Rape As A Weapon Of War In Libya: New Permutations On An Old Theme

 1 Response »
Nov 092011
 

Tawakul Karman

As the award of a Nobel Peace Prize to Yemen’s Tawakkol Karman reminds us, women have played a very prominent role in the Arab Spring.  While we celebrate their activism, we need to be mindful that this in and of itself does not secure women’s rights as part of the change taking place in the Middle East.  In August I was asked to write a piece for the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom‘s fall newsletter about rape as a weapon of war in Libya.  In the interim between when I wrote the piece and when it was published, Gaddafi has been ousted.  It is interesting to note that the rumors about Viagra like drugs that made such a splash when they first circulated have dropped from sight.  We may never know if they were true.  But as I point out in the article, reprinted with permission below, the real issue is the use of rape as a weapon of war.

Rape as a Weapon of War in Libya:  New Permutations on an Old Theme

Earlier this year, reports began to surface alleging the use of Viagra-like drugs to encourage Libyan troops to rape women as a tactic in their fight with Libyan rebels, leading the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court to call for a complete investigation of the charges and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to say that she was, “deeply concerned” about the changes.If indeed the allegations prove true, they would represent a new variation on an old tactic and not only should those who committed these crimes be prosecuted, those who made the drugs available should be prosecuted as well.  While pharmaceutical companies try to sell their little blue pills with advertisements showing couples exchanging knowing looks while they walk through fields of flowers, the potential abuse of these drugs as weapons of war is all too easy to believe.

Neither Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch have been able to verify the reports however, so there is also the disturbing question of whether false rape charges are instead the weapon in question.  Regardless of whether impotency drugs have been used and whether women have been raped or whether allegations of such rapes are being trumped up and used as a political and military tactic, the truth remains that rape is a weapon of war and women’s bodies continue  to be used as the battleground in wars of male supremacy, wars that don’t take place on actual battlegrounds but instead are fought in cities and towns and in refugee camps where women and children, the most vulnerable civilians, become the collateral damage of war.

In Iraq, the number of honor killings rose dramatically after the U.S. invasion and  more recently, in Tehran, women protesting the government have been attacked.  In Congo, women in refugee camps are gang-raped with impunity. In Burma, the army uses rape as a weapon of terror in their fight with Shan forces. In Bosnia, there were mass rapes, in Rwanda too.  In the U.S. military, female soldiers are more likely to be attacked by male soldiers than by any enemy.

These are the dots we need to connect. We are horrified every time we hear such reports.  How could such a thing happen?  And more importantly, how can it keep happening time and time again?  While each and every instance of these abuses is horrific in its own right, we need to understand that they are not one time incidents but rather the systemic and perpetual violation of women and we need to insist that we address the underlying problem and not just its manifestations. Where there is conflict and where there are military forces, there is rape and sexual abuse.

Reports of the use of Viagra (and similar drugs) in Libya are disturbing and the International Criminal Court’s quick investigation into the allegations is significant for several reasons.  A bit of history provides the context for more fully understanding the issues involved.

The ICC came into being in 2002 as an independent body (contrary to popular belief, it is not part of the United Nations) to investigate and prosecute war crimes.  Of particular importance, the ICC recognizes rape and sexual assault as a war crime, allowing for the first time, a global standard for the prosecution of one of the most heinous weapons of war and the one that impacts women and girls the most severely.  Over time, as militant forces come to understand that they will be held accountable for the use of rape as a tool of war, one would hope that understanding will act as a deterrent to such crimes.

The Rome Statute, which established the Court was signed by 148 countries.  Seven countries voted against it, including the U.S. and Libya.

It is therefore supremely ironic that the U.S. pushed for the ICC’s prosecution of Libyan war crimes. But make no mistake, the U.S. does not consider itself bound by the jurisdiction of the ICC which would leave it quite obviously vulnerable to prosecution for such things as what happened at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and also the rape of servicewomen within the ranks of its own military.

If the charges  cannot be substantiated by human rights groups, then the issue that needs to be investigated is the issue of false allegations for political and military gain.

Regardless of whether rape itself has taken place or whether instead false allegations of rape have been made, we must insist that what has occurred not be isolated and treated as a singular event but rather as a part of the pandemic war against women that is a systemic part of the global wars for power and domination.  We also have to insist that the rules apply to all. The arrogant assumption of different standards of human rights based on might speaks directly to the root cause of why these crimes take place and until we are willing to confront that duplicity, they will continue to occur.

–Lucinda Marshall, 2011

 —–

Further reading:

Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity
http://www.enotes.com/genocide-encyclopedia/rape

About the International Criminal Court
http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICC/About+the+Court/

US “Hypocrisy” on Libya and International Criminal Court
http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2011/03/01-24

U.S. continues Bush policy of opposing ICC prosecutions
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/02/28/war_crimes

Rape Reporting During War
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/print/67936

Last week I had the privilege of sitting in on a Senate hearing held by Sen. Barbara Boxer on Women and the Arab Spring.  The need for U.S. support of UNSCR 1325 as well as the importance of the U.S. finally ratifying CEDAW came up.  Boxer voiced her support for CEDAW and promised to work to get it through the Senate.  This is a huge boost for it’s passage and hopefully the U.S. will soon join the rest of the world in supporting this crucial tool for women’s human rights.

