UNSCR 1325: Lessons from Practitioners

This year is the 20th Anniversary of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325, which reflects the global commitment to the importance of women in building peace and security, and strong, inclusive societies. UNSCR 1325, and the nine UN resolutions that follow, recognize women’s central role in peace, security and stability; women’s right to be included in negotiations around war, peace and conflict resolution; and the importance of addressing the different needs of women and men in relief, recovery and post-conflict efforts.

Over the last several weeks, I met with several groups of international leaders visiting the U.S., all working in post-conflict countries to build peace and strengthen their countries’ institutions. Some of the participants were from urban areas; some from rural areas. Some are in government; some in civil society. These women and men — and many more like them — are key to efforts across the globe to make peace and security real in communities. Every day, they translate the rhetoric of the U.N. and governments to the lives of women, men, girls and boys. Their work defines and reflects the on-the-ground reality of this work.  

Here are some key takeaways:

  1. Every issue is relevant to women’s lives: Despite the global commitment of UNSCR 1325, we often hear that “women’s issues” will be dealt with once there is a peace agreement. That approach doesn’t work.When women are included in discussions and peace talks, women bring a broad set of issues and solutions to the table, and agreements last longer. The women I met over brought both policy expertise and knowledge of their communities. They were experts in criminal justice reform, environment and sustainability, and election systems. Their expertise, and the perspectives they bring, matters in terms of strong policy solutions and ensuring that everyone’s views are being considered. 
  2. Bringing women together who work on these issues is critically important. There are many lessons that women can learn from each other, from how to be an effective negotiator, how to represent community interests without being seen as partisan in peace negotiations, and how to engage men as part of these processes. It’s important that from various parts of the women, peace and security “ecosystem” understand how they complement each other’s roles: women in civil society raising issues and women in government drafting policies that bring those concerns and proposals to life.
  3. Women doing this work to build peace don’t always see the connections to work elsewhere. The UNSCR resolutions around women, peace and security provide a global and local framework for thinking about these complex issues and for analyzing progress. But women on the ground don’t always see their work as connected to that framework, or see what they do as part of a global movement. Ensuring that their work is chronicled and captured helps them see these connections and helps international actors understand the connections as well. 
  4. Supporting peace builders is essential and we must listen to what these peace builders need from us. Local context and local leadership matters. It’s critical to listen to, and support, local leaders. Women and men engaged in peacebuilding and conflict resolution take many risks. They live in conflict zones and communities that have often been torn apart. They put their lives on the line, and they also push boundaries around about what is possible to resolve a conflict. Members of the international community need to support what they do, in whatever ways peacebuilders identify. In some cases, it may be highlighting their work publicly; in some cases not.
  5. We ignore engaging men at our peril. Just as women are central to peace building and building strong post-conflict institutions, so are men. Many of the women I met with talked about what contributions they were making, but also how they work with men in their communities and countries to support women’s inclusion. Men need to be engaged so that they understand how communities can be rebuilt in a more equitable way following conflict. 

As we mark these last 20 years, and recommit to engaging women in peace and security, we need to keep learning from those who make this work real every day. They bring international commitments and resolutions to life.

Is U.S. Foreign Policy Feminist?

This is a year of milestones for women: the 25th Anniversary of the Beijing Conference on Women, the 20th Anniversary of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security, and the 100th Anniversary of women’s suffrage in the United States. In this context, Our Secure Future commissioned a poll of 1,500 registered voters in the U.S. to get a sense of how they view foreign policy decision-makers, whether they see themselves represented in that arena, and whether they consider themselves to be a feminist. The results illuminate some thinking on these issues and are useful to decision-makers and advocates alike as they develop and debate foreign and national security policy.

According to the poll, almost 60 percent of respondents do NOT think that those who have made U.S. foreign policy and national security decisions over the last decade generally share their beliefs and interests. 22 percent were unsure. Here are some more details:

  • There was a gap between women (55%) and men (64%). 
  • There was a wider gap between Democrats (50%) and Republicans (67%)/Independents (64%). 
  • There was an even wider gap between those who frequently watch MSNBC (44%) and Fox News (68%). 
  • Surprisingly, a greater percentage of white respondents (62%) do not feel represented in U.S. foreign policy and national security institutions than black (49%) or Hispanic (51%) respondents. 

