Women’s Protection in Syria: Stop Support For Terrorists!

A ‘new report by the London School of Economics’ (LSE), so announced the British press – The Times, The Daily Mail and The Daily Mirror – describes sexual crimes against women in Syrian prisons. It alleges these to be a matter of state policy. Published just ahead of Geneva talks about a political settlement in Syria, the press interpreted it as supporting renewed calls for regime change.

The paper provides no new grounds for that conclusion, however. In fact, its sweeping allegations obscure good reasons why, under present circumstances, a responsible approach to the problem of sexual violence in Syria would involve supporting the government against the terrorist insurgents.

syrian-christian-women-fighters-4

Syrian Christians

United Nations research had previously found (in 2015 and again in 2016) that while some conflict-related sexual violence was perpetrated by state personnel, ‘non-State actors account for the vast majority of incidents’.[1] The UN made clear that efforts to defeat groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda, as the Syrian government is committed to, ‘are an essential part of the fight against conflict-related sexual violence.’ Such groups use sexual violence as part of their strategy to spread terror among those that oppose their ideology. They engage in trafficking of women and slavery. They drive the displacement of women who, then, ‘remain at high risk, even when they reach the supposed refuge of neighbouring countries.’

Marie Forestier, the LSE paper’s author, complains that the UN paid ‘disproportionate attention’ to the terrorist groups as perpetrators of sexual violence in Syria. She wants to highlight crimes on the government side, and she relays some horrific allegations about some individual cases. This illustrates specific experiences of a problem that the UN had signaled. However, while harrowing in themselves, these testimonies cannot speak to the comparative scale of the problem.[2] Forestier therefore does not show the UN’s concerns about the egregious sexual violence of the terrorist insurgents to be disproportionate. Furthermore, her interviews relate to experiences from a period – 2012 and 2013 – that is earlier than covered by the UN reports of 2015 and 2016. Forestier herself admits that accusations of sexual violence on the government’s side were ‘most frequent from late 2011 to 2013, in disputed areas such as the Damascus suburbs, and in central and coastal governorates … with a peak in 2012, and comparatively fewer cases in 2014.’ She thereby shows the situation was worse in places where the government had to fight insurgents and improved when the government regained control. In light of her own admissions, it seems perverse to cite limited older evidence in criticizing considered conclusions of fuller and more up-to-date reports.

The perversity is heightened with unwarranted generalizations in the present continuous tense. Press coverage has, unsurprisingly, transmitted the message that the most shocking details of individual allegations from up to five years ago capture what is occurring on a general and continuing basis today. Forestier herself even makes demonstrably false general claims in the present tense. For instance, she says: ‘According to an estimate by United Nations investigators, Syrian security forces detain tens of thousands of people at any one time.’ However, the source she cites for this claim says no such thing.[3]

Some of her most damaging claims are simply inexplicable, as when she says: ‘According to testimony, the overwhelming majority of men committing rapes have been State forces.’ This extraordinary claim flies in the face of the palpable evidence and reports of the UN. Bizarrely, the source Forestier cites for it is an article on ‘general data on sexual violence by state forces’ attained for 129 other conflicts, not including Syria, and during a period (1989-2009) prior to the outbreak of war in Syria.[4]

The LSE paper’s headline message thus misrepresents what is actually shown regarding the extent of the government’s responsibility for sexual violence. Buried within its text are admissions that the paper should only ‘be considered as a starting point for further research’ and that ‘it is impossible to conclude that sexual violence by regime forces is a mass phenomenon.’ Yet this did not stop Forestier making such damaging accusations as that ‘rape can be considered as part of a general policy from the authorities’ (p.12).[5]

Regardless of lack of evidence, she seems determined to convey a message of rape and sexual violence being state policy approved at the highest levels.[6] Yet she admits: ‘The decision to resort to sexual violence (or tolerate it) seems to have fallen under the regional level or even the branch and military unit level’. ‘No information indicates that high-level officials in Damascus ordered rapes’ and ‘the President or high level security officials probably didn’t give explicit orders’.

She rightly notes that ‘commanders may be prosecuted where they know or should have known of the abuses and failed to take action to stop them.’ She also correctly observes that ‘ending impunity is central in preventing sexual violence.’ I would add that ending impunity, like bringing the problem itself under control, requires well functioning institutions. The Syrian government is evidently aware of this, and, under difficult conditions, has sought to improve its systems for the protection of women and children, as welcomed by the UN OHCHR. But the good functioning of institutions is favoured by peaceful conditions rather than by war.

