International Efforts to Protect Women [1 ed.] 9781611226393, 9781607411864

Citation preview

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved. International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved. International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

WOMEN’S ISSUES

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

INTERNATIONAL EFFORTS TO PROTECT WOMEN

No part of this digital document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means. The publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this digital document, but makes no expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No is assumed for incidental consequential damagesEbook in connection with or arising out of information International Efforts to liability Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers,or Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Central,

WOMEN’S ISSUES Additional titles in this series can be found on Nova‘s website at: https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/index.php?cPath=23_29&seriesp= Women%27s+Issues

Additional E-books in this series can be found on Nova‘s website at:

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/index.php?cPath=23_29&seriespe= Women%27s+Issues

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

WOMEN’S ISSUES

INTERNATIONAL EFFORTS TO PROTECT WOMEN

LILIAN T. GRAHAM

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

EDITOR

Nova Science Publishers, Inc. New York

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2010 by Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means: electronic, electrostatic, magnetic, tape, mechanical photocopying, recording or otherwise without the written permission of the Publisher. For permission to use material from this book please contact us: Telephone 631-231-7269; Fax 631-231-8175 Web Site: http://www.novapublishers.com

NOTICE TO THE READER The Publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this book, but makes no expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of information contained in this book. The Publisher shall not be liable for any special, consequential, or exemplary damages resulting, in whole or in part, from the readers‘ use of, or reliance upon, this material. Any parts of this book based on government reports are so indicated and copyright is claimed for those parts to the extent applicable to compilations of such works.

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Independent verification should be sought for any data, advice or recommendations contained in this book. In addition, no responsibility is assumed by the publisher for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from any methods, products, instructions, ideas or otherwise contained in this publication. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information with regard to the subject matter covered herein. It is sold with the clear understanding that the Publisher is not engaged in rendering legal or any other professional services. If legal or any other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent person should be sought. FROM A DECLARATION OF PARTICIPANTS JOINTLY ADOPTED BY A COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION AND A COMMITTEE OF PUBLISHERS. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGING-IN-PUBLICATION DATA

Available upon request

ISBN: H%RRN

Published by Nova Science Publishers, Inc.  New York

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

CONTENTS Preface Chapter 1

Asylum Law and Female Genital Mutilation: Recent Developments Yule Kim

Chapter 2

Rape as a Weapon of War: Accountability for Sexual Violence in Conflict Karin Wachter

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

Chapter 5 Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

vii

7

Female Genital Mutilation as Persecution: When Can it Constitute a Basis for Asylum and Withholding of Removal? Yule Kim

13

The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW): Congressional Issues Luisa Blanchfield

33

The U.N. Population Fund: Background and the U.S. Funding Debate Luisa Blanchfield

45

Chapter 6

United Nations System Efforts to Address Violence against Women Luisa Blanchfield

Chapter 7

The U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW): Issues in the U.S. Ratification Debate Luisa Blanchfield

Chapter 8

1

International Violence Against Women: U.S. Response and Policy Issues Luisa Blanchfield, Clare Ribando Seelke, M. Nina Serafino, Rhoda Margesson and Tiaji Salaam-Blyther

Index

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

75

95

121

153

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved. International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

PREFACE This book addresses the causes, prevalence, and consequences of violence against women (VAW) nationally and internationally. It provides examples of completed and ongoing U.S. activities that address violence against women (VAW) directly or include anti-VAW components. In recent years, the international community has increasingly recognized international violence against women as a significant human rights and global health issue. VAW, which can include both random acts of violence as well as sustained abuse over time, can be physical, psychological, or sexual in nature. Chapter 1 - Female genital mutilation (FGM) is a term encompassing a wide range of procedures that involve the removal or alteration of a woman‘s genitalia. The federal courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) have classified FGM as a form of persecution, a showing of which can act as a basis for a successful asylum claim. However, recent developments in this area of law have created a split between the federal courts and the BIA over the treatment of applicants who have already been inflicted with FGM. The federal courts that have addressed this issue currently treat a past infliction of FGM as a basis for a well-founded fear of persecution. The BIA, on the other hand, has rejected this position, arguing that FGM is a one-time procedure, and that once inflicted, an applicant will not be persecuted with FGM again, and thus cannot act as a basis for an asylum application. Chapter 2 features testimony before the U. S. Senate. Chapter 3 - Female genital mutilation (FGM) encompasses a wide range of procedures which involve the removal or alteration of a woman‘s and girl‘s genitalia. The federal courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) have classified FGM as a form of persecution, a showing of which can act as a basis for a successful asylum or withholding of removal claim. However, there was a split between the federal courts and the BIA over the treatment of applicants who have already been subjected to FGM. The federal courts that have addressed this issue have held that a past infliction of FGM creates a presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution, which is a prerequisite for refugee status, and also a clear probability of future harm, a requirement for obtaining withholding of removal. The BIA, on the other hand, has rejected this position in In re A-T-, arguing that FGM can be inflicted only once, which means that an applicant cannot have a well-founded fear or present a clear probability of FGM happening again in the future. Thus, under the BIA interpretation, the past infliction of FGM, a form of past persecution, rather than creating a presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution, rebuts the presumption. The BIA has stated, however, that while a past infliction of FGM cannot act as a basis for a well-founded fear of future persecution, a past

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

viii

Lilian T. Graham

infliction of FGM, if sufficiently severe, can act as a basis for an asylum claim on humanitarian grounds. Although the BIA has ruled that a past infliction of FGM cannot act as the basis for a well-founded fear of persecution, a federal court of appeals has rejected this holding. The Federal Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has ruled that the BIA misapplied the regulatory framework governing past persecution, holding that the BIA was in error when it determined that a past infliction of FGM rebutted the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution. The Second Circuit‘s holding, while it does not grant per se refugee status to women who have suffered a past infliction of FGM, does allow that past infliction to act as a basis for an asylum or withholding of removal claim. The Attorney General has since vacated the BIA decision in In re A-T-, holding that a past infliction of FGM can be the basis for a well-founded fear of future persecution. The BIA‘s holding in In re A-T- no longer controls future FGM asylum claims. Chapter 4 - The U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) calls for Parties to eliminate discrimination against women in all areas of life, including healthcare, education, employment, domestic relations, law, commercial transactions, and political participation. As of February 15, 2008, the Convention was ratified or acceded to by 185 countries. President Jimmy Carter submitted the Convention to the Senate in 1980. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held hearings on the Convention in 1988, 1990, 1994, and 2002, but the treaty was never considered for advice and consent to ratification by the full Senate. The George W. Bush Administration began conducting a full legal and policy review of the Convention in 2002, and on February 7, 2007, it transmitted a letter to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee stating that it did not support Senate action on the treaty. The Barack Obama Administration has expressed its support for the Convention. In January 2009, Susan Rice, appointed to be U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, stated at her Senate confirmation hearing that CEDAW will be an ―important priority‖ for the President. U.S. ratification of CEDAW is a contentious policy issue that has generated considerable debate in Congress and among the general public. Supporters of U.S. ratification contend that the Convention is a valuable mechanism for fighting women‘s discrimination worldwide. They argue that U.S. ratification of the treaty will give the Convention additional legitimacy, and that it will further empower women who fight discrimination in other countries. Opponents of ratification contend that the Convention is not the best or most efficient way to eliminate discrimination against women. They believe ratification will undermine U.S. sovereignty and impact U.S. social policy related to family planning and abortion. This report provides background on CEDAW developments, including U.S. policy and congressional actions, and considers arguments for and against ratification. It will be updated as events warrant. Chapter 5 - The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), established in 1969, is the world‘s largest source of population and reproductive health programs and the principal unit within the United Nations for global population issues. In 2007, the organization provided services in some 159 developing and transition countries, with funds totaling $752.2 million, drawn exclusively from voluntary contributions made by 182 nations and some foundations. The United States, with strong support from Congress, was an important actor in the launch of UNFPA in 1969. During the mid-to-late 1960s, Congress began to express

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Preface

ix

heightened concern over the impact of rapid population growth on development prospects in poor countries. In 1967, Congress earmarked funds for population assistance programs, urging the United States to channel family planning resources through the United Nations and other international organizations. Since it was established, UNFPA has transitioned from an organization focused on statistical collection and analysis to an agency providing maternal and child health/family planning assistance. UNFPA played a large role in shaping the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development, held in Cairo. The Cairo Conference marked a turning point in the international debate over the impact of population issues on global development, and established a policy framework called the Plan of Action that continues to guide current family planning and reproductive health policies, including the work of UNFPA. The Plan integrated population concerns into the broad context of development—concluding that education and health, including reproductive health, were prerequisites for sustainable development. In the past 25 years, there has been continuing and contentious debate within the United States, especially among Members of Congress, as to whether the United States should financially support UNFPA. This debate has centered on the extent to which, if any, UNFPA aids China‘s coercive family planning programs and policies. In 15 of the past 25 years, the United States did not contribute to the organization as a result of executive branch determinations that UNFPA‘s program in China violated the ―Kemp-Kasten‖ amendment, which bans U.S. aid to organizations involved in the management of coercive family planning programs. From FY2002 through FY2008, the George W. Bush Administration found UNFPA ineligible for funding under the Kemp-Kasten amendment. In March 2009, President Barack Obama expressed his support for UNFPA and announced that the United States would contribute $50 million to UNFPA as directed in the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 111-8). While UNFPA receives voluntary contributions from many countries and some private foundations, most of its income comes from a handful of donors. The Netherlands and Sweden recently have been the largest contributors. Throughout the last decade, when the United States has contributed to UNFPA programs, the U.S. contributions have represented about 8% of UNFPA‘s regular budget. Chapter 6 - The United Nations (U.N.) system supports a number of programs that address international violence against women (VAW). These activities, which are implemented by 35 U.N. entities, range from large-scale interagency initiatives to smaller grants and programs that are implemented by a range of partners, including non-governmental organizations (NGOs), national governments, and individual U.N. agencies. U.N. member states, including the United States, address VAW by ratifying multilateral treaties, adopting resolutions and decisions, and supporting U.N. mechanisms and bodies that focus on the issue. Many U.N. activities and mechanisms address VAW directly, while others focus on it in the context of broader issues such as humanitarian assistance, U.N. peacekeeping, and global health. U.N. entities do not specifically track the cost of programs or activities with antiVAW components. As a result, it is unclear how much the U.N. system, including individual U.N. agencies, funds, and programs, spends annually on programs to combat violence against women.

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

x

Lilian T. Graham

The U.S. government supports many activities that, either in whole or in part, work to combat international violence against women. Some experts argue that when considering the most effective ways to address VAW on an international scale, the United States should take into account the efforts of international organizations such as the United Nations. Were the 111th Congress to decide to use U.N. mechanisms to combat VAW, a number of programs and options might be considered. Congress has appropriated funds to the U.N. Trust Fund in Support of Actions to Eliminate Violence Against Women, for example, as well as to U.N. agencies, funds, and programs that address types or circumstances of violence against women and girls. These include the World Health Organization (WHO), U.N. Development Program (UNDP), the U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), and the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). The Senate has also given its advice and consent for U.S. ratification of treaties that address international violence against women and girls—including the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress, and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children. This report supplements CRS Report RL34438, International Violence Against Women: U.S. Response and Policy Issues. It provides an overview of recent U.N. efforts to address VAW by the Secretary-General and highlights key U.N. interagency efforts. The report also discusses selected U.N. funds, programs, and agencies that address international violence against women. It does not measure the extent to which VAW is directly addressed or is part of a larger initiative or program. This report will be updated as events warrant. Chapter 7 - The Senate may consider providing its advice and consent to U.S. ratification of the United Nations (U.N.) Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW, or the Convention) during the 111th Congress. CEDAW is the only international human rights treaty that specifically addresses the rights of women. It calls on States Parties to take measures to eliminate discrimination against women in all areas of life, including political participation, employment, education, healthcare, and family structure. CEDAW has been ratified or acceded to by 186 States Parties. The United States is the only country to have signed but not ratified the Convention. Other governments that have not ratified the treaty include Iran, Nauru, Palau, Somalia, Sudan, and Tonga. The election of President Barack Obama has focused renewed attention on the possibility of U.S. ratification of CEDAW. The Obama Administration called the Convention an ―important priority,‖ and in May 2009 identified it as a treaty on which it ―supports Senate action at this time.‖ President Jimmy Carter signed the Convention and transmitted it to the Senate in 1980. The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations held hearings on CEDAW in 1988, 1990, 1994, and 2002. It reported CEDAW favorably, subject to certain conditions, in 1994 and 2002. To date, however, the Convention has not been considered by the full Senate. U.S. ratification of CEDAW is a contentious policy issue that has generated considerable debate in Congress and among the general public. Supporters of ratification hold that the Convention is a valuable mechanism for fighting women‘s discrimination worldwide. They argue that U.S. ratification will give CEDAW added legitimacy and empower women who fight discrimination in their own countries. Opponents of the Convention maintain that it is not an effective mechanism for addressing discrimination against women internationally or domestically, emphasizing that countries widely believed to have poor women‘s rights records have ratified the Convention. Critics further contend that U.S. ratification could undermine U.S. sovereignty and impact the private conducts of U.S. citizens. Some are

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Preface

xi

particularly concerned with CEDAW‘s effect on U.S. laws and policies relating to the definition of discrimination, education, parental rights, and health care. This report provides an overview of CEDAW‘s background, objectives, and structure, including the role of the Convention‘s monitoring body, the CEDAW Committee. It examines U.S. policy and issues in the U.S. ratification debate, including the Convention‘s possible impact on U.S. sovereignty, its effectiveness in combating discrimination, and its role as an instrument of U.S. foreign policy. Chapter 8 - In recent years, the international community has increasingly recognized international violence against women (VAW) as a significant human rights and global health issue. VAW, which can include both random acts of violence as well as sustained abuse over time, can be physical, psychological, or sexual in nature. Studies have found that VAW occurs in all geographic regions, countries, cultures, and economic classes, with some surveys showing that women in developing countries experience higher rates of violence than those in developed countries. Many experts view VAW as a symptom of the historically unequal power relationship between men and women, and argue that over time this imbalance has led to pervasive cultural stereotypes and attitudes that perpetuate a cycle of violence. U.S. policymakers have generally focused on specific types or circumstances of VAW rather than view it as a stand-alone issue. Congress has authorized and appropriated funds for international programs that address VAW, including human trafficking and female genital cutting. In addition, past and current Administrations have supported efforts to reduce international levels of VAW— though many of these activities are implemented as components of broader foreign aid initiatives. There is no U.S. government-wide coordination of anti-VAW efforts. Most agencies and departments do not track the cost or number of programs with VAW components. Therefore, it is unclear how much money the U.S. government, or individual agencies, spend annually on VAWrelated programs. Some experts have suggested that the U.S. government should reexamine, and perhaps enhance, current U.S. anti-VAW activities. They argue that VAW should not only be treated as a stand-alone human rights issue, but also be integrated into U.S. assistance and foreign policy mechanisms. Other observers are concerned with a perceived lack of coordination among U.S. government agencies and departments that address international violence against women. This report addresses causes, prevalence, and consequences of violence against women. It provides examples of completed and ongoing U.S. activities that address VAW directly or include anti-VAW components. It outlines possible policy considerations for the 111th Congress, including the scope and effectiveness of U.S. programs; further integrating antiVAW programs into U.S. assistance and foreign policy mechanisms; and strengthening U.S. government coordination of anti-VAW activities. Material relating to United Nations antiVAW activities that previously appeared in this report is now published in CRS Report RL345 18, United Nations System Efforts to Address Violence Against Women, by Luisa Blanchfield.

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved. International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

In: International Efforts to Protect Women Editor: Lilian T. Graham, pp. 1-5

ISBN: 978-1-60741-186-4 © 2010 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 1

ASYLUM LAW AND FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS 

Yule Kim

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

SUMMARY Female genital mutilation (FGM) is a term encompassing a wide range of procedures that involve the removal or alteration of a woman‘s genitalia. The federal courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) have classified FGM as a form of persecution, a showing of which can act as a basis for a successful asylum claim. However, recent developments in this area of law have created a split between the federal courts and the BIA over the treatment of applicants who have already been inflicted with FGM. The federal courts that have addressed this issue currently treat a past infliction of FGM as a basis for a well-founded fear of persecution. The BIA, on the other hand, has rejected this position, arguing that FGM is a one-time procedure, and that once inflicted, an applicant will not be persecuted with FGM again, and thus cannot act as a basis for an asylum application.

INTRODUCTION Female genital mutilation (FGM) is a term encompassing a wide range of surgical procedures that involve the removal or alteration of a woman‘s genitalia.1 Currently, a wellfounded fear of FGM can act as a basis for a successful asylum claim. Recent developments in asylum law, however, have resulted in a split between the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and several federal circuits over whether a prior infliction of FGM may qualify a woman for asylum.



This is an edited, reformatted and augmented version of a CRS Report for Congress publication dated February 2008.

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

2

Yule Kim

PRIOR CASE LAW The Prima Facie Case for Asylum Asylum is a form of relief that the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General may grant in his or her discretion if the applicant qualifies to be a refugee, as defined by Section 101(a)(42)2 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).3 In order to qualify as a refugee, the applicant must show4 that she has a well-founded fear5 of persecution in her home country on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a social group, or political opinion.6 The analysis in an asylum claim is usually broken into three elements: (1) proof of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution, (2) proof of membership in a race, religion, nationality, or social group or belief in a political opinion, and (3) proof that the well-founded fear of persecution is ―on account of‖ the applicant‘s membership in the protected class of individuals.

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Woman as a Social Group In order for there to be a successful asylum claim, the applicant must not only show she has suffered persecution or has a well-founded fear of persecution, but she must also demonstrate that the well-founded fear of persecution is on account of belonging to a race, religion, nationality, social group, or holding a political opinion.7 Gender alone does not constitute a social group and is not sufficient to establish asylum status.8 On the other hand, one formulation of a social group which has been successfully used in an FGM asylum claim is ―women opposed to FGM who belong to an ethnic group that practices FGM.‖9 Thus, in order to successfully claim asylum based on FGM, the applicant must show, at a minimum, that she is (1) a female, (2) that belongs to an particular ethnic group, and (3) that ethnic group widely practices FGM.10

FGM as Future Persecution An asylum applicant must demonstrate that he is unable to avail himself of the protection of his country because of ―persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution.‖11 FGM is recognized by most federal circuits and the BIA as a form of persecution.12 The BIA, for example, has characterized FGM as a form of ―sexual oppression ... to ensure male dominance and exploitation,‖ practiced in order to ―overcome sexual characteristics of young women ... who have not been, and do not wish to be, subjected to FGM.‖13 Therefore, if an asylum applicant successfully shows a well- founded fear of FGM if she returns to her home country, that alone would satisfy the well- founded fear element of an asylum claim. Some asylum applicants have also made the argument that they have a well-founded fear of persecution based on the fear that a daughter will suffer FGM upon arrival at the applicant‘s home country.14 Several federal circuits seem to at least implicitly accept this proposition.15 The BIA has, however, rejected an argument proposed by a childless applicant

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Asylum Law and Female Genital Mutilation: Recent Developments

3

who based her asylum claim on the fear that her future, unborn daughters may suffer FGM, classifying this fear as too speculative to be well-founded.16

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

FGM as Past Persecution Even though a showing of a well-founded fear of FGM will qualify an applicant for asylum status, the BIA will not regard a past infliction of FGM as sufficient to establish a well-founded fear of persecution.17 This approach, however, is a marked departure from the approach taken by the federal circuits that have addressed this issue. When an applicant petitions for asylum status, she must show that she has a ―wellfounded fear‖ of persecution. An asylum applicant can create a rebuttable presumption of a ―well-founded fear‖ of persecution if she can show (1) a past incident that rises to the level of persecution (2) that is on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a social group, or political opinion, and (3) is committed by the government or by forces the government is either unable or unwilling to control.18 This presumption may be rebutted if it can be shown that ―there has been a fundamental change in circumstances such that the applicant no longer has a well-founded fear of persecution in the applicant‘s country.‖19 The leading federal appellate case on the treatment of FGM as past persecution is Mohammed v. Gonzales.20 In this case, the asylum applicant was a woman from Somalia who had already been inflicted with FGM.21 The applicant claimed that the FGM constituted past persecution which warranted the presumption that she had a well-founded fear of future persecution.22 The government contended that the past infliction of FGM should have rebutted the presumption because, having already suffered FGM, it was unlikely that the applicant would be inflicted with the procedure in the future.23 The Ninth Circuit rejected this argument, analogizing FGM to forced sterilization, which had been classified as a ―continuing harm that renders a petitioner eligible for asylum, without more.‖24 This holding effectively made a showing of FGM sufficient to create an irrebuttable presumption of a well-founded fear of persecution.25 Alternatively, the Ninth Circuit stated that even if FGM created a mere rebuttable presumption of a well-founded fear, the presumption would still be difficult to rebut because of the risk of violence and gender persecution, as evidenced by the applicant‘s FGM, if the applicant was removed to her home country.26 This alternative theory has been endorsed by the Eighth Circuit in Hassan v. Gonzales, which held that a showing of past FGM would create a presumption of a well-founded fear since the applicant could still suffer from forms of future persecution other than FGM.27 On the other hand, the BIA has expressly rejected both of these theories. The BIA has instead ruled that if the government shows that the asylum applicant has already suffered FGM, the presumption of a well-founded fear of persecution is rebutted.28 The BIA argues that FGM is a one-time procedure, and once it has been undergone, the applicant will never be persecuted by FGM again.29 Furthermore, the BIA rejected the theory that FGM constitutes a ―continuing harm‖ which creates an irrebutt able presumption of future persecution.30 The BIA claimed that the only reason forced sterilization is given ―continuing harm‖ status is because of a statutory provision that expressly states that forced sterilization provides a basis for asylum.31 Absent such a statutory endorsement from Congress, the BIA

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

4

Yule Kim

concluded that FGM should not be treated the same as forced sterilization.32 It should be noted that the Ninth Circuit has argued that the ―continuing harm‖ concept arose out of case law and not from the statute; the statutory provision regarding forced sterilization instead creates a nexus between a showing of past forced sterilization and political opinion, thereby automatically satisfying the ―on account of‖ element in an asylum claim and has nothing to do with the ―well-founded fear of persecution‖ element.33 On the alternative theory, the BIA rejected the notion that a showing of FGM can create a rebuttable presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution.34 This approach, suggested by the Ninth Circuit in Mohammed and adopted by the Eighth Circuit in Hassan, was dismissed by the BIA as a deviation from regulatory procedures.35 Specifically, the BIA cited a regulation which states that ―If the applicant‘s fear of future persecution is unrelated to past persecution, the applicant bears the burden of establishing that the fear is wellfounded.‖36 The BIA, in essence, appears to require that a showing of past persecution must create a well-founded fear of identical future persecution.37 If the past persecution renders an identical form of persecution in the future impossible, then the past persecution will not create a rebuttable presumption of a well-founded fear.38 As it currently stands, the majority of federal circuits that have addressed this issue appear to view a past infliction of FGM as constituting past persecution which can create a rebuttable presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution.39 However, considering the important gate-keeping function the BIA serves for asylum applications, the majority of applicants who have already suffered FGM will likely have their asylum claims rejected.

End Notes

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

1

See CRS Report RS2 1923, Female Genital Mutilation (FGM): Background Information and Issues for Congress, by Tiaji Salaam-Blyther, Erin D. Williams, and Ruth Ellen Wasem. 2 INA § 101(a)(42)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). 3 INA § 208(b)(1)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(A). 4 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (―The burden of proof is on the applicant for asylum to establish that he or she is a refugee as defined in section 101(a)(42) of the Act.‖). See also 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(a). 5 See INS v. Cardozo-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 431 (1987) (―That the fear must be ‗well-founded‘ does not alter the obvious focus on the individual‘s subjective beliefs, nor does it transform the standard into a ‗more likely than not‘ one. One can certainly have a well-founded fear of an event happening when there is less than a 50% chance of the occurrence taking place.‖); Balogun v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 492, 499 (7th Cir. 2004) (―The asylum applicant must show (1) that she has a genuine, subjective fear of persecution and (2) that her fear is objectively reasonable.‖). 6 INA § 101(a)(42)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1 101(a)(42)(A). See also Cardozo-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 428. 7 INA § 101(a)(42)(A0, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). 8 See Fatin v. INS, 12 F.3d 1233 (3d Cir. 1993). 9 See In re Kasinga, 21 I. & N. Dec. 357, 365 (BIA 1996) (holding that persecution was on account of applicant‘s membership of a social group comprising of the young women of the Tchamba-Kunsuntu Tribe); Niang v. Gonzales, 422 F.3d 1187, 1200 (1 0th Cir. 2005) (holding that for purposes of FGM, a social group can be defined by both gender and tribal membership). See also In re Acosta, 19 I. & N. Dec. 211, 233 (BIA 1985). 10 See Niang, 422 F.3d at 1199. But see Kasinga, 21 I. & N. Dec. at 365 (appearing to indicate that an FGM asylum applicant must also show a personal opposition to FGM). 11 INA § 101 (a)(42). When the statute speaks of ―persecution‖ and a ―well-founded fear of persecution,‖ it is referring to prospective persecution if the applicant is sent back to her home country. A showing of past persecution is meant to serve as evidence of prospective persecution. 12 Kasinga, 21 I. & N. Dec. at 365 (BIA 1996); Abay v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d 634, 638 (6 th Cir. 2004). 13 Kasinga, 21 I. & N. Dec. at 366-367. 14 See Abay, 368 F.3d at 641.

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Asylum Law and Female Genital Mutilation: Recent Developments

Id. See also Nwaokolo v. INS, 314 F.3d 303, 308 (7th Cir. 2002); Barry v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 741, 745 (4th Cir. 2006). 16 In re A-T-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 296, 302 (BIA 2007). 17 When an asylum applicant makes a showing of past persecution, it serves as evidence of prospective persecution in the future if she is sent back to her home country. 18 Navas v. INS, 217 F.3d 646, 655-656 (9th Cir. 2000). See also 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1). 19 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(A). 20 400 F.3d 785 (9th Cir. 2005). 21 Id. at 789-790. 22 Id. at 791. 23 Id. at 799. 24 Id. See also Qu v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1195, 1203 (9th Cir. 2005) (characterizing forced sterilization as a form of permanent and continuous persecution which creates an irrebuttable presumption of a well-founded fear of persecution). 25 But see Hassan v. Gonzales,484 F.3d 513, 518 (8th Cir. 2007) (holding that while a showing of FGM will be sufficient to create a presumption of a well-founded fear of persecution, the presumption is still rebuttable). 26 Mohammed, 400 F.3d at 800. 27 484 F.3d at 518. 28 In re A-T-, 24 I. & N. Dec. at 299. 29 Id. 30 Id. 31 Id. at 300. See also INA § 101(a)(42), 8 U.S.C. § 1 101(a)(42). 32 In re A-T-, 24 I. & N. Dec. at 300. 33 See Mohammed, 400 F.3d at 800, fn. 22. 34 In re A-T-, 24 I. & N. Dec. at 304. 35 Id. 36 Id. See also 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1); 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1). 37 In re A-T-, 24 I. & N. Dec. at 304. 38 Id. 39 See Mohammed, 400 F.3d at 800-801; Hassan, 484 F.3d at 518; Barry, 445 F.3d at 745 (stating in dictum that a showing of a prior infliction of FGM constitutes a prima facie case of persecution for an asylum claim); Niang, 422 F.3d at 1197-1198 (agreeing that a prior infliction of FGM is a viable basis for an asylum claim).

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

15

5

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved. International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

In: International Efforts to Protect Women Editor: Lilian T. Graham pp. 7-13

ISBN: 978-1-60741-186-4 © 2010 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 2

RAPE AS A WEAPON OF WAR: ACCOUNTABILITY FOR SEXUAL VIOLENCE IN CONFLICT Karin Wachter

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Gender-Based Violence Technical Advisor, International Rescue Committee

Please let me begin by saying that I feel extremely privileged to have been invited to speak with you all today. I bring to this hearing today first-hand experience working on the issue of violence against women and girls, and the insight gained through a decade lived on the African continent. I represent and speak from the perspective of a U.S.-based nongovernmental humanitarian organization that has prioritized the problem of violence against women and girls in conflict and seeks to assure that they not only survive conflict, but ultimately thrive in times of peace. Today, I will share with you my personal experience and thoughts on the subject. I will also strive to represent some of the voices and experiences of the hundreds of national and expatriate humanitarian workers devoted to this issue, many of whom are themselves civilian victims of war and displacement. Above all, I wish I could share with you the voices, concerns and hopes of the tens of thousands of women and girls who come forward for help, having been assaulted, tortured, humiliated and disabled simply for having been born female and getting caught in the crossfire of war. I started working with the International Rescue Committee (IRC) in eastern Congo, where, already back in 2002, women were talking about not the one time they were brutally sexually assaulted, but about the third or fourth time. Many of them were abandoned by their husbands or families, often with the babies that were born as a result. It was at this time that the problem of rape-related fistula was first picked up on the international radar screen. By the time I arrived in Burundi in early 2006, their war – notorious for its use of sexual Violence – was mainly over, but peer organizations such as Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) still had a constant stream of mothers bringing their daughters for post-rape care in the areas where the rebel army had settled down. Adult women were reluctant to seek help for themselves because they were afraid of the repercussions of doing so.

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

8

Karin Wachter

In May of 2007, I was in Northern Uganda. While the political situation was already stabilizing, sexual abuse and exploitation of adolescent and young girls were rampant in the camps. Within days of launching IRC's program, we saw more abused girls seeking help than anybody initially imagined possible. In the past six years, I have seen firsthand the sexual and physical violence against women and girls in 10 different conflict-affected African countries. We would not be exaggerating to call this violence a global human rights, public health and security crisis. The perpetration of sexual violence is both a tactic of warfare, and an opportunistic consequence of conflict and displacement. They often go hand-in-hand. Either way, women's bodies become the frontline of an unnecessary and cruel battle. As a weapon of war, sexual violence seeks to accomplish a larger objective than the individual act of rape itself. The systematic use of rape in war has many purposes, including ethnic cleansing, elimination, humiliation, or control and domination of target populations – based on their ethnicity, political affiliation, nationality or geographical location – and obviously their gender. Up to a half a million women were raped during the Rwandan genocide. We've seen this tactic or strategy used year in and year out in eastern Congo, where the national military and numerous rebel groups use brutal forms of sexual violence - in part to secure their own food and provisions from the rural population. It is domination through sexualized terror. This form of warfare is so effective – and so open to being modified depending on the whim and depravity of the perpetrators – because while it is the bodies and spirits of women and girls that are directly trampled upon, sexual violence creates deep wounds and schisms within the target community. It destroys the fabric of a community in a way that few weapons can. It produces unwanted children, it spreads disease, and it leaves an imprint on the individual and collective psyche that is difficult to erase. This strategic use of sexual violence is usually accompanied with a sharp increase in opportunistic rape, carried out not only by armed groups in an environment of impunity, but within the family or community as well. Societal norms that regulate behavior and afford some degree of protection to women break down during war, and give way to an 'anything and everything goes' mentality that can, over time, rub off on the affected population. During conflict women and children make up the majority of the world's refugees and internally displaced persons. They are often separated from their nuclear and extended families. Necessary tasks for survival in areas of insecurity – such as firewood and water collection or farming, which are typically the work of females – increase their exposure to sexual violence on a daily basis. Sexual assault of women and girls engaged in foraging for basic survival needs has become so commonplace that in the field it is glibly referred to as "firewood rape". While men and boys are affected by conflict in many terrible ways, women and girls are the ones who are predominantly raped, mutilated, abducted into sexual slavery, and sexually exploited during times of conflict. Let us not sugar-coat the reality we are talking about here sexual violence is a form of torture. During the Indonesian occupation (1975 – 2002), women in East Timor were subjected to the same human rights abuses the general Timorese population experienced, but were also targeted for rape, sexual harassment, enforced slavery, and were forced or coerced into prostitution to service the Indonesian military. Women who were associated (or assumed to be) with the East Timorese resistance movement were particularly targeted for violence

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Rape as a Weapon of War: Accountability for Sexual Violence in Conflict

9

carried out by the state. In the post-referendum violence, the militia groups continued to perpetrate these forms of violence against women. It has been said that it was the Bosnian war that woke up the international community to the ways in which war and conflict are inherently gendered experiences. Tens of thousands of Bosnian women and girls were subjected to egregious acts of violence— raped in front of their family members, forced into sexual servitude, impregnated, forced into rape camps, and subjected to genital mutilation. All over the world, the consequences of sexual violence are far-reaching. Survivors are exposed to and suffer from serious and debilitating short- and long-term social and physical and mental health and economic consequences, including: death, severe injuries, fistula, sexually transmitted infections, HIV/AIDS, and unwanted pregnancy; impaired function, anxiety, fear, shame, post-traumatic stress, hopelessness, and suicide; rejection and stigmatization by families and communities, extreme isolation and increased economic hardship. In many contexts, rape means a girl's or woman's chances to marry are greatly diminished. Without the relative security and status that marriage provides in traditional societies, women are left vulnerable and further exposed to sexual and physical exploitation. And you can only imagine what it does to a family to watch your daughter gang-raped, or your wife's pregnant belly sliced open, or your son obliged to hold down his sister while soldiers force you to violate her. The physical, psychological and social consequences of this kind of violence are very real and often go untreated. The effects of this type of wide-spread sexualized terror on the family and community have long-term implications for a nation's capacity to heal and rebuild after war. And unfortunately, for women and girls, the threat of violence remains long after fighting ends. We know that reporting rates for sexual abuse in contexts emerging from war in which sexual violence was systematically used by armed forces will remain high – but that the perpetrators will often be the members of the community itself. Crippled, corrupt or destroyed justice systems do little to dissuade civilians from abusing their relative degree of power and control. Once having escaped the conflict, women may be forced to exchange sex for survival and protection of their children. During protracted humanitarian crises, women also face a growing threat of physical, sexual and economic abuse within their own households. It is difficult for people to understand that the survivors of these atrocities will continue to come forward even once the war ends, and sometimes en masse. In times of relative calm, access to services improves and women and girls who have suffered for years as result of an attack – or multiple attacks – come forward when it becomes possible and safe to do so. Currently, women in eastern Congo have to walk for days to reach health services, and frequently are subjected to attacks again during their journey to seek help. Access to lifesaving services is a prevailing problem in the rural contexts affected by war due to the absence of infrastructure, resources and lack of capacity. In protracted refugee situations, such as the Burundians in Tanzania or the Burmese in Thailand, we see the male refugee population idle and disenfranchised, and rates of physical violence in the home rise the longer they are in camps. The situation in West Africa is just as concerning. Since the end of the wars in Liberia and Sierra Leone, service providers and police have seen an increase in reports of violence.

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

10

Karin Wachter

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Survivors report incidents of sexual violence perpetrated by intimate partners, neighbors, and friends. They report incidents of domestic violence, experiences with forced and early marriage, and female genital mutilation. In Sierra Leone, in 2007 alone, 1176 girls and women sought care for sexual or physical violence at IRC centers . . . 65% of those cases were under the age of 15. . . 64% of those cases were rape or gang-rape . . . the youngest client was two months old. A recent study conducted by the IRC and Columbia University in Liberia (August 2007) indicated that violence against women and girls is dramatically widespread. In the study population: 55% of the women surveyed had experienced domestic violence; 30% of all women seeking medical attention have experienced domestic violence; 72% of women reported that their husbands had forced them to have sex in the last 18 months; and, 13% of minors in one county and 11% of minors in another county had been sexually abused in the last 18 months. Please let me assure you that at the bottom of all of this suffering is in fact a message of hope. 1. Given what we know about the relationship between conflict and sexual violence, the burden-of-proof for sexual violence in humanitarian emergencies should be to provide evidence that rape is in fact not rampant. The international community now maintains that sexual violence is to be assumed in all humanitarian emergencies – including natural disasters. The humanitarian community – United Nations and NGOs alike – has made great strides in developing industry standards and guidelines for establishing the response to conflict-related sexual violence in humanitarian emergencies. At this point, we know what it takes to launch an effective response and we know how to monitor the quality of that response; what is harder is deploying the necessary technical expertise, given the relatively limited pool of humanitarian aid workers specializing in violence against women in conflict. In addition, we have made good progress in gaining the commitment and buy-in from key American donors – the State Department's Bureau for Population, Refugees and Migration (BPRM) and USAID – to allocate much needed resources to this crucial issue. We still have a long way to go. An increase in resources translates into being able to hit the ground faster and more effectively to set-up life-saving services and start advocacy efforts at the onset of an emergency. The United States has a key role to play in promoting the allocation of resources to stop violence against women in war and to ease the suffering of its innocent victims. 2. Violence against women in conflict is now commonly understood by the international community as a violation of basic human rights. The understanding of a state's responsibility to protect women from violence has evolved considerably. Senator Biden and Senator Lugar recently introduced bipartisan legislation – the International Violence Against Women Act (IVAWA, S.2279) – which would make violence against women a key priority in U.S. foreign assistance programs. The legislation is of vital importance for the hundreds of thousands of women and girls affected by violence. In recognition of how violence against women is exacerbated by conflict and continues long thereafter, the IVAWA bill is designed to address the issue in war-torn, post-conflict and development setting. Those of us

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Rape as a Weapon of War: Accountability for Sexual Violence in Conflict

11

working day in and day out on this issue anxiously wait for this piece of legislation to be passed. Addressing violence against women in conflict is smart foreign policy and the American people care more about this issue than we may think. When the IRC launched a web-based petition to help garner support for the IVAWA bill, a surprisingly high number of the 50,000 Americans who signed the petition also wrote a personal note, expressing their sincere concern about violence against women and girls in conflict. This unexpected outpouring of concern led us to launch a modest eadvocacy campaign, in which the general public was invited to write words of encouragement to Congolese women and the local activists and organizations working to assist them. Within 10 days of launching the campaign, we had 2,779 people who wrote messages of support in response to the crisis in DRC. Please permit me to share two examples of what people wrote: A woman from New York wrote: "There are few words that can express the nature of the horrible wrongs which you face every day. We all have the right to safety and respect. Continue to speak out of the injustices and the violations of your souls. We are listening..." A man from Virginia wrote: "We are writing our leaders and sending funds to help. I have also included your story in my blog. I hope that we can make a difference. I am remembering you when I vote and write Congress. I hope that the U.S. can become a force to help you in the Congo." 3. The United States has the opportunity to rally member states within the United Nations system on increasing attention and commitment to preventing sexual violence in conflict and responding effectively to the survivors. Above all, we look to the United Nations for sustained action – in ensuring effective humanitarian coordination as it relates to sexual violence in conflict; in promoting the accountability of nation states in which sexual violence goes unchecked; and, to help ensure the presence of women at the table during peace talks and reconstruction efforts. The irony we face in this line of work is that conflict can open the door to address what is without fail a pervasive and very taboo subject matter. Over time, we see the effects of our work – we see the numbers of women and girls receiving essential services increase dramatically. We see local activists and local women's groups learn how to approach survivors' needs holistically and help to get them the care that they need. Local health professionals learn to overcome their own biases and misconceptions about sexual violence and begin to treat survivors with the care, compassion and privacy they deserve. And the violence and suffering that women and girls have been quietly handling alone begin to be discussed as an issue that affects the entire community. We see women find their voice, first amongst other women, and then within the community – to speak about the issues they face and how they envision a life free from violence for themselves and their children. We see men take interest and start to take action within their own families and their communities at large. Sometimes, as in Liberia or Sierra Leone, we even see laws and policies that discriminate against survivors of sexual violence start to change.

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

12

Karin Wachter

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

I thank Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Coburn and the Members of the Subcommittee for your time and interest in this worthwhile cause. Sexual violence and its extreme consequences do not have to be an inevitable component of conflict and displacement. The women and girls from conflict zones are waiting for the chance to heal and live free from the threat of violence. The U.S. government can help make that hope a reality for women and girls around the world. We look to you for action.

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

In: International Efforts to Protect Women Editor: Lilian T. Graham pp. 13-32

ISBN: 978-1-60741-186-4 © 2010 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 3

FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION AS PERSECUTION: WHEN CAN IT CONSTITUTE A BASIS FOR ASYLUM AND WITHHOLDING OF REMOVAL? 

Yule Kim

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

SUMMARY Female genital mutilation (FGM) encompasses a wide range of procedures which involve the removal or alteration of a woman‘s and girl‘s genitalia. The federal courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) have classified FGM as a form of persecution, a showing of which can act as a basis for a successful asylum or withholding of removal claim. However, there was a split between the federal courts and the BIA over the treatment of applicants who have already been subjected to FGM. The federal courts that have addressed this issue have held that a past infliction of FGM creates a presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution, which is a prerequisite for refugee status, and also a clear probability of future harm, a requirement for obtaining withholding of removal. The BIA, on the other hand, has rejected this position in In re A-T-, arguing that FGM can be inflicted only once, which means that an applicant cannot have a well-founded fear or present a clear probability of FGM happening again in the future. Thus, under the BIA interpretation, the past infliction of FGM, a form of past persecution, rather than creating a presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution, rebuts the presumption. The BIA has stated, however, that while a past infliction of FGM cannot act as a basis for a well-founded fear of future persecution, a past infliction of FGM, if sufficiently severe, can act as a basis for an asylum claim on humanitarian grounds. Although the BIA has ruled that a past infliction of FGM cannot act as the basis for a well-founded fear of persecution, a federal court of appeals has rejected this holding. The Federal Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has ruled that the BIA misapplied the regulatory framework governing past persecution, holding that the BIA was in error when it 

This is an edited, reformatted and augmented version of a CRS Report for Congress publication dated October 2008.

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

14

Yule Kim

determined that a past infliction of FGM rebutted the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution. The Second Circuit‘s holding, while it does not grant per se refugee status to women who have suffered a past infliction of FGM, does allow that past infliction to act as a basis for an asylum or withholding of removal claim. The Attorney General has since vacated the BIA decision in In re A-T-, holding that a past infliction of FGM can be the basis for a well-founded fear of future persecution. The BIA‘s holding in In re A-T- no longer controls future FGM asylum claims.

INTRODUCTION Female genital mutilation (FGM) encompasses a wide range of surgical procedures which remove or alter a woman‘s or girl‘s external genitalia.1 Although it is a cultural practice prevalent among some African, Asian and Middle-Eastern ethnic groups,2 it is widely considered a human rights violation by most international organizations and Western nations.3 This viewpoint is reflected in American law, which classifies FGM as a form of persecution which can act as a basis for refugee status.4 Before exploring how FGM affects an applicant‘s asylum application, this report shall explore the basic statutory and regulatory framework that governs asylum law. This entails an outline of the requirements an applicant must meet in order to obtain relief under asylum law and a discussion about the differences between the two main forms of relief for aliens facing removal from the United States: asylum and withholding of removal. It will then examine several important issues and controversies concerning FGM and its effect on asylum law.

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

GENERAL BACKGROUND ON ASYLUM AND WITHHOLDING OF REMOVAL Aliens5 often come to the United States in order to escape persecution and political turmoil in their native lands. Some aliens arrive at a U.S. port of entry seeking admission into the country, while others manage to effect entry illegally. Both groups are subject to removal back to their countries of origin.6 Immigration law, however, provides these aliens recourse to three ways in which to stay removal: asylum, withholding of removal, and the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT).7 This report will focus primarily on asylum and withholding of removal. These two mechanisms are substantively similar in many ways, but they do differ in some important respects.

Asylum Asylum is a means for aliens who have suffered persecution in their countries of origin to enter or remain within the United States. Potential ―asylees‖ apply for asylum either upon arrival at a U.S. port of entry or as a defense during a removal proceeding. In order to obtain asylum, the burden of proof is on the applicant to demonstrate that she meets the eligibility

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Female Genital Mutilation as Persecution

15

requirements for asylum: namely that he or she is a refugee.8 The applicant must also show, by clear and convincing evidence, that she filed her application within one year of arriving in the United States.9 Even if an applicant satisfies the necessary eligibility requirements, asylum is discretionary and may still be denied (usually because of the alien‘s criminal background). Individuals who obtain asylum are allowed to remain within the United States and may adjust their status to permanent residence at a later date.10 Through derivative asylum, an asylee may have her spouse and minor children accompany her into the country or follow and join her after she has effected entry.11 The term ―refugee‖ has two distinct senses. Refugees usually refer to a large number of displaced individuals located outside the United States who receive leave from the President to enter into the country as a group.12 Although asylum refers to the statutory definition of ―refugee‖ in order to determine who may obtain relief, asylum, in contrast to the refugee admission process, is geared toward individuals already in or at the border of the United States, and is typically adjudicated before Immigration Judges on a case-by-case basis.13 Thus, the way in which a group of refugees obtains admission into the United States from overseas and the process by which an individual refugee is permitted to stay within the United States once reaching its shores are distinct. This report will focus on the latter sense of ―refugee;‖ namely refugees who undergo the asylum process.

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Withholding of Removal Withholding of removal14 allows an applicant to stay deportation if the applicant demonstrates that her ―life or freedom would be threatened‖ if returned to her country of origin.15 Although asylum requires the applicant to be threatened by ―persecution,‖ while withholding of removal requires a threat to her life or freedom, the federal courts appear to view these two concepts interchangeably, at least with regards to the type of harm the two concepts signify.16 On the other hand, withholding of removal does differ from asylum in several important respects. For example, unlike asylum, withholding of removal can only be used as a defense during a removal proceeding. It is also a mandatory form of relief: if the alien qualifies for withholding of removal, it must be granted.17 However, withholding of removal merely grants the applicant the right not to be removed to her country of origin rather than an affirmative right to stay within the United States.18 Thus, someone who remains within the United States because of withholding of removal cannot adjust status to permanent residence.19 Furthermore, obtaining withholding of removal instead of asylum would preclude the applicant‘s spouse or minor children from entering the country through derivative asylum.20 Although asylum provides more rights, an applicant can be barred from obtaining asylum on procedural or discretionary grounds. If an applicant is barred from applying for asylum, she would have to pursue withholding of removal in order to stay removal.21

The Statutory Requirements for Asylum or Withholding of Removal In order for an individual alien to claim either asylum or withholding of removal, the alien must satisfy certain statutory requirements. While the statutory requirements for asylum

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

16

Yule Kim

and withholding of removal are similar in many ways, they do differ with regards to the burden of proof that an applicant must bear when trying to establish the likelihood of being subjected to future persecution. An applicant petitioning for asylum must establish that she is a refugee, which requires a well- founded fear of persecution.22 Someone seeking withholding of removal, on the other hand, must show a ―clear probability‖ of future persecution.23 When applying for asylum, an applicant is also automatically deemed by regulations to be seeking withholding of removal.24 Because the statutory requirements for refugee status and withholding of removal are substantively similar, this report will proceed by first outlining the statutory and regulatory framework of refugee status and will then discuss the ways in which it differs from withholding of removal.

The Definition of Refugee ―Refugee‖ is statutorily defined in INA § 101(a)(42), which states that:

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

The term ―refugee‖ means (A) any person who is outside any country of such person‘s nationality, or, in the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any country in which such person last habitually resided, and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion, or (B) in such special circumstances as the President after appropriate consultation (as defined in section 207(e) of this Act) may specify, any person who is within the country of such persons‘ nationality, or, in the case of a person having no nationality, within the country in which such person is habitually residing, and who is persecuted or who has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. 25

For purposes of most asylum claims, in order to establish ―refugee‖ status, an applicant must show three things: (1) she has a ―well-founded fear of persecution,‖ (2) the persecution was ―on account of‖ a protected ground, and (3) she belongs to the protected ground, namely a race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. The particulars of each element will be examined in turn.

First Element: Well Founded Fear of Persecution Persecution Persecution is not defined by statute and is determined on a case-by-case basis by the courts. The Seventh Circuit, for example, defined persecution as ―punishment or the infliction of harm for political, religious, or other reasons that this country does not recognize as legitimate.‖26 However, not all bad acts necessarily rise to the level of persecution. As the Seventh Circuit later stated, ―the conduct in question need not necessarily threaten the petitioner‘s life or freedom; however, it must rise above the level of mere harassment to constitute persecution.‖27 Persecution is rather ―an extreme concept that does not include every sort of treatment our society regards as offensive.‖28 It is therefore difficult to establish a bright line between conduct that clearly rises to the level of persecution and conduct that falls short. A single incident of imprisonment or violence coupled with a death threat may

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Female Genital Mutilation as Persecution

17

constitute persecution;29 multiple beatings that require the victim to receive hospitalization may not.30

Well-founded fear Well-founded fear is another concept left undefined by statute. ―Well-founded fear‖ appears to originate from Article 1 of the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which characterized the basis of a refugee claim as ―persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution.‖ The Convention, however, does not address the parameters of a wellfounded fear.31 Because of the term‘s ambiguous nature, the Supreme Court has observed that ―‗well-founded fear‘ ... can only be given concrete meaning through a process of case-by-case adjudication.‖32 At the same time, the Court made clear that a well- founded fear does not require more than 50% certainty.33 Regulations promulgated by the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice find a well-founded fear to be established if 



Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.



the applicant has a fear of persecution in his or her country of nationality, or, if stateless, in his or her country of last habitual residence, on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political belief (i.e., the subjective component);34 there is a reasonable possibility of suffering such persecution if he or she were to return to that country (i.e., the objective component);35 and he or she is unable or unwilling to return to, or avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of such fear.36

Well-founded fear contains a subjective and an objective component.37 First, the applicant must genuinely fear persecution.38 Second, the fear must be objectively ―wellfounded,‖ or in other words, a reasonable person in the applicant‘s position would fear persecution.39 A showing of only one component is insufficient to establish well-founded fear.40 In order to establish the objective component of a well-founded fear, the applicant must establish four things:41 

  

the applicant possesses a characteristic or belief which motivates the persecutor to inflict harm on the applicant (though the persecutor need not be motivated by a ―punitive‖ or ―malignant‖ intent);42 the persecutor is aware, or could become aware, that the applicant possesses this belief or characteristic;43 the persecutor has the capability to inflict harm on the applicant; and the persecutor has the inclination to harm the applicant.44

Although an applicant may establish the objective component of a well-founded fear by demonstrating that she has been specifically targeted for persecution or has already suffered harm, such an individualized showing is unnecessary. A showing of persecution inflicted on individuals similarly situated to the applicant is sufficient to establish the objective component.45 Regulations have adopted this approach by allowing the objective component of

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

18

Yule Kim

a well-founded fear to be met if the applicant establishes that (1) there is a pattern or practice in the applicant‘s country of origin to persecute groups of persons similarly situated to the applicant on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion; and (2) the applicant is included in and identifies with such groups so that his or her fear is reasonable.46

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Withholding of removal requires a clear probability of persecution If asylum is not available to an applicant, she may alternatively pursue withholding of removal. Although the statutory and regulatory requirements for establishing persecution are similar to those underlying asylum, an applicant who chooses this course must shoulder a heavier evidentiary burden. Instead of showing a well-founded fear of persecution, an applicant must demonstrate a ―clear probability‖ of persecution.47 The Supreme Court has held that ―clear probability‖ means ―more likely than not,‖ which is to say that it is the equivalent to the preponderance of the evidence standard.48 Although ―well-founded‖ fear is left largely undefined, the federal courts treat it as a less demanding evidentiary standard than ―more likely than not.‖49 Past Persecution ―Persecution,‖ a ―well-founded fear of persecution,‖ and a ―clear probability of persecution,‖ are prospective standards. This means that asylum and withholding of removal are primarily forward looking measures that are better understood as mechanisms to protect individuals from future harm rather than as remedies to cure past harm. Despite the prospective nature of asylum and withholding of removal, past persecution still serves a role in this framework. First, past persecution plays a regulatory rather than statutory role in the asylum and withholding of removal framework, which means its role in the federal scheme was prescribed by agencies rather than Congress. Second, and more importantly, past persecution, in many instances serves as evidence that the applicant may suffer future persecution and does not, in itself, warrant asylum or withholding of removal.50 In other words, asylum or withholding of removal is usually granted because of the risk of perspective harm, not because the applicant is a victim of past harm. The Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice have promulgated regulations in which a showing of past persecution can serve as a substitute for a showing of a well-founded fear or clear probability of persecution so long as the persecution was committed on account of a protected ground and the applicant is unable or unwilling to avail herself of the protection of her country of origin owing to the persecution.51 This demonstration of past persecution creates a presumption of both a well-founded fear of persecution52 and a clear probability of persecution.53 At this point, the burden shifts to the government to prove by a preponderance of the evidence54 either that the applicant can avoid the persecution (1) by relocating within her home country and it would be reasonable to expect her to do so,55 or (2) because circumstances have changed that negate the well-founded fear of the applicant56 and the clear probability of persecution.57 In most cases, changed circumstances involve the changed circumstances of the applicant‘s country of origin.58 Even if the government establishes changed circumstances, asylum may still be granted through the exercise of the adjudicator‘s discretion if the applicant demonstrates compelling reasons for being unwilling or unable to return to her country of origin due to the severity of

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Female Genital Mutilation as Persecution

19

her past persecution59 or the applicant establishes that there is a reasonable possibility that she may suffer other serious harm upon removal to that country.60 On the other hand, in a withholding of removal claim, if the applicant‘s future fear of persecution is unrelated to her past experience of persecution, the applicant retains the burden to show that it is more likely than not that she will suffer future persecution.61

Second Element: “On Account of” a Protected Ground Persecution is only the first element an applicant must establish in order to obtain asylum or withholding of removal. The applicant must next establish that the persecution was conducted ―on account of‖ a ground protected under the refugee statute.62 The primary difficulty with the term ―on account of‖ is its vagueness. As mentioned earlier, the refugee definition was largely taken from the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, where instead of using the term ―on account of,‖ the treaty uses ―for reasons of.‖63 The term also appears largely undefined in the case law. The only Supreme Court case to address its meaning did so only in passing, where it assumed it meant ―because of.‖64 However, the precise standard of causality to be used is disputed.65 Although the precise nature of ―on account of‖ is disputed, what is clear is that there must be some type of relationship between the persecution and the protected ground, or in other words, a ―nexus.‖ The federal courts have also agreed that the protected ground need not be the sole reason for the persecution, but rather, under the ―mixed motive‖ doctrine, it has to be only part of the motive for the persecution.66

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Third Element: Belonging to a Protected Ground In order to obtain either asylum or withholding of removal, an applicant must show not only that she has suffered persecution, but that it was inflicted ―on account of‖ race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.67 Thus, in order to obtain either asylum or withholding of removal, an applicant must show that she belongs to one of the protected grounds.68 Applicants who seek to obtain asylum or withholding of removal through an FGM claim generally must show they belong to a particular social group. Thus, this report focuses on the law governing the particular social group ground.

