The United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1325, which calls for the protection of women’s rights and participation in peace negotiations and post-conflict reconstruction, was a result of lobbying by the global women’s peacebuilding movement. While it has been successful in highlighting the importance of addressing women’s experiences in times of conflict, the UNSC has unwittingly resorted to gender essentialism by ignoring women’s roles as agents in processes of conflict and peace.

This CAI paper gives a broad overview of the resolution and its limitations, particularly within the African context. It then explores the shortcomings of the resolution’s sexual violence framework with examples from conflict-affected countries in Africa. The paper concludes that ignoring women’s roles as agents of peace — or as perpetrators of violence — is counterproductive to the goals of UNSCR 1325.

UNSCR 1325 and its limitations

The first global debate on the issue of women in conflict took place at the Third World Conference on Women in Nairobi in 1985, after lobbying by women’s and civil society organisations. But it was only a decade later, at the Fourth World Conference in Beijing in 1995, that women achieved a real breakthrough. The Beijing Platform of Action placed emphasis on the effects of war and conflict on women and the important role that the latter play in sustainable peacebuilding. However, a review of the implementation of the Beijing Platform for Action in 2000 found that the issue of women and armed conflict had not been adequately addressed.⁽²⁾ As a result of a subsequent meeting on Women, Peace and Security in October 2000, UNSCR 1325 came into being. Resolution 1325 covers three themes of importance in incorporating a gendered perspective on conflict and peacebuilding: increased participation of women in decision-making at all levels of conflict prevention and resolution; protection of women and girls from gender-based violence; and adding a gender perspective to all peace operations, negotiations and agreements.⁽³⁾

However, Resolution 1325 has also come under criticism from various angles, the most common being that it fails to portray women as anything other than victims of war and conflict, and hence suppresses their agency in transforming conflicts. Medina Haeri and Nadine Puechguirbal, experts in the field of violent conflict and gender, argue that “while the very real protection and assistance needs of women living in armed conflict should not be overlooked, refusing to recognise their agency means that many of the most fundamental decisions regarding their security and access to material resources are taken by men.”⁽⁴⁾ The dominant representation of women in the conflict and peace agenda is still that of passive victims, or peacebuilders with “special qualities which, when compared to men, equip them better for peace rather than war.”⁽⁵⁾ This image of women as naturally peaceful runs contrary to evidence of women’s actual engagement in violence and war. Subsequent resolutions have addressed this by adding discourses of women as “actors, agents or even ‘superheroines’.”⁽⁶⁾ Critics, however, have pointed out that 1325 — still the overarching resolution for a gendered lens to conflict and peace — does not address structural factors that drive wars and conflicts. For example, Carol Harrington, a specialist in the field of gender and violence, has argued that the resolution has lost its potential for transformative change by replacing feminist critique of militarism and militarised masculinities with a “‘utopian’ representation of women as ‘bridge-builders’ and ‘peace-makers’” that does not place enough emphasis on an anti-militarist agenda.⁽⁷⁾ As such, the resolution fails to analyse how claims of threats against women and human rights have been used to justify military interventions in cases like Iraq and Afghanistan. Even when such structural factors are raised within UN platforms — as in the case of two Iraqi women activists who condemned the US- and UK-led invasion of Iraq and the lack of support from the UN — such voices are silenced or discouraged.⁽⁸⁾ This reflects the dissociation that is sometimes seen between grassroots women’s activism against conflict and the UN’s women, peace and security agenda.

The resolution, while not explicitly condemning war and conflict, does link gender violence to international security. However, it does so at the expense of the larger issue of sexual domestic violence (perpetrated by intimate partners or family members) within conflict settings that outweigh conflict-related sexual violence (perpetrated by combatants from all sides) in terms of prevalence and persistence.⁽⁹⁾ Not only does it create a hierarchy between victims of sexual violence at the hands of combatants versus those violated by family members, but it also renders invisible the sexual violence suffered by men, who are not usually seen as victims. Although a 2012 report published by the Human Security Research Group ⁽¹⁰⁾ acknowledges that the UN has been slowly accepting the idea that men might also be victims of sexual violence, the UN has yet to concede that women may be perpetrators as well. The same report also calls to attention the inadequate focus on collecting reliable data on sexual violence, a scarce monitoring mechanism to measure progress of UNSCR goals, and the media and advocacy bias towards extreme cases of sexual violence that marginalises countries with little or no evidence of extreme cases.

