Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiWith Its Record of Rape, Don’t Send the US Military to the Congo to Give 'Sensitivity' Training to the Congolese Military!
On Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's August, 2009 trip to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), she announced $17 million in new funding in the U.S. Government's contribution to international efforts to prevent and respond to sexual and gender-based violence in the DRC.
200,000 Women and Girls Raped in the DRC
The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the coordinating agency for work on sexual violence in Congo, estimates that 200,000 women and girls have been the victims of sexual violence since 1998. In 2008, UNFPA recorded that nearly 16,000 women and girls had been raped in the Congo. 65 percent of the victims were children, mostly adolescent girls.
The US Agency for International Development (USAID) will implement a $7 million program with medical care, counseling, economic assistance and legal support to 10,000 women and girls in North and South Kivu provinces, the regions most affected by rape and sexual assault.
Another $10 million U.S. contribution will fund new programs in eastern DRC to include equipping women and front-line workers with mobile devices to report abuse and share information of treatment and legal options.
A separate $2.9 million U.S. program will recruit and train female police officers to investigate rape and interview survivors of violence against women.
Congolese Military on Rape Rampage
According to Human Rights Watch, rape in the Congo is increasing (http://www.hrw.org/en/news/
According to figures collected by Human Rights Watch, 65 percent of the new rape cases in North Kivu were perpetrated by Congolese army soldiers.
But, despite the huge number of rapes by soldiers, military courts in eastern Congo convicted only 27 soldiers of crimes of sexual violence during 2008. In 2009, 17 soldiers have been convicted in North Kivu. In July, 2009, the highest-ranking officer convicted to date, Lieutenant Colonel Ndayambaje Kipanga was found guilty of rape by a military court, but he remains at large. No general has been convicted either for his own actions or for failing to control his troops.
In
July, 2009, Human Rights Watch published a 56 page report on rape by
soldiers titled: "Soldiers Who Rape, Commanders Who Condone" (http://www.hrw.org/en/
U.S. Military to Give Rape "Sensitivity" Training to the Congolese Military!
Part of the new U.S. initiative in the DRC includes a baffling addition to U.S. government agencies involved in prevention and response to sexual assault and rape of the women of the Congo--the U.S. military!
According
to the State Department's August 12, 2009 fact sheet on the U.S.
partnership with the DRC on gender-based violence, the U.S. military's
Africa Command (AFRICOM) is sending an assessment team to "determine
how to best assist survivors," and provide "sensitivity training on
sexual violence and legal seminars that contribute to the
professionalization of the Congolese military." (http://www.america.gov/st/
AFRICOM is the U.S. military's newest command and is looking for missions to justify its existence--in this case with new funding available--in rape prevention. The Bush administration more than tripled U.S. assistance to Africa, to about $9 billion annually. U.S. military training for African forces has steadily expanded, and U.S. troops have dug wells, built schools and clinics and have provided medical care as humanitarian assistance.
In the past decade, the U.S. military has created and funded programs in fields that are normally done by other U.S. government agencies. Arguing that the militaries of other countries are key organizations to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS, the U.S. military carved out a major role in the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) program, in HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment, and care, strategic information, human capacity development, and program and policy development in host militaries and civilian communities of 73 countries around the world.
AFRICOM had to reduce its initial goals after African governments refused to provide a location for its headquarters and civilian aid groups protested plans to expand the military's role in economic development in the region.
Warning: U.S. Military Rape Statistics Show They Should Not be "Sensitizing" Any Other Military
If the women of the Congo should Google, "U.S. military - sexual assault and rape," I suspect they will decline the offer of assistance from the African Command. 1 in 3 women in the U.S. military are sexually assaulted or raped. Women and girls in countries with U.S. military bases are raped by U.S. military. 8,000 U.S. Marines are being "re-located" from Okinawa in great measure because of citizen activist pressure following the numerous rapes of women and girls there. Prosecution rates in rape cases in the military are abysmal--8% versus 40% in civilian cases.
In 2008, the US Ambassador to Japan had to fly to Okinawa to give his apologies for the rape of a 14-year-old girl by a US Marine. The US military forces on Okinawa had a 3 day stand-down for "reflection."
Secretary of State Clinton's predecessor, Condoleezza Rice, had to express her "regrets" to the Japanese Prime Minister "for the terrible incident that happened in Okinawa... we are concerned for the well-being of the young girl and her family."
