Four years into its mandate, the International Criminal Court has yet to secure a conviction for those accused of committing horrific war crimes since 2002. Yet again, the court has decided to drop charges against an accused war criminal due to lack of evidence. The latest war criminal to escape justice is Abu Garda of Darfur, who was accused of killing 12 African Union peacekeepers in 2007, and voluntarily turned himself in to authorities last year. However, ICC judges have ruled that there is not enough evidence against Abu Garda to support a trial.

According to the press release, the pre-trial Chamber:

“was not satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe that Bahar Idriss Abu Garda could be held criminally responsible either as a direct or as an indirect co-perpetrator for the commission of the crimes”

This is on the heels of the dropped charges against the Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, the first case to go to trial at the ICC, for the same reason – lack of evidence. I had such high hopes for this institution, created as a permanent international court with the power to punish the most serious violations of human rights. The purpose of the court was to take away the ‘ad hoc’ nature of prosecutions of war crimes, which until the establishment of the ICC relied upon the political will of the international community to agree to the establishment of an international criminal tribunal, like the ones for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda.

The situation of Darfur was unique for the ICC as it was the first situation to be referred by the Security Council of the United Nations. Other cases have been referred to the Special Prosecutor, Luis Moreno Ocampo, by the countries themselves affected. So given the lack of cooperation by the government in Sudan, I can understand the limitations with gathering evidence. However, this is a problem that appears to be plaguing the court.

Understandably, witnesses and evidence is a difficult thing to collect in a guerilla conflict. But is it the case that Mr. Ocampo is just not trying hard enough to gather the necessary evidence to secure a conviction? Or is it that Western legal standards are just unsuitable to trialling international war crimes? We clearly will never get a Law and Order: War Crimes and Atrocities Unit, in which teams of highly specialized forensic technologists scour desert and jungle floors for evidence that this particular armed rebel commited this particular atrocity. I would like to be able to say it should be enough that there is overwhelming evidence proving that you are a person of a particular rank within a particular armed group and that that armed group has been witnessed committing war crimes to convict that person of war crimes. Perhaps there is too much individual agency attributed to violators of international law. But clearly this would be problematic.

I don’t know what solution to offer the ICC and I’m sure their much more qualified legal experts are working hard to address their lack of success. I do hope for a win for the ICC sometime soon, as the institution is quickly losing credibility in the eyes of the international community.

Bookmark It

I wanted to blog on this last week when I first heard the story that ‘baby brain,’ or ‘mumnesia,’ as it is sometimes called, has been found to have no scientific basis, and since the story broke news services around the world have taken a bizarre amount of delight in declaring the myth debunked.

The findings come from researchers at Australian National University Researchers, who say they have evidence pregnant women perform just as well in cognitive testing as they did before becoming pregnant. The ANU researchers had recruited 2404 women from the electoral roll, assessing 1241 in 1999, 1126 in 2003 and 1058 in 2007 in four areas of cognition: speed, working memory and immediate and delayed recall. What women identify as being reduced cognitive ability, the article of the findings suggests, is adaptive, shifting attention to the baby.

Now, I’ve never had a baby nor been pregnant, but I’ve asked several pregnant friends about this phenomenon, as I was sceptical myself of its existence. Without fail, every one of my pregnant friends attested to its veracity. Perhaps this is why women have come out vehemently against these findings.

Victoria Trenouth, a 28-year-old English teacher who became a mother for the first time last month when she gave birth to George Bell, said she suffered from baby brain while pregnant.

”I had a terrible, terrible memory … I couldn’t spell, I couldn’t get my words out, I couldn’t remember what I was saying. I spent 20 minutes trying to have a hot shower and screaming at my husband because I thought there was no hot water and it was on cold and he said try turning the hot tap on.”

The Sydney Morning Herald has an interesting opinion piece describing one woman’s experience with pregnancy:

Whether or not baby brain is measurable by tests, there is no doubt that pregnancy and breastfeeding are exhausting and in some case debilitating experiences. And that’s just for the dads. It must be really bad for the mums.

Cathy Warwick of Britain’s Royal College of Midwives told the BBC: “The physical and emotional stresses on a woman’s body from pregnancy can make women feel more tired than usual.

“As we all know, tiredness – for men as well as women – can make us lose concentration and cause us to function less effectively.

