Author Archives: EDITOR - Majken

The latest instalment in March 2023 of our National Dialogue peer-exchange series explored the somewhat overlooked potential of faith-based actors to influence National Dialogues. Here are five key takeaways from the discussion led by expert National Dialogue practitioners.

Faith-based actors can significantly influence formal peace and political transition processes, including initiatives such as National Dialogues, playing a range of roles across modalities and phases. In many countries, faith-based actors have considerable influence not only among their own constituents but over the public in general, meaning they are well-placed to support – or indeed undermine – processes like National Dialogues. While supporting key faith-based actors who are or could be engaged in peace efforts can increase the chances of sustainable peace, their potential often remains largely untapped.

This discussion touched on a broad variety of country contexts, with a particular focus on Ukraine, South Sudan, and Colombia, and was grounded in a series of framing questions:

  • In what ways can faith-based actors be involved in National Dialogues? What factors enhance or hinder their participation and influence?
  • Why do faith-based actors choose to engage in National Dialogues, and why do other actors seek to engage faith-based actors in National Dialogues?
  • When and why do faith-based actors support or obstruct a National Dialogue?
  • What opportunities and challenges emerge from the inclusion of faith-based actors?
  • What differentiates faith-based actors from secular actors? What can faith-based actors uniquely contribute to National Dialogues?

The event sought to provide options and ideas to inform faith-based actors’ involvement in upcoming and ongoing National Dialogues and other actors’ engagement of faith-based actors in and around National Dialogue processes.

Five key takeaways

Takeaway 1: Faith-based actors do not exist in a vacuum but are grounded in context and can influence that context

While certain characteristics of faith-based actors – notably their communion with the spiritual and the sacred – set them apart from other societal actors, they do not exist in a vacuum. On the contrary, they are very much anchored in the national, regional, and local political and social context. The politicisation of religion and faith is a key factor shaping the space in which faith-based actors operate, but it is important to remember that politics is also inherently intertwined with religion; some (or even plenty of) faith-based actors are deliberately engaged in politics. Many faith-based actors – beyond those with overtly political ambitions – facilitate contact between their constituents and political leaders. But in many contexts, they could be more proactive in shaping democracy and society rather than reacting to pressure from the state.

Nevertheless, as for all societal stakeholders, the level of civic space – especially in terms of divergence of opinion – is predominately determined by the state. For initiatives such as National Dialogues, this means that – as for other societal stakeholders – faith-based actors’ ability to meaningfully influence a National Dialogue is largely dependent on the political will of the regime in power: do ruling elites want a true “dialogue” or just a “national monologue”?

Takeaway 2: A high level of popular trust in FBAs means they can lend legitimacy to initiatives like National Dialogues, but this trust cannot be taken for granted

While many faith-based actors have built up high levels of trust among both their constituents and the broader population, simply because an actor is faith-based doesn’t automatically make them the most trustworthy member of the community. A high level of trust in faith-based actors is thus not a universal phenomenon that can be taken as read. Where faith-based actors do enjoy a high-level of trust from both the broader population and elites, this trust allows them to exert influence over and confer legitimacy on initiatives like National Dialogues.

Takeaway 3: inclusivity and representativeness are two of the determinants of the level of popular trust in and therefore legitimacy of faith-based actors

While faith-based actors can in many cases be ‘close to the people’, that is not always necessarily the case and a number of critical questions regarding inclusivity and representation can be asked of faith-based actors: do they fully represent their whole faith community? Do they only represent their own faith community? How are they collaborating with other faith-based actors? Are they also meaningfully engaging with women and youth? What is their relationship to ruling elites?

A particularly pertinent issue relates to contexts of majority/minority faith-based actors, which account for by far the most common instances of faith distribution around the world. In such contexts, faith-based leaders from the majority often consider they should have the principal say in which faith-based actors are involved and how. But the majority status of such faith-based actors only serves to enhance their responsibility for inclusivity.

