Joint Civil Society Statement on Armed Drones
UN General Assembly First Committee on Disarmament and International Security

Delivered by Sophia Wistehube, Human Rights Clinic at Columbia Law School, 10th October 2017

“I no longer love blue skies. In fact, I now prefer grey skies. The drones do not fly when the skies are grey.” That’s what Zubair Ur-Rehman told a US congressional committee, about a US drone strike which killed his grandmother Mamana as she picked vegetables in a field in Pakistan in 2012. Zubair was just 13 years old at the time.

I am presenting a statement that has been endorsed by 46 civil society organisations, from 17 countries. We are committed to preventing and mitigating harm, including violations of international human rights and humanitarian law, from the use of drones in domestic and international deployments of force.

The use of drones by some states to conduct airstrikes in recent years has caused serious harm in communities, including significant casualties and psychological impacts.

The use of drones by some states has also raised serious legal and ethical concerns, and undermined the rule of law.

For example we are deeply concerned about the US’s use of armed drones in places such as Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen, to conduct killings of those suspected of affiliation with certain groups, or against groups or individuals who appear to match a particular profile. Our concern is due to the highly questionable legal basis for these strikes; the secrecy; and the harm that communities and families have suffered. We are gravely concerned that some of these air strikes have violated the right to life. Increased operations in Yemen and Somalia, and recent reports that the US administration aims to loosen already limited policy constraints on these activities, only heighten these concerns.

However, this problem is broader than the activities of one state.

The specific features of drone technologies also risk facilitating a global expansion of the use of lethal force, by lowering its political and practical impediments. Some states have been using drones to expand the contexts in which they use explosive weapons, including outside situations of armed conflict.

The use, deployment, and proliferation of drones are therefore serious challenges that require an urgent international response.

We note that there is now an effort underway by states, led by the US, to develop international standards on the export and subsequent use of “armed or strike-enabled UAVs.”

However, we are concerned that this initiative risks setting standards that are lower than existing standards, and that will not adequately address the full range of risks, evidence of harm and violations associated with the use of drones. Detailed recommendations endorsed by many of our organisations on the US-led initiative are linked to from the full online version of this statement.

The process so far has also not been open and inclusive to all states, nor of affected communities, humanitarian, human rights and development actors, nor other civil society experts.

The issues raised by the developing role of drones in the use of force are however global and pertinent to all – international work must not just be dominated by user and producer states.

And, while it is important to address issues of transfers and the practice of new users, use by current possessors and producers continues to be problematic from a humanitarian perspective, and raise serious concerns on compliance with international law and standards. The US-led initiative does not address this, instead focusing on limiting the spread of technology to others.

Unacceptable practice, including that which undermines international law and the rule of law, or involves assistance to facilitate unlawful use, must be rejected – and cannot be ignored or neglected by the international community.

International action and agreement on standards will be key to preventing and mitigating current and future harm to people from the increasing use of armed drones. While the standards under development could represent an important step forward for states, it is clear that further work will be necessary towards agreement on the limits of acceptable use of drones.

We welcome work by UNIDIR this year to convene states and experts in a series of expert meetings for a study on transparency, accountability and oversight over armed drones, and are looking forward to useful recommendations and suggested ways forward for states when it is released this autumn.

We also welcome the publication by the European Parliament subcommittee on Human Rights of a proposal towards an EU common position on the use of armed drones, which outlines principles of transparency and accountability and recommendations on export controls that member states are urged to adopt.

We call for greater attention to be given to the issue of the use of armed drones in all relevant international forums, including in the First Committee, the Human Rights Council and its special procedures.

States, in partnership with international organisations and civil society, should work to prevent and mitigate harm from drones; respond to the rights and needs of victims; account for casualties; and ensure meaningful transparency, accountability, and oversight for these systems.


Endorsed by:

