Keywords

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

When countries experience a wave of dramatic social-economic-political change, particularly after long periods of authoritarian rule,Footnote 1 few in those nations have as much reason to be optimistic and fearful as the women and girls who endured years of difficult times, have taken part in movements for change (e.g., Wright 2011; Woodrow Wilson Center Middle East 2012; Barnard 2011) and have real chances to see dramatic improvement in their lives in terms of safety, health, education, and inclusion. In countries emerging from authoritarian regimes, the new policymakers, their advisers, citizens, and interested civil society organizations (local, national, regional and international) can learn from countries that have succeeded in having women and girls centrally included, at least in some ways, in their societies.

This chapter focuses on the mandates of United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1325 (Women and Peace and Security) to include women in peacebuilding efforts – with particular interest here in women who are in decision-making, peacekeeping and peacemaking roles – in countries that have gone through or are going through big transitions. The UN Resolution (UNSCR 1325 2000, p. 2) “urges Member States to ensure increased representation of women (in) all… mechanisms for the prevention, management, and resolution of conflict” and at all decision-making levels (national, regional and international).

After inclusive peacebuilding is defined, there is an explanation of UNSCR 1325 and its mandates regarding peacebuilding. This is followed by a discussion of some of the barriers women face in their societies, information about peacebuilding efforts in selected countries and a list of ideas to foster gender justice.

Inclusive Peacebuilding

The term peacebuilding first appeared in Johan Galtung’s 1976 essay “Three Approaches to Peace: Peacekeeping, Peacemaking and Peacebuilding.” According to Tschirgi (2011), the concept “was embraced by peace studies and practitioners of conflict transformation, (but) it only gained widespread usage at the end of the Cold War with the release of the UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali’s landmark report An Agenda for Peace (1992).”

As with many of the concepts discussed in this book (e.g., cultural competency, creativity), peacebuilding has a number of definitions (see International Association for Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research 2007–2008; Etchart and Baksh 2005, pp. 29–32). For instance, Fisher et~al. (2000, pp. 13–14), based on UN approaches, noted there are different kinds of intervention that can result in peace. In addition to humanitarian aid/emergency assistance (providing immediate means for survival), Fisher and his colleagues indicated there are three main categories:

Peace-making: interventions designed to end hostilities and bring about an agreement using diplomatic, political and military means.

Peace-keeping: monitoring and enforcing an agreement, using force as necessary. This includes verifying whether agreements are being kept and supervising agreed confidence-building activities.

Peace-building: undertaking programmes designed to address the causes of conflict and the grievances of the past and to promote long-term stability and justice… Peace-building is not primarily concerned with conflict behaviour but addresses the underlying context and attitudes that give rise to violence, such as unequal access to employment, discrimination, unacknowledged and unforgiven responsibility for past crimes, prejudice, mistrust, fear, hostility between groups. It is therefore low-profile work that can, at least in theory, continue through all stages of a conflict…. It is likely to be strongest either in later stages after a settlement and a reduction in violent behaviour or in earlier stages before any open violence has occurred.

Michella Maiese (2003) noted that there are two ways to define “peacebuilding.” The first is tied to the United Nations definition (Boutros-Ghali 1992), as mentioned above, and links peacebuilding to a wide range of activities such as capacity building, reconciliation and societal transformation. This definition of peacebuilding, according to Maiese, refers to a “long-term process that occurs after violent conflict has slowed down or come to a halt” and peacebuilding takes place after peacemaking and peacekeeping.

But Maiese (2003) also mentioned a second definition. Both Maiese (2003) and Ouellet (2003) noted that some non-governmental organizations (NGOs) prefer peacebuilding to be defined in a broader, all-encompassing way. Maiese’s (2003) broad definition is as follows:

Peacebuilding (is) an umbrella concept that encompasses not only long-term transformative efforts, but also peacemaking and peacekeeping. In this view, peacebuilding includes early warning and response efforts, violence prevention, advocacy work, civilian and military peacekeeping, military intervention, humanitarian assistance, ceasefire agreements, and the establishment of peace zones.

This definition of peacebuilding includes the prevention of disputes and conflicts as well as intervention efforts such as mediation.

It should be noted that not only NGOs favor a broad definition. John Paul Lederach (1997, p. 20), for instance, writing in the late 1990s, offered a broad definition of peacebuilding. He indicated that peacebuilding is “more than post-accord reconstruction;” the term “encompasses, generates, and sustains the full array of processes, approaches and stages needed to transform conflict toward more sustainable, peaceful relationships.”

A broad definition of peacebuilding is used in this chapter.Footnote 2 It is an umbrella concept that emphasizes inclusiveness and involves the low-profile work mentioned by Fisher and his colleagues (2000), the post-conflict work emphasized by the UN (Boutros-Ghali 1992), and work at all stages of a country’s developmentFootnote 3 in support of a just peace, including the high and low-profile efforts involved, for example, in peacekeeping and peacemaking. Inclusive peacebuilding takes into account the underlying structural, relational and cultural roots of conflict in an all-encompassing way (e.g., including women, different ages, different ethnicities) in order to achieve sustainable continuity and/or transformation of people’s lives in a particular setting (e.g., community, city, nation, region). Inclusive peacebuilding is “context specific as the issues that concern people in one country or sub-region will be similar to but distinct from those of people in other countries or regions” (Etchart and Baksh 2005, p. 31). It includes approaches such as prevention; promotion of stability and justice; capacity-building; humanitarian assistance; establishment of peace zones; reconciliation; peacekeeping; and informal as well as official peacemaking.

Peacebuilding can occur before, during and after conflict. The word “inclusive” is emphasized here because it sometimes is not seen as an essential part of peacebuilding. For example, certain groups of people (e.g., women, feminist researchers, those focusing on human security) are more likely than others to talk about the importance of gender (the roles of women and men) when discussing peacebuilding. Others may mention it at times as a consideration or not give it any attention at all. One way to make sure that gender is part of any peacebuilding effort is to have the definition of peacebuilding – and its component processes such as peacekeeping and peacemaking – stress inclusivity. By explicitly referring to inclusivity in the name of the term as well as in the definition, it becomes difficult not to remember that for peacebuilding to be effective, it has to be inclusive.

While peacebuilding can go on in all societies, the real concern in this chapter is the relation between UNSCR 1325 and inclusive peacebuilding efforts in those countries that are making or have made a transition from authoritarian rule. Gurr et~al. (1990, pp. 74–5) noted that several “broad processes have reshaped the global landscape of state structures during the last two centuries.” Two of these processes – “the extraordinary expansion in the absolute and relative power of the state” and “the transformation of the structures of political participation and legitimation” are particularly important here.

