Lack of Female Representation in Peace Processes in the MENA Region

By McKenna Swindle

Published Winter 2021

Special thanks to Madison Coleman for editing and research contributions

+Summary

Peace negotiations are used throughout the world to resolve interstate conflict and have been heralded as the most effective way to address armed conflict between countries. However, in the MENA region, women have sparsely been included in most peace processes. The cultural attitudes toward women in the region and their minor representation in both the political and workplace spheres hinder their involvement in these processes. Without women’s inclusion, it is likely that the process of negotiation will be stalled, the agreements will be less effectively implemented, and the provisions will be less inclusive of women and other minority groups. Local and international groups have taken notice of these detrimental effects; they have advocated for female inclusion in Middle Eastern peace talks and educated various audiences on the severe consequences of prohibiting such inclusion. While progress has been made to bring women to peace negotiation tables, there is still significant development needed to ensure their full and equal participation.

+Key Takeaways

Women are included in peace talks at very low rates; they made up less than 35% of negotiators and were mentioned in only 20% of provisions in the last 30 years.

There has been a worldwide response to the lack of female representation in peace processes, instigated by UNSCR 1325 and the accompanying Women, Peace, and Security Agenda.

General ideologies in MENA reflect the belief that a woman’s place is in the home and not in the public sphere, as demonstrated by the low rates of women in the labor force and political positions.

Without women’s inclusion in peace talks, the processes are more likely to be stalled, provisions are less representative of women and other minorities, and resulting peace is less durable.

Civil society groups and other organizations worldwide have addressed the issue of women’s low participation rates in peace processes, but groups in MENA fall far behind in their efforts to address this critical issue in their region.

+Key Terms

Negotiator—An actor in a peace talk that dictates the process of the negotiation and presents the agenda. Both parties involved in the negotiation are represented by their own negotiators who argue their positions and represent the wishes of their respective parties.¹

Mediator—An actor in a peace talk that acts as a third party to settle conflict between 2 opposing parties.²

Signatory—An actor in a peace talk that signs the final agreement.³

Actor—A general term referring to negotiators, mediators, signatories, or any other participants involved in peace processes.⁴

Provision—A clause in a peace agreement pertaining to a specific topic or matter.⁵

Accord—The final agreement reached through the process of a peace negotiation to end conflict, rebuild war-torn areas, and promote positive peace.⁶

MENA Region—An area consisting of the Middle East and Northern Africa, which includes the countries of Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen.⁷

Durable peace—Lasting and effective peace after a conflict, as is frequently measured by the gap between the signing of a peace agreement and the beginning of renewed fighting.⁸

Gender gap—The educational, political, and health inequality gap between men and women.⁹

Track 1 negotiations—Negotiations solely involving government officials.¹⁰

Track 2 negotiations—Negotiations involving both government officials and nongovernmental representatives.¹¹

Track 3 negotiations—Negotiations solely involving nongovernmental entities.¹²

Truth Commission—“Independent panels of inquiry typically set up to establish the facts and context of serious violations of human rights or of international humanitarian law in a country’s past.”¹³

Civil Society Groups (CSGs)—“The wide array of non-governmental and not for profit organizations that have a presence in public life, express the interests and values of their members and others, based on ethical, cultural, political, scientific, religious or philanthropic considerations.”¹⁴

Armed conflict—Conflict between warring parties of 2 states or large parties within states where armed forces are involved.¹⁵

United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1325—The resolution that “reaffirms the important role of women in the prevention and resolution of conflicts, peace negotiations, peace-building, peacekeeping, humanitarian response and in post-conflict reconstruction and stresses the importance of their equal participation and full involvement in all efforts for the maintenance and promotion of peace and security.”¹⁶

