Rape Outcry

Since the beginning of time, rape (and other forms of sexual violence such as sexual torture, sexual slavery, forced prostitution) has been used as weapons of and in war. From conflicts in Bosnia Herzegovina, Rwanda, Liberia, Congo and Darfur, rape has been repeatedly used to shame and psychologically traumatize victims.

The world is aware of girls and women as the usual victims of rape in conflict zones. Statistics are easily available for female victims of sexual violence in war zones or in military occupation. Report by the Special Rappoteur on Rwanda estimates that 50,000 and 500,000 Rwandese women and girls were raped during the Rwanda genocide. Recent report on Congo found that more than 400,000 women were raped in a 12-month period in 2006-07, which roughly equates to 1,152 women were raped every day between during that time frame – a shocking rate of 48 per hour. As a result, there are myriad of international organizations funded, equipped and trained to deal with rape of women. However, not many people are aware of male rape or how prevalent it is. Very few organizations are equipped to offer help to men who have been raped or experienced other forms of sexual violence.

Hundreds of thousands of men have been raped by other men. Some of them have been gang-raped repeatedly and over a period of many years. Rape of men is not a new occurrence but, so far, it has been under-discussed and under-researched. A recent Guardian article narrates the harrowing experience of Congolese refugees who were repeatedly raped when they were captured by rebel group – some were brutalized for many years. In Eastern Congo, 30% of women and 22% of men reported being victims of sexual violence. One victim who confided in a doctor was only given Panadol. The article notes incidences of male rape during conflicts in countries like Chile, Greece, Croatia, Iran, Kuwait, the former Soviet Union and the former Yugoslavia. During the Sri Lankan civil war, 21% of rape victims were male. 80% of Bosnian males imprisoned in concentration camps and 76% of El Salvadoran male political prisoners reported sexual abuse.

Why male rape?

Raping of men, in a certain symbolic way, constitute more of a power play. For most men the idea of being a victim is hard to handle. Beliefs about ‘manliness’ and ‘masculinity’ are deeply ingrained for most men and can lead to intense feelings of shame, inadequacy or guilt. Most telling but not surprising, these men are referred to as “women”- a shaming tactic of the man for playing, albeit forcibly, a woman’s role in being penetrated. It is this forced revocation of the masculine identity, coupled with the taboo of this particular act of sexual violation that makes male rape carry an extra dose of shame and the reason why men do not report incident of rape or seek for help post-trauma. This culture of silence by both the victim and assailant makes cases of male rape particularly disturbing and difficult to stem.

Most countries do not criminalize sexual abuse of men, therefore, systematically refusing to protect victims. This indirectly facilitates and fosters a culture of impunity for perpetrators and ignoring male rape victims. This public manifestation of impunity does not end with states; sadly, many international and aid organizations are falling short.  Due to lack of data and discussion on this issue, many international organizations do not talk about it. There are dozens of references to “violence against women” in United Nations human rights resolutions, treaties and agreements, but most don’t mention sexual violence against men. Most of the funds and public discourse are directed to only female victims while ignoring and neglecting men.

In the inaction(s) of States and international organizations a thread of commonality emerges: the belief that no one will be held accountable for these vicious acts and violent crimes. It reinforces that belief that equates ‘female’ with ‘victim’, thus hampering our ability to see women as strong and empowered beings. It also underscores the unhealthy expectations of men by the society and their assumed invulnerability.

What should be done?

Talking about sexual violence is never easy. Whether you are a man or a woman, sexual violation is traumatic. However, the world cannot sit back and watch victims suffer in silence. There needs to be law in place that makes abuse of men illegal. INGOs, lawyers, health experts and human rights activists must insist on a broader definition of rape and sexual violence that includes both genders whilst penalizing the perpetrators.

The world needs to provide medical resources and psychological support to men while ensuring that perpetrators are held to account. Dealing with the consequences of sexual violence can be hard work but people do recover. The world should not, due to strict definition of gender roles and myopic interpretation of violence, deny support to men who demonstrate the courage to come forward in reporting such crimes.

The following was cross-posted at my blog Red Earth

Earlier this month the Bangladesh government removed Mohammed Yunus as the head of the micro finance lender, Grameen Bank (GB). The reason given by the government for Yunus’ removal is that in Bangladeshi law, company heads have to retire at 60 and he is 70.  However most people believe this a political move by the Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina, to remove Yunus who in 2007 announced plans to set up his own political party and clean up political life in Bangladesh, which is notoriously corrupt.  Even though he dropped the idea within a couple of months, many politicians in Bangladesh, including Sheikh Hasina, still see him as a potential political threat. In fact, many believe this is Sheikh Hasina’s retaliation for his brief foray into politics.

