Lesson from N-Peace and Reflection on Women, Peace and Security

Recently I was invited to speak about women, peace and security in HQ office of UNDP in New York on 1-2 October 2013. The two days workshop was aimed to review a new initiative called N-Peace and had reflection on UN security council on 1325 in global and national context. It was amazed to hear about quick progress of N-Peace in two years that is able to connect different women peacebuilders in different places in Asia Pacific, especially in Nepal, Afghanistan, Indonesia, the Philippines, Timor Leste, and Srilanka. What the most interesting part of Radhika’s presentation was about recognition of women working in peacebuilding and engaging dialogue with different women actors of peacebuilder. More than 2 million people connected with social media of N-Peace within 2 years is indicating that public is enthusiasm to the initiative and willing to mobilize members of N-Peace. However, critical questions from Jennifer F. Klot from Social Science Research Council regarding, who started to doubt the agenda of feminism, which bring women-centered approach could fasten transformation, especially in bringing women into government system, presumably it will able to change the attitude of government. However, in many context of countries, we witness that there are increasing number of women representation in the decision making process, does not parallelly contribute to structural change. Why?

The question was also raised from Josephine, to reflect the country context of the Philippines, where civil societies are very vibrant and active in responding global and national agenda, to settle formal and informal structure to push peace talks happening inside the country, but it seems end with not “so positive” result. Including the implementation of NAP 1325, which is able to promote number of women in peace talks structure, on the other hand conflict are still going on. Similarly, in Indonesia I also felt that there are some good regulations that promote human rights and protect people’s life, but in many cases do not parallel change the behavior of people. For instance the 1945 constitution that recognizes freedom for religion, but at grass root level, a certain group is fighting for “absolute truth” and against other group. To connect people through N-Peace is good thing, but to mobilize N-Peace’s member is challenge because this should be under designed, so we will have a picture of how to use pull of resources within country and outside country. Is N-Peace strong enough to contribute to structural change in the future?

As we know that the implementation of the UN security council on resolution 1325 on women, peace and security into national concrete agenda is not smooth. Partly, it is because only 39 out of 139 UN member states have adopted the resolution to a National Action Plan (NAP). In my opinion, the other reason is also because there is a big disconnection in different levels. Firstly, there is disconnection on women, peace and security agenda with the other UN resolution such as UNR 1860 (provides an accountability system for addressing conflict-related sexual violence), 1888 (Strengthens tools for implementing 1820 through assigning leadership, building judicial response expertise, and reporting mechanisms), 1889 (Addresses women’s exclusion from early recovery and peacebuilding and lack of adequate planning and funding for their needs), 1920 (first to recognize conflict-related sexual violence as a tactic of warfare and a critical component of the main-tenance of international peace and security, requiring a peacekeeping, justice, and peace negotiation response).

Secondly, disconnection of agenda women, peace and security is with human rights instrument such as human rights declaration, CEDAW, ICCPR, ICESR etc. What I mean by disconnection is because the implementation of UNR 1325 separately from other instruments, and no mechanism how to mainstream the agenda 1325 into related human rights instrument, especially within the national context. When it is translated into NAP 1325, then this does not have a bridging mechanism to other existing NAP.  At least I am talking about context of Indonesia, which we have some NAPs relating to human rights, disability, greenhouse gas emission reduction, REDD implementation etc. These NAPs are implementing with “silent” communication.  

Thirdly, other big disconnection of WPS with the global agenda on development, environment justice, South-South cooperation, global partnership etc.  So, we often seen that women, peace , security agenda separate concern with the global agenda on post 2015 development agenda, APEC, G20 etc. I think it is because the peace and development platform could not find the core common intersection concept and lack of knowledge management on best practice of peace and development project in different part of the world that has not yet spread widely, so people do not have clear picture of peace and development intervention during reconstruction and rehabilitation aftermath. As an impact of disconnection is the working mechanism within civil society organization (CSO) and also grant making organization because indicator of each project may not relate to WPS. 

Fourthly, disconnection between national and local, where N-peace members lies from Aceh to Papua. This become strength when mechanism of mobilizing people and knowledge is effective working. So, national advocacy will be supported by local groups. This needs more than formal dialogue, it needs intensive communication and regular update of best practice from the field and manage the knowledge in such a creative way so other regions could learn.

In the context of Indonesia, women peacebuilders are spreading to different islands, so it needs effective mechanism how to engage them actively in the national and global advocacy. However, it needs to have organic movement, which is beyond formal meeting to actively provide a space for exchange experiences and knowledge in the context of multi disciplines. So, collective national leadership should be mechanism to strength the movement and engage them actively in the global agenda, so WPS is not just translated to UNR 1325 without communicating with CEDAW and other human rights instrument both in national and international level. In practical way, all program of agency must reflect clear indicators of WPS, including gender sensitive one.

Some proposals came up from the forum to strengthen collective leadership and strength mobilization that could make priority of N-Peace in the future. “Is it possible to treat N-Peace beyond the project”. Because there is strong need to have cultural movement building that is often overlooked because “project framework”. Other proposal for N-Peace is to strength communication mechanism within country and engage with regional mechanism such as ASEAN institute on Peace and Reconciliation, and global agenda such as Post 2015 development agenda, G 20 etc. For the sake of national advocacy, N-peace should create mechanism of mobilizing members to support the agenda continuously. Currently Bill on gender equality is being advocated by some women’s group, how N-Peace members could pour greater energy to succeed the advocacy. The cross cutting issues must be chosen as the best way to integrate WPS agenda to other development agenda.

To end my reflection, I would like to quote from Josephine’s statement during our conversation that “CSO in Asia is strong. Without N-Peace, they have existed for long time. When they joint with N-Peace, it should have added value.”  ***

Written by Ruby Kholifah, country representative of AMAN Indonesia