The same poll showed that less than half (48%) of those surveyed think that women are sufficiently represented in the U.S. government when it comes to making decisions about foreign policy and national security. Additional details:

  • The largest gap was based on political party affiliation with 10 percent of Democrats and 73 percent of Republicans believing that women are sufficiently represented. Independents were split (42% yes/41% no)
  • There was also a gap between women (35%) and men (44%).
  • The widest gap was between those who frequently watch MSNBC (5%) and Fox News (74%).

The survey also found that party affiliation and age were affiliated with whether a respondent thinks of her/himself as a “feminist”.

  • 59 percent of Democrats said they consider themselves a feminist (62% for frequent MSNBC viewers), but just 7 percent of Republicans and frequent Fox News viewers did.
  • 50 percent of 18-34 year-olds said “yes” to the feminist label while 29 percent of those over 65 years did.
  • Black (47%) and Hispanic (49%) respondents were more likely to think of themselves as feminists than white ones (30%). 

This information — while preliminary — can help guide discussions and provide background for work being done to advance policy proposals around Women, Peace and Security, and a more inclusive foreign policy.   

Women Must Be Part of the Afghan Peace Process

Afghan women are leaders. They are central to building strong Afghan institutions and legal frameworks and creating opportunity for all Afghans. The current U.S. peace envoy, Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, would be well served to call on them, and their expertise, as he seeks an elusive peace in Afghanistan.

As part of any dialogue and debate about the future of Afghanistan, it is critical that the Afghan government, and Afghan citizens, be genuinely engaged in the process. This is not a process that should be reserved for the United States, some Afghan politicians, and the Taliban.

Broadly speaking, engaging Afghans means ensuring that there is genuine consultation with those who comprise today’s Afghanistan: men and women, young and old, people from every ethnic group and sector of society. Afghan power brokers have a role to play but they aren’t the only voice that must be heard. The Taliban do not represent the majority of Afghans, and their efforts to be seen as modern, and moderate, are questionable. For example, reports are that in districts controlled by the Taliban today, girls’ secondary schools are not operating and women cannot go to markets on their own.

Afghan women have made tremendous strides based on international investments and their own tenacity and agency. They are not victims, but leaders and change makers. They have been at the forefront of building a strong economy and a broad-based education system, and promoting the leadership of women across sectors.

It is critical that Afghan women are fully engaged and that their experience, talent, and expertise is brought to bear on all parts of the Afghan peace processes. To date, Afghan women have been generally excluded from the current talks. In a hopeful sign, earlier this week in Kabul, Khalilzad met with representatives of the Afghan Women’s Network, a coalition of 125 women’s rights organizations. At that meeting, he said that “women must be at the table during all negotiations about peace and Afghanistan’s future.” This is in line with the mandate of the Women, Peace and Security Act of 2017 which recognizes, as a matter of U.S.policy, the importance of women’s roles in peace negotiations and conflict resolution.

Research demonstrates that when women are engaged in peace talks, a peace agreement is 64 percent less likely to fail. The meaningful inclusion of women in peace processes increases by 35 percent the probability of an agreement lasting at least 15 years. This is in contrast to the overall durability of agreements that end conflict, with peace lasting only five years on average once conflict ends.

Engaging women in the peace process is about more than institutionalizing the tremendous progress Afghan women and girls have made. Although, the legal status of women and statistics are impressive. Increased access to education for girls is one of the most significant achievements since the defeat of the Taliban. Fifteen years ago, fewer than 5,000 girls were enrolled in primary school. Today, estimates are that three million girls are in primary school. Secondary schools have graduated at least 120,000 girls, and at least 15,000 have completed college. 36 percent of teachers are women. 6,000 women are judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, police officers, and soldiers. In government, as of early 2019, women hold 69 of 249 seats in parliament. Of 25 government ministers, four are women. Twelve of the 63 members of the Afghan High Peace Council are women. About 3,000 businesses in the country are owned and operated by women entrepreneurs.

Engaging women in the peace process is about tapping the expertise and legitimacy of Afghan women. These women have expertise in creating jobs, building a strong legal framework, and engaging large groups of Afghans in dialogue. For example, the Afghan Women’s Chamber of Commerce and Industry brings together women business owners from different sectors to advocate for legal reforms that open economic opportunities. Women for Afghan Women runs shelters for those who have been subject to gender-based violence and helps them navigate the legal system.

These women, and many more like them, have been involved in building their communities for years. They understand the situation on the ground in a way that is critical to a peace agreement that protects the rights of women and girls, and also reintegrates Taliban fighters and their sympathizers into the fabric of Afghan society

A stable, prosperous and secure Afghanistan is critical for everyone. Afghan women must speak for themselves, and for their fellow citizens, as part of the current dialogues.

