Moral cries and lies of Hillary Clinton

“There is no doubt that Resolution 1888 was long overdue and Hillary Clinton was doing something good for women. Sexual violence in situations of armed conflict is a common occurrence. In the Democratic Republic of Congo alone, approximately 1,100 rapes were reported each month. Some of the women are mutilated in the course of the attacks.”
_________________

By H. L. D. Mahindapala

(October 03, Melbourne, Sri Lanka Guardian) On September 30, 2009, UN Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1888/2009, on Women and peace and Security aimed at combating sexual violence in armed conflict. This session was presided over by Hillary Clinton, the US State Secretary, who used the opportunity to name Sri Lanka, along with Burma and Rwanda, as one of the countries that uses rape as a war tactic.

This is not the first time that the American administration used the Security Council to manipulate world opinion with lies. The most notorious case was Colin Powell presenting maps and aerial photographs to the 15-member Council on Iraq, accusing it of hiding weapons of mass destruction. Besides, President Barack Obama had openly accused her of telling fibs in one of the debates in the run up to the presidential election. Challenging accusations leveled against him by Hillary and Bill Clintons in the debate held on January 21, 2008 the then Democratic candidate, Obama, told America that “the assertions made by Sen. Clinton and her husband are not particularly accurate.” That’s a polite way of telling that she and her husband are liars.

Remember, how Bill Clinton told the world that he “did not have sex with Monica Lewinsky.” After having oral sex in the Oval Office with Lewinsky, while Hillary was upstairs, he was bent on convincing the world that he did not have sex with her. According to Bill Clinton’s lexicon sex is confined to genital contact and not oral stuffing. Knowing the mendacious tendencies of this duo one has to leave a wide margin to statements made by the Clintons, especially when they blacken the image of others.

Like Colin Powell who set out deliberately to blacken the image of Iraq when the best informed intelligence available to him was skeptical of the validity of the so-called evidence of WMDs (some of which were copied from an undergraduate’s outdated thesis) Hillary Clinton has acted, in the Chair of the Security Council, like an immature school girl who goes overboard to prove how good she is by making outrageous accusations against other parties without a shred of evidence to back her lies.

Besides, as the presiding head of the Security Council she should have had the courtesy to at least observe some of the basic provisions of Resolution 1888 which requires “objective, accurate and reliable information…. to ensure monitoring and reporting in a more effective and efficient way…..” How can reasonable member states take her word seriously knowing that Secretaries of State make declarations on the floor of the Security Council that are not based on “objective, accurate and reliable information?”

Furthermore, the Secretary General is expected to submit his next report by September 2010 on the implementation of Resolution 1888 based on “timely and ethical collection of information” (27 (a)). What is ethical in Clinton’s lies? How can any member state accept any statement from the UN if it is dependent on the likes of Hillary Clinton who wantonly makes accusations based on ill-informed, inaccurate and unethical collection of information?

In the background to the Resolution it is stated: “Sanctions committees should also be mandated to collect the names of people and parties who perpetrate sexual violence.” It is incumbent on Hillary Clinton to fulfill this obligation. Can she, therefore, “name the people and parties that perpetrated sexual violence”? UN cannot allow her to get away with “terminological inexactitudes” (Churchill’s term for lies) when it comes to accusing another member state. More than the integrity of UN she has to uphold the integrity of America. It is her responsibility to infuse respectability and elevate the mighty military power of America with moral authority. Naked power without morality is sheer brutality. Can she give moral authority to American power with lies? Colin Powell’s lies were bad enough. Do we need any more lies from Hillary Clinton?

It is against this background that Hillary Clinton accused Sri Lanka of committing sexual abuse on women as a “weapon of war”. Perhaps, realizing that she had stepped on a land mine the US Ambassadress in Sri Lanka, Patricia Butenis, rushed to rescue her by saying that the “Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did not implicate any party in Sri Lanka during her speech at the UN Security Council on Wednesday when she made a reference to Sri Lanka.

“During the 26-year long war in Sri Lanka, there were allegations of rape and sexual violence, just as in other conflicts. Secretary Clinton’s statement was to raise awareness of such brutality, not to implicate specific perpetrators,” the Ambassadress told the media.

Ambassadress Patricia Butenis noted that the full remarks of the speech by Secretary Clinton made no reference to the Sri Lankan Army or to the LTTE. This is a cure worse than the disease. Is M. Butenis saying that Hillary made a generalized statement accusing ghosts in Sri Lanka of committing sexual abuse? On the contrary, Ms. Clinton was more specific. Quoting her a media report said: “Clinton noted that rape has been used as a weapon of war in the Balkans, Burma, Sri Lanka and elsewhere and that in too many countries and in too many cases.” If she was not making any reference to the Sri Lankan Army or the LTTE why didn’t she leave Sri Lankan in the anonymous category of “too many countries and cases” instead of lumping Sri Lanka with “Balkans and Burma”? In naming Sri Lanka to shame it in the Security Council she has a particular political objective in mind. The bare implication is that it is the state that is perpetrating this violence in Sri Lanka as in Burma, for instance.