Membership in a particular social group Congress inserted the term ―membership in a particular social group‖ into the refugee statute in order to have it conform with the United Nations Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.69 The term is otherwise left undefined in the relevant statutes, legislative history, treaties, and negotiating history.70 Because of this, case law has been the primary means by which ―membership in a particular social group‖ has been construed. The most frequently cited construction of ―membership in a particular social group‖ is found in Matter of Acosta.71 In that case, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), after noting the dearth of legislative history and statutory guidance, used the doctrine of ejusdem generis in construing ―membership in a particular social group‖ by comparing it with the

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

20

Yule Kim

other enumerated grounds in the statute.72 The common trait the BIA elucidated among the enumerated protected grounds was immutability; in other words, all persons who belonged to a protected ground shared a ―common, immutable characteristic.‖73 The BIA elaborated on this notion by stating that, in order to obtain asylum under the particular social group ground, the persecution must be aimed at a common, immutable characteristic that is shared by all members of the particular social group.74 The immutable characteristic ―may be an innate one such as sex, color, or kinship ties, or in some circumstances it might be a shared past experience such as former military leadership or land ownership,‖ but ―whatever the common characteristic that defines the group, it must be one that the members of the group either cannot charge, or should not be required to change because it is fundamental to their individual identities or consciences.‖75 Most of the federal appellate courts have adopted this construction.76

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Gender as a particular social group While Acosta contained language that appeared to recognize gender as an immutable characteristic, courts have been disinclined in practice to recognize social groups defined solely by gender.77 The closest a court has come to acknowledging gender as sufficient in itself to constitute a social group was when the Third Circuit in Fatin v. INS stated in dicta that while gender could be used as the sole characteristic to link the members of a particular social group, to do so would require the applicant to also show that sex was the sole reason for the persecution.78 Although using gender as the sole characteristic of a social group has proved unsuccessful, courts have been far more sympathetic to social groups defined only in part by gender.79 In FGM cases, for example, courts have appeared to treat the ―particular social group‖ requirement as satisfied when it is defined by a combination of the applicant‘s gender and the applicant‘s tribal membership.80

Withholding of Removal under the Convention against Torture The United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) is an international treaty that specifically targets torture.81 Although the Senate ratified CAT in 1990, it was not until 1998 that Congress passed the necessary implementing legislation.82 The treaty is relevant for most asylum applicants because the Department of Homeland Security promulgated regulations which allow applicants to obtain withholding of removal under the auspices of CAT.83 A claim under CAT differs from traditional withholding of removal in that it only requires a ―more likely than not‖ probability (i.e., clear probability) that the applicant would be tortured if returned to her country of origin.84 Thus, while CAT arguably covers a narrower category of conduct than traditional withholding of removal, the applicant need not show that the torture was conducted ―on account of‖ a protected ground. In the context of FGM, CAT has limited salience because most applicants have little trouble establishing ―a particular social group‖ if they are truly at risk of suffering from FGM if sent back to their countries of origin. However, it is important to mention that at least one circuit has indicated that FGM could constitute torture and could provide a colorable basis for relief under CAT.85

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Female Genital Mutilation as Persecution

21

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION AS A BASIS FOR AN ASYLUM OR WITHHOLDING OF REMOVAL CLAIM Female genital mutilation (FGM), also called female genital cutting (FGC), female genital alteration, or female circumcision, encompasses a wide range of surgical procedures which involve the removal or alteration of a woman‘s or girl‘s external genitalia.86 The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that currently 100 to 140 million women in the world have undergone FGM, with approximately 3 million girls in Africa at risk annually.87 Although it is a cultural practice prevalent in western, eastern, and northwestern Africa, and in some Asian and Middle-Eastern nations,88 it is widely considered a human rights violation by most international organizations and Western countries.89 This viewpoint is reflected in American law: a federal criminal statute states that any individual who ―knowingly circumcises, excises, or infibulates‖ the genitalia of a woman under 18 years of age is subject to both fine and imprisonment.90 Federal law also classifies FGM as a form of persecution that can act as a basis for refugee status.91 Ever since the BIA declared FGM to be a form of persecution in In re Kasinga,92 there has been a growing corpus of case law published by both the BIA and the federal circuits governing FGM-based asylum and withholding of removal claims. Generally, in order to obtain FGM-based asylum, an applicant must demonstrate that she has a well-founded fear of FGM or, in the case of withholding of removal, a clear probability of FGM, and is unable to avail herself of the protection of her country of origin. The applicant must also establish that the FGM was committed ―on account of‖ the applicant‘s membership in a particular social group, usually defined by a combination of the applicant‘s gender and ethnic or tribal affiliation. This section of the report will explore the many issues affecting an FGM-based claim by first discussing which characteristics typically comprise the ―particular social group‖ an applicant must establish in order to obtain either FGM-based asylum or withholding of removal. It will then proceed to focus on the role FGM plays in establishing either future or past persecution.

Gender and Tribal Affiliation as a Particular Social Group As mentioned above, gender alone, as a practical matter, is almost never sufficient to act as a protected ground for an asylum claim.93 Although gender satisfies the immutability criterion of Acosta, gender-based claims rarely prevail in courts because the applicant must show that she suffered persecution solely because she was female.94 Courts have been more willing to recognize social groups defined by gender in conjunction with other characteristics. For example, in In re Kasinga, the court upheld the applicant‘s FGM-based asylum claim by defining her particular social group as one constituting ―young women of the TchambaKunsuntu tribe who have not had [FGM], as practiced by that tribe, and who opposed the practice.‖95 Thus, at the time of this case, it appeared that the BIA considered this particular social group to be defined by this combination of traits: (1) women (2) who personally opposed FGM, (3) did not undergo FGM, and (4) who belonged to a particular tribe that (5) practiced FGM. However, most federal appellate courts do not appear to require a showing that the social group include personal opposition to FGM or that group consist of women who

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

22

Yule Kim

had not undergone FGM. They instead define the social group solely through the applicant‘s (1) gender combined with her (2) ethnicity, nationality, or tribal affiliation.96

Female Genital Mutilation as Future Persecution

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

As mentioned above, asylum and withholding of removal are prospective forms of relief. That is, these remedies are meant to prevent future persecution and harm rather than to protect people already inflicted with persecution. In In re Kasinga, the applicant had never suffered FGM. Rather, she was granted asylum because she was threatened with FGM upon returning to her country of origin. Thus, while Kasinga does categorize FGM as persecution, it does not necessarily entail that someone who has already suffered FMG in the past is entitled to asylum. The BIA would later emphasize this distinction by ruling in a subsequent case that a past infliction of FGM could not serve as a basis for asylum.

FGM categorically defined as persecution While Kasinga ’s holding is of limited scope, it did clarify many questions about FGM when it served as a basis for a prospective asylum application. As discussed earlier, the types of harm which rise to the level of persecution are not defined by statute and are usually determined on a case-by-case basis. In Kasinga, the BIA categorically held that FGM as practiced by the applicant‘s tribe was a form of persecution.97 The type of FGM at issue in Kasinga was described as ―an extreme type involving cutting the genitalia with knives, extensive bleeding, and a 40-day recovery period.‖98 Other forms of FMG, which involve the cutting away of portions of the female genitalia and the practice of suturing the vagina partially closed, were also discussed.99 After describing the particulars of these procedures, the BIA held that the level of harm these forms of FGM inflict on women ―can constitute ‗persecution‘ within the meaning of [INA § 101 (a)(42)(A)].‖100 It then characterized FGM as a form of ―sexual oppression ... to ensure male dominance and exploitation,‖ practiced in order to ―overcome sexual characteristics of young women ... who have not been, and do not wish to be, subjected to FGM.‖101 Prior to Kasinga, there were some questions as to whether FGM rises to the level of persecution, but most federal circuits now recognize that FGM is a form of persecution.102 As a practical matter, in order to raise a successful FGM-based asylum claim, an applicant only has to establish the likelihood of the harm (e.g., whether there is a wellfounded fear or a clear probability the FGM will occur) without having to argue whether the gravity of harm that the FGM poses is severe enough to merit either asylum or withholding of removal relief. Thus, it would appear that all forms of FGM will qualify as persecution so long as the applicant is genuinely threatened with it if she returns to her country of origin.103 Daughters threatened with FGM Some asylum applicants have successfully argued that they can claim asylum in their own right because they have a well-founded fear of persecution based on the fear that a minor daughter, currently within the United States with the applicant, will suffer FGM upon arrival at the applicant‘s country of origin.104 Several federal circuits seem to at least implicitly accept this proposition.105 However, the Sixth Circuit has asserted that asylum will not be

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Female Genital Mutilation as Persecution

23

granted to an applicant whose daughter is already located inside the applicant‘s country of origin and threatened with FGM at the time the asylum claim was filed.106 Furthermore, the Seventh Circuit has held that if an applicant‘s daughter can avoid constructive deportation by remaining in the United States with her other parent, the applicant cannot use the threat of FGM against her daughter as a basis for her asylum claim.107 The BIA has also rejected an argument proposed by a childless applicant who based her asylum claim on the fear that her future, unborn daughters may suffer FGM, classifying this fear as too speculative to be wellfounded.108

Female Genital Mutilation as Past Persecution

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

When an applicant petitions for asylum status, she usually must show that she has a ―well-founded fear‖ of persecution. An asylum applicant can create a rebuttable presumption of a ―well-founded fear‖ of persecution if she can show: (1) a past incident that rises to the level of persecution; (2) that is on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a social group, or political opinion; and (3) is committed by the government or by forces the government is either unable or unwilling to control.109 A similar test exists for those seeking to establish a clear probability of persecution when applying for withholding of removal.110 This presumption may be rebutted if the government can show that ―there has been a fundamental change in circumstances,‖ such that the applicant no longer has either a wellfounded fear (asylum context) or clear probability of persecution (withholding of removal context) in her country of origin.111

Continuing Harm Theory The leading federal appellate case on the treatment of FGM as past persecution is Mohammed v. Gonzales.112 In this case, the asylum applicant was a woman from Somalia who had already been subject to FGM.113 The applicant claimed that the FGM constituted past persecution which warranted the presumption that she had a well-founded fear of future persecution.114 The government contended that the past infliction of FGM was a fundamental change in circumstances which should have rebutted the presumption because, having already suffered FGM, the applicant would not be faced with the procedure in the future.115 The Ninth Circuit rejected this argument. The court instead analogized FGM to forced sterilization, which had been classified in a previous case as a ―continuing harm that renders a petitioner eligible for asylum, without more.‖116 Therefore, like forced sterilization, a past infliction of FGM was judged to constitute a ―continuing harm,‖ thus creating a presumption of a wellfounded fear of persecution that the government could not rebut. Although the Eighth Circuit agreed that a showing of FGM is sufficient to create a presumption of a well-founded fear or persecution, it differs from the Ninth Circuit by leaving the presumption rebuttable.117 Rebuttable Presumption Theory Alternatively, the Ninth Circuit stated that even if FGM only created a rebuttable presumption of a well-founded fear, the presumption would be difficult to rebut because of the risk of violence and gender persecution, as evidenced by the applicant‘s FGM, if the applicant was removed to her home country.118 This alternative theory has been endorsed by

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

24

Yule Kim

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

the Eighth Circuit in Hassan v. Gonzales, which held that a showing of past FGM would be sufficient to create a presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution because, even though the risk of future FGM would be negligible, the applicant could still suffer from forms of future persecution other than FGM.119 Thus, this theory maintains that the past infliction of FGM does not constitute a fundamental change in circumstances, and the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution is left preserved.

The BIA Argument against Continuing Harm The BIA has rejected both the continuing harm theory and the rebuttable presumption theory. In In re A-T-, the BIA ruled that if the government shows that the asylum applicant has already suffered FGM, the presumption of a well-founded fear of persecution is rebutted.120 The BIA argued that FGM is a one-time procedure limited to permanently removing parts of the female genitalia. Therefore, once completed, the procedure cannot be inflicted upon the applicant in the future because the relevant parts of the female genitalia the FGM aims to remove have already been excised.121 Furthermore, the BIA rejected the theory that FGM constitutes a ―continuing harm‖ which creates an irrebuttable presumption of future persecution.122 The BIA claimed that the only reason forced sterilization is given ―continuing harm‖ status is because of a statutory provision that expressly states that forced sterilization provides a basis for asylum.123 Absent such a statutory endorsement from Congress, the BIA concluded that FGM should not be treated the same as forced sterilization.124 Therefore, the BIA determined that the Ninth Circuit was incorrect in holding that FGM merited ―continuing harm‖ status. The Ninth Circuit, anticipating the BIA‘s objection, had written in its analysis that the ―continuing harm‖ concept arose out of case law and not from the statute. According to that court, the statutory provision regarding forced sterilization is unrelated to the ―persecution‖ element of an asylum claim. Rather, the statute only created a per se nexus between a past forced sterilization and the political opinion ground, thereby automatically satisfying the ―on account of‖ element in an asylum claim once a showing of past forced sterilization is made.125 Therefore, the Ninth Circuit reasoned, if ―continuing harm‖ originated from case law rather than statute, courts are not constrained by statute and could extend ―continuing harm‖ status to FGM. The BIA argument against the rebuttable presumption The BIA also rejected the notion that a showing of FGM can create a rebuttable presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution.126 This approach, suggested by the Ninth Circuit in Mohammed and adopted by the Eighth Circuit in Hassan, was dismissed by the BIA as a deviation from regulatory procedures.127 Specifically, the BIA held that although FGM is persecution, regulations mandate that a past infliction of FGM be deemed a fundamental change in circumstances. This fundamental change in circumstances would negate the presumption of a well-founded fear of persecution that an act of persecution normally creates.128 Furthermore, the BIA cited a regulation which states that, ―If the applicant‘s fear of future persecution is unrelated to past persecution, the applicant bears the burden of establishing that the fear is wellfounded.‖129 The BIA, in essence, appears to require that a showing of past persecution must create a well-founded fear of identical future persecution.130 If the past persecution renders an identical form of persecution in the future

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Female Genital Mutilation as Persecution

25

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

impossible, then the past persecution will not create a rebuttable presumption of a wellfounded fear.131 Therefore, according to the BIA, because FGM involves the permanent alteration or removal of female genitalia, it can only be performed once, and thus the very act of persecution itself effects a fundamental change in circumstances that negates the possibility of future persecution.

Second circuit response to In re A-TThe Second Circuit has been the only appellate court to date that has addressed In re A-T. In Bah v. Mukasey, the Second Circuit held that the BIA committed ―significant error in its application of its own regulatory framework‖ when reviewing the FGM-based withholding of removal claims of the petitioners.132 Principally, the Second Circuit found the reasoning the BIA applied in A-T- with regard to the rebuttable presumption theory was flawed. First, the court held that the BIA mischaracterized FGM as a ―one-time‖ act.133 It stated that there are many types of FGM which can be repeated: notably the sewing shut of a woman‘s vagina, which is only opened for purposes of sexual intercourse with her husband, and then subsequently re-sewn (i.e., infibulation).134 Furthermore, the Second Circuit stated that the BIA erred when it assumed that FGM was the only form of possible future harm relevant in the analysis.135 The court stated, ―Nothing in the regulation suggests that the future threats to life or freedom must come in the same form or be the same act as the past persecution.‖136 In order to demonstrate changed circumstances, which would rebut the petitioners‘ presumption of suffering future harm, the government cannot rely solely on showing that ―a particular act of persecution suffered by the victim will not recur.‖137 The court noted that other types of harm could befall the petitioners once arriving at their countries of origin, notably domestic abuse, rape, and sex trafficking.138 In a concurring opinion, Judge Straub wrote that he would also uphold the petitioners‘ continuing harm theory.139 Although the majority opinion declined to address the continuing harm issue, the Straub concurrence concluded that the similarities between FGM and forced sterilization were too similar to ignore; that is, the reason why both forms of persecution were only inflicted once was because they only need to be inflicted once in order to cause a lasting form of persecution. He rejected the argument that forced sterilization was only given continuing harm status because Congress statutorily defined it as a form of persecution. Rather, he concluded that the only reason Congress enacted the statute was to reverse an earlier BIA decision that had rejected forced sterilization as a form of persecution. In other words, all Congress did was establish for forced sterilization what the BIA did for FGM in Kasinga, which was to establish their basic qualifications for asylum and withholding of removal claims without altering the larger regulatory framework governing such claims.140 Therefore, since the continuing harm status of forced sterilization was not a product of the statutory enactment, the similarities between the types of harm that forced sterilization and FGM inflict on their victims should militate a conclusion that both inflicted forms of continuing harm.141 However, it is also important to stress that the majority opinion specifically declined to reach the merits of this theory, and that Judge Sotomayor, in a separate concurrence, emphasized that it would be imprudent for the court to address this issue when the administrative agency had yet to determine whether there were other grounds, besides the petitioners‘ past infliction of FGM, which could rebut the presumption that the petitioners were likely to suffer future harm in their countries of origin if removed there.142

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

26

Yule Kim

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Attorney general opinion on matter of A-TThe Attorney General has the regulatory authority to review the decisions of the BIA.143 In re A-T- has undergone review under this authority and has been vacated and remanded to the BIA for further proceedings.144 This means that the BIA‘s holding in In re A-T- that a past infliction of FGM constitutes a changed circumstance rebutting the presumption of a wellfounded fear or clear probability of future persecution no longer controls in future BIA deliberations. Thus, a past infliction of FGM can now serve as a basis for either asylum or withholding of removal claims. The Attorney General‘s reasoning was similar to that of the Second Circuit. He noted that FGM was not necessarily a ―one-time‖ act as characterized by the BIA. Because FGM is capable of repetition, the Attorney General concluded that ―there was no basis for the Board‘s legal conclusion that the past infliction of female genital mutilation by itself rebuts ‗[a]ny presumption of future [female genital mutilation] persecution.‘‖145 Similarly, the Attorney General also found that the BIA was wrong in focusing on whether the asylee applicant would suffer ―identical‖ future harm. The appropriate focus of the inquiry, according to the Attorney General, is whether future harm would be conducted ―on account of the same statutory ground,‖ i.e., whether harm would be inflicted on account of the applicant‘s social group.146 Because the BIA failed to determine which ―social group‖ the applicant belonged to, but rather focused on the type of harm the applicant suffered, the BIA erroneously concluded that the applicant‘s presumption of future persecution was rebutted. In other words, in order to determine whether there is a changed circumstance such that the presumption of future harm is rebutted, the BIA should not have focused on whether FGM would recur, but rather should have determined whether the applicant, if repatriated to her country of origin, was still threatened with any type of sufficiently severe future harm on account of being a member of a social group.147 The BIA’s Humanitarian Ground Theory The BIA has ruled in Matter of S-A-K- and H-A-H- that a prior infliction of FGM can alternatively serve as a basis for an asylum claim on humanitarian grounds.148 Regulations found under 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.13 and 1208.13 permit a grant of asylum for those who have suffered past persecution but lack a well-founded fear of future persecution if the applicant demonstrates ―compelling reasons for being unwilling or unable to return to the country arising out of the severity of the past persecution....‖149 The BIA specifically cites Matter of Chen as an example of past persecution whose severity rises to the level required to qualify as a basis for asylum without a well-founded fear of future persecution.150 In that case, the Chinese Red Guard had subjected the applicant and his family to stoning, burning, and other forms of persecution on account of their religious beliefs.151 Because of his persecution, the applicant suffered loss of hearing and many psychological ailments.152 By the time of the applicant‘s deportation proceeding, however, China had liberalized many of its policies, thus making it unlikely that the applicant would suffer the same level of persecution if deported. Normally, such changes in circumstances would rebut the presumption of a well- founded fear of persecution. But, regardless of this, the BIA held that the past persecution was so severe that, standing alone, it was sufficient to establish an asylum claim even without the well-founded fear.153 It appears that, by citing Matter of Chen, the BIA now views FGM to be a similar situation: past persecution, so severe that it results in continuing physical harm and

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Female Genital Mutilation as Persecution

27

discomfort, which can act, standing alone, as a basis for asylum even without a well-founded fear of future persecution.154 However, because of the Attorney General‘s vacatur of In re AT-, it would now appear that a prior infliction of FGM can create a presumption of a wellfounded fear of future persecution in asylum cases.

CONCLUSION Asylum and withholding of removal based on FGM are no longer limited to only prospective threats. With respect to past infliction, proof of having suffered FGM can create a rebuttable presumption of either a well-founded fear or clear probability of persecution. This presumption can still be rebutted, however, and a claim for asylum or withholding of removal denied upon a demonstration that the applicant is no longer threatened with future harm on account of her social group. Consequently, the controlling factor in previous cases, i.e., the distinction between whether the FGM has already occurred in the past or is instead a prospective threat, will most likely play an ancillary role in future FGM asylum cases. In its place, it would seem far greater emphasis will be placed on how the social group is defined in these claims.

End Notes

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

1

The World Health Organization defines FGM as ―all procedures which involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.‖ See World Health Organization Factsheet on Female Genital Mutilation, [http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs24 1/en/index.html] (last visited June 12, 2008). For additional information on FGM, see CRS Report RS21923, Female Genital Mutilation (FGM): Background Information and Issues for Congress, by Tiaji SalaamBlyther, Erin D. Williams, and Ruth Ellen Wasem. 2 Id. See also Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) or Female Genital Cutting (FGC): Individual Country Reports, [http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/1 0222 .pdf] (last visited June 12, 2008). 3 World Health Organization Factsheet on Female Genital Mutilation, [http://www.who.int/ mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/index.html] (last visited June 12, 2008). FGM has been formally condemned by several international organizations, such as the World Health Organization, the United Nations Children‘s Fund, and the United Nations Population Fund. Id. 4 In re Kasinga, 21 I. & N. Dec. 357, 365 (BIA 1996). 5 The term ―alien‖ is defined by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) as ―any person not a citizen or national of the United States.‖ INA § 101 (a)(3), 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(3). Some view this term to be pejorative and use either ―immigrant‖ or ―migrant‖ in its stead. This report views ―alien‖ as a legal term and uses it in the sense as defined in the INA. 6 This report will use the term ―country of origin‖ to mean either an applicant‘s country of nationality, or, if stateless, the applicant‘s last country of habitual residence. 7 CAT relief is usually implemented by granting withholding of removal to a person who shows she would suffer ―torture‖ if returned to her home country. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c). 8 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(a), 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (―The burden of proof is on the applicant for asylum to establish that he or she is a refugee as defined in section 101(a)(42) of the Act.‖). 9 INA § 208(a)(2)(B), 8 U.S.C. § 11 58(a)(2)(B). 10 8 C.F.R. § 209.2, 8 C.F.R. § 1209.2. 11 INA § 208(b)(3)(A); 8 C.F.R. § 208.21, 8 C.F.R. § 1208.21. 12 See INA § 207, 8 U.S.C. § 1157 (authorizing the President to allow refugees into the United States for a period not exceeding 12 months when the admission of the refugees is justified by grave humanitarian concerns or is otherwise in the national interest).

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

28

Yule Kim

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

13

INA § 208, 8 U.S.C. §1158 (authorizing the grant of asylum to those who qualify under the statutory definition of refugee). 14 Although the statute refers to this mechanism as ―restriction on removal,‖ it is more commonly called ―withholding of removal‖ in case law, regulations and legal scholarship. In international law and treaties, withholding of removal is often referred to as ―nonrefoulement.‖ 15 INA § 241(b)(3), 8 U.S.C. §1231(b)(3). 16 Although there appears to be no difference between the types of harm that ―persecution‖ and ―a threat to life or freedom‖ signify, there is a difference between the two standards with regard to the likelihood of future harm an applicant must demonstrate in order to obtain the sought after relief. More on the difference between ―a well-founded fear of persecution‖ and ―a threat to life or freedom‖ with regards to the evidentiary burden will be discussed below. 17 INA § 241(b)(3)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 123 1(b)(3)(A)) (―the Attorney General may not remove an alien to a country if the Attorney General decides that the alien‘s life or freedom would be threatened in that country....‖) (emphasis added). 18 Id. The statute states that ―the Attorney General may not remove,‖ not that the alien has a right to stay within the country. 19 INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 429 n. 6 (1987). 20 But see 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(e), 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(e) (reopening an asylum claim denied on discretionary grounds if the applicant obtains withholding of removal and seeks to keep her spouse or minor children in the country with her). 21 For cases in which an asylum claim was barred on procedural or discretionary grounds, but where the applicant was nevertheless able to obtain withholding of removal, see Ivanshivili v. U.S. Dep‘t of Justice, 433 F.3d 332 (2d Cir. 2006); Zheng v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 804 (7th Cir. 2005). 22 INA § 208(b)(1)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(A). 23 INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 429-30 (1984). See also INA § 241(b)(3), 8 U.S.C. § 1231 (b)(3)) (mandating that the Attorney General not remove aliens whose life or freedom is threatened in their native country because of the aliens‘ race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion). Although the statute refers to a threat to an alien‘s life or freedom, case law still usually refers to the evidentiary standard for a withholding of removal claim as a ―clear probability of persecution.‖ 24 8 C.F.R. § 208(b)(3). 25 INA § 101(a)(42), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42). 26 Mitev v. INS, 67 F.3d 1325, 1330 (7th Cir. 1995). 27 Sofinet v. INS, 196 F.3d 742, 746 (7th Cir. 1999). 28 Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1431 (9th Cir. 1995). 29 See Corado v. Ashcroft, 384, F.3d 945 (8th Cir. 2004); Ndom v. Ashcroft, 384 F.3d 743 (9th Cir. 2004). 30 See Bocova v. Gonzales, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 12421, at *9-*1 1 (1st Cir. June 24, 2005). 31 July 28, 1951, 19 U.S.T. 6223, 6259, T.I.A.S. No . 6577, 189 U.N.T.S. 150. See also H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 96781, at 19 (1980). 32 Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 448 (1987). 33 Id. at 431 (―That the fear must be ‗well-founded‘ does not alter the obvious focus on the individual‘s subjective beliefs, nor does it transform the standard into a ‗more likely than not‘ one. One can certainly have a wellfounded fear of an event happening when there is less than a 50% chance of the occurrence taking place.‖). 34 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(2)(A), 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(2)(A). 35 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(2)(B), 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(2)(B). 36 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(2)(C), 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(2)(C). 37 Balogun v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 492, 499 (7th Cir. 2004) (―The asylum applicant must show (1) that she has a genuine, subjective fear of persecution and (2) that her fear is objectively reasonable.‖); Sofinet, 196 F.3d at 746 (7th Cir. 1999); Diaz-Escobar v. INS, 782 F.2d 1488, 1492 (9th Cir. 1986) (―The objective component ensures that the alien‘s subjective fear is well-founded in fact and not in fantasy.... What is critical is that the alien prove that his fear is subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable.‖). 38 Bolanos-Hernandez v. INS, 909 F.2d 1277 (9th Cir. 1985). 39 See Matter of Mogharrabi, 19 I. & N. Dec. 439, 445 (BIA 1987). 40 See Blanco-Comarribas v. INS, 830 F.2d 1039, 1041 (9th Cir. 1987) (holding that evidence of oppressive conditions in applicant‘s country of origin is relevant, but not sufficient to establish a well-founded fear of persecution); Balazoski v. INS, 932 F.2d 648 (7th Cir. 1991) (finding that the applicant only had a subjective fear and lacked the objective fear of political persecution required for refugee status). 41 Charles Gordon, et. al. Immigration Law and Procedure § 33 .04[ 1] [b], p. 33-21 (rev. ed. 2007). 42 Kasinga, 21 I. & N. Dec. 357. 43 Mogharrabi, 19 I. & N. Dec. at 446 (BIA 1987). 44 See, e.g., Hartooni v. INS, 21 F.3d 336, 341 (9th Cir. 1994). 45 Ndom v. Ashcroft, 384 F.3d 743, 754 (9th Cir. 2004). 46 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(2)(iii), 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii).

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Female Genital Mutilation as Persecution 47

Id. See also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421. Stevic, 467 U.S. at 429. ―Preponderance of the evidence‖ means that the factfinder in a judicial proceeding must find for the party that, on the whole, has the stronger evidence, however slight the edge may be. Black‘s Law Dictionary 1201 (7th ed. 1999). In other words, the assertion is more than 50% likely to be true. 49 See Montecino v. INS, 915 F.2d 518, 520 (9th Cir. 1990) (suggesting that a well-founded fear can be established if there is a one in ten chance of being persecuted). 50 But see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.1 3(b)( 1 )(iii)(A) (permitting asylum for those individuals who cannot demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution but nonetheless have a compelling reason not to return to their countries of origin due to the severity of their past persecution). 51 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1), 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1); 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(1), 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1). 52 INA § 101(a)(42)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A); 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1), 8 C.F.R. § 1208(13)(b)(1). 53 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(1), 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1). 54 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1)(ii), 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(1)(ii), 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1)(ii). 55 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1)(i)(B), 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(B). 56 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1)(i)(A), 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(A). 57 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(1)(i)(A), 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1)(i)(A). 58 See Fergiste v. INS, 138 F.3d 14, 19 (1st Cir. 1998) (general evidence of changed country conditions was insufficient to rebut well-founded fear presumption when applicant had evidence about his specific circumstances); Vallecillo-Castillo v. INS, 121 F.3d 1237, 1240 (9th Cir. 1996) (administrative notice of changed country condition was insufficient to rebut the presumption of well-founded fear). 59 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1)(iii)(A), 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii)(A). 60 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1)(iii)(B), 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii)(B). 61 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(1)(iii), 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1)(iii). 62 INA § 101(a)(43), 8 U.S.C. § 1 101(a)(42). 63 July 28, 1951, 19 U.S.T. 6223, 6259, T.I.A.S. No . 6577, 189 U.N.T.S. 150. 64 INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (―Elias-Zacarias still has to establish that ... the guerrillas will persecute him because of that political opinion[...]‖) (emphasis in original). It is important to stress that the Supreme Court did not render a holding on the definition of ―on account of.‖ 65 See James C. Hathaway, The Causal Nexus in International Refugee Law, 23 Michigan J. Internat‘l L. 207 (2002). 66 See, e.g., Mohideen v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 567 (7th Cir. 2005). 67 INA § 101(a)(42), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42); INA § 241(b)(3), 8 U.S.C. § 123 1(b)(3)). 68 Political opinion differs from the other protected grounds in some respects because an applicant may still obtain asylum or withholding of removal because of an ―imputed political opinion,‖ i.e., a political opinion a persecutor erroneously believes the applicant holds. See Canas-Segovia v. INS, 970 F.2d 599, 601 (9th Cir. 1992). 69 See H.R.Conf.Rep. No. 96-781, p. 19 (1980). See also Charles Gordon, et. al. Immigration Law and Procedure § 33.04[2][d], p. 33-40.1 (rev. ed. 2007). 70 See Fatin v. INS, 12 F.3d 1233, 1239 (3d Cir. 1993). 71 19 I. & N. Dec. 211 (1985). 72 Id. at 233. 73 Id. 74 Id. 75 Id. 76 See, e.g., Alvarez-Flores v. INS, 909 F.2d 1, 7 (1st Cir 1990); Fatin, 12 F.3d at 1240; Castellano-Chacon v. INS, 341 F.3d 533, 546-48 (6th Cir. 2003); Lwin v. INS, 144 F.3d 505, 512 (7th Cir. 1998); Thomas v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1177, 1184-87 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc). But see Hernandez-Montiel v. INS, 225 F.3d 1084, 1093 (9th Cir. 2000) (providing an alternative definition to ―particular social group‖ by defining it as a ―voluntary associational relationship‖). 77 See, e.g., Gomez v. INS, 947 F.2d 660, 664 (2d Cir. 1991). 78 12 F.3d at 1240. 79 See, e.g., In re A-N-, File No. A73 603 840 (IJ December 22, 2000) (Philadelphia, Pa.) (Grussendorf, IJ) (finding that the applicant belonged to a particular social group of ―married, educated career-oriented‖ Jordanian women and that she had been persecuted and feared future persecution on account of her membership in that group), reported at 78 Interpreter, Releases 409 (February 26, 2001). 80 See, e.g., Niang v. Gonzales, 422 F.3d 1187, 1199 (10th Cir. 2007). 81 U.N.G.A. Res. 39/46, 39 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 51) at 197, U.N. Doc. A/39/51 (1984). 82 Foreign Affairs, Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, P.L. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681, Div. G, § 2242 (October 21, 1998). 83 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c), 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c). 84 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2), 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). 85 Nwaokolo v. INS, 314 F.3d 303 (7th Cir. 2002). 48

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

29

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

30

Yule Kim

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

86

The World Health Organization (WHO) defines FGM as ―all procedures which involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.‖ See World Health Organization Factsheet on Female Genital Mutilation, [http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs24 1/en/index.html] (last visited June 12, 2008). The WHO classifies the various surgical procedures into four categories: Type I: Partial or total removal of the clitoris and/or the prepuce (clitoridectomy). Type II: Partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora, with or without excision of the labia majora (excision). Type III: Narrowing of the vaginal orifice with the creation of a covering seal by cutting and appositioning the labia minora and/or the labia majora, with or without excision of the clitoris (infibulation). Type IV: All other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes: pricking, piercing, incising, scraping, and cauterization. See Eliminating Female Genital Mutilation: An Interagency Statement, [http://www.who.int/ reproductivehealth/publications/fgm/fgm _statement _2008.pdf] (last visited June 12, 2008). 87 World Health Organization Factsheet on Female Genital Mutilation, [http://www.who.int/mediacentre/ factsheets/fs24 1/en/index.html] (last visited June 12, 2008). 88 Id. See also Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) or Female Genital Cutting (FGC): Individual Country Reports, [http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/1 0222 .pdf] (last visited June 12, 2008). 89 World Health Organization Factsheet on Female Genital Mutilation, [http://www.who.int/mediacentre/ factsheets/fs241/en/index.html] (last visited June 12, 2008). FGM has been formally condemned by several international organizations, such as the World Health Organization, the United Nations Children‘s Fund, and the United Nations Population Fund. 90 18 U.S.C. § 116 (―whoever knowingly circumcises, excises, or infibulates the whole or any part of the labia maj ora or labia minor or clitoris of another person who has not attained the age of 18 years shall be fined or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both.‖). 91 Kasinga, 21 I. & N. Dec. at 365. 92 Id. 93 See Gomez, 947 F.2d at 664; Fatin, 12 F.3d 1233. 94 See Fatin, 12 F.3d at 1240 (requiring that an asylum applicant defining a particular social group based solely on gender must also show that ―she would suffer or that she has a well- founded fear of suffering ‗persecution‘ based solely on her gender.‖). 95 Kasinga, 21 I. & N. Dec. at 365. 96 See Kasinga, 21 I. & N. Dec. 357, 365 (BIA 1996) (holding that persecution was on account of applicant‘s membership in a social group comprising of the young women of the Tchamba-Kunsuntu Tribe); Niang, 422 F.3d at 1200 (holding that for purposes of FGM, a particular social group can be defined by both gender and tribal membership). See also Acosta, 19 I. & N. Dec. at 233. 97 Kasinga, 21 I. & N. Dec. at 365. 98 Id. at 361. 99 Id. 100 Id. at 365. 101 Kasinga, 21 I. & N. Dec. at 366-367. 102 See, e.g., Abay v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d 634, 638 (6th Cir. 2004) (―Forced female genital mutilation involves the infliction of grave harm constituting persecution....‖); Barry v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 741, 745 (4th Cir. 2006) (―We recognize as an initial matter that FGM constitutes persecution....‖); Abankwah v. INS, 185 F.3d 18, 23 (2d Cir. 1999) (―That FGM involves the infliction of grave harm constituting persecution under [INA § 101(a)(42)(A)] is not disputed here.‖); Balogun, 374 F.3d at 499 (―the Agency does not dispute, at least with any force, that the type of FGM which Ms. Balogun has alleged is ‗persecution.‘‖); Niang, 422 F.3d at 1197. 103 See Charles Gordon, et. al. Immigration Law and Procedure § 33 .04[2] [d], p. 33-48 (rev. ed. 2007) (―While the [BIA] failed to make a blanket statement concerning female genital persecution in general, we believe that the [BIA] would be hard-pressed to find a case of female genital mutilation that would not constitute persecution.‖). 104 See Abay, 368 F.3d at 641. The reason derivative asylum was not pursued was because the regulations governing derivative asylum limit its availability to spouses and minor children. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.21, 8 C.F.R. § 1208.21. 105 See Nwaokolo, 314 F.3d at 308 (stating that the BIA should have considered, when denying asylum to an applicant, the risk of FGM the applicant‘s children would be exposed to if they were to be constructively deported with their mother back to her country of origin); Barry, 445 F.3d at 745 (stating in dicta that ―[t]o the extent that ... the Attorney General does not contest ... the fact that Barry‘s daughter will likely be subject to FGM if she is removed to Guinea, Barry has made out a prima facie case of persecution that would have entitled her to asylum....‖). 106 Bah v. Gonzales, 462 F.3d 637, 642-43 (6th Cir. 2006).

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Female Genital Mutilation as Persecution

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

107

31

Olowo v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d 692, 701 (7th Cir. 2004). Indeed, the applicant is under the obligation to leave her child with the other parent even if the applicant is removed to her country of origin. See id. at 703-04 (directing the Clerk of the Court to notify certain state authorities that the applicant was endangering her daughter by asserting that she would bring her daughter with her if removed to her country of origin). 108 In re A-T-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 296, 302 (BIA 2007). 109 Navas v. INS, 217 F.3d 646, 655-656 (9th Cir. 2000). See also 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1), 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1); 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(1), 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1). 110 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(1), 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1). 111 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1)(i)(A), 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(A). 112 400 F.3d 785 (9th Cir. 2005). 113 Id. at 789-790. 114 Id. at 791. 115 Id. at 799. 116 Id. See also Qu v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1195, 1203 (9th Cir. 2005) (characterizing forced sterilization as a form of permanent and continuous persecution which creates an irrebuttable presumption of a well-founded fear of persecution). 117 Hassan v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 513, 518 (8th Cir. 2007). 118 Mohammed, 400 F.3d at 800. 119 484 F.3d at 518. 120 24 I. & N. Dec. at 299. 121 Id. 122 Id. 123 Id. at 300. See also INA § 101(a)(42), 8 U.S.C. § 1 101(a)(42). 124 A-T-, 24 I. & N. Dec. at 300. 125 See Mohammed, 400 F.3d at 800, fn. 22. 126 A-T-, 24 I. & N. Dec. at 304. 127 Id. 128 Id. at 299. See also 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1), 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1); 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(1), 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1). 129 Id. See also 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1), 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1). 130 A-T-, 24 I. & N. Dec. at 304. 131 Id. 132 Bah v. Mukasey, 2008 U.S. Ap. LEXIS 12407, 3 (2d Cir. 2008). 133 Id. at 43. 134 Id. at 44. 135 Id. at 46. 136 Id. (emphasis in original). 137 Id. at 46-47. 138 Id. at 50. 139 Id. at 53-54 (Straub, J., concurring). 140 Id. at 67. 141 Id. 142 Id. at 79 (Sotomayor, J., concurring). 143 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(h)(1)(i). 144 Matter of A-T-, 24 I. & N. Dec 617 (A.G. 2008). 145 Id. at 622. 146 Id. (emphasis in original). 147 Id. 148 Matter of S-A-K- and H-A-H-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 464, 465-466 (BIA 2008). 149 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1)(iii)(A), 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii)(A). 150 20 I. & N. Dec. 16 (BIA 1989). 151 Id. at 19-20. 152 Id. at 20. 153 Id. at 21. 154 Matter of S-A-K- and H-A-H-, 24 I. & N. Dec. at 465.

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved. International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

In: International Efforts to Protect Women Editor: Lilian T. Graham pp. 33-44

ISBN: 978-1-60741-186-4 © 2010 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 4

THE CONVENTION ON THE ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN (CEDAW): CONGRESSIONAL ISSUES 

Luisa Blanchfield

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

SUMMARY The U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) calls for Parties to eliminate discrimination against women in all areas of life, including healthcare, education, employment, domestic relations, law, commercial transactions, and political participation. As of February 15, 2008, the Convention was ratified or acceded to by 185 countries. President Jimmy Carter submitted the Convention to the Senate in 1980. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held hearings on the Convention in 1988, 1990, 1994, and 2002, but the treaty was never considered for advice and consent to ratification by the full Senate. The George W. Bush Administration began conducting a full legal and policy review of the Convention in 2002, and on February 7, 2007, it transmitted a letter to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee stating that it did not support Senate action on the treaty. The Barack Obama Administration has expressed its support for the Convention. In January 2009, Susan Rice, appointed to be U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, stated at her Senate confirmation hearing that CEDAW will be an ―important priority‖ for the President. U.S. ratification of CEDAW is a contentious policy issue that has generated considerable debate in Congress and among the general public. Supporters of U.S. ratification contend that the Convention is a valuable mechanism for fighting women‘s discrimination worldwide. They argue that U.S. ratification of the treaty will give the Convention additional legitimacy, and that it will further empower women who fight discrimination in other countries. 

This is an edited, reformatted and augmented version of a CRS Report for Congress publication dated January 2009.

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

34

Luisa Blanchfield

Opponents of ratification contend that the Convention is not the best or most efficient way to eliminate discrimination against women. They believe ratification will undermine U.S. sovereignty and impact U.S. social policy related to family planning and abortion. This report provides background on CEDAW developments, including U.S. policy and congressional actions, and considers arguments for and against ratification. It will be updated as events warrant.

CEDAW BACKGROUND AND STRUCTURE Current Status The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW or the Convention) is the only comprehensive international U.N. treaty that specifically focuses on the rights of women.1 Currently, the Convention has been ratified or acceded to by 185 countries. Some States Parties2 have filed reservations with sections of the Convention that do not align with their existing religious or national laws, and in some cases countries have objected to the reservations of other countries.3 The United States is the only country to have signed but not ratified the Convention.4

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Mandate The Convention requires States Parties to work towards eliminating discrimination against women in all areas of life. This includes equality in legal status, political participation, employment, education, healthcare, and the family structure.5 Article 2 of the Convention specifies that States Parties should undertake to ―embody the principle of equality of men and women in their national constitutions or other appropriate legislation... to ensure, through law and other appropriate means, the practical realization of this principle.‖ The Convention defines discrimination against women as ... any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil, or any other field.

The Convention specifically calls for the suppression of female trafficking, equal pay with men, more attention to the equality of rural women, and the freedom to choose a marriage partner, among other things. On October 6, 1999, the U.N. General Assembly adopted an Optional Protocol to strengthen the Convention.6 The Protocol entered into force on December 22, 2000, and, as of November 27, 2007, has been ratified by 90 countries. The Protocol includes a ―communications procedure‖ that allows groups or individuals to file complaints with the CEDAW Committee. It also incorporates an ―inquiry procedure‖ that allows the Committee to explore potential abuses of women‘s rights in countries that are party to the Protocol.

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women… 35

Evolution of the Convention The United Nations adopted several treaties addressing specific aspects of women‘s rights prior to adoption of CEDAW in 1979, including the Convention on the Political Rights of Women (1952), and the Convention on the Consent to Marriage (1957).7 In 1967, after two years of negotiations, the U.N. General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, a non-binding document that laid the groundwork for CEDAW. Subsequently, the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women drafted CEDAW, which the General Assembly adopted on December 18, 1979.8 The Convention entered into force on September 3, 1981, after receiving the required 20 ratifications.

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (the Committee) was established in 1982 under Article 17 of the Convention as a mechanism to monitor the progress of implementation.9 It is composed of 23 independent experts who are elected at a meeting of States Parties to the Convention by secret ballot, with consideration given to the principle of equitable geographic distribution.10 Each State Party may nominate one expert and, if elected, the expert serves a four-year term. The majority of the Committee experts are women who, according to the Convention, should have ―high moral standing and competence,‖ and ―represent different forms of civilization as well as principal legal systems.‖ The Committee is led by a Chairperson, three Vice Chairpersons, and a rapporteur elected by the States Parties. The Chairperson directs the discussion and decision-making process and represents the Convention at international conferences and events. The Committee reports annually on its activities to the U.N. General Assembly through the Economic and Social Council, and meets twice a year at the U.N. Office at Geneva.11 The Committee is responsible for reviewing the reports on national CEDAW implementation submitted by States Parties. Countries are required to submit an initial report within the first year of ratification or accession, followed by a report every four years. The reports identify areas of progress as well as concerns or difficulties with implementation. The Committee engages in an open dialogue and exchange of ideas with the reporting country and compiles recommendations and conclusions based on its findings, which include general recommendations on cross-cutting issues of concern. The Committee has made over 25 recommendations since 1986, covering a wide range of women‘s issues such as improvement in education and public information programs, elimination of female circumcision, equality in marriage and family relations, and violence against women.12 The 42nd session of the CEDAW Committee was held from October 20 to November 7, 2008, in Geneva, Switzerland. The Committee reviewed the reports of 12 countries: Bahrain, Belgium, Canada, El Salvador, Ecuador, Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, Mongolia, Myanmar, Portugal, Slovenia, and Uruguay.13 The 43rd CEDAW Committee session will be held from January 19 to February 6, 2009, in Geneva.14 The Committee is scheduled to consider periodic reports from Armenia, Bhutan, Cameroon, Dominica, Germany, Guatemala, Guinea Bissau, Haiti, Liberia, Libya, and Rwanda.15

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

36

Luisa Blanchfield

U.S. POLICY Administration Actions Successive U.S. Administrations have strongly supported the Convention‘s overall goal of eliminating discrimination against women. They have disagreed, however, on whether the Convention is the most efficient and appropriate means of achieving this goal. President Jimmy Carter signed the Convention on July 17, 1980, and transmitted it to the Senate for advice and consent on November 12 of the same year. The Reagan and first Bush Administrations did not support ratification, and the Convention remained pending in the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.

Bill Clinton Administration The Clinton Administration supported ratification, and in 1994 submitted a treaty package to the Senate for advice and consent to ratification. The package included nine proposed ―conditions,‖ or ―RUDs‖ to the Convention, including four reservations, three understandings, and two declarations.16 The Foreign Relations Committee reported the Convention favorably, but it never came to vote in the full Senate. The reservations recommended by the Clinton Administration addressed the following issues: 



Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

 

―private conduct,‖ which made clear that the United States ―does not accept any obligation under the Convention to regulate private conduct except as mandated by the Constitution and U.S. law‖; ―combat assignments,‖ which stated that the United States ―does not accept an obligation under the Convention to put women in all combat positions‖; ―comparable worth,‖ which made clear that the United States would not accept the doctrine of comparable worth based on the Convention‘s broad description; and ―paid maternity leave,‖ which stated that the United States could not guarantee paid maternity leave as the Convention stipulates because it is not a requirement under U.S. federal or state law.