Context

War and conflict occur throughout the world and affect millions of people. In 2019 alone there were 54 armed conflicts worldwide, which has led institutions, politicians, and researchers to examine the most effective means for resolving large-scale conflicts.^{17, 18} Though traditional means of conflict resolution have often entailed wars and other violence, the most effective way to achieve peaceful international relations is for countries and groups in conflict to engage in peace processes. Peace processes can refer to peace negotiations, transitional justice mechanisms such as truth commissions, or peacebuilding advocacy work. For the purpose of this research, the terminology of “peace processes” will mostly refer to peace negotiations. Peace negotiations, or peace talks, are defined as “negotiated steps” between 2 groups to enact peace in an area of conflict.¹⁹ This definition is purposefully broad as it allows for flexible processes tailored to the needs of the specific conflicts.

Peace negotiations usually unfold in 2 steps. First, the 2 countries address the cessation of conflict—in most cases calling for ceasefire agreements and separation of forces. Second, the countries discuss transitional tactics for reshaping political institutions and governance, rebuilding economic deficiencies, and promoting social reconciliation. Once these steps are completed, preventative peacebuilding efforts are considered. Plans for preventative peacebuilding can include social reconciliation, amnesty, reparations, and other societal recovery and reform.²⁰ These discussions are the main part of the peace negotiation agenda.

The agenda of a peace talk is heavily influenced by the actors involved. The key roles involved in peace processes include negotiators, mediators, and signatories. Actors to fill these roles are often selected because of their governmental participation (as heads of state or key actors in their political parties) or due to their lengthy workplace experience with conflict resolution (such as practicing legal mediator).^{21, 22, 23} The actors in each of these roles heavily affect the agenda of the talks and the subjects discussed, which ultimately translates into how the final accord is written.

Peace processes are still a relatively new method for peacebuilding and conflict resolution. One of the first and most notable peace talks was the Camp David Accords in 1978 between Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israel Prime Minister Menachem Begin where the occupation of the Sinai Peninsula was discussed. Hosted by United States President Jimmy Carter, these accords gained international recognition and set a clear standard for countries seeking peaceful conflict resolution.²⁴

Peaceful negotiation methods have been continually used throughout the Middle East and Northern Africa (MENA) region since the Camp David Accords. This region has an extensive and continuous history of conflict and is in frequent need of conflict resolution.²⁵ For example, Israeli-Palestinian peace talks have been ongoing since the first negotiation in 1978.²⁶ Syria, Yemen, Libya, and Afghanistan have also each individually engaged in peace processes for their respective conflicts.²⁷ This trend of negotiating hostility through peace processes instead of armed victories is becoming increasingly common in MENA. For example, 2 more peace negotiations occurred in MENA in 2019 than in 2018, showing that this method is being employed with increasing frequency in this region—even if the improvement is minimal.²⁸

While the frequency of peace processes has increased, the participation of women in these talks has not. Women have never constituted more than 35% of negotiators at any given peace talk worldwide.²⁹ In an examination of peace functions around the world from 1992–2011, women only held the position of negotiator 9% of the time.³⁰ Women are especially underrepresented in peace processes in the MENA Region. In the 2013 Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, 25% of the negotiators were female and none of the mediators were.³¹ In the 2020 peace talks between the Taliban and Afghanistan, 10% of those involved in the negotiation were women. The 4 women served on the negotiation team for the Afghan government; no women represented the Taliban party.³²

Women are not only missing from the negotiating tables of peace talks but also from the content of the peace agreements. In theory, provisions decided upon during the peace talks account for the harm and injustices brought against all individuals. Although women are particularly affected by mass sexual violence, forced marriage, and general female oppression as common byproducts of war, they are rarely mentioned in the resolutions of the processes.³³ Since 1990 women have only been mentioned in the provisions of 20% of peace talks, and only 6% of accords contain at least one provision specifically addressing violence against women.³⁴ Their lack of inclusion makes it difficult for reparations or further peace efforts to be made for their benefit.

