Kristof On Rape As A Weapon Of War

I’m not particularly a Nicholas Kristof fan, but he has an excellent column out about rape as a weapon to war. Writing about why rape has always been a weapon of war, he writes,

“There are two reasons for this. First, mass rape is very effective militarily. From the viewpoint of a militia, getting into a firefight is risky, so it’s preferable to terrorize civilians sympathetic to a rival group and drive them away, depriving the rivals of support.Second, mass rape attracts less international scrutiny than piles of bodies do, because the issue is indelicate and the victims are usually too ashamed to speak up.”

The only quibble I would have is with this question:

“When the governments of South Africa, China, Libya and Indonesia support Sudan’s positions in Darfur, do they really mean to adopt a pro-rape foreign policy?”

Seriously?? Given the massive numbers of rapes going on in Darfur that these governments are well aware of, the answer is yes, rape is indeed an acceptable part of these countries foreign policies every bit as much as it is acceptable to the U.S. in its tolerance for the rapes committed by U.S. servicemen around the world, including women in the ranks and who are working for private contractors and by the tolerance of the escalation of violence against women in Iraq, etc.

But then there is this:

“The rape capital of the world is eastern Congo, where in some areas three-quarters of women have been raped. Sometimes the rapes are conducted with pointed sticks that leave the victims incontinent from internal injuries, and a former U.N. force commander there, Patrick Cammaert, says it is “more dangerous to be a woman than to be a soldier.”

The international community’s response so far? Approximately: “Not our problem.””

And that is the sick, sad truth.