Write to your Senator, cancel out some crazy

It’s discouraging to see any opposition to the International Violence Against Women Act (I-VAWA, H.R. 4594, S. 2982), which is going to be discussed by the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations this week. The act would:

1) Increase our government’s response to violence against women and girls by creating a new Office for Women’s Global Development within USAID, which will (among other things) coordinate foreign assistance programs to take action on this issue, and authorize funds to local organizations working to stop gender violence.

2) Include gender violence prevention and response in the trainings given to our military, foreign military, and other security forces, including peacekeepers.

3) Make sure that gender violence is addressed in humanitarian and post-conflict settings, like refugee and IDP camps.

4) Increase the number of women peacekeepers deployed.

5) Amp up the emergency response to gender violence crises situations in the context of armed conflict.

5) A lot of great other things.

It’s especially discouraging if that opposition is ill-informed and misogynist, as was the article that popped up on my  news alert today (and which I refuse to link to lest I participate in garnering it any more attention).  But it made me really mad to see that anyone could argue against such a just and necessary measure while toting the ‘family values’ card as an excuse. To counteract some of that, here’s a link where you can write to your senator or representative in support of I-VAWA.

Afghanistan has changed, but have we?

Back in 2001, when the United States first occupied Afghanistan, it’s not hard to remember that ‘the plight of Afghan women’ was central to the public rhetoric around the invasion. Literally thousands of news articles referring to the veiling, oppression, and restrictions imposed by the Taliban served as an ethical underpinning for intervention; many (if not most) of these articles suggested that the invasion would free women from the tyranny of oppressive rule.

After nearly a decade of military presence, the improvement in women’s lives hasn’t been as vast or immediate as early public sentiment anticipated. Undoubtedly, there have been significant changes and improvements in women’s lives since the fall of the Taliban. But the Westernized notions of liberalization and liberation didn’t wholly take, in part because our expectations about the nature of the conflict were misguided.

Unsurprisingly, after a while, people began to realize that despite the Taliban’s official ousting, women continued to face extreme obstacles in achieving basic civil rights, human rights and protections. With that realization, Afghan women received far less public attention. But a disturbing photograph on the cover of Time Magazine a few months ago, and a recent article in the New York Times got me thinking about the role that media plays in reflecting and perpetuating normative, preconceived, and (often) problematic notions about Afghan women.

Last year, I researched the changes in media representations of Afghan women in US newspapers and magazines for a class. It was a fairly small bit of research, in that I looked at about ten articles per three month period (the first period was post-invasion in 2001, the second was post-surge in 2009). I was trying to determine if the media pertaining to Afghan women had changed along with American public opinion and with the seeming failures of ongoing military presence.

Back in 2001, there was a feeling of hope (or perhaps even expectancy) that invasion would change women’s lives for the better. There were also some problematic themes: stereotypes about the violent nature of Afghan men and the submissive nature of Afghan women, and a sense that Afghan women were regarded as a homogenized group with universal interests and attitudes with very little personal agency. Most news articles in 2001 suggested that women needed- and had expressed a desire for- protection and military aid. There was extensive messaging around veiling, and de-veiling, which became a sort of mantra and euphemism for the freedoms military intervention would bring. Just your garden variety Orientalism.

I’m not the first person to make this observation, and my findings fit into the survey of academic discourse on the subject. If you’re curious, check out this article, or this one.

In 2009, right after Obama authorized a surge of 30,000 troops on December 1, I did another search to see if those same themes were present in mentions of Afghan women. By the time of the surge, it was clear the promise Colonel Powell made had not been met, and repeating the idea that invasion would substantiate women’s rights would have likely become an illegitimate theme in the eyes of the American public. Reports from human rights agencies indicated that the insecurity and insurgency resultant of occupation might have increased women’s vulnerability to certain types of violence in specific regions.

