The Feminist Battle

I think anyone who aligns him or herself with feminism is committing to a constant evolution. The reason I say this is because feminism--being an offspring of the critical theory family--requires that you are in constant inquiry of not only the state of things, but also any possible consequences--intended or not--from your own research. This train of thought comes from a conversation I have had repeatedly of late; the people I've talked with have changed, but the topic always remains the same. As a feminist, is it better to fight very specifically for women's inclusion and to consistently point out where they are not designated as a critical group, or rather, is it better to fight for human rights in general, not designating women as 'special' in any shape or form so that their inclusion is assumed?

While researching food security in the DRC for my final thesis, I came across this article which takes the later position, specifying women as the 'key to food security.' By honing in on women's ability to help feed their families, and stating that they are constantly overlooked in terms of resources and training, this piece argues that women should be specifically targeted by programs that are working in food security. I have to admit, this is often an argument I have made myself, and my reasoning is as follows. Across the globe, women are not considered equal. In many places--including places within the DRC (and the U.S.)--their status is reduced and their efficacy is underestimated.  Because this is such a constant occurrence, I do not think you can assume their inclusion in programs that do not specifically target their participation. And so, because of this, I think it is necessary to explicitly advocate for programs directed towards them. This is especially necessary for funding purposes, as unless there is the stated requirement that women be involved, there may be no push to fund programs directed at their specific needs.  I have become more aware of this in observing the UN system, and I think overall it strengthens the argument that women should be looked at separately until they are absolutely looked at as equals.

Now this does not mean that there is not also truth to the opposite argument, that we should assume women are included in the broader fight for human rights. As a pillar in this argument, there have been cases of women being targeted by violent acts because they were signified as 'special' in the first place. For example, it has been argued that the micro-lending programs offered to women in the DRC has made them larger targets for domestic violence, as it interrupts the power dynamic within the family. However, to this I would argue that there are larger issues at play (perhaps underlying systematic inequalities or cultural trends) in which the violence from the loan is merely a symptom and not the cause. This does not mean that this violence should not be taken seriously, in undoubtedly should. What it means is that it is important to look beyond the immediate reasoning and delve deeper into why something like that would happen in the first place. 

Therefore, I think it remains important to place women at the forefront of efforts being taken in the DRC to increase security, whether it is food, economic, community, or otherwise. And as a feminist in the modern age--where I will question the process and results of my own thinking just as much as my critic does--I think that putting our faith in women as capable peacebuilders in the DRC is a safe bet. 

Women from Kivu speak out

For my final thesis at the Center for Global Affairs Master's program at NYU, I looked at food insecurity in North Kivu, DRC. To be honest, I'm ashamed--with all of the work I do on the inclusiveness of women--that women farmers were not a larger part of my study. Indeed, in Africa as a whole, women tend to be the most under-cited contributors to the household food stuffs. So I think it is only appropriate that I address that subject now, and that I do so through an excellent article I encountered entitled, "Women from Kivu speak out." It was released by the Pole Institute in February 2001, and it largely encompasses what this blog seeks to do, spread the voice and the insight of women from eastern DRC.

First of all, I'd like to commend the Pole Institute for seeking to provide an 'intercongolese dialogue' in order to offer a broader picture of the issues which individuals from all backgrounds and perspectives are experiencing. And, in particular, I want to praise them for recognizing how their previous dialogue had been heavily influenced by the male perspective, inciting them to specifically seek out women's voices. I think that this internalized realizations is not made often enough, and their acknowledgement of this bias--even if unintentional--is critical. So what did these women have to say? The article is fascinating, and here are some of the highlights I pulled from it:

Women in the DRC are overall fed-up with the conflict. They are upset with their politicians for denying their voice to be heard, and yet they are persistent in making sure that their presence does not go unnoticed. To me, this is particularly evident in the way in which they establish themselves--whether explicitly or not--as the center of all social, and in some cases, economic hubs. (As women often work in informal sectors, during times of conflict, they are commonly the ones who can continue to work women men are unable to be formally employed).

