Coming from a country that is still experiencing a longstanding occupation does not make me feel comfortable when international human rights are invoked. It is not only about my personal experience as a Palestinian that makes me feel irritated about the feasibility of human rights but also learning about the global system in which human rights have evolved. I am addressing primarily the readings by Heaton (2014) and Sivakumaran (2010) in this blog post because they will help me critique the international human rights regime.
First, when INGOs and/or IGOs focus too narrowly on one aspect or violation of one category of human rights, they neglect other vulnerable categories within a society. By doing this, they further neglect other basic rights and specific needs of victims. Thus more problems emerge than solutions when international actors take control and dominate the discussion. Looking closely at male sexual violence, for instance, international human rights activism raises more questions than answers. How many men and boys (and boys are inexplicably excluded from the category of child victims) will be exposed to sexual violence before drawing the attention and reaction of the international community? How long must we wait before an intervention happens in one place, but not another? What is the international community’s criteria for evaluating a situation that warrants an intervention? It is interesting and shocking to see how the UN adopts a double standard. For instance, male sexual violence against a male in one case is classified as torture; while in another case, UN language does recognize sexual violence only against women and girls. The emphasis on a certain discourse when promoting awareness of sexual violence against women and girls leads me to think deeply about the incoherence of that discourse and to question UN capabilities, impartiality, and morality.
Second, I want to highlight another point, based upon my own observations at home in Gaza. During the three massive wars launched on Gaza in the last 10 years, many journalist’s stories featured women that were killed or severely injured during these wars. These stories covered the pain and suffering resulting from a mother’s absence or inability to fulfill her expected role because of the injury. On the other hand, I have rarely heard stories about families who lost their male breadwinner. They, of course, talk about the economic/financial impact of losing that man, but no one addresses in what ways his wife suffers emotionally and socially. No one highlights that a widow is forced to marry her deceased husband’s brother, in order to protect her and her children. There are many problems that affect a family at least as much when a woman loses her male partner as when a woman is killed. Women need protection, of course, but why do we invoke gender issues narrowly, even in wars? Why are human rights, which theoretically treat men and women on equal footing, so often gendered? If a man and a woman were injured in the same conflict, who should be rescued/protected/treated first? And why?
I attached a video below prepared by Save the Children about gender equality in emergencies. Regardless of stereotypes displayed in the video, the undue focus on non-Western victims, and the human rights “cheap talk,” I believe human rights protection should be first offered to those who first need it regardless of their gender, color, ethnicity…etc.
PS: what I mean by "cheap talk" is how INGOs produce such films and other documents with an eloquent discourse, but their interventions on the ground perpetuate (if not worsen) the existing problems.
Thank you for your timely post. The video shows nuances of gender-based issues in crisis situations very well. There can be unintended consequences of gendered policy, and it can be difficult to understand gendered issues from an international perspective. You also make an important consideration about how and why international development groups focus on a gendered issue (as opposed to others). I agree that aid groups should be very careful to prioritize those that are most in need, even if they are different genders or facing different issues.
ReplyDeleteBoth Heaton (2014) and Sivakumaran (2010) demonstrate that individuals in need may easily be left out when distributing aid during a crisis. In the case of the DRC, any number of issues were ignored, as communities embellished stories of sexual violence against women to receive aid for that purpose. Sivakumaran explained that even when aid is designated for sexual violence, male victims may be excluded due to established narratives of who are victims (women) and who are perpetrators (combatants). As you mentioned, there are also inconsistencies in court accounts of sexual violence. These issues, combined with a general difficulty on collecting data about gender-based violence, means that humanitarian organizations must take extreme care to recognize what is happening on the ground and to whom (with the acknowledgement that it might be complicated).
It is complicated Makayla!
ReplyDeleteI just don't think that humanitarian organizations are not aware of the complexities of such situations, especially nowadays. However, they stick to the agendas of their donors, which is a sad and painful reality.