Question:

The Silent War?

by  |  earlier

0 LIKES UnLike

The UN Security Council has voted unanimously in favour of a resolution classifying rape as a weapon of war.

The document describes the deliberate use of rape as a tactic in war and a threat to international security.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said violence against women had reached "unspeakable proportions" in some societies recovering from conflict.

The UN is also setting up an inquiry to report next June on how widespread the practice is and how to tackle it.

Human rights groups hailed the resolution as historic.

BUT:

The BBC's Laura Trevelyan said China, Russia, Indonesia and Vietnam had all expressed reservations during the negotiations, asking whether rape was really a matter for the security council.

Why do you think they think this way?

Whole article at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7464462.stm

 Tags:

   Report

16 ANSWERS


  1. Rape is used as another method of genocide, by polluting the gene pool.  It has been a part of war for thousands of years, for this reason.  It leaves behind permanent reminders (children) of the time of attack.  As to why China, Russia, Indonesia and Vietnam would have reservations is a mystery.  Each country was left with the children of rape from invading armies in recent times - Russia with German babies, Vietnam with American babies, China with Japanese babies, same for Indonesia.  I guess that their reservations were not related to the issue of rape, but were related to other hidden ramifications of the resolution.


  2. Rape is a weapon of war and there is no doubt.

    In world war II the german army (wehrmacht) and the SS squads went bersek raping russian women and put them in bordellos run for soldiers exclusively.

    The russians did the same when the finally reached german soil and whole of german towns and cities were scenes of massive rapes and human depravity.

    In 1971 Pakistan army went on a raping madness in what is now Bangaladesh and over a hundred thousand women were raped.

    Rape will always be a terrible and devastating weapon in the hands of the male gender and nothing can change this only the men themselves who deploy this act.

  3. Perhaps they think that the security council is reserved only for matters of national security in the context of sovereignty.

    The security council should convene on all matters regarding the security of national disputes, and this includes rape, which is an exclusively-offensive weapon of war.

  4. It's interesting that China would react that way, considering it's treatment at the hands of the Japanese during WWII. The Japanese used rape during their invasion of China as a means of humiliation, terror, and ethnic cleansing. Their horrible war tactics are still referred to as "The Rape of Nanking" in the history books.

    However, I think that these countries are generally not known for their respect of human rights (or women) and this attitude toward women and human rights in general is probably what's behind their "reservations."

  5. Yea I can see why they would do that. Rape is a serious issue in war and used a lot to put terror in people.

  6. Rape is a weapon of ethnic cleansing for sure.

    Rwanda was an horrific example.

  7. Rape has always been a component of war; after a territory gets conquered, one of the traditional first orders of business is to kill, maim, or enslave as many able-bodied men and bos as possible, and claim the women as your own.  This happened in every corner of the globe; if you think about it, it's looked upon as probably the ultimate dominance over another group.

    "We killed your men, took your land, took your houses, took your stuff, then took your wives and daughters."

    The Germans and Japanese did it heavily in WW2.  The US did it heavily in Vietnam.  There have been court cases about it in the Iraq conflict, and it's a massive, massive problem in African conflicts right now.

    I think that it makes perfect sense to declare it a war crime; the arbitrary killing of a civilian in a conflict is, so why shouldn't rape be considered a war crime as well?  It's not like you can claim you "accidentally" raped a woman.  It's a terror device if there ever was one.

    China, Russia, Indonesia and Vietnam break with the UN constantly so it's no surprise to me.  These are also countries that prefer to use more aggressive tactics in terms of quashing dissent and sending messages to other nations than some other countries do, and it could bode badly against them.

    Russia has Chechnya...

    China has Tibet...

    Indonesia has East Timor...

    A resolution that states soldiers raping women in an occupied nation is a war crime wouldn't bode well for those nations.

  8. I can't imagine why...other than it's such an uncomfortable thing to discuss maybe they prefer to turn a blind eye. I can't believe the fear those women must experience everyday.

  9. Vladimir Putin made a comment a few years ago to a man accused of rape....something to the effect of "lucky man."

    20,000 women die each year in Russia from DV. They DO NOT consider women fulll citizens with human rights.

    The other countries...well, China has s*x selective abortions....

    Until countries (ALL) consider women full citizens deserving of security, we will see sexual violence.

    Until men see women as EQUALhuman beings with rights to dignity and security, we will see sexual violence.

    Rape was just considered a war crime in the early 90s.

    The world, for many women, is still barbaric. We still dont have respect, dignity or security.