Recent literature (e.g., Rost and Booth 2008; Donno and Russett 2004; Okeke-Ihejirika and Franceschet 2002; Aoláin 2009) has indicated the following about countries making a transition from authoritarian rule: uncertainty is an important circumstance; the problems of a new government might be overwhelming even if there are good intentions and assistance from international bodies; different groups might have strong and conflicting stands (leading to violence); and cultural differences might hinder the development of national, democratic structures. If one looks specifically at what the literature says about women, one notes that there are different opinions about whether autocratic governments particularly repress women’s rights systematically; “accountability and restructuring mechanisms (need to be examined) for biases and exclusions” (Aoláin 2009, p. 2009) in relation to the situation of women and girls; and timingFootnote 4 and the ability to have one’s message heard are particularly important in meeting the needs of women and girls. Given all this, it is important for policymakers and civil society representatives in the many states undergoing transitions – and those who are assisting them – to learn from the successful experiences in countries that are going through or have experienced these kinds of dramatic transitions.

UN Security Council Resolution 1325 (Women and Peace and Security)

Due, in part, to the lobbying of dozens of women’s organizations and UNIFEM (1325 Forum Norge 2008), the concerted efforts of the NGO Working Group on Women, Peace, and Security as well as the work of Ambassador Anwarul Chowdhury,Footnote 5 UNSCR 1325 was adopted unanimously on October 31, 2000. The resolution, which highlights the terrible consequences of violent conflict on women and girls as well as the important role of women in the peacebuilding processes, is one of the most important UN resolutions within the field of peace and security policy.

A number of important international and regional documents have a bearing on the full participation and advancement of women (e.g., the Beijing Platform passed by the World Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995, States Parties to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, Convention on the Rights of the Child, UN Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Charter). UN Security Council Resolution 1325 is particularly important because it mandates Member States of the UN to take actions to address the situation of women and girls (Fritz et~al. 2011).

There has been a pressing need for Security Council resolutions about women, peace and security. In contemporary conflicts, soldiers are not the most numerous of casualties; instead, according to the UN Secretary-General (2008, p. 2), “millions of women and children continue to account for the majority of casualties in hostilities, often in flagrant violation of human rights and humanitarian laws.” Mass displacement, use of children in combat, and violence against ethnic and religious groups, as well as gender-based and sexual violence, are common in certain areas of the world.

Women and girls have been particularly vulnerable to violence. They are often seen as “bearers of cultural identity” and, therefore, become major targets subjected to “rape, forced immigration, forced abortion, trafficking, sexual slavery and the intentional spread of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including…HIV/AIDS” (UN Secretary-General 2002, p. 2). The Secretary-General’s (2009, pp. 2–3) report continues to note that “sexual and gender-based violence remained one of the most pernicious consequences of armed conflict [as a]… weapon of war.” The report particularly mentioned the Democratic Republic of Congo (1,100 rapes reported each month with more than 10 % of the child victims being 10 years or younger), Somalia, Burundi, Myanmar, Timor-Leste, Côte d’Ivoire and Chad. The Secretary-General’s 2012 report (2012b) on conflict-related sexual violence (covering the period December 2010 to November 2011) focused on Columbia (“sexual violence… was a habitual, extensive, systemic and invisible practice”), Côte d’Ivoire (“increase in rape and gang rape targeting civilians during the recent post-elections crisis”), Democratic Republic of Congo (“mass rapes”), Libya (“women and men were subjected to rape”), Myanmar (“widespread perpetration of rape by Government armed forces in militarized ethnic border areas”), Somalia (“sexual violence including forcing women into marriages and acts of sexual slavery”) and eight other countries.

Women and girls are both victims of, and participants in, armed conflict. O’Neill and Vary (2011, p. 84) wrote the following about women as participants:

Women fight in virtually every conflict. They engage in combat, operate weapons, spy on enemies, and direct men and women within their command. Their presence is often sparsely acknowledged, however, and their roles are poorly documented. Rates vary, but women are thought to account for between 10 and 33 percent of most fighting forces…. Women accounted for between a third and a half of Viet Cong troops. Women also assumed leadership positions…

Wenche Hauge (2011) wrote about women in Guatemala who were former child soldiers with the guerilla movement, the Unidad Revolucionaria Nacional Guatemalteca (URNG). Hauge found that those interviewed had deliberately joined the armed movement.Footnote 6 Because the war in Guatemala lasted for such a long period of time (36 years), some of the girls had grown up as soldiers.

In addition to being participants, women can be – and are – agents of peaceful change. The participation of women in peacebuilding (including prevention of disputes, peacemaking and peacekeeping) assures that their experiences, priorities, and solutions contribute to stability and inclusive governance. When women are included in national peace negotiations, they can bring the views of women and girls to the discussions, for example “by ensuring that peace accords address demands for gender equality in new constitutional, judicial and electoral structures” (UN Secretary-General 2002, p. 3).

UNSCR 1325 covers a lot of ground in outlining what must be done. It is also confusing as it (1) is written in a polite, diplomatic way (e.g., invites, encourages) when the points are mandates about what must be done; (2) has little order in the way the mandates are presented and (3) combines what Member States must do with requirements that must be met by the United Nations. Because of the second and third points, Fritz et~al. (2011, pp. 13–19) made a separate list of the UNSCR 1325 requirementsFootnote 7 for nation states and grouped these requirements by topic. This, hopefully, will make it easier for countries that wish to follow the mandates.

Here are the mandates in UNSCR 1325 that can be connected with a broad definition of peacebuilding (UNSC 2000; Fritz et~al. 2011, pp. 13–19):

  • Urges Member States to ensure increased representation of women at all decision-making levels in national, regional, and international institutions;

  • Invites Member States to incorporate . . . training guidelines and materials on (1) the protection, rights and the particular needs of women, as well as on (2) the importance of involving women in all peacekeeping and peacebuilding measures;

  • Calls on all actors involved, when negotiating and implementing peace agreements, to adopt a gender perspective, including . . . the special needs of women and girls during repatriation and resettlement and for rehabilitation, reintegration and post-conflict reconstruction;

  • Urges Member States to ensure increased representation of women (in) all . . . mechanisms for the prevention, management, and resolution of conflict;

  • Calls on all actors involved, when negotiating and implementing peace agreements, to adopt a gender perspective, including measures that support local women’s peace initiatives and indigenous processes for conflict resolution and, that involve women in all of the implementation mechanisms of the peace agreements;

  • Calls on all actors involved, when negotiating and implementing peace agreements, to adopt a gender perspective, including measures that ensure the protection of and respect for human rights of women and girls, particularly as they relate to the constitution, the electoral system, the police and the judiciary;

  • Calls on all parties to armed conflict to take special measures to protect women and girls from gender-based violence, particularly rape and other forms of sexual abuse, and all other forms of violence in situations of armed conflict;

  • Emphasizes the responsibility of all States to put an end to impunity and to prosecute those responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes including those relating to sexual and other violence against women and girls, and in this regard stresses the need to exclude these crimes, where feasible from amnesty provisions;

  • Calls upon all parties to armed conflict to respect the civilian and humanitarian character of refugee camps and settlements, and to take into account the particular needs of women and girls, including in their design (of refugee camps and settlements);

  • Encourages all those involved in the planning for disarmament, demobilization and reintegration to consider the different needs of female and male ex-combatants and to take into account the needs of their dependants.