In the media, some things changed, some didn’t. There was a lot less to choose from- far fewer articles (about 60 compared with the previous 1000)came up with the same search terms during a three month period eight years apart. But the most noticeable change was that most of the 2009 articles focused on individual humanitarian work, rather than the impact and sacrifice of American troops. Interestingly, in the articles I found, the surge was barely mentioned. Most articles just ignored the fact that there was an American military presence, and focused on uplifting public interest stories (and a lot of buzz around the TV show, “Afghan Star”).

Although the 2009 articles have substantially different content than those published in 2001, they do rely on similar thematic tropes: both the presumed desire for foreign protection and Orientalist themes are evident in the bulk of the articles published in the months following the surge. But interestingly, these later articles seemed to employ these same themes to justify why the liberalization and freedoms didn’t manifest as quickly as we’d imagined. Those justifications are resigned to the same cultural stereotypes: the Afghan culture prevents it, and the ideology of the Taliban is so deeply rooted that it will take a generation (or longer) to internalize the freedoms the US has created, Afghan women lack personal agency, etc etc.

Regardless of the actual reasons for the lack of expediency in the achievement of full (or even basic) rights for women, it’s notable that while the support for war and military presence has changed, the ways that women have been portrayed in the public realm has remained fairly stagnant.

(Let me take a moment to iterate that I’m not a conspiracy theorist, and I don’t think the media is a tool of the government. But I think that the news that is compelling to the public are the ones that endorse and perpetuate the things we already believe to be true- or that we need to believe are true in order to justify the version of our collective identity that we understand. I’m sure there was some media out there that was more nuanced, but I didn’t find it.)

A year later, our military presence in Afghanistan wages on. Given the context of the public perceptions and depictions of Afghan women over the last ten years, I thought this week’s NY Times article allows for some interesting analysis in the context of the themes I’ve described. The article is about a middle class family, in which the mother is a member of Parliament and the sole breadwinner. She wears a veil, but not a burka. She has four daughters, but one is dressed as a boy so that she can attend school, shop in the market, and do other tasks that are restricted to boys and men in the public sphere.

The decision to do a public interest story in and of itself is telling; there’s only brief and illusory mention of US policy, military, conflict, insurgents, etc. It’s a story that highlights a woman, Azita Rafaat,  who has overcome significant obstacles to achieve her political and social position; this is a woman who embodies the ideals that the American public predicted the Afghan women would want. Yet, the story conveys, there is work to be done. Women’s rights are achievable, and are desired by Afghan women (Ms. Rafaat manifests that desire, as a political leader fighting for women’s rights), but young girls must appear publicly as boys in order to avoid gender discrimination.

The portrait of Ms. Rafaat in this article embodies what I’ve found to be the most common way of understanding Afghan women at this cultural moment in America: they are different than us, but they want to be more like us, and we need to help them. All these things may very well be true for some women, but I object to the notion that they are universally so; that would fall into the Orientalist rut of homogenizing another group. One has to consider that there are some Afghan women who choose to wear more tradition dress, who have agency over their lives but support and endorse the ideologies (like strict gender divisions) that are assumed by Western standards to be repressive and outdated. The stories of those women are not often told. Of course, it is possible (and in my mind, desirable) to want to guarantee basic civil and human rights for women without denying their cultural, ideological and religious traditions- but our collective conscious (at least as it’s portrayed in the media) doesn’t seem to be able to distinguish the two.

Interesting, too, that this sort of story kind of ‘otherizes’ Afghan culture by drawing attention to something extremely discriminated against in American culture- gender bending. If a girl were dressed as a boy, there would be some sort of heteronormative right-wing outrage. But the article is basically saying- it’s not us, it’s them, and they are different, and this behavior emphasizes just how big that gulf is and how much work needs to be done before they are like us. You can hear the interviewer in the video saying with some judgment in her tone, “So…this is ‘normal’ in Afghan Society?” But just the idea of dressing a girl as a boy to allow her to access male privilege demonstrates what the American public craves- that there is some latent desire in Afghan culture to allow girls and women to have more freedoms in the narrow way that Americans imagine freedom. But gaining equalities and freedoms are different than gaining the conventional signposts of Westernization, and two are often confused.

