Spare a Thought for Women in Darfur

[shereads]

Today (Dec. 10) is the last day of Refugee International's '16 Days Against Gender-Based Violence." I didn't know there was such a thing until I googled Darfur Relief. This agency receives an above average rating from a webstie Forbes magazine recommends for evaluating charities (based on the amount of money actually spent on relief, as opposed to salaries and fundraising.)

Of all the charities I checked out there using keywords "Darfur" and "Sudan," this one is not affiliated with any religious organizations or the UN, in case those are red flags to some of you. They assist displaced and endangered women, children and other civilians in Sudan and other scenes of conflict.

REFUGEES INTERNATIONAL (relief for displaced and endangered civilians in Sudan/Darfur and other conflicts)

Worth noting: According to Relief International, civilians account for 90% of deaths in contemorary military conflicts.

 

[angela146]

If we had the political will and the resources, what would we do?

What possible course of action would actually make things better?

 

[neonlyte]

Today (Dec. 10) is the last day of Refugee International's '16 Days Against Gender-Based Violence." I didn't know there was such a thing until I googled Darfur Relief. This agency receives an above average rating from a webstie Forbes magazine recommends for evaluating charities (based on the amount of money actually spent on relief, as opposed to salaries and fundraising.)

Of all the charities I checked out there using keywords "Darfur" and "Sudan," this one is not affiliated with any religious organizations or the UN, in case those are red flags to some of you. They assist displaced and endangered women, children and other civilians in Sudan and other scenes of conflict.

REFUGEES INTERNATIONAL (relief for displaced and endangered civilians in Sudan/Darfur and other conflicts)

Worth noting: According to Relief International, civilians account for 90% of deaths in contemorary military conflicts.

Thank you for posting this link - the web site is compelling reading.

 

[neonlyte]

If we had the political will and the resources, what would we do?

What possible course of action would actually make things better?

Politically: exert more action from the African Peace Keeping forces, underwrite their costs, provide them with the tools to do a Peace Keeping job while the 'politicians' attempt to find some way to reach settlement. It will be a long haul, but the cost (I would imagine) would be a fraction of the money the USA and UK are spending in Afganistan and Iraq.

Practically: I saw an interesting report recently on the impact of 'micro-banks' for women. Essentially these banks lend small ($20) loans to women to enable them to start micro a business. Could be making baskets for re-sale, providing a service, a host of small measures that allow women economic independence and an ability to survive.

Micro-banks have a loan re-payment success rate well into 90%. Once a loan is re-paid, or substantially repaid, the woman is allowed further credit to expand her enterprise. The priority for the women (in the report I saw) was education. That is where their surplus income went - to educate their children and hopefully bring them out of the poverty cycle they are trapped in.

I don't know enough about conditions in Sudan to say if micro-banks could work there, but it might be a place to start. Many micro-banks are funded by collectives, ie. a group of like-minded individuals pool resources, a few dollars each per month, loaned interest free to a micro-bank which then lends the money to clients. Some might say this is just another way to absolve the better off from guilt, maybe... but it works for those at the needy end.

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[Pure]

good work, neon. awareness IS worth something, esp. if imbued with compassion.

it's a conundrum what to do, other than send money to refugee relief. i suppose a group/community/church could sponsor a refugee woman and kids wishing to leave (surely she'd rather go anywhere than stay under those conditions.)

I don't think it's an insoluble problem, even conceived of as a civil war. Peacekeeping armies have stopped civil wars, as in Cyprus.

But there are political constraints; to go in uninvited causes the Sudanese govt to shit a brick. And don't forget, that, if you were Bush, think of the mining companies that would like a shot at the Sudan. If you want to do business you can't piss the govt off.

Of course the 'great powers' have tarnished reputations, so all efforts are mistrusted. Picture Bush saying: "We're sending 10,000 troops to advance democracy and human rights in Africa!" (even supposing it were true.)

African nations rightly fear western 'offers,' i.e., interventions; it's bad precedent to have, say, the French army in there again.

Those of us following the AIDS situation a little bit know the obstacles the AIDS efforts face; govt's that don't cooperate and western govs who give infinitely low priority to the problem; hence no 'will.'

 

[Pure]

some material on darfur and links; petition; policy recs.

http://www.refugeesinternational.org/content/report/detail/9159/

http://www.refugeesinternational.org/content/report/detail/9572/
Darfur 2006, displaced girls weave baskets

Photo Credit: Initiative for Inclusive Security/ Evelyn Thornton
07/14/2006

Four “Sheikas” discuss the deteriorating security situation in Kalma Camp outside of Nyala in South Darfur. To help tackle security, water and sanitation, food distribution, and other critical issues, Kalma camp coordinators initiated a process to bring women into the camp’s leadership. Women in the camp elected 16 Sheikas to represent them in the council of Sheiks. Their participation has, according to many, improved the safety and health of Camp residents. In August, when attacks against women increased significantly as the broader peace process deteriorated, these women led a group of more than 300 women to demand a meeting with the international community to discuss ways to enhance protection.

http://www.democracyinaction.org/di...sInternational/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=4288

Tell the Senate to Support Refugees


=============
http://www.refugeesinternational.org/content/article/detail/9673/



Policy discussion. Sudanese Gov’t opposition to intervention.

