peace and stability, but rather undermine both. It is not too late to change course, but time is rapidly fading.

This article was first published by Truthout here.

The world gathering challenged Friends to pay attention to what God is calling us to. One of the questions that resonated through the worship was: “What are you doing here?” I didn’t take this to mean “What are we doing in Kenya?”

Rather, it was an existential question – “What are you doing with your life?”

What are you doing to respond to God’s call? What are you doing to be faithful in seeking the Kingdom of God?

We seek a world free of war & the threat of war.
We seek a society with equity and justice for all.
We seek a community in which every person's potential may be fulfilled.
We seek an earth restored.

Are we pursuing the Kingdom with our vision for FCNL? Is it possible to do that in Washington, DC, and as lobbyists? Being at this gathering with the clarion call to be salt and light in the world renews my conviction about our work at FCNL.

Quaker or not, Christian, Jew, Muslim, or no religion – I know that millions of people share this vision that Friends and we at FCNL have for the world-- a world that values peace, equity, justice, community, integrity, on an earth that is sustainable.

Our call is to live out this vision in our lobbying visits on Capitol Hill, in the relationship we establish with our representatives and senators in Congress, and in our work with both those who agree with us and those who disagree with us on the specific legislation that advances our vision.

The 48 Hour Prayer Vigil to bear witness to the injustice of Arizona’s anti-immigrant law began on Monday outside of the U.S. Supreme Court with a press conference. In front of the media and a group of faithful witnesses, faith leaders prophetically called on the Supreme Court Justices to rule the Arizona anti immigration law SB1070 as unconstitutional. They referenced Micah’s call to “act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God” and Matthew’s call to “welcome the stranger.”

Those present carried signs and banners declaring:

"Together, Not Torn: Families Can’t Wait for Immigration Reform"

"Standing on the Side of Love with Immigrant Families"

"Soy Testigo de Justicia (I am a Witness for Justice)"

And my personal, homemade sign:

No Human Being is Illegal

An individual appeared toward the end of the press conference and immediately scurried away when the press conference ended. He had quite a different idea of what God's love calls us to in the midst of a law like Arizona's Senate Bill 1070.

"God so loves us, He gave us Arizona SB1070" his sign read. In contrast to the Unitarian Universalists call to "Stand on the Side of Love with Immigrant Families," I couldn't help but revel in the irony of the moment.

A group of faithful Quakers gathered to commence the Prayer Vigil at Noon, where we silently protested and later stood in a circle of silent Quaker worship. Some shared their reasons for coming out to protest a law like AZ SB1070. For some it was a book they had read about the injustice of young students who don't have the opportunity to go to college because of their legal status. For others it was intensely personal: a relationship with an immigrant and the immigrant community. For one, it was the love of country and the desire for that country to take a hard look at what effects laws like AZ SB1070 has. Another simply wanted to hold the Supreme Court Justices in the Light.

I shared about my encounter with immigrants who were crossing the Arizona desert or had been deported back across the border to Mexico. I set forth a query: if people are willing to risk death in the desert and/or months in a detention center at the hands of border patrol, shouldn't we, as a country, show them a little more mercy and acceptance than making them suffer at the hands of laws like AZ SB1070?

The prayer vigil continues tomorrow and into Wednesday when the Supreme Court hearing for Arizona vs. United States will begin. Many faith groups will be present at the Supreme Court around the clock (more info here and here) and would love to have YOU join them, especially as people of faith participate in a biblically inspired Jericho March around the Supreme Court on Wednesday at 9:30am. Contact melanie@fcnl.org if you have questions or would like to participate.

April 24, 2012

Nakuru, Kenya

In meeting Quakers from around the world, I see that FCNL is unique as an organization among Friends in our lobbying government for policies that rise from our Quaker spiritual grounding. I have had conversations here at the World Gathering with Friends from several countries who are intrigued with the idea of "a Quaker lobby in the public interest." A few organizations, like Britain Yearly Meeting's Quaker Peace and Social Witness, devote attention to their country's policies that affect peacemaking in places where Quakers have long done service work. And other Friends are engaged with the Quaker United Nations Offices in New York or Geneva. Still, the on-the-ground conflict mitigation and resolution that is being led by Quakers in areas of central Africa that have experienced deadly conflict are still rising to the attention of elected officials in their respective countries. And many Kenyans are interested in how they can better influence public policy.

