Pretty statement, too bad it is a crock of window dressing–from Critical Role of Women in Peace and Security, an address given by Melanne Verveer, Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues on July 27, 2010:

President Obama’s National Security Strategy recognizes that “…countries are more peaceful and prosperous when women are accorded full and equal rights and opportunity. When those rights and opportunities are denied, countries often lag behind. Furthermore, women and girls often disproportionately bear the burden of crises and conflict. Therefore the United States is working with regional and international organizations to prevent violence against women and girls, especially in conflict zones. We are supporting women’s equal access to justice and their participation in the political process…”

And, Secretary Clinton has often said: “Women’s rights and women’s issues cannot be an afterthought in our foreign policy; they must factor centrally in how we look at the world. We have made women a cornerstone of our foreign policy not only because we think it’s the right thing to do, but also because it’s the smart thing to do.

Well yes, it is the right thing and the smart thing to do, but a cornerstone of our foreign policy?  Who knew.  Seems to me that is only true when it is expedient.

The President’s and Secretary’s words are matched by actions.

Really, do tell:

Let me focus on Afghanistan. I want to welcome and recognize Palwasha Hassan, who is here from Afghanistan and who has been a leader in her country. She participated in the Kabul Conference, and we look forward to hearing from her.

At the International Conference on Afghanistan, in London earlier this year, Secretary Clinton emphasized that women need to be involved at every step of the way in the process of building Afghanistan’s future; and she introduced the Women’s Action Plan, which is incorporated into our U.S. Afghanistan and Pakistan Regional Stabilization Strategy. As Secretary Clinton said, “the plan includes initiatives focused on women’s security, women’s leadership in the public and private sector; women’s access to judicial institutions, education, and health services; and women’s ability to take advantage of economic opportunities, especially in the agricultural sector.” This is a comprehensive, forward-looking agenda. She also emphasized the role that women must play in the reintegration and reconciliation process as it goes forward.

That’s nice that Clinton said that, but,

Afghan women were not included in the Afghan Government’s official delegation to the London conference and only one Afghan woman was permitted to speak on behalf of civil society as part of the official conference program.

Meanwhile in the U.S. peace movement…David Swanson has a lengthy summary of the recent peace strategy conference held in Albany, NY.  There are 24 points in the summary but the one that caught my eye was this,

21.We call for the equal participation of women in all aspects of the antiwar movement. We propose nonviolent direct actions either in Congressional offices or other appropriate and strategic locations, possibly defense contractors, Federal Buildings, or military bases in the U.S. These actions would be local and coordinated nationally, i.e., the same day for everyone (times may vary). The actions would probably result in arrests for sitting in after offices close. Entering certain facilities could also result in arrests. Participants would be prepared for that possible outcome before joining the action. Nonviolence training would be offered locally, with lists of trainers being made available. The message/demand would be a vote, a congressional action to end the wars: Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan. Close U.S. bases. Costs of war and financial issues related to social needs neglected because of war spending would need to be studied and statements regarding same be prepared before the actions. Press release would encourage coverage because of the actions being local and nationally coordinated.

One line that doesn’t seem to have any connection whatsoever with the rest of the item somehow doesn’t speak equality or an understanding of of the issue to me.  As those of you who were here when this network began know, my motivation for starting this forum was to provide women with a safe and nuanced space to fully  empower their voices in the peace movement.  If this summary of the Albany conference is indicative of where the peace movement is, devoting one disconnected afterthought of a line to the role of women in the peace movement should tell us that spaces such as the Feminist Peace Network are still badly needed and that we have a long way to go in truly critiquing the peace movement from a gendered lens.

When military conflict occurs, just because the fighting ends does not mean the war is over for the people who live there as these two articles about Iraq so sadly illustrate:

Three decades of wars, massacres and sectarian killings have left Iraq with as many as a million widows, by Iraqi government count…

…In 2008 the government set up the Directorate of Social Care for Women that is now gradually taking over the payment of stipends from the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs, which was widely accused of inefficiency and corruption.

However, Hameed, the directorate’s chief, complains that she lacks the funds to efficiently serve areas beyond the capital and lacks the authority to introduce reform and eradicate corruption in the ministry departments handling widows…

…poverty is driving some Iraqi women into prostitution, both in Iraq and in neighboring Jordan and Syria, home to the Arab world’s largest Iraqi refugee communities.

“Many of Iraq’s neighbors are exploiting Iraqi women,” said activist Suzan Kazim Kashkoul.

Also, she and other advocates say, the post-U.S. invasion violence has shrunk the pool of potential husbands for widows as well as single women over 30, and in the sectarian-charged postwar atmosphere, Sunni-Shiite marriages have become rare. The economy is in trouble yet the housing market is hot, making housing unaffordable for many.