Yunus’ removal has won him sympathy from the Bangladeshi public and captured world attention, including that of renowned economist Prof Jagdish Bhagwati.  In a recent article for Project Syndicate titled Grameen vs. Bangladesh, Prof Bhagwati raised some important points on the feud between Yunus and the government of Bangladesh. However, one cannot but notice the several errors and many distortions of information in the article. Let me explain.

1. Prof Bhagwati purports that GB is supported by foreign capital infusions. This is simply not true. In 1995, GB made the decision to stop receiving foreign donor funds but it officially stopped receiving foreign funds in 1998, the year when the last installment of donor fund was received. The bank survives solely on its growing deposit to run and expand its credit programme. Today, GB is a net investor in Bangladesh with its total deposit at $1.4 billion and impacting the lives of over 8 million Bangladeshis.

2.  The charge of malfeasance by the Norwegian government against Yunus and GB was dropped.   A documentary by a Danish filmmaker Tom Heinemann claimed Prof Yunus and his associates diverted nearly $100m of Norwegian aid money to Grameen Kalyan, which was not involved in micro-credit. However, the investigation that followed showed that no Norwegian money was missing or unaccounted for. In fact, the Norwegian government has repeatedly stressed that there is no indication that Norwegian funds have been used for unintended purposes, or that GB has engaged in corrupt practices or embezzled funds.

Domestically, GB has never required government bailouts or even interventions in soliciting external resources. Annual audits have shown that GB is well managed, its financial dealings in good order and above board. The government has never received any complaints from the majority owners – mostly poor women who own 75% of the shares of the Bank – that the bank was being mismanaged or that their resources were being misused. Yet, Prof Bhagwati has failed to acknowledge this point and would rather resort to innuendos and rumormongering.

3. Prof Yunus has never claimed he is the pioneer of the micro-credit scheme. What is he credited for is the institutionalization and global recognition of micro-credit. GB believes that credit should be accepted as a human right, and as a result, built a system where one who does not possess anything gets the highest priority in getting a loan. This idea of collateral-less credit increased GB’s customer base to 8.3m borrowers and led to global recognition of microfinance as a tool for poverty reduction and social development.

4. In continuing with the distortion, Bhagwati discounts the Bangladeshi’s steady economic growth. The latest IMF reports on Bangladesh shows a country with steady economic growth at 5.9 percent despite global economic downturn. The problem with growth-obsessed economist such as Bhagwati is that they tend to ignore social development and equity, which Bangladesh has been doing exceedingly well over the past couple of years.  Bangladesh’s Human Development Index (HDI) are much better than most South Asian countries and it has even outshone India in many social indicators. Many renowned economist such as Amartya Sen, who developed the UN HDI and also a Noble laureate, constantly cite Bangladesh as a success story in social and human development thanks to the works of Grameen Bank among other factors.

I have a huge admiration for Prof Bhagwati mainly because like him, I am an advocate of free trade and globalization even though I believe that not all western economic policies appropriate for the developing world. It is such a shame that renowned academic like him would behave in such a disgraceful manner towards a fellow colleague. He has violated professional ethics by deliberately distorting information, as this is clearly not a case of scholarly disagreement. Public intellectual such as Bhagwati are supposed to uphold just production and dissemination of ideas in public discourse and not engage in deliberate untruths. It is truly sad that in this particular case Bhagwati was not able to rise above his prejudice and corrupted interest.

Few weeks back, the 1 million t-shirt campaign caught the attention of aid/development experts/enthusiasts on twitter and on blogshere because of the idiocy of the campaign- collecting 1 million used t-shirts and sending it Africa. This led to HUGE uproar and many blog posts criticizing the idea and plan of the organizer, Jason Sadler. The end result was an internet round table discussion between Jason and some development/aid experts, and of course a coverage in Time Magazine.

Lessons  learned

Indeed, from the uproar and discussion that ensued the following key points rung the loudest.