———-

Note:  If you have not already seen it, I highly recommend Abigail Disney’s amazing film series, Women, War and Peace on PBS, which can also be viewed online.  The series makes a very significant contribution in raising awareness about how war impacts women and how women can and need to be involved in peacemaking.

DeliciousFacebookGoogle+RedditStumbleUponTwitterPrintFriendlyEmailEvernoteDiggShare
 Posted by Fempeace on November 9, 2011

CEDAW, UNSC 1325 And Afghanistan

 Comments Off
Aug 042010
 

In the ongoing reaction to the use of Afghan women’s lives and voices to make a pitch for a continued U.S. presence in Afghanistan, it is worth noting that unlike the United States, in 2003, Afghanistan ratified CEDAW, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, widely recognized as a human rights declaration for women, which states,

The Convention 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.”

Despite that, back in February, at a conference discussing negotiations with the Taliban,

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.

That is emblamatic of the lipservice that is being given to women’s human rights under the U.S. backed Karzhai government.

The U.S. and Afghanistan are also bound by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325, which calls for,

  • 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 SC missions.
  • Gender perspective & training in UN peace support operations.

The Kabul Declaration from July, 2009 amplifies what this means in the case of Afghanistan and reads:

Women’s Participation in the Peace Process

The participants agreed that peace is defined beyond the military strucures of Police and army and in more comprehensive analysis could be described as rule of law in conformance of national constitution and international human rights.

Building on the comprehensive definition of the peace and security, the government and the international community should ensure that security is provided in its more comprehensive definition considering the special needs and interests of women and children.

• The government and the international community should ensure the implementation of International Humanitarian Law during the conflict.

• In order to increase the number of women in law enforcement agencies, the government and international community needs to pay special attention to capacity development, affirmative action special need and protection measures for women.

• Any peace negotiations should ensure women participation and protect the Constitutional human rights of the women.

• Serious disarmament should be initiated by the Government and supported by the international community to mitigate the threats that prevent women participation.

Women’s Political Participation and International Development Assistance

The meeting agreed that in confirmation with the Afghan National Development Strategy (ANDS), 30% of government and political leadership positions should be reserved for women who are effective and committed to the women cause, at all levels inclduing the high level leadership. The Afghan women movement is committed to assist the government in identifying these women.

• The Government should take concrete measures to ensure the proper implementation of the ANDS to improve women’s participation in accordance to the above mentioned commitment.
• The international community should mainstream gender concerns in all the programmes it supports and should also lobby for more women’s participation in senior positions with in the government.
• A percentage of development funds should be agreed on for women-specific programmes es and initiatives.
• Civil society organisations should strengthen their capacities to coordinate and network more effectively for gender empowerment.
• The capacity of the parliament should be strengthened to understand and support gender matters in order to effectively monitor and hold accountable the executive agencies of the government.

Security Reforms

The meeting participants agreed that security has many complex dimensions such as physical, psychological, societal and military. Poverty aggravates insecurity in the population, including among women and children.
• Government of Afghanistan should speed up the establishment of a national action plan for the implementation of UNSCR 1325.
• The governmnet of Afghanistan should on urgent basis, initiate national policy and mechanism to eliminate the sexual harassment in all governmental and non governmental working, educational and public places.
• The government and international community should recognise the role of communities and civil society groups to determine and take ownership of any local development plans for creating security in their lives.

The regional meeting proposes to the United Nations to assign a UN special rapporteur for the monitoring the implementation of United Nations Security Resolution 1325.

The participants from the five countries committed themselves to follow-up on the implementation of the above recommendations and will also pursue the establishment of a regional monitoring body to oversee the progress of UNSCR 1325 in Afghanistan and the region,

It is abundantly clear that neither Afghanistan or the United States in its presence in Afghanistan are in compliance with these accepted international frameworks of women’s human rights, including the now documented use of women’s lives as a justification for  military action by the U.S. If we are truly concerned with the lives of Afghan women and women throughout the world whose human rights are under siege, we must demand that substantive steps be taken to adhere to CEDAW, UNSC 1325 and other human rights declarations and resolutions.

DeliciousFacebookGoogle+RedditStumbleUponTwitterPrintFriendlyEmailEvernoteDiggShare
 Posted by Fempeace on August 4, 2010

CEDAW Turns 30, U.S. Senate Has Yet To Ratify

 1 Response »
Dec 142009
 

Dear U.S. Senate, we hate to rush you but  you’ve been deliberating about this (or more accurately stonewalling) for 30 years, do you think maybe you could possibly ratify this crucial human rights document?  Just asking…

The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) celebrates its 30th birthday on December 18.  President Carter signed CEDAW in 1980, but the U.S. Senate has yet to ratify it, making it one of only seven countries in the world not to implement this important platform for women’s rights.  The other six are Iran, Nauru, Palau, Somalia, Sudan and Tonga.

