Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Human Rights
Issue 15 - Evidence - November 30, 2009 - morning meeting
OTTAWA, Monday, November 30, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met this day at 10:12 a.m. to monitor issues relating to human rights and, inter alia, to review the machinery of government dealing with Canada's international and national human rights obligations (topic: United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 on women, peace and security).
Senator A. Raynell Andreychuk (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: Honourable senators, we are the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights. We are here to monitor issues relating to human rights and, inter alia, to review the machinery of government dealing with Canada's international and national human rights obligations. In this study, we are particularly focused on United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 on women, peace and security and all other resolutions that have flowed from this initial resolution.
I apologize for my voice at the start. I think I am in the throes of laryngitis. I hope you can understand me and hear me, both by video conference and here as witnesses.
We have before us Mr. Kevin McCort, Chief Executive Officer of CARE Canada. Welcome, Mr. McCort. By video conference, we have Ms. Carla Koppell, Director, Institute for Inclusive Security from the Hunt Alternatives Fund. From Inter Pares, we have Ms. Rebecca Wolsak.
We will ask you to make presentations as short as possible so we can leave time for questions. As we are partly on a video conference and partly with witnesses before us, we will be mindful of the time gaps necessary to make that work. I would ask the senators to introduce themselves when asking questions so that it can translate on the video conferencing.
Welcome to all the witnesses. Mr. McCort, you are first on my list, so I will turn to you.
Kevin McCort, Chief Executive Officer, CARE Canada: Thank you. I am pleased to be here today, and I appreciate the effort you are putting into these hearings.
As you may know, CARE is one of Canada's largest international aid and development agencies. We are part of the CARE International Federation, and within that federation, we work in more than 70 countries, including some of the most volatile and dangerous regions in the world. Last year, our projects reached more than 60 million people. We are also one of CIDA's — the Canadian International Development Agency's — largest international non-governmental organization, NGO, partners.
Throughout our history, we have seen violence against women and girls serve as an integral part of armed conflict. As you know, they are killed, widowed, injured and orphaned. Rape has been used by fighting forces as a tactic of war to humiliate, intimidate and traumatize communities and as a method of ethnic cleansing. Women and girls are abducted into sexual slavery or forced to exchange sex or marriage for survival.
The statistics are stark. UNIFEM, the United Nations Development Fund for Women, reported in 2008 that 50,000 women were raped in Bosnia and Herzegovina and up to half a million during the Rwanda genocide. They also reported that 40 women are brutally raped every day in just one province in the Republic of Congo.
It is not just women who bear the scars of sexual violence: it holds entire communities hostage. Women cannot leave the safety of their homes to access water points or markets; children and teachers cannot get safely to school. Reprisals fuel further conflict, and often as the climate descends into general lawlessness, opportunistic rape by civilians becomes a normal part of life.
Survivors continue to experience physical injuries, psychological trauma, social stigma and sexually transmitted diseases, STDs, including HIV/AIDS, long after the conflict has ended. Children conceived from rape are often rejected or discriminated against.
Despite the recognition of the impact of armed conflict on women, the protection of women and girls from sexual violence and the care and support for female survivors is often woefully inadequate. Their access to protection, services and legal redress is limited by the continuing violence, poverty, cultural and social stigma and impunity.
In addition, the primary focus is often placed on the perpetrator rather than on the survivor. Few services are offered to survivors to help deal with trauma and the psychological scars they bear, and little investment is put into preventing the root causes of violence. We strongly believe that the success of Resolution 1325 and Resolution 1820 is in fact dependent on the more recent Resolution 1888. Resolution 1888 turns the traditional view of sexual and gender- based violence on its head and shifts the focus primarily to the survivor rather than the perpetrator. We strongly urge Canada to promote the implementation of Resolution 1888 as it relates to the success of Resolutions 1325 and 1820.
Arising from our humanitarian experience, CARE has developed 15 recommendations for the UN Security Council based on these resolutions. I will present four key recommendations today on what needs to be achieved for Resolutions 1820 and 1325 to succeed. I will give more detail on why we are calling for better services for survivors, such as health care and long-term aid for putting lives back together; better prevention, through addressing the underlying causes of violence; better data collection to better protect survivors and to help prevent atrocities from occurring again; and finally better coordination of UN efforts to tackle sexual violence.
The UN took a major step by adopting Resolutions 1325, 1820 and 1888, which commit them to address sexual violence during and after conflict, but the key to meeting these commitments will be the implementation of the resolutions. How this is being done is under discussion, but the process is focused on security and impunity. While these are important issues, we feel they have neglected key issues of ensuring the health, safety and dignity of survivors. We want to move beyond focusing solely on the priorities of diplomatic debates and centre on the rights and needs of women who live with the reality of armed conflict.
As I mentioned, we are drawing on our work in conflict zones around the world, and I will now outline the four key challenges the UN must acknowledge and overcome to meet its commitment to end sexual violence.
First, the survivors of rape require better services, and Canadian aid can contribute to this goal. Sexual violence impacts all aspects of life, yet, as I mentioned, the debates to date have focused too narrowly on security and justice, neglecting the vital importance of basic health care and psychosocial and livelihood support for survivors. Often the focus has been on the perpetrator while the survivor is ignored. Survivors must come first and must have access to social services and protection.
There are numerous reasons for this focus. The first is that we believe access to services and protection is a human right and that every civilian has the right to unimpeded humanitarian assistance in a crisis. Second, the danger of sexual violence does not stop with the crime. It is often very dangerous for a survivor to come forward. It is commonplace for survivors to live in remote areas where services are not available and where they are stigmatized for reporting the crime. If a secure, caring and anonymous environment is provided, the reporting of these crimes will increase. This will in turn provide early warning, signalling drastic rises in violence and attacks that will require a great response from the international community, and that will, in future, help stop or limit this type of violence from occurring.
For this reason Canada, governments and the UN must ensure that basic health care, psychosocial support and livelihood programs are part of the response to sexual violence, and this must be represented in Canadian funding for aid. We must also make unimpeded access to humanitarian assistance a top priority to ensure that survivors can come forward and let others know what is happening. We must not forget the survivors.
To ensure these efforts are accepted and sustainable, they should be part of wider humanitarian and recovery programs. Rather than having stand-alone programs, the stigma associated with gender violence means that it is best handled sensitively and integrated into wider work within the community. The UN guidelines for handling gender- based violence must be turned from theory into practice with enforced adherence to agreed standards.
To prevent the resurgence of sexual violence after a conflict, funds must be made available beyond the initial emergency response to ensure gender-based violence work is integrated into programs helping people recover from conflict. Canada is expected to be a leader on human rights, and we should champion this cause. Donor governments and institutions need to sustain funding for front-line programs in the longer term. Too often, funding dries up when the emergency is declared over.
Second, we must focus on improving prevention and tackling the root causes of gender-based violence. Our experience and field research show that more can be done before, during and after conflict to address the underlying social, cultural and political drivers of sexual violence. Long-term commitment is required to change attitudes and behaviours that condone violence against women and girls. Ultimately, one of the most important ways of preventing gender-based violence is by empowering women, and this must be achieved by working with both men and women for women's rights.
Women's empowerment plays a strong role in the recovery. Our experience has found that women develop earning power from their participation in savings and loans groups, for example, and this has contributed to a decrease in gender-based violence in communities. This is particularly true with domestic violence.
On the other hand, when sexual-based violence is prevalent in a conflict, there is a higher level of tolerance for this. People become accustomed to these unacceptable levels and forms of violence. The empowerment of women working together with men and communities on addressing women's roles and rights helps counter this trend.
More can also be done to prevent abuses in the midst of conflict.
Experience shows that women most often turn to other women when exposed to sexual violence. Canada should ensure the discussions on Resolution 1820 include a realistic and time-bound process to increase the number of female police officers and civilian UN staff who are trained in gender-based violence prevention and response. The internalization of gender awareness and gender-based violence training amongst UN peacekeeping contingents will go a long way to addressing some of their own past shortcomings and will ensure they can lead by example in countries in conflict situations where they are deployed.
Finally, donor governments and institutions should make funds available to strengthen complaints mechanisms, which can aid early warning in response to gender-based violence cases. Priority must be on safe and confidential access to such mechanisms for women.
Third, we need to improve mechanisms to obtain better data collection. All too often, the international response to violence against women has been delayed due to lengthy deliberations over measuring its extent. CARE believes the debate on monitoring and data collection needs to shift so that action is no longer too little too late. The overarching objective for monitoring and data collection should be to ensure a timely response to women who survive violence. Priority should be given to systems enabling action on the ground rather than to informing debates on justice at the international level.
Data collection should not be seen as a means to an end carried out by well-meaning social workers, legal cadres or statisticians. In our view, data collection should arise naturally out of the provision of medical or psychosocial care provided for the survivors of sexual violence. In this manner, survivors will not be re-victimized and further traumatized or stigmatized as a result of data collection visits that may seek information in non-confidential, one-off visits leaving survivors without proper care and attention and possibly leaving them open to further attack and prejudice.
Survivors, their families, communities and the collector of information must have all the confidence that such information is compiled, stored and used in a safe and confidential manner, with no possibility of tracing information back to its source. Data collection staff should be trained in psychosocial care and able to refer survivors to basic health and livelihood assistance.
Finally, the UN needs to ensure better coordination in addressing gender-based violence. UN efforts to address sexual violence have been consistently undermined by weak coordination resulting in duplication and gaps of efforts among different agencies. This reflects the lack of political attention, expertise and human and financial resources. Unfortunately, it is our experience that UN staff working on gender-based violence are often at the UN headquarters rather than in the field. They often do not have the resources or the staff they need to accomplish their goals. On the flip side, in the field we often find junior staff who do not have the influence on decision making that is necessary to drive change.