1. The danger with donated goods: Many critics pointed out the economic impact of this project if successfully implemented, which includes but not limited, to flooding the market with used t-shirt and as a result depressing the local cotton and textile industries. This is because local manufacturers and sellers cannot compete with excess influx of subsidized goods. Millions of households depend on revenues from cotton in places like Mali, Togo, Burkina Faso and are in danger of disappearing due to influx of cheap goods into the African market. Combine the above with the effect of US government subsidy on cotton – and you will get the clear picture of the slow but sure decline of local textile and cotton industries in different African countries.

2. Many development and aid analysts such as Aid Watchers, Alanna Shaikh, Marieme Jamme to mention a few all pointed out the folly of this campaign which is this: good intentions are, sometimes, not enough. It is all well and good that many well-meaning people want to set up organizations or have project that provide used goods to people in developing countries but have they carefully thought about their project(s)? Imagine the logistical nightmare of sending 50,000 pairs used shoes to, say, Haiti? Or the thousands of dollars that will be spent in clearing these shoes at the port? There are serious costs involved with GiK such as costs when organizing collection and sorting, handling and shipping, cleaning and repair, costs for port clearance and so on, which renders the aims of GiK- for relief and development- pointless.

3. Ask questions and tons of it: if you’re not clear on what a charity wants to do with your donation, ask for details. It means you are being a well-informed donor and it is not rude. If a charity organization have a well thought out mission, it will be easy for them to answer your questions. However, if they aren’t ready for questions from donors, then they are not ready to run an effective aid project and you should not donate to their cause.

However I want to add the the above points.

4. Aid makes a difference, but  we Africans must control our own fate

While it is easy to blame and point fingers at foreigners and charity organizations for sending outrageous GiK to Africa, we must realize that there can be no change neither will these practices stop, unless we jointly refuse and reject these donations. We must be frank with ourselves and accept that change must come from within. The truth is, if these charity organizations don’t find willing receivers in Africa, they wouldn’t be sending their used junk to our continent. We need to reset our mindset here in Africa that not everything sent from outside the continent is good nor must we accept. The continent is vibrant and not simply a place of enormous need. This simple fact reminds us that “our all accepting behavior”, which encourages this destabilizing and dehumanizing cycle must stop.

We need to be vocal about our needs and we definitely do not need used bras or recycled soaps, good intentions notwithstanding. Rather, we should insist on funds used in the collection, sorting, shipping and clearing (to a mention a few costs connected with GiK) be invested in sending women to sewing schools, so they can make locally-sourced shirts and support their families with the income. Or for direct investment in local soap making industries to create more jobs for the burgeoning youth population. Or for the funds to be channeled into upgrading the machineries in footwear/textile industries to make them more sustainable, supporting indigenous industries in the process.  I’m sure many of these “poor” people would prefer a consistent and sustainable stream of income to be able to afford the things they need, rather than one-off t-shirt that would only last for few weeks. So why don’t we tell these donors and other grass-root organizations working in conjunction with them on what we actually need?

The bottom line is this: we need educate donors on how to give to Africa but this education will not start from the top nor from ‘outside’. There is only so much aid and development experts can do to inform the rest of the world on the dangers of GiK. But the onus of responsibility lies on us Africans to educate the rest of world on the ‘thorny’ impact of dumping goods on a national market, which is basically what it comes down to.  We don’t need to wait for another 1 million t-shirt saga for us to take up to blogs and twitter to voice our opinions. We can start today by writing to various aid organizations (those receiving these goods), international media outlets and social media networks but until we start, containers filled with a million t-shirts will continue to offload on our ports.

1. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was radicalized in Yemen and possibly, the UK.

Reports that emerged immediately after his attempt to bring down the Northwest Airlines flight, his subsequent arrest and the weeks of investigation that followed showed that growing up, the suspect was a devout Muslim but he was not in the least militant. During his high school years in Togo, he was fondly called ‘Pope’ and ‘Alfa’ because of his pious attitude, “very decent and gentle, in fact a pacifist. His views on religion were very mainstream,” thus indicating that at this stage, he was just a young boy trying to be morally upright as preached in the holy book, Quran. While undertaking his undergraduate studies at the prestigious University College London, Abdulmutallab became the head of a British University Islamic Society (ISOC). It could have been here as the head of ISOC that he became radicalized as he was in the most conducive environment where he can meet and interact with Islamist extremists. The guys over at Christian Science Monitor asks whether the fact that “his four formative years in London coincided with public anger over the Iraq war and the London subway and bus bombing by Islamists in July 2005″ played a role in his terrorist aspirations but one cannot be certain for sure. After graduating from UCL and in between moving first to Egypt, and then Dubai in the United Arab Emirates where he studied for an MBA before dropping out, Abdulmutallab made two trips to Yemen for short Arabic and Islamic courses. It was the trips to Yemen that many believed left a deeper mark on the young man and where he became radicalized. In interviews with FBI agents, Abdulmutallab said he made contact via the Internet with a radical imam in Yemen who then connected him with al Qaeda leaders in a village north of the Yemeni capital, Sana’a. Additionally, he said he lived with the al Qaeda leader in Yemen for about a month and was not allowed to leave as he was trained in what to do and how to explode the bomb device.

