Sexual violence has occurred in many conflicts throughout history. Rape and violation become weapons of war, a tool for genocide. While the time for intervention has passed in many conflicts the war in Sudan remains rife. The implications of our inaction in cases such as Rwanda may never be seen in full, there are numerous reasons preventing the disclosure of the full picture, not least fear of family reprisal by rape victims. What is clear however is that 70% of genocide rape victims contracted HIV and are continually fighting for support. Such a shameful fact should be enough to galvanize government into action.
Written as part of a wider report I formulated in 2004 the details below outline the sexual violence crisis in Darfur.
Sexual Violence in Sudan
Sexual violence in Darfur is indiscriminate of age or physical condition. Amnesty International recorded cases of attacks against pregnant women, resulting in miscarriages, and in certain cases death[1]. The same report, Darfur: Rape as a Weapon of War: Sexual Violence and its Consequences, details the abduction of children as young as twelve years old. A child known as K.M was taken by Janjawid, with whom she remained for ten days, while six men 'used her as a wife'[2].
The prevalence of gang rapes in Darfur appears to be greater than in either Rwanda of Bosnia Herzegovina, although this may stem from better reporting of the conflict. Amnesty's report is rich in testimonies, such as the plight of K. During January 2004, and at the age of 15, K was kidnapped and raped by 'several men'[3]. In the town of Silaya S, an expectant mother, was abducted with other women. S told investigators 'five to six men would rape us in rounds, one after the other for hours during six days, every night'[4]. Victims of this attack were reported to be as young as eight years of age. The use of rape in Darfur mirrors that of Rwanda, just as it did in Bosnia, occurring publicly with the aim of destroying community and humiliating victims. The Rape as a Weapon of War report records the case of M, 17, who was raped multiple times outside her own home, while her Mother was forced to watch. Another victim of the name M, this time 14, was raped in the market square. Witnesses were prevented from intervening by threats of violence.
This case also repeats actions of Hutu and Serbian militia in mixing sexual violence with other acts of conflict. When a 43-year-old woman from Kutum refused to sleep with her captors, she was instantly killed[5]. Janjawid forces also systematically deployed further post rape violence against victims. During attacks on Um Baru Janjawid broke captives' limbs to prevent escape[6]. Amnesty International also recorded the pulling of fingernails as a method of torture. The case of K, above, is one that culminated in the breaking of limbs.
Violence is also mixed with looting of villages, especially when women have been removed to holding centres – much like those seen in Bosnia Herzegovina. Victims of kidnapping told Amnesty 'In the wadi I saw some 20 other women.... During the day, most of the Janjawid left the wadi to loot the neighbouring villages and at night…raped the girls in turn'[7].
Violence is not limited to attacks on communities, or those captured in raids. Families who attempt to flee the conflict are often stopped during their passage, when females, although men have also reported abuse, become subject to harassment. Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) also suffer attacks when in search of water or other such necessities outside the settlements. Despite having reached a supposed safe haven IDPs reported to the UN[8] that they felt imprisoned, due to the close proximity of Janjawid. The UN also found that incidents such as this reduced in number within settlements inside Chad.
Having survived the physical trauma of abuse women must learn to cope with the mental pressures also. Ostracism arising from sexual attacks is high in Sudan. Many women detailing assaults, especially suffering multiple rapes, say their husbands cannot forgive them, and so they are abandoned[9]. Those who fall pregnant through rape are ostracised further. Both men and women believe that it is not normal to conceive a child through rape[10], as rape is unwanted sex.
Promoting the Amnesty report BBC news recorded that 'Marriage is very cheap in our days'[11], the words of a refugee. Families fear dishonour, and so accept low bridal prices. If women are not married and become subject to sexual violence for Janjawid there will be only a marginal chance of a proposal, As in the other countries examined once women are disowned they find themselves socially and economically vulnerable. In countries where men still adopt the role of breadwinner the future for women living outside the family is very uncertain.
[1] Amnesty International Darfur: Rape as a Weapon of War: Sexual Violence and its Consequences (2004 (c))
[2] Amnesty International (2004c:5)
[3] Amnesty International (2004c:6)
[4]Amnesty International (2004c:6)
[5] Amnesty International (2004c:5)
[6] Amnesty International (2004c:5)
[7] Amnesty International (2004c:6)
[8] 2004 United Nations Inter-Agency Fact Finding Mission, detailed in Rape as a Weapon of War Amnesty International (2004c:8)
[9] Amnesty International (2004c:6)
[10] Amnesty International (2004c:9)
[11] British Broadcasting Corporation News Testimonies of rape in Sudan (2004 (b))
Originally published January 2007.
