Chapter Six (6) Women, Peace, and Security

6.1 Introduction

This is statement from the UN –Official who was interviewed by the author
Natalie Flora Hudson (2016) Flo Hudson
 Many, if not a few people, believe that in an ideal world we should be caring and
paying attention to and promoting and protecting human rights because they are
so fundamental to the dignity of human beings not because they can
become threats to security. At the same time, we know that politicians, the
political establishment in general, not just the establishment, but political people
who are in politics in general—whether civil society or government— they respond,
their lights go up when they hear security aspects, you know, conflict.

 And so, then what is left to strategizes like me when I have to deal with
sometimes, very often, marginalized issues and peoples. I have to remind
them—those politicians, whether in the UN or government or whatever—on the
threat of security. So, if you don’t take care of these people they are going to
revolt and have a revolution—you know, briefly speaking.

Interview with UN Official 2006

 As the quotation above demonstrates, language is arguably one of the most

powerful tools in world politics today. The words one chooses, the tone one takes,
and the arena in which one speaks all constitute important decisions with often
lasting political implications. This is called Framing .Essentially, how one frame an
issue matters greatly , and language must be seen as more than mere rhetoric.
Thus, framing according to Hudson (2016) means the following :
a) Framing not only determines whether and how issues get onto the
political agenda, but also how issues are given meaning,
operationalized, and adopted into the norm-building process even
before becoming part of the official agenda.

b) Framing governs the actors that are engaged and those that are
excluded;

c) Frames control the issues that are on and off the agenda.

 According to Hudson (2016) in this way, discursive positioning and conceptual

frameworks are critical for those involved as well as those not involved in the
process. Nowhere is the power a particular discourse—the “framings of
meaning and lens of interpretation” —more evident than the case of framing

1
 women’s rights and gender equality as matters essential to the promotion
and protection of international peace and security.

 The gendered character of the state is not only significant in consolidating, and
possibly extending, the internal structures of male power, but also in shaping the
external behaviour of states and thus the structure of the international
system. Here, patriarchy dictates that states will be competitive and at least
potentially aggressive, reflecting the forms of social interaction that are
characteristic of male society generally. A patriarchal state-system is thus
one that is prone to conflict and war. This chapter discusses gender, women
and conflict and security.

6.2. Women, Peace, and Security: Gendering security, War and Armed Conflict
 In analyzing how a particular global network of women activists has used
the language of security. This chapter sheds light on the nature and
implications of the security framework as a political process.

 More specifically, activists for women’s rights and gender equality concerns
have recently framed their concerns as security issues attempting to
make them integral to the international security agenda, particularly
in the context of the United Nations (UN).

 From gender mainstreaming initiatives to the “Interagency Taskforce on

Women, Peace, and Security,” there has been a clear push from UN
agencies, United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM)
specifically, as well as from certain middle-power national governments,
such as Canada and Norway, and various non-governmental organizations,
chiefly the NGO Working Group on Women, Peace, and Security (NGOWG)
to put women’s rights on the security agenda.

6.2.1 Approaches of Gender to Peace and Security

 Feminist analysis has placed particular emphasis on developing a gendered
conception of security and war. These are approaches are :
a) Conventional approaches to security present it as ‘the highest end’ of
international politics:

 In this view, states have prime responsibility for maintaining

security, as reflected in the notion of ‘national security’. The
major threats to security are therefore external, coming in
particular from other states.
 In this way, the threat of violence and other forms of physical
coercion are intrinsically linked to the prospect of interstate

2
 war. National security is thus closely linked to the prevention of
such wars, usually through a build-up of military capacity to deter
potential aggressors.

b) Feminists Approach
 On their part feminist approaches, have criticized this view of security on two
grounds.
a) First, it is premised on masculinist assumptions about rivalry,
competition and inevitable conflict, arising from a tendency to see
the world in terms of interactions among a series of power-
seeking, autonomous actors.

b) Second, the conventional idea of national security tends to be self-

defeating as a result of the security paradox. This creates what has
been called the ‘insecurity of security.’ Security paradox: is the
paradox that a build-up of military capacity designed to strengthen
national security may be counter- productive, as it can encourage
other states to adopt more threatening and hostile postures.

 Feminist theorists, by contrast, have embraced alternative conceptions of

security, most commonly the notion of ‘human security’. Nevertheless, the
parameters of human security are sometimes unclear.

 While some argue that it should be confined to ‘freedom from fear’ (in
which case the key threats to security would be armed conflict and
human-made physical violence), others extend it to include ‘freedom
from want’ (in which case poverty, inequality and structural violence
become key threats).