It’s interesting to me that despite all the changes that after ten years in Afghanistan, we are still thinking about Afghan women in narrow ways. These articles convey that Americans want to feel desired and needed in Afghanistan; we want to do the right thing, and affect positive change in women’s lives. And despite the problematic pre-conceived notions attached the sentiment, there is a positive angle to all the media attention around Afghan women: as long as there’s a US military presence in Afghanistan (and it’ looks like it’s not going anywhere for a while) there is an opportunity to use our resources and leverage to protect women’s rights and security.

Women unite for peace…and weapons training!

It’s still pretty rare to find any media related to women in Afghanistan that doesn’t convey the general message, “their lives are so difficult, their veils are so oppressive.” But this clip shows women leaders, fighters, and trailblazers. I wish there was more like this on FOX and CNN. Plus, I like the part where Brigadier General Anne MacDonald gives a rah rah for international sisterhood.

Michelle Bachelet Gets a New Job

In exciting news today, Chilean ex-President Michelle Bachelet will be taking the lead at UNWomen , the recently created UN agency dedicated to furthering the needs of global women. As reported earlier this summer, the establishment of UNWomen has come after years of advocacy from within and outside the UN, and is considered a triumph for the consideration of women’s rights, development and protections by the international community. The agency brings together four existing UN agencies- UNIFEM, INSTRAW, UNDP’s DAW, and the office of the special advisor on gender issues. The combined budget will see a significant increase, and the new organization is expected to be operational by January 1.

President Bachelet is not a surprising choice, and was an early consideration for the post. She provides the cache that the post of Under-Secretary-General deserves and requires. Previous women’s agencies did not have a position ranked as high as USG, and so were limited in their access to the decision making bodies at the UN. Wikipedia tells me that she was ranked #15 on the 2008 list of the world’s most influential people, for whatever that’s worth.  It’s also significant that she’s from the global south, and will be able to quiet some of the outrage that has been elicited by member states who (rightly) feel that the south is not properly represented in UN bodies.

Bachelet’s background is impressive, but I was curious to took a closer look at her life, work and policies related to gender and conflict, to see if there is anything to be discerned from her experiences that allude to her ability to galvanize the international community and amp up dedication to fulfilling the goals the UN has set out.  My knowledge of recent Chilean history is fairly limited, so my background information is mostly the result of a few hours of internet sleuthing.

Bachelet’s personal history has undoubtedly given her a strong familiarity with militarism, conflict and justice.  The army institution, and socialist doctrine, played a large role in her upbringing. Her father was an Air Force Brigadier General who was detained and tortured to death when Pinochet’s regime came to power in 1973. After experiencing detention and torture herself, she sought refuge in Australia, and then Germany, where she pursued medical studies.  She’s been notably self reflective about the impact of her family history on her choices and path:

“Having experienced personally and through my family the tragedy of Chile is something always present in my memory. I do not want events of that nature ever to happen again, and I have dedicated an important part of my life to ensuring that and to the reunion of all Chileans.”

Upon returning to Pinochet’s Chile, living (and attempting to work as a new physician) under his authoritarian regime certainly would have impacted her values related to freedom and international restraints on state sovereignty.  Her decades of work as a physician and health advocate would also likely impact her understanding of the relationship between politics, health, and government. Later in her career, she continued her studies in the field of in military studies, defense, and military strategy. She received a political appointment as the Minister of Health, then the Defense Minister, then was elected president in 2006.

This strikes me as the portrait of a woman who is committed to healing, but understands the pragmatic reality of war.  Although the fields of health and military strategy may seem like divergent topics of interest, I think the combination makes her an ideal candidate for her new UN post. Her biography suggests she has had intimate personal experience with a great deal of issues relevant to her post:  she has experienced life under a dictatorship, she has witnessed the multifaceted and long term effects of a repressive regime, and she has participated in post-authoritarian democratic development. As a health practitioner, she has had on-the-ground experience with a breadth of issues, many of which were no doubt related to the conflict in which she was practicing medicine. Her academic achievements related to the field of defense, and her experience as the Defense minister, will help her understand the politics of intervention, strategy and militarism. And of course, her Presidency- notable for the precedent she set as Latin America’s first woman President (or head of state not married to a previous leader) puts her in a position to garner the attention and political force that UNWomen needs to actually get things done.

