Minerva, Spring 2008 (Volume 32) - Citizens for Global Solutions

Nations to agree that the Congo is the best
test case for the principle of the ‘Responsibility
to Protect’. This principle was
universally endorsed by heads of state at
the UN in September of 2005. It’s the first
major contemporary international challenge
to the sanctity of sovereignty. It
simply asserts that where a government is
unable or unwilling to protect its own people
from gross violations of human rights,
then the international community has the
responsibility to intervene. That … can be
diplomatic negotiation, or economic sanctions,
or political pressure or military intervention
— whatever it takes to restore
justice to the oppressed. Responsibility to
Protect was originally drafted with Darfur
in mind — it’s equally applicable to
the Congo. We have to start somewhere”
(“Protecting the Women of Congo”, The
Nation, 28 April 2008).
Mr Lewis deplores that the UN-facilitated
“‘Act of Engagement’ — a so-called peace
commitment signed amongst the warring
parties” last January, though a lengthy
document, never mentions the horrific
level of rape and what’s commonly known
in Congolese medical practice as “vaginal
destruction”, and grants amnesty far too
broadly, encouraging a sense of impunity
for outrageous behavior. “The war may
stutter; the raping is unabated.”
This happened despite passage in late
December, after growing clamor about
this issue, of “the strongest language condemning
rape and sexual violence ever to
appear in a Security Council resolution”,
in the renewed mandate for MONUC, the
UN peacekeeping force in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo.
“And perhaps most unconscionable of
all”, laments Mr Lewis, “despite the existence
for seven years of another Security
Council resolution 1325, calling for women
to be active participants in all peace deliberations,
there was no one at that peace
table directly representing the women, the
more than 200,000 women, whose lives
and anatomies were torn to shreds by the
very war that the peace talks were meant
to resolve. Thus does the United Nations
violate its own principles.”
Believing that unconscionable neglect
of “more than 50 percent of the world’s
population, amongst whom are the most
uprooted, disinherited and impoverished
of the earth” extends to the office of the
Secretary-General, Stephen Lewis is one
of the principal proponents of the recommendation
by the High-Level Panel on
Reform of the United Nations of a new
international agency for women:
“If the new agency comes into
being, headed by an Under-Secretary
General, with funding that starts at $1 billion
a year (less than half of UNICEF’s
resources), and real capacity to run programs
on the ground, issues like violence
against women would suddenly be confronted
with indomitable determination.
“The women activists on the
ground, the women survivors on the
ground, the women activist-survivors on
the ground would finally have resources
and support for the work that must be
done.
“But the creation of the new
agency is bogged down in the UN General
Assembly, caught up in the crossfire
between the developed and developing
countries. The Secretary-General could
break that impasse if he pulled out all the
stops. He and the Deputy-Secretary General
make speeches that give the impression
they support the women’s agency,
but in truth the language is so carefully
and artfully couched as to gut the agency
of impact on the ground, in-country, were
it ever to come into being.”
Stephen Lewis has been Canadian Ambassador
to the UN, the Deputy at UNICEF,
an advisor on Africa to a former Secretary-General,
and most recently a “Special
Envoy” for AIDS in Africa. He says
that, in nearly 25 years of international
work, he has been “a ready apologist for
the United Nations” and continues “to be
persuaded that the United Nations can yet
offer the best hope for humankind”, but
it is necessary to be critical “when the
United Nations goes off the rails, as is the
case in the Congo — as is invariably the
case when women are involved. … What
makes this all the more galling is that in
many respects, the UN is the answer.”
Summit Statement on R2P and UNGA
Resolution of 15 November 2007:
International women leaders who came
together at the historic Global Security
Summit in NYC, November 15–17, 2007,
commend the passing of a resolution yesterday
by the UN General Assembly calling
for the elimination of rape and other
forms of sexual violence in all its manifestations,
including in conflict and related
situations. Although this is a step in the
right direction, we deeply regret the resolution’s
inadequate recognition of state
responsibility to protect citizens from
organized mass rape or the use of rape
as a political tool. Rape is a horrendous
crime in any circumstance but when per-
From the International Women Leaders Global Security Summit (November 2007)
Call to Action:
… We call on both government and individuals to effectively use the local,
regional and international tools already in our hands, such as the United Nations Security
Council Resolution 1325, internationally agreed human rights standards including
the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women,
and evolving norms such as the Responsibility to Protect, which are endorsed by heads
of government and the international community. Similarly, policies that address the
common ground shared by development and security are widely recognized as good
practice, and should increasingly provide the framework for defense and economic
strategies.
There is an urgent need to strengthen the application of these tools. We call on
leaders to use them as designed: consistently, jointly and in global unison. Policymaking
on security will then be squarely rooted in human rights principles and international
law. We can also further strengthen their implementation by supporting reform
at the United Nations that calls for a stronger, consolidated body for women’s rights
and empowerment that operates robustly at the global policy and field levels.
23 • Minerva #32 • June 2008