FPN Director Lucinda Marshall speaks about UNSCR 1325 (photo by Josh Cook)

On September 21, I had the privilege of making a presentation at Mount Mary College in Milwaukee, WI on the  importance of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 as part of their celebration of the International Day of Peace.  The presentation was co-sponsored by the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom as part of their Advancing Women As Peacemakers Program in conjunction with the 10th anniversary of UNSCR 1325.  Below is a web-version of the material I presented on the importance and context of 1325. I am indebted to everyone who made this presentation possible.

———-

Resolution 1325 addresses for the first time the disproportionate and unique impact of armed conflict on women and recognizes the under-valued and under-utilized contributions women make to conflict prevention, peacekeeping, conflict resolution and peace-building as well as the importance of women’s equal and full participation as active agents in peace and security. It is binding upon all UN Member States.

Key Provisions of UNSCR 1325 include:

  • Increased participation and representation of women at all levels of decision-making.
  • Attention to specific protection needs of women and girls in conflict.
  • Gender perspective in post-conflict processes.
  • Gender perspective in UN programming, reporting and in Security Council missions.
  • Gender perspective & training in UN peace support operations.

The passage of Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security by the Security Council of the United Nations 10 years ago was an historical accomplishment that resulted from the hard work, courage and determination of women throughout the world who insisted that we should have an equal role in bringing and maintaining peace in our global community.

While much work has been done to implement 1325, the results so far are discouraging. Since 2000, women averaged 7 percent of negotiators in five major U.N. peace processes. Fewer than 3 percent of the signatories in 14 peace talks were women.  For a comprehensive look at efforts to implement 1325, please see this checklist on progress made on implementation of 1325.

To truly understand why 1325 is so important, we need to take a look at the impact of militarism from a gendered lens and ask what is it about military conflict that makes women particularly vulnerable?

———-

Several points to consider:

Wars are not fought on battlefields anymore–they are fought in cities and towns and villages. Civilian casualties now make up as much as 70% of the total casualties of any military action.  Since women and children are the majority of these civilian populations, they make up the majority of civilian casualties.

In  warfare, women’s bodies frequently become part of the battle ground over which opposing forces struggle. Their bodies are often considered the spoils of war, or invisibilized under the catchall euphemism, ‘collateral damage’.

It is important to understand the primary ways in which women are sexually victimized as a result of militarism, which include:

  • Rape/Sexual Assault
  • Sexual Slavery/Trafficking
  • Forced Marriages and Pregnancies
  • Femicide

Other factors that make women particularly vulnerable include: the loss of homes, being separated from family (especially men who may have provided protection), becoming a refugee (and not surprisingly, the overwhelming majority of refugees from conflict are women), and loss of jobs and income leaving women  to resort to desperate means such as prostituting themselves to put food on their family’s table.

Finally, it is important to remember that violence against women does not end when the fighting ends.  We’ve all heard reports of rapes committed by U.N. peacekeepers, of soldiers who come home and assault or murder their wives and in a minute we’ll look at what this means in Iraq now that we’ve declared an end to combat operations.

———-

Before we go any further however, I want to talk about how I usually approach talking about militarism. When I talk about militarism, I tend to focus on U.S. militarism for 2 reasons.  The first is because we have the biggest military in the world, so our actions rather literally pack the biggest punch.

Secondly, most of us are U.S. citizens, we live here, and it is important to look first at the impact of our own actions and how we can change them before examining those of others.  So when we talk about 1325, we should consider that becoming more aware of its potential in addressing conflict and pushing for its use by the U.S. can have an enormous impact.

I do want to note however that it isn’t just us, although our inaction in conflicts such as Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Darfur, the DRC and so on makes us complicit in these atrocities.

  • Rwanda Genocide–As many as 500,000 women raped
  • 64,000 women raped during conflict in Sierra Leone
  • 40,000 women raped in Bosnia/Herzogovina
  • 4,500 Rapes in just 6 months in one province of the DRC
  • Hundreds of women raped every day in Darfur

In any case, it is precisely because of these incredible, large numbers of victims that we know that violence against women is systemic to militarism.

