Peace is not simply a nebulous value. It is also a state of existence. It is an everyday experience for some, and a future experience to hope for, for many. When STAND and other organizations advocate for resolving conflict and creating peace, we are not simply advocating for the principle of peacefulness, but a change in the status quo for hundreds of millions of individuals around the world. One way that this is achieved is through peace treaties. These documents can have significant impacts on the resulting life for civilians. However, not all peace is created equal. The best peace treaties repair harm, reconcile atrocities, and provide a sustainable framework to continue a state of peace amongst all parties forever (or at least for the foreseeable future).

This is where the issue of gender becomes especially important. Conflict often disproportionately impacts women and girls in certain ways due to the use of sexual violence or kidnapping as a weapon of genocide or war. Certain peace treaties may provide better reparations for gender-based violence perpetrated during conflict than others, could potentially ignore the impact of war on women, fail to release women prisoners of war, or even fall apart without the assent of women.

Those “possibilities” are reality, and largely due to the lack of women involved in the treaty-writing process. According to UN Women, “between 1992 and 2018, women constituted 13% of negotiators, 3% of mediators and only 4% of signatories in major peace processes tracked by the Council on Foreign Relations.” This is unacceptable. Not only is it exclusionary and oppressive to women, it also does not set the foundation for sustainable peace. Research shows that peace treaties and agreements are more likely to create durable peace if women participate, and “peace agreements signed by women show a higher number of agreement provisions aimed at political reform and a higher implementation rate of these provisions” (UN Women). 

So, how do we ensure that women’s voices are heard in peacemaking and peacebuilding processes? The United Nations’ original gender-aware peace policy, Resolution 1325, establishes a framework to measure, promote, and address the unique impacts of conflict and mass atrocities on women and to increase women’s participation in peace. This policy also helped create the Women, Peace, and Security agenda, which countries around the world, including the United States, have since formalized. This agenda has helped provide funding for women peacebuilders, codify the issues that women face in conflict settings, and train women on issues of peace and conflict resolution, so they can enjoy their womanhood and be fulfilled women and even study about sex and fatigue and more . Of course, there is more work to be done, beyond what the Women, Peace, and Security agenda has accomplished.

One important aspect we have to acknowledge is gender diversity; although the Women, Peace, and Security agenda has promoted women’s rights, it often utilizes narrowly defined terms of gender identity and expression. Unfortunately, the issues faced by gender non-conforming, non-binary, and transgender folks have been “largely absent from gender and peacebuilding research, policy and programming” and require further research (International Alert). Going forward, it is necessary to integrate gender-inclusive terminology in peacebuilding, not only to benefit folks of diverse gender identities, but to promote human rights and normalize these issues in international society. 

The participatory aspect of peace negotiations is another important element to consider, especially the capacity for substantive participation from women and other gender identities. A major barrier to women’s participation in peace processes is that gender-diverse people all over the world face barriers to literacy, education, and job training that would help prepare them to formulate the documents and negotiate agreements for peace. It is not enough to simply add more women to the peace delegations and negotiating teams, but the international community must equip them with the tools necessary to make change. Increasing the proportion of gender-diverse individuals who are specifically trained as legal professionals, such as lawyers or paralegals, can help prepare societies to face peace processes with more gender diversity.

Finally, a key to promoting gender inclusivity and substantive participation in peace is the prevention and resolution of gender-based violence in conflict. It is vitally important that all human rights, peace, and foreign policy organizations continue to recognize the role that gender-based violence plays in conflict, and advocate to end impunity in cases of sexual violence, prosecute offenders, or create other non-legal transitional justice apparati to resolve the pain and trauma caused by this violence. 

What can we do to help? The first step is to educate yourself. Visit the resources listed below to learn more about the role of gender in peacebuilding. The second step is to support and promote gender-diverse lawyers, encouraging women and gender-diverse folks to pursue law training in the context of peace. For the United States, this means passing policy to help fund programs that train women lawyers and paralegals all over the world–and domestically. It means holding perpetrators of sexual violence accountable and supporting survivors of sexual violence with resources and access to justice. Finally, it means creating a gender-diverse world by using individuals’ correct pronouns, advocating for diverse perspectives on gender, using more inclusive language, and creating institutions to support and protect gender identity. 

Today is International Women’s Day! In honor of this international celebration, please enjoy this blog, and feel free to share it on social media.