Tuesday, 15 April 2008
On Execution
I couldn't resist alluding to Arendt. But for more serious matters.
We are internationally protected from cruel, inhumane or degrading punishment. See the International Convention on Torture, and Other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
Seeing the death penalty as such many nations have removed such a sentence from their judicial system. 88 countries and territories have abolished the death penalty for all crimes; 11 countries have abolished the death penalty for all but exceptional crimes such as wartime crimes; 29 countries can be considered abolitionist in practice.
When those who still prescribe such punishment do so there is often a global outcry. Regardless of whether this is Western imperialism, (perhaps not considering that the US still execute), or a global human rights concern (we all have the right to life. This is not so easy to give up in comparison to the loss of voting rights for prisoners.), something guides us to object to the rulings of these courts.
Except, a notable exception recently passed.
Hussein hung and there was little objection (remember this is a comparative point). Perhaps this is because it was a forgone conclusion. Be honest, did you not know that if tried by an Iraqi court death would be visited on him? Of course the ruling of guilt was right no current court could legitimately found other wise – there are some things that under the weight of evidence cannot be disputed. But to execute – kill –the man modern democratic society condemns for killing others is either hypocritical or a for of primeval justice which satisfies the ancient blood lust of society.
How dismissive these short paragraphs seem. They are not meant to be such, merely ponderings upon the world stage.
I do have several select thoughts on the matter:
1) He died a martyr to his cause – we may not agree, but for those who followed him his legend has been completed and his place in history guaranteed.
2) It is unsatisfying that a guilty verdict on the crime of genocide was never achieved, it would not have altered Hussein's fate, but the truth would have, at last, been justly recorded.
Originally published January 2007
We are internationally protected from cruel, inhumane or degrading punishment. See the International Convention on Torture, and Other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
Seeing the death penalty as such many nations have removed such a sentence from their judicial system. 88 countries and territories have abolished the death penalty for all crimes; 11 countries have abolished the death penalty for all but exceptional crimes such as wartime crimes; 29 countries can be considered abolitionist in practice.
When those who still prescribe such punishment do so there is often a global outcry. Regardless of whether this is Western imperialism, (perhaps not considering that the US still execute), or a global human rights concern (we all have the right to life. This is not so easy to give up in comparison to the loss of voting rights for prisoners.), something guides us to object to the rulings of these courts.
Except, a notable exception recently passed.
Hussein hung and there was little objection (remember this is a comparative point). Perhaps this is because it was a forgone conclusion. Be honest, did you not know that if tried by an Iraqi court death would be visited on him? Of course the ruling of guilt was right no current court could legitimately found other wise – there are some things that under the weight of evidence cannot be disputed. But to execute – kill –the man modern democratic society condemns for killing others is either hypocritical or a for of primeval justice which satisfies the ancient blood lust of society.
How dismissive these short paragraphs seem. They are not meant to be such, merely ponderings upon the world stage.
I do have several select thoughts on the matter:
1) He died a martyr to his cause – we may not agree, but for those who followed him his legend has been completed and his place in history guaranteed.
2) It is unsatisfying that a guilty verdict on the crime of genocide was never achieved, it would not have altered Hussein's fate, but the truth would have, at last, been justly recorded.
Originally published January 2007
The Government of Eritrea Denies Religious Persecution
The Government of Eritrea Denies Religious Persecution.
In a recent interview the Director of the Office of the President of Eritrea, Mr Yemane Gebremeskel, stated that no religious persecution occurs within the country. In response to a question about large numbers of arrests amongst faith groups Mr Gebremeskel stated 'small groups have emerged in the past seven, eight years. Most of these groups were beneficiaries of secret or undeclared foreign funds. Most of them went against the national fabric: to oppose the national service or to penetrate and sow division within the traditional faiths'. The Eritrean government requires faith groups to officially register and declare the origin of any funding they may receive. The government officially recognises four faiths – Lutheran, Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Islam. Mr Gebremeskel reported that 'the periodic arrests, which are distorted and exaggerated, occur when members of these fringe groups assemble illegally'. However, Release-Eritrea believes that 'the arrests and denial of freedom of worship far from being limited to small or new groups is a universal one aimed at curtailing freedom of worship to all.'
