Summary of discussions at the 3rd annual Women Waging Peace Research Symposium

Introduction
Policymakers often ask for "proof" of whether and how women make a difference in peace building. Responding to the need for a strong academic foundation in this area, the Women Waging Peace (Waging) initiative established a research program to engage several academic disciplines, link gender research and theories of conflict prevention and resolution, and bring together women from multiple sectors. Most recently, in concert with the annual Women Waging Peace colloquium, the third annual research symposium took place from November 9 - 12, 2001, at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. Rita Manchanda, the Women Waging Peace representative for the India/Pakistan conflict area and a program executive for the South Asia Forum for Human Rights (SAFHR) in Kathmandu, Nepal, chaired the symposium. Over seventy researchers attended the three-day event, along with activists, scholars, and students from around the country and the world. Workshops, panels, and roundtables were designed to address the overarching question, "How do women make a difference in peace building?" The discussions revolved around the current roles women play, the effective strategies they use, and the challenges they face in waging peace. Building on the expansive experiences of the women in the Women Waging Peace network, the symposium was designed to give full play to the articulation of those experiences and to facilitate conceptualization in partnership with professional academics within and outside the Waging network.

At one level, the 2001 Research Symposium was oriented towards responding to the needs of the women in the Waging network, whether in terms of a heightened critical consciousness of the costs and benefits of pursuing certain strategies or a deeper understanding of how and why women make a difference in peace building. At another level, the partnership between activists and academics at the symposium was expected to contribute towards increased recognition by policy shapers that women do make a difference. An integral aspect of the Waging model is to challenge traditional foreign, developmental, and humanitarian policy paradigms and to get policymakers to recognize that women's perspectives, women's agency, and particularly women's ways of promoting peace do make a difference in early warning, conflict resolution, and conflict transformation.

The main focus for the symposium was to facilitate discussions that may lead to the production of an edited volume entitled "How Women Wage Peace." A series of closed workshops analyzed topics such as how women use their traditional identities to mobilize peace, gender-based violence, the role of women as community builders during warfare, adapting indigenous cultural practices to contain violence, and the crucial role of women in healing and reconciliation. The two-day workshops concluded with a closing plenary during which the delegates discussed the viable next steps for a project that will disseminate the conclusions of, and questions raised by, the workshops.

This report draws on the presentations and discussions among participants at the open roundtables and panels during the symposium.

Gender Identity and the Comparative Frameworks of Waging Peace
Several discussions addressed the role of gender differences in explaining how women differ from men in their peace building strategies. The evidence presented indicated that there is inconclusive and ambiguous evidence on the degree to which these differences are biological or cultural in nature, but that there are clearly marked contrasts in the ways women and men wage peace. These differences were debated at three levels: biological, behavioral, and relational.

A roundtable facilitated by Joshua Goldstein, Professor of International Relations at American University, and Richard Wrangham, Professor of Anthropology at Harvard University, explored the differences between men and women's proclivity to violence and peace from anthropological and biological angles. The debate centered on the question of why men have the demonstrated tendency to be more aggressive. Wrangham presented his research conducted on primates, specifically Chimpanzees and Bonobos, two comparable species that both have close similarities to the genetic make-up of humans. He suggested a biological link to explain aggressive behavior in Chimpanzees and peaceful behaviors in Bonobos. Researchers also argue that many aggressive tendencies in men are the result of gender norms created by culture. Goldstein points out that societies tend to equate masculinity with warrior-like qualities. They thus capitalize on biological tendencies and train men to become more violent.

