Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s commitment to end the use of rape as a weapon of war (2009-2013)

Perspectives Internationales 11/03/2015 0

Cette tribune est le fruit d’un partenariat conclu entre le Centre d’Etudes Interaméricaines et Perspectives Internationales.

CEILogoPerspectivesInternationalesfinal

         According to the former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, “women and girls will be at the center of all future US foreign policy objectives”[1]. The journalist for Newsweek (2011), Gayle Tzemach Lemmon, named this commitment to the defense of women’s rights at the forefront of US foreign policy during her tenure as Secretary of State (2009-2013) : “The Hillary Doctrine.” The Hillary Doctrine “can be seen as a particular brand of US state-feminism focused on women’s rights across the globe”[2]. In particular, this conceives the fight against sexual violence against women as a national security issue by suggesting that the instability of a nation is linked both to underdevelopment and gender inequality: “Because when women are disempowered and dehumanized you are more likely to see not just antidemocratic forces, but extremism that leads to security challenges for us”[3]. Hillary Clinton traveled to 112 countries around the globe during  her tenure as Secretary of State, spreading her message through various speeches and conferences. Declaring violence against women a very urgent problem, she stated about the use of rape as a weapon of war in the conflict in Democratic Republic of Congo after a 7-nations tour in Africa during the first year of her tenure as Secretary of State : “The United States condemns these attacks and all those who commit them and abet them. And we say to the world that those who attack civilian populations using systematic rape are guilty of crimes against humanity. These acts don’t just harm a single individual, or a single family, or a single village, or a single group. They shred the fabric that weaves us together as human beings”[4]. In claiming that the “United States’ international interests and security were dependent on the extension of women’s equality and security across the globe” (Corrine L. Mason, 2013), Clinton committed to end the use of rape as a weapon of war in particular conflicts such as the one in the DRC during her tenure.

            My empirical research will focus on the track record of Hillary Clinton during her tenure as Secretary of State in the United States from 2009 to 2013 with respect to the struggle against the use of rape as a weapon of war. By focusing on the speeches of Hillary Clinton about rape as a weapon of war, the question that guides my research is what are the findings of Hillary Clinton on rape as a weapon of war and how she proposes to fight against it. I will show that her framing of the use of rape as a weapon of war as a development and security issue helped to include it into the foreign policy of the United States but that the long-term inclusion of the fight against sexual violence against women as a national security issue is limited by institutional factors and the permanency of a traditional view of foreign policy as a militaristic issue intended to defend the State’s national interests.

            First, I will show that Hillary Clinton in her speeches and conferences framed violence against women, and the particular case of the use of rape as a weapon of war, as a development and security issue and how the rhetoric she used gave her an authentic image as advocate for women’s rights and issues worldwide, making the United States a champion of the fight against violence against women (VAW). Secondly, I will examine what policies Hillary Clinton promoted during her tenure as Secretary of State. I will show that she tried to institutionalize the fight against violence against women as a permanent issue in the US foreign policy-making process and that she put a particular emphasis on the use of military interventions as a way to stop the use of rape as a weapon of war. In the third part I will analyze the various critics and limitations that scholars identified about the Hillary Doctrine and the policies she implemented, including the question of the survival of her work after her exit from the State Department in 2013.

 Rhetorical framework and image construction

            Hillary Rodham Clinton (1947 -…) has successively been an attorney, First Lady of Arkansas, First Lady of the United States, Senator, candidate for the presidency of the United States, Secretary of State and lecturer since 2013. Through these various positions, Hillary Clinton supported women’s issues to become a figure of international feminism globally. During her tenure as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton worked to promote women’s issues as the cornerstone of US foreign policy and policy-making process. In particular, it is through the various speeches and conferences she held that Hillary Clinton has defined American foreign policy as “[encompassing] so-called soft-issues, like the advancement of women, economic development and energy diplomacy, as well as the usual “hard power” concerns” (Tara McKelvey, 2013). Her commitment against the use of rape as a weapon of war must be analyzed in light of the “Hillary Doctrine” which is based on the concept of Smart Power – to determine the most appropriate way to implement a policy, from diplomacy to the use of the armed forces – that Rosa Brown summarized as follows : “The States that deny rights to women and tacitly accept violence against them tend to be more fragile, politically divided and economically underdeveloped, which means they then pose greater threats to international security” (Corrine L. Mason, 2013).

