WUNRN
_____________________________________________________________________
ANALYSES OF UN SECURITY COUNCIL NEW RESOLUTION
1820 ON SEXUAL VIOLENCE AGAINST CIVILIANS IN ARMED CONFLICT
______________________________________________________________________
PeaceWomen - Women's International
League for Peace & Freedom
Security
Council Resolution 1820: A Move to End Sexual Violence in Conflict
On June 19, the Security Council under the Presidency of the United States held
an Open Debate on women, peace and security. An Open Debate – in which
non-Council members have an opportunity to address the Council – is not unusual
in relation to this theme on their agenda. Each October for the last seven
years there has been such a debate to mark the anniversary of the adoption of
Security Council Resolution 1325. This debate was different however. For one
this was June – and it was quite heartening that the Security Council was
taking up this theme outside of what has become an almost habitual anniversary
occasion. Another difference was that the outcome of the debate was not another
Presidential Statement but a rather more binding document – a resolution that
builds on SCR 1325 of October 2000 (some 7 1/2 years and 495 Security Council resolutions
later). At the conclusion of the Open Debate, the Security Council unanimously
passed Resolution 1820 on sexual violence in conflict, which was, through a
procedural provision also co-sponsored by some 32 other UN member states.
This Resolution and advocacy for its adoption was not without controversy – a
situation not helped by the fact that there was not broad and open consultation
with women’s groups on its drafting. In addition, the fact that the US was
leading the debate was itself politically fraught. While this latter point was
a difficult one for women peace activists, it was alleviated by the fact that
the US was taking up an initiative driven by many women’s groups and
governments over a longer period of time than the US presidency of the Council
in June. On the Resolution itself, there were several substantive debates. One
important question was: why the focus on sexual violence? For one, Resolution
1325 provides a broad and fairly comprehensive framework for a range of issues.
It was felt that selecting this issue was somewhat arbitrary and dangerous. It
was argued that this focus would take away from the powerful breadth of SCR
1325 and reduce its importance by reducing the focus of the women, peace and
security agenda to issues of sexual violence.
For many, focusing on sexual violence in conflict is seen as reducing the
issues of women and conflict to the mere victimhood of women. As many rightly
argue, Resolution 1325 represented an important recognition of women as agents
in conflict prevention, resolution and peacebuilding. It should not simply be
seen as a way to make war safe for women. On other occasions where advocacy was
done to have the Council address the issue, there was opposition from some NGOs
on this very ground. For many the more important issue is women’s participation
in decision-making at all levels – recognizing women as agents. It is
undeniable that the larger goal is to ensure women’s effective and full
participation in peace and security issues. However, the reality is that women
are not either victims or agents. This is a false dichotomy. Many women who are
powerful agents of change have also been affected by sexual violence and have
been victims of violence. That does not itself define them as mere victims. The
issues of participation and violence are inextricably linked – sexual violence
is both a cause and consequence of low levels of women’s participation in all
decision making and, in fact, participation in day-to-day life. Sexual violence
does more than discourage political engagement, as a women’s rights activist
from the DRC explained, sexual violence holds communities hostage and prevents
access to markets, water-points and schools. Getting women and gender equality
concerns into the highest levels of decision-making is critical if we are to
eliminate such violence. But, this is not an easy sequential or separable
exercise. First, women’s participation is not just a high level concept. Women
must be included in discussions and decisions about their security needs and
concerns and strategies and programs for protection. It is also necessary
urgently and immediately to act to prevent and respond to sexual violence as it
is happening.
It is undeniable that sexual violence is being used as a method of war and
being perpetrated at levels that defy belief and with impunity. And as many
studies, including the 2006 Secretary-General’s Study on violence against
women, have shown, ending such violence requires a multi-dimensional and
integrated response from many different actors. The Security Council is one
such actor. As the body whose mandate is to maintain international peace and
security and as the body that through its resolutions sets the mandates of UN
peacekeeping missions and which has the power to act against countries waging
war through illegal methods, its role is vital. Women affected by violence in
the DRC and elsewhere have called on the Security Council to fulfill this role.
