Rape: Women as Pawns

The following is one of those stories I hate reading about first thing in the morning.

The NY Times is reporting that a US Measure against rape failed at the UN.

The United States has failed to obtain a General Assembly resolution focused on rape used by governments and armed groups to achieve political and military objectives.

A General Assembly committee has instead adopted a resolution that reiterates past condemnations of rape in general but eliminates language in the American draft making specific reference to rape employed by soldiers and militia members as a tactic for intimidation and in warfare.

First, I want to point out that I am against war, primarily because women and children suffer the most. Women are raped at higher rates, women and children are left without family members which is particularly troublesome in countries where women are regularly subjugated and regulated to a sub-class citizenry. Women in countries of war have high rates of children born with birth defects, such as from the use of deplete uranium in weapons. There is a multitude of reasons why I am against wars, and I certainly agree that the use of women by the military/government to gain submission of a group of people is absolutely inhuman, but no more inhuman than rape by a civilian. No matter who the rapist is, women suffer the same consequences. And, we must also be aware that after a war, the discrimination against women continues.

So, why am I glad the US didn’t get their way in this UN resolution? In this instance I have to agree with the assessment of South Africa’s ambassador:

“The original U.S. draft appeared to concentrate on condemning rape when perpetrated for political and military purposes only,” he said. “We felt strongly that this would have created two categories of rape, that is, rape by military and militia groups and rape by civilians.”

Mr. Kumalo said that the Africans had insisted on the changes “to balance the text by making certain that there was no politicization of rape.”

Rape is an assault, whether committed by a civilian or a soldier/militant, and apparently Grover Rees doesn’t understand that.

Grover Joseph Rees 3rd, an American ambassador with responsibilities for human rights, protested that “contrary to what some have suggested, this resolution never said there were ‘two kinds of rape.’”

He said the original language had been aimed at “the particularly outrageous situation in which a state condones the use of systematic mass rape by its own forces or surrogate militias in order to advance their military or political objectives.”

Let me try to explain this as simply as I can. Focusing on rape for military/political purposes only creates the dual category. ALL rapes are outrageously heinous. While the perpetrators (civilian, militia, state-sponsored) change, the reason stays the same, power and control.

But, I also have to point out the duplicity of the US’s stance. The US has used rape and the threat of rape at Abu Ghraib and other jails in Iraq, for power and control.