To solve these problems, a special representative of the Secretary-General on Women, Peace and Security should be established for three years to provide leadership for coordination efforts at headquarters level. It should report directly to the UN Secretary-General with the mandate to convene all UN agencies involved in responding to gender-based violence and lead them in systemic UN reform. UN Action, a group of 12 UN agencies, should be strengthened to address UN system coherence and a robust evaluation system introduced. In the longer term, the new UN entity on women's issues should place gender-based violence prevention and response as a top priority.
It is also important that agencies responsible for coordination on the ground in the midst of conflict must maintain neutrality, independence and a credible humanitarian mandate. This will give agencies working directly with people affected by sexual violence on all sides of the conflict the confidence to work with them.
Resolutions 1820 and 1325 are tremendous steps forward in protecting women in conflict. However, the success of these resolutions is reliant on the actions of the UN and its members, like Canada. Numerous challenges have yet to be overcome, some of which I have outlined today. The reality is that tackling war-related sexual violence is a relatively new area of humanitarian practice, and many gender experts are not experts in gender-based violence. Experts on this issue are needed to move us forward. As with any resolution, the difficulty will come in implementation.
As you well know, every day we discuss this, the lives of women and girls in communities continue to be destroyed by sexual violence. Our reputation allows us a strong voice on these issues, and we believe we must challenge the UN and its Security Council to live up to its commitments and adopt these essential reforms in coordination, provision of basic services, prevention and data collection. They must set benchmarks and timelines, be accountable for implementation, and take clear, decisive and urgent action. As Canadians, we believe that words need to be turned into action.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. McCort.
Carla Koppell, Director, Institute for Inclusive Security, Hunt Alternatives Fund: Madam Chair, members of the committee, other honoured guests, good morning. It is my pleasure to be with you today. Our chair, Ambassador Swanee Hunt, was sorry not to have been able to address you herself. She remains committed to assisting your deliberations in whatever way possible and would be happy to appear in the future.
I want to commend you on your systematic and in-depth examination of UN Security Council Resolution 1325. I have reviewed the transcripts of previous meetings you have held on the topic. The conversations are extremely important.
The Institute for Inclusive Security, which I direct, has been working for over a decade to realize women's inclusion in peace-building processes worldwide. We have always pushed for women's inclusion because we believe it will make peace processes more effective. Our justification has always been driven by the need to increase the efficacy of peace building.
Our work combines the growth of a global network of women peace builders, which today numbers over 800 women leaders in more than 40 conflict areas worldwide; research to document women's contributions to peace building and successful strategies for bringing women into peace processes; advocacy to encourage implementation of Resolution 1325 and subsequent resolutions, both at the global level and in individual countries including Afghanistan, Colombia and Sudan; and training both to enable women to maximize their impact on peace processes and to help governments and multilateral organizations advance implementation of Resolution 1325. For example, we are working with the U.S. and Dutch governments to enhance training of military and foreign service personnel, and we are collaborating with the United Nations Development Programme to identify innovative strategies for mainstreaming gender in the work of their Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery.
There is a great deal I could say on the range of topics you are interested in discussing, but for the purposes of introducing the institute's work on the topic, I will focus on some of the findings of our fieldwork and research regarding the added value of women to peace building.
We have reached three major conclusions. First, when involved, women bring different issues to talks. This has proven true in places like Northern Ireland, where women ensured that integrated education, former combatant reintegration and reconciliation efforts were all part of the peace accord. It was true in Uganda, where women incorporated a focus on health and education as part of the demobilization process and ensured that the elimination of sexual violence was part of the ceasefire. It was equally true in negotiations around Darfur, Sudan, where Senator Jaffer can speak with more authority than I can to the unique issues women raised. I would note that women focused particularly on civilian protection and the rights of the displaced, in addition to issues related to women's rights.
Often, the issues women raised were non-controversial. They had simply been forgotten by the others in the room. This drives home the need for different perspectives in conversations about peace.
Our second conclusion is that women bring different information and different views. In Afghanistan, when Canadian provincial reconstruction team officials in Kandahar have consulted with women around development needs, the women have highlighted alternate investment priorities and have provided critical intelligence regarding security and corruption. During donor conferences for Liberia and Sudan, where women have been allowed to participate they have emphasized the human security concerns that must be reflected in planning post-conflict investment, while also bringing the voice of civil society and local communities into the conversation.
Our third conclusion is that women change the dynamics in any conversation about peace building. Examining the role of women in Guatemala or Uganda or other places where women have made their way in, external observers have noted the salutary effect it has had on talks. As one observer to talks in Uganda put it, women grease the wheels of the negotiations.
Yet, notwithstanding the compelling evidence that more inclusive peace building is sorely needed, women's involvement is not consistent or systematic at any point in the peace-building process. There is a great deal that Canada can do to lead on this agenda, in partnership with countries like Norway that have also sought assiduously to advance this goal. Specifically, you might call on women from conflict areas to testify whenever you have relevant hearings and meet with women leaders whenever you are visiting conflict areas. You elevate these leaders by seeking and valuing their input. We would be happy to identify leaders you might invite. We also would be happy to organize meetings for you on the ground with many of our network members sprinkled throughout the world.
Second, you can replicate Canada's successes globally. In particular, advocate for and help underwrite the participation of women in negotiations, as you did in conjunction with the negotiation of the Darfur Peace Agreement. It made a substantial difference, and if it were systematized, it would change the way negotiations take place.
Replicate and systemize provincial reconstruction team consultations with women in Afghanistan. It will pay the kind of dividends it did in Kandahar, where Canadian PRT outreach to Afghan women translated into real intelligence for NATO.
Dedicate funding, perhaps in the form of a trust fund, to support women's participation in negotiations, either as members of negotiating teams or as gender experts like the Gender Expert Support Team for Darfur, which had a dramatic impact on the gender sensitivity of the accord.
Underwrite gender symposia in conjunction with international donor conferences for post-conflict reconstruction. The institute has had substantial success bringing women's perspectives to conversations on rebuilding for Liberia and Sudan, in partnership with the Norwegian government and entities like UNIFEM and the World Bank.
Third, push to elevate the number of senior women from Canada and elsewhere in senior level positions within the UN, especially as special representatives of the Secretary-General and mediators. It is inconceivable for the UN to call for more women in negotiations generally when a woman has never been named by the UN system to serve as a lead mediator.
With those final thoughts in mind, I would be happy to answer any of your questions and expand on any of the concepts and ideas I have highlighted. There is an enormous opportunity for Canada to shine on this agenda.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Koppell.
Rebecca Wolsak, Inter Pares: Inter Pares is Latin for "among equals.'' We are a social justice organization based here in Ottawa. We work with organizations around the world that are working to promote social justice in their communities. My particular area of focus is Burma, a country that has been in conflict for over half a century.
In preparing to speak with you today, I reviewed some of the transcripts from presentations over the past two months. I was impressed by the concrete recommendations already made regarding strategies for Canada's implementation of Resolution 1325 and Resolution 1820. I would like to echo the call for the development of a strong national action plan, in consultation with women from communities impacted by conflict and with Canadian civil society.
In my work, I do not regularly analyze the appropriateness and efficiency of our government mechanisms for implementing UN resolutions, but I do work closely with women who are impacted by conflict. When the opportunity to contribute to this discussion arose, I consulted with my colleagues at the Women's League of Burma, WLB.
WLB is an umbrella organization of 13 women's organizations of different ethnic backgrounds representing tens of thousands of women from Burma. They work for the advancement of the status of women and for the increased participation of women in all spheres of society.
Burma has been under military rule since 1962. For over 40 years, the regime has routinely employed torture, rape, slavery, murder and mass imprisonment in order to silence any dissent within Burma and to maintain its power. Yet, the military junta has not been held accountable for these state-sponsored, widespread and systematic human rights violations.
In 2002, two of our counterpart organizations, Shan Women's Action Network and Shan Human Rights Foundation, published a detailed report entitled Licence to Rape. The report documented the systematic use of rape with impunity in Shan State to terrorize, demoralize and control the community. Women are often raped not only because of their gender but also because of their ethnicity. The report documented 173 incidents of rape involving 625 women of all ages, mostly teenagers; the youngest girl was five. Eighty-three per cent of the incidents were perpetrated by officers, in most cases in front of their troops. The rapes involved extreme brutality and often torture, and 25 per cent resulted in death. What about punishment? Only one of the 173 incidents resulted in any form of punishment.
Licence to Rape received a lot of international attention and support. This led a number of other women's organizations to document the sexual violence in their states, and the widespread use of rape as a weapon of war in Burma is now abundantly clear.
Crimes of sexual violence carried out by the military regime are part of a systematic strategy for destroying ethnic communities in Burma and constitute a threat to international peace and security. WLB points out that UN Security Council Resolutions 1325 and 1820 mandate criminal accountability for perpetrators of gender crimes in conflict situations. Yet, despite awareness that grave violations are being carried out, the Security Council has failed to take action. Canada needs to step up and use all international avenues to push this issue forward.
In my discussions with women from Burma on sexual violence, they have emphasized the need for a comprehensive approach. They talk about the need to provide services to women who have been assaulted — counselling, safe houses, health care, and so on; the need to encourage their own communities to speak openly about gender-based violence; the need to provide awareness-raising materials to men and women and to develop school curriculum for children; the need to give women the opportunities to obtain skills and confidence to take on leadership roles; and the need to promote women's autonomy. They talk about the need to document the realities of living under the regime, and to use this information to expose the abhorrent tactics of the military to people in Burma, in the region and in the world. They talk about the need to engage states such as Canada into action.
I should note that, through Inter Pares, CIDA has been supporting the work of WLB and their member organizations for many years. This support is critical.
