Author: Hana Adamović (Zagreb, Croatia)
Introduction
It’s been argued by feminist scholars that war is gendered in its causes and consequences. The experience of war also varies according to gender, ethnical, sexual and class characteristics (Duncanson, 2016). Women often represent the vulnerable segment of the population, especially in times of conflict. Peacebuilding and humanitarian efforts addressing their welfare are necessary (Detraz, 2012). However, peacekeeping is often envisioned to be carried out by male soldiers who protect defenceless women and children. This portrayal of men masks the complexity of cases when women are active participants in the conflict.
Moreover, the majority of peace negotiators globally have been known to be men (Zelizer and Oliphant, 2013) which can be seen as a consequence of depriving women in partaking in those negotiations as well as in forming peace agreements. One of the examples may be seen in the complete exclusion of women in signing the Peace Accords in Dayton in 1995 (Thomasson, 2006). Consequences of war, which in majority affect women and girls, assume the crucial role of gendered analyses and women in peacebuilding practices (Duncanson, 2016). Gender-mainstreaming by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) in the Resolution 1325 has been a key evolvement in raising awareness of gender issues in the peacekeeping agenda. (Detraz, 2012). It is defined as “the process of assessing the implications for women and men of any planned action, including legislation, policies or programmes in all areas and at all levels. Furthermore, it is a strategy for making women’s as well as of men’s concerns and experiences an integral dimension of the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of policies and programmes in all political, economic and societal spheres that allows women and men to benefit equally, hindering perpetuation of inequality with an ultimate goal of achieving gender equality.” (Zelizer and Oliphant, 2013). This essay will try to analyse different factors that contribute to the perception of the role of women in building peace and the challenges and responsibilities in those perceptions that’s commonly carried by society as a whole. The second part will address the practical development of women’s practices in the aftermath of the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Position and challenges of women in peacebuilding
The impact of war on women and their role in conflicts can be found summarized in a series of UNSC’s resolutions that followed 1325, which seem to be a milestone in the institutional recognition of women as invaluable stakeholders. Its’ Women, Peace and Security architecture focuses on the so-called ‘3 Ps’: the protection of women from gender-based violence, specifically sexual abuse and rape, that includes a halt to the exemption of punishment for named crimes; the participation of women in peacebuilding at all levels and the prevention of conflicts through gender mainstreaming. In recent day, Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) supports this model in concern to all stages of armed conflicts (Duncanson, 2016). However, the debate and research about conceptions and challenges of women in peacebuilding is still actual, led in parallel and closely intertwined with the position of women in society. The position of women as peacebuilders seems to be highly affected by attributes stemming from both culture, different identities women take on and gender stereotypes. The lack of their inclusivity in a peacebuilding debate and practice is not geographically exclusive (Thomasson, 2006). The reasons can be found in universal patriarchal conceptions of women in different spheres of society; from family to political structures in order to preserve the status quo (Popov Momčinović, 2018). The position of women as natural peacemakers is reduced to their sex and gender-affiliated attributes such as being benevolent which results in excluding women from “serious” aspects of peacebuilding, i.e. actual decision-making. The perception of their role is therefore a passive one. Some sources give the following potentially questionable explanations of women’s capacities for peacebuilding: compassion, nurture and neutrality facilitated by women helps them learn peacebuilding skills and put them in practice with a more positive outcome. Furthermore, their identities as primary caretakers of children and their wellbeing, especially during war, solidifies their legitimacy as activists as well as shared experience as mothers, sisters and daughters of men in armed conflicts which might build connections amongst women on “the opposite sides” (Schirch, 2004). I would argue what seems more probable is the practice of welcoming a framework of skills, assets and capacities given by the patriarchal system and using them to their own advantage in peacebuilding. Considering different impacts and experiences of war on men and women, it seems obvious that both sides need to be included in processes of peacebuilding in order to adequately address the needs of both groups. Precisely women’s experiences in the everyday life of their local communities, the local knowledge and acquaintanceship might serve as crucial factors in taking steps towards reconciliation in conflict-affected areas. The link might be made to the concept of phronesis or practical wisdom (Stanton and Kelly, 2015). In such, women as carriers of their local communities own context-dependent knowledge that might serve as an invaluable factor in assessment and project design/implementation as parts of a peacebuilding process.
