Friday, February 23, 2007

Isn't this sad?

Violating Iraqi Women
Yifat Susskind
February 22, 2007



Yifat Susskind is communications director of MADRE , an international women's human rights organization. She is the author of a new report on violence against women in U.S.-occupied Iraq.

The international news media is flooded with images of a woman in a pink headscarf recounting a shattering experience of rape by members of the Iraqi National Police. Most of the media coverage has focused on her taboo-breaking decision to speak publicly about the assault, but has missed two crucial points for understanding—and combating—sexual violence by Iraqi police recruits.

As Iraqi women’s organizations have documented, sexualized torture is a routine horror in Iraqi jails. While this woman may be the first Iraqi rape survivor to appear on television, she is hardly the first to accuse the Iraqi National Police of sexual assault. At least nine Iraqi organizations as well as Amnesty International, the U.N. Assistance Mission in Iraq and the Brussels Tribunal have documented the sexualized torture of Iraqi women while in police custody. These include Women’s Will, Occupation Watch, the Women’s Rights Association , the Iraqi League, the Iraqi National Association of Human Rights, the Human Rights’ Voice of Freedom, the Association of Muslim Scholars, the Iraqi Islamic Party and the Iraqi National Media and Culture Organization.

According to Iraqi human rights advocate and writer Haifa Zangana, the first question asked of female detainees in Iraq is, “Are you Sunni or Shia?” The second is, “Are you a virgin?”

Next week, MADRE , an international women’s human rights organization, will release a report that documents the widespread use of rape and other forms of torture against female detainees in Iraq by U.S. and Iraqi forces. The report includes testimonies collected by the Organization of Women’s Freedom in Iraq (OWFI) of numerous rape survivors. Since November 2005, OWFI has conducted a Women’s Prison Watch project and has found that “torture and rape are common procedure of investigation in police stations run by the militias affiliated with the government, mostly the Mahdi and Badr militias,” according to their summer 2006 report.

These are the same sectarian Shiite militias that have been prosecuting Iraq’s civil war, the same militias that stepped into the power vacuum created by the U.S. overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003 and the same militias that have been systematically attacking Iraqi women in their bid to establish an Islamist theocracy. As the occupying power in Iraq, the U.S. was obligated under the Geneva Conventions to provide security to Iraqi civilians, including protection from sex-based violence. But the U.S. military, preoccupied with battling the Iraqi insurgency, simply ignored the reign of terror that Islamist militias were imposing on women, including a campaign of assassinations, rapes, acid attacks and public beatings targeting women perceived to pose a challenge to the project of turning Iraq into a theocracy.

By 2005, the U.S. was actively aiding the militias. As the “cakewalk” envisioned by U.S. war planners quickly devolved into the quagmire is the Iraq War, the U.S. began to cultivate Shiite militias to help battle the Sunni-led insurgency. According to Newsweek, the plan was dubbed the “Salvador Option,” recalling the use of militias by the U.S. to bolster right-wing regimes in 1980s Central America. Today, the Mahdi Army controls the police forces of Baghdad and Basra , Iraq’s two largest cities. The Badr Brigade is headquartered in Iraq’s Ministry of Interior, which directs the country’s police, intelligence and paramilitary units. And the United Nations special investigator on torture is reporting that torture in Iraq is worse now than under Saddam Hussein.

It’s no surprise that we’re hearing allegations of rape against the Iraqi National Police, considering who trained them. DynCorp, the private contractor that the Bush Administration hired to prepare Iraq’s new police force for duty, has an ugly record of violence against women. The company was contracted by the federal government in the 1990s to train police in the Balkans. Human Rights Watch reports that DynCorp employees were found to have systematically committed sex crimes against women, including “owning” young women as slaves . One DynCorp site supervisor videotaped himself raping two women. Despite evidence, the contractors never faced criminal charges.

Contrary to its rhetoric and its international legal obligations, the Bush Administration has refused to protect women’s rights in Iraq. In fact, it has decisively traded women’s rights for cooperation from the Islamists it has helped boost to power. Torture of women in detention is one symptom of this broader crisis.

5 comments:

Sara Bishop said...

here's a random question for someone who's pro-choice. Why isnt the pro-choice community up in arms over this case: http://jordan.newlifeshasta.com/index.php
more than one doctor refused to treat this woman for her maternal illness because she exercised her right to choose and refused to execute her baby for being ill. Why arent they trying to have their medical licences revoked? Doesnt the right to choose include the right to choose to keep your baby, or is it only to kill them? (and I'm not attacking you, I really want to understand!! And you're the only adamently prochoice person I know!)

Anonymous said...

Well I can't speak for the whole pro-choice community, but perhaps they don't know much about it. That seems to me to be a personal site that is a memorial to their son, and I read through it and although they were angry about their doctor (as they should be) they don't seem to be making a huge deal out of it themselves. But I agree that doctors should not be able to refuse their patients the treatment they require, just because they disagree with their patients decisions.

But back to the original article, yes it is increbibly sad, especially since it seems to be coming mostly from the side that our country's administration is backing. Wow, things have gotten so much better for the Iraqi's hasn't it?

Kathleen said...

I can't speak for anyone else, but I didn't get the impression that a doctor refused to care for her, just that they advised her to get an abortion because the baby would die almost immediately after birth. But maybe I didn't delve deeply enough into it. I agree that doctors should treat according to a patients wishes, but then, the patients themselves refused two doctors advice also, so maybe they felt that the patients didn't realize how serious it was. I just don't know enough to comment. And thanks for commenting on the original article, stupid rapists.

Sara Bishop said...

she had Hyperemesis, a life threatening disease for pregnant women, which causes them to pretty much be allergic to the baby and throw up all the time, and her doctor refused to authorize the medicine she needed to cope with it once they decided to keep the baby.

It's just a horrible story, and it seems like it would make pro-choice people mad since they get so mad at doctors who refuse to do abortions, wouldnt they get equally as mad at doctors who refuse to treat patients because they wont get an abortion?

Kathleen said...

Yes, actually, as a prochoice person, I am outraged, although I would like to hear from the doctors' perspective before judging. But yes, just hearing your description, I am outraged. I would also have to say that most prochoice people don't LIKE abortion, again, they just think it's necessary for women to have the choice - and what if she found all this out and wanted an abortion but she couldn't get one - wouldn't that be just as wrong as the doctors who refused her treatment during pregnancy because of her choice?