Two recent examples of how U.S. militarism impacts women are instructive.

———-

One of the justifications for our invasion of Afghanistan was to liberate Afghan women.  As Human Rights Watch pointed out last year, that has been an abysmal failure.  Today:

  • The majority of Afghan women are vulnerable to violence in their homes. Violence against women is definitely not just something that we can say is because of the Taliban.
  • The judiciary system provides scant recourse for survivors of that violence. If there are no witnesses to these crimes, the women can be convicted of adultery.
  • Victims are often jailed or murdered.  Women who face domestic violence can be pushed to tragic extremes, including suicide; self-immolation is often the method of choice.  The burn hospital in Herat recently reported 90 cases of self-immolation in an 11 month period. Afghanistan is the only country in the world where the suicide rate for women is higher than for men.
  • 70 to 80 percent of women face forced marriages often before the age of 12.  There are actually markets where women are bought and sold.
  • Going to school is risky for girls because of fire bombings and acid attacks.
  • The assassinations of several prominent women leaders have gone unpunished.
  • And finally, women and children frequently find themselves in the line of fire during military actions.  In addition, obtaining food and shelter or medical care, finding a hospital to deliver a baby can become all but impossible when there is fighting going on.

And in Iraq, again we used the justification of liberating women as a reason for war.  And while we’ve declared an official end to combat there, for Iraqi women, the war is far from over:

  • 740,000 widows in Iraq due to the last war with little or no means of support.
  • Many women have become refugees in Jordan and Syria, often away from families who could provide protection and support.
  • The new Constitution, which we gave our blessing to gives precedence to Islamic law over civil law.
  • Honor killings have increased dramatically.
  • Sexual Trafficking where women are  being forced to prostitute themselves to feed their families, or are being sold to sex traffickers has increased dramatically.

———

But it is not only civilian women who are at risk.

According to several studies, 30% of women in the U.S. military are raped while serving, 71% are sexually assaulted and 90% are sexually harassed. It is believed that 90% of sexual assaults in the military are never reported. As one Congresswoman noted recently, women serving in the military are more at risk of being harmed by their fellow soldiers than by any enemy.

It’s also important to note that the problems described apropos of the military also apply to women working for private contractors such as KBR/Halliburton, Blackwater (now known as Xe), etc. which is very relevant since while we are officially withdrawing combat troops from Iraq, there are still many, many private contractors there.

———-

So that gives you some context about why 1325 is so important.  Before I close I do also want to note that in addition to 1325, there are a number of other vehicles that in part address the impact of militarism on women and the need to include women in conflict resolution.  They include:

CEDAW (1979) which stands for The Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women and defines violence against women as a violation of women’s human rights and is often described as an international bill of rights for women. As of August, 2009, 185 countries had ratified CEDAW. The United States is one of the few that have not yet ratified it, along with countries such as Iran and Sudan.

Resolution 1820 (2008), urges all parties to armed conflicts to immediately stop acts of sexual violence against civilians and calls for the protection of women and girls from all forms of sexual violence.

We also have the International Criminal Court which was created in 1998. It classify sexual violence as a war crime and provides a means by which perpetrators can be held accountable. The U.S. however, opposes the ICC and does not participate.

And finally, here in the U.S., the bipartisan International Violence Against Women Act (IVAWA) was reintroduced in Congress last February. It would be the first of its kind to comprehensively incorporate US foreign assistance programs to help stop gender-based violence and poverty, promote economic opportunities for women, halt violence against girls in schools, and ultimately empower women.

———

Those are some of the tools available to us on an international and national level, but you and I—we’re not members of Congress or delegates to the United Nations.  So the thought that I want to leave you with is what we—those of us here today—can do to change this paradigm.  I like to frame this in terms of what I call the Peace Agenda, not the War Agenda, because after all, isn’t peace what we say we are trying to achieve?

Make Violence Against Women a Part of the Peace Agenda:

  • We need to make the connection between the othering that enables militarism and the othering that enables sexual violence.
  • We need to take intimate violence as seriously as the other violences of war.
  • We need to admit that sexual violence is a tool of war. When men go to war, women and children are overwhelmingly the innocent victims.  We need to own up to this and make it a front and center issue.

