On October 1, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing, “Violence Against Women: Global Costs and Consequences.”
Chair John Kerry (D-MA) said, “We are here today to talk about violence against women, a subject that is too often separated from our larger discussion about global instability, insecurity, and violence…Societies where women are safe, where women are empowered to realize their aspirations and move their communities forward are healthier and more stable societies. Societies that deter violence against women are better prepared to grow economically, less prone to conflict and bloodshed, and better equipped to root out terrorism and insurgency before they emerge.”
Sen. Kerry cited statistics on global physical and sexual violence against women and girls and lauded the passage of the Violence Against Women Act (P.L. 103-322) in 1994. He then added, “What we need now is to offer some of the same protections to women everywhere. That’s why I plan to introduce the International Violence Against Women Act, a bill designed to put the machinery of our government to work on reducing global violence against women. To do that, the bill creates new positions inside both the State Department and USAID [United States Agency for International Development], gives them the staff they need to impact policy, the budget to plan and meet priorities, and the stature to make sure that, when important decisions are being made, a champion for women’s issues is in the room.”
“Violence against women cannot be relegated to the margins of foreign policy. It cannot be treated solely as a ‘women’s issue,’ as something that can wait until ‘more pressing’ issues are solved,” said Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues Melanne Verveer of the Office of Global Women’s Issues at the State Department. She continued, “The scale and the scope of the problem make it simultaneously one of the largest and most entrenched humanitarian and development issues before us; they also make it a security issue. When women are attacked as part of a deliberate and coordinated strategy, as they are in Sudan, the DRC [Democratic Republic of Congo], and Burma, and as they have been in Bosnia, Sri Lanka, and elsewhere around the world, the glue that holds together communities dissolves. Large populations become not only displaced, but destabilized. Around the world, the places that are the most dangerous for women also pose the greatest threats to international peace and security. The correlation is clear: where women are oppressed, governance is weak and [extremism] are more likely to take hold.”
Ambassador Verveer added, “The abuses not only destroy the lives of individual girls and women, families, and communities, but also rob the world of the talent it urgently needs. There is a powerful connection between violence against women and the unending cycle of women in poverty. Women who are abused or who fear violence are unable to realize their full potential and contribute to their countries’ development. There are enormous economic costs that come with violence against women. In the United States alone, an estimated loss of $1.8 billion in productivity and earnings is associated with gender based-violence on an annual basis. These types of losses are repeated around the world. Ending violence against women is a prerequisite for their social, economic, and political participation and progress…Preventing violence against women isn’t just the right thing to do; it’s also the smart thing to do. Multiple studies from economists, corporations, institutes, and foundations have demonstrated again and again that women are key drivers of economic growth and that investing in women yields enormous dividends. We know from these studies that women reinvest up to 90 percent of their income in their families and communities. And yet none of these benefits are possible unless girls are able to learn without fear and women are able to have autonomy and decision-making over their own lives, and those are the very things that violence and the fear of violence take away.”
Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues Stephen Rapp emphasized the importance of treating violence against women as a war crime, saying, “By ensuring justice for these crimes, we believe we can have a broader impact on countries torn apart by conflict by re-affirming core values of what is ‘right’ and what is ‘wrong’ in a context where these values have broken down. Prosecutions are also important for victims, recognizing their suffering and publicly holding the perpetrators accountable as criminals. While trials alone cannot end widespread violence, they can play an important part in re-establishing the rule of law in an environment of insecurity and impunity. As part of a comprehensive strategy, prosecuting those who commit acts of violence against women and girls in conflict-related situations can help restore the stability that is necessary for individuals, families, communities, and nations to develop and prosper.”
Detailing his experiencing prosecuting war crimes and crimes against humanity, Ambassador Rapp said, “At the Special Court for Sierra Leone, the Office of the Prosecutor placed the highest priority on investigating and charging crimes of sexual violence and in developing the international humanitarian law that defines these offenses. In February 2009, we won the first convictions in history for sexual slavery and forced marriage as crimes against humanity. This latter crime had never been recognized before we included it in our indictment as an ‘inhuman act’ of equal gravity to recognized crimes against humanity. We also achieved the first convictions against leaders of an armed group for crimes of sexual violence by persons acting with them as part of a common scheme or plan. These convictions recognized that the victimization of women and girls can be a horrific part of a leadership’s overall military strategy to terrorize a population. With our successful convictions, we sent a signal that those who use sexual violence as a strategy of conflict risk prosecution and imprisonment. We have seen the results that ending impunity can have in healing a broken society and building gender equality. Rwanda, a country plagued by widespread and systematic gender-based violence only 15 years ago, is now the first country where female legislators outnumber male legislators in parliament.”