The three understandings submitted by the Clinton Administration stated that (1) the United States will fulfill its obligations under the Convention in a ―manner consistent with its federal role,‖ recognizing that issues such as education are the responsibility of state and local governments; (2) the United States will not accept Convention obligations that restrict freedom of speech or expression; and (3) the United States and other States Parties may decide the nature of the health and family planning services referred to in the Convention, and may determine whether they are ―necessary‖ and ―appropriate‖ to distribute. The proposed Clinton Administration declarations included a ―non-self-executing‖ provision, which proposed that no new laws would be created as a result of Convention ratification, and a ―dispute settlement‖ provision, which stated that the United States was not bound by Convention Article 29(1), which refers unresolved disputes to the International Court of Justice.17

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women… 37

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

George W. Bush Administration The Bush Administration stated that it supported the Convention‘s goal of eradicating discrimination against women on a global scale, but had several concerns with the Convention itself.18 These concerns were outlined in 2002, when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held hearings on potential ratification of the Convention. Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell wrote a letter to the Foreign Relations Committee stating that the Convention was under State and Justice Departments review due to concerns regarding ―the vagueness of the text of CEDAW and the record of the official U.N. body [the CEDAW Committee] that reviews and comments on the implementation.‖19 In particular, the Administration cited ―controversial interpretations‖ of the CEDAW Committee‘s recommendations to States Parties.20 Powell‘s letter specifically noted a Committee report on Belarus that ―questioned the celebration of mother‘s day,‖21 and a report on China that ―called for legalized prostitution.‖22 The Administration stated that these positions are ―contrary to American law and sensibilities.‖23 The Bush Administration further argued that the vagueness of the text opened the door for broad interpretation by international and domestic entities, and contended that the 1994 RUDs did not address these interpretation issues. It also emphasized the importance of ensuring the Convention would not conflict with U.S. constitutional and statutory laws in areas typically controlled by the States.24 In light of these concerns, the Administration urged the Foreign Relations Committee not to vote on the Convention until a full review was complete. The review began in mid-April 2002. On February 7, 2007, the Administration transmitted a letter to the Senate stating that it did not support the Senate taking action on the Convention.25 Barack Obama Administration The Barack Obama Administration has expressed support for the Convention. On January 15, 2009, Susan Rice, appointed to be U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, stated at her Senate confirmation hearing that CEDAW ―will be an important priority‖ for the Administration.26

Senate Actions The Convention has been pending in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for over 25 years. The Committee held hearings in 1988 and 1990, but did not vote to recommend the Convention for advice and consent of the full Senate. With support from the Clinton Administration, the Senate held another round of ratification hearings in June 1994. The Committee reported the Convention favorably with a vote of 13 to 5 in September 1994, but the 103rd Congress adjourned before it could be brought to vote in the full Senate.27 The Republicans were elected as the majority party in the 104th Congress, and the new Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Jesse Helms, did not allow further consideration of the CEDAW. In June 2002, under the Chairmanship of former Senator Joseph Biden, the Foreign Relations Committee once again held hearings on ratification of the Convention. The Committee heard testimony from non-governmental organizations, individuals from

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

38

Luisa Blanchfield

academia, public policy groups, and relevant agencies and organizations arguing for and against ratification.28 On July 30, 2002, the Committee reported the Convention favorably by a vote of 12 to 7, subject to four reservations, five understandings, and two declarations.29 These included the nine RUDs recommended by the Clinton Administration in 1994, plus two additional understandings. The additional understandings included a proposal from Senator Jesse Helms which stated that ―nothing in this Convention shall be construed to reflect or create any right to abortion and in no case should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning.‖ They also included a 2002 understanding sponsored by Senator Biden that stated, ―the CEDAW Committee has no authority to compel parties to follow its recommendations.‖ The 107th Congress adjourned before the Senate could vote on the Convention. In subsequent years, the House of Representatives has continued to demonstrate an interest in the Convention. On January 6, 2009, Representative Lynn Woolsey introduced a resolution expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that ―the Senate should ratify the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.‖ The resolution currently has 62 cosponsors.30 Representative Woolsey introduced similar legislation in the 110th, 109th, 108th , and 106th Congresses, with 110, 115, 104, and 122 cosponsors, respectively.31

ISSUES FOR CONGRESS This section addresses some policy issues that emerged in the ongoing debate over U.S. ratification of the Convention. These issues may continue to play a role in the debate if the Senate considers the Convention during the 110th Congress.32

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

The Effectiveness of the Convention A major point of contention among supporters and opponents of ratification is whether the Convention is an effective mechanism for addressing women‘s rights internationally. Proponents of the Convention, such as Representative Woolsey, describe the Convention as a ―powerful tool‖ for women globally, and emphasize that the United States is the only industrialized country that has not ratified the Convention.33 Advocates such as Senators Joseph Biden and Barbara Boxer argue that the Convention empowers women to achieve equality in their own countries, and cite specific examples of the Convention‘s success in achieving its purpose.34 Some NGOs have also recorded the Convention‘s effectiveness in improving women‘s rights in specific countries and regions.35 Opponents of ratification recognize that global discrimination against women is a problem that should be eliminated, but they do not view the Convention as the most effective way to achieve this goal. Some contend that the Convention hurts rather than helps women struggling for human rights internationally. They argue that the Convention ―serves as a facade for continuing atrocities‖ in countries that are State Parties to the Convention, such as China and North Korea.36 Some opponents also contend that when considering treaty ratification, the Senate should act based on the standard of what is best for the American people.37

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women… 39

The Convention as an Instrument for U.S. Foreign Policy Congressional and non-congressional supporters of the Convention contend that U.S. ratification will increase the credibility of the United States abroad and enhance its ability to champion women‘s rights in other countries.38 The 2002 Foreign Relations Committee report stated that the United States should support ratification because, among other things, it ―will give our diplomats a tool—a means to press other governments to fulfill their obligations under the Convention.‖39 To illustrate this point, some ratification supporters cite a June 12, 2002, letter to the Foreign Relations Committee from Dr. Sima Samar, then-Afghan Minister of Women‘s Affairs. Dr. Samar asks the Senate to ratify the Convention, and says that ―we will then be able to tell our countrymen that the United States, where women already have full legal rights, has just seen the need to ratify this treaty ... we will be able to refer to its terms and guidelines in public debates over what our laws should say.‖40 Opponents of this argument emphasize that the United States ―has the strongest record on opportunities and rights for women in the world,‖41 and maintain the United States does not need to ratify the Convention to further its women‘s rights policies. In the minority views of the 2002 Foreign Relations Committee report, Senators Helms, Brownback, and Enzi stated that Afghan women were ―relieved of the burden of an oppressive, anti-woman government‖ by ―the personal heroism and sacrifice‖ of American forces, and not through a multilateral treaty such as CEDAW.

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

U.S. Sovereignty The Senate has engaged in considerable debate over the impact of CEDAW ratification on U.S. sovereignty and international law. The minority views in the 2002 Senate Foreign Relations Committee report stated that the Convention represents ―a disturbing international trend‖ of favoring international law over U.S. constitutional law and self-government, thereby undermining U.S. sovereignty. In particular, they were concerned that the Convention‘s description of discrimination against women is too broad, and that it may ―apply to private organizations and areas of personal conduct not covered by U.S. law.‖ 42 Senators supporting the Convention maintain that ratification would not affect U.S. sovereignty. Senator Biden stated that the Convention would impose a ―minimal burden‖ on the United States given that the U.S. Constitution and other existing federal and state laws already meet the obligations of the Convention. He also emphasized that the United States would file several RUDs to ensure that no new laws were created to meet the obligations of the Convention.43

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

40

Luisa Blanchfield

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Parties to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (as of February 15, 2008) Afghanistan Albania * Algeria Andorra * Angola * Antigua and Barbuda * Argentina * Armenia * Australia Austria * Azerbaijan * Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh * Barbados Belarus * Belgium * Belize * Benin Bhutan Bolivia * Bosnia & Herzegovina * Botswana * Brazil * Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria * Burkina Faso * Burundi Cambodia Cameroon * Canada * Cape Verde Central African Republic Chad Chile China Colombia * Cook Islands * Comoros

Gambia Georgia Germany * Ghana Greece * Grenada Guatemala * Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Honduras Hungary * Iceland * India Indonesia Iraq Ireland * Israel Italy * Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan * Kenya Kiribati Kuwait Kyrgyzstan * Lao Peoples Democratic Rep. Latvia Lebanon Lesotho * Liberia Libyan A. Jamahiriya * Liechtenstein * Lithuania * Luxembourg * Madagascar Malawi

Congo Costa Rica * Cote d‘Ivoire Croatia * Cuba Cyprus *

Malaysia Maldives * Mali * Malta Marshall Islands Mauritania

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Pakistan Panama * Papua New Guinea Paraguay * Peru * Philippines * Poland * Portugal * Republic of Korea * Republic of Moldova * Romania * Russian Federation * Rwanda Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia St. Vincent & the Grenadines Samoa San Marino * Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal * Serbia* Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia * Slovenia * Solomon Islands * South Africa * Spain * Sri Lanka * Suriname Swaziland Sweden* Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Tajikistan Thailand * The former Yugoslav Rep of Macedonia * Timor-Leste Togo Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey * Turkmenistan

The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women… 41 (Continued) Czech Republic * Democratic People‘s Republic of Korea Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark * Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic * Ecuador * Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Fiji Finland * France *

Mauritius Mexico *

Tuvalu Uganda

Micronesia

Ukraine *

Monaco Mongolia * Montenegro * Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia * Nepal * Netherlands * New Zealand * Nicaragua Niger * Nigeria * Norway *

United Arab Emirates United Kingdom * United Republic of Tanzania* Uruguay * Uzbekistan Vanuatu * Venezuela * Viet Nam Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe

Gabon

Oman

*ratified or acceded to the Optional Protocol

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Social Issues Some opponents of ratification are concerned that the Convention may catalyze a proabortion movement in the United States and interfere with family rights such as marriage and parenting. They contend that the Convention is an effort to ―redefine the family,‖ 44 and argue that CEDAW will ―help lawyers and other pro-abortion advocates reach the goal of enshrining unrestricted access to abortion in the United States.‖45 Some opponents are particularly concerned with the Convention‘s references to ―family planning,‖ and believe that U.S. ratification of the Convention will, among other things, undercut parental rights, and lead to gender re-education, homosexual rights, and legalized prostitution.46 In response to criticism that ratification may impact family planning or abortion policy in the United States, some supporters emphasize that the word ―abortion‖ is never mentioned in the Convention text. They refer to a 1994 State Department determination that the Convention is ―abortion neutral,‖ and contend that several of the RUDs proposed, such as the understandings on the CEDAW Committee and abortion, adequately address the concerns of ratification opponents concerned with family, abortion and family planning issues.47 Supporters of ratification also emphasize that countries where abortion is illegal, such as Ireland and Rwanda, have ratified the Convention.48 Author Contact Information Luisa Blanchfield Analyst in International Relations lblanchfield@crs. loc. gov, 7-0856

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

42

Luisa Blanchfield

End Notes

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

1

Women‘s rights and the equality of the sexes are addressed in general terms in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, among others. 2 See Table 1 for a full list of countries that are States Parties to the Convention and its Optional Protocol. The term ―States Parties‖ refers to countries that have ratified or acceded to the Convention. 3 Article 28 of the Convention states that reservations can be filed as long as they are compatible with the ―object and purpose‖ of the Convention. A full list of reservations by country can be found at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/ bodies/ratification/8.htm#declarations. 4 The Convention has been adopted by several U.S. state and local governments, including the California and Connecticut Senate, and the House of Representatives in Hawaii, South Dakota, and Illinois, among others. As of November 2005, the Convention has also been adopted by 18 counties and 44 cities. 5 Drawn from ―The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women,‖ available at http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/text/econvention.htm. 6 Optional Protocols are often added to some treaties. The Optional Protocol for the Convention is a stand-alone treaty that can be signed and/or ratified by countries that are party to the main treaty. For more information on the Optional Protocol to the Convention, see http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cedaw-one-about.htm. 7 More information on international treaty bodies relating to women‘s right is available at http://www.un.org/ womenwatch/asp/user/list.asp?ParentID=1003. 8 The Commission on the Status of Women was established in 1946 as a functional commission of the U.N. Economic and Social Council. It is responsible for preparing recommendations and reports for the Council on women‘s rights in the political, economic, and social realms. For more information, see http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/csw/. 9 Some human rights treaties provide for a separate body to monitor implementation of the treaty by States Parties. The Committee was established under Article 17 of CEDAW, ―for the purpose of considering the progress made in the implementation‖ of the Convention. 10 Currently, the 23 experts come from Algeria, Bangladesh, Brazil, China, Croatia, Cuba, Egypt, France, Germany, Ghana, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Malaysia, Netherlands, Portugal, Singapore, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, and Thailand. 11 As one of seven U.N. human rights treaty bodies, the CEDAW Committee is financed from the U.N. regular budget. The Committee was previously supported by the U.N. Division for the Advancement of Women, but as of January 1, 2008, it is serviced by the U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. 12 Under Article 21 of the Convention, the Committee shall, ―make suggestions and general recommendations based on the examination of reports and information received from States Parties.‖ A full list of CEDAW Committee recommendations can be found at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cedaw/comments.htm. 13 More information on the 42nd session of the CEDAW Committee is available at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/ bodies/cedaw/cedaws42.htm. 14 Information on the forthcoming 43rd session of the CEDAW Committee is available at http://www2.ohchr.org/ english/bodies/cedaw/cedaws43.htm. 15 For more information on the 43rd session of the CEDAW Committee, see http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/ cedaw/cedaws43.htm. 16 RUDs refers to the ―reservations, understandings, and declarations‖ that might accompany U.S. ratification of a treaty. 17 For detailed descriptions of the RUDs, see U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Foreign Relations, ―Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women,‖ Report, September 12, 1994. Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office (Senate Exec. Rept. 103-38, 103d Congress, 2d Session), pp. 6-8. 18 ―Statement by Ambassador Sichan Siv, U.S. Representative to the U.N. Economic and Social Council,‖ U.S. Mission to the United Nations Press Release, October 30, 2003. 19 Letter from Secretary of State Colin Powell to Senator Joseph Biden, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, July 8, 2002. 20 Letter from Daniel J. Bryan, Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, to Senator Joseph Biden, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, July 26, 2002. 21 U.N. document, A/55/38(SUPP), p. 37, paragraph 361 (2000). 22 U.N. document, A/54/38/REV.1(SUPP), paragraphs 288-289, January 1, 1999. 23 Letter from Daniel J. Bryan to Senator Joseph Biden, July 26, 2002. 24 Ibid. 25 Letter from Jeffrey T. Bergner, Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs, to Senator Joseph Biden, Chairman, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, February 7, 2007.

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women… 43

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

26

Congressional Transcripts, Congressional Hearings, ―Senate Foreign Relations Committee Holds Hearing on the Nomination of Susan Rice to be the U.S. Representative to the United Nations,‖ Congressional Quarterly, January 15, 2009. 27 For more information on the 1994 hearings, see U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Foreign Relations, ―Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women,‖ Report, September 12, 1994. Washington, DC, Government Printing Office (Senate Exec. Rept. 103-38, 103d Congress, 2d Session). 28 Witnesses included Members of Congress, representatives from the World Family Policy Center, the American Enterprise Institute, Business and Professional Women/USA, and the former U.S. Representative to the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women. 29 U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Foreign Relations, ―Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women,‖ Report, September 6, 2002. Washington, DC, Government Printing Office (Senate Exec. Rept. 107-9, 107th Congress, 2d Session), p. 7-11. 30 H.Res. 22 [11 1th] , introduced January 6, 2009, by Representative Lynn Woolsey, referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs on the same day. 31 H.Res. 101 [1 10th], introduced January 24, 2007; H.Res. 67 [109 th], introduced February 2, 2005; H.Res. 21 [108th], introduced January 7, 2003; and H.Res. 107 [106th] , introduced March 10, 1999. 32 Under the U.S. Constitution, the President is responsible for making treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate. Once the President transmits a treaty to the Senate, it is referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. The House of Representatives plays a role in the treaty process only when separate legislation to implement the treaty is required. Thus, the issues for Congress discussed herein are issues that may be included in any consideration of the Convention by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and/or the full Senate. See Article II, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. More information on the treaty process is available at http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/ common/briefing/Treaties.htm. 33 Congressional Record, House of Representatives, June 16, 2005, H4612. 34 Senators Joseph Biden and Barbara Boxer, ―Op-Ed: Senate Needs to Ratify the Treaty for the Rights of Women,‖ San Francisco Chronicle, June 13, 2002. Senators Biden and Boxer described a Tanzanian woman who reportedly ―used the provisions of the treaty to ensure that she could sell land she inherited from her father, overcoming an initial court ruling which held that, as a woman, she could not sell land held by the clan.‖ 35 For example, Amnesty International examples of the Convention successes can be found at http://www.amnestyusa.org/women/cedaw/world.html. 36 Statement of Representative Juanita Millender-McDonald. U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Foreign Relations, ―Treaty Doc. 96-53; Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.‖ Hearing, June 13, 2002. 107th Congress, 2d Session. Washington, DC, U.S. Government Printing Office, 2002, S.Hrg. 107-530, p. 15. 37 Additional Views of Senator Helms, Brownback, and Enzi. Statement of U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Foreign Relations, ―Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women,‖ Report, September 6, 2002. Washington, DC, Government Printing Office (Senate Exec. Rept. 107-9, 107th Congress, 2d Session), p. 21. 38 Human Rights Watch stated in a June 13, 2002, letter to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, ―By ratifying CEDAW, the U.S. government will be in a stronger position to support women‘s rights.... Having not ratified CEDAW, U.S. intervention in support of women‘s rights may be construed as ‗cultural imperialism‘ or an ‗American‘ agenda, as opposed to a rights-based approach.‖ 39 Committee Comments. U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Foreign Relations, ―Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.‖ Report, September 6, 2002. Washington, DC, Government Printing Office (Senate Exec. Rept. 107-9, 107th Congress, 2d Session), p. 5. 40 Ibid, 6. 41 Ibid, 16. 42 Ibid, 16. 43 U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Foreign Relations, ―Treaty Doc. 96-53; Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.‖ Hearing, June 13, 2003. 107th Congress, 2d Session. Washington, DC, U.S. Government Printing Office, 2002, S.Hrg. 107-530, p. 3. 44 ―Women for Faith and Family Statement on CEDAW,‖ May 25, 2000, available at http://www.wf-f.org/ CEDAW.html. 45 Additional Views of Senators Helms, Brownback, and Enzi. U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Foreign Relations, ―Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women‖ Report, September 6, 2002. Washington, DC, Government Printing Office, (Senate Exec. Rept. 107-9, 107th Congress, 2d Session), p. 22. 46 The phrase ―family planning‖ appears in the Introduction, Article 10(h), Article 12, and Article 14(b) of the Convention. 47 ―Myths and Realities: The U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women,‖ The United Nations Association of the United States of America, August 2002, available at http://www.unausa.org/site/ pp.asp?c=fvKRI8MPJpF&b=337341.

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

44 48

49

50

―Letter to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Urging that CEDAW Move to the Full Senate,‖ Human Rights Watch, July 29, 2002. ―Letter to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Urging that CEDAW Move to the Full Senate,‖ Human Rights Watch, July 29, 2002, p. 20. Minority Views of Senators Helms, Lugar, Hagel, Frist, Allen, Brownback, and Enzi. U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Foreign Relations, ―Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women,‖ Report, September 6, 2002. Washington, DC, Government Printing Office, (Senate Exec. Rept. 1079, 107th Congress, 2d Session) p. 15. Letter from Jeffrey T. Bergner, Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs, to Senator Joseph Biden, Chairman, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, February 7, 2007.

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

51

Luisa Blanchfield

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

In: International Efforts to Protect Women Editor: Lilian T. Graham pp. 45-73

ISBN: 978-1-60741-186-4 © 2010 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 5

THE U.N. POPULATION FUND: BACKGROUND AND THE U.S. FUNDING DEBATE 

Luisa Blanchfield

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

SUMMARY The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), established in 1969, is the world‘s largest source of population and reproductive health programs and the principal unit within the United Nations for global population issues. In 2007, the organization provided services in some 159 developing and transition countries, with funds totaling $752.2 million, drawn exclusively from voluntary contributions made by 182 nations and some foundations. The United States, with strong support from Congress, was an important actor in the launch of UNFPA in 1969. During the mid-to-late 1960s, Congress began to express heightened concern over the impact of rapid population growth on development prospects in poor countries. In 1967, Congress earmarked funds for population assistance programs, urging the United States to channel family planning resources through the United Nations and other international organizations. Since it was established, UNFPA has transitioned from an organization focused on statistical collection and analysis to an agency providing maternal and child health/family planning assistance. UNFPA played a large role in shaping the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development, held in Cairo. The Cairo Conference marked a turning point in the international debate over the impact of population issues on global development, and established a policy framework called the Plan of Action that continues to guide current family planning and reproductive health policies, including the work of UNFPA. The Plan integrated population concerns into the broad context of development—concluding that



This is an edited, reformatted and augmented version of a CRS Report for Congress publication dated March 2009.

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

46

Luisa Blanchfield

education and health, including reproductive health, were prerequisites for sustainable development. In the past 25 years, there has been continuing and contentious debate within the United States, especially among Members of Congress, as to whether the United States should financially support UNFPA. This debate has centered on the extent to which, if any, UNFPA aids China‘s coercive family planning programs and policies. In 15 of the past 25 years, the United States did not contribute to the organization as a result of executive branch determinations that UNFPA‘s program in China violated the ―Kemp-Kasten‖ amendment, which bans U.S. aid to organizations involved in the management of coercive family planning programs. From FY2002 through FY2008, the George W. Bush Administration found UNFPA ineligible for funding under the Kemp-Kasten amendment. In March 2009, President Barack Obama expressed his support for UNFPA and announced that the United States would contribute $50 million to UNFPA as directed in the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 111-8). While UNFPA receives voluntary contributions from many countries and some private foundations, most of its income comes from a handful of donors. The Netherlands and Sweden recently have been the largest contributors. Throughout the last decade, when the United States has contributed to UNFPA programs, the U.S. contributions have represented about 8% of UNFPA‘s regular budget. This report will be updated as policy changes or congressional actions warrant.

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), which began operations in 1969 as the U.N. Fund for Population Activities, is the world‘s largest source of population and reproductive health programs and the principal unit within the United Nations for global population issues. In 2007, the year for which the most recent figures are available, the organization provided services in some 159 developing and transition countries, with funds totaling $752.2 million, drawn exclusively from voluntary contributions made by 182 nations and some foundations. In the past 25 years, there has been continuing and contentious debate within the United States, and especially among Members of Congress, as to whether the United States should financially contribute to UNFPA. The debate has centered on the extent to which, if any, UNFPA aids China‘s coercive family planning programs and policies. In 10 of the past 25 years, the United States has been one of the leading contributors to UNFPA. For the other 15 years, the United States withheld funding to the organization through the so-called ―KempKasten‖ amendment that has been included in foreign operations appropriations since FY1985. Kemp-Kasten states that U.S. funds will not be made available to any organization or program which, as determined by the President, supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization. From FY2002 through FY2008, the George W. Bush Administration found UNFPA ineligible for U.S. funding under Kemp-Kasten, and transferred proposed annual contributions to other foreign aid activities. On March 24, 2009, President Barack Obama announced that the United States would contribute $50 million to UNFPA as directed in the

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

The U.N. Population Fund: Background and the U.S. Funding Debate

47

Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 111-8). Future U.S. contributions to UNFPA may be considered during the 111th Congress as part of the debate on the annual Foreign Operations appropriations bill and other foreign policy legislation. This report provides an overview of the U.N. Population Fund, its current mission and operations, and recent funding trends. It further discusses the role of the United States in supporting UNFPA programs the varying interpretations by several Administrations of legislative authorities pertaining to UNFPA‘s eligibility for American resources, and congressional debates over how much and under what conditions the United States should voluntarily contribute to UNFPA. Finally, it reviews the findings of several private and U.S. government investigations of China‘s family planning programs and the role UNFPA plays in their implementation.

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

UNFPA: ORIGINS AND OPERATIONS The United Nations, since its earliest days, has maintained an interest in population issues. In 1947, the United Nations established a Population Commission that collected and analyzed global population data and supported member government efforts to examine information about national populations. Following several years of U.N. debate over the rapid rise of the world‘s population, the General Assembly approved a resolution in 1966 calling on the United Nations and other international organizations to extend technical assistance on population matters. In 1967, the U.N. Secretary-General created a Trust Fund for Population Activities, which in 1969 was renamed the U.N. Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA). Initially, UNFPA was administered by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the organization‘s primary international development organ. Within a few years, at the direction of the General Assembly, UNFPA had expanded its operations beyond statistical collection and analysis to the provision of maternal and child health/family planning, communication and education, and population policy assistance. By 1972, UNFPA was operating in 78 countries with a budget of over $30 million. With such rapid growth in the Fund‘s scope and programs, UNFPA became a separate entity under the direct authority of the General Assembly, with the same status as UNDP and the U.N. Children‘s Fund (UNICEF).1 In these initial years, the United States provided the majority of UNFPA funding through voluntary contributions. In 1968 and 1969, when seven governments extended financial support, the $4 million transfer by the United States represented nearly 80% of total contributions. By 1972, the number of donors had grown to 52, but the United States remained by far the largest source of funds, with 46% of the total. Over the next decade, the U.S. share declined to about 25% as other nations increased their contributions.

UNFPA and World Population Conferences: 1974 and 1984 UNFPA played a significant role in the World Population Conferences, held a decade apart in Bucharest (1974) and Mexico City (1984). Following the 1974 meeting of 133 nations, the U.N. General Assembly called for the expansion of international population

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

48

Luisa Blanchfield

assistance, with UNFPA taking a lead role, to implement the plan of action endorsed at the Bucharest Conference. Partially due to the growing attention on world population issues, UNFPA operations expanded rapidly during this period. The scope of UNFPA‘s work also broadened, so that by the early 1 980s, the organization focused on eight primary areas:        

family planning, including delivery systems and fertility regulation techniques; data collection; formulation and evaluation of population policies and programs; communications and education; population dynamics, including demographic projections and their analysis; implementation of policies and programs, including efforts ―beyond family planning‖ related to law and population, status of women, and economic policies; special programs focusing on women, children, the elderly, the disabled, and programs to promote social justice; and multisector activities, including support for population conferences and training.2

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

The 1994 Cairo Conference and UNFPA’s Changing Mandate UNFPA was a major catalyst in organizing, financing, and implementing outcomes of the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD), held in Cairo. The Cairo Conference marked a turning point in the international debate over the impact of population issues on global development and established a policy framework that continues to guide current family planning and reproductive health policies. The Plan of Action that emerged from the Cairo Conference, to a much greater extent than before, integrated population concerns into the broad context of development, concluding that education and health (including reproductive health), were prerequisites for sustainable development. The Conference shifted population program strategies away from demographic goals and toward human welfare and poverty reduction objectives. The Conference further focused far more attention on the status and empowerment of women. Moving beyond strictly health issues, the conference endorsed programs to promote expanded opportunities for the education of women and girls, to end gender discrimination and violence against women, and to strengthen women‘s grassroots activist organizations.3 Since the Cairo Conference, UNFPA programs have and continue to be guided by the ICPD‘s Program of Action, which contains the following goals:     

universal access to reproductive health services by 2015; universal primary education and closing the gender gap in education by 2015; reducing maternal mortality by 75% by 2015; reducing infant mortality; and increasing life expectancy.

In 1999, an additional goal—reducing HIV infection rates in persons 15-24 years of age by 25% in the most-affected countries by 2005 and by 25% globally by 2010—was incorporated into the Program of Action and integrated into UNFPA‘s work.4

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

The U.N. Population Fund: Background and the U.S. Funding Debate

49

UNFPA Operations Today Budget trends With total income of $752.2 million, the 2007 UNFPA budget was its largest in recent years (see Table 1). UNFPA derives most of its income from voluntary contributions to its regular budget which finances continuing core country programs and the organization‘s administrative costs. A growing but less flexible source of revenue has been from supplementary donations that are provided either for cost-sharing purposes or for placement in trust funds. Through supplementary resource transfers, donors can earmark exactly how their contributions will be spent. In 2000, for example, the Netherlands provided $41 million specifically to procure contraceptive commodities. While UNFPA receives voluntary contributions from many countries—182 in 2007—and from some private foundations, most of its income for regular country programs and operating expenses comes from a handful of donors. In the past seven years, approximately 65% to 75% of UNFPA‘s regular income has come from six country donors (see Table 2). The Netherlands and Japan have consistently been the largest contributors. In years when the United States has contributed to UNFPA programs, the U.S. transfer has represented about 8% of UNFPA‘s regular budget, making it the 5th or 6th largest donor in those years.

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

UNFPA program priorities Currently, UNFPA activities focus on seven program areas that support the broad strategy of improving reproductive health: 

Preventing HIV/AIDS—promoting safer sexual behavior among young people, ensuring that condoms are available and widely and correctly used, empowering women to protect themselves and their children, and encouraging men to take responsibility for preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS;



Making motherhood safer—expanding the availability of emergency obstetric care for women who develop complications, having skilled workers available, and meeting unmet needs for contraceptive services;



Supporting young people—providing accurate information, counseling, and services to prevent unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases;



Promoting gender equality—promoting legal and policy reforms, supporting gender-sensitive data collection, and backing programs that empower women economically;



Assisting in emergencies—providing supplies and services to protect reproductive health during disasters;



Securing reproductive health supplies—coordinating the delivery of supplies, forecasting needs, and building logistical capacity at the country level; and

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

50

Luisa Blanchfield 

Preventing and treating obstetric fistula5—providing access to medical care, increasing education and family planning services, postponing pregnancy for young girls, improving girls‘ nutrition, and repairing physical and emotional damage.

Table 1. UNFPA Income (current $ in Millions) Year 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Regular $293 $273 $250 $262 $268 $260 $292 $332 $366 $389 $457

Supplemental $33 $36 $38 $104 $128 $113 $106 $174 $199 $216 $295

Total $326 $309 $288 $366 $396 $373 $398 $506 $565 $605 $752

Source: UNFPA annual reports

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Table 2. UNFPA Major Contributors, 2000 to 2007 (Contribution as a % of UNFPA Regular Income)

Netherlands Japan Norway Denmark U.K. Sweden United States

2000 19.3% 18.4% 8.8% 9.1% 8.5% 7.1% 8.2%

2001 18.8% 18.2% 9.0% 8.8% 8.2% 6.2% 8.0%

2002 21.1% 15.2% 9.7% 8.7% 10.2% 7.3% 0.0%

2003 23.1% 13.5% 11.3% 8.7% 10.3% 8.2% 0.0%

2004 21.8% 11.9% 10.0% 8.9% 11.1% 10.8% 0.0%

Source: UNFPA annual reports, 2000 to 2007.

Figure 1. UNFPA Program Functions 2007.

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

2005 20.8% 10.2% 10.3% 8.4% 10.0% 13.3% 0.0%

2006 19.3% 8.5% 10.5% 8.0% 9.7% 14.2% 0.0%

2007 17.5% 7.3% 12.8% 7.1% 8.8% 13.3% 0.0%

The U.N. Population Fund: Background and the U.S. Funding Debate

51

Figure 2. UNFPA Assistance by Region 2007.

In the 15 years since the Cairo Conference, UNFPA has allocated roughly 60% of its annual resources to reproductive health and family planning service programs and 20% to strategies for population and development. The balance of UNFPA spending focuses on coordinating activities, gender equity, and women‘s empowerment programs.6 (See Figure 1 for UNFPA program functions in 2007.)

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Regional and Country Program Focus Over the past decade, roughly 33% of UNFPA programs have been carried out in subSaharan Africa, with an additional 28% focused in Asia. In 2007, UNFPA maintained its largest program in Mozambique ($27 million), followed by Sudan ($21.5 million), the Democratic Republic of the Congo ($13.9 million), and India ($13.4 million). UNFPA program expenditures in China have ranged between $4 million and $5 million annually in recent years. In 2007, UNFPA contributed approximately $4.1 million to projects in China. (See Figure 2 for UNFPA assistance by region in 2007.)

U.S. POLICY TOWARDS UNFPA The United States was an important actor in the launch of UNFPA in 1969. During the mid-to-late 1 960s, Congress began to express heightened concern over the impact of rapid population growth on development prospects in poor countries, noting that the world‘s population was growing by about 2% annually compared with only a 1% growth in food production. In 1967, for the first time, Congress amended the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to specifically authorize and earmark funds for population assistance programs, urging the United States especially to channel family planning resources through the United Nations and other international organizations. Some Members believed that such earmarks were necessary because the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) had not been giving the issue adequate attention.7 These initial U.S. contributions, however, were conditioned on the requirement that other donors match the American payment in an equal amount. This incentive helped UNFPA exceed its 1970 projected resource goal when 22 other countries contributed a combined $7.7 million. In 1971, with the same matching requirement tied to the U.S. pledge of $15 million,

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

52

Luisa Blanchfield

UNFPA received donations of $14.5 million from 45 nations.8 As shown in Table 3, U.S. contributions continued to climb throughout the 1970s and early 1980s. At the same time, however, the number and size of transfers from other donors rose faster, so that the share of UNFPA resources from the United States declined from 50% to around 27%. The largest UNFPA contribution earmarked by Congress—$46 million—was enacted in the FY1 985 foreign aid appropriation, P.L. 98-461. However, only a portion of these funds— $36 million—was transferred to the organization as U.S. policy and its support for UNFPA shifted.

1984 Review of U.S. Funding for UNFPA In August 1984, government representatives from around the world met in Mexico City for the 2nd U.N. International Conference on Population. At the conference, the Ronald Reagan Administration announced new eligibility requirements for organizations receiving U.S. bilateral population assistance funds. The new policy stipulated that no nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that received population assistance funding from the United States could actively promote or perform abortion as a family planning method other countries. This change became known as the ―Mexico City policy‖ and was applied by the Reagan and George H.W. Bush Administrations for nine years, reversed by President Bill Clinton in 1993, and re-instituted by President George W. Bush in 2001.9

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Table 3. U.S. Contributions to UNFPA (Current $ in Millions) Fiscal Year 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988

U.S. Contribution $1.7 $2.3 $7.5 $14.2 $14.0 $17.9 $20.0 $20.0 $20.0 $29.0 $28.0 $30.0 $32.0 $32.0 $33.8 $33.8 $38.2 $36.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0

% of Total UNFPA Funds 79.3% 79.3% 50.0% 50.0% 46.1% 42.2% 37.0% 31.7% 25.2% 31.6% 27.2% 26.7% 25.7% 26.3% 26.1% 26.1% 27.5% 27.3% — — —

Fiscal Year 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 —

U.S. Contribution $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $40.0 $35.0 $22.8 $25.0 $20.0 $0.0 $21.5 $21.5 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $50.0 —

Source: Department of State and CRS percentage calculations since 1985.

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

% of Total UNFPA Funds — — — — 15.1% 11.2% 7.4% 8.6% 7.2% — 8.1% 8.0% — — — — — — — TBD —

The U.N. Population Fund: Background and the U.S. Funding Debate

53

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Also at the 1984 Mexico City Conference, the Reagan Administration announced it would establish requirements for UNFPA to provide assurances that the organization was not engaged in, or was not providing funds for, abortion or coercive family planning programs. Concerns focused on UNFPA‘s activities related to China‘s coercive family planning practices. UNFPA had launched its first program in China in 1980, focusing largely on increasing Beijing‘s capacity for data collection and improving maternal and child health and family planning services. At the time, the Administration reportedly held up $19 million (of $38 million allocated for UNFPA for FY1984) until the organization could provide the necessary assurances. These funds were released later in FY1984. Following the Mexico City Conference, attention returned to the FY1985 UNFPA earmark of $46 million and how much the United States should transfer, given the new White House policy. USAID, which at the time maintained responsibility for managing UNFPA contributions, undertook a review in early 1985 of UNFPA‘s program, especially in China, to determine whether the organization was involved in any way with involuntary abortions.10 In March 1985 that review found that UNFPA did not include involuntary abortion as part of its programs, and therefore did not violate legislative restrictions or conditions announced at the Mexico City Conference on funding organizations engaged in involuntary practices.11 As a result, UNFPA remained eligible for U.S. support but did not receive the full earmarked amount of $46 million. On March 30, 1985, USAID contributed $36 million to UNFPA, withholding $10 million ―to express United States disapproval of coercion in the implementation of the China population control program.‖12 The $10 million matched roughly the amount UNFPA spent annually in China. Because AID wanted to re-program the $10 million for other bilateral population assistance programs, the Administration needed to overcome the specific legislative earmark of $46 million in the FY1985 appropriation. Accordingly, the White House requested authority as part of an FY1 985 supplemental appropriation submission to shift $10 million from UNFPA to other population aid groups.

The Kemp-Kasten Amendment Rather than approve the Reagan Administration‘s request for authority to transfer the $10 million from UNFPA, Congress agreed to the ―Kemp-Kasten‖ amendment as part of the FY1 985 Supplemental Appropriations bill, H.R. 2577.13 The amendment states that U.S. funds would not be made available to ―any organization or program which, as determined by the President, supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.‖14 The House Appropriations Committee did not provide details on what was meant by the phrase, ―support or participate in the management‖ of a program. However, in the ―additional views‖ section of the Committee Report, Representative Jack Kemp stated that management of coercive programs may include providing resources to collect and analyze data necessary to the enforcement of such a program; training of the individuals who plan, manage, and carry out such a program, education and publicity about the programs; assistance to the official bodies of government that are charged with developing and implementing such a program; and other such assistance.15 Congressman Kemp also stated that the amendment would most likely affect U.S. funding of the UNFPA, ―because of its involvement with the program of coercive abortion in

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

54

Luisa Blanchfield

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

the People‘s Republic of China.‖16 The Kemp-Kasten amendment was enacted on August 15, 1985, as part of the FY1985 Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 99-88).

Implementation and Court Challenges Despite the directive from the amendment that the President, or alternatively the Secretary of State, issue any determination regarding the Kemp-Kasten amendment, President Reagan delegated his authority to the Secretary of State on September 19, 1985,17 who in turn authorized the re-delegation of this authority to the Director of the International Development Cooperation Agency (IDCA).18 On September 25, 1985, IDCA Administrator Peter McPherson announced the Administration‘s determination that UNFPA, because of its activities in China, was participating in the management of a program of coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization. In letters to congressional leaders, Administrator McPherson cited Representative Kemp‘s interpretation, as set out in his additional views in H.Rept. 99142, of what characterized the participation of an organization in a coercive abortion program. The Administrator concluded that China‘s ―one- child- per-couple policy has resulted in coerced abortion and involuntary sterilization.‖19 The Reagan Administrator further announced that since the Kemp-Kasten amendment and his determination under it now superseded the $46 million UNFPA earmark for FY1985, USAID would reprogram $10 million for voluntary family planning programs for use elsewhere in the world. He also stated that if Kemp-Inouye was enacted again in FY1 986 (see footnote 13), UNFPA could receive funds under only three conditions: (1) UNFPA withdraws its program from China; (2) China would begin to punish abuses concerning coercive abortion and involuntary sterilizations; or (3) UNFPA ―radically‖ changes its program in China, such as by supplying only contraceptive materials.20 Almost immediately, the Population Institute, an NGO, filed suit against Administrator McPherson and the U.S. government to block the redirection of UNFPA funds and invalidate the determination. On August 12, 1986, the Court upheld the Administration‘s decision to withhold UNFPA funding. From 1986 to 1992, USAID continued to request funds for UNFPA, although with the understanding that a decision on whether to transfer the money would be reviewed under the terms of the Kemp-Kasten amendment, which Congress also continued to enact each year in the foreign assistance appropriations. In each year, USAID found that UNFPA was ineligible for U.S. support.

Reinterpretation of Kemp-Kasten by the Clinton Administration The issue of coercive practices within China‘s family planning program and the role of UNFPA remained controversial throughout the Clinton Administration. As one of his first acts as chief executive, President Clinton reversed the Mexico City policy of Presidents Reagan and Bush, and issued a determination finding that UNFPA programs in China did not violate the terms of Kemp- Kasten. The policy reversal was based on several factors, including:

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

The U.N. Population Fund: Background and the U.S. Funding Debate

55



Ambiguity of the Kemp-Kasten language—The Administration noted that the Court of Appeals, in considering the case brought by the Population Institute, deferred to the USAID interpretation of Kemp-Kasten because it was a ―reasonable reading of an ambiguous provision and did not otherwise conflict with the expressed intention of Congress.‖ The Administration argued that because of this ambiguity, the new Administration had a right to interpret Kemp- Kasten for itself.



Over-reliance on the 1985 statements by Representative Kemp—The Administration pointed especially to the 1985 Court of Appeals opinion that questioned the relevance of the additional views of Representative Kemp interpreting the Kemp-Inouye amendment. The Court observed that, although the Administration considered Representative Kemp‘s remarks as the clearest explanation of an ―ambiguous term,‖ Congressman Kemp could not convince his colleagues to adopt his views in the committee report itself.



Focus should be on the terms “coercive” and “involuntary” and the intent of the organization in question—The Clinton Administration believed that it was reasonable to apply the Kemp-Kasten restrictions only in cases where the organization knowingly and intentionally provided direct support for, or helped manage people or agencies who were clearly engaged in, coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization. The Administration concluded that although it remained concerned about coercive practices in China, it believed that UNFPA did not ―knowingly‖ or ―intentionally‖ support directly such practices.21

Congress continued to include Kemp-Kasten language in Foreign Operations Appropriations acts, and in most years attached additional conditions on UNFPA contributions that required the organization to (1) keep U.S. funds in a separate account, (2) not spend U.S. money in China, and (3) to forego transfers from the United States equal to the amount UNFPA allocated for its China program. In some years, the United States withheld about $3.5 million from UNFPA, an amount that approximated the size of UNFPA‘s expenditures in China. For a brief period in 1997, the controversy over whether to fund UNFPA subsided when UNFPA‘s program in China expired and new activities did not resume immediately. Nevertheless, despite opposition from the United States, UNFPA re-established a program in China, and in FY1999 appropriation legislation, Congress prohibited all U.S. contributions to the organization. Congress restored funding in FY2000, but with the requirement that an amount equal to UNFPA expenditures in China be withheld. This resulted in a $3.5 million deduction in FY2000 and FY200 1. (See the Appendix for details on Administration actions and legislative restrictions regarding UNFPA funding from FY1985 to FY2009.)

George W. Bush Administration and the Kemp-Kasten Amendment The first budget submitted by President Bush for FY2002 included a proposed $25 million U.S. contribution to UNFPA. While the new Administration reinstated the so-called

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

56

Luisa Blanchfield

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

―Mexico City policy‖ restrictions that applied to bilateral family planning funds, there was no indication of a change in policy regarding UNFPA and the Kemp-Kasten conditions attached to U.S. contributions. Subsequently, in the FY2002 Foreign Operations Appropriations, Congress provided ―not more than‖ $34 million for UNFPA. Although such language represented a ceiling for the amount of funds for UNFPA, as opposed to a floor, or minimum amount that must be provided, the language was similar to prior year Foreign Operations bills that had been fulfilled by the Clinton Administration, minus the withholding requirement. However, in the face of the conflicting evidence released in late 2001 by the Guy and Biegman investigation teams (see section ―UNFPA and China‖ for further details on the group‘s findings), in mid-January 2002, the White House placed a hold on U.S. contributions to UNFPA pending a review of the organization‘s program in China. In a statement before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February 27, 2002, Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees and Migration Arthur Dewey noted that the legislative text regarding UNFPA funding—―not more than $34 million‖—gave the Administration considerable discretion over exactly how much to provide UNFPA. While stating that the United States supported UNFPA‘s work worldwide to provide safe and voluntary family planning, enhance maternal and infant health, and prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS, the Administration remained concerned about periodic reports of abuse and coercion in China‘s family planning program. Given new information and the requirements of the Kemp-Kasten amendment, Assistant Secretary Dewey argued that the State Department was obligated to investigate the matter further before releasing any funds in FY2002.22

State Department Assessment and Findings The State Department sent an investigation team to China for a two-week review of UNFPA programs on May 13, 2002. The team was led by former Ambassador William Brown, and included Bonnie Glick, a former State Department official, and Dr. Theodore Tong, a public health professor at the University of Arizona. The State Department‘s assessment team filed its report with Secretary Powell on May 29, making a series of findings and recommendations.23 The group found that:  



There was no evidence that UNFPA ―has knowingly supported or participated in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization‖ in China; Despite some relaxation of government restrictions in counties where UNFPA operates, China maintained coercive elements in its population programs in law and practice; and Chinese leaders viewed ―population control as a high priority‖ and remained concerned over implications for socioeconomic change.

On the basis of these findings, Ambassador Brown and his colleagues recommended that (1) the United States should release not more than $34 million of previously appropriated funds to UNFPA; (2) until China ends all forms of coercion in law and practice, no U.S. government funds should be allocated to population programs in China; and (3) appropriate resources, possibly from the United States, should be allocated to monitor and evaluate Chinese population control programs.

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

The U.N. Population Fund: Background and the U.S. Funding Debate

57

UNFPA found in violation of Kemp-Kasten by the Bush Administration President Bush withheld U.S. funding from UNFPA from FY2002 through FY2008 due to concerns that the organization supported or participated in what the Administration viewed as a program of coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization in China. These decisions were made in response to the findings and recommendations of the Brown investigation. The Administration consistently maintained that it would be willing to reconsider its position if UNFPA ended its program in China or if the program was restructured in a way consistent with U.S. law.24 On July 22, 2002, then-Secretary of State Powell, to whom President Bush had delegated the decision, announced that UNFPA remained in violation of Kemp-Kasten and ineligible for U.S. funding. The State Department‘s analysis of the Secretary‘s determination found that even though UNFPA did not ―knowingly‖ support or participate in a coercive practice, that alone would not preclude the application of Kemp-Kasten. Instead, a finding that the recipient of U.S. funds—in this case UNFPA—simply supports or participates in such a program, whether knowingly or unknowingly, would trigger the restriction. The assessment team found that the Chinese government imposes fines and penalties on families (―social compensation fees‖) that have children exceeding the number approved by the government. The Department further noted that UNFPA had funded computers and data-processing equipment that had helped strengthen the management of the Chinese State Family Planning Commission. Beyond the legitimate uses of these and other items financed by UNFPA, such equipment facilitated, in the view of the State Department, China‘s ability to impose social compensation fees or perform abortions by coercion. The State Department analysis concluded that UNFPA‘s involvement in China‘s family planning program ―allows the Chinese government to implement more effectively its program of coercive abortion.‖25

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Barack Obama Administration Kemp-Kasten Determination President Barack Obama has demonstrated his support for UNFPA. On March 24, 2009, a State Department spokesperson confirmed that the U.S. government would contribute $50 million to UNFPA in FY2009 as provided by the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 111-8). This decision, according to Administration officials, highlights the President‘s ―strong commitment‖ to international family planning, women‘s health, and global development.26 The FY2009 U.S. contribution to UNFPA represents a $10 million increase over the next largest contribution of $40 million in FY1994.

Legislative Action, FY2008 and FY2009 This section addresses the most recent legislative actions regarding U.S. contributions to UNFPA. See the Appendix for a description of Administration activities and legislative actions since 1985.

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

58

Luisa Blanchfield

FY2009 Appropriations On March 11, 2009, President Obama signed the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 111-8). Division H of that bill, the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2009, allocated $50 million for UNFPA. It specified that not more than $30 million of this amount shall be derived from the International Organizations and Programs (IO&P) account. The remaining amount shall be made available from the Global Health and Child Survival account.27 Sec. 7079 of the P.L. 111-8 establishes a number of conditions for U.S. contributions to UNFPA. Specifically, none of the funds made available may be used by UNFPA for a country program in China.28 In addition: 





Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.



Funds appropriated by the Act ―that are not made available because of the operation of any provision of law, shall be made available to UNFPA notwithstanding any such provision of law.‖ Some have expressed concern that this provision takes away the authority of the President to determine whether UNFPA is eligible for U.S. contributions under the Kemp-Kasten amendment. U.S. contributions to UNFPA shall be made available for specific purposes, including (1) providing and distributing safe equipment, medicine and supplies; (2) supplying contraceptives to prevent unintended pregnancies and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases; (3) preventing and treating obstetric fistula; (4) reestablishing maternal health services in areas with poor infrastructure; (5) promoting the abandonment of female genital cutting; and (6) promoting access to basic services such as water, sanitation, food, and health care. U.S. contributions to UNFPA must be kept in a separate account by the organization and should not commingle with other sums. For UNFPA to receive U.S. funding, it must not fund abortions.

On March 24, 2009, the Obama Administration announced that the United States would contribute $50 million (as directed in P.L. 111-8) to UNFPA under the Kemp-Kasten amendment. The Bush Administration had previously requested $25 million for UNFPA funding if the organization was deemed eligible under the Kemp-Kasten amendment. The funds would be appropriated under the Child Survival and Health Programs account.29

FY2008 Appropriations The Bush Administration proposed that $25 million be made available to UNFPA if it became eligible for funding under the terms of the Kemp-Kasten amendment. The funds would be drawn from Child Survival and Health Programs account.30 On June 26, 2008, however, the Bush Administration announced that UNFPA was ineligible for FY2008 funding under the Kemp- Kasten amendment.31 On December 26, 2007, Congress passed H.R. 2764, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161), which directed that $40 million be made available to UNFPA from the Global Health and Child Survival account, with no less than $7 million derived from the International Organizations and Programs (IOP) account. Section 660 of P.L. 110-161 required the Secretary of State to submit a report on UNFPA funding to the Appropriations

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

The U.N. Population Fund: Background and the U.S. Funding Debate

59

Committees no later than four months after the bill was enacted. According to the Act, the report to the Secretary of State ―shall indicate the amount of funds that the UNFPA is budgeting for the year in which the report is submitted for a country program in the People‘s Republic of China.‖ If the Secretary of State‘s report indicates that UNFPA funds will be used for a program in China, then the funds ―shall be deducted from the funds made available to the UNFPA after March 1 for obligation for the remainder of the fiscal year in which the report is submitted.‖ The provision also stated, ―Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of the President to deny funds to any organization by reason of the application of another provision of this Act or any other provision of law.‖ Title III of P.L. 110-161 established a reporting requirement for Administration decisions made under the Kemp-Kasten amendment. The Act directed that any determination ―must be made no later than six months after the date of enactment of this Act, and must be accompanied by a comprehensive analysis as well as the complete evidence and criteria utilized to make the determination.‖ In past years, the Bush Administration announced UNFPA eligibility for U.S. funding in September or October of the appropriate fiscal year. In some cases, it did not provide justification for its decision. The new provision required the Administration to announce its decision by June, and to provide comprehensive analysis and evidence to support its position.

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

UNFPA AND CHINA One issue that has been debated among many Members of Congress and past and current Administrations involves whether, and to what extent, UNFPA programs in China violate the Kemp-Kasten amendment. As previously mentioned, initial UNFPA programs in China concentrated on bolstering China‘s capacity for data collection and analysis, and maternal and child health/family planning activities. Following the Cairo population conference in 1994 and the conclusion of UNFPA‘s third Chinese program, UNFPA and Beijing officials began to discuss significant changes for a fourth agreement that would more closely follow the principles set out in Cairo. The subsequent UNFPA program, launched in 1998, concentrated efforts in 32 counties where birth targets and quotas had been eliminated by the Chinese government. The fourth program shifted from a more administrative family planning approach—focusing on population control and imposed contraceptive methods and orders—to an ―integrated, clientoriented reproductive health approach in the project counties‖ that included education and counseling regarding informed choice of contraceptive methods and reproductive health rights. According to UNFPA, service delivery points were upgraded to offer integrated reproductive health services in both the Chinese State Family Planning Commission and the Ministry of Health. UNFPA said that there had been a ―downward trend‖ in the abortion ratio in these counties, and that the organization had played a ―catalytic role in introducing a comprehensive, voluntary reproductive health approach,‖ that included rigorous monitoring of the projects.32 The fifth program, covering the period 2003- 2005, expanded many of the earlier initiatives. In June 2005, UNFPA approved a sixth program for China that began in 2006 and is to span five years. The $27 million program is to build on the policy changes made in 1998 and

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

60

Luisa Blanchfield

includes two components. The reproductive health element seeks to increase the utilization of high-quality, client-centered, gender-sensitive reproductive health and family planning services, and to reduce the vulnerability and risk behavior associated with HIV/AIDS among migrants, young people, and other vulnerable groups. The population and development component centers on strengthening the government‘s capacity for addressing populationrelated policies, especially those regarding gender, migration, and aging issues, and enhancing the government‘s ability to collect and apply surveillance data, particularly data related to HIV/AIDS.33

Investigations of UNFPA Programs in China

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

During implementation of the fourth and fifth programs, UNFPA‘s operations in China have been closely scrutinized by several investigatory teams, including one dispatched by the State Department in 2002. Most of these groups concluded that UNFPA was not involved in supporting coercive or involuntary family planning programs in China, although one— sponsored by the Population Research Institute (PRI)—concluded otherwise. These conflicting reports, together with continuing reviews of UNFPA practices in China and varying interpretations by U.S. officials, sparked renewed controversy and extensive congressional debate beginning in 2001 over the appropriate role of the United States in financially supporting UNFPA operations worldwide. The four non-U.S. government sponsored investigations came to the following conclusions.

