WUNRN
AWID - Association for Women's
Rights in Development
August
17, 2007
Gender and Reparations
An
interview with Ruth Rubio-Marin,
Editor
of 'What Happened to the Women? Gender and Reparations for Human Rights
Violations'
By Rochelle Jones - AWID
Reparations form part of any remedy for serious human rights abuses. In
cases where governments have tolerated or been complicit to human rights
abuses, reparations can play an important role in reconciliation, healing
and moving forward. The International Center for Transitional Justice
recently examined the gender gap within reparations processes, analysing
different case studies from around the world in their publication: 'What
Happened to the Women? Gender and Reparations for Human Rights Violations'.
For this week's Friday File, AWID interviewed the Editor of 'What Happened
to the Women?', Ruth Rubio-Marin.
AWID: What prompted you to embark on this project?
Ruth Rubio-Marin (RR): The International Center for Transitional Justice
had just finished a three-year research project on reparations, which
resulted in the publication of the most encompassing volume to date on
reparations legislation and policies worldwide (The Handbook of
Reparations, P. de Greiff. ed. Oxford University Press, 2006). It became
clear from that project that women had never been the protagonists of
reparations discussions in the aftermath of conflict and authoritarian or
dictatorial regimes. The single most organised and well-documented (though
still largely unsuccessful) movement for reparations for women to this day
remains that of the so-called "comfort women," namely about 200,000
women
from across Asia who were enslaved by and for the Japanese military during
Japan's World-War-II colonial period, some forcefully taken from their
homes and homelands to be raped daily by soldiers.
However, experience from the ground (the ICTJ's main realm of activity) and
an increasingly wide literature was confirming that, far from an isolated
instance, the case of the "comfort women" epitomised a larger
reality: that
of the multifaceted and distinct ways in which women have always suffered
under violent conflict and authoritarian rule. Women, of course, suffer
from operations that randomly target the civilian population. Like men,
they are detained, imprisoned, extrajudicially executed, and subject to
torture or inhuman and degrading treatment for fighting in resistance
movements. Women are also frequently punished for their family or communal
links. They are harassed, sexually assaulted, and held in prison for being
family members of men involved in the conflict or simply for belonging or
being perceived as belonging to and sustaining communities suspected of
collaboration. Women are also persecuted, raped, forcibly impregnated,
sterilized, and killed because of their ethnicity, race, nationality, or
religion.
Experience from the ground also showed that once the conflict is over women
often bear the brunt of the consequences of violent actions that target men,
as the many single-headed households, the vivid expressions of the pain of
the mothers of the disappeared, and the overrepresentation of women among
the refugees or internally displaced populations in scenarios of conflict
all can attest to. In the aftermath, women play an essential role working
to sustain and reconstitute families and communities, demanding justice for
their loved ones, and trying to revert life back to normalcy. So, if women
have always suffered in gender-specific ways in scenarios of massive
violations of human rights and are at the same time so active in the
aftermath, why were there no women-centered movements claiming reparations?
Why were women's groups not engaging in discussions about what forms or
modalities of reparations would best fit women's needs? Why had some of the
crimes specifically targeting women and children been traditionally left out
of reparations initiatives in the past? In short, would it make a difference
to think about reparations from a gendered lens? That was the question that
we thought had never been asked before and that motivated the research that
led to 'What Happened to the Women?'
AWID: Truth Commissions and reparations for victims continue to facilitate
spirited debate in terms of justice, but rarely does this debate include a
gender dimension. What are the major challenges to achieving gender justice
in the reparations process that have been revealed through this collection
of studies?
RR: The challenges around reparations are numerous, and one must say that
many of these, perhaps even the greatest, are not sex-specific. Although
reparations for victims of gross human rights violations are becoming an
increasingly acknowledged feature in post-authoritarian and post-conflict
societies dealing with the legacy of a violent past (a trend that is
confirmed by looking at the recommendations of recent truth commissions),
governments around the world often lack sufficient political will to
implement reparations for victims, which, of course, leaves both female and
male victims without redress.