    Women are BRUTALLY raped in Congo. Everytime I read a piece about it, I cry. I cannot fathom how humans can rape with glass or guns. How they can mutilate a woman's v****a to the point where she loses function of peeing and pooping and is stigmatized, and perhaps even infected with HIV.

    Furthermore, it is happening with hardly a ripple from the rest of the world.

    Someone was just quoted recently as saying something like rape is like bad weahter, there's nothign you can do about it so sit back & relax.

    Until women have equal status, we will be treated in any matter seen "fit" by those "in charge'.  Ppl wonder why I fight so hard for representation in government. Impunity is given to those in higher power. The impunity needs to stop. The degradation needs to stop. We are not "weapons" to be used in war....we are human beings for x sake.

    my blood pressure has just sored.

    calling it quits for the night.

  10. I think they should send me in. I am that silent middle linebacker who nobody sees. I can and will take care of part or all the problem.I have no time for those crimes against women and children. they did not want or ask for this so called war,or collateral damage!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! give me a few minutes alone with these b******s I will have them wishing they were never born. Mid evil does not even start at where I would. thus the word silent. let the little beast out of my cage lets see what happens.?PLEASE.

  11. EDIT: You may be interested in this from today's news ~ Ban Ki Moon has called for more women peace keepers and police to help stop war rapes (link below).

    ~*~*~*~

    Condoleeza Rice was really impressive today, in her statements regarding this.

    Can't say re Russia, but the Asian countries are typically reserved when it comes to regulation of what goes on inside a sovereign state.

    They might regard this as stepping over those boundaries.

    But good news all the same, at least it's on the radar.

    Cheers :-)

  12. Unfortunately, a proclamation by the U.N. means nothing. What can the U.N. do to enforce the proclamation?.

  13. Rape is rape. No matter who is involved, an individual, a commander in the field, or a country's policy. The UN resolution does not say how this rule is to be enforced. Would the soldier, his commander, or his leaders be brought to trial at the World Court? If found guilty where would they go to jail?

    If the soldier is allowed to stand trial in his home country, he may never be prosecuted. The Japanese in World War II for the Rape of Nanking. If the Chinese raped the women of Tibet it would be a non-issue to the Chinese government. The United States does not recognize the World Court. So we try our own soldiers under the rules of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice. Rape may be a war crime but unfortunately to the victors go the spoils and the women are considered spoils.

    The reason the United States and I think England do not recognize the World Court is that they do not want a foreign governing body (including the UN) to be able to try the President of the US or the Prime Minister or the Queen of England. I believe that the rule is justified and more than warranted, but it is a non-forcible rule.

    Bill

  14. All I can say is that the UN has been late; very very late. I agree with Jo. I too cry for those women in war-ridden Africa that are not only raped but also mutilated. And the condition Jo described is called fistula which you might have seen in Oprah. I can't just figure out how those men could do that to fellow human beings!

            Rape as a war crime dates back centuries ago. What I can't understand is whether today's Africa is still living such a primitive and horrible life when the rest of the world is striving to be a better place for women to live in. For me it's still the 'Dark Continent' that it was for the 19th century explorers. The outlook of the society towards women as 'objects and not human beings' needs to be changed.

  15. Rape is always a component of war.  In more savage times (and in more savage places now)  rape and pillage is part of the soldiers' 'reward.'

    Thank goodness the times they are a changing, as this article points out.

    The countries mentioned always, and I do mean ALWAYS enter any, ANY negotiations with a contrarian approach.  I would suspect (well, hope, anyway) that opposition to this is nothing more than those countries trying to limit outside (UN) influence in their own internal affairs and policies.  Unfortunately, doing so when the ethics behind the policy in question are unassailable.  A foolish move, in my mind, but the countries in question have always been famous for having their own policing of human rights issues questioned.  The idea of 'social Darwinism' is still very strong in those cultures, so they tend to subvert ideas and ethics that undermine the 'strong should rule the weak' ethic.

    All the above cultures have been involved, in one way or another, at one time or another, in ethnic cleansing-type practices.  Sure, none of them reached Hitler's level, but it never was for lack of trying.  They have always had their super-elitists.

    Why anyone should try to block these kinds of sweeping measures, in this day and age, to me, simply smacks of resistance to outside influence.  The level of involvement of organized crime in politics may play into this also.

  16. Those countries probably know that their soldiers use rape a lot and do not want to be exposed. Go figure, especially China...
You're reading: The Silent War?

Question Stats

Latest activity: earlier.
This question has 16 answers.

BECOME A GUIDE

Share your knowledge and help people by answering questions.
Unanswered Questions