Many may agree with this assessment and still argue that what is needed is to
fully implement Resolution 1325. Indeed 1325 does address the issue of sexual
violence and the implementation of its commitments must continue. Indeed, a new
resolution was not needed to recognize that sexual violence can constitute a
war crime or crime against humanity. International law’s recognition of this
has outpaced the response of the Security Council. The Security Council has
done little to prevent such violence or to sanction the use of sexual violence
as a method of war.
As WILPF and other NGOs have seen as we monitor the work of the Security
Council, peacekeeping missions are not given explicit mandates to provide
protection from sexual violence; high rates of violence are not considered in
discussions on arms embargoes or sanctions; and the rates and patterns of such
violence are not reported in the Secretary-General’s reports to the Council on
countries on its agenda. Where there is no information in country-specific
reports, the Security Council, claiming a lack of credible information (the
reports of human rights and humanitarian NGOs on the ground aren’t counted)
then does not include an explicit mandate to peacekeepers to prevent, protect
and respond to sexual violence. Time and again members of the Security Council
argue that the issue of sexual violence is not within their purview. It is not,
they argue, a matter of international peace and security. While this argument
may seem somewhat absurd, Resolution 1820 puts this debate to rest – as the US
Secretary of State, chairing the debate, noted, on the question of whether
systematic sexual violence belongs on the Council’s agenda – the answer is a
resounding yes.
Much work remains to be done to implement 1325 and now Resolution 1820 and 1820
is itself not a perfect response. As with most negotiated texts, provisos,
passive language and sovereignty concerns make commitments weaker than they
might have been. Certainly there are vital issues like the provision of
comprehensive services to survivors and commitment of resources that are not comprehensively
covered. In part this is because some of these issues must be taken up
elsewhere in the UN system and by national governments. Also, because of the
work done to link the issue to the protection of civilians – an explicit theme
on the Council’s agenda, Resolution 1820 at times conveys the idea that it is
only sexual violence against civilians that is of concern. These various issues
must be addressed but it is important at the same time to recognize this
resolution is an important step forward:
1) The Resolution clearly establishes that sexual violence in conflict situations is a matter for the Security Council to consider and act upon. The Security Council in the resolution’s first operative paragraph,
Stresses that sexual violence, when used or commissioned as a tactic of war in order to deliberately target civilians or as part of a widespread or systematic attack against civilian populations, can significantly exacerbate situations of armed conflict and may impede the restoration of international peace and security, affirms in this regard that effective steps to prevent and respond to such acts of sexual violence can significantly contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, and expresses its readiness, when considering situations on the agenda of the Council, to, where necessary, adopt appropriate steps to address widespread or systematic sexual violence.
In terms of actions to be taken, the Council affirms its intention when renewing sanctions regimes to consider taking measures against parties who commit rape and other forms of sexual violence in armed conflict (see OP 4) It also provides explicit examples of possible measures to provide protection from sexual violence (see OP3) – including vetting armed and security forces to take into account past abuses, evacuation of those under imminent threat of sexual violence and, in a first in terms of language and concepts for a resolution from this body – “debunking myths that fuel sexual violence.”
2) While this Security Council Resolution does not itself make rape and other forms of sexual violence a war crime, crime against humanity or constitutive act with respect to genocide, it does note that such violence can constitute such (see OP 4). It essentially explicitly notes existing international law, although it does not include explicit references to torture or to the inclusion of crimes of sexual violence in the statute for the International Criminal Court – no doubt an omission driven by the sponsoring US government’s attitude to these two issues. It does, however, emphasize and reiterate previous calls to end impunity – both at the international and national level – and, in language that is somewhat stronger than Resolution 1325, “stresses the need for the exclusion of sexual violence crimes from amnesty provisions in the context of conflict resolution processes” (see OP 4).