In terms of Burma and Resolutions 1325 and 1820, we believe that Canada can lead the call for resolution implementation to end the long-standing impunity for gender crimes committed by the military. Several of our counterparts are calling for the Security Council to commence a commission of inquiry into crimes against humanity and war crimes. We would like to see Canada champion this call for a commission of inquiry.
In 2007, Inter Pares convened a round table entitled "Women's Struggle for Justice: Confronting Sexual Violence Against Women in Armed Conflict.'' Twenty-two women from Latin America, Africa, Asia and Canada participated, including two women from Burma. All of the participants had significant expertise in working on issues related to sexual violence in armed conflict. I have brought with me copies of a report that outlines the issues and reflections raised throughout the round table.
Right at the beginning of the discussion, there was an urgent need amongst participants to clarify that violence against women, including sexual violence, exists before conflict takes place, and the transition to a post-conflict situation does not eradicate this violence.
The question of justice is central for women survivors and for those working to support survivors. We noted that women emerge from war with different perspectives, experiences and needs. The route to justice is often thought of only as a legal pursuit at the local, national or international level, but it also needs to include personal dimensions, such as healing. Distinctions were made between using a judicial system to seek justice and the notion of justice itself.
There is a need to bridge the gap between international legal processes and the local realities of women. Therefore, when we talk about violence against women in conflict and about building sustained peace, we need to commit to promoting opportunities for women to exercise control over their own lives.
In summary, our specific recommendations to this study are to call on our government, one, to renew efforts here in Canada towards developing a strong national action plan in consultation with civil society; two, to take leadership in the call for the implementation of these resolutions in the specific case of Burma, through the call for a commission of inquiry into war crimes and crimes against humanity; and three, specifically through CIDA and Foreign Affairs, to commit explicitly funding to comprehensive, long-term and grassroots initiatives that promote women's full autonomy over their own destiny.
The Chair: Thank you to all of the speakers. I have a list of senators who wish to ask questions.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you very much. I have a number of questions, and I will start with Mr. McCort.
I was interested in what you said about Resolution 1888. When you talked about it, I wondered what we should do. I think your recommendations helped me with that, but I would like you to elaborate on your recommendation about providing social services and health care. As we know, in these conflict zones, often health care and social services did not exist before the conflict. Therefore, it is not just about providing health care; it is about setting up a country's or an area's whole health care system or a social services system — that is, it is to do more. CARE has a lot of experience in this area. Can you share that experience with us?
Mr. McCort: Certainly. In our experience, we have been in many countries for 30, 40 or 50 years and have seen a long-term decline of some existing structures, which has fuelled conflict.
In many cases, we are able to establish rudimentary health systems relatively quickly by focusing on simple systems and not trying to re-establish full-blown health services. For example, we focus on safe delivery, trying to ensure that mothers can give birth in a safe manner. That can be achieved through training of traditional birth attendants and relatively simple methods of home-based care.
We have also had success in basic outreach services, finding existing services that are in place and enabling them to have better outreach to communities. In that context, we often help train outreach workers so they can deal more effectively with incoming populations; by being more exposed to and more familiar with the needs of the population coming in, they are able to more effectively deliver services.
We often set modest goals in post-conflict reconstruction, recognizing that it is well beyond our capacity to rebuild entire health systems. We focus on areas where we can have quick wins. We focus on services for women, particularly around childbirth and survival for children under two years and under five years.
Senator Jaffer: Have you set up any services to help victims of sexual violence?
Mr. McCort: We have all kinds of services. In Bosnia we had mobile gynecological clinics, working with women who were victims of sexual violence and also women who had normal medical needs. We have done quite a bit of work supporting women's groups on the ground, providing social and support networks to other women, building capacity and providing safe places for women to congregate and discuss. There is experience in a number of war zones in building community centres and safe places for people to come together in the context of humanitarian operations. This is a starting ground to try to rebuild services.
Senator Jaffer: Ms. Koppell, all three presentations have generated many questions for me, and time is limited. I know that you also have limited time and could not cover everything. It would be beneficial to my colleagues if you could speak about the special kit you have on Resolution 1325. Could you also explain the great service you provide to women all over the world, where you bring women decision makers to the John F. Kennedy School of Government and provide training on empowerment? That subject came up this morning, and it would be useful for us to know what Hunt Alternatives Fund does in this regard.
Ms. Koppell: I would be happy to explain. The kit to which the senator refers is our tool kit. The tool kit goes through every stage of the peace-building process. I have a model I could show you, but I did not bring it with me. The tool kit speaks to how women are affected by this stage of the process — whether it is the peace-negotiation process, or demobilization, disarmament and reintegration efforts, or related to sexual violence — and how women can add value to that process. We look at women as both agents of change and as victims. We would be happy to send copies of the tool kit to members of the committee if they are interested in seeing it.
I do not think you have seen this yet, Senator Jaffer. We have just developed a curriculum to go with the tool kit, which enables increased training and outreach along different sub-areas, and each one is a module. If you are working on the issue of negotiation, you can use the training on negotiation; if you are looking at democracy and governance, you can use that module.
I referred earlier to the work we have done both with women peace builders around the world and with policy- makers. We use the tool kit and the curriculum to do that training. We engage with military officers — whether they are members of provincial reconstruction teams, or police officers being shipped out as part of peacekeeping operations with the U.S. government, or people serving for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the Dutch government — to try to orient them and think about how they can move this agenda forward.
With regard to training and capacity building more generally, we have two sets of programs. The program to which I think Senator Jaffer referred is our annual colloquium, where we bring together women leaders from conflict zones around the world, in partnership with Harvard University, to talk about women's leadership in the context of peace building. In fact, we are doing that in January, and our theme this year is on moderating extremism. We will have delegations of women from around the world working on that issue.
We do extensive work with women in the field in conflict areas. You are familiar, Senator Jaffer, with our work with Sudanese women. Over a number of years, we have been building a coalition of Sudanese women and working with Sudanese women parliamentarians to help them elevate their voices.
We do similar work in Afghanistan and in other countries around the world, either on our own or in partnership with other organizations. That is to ensure that our advocacy is done in partnership with the people whose voices need to be heard, to ensure that our advocacy strategies are locally grounded, and to ensure that women are ready, willing and able to step up to the table and fulfill the leadership promise they have made.
I hope that covers the material you wanted me to share with others in the room.
Senator Dallaire: I was looking at the term "empowerment of women,'' which I have not heard so much. I have heard more about autonomy and so on. With regard to empowering women and women's autonomy within states that are culturally male dominated, a variety of instruments have been used.
What is breaking the code in actually changing the male-dominated culture specifically with regard to abuse of women? In Rwanda I see the Gacaca courts going on, where the perpetrators of rape and abuse of women are brought in front of the community and are given a certain sentence. However, the women who have been raped are now living next door to the person who raped them, and he is doing some community work.
I have not seen anything that is breaking the code in the sense of the male perspective on women being abused. How do you empower women? I like that term, if that is suitable.
Mr. McCort: One of the best examples we have had in empowering women is through economic development. I was in Zimbabwe in the summer and was able to spend time with about 300 women who had graduated from CARE savings and loans programs. I was astounded by their testimony. It was graduation day. The ceremony was public and included hundreds of women from our programs, as well as the entire community. They were showing off what they had accomplished in terms of their economic development and small businesses.
What struck me was their testimony about the social change that had arisen out of their economic empowerment. One of the women said, in blunt language, that her husband no longer thinks she is useless and he values her. He also no longer feels useless, because she is bringing money into the household. He does not feel bad because the children are not in school, so that keeps him from beating her. She said that gender violence has gone down in the community because of this economic development.
At that point, the head of the Zimbabwe Republic Police in the district got up on stage and corroborated her story. He said that their district-wide statistics are correlated to economic empowerment of women in the community. He said the police believe this program has contributed to a reduction in domestic violence, and it is because the women feel that they are contributing to their families' livelihoods and the men are feeling better about the women's role and are less inclined to violence.
Senator Dallaire: To clarify, it is the indirect approach; we are providing instruments to women in the hope that men will change their perspective.
In empowering women, are there any direct assaults on the male culture with regard to the abuse of women that have been coming to the fore from the NGO world? I speak at large here.
Ms. Koppell: I would give two examples. Mr. McCort's example is very important, and we have seen similar evidence in places like India.
In Afghanistan, for example, which would be among the most conservative societies, women are now 25 per cent of the parliament there. Part of that is the result of a constitutional quota, but many of those women achieved their seats with more than the number of votes they needed to be elected into office. We should be somewhat cautious and understand that these societies are quite heterogeneous. There are many men who, if given a voice, favour the advancement of women.
However, it must be tailored to circumstances. In a country like Afghanistan, there is a much more emancipated view of women in places like Kabul than in the hinterland. I know that Women for Women International and some of the local non-governmental organizations have been quite successful in using religion and discussions with traditional authorities as vehicles for elevating women. The esteemed role that women like Khadeeja have within the Quran is a powerful message about the importance of women.
I would turn to the example you gave of Rwanda to highlight an example. As you probably know better than I do, Rwanda is the only majority female parliament in the world. They were elected, in part, as a result of a constitutional quota, but they have expanded and built on that to become a majority. They have put forward the first legislation in the country to outlaw sexual violence. Their leadership on this agenda through direct political participation has been important, but they have also emphasized, in the construction of this legislation, participatory process. They have built the legislation through extensive local consultations with men and women regarding sexual violence as a crime and what the appropriate punishment would be. That has raised the awareness of sexual violence as a problem and the sense of empowerment that local women there feel to combat sexual violence and to understand and appreciate that sexual violence is a crime. In fact, before the legislation was even passed, people thought it was law because it had been so talked about locally.