Beyond this, all of the studies in the volume attest to the fact that women
in transitional societies tend to be more active in relation to violations
committed against their immediate family members (husbands, brothers,
children) than to those committed against themselves, which they often
consider marginal, private, peripheral, or secondary. It is, for instance,
not uncommon to find that women who were harassed, detained, and subject to
different forms of violence as family members of political activists almost
never talk about their own experiences of victimization. Also, there are
certain forms of violence, such as sexual or reproductive violence, the
stigmatizing effect of which on the victim and her family can be so great
that underreporting is both predictable and inevitable. Hence, the first
challenge is to create the conditions for women to come out and speak their
truth, a truth that encompasses the ways in which both the human rights of
their loved ones but also their own human rights have been violated. An
increased dialogue between women's groups and victims' groups and
associations (often the protagonists of reparations discussions) could
probably facilitate this process and allow the discussion of sexual and
reproductive violence against women to occupy a more central place in
reparations discussions.
Another common challenge to bringing gender justice considerations to the
design and implementation of reparations programs has to do with the fact
that patriarchal norms and culture were embedded in many transitional
societies even before the outbreak of political violence. How to make sure
that reparations programs do not reproduce sex discrimination can be a
great challenge and points to the fact that reparations cannot simply be
about "returning the women to where they were before the events."
Think,
for instance, of the restitution of land or lost property in a society
where inheritance and ownership rules commonly discriminate against women.
Think of the problem this poses for widows who find themselves heading
households with an increasing number of orphans, sick, disabled, and
dependants, widows who, absent the male figure, cannot even claim title to
their homes or pieces of land.
Finally, as always, the devil may lie in the details. Women are often
illiterate and have difficulties accessing information. Women often lack
identification cards or bank accounts. They live in remote rural areas and
have problems leaving behind their daily chores to travel large distances
and reach administrative agencies. Women are often excluded when the
language of official communication is different from their mother language.
This "rudimentary" type of obstacle may actually account for the
greatest
difficulty in reaching out to female victims in many concrete scenarios. It
would take a special effort to design procedures of dissemination of
information, identification and registration of victims, processing of
claims, and delivery of services or payments that take into account that
women often lack the most basic skills and means to avail themselves of any
form of redress.
AWID: The book presents a number of case studies analysing reparations
discussions not only in countries as different as Timor Leste, South Africa
and Guatemala but also in countries that have "transitioned" in
different
times. From looking at them would you say that there has been any
progress?
RR: >From the three cases you mention, only South Africa has paid
reparations to victims thus far. Guatemala has had a National Reparations
Program for some time, but it remains to this day largely unimplemented.
Timor Leste's Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation delivered
only some minimal urgent reparations measures. It has recommended a more
ambitious and longer-term reparations program, but the government has thus
far failed to implement it. Thus we probably have to wait to see how these
processes unfold before we can draw any final conclusions.
However, at the level of awareness around the need to "engender" the
reparations discussion, one can certainly say that there has been progress.
In the South African experience, sexual violence was not explicitly
mentioned among the list of violations to be covered by the TRC and
therefore in its reparations recommendations, although, in the end, several
forms of sexual and reproductive violence were interpreted as falling under
the concepts of "torture" and "severe ill treatment." Later
(and as of yet
mostly non-implemented) reparations programs, including those in Guatemala
and Timor Leste, but also those in Peru and Sierra Leone, refer explicitly
to "sexual violence" as among the violations that trigger
reparations.
Interestingly, there is also a trend to move the gender and reparations
discussion beyond the issue of sexual violence. For instance, the
reparations recommendations in the Final Report of the Commission for
Reception, Truth and Reconciliation in Timor Leste include "gender
equity"
as one of five guiding principles that have inspired its overall
conception. And this has presumably had a bearing not only on the way
sexual violence has been handled but also on how other important decisions
have been made, including the need to prioritize the most vulnerable groups
of victims (including widows, victims of sexual violence, and single
mothers) and the recommendation to earmark at least 50% of the total
resources in the program for female beneficiaries. This trend to mainstream
gender in reparations discussions can also be confirmed by even more recent
or ongoing discussions on reparations policies, including those in Morocco
and Colombia.
AWID: I'm interested in the question you raise in the Introduction, namely
"What happens to the voices of these women once they find their day in
court or a truth commission, and what happens to the women...?". Did you
find an answer?