We need to make a fundamental paradigm shift away from Power Over thinking and move towards partnership thinking.  Rather than seeing others as adversaries, let’s look at how can we partner to create solutions and make meaningful and just relationships.  Then we will be truly empowered.

It is crucial that we look at conflict resolution from a gendered lens.  When we discuss the impact of militarism and how to end it, we are simply not looking at the full picture unless we include the ways it affects women and also listen, really listen, to women’s voices  when we look towards resolution of conflict and the creation of peace and I believe that 1325 is one of the best tools we have for truly creating a women-inclusive peace and am grateful to the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) for all their work in working towards its implementation.

———

For a further discussion of 1325 particularly in the context of U.S. strategy in Afghanistan and Iraq, here is the interview I did on these topics on Pacifica’s KPFK’s Feminist Magazine.

Also, to learn more about 1325 and the organizations that are working to promote its implementation, the following links may be useful.

DeliciousFacebookGoogle+RedditStumbleUponTwitterPrintFriendlyEmailEvernoteDiggShare
 

Lisa Shannon, Founder of Run for Congo Women has put together this phenomenal and heart-breaking film explaining the link between the use of conflict minerals in electronics and violence against women.  You can learn more about this excellent project here.

DeliciousFacebookGoogle+RedditStumbleUponTwitterPrintFriendlyEmailEvernoteDiggShare
 

Yesterday, by a 68-30 vote, the U.S. Senate passed Senator Al  Franken’s amendment to the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill (Amendment 2588) that, according to Stop Family Violence, prevents the Defense Department from using  contractors that require, “mandatory employment arbitration of employment discrimination, sexual harassment, and sexual assault claims”. Franken’s amendment was a response to cases such as that of Jamie Leigh Jones who was raped by fellow employees of Halliburton while serving in Iraq and then told she could not take her case to court but had to pursue her allegations through her employment contract’s binding arbitration  clause.

According to the Houston Chronicle, among those who opposed the bill, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL)  said that, “the Defense Department did not want it. He said it would invalidate due process rights of employers and employees and arbitration can be better and less expensive for employees.”  How Sen. Sessions concludes that preventing criminal charges in human rights cases is a denial of due process is baffling, to say the least.

Unfortunately, Franken’s amendment only addresses a small part of the continuing  blatant disregard for women’s human rights as a result of U.S. military actions.  The Asia Times reported yesterday that,

A report by the Washington, DC, Project on Government Oversight recently released publicly tells of the wild naked antics of members of ArmorGroup (AG), which has a United States State Department contract to provide security for the US Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan.

Hardly mentioned is the use of local bordellos by some contractors. It took a lawsuit filed on September 9 by James Gordon, a former ArmorGroup director of operations, and subsequent whistleblower, against ArmorGroup North America and associated defendants – ArmorGroup International (AGI), Wackenhut Services Inc (WSI), and various management individuals – to bring details to light. Among other things he charges that AG:

  • Allowed AGNA managers and employees to frequent brothels notorious for housing trafficked women in violation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, and shutting down the plaintiff’s efforts to investigate and put a stop to these violations.
  • Deliberately withholding documents relating to violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act allegedly committed by AGNA’s program manager and other AGNA employees when responding to a document demand from US Congressman Henry Waxman on behalf of the Congressional Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Last week U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated in regard to the unanimous passage of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1888, violence against women is criminal, not cultural.  UNSC 1888 calls for:

  • The appointment of a special representative to lead efforts to end conflict-related sexual violence against women and children.
  • The creation of a team of experts to help governments in preventing conflict-related sexual violence, strengthening civilian and military justice systems and enhancing aid to victims.
  • Reports by U.N. peacekeeping missions to the Security Council about the prevalence of sexual violence.
  • Consideration by the U.N. Security Council of patterns of sexual violence during the process of adopting or targeting sanctions.
  • The inclusion of women’s protection advisers in peacekeeping operations where it is appropriate, as determined by the U.N. secretary-general.
  • The submission of annual reports by the secretary-general on the implementation of this resolution as well as more systematic reporting on conflict-related sexual violence.

