Women & War Book Launch and Symposium | United States Institute of Peace<
May 5-6, 2011
No Peace Without Women - Web Video Initiative | Elliott School of International Affairs | The George Washington University
Thursday, May 5, 2011 Women & War Book Launch and Reception Hosted by the Royal Norwegian Embassy
Time: 4:00pm – 6:00pm
Venue: U.S. Institute of Peace Headquarters
2301 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20037
Friday, May 6, 2011 Women & War Symposium
Time: 8:00am – 4:30pm
Venue: U.S. Institute of Peace Headquarters
2301 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20037
Confirmed speakers:
Michèle Flournoy,
Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, U.S. Department of Defense
Keynote Address: “UN Security Council Resolution 1325 and the U.S. National Action Plan: A Department of Defense Perspective”
Ambassador Wegger Christian Strømmen
Ambassador of Norway to the United States
Royal Norwegian Embassy
Ambassador Donald Steinberg
Deputy Administrator, U.S. Agency for International Development
Ambassador Melanne Verveer
U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues, U.S. Department of State
Pat Mitchell
President and CEO, The Paley Center
Abigail Disney
Filmmaker, Philanthropist, Film Producer of “Pray the Devil Back to Hell,” Founder of Fork Films
Femke van Velzen
Filmmaker, Philanthropist, Film Producer of “Weapon of War”, Co-Founder of IF Productions
Agnes M. Fallah-Kamara Umunna
Executive Director and Founder of Straight from the Heart Project, Journalist, and Radio Producer
Morley
Composer and Singer
Sanam Anderlini
Executive Director, International Civil Society Action Network (ICAN)
Tilman Brück
Department Head and Professor, International Economics, German Institute for Economic Research
Inger Skjelsbæk
Senior Researcher, Deputy Director, Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO)
Sheldon Himelfarb
Director, USIP Center of Innovation: Media, Conflict, and Peacebuilding
Tara Sonenshine
Executive Vice President, USIP
Helga Hernes
Senior Adviser, Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO)
Chantal de Jonge Oudraat
Director, USIP Jennings Randolph Fellowship Program
Kathleen Kuehnast
Director, USIP Gender and Peacebuilding Center
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Wanted: Allies - To save Libyan lives!
The 2010-11 Arab Spring that swept the Middle East and North Africa, to date, has resulted in the overthrow of two heads of state: Tunisian President Ben Ali and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. There have also been revolutions in Yemen, Libya, Algeria, Bahrain, Djibouti, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, and Oman with more minor protests in Kuwait, Lebanon, Mauritania, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Western Sahara. Social media, such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, have been leveraged by protestors to organize and communicate, while many regimes have attempted to repress and censor the Internet. The balance of Western economic and security interests and humanitarian values is different in each case.
There is a deadly civil war taking place in the North African oil-rich Libya and NATO air strikes, thus far, have been ineffective in forcing Gadhafi out. Gadhafi’s capacity to attack the civilian population has been restricted. President Obama has ordered military action, i.e. airstrikes. UNSCR Resolution 1970 (2011) freezes Gadhafi’s assets and restricts his travel. UNSCR Resolution 1973 (2011) establishes and enforces a no-fly zone over Libya. Libya’s unique situation raises some questions: What is the threshold for a military response, as opposed to statements or sanctions? And can the Pentagon handle more military commitments?
The White House has ruled out sending ground troops to Libya. The expansion of intervention has raised fears of being dragged into a protracted and costly conflict similar to wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and even Vietnam. That would frustrate voters tired of military interventions abroad, especially in light of harsh government spending cuts to tackle budget deficits. Some analysts question NATO’s capability to lead the military campaign in Libya, while skepticism grows over NATO’s ability to conduct a successful operation given the deep divisions among its members over the mission and lack of clear objectives. The chances of the rebels defeating Gadhafi’s forces seem very slim, especially without foreign troops on the ground. Calls for a political solution are gaining traction with the African Union proposing a cease-fire deal and Turkey proposing a roadmap for peace. Gadhafi’s regime said it is prepared to hold free elections. Analysts argue that a cease-fire alternative does not offer much hope because it might fail to remove Gadhafi. Some favor a toughened cease-fire that would include a pullback of Gadhafi forces to bases, the transit of humanitarian aid, and the organizing and arming of rebels.