Jane Mansbridge, Faculty Chair of the Women and Public Policy Program and Adams Professor of Political Leadership and Democratic Values at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government, led a discussion of what it means to be a woman in different societies and cultures. Highlighting some of the known biological and cultural differences between males and females, she reflected on the attitudes and behaviors that define gender differences. Mansbridge concluded that one of the few robust findings is that at the present time, among the professional classes in the US (the only group carefully studied so far), women are more likely to have participatory leadership, consultative, and non-hierarchical styles. Most biological differences between the sexes, such as upper-body strength, testosterone levels, and even conception, can rarely be viewed as absolute constraints that cannot be modified by behavior changes and technological advances. Inventions such as the rubber nipple in the 1930s, the advent of contraception, and the non-physical nature of most working environments of the developed world today are all ways in which society has overcome the natural tendencies of biological make-up to encourage certain gendered behaviors. It also becomes clear that gender differences in attitudes and behaviors arise from differences in social roles, established through social cues such as imitation, praise, and discouragement. Culture in turn evolves from a society's decision-making process, which directly or indirectly tries to shape and give meaning to human biology. The studies showing differences in leadership styles, interpersonal communication (women tend to be less assertive in language used and better at interpreting body language), and other traits are mostly restricted to western populations and do not investigate causes, such as power disparities, that derive from differential access to resources. These relationships could vary in different cultural settings, historical periods, and geographical regions.

Discussion at the roundtable facilitated by Rita Manchanda, Program Executive of the South Asia Forum for Human Rights, and Rina Amiri, Senior Research Associate at the Women and Public Policy Program, centered on the impact of "politicized religion" on women's roles and identities in South Asia, particularly Afghanistan. Participants agreed that although religion can be a restoring force for peace, politicizing it could reinforce violence against women who could be shunned for shedding their traditional identity. Amiri pointed to the "veil politics" that throughout the years have created divisions among women into so-called pro-western modernists and fundamental traditionalists. Women have thus far failed to create an overarching identity that can be used as a forceful political tool.

Another roundtable, facilitated by Alison Des Forges, a consultant to the Africa division of Human Rights Watch, looked at the role women play in an African context. Des Forges described how, in her various research experiences in places like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda, and Burundi, women were the main victims of conflict. They suffered from atrocities such as rape, exposure to HIV/AIDS, and loss of their social structure. Most importantly, however, they were also figures of resistance and courage, taking the lead in efforts to build peace and demand justice. A proverb in Rwanda that translates, "women have no ethnic root," is used to signify the extraordinary ambassadorial role of women in bridging ties among conflict factions through, among other things, marriage and bonds of friendship.

Building on one of the main themes of the colloquium, another research symposium panel addressed the role of women in transitional justice process. Women take on critical responsibilities in the reconstruction efforts. Their roles as caretakers of the elderly (learning about the past) and of children (relating stories for the future) also make them key transmitters of stories. Indeed, one discussant noted that when reparations are made, women's roles are completely recast and they are no longer remembered as fighters, organizers in resistance, and community builders but are instead only represented as the daughters, sisters, and mothers of men whose stories are being told. Since a major part of transitional justice process is the documentation of stories of victimhood and human rights abuses, it was stressed that women's true experiences, such as rape during war, have to be made integral to the "collective story."

Strategies Women Use to Get Issues on the Table
Women continue to make significant contributions to the promotion of peace in their societies. They often strive, sometimes inadvertently, to nurture non-violence by applying strategies that focus on human security as opposed to state supremacy as an ultimate vision for peace. Numerous roundtable and panel discussions addressed some of the strategies that women use to mobilize efforts at the local, national, and international levels.

Deborah Kolb, Professor of Management and Co-Director of the Center for Gender in Organizations at Simmons College Graduate School of Management, presented research setting a framework within which women can become more effective negotiators, build their skills, and gain access to the negotiating table. Women need to make their influence felt not only in the actual negotiation but also in the "shadow" of negotiation that sets the agenda and conditions for negotiation. Women have to 1) be aware of these unspoken attitudes and agendas; 2) articulate clearly what they want; 3) be aware of the needs and goals of the opposite side; and 4) be creative in constructing solutions and alternatives.

