The Human Rights Blog

By now, nearly everyone with access to cable has either seen or heard of TLC’s latest “documentary,” My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding.  Originally broadcast on Britain’s Channel 4, TLC boasts that American audiences can now watch the “secret” and “outrageous” lives of Gypsies unfold.

When I first learned that TLC was to air this program, I was horrified, as anyone who reads my blog knows that the plight of Europe’s Roma is very close to my heart.  Initially, I intended to boycott the show entirely as well as write a letter to TLC to express my outrage with the network’s decision to air a program that glorifies stereotypes and misconceptions about Europe’s most discriminated minority group.  However, after considering it might be unfair to criticize the show before watching at least one episode, I decided to hold off on the letter and temporarily rescind my personal boycott.  Now, after watching three full episodes, I feel better equipped to voice my views concerning TLC’s “newest smash hit.”

Much like a car wreck from which you cannot look away, My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding is undeniably mesmerizing.  All of the racial archetypes surrounding the Roma are present – exotic girls dancing seductively to fast paced violin music in colorful “belly dancer-like” costumes, grown men fist fighting and playing dice in the street, and, in general, seemingly uneducated and low class people who inexplicably manage to have of loads of cash on hand for fast cars, extravagant weddings, and lavish first Communion celebrations.  One cannot help but marvel at the spectacle of it all, making it easy to forget that the program is, in actuality, an ignorant, incomplete, and grossly xenophobic caricature of “the Gypsy.”

What to expect when you watch:

Sadly, My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding gives viewers a very limited and exaggerated perspective into the lives of the UK’s Gypsy and Travelling communities.

Within the first minute of the premiere episode, the narrator sets the scene very melodramatically, indeed, explaining to viewers that they will soon be granted access into Britain’s “most secretive community.”  This “us versus them” attitude only advances negative attitudes towards Gypsies and puts viewers on notice that the people they are about to encounter must be very mysterious and cannot be trusted.  A non-Gypsy woman who is a bridal dressmaker specializing in Traveller weddings goes on to explain, “[Travellers] don’t like anyone knowing anything about them at all.”  (The dressmaker appears numerous times each subsequent episode, ostensibly the “documentary’s” resident expert on all things “Gypsy,” providing her insight on Traveller culture and beliefs.)  Finally, after a long series of clips showing scantily dressed teenaged Gypsy girls writhing around on dance floors and literally walking the streets, the narrator very seriously explains that, “the show will explore every aspect of Gypsy life.”  (Here it is important to note that My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding focuses almost exclusively on Irish Travellers, which is a group separate and distinct from Roma Gypsies.  While the program does identify the two groups, it provides no explanation as to the reasons for the difference, so Romani Gypsies and Irish Travellers are thus lumped together, leaving viewers with the impression that the two are indistinguishable.)

My perspective on the show:

Ironically, a Gypsy or Traveller who is interviewed within the first two minutes of the premiere episode best states my opinion of the program, though the quote is meant to promote the show:

“Ninety-five percent of people in this world have had no contact with [Gypsies], and they don’t know anything about them.  The only information they have on Gypsies is what certain tabloids write about them, or what certain television programs put on about them, and that’s the only information.  Ninety-nine percent of it is a load of nonsense.”

Certainly, after having watched My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding, I would have to agree with the show’s own assertion.  Ninety-nine percent of it is a load of nonsense.

Each episode begins in relatively the same way.  Viewers are introduced to a young Gypsy or Traveller girl, who is portrayed as a virginal seductress though totally powerless and without control over her own life.  Beautiful yet pitiably uneducated, she prepares to marry and move hundreds of miles from the only family she has ever known only to cook, clean, and submit to the will of her soon to be husband.  She is innocent and chaste before marriage yet dresses like a Vegas prostitute.  From childhood, she has dreamt of her wedding day and it consumes her thoughts.  Though she may be somewhat disenchanted by the drudgery of her everyday life, she is nonetheless acquiescent and rarely questions her role in society.