Western leaders are currently debating the pros and cons of arming the Libyan rebels. British Prime Minister David Cameron informed the House of Commons that the United Nations Security Council mandate allows all necessary measures to protect civilians and populated areas and this would not necessarily rule out the provision of assistance to those protecting civilians in certain circumstances. President Obama has also not completely ruled out arming the rebel fighters. Effectively utilizing this strategy could possibly limit NATO’S involvement in Libya along with ruling out any thoughts of U.S. military intervention. Al Qaeda has had a strong presence in North Africa for years. Some high level members within the Department of State have admitted that effectively separating a Libyan opposition soldier from a rogue terrorist cell would be difficult. Even Adm. James Stavridis NATO’S supreme Allied Commander told Congress that there is a possibility of Al Qaeda and Hezbollah mixing with the rebels. Despite this very important concern Libyan rebel leader Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, insisted that his fighters are “good Muslims” and are fighting against Gadhafi. The West must continue to monitor the situation very carefully to ensure the Libyan opposition is not adopting an anti-West/Al Qaeda ideology.
The ongoing conflict between Libyan armed forces and the rebels has brought seaborne trade into Libya to a standstill. With Libyan civilians facing a growing need of vital aid shipments humanitarian groups have suggested NATO to open new shipping avenues in the eastern ports where the rebels currently maintain power. To this end, NATO is currently in the process of creating a sea corridor backed by naval vessels to enable merchant ships to boost trade with Libyan rebels. NATO forces have also been enforcing a U.S. arms embargo on Gadhafi in international waters. This arms embargo will help reduce the risk of violence to incoming merchant ships carrying goods and humanitarian aid. This strategy would potentially reduce casualties while aiding families affected by the ongoing conflict.
When looking forward to the future for Libya, there are a few scenarios that could play out - some good and some bad. First, if the Libyan army turns or collapses, and the rebels prevail this would be the easiest and best resolution to occur for NATO, the rebels and the West. The operation led by the U.S. and its allies has saved the rebels from an impending massacre in one of their key strongholds, Benghazi. Now, leaders in the Libyan military would conclude that any further military action would be futile; therefore they would stick with their leader Gadhafi for the long haul. This theory; however, does fail to take into account that the Libyan army does not consist of a strong organized group with its most senior officials taking orders from the dictator. A second scenario would see Gadhafi cave to outside pressures, forcing him to step down. However, Gadhafi has been in power for over 40 years, so it is not likely that he will be easily pressured by the U.S. to step down. A third scenario that has the potential to be very troubling to Western interests is for Libya to separate into two nations, one half controlled by the military and the other controlled by the rebels. In some ways this scenario is already occurring as both sides are fighting to regain or obtain key cities and strategic interests. This scenario can possibly lead to an extensive civil war, which would result in the loss of life rivaling Rwanda in the early 1990’s.
President Obama insisted in his speech that mass murder on an epic scale could occur if the U.S. did not effectively act to stop Gadhafi. Rwanda serves as a possible gruesome reminder to the U.S. if they choose not to intervene at all should this scenario play out. The world community criticized the United States for not doing enough in Rwanda as millions of people lost their lives during the genocide. On the other hand, the administration also has a more recent reminder of President Bush committing to full military intervention in Iraq, which has resulted in thousands of troops and Iraqi civilians dying in sectarian violence. The administration’s failure to clarify the U.S.’s intended mission has resulted in criticism from Republican Senators Lindsey Graham, Joe Lieberman and John McCain for not doing enough to take out Gadhafi and from American citizens who are frustrated that President Obama is not focusing enough on domestic issues.
While the violence in Libya caught nearly everyone by surprise, the Obama administration has now had the necessary time to foment a real strategy. This strategy should be to continue aiding NATO in its attempts to arm and aid the Libyan rebels. Additionally, by effectively framing the mission in humanitarian parameters for Obama’s audience at home, the administration can gain the needed political space to walk the tightrope that it has chosen. The US’s current position as the sole superpower leaves us with the responsibility to protect and Libya provides us just such an opportunity and obligation.
There is a deadly civil war taking place in the North African oil-rich Libya and NATO air strikes, thus far, have been ineffective in forcing Gadhafi out. Gadhafi’s capacity to attack the civilian population has been restricted. President Obama has ordered military action, i.e. airstrikes. UNSCR Resolution 1970 (2011) freezes Gadhafi’s assets and restricts his travel. UNSCR Resolution 1973 (2011) establishes and enforces a no-fly zone over Libya. Libya’s unique situation raises some questions: What is the threshold for a military response, as opposed to statements or sanctions? And can the Pentagon handle more military commitments?
