Dear Senator,

We write as the Prevention and Protection Working Group, a coalition of human rights, religious, humanitarian, anti-genocide, peace and other organizations dedicated to improving U.S. government policies and civilian capacities to prevent violent conflict, mass atrocities and protect civilians threatened by such crises. On May 9, the House State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee marked up the FY13 State and Foreign Operations Appropriations bill. We write to express deep concern over several provisions that, if enacted, would significantly hamper the United States' ability to prevent violent conflict, mass atrocities and protect civilians around the world. Specifically, we urge you to reject the House subcommittee's deep cuts and fully fund the Administration's FY13 request for the following accounts:

We also urge that funding for conflict prevention and civilian protection not come at the expense of other effective humanitarian and development funding, which works together to serve the common goal of building a safer and more prosperous world. Recent crises in Syria and Libya remind us that mass violence continues to threaten civilians in addition to regional and state stability. It is for these reasons that civilian agencies and international partners must be well-equipped to respond flexibly and decisively to mitigate escalating crises before atrocities occur. Because these difficult economic times require prudent spending, we urge careful investment in the aforementioned accounts that will undoubtedly save lives and prevent the United States from incurring costly military and reconstruction expenditures.

Sincerely,

3P Human Security
Alliance for Peacebuilding
American Jewish World Service
Amnesty International USA
Auschwitz Institute for Peace and Reconciliation
Better World Campaign
Church World Service
Citizens for Global Solutions
Conference of Major Superiors of Men
Enough Project
Foreign Policy in Focus
Franciscan Action Network
Friends Committee on National Legislation
Georgia Coalition to Prevent Genocide
Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
Humanity United
Jewish World Watch
Joan B. Kroc Institute for Peace & Justice, University of San Diego
Kurdish Human Rights Watch
Oxfam America
Rainbow/PUSH Coalition
Refugees International
Resolve
San Francisco Bay Area Darfur Coalition
STAND
United Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries
United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society
United to End Genocide

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.

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.

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.

For most, the month of April conjures images and thoughts of springtime flowers, Easter celebrations, and preparations for summer. Over the past century, however, the world has witnessed a series of genocides and other mass atrocities that all began in April. In April 1933, the Nazis took power in Germany which ultimately led to the deaths of six million Jews throughout Europe. In April 1975, the Khmer Rouge entered Pnomh Penh, marking the beginning of the Cambodian genocide which left two million dead in three and a half years. In April 1992, the four year siege of Sarajevo began that eventually claimed 10,000 lives. In April 1994, an airplane carrying Rwandan President Juevnal Habyarimana was shot down triggering a genocide that left over 800,000 dead in 100 days. Violence erupted in Darfur in 2003, displacing millions and killing at last 200,000.

The Holocaust, Cambodia, Bosnia, Rwanda, and Darfur all share tragic anniversaries during this month. It’s for this reason that activists have dedicated the month of April to genocide prevention. Even though the United States and international community have had access to intelligence on each escalating crisis over the past century, they failed to prevent these atrocities. More recently, warning signs of impending violence in places like Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, and Cote d’Ivoire went largely unheeded until violence already was underway. And now the world is watching ongoing violence in Syria that only seems to worsen by the day.

As painful as it is to examine the cruel events of Aprils past, it’s important to note that the U.S government is making important steps toward preventing future genocides and atrocities. Individuals at the highest levels of the Obama Administration carry a personal commitment forged through direct experiences, particularly with the genocide in Rwanda, to improve U.S. policy and government systems. Important initial steps have now been taken, including creation of a bureau in the State Department devoted to the prevention of deadly conflict and a Presidential Study Directive that establishes an interagency Atrocities Prevention Board.

As Congress remains focused on slashing the State Department's budget, however, funding for this new Conflict Stabilization Operations bureau is vulnerable. You can take action by urging your Member of Congress to fully fund this new bureau.

Further, the Obama Administration has yet to officially form this new Atrocities Prevention Board and explain how it will operate. In the face of ongoing atrocities in Syria and South Sudan, however, the need for this interagency structure is even more urgent to prevent future violence against civilians.

Despite the good intentions of the Obama Administration, significant gaps and challenges remain. Greater pressure from Congress and the U.S. public is needed to ensure that these new structures remain beyond any one Administration and receive adequate funding.

In the years to come, I hope that the month of April will not only commemorate lives that have been lost, but also recognize the progress that governments and citizens have made to stop the killing before it starts.

For over a year now, the Syrian government has violently repressed its citizens. In what started out as a largely peaceful movement in March 2011, has resulted in nearly 9,000 deaths and protracted armed violence.

As the violence continues and concerns rise about Syria slipping towards all out civil war, many have started advocating for the U.S. to consider intervening militarily in Syria. Foreign armed intervention could escalate the humanitarian crisis and even spark broader regional conflict. Beneath the horrific violence in Syria lie long-standing roots of conflict, including authoritarian government, sectarian divisions, inequitable power and wealth distribution, increasing pressures on natural resources, and a brutal legacy of colonial rule and foreign intervention.

Even though an array of Middle East experts and the International Crisis Group have warned against military action, Senator John McCain (AZ) released a draft resolution last week that calls for arming the opposition. The resolution also specifically mentions, S. Con. Res. 71, a mass atrocities prevention resolution passed by the Senate in 2010, and PSD-10, which establishes an interagency Atrocities Prevention Board. FCNL strongly supported both of these policy developments, as important steps toward strengthening U.S. non-military tools to prevent genocide and other mass atrocities before they start. We encourage the Atrocities Prevention Board, once it is formally stood up, to focus on countries at risk of mass atrocities rather than countries currently experiencing such violence.

