Yesterday, the United Nations Security Council unanimously declared sexual violence to be a tactic of war. (h/t SAFER)
Maj. Gen. Patrick Cammaert, a former U.N. peacekeeping commander, told the meeting: “It has probably become more dangerous to be a woman than a soldier in an armed conflict.”
Speakers identified former Yugoslavia, Sudan’s Darfur region, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda and Liberia as conflict regions where deliberate sexual violence had occurred on a mass scale.
U.N. officials have said the problem is currently worst in eastern Congo. But a recent survey of 2,000 women and girls in Liberia showed 75 percent had been raped during the West African country’s civil war.
A U.S.-sponsored resolution adopted unanimously by the council called sexual violence “a tactic of war to humiliate, dominate, instil fear in, disperse and/or forcibly relocate civilian members of a community or ethnic group.”
It said the violence “can significantly exacerbate situations of armed conflict and may impede the restoration of international peace and security.”
It called on parties to conflict to take immediate measures to protect civilians from sexual violence, said such crimes should be excluded from amnesty after conflicts, and warned that the council would consider special measures against parties that commit them when imposing or renewing sanctions.
It’s also heartening to note that U.S. Secretary of State Condelezza Rice was the champion of the resolution.
The United States, council president for June, chose sexual violence as the theme of the month’s debate on a general issue. As well as Rice, several government ministers replaced ambassadors as their countries’ representatives.
Opening the debate, Rice noted there had long been dispute about whether the theme was a security issue and hence something the Security Council was authorized to address.
“I am proud that today we respond to that lingering question with a resounding ‘yes’,” she said. “This world body now acknowledges that sexual violence in conflict zones is indeed a security concern.
“We affirm that sexual violence profoundly affects not only the health and safety of women but the economic and social stability of their nations.”
But. (Oh, there’s always a but.) While I really, really want to be happy about this — after all, it’s big news, right? A historic moment! — I feel a distinct sense of discontentment. For fuck’s sake, people, it’s 2008. I mean, do we understand this? Two thousand eight. Two thousand fucking eight. And we’re just finally getting around to this . . . now? It took until 2008 for the United Nations to recognize sexual violence as a weapon of war? What the hell is wrong with this picture? I hate to look a gift horse in the mouth, but I really can’t let this pass without comment. It’s bad enough that sexual violence is a weapon of war, and that for the most part, we clearly don’t give a shit. We couldn’t even bother to put it down on paper? What kind of world are we dealing with? And we’re supposed to be grateful for it?
More than that, though, I’m skeptical about how much of a “gift” it is, anyway. There’s the simple fact that I don’t trust U.N. resolutions to actually, well, do anything. Of course, we’ll have to wait and see whether or not any effort is actually made towards implementation. But the cracks are already showing.
The resolution had been negotiated for weeks between council members and with human rights and women’s groups. Diplomats said China and Russia, which both voted in favour, had watered down some language, including on sanctions.
Chinese Deputy Ambassador Liu Zhenmin told the council it should focus on preventing conflicts in the first place and that sexual violence “should not be treated as a stand-alone issue, nor should attention be given to its symptoms only.”
The problem is of course, Darfur. Russia and China have helped to arm the genocide in Darfur and have opposed or directly undermined any real effort on behalf of the U.N. to intervene in the conflict. The fact that Darfur is one of the areas where rape is most widely being used as a war tactic is no coincidence here.
Oh, and then there’s the little issue of the U.N. itself being part of the problem. And while the role of U.N. peacekeepers in perpetuating sexual violence is acknowledged in the resolution, self-policing always seems particularly difficult to actually pull off.
You can read more, including the full resolution, here. Perhaps someone with a bit more knowledge on this sort of thing can give it a read and let us know whether or not it has any real teeth. Am I just being hugely pessimistic? What do others think?
I will vote for “you are being too pessimistic”. There is no doubt that rape should have been considered a war crime a long long time ago. But “should have happened long ago” and “too late” are worlds apart. It means a lot that rapists can now be indicted for a war crime. Any time potential punishment is increased for sexual violence is a good thing in my book first, before all else.
I am also heartened that this was supported by the US (lets face it, the US has historically failed miserably in human rights). And no matter how unfair it is, this fact makes the likelihood of its enforcement much much stronger.
I absolutely agree with you here. I think that part of my pessimism/anger though comes from the fact that I haven’t really seen anyone else acknowledging that this delay was a huge, tragic, deadly mistake and that this is only the very, very beginning of righting that wrong. Instead, I see lots of pats on the back being handed out, and the resolution being watered down by nations who have a direct interest in continued sexual violence as war tactic, or at least in covering it up. (As for the cover up, at least, the U.S. also has an interest here.)
I also agree with you that the U.S.’s involvement is a good thing (and briefly mentioned so). But again with the pessimism, the U.S. expressing support doesn’t guarantee enforcement. After all, we were going to bring democracy to Iraq and women’s rights to Afghanistan.
U.N. officials have said the problem is currently worst in eastern Congo. But a recent survey of 2,000 women and girls in Liberia showed 75 percent had been raped during the West African country’s civil war.
While these figures are no doubt atrocities I wonder why it is that they did not also mention the crimes committed by western soldiers. This speaks as if the intent is to cure the dark colored peoples of their savagery. It should have been made more clear that ALL rape is unacceptable.