Takeaway 4: The power of unity in diversity

Faith-based actors’ credibility and authority is dependent on a number of factors, chief among which is unity. This unity can be multifaceted. Firstly, it concerns unity within faiths, as divided communities find it harder to engage in and influence processes such as National Dialogues. But it also concerns unity across faiths – given the power of communities from different faiths working together in a spirit of inclusivity for the greater societal good – unity among faith-based and secular actors, and even among civilian and military actors (a divide bridged by faith-based actors like military or medical chaplains).

The kind of holistic unity that can elevate faith-based actors’ ability to work for the greater societal good can thus best be described as a unity of purpose that respects, embraces, and leverages diversity. This power of unity in diversity rests on faith-based actors’ capacity for pluralistic dialogue – within their own faith community, with actors from other faiths, with civil society, the military, and the government – which many faith-based actors see as grounded in scripture.

Takeaway 5: The vital importance of inter- and multi-faith cooperation

As with politicians who are willing and able to ‘cross the aisle’, working across the inter-religious community, rather than only within their own religious community, is a very different mode of operation for faith-based actors, which requires particular characteristics that set such actors apart from the majority. These kinds of faith-based actors who see each other as equals in the civic space and are willing to work together inter- or multi-religiously to serve society at large are imbued with social cohesion. Such faith-based actors are best placed to positively influence initiatives like National Dialogues and help to shape societies’ pathways to lasting peace.

Our approach to the peer exchange series

In hosting this event series, Inclusive Peace and our ND practitioner partners aim to contribute to a better understanding of the dynamics of National Dialogues and explore strategies to improve their effectiveness.

Our approach puts the experience and lessons of ND practitioners at the heart of the discussion, by having peers from different country contexts lead the exchange. Country experts and international experts then have the opportunity to listen and learn from these experiences, but it is the peer exchange that is the main focus of the event.

The previous instalments in the event series, looked at the role National Dialogues can play in helping chart a way towards consensus in tough political environments, the challenges relating to politicisation of National Dialogue processes, the interaction of National Dialogues and elections, and the interplay of National Dialogues and peace talks. Read more about our work on National Dialogues here.

“Kinshasa,DR Congo:As part of activities marking the International Peace day in Kinshasa, MONUSCO organized a forum for religious leaders to meet the Public and discuss Peace in the DR Congo” by MONUSCO is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.

Report,

What Makes or Breaks National Dialogues?

This report is based on the National Dialogue research project and its comparative analysis of 17 cases of National Dialogues (1990 – 2014). It aims to contribute to a better understanding of the functions of National Dialogues in peace processes.

October 2017|Anne Zachariassen, Cindy Helfer, Thania Paffenholz,

Download Pdfview document

This week marks the 25th anniversary of the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement (GFA) in Northern Ireland, which was signed on 10 April. The specific peace process that gave rise to the GFA, as well as events during the 30 years before the GFA and in the 25 years since are an excellent illustration of how building peace is a perpetual, non-linear process, involving constant negotiation and re-negotiation of the social and political contract, marked by a mixture of progress, resistance, and setbacks.

Paving the way for the GFA: Northern Ireland’s protracted official peace process(es)

During the 30 or so years of conflict known as “the Troubles”, there was a series of formal attempts at reaching a constitutional settlement to reconcile loyalist (unionist) and republican (nationalist) divides. While they did not resolve any major substantive issues, they did lay the groundwork for the GFA process by improving and institutionalising Anglo–Irish cooperation at the inter-governmental level, and reaching a consensus on the main topics and discussion strands future negotiations would address, including devolved democratic institutions in Northern Ireland, formal bodies dedicated to North–South relations (Northern Ireland and Ireland), and structures dedicated to institutional East–West cooperation (the United Kingdom and Ireland). The two Governments outlined these themes in a comprehensive set of proposals, the “Frameworks Document,” which served as a blueprint for the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement.