As Bridget Moix wrote a few weeks ago, “For its part, the US should be throwing all its diplomatic weight and resources behind Kofi Annan and the UN's attempt to broker a way out of the crisis…If those efforts fail, the US should work with the international community to try and try again.”

FCNL released a statement this week that outlines several recommendations advocating for a peaceful resolution to the crisis. We understand that these recommendations will take time and intense international effort to be successful. These recommendations offer the best chance for stopping the violence, limiting the loss of life, and restoring Syria’s path toward peace, stability, and reconciliation.

Tracking the violence and reading graphic reports about the reality on the ground makes my stomach lurch. I know, however, that war is the ultimate human rights violation and that military intervention would only worsen an already desperate situation. Simple policy prescriptions, such as arming the opposition, won’t resolve the long standing grievances many Syrians hold against the Assad regime. As Eleanor Roosevelt said, “It isn't enough to talk about peace. One must believe in it. And it isn't enough to believe in it. One must work at it.” Indeed, there are no quick fixes for Syria.

Landmines have been banned by the majority of the world because, like cluster munitions, they disproportionately and invariably cause devastating harm to innocent civilians.

While the world marks International Landmine Awareness Day today, Syria has started using these devastating weapons along its borders with Turkey and Lebanon.

On March 14, US Ambassador Susan Rice and the State Department both described reports of Syria's use of landmines as "horrific." The Director of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) stated that they "are outraged to see Syria using antipersonnel mines against its own people, adding to the already dire humanitarian crisis Syrian civilians are facing." The ICBL has called on U.N.-Arab League envoy Kofi Annan, who spoke out fervently against landmines during his time as U.N. Secretary General, to condemn this atrocity during a recent visit to the region.

Even though the United States largely complies with the Mine Ban Treaty's provisions, it is one of the 37 countries that have yet to join. Take action and write a letter to urge President Obama to join the Mine Ban Treaty.

Resources and Recommended reading:

To: The Honorable Barack Obama
President of the United States of America
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

We were pleased when your administration announced in November 2009 that it was conducting a review of U.S. policy on landmines. We have appreciated the thoroughness with which the review has apparently been conducted, although we have been dismayed at the lengthy period of time involved. It is our understanding that the inter-agency deliberations have now concluded and the decision-making point has been reached.

We write now to encourage you strongly to make a decision on future U.S. landmine policy as soon as possible, and to announce that the United States will accede to the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty. This is a crucial humanitarian decision that should not be put off any longer, or postponed during a busy election year. We urge you to submit the treaty to the Senate this year for its advice and consent next year.

Since the policy review began, the administration has received letters of support for the Mine Ban Treaty from 68 Senators, 16 Nobel Peace Prize Laureates, key NATO allies, retired senior military personnel, dozens of NGO leaders, victims of U.S. landmines, and countless concerned Americans. In total, 159 countries are party to the treaty, which comprehensively bans antipersonnel mines. Every other member of NATO supports the treaty, as does every member of the European Union, and other key allies such as Afghanistan and Iraq.

A decision to join the Mine Ban Treaty would vividly demonstrate your commitment to multilateralism, to global humanitarian endeavors, and to the protection of civilians from the ravages of war. It is a decision that would be lauded by the vast majority of the U.S. public and U.S. allies around the world.

Such a decision would also be consistent with the U.S.’s generous support for mine clearance programs around the world—a generosity that for years has been undercut by the U.S.’s insistence that it may use landmines.

In fact, the U.S. has not used antipersonnel landmines since 1991, has not exported them since 1992 and has not produced them since 1997. Surely if the U.S. military has been able to defend the country for the last 21 years without using antipersonnel landmines, it can do so in the future as well.

It is little known that the U.S. has already banned the use of all “persistent” or “dumb” mines (the typical type planted in the ground), as of last year, even in Korea. It is now time to ban “non-persistent” or “smart” antipersonnel mines as well. Nearly all U.S. allies have already banned these mines as indiscriminate weapons, and thus the U.S. would not be able to use them in coalition operations.

U.S. participation is also important to the universalization of the treaty. Even though landmine use has been significantly reduced worldwide, a few countries refuse to join—and even continue to use landmines—under the cover that they will not join if the U.S. has not joined. Past and ongoing deployment of these weapons by state armies and non-state groups continues to undermine stability and development, exacerbate human suffering, and burden many of the world’s weak and failing states.

The last steps to acceding to the treaty are now achievable, and vitally important to United States efforts to protect civilians during and after armed conflict, strengthen international norms, isolate irresponsible regimes, and fulfill promises to the international community. We add our voice to the myriad American citizens, landmine survivors, international allies, and campaigners from every corner of the globe in calling on your administration to finally join the Mine Ban Treaty now.

