OPINION: Resolution 1325: From Rhetoric to Action

The most expedient way to engage more women at all levels of transnational and transatlantic security efforts, as well as to ensure the safety and security of women in post-conflict, is to move Resolution 1325 from rhetoric to action by enacting a quota-system during conflict resolution processes.

One way to empower more women in transnational and transatlantic security efforts is through the actual implementation of UN Resolution 1325. 1325 itself points out that meaningful involvement by women at every level and stage of negotiations is critical to achieve durable and lasting peace, and this is supported by many working in the field. 1325 is a step in the right direction, however, the provisions included therein are toothless and lack concrete steps for implementation. After ten years it is time to acknowledge that suggestions for further study, improved metrics, and a list of vague "should" statements are woefully inadequate to address the urgent need for women to become active participants in peace negotiations. Perhaps the most expedient way to put 1325 into action, and ensure that woman's needs are met is for the UN, NATO, and others tasked with brokering peace between combatants to enact a quota system.

There is very little stopping these actors from mandating the involvement of women at all levels of negotiations. Simply put, when the UN sits down at the table, its representatives can and should demand that women are present and accounted for on all sides before proceeding with talks. While some may contend that during bloody and prolonged conflict the stakes are too high to risk impeding the peace process by requiring female representation. I counter that for the women and children impacted by these conflicts, the stakes are too high not to.

Several sources, including Melanne Verveer of the US State Department's Office for Global Women's Issues, note that of the 39 active conflicts today, 31 are the result of failed peace processes; tellingly women were excluded from all 31. Including women in the dialogue surrounding every aspect of conflict is critical if we want to prevent costly relapses into violent conflict, a problem not limited to the local countries where the fighting is taking place. Recent history is replete with examples where local conflict has contributed to regional instability, and this is of tremendous consequence to the broader international security community.

While "quotas" may raise the hackles of cultural relativists, who will no doubt make accusations about the UN an as instrument of Liberal, Western imperial cultural hegemony the fact is for far too long those wishing to continue to oppress and control women have used "culture" to justify excluding women from the agenda. Many agree that not only are women uniquely qualified to address their own concerns in post-conflict areas, but that there can be no lasting peace without the participation of women, who suffer disproportionately in conflict.

In their paper "Gender Identity and the Subject of Security," Gunhild Hoogensen and Svein Vigeland Rottem, note that women cannot rely on men-the dominant actors-to effectively advocate for what women need to feel secure: "When women's articulations of security are recognized and heard, this results in access to the appropriate resources women need to ensure their security..." and where there is a general sense of security, there is less chance of a relapse into violent conflict.

The fact is quota systems work. Experience guides us that quota systems enable smart, savvy, and courageous women to effectively act as agents of change. In a recent report for USIP Valerie Norville cites an example of the success of quotas, despite initial skepticism, in local government in Afghanistan. "The women were well educated, well respected, and able." Norville points to other accounts that support this and she states that "many experts believe that quotas are essential, and they have been instituted in several countries, including Uganda...Rwanda...and Afghanistan..." where quotas have dramatically increased female representation in government.

So if many agree that quota systems can play a pivotal role in the inclusion of women's voices in agenda setting and policy making in government, where is the disconnect when it comes to requiring a minimum of female participants in conflict negotiations?

One often cited hurdle to women's participation in negotiations are claims (usually made by those seeking to exclude women) that there is a lack of qualified female representatives. Not so, according to Norville, who includes reports of communities of women who mobilized in Uganda and Liberia to make their voices heard, despite having been excluded from all official negotiations.

Indeed, there is ever less to suggest that there is a shortage of educated women; never has more attention, resources, and funding been channeled to programs aimed at educating and developing women and girls than now. It would be naive to continue to entertain arguments that there just aren't enough women who are capable of actively participating in peace negotiations.

Not only are women best suited to representative their own needs, but these women may also inspire other women and girls to themselves become involved in public life. What is more, by including female representatives from the grassroots in official negotiations, you are creating a pipeline of women who will be gaining valuable insight and experience to become advocates in transnational security dialogues.

Importantly, should peace brokers decide to enact a quota system they must not do so as a cosmetic maneuver; they must avoid paying lip-service to Resolution 1325, and indeed to all women, by simply settling for a token female sitting silently at the table. They must demand qualified women already serving, either formally or informally, in positions of respect within their communities. Further, peace brokers must be prepared to identify and enlist women should conflicting parties fail to do so.

A final anticipated protest to quotas may well made by those who ask, "why should bodies like the UN and NATO mandate equal gender representation in negotiations when they themselves are far from achieving gender?" This would, unfortunately, be a fair question. However, there is hope that UN Women will be able to work towards a gender-inclusivity in a way that the preceding UN agencies have not. The implications that including women's voices will have for transatlantic, and indeed global security, will not be insignificant.