Group photograph of conference attendees. Can you spot the War is Not the Answer sign? (See full size version)

The work happening here in Kenya following the presidential elections in 2007 and in Burundi and Rwanda following the 1994 genocide in those countries that is devoted to healing, reconciliation and alternatives to violence has had a profound impact on the individuals who have participated in the workshops and trainings. Today, in the plenary led by Central and Southern Africans, we heard from Rwandans who had family members killed in the genocide and who are now working to keep peace and provide services to others who have been traumatized--by conflict or by HIV-AIDS. David Niyonzime, a pastor from Burundi, talked about the many forms of service being carried out by Friends, arising from their knowing that God's work of being salt and light doesn't mean simply participating in Sunday church. These services include alternatives to violence programs, trauma healing and reconciliation, and directed outreach to women.

As we lobby for the world we seek, it is enlightening to see how change is happening far from Washington to create peace in communities that have experienced violence. The violence communities in central Africa have experienced and the underlying cause of violence experienced by communities in the United States may share some similar causes and solutions even thought the context and scope may differ.Implementing remedies for the people directly affected and solutions that can be systemically applied based on better policymaking is a challenge for all Friends and others who care about peace.

April 22, 2012

Nakuru, Kenya

The Amazing Diversity of Quaker Worship

Diane with Lal Muana, who established an evangelical Quaker church in Myannmar.

Worship is central to all Quaker gatherings.  But those of us who have grown up in only one tradition of Quaker practice might be amazed to see how Friends from other countries worship.  At this World Gathering, the Friends World Committee on Consultation (FWCC), has organized worship sessions along the FWCC Sections that are regions of the globe.

All speakers are reflecting on the theme “salt and light” of brokenness and healing, using the verses from Matthew 5:13-15 “You are the salt of the earth, but if the salt has become tasteless, how can it be made salty again?  . . .   You are the light of the world. . . “

A plenary session at Kabarak University.

Today’s worship, led by the Latin Americans included Quakers from Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru, Cuba, Guatemala, and Honduras.  The worship included plenty of singing, Bible reading, prayer, a sermon and a brief time of silence, before which we were admonished not to sleep!  Conducted fully in Spanish, with translation into English, the reverse has been true for the other plenary sessions and times of worship.  They have all been in English with two teams of translators providing simultaneous translations to Spanish and Kiswahili.  (In fact, most Kenyans are fluent in both Kiswahili and English, although as one who hasn’t been around the lilting inflections of Kenyan speakers, I find I have to listen closely to the speakers.)  Documents are also being translated to French and Spanish which seems to accommodate most participants.

The worship led by the Africans is full of loud, joyful singing and dancing and always includes plenty of Bible reading, prayers and sermons.

Being Salt and Light—Living our Faith Into Action

Diane with Marge Abbott of North Pacific Yearly Meeting and Marion Ballard of Baltimore Yearly Meeting.

Every speaker has called us to recognize that we can be “salt” and “light” in a broken world, that we are called on to carry the practice of our faith outside our meetings and churches, that we are called to be a prophetic people, to radical love.

Esther Mambo of St Paul’s University in Nairobi told us that being salt and light requires us to be citizens of the world, to be involved, not sitting on the fence.  Her words spoke to our work at FCNL when she said “the challenge is to have influence in our own countries,” and challenged the Kenyans to use their influence in their own country.  And true to how we work at FCNL—by lobbying that doesn’t usually make the headlines—Esther Mambo said that the influence of salt isn’t always seen but it is tasted.

Anna Crumley Effinger (left) and others at the thread group on peace held by Dave Zarembka.

Friends here have described how they live out their call to be salt and light in the world from the alternatives to violence programs and healing and reconciliation in Kenya, Rwanda and Burundi to the alternatives to violence programs in prisons in the USA and England to the support local meetings provide for those in distress.  It has been a joy for me to share the FCNL story of how our faithfulness to God’s call to mend a broken world is carried out in our lobbying work and in our connection to Friends’ meetings and churches throughout the USA.