Alliance of Baptists, US
Amnesty International
Article 36
Center for Civilians in Conflict (CIVIC)
CILD (Coalizione Italiana Libertà e Diritti civili)
Coalition for Peace Action
Colombian Campaign to Ban Landmines
Committee of 100 in Finland
CorpWatch
Drone Campaign Network
Drone Wars UK
European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR)
Faith Voices Arkansas
Foundation for Fundamental Rights, Pakistan
Gender Advocacy for Justice Initiative (GAJI), Nigeria
Human Rights Clinic (Columbia Law School)
Human Rights First
Human Rights Now, Japan
IANSA Women's Network Nigeria
Interfaith Network on Drone Warfare, US
International Commission of Jurists
International Committee for Robot Arms Control
Israeli Disarmament Movement
Just Foreign Policy
Medact, UK
Mwatana Organization for Human Rights, Yemen
National Council of Churches of Christ in the US
National Religious Campaign Against Torture, US
Nonviolence International Southeast Asia
Nuhanovic Foundation, Netherlands
Omega Research Foundation
On Earth Peace
PAX
Pax Christi Flanders
Peace Action
Peace Movement Aotearoa
Pennsylvania Council of Churches
Rete Italiana per il Disarmo (Italian Disarmament Network)
Scientists for Global Responsibility
SEHLAC Network – Red para la Seguridad Humana en Latinoamérica y el Caribe
Sustainable Peace and Development Organization (SPADO), Pakistan
Whistleblower & Source Protection Program (WHISPeR) at ExposeFacts
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF)
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom Nigeria
Women's Right to Education Programme (WREP), Nigeria
World Council of Churches

Contact: Elizabeth Minor at Article 36, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

 

Statement on the Development of International Standards on the Export and Subsequent Use of ‘Armed or Strike-Enabled UAVs’

The use of ‘Unmanned’ Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), or drones, to conduct airstrikes has caused harm in communities, including significant casualties; raised serious legal and ethical concerns; and endangered international peace, security and human rights and rule of law by lowering political, practical, and technological impediments to the use of force. States must be aware that the specific features of these technologies risk facilitating a global expansion of the use of lethal force. Accordingly, states must not disregard the long-standing rules of international law governing the use of force. The use, deployment, and increased proliferation of drones are therefore key challenges that need to be addressed.

Concerningly, there has so far been little concerted attention paid by states at the international level to the emergence of these systems. There is now an effort by states to develop international standards on the export and subsequent use of ‘armed or strike-enabled UAVs.’[1] However, we are concerned that this initiative risks setting standards that are too low, and will not adequately address the full range of risks and harm associated with the use of drones. In this context, we make the following recommendations:

We call on the states developing these standards to undertake a process that, at all stages, and at a minimum:

  • is inclusive of and open to all countries, as the issues raised by the developing role of drones in the use of force are global and pertinent to all; and
  • involves meaningful consultation with a range of experts, industry, and civil society, including affected communities, who have been instrumental in bringing concerns around drones to international attention.

We also recommend to states that the standards drafted should, at a minimum:

  • recognise from the outset that military force, whether using drones or otherwise, may only be deployed in accordance with well-established rules of international law, and that technological developments do not vary those standards;
  • include clear expression of states’ commitment to uphold specific and applicable international human rights and humanitarian law;
  • include clear commitments (and not just principles) for endorsing states, as well as a process to the review the implementation of those commitments;
  • supplement existing law and standards, and not include any commitments that are weaker than or that could weaken existing national, regional, or international obligations, standards, or policies.
  • in articulating commitments on responsible export:
    • include robust and independent human rights assessments of the importing state;
    • be in line with the standards agreed upon in the Arms Trade Treaty;
    • ensure strong implementation and verification mechanisms;
    • involve information exchange between signatories on use; and
    • include an annual review process to ensure that the export control list is updated with technological developments in the field of drones;
  • uphold principles of transparency, accountability, and oversight at both the domestic and international levels. These include, at a minimum, legal and policy transparency, and openness about actual use, harm caused, decision-making, and accountability and oversight processes. Robust and independent casualty recording, with the collection and dissemination of sex- and age-disaggregated data, as well as judicial review and meaningful legislative and other oversight of the use of armed or strike-enabled drones, must be ensured; and
  • include a commitment by states to set out in detail their own international-law compliant national policies on the role of drones.

If the concept of ‘responsible use’ is to be part of this framework, specific work must also be undertaken to reach a common understanding of what this means, and which at least meets existing law and standards as discussed above.

Continued and wider engagement by the international community

States should voice their positions and/or concerns on the issues pertaining to this process in all relevant multilateral forums to strengthen the international debate.

However, while it is important to address issues of trade, proliferation and the practice of new users, we note that this initiative does not address the full range of concerns around drones. Use by current possessors and producers continues to be problematic from a legal and humanitarian perspective. Unacceptable practices, including those that undermine international law and the rule of law, must be rejected – and cannot be neglected by the international community.

International action and agreement on standards around armed drones, as well as state compliance with international law, will be key to preventing and mitigating current and future harm caused by these systems. While the standards under development could represent an important step forward for states, the goals for international agreement that appear to be being set are modest in comparison to the range of issues of concern surrounding drones and other extraterritorial use of force by states, which the international community must also continue to address.