And then there is this horrific study documenting what activists have feared in the aftermath of the use of toxic weaponry:

Results of a population-based epidemiological study organized by Malak Hamdan and Chris Busby are published tomorrow in the International Journal of Environmental Studies and Public Health (IJERPH) based in Basle, Switzerland. They show increases in cancer, leukemia and infant mortality and perturbations of the normal human population birth sex ratio significantly greater than those reported for the survivors of the A-Bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.

Results of a survey in Jan/Feb 2010 of 711 houses and more than 4000 individuals in Fallujah show that in the five years following the 2004 attacks by USA-led forces there has been a 4-fold increase in all cancer. Interestingly, the spectrum of cancer is similar to that in the Hiroshima survivors who were exposed to ionizing radiation from the bomb and uranium in the fallout. By comparing the sample population rates to the cancer rates in Egypt and Jordan, researchers found there has been a 38-fold increase in leukemia (20 cases) almost a 10-fold increase in female breast cancer (12 cases) and significant increases in lymphoma and brain tumours in adults.

Based on 16 cases in the 5-year period, the 12-fold increases in childhood cancer in those aged 0-14 were particularly marked. The cancer and leukemia increases were all in younger people than would normally be expected. Infant mortality was found to be 80 per 1000 births which compares with a value of 19 in Egypt, 17 in Jordan and 9.7 in Kuwait. An important result is that the sex-ratio, which in normal populations is always 1050 boys born per 1000 girls was seriously reduced in the group born immediately after 2005, one year after the conflict: in this group the sex ratio was 860.

  • Share/Bookmark

In an interview with Paul Jay of The Real News Network, Josh Stieber, who “enlisted in the army after graduating high school (and) was deployed to Baghdad from Feb 07- Apr 08″ talks about his training for combat and shares this chilling confirmation that chants advocating the mass murder of innocent women and children, in violation of international law, are still being used in military training, despite assurances that these training methods are a thing of the past.

This interview adds obscene credence to the fact that women’s bodies are still a part of the battleground on which wars are fought and clearly illustrates that the U.S. military has little regard for  women’s lives an attitude so ingrained that it must be considered as part of the context of any discussion of sexual assault against women within the military as well.

JAY: How interwoven were your beliefs in America and what America stands for and your religious beliefs?

STIEBER: They were pretty closely intertwined. I went to a religious high school. And one example is, in a government class that I was in at this religious high school, we read a book called The Faith of George W. Bush. And people like that were held up as, you know, these—these are people that are fighting for God’s will here on Earth. So religion was very interwoven with a sense of nationalism.

JAY: But by 2006, when you join, it’s already really clear that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, that Bush and Cheney had essentially lied to start a war. Like, that was—by 2006 that’s fairly acknowledged. Had that penetrated in to you, to your school?

STIEBER: There, and just the—kind of the people I was listening to. And, again, I wasn’t making any kind of effort to really challenge my thinking. People were saying, you know, whoever it is, the media or other countries are out to make us look bad, and, you know, we did the right thing, and we’re doing the right thing. And I might have had a few doubts in my mind, but even I comforted the doubts by saying, you know, even if the reasons that we’re there weren’t completely justified, we’re there and we’re still in this position, since we’re there, that we can’t just pull out, and we need to help these people.

JAY: So even if there were no weapons and even if the argument for weapons wasn’t legitimate, it’s still good versus evil, and they’re evil and we’re good, and we’ve got to fight it?

STIEBER: Yeah. I bought into that lingo a lot.

JAY: So you go to Iraq. You join, you go through boot camp, and you’re sent to Iraq, and you’re still more or less the same mindset. Tell us a little bit about boot camp and the kind of training that takes place to prepare you for war. I mean, your religious training is supposed to be about love thy neighbor, and then you’re sent to war. So how do they get you ready for that?

STIEBER: Yeah, I guess that’s where I started to see, maybe, some of these contradictions, just by the kinds of things that we did on a regular basis in basic training, whether it was the cadences that we sang as we were marching around, some that even joked about killing women and children.

JAY: Like what?

STIEBER: One that stands out in my mind is—it goes, “I went down to the market where all the women shop/I pulled out my machete and I begin to chop/I went down to the park where all the children play/I pulled out my machine gun and I begin to spray.”

  • Share/Bookmark

Since beginning the Feminist Peace Network in 2001, I have written and spoken about militarism and violence against women more times than I can count. In those years I have watched too many instances of the problem becoming more exacerbated and see little to indicate substantive progress towards addressing this horrendous problem. And so I keep writing and talking about it. The following is excerpted from a recent talk that I delivered at the University of Dayton.–LM

“While bullets, bombs and blades make the headlines, women’s bodies remain invisible battlefields.”
–Margot Wallström, U.N. Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict

———-

In order to fully understand militarism, it is necessary to view it from a gendered lens and tonight I will be addressing the question of what it is about militarism that places women at particular risk.