April 20, 2012

A Week with 1,000 Quakers

Nakuru, Kenya

The Kenyans, who are hosting this Sixth World Gathering of Friends, are marvelous hosts. Set at Kubark University on a sprawling campus with plenty of green lawns, we are enjoying an ideal climate and gracious hospitality. In the air is the smell of wood burning from the fires that fuel the large pots used for cooking ugali, rice, beans, lentils, millet porridge and hard-boiled eggs. The vast dining room which accommodates the 1,000 Quakers here usually requires waiting in line for up to 15 minutes, but everyone seems quite cheerful about it as it presents an opportunity to meet someone new and learn the stories of people gathered.

Flamingos at Lake Nakuru, where over 200 delegates traveled on Saturday.

Most of us participating are staying in dorms—four to a room in my case—two of us from the USA and two from Kenya—yet another opportunity to share our lives with one another. The showers are cold water, save in the early morning hours where two faucets provide warm water, and we each have a plastic bucket to use for washing up. Those cold showers, the vast dining room and the feeling of community-in-formation that I’m experiencing remind me of my childhood church camp days.

We enjoy the twice daily tea times where the dining room staff haul massive urns and cups to the lawns for tea or milk/water which is mixed with cocoa or tea. Sometimes there is coffee, weak by US standards. The tea times present wonderful opportunities for conversations with new Friends. Today I was in a conversation with men from three countries: Myanmar, the Phillipines and Kenya. Everywhere I go—the library, walking about campus, the plenary sessions—I see people who are happily making new friendships.

Stephen Dotson of Baltimore Yearly Meeting.

With 42 languages spoken, the feeling is a bit like a United Nations village, without the formality of diplomacy or the feeling of power politics we experience in Washington. In fact, many of these Friends have experienced great hardship, and in the case of our Friends from Central Africa, they have been traumatized by violence they have witnessed or experienced. This violence has been countered by reconciliation and peacemaking programs that bring out a spirit of love and hope despite the pain people have endured. It is this spirit of love and a desire to span our differences of language, culture and theology to see what we can do to heal a broken world that is at the center of this gathering.

Diane with FCNL General Committee clerk A.T. Miller.

A War is Not the Answer bumper sticker on a Kenyan vehicle.

In a speech yesterday at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, President Obama announced a comprehensive U.S. strategy to prevent genocide and other mass atrocities.

The establishment of the Atrocities Prevention Board is a significant milestone for FCNL’s peaceful prevention of deadly conflict work. FCNL has advocated for several years to establish a high level panel within the U.S. government to identify countries at risk of mass violence, before a crisis occurs. Certainly, the APB’s establishment is only the first step. FCNL, along with other national organizations, made several concrete recommendations to the Administration last fall after the APB was initially announced. In the coming months, we will continue to lobby for these recommendations to be implemented as this new body begins its work.

While yesterday’s speech marked an important success for me, it was also personal. My grandparents survived Nazi-occupied Netherlands, and I grew up listening to stories of the war. My grandfather was imprisoned during the occupation due to his participation in the underground movement against the Nazis. He survived, although his health was permanently damaged and led to his premature death. My grandma’s stories of the war are filled with anecdotes of biking long distances to fetch food, hearing war planes overhead, and worries about my grandfather.

Growing up in a safe town in upstate New York, these stories of violence felt distant and difficult to imagine. It wasn’t until I was in high school during the U.S. invasion of Iraq, that my own beliefs about war and violence began to develop. In the midst of ongoing news reports about the U.S’ “shock and awe” campaign, I talked to my grandma. Seeing images of Baghdad burning on television brought back awful memories of the war she experienced as a young woman. In her eyes, the violence felt the same as World War II.

Watching President Obama deliver his speech yesterday made me think about my grandparents and their experience with war. I hope that the new tools and strategies developed by the Atrocities Prevention Board will not only help prevent violence in places like Kenya, but also be applied to the U.S’ own foreign policy. As the war in Afghanistan drags on, rhetoric about Iran escalates, and the U.S. military footprint in Asia expands, it is clear that military tools continue to dominate the U.S’ foreign policy.

My grandmother reminded me in 2003 that deadly conflict creates pain and suffering, no matter who causes it. While President Obama’s speech is a step in the right direction, we still have a lot of work to do to achieve a world free of war.