“This is why midwives encourage pregnant women to take appropriate rest breaks, at home and at work. Many pregnant women will need this rest, and all of them deserve it.”

I can’t help but think that this study is akin to the numerous scientists who claim to prove the female orgasm doesn’t exist. Apparently a team of researchers at King’s College in London have found “fairly conclusively” that there is no such thing as a g-spot.

Apparently their findings are based on a massive twin study in which, because they could not document that twins both felt the same g-spot sensations in the same place, no G-spot could, in fact, exist.

Some 4600 twinned women were enrolled in the UK research. Of these, 1875 women responded to the sex questions, and of that number, the study excluded women who hadn’t had intercourse and those who identified as lesbian or bisexual (keep those in mind — we’ll get back to them in a bit). They were left with 1800 women aged 23-85 (mean age 55) whose responses were considered in the preparation of their report on the G-spot.

Those women responded to a very interestingly-worded question about the G-spot: They were asked whether they believed they had “a so-called G-spot.” And because too few women said they believed they did, the researchers concluded that the G-spot is a “perception” caused by “non-physical factors” that “heighten sexual sensation.” That is, women may have mental G-spots, but not actual physical ones.

So what do the lead scientists of the study have to say about their findings? Something really ridiculous:

Dr. Spector also has some choice words for women who believe they have G-spots: “This is by far the biggest study ever carried out and shows fairly conclusively that the idea of a G-spot is subjective. Women may argue that having a G-spot is due to diet or exercise, but in fact it is virtually impossible to find real traits.”

Listen to the methodology of this sex study:

The scientists in this study asked women if they believed they had a G-spot, and if they didn’t, the researchers accepted that none was present. They did not ask searching questions that would help them evaluate whether the women’s belief might be backed with experience… in fact, they excluded from their sample those women who were most likely to have had G-spot experience, the lesbian and bisexual women who, the researchers decided, would skew the results by being more likely than the heterosexual women to have used their fingers. Instead they seemed to be grasping for evidence that the G-spot existed in heterosexual women who were less likely (they guessed) than their lesbian counterparts to have sex in a way that’s most associated with G-spot stimulation and pleasure.

Okay, well, this is something that’s been happening to women for centuries – because some men and scientific methods can’t prove something women claim they experience, these men and their science deny the possibility of its existence.

Bookmark It

In a promotional push to become the restaurant for V-Day, Mildred’s Temple Kitchen in Toronto is marketing itself via it’s toilets – encouraging patrons to consider having sex in its bathrooms. According to the promotion, the restaurant hopes to make it to the list of “101 places to have sex before you die.”

On its website, Mildred’s asks: “Have you given any thought to moving beyond the bedroom? “Check out Mildred’s Sexy Bathrooms throughout the weekend of Big Love. You get the picture.”

According to staff:

“We’ve always had little trysts in our bathrooms,” says chef/co-owner Donna Dooher, pointing to lingering weekday lunches as a popular time. “We’re taking it to the next level on Valentine’s weekend.”

Apparently the restaurant has also hired a “French maid” to be stationed in the restroom and ensure things are kept clean (“She’ll be there with her feather duster and cleaning supplies.”). As for those of us whose first thoughts were to health code violations:

Toronto’s Public Health food safety program manager said the restaurant wasn’t breaking any laws as long as there’s no intercourse in the kitchen and the bathrooms are kept clean.

“As far as bodily fluids, it’s pretty much similar to the other human functions going on in there,” said Chan, slightly undercutting the erotic value of the venture.

Apparently the place is totally booked out for Valentine’s Day and CANFAR is donating more than 900 condoms to the restaurant to promote safe sex.

Bookmark It

There was a story out of New Zealand today about a 19 year-old girl who auctioned her virginity to pay for university fees. At auction’s close, her highest bid was for $46,000 NZD, and more than 1200 people had bid on her virginity. According to the girl:

“I have never had a sexual relationship and am still a virgin.

“I am offering my virginity by tender to the highest bidder as long as all personal safety aspects are observed.

“This is my decision made with full awareness of the circumstances and possible consequences.”

She added: “I am fit, healthy and have no medical conditions of any nature.

“I am a keen athlete and have a trim physique.”

While some people may commend her entrepreneurial initiative to fund her studies without going into debt as the rest of us do, there are some serious issues with the fact that prostitution is one of women’s only viable ways to make money. It says a lot about our society that some strange man would be willing to pay a girl that much money for the gift of her virginity.