Sincerely,

Aniedi Okure, O.P., Ph.D.,
Executive Director Africa Faith and Justice Network

Warren David,
President American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC)

Nabil Mohamad,
Vice President American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC)

Shan Cretin,
General Secretary American Friends Service Committee

Timi Gerson,
Director of Advocacy American Jewish World Service

Daniel Wordworth,
President and CEO American Refugee Committee

George Cody, Ph.D.,
Executive Director American Task Force for Lebanon

Ziad Asali, M.D.,
President American Task Force on Palestine

Suzanne Nossel,
Executive Director Amnesty International USA

Dr. James Zogby, Ph.D.,
President and Founder Arab American Institute

Hassan Jaber,
Executive Director Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services (ACCESS)

Daryl G. Kimball,
Executive Director Arms Control Association

Helene D. Gayle, M.D., MPH,
President and CEO CARE USA

Dr. Carolyn Y. Woo,
President and CEO Catholic Relief Services

Vincent Warren,
Executive Director Center for Constitutional Rights

Rabbi Jonathan Stein,
President and Rabbi Steven A. Fox, Chief Executive Central Conference of American Rabbis

Stanley J. Noffsinger,
General Secretary Church of the Brethren

Margurite Carter,
President Church Women United

Rev. John L. McCullough,
President and CEO Church World Service

Warren Clark,
Executive Director Churches for Middle East Peace

Don Kraus,
Chief Executive Officer Citizens for Global Solutions

Sarah Holewinski,
Executive Director CIVIC - Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict

Amy Echeverria,
Director Columban Center for Advocacy and Outreach

Stephen M. Veavey,
President Community of Christ

T. Michael McNulty, S.J.,
Justice and Peace Director Conference of Major Superiors of Men (CMSM)

John Isaacs,
Executive Director Council for a Livable World & Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

Rev. Mark S. Hanson,
Presiding Bishop Evangelical Lutheran Church in America



Ronald J. Sider,
President Evangelicals for Social Action

Diane Randall,
Executive Secretary Friends Committee on National Legislation

Elizabeth MacNairn,
Executive Director Handicap International U.S.

Elisa Massimino,
President and CEO Human Rights First

Kenneth Roth,
Executive Director Human Rights Watch

Bruce E. Spivey, M.D., M.S., M.Ed.,
President International Council of Ophthalmology

Mark Pitkin, Ph.D.,
Director International Institute for Prosthetic Rehabilitation of Landmine Survivors, Tufts University School of Medicine

Dr. Sayyid M. Syeed,
National Director, Office for Interfaith & Community Alliances Islamic Society of North America

Rev. Michael Evans, S.J.,
National Director Jesuit Refugee Service/USA

Robert Naiman,
Policy Director Just Foreign Policy

Dr. Pary Karadaghi,
President and CEO Kurdish Human Rights Watch, Inc. (KHRW)

Alison Bock,
President Landmines Blow!

Channapha Khamvongsa,
Executive Director Legacies of War

Sally Dunne,
NGO UN Representative Loretto Community

Kathleen McNeely,
Director Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns

J Ron Byler,
Executive Director Mennonite Central Committee U.S.

Ervin R. Stutzman,
Executive Director Mennonite Church USA

Andrea Koppel,
Vice President for Policy and Global Engagement Mercy Corps

Oskar Castro,
Executive Director Military Families Speak Out

Nancy K. Kaufman,
CEO National Council of Jewish Women (NCJW)

Sister Simone Campbell,
SSS, Executive Director NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby

Hiro Sakurai,
President NGO Committee on Disarmament, Peace & Security

David Krieger,
President Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Morton H. Halperin,
Senior Advisor Open Society Policy Center

Richard M. Walden,
President and CEO Operation USA

Dr. Kevin W. Prine,
President and CEO Outreach International

Raymond C. Offenheiser,
President Oxfam America

Ophelia Dahl,
CEO Partners In Health

Sr. Patricia Chappell,
SNDdeN, Executive Director Pax Christi USA

Steven M. Rothstein,
President Perkins School for the Blind



Donna McKay,
Executive Director Physicians for Human Rights

Catherine Thomasson,
MD, Executive Director Physicians for Social Responsibility

Rev. Gradye Parsons,
Stated Clerk of the General Assembly Presbyterian Church (USA)

Nora D. Sheets,
Coordinator PSALM: Proud Students Against Landmines & Cluster Bombs

Michel Gabaudan,
President Refugees International

John Maris,
SVP, Programs Relief International

Dr. William F. Vendley,
Secretary General Religions for Peace

Heidi Kuhn,
Founder/CEO Roots of Peace

Sr. Lucy Meissen,
CPPS, General Councilor Sisters of the Most Precious Blood of O’Fallon, MO

Sr. Maura Browne,
SNDdeN, Justice and Peace Coordinator Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur

Nicole Lee, Esq.,
President TransAfrica Forum, Inc.

William M. Abrams,
President Trickle Up

Caryl M. Stern,
President/CEO U.S. Fund for UNICEF

The Honorable Timothy E. Wirth,
President UN Foundation

Rev. Peter Morales,
President Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations

Rev. Michael Neuroth,
Policy Advocate on International Issues United Church of Christ - Justice and Witness Ministries

James E. Winkler,
General Secretary, General Board of Church and Society The United Methodist Church

Bishop Richard E. Pates,
Chairman, Committee on International Justice and Peace United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

Joy Olson,
Executive Director Washington Office on Latin America

Susan Shaer,
Executive Director Women’s Action for New Directions

cc: Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State
Leon E. Panetta, Secretary of Defense
Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, Joint Chiefs of Staff
Susan E. Rice, Ambassador to the United Nations

April 4 is International Mine Awareness Day. The US Campaign to Ban Landmines is joining with others around the world to raise awareness and press the US to finally join the Mine Ban Treaty. Thirteen years after the treaty was first adopted the US has yet to join and innocent civilians continue to be killed and maimed by these indiscriminate weapons.