The Seventh Day Adventist, The Faith Mission, Kale Hiwot and Muluwengel were all shut in 2002 for operating without registration. However, these churches are not newly established and have been operational in Eritrea for at least 50 years. Yet even the recognised faith groups are not safe the Patriarch of the Orthodox Church of Eritrea, who is the legal head of the Church with followers accounting for 40% of the Eritrean populace, is under house arrest having been illegally deposed by a government sanctioned interference in the operation of the church.
Dr Berhane Asmelash, Director of Release- Eritrea UK, stated; ' it is unfortunate that yet again the government of Eritrea has chosen the path of denial and distortion rather that carry out a reality check in assessing the damage both to the image of the country, but perhaps more importantly to the lives of thousands of innocent Eritreans who continue to face a daily barrage of harassment, arrests, torture and even death in prison just for having a Christian faith'.
Speaking about the accusation of foreign funding and refusal of National Service Dr Asmelash stated; ' I am surprised that Mr Gebremeskel chose this path; five years after the closure of these churches and several years after the government has combed through the accounts and operations, no one has been able to produce a shred of evidence to support this accusation. On the issue of National Service it is suffice to say that the severe form of persecution in fact started and continues to be carried out at the various training camps, if these churches were opposing the National Service what is the explanation for the huge numbers represented in the army?'
There is some good news however, Pastor Michael Abraha, who was detained following a dawn raid at a home near Dekemhare, at the end of May, has been released, together with many of those who were detained at the same time. Ye despite this positive event it should be remembered that during that particular dawn raid several people, belonging to Kalw Hiwot Church, including young children were dragged out of their beds and arrested. Contacts in Asmara have however conveyed that some believers who went to visit those detained at the dawn raid were detained and have been taken to the prisons at Wea military training camp, the desert camp prison is notorious for its harsh conditions, including lack of clean drinking water.
Originally published July 2007.
In a recent interview the Director of the Office of the President of Eritrea, Mr Yemane Gebremeskel, stated that no religious persecution occurs within the country. In response to a question about large numbers of arrests amongst faith groups Mr Gebremeskel stated 'small groups have emerged in the past seven, eight years. Most of these groups were beneficiaries of secret or undeclared foreign funds. Most of them went against the national fabric: to oppose the national service or to penetrate and sow division within the traditional faiths'. The Eritrean government requires faith groups to officially register and declare the origin of any funding they may receive. The government officially recognises four faiths – Lutheran, Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Islam. Mr Gebremeskel reported that 'the periodic arrests, which are distorted and exaggerated, occur when members of these fringe groups assemble illegally'. However, Release-Eritrea believes that 'the arrests and denial of freedom of worship far from being limited to small or new groups is a universal one aimed at curtailing freedom of worship to all.'
The Seventh Day Adventist, The Faith Mission, Kale Hiwot and Muluwengel were all shut in 2002 for operating without registration. However, these churches are not newly established and have been operational in Eritrea for at least 50 years. Yet even the recognised faith groups are not safe the Patriarch of the Orthodox Church of Eritrea, who is the legal head of the Church with followers accounting for 40% of the Eritrean populace, is under house arrest having been illegally deposed by a government sanctioned interference in the operation of the church.
Dr Berhane Asmelash, Director of Release- Eritrea UK, stated; ' it is unfortunate that yet again the government of Eritrea has chosen the path of denial and distortion rather that carry out a reality check in assessing the damage both to the image of the country, but perhaps more importantly to the lives of thousands of innocent Eritreans who continue to face a daily barrage of harassment, arrests, torture and even death in prison just for having a Christian faith'.
Speaking about the accusation of foreign funding and refusal of National Service Dr Asmelash stated; ' I am surprised that Mr Gebremeskel chose this path; five years after the closure of these churches and several years after the government has combed through the accounts and operations, no one has been able to produce a shred of evidence to support this accusation. On the issue of National Service it is suffice to say that the severe form of persecution in fact started and continues to be carried out at the various training camps, if these churches were opposing the National Service what is the explanation for the huge numbers represented in the army?'
There is some good news however, Pastor Michael Abraha, who was detained following a dawn raid at a home near Dekemhare, at the end of May, has been released, together with many of those who were detained at the same time. Ye despite this positive event it should be remembered that during that particular dawn raid several people, belonging to Kalw Hiwot Church, including young children were dragged out of their beds and arrested. Contacts in Asmara have however conveyed that some believers who went to visit those detained at the dawn raid were detained and have been taken to the prisons at Wea military training camp, the desert camp prison is notorious for its harsh conditions, including lack of clean drinking water.