The other implication is that both the Sri Lankan force and the LTTE are guilty. As in any war there is no doubt that the odd Sri Lankan soldier had committed acts of sexual abuse. But Clinton’s statement goes beyond that to imply, by linking Sri Lanka to the other states that had used sexual violence as “a weapon of war”, that the Sri Lankan state had officially adopted sexual abuse as a weapon of war”. Can she back up this claim? If she can’t she must issue an official apology to the Sri Lankan state. If she can back it up with names of parties then she has a right to name and shame the party at the Security Council.

It is a serious accusation because she made it when she was presiding at the Security Council meeting that unanimously passed Resolution 1888 which focused on “sexual violence, when used or commissioned as a tactic of war in order to deliberately target civilians or as a part of a widespread or systematic attack against civilian populations…” As laid down in the Resolution, can she provide evidence to prove that the Sri Lankan state had targeted civilians “as a part of a widespread or systematic attack against civilian populations…? It is her credibility that is at stake when she makes such wild and irresponsible accusations against a member state.

There is no doubt that Resolution 1888 was long overdue and Hillary Clinton was doing something good for women. Sexual violence in situations of armed conflict is a common occurrence. In the Democratic Republic of Congo alone, approximately 1,100 rapes were reported each month. Some of the women are mutilated in the course of the attacks.

In the 1994 genocide of Rwanda nearly half a million women were raped, according to the United Nations Development Fund for Women. In the Balkan conflicts of the 1990s nearly 60,000 women were subject sexual abuse. In Sierra Leone, the figure amounted to 64,000 internally displaced women from 1991 to 2001.

It was also a common feature in World War II which raised barbarism to an unprecedented level. “Secret wartime files made public the extent to which American GIs committed rape in Europe. A study by Robert J. Lilly estimates,” says Wikipedia, “that a total of 14,000 civilian women in England, France and Germany were raped by American GIs during World War II. It is estimated that there were around 3,500 rapes by American servicemen in France between June 1944 and the end of the war and sexual violence against women in liberated France was common.”

In Iraq American forces even raped men.

Wikipedia adds: “In 2004, photos showing humiliation and abuse of prisoners were leaked from Abu Ghraib prison.. Forced humiliation of the detainees included, but is not limited to nudity, rape, human piling of nude detainees, masturbation, eating food out of toilets, crawling on hand and knees while American soldiers were sitting on their back sometimes requiring them to bark like dogs, and hooking up electrical wires to fingers, toes, and penises.

In addition to the acts of humiliation, there were more violent claims, such as American soldiers sodomizing detainees (including an event involving an underage boy), an incident where a phosphoric light was broken and the chemicals poured on a detainee, repeated beatings, and threats of death.”

These are not acts of individual soldiers, charged with high levels testosterone, running berserk. These sexual crimes stemmed from the official policy laid down by the American Administration at the highest level. “The severest abuses at Abu Ghraib occurred,” according Wikipedia, “in the immediate aftermath of a decision by Secretary Rumsfeld to step up the hunt for "actionable intelligence" among Iraqi prisoners. The officer who oversaw intelligence gathering at Guantanamo was brought in to overhaul interrogation practices in Iraq, and teams of interrogators from Guantanamo were sent to Abu Ghraib.

“The commanding general in Iraq issued orders to "manipulate an internee's emotions and weaknesses." Military police were ordered by military intelligence to "set physical and mental conditions for favorable interrogation of witnesses." The captain who oversaw interrogations at the Afghan detention center where two prisoners died in detention posted "Interrogation Rules of Engagement" at Abu Ghraib, authorizing coercive methods (with prior written approval of the military commander) such as the use of military guard dogs to instill fear that violate the Geneva Conventions and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman Degrading Treatment or Punishment On February 6, 2008, the CIA director General Michael Hayden stated that the CIA had used waterboarding on three prisoners during 2002 and 2003, namely Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Abu Zubavda and Abd-al-Rahim-al Nashiri.”

It is against this background that Hillary Clinton accused Sri Lanka of committing sexual abuse on women as a “tactic of war”. Before opening her mouth and accusing Sri Lanka of using sexual abuse as “a weapon of war” she should have made an open confession about the men who were raped by the GIs in Abu Ghraib. This raping occurred not as an aberration of the sexual perversion of individual soldiers but as the official policy endorsed by the hierarchy in the Defence Department headed by Rumsfeld. So her posing as a lily white moralist, with a right to dictate ethical conduct to other states, is nothing but sheer humbuggery. Her morality stinks like the food fed to prisoners from toilets at Abu Ghraib prison.

America has a damning record of abusing women as “a weapon of war” even in World War II. Secret wartime files made public only in 2006 reveal that American GIs committed had committed sexual offences in Europe in the thousands. The Russians were the worst. But the Americans ran as a close second. A study by Robert J. Lilly estimates that a total of 14,000 civilian women in England, France and Germany were raped by American GIs during World War II. It is estimated that there were around 3,500 rapes by American servicemen in France between June 1944 and the end of the war and sexual violence against women in liberated France was common. (Wickipedia).

With this record what moral right has she to accuse Sri Lanka of sexual abuse of women in times of conflict. It would have been tolerable if it was true. But when she piles lies on top of America’s repulsive record of sexual abuse she goes over the top. Before she comes down on Sri Lanka with false accusations of sexual abuse she should reflect on how her husband turned the White House into a House of Shame by poking cigars in places not accustomed to by young interns.

-Sri Lanka Guardian