The August 10, 2009 Washington Post article "Congo's Rape Epidemic Worsens During U.S.-Backed Military Operation" begins with an alarming statement:
"For the women of eastern Congo, a U.S.-backed Congolese military operation meant to save them from abusive rebels has turned an
already staggering epidemic of rape has become markedly worse since the
January deployment of tens of thousands of poorly trained, poorly paid
Congolese soldiers, with people in front-line villages such as this one
saying the soldiers are not so much hunting rebels as hunting women." (http://www.washingtonpost.
I think the United States government can find a sufficient number of civilian organizations to assist the women of the Congo. There is no need to jeopardize the women of the Congo with our U.S. military.
The Human Rights Watch report "Soldiers Who Rape, Commanders Who Condone" can apply to our own military. The U.S. military should stop the criminal acts of sexual assault and rape in its own ranks before offering advice to another country's military.
For the Sake of the Women of the Congo, Don't Send the U.S. military there!
Please don't send the U.S. military to the Congo! The women of the Congo have enough problems!
20 Comments so far
Show AllThis is truly one of the funniest articles from "The Onion" that I've ever seen. How do they come up with this stuff? I especially like the comment from "jclientelle". Coltan? Cellphones and computers? Who knew? It reminds me of when we sent all of those awful US troops to Indonesia after the 2004 tsunami, only to keep a steady flow of that delicious Sumatran coffee comin' back to the states. But in all seriousness, I've heard from a pretty reliable source that not ALL U.S. soldiers are rapists. Just most of them. "Artemix" hit the nail on the head. Military=Bad. Civilian Groups=Good. So come on people. Wake Up! Let's get behind these civilian groups. They will do more good for the country than our so-called military...right after their yoga class, of course.
Imagine an article published in 1941 on commondreams.org:
"With Its Record of Racial Segregation, Don’t Send the US Military to the UK to Assist to the British in Fighting the Nazis!"
The article goes on to describe compellingly the history of racial segregation in the United States' military, reviews the history of racial intolerance and colonial oppression in the UK, and argues that the U.S. military has no moral standing to oppose racial hatred such as that of the Nazis against the Jews. No mention is made in the article of any of the atrocities or genocide that are occurring under the Nazi regime.
Such an argument would be shameful. Certainly, racial segregation in the U.S. military was terrible and the UK's treatment of its colonies was also blemished, but these wrongs were out of all scale in comparison to what Nazi Germany was doing to its Jewish (and other minority) citizens as well as to its neighbors (and what it was attempting to do to England itself).
This fictitious example is analogous to this article. It is estimated that 5.4 million people have been killed in the Congo since the early 1990's by marauding militias from neighboring countries. Another 2 million people have been forced to flee their homes. I have no doubt that the U.S. military has an atrocious record in the treatment of women, but using the Congolese genocide as the platform for discussing this issue is despicable.
Please write to Commondreams.org and ask that this shameful article be retracted and an apology issued. Progressive and compassionate people should be concerned that the genocide in Congo is being ignored and exploited as an opportunity to address domestic military issues.
A few centuries back, among the iterations of reasons given during the European predatory foray into Africa was to rescue African women from abusive husbands and to save the heathens from corrupt chiefs.
Today this tactic finds life in Afghanistan, among some humanitarian interventionist feminist organizations and among willfully ignorant pretenders
The devil always finds work
There are two issues here:
Conflation of U.S. military missions with humanitarian missions is a BAD idea. Ann Wright identifies a couple of the many problems with this mission confusion, one being that the military is ill-equipped to address, say, sexual assault problems, and another being that recipients are understandably reluctant to accept aid delivered by our rapacious military.
The other issue is the dismal security conditions for females in our own U.S. military. One in three will face sexual assault or outright rape while on active duty. And there is the related problem of mysterious deaths of women in the military, which are termed "suicide" and covered up by their commanding officers. Ann Wright is following this issue, too.
THESE FACTS ARE SOME OF THE BEST COUNTER-RECRUITING TOOLS WE HAVE TO USE WITH YOUNG WOMEN CONSIDERING ENLISTMENT! I have seen them be quite effective. Please share them widely.
arm the women
The situation in Congo is desperate. Hundreds of thousands of people have been displaced from their homes and are suffering. Thousands have been killed and the rape and torture is widespread and awful.
