Europe’s Helping Hand To Female Genital Mutilation
By: Jamie Glazov 
Tuesday, May 19, 2009

 

  _____  

How European governmental and non-governmental development-policy bolsters a
horrific crime against hundreds of thousands of girls.



Frontpage Interview's guest is Ines Laufer, founder of the Task Force for
Effective Prevention of Female Genital Mutilation, a network of
Human-Rights-organisations and activists that is committed to measurable,
broad prevention of genital mutilation among migrant girls in the EU. With
the Task Force's prevention-programme, for the first time true protection of
minor girls from this violence comes into reach.

 

FP: Ines Laufer, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

 

I would like to build on our last interview
<http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=34699>  about your
efforts to save migrant girls in Europe from FGM (Female Genital
Mutilation).

 

Can you talk a bit about the situation in African, Arabian and Asian
countries and how female genital mutilation is affected their by European
development policies?

 

Laufer: European governmental and non-governmental development-policy widely
undermines and hinders the efforts to eradicate FGM in African/Arab/Asian
countries.

 

Since the early 1980’s, there have been numerous initiatives, networks and
organisations on the African continent that are committed to the eradication
of FGM in their countries. The largest network - that is still active today
- is the InterAfrican Committé (IAC) which was  founded in 1984. At that
time, the majority of development-agencies, as well as the
WorldHealthOrganisation, UNICEF and other UN-agencies, refused to put the
problem of FGM on their agenda and to support initiatives like the IAC,
because they did not want to “interfere into a cultural custom.”

 

In the 1990s, organisations like UNICEF realised that FGM is very well
suited to be exploited for raising funds. They created projects and called
for generous donations within the Western population. It worked. For
instance, to UNICEF Germany, the German people donated more than half a
million D-Mark alone in 1994, for a FGM-project in Ethiopia – after a
TV-broadcast and big article in STERN-magazine witnessed the live-mutilation
of an Ethiopian girl-victim.

 

Today, 15 years later, UNICEF Germany still requires money for this project
– that is likely to have yielded a few million Euros over the time (which is
only an estimation, because UNICEF refuses to disclose the true amount).
Only recently asked for measurable results of this concrete project – within
such a long time - UNICEF is not able to give concrete answers. Obviously,
because there aren’t lasting results. This would not even be a big surprise
– because so-called “education-campaigns” which are destined to teach the
mutilating families and mutilators about the devastating effects of FGM,
generally widely failed. 

 

And of course, they had to fail – because FGM is not an “exotic custom” that
people perpetrate because they “don’t know better” – no – FGM is a very
specific and very systematic kind of legitimized violence against a certain
group of members (female children) in the concerned societies. 

 

The consequences of the sexual mutilation of little girls are very well
known and realised in all mutilating ethnic groups – but they are knowingly
accepted while the girl’s individual health and well-being are subordinated
to the male’s claim for sexual control.
<http://archive.frontpagemag.com/Printable.aspx?ArtId=34936#_ftn1> <!--[if
!supportFootnotes]-->[1]<!--[endif]-->

 

So, while millions of donations are gathered and partly invested into
disputable, unsuccessful projects, UNICEF knowingly accepts that the girls
in all projects which are funded by the UN-agency – continue to be
mutilated.


UNICEF – as well as all large development-agencies - refuse to integrate the
abandonment of FGM in the project-areas into their support-conditions.

 

FP: Doesn’t all of this violate some kind of law?

 

Laufer: This policy of tolerance and acceptance towards FGM – and other
forms of violence against children – strictly contradicts the UN-convention
of Children’s Rights which has been created in 1989 and signed by all
countries except Somalia and the USA and which could be a strong instrument
to call for the respect of children’s rights within every single project.

By neglecting to consequently demand the girl’s protection from FGM,UNICEF
and Co. must be considered complicit for the mutilation of thousands of
little girls in the projects.

Furthermore, in ingratiation to the US-development-concern USaid for
monetary reasons, UNICEF now consequently trivialises FGM as “Female Genital
Cutting”, in German even as “Circumcision” and so paternalistically
overrides the call of African activists to maintain the proper terminology
“Female Genital Mutilation”
<http://archive.frontpagemag.com/Printable.aspx?ArtId=34936#_ftn2> <!--[if
!supportFootnotes]-->[2]<!--[endif]--> – and even threatened to refuse funds
to African groups who named the practice “FGM.”

 

Other non-governmental development-agencies like PLAN International,
WorldVision, Kindernothilfe and CCF Kinderhilfswerk work with a very
lucrative system: They market so-called “sponsored children” to open the
wallets of empathetic donors: They promise to use the money for guaranteeing
a “better life” to the children. Up to 100 Million Euros, they acquire each
year.

 

But none of these organisations is willing to protect the sponsored
girl-children from FGM by including this point into the conditions for the
project-partners: 

 

Up to 400,000 sponsored girls in countries where FGM is practised are
submitted to FGM – in front of the eyes of those hypocritical organisations,
while they carry a yield of hundreds of millions to the organisation’s
accounts.

 

We have documents where - the 100% avoidable - death of sponsored girls
after FGM is reported. The donors of course are not told about the girl’s
death-cause and that it has easily could have been avoided.