They also seem to have a very keen perception of what has been going on politically in their country since the start of the conflict in 1996. Granted, every woman is an individual and therefore her perspective does not represent that of the entire group. But nonetheless, there were some very astute observations by women on the underlying motives of many of their political figures and I strongly believe that these perspectives deserve a platform on a least the national and regional stage.

Overall, the women tend to see themselves as the greatest victims of the war. I struggle with this statement as I see the women there largely as the survivors of the war--obviously facing great peril but with a grace and dignity I can only imagine.  Nonetheless, their term of victimization seems to be much more a call to action than a silent suffering. It appears, through their dialogue, that women are using this sense of victimization to encourage leaders to take responsibility for the protection of the population. But I also think the way they define victims is perhaps different than a traditional western understanding. Their victimization appears to be perceived as not only direct but indirect as well--paying the consequences of losing family members, etc., not just being the lost family member. This I think is important because it reflects just how critical women are to the Congolese social fabric. When they feel a loss at orphaning their children, it demonstrates just how important women are to that social dynamic. Now, some might say this is the case universally, but I would argue it's even more important in the DRC, where so many men have already been lost to the throngs of warfare. Perhaps this has escalated the hierarchy of women in the Congolese household, of this I am not sure. But I have most definitely uncovered, generally, that women are an essential part of Congolese society and therefore they should be treated as such politically.

As the women discuss, this organization around the protection of their rights did not come immediately. In fact, many thousands of women suffered before it was really talked about on a wide scale. I think this reflects, in a way, the discussion that I have had in earlier posts about the integrated and systematic inequalities Congolese women have faced all along. And their perception of this is impeccable. Knowing the context far better than any outsider coming in and trying to analyze it, they realize what is at stake for their great country. One woman even states, "We said to ourselves: Let’s be careful. If we don't stop all this, even our children will go on killing each other. It will go on for twenty, thirty years." The international community needs to hear out this vested interest and take it seriously for what it has to offer.

And I think the arena that this piece most clearly identifies as the missing link is the political one. I think the take-away from this piece is that Congolese women are saying they need to be heard, and in order to do this they need education and political participation.  And so, to end this critical evaluation of an excellent article, I would like to add my voice to the proclamation that women must be included and valued as part of the process to reach a solution in the DRC. In the next agreement coming up, even between the government and rebel forces such as M23, their participation and perspective is essential for coming up with a comprehensive agreement that suites everyone involved. And particularly those who have been overlooked so many times before.

The Onion

Timothy Reid makes an interesting argument in his article, "Killing them Softly: Has Foreign Aid to Rwanda and Uganda Contributed to the Humanitarian Tragedy in the DRC?" Reid offers a convincing amount of evidence suggesting that both Rwanda and Uganda made substantial gains in the occupation of the DRC. He also argues that western governments were implicit in this exploitation because they continued to contribute aid money to both countries. Essentially, the argument is in the title. I think Reid did a good job presenting the information, though at  times his impassioned speech becomes more of a rant and his writing suffers because of it. But this is understandable, given that much of the information Reid offers up is essentially saying (in data), 'Don't you see what is happening here!?' I have heard this argument before, repeatedly in fact, but I am guessing that in 2006 it was new to the scene. However now, in 2013, fingers are still being pointed at DRC neighbors and yet little has changed. Numerous books have been written about Rwanda and Uganda being 'beacons' of positive economic development in Africa. But what these books don't ask--and the reason this article is still relevant--is as what cost? I think this is an essential question which Reid poses and does a commendable job at answering.

However, I think it would be foolish to say that the conflict occurring in the DRC is the result of one, comprehensive reason. So even Reid's argument here, though well formulated, does not give us the whole picture. I certainly think neighborly meddling has been--and may continue to be--a part of the impetus for conflict. However, the conflict has gone on far too long and is steeped in far too much history be solely the result of one cause. One supreme example of this are the continued violations that women have faced over the past decade. As is being suggested to a greater extent, systematic inequalities which existed in the DRC prior to the eruption of conflict undoubtedly feed into the atrocities that are now being committed. Therefore, if there is ever to be a resolution of the conflict in its entirety, it is absolutely necessary to acknowledge these multiple layers and the way they interact with one another.  This includes addressing countries which are violating the sovereignty of the DRC, as well as all other levels of exploitation, ie. the high levels of domestic violence which are talked about in an earlier blog entry. The conflict in the DRC is much like an onion, with layer upon layer of reasoning for the continued fighting. The importance of acknowledging this is essential to understanding how to even begin looking at the conflict as a whole.