While Clinton’s championing of this resolution is welcome and her recognition that violence against women is criminal is entirely correct, the unfortunate reality is that there is a culture of military impunity that allows for this kind of violence throughout the world and that despite a lot of rhetoric and too many Congressional hearings and reports, the U.S. military has shown little inclination to truly end its practice within the ranks. It also needs to be pointed  out that the United States is one of only a handful of nations that has not ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) which,

defines discrimination against women as “…any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field.”

The U.S. is also one of only a few nations who have not signed U.N. Security Council Resolution 1325 which addresses the impact of war on women and the contributions of women in conflict resolution and sustainable peace.  Nor does the U.S. adher to the International Criminal Court’s recognition of rape and sexual assault as war crimes.

In addition, as Ret. Col. Ann Wright pointed out in August, while Hillary Clinton’s strong statements regarding the need to end the horrific and relentless violence against women in the Democratic Republic of Congo are much needed, her plan to bring relief to these women involves using the U.S. military which is quite worrisome, given the record of the U.S. military in regard to sexual violence.  According to Wright,

(T)he U.S. military’s Africa Command (AFRICOM) is sending an assessment team to “determine how to best assist survivors,” and provide “sensitivity training on sexual violence and legal seminars that contribute to the professionalization of the Congolese military.”

If the women of the Congo should Google, “U.S. military – sexual assault and rape,” I suspect they will decline the offer of assistance from the African Command. 1 in 3 women in the U.S. military are sexually assaulted or raped. Women and girls in countries with U.S. military bases are raped by U.S. military. 8,000 U.S. Marines are being “re-located” from Okinawa in great measure because of citizen activist pressure following the numerous rapes of women and girls there. Prosecution rates in rape cases in the military are abysmal- 8% versus 40% in civilian cases.

The August 10, 2009 Washington Post article “Congo’s Rape Epidemic Worsens During U.S.-Backed Military Operation” begins with an alarming statement: “For the women of eastern Congo, a U.S.-backed Congolese military operation meant to save them from abusive rebels has turned an already staggering epidemic of rape has become markedly worse since the January deployment of tens of thousands of poorly trained, poorly paid Congolese soldiers, with people in front-line villages such as this one saying the soldiers are not so much hunting rebels as hunting women.”

We need to also remember that when the U.S. declared war on Afghanistan and later Iraq, one of the justifications was the need to liberate the women in those countries.  Unfortunately despite some gains, living conditions for women in both countries have become increasingly dire which makes Clinton’s plan to utilize  the military infrastructure to provide aid in the DRC very suspect As The Real News Network reports in their series, Africom or Africon, the reality is that the purpose of the U.S. military presence in Africa has nothing to do with women’s human rights:

So while applauding Sen. Franken for taking much needed action to insure that companies like Halliburton are not allowed to profit while blatantly violating human rights, the reality is that much more needs to be done to end the culture of impunity that is an integral part of militarism.

DeliciousFacebookGoogle+RedditStumbleUponTwitterPrintFriendlyEmailEvernoteDiggShare
 

Not surprisingly, it is quickly becoming clear that the election in Afghanistan is a sham that flies in the face of the U.S. narrative of bringing democracy to the Afghan people. Kavita Ramdas, the President and CEO of the Global Fund for Women puts it succinctly, “After five years, $30 billion in aid, and the presence of 150,000 foreign troops,

While the Obama administration’s recent shift in military strategy towards increasing the protection of Afghan civilians is encouraging, it begs the broader question of whether top-down military interventions from the global North are the best means towards securing lasting peace in Afghanistan. Unless we are willing to question whether violence can truly be used to end violence, it is unlikely that this election will change anything in Afghanistan. It will not bestow legitimacy on Karzai nor is it likely to bring greater security and safety to ordinary Afghans.