The GFA process itself was also far from plain sailing. The IRA’s attack in London in February 1996, ending its ceasefire, meant that while Sinn Féin still contested the election to the Northern Ireland Forum for Political Dialogue it was initially barred from attending the multi-party talks. Elections in the UK in May 1997 and in Ireland in June 1997 catalysed the peace process: the new Labour Government in the UK was better placed to temper the suspicions of nationalists in Northern Ireland about the UK Government’s commitment to the process, and it had a more solid parliamentary base for engagement in the process; the new Irish Fianna Fáil government was in a better position to deal decisively with the republican movement due to its traditional association with the ideals of republicanism. In July 1997, the IRA announced the renewal of its ceasefire, prompting an invitation to Sinn Féin to join the multi-party talks. Despite a brief withdrawal of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), substantive negotiations began in October 1997. After all-night discussions and a 17- hour extension of the deadline, the talks resulted in the signing of the GFA on 10 April 1998.

The political Rubik’s Cube: navigating the post-GFA political landscape

The GFA is a multifaceted agreement dealing with issues relating to sovereignty, governance, decommissioning and security, policing and the judiciary, and discrimination. In addition to establishing formal institutions across these thematic areas, it also established a devolved system of government in Northern Ireland comprising a legislature – the Northern Ireland Assembly (“Stormont”), and a power-sharing executive – the Executive Committee – run by a duumvirate appointed by the two largest parties in the Assembly.

Yet, the political settlement ushered in by the GFA has proved highly contested; Northern Irish politics has remained extremely polarised, and there have been multiple collapses of the executive (which has now not functioned for over a third of its lifespan) and suspensions of the Assembly since 1998. Renewed talks in 2006 attempted to provide a road map (the 2007 St Andrews Agreement) towards addressing the major bones of contention, chiefly the acceptance of devolved policing and the rule of law for Sinn Féin, and the acceptance of power sharing for the DUP. The power-sharing arrangement subsequently was slightly more stable, until circumstances – notably the result of the referendum in June 2016, on the United Kingdom leaving the European Union – once again muddied the constitutional waters. The power-sharing arrangement was suspended for three years in 2017 following a crisis over a renewable energy payments scandal, before being uneasily restored. Brexit provoked another collapse in early 2022 that is yet to be resolved; whether the February 2023 Windsor Framework for post-Brexit trading arrangements can do so remains to be seen.

Healing a divided and changing society

The inherent weaknesses in the power-sharing arrangement are both rooted in and reflect the fact that societal tensions are yet to be fully reconciled. While efforts at peace-making and peacebuilding in Northern Ireland have significantly attenuated generations of violent inter-communal division in Northern Ireland, ongoing sectarian tension – including a lack of integration and cohabitation amongst communities and, in recent years, disputes over the use of flags and symbols, parades and marches that showcase sectarian identities, welfare and police reforms, the arrest of Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams in 2014, and the Irish National Language Act – is both a symptom and a cause of ongoing distrust between loyalists and republican communities.

Caption: The persistence of about 60 peace walls, which physically separate loyalist and republican neighbourhoods in various cities, bear witness to the ongoing divisions in Northern Irish society.Yet, there has also been a marked recent shift in political and societal attitudes and priorities beyond sectarianism. The electoral success of both Sinn Féin and the non-sectarian Alliance Party in the 2022 Stormont elections are the manifestation of the Northern Irish population attaching greater importance to (universal) issues like education, healthcare, the welfare system, and economic considerations – chiefly inflation and the cost-of-living crisis – than to sectarian issues and Northern Ireland’s constitutional status. Polls in 2022 found that 21% Northern Ireland’s citizens consider themselves as “Northern Irish” rather than “British” or “Irish”.

This can partly be explained by a (natural) generational shift; younger people in the country who didn’t grow up during the Troubles seemingly view their aspirations and the challenges they face through other lenses than a purely or even principally sectarian one. All of this shows that what peace means and looks like in a specific context is a constantly moving target.

Building lasting peace is a society-wide endeavour

Northern Irish society during the Troubles has been widely referred to as a state of “armed patriarchy” underpinned by conservative, masculinised values and discourse of nationalism and religion.