People talk about the “free choice” women make to sell their bodies. Where is the freedom? Being brainwashed by the porn culture to believe that prostitution is glamourous and an easy way to make a pile of money? A 1998 ILO (UN International Labor Organization) report suggesting that the sex industry be treated as a legitimate economic sector, found that prostitution is one of the most alienated forms of labour; the surveys [in 4 countries] show that women worked “with a heavy heart,” “felt forced,”or were “;conscience-stricken” and had negative self-identities. A significant proportion claimed they wanted to leave sex work [sic] if they could (Lim, 1998: 213).”

And where to men in society get the justification to feel as though they have the right to buy women’s bodies? It amounts to women being treated and considered as less than human. As Catherine Mackinnon points out:

To be a prostitute is to be a legal nonperson in the ways that matter. What for Blackstone and others was the legal nonpersonhood of wives is extended for prostitutes from one man to all men as a class. Anyone can do anything to you and nothing legal will be done about it. John Stoltenberg has shown how the social definition of personhood for men is importantly premised on the prostitution of women. Prostitution as a social institution gives men personhood–in this case, manhood–through depriving women of theirs.

In an interview with The Guardian she explains:

the selling of sex because “gender equality will remain unattainable so long as men buy, sell and exploit women and children by prostituting them”. Otherwise, she contends, unenlightened men still write the laws. And when, for instance, they write laws on rape they make what she believes are grotesquely sexist assumptions. “The assumption,” she says, “is that women can be unequal to men economically, socially, culturally, politically, and in religion, but the moment they have sexual interactions, they are free and equal. That’s the assumption – and I think it ought to be thought about, and in particular what consent then means. It means acquiescence. It means passivity. You can be semi-knocked out. You can be dead in some jurisdictions.”

It is interesting that the article on the NZ girl auctioning her virginity refers to her as “Poor New Zealand girl,” justifying her decision to sell her virginity on the basis of desperation. Because it is overwhelmingly destitute women who get into prostitution. Prostitution gets romanticized in our society and glamourized through the pornographication of culture. But it’s not glamourous or attractive. It’s violent. It is sexual torture. It is degrading and humiliating and abusive. And this is what society tells us is the most attractive option for women with few employment prospects?

Bookmark It

In what has to be described as one of the most authoritarian moves of the decade, the South Australian government has passed a new law requires anyone making an online comment about next month’s state election to publish their real name and postcode. This blanket law applies to any website in which anyone posts a comment relating to the election, including online news sources, Facebook, and Twitter. It could also be applied to talkback radio shows.

The law, one of many amendments to the Electoral Act, also requires media organisations to keep a person’s real name and full address on file for six months, and they face fines of $5000 if they do not hand over this information to the Electoral Commissioner.

According to Attorney-General Michael Atkinson, this new law is not an attack on free speech:

“The AdelaideNow website is not just a sewer of criminal defamation, it is a sewer of identity theft and fraud,” Mr Atkinson said.

“There is no impinging on freedom of speech, people are free to say what they wish as themselves, not as somebody else.”

Mr Atkinson also said he expected The Advertiser to target him for sponsoring the law.

“I am also certain that Advertiser Newspapers and News Limited will punish me personally, viciously for being the attorney-general responsible for this law,” he said.

“You will publish false stories about me, invent things about me to punish me.”

Right, sounds like a case of someone with serious insecurity issues. Really, one shouldn’t be in public office if one cannot handle public criticism. What is the reason that Mr. Atkinson would insist on getting the full names and addresses of anyone writing shit about the election, if not to track them down and threaten them in some way? From his quotation above, it would seem he plans on filing defamation suits against anyone with an opinion.

This South Australian law differs from federal legislation, which preserves the right of internet users to blog under a pseudonym. Apparently the law expires at 6pm on polling day, but its brevity is not the issue. The precedent is the issue. That Australia lacks constitutionally entrenched rights, such as the right to free speech, is the issue, as there is apparently no legal footing by which to challenge this ridiculous restriction of freedoms.

Bookmark It

In the wake of all the kerfuffle in France about the veil of late, the French government is putting its money where its mouth is and has denied the citizenship application of a Moroccan man who forces his wife to wear the veil on the basis that the practice is incompatible with France’s values.

