Assignment 08 – UN Resolution 1325
UN Resolution 1325, unanimously passed by the UN Security Council on October 31, 2000, is centered around the security of women and girls during war and the post-war rehabilitation period. Authors Felicity Hill, Mikele Aboitiz and Sarah Poehlman-Doumbouy write glowingly about the ambitious aims of Resolution 1325, yet are relatively vague about the details – horrific as they no doubt are – of the victimization of women and girls when the inherent lawlessness and chaos of war takes hold.
The objectives of the resolution, as per the authors of the essay, range from a basic acknowledgement that women and girls suffer a specific kind of violence during war-time to providing women (who have been victims of gender-based violence) a voice at Security Council meetings to providing sensitivity trainings to key actors in war zones as well as to aim for a more gender-balanced Security Council.
This UN resolution – like so many other UN resolutions – has set some lofty goals for itself but is relatively meaningless because there is no way to actually force its implementation. It is hard to argue that demanding accountability from countries involved armed conflict should pay special attention to the protection and security of women is a bad thing. But, if it is merely words written on paper, then it’s hard to argue that it’s too much of a good thing, either.
When one considers that the US military which is involved directly or indirectly in nearly every armed conflict in the world (currently, the US is bombing 7 different countries, though, few Americans are aware of it) also has a notoriously (and shockingly) high incidence of sexual violence against women in its own ranks, it’s difficult to imagine that “sensitivity training” is going to do much when it comes to the people that the soldiers are supposed to consider the enemy. Beyond this, it is well-known that the US is the most powerful country in the Security Council and, thus, it is nearly impossible to keep the US in check.
I think the main implications of a UN resolution like this is providing political cover for the ongoing violence women, girls, and, really, everyone else endures during armed conflict – fights that are seldom waged for the benefit of the vast majority of society. The other implication that I see is that there could be some headway in terms of more gender-balance within the security council and tacit acknowledgment of women’s particular suffering. But, this, too, serves as political cover.
