By Cait Felt
While war affects all victims differently, women often bear the brunt of trauma that goes unseen. Throughout history, women have been torn from their homes, raped, enslaved, and have even fought alongside male soldiers in conflicts entirely directed by male leaders. The first record of women in peace negotiations comes from an Ancient Greek comedy called Lysistrata, which details the Greek women’s plight to halt the Peloponnesian War by withholding sex from their military husbands. Though just a joke, the show epitomizes the degree of women’s powerlessness to exercise political agency except in the most desperate of ways. Unfortunately, women’s active participation in post-conflict negotiations in modern times has not progressed much farther.
The majority of recent international legislation regarding women in conflict is based on the Difference Feminism Theory, which states that women are fundamentally and biologically different than men. For this reason, women bring different skills and perceptions to the negotiating table on issues such as foreign policy, consensus-building, and even law. When this theory is applied to international politics, we get legislation such as the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325, a binding resolution adopted in 2000, which espouses the ideals of difference feminism and says that because women have an inherently different perspective, they must be involved at all levels of conflict, from declaring war to negotiating treaties.
“…most people in the United States would agree that women should have a seat at the table for the sake of equality.”
In theory, when women are regarded as legitimate actors, the result is a longer-lasting peace and a more stable post-conflict society. But is that really true? It sounds great, and most people in the United States would agree that women should have a seat at the table for the sake of equality. However, equality does not equate to utility. In some states, the inclusion of women may very well hinder the process of peacebuilding or completely disband peace negotiations.
Afghanistan was obligated by the United Nations to include women in negotiations following conflict with the Taliban. One male representative tried to forcibly remove the sole woman in the room during debate over a new constitutional government, and negotiations were left to crumble. Granted, there were many issues with negotiations in Afghanistan, but the male-dominated consensus was that women would not receive representation. Afghanistan’s final agreement, still, is tenuous at best. Women’s active participation did not work for Afghanistan because of the compulsory nature of the U.N. mandate: women may only be useful in peace negotiations in a cultural context that is accepting of a powerful, politically motivated woman.
However, there are success stories, such as the case of East Timor following the Indonesian invasion in 1975. When the U.N. recommended that women be included in peace negotiations after the conflict, many Timorese men were wary. During the negotiations, however, Timorese women truly made their voices heard in a way that has led to many new rights for women in the post-conflict state, and paved the way for a higher rate of development than ever before. Though the nation is still struggling economically, the GDP has increased by 4.8 percent, a rate higher than that of its neighbors. Timorese women also have cultural barriers to overcome, but their inclusion in the negotiations of 1999-2002 resulted in a constitution guaranteeing gender equality. The women’s skillful negotiations and deft consensus building after the conflict laid the foundation for formal rights needed to start a women’s movement in the country. East Timor is also one of the most stable governments founded in the 21st century, boasting an 87 percent voter turnout and no major revolts since the negotiations.
Proponents of gender inclusion argue that the cases in which women were ineffective, or even hindered the peacebuilding process, were due to issues of sovereignty when the U.N. forced gender inclusion despite the reigning cultural norm. The problem then is not a gendered one, but a byproduct of the U.N. (or any occupying organization) overstepping its limits in a culture that may not take well to what it sees as a reversal of power from its own people. This is especially true in places like Afghanistan, where American women were included in some negotiations without any representation by Afghan women.
“As for whether or not including women [in peace negotiations] leads to a more stable peace, the jury is still out.”
The question must be asked then, would including Afghan women in the negotiations actually make for long-term peace? Most research actually points to no. When privately polled, the overwhelming majority of men in Afghanistan said that women have no place in politics or warfare, and that not reaching an agreement would preferable to a “feminist agenda.” It is difficult for those living in countries where women have relatively equal formal rights to understand that a more inclusive negotiating table may be detrimental to success in the long run. The real issue, however, is ignored. When a community is at war, most women are likely to favor a faster peace treaty or new constitution than having to submit themselves and their families to constant risk, even at the expense of some fundamental rights.
As for whether or not including women leads to a more stable peace, the jury is still out. The majority of states that have included women in their peacebuilding processes did so as a direct result of UNSCR 1325. Since this resolution only passed in 2000, it is difficult to tell how long lasting any treaties reached will be. However, we can learn from cases of voluntary gender inclusion before 1325 because we have a larger amount of time to measure their stability.
One example of a state choosing to include women in negotiations is Northern Ireland, which brought women to a seat at the negotiating table in 1997, a full three years ahead of U.N. mandate. Women were integral in securing a peace agreement for the tumultuous nation and continue to be a large part of national politics. Many critics, however, point out that states already at the forefront of inclusivity are not indicative of societies on a global scale.
Ultimately, there is no hard and fast answer to gender inclusion in peacebuilding. We do not have conclusive data, nor will we in the near future. In the meantime, then, we can pursue our inclusive ideals in hopes that it will lead to a better future for all women and girls. It is a goal that must be pursued with caution and cultural understanding, but a worthy goal all the same.