—

Jordan Stevenson is a senior at Eastern Washington University, where she is majoring in International Affairs with a concentration in Global Public Policy, and minoring in Economics and Spanish. As an MC member, she co-leads STAND’s State Advocacy Lead program, communications operations, and policy process. Prior to joining STAND, Jordan served as a Global Youth Advocacy Fellow for Planned Parenthood, lobbied for women’s rights and U.S. foreign policy with Population Connection, and researched Indonesian political rights with the U.N. Development Programme. She currently works on campus at the Institute for Public Policy & Economic Analysis, is an LGBTQ Policy intern with GLIFAA, and does economic development work in Kenya with Partnering for Progress.

While it is only the third year for the conference, the Women and Genocide Symposium takes on a larger significance as part of a growing movement to recognize the connections between women and genocide. The problems women face in genocide have been historically overlooked in analyses of mass atrocities which focus almost exclusively on men’s experiences in conflict. Sexual assault, in particular, has historically been viewed as a trivial side effect of violence and a lack of security, rather than part of a genocide itself. However, this perspective is starting to change.

Abroad, activists are beginning to document the way that gender roles in the affected areas are played on in genocide, leading to strategies such as the use of rape as a weapon of war. In the United States, scholars are starting to discuss the way that policymakers’ perceptions of gender have been obscuring their perceptions of conflict, causing them to tend to overlook the ways that genocide uniquely affects women. This negatively impacts the solutions they create, leading to inaccurate policies that fail to properly protect women. And perhaps one of the most important observations has been the way that women have historically been kept out of the peace process, both by domestic and international forces. However, if the international community can actively work to include more women in negotiations and rebuilding, there can also be hope for women at the end of these tragedies.

A few highlights from the event:

Darfur:

Ikklas Abdelmageed, a Sudanese fellow at United States Institute of Peace, discussed the lack of action on women’s rights and the lack of protection women are afforded from sexual violence, particularly in the IDP camps. She noted that NGOs that aid women in Sudan are not doing enough – she recounted a story of a young woman who tried to get help from UNAMID (The United Nation African Mission in Darfur) and was told that their mandate did not include rape cases. Ikklas said that many women are also doubtful about being involved in the peace process because of a distrust of the government, but that she is working to improve this in the future.

Burma:

Myra Dahgaypaw, an activist for Burmese women, discussed the sexual violence committed by Burmese security forces against Rohingya women, which she described as “widespread.” She made the point that it has negatively affected Rohingya women’s access to education, as their families often keep them home away from school in an effort to protect them from the sexual violence. President Obama recently completed his trip to Burma, so it remains to be seen whether the U.S. will be willing to play a role in halting the atrocities there, particularly for young women and girls.

Recovery in Rwanda:

Ambassador Mukantabana spoke about women in relation to the Rwandan genocide, providing hope for the future of other conflicts. Reconciliation and recovery in Rwanda has been held up as a success story and model for future recovery and women’s empowerment. However, while Rwanda made strides since the 90s, particularly by putting more women in the legislature, there were also critics who questioned whether these are legitimate changes capable of uplifting Rwandan women in the future.

Activists have made strides in changing the conversation, but the realities that women still face internationally are dire. In order to move forward, women and girls need to be protected from sexual violence and drastic changes will have to be made to ensure that justice is served to the perpetrators. However, the dedicated community of activists, scholars, and policymakers has the potential to make significant improvements. In her speech, Chief Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda discussed the challenges that the community would have to face in the future but also said that the these abuses could not go unpunished, and in her final statements, she warned: “Let the perpetrators be on notice.”

We’d love to hear your thoughts on Women and Genocide! Write to Carly at cfabian@standnow.org.

This post was written by Carly Fabian, STAND’s Mid-Atlantic Regional Organizer.

One in three women worldwide has experienced gender-based violence in her lifetime. Hillary Rodham Clinton surely sought to reduce that number when she created the post of Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues during her tenure as Secretary of State. On June 18, I attended an event at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, at which the Honorable Catherine M. Russell, current US Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues spoke about her work advancing policy and programs related to the issues women face worldwide. Ambassador Russell devoted a significant portion of her lecture to a discussion of how conflict affects women, and how women contribute to the peacebuilding process. I am taking this opportunity to both expand on Ambassador Russell’s discussion of women, war, and peace, and consider whether the United States can act as a leader in these areas.

Women in Conflict

We tend to view the male experience of conflict as the universal measure. However, how women experience conflict is not the same, and their experiences should not, and must not be discounted. After all, women make up 80% of all refugees and internally displaced persons, and disproportionately face rape and other forms of sexual violence. Rape is frequently used during war as a tactic of terror and intimidation and can also be used as a tactic of genocide, where women are forcibly impregnated with children belonging to the perpetrators’ group in a further, and insidious, attempt to erase the targeted group. Women and girls also may be kidnaped for use as child soldiers, or as sex and domestic slaves by fighting forces.