            Hillary Clinton defines a holistic strategy of the United States and the international community in the fight against the use of rape as a weapon of war which she rests on three pillars : “defense, diplomacy and development”. (Clinton, 2010). Her understanding of human security includes the question of the respect for human life and of dignity of human person, but is also intimately linked to a development question. In an interview with PBS’s Gini Reticker for “Women, War and Peace” series, she explains :

            “You can expand the concept [of human security] to talk about “Do you have enough food ?”       because that’s a security issue; “Do you have a safe place to live,” because that’s a security issue. But I think at the most fundamental level, it is “Can you live free of violence,” and the answer to that in too many places is still no.”[5]

            For Corinne L. Mason, VAW “is operationalized by the Hillary Doctrine as a symbol of the manifestation of women’s inequality in underdeveloped nations and is communicated as an urgent concern for US foreign policy” (Corrine L. Mason, 2013). Mason also analyzes the reference to the issue of “gender” in the context of international politics. This term has been incorporated into the language of foreign policy since the late 1980s, becoming a “narrative that makes sense “and being understood as an issue of women’s rights and development.

            Hillary Clinton in her speeches has succeeded in defining a moral issue on a realist basis[6]  allowing a logical inclusion of the defense of women and the fight against gender-based violence in American foreign policy, which should secure US interests abroad and at home (Corrine L. Mason, 2013). Nancy Meyers[7], in her analysis of Hillary Clinton’s speech in Beijing in 1995, known as the “Women’s rights as human rights” speech, had already noted the use of an authentic rhetoric by Hillary Clinton, with particular reference to the different women she met during her trips as First Lady and the talent that women have in defining policies and peace operations[8]. For the Secretary of State who has the most traveled in the history of US Secretaries of States, it is not negligible. In the speech she gave in August 2009 in the Congo, for example, she explains :

            “I have just come from a meeting with two survivors of sexual attacks. The atrocities that these women have suffered, which stands for the atrocities that so many have suffered, distills evil       into its basest form. The United States condemns these attacks and all those who commit them and       abet them.”[9]

            The use of such rhetoric makes Hillary Clinton “the advocate in chief of women across the globe” according to Tzemach Lemmon (Tzemach Lemmon, 2011), making her stance against violence against women on the behalf of those women, but also making the United States the champion in the international stage of the struggle against the use of rape as a weapon of war.

            Aware of the power of her voice, Hillary Clinton speeches have allowed her to point fingers and increase the attention of the international community on particular conflicts, as she did when she denounciated the mass rapes in the Congo in 2009 but also in Libya[10] in 2011 by men close to Gaddafi for example.

            Finally, it is important to note that Hillary Clinton succeeds in her speeches to make her  struggle universal. Corrine L. Mason notes the sentence of Hillary Clinton during her speech given at a meeting at the United Nations Security Council in 2009 about sexual violence against women : “it is criminal, not cultural” (Clinton, 2009). For the author, this is a discursive way to “proactively side-step criticism from those concerned with universalism attached to human rights”. She adds “this marks an effort by Hillary Clinton to move beyond the debate about cultural relativism and universalism”, making the fight against rape as a weapon of war a comprehensive and urgent issue. This suggests a problem to which we will return, by promoting improvement of the judicial system, Hillary Clinton’s speech led to promote securitized and judicial responses as military interventions for example (Corrine L. Mason, 2013).

            Thus, even if the violation of women’s rights does not necessarily create a threat against US national security, by combining them in her speech, Hillary Clinton has incorporated the struggle for security and equality of women in the American foreign policy (Corrine L. Mason, 2013).