Endorsed by:

All Party Parliamentary Group on Drones

Amnesty International

Article 36

Center for Civilians in Conflict (CIVIC)

Coalition for Peace Action

Drone Wars UK

European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR)

Human Rights Clinic (Columbia Law School)

Interfaith Network on Drone Warfare

International Commission of Jurists

National Religious Campaign Against Torture

Nonviolence International Southeast Asia

Omega Research Foundation

PAX

Rete Italiana per il Disarmo

Rights Watch UK

SEHLAC Network – Red para la Seguridad Humana en Latinoamérica y el Caribe

Women's International League for Peace and Freedom

 

[1] Building on the US-led ‘Joint Declaration for the Export and Subsequent Use of Armed or Strike-Enabled Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs)’, published in October 2016 with 53 endorsing states (available at: https://2009-2017.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2016/10/262811.htm)

 

Letter to General McMaster on Possible Changes to U.S. Policies on the Use of Force in Counterterrorism Operations

 

June 1, 2017

Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, Jr., USA
Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, D.C. 20500

Re: Possible Changes to U.S. Policies on the Use of Force in Counterterrorism Operations

Dear General McMaster:

We write today to express our deep concern regarding reports that the administration is considering weakening current policy standards for the use of force in counterterrorism operations. We find these reports particularly troubling in light of the significant increase in the number of civilians who have reportedly been killed in U.S. strikes during the last several months.

We urge you to strengthen and improve, not weaken, the standards for the use of force contained in the Presidential Policy Guidance adopted in May 2013. This policy, which applies outside “areas of active hostilities,” contains some standards that are contrary to what is legally required outside of armed conflict situations – concerns that many of the undersigned human rights and civil liberties groups have previously detailed elsewhere. In light of the concerns, we are deeply troubled by reports of efforts to weaken policies that are intended to protect civilians and the right to life. As more countries and non-state armed groups around the world acquire armed drones, it is critical that the United States seek to set an example for other nations and demonstrate that its use of force practices adhere to its obligations under international law. To that end, we believe existing protections should be strengthened and improved, not weakened.

Beyond strengthening existing protections, we urge this administration to prioritize transparency and accountability by implementing a consistent and effective investigation and redress policy across all relevant agencies, acknowledging all uses of lethal force, providing detailed strike and casualty information on an ongoing basis, disclosing all applicable legal and policy frameworks and U.S. interpretations, and providing the relevant Congressional committees with sufficient notification and information to enable them to carry out meaningful oversight.

Thank you for your attention to this important matter. Members of the undersigned organizations would be happy to meet with you or your staff to discuss our concerns and recommendations further.

Sincerely,


American Civil Liberties Union
Amnesty International
Center for Civilians in Conflict
Center for Constitutional Rights
Coalition for Peace Action
Human Rights Clinic (Columbia Law School)
Human Rights First
Human Rights Watch
Interfaith Network on Drone Warfare
National Religious Campaign Against Torture
Open Society Foundations
OpenTheGovernment

Cc: The Honorable Jim Mattis, Secretary of Defense

 

Statement sent to the Trump Transition Team, January 2017

This statement was sent to the Trump transition team in January 2017 and was signed by representatives from 21 denominations. It provides helpful information for those leading this session.

Drone Warfare: A Religious and Moral Perspective

Interfaith Working Group on Drone Warfare

Recommendations for the Next Administration

The question of whether to go to war and the question of how warfare is conducted are both profound moral and religious questions. Though there are differences of opinion within the religious community about the morality of going to war, most religions are unified in believing that when and if war occurs, it should be limited. This document suggests ways of extending that commitment to placing moral limits on wars to the lethal use of drones.

We are concerned that current policies for lethal drone strikes are unnecessarily opaque, are implicitly biased against efforts to capture those targeted, cause an unacceptable number of civilian casualties, allow targeting of unidentified individuals, violate international human rights law, may ultimately risk removing human judgment from drone strike decisions, create long-term hostility in affected communities toward U.S. interests, directly harm attempts to promote human rights and the rule of law, and dangerously reduce the political and psychological costs of using lethal force.