Women are not only the victims of violence but perpetuate it as well. Women serve in direct combat as members of both regular armies and irregular armed groups. They also perform more traditional roles in support of combat troops, such as cooking and nursing.

In her talk, Ambassador Russell focused on one main US initiative designed to protect women in times of conflict: Safe from the Start. Safe from the Start a US initiative announced in September, 2013, that provides funding for humanitarian agencies to to hire specialized staff, launch new programs, and develop innovative methods to protect women and girls at the onset of crises around the world. Safe from the Start hopes to prevent the United States and its partners from having to ‘play catch up’ in providing these vital services after a crisis begins.

Women in Peacebuilding

Once conflict ends, women are largely excluded from formal peace processes. Ambassador Russell mentioned that since 1992, fewer than 3% of mediators and 8% of negotiators were women. When women are excluded, important issues that women care most about — but affect all of society — such as family, education, food security, and violence against women, tend to get ignored. Ambassador Russell described how the US government recognized this dynamic prior to the Geneva II talks, and provided training for women’s civil society groups attending the talks. This was a wise decision on the part of the US government, as peace cannot be made or kept when 50% of the population remains disempowered and the issues that they care about are unaddressed.

Peacebuilding must also provide assistance to women who served as combatants during the conflict period. According to a UNICEF report, female combatants of all ages tend to be excluded from demobilization programs, and to face greater stigma within their communities after hostilities cease. Ambassador Russell did not mention demobilization efforts that included or focused specifically on women, or US support for such. I believe that if the United States wants to be a leader in providing peacebuilding assistance that includes women and focuses on their needs, it cannot neglect demobilization efforts.

Achieving Justice

Ambassador Russell also discussed the importance of ending the culture of impunity around sexual violence. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, mobile courts travel to remote locations to prosecute perpetrators of gender-based violence. Those convicted arepunished with up to 20 years in prison and sometimes financial settlements are awarded to victims.The courts are staffed by Congolese lawyers and judges who are trained by international legal organizations. Not only do these mobile courts bring justice to women who rarely achieve it and work to end the atmosphere of impunity around sexual violence, but they help build a legal system for a post-conflict DRC by training Congolese legal personnel.

The United States is also working to end the culture of impunity. In his remarks at the Global Summit to End Sexual Violence in Conflict last month, Secretary of State John Kerryannounced that the United States both refuses to tolerate peace agreements that provide amnesty for rape, and has introduced a ban on visas for perpetrators and enablers of sexual violence.

Can the United States be a Leader?

Ambassador Russell emphasized that the United States must serve as a global leader in the battle to eradicate sexual violence and empower women. Leadership means many things. However,  the majority of leadership trainings I have attended (which is a lot) have stressed that a leader must lead by example. How can the United States lead by example in the global fight to eradicate sexual violence on and off the battlefield and end the culture of impunity around it when in the US Military, a woman serving in Iraq or Afghanistan was more likely to be raped by a fellow servicemember than be killed in the line of fire, less than five percent of all sexual assaults are put forward for prosecution, and less than a third of those cases result in imprisonment? How can the United States act as a global leader in women’s empowerment when 138 Congressmen and 22 Senators voted against the reauthorization of the 1994 Violence Against Women Act? And how can the United States assist women in taking control of their lives when attempts to restrict access to abortion and other forms of birth control continue to occur at both the state and federal level?

From Safe from the Start to empowerment of civil society groups to bans on visas for perpetrators and enablers of sexual violence, Ambassador Russell offered numerous examples of United States initiatives to assist women in both conflict and peacebuilding. Although commendable, these initiatives is not enough if the United States wants to be a global leader. If the United States wants to lead the struggle for global women’s rights, it must lead by example. If it wants to lead by example, it must improve how women are treated at home.

Resources on Women in Conflict:

Iraq: The Women Left Behind (Al Jazeera)

Secretary of State John Kerry at the Global Summit to End Sexual Violence in Conflict

We Are Still Here: Women on the Frontlines of Syria’s Conflict (Human Rights Watch)

Women, War and Peace (PBS)

This year’s International Day of the Girl coincides remarkably well with a story I feel is extremely powerful and resonates with STAND’s values. Pakistani teenager Malala Yousafzai has become an international icon for her courage and determination in her advocacy work for women’s rights, despite renewed threats by the Taliban. She even appeared on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart on October 9, 2013. Furthermore, October 9 marked the one year anniversary of Malala being shot in the head by the Taliban in retaliation for her campaigning against school closings in Pakistan’s Swat Valley. The Taliban also shot two other girls during this attack. Malala has since recovered, continued advocating for girls’ education, and received near-universal accolade all in the past year. Malala was also rumored to be a top contender for the Nobel Peace Prize and recently received the European Parliament’sSakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought. Indeed, Malala’s fight to stay alive and her continued efforts against institutionalized discrimination in education has pushed her cause onto the world stage. Malala’s story is an example of great activism, but also shows how mass atrocities are not just physically violent — they involve and are often preceded by structural-level effects as well.

Many groups across the globe are prevented from meeting their basic needs by social institutions or government structures. John Gatlung defined this sort of social and legal discrimination as structural violence. Structural violence includes situations when people are not entitled access to the same resources. This often involves institutionalized elitism, ethnocentrism, classism, racism, sexism, adultism, nationalism, heterosexism, ableism and ageism. In Malala’s case, she advocated against discrimination toward women in education. Unfortunately, structural violence has occurred throughout history and can currently be seen all over the world, from the United States to South Africa to Iran. Indeed, Malala’s quest for ensuring women’s access to education proves similar to the case of many other repressed groups around the world.

However, structural violence does not end with discrimination. The adverse effects of structural violence, according to Paul Farmer in An Anthropology of Structural Violence, include: “death, injury, illness, subjugation, stigmatization, and even psychological terror.” Furthermore, structural violence has often been tied to adverse events like genocide, human rights violations, and mass epidemics. Jews in pre-war Germany experienced an ever-increasing amount of religiously, judicially, economically, and socially discriminatory laws, such as the Nuremberg Laws, in the years before Hitler’s Final Solution. The MuslimRohingyas in Burma have experienced increased structural violence particularly since clashes in June and October 2012. The government has denied Rohingya’s citizenship and forced them to use ID cards identifying ethnicity.  Various governments in Rwanda used ID cards identifying ethnicity before the 1994 genocide. Indeed, structural violence should not go unnoticed because it could potentially serve as an early warning mechanism for emerging conflict areas.

One must not ignore the people whose livelihoods are being subjugated on a daily basis, even if nonviolently, by repressive regimes across the world. While focusing on ongoing violence and mass atrocities is crucial, it is equally as important to take interest in the various groups being subjugated to structural violence around the world. Malala was shot in the head and continues advocating against the structurally violent act of forbidding women’s education. What’s the least we could do?

Yesterday morning we attended IREX and ICAN’s event More than Victims: Women’s Roles in the Syrian Conflict. The panelists, Sanam Naraghi Anderlini of the International Civil Society Action Network (ICAN), Caroline Ayoub of Souriali Radio, Rafif Jouejati of the Local Coordination Committees (LCC), and Sarah Taylor of the NGO Working Group on Women, Peace, and Security, spoke about the importance of adding women’s voices to the peacebuilding process. Women are often portrayed solely as victims of sexal gender-based violence, and their activism on the ground is often overlooked. While this violence against women is certainly important to recognize and discuss, portraying women solely as victims marginalizes and excludes them from pertinent conversation and decision-making. Ms. Anderlini pointed to the fact that women’s exclusion from the peace process is universal, not cultural, and spoke of the need for conversation on responsibility sharing, not power sharing.

Later in the afternoon, we attended the release of the 2013 Global Peace Index by the Center of Strategic and International Studies. Syria is ranked the third least peaceful nation in the world, and had the largest decrease in peace between 2012 and 2013. Since the beginning of the GPI in 2006, one of the major trends has been an increase in internal conflict as compared to the levels of inter-state conflict. Syria is a clear example of this trend and illustrates a lack of many of the “Pillars of Peace” that GPI has pinpointed as correlates to a peaceful nation. For example, countries with strong institutions tend to be more peaceful. Syria’s infrastructure is 80% destroyed due to the violence. This then becomes a classic chicken and egg question – do you stop the violence before rebuilding institutions? Or is there a way to achieve both simultaneously? The aftermath of destruction caused by violence is extremely expensive – in the year 2013 alone, violence containment cost the world $9.46 trillion, or $25 billion every day. This breaks down to $1300 per person, per year. However, the GPI also points out that there is no correlation between positive peace (the strength of attitudes, institutions, and structures) and Official Development Assistance (ODA). This harkens back to a point made earlier at the IREX event by Ms. Taylor about speaking directly with the people, especially the women, on the ground about what kind of intervention or assistance they would like to see in an area of conflict.

Michelle Breslauer of the GPI commented that we should be pursuing peace and its economic and social benefits instead of looking at it as a utopian ideal, which sparked much discussion at the STAND office.

If you are interested in learning more about IREX and ICAN, visit www.irex.org andwww.icanpeacenetwork.org. If you want to learn more about the Global Peace Index, visitwww.visionofhumanity.org.