This issue of female underrepresentation in peacebuilding efforts was brought to international attention with the United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1325. Issued in 2000, this resolution clearly states that women have an important role in peacebuilding processes, both during and after conflicts.³⁵ In 2013, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) followed the UNSC’s example by releasing a similarly worded recommendation about women in peace processes.³⁶ The UNSC resolution and the CEDAW recommendation brought much international attention to the issue of female underrepresentation in peace talks. This increased global awareness led to 9 other resolutions from the UNSC that are now known as the Women, Peace, and Security Agenda.³⁷ These were the first efforts to acknowledge the essential role of women in peacebuilding—a role that has since been advocated for by other institutions and individuals.

Because of the attention brought to this topic, several concerted efforts have been made in recent years to include women. Negotiations outside of MENA have made significant progress, such as the Colombian peace agreement held in 2016, which included the highest rate of female negotiators in any peace negotiation so far at 35%.³⁸ The South African National Accord for Peace also actively included women in its processes: 56% of witnesses testifying of their experience during the Apartheid were women, 41% of the commissioners heading the Truth and Reconciliation Commission were female, and women served as 75% of regional managers implementing the Commission.³⁹ These examples set a standard for intentional inclusion of women in peace processes that should be followed in the MENA region and demonstrate the progress needed in order to adequately include women in these processes.

Contributing Factors

Restrictive Views on Gender

One of the reasons that so few women from the MENA Region are represented in peace processes is that many men and women living within the MENA Region continue to hold unequal and restrictive views on gender. MENA remains one of the most unequal regions for women in the world. This is evidenced by data from the Gender Inequality Index (GII), which ranks countries on gendered levels of achievement for reproductive health, empowerment, and labor markets. The GII lists the Arab States as second only to Sub Saharan Africa for having the highest gender inequality in the world.⁴⁰ This inequality is apparent in women’s lack of access to opportunities and diminished legal rights based on the standard regional opinions concerning their roles. Restrictive attitudes lead to diminished expectations and respect for women in prominent roles in the political and economic sphere.⁴¹

General attitudes toward women are a significant indicator of gender inequality. Surveys of men and women in the MENA area show high discrepancies between beliefs about women’s roles in society and differing notions about the level of autonomy that women should have. For example, in several countries surveyed in MENA, 70%–90% of men say that a woman’s most important job is to care for her home.⁴² Another survey shows that 75% of men and women believe that women should be obedient to their husbands. Fewer than half of those surveyed believed that sons and daughters should have equal inheritance shares.⁴³ Attitudes surrounding the restriction of women’s abilities and opportunities in home and family situations inhibit future potential for inclusion and respect of women in formal peace negotiations. When the majority of those living in the region believe that women are not fit to work outside the home, it is difficult for women to be deemed competent enough to participate as leading actors in peace processes.

Interpretations of Religious Teachings

The Islamic religion is practiced by 93% of the population in the MENA Region and has a prevailing influence on perceptions of gender.⁴⁴ Though the Islamic religion itself is not openly discriminatory against women, interpretations of Islamic scripture, the Qur’an, have been adversely used against women. This is most likely to occur under legal systems of sharia law—the usage of the Islamic religious beliefs and books of scripture, including the Qur’an, in governance. Ten countries in MENA adhere to some form of sharia law.^{45, 46}

One reason Qur’anic teachings have been misused and misinterpreted to decrease the status of women is that the Qur’an places sacred emphasis on the chastity of women. While well-intentioned, the reverence for feminine virtue has had negative implications. For example, the Qur’an states that “those who accuse chaste women and then do not produce four witnesses—lash them with eighty lashes and do not accept from them testimony ever after.”⁴⁷ While meant to hold men accountable for their actions, this teaching has been used in court cases regarding rape, requiring victims to have 4 male witnesses present to testify that the rape occurred and making it difficult to rely on factual evidence when there are insufficient witnesses.⁴⁸

Though sharia law is upheld differently in different countries, some principles have been exaggerated by extremist groups such as the Taliban, evidenced by their ban on women’s education in 1997 and other severe restrictions.⁴⁹ This and other bans were instituted in an attempt to eradicate what they deemed to be un-Islamic ideals through a selective interpretation of the Qur’an.⁵⁰ Extremist ideals have twisted Qur’anic feminine reverence into harmful and oppressive policies that cripple opportunities available to Islamic women and limit the general ideology of equality for women. These incorrect interpretations of doctrine contribute to ideas of women being seen as inferior and impair their opportunities for involvement in and contributions to peace processes.