Your reaction to this is that the U.S. is wrong to be trying to do something about this situation??? What alternative do you suggest??? The whole world has too long ignored the Darfur tragedy; at least the U.S. is one country that is paying attention. Where is Belgium (this being their former colony)???
Yeah, the U.S. is an easy (and deserving) target, but, really people, let's be serious. The U.S. military seems to have a problem with sexual harassment, but does this really have anything whatsoever to do with the tragedy of the Congo???
Excuse my language, but I think this is bullshit argument and way off how responsible and compassionate people should be talking.
David A, Can you cite an example of a situation where U.S. military presence has improved conditions for local women?
Hi, Kulu.
No, I can't cite an example where the U.S. military has improved conditions for local women. I am concerned about the 200,000 rapes that have occurred in eastern Congo, more than half of which were apparently committed by the Congolese military.
I am also concerned about the 5.4 million people that have been killed and the more than 2 million that have been forced to flee their homes, almost all due to militia gangs from neighboring Burundi and Rwanda which the Congolese military has been too poorly equipped or trained to stop.
Given these facts, I think the right thing to do is try to strengthen the effectiveness and professionalism of the Congolese military so that they can defend their country's population and do so in a professional way without adding their own abuses to these poor suffering people.
I would like the U.S. and the rest of the world to do more (the recently announced $17 million in aid from the U.S. is pathetically little given the size of the tragedy, but it is still more than what most of the rest of the world is doing).
In view of the whole picture, I find it hard to see the wisdom of emphasizing the U.S. military's poor credentials for protecting women's rights rather than emphasizing instead the need for more U.S. and world engagement in this massive tragedy.
Actually no, Wright's reaction isn't that the US is wrong to be trying to do something.
You are distorting her argument. Her argument is that the US is wrong to try to solve the problem of rape in the Congo with the US military providing training to the Congolese, when the US military itself has a serious problem of sexual assault.
That is "whatsoever" that it has to do with the Congo.
Excuse my language, but I think that your argument is bullshit militarism masquerading as responsibility and being compassionate.
I am concerned because 5.4 million people in eastern Congo have been killed by militias from Burundi and Rwanda. Another 2 million have been chased from their homes. I want this human tragedy to stop.
That's the problem, now what is the solution? You say my argument that training the Congolese military to effectively protect its population is "bullshit militarism". It seems to me that two decades of diplomatic effort have been a total failure and that the world has largely ignored this genocide. Helping Congo develop an effective military to defend its citizens from essentially roving militia gangs seems to me an appropriate response.
I wish the U.S. was doing more to make certain that the Congolese military becomes effective and professional -- I think the $17 million in aid recently announced by Secretary Clinton during her visit is woefully inadequate. However, at least it is something -- more than what most of the rest of the world is doing.
Other than describing my hopes for saving these millions of suffering people as "bullshit militarism", do you have any ideas of how to help?
Why are you only focused on a military solution?
You yourself conceded that the US military in your experience has never improved the situation of local women. The author points out that the Congolese military is complicit in incidences of rape and sexual assault. The author points out that the US military has a problem with sexual assault, something you concede.
Yet, your solution to the problem of rape is the US and Congolese military?
You say that 2 decades of diplomatic effort is a failure. And then that the world has ignored this problem. The problem is not that diplomatic and civilian effort is a failure. The problem is that the world has ignored the problem. The problem is that most people have no freaking idea where the DRC is, much less what is happening. Maybe instead of supporting US military intervention, anyone who cares should try to help publicise the problem first. And then, provide support to those civilian and human rights organisations that are trying to do something about the problem.
I focus on the military solution because this article focuses on arguing that the U.S. military should not be helping the Congolese military. I would love for it to be true that all we have to do is publicize this problem and the NGOs of the world will solve it -- this is one of the reasons I posted a reply to this article. NGOs have mostly been chased out of the region. Diplomatic efforts have been the focus of efforts to stop the killing since the early 1990's. Some militia leaders have been captured, but new militias keep forming and the area continues to be terrorized. It is a region of lawlessness where villages are pillaged, people are killed, children kidnapped and women raped every day.