A.T. Miller is the Clerk of FCNL's Executive Committee and a Professor at Cornell

April 21, 2012

Diane Randall and I are experiencing the unity and spiritual depth of the World Gathering of Friends and are truly inspired. We have had a whole series of plenary speakers who are profound Quaker leaders from around the world and most have been under the age of thirty. It is a sense of tremendous renewal, and these speakers have been eloquent in bridging programmed and unprogrammed, evangelical and liberal, and across many languages and cultures. Major points of unity are a commitment to faith in action in the world, a profound commitment to testimonies on peace and equality, and strong messages of concern for the earth and global change. FCNL is of great interest to Friends worldwide, and we find ourselves sharing frequently. We also daily hear messages that underscore the importance of our work, including a message from South Korean Friends about the extreme militarization of their country and from Aotearoa/New Zealand about our fragile earth. We are in a stunningly beautiful location among Friends of like mind experience warm and deep Kenyan hospitality. Tonight, Diane and I are presenting a table at the "Fair", and the official photo of the gathering of over 1000 friends has a "War is not the Answer" sign up front!

April 23, 2012

On Saturday evening, there was a project and organization fair, and FCNL had a table with many interested Quakers from all over the world talking with us and gathering information. Then on Sunday evening we were part of a very well-attended interest group on Peaceful Prevention of Deadly Conflict with a focus on work in Kenya towards preventing violence during the upcoming elections. The work of Cassidy Regan was much appreciated, and we built stronger ties with local and international partners in Kenya. Now today again at lunch on Monday we held a discussion group at which friends in Kenya expressed interest in starting their own institution to examine and inform Kenyan Friends about national and governmental issues. "War is Not the Answer" pins and bumper stickers are traveling the globe this week, home from the conference.

One of my colleagues came back from a recent Capitol Hill hearing on funding for nuclear weapons with an astonishing observation. As he looked around the room, he saw some 20 lobbyists representing companies that would benefit from building new nuclear weapons. The sad part, he said, that he and one other person were the only people in the room pressing for funding to be cut.

The peace movement is often outnumbered on Capitol Hill, but my colleague said that in the past the differences haven't been so stark. Here at FCNL, where we field the largest team of registered lobbyists working for peace on Capitol Hill, we're well aware of the resource imbalance. The good news is that we see a real need and possibility that Pentagon spending will be cut significantly in the next year in order to preserve funding for other priorities.

The challenge is that Pentagon contractors who benefit from military spending also see this possibility. Faced with a new law that requires military spending to be cut by $1 trillion during the next decade, Pentagon contractors and their allies are mobilizing to prevent the cuts. Although Pentagon spending has nearly doubled in the last decade, their argument is that the continued growth in Pentagon spending is essential to the nation. To get this message across, The Hill newspaper reported recently that Lockheed Martin has increased its lobbying budget from $3.2 million to $4 million this year.

The Aerospace Industries Association, the Heritage Foundation Action Coalition and other groups have also launched campaigns to persuade Congress to prevent the cuts in Pentagon spending. Borrowing a tactic from our friends at the National Priorities Project (NPP), the new Coalition for a Common Defense has established a "No More Cuts to Defense" coalition that includes each state's projected revenue reductions after Pentagon spending is cut. I encourage you to look at both websites.

Is Cutting $480 Billion Enough?

Reading the writing on the wall, the Obama administration, the Pentagon and at least some of their contractors have conceded that the projected growth in Pentagon spending over the next ten years will have to be slowed. The Obama administration and the Pentagon have told Congress they will reduce Pentagon spending over the next ten years by as much as $480 billion. That's a victory in itself.

But what has the administration and the contractors particularly worried is that under the Budget Control Act passed last year, the White House is required by law to take steps to cut an additional $500 billion in Pentagon spending over the next ten years. My colleague Ruth Flower did a detailed analysis of this process, known as sequestration, several months. The prospect of these additional sequestration cuts is ringing alarm bells in the offices of major military contractors, the Pentagon, and even the White House.

What I find astonishing is that the Pentagon, the White House and much of Congress are so focused on the "dangerous" consequences of cutting the Pentagon, while much less attention is paid to what will happen if funding for programs that literally put food on the table of poor people is cut dramatically.