Lack of Women in the Labor Force

One of the ways gender inequality is manifested in the MENA Region is the low number of women in the labor force—which contributes greatly to the low number of women involved in peace processes. MENA has a lower rate of women in the workforce than any other region in the world, with only 1 in 4 women of working age in MENA being employed (as of 2008).⁵¹ This low rate of employment among women keeps them from being included in peace processes, because without relevant experience gained through personal career history, women are not likely to be asked to participate in important negotiations.⁵²

In addition to the influence of attitudes about gender roles, many women are kept from the workforce due to discriminatory policies. For example, in Libya, Jordan, and Egypt, women can only enter the labor force if they receive permission from their husband.⁵³ Many MENA countries also provide no protection against sexual harassment in the workplace, further detracting women from obtaining jobs and receiving fair and equal treatment once employed.⁵⁴

Childcare is also not as widely available in MENA as it is in other parts of the world. With prevailing attitudes about the woman’s role being in the home, women with children find it difficult to both take care of their families and work.⁵⁵ If women are able to overcome barriers to childcare, benefits such as maternal leave are rarely available to working women. As of 2009, 82% of MENA countries only required employers to provide 12 weeks or less of paid maternal leave, while most countries require 13–18 weeks of leave. Ninety-one percent of countries in the Middle East do not reach the International Labor Organization’s standards for women’s rights in the workplace, including requirements for wages, benefits, and length of maternity leave.⁵⁶ This discourages many women from seeking involvement in the workforce.

There are also few opportunities for promotion and advancement for women, evidenced by low rates of women in management or executive positions. Though progress is being made in individual countries in the region, overall, the MENA Region continues to have the lowest female representation in leadership positions globally.⁵⁷ All of these disadvantages play into the difficulties of being an employed woman in MENA and gaining the experience needed to contribute to peace processes.

It is important to note that women in MENA outnumber their male counterparts when it comes to enrollment in higher education. Higher education programs are dominated by women with a 107% regional ratio of female to male enrollment.⁵⁸ This suggests that women are getting high levels of education but are not able to apply their learned skills in workplace settings, indicating there are massive obstacles beyond educational attainment for highly qualified women seeking to enter the labor force.

Exclusion of Women from Politics

Lack of female representation in peace processes can also be attributed to women’s limited involvement in political spheres. Women are consistently left out of governmental roles and political processes. They hold a low percentage of political positions, and have for many years. This is evidenced by only 1 female head of state having served in the region, the Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir, who was in office over 50 years ago.⁵⁹ Since then, not much has improved, even in lower level governmental representation. MENA had the lowest female parliamentary participation rates of any region in the world as of 2019 at 18.1%.⁶⁰

Women are also left out of political policies and processes. Each country’s political history is different, but as a region MENA has lagged behind other areas of the world in their policies for suffrage and the ability for women to run for office. Since 1995, 9 countries in MENA have changed policies to allow women to vote for the first time.^{61, 62, 63, 64, 65} A notable case is in Saudi Arabia, where women’s rights to vote and run for office were legalized for the first time in 2015.⁶⁶ With limited views about women’s ability to participate in governmental processes, women are not being elected and their voices are not being represented. With few women in government, there is little advocacy work being done to incorporate women and address policies that affect them.⁶⁷ Without their inclusion in politics in general, they are unlikely to be invited to such important political processes as peace negotiations.