 Institutionalization process 

            Indeed, the action of Hillary Clinton as Secretary has aimed to institutionalize the fight against violence against women as part of the foreign policy of the United States, giving the Department State its own course of action through the coordination of the different teams of the Department in particular (Tara McKelvey, 2013).

            The fight against violence against women in American foreign policy in the post-9/11 era is not new. The Bush administration had already put in place levers to allow this fight. The policies promoted by Condoleezza Rice, however, were included in other broader policies. Hillary Clinton instead set up fight against VAW policies as a stand-alone issue and urged all the State Department in this direction, pursuing consistency in defining American foreign policy.

            During her speech for the 10th Anniversary of Resolution 1325 of the UN Security Council[11], Hillary Clinton announced the establishment of a National Action Plan which intends to continue the fight against VAW with two major development initiatives : the Feed the Future Initiative and the Global Health Initiative, with a budget of $3,5 billion to ensure food security for the former intended to provide access to health and inviting to reconsider women and girls as “health care providers, caregivers, decision-makers, and participants in and civil society organizations”.[12]

            The implementation of these policies was accompanied by the creation of many development programs and a commitment to reform the State Department. The Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review in 2010 and the first Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Gender-Based Violence Globally in 2012, aimed to institutionalize the fight against sexual violence against women as part of the foreign policy of the United States. Lemmon reports that “women and girls are mentioned 133 times across the 220 pages of the final QDDR document.” (Lemmon, 2011). The purpose of this review was to reform the US State Department and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to coordinate development offices and security in the development of future policies.

            Indeed, one of the major actions of Hillary Clinton during her tenure as Secretary of State was a successful coordination of the various institutions of the US administration. Indeed, the number of institutions dedicated to the fight against VAW is a real managerial complexity in the administration (see Figure A in Appendix). As outlines Ellen Tauscher, who was secretary of state for arms control and international security during Obama’s first term, “We felt as if there was no daylight between Obama, [Defense] Secretary Panetta, Admiral Mullen [of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] and Secretary Clinton. […] When they sat in the Situation Room and made decisions, they listened respectfully. And that sense of cooperation projected to the rest of the two buildings, State and Defense” (in Tara McKelvey, 2013).With the birth in 2009 of the Office of Global Women’s Issues headed by the ambassador-at-large Melanne Verveer[13], this coordination of policy development and security between administrations went beyond the Department of State with Melanne Verveer promoting the holistic approach of Hillary Clinton with the establishment of public-private partnership programs, making her office a center of power in Washington[14]. With their staff, Hillary Clinton and Melanne Verveer established workshops to end sexual violence against women as Together for Girls in 2011, for example, being accompanied by specific funds directed to certain regions of the world and NGOs working for improving the “well-being of women in the conflict regions and with the aim to combat VAW”[15]. The Congo received a fund of $17 million, for example in the fight against mass rape. These funds were distributed among three different policies: $7 million spent on medical care, counseling, and economic and legal assistance, $10 million to provide women new technologies that allow them to share information about the conflict and the perpretators of rape, $2.9 million were finally dedicated to the recruitment and training of women as police officers to fight against rape. The State Department in August 2009 also announced the sending of a team in the US military’s Africa command (AFRICOM), which should be responsible of the training of the Congolese army to combat the use of rape as a weapon of war and changing attitudes within the military.

            We must note here the influence of Madeleine Albright on how Hillary Clinton led her administration, based on the importance of networks and by promoting gender mainstreaming by promoting the role of women in the operations of peacemaking for example. But also because the Office of Global Women’s Issues replaced the previous Office of International Women’s Issues created by Albright when she was at the position occupied by Hillary Clinton at Foggy Bottom.

            This interagency cooperation was followed by cooperation with international institutions and the rest of the international and diplomatic community. One of the greatest achievements of Hillary Clinton was to point fingers on the mass rape in Congo, allowing in part to pass the 1888 Resolution at the UN Security Council[16] in 2009 by unanimous vote.