At a hearing of the House Budget Committee last week, the first half of the hearing was focused primarily on Pentagon spending. It was only later in the hearing that a White House official was asked about the impact of cuts in domestic spending: a hundred thousand low income children could lose access to early childhood education, 10,000 special education teachers will lose their jobs and 16,000 teacher's aides could lose work, acknowledged the White House official. Already, according to government statistics, since January 2009 state and local governments have laid off 611,000 employees -- including 196,000 in public education.

We at FCNL believe Pentagon spending can be cut because we know War is not the answer. We also need to help others in our communities understand that if Pentagon spending is not cut by at least $1 trillion over the next ten years, then funding for other critical human needs in will be cut even more deeply.

The good news is that support is growing for a $1 trillion cut in Pentagon spending. The bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission argued that a cut of this magnitude is possible and the Sustainable Defense Task Force that FCNL has promoted offers some practical examples of how these cuts could be made. Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn has been a particular champion of cutting Pentagon spending. "Remember, you can't have a defense if you don't have a vibrant fiscal policy," he told Congressional Quarterly last week.

Funding Blocked for New Bomb Plant

Congress is also getting that message in part thanks to your lobbying and your financial support for our lobbying. Although my colleague felt outnumbered at the hearing on funding for nuclear weapons, the rest of that story is that the House Appropriations Committee decided this week not to provide any funding for the new nuclear bomb plant they were discussing. Of course, I would argue that one FCNL lobbyist backed up by tens of thousands of people around the country is much more valuable than ten or twenty industry lobbyist seeking profits for individual companies.

If you don't believe me, look at this new document that lists some of what we've been working on in the last few months. In the last year, our Executive Secretary Diane Randall has expanded our lobbying team to respond to the extraordinary possibilities we see to advance FCNL's agenda in Congress. After you read this blog, I hope you'll take a moment to send a letter to Congress on one of these issues and consider a special donation to help support this expanded work.

The following is a series of blog posts from Diane during her travels to the Heads of Agencies meeting with other Quaker organization leaders in London, and then to Kenya for the gathering of the Friends World Committee on Consultation.

Nakuru, Kenya, April 18, 2012

“We have no time but the present time to be faithful.” These closing words in the address given by Noah Baker-Merrill today at the World Gathering of Quakers in Kenya called me to the sense of both obligation and opportunity I feel about our work at FCNL. As a Quaker lobby in the public interest, our day in and day out efforts to change our country’s policies that put more faith in the military for solutions than in diplomacy or peaceful prevention of deadly conflict require our consistent engagement in Washington.

At this weeklong conference of Quakers from around the globe, we are being challenged to “heal a broken world.” For many Quakers here in Central Africa, this brokenness is seen in the problems associated with significant unemployment and despair leading to criminal activity —particularly for young people. Yet, many efforts are underway in Kenya, Burundi, Rwanda and even in the Congo—led by Quakers—to foster reconciliation among people who have been in conflict and to lead local peacemaking initiatives.

FCNL sees these efforts as important activities to promote peaceful prevention and is sharing these ideas and more with Washington policymakers as ways to thwart new violence—particularly in advance of the upcoming Kenyan presidential elections.

Addis Ababa, April 17, 2012

The contrast couldn’t be more stark: from the massive and glittering shopping displays of London’s Heathrow airport to the home-spun, sparsely filled, duty-free shops in the Addis Ababa airport. It puts the notion of “developing country” and “developed country” in dramatic juxtaposition. To those of us in the United States, the availability of material goods is never a problem. Indeed, many who hope for a more sustainable earth question conspicuous consumption as a way of life in the face of climate change and the increasing demand we make of our natural resources. On my first trip to Africa as I travel to the World Gathering of nearly 1,000 Quakers in Kenya, I anticipate many conversations about natural resources and equality and about peace and community—concerns that are central to Friends’ testimonies.

One of the “threads” of discussion will be on our broken world—looking at land use, food security, population growth and inequity that fuels deadly conflict. Another “thread” will look at healing our broken world and will examine civilian peacemaking programs at work in central Africa and other areas of violence throughout the world.