Donald Steinberg, deputy president for policy at the International Crisis Group, offered “a cautionary tale” about the critical need for female peace mediators and negotiators. “In 1994, while serving as President Clinton’s advisor for Africa, I supported negotiations to end two decades of civil war in Angola…When the Lusaka Protocol was signed, I boasted that not a single provision in the agreement discriminated against women. ‘The agreement is gender-neutral,’ I said in a speech. President Clinton then named me ambassador to Angola. It took me only a few weeks after my arrival in Luanda to realize that a peace agreement that calls itself ‘gender-neutral’ is, by definition, discriminatory against women. First, the agreement did not require the participation of women in the implementation body. As a result, 40 men and no women sat around the peace table. This imbalance silenced women’s voices and meant that issues, such as sexual violence, human trafficking, abuses by government and rebel security forces, reproductive health care, and girls’ education were generally ignored. The peace accord was based on 13 separate amnesties that forgave the parties for atrocities committed during the conflict. Given the prominence of sexual abuse during the conflict, including rape as a weapon of war, amnesty meant that men with guns forgave other men with guns for crimes committed against women. The amnesties introduced a cynicism at the heart of our efforts to rebuild the justice and security sectors.”
Mr. Steinberg continued, “We all recognize that when social order breaks down it is women and girls who suffer most, especially when rape is used as a weapon of war. But how we make peace is equally important in determining whether the end of armed conflict means a safer world for women or simply a different, and in some cases, more pernicious era of violence against them. Angola is sadly not an isolated case. Around the world, talented women peace builders face discrimination in legal, cultural, and traditional practices, and threats of violence make even the most courageous women think twice before stepping forward. Groundbreaking research…at UNIFEM [United Nations Development Fund for Women] shows that only one in 14 participants in recent peace negotiations since 1992 have been women. In recent accords on Indonesia, Nepal, Somalia, Cote d’Ivoire, the Philippines, and Central African Republic, there was not a single woman signatory, mediator, or negotiator. Of 300 ceasefire accords, power-sharing arrangements, and other peace agreements negotiated since 1989, just 18 of them just six percent contain even a passing reference to sexual violence. For conflicts in Bosnia, Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Somalia where such violence was a dominant feature of the fighting the peace accords are silent. Similarly, in emergency funding to support 23 post-conflict situations since 2006, only three percent of the projects included specific funding for women and girls this despite our knowledge that girls’ education, for example, is the single best investment in promoting stable societies and improving socio-economic standards in these countries…We can no longer afford to exclude the talents and insights of half the population in the pursuit of peace or to treat them as mere victims, because the stakes of game have risen dramatically.”
Geeta Rao Gupta, president of the International Center for Research on Women, said, “We can prevent violence. And one of the best strategies to do so is by economic empowerment. By economically empowering women, we can increase their status within the household and the community and decrease their chances of suffering violence. We can also engage men and boys to address the prevailing community norms that might encourage violence. Without examining these factors and implementing preventative strategies, we will never see a sustainable reduction in violence…Developing strategies that lead to a better economic standing for women can ultimately help thwart violence. The violence they face is rooted in inequitable power dynamics within a household men own the land, the home, all of the productive assets and control the income, even when women are the source of that income. Increasing a woman‘s economic independence can provide her the leverage to negotiate protection or leave a violent relationship. Additionally, women are more likely than men to spend their income on the well-being of their families, including more nutritious foods, school fees for children and health care.”
She continued, “One successful mechanism that is proven to empower women and reduce violence is microfinance. Microfinance consists of small loans usually given to poor people mostly women with little or no collateral to help them start or expand small businesses. Statistics show that women who received loans paid them back at rates close to 99 percent…When microfinance is distributed in combination with other community programs, it can actually prevent violence. This is most clearly demonstrated by the Intervention with MicroFinance for AIDS and Gender Equity Project (IMAGE Project) in South Africa. Through the Small Enterprise Foundation, the program distributed small loans to women to start or expand small businesses and generate household income. The program also provided training and skills-building sessions on HIV prevention, gender norms, cultural beliefs, communication, and intimate partner violence. A random, controlled trial found that, two years after completing the program, participants reported a 55 percent reduction in incidence of violence by their intimate partners in the previous 12 months than did members of a control group. Women also reported higher confidence, autonomy in decision making, better relationships with their partners and other household members, and improved communication skills.”
Major General Patrick Cammaert, a former United Nations Peacekeeping Officer, and Esta Soler, president and founder of the Family Violence Prevention Fund, also testified.