W
ith
no end in sight to the war on terrorism, it is increasingly urgent
to recogniz
e
the effects of war on women. The pandemic of violence against women
continues, exacerbated by militarism.
The
theory of “power over” an “other” provides the
common thread between military campaigns and assaults against women.
In order for “power over” to work, an other must be defined
by creating distinctions (no matter how false) between people, cultures,
and so on. The other can be a person, country, ethnic group, etc.
Militarism depends on creating an other by declaring distinctions
between two groups. The other is asserted to be “less than.”
The other must then be controlled or destroyed.
Commonly,
whether implicitly or explicitly, women are the “other.”
Consequently, it becomes necessary in the eyes of those who seek
power to control and belittle women. In many cultures, women are
viewed as the possessions of their men. Therefore, when a woman
is raped, it is effectively an attack on the “manhood of her
man.” Using this reasoning, wo- men become the targets of war
in order to attack the honor of the men of a particular culture,
ethnic group, or country. For these reasons, rape and other forms
of sexual assault against women are always a part of war and conflict.
When women are assumed to be possessions that can be attacked, stolen,
and dishonored, they become a means of “feminizing” and
degrading the enemy.
Since
the beginning of patriarchy, women have been considered the spoils
of war, made invisible today under the euphemistic phrase, “collateral
damage.” In Rwanda, at least 250,000 women were raped in the
1994 genocide. During the 1990s, more than 20,000 Muslim women were
raped as part of an ethnic cleansing campaign in Bosnia. In 2003,
the UN reported thousands of women and girls had been raped during
fighting in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Gang rape was so widespread
and brutal that doctors began classifying vaginal destruction as
a combat-related crime.
Military
training frequently encourages the hatred and belittling of women.
The use of gender slurs motivate men to act aggressively, both toward
women within their own culture and women of the “other”
culture. Pornography and prostitution have always been unofficially
sanctioned forms of entertainment for soldiers. Until 1999, pornography
could easily be purchased by servicepeople at U.S. military base
commissaries, which were one of the largest purchasers of hard core
pornography.
There
has always been an unspoken U.S. military policy of keeping men
happy. An active sex industry for military R&R has been consistently
allowed and encouraged to flourish, in direct violation of U.S.
and international law. Women are forced into prostitution as de
facto sex slaves for the military in a variety of ways, such as
false employment promises, being sold by their families, abduction,
etc. It is no surprise that trafficking routes tend to spring up
near military bases. More than 5,000 women, mainly from the Philippines
and the former Soviet Union, were trafficked into South Korea in
the mid-1990s, primarily to work as “entertainers” at
bars near U.S. military bases.
Women
in the military are also considered fair targets. In a recent study,
30 percent of female veterans reported experiencing rape or attempted
rape by U.S. servicemen. According to a Department of Defense survey,
one in five female cadets at the Air Force Academy said they had
been sexually assaulted during their time there. Many of these assaults
were not reported when they occurred because the victims feared
retaliation, such as damage to their careers or being accused of
being disloyal or unpatriotic.
Sexual
harassment has long plagued women in the military. The Tailhook
scandal illustrates the depth of the problem. In that case, over
50 officers were implicated in making women run a gauntlet where
they were man-handled in a variety of sexual ways. Six other officers
were accused of blocking the investigation into the scandal. Despite
Congressional hearings and massive news coverage, none of those
implicated were ever court martialed or prosecuted in civilian courts.
There
is also a long history of domestic violence within military culture.
There have been 218 domestic murders in the U.S. military since
1995. While there are services available for military families who
experience domestic violence, the system makes it hard for military
wives to report the problem.
In
general there are very few safeguards for the victim. Batterers
are rarely prosecuted or barred from getting near their victims.