Order needs to be restored. The Congolese government and the U.S. leadership seem to agree that the only way to restore the order is to try to get the Congolese military to function effectively and professionally. I wish this wasn't the best option, but I don't see an alternative. This is why I asked you what you suggested.
Your response is to defend this article. This article is shameful and a disgrace. It's purpose is to point out the poor qualifications that the U.S. military has to do 'sensitivity' training. It chooses to make this point by using the small amount of help being provided to the Congolese military. Involving probably only a dozen or two U.S. trainers, the Congolese example involves only a tiny fraction of the U.S. military (it is certainly possible that there are a dozen or two very good 'sensitivity' trainers in the U.S. military, but that in its totality the U.S. military is horrible in its treatment of women). So, this article is exploiting the situation in Congo to make a point about the U.S. military.
It is absolutely despicable to be exploiting the Congolese tragedy in this way. The author of this article and people like you who are ignoring this genocide in order to score cheap political shots against the U.S. military have blood on your hands.
The people picked to train the armies of Iraq and Afghanistan in counterinsurgency? The US military, which quelled only 2 insurgencies out of many, both internal to the US: one by genocide of the insurgent population (US citizens, yet), and one in which the insurgents had a formal Army.
The people who invaded to Iraq to "help the people"? The same people who executed a plan that killed hundreds of thousands of children in Iraq because they failed to achieve their prime objective of overthrowing Saddam Hussein. Although, they "succeeded" the second time, albeit with a similar death toll, in that objective (except they won't leave).
The US military is very competent when it comes to operating its equipment. It can kill at will, although it often (usually) doesn't know who it is killing, or whether it will aid or harm its progress toward its stated objective. However, in other things it is often incompetent. Thus, a key skill in the US military: smothering incompetence with bullsh*t.
I do wonder if Ms Wright has had second thoughts about the military she belonged to for some years? Perhaps she is now on the right side of history...
The fact that the U.S. military is rotten to its core with rape, sexual assault and the anti-human, anti-intellectual, moral filth of 'born-again Christianity' in the face of an endless stream of self-righteous, delusional horseshit out of the mouths of the American government, and, too often, the American people about their mighty armed forces and their pride in them as they protect the homeland (Nazi America? Nazi Germany? Can't quite remember..) and promote freedom and democracy. ..oh, excuse me, UI think I'm throwing up in my mouth.. all of it should start to convince an ever-increasing sector of the population to withdraw its 'Support our Troops'. They are not 'our' troops., for starters. And an overwhelming majority of them are murderous, psychotic, brainless, mind-controlled misogynists.
Time for the 'Lysistrata' solution. Deny men in the country, and especially the military, sex, until peace, and particularly peace for women and children, breaks out.
First, does Congo have oil? That would be the only reason why the US would get involved there. Talk about rape on top of rape! Second, the US would probably send in Blackwater. Again, talk about rape on top of rape on top of rape...
The best thing for the Congolese people would be if the US stay out of their country altogether. No matter how bad things are, the US are bound to make them worse. If in doubt, look at Iraq and ask the Iraqis.
Congo has many valuable minerals, including coltan which is a component of cell phones and computers.
Joe
Oh yes, I'm sure this is why the U.S. is committing to spend $17 million in aid to a country which has suffered 5.4 million deaths, 2 million displaced persons, 200,000 rapes and countless child kidnappers. The couple of dozen U.S. military personnel are there to secure our access to coltan. Get a clue.
What about arming the women of the Congo and training them to shoot? That is a good way to "reason" with rapists and increase their "sensitivity". This is a serious "Thelma and Louise" inspired thought.
And yes, Ann - Our military is in no position to teach anybody anything about respecting women, sexually or otherwise. This is especially true when we bomb civilians trying to live their lives in a land in which we want some resource. Or when we take resources and install corrupt reactionaries to protect our corporate rights.
We have not done anything to improve the status of women abroad since possibly WW II.
Joe
I fear that most soldiers (of any nationality, really) would make an off colour joke about making sure to send flowers after they'd raped a girl...
Sensitivity training from those who we train to kill? Yah, that'll work real good.
Absolutely right Ann! Please, the US military is a swamp of sexual abuse, rape and harassment. That the military admits it is one in three women means the number is much larger. Hilary should know this. Lets get something done about rape in our military and send civilian groups that really do know something about rape prevention to the Congo.