Some of the mandates listed above are presented in boldface. Three topics connected to these mandates – the representation of women in elected government positions, peacekeeping forces and peacemaking positions – will be examined here after a brief discussion of some of the barriers that face women.

Barriers Facing Women Engaged in Peacebuilding Activities

The inclusion of women and girls in societies and their safety are among the world’s most important issues. The United Nations, researchers and representatives of women’s organizations (e.g., UN Secretary-General 2010; Fritz 2009; Kvinna till Kvinna 2009; Kuehnast et~al. 2011; IDRC 2010; Hentschel 2005) frequently have reported that women and girls in many countries are not safe, their basic needs are not being met and they are not centrally included in peacekeeping and peacemaking. Responding to these problems, the UN Security Council (2000, 2008, 2009a, 2009b, 2010) and the UN Secretary-General (e.g., 2010, 2011, 2012a, 2012b) have insisted that the situation be improved, but progress has been limited and slow in many instances.

There has been considerable research on the difficult situations. Some of the information is just mentioned in passing while discussing other topics. Theodore Trefon (2011, pp. 65, 109, 126), for instance, writing about inefficient aid and the failure of reforms in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), had this to say about the situation of women in the DRC:

(The) armed forces continue to perpetrate violence, rape and other forms of abusive behaviour towards civilians. They are corrupt… Margot Wallstrom, the UN’s special representative on sexual violence in conflict, called the Congo ‘the rape capital of the world’…

The gender gap is… a social reality. Although women are largely responsible for family survival and cohesion and have become important protagonists in the dominant informal economy, they tend to be sidelined in decision-making processes, whether it is within the family or at the national political level. There were forty-three ministers and vice-ministers in the second Muzito government in 2010: only five were women…

Women, who could be drivers of positive change, are marginalized and under-represented in civil society forums.

Other research focuses directly on the difficult situation for women and the barriers they face in particular countries. For instance, Mwenda Mbatiah (2011), the chair of the Department of Linguistics and Languages at the University of Nairobi, discussed the status of women in Kenya. He surveyed traditional Swahili literature (because of the long tradition of written literature) and indicated that women are portrayed in a negative way. Mbatiah (2011, pp. 26–28) concluded:

The traditional Swahili society perpetuated numerous stereotypes that eroded the dignity of women… Apart from portraying women negatively… stereotypes that characterize women as liars, adulterous, schemers, hypocrites and greedy people are often used by men to justify their mistreatment of women…. It is important to point out that these stereotypes still exist and are widespread. Moreover, they are not confined to the Swahili traditional community but are common in many other Kenyan communities. For example it is widely acknowledged that wife-beating takes place in many parts of the country and this is generally acceptable… Traditional gender roles have been used to oppress, marginalize and deny women their rights.

Women in Serbia also face challenges. Serbia’s national action plan for women, peace and security (Belgrade Fund for Political Excellence and the Republic of Serbia Ministry of Defense 2010, p. 11) includes a section with some very specific information about women’s situation in the political sector:

The right to equal representation of women and men in the process of decision-making in the public sphere is guaranteed by the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia, adopted in 2006… Of the total population, of the Republic of Serbia, 51.4 % are women.

The electoral legislation stipulates 30 % as a minimal level of women’s representation in election lists (which is no longer in effect as regards local elections). However, following the May 2008 parliamentary election, the women’s representation is below the legally defined minimum: they account for 22.4 % of all the deputies in the National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia. In the executive branch of power, the situation is even worse. Five out of twenty-five ministerial positions, i.e., 18.5 % are held by women of whom none is involved in the security sector; 22.7 % are in positions of state secretaries, and 42.6 % assistants to ministers.

And speaking out for equality or women’s rights can be dangerous in some parts of the world. For instance, Kenya’s general election for parliament in 2007 had a record number of women candidates – 269 (out of 2,548) compared to only 44 in the 2002 election. There also were “unprecedented levels of violence” (UNIFEM 2008, p. 17) One woman candidate was shot and killed and another was tortured by a gang of men. The violence experienced by these Kenyan women reminds us that there can be strong “obstacles to women’s political participation that limit their effectiveness in making political accountability systems work for gender equality in many parts of the world” (UNIFEM 2008, p. 17).

In addition to looking at experiences in single countries, it is useful to review the literature that compares the situation in many countries. According to the World Bank’s 2012 report (pp. xx–xxi) on gender equality and development, over the last 25 years gains have been made for females in educational enrollment, life expectancy, and labor force participation. The report (p. 13) also indicates “change has come slowly or not at all for many women and girls in many… dimensions of gender equality.” Persistent gender gaps are noted in four particular areas: excess deaths (in comparison to males) of girls and women; disparities in girls’ schooling (particularly in Sub-Saharan countries and some parts of South Asia); unequal access to economic opportunities (e.g., “women everywhere tend to earn less than men”); and less say in making decisions and control of resources in households and society (“in most countries, women participate less in formal politics… and are underrepresented in its upper echelons”) (World Bank 2012, p. 76). Regarding political representation, the report (pp. 84–5), indicates that the number of women holding seats in parliament is “very low” and “progress… has been slow”. According to the report (p. 13), persistent problems remain for three main reasons:

First, there may only be a single institutional or policy “fix,” which can be difficult and easily blocked… Second, disparities persist when multiple reinforcing constraints combine to block progress. We use disparities in the economic sphere (the persistence of gender earnings gaps and gender segregation in employment) and in agency (differences in societal voice and household decision making) to illustrate this problem. Third, gender differences are particularly persistent when rooted in deeply entrenched gender roles and social norms – such as those about who is responsible for care and housework in the home, and what is ‘acceptable’ for women and men to study, do and aspire to. And these gaps tend to be reproduced across generations.