On April 4, people around the world will be raising awareness of the need to rid the world of landmines with a simple act - rolling up one pant leg in solidarity with all those who have suffered from landmines. Click here to see how you can Lend Your Leg on April 4.

The US Campaign to Ban Landmines is also marking the occasion by pressing President Obama to release the long overdue US andmine policy review and to finally join the treaty. Click here to write a letter to the White House to join the Mine Ban Treaty.

U.S. Military Intervention in Syria is Not the Answer

"We believe the means that are used to seek change in society either create or obstruct the desirable ends." -FCNL Statement 03/18/2011

The Friends Committee on National Legislation is gravely concerned by the Syrian regime's violence against civilians and crimes against humanity, in addition to the potential for a protracted civil war. We strongly oppose proposals that would further militarize the conflict, including direct armed intervention and Senator John McCain's (AZ) resolution, which calls for the U.S. to provide arms to opposition forces.

We are convinced that U.S. military intervention in Syria will only exacerbate the conflict and lead to even larger-scale bloodshed. Given Syria's strategic location in the Middle East, foreign military intervention could spark broader regional violence and proxy wars, as warned by the International Crisis Group and other Middle East experts. Beneath the horrific violence in Syria lie long-standing roots of conflict, including authoritarian government, sectarian divisions, inequitable power and wealth distribution, increasing pressures on natural resources, and a brutal legacy of colonial rule and foreign intervention.

War is the ultimate human rights violation, and U.S. military intervention would only increase the violence. It would undermine the possibility of finding a diplomatic solution to the crisis, halting the violence, providing accountability for the crimes against humanity, and encouraging Syrian self-determination.

The Syrian uprising was initiated through powerful demonstrations of nonviolence. The grassroots opposition network the Syrian Local Coordination Committees (LCC) has warned against military intervention, noting that "the method by which the regime is overthrown is an indication of what Syria will be like post-regime […] If an armed confrontation or international military intervention becomes a reality, it will be virtually impossible to establish a legitimate foundation for a proud future Syria."

Specifically, the U.S. can promote the protection of civilians and a resolution of the crisis by vigorously and persistently supporting:

Intense international engagement will be critical in order for such a diplomatic and humanitarian approach to be successful. FCNL believes that these recommendations offer the best chance to stop the violence, limit the loss of life, and restore Syria's path toward peace, stability, and reconciliation.

Recommended Reading:

A quick look at this year’s budget requests reveals some alarming trends when it comes to U.S. policy toward Kenya. Rather than emphasizing peace and conflict prevention, this year’s funding focuses much more on counterterrorism and military assistance – an approach that could undermine stability in the long-term.

While the majority of U.S. assistance to Kenya focuses on important civilian programs that could help lay the foundation for peace – such those related to health and education – very few funds are specifically dedicated to the account titled “peace and security,” whose programs may more immediately address potential violence. And within that tiny allocation, the funds directed toward conflict prevention and reconciliation (rather than counterterrorism and military initiatives) are, as of now, next to nothing.

In this year’s budget – including what I initially found in the State Department, USAID, and the Department of Defense’s requests – funding for Kenya appears in a number of different security accounts:

TOTAL: $8.496 million (not including other accounts mentioned below)

Aside from the funds that have already been assigned to specific countries, Kenya and East Africa are also noted as major beneficiaries of some broader counterterrorism programs (which haven’t been divided yet):

*Though it’s difficult to find a country-by-country breakdown for the Pentagon’s budget, it’s likely that additional funds will come from the Defense Department’s foreign assistance allocations (as they have in past years).

Meanwhile, a quick comparison to what I found focused specifically on peace and violence prevention reveals cause for concern:

TOTAL: Unknown (no dollar requests for Kenya noted, as of now)

While the country-specific appropriations haven’t been determined for these peacebuilding accounts as of yet, the number of mentions in these programs as compared to those focused on counterterrorism and military assistance is disheartening. Though some of the counterterrorism initiatives mentioned here include a focus on providing alternatives to violence or on strengthening civil society’s preventive efforts, most emphasize finding and thwarting extremists – and, more specifically, training and providing materials to foreign military and law enforcement to do so.

One silver lining is the significant increase in funds dedicated to just governance, which makes for a total of $14.4 million and indicates a commitment to supporting reform. Unfortunately, though, the U.S. has a long history of allowing short-term emphasis on “catching the bad guys” to obscure that long-term goal most effective in countering extremism: a peaceful, just society. As long as the U.S. places abundant focus on capturing terrorists, it risks losing sight of – and allowing its assistance and support to perpetuate – the larger systems from which extremism can arise.

According to some of those I’ve spoken with in Nairobi and the Rift Valley, examples of this have already arisen in the Kenyan context. Despite widespread human rights abuses by Kenya’s police forces and government resistance to related reform, the U.S. continues to invest much of its counterterrorism assistance in law enforcement – without holding Kenya’s leaders accountable for past violations. And despite many concerns about how Kenya’s military intervention in Somalia might further radicalize the region (and distract from other important political issues, such as corruption and land inequity), the U.S. recently expressed support for the action and commitment to providing additional bilateral assistance to Kenya’s military.

Over the upcoming year, the U.S. – a key economic and political partner – can play an important role in pressing the Kenyan government to respond to the needs of its citizens and to support their efforts toward peace. But if this budget provides any indication of what the U.S. intends to prioritize, the risk is high that military means will take precedence over peace.