RR: Unfortunately, the answer is: "nothing or very little." Or maybe
we
should distinguish, as the question does, between the women and their
voices. I think that their voices are actually having an impact in society.
For instance, it is true that the ad hoc international tribunals in
Yugoslavia and Rwanda have been criticised for not being able to do more
for the women who came to bear witness in some of the most horrendous cases
before the tribunals. However, it is also true that the contribution of
victims and witnesses was crucial not only for the sentencing of a few
criminals but also in triggering the evolution of international criminal
law in ways that may reduce the impunity for crimes of sexual violence in
the future.
Similarly, many women have found the courage to come forward and speak
their truth in public hearings held by truth and reconciliation
commissions. Some of these hearings were the most widely attended or were
covered by the media. This has allowed the general public to bear witness
to the enormous resilience of women survivors and, in some settings, to
break, maybe for the first time, cultural taboos around sexual violence,
raising awareness around its magnitude and often-denied political nature.
As for the women, some may have drawn a certain sense of agency from
contributing to such causes. Others seem to be greatly disappointed by how
little their lives have changed after their "stellar" intervention.
Reparations for victims are often discussed at the same time that
prosecutions or amnesties for perpetrators are negotiated and truth for
victims and the wider society is sought. But when reparations are then not
implemented, victims simply fall "out of fashion" and society moves
on. One
of the saddest experiences I had during the making of this book was when one
of the authors, who was getting ready to gather and interview victims, told
me that victims had agreed to the interviews but were asking whether we
could at least cover their bus fare to get to the place and a meal for the
day. Victims provide information, and this information is of use to
researchers, prosecutors, judges, and society in general, but often times
they get little or nothing in exchange. No compensation, no medical
services, not even a proper apology. Now it is true that in many of the
scenarios we are talking about, given both the type and the scale of the
atrocities perpetrated, compensation cannot feasibly be more than a token
recognition for what survivors have endured. But recognition is, in my
view, the minimum that is owed, and sadly even that is often missing.
AWID: There is a discussion on the role that post-conflict masculinities
play in shaping the future for women. How can a reparations process for
gender-based violence incorporate a focus on masculinities?
RR: I wish I had the answer to that question because I think it is a
crucial one. This volume focuses on women because women have been so
overwhelmingly neglected in the past and because of the way gender
inequalities generally result in women's overall subordination to men,
limiting their opportunities of recognition and redress. That said, it
would be also interesting to think about how patterns and notions of
masculinity might interfere with either the assessment of the harms that
men are subject to during times of repression and conflict or with their
possibilities for redress.
Just to mention an example, notions of masculinity often seem to get in the
way of the acknowledgment of the extent to which men (not only women) are
subject to sexual violence in times of conflict. Similarly, although widows
can express their pain for the loss of a husband, and mothers can express
their pain for a disappeared son in ways that do not challenge prevailing
cultural constructions of what it is to be or act as a woman, men may have
a much more difficult time articulating pain around offenses committed
against their women or even their sons. Think of the many contexts in which
the public exposure of the fact that one's wife or daughter was raped would
mean emasculation for the man or shunning for the entire family. Even those
men willing to break the conspiracy of silence and articulate their
legitimate pain might have to face feminist criticism of wrongful
appropriation, given the longstanding patriarchal tradition of
conceptualising sexual offenses as harming men's reputation and honor more
that women's rights. Articulating pain around the loss of loved ones might
be more difficult for those who have been raised to think that "as
men" it
was their primordial duty to protect the family. Constructions around
masculinity may also limit men's ability to creatively explore ways of
relying on each other for emotional healing and to organize the
practicalities of daily existence as coping mechanisms. Every time I see
the mothers of the disappeared organizing and politicizing to claim truth
and justice for their loved ones, I wonder, "where are the fathers?"
My
guess is that addressing these issues would probably start a broader
conversation about gender and violence that would shed light on the many
intricate ways in which a violent and militaristic culture is a deeply
gendered enterprise. For if the question of "where are the women?"
still
lacks an adequate response, so does the question of "where are the
men?"
who were victimised because they refused to act "as men"—raping or
simply
fighting, killing, and being willing to die.
International
Center for Transitional Justice
http://www.ictj.org
================================================================
To leave the list, send your request by email to:
wunrn_listserve-request@lists.wunrn.com. Thank you.