The White House has ruled out sending ground troops to Libya. The expansion of intervention has raised fears of being dragged into a protracted and costly conflict similar to wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and even Vietnam. That would frustrate voters tired of military interventions abroad, especially in light of harsh government spending cuts to tackle budget deficits. Some analysts question NATO’s capability to lead the military campaign in Libya, while skepticism grows over NATO’s ability to conduct a successful operation given the deep divisions among its members over the mission and lack of clear objectives. The chances of the rebels defeating Gadhafi’s forces seem very slim, especially without foreign troops on the ground. Calls for a political solution are gaining traction with the African Union proposing a cease-fire deal and Turkey proposing a roadmap for peace. Gadhafi’s regime said it is prepared to hold free elections. Analysts argue that a cease-fire alternative does not offer much hope because it might fail to remove Gadhafi. Some favor a toughened cease-fire that would include a pullback of Gadhafi forces to bases, the transit of humanitarian aid, and the organizing and arming of rebels.
Western leaders are currently debating the pros and cons of arming the Libyan rebels. British Prime Minister David Cameron informed the House of Commons that the United Nations Security Council mandate allows all necessary measures to protect civilians and populated areas and this would not necessarily rule out the provision of assistance to those protecting civilians in certain circumstances. President Obama has also not completely ruled out arming the rebel fighters. Effectively utilizing this strategy could possibly limit NATO’S involvement in Libya along with ruling out any thoughts of U.S. military intervention. Al Qaeda has had a strong presence in North Africa for years. Some high level members within the Department of State have admitted that effectively separating a Libyan opposition soldier from a rogue terrorist cell would be difficult. Even Adm. James Stavridis NATO’S supreme Allied Commander told Congress that there is a possibility of Al Qaeda and Hezbollah mixing with the rebels. Despite this very important concern Libyan rebel leader Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, insisted that his fighters are “good Muslims” and are fighting against Gadhafi. The West must continue to monitor the situation very carefully to ensure the Libyan opposition is not adopting an anti-West/Al Qaeda ideology.
The ongoing conflict between Libyan armed forces and the rebels has brought seaborne trade into Libya to a standstill. With Libyan civilians facing a growing need of vital aid shipments humanitarian groups have suggested NATO to open new shipping avenues in the eastern ports where the rebels currently maintain power. To this end, NATO is currently in the process of creating a sea corridor backed by naval vessels to enable merchant ships to boost trade with Libyan rebels. NATO forces have also been enforcing a U.S. arms embargo on Gadhafi in international waters. This arms embargo will help reduce the risk of violence to incoming merchant ships carrying goods and humanitarian aid. This strategy would potentially reduce casualties while aiding families affected by the ongoing conflict.
When looking forward to the future for Libya, there are a few scenarios that could play out - some good and some bad. First, if the Libyan army turns or collapses, and the rebels prevail this would be the easiest and best resolution to occur for NATO, the rebels and the West. The operation led by the U.S. and its allies has saved the rebels from an impending massacre in one of their key strongholds, Benghazi. Now, leaders in the Libyan military would conclude that any further military action would be futile; therefore they would stick with their leader Gadhafi for the long haul. This theory; however, does fail to take into account that the Libyan army does not consist of a strong organized group with its most senior officials taking orders from the dictator. A second scenario would see Gadhafi cave to outside pressures, forcing him to step down. However, Gadhafi has been in power for over 40 years, so it is not likely that he will be easily pressured by the U.S. to step down. A third scenario that has the potential to be very troubling to Western interests is for Libya to separate into two nations, one half controlled by the military and the other controlled by the rebels. In some ways this scenario is already occurring as both sides are fighting to regain or obtain key cities and strategic interests. This scenario can possibly lead to an extensive civil war, which would result in the loss of life rivaling Rwanda in the early 1990’s.