London, April 16, 2012

Over this past year, I have had the opportunity to meet hundreds of Friends who are working for the world we seek: to build community, to promote justice, to create peace, to restore the earth. This work happens through Quaker meetings, churches and schools and through hundreds of non-profits or non-governmental agencies—many very local and others national or international in scope, Quaker colleagues who head these organizations doing international service and peacemaking gathered this past weekend in London to learn about one another’s work—from Quaker Services Australia to the American Friends Service Committee, from the two locations of the Quaker United Nations Office in New York and Geneva to the European Quaker Affairs Council in Brussels to the Quaker Peace and Social Witness of British Quakers and Quaker Earthcare Witness. Throughout the world, we see the breadth of Quaker engagement—both within these organizations and far beyond. As our small meeting with directors of these Quaker organizations working on international issues concluded in London, we left with this question on our hearts: How might this group promote the radical vision of Friends at work in the world today?

Wednesday April 25th will mark the beginning of a truly historic moment in the current debacle that is the U.S. immigration debate. The Supreme Court will begin hearing oral arguments for and against Arizona's extreme anti-immigrant law Senate Bill 1070. The law, which was passed in the summer of 2010, was soon enjoined by a federal district court, essentially barring it from taking effect. If put into effect, SB1070 would have:

Following in Arizona's Footsteps

Since the passage of SB1070, many other states have introduced and passed similar legislation including Georgia, South Carolina, Utah and Indiana. Alabama's infamous HB56, which went into effect last September, was said to be even more extreme than Arizona's bill. Among other things, HB56 required teachers to check the status of their students and criminalized business transactions with undocumented persons. This caused 2,000 Hispanic students to stop showing up for school and landlords around the state to ask for IDs from their tenants before they would turn their water back on. Other state legislatures have introduced anti-immigrant legislation but not yet passed it including Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Missouri. Mississippi recently had an anti immigrant law, HB 488, that passed their House but has yet to come up in their Senate (there is still a chance that it could pass this legislative term).

Why is this particular Supreme Court decision so historic? Essentially, whatever happens to Arizona's anti-immigrant law will happen to the anti-immigrant laws in other states.

If the Supreme Court rules that Arizona is allowed to pass its own immigration law and enforce immigration on the state and local level, all of the other states that have already passed or are considering such laws will no longer have to face a lawsuit from the federal Department of Justice challenging their law. It would essentially mean a patchwork of state immigration laws in which literally "existing while undocumented" is a state crime (although it's technically only a civil matter, not a criminal one, under federal law).

On the other hand, if the Supreme Court rules that Arizona's law is unconstitutional and that it is only under the federal government's jurisdiction to enforce immigration laws, it would mean that other state anti-immigrant laws are unconstitutional as well. And it will send a message to states that have been considering similar legislation that state legislators will only be consciously wasting tax payer dollars by voting for anti-immigrant laws, knowingly stepping right into a lawsuit with the federal government for which taxpayers will foot the bill.

Take Action!

No Human Being is Illegal!

There is a prayer vigil and protest going on in order to create awareness and encourage media coverage of this historic event. It will start Monday morning April 23 and continue until mid-day Wednesday April 25 right outside of the U.S. Supreme Court building on First Ave in DC. We need Quakers to participate! The official Quaker prayer vigil will be Monday April 23 from 12Noon until 2pm...the more people we have participating the stronger our statement for immigrant justice! To confirm that you will be in front of the Supreme Court at that time and for more information, please contact Melanie Fox at melanie@fcnl.org and/or RSVP on Facebook for the event by clicking here! (There is also an online vigil for those outside of the DC area.)

Comprehensive Immigration Reform

FCNL, along with our colleagues in the faith community and immigrant rights activists across the nation, will be holding our breath for the Supreme Court decision. Until then, we continue on in la lucha (the struggle), as our Latino friends would say, to advocate for immigration reform at the federal level.

More resources:

Huffington Post: With SB 1070 on Deck, Supreme Court Decision Will Be a Game-Changer

National Immigration Law Center: The Upcoming Supreme Court Hearing on SB 1070 - WHAT'S AT PLAY

Immigration Impact: Supreme Court Flooded with Briefs Opposing Arizona SB 1070

Legal Action Center, American Immigration Council: Arizona SB 1070, Legal Challenges and Economic Realities

Immigration Policy Center, American Immigration Council: A Q&A Guide to State Immigration Laws: What You Need to Know if Your State Is Considering Anti-Immigrant Legislation

Center for American Progress: The 10 Numbers You Need to Know About Alabama's Anti-Immigrant Law

National Council of La Raza: NCLR report shows states that pass anti-immigrant laws pay a high cost