The backgrounds of the female participants in the September 2020 peace negotiations between Afghanistan and the Taliban demonstrate the importance of previous political participation in order for women to be considered qualified enough to be included in peace talks. Four women, constituting 10% of the Afghan delegation, participated in these talks: Fawzia Koofi, former deputy speaker of the Afghan parliament; Habiba Sarabi, first female governor of the Bamyan province; Sharifa Zurmati Wardak, former representative of the Paktia province in the lower house of Afghan parliament; and Fatima Gailani, former spokesperson of the National Islamic Front of Afghanistan political party.^{68, 69} The political experience these women had pushed them to the forefront of female advocacy in Afghanistan and made them the clear choices to represent both Afghan women and their government. Though these women have instigated phenomenal change in MENA, they represent a small population of politically and economically involved women in the region and provide an example for what women and girls can accomplish. Most women in the MENA region do not have this level of political or career experience, contributing to the underrepresentation of women in peace negotiations.

Consequences

Inhibited Processes of Talks

When women are not involved in peace processes, there is a significant effect on the fluidity of the process. Peace talks are commonly stalled or not finalized due to disagreement between parties, but studies show that when women are absent processes are even more likely to be stalled, paused, or not finalized.⁷⁰ Therefore, the presence of women in negotiations is important because peace talks are critical in building relations between countries and any complication in the process can strain those associations.

Israeli-Palestinian talks have demonstrated this weakened process that follows the exclusion of women. For example, the Madrid Conference was highly anticipated as an essential step toward achieving durable peace in the contested state of Israel. It was held in 1991 and monumentally included 3 women in the Palestinian delegation. However, progress was strained, and the accord was signed in a backchannel manner without the inclusion of most of the original actors, including the Palestinian women. Subsequent talks were held in the years following with those same actors, and, although these accords were also highly internationally anticipated, the treaties suffered an almost immediate collapse due to violent citizen disapproval.^{71, 72}

Researchers do not claim that the lack of female representation was the sole reason for the failure of the Israeli-Palestinian talks between 1991 and 1995. Women’s inclusion does not guarantee success and durable peace in any given peace talk. However, the inclusion and full participation of women do increase the likelihood that talks are being executed in a diplomatic manner, actors are equally represented, citizen opinions are recognized, and parties are committed to the process of building a sustainable accord—all factors that contribute to durable peace.⁷³

Decreased Effectiveness and Implementation of Agreement

Female representation in peace talks also affects the outcomes and effectiveness of the peace agreements. When women do not participate in a peace talk, the agreement is less likely to lead to durable peace. The agreement is also less likely to be geared toward political reform and less likely to be effectively implemented after being signed. An examination of several peace agreements with no female involvement revealed a median implementation rate of 77%, as opposed to an implementation rate of 89% for agreements that involved female signatories.⁷⁴ Additionally, in the examined agreements, the implementation process was never stalled when female signatories participated. The presence of women is also related to stronger implementation of provisions specifically regarding women’s rights and issues.⁷⁵ Women’s representation also increases the quality of the agreement produced, and research has shown that the higher the quality of the accord produced and the more it is implemented, the more durable the subsequent peace will be.⁷⁶

The relationship between female participation and durable peace is especially important to address in MENA considering that several of their most prevalent peace negotiations have not been effectively implemented. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict in particular has undergone several different peace processes but is still experiencing ongoing conflict.⁷⁷ If they were to prioritize the inclusion of women in their processes, beyond the mere 25% of negotiators who were female in the 2013 peace talks, it is possible they would experience more durable peace.⁷⁸

Exclusion of Provisions about Women

When women are not involved in peace processes, the final accords often do not include sufficient provisions for women or other underrepresented groups. Studies have shown that when women are participating in negotiations, gender equality and women’s rights are more likely to be a topic of discussion between parties, leading to a more diverse and inclusive final agreement.⁷⁹ The presence of female negotiators to advocate for reparations or legal action for women, such as preventing sexual violence, is essential. Male participants in peace talks may not be as aware of, educated about, or personally invested in these issues as female participants are, and they are therefore less likely to deem female-specific issues of war important enough to be addressed in the final provisions.