All in all, this bodes very well for a USG who is strong on issues related to gender and conflict. I’m particularly compelled by her snappy remarks during an interview with the Council on Foreign Relations back in 2008, when she stated:

“The bottom line of all this is that those multilateral institutions designed more than six decades ago, essentially the U.N. system, are no longer fully adequate for managing today’s global challenges. If these institutions are not reformed, and fail to reflect the diverse and complex political environment that prevails — prevails nowadays, they will be unable to provide the kind of governance that the 21st century calls for.”

In the same interview, she also puts forward her liberal policies on women’s reproductive health:

“…when I was minister of Health — that was from 2000 to end of 2001 — we did that.  We studied the after — the morning-after pill.  We decided that it was okay.  And now from that time on, it’s — you can buy it everywhere.”

Open attitudes and innovative solutions to women’s health issues, I think, are imperative to a successful global policy. If we aren’t ready to think about new approaches to gender violence, sexual health and reproductive health, the MDG’s are going to continue to be postponed.  So that’s another big point for Bachelet; she’s practical, she gets it, and she’s not afraid of making radical choices that she knows- as a doctor, a political leader and a woman- are in the best interest of the state. In her own words:

“And I believe strongly, not only as doctor but also as a woman, that in a country the role of a government is to assure alternatives, and every person with its own belief can decide which can be used.”

That sounds like someone I want in charge.  Just from my very preliminary survey of her work and life, she strikes me as someone who is willing to make difficult, groundbreaking decisions and push for what she knows is right. She’s been a victim of oppressive rule and a democratically elected leader. She knows what it’s like to be at either end of the political spectrum. Now she’s been given an opportunity to change the UN System that she claimed was inadequate two years ago. I’m really curious to see what she does first (and I bet I’m not the only one hoping that task number will be fixing that unfortunate acronym).

SCR 1325 and Rape in the DRC: What went wrong?

The UN’s Say No Campaign has created an urgent appeal in an effort to hasten the implementation of Security Council resolution 1325, which (among other things) draws attention to the impact of conflict on women and girls and urges accountability for crimes of gender violence in conflict. You can read the full text of SCR 1325 here, and sign the petition here.

Despite the passing of SCR 1325 ten years ago, and the subsequent passage of SCR 1820 (which reaffirms the commitment to end gender violence  and to address the needs of women and girls in conflict), there has been little measurable success in accomplishing the goals that the Security Council has put forward.

While there have been some notable measures to increase the visibility and importance of sexual and gender based violence (SGBV) in conflict, like the appointment of Margaret Wallstrom to the newly created post of UN special representative on the prevention of sexual violence in conflict, there is still a lot of progress to be made.

The most recent criticism of UN action on the issue of SGBV (or lack thereof) surrounds the mass rape that occurred in Luvungi, DRC this past August.  The Security Council briefing from September 7 suggests that the UN peacekeeping forces in the region (called MONUSCO) did not fulfill their duty due to lack of intelligence and resources, and that consideration will be given to create provisions to avoid future atrocities.

An analysis published by Jason Stearns in the Christian Science Monitor today suggests several concrete mechanisms for MONUSCO to consider with regards to prevention, including the following:

“Hunt down the perpetrators. Protecting civilians does not stop when the violence is over. You need to do policing operations to bring those who carried out the attacks to justice together with the Congolese government.”

Though this is certainly a necessary measure, I think the analysis is somewhat short sighted. Yes, the perpetrators must be held accountable so that impunity is not perpetuated. But what about the victims of these rapes? The impact on communities, health and social welfare? What about the children born of these rapes? What about the military retributions for these rapes, which may perpetuate a cycle of violence?

A holistic solution to ending impunity and stopping violence against women requires engaging the women who experience- or are threatened- by violence in their homes, villages, and communities. I agree with Stearns that MONUSCO, and the Congolese Army, must step up their intelligence and protections. But the suggestions he makes apply to violence, without examining the specific nature of sexual and gender based violence. This was not a mass slaughter, but a mass rape, and must be treated as such. That includes providing the victims with a forum to receive physical and psychological healing, and perhaps reparations if their livelihoods were affected by the crime.

I hope that other commentators on the DRC briefing report recognize that creating accountability within the UN system, and manifesting the goals set out in SCR 1325 and 1820, require more than re-evaluating the military response.

Human Trafficking and the Occupation of Iraq

The Nation published an article the other week, found here, that elaborates on the aftershocks of gender violence in a country affected by ongoing conflict and occupation.  The authors focus on the trafficking of Iraqi women into Jordan and Syria, states that have routinely denied asylum status to Iraqis escaping conflict. It’s no surprise that the dismal conditions women face in war torn Iraq, paired with the lack of coherent asylum options and proliferation of insecurity and economic difficulties, have forced many women and girls into slave labor. This phenomenon- the tendency for gender based violence and conflict to go hand in hand- has been well documented by academics like Susan Brownmiller, Cynthia Enloe and Elizabeth Wood (to name a few).

The article suggests two possible ways for the US to ameliorate the increased rates of trafficking: “by classifying Iraqi trafficking victims as a “priority-two” (P-2) refugee resettlement group, thereby expediting their resettlement process” and by “encourage[ing] the UNHCR to focus on trafficking victims in Jordan and Syria.” Both of these actions are necessary, and would likely positively impact the plight of women seeking refuge from conflict in Iraq.

But these are band-aid fixes to the deeper problem of conflict-driven insecurity, one that will certainly be impacted by Obama’s declaration of the “end of combat mission” in Iraq last week.  Just what is our legal and ethical obligation to ameliorate violence (like human trafficking) that are fundamentally related to, but perhaps not directly caused by, wars and occupations in which we play a part?

Legally, during an occupation, the occupiers have a clear obligation.  Laws related to belligerent occupation (namely, the Hague Regulations and the Fourth Geneva Convention) require an occupier to manage the welfare of the occupied citizens. Though often ignored, it seems undeniable that trafficking, and other forms of violence against women and girls, can be counted as part of citizen’s welfare. But what happens when the occupation ends, the troops go home, but the  consequences of conflict (like human trafficking) remain? What is the obligation then? When trafficking rates rise during a conflict, as they often do, it is difficult to ignore the connection and the long term consequences.

The Nation article hones in upon this link: “The burgeoning sex industries in Syria and Jordan are thriving because of instability produced by the Iraq War—laying responsibility directly at the feet of the United States.”

The violence committed against women during the occupation in Iraq, and the subsequent lack of legal recourse for victims, indicate that the laws pertaining to belligerent occupation may not fully protect women while an occupation takes place. After an occupation ends, the legal protections and recourse for victims is even more limited.

This leads to the question, can subsequent military interventions can be re-imagined such that women’s freedoms and securities are better protected under current law during and after a belligerent occupation? Or is the more realistic choice require (and does practical reality necessitate) focusing on P-2 visas and increasing the capacity of UNHCR after the injustices have already been committed?

About this blog

This blog is about analyzing and understanding the ways that military intervention and foreign policy have impacted the lives, safety and equalities of women, and how women combatants have been affected by engaging in these conflicts. I am also interested in how women affect war: as peace activists, warriors, mediators, protesters, academics and politicians.

I won’t be commenting on the legal or ethical implications of military intervention (in the Middle East or generally), and I reserve the right to moderate any comments or posts that are inappropriate.

I look forward to hearing comments and insights from other researchers, activists and students to learn more about the experience of women in war and to strengthen the network of women acting against gender equality in the context of conflict.

To contact me or to learn more about my research, please write to genderingconflict at gmail dot com. I am always interested writing, consulting, collaboration and research projects.