A Must Read

This is one of the best blog postings I have found addressing the international perspective on the situation for women in the DRC.  I encountered it while researching blogs written by Congolese women, which are unfortunately hard to come by.  It is written by Lee Ann De Reus, and though she is an American, her writing seems to challenge dominant narratives emanating from 'the west.' For fear that you might not click the link to her superb posting, I've copied it below with my commentary to follow. But please do go to the link as well to get the whole, interrupted version: "A needed controversy over sexualized violence in DRC."

A needed controversy over sexualized violence in Democratic Republic of Congo

By Lee Ann De Reus/Guest Blogger — April 23, 2013

In August 2010, reports began trickling out of Democratic Republic of Congo about another tragic episode of mass sexualized violence perpetrated by rebel troops over four days in the eastern town of Luvungi. The International Medical Corps, or IMC, an American aid group, was first on the scene to provide help and assessment. Their data informed reports by UN Peacekeeping that indicated that there were 37 victims; months later, an official UN document stated that 387 civilians had been raped. But in a recent issue of Foreign Policy, journalist Laura Heaton challenged those figures, suggesting that the numbers were inflated and that rape receives more international aid and consideration than other pressing humanitarian issues in DRC. Two IMC aid workers who were at Luvungi at the time, Micah Williams and Will Cragin, responded. In a laterForeign Policy article, they disputed Heaton’s claims of misrepresentation and the privileging of sexualized violence by the global aid community. While we will never know exactly what transpired at Luvungi, these disparate perspectives and the controversy over whether Heaton’s argument is valid highlight the need for candid conversation about Congo.

I think the on-going conversation about the importance of highlighting rape in the DRC is an important one. I began my studies from the perspective that it was a phenomenon that had to be exposed and the more advocacy the better. However, since I have discovered some very valuable arguments that discuss that by emphasizing only the situation of rape for women in the DRC, other important topics--that may actually be contributing to the mass raps--are being sidelined. I think this is a difficult argument and there are valid points to both sides. On the one hand, rape in the DRC is horrendous and should be tackled from all angles.  On the other, the DRC has now become defined by it's 'environment of rape,' and this is both detrimental to solving underlying issues and the Congolese people as a whole.  

The narrative about sexualized violence in Congo is crafted primarily by outsiders—often, non-Congolese individuals who lack a nuanced understanding of the issues. Survivors, and the Congolese who work with them, rarely control the stories coming out of their own country. Indigenous knowledge is routinely dismissed or neglected. But as Williams and Cragin state in their Foreign Policy rebuttal, “…in any debate over rape in eastern DRC, Congolese women and girls who have been most affected deserve the final say on truth.” Outsiders who come to help—and I am one of them—need to listen to survivors’ experiences, rather than simply broadcast their own perspectives.

I could not agree more with this statement. As I mentioned before, I came upon this article in the search of something written by a Congolese women herself.  But as De Reus testifies here, their voices are often crowded out by the voices of 'outsiders'--including mine--spouting what they think their problems are. This was actually I battle I had with myself in first starting this blog, but my advocacy (and academic) side obviously won out.  I hope that at the end of this project, however, there is a greater awareness of the need to magnify and pay attention to the voices of Congolese women.  Their platform on the international stage for determining the future of the DRC is far more-deserved than any outsider, and hopefully that sentiment comes through in this project.

The level of mass atrocities occurring in DRC is indisputably catastrophic. At Panzi Hospital, a general referral hospital run by Dr. Denis Mukwege and with which I conduct research and fundraising, 19,270 survivors of sexualized violence were treated from 1999-2012. These are some numbers we know. While Heaton and IMC may disagree on Luvungi particulars, the unifying fact is that sexualized violence, like many problems in Congo, is a symptom at the intersection of failed economic, social, and political structures. Yet persistent oversimplifications by media, aid agencies, development organizations, advocacy groups, academics, and other well-meaning parties distort the world’s perceptions of DRC. The result is an ineffective response to violence that only applies a band-aid to human suffering and stifles Congolese self-determination. In order to break this cycle, we have to better understand and address the atrocities and their root causes. And, as with other conflict-ridden regions, we can’t assume we know better than the country’s own population.