It is essential that women’s needs are addressed in post-conflict peacebuilding situations because of the wide-scale violence they typically endure during times of conflict. The UN reports that women are targets for sexual violence and rape during conflicts—weapons of war that are used to increase the hostility, fear, and domination in a conflict.⁸⁰ For example, this is a tactic commonly employed by the Islamic State (ISIS) in times of conflict. In 2014, they targeted a large population of Yazidis, a religious minority in Iraq, and separated women and teenage girls from their families. A large number of women and girls were raped, removed from their community, forced into marriage, or sold. Some girls were also used as gifts for ISIS fighters. These actions of sexual violence demonstrated ISIS’s common practices of denigrating female worth, dividing communities, and asserting widespread fear and dominance through tactics of sexual violence.⁸¹

Unfortunately, these practices of sexual violence are not uncommon during conflicts and have occurred frequently in the MENA region. Research confirms that as conflict has risen in MENA, more violence against women and girls has been reported. Victims of this violence are often from minority groups, such as the Yazidis or refugees and displaced women from Syria.⁸² However, when female negotiators are present at the peace negotiations, they are able to advocate for these women because they are more aware of the difficulties they face. This leads to the inclusion of provisions that specifically protect disadvantaged and minority women in the final accords.

An excellent example of a peace agreement that included adequate provisions about women is the Khartoum Accord, negotiated in early 2019 for the Political Agreement for Peace and Reconciliation in the Central African Republic. It included specific verbage addressing sexual violence that occured in the conflict and encouraged the cessation of “all acts of pillage or violations committed against civilians, including sexual and gender-based violence, in particular against women and girls.”⁸³

When women’s needs are not addressed in final agreements, women continue to suffer from the adverse effects of gender-based violence in war. Gender inequality is also a strong predictor of war, so addressing gender gaps in post-conflict settings contributes to the likelihood that peace will remain durable.⁸⁴ Recognition of the insufficient provisions for these female victims in peace agreements is essential to effectively rebuild peace in conflict-torn areas. Having women in peace talks to specifically champion the cause of female citizens helps provide reconciliation for victims of sexual violence during war. Keeping women from negotiating tables only allows violence to continue.

Practices

Professional Peacebuilding Networks

Peacebuilding networks are associations formed between peacebuilding organizations in similar regions. These networks work together to influence national institutions in a bottom-up approach to conflict resolution. By combining their ground-level knowledge and specific peacebuilding goals, they have a larger sphere of influence in their respective regions.⁸⁵

The Global Alliance of Regional Women Mediator Networks (GARWMN) is an example of a professional peacebuilding network that has had influence on peacebuilding efforts in MENA. It is an international organization supporting regional branches in pursuit of common goals and furthering the vision of UNSCR 1325 by encouraging women to be included in peacebuilding processes worldwide. They support branches in the Mediterranean, MENA, Africa, and Nordic areas.⁸⁶

The MENA chapter, the Arab Women Mediators Network, was recently established in 2019 as a branch of the GARWMN and is supported by The League of Arab States and the UN Women Regional Office for Arab States. Their specific goals, along with the collective Networks’ goal to advocate for UNSCR 1325, are to build alliances, share expertise, increase visibility of those in the field, lobby for women’s access to resources, provide training, and cooperate with civil society groups and community women’s organizations.⁸⁷ The Arab Network has met in conferences twice to discuss opportunities for improved peacebuilding in MENA.⁸⁸

Impact

Branches of the GARWMN have made significant progress in the peacebuilding field. For example, the Mediterranean branch (The Mediterranean Women Mediators Network) met during stalled talks in Cyprus and discussed opportunities to promote inclusion and support of women’s voices in the negotiation. Though attendees represented different parties of interest in relation to the talks, the main topic of discussion was the importance of equal respect and inclusion for women, peacebuilders, and mediators.⁸⁹ The Mediterranean branch’s process represents an impressive model of impact that the Arab Network and other branches could adopt and implement in their regions to support local peace processes.

