by Charlotte Nicol

“When you talk about... conflicts, the first image that appears is.... rape, abuse and exploitation. The last image that comes to their mind is the image of women trying to fight for peace.”

These words were spoken by Liberian peace activist Leymah Gbowee, upon receiving the 2011 Nobel Peace Prize. Gbowee and her fellow laureates, Yemeni democracy activist Tawakkol Karman and Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, declared that for “the women of the world, their roles in peace processes have been acknowledged.”[1]

This article investigates the role that women play in formal   peace processes.[2] It first discusses the continued under-representation of women in peace processes, despite international calls for increased women’s participation in United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1325. The second section examines justifications for increased women’s participation through a lens of inclusion and exclusion. Subsequently, it analyses the impact of women’s inclusion on past peace processes, using examples of Guatemala from 1994 to 1996, Northern Ireland from 1996 to 1998 and Kenya in 2008. Finally, it discusses the successes and challenges raised by these examples, finding that arguments for greater inclusion are well founded, but that more needs to be done to realise UNSCR 1325 and subsequent greater gender equality in peace processes. Moreover, this essay argues that it is important to be cautious in associating women’s participation with improved outcomes on gender issues, and that additional efforts are still required to ensure that gender concerns are addressed.

Background: under-representation

While consistent statistics on women’s participation are lacking, available data shows that women have long been under-represented in formal peace processes.   Fourteen cases of peace negotiations between 1992 and 2010 for which data on gender participation are available reveal that women represent less than eight percent of negotiating delegations, less than three percent of signatories in formal peace processes and no women have been chief mediators in UN-led talks.[3] In addition, gender concerns are repeatedly neglected in peace negotiations. One measure of this is the number of references to women in peace agreements.[4] Of 585 peace agreements signed between 1 January 1990 and 1 May 2010, only 92 mentioned women; and even among these, references are generally more symbolic than substantive.[5] Women, nonetheless, play a significant role in peacebuilding processes, particularly at the grassroots and community level, but these roles tend to occur outside of formalised processes.[6] As such, women are yet to be taken seriously as relevant actors in formal peace processes.

Scholars and women’s civil society groups have long lamented the failure in engaging women more formally in peace processes and in addressing gender issues in peace agreements and implementation processes. UNSCR 1325, which was adopted on 31 October 2000, recognises the impact that conflict has on women and the important role that women play in peacebuilding. It calls for greater participation by women at decision-making levels in conflict resolution and for the inclusion of a gender perspective in peace agreements. Women’s rights expert and peace-building analyst Antonia Potter suggests that this represents a gendered peace process, requiring female participation at all levels of peace processes, as negotiation facilitators, participants and lobbyists, to represent women’s views and to create a greater gender balance.[7]

Despite this groundbreaking step in recognition of women in peacebuilding, progress in implementing the resolution has been slow.[8] The United Nations has not established a formal mechanism to support greater inclusion of women and gender issues, and the record of women’s participation continues to be low. Indeed, in the case of Libya, one of the newest peace negotiations to be established, there has been much rhetoric as to the need for an inclusive approach to the country’s future, and yet women continue to be excluded from peace talks. Libyan women were not only excluded from talks at the recent conference on the country’s future held in Paris in September, but, moreover, only one of the twelve members of the National Transitional Council is a woman.[9]

Justifications given for inclusion and exclusion

The reason for consistently low female participation in peace talks can be understood through the principles of exclusion and inclusion, that is, the “stakeholder’s direct participation and involvement (or lack thereof) in the decision-making process of official peace negotiations.”[10] Decisions as to whether to exclude or include prospective participants in peace processes are made by balancing the practical requirements of achieving an outcome with the normative values of the actors involved.[11] International mediators have come to understand that the larger the number of participants involved, the harder it is to reach agreement. Practicing exclusion is therefore a way of maximising chances of success, even if this means moving away from the normative values of participants.[12]