One does not have to be an enthusiast for the present government to recognize its legitimacy and the simple fact that it is uniquely well-placed as things stand now, and foreseeably, to protect ordinary men, women and children against violent threats.

veil-off-for-blog

Freed from ISIS

A realistic general presumption has to be that rape and sexual violence tends be more common in war than in peacetime.[7] That is a reason – on top of so many others – why war should be avoided. A country that finds its territory turned into a battleground has to reckon with sexual violence being more prevalent than in peacetime, while its resources to tackle the problem are diverted and diminished. A government that has to defend its people against armed insurgents, particularly when these routinely engage in sexual violence, faces extraordinary challenges. That does not absolve it of responsibility for ensuring good conduct by its own forces. The practical ability of a government to maintain discipline, however, is not enhanced by having to engage on many fronts with ruthless opposition.

Realistically, and morally, the best way to avoid rape in war is to avoid war itself. I cannot believe that Marie Forestier would disagree on this general point, but I am less sure what she thinks with regard to the specific case of Syria, or even whether she has fully thought it through.[8] The thrust of her argument would support continued efforts by foreign powers, exercised through terrorist proxies on the ground, to depose the government of Syria, something that could only worsen further still the problem of sexual violence.

… [11]

It may incidentally be worth noting that the Syrian army prominently features all female units, including the famed Lionesses for National Defence unit of the elite Republican Guard.[12] Western commentators who note the propaganda value of this also grant that its success reflects the wider social solidarity that has made the Syrian Arab Army so resilient. As a French commentator observes, ‘The war in Syria is a face-off between two societal structures and Assad is showing that, in his system, women have an important role, even in the defence forces’.[13] If the Syrian government sees the propaganda value of promoting women’s equality, we might reasonably suppose it would see the irrationality of undoing such reputational gains by pursuing a delinquent policy of the kind Forestier alleges.

The fact is that what people widely believe throughout Syria – in Arab areas as in Kurdish – is that the overwhelming problem of sexual violence, like that of extremist violence more generally, comes from ISIS and other terrorists that violate, torture, enslave, traffic and oppress women. This is consistent with the UN findings. Forestier’s allegations are consistent only with the foreign drive for ‘regime change’.

For anyone genuinely concerned to deal with sexual violence occurring in – and occasioned by – conflict situations, a central preventive strategy is not starting a war in the first place, and not prolonging a war needlessly once started. It certainly means not intervening in a war on the side of those inflicting by far and away the most extensive and egregious sexual crimes.

In short, if the government had been supported in its efforts to defeat the insurgents, a great deal of sexual violence would have been avoided. Forestier’s claims, seen in this light, in being unfounded, are counterproductive and irresponsible. The view she opposes has a coherence hers lacks. It also has basic morality on its side. The problem with Forestier’s paper is not simply that it is poor research and writing.[14] The real concern is that, in being publicly promoted, it has been fed into the narrative beyond academia that would continue seeking to destabilise Syria (and the wider Middle East) and to prolong conflict against the Syrian government. One effect of this would be to prolong the circumstances in which sexual violence continues unabated on that territory.

civilians-freed-for-blog

Civilians freed by Syrian Army

[1] United Nations Security Council, Conflict-related sexual violence Report of the Secretary-General 23 March 2015: https://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/2015/203. United Nations Security Council Report of the Secretary-General on Conflict-Related Sexual Violence, 20 April 2016, S/2016/361 http://www.peacewomen.org/node/94106.

[2] I do not take propose to take issue with any of Forestier’s reporting of testimonies, even though her methodology is unclear. (For instance, she mentions that three interviews with survivors ‘were excluded because they seemed exaggerated or false’ yet she does not explain how she decided whose word to give how much credence to, particularly in cases where she was speaking through a translator via phone to someone she hadn’t met.)

[3] The source she cites is UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Independent International Commission
of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic, A/ HRC/31/68, 11 February 2016, http://www. ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/ CoISyria/A-HRC-31-68.pdf. (Having checked that source I find the only mention of thousands of people refers to ISIS crimes. I could not find any statement remotely resembling her claim, and I would readily correct the record here if she can direct me to it with a page reference.)

[4] Dara Kay Cohen and Ragnhild Nordas, “Sexual Violence in Armed Conflict: Introducing the SVAC dataset, Sexual Violence in Armed Conflict: Introducing the SVAC dataset, 1989−2009”, Journal of Peace Research 51(3) (2014), 418-428.