 Structural violence: form of violence that stems from social structures

that perpetuate domination, oppression or exploitation, as opposed to ‘direct
violence’ which stems (supposedly) from individual or group motivations.

 Further controversies also have arisen from attempts to make the concept of
human security measurable, in order to make it easier for
researchers and policy-makers to apply it in practice. For example, the
Human Security Gateway, an online database of human security-related
resources, classifies a human security crisis as a situation where at
least 1,000 civilian deaths have occurred.

 For some feminists, such tendencies implicitly privilege physical security and
military threats over threats such as rape, loss of property, inadequate
3
 food and environmental degradation, which may not result in death,
but which nevertheless lead to profound insecurity and, sometimes,
vulnerability to further violence.

 Feminists have been drawn to a broader and multidimensional notion of

security both through long-standing concerns about violence
against women in family and domestic life, and though an
awareness of growing threats to women arising, for example, from
sex slavery and armed conflict.

 From a gender perspective, therefore, the apparently clear distinction

between ‘war’ and ‘peace’, which arises from a primary concern with the
threat of inter-state war, is quite bogus and merely serves to
conceal the wide range of other threats from which women suffer.

 The absence of war, in the conventional sense, certainly does not guarantee
that people, and especially women, live without fear or safe from want.
However, feminists have gone further than simply gendering security. They
have also sought to apply a gender lens to the understanding of war.

 For difference feminists in particular, war is closely associated with

masculinity. Such an association may operate on several levels. In the first
place, the dominance of men in senior positions in political and military life
may mean that decisions about war and peace are made by people whose
world-view acknowledges that armed conflict is an inevitable, and
perhaps even a desirable, feature of the world politics.

 This thesis stems from a tendency amongst men to see the world in terms
of conflict, rivalry and competition, whether this arises from the
influence of masculine gender stereotypes or from deeper,
biologically-based drives.

 As women, in this analysis, are less warlike than men, having a greater
inclination towards cooperation, consensus-building and the use of
non-confrontational strategies, the increased representation for
women in positions of political or military leadership can be
expected to lead to a reduced use of force in world affairs.

 This, indeed, may lead to a feminist alternative to the ‘democratic peace’

thesis favoured by liberals, which would assert that societies become more
peaceful not to the extent that they embrace democracy but to the extent
that they practise gender equality at all levels. A matriarchal society would,
from this perspective, certainly be more peaceful than a patriarchal one.

4
  Matriarchy: Literally, rule by the mother (mater being Latin for mother); a
society, whether historical or hypothesized, that is governed by women.

 The second link between war and masculinity operates through the role that
militarized masculinity plays as a national ideal in times of international
tension and conflict. This is evident in the image of the (invariably male)
‘heroic warrior’ and in the emphasis in military training on the cultivation of
supposedly ‘manly’ virtues, such as discipline, obedience, ruthlessness and,
above all, the ability to divorce action from emotion.

Concept of Human Security from Women

 In its broadest sense, human security refers to the security of
individuals rather than of states. As such, it contrasts with ‘national
security’, which is invariably linked to states and military power, the
main threats to security deriving from the aggressive behaviour of
other states.

 The notion of human security was an attempt to broaden and deepen the
concept of threat, influenced by ideas such as human development. The
idea can be traced back to the 1994 UN Human Development Report) and
to the doctrine of human rights (see p. 304). Human security is often seen
as having a variety of dimensions:
a) Economic security – an assured basic income
b) Food security – physical and economic access to basic food
c) Health security – protection from disease and unhealthy
lifestyles
d) Environmental security – protection from human induced
environmental degradation
e) Personal security – protection from all forms of physical
violence
f) Community security – protection for traditional identities and
values
g) Political security – the existence of rights and freedoms to
protect people from tyranny or government abuse

Critics of Human Security

 Critics of human security tend to argue either that it has so deepened or
widened the concept of security that it is virtually meaningless (particularly as it
extends beyond ‘freedom from fear’ and includes ‘freedom from want’).
 Or that it creates false expectations about the international community’s
capacity to banish violence and insecurity.

5
 6.3 United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 and the Women
Participation in Peace keeping and Peace building

 One of the most concrete and prominent policy outcomes , (“Interagency

Taskforce on Women, Peace, and Security,” United Nations
Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM), and NGO Working Group on
Women, Peace, and Security (NGOWG) from these networks have
been UN Security Council Resolution (SCR) 1325, the first Council decision
recognizing the importance of women in international peace and security,
making women and women’s needs relevant to negotiating peace agreements,
planning refugee camps and peacekeeping operations, reconstructing war-torn
societies, and ultimately making gender equality relevant to every single Security
Council action.