A final point vis-à-vis Rwanda is that we have done a lot of work to elevate women politically in Rwanda. We have brought experienced women leaders to mentor less experienced women at the grassroots level to give them skills and confidence to run for office. These experienced women work with the next generation. That has been enormously successful at enabling them to come forward and to grow the number of women willing to serve. We have done that in several other places, including Liberia. We are preparing to do that in Sudan and potentially Burundi as well. That is a valuable vehicle for elevating the voices of women.
You spoke about direct strategies, and I hope what I have said to speaks to that.
Senator Dallaire: Using religion is an interesting angle, because religions are generally rather misogynistic to start with. It is quite a feat to permit women to have more voice. We have a problem with that even in the Catholic Church.
I will return to rape as a weapon of war. This is a new weapon. It was previously used mainly by rogue soldiers, and it was a side element. Now it is a deliberate instrument of war. The International Criminal Court, ICC, has identified it as a crime against humanity. It calls it torture, but it is a tactic of war.
Specifically how do we counter that tactic of war in these conflicts, particularly in the civil wars that are currently going on?
Ms. Wolsak: To echo what has already been said, we need to find opportunities to give women platforms to highlight the issues. To step back a bit to your previous question, if you look at the use of rape as a weapon of war in Burma, women's organizations have been working on women's rights in Burma for many years, and they have been marginalized for a long time within the democracy movement.
This report, Licence to Rape, which came out in 2002, was given a platform internationally. It received huge international attention, and it forced male-dominated political actors in the democracy movement to notice women for the first time and to begin to talk to them and learn from them how to engage international actors in what is going on in Burma.
Through that avenue, there is now much more space for women, although it is still very limited. There is much more respect for women as actors within the democracy movement.
There is now a slow movement to start talking about this when it is not just state-sponsored, systematic use of rape. All sorts of violence against women is happening in peaceful communities and within war-torn communities. That wedge is slowly being opened.
Senator Demers: I appreciated Mr. McCort's presentation very much. It seems always to come back to that. We are talking about delayed funding. What is the reason for the delay? Without questioning anyone, how much is really done? We must put words into actions. We all have great intentions. Since I joined this committee, I am getting more knowledgeable about what is going on, although I still have a ways to go. Everyone here speaks extremely well, but how much is put into action?
The numbers you have given this morning are unbelievable. Next month we will be into 2010.
Mr. McCort: I can give some examples. A number of studies look at humanitarian funding globally and compare countries' domestic income and what they contribute. We have always believed that Canada could do substantially more.
We work closely with CIDA's humanitarian assistance program on addressing sexual and gender-based violence in conflicts. The budget for this program is usually $100 million to $150 million a year of CIDA's $4-billion budget. We have always been a champion of their share increasing, even if the entire envelope remains the same, because they are very responsive.
At a global level, on average, the UN country appeals are often only half-filled. Some high-profile ones may be fully subscribed, but many others are only 10 per cent or 20 per cent subscribed, so there is a general lack of funding for UN agencies. We know that many UN agencies pitch their appeals at a relatively low level because they anticipate low levels of funding and they are trying to have their appeals fully funded.
This one statistic is quite telling. Of all the money Canadians pay in tax, only about $10 per person goes to humanitarian funding through CIDA. It is a small amount on a per capita basis. Canadians could do substantially more to address these issues.
The Chair: As a footnote, I recall the days when we had development aid, and humanitarian aid was not entitled, as such. Therefore, there was a debate about siphoning off dollars for long-term aid as opposed to crisis intervention.
In the last two decades or more we have had humanitarian aid. We have identified humanitarian aid and multilateral aid and separated that from development aid. At least we have statistics now. I tend to agree that it is the first responder and critical in many cases; therefore, we should look at the funding on that.
Senator Munson: I have a couple of brief questions that anybody can answer. The first has to do with the hierarchy at the United Nations. Someone mentioned junior staff in the field. It is good to get that experience with some adult supervision, I suppose. There are also issues dealing with women in senior positions at the United Nations.
I do not want to get into generalizations, but in my former capacity as a reporter, every time I walked into the UN I felt like I walked back in time to the 1950s. I know there are women in senior positions, but it seemed to be a place of 1955 bureaucracy, and it seemed to be moving slowly.
Do we have an issue here that those who are in charge really are not taking these crucial decisions and truly getting an understanding of what is happening in the field in the real time in which we live and that women do not play a strong enough role in the decision-making process at the top?
Mr. McCort: The tendency to have junior staff in the field and more senior staff in headquarters is a problem that bedevils all agencies. I am a living example of that. I spent many of my early years in the field as a humanitarian worker, and now I am older and more experienced but I am here. We all struggle with that.
Increasingly, agencies are trying to do more cross-postings and exchanges amongst us to try to broaden our pool so that we are not looking only at our own staff. There are some good examples in the UN. The head of the World Food Programme has been setting a great example as a high-profile woman leader of a big organization who has huge responsibilities internationally and spends a lot of time travelling. We are pushing for the leaders of those agencies to spend time in the field, even if they are headquarters-based, and spend as much time as they can on the ground with their staff.
Ms. Koppell: There are issues of culture. There must be a fundamental shift in the way recruiting is undertaken to reach out more broadly to different kinds of candidates, thinking about the job descriptions in ways that facilitate drawing on a pool of different expertise.
For example, job descriptions for senior representatives of the Secretary-General, special representatives of the Secretary-General or mediators often call for substantial UN expertise, at least in theory, but the feeder pool of senior women to go into those positions within the UN is very small. It is unlikely there will be many women emerging from that. Therefore, we need to think more creatively about the skill sets and skills mix that are needed at these senior-level positions in order to create the space to bring in these other voices.
Senator Munson: Perhaps that should be a recommendation in our report dealing with this issue.
You mentioned earlier about working with the Dutch government, but you did not get into details. I would be curious about examples of how you work with the Dutch government and whether other NGOs could learn from your experience and what is happening with the Dutch government.
Ms. Koppell: In the case of the Dutch government, we worked to do training with personnel from the ministries of foreign affairs and defence to talk about how they could better address issues of gender in their work, both development assistance and peacekeeping operations and defence work. We have done work with the U.S. government as well. We do briefings for people from the U.S. Department of State and from the U.S. Department of Defense who are going out into the field in Afghanistan. We have done training for troops at the more junior level and for police and police trainers who are going out into the field, and now we do monthly in-service training for foreign service officers and people from the U.S. Agency for International Development who are rotating out into the field as well.
Senator Munson: Ms. Wolsak, could you go into more detail about the mandate of this commission of inquiry? It is a positive thing to consider. Would it go into the field?
Ms. Wolsak: I have with me three copies of a report that Harvard recently put out that wades through all of the various reports that have been given to the UN system over many years and documents the human rights violations. It lays out clearly that this needs to be investigated further.
The commission of inquiry is seen as a first step to investigate war crimes and crimes against humanity, and it is highly likely to lead then to a referral to the International Criminal Court. It is an interesting step, because a number of people within the democracy movement are hesitant to call for a referral to the International Criminal Court because they still hold hope for negotiations with the regime. A commission of inquiry is seen as a first step that people are hoping the international community will easily get behind. We think it is a call Canada could easily move forward on.
The Chair: You speak of a linkage to the International Criminal Court. How would that occur? Is that using Security Council responsibilities as recognized under the International Criminal Court? Burma has not signed on in any significant way to the court. I have heard only negative comments.
How would that linkage work to even have that as a realistic approach, if indeed you could get the countries politically to agree on the Security Council?
Ms. Wolsak: I believe that is the other reason for calling for this commission of inquiry as the first step; there have repeatedly been calls within the Security Council for action on Burma, and, as you say, these get vetoed, which is why there has been such a stalemate. People feel that calling for a commission of inquiry is a more palatable option that potentially could get passed through the UN Security Council. The UN Security Council would mandate the commission of inquiry. The commission of inquiry would investigate these allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity, and then that would potentially lead to a recommendation of a referral to the International Criminal Court.
The Chair: Basically the same impediments are there. You believe it would be a more palatable process for those who have been vetoing; is that correct?
Ms. Wolsak: Yes, exactly.
The Chair: Has there been any indication that any of that would occur?
Ms. Wolsak: It is a fairly new call, actually. The Harvard report came out about six months ago and is the first well- documented call for this. A number of governments around the world are starting to take on this call. The Canadian Parliamentary Friends of Burma, of which there are a number of members within the Senate, have also put their names on a petition to call for this commission.
The Chair: My concern was to get those names that would ultimately allow it, and I understand there has been no movement from any of the countries that indicated previously that there should be no action against Burma.
Ms. Wolsak: Are you asking whether there has been any indication that they would change their position?
The Chair: Yes.
Ms. Wolsak: It has not really been tested yet. There is hope.
Senator Munson: I have one statistical question. It is a serious question and a short one with respect to suicide. When it comes to the issue of women being raped, abused and so on, with all of your work in the field, do you have statistics on those who have just given up and cannot go on any further?
Mr. McCort: I do not.
Ms. Wolsak: I do not.
Senator Munson: It is probably an important statistic that would startle the world.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Ms. Koppell, has your institute had an opportunity to review the training modules used in Canada by the Canadian Armed Forces and the RCMP? Have you had a chance to compare them to your institute's tool kit and modules? If you have not, is that something you could do?
Ms. Koppell: We have not. We would be happy to do that. We have done some surveys of work by the Swedish military looking at that. We do some work with the Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces, DCAF, which works on this as well. They, too, have a tool kit, so we would be happy to do that.
Senator Nancy Ruth: That is great. I was struck that you work closely with the Netherlands. Having spent some time there during my life, I think it would be one of the most broad and gender-sensitive democracies. Does a country have to get to that level before it will entertain the value of the work your institute does?
Ms. Koppell: I do not think so. I think different countries are at different places on the spectrum. It has been interesting in our interactions with the American military to hear them talk about lessons from Iraq and the need for outreach to women and the involvement of women. It is infusing organizations that vary in terms of where they are on the spectrum. Examples like the all-Indian brigade that is posted in Liberia have been very instructive to many forces around the world as to the value that women can bring.
I would add, incidentally — and this goes back to Senator Dallaire's question earlier — that I think getting more women into forces will be absolutely critical for addressing the issues of sexual violence during conflict and moving the climate of impunity. Unless you move that agenda forward, you will not see the kind of traction you need to solve the problem.
Senator Nancy Ruth: To all of you, on this issue of sexual violence against women, my own opinion is that if you castrated every soldier in the world, they would still beat up on women. It is not about sex; it is about violating those who are lowest in society. I want to know whether you concur that they will hit up on women in whatever way they can, whether it is by rape or by any other form of violence.
Mr. McCort: That is a good point about power, but there are specific things where sex and rape serve many purposes. They do violate entire communities. It is more than just going after women; it is a way to subjugate an entire community. It is much more than just beating the weak. It is a way to affect an entire community, not just the poorest members of that community. It affects the men around those women. It has a very specific purpose, and it is more than just demonstrating power over weak people.
Ms. Koppell: In direct answer to your question, yes, it would continue to occur, because often the goal is to eliminate the reproductive capacity of a certain group. To the extent that that is your objective, how you stop that really does not relate so much to the sexual capacity of the combatants.
Ms. Wolsak: I would agree with both of those answers and add that it would continue in terms of the power dynamics playing out when we are talking about controlling a population. This is why it is so important for us to look at long-term support of women and supporting them to take control over their own lives.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I want to ask the two Canadian witnesses something: Have your organizations ever been consulted on the implementation of Resolution 1325 by various departments within government? Have they ever talked to you about how to do it?
Ms. Wolsak: Unfortunately, I have been travelling and have been unable to find out whether we were involved back in 2006 when the national action plan consultations were last in place. I am not sure whether Inter Pares was part of them at that time. I do not believe we have been consulted since then.
Mr. McCort: In our experience, it has mostly been informal conversations with our colleagues and the people we interact with.
Ms. Koppell: I am not Canadian, but some of my best friends are. I would mention that we have someone travelling this week to work with the International Development Research Centre, IDRC, in consultation on women in governance. We have worked with the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre, and we collaborate with the Parliamentary Centre of Canada around work in Sudan and elsewhere, just so you have that picture.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Is this something you have initiated? Or do you have pals who invite you over? Is it more informal?
Ms. Koppell: No. In the case of IDRC and the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre, we were invited to participate in consultative processes that they had put together. In the case of the Parliamentary Centre of Canada, we actually implemented programs on the ground together in Sudan. We have been in discussions with them over a long period of time. In fact, one representative of the Parliamentary Centre of Canada is coming to a training of trainers around our curriculum today, here in Washington, D.C. We are sending someone north and someone is travelling down south.
Senator Nancy Ruth: This is all great news. Thank you.
Senator Mitchell: I think Senator Nancy Ruth asked my core question, which was whether you are aware of what we are doing to train the Canadian military. I am interested in this tool kit and whether it has some application in Canada.
You have all alluded to the importance of a role that Canada might take in providing leadership in the promotion of solutions to these issues through the UN and elsewhere. Are you aware of any Canadian political leaders who are actually speaking out about Resolutions 1325, 1888 or 1820? Does this issue seem to be a priority or have urgency when addressing UN groups at all?
Ms. Wolsak: No. Not that I am aware of.
Mr. McCort: We have been working very closely with CARE USA in the United States, trying to make this a North American issue that affects both U.S. and Canadian parliaments. When Resolution 1888 was passed in the summer, we were getting some keen interest from the public on it. However, this issue unfortunately seems to come up and disappear fairly quickly. The resolution is passed, there is some attention and then it drops to the background. We think more needs to be done, with more consistent voices.
It is useful that we can demonstrate cases where we have had success. The more we can identify specific communities where women are making progress and where violence is being reduced, the better, and we need to promote those stories so people can see there are proven strategies to reduce violence against women. We need to promote those.
Ms. Koppell: Stephen Lewis has been quite outspoken on this agenda of Resolution 1325 through AIDS-Free World and on the changes to the gender architecture. The Canadian mission to the UN has been quite involved in New York through the Friends of 1325 group. Also, through collaboration with IDRC, we have released some of our research in partnership with them in conjunction with the Commission on the Status of Women meetings.
Senator Mitchell: Thank you. I think I am right that Canada has appointed special ambassadors to the UN on certain issues. Would it be appropriate and effective for Canada to appoint a special ambassador to the UN on this particular issue, where it would give real prominence and focus? Maybe it could be another Stephen Lewis. Does that make sense?
Mr. McCort: I think it makes great sense, and there are a number of candidates out there who would do the job admirably.
Senator Mitchell: Could you name a few?
Mr. McCort: We have a couple on our board. We have Louise Fréchette, Aldéa Landry and Janice Stein. There are a number of very high-profile Canadian women involved, and there are many beyond us as well. Again, if we start to pool the names and expertise that exists in Canada, there are many viable candidates for that role.
Ms. Koppell: It could be very valuable. Carolyn McCaskey is one of the few former special representatives of the Secretary-General out there who is a woman. That might be interesting. Stephen Lewis obviously is a candidate given his outspoken support on Resolution 1325. Having someone who could give more prominence to the agenda and who could focus on the systemic changes needed to move the system towards implementation could be critically important.
Senator Mitchell: There are many ways Canada could play a role in promoting this — talking about it, focusing on it, concrete initiatives, and global funding through the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade — definitely putting a greater emphasis up from the 0.6 per cent, which is the $150 million on $4 billion.
Mr. McCort: That is within CIDA, and within Foreign Affairs there is the Stabilization and Reconstruction Taskforce, START, which has a relatively modest budget.
Senator Mitchell: I was in Afghanistan with the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, and a number of stories were related to us like the one you mentioned, Ms. Wolsak, that a woman who is now able to make some money gains stature in her family, among other places, so she is not beaten by her husband. Not long ago I saw a study that said the single greatest indicator or attractor of stature in Western society is how much money you have and how much money you make. Because women tend to have less, they tend not to have the equality and the stature they should. I am not surprised to see that repeated and reflected in the places your work takes you. It underlines many possibilities, but there is so much we have to do. Thank you for doing it.
The Chair: Given limited resources, and every country balances national and international needs, would you suggest that Canada put its resources into supporting women overseas where conflicts have occurred, places like Rwanda, perhaps Burma and Afghanistan? Should our attention be to reinforce the resources of women who have been in conflict, or do you believe we should put our resources into awareness in Canada about Resolution 1325 and into building up the processes, tool kits, whatever you want to call them, within Canada? I recognize that all would be necessary and helpful, but if you had one punch to deliver, would you say do more for women overseas or do more for the process of Resolution 1325 in Canada, which ultimately may have the effect?
Ms. Wolsak: That is a very difficult choice to make, because one is dependent on the other. I am very reluctant to choose, but I suppose if I had to it would be to support the women overseas who are directly impacted by the violence and conflict.
In order for us to learn here in Canada, we need to be able to hear what these women want and need and their impressions of how we can implement Resolution 1325.
Ms. Koppell: If you would permit me, I would choose a third option. I would put the resources into specific, transformative vehicles that bring women's voices into the conversation. What I mean by that is that if you have a peace negotiation, put resources into ensuring women are present at that negotiation. If you have a donor conference, put money into making sure women are at that conference. If you make that transformative change, you will get the other: that is, the women will say we must put resources into serving our victims and meeting the needs of our neediest. When you bring a critical mass of those voices to the decision-making table, you change the kinds of issues that emerge, and it has a big domino effect.
The Chair: I have a dilemma. I have two minutes, three minutes at most, and I have on a second round Senator Jaffer, Senator Dallaire, Senator Nancy Ruth and Senator Demers.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Can we put all the questions out and have the witnesses come back to us?
The Chair: That could work if I have some assurance that the questions will be short, crisp and to the point. If we cannot get to all the answers, perhaps they could be written answers later.
Senator Jaffer: Ms. Wolsak, I was interested in your work with Burmese women. How do you get to those women? Have you built networks? If you cannot answer today, something in writing would be useful.
Ms. Koppell, you can see this morning there have been many questions about empowerment. I see your organization spends a lot of time — and perhaps this is the reason it exists — on bringing women into the process. Besides the tool kit, could you provide us with what you do, and maybe we can make some recommendations on that.
Mr. McCort, you suggested a community is destroyed when a woman is raped, but I would say it is also to dishonour the woman so she does not have a role in the community any longer, to take the woman out of the community as well.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Norway and the Netherlands are examples of countries able to push their governments to have an affirmative action program essentially towards Resolution 1325 and the other three resolutions. What has happened in those political cultures to make it possible? What can Canada learn from those countries' actions to help us bring this issue to the forefront of our political leadership?
Senator Demers: We are all sitting here white collar, well dressed with a bunch of documents. What is done on the ground? Who is dirtying their hands? Who is getting involved? We all seem to have everything well done, and I would like to know who is on the ground actually protecting those women and also young men. Is it all good talk? I mean no disrespect to anyone, but is it all talk and paper? What is on the ground helping those women and young men right now?
The Chair: There is a whole array of questions. Please respond if there is a quick answer to any one of them, and then the rest we will look forward to written responses.
Mr. McCort: Just speaking about CARE, we have 15,000 staff working in 70 countries; 99 per cent of them are nationals of those countries, and many organizations are the same. We have thousands of national staff. We have made the centre of our mandate women and girls, but that is just speaking for one organization. We are out there trying to do that.
