Suicide bombers, murderers, rapists, mothers and wives; women wear many hats in peace and in conflict. Undoubtedly, women are not always the victim in times of unrest, just as men are not always the perpetrators. We know that women have participated in the atrocities of war. However, they have also been able to build bridges of peace where some men were not able to. We see historically that women have made great strides in terms of how they affect their communities, from peace marching in Chechnya to fighting for ceasefires in Liberia. Although we know that women have participated in these acts, why don’t we then see them as active participants when it comes to policy making within the states they are willing to fight for? How can women positively influence post-conflict peace and lasting stability? Women’s participation in policy and peacemaking can mean all the difference, if they are just given the chance to show that they can.
Historically, women have been forced into the confines of culture and society, staying behind as wife and mother, which has too often become synonymous with being silent and submissive. Women have seen war first hand as fighters, but more often as victims. Women have had to stay in their homes, which were also the front lines, waking up to villages burnt down, family and friends murdered, and children victims of sexual abuse. Cultural conflict has divided not only particular regions but also the world as a whole. People want answers, and oftentimes those who seek answers are the women at home, who must endure the discovery that their sons in battle have died or gone missing. It doesn’t matter so much at this time whose side they were on or what they were fighting for, the result is the same.
Women see and feel the same terrors of war as men do, arguably more than men do. They often stay home and see the battle, left with thoughts of their loved ones involved, or having to play a passive role in the conflict itself. They are sexually abused, houses are raided or burned down and every day is a new beginning that may end tragically. The Liberian Women’s Initiative (LWI) was started by women in Liberia who were tired of the conflict that was taking place at their front doors. The conflict started between the various ethnic groups in that region and their fight for natural resources. We have seen many times that migration patterns and displaced persons have often created conflict in regions due to resource scarcity however, what was coming from the terror and brutality?
The Liberian women of this region were growing tired of what they were witnessing day in and day out. Their families were being torn apart; they couldn’t properly care for their children and were forced to leave their homes at times due to gunfire or bombings. They had to witness the young boys in their regions forced to join the “Small Boys Units” where they were forced to take drugs and participate in acts they did not want to do. The Liberian women were growing tired of what their lives had become and what they had to witness for their children. It was time to stand up to this conflict to make a difference for the better, but what could they do and who would listen?
Organized resistance began in a women’s church group. A member had taken a strong stance: she expressed her frustrations and demanded change. The other women were compelled to join in: they all felt the same pains and concerns. They may have not known each other, but they all knew each other’s pain. Ultimately, this is what brought them together to create the LWI. An unlikely ally in this group of Christian women was a Muslim, who shared the same frustrated emotions and urgent goals as the group. She stood before the group and expressed her alliance with these women. Then she announced that she would also take this message of solidarity amongst women and transmit it to her Muslim sisters, which she did.
We seldom see in history two groups of differing religious affiliations come together to fight for the same thing. They were able to focus on their similarities while putting differences aside, so they could fight for the greater good of their communities. This greater good would not only benefit the women, it would also benefit the men. The LWI began peacefully protesting, demanding a change in their government and demanding that they speak with their president, Charles Taylor. Not only did these women stand up to their government, their president and violent combatants, they set a productive and inspiring example of differing faiths coming together to make their shared community a better and safer place. If these women could do it, why couldn’t other groups of Liberians, as well as people of divergent views around the world, do the same?
Other examples of these mass demonstrations of peace come from thousands of miles away, in Ireland, where mothers and wives provided food to Irish families affected by conflict during the time of the Troubles, from the late 1960’s to 1998. This caused disorder in the British military, as these women were not focused on fighting, but rather on helping those who were most affected by the violence. These women knew that they were disavowed from the conflict itself, but that did not preclude them from helping their countrymen in need. Two women from Northern Ireland, Mairead Corrigan and Betty Williams, took action and demanded peace after the death of Corrigan’s sisters, three children and another young bystander who were killed amongst the violence from the conflict.
Calling for peace seems like something that should come naturally, as it benefits everyone, yet it often seems to be more difficult than waging war. Women haven’t been included in peace talks, as it has been thought that including women means they would talk mainly about women’s rights and equality rather than the martial issues at hand. According to a former U.S. ambassador to Africa, there is discrimination against women when it comes to policymaking as “the impact of decisions made at the table are rarely considered through the experiences of women who have lived with them.” (Anderllini, 62)
The complex issues around war demand complex and nuanced solutions. As mentioned by Anderlini, peace talks often send men back to a home where their wives and children are more used to their absence than their presence. All these men know is war, so they often begin to wage it in the confines of their own home, in the form of domestic violence, severe alcoholism and acute drug abuse.