At least some of the barriers have been identified here. These include long-standing traditions regarding limited roles for males and females that are passed down to generations of children and the lack of imagination and political will of those in power for instituting new policies and facilitating effective implementation of existing policies.

Inclusive Peacebuilding Efforts

The focus of this chapter is on selected mandates of UNSCR 1325 in relation to inclusive peacebuilding. This section examines women’s involvement in peacebuilding activities in three ways that are identified in UNSCR 1325: through elected political offices, in peacekeeping operations and through peacemaking efforts.

Women in Elected Government Positions

Both women’s and men’s views are needed in making decisions for a society and in setting the priorities. Yet, according to the Inter-Parliamentary Union (2012a), in 2012, 20.2 % of parliamentarians around the world were women. And it may be unsettling for some to learn that this low figure is as high as it is in good part because of quota mechanisms. The World Bank’s 2012 report (p. 85) indicates that:

Ninety countries have some quota mechanism for parliamentary representation, whether in seat reservation, candidate quota legislation, or voluntary political party quotas.Footnote 8 Sixteen countries, all in Africa and Asia, explicitly reserve parliamentary seats for women. In (countries without quotas or reserved seats), such as Finland, there has been little change. For instance, 38.5 percent of newly elected members of parliament in Finland in 1991 were women, and by 2011, this share had increased marginally to 42.5 percent.

While Finland’s percentage may be viewed by some as acceptable, it has become increasing clear that countries that do not have some type of quota mechanism in place will not see substantial gains for a very long time.

Of the 90 countries with quota mechanisms, two will be discussed here: Afghanistan and the Republic of Rwanda. Afghanistan is a country that in 2000 was described by Rubin Barnett (p. 1790) as “devastated” by over 20 years of war. In 2009, Barnett indicated that “decades, indeed centuries, of strife had marked the society; but so, just as irreversibly, had 7 years of revival.” This revival is uneven and has not reached some of the women. Valentine Moghadam (2011, pp. 75–76) has noted that “only 9 % of girls attending primary school continue to high school,… married women are barred from attending high school (in a country where 57 % of girls are married before the age of 16),… women experience considerable violence… and self immolations (tied to forced marriage) appear to be on the rise.” A 2012 report by Sean Carberry noted that Afghan women “are still being beaten, raped and forced into early marriage at alarming rates” and, as an example of the threats faced by advocates, indicated that the only female prosecutor general in the country has had her house set on fire, always must be escorted by security personnel, received bullets in an envelope sent to her house, and had her house bombed.

A survey of the Afghan people by The Asia Foundation (Rene 2010, pp. 3–7, 135–146) found 47 % of the respondents thought the country was moving in the right direction, but 60 % expressed fear about voting in a national election and 76 % said corruption is a major problem. Support for equal opportunities for women in education continued to be high (86 %), but support for women to work outside the home continued to fall to 64 %. Almost twice as many women (61 %) as men (38 %) thought there should be equal representation in political leadership at different levels while 49 % (with little difference between men and women) said they would object to being represented by a woman in the national parliament.

Afghanistan put a quota system in place in its new constitution, adopted in 2004. According to DCAF (2011, p. 61):

Afghanistan’s new constitution… guaranteed women equal rights and their formal inclusion in political decision-making processes. According to Article 83, at least two female candidates from each province should be elected to parliament. In 2007, and following results from the 2005 elections, sixty-eight women, representing about 27 per cent of the 249 members of the Wolesi Jirga, were elected… Examples also exist of efforts to include women in decision-making at the community level – such as the creation of Community Development Councils as part of the National Solidarity Programme.

Being elected through quota systems does not mean that parliamentarians who are women will be easily accepted. As Borchgrevink et~al. (2008, p. 7) have noted about Afghanistan:

There are numerous obstacles to women’s political mobilization, participation and influence… It is difficult for women to place issues on the political agenda. It is even more difficult to get access to those forums where the actual decision-making takes place. The leadership role of women within the parliament is insignificant, and female MPs receive little support from their male colleagues, who show few signs of interest in their activities. While female MPs are often invited to meetings to talk about the situation of women in Afghanistan, they are rarely asked about public finance, counter-narcotics, security or terrorism. Both the government of Afghanistan and the international community are part of defining women’s political participation and reducing their domains to ‘women’s issues’…

(Including) women in decisionmaking (of the) Community Development Councils (CDCs) (is) a positive step, (but) the women’s CDCs established as part of this process are often locked in to small, low-budget projects, while the big decisions that affect communities are taken by the main CDCs. In mixed-gender CDCs, women still have little say.

Another country with a quota system is the Republic of Rwanda. Rwanda’s war and genocide in the early to mid-1990s resulted in the “slaughter of more than a half million individuals and unprecedented population movements… Rwanda’s agriculture-based economy was completely destroyed… forcing most of its population to live in a state of extreme precariousness… It is estimated that 250,000 women were raped.” (Gervais 2004, pp. 303–4).

Before the civil war, Rwandan women had never held more than 18 % of the parliament seats. After a “gender-sensitive” constitution (DCAF 2011, p. 62) was put in place in 2003, 30 % of the seats in parliament were designated for women. In 2012, Rwanda had the highest percentage – 56.3 % – of women parliamentarians (Inter-Parliamentary Union 2012b; Waring 2010, p. 29) in the worldFootnote 9 and was the first country that had more women than men in its parliament. DCAF (2011, p. 62) discussed the gains:

In the lower house (the Chamber of Deputies), there are eighty members in total, each serving five-year terms. Fifty-three of these members are directly elected to represent political parties in a proportional representation system. The additional seats are contested in the following manner: twenty-four members are elected by women from each province and the capital city of Kigali, two are elected by the National Youth Council, and one is elected by the Federation of the Associations of the Disabled. In addition to the twenty-four seats set aside in the Chamber of Deputies, the 2003 elections saw an additional fifteen women elected in openly competed seats for a total of thirty-nine out of eighty, or 48.8 per cent of seats – the world’s highest rate of women in parliament… In 1996, women in Rwanda’s parliament formed a cross-party caucus, the Forum of Women Parliamentarians (FFRP), which included all female members of Parliament… They work together across party lines on issues of common importance to women…

Quota mechanisms of various kinds, particularly in combination with some kind of networking (e.g., among women parliamentarians, with male political leaders) and/or national leadership by women (as in Liberia and Mozambique), can change the participation rate as well as increase the possibility of inclusive and effective peacebuilding efforts.Footnote 10

