UN dilutes resolution on sexual violence in conflict after US threatens veto over abortion stance An updated version passed that passed that eliminated language on providing ‘sexual and reproductive health care’ to survivors

The UN’s Security Council has passed a severely watered-down resolution on ending sexual violence in war after the United States threatened to veto the plans due to the Trump administration’s strong stance against abortion.



Read More Conflict disproportionately affects women across the world, while their resilience holds communities together

rape

On Tuesday a version of the German-drafted resolution was passed that had eliminated language on providing “sexual and reproductive health care” to survivors ofand abuse in order to get US support.

The resolution condemns the use of rape as a weapon of war and expressed the council’s deep concern at “the slow progress” in addressing and eliminating sexual violence in conflicts around the world. It also said such acts often occur with impunity “and in some situations have become systematic and widespread, reaching appalling levels of brutality”.

China and Russia abstain

Fifteen nations met over the weekend at the security council’s New York headquarters to discuss how the resolution would end the use of sexual violence in conflict.

But US representatives said they would veto the initial resolution as the legislation could imply support for abortions.

Although UN resolutions require a simple majority of 50 per cent or more votes to pass, Germany agreed to remove all mention of sexual and reproductive health in the resolution to get the United States on board.

The original draft of the proposal, reported by CNN , said the UN intends to: “Recognise the importance of providing timely assistance to survivors of sexual violence, urges United Nations entities and donors to provide non-discriminatory and comprehensive health services, including sexual and reproductive health, psychosocial, legal, and livelihood support and other multi-sectoral services for survivors of sexual violence, taking into account the specific needs of persons with disabilities.”

But the amended version omitted the mention of health services stated the UN nations would: “Recognise the importance of providing timely assistance to survivors of sexual violence, urges United Nations entities and donors to provide non-discriminatory and comprehensive health services, in line with Resolution 2106.”

The resolution passed 13-0, while China and Russia abstained from voting on the amended proposal.

‘Intolerable and incomprehensible’

French ambassador to the UN François Delattre called the move by the US “intolerable”.

“It is intolerable and incomprehensible that the Security Council is incapable of acknowledging that women and girls who suffered from sexual violence in conflict, and who obviously didn’t choose to become pregnant, should have the right to terminate their pregnancy,” he said after the meeting.

Nobel Peace Prize winners Dr. Denis Mukwege and Nadia Murad issued a statement condemning the US’s position.

“There is simply no excuse for continuing to fail those who have already been victimised – as well as those who continue to be at risk of – devastating levels of sexual violence in conflict,” it read.

While Dr Mukwege set up a hospital to treat victims of sexual violence in conflict, Nadia Murad, who was kept as a Yazidi sex slave by Isis, voraciously campaigns to end sexual violence as a weapon of war.

‘Nuremberg moment’

Human rights lawyer Amal Clooney, who had attended the meeting and supported the initial resolution, demanded justice for victims of an “epidemic of sexual violence” in conflicts, especially rapes and other abuses perpetrated by Islamic State extremists in Iraq and Syria.

She told the security council that if the organisation’s most powerful body cannot prevent the prevalence of sexual violence in wars all over the world, “then at least it must punish it” and make justice a priority.



Read More Brett Kavanaugh: Sexual assault survivors go viral in order to prove Trump wrong about reporting

She challenged the Security Council to prosecute Islamic State militants just as the victorious Allies prosecuted Nazi criminals after World War II at the Nuremberg trials.

“This is your Nuremberg moment,” she said.

UK Labour MP Emily Thornberry said the decision to remove the article “beggars belief,” citing concerns Mr Trump had been invited to an official state visit in the UK.

She told the BBC: “It beggars belief that on the very same day Donald Trump is threatening to veto a United Nations resolution against the use of rape as a weapon of war, Theresa May is pressing ahead with her plans to honour him with a state visit to the UK.”

Additional reporting by agencies