According to French immigration Minister, Eric Besson, the man’s application was denied because of the behaviour he displayed towards his French wife, which Besson argues contravenes secularism and women’s rights:

“It emerged during the inquiry and the interview process that this person forced his wife to wear the full veil, deprived her of freedom of movement with her face exposed and rejected the principles of secularism and equality between men and women,” Besson said in a statement.

According to the transcript of his ruling:

“Monsieur X displays in an everyday manner a discriminatory attitude towards women, going as far as refusing to shake their hands and advocating the separation of boys and girls including, at home, of brothers and sisters,” the ruling read.

“The lifestyle he has chosen may be justified by religious precepts but is incompatible with the values of the Republic, notably the principle of equality of the sexes.”

For anyone following the French veil debate or my position on it, this statement may come as a bit of a surprise, but I actually commend France for this move. While I have said before that I believe their obsession with this particular cultural practice is misdirected, paternalistic, and punishing the very women they claim to be liberating, I actually commend legal sanctions against the men/institutions/power structures behind such cultural practices. It is not as though the man has been deported or lost his legal status in the country – he presumably retains his permanent residency status. I see this decision akin to putting a petulant child in a three-minute time-out. It is formally recognizing and condemning behaviour that the country hopes to change, or encourage change.

Don’t take this as my final say on the matter, but my gut reaction is: good on you, France. Let’s take more measures to make the oppression of women less appealling to men/institutions/power structures.

Bookmark It

I couldn’t believe my eyes when I came across this editorial at the National Post on the decline of Women’s Studies programs at Canadian universities, authored by “the editorial board.” In what I can only call one of the most inflammatory pieces to be published in a national paper, the editorial board says:

Forgive us for being skeptical. We would wave good-bye without shedding a tear, but we are pretty sure these angry, divisive and dubious programs are simply being renamed to make them appear less controversial.

The radical feminism behind these courses has done untold damage to families, our court systems, labour laws, constitutional freedoms and even the ordinary relations between men and women.

Forgive me if this post is not so articulate as I’d like it to be as my head feels on the verge of exploding. All I can wonder is if this editorial board at the National Post made up of pre-historic neanderthal jackasses? Or just a bunch of Tony Abbotts? The article essentially argues that these programs, whether they be named Women’s Studies or the more inclusive Gender Studies, are evil.

Following a flurry of comments to the contrary, the National Post then published an editorial from the anti-woman woman Barbara Kay, who claims that these courses are “political activism, not academic scholarship.” Kay claims:

And if there is any nook or cranny in this nation where equality of opportunity is not available to women, I would welcome the enlightenment and be the first to insist that be rectified. On the other hand I can certainly show Ms Stewart and Ms Giroux-Bougard many instances of inequality of opportunity for men, such as university appointments, where equity codes privilege the hiring of women. It is not equality of opportunity that Women’s Studies is championing, though, it is equality of outcomes. In other words, Women’s Studies is merely the politically activist arm of the feminist movement, which is nothing more today than a lobby group for women’s interests, not at all a movement interested in true equality between the genders.

Perhaps even WORSE than the Post’s article is the response from Canada’s liberal magazine Macleans, in which the author identifies herself as a female, but “I don’t call myself a feminist; I believe that most of the work on that front is done and I feel alienated by extremists who continue to decry the inherent chauvinism at the basis of our society.” To that, I have to say, Erin Millar, you are a saboteur, with your misguided adherence to liberalism. You undermine and trivialize the challenges still facing women. Liberals deny that the root of the problem is the very structure of our society, built on patriarchy, reinforcing men’s domination of women, other men, and all of nature.

Allow me to turn to Denise Thompson, author of Radical Feminism Today, who, in her book, articulates the argument for the necessity of this “political activism” thus:

“Feminism aims to expose the reality of male domination, while struggling for a world where women are recognized as human beings in their own right…. …it is through exposing male domination as domination that feminism poses its major challenge, since social domination operates most efficiently to the extent that it ensures compliance by being disguised as something else, and not domination at all. It has been the task of feminism to tear away the masks behind which male domination hides its true nature, and expose it for the dehumanizing system it really is.”