It is difficult to report the impact of the Arab Women Mediators Network because of the lack of information available about their activities. However, the creation of their network has given women in the MENA region opportunities to interact with other female mediators in the area. This creation of social networks in the field of peace and security encourages growth in this field and advocates for the inclusion of women in peace processes in MENA.

Gaps

While the Network creates and promotes a successful network for interaction and support of current female diplomats, improvements could be made to encourage outside learning and participation in mediation. Without an outreach program, the Network is simply a means to support women already practicing conflict resolution. Extending this support to women seeking to develop or further mediation talents could have a significant impact in the region by increasing the number of women qualified to participate in upper-level peace processes. Mediation is not a common field in many parts of the world, particularly in MENA, and this Network has the potential to be instrumental in encouraging and supporting women entering the field.

Additionally, the Network only includes current female diplomats that have participated in track 1 negotiations. This prevents practicing mediators in MENA who have relevant and personal experience in the field of mediating from having a significant impact within the organization. Their inclusion could lead to more civil society groups participating in future track 2 or track 3 negotiations and could help with the inclusivity of content in future peace accords.⁹⁰

Third-party Lobbying and Advocacy by Civil Society Groups

It is often not until third party groups advocate for women’s inclusion in peacebuilding that positive change is seen in peace processes. The mere inclusion of civil society groups (CSGs) leads to a 64% lower chance of failure in a peace agreement.⁹¹ Though it is an incredibly effective practice, it is not being effectively carried out in the MENA region. It has been successful in other areas, such as Colombia. Colombia’s peace processes held from 2012–2016 are commonly seen as the standard to be met when it comes to women’s inclusion in peace talks. However, this is only due to intentional lobbying and advocacy from CSGs and pressure from international sources. When the first round of peace talks for Colombia were held in Cuba, only 1 of the 20 negotiators was female. An international outburst followed, due to the fact that the Colombian conflict involved unique proportions of women as both victims and perpetrators. In response, the National Summit of Women and Peace was organized in 2013 for the specific purpose of advocating for the inclusion of women in the upcoming peace process. International peace experts and over 400 Colombian women representing different parties, ethnicities, and roles in the conflict participated.⁹² The influence of the Summit and the resulting official negotiations offer a model for advancing women’s interests in negotiations that could be adopted by countries in MENA.

Impact

Because of the advocacy by CSGs, international audiences, and Colombian citizens, the Colombian negotiations boasted record numbers of female participants. In the final negotiations, 20% of the Colombian delegation was female and 43% of the opposing party, FARC, was female.⁹³ FARC’s numbers of women were proportional to the ratio of women involved during the conflict, representing impressive steps toward equity that had not been seen in any peace negotiation previously.

The women included were able to address a wider variety of minority groups that were particularly affected by human rights violations during the conflict. They brought attention to minorities such as women and girls, rural citizens, and indigenous peoples. Each of these groups was accounted for in the final provisions, and one provision opposed amnesty for perpetrators of sexual violence.⁹⁴ Women also served as witnesses in the processes, testifying to negotiators about human rights violations they had endured. This built public support and amplified the voice of female citizens.⁹⁵

The processes themselves were meticulously organized and implemented, and, as such, represent a standard of inclusion and specificity for countries engaging in future peace talks. One of Colombia’s most impressive and ambitious processes was to hold a truth commission, which led to the creation of informal commissions such as the “Truth, Memory and Reconciliation Commission of Colombian Women in the Diaspora.” This specific commission’s purpose was to record testimonies of women, gather stories of victimhood from those who experienced the conflict, and provide a compilation of resources pertaining to recovery from sexual violence.^{96, 97, 98} This focus on women’s experiences in the conflict increases awareness and creates pathways for more women’s voices to be heard in the future. These monumental steps only occurred because of the monumental efforts of local and international CSGs.

Gaps

Because of the efforts of third party groups and lobbying, many inclusive provisions may have been part of the final agreement due to the presence of women. However, not all of the provisions have been effectively implemented or even addressed since the signing. Rural communities in particular are struggling in the wake of unfulfilled promises. The accord and commission pledged water, a stronger police presence, investment into education, and electricity to many rural areas hit hardest by the conflict, but few areas in Colombia have seen significant change. A peace agreement is only as valuable as its implementation, and this situation shows the need for increased attention from CSGs not only during negotiations but in the implementation stages of peacebuilding efforts as well.

The agreement was also not as inclusive as it could have been, showing that there may not have been a representative sample of CSGs participating in the initial lobbying efforts. A major gap in Colombia’s final agreement was the failure to address female combatants’ reintegration into society. Post-conflict researchers were critical of the failure to address the needs of female combatants, especially considering the record numbers of female militants and the adequate female presence to represent them. This gap in the peace agreement has translated into less post-conflict support for female combatants in general, which may have been avoided if a more representative sample of CSGs made efforts to lobby for their cause.⁹⁹

Supportive Branches of International Organizations

Though there are many small, local peacebuilding organizations that seek to promote women’s inclusion in peace processes, the more noticeable efforts in this field are often made by larger and more well-connected organizations pursuing the same goals. International organizations, such as the United Nations (UN), will occasionally organize an inside division addressing a specific purpose, such as women’s participation in peace processes. Because of their affiliation with a larger institution, these sister groups can often instigate change and influence policy more quickly than smaller and more local CSGs.

The Group of Friends of Women in Afghanistan (GFWA) is an example of one of these institutional branches. It was established in late 2019 and organized by the UN with strong support from the United Kingdom. Its goal is to provide support for women’s inclusion and the inclusion of the topic of women’s rights in the Taliban-Afghanistan peace process. The GFWA enlisted female ambassadors and deputy ambassadors from 20 countries to join and was even addressed by Hillary Clinton at UN headquarters in early 2020 following the peace deal between the United States and the Taliban.^{100, 101, 102} Beyond advocating directly for the inclusion of women in the talks, the GFWA seeks to reverse the discriminatory and oppressive views of women instilled by the Taliban and ensure complete rights for all Afghan women—views which were mentioned previously as one of the strongest contributors to the lack of female representation in peace processes.

Impact

GFWA has brought international attention to the issue of underrepresentation of women in peace processes. Because international audiences have only recently become aware of this issue, the creation of the GFWA demonstrated the UN’s concern and their willingness to address it. The inclusion of many powerful and politically involved women has also advanced the interests of UNSCR 1325 and made global progress toward women’s increased involvement in peacebuilding.

While there is no specific evidence, the GFWA may have played a large role in helping 4 women be included in the Afghanistan and Taliban talks held in late 2020. The presence of these women was a historic move and represented significant strides toward women’s involvement in Afghanistan.

Gaps

The GFWA is a relatively new organization, and its relationships with civil society groups in Afghanistan could be improved. CSGs, while varying in purpose and size, most often work on the ground addressing the needs of the most oppressed populations and are therefore most familiar with what needs should be brought to negotiating tables. Coordination between GFWA and local Afghani CSGs could more adequately inform those directly involved in peace processes. Efforts to measure and publicize the organization’s impact would also be a valuable practice GFWA could adopt.

Preferred Citation: Swindle, McKenna. “Lack of Female Representation in Peace Processes in the MENA Region.” Ballard Brief. January 2021. www.ballardbrief.org.

Viewpoints published by Ballard Brief are not necessarily endorsed by BYU or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints