A gender analysis to understand Sexual Gender-Based Violence (SGBV) in Conflict & Lessons learnt to reduce the shortcomings of current approaches and develop more effective tools to address SGBV during conflict and post-conflict processes

In the last two decades an increasing interest has been directed towards the use of rape as a weapon of war in conflict. Even though this new concept has been effective to bring international attention to the issue, it must be integrated with a more holistic gender analysis that sees sexual violence as a continuum and rooted in pre-existing gender inequalities. The present essay is providing a brief gender analysis of Sexual Gender-based Violence (SGBV)[i] during conflict and transition processes. This will inform the second part of this article while reflecting on shortcomings of the current approaches and elaborating appropriate strategies to address the problem.

During the 1990’s the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and Former Yugoslavia brought the use of mass rape in conflict to the knowledge of international mainstream media.  Sexual violence in conflict could not be anymore considered as an indiscriminate act of undisciplined soldiers and therefore a by-product of war but an integral part of a wider and systematic genocidial campaign (Bergoffen, 2009). Women’s anti-war organizations had to wait until the year 2000 to see the UN Security Council (UNSC) to specifically tackle for the first time the issue of women in conflict with the landmark resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security (WPS). The resolution was aimed at an increased women’s political participation in conflict resolution, and at the prevention and protection of women and girls from sexual violence in conflict (UNSC, 2000).  Subsequently, the UNSC adopted more resolutions within the WPS framework introducing similar issues from different angles including the use of rape as a weapon of war with UNSC Resolution 1829/2008. The resolution stated:  “women and girls are particularly targeted by the use of sexual violence, including as a tactic of war to humiliate, dominate, instill fear in, disperse and/or forcibly relocate civilian members of a community of a community or ethnic group” (UNSC, 2008).  Starting from this resolution sexual violence in conflict became a global security issue to fall under the mandate of the UNSC which became responsible for its monitoring. The resolution was a great and long wished achievement for women’s organizations; national governments and non-state actors were now obliged to protect women from sexual violence, given its binding nature for all UN members (Crawford, 2013).

Two concepts are suited to understand sexual violence in conflict: “conflict as a continuum” and “violence against women as a continuum” (Cockburn, 2004; 2010). Cockburn (2010) suggested that conflict does not consist just in open war but of “a continuum leading from militarism […] through militarization […], through episodes of ‘hot’ war […] followed perhaps by unsteady peace..” (Cockburn, 2010: 148). In her analysis violence produced in conflict is a gendered process; in the preparation to war the society experiences a process of polarization between masculinity and femininity that is used to construct an identity of a militarized man that distances himself from the despised category of weak women. Since their childhood males tend to be taught to be competitive and bold, in a militarized setting men’s identity is created through a continuous test of manliness and aggressiveness that in turn produce violence. Gender relations and their dichotomous character generate therefore violence; masculinity and militarism are fueling each other alimenting the spiraling of violence. Sexual violence represents one of the violent acts among others that increases in intensity in the escalation to war. Therefore, sexual violence is not created by war but is already present in the society as a product of patriarchy (Cockburn, 2004). This is also corroborated by the fact that SGBV and domestic violence are a reality also during peace and in the aftermath of war. The continuum is to be found also between the private and public sphere with soldiers and men venting their anger and distress from war pressure and political frustration against family members. Moreover, SGBV reproduces itself since it reinforces and perpetuates in post-conflict times gender norms which see rape as an act of subjection and commodification of women’s bodies (Boesten, 2010).

            A gender analysis of SGBV in conflict and post-conflict settings takes into consideration how differently vulnerable are women, girls, men and boys to sexual violence and to what extent gender inequalities contribute to it (Cockburn, 2013). Moreover, a context specific and intersectional analysis is required to fully understand the phenomenon; vulnerability to rape is, in fact, increased or decreased in relation to affiliation to a specific ethnic or religious group or in relation to their economic wealth, sexual orientation, disability etc. (Green & Sweetman, 2013). In general women are more vulnerable if they live in Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) or refugee camps, if they are single or head of households (Bastick et al., 2007). Women are usually more exposed to the risk of forced prostitution and sexual slavery. Women and girl combatants represent a particularly sensitive category because they often have to pay the price of their increased empowerment with “sexual favours” and sexual slavery in result of which they sometimes bear children (Denov & Ricard-Guay, 2013). Further than long-term psychological and physical consequences, women face stigmatization within their communities because they are considered traitors and ‘spoiled’; this discrimination is also directed to their children born in result of sexual violence (ODI, 2014).