Genesis of the UN SCR 1325

 The 1995 Beijing Platform for Action laid the conceptual foundation in its
articulation of women and armed conflict as one of the twelve strategic
objectives. In 1998, the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) took up this
theme and discussed the obstacles to implementing the Beijing chapter on
women and armed conflict.

 In October 2000 the Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1325

(SCR 1325), a landmark step in raising awareness of the impact of armed conflict
on women and girls and in acknowledging the vital role of women’s agency in
conflict resolution and peacebuilding.

 It was initiated by different women activists, women working in the NGOs ,

Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) . Although UNIFEM did informally
support some of the Working Group’s members in 1998–1999, it did not get
directly involved with the working group until 2000.

 The UN SRC 1325 is based on the premise that recognizes that:

a) Peace is inextricably linked with equality between women and men. They
affirm that the equal access and full participation of women in power
structures and their full involvement in all efforts for the prevention and
resolution of conflicts are essential for the maintenance and
promotion of peace and security.

b) 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, including
unequal gender relations.

6
 c) Expressing concern those civilians, particularly women and children,
account for the vast majority of those adversely affected by armed
conflict, including as refugees and internally displaced persons, and
increasingly are target by combatants and armed elements, and
recognizing the consequent impacts this has on durable peace and
reconciliation.

d) Reaffirming the important role of women in the prevention and resolution

of conflicts and in peace-building, and stressing the importance of their
equal participation and full involvement in all efforts for the maintenance
and promotion of peace and security, and the need to increase their role
in decision-making with regard to conflict prevention and resolution.

The Limitations of 1325 for Security and for Women

 Many frustrated feminists have written off SCR 1325 as another example of lack
of political will where rhetoric will never be met by reality. And while this
critique certainly has its place, there is much more going on with this resolution
and securitization process being used by women within the UN system that
deserves further consideration, particularly in terms of the long-term goals of the
women’s movement.

 First, much of the “progress” made in terms of integrating gender-sensitive

language and procedures in SC activity, especially in the realm of peacekeeping
operations, have been policies that increase the number of women involved in
existing structures and institutions.

 Second, gender advisers and advisery units serve as focal points for UN
operations to bring the security concerns of women and women’s rights into the
peace process, not necessarily gender issues, such as the role of
masculinity in continuing violence after conflict. This is problematic at a
number of levels. First and most obviously, these separate units or offices
designated to women tend to further marginalize those groups in their attempt
to ensure that they have some access to the mission.

 Third, the fact that the security framework is based upon the difference
argument that women are especially vulnerable victims in war and especially
adept as peacemakers in post-conflict situations. This instrumental argument
makes 1325 a problem-solving tool rather than a critical means to challenge
prevailing practices.

7
Thus, 1325 is merely a matter of working women and gender, as though they are the
same, into business as usual.

Conclusion

 In the end, SCR 1325 is certainly flawed, but it is an instructive case for
exploring outcomes of the security framework for promoting and
protecting women’s rights.

 Much of the progress associated with 1325 reflects an additive and integrative
approach to the international security agenda rather than a transformative and
deeply critical approach to the way that the UN does security.

 Women’s concerns, problems, and rights are still largely an afterthought, rather
than an internalized and institutionalized change. But as the Women in
Development movement of the 1960s and 1970s demonstrates, this might be the
only entry point for marginalized groups seeking real change.

 Thus, not all hope is lost. SCR 1325 has opened space for potentially
transforming the security agenda. The “Women’s Participation and Gender
Perspectives in Security Council Resolutions Checklist” is an empirical example of
an attempt to transform the process from within, to really internalize gender
sensitive decision-making processes.

 Discourse continues to be critical; language can influence attitudes, beliefs, and

ultimately behavior. Part of the success in securitization is that the actual
definition of security is dependent upon its successful construction and
acceptance in the discourse.

 Furthermore, much more work is needed to understand the relationship between

a rights-based approach and a security-based approach. This includes an in-
depth look at the conceptual links between human security and human
rights. The network of those involved in initiating the women, peace, and
security movement—both NGOs and UN agencies—utilized a bandwagoning
strategy by building their case upon the mainstream human rights movement”
and this link requires further analysis.

 Overall, the security framework does seem to have some positive impacts for
women’s rights activism. Through SCR 1325, the framework has served as
an organizing and mobilizing force to bring women, particularly for
those suffering and working toward stability in war-torn regions of the
world.

8
 It has allowed women to be the focus of Security Council debate for the
first time in the fifty years since its inception.

 It has created new or improved upon existing strategic partnerships with donor
countries, troop contributing countries, UN agencies, and the countless non-
governmental and grassroots organizations working to improve women’s lives. In
some cases, it has even created opportunities for resources and funding that
might not have otherwise been available.