Even the tired Western trope of charging in to “rescue” Afghan women from the clutches of their “oppressive” culture and their “tribal” menfolk has lost its sheen. That narrative collapses under the weight of the fact that pro-government NATO bombs that kill one in three civilians. Afghans also remember their history. They know that the Taliban and Al Qaeda were networks recruited, armed and trained by US Special Forces and the CIA. Ordinary people are the victims, caught in the crossfire between the Taliban and the West’s precision drones that leave villages in towns with countless orphaned and maimed children and widows.

Today Afghan women are tired of broken promises and of living in a land overrun by foreigners. Women parliamentarians like Malalai Joya write, “the longer foreign troops stay in Afghanistan doing what they are doing, the worse the eventual civil war.” Afghan women laugh outright at the argument that further militarization of their society will bring them peace and security. They have seen the rise in “insurgent” violence alongside increased foreign military troops.

Despite the fact that, according to Ramdas, women make up 35% of registered Afghan voters, very few appear to have actually voted.  As I pointed out on the Feminist Peace Network blog last week, even if women were able to get to the polls, a shortage of female poll workers for the segregated polling places virtually assured that few women would be able to vote.

In a report published on the RAWA website, Alex Strick van Linschoten, an independent journalist based in Kandahar, provides this glimpse of what actually took place.

Women’s voting centers were interesting to visit. The first that I saw, Kaka Said Ahmad High School in the center of the city, had some women voting (perhaps several dozen) early in the morning. In one room that we entered, however, the two boxes were open and women were in the process of handling the vote papers. When we asked the head of the voting center what was going on (boxes were supposed to be locked and closed) she said that some women had come very early in the morning (before the official opening time) and asked, hands trembling out of fear, to vote quickly.

In another women’s voting station (Mirwais Meena Girls School), we were kept waiting outside the locked main gate for around ten minutes before finally being allowed in (a policeman outside gave us a hand opening the gate). When inside, there were hardly any voters (under a dozen in the whole building) but lots of election workers and other girls. Again, I’m not sure if this was an irregularity, but my guess is that women’s polling stations, especially ones in the districts, were easy places for fraud to occur.*

Along with the U.S. silence regarding the passage of a law legalizing marital rape in Afghanistan, the liberation of Afghani women at the point of a gun can only be seen as a deadly farce that as I noted on FPN and Ann Wright also points out, should make us seriously question recent statements by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton regarding helping women in the Democratic Republic of Congo.  As Wright reports,

The US Agency for International Development (USAID) will implement a $7 million program with medical care, counseling, economic assistance and legal support to 10,000 women and girls in North and South Kivu provinces, the regions most affected by rape and sexual assault.

Another $10 million U.S. contribution will fund new programs in eastern DRC to include equipping women and front-line workers with mobile devices to report abuse and share information of treatment and legal options.

A separate $2.9 million U.S. program will recruit and train female police officers to investigate rape and interview survivors of violence against women.

All of which sounds like the U.S. is making a huge commitment to help women in the DRC.  But as Wright notes, that the U.S. military, rather than humanitarian agencies, will decide how to best provide the aid should make us question the motivation and usefulness of these promises.

(T)he U.S. military’s Africa Command (AFRICOM) is sending an assessment team to “determine how to best assist survivors,” and provide “sensitivity training on sexual violence and legal seminars that contribute to the professionalization of the Congolese military.”

If the women of the Congo should Google, “U.S. military – sexual assault and rape,” I suspect they will decline the offer of assistance from the African Command. 1 in 3 women in the U.S. military are sexually assaulted or raped. Women and girls in countries with U.S. military bases are raped by U.S. military. 8,000 U.S. Marines are being “re-located” from Okinawa in great measure because of citizen activist pressure following the numerous rapes of women and girls there. Prosecution rates in rape cases in the military are abysmal- 8% versus 40% in civilian cases.

The August 10, 2009 Washington Post article “Congo’s Rape Epidemic Worsens During U.S.-Backed Military Operation” begins with an alarming statement: “For the women of eastern Congo, a U.S.-backed Congolese military operation meant to save them from abusive rebels has turned an already staggering epidemic of rape has become markedly worse since the January deployment of tens of thousands of poorly trained, poorly paid Congolese soldiers, with people in front-line villages such as this one saying the soldiers are not so much hunting rebels as hunting women.”