The Population Research Institute PRI‘s report concluded that UNFPA ―directly supports coercive family planning with funding, and through its complicity with the implementation of policies which are fundamentally coercive in principle and practice.‖ The PRI team, led by Josephine Guy, spent four days in Sihui County, Guangdong Province, in late September 2001, conducting numerous interviews with alleged victims and witnesses of coercive practices. According to the team‘s interview notes and videos, non-voluntary abortions and use of IUDs, mandatory examinations, and punishment for noncompliance—both imprisonment and economic fines— continued in this county which was among the 32 in which UNFPA supported programs.34 The Biegman Group This team found that UNFPA plays a ―positive and important catalytic role in the reform of reproductive health and family planning services in China‖ and in moving China away from coercive family planning practices and abuses. It recommended that UNFPA continue its program in China and expand its scope and resources in the future.35 This UNFPAsponsored review team, led by Ambassador Nicolaas Biegman, former Dutch Ambassador to the U.N. and including diplomats from Honduras, the Czech Republic, and Botswana, conducted a six-day investigation in October 2001, interviewing officials and visiting sites in Beijing and in Sihui and Qianjiang Counties.

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

The U.N. Population Fund: Background and the U.S. Funding Debate

61

British All-Party Parliamentary Group on Population, Development, and Reproductive Health The British parliamentary team found that although problems remain in some parts of China regarding reproductive rights, the Chinese government was ―moving in the right direction, with the support of UNFPA.‖ The bi-partisan group spent a week in Beijing and Yunnan Province in April 2002, reporting that UNFPA programs were having a ―positive effect‖ in reforming Chinese reproductive health services and offering women ―a choice over their own lives.‖36 The Interfaith Delegation to China This group returned from a September 2003 visit finding, among other things, that the Chinese government was taking steps to end coercive family planning practices, that UNFPA was a major force in China‘s transition to voluntary policies, and that UNFPA did not support or participate in managing China‘s family planning program. While the group acknowledged that in such a brief trip it could not gain a comprehensive view of China‘s family planning activities or the work of UNFPA, it felt confident in recommending that the United States should maintain a policy of constructive engagement with China regarding family planning matters, and that U.S. funding for UNFPA should be restored, and the Kemp-Kasten amendment revised. The nine-member mission was sponsored by Catholics for a Free Choice.37

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

KEMP-KASTEN APPLICATION BEYOND UNFPA Critics of the Administration policy, including some Members of Congress, have expressed concern over what they perceive to be a shift in the interpretation of Kemp-Kasten restrictions related to UNFPA and other international organizations. They point to a USAID notification to the Global Health Council that the agency would not provide funding for the Council‘s 3 1st annual meeting in June 2004 because UNFPA would be a participant. Some believe that this represented a State Department warning to UNICEF, the World Health Organization, and other organizations that continued involvement in joint programs with UNFPA might jeopardize their funding support from the United States.38 In 2003, the State Department decided that it would fund a $1 million HIV/AIDS program supporting African and Asian refugees only if the implementing NGO group— Reproductive Health for Refugees Consortium—did not include Marie Stopes International among its members. Marie Stopes International is a British-based reproductive health organization that is also a major implementing partner of UNFPA in China. The State Department, while not making a legal determination under the Kemp-Kasten amendment, felt that an action not to fund Marie Stopes International would be the ―approach most consistent with U.S. policy.‖39 On August 11, 2003, however, the Consortium declined to accept the $1 million grant due to the exclusion of Marie Stopes International.

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

62

Luisa Blanchfield

APPENDIX. UNFPA ADMINISTRATION POLICY AND LEGISLATIVE CONDITIONS, FY1985 TO FY2009 Fiscal Year 1985

Administration Budget Request $26 million for UNFPA.

1986

$38 million for UNFPA. $32 million for UNFPA, subject to Kemp-Kasten. $25 million for UNFPA, subject to Kemp-Kasten. $20 million for UNFPA, subject to Kemp-Kasten. $19.39 million for UNFPA, subject to Kemp-Kasten.

1987

1988

1989

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

1990

1991

$10 million for UNFPA, subject to Kemp-Kasten

Congressional Action/ Legislative Conditions Enacted Regular FY1985 appropriation: —Not less than $46 million, or 16% of Population Assistance, whichever is lower, shall be made available for UNFPA. Supplemental FY1985 appropriation: —Kemp-Kasten conditions first enacted. —Kemp-Kasten conditions. —No specific UNFPA provision. —Kemp-Kasten conditions. —No specific UNFPA provision.

Funding and Policy Outcome UNFPA received $36 million, after the withholding of $10 million to express U.S. disapproval of coercion in China‘s family planning program.

—Kemp-Kasten conditions. —No specific UNFPA provision.

No UNFPA funding

—Kemp-Kasten conditions. —No specific UNFPA provision.

No UNFPA funding.

Appropriation passed Congress but vetoed by the President: —Not less than $15 million shall be made available for UNFPA, notwithstanding the Kemp-Kasten conditions. —No funds for UNFPA may be used in China. —No UNFPA funds available unless UNFPA maintains amounts in a separate account and UNFPA does not commingle amounts with other sums. —Entire $15 million shall be refunded if any used by UNFPA for family planning programs in China or used for any abortion related activity in any country. Subsequent appropriation signed by the President: —Kemp-Kasten conditions. —No specific UNFPA provision. —Kemp-Kasten conditions. —No specific UNFPA provision.

No UNFPA funding Earlier, $15 million appropriation for UNFPA vetoed by the President.

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

No UNFPA funding. No UNFPA funding.

No UNFPA funding

The U.N. Population Fund: Background and the U.S. Funding Debate Fiscal Year 1992

1993 1994

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

1995

Administration Budget Request $10 million for UNFPA, subject to Kemp-Kasten. No UNFPA funding. $50 million for UNFPA.

$60 million for UNFPA.

Congressional Action/ Legislative Conditions Enacted —Kemp-Kasten conditions. —No specific UNFPA provision.

Funding and Policy Outcome No UNFPA funding

—Kemp-Kasten conditions. —No specific UNFPA provision. —Not more than $40 million shall be made available for UNFPA, subject to Kemp-Kasten conditions. —No funds for UNFPA may be used in China. —No UNFPA funds available unless UNFPA maintains amounts in a separate account and does not commingle amounts with other sums. —Not more than half of the UNFPA contribution may be provided before March 1, 1994. —Secretary of State report to Congress by Feb. 15, 1994, regarding the amount of UNFPA‘s budget for China. Whatever amount for China above $10 million shall be deducted after March 1 from the $40 million U.S. contribution. —Not more than $50 million shall be made available for UNFPA, subject to Kemp-Kasten conditions. —No funds for UNFPA may be used in China. —No UNFPA funds available unless UNFPA maintains amounts in a separate account and does not commingle amounts with other sums. —Not more than half of the UNFPA contribution may be provided before March 1, 1995. —Secretary of State report to Congress by Feb. 15, 1995, regarding the amount of UNFPA‘s budget for China. Whatever amount for China above

No UNFPA funding.

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

UNFPA received $40 million from the United States.

UNFPA received $35 million from the United States, after a rescission of $15 million.

63

64

Luisa Blanchfield Appendix (Continued)

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Fiscal Year

Administration Budget Request

1996

$55 million for UNFPA.

1997

$30 million for UNFPA.

Congressional Action/ Legislative Conditions Enacted $7 million shall be deducted after March 1 from the $50 million U.S. contribution. —In separate legislation, Congress rescinded $15 million of the original $50 million appropriation for UNFPA. —Not more than $30 million shall be made available for UNFPA, subject to Kemp-Kasten conditions. —No funds for UNFPA may be used in China. —No UNFPA funds available unless UNFPA maintains amounts in a separate account and does not commingle amounts with other sums. —Not more than half of the UNFPA contribution may be provided before March 1, 1996. —Secretary of State report to Congress by Feb. 15, 1996, regarding the amount of UNFPA‘s budget for China. Whatever amount for China above $7 million shall be deducted after March 1 from the $30 million U.S. contribution. —Not more than $25 million shall be made available for UNFPA, subject to Kemp-Kasten conditions. —No funds for UNFPA may be used in China. —No UNFPA funds available unless UNFPA maintains amounts in a separate account and does not commingle amounts with other sums. —Not more than half of the UNFPA contribution may be provided before March 1, 1997. —Secretary of State report to Congress by Feb. 15, 1997, regarding the amount of UNFPA‘s budget for China. Whatever amount for China shall

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Funding and Policy Outcome

UNFPA received $22.8 million from the United States, after a withholding of $7.2 million.

UNFPA received $25 million from the United States.

The U.N. Population Fund: Background and the U.S. Funding Debate

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Fiscal Year

Administration Budget Request

1998

$30 million for UNFPA.

1999

$25 million for UNFPA.

2000

$25 million for UNFPA.

Congressional Action/ Legislative Conditions Enacted be deducted after March 1 from the $25 million U.S. contribution. —Not more than $25 million shall be made available for UNFPA, subject to Kemp-Kasten conditions. —No funds for UNFPA may be used in China. No UNFPA funds available unless UNFPA maintains amounts in a separate account and does not commingle amounts with other sums. —Not more than half of the UNFPA contribution may be provided before March 1, 1998. —Secretary of State report to Congress by Feb. 15, 1998, regarding the amount of UNFPA‘s budget for China. Whatever amount for China shall be deducted after March 1 from the $25 million U.S. contribution. —No funds may be made available for UNFPA. —Kemp-Kasten conditions included in enacted appropriation. —Not more than $25 million shall be made available for UNFPA, subject to Kemp-Kasten conditions. —No funds for UNFPA may be used in China. —No UNFPA funds available unless UNFPA maintains amounts in a separate account, does not commingle amounts with other sums, and does not fund abortions. —Secretary of State report to Congress by Feb. 15, 2000, regarding the amount of UNFPA‘s budget for China. Whatever amount for China shall be deducted after March 1 from the $25 million U.S. contribution.

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Funding and Policy Outcome

UNFPA received $20 million from the United States, after a withholding of $5 million.

UNFPA received no funding from the United States. UNFPA received $21.5 million from the United States, after a withholding of $3.5 million.

65

66

Luisa Blanchfield

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Appendix (Continued) Fiscal Year 2001

Administration Budget Request $25 million for UNFPA.

2002

$25 million for UNFPA.

2003

$25 million ―reserve‖ available for UNFPA, subject to Kemp-Kasten conditions.

Congressional Action/ Legislative Conditions Enacted —Not more than $25 million shall be made available for UNFPA, subject to Kemp-Kasten conditions. —No funds for UNFPA may be used in China. —No UNFPA funds available unless UNFPA maintains amounts in a separate account, does not commingle amounts with other sums, and does not fund abortions. —Secretary of State report to Congress by Feb. 15, 2001, regarding the amount of UNFPA‘s budget for China. Whatever amount for China shall be deducted after March 1 from the $25 million U.S. contribution. —Not more than $34 million shall be made available for UNFPA, subject to Kemp-Kasten conditions. —No funds for UNFPA may be used in China. —No UNFPA funds available unless UNFPA maintains amounts in a separate account, does not commingle amounts with other sums, and does not fund abortions.

—Not more than $34 million in FY2002 appropriations and an equal amount from FY2003 appropriations shall be available for UNFPA if the President determines that UNFPA no longer supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization. —No funds for UNFPA may be used in China. —Other abortion restrictions in this act or in the FY2002

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Funding and Policy Outcome UNFPA received $21.5 million from the United States, after a withholding of $3.5 million.

Secretary of State determined that UNFPA was not eligible under Kemp-Kasten conditions. UNFPA received no funding from the United States. FY2002 UNFPA funds reprogrammed for bilateral family planning/ maternal & re-productive health activities in several developing countries. President did not issue a finding that UNFPA no longer supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization. UNFPA received no funding from the United States. FY2003 UNFPA funds reprogrammed for assistance for ―vulnerable children‖ and made

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

The U.N. Population Fund: Background and the U.S. Funding Debate Fiscal Year

Administration Budget Request

2004

$25 million reserve available for UNFPA, subject to Kemp-Kasten conditions.

2005

$25 million reserve available for UNFPA, subject to Kemp-Kasten conditions.

Congressional Action/ Legislative Conditions Enacted appropriation shall apply to UNFPA funding. —FY2002 conditions on UNFPA funding shall apply to FY2003 appropriations. —UNFPA funds deducted by the amount UNFPA spends in China in 2002 and 2003. —Up to $34 million shall be available to UNFPA, subject to Kemp-Kasten conditions. —FY2002 UNFPA funds shall be made available for family planning, maternal & reproductive health activities in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Tanzania, Uganda, Haiti, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Russia, Albania, Romania, and Kazakhstan. —FY2003 UNFPA funds shall be allocated for assistance for ―vulnerable children‖ and made available for a new initiative for assistance for young women, mothers and children who are victims of trafficking in persons. —No UNFPA funds available for programs in China. —No UNFPA funds available unless UNFPA maintains amounts in a separate account, does not commingle amounts with other sums, and UNFPA does not fund abortions. —$34 million shall be available to UNFPA, subject to KempKasten conditions. —No UNFPA funds available for programs in China. —No UNFPA funds available unless UNFPA maintains amounts in a separate account, does not commingle amounts with other sums, and UNFPA does not fund abortions. —If FY2005 funds are not made available to UNFPA, they shall be

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

67

Funding and Policy Outcome available for a new initiative for assistance for young women, mothers and children who are victims of trafficking in persons.

Secretary of State determined that UNFPA was not eligible under Kemp-Kasten conditions. UNFPA received no funding from the United States. FY2004 UNFPA funds transferred to the Economic Support Fund account, with the intention to use in support of antitrafficking in persons programs. Subsequently, FY2005 Foreign Operations Appropriations directed that of the FY2004 funds not provided to UNFPA, $12.5 million shall be available for antitrafficking programs, and $12.5 million shall be available for AID family planning programs. Secretary of State determined that UNFPA was not eligible under KempKasten conditions. UNFPA received no funding from the United States.

68

Luisa Blanchfield

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Appendix (Continued) Fiscal Year

Administration Budget Request

2006

If UNFPA determined eligible for U.S. funds under the terms of Kemp-Kasten, $25 million could be drawn from USAID‘s Child Survival and Health Account.

2007

If UNFPA determined eligible for U.S. funds

Congressional Action/ Legislative Conditions Enacted transferred to the Child Survival/ Health account and used by USAID for family planning, maternal, and reproductive health activities. —Of the FY2004 funds earmarkked for UNFPA, $12.5 million shall be available for antitrafficking programs and $12.5 million shall be available for USAID for family planning, maternal, and reproductive health activities in Albania, Azerbaijan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Georgia, Haiti, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Nigeria, Romania, Russia, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda, and Ukraine. —$34 million shall be available to UNFPA, subject to KempKasten conditions. —No UNFPA funds available for programs in China. —No UNFPA funds available unless UNFPA maintains amounts in a separate account, does not commingle amounts with other sums, and UNFPA does not fund abortions. —Of the $34 million, $22.5 million shall be derived from the State Department‘s International Organization and Programs account (IOP), with the remainder from the Child Survival and Health account (CSH). —Of the amount derived from the IOP account that are not made available for UNFPA, the funds shall be transferred to the CSH account, and shall be made available for family planning, and maternal and reproductive health services. Per H.R. 5522, Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Bill:

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Funding and Policy Outcome

Secretary of State determined that UNFPA was not eligible under Kemp-Kasten conditions. UNFPA received no funding from the United States.

Pending under continuing resolution P.L. 109-289, as

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

The U.N. Population Fund: Background and the U.S. Funding Debate

69

Fiscal Year

Administration Budget Request under the terms of Kemp-Kasten, $25 million could be drawn from the proposed family planning/ reproductive health program budget of $357 million.

Congressional Action/ Legislative Conditions Enacted —$34 million shall be available to UNFPA, subject to KempKasten conditions. —No UNFPA funds available for programs in China. —No UNFPA funds available unless UNFPA maintains amounts in a separate account, does not commingle amounts with other sums, and UNFPA does not fund abortions. —Of the $34 million, $22.275 million shall be derived from the State Department‘s IOP account, with the remainder from the Child Survival and Health account (CSH). —Of the amount derived from the IOP account that are not made available for UNFPA, the funds shall be transferred to the CSH account, and shall be made available for family planning, and maternal and reproductive health services.

Funding and Policy Outcome amended by P.L. 110-5 Secretary of State determined that UNFPA was not eligible under Kemp-Kasten conditions. UNFPA received no funding from the United States.

2008

If UNFPA is determined eligible for U.S. funds under the terms of Kemp-Kasten, $25 million would be drawn from the Child Survival and Health Programs account.

—$40 million shall be available to UNFPA, subject to KempKasten conditions. —No UNFPA funds available for programs in China. —No UNFPA funds available unless UNFPA maintains amounts in a separate account, does not commingle amounts with other sums, and UNFPA does not fund abortions. —Not less than $7 million shall be derived from funding appropriated under the IOP, with the rest coming from the Global Health and Child Survival account. —Of the amount derived from the IOP account that are not made available for UNFPA, the funds shall be transferred to the Global Health and Child Survival

Secretary of State determined that UNFPA is not eligible under Kemp-Kasten conditions.

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

UNFPA will receive no funding from the United States.

70

Luisa Blanchfield

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Appendix (Continued) Fiscal Year

Administration Budget Request

2009

If UNFPA is determined eligible for U.S. funds under the terms of KempKasten, $25 million would be drawn from the Child Survival and Health Programs account.

Congressional Action/ Legislative Conditions Enacted account, and shall be made available for family planning and maternal and reproductive health activities. —Report to Congress and Dollarfor-Dollar Withholding of Funds: No later than four months after enactment, the Secretary of State shall report to Appropriations Committees on the ―amount of funds that UNFPA is budgeting for the year in which the report is submitted for a country program in the People‘s Republic of China.‖ If a report indicates that UNFPA plans to spend funds for a country program in China in the year of the report, the amount of funds that UNFPA plans to spend in China shall be deducted from the funds made available to UNFPA after March 1 for obligation for the rest of the fiscal year. Moreover, nothing shall be construed to limit the authority of the President to deny funds to any organization due to the application of another law or provision. —Requires the Administration to make Kemp-Kasten determinations within six months of the enactment of the Act, and directs that the decision must be accompanied by ―a comprehensive analysis as well as the complete evidence and criteria utilized to make the determination.‖ —$50 million shall be made available to UNFPA, subject to Kemp-Kasten provisions, of which not more than $30 million will be derived from the International Organization and Programs account. —Funds appropriated to UNFPA that are not made available because of the operation of any

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Funding and Policy Outcome

UNFPA will receive $50 million from the United States. Possible withholdings for a UNFPA country program in China to be determined.

The U.N. Population Fund: Background and the U.S. Funding Debate

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Fiscal Year

Administration Budget Request

Congressional Action/ Legislative Conditions Enacted provision of law, shall be made available to UNFPA ―notwithstanding any such provision of law.‖ —Funds for UNFPA shall only be used to: (1) provide and distribute equipment and medicine; (2) make contraceptives available; (3) prevent and treat obstetric fistula; (4) reestablish maternal health services; (5) promote the abandonment of female genital cutting; and (6) promote access to basic services. —No U.S. funds shall be made available to UNFPA unless it maintains U.S. funds in a separate account, does not commingle amounts with other sums, and UNFPA does not fund abortions. —No UNFPA funds shall be made available for a UNFPA country program in China. —No later than 60 days after the enactment of the Act, the Secretary is required to submit a report to the Committees on Appropriations indicating the funds UNFPA is budgeting for a country program in China. If the Secretary‘s report indicates that funds will be spent a China program, then the amount of such funds shall be deducted from the funds made available to UNFPA after March 1 for obligation for the remainder of the fiscal year in which the report is submitted.

Author Contact Information Luisa Blanchfield Analyst in International Relations [email protected], 7-0856

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Funding and Policy Outcome

71

72

Luisa Blanchfield

End Notes

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

1

―UNFPA: What it Is; What it Does,‖ UNFPA, 1983; and ―UNFPA at 30 Years—Fact Sheets,‖ UNFPA, October 26, 1999. (Hereafter cited as UNFPA, What it Is; What it Does.) 2 UNFPA. What it Is; What it Does. 1983. 3 See CRS Report 94-533, Population and Development: The 1994 Cairo Conference, by Curt Tarnoff. (Archived; available on request from author). 4 UNFPA Background. Found at UNFPA website http://www.unfpa.org/hiv/index.htm. 5 Obstetric fistula occurs from prolonged child labor, particularly when labor lasts two days or more. When a woman or girl is unable to push her baby out, the pressure from the baby‘s head can interrupt blood flow to tissues in the pelvic area. Ultimately, the woman passes the baby after it dies, as the decomposed body is smaller than the live one. This can cause incontinence, nerve damage, and chronic pain, which can make walking difficult. For more information on UNFPA activities regarding fistula, see CRS Report RS21773, Reproductive Health Problems in the World: Obstetric Fistula: Background Information and Responses, by Tiaji Salaam-Blyther. 6 UNFPA. Annual Report 2007. Additional data also drawn from prior-year annual reports. UNFPA‘s 2008 annual report has not yet been published. 7 U.S. Congress. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. Foreign Assistance Act of 1967; report to accompany S. 1872. S.Rept. 90-499. August 9, 1967, p. 24. 8 U.S. Agency for International Development. Development and Humanitarian Assistance; FY1973 Program Presentation to Congress. p. L-15. 9 For a discussion of the Mexico City policy and its eligibility requirements, see CRS Report RL30830, International Family Planning: The “Mexico City” Policy, by Larry Nowels. 10 More recently, responsibility for UNFPA voluntary contributions has shifted to the State Department and the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration. 11 Action Memorandum for the Administrator/Acting Director of IDCA. 1985 Funding for the United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA), September 25, 1985, p. 1. 12 Ibid. 13 Initially, the amendment was referred to as the Kemp-Inouye provision, so named after its original sponsors, Representative Jack Kemp, ranking Member of the House Foreign Assistance Appropriations Subcommittee, and Senator Daniel Inouye, Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign Assistance Appropriations Subcommittee. Senator Inouye later opposed the Administration‘s decision not to fund UNFPA, as well as the fact that the decision was delegated from the President to the Secretary of State to the Administrator for USAID. For the next several years, Senator Bob Kasten, Chairman/Ranking Minority Member of the Foreign Assistance Subcommittee, was a strong supporter of the amendment, and the provision came to be referred to as ―KempKasten.‖ 14 S.Amdt. 338 to H.R. 2577, 99th Congress, June 20, 1985. Enacted as P.L. 99-88. 15 U.S. House. Committee on Appropriations. Supplemental Appropriations, 1985, H.Rept. 99-142, May 22, 1985, p. 86. 16 Ibid. 17 A USAID memorandum drafted at the time noted that the Administration did not view congressional expectations that the President (or if delegated, the Secretary of State) should make the determination for UNFPA funding as legally binding. However, it was ―considered significant‖ by the executive branch. 18 IDCA had been established by Congress as a government entity to oversee and coordinate the activities of all U.S. foreign aid agencies, and the IDCA Director served simultaneously as the USAID Administrator. 19 Letter from IDCA Acting Director Peter McPherson to Senator Hatfield, Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, September 25, 1985, p. 2. 20 Ibid, p. 2. 21 These policy views are drawn from letters of USAID Administrator Brian Atwood to Senator Helms, dated August 6 and September 10, 1993. 22 Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Funding for the U.N. Population Fund: The Effect on Women’s Lives. Committee Hearings, February 2002. 23 Report of the China UN Population Fund (UNFPA) Independent Assessment Team, released by the Department of State on May 29, 2002. See http://www.state.gov/g/prm/rls/rpt/2002/12122.htm for the report‘s full text. 24 In 2008, for example, a Bush Administration official stated, ―We are prepared to consider funding UNFPA in the future if its program in China is ended or restructured in a way consistent with U.S. law, or if China ends its program of coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization.‖ See press statement by Tom Casey, Deputy Spokesman, ―Fiscal Year 2008 Funding for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA),‖ U.S. Department of State, June 27, 2008, available at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2008/jun/106348.htm.

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

The U.N. Population Fund: Background and the U.S. Funding Debate 25

73

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Department of State, Analysis of Determination that Kemp-Kasten Amendment Precludes Further Funding to UNFPA under P.L. 107-115. Released on July 18, 2002. See http://www.state.gov/g/prm/rls/other/12128.htm for the full text. 26 Department of State press release, ―U.S. Government Support for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA),‖ March 24, 2009. 27 Sec. 7079, Divisions H - Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2009, of the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 111-8, March 11, 2009). 28 The bill also establishes related reporting requirements for the Secretary-of-State. No later than 60 days after the enactment of P.L. 111-8, the Secretary is required to submit a report to the Committees on Appropriations indicating the funds UNFPA is budgeting for a country program in China. If the Secretary‘s report indicates that funds will be spent on such a program, then the amount of such funds shall be deducted from the funds made available to UNFPA for the remainder of the fiscal year in which the report is submitted. (See Sec. 7079(e)(1) and (e)(2).) 29 Appendix, Congressional Budget Justification, Foreign Operations, FY2009, p. 815, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/FY2009/pdf/appendix/sta.pdf. 30 Appendix, Congressional Budget Justification, Foreign Operations, Fiscal Year 2008, p. 752, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/pdf/appendix/sta.pdf. 31 Press statement by Tom Casey, Deputy Spokesman, ―Fiscal Year 2008 Funding for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA),‖ U.S. Department of State, June 27, 2008. 32 UNFPA, Country Programme Outline for China. DP/FPA/CPO/CHN/5*, July 12, 2002. UNFPA, Report of the International Review Team on the UNFPA China Country Programme, October 2001. 33 UNFPA, Country Programme Document for China. DP/FPA/CPD/CHN/6, October 10, 2005. 34 Population Research Institute, UNFPA, China, and Coercive Family Planning. December 12, 2001. See also two congressional hearings in which Josephine Guy testified: House Committee on International Relations, Coercive Population Control in China: New Evidence of Foreign Abortion and Forced Sterilization. Committee Hearing, October 17, 2001; and Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Funding for the U.N. Population Fund: The Effect on Women’s Lives. Committee Hearings, February 2002. 35 UNFPA, Report of the International Review Team on the UNFPA China Country Programme, October 2001. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Funding for the U.N. Population Fund: The Effect on Women’s Lives. Committee Hearings, February 2002. 36 China Mission Report by UK MP‘s, 1st April - 9th April 2002. Found at http://www.appg-popdevrh.org.uk. 37 Catholics for a Free Choice. The United Nations Population Fund in China: A Catalyst for Change. Report of an Interfaith Delegation to China. 2003. 38 Christopher Marquis. U.S. is Accused of Trying to Isolate U.N. Population Unit. New York Times, June 21, 2004. Letter to Secretary of State Colin Powell from Representatives Maloney, Lee, Waxman, and Crowley, June 18, 2004. 39 Details for Funding the Reproductive Health Consortium (Taken Question), Office of the State Department‘s Spokesman, August 27, 2003.

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved. International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

In: International Efforts to Protect Women Editor: Lilian T. Graham pp. 75-93

ISBN: 978-1-60741-186-4 © 2010 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 6

UNITED NATIONS SYSTEM EFFORTS TO ADDRESS VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN 

Luisa Blanchfield

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

SUMMARY The United Nations (U.N.) system supports a number of programs that address international violence against women (VAW). These activities, which are implemented by 35 U.N. entities, range from large-scale interagency initiatives to smaller grants and programs that are implemented by a range of partners, including non-governmental organizations (NGOs), national governments, and individual U.N. agencies. U.N. member states, including the United States, address VAW by ratifying multilateral treaties, adopting resolutions and decisions, and supporting U.N. mechanisms and bodies that focus on the issue. Many U.N. activities and mechanisms address VAW directly, while others focus on it in the context of broader issues such as humanitarian assistance, U.N. peacekeeping, and global health. U.N. entities do not specifically track the cost of programs or activities with antiVAW components. As a result, it is unclear how much the U.N. system, including individual U.N. agencies, funds, and programs, spends annually on programs to combat violence against women. The U.S. government supports many activities that, either in whole or in part, work to combat international violence against women. Some experts argue that when considering the most effective ways to address VAW on an international scale, the United States should take into account the efforts of international organizations such as the United Nations. Were the 111th Congress to decide to use U.N. mechanisms to combat VAW, a number of programs and options might be considered. Congress has appropriated funds to the U.N. Trust Fund in Support of Actions to Eliminate Violence Against Women, for example, as well as to U.N. agencies, funds, and programs that address types or circumstances of violence against women 

This is an edited, reformatted and augmented version of a CRS Report for Congress publication dated August 2009.

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

76

Luisa Blanchfield

and girls. These include the World Health Organization (WHO), U.N. Development Program (UNDP), the U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), and the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). The Senate has also given its advice and consent for U.S. ratification of treaties that address international violence against women and girls—including the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress, and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children. This report supplements CRS Report RL34438, International Violence Against Women: U.S. Response and Policy Issues. It provides an overview of recent U.N. efforts to address VAW by the Secretary-General and highlights key U.N. interagency efforts. The report also discusses selected U.N. funds, programs, and agencies that address international violence against women. It does not measure the extent to which VAW is directly addressed or is part of a larger initiative or program. This report will be updated as events warrant.

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION Since the late 1990s, the United Nations (U.N.) organization has increasingly recognized violence against women (hereafter VAW) as a global health concern and violation of human rights. Ongoing U.N. system efforts to address VAW range from large-scale interagency initiatives to smaller grants and programs implemented by non-governmental organizations (NGOs), national governments, and individual U.N. agencies. A number of U.N. system activities address VAW directly; however, many are also implemented in the context of broader issues such as humanitarian aid, peacekeeping, global health, and human rights. Most U.N. entities do not specifically track the cost of programs or activities with anti-VAW components. Therefore, it is unclear how much the U.N. system, including individual U.N. agencies and programs, spends annually on programs to combat violence against women. U.N. member states collectively address VAW through the work of U.N. bodies such as the General Assembly, Security Council, and Economic and Social Council. Members of these bodies have adopted resolutions and decisions addressing VAW in general, and more specifically violence against women migrant workers, honor crimes against women and girls, trafficking in women and girls, sexual violence in conflict, VAW prevention, and women, peace, and security.1 Many U.N. member states have also ratified international treaties that address violence against women, including the U.N. Protocol to Prevent, Suppress, and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children; the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW); and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). In addition, members of the U.N. Human Rights Council support the work of the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, its Causes and Consequences. U.N. member states also make voluntary contributions to U.N. funds and other mechanisms that address violence against women. Since 2005, at the direction of U.N. member states, former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and current Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon have worked to coordinate and enhance anti-VAW activities among various U.N. entities. In late 2005, for example, as part of thenSecretaryGeneral Annan‘s In-Depth Study on All Forms of Violence Against Women, the U.N. Secretariat‘s Division for the Advancement of Women (DAW) compiled an inventory of U.N. system activities that address violence against women. The inventory, which was last updated

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

United Nations System Efforts to Address Violence against Women

77

in February 2009, has identified 35 U.N. entities that work to combat VAW on a global, national, or local level.2 In February 2008, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon launched a U.N. system-wide public awareness campaign to end violence against women. This report provides examples of recent U.N. system efforts to address VAW, including the Trust Fund to Eliminate Violence Against Women, anti-VAW initiatives of past and current U.N. Secretaries-General, and interagency activities. It also discusses selected U.N. agreements, mechanisms, agencies, funds, and programs that—either in whole or in part— work to eliminate violence against women. It does not assess the scope of U.N. anti-VAW activities or evaluate a U.N. entity‘s progress in achieving its goal. This report supplements CRS Report RL34438, International Violence Against Women: U.S. Response and Policy Issues.

ISSUES FOR CONGRESS When considering U.S. efforts to address violence against women internationally, Members of the 111th Congress may wish to take into account ongoing U.N. efforts to address the issue. Were Congress to decide to use U.N. mechanisms to combat VAW, a number of policy issues and U.N. programs might be considered.

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Priorities and Resource Allocation Some experts argue that providing financial or technical support to international organizations that address VAW is an effective use of U.S. resources. They maintain that such assistance benefits the United States because it allows the U.S. government to share antiVAW costs and resources with other governments and organizations. Moreover, some maintain that U.S. support of U.N. anti-VAW activities may prevent duplication of anti-VAW programs. Others argue that the U.S. government should focus on its own anti-VAW activities, and emphasize that U.N. antiVAW activities may not always align with U.S. foreign assistance priorities.

Funding U.N. Anti-YAW Efforts Some maintain that the U.S. government should increase its contributions to U.N. programs and mechanisms that combat violence against women—particularly the U.N. Trust Fund in Support of Actions to Eliminate Violence Against Women.3 The Trust Fund is a multilateral U.N. mechanism that provides governments and NGOs with money specifically to address violence against women. It relies on voluntary contributions from U.N. member states, including the United States, which first contributed in FY2005.4 Policymakers, including some Members of Congress, have recognized the Fund as a possible tool for addressing international violence against women. Proposed legislation in the 110th Congress, for example, increased U.S. contributions to the Fund.5

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

78

Luisa Blanchfield

A number of other U.N. agencies, funds, and programs work to eliminate violence against women. These include offices and departments funded through the U.N. Regular Budget, such as the Department of Peacekeeping Operations and the Division for the Advancement of Women (DAW). U.N.-specialized agencies such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and International Labor Organization (ILO) also support anti-VAW activities through their regular budgets. An additional number of U.N. programs and funds rely on voluntary contributions from member states to support anti-VAW activities. These include the U.N. Development Program (UNDP), U.N. Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM), and U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).6

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

United States Anti-YAW Activities in U.N. Fora The United States may address VAW through several U.N. mechanisms, including multilateral treaties that focus on types or circumstances of violence against women. The U.S. Senate, for example, has provided its advice and consent for ratification of the U.N. Protocol to Prevent, Suppress, and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children (Trafficking Protocol). Other multilateral treaties that address VAW include the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). The United States has not ratified CEDAW or CRC, however, because of concerns over U.S. sovereignty.7 The United States may also address VAW by promoting or advocating resolutions and decisions in U.N. fora such as the General Assembly, Security Council, and Economic and Social Council. In March 2007, for example, the U.S. government drafted a resolution on forced and early marriage during the 51st Session on the Commission on the Status of Women.8 In October 2007, U.S. representatives to the United Nations also advocated the adoption of a General Assembly resolution condemning the use of rape as an instrument of state policy.9 In 2000 and 2008, the United States led in the adoption of U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1325 and 1820, respectively, addressing women, peace, and security.10

U.N. DEFINITION OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN The U.N. General Assembly was the first international body to agree on a definition of violence against women. On December 20, 1993, the General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women (DEVAW).11 The Declaration, which was supported by the U.S. government, describes VAW as ―any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual, or psychological harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or private life.‖12 Though non-binding, DEVAW provides a standard for U.N. agencies and NGOs urging national governments to strengthen their efforts to combat VAW, as well as for governments encouraging other nations to combat violence against women. 13 Specifically, the Declaration calls on countries to take responsibility for combating VAW, emphasizing that ―states should condemn violence against women and should not invoke any custom, tradition or religious consideration to avoid their obligations

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

United Nations System Efforts to Address Violence against Women

79

with respect to its elimination. States should pursue by all appropriate means and without delay a policy of eliminating violence against women.‖14 Despite the international adoption of DEVAW, governments, organizations, and cultures continue to define VAW in a number of ways, taking into account unique factors and circumstances. How VAW is defined has implications for policymakers because the definition affects the types of violence that are measured and addressed.

KEY U.N. SYSTEM EFFORTS

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Secretary-General Initiatives U.N. Study on Violence against Women On July 6, 2006, then-U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan published an In-depth Study on All Forms of Violence Against Women.15 The study provides a statistical overview of types of VAW, including information on its causes and consequences. It also examines U.N. system efforts to address VAW, identifying 32 U.N. entities that work to combat types and circumstances of VAW on a global, national, or local level.16 (In February 2009, an updated inventory of U.N. system anti-VAW activities identified 35 U.N. entities addressing the issue.)17 The study discusses gaps and challenges in U.N. system anti-VAW activities, including (1) implementation of legal and policy frameworks that guide U.N. system efforts to eliminate VAW, (2) data collection and research, (3) awareness raising and dissemination of best practices, (4) resource mobilization, and (5) coordination mechanisms at the international level.18 To address these issues, the study recommends that U.N. resources addressing VAW should be ―increased significantly,‖ and highlights the need to provide countries with technical support that promotes best practices for VAW data collection and research. The study also urges national governments to establish national action plans on combating violence against women. To improve coordination among U.N. agencies on VAW-related issues, it recommends that the Special Advisor to the Secretary-General on Gender Issues and the Advancement of Women leads a systemwide coordination effort through a newly established Task Force on Violence Against Women in the Inter-Agency Network on Women and Gender Equality (IANWGE).19 On December 19, 2006, in response to the Secretary-General‘s study, the U.N. General Assembly adopted resolution 61/143, which calls on U.N. member states and the SecretaryGeneral to intensify efforts to eliminate all forms of violence against women.20 The study and the subsequent resolution have contributed to recent U.N. efforts to enhance current U.N. anti-VAW efforts and develop new strategies to address the issue.21 Campaign to End Violence against Women On February 25, 2008, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon announced the launch of the U.N. Campaign to End Violence Against Women to ―mobilize public opinion to ensure that policy makers at the highest level work to prevent and eradicate violence against women.‖22 The campaign, which runs from 2008 to 2015, focuses on three key areas: (1) global advocacy, (2) U.N. leadership by example, and (3) regional, national, and international

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

80

Luisa Blanchfield

partnerships. According to the Secretary-General, the campaign builds on the momentum created by recent General Assembly and Security Council actions on all forms of violence against women,23 as well as the work of women activists, NGOs, and other civil society organizations. The Secretary-General stated that he will urge states to review all applicable to laws to ensure VAW is always criminalized; personally approach world leaders to spur action through national campaigns; form a global network of male leaders to assist the U.N. Secretariat in creating VAW awareness among men and boys; and promote a high-level event in 2010 to review accomplishments of the campaign, share best practices, and plan future actions.24

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

The U.N. Trust Fund in Support of Actions to Eliminate Violence against Women The U.N. Trust Fund in Support of Actions to Eliminate Violence Against Women (the Trust Fund) is the only multilateral mechanism that specifically focuses on government and NGO efforts to combat VAW on regional, national, and local levels.25 The Trust Fund is administered by the U.N. Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) and relies on voluntary contributions from national governments, the non-profit and private sectors, and individuals. Top government donors include Spain, the Netherlands, Norway, the United States, Finland, Japan, Italy, Australia, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Austria, Denmark, and Iceland. Since it became operational in 1997, the Fund has distributed approximately $44 million in small grants to over 291 anti-VAW initiatives in approximately 119 countries. Money from the Trust Fund is distributed primarily to non-profit organizations and, more recently, to U.N. country teams. In 2008, the Fund distributed 23 grants to groups in 29 countries for a total of $19 million. The grants focus on strengthening national policies and laws addressing violence against women. They also support programs that work with men and boys, address the link between VAW and HIV/AIDS, and implement public education and awareness campaigns. Trust Fund grantees in 2008 include Social Services of Cambodia, ActionAid in Cameroon, and Oxfam Great Britain.26 Recognizing the relatively small amount of money administered by the Trust Fund, the SecretaryGeneral‘s 2006 study on violence against women recommended that U.N. member states and other international donors ―increase significantly the financial support for work on violence against women in the United Nations ... including the United Nations Trust Fund to End Violence Against Women.‖27 The IANWGE Task Force on Violence Against Women is working with the U.N. Division on the Advancement of Women (DAW) to develop a new framework for the Trust Fund. The U.S. government has contributed to the Trust Fund since 2005, with funding levels ranging from $990,000 in FY2005 to $2.5 million in FY2009 (see Table 1). The George W. Bush Administration did not request funding for the Trust Fund from FY2005 through FY2009, and the Obama Administration did not request funding for FY20 10. Congress typically allocates money during the appropriations process. Funding for the Trust Fund is drawn from the International Organizations and Programs account and generally supplements U.S. voluntary contributions to UNIFEM.28

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

United Nations System Efforts to Address Violence against Women

81

Table 1. U.S. Contributions to the UNIFEM Trust Fund to Eliminate Violence Against Women, FY2005-FY20 10 ($ in Millions) Fiscal Year Administration Request Actual Funding (unless otherwise indicated) 2005 — .992 2006 — 1.485 2007 — 1.485 2008 — 1.785 2009 — 2.500 (estimate) 2010 — TBD Source: Congressional Budget Justifications, FY2006-FY20 10, U.S. Department of State.

Selected Interagency Activities

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

U.N. funds and programs are engaged in several interagency activities that address specific types and circumstances of VAW directly, or deal with VAW as part of a broader agenda.

Inter-Agency Network on Women and Gender Equality (IANWGE) IANWGE is a network of designated gender focal points from U.N. agencies, offices, funds, and programs. It comprises 60 members representing 25 entities of the U.N. system, and supports a Task Force on Violence Against Women that aims to strengthen U.N. systemwide anti-VAW efforts.29 The Task Force is leading pilot projects in 10 countries to implement joint programming on violence against women.30 Under the projects, U.N. country teams work with national governments to develop individual work plans that will increase national capacity to prepare, implement, monitor, and evaluate national efforts to end violence against women. It is anticipated that the U.N. Trust Fund to Eliminate Violence Against Women will serve as the funding mechanism for the Task Force. Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) IASC is the primary U.N. mechanism for interagency coordination of humanitarian assistance. Participants include U.N. entities, international organizations, and NGOs. IASC supports a Task Force on Gender and Humanitarian Assistance that, among other things, works to carry out programs that prevent and respond to gender-based violence. In 2005, the Task Force published a manual, Guidelines on Gender-Based Violence in Humanitarian Settings, to assist communities, governments, and humanitarian organizations (including U.N. agencies) in establishing and coordinating interventions to prevent and respond to sexual violence during the early phases of emergencies.31 The Task Force meets every four to six weeks and includes representatives from over 20 U.N. entities and related NGOs. U.N. Action against Sexual Violence in Conflict (U.N. Action) U.N. Action draws 12 U.N. entities together to improve and better coordinate the U.N. system response to sexual violence before and after conflict.32 It operates through existing coordination mechanisms, including the Inter-Agency Standing Committee, and focuses on

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

82

Luisa Blanchfield

building capacity and training advisers in anti-VAW programming at the country level. It aims to strengthen medical and legal services to survivors and, in the long term, address gender imbalances. It also works to raise public awareness of sexual violence and urges governments to address the issues.

SELECTED U.N. CONFERENCES, AGREEMENTS, AND RESOLUTIONS This section discusses selected U.N. conferences, agreements, resolutions, and multilateral treaties that address VAW, either in whole or in part. It does not assess U.N. member state compliance with or implementation of these mechanisms.

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

U.N. World Conferences on Women Since 1974, the United Nations has held four World Conferences on Women.33 Recognition of VAW as an international human rights issue, however, was first achieved at the Third World Conference on Women in Nairobi, Kenya in 1985, and reaffirmed at the Fourth World Conference in Beijing in 1995. The Nairobi Conference‘s main outcome document, negotiated and adopted by 152 U.N. member states—including the United States—laid the groundwork for future international anti-VAW initiatives. It noted that VAW was a ―major obstacle to the achievement of peace and the other objectives of the [U.N. Women‘s] Decade and should be given special attention,‖ and stated that member states should formulate legal measures to assist victims and establish national mechanisms to address VAW within families and society.34 At the Fourth World Conference in Beijing, U.N. member states (including the United States) identified violence against women as one of the ―12 critical areas of concern‖ for women, and also agreed that VAW ―constitutes a violation of basic human rights and is an obstacle to the achievement of the objectives of [Women‘s] equality, development, and peace.‖35

U.N. Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW)36 CEDAW is the only multilateral treaty that specifically focuses on the comprehensive rights of women. It calls for parties to eliminate discrimination against women in all areas of life, including healthcare, education, employment, domestic relations, law, and political participation. The Convention entered into force in 1981, and 186 U.N. member states are party to the treaty. The United States led the drafting of CEDAW but is one of seven U.N. member states that has not ratified the Convention. The United States signed CEDAW in 1980, but the full Senate has not considered the treaty for advice and consent to ratification because of concerns that it may undermine U.S. sovereignty. Though the Convention text does not directly address VAW, its implementing body, the CEDAW committee, adopted a general recommendation affirming that gender-based violence is a form of gender

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

United Nations System Efforts to Address Violence against Women

83

discrimination. The committee defined gender-based violence as ―violence that is directed against a woman because she is a woman or that affects women disproportionately.‖37

U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) CRC is an international treaty that requires parties to ensure that all children have certain rights, regardless of sex.38 Article 19 of CRC specifically addresses violence against children, stating that parties shall ―protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child.‖ CRC was unanimously adopted by the U.N. General Assembly on November 20, 1989, and entered into force on September 2, 1990. The United States was an active participant in the Convention‘s drafting. It joined in the General Assembly consensus adopting the Convention, and signed the treaty on February 16, 1995. Successive Administrations have chosen not to transmit CRC to the Senate for its advice and consent. As of January 2009, 193 parties have ratified the Convention— only the United States and Somalia have not ratified the treaty.39

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Trafficking in Persons Protocol40 In 1999, U.N. member states drafted the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress, and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children. On November 15, 2000, the U.N. General Assembly adopted the Convention on Transnational Crime, which includes the Protocol on Trafficking. The Convention and its three Protocols were designed to enable countries to work together more closely against criminals engaged in cross-border crimes, including trafficking in women and girls. The Protocol on Trafficking commits countries to enforce relevant laws against traffickers, provide some assistance and protect trafficking victims, and share intelligence and increase border security cooperation with other countries. The Protocol entered into force on December 25, 2003. The United States signed the treaty in December 2000, and the Senate gave its advice and consent to ratification on October 7, 2005. The United States became party to the Protocol on December 3, 2005.41 At present, 132 countries are party to the Protocol.

U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1325 and 1820 On October 31, 2000, the U.N. Security Council adopted resolution 1325 relating to women, peace, and security. The resolution, which is strongly supported by the United States, addresses the impact of war and conflict on women and highlights the need for protection of women and girls from human rights abuses. Specifically, the resolution calls on all parties to armed conflict to ―take special measures to protect women and girls from gender-based violence, particularly rape and other forms of sexual abuse, and all other forms of violence in situations of armed conflict.‖42 It also urges U.N. member states and the U.N. Secretary-

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

84

Luisa Blanchfield

General to work toward increased representation and participation of women in all decisionmaking levels in national, regional, and international institutions that address conflict resolution, management, and prevention.43 U.N. efforts in this area have intensified since 2003 and 2004, following media reports on sexual abuse and exploitation of vulnerable civilians by U.N. peacekeeping personnel. In June 2008, when the United States served as president of the Security Council, thenSecretary of State Condoleezza Rice participated in an open thematic debate on ―women, peace, and security: sexual violence in situations of armed conflict.‖44 After the debate, Security Council members unanimously adopted Resolution 1820, marking the first time the Security Council adopted a resolution on women and violence since Resolution 1325. Resolution 1820 ―demands the immediate and complete cessation by all parties to armed conflict in all acts of sexual violence against civilians with immediate effect.‖45 It reaffirms commitment to Resolution 1325, and notes that rape and other forms of sexual violence can constitute a war crime, a crime against humanity, or a constitutive act with respect to genocide. It further requests that the U.N. Secretary-General establish training programs for all peacekeeping and humanitarian personnel deployed by the United Nations, and encourages troop and police contributing countries to take steps to heighten awareness of and prevent sexual violence in conflict and post-conflict situations.

SELECTED U.N. COMMISSIONS, DEPARTMENTS, AND SPECIALIZED AGENCIES

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

This section highlights selected U.N. bodies that—either in whole or in part—address international violence against women, and provides examples of VAW-related activities. It does not measure the extent to which VAW is directly addressed or is part of a larger initiative or program. 46

Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) CSW, a functional Commission under the U.N. Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), is the principal intergovernmental policymaking body on women‘s issues in the United Nations.47 It meets annually at U.N. Headquarters and is composed of 45 member state representatives elected by ECOSOC members (other states serve as observers). CSW observes, monitors, and implements measures for the advancement of women, including those that address violence against women. It also reviews and supports the mainstreaming of gender perspectives into the U.N. system. At its 51st session in 2007, CSW member states focused on violence against women and girls as a priority issue area. At its 52nd session in 2008, CSW members adopted a resolution on ending female genital mutilation, which urges states to condemn all harmful traditional practices, and take necessary measures, including enacting and enforcing legislation, to prohibit the practice. 48

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

United Nations System Efforts to Address Violence against Women

85

Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO)49 DPKO prepares and manages U.N. peacekeeping operations. It focuses on all types and circumstances of VAW, particularly sexual exploitation and abuse of vulnerable women and girls by peacekeeping personnel. In order to prevent and address such abuses, each peacekeeping mission has a gender unit that supports regional and international initiatives addressing violence against women. The gender units support legal reform processes in particular countries and serve as resources for national authorities and law reform organizations. Gender units also encourage collaboration among law enforcement, victim support organizations, and the judiciary, and work to ensure that women‘s NGOs are included in national efforts to end violence against women. Moreover, several peacekeeping units— including those in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sierra Leone, and Timor-Leste— have conducted training activities for peacekeeping personnel on preventing and responding to violence against women.50

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) DESA supports two key offices that coordinate or analyze violence against women activities at the United Nations.51 First, the Division for the Advancement of Women (DAW) supports and services agenda items and discussions for U.N. intergovernmental bodies that promote gender equality, including the General Assembly, ECOSOC, and the Commission on the Status of Women. DAW also conducts research and compiles reports for the SecretaryGeneral on violence against women. In 2006, for example, DAW prepared the SecretaryGeneral’s In-Depth Study on All Forms of Violence Against Women.52 It also conducts follow-up workshops and activities related to the study.53 The Office of the Special Adviser on Gender Issues and the Advancement of Women (OSAGI), which was established in March 1997, supports the U.N. Special Adviser on Gender Issues.54 The Office promotes interagency collaboration to eliminate VAW and develops new strategies, programs, and policies to address gender equality in the U.N. system. It also coordinates and implements the outcomes and the follow-up to the 1995 Beijing Declaration and Platform of Action, and U.N. Security Council 1325 Resolution on Women, Peace, and Security, both of which address violence against women.

U.N. Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) UNIFEM is one of the leading U.N. entities that addresses violence against women. It administers the U.N. Trust Fund in Support of Actions to Eliminate Violence Against Women, and works to raise awareness of VAW in local and national governments— particularly among law enforcement, parliamentarians, government ministries, and the judiciary. UNIFEM also aims to strengthen anti-VAW legislation and policies related to domestic violence, trafficking, and forced marriage, and assists governments and organizations in implementing such efforts. Other recent areas of focus include sexual and gender-based violence in conflict and post-conflict settings in sub-Saharan Africa—including

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

86

Luisa Blanchfield

the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda, and Uganda— and trafficking in women in Southeast Asia.55 UNIFEM also supports the data collection and research on international violence against women.

