ANALYSIS: The Saviour is Feminine: UN Peacekeeping Forces
The number of Peacekeeping Operations (PKOs) around the world has increased by more than 400 per cent over the last 20 years. With this increase, there has been increased recognition of problems related to the conduct of UN peacekeepers in conflict and post-conflict zones including numerous revelations of UN peacekeeper violations in operations in Cambodia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and East Timor among others in the 1990s.
These revelations have provoked many reactions. Most notably is the focus on the potential for female participation in PKOs. This officially began with the Windhoek Declaration and the UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1325 on ‘Women Peace and Security' in 2000, and culminated in 2009 with the launch of UN's Global Effort campaign aimed at increasing the number of women in PKOs.
The focus on the value of women in PKOs rests primarily on the belief that female members of PKOs will be able to correct the ‘flawed nature' of peacekeeping forces. In other words, women are promoted as the solution to problems faced by PKOs based on the assumption that women can alter the behavior of militaries with their femininity and make them more attentive to the needs of the local populations. This rests on deeply problematic assumptions about masculinity and femininity, which serve to re-inform notions of masculine superiority.
The debate on women in peacekeeping operations narrowly focuses on the one-sided feminine character of women as peacemakers, nurturers and protectors and on how these feminine traits will have a positive effect on the peacekeeping forces. It must be said that there are some sources that justify an increase of women in PKOs based on efforts to achieve gender equality in the UN system or by highlighting practical reasons why women should be a part of PKOs, such as the ability of women to conduct body searches and interview women in countries where a man performing these tasks is culturally unacceptable. These arguments are, however, overshadowed in the debate by arguments applying essentialist reasons as justification for an increase in female peacekeepers.
These arguments reflect what Elissa Helms refers to as “affirmative essentialisms”, where the positive nature of the essential traits of women is assumed to have the capacity to offset the negative aspect of the essential traits of men. Thus, proponents of an increase in female participation promote the understanding that adding women to PKOs will lead to an operation that is less aggressive and less violent towards the civilian population because of the positive spill-over effects of the female character. As captured in this quote by Bridges and Horsfall, “a force adequately representative of female service personnel in peacekeeping operations will combat sexual misconduct perpetrated by some male soldiers”.
Below are some further examples of how women are assumed to play a specific role in PKOs:
The presence of more women can actually help dilute a macho approach to peacekeeping, which can in turn help combat the problem of sexual exploitation and abuse (SEA) among peacekeepers.
Comfort Lamptey, Gender Advisor for the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations
Women peacekeepers can be at an advantage in (…) diffusing hyper-masculine approaches to peacekeeping that contribute to the risk of sexual exploitation and abuse committed by UN personnel.
UNIFEM on Women, War and Peace
Female peacekeepers would also tend to reduce the level of sexual harassment and violence against local women.
Louise Olsson and Torunn Tryggestad
Other affirmative essentialisms attributed to the female presence such as women's ability to better relate to the local population, women's special ability to diffuse confrontational situations, and women's natural interest in supporting other women are similarly reflected in the discourse.
One can similarly find essentialist underpinnings in the arguments of those who do not believe women will improve peacekeeping forces. Whitworth and Hatty, for example, both underscore how masculinity is vital to the sustainability of a military structure, implying that women will ruin the effectiveness of a peacekeeping operation because of their feminine nature. Women's participation in PKO's is thereby promoted, or refuted, on the basis of the expectation that they will fulfil but one role in PKOs: the role played by their female nature. As argued by Olivera Smic; “the UN discourse on gender and PKOs represents a ‘typical modern binary structure' where gender is equated with women, and women are differentiated from men”.
Traditional gender roles that decades, if not centuries, of female activism have tried to change are again being pushed towards the center of mainstream discourse. While the argument for equality is grounded in the conviction that there is no difference between the sexes in terms of the status they hold in society or the type of work they are able or willing to perform, the debate on women in PKOs serves to assert the existence of a “god-given” difference in the capabilities held by men and women. This broadly applied notion supports a reductionist understanding of women in all aspects of society by reaffirming the understanding of masculine as equivalent to strong and feminine as equivalent to weak.
By not opening the discussion to a more reflected debate of what roles women can play in PKOs, harmful stereotypes about women being inherently different from men are reinforced. Additionally, there needs to be an evaluation of possible limitations of relying on the feminine to salvage what is left of the credibility of UN Peacekeeping Operations.
Vilde Aagenaes is a recent Masters of Arts graduate from the School of Oriental and African Studies in London. She has worked on trade and development issues for the Permanent Mission of Norway in Geneva and is currently doing an internship at the British Pugwash Group in London.