            Even though statistics report a higher prevalence of rapes perpetrated against women, boys and men suffer from it as well especially when they are in custody or abducted to be recruited as soldiers. The cases of rape against boys and men are more underreported than those of women because of the risk of a higher stigmatization (Bastick et al., 2007). Those males who voluntarily or forcibly become combatants undergo a very thorough training that often involves torture, continuous harassment and brainwashing with racist, misogynistic and homophobic propaganda (Whitworth, 2004). Sexual violence and gang rapes are also used to enhance masculinity and as socialization tools to increase bonds among very diverse armies (in terms of ethnicity, class etc.) (Enloe, 1987) and otherwise scarcely motivated troops (especially when abducted or tortured) (Cohen, 2013). A militarized masculinity assumes different forms in different contexts; in Sierra Leone, for example, it is closely connected with committing brutal acts, whereas in countries which intend to abide by the Geneva Conventions focus on respect of the discipline – even if commonly believe that “non aggressive men are useless” (Cockburn, 2013: 439).

If gender discrimination is the root cause for sexual violence in conflict, rape is also played on gender roles that are further deployed to aggravate the acts of oppression and violence against the adversary. Cynthia Cockburn (2013) has suggested:  “A woman who is raped in war is raped as a woman, a despised category. A man who is raped is assaulted as a man, to reduce him to the status of a mere woman, and thus destroy his masculine self-respect” (Cockburn, 2013: 434). Therefore, to understand rape in conflict, it is important to analyse the symbolic representation in their societies of women’s and men’s identities and bodies. Women’s bodies, for example, are often conceived as vehicles of communication between opposing masculinities. Through rape men are sending a message aimed at demeaning opposing masculinities since they failed to protect their own women (Hansen, 2001). Moreover, since women are often seen as symbol of the motherland and of its culture, a victory over the enemy is symbolized with the seizure of their women’s body (Sneyder et al., 2006). In many societies women acquire subjectivity only in relation to their family and especially to its male members. If a woman loses her virginity, she loses her respectability and therefore any chances of getting married; moreover, if the woman was already married, she is often considered responsible for the fact and rejected by her husband. In this way rape acquires more effectiveness in order to creating trauma and breaking their internal cohesion within communities (Weitsman, 2008).

However, this analysis should let us think that SGBV during conflict is only perpetrated by armed forces and with the aim to humiliate a specific community. SGBV is also committed to satisfy sexual desire over women that conflict made exploitable to sex. Moreover, sexual violence is often pervasive at all levels of the society, in what Boesten (2010) calls “invisible sexual violence”, from the households to communities and often utilized as a tool to determine alliances and within households. Furthermore, as suggested earlier, sexual violence does not stop with the end of open hostilities; further than the continuation of domestic violence, in many cases transition times register an upsurge in SGBV as a form of retaliation and civilian violence as happened in Kenya in the aftermath of the elections in 2007 (Thomas et al., 2013). Moreover, in post-conflict countries violence and sexual violence is exacerbated by the circulation of small weapons appropriated by local militia or gangs. There are societies that remain highly militarized with a constant influx of weapons like in the case of Guatemala which has seen for long high rates of sexual violence and feminicides (Amnesty International, 2006). In the Pacific Islands the increased militarism caused by US-military bases is affecting women’s security in the region, generating sexual exploitation and driving indigenous people out of their lands (George, 2014).

 The introduction by the UNSC of the notion of rape as a weapon of war was useful to highlight the political utilization of rape in conflict and its harming and long-term effect on communities. In response to this new concern various organizations and governments have implemented different programs on sexual violence in their reconstruction and transitional justice initiatives.  However, the application of this approach has proved problematic in addressing  SGBV in conflict and post-conflict situations (Boesten, 2010).

Firstly, establishing when rape constitutes a weapon of war can prove very challenging. In open conflicts it would be difficult to collect statistics and reach an agreement between different actors to define if rape has attained the significance of weapon of war. Secondly this notion has shaped the approach of many humanitarian agencies and institutions providing a defined image of the “victim” which must be female and from the oppressed group. This has resulted in the exclusion from rehabilitation and empowerment programs of those who do not fit in the stereotype of the victim (e.g. men who have been subjected to rape, female perpetrators and victims who belong to the oppressing group) (Crawford, 2013). The example of the girls ex-combatants – many of which were also rape survivors – shows that, not being able to qualify for any social program, they have received a “spontaneous reintegration” in their communities without any kind of institutional support (Denov & Ricard-Guay, 2013).