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) OHCHR, which works to promote and protect human rights established under the U.N. Charter and international human rights instruments, supports research and operational activities that address violence against women.56 OHCHR commissions research and analyze access to justice for victims of sexual violence, with a focus on the prosecution of rape under international humanitarian and human rights law. OHCHR field operations work to reduce or eliminate VAW at the national and regional level, providing technical assistance in law reform and government monitoring, and organizing training activities for governments and members of civil society. OHCHR also supports U.N. Human Rights Council country and thematic rapporteurs who address types and circumstances of violence against women and girls. This includes the position of Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, its Causes and Consequences, which was established in 1994 by a U.N. Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) resolution.57 According to the resolution, the Special Rapporteur shall ―seek and receive information on violence against women, its causes and consequences from Governments, treaty bodies, specialized agencies, other special rapporteurs responsible for various human rights questions and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations and to respond effectively to such information.‖58 The Rapporteur shall also ―recommend measures, ways and means ... to eliminate violence against women and its causes, and to remedy its consequences.‖ Other rapporteurs who address aspects of VAW include the Special Rapporteurs on Trafficking in Persons; the Sale of Children; and Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions.59

World Health Organization (WHO) The WHO addresses VAW through various activities, including policy formulation, program guidance, advocacy, and research. Specifically, it has developed a series of VAW norms and guidelines and conducted studies on VAW prevalence.60 It also leads a research initiative to develop a network of researchers, policymakers, and activists to ensure VAW is addressed from a variety of disciplines.61 Moreover, WHO develops training programs and provides technical support on sexual violence for healthcare providers in conflict areas, and works with partners to develop a framework for integrating HIV prevention activities into intimate partner and sexual violence programs. WHO also works to raise public awareness of VAW, particularly in the context of HIV/AIDS. Such activities include VAW sensitization programs for civil servants, journalists, healthcare providers, and policymakers.

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

United Nations System Efforts to Address Violence against Women

87

U.N. Development Program (UNDP) UNDP addresses VAW through programs and activities that involve trafficking, HIV/AIDS, and disaster, conflict, and post-conflict situations. It works with governments to develop national strategies to protect victims of intimate partner violence, and aims to incorporate gender perspectives into crises prevention and recovery in conflict situations. UNDP also promotes VAW awareness through national and local campaigns, including the ―16 Days of Activism Against Gender-Based Violence‖ campaign and the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. In addition, UNDP works on a national level to disseminate knowledge and awareness of VAW through radio, television, and posters. In addition, it supports a website, GenderNet, which facilitates discussions on gender and violence against women.62

U.N. Children’s Fund (UNICEF)

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

UNICEF works to protect children‘s rights, provide for their basic needs, and expand their opportunities.63 The majority of UNICEF‘s violence against girls programs focus on capacity building, with an emphasis on awareness-raising and research. On a global level, for example, UNICEF has developed policies to protect women and girls from sexual abuse by U.N. staff and other aid workers. On a country level, it addresses different manifestations of VAW, which vary depending by country or region. National UNICEF programs address female genital cutting, early marriage, trafficking, domestic violence, school-related violence, and violence in armed conflict. UNICEF also assists governments in drafting anti-VAW legislation, and works to raise VAW awareness among teachers, police, and the judiciary.

U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)64 UNHCR‘s mandate is to provide protection to refugees and other populations of concern. Since 2003, it has promoted and encouraged prevention and treatment guidelines in field operations to address the prevalence of sexual and gender-based violence.65 In March 2008, UNHCR published the UNHCR Handbook on the Protection of Displaced Women and Girls, to distribute to UNHCR staff and partners. In addition, UNHCR (along with nine other U.N. agencies) recently signed an interagency statement to address female genital mutilation.66 UNHCR has also sponsored regional and country-level training programs on VAW prevention and response for its staff and implementing partners. Standard operating procedures on the prevention and response to VAW were expected to be in place in all field operations by December 2007. In addition, to further establish an organizational strategy on this issue, UNHCR has set up an independent evaluation of its efforts towards prevention of and response to gender-based violence, which began in late 2007.

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

88

Luisa Blanchfield

U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA)67 UNOCHA coordinates humanitarian response, policy development, and humanitarian advocacy among U.N. agencies and national and international actors. It serves as the co-chair of the Inter- Agency Standing Committee‘s Task Force on Gender and Humanitarian Assistance, providing support for the development and implementation of Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) guidelines for gender-based violence interventions in humanitarian settings. UNOCHA also implements a confidential complaints mechanism on gender-based violence, and works to raise public awareness of the issue. The organization‘s Integrated Regional Information Network (IRIN), for example, has produced several publications and videos on VAW in conflict and female genital cutting.68

U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA) UNFPA aims to help countries improve reproductive health and expand access to family planning services.69 It addresses VAW through a combination of research-based and operational activities. On a global level, for example, UNFPA has undertaken studies on the socio-cultural context of VAW, and hosts workshops and meetings on sexual violence. It develops guidelines and tools to combat VAW, and supports sensitivity training for medical professionals.70 On a national level, UNFPA works with governments to develop national strategies to address VAW prevention and protection, and provides counseling to girls who experience FGC or forced marriage. UNFPA also supports basic services to VAW victims, including legal and counseling services and access to shelter.

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

U.N. Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC) UNODC is the guardian of the U.N. Trafficking Protocol. Its Global Program Against Trafficking in Human Beings, for example, assists member states to implement the Trafficking Protocol and prevent human trafficking. There are more than 30 UNODC technical cooperation trafficking projects underway. In February 2006, UNODC, the United States, and India launched a U.S. government-funded anti-trafficking initiative. The project provides training and awareness for law enforcement officers and strengthens their capacity to investigate and prosecute traffickers.71 UNODC also develops tools, handbooks, and manuals addressing the needs of women and children to support national legal and criminal justice reform efforts. In November 2008, UNODC collaborated with the U.N. Division for the Advancement of Women to publish a report, Good Practices in Legislation on Violence Against Women, which provides guidelines and a framework for legislation addressing violence against women.72

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

United Nations System Efforts to Address Violence against Women

89

International Labor Organization (ILO) The ILO promotes internationally recognized human and labor rights. It supports a number of programs that combat trafficking and forced and bonded labor, many of which include gender- specific components. Through the International Program to Eliminate Child Labor (IPEC) for instance, ILO works with participating governments to (1) prevent children from becoming child laborers; (2) remove children from hazardous work, including exploitative work like forced prostitution; and (3) offer children and their families education, income and employment opportunities. The ILO Conditions of Work and Employment Program researches violence in the workplace, including violence against women. The ILO Labor Standards Department also conducts research on violence against migrant workers, particularly women, as well as violence against indigenous and tribal women workers.

Joint U.N. Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS)

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

UNAIDS works with international partners to identify and address the possible links between HIV/AIDS and violence against women. It promotes education and awareness of HIV within international peacekeeping operations, and national uniformed services through training and distribution of peer education kits, which include sections on gender issues and sexual violence. UNAIDS has also worked in Southern and Eastern Africa to determine how to improve health services for women who have experienced violence. Furthermore, it supports regional task forces on VAW in emergency settings, collaborates with WHO to improve clinic services on sexual violence, and works with experts to develop cost estimates for integrating VAW awareness, prevention, and treatment into AIDS programs. In addition, the UNAIDS Global Coalition on Women and AIDS raises public awareness of HIV/AIDS and VAW linkages.73

Author Contact Information Luisa Blanchfield Analyst in International Relations [email protected], 7-0856

End Notes 1

See, for example, (1) U.N. General Assembly resolution 6 1/143, Intensification of Efforts to Eliminate all Forms of Violence Against Women, December 19, 2006; (2) U.N. General Assembly resolution 60/139, Violence Against Women Migrant Workers, December 16, 2005; (3) U.N. General Assembly resolution 60/139, Working Towards the Elimination of Crimes Against Women and Girls Committed in the Name of Honour, December 20, 2004; (4) U.N. General Assembly resolution 59/166, Trafficking in Women and Girls, December 20, 2004; (5) U.N. General Assembly resolution 62/134, Eliminating Rape and Other Forms of Sexual Violence, December 18, 2007; and (6) U.N. ECOSOC Resolution 2006/29, Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Responses to Violence Against Women and Girls, July 22, 2006; and (7) U.N. Security Council Resolution 1325(2000) on Women, Peace, and Security, October 31, 2000.

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

90

Luisa Blanchfield

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

2

The largest of these include the U.N. Development Program (UNDP), the U.N. Children‘s Fund (UNICEF), the World Health Organization (WHO), the International Labor Organization (ILO), the U.N. Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC), the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA), the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), The U.N. Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM), and the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO). See Preventing and Eliminating Violence Against Women: An Inventory of United Nations System Activities On Violence Against Women, updated February 2009, available at http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/vaw/v-inventory.htm. 3 See, for example, ―Violence Against Women Expert Lauds Foreign Appropriations Subcommittee for Increasing Funds for UNIFEM and Its Trust Fund,‖ Family Violence Prevention Fund press release, June 24, 2004. 4 For further discussion of the Trust Fund, including U.S. contributions, see the ―Key U.N. System Efforts‖ section. 5 See S. 2279 (1 10th), the International Violence Against Women Act, 2008, which authorized appropriations of $5 million for the Trust Fund from FY2008 to FY20 12 through the International Organizations and Programs Account. Also see H.R. 5927 (1 10th), the International Violence Against Women Act of 2008, which authorized appropriations of $5 million from FY2009 to FY20 13. 6 For more information on the anti-VAW activities of these U.N. entities, see the ―Selected U.N. Commissions, Departments, and Specialized Agencies‖ section. 7 For the Administration position on CEDAW, see Letter from Secretary of State Colin Powell to Senator Joseph Biden, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, July 8, 2002 in Digest of United States Practice in International Law, 2002, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State, International Law Institute, Washington, DC, 2003, p. 277. For the Administration position on CRC, see United States Participation in the United Nations: Report by the Secretary of State to the Congress for Year 2002, Department of State Publication 11086, October 2003, p. 70. For further details on the Trafficking Protocol, CEDAW and CRC, see the ―Selected U.N. Conferences, Agreements, and Resolutions,‖ section. 8 U.N. document E/CN.6/2007/L.4, March 2, 2007. 9 The resolution was adopted on December 18, 2007. (See U.N. document, A/RES/62/134, Eliminating Rape and Other Forms of Sexual Violence in All Their Manifestations, Including in Conflict and Related Situations.) 10 For further information on U.N. Security Council Resolution 1325, see the ―Selected U.N. Conferences, Agreements, and Resolutions‖ section. 11 U.N. document, A/RES/48/104, December 20, 1993. DEVAW was adopted without a vote by the 48 th Session of the U.N. General Assembly. 12 The term ―gender-based violence‖ is broader than VAW because it can include violence perpetrated against men and boys in addition to women and girls. In many instances, however, the two terms are used interchangeably. 13 A Concise Encyclopedia of the United Nations, edited by Helmut Volger, Kluwer Law International, The Hague, Netherlands, 2002, p. 671. 14 U.N. document, A/RES/48/104, December 20, 1993, Article 4. 15 U.N. document, A/61/122/Add. 1, July 6, 2006. The study was mandated by U.N. General Assembly resolution 58/185 on December 22, 2003. It was prepared by the Division for the Advancement of Women in the U.N. Department of Economic and Social Affairs and conducted within existing financial resources. For a discussion of global statistics and research on the causes and consequences of VAW, see CRS Report RL34438, International Violence Against Women: U.S. Response and Policy Issues, coordinated by Luisa Blanchfield. 16 U.N. document, A/61/122/Add. 1, July 6, 2006, p. 20. 17 See Preventing and Eliminating Violence Against Women: An Inventory of United Nations System Activities On Violence Against Women, updated in February 2009, available at http://www.un.org/womenwatch/ daw/vaw/vinventory.htm. 18 Ibid. 19 The Special Advisor is Ms. Rachel Mayanja of Uganda. IANWGE is a network of gender focal points from U.N. specialized agencies, offices, funds and programs. It works to promote gender equality throughout the U.N. system. For more information, see the ―Selected Interagency Activities‖ section. 20 U.N. document, A/RES/61/143, December 19, 2006. Specifically, the resolution urges U.N. member states to (1) take action to eliminate all forms of VAW through a more systematic, comprehensive, multi-sectoral, and sustained approach through national action plans; (2) end impunity for VAW by prosecuting and punishing all perpetrators; (3) review, revise, amend, or abolish laws and policies that discriminate against women; and (4) strengthen national health and social infrastructures to address the health consequences of VAW. The resolution also encourages states to increase voluntary contributions for U.N. activities that work toward eliminating VAW, and requests the Secretary-General to establish a coordinated database on the extent, nature, and consequences of all forms of VAW (comprised primarily of data submitted by U.N. member states). 21 Examples of recent efforts include the establishment of a Violence Against Women Database, which is run by the U.N. Division for the Advancement of Women. For more information, see the ―Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA)‖ section. In addition, per General Assembly resolution 64/143, the Secretary-General reports and makes recommendations to the General Assembly and U.N. member states on U.N. system efforts

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

United Nations System Efforts to Address Violence against Women

91

to address VAW. See, for example, U.N. document A/62/214, Intensification of Efforts to Eliminate all Forms of Violence Against Women, Report of the Secretary-General, August 4, 2008. 22 More information on the campaign is available at http://endviolence.un.org/. 23 This includes U.N. General Assembly resolution 62/134, Eliminating Rape and Other Forms of Sexual Violence, December 18, 2007, and U.N. Security Council Resolution 1325(2000) on Women, Peace, and Security, October 31, 2000. 24 U.N. press release, ―The Secretary-General Remarks to the Commission on the Status of Women,‖ New York, February 25, 2008, at http://endviolence.un.org/statements.shtml. 25 The Trust Fund was established by U.N. General Assembly resolution 50/166 adopted on December 22, 1995. For more information, see http://www.unifem.org/gender_issues/violence_against_women/trust_fund.php. 26 A list of 2008 Trust Fund grantees is available at http://www.unifem.org/gender_issues/violence_against_women/ trust_fund_grantees.php. 27 U.N. document, A/61/122/Add. 1, July 6, 2006, p. 113. 28 In FY2007, the United States contributed $3.218 million to UNIFEM, and in FY2008 it contributed $3.571 million. In FY2009 it will contribute an estimated $4.5 million. (See Congressional Budget Justification, Foreign Operations, Fiscal Year 2010, p. 92). 29 Co-conveners of the Task Force are the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA) and the U.N. Division for the Advancement of Women (DAW). 30 The 10 countries participating in the pilot project are Burkina Faso, Chile, Fiji, Jamaica, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Paraguay, Philippines, Rwanda, and Yemen. 31 The Guidelines are available at http://www.humanitarianinfo.org/iasc/content/products/docs/tfgender_ GBVGuidelines2005.pdf. 32 The 12 agencies, offices, or programs include U.N. Department of Political Affairs; U.N. Department of Peacekeeping Operations (Best Practices); U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA); U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR); Joint U.N. Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS); U.N. Development Program (UNDP); U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA); U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR); U.N. Children‘s Fund (UNICEF); U.N. Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM); World Food Program (WFP); and the World Health Organization (WHO). 33 In 1974, the United Nations coordinated and led the first World Conference on Women in Mexico City. The second conference was held in Copenhagen, Denmark, in 1980, and the third conference was held in Nairobi, Kenya, in 1985. The first conference inaugurated the U.N. ―Decade on Women,‖ which spanned from 1976 to 1985, and included two additional World Conferences on Women. (The United Nations periodically designates years to raise awareness of and highlight disadvantaged groups. Examples include the Year of Refugees, of Youth, and of the Disabled.) Additional information on the four U.N. World Conferences on Women is available at http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/ beijing/index.html and http://www.un.org/esa/devagenda/gender.html. 34 U.N. document, A/CONF. 1 16/28/Rev:1, 1986, Report of the World Conference to Review and Appraise Achievements of the UN Decade for Women: Equality, Development and Peace, Chapter 1, Section A: The Nairobi Forward-Looking Strategies for the Advancement of Women, paragraph 258. 35 Platform for Action, The U.N. Fourth World Conference on Women, Action for Equality, Development and Peace, Beijing, China, September 1995, available at http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/beijing/ platform/violence.htm. 36 For further information on CEDAW, see CRS Report RL33652, The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDA W): Congressional Issues, by Luisa Blanchfield. 37 General Recommendation No. 19 (1 1th session) on Violence Against Women, 1992, available at http://www.un.org/ womenwatch/daw/cedaw/recommendations/recomm.htm#recom1 9. 38 In addition to sex, the Convention also states that children have certain rights regardless of ―color ... language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status.‖ (Preamble.) The Convention defines a child as ―every human being below the age of eighteen years.‖ (Article 1.) The text of the Convention is available at http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/k2crc.htm. 39

For more information, see CRS Report R40484, The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: Background and Policy Issues, by Luisa Blanchfield. 40 This section was drawn from CRS Report RL343 17, Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress, by Liana Sun Wyler, Alison Siskin, and Clare Ribando Seelke. Text of the Protocol is available at http://www.uncjin.org/ Documents/Conventions/dcatoc/final _documents _2/convention _%20traff _eng.pdf. 41 The instrument of U.S. ratification was deposited on November 2, 2005. 42 U.N. document, S/RES/1325 (2000), October 31, 2000, available at http://www.peacewomen.org/un/ sc/res1325.pdf. 43 In addition, the resolution ―urges member states to increase their voluntary, technical and logistical support for gender-sensitive training efforts.‖ (See paragraph 7.) Additional information on the resolution is available at http://www.un.org/womenwatch/ianwge/taskforces/wps/national_level_impl.html.

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

92

Luisa Blanchfield

44

In a Security Council Open Debate, non-Council members may address the Council without being invited. U.N. document, S/RES/1 820 (2008), June 19, 2008. 46 For information on United Nations and U.S. funding of U.N. system agencies, funds, and programs, see CRS Report RL3361 1, United Nations System Funding: Congressional Issues, by Marjorie Ann Browne and Kennon H. Nakamura. 47 CSW was established in February 1946. The United States is a member of CSW. Its term will expire in 2012. For more information, see http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/. 48 See (1) CSW 51st Session,‖The elimination of all forms of discrimination and violence against the girl child,‖ at http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/csw/51sess.htm; and (2) U.N. document, E/CN.6/2008/L.2/Rev. 1, Ending Female Genital Mutilation, March 2008. 49 For further information on U.N. efforts to address sexual abuse and exploitation and prevent trafficking in persons, see Report to the Congress on United Nations Efforts to Prevent Trafficking in Persons and Sexual Exploitation and Abuse in U.N. Peacekeeping Missions, submission to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the U.S. Senate and to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, of the U.S. House of Representatives by the State Department, February-August 2007. (As requested in Section 104(e) of P.L. 109-164, the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, FY2006.) 50 For more information on DPKO efforts to address sexual exploitation and abuse, see http://www.un.org/depts/dpko/ CDT/about.html. For further discussion of U.N. peacekeeping and allegations of sexual abuse and exploitation and the U.N. response, see CRS Report RL33700, United Nations Peacekeeping: Issues for Congress, by Marjorie Ann Browne. 51 In addition, the DESA U.N. Statistics Division collects, processes, and disseminates statistical information on women‘s issues, including violence against women. It works to standardize statistical methods, definitions, and classifications, publishing The World’s Women: Progress in Statistics every five years. 52 U.N. document, A/61/122/Add. 1, July 6, 2006. 53 DAW, for example, is the secretariat for the U.N. Violence Against Women Database, which compiles data provided by states on the extent, nature, and consequences of VAW. The database was created by General Assembly resolution 61/143, Intensification of Efforts to Eliminate All Forms of Violence Against Women. Further information on the database is available at http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/vaw/v-database.htm. 54 Ms. Rachel Mayanja, appointed in 1994, is the Special Advisor to the Secretary-General on Gender Issues. See http://www.un.org/womenwatch/osagi/homethepost.htm. 55 For more information on UNIFEM activities to address violence against women, see http://www.unifem.org/ gender_issues/violence_against_women/. 56 For further information on OHCHR efforts to address VAW, see http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/ ViolenceAgainstWomen.aspx. 57 The Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women is Rashida Manjoo of South Africa. For more information on the work of the Special Rapporteur, see http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/women/rapporteur/ index.htm. 58 U.N. ECOSOC decision 1994/254, July 22, 1994. 59 The Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Execution addresses honor killings, when women are killed to preserve the family honor; and femicide, when infants are killed because of their gender. 60 Norms and guidelines include Ethical and Safety Recommendations for Interviewing Trafficked Women; Preventing Child Maltreatment: A Guide to Taking Action and Generating Evidence; and Preventing Injuries and Violence: A Guide for Ministries of Health. 61 The Sexual Violence Research Initiative is a WHO/Global Forum for Health Service program. It has developed a research agenda and studied women‘s responses to sexual violence. For more information, see http://www.svri.org/. 62 Further information on UNDP women‘s programs is available at http://www.undp.org/women/. For more information on GenderNet, see http://www.gendernet.at/opencms/opencms/gnet/de/. 63 For more information on UNICEF and its anti-VAW programs, see http://www.unicef.org. 64 This section was written by Rhoda Margesson, CRS Specialist in International Humanitarian Policy. 65 The UNHCR guidelines are complemented by the 2005 IASC guidelines on responding to sexual and genderbased violence. IASC guidelines focus on the emergency phase and while UNHCR guidelines focus more broadly on the displacement cycle. 66 Other U.N. agencies that signed the interagency statement include OHCHR, UNAIDS, UNDP, U.N. Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA), U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), UNFPA, UNICEF, UNIFEM and WHO. More information is available at http://www.unifem.org/resources/item_detail.php? ProductID=1 10. 67 This section was written by Rhoda Margesson, Specialist in International Humanitarian Policy. 68 For more information on OCHA activities related to VAW, see http://ochaonline.un.org/HumanitarianIssues/ ProtectionfromSexualExploitationandAbuse/tabid/1204/Default.aspx. 69 More information on UNFPA anti-VAW activities is available at http://www.unfpa.org/gender/violence/htm.

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

45

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

United Nations System Efforts to Address Violence against Women 70

93

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

These programs have been tested in several countries, including Cape Verde, Ecuador, Lebanon, Lithuania, Russia, and Sri Lanka. For more information on UNFPA, see CRS Report RL32703, The U.N. Population Fund: Background and the U.S. Funding Debate, by Luisa Blanchfield. 71 For more information on UNODC activities related to human trafficking, see http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/ human-trafficking/index.html. 72 The report is based on an expert group meeting held by DAW and UNODC in May 2008. For further information, see http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/egm/vaw_legislation_2008/vaw_legislation_2008.htm. 73 For more information on this initiative, see http://womenandaids.unaids.org/about.html.

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved. International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

In: International Efforts to Protect Women Editor: Lilian T. Graham pp. 95-119

ISBN: 978-1-60741-186-4 © 2010 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 7

THE U.N. CONVENTION ON THE ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN (CEDAW): ISSUES IN THE U.S. RATIFICATION DEBATE 

Luisa Blanchfield

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

SUMMARY The Senate may consider providing its advice and consent to U.S. ratification of the United Nations (U.N.) Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW, or the Convention) during the 111th Congress. CEDAW is the only international human rights treaty that specifically addresses the rights of women. It calls on States Parties to take measures to eliminate discrimination against women in all areas of life, including political participation, employment, education, healthcare, and family structure. CEDAW has been ratified or acceded to by 186 States Parties. The United States is the only country to have signed but not ratified the Convention. Other governments that have not ratified the treaty include Iran, Nauru, Palau, Somalia, Sudan, and Tonga. The election of President Barack Obama has focused renewed attention on the possibility of U.S. ratification of CEDAW. The Obama Administration called the Convention an ―important priority,‖ and in May 2009 identified it as a treaty on which it ―supports Senate action at this time.‖ President Jimmy Carter signed the Convention and transmitted it to the Senate in 1980. The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations held hearings on CEDAW in 1988, 1990, 1994, and 2002. It reported CEDAW favorably, subject to certain conditions, in 1994 and 2002. To date, however, the Convention has not been considered by the full Senate. U.S. ratification of CEDAW is a contentious policy issue that has generated considerable debate in Congress and among the general public. Supporters of ratification hold that the 

This is an edited, reformatted and augmented version of a CRS Report for Congress publication dated August 2009.

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

96

Luisa Blanchfield

Convention is a valuable mechanism for fighting women‘s discrimination worldwide. They argue that U.S. ratification will give CEDAW added legitimacy and empower women who fight discrimination in their own countries. Opponents of the Convention maintain that it is not an effective mechanism for addressing discrimination against women internationally or domestically, emphasizing that countries widely believed to have poor women‘s rights records have ratified the Convention. Critics further contend that U.S. ratification could undermine U.S. sovereignty and impact the private conducts of U.S. citizens. Some are particularly concerned with CEDAW‘s effect on U.S. laws and policies relating to the definition of discrimination, education, parental rights, and health care. This report provides an overview of CEDAW‘s background, objectives, and structure, including the role of the Convention‘s monitoring body, the CEDAW Committee. It examines U.S. policy and issues in the U.S. ratification debate, including the Convention‘s possible impact on U.S. sovereignty, its effectiveness in combating discrimination, and its role as an instrument of U.S. foreign policy. It will be updated as events warrant.

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION U.S. policymakers and members of the public have contentiously debated U.S. ratification of the United Nations (U.N.) Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW, or the Convention) since it was drafted in 1979. CEDAW is the only international human rights treaty that specifically focuses on the rights of women.1 As of April 29, 2009, 186 countries have ratified or acceded to the Convention. The United States is the only nation to have signed but not ratified CEDAW. President Jimmy Carter signed the Convention and transmitted it to the Senate in 1980. The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations held hearings on CEDAW in 1988, 1990, 1994, and 2002, and reported it favorably in 1994 and 2002.2 To date, the treaty has not been considered for advice and consent to ratification by the full Senate. Other countries that are not parties to CEDAW include Iran, Nauru, Palau, Somalia, Sudan, and Tonga.3 The Senate may consider providing advice and consent to U.S. ratification of CEDAW during the 111th Congress. The Barack Obama Administration has expressed support for the Convention, calling it ―an important priority.‖ In a May 2009 letter to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, the Obama Administration identified CEDAW as a human rights treaty on which it ―supports Senate action at this time.‖ U.S. policymakers generally agree with CEDAW‘s overall objective of eliminating discrimination against women around the world. Many, however, question whether the Convention is an appropriate or effective mechanism for achieving this goal. Opponents are concerned that U.S. ratification would undermine national sovereignty and require the federal government or, worse, the United Nations to interfere in the private conduct of citizens. They argue that the Convention is ineffective, and emphasize that countries with reportedly poor women‘s rights records— including China and Saudi Arabia—have ratified CEDAW. Supporters, however, contend that the Convention is a valuable mechanism for fighting women‘s discrimination worldwide. They argue that U.S. ratification will give CEDAW additional legitimacy and empower women who aim to eliminate discrimination in their own countries.

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

The U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination …

97

This report addresses CEDAW‘s background, objectives, and structure and provides an overview of U.S. policy toward the Convention. It examines issues that have been raised in the U.S. ratification debate, including the treaty‘s impact on U.S. sovereignty, the effectiveness of the Convention, and its possible use as an instrument of U.S. foreign policy. It also describes controversial provisions and CEDAW Committee recommendations addressing the role of women in society and women‘s equal access to education and healthcare.

BACKGROUND AND STRUCTURE U.N. member states adopted several treaties addressing aspects of women‘s rights prior to adoption of CEDAW in 1979, including the Convention on the Political Rights of Women (1952) and the Convention on the Consent to Marriage (1957).4 In 1967, after two years of negotiations, the U.N. General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, a non-binding document that laid the groundwork for CEDAW. Subsequently, the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women drafted CEDAW, which the General Assembly adopted on December 18, 1979.5 The Convention entered into force on September 3, 1981 after receiving the required 20 ratifications.

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Objectives CEDAW calls on States Parties to take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in all areas of life. This includes equality in legal status, political participation, employment, education, healthcare, and the family structure. Article 2 of the Convention specifies that States Parties should undertake to ―embody the principle of equality of men and women in their national constitutions or other appropriate legislation ... to ensure, through law and other appropriate means, the practical realization of this principle.‖ The Convention defines discrimination against women as ... any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil, or any other field.6

It specifically calls for equal pay with men, more attention to the equality of rural women, the freedom to choose a marriage partner, and the suppression of trafficking in women and girls.

The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (the Committee) was established in 1982, under Article 17 of CEDAW, as a mechanism to monitor the

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

98

Luisa Blanchfield

progress of the Convention‘s implementation. It is composed of 23 independent experts who are elected at a meeting of States Parties to the Convention by secret ballot, with consideration given to the principle of equitable geographic distribution. Each State Party may nominate one expert, and if elected, the expert serves a four-year term.7 The majority of the Committee members are women who, according to the Convention, should have ―high moral standing and competence‖ and ―represent different forms of civilization as well as principal legal systems.‖ The Committee is led by a Chairperson, three Vice Chairpersons, and a rapporteur elected by the States Parties. The Chairperson directs the discussion and decision-making process of the Committee and represents the Convention at international conferences and events. The Committee reports annually on its activities to the U.N. General Assembly through the Economic and Social Council and meets twice a year at the U.N. Office in Geneva. As one of seven U.N. human rights treaty bodies, the Committee is financed from the U.N. regular budget. It was previously supported by the U.N. Division for the Advancement of Women, but as of January 1, 2008, it has been serviced by the U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The Committee is responsible for reviewing the reports on national CEDAW implementation submitted by States Parties. Countries are required to submit an initial report within the first year of ratification or accession, followed by a report every four years. The reports identify areas of progress as well as concerns or difficulties with implementation. The Committee engages in an open dialogue and exchange of ideas with the reporting country and compiles recommendations and conclusions based on its findings, which include general recommendations on cross-cutting issues of concern. The general recommendations are nonbinding, and there is no mechanism for their enforcement. The Committee has made over 25 general recommendations since 1986 covering a wide range of issues affecting women, such as improvement in education and public information programs, elimination of female circumcision, equality in marriage and family relations, and preventing violence against women.8 The 43rd session of the Committee was held from January 19 to February 6, 2009 in Geneva, Switzerland, where it reviewed the reports of eight countries: Armenia, Cameroon, Dominica, Germany, Guatemala, Haiti, Libya, and Rwanda. The 44th CEDAW Committee session was held in Geneva from July 20 to August 7, 2009. The Committee considered periodic reports from Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bhutan, Denmark, Guinea Bissau, Lao People‘s Democratic Republic, Japan, Liberia, Spain, Switzerland, Timor-Leste, and Tuvalu.

Optional Protocol On October 6, 1999, the U.N. General Assembly adopted an Optional Protocol to strengthen the Convention.9 The Protocol entered into force on December 22, 2000, and as of April 29, 2009, 97 countries have ratified it. It is a stand-alone treaty that can be signed or ratified by countries that are not party to the main treaty. It includes a ―communications procedure‖ that permits groups or individuals to file complaints with the CEDAW Committee. It also incorporates an ―inquiry procedure‖ that allows the Committee to explore potential abuses of women‘s rights in countries that are party to it.

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

The U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination …

99

STEPS IN THE U.S. PROCESS OF MAKING MULTILATERAL TREATIES The making of multilateral treaties for the United States involves a series of steps that generally include (1) negotiation and conclusion; (2) signing by the President; (3) transmittal to the Senate by the President, which may include any proposed reservations, declarations, and understandings; (4) referral to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations; (5) Committee consideration and report to the Senate recommending approval and a proposed resolution of ratification, which may include reservations, declarations, or understandings; (6) Senate approval of advice and consent to ratification by a two-thirds majority; (7) ratification by the President; (8) deposit of instrument of ratification; and (9) proclamation. While the House of Representatives does not participate in the treaty-making process, both chambers must act if a treaty requires implementing legislation.10

U.S. ACTIONS Successive U.S. Administrations and Members of Congress have supported the Convention‘s overall objective of eliminating discrimination against women. They have disagreed, however, as to whether the Convention is an effective or appropriate means of achieving this goal.

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Obama Administration Position The Obama Administration has expressed support for the Convention. On January 15, 2009, Susan Rice, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, stated at her Senate confirmation hearing that CEDAW ―will be an important priority‖ for the Administration.11 In May 2009, the Obama Administration identified CEDAW as a human rights treaty on which it ―supports Senate action at this time,‖ prompting some to speculate that the Administration may transmit the treaty to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations (SFRC) for its advice and consent. 12

Previous Administration Positions President Carter signed the Convention on July 17, 1980, and transmitted it to the Senate for advice and consent on November 12 of the same year. The Reagan and first Bush Administrations did not support ratification, and the Convention remained pending in the SFRC.

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

100

Luisa Blanchfield

Clinton Administration The Clinton Administration supported CEDAW ratification and in 1994 sent a treaty package to the Senate for advice and consent to ratification. The package included nine proposed reservations, understandings, and declarations (RUDs) to the Convention.13 (RUDs often accompany U.S. ratification of a treaty.) The SFRC reported the Convention favorably, but it never came to vote in the full Senate because of opposition from several Senators. The reservations recommended by the Clinton Administration addressed the following issues: .



  

―private conduct,‖ which made clear that the United States ―does not accept any obligation under the Convention to regulate private conduct except as mandated by the Constitution and U.S. law‖; ―combat assignments,‖ which stated that the United States ―does not accept an obligation under the Convention to put women in all combat positions‖;14 ―comparable worth,‖ which made clear that the United States would not accept the doctrine of comparable worth based on the Convention‘s broad description;15 and ―paid maternity leave,‖ which stated that the United States could not guarantee paid maternity leave as the Convention stipulates because it is not a requirement under federal or state law.16

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

RESERVATIONS, UNDERSTANDINGS, AND DECLARATIONS THAT MAY ACCOMPANY U.S. RATIFICATION OF MULTILATERAL TREATIES The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations may recommend that the Senate approve a treaty conditionally, granting its advice and consent subject to certain stipulations that the President must accept before proceeding to ratification. These stipulations are generally referred to as ―Reservations, Understandings, and Declarations‖ (RUDs). The President may also propose RUDs at the time he transmits the treaty to the Senate or during the Senate‘s consideration of the treaty. Reservations are specific qualifications or stipulations that modify U.S. obligations without necessarily changing the treaty language. Understandings are interpretive statements that clarify or elaborate, rather than change, the provisions of an treaty. They are generally deemed to be consistent with the obligations imposed by the treaty. Declarations are statements of purpose, policy, or position related to matters raised by the treaty in question but not altering or limiting any of its. provisions. The three understandings submitted by the Clinton Administration stated that (1) the United States will fulfill its obligations under the Convention in a ―manner consistent with its federal role,‖ recognizing that issues such as education are the responsibility of state and local governments; (2) the United States will not accept Convention obligations that restrict

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

The U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination …

101

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

freedom of speech or expression; and (3) the United States and other States Parties may decide the nature of the health and family planning services referred to in the Convention, and may determine whether they are ―necessary‖ and ―appropriate.‖17 The Clinton Administration‘s proposed declarations included a ―non-selfexecuting‖ provision, which stated that no new laws would be created as a result of CEDAW, and a ―dispute settlement‖ provision, which stated that the United States was not bound by Convention Article 29(1) that refers unresolved disputes to the International Court of Justice.

George W. Bush Administration The Bush Administration stated that it supported the Convention‘s goal of eradicating discrimination against women on a global scale but had several concerns with the Convention.18 These concerns were outlined in 2002, when the SFRC held hearings on potential CEDAW ratification. Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell wrote a letter to the SFRC stating that the Convention was under State and Justice Departments‘ review because of concerns regarding ―the vagueness of the text of CEDAW and the record of the official U.N. body [the CEDAW Committee] that reviews and comments on the implementation.‖19 In particular, the Administration cited ―controversial interpretations‖ of the CEDAW Committee‘s recommendations to States Parties.20 Powell‘s letter specifically noted a Committee report on Belarus that ―questioned the celebration of Mother‘s Day,‖ and a report on China that ―called for legalized prostitution.‖ These positions, Powell argued, were ―contrary to American law and sensibilities.‖21 The Bush Administration further maintained that the vagueness of the CEDAW text opened the door for broad interpretation by international and domestic entities and that the 1994 RUDs proposed by the Clinton Administration did not address these interpretation issues. It also emphasized the importance of ensuring the Convention would not conflict with U.S. constitutional and statutory laws in areas typically controlled by the states.22 In light of these concerns, the Administration urged the SFRC not to vote on the Convention until a full legal review was complete. The review began in mid-April 2002. On February 7, 2007, the Administration transmitted a letter to the Senate stating that it did not support the Senate taking action on the Convention at that time.23

Senate Actions CEDAW has been pending in the SFRC for over 25 years. The Committee held hearings in 1988 and 1990 but did not vote to recommend the Convention for advice and consent of the full Senate. With support from the Clinton Administration, the SFRC held another round of ratification hearings in June 1994. The Committee reported the Convention favorably with a vote of 13 to 5 in September 1994, but the 103rd Congress adjourned before it could be brought to vote in the full Senate.24 The Republican Party was elected as the majority in the 104th Congress, and the incoming Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Jesse Helms, did not allow further consideration of CEDAW because of his concerns regarding its possible impact on U.S. sovereignty and U.S. laws, including those related to abortion and family planning.25

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

102

Luisa Blanchfield

In June 2002, the debate over U.S. ratification of CEDAW gained momentum as the SFRC again held hearings on ratification of the Convention. On July 30, 2002, the Committee reported the Convention favorably by a vote of 12 to 7, subject to four reservations, five understandings, and two declarations.26 These included the nine RUDs recommended by the Clinton Administration in 1994, plus two additional understandings. The first additional understanding included a proposal from Senator Jesse Helms, who was then the Ranking Minority Member, which stated that ―nothing in this Convention shall be construed to reflect or create any right to abortion and in no case should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning.‖ The second additional understanding addressed the impact of the CEDAW Committee on U.S. law, stating, ―the CEDAW Committee has no authority to compel parties to follow its recommendations.‖ The 107th Congress adjourned before the Senate could vote on the Convention. (See Appendix B for a timeline of Senate consideration of CEDAW.) Though it has no direct role in providing advice and consent to ratification of treaties, the House of Representatives has demonstrated a continued interest in CEDAW. In January 2009, Representative Lynn Woolsey introduced a resolution expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Senate should ratify the Convention. As of August 7, 2009, the resolution has 124 cosponsors. Similar resolutions were introduced in the 110th, 109th, 108th , and 106th Congresses.27

ISSUES AND POLICY OPTIONS FOR THE SENATE Some policy decisions and issues may continue to play a role in the debate if the Senate considers providing its advice and consent to ratification during the 111th Congress.

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Possible Impact on U.S. Sovereignty For many policymakers, the question of U.S. ratification of CEDAW touches on the broader issue of national sovereignty. The minority views in the 2002 SFRC report on the Convention, for instance, state that CEDAW represents ―a disturbing international trend‖ of favoring international law over U.S. constitutional law and self-government, thereby undermining U.S. sovereignty.28 Opponents are particularly concerned that if the United States ratifies the Convention, the CEDAW Committee would have authority over the actions of the U.S. government and private citizens regarding discrimination against women. Many critics, for example, have taken issue with the Committee‘s recommendations regarding abortion, Mother‘s Day, and prostitution.29 CEDAW advocates maintain that U.S. ratification would not affect national sovereignty. During Senate debate in 2002, for instance, proponents argued that the Convention would impose a ―minimal burden‖ on the United States given that the Constitution and other existing federal and state laws already meet the obligations of the Convention.30 Supporters also emphasize that the United States would likely file several reservations, understandings, and declarations (RUDs) to the Convention, including a non-self-executing declaration that would require Congress to enact implementing legislation to bring CEDAW‘s provisions into use—thereby addressing any potential conflicts with existing U.S. laws. Supporters further

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

The U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination …

103

contend that the actions of the CEDAW Committee would not affect domestic laws or the private lives of U.S. citizens. They maintain that the Committee relies primarily on individual countries to fulfill their obligations under the Convention and that it has no established rules for enforcing its recommendations or addressing treaty non-compliance.31 In order to alleviate ongoing concerns regarding the Committee‘s role, during the 2002 Senate ratification debate then-SFRC Chairman Senator Joseph Biden proposed an understanding stating the CEDAW Committee does not have the authority to compel States Parties to follow its recommendations.

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Effectiveness of the Convention A major point of contention among supporters and opponents of U.S. ratification is whether CEDAW is an effective mechanism for addressing women‘s rights internationally. Opponents generally recognize that global discrimination against women is a problem that should be eliminated, but they do not view the Convention as an effective way to achieve this goal. They emphasize that many countries widely believed to have poor women‘s rights records ratified the Convention. In support of this view, critics point to Saudi Arabia, a State Party to CEDAW, which does not allow women to vote, even though such a policy contradicts Article 7 on political participation.32 Some also contend that the Convention hurts rather than helps women struggling to achieve human rights internationally—arguing that CEDAW serves as a ―facade for continuing atrocities‖ in countries that have ratified it.33 Supporters of U.S. ratification maintain that CEDAW is an effective mechanism for improving women‘s rights globally. They contend that the Convention is a formal mechanism through which to draw attention to women‘s issues on both a national and international level, particularly in developing countries.34 To support this position, they cite studies and research conducted on CEDAW‘s implementation since it entered into force in 1981. The U.N. Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM), for example, found that some countries, including Brazil and Colombia, incorporated language into their national constitutions to reflect CEDAW provisions or objectives.35 In June 2000, York University and the International Women‘s Rights Project (IWRP) conducted the First CEDAW Impact Study, which highlighted evidence of CEDAW‘s effectiveness at the national level and identified circumstances that contributed to successful implementation of the Convention. The study found that in Turkey CEDAW was cited in numerous court cases regarding discrimination against women; while in Nepal, the Ministry of Women and Social Welfare formed a taskforce to review all laws that were inconsistent with the Convention.36 Nevertheless, supporters have acknowledged that much work needs to be done to achieve full implementation of CEDAW. In particular, the IWRP impact study identified several barriers to the Convention‘s implementation, including (1) the alienation of national governments from civil society, (2) lack of support from governments, (3) difficulty in implementing gender- integrated policies, and (4) lack of public awareness. Similarly, UNIFEM acknowledged that CEDAW‘s effectiveness is ―largely dependent on the political will of governments.‖37 Both supporters and opponents of U.S. ratification have expressed concern with some of the RUDs filed by States Parties that appear to undermine the intent and effectiveness of the

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

104

Luisa Blanchfield

treaty.38 For instance, several countries—including Egypt, Iraq, Malaysia, and Syria— submitted reservations stating that certain provisions would not apply if they are deemed incompatible with Islamic Shari‘a law or values. Similarly, Niger filed a reservation to a provision calling on States Parties to modify social and cultural patterns related to the conduct of men and women, while North Korea filed a reservation to a provision that calls on States Parties to modify or abolish existing laws that constitute discrimination against women.39 When filing their own reservations, other States Parties—including Canada, France, and the United Kingdom—formally objected to the inclusion of these reservations, stating that they conflict with Article 28(2) of CEDAW, which states that a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.40 Some CEDAW proponents acknowledge concerns regarding RUDs; however, they maintain that the benefits of the Convention‘s almost universal ratification outweighs the drawbacks of conditions imposed by some States Parties.41

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

CEDAW as an Instrument of U.S. Foreign Policy CEDAW proponents contend that U.S. ratification will increase the credibility of the United States abroad and enhance its ability to champion women‘s rights in other countries. A 2002 SFRC report, for example, states that the United States should support ratification because it would ―give our [U.S.] diplomats a tool ... to press other governments to fulfill their obligations under the Convention.‖42 Supporters argue that U.S. non-ratification leads other governments to question the U.S. commitment to combating discrimination against women, thereby hindering its ability to advocate women‘s rights internationally. They also maintain that the United States might be viewed as hypocritical because it expects countries to adhere to international standards that it does not itself follow.43 In support of this position, some point to U.S. statutes that require foreign assistance to be based on a recipient country‘s compliance with ―internationally recognized human rights.‖44 Many also hold that U.S. ratification would give the United States additional fora in which to combat discrimination against women, particularly if a U.S. citizen were elected to the CEDAW Committee. Serving on the Committee, supporters argue, would provide the United States with an opportunity to share its expertise and experience in combating discrimination against women with other countries.45 Critics contend that the United States is already an international leader in promoting and protecting women‘s rights and that CEDAW ratification would not affect its ability to advocate such issues internationally.46 They argue that current U.S. laws and policies regarding gender discrimination serve as an example of the United States‘ commitment to women‘s equality. In addition, many assert that CEDAW and, more broadly, other human rights treaties, are meant for countries with lesser human rights records than the United States.47 Some critics have also voiced reluctance to bring the question of U.S. obligations under international human rights treaties to other countries, particularly those with poor human rights records. Many opponents are also concerned that the CEDAW Committee could be used as a platform for unfounded political criticisms of the United States.48 Moreover, they contend that U.S. ratification would not affect the laws and policies addressing discrimination against women in other countries. They further emphasize that improvements in the status of

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

The U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination …

105

women in nations such as China and Sudan can be made only by the governments of these countries.49

Family Structure and Parental Rights Many opponents of CEDAW are concerned that U.S. ratification would undermine U.S. privacy laws and policies—particularly those relating to family structure and the rights and responsibilities of parents.50 Some, for example, have taken issue with provisions that they believe could be interpreted to undermine traditional family roles. Article 5(a), for instance, calls on States Parties to take all appropriate measures

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

(a) To modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with a view to achieving the elimination of prejudices ... which are based on ... the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes or on stereotyped roles for men and women; (b) To ensure that family education includes ... recognition of the common responsibility of men and women in the upbringing and development of their children, it being understood that the interest of the children is the primordial consideration in all cases.

Such language has prompted critics to contend that CEDAW obligates governments, families, and individuals to adhere to a predetermined or artificial set of values, regardless of whether they align with national law, family traditions, or personal convictions. Specifically, some argue that the Convention dismisses ―established moral and ethical principals‖ that are based on human nature and experience, and discriminates against the ―traditional‖ family and a ―diversity of cultures and religious beliefs.‖51 CEDAW proponents counter that the Convention does not obligate States Parties to redefine or regulate gender roles or family structures. They note that Article 5 calls on States Parties to take ―all appropriate measures‖ [emphasis added], thereby leaving it to governments to determine what actions are appropriate based on their domestic laws and policies. Some further argue that Article 5 addresses gender stereotypes in the context of their possible link to violence against women. To support this position, they point to the CEDAW Committee General Recommendations on Violence Against Women. Recommendation 19, for instance, relates ―traditional attitudes by which women are regarded as subordinate to men or as having stereotyped roles‖ to ―practices involving violence or coercion.‖52 Consequently, some contend, Article 5(b) addressing family planning education primarily refers to public education, grant, or information programs that aim to combat violence against women.53 Another area of concern is CEDAW‘s possible impact on the role of women as mothers and caregivers. Many opponents are particularly critical of the CEDAW Committee‘s recommendation to Belarus in 2000 that expressed concern regarding the ―continuing prevalence of sex-role stereotypes and by the reintroduction of such symbols as a Mother‘s Day ... which it sees as encouraging women‘s traditional roles.‖54 Some point to this statement as evidence of CEDAW redefining the family and the role of women in society.55 In response to such concerns, supporters argue that the Committee was not criticizing Mother‘s Day; rather, it was responding to Belarus‘ celebration of the holiday as the only response to the obstacles women face in that country. Proponents further emphasize that the

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

106

Luisa Blanchfield

Committee has reviewed the reports of many other countries that celebrate Mother‘s Day and made no similar comments. A number of critics also contend that U.S. ratification of CEDAW may undermine parental rights. Opponents have taken issue with Article 16(d), which says that States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that women receive ―the same rights and responsibilities as parents ... in matters relating to their children; in all cases the interest of the children shall be paramount.‖56 Opponents are concerned that such language could be interpreted to give the CEDAW Committee authority to determine what is in the best interest of U.S. children, thereby undermining the rights and responsibilities of parents.57 Proponents, however, contend that CEDAW supports the role of parents in child-rearing, emphasizing that it calls for the ―common responsibility of men and women in the upbringing and development of their children.‖58 Furthermore, they argue that CEDAW would not affect parental rights because the U.S. Constitution limits government interference in private matters, including parenting.59 Recognizing the concerns of many CEDAW opponents regarding the Convention‘s possible impact on the private lives of U.S. citizens—particularly relating to family and parenting—in 1994 the Clinton Administration proposed a ―private conduct‖ reservation to the Convention. It stated that the United States ―does not accept any obligation under the Convention to regulate private conduct except as mandated by the Constitution and U.S. law.‖60 Some CEDAW supporters object to the inclusion of the proposed reservation, arguing that the United States should strive to adhere to the treaty‘s provisions regarding gender stereotypes. They contend that a private conduct reservation implies a ―lack of political commitment‖ by the United States and indicates that it views CEDAW as ―applicable only in other countries.‖61

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Abortion A significant issue in the CEDAW ratification debate centers on whether the Convention takes a position on abortion or is ―abortion neutral.‖ Many who support U.S. ratification hold that the treaty is abortion neutral because the word ―abortion‖ is never mentioned in the Convention‘s text. This point of view was shared by the Clinton Administration, which declared the treaty abortion neutral in 1994.62 Supporters also emphasize that many countries where abortion is regulated or illegal, including Burkina Faso, Colombia, and Ireland, ratified the Convention without associated reservations, understandings, or declarations (RUDs), and regularly report to the CEDAW Committee.63 Many opponents of U.S. ratification argue that while CEDAW does not include the word ―abortion,‖ parts of the Convention text could be interpreted to undermine current U.S. abortion law. Specifically, some have taken issue with Article 12(1), which states that countries ―shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in the field of health care in order to ensure ... access to health care services, including those related to family planning.‖ Critics have also expressed concern regarding Article 16(1)(e), which requires that States Parties take all appropriate measures to ensure that women have the right to ―decide freely and responsibly on the number and spacing of their children.... ‖ Opponents suggest that such language could lead to the abolishment of state parental

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

The U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination …

107

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

notification laws, require federal funding for abortions, or obligate the U.S. government to promote and provide access to abortion.64 Two States Parties to the Convention—Malta and Monaco—explicitly stated in their reservations to CEDAW that they do not interpret Article 1 6(1)(e) as imposing or forcing the legalization of abortion in their respective countries. CEDAW supporters counter such criticisms by emphasizing that Articles 12 and 16 call on States Parties to take all ―appropriate measures‖ [emphasis added], thereby leaving it up to States Parties to determine what actions are appropriate based on their domestic laws and policies. To support this view, some have cited the negotiating history of CEDAW,65 which appears to demonstrate the intent of some countries to keep the Convention‘s text intentionally ambiguous so that the treaty could be ratified by countries with a wide range of domestic laws and policies.66

CEDAW Committee Recommendations Related to Abortion The CEDAW Committee‘s recommendations to States Parties regarding abortion are a particularly controversial aspect of the U.S. ratification debate. Many opponents of CEDAW, particularly pro-life advocates, are strongly critical of the Committee because, in their view, it calls on States Parties to support and encourage abortion despite the fact that it is never mentioned in the CEDAW text.67 As evidence of this, critics point to the Committee‘s General Recommendation 24, which elaborates on CEDAW Article 12(1) addressing women‘s equal access to health care, including family planning services. The Committee recommends that ―when possible, legislation criminalizing abortion could be amended to remove punitive provisions imposed on women who undergo abortion....‖68 Opponents also criticize Committee recommendations to individual countries that appear to encourage the decriminalization or legalization of abortion and oppose conscientious objector policies. In 1998, for example, the Committee recommended to Mexico that ―all states ... should review their legislation so that, where necessary, women are granted access to rapid and easy abortion.‖69 More recently, in 2007, the Committee urged Poland ―to ensure that women seeking legal abortion have access to it, and that their access is not limited by the use of the conscientious objection clause.‖70 In addition, opponents have suggested that the Committee‘s interpretation of CEDAW could be used as a basis for challenging abortion laws in the United States and other countries. In particular, some critics have expressed concern with a May 2006 decision by the Constitutional Court of Colombia, which cited CEDAW when it determined that abortion should not be considered a crime in all circumstances (such as rape or incest and when the life of the mother is in danger).71 As mentioned previously, many CEDAW supporters emphasize that the purpose of the Committee is to consider the progress of States Parties‘ implementation of the Convention. They point out that CEDAW has no established mechanism for non-compliance and that it relies primarily on States Parties to fulfill their treaty obligations.72 Further, proponents contend that many of the Committee recommendations to States Parties demonstrate its overall opposition to abortion as a method of family planning. In 2006, for example, the Committee expressed concern that in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia ―abortion continues to be used as a method of birth control.‖73 Similarly, in 2007 the Committee noted with concern that in Greece ―due to inadequate access to family planning and contraceptive methods, abortion is often used by women and adolescent girls as a method of birth control.‖74 Moreover, supporters maintain that the overall goal of the Committee is to encourage States Parties to reduce abortion rates through education and family planning.

