How can women’s representation in peace negotiations be improved? This report of a meeting with 40 women experts from across Asia and the Pacific notes that gender issues are sidelined as being ‘social’ or ‘welfare’ and their importance to hard security is overlooked. A broader perspective is needed, as women’s contributions outside of formal negotiations (to conflict resolution at local level, to conflict prevention, and to influencing informal processes) have been significant. Women can forge common ground across conflict and party lines. Their inclusion can be enhanced through links with the women’s movement outside the formal peace process.
In the 10 years since UN Security Council Resolution 1325 called for more involvement of women in preventing and resolving conflict, actual progress has been negligible. There are four reasons for this. First, those in political and military power are usually men. Bringing women to negotiations is a lower priority than focusing on belligerents. Second, formal mediators are drawn from limited pools of senior officials who are also usually men. Thirdly, gender issues in peace processes are either poorly understood or simply disregarded. Finally there is a persistent view that women’s capacity must be built before including them in negotiations. However, the same standards of capacity are rarely applied to men.
Women have worked across political divides and with movements outside the formal peace process that exert influence. Other themes emerging from the conference include the following:
- Peace processes establish a bureaucracy in their wake. Post-agreement committees become government departments, working groups permanent committees and so on. Women are often marginalised in such entities.
- ‘Hard’ security issues such as reintegration demand gendered approaches. But usually gender is assumed to apply only to society or welfare issues. Women are therefore perceived as only able to contribute in limited areas.
- For women who are included in peace processes, not enough attention is given to their physical safety needs. Female negotiators from rebel groups or armed movements are particularly vulnerable.
International agencies involved in peace building must pay more attention to including women in formal peace processes and post-war reconstruction efforts. Careful attention must also be paid by such agencies and by mediators to informal processes, and their links to the formal peace process. Gender issues should not be conflated with women’s issues, and the importance of gender in hard security matters needs to be recognised. A more gendered approach to peace processes and reconstruction efforts will enhance their legitimacy as well as improve their relevance and impact. Specific policy pointers include:
- The potential for women to forge common ground across conflict and party lines is an asset for sustainable conflict resolution.
- Ensuring strong links with the women’s movement outside the formal peace process can help overcome the obstacles to women’s inclusion and voice. Experience from the Philippines revealed that national bodies can be very helpful.
- Prioritising strategic goals and a careful approach are important for establishing women’s involvement and influence in post-war institutions, especially where political will is low.
- Women should build specific technical expertise outside those perceived to be ‘gender’ or ‘women’s’ areas. One example from the conference was a woman who developed expertise in ceasefires. This improves credibility and enables gender issues to be brought into relevant areas.
