Peace-building with Women

Toward sustainable Peace with Women:

Peace-building, Reconstruction, and Gender Justice

Valentine M. Moghadam, Ph.D.

Chief, Gender Equality and Development Section

Social and Human Sciences Sector

UNESCO

Introduction

This paper is based on research conducted by the author on the gender dynamics of conflict, peace-building, and reconstruction in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Palestine (Moghadam 2005). Here I focus on broad conceptual and policy issues, drawn from feminist frameworks and insights, to suggest paths to sustainable peace in those countries and elsewhere. The analysis lends itself to at least two policy conclusions. One is that because of the gendered nature of conflict, and because of women’s roles in peace movements – as well as in armed conflict – women’s marginalization from peace and security issues must end. Women must be included in mediation, negotiations, peace-building, and post-conflict reconciliation, reconstruction, and governance. The other is that post-conflict gender justice is both an entitlement due to women and an effective way of establishing a durable peace.

Violence, Conflict, and Human Security: A Gender Perspective

A gender perspective puts the spotlight on the social relations that exist between women and men, and on the laws and actions of states. It places women at the center of analysis because of the fact that across history and cultures, women have been denied equality, autonomy, and power. Women as a group have experienced diverse forms of violence from men as a group, because they have lacked power and because states or communities have failed to protect them or have in fact punished them. Gender analysis also demonstrates that conflict, peace-building, and reconstruction processes may reflect and reinforce forms of masculinity and femininity (Breines, Connell and Eide, 2000).

The women’s movement of the second wave drew attention to domestic violence, sexual harassment, and rape (e.g., Brownmiller, 1976), but it was not until the 1990s that violence against women and the problem of wartime rape acquired global prominence and action. Armed conflicts in Yugoslavia and Rwanda showed that women, like men, are victims of military onslaughts and terrorist actions; they lose life and limb, and join the ranks of refugees or internally displaced persons. Unlike men, however, they also are the special victims of sexual violence, especially rape. Events in Afghanistan under both the Mujahidin (during 1992-96) and the Taliban (1996-2001) demonstrated that women could experience punitive action over appearance, dress, and access to public space. During Algeria’s civil conflict of the 1990s, Islamist militants not only bullied and harassed but raped and murdered women and girls – and this ten years after the government had tried to placate the growing fundamentalist movement by instituting a patriarchal family law (Bennoune 1995). All too often, women – their legal status, social positions, and bodies – have been pawns during conflicts or in post-conflict agreements. States have been known to make compromises or accommodations at the expense of women’s integrity, autonomy, and rights.

What do we know about gender and conflict? We know that women’s subordinate roles in peacetime render them vulnerable in wartime. Conflicts can be anticipated – so can the fact that women will be violated. Survivors of wartime trauma face inadequate services.[1] International outcries rarely succeed in bringing perpetrators to justice. The message is that women’s lives matter less. Sexualized violence is implicated in armed violence but it also exists during so-called times of peace – hence the need to recognize the gender dynamics of peace as well as conflict. Johann Galtung’s well-known maxim “the absence of war does not mean peace” is complemented by Cynthia Enloe’s feminist definition of peace as “women’s achievement of control over their lives” (Enloe 1988: 538). For women, peace does not mean only the formal end of war and its concomitants, such as the demobilization, disarmament, and reintegration (DDR) of armed combatants. It also means the enjoyment of human security and human rights, including the right not to be beaten at home or assaulted on the streets.

From this perspective, it must be stated that many so-called peace processes have been at best flawed and at worse failures. The UN-sponsored peace in Afghanistan in the early 1990s did nothing to bring about stability and security, especially for women, who had to contend with Mujahidin warlords initially and subsequently with the Taliban. The Israeli-Palestinian peace process of the early 1990s was also deeply flawed – not only was it regarded by its detractors as favoring the Israelis, but it also was accompanied by a growing Islamist movement that put pressure on the women in its communities to veil. These and many other examples show that women’s human security and human rights, along with the attenuation of social inequalities generally, are rarely considered in so-called peace processes.

