Simona Donini, intern at UNRIC, Italy, San Marino, Malta and the Holy See desk, in Brussels
In the past few decades, much research has shown that women are increasingly being targeted during armed conflicts or political violence, and systematic acts of violence against women are often supported by governments and committed by military forces. Indeed, violence against women is never accidental; it is rather a weapon of war, a tool used to achieve military objectives such as ethnic cleansing, spreading terror, breaking the resistance of a community or rewarding soldiers. Does violence during armed conflict have a gender specific nature rooted in a global culture of discrimination that denies women equal status with men? What improvements have been made to safeguard and protect women during armed conflicts?
Feminist researchers on ethnic nationalism have focused on the role of gender in the constitution of ethnic-national ideologies. Yuval-Davis (1989, 1997) pointed out that in the context of violent ethnic conflicts women represent a “symbolic site of nationalism,” they are regarded, in relation to their role as biological reproducer, as the guardian of cultural values, while men as protectors of women. Women are linked with men’s honour and their ‘purity’ assumes a great importance. For instance, during the Partition of India, raped women’s bodies were inscribed with nationalistic slogans and their violation was interpreted as the violation of the nation to which they belonged. Their bodies became a battlefield to determine political power. Men would also kill them, in so called ‘honour killings’, to prevent them from becoming a permanent symbol of humiliation (Butalia,1998). Enloe (1989) illustrated that while decision making and economic power belongs primarily to men, politics are played out on women’s bodies in various ways. Women have been made into ideological battlegrounds on which to assert a territorial claim, therefore there is great cultural significance to raping enemy women and gender violence has become a very specific strategy of ethnic cleansing or warfare.
Rape by soldiers of defeated women has occurred during wartime for centuries. Seifert has argued that rape can be explained in three different ways: first, per the ‘booty principle,’ women as rewards after the victory; second, as a way to humiliate the enemy and to show that men have been unable to protect their women; and third, as a way to increase solidarity and male bonding (in Moser and Clarks 2001). Rape is also a way to capture economic resources and is related to the embedded patriarchal construction of women as property. In Yugoslavia it was used to terrorise the population and humiliate the community (Turshen 2001: 59), but women had to carry the shame because they embodied the failure of men to protect. In Bosnia it was used to impregnate Muslim women thus preventing them from reproducing in their own community. In Rwanda it was used to terrorise communities and discourage resistance and as well as being part of the ‘war booty’ women were kidnapped for labour as cooks or cleaners as well as sex slaves. Rape in Darfur is being used by the government of Sudan and private security firms to displace and evict people from land that is rich in oil. In this context rape is a systematic way to remove an obstacle to a resource and disperse entire villages in a society that already makes women vulnerable and unable to assert any rights (Macklin, 2001).
A number of different authors have shown that gender-based violence takes place not only before, during, and after conflict, but also in the absence of war. Cockburn (2004) conceptualised gender violence as a continuum, not limited only to armed conflicts but existing in everyday domestic life. Indeed, that women are most likely to be assaulted by known men, particularly by sexual partners, has been one of the most undeniable discoveries of feminist research on sexual violence in the domestic space. Cockburn argues that sites of gendered violence - the battlefield and the household - are intertwined. Giles and Hyndman (2004) also argue that gender-based violence in war does not exist isolated in time or location, but is part of a process in which it can be linked to gender relations in the household. Kelly (2000: 46), considering sexual violence as one of the most successful forms of patriarchal control aimed at constraining women’s lives, argues that sexual violence, as the State’s planned tactic during war and political oppression, is linked in many ways to sexual violence in other contexts. Indeed, feminist analysis of gender violence in war refuses to identify it as dissimilar from GBV in other contexts such as the domestic one.
History has demonstrated that gender-based violence during armed conflicts has been seldom punished, often hidden. Threats against those who reveal abuses, the existence of special national legislation which prevents prosecution of crimes committed during war, and laws assuring amnesty to wartime perpetrators as part of peace-making ‘deals' have all contributed to the impunity of sexual crimes committed during war. Nevertheless with the recent rise of women’s rights movements, more refined legal instruments and institutions committed to reinforcing human rights have recognised and condemned sexual violence perpetrated in periods of armed conflict, whether with the aim of destabilizing the population, carrying out ethnic cleansing or supplying soldiers with a sexual service. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Violence Against Women adopted by the UN General Assembly 1993, for instance, restated the important responsibility of governments to protect women; the ICC adopted the Rome Statute which has included acts such as rape, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization committed systematically against civilians in war as crimes against humanity. UN Security Council resolution 1325, passed in October 2000 aimed to ensure gender equality in political leadership, support women as they return to their homes, ensure safety for women in refugee camps, and, insisting on accountability for sexual violence, brought the promise of a systematic approach to address women’s issues in armed conflict. Furthermore, UN Security Council Resolution 1820 passed on June 2008 has recognised that sexual violence is deployed for military and political ends, and has called for a coherent response to the problem. Important parts of the resolution include the recognition that women and girls are particularly targeted during war, and sexual violence is used as a weapon to generate fear and humiliation. The resolution also notes the necessity of including women in post-conflict negotiations and conflict resolution in order to create durable peace, security and reconciliation.
While this resolution has its limits and while it alone does not constitute effective action to end sexual violence, it is an important step forward. There should be no impunity for individuals who have engaged in targeted violence against women, including rape used as a weapon of war. The International Criminal Court and other international and domestic tribunals should continue to target perpetrators of gender-based violence and women should be more engaged in the process of peace negotiations and post-conflict reconstruction. Female participation is certainly the best way to ensure accountability for past abuses and building gender sensitive security forces. ■
References
- N. Yuval-Davis, “Gender and the Nationalist Imagination, War and Peace,” in W. Giles and J Hyndman Sites of Violence: Gender and Conflict Zones, London: University of California Press, 2004.
- C. Enloe, Bananas Beaches, and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics. Berkley: University Press of California, 1989.
- C. Moser and F. C. Clarks, Victim, Perpetrators or Actors? Gender, Armed Conflict and Political Violence. London: Zed Books, 2001.
- M.Turshen, “The Political Economy of Rape: An Analysis of Systematic Rape and Sexual Abuse of Women during Armed Conflict in Africa” in Victors, Perpetrators or Actors: Gender, Armed Conflict and Political Violence edited by C. Moser and F. Clarke, 5568. London: Zed Books, 2001
- C. Cockburn, “The Continuum of Violence: A Greater Perspective on War and Peace,” in W. Giles and J. Hyndman, Sites of Violence: Gender and Conflict Zones. London: University of California Press, 2004.
- W. Giles and J Hyndman,“ Introduction: Gender and Conflict in a Global Context” in Sites of Violence: Gender and Conflict Zones. London: University of California Press, 2004.
- L. Kelly, “Wars Against Women: Sex Violence Sex Politics and Militarized State” in S. Jacobs, R. Jacobson and J. Marchbank State of Conflict: Gender Violence and Resistance. London: Zed Books, 2000.
- Butalia, Urvashi, ed. The Other Side of Silence: Voices from the Partition of India. New Delhi: Penguin, 1998.
0 comment(s) to... “Gender-based violence and armed conflict”
0 comments:
Post a Comment