The current drone program runs counter to the tenets of our respective faiths and violates the values held by most Americans; therefore, in order to reduce physical and spiritual harm caused by the drone program, we recommend that the next Administration:

  1. Make the requirements for authorizing a lethal strike more onerous than those for authorizing capture.
  1. Recognize that the use of drones decreases the political and psychological costs – but not the moral costs – of approving the use of force. Such use should be a last resort.
  1. Publish clear, readily understood standards for determining who is a targetable combatant and who is not a combatant or is otherwise not targetable.
  1. End the CIA’s authority to carry out lethal drone strikes.
  1. Adopt and publish a definition of “imminent threat” that reflects the common understanding of “imminent” and clear evidence of a specific threat.
  1. Require that as a matter of course, when consistent with mission objectives, all drone strikes be publicly acknowledged within one year, and that in no event should public acknowledgement of a strike be delayed for more than three years. Such acknowledgement should include a description of the specific legal authority for the specific strike, the number of civilians killed in the strike, and a commitment to provide compensation for the families of any civilian casualties of the strike.
  1. As drone technology becomes more efficient and drones become increasingly autonomous, establish and maintain a firm requirement that a human agent – with the authority to halt the operation at any point – always be an active participant in any strike decision, including in the moments immediately preceding a strike.
  1. End so-called “signature strikes” that occur outside areas of active hostilities. Specifically, require that each such strike be aimed at an identified target. Failing that, publish clear, readily understood criteria for determining which unidentified individuals are targetable.
  1. Establish a government-sponsored commission of independent experts to investigate the long-term impacts of lethal drone strikes, including the political, economic, and psychological impacts on affected countries and communities, the impact on U.S. political interests, the effects on regional support for terrorism, and the psychological health of drone operators.
  1. Proactively prevent future drone strikes by addressing the root causes of extremism and violence. In particular, provide additional development support to troubled areas to encourage economic development, reduce social and political exclusion, combat discrimination, provide access to education and employment, promote human rights and the rule of law, and otherwise mitigate circumstances that can foster extremism.
  1. Support local programs to address the physical, economic, and psychological harm caused by drone strikes.
  1. Ensure adequate and enduring psychological care for any drone operators who are negatively affected by their missions.
  1. Lead in establishing international standards for the lethal use of drones. These standards should reflect the other recommendations in this document as well as steps the U.S. has already taken to restrict its lethal drone program. Additionally the standards should be transparent, conform to international law, include readily understood criteria for who can and who cannot be targeted, provide clear lines of authority and responsibility for a state’s decision to carry out a lethal strike, and provide procedures for redress if the standards are violated.
  1. For each strike outside an area of active hostilities, require the Secretary of Defense to certify to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees that, consistent with the spirit of the Presidential Policy Guidance (PPG) and the Executive Order on Civilian Casualties, the strike addresses an imminent threat to human life, that capture is infeasible, that there is a near certainty that no civilians will be harmed in the strike, and that provisions have been made to compensate the families of civilians harmed in any previous strike as soon as mission objectives allow.
  1. Require follow-up investigations and reports one year and five years after every lethal drone strike that occurred outside areas of active hostilities to determine the long-term effect of the strike on U.S. political interests in the region, local perceptions of the U.S., local support for terrorism, local rule of law and respect for human rights, and other long-term consequences in the affected community.

Background:

As faith leaders, we are deeply concerned that by distancing people from kill decisions, drones lower the political and psychological costs of killing. They make it easier for politicians and other high level decision-makers, who no longer have to order soldiers into a hostile situation in order to use lethal force, to choose violence. Using armed drones for targeted killings makes it easier for conflicts to escalate and may make it easier to go to war. As drone technology advances and drones (and other pieces of military hardware) become increasingly autonomous, humans, even at the operator level, may end up largely removed from what becomes a mechanized process of killing.

We believe strongly that while drones lower the political and psychological costs of killing, they do not lower the moral costs. We believe that those who order, authorize, or operate the remote killing of targeted people in a far off land ought to wrestle with the moral consequences of that decision every bit as much as a commander who has just ordered his or her troops into battle. Killing should not be an abstraction to those who are ultimately responsible for it.

We are also concerned that as currently written, the Presidential Policy Guidance (PPG) that provides rules for “direct action” against suspected terrorist targets outside the zone of active hostilities, creates standards for carrying out capture operations that are considerably more difficult to satisfy than those required to carry out a lethal strike.

“Direct action,” as described by the PPG refers to both lethal uses of force (i.e. drone strikes) and capture operations. Both forms of “direct action” require plans that indicate the counterterrorism objectives to be achieved and the legal basis for taking the action. Both also require near certainty that a lawful terrorist target be present and a near certainty that “non-combatants” will not be injured or killed, reasonable attempts to determine the identity of the target(s), and a consideration of implications for the broader regional and international political interests of the United States.