One striking thing about Norway and Holland is that the level of their official development assistance and charitable giving for international causes is much higher than Canada's, and that has formed quite a groundswell of engaged citizenry who understand what is going on, hear about it from their society and then call for action.
Ms. Koppell: On the issue of what those countries have done to elevate this issue, first, there are many male spokespersons in those countries. The head of the gender section in the Netherlands is a man, and there are many male ministers who have spoken to this issue. I think cultivating and elevating all of you and especially the men in the room who feel like they are allies and getting those men to talk about this not solely as a human rights or women's rights issue but as a security and core peace issue to the success of security processes on the ground — in other words moving the discussion away from a rights-based argument to an efficacy-based argument — has been a very important part of the conversation in those countries and elsewhere.
With regards to the people working on the ground, we work extensively with our network of women leaders on the ground. Much of what we are doing is done in partnership with the local women who need to be elevated and become part of this discussion. We feel it is important to the integrity of the message that I deliver in the room today that it is delivered on behalf of authentic voices on the ground in these conflict areas and that they are advocating and making change within their own country context.
The Chair: We have run over time and there are many questions. Witnesses, if there are any answers that you would like to forward in a written format, please do so. Also, if there are other areas we have not touched that you think would be helpful in our study, I would appreciate receiving that information.
I might add a question. We talk about rape as a weapon of war as a modern-day phenomenon, but I cannot find when it started. I know where we are today. I want to reflect on what is different today and whether any of our responses are different today. The issue is embedded in Resolution 1325. We have been struggling to recognize the use of rape and women inappropriately in war. We have been struggling with this issue as a human rights issue first, but as has been pointed out, it is security, peace, et cetera.
What are some of the levers today that have been utilized that were not in the past, and what are the responses to these levers? The one I have been involved in is, at the front end, to say to every leader and every person, if you use rape in any way in the sense of a conflict, it is an offence, a crime against humanity, and the International Criminal Court now recognizes it.
I would be interested in your work. What is different about the phenomena of these past few decades, and what could the new responses be?
I thank you all. As you can see, the senators are extremely interested in this topic. I hope we will add to the debate, but, as Senator Demers said, perhaps we can also be among those who add to the action on getting something done.
Thank you for your input today. We will change panels and continue the study.
We apologize for being a little late, but the interest from the senators carried us through, and hopefully we can continue our debate.
We have from the United Nations Rachel Mayanja, Special Adviser on Gender Issues and Advancement of Women, by video conference. Before the committee we also have Ms. Linda Dale, Executive Director of Children/Youth as Peacebuilders.
Welcome to both of you.
Ms. Mayanja, I will turn to you. If you have an opening statement, we would like you to keep it succinct and then we would like to engage you in a conversation about the issue of Resolution 1325 with the senators, who have many questions.
Rachel Mayanja, Special Adviser on Gender Issues and Advancement of Women, United Nations: Thank you very much, Senator Andreychuk and members of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, for inviting me to join you this morning in your discussion of Security Council Resolutions 1325, 1820, 1888 and 1889.
I would also like to extend my thanks and appreciation to the Government of Canada for its support of our work in this area. In particular, I would like to acknowledge the assistance that we are receiving at the UN from the Permanent Mission of Canada to the United Nations, from CIDA and from the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre, which have worked closely with us. My office, in particular, has a very good and close working relationship with both ambassadors and their staff on these issues.
As you know, Canada is the chair of Friends of 1325 and regularly convenes meetings. It is due to their diligence and continued commitment that the UN diplomatic corps remains seized of these issues.
I also note that colleagues from the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations and UNIFEM have already had discussions with you on these issues. I will therefore focus my remarks on the work of my office, the Office of the Special Adviser on Gender Issues and Advancement of Women, OSAGI, in the implementation of these resolutions, in particular Resolution 1325.
Resolution 1325, from our office's point of view, entails two actions: coordination of the UN system-wide activities in support of member states and advocacy with all stakeholders to ensure implementation of the resolution.
In the early days, the Security Council focused on the role of the United Nations system. In 2004, the Security Council called on the UN system to establish an action plan within a year for the implementation of Resolution 1325. The UN system responded promptly. It produced the requested plan in 2005. However, I should note that this plan was more a compilation of what UN entities were doing.
During the following year, my office organized a multi-stakeholder assessment of the plan. This resulted in the identification of gaps and challenges and the recommendation that the plan needed to be reorganized into a results management tool around three areas: prevention, protection and participation — the three Ps.
In addition, it was recommended that a best line and performance indicators be established. We came to an agreement of what was acceptable among all the entities. The council then was informed, and the council requested us to come back next year with an assessment of this new plan.
We also noted that while the council was making a lot of demands on the UN system, it was not making similar demands on member states. In my advocacy function, it became clear that member states, which had the prime responsibility of implementing the resolution, needed to do more. My office, with the support of the Government of Norway, organized two regional ministerial dialogues. The first dialog was in the Latin America and the Caribbean region and the second one was in the Africa region. In so doing, it was surprising to us that many of the key players in government were not aware of the existence of the resolution. We also discovered that even where there was awareness, there was limited capacity to implement this resolution.
With these challenges, my office, working with the United Nations Institute for Training and Research, UNITAR, and with the International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women, INSTRAW, decided to focus on an online training course that could be accessed by all civil servants. Initially we had thought of training of trainers, but we know that that investment is sometimes carried away by those trained as they move on with their careers. We felt that having an online training course that could be accessed by all civil servants would be the best use of our resources.
These two dialogues reviewed this standard training course with a view to identifying whether it was useful to them and, if so, whether it could then be adjusted to particular conditions within the countries.
The development of national action plans therefore took on a much higher prominence in our work to persuade member states that they likewise needed to come up with their national action plans. Over the last year, this effort has picked up momentum, and we now have 16 countries that have developed national action plans.
Earlier national action plans were probably produced in a similar fashion to what the UN system had done. They lacked best lines and indicators. Later plans — in particular Liberia's, which has now become our best-practice example — engaged all stakeholders in the development of the national action plan and included performance indicators. As a result, we now have interest, and some countries have proposed a twinning approach, which would link developed countries with developing countries and perhaps countries emerging out of conflict, so they can learn from each other.
The national action plans now form one of our preoccupations. My office is also working in collaboration with UNIFEM and with the United Nations Population Fund, UNFPA, to encourage other countries. We are focusing on four particular countries: Uganda, Sierra Leone, Nepal and Côte d'Ivoire. Of those four, Uganda and Côte d'Ivoire have already developed their national plans, and Nepal and Sierra Leone still have to do that. We are helping the latter two countries with development, whereas we are helping the other two with capacity to implement their national action plans.
Let me touch briefly on the tenth anniversary of Security Council Resolution 1325. With this anniversary approaching, all stakeholders are focusing on what the anniversary should achieve in concrete terms. We would like to see the anniversary give greater momentum, almost like a push towards full implementation of Resolution 1325, and therefore focus on what concrete action could be taken for that implementation.
We would also like to see broader engagement at the community, national, regional and global levels. It was amazing to discover that, five years later, key players were still unaware of the resolution.
We have been discussing, and I know the committee has also talked about this, whether this is a year for us to celebrate. Perhaps it is, because we have come a long way and have many success stories to tell. However, I do not think it is a year for self-congratulation. We really have a lot work ahead of us, so I think it will be a time of reflection, a time of resolve and a time of identification of concrete measures that can be taken.
I would also suggest, since you are a human rights committee, that we look at the work being undertaken by the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. As you know, this committee is also interested in the rights of women and how these resolutions advance and promote the rights of women in conflict. They have started discussions on how they can involve these resolutions in their country reporting mechanisms, and perhaps this is an area that we all need to explore more.
Finally, on Resolutions 1820 and 1888, we see 1820 as being complementary to 1325. Resolution 1325 remains the overarching resolution.
Resolution 1820 is particularly significant because it links for the first time the violation of women, the rape of and sexual violence against women in conflict, and the use of women's bodies as grounds for war, as a threat to international peace and security, and therefore it engages the Security Council. We very much welcome the overwhelming reaction from members of the council and from non-members in support of this resolution.
Resolution 1888 provides the mechanisms for the enforcement of the resolution. We hope that through all these resolutions we will see greater implementation and greater recognition of the roles that women play in conflict, in peace and in security.
Finally, there has been concern that with the focus on Resolutions 1820 and 1888 we do not lose the most important achievement, which was the active participation of women in the area of peace and security, that we do not revert them to the role of victims only. Yes, they are victims, and yes, they need protection, but they are also active players in the entire peace process, and that must be acknowledged.
I thank you for your attention.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Mayanja. That is a good overview of the program and will be helpful in our work.
Linda Dale, Executive Director, Children/Youth as Peacebuilders: I thank you for this invitation and for the opportunity to meet with you today. I am delighted to be on the panel with Ms. Mayanja.
I represent Children/Youth as Peacebuilders, or CAP. CAP has worked with children and youth living in conflict and early post-conflict situations for the past 10 years. Our work stresses the importance of human rights, participation, and youth citizenship. We focus primarily on young people in the 14-to-25 age range, and it is this group on which I will concentrate my remarks. My remarks will also be based on the results of a research project that CAP recently completed on the extent, nature and impact of sexual violence against young females in Colombia, Northern Uganda and Cambodia.
This study, entitled Vicious Circles, was supported by CIDA's human development and gender equality unit. Here it is, and as a reward for listening to me today, I hope to give you each a copy.
Resolution 1325 calls for the protection of women and girls and respect for their rights. The youth population with whom I work falls in between these two groups. They are not children but also not adults. However, it is well-known that today's wars are increasingly fought on the backs and bodies of young people, and for young females this has major consequences. I would like to provide you with some of the information that we gathered from our study.