Angela Raven Roberts, Director of the Feinstein International Famine Center at Tufts University, described in a roundtable discussion one of the Center's projects that focuses on the pastoral communities in the African countries of Kenya, Uganda, Ethiopia, Somalia, and Sudan. A video that Roberts showed depicted the evolution of a movement of nomadic women in Uganda to safeguard their communities from cattle raids and violence. These pastoral communities had been marginalized by their local and national government officials. Increasing violence, resulting from the importing of guns to protect cattle, created unprecedented injuries, amputations, and deaths, leading to an overall state of destitution and fear without any intervention and protection from the government. The veterinarian who cared for the cattle came to be involved with the economic, health, and safety concerns of the pastoral communities and helped the women express their concerns. Following their tradition of singing with women from other communities, the women inspired one another to speak out. Through such positive interactions, the focus of their discussions became their rights and the absent role of the state. Their efforts brought the attention of local policymakers and government officials to a constituency that had been completely ignored before. Women from this community have developed an increased role in securing lasting peace for their community. They now face the challenge of sustaining the political space they have created.

In the international arena, progress has been made in the passing of the historic and radical United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325. Jennifer Klot, Senior Governance Advisor at UNIFEM, and Judith Stiehm, Professor of Political Science at Florida International University, facilitated a roundtable on the resolution. Stiehm reviewed the process that led to its adoption. Klot explained that this is the first time women's issues have been addressed by the Security Council, thus making it the first time they have been included in the political agenda of the international community rather than the development and human rights agendas. The discussion centered around the limitations and challenges of the resolution, stressing the importance of increasing women's participation in constitutional, electoral, and judicial reform. The resolution acknowledges for the first time the critical and alternative efforts of women in the peace process. It has brought about the realization that women are impacted differently by conflict and that it is therefore necessary to have a direct presence of women at the negotiating table. However, along with providing women peace builders the legitimacy of functioning under the authority of the Security Council, the resolution also provides an entry point for gender perspectives in other United Nations organizations and international agencies. The momentum built thus far must be sustained by the continued political support of Security Council members and the efforts of women's groups and organizations in pushing their agendas forward. Participants agreed that the success of the resolution depends on identifying key priorities on which to act.

Women are most successful in finding alternative ways to make their voices heard. The Burundi peace process exemplifies the power women can gain by identifying their common gender interests in difficult circumstances. The movement was initiated when UNIFEM asked a team of women advisors attending the negotiations to speak about their experiences. Excluded from the main conference, they held a women's All Party Conference, thus opening a forum for them to freely relay their experiences. Unlike the male dominated conference, this meeting was held with no insults or shouting and a consensus was reached in two days on common gender issues of concern that they were prepared to present at the main conference.

Moving forward, several issues came up as important in planning successful strategies:

• Considering the resources available, women's groups need to carefully assess the level on which they want to focus their efforts to be effective politically. For example, their agendas have to be explicitly drafted to reflect whether their work is at the grassroots level, creating a parallel agenda to the main peace process, or whether their focus is to engage policymakers at the international level.
• Women must understand how to frame their agendas in politically meaningful ways so as to survive the challenges put forth by other parties, such as civilian police, peacekeeping personnel, and political parties.
• International peacekeeping efforts, military forces, and police forces must institute training to ensure gender sensitivity and human rights awareness.
• Women need to gain expertise on issues and areas that they have not normally pursued, such as constitutional, electoral, and judicial reform.
• It is critical to push the notion that those who are not willing to fight should not be excluded from peace negotiations. Democratic principles should be followed by including all affected institutions as part of the solution.
• To have sustained impact on the peace process and reconstruction, women groups cannot work in isolation but need to build alliances with other women's movements.
• If excluded from the main negotiating table, women need to use alternative parallel processes to push their agendas.
• Women need to learn how to engage in diplomacy and the political processes of governments and international organizations such as the UN. It is important for women and women's groups to document their work and even more critical to get it to the right people.
• Women need to think ahead beyond the negotiation phase to the implementation and reconstruction phases.