In order to carry out a lethal drone strike, the PPG also requires an assessment that capture is not feasible. In principle this requirement appears to prioritize captures over drone strikes, however in practice a remote-piloted drone strike is likely to be nearly always more “feasible” than a capture operation. Further, the PPG goes on to lay out an additional list of requirements for a capture operation that go well beyond those for a lethal drone operation. These additional requirements for a capture operation include: consideration of whether the suspect’s capture would further U.S. counterterrorism efforts, consideration of the plan for detention and interrogation of the target, and consideration of the risk to U.S. personnel in a capture operation. These requirements are appropriate and should be maintained, but in effect by raising the bar to capturing the targeted person, they further bias the use of “direct action” toward the use of lethal drone strikes.

Introducing additional positive requirements (such as those recommended above) to be met before authorizing a lethal drone strike would help ensure that lethal strikes are no longer the default option for addressing terrorist targets.Applying these requirements to the lethal use of drones – but not to efforts to capture the targeted person(s) – would serve to reduce the existing bias against capture.

As the leading developer of drone technology, the U.S. has a special responsibility to set standards for the use of drones. Drone technology is proliferating. 63 countries are producing drones domestically. At least 11 countries are developing armed drones. At least 8 countries and non-state actors, like ISIS, have used armed drones in combat. Some of the most powerful countries that are developing drone capabilities are unlikely to see U.S. standards as a floor, but will instead see them as a ceiling. As such, we believe the U.S. should act now to adopt and internationalize strong standards, such as those recommended above, before the use of lethal drones by many nations spirals out of control.

As members of the faith community, we encourage the next Administration to uplift the importance of human life and human dignity by adopting the above recommendations for limiting the use of lethal drone strike.


Signatories of Transition Statement:

Dr. Stephen Colecchi
Director
Office of International Peace and Justice, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

Dr. Timothy Tee Boddie
General Secretary
Progressive National Baptist Convention

Rev. Dr. Patricia A. Sealy
Moderator Commission on Christian Action
Reformed Church in America

Peter Vander Meulen
Coordinator
Office of Social Justice, Christian Reformed Church in North America

Sara Pottschmidt Lisherness
Director
Compassion, Peace and Justice, Presbyterian Mission Agency, Presbyterian Church (USA)

Dr. Sayyid Syeed
National Director
Islamic Society of North America

Kavneet Pannu
President
American Sikh Council

Rev. Dr. Susan Henry-Crowe
General Secretary
General Board of Church and Society, United Methodist Church

Dr. Jeffrey Haggray
Executive Director
American Baptist Home Mission Societies, American Baptist Churches - USA

Sr. Joan Marie Steadman, CSD
Executive Director
Leadership Conference of Women Religious

Gerry G. Lee
Director
Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns

Rabbi Elyse Wechterman
Executive Director
Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association

Rev. Dr. Ken Brooker Langston
Executive Director
Disciples Center for Public Witness (Disciples of Christ)

Rev. Paula Clayton Dempsey
Director of Partnership Relations
Alliance of Baptist

Jim Winkler
General Secretary/President
National Council of Churches

Sandy Sorensen
Director
Washington Office, Justice and Witness Ministries, United Church of Christ

Rev. David Steele
General Secretary
Church of the Brethren

Taquiena Boston
Director
Multicultural Growth and Witness, Unitarian Universalist Association

Scott Wright
Director
Columban Center for Advocacy and Outreach

Aura Kanegis
Director for Public Policy and Advocacy
American Friends Service Committee

Rev. Ron Stief
Executive Director
National Religious Campaign Against Torture

 _____________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

Letter sent by religious leaders to President Barrack Obama on lethal drones, June 6, 2016

President Barack Obama
The Office of the President of the United States
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest
Washington, DC 20500

June 6, 2016

Dear President Obama,

As faith leaders, we feel called to express our continuing concern about the Administration’s drone warfare program. Our faith traditions call us to recognize the goodness and inherent worth of people, and this program that arbitrarily and unaccountably takes human life runs counter to these values, and the values of many Americans.

In recent years, the U.S. lethal drones program has expanded rapidly with little accountability. In that light, we commend the Administration’s recent plan to release a drones “playbook” and reports of combatant and noncombatant casualties caused by U.S. drone strikes. We urge the Administration to fully implement these promises of greater transparency as we raise specific concerns about the U.S. lethal drones program.