Women’s participation in peace processes in Africa

African women have played important roles in violent and non-violent, colonial and post-colonial negotiations of peace between warring groups, as demonstrated in various instances in Nigeria. Organisations like Women for Peace in Nigeria, the Women Without Walls Initiative and Christian Women of Excellence and Empowerment in Nigeria have engaged in conflict prevention through training, peace education and advocacy, through capacity-building in negotiations and counselling, and through humanitarian assistance.⁽¹¹⁾ This shows a plurality in women’s experiences during times of war, conflict and post-conflict transition as household heads, community leaders, armed combatants and survivors of sexual violence.⁽¹²⁾ Despite the diversity in women’s involvement in conflict and post-conflict transformations, UNSCR 1325 has been unable to institutionalise effective participation of women in its peace operations, as acknowledged in its 10-year review.⁽¹³⁾ While the resolution calls for improved participation of women in decision-making regarding peace processes, Nigerian women’s groups were barred from attending a meeting aimed at developing a regional strategy against Boko Haram, during the Global Summit to End Sexual Violence held in June 2014 in London.⁽¹⁴⁾ This is not the first instance in which the UNSC has been criticised by grassroots women peacebuilders. The Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, which was part of the group demanding entry into the London meeting in June, had previously condemned the Security Council for ignoring their recommendations to include the control of arms trade and explosive weapons as an important strategy against rising conflicts and subsequent conflict-related, gender-based violence.⁽¹⁵⁾

Other than UNSCR 1325, there are other gender and women’s rights instruments related to peace and security within the African context, the first being the African Union Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa (2003). Its call for “full and effective participation and representation of women in peace processes including the prevention and management of conflicts and post-conflict reconstruction” was reiterated in the Solemn Declaration on Gender Equality in Africa (2004), as well as the Solemn Declaration on a Common African Defence and Security Policy (2004).⁽¹⁶⁾ The declaration on gender equality is the only instrument so far that makes specific recommendations in this regard, i.e., “the appointment of women as special envoys and representatives of the African Union.”⁽¹⁷⁾ The Post-Conflict Reconstruction and Development Policy (2006) is regarded as the most progressive of all instruments that focus on human security, non-state grassroots involvement in post-conflict reconstruction and development, and the importance of addressing the structural or root causes of conflict and violence.⁽¹⁸⁾ These instruments are commendable in broadening definitions of violence and security, consistently calling for increased and equal participation of women in peace processes and going beyond the focus of UNSCR 1325 to emphasise the need to address structural sources of conflict and violence. And yet, underlying their concept of gender is an almost exclusive association with issues affecting women, especially when it comes to sexual and gender-based violence.

Sexual violence in war-affected Africa and UNSCR 1325

In line with the goal of eradicating sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) against women, the UN has assisted countries in Africa and around the world in developing national prevention strategies. However, legislation has not deterred perpetrators from committing SGBV in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), which has been called the “rape capital of the world” by the UN after reports of 400,000 women being raped in 2006-2007. Nor has it prevented rape from being the number one crime reported in Liberia, and the only type of GBV reported in Burundi.⁽¹⁹⁾ But these narratives that indicate increasing levels of SGBV against women in conflict-affected countries has been criticised by the Human Security Report (2012) as being biased towards extreme cases. For example, in the DRC, sexual violence perpetrated by intimates is the most common form of SGBV, but the majority of media and advocacy attention is paid to “conflict rape.”⁽²⁰⁾ The same report suggests that there may in fact be an explosion of reporting on sexual violence rather than an increase in occurrence. But in the absence of cross-national data, there is no evidence to suggest an increasing trend in wartime SGBV, nor is there basis to measure the impact of UNSC policies against the same. In addition, a 2011 pilot study ⁽²¹⁾ by the Peace Research Institute in Oslo (PRIO) in 20 conflict-affected African countries found that “strategic rape” (aimed at certain ethnic or other groups) as “a weapon of war” is not as pervasive as the literature suggests. Another study by the Swedish Nordic Africa Institute in 2010 reported that in the DRC, sexual violence was not aimed at select ethnic groups as it had been in the Bosnian or Rwandan conflicts.⁽²²⁾ These arguments counter what are sometimes sensationalist claims on wartime SGBV, but cannot dispute the fact that a large number of women are indeed subject to SGBV, whether in times of war or peace.

And yet, it is important to address the fact that it is not just women who are victims of SGBV. UNSCR 1325 has been reluctant to recognise male victims of SGBV as deserving of UN attention, and has failed to acknowledge women as potential perpetrators of SGBV, as stated in the Human Security Report (2012).⁽²³⁾ Evidence from a 2008 nation-wide survey in Liberia states that 33% of male combatants were victims of sexual violence, mostly at the hand of other combatants.⁽²⁴⁾ A 2010 survey in the DRC recorded that 24% of the male respondents had experienced sexual violence.⁽²⁵⁾ With regard to women as perpetrators, Dara Cohen, an international security expert who has published extensively on war-time rape, provides a comprehensive overview of female perpetrators of rape, sexual crimes and killings in Liberia, Sierra Leone and Rwanda.⁽²⁶⁾ Another study based on reports from female survivors of conflict in the eastern DRC shows that 41% of perpetrators were women.⁽²⁷⁾ These results indicate that SGBV is far more complicated than the simplified picture of men as perpetrators and women as victims — especially in times of war — and calls for a closer and more nuanced look at SGBV and its structural causes, during times of conflict as well as peace.