Sudan: Hybrid Peacekeeping Force for Darfur Must Comply With UN Requirements

11/22/2006
Contact: Peter Gantz
ri@refugeesinternational.org or 202.828.0110

In August of this year the United Nations Security Council voted to send UN peacekeepers to Darfur, where the United States has accused the government of Sudan of committing genocide, to supplement a small African Union force. So far the government of Sudan has refused to allow the UN to deploy this new and much larger peacekeeping mission, forcing the African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS) to keep its largely ineffective Darfur peacekeeping mission in place. To resolve this dilemma, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, in close consultation with leading members of the Security Council and the leadership of the African Union, has come up with the idea of a hybrid UN-AU peacekeeping mission.

Clearly the UN holds a weak hand on Darfur. It has no way to compel Sudan to accept the UN peacekeeping force authorized by Security Council Resolution 1706. Quite the opposite --- Khartoum is forcing the UN to water down its Darfur effort to a level acceptable to Sudan. Faced with Sudan’s intransigence, the UN is trying to implement a plan of phased support for peacekeeping in Darfur. Phase 1 is a light support package for AMIS, worth around $20 million, which is proceeding with the government of Sudan’s approval. Phase 2 is a heavy support package, consisting of the deployment of several hundred military, police, and civilian personnel, as well as substantial logistical and aviation assets. According to a November 16 UN statement, Sudan has agreed to Phase 2. Phase 3 is to be the deployment of a hybrid peacekeeping mission.

In the UN vision for this hybrid operation, the UN’s Special Representative to Sudan would be jointly appointed by the UN and the AU, as would the Force Commander and Deputy Force Commander. UN assets and command and control would backstop what would still be a largely African peacekeeping force. UN peacekeeping assessments would pay for the operation. In keeping with Resolution 1706, the number of troops should be about 17,000, plus 3,000 police, a significant increase from the current AMIS force of about 7,000.

The UN says that for any action it takes in Darfur to be effective there must be three things in place: a viable ceasefire; a viable political negotiating process involving all the parties to the conflict, including ones that did not sign the May Darfur Peace Agreement; and an effective peacekeeping force to buttress the first two elements.

An immediate problem is the lack of a ceasefire, while attempts to revive the political peace process have yielded no concrete results in recent months. In terms of the peacekeeping force, the UN insists that it won’t accept a force that lacks the mandate, troops, equipment, and command structure to be effective. This means the design of the hybrid force must comply with the general requirements outlined in the Secretary-General’s July 2006 report that defined the scope and mandate of the UN operation in Darfur.

According to the July report, the UN mission in Darfur would have as its abiding priority the protection of civilians, and the core of this would consist of mobile infantry battalions. The mission must have elements of its command and control system in Darfur itself. It must be equipped with high-mobility ground vehicles and a significant air component. The force must be capable and ready to deal proactively with spoilers, including in a pre-emptive manner. This will require surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities, and air and ground rapid reaction forces with enough military power to deter or defeat any threats. The report provides many further details, showing that the UN has done its homework and has clearly defined the full requirements for an effective peacekeeping mission in Darfur.

The UN is now waiting for the government of Sudan to report back on various concerns it has with the hybrid mission concept. Herein lies the problem. Since Khartoum continues to oppose the UN operation envisioned by Resolution 1706, it is hard to understand why it would approve much the same thing cloaked as a joint UN-AU mission. In fact, there are already signs of disagreement between Khartoum and the UN about the troop and police numbers and about UN command and control elements. Sudan also said it should be consulted concerning the appointment of the Special Representative and the Force Commander.

The AU must approve a mandate for this hybrid operation. Given Sudanese pressure, it is an open question whether the AU will approve a mandate that meets the requirements of the UN. Even with an appropriate mandate, there is another problem. If the political peace process necessary for the UN peacekeeping mission to succeed continues to founder, it brings into play the bigger problem of the political will of the potential troop contributing countries. Governments providing troops to AMIS do not want those troops to engage in major hostilities, a problem that could easily afflict the hybrid operation, which will be largely African.

A fundamental problem in pushing forward with a peacekeeping force for Darfur is that the UN is in the untenable position of trying to convince the party most responsible for the violence to be a partner in the peace process. In a failed state this may work, because with the deployment of a robust peace operation the UN may gain the upper hand over ragtag rebel groups acting to spoil the peace. The UN is in no such position in Darfur --- there, the government of Sudan clearly holds the upper hand. The prosecution of genocide in Darfur, the lack of consent for a UN peace operation in Darfur, and the failure of the political peace process in Darfur are the result in part or whole of decisions made by the government of Sudan.

For three years Khartoum has successfully manipulated the divisions in the international community, blocking effective action in Darfur and ensuring that the human misery, ethnic cleansing, and mass killings continue. Sudan has obstructed AMIS with a crippling curfew and other restrictions. There are no signs that Khartoum is inclined to take a radically different path concerning Darfur. Sudan’s leaders are able to listen patiently to and then ignore the statements of the international community because there is no credible threat on the horizon that would force them to pay attention. No country or organization that can mount a credible military threat against Sudan is inclined to do so. So, although tough-headed diplomacy might bring about change, this is likely only if there is a credible threat of a vigorous response should the killing continue.