            Moreover, the international tribunals and truth commissions called to address the wrongdoings committed during conflict have tended to provide the narrative of rape as a weapon of war as a “script” women have to adapt to if they wish to seek any justice or remedies. In the case of Rwanda the “script” was simply used as an instrument of propaganda against the Hutu and for the construction of a new national identity. In fact if the stories of the atrocities committed by the Hutu against Tutsi women found full coverage in the national media during all duration of the trials, women’s voices were less heard when voicing other demands like compensation or access to social services; also, only five people were in the end condemned with charges related to sexual violence. Moreover, sexual violence was persecuted only when it was against Tutsi women, completely ignoring the cases arose during the trial that saw Hutu women and Tusti men as rape victim. The case of Rwanda also showed that the situation was more complex than the “clear cut” between Hutu and Tutsi offered by the tribunal and that all women regardless their ethnic affiliation had  different degrees of vulnerability according to other factors related to class, economic status, political affiliation, geographic location among others. This kind of narrative prevents us from analysing what function was played by sexual violence within the genocide and how violence was connected to gender inequality, and what other social, economic and political factors made some categories of women more vulnerable (Buss, 2009).

Another negative effect of the “rape as a weapon of war” narrative is that it reinforces the dualism between perpetrators and victims depriving the latter of any agency. The result of this has been that most of the rehabilitation programs for women survivors have been dealing with the physical and psychological consequences of SGBV in conflict like for example with counseling services but have generally ignored other actions aimed to rebuild their lives like education or livelihood or other empowerment projects (Green&Sweetman, 2013). Moreover, many humanitarian and development agencies have tended to understand sexual violence as a threat to security only when associated to conflict and its immediate aftermath. Therefore, they have overlooked SGBV as a long-term problem during transition (Boesten, 2010).

            All the aforementioned considerations should make UN institutions and other humanitarian and development agencies come to the conclusion that there is a need for a context specific analysis to address SGBV in order not to marginalize some groups of people. Analysing rape in conflict through the lens of the weapon of war prevents us looking at other important intersecting components of women’s and men’s identities which make them more vulnerable. International criminal tribunals should also address these factors if they wish to give a fair remedy to survivors. Moreover, even though counseling is important, this should not make us forget that violence happens in a continuum and that to make a substantial improvement on women’s lives it is necessary firstly to change the conditions that allow gender discrimination. Finally it is also necessary to disentangle survivors from the image of victims and offer them the opportunity to express their full potential and build a new life.

            Two projects – even though not directly related to SGBV in conflict – could be replicated for these purposes. The first is the multi-year participatory action research (PAR) with female former combatants in Sierra Leone, Liberia, and northern Uganda which was aimed at overcoming the limitations of traditional rehabilitation programs. The project directly engaged the beneficiaries in the assessment of their needs. Small groups at local level discussed, decided and elaborated their own strategies which resulted in the direct implementation of small initiatives at local level mostly concerning livelihood, health and education (e.g. petty-trading, cassava farms, literacy classes etc.). The stories of the women involved in the PAR showed that the project was successful in improving their economic opportunities, regaining dignity and achieving a previously missing social recognition from their own communities (Worthen et al., 2010). Rape survivors, who experience a strong stigmatization that also often translates in preclusion from economic opportunities, can profitably benefit from this kind of programs. Creating space for empowerment would distance them from the perceived victimization and stigmatization and effectively create a new space for them within their own communities.

            The second kind of initiatives that could be applied to SGBV in conflict is a community-based primary prevention strategy, as was also implemented for a period of six years by the NGO Raising Voices in East Africa. The project was aimed at preventing gender-based violence starting from its own roots and involving all different sectors of the society – potentially every single member. It entailed involving the community to reflect on gender discrimination and on the causes of violence against women, and consequently engage it in a critical mass involved in a daily commitment in changing societal mindset. Community members were also repeatedly exposed to ideas related to gender equality that happened through different actions in different kind of contexts (e.g. school, workplace, etc.). This kind of project was conducted with full ownership from the community and has registered sensible progresses in changing people’s attitude and challenging gender stereotypes (Michau, 2007). A similar approach can be applied to address SGBV in post-conflict situations. The effectiveness of community-based primary prevention programs relies also on a strong involvement of men and perpetrators not individually or in isolation but as part of their own communities. This could be particularly viable in post-conflict societies that see a strong militarized masculinity; community-led programs could tackle SGBV from its origins engaging everyone to challenge the polarized notions of femininity and masculinity, and change gender stereotypes and therefore violent attitudes. If men are directly involved in the process and become active agents of social change, combating SGBV would become a closer reality. This kind of socialization should also invest government and military institutions; as Connell (2002) suggested, policies of demilitarization should aim to transform the way in which masculinity is constructed.