From the above brief investigation reports, one needn’t be a rocket scientist to realize that the only link between the suspect and Nigeria stems from his nationality- a Nigerian, though he is of a different pedigree than most Nigerians of his age. Does being Nigerian automatically makes him or other Nigerians a terrorist? No. One thing to remember about Abdulmuttalab, in addition to the fact that he was not radicalized in Nigeria, is this: his formative years- a period of psychological, ideological and identity development- was spent outside the shores of Nigeria, in Togo and UK respectively. This fact says more about where the real terror threat is (and is not) coming from. Also, his elite upbringing and background puts in a different class from most Nigerians and into that of known international terrorists. Dayo Olopade in her article points out that “like Bin Laden, [Abdulmutallab] is an affluent cosmopolite whose wealth allowed him to move with ease from Lagos to London to Dubai, as a result, joins a group of attackers, from Zazi to “dirty bomber” Jose Padilla to “shoe-bomber” Richard Reid, who have spent significant amounts of time in Europe or the United States.” Also, let’s not forget that Abdulmutallab’s father,  was so disturbed by his son’s radicalization that he reported him to the American authorities.  Surely, this is not a sign of a country filled with homegrown terrorists out to destroy America and her interests, no?

2.  Religious conflict does not prove that Nigerian Muslims are nut jobs out to harm America and rid the world of western influences.

I’d have to go into far more detail than a blog post allows to fully analyze the cause of the religio-tribal conflict in Northern Nigeria, but I think one can safely assume that the vast majority of these conflicts stems from misunderstanding between local tribes, struggle for resources, poverty or political struggle manipulated by the ruling elite, and confused or potrtrayed as religious conflict by the media. Again, my point is not to prove that some of the conflicts aren’t strictly religious in its context. In fact, the Boko Haram incident of July last year is a recent example of religious/terror inclined clash but the fact that it was quickly quelled by the Nigerian police and armed forces, and condemned by the national body of Muslims shows that Nigeria is highly unlikely to become the next Afghanistan or even Yemen, or even a supporter of those who do.  Which bring me to my main point: religious clashes and by extension extremism in the Northen Nigeria have been less about ‘religion’ itself and more about general dissatisfaction among many due to lack of rule of law and functioning institutions. I know we have a lot of things wrong at home but active exportation of jihad and jihadists abroad is NOT one of them.

Should we be worried at all?

Of course not but as a country, we should be watchful lest we fall and become that we thought we would never be.  The above analysis points to the fact the majority of clashes stems from general dissatisfaction, poverty and misunderstanding. The policy and political implications are clear. In fact, Nneoma’s write-up on the importance of education of boys, which presented the World Bank findings that countries with a low rate of secondary school attainment amongst young males are more likely to be conflict-prone attests to this. It goes without saying that conflict-ridden countries serve as a breeding and recruitment ground for would-be terrorist (see Afghanistan, Iraq).  To prevent the constant occurrence of clashes of various kinds, thus a de-facto breeding ground for both local and international terrorists, our government must, in addition to fulfilling its other legitimate duties, actively seek ways to use education as a strategy to reduce the risk of political violence, particularly among the Nigerian youth.

Which brings me back to Mr. Soyinka, I understand his frustration and why he’s not happy about Nigeria being on the terror watch list. If anything, Abdulmuttalab’s case tells us less about radicalization in Nigeria and more about radicalization in the UK or elsewhere.  Also, attributing the various religio-tribal conflicts in Northern Nigeria as signs that the country is on its way to becoming the next terrorist hotspot shows deep lack of understanding of political realities on the ground, as they may have nothing to do with international terrorism but more about local radicals motivated by local grievances and politics.