I first became interested in the role that women play in global peace and security when my Comparative Politics class last year visited the Council on Foreign Relations and spoke to a member of their research team who focused on women in international politics. She told my class a fascinating statistic that stuck in my mind—that peace deals and treaties tended to last about 15 years longer when women were present at the negotiating table, and yet women are still rarely welcome at the negotiations. The brief explanation she had for this included a story of one treaty in Africa where the men of two different villages were negotiating a deal, but the negotiations had stalled. Finally, the women of the villages stepped in and resolved a lot of the issues simply because of their knowledge of the land; rights were being contested to a river that ran through both villages, but the women reported it had dried up and was of no use to anyone, so why were all the men fighting over it. The men had not spent much time in the villages—and consequently did not know about the river—because they had been occupied with fighting each other. This theme, of traditional gender roles blocking both smoother negotiations and women from the negotiating table, came up frequently in my initial research, but it is not the whole picture or reason for why women are often excluded from negotiations. My project is focusing on both why having women present extends the life of the treaties and why it is so difficult to get women to the table in the first place. The exigency of my project stems from the desperate need so many communities across the world feel for peace and political stability, and if having women present at negotiations lengthens the time that communities experience peace, understanding the factors behind that statistic is the first step to getting more women involved in peace and security.
The first major puzzle that has come up in my research is the way the global community thinks about women in peace and security. Before 2000 and the passing of UN Security Council Resolution 1325, women were considered as victims only of violence and political instability. However, Resolution 1325 recognized that women, while still victims, also have incredible agency in peace and security, and a lot that only the experience of being female can offer. Resolution 1325 was a huge stepping point in the UN’s understanding of women’s issues, and has shaped subsequent resolutions in multiple UN bodies. However, 1325 is still a controversial resolution—a debate rages over whether it has achieved any actual change, if it can achieve any actual change, and even between professionals and academics over whether or not discussing it in academic settings prevents it from realizing its full potential. Regardless, the puzzle of 1325 will play a very prominent role in my upcoming research.
Julia, this sounds like an absolutely fascinating topic to research. I cannot imagine how many peacekeeping and peace-building efforts have gone to waste in previous years or did not reach their full potential because women’s equal and full participation was not ensured. What I was wondering is how exactly does discussing 1325 in academic settings impair its ability to be effective? Intuitively, it seems that the opposite should be true, since discussion should further understanding.
Also, reading your post made me recall this highly informative and interesting podcast by the London School of Economics. It’s called “Women, Peace, and Security in the Global Arena,” and I think it is quite pertinent to your research topic. If you are interested in listening to it and have trouble finding it, please let me know, and I’d be more than happy to send you a link.
I would love the link to that podcast, that sounds really interesting! I do agree with you that it seems counterintuitive that discussing 1325 in academic settings would interfere with its ability to be effective, but I want to explain it a little further. It was that asking questions about or debating whether or not 1325 can be used as justification for only nominal change in including women in peace and security efforts is dangerous because it undermines the purpose of 1325. The professional side of the argument feels that it doesn’t matter if 1325 only brings about a shift in the language the UN uses, that’s still progress.
Julia — you have an interesting and promising topic area here, and I like the way that you’ve connected your proposed research to both prior class experiences as well as to some background research that you have conducted. There is a large literature on peace, peacebuilding, and reconciliation/restoration that will likely be useful to you (your faculty mentor should be able to provide some recommendations as well). In addition to meeting with your mentor an important next step would be to start to explore what scholars are saying about this broad topic area, and more specific puzzles or debates within it, to point you towards those deeper research puzzles that you could pursue in 206 and 306. You’re off to a good start!
Lastly, just a quick writing/formatting note: be sure to cite sources! You mention a UN Resolution in your final paragraph, so that sentence needs a footnote at the end of the sentence and then a footnote citation to the work that you are mentioning at the end of your post.
Julia, here’s the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5X7tCVbtt4s
You can also find it as a podcast under the same title in the Podcast App for iOS.