Ending gender and other social inequalities and bringing about human security, including women’s security, is at the heart of feminist analyses of peace-building. Indeed, a significant feminist contribution to analyses of international relations is that “unequal social relations can make all individuals more insecure”, as Ann Ticker has noted (Tickner, 1992: 193). She also points out that “The achievement of peace, economic justice, and ecological sustainability is inseparable from overcoming social relations of domination and subordination; genuine security requires not only the absence of war but also the elimination of unjust social relations” (Tickner, 1992: 128).

The concept of human security has been defined in different ways, but some aspects are: personal security, water and food security, rights to healthcare and political participation, and economic security. There is thus a connection between human security and human rights, and links among security, rights, and participation. That is, achieving peace and security for women cannot be guaranteed in the absence of a broader socio-political and economic project that rests on participation and redistribution of resources. Reconstruction should therefore be viewed not only in terms of the repair or building of physical and social infrastructure, but also in terms of the establishment of participatory and egalitarian social and gender relations. In this regard, women have a special role to play, because they have long experienced inequality, because they have a stake in reconstruction that is woman-friendly, and because of their roles in bridge-building and peace-making.

Women’s role in peace movements is well known, and “maternalist politics” has a long history. Women peace-builders often have deployed the discourse of motherhood and emphasized feminine values of nurturing and care in their efforts to build bridges, mediate, or encourage reconciliation. Whether we are referring to the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) at the beginning of the twentieth century or America’s Women Strike for Peace in mid-century or organizations such as Israel’s Four Mothers Movement, the Saturday Mothers of Turkey, and the Mothers and Grandmothers of the Plaza de Mayo in Argentina in the late twentieth century, we see that women activists often draw on motherhood, maternity, and femininity as resources and discursive strategies (Ruddick 1980; Berkovitch 1999). The Palestinian activist Zahira Kamal expressed maternalist politics when she stated at a rally of the Coalition of Women for a Just Peace: “I am bonded to women. I believe in their power. Women are grounded in their awareness of the sanctity of all human beings, the equal value of each human being, and a commitment to justice, applied equally through adherence to law. I believe we can work together for ending the occupation and its related measures, and we can live in peace together.”[2]

Maternalist politics constitutes one model of women's activism, seen largely in peace, anti-militarist, and human rights movements. But there is another model as well: that of women in armed struggles, liberation movements, and revolutions.[3] Whether these two models of women vis-à-vis peace and conflict are completely contradictory or simply two dimensions of women’s lives, experiences, and collective action is a difficult question. Feminists rely on women to lead the way in peace, conflict resolution and human rights, while also accepting that women will be active participants in armed struggles and resistance movements (see, e.g., Kampwirth 2002; Shayne 2004).

Gender Justice and Sustainable Peace

Peace building requires justice, including gender justice. A situation of longstanding injustice and deep tensions – whether within a society or between countries – is not a situation of peace. In other words, the “peace process” between Israel-Palestine in the 1990s was not a just peace at all, but rather a war, or at the very least hegemonic politics, by other means. And a ceasefire or a brokered “peace” in which essential issues of security, justice, and redress have not been addressed should not be called peace at all. A just peace is more than a ceasefire, the putting down of weapons, and the achievement of DDR. As discussed above, its sustainability depends on the achievement of social/economic justice, human security, democratization, participation, and equality. Furthermore, it entails gender justice. As one advocate has stated: “Women survivors of armed conflicts and advocates for women’s rights during and after these conflicts recognize that meaningful justice must protect the fundamental human rights of all people and that there cannot be meaningful reconciliation without gender justice” (McKay, 2000: 561).

Gender justice has at least three component parts:

·       Redress for sexualized or other forms of violence against women during conflict or war.

·       The participation of women in peace building, reconstruction, and decision-making.

·       The establishment of laws and institutions for the realization of women’s human rights and empowerment.

A major international achievement of the 1990s was the designation of rape as a war crime when carried out in the context of armed conflict. All too often, however, the perpetrators of sexualized violence are not brought to justice – thus denying gender justice to women. The struggle in Argentina of the Grandmothers of the Plaza de Mayo against “impunity” via the blanket amnesty is a prime example of the need to link peace and conflict resolution to justice (Arditti, 1999). Feminists and other democrats in Algeria, as well as Afghan women’s groups such as RAWA, have insisted on trials for those who perpetuated sexualized violence in their respective countries. In Afghanistan, however, Mujahidin/ Northern Alliance commanders responsible for rape and sexual slavery were given government posts after the overthrow of the Taliban. And in Algeria, many were dismayed with president Bouteflika’s call for a general amnesty that would exonerate some of the worst of the GIA terrorists of the 1990s who are currently in prison, and by the fact that the commission he formed included not one woman (see Ouazani 2005).

Positive developments, however, should be noted. Tribunals in The Hague on human rights violations in the former Yugoslavia and on the genocide in Rwanda constitute one model of justice. South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission (1996-2001) is another model of linking peace to justice. In Morocco’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, people are testifying on television about the abuses and torture that they experienced in the 1970s and 1980s. There are limitations to this new exercise in truth telling, as the government refuses to put people on trial for past sins, or even name names. But it has been especially moving to witness the testimonies of the former women prisoners. Such tribunals may be needed in the cases of Afghanistan and Algeria (as well as in Iraq, when the time comes), certainly to redress the violence visited on women, but also to educate the public and raise its awareness of women’s rights and of what constitutes violations of human rights and women’s rights.

Women must be involved in formal processes of peace-building, reconciliation and reconstruction for at least five reasons. The first and most basic reason is that women constitute half, and in some cases a majority, of any population. Without their participation, there can be no claim of equity and representation.

Second, because women are often the special victims of armed conflict, their experiences, perspectives, and aspirations need to be incorporated into negotiations, mediation, and peace building processes. Since women have in all likelihood been the special victims of the conflict, their views and perspectives must be included in all aspects of post-conflict reconstruction – including any truth commissions or tribunals that may be established. For the same reason, women experts and leaders must be involved in processes of demilitarization, demobilization, and reintegration of fighters. Women experience not only sexualized violence but also bereavement and the loss of family members, resources, and livelihood. Sanctions may lead to the feminization of poverty, while widowhood increases the number of female-headed households living in dire conditions. The gender-specific experiences and outcomes of conflict need to be considered and addressed in peace-building and post-conflict reconstruction.

Third, women often play a key role in bridge building and peace-making at the local level, a role that should be acknowledged as well as translated into higher-level participation and representation. Indeed, the important role played by women at the community level can serve as a model of mediation and reconciliation at the national level.

Fourth, women are major stakeholders and actors in the reconstruction or building of infrastructure, the state, and civil society. They have a direct stake in strategies for social development, the allocation of financial and human resources across economic sectors, the adoption of progressive legal frameworks, and the flourishing of associational life. Without their participation, half the population is automatically disenfranchised, post-conflict reconstruction remains an exclusively masculine endeavor, and rights-based development is compromised.

Fifth, exclusion/marginalization of women is part of the logic of authoritarian, patriarchal state systems. This is why including women is so important – it helps to change the nature of the state.

Conflict is traumatic, but it sometimes can lead to major social transformations which could favor women’s political participation. In at least three examples, South Africa, Namibia, and Rwanda, the post-conflict democratic transitions have led to the integration of women and gender issues into government planning, and high rates of women’s political participation. This is not, however, a universal pattern. Why?

