Impact of Conflict on Women and Girls Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateSam Rushworth
Main Page: Sam Rushworth (Labour - Bishop Auckland)Department Debates - View all Sam Rushworth's debates with the Department for International Development
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
I thank everyone who has spoken today. I have been very moved by Members telling quite harrowing accounts of the way that women are affected by conflict around the world, some of which has brought back difficult memories of my previous life before being in this place, when I worked in conflict zones, predominantly with children and women. To echo my hon. Friend the Member for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan), I have found that I have reflected almost every day since coming here on whether I am having more impact being here than I did before. I note that five parties are represented here today, and I feel that there is a huge consensus. I certainly hope that beyond this room today there can be actions.
I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) for securing this really important debate, and I thank the Minister for being here. Until she appeared before the International Development Committee last week, I was a sceptic on the dual role of being both the Minister for Women and Equalities and the Minister for Development. I wondered whether it did not dilute the two roles, but the answer that she gave us has persuaded me that it is a very powerful thing to have her on the global stage. We all know how integral women and girls are to international development.
Many Members have raised Afghanistan, and I reflected on a time a few years ago when I was a further education teacher and had an Afghan student. She was a remarkable young woman on an access course and her ambition was to go on to be a doctor, but during that period the Home Office was trying to deport her family back to Afghanistan because it was deemed a safe country. I remember spending time with her, and she tearfully explained to me that although she probably could live there, she would not be able to continue her studies—and she had this dream of going on to be a doctor. We were ultimately unsuccessful at keeping her in the country, and I do not know what has happened to her since, but this is an important point that we note for future policymaking in that area.
I will focus my remarks today on the role of women in upstream prevention, with examples of some really heroic women that I have been privileged to know. A couple of years ago, I was privileged to work with the previous Government’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief in organising the global ministerial conference—I was part of an effort to bring women and youth from countries where there is interfaith conflict to the UK.
One of those people was Sri Lankan peacebuilder Dishani Jayaweera. She founded the Centre for Peacebuilding and Reconciliation. She told us a story from during the war when she met a man named Ulama, who had come to one of her workshops. She would run workshops that brought together people from different sides of the conflict to help build empathy and understanding. On the third day of the workshop, he took her hand and broke down crying; he confessed that he had been sent by an extremist group to spy on her organisation. However, as he spent time in the workshop he realised the value of its mission. He ended up becoming one of its most committed members, and went on to found a school for girls and start his own organisation.
Another such person is Badung Charity Audu, a Nigerian human rights activist. Charity witnessed severe violence in her community, including Muslim houses being burned to ashes around her. Some of her friends were murdered and, beginning at the age of five, she was repeatedly raped by relatives and close friends. Due to the high standing of her abusers within her community and faith group, she remained silent in her suffering. She faced constant verbal abuse and was often called “born by mistake” because she was born out of wedlock. She did not learn to read or write until she was nine years old, and was often bullied at school for being illiterate. Eventually, she found somebody she was able to confide in and open up to, and she talked to her foster parents about her experiences. Today, Charity works mentoring young girls overcoming the trauma of abuse and sexual violence in her country. She came here to Parliament and spoke eloquently about her work.
Another person is Khalidah, who is from Iraq, and her friend, Shno Qane Qader. Khalidah is a young Yazidi woman and Shno is a young Muslim woman; they work together to promote peace in their communities and there is powerful testimony of their work. Other examples include Ghadir Hana, an Israeli-Palestinian, and Surale Rosen, a Jewish Israeli: two women working together for peace. We took them to Birmingham central mosque for a discussion on peace and the role of women in peace there. Ghadir was given a pretty hard time by some of the audience, who could not understand why she was appearing on a platform with her Jewish friend promoting peace in their community.
Another example of three outstanding women, who I, unfortunately, could not bring to the UK because we were not successful in getting visas for them to come to the conference, are three women in the Central African Republic. A few years ago, I was with them in Bangui. By chance it happened to be International Women’s Day. Their names are Marie-Therese, Aicha Baba and Clarisse Manehou—a Catholic, a Protestant and a Muslim. They are three women who represent an interfaith platform and work together. There are three male faith leaders of that platform, who have also done remarkable work, and been nominated for all the Nobel prizes, as well as all the things one would expect, and have travelled the world, but we were not able to get visas for the women due to their poverty.
As I sat with those women and asked them about their experience and what I could do, two things stood out for me. One of them was that one woman said she was grateful for the work of the men in building peace, before adding: “But I was the one who faced down the barrel of a gun and stood between the militia and my community, and persuaded them to put down their weapons.”
I would like to add another example to the hon. Gentleman’s great list. As he knows, Somalia, Somaliland and the other Somali countries are organised by clan, and in Somali culture it is actually the women who broker peace between clans. When there are conflicts over grazing rights, it is the women who cross clan lines to broker peace.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that example. Another example comes not from my own life but from Liberia, where women became so fed up of conflict that women on all sides decided to unite behind a woman—Ellen Johnson Sirleaf—for the presidency, while many men in the country voted along factional lines.
The experience I had with the women I mentioned will never leave me. I confess that I did not understand the currency I was using. I asked them whether they needed some lunch; I felt that we had been talking for a long time. I gave them what actually amounted to about $100, thinking that I was giving them about $10. They looked a bit overwhelmed. Afterwards, when they went off, my translator told me that they did not buy lunch; they came back hungry, because they said they could use that money better to benefit their community.
When I asked those women what would make the biggest difference for them, I was expecting them to make quite big financial demands. Instead, they said, “Could we have some sewing machines?” That was because, for many of them, their husbands had been killed, they had been raped, their homes had been burned and looted, and they no longer had sewing machines to make a living. For the sake of a few thousand dollars to provide sewing machines for those women, we could give them a livelihood, and that sum, frankly, is probably what we would spend on having a 4x4 on the road for a day in one of those countries. To echo the point that the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) made about cash transfers, nothing is more important than getting cash to the women on the ground who know how to spend it to make a real difference in people’s lives.
In conclusion, several Members have made outstanding recommendations, so I will not repeat them all, but I will emphasise the point about upstream prevention. The previous Government rightly established that there needs to be an atrocity prevention strategy within aid spending, but now we need to take that idea forward. Part of that process must involve looking at civil society and upstream funding, and the long-term support for the women’s and young people’s organisations that are doing such vital work in peacebuilding. We need to look at the quality of aid, not just the quantity.
I will close my remarks, because I am really conscious of time. Again, I simply make an appeal that we do not just hear words here today, but that words lead to action.