Writing about the Afghan election, Malalai Joya sums it up well,

Democracy will never come to Afghanistan through the barrel of a gun, or from the cluster bombs dropped by foreign forces. The struggle will be long and difficult, but the values of real democracy, human rights and women’s rights will only be won by the Afghan people themselves.

Clearly the same could be said about Iraq as well, where women’s lives are in far more peril now than they were before the U.S. invasion.  The bottom line is that the use of militarism is not only oxymoronic when it comes to establishing democracy and freedom but also when it comes to protecting the lives of civilians, especially women and children.

In both Iraq and Afghanistan, we used women’s lives as a cynical justification for military action. This should serve as a cautionary note regarding the connection of aid to the women in the DRC and an increased U.S. military presence and is extremely worrisome.  If  history is an indication, the chances are that, like in Afghanistan and Iraq, the lives of Congolese women will be further imperiled in the name of U.S. imperialism.

———-

*The full report makes riveting reading and also points to another site where firsthand reports on the voting have been posted. Please take the time to read both.

DeliciousFacebookGoogle+RedditStumbleUponTwitterPrintFriendlyEmailEvernoteDiggShare
 

On a stop in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton kind of sort of called for an end to  the unspeakable sexual violence that is being perpetrated on the women of the Democratic Republic of Congo,saying,

“We do support the efforts to end the militias and the violence they have visited so terribly on the people of the eastern Congo,” Clinton said. But she added: “We believe that a disciplined, paid army is a more effective fighting force. We believe that more can be done to protect civilians while you are trying to kill and capture insurgents.”

And then there is this–turns out, according to the Washington Post, that  we are backing those that have escalated this crisis:

For the women of eastern Congo, a U.S.-backed Congolese military operation meant to save them from abusive rebels has turned into a nightmare of its own.

An already staggering epidemic of rape has become markedly worse since the January deployment of tens of thousands of poorly trained, poorly paid Congolese soldiers, with people in front-line villages such as this one saying the soldiers are not so much hunting rebels as hunting women.

And meanwhile in Iraq it seems that the very well-paid but not so well disciplined private contractor,

Blackwater was guilty of using child prostitutes at its compound in Baghdad’s fortified Green Zone and that owner Erik Prince knew of this activity and did nothing to stop it.The declarations describe Blackwater as “having young girls provide oral sex to Enterprise members in the ‘Blackwater Man Camp’ in exchange for one American dollar.” They add even though Prince frequently visited this camp, he “failed to stop the ongoing use of prostitutes, including child prostitutes, by his men.”

One of the statements also charges that “Prince’s North Carolina operations had an ongoing wife-swapping and sex ring, which was participated in by many of Mr. Prince’s top executives.”

Bottom line?  Militarism endangers women’s lives, full stop, no exceptions.  The U.S. military is all too aware of sexual assault being perpetrated within its ranks and by employees of contractors such as Blackwater, there is nothing new about it.  Yet it continues because the bottom line is that it is  systemic to militarism.  It is true in the U.S., it is true in the Congo and in every armed conflict.

Militarism is not how you stop sexual assault.  It is not how you protect the women of Afghanistan.  It is not how you protect the women of Iraq and it is not how you protect women in the Congo or any place else.

———-

Update:  Air America also has an interesting piece on this:

Clinton’s $17 million aid package will be used to train gynecologists, supply women with video cameras to document perpetrators and assist in programs that try to teach men not to rape. Hothschild has another tactic, that the U.S. government is seemingly less willing to implement.

The outside world has influence over the Congolese army, because we’re partly paying for it. The national government depends on aid money to make ends meet, depends on the UN force to retain control of the east, and sometimes even needs UN planes to transport its soldiers, for there is no drivable road from one side of the country to the other. At a bare minimum, the Western powers have leverage to pressure Congo into purging its army of thugs in senior positions—and could demand far more as well.

DeliciousFacebookGoogle+RedditStumbleUponTwitterPrintFriendlyEmailEvernoteDiggShare