The Ethics and Methodology of Research
Ivan Arreguin-Toft, Peace and Security Fellow at the Woman and Public Policy Program, facilitated a roundtable on the research methodologies in the field of gender and security. Participants took the opportunity to debate the challenges that researchers and activists face in trying to work with each other on the ground. Questions were raised on how to "measure the immeasurable," forge new relationships between the researchers and communities, and report back useful information to the communities being studied. Research is an important tool that provides substantiated evidence of the changes that need to be made and is also a powerful teaching tool. However, it has to be "de-mystified" and used to empower communities to understand and address their problems. Another point consistently raised was the importance of participatory, bottom-up research methods that are inclusive of the communities' needs. Delegates expressed their frustration that academics often came to their communities to conduct research without striving to make their work applicable to the needs of those in the conflict area. Some participants voiced their fears of academic research in their communities and stressed the importance of partnerships between local activists and academics to promote successful outcomes for all parties. Participants pointed out that commissioned research may often benefit the communities studied, and combining research with advocacy helps disseminate results to a wider audience.

A group of activists and researchers with Women Waging Peace have worked to provide some preliminary principles on the ethics of research as the foundation for a new relationship between researchers and women activists in conflict zones. Building on Simona Sharoni's "Doing Research On/With Women in Conflict Zones: Some Ethical Considerations" (see bibliography), the guidelines have been refined and expanded by Women Waging Peace members. This year, at a roundtable discussion facilitated by Jane Mansbridge, participants reviewed the guidelines put forth in previous years, laid out ideas for their dissemination (including translating the guidelines into different languages), and finalized the recommendations for the Ethics of Research Guidelines.

Women Leaders Speak: Can Women Make a Difference?
One of the highlights of the symposium was the Saturday afternoon panel, which included Hina Jilani, Secretary General of Human Rights Commission of Pakistan and UN Special Representative on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders; Luz M�ndez, General Coordinator of the National Union of Guatemalan Women; and Thandi Modise, Chairperson of the South African Parliament's Portfolio Committee on Defense and member of the ANC. Sanam Anderlini, former Senior Policy Advisor at International Alert, chaired the panel. These women leaders spoke from personal experience on how women can make a difference in peace building and how they can attain and sustain leadership roles. Throughout the discussion several points were addressed:

• Several examples from places such as Guatemala and South Africa suggest that women tend to stress mediation over continued violence.
• Women's involvement is critical to any peace process, since along with their peacemaking efforts they bring to the table critical issues such as sexual harassment that would not have normally been addressed.
• It is important that women in the political process lobby to include more women in government and that women's concerns be addressed.
• During and after overt conflict, women often break free from certain cultural barriers and take up new roles. Once peace is established, women face being pushed back into their "normal" roles and excluded from the reconstruction and development of their societies. Women thus need to sustain and safeguard their space to continue becoming effective peace builders. They can accomplish this by continuing their advocacy work, training in the political process, and engaging the international community.
• The absence of war doesn't mean there is peace for women. Human rights must be maintained in post-conflict reformation and should address issues such as rape.
• Refugee camps and the rights of the internally displaced must be integrated in any peace process. Programs should be instituted to empower and make use of the human resources available at these refugee camps.
• It is critical to link the women's movement with the peace movement through national machinery and international engagement. Linking rural and urban groups will create a more powerful voice on common concerns.
• Training programs are crucial in including women in the political process. In Cambodia, for example, there was an extensive campaign to train over 5500 women on how to run for their local elections. Training was valuable to educating women in rural areas about exclusionary laws that impede their participation, such as the requirement of being a member of a political party to qualify in the elections. Programs also provided information on how to make decisions, campaign management, and public speaking.

See also:

Session Descriptions
Facilitators and Panelists
Workshop Excerpts

return to top