Originally published July 2007.
Derek Wall blasts Homophobic Statements by Yuri Luzhov
Homophobic statements by Yuri Luzhkov blasted by Derek Wall
Green Party Principal Speaker Derek Wall today hit out at the Mayor of Moscow's comments denouncing same-sex relationships and gay pride events as "satanic", "unnatural", "deviations", "blasphemy" and "deadly moral poison" and called on a show of defiance at a protest against the Mayor planned today in London (Wednesday).
The Mayor of Moscow, Yuri Luzhkov recently announced that he was banning this year's Moscow Gay Pride march (last year's march was also banned and some marchers were beaten and arrested).
Dr. Wall blasted Mr Luzhkov: "I am shocked and utterly appalled by the Mayor of Moscow's homophobia. Human Rights for gays and lesbian's are under attack in Russia and we must defend them."
Wednesday's protest in London is timed to coincide with the Moscow Mayor's photo call and press conference at City Hall in London.
Nikolai Alekseev, Organiser of Moscow Gay Pride, is flying to London to join the protest and has issued an appeal for LGBTs (London Gay, Bi-Sexual and Transvestite) to join him at City Hall:
"Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov routinely breaches Russia's constitution and laws, and the European Convention, by depriving gay people of their right to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.
"The real reason behind the ban of the first ever Moscow Gay Pride, held in May 2006, is not because the Mayor is concerned for the security of the participants, as he claims. The ban is motivated by his deep-rooted hatred toward homosexual people.
"We appeal to the Mayors of London, Paris and Berlin to protest to Luzhkov against his ban on Moscow Gay Pride. Whatever the stance of the Moscow Mayor, we are going ahead with plans for a second Moscow Gay Pride on 27th May," concluded Mr Alekseev.
See Green Party Website for more details.
Originally published February 2007.
Green Party Principal Speaker Derek Wall today hit out at the Mayor of Moscow's comments denouncing same-sex relationships and gay pride events as "satanic", "unnatural", "deviations", "blasphemy" and "deadly moral poison" and called on a show of defiance at a protest against the Mayor planned today in London (Wednesday).
The Mayor of Moscow, Yuri Luzhkov recently announced that he was banning this year's Moscow Gay Pride march (last year's march was also banned and some marchers were beaten and arrested).
Dr. Wall blasted Mr Luzhkov: "I am shocked and utterly appalled by the Mayor of Moscow's homophobia. Human Rights for gays and lesbian's are under attack in Russia and we must defend them."
Wednesday's protest in London is timed to coincide with the Moscow Mayor's photo call and press conference at City Hall in London.
Nikolai Alekseev, Organiser of Moscow Gay Pride, is flying to London to join the protest and has issued an appeal for LGBTs (London Gay, Bi-Sexual and Transvestite) to join him at City Hall:
"Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov routinely breaches Russia's constitution and laws, and the European Convention, by depriving gay people of their right to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.
"The real reason behind the ban of the first ever Moscow Gay Pride, held in May 2006, is not because the Mayor is concerned for the security of the participants, as he claims. The ban is motivated by his deep-rooted hatred toward homosexual people.
"We appeal to the Mayors of London, Paris and Berlin to protest to Luzhkov against his ban on Moscow Gay Pride. Whatever the stance of the Moscow Mayor, we are going ahead with plans for a second Moscow Gay Pride on 27th May," concluded Mr Alekseev.
See Green Party Website for more details.
Originally published February 2007.
The State of Tuvalu and Environmental Refugees
What and Where is Tuvalu?
Tuvalu is a small collection of islands to the north of Fiji, with the capital Funafuti. A poor country Tuvalu had to franchise out its domain suffix of .tv to raise $40m, while this money is much needed and allows for development it also proves to be a curse.
And the Problem?
Globalisation and with it global environmental change leads to immense problems. Not only have Tuvaluans built roads on which to burn up fossil fuels of their own, but they suffer the affects of Western consumption.
The burning of fossil fuels leads to a rise in greenhouse gasses contributing to the warming of the atmosphere. As this warming occurs glaciers are beginning to melt and oceans expand. This excess water must go somewhere, and has begun creeping onto land masses.
The problem with being an island it that you have a large body of water around you and when waters rise, you begin to disappear. As water levels rise by 3.5mm a year land seeps into the sea and areas of forestation fall due to salt poisoning, Tuvalu now has whole atolls devoid of greenery.