 Research has shown that how women fare in a post-conflict situation depends on a number of factors, both internal and external. Internal factors include: (1) pre-existing gender relations and women’s legal status and social positions before the conflict; (2) the extent of women’s mobilizations before and during the conflict, including the number and type of women’s organizations and other institutions; (3) the ideology, values, and norms of the ruling group; and (4) the state’s capacity and will to mobilize resource endowments for rights-based reconstruction and development.[4]

In an era of globalization, however, we can expect external factors to play an important part. In particular, transnational feminist monitoring and advocacy can make a difference in terms of laws, policies, and resources available for women’s participation and rights (Moghadam 2005). Strong transnational links may ensure global solidarities and collective action toward the promotion of women’s participation, rights, and empowerment in the post-conflict situation. Links to, or an active role within, global feminism, could prevent the isolation or marginalization of “the woman question” and lead to vigorous and effective campaigns to protect or build women’s empowerment. The state, economic resources, and legal frameworks matter enormously to women, and transnational solidarity can influence national-level decisions and raise international awareness of women’s conditions and needs in various national contexts. Transnational feminist networks can affect national-level processes through advocacy, lobbying of donors to increase allocations to women’s units and institutions, and campaigns to compel the post-conflict governments to prioritize women’s empowerment.

Reconstruction with Women: Policy Recommendations

In today’s conflict zones – e.g., Afghanistan, Palestine, and Iraq, as well as in Africa’s Great Lakes region, in Colombia, and in Haiti – establishing conditions for security, well-being, and justice will require costly, long-term investments on the part of donor countries. But the investments will be well worth the costs. In turn, a gender analysis should inform strategies for reconstruction and durable peace.

UN Security Council Resolution 1325 of October 2000 calls on governments, and the UN itself, to fully integrate women, and a gender analysis, in all phases of conflict resolution. But our world has a long way to go before this Resolution – which itself reflects decades of feminist activism and analysis – is fully realized. Sustainable peace requires that women be integrated into all levels – from the Cabinet to the local police force, if women’s perspectives, needs, and rights are to be recognized and addressed. Special efforts should be taken at the community level to involve women as teachers, social workers, managers, and decision-makers.

Sustainable peace requires a democratic polity and democratic civil society, and women have an important role to play in an effective state apparatus and an active civil society. Government and international donors alike should emphasize capacity-building of women’s organizations, women’s studies centers, and women’s resource centers – these are, after all, key institutions of a democratic civil society. As for women and governance, the goal of “gender mainstreaming” ensures the integration of women’s perspectives across government agencies, including such key ministries as finance and justice. What this requires is the establishment of “women and development” or gender units that are involved in decision-making and are given adequate staffing and budgets. The success of gender mainstreaming depends on the (re)building of the “national machinery for women” through resources allocated to the ministry of women’s affairs and to other state agencies dedicated to women’s participation and empowerment. The women’s ministry can work with women’s civil society organizations to develop a strategy for women’s empowerment at micro (family), meso (community and organizational) and macro (national and state) levels.

Without idealizing women, one may plausibly postulate that an enhanced role for women in post-conflict governance could minimize corruption and cronyism – if only because women’s absence from economic and political domains of power has prevented their involvement in clientelism. In addition, such a role would likely increase attention and allocations toward social policies to alleviate poverty, provide welfare, and promote social development. And since women have a stake in a welfare state that is also women-friendly, they are likely to assist in the (re)construction of strong social institutions such as social service organizations; health facilities; schools, universities, and training institutes; and nurseries.

Another important area for women in reconstruction pertains to the cultural domain. Here, again, the global feminist movement can be of much assistance. This includes support for media campaigns in favor of women’s participation and rights; promoting women’s media; gender-awareness and sensitivity in the mainstream and government-controlled media; and women’s involvement in cultural institutions such as the ministries of culture, education, religious affairs, communications. Through such involvement, women would play a key role in the transition from a culture of violence to a culture of peace – and thus ensure a sustainable peace.

