Plenary, NCRW Annual Conference, June 2004

Discussion Leaders:

• Rabab Abdulhadi, Professor of Gender and Sexuality, New York University
• Rhonda Copelon, Professor of Law, City University of New York Law School
• Zainab Salbi, Executive Director, Women for Women International

Moderator:

• Linda Basch, President, National Council for Research on Women

Overview

When the press exposed the events in Abu Gharib to the public, many people understood for the first time that women are not only affected by abhorrent war crimes, but can also initiate them. Yet while international focus shifts away from women as victims, women around the world are still being denied access to health care, political representation, and basic human rights as a result of armed conflict. In the wake of recent events in Iraq, the feminist community faces a dilemma: where do we locate the changing roles and images of women in war within feminist discourse? How can we ensure that women who are victims of war are getting the attention and aid they need? This plenary addressed the consequences of the war in Iraq for women across the globe, with an emphasis on changed public perceptions of women's involvement in armed conflict.

Summary

Linda Basch began with a caution: generalizing how war is a women's issue can be dangerous, as women take on multiple roles in war and are affected very differently depending on their position in the social and political structure. While the events Abu Gharib taught the world that women can be perpetrators of war as well as victims, Basch noted, the dialogue must be extended to acknowledge that women's role in war can never be pigeonholed. War affects women differentially depending on sexuality, race, class, and ethnicity.

Rabab Abdulhadi continued Basch's interrogation of the concept of war as a women's issue by questioning our sources of information. When we say we want to hear more women's voices, whose voices are we talking about? Who are we listening to and who are we ignoring? According to Abdulhadi, the media and the government have filtered information to paint a black and white picture of women's experiences in Iraq. Casting American women as perpetrators of the war crimes in Abu Gharib deflects blame from the men in high positions. She cited examples of women's voices that may not have been heard, such as those of Iraqi women who were tortured in American prisons and at the hands of Saddam. She noted the nuances in the situations of Pfc. Lynndie England, Spc. Sabrina Harman, and Spc. Meghan M. Ambuhl: they are working-class young women following orders, fighting to gain an education and economic stability. But does that mean, Abdulhadi asked, that we can excuse them of responsibility entirely?

She discussed the underlying American and Iraqi values that influenced events at Abu Gharib, and the reactions to them. According to Abdulhadi, the Abu Gharib torture was an extension of American "hyper-masculinity" and specifically targeted the Arab notion of honor. She closed by attacking Ted Koppel's assertion that these events went against the "American moral fiber," as an examination of American actions in Vietnam and during other historical events make Abu Gharib part of a pattern rather than an aberration.

Rhonda Copelon focused her remarks on the language used to describe war crimes, specifically on the classification of violence against women as torture. Copelon noted the press' and government's careful choice of nomenclature when describing the events at Abu Gharib: they frequently used the word "depravity" and refrained from using "torture." The crimes were sexual in nature and, thus, "softened" in the press, claimed Copelon. Authorities are hesitant to label sexual crimes as "torture" because the victims are mostly women. Only in May of 2004 did the U.N. Committee against torture state clearly, for the first time in its history, that sexual violence constitutes torture. Despite this promising declaration, Copelon felt that the status of female victims of sexual violence was still "fragile" and that every sexual violence accusation brought against war criminals would be met with major resistance.

Copelon, like Abdulhadi, discussed the issue of blame. In her view, the Abu Gharib events were a symbol of western depravity and an example of what occurs when a country snubs international law to an unprecedented degree. However, since women were perpetrators of these particular crimes, the blame was too quickly attributed to "feminists and the breakdown of traditional passive roles for women" and, of course, women's participation in the military. She suggested that the real fault might lie in a higher authority who may have put women in the position of sexual torturer to make the male Iraqi victims "extra-humiliated."

Zainab Salbi shifted the focus of the discussion from Abu Gharib to Iraqi women's experiences pre- and post-Saddam. For Salbi, Abu Gharib was an American issue rather than an Iraqi one. Instead of focusing attention on the events at Abu Gharib, attention should focus on the mistreatment of women under Saddam Hussein and increasing women's social and political authority, said Salbi. She noted the lack of female influence in the new Iraqi governments, citing several statistics: as of June 2004, there were no women on the constitutional committee, only one female minister, no female governors of the 18 Iraqi provinces, and no women on the tribunal for Saddam. Even in bodies where women are present, such as the interim governing council, the female representatives chosen do not necessarily represent Iraqi women's best interests.

Salbi outlined other obstacles to women's equality in post-Saddam Iraq. There is a lack of assurance that women can inherit on an equal basis with men; a mere recommendation (not a guarantee) that women should hold 25 percent of parliamentary seats; and a new American-instituted food distribution system based on the mosque, in which women are in back and men are in front. In order to better the lives of women in Iraq, Salbi suggested that America commit to putting women in leadership positions; create a strong women's presence in every area of society including academia, NGO's, and activism; and recognize both what Iraqi women have been through and their importance in society.

Discussion during the question-and-answer period centered around how public space for debate of the war has narrowed, and how to place the events in Iraq in the larger context of women and war.

Abdulhadi noted that self-silencing is often a bigger problem than censorship. When an informed person self-silences "in anticipation of a politics that may be too close," she noted, "you lower the threshold of the possibilities of debate and discussion for the sake of pragmatism." Copelon noted the importance of creating secular spaces for discussing conflicts. "In this country," she said, "the fight about Islam is really much more significant within the Islamic world."

When discussing the larger context of women and war, Salbi explained that the change in administration that results from war often does little to change women's situation. She used the metaphor of gift-wrapping, noting that the various strategies employed by both pre- and post-Saddam governments to include women were just different ways of putting a core misogynistic attitude in pretty packaging.