Again, I think De Reus has done an excellent job at signifying what is 'oh-so-characteristic' of the international community's response to complex conflicts.  Over and over again, outside forces assume they are more qualified for finding long-lasting solutions to conflicts than those who suffer the real consequences of a conflict.  Now, I am not saying that the international community does not have a role--in fact they have quite an important role--but it should not be one of authority over those who's conflict it is in the first place. After all, once some other conflict occurs elsewhere and the international community pulls out, it is the citizens of that country that have to live with the outcomes of a certain peace treaties or attempted resolutions.  Therefore, the solution should be one of their own, constructed by people who know the context and understand the nuances of the situation.  The rebuttal to this is that it is often these people who started the turmoil in the first place.  Well then, consider individuals who have seen the day to day of the conflict and have exemplified great courage in the face of grave danger: Congolese women.  This is not to say Congolese women have played a solely passive role in the conflict--many women have actively participated--but not as single one has yet been indicted by the ICC or referred to as the mastermind behind a destructive force.  Yet it is these women who hold a great stake in the future of the DRC, and have had to pay the price dearly for the continuation of conflict there. 

Inherent in these outsider-built narratives are provocative sound bites like “rape capital of the world” and “worst place in the world to be a woman.” These labels, used to engage the public or influence funders, are reductionist and perpetuate a stereotype of Congolese men as rapists and women as victims. This is epitomized by the self-serving “hit-and-run” researcher or journalist who swoops into Congo, re-traumatizes survivors with insensitive interrogation, and then uses their images and words with no regard for the survivors’ privacy and safety.

I think the truth of this statement is manifest through looking at the way outsiders discuss the conflict.  As someone who tracks the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) in order to determine their effective implementation of UNSC resolution 1325, I am constantly commenting on their reference to women solely as victims.  Unfortunately, it is becoming more and more rare to find the agency and participation of women advocated by the UNSC.  The irony of this is that the UNSC themselves have passed document after document affirming the need to integrate women more fully into the programs enacted by UN missions.  Additionally, little is done to showcase the tremendous job that many men are doing in the DRC to combat gender inequalities and sexual violence.  The news coming out of the DRC is consistently that of negativity, and De Reus does well in highlighting the impact of this reality here.

Examples of such exploitation and inadvertent harm are countless. I was at Panzi Hospital in 2009 just days after an outside women’s rights advocate had encouraged Congolese survivors to go public with their stories in Bukavu. This activity, based on a very Western notion of empowerment, backfired for at least one participant, when her landlord decided to double her rent because of her association with wealthy whites. In the wake of this, neighbors and staff at Panzi had to scramble to find housing and an attorney to rectify the situation. In another example, a visitor to the hospital gave out $100 bills to survivors when moved by a woman’s story. This upset an already fragile dynamic within this community of survivors. It made women who had received the money targets for theft, and left them in the precarious position of trying to break a very large bill. Those do-gooder dollars didn’t necessarily help the women who received them.

This idea was the premise of my application to graduate school.  Throughout the development work I've done, I've come to realize that good intentions do not always produce the results you'd hope they would.  I think that this is largely because one sees a problem and then starts to try to solve it, without realizing the complexity that is happening underneath.  Therefore, any assistance must be coupled not only with extensive, preliminary research on the context of a situation, but it is also best paired with expertise and investment from the individuals affected by the conflict. 

In 2010, a Scandinavian journalist included a survivor’s story and photo in a book that was available in a Bukavu library. The woman who had granted the interview was uneducated and had a limited understanding of book publication and distribution. She had hid her attack successfully—until her husband discovered the book, read his wife’s story, and subsequently abandoned her due to the stigma associated with rape. I observed yet another example of exploitation this fall when a U.S. university research team arrived in Congo to implement a study with survivors. The principal investigator used Panzi’s logo without permission, aggressively pursued staff for access to women, and gave gifts to any survivor who told her story—corrupting the research process.