Very true Renee, all rape is unacceptable. One needn’t try too hard to hear about what happens to people even on “our side” such as the contractors in Iraq. One thing though that I wonder about with this is if too much focus will be put on rape as a tactic as war. Of course a ton more needs to be put on and it took too long to happen but as I remember reading about all those rape camps in kosovo, the numbers were wildly misreported and the sexual sadism wasnt contained to the male on female paradigm as the reporting would make it seem. It also seems strange to me that in some African countries for example, the rapes are reported as travesties and the numbers reported as much as possible but the number killed isnt so much. Is it because the number of killed include a lot of the rapists? I dont mean one has to be more important than the other, only that the totality should be reported on so that the public is made aware of just how fucked up things are. http://adamjones.freeservers.com/effacing.htm is something along the lines im talking about. We just need to get it all out there, to make people realize that rape is indeed a tactic of war and why that is so, it goes beyond what most people realize but also to emphasize the other human costs and not sweep them under the rug due to unsympathetic victims.
I’m unclear on the significance of this. Acknowledging that sexual violence is a “tactic of war” sounds like they’re just putting it in the toolbox alongside landmines and bullets and bombs as something armies use when they’re fighting. I don’t see anything about it being declared a war crime, which would be true progress. Did I miss something? Does “tactic of war” actually mean something different from what I think it does?
This is why, when I see all the praise lavished on soldiers, I get just a little uncomfortable. How about some consideration for their victims?
Considering how members of the UN Security Council are able to sabotage UN resolutions for their own political interests as you’ve pointed out and the tendency to do little more than pay lip service even to many things they do care about, I share that pessimism and anger.
The pats on the back is part of the UN members self-congratulatory attitude that causes the stereotype of the UN as a glorified debating country-club for diplomats to stick for many people both in and out of the US.
Rape and other forms of sexual violence have been prosecuted as war crimes by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia for years and now will be by the ICC also, so this is really not a new development. If my brain wasn’t scrambled right now, I could give you the case names. The only one I remember the name of right now is the Tadic case from the ICTY because it’s the most famous.
Anyway, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have lots of information on rape and other forms of sexual violence as war crimes.
Anyway, Amnesty Interational and Human Rights Watch have lots of information on rape and other forms of sexual violence as war crimes
One of the many reasons that Amnesty Internation recently adopted a policy on abortion was that, without any policy on the subject, it had been unable to comment fully on subjects such as rape as a weapon of war in Darfur, since any comment on such a subject necessarily involves discussions of provision of abortion services, or lack thereof, and the deaths that can and do result from backstreet abortions. Of course, the various anti-abortion groups, such as the Catholic Church, ignored this openly stated fact in their rush to condemn the adoption of a very limited policy.
Apologies for hijacking the thread, but as someone who was involved peripherally in this, I was very angry at the way Amnesty was mischaracterised over this subject.
Here is a question, though. If rape is identified as “a war tactic” (i.e. “legitimate tactic of war”) then can people still be prosecuted for rape as a “war crime” in the future under the U.N. resolution?
Well, as long as the thread is being hijacked: I have no use for Amensty International. Specifically, I hate how they lump the U.S. in with the most abusive, dictatorial regimes around the world because we have capital punishment.
Understand, I’m against capital punishment and always have been. But AI’s approach is overkill and totally alienating.
Bitter Scribe, I’m on Amnesty’s mailing lists and a donor, and I hear very little from them on U.S. capital punishment. In terms of the U.S., I mainly hear from them about Guantanamo. Maybe I’m on the wrong mailing lists . . . though I’m not sure that their campaigning against capital punishment would actually upset me in any way.
“Here is a question, though. If rape is identified as “a war tactic” (i.e. “legitimate tactic of war”) then can people still be prosecuted for rape as a “war crime” in the future under the U.N. resolution?”
Rape is not being identified as a legitimate tactic of war, but as a war crime. This makes it illegal. The resolution allows for sanctions for places where sexual violence is used as a tool to incite terror, ethnic cleansing, genocide. This is bringing attention to an epidemic and making it easier to campaign against rape as a weapon of war.
Does anyone have any good academic articles on this? I am actually doing some research on the topic and would like to find more academic articles.
AI does this because WE ARE in the same league as the worst regimes when it comes to capital punishment. And we were even worse before the execution of juvenile offenders was outlawed.
Try, for a moment, to see how your country might be viewed FROM THE OUTSIDE when it comes to human rights.
And along those lines, the Open Society Institute is expanding and refocusing its work here in the US, and the press release announcing that is titled: “Recognizing Profound and Urgent Threats to Democracy, the Open Society Institute Charts New Direction for Its Work in the United States.”
“Rape is not being identified as a legitimate tactic of war, but as a war crime. This makes it illegal. The resolution allows for sanctions for places where sexual violence is used as a tool to incite terror, ethnic cleansing, genocide. This is bringing attention to an epidemic and making it easier to campaign against rape as a weapon of war.”
Okay, thanks. I wasn’t sure how this was being handled. I assumed that if it was being labeled “a tactic of war” then it would no longer be considered an atrocity and could no longer be called a “war crime” (if it ever was….).
[...] (via Feminste) [...]