From the perspective of a young college student who regards humanitarian efforts as something necessary and important, the United States should join the ICC. From the perspective of the United States government who has waged two major wars within the past decade, and is a powerful player in the global community, I would say the United States should not join the ICC. In 1998 the ICC took form, and became the “first permanent, treaty based, international criminal court”. In 2001, 60 countries ratified the Rome Statute which established the court further internationally. It was created to enforce international law, and to prosecute the executors of genocide and crimes against humanity. The United States as well as the Sudan and Israel have each refused to become a part of the ICC. The ICC has been established presumably with good intention. It serves as a force that is expected to prosecute the horrific crimes against humanity they have occurred in time.

The past 19^th century has proven to be extraordinarily horrific. In 1994 in Rwanda after a specific series of events thousands were killed brutality due to their ethnicity within 100 days. No intervention from countries such as the United States or Great Britain can be noted within Rwanda. The ICC’s purpose is to prosecute these crimes of genocide, and monitor potential criminal acts against humanity. The ICC stands to prosecute individuals within communities for committing crimes of such nature as genocide. The ICC in general terms sounds like the “right thing” to do. The ICC establishes that international law that stipulates against war crimes, including crimes against humanity is enforceable. The ICC’s purpose is not to only prosecute but to hopefully prevent crimes by influencing governments to intervene within their own country’s conflicts.

The United States does not want to become a member of the ICC. Denying membership or legitimacy to the ICC is not to avoid cost, or avoid interfering with conflicts outside of the United States it prevents the United States from becoming the prosecuted rather then the prosecutor. In 2001 the Rome Statue came into circulation suggesting involvement from nations such as the United States. In 2001 the United States waged the war in Afghanistan, only two years later in 2003 the United States waged the war in Iraq. The legitimacy of these wars is questionable. The tactics, which the United States claims to enlist when fighting these wars, is often cited as fabricated. The war in Afghanistan can be noted as a brutal war taking the lives of the innocent. In Iraq, the Abu Gharib prison scandal can be cited as a crime against humanity. If the ICC could involve itself in the affairs of the United States, could there be dire consequences for the nation?

If the United States agreed to become a member of ICC it would then become easier for the authority and war power of the nation to come into question. The United States could place itself at risk for being prosecuted for war crimes. The United States is not a nation which is willing to award any of its powers to the international community. The United States to some extent, within the sphere of the Western world, is the international community. The United States since its establishment has fought wars supposedly based on principal. Their intentions have been to liberate the people of Iraq and liberate the people of Afghanistan, but does liberation have to come at the price of human life? The United States is a powerful country even on the decline. It produces less then it consumes, wages expensive wars, and has a powerful industry that sells to its citizens, which are consumers. These consumers not only consume food but they consume war. The United States will not risk being prosecuted by a court that they do not dominate.

Should the United States join the ICC? To avoid scrutiny, the United States should not join the ICC. To become a part of the international community and not a dominator of the community, the United States should join the ICC. Will the United States ever join the ICC without any stipulations and guidelines instilled by the United States? I can confidently say without a chance.

Recently the ICC issued a warrant for the arrest of sitting president of the Sudan, Omar al-Bashir. The warrant to the Sudanese government has not validity. Following the issuance of the warrant the United States became much more critical of Omar al-Bashir’s role in the genocide taking place within his own country under his direction. These following two videos highlight the position of the Sudanese government  on the United States’ views on the situation on the Sudan. The first video I found of most value; it quickly analyzes the way the news about the arrest warrant for al-Bashir has been depicted including news broadcast from the west. Ironically the United States according to the Sudanese government should be indicted as war criminals. The United Nations representative diplomat for the Sudan, Abdalmahmood Abdalhaleem Mohamad, states in the second video that the ICC’s arrest warrant holds not value because the Sudan is not a member of the ICC and does not view its rulings as valid. If this is the Sudanese rationalization of why the ICC’s indictment is not valid then the validity of a warrant presented to the United States would be disbuted most likely in the same manner; The United States is not a member of the ICC therefore it does not recognize the validity of the ICC’s judgments or warrant issued.

Genos is a Greek word for family, tribe or race; cide is the Latin word for killing. Rafael Lemkin coined this term in 1943 and gave mass ethnic related killings a face. Lemkin worked towards preventing genocide and punishing those who committed acts of genocide. His life work attempted to secure that genocide when committed would be identified, stopped, and punished. Has Lemkin’s efforts paid off in today’s modern world, where genocide is familiarized?