Hearing stories like this are deeply upsetting and frustrating.  Both as an academic and a human being. It is the responsibility of the publishing party to protect, to their utmost ability, their subjects or not publish at all.  Yet another example of poorly-executed good intentions. 

“Rape as a weapon of war” is another oversimplification used to explain the ongoing abuse of women in DRC. While the term does apply to some patterns of violence during the region’s conflict, it disregards rape in other contexts (such as domestic violence that occurs in the home), overlooks other forms of violence (like torture), and implies that there is an actual war when Congo is technically post-conflict.

This is a theme that I investigated in my post, "Rape: A Discussion on Power and Freedom".

Outsiders also regularly cite the exploitation of mineral resources as the source of war-related rape. According to the prevailing narrative, these illegally extracted conflict minerals fund the armed groups who commit the atrocities. While there is certainly some truth to this explanation, its narrow focus distracts attention from the larger structural factors at the root of violence: Congo is a failed state. It is ranked 186 out of 187 countries in the 2012 Human Development Index based on indicators of health, education, and income. It lacks basic infrastructure and, consequently, an ability to provide education and security. The result is unprecedented levels of sexualized violence in a context of corruption, impunity, and economic failure—all of which is exacerbated by interference from neighboring countries.

This is an idea developed in the research by Séverine Autesserre in her piece, "Dangerous Tales: Dominant Narratives on the Congo and their Unintended Consequences."  I think both De Reus and Autesserre identify here some of the underlying issues that would be complicated for the international community to intervene on, so therefore, they are ignored.  I think an excellent way of addressing some of these concerns would be to acknowledge and facilitate the ability of women in the DRC to combat some of these ills--such as lack of access to health services or deficits in education. 

Research suggesting an increase in sexual assault committed by civilians, although contested, further substantiates the need to examine other structural factors such as the prevailing cultural attitudes towards women and men. In a recent blog post, human rights lawyer and freelance journalist Kirthi Jayakumar states that wartime discrimination and violence is “proof of a prevalent undercurrent of socio-cultural dynamics that speak of gender discrimination in peacetime. If there were no prevalent concepts in peacetime of honour, shame, sexuality, sacredness of virginity and modesty, gender violence cannot function so effectively in war.”

I think this is a really poignant observation and better articulation of one goal I am trying to achieve with this blog.  I believe that the prevalence of sexual violence in the conflict reflect deeper concerns for women's roles and values in Congolese societal structures. The fact that they are expressed in disproportionate violence towards women is the symptom, but it is not the disease.  Women will continue to suffer in the DRC until greater efforts are put towards changing the subconscious (or perhaps conscious) subordination of Congolese women--locally, regionally, nationally and internationally.

Further complicating matters, the civilians who perpetrate these attacks may be former child soldiers. In a March 2012 interview about legal aid for rape survivors in DRC, the director of Uvira Hospital in South Kivu reports that he is seeing more cases of civilian rape, but that the perpetrators are often former child soldiers who were not effectively integrated into society. Again, a larger issue is in play.

This speaks to the previous blog posting I did on better security sector reform, as advocated by the Eastern Congo Initiative.

When aid and effort are aimed at female survivors of sexualized violence only and not also at root causes, the atrocities persist and other needy segments of the Congolese population get left behind. For example, programs that address child soldiers, trauma treatment for men, or maternal health for non-victims are shortchanged. I met a young Congolese doctor in 2011 who ran a small struggling clinic for a mostly Pygmy population on an island in Lake Kivu. He explained that because sexualized violence where he worked was rare, he did not qualify for many funding opportunities or hold much appeal to private donors. It pained him greatly to watch this community suffer from a lack of services.

This again speaks to a more comprehensive approach.

As someone who works to raise funds for Panzi Hospital, I know that our donations also fall short due to enormous demand. Not only is there never enough funding for rape survivors’ medical treatment, but the sheer volume of patients with attendant health complications means little money is left to support Panzi’s literacy classes and other post-treatment programs. Funds for support of grassroots organizing that could lead to structural change are practically non-existent. Yet a holistic approach is required to stem sexualized violence. Although my own research and activism focuses on helping rape survivors, I believe that we must tackle underlying causes of rape with the same energy. Heaton as well as Williams and Cragin seem to agree.

