Gender and Armed Conflict – an Overview Report By Armani El Jack BRIDGE |
Executive Summary Armed conflict negatively affects women and men and results in gender-specific disadvantages, particularly for women that are not always recognised or addressed by the mainstream, gender-blind understandings of conflict and reconstruction. Gender inequality reflects power imbalances in social structures that exist in pre-conflict periods and are exacerbated by armed conflict and its aftermath. The acceptance of gender stereotypes is one of the main reasons that such gender blindness persists. Stereotypical perceptions of roles Stereotypical interpretations shape and are shaped by social, political, economic, cultural and religious contexts. Armed conflict encourages expectations that men will fight and women will support them on the ‘home front’. The popular perception is that men are soldiers or aggressors and women are wives, mothers, nurses, social workers and sex-workers. It is true that it is primarily men who are conscripted and killed in battle, but women make up the majority of civilian casualties and suffer in their role as caregivers, due to a breakdown of social structures (Byrne 1996). However, women are also combatants, as evidenced in Sri Lanka and Liberia, and men are also victims. These realities have consequences for gender relations, which often go unnoticed and unresolved. Gendered impacts of armed conflict The impacts of armed conflict on gender relations are significant. Forced displacement and gender-based violence (GBV) are two examples of impacts that are not inevitable outcomes of armed conflict, but rather are deliberate strategies of war that destabilise families and communities. Physical and sexual violence, particularly towards women and children, occur with greater regularity during and after armed conflict. Women experience rape and forced pregnancy, forced sex work and sexual slavery, often at the hands of ‘peacekeepers’, police or occupying forces, as occurred in Bosnia. Although men are the primary perpetrators of violence towards women and children, it is important to note that men too are subject to victimisation and violence, including sexualised violence. International laws and institutions Gender differences are entrenched within public and private institutions that intervene to end armed conflict and build peace (El-Bushra 2000a, Kabeer 1994). International organisations such as the United Nations (UN), governments and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) vary from ignoring women or taking a gender-blind approach, to treating women stereotypically. Still others look at women without a consideration of women’s relative inequality in the context of gender relations. Often where the term ‘gender’ is used, the focus still tends to be on women and girls without taking into account the ways in which gender inequality and power imbalances between women and men exacerbate their disadvantage. Impacts of armed conflict such as forced displacement and GBV are not understood as human rights violations, but rather as cultural or private issues that are best left alone. Furthermore, many governments have yet to ratify the international commitments designed to protect the human rights of women and girls during and after armed conflict. Lack of recognition or enforcement prevents any real progress towards gender equality. Mainstreaming gender concerns into conflict resolution and interventions Interventions, such as humanitarian assistance and disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration (DDR) programmes for ex-combatants, exacerbate gender inequality if they are administered in gender-blind ways. Mainstreaming gender awareness into the structures that govern armed conflict and post-conflict reconstruction requires better cooperation between international institutions, states and NGOs. If we are to build more equal post-conflict societies, it is particularly important to involve women’s organisations at the decision-making level in the formation of political and legal structures. Indeed, the all-encompassing upheaval caused by armed conflict creates the potential to redefine gender relations in the post-conflict period in more gender equitable ways. But without greater support for organisations and interventions that promote gender equality in all sectors, there is a high risk that long-standing patterns of oppression will be re-established. Recommendations The report makes a number of recommendations: Take the lead from the local: Interventions need to be based on context-specific evidence about what women and men are doing, and not on stereotypical interpretations of gender roles and relations that presume to know what they should be doing. Interventions should involve local organisations – particularly women’s groups – in decision-making capacities. Outreach and support designed to assist families and communities adjust to shifting gender roles and relations should be assessed on the local level to ensure they are appropriate to the particular community or region. The programmes of states and international organisations must also reflect the concerns and priorities expressed by local populations. Improve implementation of existing international laws by international institutions and states, particularly in terms of recognition of impacts of armed conflict such as forced displacement, impoverishment and GBV as violations of human rights and not as private, cultural concerns that are unavoidable outcomes of war. Implementation and enforcement of UN Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 1325 would represent a significant step forward. Increase funding to specialised services that deal with the distinct needs of women and men who suffer violent impacts of armed conflict such as rape and torture. For women, specialised services must include counselling and outreach to manage gynaecological/reproductive health concerns related to rape, forced pregnancy and sex work. More health and counselling services should also be made available for men who move away from masculine, stereotypical gender roles or resist violence and combat and, as a result, become victims of physical and sexual violence. Involve women and provide gender training: The involvement of women is necessary but does not in itself guarantee that gender concerns will be addressed or