One “action” the U.N. has woven into their “Resolution” is to “sanction” the offender. I’m certain all those victims of “gender” abuse feel better now, and those knowing they’ll likely be a future victim, now know that their abuses will not go unnoticed.
If “Resolutions” had any merit within the U.N.-body, we would not be in Iraq, Saddam Hussein could not have stolen the food away from his own people under the august “Oil for Food” program, and Iran would not be on the nuclear track. Resolutions mean nothing to the U.N.
The U.N. Security Council is ripe with Islamic country-members and is dominated by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). How inconvenient it will be for them to take action against rape of an infidel, or one of their own, for that matter. I won’t happen.
Lest we all forget that “rape” is “terrorism,” click here for a reminder of the U.N.’s take on terrorism.
Here’s the story from Human Rights Watch on those scary Resolutions. Ms. Mollman says it well.
On June 19, 2008, the United Nations Security Council made history by declaring that rape in war is such a bad idea they plan to do something about it.
That’s right. After decades of reports on vicious sexual violence in conflicts across the globe, the highest decision-making body of the United Nations has decided that it is time to act. In fact, no other international actor has as much power to do something about rape in war, and as disappointing a record, as the United Nations Security Council.
It is not that the Security Council hasn’t talked about the issue before. In 2000, the Security Council — under intense pressure from women’s groups and UN field personnel — established a link between the Council’s mandate and the way in which women and girls are affected differently by conflict than men and boys. This link is contained in a resolution, known mostly by its number (1325/2000), which includes an urgent call to end impunity for sexual violence and for the United Nations system to gather information on issues related to women and girls in conflict and report these to the Security Council.
Action to back up these good intentions has, however, been scarce. Every year in October since 2000, the Council has celebrated the anniversary of resolution 1325 by announcing the importance of the gender perspective in its work, and then proceeded to largely ignore it for the rest of the year.
Up until last Thursday, that is. On Thursday, the Security Council declared its readiness to act on sexual violence in a resolution that contains three key components:
- The resolution establishes sexual violence in conflict and post-conflict as a topic within the purview of the Council’s work. “Obviously!” you might say, and you’d be right. There is no conflict in recent history where women and girls have not been targeted for sexual violence, whether as a form of torture, as a method to humiliate the enemy, or with a view to spreading terror and despair. If that’s not potentially relevant to the protection of international peace and security, what is? But the inclusion of this clause is essential because some members of the Security Council, in particular Russia and China, at times have portrayed rape in war as an issue that doesn’t deserve the Council’s attention. With the new resolution, they will no longer be able to do so.
- The resolution creates a clear mandate for the Security Council to intervene, including through sanctions, where the levels or form of sexual violence merit it.