On November 20, in a public presentation at the Brookings Institution in Washington, the U.S. Special Envoy for Sudan, Andrew Natsios, stated that he assumed the government of Sudan wanted an effective Darfur peacekeeping force. The actions of the Sudanese government for the past three years belie this assumption. Mr. Natsios further stated that in the event of further Sudanese obstruction, while the killing in Darfur continues, then the U.S. has a “Plan B” to respond. At this juncture, one can only wonder if Plan B will be any more vigorous than the ineffectual U.S. response to date.

If Sudan succeeds in substantially weakening the mandate, troop levels, and command and control structure for the UN-AU peacekeeping force in Darfur, the UN should not take the attitude that this is the best possible option under the circumstances and accept what would only be a larger AMIS. There is no point in action taken for the sake of taking action. The UN has correctly said that peacekeeping in Darfur must be effective, and it should stick to that goal.

Peter Gantz is the Peacebuilding Program Officer for Refugees International.

 

[SeaCat]

I read and hear of these things and can only shake my head in disgust.

Yes i hear the arguments, both political and religieus. I disagree with them.

Then again my views on Rape and Abuse are well known here.

Personally, I would love to see it that if a member of government or an Aid Organisation speaks out against legislation against Rape and Abuse then their family members should be introduced to Caligula's Ideas. I do believe that this would change many peoples minds.

Cat

 

[shereads]

One of the stories about women in Sudan that really got to me was about the shame women carry when they're victims of rape.

You'd think that at least in this case, when rape as terrrorism has become a fact of life in this region, rape victims would be perceived as victims, and not as "ruined," or contaminated in some way.

The young woman was interviewed at a refugee camp where she had fled because her community despised her after she was raped by armed men. As the interpretor phrased it, "They would point at me on the street and say, 'You're a raped woman! Stay away decent people."

What is it about a woman's virginity, or sexual purity, that makes its loss so heinous that people blame her for it, even when they know without any doubt that she wasn't at fault?

 

[rgraham666]

One of the stories about women in Sudan that really got to me was about the shame women carry when they're victims of rape.

You'd think that at least in this case, when rape as terrrorism has become a fact of life in this region, rape victims would be perceived as victims, and not as "ruined," or contaminated in some way.

The young woman was interviewed at a refugee camp where she had fled because her community despised her after she was raped by armed men. As the interpretor phrased it, "They would point at me on the street and say, 'You're a raped woman! Stay away decent people."

What is it about a woman's virginity, or sexual purity, that makes its loss so heinous that people blame her for it, even when they know without any doubt that she wasn't at fault?

Because thought and compassion are very difficult, belief and hatred are easy.

 

[shereads]

If we had the political will and the resources, what would we do?

What possible course of action would actually make things better?

We stopped the genocide in Bosnia, after years of wishing it would go away by itself. Imagine the global outcry if these millions of dead, mutilated, raped and orphaned Africans were white, blond suburbanites. I have a suspicion that the developed world wouldn't require a decade to consider our options; we'd be demanding that our leaders find a solution. I don't know if we'd get one, but I know it wouldn't have been so ignored, for so long.

If nothing else, we can help one person at a time by supporting Relief International, the Red Cross, or another organization that's doing what it can to ease the suffering - and in RI's case, to raise awareness.

 

[Pure]

What is it about a woman's virginity, or sexual purity, that makes its loss so heinous that people blame her for it, even when they know without any doubt that she wasn't at fault?

you have to understand a 'purity' mindset, rather than a 'criminal act'-perpetrator/victim mindset.

suppose you have a fine piece of steak, and while youre in the next room, Rover pulls it off the counter, slobbers on it a bit and just *barely* has begun to chew it, when you arrive back in the room and reclaim it. Do you cook it up?

 

[shereads]

Before I leave the thread, a reminder:

We may inadvertently finance 'conflicts' like the one in Sudan, as well as terrorism closer to home, by failing to know how products like diamonds reach our markets. Illicit trade in rough diamonds has helped finance some of the most brutal terror groups in Africa, and is still a major funding source for rebel groups in Angola and Sierra Leone.

Anyone considering diamond jewelry as a Christmas gift this year:

please ask the jeweler if his store has a policy against the purchase of "conflict diamonds." Responsible diamond outlets buy their diamonds from suppliers who are signatory to an agreement called "the Kimberly letter," a self-policing action by the industry in response to growing awareness about the conflicr diamond problem.

FYI, they used to be called "blood diamonds," but the industry and governments reluctant to enforce import restrictions have popularized the less disturbing term, "conflict diamonds."

CONFLICT DIAMONDS FUND TERROR




EDITED to answer Pure's post above:

If I were myself a steak, I think I might show some compassion toward the one that got chewed up by the dog. Regardless, I wouldn't yell at the steak.

FYI, I had the impression in that CNN interview that they were other women who called her a 'raped woman' unfit for the company of decent people.