that women are automatically gender-aware. Training in identifying and addressing gendered concerns is important for everyone involved in post-conflict reconstruction. Peacekeepers in particular must receive tailored gender training in order to build trust with communities, as well as to minimise the threat of sexual and physical violence from peacekeepers themselves. Without a proper understanding of how gender roles and relations are shifting, we jeopardise the goal of a sustainable and peaceful post-conflict society. Greater cooperation is needed between all the actors involved in conflict and post-conflict reconstruction to address the power imbalances that lead to gender inequality. Without significant steps towards gender equality, there can be no real or meaningful peace. Executive summary written by Lata Narayanaswamy. (…) 5.1 Human rights versus human security Human rights Historically, mainstream definitions of human rights, while seemingly gender neutral, have been predominantly based on men’s experiences. Article two of the 1948 UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognises human rights as a universal ideal of respect for humanity that all people are entitled to, but does not make any specific mention of women. Indeed, few governments and NGOs are committed in domestic or foreign policies to women’s equality as a basic human right (Peters and Wolper 1995). In zones of conflict, the denial of women’s human rights has reinforced oppression and discrimination. When combined with other forms of power imbalance, this denial has more devastating consequences. An emphasis on human rights is important but insufficient in dealing with issues related to gender equality. Violations that occur during all stages of armed conflict are often considered simply to be the consequences of war and not necessarily human rights violations, and are frequently overlooked: Although armed conflicts violate the basic right to life and security, women experience specific vulnerabilities and violence including forced pregnancy, sexual mutilation and sexual slavery at the hands of soldiers (Anderlini 2001). Similarly, men may be physically or sexually abused or experience trauma after witnessing this type of abuse against family members. These types of violations are seen as ‘private’ issues or unavoidable outcomes of conflict as opposed to human rights violations. Human rights are also violated in conflict through imprisonment, torture, disappearances and forced conscription but, again, these acts are considered to be inevitable outcomes of war rather than violations. Women and men experience violations of human rights in distinct ways. Men of combat age constitute the majority of those killed during fighting, endure imprisonment and are forcibly conscripted. Meanwhile, women and children in conflict zones constitute the majority of civilian casualties as well as the majority of those displaced and impoverished (Byrne 1996). Political representation and participation are basic human rights. But whether in conflict or not, political institutions frequently exclude women. Women are under-represented in national and international organisations in both conflict and post-conflict arenas (UNDP 2002). This violation of human rights is not defined as such, but rather, is seen as a reflection of ‘normal’, patriarchal structures of power in play. Therefore, it is rarely questioned, particularly during armed conflict. In short, human rights approaches will continue to overlook serious violations unless they recognise the gendered effects of armed conflict as basic rights violations and not as private, normal or inevitable consequences of armed conflict. Human security Human security relates to the safety of people (particularly disadvantaged people) from ‘such chronic threats as hunger, disease and repression . . . [and] from sudden and hurtful disruptions in the patterns of daily life – whether in homes, in jobs or in communities’ (UNDP 1994: 23). The human security approach is based on the assumption that all people ‘have basic human rights and should enjoy these rights regardless of who and where they are’ (ibid). In the context of gender, the term implies that all women and men are entitled to security, including economic security, food security, and health and environmental security (ibid). Feminist perspectives on human security draw a further link between sustainable development, social justice and the protection of human rights and capabilities as central aspects of any discussion of human security (AWID 2002). A human security focus for studying gender and conflict is significant because it establishes a link between gender equality and human security. Unlike a focus on rights, the human security approach implies that anything that threatens security is a violation of human rights, including gender-specific violations long considered to be normal, private or inevitable outcomes of war. However, even with the security framework, in practice there will still be resistance to recognition of these violations. A human security approach is also problematic, insofar as it can be appropriated by states and multilateral organisations for their own agendas (Enloe 1993). The attacks on the World Trade Center in the US on 11 September 2001, for example, have become a pretext for the racist depiction of Muslims and people from the Middle East in the name of ‘homeland security’. Current developments within US foreign policy strongly suggest that human security will continue to be used to justify wars such as those against Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003. 5.2 International law, resolutions and conventions The human rights of women (and girls) are embodied in a number of international human rights instruments and international humanitarian laws. These instruments collectively condemn all forms of violence against women. Many of them also contain specific references to the inclusion of a ‘gender component’ in ‘peace and security’, most notably UNSC Resolution 1325, the Windhoek Declaration: Namibia Plan (UN 2000).These laws and resolutions stress that those negotiating and implementing peace agreements should adopt a gender-sensitive perspective and address the protection and rights of women and girls during conflict and in post-conflict reconstruction. What is UN Security Council Resolution 1325?
In October of 2000, the UN Security Council held a debate on Women, Peace and Security, which led to the passage of Security Council Resolution 1325 on 31 October 2000. Among other things, the Resolution recognises that an understanding of the impact of armed conflict on women and girls and effective institutional arrangements to guarantee their protection and full participation in the peace process, can significantly contribute to international peace and security. The UN calls on all parties involved in conflict and peace processes to adopt a gender perspective. This will include supporting local women’s peace initiatives and indigenous processes for conflict resolution. The NGO Working Group on Women, Peace and Security is working to ensure the implementation and raise the visibility of UNSC Resolution 1325 and incorporate more women in peace and security issues. The complete resolution is available in the Supporting Resources Collection that accompanies this report or online at: The language of ‘gender’ in Resolution 1325 UNSC Resolution 1325 on Women Peace and Security is undeniably a breakthrough for establishing broader human rights guidelines, particularly for women’s human rights, at the international level. Unfortunately, the resolution does not provide much guidance on what a ‘gender perspective’ consists of, and where the term ‘gender’ is used, it is used interchangeably with ‘women and girls’. It denies many of the gendered concerns that arise in armed conflict. These concerns require an understanding of how existing power imbalances between women and men are experienced during and after armed conflict and how these inequalities might be removed to improve gender relations. 5.3 Why are there difficulties in implementation and enforcement? Although the importance of these laws, resolutions, conventions and commitments must not be understated, they are limited in their application. International commitments are difficult to enforce in practice because of the limited interpretations of human rights that deny various forms of gender-specific violations, as discussed in the previous section. Also, a range of cultural, historical and patriarchal justifications exist for the exclusion of gendered concerns in both human rights and human security approaches. This oversight is reflected in the use of language in international laws, in that emphasis is placed on women and girls in isolation as opposed to gender and gender relations. Furthermore, many states have yet to ratify these international commitments. Finally, despite the availability of this information, communication and information sharing with respect to these laws and commitments within organisations and between policymakers and grassroots organisations has been poor. Even where equal rights and security are recognised in theory, the practice remains unequal because women and men do not have equal opportunities to claim these rights, due to differential access to economic, political and legal resources. At all levels, there is a need for laws, resolutions, strategies and interventions that specifically target the differential access to resources and opportunities. Implementing and institutionalising gendered human security and human rights approaches into policies requires the commitment of resources and the development of strategies that effectively overcome gender bias. Civil society, particularly women’s organisations, can play a role in raising awareness and ensuring governments and NGOs are held accountable. Through the mobilisation of and cooperation between all actors concerned with armed conflict and reconstruction, we have a better chance of addressing the power imbalances that lead to unequal gender relations and establishing a long-lasting, sustainable peace. (…)
BRIDGE (development – gender) NOTE: The article is an excerpt from the BRIGDE PUBLICATION “Gender and Armed Conflict – an Overview Report” by Armani El Jack. See the full text at: http://www.bridge.ids.ac.uk/reports_gend_con_em.htm BRIDGE can provide further gender and development material in English, through our websites or by contacting them:
BRIDGE (development - gender)
|
 |
