WHERE WE STAND ON FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION

Gambia’s parliament recently approved a bill banning female genital mutilation (FGM) and setting high penalties of imprisonment and fines for offenders. The passage of the law came shortly after Gambian President Yahya Jammeh had condemned the practice for not being commanded in the Quran. According to a 2010 report, 63 percent of Gambian woman and children aged from 14 to 49 have been subject to FGM.

FGM was defined in 1997 by the WHO, UNICEF and UNFPA as the “partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.” Procedures for circumcision differ according to the ethnic group, but they include removal of the clitoral hood and clitoral glands, removal of the inner labia, and in the most severe form (known as infibulation) removal of the inner and outer labia and closure of the vulva. In this last procedure, a small opening is left for the passage of urine and menstrual fluid; the vagina is opened for intercourse and opened further for childbirth. FGM is conducted from days after birth to puberty and beyond.

FGM is prevalent in 29 African countries, Yemen, Iraqi Kurdistan, and elsewhere in Asia, the Middle East, and other scattered communities around the world. However, of the more than 125 million girls and women alive today who have undergone the procedure, one in four live in Egypt. That is more than any other country in the world. According to a government report released in May 2015, 92% percent of married Egyptian women aged 15 to 49 have been subjected to FGM. This figure is down from 97% in 2010, probably because FGM has been illegal in Egypt since 2008. However, the practice remains woven into the very fabric of Egyptian society, where many see cutting as a way to “purify” a girl and to show she is ready for marriage.

The practice of FGM has been the subject of international concern and is considered to be a global health issue. FGM has no medical benefits and can cause lifelong physical and emotional trauma for the women who have undergone the procedure. The UN has consistently campaigned for an end to FGM, labeling the practice, among other things, gender-based discrimination, torture, an affront to human dignity and an irreparable, irreversible abuse of the human rights of women and girls. However, FGM has proven to be difficult to eradicate.

Experts that have studied the issue point out that part of the difficulty in the campaigns attempting to eliminate the practice is the common misconceptions around FGM. One misconception is that it is men that force FGM on women. In fact, elderly women often do the most to perpetuate the custom. Many women undergo circumcision voluntarily, and joyfully partake in the ritual. For young girls circumcision becomes a way to prove that they are worthy of the challenge of being a woman. Female circumcision is part of demarcating insider and outsider status. By being circumcised girls become members of a group of elder women who have more power in their community. So, even though the argument is being made that FGM is about the control of women and their sexuality and sexual pleasure, data shows that across Africa, the support for the practice is stronger among women than among men. Women who support the practice justify its perpetuation by saying that FCM is women’s business. As in, it is for women to decide this. In the U.S., adult women are capable of giving consent for surgical procedures, some of which are arguably similar in nature as FGM, consider for instance, a breast reduction, a surgical procedure common in the US and other Western countries. The issue is one of free will. What would it take to get a woman in an African country to be in the same position of being able to give consent? Social pressures in the nations that practice FGM are so strong that no woman could ever opt out. Thus, women who undergo the procedure, even those who seem willing and even proud to participate, might not be doing it really because they want to, but because they feel that to be respected members of the community they have to comply with this custom.

The argument about the lack of free will of those being circumcised is even more powerful in cases where children are forced to have the procedure. In half the countries for which national figures are available, most girls are cut before the age of five. Arguing against suggested similarities between FGM and body shaping in Western countries, philosopher Martha Nussbaum has stated that a key difference is that FGM is often conducted on children using physical force.

It is important to note that FGM is not an individual behavior, such as it could be the decision to undergo a certain surgical procedure for cosmetic reasons. Deciding not to circumcise a daughter is not an individual behavior. That decision would have to be explained to the immediate family (husband, siblings, etc.), to the extended family (the in-laws), and the in-laws would have to answer to their friends throughout the community, which makes the decision particularly difficult to make given the societal pressure.

Perhaps the best strategy to eliminate FGM is to warn about the negative health consequences to the women who undergo the procedure. The dangers and lifelong health problems that women experience after the procedure are particularly serious in communities where the traditional way of circumcision does not include sterilized instruments, antibiotics, and other measures to minimize health complications. So far, it appears that these are the arguments that are most effective in persuading those who believe in tradition that there are some traditions that must be ended, and there has been some progress in the drive to end FGM.

So far, 24 of the 29 countries where FGM is concentrated have enacted legislation against FGM. In the countries were FGM is a common practice, the percentage of girls aged 15 to 17 that have had the procedure has dropped from 74.4% in 2008, to 56% in 2015. In May 2015, as one of his final acts as president, Goodluck Jonathan banned the procedure in Nigeria. Somalia recently announced that it will introduce a law that will ban FGM, as well. This is a significant step in the right direction as Somalia has one of the highest rates of female genital mutilation in the world. Egypt has announced a plan to reduce FGM by 10-15% in the next five years. If it works, it will mean that for the first time in decades, “uncut” girls would outnumber those who have had the procedure.