Inclusive Peacekeeping

Peacekeeping refers to the period when a ceasefire has been negotiated, but conflict still remains or could easily erupt. Peacekeeping forces are expected to reduce tensions between parties to a conflict after a ceasefire has been negotiated in order for peaceful relations to be more-fully established or resume. Although peacekeeping is not specifically authorized or even mentioned in the UN Charter,Footnote 11 the UN has been providing peacekeeping since 1948, when the UN Security Council authorized the deployment of UN military observers “to monitor the Armistice Agreement between Israel and its Arab neighbors” (UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations, n.d.). The UN, “the main actor” (Kondoch 2007, p. xiv) in peacekeeping, does not have its own military and relies on the assistance of Member States to put peacekeeping operations in place.Footnote 12 UN peacekeeping, involving “military, civilian and police personnel, has been the most frequent military operation conducted by the UN” (Kondoch 2007, p. xiv). UN peacekeeping has three basic principles: “consent of the parties; impartiality; (and) non-use of force except in self-defence and defence of the mandate” (UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations, n.d.).

UN peacekeeping forces now not only are expected to maintain peace and provide security, they “facilitate the political process, protect civilians, assist in the disarmament, demobilization and reintegration of former combatants; support the organization of elections, protect and promote human rights and assist in restoring the rule of law” (UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations, n.d.). Peacekeeping forces have taken on daunting tasksFootnote 13 and, as Angela Mackay has noted (2003, p. 218), “often with little or no specific preparation or training” particularly “in the gender implications of an unknown society.” In 2011, the UN had 16 peace operations (“15 peacekeeping operations and one special political mission”) on four continents (UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations, n.d.).

The number of women in uniform in peacekeeping roles is very small – only 2 or 3 % of military personnel and 9 % of police officers.Footnote 14 The UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations (n.d.) has said the “need for women peacekeepers is more pressing than ever” particularly to assist with “interviewing victims of sexual and gender-based violence, working in women’s prisons, assisting female ex-combatants during the process of demobilizing and reintegration into civilian life and mentoring female cadets at police academies.” When women are not included in peacekeeping operations, negative consequences have been noted (Etchart 2005, pp. 72–77) including an increase in “sex work, prostitution (and rape),Footnote 15 fatherless children…, human rights violations and human trafficking.”

An incentive for some women to join peacekeeping forces, particularly if they are from countries with low salaries, is the amount of money to be made for this work. A barrier is the length of the tour may be too long for those mothers who do not want to be away from their children or their families for a long period of time.

There are some positive points that should be mentioned about women in peacekeeping forces. The 9 % of police peacekeepers includes the all-women police units. The first all-woman police unit was from India in 2007 (stationed in Liberia)Footnote 16 and, since then, there have been all-women police units from Bangladesh, Samoa and Rwanda assigned to other countries. According to a news account (Raza 2010), “the Liberian National Police received 3 times the usual number of female applicants in the month following the deployment of the Indian all-female police contingent. Female police officers now comprise 15 % of the Liberian National Police…” While the 10 % of all Canada’s police deployed for peacekeeping are women (UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations, n.d.)Footnote 17 may seem low, “the Canadian Government has been at the forefront of gender mainstreaming in peacekeeping operations” (Etchart 2005, p. 69). Women also have contributed to the success of peacekeeping missions in Guatemala and Namibia (Etchart 2005, p. 69). And, in 2011, women were 21 % of the global 18,362 non-uniformed/civilian peacekeeping staff (UN Department of Public Information 2012, p. 73).

While there has been some increase in the number of women in peacekeeping forces, much more needs to be done. According to Etchart (2005, p. 81):

A gender perspective must be brought to bear in the elaboration of ceasefire agreements and peace accords; militaries must endeavour to recruit equal numbers of women and men in peace support operations at all levels; sex-disaggregated statistics should be collected for all aspects of peacekeeping operations; efforts must be made to maintain family life for personnel in peacekeeping operations: this may include ‘accompanied’ tours with husbands, wives and children being kept together, where possible; gender and human rights training must be supplied to military personnel in peace support operations; gender sensitization modules should be introduced in the initial stages of police and military training; and disciplinary action and effective accountability mechanisms need to be established to prevent impunity for violations of human rights by peacekeeping personnel.

Inclusive Peacemaking

Peacemaking has been defined (Fisher et~al. 2000, p. 14) as “interventions designed to end hostilities and bring about an agreement using diplomatic, political and military means.” The inclusion of the word “military” seems to point to violent conflicts and the use of the word “diplomatic” most likely refers to intra-state or interstate conflicts that would require national and/or international diplomatic approaches. The term peacemaking usually seems to be used in relation to conflicts that are large, violent and systemic often involving factions and affecting a community, nation or region, but the term also has been used for disputes involving individuals and/or small groups. The definition, then, needs to cover activities as varied as Navajo peacemaking (e.g., Zion 1998; Wall 2001; Bluehouse 2003), John Winslade’s (2009, p. 560) discussion of his mother as a peacemaker with his father, and the peacemaking activities of young children and chimpanzees (see Verbeek 2008).

Peacemaking is defined here as interventions that are based on principles (such as equality, harmony, inclusion and restorative justice) and aim to end difficulties between parties and bring about agreement. This definition covers violent intra-state conflicts as well as disputes involving individuals. Inclusive peacemaking means that the peacemakers will, in different ways, see that any peacemaking process is all-encompassing (so that all viewpoints are represented) and that the peacemakers and teams of peacemakers will represent a variety of backgrounds. In regard to the roles of men and women, for example, women would be included as peacemakers as well as members of any peacemaking team.

Peacemaking in relation to intra-state, violent conflicts is discussed in this section. These undertakings are usually complicated and difficult. Some of the approaches used in “official” peacemaking are well known – third-party mediation; official and unofficial diplomacy; negotiation or bargaining – while others – problem-solving workshops, citizen diplomacy, economic incentives, mediation training, conflict transformation education, attention-getting activities – are less well known. Three topics will be covered in this section about women and peacemaking: women’s activities leading up to and around peace negotiations (informal peacemaking); participation in peace negotiations; and mediating or negotiating peace agreements.

Informal Peacemaking

The Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue (2010a) held a meeting of women from Asia and the Pacific in which participants underlined the importance of informal peacemaking (outside of formal/official peacemaking). The participants felt that women’s organizations “need to be constantly organizing and considering ways to link informal processes to formal talks.” It was also suggested that mediators and other third parties need to value informal peacemaking and that international agencies need to support these women, “including with resources.”

