It’s ‘more dangerous to be a woman than a soldier’
In 2008, cialis during a conference on “Women Targeted by Armed Conflict: What Role for Military Peacekeepers?”, sickness retired Major General Patrick Cammaert, nurse said: “It has probably become more dangerous to be a woman than a soldier in armed conflicts.”
The reason for this is not some global conspiracy by the forces of organised misogyny. The truth is far more simple: more than ever before, armed conflicts not only affect, but directly target, civilians.
Those who watched The War You Don’t See on Tuesday night might have noted this when Pilger reported the increase in civilian casualties, from 10% in the First World War to 90% in the Iraq War.
For women these statistics represent something far more chilling. Within the civilian populations living within armed conflicts, women are endangered for a very specific reason – because they are women.
A 2008 article by Rosemary Bechler on the OpenDemocracy website substantiates this with examples:
“Captive male combatants are also subjected to sexual torture and terror, but women and girls are the majority of civilians targeted for this particular form of atrocity, on a frightful scale: three out of four women in parts of the Eastern Kivus in the Democratic Republic of Congo; 90% of all females above the age of three in parts of Liberia; up to 50% of women and girls in Sierra Leone.”
You might want, as I have, to look at those statistics again, and note that the lowest represents 50% – half the population – while the highest speaks of 90% – almost all females in the area.
Women are also disproportionately affected during conflict in other ways. As primary care-givers, women suffer most from the destruction of services.
If widowed as a result of conflicts, women find themselves facing a social death, often cast out from their homes and communities.
Moreover, the absence of women from peace processes means that the end of conflict does not mean an end to violence against women. During peace negotiations, it is not uncommon for women’s rights to be traded as bargaining chips.
It was because of these particular dangers to women in armed conflicts and the routine exclusion of women from peacebuilding that 10 years ago, the UN passed its groundbreaking Resolution 1325. It recognises the devastating impact of conflict upon women and states that they must be involved in building peace.
“Resolution 1325 is, in principle, extraordinary,” said Natalie Sharples, Campaigns and Outreach Officer for the No Women, No Peace campaign.
“But its lack of clear implementation means that its impact is not being felt by women. We urgently need to see renewed political will and, of course, action, to drive it forward.”
It is this need for action that led the groundbreaking Gender Action for Peace and Security network (GAPS) to launch a new petition, as part of their No Women, No Peace campaign.
The petition calls upon Lynne Featherstone, in her new post as Champion for tackling International Violence Against Women, to make 1325 her ‘New Year’s Resolution’, on behalf of the women affected by the violence of war, occupation and conflict all over the world.
The petition calls upon Lynne Featherstone to centre her work on the implementation of Resolution 1325, and to increase the use of this important tool for involving women in shaping peace.
WVoN is delighted to support No Women, No Peace.
And as Christmas approaches, we urge you to sign the petition online. You can also download a petition sheet or email nowomennopeace@gaps-uk.org for hard copies, if you think you can help to collect signatures.
The petition will be presented to Lynne Featherstone in late January 2011. Find out more about the No Women, No Peace campaign and sign up to their actions at http://www.nowomennopeace.org/.