There are essentially 3 ways in which people seek to gain empowerment:

  • The first is Power Among (community)—a sense that we’re all in this together.
  • And then there is Power Within—in other words, your own inner strength and capabilities.
  • Finally, many believe that you can achieve empowerment by means of asserting Power Over.

Militarism, and the patriarchy it defends, are based on the notion of power over, and place women at particular risk for victimization, violation and harm.

In order to achieve empowerment by this method, you have to have someone or something to assert  that power over and to do that, you need to see that target as an other.

Creating an other is a critical defining aspect of both militarism and violence against women – creating a false distinction between two different  people (or 2 different groups of people). The other then gets defined as less than.  Once defined as less than, the other needs to either be destroyed, or protected.

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.

———-

What is it about military conflict that makes women particularly vulnerable?

  • To begin with, there is the breakdown in government and  law enforcement.
  • Other factors include loss of homes/separation from family/especially men who may have provided protection/becoming refugees.
  • And finally, loss of jobs/income.

The following are the primary ways in which women are sexually victimized as a result of militarism:

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

Several other points to consider:

  • Wars are not fought on battlefields anymore–they are fought in cities and towns and villages.
  • In  warfare, women’s bodies frequently become part of the battle ground over which opposing forces struggle.
  • Women’s bodies are often considered the spoils of war, or invisibilized under the catchall euphemism ‘collateral damage’.
  • And 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.

As you may have read recently, it was confirmed that 2 pregnant women and a teenage girl were killed in a botched raid on a family gathering to celebrate the birth of a baby in Afghanistan back in February.  Not only were the women murdered in cold blood, but in the initial aftermath of the killings, NATO claimed that the women were already dead when they got there, the victims of honor killings.

It has since been proven otherwise, as one anguished relative asked, why would they be murdering pregnant women at a celebration of a birth, and there are reports by The Times of London that bullets were actually dug out of the women’s bodies and bullet holes in walls plastered over.

———-

The numbers speak for themselves:

  • 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.

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

The connection between militarism and violence against women is a global issue, however tonight I want to focus primarily on how it pertains to the U.S. There are several reasons for that.

  1. The U.S. has the biggest military power in the world and therefore our actions, as it were, pack the biggest punch  and
  2. Most of us are U.S. citizens and I think it is appropriate to talk about that which we can be faulted for and that which we can take responsibility for changing before pointing our fingers at others.

———-

afghan_widow

Let’s talk about Afghanistan first.  As I pointed out earlier, one of the justifications for our invasion was to liberate Afghan women.  As Human Rights Watch pointed out last year however, that has been an abysmal failure.

“Afghan women are among the worst off in the world, violence against them is “endemic” and Afghanistan’s government fails to protect them from crimes such as rape and murder.”–Human Rights Watch, December, 2009

Today:

  • The majority of Afghan women are vulnerable to violence in the home.
  • 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 then we moved on to Iraq and again used the justification of liberating women there although, while there were certainly serious problems such as the so-called rape rooms, women enjoyed one of the highest levels of freedom in the Arab world.  In post-invasion Iraq however:

  • There are roughly three quarters of a million 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 the U.S. gave its 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.
  • The situation in combat theaters is so bad that women are afraid to go to the bathroom by themselves for fear of being raped.
  • It is important to note that there is a very poor rate of conviction of perpetrators, which effectively creates a culture of impunity when it comes to sexual assault and
  • A Department of Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault in the Military told a Congressional committee on February 3, 2010 that “DoD’s procedures for collecting and documenting data about military sexual assault incidents are lacking in accuracy, reliability, and validity.”
  • And the last point I want to make about this is that the problems described apropos of the military also apply to women working for private contractors such as KBR as the recent case of Jamie Leigh Jones has unfortunately illustrated.

———-

We also need to talk about the direct sexual victimization of civilians by the U.S. military.

Prostitution thrives near military bases, both in the U.S. and abroad.  Filipinas not for saleWomen and girls are brought in to entertain the troops as it were.  The Pentagon  drafted an anti-prostitution and trafficking policy in 2004 that would subject violators to court martials but the U.S. military is just beginning to put clubs and bars involved in prostitution off-limits and little has been done to enforce the policy.

Earlier this year, the Philippine government quit issuing work permits for women seeking to work in bars and clubs near U.S. military bases in South Korea because so many end up being coerced into prostitution.

Many of these women are solicited by recruiters to entertain the  troops telling them they will sing and dance, but they end up serving expensive drinks in bars and those who fail to make their drink sale quotas incur ‘bar fines’ which they must pay off by selling sexual services.