In spite of obstacles, resources state that the majority of peacebuilding practitioners in organisations worldwide seem to be women (Thomasson, 2006) which is also recognised in the resolution 1325, emphasising the need of “supporting local women’s peace initiatives”. Although excluded from official negotiations, women appear to be active in firstly fighting for the acknowledgment of their presence in constructing solutions for peace and secondly, presenting the same solutions. Examples can be named in Liberia, Kosovo, Israel and Palestine, etc. In order to overcome inhibited barriers, a significant deconstruction of dominating perceptions and models of intervention in conflict-affected areas needs to be undertaken. Women’s organisations participating in building peace and democracy need security, visibility, financial and moral support (Thomasson, 2006).
Women’s peacebuilding practices in Bosnia and Herzegovina
The war in Bosnia and Herzegovina and its aftermath was characterised, amongst others, by extreme sexual violence against women and human trafficking by local police, international soldiers and peacekeepers (Rošul-Gajić, 2016). Despite facing obstacles in participation in decision-making processes, a high number of women in Bosnia and Herzegovina, led by the desire for rebuilding, organised themselves to address specific issues their communities were facing. Research shows it was a continuation of activities of aid done during the war. In the aftermath of war, first actions followed the rule of necessity, such as legal aid provided by organisations such as Center of Legal Assistance for women in Zenica. Formation of other organisations, such as Žene ženama, followed addressing the needs for psychosocial support and ways of generating income despite obstacles of the lack of knowledge about civil society and its organising. Examples of women peacebuilders in Bosnia and Herzegovina at that time point to their high focus on action at the local level rather than serving as political actors (Thomasson, 2006). However, the assessment of the contextual reality of women in the public sphere led to lobbying for quotas, changes in election laws, women-aimed political education and mobilisation of women voters. The activities of women’s organisations contributed to the formation of civil society of BiH.
Answering the needs of women at that time served as well as their “silent liberation”, challenging the accustomed roles and positions of women in society. Although provision of a common space for women to leave their homes, communicate and spend time was not per se political, its consequences of building grounds for women’s empowerment was. This is even more supported by the fact that those places allowed women to embody their different identities, contrary to the dominant political rhetoric of division based on ethnic identities and created spaces of meeting between different ethno-national groups. Organised cross-border conferences allowed spaces for formulating demands aimed at international organisations and the government for recognition of the rights of women (Thomasson, 2006). In those ways women’s NGOs had influence on gender, peace and security policies, which was supported by both financial and logistical aid from international donors (Rošul-Gajić, 2016).
Conclusion
To certain concepts such as war, peace, weakness, confrontation or cooperation we attribute adjectives of femininity or masculinity. Visions of women in peacebuilding practices may be an indicator of how far (or not) has society reached in its re-examination of women as equal participants in various societal spheres. Through research, I understood that peacebuilding initiatives of women in Bosnia and Herzegovina did not have a peacebuilding agenda as such. Its importance as peacebuilders arose as a consequence of their actions of responding to the actual needs of women present, and subsequently became an instrument of women’s liberation. It’s also important to emphasize that the clear romanticizing of their activities, agendas and meanings behind them is visible and in the long-term does not serve for the betterment of establishing women’s position in peacebuilding practices, but requires a more in depth research into understanding the specifics of their context.
References
Detraz, N. (2012) International Security and Gender. Polity Press.
Duncanson, C. (2016). Gender and peacebuilding. John Wiley & Sons.
Popov-Momčinović, Z. (2018). Žene i procesi pomirenja u Bosni i Hercegovini: Izazov rodnim ulogama, usta (nov) ljenim narativima i performativnim praksama s osvrtom na religiju.
Rošul-Gajić, J. (2016). Women's advocacy in postwar Bosnia and Herzegovina. Implementation of UNSCR 1325 on women, peace and security. Journal of International Women's Studies, 17(4), 143-159.
Schirch, L. (2004). Women in Peacebuilding. Resource and Training manual. West African Network for Peacebuilding and Conflict Transformation Program at Eastern Mennonite University.
Stanton, E., & Kelly, G. (2015). Exploring barriers to constructing locally based peacebuilding theory. International Journal of Conflict Engagement and Resolution, 3(1), 33-52.
Thomasson, R. (2006). To Make room for changes - Peace strategies from women organisations in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Kvinna till Kvinna Foundation.
Zelizer, C., & Oliphant, V. (2013). Introduction to Integrated Peacebuilding: Innovative Approaches to Transforming Conflict, edited by Craig Zelizer, 3-30. Boulder, CO: Westview.