 

By financially and materially supporting those villages, communities and
male decision-makers who are not willing to respect a least standard of
children’s rights, who insist that the female children in their communities
are mistreated by FGM, the repressive structures which largely hinder any
chance of lasting development, are strengthened.

 

This hinders and undermines the serious work of initiatives like IAC and
makes their efforts much more difficult. 

 

The damage that is caused by this policy can not be compensated by the
peanut-amounts which are spent by these organisations to a few selected
projects who mainly aim to fight FGM.

 

The same critics against the FGM-tolerating policy of NGOs also needs to be
addressed to the governmental development-aid:

 

Germany is the world’s second largest donator of development-aid. Those
governments who propagate, perpetuate and tolerate FGM in their countries,
who disrespect the most fundamental human rights – and therefore largely
hinder their societies from lasting development – are generously supported.
In 2007, more than 700 millions of German taxpayer’s money have been flowing
to these governments, mostly to fulfil their economical requests. 

 

Egypt alone, which just comes from re-legalising FGM, received 100 million
Euros. And Ethiopia, whose government in 2008 adopted a law that will lead
to a major “famishment” of most human rights-organisations in the country
<http://archive.frontpagemag.com/Printable.aspx?ArtId=34936#_ftn3> <!--[if
!supportFootnotes]-->[3]<!--[endif]-->,  received not less than 70 million
Euros. Alone from Germany.

 

No conditions, no call for the respect of Human- and children’s rights are
linked to such generous support. 

 

This policy again strengthens political leaders and governments who are far
away from caring about the violent oppression of their female members in the
society. This makes true development impossible.

 

Just recently, Günter Nooke – commissioner  for human rights within the
German government – had called to stop payments to countries who do not
respect fundamental human rights
<http://archive.frontpagemag.com/Printable.aspx?ArtId=34936#_ftn4> <!--[if
!supportFootnotes]-->[4]<!--[endif]--> He has roughly been answered back by
the German ministry of development.
<http://archive.frontpagemag.com/Printable.aspx?ArtId=34936#_ftn5> <!--[if
!supportFootnotes]-->[5]<!--[endif]--> 

 

As long as in the governmental development-policy obviously is interested in
very own objectives which seem to be more linked to economical and political
influence than to true development – and as long as the tax-payers do not
really care about the doubtful usage of their money, this situation will not
change. 

 

FP: Ines Laufer, thank you for bringing awareness to this issue. 

Notes:

 <http://archive.frontpagemag.com/Printable.aspx?ArtId=34936#_ftnref1> [1]
In 2000, when the African Women’s organisation in Vienna run the first (and
still only) study on FGM
<http://vgarchiv.orf.at/austria/de/specials/fgm/studie.doc>  among migrants
in Austria, it could be proven for the first time, that there is no link
between the knowledge about the harmful consequences of FGM and the will to
abandon the practice: It “has been shown that 56,8 of the interrogated
migrants know that FGM has “side-effects” to girls and women, and 54,4% can
not give any positive effect of the procedure. This knowledge doesn’t seem
to have any influence on their attitude towards FGM: only 24,4% of group (60
people) support the complete abolishment of FGM. The majority of almost 76%
is against its entire abandonment. See page 26.  

See BAMAKO <http://www.taskforcefgm.de/img/Bamako-DECLARATION.pdf>
-declaration of the Inter-African-Committee, 2005: 

 

[2] See HumanRightsWatch
<http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/01/08/ethiopia-new-law-ratchets-repression>
: 

 

[3] Article@NeueOsnabrückerZeitung, 6th of March, 2009
<http://www.neue-oz.de/etc/_search/search.php?q=07_int.html> . 

 

[4] BMZ press release
<http://www.bmz.de/de/presse/pm/2009/maerz/pm_20090307_22.html> , 7th of
March, 2009. 

 

  _____  

Jamie Glazov is Frontpage Magazine's editor. He holds a Ph.D. in History
with a specialty in Russian, U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. He is the
author of Canadian Policy Toward Khrushchev
<http://www.amazon.com/Canadian-Khrushchevs-Security-Strategic-Studies/dp/07
73522751> ’s Soviet Union and is the co-editor (with David Horowitz) of The
Hate America Left
<http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=6317> . He edited and
wrote the introduction to David Horowitz’s Left Illusions.
<https://www.donationreport.com/init/controller/ProcessEntryCmd?key=D8Q0U3W0
R8>  His new book is United in Hate: The Left's Romance with Tyranny and
Terror.
<http://www.amazon.com/United-Hate-Romance-Tyranny-Terror/dp/1935071076/ref=
sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234935656&sr=1-1>  To see his previous
symposiums, interviews and articles Click Here
<http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/authors.asp?ID=3> . Email him at
jgla...@rogers.com. 

 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

--------------------------
Want to discuss this topic?  Head on over to our discussion list, 
discuss-os...@yahoogroups.com.
--------------------------
Brooks Isoldi, editor
biso...@intellnet.org

http://www.intellnet.org

  Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com
  Subscribe:    osint-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
  Unsubscribe:  osint-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com


*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has 
not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of 
The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT 
YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the 
included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of 
intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, 
techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other 
intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes 
only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material 
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use 
this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' 
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtmlYahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    osint-dig...@yahoogroups.com 
    osint-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    osint-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Reply via email to