And Autesserre and myself.

Sexualized violence dominates the headlines about Congo because it is shocking and grabs attention. While it’s true that the focus on rape has galvanized global empathy, action, and needed funding, I agree with Heaton that “the numbers [regarding rape] inevitably lead to a focus on the sensational, while ignoring the troubling underlying dynamics.” Williams and Cragin understand this, too, writing that IMC’s programs around gender-based violence aim to “increase the overall health and wellbeing of communities.” For all their disagreement, both articles in Foreign Policy acknowledge that a macro-level approach is important.

Yet for those of us involved with Congo as outsiders, how do we address the disconnect between these multifaceted realities on the ground and our culture’s proclivity for simple compelling stories that sell newspapers, attract philanthropy, and drive policy? Aid, development, advocacy, and media organizations must take responsibility for their role in this dysfunctional scenario by listening to Congolese narratives, communicating the complexities of the issues they address, and ensuring accuracy in the data they provide. Donors, funders, and policymakers must expand their scope and support initiatives that tackle the origins of problems and facilitate Congolese self-determination. Concerned individuals must educate themselves about the country so they can make wise choices about how to best use their voice, skills, or money to make a difference. The controversy about Luvungi is an opportunity. It’s time to break through outsider narratives of rape and help confront the complex causes of suffering in DRC. 

I think De Reus's call to action for all of those vested in the future of the DRC is right on target and a great conclusion to her paper.  Far greater attention must be paid to Congolese narratives, which convey far more understanding for what the roots of the conflict are. Please share this with anyone who is truly committed to using their energies to help foster positive change in the DRC.

A Comprehensive Approach

"Examining Ongoing Conflict in Eastern Congo"

On Tuesday, April 16th, Mvemba Phezo Dizolele presented to the U.S. Subcommittee on African Affairs (from the Committee on Foreign Relations in the Senate) on the ongoing conflict in eastern Congo.  Dizolele is a Strategy and Advocacy Fellow at the Eastern Congo Initiative (ECI).  He is a native of the DRC and has an impressive background: Mvemba Phezo Dizolele. I found his report to the Senate to be highly invested in the aptitude of the Congolese people and refreshingly optimistic.  He makes—what I think are—valid suggestions for helping those in eastern DRC improve their own lives.    Nonetheless, below I provide some additional advocacy that I believe would have fit well with his arguments.

I am in staunch agreement with Dizolele in that without long-term investment in a truly comprehensive security sector reform, any development in the DRC will be shaky.  However, I believe Dizolele overlooks a very important part of that security sector reform: women’s participation.  Throughout my work I see that security sector reform often focuses on men.  I think that this is a mistake. To have sincerely successful reform, I think it requires the participation of all affected parties and recognition of the different impacts those parties experienced. For example, if a male soldier who is known (or even rumored) to have violated women is placed back into the national forces without any reparations or reconciliation, the actions of that man may as well be validated by the national forces.  Equally, he may continue to pose a threat if his actions go unpunished.  These possibilities should be acknowledged and I think the best way to do that is to ensure that women are integrated into security sector reformation efforts every step of the way.  I think Dizolele would have done well to list this as a lesson learned.

Dizolele also speaks of democracy taking hold in the DRC, and it is necessary to highlight that women’s participation in this democracy building is not the same as men’s.  Unfortunately, within all three layers of legislation—local, regional and national—women are still grossly under-represented.  Since Dizolele has the opportunity to be informing the U.S. Senate on what an equitable and peaceful DRC, I think Dizolele should bring this to their attention as well.

Finally, within the recommendations that Dizolele makes to the U.S. Senate there are a couple of additions are merited.  The first is when he advocates U.S. backing of MONUSCO efforts; I think Dizolele should have also added here the support for gender experts in conflict and post-conflict situations.  I also think that when he suggests that the U.S. offer military assistance to the DRC, it be on the condition that said assistance includes training on protecting human rights—including women’s human rights—and preventing sexual violence. I appreciate that Dizolele asserts that war criminals should not be reintegrated into the armed forces.  I think that, overall, his recommendations lend themselves to a positive way forward for both the men and women of the DRC.