Impact of Militarism on Women in Conflict Zones
As illustrated by past conflicts, the recent escalation of militarism in the forms of wars – including in Ukraine, Gaza, and Syria – has not made the world a safer place. Countless people have lost their lives in the conflict zones, with the survivors still under various risks of losing their own lives or those of loved ones. With a series of U.S. budgets approved to support its allies engaged in wars on the ground, the U.S. government is actively involved in armed conflicts that have an irrevocable impact on innocent civilians exposed to indiscriminate bombings, even at schools and hospitals. Militarism is often portrayed as an inevitable national defense system against “enemy” nations. However, U.S. militarism, the most powerful in the world, has multiple overarching drivers that include serving the interests of the political agenda, propping up the defense industry, and nationalism, which together shape its foreign policy. Today, U.S. foreign policy centered on militarism has enabled more than 170 U.S. military installations overseas supposedly to deter and prevent war. The top three countries with the largest U.S. military installations are Germany, Japan, and South Korea, in terms of size. In Asia, along with these installations, the U.S. conducts regular military exercises in preparation for potential war engagement with countries such as China and North Korea. Contrary to its pronounced goal, the effect of the U.S.-led military exercises in the Pacific Rim under North Korea's nose is questionable, as the situation has drifted further from peace. The Korean War has not ended, as its 71-year-old armistice agreement has never been changed to a peace agreement, and the tension on the peninsula has sharply risen as the scale of military exercises has become larger and even nuclear-capacity weapons are tested on land and waters. Following the first nuclear exercise conducted in Pyeongtaek, South Korea, from July 30–Aug. 1, 2024, the U.S. and South Korea conducted a joint special forces exercise called the Ulchi Freedom Shield from Aug. 24–29 at a specialized center located 32 kilometers from Seoul; a U.S.-supplied nuclear-capable weapons system was involved.
The effectiveness of these joint military exercises to maintain security and stability on the Korean peninsula and across Northeast Asia and the Indo-Pacific is also questionable, as elevating joint combat readiness can threaten security and stability in the regions and among the people. Increased U.S. militarism has violated the security and human rights of people, especially women in the host countries around U.S. military bases. Following a brief review of the stance of the UN and civil society regarding women and armed conflict, this summary examines the impacts of U.S. military installations on women and girls in potential armed conflict through the case in South Korea and recommends a feminist foreign policy as an alternate foreign policy that must be adopted for its citizens and people overseas.
The UN and Civil Society Against Armed Conflict
A direct correlation between militarism and gender violence has been recorded and witnessed across history globally. In 1995, at the Fourth World Conference on Women, the last one of its kind, held in Beijing, Women and Armed Conflict was recognized as one of the 12 critical areas of concern in what is known as the Beijing Platform for Action (BPfA). The Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, adopted unanimously by 189 countries, is the key global policy document on gender equality and women’s empowerment laid out in 12 critical areas of concern. The Beijing Conference was followed by a series of five-year reviews at the UN Commission on the Status of Women. Hence, CSW69/Beijing+30 will be held in 2025.
Five years after the Beijing Conference, recognizing the grave and unique impact armed conflict has on women, in 2000, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1325 on women, peace, and security (WPS). Eight years later, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1820 on WPS and identified the use of sexual violence as a tactic of war. It states that “rape and other forms of sexual violence can constitute war crimes, crimes against humanity or a constitutive act with respect to genocide.” In 2010, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) adopted a general recommendation on women in conflict prevention, conflict, and post conflict situations.[1] In 2015, the UN established 17 Sustainable Development Goals and specified goal 16 to "promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels.” Aiming to integrate the objectives of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 (UNSCR 1325) into U.S. foreign policy, the United States adopted the Women, Peace, and Security Act (WPS Act) in 2017. This groundbreaking legislation was the first of its kind to acknowledge the critical role of women in conflict resolution formally and to mandate the U.S. government to promote their participation and protection. Its goal is to “affirm gender equity and equality, peace-making, and peacekeeping, here in the United States and globally.”
Despite decades of work from civil society and the UN, wars continue and women and girls around the globe suffer sexual violence in armed conflict. In order to effectively reduce or eliminate sexual violence in armed conflict, ending current wars and preventing future ones are in order. One effective way to reach that goal is to have more countries adopt a foreign policy promoting peace and security of women instead of building military powers, namely feminist foreign policy. The U.S. has yet to adopt a feminist foreign policy.
Submitted by Sung Sohn
[1] CEDAW/C/GC/30
The effectiveness of these joint military exercises to maintain security and stability on the Korean peninsula and across Northeast Asia and the Indo-Pacific is also questionable, as elevating joint combat readiness can threaten security and stability in the regions and among the people. Increased U.S. militarism has violated the security and human rights of people, especially women in the host countries around U.S. military bases. Following a brief review of the stance of the UN and civil society regarding women and armed conflict, this summary examines the impacts of U.S. military installations on women and girls in potential armed conflict through the case in South Korea and recommends a feminist foreign policy as an alternate foreign policy that must be adopted for its citizens and people overseas.
The UN and Civil Society Against Armed Conflict
A direct correlation between militarism and gender violence has been recorded and witnessed across history globally. In 1995, at the Fourth World Conference on Women, the last one of its kind, held in Beijing, Women and Armed Conflict was recognized as one of the 12 critical areas of concern in what is known as the Beijing Platform for Action (BPfA). The Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, adopted unanimously by 189 countries, is the key global policy document on gender equality and women’s empowerment laid out in 12 critical areas of concern. The Beijing Conference was followed by a series of five-year reviews at the UN Commission on the Status of Women. Hence, CSW69/Beijing+30 will be held in 2025.
Five years after the Beijing Conference, recognizing the grave and unique impact armed conflict has on women, in 2000, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1325 on women, peace, and security (WPS). Eight years later, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1820 on WPS and identified the use of sexual violence as a tactic of war. It states that “rape and other forms of sexual violence can constitute war crimes, crimes against humanity or a constitutive act with respect to genocide.” In 2010, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) adopted a general recommendation on women in conflict prevention, conflict, and post conflict situations.[1] In 2015, the UN established 17 Sustainable Development Goals and specified goal 16 to "promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels.” Aiming to integrate the objectives of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 (UNSCR 1325) into U.S. foreign policy, the United States adopted the Women, Peace, and Security Act (WPS Act) in 2017. This groundbreaking legislation was the first of its kind to acknowledge the critical role of women in conflict resolution formally and to mandate the U.S. government to promote their participation and protection. Its goal is to “affirm gender equity and equality, peace-making, and peacekeeping, here in the United States and globally.”
Despite decades of work from civil society and the UN, wars continue and women and girls around the globe suffer sexual violence in armed conflict. In order to effectively reduce or eliminate sexual violence in armed conflict, ending current wars and preventing future ones are in order. One effective way to reach that goal is to have more countries adopt a foreign policy promoting peace and security of women instead of building military powers, namely feminist foreign policy. The U.S. has yet to adopt a feminist foreign policy.
Submitted by Sung Sohn
[1] CEDAW/C/GC/30
|
Durebang, My Sister's Place
|
Gijichon Women's Peace Museum-Seven Sisters and Sunlit Sisters' Center
|
Image credit: Sunlit Sisters' Center, Chul Kyu Chang, and ESJF