First, if today's wars have high rates of sexual violence, the level of this violence against younger females extreme. A 2009 study found that 75.7 per cent of reported sexual crimes in Colombia were against females under the age of 18. During Northern Uganda's recent war, the Lord's Resistance Army abducted over 40,000 children and youth. CAP's research indicated that the preferred age for females who were abducted was 11 to 14 years. Formerly abducted youth explained that they want younger females who are fresh. Females over 18 were often killed or sent home.
Second, in our research, we found that the use of sexual violence against female youth would best be described as a weapon that has systematically been planned and consciously integrated into armed groups' strategies and operations. It is used both to achieve military objectives and to reflect the world view of the armed groups. In practice, this means that the type of sexual violence varies from one situation to another.
In Northern Uganda, attacks on villages did not normally include rape of civilians, for example. Instead, young girls were abducted and taken away to be used by the Lord's Resistance Army as wives of officers and as fighters. The average length of time females were kept by the LRA was eight years. At a rate of even two assaults per week, that would amount to 832 rapes.
In Colombia, the focus has been on control of people and resources. Armed groups occupy a region and dictate all aspects of social behaviour. In areas occupied by the paramilitary, strict rules are imposed on the dress and behaviour of young females on pain of severe punishment. Also, they must be available whenever and however the paramilitaries choose. As a youth explained, a girl's rights end where his begin.
We also saw that the sexual violence against young people increases inside the civilian populations both during and after a war and often reflects the behaviour of armed groups, particularly their understanding of gender roles.
I am describing these points because they are important considerations in thinking about Resolution 1325, the nature of sexual violence, and also the development of Canada's action plan, the contribution that Canada can make to this resolution, which is, admittedly, huge in scope and ambition.
I would like to recommend that Canada could play a significant role in the realization of Resolution 1325 through a focus on the rights and needs of younger females. This is consistent with CIDA's programming priorities for children and youth and their protection. Canada has expertise on gender issues and the rights of young people. There is a logic to combining these two elements. Most important, females under the age of 25 have been the recipients of high levels of sustained violence and conflict. As present and future leaders for change, they need support and attention.
I have three suggestions. First, Canada should take a lead role in documenting the complexities of sexual violence in conflict, particularly as this manifests itself within the youth population. We need to move away from assumptions of single assaults and replace this with a more nuanced understanding of how sexual violence is being used differently in each conflict. This understanding is fundamental to effective protection and support for victims. It is important in prevention and public education work, which I would maintain should actively involve males as well as females.
Second, would I like to recommend that Canada support programs in training and capacity building for youth leaders, particularly young females, and Canada should advocate for their direct involvement in peace processes as observers, witnesses and negotiators. In many cases, these young people have had their lives drastically affected by the war, and often they will speak to me about the fact that they are used in war but are absent in peace processes.
Third, in its role within the United Nations and potentially the Security Council, I am hoping that Canada could contribute to the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1882, which has responsibility for monitoring the situation of young people, with levels of sexual violence being an important indicator.
Resolution 1882 is inside the family of resolutions to support the rights of females and is unique in its power to sanction gross rights violators. The successful implementation of this resolution inside the UN system could set an important precedent for future initiatives on human security.
I would like to end with a quote from Grace Arach, who is from Northern Uganda. Ms. Arach was abducted by the Lord's Resistance Army and held by them for five years. Once she escaped she became a strong advocate for the rights of girls and girl mothers. Recognition of her work made New Vision, one of Uganda's national newspapers, to name her Uganda's female achiever for 2009. Speaking recently about the value of international resolutions to protect young people, she said, "You know all the difficulties we have gone through, but when important organizations like the UN show that they really care about us, it makes us feel better.''
Grace Arach is doing her part, so we need to do ours.
Senator Jaffer: My first question is to Ms. Mayanja. Thank you for making time for us. It is good to see you again via teleconference.
You have covered a number of things. We also had a presentation from the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations. I would like to ask you how you evaluate the work the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations is doing, especially around gender advisers and its peacekeeping missions. What is your assessment? I know it puts you in a difficult position, but because of your special role, how do you assess the work that that department is doing around Resolution 1325 and all its other resolutions?
Ms. Mayanja: Thank you very much for that question. I am very happy to see you again, Senator Jaffer, even though by video conference.
It is a difficult question. I would perhaps answer first by saying that the UN has come a very long way. From that point I think it has done very well.
With regard to gender equality in the peace processes, I would like to break it down. I would like to look at the troop-contributing countries, the troops that we have there and the police we have. I do not believe we have sufficient numbers of women in these two key areas that would help us to reach out to those women who have been affected by conflict.
You have just heard from Ms. Linda Dale about the impact of violence on young women. Once you have been violated by a man in uniform, it does not matter whether that man is wearing a blue beret or something else. The fear will always be that men in uniform are the attackers. Therefore once you see them, you should run away.
This is why it is critical for the UN to have women in uniform. However, we are not doing well with that. The reason we are not doing well is that member states are also not doing well. The UN is a reflection of what actually exists there. I would say that as far as having women who can reach out to children who have been victimized during this conflict and to women who have been violated, we are not yet at the level where I would like to see the UN.
With regard to the gender advisers, this is a new development that has greatly improved the performance of UN missions, especially the gender advisers who try to breach and fill that gap that I have just talked about. Many of them are very creative. They are trainers; they reach out to the women, to the community; they are counsellors; they inform the UN staff themselves and the people on mission. I believe the idea that we should have gender advisers in each and every mission is commendable.
I would also say that the Department of Peacekeeping Operations has embraced the urge for gender mainstreaming. We view the resolution as calling for gender mainstreaming in all peace processes, and the department has developed its own gender mainstreaming policy. It is training the staff, both the civilians and the military, in mainstreaming, and the gender advisers have played a key role in that regard. Overall I would say it has done well.
Senator Jaffer: When I was in Darfur, I found that there was a real cry to have women police officers to help investigate rape. You are right that our member countries are not doing well with having women participate in the police and the armed forces, so it is difficult to get women as part of the peacekeeping operations. You said you are training people on Resolution 1325 and looking at ways to get the UN members to increase the number of women in their armed forces and police forces. Are you doing anything specific to encourage member nations to increase the number of women in the armed forces and police forces in their countries?
Ms. Mayanja: Yes; in fact these two high-level dialogue meetings that we organized in Latin America and in Africa were focusing precisely on what you just asked. We found that the Department of Peacekeeping Operations is working with troop-contributing countries, but other countries may eventually become troop-contributing countries, or police- contributing countries, and they need to get ready. This has been core to the program that we have held and core to my advocacy functions to advise member states that if they need the UN to improve they must increase the number of women. The resolution is not limited to the Secretary-General or to the UN system to have women in key positions; it is also for member states to do the same.
How will this be done? First and foremost, we need to engage the particular ministries. When we brought together the ministries of defence in this high-level dialogue in Latin America, there was a female minister of defence who said this was the first time she had heard about that. Nobody had talked to her about it. How was she then going to improve her performance if she was not aware of it?
I believe this is critical. The resolution is not restricted to the ministers of women and gender. This must be understood, and the governments must do more to help us by reaching out to the ministries of defence and the interior.
Senator Jaffer: Ms. Dale, for the first time since we started these committee hearings, you have set out the issue of the youth. Having spent quite a bit of time in Northern Uganda, I know that the girls get abducted not only from the communities but also from boarding schools at night. It is a real issue.
You said the Lord's Resistance Army looks for young girls. My experience is that when these girls are rescued or brought back to Northern Uganda, there are no programs to help them get integrated back into their families. Sometimes their families reject them, and there is absolutely nothing to help these girls become reintegrated into their communities. Perhaps things have changed. Could you enlighten us?
Ms. Dale: I wish things had changed. I do not think they have. There is the initial support for girls in the reception centres, but, as you probably know, many girls try to slide back into their communities because of the stigma if they have been identified as having been at one of the reception centres. It is even harder for them because they often have children.
There is a real and complicated problem with respect to the emotional aspect. They go back into their families, and they have a very ambiguous relationship with them because they are often mothers themselves. Those families have very complicated relationships with the children who were born in captivity, which is a population that really needs a lot of assistance, as you know.
Another problem, one I am not quite sure what we do with, is that within the international community, in order to get support, girls can maintain what has been called the victim label. Yes, they are victims, but they are not victims forever. The problem is that sometimes they understand — and this is reinforced by some of our services — that they must continually identify themselves as formerly with the LRA, and that often becomes a self-defeating kind of thing for them.
The complications of their returns are enormous. Senator Jaffer, I believe you are Ugandan by birth, so you know very well that it is a very complicated situation for them.
One thing I take great heart from is that in 1998 I conducted an art workshop with girls who had just come out of the bush. I found it troubling because they could not do anything about self-identity. They only wanted to do drawings of their husbands. Seven or eight years later, they will talk more about who they are. One realizes it is a long and troubled road for them.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Ms. Mayanja, I wanted to ask about GEAR, the UN Gender Equality Architecture Reform. It will take at least another year for it to happen, if not longer. What effect will this reorganization of the women's entities of the United Nations have on the priority and resources available to implement Resolution 1325 and its sister resolutions?
Ms. Mayanja: It is a question that is obviously of great concern, especially during this financial crisis. With the economic meltdown, many countries are going through a hard period.
When the proposal for the consolidation of the four gender-specific units was made, one of the considerations was that among them were very few resources, although there was a lot of demand for assistance from member states. Clearly, with Resolution 1325, there is a lot of demand for assistance to member states on how to incorporate the provisions of the resolution in their national action plans or in national legislation. It is expected that the consolidation of the four gender-specific units into a new gender entity would strengthen the UN in support of member states. Because it will be one organization, we would eliminate the fragmentation and would therefore be more focused and able to fundraise to deal with all the mandates that would be at the disposal of this entity, which are currently the mandates of the four gender-specific entities.
