Sexual and Gender‐Based Violence. A Major Component of 'New Wars'. The Example of the Civil War in Liberia

List of Content

1. NEW WARS

2. WHAT ARE NEW WARS MADE OF?

3. SEXUAL VIOLENCE AS A MAIOR COMPONENT OF NEW WARS
3.1 What is Sexual and Gender Based Violence?
3.2 WHY SGBV IS IMPORTANT FOR NEW WARS

4. THE CASE OF LIBERIA
4.1 A Short Conflict Overview
4.2 SGBV in Liberia

5. FINDINGS
5.1 Was the conflict in Liberia a New War?
5.2 How far Have we Come? Where do we go?
5.3 FURTHERDISCUSSIONS

6. CONCLUSION

1. New Wars

For the last few decades, wars all over the world have not been the same as they used to be. Their appearance has changed fundamentally, and thus it seems inac­curate to call them just the same as wars as we know them. ‘Old Wars’ until the beginning of the 20th century were what we would perceive as the ‘classic’ type of war, with two states fighting against each other on a military level (Kaldor 2010: 15ff.). They are, what Clausewitz called „a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means" (Clausewitz 2017). Those disputes usual­ly ended after a huge, final battle, which ultimately led to a political decision of some sort. Today, this type of warfare is almost non-existent anymore when it comes to conflicts all over the world. So, what do we call these wars? Kaldor and later Munkler both suggested the term ‘New Wars’ as the most fitting for what we see on a global scale today (Kaldor 2010: Iff.; Munkler 2015: 48). But what are these ‘New Wars’, what makes them so significantly different? This question will be answered in this essay, with a specific focus on sexual and gender-based vio­lence (SGBV) and especially on violence against women as one of the most im­portant and shocking factors of those new types of conflicts. It will be highlighted on the example of the African state Liberia, which has recently found its way out of conflict, but is still struggling with the consequences and results of the civil war that has eroded the country with all its institutions and even more importantly, its society. Can this conflict be classified as a ‘New War’ when considering the dimen­sion of SGBV? And how far has the state come in term of gender eguality and the fight against SGBV since the end of the 15-year period of civil war that has impact­ed the country on so many levels?

2. What are New Wars Made of?

When asking the question of what ‘New Wars’ are made of, there are several an­swers one might receive since the term is challengable. It encompasses a wide ar­ray of concepts that work together to define a new way of warfare that has emerged over the last century. Since this study is rather limited it will only focus on the definitions by Kaldor and Munkler, as well as one essay by Chinkin and Kal- dor. These can be seen as established and generally accepted. Kaldor described ‘New Wars’ as a new type of organized violence (Kaldor 2010: 1), which still has an inherit political nature, but there are no clear distinctions anymore between war, organized crime and large-scale violations of human rights (ibid.: 2). Munkler even describes them as being ‘Staatszerfallskriege’, so wars in still young, but already failing states (Munkler 2015: 18f). They have a similar pattern as "Staatsbild- ungskriege”, in which the end result was the emergence of a new state, but they ultimately achieve quite the opposite. They underlie a continuous political control from diverse international actors (ibid.: 19). Being led mostly like partisanwarfare, they are not confined to only a small place of combat, but spread across the coun­try and sometimes even further. The main difference to the former ‘Old wars’ is probably the missing final battle, which led to a political decision (ibid.: 25). Kaldor states that the main thing that is new about these wars is “the growing illegitimacy of these wars and the need for a cosmopolitan political response” (2010: 3). Chin­kin and Kaldor see the main differences in ‘New Wars’ in the dimensions of types of actors, goals, the forms of finance and the tactics and means used.

In contrast to ‘Old Wars’, the main actors of ‘New Wars’ are “networks of state and non-state actors [including] regular armed forces, paramilitary groups, warlords” (2013: 169f.) and the like. The majority of combatants are still male, but also fe­male actors can be found, who are usually portrayed in an unrealistic, mythical way to fulfill either the picture of the epic warrior women of the own race or the monsterthatwas the enemy woman (ibid.: 170f.}.

Concerning the goals of this new type of conflict, it is less classical geopolitical in­terests that motivate this warfare, but more a specific identity (ethnicity, religion, tribe) which is fought for. This identity, which is even amplified during war, is also closely related to gender (ibid.: 171f.).

Financing ‘New Wars’ is no more the task of taxation and other mean of the state, but today their financial support stems from the international economy (ibid.: 175). Main participants develop a lifestyle based solely on the war, living of its benefits. It becomes a lifestyle, which the main actors are interested in continuing (Munkler 2015: 29). This explains why peace areements are usually not taken as seriously (ibid.: 28; Chinkin/Kaldor 2013: 176).