This week marked one year since the start of the violent crackdown against what began as a nonviolent uprising in Syria. Since that time, thousands of people have been killed and the country now appears to be slipping toward full civil war. The Syrian government continues a campaign of violent repression, including the recent attack on Homs that killed hundreds of civilians. Many opposition groups are now actively taking up arms against the regime, convinced that ending the Assad regime through force is the only option left. President Bashar al-Assad himself has demonstrated strong resistance to international diplomatic and even humanitarian efforts to address the escalating crisis.

Here in Washington, talk of military intervention in Syria is also escalating quickly. Despite warnings by many experts, including military officials, that foreign armed intervention in Syria could spark broader regional conflict and increase the humanitarian suffering, some members of Congress, administration officials, and human rights advocates are urging "something" be done. Once again, in the midst of violence, our toolbox seems tragically sparse.

I'm shocked, though, at the calls for military intervention. While I know far too little about Syria to propose a comprehensive way forward, what I have learned through the crisis illustrates what a disaster military intervention would be. Syria sits right in the middle of a volatile mix of Middle East politics. Foreign military intervention would undoubtedly lead to broader regional conflict and potential proxy wars. Meanwhile, "the opposition" in Syria that the US and others suggest should be backed to overthrow the Assad regime is its own diverse mix of interests and actors that few outside Syria truly understand. Consider also the humanitarian impact of military intervention, including unrealistic proposals for "humanitarian corridors" or "safe havens". Syria is a highly populous country and the conflict is not concentrated in particular regions but erupts and then dissipates erratically from one place to another as the much weaker armed opposition tries to outfox the Syrian regime. Bombing strikes would undoubtedly wreak devastation on civilian centers, and trying to carve out some kind of humanitarian corridors would likely make civilians more of a target. Finally, the comparison to Libya as proof that a military intervention could work in Syria is incredibly short-sighted and rose-colored. Hundreds of armed militias now exist in Libya, the east of the country is trying to break off, and conflict will continue to devastate lives there for years to come. In fact, the inability to reach a diplomatic consensus on Syria at the UN is partly a result of the Libyan intervention - sold to the international community as protection of civilians and revealed in the end as regime change.

Looking at the costs of a military intervention, it seems nearly impossible to justify on humanitarian, strategic, or any other grounds. International Crisis Group recently agreed and proposed a possible diplomatic strategy to try to end the violence and broker a transition. The Global Center on the Responsibility to Protect has also urged increased international pressure - without military intervention. While these proposals - from leveraging Russia to ICC indictments - are painfully slow and difficult, the costs they carry for the people of Syria, the region, and long-term peace and stability are significantly lower than military intervention and their potential for even short-term success may be higher as well.

For its part, the US should be throwing all its diplomatic weight and resources behind Kofi Annan and the UN's attempt to broker a way out of the crisis, providing generous humanitarian assistance to refugees in neighboring countries and to those few humanitarian organizations still able to operate in Syria, and pressing full court for an arms embargo that would at least help limit the killing power. If those efforts fail, the US should work with the international community to try and try again. The Senate rightly resisted a resolution that would have opened the way to direct arming of the opposition, and instead rightly condemned the violence and pressed for international political and legal measures.  Congress should continue to resist the increasing calls for military intervention.

Though these steps may not satisfy the urgent cry to "do something" in the face of violence, non-military alternatives must be found to halt the violence, provide humanitarian assistance, and chart a political transition to a new Syria. The alternative of military intervention is doomed to fail and ultimately cost more lives and human tragedy.

Finally, the real lessons of Libya and Syria must not be lost on US policymakers. Violent conflict and atrocities against civilians, once underway, are incredibly difficult to stop. Cycles of violence must be interrupted before the guns are firing; prevention is always better than cure.

Policy change isn't always easy to see. It is often slow, incremental, measured over years and sometimes in what feel like the tiniest of baby steps. But, over time you can see it.

This morning the Senate Foreign Relations Committee considered the nomination of a new Assistant-Secretary position in the State Department, that will head a new bureau in the US foreign policy architecture. The Conflict Stabilization Operations bureau (CSO) is the new incarnation of what had been the State Department's Office for the Coordinator of Reconstruction and Stabilization (S/CRS), set up in 2005 and authorized by Congress in 2008 to coordinate US government post-conflict and prevention activities. FCNL lobbied hard for Congress to authorize that office, not because we wanted to support more US post-conflict interventions in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, but because we believed that it was a window of opportunity to advance a new agenda for peaceful prevention of deadly conflict within US foreign policy.

Watching the confirmation hearing for Ambassador Rick Barton, who, if ultimately confirmed, will be the new Assistant-Secretary for the new CSO bureau, I could see the policy change we'd worked for happening. It wasn't sexy or made for headlines - a brief, non-eventful hearing attended by only a few members of Congress, with just a few questions - but it marked an instutionalization of the concept of our peaceful prevention of deadly conflict work. And in that, it was remarkable, as was the statement by the nominee, which explained of the new CSO bureau:

"Its mission is to prevent countries' descent into crisis and speed their emergence from conflict, thereby contributing to a more peaceful, just world. If we succeed, our investments will save the lives of both local civilians and Americans. Our work will also save money by avoiding expensive military interventions, and help produce resilient societies that contribute to the global economy."

This new bureau still has a lot of challenges ahead of it, and it is only one small part of a large and complex policy-making system. But, it is an important change happening toward our vision of a different world, right before our eyes.

