A campaign by advocates to label ISIS attacks on Yazidis, Christians, and Shiite Muslims a genocide won a big victory this week when US Secretary of State John Kerry formally used the term. The US Congress was pushing for this, even setting a deadline for the administration to determine whether the targeted attacks by the Islamic State met the definition of genocide. Kerry made it clear the administration agreed.

"The United States responded quickly by denouncing these horrific acts and – more importantly – taking coordinated actions to counter them," he said. "My purpose in appearing before you today is to assert that, in my judgment, Daesh is responsible for genocide against groups in areas under its control, including Yazidis, Christians, and Shia Muslims. Daesh [the name of ISIS in Arabic] is genocidal by self-proclamation, by ideology, and by actions – in what it says, what it believes, and what it does. Daesh is also responsible for crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing directed at these same groups and in some cases also against Sunni Muslims, Kurds, and other minorities."

It was an important statement deliniting the atrocities committed by the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. Unfortunately, those words carry little weight when it comes to US action. The White House now recognizes that terrible things are happening at the hands of the Islamic State, but are not compelled to do anything different from the current campaign of airstrikes. It is a success in elevating awareness about the brutality of the Islamic State, but may not lead to actual improvements for the people suffering from the attacks.

One group that could be aided, are the Syrian refugees trying to resettle in countries like the US. A New York Times editorial commended Kerry's designation, but ended with a plea for Congress to take action that will make a meaningful difference for the people who fled their homes because of the Islamic State.

"The State Department said the designation does not impose any new legal requirements on the United States, which is already pummeling the Islamic State with airstrikes and other military operations. But it should make Congress more willing to allow Syrian refugees who are the survivors of this genocide to find safe harbor in the United States," wrote the editorial board.

The last time the US used the word genocide was to describe what was happening in the Darfur region of Sudan. Similarly, public pressure by advocates led then Secretary of State Colin Powell to invoke the term. It was lauded as a major victory, but did not end up leading to the kind of change  or action that would have alleviated the attacks carried out by Sudanese forces and the groups it backed. Instead the acts on the ground went further and President Omar al-Bashir was indicted by the International Criminal Court. A decade later he is still president of Sudan and not in jail.

This time around could be different. Supporting refugees through resettlement is a good start. But the bigger issue is seeing through the negotiations that will resolve the civil war in Syria and allow the world to focus solely on rebuilding Syria.

The United States has the chance to make a major difference - for the better - for a generation of Syrians and Iraqis. As the presidential campaign whittles the field down to the final two candidates, the opportunity for the US public to pressure leaders will increase. The momentum built by the campaign to designate the acts by the Islamic State a genocide must continue to grow or all will be for naught.

The views expressed here are not necessarily those of each of the partners of Global Citizen.