Skip to main content

Women, Peace, and Security: What Are the Connections? What Are the Limitations?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Fundamental Challenges to Global Peace and Security

Abstract

The chapter poses several questions about the gendered nature of the interstate system, the relationship between the arms trade and conflict, and the connection between militarism and patriarchy, gender inequality, and hyper-masculinities. After surveying some of the key contributions made by feminist scholars and activists to the understanding of women, war, peace, and security, the chapter examines military spending and the arms flow to the Middle East and North Africa region and their implications for women’s security and regional peace. Acknowledging the formidable structural, institutional, and cultural obstacles to peace and women’s security, the chapter goes on to describe notable feminist contributions to international peacemaking and continued mobilizations and initiatives for peace and anti-militarism. Sources of data include the World Bank, the United National Development Programme, and the Stockholm Peace Research Institute.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    SCR 1325 on women, peace, and security was adopted unanimously by the UN Security Council on October 31, 2000. It was the products of years of advocacy by women scholar-activists in collaboration with the UN Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) and with the support of the Minister of Women’s Affairs of Namibia. The resolution called for the prevention of sexual and gender-based violence in armed conflict; protection of women and girls in refugee situations; a gender perspective on issues of peace and security, and the participation of women in peace negotiations and peacekeeping operations. SCR 1325 was followed by several related resolutions, including SCR 1889 (2009), calling on the UN Secretary-General to develop a set of indicators to track implementation. Since its formation, UN Women has coordinated the National Action Plans that member-states develop as a tool demonstrating realization of the resolution’s objectives. SCR 1325 was invoked during preparations for Colombia’s peace agreement between the rebel FARC and the government, but it has been weakly implemented in other conflict mediation efforts. See further discussion below.

  2. 2.

    Such groups include Code Pink, Marche Mondiale des Femmes (MMF), Israel’s Machsom Watch, the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF), MADRE, Women Crossing DMZ, and the new Feminist Foreign Policy Project. For details see Moghadam (2020, ch. 5).

  3. 3.

    In the wake of (a) climate justice movements against the detrimental environmental and health effects of climate change caused by excessive CO2 emissions and (b) the COVID-19 pandemic that spread across the globe in 2020, it is more urgent than ever to interrogate massive military spending at the cost of the well-being of people and the planet. In the U.S., for example, despite its wealth, there is a large population of citizens living below or just above the poverty line, including the many African-American and Hispanic men and women who succumbed to COVID-19 in 2020. The U.S. has no socialized healthcare and no statutory paid maternity leave. Following a series of incidents of brutality against African-American citizens, protesters in summer 2020 demanded a reallocation of resources toward better funding of public services.

  4. 4.

    Among them would be Israel’s Golda Meier, India’s Indira Gandhi, the UK’s Margaret Thatcher, and the U.S. secretaries of state Madeleine Albright and Hillary Clinton. Under Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, Pakistan developed its nuclear arsenal in contravention of international law. In a separate category, but also pernicious, are the women supporters and propagandists of ISIS/ISIL/IS/Daesh during its “caliphate” heyday in Syria and Iraq.

  5. 5.

    For every Madeleine Albright or Hillary Clinton who pushed for military intervention or supported a coup, there are women in governance structures who strive for diplomacy, international cooperation, and peace. An example is the group of women who helped secure the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA, or Iran nuclear agreement): Catherine Ashton (UK), Federica Mogherini (EU), Helga Schmid (Germany), Wendy Sherman (U.S.).

  6. 6.

    A notable example is the U.S. organization Peace Action, and its large affiliate Massachusetts Peace Action. Details may be found at peaceaction.org and masspeaceaction.org.

  7. 7.

    Research also finds a positive relationship between high military spending and income inequality (see Tongur and Elveren 2013).

  8. 8.

    According to the UNDP’s 2018 Gender Development Index, which measures wealth, mean, and expected years of schooling, and life expectancy, the U.S. ranked 13th (see UNDP 2018). According to the Interparliamentary Union (www.ipu.org), the U.S. has among the smallest percentages of women in parliament, at just under 24%. The UN recommends a female share of at least 30%. According to the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Report 2020 (p. 13), of the 152 countries measured for women’s political empowerment, the U.S. ranked 86—lower than Tunisia (ranked 67), and others, including Korea, Belarus, and Kenya, and just above Greece (ranked 87).

  9. 9.

    Notes by the author, taken at the event, held during the 61st session of the UN’s Commission on the Status of Women—Women’s Economic Empowerment in the Changing World of Work—which convened in New York 13–24 March 2017.

  10. 10.

    See UN News, “Humanitarian crisis in Yemen remains the worst in the world, warns UN”, available at. https://news.un.org/en/story/2019/02/1032811. For details, see Mako and Moghadam (2021).