The attitude of commanders when told of domestic violence incidents
has tended to be, “I’ll take care of it, he’s my
soldier,” rather than one of protecting the victim. It is not
uncommon for commanders to ignore orders for anger management counseling
and the like when it conflicts with military assignments. In fact,
the military has handled most cases of domestic violence by administrative
actions rather than by court martial. In sharp contrast, in 1990,
80 percent of civilian cases were referred for prosecution.
The
effects of militarism during post-conflict periods are also quite
grave. Men returning from war frequently transfer their entitlement
to commit violence from the battlefield to their own communities.
For example, after the supposed end to the war in Afghanistan, the
condition for women in that country has worsened considerably. Rape,
forced prostitution and marriages, acid burnings, the bombing of
girls’ schools, and the sale of women are daily atrocities.
In the U.S., three soldiers returning from duty in Afghanistan killed
their wives at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
Misogynist
violence is a major component of the global pandemic of violence
against women. But we must go beyond that and recognize that men’s
violence against women is so prevalent that even in peacetime, there
is no peace for women. According to a recent UNIFEM report, one
in three women will be sexually assaulted during their lifetime.
According to the U.S. Justice Department, every 90 seconds, a person
over the age of 12 is sexually assaulted; 89 percent of the victims
are female, 99 percent of the perpetrators are male. It is critical
that those who are working to raise awareness about misogynist violence
and those who are working to end militarism recognize the intersection
of their agendas and find ways to work together.
Towards
this end, there are many tools that can and should be used. These
include the implementation of UNSC 1325 and CEDAW as well as the
utilization of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which was
established by treaty in 2002 and codifies accountability for gender-based
crimes against women during military conflict by defining sexual
and gender violence of all kinds as war crimes. It also includes
means to facilitate better investigation of these crimes and protection
of witnesses and victims as well as legal counsel for victims.
UNSC
Resolution 1325 mandates the protection of, and respect for, the
human rights of women and girls and calls for the increased representation
of women in decision-making for the prevention, management, and
resolution of conflict and peace processes. It also calls for increasing
the number of women appointed as special representatives. Other
provisions include support of local women’s peace initiatives
and respect for international law applicable to the rights and protection
of women and girls. It calls for adopting special measures to protect
women and girls from gender-based violence, and calls for ensuring
that Security Council missions take gender considerations and rights
of women into account, including through consultation with local
and international women’s groups.
The
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against
Women (CEDAW) was adopted in 1979 by the UN General Assembly. It
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.” CEDAW has frequently been referred to as
a bill of human rights for women.
It
is important to know that the U.S. does not participate in the International
Criminal Court and has not signed UNSC 1325 or ratified CEDAW. However,
both Iraq and Afghanistan have agreed to all three measures and
therefore a case can be made that they are applicable to the situations
in those countries. In particular, it should be obvious that violence
always violates the human rights of the victims and, therefore,
UNSC 1325 and CEDAW are applicable to these conflicts. In addition,
the documented pandemic of rapes in both of these countries should
certainly be addressed by the ICC.
Beyond
demanding the utilization of these tools, it is also necessary to
speak out against men’s sexism and violence. We need to name
these for what they are and make the connection between this toxic
sense of male entitlement and the militarism that is killing women.
Finally,
we need to find and travel different paths to empowerment. We need
to utilize partnership thinking based on egalitarian and democratic
values. In a partnership society, there is a low degree of violence
because there is no need to preserve domination, as there is in
patriarchy. Among other things, accomplishing this requires a shift
in spending priorities. For instance, we know that quality childcare
and good education greatly impact a child’s ability to grow
into a capable adult. Yet the amount we spend on training educators
and childcare providers is a minute fraction of what we spend on
training and enabling soldiers to kill. Thus, militarism is enabled
to play a disproportionate role in socializing people to accept
violence and patriarchy as the norm. By shifting spending priorities,
we could begin to change the process of socialization that allows
power over gender domination to one of constructive partnership.
Lucinda Marshall
is co-moderator of the Feminist Peace Network (www. feministpeacenetwork.
org) and co-facilitator of a workshop about militarism and violence
against women.