The more that liberal feminists and self-proclaimed “liberated women” deny the effects of this structure, the more undermined women’s rights are. Women’s Studies/Gender Studies courses are important because nowhere else does are we encouraged to question the structure of our society. Equality under the law is not the same as equality. According to Catherine Mackinnon:

“We’re now in a stage where people want to believe that there is equality. They’d rather deny inequality than face it down so that they can actually live it. My task is to support their belief in that equality while at the same time unmasking everything around them that is making it impossible for them actually to live in it.”

She goes on to answer the question of “Are Women Human”:

“If women were human, would we be a cash crop shipped from Thailand in containers into New York’s brothels? Would we be sexual and reproductive slaves? Would we be bred, worked without pay our whole lives, burned when our dowry money wasn’t enough or when men tired of us, starved as widows when our husbands died (if we survived his funeral pyre)? …”

So don’t tell me that feminism has done it’s job and Women’s Studies programs have no place in Canadian universities. The misogyny espoused by the National Post has no place in such a self-professed and self-congratulating liberal country.

Bookmark It

An Australian banker was caught on live television looking up pornography, not realizing a newscaster was broadcasting live just a few feet away. This is classic:

The man in question works at Macquarie Bank in Sydney and had his back to the camera when Channel 7’s morning Sunrise program cut live to their business analyst giving a live update on interest rates. One of the topless images has been identified as girlfriend of Orlando Bloom, Miranda Kerr.

The video footage shows the man in question appear behind the reporter, sit down at his computer and immediately he brings up the photos in question. As a colleague chats to him from the other side of his screen, he flicks between photos of girls and financial news, before turning and finally seeing the camera behind him.

Allegedly, the photos came from an email of Kerr’s recent GQ photo shoot. Macquarie Bank is in clean-up mode and has released the following statement:

Macquarie takes matters such as the unacceptable use of technology extremely seriously,” the bank said.

“Macquarie has strict policies in place surrounding the use of technology and the issue arising from today’s live cross on 7 News is being dealt with internally.”

Bookmark It

A group of baptist missionaries have been arrested in Haiti on charges of trafficking children for adoption purposes. The group of ten allegedly attempted to smuggle 33 Haitian children into the Dominican Republic to set up an orphanage. The children, aged two months to 14 years, it has been discovered, are not all orphans.

According to the missionaries:

The church members, most from Idaho, said their Haitian Orphan Rescue Mission was aimed at taking youngsters across the border to an orphanage in the Dominican Republic, where arrangements can be made for their adoption.

A spokesman for the group said: “In this chaos we were just trying to do the right thing.”

It is not yet known how the group got the children, but since the disastrous earthquake struck Haiti, international adoptions from the country have surged, as well as illegal child traffickers. With high-profile third world adoptions such as those of Brangelina and Madonna have raised ethical questions about the transportation of children from vulnerable situations to the West. In the past few weeks, child welfare organisations have been flooded with offers from families in the US and elsewhere willing to adopt children, something British head of counter-trafficking Richard Danziger refers to as “cowboy adoptions.”

“In these kinds of situations, there are all types of charities and church groups with, to be fair, good intentions,” says Richard Danziger, head of counter trafficking at the International Office of Migration (IOM).

“But that’s not the way to go about it – it doesn’t help an already messy situation. Children with no documentation get whisked away, and their families don’t know what has happened to them. Not only is it against the law, but it is taking advantage of people in a lousy situation,” he said.

Haitian officials have spoken out against the attempted abduction, with Prime Minister Max Bellerive saying these missionaries “knew what they were doing is wrong.” Haitian Social Affairs Minister Yves Christallin said: “This is abduction, not adoption.” Cristalin went on to say, “This is totally illegal. No children can leave Haiti without proper authorization and these people did not have that authorization.” Haiti’s government has suspended international adoptions amid fears that parentless or lost children are more vulnerable than ever to child trafficking.

Another problem being witnessed are children being adopted whose parents are still alive, but in no position to provide for them since the devastation of the earthquake struck.

“Some parents I know have already given their children to foreigners,” said Adonis Helman, 44. “I’ve been thinking how I will choose which one I may give.”

“My parents died in the earthquake. My husband has gone. Giving up one of my kids would at least give them a chance,” said Saintanne Petit-Frere, 40, a mother of six. “My only fear is that they would forget me, but that wouldn’t affect my decision.”

International laws exist to protect against child trafficking in international adoption. According to Louise Fulford from Save The Children:

the priority is to keep the children within their “communities, their ethnic group and their cultures.”