Genocide has occurred within the past 30 years in Russia, China, Germany, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Armenia, Darfur, Japan, Yugoslavia and Uganda. The United Nations has only declared Genocide 9 times within this century; Darfur is a prime example of what the United Nations has refused to declare genocide for so long. Lemkin was the first individual to define genocide as a “crime against humanity” rather then a war crime. The United Nations accepts Lemkin’s definition which declares genocide as any of the following acts: a) killing members of the group; b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; e) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The acceptation of this definition still leaves the United Nations hesitant to declare genocide. Their declaration of genocide would imply stopping the genocide. Many presidents and politicians often insist that on their watch, a situation like the holocaust or any genocide will be prevented or stopped. If genocide is not recognized there is nothing to stop or fight against. Genocide is defined clearly and appropriately. The identification of the word has not encouraged the identification of the actual act until it is often too late. It is the responsibility of the international community to recognize genocide and put a stop to it, which on numerous occasions they have failed to do. In recent years the United Nations has put forth efforts in Darfur to stop genocide but they may have come too late. In 1994 the United Nations walked out of Rwanda when the mass genocide began only to return after thousands had been exterminated. The United Nations should be held responsible for the declaration of genocide, they should also not hesitate to deem these horrible acts as what they truly are, genocide.

When genocide occurs the individuals, which influence or direct these ethnic directed killings should be held accountable. Hitler was accountable for the genocide of the Holocaust. Currently in Darfur it is recognized that the government of the Sudan is responsible for the genocide occurring there now. It is not hard to distinguish the culprits of genocide. While genocide is the responsibility of the initiator, a heavy responsibility for the crime against humanity should be placed on those whose turn a blind eye to it. The United Nations and other nations which are capable of forming an alliance with one another in times of war are responsible for addressing genocide when it does occur. They are also most certainly responsible for keeping a close eye on countries that may slowly be approaching genocide.

In an article from 2006 from the UK Times stated that Darfur was the worse humanitarian crisis of recent times. The United Nations one year prior to this article adopted a policy called the Responsibility to Protect. This adopted piece of literature leaves the United Nations responsible for preventing genocide and ethnic cleansing. The United Nations and well developed nations are accountable for genocide as well as the countries where the genocide originated.

It may sound simplified, but it is necessary and possible. Genocide can be stopped. It is a crime against humanity and not necessarily a result of war. It is the responsibility of the global community to prevent this horrendous act. The United Nation has adopted policy and defines terms such as genocide and ethnic cleansing appropriately. Action and presence is something the United Nations must adopt and adhere to. Policy does not end genocide; policy in action can end genocide.

The genocide in Darfur has become a popular cause amongst the elite members of the acting and music community. While ending the genocide in Darfur is an admirable plight it often is overrepresented by celebrities. While their efforts are admirable and often leave an impact, people like George Clooney can often influence the American public to sigh and turn away.  Often average American’s may feel as though they can not do much of anything to help prevent the occurrences in Darfur, while this is untrue, hearing about a celebrities on a new mission does not motivate an interest. It seems as though a celebrity is just searching for a new way to get their face on magazines.

Here is an interview with George Clooney about Darfur and what he feels is necessary, he even briefly addresses the fact that people do feel a certain way about celebrties and their causes.

It would be easily assumed that small conflicts should be mediated within the confines of those being directly affected. Small conflicts typically have extreme consequences for those victimized. The situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo is considered to be a small conflict. The parties involved are exclusively citizens of the Congo, the perpetrators and victims both reside in the same country. The conflict in Burma is also a conflict that has arisen amongst the people of Burma. Small conflicts have large consequences for those involved. It is expected that the governments and the people of such places as the Congo would intervene and prevent small conflicts. If they do not the neighboring countries where small conflict is occurring should help mediate and alleviate the situation.

If the conflict is influenced by the government and the government is the perpetrator of the violence, then who is responsible for mediation? Should other nations intervene? When do other nations feel it is necessary to intervene?

