Women's Views on News |
- Women and armed conflict: change needed
- Women in Black against DSEI arms fair
- Jeremy Corbyn and women: a matter of policy not appointment
| Women and armed conflict: change needed Posted: 18 Sep 2015 09:33 AM PDT
Did you know that 40 per cent of all child soldiers are girls? They are often used as ‘wives’ – ie sex slaves – of the male combatants. Did you know that in contemporary conflicts, as many as 90 per cent of the casualties are civilians, most of whom are women and children? Or that of the 14 peace negotiations held under UN auspices in 2011, only four women participated in any of the negotiation teams? And conflict, war and militarism are gendered processes. They use, maintain and often promote the traditional ideological construction of "masculinity" and "femininity": men go to war to defend or promote national/state values, territories and borders, and to protect their 'own' women and children. Women are considered passive, and are the targets of intolerable acts of violence, as a strategy of war. Women's multiple and diverse roles in conflict are hidden, poorly understood and, at times, consciously – or unconsciously – dismissed. And because of this, women are not regarded as equal actors in peace building and democratic development; they are not allowed equal participation in the enforcement of rights and justice and the creation of human security for all. The absence of women and their perspectives in peace negotiations, post-conflict reconstruction, disarmament, humanitarian relief and peace building, means the absence of sustainable peace and any chance of obtaining human security. But more importantly, the persistence of wars and conflicts prevent the achievement of gender equality and women's rights. According to the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF), in recent years there has been an increasing number of states spending profusely on military activities; they continue to foster a culture of militarisation by maintaining their military budgets with secrecy, minimum transparency and limited accountability. In 2013 alone, the total of global military expenditure surpassed USD 1700billion. The same year, containing and dealing with the consequences of violence cost the world USD9.8 trillion, which accounts for 11.3 per cent of global GDP. The increasing use of new technologies in conflict, such as armed drones or other dangerous chemicals, poses a clear threat to women's human rights and human security and dignity in general. The domestic responsibilities of women and their burden of caring for children, the elderly and the injured, generally increase during conflict. Women also frequently lack control over productive resources or economic assets, even when they themselves are generating them. And post-conflict discussion rarely takes into account the role of women during conflicts and doesn't include appropriate compensation for them. When demobilising child soldiers, equal attention and benefits should be awarded to the girls as well as the boys. When conflict ends and displaced populations return to their home communities, there can be competition for scarce resources, land and property; if women's rights are not protected by law, they can be left without access to the resources needed for livelihood generation, and become more vulnerable to violence and sexual exploitation. It is time to redefine sustainable peace as the presence of human security, justice and equality, rather than the absence of war. The European Women’s Lobby (EWL) is calling for a culture of peace and of respect for women's human rights: For an improved gender balance at decision-making levels of the European External Action Service. For the appointment of a gender focal point in all of the European Union’s delegations and all Common Security and Defence Policy missions. For the adoption of a binding "Code of Conduct" on the standards of conduct of military and civilian peacekeeping and humanitarian national and European Union staff while on mission in areas of armed conflict. Such codes should include an unequivocal condemnation of all forms violence against women, including prostitution and trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation; For women's human rights to be placed at the core of donor policies for reconstruction and development; and invest in women's organisations as a means of conflict prevention and post-conflict reconstruction; For a guaranteed access to justice (including transitional) for all women, as well as access to reproductive and sexual health services and support programmes, including for women victims of sexual violence; For the European Union and its member states to cease promoting the current culture of increasing militarisation and redirect their 'military first' budgets towards gender-aware budgets that consider the multiple needs of women and address gender equality as a priority; and For the European Union and its member states to recognise sexual violence and gender-based violence as legitimate grounds for asylum and grant asylum to women who for these reasons have had to flee their country. After conflict, female voters are four times as likely as men to be targeted for intimidation in elections in fragile and transitional states. There also tends to be a significant increase in female-headed households during and after conflict – up to 40 per cent of households even – and these are often the most impoverished, all the more so as post-conflict actions don't include financial compensation. The European Parliament is one of the most active and engaged European institutions on the issue of women and armed conflict, and several MEPs do consistently drive the issue forward and put pressure the European Union and the European Commission to do more on the issue. But any mainstreaming of gender equality within EU policy frameworks such as development and humanitarian aid, security and defence policy and missions, and human rights more generally, needs to be comprehensive. To find out more about the European Women's Lobby member organisations and partners which are dedicated to supporting and expanding women's human rights in conflict click on these links: Global Justice Centre, Women in International Security (WIIS) and the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF). And forward this post to your MEP so they know too.  |
| Women in Black against DSEI arms fair Posted: 18 Sep 2015 08:13 AM PDT