Women’s exclusion is therefore justified by the fact that women are not direct participants in conflicts - they do not tend to fight wars and generally do not hold senior political positions.[13] Male delegates to the Burundi peace talks, for example, argued, “women are not parties to this conflict. This is not their concern. We cannot see why they have come, why they bother us. We are here and we represent them.”[14] However, even in conflicts in which there were high percentages of female combatants, such as in Kashmir, women’s inclusion in direct negotiations was limited.[15] Moreover, the argument that there is a lack of women with sufficient experience and knowledge to participate in peace negotiations is often untrue.[16] Potter argues that such arguments are indicative of the reluctance of negotiation facilitators and negotiating teams to consider female inclusion.[17] In many cases, this can be related back to pre-existing gender-biased societal norms, indicating that the normative values of participants do not support or acknowledge the value of including women in peacebuilding.

Without including women in peace talks, gender issues linked to the root causes and the consequences of violence are neglected. The exclusion of women is often justified  on the basis that the peace table is not the most appropriate place to address concerns about gender equality, and that, instead, it is better to wait until peace is assured before attempting to alter cultural norms.[18] Contrary to this view, research shows that where gender issues are not included in peace agreements from the outset, it becomes increasingly difficult to address them later on. It has been argued that if women were more included in peace talks, then gender concerns would be more consistently raised. [19]

Contrary to this perspective, an argument against the need to explicitly address gender imbalances in peace processes is that peace agreements are in fact gender-neutral: peace agreements affect men and women equally because they ostensibly have identical interests in peace.[20] The call for women’s participation for the inclusion of gender concerns is therefore irrelevant because gender itself is extraneous to peace talks. Deputy Administrator of U.S. Agency for International Development, Donald Steinberg, counters this perception, suggesting, “a peace agreement that calls itself “gender-neutral” is, by definition, discriminatory against women and likely to fail”.[21] He argues:

peace itself is not enough to protect and empower women. How we make peace determines whether the end of armed conflict means a safer world for women or simply ushers in a different and in some cases more pernicious era of violence against them.[22]

This perspective highlights the problem that exclusion does not necessarily result in more effective agreements, as it fails to address the perspectives and concerns of all of society.[23] While it may assist in expediting the signing of agreements, it does not guarantee that women, as members of the general public, will accept those agreements and that they will be effectively implemented. Assistant Professor at American University Anthony Wanis-St. John cites the examples of Palestine/Israel and Rwanda to demonstrate instances of exclusion that have failed to achieve sustainable peace.[24] He suggests that bringing civil society into this process can result in agreements that are more broadly accepted and more effective.[25]

Therefore, all sectors of society should be represented in formal peace processes in order to address the root causes of conflict. This is not to endorse gender-based stereotypes, such as that women tend to be more inclusive and pacifistic in peacebuilding.[26] Nonetheless, men and women typically experience conflict differently.[27] Where women are systematically excluded from peace processes, the experiences of war and requirements in peace of half of the population are neglected.[28] The chances of addressing the underlying causes of conflict are therefore reduced. Moreover, women, who often play an essential role in implementing peace agreements, must be brought into the negotiation process in order to ensure that their needs are met and that they are integrated into the final process of implementation. Failing to engage women in formal processes makes for less successful peace agreements, not only for women’s issues, but for society as a whole.

Thus, out of both practical concerns for sustainable peace and normative considerations of gender equality and democratic rights, greater inclusion of women is a necessary element of peace processes. Including women in formal peace processes should ideally result in greater representation of women’s experiences of conflict, and of gender concerns and benefits for the peace of society as a whole. To represent all perspectives of war, ensure effective implementation, and address the differing requirements in peace of men and women, a more equitable gender balance is essential.

Examples of female participation in peacebuilding

Based on the preceding argument, this section reviews women’s involvement in past peace processes. The three case studies of Guatemala, Northern Ireland and Kenya serve as useful examples for understanding the impact of women’s inclusion because they demonstrate the different roles that women play in peacebuilding processes. An overview of each case highlights the roles that women played and how their participation was facilitated, or obstructed, throughout the process.