The tactics or means of ‘New Wars’ is a very different one compared to what the classic warfare is made of. In contrast to ‘Old Wars’, where 80% of victims were state combatants, today 80% of victims are civilians, and only 20% are actual com­batants (ibid: 173; Munkler 2015: 28). Sexual and gender-based violence is a ma­jor component of this “psychological warfare”, which aims at crushing the morale of the enemy population (ibid.). Munkler highlighted this even more, stating that gang rapes happen almost daily and rape has become a well-used strategy to hu­miliate a great quantity of victims (Munkler 2015: 30). He partly explains this with the rising amount of child soldiers, who gegt a chance to fight and to assert their dominance which is rather new and exciting for them (ibid.: 36ff.). Even though wars always had a sexual dimension, but through the new phenomenon of child soldiers and the new horrific intensity of sexual violence it has become a promi­nent feature of ‘New Wars’ (ibid.: 39). In the next chapter we will have a deeper look into what this new phenomenon of sexual and gender-based violence entails and how it has established itself. Our main focus will be on violence against women as the main victims of SGBV.

3. Sexual Violence as a Major Component of New Wars

Sexual and Gender Based Violence (SGBV) has always been a part of war, no matter if old or new (Munkler 2015: 39). But never before where reporting rates this high and the usage so widespread as within ‘New Wars’. Still, political scientists have tended to deem it as just another negative side effect of war and decided to there­fore overlook it mostly (Alison 2008: 40; Cohen/Nordas 2014: 418). But concern­ing the new extent it has reached in recent years, a deeper look into the matter has been proven necessary to understand the new dynamics warfare has acquired.

With SGBV having reached a new peak in recent decades, shocking examples e.g. in Rwanda and Yugoslavia (Alison 2008: 44; Munkler 2015: 39) or in the Japanese comfort stations during World War II (Chinkin/Kaldor 2013: 174; Buckel: 2008) have come to global attention. The international community was forced to react and act upon these happenings.

With UNSCR 1325 in 2000, the UN has acknowledged the problem and tried to ini­tiate the elimination of the prospect of SGBV especially violence against women, since it is the most frequently occurring form (UNHCR 2003: 10), and other major problems concerning the equality and empowerment of women. Further resolu­tions have been passed, e.g. UNSCR 1820 (2008), which describes explicit strate­gies for action, but there is still progress to be made (De Carvalho/Schia 2013: 183). But what exactly is SGBV? Since the term is used in a variety of ways and in various definitions, we will first have a closer look at was this concept entails.

3.1 What is Sexual and Gender Based Violence?

To grasp the concept of sexual and gender-based violence, we will begin with hav­ing a look at several definitions by international organizations, mainly the United Nations and its committees. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Dis­crimination Against Women (CEDAW) defines gender-based violence as “a form of discrimination that seriously inhibits women’s ability to enjoy rights and freedoms on a basis of equality with men” (CEDAW 1992), which already proposes a strong focus on girls and women, but this might be due to the committee’s initial focus on women. The WHO gives a more inclusive approach, stating that SGBV “comprises not only rape and attempted rape, but also sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, forced early marriage, domestic violence, marital rape, trafficking and female geni­tal mutilation.”^[I] From this definition we can already guess the extent this termi­nology encompasses, especially the violent aspect that can be seen in recent con­flicts. To focus on all aspects of the term would exceed the scope of this essay, so we will mainly focus on a sub-section, violence against women. We will further reference it as SGBV as well, since it is an integral part of all sexual and gender­based violence and the terms are often used interchangeably (UNHCR 2003: 10). The UN refugee agency UNHCR defines it as follows:

The term violence against women refers to any act of gender-based vio­lence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual and psychologi­cal harm to women and girls, whether occurring in private or in public. Vio­lence against women is a form of gender-based violence and includes sexual violence (ibid.).

Even though sexual and gender-based violence is not an exclusive term that only includes violence against women, we will mainly focus on them because they are the main target for and survivors of attacks in times of war (ibid.). Men and boys have been frequent targets as well, but incidents are highly under-reported and their occurrence is lower than sexual violence aimed directly at the female popula­tion (Charlesworth/Chinkin 2016: 183 and 190; Leiby 2009: 446). The focus on women and girls can be explained due to the perceived caring role of women as biological reproducers of a nation (Alison: 2008: 42 and 47; Chinkin/Kaldor 2013: 175) and as the classic victim that is in need of the protection of a strong (male) guardian (Alison 2009: 44). Their part has always been that of the ‘prey’ (Munkler 2015: 143). But why has its occurrence increased with the emergence of ‘New Wars’?