To: Members of the House and Senate State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee

Dear Member of Congress,

As participants of the Prevention and Protection Working Group*, we urge appropriators to fully fund the President's FY 2013 budget requests for conflict prevention and civilian protection accounts. These funds invest in state and regional security, a proven strategy to prevent violent conflicts, and ultimately save the millions of dollars that would likely be spent on conflict response and humanitarian assistance. We agree with Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey, and bipartisan leaders in Congress who recognize the importance of strengthening civilian capacity in order to meet today's complex security and humanitarian challenges.

The President's FY 2013 international affairs budget includes a number of modest but important investments that will preserve scarce resources by improving the U.S. government's ability to prevent and mitigate conflict. We were also encouraged that the Administration reduced the amount of international affairs funding included in the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) account, which funds war-related programs. We've advocated for this shift, fearing that as OCO funding drops over the coming years, it will be harder for OCO programs to be absorbed in the base funding. The initiatives outlined below represent relatively small investments that could save billions of dollars and thousands of lives by preventing crises from turning violent, stemming mass atrocities, and avoiding costly interventions.

Specifically, we urge you to fully fund the President's FY2013 request for the following accounts:

We also urge that funding for conflict prevention and civilian protection not come at the expense of other effective humanitarian and development funding, which works together to serve the common goal of building a safer and more prosperous world. Civilian agencies and international partners must be well-equipped to respond flexibly and decisively to mitigate escalating crises before atrocities occur. The President's budget provides funds to a wide variety of strategies that prevent conflict and protect civilians, which will be further enhanced as the President implements Presidential Study Directive 10 and the related Atrocities Prevention Board.. In addition, they have proven to be wise investments that prevent the United States from costly military and reconstruction expenditures. We urge you to exercise your foresight and leadership, and fully fund these accounts in the interest of U.S. leadership and responsibility to address global security and humanitarian crises.

Thank you for your support.

Sincerely,

3P Human Security
Africa Faith and Justice Network
Alliance for Peacebuilding
American Jewish World Service
American Public Health Association
Auschwitz Institute for Peace and Reconciliation
Better World Campaign
Church of the Brethren
Citizens for Global Solutions
Columban Center for Advocacy and Outreach
Conference of Major Superiors of Men
The Enough Project
Franciscan Action Network
Friends Committee on National Legislation
Fund for Peace
Human Rights First
Humanity United
Jewish World Watch
Joan B. Kroc Institute for Peace and Justice, University of San Diego
National Council of Churches of Christ, USA
Oxfam America
Peace Alliance
Refugees International
Resolve
Sisters of Mercy of the Americas - Institute Justice Team
Student Peace Alliance
Union for Reform Judaism
United to End Genocide

Thirteen years ago, as an intern with FCNL, I traveled with Joe Volk to Ottawa to attend the signing ceremony of the Mine Ban Treaty. Lobbying the US to join the treaty and ban landmines was a big issue on FCNL's agenda, and though President Clinton refused to sign the treaty, being present as dozens of other nations did was a remarkable, hopeful moment.

Today marks the 13th anniversary of the Mine Ban Treaty and that historic agreement to ban the production, stockpiling, and use of landmines. Over 150 countries have joined the treaty, and millions of mines have been cleared and destroyed. Unfortunately, landmines continue to maim and kill innocent civilians each year, and the US remains outside the treaty.

Today, the US Campaign to Ban Landmines (USCBL), in which FCNL continues to participate, again pressed the US to join the Mine Ban Treaty, calling on President Obama to complete a landmine policy review that has been underway for far too long and to sign the treaty. Years of advocacy and growing awareness of the human costs of landmines have garnered broad support for banning these indiscriminate weapons.

As the USCBL notes in its press release today: The Obama administration initiated a comprehensive interagency review of its landmine policy in late 2009. Over the past two years, Obama and his administration have received letters of support for the Mine Ban Treaty from 68 Senators, nearly 100 leaders of prominent U.S. nongovernmental organizations, key NATO allies, retired senior military officers, 16 Nobel Peace Prize recipients, landmine survivors and countless citizens from around the world.

Thirteen years and three administrations have passed since the Mine Ban Treaty was first signed. The US is now one of only 37 countries that are not part of the treaty. Before another year goes by, President Obama should bring the US into line with the broad international consensus that now exists on landmines and join the Mine Ban Treaty.

Write your senators today to press President Obama to ban landmines. To join others around the world in standing up to ban landmines, be part of the Lend Your Leg campaign on April 4!

This week, both were talking about the importance of preventing violent conflict in Kenya.

On Monday afternoon, staff from both Senate and House offices joined FCNL for a briefing on what steps the U.S. can take to help support Kenyan efforts toward peace. During the briefing, staff learned about the peacebuilding work Friends in Kenya have undertaken since 2007-2008, as well as the concerns many have in anticipation of the next election. All who attended expressed interest in the positive role Congress can play in encouraging a U.S. policy supportive of peace, and we’re looking forward to continuing the conversation over the upcoming year.

The next day, FCNL constituents from across the country also joined a conference call on how Friends in the U.S. are working to help prevent violent conflict. After an update focused on our collaboration with other Quaker organizations and our hopes for U.S. policy in the upcoming year, the group had a discussion that ranged from mention of a trip that Earlham College alumni took to Kenya fifteen years ago to concerns around U.S. military assistance to Nairobi (which we’ve recently heard is as high as $300 million per year).