First and foremost, we are concerned by the thousands of intended and unintended deaths caused by U.S. drone warfare policy. These numbers are staggering, especially given the questionable legality of covert drone strikes.

Because drone strikes are often preemptive measures against potential threats, targets are often presumed guilty with little or no evidence. The assumption of guilt not only ignores due process, but also strikes targets with total lethality, ignoring protections guaranteed by international human and civil rights law. Drone strikes result in the death penalty for every alleged crime, even when arrest, prosecution, and appropriate punishments could easily be pursued.

In addition, the false claim that drones are precise weapons misrepresents the large number of innocent civilian casualties, including numerous children, caused by drone strikes. God weeps and our hearts ache at such unnecessary loss of human life.

Beyond the immense loss of human life, we are also troubled by the secrecy surrounding the U.S. drones warfare program. As our nation seeks to model democracy for the world, the lack of transparency regarding drone strikes stifles the ability of citizens or legislators to fully judge and understand the impact of lethal drone technology.

Releasing the Administration’s reports is a necessary step to improve transparency and promote accountability, but this must be accompanied by an honest reflection on the efficacy of lethal drone strikes.

Lethal drone strikes place the U.S. in a perpetual state of covert war that reduces national and international security more than it helps. The massive loss of innocent lives generates opposition to U.S. power, fuels recruitment for extremist groups and makes us less safe. Alternatives through including cooperation with international partners on diplomacy, development, promotion of human rights, intelligence sharing, and international policing could address the root causes of extremism without being counterproductive to sustainable resolution of conflict.

While we oppose the Administration’s expansion of the U.S. drone warfare program, the recent promise to disclose information on drones gives us hope. In addition to releasing these reports, we urge the Obama Administration to halt the drone warfare program during its final months in office. While a halt in drone warfare cannot reverse the loss of innocent lives, this step can honor their loss, lessen recruitment by terrorist groups, and increase the chance that future administrations will operate with greater accountability and transparency.

Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,

Archbishop Vicken Aykazian
Legate
Armenian Church of America

Simone Campbell, SSS
Executive Director
NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice

Patrick Carolan
Executive Director
Franciscan Action Network

Sister Patricia Chappell
Executive Director
Pax Christi USA

Rev. Eric Cherry
Director
Unitarian Universalist Association International Office

Rev. Stephen Copley
Chair
Faith Voices Arkansas

Rev. Dr. Susan Henry-Crowe
General Secretary
General Board of Church and Society
The United Methodist Church

Paula Dempsey
Director of Partnership Relations
Alliance of Baptists

Rev. Mary E. Jacobs
Co-Moderator
Disciples Peace Fellowship

Mark Johnson
Director
Center and Library for the Bible and Social Justice

Francis E. Krebs
Presiding Bishop
Ecumenical Catholic Communion

Rabbi Nancy Fuchs Kreimer, Ph.D.
Director, Department of Multifaith Studies and Initiatives
Associate Professor of Religious Studies
Reconstructionist Rabbinical College

Rev. Dr. Ken Brooker Langston
Executive Director
Disciples Center for Public Witness

Gerry Lee
Director
Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns

Rabbi Michael Lerner
Rabbi, Beyt Tikkun Synagogue
Editor, Tikkun Magazine
Chair, Network of Spiritual Progressives

Rev. Rebecca Littlejohn
Co-Moderator
Disciples Peace Fellowship

Dale Minnich
Interim General Secretary
Church of the Brethren

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

Joy Olson
Executive Director
Washington Office on Latin America

Bill Scheurer
Executive Director
On Earth Peace

Kavneet Singh
Secretary General
American Sikh Council (ASC)

The Rev. Sandra L. Strauss
Director of Advocacy and Ecumenical Outreach
Pennsylvania Council of Churches

Ervin R. Stutzman
Executive Director
Mennonite Church USA

Sayyid M. Syeed
National Director
Office for Interfaith & Community Alliances
Islamic Society of North America (ISNA)

Sharon E. Watkins
General Minister and President
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)

Jim Winkler
President and General Secretary
National Council of Churches USA

Scott Wright
Director
Columban Center for Advocacy and Outreach

 

 

Subcategories

  Contact Us

  

Join our Facebook Group

  Phone: (609) 924-5022

  E-Mail: Send us an Email

Interfaith Network on Drone Warfare
Peace Action Education Fund
40 Witherspoon Street
Princeton, NJ  08542