In spite of that, women were heavily involved in civil rights and particularly local community work during the Troubles, advocating for peace and social change. Women’s groups succeeded in securing the participation of a dedicated women’s caucus – the Northern Ireland Women’s Coalition – in the track one negotiations. Women successfully advocated for the inclusion of language and provisions in the GFA on equal opportunity, women’s rights to equal political participation, social inclusion, reconciliation and the needs of victims of violence, integrated education and mixed housing, and for a Civic Forum to engage with a broad range of stakeholders on the implementation of the GFA. Women were also included in official consultations, played a key role in the “yes” campaign that succeeded in ratifying the GFA by referendum, and were involved in GFA-mandated commissions.

Faith-based actors have also made a major contribution to building peace in Northern Ireland. During the Troubles, in spite of the sectarian divide, which was partly both crystalised around and perpetuated by socio-cultural religious organisations like the Orange Order, a number of Protestant and Catholic actors mobilised for peace. This included organising large scale Peace Marches, acting as mediators between militants, and advocating for and facilitating ceasefires. They also worked to build trust and understanding within and between different sectarian groups through hosting meetings between paramilitary leaders on both sides of the conflict. Faith-based actors have been involved in the implementation of the GFA and have continued efforts to foster social reconciliation and healing, including through creating and facilitating spaces where people who identify as loyalist or republican can come together and have uncomfortable, but necessary conversations to humanise one another.


Caption: Peace walls decorated with hopeful murals are just one example of the myriad ways in which communities in Northern Ireland are trying to reconcile their differences and build a shared peaceful future

We know from evidence and experience that society-wide involvement in building peace is crucial to making peace inclusive and sustainable. Bottom-up initiatives and spaces for societal involvement take on even greater importance in contexts like Northern Ireland, where the formal political arena is deadlocked. Recent and current examples, ranging from consultative bodies the Civic Forum and the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, to existing inter-sectarian civic spaces such as the Suffolk and Lenadoon Interface Group or the 174 Trust provide a blueprint to consolidate and expand. Doing so is a crucial aspect of reimagining and diversifying the ways we understand and undertake peacemaking and peacebuilding, which is essential to making sure these processes are an integral part of – rather than separated from – the arc of a society’s changing development, and to ensuring that that arc bends towards a peaceful, just, and inclusive future.

————————————————————-
This blog post was written by Alexander Bramble and Philip Poppelreuter

Check out our case study and our infographic on women in the 1996-1998 Northern Ireland peace process, our digital story on faith-based actors’ peacebuilding work in Northern Ireland, and our blog post on Perpetual Peacebuilding.

 

Photos: “File:Nothing with us.jpg” by Michael Lovito is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0, “Peace in Northern Ireland – geograph.org.uk – 3551004” by Oliver Dixon is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0. “Belfast Murals – Sandy Row (5702530038)” by William Murphy from Dublin, Ireland is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0. “File:Peace Line, Belfast – geograph – 1254138.jpg” by Ross is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.

Case Study,

Women in Peace and Transition Processes: Northern Ireland (1996–1998)

This case study analyses women’s influence in Northern Ireland’s Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement (1996-1998).

December 2018|Alexander Bramble,

Download Pdfview document

Infographic,

Infographic: Women’s role in Northern Ireland’s Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement (1996-1998)

This infographic analyses women’s influence in Northern Ireland’s Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement (1996-1998).

December 2018|IPTI,

Download Pdfview document

Our March readings and podcasts selection includes books, articles, and podcasts we think you’ll enjoy.

READING

Social Movements and NGOs: Can They Get Along?

Outlines some of the pitfalls and pathways towards more impactful partnership between NGOs and Movements. At Inclusive Peace, our partnership approach is informed by many of the challenges, perverse incentives, and contradictions which the article outlines. While there’s more work to do to be able to more nimbly and equitably support movements, this article was an encouraging read which showed that we are pursuing the right track.

Recommended by Alex Shoebridge

Chums: How a Tiny Caste of Oxford Tories Took Over the U.K. by Simon Kuper

Chronicles how a tribe of young men coalesced at Oxford in the mid and late 1980s and would go on to run the U.K. (and resoundingly successfully I might add!), providing an interesting taxonomy of Oxford in the process.

Recommended by Alex Bramble

PODCASTS

Adam Grant, Work Life

Great reflections on work, life and how to make both better (and not just more balanced). Adam Grant is a best-selling author, award winning professor and researcher in organisational psychology.