With the recent International Criminal Court decisions and military intervention in Somalia considered, dynamics around Kenya’s next national elections grow increasingly complex. Human Rights Watch recently investigated how little accountability has been pursued for past perpetrators of violence, while the International Crisis Group has raised concerns about the negative impact the Somalia intervention may have on Kenya’s communities – not to mention the resources it may drain from other important programs and political concerns, or the ways in which it has exacerbated East Africa’s humanitarian crisis.

Over the coming year, the U.S. has the potential to demonstrate true commitment to all the progress Kenyans – including Kenyan Friends – have made toward peace and empowerment in their communities. Many agencies within the U.S. government are working hard to do so. But with military assistance that reaches as much as $300 million per year – a number far larger than that contributed to violence prevention and reconciliation – the commitment could instead seem one in favor of violent solutions. Even if the U.S. government does not rhetorically support interventions such as that undertaken in Somalia (or wage war itself), its arms sale agreements inevitably do – and Kenya has topped the charts for East and Central Africa over the past few years.

Following the conference call on Tuesday evening, an FCNL constituent, Deborah Fink, wrote to her senator to express her concern:

This year Kenyans are facing another election, complicated by the Kenyan attack on rebels in Somalia and the infusion of considerable military assistance from the U.S. At the same time, the State Department is working hard to defuse possible electoral violence in Kenya.

Iowa Quakers support the considerable efforts toward nonviolence of Kenyan Quakers…they are holding Alternatives to Violence workshops and reconciling victims and perpetrators of violence…As an Iowa Quaker following and supporting this work, I am chagrined that some U.S. military assistance to Kenya is undermining the goals of the State Department and American and Kenyan Quakers."

In the true spirit of connecting the conversations that both congressional staff and FCNL constituents had this week, Deb concluded her letter in asking her senator to take action:

I ask for your help in monitoring U.S. assistance to Kenya. The path to security in Kenya is through the people’s commitment to democracy and peace. They are working hard in this direction. May we support, rather than undermine, their efforts?

As Kenya’s next national elections approach, FCNL constituents can continue to call on our government to do just that.

In 2007, the crisis in the Democratic Republic of Congo received a lot of media attention. Prominent actors and U.S. officials traveled to the DRC and were shocked by the appalling situations in the hospitals and the testimonies of the rape victims. Their shock and concern was justified; rape and sexual violence were and are a horrific tactic of terror in the Congolese conflict.

This wave of shock was followed by a wave of financial support. Hospitals received equipment and medicine to aid rape victims. The international response to support victims of sexual and gender-based violence was astonishing. Health programs have increased the survival rates for victims, and charities provide many victims with means to supplement their income and gain access to basic services if they have experienced exclusion from their families and communities.

At the same time, however, other programs remain desperately underfunded. Other health issues remain unaddressed. Medical, STI and therapy treatments are often only available to female victims of rape. These initiatives should not be diminished, however they do not take the other victims of the conflict or the rape crisis into account. There is little to no aid for the victim's family members. A female rape victim can receive vaccinations or treatment for Sexually Transmitted Infections, however her partner or her male children cannot. As a result, some women who receive treatment are re-infected by their partners who do not have access to treatment. To receive vaccination for their children, some parents are even pushed to disguise their male children in dresses and hope that doctors will mistake them for girls.

Suddenly being a rape victim has benefits and enables access to aid unavailable to anyone else. This creates tension and jealousy within the communities. Some women give false reports of being raped to receive treatment they could not otherwise receive. As these tensions grow, they will increasingly become a source of potential conflict.

The Congolese government has little to no means or capacities to step in and fill these gaps. Assistance from abroad is direly needed. Much of the violent conflict in the DRC has moved beyond the point at which preventive policies can be effective. However, the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) calls governments and international communities to three commitments: Prevent, Respond, Rebuild. And none of these responsibilities stand alone. The responses and efforts to rebuild must be structured in a way that they also prevent renewed atrocities.

Civil society and non governmental organizations provide a kind of focused, effective support that is irreplaceable. They are able to raise an enormous amount of valuable funding for specific causes, however government programs have a greater capacity to reach beyond the limits of specific donations. To fulfill the international responsibility to protect, we need to pair robust civil society programs with flexible government assistance.

More resources:

Reading the recent article in the New York Times Magazine, "Will Israel Attack Iran?", you might begin to think a war with Iran is inevitable and coming very soon. I know I've started losing sleep over the possibility. But no war is inevitable until it is underway, and there are real diplomatic solutions to the escalating crisis with Iran - if diplomats can muster the political courage to pursue them and space for real diplomacy isn't closed off entirely by the escalating press toward war by Congress and the media.

In a direct response to the NYTimes article, Gary Sick of the Tehran Bureau takes a much less "sensationalist" perspective, pointing out that "Bergman also overlooks the fact that Iran has almost certainly NOT made a decision to actually build a bomb and that we are very likely to know if they should make such a decision....Would Israel actually attack while these international inspectors are at work? No, they would need to give them warning, thereby giving Iran warning that something was coming. The IAEA presence is a trip wire that works both ways. It is an invaluable resource. Risking its loss would be not only foolhardy but self-destructive to Israel and everyone else."

Wait, you mean there are nuclear weapons inspectors in Iran?! Yes, though you'd hardly know that from the mainstream US media. And interestingly, Iran has just invited the IAEA inspectors to extend their mission, a move which many analysts suggests an opening for ratcheting down the rhetoric for war and reigniting diplomacy.