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

108

Luisa Blanchfield

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Consequently, some argue, the Committee makes recommendations regarding abortion only in very specific circumstances, such as when (1) a nation demonstrates a high rate of abortion, indicating that voluntary family planning education and resources are needed to reduce the abortion rate; (2) a country appears to rely on abortion as a method of family planning; or (3) a country reports that unsafe and illegal abortions contributed to high mortality rates.75

The U.S. “Helms Understanding” on Abortion (2002) In June 2002, under the Chairmanship of former Senator Joseph Biden, the SFRC held hearings on CEDAW ratification. On July 30, 2002, the Committee reported the Convention favorably by a vote of 12 to 7, subject to several RUDs. One of the understandings was a proposal from Ranking Member Senator Jesse Helms that stated ―nothing in this Convention shall be construed to reflect or create any right to abortion and in no case should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning.‖76 This ―Helms understanding‖ was included as a compromise to alleviate the concerns of pro-life advocates who were concerned that CEDAW ratification could affect U.S. abortion laws. Though some pro-choice women‘s groups favoring U.S. ratification questioned whether the understanding was necessary or appropriate, they recognized that its inclusion could increase the chances of U.S. ratification—which they believed would improve the lives of women both domestically and abroad. Conversely, other women‘s groups that supported U.S. ratification opposed the inclusion of the Helms understanding because, in their view, it would encourage countries that have ratified CEDAW to view it as abortion neutral. They argued that such an interpretation could add legitimacy to efforts of other governments that prohibit abortion and infringe on women‘s reproductive rights.77 Some pro-life opponents of U.S. ratification were satisfied that the Helms understanding would address their concerns regarding the Convention‘s impact on U.S. abortion laws. Many, however, believed that it would fail to ensure that domestic abortion laws would not be affected by U.S. ratification. In particular, they argued that abortion should be addressed as a ―reservation‖ to the Convention instead of as an ―understanding.‖ (An understanding is an interpretive statement that is generally considered to have less authority than a reservation under international law.) Some also suggested that the inclusion of the Helms understanding would have no impact on the recommendations of the CEDAW Committee. They further argued that the understanding would most likely not prevent pro-choice organizations from advocating for fewer abortion restrictions in the United States.78

Family Planning A number of CEDAW opponents are concerned with specific references to family planning in the Convention text, including the following: 

Article 10(h), addressing education, calls on States Parties to take all appropriate measures to ensure ―access to specific educational information to help and ensure the health and well-being of families, including information and advice on family planning.‖ Many fear that this could lead to mandatory sex education in both public and private U.S. schools.79

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

The U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination … 





109

Article 12(1), addressing healthcare, calls on States Parties to take all appropriate measures to ―eliminate discrimination against women in the field of health care in order to ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women, access to health care services, including those related to family planning.‖80 Many are concerned that such language could require the U.S. government to distribute family planning materials or contraceptives at schools or in public. Some also assert that CEDAW‘s references to access to family planning could be interpreted to include abortion.81 Article (12)(2) calls on States Parties to ―ensure to women appropriate services in connection with pregnancy, confinement and the post-natal period, granting free services where necessary, as well as adequate nutrition during pregnancy and lactation.‖ Some interpret this to mean that the U.S. government could be required to pay for family planning services, including abortion. Article 14(2)(b), addressing problems faced by rural women, calls on States Parties to take all appropriate measures to ―have access to adequate health care facilities, including information, counseling and services in family planning.‖ The concerns regarding this provision are similar to those expressed regarding Article 12(1).

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

CEDAW supporters counter these concerns by emphasizing that the Convention calls on States Parties to take ―all appropriate measures‖ [emphasis added], thereby leaving it to governments to determine what constitutes access to family planning. In support of this, they point to the negotiating history of the Convention that indicates that the text was left intentionally ambiguous to allow for states with different family planning policies to ratify the Convention.82 To address the concerns of some Convention opponents, in 1994 the Clinton Administration proposed an understanding to CEDAW that said that the United States ... understands that Article 12 permits States Parties to determine which health care services are appropriate in connection with family planning, pregnancy, confinement, and the postnatal period, as well as when the provision of free services is necessary, and does not mandate the provision of particular services on a cost-free basis.83

Proponents argue that such an understanding allows for the United States to provide its own interpretation of family planning; however, others counter that its inclusion is ―superfluous‖ because the CEDAW text already provides for such interpretations through its use of the terms ―appropriate‖ and ―necessary.‖84

Consideration of Other Treaties The Senate may consider providing its advice and consent to other treaties during the 111 Congress—including the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea and the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). These treaties, like CEDAW, have generated considerable debate because of concerns that they could undermine U.S. sovereignty and affect current U.S. laws and policies. The debate over U.S. ratification of CRC, which aims to protect the rights of children, has raised issues similar to CEDAW—including the Convention‘s possible effect on education, parental rights, and healthcare. Unlike CEDAW, however, CRC has not been signed by the United States nor has it been submitted to the th

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

110

Luisa Blanchfield

Senate by the President. Consequently, the Senate cannot yet consider providing its advice and consent to ratification. 85

Options for Treaties Already Submitted to the Senate The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations (SFRC) or the Senate could consider providing its advice and consent to ratification of CEDAW at any time because the treaty has already been submitted to the Senate.86 In practice, however, Presidential urging, usually accompanied by executive branch suggestions for conditions on ratification, has been required for Senate action. For example, the Senate considered the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights only after being strongly urged to do so by Presidents Reagan (with respect to Genocide and Torture) and George H.W. Bush (with respect to Torture and Civil and Political Rights). Options for the Senate include the following: 

 

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

  

The SFRC continuing to take no action on CEDAW. The treaty may be left as it currently stands, as pending SFRC business, with the Senate neither giving nor rejecting advice and consent to ratification. The Senate giving its advice and consent to ratification without recommending any reservations, understandings, and declarations (RUDs). the Senate giving its advice and consent subject to the RUDs proposed by previous Administrations (Presidents Carter and Clinton) and/or by the current Administration. The Senate giving its approval for advice and consent, with RUDs proposed by the SFRC or by Members on the Senate floor. The Senate rejecting the treaty if more than one-third of the Senators present vote against U.S. ratification. The Senate requesting, by resolution, that the Convention be withdrawn and sent back to the President without any action.

Other Issues in the Ratification Debate A number of other issues may arise in the CEDAW ratification debate if the Senate considers providing its advice and consent to ratification during the 111th Congress. These issues involve the effect of the Convention on the private conduct of citizens, as well as its impact on current U.S. laws and policies.

Decriminalization of Prostitution Article 6 of CEDAW says that States Parties shall take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to ―suppress all forms of traffic of women and exploitation of prostitution of women.‖ Some critics contend that the CEDAW Committee has made

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

The U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination …

111

recommendations that contradict the intent of this provision and could obligate States Parties to decriminalize or legalize prostitution. Specifically, in 1999 the Committee expressed its concern in a report on China that prostitution ―which is often a result of poverty and economic deprivation, is illegal,‖ and recommended that it be decriminalized by the Chinese government.87 Supporters, however, assert that the Convention does not support prostitution, and emphasize that the Committee made the recommendation in an effort to reduce high levels of prostitution in China. They argue that regulating prostitution might make it easier for prostitutes who are victims of violence to come forward without fear of retaliation or shame, undergo treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, or receive access to education.88

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Definition of Discrimination CEDAW opponents argue that the Convention‘s definition of discrimination against women is too broad and that it could apply to private organizations and areas of personal conduct not covered by U.S. law.89 A primary point of contention is the use of the phrase ―any other field,‖ which some interpret to mean that CEDAW could interfere in the private lives of individuals—including family life or religious practices. Critics have also expressed concern that such a broad definition could lead to an increase in ―frivolous‖ lawsuits.90 Supporters, however, hold that the CEDAW definition of violence against women would not undermine U.S. laws regarding discrimination, particularly if the Senate files a non-selfexecuting declaration stating that no new laws would be created as a result of the treaty‘s ratification. They also emphasize that U.S. ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), which includes a definition of racism, did not lead to an increase in the number of lawsuits.91 Still others maintain that applying the CEDAW definition to U.S. law would improve domestic discrimination laws; however, they acknowledge that to do so would likely require separate action by Congress or the Administration.92 Equal Access to Education Some opponents have taken issue with CEDAW provisions addressing equal access to education. Specifically, Article 10(b) calls on States Parties to take all appropriate measures to ensure that men and women receive ―access to the same curricula ... examinations, teaching staff with qualifications of the same standard and school premises and equipment of the same quality.... ‖ Some contend that this provision could require U.S. parents to send their children to public schools instead of single-sex schools, private schools, or home schools. Some have also expressed concern with Article 10(d), which calls on States Parties to ensure ―the elimination of any stereotyped concept of the roles of men and women at all levels and in all forms of education ... by the revision of textbooks and school programmes and the adaptation of teaching methods.‖ Some critics hold that implementation of this provision might lead to ―gender re-education‖ in U.S. schools that could include re-writing curricula to reflect gender neutrality.93 CEDAW supporters argue that the intent of the text is to ensure that girls and boys have equal access to education services, facilities, and curricula, regardless of whether they attend a single or mixed-sex school. They also note that CEDAW does not specifically mention single-sex schools.94

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

112

Luisa Blanchfield

Same-Sex Marriage Some CEDAW opponents who oppose same-sex marriage hold that Article 1, which defines discrimination against women as ―any distinction, exclusion or restriction mode on the basis of sex,‖ could obligate the United States to legalize same-sex marriage because not allowing a woman to marry another woman could be viewed as a form of discrimination.95 Others, however, maintain that CEDAW‘s aim is to address discrimination against women rather than men. Consequently, they argue, a same-sex marriage claim in the context of CEDAW would be ineffective because the treaty applies only to women. 96

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

APPENDIX A. STATES PARTIES TO THE CONVENTION ON THE ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN (AS OF APRIL 29, 2009) Afghanistan Albania* Algeria Andorra* Angola* Antigua and Barbuda* Argentina* Armenia* Australia* Austria* Azerbaijan* Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh* Barbados Belarus* Belgium* Belize* Benin Bhutan Bolivia* Bosnia & Herzegovina* Botswana* Brazil* Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria* Burkina Faso* Burundi

Central African Republic Chad Chile China Colombia* Cook Islands* Comoros Congo Costa Rica* Cote d‘Ivoire Croatia* Cuba Cyprus* Czech Republic* Democratic People‘s Republic of Korea Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark* Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic* Ecuador* Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Fiji

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Georgia* Germany* Ghana Greece* Grenada Guatemala* Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Honduras Hungary* Iceland* India Indonesia Iraq Ireland* Israel Italy* Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan* Kenya Kiribati Kuwait Kyrgyzstan* Lao Peoples Democratic

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

The U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination …

Cambodia Cameroon* Canada* Cape Verde Libyan A. Jamahiriya* Liechtenstein* Lithuania* Luxembourg* Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives* Mali* Malta

Finland* France* Gabon* Gambia Pakistan Panama* Papua New Guinea Paraguay* Peru* Philippines* Poland* Portugal* Republic of Korea* Republic of Moldova*

Marshall Islands Mauritania Mauritius* Mexico* Micronesia Monaco Mongolia* Montenegro* Morocco Mozambique* Myanmar Namibia*

Romania* Russian Federation* Rwanda* Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia St. Vincent & the Grenadines Samoa San Marino* Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal* Serbia*

Nepal* Seychelles Netherlands* Sierra Leone New Zealand* Singapore Nicaragua Slovakia* Niger* Slovenia* Nigeria* Solomon Islands* Norway* South Africa* Oman Spain* Source: U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Note: * = ratified or acceded to the Optional Protocol.

113

Rep. Latvia Lebanon Lesotho* Liberia Sri Lanka* St. Kitts and Nevis* Suriname Swaziland Sweden* Switzerland* Syrian Arab Republic Tajikistan Thailand* The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia* Timor-Leste* Togo Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia* Turkey* Turkmenistan* Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine* United Arab Emirates United Kingdom* United Republic of Tanzania* Uruguay* Uzbekistan Vanuatu* Venezuela* Viet Nam Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe

APPENDIX B. SENATE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS CONSIDERATION OF CEDAW: TIMELINE AND DOCUMENTATION 

November 12, 1980—Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, adopted by the U.N. General Assembly on

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

114

Luisa Blanchfield



December 18, 1979, and signed on behalf of the United States of America on July 17, 1980. Ex. R, 96-2 (Treaty Doc. 96-53.) December 5, 1988—Public hearing. (S. Hrg. 100-1039.)



August 2, 1990—Public hearing. (S. Hrg. 101-1119.)



September 27, 1994—Public hearing. (S. Hrg. 103-892.)



September 29, 1994—Ordered reported, 13 in favor, 5 against.



October 3, 1994—Reported, with four reservations, four understandings, and two declarations, and with minority views. (Exec. Rept. 103-38.)

(Automatically re-referred under Paragraph 2 of Rule XXX of the Standing Rules of the Senate.) 

June 13, 2002—Public hearing. (S. Hrg. 107-530.)



July 25, 2002—Discussion during business meeting.



July 30, 2002—Ordered reported, 12 in favor, 7 against.



September 6, 2002—Reported with four reservations, five understandings and two declarations. (Exec. Rept. 107-9.)

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

(Automatically re-referred under paragraph 2 of Rule XXX of the Standing Rules of the Senate.) Sources: Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, CRS. Notes: Due to Senate computerization of Executive Clerk records, all treaties must conform to the same numbering system. In the case of treaties prior to the 97th Congress, the new treaty number is denoted in parentheses. All votes are by voice unless otherwise indicated.

Author Contact Information Luisa Blanchfield Analyst in International Relations [email protected], 7-0856

End Notes 1

Women‘s rights and the equality of the sexes are addressed in general terms in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, among others.

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

The U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination … 2

See Appendix B for a timeline of Senate consideration of CEDAW. See Appendix A for a list of countries that are parties to the Convention. 4 More information on international treaty bodies relating to women‘s rights is available at http://www.un.org/ womenwatch/asp/user/list.asp?ParentID= 1003. 5 The Commission on the Status of Women was established in 1946 as a functional commission of the U.N. Economic and Social Council. It is responsible for preparing recommendations and reports for the Council on women‘s rights in the political, economic, and social realms. For more information, see http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/csw/. 6 Article 1, CEDAW. The text of the treaty is available at http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/text/ econvention.htm. 7 Some human rights treaties provide for a separate body to monitor implementation of the treaty by States Parties. The 23 Committee members are currently from Algeria, Bangladesh, Brazil, China, Croatia, Cuba, Egypt, France, Germany, Ghana, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Malaysia, Netherlands, Portugal, Singapore, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, and Thailand. 8 A full list of CEDAW Committee general recommendations can be found at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/ cedaw/comments.htm. 9 Optional Protocols sometimes accompany treaties. For more information on the CEDAW Optional Protocol, see http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cedaw-one-about.htm. 10 For more information, see U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Treaties and Other International Agreements: The Role of the United States Senate, Committee Print, prepared by the Congressional Research Service, 106th Cong., 2nd sess., January 2001, S. Prt.106-71 (Washington: GPO, 2001). 11 Congressional Transcripts, Congressional Hearings, ―Senate Foreign Relations Committee Holds Hearing on the Nomination of Susan Rice to be the U.S. Representative to the United Nations,‖ Congressional Quarterly, January 15, 2009. 12 Treaty Priority List for the 111th Congress. (Letter from Richard R. Verna, Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs, U.S. State Department, to Senator John F. Kerry, Chairman, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, May 11, 2009.) 13 For detailed descriptions of the RUDs, see U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, Report Together with Minority Views to Accompany Ex. R, 96-2, 103rd Cong., 2nd sess., October 3 (legislative day, September 12), 1994, Senate Exec. Rept. 103-38. 14 This reservation refers to CEDAW Article 2 that obligates States Parties to pursue ―by all appropriate means ... a policy of eliminating discrimination against women.‖ 15 This refers to CEDAW Article 1 1(1)(d) that says that States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in the field of employment in order to ensure ―The right to equal remuneration, including benefits, and to equal treatment in respect of work of equal value, as well as equality of treatment in the evaluation of the quality of work.‖ 16 This reservations refers to CEDAW Article 1 1(2)(b) that states, ―In order to prevent discrimination against women on the grounds of marriage or maternity and to ensure their effective right to work, States Parties shall take appropriate measures ... To introduce maternity leave with pay or with comparable social benefits without loss of former employment, seniority or social allowances.‖ 17 For more information, see the ―Family Planning‖ section. 18 U.S. Mission to the United Nations, ―Statement by Ambassador Sichan Siv, U.S. Representative to the U.N. Economic and Social Council,‖ press release, October 30, 2003. 19 Letter from Colin Powell, Secretary of State, to Senator Joseph Biden, Chairman, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, July 8, 2002. 20 Letter from Daniel J. Bryan, Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, to Senator Joseph Biden, Chairman, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, July 26, 2002. 21 Ibid. See U.N. document, A/55/38(SUPP), p. 37, paragraph 361 (2000) for the Committee‘s recommendation related to Mother‘s Day; and U.N. document, A/54/38/REV.1(SUPP), paragraphs 288-289, January 1, 1999 for the Committee‘s recommendation related to prostitution. 22 Ibid. 23 Letter from Jeffrey T. Bergner, Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs, U.S. Department of State, to Senator Joseph Biden, Chairman, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, February 7, 2007. 24 For more information on the 1994 hearings, see U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, Report Together with Minority Views to Accompany Ex. R, 96-2, 103rd Cong., 2nd sess., October 3 (legislative day, September 12), 1994, Senate Exec. Rept. 103-38. 25 For more information on Senator Helms‘ position, see U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, Report Together with Minority Views to Accompany Ex. R, 96-2, 103rd Cong., 2nd sess., October 3 (legislative day, September 12), 1994, 3

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

115

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

116

Luisa Blanchfield

Senate Exec. Rept. 103-38, pp. 53-54. Moreover, in 2000, Senator Helms stated, ―... if I have anything to do with it [CEDAW ratification] – and I think I do – it will never see the light of day on my watch.‖ Senate, Congressional Record, vol. 146 (May 11, 2000), p. S3926. 26 U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Foreign Relations, ―Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women,‖ Report, September 6, 2002. Washington, DC, Government Printing Office (Senate Exec. Rept. 107-9, 107th Congress, 2d Session), pp. 7-11. 27 See H.Res. 22 (11 1th ), introduced January 6, 2009, by Representative Lynn Woolsey, referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs on the same day (110 cosponsors); H.Res. 101 (1 10th), introduced January 24, 2007; H.Res. 67 (109th), introduced February 2, 2005 (115 cosponsors); H.Res. 21 (108 th), introduced January 7, 2003 (104 cosponsors); and H.Res. 107 (106 th), introduced March 10, 1999 (122 cosponsors). 28 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, Report Together With Minority and Additional Views to Accompany Treaty Doc. 96- 53, 107th Cong., 2nd sess., September 6, 2002, Exec. Rept. 107-9, p. 16. 29 See, for instance, Patrick F. Fagan, How U.N. Conventions on Women’s and Children’s Rights Undermine Family, Religion, and Sovereignty, Heritage Foundation, Backgrounder 1407, Washington, DC, February 5, 2001, at http://www.heritage.org/research/internationalorganizations/bg1407.cfm.; and Wendy Wright, CEDA W Committee Rulings, Concerned Women for America, August 27, 2002, at http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=1870& department=CWA&categoryid=nation. 30 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Treaty Doc. 96-53; Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, Adopted by the U.N. General Assembly on December on December 18, 1979, and Signed on Behalf of the United States of America on July 17, 1980, Hearing Before the Committee on Foreign Relations, 107th Cong., 2nd sess., June 13, 2002, S. Hrg. 107-530, p. 3. 31 See Leila Rassekh Milani, Sarah C. Albert, and Karina Purushotma, CEDA W: The Treaty for the Rights of Women - Rights that Benefit the Entire Community, Working Group on the Ratification of CEDAW, Washington, DC, p. 50, at http://www.womenstreaty.org/CEDAW%20Book-%20WHOLE%20BOOK.pdf; and American Bar Association, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women: Fear vs. Fact, Washington, DC, April 19, 2009, at http://www.abanet.org/irr/fear_fact.html. 32 See Helen Jones and Kas Wachala, ―Watching Over the Rights of Women,‖ Social Policy and Society, vol. 5, no. 1 (2006), pp. 129-130; and Human Rights Watch, Saudi Arabia: Women’s Rights Promises Broken, July 8, 2009, at http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/07/08/saudi-arabia-women-s-rights-promises-broken. 33 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Treaty Doc. 96-53; Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, Adopted by the U.N. General Assembly on December on December 18, 1979, and Signed on Behalf of the United States of America on July 17, 1980, Hearing Before the Committee on Foreign Relations, 107th Cong., 2nd sess., June 13, 2002, S. Hrg. 107-530, p. 15. 34 See, for example, Senators Joseph Biden and Barbara Boxer, ―Op-Ed: Senate Needs to Ratify the Treaty for the Rights of Women,‖ San Francisco Chronicle, June 13, 2002. 35 UNIFEM further reported that CEDAW was cited in court decisions related to women‘s rights in Australia, Colombia, Costa Rica, and India. See Bringing Equality Home: Implementing the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, edited by Ilana Landsber-Lewis, UNIFEM, 1998, at http://www.unifem.org/ attachments/products/BringingEqualityHome_eng.pdf. 36 The First CEDA W Impact Study: Final Report, York University Centre for Feminist Research and the International Women‘s Rights Project, June 2000, available at http://www.iwrp.org/CEDAW_Impact_Study.htm. 37 Bringing Equality Home: Implementing the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, edited by Ilana Landsber-Lewis, UNIFEM, 1998, p. 9. In addition, the American Bar Association (ABA) Rule of Law Initiative, in collaboration with USAID, has developed assessments tools measuring CEDAW implementation in specific countries, including Armenia, Georgia, Russia and Serbia. See http://www.abanet.org/rol/publications/ cedaw _assessment _tool.shtml. 38 See, for instance: ―U.S. Ratification of Human Rights Conventions: The Ghost of Senator Bricker,‖ by Louis Henkin, The American Journal of International Law, vol. 89:43 1, (April 1995) pp. 341-350; and ―Making CEDAW Universal: A Critique of CEDAW‘s Reservation Regime under Article 28 and the Effectiveness of the Reporting Process,‖ by Jennifer Riddle, George Washington University International Law Review, vol. 34, (2002) pp. 605-638. 39 States Parties that filed similar RUDs regarding Islamic law include Bahrain, Kuwait, Libya, Maldives, Mauritania, Monaco, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, and the United Arab Emirates. See Article 5(a) for Niger, and Article 2(f) for North Korea. 40 Denmark, for instance, objected to the reservations of Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and Syria which stated that CEDAW would not apply if it was not in accordance with Islamic law. Austria, Canada, the Czech Republic, France, and the United Kingdom filed objections to similar reservations made by other Islamic countries. Finland, France, and Portugal objected to the reservations filed by North Korea, while Denmark and Norway objected to the reservations of Niger.

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

The U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination …

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

41

117

Specifically, some argue that maximizing the number of countries that ratify human rights treaties such as CEDAW may also enhance the force and impact of national laws developed as a result of a country‘s ratification. See Catherine Logan Piper, ―Reservations to Multilateral Treaties: The Goal of Universality,‖ University of Iowa Law Review, vol. 71, (1985) p. 1. 42 U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Foreign Relations, ―Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women,‖ Report, September 6, 2002. Washington, DC, Government Printing Office (Senate Exec. Rept. 107-9, 107th Congress, 2d sess.), p. 5. 43 ―The Charade of U.S. Ratification of International Human Rights Treaties,‖ by Kenneth Roth, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch, Chicago Journal of International Law, Fall 2000. In addition, Human Rights Watch stated in a June 13, 2002, letter to the SFRC, ―By ratifying CEDAW, the U.S. government will be in a stronger position to support women‘s rights.... Having not ratified CEDAW, U.S. intervention in support of women‘s rights may be construed as ‗cultural imperialism‘ or an ‗American‘ agenda, as opposed to a rights-based approach.‖ 44 For instance, Sec. 116(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended (P.L. 87-195) states, ―No assistance may be provided ... to the government of any country which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights....‖ Similarly, Sec. 502B(a)(1) of that Act states, ―a principal goal of the foreign policy of the United States shall be to promote the increased observance of internationally recognized human rights by all countries.‖ Further, Sec. 502B(a)(2) states, ―... no security assistance may be provided to any country the government of which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights.‖ 45 Leila Rassekh Milani et al., CEDA W: The Treaty for the Rights of Women - Rights that Benefit the Entire Community, Working Group on the Ratification of CEDAW, Washington, DC, p. 18. 46 Ibid., 16. 47 Christopher J. Kicka and William A. Estrada, Special Report: The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, The Most Dangerous Attack on Parent’s Rights in the History of the United States, Home School Legal Defense Association, November 1, 1999, updated March 2007. 48 See Rebecca J. Cook, ―Reservations to the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women,‖ Virginia Journal of International Law, vol. 30, (1990) p. 643; and Belinda Clark, ―The Vienna Convention Reservations Regime and the Convention on Discrimination Against Women,‖ American Journal of International Law, vol. 85, (April 1991) pp. 281-321. 49 U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Foreign Relations, ―Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women,‖ Report, September 6, 2002. Washington, DC, Government Printing Office (Senate Exec. Rept. 107-9, 107th Congress, 2nd Session), p. 54. 50 Laurel MacLeod and Catherina Hurlburt, Exposing CEDA W: Concerned Women for America Strongly Opposes CEDA W, Concerned Women for America, September 5, 2000. 51 Women for Faith and Family Statement on the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, Women for Faith and Family, May 25, 2000, at http://www.wff.org/CEDAW.html. 52 CEDAW Committee General Recommendation 19 (1 1th Session, 1992). Also see General Recommendation 12 (8th Session, 1989). 53 Leila Rassekh Milani et al., CEDA W: The Treaty for the Rights of Women - Rights that Benefit the Entire Community, Working Group on the Ratification of CEDAW, Washington, DC, p. 51. 54 U.N. document, A/55/38(SUPP), p. 37, paragraph 361 (2000). 55 See Laurel MacLeod and Catherina Hurlburt, Exposing CEDA W, Concerned Women for America strongly opposes CEDAW, Concerned Women for America, September 5, 2000; and U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee, Why a Pro-Women Senate Should Not Ratify CEDA W, August 14, 2002. 56 Leila Rassekh Milani, et al., CEDA W: The Treaty for the Rights of Women - Rights that Benefit the Entire Community, Working Group on the Ratification of CEDAW, Washington, DC, pp. 54, 61-62. 57 See, for instance, Women for Faith and Family Statement on the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, Women for Faith and Family, May 25, 2000. Similar language is included in Article 5(b), which says that States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to recognize ―the common responsibility of men and women in the upbringing and development of their children, it being understood that the interest of the children is the primordial consideration in all cases.‖ 58 Article 5(b), CEDAW. 59 American Bar Association, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women: Fear vs. Fact, Washington, DC, April 19, 2009, 60 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, Report Together with Minority Views to Accompany Ex. R, 96-2, 103rd Cong., 2nd sess., October 3 (legislative day, September 12), 1994, Senate Exec. Rept. 103-38. This reservation was also included in 2002 when the SFRC reported the Convention favorably in July of that year.

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

118

Luisa Blanchfield

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

61

National Organization for Women (NOW), Legal Analysis of CEDA W RDUs: Joint Position of the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights and the NOW Legal Defense Fund, September 26, 1994, available at http://www.now.org/issues/global/cedaw_analysis.html. 62 Prepared Testimony of Jamison S. Borek, Deputy Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State, on U.S. Ratification of CEDAW. U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (Ex. R, 96-2), Hearing Before the Committee on Foreign Relations, 103rd Cong., 2nd sess., October 27, 1994, S. Hrg. 103-892, p. 13. 63 See Leila Rassekh Milani, et al., CEDA W: The Treaty for the Rights of Women - Rights that Benefit the Entire Community, Working Group on the Ratification of CEDAW, Washington, DC, pp. 59-60; and American Bar Association, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, Fear vs. Fact, April 19, 2009. 64 Letter from Douglas Johnson, Legislative Director, National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), and Jeanne E. Head, R.N., Vice President for International Affairs, NRLC, to Members of the U.S. Senate, March 25, 2009, at http://www.nrlc.org/Federal/ForeignAid/CEDAWLettertoSenate2009.html; and Grace Smith Melton, CEDA W: How U.N. Interference Threatens the Rights of American Women, Heritage Foundation, Backgrounder No. 2227, Washington, DC, January 9, 2009, at http://www.heritage.org/research/family/bg2227.cfm. 65 According to international law, a treaty may be interpreted by taking into account the preparatory work and negotiations related to the treaty text. Specifically, Article 32 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states, ―Recourse may be had to supplementary means of interpretation, including the preparatory work of the treaty and the circumstances of its conclusion, in order to confirm the meaning resulting from the application of Article 31, or to determine the meaning when the interpretation according to Article 31: (a) leaves the meaning ambiguous or obscure; or (b) leads to a result which is manifestly absurd or unreasonable.‖ The United States signed the Vienna Convention on April 24, 1970, but the Senate has not given its advice and consent to ratification. According to the State Department, the United States ―considers many of the provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties to constitute customary international law on the law of treaties.‖ 66 See, for instance, U.N. document, A/C.3/33/L.47/Add.2*, December 4, 1978, paragraph 223, ―Introducing his amendment, the representative of Bahrain stated that its intention was to allow a wide range of understanding, since it was important that [CEDAW] articles on civil and family rights be consistent with national laws.‖ 67 Wendy Wright, CEDA W Committee Rulings - Examples of U.N. CEDA W Committee Rulings Reveal How Dangerous the Treaty Would be to Americans, Concerned Women for America, August 27, 2002. 68 CEDAW Committee General Recommendation 24, 20th session, 1999, at http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/ cedaw/recommendations/recomm.htm#recom24. 69 U.N. document, A/53/3 8/Rev. 1, May 14, 1998, at http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/reports/ 18report.pdf. 70 U.N. document, CEDAW/C/POL/CO/6, February 2, 2007. 71 Ioana Ardelean, An Ominous Sampling of International Efforts to Force Abortion on Reluctant Nations, Culture of Life Foundation, at http://culture-of-life.org//content/view/497/1/. Excerpts from the Colombian Court‘s decision (C3 55/06) are available at http://www.womenslinkworldwide.org/pdf_pubs/pub_c3552006.pdf. 72 Leila Rassekh Milani, et al., CEDA W: The Treaty for the Rights of Women - Rights that Benefit the Entire Community, Working Group on the Ratification of CEDAW, Washington, DC, pp. 59-60. 73 U.N. document, CEDAW/C/MKD/CO/3, February 3, 2006. paragraph 31. 74 U.N. document, CEDAW/C/GRC/CO/6, February 2, 2007, paragraph 25. 75 Leila Rassekh Milani, et al., CEDA W: The Treaty for the Rights of Women - Rights that Benefit the Entire Community, Working Group on the Ratification of CEDAW, Washington, DC, pp. 59-60. 76 U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Foreign Relations, ―Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women,‖ Report, September 6, 2002. Washington, DC, Government Printing Office (Senate Exec. Rept. 107-9, 107th Congress, 2d Session), p. 7. The ―Helms understanding‖ was originally proposed in 1994. (See Senate Exec. Rep. 103-38, 103rd Congress, 2d Session, p. 52.) 77 See Global Justice Center, False Choices, Sacrificing Equality to Get CEDA W (Draft Version), November 9, 2007; and Joanna Pozen, The High Price of Compromise, RH Reality Check, September 18, 2007. 78 See Letter from Douglas Johnson, Legislative Director, National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), and Jeanne E. Head, R.N., Vice President for International Affairs, NRLC, to Members of the U.S. Senate, March 25, 2009, Women for Faith and Family, WFF Statement on the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, May 25, 2000; and Laurel MacLeod and Catherina Hurlburt, Exposing CEDAW, Concerned Women for America Strongly Opposes CEDA W, Concerned Women for America, September 5, 2000. 79 Some have also expressed concern regarding CEDAW Committee recommendations regarding sex education. On January 28, 2002, for instance, the Committee urged Russia to ―include sex education in the school curriculum.‖ See U.N. document, A/57/38. For further examples, see Wendy Wright, CEDAW Committee Rulings, Concerned Women for America, August 27, 2002.

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

The U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination …

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

80

119

In addition, Article 12(2) states, ―States Parties shall ensure to women appropriate services in connection with pregnancy, confinement and the post-natal period, granting free services where necessary, as well as adequate nutrition during pregnancy and lactation.‖ 81 See Letter from Douglas Johnson, Legislative Director, National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), and Jeanne E. Head, R.N., Vice President for International Affairs, NRLC, to Members of the U.S. Senate, March 25, 2009; and Women for Faith and Family, CEDA W Action Alert, August 22, 2002. 82 According to accounts of CEDAW‘s negotiating history, ―Some countries were opposed to the mention of ‗family planning services‘ in paragraph 1 [of Article 12], since these did not exist everywhere and it could result in the refusal to ratify the convention.‖ See Lars Adam Rehof, Guide to the Trauvaux Preparatoires of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1993), p. 145. 83 This understanding was also included in the list of RUDs accompanying CEDAW when it was reported favorably by the SFRC on July 30, 2002. See Senate Exec. Rept. 107-9, 107th Congress, 2nd sess., p. 12. 84 National Organization for Women (NOW), Legal Analysis of CEDA W RDUs: Joint Position of the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights and the NOW Legal Defense Fund, September 26, 1994. 85 For more information, see CRS Report R40484, The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: Background and Policy Issues, by Luisa Blanchfield. 86 This section is drawn in part from archived CRS Report 93-654 F, Human Rights Treaties: Racial Discrimination, Women’s Rights and Children’s Rights—Some Issues for U.S. Ratification, by Vita Bite. 87 U.N. document, A/54/38 (Part I), May 4, 1999, p. 32, paragraphs 28 8-289. 88 Leila Rassekh Milani, et al., CEDA W: The Treaty for the Rights of Women - Rights that Benefit the Entire Community, Working Group on the Ratification of CEDAW, Washington, DC, p. 52. 89 Article 1 of CEDAW defines discrimination against women as ―... any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil, or any other field.‖ 90 Women for Faith and Family, Women for Faith and Family Statement on the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, May 25, 2000. 91 CERD defines racial discrimination as ―any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.‖ It entered into force on January 4, 1969, has been ratified or acceded to by 173 U.N. member states. It was ratified by the United States on October 21, 1994, and entered into force on November 20 of the same year. 92 See Leila Rassekh Milani et al., CEDA W: The Treaty for the Rights of Women - Rights that Benefit the Entire Community, Working Group on the Ratification of CEDAW, Washington, DC, p. 51; and American Bar Association, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women: Fear vs. Fact, April 19, 2009. 93 Laurel MacLeod and Catherina Hurlburt, Exposing CEDA W, Concerned Women for America strongly opposes CEDA W, Concerned Women for America, September 5, 2000. 94 Amnesty International USA, Support the Treaty for the Rights of Women (CEDA W): Fact Versus Fiction, at http://www.amnestyusa.org/women/cedaw/factvsfiction.html. 95 Grace Smith Melton, CEDA W: How U.N. Interference Threatens the Rights of American Women, Heritage Foundation, Backgrounder No. 2227, Washington, DC, January 9, 2009. 96 American Bar Association, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women: Fear vs. Fact, April 19, 2009. Proponents also point out that many countries that have ratified CEDAW have banned same-sex marriage. For more information, see CRS Report RL3 1994, Same-Sex Marriages: Legal Issues, by Alison M. Smith.

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved. International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

In: International Efforts to Protect Women Editor: Lilian T. Graham pp. 121-151

ISBN: 978-1-60741-186-4 © 2010 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 8

INTERNATIONAL VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN: U.S. RESPONSE AND POLICY ISSUES 

Luisa Blanchfield1, Clare Ribando Seelke2, Nina M. Serafino3, Rhoda Margesson4, Tiaji Salaam-Blyther5

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Summary In recent years, the international community has increasingly recognized international violence against women (VAW) as a significant human rights and global health issue. VAW, which can include both random acts of violence as well as sustained abuse over time, can be physical, psychological, or sexual in nature. Studies have found that VAW occurs in all geographic regions, countries, cultures, and economic classes, with some surveys showing that women in developing countries experience higher rates of violence than those in developed countries. Many experts view VAW as a symptom of the historically unequal power relationship between men and women, and argue that over time this imbalance has led to pervasive cultural stereotypes and attitudes that perpetuate a cycle of violence. U.S. policymakers have generally focused on specific types or circumstances of VAW rather than view it as a stand-alone issue. Congress has authorized and appropriated funds for international programs that address VAW, including human trafficking and female genital cutting. In addition, past and current Administrations have supported efforts to reduce international levels of VAW— though many of these activities are implemented as components of broader foreign aid initiatives. There is no U.S. government-wide coordination of anti-VAW efforts. Most agencies and departments do not track the cost or number of programs with VAW components. Therefore, it is unclear how much money the U.S. government, or individual agencies, spend annually on VAWrelated programs. Some experts have suggested that the U.S. government should reexamine, and perhaps enhance, current U.S. anti-VAW activities. They argue that VAW should not only be treated as a stand-alone human rights issue, but also be integrated into U.S. 

This is an edited, reformatted and augmented version of a CRS Report for Congress publication dated August 2009.

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

122

Luisa Blanchfield, Clare Ribando Seelke, Nina M. Serafino et al.

assistance and foreign policy mechanisms. Other observers are concerned with a perceived lack of coordination among U.S. government agencies and departments that address international violence against women. This report addresses causes, prevalence, and consequences of violence against women. It provides examples of completed and ongoing U.S. activities that address VAW directly or include anti-VAW components. It outlines possible policy considerations for the 111th Congress, including the scope and effectiveness of U.S. programs; further integrating antiVAW programs into U.S. assistance and foreign policy mechanisms; and strengthening U.S. government coordination of anti-VAW activities. Material relating to United Nations antiVAW activities that previously appeared in this report is now published in CRS Report RL345 18, United Nations System Efforts to Address Violence Against Women, by Luisa Blanchfield.

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION In the past three decades, the U.S. government and international community have increasingly recognized violence against women (hereinafter VAW) as a human rights problem with far reaching consequences.1 Prior to the 1970s, many in the international community viewed VAW as a private matter to be dealt with among individuals and not a public matter that merited a national or international response.2 In the late 1970s and 1980s, however, the international community began to focus on VAW as a global health problem and violation of human rights. This shift was driven, in part, by an increasingly effective and well-organized grassroots movement of local, national, and international women‘s nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that brought international attention to the plight of VAW victims and created a more public forum for discussion of the issue.3 U.S. policymakers have generally addressed VAW as a component of other international development efforts rather than as a stand-alone issue. Congress has authorized and appropriated funds for international programs that address types of VAW, including trafficking in persons and female genital cutting (FGC). Members of Congress have also addressed VAW in the context of issues such as HIV/AIDS prevention and democracy promotion. Similarly, in the last decade past and current Administrations have supported initiatives to reduce specific types and circumstances of international VAW through programs addressing humanitarian assistance and healthcare. The lack of U.S. government-wide coordination or overarching framework for addressing international VAW, however, has led some to suggest that U.S. efforts to address VAW, while important, take a piecemeal approach to addressing the problem. Further, some argue that the United States should reexamine and possibly enhance current efforts to combat violence against women. This report identifies types of VAW and the direct and indirect consequences of these acts of violence. It provides examples of completed and ongoing U.S. government programs that—in whole or in part—work to reduce or eliminate international violence against women. It does not assess the scope of individual programs or a program‘s success in achieving its goal. The report also outlines possible policy considerations for the 111th Congress, including the scope and effectiveness of current U.S. programs, further integrating VAW prevention

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

International Violence Against Women: U.S. Response and Policy Issues

123

and treatment into U.S. foreign assistance programs, and coordinating among U.S. executive branch agencies and departments.4

DEFINING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

In 1993, the U.N. General Assembly adopted the non-binding Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women (DEVAW). The Declaration, which was supported by the U.S. government, describes VAW as ―any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual, or psychological harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or private life.‖5 The DEVAW definition of VAW is broad, encompassing both physical and psychological harm. It is used in this report because it is one of the most inclusive and widely agreed to international definitions. In some contexts, VAW may be used synonymously with ―gender-based violence‖ (GBV), which describes violence perpetrated against an individual, regardless of sex, because of his or her gender.6 Despite the international adoption of DEVAW, governments, organizations, and cultures continue to define VAW in number of ways, taking into account unique factors and circumstances. How VAW is defined has implications for policymakers because the definition affects the types of violence that are measured and addressed. Some law enforcement organizations and national criminal codes, for instance, do not consider psychological abuse to be a form a VAW because, while harmful, in many cases it is legal. Others, however, advocate for a broader definition of VAW, contending that physical and psychological harm cannot be separated, and that psychological abuse can be as devastating as physical abuse.7

SCOPE AND CONTEXT VAW occurs in all geographic regions, countries, cultures, and economic classes. Many experts view VAW as a symptom of the historically unequal power relationship between men and women, and argue that over time this imbalance has led to pervasive cultural stereotypes and attitudes that perpetuate a cycle of violence.8 Though the specific causes of VAW vary on a case-by-case basis, some researchers have identified community and individual risk factors that may increase rates of violence against women. Community factors can include cultural norms that support male superiority, high crime levels, poor economic conditions, and a lack of political and legal protection from governments. Individual factors that may lead to a high risk of becoming a victim of VAW include living in poverty and a previous history of abuse.9

Social and Health Consequences A wide range of research highlights the serious social and civil consequences of violence against women. In many societies, women provide emotional and financial support for families and communities. Studies have shown that violence and the social stigma of violence

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

124

Luisa Blanchfield, Clare Ribando Seelke, Nina M. Serafino et al.

negatively affect the ability of women and girls to participate fully in and contribute to their communities. Research has also found that women who experience violence are less likely to hold jobs and are more likely to live in poverty than those who do not experience violence.10 Violence and the fear of violence may cause some women to avoid public places such as schools and the workplace. Some research has also found that women may also be less likely to participate in political activities or development projects because of the threat of physical violence.11 Moreover, some studies have found that harassment and sexual abuse contributes to low female enrollment rates and high dropout rates from secondary schools.12 The health consequences of VAW are significant, with many victims suffering from severe physical and mental health consequences—both immediate and long-term. Numerous studies have found that women and girls who experience violence have an increased risk of poor physical and reproductive health.13 The physical health impacts of VAW can be divided into two categories—immediate and functional. Immediate consequences directly result from acts of violence, and may include fractures, gunshot wounds, bruises and lacerations, and death. Functional consequences, also referred to as ―functional disorders,‖14 include longterm health consequences. Researchers have linked these functional impacts to long-term physical or sexual abuse. They include gastrointestinal disorders, chronic pain (including pelvic pain), chronic urinary tract infections, and irritable bowel syndrome. (For more information on the health consequences of VAW, see the ―Global Health‖ section.)

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Prevalence and Circumstances World Health Organization (WHO) multi-country surveys estimate that between 10% and 69% of women have been physically hit or harmed by a male partner at some point in their lives.15 The WHO surveys found that levels of violence tend to vary by country, and that women in developing countries may experience higher rates of violence than those in developed countries.16 Some research indicates that approximately one in five women experiences rape or attempted rape during her lifetime. 17 Surveys in some Asian and sub-Saharan African countries have found high female mortality rates due to female infanticide and nutritional neglect of young girls.18 Many incidences of violence are not reported because of the shame and fear associated with being a victim. Experts generally agree that current levels of violence reported through studies and national and local law enforcement records represent a minimum of actual VAW cases. Rates of sex trafficking, sexual violence in armed conflict situations, female infanticide, and violence in schools and the workplace, for example, are thought to be significantly under-documented, particularly in developing countries.19 Underreporting may occur because victims view violence as normal or expected behavior. Additionally, in certain circumstances it is difficult for researchers to collect data on VAW prevalence. In conflict situations, for example, potentially dangerous and fluid conditions may affect the ability of researchers to gain access or create conditions conducive to victims coming forward. In addition, some communities, particularly those in developing countries, lack adequate law enforcement infrastructure and reporting services, which may discourage women from reporting abuse.20

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

International Violence Against Women: U.S. Response and Policy Issues

125

VAW can occur in the home as well as in public and private institutions, including the workplace, schools, universities, and state institutions. Custodial VAW, which includes violence in prisons, immigration detention centers, social welfare institutions, and jails, is reported in many areas of the world—though there is not enough to data to quantify its prevalence globally.21 Moreover, VAW in schools, which can be perpetrated by teachers, administrators, and students, is prevalent in developing countries, particularly those in Africa, the Middle East, South Asia, and Latin America.22 In Ecuador, for example, a World Bank study found that approximately 22% of women reported being sexually abused in school.23 A qualitative study in Ethiopia found that harassment and sexual abuse contributed to low female enrollment rates and high dropout rates from secondary school.24

TYPES OF VIOLENCE Violence against women can include both random acts as well as sustained abuse over time, which can be physical, psychological, or sexual in nature (see Table 1).25 Some studies have found that women are most likely to experience violence at the hands of someone they know, including authority figures, parents, sons, husbands, and male partners. Studies conclude that one of the most common forms of VAW is intimate partner violence, which can include forced sex, physical violence, and psychological abuse, such as isolation from family and friends.26 Table 1. Examples of Violence against Women

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Life Stage

Examples Infanticide; psychological and physical abuse; differential access to food Infancy and medical care Childhood Female genital cutting; incest and sexual abuse; psychological abuse; differential access to food, medical care, and education; prostitution; trafficking; school-related gender-based violence Adolescence Dating and courtship violence; economically coerced sex; sexual abuse in the workplace; rape; sexual harassment; forced prostitution; trafficking; psychological abuse; forced marriage; dowry abuse; retribution for the crimes of others Reproductive Intimate partner abuse; marital rape; dowry abuse; honor killings; partner homicide; psychological abuse; sexual abuse in the workplace; abuse of women with disabilities; forced prostitution; trafficking Old age Widow abuse; elderly abuse; rape; neglect Source: Violence Against Women: The Hidden Health Burden, by L. Heise, World Bank Discussion Paper, Washington, DC, 1994, modified by the Congressional Research Service.

There are many different types of violence against women. Honor killings, for example, occur when women are stoned, burned, or beaten to death, often by their own family members, in order to preserve the family honor.27 The practice is most common in Middle Eastern and South Asian countries, though it has been reported in other parts of the world, such as Latin America and Africa.28 Dowry-related violence, where victims might be attacked

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

126

Luisa Blanchfield, Clare Ribando Seelke, Nina M. Serafino et al.

or killed by in-laws for not bringing a large enough dowry to the marriage, is also prevalent in South Asian countries such as Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh.29 Female genital cutting (FGC), which has also been referred to as female genital mutilation (FGM) or female circumcision, is common in some African and Middle Eastern countries. The World Health Organization estimates that between 100 and 140 million women and girls have undergone a form of the procedure, and that about 3 million girls are at risk each year.30 Some consider child and adolescent marriage, which is particularly prevalent in parts of the Middle East and Africa, to be a form of violence against women. In such cases, girls as young as 10 and 12 years old may be married to older men, often with the approval of their parents.31 Some research indicates that these child brides may face a greater risk of violence.32

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Harmful Traditional Practices Traditional practices are part of local cultures and are generally considered socially acceptable; in some cases, they are encouraged by family members and the community. Many experts maintain that some of these practices are damaging to women. They argue that these ―harmful traditional practices,‖ including FGC, intimate partner violence, and child marriage, perpetuate unbalanced sex stereotypes and a cycle of violence. What constitutes a harmful traditional practice, however, is a matter of perspective. In some cultures, for instance, both men and women may view violence as a legitimate punishment for female disobedience and as a traditional part of male- female relationships.33 Moreover, some women may not view forced marital sex as rape, or may endure frequent beatings from their husbands, fathers, sons or boyfriends because of cultural or familial legacies. In addition, some do not view child marriage as a harmful traditional practice— instead they see it as a cultural tradition that should be respected. In recent years, some international advocates have increasingly argued that harmful traditional practices should be addressed through anti-VAW programs.34 They maintain that anti-VAW efforts should focus not only on treatment and services for victims of violence, but also on eliminating harmful traditional practices. Because some of these practices are often a part of a community‘s culture, however, programs that introduce treatment and services may meet resistance. Some experts argue that harmful traditional practices cannot be significantly altered without sustained, long-term efforts on the local level with national and international support. Finding the most appropriate balance and means of intervention is a challenge that highlights a broader debate— with human rights and individual freedom on the one hand, and the right to preserve culture, group identity, and tradition on the other.

ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS Most U.S. agencies and departments do not track the cost or number of current anti-VAW programs; therefore, it is unclear how much money the U.S. government, or individual agencies, spends annually on anti-VAW programs. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Department of State (DOS) are the primary U.S. entities that implement U.S. international anti-VAW programs.35 Other agencies and departments that

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

International Violence Against Women: U.S. Response and Policy Issues

127

support some programs with anti-VAW components include the Departments of Defense (DOD), Health and Human Services (HHS), Justice (DOJ), and Labor (DOL). The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Peace Corps also address aspects of violence against women.36 (See Appendix B for a list of selected U.S. offices and bureaus that have anti-VAW programs.) In March 2007, U.S. agencies and departments provided information to CRS on programs that address international VAW either in whole or in part. Approximately 350 U.S. government programs with VAW components across eight agencies have been identified.37 Capturing the overall U.S. government response to VAW is complicated by the number of programs, the degree to which they focus on VAW or are part of a larger initiative, and overlaps in program budget allocations. Thus, it is possible to generate only a snapshot of activities rather than an all- inclusive list. The information provided to CRS indicated that funding levels for individuals programs in FY2006 and FY2007 ranged from $10,000 to $15 million; in many cases, the antiVAW component included only a small portion of total program funding. Of these reported programs, approximately 10% operated globally, 22% in Africa, 21% in Europe/Eurasia, 17% in the Western Hemisphere, 14% in South/Central Asia, 14% in East Asia/the Pacific, and 2% in the Near East.38 U.S. agencies and departments participate in formal and informal intra- and interagency working groups that address aspects of international violence against women. The State Department/USAID informal Women‘s Justice Issues Working Group, for example, has focused on GBV as part of its activities.39 The USAID Bureau of Global Health collaborates with a network of NGOs through the Interagency Gender Working Group (IGWG), which identifies GBV as a priority.40 The PEPFAR interagency Gender Technical Working Group addresses the links between HIV/AIDS and gender.41 Moreover, U.S. anti-trafficking efforts are coordinated at the cabinet level by the President‘s Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking (PITF), which is chaired by the Secretary of State. The PITF meets annually to coordinate broad U.S. anti-trafficking in persons (TIP) policy. The interagency Senior Policy Operating Group (SPOG) meets quarterly to carry out PITF initiatives and to discuss TIP policy and programming issues.42

Obama Administration The full nature and extent of President Obama‘s anti-VAW policies remains to be seen. The Obama Administration has, however, introduced initiatives and supported programs that either directly or indirectly address aspects of VAW. In the FY20 10 Congressional Budget Justification (CBJ), for example, the Administration identified the ―pernicious problem of gender-based violence (GBV)‖ as a strategic global priority.43 It stated that VAW is a priority for the State Department Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration and that ―[PRM] Efforts to prevent and combat GBV should be integrated into multi-sectoral programs in order to maximize their effectiveness and increase protection generally.‖44 In the CBJ, the Administration also requested funding for Bush Administration initiatives that either directly or indirectly address issues related to violence against women. These include the Women‘s Justice and Empowerment Initiative (WJEI) and the Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI).45

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

128

Luisa Blanchfield, Clare Ribando Seelke, Nina M. Serafino et al.