Recommended by Rainer Gude

Rethinking Humanitarianism | More trade; less aid? By the New Humanitarian

In this episode, guest speakers look at the role of the World Trade Organisation in shaping how interaction between countries can improve relations to avoid unfair competitive markets, which has in the past led to conflicts and wars. This podcast discusses the terms of trade that haven’t changed much since the early 1990s. The use of aid for the short term and how this would affect the long term economic development when trade isn’t picking up due to low value trading.

Recommended by Wairimu Wanjau 

Faith-based actors can have a fundamental influence in relation to peace and political transition processes. Given the legitimacy, influence, and public platform they possess, religious leaders (and institutions) can either sow the seeds for peace, or fan the flames of war.

In the course of a joint project with The United States Institute of Peace (USIP) and The International Center for Religion and Diplomacy (ICRD), Inclusive Peace have produced a forthcoming report that draws on 71 case studies of peace and transition processes assessing the involvement of faith-based actors. The report lays out a series of comparative findings examining why, the extent to which, and how faith-based actors have been engaged in formal peace processes over the last 30 years. Despite significant differences in terms of conflict dynamics, recent experiences from Ukraine and Ethiopia illustrate the significant bearing faith-based actors can have on the trajectory of a conflict as well as a strong influence on any rapprochement, dialogue, and reconciliation attempts. Our comparative research also explores a number of factors which either enable or constrain faith-based actors’ influence.

This blog explores a few of these factors that may be particularly pertinent to consider with regard to the current dynamics at play in relation to Ukraine and Ethiopia.

Unity: Internal unity of faith-based actors has a pronounced effect on the influence they can exert on peace and political transition processes. This can often be a gargantuan task, given that cleavages within or between faith communities often mirror conflict lines. In Sri Lanka, polarisation within the Catholic Church prevented it from adopting a clear anti-war message. Such divisions are not uncommon, and in some contexts can also be used to demonstrate a commitment to internal dialogue and reconciliation, as was seen in the Catholic Church in Guatemala, where internal divisions were addressed through dialogue. By demonstrating and seeking to peacefully manage divisions, the Church’s legitimacy was actually bolstered, which then positioned the Church to play a central role in the country’s peace process. Similar kinds of dialogue – initially informal grassroots dialogue – are currently happening amongst Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarchate (UCO-MP) and the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU), including through public joint prayers. It remains to be seen the extent to which religion will become a central point of contestation in the conflict itself, which could fundamentally shift conflict dynamics (and how broader parts of society and the international community are mobilised to support, or not, military objectives). In Ethiopia, recent tension within the Orthodox Tewahedo Church has threatened to create new waves of instability (both at national and community level), and it remains to be seen to what extent a reconciled Orthodox Church can now play an active role in advancing dialogue and reconciliation efforts more broadly in the country.

Coalition building: Faith-based actors’ ability to build coalitions among different actors of different faiths and other stakeholders, particularly those likely to have an influence over conflict parties, strongly contributes to their ability to influence peace and political transition processes. In some instances, these coalitions are formal mechanisms or institutions, such as Inter-Religious Councils. The Inter-Religious Council in Liberia played a critical role in bringing together Muslim and Christian leaders (and communities), who in turn pushed for an end to the civil war, and who subsequently were deeply involved in the country’s pathway to reconciliation. In other contexts, such as the Philippines, faith-based actors worked with civil society and business actors to increase public mobilisation and support for a peace process, while also using the breadth of the coalition to influence main actors in the implementation process and to engage with political leaders.