3.2 Why SGBV is important for New Wars

The role of sexual and gender-based violence in wars has completely changed over the last century. It might have been just the negative by-product of conflict until the beginning of the last century, but recently it has been used in a completely dif­ferent manner, creating global attention towards the topic of SGBV in crises. In comparison to ‘Old Wars’, today SGBV is used as a warfare tactic or as a weapon, targeted towards (mainly female) civilians to scare and suppress them (Chin­kin/Kaldor 2013: 173ff.; Cohen/Nordas 2014: 418; De Carvalho/Schia 2013: 182;

Munkler 2015: 29; UNICEF: 1996). There are several different goals perpetrators of such violence might have in mind. A very simple one might just be the removal of enemy groups from their initial home, breaking their spirits and preventing them to endure until the war is over. To go even further, victims might be forced to support the offender as their only way of surviving (Munkler 2015: 29). Women and girls often rely on sex as a trading commodity to ensure their viability (Thom- as/Tiessen 2010: 485).

A greater goal than just the displacement of a people or the force to support the enemy might be the ethnic cleansing of a whole tribe. By raping and impregnating the female population of an ethnicity, rebel groups terrorize whole communities, leaving women and children behind in despair (Alison 2008: 50; Leiby 2009: 447; Robinson 2006: 147). These acts leave permanent scars on the victims; not only physical, but also psychological. But this is exactly the goal: to break the basis of the enemy population. The belief in women as the reproducers of a community plays a part in this as well. By destroying the foundation of it, the whole communi­ty will possibly go extinct.

Going even further, actual rape camps have been established, keeping women and girls in captivity to be raped by enemy perpetuators, sometimes until they are pregnant and it is too late to abort the child (Chinkin/Kaldor 2013: 174; Eboe- Osuji 2012: 84; Thomas/Tiessen 2010: 494). Examples of these rape camps can be found in recent conflicts in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Chinkin/Kaldor 2013: 173f.; Thomas/Tiessen 2010: 494), Syria (Chinkin/Kaldor 2013: 174) and former Yugo­slavia (Alison 2008: 47; Eboe-Osuji 2012: 249), where over 20.000 women were raped during the duration of the war (Alison 2008: 47). A very similar concept were the Japanese ‘comfort women’, event though they were not mainly kept to humiliate their race or community, but to please soldiers in World War II (Buckel 2009: 209; Burnet 2012: 100; Chinkin/Kaldor 2013: 174; Eboe-Osuji 2012: 219). The effects for these comfort women were nevertheless similar to that of rape camps or other victims of sexual violence. They were humiliated and their bodies and souls were broken. Looking at the female victims of violence against civilians in conflict, “’New wars’ [...] can be interpreted as a mechanism for rolling back any gains women may have made in recent decades” (Chinkin/Kaldor 2013: 168). Af­ter these experiences, women are usually treated as outcasts and as no longer be­longing to society (Thomas/Tiessen 2010: 483). A lot of work has to be done to reverse the outcome of such horrific acts of psychological warfare.

But not only the psychological effects are what will stay with the victims for their lifetime. Incidents have been reported, were rape is specifically use to spread sex­ually transmitted diseases like HIV/AIDS. This is done to ensure a slow, but cer­tain death of the population of the enemy (Burnet 2012: 109; Robinson 2006: 149; Thomas/Tiessen 2010: 487f.).

But those acts do not only impact the female population; by raping ‘their’ women, the male population of a community is presented to have failed their protective duty and are humiliated and robbed of their manhood (Munkler 2015: 149). As Munkler stated, "Mit Vergewaltigungen spart man Bomben” (ibid.: 144) (short: rapes save bombs). To sexually humiliate women and girls is a way of committing genocide against a community without having to physically destroy them. The psy­chological effects are almostthe same (ibid.: 146).

The effects of violence against women have reached a shocking extent. It is unde­niable that sexual and gender-based violence is not just a unfortunate by-product of conflict and should definitely not be treated as that anymore, but it is rather a consciously used method to strategically displace and eliminate the weakest part of an ethnicity or society without having to exhaust financial or material resources.

[...]

¹ http://www.who.int/hac/techguidance/pht/SGBV/en/ [accessed on 15.03.2018],