President Obama insisted in his speech that mass murder on an epic scale could occur if the U.S. did not effectively act to stop Gadhafi. Rwanda serves as a possible gruesome reminder to the U.S. if they choose not to intervene at all should this scenario play out. The world community criticized the United States for not doing enough in Rwanda as millions of people lost their lives during the genocide. On the other hand, the administration also has a more recent reminder of President Bush committing to full military intervention in Iraq, which has resulted in thousands of troops and Iraqi civilians dying in sectarian violence. The administration’s failure to clarify the U.S.’s intended mission has resulted in criticism from Republican Senators Lindsey Graham, Joe Lieberman and John McCain for not doing enough to take out Gadhafi and from American citizens who are frustrated that President Obama is not focusing enough on domestic issues.
While the violence in Libya caught nearly everyone by surprise, the Obama administration has now had the necessary time to foment a real strategy. This strategy should be to continue aiding NATO in its attempts to arm and aid the Libyan rebels. Additionally, by effectively framing the mission in humanitarian parameters for Obama’s audience at home, the administration can gain the needed political space to walk the tightrope that it has chosen. The US’s current position as the sole superpower leaves us with the responsibility to protect and Libya provides us just such an opportunity and obligation.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
It's Murder: Nothing 'Honor'able about it
Picture this: In the U.S. today, in the name of preserving family ‘honor,’ women and girls are shot, stoned, burned, buried alive, strangled, smothered and knifed to death.
Everyone would be hot on the heels of politicians to shine light on their failure to protect their citizens. The media frenzy would be enough to stop these so-called ‘honor’ killings. If our politicians didn’t have the nerve to call it what it is: Murder – outraged journalists and human rights activists would definitely spell it out for them. Unfortunately, this form of harmful traditional practice is just part of the larger problem of violence against women. Let’s not forget that violence against women in the U.S. has a long history and the U.S. is far from being exemplary when it comes to protecting and empowering women.
According to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, these Murders or ‘honor’ killings have occurred in Bangladesh, Great Britain, Brazil, Ecuador, Egypt, India, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Pakistan, Morocco, Sweden, Turkey, and Uganda. In India, for example, more than 5,000 brides die annually because their dowries are considered insufficient, according to the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF).
Let’s not be beguiled by a country’s vibrant democracy, economy and its rich traditions.
On International Women’s Day, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, stated that “the problem is exacerbated by the fact that in a number of countries domestic legal systems, including through discriminatory laws, still fully or partially exempt individuals guilty of honor killings from punishment. Perpetrators may even be treated with admiration and given special status within their communities.”
Complicity by other women in the family and the community must end, in order for such harmful traditional practices to become an UN-acceptable cultural practice. Women must be given a higher status so that perpetrators of domestic violence will be punished just as harshly as if they had committed a crime against a stranger. There is NO doubt that there is a clear State responsibility to protect women from acts committed in the household.
Respect for privacy does not mean denying women’s rights in the private sphere.
I was inspired to write today’s post after reading a NY Times editorial, “No Honor, only Horror.”
Everyone would be hot on the heels of politicians to shine light on their failure to protect their citizens. The media frenzy would be enough to stop these so-called ‘honor’ killings. If our politicians didn’t have the nerve to call it what it is: Murder – outraged journalists and human rights activists would definitely spell it out for them. Unfortunately, this form of harmful traditional practice is just part of the larger problem of violence against women. Let’s not forget that violence against women in the U.S. has a long history and the U.S. is far from being exemplary when it comes to protecting and empowering women.
According to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, these Murders or ‘honor’ killings have occurred in Bangladesh, Great Britain, Brazil, Ecuador, Egypt, India, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Pakistan, Morocco, Sweden, Turkey, and Uganda. In India, for example, more than 5,000 brides die annually because their dowries are considered insufficient, according to the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF).
Let’s not be beguiled by a country’s vibrant democracy, economy and its rich traditions.
On International Women’s Day, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, stated that “the problem is exacerbated by the fact that in a number of countries domestic legal systems, including through discriminatory laws, still fully or partially exempt individuals guilty of honor killings from punishment. Perpetrators may even be treated with admiration and given special status within their communities.”
Complicity by other women in the family and the community must end, in order for such harmful traditional practices to become an UN-acceptable cultural practice. Women must be given a higher status so that perpetrators of domestic violence will be punished just as harshly as if they had committed a crime against a stranger. There is NO doubt that there is a clear State responsibility to protect women from acts committed in the household.
Respect for privacy does not mean denying women’s rights in the private sphere.
I was inspired to write today’s post after reading a NY Times editorial, “No Honor, only Horror.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