3) The Resolution explicitly requests the Secretary-General to include information and recommendations on the protection of women and girls in his country-specific reports to the Council. It also requests the Secretary-General to provide an extensive report on the implementation of Resolution 1820, information on the use of sexual violence (including prevalence and trends), strategies to prevent such violence and benchmarks for measuring progress in this. A significant request here, and one which goes to the root of the problem of the Council’s inattention to the issue, is for the Secretary-General to report on his plans for improving the flow of information on sexual violence. This will hopefully then contribute to a significantly improved response.
4) The Resolution recognizes the importance of women’s participation and reaffirms their role in the prevention and resolution of conflicts and in post-conflict peacebuilding as well as the importance of their full participation in peace and security matters. Significantly these paragraphs also recognize the link between sexual violence and women’s participation where the Security Council notes that it is:
Deeply concerned also about the persistent obstacles and challenges to women’s participation and full involvement in the prevention and resolution of conflict as a result of violence, intimidation and discrimination, which erode women’s capacity and legitimacy to participate in post-conflict public life, and acknowledging the negative impact this has on durable peace, security and reconciliation, including post-conflict peacebuilding.
The inclusion of participation is also included to some extent in the operative parts of the resolution. In demanding that parties to armed conflict take appropriate protection measures and that the Secretary-General facilitate dialogue to address the issue in the context of conflict resolution, it requires “taking into account, inter alia, the views expressed by women of affected local communities” (see OP3). The Secretary-General and UN entities to are requested to develop protection mechanisms in relation to refugee and IDP camps and in DDR, justice and security sector reform processes. The development of these is to be “through consultation with women and women-led organizations” (albeit with the weakening proviso that this be done where appropriate) (see OP10). The role the Peacebuilding Commission can play is also stressed through “ensuring consultation and effective representation of women’s civil society in its country-specific configurations” (see OP11). More broadly the Secretary-General and his envoys are urged to include women in peace processes and encourages parties to such talks to facilitate women’s full and equal participation (see OP12). Finally, in developing his “global” report, the Secretary-General is requested to include “appropriate input from United Nations implementing partners in the field” – which could include women’s groups and other NGOs (see OP15).
Other important provisions include explicit requests for training of personnel
including pre-deployment training and urging the development and strengthening
of the response capacity of national institutions (including judicial and
health systems) and local civil society networks
While this resolution is not perfect and while it alone does not constitute
effective action to end sexual violence, it is an important and welcome step.
It is another tool to bolster our broader work on Resolution 1325. We must
remain vigilant in ensuring that implementation of Resolution 1325 continues
and that Resolution 1820 is implemented in ways that include women and that
place the well-being of survivors at the centre of all efforts. We look forward
to the Security Council, in particular, putting into practice the words and
notions of Resolution 1820.
_____________________________________________________________________
THE NATION
THE BUREAUCRACY OF RAPE
Inside Lens on UN Security Council
Resolution 1820
By Barbara Crossette
June 30, 2008
The
Bush Administration has made much of its June 19 triumph in the Security
Council in getting unanimous backing for a resolution
aimed at curtailing sexual violence against women caught up in conflict. This
was no small feat, given the perennial reluctance of some Council members to
accept that rape and other violent abuses of women and girls are matters of
peace and security. (Ask the women of Darfur or the Democratic Republic of
Congo about that.)
The
utmost American effort went into lining up all fifteen votes for the
resolution, apparently cinched by some high-level last-minute intervention by
Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and the inevitable tinkering with words. Resolution 1820
was welcomed widely by human rights organizations, women's advocacy groups and
some frontline UN agencies.
But how does this advance the cause of the world's most vulnerable women? What difference will it make?
This is the administration in Washington that has cut off aid--now totaling nearly $300 million over seven years, with the latest installment axed on June 27--to the United Nations Population Fund, which tries to help sexually violated women meet their most urgent and intimate needs, including safe abortions and "morning after" contraceptives. A woman in a besieged refugee camp is not terribly interested in lectures about abstinence, either.