Under the Hague Convention there is a preference for family-based solutions, she says. The second preference is to consider national adoptions, and when these solutions are not feasible then inter-country adoption would be a viable option.

Adoption within the country will be hardest to arrange with children who have health problems, such as HIV/Aids, disabilities, or many siblings. “Unfortunately, with inter-country adoption, it tends to be more the parents choose the child. People tend to want to adopt healthy babies,” Ms Fulford says.

UN guidelines stipulate that there should be no national or international adoptions for two years, she adds.

“This provides time to trace relatives. In most emergencies you can trace family members. It will take time. In the meantime, aid agencies are prioritising children who are unaccompanied – they are being referred to interim care centres. Agencies are working day and night to locate children on their own.”

Even before the earthquake, Haiti battled child trafficking, with roughly 2,000 children trafficked from the country every year. According to Unicef’s Roshan Khadivi “These children generally ended up being used as domestic labour, being sexually abused or illegally adopted in the US and Canada.”

Clearly, the problem is that poverty-reduction strategies and aid have not been effective in enabling a basic sustenance level in pre-earthquake Haiti. Funding should be available to communities and families so that giving up children does not seem like the only option available. I’m happy to hear that adoptions have been put on hold by the Haitian government as clearly more time is needed to reunify families before well-meaning but painfully ignorant and misguided fundamentalists fly in and try to save the bodies and souls of these kids.

Bookmark It

I know it’s really en vogue to criticize the UN as a useless institution, but news today of the new special envoy appointed by Ban Ki-Moon to address sexual violence in conflict is a tremendous step in the right direction for international politics. In his words:

“I have informed the UNSC of my intention to appoint Margot Wallstrom, vice-president of the European Commission, as my special representative to intensify efforts to end sexual violence against women and children in conflict situations,” he said.

“We will continue efforts to end the conflicts in the east (of the Democratic Republic of Congo), restore state authority, facilitate the return of refugees, and protect civilians against all forms of violence including sexual violence,” Ban said.

“I’m horrified and outraged by the use of rape as a weapon of war,” he said.

I know very little about Margot Wallstrom, but in response to her appointment, she specifically addressed what she saw as the problem of people often explaining sexual violence in conflict as a “cultural” phenomenon:

“I say this is not cultural, it is criminal. It is a crime under international law and it is also a war crime,” she told Swedish public radio.

Rape has been a constant feature of war throughout history, used as a tool of communication between groups of men either for the purposes of asserting masculine dominance, of humiliating one’s opponent, or as a reward for good soldiering. Though quantitative data is not available, there seems to be a growing trend in contemporary conflicts to use extreme sexual violence as one of the primary tactics of warfare, and not simply as a by-product of conflict. Hundreds of thousands of women and young girls have been violently and brutally raped in eastern DRC, with most attacks averaging more than 4 perpetrators per victim. Women are being deliberately targeted and destructively abused in what can only be described as sexual genocide.

Though he doesn’t link the processes explicitly in his speech, Ban Ki-Moon speaks also of the economic and criminal activities dominating politics in the same regions witnessing most of the contemporary cases of extreme war rape:

The resurgence of unconstitutional changes of government in Africa is a matter of serious concern. These actions run counter to fundamental UN values, international law, and the AU’s own Constitutional Act. We must also guard against the manipulation of established processes to retain power.

Drug trafficking is also a rising threat to international peace and security in Africa. Criminal networks are very skilled at taking advantage of institutional weaknesses on the ground.

As we address all of these challenges, we must show our determination in the fight against impunity not only in Africa but around the world.

Well, allow me to make it explicit. Though I can’t speak authoritatively for every country, I can say from my research on the DRC and what I’ve read about Sudan that the sexual violence is being perpetrated as a systematic campaign to maintain the chaos necessary to control valuable resources, with the complicity of Western corporations, whose economic concerns clearly outweigh any moral compass they may purport to carry. I can’t help but wonder what obstacles Ban Ki-Moon will face in attempting to implement any recommendations to be found with this new envoy, since the West has already shown reluctance to do anything to address the influence of their corporations on encouraging and exacerbating conflicts in Africa.

I want to stay positive. Maybe with enough attention shone on the international political economy of war rape, something will actually be done to address the crime.

Bookmark It