On the other hand, the young Gypsy man is street smart and tough; a hustler who has a lot of cash available even though he is a laborer or migrant worker.  He does not have to answer to anyone and can come as go as he pleases.  He is brash and bold and enjoys drinking and fighting.  From childhood, he was taught to settle his scores “like a man.”  He wears “wife beaters” and baggy pants, has slicked back hair and may be heavily tattooed.  He is worshipped by his mother and female family members and will be the adoration of his future wife. (Of course, there are a few deviations from this basic premise, but each episode can guarantee these characterizations.)

The real “Gypsy Experience:”

What is particularly disturbing about My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding is that this program is, in most cases, the first and only experience American viewers have with the Roma community.  Because Gypsies live primarily in Eastern and Central Europe, American audiences are largely unfamiliar with the plight of Europe’s Roma and have little knowledge of the group’s long and painful history, which is marred by persecution, violence, slavery and genocide.  The treatment they suffer is tantamount to the persecution that African Americans in the US suffered leading up to the Civil Rights Movement.  Once slaves to Eastern Europe’s elite, today’s Roma continue to be victims of race-based violence including beatings and murders, as well as employment and housing discrimination, forced sterilization, extreme poverty and school segregation (as was the case in Oršuš and Others v. Croatia). This past summer, France and Italy implemented controversial Roma expulsion policies, which were hotly debated by world leaders as possible human rights violations.  (SeeFrance begins controversial Roma expulsion, CNN Aug. 2010)

Perhaps the only redeeming aspect of My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding is the account of the perspectives of the Irish Travellers, especially the children, as state authorities bulldoze their trailer homes. Still, such a serious subject is sensationalized.  At one point in the opening scene, the narrator asks, “Gypsies are fighting for their very survival, but how long can the party last?” as young Gypsy girl gyrates across the screen to quick violin music.

Comparisons

My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding has been compared to MTV’s Jersey Shore , which is outrageous and highly entertaining, but certainly not an accurate depiction of the majority of Italian-Americans.  While I am inclined to agree with that characterization to a certain extent, the fact remains that the ramifications of a program like My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding further exacerbate the already dire situation of Europe’s Roma, who are, in reality, concentrated in Eastern and Central Europe. Frankly, I see little difference between a program such as My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding and the minstrel shows of America’s past, which exploited African American culture by perpetuating unfair stereotypes and misconceptions about a group that continues to face discrimination.

Jane Jackson, deputy chief executive of the Rural Media Company, a charity that publishes the Travellers’ Times, had this to say about the show when it first aired on Britain’s Channel 4.

“It’s posing as a documentary.  The voiceover is saying we’re going to let you into the secrets of the traveller community – and it just not true.  It might be true of the particular families in front of the camera, but it’s not generally true. It just confirms prejudices that Travellers are just people who choose not to live in houses.”

Certainly, one would hope that a program like My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding – one that blatantly promotes extreme prejudices and stereotypes about a maltreated minority group that continues to face persecution – would not be tolerated, especially here in the United States.

(Note:  The two-hour premiere of My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding, which aired on June 3 on TLC, delivered 2.2 million viewers and earned the night’s top slot.  Since, then, viewership has increased. See (Ratings – TLC Starts Summer Strong With “My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding” )

What you can do to support protests of My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding:

Boycott Advertisers:  http://thegypsyconnection.blogspot.com/2011/06/help-support-protest-of-my-big-fat.html

How and why you should protest My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding: https://apps.facebook.com/causes/posts/790204

For UK readers:  File a programme complaint with Ofcom:  http://consumers.ofcom.org.uk/tell-us/tv-and-radio/a-specific-programme/

Stop Gypsy Persecution on Facebook:  http://www.causes.com/causes/170001-stop-gypsy-persecution

VISIT:  National Romani Anti-Discrimination Organization http://www.nrado.com

Popularity: 18% [?]

On March 22, 2011, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France held a Chamber hearing in the case of V.C. vs. Slovakia concerning a Roma woman who alleges she was forcibly sterilized by a Slovakian state hospital.  While Roma women have made claims of forced and coercive sterilizations by Eastern European countries for decades, this is the first case of its kind to reach Strasbourg.

Case Facts:

V.C. is a Roma woman and Slovakian national from Šarišská Poruba, Slovakia.  At the time of the sterilization, she was approximately twenty years old.  She has a sixth grade education and is unemployed.

According to her complaint, V.C. gave birth to her second child in 2000 via caesarian section at the Slovakian Ministry’s University Teaching Hospital in Presov.  While hospitalized at Presov, V.C. alleges that she was segregated because of her ethnic origin and placed in a “Gypsy room,” which was separated from the white patients.  It is also alleged that she was made to use separate bathroom facilities.

Hospital records indicate V.C. requested to be sterilized after being told by physicians that a third pregnancy would likely result in a ruptured uterus.  However, V.C. claims that the sterilization procedure was performed without her full and informed consent.  She alleges that while in the pain of the final stages of labor, doctors asked her if she wanted to have more children.  After responding in the affirmative, she was then informed that if she had another child, it would die.  V.C. states that it was at that time when she signed the consent form, without having knowledge or understanding as to the consequences of sterilization.  (See European Court of Human Right’s 2009 decision as to the admissibility of V.C.’s 2007 application)

V.C. claims that her ethnic origin played a key factor as to the way in which she was handled and the medical advice and treatment she received.  The Slovakian government denies all of the allegations, stating that V.C. was treated in the same manner as the white patients and that the medical advice provided was not based upon her ethnicity or skin color.

In 2006, V.C. filed civil complaint against the hospital staff, but ultimately the Presov Regional Court dismissed it on appeal.  The Court found that the sterilization was lawfully done, that it was a medical necessity and that V.C. had given her consent.

As indicated in the European Court of Human Rights’ Press Release issued by the Registrar of the Court on March 22, 2011, “[t]he applicant’s sterilisation has had serious medical and psychological after-effects. Notably in 2007/2008 she showed all the signs of being pregnant but was not (known as a “hysterical pregnancy”). Treated since 2008 by a psychiatrist, she continues to suffer from being sterilised. She has been ostracised by the Roma community and her current husband has left her several times due to her infertility.”

Slovakia’s History of Forced Sterilizations:

The practice of “Roma sterilization” dates back to the 1970’s when the Communist regime in Czechoslovakia regularly used forced or coercive sterilization measures to “control” the Roma population.  Roma women who participated in the procedures were given a government financial incentive as encouragement.

According to written comments submitted in 2009 to the UN’s Committee Against Torture by the Centre for Civil and Human Rights, “60% of the sterilisation operations performed from 1986 to 1987 were on Romani women, who represented only 7% of the population of the district. Another study found that in 1983, approximately 26% of sterilised women in eastern Slovakia (the region where the Applicants reside) were Romani women; by 1987, this figure had risen to 36.6%.  In 1992, a report by Human Rights Watch addressed the practice of coercive sterilisation in Czechoslovakia, noting that many Romani women were not fully aware of the irreversible nature of the intervention and was forced into it because of their poor economic situation or pressure from authorities.”  (also citing Statistical Evaluation of the Cases of Sexual Sterilisation of Romani Women in East Slovakia, 1990)

Although the Communist regime collapsed in the early 1990’s, the sterilizations continued.  Procedurally, they varied from hospital to hospital but the results were the same.  According to a 2001 Open Society Institute report, Finnish nurses noticed unusually high occurrences of sterilization and ovary removal in female Roma asylum seekers from Slovakia seeking refuge in Finland.

The “Body and Soul Report”

Perhaps the most influential and widely circulated report concerning the forced sterilization of Roma women in Slovakia came in 2003 when the Center for Reproductive Rights released Body and Soul:  Forced Sterilization and Other Assaults of Roma Reproductive Freedom.  For three months, the Center for Reproductive Rights, based in the United States, and the Centre for Civil and Human Rights, based in Slovakia, conducted interviews with more than 230 Roma women throughout eastern Slovakia.  “The interviews revealed numerous instances of coerced, forced and suspected sterilization of Romani women, along with physical and verbal abuse, racially discriminatory standards of care, misinformation in health matters, and denial of access to medical records.”  The Report culminated in a criminal investigation into the sterilization of Roma women.  However, it was eventually discontinued on the grounds that no wrongdoing had been committed.