There are numerous examples of the ways in which individual women, demonstrations of women and women’s organizations have worked to diminish conflict and encourage participation in peace processes. O’Neill and Vary (2011, pp. 85–86) presented many examples including these:

In 2002, the Columbia government broke off formal negotiations with the FARC and initiated a major armed offensive. Women’s groups, united across the ideological spectrum, responded with a protest march 40,000 strong against the war and the growing militarization of society. The organizers roused the desire for peace in the female population and built the women’s coalition into leaders of the movement in Columbia.

In 1999, women from Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea banded together to fight for an end to the brutal conflict in their countries. Facing intransigence from three Presidents who had vowed to never talk to one another, the Mano River Women’s Peace Network used unorthodox tactics including threatening to lock the President of Guinea in a room until he agreed to attend negotiations. Thousands of women came together again in Liberia in 2004 to nonviolently force a resolution to stalled peace talks.

Naga women used innovative approaches to mediate among armed actors and mobilize for peace and reconciliation in northeastern India in 1997. As the ceasefire faltered, they began to negotiate successfully with Indian security forces, underground armed opposition forces, and a variety of tribal factions and groups to sustain it. Women also led intercommunity and intertribal events and ceremonies considered key to promoting long-term peace and reconciliation.

Anderlini (2004) also presented many examples including ones from South Africa, Northern Ireland, Burundi, Somalia, Columbia, Guatemala, Georgia-Abkhazia conflict, Sri Lanka, Argentina, and the Middle East. And mediator Günther Baechler (2010, p. 5) has many examples from Nepal including this one about mobilization:

The issue of human rights violations, impunity, and human security helped to create a nation-wide women’s movement across sectors, professional groups, parties, and identity groups. The movement gave women greater space to raise their voices in the streets of Kathmandu and district headquarters (provincial towns), as well as in the political sphere of the state institutions.

Participation in Peace Negotiations

The documents developed during peace negotiations include ceasefire and pre-negotiation agreements; framework agreements or accords – “a formal commitment between hostile parties to end a war” (Anderlini 2004, p. 16) that specifies arrangements for substantively settling the conflict; and implementation agreements (documents that address enactment). According to Bell and O’Rourke (2011, p. 4), framework agreements (or comprehensive agreements):

typically set out complex arrangements for new democratic institutions, human rights and minority protections, and reform or overhaul of security and justice sector institutions. They therefore operate as ‘power-maps’Footnote 18…

Women need to be included in the development of all the documents in peace negotiations and women and girls need to be specifically mentioned in the documents because these documents will easily lead – or serve as a block – to full participation in a changing society. A study of 585 peace agreements in 102 peace processes, signed between January 1, 1990 and May 1, 2010, found that only 16 % even have references to women and that they are “qualitatively often poor, constituting scattered references to women, sometimes contravening CEDAW provisions, and on rare occasions illustrating good practice” (Bell and O’Rourke 2011, p. 7)Footnote 19 The inclusion of women and girls in the texts of peace agreements “is the starting point in achieving other political, legal and social gains for women” (Bell and O’Rourke 2011, p. 3). What is contained in a peace agreement can become part of a constitution (Bell and O’Rourke 2011, p. 4), as was the case with the Dayton Peace Accords for ending the conflict in Bosnia Herzegovina (Mazurana 2010, p. 17).

It should be noted that equality provisions in agreements that are gender-neutral may actually be open to misinterpretation. There are times when being gender-neutral is useful, but other times there needs to be specificity regarding women and girls. For instance, the Dayton Accords did not “express positive measures for the inclusion of women in the highest levels of the new government with the result being that from the beginning women were underrepresented within government and administrative and economic positions” (Mazurana 2010, p. 17).

According to UNIFEM (2010, p. 1) in an analysis of a sample of 24 major peace processes, “women’s participation in negotiating delegations averaged less than 8 % in the 14 cases for which such information was available.” And it was noted that “fewer than 3 % of signatories were women.” UNIFEM (2010, p. 2) also indicated that only “marginal progress” has been made either quantitatively (numbers involved) or qualitatively (provisions that address the rights of women) since the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1325 on October 31, 2000.

Irene Khan (Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue 2010b), a former Secretary-General of Amnesty International, has said “to date, there has not been a peace process where gender parity, or anything approximating it, has been observed.” According to Onubogu and Etchart (2005, pp. 38–9), the obstacles to women taking part in peace talks include (1) fewer women have been armed and the power might be seen as in the hands of the fighters, (2) men fighters may be seen as having the same views as women fighters, (3) negotiating teams often come from existing power structures where women may be absent, (4) women may be excluded from public life by local traditions, (5) women’s activities may not be seen as political, (6) security discussions may not be seen as needing to hear from women,Footnote 20 and (7) a lack of access to resources that will allow them to attend.

Gitti Hentschel (2005, p. 3) provides specific examples of the problems:

Not a single woman was involved in the peace talks about ending the Bosnian conflict in Dayton 1995, even though the massive violence against and marginalization of women and girls in this conflict was internationally known. Only one woman – from the (Kosovo) side – took part in the negotiations of Rambouillet, that proceeded the bombing of (Kosovo). Women’s organizations in Serbia, that advocated a non-violent solution, were not included.

There are examples of participation, however. Kumudini Samuel (2010, pp. 2–3), for instance, discussed her participation in a Sub Committee for Gender Issues (SGI) in Sri Lanka:

While none of the previous attempts at formal peacemaking in Sri Lanka allowed women any role in the negotiating process, the peace talks which commenced in 2002 established a formal space for their engagement by creating… (the) SGI to report directly to the plenary of the peace talks. (The SGI) was mandated to ‘explore the effective inclusion of gender concerns in the peace process’… The SGI was appointed at the third round of plenary talks… It was possibly the first of its kind set-up within a formal peace process at a pre-substantive stage of negotiations… The (five) Government delegates… comprised mainly of feminist activists engaged in women’s rights and peace work from the non-governmental sector, while those (five) of the LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam) included senior women cadre from the organisation’s political, research, media and district administrative units.

And UNIFEM (2010) indicated:

In the Republic of El Salvador in the 1990s, women were present at nearly all the post-accord negotiating tables. One technical table, the Reinsertion Commission, was formed by six women and one man. In the end, women made up one third of the beneficiaries of land redistribution and reintegration packages…Footnote 21

In the Republic of South Africa, the Women’s National Commission demanded that 50 per cent of participants in the Multi-Party Negotiating Process be women and succeeded in establishing that one out of every two representatives per party had to be a woman, or the seat would remain vacant. Approximately 3 million women across the country participated in focus groups and discussions, and a 30 per cent female quota was adopted for the upcoming elections.