It is important to take into accountant all aspects of the conflicts to determine who should step in and mediate. The Holocaust was not a small conflict by any means but it was a conflict small and in the distance to the United States. It was not until the well being of the United States was threatened did the country step in and attempt to end the brutality of Hitler’s regime. The United States role was to defend them self and act accordingly to benefit its own well being, which to some extent is understandable. If countries involved them self in all conflicts economies would plunge further into debt and wars or interventions would have no end in sight. Nations feel the desire for intervention and mediation when they stand to gain or sustain.

Although the idea of sustaining and gaining is easily understood to what extent should fellow countries allow conflict to continue within other countries or between smaller countries? After the Holocaust and the end of World War II, nations like the United States reiterate the phrase “never again”. Which implies the prevention of genocide will be on the top of all developed countries agendas, but that certainly is not the case. The occurrences in Darfur have been deemed genocide by the United States but not by the United Nations. The fact that the United States has declared Darfur genocide has not caused it to intervene. Darfur is somewhat of a larger conflict compared to that of Burma but nonetheless it is internal and in one centralized area. Darfur is also a prime example of when a conflict cannot be mediated by the government for they fight along side the Jangaweed against the people of Darfur.

A global community should mediate small conflicts. Small conflicts are conflicts that spread violence and destroy the foundations of a stable and fair government. The United Nations does not intervene physically until they can stabilize themselves without military protection. Their typical route to mediation is through policy making which often does not prevent conflict. When speaking of the situation in Burma an opposition sympathizer; “The UN is no good. All they do is talk, and when they come here they are focused on dealing with the regime [rather] than with fighting for democracy” (Gopal 2).

Does the policy imposed by the UN truly carry weight on the soldiers executing war tactics on the ground in such places as Burma? If it did the acts of the militias in the Congo and the regime in Burma would not use rape as a weapon, and would not violate the rights of the people of these countries as stipulated by the Geneva Conventions. These policies are enforced on a larger scale to some extent. If the United Nations denies that Darfur is genocide nothing will be done to prevent this genocide or punish the perpetrators. International policy does not play a large role in preventing small or internal conflicts. To a young man in the Congo no older then 19 years old who is fighting for a meal a policy written by men in suits from developed nations does not play a role in his decision making. The international community cannot mediate through written documents. Even though this is true they can also not mediate through force or just military presence.

The conflict in the Afghanistan is the polar opposite of a small conflict. The United States as of February 2009 has increased its military presence by the thousands and an exit from Afghanistan by the U.S. military is most likely in the distant future. The war efforts seem to have been to defeat the Taliban and “liberate the women of Iraq”. The first aspect may be accomplished but liberating women does not come from defeating the Taliban or writing a policy. Women can only be empowered or liberated through education and employment “to claim political legitimacy and negotiate their [own] rights” (Ahmed-Ghosh 33). If the United States does not extensively establish security for these women their military presence will provide them with nothing.

A large effort must be made by other countries to work for peace and stability. This does not imply a military presence but combined efforts amongst military tactics, enforced policy, and security for the victims of these small conflicts.  The United Nations must instill their policies and not just expect them to be followed by individual’s who are fighting or by those victims who do not know their rights granted by international policy. Education and economic stability is the only way to prevent and end conflicts on all scales.

These two following videos discuss the situation in Darfur. The first video includes comments by Nancy Pelosi. She notes that Darfur is a genocide and it should be on the U.S. agenda to intervene. The second video I found most interest in. It highlights the situation in Darfur through the perspective of a marine who observed the activity in Darfur first hand and recorded it with his camera. This marine saw first hand the government and the Janjaweed working together. He also observes that the situation greatly affects the women and children of the Sudan.

Culture significantly impacts the repercussions of war, the reasons why a war is fought, how a war is started, and who supports the war. Cultures role in war is immeasurable. A cultures attitude towards war shapes the face of war.

In America we are lead to believe we fight wars to undo injustice. The people of the United States are lead to believe their country does not fight ethnic wars but wars against overseas countries, which are individually fighting wars amongst themselves or with other countries. The attitude the United States has towards war is apart of our American culture. The notion that America fights for the freedoms of others, and spreads justice and hope, is part of a set of cultural values.

After September 11^th, 2001 a war erupted, purposely disguised as a cultural war. Images of celebrations across the Middle East spread like wild fire through the media after the attacks. A common idea was extended through out the states; the attacks on September 11^th where a direct result of Islamic disapproval of the American culture. Could this be true? Perhaps but the message sent to Americans by emphasizing this information is that the attacks were based upon disapproval of their culture in turn making the American disapproval of Islamic culture acceptable and wide spread. By somewhat permitting the disdain for the Islamic culture it has been easier to fight the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. A battle between cultures has been ignited; the ongoing battle between different cultures continues to fuel the flames of war.