            A more substantial inclusion of women in decision making and at peace-negotiations is also a key factor in fighting against SGBV. Women are still predominantly excluded from negotiations tables notwithstanding their considerable contributions in building trust and cohesion within their own communities (Moosa et al., 2013). There is a need for an increased participation of women in peace-building negotiations that could include commitment for demobilizing armed forces not to commit rape as a condition for ceasefires. This should extend to an increased involvement in decision making power structures from local to national level. As George (2014) suggested women’s insecurity is also the result of a ‘masculinization of political institutions’. The lack of women’s political participation creates security concerns because some issues like gender-based violence are not addressed my male-dominated institutions; moreover military spending drives away resources from other important and necessary social and health services. The integration of a women’s perspective in peacebuilding would also make peace more sustainable especially in those contests where women present a more holistic and community-oriented approach to peace – considered in terms of absence of domestic violence, social and economic rights, access to social and health services (Moosa et al, 2013). Finally but not less importantly, it is responsibility of our own governments to contribute to the plight of women living under conflict. The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) entered into force in December 2014 and includes a provision according to which, before exporting conventional arms, countries’ authorities should conduct an assessment to verify the potential risks that those arms would be utilized to perpetrate GBV (Green & Sweetman, 2013). Civil society organizations of weapons’ exporting countries should also push their own government to strictly observe the treaty and to impose sanctions on those countries which authorities are responsible of committing SGBV.

            In conclusion, a gender analysis of sexual violence in conflict is revealing how much strong are the ties with pre-existing gender discriminations within societies and at all levels from community to institutional. As suggested by Green & Sweetman (2013) to achieve ‘trasformative change’ we need to go to the very roots of gender inequality. This would mean also to analyse and change the connections between militarism and masculinity and between militarized masculinity and victimized femininity. We also need to avoid homogenization and look closer to specific narratives of women and men in order to be able address their particular needs and vulnerabilities. The latter should be explored with an intersectional approach looking at how they are related to gender inequalities and other power hierarchies. Not with an easy task are left institutional actors and NGOs called to find responses; long term projects and commitment are required and should invest all sectors of the society and all phases of the transition policies. The key for sustainable solutions is listening to the local women’s organizations and finally give them space to be actively involved in decisions that concern their own lives.

Bibliography

Amnesty International (2006) Guatemala: No Protection, No Justice: Killings of Women, AMR 34/019/2006. Available online at: https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/AMR34/019/2006/en/

Bastick, M., Grimm, K. & Kunz, R. (2007) Sexual Violence in Armed Conflict: Global Overview and Implications for the Security Sector. Geneva: Geneva Center for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces.

Bergoffen, D. (2009) Exploiting the Dignity of the Vulnerable Body: Rape as a Weapon of War. Philosophical Papers, 38 (3), 307-325.

Boesten, J. (2010) Analysing Rape Regimes at the Interface of War and Peace in Peru. The International Journal of Transitional Justice,  4 (1), 110–129.

Buss, D. E. (2009) Rethinking ‘Rape as a Weapon of War’. Feminist Legal Studies, 17 (2), 145-163.

Cockburn, C. (2004) The Continuum of Violence in Giles, W. & Hindman, J. (eds.) Sites of Violence: Gender and Conflict Zones. Berkeley: University of California Press, 24-44.

     —- (2010) Gender Relations as Causal in Militarization and War. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 12 (2), 139-157.

     —    (2013) War and security, women and gender: an overview of the issues. Gender & Development, 21 (3), 433-452.

Cohen, D. K. (2013) Explaining Rape during Civil War: Cross-National Evidence (1980-2009). American Political Science Review, 107 (3), 461-477.