            Finally, the International Violence Against Women Act represents the general will of the government to fight against VAW (Corrine L. Mason, 2013). It was read for the third time in the 113th Congress, but not adopted by the Senate, and promotes the establishment of mechanisms such that the United States could implement military intervention in areas requiring  urgent interventions to protect women whose security is threatened.

            If the I-VAWA is part of a separate agenda from that of the State Department, for Corrine L. Mason, it also illustrates the “sketchy nature of the Hillary Doctrine”[17] that uses the commitment to women’s rights to justify military interventions of the United States in geographical areas of their interests.

New grounds for intervention ?

            Indeed, many analysts point out the particular emphasis of policies implemented by Hillary Clinton in her fight against rape as a weapon of war as a way to build “a muscular intervention around the soft power” (Tara McKelvey, 2013). As Dutt points out : “Here we are, strong advocates for women’s rights, and we’re going to rescue women in the global South, while we are creating circumstances that allow these things to occur” (Tara McKelvey, 2013).

            Hillary Clinton reinforced the drone program for instance for the defense of women in Pakistan[18]. The article by S. McCrummen “Congo’s Rape Epidemic Women During US Backed Military Operation” published in August 2009 in the Washington Post[19] denounced the perpetuation of rape by soldiers of the US Army sent out in the field, but also among the troops themselves. “Since January 2009 and in those zones, rape cases had doubled or tripled compared with last year.”[20] because of “the deployment of ten of thousands of poorly trained, poorly paid Congolese soldiers”[21]. If Hillary Clinton and her staff have understood the importance of the financial issue in the fight against violence against women, particularly in Congo[22], and that the action of Hillary Clinton at the State Department has been greatly dedicated to raising funds to enable the empowerment of women and by extension the fight against VAW, some activists denounced the long delay of arrival of financial help from the United States.

            The particular emphasis of Hillary Clinton on the use of the armed forces can be strategical according to McKelvey (Tara McKelvey, 2013). Pope Laurence[23], in his analysis of the demilitarization of the State Department, shows that the military and the use of armed forces have been increasingly concentrated in the hands of the White House in the post-9/11 period. The special attention of Hillary Clinton on peacekeeping operations, peacemaking and peacebuilding can thus be seen as a way to make her speeches tougher in the eyes of the US administration, which paradoxically may tend to reinforce the traditional view of women’s issues as “soft issues”. Indeed, the promotion of the fight against sexual violence against women by Clinton takes place in a political and diplomatic environment where such issues are not considered as a priority, national interests remaining the key pivots of foreign policy for many. Pope Laurence[24] explains that the QDDR, having been developed without the involvement of any institution in the US administration, was perceived as an administrative fad in Washington, making a continuation of the work of Hillary Clinton difficult because it was in conflict with the administrative and diplomatic systems. Moreover, the QDDR offers a reformed State Department that seems almost impossible to implement given the institutional patchwork of the State Department, which became a “job program” according to Patricia Degennaro[25]. Highly critical on the work of Clinton during her tenure as Secretary of State, Pope Laurence argues that the QDDR does not mention any real foreign policy issues[26], considering that the ideas of “gender integration” should not be part of the document. Moreover, and the main reason why Laurence is not convinced by the importance of the study, the QDDR does not correspond to the realities of the Iraq and Afghanistan war for him: “While the President sought to extract the country from two failed wars, and the Defense Department was pledging never to engage in a large nation-building enterprise again if it could help it, the State Department was fighting the last war and promising to do better next time”[27]. Clinton, during the last year of her tenure as Secretary of State, failed to convince the Senate to pass a law that would make the QDDR a legislative process.

            Paradoxically, these criticisms about the difficulty of institutionalizing political fight against the long-term rape as a weapon of war in the State Department shows the success of the cooperative policy implemented by Hillary Clinton. She managed to make her staff cooperate with other wings of the US administration despite the mosaic in its functioning.