The two wars being fought between the U.S. and the Middle East is a prime example of the role culture can play in war. Cultural ideals are utilized during wartime to manipulate the agendas of countries, which partake in international wars, i.e. the United States.

It is evident that culture also plays a clear-cut role in other conflicts international and internal. In Rwanda, the genocide of 1994 was an internal conflict between the Tutsi and Hutu groups of Rwanda. In Rwanda an attempt was made to eradicate the country of the Tutsi minority group. What motivated this mass genocide? A rift was wedged between these two groups. The Tutsi where portrayed as a threat to the cultural foundations of Rwanda. The eradication of the Tutsi, just as the eradication of the Jewish during the Holocaust, would have ethnically cleansed Rwanda and Germany, thus sustaining the ideal ethnicity, cultural and religious values a radical group desires.

As emphasized above the role of the global north in war is immense and the use of culture as weapon is even greater. In Rwanda the separation of Rwanda’s people into the two ethnic groups Hutu and Tutsi can be see as the result of a Northern influence. Belgian can be accredited with differentiating the two ethnic groups; in 1916 identity cards where distributed specifying individuals “ethnicity” (BBC). The Belgians favored the Tutsi and in time the Tutsi welcomed more opportunity and greater political power due to the favoritism.

In 1994 when the Hutu president was assassinated the idea that the Tutsi were responsible for the president’s death spread rapidly provoking the genocide. The influence of Belgian lingers in the after math. The Hutu and Tutsi where classified by their physical features, the Tutsi where taller sometimes lighter and more resembling of Europeans. The idea that the Tutsi and Hutu where of different ethnicity and cultures created the tension which lead to the genocide of 1994.

Culture is used to support acts of war. It is used to manipulate people and influence their choices and ideologies. The Middle East is a prime modern example. It is still fresh in the minds of American’s the burning Twin Towers; amongst the images of the burning towers is faulty images of members of Arabic and Muslim communities celebrating the success of the terrorist attack. War in itself is part of a culture. The culture of war is complex and encompasses many different aspects. It is important to identify the use of culture in war and how it can affect a war.

Interventions in war are typically for a nations own gain. The United States does not intervene in conflict unless it directly benefits the nation. If intervention were based on liberating human beings there would be endless international conflict being fought on ever-continent excluding Antarctica. Nations and leaders of surrounding countries or of specific countries fighting in a conflict should be obliged to end conflict.

Government institutions and developed nations should become obligated to prevent and eradicate war. The obligation one nation has to another is respect its culture and rights of its people and to protect the people’s inborn rights.

What does he mean by the standing army is used not so much against the external enemy as against the internal enemy? The standing army can be utilized to fight against an internal enemy. Embracing foreign cultures during times of war could be somewhat of an internal enemy. On a governmental international scale the war in Iraq lacked support but internally the Bush Administration attempted to exploit the fears of the American people by giving them a culture to identify their fear with. The American people feared terrorist attacks and where given a face to fear, the face of the Middle East.

This video is part one of a few installments I found on YouTube. I found it very well done in sending a message that the Muslim community has a strong positive presence in American culture. Its an interesting piece that focuses in on how Islam is portrayed in this country and how members of the Islamic/ American community identify themselves.

Women have been victims of war since the dawn of war, but can women fight these wars and become the perpetrators? Women in the United States military have increased within years. In the Middle East women can serve in the United Arab Emirates army to help protect the home front. Women in history and have been spies, members of the military in all branches, and even terrorists.  Women can play a crucial part in war and not only be a victim. Let us not forget Joan of Arc who led France to many victories during the 100 years’ war.

After World War II womens’ presence in the U.S. military went beyond a home front effort and beyond the roles of nurses. Even though their presence expanded women were not placed in front line positions until 2005 in Iraq (Bender 1). Before 2005 an aged old rule was still in effect which prevented women from operating along side combat units. Women are only permitted to work along side combat troops but are still not permitted to partake in direct combat. The change in 2005 has not proven to have been a mistake, the lack of support in Iraq has utilized women effectively. Women can be valuable fighting assets but they have gone within recognition; it was not until 1967 that women could be promoted to higher star ranks, generals, or admirals (WACVA). Women were in service years before 1967 which enabled their promotion, could it be possible that in time women too one day be permitted to fight in direct combat?