However, it is not at all clear whether ratification at this point would be a good idea because of ‘reservations’ that might be attached to that approval that could potentially nullify or change the impact of key provisions.

Via AWID comes an interesting report regarding how the use of ‘reservations’ by countries in conjunction with ratification:

A landmark UN treaty on women’s rights, which will be 30 years old next week, is in danger of being politically undermined by a slew of reservations by 22 countries seeking exemptions from some of the convention’s legal obligations.

“A reservation must not defeat the object and purpose of a treaty,” Ambassador Palitha Kohona, a former chief of the UN Treaty Section, told IPS. If a state has intrinsic difficulties with a treaty, it has the right not to become a party, he said. “To become a party and then defeat the object and purpose of the treaty is unacceptable,” said Kohona, currently Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations.

The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), which will commemorate its 30th anniversary on Dec. 18, has been described as “an international bill of rights for women” and has been ratified by 186 member states. But 22 member states, ranging from Algeria and Australia to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and the United Kingdom, have exercised their right not to implement certain provisions of the treaty, even though they have signed and ratified CEDAW.

You can read the complete analysis here.

In addition AWID reports here that an Arab women’s organization, Equality Without Reservation, has called for the heads of Arab states to:

  • Withdraw all reservations to the Convention and reform all discriminatory laws which constitute obstacles to the fulfilment of the rights of women as citizens.
  • Integrate the principles of equality and non-discrimination based on gender into constitutions, laws and action plans and ensure their implementation.
  • Support the efforts of non-governmental organisations to raise awareness on the Convention and contribute to its implementation in order to end all forms of discrimination against women and promote substantive equality.

Ambassador Kohona raises the point that,

human rights treaties tend to attract a noticeable number of reservations. Some treaties, Kohona explained, may prohibit reservations. However, “states having the sovereign right to lodge reservations to treaties in the generality of cases when they become party, have exercised this right extensively,” he said. Others, he pointed out, “have surreptitiously sought to achieve the same objective by crafting clever declarations of understanding.”

While we understand Ambassador Kohona’s point regarding national sovereignty inasmuch as that has traditionally been an unassailable canon of international law, national sovereignty is not an excuse for the continuing  denial of women’s full human rights that is a global pandemic that knows no boundaries. The Feminist Peace Network calls on the U.S. and the other  countries that have not fully implemented CEDAW to do so immediately and without reservation.

DeliciousFacebookGoogle+RedditStumbleUponTwitterPrintFriendlyEmailEvernoteDiggShare
 Posted by Fempeace on December 14, 2009

Franken Amendment Significant Step In Ending Military Culture Of Impunity That Allows Violence Against Women But Much More Is Needed

 1 Response »
Oct 072009
 

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
 Posted by Fempeace on October 7, 2009

Health Insurance Companies Say C-Sections Are A Pre-Existing Condition Because Having A Child Is A Choice

 4 Responses »
Sep 182009
 

Last week, it was pointed out that in some states,  our so-called health insurance companies are allowed to consider domestic violence a pre-existing condition.  As Think Progress points out, having had a cesarian section can also be considered a pre-existing condition.  Never mind that the U.S. has a sky rocketing c-section rate and that said c-sections are often performed for reasons other than because of medical necessity, such as soaring malpractice insurance rates.

If that doesn’t make you fume, check out Anthem’s explanation as to why c-sections are a pre-existing condition:

“The point of insurance is to insure against catastrophic care costs. That’s what you’re trying to aggregate and pool for such things as heart attacks and cancer,” said an Anthem Blue Cross spokesman. “Having a child is a matter of choice. Dealing with an adult onset illness, such as diabetes, heart disease breast or prostate cancer, is not a matter of choice.”

OH NO! ! It looks like we’re being accused of making reproductive choices again!

On the one hand you’ve got the faux family values folks telling us that we are baby killers if we exercise the right to end a pregnancy and we also have the insurance companies  sticking us with the risk of going bankrupt if we have a c-section.  Some choice.

And women are bearing all of the financial risk why?  And what about pregnancies where the mother would have preferred to get an abortion and couldn’t?  And what about pregnancies that are because the  parents didn’t understand about contraception because they attended a school with abstinence only sex ed?  Does this spokesperson comprehend that the “choice” to have children is how the human species propagates?

This isn’t about choice.  It is first of all about insurance companies being out to insure one thing only–their profits, at the expense of the health of the citizens of this nation and secondly that there are not adequate laws protecting women from misogynist profiteering that violate their human rights.  Full stop.  Enough.  We need single payer universal healthcare now and we need to pass the Equal Rights Amendment and CEDAW to insure that these horrifying practices end immediately.

DeliciousFacebookGoogle+RedditStumbleUponTwitterPrintFriendlyEmailEvernoteDiggShare
 Posted by Fempeace on September 18, 2009