  11. 11.

    Military spending includes military infrastructure (bases, etc.), salaries and benefits as well as weapons production or purchases. Note that some countries, notably the UAE, do not provide figures on arms purchases as part of their data on military expenditures. For details on international interventions in and military aid to Arab countries, see Mako and Moghadam (2021), especially Ch. 6.

  12. 12.

    See Stockholm Institute of Peace Research (SIPRI): https://www.sipri.org/databases/milex.

  13. 13.

    SIPRI (op cit.), see also http://militarybudget.org/yemen/, accessed 9 June 2020.

  14. 14.

    “Obama will leave office having out-pledged all of his predecessors in military support to the country Netanyahu now runs” (Green 2016).

  15. 15.

    The highest out-of-pocket health expenses in the world are in South Asia (62.5%). See http://wdi.worldbank.org/table/2.12. Accessed 9 June 2020.

  16. 16.

    https://theintercept.com/2015/09/24/pope-decries-shameful-culpable-silence-arms-sales-drenched-innocent-blood/.

  17. 17.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/dominicdudley/2018/09/07/why-more-and-more-countries-are-blocking-arms-sales-to-saudi-arabia-and-the-uae/#5f759d18580a.

  18. 18.

    The Pope’s full message is reprinted here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/transcript-pope-franciss-speech-to-congress/2015/09/24/6d7d7ac8-62bf-11e5-8e9e-dce8a2a2a679_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c6c559dc2414.

  19. 19.

    https://www.euronews.com/2017/11/30/which-eu-countries-sell-arms-to-saudi-arabia-.

  20. 20.

    https://controlarms.org/blog/three-countries-stop-arms-sales-to-warring-parties-in-yemen/; see also https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/11/24/jamal-khashoggi-finland-denmark-germany-arms-sales/2101874002/, accessed August 2020.

  21. 21.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/spain-arms-saudi-arabia-deal-sale-cancel-yemen-war-bombing-a8523916.html.

  22. 22.

    http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-17-5146_en.htm, accessed October 2018.

  23. 23.

    See, for example, https://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestory/2015/05/dangers-facing-female-migrants-libya-150511170708195.html and https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/07/06/to-escape-sexual-violence-at-home-female-migrants-must-risk-sexual-violence-on-the-way-to-europe/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.560f501a3daa.

  24. 24.

    For an account of the challenges facing migrant women in Morocco and the role of civil society, see https://www.libe.ma/Femmes-migrantes-ou-femme-migrante-Un-regrettable-amalgame-qu-il-importe-d-eviter_a97355.html.

  25. 25.

    Author notes and observations. See also UN (2017) and various documents submitted to the Commission, available at https://www.unwomen.org/en/csw/previous-sessions/csw61-2017/official-documents.

  26. 26.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory.

  27. 27.

    For details on the British women’s peace movement, see https://www.bl.uk/sisterhood/articles/patriarchy-militarism-and-the-peace-movement#; British Library, Sisterhood and After Research Team, “Patriarchy, militarism and the peace movement” (2013).

  28. 28.

    See https://freedomforward.org/2020/04/18/letter-w20-g20/.

  29. 29.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marche_mondiale_des_Femmes; http://www.marchemondiale.org/qui_nous_sommes/objectifs/en (2006); http://www.marchemondiale.org/index_html/en (8 mars 2017—Communiqué international de la MMF), accessed September 2018.

References

  • Ayoub, M. and S. Khallaf. 2014. Syrian Refugees in Egypt: Challenges of a Politically Changing Environment. Center for Migration and Refugee Studies (CMRS). Cairo: American University in Cairo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanchard, Eric M. 2003. “Gender, International Relations, and the Development of Feminist Security Theory.” Signs 28 (4, Summer): 1289–1312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brysk, Alison. 2018. The Struggle for Freedom from Fear: Contesting Violence Against Women at the Frontiers of Globalization. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Caprioli, Mary. 2005. “Primed for Violence: The Role of Gender Inequality in Predicting Internal Conflict.” International Studies Quarterly 49: 161–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chase-Dunn, Christopher. 1996. “Conflict Among Core States: World-System Cycles and Trends.” Available at https://wsarch.ucr.edu/archive/papers/c-d&hall/warprop.htm.

  • Cockburn, Cynthia. 2004. “The Continuum of Violence: A Gender Perspective on War and Peace.” In Wenona Giles and Jennifer Hyndman (eds.), Sites of Violence: Gender and Conflict Zones. Los Angeles: University of California Press, pp. 24–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2010. Anti-militarism: Political and Gender Dynamics of Peace Movements. London: Pluto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohn, Carol. 2008. “Mainstreaming Gender in UN Security Policy: A Path to Political Transformation?” In Shirin Rai and Georgina Waylen (eds.), Global Governance: Feminist Perspectives. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 185–206.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Collier, Paul and Anke Hoeffler. 2000. “Greed and Grievance in Civil War.” Policy Research Working Paper 2355. Washington DC: The World Bank (May).