Secretary of Defense Panetta also explained on 60 minutes this past weekend, “the consensus is that, if they decided to do it, it would probably take them about a year to be able to produce a bomb and then possibly another one to two years in order to put it on a deliverable vehicle of some sort in order to deliver that weapon.” Wait, you mean they haven't even decided to pursue nuclear weapons yet?! Why, no. But military strikes would surely convince them to do so.

At a Hill briefing this week, 28-year veteran of the CIA Paul Pillar noted that a lot of the predictions circulating tend to worst-case Iranian behavior when talking about getting the bomb, but best-case Iranian behavior in the face of a military attack against them. In fact, his well-founded prediction, similar to other military experts, is that a military assault on Iran would quickly escalate into a devastating regional war, a new wave of anti-US sentiment across the Muslim world, offer a political gift to hardliners in Iran, lead to "incalculable economic consequences" for the world, fuel a nuclear arms race in the region, and guarantee generations of bad relations between the US and Iran.

So before accepting the inevitability of a war and giving up on diplomacy, as some in the media and Congress seem ready to do, why not consider - and pursue vigorously - the alternatives to such dangerous military action. While the next round of international negotiations (P5+1 talks in diplomatic lingo) is not expected to produce significant results, some elements of a negotiated solution to the crisis can be imagined. These could include an agreement to accept Iran's nuclear energy program while outlining clear technical no-gos to avoid weaponization. A more ambitious agenda would lay out a path that includes US-Iran cooperation on shared areas of concern, including Afghanistan, provides a security guarantee that the US and Israel will not attack in exchange for an end to Iran's support of violent disruption in the region, charts a course for a nuclear free weapons zone in the Middle East, and brings Iran back into the international community with a long-term goal of restored US-Iranian relations.

I sat in a briefing with Iran experts this week where these possibilities were being put on the table, examined, and debated. Unfortunately, the conclusion from all the speakers was that no one who needs to be weighing such options is right now. Instead, the increasing media hype and Congressional fervor for war is closing down the space for diplomatic options to be seriously considered and pursued.

That's unfortunate indeed because the risks of a war happening are increasing as the space for diplomacy is crowded out by fear and doomsday predictions. The best hope for preventing a war now amid such escalating conflict is an engaged citizenry insisting that war is not inevitable and calling on their policymakers to keep diplomacy on the table and pursue it vigorously, including direct, sustained, bilateral talks with Iran. FCNL's campaign to prevent war with Iran is underway - please join us!

Yesterday, the International Criminal Court (a multilateral body dedicated to holding perpetrators of mass atrocities accountable) announced that four of the six Kenyans suspected of inciting post-election violence in 2007-2008 will head to trial. Though the road ahead is long, the decision is a step toward justice – and another demonstration of Kenya’s progress toward peace.

In the aftermath of Kenya’s electoral crisis, many both within the country and outside it called for perpetrators of violence to be held accountable. The Kenyan government initially pursued a domestic tribunal, but efforts failed to pass in Parliament. When little action had been taken almost two years later, the International Criminal Court (ICC) began an investigation of the post-election atrocities; since then, the process has been one fraught with controversy.

Some maintain that the Kenyan government should retain responsibility for any trials, and others point out that the ICC has focused on African leaders more than others (leaving those committing crimes on other continents in the clear). More than a few feel that their representatives are the victims of both domestic and international conspiracies. Despite these concerns, overall public support for the ICC investigation in Kenya has remained strong, and, in March of 2011, the Court indicted six high-profile figures for potential contributions to the post-election violence.

Yesterday's announcement determined which of the cases, if any, had enough evidence to continue to trial. In anticipation of the rising tension around the decisions, international and local organizations – from the Friends Church Peace Team to USAID – worked to prevent violence in volatile areas. While FCPT used the opportunity to test a text message-based community monitoring system, USAID’s Office of Transition Initiatives supported Kenyan groups conducting educational programs on the ICC’s process. Though much concern remained heading into yesterday’s announcements, reports from Kenya have so far celebrated a peaceful response. Moreover, the four charged include figures that had been affiliated with both political parties involved in the electoral crisis.

In working to hold political elites accountable, the ICC cases are making important headway against continued impunity for perpetrators of post-election violence. But while Kenyans now know that four will be tried by the ICC, much uncertainty remains. Their government has yet to decide whether the two still holding governmental positions will be forced to resign, as well as whether the two running for president will be disqualified. Some are disappointed to learn that two of the six have had their charges cleared (particularly considering one's chairmanship of a major political party and the other's former position as head of police, as security forces were responsible for as much as 40% of the 2007-2008 post-election violence). Given the process of appeals and trials now expected, it could also be quite some time before the guilt or innocence of the four is determined.

In the meantime, it’s important to note that the ICC trials shouldn’t be the only means of pursuing justice. Over the next year, accountability must also be established through criminal justice reform at more local levels in Kenya, helping to ensure that those who might commit violence against their neighbors feel equal responsibility as those who orchestrate violence from Nairobi. Simultaneously, more investment needs to be made in the reconciliation processes that provide space for communities to heal and rebuild – thus helping to prevent more deadly conflict from occurring in the first place.

Despite not being party to the ICC (a position that has elicited much criticism), the U.S. has been an important supporter of the Kenyan cases as one of the only modes of justice to move forward thus far. As the process continues, the U.S. should remain an advocate for full cooperation with the ICC – and, on another note, should join the Court itself – while also expressing support for further progress toward holistic justice reforms. Though the end result of the ICC cases is yet to be known, the process is one that, for many Kenyans, represents a recognition that violence in their communities should not go without consequences – no matter how powerful those responsible might be.