In Northern Ireland, women secured a seat at the peace table by forming the first women-dominated political party and winning some seats in the election. The Northern Ireland Women’s Coalition successfully built bridges between Catholics and Protestants and promoted reconciliation and reintegration of political prisoners.

Another example is provided by Dyan Mazurana (2010, p. 15):

(In) Guatemala, the presence of a lone woman in one of the official parties to the peace negotiations, and support by hundreds of local women activists, ensured that the final agreements incorporated a number of important mandates regarding women…. The participation of women in the Guatemalan peace process, for example, resulted in peace agreements which include specific commitments to women, including access to housing, credit, land and other productive resources; the obligation of the government to implement a national program on integral health for women, adolescent girls, and girl children; government commitments to review the national legislation with the purpose of eradicating all forms of discrimination against women; the penalization of sexual harassment; a guarantee of the participation of women at all decision and power levels of the local, regional and national bodies, on equal terms with men; and the creation of the National Women’s Forum and the Office for the Defense of Indigenous Women…

During the last 30 years, feminists, women’s rights organizations and some international statespersons, donors and agencies have been outspoken about women having seats at peace tables. As Dyan Mazurana (2010, p. 16) has noted, in a number of countries where peace negotiations were undertaken, some women were at the peace tables, but the results were disappointing. In part this was because the women representatives may have been “the wives, lovers and daughters of government or armed group leaders” or women who were chosen by the government or opposition groups because they supported or were expected to support their party’s line. These women did not come to the table as women’s rights advocates.

Cynthia Enloe (2004) has written about the strong influences in peace talks. She concluded that for effective participation a party needs to have some or all of the following resources – a base of organized political support, ready access to soldiers and arms, economic resources and credibility (for instance as a “threat, a rival, an ally, a technocrat”) – and that women do not usually have these resources.

Mediating Peace Agreements

Katia Papagianni (2011), head of the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue’s Mediation Support Programme, relays a lot of good adviceFootnote 22 for mediators in societies that are trying to end violent internal conflicts. Mediators, she wrote, can help by preparing parties for the “long-terms challenges of implementing peace deals” and to understand that they have to “build robust political processes and not simply ‘strike deals’.” On the other hand, in some cases the long-term challenges can’t be addressed immediately and the mediator should resist drawing up “hastily-drafted, and unrealistic, agreements.” Mediators need to “be aware of the dangers of detailed, over-ambitious agreements which face significant implementation challenges.” Mediators also must “understand that power-sharing agreements tend to obstruct the development of inclusive political processes, even if they are useful tools for ending conflicts” and know they “can advocate for diplomatic activity and political engagements to continue after the agreement is signed.” At this point so few women are mediating peace agreements, would-be mediators will only be able to use this advice in an indirect way.

It is a well-documented fact that women are absent from “formally convened international meetings, including those for conflict resolution” (Onubogu and Etchart 2005, p. 34). The 2009 UN Secretary-General’s report noted (p. 4) “a persistent cause of concern is that women continue to be virtually absent from the peace table and to be severely underrepresented as third-party mediators or even as representatives of the United Nations in most conflict-affected countries.” In 2012, the Secretary-General (2012a, pp. 22, 24) “remain(ed) concerned” and noted that “considerable obstacles persist to women’s participation and representation in public decision-making in relation to peace and transition processes.”

According to the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue (2011, pp. 10–11), track-one mediation (between official diplomats) is “almost exclusively male-dominated” and the European Union (EU) “is even worse in this regard. Of 11 EU Special Representatives in conflict areas, (in 2011) only one is a woman… and she is the first ever female appointment.” The Organization of American States (OAS) also “appears not” to have selected any women to be mediators “though women do feature in other relevant leadership positions.”

And another example, if one is even needed, comes from Nepal. In 2006, after “a 10-year-long armed internal conflict” (Falch 2010a), where “peaceful mass protests” by women and women’s organizations “pushed persistently to get access to political leaders and institutions” (Falch 2010b), women “were not included as mediators, participants, observers or signatories in the peace negotiations” (Falch 2010a).

UNIFEM’s (2010, p. 3) review of a sample of 24 major peace processes since 1992 found “women were absent from chief mediating roles in UN-brokered talks.” While the UN has never officially appointed a woman as chief mediator, in recent years a number of women did have mediation roles. According to UNIFEM (2010, pp. 5–6) Dame Margaret Anstee was the Special Representative of the Secretary-General in the Republic of Angola in the early 1990s and, for part of the UN-led process, was the lead mediator. Dame Ann Hercus, when she was the Special Adviser of the Secretary-General, conducted “shuttle talks” in Cyprus.

There are other examples of mediation – some sponsored and some not. Aili Mari Tripp et~al. (2011, p. 357) discussed the women activists from Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia who formed the Mano River Union Women Peace Network (MARWOPNET):

The network mediated an intense conflict between Guinea and Liberia in 2001 in spite of minimal resources and being excluded from the formal peace process. MARWOPNET was able to get the feuding heads of state to a regional peace Summit. At one point, President Lansana Conte of Guinea had been adamant about not meeting with Charles Taylor of Liberia. Mary Brownell, a Liberian peace activist of the MARWOPNET delegation, told Mr. Conte: ‘You and President Taylor have to meet as men and iron out your differences, and we the women want to be present. We will lock you in this room until you come to your senses, and I will sit on the key.’ Conte relented and met with Taylor as a result of the sheer audacity of a woman telling him what to do, saying ‘What man do you think would say that to me? Only a woman could do such a thing and get by with it. As a result of their actions the women were given delegate status at the twenty-fourth ECOWAS summit in December 2001, where they were able to make an appeal for African leaders to support women’s peacemaking initiatives. They were also given observer status in the 2003 Accra talks that led to a ceasefire agreement and the establishment of an interim government in Liberia.

Visaka Dharmadasa (Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs 2010), from Sri Lanka, was a founder of the country’s Association of Parents of Service Men Missing in Action and the Association of War Affected Women. The war in Sri Lanka (from 1976 to 2009) was “Asia’s longest civil war” (Hunt Alternatives Fund 2010). Anderlini (2004, pp. 19–20) has described Dharmadasa as an “inside neutral” as well as a facilitator and mediator. According to O’Neill and Vary (2011, pp. 85–86):

(Dharmadasa) designed and facilitated track two dialogues, bringing together influential civil society leaders from both sides of the conflict. In 2002, as peace talks were faltering, the LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam) refused direct contact with the government, accusing it of noncompliance. LTTE leaders conveyed their concerns to the government through Ms. Dharmadasa, foreign diplomats, and Norwegian negotiators. She remained an impartial bridge between the parties for years.