Why have the Girls Kidnapped by Boko Haram still not been rescued?

On April 2014, in the northeastern Nigerian village of Chibok, Boko Haram militants abducted 276 girls; seven months later, more than 200 remain in captivity. Boko Haram leader Abubaker Shekau recently released a video mocking any attempts at a rescue. With regards to the girls, he stated: “[w]e have married them off … [t]hey are all in their marital homes.”

Even after all the international outcry and support for the girls when the kidnapping occurred, and Nigeria’s president vows to rescue the girls, why are they still in captivity?

Boko Haram is a powerful religious sect in the north of the country that has claimed thousands of lives over the years in its violent campaign to create a religious state. Bombings, shootings and kidnappings have become common events, and the group is estimated to control an area of northeast Nigeria the size of Rhode Island.

An important reason the girls have not been rescued is due to Nigeria’s failure to effectively counter Boko Haram from a military/policing standpoint. The military has a bad track record when it comes to fighting the militant group. A day after the abduction, they claimed to have rescued the girls, but later had to retract that claim. Then, in May 2014, they released a statement saying they knew where the girls were being held, but would not use force to rescue them. And in a tragic incident early last month, several Nigerian troops were killed by their own air-strikes aimed at Boko Haram hideouts.

Distrust of the Nigerian military from the civil society also contributes to the continued failure in dealing with Boko Haram.  In Nigeria, many civilians consider the Nigerian military to be as bad as Boko Haram when it comes to human rights violations, even in the face of the continued reign of terror that is perpetrated in the north of the country by the terrorist organization. In order to capture key Boko Haram leaders and to cut off funding sources that might weaken the militant group, it would be essential for the government to win the support and trust of communities in that part of the country. Many of these communities feel abandoned by the central government, terrorized by Boko Haram, and yet they still do not trust the military—which makes gaining any traction in the fight against the group extremely difficult.

This poor record on human rights of the Nigerian military also hinders international efforts to lend a hand in the fight. Because of the poor human rights record of the Nigerian military, other countries, including the United States, are hesitant about cooperating more in their efforts to rescue the girls. The US and other countries are concerned about how much they can cooperate because they do not want to be associated with the kind of abuses that have already been documented in connection with the Nigerian military.

Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka, the Executive Director of UN Women and a United Nations Under-Secretary-General has said that, “[o]ur world must not forget these adolescent girls…. [t]he world must come together and make every possible effort to rescue these girls and bring their captors to justice. We cannot and must not move on with this humanitarian tragedy still unresolved.” This is a statement with which everyone can agree; and the parties involved, including the Nigerian government, its military, and other nations must make more of an effort to ensure that the girls are returned home soon. We must not forget these girls.

 

 

 

THE GIRLS ARE GONE, THE GOVERNMENT MUST RESPOND

Any parent can only imagine the horror of their child being kidnapped. Now multiply that by over 300. Then, add the fear of knowing that your child is in the hands of a volatile terrorist group, the frustration of seeing how your government fails in its duties to protect their people, and the impotence of not being able to speak up for fear of retribution against your child.

On April 14, men dressed in military uniforms abducted over 200 schoolgirls from the town of Chibok in northeastern Nigeria. Given the number of attacks by jihadists at many schools in the state Borno, the girls initially believed that the unexpected visitors had come to take them to a safe place. Instead it was islamist group Boko Haram that later claimed responsibility for the kidnapping.

The group’s name is a Hausa phrase, which translates, as “Western education is sinful.” The terrorist organization seeks to establish a “pure” Islamic state ruled by sharia law, and to stop what it deems “Westernization.” Educating girls goes against their ideals. Boko Haram has been fighting an insurgency in northern Nigeria for the past five years and is responsible for thousands of deaths. This year alone, more than 1,500 people have been killed in the violence.

The girls kidnapped were between the age of 15 and 18, while 53 escaped, more than 276 are still being held captive. There have been unconfirmed reports that some of them had been forced to marry their captors or were taken to neighboring Chad and Cameroon and sold as brides for $12. As former British prime minister Gordon Brown, who is now United Nations special envoy on education observed, the girls’ desperate families do not know “whether they’re about to be murdered or used as sex slaves”.

Last Monday militants from Boko Haram kidnapped eight more girls from a Nigerian village. The abductions came hours after Boko Haram leader Abubakar Shekau was seen on a widely-circulated video vowing to continue kidnapping the daughters of Christians, forcing them to convert to Islam, and selling them into slavery. “I abducted your girls. I will sell them in the market, by Allah,” said the man claiming to be Boko Haram leader Abubakar Shekau in the video.

Nigeria is a Federal Constitutional Democracy and the most populous country in Africa. Its economy (GDP) in 2014 became the largest in Africa, and the world’s 26th largest. Nigeria is expected to become one of the world’s top 20 economies by 2050 and is considered to be an Emerging market by the World Bank. Additionally, Nigeria is one of three countries that have just announced their endorsement of a Declaration of Commitment to End Sexual Violence in Conflict, an initiative by the British government, which has been signed by more than three-quarters of UN member states.