Women Mediating Peace Talks: A Long Road to Parity

Last week, I was at Durham University in a setting made for a Harry Potter movie. I was there for an expert meeting on increasing the number of women high-level mediators, or special envoys, in peace negotiations led by the United Nations or other regional bodies. Between 1991 and 2011, the UN tracked 31 negotiations, and you can literally count the number of women chief mediators on one hand. At the same time, women have played other high-level mediation roles globally, as well as significant roles in conflict mediation at local levels, often negotiating safe passage for access to humanitarian assistance.

Increased global stability is inextricably tied to greater numbers of women mediators, negotiators, signatories and witnesses to peace talks. Women’s participation translates to more durable and longer lasting agreements. When women are engaged in the process, agreements are 64 percent less likely to fail, and 35 percent more likely to last 15 years.

This gathering comes at a critical time. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres is committed to increase the UN’s emphasis on conflict prevention and mediation and the number of women who serve in these roles globally. Over the last two years, three regional networks of women mediators have launched: a Nordic network, an African network and a Mediterranean network. We’ve seen more women negotiators, representing parties to conflict. In the Colombia peace process, women comprised 33 percent of negotiators overall, with women on both the government and FARC teams. And, there was a Gender Subcommission to review proposals and agreements. Here in the U.S., the Women, Peace and Security Act of 2017 has just been signed into law.

Here are my takeaways and lessons learned:

1) Political will supporting women special envoys is critical. Special envoys are usually former presidents, prime ministers, foreign ministers, or high-level diplomats, with strong political connections and diplomatic skills, and who are acceptable to parties to the conflict. There are enough women with experience and expertise to fill these roles. Governments and the international community need to be clear in advocating for specific women and publicly supporting those appointments.

2) UN Security Council Resolutions committing to more women mediators aren’t enough. There must be more action. Countries need to take concrete actions, such as enacting legislation (like the US Women, Peace & Security Act), signaling to those with responsibility that they are expected to nominate women, and ensuring that National Action Plans for Women, Peace and Security commit to increase women’s participation as mediators (only the NAPs of Ghana, Rwanda and Sweden do so).

3) The UN should provide incentives to countries that nominate women. Countries should put forward women who meet the criteria for these roles, including former presidents, prime ministers, foreign ministers, and high-level diplomats. Those at the UN with responsibility for receiving nominations can request gender balanced slates of nominees, require an explanation when slates do not have gender parity, and give more consideration to those on slates that do.

4) Networks of women mediators provide a pipeline. These networks span several regions and are growing. Many of the members are ready to serve as special envoys or high-level members of their teams. Identifying these women and ensuring they are on both formal and informal rosters is key to increasing their visibility, highlighting their suitability and providing access to key meetings and forums. Networks can also provide platforms for knowledge sharing and, if necessary, coaching to deepen skills.

5) We should broaden who we consider for service as a special envoy. In addition to the types of people who have served to date, we should also look at those who have mediated trade disputes, or those who have served as mediators in judicial settings. There are many women in these roles globally, with strong and tested dispute resolution skills.

Bottom line, there are women who can fill these roles. We have a Secretary-General committed to action, and it’s on all of us to make this a reality.

Q&A Angelic Young: Women Fundamental to Peace & Conflict Resolution

Over fifty percent of peace agreements fail within 5 years. But when women participate, agreements last anywhere from two to 15 years longer. Planning for women’s substantive engagement is fundamental to conflict resolution, mitigation and prevention. National Action Plans (NAPs) are a tool that governments can use to do just that. They make real the global commitment to women leading in peace processes, as set forth in UN Security Council Resolutions, starting with UNSCR 1325 (2000).

I recently spoke with Angelic Young, Director of National Action Plans at the Washington, DC-based Institute for Inclusive Security. Angelic is an expert on NAPs, how they work and the difference they make.

FOSTER: Why are National Action Plans important?

YOUNG: High-impact NAPs – detailed strategies created through an inclusive, consultative process – prompt meaningful changes in behavior, policies, and funding. They help hold governments accountable for promises and increase transparency.

Such strategies are a roadmap, taking us from Step A – acknowledging that women are not regularly included in formal peace negotiations — to Step Z – women are leading peace processes. It’s easy to agree that women should be included in decision-making; it’s another to map out how to get there. NAPs matter because they help us understand what intermediate actions will lead to better peace and security. Many countries have committed to reducing the gender gap, but more than 90% of countries with NAPs have made progress in doing so – and that’s significant.

