International peacebuilding organisation, Conciliation Resources, welcomes the draft legislation introduced to the US House of Representatives on Monday 18 November.

The Humanitarian Assistance Facilitation Act (HAFA) is a bipartisan initiative by Republican Representatives, Chris Smith (NJ), Jeff Fortenberry (NE) and Democratic Representative, Jim McGovern (MA).

The HAFA is primarily aimed at removing barriers to the delivery of humanitarian assistance in areas controlled by proscribed armed groups. It also has the potential to help end violent conflicts by removing the threat of prosecution for those engaged in peacebuilding and mediation work with proscribed groups. 

In 2010, the US Supreme Court ruled that non-violent material support to proscribed organisations was illegal[1].  As a result, support to mediation and peace processes by experienced third parties such as Conciliation Resources became more difficult.  Many organisations have had to abandon or significantly modify important peace initiatives in places as diverse as Colombia, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Philippines and Gaza[2].

Conciliation Resources welcomes the fact that the HAFA would permit all communications with a proscribed group that aim to reduce violent conflict and its impact on civilians. This could include training in international human rights law or support in preparing for peace negotiations. However, the draft text still fails to address some obstacles to constructive engagement. The provision of ‘tangibles’ such as meals, accommodation or arranging travel for members of proscribed groups in order to participate in peace talks would remain illegal. After a decade of the ‘war on terror’ policymakers are slowly recognising the importance of dialogue with such groups.

David Newton, Director of Policy, Practice & Communications at Conciliation Resources

Proscription is rarely integrated into wider efforts to promote long-term peace. The lack of transparency in how groups are listed and delisted, and the failure to understand fully the impact of proscription on conflict dynamics, means that its broader conflict prevention benefits are negligible and at best short-term. 

Despite this, the bill represents a great opportunity for US policymakers to introduce changes to ensure that important peace initiatives to end violent conflict can be pursued without mediators and peacebuilders fearing prosecution.

Engaging with armed groups is both difficult and politically sensitive. But talking with people who use violence is essential to ending violent conflict.  Our experience shows that one can engage in dialogue without legitimising a group or its actions: byencouraging return, providing space for self-reflection and challenge, or by helping them prepare for constructive peace negotiations.

Dr Teresa Dumasy, Head of Policy and Learning at Conciliation Resources

The bill could have global ramifications because the US claims global jurisdiction in the limitations it currently poses on peace and humanitarian engagement with proscribed groups. Although the UK and Europe do not place such strong legal restrictions on engagement with proscribed groups, legislation and terrorist listing regimes nevertheless restrict efforts by third party peacemakers.

 

To read InterAction’s joint statement in support of The Humanitarian Assistance Facilitation Act of 2013, visit: http://www.interaction.org/document/statement-66-organizations-support-humanitarian-assistance-facilitation-act-2013

 

/ENDS

 

Media contact:

For interviews with David Newton / Dr Teresa Dumasy, high-resolution images and case studies please contact:

Tamanna Kalhar tkalhar@c-r.org

+44 (0)7436 102 514

Media & Communications Officer, Conciliation Resources

Notes to editors:

Conciliation Resources is an independent organisation working with people in conflict. We provide practical support to help people living in the midst of conflict prevent violence and build peace. We then apply what we learn to improve peacebuilding policies and practice worldwide. For more information visit www.c-r.org



[1] A Supreme Court ruling in 2010 confirmed that the PATRIOT Act prohibition on material support to proscribed groups included the provision of  “expert advice,” “service”, “personnel” or “training in human rights enforcement or peaceful conflict resolution”.

 

[2] Charity & Security Network: Impacts of the Material Support Prohibition on Peacebuilding