DON’T JUST STAND THERE. STAND UP.
On the 26th of March at the European Convention Centre in Luxembourg, Aline, an exiled rape survivor from Burundi, turned to the audience and said about the many men who had raped her: “Maybe they think they’re giving me a thousand reasons to hate myself, or to commit suicide… Instead, they’ve given me one thousand and one reasons to fight.”
The Stand Speak Rise Up conference, an initiative of HRH The Grand Duchess of Luxembourg in collaboration with the Mukwege Foundation and We are not Weapons of War, was created with the belief that change lies within survivors of sexual violence: in their ability to heal; in their power to lead; and, despite their perpetrators’ cruellest efforts, in their enduring humanity.
The recently-released Stand Speak Rise Up white paper aims to rally support around their initiatives: innovative projects undertaken by survivors for survivors that are crucial to their empowerment and to that of future generations. Their insight into situations on the ground places them in a position that Michelle Bachelet, former President of Chile, considers singularly valuable at the international level: “People-centred policies work a lot better because they consider what people feel needs to be done”– something the Grand Duchess had in mind when she invited survivors of sexual violence to be in direct conversation with figures of international influence.
“People-centred policies work a lot better because they consider what people feel needs to be done.” — Michelle Bachelet
Real conversation is exactly what took place: an exchange of ideas and possible solutions to the use of rape as a weapon of war. The context for that conversation (or rather, the basis for it) was the overwhelming support that the survivors showed one another, during both the survivor-retreat organised by the Mukwege Foundation and the conference itself. The gala in particular was a moment of extraordinary collective strength, where survivors were brave enough to take the stage and share their accounts: of a woman raped by so many men in a row that she stopped counting them, and who remains, to this day, paralysed; of a 7-year-old girl who disappeared only to return 8 years later, mad, and unable to say what had happened; of a woman buried alive; of a pregnant woman who had her stomach sliced open; of a father forced to rape his daughter, and a son forced to rape his mother. When, upon hearing these accounts, one of the survivors collapsed, her sisters took her in their arms and held her close until she rose again, climbing the steps to the stage to be seen and acknowledged.
A South Sudanese survivor from the SEMA (the global network of victims and survivors to end wartime sexual violence) later said, “I’m not here to give you a reality check– I’m here to demand your involvement.” It was clear that these women had not reached a state of empowerment only to be pitied: they had taken their seats at the table with an expectation of our collective understanding and commitment to action. The least any of us can do now is not disappoint them.
“I’m not here to give you a reality check– I’m here to demand your involvement.” — a survivor from South Sudan
What did we understand? Regarding the necessary holistic support of survivors, we know that their empowerment is only possible through an integrated approach addressing their physical, psychological, legal and socio-economic needs. This, said Esther Dingemans, is vital to the healing and reintegration of survivors in their communities. Supporting them as they strive to become leaders, and to speak up against rape and stigma in their communities, is a direct way of ensuring that rape no longer be considered, as Bernadette Sayo said, ‘commonplace’. The holistic care system must also be adapted to specific cultural and social factors on the ground (religion, for example, can be a gateway to communities and to change). Crucial, too, is that survivors’ access to medical care be safe, free of stigma and of corruption by the local courts.
Care is of course not the whole solution. The rest involves tackling deeper, more systemic issues pertaining to gender inequality and economic and legal disempowerment: “If we do not change the perception that women are second-class citizens,” said Dr Denis Mukwege, “We will continue seeing violence perpetrated against them everywhere.” Professor Muhammad Yunus pinned it down to economic disempowerment, stating that — regardless of conflict — dire things happen to women whose economic situation is dire to begin with. Reparations are vital to survivors’ empowerment; hence the Mukwege Foundation’s International Reparations Initiative, which seeks to help them move from a state of victimhood to both economic and personal empowerment– the crime having been recognised and the harm compensated for.
“If we do not change the perception that women are second-class citizens, we will continue seeing violence perpetrated against them everywhere.” — Dr Denis Mukwege
Regarding the need for justice, we have learned, first of all (in the words of Nadia Murad) that it is the most needed ‘cure’ for survivors’ trauma and the principal means of counterattacking what Christine Schuler called ‘sexual terrorism’. Borrowing the words of Céline Bardet (the strategic partner of the conference) the issue is so specific and complex that it must be approached with all the intelligence, sensitivity and creativity that our international community has to offer. Jean-Christophe Rufin demonstrated all three when he said that the reason why women are used as weapons of war is because they are so integral to the construction (and therefore the destruction) of societies; hence why Pramila Patten considered the need to end the stigma that facilitates rape not just a moral imperative, but “a vital component of maintaining peace and international security.”
What actions can we take? One should note that all — be they at the societal, economic or legal level — are interdependent, insofar as they are bound by two common threads: the healing and empowerment of survivors and their children. The survivors of SEMA are creating and participating in many solution-building efforts. Ekhlas Khudhur Bajoo, a Yazidi survivor, talked about innovative ways of educating girls using technology, specifically through private online counselling and mentorship (in her case, through the Tech over Trauma programme); education in general might be considered the primary vehicle for tackling Dr Mukwege’s use of term of ‘toxic masculinity’; Feride Rushiti mentioned engaging religious leaders (to turn stigma on its head and declare rape a sin). Ajna Jusić talked about approximately 35,000 children born of rape and forced motherhood during the Bosnian war who were never recognised by the government. Immediate action must be taken against all governments refusing these children birth records and access to medical and educational systems. Children born of wartime rape currently suffer the same social neglect, ostracism (and often, death) within their communities as their mothers: Aline Mwamini of SEMA spoke of a child who was burned alive a few months ago. Our support of survivor networks on the ground — actively combatting the degree of stigma that can lead to such an act — is absolutely necessary.
At the economic level, it has become clear that survivors require multi-sector collaboration between finance, tech and NGOs. Professor Yunus fathered microcredit with the creation of the Grameen Bank in the 1980s. Today, we can think about ideas like a survivor-centric investment fund, as Thomas Seale suggested; and, more broadly speaking, humanitarian impact bonds. We know that micro-financing is key to survivors’ societal reintegration, and we have the means to make it happen. As Professor Yunus said, “I don’t understand why people are lending money to others who already have money. They should be lending money to people who don’t.” What is lacking, then? The general consensus says: political will.
Collaboration is also essential where justice is concerned. Philip Grant suggested that putting perpetrators behind bars will require much more efficient coordination between physicians, police, civil society organisations and national and international courts across the world; it will also require more creative (and uncorrupted) forms of evidence-gathering, probably through the development of new, safe technologies. Whichever evidence is gathered must come directly from the survivors themselves. There are some existing tech solutions: BackUp — a secure mobile website developed by Céline Bardet in collaboration with InTech — tracks patterns and perpetrators of sexual violence based on reliable, immediate personal data (photos, voice notes, texts, videos…) recording the date, time and location of the crime (mobiles and smartphones being widely accessible, and often the only remaining link between individuals and communities). It also coordinates survivors’ access to crucial support services. The Transitional Justice Clinic provides tech mentoring for national judicial officials, police, prosecutors and victim attorneys in multiple languages which, during the Sepur Zarco case in Guatemala, resulted in the conviction of two military officers for sexual slavery during the civil war. These kinds of tech solutions require time and money to develop and are in urgent need of more funding.
On the ground, as well as training specialised police and war crime units, governments must address existing language barriers that prevent countries from integrating any progress made on gender justice. Practitioners in Latin America, for example, must coordinate to share best practices — said Maxine Marcus. Indeed, it seems international tribunals are not the only answer: the future lies in seizing opportunities within national justice systems. In other words, said Alain Werner, every state must begin doing their own work for survivors. Meanwhile at the international level, it is vital that we achieve a state of transparency for countries involved in wars, to end the hypocrisy of taking a humanitarian stance while indirectly, or directly, fuelling conflict. We can also knock at the doors of corporations that shamelessly continue to facilitate war– we all remember the blood diamonds case in DRC. Let us finally hold states accountable, said Philip Grant, for what is happening to these women.
States are similarly responsible for the sexual violence occurring on migrant routes: “We are forcing people to take these dangerous routes for lack of a legitimate alternative”, said an attendee. In reality, the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees is broad enough to cover CRSV-asylum, if only refugee law were properly enforced, rather than restricted to policies that do not cover sexual violence. Knowing that 30–70% of women in refugee camps experience sexual violence, implementing a screening question upon their arrival — asking them whether or not it has happened to them — would be a start. Following up on this knowledge with access to medical care is harder. Although, said Sarah Chynoweth, when only 3% of men were disclosing their experiences of sexual violence aboard the Aquarius on the Mediterranean, The Women’s Refugee Commission put up posters upon their arrival linking their knowledge of what had happened to an offer of medical and psychological support and to undiagnosed health impacts. The hook proved very effective and 33% of the men came forward. This could apply just as easily to women asylum seekers, especially those travelling with children (although, as Céline Bardet reminded us, we must look to examples like the Aquarius to remind ourselves that this issue widely affects men and boys, too). The weakest links, unsurprisingly, are increased free medical resources, and crucially, said Pr Doris Schopper, continuity of care.
“What is the definition of justice?” a survivor asked, “Is it the castration and mutilation of perpetrators who have done the same to us? Is 12 years in prison really enough?” When you consider the life-long trauma, extensive physical damage, sexually-transmitted diseases, the assassination of family and friends, sexual slavery… jail time doesn’t seem to quite cover it. On the other hand, we no longer live in a world where justice is synonymous with death; we have other methods of punishment, born from the notion of human reform. Should we be looking to rehabilitate perpetrators– make them part of the solution? These are fundamental questions that extend beyond the immediate purpose of this article. They do, however, raise an important point, beautifully put by Jean-Christophe Rufin: this conference marked a key moment in history and the beginning of a new era for victimhood; where victims of rape are no longer seen as traumatised and damaged bodies in need of repair, but rather as individuals integral to the flourishing of society. In other words, there is life beyond trauma: not just in the form of rehabilitation and reintegration into society, but in leadership, too; in the chance to shape the fate of future generations. When a woman has survived the cruellest weapon of war she is stronger than she has ever been, regardless of whether she decides to speak up. If and when she does, we had better listen; and come running.
“The fight to end war rape,” said HRH the Grand Duchess of Luxembourg, “Can only be won by including them. Their voices must be heard.”
We urge you to respond to the Stand Speak Rise Up Call to Action here and explore HRH’s organisation Stand Speak Rise Up for the support of survivor initiatives. #StandSpeakRiseUp #EndRapeInWar https://www.standspeakriseup.lu/about
This article was co-authored by Sophie de Beistegui
