It comes back to what I said earlier. A country's foreign aid policy is often a reflection of its own experiences and values. Think back to when the government decided to start sending family benefit cheques directly to mothers instead of fathers. It was a pretty radical idea at the time. I am sure there were some skeptics who thought, as we often hear, that the husbands of these women would force them to hand over the money right away. There are all kinds of stereotypes that go along with that. True, in some cases, women may not be able to manage the money they are given or may be intimidated or forced into handing it over immediately, but not always.
Figuring out who to send the family benefit cheque to is not the real problem, and the same metaphor applies here. There are ways to give women real money or the equivalent in material goods, which not only symbolize power, but also give it.
In a number of African countries, for instance, a cellular telephone is first and foremost a symbol of power, but the ability to communicate is also a means of protection. The only people with cell phones are the local NGO representatives. This is one example of a very tangible measure.
We need to develop well thought-out tailored programs on a country-by-country basis. Clearly, we will not arrive at the solutions by sitting down and talking, but by speaking directly with these women on the ground and asking them what would have the dual effect of protecting them while giving them visible power that the men, themselves, would envy. That is how the dynamic of the victimization of women in conflict will start to change.