Weapons of war: rape

All weapons of war are weapons of destruction and pain. Previous posts have reminded readers of the pervasive lethal effects of, for example, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, and landmines.

Another violent and devastating tactic recognized by the United Nations Security Council as a weapon of war is rape.

In its resolution calling for an end to sexual violence against women, the Security Council said, “Women and girls are particularly targeted by the use of sexual violence, including as a tactic of war to humiliate, dominate, instill fear in, disperse and/or forcibly relocate civilian members of a community or ethnic group.”

A recent report from the U.N. High Commissioner of Human Rights focused on the horrendously high rates of rape by warring groups in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia, and the Dafur region of Sudan.

Unfortunately, we must add to the list of wartime horrors the rape of U.S. servicewomen by U.S. servicemen. Watch the video above; you will not easily forget.

And for a horrifying example of moral disengagement in regard to the rape of women in the U.S. military, watch Liz Trotta of Fox News blame the victims.

If you watch these and other videos, you will want to do something. Stop Rape Now, the U.N. Action Against Sexual Violence in Conflict agency, provides several suggestions, including the simple action of crossing your arms. Learn what you can do to stop this weapon of war.

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology

Libya: A “just” war? (Just war, part 4)

Benghazi, Libya
Benghazi, Libya. Photo by Dennixo, licensed under Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 3.0 Unported (from Wikimedia Commons)

[Note from Kathie Malley-Morrison: Today we once again welcome guest contributor Dr. Michael Corgan, for his ongoing series on just war.]

How does the war in Libya, for such it is, measure up to the principles of just war?

First impressions are that it is just, so far. War was “declared” by competent authority; the U.N. Security Council Resolution and France, at least, had recognized the Benghazi rebels as a legitimate government. Qaddafi’s threat to hunt down enemies in their closets, apparent shelling of civilian areas, and promises to show no mercy indicates war was a necessary means when other dire warnings had failed. So far only military targets seem have been hit by the anti-Qaddafi forces which satisfies proportionality.

However a couple of serious questions remain. First, what sort of peace will be had? It’s not a just war until a just peace has been instituted. Lincoln’s “malice toward none, with charity for all” was prescient in this regard.

An even more troubling question is “Why don’t all the same (essentially Western) conditions apply to Bahrain?” The anti-demonstrator crackdown there has been as nasty as Qaddafi’s. And the Saudis have pitched in to help authorities suppress the demonstrations. Both Libya and Bahrain have oil but Bahrain has a U.S. Naval base.

If the Libyan war is just, then what are the same participants doing about Bahrain? This Bahrain inaction undercuts the “justness” of the Libyan action.

Michael T. Corgan, Ph.D., Associate Chair and Associate Professor of International Relations, Boston University