            Other analysts emphasize the improvements that are still to be made in the fight against rape as a weapon of war and what Hillary Clinton’s policies forgot in promoting the intervention of the armed forces. For instance, the issue of post-conflict and support for women victims of rape in the long term raised the question of abortion. With the 1973 Helms Amendment, the United States cannot subsidize abortion through foreign-aid policies. In addition, the US is still not signatory of the Convention to Eliminate All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)[28] although ratification was part of the Clinton’s National Plan of Action.

            John Kerry, the new Secretary of State has, so far, been supportive to the ratification of CEDAW[29] and the passage of I-VAWA in American law as well as the more general pursuit of Hillary Clinton’s work in women’s rights as a part of US foreign policy.

            The resonance of the Clinton message in her fight against VAW is hardly questionable indeed. Tara McKelvey, for example, notices the importance that Hillary Clinton has had internationally by issuing a message of hope for some feminists in the South (Tara McKelvey, 2013).

            Finally, it is difficult to conclude on the costs and benefits of the policies implemented by Hillary Clinton to fight against the use of rape as a weapon of war, Malhotra (Tara McKelvey, 2013) considering that 10 years are needed to evaluate such policies. This suggests at the same time the importance of the continuation of policies against VAW and the use of rape as a weapon of war by the Obama administration and future administrations in the United States but also by the international community that Hillary Clinton included as partners in the development of US foreign policy.

            To conclude, by defining the fight against the use of rape as a weapon of war as both a development issue and a security issue, Hillary Clinton has helped to mainstream the promotion of the fight against this particular issue of VAW by involving almost all institutions of the State Department and in collaboration with the other US government agencies, international institutions but also private actors such as companies or NGOs fighting against VAW.

            The work of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State aimed to institutionalize the rights of women in a traditionally hostile political environment. The limitations identified show the permanence of a militaristic vision and a foreign policy focused on the defense of national interests.

            Despite criticism, it is undeniable that the action of Hillary Clinton has demonstrated the importance of the voice of a person of this stature for the defense of women’s issues at the transnational level. We saw in this essay the importance of the link between changes in the domestic level, with the importance of institutional reform, and the global stage. One can ask whether the use of a rhetorical representation of women’s issues by Hillary Clinton helped to “boost” the work of NGOs that work with the US government in the implementation of its foreign policy or even the work of feminists working within the State Department.

 Nolwenn ALLAIRE

Nolwenn Allaire is a bachelor student from Sciences Po Paris currently in exchange at the University of Toronto. She decided to focus her research on the feminist activism of the former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton against the use of rape as a weapon of war at the global level.

Appendix

Figure A : “Selected U.S. Agencies and Offices/Bureaus that Address Global Violence Against Women”, In BLANCHFIELD Luisa, International Violence Against Women: U.S. Response and Policy Issues, DIANE Publishing, October 12, 2012, p. 28.

Department of State

Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration

Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs

Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs

Bureau of Political-Military Affairs

Global Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons

Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor

Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs

Bureau of Education and Cultural Affairs

Center of Excellence for Stability Police Units

Office of Global Women’s Issues (previously the Office of International Women’s Issues)

 

U.S. Agency for International Development

Bureau for Global Health

—Office of HIV/AIDS

—Office of Population and Reproductive Health

Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and Hulmanitarian Assistance

—Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance

—Office of Transition Initiatives

Asia and Near East Bureau/Missions

Latin America and teh Caribbean Bureau/Missions

Bureau for Economic Growth, Agriculture and Trade

—Office of Women in Development

Africa Bureau/Missions

Europe and Eurasia Bureau/Missions

 

Department of Justice

Criminal Division

—International Criminal Investigative Training Assistance Program

—Office of Overseas Prosecutorial Development, Assistance, and Training

National Institute of Justice

 

Department of Labor

Bureau of International Labor Affairs

—Office of Child Labor, Forced Labor, and Human Trafficking

—Office of International Relations

 

Department of Health and Human Services

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

—Division of Reproductive Health

—Global AIDS Program

—National Center for Injury Prevention and Conrol, Division of Violence Prevention

 

Department of Defense

Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation

Center of Excellence in Disaster Management and Humanitarian Assistance

Defense Institute of International Legal Studies

 

Department of Homeland Security

Immigration and Customs Enforcement

 

Peace Corps

Some Peace Corps volunteer activits

 

 

[1]    In TZEMACH LEMMON Gayle, « The Hillary Doctrine », Newsweek, June 3, 2011.