While Tuvaluan authorities continue to push for a sustainable development program for the islands they know that they are fighting a losing battle. There has been no global redress with regard to ecological damage (now) Ex-Prime Minster Koloa Talake began to launch legal action against America and Australia for their polluting activities which endangered the islands. However, Talake's plans for re-election failed and the suit was never filed. Two years later Tuvalu was represented at the UN, and pleaded her case. Despite making some headway very little was achieved in positive outcomes.
So, if Tuvalu is to vanish below the pacific what will become of her inhabitants? Tuvaluans will become environmental refugees. Yet there are few places for these victims to go.While many states are open to refugees these are presented as people with a "well founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality membership of a particular social group, or political opinion", not victims of man's greed. However, when the UN estimates that there will be 50m people leaving environmentally endangered territories by 2010 we need to find a way of working environmental refugees into international covenants. It is not just Tuvaluans who need a change in this definition, Moroccans, Egyptians, Libyans all face losses of farmland due to environmental change.
Tuvalu has drawn up evacuation plans for her citizens. Fiji is a suitable candidate country to which to transplant Tuvaluans, however Fijians reject the modern lifestyle and attitudes of their neighbours. Where else does Australasia have to offer? Australia and New Zealand have been discussed as refuge sites but both are unwilling to act on a large scale. Australian PM Howard has described their pacific neighbours as criminals and talks about relaxing visa restrictions have shown little promise. All this leaves Tuvalu high and dry, or rather low and sinking with no feasible solution.
So, what is the answer? Push for a revision of refugee status requirements? Partly, although this would only provide new homes for environmental refugees. What is necessary is to slow the process of global warming, and that is something we can all do, from turning off lights to getting on the bus and not in the car. Tuvalu might be a far flung location, but imagine it was the British Isles. Isn't that worth fighting for?
Originally published March 2007.
Tuvalu is a small collection of islands to the north of Fiji, with the capital Funafuti. A poor country Tuvalu had to franchise out its domain suffix of .tv to raise $40m, while this money is much needed and allows for development it also proves to be a curse.
And the Problem?
Globalisation and with it global environmental change leads to immense problems. Not only have Tuvaluans built roads on which to burn up fossil fuels of their own, but they suffer the affects of Western consumption.
The burning of fossil fuels leads to a rise in greenhouse gasses contributing to the warming of the atmosphere. As this warming occurs glaciers are beginning to melt and oceans expand. This excess water must go somewhere, and has begun creeping onto land masses.
The problem with being an island it that you have a large body of water around you and when waters rise, you begin to disappear. As water levels rise by 3.5mm a year land seeps into the sea and areas of forestation fall due to salt poisoning, Tuvalu now has whole atolls devoid of greenery.
While Tuvaluan authorities continue to push for a sustainable development program for the islands they know that they are fighting a losing battle. There has been no global redress with regard to ecological damage (now) Ex-Prime Minster Koloa Talake began to launch legal action against America and Australia for their polluting activities which endangered the islands. However, Talake's plans for re-election failed and the suit was never filed. Two years later Tuvalu was represented at the UN, and pleaded her case. Despite making some headway very little was achieved in positive outcomes.
So, if Tuvalu is to vanish below the pacific what will become of her inhabitants? Tuvaluans will become environmental refugees. Yet there are few places for these victims to go.While many states are open to refugees these are presented as people with a "well founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality membership of a particular social group, or political opinion", not victims of man's greed. However, when the UN estimates that there will be 50m people leaving environmentally endangered territories by 2010 we need to find a way of working environmental refugees into international covenants. It is not just Tuvaluans who need a change in this definition, Moroccans, Egyptians, Libyans all face losses of farmland due to environmental change.
Tuvalu has drawn up evacuation plans for her citizens. Fiji is a suitable candidate country to which to transplant Tuvaluans, however Fijians reject the modern lifestyle and attitudes of their neighbours. Where else does Australasia have to offer? Australia and New Zealand have been discussed as refuge sites but both are unwilling to act on a large scale. Australian PM Howard has described their pacific neighbours as criminals and talks about relaxing visa restrictions have shown little promise. All this leaves Tuvalu high and dry, or rather low and sinking with no feasible solution.
So, what is the answer? Push for a revision of refugee status requirements? Partly, although this would only provide new homes for environmental refugees. What is necessary is to slow the process of global warming, and that is something we can all do, from turning off lights to getting on the bus and not in the car. Tuvalu might be a far flung location, but imagine it was the British Isles. Isn't that worth fighting for?
Originally published March 2007.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)