Additionally, on March 11, 2009, President Obama issued an executive order (EO) establishing the White House Council on Women and Girls (the Council).46 The Council serves as an advisory body to the President with the purpose of (1) establishing a coordinated federal response to issues that impact the lives of women and girls, and (2) ensuring that federal programs and policies ―address and take into account‖ their specific concerns. The EO acknowledges that ―certain inequalities continue to persist‖ between men and women, and identifies violence against women as a ―global epidemic.‖ Council members are composed of Members of the Cabinet and other high level executive branch officials, including the Secretary of State and U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations. The Council is charged with, among other things, developing and submitting a federal interagency plan to ensure that interagency activities are consistent with the goals expressed in the EO. This interagency plan will include assessments of executive branch departments, agencies, or offices that addresses the progress and advancement of women and girls. It is likely that the activities of DOJ, HHS, State Department, and USAID would be included in such assessments, though the extent to which U.S. efforts to combat international VAW would be addressed is unclear.

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Bush Administration The Bush Administration expressed its support for programs addressing international VAW. In 2007, then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stated that combating VAW was a foreign policy priority.47 The Administration did not pursue an overall policy focused on VAW alone, although it initiated several government-wide programs with VAW prevention, treatment, and protection components.48 These components existed primarily in the context of a program‘s broader mission and often represented a small fraction of the budgets for these programs. This was particularly true for the President‘s Plan for HIV/AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), and Middle East Partnership Initiative. Other Bush Administration initiatives with VAW components included the Women‘s Justice and Empowerment Initiative, and an initiative to respond to ongoing and widespread violence against women and girls in Darfur, Sudan.49

KEY ISSUES AND RELATED U.S. ACTIVITIES This section describes key VAW issues and discusses examples of related U.S. activities across agencies and departments.50 Some of the activities have been completed, while others are ongoing. Because the U.S. government does not track anti-VAW programs and funding, it is difficult to determine the extent to which a U.S. initiative, program, or project addresses violence against women. Therefore, the descriptions of U.S. anti-VAW activities in this section are largely anecdotal and, in many cases, implemented only in the context of broader development efforts. This section does not assess the scope of individual programs, or a program‘s success in achieving its goal. (For more information, see the ―Policy Considerations for Congress‖ section.)

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

International Violence Against Women: U.S. Response and Policy Issues

129

Global Health

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

The physical and psychological health impacts of VAW are wide-ranging. VAW may lead to miscarriage or the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS. Women who become pregnant as a result of rape may be more likely to undergo unsafe abortions, attempt suicide, or be beaten or killed by their partner.51 In some cultures, an unmarried woman‘s unintended pregnancy may trigger social isolation from family and friends. Women may also be killed by their spouses or other family members—though there is limited data on the frequency of this phenomenon.52 Moreover, when young girls are forced to marry and become sexually active and pregnant, often through coercion, they may experience complications during pregnancy that can result in death or long-term health problems such as obstetric fistula.53 VAW can cause psychological issues that may manifest physically. Women who are abused are more likely to use drugs and alcohol, attempt suicide, and suffer from nervous system disorders and post-traumatic stress syndrome.54 A 2007 study found that 59% of women who were abused in the previous year suffered from psychological problems, compared with 20% of women who did not experience any abuse.55 Moreover, victims of rape, intimate partner violence, and child sex abuse were found to experience a higher level of post-traumatic stress than victims of other types of violence.56 According to the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA), rape victims were nine times more likely to attempt suicide than non-victims.57

Related U.S. Activities USAID and HHS support the majority of U.S. health-related VAW prevention and treatment programs abroad, though other agencies or departments, particularly the State Department, support and provide health services.58 The President‘s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), a five-year, $15 billion government-wide initiative to address HIV/AIDS globally, allocates some resources to mitigating the health consequences of violence against women. According to The President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief Report on GenderBased Violence and HIV/AIDS, $104 million in PEPFAR funds supported 243 activities with a GBV component in FY2006. The report did not explain what constituted a GBV component.59 The U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief 2009 Annual Report to Congress does not address how much funding is specifically allocated to combating GBV. It states, however, that in FY2008 PEPFAR spent $1 billion on activities that included a gender focus. According to the report, 407 of these activities addressed violence and coercion.60 Many of USAID ‘s health programs that address aspects of VAW prevention and response are supported by the Bureau of Global Health (GH) and implemented by regional and country missions.61 GH includes the Office of Population and Reproductive Health (PRH) and the Office of HIV/AIDS (OHA). PRH offers strategies to raise awareness about intimate partner violence and its impact on maternal and reproductive health. Several OHA activities educate audiences on how sexual violence and coercion can spread HIV/AIDS. According to USAID, OHA programs also advocate against sexual abuse, provide access to services for rape survivors, and teach women how to negotiate safe sex. Moreover, USAID addresses FGC prevention, awareness, and treatment at a variety of levels. USAID missions in Ethiopia, Egypt, Kenya, and Guinea, for example, support female genital cutting (FGC)

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

130

Luisa Blanchfield, Clare Ribando Seelke, Nina M. Serafino et al.

prevention activities. In 2004, GH adopted a strategy to deter FGC that targets countries for continued and future support.62 USAID also focuses on strengthening prevention and treatment services for obstetric fistula.63 HHS has supported some international programs that facilitate the collection and analysis of data and demographic surveys that measure the impact of violence on health—particularly reproductive health. The Centers for Disease Control‘s (CDC‘s) Monitoring and Evaluation to Assess and Use Results (MEASURE) program, for example, worked with USAID country and regional missions to develop, implement, and analyze national reproductive health surveys that provide population-based data on reproductive health indicators, including the prevalence of violence against women.64 CDC‘s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC) worked with partners, including the U.N. Children‘s Fund (UNICEF), to provide technical assistance on data collection, assess patterns of VAW and children, and examined possible prevention strategies and policies to address violence.65 HHS also worked with WHO to build regional frameworks in three countries for VAW prevention.66 Furthermore, as a PEPFAR implementing partner, CDC‘s Global AIDS Program has supported prevention and response programs to address the relationship between VAW and HIV. The programs included HIV post- exposure prophylaxis (PEP) in clinical settings for survivors of sexual violence;67 strengthening linkages among health, community, and legal services that provide protection and care for victims; and HIV prevention programs that focused on VAW prevention.68

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Humanitarian Assistance and Refugees During humanitarian crises and armed conflict (or occupation), populations become vulnerable to an array of threats—including VAW—and often lack protection from their governments, communities, and families. This underscores reports that levels of VAW increase during conflict and remain a large risk in the aftermath of upheaval in post-conflict areas or during the emergency phase following a natural disaster.69 Rape and other forms of sexual abuse reported during periods of armed conflict are common and in some cases may be systematic.70 Those who are displaced—IDPs and those attempting to return home (returnees)—often lack protection and remain vulnerable, sometimes for years.71 The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) estimates that in the majority of refugee situations worldwide, close to 50% of the displaced are women and girls and that sexual violence is one of the most common crimes committed against refugees.72 Other forms of VAW, such as sexual exploitation and ―survival sex‖ (when a person engages in sex in exchange for money or material assistance as a means of survival), domestic violence, and traditional practices that prove harmful, occur with frequency. In addition, long periods of displacement and frustration can lead to VAW within families and communities. In such insecure environments, the high degree of fear, lawlessness, and lack of judicial procedure and enforcement means that many perpetrators are not prosecuted or punished. Often, survivors are left with little recourse and suffer related problems such as emotional and physical health risks, unwanted pregnancies, HIV infection, and rejection by family. In some cases, humanitarian and peacekeeping workers themselves are perpetrators, not the deterrent

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

International Violence Against Women: U.S. Response and Policy Issues

131

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

force, of violence against women.73 VAW is also a documented problem in conflict settings such as Darfur, Sudan, Chad, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).74 Members of the international community—including governments, international organizations, NGOs, and others—work on collaborative and separate initiatives to develop prevention and response strategies to protect vulnerable populations, particularly women and girls.75 These projects are undertaken with an eye toward strengthening the protection of displaced women and promoting gender equality.76 Many experts view increasing the capacity of states and host communities as a priority for implementing sustained, effective measures.

Related U.S. Activities U.S. activities addressing VAW in humanitarian and refugee settings are often incorporated into other refugee programs and activities, including basic humanitarian services, treatment, and education. Because of this, it is a challenge to determine the total number and scope of U.S. activities that address VAW in refugee settings. As the issue has gained attention, however, VAW has in some instances become the main focus of specific programs.77 In the humanitarian sector, the U.S. government‘s response to VAW comes from the State Department‘s Bureau for Population, Refugees and Migration (PRM), and USAID‘s Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance through its Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) and Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI).78 USAID missions may also be involved at the regional and country level.79 Implementing partners include several actors, including U.N. agencies, such as UNHCR, and international organizations, such as the International Organization for Migration (IOM), and many NGOs, including the American Refugee Committee and the International Rescue Committee. PRM began addressing VAW through its refugee assistance programs in FY2000. Since then, it has provided nearly $28 million toward programming for refugee and IDP populations. In FY2008, 27.5% of all PRM projects focused on VAW prevention and response, for a total of $6.3 million.80 For FY2009, PRM aims for 33% of its projects to address the issue. PRM projects have built local capacity among Afghan refugee populations in Pakistan, reduced incidences of sexual violence among returnees in Burundi, prevented sexual exploitation and abuse in the Kenya and Liberia refugee programs, and supported programs for VAW survivors in Tanzania.81 PRM has more recently been discussing VAW preventive measures in the context of the massive Iraqi population displacement.82 In FY2007 and FY2008, USAID supported a number of programs, including projects in Liberia to address and raise awareness about sexual exploitation and violence; technical evaluations of energy efficient stoves in Uganda and Darfur to help reduce women‘s exposure to sexual abuse while traveling long distances to find firewood; and support for health and livelihood recovery programs in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sri Lanka, and Kenya. In addition, a $15 million initiative in Darfur, Sudan, focused on improving the physical safety of vulnerable populations, some of which benefited women.83 Other reported activities include establishing emergency protection-sensitive shelter in IDP camps and schools, educational activities, counseling, and case management. Most projects were funded through small grants to local community-based organizations and larger humanitarian assistance programs implemented by international NGOs.

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

132

Luisa Blanchfield, Clare Ribando Seelke, Nina M. Serafino et al.

Foreign Military Training

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

The issue of VAW awareness training and education for foreign military and peacekeeping troops was brought to the fore by events in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 2004. Cases of sexual exploitation and abuse (SEA) by U.N. peacekeepers had been documented in the 1990s and early 2000s in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Cambodia, East Timor, and West Africa.84 After a special review of the situation, then-U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan recommended that the U.N. Department of Peacekeeping Operations organize intensive training for peacekeepers.85

Related U.S. Activities The Department of Defense has provided VAW training and education through a small number of programs. Most of the VAW content in DOD programs for international students is incorporated into programs for peacekeepers and military forces participating in disaster and humanitarian relief operations. Funding for the VAW-related components of these programs is generally incorporated into the overall program budgets and not separably identifiable. The U.S. Global Peace Operations Initiative (GPOI), for example, trains foreign peacekeepers and incorporates VAW and SEA content in its training exercises.86 Three of GPOI‘s four regional components, Africa, Western Hemisphere, and Asia, reported VAW content in their training, and the African program is considering expanding its VAW training.87 VAW topics have been incorporated into curricula at some DOD educational and training institutions. The DOD-funded Center of Excellence in Disaster Management and Humanitarian Assistance (CoE-DMHA), for example, reports a broad and apparently growing number of training and education modules on VAW and SEA.88 These programs—sometimes funded through DOD accounts, sometimes by the Department of State—are offered throughout the world to foreign government personnel, including civilians, military, and police, as well as NGOs. Similarly, DOD‘s Defense Institute of International Legal Studies (DIILS), which trains and educates military personnel and civilian government officials on international legal issues, offers a one-hour module related to gender-based violence in a resident course on conducting military and peacekeeping operations.89 DIILS also incorporates gender-based violence issues in mobile courses, and has addressed VAW in occasional special courses prepared, on request, for foreign militaries. For instance, in 2008, DIILS conducted 12 separate week-long seminars on Investigation and Prosecution of Sex Crimes for the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) armed forces.90 In recent years, Congress has worked to incorporate VAW awareness into foreign military training. The Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2006, required that training on gender-based violence be included, where appropriate, as a component of programs funded through bilateral assistance and military assistance accounts.91 These accounts include funding for the education and training of foreign military and civilian defense personnel. Similar language was included in FY2008 and FY2009 foreign operations appropriations.92

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

International Violence Against Women: U.S. Response and Policy Issues

133

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Trafficking in Women and Girls Trafficking in women and girls is a high-profile form of violence against women. It gained attention in the United States and worldwide in the late 1 990s, and is considered by many experts to be one of the leading criminal enterprises of the early 21st Century. Studies have found that trafficking occurs in every country and disproportionately affects women and girls. Most recently, a U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) study found that, on average, 65%-75% of human trafficking victims are women and 1 5%-25% are minors.93 The International Labor Organization (ILO) estimates women and girls account for 56% of victims in forced economic exploitation, such as domestic service, agricultural work, and manufacturing—and 98% of victims in forced commercial sexual exploitation.94 The vulnerability of women and girls is due to a number of factors in source, transit, and destination countries.95 Among women victims, while there is no single victim stereotype, the majority of trafficked women are under the age of 25, with many in their mid- to late teens. Victims of trafficking are also subject to higher rates of HIV/AIDS infection. In some cases, the fear of infection with HIV/AIDS among customers has driven traffickers to recruit younger women and girls, erroneously perceived by customers to be too young to have been infected. Many experts conclude that a country is more likely to become a source of human trafficking if it has recently experienced political upheaval, armed conflict, economic crisis, or natural disaster—phenomena that tend to have a disproportionate impact on women and children. The ILO has recently warned that there is likely to be a significant increase in trafficking for forced labor as a result of the increased poverty and unemployment brought on by the current global financial crisis.96 Even in the absence of a major crisis, inadequate legal recognition and protection, chauvinistic attitudes, and a lack of educational and job opportunities for women and girls in many source countries place them at-risk for trafficking.97 Such circumstances often intersect with other racial, ethnic, and class disparities to make poor and minority women and girls especially vulnerable to trafficking. Families in some of the most impoverished countries have sold their daughters to brothels or traffickers for the immediate payoff and to avoid having to pay their dowries in the future. In transit and destination countries, female migrant workers are often at risk of becoming trafficked because of their precarious economic and political status.

Related U.S. Activities The U.S. government supports several types of anti-trafficking in persons (anti-TIP) initiatives overseas, some of which may address violence against women and girls. U.S. antiTIP efforts are intended to combat a broad range of human trafficking forms and consequences—and there is no specific program or budget committed to combating trafficking of women and girls. U.S. anti- trafficking policy has long emphasized prevention, protection, and prosecution. As discussed below, prevention programs combine public awareness campaigns with education and employment opportunities for those at-risk of trafficking, particularly women and girls. Protection programs directly support shelters, as well as train local service providers, public officials, and religious groups to identify and protect trafficking victims. Some programs also improve the prosecution rates of traffickers

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

134

Luisa Blanchfield, Clare Ribando Seelke, Nina M. Serafino et al.

and help countries draft or amend existing anti-TIP laws and train law enforcement and judiciaries to enforce those laws. Many U.S. anti-TIP programs operate under the authority of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 or TVPA, as amended.98 In FY2008, the U.S. government obligated an estimated $75.9 million in anti-trafficking assistance to foreign governments. U.S. agencies and departments supported roughly 140 global and regional antitrafficking programs in 70 countries.99 This is down from $79 million in FY2007. The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005 (TVPRA), P.L. 109-164, authorized appropriations for anti-TIP programs in FY2006 and FY2007.100 The William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, P.L. 110-457, authorizes appropriations for FY2008 through FY20 11. The act, among other provisions, increases the technical assistance and other support to help foreign governments inspect locations where forced labor occurs, register vulnerable populations, and provide more protection to foreign migrant workers. Many U.S. anti-trafficking programs abroad are administered by the State Department, USAID, and the Department of Labor. Since 2001, the State Department has evaluated foreign governments‘ anti-TIP efforts in its annual Trafficking in Persons report, which is issued each June. In addition, the State Department PRM office funds programs focused on victim‘s assistance, return, and reintegration. The Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons (G-TIP) and the Bureau of Europe and Eurasian Affairs support prevention and public awareness campaigns, victim‘s assistance programs, and anti-TIP law enforcement programs. G-TIP and the Bureau of Education and Cultural Exchanges also sponsor TIPrelated research and exchange programs. USAID has supported prevention programs that include education and income generation for potential victims, protection programs, including training and support for local victim services providers, and anti-TIP training for police, prosecutors, and judges.101 In addition, the Department of Labor‘s Bureau of International Labor Affairs works to provide assistance to child victims of trafficking, support public awareness campaigns, and build capacity for governments and service providers that combat TIP. Moreover, the Department of Justice‘s International Criminal Training Assistance Program (ICITAP) and Office of Overseas Prosecutorial Development, Assistance, and Training (OPDAT) provide some anti-TIP training for law enforcement and judicial officials overseas.102

Legal and Political Rights Some experts maintain that to successfully address VAW on a global level, national governments and communities must strengthen the capacity of their political, legal, and law enforcement institutions. In some countries, for example, legal and political institutions may hinder rather than help women seeking information, assistance, and protection from violence. Many experts maintain that addressing possible weaknesses in these institutions is especially crucial in some developing countries where national government infrastructures may be weakened by poverty, corruption, or other factors. Some have increasingly advocated the value of providing women with education and training to prevent and address violence and gender discrimination in both public and private life.

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

International Violence Against Women: U.S. Response and Policy Issues

135

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Related U.S. Activities The U.S. government has supported programs that aim to strengthen the legal and political capacity of women in developing countries. Because of the cross-cutting nature of U.S. programs that address VAW, however, the number and cost of programs addressing its political, legal, and legislative aspects are difficult to quantify. In 2005, President Bush announced the creation of the Women‘s Justice and Empowerment Initiative (WJEI), a threeyear, $55 million program to improve legal rights for women in Benin, Kenya, South Africa, and Zambia.103 Some observers, however, were concerned that the Administration delayed or did not meet its funding obligations for WJEI.104 The Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI), which is implemented by the Department of State, has also focused some of its resources on VAW and women‘s empowerment. Specifically, it supported programs that provided training for judges and legal professionals on types of VAW, including honor killings and intimate partner violence.105 The State Department, USAID, and DOJ have supported other programs and activities that aim to strengthen the legal and political capacity of national governments. The State Department‘s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL), for example, funded initiatives in sub- Saharan Africa to support work on the rule of law, empowerment of women and youth, and democracy initiatives.106 The USAID Office of Women in Development (WID) supported the Women‘s Legal Rights Initiative (WLRI), which aimed to strengthen the capacity of women to work for greater economic and legal rights in Albania, Guatemala, Benin, South Africa, and Rwanda.107 A USAID WID program in Ethiopia also worked with community leaders to advocate the enforcement of laws that address harmful traditional practices such as bride abduction.108 Other reported U.S. activities include training specialists and advocates on how to effectively influence foreign governments to address VAW, and working with governments and NGOs in developing countries to draft legislation on women‘s rights. Moreover, the USAID Safe Schools program worked with partners at national, institutional, community, and individual levels to combat school-related gender-based violence.109

SELECTED INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES International organizations, particularly the United Nations and its specialized agencies, support myriad mechanisms and programs that address VAW in all parts of the world.

U.N. System Efforts110 In February 2009, an updated inventory of U.N. system anti-VAW activities identified 35 U.N. entities working to combat VAW on a global, national, or local level.111 Their activities range from large-scale interagency efforts to smaller grants and programs implemented by NGOs, national governments, or individual U.N. agencies. Agencies that work to combat VAW include the U.N. Development Program (UNDP), the U.N. Children‘s Fund (UNICEF), UNIFEM, WHO, ILO, the Joint U.N. Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), the U.N. Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC), the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA), and the U.N. High

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

136

Luisa Blanchfield, Clare Ribando Seelke, Nina M. Serafino et al.

Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). The U.N. Secretariat‘s Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) has also made efforts to address the problem of violence against women by U.N. peacekeepers. Many U.N. member states are parties to international conventions and agreements that address VAW and women‘s rights, including the U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), and the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress, and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children (Trafficking Protocol).112 U.N. member states have also demonstrated concern for VAW through World Conferences on Women and resolutions adopted by the U.N. Security Council. Between 1974 and 1995, for example, U.N. member states—including the United States—participated in four World Conferences on Women. The Fourth Conference, which was held in 1995 in Beijing, China, identified VAW as a human rights concern and an obstacle to the achievement of women‘s equality. In addition, U.N. Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security, adopted on October 31, 2000, highlights the need to protect women and girls from human rights abuses.113

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Other International Efforts U.N. system anti-VAW activities are part of a much larger international effort composed of many international actors. NGOs, international financial institutions, and intergovernmental and regional organizations such as the International Organization for Migration (IOM), World Bank, and European Union (EU) develop, fund, and implement antiVAW initiatives and programs at all levels of society.114 The World Bank, for example, supports pilot projects in Bolivia, Honduras, and Nicaragua to improve awareness of VAW in their health systems.115 The EU‘s Daphne II and Daphne III Programs, which complement existing EU member state efforts to combat VAW, support organizations that work to prevent or combat violence against children, young people, and women.116 In addition, regional organizations such as the Organization of American States (OAS) have adopted agreements that address violence against women. The OAS Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence Against Women, for example, entered into force on March 5, 1994, and declares that ―every woman has the right to be free from violence in both the public and private spheres.‖117 Parties to the Convention agree to condemn all forms of VAW and to pursue policies to prevent, punish and eradicate violence. The United States has not signed or ratified the Convention.

POLICY ISSUES FOR CONGRESS For more than a decade, Congress has demonstrated an ongoing interest in addressing international violence against women. It has passed legislation addressing specific types of VAW, such as human trafficking and FGC,118 and has adopted legislation addressing VAW in different regions and countries, particularly in Africa and Asia.119 In some cases, Congress has incorporated VAW components into legislation and programs addressing international

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

International Violence Against Women: U.S. Response and Policy Issues

137

HIV/AIDS prevention and foreign military and law enforcement training.120 Congress has also committed resources to the UNIFEM Trust Fund in Support of Actions to Eliminate Violence Against Women, an international mechanism that addresses violence against women. In addition, Congress has adopted resolutions expressing concern about VAW events in specific countries.121 The 110th Congress considered legislation addressing VAW on both a global and regional level. Enacted legislation ranged from resolutions denouncing types of VAW such as FGC, honor killings, and other forms of violence, to calling on the President and the international community to take immediate action on acts of sexual VAW and girls as a result of conflict in Sudan.122 Other proposed legislation included the reauthorization of anti-trafficking laws and bills addressing international violence against women.123 When considering United States and international efforts to address violence against women, Members of the 111th Congress may wish to take a number of issues into account.

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Scope, Effectiveness, and Funding of Current U.S. Programs Some experts argue that U.S. government programs and initiatives do not sufficiently address international violence against women. They maintain that current anti-VAW funding levels do not reflect the scope of the problem, and, further, that many of the programs in place are not adequately funded. Others argue that many U.S. anti-VAW programs are short in duration and often not renewed—making it a challenge for programs to have a substantive long-term impact. Some also suggest that when highlighting U.S. efforts to combat VAW, the U.S. government places too much emphasis on programs with VAW components, as opposed to programs solely addressing the issue. This may create the appearance that the U.S. government commits significant resources to addressing international VAW—when, according to some, the United States does not do enough. A 2006 USAID report on genderbased violence and HIV/AIDS, for example, identified 243 PEPFAR programs that incorporate gender-based violence components in FY2006.124 Many are concerned that these components did not constitute a substantial anti-VAW effort. Some also contend that U.S. anti-VAW initiatives that were promised, such as the Bush Administration‘s proposed Women‘s Justice Empowerment Initiative (WJEI), were not adequately funded or implemented.125

Integration into Foreign Assistance Programs and Additional Funding Some experts and policymakers question whether U.S. programs addressing VAW should be further integrated into U.S. foreign assistance programs. Supporters of increased integration maintain that, in addition to receiving attention as a stand-alone global health and human rights issue, VAW should be a component of broader U.S. foreign assistance efforts— including health services, development, human rights, foreign military training and law enforcement training, humanitarian assistance, and legal and political reform. They argue that

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

138

Luisa Blanchfield, Clare Ribando Seelke, Nina M. Serafino et al.

additional funding is needed to adequately coordinate government-wide efforts and fund current and future U.S. programs and activities.

Coordination among U.S. Agencies and Departments Some have expressed concern that the U.S. government does not adequately coordinate its antiVAW efforts. Many argue that in order to effectively combat VAW, the U.S. government should actively track its anti-VAW programs and establish mechanisms that will identify potential gaps and weaknesses in U.S. approaches. Some observers have reportedly found it difficult to assess the adequacy of U.S. efforts in this area because of the lack of antiVAW program data collection, coordination, and analysis. Some have proposed that the government establish a discrete office or coordinating body to address U.S. efforts to address violence against women. Such actions, they argue, may be a valuable tool for policymakers who wish to prevent the possible duplication of U.S. anti-VAW activities and more effectively disseminate best practices among and within U.S. government agencies.

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Collaboration with International Organizations Some experts contend that providing financial and technical support to international organizations that address VAW is a particularly effective use of U.S. resources. They maintain that such cooperation benefits the United States because it allows the U.S. government to share anti-VAWrelated costs and resources with other governments and organizations. Opponents argue that the U.S. government should focus on its own anti-VAW initiatives, and emphasize that U.N. activities addressing VAW, for example, may not always align with U.S. priorities. Were Congress to opt to use U.N. mechanisms to combat VAW, there are a number of programs and options that might be considered. The United Nations and its specialized agencies support a range of programs to eliminate violence against women. UNIFEM, for example, administers the U.N. Trust Fund in Support of Actions to Eliminate Discrimination Against Women, an interagency mechanism to fund and promote U.N. actions on violence against women. In recent years, some policymakers have recognized the Trust Fund as a possible tool for combating international violence against women.126 For a discussion of U.N. system programs and mechanisms that address VAW, see CRS Report RL345 18, United Nations System Efforts to Address Violence Against Women, by Luisa Blanchfield.

Possible Program Implementation Challenges Finding ways to address VAW is a significant and ongoing challenge for the U.S. government and the international community. There may be a number of oversight issues of interest to the 111th Congress.

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

International Violence Against Women: U.S. Response and Policy Issues

139

Infrastructure and Priorities Some governments, particularly those of developing countries, lack the political, legislative, and financial infrastructures to establish and maintain policies and programs to eliminate violence against women.127 A U.N. study on VAW, for example, found that 102 of the 192 U.N. member states lack domestic legal provisions addressing intimate partner violence. Such countries, which may face other challenges such as poverty, health epidemics, and political unrest, may not view combating VAW as a policy priority—either because they do not view it as a significant problem or lack the resources to address it. Moreover, in some cases, national governments may pass laws that support anti-VAW policies, but ineffective legal, political, or law enforcement infrastructures may hinder their ability to implement and enforce laws and provide the necessary support services to be effective.

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Most Effective Approaches? Some experts disagree on the most effective methods to address violence against women. This lack of consensus may pose a challenge for policymakers who determine funding levels for and implementation of anti-VAW programs. There is debate, for example, over where to draw the line between the need to protect women‘s rights and to preserve their freedom of choice.128 Moreover, in the past, some experts have disagreed on how to most effectively allocate scarce resources for anti-VAW programs. Some maintained that anti-VAW programs should focus on providing treatment services for VAW victims, while others contended that programs should focus on prevention and the root causes of violence. Many experts have concluded, however, that the most effective anti-VAW approaches address both prevention and treatment. Program Evaluation Local, national, and international governments and NGOs implement thousands of antiVAW programs annually, but few of these programs are evaluated for their effectiveness. Many antiVAW programs tend to be short in duration (one to two years) and have small budgets, which some fear may leave little time and financial resources for evaluations.129 Consequently, some argue, experts and policymakers may have difficulty gauging a program‘s effectiveness. Some believe that this may lead to scarce resources being allocated to programs with limited impact. In recent years, some analysts have increasingly recognized the importance of program evaluation, and are taking steps to improve data collection instruments, share existing best practices, and improve coordination among funding and implementing organizations. Some experts have advocated for program donors and members of the policy community to provide additional funding for program evaluations when funding anti-VAW projects and programs or providing technical assistance.130 Lack of Comparable Data Existing VAW research offers little in the way of comparative data.131 Many researchers use different sampling techniques, methodologies, and criteria for defining VAW and conducting surveys—which may lead to inconsistent and varied findings. The lack of comparable data may present a challenge to policymakers attempting to identify the scope of the problem and implement programs to address the issue. Some researchers and policymakers have recognized this and are actively working to streamline survey processes

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

140

Luisa Blanchfield, Clare Ribando Seelke, Nina M. Serafino et al.

and reporting procedures. Some have also called for the creation of comprehensive international indicators for violence against women.132

Current and Emerging Issues In the past three decades, the level and quality of research addressing VAW have increased as awareness of the problem has grown. This section highlights some current and emerging areas in VAW research, prevention, and treatment.

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

The Role of Men and Boys Research on VAW has evolved to include not only treatment and prevalence but also root causes. As a result, many experts and policymakers have increasingly focused on the role of men and boys in preventing violence against women. Some NGOs and governments have developed school curricula, services, and public awareness campaigns to educate boys and men on the negative consequences of violence against women. These efforts range from rehabilitating perpetrators through counseling to establishing curricula for young boys that challenge traditional notions of masculinity.133 Links to HIV/AIDS During the last decade, researchers and policymakers have increasingly explored the relationship between HIV/AIDS and violence against women.134 Studies have found that women in developing countries are disproportionately affected by HIV, with the United Nations estimating that two-thirds of new infections among people from 15 to 24 years old are among women.135 Global statistics indicate that women who are victims of violence are more likely to contract HIV than those who are not, leading some experts to conclude that there may be a correlation between rates of HIV in women and violence.136 Reportedly, women who experience or fear violence appear to be less likely to request or insist on using condoms during sexual encounters, increasing their risk of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. Women who are raped are also more susceptible to contracting HIV due to vaginal and anal tearing. Discrimination and Violence Some experts have linked VAW to discrimination. Many in the international community view violence as a form of discrimination against women and maintain that discrimination also causes violence.137 To successfully combat VAW, they contend, equal attention should be paid to the causes and impacts of female discrimination. Women who are discriminated against because of their sex may not receive a formal education or have access to healthcare. In many societies, women may not own property or have inheritance rights. Some analysts argue that these factors may contribute to an unequal power relationship between men and women—which in turn may lead to a cycle of violence. Possible Economic Impacts Some developed countries have undertaken studies to determine the economic costs of violence against women. Though the results vary because of differing methodologies, the

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

International Violence Against Women: U.S. Response and Policy Issues

141

studies generally found that the cost to society may be significant.138 Canadian researchers, for example, estimated that the cost of damage incurred by VAW in Canada is over $4 billion Canadian dollars.139 Most studies analyze both long-term and short-term cost variables such as treatment and services for women victims of violence (including healthcare and legal costs), and reduced employment and productivity levels because of violence against female employees. Some studies also address the economic impact of pain and suffering inflicted on women by violence, though estimating the costs of such intangibles can present a challenge to researchers.140 Moreover, many experts generally agree that because of VAW‘s complex and wide-ranging impact on society, it is likely that existing research underestimates the economic consequences of violence.

APPENDIX A. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES Selected Websites (U.S. Government, United Nations, NGOs) U.S. State Department—Office of Global Women‘s Issues http://www.state.gov/s/gwi/ USAID Interagency Gender Working Group, Gender-Based Violence Priority Area http://www.igwg.org/priorityareas/violence.htm World Health Organization, Gender-Based Violence http://www.who.int/gender/violence/en/

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

U.N. Division for the Advancement of Women, Violence Against Women http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/vaw/ U.N. Population Fund, Ending Violence Against Women http://www.unfpa.org/gender/violence.htm UNICEF, Gender-Based Violence http://www.unicef.org/emerg/index_33202.html Violence Against Women, Facts and Figures (UNIFEM) http://www.unifem.org/campaigns/vaw/facts_figures.php. End Violence Against Women (Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School for Public Health, Information and Knowledge for Optimal Health (INFO), and USAID) http://www.endvaw.org/ Human Rights Watch, Women‘s Rights http://www.hrw.org/women/

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

142

Luisa Blanchfield, Clare Ribando Seelke, Nina M. Serafino et al. Amnesty International, Stop Violence Against Women http://www.amnesty.org/en/campaigns/stop-violence-against-women Gender-Based Violence Prevention Network (Africa) http://www.preventgbvafrica.org/

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Selected Journal Articles and Studies Addressing Gender-Based Violence in the Latin American and Caribbean Region: A Critical Review of Interventions, World Bank Poverty Sector Unit Policy Research Working Paper # 3438, October 2004. ―Engaging Men in ‗Women‘s Issues:‘ Inclusive Approaches to Gender and Development,‖ Critical Half , Winter 2007, vol. 5, no. 1. Guedes, Alessandra, Addressing Gender-Based Violence From the Reproductive Health/HIV Sector—A Literature Review and Analysis, USAID Interagency Gender Working Group, May 2004, available at http://www.prb.org/pdf04/AddressGendrBasedViolence.pdf. Heise, Lori, Ellsberg, Mary, and Gottemoeller, Megan, ―Ending Violence Against Women ,‖Population Reports, series L, no. 11, Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health, Population Information Program, December 1999, available at http://www.infoforhealth.org/pr/l1 1/violence.pdf. ―Gender-Based Violence and Reproductive Health,‖ International Family Planning Perspectives, December 2004, vol. 30, no. 4. Programming to Address Violence Against Women: 10 Case Studies, UNFPA, 2007, available at http: //www. unfpa. org/ upload/ lib_ pub_ file/ 678_filename_vaw.pdf. Responding to Gender-Based Violence: A Focus on Policy Change, A Companion Guide, USAID, May 2006, available at http://www.policyproject.com/gbv/. Strategic Framework for the Prevention of and Response to Gender-Based Violence in Eastern, Southern and Central Africa, USAID and UNICEF publication, 2006, available at http: //www. unicef. org/ southafrica/resources_3553.html. The Safe Schools Program: A Qualitative Study to Examine School-Related Gender-Based Violence in Malawi, USAID publication, Center for Educational Research and Training and DevTech Systems Inc., available at http://devtechsys.com/services/activities/ documents/SafeSchoolsMalawi_PLAReport_January82008.pdf. Understanding the Issue: An Annotated Bibliography on GBV, USAID (prepared by the POLICY Project, May 2006, available at http://www.policyproject.com/gbv/Documents/ AnnotatedBibliography.pdf. Violence against Women and HIV/AIDS: Setting the Research Agenda, World Health Organization, Geneva, 2001, available at http://www.who.int/gender/violence/ VAWhiv.pdf.

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

International Violence Against Women: U.S. Response and Policy Issues

143

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

APPENDIX B. SELECTED U.S. AGENCIES AND OFFICES/BUREAUS THAT ADDRESS GLOBAL VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN Department of State Bureau of Population, Refugees and Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights Migration and Labor Bureau for International Narcotics and Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs Law Enforcement Affairs Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs Bureau of Education and Cultural Bureau of Political-Military Affairs Center of Excellence for Stability Global Office to Monitor and Combat Office of Global Women‘s Issues (previously Trafficking in Persons the Office of International Women‘s Issues) U.S. Agency for International Development Bureau for Global Health Bureau for Economic Growth, Agriculture and Trade —Office of HIV/AIDS —Office of Women in Development —Office of Population and Reproductive Health Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and Africa Bureau/Missions Humanitarian Assistance —Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance —Office of Transition Initiatives Asia and Near East Bureau/Missions Europe and Eurasia Bureau/Missions Latin America and the Caribbean Bureau/ Missions Department of Justice Criminal Division National Institute of Justice —International Criminal Investigative Training Assistance Program —Office of Overseas Prosecutorial Development, Assistance, and Training Department of Labor Bureau of International Labor Affairs —Office of Child Labor, Forced Labor, and Human Trafficking —Office of International Relations Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention —Division of Reproductive Health —Global AIDS Program

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

144

Luisa Blanchfield, Clare Ribando Seelke, Nina M. Serafino et al. Table (Continued)

—National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Division of Violence Prevention Department of Defense Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation

Center of Excellence in Disaster Management and Humanitarian Assistance

Defense Institute of International Legal Studies Department of Homeland Security Immigration and Customs Enforcement Peace Corps Some Peace Corps volunteer activities

Author Contact Information Luisa Blanchfield, Coordinator Analyst in International Relations [email protected], 7-0856

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Clare Ribando Seelke Specialist in Latin American Affairs [email protected], 7-5229 Nina M. Serafino Specialist in International Security Affairs [email protected], 7-7667 Rhoda Margesson Specialist in International Humanitarian Policy [email protected], 7-0425 Tiaji Salaam-Blyther Specialist in Global Health [email protected], 7-7677

End Notes 1

This report discusses U.S. efforts to address international VAW on a global level. It does not address VAW in particular regions or countries. For an overview of domestic efforts and programs to combat VAW, see CRS Report RL30871, Violence Against Women Act: History and Federal Funding, by Garrine P. Laney. 2 International efforts to address women‘s issues during this time focused primarily on achieving equal legal and political protection through legal reforms.

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

International Violence Against Women: U.S. Response and Policy Issues

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

3

145

For more information on the international movement to address VAW, see Overcoming Violence against Women and Girls: The International Campaign to Eradicate a Worldwide Problem, by Michael L. Penn and Rahel Nardos, Rowan & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., Lanham, MD, 2003. 4 For information on U.N. system anti-VAW efforts, see CRS Report RL34518, United Nations System Efforts to Address Violence Against Women, by Luisa Blanchfield. 5 U.N. document, A/RES/48/104, December 20, 1993. DEVAW was adopted without a vote at the 48 th Session of the U.N. General Assembly. 6 The term ―gender-based violence‖ is broader than VAW because it can include violence perpetrated against men and boys in addition to women and girls. 7 For further discussions on VAW definitions, see Ending Violence Against Women: A Challenge for Development and Humanitarian Work, by Francine Pickup, Oxfam GB, Information Press, Eynsham, 2001, pp. 11-14, and ―Defining and Measuring Violence Against Women: Background, Issues, and Recommendations,‖ by Patricia Tjaden, Expert Group Meeting of the U.N. Division for the Advancement of Women, April 11-14, 2005. 8 For further discussion, see U.N. document, A/61/122/Add. 1, In-depth Study on all Forms of Violence Against Women: Report of the Secretary-General, July 6, 2007, pp. 28-3 0, available at http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/vaw/ SGstudyvaw.htm. 9 For more information on VAW risk factors, see World Report on Violence and Health, edited by E.G. Krug et al., World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, October 3, 2002, pp. 96-100 and 157-161, at http://www.who.int/ violence_injury_prevention/violence/world_report/en/. 10 Eleanor Lyon, ―Welfare and Domestic Violence Against Women: Lessons from Research, National Online Resource Center on Violence Against Women, August 2002, pp. 49, 50. 11 U.N. document, A/61/122/Add. 1, July 6, 2007. 12 These findings resulted from a qualitative study in Ethiopia. For more information, see Unsafe Schools: A Literature Review of School-Related Gender-Based Violence in Developing Countries, Wellesley Centers for Research on Women (with the support of USAID), September 2003. 13 See, for example, U.N. document, A/61/122/Add. 1, In-depth Study on all Forms of Violence Against Women: Report of the Secretary-General, July 6, 2007, and Summary Report: WHO Multi-Country Study on Women’s Health and Domestic Violence Against Women, Initial Results on Prevalence, Health Outcomes and Women’s Responses, World Health Organization, 2005. 14 For further information on the functional health consequences of VAW, see ―Researching Violence Against Women: A Practical Guide for Researchers and Activists,‖ by Mary Ellsberg and Lori Heise, World Health Organization, 2005, pp. 18-24. 15 These data are based on 48 international population-based surveys conducted between 1982 and 1999. For more information, see World Report on Violence and Health, WHO, 2002, pp. 89-90. 16 Ibid. In Japan, for example, data indicated that women were less likely to have experienced physical or sexual abuse. Surveyed women with the greatest risk of violence were from rural areas in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Peru, and Tanzania. See Summary Report: WHO Multi-Country Study on Women’s Health and Domestic Violence Against Women, Initial Results on Prevalence, Health Outcomes and Women’s Responses, World Health Organization, 2005, pp. 5-7. 17 State of the Wold Population—2005, U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA), p. 67, available at http://www.unfpa.org/swp/ 2005/english/ch7/index.htm, and U.N. Violence Against Women Fact Sheet, February 2008, available at http://endviolence.un.org/docs/VAW.pdf. 18 See, for example, Amartyna Sen, ―Many Faces of Gender Inequality,‖ Frontline (India‘s National Magazine from the Publishers of The Hindu), vol. 18, issue 22, October 27-November 9, 2007, available at http://www.globalpolicy.org/ socecon/inequal/gender/2001/1 1sengender.pdf. 19 U.N. document, A/61/122/Add. 1, July 6, 2007, pp. 66-67. 20 ―Violence Against Women: A Statistical Overview, Challenges and Gaps in Data Collection and Methodology and Approaches for Overcoming Them,‖ by Sharmeen A. Farouk, Expert Group Meeting of the U.N. Division for the Advancement of Women, April 11-14, 2005. 21 See U.N. document, A/61/122/Add. 1, July 6, 2007, p. 44. 22 See Unsafe Schools: A Literature Review of School-Related Gender-Based Violence in Developing Countries, Wellesley Centers for Research on Women (with the support of U.S. Agency for International Development), September 2003. 23 Ibid. 24 Ibid. 25 Examples of random acts of VAW include isolated incidents such as a stranger attacking a woman because of her gender, or isolated acts of abuse within the family. An example of VAW as sustained abuse over time includes repeated physical and psychological abuse of a woman during the course of an intimate partner relationship, or a family relationship (i.e., father-daughter, mother-son, sister-brother). 26 Charlotte Watts, Cathy Zimmerman, ―Violence Against Women: Global Scope and Magnitude,‖ The Lancet, vol. 359, issue 9313, April 6, 2002, p. 1232. 27 Suspicions that a woman has been raped, is pregnant by a man other than her partner, or has had an extramarital or premarital affair may lead to such killings. 28 ―Culture of Discrimination: A Fact Sheet on Honor Killings,‖Amnesty International, July 25, 2005, available at http://www.amnestyusa.org/women/pdf/honorkillings.pdf. 29 As is the case with honor killings, it is difficult to estimate the incidences of dowry-related violence because many of the deaths are labeled as accidental. Though India has passed (and twice amended) a Dowry Prohibition Law, many say

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

146

Luisa Blanchfield, Clare Ribando Seelke, Nina M. Serafino et al.

that the problem continues. For more information, see page 91 of Ending Violence Against Women: A Challenge for Development and Humanitarian Work, by Francine Pickup, Oxfam GB, 2001. ―Eliminating Female Genital Mutilation: An Interagency Statement,‖ World Health Organization, 2008, p. 4, available at http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/publications/fgm/fgm_statement_2008.pdf. For more information, see CRS Report RS2 1923, Female Genital Mutilation (FGM): Background Information and Issues for Congress, by Tiaji Salaam-Blyther, Erin D. Williams, and Ruth Ellen Wasem, and CRS Report RS22810, Asylum Law and Female Genital Mutilation: Recent Developments, by Yule Kim. 31 Some have estimated that 163 million girls in developing countries between the ages of 10 and 19 will be married by their 20th birthday (excluding China). For more information, see ―International Women‘s Health Coalition Fact Sheet,‖ October 31, 2005, available at http://www.iwhc.org/docUploads/ChildMarriageFactsheet.pdf. 32 For more information, see ―A World Apart: The Disadvantage and Social Isolation of Married Adolescent Girls,‖ by Nicole Haberland, Erica Chong, Hillary Bracken, The Population Council, July 2004, p. 5. 33 Violence Against Women: A Priority Health Issue, July 1997, available at http://www.who.int/gender/violence/en/ v5.pdf. 34 See ―Taking A Stand Against Practices that Harm Women,‖ U.N. Population Fund, available at http://www.unfpa.org/gender/practices.htm; U.N. document EGM/DVGC/2006/EP.4, The Impact of Harmful Traditional Practices on the Girl Child, prepared by Berhane Ras-Work, U.N. Division for the Advancement of Women, September 2006; and ―Harmful Traditional and Cultural Practices Related to Violence Against Women and Successful Strategies to Eliminate Such Practices—Working with Men,‖ by Dr. Michael Flood, U.N. Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific Expert Group Meeting, April 26-27, 2006. 35 Both of these entities support offices that work to coordinate women‘s issues. The USAID Bureau for Economic Growth, Agriculture, and Trade includes the Office of Women in Development; see http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/ crosscutting_programs/wid/. Under the Bush Administration, the State Department Office of the Under Secretary for Democracy and Global Affairs included the Office of International Women‘s Issues. In March 2009, the Obama Administration established the Office of Global Women‘s Issues (GWI), which consolidated the Office of the Senior Advisor to the Secretary for Women‘s Empowerment and the Office of International Women‘s issues, both of which reported to the Undersecretary for Democracy and Global Affairs. GWI is led by an Ambassador-at-Large, Melanne Verveer, who reports directly to the Secretary of State. 36 DHS, for example, trains its asylum officers on gender issues. Trainees receive a 42-page lesson plan entitled ―Female Asylum Applicants and Gender-Related Claims.‖ The lesson addresses guidelines and policies for several VAW issues, including rape, FGC, domestic violence, and forced marriage. In addition, Peace Corps volunteers may be involved in violence prevention efforts related to domestic violence, trafficking, rape, and familial relations. The Peace Corps supports these activities in over 35 countries. 37 This number includes international anti-trafficking projects obligated in FY2006. The results are based on the first set of agency/departments submissions. Agencies and departments surveyed by CRS include DOS, USAID, DOL, DOJ, HHS, DOD, DHS, and Peace Corps. 38 These programs represent only a portion of U.S. programs addressing VAW overseas. CRS relied on U.S. agencies and departments to provide information on programs, and continues to receive input from agency representatives. This regional breakdown is based on the State Department regional guides, available at http://state.gov/countries. 39 This group was led by the State Department Office of International Women‘s Issues (now the Office of Global Women‘s Issues), and functioned mainly as an internal State/USAID information sharing mechanism. The group was created in April 2007 and met twice. It has no regular meeting schedule and it is unclear if it will continue under the Obama Administration. 40 More information the IGWG‘s gender-based violence activities is available at http://www.igwg.org/priorityareas/ violence.htm. 41 For more information on the Working Group, see The President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, Report on GenderBased Violence and HIV/AIDS, November 2006, available at http://www.state.gov/documents/ organization/76447.pdf. 42 Both SPOG and PITF are required by the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-3 86; Division A). For more information, see the ―Trafficking in Women and Girls‖ section. 43 Congressional Budget Justification, Foreign Operations, Fiscal Year 2010, Book I, Department of State, p. 74. According to the Administration, ―At home and abroad, President Obama will work to promote policies that seek to eradicate violence against women.‖ See http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/women/. 44 Ibid., 146. 45 For more information on these initiatives, see the sections on the ―George W. Bush Administration‖ and ―Legal and Political Rights.‖ For Obama Administration statements, see Congressional Budget Justification, Foreign Operations, Fiscal Year 2010, Book II, Department of State, pp. 198-199 (WJEI), and p. 472 (MEPI). 46 Executive Order, Establishing a White House Council on Women and Girls, signed by President Obama on March 11, 2009, and available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Executive-Order-Creating-the-White-HouseCouncil-on-Women-and-Girls/. 47 Department of State cable from the Secretary of State to all diplomatic and consular posts (unclassified 142614), ―Message from the Secretary—Taking Action on Violence Against Women,‖ October 7, 2007. 48 In some instances, the Bush Administration sought to address specific aspects of VAW through international organizations such as the United Nations. The Administration did not, however, request funding for U.N. mechanisms that address VAW, including the U.N. Trust Fund in Support of Actions to Eliminate Violence Against

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

30

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

International Violence Against Women: U.S. Response and Policy Issues

Women. From FY2005 to FY2008, Congress appropriated funding to the Trust Fund without an Administration request. For more information on PEPFAR activities related to VAW, see the ―Global Health‖ section. For information on WJEI and MEPI, see the ―Legal and Political Rights‖ section. For further information on the Sudan initiative, see the ―Humanitarian Assistance and Refugees‖ section. The Bush Administration also expressed support for international efforts to combat VAW, including an International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women (November 25), and 16 Days of Activities on Gender-Based Violence (November 25-December 10). 50 These U.S. activities are based on information shared with CRS by U.S. government entities. 51 It has been suggested that a woman‘s fear of experiencing violence at the hand of her sexual partner may make her less likely to discuss or request contraceptives. A study in Colombia found that women who suffered from intimate partner violence were more likely to have unintended pregnancies. See ―Relationship Between Intimate Partner Violence and Unintended Pregnancy: Analysis of a National Sample from Colombia,‖ International Family Planning Perspectives, vol. 30, no. 4, December 2004, pp. 165-173. 52 The prevalence of women who are killed by their families is unknown because in many cases their deaths are considered accidental or not reported. In addition, data on female deaths due to violence might be misreported because of indirect factors. A victim of rape might contract HIV/AIDS, for example, but in the event of her death, the cause would likely be attributed to AIDS rather than violence. 53 Obstetric fistula, a hole between the vagina and bladder or rectum through which urine or feces continually leaks, is often caused by prolonged labor. Fistula survivors are constantly soiled and can be paralyzed from nerve damage. The condition occurs mostly in Africa and Asia because of limited availability of birth attendants. For more information, see CRS Report RS2 1773, Reproductive Health Problems in the World: Obstetric Fistula: Background Information and Responses, by Tiaji Salaam-Blyther. 54 ―Researching Violence Against Women: A Practical Guide for Researchers and Activists,‖ by Mary Ellsberg and Lori Heise, World Health Organization, 2005, pp. 18-24. Also see ―Intimate Partner Violence Prevention Scientific Information: Consequences‖ from the Department of Health and Human Services website, available at http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/dvp/IPV/ipv-consequences.htm. 55 U.N. document, A/61/122/Add. 1, July 6, 2007, p. 48. This study was undertaken in Michigan, United States. 56 Ibid. 57 Lynne Stevens, ―A Practical Approach to Gender-Based Violence: A Programme Guide for Health Care Providers and Managers,‖ U.N. Population Fund, 2001, New York, p. 4. 58 The State Department Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM), for example, offers physical and psychological health services to some refugees and internally displaced persons. 59 See The President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, Report on Gender-Based Violence and HIV/AIDS, November 2006, available at http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/76447.pdf. 60 U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief 2009 Annual Report to Congress, available at http://www.pepfar.gov/documents/organization/113827.pdf. 61 For more information, see Addressing Gender-Based Violence Through USAID ’s Health Programs: A Guide for Health Sector Program Officers, USAID, Second Edition, September 2008, at http://www.igwg.org/pdf/ GBVGuide08_English.pdf. A list of USAID missions is available at http://www.usaid.gov/locations/ missiondirectory.html. 62 Egypt, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Guinea, Kenya, Mali, and Sudan have been identified for future support. The USAID FGC Strategy adopted by GH is available at http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/global_health/pop/techareas/fgc/ fgc_strategy.pdf. For more information on USAID efforts to combat FGC, see http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/ global_health/pop/techareas/fgc/. 63 For more information, see Addressing Gender-Based Violence Through USAID ’s Health Programs: A Guide for Health Sector Program Officers, USAID, Second Edition, September 2008, at http://www.igwg.org/pdf/ GBVGuide08_English.pdf. The USAID Fistula Care program is a five-year, $70 million initiative to strengthen the capacity of hospital centers to provide fistula repair, raise community awareness, and enhance research efforts to improve fistula services. For more information, see http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/global_health/mch/mh/news/ fistula_award07.html. 64 Some countries use MEASURE data to evaluate current health programs and interventions, assess reproductive health status, inform policy, and build national research capacity. CDC‘s Division of Reproductive Health is currently implementing MEASURE in Paraguay, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Georgia, and Jamaica. For more information, see http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/Surveys/SurveyTechAssist.htm. 65 The data are used to assess sexual violence patterns and identify areas for further research. 66 The CDC/NCIPC Division of Violence Prevention, for example, entered into a cooperative agreement with the WHO to launch a framework through pilot programs in three low and middle-income countries. For more information, see http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/dvp/international.htm. 67 PEP, as defined by the WHO, is a short-term antiretroviral treatment to reduce the likelihood of HIV infection after potential exposure, either occupationally or through sexual intercourse. For more information, see http://www.who.int/ hiv/topics/prophylaxis/en/. 68 Some programs also include couples counseling and HIV testing, as well as support for community and faith-based organizations to change social norms that perpetuate male violence against women. 69 Guidelines for Gender-Based Violence Intervention in Humanitarian Settings: Focus on Prevention of and Response to Sexual Violence in Emergencies, U.N. Interagency Standing Committee (IASC), September 2005. 49

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

147

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

148

Luisa Blanchfield, Clare Ribando Seelke, Nina M. Serafino et al.