One of the biggest arms fairs in the world has been taking place this week at the Excel Centre in East London's Docklands. More than 1000 companies are promoting their deadly weaponry to 30,000 attendees, among them representatives from some of the world's most repressive governments. This Defence and Security Equipment International (DSEI) arms fair is run by Clarion, a private company, and the UK Trade and Investment’s Defence and Security Organisation (UKTI DSO), a UK government department that exists solely to promote UK arms exports. And UK government ministers there will promote British arms companies, whose exports are subsidised by the taxpayer to the extent of several million pounds a year. The government claims that its export control system prevents sales to repressive regimes. This is not true, say Women in Black, a world-wide network of women committed to peace with justice and actively opposed to injustice, war, militarism and other forms of violence. In the last 3 years UK government approved arms export licences to 19 "countries of concern" in its own Human Rights Annual Report, including Israel, Yemen, Colombia, Pakistan, Russia, Somalia, Central African Republic and Saudi Arabia. And where human rights are threatened, women's rights are threatened. The government claims arms exports are important for the national economy. This is not true either: arms exports make up less than 1.5 per cent of the total sum of UK exports. The industry generates only 55,000 jobs – and many of its employees are skilled engineers in short supply, that other industries are keen to recruit. The government claims that having a home-grown arms industry promotes our 'security'. This is also not true. Weapons deployed by the UK in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and resulting deaths and injuries have made no one safer, but have increased anger and heightened the risk of further violence. And weapons do not create the security sought by women all over the world: secure homes, secure livelihoods, food security, and security against sexual and domestic violence. The conflict and crime fuelled by the proliferation of small arms and light weapons, traded legally and illegally, damage development, and make violence against women more deadly. The Women in Black are calling for this to be the last international arms trade fair hosted in the UK. They are asking you to help achieve this by calling on the UK government to stop subsidising British arms manufacturers and their export trade. They are asking you to help achieve this by asking the government to divert the money spent subsiding the arms industry to socially responsible production, including activities that respond to the real security threat of climate change, and the real security needs of women. Women in Black held a silent vigil yesterday at the Edith Cavell statue, opposite the main entrance to the National Portrait Gallery, on St. Martin's Place, near Trafalgar Square, to protest about the arms fair. They hold a vigil in London at the Edith Cavell statue every Wednesday from 6-7 pm. The vigils are silent, women-only and – if possible – everyone wears black. If you are a woman and agree with them, then do join them.  |
| Jeremy Corbyn and women: a matter of policy not appointment Posted: 18 Sep 2015 07:52 AM PDT
By Dawn Foster. After a seismic weekend for British politics, which saw the left candidate for the Labour leadership, Jeremy Corbyn, lurch from rank outside to victor with a 59 per cent victory, what does his victory mean for women? Within 48 hours of winning, the new leader had appointed his shadow cabinet. Many people responded to the initial appointments, specifically shadow chancellor, home secretary and foreign secretary which were all handed to men. More than half of the cabinet posts went to women, but critics have focused on the fact that the leader and the three top shadow ministers are all men. As Caroline Molloy pointed out, the sudden interest in gender parity from commentators who have backed austerity for years is as remarkable as it is disingenuous. John McDonnell, the new chancellor, argued that the insinuation that these posts were the ones that mattered belongs to an outdated idea that the foreign secretary, for instance, is more powerful than the health or education secretary. Corbyn has hinted that Britain needs to move away from the grandstanding militarism characterising a lot of the past decade or two of politics, and that the political obsession with Britain's position on the world stage is unhelpful and destructive, tending as it does towards militarism over peacekeeping. But the argument centres on a belief that women will always act in the best interests of women. If you buy that argument, and the idea that having women in boardrooms, top jobs and positions of power will engender a better deal for women, the situation is unpalatable. But class interests and gender interplay very strongly in politics, and it's not always possible for the two to co-exist. In Cameron's cabinet, for instance, Theresa May is one of the people inhabiting the most 'powerful' positions. The women incarcerated in Yarls' Wood, where conditions have deteriorated rapidly, as documented by Clare Sambrook, Jennifer Allsopp, and other writers for openDemocracy, will take little comfort from the knowledge that the policies that oversee their mistreatment are enacted by a woman rather than a man. Perhaps key is the fact that McDonnell's appointment as chancellor sends a clear signal that the austerity programme accepted by both the Conservatives and the previous Labour shadow cabinet, will be fought tooth and nail by Corbyn's new chancellor. Few MPs have been so outspoken against austerity as McDonnell, and he has a long history of fighting austerity and welfare cuts. In the House of Commons on the debate over the recent Welfare bill, which Harriet Harman controversially told Labour MPs to abstain from voting on, McDonnell broke the whip and voted against the next tranche of cuts, saying he would "swim through vomit" in order to oppose it. Austerity has hit women far harder than men since the recession, with 80% of cuts affecting women. Cuts have seen women's refuges close, sanctions applied to the very poorest, a rise in homelessness and precarity in housing, and the demolition of legal aid for women fleeing domestic violence or subjected to sexual discrimination in the workplace. Having a Labour party that opposes austerity is key to fighting back against cuts that have hit women in the previous parliament. In the past five years, the benefit of having women in the cabinet remains to be seen, for migrant, low paid, or abused women. David Cameron increased the gender representation in his cabinet after much criticism: an outpouring of policies that directly benefit women remains elusive. For now, it seems as though there is no difference: the powerful look after the powerful, with gender as an afterthought, or a bargaining chip when trying to deflect criticism for cuts that harm women. The idea that getting more women into positions of power automatically benefits women as a whole seems logical, but curtly overlooks competing interests, of class, race, and social and economic position. Whilst parliaments and cabinets continue to be predominantly white, male, pale and stale, those women who do elbow their way in tend not to be the acutely underrepresented, but those who fit into a similar culture. The Conservative's portrait of Margaret Thatcher, a lowly daughter of a greengrocer, crucially misrepresents the fact that she was a university educated barrister, and her father was less a grocer, more an entrepreneur and business owner. For most women, Thatcher's policies had a clear detrimental effect on their lives, if they weren't cushioned by wealth. The fact that briefs including health, education and business are seen as less important than treasury and defence posts is insulting to the women appointed to these positions, but also corresponds to a way of thinking that Corbyn seeks to combat. For now, critics and supporters of Corbyn have little option but to wait and see what policies emerge under the new leader, and how his opposition fares on fighting policies that hurt women. His popularity with women polled suggests he may do very well, in spite of his gender. A version of this article appeared in openDemocracy on 14 September 2015.  |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Women's Views on News. To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |