A bipartisan group of 18 organizations and 27 foreign policy and peacebuilding experts has sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton calling on her to exempt conflict resolution programs and other activities aimed at ending violence from the ban on material support of terrorism. The letter notes that “Without such a course correction, opportunities to end violence will continue to be lost.” The group is seeking a meeting with Clinton to discuss the proposal.

The May 12, 2011 letter was released to the public on June 21 by Ambassador Nancy Soderberg, President of the US Connect Fund, during an event at the National Press Club. In her remarks Soderberg noted that peacebuilding groups “have played critical roles in paving the way for peace — by developing dialogues between sworn enemies, by showing combatants there are alternatives to violence, by demonstrating that peace is not a zero sum game, and by showing them there is a broad community prepared to help with the necessary transition… Having been in the conflict resolution business for decades, it is clear to me that these types of activities are in the interest of the U.S. and should be exempt from this prohibition.”
Citing her experience in the peace process in Ireland, she noted that “Had the private individuals and NGO’s involved in that peace process not had the right — and yes, it is a right — to engage with the IRA leadership — peace would have certainly been delayed. And another 200-300 people would have died each year of delay.”
The letter to Clinton points out that:
“For many years, U.S. organizations and private individuals have paved the way for peace by helping to bring fighting factions together and providing alternatives to violence as a means of redressing grievances. We know that these initiatives can be the key to success in resolving conflicts.”
It notes that although the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the ban on material support in June 2010 in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, “the court held that the law may impose such restrictions, not that it must.”
Instead, the letter notes that the law “empowers you to exempt expert advice or assistance, training, and personnel from the material support prohibitions when you find these activities will not further terrorism. Activities directly aimed at preventing or resolving conflicts fit this criteria.”
The bipartisan letter includes a draft exemption, which would permit:
“the provision of expert advice or assistance, training, and personnel designed to reduce or eliminate the frequency and severity of violent conflict, or to reduce its impact on noncombatants, are exempt from the prohibition in 18 U.S.C. 2339B, so long as the advice, training or personnel are intended and designed to further only lawful, peaceful and nonviolent activities.”
An Appendix to the letter cites examples of lost opportunities for resolving conflict due to the current ban on peacebuildidng communications with listed terrorist groups.

To learn more about these issues, see Scott Atran’s New York Times June 29, 2010 op-ed, Why We Talk to Terrorists.