Oct. 14, 2015 – In the fifteen years since the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1325 on women, peace & security, the world has become far more violent and the impact of armed conflict on women is far greater than when the landmark text was adopted.
The Global Study on Resolution 1325, released on Tuesday, notes that peacekeeping, with a $9 billion annual budget, could now be considered the core mandate of the United Nations, whereas back in 2000, the UN “was primarily seen as a development organization.”
It is against this backdrop of increasing militarization since 2001 – which includes the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the Syrian conflict, the rise of groups such as ISIS and Boko Haram, alarming reports of sexual violence in South Sudan and Darfur, attacks on school girls, girls schools and female teachers in Afghanistan and the shift of resources away from development to peace operations – that the United Nations is taking stock of its women, peace and security agenda.
The 1325 resolution consists of three pillars – protection of women, participation of women in peace processes, and conflict prevention – and it is the latter that is an increasing focus of civil society advocates. A recent paper from Oxfam notes that Resolution 2122, adopted in 2013, “helped close a gap in interpretation [of Res 1325] that previously focused entirely on the prevention of gender-based violence in conflict, rather than the prevention of conflict itself.” The goal should not be making war safer for women but preventing war.
Advocates are calling for a more holistic approach to the root causes and drivers of conflict which include social and economic inequalities and unequal access to resources and services as well as the structural barriers that are obstacles to women’s participation in conflict prevention, which may include child care, transportation and personal safety.
The Global Study, whose lead author is Radhika Coomoraswamy, former UN envoy for children in armed conflict, states that “prevention and protection through nonviolent means should be emphasized more by the international system, and more resources should be dedicated to this endeavor.”
“If force is used, even for the protection of civilians, there must be clarity and clear, attainable objectives,” it adds. “Conflict prevention and resolution, as practiced today, continues to focus on neutralizing potential spoilers and perpetrators of violence, rather than investing in resources for peace.”
It may be time for the UN to return to making development its core mandate and shifting some of the $9 billion it invests in peacekeeping to investing in preventing conflict.
– Denis Fitzgerald