A Visual Mockery? Trials of the Global Summit to End Sexual Violence
The “fringe” event at the Global Summit to End Sexual Violence is for those lower-level green badge holders, not quite important enough for the coveted red “delegate” level (maybe Bono and Oprah dubbed red the color of cool for humanitarianism). Nevertheless, Angelina Jolie sightings were prominent, and important conversations were taking place. Like the mock trial on the effectiveness of UN Resolution 1325. After having lectured myself to keep an open mind about the higher goals of this collective meeting, this was the image I walked in to.
On the left and right six white “judges” with full robes, capped off by a White Wig. As “witnesses” four women from Africa, dressed in traditional clothes. Even before the opening statements, it seemed that even if the statements weren’t contrived — perhaps the visuals were?
Each woman answered a series of questions from the standpoint of her own community-based organization on the effectiveness of 1325 in her home country. The prosecution and defense offered arguments for (it is fundamentally addressing the endemic, barbaric nature of war, and offering an enlightened perspective throughout the UN) and against (not enough resources for success). The final judgement: Even where ineffective (largely due to the instability of third world regimes), 1325 is a necessary and useful benchmark. So everyone, get on board.
Perhaps it was only to me that the judgement seemed pre-determined, the presentations scripted to produce the desired result (the norm in Sri Lanka). It was hard to tell. A “witness” said they were not coached, while the very young organizer proudly claimed sustained engagement with all of those on the panel.
So I spoke to one acting judge, real life Barrister. He was working on asylum cases from complex political conflict regions – Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sri Lanka. He appreciated the legal precedent set by 1325, as well as the public forum for debate here, but had his own reservations about the role of the United Nations. A long-time activist for women’s rights in the UK reminded him, On the day the resolution was announced, there were 2000 of us, activists in that room, we were so happy. People jumped, hugged, even cried. Yes, he replies, there must have been a lot of hope then.
UN Resolution 1325 exists, and norms, in certain spaces, are useful. However what struck me was that a UN Resolution was at the center of a critical debate on the protection of women. Not unexpected, macro-conferences such as these focus their efforts on macro-initiatives. But what happens to all the micro-countries, like Sri Lanka, where the UN failed to protect basic lives and livelihoods — should we now rely on them to protect women?
While it would be unfair to categorize the Summit as a whole, and interesting moments and connections did occur, the “mock trial” left me with a familiar sense of unease. Speaking to one “witness” she said she would speak if they promised she would not be killed in her own country. They promised, she said. I don’t mention that the “they” was very likely a green, rejected from red status, so unlikely to be able to pull strings on witness security. She goes on to say This is the first time I have been in such a thing, so I guess it is good to have a voice?
Yes, a voice. But in whose conversation? Being in London today, Angelina Jolie’s face and words are inescapable — shouting at you from newspapers on the tube and plastered seemingly permanently on BBC. She is proud of the 100 or so countries who chose to get involved. Yes, their voices are here. But are they just the Traditional Jewelry to accessorize the White Wig?