    Google Scholar 

  • Connell, R. W. 2002. Gender. Cambridge, UK: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elshtain, Jean Bethke. 1987. Women and War. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enloe, Cynthia. 1989. Bananas, Beaches and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fargues, Philippe and Christine Fandrich. 2012. “Migration After the Arab Spring. RSCAS Research Project Reports.” Available at https://emnbelgium.be/sites/default/files/publications/fargues_fandrich_arab_springmigration_mpc_2012_09.pdf.

  • Galtung, Johan. 1971. “A Structural Theory of Imperialism.” Journal of Peace Research 8 (2): 81–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1990. Cultural Violence. Journal of Peace Research 27 (3): 291–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, Joshua S. 2001. War and Gender: How Gender Shapes the War System and Vice Versa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. See also http://www.warandgender.com/wgch1.htm.

  • Green, Emma. 2016. “Why Does the United States Give so Much Money to Israel?” The Atlantic (September 15). Available at https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/09/united-states-israel-memorandum-of-understanding-military-aid/500192/ Last accessed 9 June 2020.

  • Gurr, Ted R. 1970. Why Men Rebel. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1993. Minorities at Risk: A Global View of Ethnopolitical Conflicts. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, David. 2005. The New Imperialism. NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, Felicity, Mikele Aboitiz, and Sara Poehlman-Doumbouya. 2003. “Nongovernmental Organizations’ Role in the Buildup and Implementation of Security Council Resolution 1325.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 28 (4): 1255–1269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooper, Charlotte. 2001. Manly States: Masculinities, International Relations, and Gender Politics. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hudson, Valerie, Mary Caprioli, Bonnie Ballif-Spanvill, Rose McDermott, and Chad Emmett. 2008/2009. “The Heart of the Matter: The Security of Women and the Security of States.” International Security 33 (3): 7–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hudson, Valerie M., Bonnie Ballif-Spanvill, Mary Caprioli, and Chad F. Emmett. 2012. Sex and World Peace. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hudson, Valerie M., Donna Lee Bowen, and Perpetua Lynne Nielsen. 2020. The First Political Order: How Sex Shapes Governance and National Security Worldwide. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobsen, K., M. Ayoub, and A. Johnson. 2014. “Sudanese Refugees in Cairo: Remittances and Livelihoods.” Journal of Refugee Studies 27 (1): 145–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jareer, Elass. 2019. “Saudi Arabia Ups Defence Spending in Face of Iranian Threats.” Available at https://thearabweekly.com/saudi-arabia-ups-defence-spending-face-iranian-threats.

  • Leatherman, Janie. 2011. Sexual Violence and Armed Conflict. London: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mako, Shamiran and Valentine M. Moghadam. 2021. After the Arab Uprisings: Progress and Stagnation in the Middle East and North Africa. New York and Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Moghadam, Valentine M. 2015. “Transnational Feminism and Movement-Building.” In Rawwida Baksh and Wendy Harcourt (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Transnational Feminist Movements. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, Ch. 2, pp. 53–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2017. “Explaining Divergent Outcomes of the Arab Spring: The Significance of Gender and Women’s Mobilizations.” Politics, Groups, and Identities (online 31 January). Available at https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2016.1256824.

  • ———. 2020. Globalization and Social Movements: The Populist Challenge and Democratic Alternatives. Lanham, MD and London: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagel, Robert. 2020. “Gendered Preferences: How Women’s Inclusion in Society Shapes Negotiation Occurrence in Intrastate Conflicts.” Journal of Peace Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, V. Spike, ed. 1992. Gendered States: Feminist (Re)visions of International Relations Theory. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reardon, Betty. 1985. Sexism and the War System. New York: Teachers College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruddick, Sara. 1989. Maternal Thinking: Toward a Politics of Peace. New York: Ballantine.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Tongur, Unal and Adem Elveren. 2013. “Military Expenditures, Income Inequality, Welfare and Political Regimes: A Dynamic Panel Data Analysis.” Defense and Peace Economics (October).

    Google Scholar 

  • True, Jacqui. 2012. The Political Economy of Violence Against Women. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • UN. 2017. “Commission on the State of Women: Report on the Sixty-First Session (24 March 2016 and 13–24 March 2017).” New York: Economic and Social Council (UN). Available at https://undocs.org/E/2017/27-E/CN.6/2017/21.

  • UNDP. 2011. Human Development Report: Statistical Annex. New York, NY: UNDP.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2018. Human Development Indices and Indicators: 2018 Statistical Update. New York, NY: United Nations Development Programme.