[5] This assumption is manifest, too, in her claim – made much of in the press reporting of her paper – that sexual assault in detention was so routine that contraception was supplied. Damning as this may be, assuming it is true, it does not self-evidently suggest that those assaults were part of a policy as distinct from an atrocious practice. It could in fact be taken to suggest a desire of perpetrators to prevent evidence of violations coming to light.  A related claim involves the testimony of a victim that her attacker used Vaseline. Forestier takes this, along with the contraception, to ‘indicate that rapes followed a regular pattern that involved some degree of organisation and were part of a broader state policy of widespread repression against the civil population.’ Since the organization required is that of a visit to a pharmacy, and we can have no idea how widespread the practice was, we cannot simply infer what Forestier claims about a ‘broader state policy’.

[6] At one point she asserts that ‘when soldiers or militiamen raped women during military operations, this was part of the attack against their adversaries and their relatives. Thus, rape can be considered as part of a general policy from the authorities.’ But the inference stated after her ‘thus’ is a non sequitur: she provides no reason to think such attacks follow from a policy rather than opportunism or vindictiveness.

[7] The presumption has to be defeasible, but it seems clear that simply to presume the contrary would be imprudent. For a discussion see e.g. Doris E. Buss, ‘Rethinking “Rape as a Weapon of War, Feminist Legal Studies (2009) 17.2: 145-163.

[8] Her puzzling take on the situation is illustrated by a claim like this: ‘the Syrian government has sought to increase antagonism between communities’ and ‘to frame the conflict as a fight between Alawites and Sunnis instead of a struggle for democracy.’ Yet the government owes its resilience precisely to a longstanding and conscious strategy of defusing sectarian tendencies. (The government has consistently framed the conflict as an attack on the secular multi-faith state by primarily Islamist jihadists.) Furthermore, however much a desire for greater democracy may originally have motivated the political opposition, the conflict that has ensued was taken over by jihadists committed to imposing the most anti-democratic regime imaginable.

[11] This passage originally mentioned the example of the Kurdish women’s units and has been edited on advice from early readers. (Original 1 March 2017; amended 2 March 2017)

[12] Daily Mail 26 March 2015 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3011838/Syria-s-female-tank-drivers-Battalion-800-women-commandos-fierce-clashes-rebels-line-Damascus.html#ixzz4ZnIjB3tT

[13] Fabrice Balanche, quoted by France 24, 2 April 2015: http://www.france24.com/en/20150402-syria-women-soldiers-assad-army-propaganda

[14] Given its status as a Working Paper, the academic community is aware that Forestier’s claims have not been peer-reviewed. The wider world does not observe such niceties. The Daily Mirror, The Daily Mail and The Times did not. Most tweeters do not. They all present it as coming from the prestigious LSE. Which is fair enough, given that it features conspicuously on the LSE website. Since LSE has promoted this paper, there is a case for saying they should own it and answer for it. If my argument in this post is correct, there is a case for suggesting they should retract it.  

Advertisements
This entry was posted in disinformation, global justice, Syria, Uncategorized, war. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Women’s Protection in Syria: Stop Support For Terrorists!

  1. migarium says:

    PKK is the terrorist organization, and the PYD is the Northern Syria arm of it, as same as Pejak is another arm of PKK in Iran. In 2011 with the civil war in Syria, YPG was named. From your post:
    “In 2011, Kurds were among the groups fighting against the Syrian government. Since then, however, they have become pragmatic allies of the government in a common drive to eliminate ISIS from Syrian territory. ”
    Becoming ally of Syrian government is a suspect argument. In 2015 against ISIS, also with Russia started to give air operations support to Syrian army in September 2015, US government support policy has been more open and has been in sight. Actually before 2015 September, US government supprted YPG with weapons and training groups, but after Russia more involved, and Syria government has become more fast against ISIS, Obama administration sent first 50 people army special forces group for training by announcing to world, and sent them to YPG. Before then, US government was doing same thing without announcing. The weapons which were sent to YPG by US governmnet is 120 tone until today, including these there are antiaircraft missiles and antitank missiles according to local sources.

    What we see in all these complicated situation?

    YPG was created by US government, because PKK that is main group of YPG already has been created by them too. US government openly supported them, actually right in time we need to ask ourselves,
    “Is there any freedom group which has been supported by US government in world history?”
    No, there isn’t.
    YPG has got only one aim, it is to create a Kurdish region in Northern Syria as same as it has been done in Iraq Kurdistan. I’d like to point out that while YPG took the regions they killed the Arab and Turkmen public also these have been recorded by Amnesty international and Syrain Network of Human Rights. YPG crimes against the local public who are not Kyrdish are many, and these are the crimes like burning villages, to disseise to foods and merchandise, extrajudicial execution and collective punishment.