Concluding remarks

While trying to emphasise the importance of addressing women’s experiences in times of conflict, the UNSC has avoided acknowledging women’s agency, either as active peacebuilders or as perpetrators of violence. This relegates women to the victim narrative while excluding those who do not fit into such passive, helpless portrayals. They’ve also limited UNSCR 1325’s potential for genuine conflict transformation by ignoring women’s insistence that structural causes of conflict within war-torn regions be addressed within its framework. Although it is evident that the resolution is dealing with a formidable task when it comes to women’s issues within war and conflict, there is a need to critically examine its simplified views on sexual violence, its inadequate capitalisation of women’s agency as decision-makers as well as its depoliticised stance on larger structural issues that exacerbate the latter’s vulnerability. The purpose of UNSCR 1325 will be defeated without addressing these cross-cutting concerns.

Written by Kumud Rana ⁽¹⁾

NOTES:

(1) Kumud Rana is a Research Associate with CAI and a social science researcher interested in feminist, post-colonial and critical development studies. Contact Kumud through Consultancy Africa Intelligence’s Rights in Focus unit ( rights.focus@consultancyafrica.com). Edited by Liezl Stretton. Research Manager: Mandy Noonan.
(2) Pratt, N. and Richter-Devroe, S.R., 2011. Critically examining UNSCR 1325 on Women, Peace and Security. Special Issue: Critically Examining UNSCR 1325. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 13(4), pp. 489–503.
(3) Ibid.
(4) Haeri, M. and Peuchguirbal, N., 2010. From helplessness to agency: Examining the plurality of women’s experiences in armed conflict. International Review of the Red Cross, 92(877), pp. 103-122.
(5) Akpan, F., Olofu-Adeoye, A. and Ering, S.O., 2014. Women and peacebuilding in Nigeria. African Journal of Social Sciences, 4(1), pp. 170-182.
(6) Ibid.
(7) Harrington, C., 2011. Resolution 1325 and post-Cold War feminist politics. Special Issue: Critically Examining UNSCR 1325. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 13(4), pp. 557-575.
(8) Gibbings, S.L., 2011. No angry women at the United Nations: Political dreams and the cultural politics of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325. Special Issue: Critically Examining UNSCR 1325. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 13(4), pp. 522-538.
(9) ‘Sexual violence, education and war: Beyond the mainstream narrative’, United nations Human Security Report, 2012, http://hsrgroup.org.
(10) Ibid.
(11) Ibid.
(12) Haeri, M. and Peuchguirbal, N., 2010. From helplessness to agency: Examining the plurality of women’s experiences in armed conflict. International Review of the Red Cross, 92(877), pp. 103-122.
(13) ‘Ten-year impact study on implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 (2000) on women, peace and security in peacekeeping’, United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations, 2010, http://www.un.org.
(14) Butler, M., ‘Why were women’s groups excluded from meeting on Nigerian security?’, The Guardian (UK), 20 June 2014, http://www.theguardian.com.
(15) ‘Apparently UNSCR 1325 is sexy enough but arms transfer is not!’, Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, 1 November 2013, http://www.wilpfinternational.org.
(16) Atim, G., et al., ‘UNSCR 1325 and prevention: A hybrid for utilizing human rights and early warning frameworks in the campaign to end violence against women’, Femmes Africa Solidarité (FAS), 2011, http://www.fasngo.org.
(17) Ibid.
(18) Ibid.
(19) ‘Ten-year impact study on implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 (2000) on women, peace and security in peacekeeping’, United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations, 2010, http://www.un.org.
(20) Ibid.
(21) Nordås, R., ‘Sexual violence in armed conflict’, PRIO Policy Brief, 1, 2010, http://www.prio.org.
(22) Eriksson Baaz, M. and Stern, M., ‘The complexity of violence: A critical analysis of sexual violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)’, Sida Working Paper on Gender Based Violence 1, 2010, http://nai.diva-portal.org.
(23) ‘Sexual violence, education and war: Beyond the mainstream narrative’, United nations Human Security Report, 2012, http://hsrgroup.org.
(24) Johnson, K., et al., 2008. Association of combatant status and sexual violence with health and mental health outcomes in postconflict Liberia. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 300(6), pp. 676-690.
(25) Johnson, K., et al., 2010. Association of sexual violence and human rights violations within physical and mental health in territories of the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 304(5), pp. 553-562.
(26) Cohen, D.K., 2013. Female combatants and the perpetration of violence: Wartime rape during the Sierra Leone civil war. World Politics, 65(3), pp. 383-415.
(27) Johnson, K., et al., 2010. Association of sexual violence and human rights violations within physical and mental health in territories of the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 304(5), pp. 553-562.