Connell, R.W. (2002) Masculinities, the reduction of violence and the pursuit of peace. In Cockburn, C. & Žarkov D. (eds.) The Postwar Moment: Militaries, Masculinities and International Peacekeeping – Bosnia and the Netherlands. London: Lawrence and Wishart.

Crawford, K. F. (2013) From spoils to weapons: framing wartime sexual violence. Gender & Development, 21 (3), 505-517.

Denov, M. & Ricard-Guay, A. (2013) Girl soldiers: towards a gendered understanding of wartime recruitment, participation, and demobilisation. Gender & Development, 21 (3), 473-488.

Enloe, C. (1987) Feminist Thinking about War, Militarism and Peace. In Hess. B. (ed.) Analysing Gender: A Handbook of Social Science Research. Newbury Park: Sage.

George, N. (2014) Promoting Women, Peace and Security in the Pacific Islands: hot conflict/slow violence. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 68 (3), 314-332.

Green, C. & Sweetman, C.  (2013) Introduction to Conflict and Violence. Gender & Development, 21 (3), 423-431.

Green, C., Basu Ray, D., Mortimer, C. & Stone, K. (2013) Gender-based violence and the Arms Trade Treaty: reflections from a campaigning and legal perspective. Gender & Development, 21 (3), 551-562.

Hansen, L. (2001) Gender, Nation, Rape: Bosnia and the Construction of Security. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 3 (1), 55-75.

Manjoo, R., & McRaith, C. (2011) Gender-based violence and justice in conflict and post-conflict areas. Cornell International Law Journal, 44 (1), 11-32.

Michau, L. (2007) Approaching old problems in new ways: community mobilisation as primary prevention strategy to combat violence against women. Gender & Development, 15 (1), 95-109.

Moosa, Z., Rahmani, M. & Webster, L. (2013) From the private to the public sphere: new research on women’s participation in peace-building. Gender & Development, 21 (3), 453-472.

ODI (2014) The fallout of rape as a weapon of war: the life-long and intergenerational impacts of sexual violence in conflict. Available online at: http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/8990.pdf [Accessed 20/05/2015].

Snyder, C., Gabbard, W., May, J. & Zulkic, N. (2006) On the battleground of women’s bodies. Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work, 21 (2) 184-195.

Thomas,K., Masinjila, M. & Bere E. (2013) Political transition and sexual and gender-based violence in South Africa, Kenya, and Zimbabwe: a comparative analysis. Gender & Development, 21 (3), 519-532.

UNSC (2000) Resolution 1325 (2000) (31 October 2000, S/RES/1325). Available online at: http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/1325(2000) [Accessed 20/05/2015].

UNSC (2008) Resolution 1820 (2008) (19 June 2008, S/RES/1820). Available online at: http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/CAC%20S%20RES%201820.pdf [Accessed 20/05/2015].

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) (1999) Reproductive Health in refugee situations: an inter-agency Field Manual. UNHCR. Available online at: http://www.iawg.net/resources/iawg_Field%20Manual_1999.pdf [Accessed 20/05/2015]

Weitsman, P. A. (2008) The Politics of Identity and Sexual Violence: A Review of Bosnia and Rwanda. Human Rights Quarterly, 30 (3), 561-578.

Withworth, S. (2004) Men, Militarism & UN Peacekeeping. London: Lynne Rienners Publishers.

Worthen, M., Veale, A., McKay, S. & Wessells, M. (2010) ‘I Stand Like A Woman’: Empowerment and Human Rights in the Context of Community-Based Reintegration of Girl Mothers Formerly Associated with Fighting Forces and Armed Groups. Journal of Human Rights Practice, 2 (1), 49-70.

---

[i] In this article I am using the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) definition of sexual violence including the following: “Rape, the most often cited form of sexual violence, is defined in many societies as sexual intercourse with another person without his/ her consent. Rape is committed when the victim’s resistance is overwhelmed by force or fear or other coercive means. However, the term sexual and gender-based violence encompasses a wide variety of abuses that includes sexual threats, exploitation, humiliation, assaults, molestation, domestic violence, incest, involuntary prostitution (sexual bartering), torture, insertion of objects into genital openings and attempted rape. Female genital mutilation and other harmful traditional practices (including early marriage, which substantially increases maternal morbidity and mortality) are forms of sexual and gender-based violence against women which cannot be overlooked nor justified on the grounds of tradition, culture or social conformity” (UNHCR, 1999: 35).