Guatemala

The Guatemalan case has been labelled “one of the most inclusive, participatory, and human rights-oriented negotiation processes, in which women contributed to both the official and civil society-led parallel negotiations”.[29] UN-sponsored peace talks between the Guatemalan government and the Guatemalan National Revolutionary Unity (URNG) guerrilla movement were held from 1994 to 1996.[30] Despite the inclusion of only two women in negotiating teams, women exerted a considerable influence on the outcome.[31] This was enabled by the negotiation structure, which gave civil society a strong voice in the formal peace process through the establishment of the Civil Society Assembly (ASC). The ASC comprised of 11 clusters of civil society groups, including women,[32] and was mandated to raise issues and put forward positions to negotiators.

Through this process, women defined a shared agenda and built unity behind it with the support of other civil society groups.[33] Luz Méndez, the only woman on the URNG negotiating team, spoke on behalf of civil society on gender issues.[34] Jean Arnault, the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for Guatemala, and the mediator of the talks, also supported and facilitated the inclusion of women’s concerns throughout the process.[35] The inclusion of civil society and the role of these two facilitators for gender concerns had positive outcomes for the gendering of the peace agreements. On gender issues, specific language provisions on women’s equality were included in the agreements and women’s participation in implementing the agreements was institutionalised.[36]

Northern Ireland

All-party talks were established in June 1996 in an attempt to resolve ongoing tensions in Northern Ireland. An election process was set up to allow a broad range of representatives at the negotiating table, with the ten political parties receiving the most votes to be given seats.[37] Many women initially sought out female representation in existing political parties, but were largely ignored. Instead, they formed their own political party, the Northern Ireland Women’s Coalition (NIWC), which succeeded in electing two delegates to the negotiating table.[38]

The NIWC was effective in getting its voice heard and in standing up for a range of social issues, not only restricted to gender concerns. It also facilitated the input of other marginalised groups.[39] The Coalition also influenced the expansion of women’s participation in other political parties.[40] The NIWC’s success came from its preference for neutrality and for building strong networks with the other parties involved. As a result, more of the NIWC’s proposals were included in the final agreement than of any other party.[41] A key inclusion was wording on women’s rights within the human rights section of the agreement, which calls for “the right of women to full and equal political participation.”[42]

Kenya

In early 2008, the Kenya National Dialogue and Reconciliation (KNDR) was established to end violence that emerged from the disputed elections in December 2007. A three-person Panel of Eminent African Personalities, including one woman, Graça Machel, oversaw the mediation process.[43] Twenty-five percent of each negotiating team were women, and a number of female senior advisors from the UN and African Union were responsible for advising the Panel’s mediation team.[44] The structure of the talks mobilised civil society to raise issues of concern to women. Women’s civil society groups worked within this structure to engage with and lobby male delegates, work with female leaders of political parties and hold meetings with negotiation teams on gender issues.[45] Machel was instrumental in consulting with women’s groups during the negotiations and ensuring their perspectives were incorporated.[46] She met with women’s groups and supported them in issuing a women’s memorandum calling for the implementation of UNSCR 1325.[47] However, while some of these groups’ proposals were included in Agenda Four, a document addressing long-term issues developed within the peace talks, and in a number of the eventual agreements, there was virtually no inclusion of gender-specific language.[48]

Discussion: successes and challenges

These examples demonstrate mixed outcomes for including women and gender concerns in peace dialogues. Although women were included as participants and some specific gender references were added, all three fail to reflect the gendered peace process, as defined by Potter.[49] Women were not represented at all levels of discussions, and their inclusion was still very limited in comparison to male participation. Some argue that such disparity in dialogue could be addressed by ensuring what is considered the ‘critical mass’ for women to be able to impact on the political agenda, that is,  increasing women’s participation to 30 percent.[50] Of course, the nominal value of the quota itself is a subject of debate. For example, the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue argues that women’s participation should be at a minimum of 40 percent in peace talks.[51]

Given the diversity in opinion, such claims should be viewed with caution. It is impossible to make a direct correlation between a set participation quota and a desired outcome. Indeed, to portray women’s views and interests as singular, and to claim that the participation of a certain number of women will ensure that the “women’s perspective” is included is to misunderstand the argument for increased participation. Women’s issues change across contexts and differ from one woman to the next and these diverse perspectives can be accounted for only if more women participate in peace processes. [52]

That the peace agreements of these case studies were not gendered, notwithstanding some references to women included in Guatemala and Northern Ireland, presents a further challenge for the inclusion of women. While female participation can result in the inclusion of women’s and gender issues, the former does not automatically equate to the latter.[53] That is, it is not a necessary condition that only when women are involved in peace processes will gender concerns be included in final outcomes. The Kenyan case study demonstrates how mixed loyalties can emerge for women involved in peace processes; women, who comprised 25 percent of negotiating teams, reported feeling torn between their responsibilities to their parties and to women’s issues.[54] In light of such challenges, it would be valuable to provide gender training for all participants in a peace process and to appoint gender advisors responsible for reviewing agreements for gender issues, rather than subjecting women involved to the insecurities and dangers of balancing their political and ideological identities with their identities as women. Moreover, it is important to avoid making the erroneous assumption that all women are gender experts.[55]

Common to all the processes was that women’s inclusion was never automatic, as it was contingent upon the influence and motivation of one or more women within the process to ensure women’s representation. In Northern Ireland, when men failed to recognise the need for female participation and gender concerns, the women of the NIWC took it upon themselves to ensure their participation because a formal mechanism for the inclusion of women did not exist.[56] No significant change on this issue occurred in Kenya where, although there was female representation, it was largely because two key leaders facilitated representation within the talks rather than the formal requirements of the process itself. The latter case is indicative of a normative failure to implement UNSCR 1325. If the international community is to give substance to its commitment to normative values within UNSCR 1325, it must ensure that an institutionalised process of women’s inclusion is mandated. Every peace process is context-specific and mandating a uniform structure for every situation will not lead to effective peace: women participate in peace processes in diverse ways and it would be wrong to assert any particular approach as more or less beneficial. Of course, including women at all levels as civil society lobbyists, participants and as facilitators remains vital in any context. Facilitating women’s participation and the gendering of peace processes, and allowing for flexibility in approaches to peacebuilding are far from being mutually exclusive.

Conclusion

This essay has reviewed arguments for the inclusion and exclusion of women in formal peace processes and has studied the impact of increased women’s participation in three case studies. Justifications for increased participation by women are well founded. Increased participation creates a more democratic peace process, ensuring all voices are heard and that the needs and experiences of both genders are considered in peace agreements and in their implementation. This essay also contended that the gendering of peace agreements is important in including the perspectives and needs of both men and women, but that this is not a direct outcome of increased female participation, and must be in addition to a more equitable gender balance. The three case studies of Guatemala, Northern Ireland and Kenya provide insights into the roles that women play in peace-building processes and how instrumental key leaders are in facilitating greater inclusion of women and gender perspectives. They demonstrate that there is currently a lack of institutionalised processes to ensure the normative principles of female participation and gender perspectives within UNSCR 1325 become a reality.  Until more is done at an international level to shift away from the emphasis that “practical considerations” impede female inclusion in immediate peacebuilding, women will continue to be under-represented in peace talks, and their perspectives, needs and experiences will remain unheard, misrepresented and poorly addressed.

---

Charlotte Nicol is studying a Masters of International Affairs, specialising in Peace and Conflict Studies, through a joint program at the Australian National University, Peace Research Institute Oslo and Bjorknes College.

Photo: Flickr user aktivioslo - http://www.flickr.com/photos/aktivioslo/6487250497/in/photostream/