<http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-doctrine-66105>

[2]    In MASON, Corrine L. « Global Violence Against Women as a National Security Emergency », Feminist Formations, Volume 25, Issue 2, Summer 2013, pp. 55-80 (Article)

[3]   In McKELVEY Tara, “Hillary Clinton, State Feminist? She vowed to make women’s rights a cornerstone of US foreign policy. How About did she do?”, The Nation, February 13, 2013.

<http://www.thenation.com/article/172902/hillary-clinton-state-feminist>

[4]    IN « Combating Sexual Violence », U.S. Department of State, Diplomacy in action, 2009. <http://www.state.gov/headlines/127185.htm>

[5]    In RETICKER Gini, « Our interview with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton », Women, War and Peace, October 25, 2011. <http://www.pbs.org/wnet/women-war-and-peace/features/our-interview-with-secretary-of-state-hillary-clinton/>

[6]          “This is a big deal for American values and for American foreign policy and our interests, but it is also a big deal      for our security” (Tzemach Lemmon, 2011).

[7]    In “Western Women’s Ethos and a Response to Privilege: Advocacy in Hillary Rodham Clinton’s ‘Women’s Rights Are Human Rights.’” Political Women: Language and Leadership. Eds. Michele Lockhart and Kathleen Mollick. Lexington, 2013.

[8]   “Women also have a crucial role to play in establishing peace worldwide. In regions torn apart by war, it is often the women who find ways to reach across differences and discover common ground as mothers, caretakers, and grassroots advocates “, International Women’s Day Speech, March 8, 2009. <https://blogs.state.gov/stories/2009/03/12/secretarys-2009-international-women-courage-awards>

[9]    In « Roundtable With NGOs and Activits on Sexual and Gender-Based Violence Issues », August 11, 2009. <http://www.state.gov/secretary/20092013clinton/rm/2009a/08/127171.htm>

[10]  In « Libya : Clinton condemns rape as weapon of war », BBC News, June 17, 2011.

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13803556>

[11]  In « Remarks by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, at the 10th Anniversary of Securiy Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security », October 26, 2010. <http://usun.state.gov/briefing/statements/2010/150014.htm>

[12]  In JUUL Peter, « Advancing Women’s Rights Is Progressive Foreign Policy. Empowering Women Must Continue Past Secretary’s Clinton Term », Center for American Progress, June 29, 2011.  <https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/security/news/2011/06/29/9870/advancing-womens-rights-is-progressive-foreign-policy/>

[13]  “In 1995, while serving as Clinton’s chief of staff, Vervver helped the first lady create the President’s Interagency Council on Women”. (In Tara McKelvey, 2013)

[14]  In BAKER Katie, “Who Will Obama Pick to Succeed Melanne Verveer ?”, February 18, 2013.  <http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/18/who-will-obama-pick-to-succeed-melanne-verveer.html >

[15]  In  BLANCHFIELD Luisa, International Violence Against Women: U.S. Response and Policy Issues, DIANE Publishing, October 12, 2012.

[16]  Key provisions of Resolution 1888 :

«  – Calls for the appointment of a Special Representative of the Secretary General to drive forward response efforts and in particular to provide leadership and coordination of UN efforts to address sexual violence.
–  Requests the deployment of expert rapid response teams to situations of concern –such teams will assist national governments in justice and prevention efforts.
–  Calls for the identification of “women protection advisors” within peacekeeping missions and their gender advisory or human rights protection units. The intention is that these advisors will provide support for the reporting of sexual violence and for the implementation of the resolution’s protection mandate.
– Urges the consideration of issues of sexual violence within peace processes – this is important to provide access to justice and reparations but also to build the foundations for sustainable peace.
– Requests more systematic monitoring and reporting of conflict-related sexual violence and requests a report within 3 months on ways to improve this monitoring and reporting.
– Requests an annual report on implementation of SCR 1820 – including information on parties to armed conflict credibly suspected of perpetrating patterns of rape.
– Identifies the link between the new UN Gender entity established in a recent General Assembly resolution and the coordination of UN efforts to address sexual violence and end impunity. »