Nearly eight years ago, the Security Council truly broke new ground with another resolution, the now-iconic Resolution 1325, which went straight for the abuses of women in conflict and its aftermath and also targeted the scandalous neglect of women's voices "at all decision-making levels in national, regional and international institutions." Peacekeeping and peacebuilding would now take women into account, that resolution said. But the rape goes on, sometimes by peacekeepers as well as combatants. And getting places for women at negotiating tables is still an uphill struggle.
The new US-sponsored resolution does not establish the principle that tactical rape is a war crime, as some media reported. That has been accepted internationally the since the mid-1990s, says Rhonda Copelon of CUNY School of Law, who directs the International Women's Human Rights Law Clinic. War crimes tribunals for Rwanda and the Balkans have convicted men for rape. Sexual abuse is enshrined as a war crime in the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
Nor does the new resolution set out sanctions against governments or militias or any other parties to a conflict that employ systematic abuses of women, which can include impregnating "the other" to sully ethnicity or race, or torturing women and girls in front of their menfolk to inflict the worst humiliation, helplessness and grief. The new measure does, however, edge toward a readiness to "adopt appropriate steps to address widespread or systematic sexual violence." But only "where necessary," whatever that means.
Direct threats to offenders against half the human race, coupled with enforcement measures, would have been too much for the council to live with, though UNICEF says that violence against women and girls is perhaps the most pervasive of human rights violations. Instead, the resolution calls for another report by the Secretary General, due next June. The mandate for the report is peppered with words such as analysis, benchmarks and proposals. In the intervening year, countless women will die, and girls will become sex slaves to brutal armies and pick-up militias--the Burmese military and the warlords of Congo come to mind.
There were apparently four countries that took a lot of persuading to join the consensus for unanimity: China, Russia, Indonesia and Vietnam, the latter two holding rotating seats on the council. This is not to say that those governments in any way condone sexual violence as a tactic of warfare. At the UN things are always more complicated than that. There is a genuine concern in some nations that issues involving the treatment of civilian populations belong in the humanitarian agencies or in the Economic and Social Council, which could be a valid point if that body had any backbone or remaining clout. There is always the fear that somehow the Security Council may be moving toward poking its way into the affairs of any government it chooses. Today, Sudan; tomorrow, who? It was on this last point that a workable linguistic compromise seems to have finally been struck. When all is said and done, the scrutiny in the new report from the secretary general will be limited to situations already "on the agenda of the Council." No surprises.
If countries where horrific abuses take place reject as a breach of sovereignty all outside intervention, or even help, and refuse to save their own people from abuse and violent death, what hope can there be for victims? The circle is closed.
Moreover, there is an underlying, more corrosive reluctance among member nations of the UN to confront the issue of abuses against women generally. UN documents, mission statements, guidelines, how-not-to books and years of speeches have paid lip service to ending the routine abasement of women in many places, in peace as well as war. In the UN there are slogans about how "women's rights are human rights" and commitments to gender mainstreaming and statements about the empowerment of women as the key to ending poverty. Yet UN statistics on the lives of the majority of the world's women, particularly in Africa and South Asia, tell a different story--a story of absent rights, the denial of schooling, the lack of control over their own bodies. Meanwhile, the United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) is lining up a hoped-for 1 million signers of a petition against violence, to add to the archive of ringing declarations from international conferences and exhortations by UN officials. Governments are asked to make a public pledge: "Say no to violence against women."
Pledges? Why not just do something.
____________________________________________________________________
Barbara Crossette, former foreign correspondent for the New York Times, was South Asia bureau chief from 1988 to 1991 and UN bureau chief from 1994 to 2001.
She is the author of So Close to Heaven: The Vanishing Buddhist Kingdoms of the Himalayas, published by Alfred A. Knopf in 1995 and in paperback by Random House/Vintage Destinations in 1996, and a collection of travel essays about colonial resort towns that are still attracting visitors more than a century after their creation, The Great Hill Stations of Asia, published by Westview Press in 1998 and in paperback by Basic Books in 1999. In 2000, she wrote a survey of India and Indian-American relations, India: Old Civilization in a New World, for the Foreign Policy Association in New York. She is also the author of India Facing the 21st Century, published by Indiana University Press in 1993.