References Cited

Arditti, Rita. 1999. Searching for Life: The Grandmothers of the Plaza de Mayo and the Disappeared Children of Argentina. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Bennoune, Karima. 1995. “Between Betrayal and Betrayal: Fundamentalism, Family Law and Feminist Struggle in Algeria.” Arab Studies Quarterly 51 (Spring)

Berkovitch, Nitza. 1999. From Motherhood to Citizenship: Women’s Rights and International Organizations. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Breines, Ingeborg, Robert Connell and Ingrid Eide, eds. 2000. Male Roles, Masculinities and Violence: A Culture of Peace Perspective. Paris: UNESCO.

Brownmiller, Susan. 1976. Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape.

Enloe, Cynthia. -----. 1988. Does Khaki Become You? London: Pandora Press.

Kampwirth, Karen. 2002. Women and Guerrilla Movements: Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chiapas, Cuba. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.

McKay, Susan. 2000. “Gender Justice and Reconciliation.” Women’s Studies International Forum, vol. 23, no. 5: 561-570.

Moghadam, Valentine M. 2005. Globalizing Women: Transnational Feminist Networks. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

-----. 2005. “Peaacebuilding and Reconstruction with Women: Reflections on Afghanistan, Iraq, and Palestine.” Development, vol. 48, no. 3 (September 2005): 63-72.

-----. 1997. "Gender and Revolutions." Pp. 137-165 in John Foran, ed., Theorizing Revolutions. London and New York: Routledge.

Ouazani, Cherif. 2005. “La paix ou la justice”, Jeune Afrique: L’Intelligent, no. 2306 (20-26 March): 66-67.

Ruddick, Sara. 1980. “Maternal Thinking.” Feminist Studies 6 (Summer): 342-67.

Shayne, Julie D. 2004. The Revolution Question: Feminisms in El Salvador, Chile, and Cuba. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

Tickner, J. Ann. 1992. Gender in International Relations: Feminist Perspectives on Achieving Global Security. New York: Columbia University Press.

===

Valentine M. Moghadam joined UNESCO in May 2004. Previously she was Director of Women’s Studies and Professor of Sociology at Illinois State University. Her work at UNESCO involves networking with and capacity building of women’s organizations, as well as policy-oriented research on globalization and women’s human rights, cultures and gender equality, and the gender dynamics of conflict, peace, and reconstruction.

Born in Tehran, Iran, Dr. Moghadam received her higher education in Canada and the U.S. After obtaining her Ph.D. in sociology from the American University in Washington, D.C. in 1986, she taught the sociology of development and women in development at New York University. From 1990 through 1995 she was Senior Researcher and Coordinator of the Research Program on Women and Development at the WIDER Institute of the United Nations University (UNU/WIDER), and was based in Helsinki, Finland. She was a member of the UNU delegation to the World Summit on Social Development (Copenhagen, March 1995), and the Fourth World Conference on Women (in Beijing in September 1995).

Dr. Moghadam is author of Modernizing Women: Gender and Social Change in the Middle East (first published 1993; updated second edition 2003), and Women, Work and Economic Reform in the Middle East and North Africa (1998). Her third book, Globalizing Women: Transnational Feminist Networks, was published by The Johns Hopkins University Press in early 2005. Her edited book Identity Politics and Women: Cultural Reassertions and Feminisms in International Perspective (1994) was the first to examine fundamentalisms comparatively and cross-culturally.

Dr. Moghadam’s areas of research are globalization, transnational feminist networks, civil society and citizenship, and women’s employment in the Middle East. She has lectured and published widely and consulted many international organizations. She is a contributor to a 2001 report, coordinated by CAWTAR and the UNDP, on the impact of globalization on women’s economic conditions in the Arab world. She also prepared a background paper on Islam, culture, and women’s rights in the Middle East for the UNDP’s Human Development Report 2004. She is co-editor, with Massoud Karshenas, of Social Policy in the Middle East: Economic, Political, and Gender Dynamics (Palgrave Macmillan and UNRISD, 2005). Her latest edited book, Empowering Women: Participation, Rights, and Women’s Movements in the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia will be published by Syracuse University Press in 2007.

v.moghadam@unesco.org