It has been three weeks after the girls were seized, and there is mounting anger in Nigeria about the government’s failure to locate and rescue them. Two days after the kidnappings, the Nigerian military said that the girls were free, which turned out to be untrue. For three weeks, President Goodluck Jonathan said nothing and has yet to visit the region. When he finally began speaking about the abductions, he criticized the parents for not cooperating with the police and not sharing information. He has said his government is doing all it can to rescue the girls, however, his wife, first lady Patience Jonathan, has been accused by activists of ordering the detention of protest leaders who were calling for more action from authorities to rescue the teenagers. It was reported that she called some of the mothers to meet with her and told them to be quiet, as they were bringing shame and embarrassment to Nigeria.

It is believed that the Nigerian schoolgirls are still alive – and could be rescued. On Tuesday, Secretary of State John Kerry announced that U.S. intelligence officials would head to Nigeria to help with the search of the abducted girls. The Nigerian government needs to step up to the plate, take advantage of the help being offered, and bring the girls to safety. Soon.

WHAT CAN THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY DO ABOUT AFRICA’S RISING ANTI GAY SENTIMENT?

Last month President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda signed into law a bill imposing harsh sentences for homosexual acts, including a penalty of life imprisonment for “aggravated homosexuality.”  Homosexual acts when one person is infected with HIV, “serial offenders,” and sex with minors, are examples of what is considered “aggravated homosexuality” under the new law.

The Ugandan anti gay law was first proposed in 2009, when an earlier provision, since dropped, proposed the death sentence for homosexual activity in certain cases. Gordon Brown, the then Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, and Stephen Harper, the Canadian Prime Minister at the time, publicly expressed their opposition to the bill. The government of France also criticized the bill, citing a “deep concern.” The European Parliament passed a resolution threatening to cut financial aid to Uganda, and even the Swedish government, which had had a long-term relationship with Uganda, said that it would revoke its $50 million development aid to the country if the bill passed. Dirk Niebel, the Federal Minister of Economic Cooperation and Development in Germany, also indicated at the time that financial aid to Uganda would be cut if the bill passed.

The US response was similar, stating that Uganda’s participation in the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) would be in jeopardy if the anti gay bill became law. Some African countries, including Uganda, benefit from AGOA, US legislation approved by Congress in 2000 for the purpose of helping the economies of sub-Saharan Africa. AGOA reduces tariffs on products imported from some African countries to promote commercial activities and help their economies.

Such strong international opposition resulted in the bill being eventually shelved, and led some to thinking that Uganda’s president would abandon its efforts to continue promoting anti gay policies in the country. However, last month, the new version of the bill which now punishes with life imprisonment some homosexual offenses, was enacted into law in Uganda.

Sadly, Uganda is not the only African nation with harsh anti gay laws. According to Amnesty International, homosexuality is illegal in 38 of 54 African countries, where most sodomy laws were introduced during colonialism. On January 2014, Nigeria’s president Goodluck Jonathan signed into law a new law that mandates a 14-year prison sentence for anyone entering a same-sex union, and a 10-year term for “a person or group of persons who supports the registration, operation and sustenance of gay clubs, societies, organizations, processions or meetings.”

The great majority of Western countries have expressed near-universal condemnation of the new laws. Denmark, Norway, and the Netherlands immediately stalled aid to Uganda over its new law. The World Bank froze a $90 million new loan. When Nigeria’s president approved his country’s new law, the European Union warned that he should not forget his “obligations” under international law. Shortly after Museveni’s announcement that the anti gay bill had become law in Uganda, U.S. President Barack Obama warned that enacting the bill would affect relations between the two nations. He described the proposal as an “affront and a danger to the gay community” in Uganda.

However, despite the response by the international community in opposing African anti-gay laws, in most African countries these laws are overwhelmingly supported by the general public, providing opportunities to win political points for presidents seeking election or re-election. In the cases of both Uganda and Nigeria, lawmakers claimed to be in favor of tougher legislation against homosexuality to counteract the influence of Western lifestyles that risked destroying family units.

The latest development in Uganda happened last week, when a mixed group of Ugandans and NGOs filed a petition against the country’s controversial anti-homosexuality law, saying it is unconstitutional and infringes on fundamental rights to non-discrimination and equality, as well as rights to privacy, freedom of expression, thought, civic participation, assembly and association.

The question remains, what is the most effective response by the international community to such anti gay laws?

Some have suggested suspending visa privileges for officials supporting the new laws; suspending bilateral delegations or exchanges in areas of interest to countries that have enacted anti gay laws; reviewing and potentially revoking participation in AGOA of any African country which criminalizes homosexuality; and ending any other form of economic aid to these countries.

However, some argue that suspending all financial support to these African countries would only be detrimental to those most in need.

Is the international community obligated to act when a nation or group of nations violate fundamental human rights? Are economic sanctions the most appropriate response? As usual, there are no easy answers in international law and relations.