The following 2003 documentary from Journeyman Pictures provides a comprehensive overview of the recent history of forced sterilization of Roma women in Slovakia.  Slovakian human rights attorney Barbora Bukovska, who gave comments in Strasbourg last month and who has been instrumental in bringing such cases to light, is highlighted in the film.

Access to Medical Records - K.H. and Others vs. Slovakia

Perhaps one of the most difficult hurdles Roma women faced in filing suit against state hospitals for forced sterilization was gaining access to their own medical records.  In 2002, eight Roma women in Slovakia attempted to retrieve their medical records after finding they were unable to conceive after undergoing caesarian sections.  The women wished to establish cause as to why they were unable to conceive.  After the hospitals refused to release their records, the women filed a civil suit in Slovak court.  However, their requests were denied and the Court held that the records were the property of the hospitals and not the women.

In 2004, the eight women filed suit against the hospitals with the European Court of Human Rights.  In April 2009, the Court ruled that denying the women access to their medical records was in violation of Article 6 paragraph 1 and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Specifically, the Court held that access to medical records is a right to private and family life and that those persons wishes to make photocopies of their own medical records should be allowed to do so without providing reason as to their purpose or objective.  The applicable articles of the European Convention on Human Rights states:

Article 6 paragraph 1:

In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgement shall be pronounced publicly by the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.

Article 8:

1.  Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2.  There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Human rights attorney Barbora Bukovska said this in response to the ruling:

“This case indicates the complicity of the Slovak Government in the practice of forced sterilization of Romani women.  Originally, in spring of 2002, we were able to access and copy medical records of our clients. But as soon as the hospitals realized we were seeking access to medical records on forced sterilizations, they halted the access. The Slovak Government, instead of rectifying the situation, supported the hospitals in their position and over the years, denied their responsibility for the violations. All of this in order to prevent forcibly sterilized Romani women from finding truth about their sterilization surgeries and seeking compensations for them.”  (See Press Release, Centre for Civil and Human Rights, April 2009)

A.S. vs. Hungary

While V.C. vs. Slovakia is the first case of forced sterilization against Roma women to be heard by the Human Right’s Court, legal precedence nonetheless exists.  In 2004, A.S. vs. Hungary was submitted to the UN’s Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) alleging that a Hungarian Roma woman was forcibly sterilized in a Hungarian hospital while being treated after her unborn child died in the womb.  According to its findings communicated in 2006, CEDAW found that the woman signed a consent form to perform a caesarian section to remove the dead fetus, but that included within the consent form was a “barely legible” handwritten note that read:

“Having knowledge of the death of the embryo inside my womb I firmly request my sterilization.  I do not intend to give birth again; neither do I wish to become pregnant.”

After the procedure but before leaving the hospital, A.S. asked the doctor when she could try to have another baby.  “It was only then when she was informed as to the meaning of “sterilization.”’  (See CEDAW’s findings, 2006.)

Ultimately, CEDAW found that Hungary violated Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, specifically articles 10 (h), 12 and 16 paragraph 1 (e) which state:

Article 10 (h):

States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in order to ensure to them equal rights with men in the field of education and in particular to ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women:

(…)

(h) Access to specific educational information to help to ensure the health and well being of families, including information and advice on family planning.

Article 12:

1. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in the field of health care in order to ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women, access to health- care services, including those related to family planning.

2. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1 of this article, States Parties shall ensure to women appropriate services in connexion with pregnancy, confinement and the post-natal period, granting free services where necessary, as well as adequate nutrition during pregnancy and lactation.

Article 16, paragraph 1 (e):

States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in all matters relating to marriage and family relations and in particular shall ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women:

(…)

(e) The same rights to decide freely and responsibly on the number and spacing of their children and to have access to the information, education and means to enable them to exercise these rights.

United States’ response:

In regards to forced and coercive sterilization, Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, United States Congressman Christopher Smith (R-NJ) stated, “as a matter of justice for the victims and truth about the past due to all the people of Slovakia this practice should be condemned as a grave human rights violation.”

The European Court of Human Rights is not expected to rule in the matter of V.C. vs. Slovakia for several weeks.  After their decision, either side may appeal the seven-judge ruling to the Court’s Grand Chamber.

For more information, please read the following article on NPR:  Court Hears Claim of Forced Roma Sterilization, Associated Press.

Popularity: 7% [?]

March 8, 2011 marks the 100^th anniversary of International Women’s Day, formerly known as International Working Women’s Day, when countries and organizations throughout the world commemorate the role of women in society.  On this, the centurial year, women and girls across the world, regardless of age, nationality, race, religion or any other status, can consider the strides women have made for equality, justice, safety, public health and political freedom.  International Women’s Day is also an opportunity to give a voice to all women, even those who live in regions of the world that are sometimes forgotten.

This year and for the first time, Women Deliver, an international advocacy organization dedicated to the prevention and elimination of maternal deaths, announced the “Women Deliver 100,” a list of the planet’s most inspiring people who have “delivered” to women and girls.

Among the 100 honorees are:

Iranian human rights lawyer, Shirin Ebadi, a former judge who was ousted from her position after the Islamic Revolution.  In 2003, she was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for her humanitarian efforts.  She continues to fight for democracy, the human rights of women and children, and the release of Iran’s political prisoners.

Betty Bigombe of Uganda, former Parliamentarian and peace negotiator who led mediations with the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) in 2005-2006.  In her current role as Senior Fellow at the US Institute of Peace, she conducts research on the impact armed conflict has on women and children and is the founder of the Arcadia Foundation, which works to curb government corruption.

American Pulitzer Prize-winning photojournalist, Lynsey Addario captures moving, sometimes disturbing, images of women and children in conflict zones such as Sierra Leone, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Afghanistan as well as the role of women in society.  Ms. Addario’s work can be viewed here.

As we reflect upon the advances women have made, not only globally but in our local communities as well, it is important to remember the challenges women continue to face.  As a follow up to this blog post, I would like to note that in the next month or so, I will interview one of the Women Deliver 100 honorees.  In the meantime, I encourage you to peruse Women Deliver’s complete list of inspiring and interesting human rights and women’s rights figures, which can be found here.

Popularity: 3% [?]

On Wednesday, October 27, 2010, prolific human rights attorney, Asma Jahangir, became the first female President of Pakistan’s highest organization for lawyers, The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA).  Ms. Jahangir narrowly beat Ahmed Owais by a margin of 38 votes.

Throughout the elections, Ms. Jahangir was touted as the voice of the people.  Many hope that her longstanding commitment to the advancement of human rights, rule of law, and religious freedoms will, in time, help free the Islamic Republic of Pakistan from its notoriously stringent adherence to Sharia law, which replaced Pakistan’s predominately Anglo-Saxon laws during President General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq’s process of Islamization in the 1970’s. Ms. Jahangir will also help make the courts more accessible for the common people, and bring fair and equal representation to individuals accused of crimes under Pakistan’s brutal Blasphemy Laws.

Earlier this week, Ms. Jahangir promised that, if elected, she would continue to promote equal rights for all Pakistani citizens, regardless of gender, religion or political affiliation, and that her mission as President of the SCBA will be to “serve mankind with dignity” and work towards her lifelong dream of achieving a rule of law and true democracy in Pakistan.

Ms. Jahangir’s international legal career is far-reaching and her achievements in the areas of human rights, religious freedom, and women’s rights in Pakistan are unmatched. For over thirty years, she has been a critical and outspoken opponent of two of Pakistan’s most controversial and oppressive sets of laws, specifically the former Hudood Ordinances that governed rape, adultery and other sex-related cases, as well as the Blasphemy Laws, a subsection of Pakistan’s Criminal Code, which provide strict punishments and even death for individuals accused of blasphemy against Islam, a practice that is still in effect today and is widely abused by those seeking to punish religious minorities or settle personal vendettas.

The election of Ms. Jahangir is particularly important to the people of Pakistan, especially in light of the country’s recent history of brutal treatment towards its women. In the 1980’s while Pakistan was still ruled by martial law under military President Zia-ul-Haq, Ms. Jahangir and her sister, fellow human rights attorney Hina Jilani, established the first women-owned law firm in Pakistan, which provided legal aid to women.  The two then created the highly influential Women’s Action Forum (WAF), a Pakistani women’s rights lobbying organization, which aimed to combat the systematic subordination of women in Pakistan via Zia-ul-Haq ‘s implementation of the Hudood Ordinances, purdah (the practice of physically segregating women from men and withdrawing them from society) and the Qanun-e-Shahadat or “law of testimony,” which gives a woman’s testimony only half the weight of a man’s testimony and completely excludes a woman’s testimony in Hudood cases. As a result of the lobbying and advocacy efforts of the WAF, Pakistan enacted the Women’s Protection Bill in 2006, which partially amended the Hudood Ordinance.  Ms. Jahangir and Ms. Jilani also founded the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, an independent organization that urges Pakistan to ratify and implement the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights and all related Covenants, Charters and provisions.

Over the years, Ms. Jahangir personally suffered persecution, intimidation, death threats, house arrest, and public abuse for continuing to fight for the rights of both Pakistani women who are charged with crimes of zina (adultery) and religious minorities in Pakistan, mostly Christians, who are often falsely accused of blasphemy or forced to convert to Islam. In the late 1990’s Ms. Jahangir received countless death threats and was attacked numerous times after she took prominent human rights cases; for example, the cases of 14-year old Salamat Masih, a Christian boy who was falsely accused of blasphemy and faced execution as well as Saima Sarwar, a 29-year old woman who was ultimately murdered in an “honor killing” by a gunman that her father, a businessman and mother, a gynecologist, hired after Sarwar sought a divorce from her abusive husband.

In addition to her new role as President of the SCBA, Ms. Jahangir has held the position of UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief since 2004.

The Human Rights Blog congratulates Ms. Jahangir on her well-deserved victory and hopes that she can continue her work towards the advancement of Pakistan’s women and religious minorities and the promotion of fair judges to the Pakistani judiciary!

Popularity: 4% [?]

“I find the Congolese people extraordinary, courageous, able to see joy where very few of us would. I am heartbroken by the place as well, but when we’re talking about Congo, a country where five million have died, where 200,000 women and girls have been raped, it is not okay for us to stand by and do nothing.” – Anneke van Woundenberg, Human Rights Watch

This past summer, over 500 people were raped in the eastern part of The Democratic Republic of Congo.  The most concentrated instances of violence occurred during days of July 30 through August 2 when 235 women, 13 men, 52 girls, and 3 boys were raped, and in most cases gang raped.  These acts took place in Luvungi, a village in the Walikale district of Eastern Congo, which is situated less than 20 miles from a United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo (MONUSCO) base. It is believed that armed rebel militia groups – the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR) and Mai Mai Cheka – are responsible for the attacks.  The UN also reported that during the first three weeks of August, the FDLR was responsible for attacks on nineteen other villages northeast of Shabunda, where 214 other rapes were committed.

On September 24^th, the UN took responsibility for its inadequate actions to prevent the rapes in a report to the UN Security Council.  The UN acknowledged that MONUSCO forces did not receive proper training or equipment to protect and defend civilians in Eastern Congo, despite the fact that the UN mandates that MONUSCO forces are permitted to use force to protect civilians.  As the UN News Centre states:

“[t]he report points to serious shortcomings in the preparedness and response of the local detachments of the Congolese army and the police stationed in the area. It also notes that their failure to prevent or stop the attacks was compounded by subsequent failings on the part of MONUSCO forces, which the report says did not receive any specific training in the protection of civilians.”

