BLOG: Is the Missing Peace about Impunity? Whose Impunity?

A few reflections after the Missing Peace Symposium 2013. The West's response to sexual violence in armed conflicts: Is fighting impunity the only answer we have? Whose Impunity? Do we need a paradigm shift?

In February four excellent research institutes(1) organized in Washington DC the global Missing Peace Symposium 2013, with particular focus on sexual violence in conflict and postconflict settings. Just a few days before this symposium the UN Security Council discussed the protection of civilians in armed conflicts, and sexual violence was a commonly mentioned problem. I had the opportunity to attend both events. Here are a few reflections that came to my mind afterwards, greatly inspired by the remarks of Dr. Carol Cohn(2), one of the Missing Peace Symposium's speakers.

The way in which the West tackles sexual violence in the context of war does not appear to be very sophisticated. “Fighting impunity” seems to be the only idea (and the only slogan) that the UN system and other global policy organizations have about how to decrease the level of sexual violence in conflict and postconflict settings.

The removal of impunity does not, however, seem to be understood as a comprehensive reform of the whole security system. Rather, this approach is basically founded on the belief that particular individuals are responsible for the incidents of sexual violence (whether it was used as a tactic of war or not). If we punish these individual monsters, or even better, if we eliminate them, we will clean up the world from the evil.

Do we need a more sophisticated approach to sexual violence in the context of war? I think we do. Whereas a functional accountability mechanism is a must, the approach of the West is apparently missing a few critical points.

Perpetrators vs. Victims
The main problem with the West's approach is that it almost exclusively relies on individuals. Fighting impunity means here no more than bringing perpetrators to justice. There are, however, analyses(3) recognizing that (at least) some perpetrators of sexual violence find themselves in the position of predators and victims simultaneously. Furthermore, there are studies(4) showing that many perpetrators who gang rape and sexually torture women and men, girls and boys in the context of war, would never do that in the situation of peace.

But let's be clear here: this is not a justification of sexual violence in conflict settings. There is none. Rather, this is the urge for addressing this problem from a broader perspective that would involve a reform of the whole justice system and a reflection on the West's complicity in the violence.

System of Justice
The viewpoint that severe punishments of individuals will overall decrease criminality was rejected two decades ago by a study(5) showing that the correlation between these two is in fact the opposite. The societies with the most severe penalties turned out to be the ones with the highest level of violent atrocities. Again, I don't think that when seeking a better accountability mechanism it is enough to concentrate on the individual actors who committed sexual violence. On the contrary, if we want to consider prosecution as a part of prevention it is the whole system of justice that ought to be reformed.

We need either a multidimensional approach or more than one approach. The system of justice has to be responsive and a zero tolerance of impunity obviously is a part of this response. It does not, however, deplete it. The reform of the justice system has to include improvements of formal as well as informal legal systems. It has to concern laws and customs as well as courts, the police, military and the UN itself. It has to be a reform applicable to both the local and global contexts.

The West's Complicity
The call for a more holistic approach brings me to the last point. It is commonly agreed that sexual violence is a global issue and a global problem that must be addressed in a transnational context. Why then don't we look at it from a global perspective?

What is commonly neglected when addressing sexual violence in conflict and postconflict settings is that the West is present in this picture. I do not only refer to the misconducts perpetrated by the UN peacekeepers or other “peacekeeping” forces. Let's instead get back to the very beginning and think of the deep roots of wars. Despite the widespread belief that wars are mostly caused by ethnic tensions, the very primary reasons are of economic nature: people are fighting for lands, for water, for resources. These resources happen to end up in the hands or under the control of Western cooperations.

What's more, people are fighting because they have weapons. The biggest arm exporters in 2012 were: the US, the UK, China, France, Germany and Russia(6). (By the way, isn't it disturbing that all of these countries except for Germany are permanent members of the UN Security Council?). I am just mentioning this because between 18 and 28 March the UN will host the global conference on Arms Trade Treaty and it is not a foregone conclusion whether the women, peace and security agenda will be included at all.

Fighting impunity is necessary but it also is an easy response to sexual violence, a response that makes us feel comfortable. The focus on individual perpetrators covers the role of the West in what's occurring in conflict zones. However, let's not forget that women's civil society organizations word-wide does not fight for wars free of sexual violence. Nor do we fight for wars safe for women. We do strive for a world without wars and patriarchy. While fighting impunity is important, researching structural violence is even more so.

***

1. The United States Institute of Peace (USIP), the Human Rights Center at the University of California, Berkeley, the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO), and the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute North America (SIPRI North America).
2. The Director of the Consortium on Gender, Security and Human Rights.
3. For example: “Gender-Based Violence in Crisis and Post-Crisis Settings”, UNDP: 2009.
4. Sexual Violence Research Initiative.
5. Andrew von Hirsch (1999), “Criminal Deterrence and Sentence Severity: An Analysis of Recent Research”.
6. Amnesty International.