This reality is often ignored or underplayed when policymaking and peace talks are discussed by men alone. Men engaged in “peace talks” are the same who perpetrate violence behind enemy lines. Thus we know that transitioning to a “normal” life after battle isn’t always as easy as it sounds, not just for the perpetrators but for the victims of violence as well. Though the argument has been made that some women in war zones have detached themselves from the conflict, this does not mean that they cannot be forthcoming and responsive to the societal ills that result from the violence. Swanee Hunt, former U.S. ambassador to Austria, says of the conflict in Bosnia: “Women…disavowed the violence…but they leaned forward, rather than pulling back, to confront the challenges of postwar Bosnia.” Swanee argues that, precisely because the war was not a women’s war, it is the women who are best equipped to shape the peace.
Women have the ability to positively influence post-conflict peace and can bring fresh ideas to crafting lasting stability, if they are given the chance and taken seriously. According to Hunt and Posa, research in the social sciences show that women are more collaborative than men and are more capable of reaching a consensus and compromise, something that is necessary for peacemaking. Women are well suited to “walk the walk and talk the talk” when it comes to living in peace, whereas men in positions of power may say one thing and then act in a totally different manner, as they are often swayed by other men in politics who have varying agendas. Men in war zones have a hard time getting on the same page, which makes productive compromises in the name of peace very difficult. In the article Irish Talks: Men Posture, Women Progress, Monica McWilliams, a delegate in Northern Ireland's all-party peace talk said: “Some of the men at the table think that compromise is a weak word, we believe we can show it to be a very strong word indeed.” (McWilliams, 1996).
Women are sometimes involved in the conflicts themselves, as we have seen in the Rwandan genocide as well as within the ranks of the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka. However, their inclusion in peace can often bring more women together, as well as shed light on issues at home that others might not be aware of. It is important for all people involved in a conflict to come together to find a common ground, including the fighters on each side. The women who reside in war-afflicted regions such as Uganda, Rwanda and Palestine cannot ask their fighters to simply retreat and go home, with only memories of war. The fighters’ homes, villages and familiar cityscapes were often the front lines. They now need to find new places to call home and rebuild communities anew. Moving on from a war zone involves more than just ceasing fire; it demands a total rebuilding from the ashes of terror and death.
The roles that women can play in peace talks are myriad. As mentioned above, there have been arguments made that women should not be involved in peace talks, as they have not taken part in the conflict itself. Additionally, there have been arguments made that women are not well versed enough in politics to make a stand for policies and peace. While this may be the case for some women, there are many exceptions. These exceptions include the Liberian Women’s Initiative, the women of Northern Ireland, and all the other powerful women who have made their positons heard, even amongst those who did not believe them worthy of a voice. “If Muslims or Hindus, Jews or any particular race of people were systematically absent, there would be an outcry and accusations of prejudice and oppression. Yet exclusion on the basis of sex is readily tolerated.” (Anderlilni, 62) Toleration is the issue at hand. For too long have women stood by while men make decisions for them. We assume that just because people are in the government and involved with policymaking, this means they have the ability to make the right call for all the stakeholders involved. This is not always the case, of course, as the mother’s loss of a child, or the burning down of a village is often not the lived experience of those making the decisions. As Betty Williams said during her Nobel Peace Prize speech: “As far as we are concerned, every single death in the last eight years, and every death in every war that was ever fought represents life needlessly wasted, a mother's labor spurned." (Williams, 1976)
As we have learned, war isn’t just a man’s game. Women are just as involved, if sometimes in differing capacities, and thus peace does not have to be decided only by men. Women can make a positive difference in crafting a sustainable future for war-torn communities. Men and women, together, can bridge the gaps between gender, society and culture.
War is ever changing, and so too should be our approach to peace. Instead of governments excluding women’s voices at the negotiating table, they should be willing to hear many different ideas for a ceasefire, as well as how to maintain stability in communities after conflicts. Instead of holding biology against those who can make a difference in post-war community building, embrace all the voices who were affected by the violence. We must evolve on who we allow to negotiate peace. Without evolution, the world would not be where it is today. Women would not have the right to vote in the United States, nor would they be able to drive in Saudi Arabia. The science and art of conducting peace talks and crafting post-war stability would be much more advanced than it is now, had there been adequate inclusion of women to begin with. But it is not too late to begin.
References
Anderlini, Sanam Naraghi. Women Building Peace: What They Do, Why It Matters. Lynne Rienner Publishing, 2007.
Hunt, Swanee, and Cristina Posa. “Women Waging Peace.” Foreign Policy, no. 124, 2001, p. 38., doi:10.2307/3183189.
Karim, Sabrina. “Restoring Confidence in Post-Conflict Security Sectors: Survey Evidence from Liberia on Female Ratio Balancing Reforms.” British Journal of Political Science, vol. 49, no. 3, 2017, pp. 799–821., doi:10.1017/s0007123417000035.
Wynne-Jones, Ros. “Irish Talk: Men Posture, Women Progress .” The Independent, vol. 1996, 16 June 1996.