Unpacking the institutionalised approach to the women, peace and security agenda
October 2020 marks 20 years since the development of the women, peace and security agenda (WPS). One of the first-ever international frameworks to ever raise awareness on the importance of gender analysis in conflict prevention, conflict resolution, peace-making and peacebuilding.
The women, peace and security agenda (WPS) had come at a time where women and girls globally were being disproportionately affected by conflict, wars, violence, environmental and humanitarian crises. Which is why the early feminist movement and women's right group rallied and campaigned for the international community in recognizing the urgent need to transform how we view peace and security. No longer was this just about state and military security but rather about human security, in particular of women and girls who make up half of the global population.
Over the last 20 years, the WPS agenda became internationally recognized as a vital component in addressing the gendered dimension of war and conflict. It called for women to be able to, directly and indirectly, participate in and influence conflict prevention, disarmament, protection, displacement, peacekeeping, and reconstruction.
For the UN security council, member states, and international development organizations, such framework and pillars of the agenda became a critical tool in ensuring gender sensitivity and awareness in humanitarian and peacekeeping missions.
However, the reason why I am writing this blog series on decolonizing the women, peace and security agenda, is not to give you an overload of the history of the WPS agenda nor to debate whether it has been successfully or not but instead to point out the structural issues that are hindering it’s radical potential in actually doing the transformative work.
With the 20th anniversary of the women, peace and security agenda, and the recent global spotlight on anti-racism work, it is also time for us working in this field to firstly reflect on the unequal racialized power structure that influences how we approach feminism, peace and security.
The Institutionalization and neo-colonial practices of the women, peace and security agenda approach
Do I really want to be integrated into a burning house?- James Baldwin
As a black woman, and an advocate for alternative grassroots approaches to feminism, peace and security, what I noticed over the last few years working in an international development organization is that the WPS agenda sounds revolutionary on paper. Still, in reality, it's approach has become another 'institutionalized neo-colonial project' where those living in Western European countries that have access to exclusive decision making spaces are the ones that hold power to develop much of the WPS policies, research, funding, and programming.
When the women, peace and security approach was developed and coined, it gave us the impression that it would start moving away from the institutionalized practices to peacebuilding, to a more bottom process led by women themselves at the local level
However, much of its spaces of decision making continued to be confined within the top-down traditional exclusive areas and structures which are inaccessible to women and girls in local grassroots communities that it seeks to advocate for.
During my experience working in a development organization, it was very much obvious to see how privileged middle-class white people were dominating the discussions. Even after the increased efforts on 'diversity' and 'inclusion' such as inviting women and girls from local communities to the 'table- there were still many problematic structural issues that were being overlooked such as the unequal neo-colonial power dynamics and relations between the international and local. Also, the WPS agenda was still part of the top-down rigid structures and institutions embedded in patriarchy, militarism, neo-colonialism, and white savior complex.
Speaking for and over
Despite the fantastic grassroots women's right activism that I previously highlighted in my first blog, one of the consequences that come with the institution's approaches to feminism, peace and security is the colonial practice of 'speaking for and over' those with lived experiences, and knowledge.
Even with the best intention of practitioners working within the women, peace and security agenda, the top-down approach inevitably groups and constructs' local women and girls as receipt of foreign aid and victims of the insecurity - Rather than recognizing them as agents of social change who are already leading grassroots peace initiatives.
As a result of this - the women, peace and security approach manifests itself into an emancipation project, - Speaking for and over black and brown women and girls and saving them from the destruction and conflict around them.
One only needs to look at the dynamics of international conferences, events and peace discussions to see how Western practitioners speak for women, girls and non-binary in local communities instead of giving up spaces and resources so that they are able to represent themselves.
Essentially those that have the access, and privilege to spaces of decision making, are the gatekeepers of knowledge production and policies. In the women, peace and security approach, these are often diplomats, policy advisor, donors, researchers, who sit in top-down Western institutions/organizations and are able to host an entire webinar discussing the importance of 'inclusive women participation' without actually inviting them.
תגובות