COPING WITH SEXUAL AND GENDER BIAS VIOLENCE IN THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO (DRC)

By Fatos Baudouin
(Ms. Baudouin is a member of the Africa Study Group. She is active as an international consultant)

"War is an inherently patriarchal activity, and rape is one of the most extreme expressions of the patriarchal drive towards masculine domination over the woman. This patriarchal ideology is further enforced by the aggressive character of the war itself that is to dominate and control another nation or people." (Rashida Manjoo and Calleigh Mc Raith: 2010 symposium, Gander Base Violence and justice in conflict and post conflict areas)

The ongoing war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DCR) has led to a dramatic increase in sexual violence against women, children and young people in the eastern part of the country. According to the International Rescue Committee (IRC), the conflict has, since its origin in 1998, generated over 3.8 million victims, some 3.4 million IDPs (Internationally displaced people) and millions of refugees.

Today peace remains tentative, particularly in the eastern provinces. As military activities continue to be carried out in that region, so are rapes and other crimes against women, children and young girls.

ASG-GRA Blog = Taking Stock November 2011

At its November 22 Meeting the Africa Study Group viewed the following presentation regarding its Blog.

Link to pdf version of presentation: https://docs.google.com
/open?id=0B7bXrFdr7AY7YThiZDc2MDQtZjQ5Zi00YmFmLThmZGYtYzViNDM3MDlkOTUz

Tostan Canada

The Africa Study Group's major function is to promote a broader relationship between Canada and Africa. Occasionally, we are informed of the work done by NGOs in Africa. Tostan, which operates mostly in West Africa, is headquartered in the United States and receives funding from many sources. If you want to acquaint yourself more thoroughly with that work and Tostan’s success and credentials in the world of smaller international NGOs, visit the website www.tostan.org. Support to Tostan in Canada is coordinated by Cynthia Baxter ( cynbax@sympatico.ca , 613-749-2322) who would be pleased to provide more information.

2011 Inamori Ethics Prize awarded to Beatrice Mtetwa

THE INAMORI ETHICS PRIZE

The 2011 Inamori Ethics Prize will be awarded to human rights lawyer Beatrice Mtetwa, who has spent the last 20 years defending journalists and fighting for a free press in her home country of Zimbabwe. Born and educated in Swaziland, Mtetwa has worked as a prosecutor in Swaziland before moving to Zimbabwe, where her career focused on family law and human rights.

The prize will be awarded Sept. 7, 2011, at Severance Hall at Case Western Reserve University. As part of the prize ceremony, Mtetwa will present a lecture and participate in a symposium. Lecture and symposium are open to the public.

The Inamori Ethics Prize honours outstanding international ethical leaders whose actions and influence have greatly improved the condition of humankind.

The Inamori International Center for Ethics and Excellence at Case Western Reserve University  (Cleveland, Ohio) began in July 2006 through a generous gift from Kazuo Inamori—founder of the Kyocera Corporation and KDDI—and the Inamori Foundation of Kyoto, Japan. The Center affirms Dr. Inamori’s vision by exploring ethical issues from a global perspective; nurturing international awareness and understanding of our common humanity through the study, teaching and practice of ethics; and the pursuit of excellence in all human endeavours.

(For more information, see: http://case.edu/events/inamori/index.html)

Towards A New Canada-Africa Relationship - ASG 2011

Read more..... Suite

An overview of aid issue, and some suggested new approaches

While the table below applies to most developing countries, the suggestions and critiques were drafted with Africa in mind.  It is offered as a contribution to the ASG’s in-depth study on a New Framework for Aid for Africa. 