And there are some examples of women who have been official mediators. For instance, there is Betty Bigombe from the Republic of Uganda. Her early work with the government of Uganda and the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) paved the way for “the signing of a ceasefire in September 2006” (Tripp et~al. 2011, p. 354). Her “inside” work was described in the following way by the Hunt Alternatives Fund (2006):

Since March 2004 Bigombe has been the chief mediator between the LRA and the government of Uganda, in an effort to end 20 years of conflict. Under President Yoweri Museveni’s government, Bigombe was appointed minister to the parliament in 1986. In 1988 she was selected Minister of State for Pacification of north and northeastern Uganda… and tasked with seeking a peaceful means to end the war…Bigombe initiated contact with rebel leader Joseph Kony in May 1992; this initiative gave birth to the “Bigombe talks.”

While Bigombe’s efforts in the 1990s were undertaken while she lived in Uganda, her work in 2004 began when she was living in the United States and working for the World Bank. She took a leave of absence from her job and, spending some “$8,300 of her own money on the peace front – on things like calls to rebels’ satellite phones,” she spent 18 months involved in a “one-woman peace effort with no official position or outside funding” (McLaughlin 2005). In 2004, “Bigombe engineered the first face-to-face talks between the government and the LRA in a decade. Hopes were high… but at the last minute, the deal collapsed” (McLaughlin 2005).

And there is Graça Machel (UNIFEM 2010, p. 3), one of three mediators for talks in Kenya that were led by the African UnionFootnote 23 in 2008 following the violent dispute over the results of the presidential elections of December 2007. As part of her work, Graça Machel brought women together. McGhie and Wamai (2011, p. 19) described her approach to a meeting where she found “party affiliations and ethnic tensions… prevented any meaningful engagement among the women:”

Mrs. Machel… advised women to sit together to find common ground. This resulted in, what became known as, the ‘spitting session’ by the women involved. This was a session in which they raised all of the issues that were dividing them, allowed themselves to get angry (to ‘spit’ at one another) in order to allow themselves to move forward and find commonality in their position on the crisis. The airing of differences, and building of confidence, subsequently enabled this group of women to constructively draft a Women’s Memorandum, which was presented to the mediation team…

At the end of 42 days of negotiations, a power-sharing agreement ended “the violence and political stalemate” (McGhie and Wamai 2011, p. 3).

Making Progress

If a country wants to make progress in achieving gender justice for women and girls, and do so in a timely way, it needs to plan (including women representatives from government and civil society), fund, implement, monitor, evaluate and revise (as necessary) the change initiative. Luckily, there are many excellent ideas that can be considered regarding effective change. For instance, assess the political will in the country to do what needs to be done and establish a supportive culture. Establish quotas and reservations to assure a minimum of participation for both males and females in most areas of employment, political decisionmaking and peacemaking roles. Institute self-assessment mechanisms for the police and military (e.g., DCAF 2011, pp. 92–94) to help increase recruitment of women in those areas. Look for numerous ways to work with young people to reduce generational continuity in problematic areas. Find ways to support women to continue to mobilize groups that initiate, support and monitor developments. Help women and women’s groups develop easy access to political leadership to provide information, discuss and move forward on important issues. Find resources that are sufficient for the line items in action plans that support identified initiatives. Work with international donors to make sure that they are not just relying only on information from established political elites in supporting changes and target certain resources for smaller, less established change initiatives.

Other important ideas include integrating gender into post-conflict needs assessments (e.g., DCAF 2011, pp.86–90) and conducting gender audits (e.g., DCAF 2011, pp. 95–99). Karama (2012a),Footnote 24 an organization that aims to end violence against women in the Middle East and North Africa and increase women’s involvement in civil society, has three recommendations that emerged from its analysis of the state of women’s rights after Arab revolutions: (1) strengthen coalitions and build new ones to develop civil society; (2) build capacity to take part in discussions regarding new constitutions and increase women’s political representation; and (3) increase the number of women in reconciliation and peacebuilding efforts.

Peace agreements can be a particular challenge. O’Neill and Vary (2011, pp. 101–2) have put forward a number of suggestions concerning these agreements:

As an incentive, offer negotiating teams extra seats at the table, but only if they are filled by women;

Having a critical mass of women (at least 30 percent) involved in peace negotiations could fundamentally alter traditional approaches to DDR and SSR and increase the likelihood that these programs will more meaningfully serve all members of conflict-affected communities;

Enable women to participate in negotiations as civil society observers, particularly when they do not make up at least 25 percent of negotiating delegations. Fund their participation and ensure they have access to the same resources as negotiators. Ensure they stay in the same hotels as other delegates as negotiations often happen between formal sessions;

Establish an advisory group or appoint a dedicated gender adviser in the office of the facilitator or mediator;

Hire senior-level gender experts to work hand in hand with planners from the beginning;

Encourage male champions to be spokespersons on issues of women’s inclusion.

Conclusion

UN Security Council Resolution 1325 clearly states that women are to be centrally involved in the political life of their countries, peacekeeping forces and peacemaking activities. States going through a transition, particularly from authoritarian regimes, have a big opportunity to make dramatic changes in the lives of their people in a rather short period of time. One of these changes needs to be the central inclusion of girls and women in their societies. Countries going through transitions as well as the countries and non-governmental organizations that offer assistance to the countries in transition, need to make the most of this unparalleled opportunity.

This chapter has shown that while there has been progress in the number of women in elected office, this gain has been made when quota mechanisms have been instituted. We also have seen that the number of women in peacekeeping forces is extremely low. Most countries need to change the police and military culture to make it acceptable and interesting for women to be part of those forces. If those numbers can’t be increased substantially, it is difficult to see how the number of women in peacekeeping forces will dramatically increase.

We know that the numbers of women in negotiations is very important. However, it has been easy to see that women who are negotiating on behalf of a central party in a conflict often are under pressure to make the party’s interests the first (and perhaps only) order of business and they also may have been selected for participation for that same reason. Because of this, women, particularly those representing women’s organizations, need to be brought in to the negotiations in a variety of ways and women need to head and be members of mediating teams.

There are so many excellent ideas about how the lives of women and girls can be dramatically improved. Of all the suggestions, we know that political will is of utmost importance. Countries also need to remember that a sufficient number of women and girls in a country’s core activities is only a starting point in centrally including women and girls in the life of the country.