Beyond military efforts women are also members of rebel groups. In Sri Lanka there is a rebel group called the Tamil Tigers another rebel group within this group is the Black Tigresses. Out of a group of about 273 women can accountant for 46, these women have been accredited with involvement in political assassinations (Neary 2).  Women have also been known to perpetrate suicide attacks in the Gaza Strip. Some accredit the stereotypes of women to enable them to be beneficial as terrorist (MFA). Women are easily trusted by men, they are softer and more innocent. It may in the opinion of some be easier for a woman to move past military security to perpetrate acts of terror. Women can also be noted as perpetrators of Genocide. In Rwanda after the 1994 genocide women have been tried and sentenced for being perpetrators of Tutsi killings (Hogg 1).

Women along side men have the right to defend and fight for their countries. Women should be allowed to lead armies and fight in them. Women reserve the same fundamental rights as their male counterparts. Preventing women from service in fighting would be preventing them to equally work alongside men. Women are also the perpetrators of atrocities against humanity such as genocide, terrorism acts, and murders. The role of women as victims and fighters in war is substantial.

Women have proven to be competent to fight and should reserve the right to do so. The stigma surrounding women as military officers is not one brought upon them self. It is a stigma of gender roles that have been instilled upon individuals since childhood. This stigma should not prevent a woman from fighting.

(2 pages in word document)

Works Cited

Bender, Bryan. “The New York Times Log In.” The New York Times – Breaking News, World News      & Multimedia. Web. 29 Sept. 2009. <http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01            /26/world/americas/26iht-women.html?_r=1>.

Hogg, Nicole. “Women Accused of Genocide in Rwanda.” Coalition for Women’s Human Rights in Conflict Situations / Coalition pour le droit des femmes en situations de conflit armé. Web. 29  Sept. 2009. <http://www.womensrightscoalition.org/site/publications/vol4No1/womenaccusedofgenociderwar da_en.php>.

Neary, Lynn. “Tamil Tigers: Suicide Bombing Innovators : NPR.” NPR : National Public Radio : News &Analysis, World, US, Music & Arts : NPR. Web. 29 Sept. 2009.             <http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104391493>.

“The Role of Palestinian Women in Suicide Terrorism.” Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Web. 29 Sept. 2009.<http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2003/1/The%20Role%20of%20Palestinian%20Women%20in%20Suicide%20Terrorism>.

Women’s Army Corps Veterans’ Association. Web. 29 Sept. 2009.             <http://www.armywomen.org/wacHistory.shtml>.

The Geneva Convention specifically states in cases of war; Women shall be especially protected against any attack on their honour, in particular against rape, enforced prostitution, or any form of indecent assault. Women often become the victims of rape and abuse during war time. Rape is utilized as a weapon of war and continues to terrorize women throughout war torn nations. In such situations as the one in the Democratic Republic of the Congo soldiers of the militias pillage through villages raping local women often while their husbands and children are forced to watch the act. According to the Huffington Post over 35,000 women have been raped as a result of the ongoing civil war in the Congo.

The weapon of rape is used to demoralize the women and men of the Congo as a tactic of war. Women are then severally ostracized by their communities and families after they are victimized by rape. It is often that these women become shunned and dismissed by their own husbands. In war women are often raped, and then abandoned. They then do not have access to appropriate treatment after the rapes have occurred.

Rape is an epidemic in war; it is safe to say that women are being raped daily in the Congo by members of the militias. The Congo is not one of the only war torn areas were rape is as common as gunfire; Burma as well has suffered a surge of rape. The HIV rate in Burma in recent years has hit astronomical numbers and the rape of innocent women and girls may attribute to the spread. In 1997 some “independent organizations estimate… 400,000 to 600,000 people were carrying HIV” (Irrawaddy 4).

Rape is not only an epidemic that has stricken the lives of civilian women during war. Sexual assault of female United States soldiers has been reported in recent years coming out Iraq. Janis Kaprinski reported that female officers would avoid drinking water late in the day in order to avoid using the latrines  at night, where the sexual assaults were  occurring (Benedict 2). The violation and disrespect of women is nothing new in the military; although could being in Iraq, at war, thousands of miles away from the states, provoke men to assault female soldiers? They could potentially feel as though raping their fellow soldiers in the night, far from home could easily be done without consequence. War and rape go hand in hand in all aspects of war.

Beyond rape women of war are left unable to support themselves during the desperate times wars create. Women in such countries as Afghanistan who lose their husbands in war time are often left unable to provide for their families. Often these women are without education or training and cannot seek out employment.

Women are undoubtedly victimized and often targeted during war. Civilian women should be treated as the Geneva Convention stipulates. Rape should not be allowed to be used as a weapon. Enslaving women, raping, and leaving them unable to fend for them self at the end of a war is far too common. It is a violation of human rights to leave women to the mercy of men during war times. The rules stated in the Geneva Convention are not enough to prevent the abuse of women.

Something must be done amongst the women and men of these fighting nations to prevent these atrocities. In Liberia Jackie Redd a former rape victim and child solider has begun to speak out for the women of Liberia (Thompson). She has suffered and lived to tell of her story; she is speaking out against the dismissal rape victims face from their peers. It is women like Jackie Redd that may change the conditions women of war face.

Pray the Devil Back to Hell is a film which depicts the stand the women of Liberia took against the violence in their country. Like Jackie Redd these Liberian women took it upon themselves to make a change for their people. While making the world outside of war torn nations aware it is also important nation work internally to make a change. These women can make the change, with the help of their fellow people.

Women On the Frontline gives us some insight on the suffering the women of the Congo face.

Works Cited

Benedict, Helen. “The private war of women soldiers | Salon News.” Salon.com – Breaking news, opinion, politics,             entertainment, sports and culture. Web. 21 Sept. 2009.<http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/03/07/women_in_military/index.html>.

“Heroin and HIV/AIDS epidemic in Burma.” The Irrawaddy news magazine, Burma, Myanmar, Southeast Asia. Web. 23 Sept. 2009.<http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=1521&Submit=Submit>.

Schubert, Zach. “Reporters Uncensored: The Rape of the Congo.” Breaking News and Opinion on The Huffington Post. Web. 23 Sept. 2009. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/reporters-uncensored/the-rape-of-the-congo_b_274738.html>.

Thompson, Megan. “Former Liberian rape victim and child soldier speaks out | Worldfocus.”Worldfocus: International News, Videos and Blogs. Web. 20 Sept. 2009.<http://worldfocus.org/blog/2009/04/17/former-liberian-rape-victim-and-child-soldier-speaks-out/5021/>.

Should the Geneva Convention always apply in war? Does Gender matter in the rules of war?

The Geneva Convention stipulates rules of protection for war victims. The convention’s purposes are to reduce the barbaric nature of war. Without the Geneva Convention the abuse of prisoners of war, injured military, medical or aide workers, civilians including women and children would not be prohibited or punishable. In international conflict and war against armed or rebel groups the Geneva Convention should always apply.

Without the Geneva Convention the direct attack on civilians would not be prohibited or considered a punishable war crime. War would have no limitations and great crimes against humanity would be permissible during wartime. The infliction of war continually affects civilians with or without the convention. Without the convention civilians are free game to be attacked directly. The convention is a barrier that prevents the abuse of power and violation of the universal rights of all.

The humiliation of victims of war is also prohibited by the convention. An example of such humiliation is the prisoner abuse at Abu Grahib. If the convention was not in effect and the United States did not agree to these rules of war the behavior of the military guards who abused these prisoners of war would not be punishable as criminals. Inhumanely stripping prisoners, placing them in compromising, disturbing positions and photographing them would then not violate the rules of war. By not following the rules of the convention or attempting to manipulate them war becomes even more unusually cruel and premises crimes against humanity.

Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment”. The incident at Abu Grahib not only violated the Geneva Convention it violated a human right set by the United Nations’ declaration. The right to violate the inalienable rights each human being possesses cannot be granted on a situational basis. The Geneva Convention should never only apply in certain situations of war it should always apply in all war.

Being devoid of the convention would permit the violation of article 30 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which says “Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any rights and freedoms set forth herein”. War would be enabled to strip the innocent, the injured, or the surrendered of all of their freedoms and rights as an individual. War cannot be allowed to rape society of any protection of its rights.  The Geneva Convention should not only apply its rules in all wars the rules should also be irrevocable.

The Geneva Convention specifically stipulates the protection of women during war times in article 27 of the fourth convention; “Women shall be especially protected against any attack on their honour, in particular against rape, enforced prostitution, or any form of indecent assault”. Gender does matter in the rules of war. The suppression and abuse of women can be seen throughout history especially during times of war. The convention specifically prohibits the abuse of women because it is such a common occurrence seen during times of war. Women are left at the mercy of military men to easily during these times.

The rape and murder of 14-year-old Abeer Qassim Hamza and her family by U.S. soldiers, without the Geneva Convention may have been easy to cover up or even overlook. If the rules of war did not directly address the rape or forced prostitution of women it may be a crime committed more often. Rape is often used as a weapon of war or a weapon against the innocent during wartime.

It is unfortunate that gender must matter in the rules of war but it is important to point out that women are subject to this type of torture and dehumanization more often then not. The story of Abeer and other victimized women must never go unrecognized for it would be a horrid travesty to overlook the reality of war for some women. Without this specific rule women could be subjected to more victimization.

The rules of the Geneva Convention are clear and are not to be misinterpreted or misunderstood. Manipulating or overlooking the convention is a war crime in itself. The Geneva Convention tries to maintain humane treatment of war victims. It is a necessary set of clear stipulations.

Works Cited

War can only be given a face when different aspects of it can be defined. What purpose does it serve, what are its effects, why does it perpetuate? As a country at war, the people would like to believe war is a battle against good and evil. It is a stand against the wrong and the criminal. It is a fight to protect freedoms and liberate, or so we are told. It is taught to be a necessary evil for the good of a specific agenda. When war has ended it would like to be believed that something positive would always arise from the rubble.

What can war truly be defined as? War is a devastating, dehumanizing, destructive conflict. War is expensive for it comes with the high price of human life. War is constantly an issue and a dreadful possibility. It is an inflicted wound that quickly becomes infected and spreads throughout a society. War is something that is truly unimaginable until it is seen first hand. Even though war is devastating it has been a part of human history since the beginning of time. It has devastated, destroyed, and changed societies forever and will continue to do so until the human race evolves;

War is a brutal and ugly enterprise. Yet it remains central to human history and social change. These two facts     together might seem paradoxical and inexplicable, or they might reveal deeply disturbing facets of the  human character (notably, a drive for dominance over others). (War)

Is war every worth, the time, resources and pain? Is the result ever completely worth the battle? The ongoing war in Afghanistan brings some questions forward related to whether or not war is necessary. The war in Afghanistan has been going on for 8 years, and in recent time the war has been ignited with an increase in American military presence. For years the war laid dormant due to the war in Iraq taking center stage.  Not only has the United States been fighting a war against Afghanistan, Afghanistan has been fighting a civil war. Is any of it necessary? That can be left up to debate. One thing that is certain about these two ongoing wars is that there are victims suffering as a direct result of both wars.

In the New York Times article, A School Bus for Shamsia readers are told a story about a school in Afghanistan where a group of young girls were terrorized and burned with acid, their education was placed in jeopardy after the incident along with their lives. After the United States began their fight in Afghanistan there was “one unambiguously positive change that the American-led enterprise has brought it is the education of girls” (Filkins). This is undoubtedly a positive change, but woman are still victimized and a struggle amongst the people of Afghanistan still prevails. The country according to the article “lay in ruins” after 8 years of an American waged war.

Has an 8-year-old war substantially positively affected this country? Or has is just caused more strife and pain? Creating educational opportunities for oppressed young girls is a priceless achievement; but the ongoing battle in Afghanistan leaves many hopeless and fearful that when and if America can claim victory Afghanistan will be left as a carcass. The United States has been focused on fighting a war and increasing military but is not focused on socially improving conditions. If social conditions and climate do not change then the purpose of the war is obsolete.

War’s face is ugly, disfigured, and a vile visage to look at. The reality of war is painful, too painful to even be comprehended by one who has not witnessed or truly lived it. There will always be conflict and war which will always be an option that the world would be better off without.  War can easily be redefined in the dictionary as a horrendous crime against humanity.

I found this video while searching for a video that would help me get a glimpse of war. After pilfering through you tube clips of war video games and music videos I found a series of videos called “Rethink Afghanistan”. The particular segment focuses on the conditions of women in Afghanistan.