In Japan, a year after the Defense Dept. banned the solicitation of prostitutes, Stars and Stripes reported that there was still a thriving “massagy” girl business selling happy endings for $30-$70 near U.S. bases in Japan.

It’s also important to note that the problem extends to private contractors like Dyncorp in Bosnia  in the late 1990’s and earlier this year it came to light that Blackwater officials kept a Filipina prostitute on the payroll for, “Morale Welfare Recreation” in Afghanistan.

———-

Every time there is a new study or a  new report to Congress about sexual assault in the military, and there have been quite a few, I almost inevitably get a call from a reporter asking whether I think this will make a difference.

The short answer is no.  The rape and plundering of women is a de-facto weapon of war and always has been and the objectifying of women is still alive and well in the military.

Despite a 10 year ban on pornography being sold on military bases, the military recently did a review and decided Playboy and Penthouse should not be classified as pornography–and I don’t want to get into a debate about porn, but the point is that the objectification of women is historically implicit in militarism and no amount of Congressional testimony is going to change that.

The Strawberry Bitch is a WWII plane on display at the National Museum of the United States Air Force in Dayton, OH (Many thanks to a member of the audience when I spoke who told me about this unfortunate example of the implicit military misogyny of which I spoke)

The Strawberry Bitch is a WWII plane on display at the National Museum of the United States Air Force in Dayton, OH (Many thanks to a member of the audience when I spoke who told me about this unfortunate example of the implicit military misogyny of which I spoke)

The number of sexual assaults in the military that are being reported has gone up, which may in part be a function of improved reporting mechanisms, but experts still feel these are just a small part of the real number.

What is crucial to understand is that what hasn’t gone up is the number of criminal prosecutions or convictions and until that happens, substantial improvement in the situation is unlikely.

While I have focused tonight primarily on U.S.-centric militarism, clearly militarism perpetrated by other military forces, be they national militias, rebel forces or whoever is committing militaristic violence, leads to violence against women wherever it occurs and that violence needs to be addressed, whether it is in Indonesia, the Darfur region of Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo or anywhere else.

“After raping her they killed her by shooting into her vagina. No action was taken.”

– The Karen Women’s Organization (KWO), “State of Terror: the ongoing rape, murder, torture and forced labor suffered by women living under the Burmese Military Regime in Karen State (February 2007)

In addition, there is a whole expanded conversation that is more than we can address here tonight regarding the U.S. role in these situations, for instance our support of the government in Indonesia and our lack of action to help the people of Darfur and so on–just because we are not directly perpetrating violence does not mean that we are not involved in the perpetration of the problem or that we should not be involved in ending this violence.

———-

I’d like to talk now about what can be done, on both a national and international level, to change the paradigm that allows for the victimization of women as a result of militarism.  There are a number of vehicles that address the issue.  One of the most important is CEDAW 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.

CEDAW1

There are also several UN Security Council resolutions that are important to know about.  The first, Resolution 1325 addresses the disproportionate and unique impact of armed conflict on women and recognizes the under-valued and under-utilized contributions women make to conflict prevention, conflict resolution and peace-building, and stresses the importance of their equal and full participation as active agents in peace and security.

The second, Resolution 1820, 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. Of critical importance, its statutes classify sexual violence as a war crime and provide a means by which perpetrators can be held accountable for their war crimes.

It also establishes measures to facilitate better investigation of gender-based violence as well as standards for care of victims including witness protection and legal counsel.

The U.S. however, opposes the ICC and does not participate.

IVAWA2

And finally, here in the U.S., the bipartisan International Violence Against Women Act (IVAWA) was reintroduced in February in both the US House and Senate.

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 tonight—can do to change this paradigm?

In order to truly achieve a women-inclusive peace, we need to make the connection between the othering that enables militarism and the othering that enables sexual violence. Creating peace in the world must include creating peace in our homes. And finally, 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.

And if you remember what I said when I began this evening, there are three ways in which to seek empowerment and we need to do some substantive work in moving away from Power Over to a framework that is based upon Power Within and Power Among.

We need to make a fundamental paradigm shift and move towards partnership thinking (a concept pioneered by Riane Eisler).  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.

My goal tonight has been to try to give you a glimpse of what militarism looks like through 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.

Lucinda Marshall, 2010

———-

My grateful thanks to Dr. Rebecca S. Whisnant, head of the Women and Gender Studies Program, for inviting me to speak, all those who provided support for this lecture and to the wonderful and inquisitive students at the University of Dayton.  The slides that accompanied this lecture can be viewed in the right sidebar on the Feminist Peace Network website. You can also get more information on militarism and violence against women here.

  • Share/Bookmark

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.

  • Share/Bookmark