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

70

Available data on the prevalence of such cases are unreliable because of constantly shifting populations, unstable circumstances in conflict zones, and social stigmas associated with rape. For a discussion of sexual violence and armed conflict, see briefing paper by Jeanne Ward and Mendy Marsh, ―Sexual Violence Against Women and Girls in War and its Aftermath: Realities, Responses, and Required Resources,‖ June 2006. 71 Care for refugees and internally displaced persons is needed in all phases of the refugee and displacement cycle— during conflict, during flight from conflict, in the country of asylum or location of displacement, and during repatriation and reintegration. Durable solutions usually involve one of three options: voluntary return, local integration, or resettlement. 72 Sexual Violence Against Refugees: Guidelines on Prevention and Response, UNHCR, 1995, available at http://www.unhcr.org/publ/PUBL/3b9cc26c4.pdf. 73 See U.N. documents: A/59/782, October 11, 2002, Investigation into Sexual Exploitation of Refugees by Aid Workers in West Africa, and A/60/861, May 24, 2006, Special Measures for Protection from Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse. 74 In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the International Committee for the Red Cross provide support to victims of sexual violence perpetrated by armed groups. 75 FY2006 PRM funding for Prevention and Response to Gender-Based Violence, and CRS discussions with PRM, October 2007. Also see Department of State, Migration and Refugee Assistance, Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance, FY2009, Congressional Presentation Document. 76 Ibid. 77 In FY2006, for example, PRM supported a program in Thailand that worked to improve community-based services addressing gender-based violence among refugees in the Mae Hong Song province (FY2006 funding: $283,501). PRM also supported a sexual abuse and exploitation prevention program in Liberia (FY2006 funding: $167,156) and a program in Tanzania that provides legal, medical, counseling, and other services to gender-based violence survivors (FY2006 funding: $103,668). Both of these programs were funded under the Migration and Refugee Assistance (MR) account. 78 For more information, see CRS Report RL33769, International Crises and Disasters: U.S. Humanitarian Assistance, Budget Trends, and Issues for Congress, by Rhoda Margesson. 79 See also USAID‘s ―Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) and Protection Programs,‖ Fact Sheet #1, FY2007, November 2006 80 In FY2006, PRM funded approximately $4.4 million in VAW-related projects, representing approximately 23% of all PRM projects. In FY2007, PRM provided $5.3 million to support anti-VAW activities, constituting 27.5% of all PRM projects. According to the Obama Administration, ―it is likely that a greater percentage of PRM-supported assistance programs address gender-based violence that we are currently able to calculate.‖ (Congressional Budget Justification, Foreign Operations, Fiscal Year 2010, Book I, Department of State, p. 291.) 81 For more information on Afghan Refugees, see CRS Report RL33851, Afghan Refugees: Current Status and Future Prospects, by Rhoda Margesson. 82 For more information, see CRS Report RL33936, Iraqi Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons: A Deepening Humanitarian Crisis? coordinated by Rhoda Margesson. 83 USAID OTI leads this initiative to enhance the safety and basic rights of vulnerable civilians, particularly women, affected by conflict in Darfur. According to USAID, this initiative works to minimize women‘s exposure to violence, monitor and document violence, and increase access to victim services. For more information, see http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/cross-cutting_programs/transition_initiatives/country/ sudan/fact0107.html. 84 ―Fighting Sexual Exploitation and Abuse by U.N. Peacekeepers,‖ by Jonas Hagen, U.N. Chronicle, December 13, 2006, available at http://www.un.org/Pubs/chronicle/2006/webArticles/121306_unp.htm. 85 Letter dated March 24, 2005, from the Secretary-General to the President of the General Assembly. U.N. document A/59/710, March 24, 2005. For more information on U.N. peacekeeping, see CRS Report RL33700, United Nations Peacekeeping: Issues for Congress, by Marjorie Ann Browne. 86 According to the State Department, GPOI aims to train some 75,000 foreign troops in peacekeeping skills by the end of 2010. The program is funded through the State Department‘s Peacekeeping account (PKO) and is administered by the State Department Bureau of African Affairs (the Sub-Saharan Africa component). Some 96% of the more than 28,000 troops trained through March 2007 were from African nations, and the program is attempting to diversify by incorporating troops from other areas. For more information, see http://www.state.gov/t/pm/ppa/gpoiteam/gpoi/. 87 The Center for Excellence for Police Stability Units (CoESPU) in Italy—which receives GPOI funding and currently has a U.S. military officer as its Deputy Director—also reports an hour of SEA content in its five and six week programs for civilian police trainers. 88 CoE-DMHA offers several education and training programs designed to promote effective civil-military management in international humanitarian assistance, disaster response, and peacekeeping. More information is available at http://www.coe-dmha.org/. 89 DIILS also incorporates gender-based violence issues in mobile courses, and has addressed VAW in occasional special courses prepared on request for foreign militaries. The Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, a DOD school which provides professional education and training for civilian, military, and law enforcement students from nations in the Western Hemisphere, also addresses issues related to VAW in its human rights course. 90 These seminars, held in Kinshasa and eight interior locations, were attended by investigators and magistrates of the DRC armed forces‘ military justice system. For 2009 and 2010, DIILS plans to include one to two hours of instruction related to sexual violence in seminars for operational commanders and staff officers of the DRC armed forces. CRS email correspondence with DIILS, January 27, 2009.

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

International Violence Against Women: U.S. Response and Policy Issues

Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2006, Section 573, ―Programs funded under titles II and III of this Act that provide training for foreign police, judicial, and military officials, shall include, where appropriate, programs and activities that address gender-based violence,‖ (P.L. 109-102; 119 Stat. 229; November 14, 2005). 92 See Division J, Section 660 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, which states, ―Programs funded under titles III and IV of this Act that provide training for foreign policy, judicial, and military officials, shall include, where appropriate, programs and activities that address gender-based violence‖ (P.L. 110-161; 121 Stat. 1844; December 26, 2007). Also see Division H, Sec. 7063 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, for similar language (P.L. 1118; 123 Stat. 899; March 11. 2009). 93 UNODC and the United Nations Global Initiative to Fight Human Trafficking (UNGIFT), Global Report on Trafficking in Persons, February 2009. 94 The State Department estimates that some 800,000 people are trafficked across borders each year, and that millions more are trafficked within their own countries; see http://www.state.gov/g/tip/c16467.htm. The International Labor Organization (ILO) estimates that there are some 12.3 million victims of forced labor at any given time. For more information, see A Global Alliance Against Forced Labor, ILO, 2005. 95 In Latin America, for example, research indicates that children tend to be trafficked within their own countries, while women between the ages of 18 and 30 are often trafficked internationally, sometimes with the consent of their husbands or other family members. See Laura Langberg, ―A Review of Recent OAS Research on Human Trafficking in the Latin American and Caribbean Region,‖ in Data and Research on Human Trafficking: A Global Survey, International Organization for Migration (IOM), 2005. 96 The Cost of Coercion, ILO, May 2009; see http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/—ed_norm/— relconf/documents/meetingdocument/wcms_106230.pdf. 97 U.S. Department of State, Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons, ―Fact Sheet: Gender Imbalances in Human Trafficking,‖ June 15, 2009. 98 For more information, see CRS Report RL343 17, Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress, by Liana Sun Wyler, Alison Siskin, and Clare Ribando Seelke. 99 The U.S. Trafficking in Persons Report 2009 is available at http://www.state.gov/g/tip/rls/tiprpt/2009/. A list of U.S. antiTIP project obligated in FY2008 is available at http://www.state.gov/g/tip/rls/reports/ 2009/121506.htm. 100 P.L. 109-164 (January 10, 2002; 22 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.). 101 Between FY2001 and FY2007, USAID provided over $100 million for anti-TIP programs; see http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/cross-cutting_programs/trafficking. 102 ICITAP and OPDAT are part of the DOJ Criminal Division. ICITAP aims to build the capacity of foreign government law enforcement service. For more information, see http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/icitap/. OPDAT provides technical and developmental assistance for foreign justice sector institutions and their law enforcement personnel. More information available at http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/opdat/. In past years, both ICITAP and OPDAT have also addressed other aspects of VAW, including domestic violence and sexual violence against women. 103 More information on WJEI is available at http://www.state.gov/p/af/rt/wjei/. 104 The Obama Administration has expressed its support for WJEI. For FY2010, it requested $7.310 million for the initiative, compared with an actual funding level of $4 million in FY2009 and $4.960 million in FY2008. The Administration stated that FY2010 resources ―are expected to result in increased availability of services to [GBV] victims and a great number of victims who receive critical care, as well as increased awareness of GBV in communities.‖ (Congressional Budget Justification, Foreign Operations, Fiscal Year 2010, Book II, Department of State, p.198.) 105 MEPI, which was introduced as a presidential initiative in 2002, works to promote democracy in the Middle East by funding NGOs, businesses, and universities working toward democratic reform. For FY2010, President Obama requested $86 million for the initiative (Congressional Budget Justification, Foreign Operations, Fiscal Year 2010, Book II, Department of State, p. 472.) More information is available at http://mepi.state.gov/. 106 The grants are administered through the State Department Human Rights Democracy Fund (HRDF) National Endowment for Democracy (NED). HRDF supports programming to build democratic principles and institutions and promote human rights worldwide. In past years, DRL and HRDF funded FGC awareness and prevention projects in Africa. More information is available at http://www.state.gov/g/drl/p/. 107 The WRLI project has closed, and the final report is available at http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/crosscutting_programs/wid/dg/wlr_report.html. 108 The USAID WID office is collaborating with CARE on a three-year project to raise awareness of bride abduction. The program intends work with local leaders to advocate the enforcement of laws that reduce early marriage and bride abduction. 109 The Safe Schools program is a five-year project piloted in Ghana and Malawi. It is funded by the USAID Office of Women in Development. It began in September 2003 and will close in September 2008. For more information, see http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/cross-cutting_programs/wid/ed/safeschools.html and http://www.igwg.org/articles/ safeschools.htm. 110 The U.N. efforts listed in this section represent only a selection of U.N. system agencies, activities, and agreements that address violence against women. Also see U.N. document A/61/122/Add. 1, July 6, 2006, and Preventing and Eliminating Violence Against Women: An Inventory of United Nations System Activities On Violence Against Women, July 2007. 111 See Preventing and Eliminating Violence Against Women: An Inventory of United Nations System Activities On Violence Against Women, updated in February 2009, available at http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/vaw/v91

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

149

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

150

Luisa Blanchfield, Clare Ribando Seelke, Nina M. Serafino et al.

inventory.htm. The July 2006 inventory, which identified 32 U.N. entities, is U.N. document, A/61/122/Add.1, July 6, 2006, p. 20. The U.S. government ratified the Trafficking Protocol in December 2005, but has not ratified CEDAW or CRC because of concerns over U.S. sovereignty. 113 On June 19, 2008, members of the U.N. Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1820 as a follow-up to Resolution 1325. Resolution 1820 ―demands the immediate and complete cessation by all parties to armed conflict in all acts of sexual violence against civilians with immediate effect.‖ See U.N. document, S/RES/1820 (2008). For more information on U.N. efforts to address violence against women, see CRS Report RL34518, United Nations System Efforts to Address Violence Against Women, by Luisa Blanchfield. 114 IOM has worked with international partners on a variety of VAW-related issues. It has, for example, conducted a study on GBV faced by female migrant workers. For more information on this study, see http://www.iom.int.vn/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=83&Itemid=143. It has also supported activities that address HIV/AIDS and GBV in countries such as Zimbabwe. For more information, see http://iom.org.za/site/index.php? option=com_content&task=view&id=63&Itemid=68. 115 The World Bank also provided Uruguay with a $300,000 grant to combat domestic violence through legal and legislative reform. For more information on World Bank efforts to combat VAW, see U.N. document A/61/122/Add. 1, July 6, 2006, and Preventing and Eliminating Violence Against Women: An Inventory of United Nations System Activities On Violence Against Women, July 2007, p. 78. 116 The EU‘s Daphne II and Daphne III programs run from 2002 to 2008, and 2007 to 2013, respectively. The Daphne II program receives approximately 50 million euros in overall funding (about $74 million U.S. dollars). For more information on these activities, see http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/gender_equality/ gender_mainstreaming/violence/domestic_violence_en.html. 117 Thirty-two OAS member states have adopted or ratified the Convention. The United States, which is an OAS member, has not signed or ratified the treaty. For more information, see http://www.oas.org/cim/English/ Convention%20Violence%20Against%20Women.htm. 118 In 2000, for example, Congress passed the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, or TVPA, as amended, which addressed human trafficking (P.L. 106-386). In addition, Congress criminalized the practice of FGM in §645 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-208; 18 U.S.C. §116; September 30, 1996). The conference report accompanying the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2001 (P.L. 106-429; November 11, 2000), contained language requiring the Department of State to compile statistics on FGM. See 106th Congress, Report 106-997, 2d session, October 24, 2000. 119 For example, the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2006, requires that funds ―should be made available for programs in sub-Saharan Africa to address sexual and gender-based violence‖ (P.L. 109-102; 119 Stat. 2177; September 30, 2006). Section 576(b) of the same Act requires that ―not less than $1,500,000 should be made available for ... crimes of violence specifically targeting women ... in Guatemala‖ (119 Stat. 2231). 120 See United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003, (P.L. 108-25; 22 U.S.C. 7601 et seq.; May 27, 2003). Also see Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2006,which states that the U.S. military, where appropriate, shall incorporate GBV training into its programs and activities (P.L. 109-102; Section 573, 119 Stat. 2229; November 14, 2005). 121 H.Res. 100 (1 10th), for example, expresses sympathy to the families of women and girls murdered in Guatemala and encourages the government of Guatemala to bring an end to crimes against women. The House passed the resolution on October 9, 2007. S.Res. 178 also expresses the sympathy of the Senate to the families of women and girls murdered in Guatemala. The resolution was agreed to by unanimous consent on March 10, 2008. 122 H.Res. 32 (1 10th) expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that the President and fellow donor countries promote the rights, health, and empowerment of women. It was passed on May 1, 2007. H.Res. 726, (1 10th) calls on the President and the International Community to ―respond to and Prevent Acts of Rape and Sexual Violence against women and girls in Darfur, Sudan, eastern Chad, and the Central African Republic.‖ The House passed the resolution on October 10, 2007. 123 See H.R. 3887, the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2007, passed by the House on December 4, 2007, by a vote of 405-2; S. 2279, the International Violence Against Women Act of 2007; and H.R. 5927, the International Violence Against Women Act of 2008. 124 The President‘s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief Report on Gender-Based Violence and HIV/AIDS, November 2006. 125 For more information, see statements by Human Rights Watch and the Global Aids Alliance, at http://hrw.org/ reports/2007/zambia1207/9.htm and http://aidsalliance.3cdn.net/f80a03c5b9ee9c3bcb_fhm6b5zvf.doc, respectively. 126 In FY2006, Congress appropriated $ 1.485 million to the Trust Fund. In FY2007, Congress appropriated $ 1.485 million, in FY2008 it appropriated $1.785 million, and in FY2009 it appropriated $2.5 million. 127 U.N. document, A/61/122/Add. 1, July 6, 2007, p. 23. 128 Drawn from U.N. document, A/61/122/Add. 1, July 6, 2007, p. 24, paragraph 59. 129 Small program budgets may also not allow for collection of baseline data that is needed for comparative purposes. Furthermore, there is no generic evaluation method for VAW programs. Some experts maintain that programs addressing specific types of violence should have their own context, and therefore be evaluated using different criteria. 130 Presentation by Mary Ellsberg, PATH, ―Overview of Evaluation and GBV,‖ Promising Practices in Monitoring and Evaluation of Gender-Based Violence Event, National Press Club, Washington DC, November 8, 2007.

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

112

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

International Violence Against Women: U.S. Response and Policy Issues

151

Andrew Morrison, Mary Ellsberg, Sarah Bott, ―Addressing Gender-Based Violence: A Critical Review of Interventions,‖ The World Bank Research Observer, Oxford University Press, May 7, 2007 p. 25. See ―Violence against Women: A Statistical Overview, Challenges and Gaps in Data Collection and Methodology and Approaches for Overcoming Them,‖ a publication of the Economic Commission for Europe, WHO, and the U.N. Division for the Advancement of Women, April 2005, available at http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/egm/vawstat2005/index.html. 133 For more information on the role of men and boys in preventing and eliminating VAW, see ―Men‘s Role in GenderBased Violence Fact Sheet,‖ distributed by the Pan American Health Organization. Also see (1) an article by Michael Flood, ―Involving Men in Gender Policy and Practice,‖ Critical Half, Winter 2007, vol. 5, no. 1, and (2) ―The Role of Men and Boys in Achieving Gender Equality,‖ expert group meeting, list of documents, October 21-24, 2003, available at http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/egm/men-boys2003/documents.html. 134 The President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, Report on Gender-Based Violence and HIV/AIDS, November 2006, available at http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/76447.pdf. 135 In FY2005, for example, 60% of the people receiving antiretroviral treatment through the U.S. PEPFAR initiative were women. For further information on the relationship between VAW and HIV/AIDS, see UNAIDS Backgrounder at http://data.unaids.org/GCWA/GCWA_BG_Violence_en.pdf. 136 Addressing Violence Against Women and Achieving the Millennium Development Goals, WHO, 2005, p. 20. 137 See U.N. document, A/61/122/Add. 1, July 6, 2007, p. 14. 138 For further information on the possible socio-economic costs of VAW, see ―Preventing and Responding to GenderBased Violence in Middle and Low-Income Countries: A Global Review and Analysis,‖ by Sarah Bott, Andrew Morrison, and Mary Ellsburg, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 2318, June 2005, p. 12. 139 Lorraine Greaves et al., ―Selected Estimates of the Costs of Violence Against Women,‖ Center for Research on Violence Against Women and Children, London, Ontario, 1995, available at http://www.crvawc.ca/docs/ pub_greaves1995.pdf. A March 2003 HHS study estimated that the cost of intimate partner violence in the United States exceeds $5.8 billion per year, including $4.1 billion for direct medical and mental health services; $.9 billion in lost work productivity; and $.9 billion lost in lifetime earnings by victims of intimate partner violence homicide. The U.S. study was completed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and funded by Congress. The study is available at http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/ipv_cost/IPVBook-Final-Feb18.pdf. 140 For a list of studies on the economic and social costs of VAW, see the Annex (pp. 133-138) of U.N. document, A/61/122/Add. 1, July 6, 2007. 131

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

132

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved. International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

INDEX

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

A accountability, 10 achievement, 79, 132 Activists, 142, 144 adaptation, 107 administrators, 121 advisory body, 124 advocacy, 9, 10, 76, 83, 85 affirming, 79 Afghanistan, 38, 109 Africa, 20, 86, 89, 121, 122, 123, 128, 131, 133, 138, 139, 140, 144, 146, 147 age, 9, 20, 29, 46, 88, 121, 129 AIDS, 47, 58, 86, 125, 126, 129, 140, 144, 148 Albania, 38, 65, 66, 109, 131 alcohol, 125 Algeria, 38, 40, 109, 112 alienation, 99 ambiguity, 53 Angola, 38, 109 anxiety, 8 Argentina, 38, 94, 109 armed conflict, 80, 81, 84, 120, 126, 129, 145, 147 armed forces, 8, 128, 146 Armenia, 34, 38, 94, 109, 113 Asia, 49, 128, 133, 140, 143, 144 Asian countries, 122 assault, 7 assessment, 54, 55, 113 asylum, iv, v, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 143, 145 atrocities, 8, 37, 99 attacks, 8 attitudes, viii, 101, 117, 119, 129 Attorney General, v, 2, 13, 25, 26, 27, 30, 41, 112 Australia, 38, 77, 109, 113 Austria, 38, 77, 109, 114

authority, 25, 36, 45, 51, 52, 56, 57, 68, 98, 99, 102, 104, 121, 130 availability, 29, 47, 144, 146 awareness, 76, 77, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 88, 126, 127, 128, 132, 136, 145, 146, 147 Azerbaijan, 38, 65, 66, 94, 109

B background, v, viii, 14, 32, 92, 93 Bahrain, 33, 38, 109, 114, 115 Bangladesh, 38, 40, 109, 112, 122, 142 Barbados, 38, 109 barriers, 99 basic needs, 84 basic services, 56, 69, 85 behavior, 7, 58, 120 Beijing, 51, 57, 58, 59, 79, 82, 88, 132 Belarus, 35, 38, 97, 101, 109 Belgium, 33, 38, 109 beliefs, 4, 27 Bhutan, 34, 38, 94, 109 binding, 33, 70, 75, 93, 94, 119 birth, 57, 88, 103, 144 birth control, 103 bladder, 144 bleeding, 21 blood, 70 blood flow, 70 Bolivia, 38, 109, 132 border security, 80 Bosnia, 38, 109, 128 Botswana, 38, 58, 109 boys, 7, 77, 87, 107, 136, 142, 148 Brazil, 38, 40, 99, 109, 112 breakdown, 143 Bulgaria, 38, 109 Burkina Faso, 38, 88, 102, 109

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

154

Index

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

C Cambodia, 38, 77, 109, 128 Cameroon, 34, 38, 77, 94, 109 campaigns, 77, 84, 130, 136, 138 Canada, 33, 38, 100, 109, 114, 137 capacity building, 84 caregivers, 101 Caribbean, 139, 140, 146 case law, 4, 18, 19, 20, 23, 27 catalyst, 46 Catholics, 59, 71 causality, 18 cauterization, 29 Central African Republic, 38, 109, 148 Central Asia, 123 Chad, 38, 109, 127, 148 child labor, 70, 86 children, 7, 8, 10, 14, 27, 29, 46, 47, 55, 64, 65, 80, 84, 85, 86, 88, 101, 102, 103, 106, 107, 114, 126, 129, 132, 146 Chile, 38, 88, 109 China, vi, 25, 35, 37, 38, 40, 44, 45, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 88, 92, 97, 101, 107, 109, 112, 132, 143 circumcision, 20, 33, 94, 122 City, 45, 50, 51, 52, 54, 70, 88 civil servants, 83 civil society, 77, 83, 99 classes, viii, 117, 119 codes, 119 coercion, 51, 54, 55, 60, 75, 101, 119, 125, 126 collaboration, 82, 113 Colombia, 38, 99, 102, 103, 109, 113, 144 communication, 45 community, iv, viii, 7, 8, 9, 10, 117, 118, 119, 122, 126, 127, 131, 133, 135, 136, 145 community-based services, 145 compassion, 10 compensation, 55 competence, 33, 94 complement, 132 compliance, 79, 99, 100, 103 complications, 47, 125 components, iv, vi, viii, 58, 72, 73, 86, 117, 118, 123, 124, 128, 133 computerization, 111 concrete, 16 confinement, 105, 116 conflict, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 35, 53, 73, 78, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 97, 100, 120, 126, 127, 133, 145 conflict resolution, 81

congressional hearings, 71 consensus, 80, 135 consent, v, vii, 31, 34, 35, 41, 73, 75, 79, 80, 91, 92, 95, 96, 97, 98, 105, 106, 115, 146, 147 Constitution, 34, 37, 41, 96, 98, 102 constitutional law, 37, 98 construction, 19 contraceptives, 56, 69, 105, 144 control, 3, 7, 8, 22, 51, 54, 57, 104 Cook Islands, 38, 109 correlation, 136 corruption, 131 Costa Rica, 38, 109, 113 costs, 47, 74, 134, 137, 148 counseling, 47, 57, 85, 105, 128, 136, 145 country of origin, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30 couples, 145 Court of Appeals, v, 12, 53 covering, 29, 33, 57, 94 credibility, 37, 100 crime, 81, 103, 119 criminals, 80 criticism, 39 Croatia, 38, 40, 109, 112 Cuba, 38, 40, 109, 112 cultural imperialism, 41, 114 cultural norms, 119 cultural stereotypes, viii, 117, 119 cultural tradition, 122 culture, 115, 122 curricula, 107, 128, 136 curriculum, 116 customers, 129 Cyprus, 38, 109 Czech Republic, 39, 58, 109, 114

D danger, 103 data collection, 46, 47, 51, 57, 76, 83, 126, 134, 135 database, 87, 89 death, 8, 16, 120, 122, 125, 144 deaths, 143, 144 decision-making process, 33, 94 decisions, vi, 25, 55, 57, 72, 73, 75, 98, 113 deduction, 53 defense, 13, 14, 129 definition, viii, 14, 18, 27, 28, 75, 76, 92, 107, 119 delivery, 46, 47, 57 democracy, 118, 131, 146 Democratic Republic of Congo, 128 Denmark, 39, 48, 77, 88, 94, 109, 114

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

155

Index

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Department of Defense, 128, 141 Department of Health and Human Services, 140, 144 Department of Homeland Security, 16, 17, 19, 123, 141 Department of Justice, 16, 17, 41, 112, 130, 140 deprivation, 75, 107, 119 detention, 121 developed countries, viii, 117, 120, 137 developing countries, viii, 64, 99, 117, 120, 121, 131, 135, 136, 143 deviation, 4, 23 disability, 88 disaster, 84, 126, 128, 129, 146 discomfort, 26 discrimination, v, vii, viii, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 46, 79, 89, 91, 92, 93, 95, 97, 98, 99, 100, 102, 105, 107, 108, 112, 116, 131, 136 displaced persons, 7, 144, 145 displacement, 6, 7, 11, 89, 127, 145 disseminate, 84, 134 distribution, 33, 86, 94 diversity, 101 domestic laws, 99, 101, 103 domestic violence, 9, 82, 84, 127, 143, 146, 147 dominance, 2, 21 Dominican Republic, 39, 109 donations, 47, 50 donors, vi, 9, 44, 45, 47, 49, 77, 135 draft, 130, 131 drugs, 125 duplication, 74, 134 duration, 133, 135

E earnings, 148 East Asia, 123, 140 East Timor, 7, 128 economic crisis, 129 Ecuador, 33, 39, 90, 109, 121, 145 Education, 107, 130, 140 Egypt, 39, 40, 100, 109, 112, 126, 144 El Salvador, 33, 39, 109 elderly, 46, 121 election, vii, 91 employees, 137 employment, v, vii, 31, 32, 79, 86, 91, 93, 112, 130, 137, 147 empowerment, 46, 49, 131, 147 encouragement, 10 energy, 127 engagement, 59 enrollment rates, 120, 121

environment, 7 epidemic, 124 equality, 32, 33, 36, 40, 79, 93, 94, 100, 105, 112, 116, 132, 147 Equatorial Guinea, 39, 109 Eritrea, 39, 109, 144 estimating, 136, 137 Estonia, 39, 109 ethnic groups, 13 ethnicity, 7, 21 EU, 132, 147 Eurasia, 123, 140 Europe, 123, 130, 140, 148 European Union, 132 examinations, 58, 107 excision, 29 exclusion, 32, 59, 93, 108, 116 Executive Order, 144 exercise, 18, 32, 93, 116 expenditures, 49, 53 expertise, 9, 100 exploitation, 2, 7, 8, 21, 80, 81, 82, 89, 107, 126, 127, 128, 129, 145 exposure, 7, 126, 127, 145

F fabric, 7 faith, 145 family, v, vi, vii, 7, 8, 25, 32, 33, 34, 36, 39, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 85, 89, 91, 93, 94, 97, 98, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 107, 115, 116, 121, 122, 125, 127, 143, 146 family life, 107 family members, 8, 122, 125, 146 family planning, v, vi, 32, 34, 36, 39, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 85, 97, 98, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 116 fantasy, 27 fear, iv, v, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 105, 107, 113, 120, 127, 129, 135, 136, 144 federal courts, iv, 1, 12, 14, 17, 18 federal role, 34, 97 females, 7 fertility, 46 Fiji, 39, 88, 109 financial crisis, 129 financial resources, 87, 135 financial support, 45, 77, 120 financing, 46

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

156

Index

Finland, 39, 77, 109, 114 flight, 145 focusing, 25, 46, 51, 57 food, 7, 49, 56, 121 food production, 49 foreign aid, viii, 44, 50, 70, 117 foreign assistance, 9, 52, 74, 100, 119, 134 foreign policy, viii, 10, 45, 92, 93, 114, 118, 124, 146 formal education, 136 fractures, 120 France, 39, 40, 100, 109, 112, 114 freedom, 14, 15, 24, 27, 32, 34, 93, 97, 122, 135 freedom of choice, 135 frustration, 127 funding, vi, 44, 45, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 70, 77, 78, 89, 103, 123, 124, 125, 129, 131, 133, 134, 135, 144, 145, 146, 147 funds, v, vi, vii, viii, 10, 43, 44, 45, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 78, 87, 89, 117, 118, 125, 130, 147

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

G Gabon, 39, 109 gate-keeping, 4 gender, 3, 4, 7, 19, 20, 23, 29, 39, 46, 47, 49, 58, 75, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 99, 100, 101, 102, 107, 119, 121, 123, 125, 127, 128, 131, 133, 138, 139, 142, 143, 145, 146, 147 gender equality, 47, 82, 87, 127 gender equity, 49 gender gap, 46 gender role, 101 gender-sensitive, 47, 58, 88 generation, 130 genocide, 7, 81 Georgia, 38, 65, 66, 109, 113, 145 Germany, 34, 38, 40, 94, 109, 112 girls, vii, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 20, 46, 48, 73, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 87, 93, 104, 107, 120, 122, 124, 125, 126, 127, 129, 132, 133, 142, 143, 147, 148 goals, 46, 124 grassroots, 46, 118 gravity, 21 Great Britain, 77 Greece, 38, 103, 109 Grenada, 38, 109 group identity, 122 groups, 7, 8, 10, 13, 17, 19, 32, 36, 51, 58, 77, 88, 95, 104, 130, 145, 146

growth, 45, 49 Guangdong, 58 guardian, 80, 85 Guatemala, 34, 38, 94, 109, 131, 147 guidance, 19, 83 guidelines, 9, 37, 83, 84, 85, 89, 143 Guinea, 30, 34, 38, 94, 109, 126, 144 Guyana, 38, 109

H Haiti, 34, 38, 65, 66, 94, 109 hands, 121 harassment, 15, 120, 121 harm, iv, 3, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 75, 119 Hawaii, 40 health, iv, v, vi, viii, 8, 10, 29, 34, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 72, 73, 85, 86, 87, 92, 97, 102, 103, 105, 117, 118, 120, 125, 126, 127, 132, 134, 135, 142, 143, 144, 145, 147 health care, viii, 56, 92, 102, 103, 105 health problems, 125 health services, 8, 46, 56, 57, 59, 66, 67, 69, 86, 125, 134 health status, 145 heroism, 37 hip, viii, 117, 119, 137 HIV/AIDS, 8, 46, 47, 54, 58, 59, 77, 83, 84, 86, 88, 118, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 129, 132, 133, 136, 139, 140, 144, 145, 147, 148 HIV infection, 46, 127, 145 HIV test, 145 homicide, 121, 148 Honduras, 38, 58, 109, 132 hopelessness, 8 hopes, 6 hospitalization, 16 host, 127 House, 36, 40, 41, 51, 70, 71, 89, 95, 98, 147, 148 households, 8 human nature, 101 human rights, iv, vii, viii, 7, 9, 13, 20, 32, 37, 40, 73, 79, 80, 83, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 99, 100, 112, 114, 116, 117, 118, 122, 132, 134, 146, 147 human welfare, 46 humanitarian aid, 9, 73 humanitarian crises, 8, 126 Hungary, 38, 109

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

157

Index

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

I Iceland, 38, 77, 109 imbalances, 79 immigration, 121 Immigration and Nationality Act, 2, 26 implementation, 33, 35, 40, 45, 46, 51, 58, 76, 79, 85, 94, 97, 99, 103, 107, 112, 113, 135 imprisonment, 16, 20, 58 inclusion, 100, 102, 104, 105 income, vi, 44, 47, 86, 130, 145 India, 38, 49, 85, 109, 113, 122, 142, 143 indication, 54 indicators, 126, 136 indigenous, 86 Indonesia, 38, 109 industry, 9 infant mortality, 46 infants, 89 infection, 129 inferiority, 101 information sharing, 143 infrastructure, 8, 56, 121 inheritance, 137 injuries, 8 injury, ii, 26, 29, 80, 142 INS, 4, 5, 19, 27, 28, 29, 30 insecurity, 7 insight, 6 institutions, 81, 121, 128, 130, 146, 147 instruction, 146 instruments, 83, 135 integration, 134, 145 intelligence, 80 interference, 102 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 40, 106, 112 international financial institutions, 132 international law, 27, 37, 98, 104, 115 international standards, 100 intervention, 41, 114, 122 interview, 58 Iran, vii, 91, 92 Iraq, 38, 100, 109 Ireland, 38, 39, 77, 102, 109 irony, 10 irritable bowel syndrome, 120 Islamic law, 114 isolation, 8, 121, 125 Israel, 38, 109 Italy, 38, 40, 77, 109, 112, 146

J Jamaica, 38, 40, 88, 109, 112, 145 Japan, 38, 40, 47, 48, 77, 94, 109, 112, 142 jobs, 120 Jordan, 38, 88, 109 journalists, 83 judges, 130, 131 judiciary, 82, 84 justice, 8, 83, 85, 146 justification, 57

K Kazakhstan, 38, 65, 66, 109 Kenya, 38, 40, 66, 79, 88, 109, 112, 126, 127, 131, 144 Korea, 38, 39, 109, 110 Kosovo, 128 Kuwait, 38, 109, 114 Kyrgyzstan, 33, 38, 88, 109

L labor, 70, 86, 129, 130, 144, 146 lactation, 105, 116 land, 19, 41 language, 19, 53, 54, 88, 96, 99, 101, 102, 103, 105, 114, 129, 146, 147 Latin America, 117, 121, 122, 139, 140, 141, 146 Latvia, 38, 109 law enforcement, 82, 85, 119, 120, 130, 133, 134, 135, 146 laws, viii, 10, 32, 35, 37, 77, 80, 87, 92, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 114, 115, 122, 130, 131, 133, 135, 147 lawyers, 39 leadership, 19, 76 Lebanon, 38, 90, 109 legal issues, 128 legal protection, 119 legislation, 9, 19, 32, 36, 41, 45, 53, 62, 74, 81, 82, 84, 85, 90, 93, 95, 99, 103, 107, 131, 133 lesson plan, 143 Liberia, 8, 9, 10, 34, 38, 94, 109, 127, 145 life expectancy, 46 lifetime, 120, 148 likelihood, 15, 21, 27, 145 line, 10, 16, 135 links, 86, 123 listening, 10 Lithuania, 38, 90, 109

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

158

Index

local community, 128 local government, 34, 40, 97 long distance, 127

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

M Macedonia, 38, 103, 110 Malaysia, 38, 40, 100, 110, 112 maltreatment, 80 management, vi, 44, 51, 52, 54, 55, 64, 81, 128, 146 manufacturing, 129 marital status, 32, 93, 116 marriage, 8, 9, 32, 33, 39, 75, 82, 84, 85, 93, 94, 108, 112, 116, 121, 122, 143, 147 Marshall Islands, 38, 110 masculinity, 136 Mauritania, 38, 110, 114 Mauritius, 39, 110 measures, vii, 17, 79, 80, 81, 83, 91, 93, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 107, 112, 114, 127 media, 81 medical care, 48, 121 membership, 2, 3, 4, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 27, 28, 29 men, viii, 7, 10, 32, 47, 77, 87, 93, 100, 101, 102, 105, 107, 108, 114, 116, 117, 119, 122, 124, 136, 137, 142, 148 mental health, 8, 120, 148 messages, 10 Mexico, 39, 45, 50, 51, 52, 54, 70, 88, 103, 110 Middle East, 121, 122, 124, 131, 146 migration, 58 military, 7, 19, 128, 133, 134, 146, 147 minority, 37, 98, 111, 129 minors, 9, 129 miscarriage, 125 misconceptions, 10 missions, 126, 127, 144 modules, 128 Moldova, 38, 110 momentum, 77, 98 money, viii, 52, 53, 74, 77, 118, 123, 126 Mongolia, 33, 39, 110 Montenegro, 39, 110 Morocco, 39, 110, 114 mortality rate, 46, 104, 120 mothers, 6, 65, 101 movement, 7, 39, 118, 142 Mozambique, 39, 49, 110 Myanmar, 33, 39, 110

N Namibia, 39, 110 nation, 8, 10, 92, 104, 113 nation states, 10 nationality, 2, 3, 7, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 26, 27 natural disasters, 9 Nauru, vii, 91, 92 negative consequences, 136 neglect, 80, 120, 121 negotiating, 19, 103, 105, 116 negotiation, 95 Nepal, 39, 99, 110 nerve, 70, 144 nervous system, 125 Netherlands, vi, 39, 40, 44, 47, 48, 77, 87, 110, 112, 116 network, 77, 78, 83, 87, 123 New Zealand, 39, 110 NGOs, vi, 9, 36, 50, 72, 73, 74, 75, 77, 78, 82, 118, 123, 127, 128, 131, 132, 135, 136, 138, 146 Nicaragua, 39, 110, 132, 145 Nigeria, 39, 65, 66, 110 North Korea, 37, 100, 114 Norway, 39, 48, 77, 110, 114 nutrition, 48, 105, 116

O OAS, 132, 146, 147 Obama Administration, v, vii, 31, 35, 55, 56, 77, 91, 92, 95, 123, 143, 144, 145, 146 objectives, viii, 46, 79, 92, 93, 99 obligate, 101, 103, 107, 108 obligation, 30, 34, 57, 68, 69, 96, 102 Omnibus Appropriations Act,, vi, 44, 45, 55, 56, 71, 146 oppression, 2, 21 order, 2, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 27, 82, 99, 102, 105, 112, 115, 122, 124, 134 organ, 45 Organization of American States, 132 oversight, 135 ownership, 19

P Pacific, 123, 140, 143 pain, 70, 120, 137 Pakistan, 38, 109, 114, 122, 127 Panama, 38, 109 Paraguay, 38, 88, 109, 145

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

159

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Index parameters, 16 parenting, 39, 102 parents, 101, 102, 107, 121, 122 peacekeeping, vi, 72, 73, 81, 82, 86, 89, 127, 128, 145, 146 penalties, 55 PEP, 126, 145 permit, 10, 25 perpetration, 7 Peru, 38, 109, 142 Philippines, 38, 88, 110 physical abuse, 119, 121 physical health, 120, 127 planning, vi, 39, 43, 44, 51, 54, 58, 59, 103, 105 Poland, 38, 103, 110 police, 8, 81, 84, 128, 130, 146 policy makers, 76 policy reform, 47 political participation, v, vii, 31, 32, 79, 91, 93, 99 poor, vi, vii, 43, 49, 56, 92, 99, 100, 119, 120, 129 population, v, vi, 7, 8, 9, 43, 44, 45, 46, 49, 50, 51, 54, 57, 58, 126, 127, 142 population growth, vi, 43, 49 port of entry, 13 Portugal, 34, 38, 40, 110, 112, 114 poverty, 46, 107, 119, 120, 129, 131, 135 poverty reduction, 46 power, viii, 8, 117, 119, 137 power relations, viii, 117, 119, 137 preference, 116 pregnancy, 8, 48, 105, 116, 125 prepuce, 29 president, 81 President Clinton, 52 pressure, 70 prevention, 73, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86, 118, 119, 124, 125, 126, 127, 129, 130, 133, 135, 136, 142, 143, 145, 147 PRI, 58 prisons, 121 privacy, 10, 101 private schools, 107 private sector, 77 probability, iv, 12, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27 pro-choice, 104 productivity, 137, 148 profit, 77 program, vi, vii, 7, 44, 46, 47, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 64, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 73, 81, 83, 89, 119, 123, 124, 125, 126, 128, 129, 131, 134, 135, 145, 146, 147, 148 programming, 78, 79, 123, 127, 147 prophylaxis, 126, 145

proposition, 2, 22 psychological health, 125, 144 psychological problems, 125 public awareness, 74, 79, 83, 85, 86, 99, 130, 136 public education, 77, 101 public health, 7, 54 public life, 116 public opinion, 76 public policy, 36 public schools, 107 punishment, 15, 58, 122

Q qualifications, 24, 96, 107 quotas, 57

R race, 2, 3, 15, 16, 17, 18, 22, 27, 116 racism, 107 radar, 6 radio, 84 range, iv, vi, 1, 12, 13, 20, 33, 72, 73, 94, 103, 115, 120, 129, 132, 134, 136 rape, 6, 7, 8, 9, 24, 75, 80, 81, 83, 103, 120, 121, 122, 125, 126, 143, 144, 145 reading, 53 reality, 7, 11 reason, 3, 18, 19, 23, 24, 28, 29, 57 reasoning, 24, 25 recognition, 9, 32, 93, 101, 116, 129 reconstruction, 10 recovery, 21, 84, 127 rectum, 144 reforms, 142 refugee admission, 14 refugee status, iv, v, 12, 13, 15, 20, 27 refugees, 7, 14, 27, 59, 84, 126, 144, 145 region, 49, 84 regulation, 4, 24, 46 regulations, 15, 17, 19, 23, 27, 29 regulatory framework, v, 13, 15, 24 regulatory requirements, 17 reintroduction, 101 rejection, 8, 127 relationship, 9, 18, 28, 126, 136, 143, 148 relaxation, 54 relevance, 53 relief, 2, 13, 14, 20, 21, 26, 27, 128 religion, 2, 3, 15, 16, 17, 18, 22, 27, 88 religious beliefs, 25, 101

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

160

Index

repair, 145 Republic of the Congo, 39, 49, 65, 66, 82, 83, 109, 127, 128, 145 Republican Party, 97 Requirements, 15 resettlement, 145 resistance, 7, 122 resolution, 36, 45, 66, 75, 76, 80, 81, 83, 86, 87, 88, 89, 95, 98, 106, 147, 148 resources, vi, 8, 9, 43, 45, 49, 50, 51, 54, 58, 74, 76, 82, 89, 104, 125, 131, 133, 134, 135, 139, 146 retaliation, 107 retribution, 121 returns, 2, 21 revenue, 47 risk, 3, 17, 20, 23, 29, 58, 119, 120, 122, 126, 129, 130, 136, 142 risk factors, 119, 142 Romania, 38, 65, 66, 110 rule of law, 131 rural areas, 142 rural population, 7 rural women, 32, 93, 105 Russia, 65, 66, 90, 113, 116 Rwanda, 34, 38, 39, 66, 83, 88, 94, 110, 131

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

S safety, 10, 128, 145 Samoa, 38, 110 sampling, 136 Saudi Arabia, 38, 92, 99, 110, 113, 114 scarce resources, 135 scholarship, 27 school, 84, 105, 107, 116, 120, 121, 128, 131, 136, 146 SEA, 128, 146 secondary schools, 120 Secretary of Homeland Security, 2 security, 7, 8, 73, 75, 80, 81, 114 Senate, iv, v, vii, 19, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 40, 41, 42, 54, 70, 71, 73, 75, 79, 80, 87, 89, 91, 92, 95, 96, 97, 98, 105, 106, 107, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 147 Senate approval, 95 Senate Foreign Relations Committee, v, 31, 35, 37, 41, 42, 54, 87, 112 senses, 14 sensitization, 83 Serbia, 38, 110, 113 service provider, 8, 130 severity, 18, 25, 28

sex, 8, 9, 19, 24, 32, 80, 88, 93, 101, 105, 107, 108, 116, 119, 120, 121, 122, 125, 126, 136 sexual abuse, 7, 8, 80, 84, 89, 120, 121, 126, 127, 142, 145 sexual behavior, 47 sexual harassment, 7, 121 sexual violence, 7, 8, 9, 10, 73, 78, 81, 83, 85, 86, 89, 120, 126, 127, 145, 146, 147 sexually transmitted diseases, 47, 56, 107, 125, 136 sexually transmitted infections, 8 Seychelles, 38, 110 shame, 8, 107, 120 shaping, vi, 43 sharing, 47 shelter, 85, 128 shores, 14 Sierra Leone, 8, 9, 10, 38, 82, 110 Singapore, 38, 40, 110, 112 skills, 146 slavery, 7 Slovakia, 38, 110 social benefits, 112 social consequences, 8 social costs, 148 social group, 2, 3, 4, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 social infrastructure, 87 social justice, 46 social norms, 145 social policy, v, 32 social welfare, 121 Solomon I, 38, 110 Somalia, vii, 3, 22, 80, 91, 92 South Africa, 38, 40, 89, 110, 112, 131 South Asia, 121, 122 South Dakota, 40 South Korea, 40, 112 Southeast Asia, 83 sovereignty, v, vii, viii, 32, 37, 75, 79, 92, 93, 98, 105, 147 Spain, 38, 40, 77, 94, 110, 112 speech, 34, 97 Sri Lanka, 38, 90, 109, 127 standards, 9, 17, 27 Standing Rules, 111 state laws, 37, 98 statistics, 87, 136, 147 statutes, 18, 100 stereotypes, 101, 102, 122 stigma, 120 stoves, 127 strategies, 46, 49, 76, 82, 84, 85, 126, 127 strategy use, 7

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

161

Index stress, 8, 24, 28, 125 students, 121, 128, 146 sub-Saharan Africa, 49, 82, 120, 147 Sudan, vii, 49, 91, 92, 101, 124, 127, 133, 144, 148 sugar, 7 suicide, 8, 125 Sun, 88, 146 superiority, 101, 119 support services, 135 suppression, 32, 93 Supreme Court, 16, 17, 18, 28 surveillance, 58 survival, 7, 8, 126 survivors, 8, 10, 79, 126, 127, 144, 145 sustainable development, vi, 44, 46 Sweden, vi, 38, 44, 48, 109 Switzerland, 33, 38, 94, 110, 142 symbols, 101 sympathy, 147 symptom, viii, 117, 119 syndrome, 125 Syria, 100, 114

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

T Tajikistan, 38, 110 Tanzania, 8, 39, 65, 66, 110, 127, 142, 145 target population, 7 targets, 19, 57, 126 teachers, 84, 121 teaching, 107 technical assistance, 45, 83, 126, 130, 135 teens, 129 television, 84 textbooks, 107 Thailand, 8, 38, 40, 110, 112, 145 Third World, 79 thoughts, 6 threat, 8, 11, 14, 16, 22, 26, 27, 120 threats, 24, 26, 75, 119, 126 Title I, 57 Title II, 57 Togo, 38, 110 Tonga, vii, 91, 92 torture, 7, 19, 26 tradition, 75, 122 traditional practices, 81, 122, 127, 131 traditions, 101 traffic, 107 trafficking in persons, 65, 89, 118, 123, 129 training, 46, 51, 79, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 88, 128, 130, 131, 133, 134, 146, 147 training programs, 81, 83, 84, 146

traits, 21 transactions, v, 31 transition, v, 43, 44, 59, 145 transmission, 125 transmits, 41, 96 treaties, vi, vii, 19, 27, 33, 40, 41, 72, 73, 75, 79, 93, 95, 98, 100, 105, 111, 112, 114, 115 Trinidad and Tobago, 38, 110 trust, 47, 88 Turkey, 38, 99, 110 Turkmenistan, 38, 110 Tuvalu, 39, 94, 110

U U.N. Security Council, 75, 80, 82, 86, 87, 88, 132, 147 UK, 71 Ukraine, 39, 66, 110 UN, 70, 88 unemployment, 129 UNESCO, 89 UNHCR, vii, 73, 75, 84, 87, 88, 89, 126, 127, 132, 145 United Kingdom, 39, 77, 100, 110, 114 United Nations, iii, v, vi, vii, viii, 9, 10, 13, 16, 18, 19, 26, 29, 31, 33, 35, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 49, 70, 71, 72, 73, 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 87, 88, 89, 91, 92, 95, 112, 114, 115, 116, 118, 124, 131, 134, 136, 138, 142, 144, 145, 146, 147 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 40, 112 universities, 121, 146 urinary tract, 120 urinary tract infection, 120 urine, 144 Uruguay, 34, 39, 110, 147 Uzbekistan, 39, 110

V vagina, 21, 24, 144 Vanuatu, 39, 110 variables, 137 Venezuela, 39, 110 victims, 6, 9, 24, 58, 65, 79, 80, 83, 84, 85, 107, 118, 120, 122, 125, 126, 129, 130, 135, 136, 137, 145, 146, 148 voice, 10, 111 vulnerability, 58, 129

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

162

Index

W

Y Yemen, 39, 88, 110 young women, 2, 4, 21, 29, 65

Z Zimbabwe, 39, 110, 147

Copyright © 2010. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

walking, 70 war, 6, 7, 8, 9, 80, 81 weapons, 7 West Africa, 8, 128, 145 Western countries, 20 White House, 51, 54, 124, 144 witnesses, 58 workers, 6, 9, 47, 73, 84, 86, 127, 129, 130, 147 working groups, 123 workplace, 86, 120, 121

World Bank, 121, 132, 139, 147, 148 writing, 10, 107

International Efforts to Protect Women, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,