In « About Security Council Resolution 1888 », <http://www.peacewomen.org/themes_page.php?id=62&subtheme=true&adhoc=93>

[17]          The military intervention of the United States in the case of an armed conflict would be put  in place for a minimum of five eligible countries and only those classified as not having a “high-income”. For Mason, the consequence of it is the implementation of neo-imperialist policies that lead to “discipline, govern, intervene and occupy countries of interest to the United States” through a legislative and administrative based process. Corinne Mason does not hesitate to speak of genderwashing in her analysis of The Hillary Doctrine, suggesting that the attention of the promotion of women’s rights in the foreign policy of the United States would hide the desire to strengthen the military and financial interests of United States. (Corrine L. Mason, 2013)

[18]  A country she denounced as a zone of particular violence against women. Cf ASSEVERO Bia, « At the UN ? Criminalizing Rape as a Weapon », Women’s Media Center, November 3, 2009.

<http://www.womensmediacenter.com/blog/entry/at-the-un-criminalizing-rape-as-a-weapon>

[19]  In McCRUMMEN Stephanie, « Congo’s Rape Epidemic Worsens During U.S.-Backed Military Operation », Washington Post Foreign Service, August 10, 2009.

<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/10/AR2009081000492.html?sid=ST2009081001043>

[20]  In “Q &  A : DR Congo – Dossier for Hillary Clinton’s Visit”, Human Rights Watch, August 10, 2009. <http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/08/10/faq-drc-human-rights-watch-dossier-hillary-clinton-s-visit>

[21]  Those soldiers are part of the U.S.-backed Congolese military operation, in “Congo’s Rape Epidemic Worsens During U.S.-Backed Military Operation”, Washington Post, August 10, 2009.

[22]  In ALLEN Jonathan and PARNES Amie, States Secrets and the Rebirth of Hillary Rodham Clinton, New York : Crown Publishers, 2014, 440 p.

The authors reveal that the Secretary of State and her team understood the challenges posed by the issue of critical and financial resources for the congolese soldiers and why men engage themselves in such militias. When Ross and Cohen, Clinton’s advisers, traveled to the Congo, the policies proposed by the staff of Hillary Clinton to fight against corruption, which contributes to gender-based violence, have been blocked by political factors. Indeed, while President Kabila was in favor of the establishment of policies that would allow the Army soldier to be better paid and not to go into militias, with the vote in Parliament Congolese of legislation that would implement mobile payments, the Central Bank refused to set up such a program.

[23]  In LAURENCE Pope, « The Decline of the State Department », The Demilitarization of American Diplomacy. Two Cheers for Striped Pants,  Palgrave Pivot, January 2014, pp. 16-35.

[24]  In LAURENCE Pope, « Hillary Clinton’s Power Outage », The Demilitarization of American Diplomacy. Two Cheers for Striped Pants,  Palgrave Pivot, January 2014, pp. 36-52.

[25]          DEGENNARO Patricia, « A Missed Opportunity at the State Department », The Huffigton Post, December 19, 2010. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/patricia-degennaro/a-missed-opportunity-at-t_b_798593.html>

[26]  « A curious reader will search it in vain without finding even a passing reference to the issues that were consuming the time of the Secretary of State and her senior advisors. The word « drones » and « cyberwar » do not appear, nor isthere any mention of Iran or China. » In LAURENCE Pope, « Hillary Clinton’s Power Outage », The Demilitarization of American Diplomacy. Two Cheers for Striped Pants,  Palgrave Pivot, January 2014, pp. 36-52.

[27]  In #25, p. 49.

[28]  It defines discrimination against women as “…any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field. “

<http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/> .

[29]  In <http://www.cedaw2014.org/>.

Leave A Response »