Paul Hitschfeld, Ottawa

Feature/Issue	Description	Alternative approaches
Canada’s perceived G8/G20, Commonwealth and Francophonie obligations	Despite our world status and reputation we are still a relatively reluctant donor, at the middle/low end of the ODA/GNP ratio. Mainly it is because we do not see aid as a foreign policy instrument.	Redefine aid according to new parameters, re-engage Canadians and developing countries, try new approaches. Especially, stop treating LDCs as “poor” countries, see them as partners.
OECD/DAC obligations:	We tie our aid very much to the DAC rules. They are increasingly constraining and may prevent us from being creative	We may wish to do some new aid programs which do not fit the DAC criteria. For instance, financing commercial channels with LDCs.
Humanitarianism	Still a major driver, yet not sufficiently understood by most Canadians.	Could be detached from the rest of the aid bureaucracy.
Public opinion on aid	A major driver, but not an informed one;	More education on what the world is like, and seeking more engagement by Canadians (each in his/her own way)
Public engagement:	Not sufficient, and falling. With decrease in tied aid, fewer Canadians are “out there”.	Should reconsider the trend to untying, so as to increase the number of Canadians serving overseas, not only in aid roles, but in trade promotion or “exchange” functions.
Seeking political advantage through aid.	Not considered “correct” to say so, but we should adopt that view. Also, many of the current aid recipients are not likely to become important in the next few years.	Our current focus on the poor may be ill-advised. A focus on the “up-and-coming” may be better for Canada, give better results and yield long-term partnerships.
Security considerations, strategic and commercial payback	We do not exploit this enough	We may wish to associate aid to a  broader set of relations
Governance	We are right to insist on it; it is a key driver to progress.	But do we do enough to strengthen it? There are many institutional strengthening measures we could take, but they are long-term and have little visible “monuments” to show.
Aid effectiveness	Has become a slogan and is over-emphasized. Is actually becoming a burden or an obstacle to action.	The impact should be measured in terms of long-term holistic gains and stronger relations between Canada and the LDC.
Top down, insufficient dialogue	Despite our very best intentions this is a major feature of being a donor. Inevitably we will consider ourselves authorized to insist on things being done the way we want. But often we do not know enough about the context into which the aid is going and do not want to take the time to find out. Thus, what we “want” as a donor may be wrong or inappropriate.	Our ignorance of all the local conditions is the first reason why many aid projects fail. Knowledge is not gained during a planning study. It involves integrating projects into a local framework. Having local people plan projects is a good first step.
Culturally invasive	Inevitably, aid is tainted by the culture of the donor, which means it is not in the culture of the recipient; this disconnect is a major reason for project failure.	Executing agencies must be much more culturally attuned.
Aid is fractured into bite-size pieces; it is a “projectized”, not holistic, approach	Donor aid is circumscribed in time and place, whereas development problems are long-term, broad in scope, and intertwined. This is a factor in project failure.	Actually, donor-funded projects are often add-ons to existing problem solving. It may be better to integrate donor supported projects into existing channels.
Not all who are involved are professional:	Along the whole chain, from politicians, down to senior bureaucrats, to aid administrators, to field personnel: Canadians live in a world of comfort and prosperity which means that they simply cannot understand the dynamics of poverty and socio/political stress. The poverty in turn means that locally ambitious people scramble for power and resources and money, which we, in a land of plenty, do not understand. We call it corruption, demagogy, lack of democracy, but many unsavoury features of developing countries are a natural outcome of local conditions. As donors we fail to understand this and attack the symptoms of the problems, and often not their causes.	To professionalize the aid personnel essentially means to increase significantly their knowledge of the regions they operate in.  Thus, longer and more frequent postings in the same area, more language skills, and more contact with local people. That is to say that aid personnel should be less generalist, and more professional.
Dialogue at the wrong level	Allocations by donors are rarely based on country needs alone: they are based on dialogue between bureaucrats on both sides. We fail to listen to market forces: what do the people want (as consumers of services)? As a new donor, China seems to have understood this better. Ironically, the Chinese bring consumer satisfaction to developing countries; we bring complex and somewhat hazy notions of broad-based social change.	More dialogue with civil society, the business sectors, and other parties (other than government people) is required. This cannot be done by aid bureaucrats, but through informed intermediaries.
Aid fatigue syndrome	DAC-tracked ODA is levelling off at about $120 billion per year. Why doesn’t it grow: because, intuitively, we feel that aid is not working and that we need something else, but we cannot admit it out loud and thus and have trouble working towards a new paradigm.	It may take a wholesale review of ODA to redefine what we want in terms of relations with developing countries. Maybe “aid” is not the best approach. Maybe “facilitating” relations would be better.
Links to commerce	We have always said that what we do in aid is not commercially motivated. But commercial relations are what the LDCs want most. How can we reconcile the need for social justice with the need to create wealth?	It may be time to reconsider this position and add enhanced commercial relations as a parallel  tool in strengthening relations with a developing country, alongside aid. That would give twice the impact and twice the understanding.
Donor coordination versus donor competition	There is progress to make on this, but competition is a fact of life and we should not play it down too much. And, seeking a positive profile in a developing country through the aid program is actually more transparent than saying that we are doing aid selflessly. It is a universal fact that people understand your motives better when you admit doing things for your own benefit.	Mutual benefits are an even better objective, a feature we have not played up with the Canadian public, nor with recipients.
“Bilateral” aid:	It is the most targeted, the most arbitrary (in terms of country selection), the most politically sensitive, the highest spending, and the most bureaucratic of all aid channels. Because of its high profile, decisions are taken at a higher level, thus by people less knowledgeable and apt to throw in other considerations.	This is the channel which needs the greatest overhaul. It could be reduced and replaced by a more holistic negotiation with countries, allowing for the blossoming of relations in fields other than traditional “aid”.
Support to IFIs and UN organizations (including humanitarian)	Yes, the Canadian profile is lost, but often money is put into hands of specialists (who are less generalist than Canadian aid managers).	Leave as is.
Support to NGOs (of all sorts)	Not only “development NGOs” but all kinds of other organizations which could develop relations with LDCs.	Local knowledge and cultural aspects are better managed at this level.
Private sector mobilization.	Used to be important in years past, is now atrophied.	Time has come to revive the relationship with the Canadian private sector. They should be engaged not so much on a contractual basis, but as co-investors alongside with aid channels.
“All-of-government” approach	Often mentioned, but not much respected in reality. Silos still rule.	Canada’s relations with developing countries could be much enhanced if they were planned holistically: political, economic, aid, humanitarian, strategic, security, etc., all in one country strategy. There is no down-side to this approach.
Variable geometry	Only LDC countries are ODA-able. This gives them status as recipients, but paradoxically this ties our hands because then we see them “only” as aid countries.  The aid label is becoming counter-productive. Aid countries are more willing to shed the “recipient” label than we are willing to give up the “donor” title.	We still need the classic ODA framework for some countries. We also need a new post-ODA approach for those ex-LDCs doing well, which are graduating out of an aid recipient status.