    These are actions taken to change the demographic structure of the region by YPG with the hand of US government. The same has been done before and succeeded. Thousands of Arabs and Turks living in Iraq have been forced to move away from their homes, and those regions have been identified as places where the Kurds have the majority population. Now we call these regions in Iraq, is Iraq Kurdistan.

    Besides, do you know there is not any word of “Kobane” in Kurdish language. And the famous Kobane’s real name was “Ayn el Arab”, as you guessed this name had given because the city population consist of Arabian ethnic people in majority.

    If YPG is with cooperation with US and act with US policy, why Russia started to give permission or limited support to YPG?

    Russia started to give limited support with the condition that the territorial integrity of Syria must not to destroy. Because if Syria would sperate into the parts then it will be same in Northern Iran by the hand of Pejak, and Iran is the most important ally of Russia in the region.

    What the world saw until today day is only the part of the future biggest war during last 15 years. Because after Syria will be separated, the events will be more hot in the region in a next decade. And Iran and Turkey will give more reaction against Kurdish states, and Russia will not able to stop to give help and support, especailly to Iran.

    The aim of US is actually has been always clear but the mainstream media never saw.

    This map is the aim and it was declared in 2006.

    The aim is to create the big Kurdistan which would be puppet of Israel’s zionists.

    Also if Russia would stop the support to the territorial integrites of Iran and Turkey, US and puppet big Kurdish state by Israel would have big soil at the region and the US aggression policy will more feel as being more close to Russia soils from south. Does Russia want to another state which is under American policy guiding to very close to Russia soils? No.

    And for creating big puppet Kurdish state, to create so-called workers parties and hero woman fighters and to lead people down the garden path, and to take support of western liberals for making them feel better, are the imperialists ways they use.

  2. timhayward says:

    Thanks for this informative comment. As you’ve seen, I can’t claim much knowledge about the complicated Kurdish situation. I only alluded to it to illustrate that Syrian women and men do not need to be enthusiastic for the current government in order to see ISIS and AQ as the most serious threat. (I may be naive, but I do wonder if there could not be a constitutional accommodation that Syria could live with, and be allowed to?)

    • timhayward says:

      Having taken further advice, I decided just to remove the paragraph mentioning the Kurdish women’s units. It was clearly a mistake to introduce that digression.

  3. Pingback: Women’s Protection in Syria: Disinformation Is No Help |  SHOAH

  4. migarium says:

    In the Middle East, in Syria especially, we cannot talk about any democratic constitutional anymore, if we consider that the only at southern Syria there are 142 groups that do have tie with many Muslim sects, which is every one of them is trying to take a piece of Syria management under the policies of the other states. If you take note, I am talking only southern Syria, not mention the other regions like west, east, north of Syria. Already the thing what US and imperialist governments’ policies want to do is to changed the demograpic structure at north and they accomplish this with the YPG, while YPG was advertized and marketed as freedom fighter to western societies, and stil it is.

    Of course, the marketing in west countries would be more attractive if there is woman fighters into this marketing. This is very long process, in 2011 the background of this marketing has been made, I remember especially some Italian newspaper started to make news about woman fighters in region. It can be thought, why Italy? there are many PKK sympathizers in Italy, may be answer.

    There was a horrible barbarian terrorist group which called ISIS which was created by CIA and there was need to arouse interest of western publics for ISIS’s barbaric actions especially against women, and for this YPG and it’s woman fighters have put forward with polished marketing. With mainstream media support they have been succesful. And nobody knows how many Kurdish 13-14 years old girl were kidnapped by YPG and forced to fight under YPG structure. After all, these girls’ families are very poor and any mainstream media don’t write a news how these women fighters come and join to YPG’s side. Maybe we will never know their figures.

    Middle East has been turned into playground of all imperialists of the planet Earth. I cannot see that any of country will be success in this playground except Israel, if it goes like this way.

  5. Pingback: Women’s Protection in Syria: Disinformation Is No Help | wgrovedotnet

  6. mohandeer says:

    Reblogged this on Worldtruth and commented:
    Many thanks Tim Hayward for this article which was brought to my attention by Norman Pilon on his blog of Taking Sides. The more of us who take advantage of the truly informed rather than the manifestly agenda driven sponsors of resource theft under the pseudo guise of any genuine concern for their purported victims, the better we are able to expose their hypocrisy.

  7. Pingback: Women’s Protection in Syria: Stop Support For Terrorists! | wgrovedotnet

  8. mohandeer says:

    Excellent presentation and extremely informative. Thank you for your continued diligence and making your efforts available to others.
    What is also excellent are the contribution that some of the comments make in expanding the framework of your original post. Attracting other informed commentators is a sign that you are worthy of their following.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s