In my view, this can only be positive. Right now, my office would come to the Government of Canada asking for resources so that I could work on the coordination and advocacy. UNIFEM would also need resources so it could assist member states at the country level, because it is the operational arm. We also have INSTRAW, our research and knowledge arm, that would also be asking for resources. Previously, the resources would be split among the four entities, whereas now, once resources are provided, the entity itself will be reorganized, linking these four in order to be able to implement the resolutions. I envisage that this would be positive and more coherent.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Let us hope so. As always, women's resources are competing against everyone else's resources. I am wondering whether the next round of gender mainstreaming will be supported by new dollars. I am afraid that the message I hear you saying is, given the global meltdown, "Hey, lady, there is no more money.'' Is that what you are saying?
Ms. Mayanja: No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that given the global meltdown, everyone is cautious about how they spend money.
We have demonstrated that investing in women is good for everyone. As more and more member states acknowledge this, we stand a better chance of getting the resources we need.
Let us talk about sustainable development. We will not have sustainable development if we exclude from that development over half of the population we are trying to develop. I think this message is getting clear, that we need to invest in the empowerment of women.
I am simply saying that there will be tough and keen competition for the resources available.
Senator Nancy Ruth: To both of you, a witness earlier this morning from the Hunt Alternatives Fund, Carla Koppell, suggested the idea that we should move away from a rights-based look at Resolution 1325 and women and look at it as a security issue. If we were to do that and to engage men strongly in its advocacy, do you think we would be more successful in pushing the agenda for women and girls?
Ms. Mayanja: I differ from that position. I think that security issues involve the rights of women. We have just heard from Ms. Dale about the rights of these young women who have been affected by insecurity. Therefore, moving away from a rights-based approach will not resolve the security problems.
What is at play now is that the bodies of women are being turned into a battleground. Therefore, their rights are being totally violated. They are not being treated as humans. To look at it from a security point of view, what does that mean, to stop the war or to stop being turned into a battleground? It is not clear to me what that would entail, but it is very clear to me that the human rights of women and girls must be guaranteed and protected. Therefore, the only way the Security Council can do that is if it looks at the rights of these women from a security point of view. You cannot separate the two and take only a security point of view and the rights will follow, so to speak. I do not believe that would follow. We need a rights approach to security issues.
Ms. Dale: I wish I had gone first. She was so eloquent and passionate; it is hard to compete with that.
I would agree with everything Ms. Mayanja said. I understand that looking at issues in terms of security is a way to implement the human rights. Human rights are the overarching understanding of how we would want to look at this issue, and the upholding of human rights is the vision that would inform our work.
If we restrict it to security and not look at it as a human rights issue, we will probably think only in terms of battle, the heat-of-the-moment war situation, and yet we all know that sexual violence actually increases after conflict. Security will probably not help, while I hope upholding and promoting human rights would.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I am delighted to hear that. I am one of those women who believe that if you do not name us we do not exist. I concur with you.
The Chair: There is a movement from talking about women and children who have been sexually abused as victims, as basically persons who have suffered whatever crime it is, to putting the emphasis on the abusers. Is that phenomenon — which I think is a positive one — occurring around Resolution 1325 and the subsequent resolutions?
Ms. Mayanja: It seems to be an emerging phenomenon, yes. However, it has also proven to be the most difficult. Through our high-level dialogues there was a recommendation to increase the piece from three to four, and the fourth would be prosecution. The problem that we confronted to date has been the difficulty of bringing the perpetrators to account.
It has been difficult for a number of reasons. First, I do not think there has been political will on the part of officials who should bring these perpetrators to account. Second, the anarchical situation in which people are operating is such that one cannot guarantee that there is the quality of services, such as police, prisons and judicial services, to be able to enforce the law. Third, the culture in which we have been operating is a culture in which sexual offences are not to be discussed publicly or acknowledged. When one does, one falls victim to being ostracized, to rejection, and so these have made it difficult for us to move towards holding abusers accountable.
Fortunately, through Resolutions 1820 and 1888, we are encouraged to be bolder. I hope this boldness can translate from the global to the national level, whereby the national officials, leaders, can see their responsibility to bring abusers to account and have them prosecuted as a valid exercise of executive responsibility.
Ms. Dale: Once again, I agree with everything that Ms. Mayanja said. I would like to add two things in relationship to young people.
As Ms. Mayanja just mentioned, there has been an operating culture that says it is worse to have been the victim of sexual violence than to have committed the violence. That definitely must change. The impunity that gross violators have enjoyed in the past must change.
I was speaking with Grace Arach the other day, and she said it is terrible to watch these officers who committed the sexual abuses walk up and down the streets of Gulu and enter cafés. Those women do not have the money to go into cafés, but the officers can enter the cafés. It is fundamentally not right.
There is a growing movement with the development of the International Criminal Court and with the call and the recognition of sexual violence as a crime against humanity. That is very important.
To add Resolution 1882, which is to focus primarily on the situation of young people in conflict zones, the fact that sexual violence was added in August as one of the major indicators to look at the situation of young people is incredibly important. That resolution has the power, unique within the Security Council resolutions, to sanction gross violators of children's rights. There is growing movement to say they should not be able to do it and they should be punished if they do.
Senator Mitchell: Thank you to both of you. It was very powerful testimony.
Many of my questions have been asked and answered, but I am interested in the idea Ms. Mayanja mentioned with respect to the twinning of countries. First, could you describe that program further? Second, could you indicate whether Canada has participated? Third, what would it take for Canada to be a participant in that?
Ms. Mayanja: Thank you, Senator Mitchell, for those questions. I will start with the second one. No, Canada has not participated in this program. It is a recent development. Last March, the Government of Liberia, with the President of Liberia and the President of Finland, organized an international colloquium on women leadership in peace and security, and Resolution 1325 was one of the topics. I must say, the Governor General was there and made a very powerful statement. It was at that colloquium that the whole idea of twinning came up and was discussed. A number of countries have expressed interest. Ireland would like to twin with Kenya, I believe. I think this is an idea Canada could take up, and Canada could twin with Uganda and with some other countries that are developing and emerging out of conflict and have already developed a national action plan.
The idea is that the countries would learn from each other. Canada has done certain things through the leadership of the Friends of 1325 here, through their commitment to the implementation of the resolution, through their commitment to gender equality and the empowerment of women, speaking out. Many other contributions through the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre have brought together the police and the military to discuss gender mainstreaming in those areas. These ideas could be shared with another country.
"Twinning'' might be a misnomer, because some are thinking in terms of three countries joining forces together. The idea is to learn from each other and see how we can support each other in the process of developing and implementing the national action plans. I would greatly recommend it for Canada.
Senator Mitchell: Canada does not yet have a national action plan on Resolution 1325, so we have a lot of work to do as a first step. There will be pressure from this committee to get this done.
Ms. Dale, you made the point of having children or youth involved in post-war situations in the rebuilding process. Could you elaborate on that?
Is it that they should be there because it is important for their healing or because they have special insights? I am sure they do. Have those special insights had an impact or are the youth patronized in that process?
Ms. Dale: Before I answer your question, there is one point I did not make when Senator Andreychuk was asking about the issue of perpetrators and not allowing the impunity they have enjoyed in the past to continue. I would think strongly that males could take an important role in this work. Most of the men I know, and that everyone knows, do not take part in sexual violence. They need increasingly to stand up and say, "This is not us. This is not about us. This is not all men. We do not want to put up with it.'' I think males could play an important role in that.
In answer to your question about youth participation in peace processes, I would think it is important for two reasons. Again, I want to use partly the example of Northern Uganda. Northern Uganda's war is often called a war against children. This war lasted for 20 years. Many of the young children who participated in that war, perhaps having been abducted, were in their twenties by the time the peace process began, but we in CAP and other youth organizations petitioned to have even observer status, to say, "This is our history. Our history needs to be honoured and recognized.'' That was not allowed. We even said we would go into acrobatics as an entertainment for them beforehand, and they said, "No, you cannot.''
That is a major omission, particularly if you want young people to turn the corner from a very difficult history and to work positively for the rejuvenation of their culture and society. From that point of view, not just individually, they have a contribution to make. They have a lot of energy. The young people I work with talk endlessly about wanting to have the future they want, not the future they have been given.
I think every generation recreates its world. If we do not work in parallel with young people, who often have had very limited experience of democracy, human rights and citizenship, if we do not start working with them in an accompanying way, in 10 years we will recycle everything, I think.
Senator Jaffer: You may want to send us something as well, Ms. Mayanja. We have not had a chance to ask you about the UN success to date in mainstreaming gender issues and what your perspective is about that work.
Ms. Mayanja: Thank you very much, Senator Jaffer. That is a long story. As you suggested, we will send you something.
Gender mainstreaming is a standing item on the agenda of the UN Economic and Social Council. We are obliged to mainstream gender in all our work.
With regard to Resolution 1325, my office started early on approaching different departments to help them find out what they needed to be able to mainstream gender. We started training and working with different departments, and the departments were encouraged to come up with their own departmental policy on mainstreaming gender. As such, we have seen that gender has been mainstreamed in mine action, for example, of which we are proud. The Department of Peacekeeping Operations and the Department of Political Affairs have gender policies. All these departments that deal with women, peace and security have come up with some form of policy statement on mainstreaming gender, and they acknowledge that this is part of their work. We have made progress, I must say, but much more still remains to be done.
The Chair: On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank Ms. Mayanja for being with us from the United Nations and Ms. Dale here with us at the committee. We have had an opportunity to reflect on some of the broader issues from an international perspective. Ms. Dale, you brought it right down to the children who have been in conflict in Northern Uganda and elsewhere. Your suggestions and information have been very helpful to us. We thank you for participating this morning.
(The committee adjourned)