    Google Scholar 

  • UN Women. 2019. “Eighteen Years On: Assessing the Implementation of the UNSCR 1325 Women, Peace, and Security Agenda in the Arab States Region.” Cairo: UN Women Regional Office for Arab States (January).

    Google Scholar 

  • Walby, Sylvia. 2009. Globalization and Inequalities: Complexity and Contested Modernities. London: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wallerstein, Immanuel. 2003. The Decline of American Power. New York: New Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2014. U.S. Standing in the Middle East. Commentary, No. 390 (December 1). Available at https://www.iwallerstein.com/u-s-standing-in-the-middle-east/.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Valentine M. Moghadam .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Annex

Annex

Feminist Foreign Policy Project: Mission Statement (2019)

We are a collective of activists, academics, and practitioners informed by feminist values of equality, peace, justice, and environmental stewardship.

Through this new Feminist Foreign Policy Project, we seek to contribute to a world without war and violence, where militarism is replaced by cooperation and diplomacy; where poverty is eradicated by replacing capitalist structures of exploitation with sharing, compassionate economies that take care of all people; where the goals of environmental protection, racial equity, and gender equality govern our policy decisions; and where international solidarity is the guiding principle of our foreign policy.

We ground our vision in a long tradition of anti-imperialist feminist praxis. In the 1920s, feminists sought to end the carving up of colonial territories across the world. In 1945, the Women’s International Democratic Federation was founded to support anti-colonial struggles in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. In 1985, at the UN Conference on Women in Nairobi, feminists sought to link the destructive effects of structural adjustment (today called neoliberalism) to the fight against apartheid in South Africa and the occupation of Palestine. We see ourselves as moving along the paths forged by these bold, anti-imperialist efforts.

We are at a time in history where the outrageous levels of environmental destruction and militarism put all lives at stake and have long-lasting consequences for future generations and the planet:

  • The global arms race triggers international tensions, exacerbates social inequities, and intensifies racialized, gendered, and sexualized violence.

  • Conflicts and wars, often exacerbated or caused by external interference, displace vulnerable populations at a massive scale and lead to forced migration. They normalize patriarchal violence against vulnerable women, men, and children, and often intensify attacks on ethnic, religious, and sexual minorities.

  • Ever-increasing military spending, along with military recruitment, squanders human and financial resources needed for social development and other people- and environment-oriented sectors, policies, and activities.

  • Neoliberal economic policies, including damaging extractive projects, have brought great harm to our environment and communities throughout the Global South—and in the North, too. They have also brought shameful levels of inequality that cannot be allowed to persist. Women, girls, and other oppressed groups suffer the physical, economic, and social consequences of these policies.

The U.S. and other imperial powers have a history of male-dominated military, trade, and aid policies. They use their foreign policies as a means to further the interests of their corporations. They bribe the willing, trick the gullible, use technology to lure the hopeful, and resort to overwhelming military force to punish those who resist. “Humanitarian intervention” is often a mask for foreign control of another country’s resources.

We imagine a future without foreign coercion and without the exploitation of working people and natural resources. An anti-capitalist critique is at the heart of our feminist agenda for global justice.

Although our aim is to help build a worldwide movement for foreign policies of peace and cooperation, we are cognizant of the overwhelming role of the U.S. state—its military-industrial complex, its hundreds of military bases, and its history of instigating or exacerbating conflicts and wars. For this reason, our primary focus will be U.S. foreign policy.

The Feminist Foreign Policy Project will create thematic and regional working groups; forge and strengthen ties with progressive movements, organizations, institutes, networks, and individuals; build a web presence; produce educational materials; issue policy briefs; organize and support rallies; support legislative initiatives; and lift the voices/actions of inspiring feminists working on creative foreign policy initiatives.

The Feminist Foreign Policy Project has a radical vision of hope for the future. We stand firm in our belief that the future will be peaceful and feminist when feminists of all backgrounds and experiences come together to build the base. We will take guidance from the most marginalized women, women who have consistently put their bodies and lives on the frontlines of struggles to ensure a future for their children that is free of oppression and that turns the tide on the environmental catastrophe plaguing our planet. We take guidance from the global social movements that make the linkages between capitalism, militarism, colonial expansion, and environmental destruction.

We invite and welcome like-minded groups and individuals to join us in developing and nurturing interconnected feminist movements that will pressure elected officials and other decision-makers to pursue genuinely feminist foreign policies. We strongly believe in a future where we care for one another and for the planet and invite you to join our table.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Moghadam, V.M. (2022). Women, Peace, and Security: What Are the Connections? What Are the Limitations?. In: Mahmoudi, H., Allen, M.H., Seaman, K. (eds) Fundamental Challenges to Global Peace and Security . Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79072-1_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics