S
Sunny
Guest
The Iraq Legacy: Millions of Women's Lives Destroyed
By Nadje Al-Ali, Posted March 31, 2008.
Politicians hoped the Iraq war would see the advance of women's
rights. Instead, Iraqi women face violence, sexual abuse and
segregation.
On International Women's Day in 2004, nearly a year after the invasion
of Iraq, George Bush, the US President, addressed 250 women from
around the world who had gathered at the White House. "The advance of
women's rights and the advance of liberty are ultimately inseparable,"
he said. Supported by his wife Laura, who herself hailed the
administration's success in achieving greater rights for Afghan women,
the president claimed that "the advance of freedom in the greater
Middle East has given new rights and new hopes to women there."
Advance. New rights. New hopes. Stirring stuff, but totally empty
claims. In fact, Iraq's women have become the biggest losers in the
post-invasion disaster. While men have borne the brunt in terms of
direct armed violence, women have been particularly hard-hit by
poverty, malnutrition, lack of health services and a crumbling
infrastructure, not least chronic power cuts which in some areas of
Iraq see electricity only available for two hours a day.
More than 70 percent of the four million people forced out of their
homes in the past five years in Iraq have been women and children.
Many have found temporary shelter with relatives who share their
limited space, food and supplies. But this, according to the UN
refugee agency, has created "rising tension between families over
scarce resources." Many displaced women and children find themselves
in unsanitary and overcrowded public buildings under constant threat
of eviction.
Meanwhile, rampant political violence has also engulfed women in Iraq.
Islamist militias with links to political parties in government and
insurgent groups opposing both the government and the occupation have
particularly targeted Iraqi women and girls. A new Islamist puritanism
is seeing women and girls being violently pressured to conform to
rigid dress codes. Personal movement and social behaviour are being
"regulated," with acid attacks (deliberately designed to disfigure
"transgressive" women's faces), just one of the sanctions of the new
moral guardians of post-Saddam Iraq.
Suad F, a former accountant and mother of four children who lives in a
previously mixed neighbourhood in Baghdad, was telling me during a
visit to Amman in 2006: "I resisted for a long time, but last year
also started wearing the hijab, after I was threatened by several
Islamist militants in front of my house. They are terrorising the
whole neighbourhood, behaving as if they were in charge. And they are
actually controlling the area. No one dares to challenge them. A few
months ago they distributed leaflets around the area warning people to
obey them and demanding that women should stay at home."
By 2008, the threat posed by Islamist militias and extremist groups
has gone far beyond dress codes and calls for gender segregation at
universities. Despite -- or even partly because of US and UK rhetoric
about liberation and women's rights -- women have been pushed back
into their homes.
Women who have a public profile -- as teachers, doctors, academics,
lawyers, NGO activists or politicians -- are now systematically
threatened, seen as legitimate targets for assassinations. Criminal
gangs have joined in. Though rarely reported in Britain, the criminal
kidnapping of women for ransom, for trafficking into forced
prostitution outside Iraq, and for out and out sexual abuse have all
taken root in post-Saddam Iraq.
Killings in Basra in 2007 provide a snapshot. According to a study by
the Basra Security Committee, 133 women were killed last year in the
UK-controlled city, either by religious vigilantes or as a result of
so-called honour killings. Of these, 79 were deemed to have "violated
Islamic teachings," 47 were killed to preserve supposed family honour,
and the remaining seven were targeted for their political
affiliations. As Amnesty International said last year, "politically
active women, those who did not follow a strict dress code, and women
[who are] human rights defenders are increasingly at risk of abuses,
including by armed groups and religious extremists."
The invasion and occupation of Iraq has also directly added to
suffering of women. While aerial bombings of residential areas have
been responsible for thousands of civilian deaths, many Iraqis have
lost their lives while being shot at by American or British troops.
Whole families have been wiped out as they approached a checkpoint or
did not recognize areas marked as prohibited.
In addition to the killing of innocent women, men and children, the
occupation forces have also been engaged in other forms of violence
against women. There have been numerous documented accounts of
physical assaults at checkpoints and during house searches. American
and British forces have also arrested wives, sisters and daughters of
suspected insurgents in order to pressure them to surrender. Recent
figures show that the US and Iraqi forces are currently holding
(mostly without charge) many thousands of detainees, and even where
women have not been detained as bargaining chips they have spent
frantic months or even years trying to discover where their family
members were being held and why.
Women in Iraq suffered from discrimination and violence well before
2003. Deep-rooted patriarchy (especially in rural and tribal areas)
and the pervasive repression of all women politically resistant to
Saddam's Ba'athist project were hallmarks of life in Iraq in the
1960s, 70s and 80s.
But there were subtleties which gave women relative freedom. First,
Saddam's political acuity meant that he was perfectly capable of a
policy of "state feminism" that partly shifted patriarchal power away
from fathers, husbands and brothers, investing this power in the state
itself -- Saddam himself becoming the father of the nation. As long as
you steered clear of all oppositional politics, this created 20 years
(from the late 1960s on) of moderate liberty for at least Iraq's urban
middle-class women.
Then, with the growing militarization of Iraq after the Iran-Iraq war
and the major reverse of the Gulf war of 1991, Saddam switched policy
toward cultivating political allegiance through tribal leaders. The
upshot for women? A re-assertion of traditional conservative values
that saw women's rights used as bargaining chips and their bodies the
repositories of tribal and familial "honor."
As he stood before his female audience in 2004 did President Bush
actually understand any of this? Was it factored at all? Or instead,
did the US's infamous lack of post-invasion planning include a blind
spot over women's rights? Perhaps George and Laura would like to
update us.
http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/80609/?page=entire
By Nadje Al-Ali, Posted March 31, 2008.
Politicians hoped the Iraq war would see the advance of women's
rights. Instead, Iraqi women face violence, sexual abuse and
segregation.
On International Women's Day in 2004, nearly a year after the invasion
of Iraq, George Bush, the US President, addressed 250 women from
around the world who had gathered at the White House. "The advance of
women's rights and the advance of liberty are ultimately inseparable,"
he said. Supported by his wife Laura, who herself hailed the
administration's success in achieving greater rights for Afghan women,
the president claimed that "the advance of freedom in the greater
Middle East has given new rights and new hopes to women there."
Advance. New rights. New hopes. Stirring stuff, but totally empty
claims. In fact, Iraq's women have become the biggest losers in the
post-invasion disaster. While men have borne the brunt in terms of
direct armed violence, women have been particularly hard-hit by
poverty, malnutrition, lack of health services and a crumbling
infrastructure, not least chronic power cuts which in some areas of
Iraq see electricity only available for two hours a day.
More than 70 percent of the four million people forced out of their
homes in the past five years in Iraq have been women and children.
Many have found temporary shelter with relatives who share their
limited space, food and supplies. But this, according to the UN
refugee agency, has created "rising tension between families over
scarce resources." Many displaced women and children find themselves
in unsanitary and overcrowded public buildings under constant threat
of eviction.
Meanwhile, rampant political violence has also engulfed women in Iraq.
Islamist militias with links to political parties in government and
insurgent groups opposing both the government and the occupation have
particularly targeted Iraqi women and girls. A new Islamist puritanism
is seeing women and girls being violently pressured to conform to
rigid dress codes. Personal movement and social behaviour are being
"regulated," with acid attacks (deliberately designed to disfigure
"transgressive" women's faces), just one of the sanctions of the new
moral guardians of post-Saddam Iraq.
Suad F, a former accountant and mother of four children who lives in a
previously mixed neighbourhood in Baghdad, was telling me during a
visit to Amman in 2006: "I resisted for a long time, but last year
also started wearing the hijab, after I was threatened by several
Islamist militants in front of my house. They are terrorising the
whole neighbourhood, behaving as if they were in charge. And they are
actually controlling the area. No one dares to challenge them. A few
months ago they distributed leaflets around the area warning people to
obey them and demanding that women should stay at home."
By 2008, the threat posed by Islamist militias and extremist groups
has gone far beyond dress codes and calls for gender segregation at
universities. Despite -- or even partly because of US and UK rhetoric
about liberation and women's rights -- women have been pushed back
into their homes.
Women who have a public profile -- as teachers, doctors, academics,
lawyers, NGO activists or politicians -- are now systematically
threatened, seen as legitimate targets for assassinations. Criminal
gangs have joined in. Though rarely reported in Britain, the criminal
kidnapping of women for ransom, for trafficking into forced
prostitution outside Iraq, and for out and out sexual abuse have all
taken root in post-Saddam Iraq.
Killings in Basra in 2007 provide a snapshot. According to a study by
the Basra Security Committee, 133 women were killed last year in the
UK-controlled city, either by religious vigilantes or as a result of
so-called honour killings. Of these, 79 were deemed to have "violated
Islamic teachings," 47 were killed to preserve supposed family honour,
and the remaining seven were targeted for their political
affiliations. As Amnesty International said last year, "politically
active women, those who did not follow a strict dress code, and women
[who are] human rights defenders are increasingly at risk of abuses,
including by armed groups and religious extremists."
The invasion and occupation of Iraq has also directly added to
suffering of women. While aerial bombings of residential areas have
been responsible for thousands of civilian deaths, many Iraqis have
lost their lives while being shot at by American or British troops.
Whole families have been wiped out as they approached a checkpoint or
did not recognize areas marked as prohibited.
In addition to the killing of innocent women, men and children, the
occupation forces have also been engaged in other forms of violence
against women. There have been numerous documented accounts of
physical assaults at checkpoints and during house searches. American
and British forces have also arrested wives, sisters and daughters of
suspected insurgents in order to pressure them to surrender. Recent
figures show that the US and Iraqi forces are currently holding
(mostly without charge) many thousands of detainees, and even where
women have not been detained as bargaining chips they have spent
frantic months or even years trying to discover where their family
members were being held and why.
Women in Iraq suffered from discrimination and violence well before
2003. Deep-rooted patriarchy (especially in rural and tribal areas)
and the pervasive repression of all women politically resistant to
Saddam's Ba'athist project were hallmarks of life in Iraq in the
1960s, 70s and 80s.
But there were subtleties which gave women relative freedom. First,
Saddam's political acuity meant that he was perfectly capable of a
policy of "state feminism" that partly shifted patriarchal power away
from fathers, husbands and brothers, investing this power in the state
itself -- Saddam himself becoming the father of the nation. As long as
you steered clear of all oppositional politics, this created 20 years
(from the late 1960s on) of moderate liberty for at least Iraq's urban
middle-class women.
Then, with the growing militarization of Iraq after the Iran-Iraq war
and the major reverse of the Gulf war of 1991, Saddam switched policy
toward cultivating political allegiance through tribal leaders. The
upshot for women? A re-assertion of traditional conservative values
that saw women's rights used as bargaining chips and their bodies the
repositories of tribal and familial "honor."
As he stood before his female audience in 2004 did President Bush
actually understand any of this? Was it factored at all? Or instead,
did the US's infamous lack of post-invasion planning include a blind
spot over women's rights? Perhaps George and Laura would like to
update us.
http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/80609/?page=entire