MONUSCO is the UN’s major organization and stabilization mission in the DRC and the UN’s most expensive and expansive program in the world.  Concentrated in Eastern Congo, MONUSCO is primarily charged with protecting and defending Congolese civilians from violence and crimes against humanity, such as rape, as well as conducting military operations.

In regards to these latest, gruesome attacks on Congolese civilians, the UN Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights explained that MONUSCO forces, while not responsible for the recent rapes, could have done more to prevent them.  In her statement regarding the reports, Navi Pillay, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights said, “[t]he scale and viciousness of these mass rapes defy belief.  Even in the eastern part of DRC where rape has been a perennial and massive problem for the past fifteen years, this incident stands out because of the extraordinarily cold-blooded and systematic way in which it appears to have been planned and executed.”

Rape as a weapon of war

Rape has been used as the primary weapon of war in the Congo since the nation’s eight year-long Civil War and was a key war tactic used in neighboring Rwanda’s genocide of 1994.  Inexpensive, immediate, and far-reaching in its effects, gang rape has long been the weapon of choice for armed rebel groups who wish to retain and expand their power.

At present, rebel warlords vie for control over Congo’s profitable mining industry.  Because one mine alone can export upwards of ten million dollars worth of minerals per month, rape is the cheapest and easiest means to keep civilians intimidated, humiliated and in a state of constant fear, thus making them completely powerless against the rebels.  Civilians who favor an opposing rebel group are often times punished with rape by the group seeking power, often done in a public way in order to shock and destroy the local community.

For example, the town of Luvungi – hit hard by gang rapes between July 30th and August 2nd – is located in the Walikale district, which houses most of the Congo’s cassiterite.  Cassiterite, the primary ore of tin, is used to power fluorescent lights and solder cell phones.  The Congo also naturally produces other valuable substances such as coltan, tungsten, tanalum and gold, which are found in cell phones, computers, flat screen TV’s and other electronics.  (In a video entitled, “Conflict Minerals 101,” John Prendergast of the Enough Project gives an easy to follow explanation of the significance of these minerals and what they mean to the people of the DRC.)

Reaction to the UN’s admission here in the US

While the UN’s surprise admission garnered widespread international attention from foreign media outlets last week, little mention was made of the report in the United States.

Last Friday,Anneke van Woudenberg, Senior Researcher for NYC-based Human Rights Watch and a well-known human rights expert in issues affecting the DRC, spoke with PBS’ Alison Stewart about this very issue on Need to Know.  The sixteen-minute segment provides a concise yet solid overview of the history of Congo’s violence as well as Ms. Woundenberg’s account what she has seen in regards to problems with MONUSCO’s response to the rapes and corruption in the Congolese Army.  Due to her decade’s worth of experience “on the ground,” Ms. Woudenberg provided powerful insight into the Congolese experience.

The Genocide Report, a look back

On Friday, October 1, 2010, I invite readers to visit the UN’s Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights’ Congo page for the release of an important document that details the violence that took place in the Congo against civilians between the years of 1993 and 2003. Known as “The Genocide Report,” the over 500-page document, which Ms. Woudenberg mentioned in her interview above, sheds light on the many  horrific attacks against Congolese civilians that were never previously reported.  The report also places blame for the violence, citing the involvement of Rwandan troops and rebel militias.

Finally, it is relevant to note that The Genocide Report has been deemed controversial for the following reasons.  After a draft was leaked to the press earlier this month, Rwandan and Ugandan authorities vehemently denied the accuracy of the data contained in the report as well as strong implications that the two nations played instrumental roles in attacks against Congolese civilians.  Both nations subsequently threatened to pull its troops from UN peacekeeping missions unless the document was changed.  While the latest reports project that the language of tomorrow’s final version will be “toned down” from the leaked draft, The Genocide Report will nonetheless place responsibility for the genocide with the Rwandan army and will still provide important details of which the entire world should be made aware.

Link to “The Genocide Report” entitled, DRC: Mapping human rights violations 1993-2003

Popularity: 4% [?]