FOSTER: Is there a common reason governments commit to a NAP?

YOUNG: There have been several waves of NAP development, and reasons vary. Some governments do this to demonstrate their commitment to democratic governance, human rights and rule of law to the international community. Others, especially those on their second, third or even fourth NAP, prioritize these plans because they consider advancing the status of women and girls integral to foreign policy and national security. Others use them to address very specific internal challenges. There isn’t a common reason, and I think that’s a good thing. NAPs ought to be adjusted to meet the specific needs dictated by the country context.

FOSTER: What is a good example of a NAP process? What is civil society’s role?

YOUNG: When a country is on the path to a high-impact NAP, they’ve addressed six key pillars: political will; design; coordination; civil society; monitoring and evaluation; and resources.

The gold standard is a NAP that is visibly supported by key leaders throughout the government, preceded by a needs assessment and designed in collaboration with civil society. It will have a defined mechanism for how activities will be coordinated across sectors, a monitoring and evaluation strategy for tracking both short and long-term results and dedicated budget.

I’ve yet to see a NAP that consistently meets the “gold” standard across all six pillars. There are still plenty that lack budgets and strategies for monitoring and evaluation. There’s an assumption, especially in countries with outwardly focused NAPs (e.g., countries providing foreign assistance to countries or regions experiencing conflict, rather than in conflict themselves), that there’s no need for a specific line item budget. Or, that monitoring and evaluation is just too difficult. Both are dangerous assumptions, in my experience, and lead to NAPs that are under-resourced and difficult to measure.

Inclusion of civil society is vital. For the past year or so, I’ve been providing technical support to the Jordanian National Commission for Women as Jordan launches its first NAP. JNCW began by establishing a National Coalition for the Implementation of UNSCR 1325, which consists of government, military and civil society. Civil society has been integral to NAP design from the beginning, and have helped ensure that the plan has clear priorities, timeframes, accountability measures and realistic budget.

FOSTER: Why should non-conflict or post-conflict countries develop a NAP?

YOUNG: Great question, and one I hear quite frequently. Resolution 1325 is often interpreted as only applying to countries directly affected by conflict, but in fact, it applies to ANY efforts to maintain and promote peace and security. That can include daily operations of a police force in a stable country, or contributions to peacekeeping. It can include care for refugees fleeing conflict. Peace and security is a globally shared responsibility. While a NAP in a country not directly affected by conflict might look different from a NAP in a country recovering from conflict, both are vital.

FOSTER: What about the U.S. NAP?

YOUNG: I have mixed emotions about the U.S. NAP. I was at the State Department when the NAP was first developed, so I have the experience being on the inside, and appreciate how challenging it is to create a strategy for the mammoth structure that is the U.S. government.

Still, if I’m perfectly objective, there are gaps. On the plus side, the U.S. NAP aligns well with U.S. foreign policy and national security priorities. Though I wish there was a more formal mechanism (like that in Jordan), the USG regularly solicits civil society input.

On the other hand, political will is inconsistent across agencies. The USG could also do better at engaging mid-level leaders. I’ve seen this with many similar strategies; you’ll have top-level cover, so to speak, and great support at the working level – but mid-level managers aren’t as involved as they ought to be; and they are key. The USG also lacks a formal coordination mechanism – my sense (from the outside) is that coordination happens on the backs of incredibly dedicated individuals; but there’s no enduring structure.

The two biggest concerns are monitoring and evaluation and resources. Measuring progress is complicated for the US, not the least because each agency takes different approaches to tracking performance. Still, a monitoring and evaluation strategy could help with this challenge, and I would like to see the US commit to creating one.

The largest issue is that there is no line-item budget. Without this, and in my experience, it means that vital training initiatives an agency might undertake can’t happen because there’s no money. It means that there aren’t dedicated NAP focal points in every sub-organization within every agency, because there’s no money for dedicated billets. I think the USG has done a remarkable job considering the lack of resources, but it’s quite disappointing that we don’t match our public posture with actual dollars.

FOSTER: Thank you.

Contact Us

+1.202.262.9743 – Stephenie Foster
+1.202.744.0892 – Susan Markham
smash@smashstrategies.com

Sign-Up for Our Newsletter



© Smash Strategies 2017 | All Rights Reserved