The Foreign Service Journal, April 2011

38 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / A P R I L 2 0 1 1 legally enacted many recommenda- tions, but were not putting those laws into practice. Others, as in Israel/Palestine where a strong women’s movement was pushing for participation (particularly the Bina- tional International Women’s Com- mission), ignored the local activism and proceeded with the same old (male) players, with poor results. National action plans, where completed, have been indifferently managed, lack transparency or mechanisms of accountability, and could even be seen as impediments to more immediate, con- crete steps. Many major foreign aid donors have failed to insist on compliance with the resolution’s goals, and the U.N. itself has fallen short in its peace missions. In international or- ganizations, the locus of responsibility for action is not clear enough. Even U.N. Women, a new agency that ap- pears to have a mandate for women’s participation and lists UNSCR 1325 as one of its guiding documents, does not possess the unambiguous implementation authority that could prod other U.N. agencies and special repre- sentatives, much less member-states, into action. A widely cited statistic from the United Nations De- velopment Fund for Women, one of the predecessors of U.N. Women, demonstrates how little progress has been achieved on participation. Not a single woman was ap- pointed as a mediator in the 13 major peace processes between 2000 and 2008; a mere 7 percent of delegation members were female, and women comprised only 2.7 percent of peace agreement signatories. Important Misperceptions Why are women not included in peace processes? The longstanding barriers are still there, of course. But in a world where many women have become heads of govern- ment and foreign ministers, a more disturbing answer may be worth considering. My colleague SanamAnderlini, the founding director of International Civil Society Action Network and author of Women Building Peace , the most informative book on the topic, put it sharply at a Wash- ington conference last autumn: “Don’t reward violence, reward peace. It’s just not enough to bring armed actors, state or non-state, to the table because they have been the most violent. Why aren’t more women at the table? Be- cause they’re not a security threat.” A survey of recent negotiations underscores this important point. Legitimacy — who should and should not be empowered to nego- tiate — is determined as a function of violence. What 1325 is saying, then, is rather radical: don’t exclude the peacemakers just because they have not taken up the gun. A related source of confusion in this discourse — and possibly the most consequential misperception — is how and why women’s participation matters. While making a strong and constructive statement in the Security Coun- cil, Sec. Clinton did not articulate rationales beyond the platitude that half the world’s population should be in- volved. Much of her speech was dedicated to the pro- tection aspect of the agenda. The same, remarkably, was the case with Michelle Bachelet, the former Chilean president who is now head of U.N. Women. But the logic of greater participation by women stems mainly from their societal roles. Women bring a different perspective to the resolution of conflict and the post-conflict tasks of rebuilding and reconciling. As caregivers, they experience the ravages of war more intimately than men do, and are the ones ex- pected to sustain families and communities. In these roles, they are problem-solvers. They know how to get things done — find food and fuel and adequate shelter; prevent violence against children, elders and themselves; prepare their adolescents for the demands of war; and invent ways to reconstitute lives after conflicts formally end but dangers of violence (often from returned com- batants) and deprivation persist. Women “are the ones who will fetch water, determine which children go to school, and ensure that there is food on the table,” wrote Ugandan activist Anne Mugisha in 2006 in assessing the failed Juba talks. “They need to have a voice in the decision-making process through which gov- ernment plans construction of roads, schools, wells, and clinics . . . Using women as props rather than strategists is for me the greatest shame of the Juba process.” And sometimes women are the combatants themselves, those seeking justice or simply as part of a contending group. Generally speaking, women’s emphasis on human secu- rity — rather than the prerogatives of rulers and states — frame their outlook and their demands. Too often, even with the best intentions, the partici- F O C U S “Why aren’t more women at the table? Because they’re not a security threat.” — Sanam Anderlini