Resources and organisational capacity: Faith-based actors, particularly when members of large powerful social organisations such as churches, have important material, infrastructural and political resources that facilitate both their inclusion and influence in peacemaking and peacebuilding efforts. The fact that these organisations have their own resources rather than being dependent upon others increases their independence and, in turn, their legitimacy. In Afghanistan, the ulama councils of religious scholars supported outreach and public mobilisation in the Constitutional Loya Jirga process, increasing their influence in and around the process. Yet this influence was also exploited by certain Mujahideen leaders (claiming religious leadership) to take a stance against transitional justice, which made more moderate clerics and mullahs fearful of supporting such an initiative. Because they have the necessary financial and human resources, faith-based actors can invest in long-term involvement both in mediation efforts among conflict parties but also within communities. Many religious groups remain involved in the post-agreement phase and help parties heal, build social institutions, and seek justice. In Sierra Leone, the Inter-religious Council of Sierra Leone (IRCSL) was involved in reconciliation, relief, human rights training, democratisation, and reintegration programs, especially of child combatants. In this way, the resources and organisational capacity of faith-based actors can lend themselves to sustained engagement and involvement overtime as conflict dynamics change, and the potential for peace processes (and their implementation, including through reconciliation) also evolves over time.

Early involvement: Early involvement of faith-based actors in dialogue efforts establishes a precedent for their continued involvement and increases its legitimacy. While the conflict dynamics may not lend themselves to overt engagement (or even in the use of rhetoric around “negotiation” or “reconciliation” given the political sensitivities and the realities of the violent conflict “here and now”), finding ways to engage with conflict parties (and the wider community/ society) can ultimately create the conditions for faith-based actors to play a meaningful role in peacemaking efforts. This can be true of faith-based actors within a particular context, as well as faith-based actors from neighbouring countries or at the international level. In the case of the Beagle Channel dispute between Chile and Argentina, early Papal mediation was key to preventing further escalation. On the other hand, Buddhist actors in Sri Lanka strongly opposed the Norwegian-led peace process, which served as a major “spoiler”. In Ethiopia, the Inter-Religious Council and a number of individual faith communities made individual and joint statements calling for violence in the north of the country to be avoided during the early period of the internal conflict. While these calls weren’t headed, they have subsequently conferred a degree of legitimacy on the Inter-Religious Council (and national faith-based bodies such as the Orthodox Church, Catholic Church and the Islamic Supreme Council) as the country now looks ahead to a National Dialogue process.

 

Photo source: Dimitris Avramopoulos/Flickr

We’ve put together a selection of readings, podcasts and video recommendation that we think you might enjoy this new year.

READING

Tattoos on the Heart by Greg Boyle

The founder of Homeboy Industries, the largest Gang reinsertion program in the world, Father Greg Boyle tells stories that will make you laugh and cry about the power of compassion and how to stand with those on the margins. A great and powerful model for inclusion.

Recommendation by Rainer Gude

Other news

Other News is a nonprofit organisation that publishes expert analyses of and opinions on a variety of global issues and trends. The organisation prides itself as a platform for voices against the tide. This aptly summarises the content of the stimulating and thought provoking daily contributions one can find on the organisation´s website, which approach and discuss global challenges from a different angle than the mainstream media.

Recommended by Philip Poppelreuter

PODCAST

Top Global Crises to Expect in 2023 by Global Dispatches 

The attention will continue to be directed towards Horn of Africa. Somalia, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, Yemen, and DRC will be the top countries to watch in terms of humanitarian assistance. Based on the mixed methodology to assess the risks, they discuss how countries like Somalia will be further exposed to the climate emergency. Another significant effect is to be derived from the economic problems and food crisis that piles up for 2023, accelerated by the war in Ukraine.

Recommended by Tamar Tkemaladze

“Hold your fire!” / Dec 2022 / “No end in sight in Ukraine?” by International Crisis Group 

While the conflict continues to evolve and shift on an almost daily basis, ICG’s podcast from December reflects on some of the broader lines regarding the trajectory of the conflict, including in terms of possible scenarios towards negotiation.

Recommended by Alex Shoebridge

A crisis in Peru Signals Trouble for South America & Why Haiti Asked for an Intervention by The New York Times 

From the New York Times, two episodes of the Daily podcast hosted by Sabrina Tavernise examining the recent political showdown in Peru and the request for international aid launched by Haiti.

Recommended by Giulia Ferraro

Conversing on Africa Peace by Africa Amani & Australian Embassy in Ethiopia 

A Podcast series is hosted by the Africa Amani and Australian Embassy in Ethiopia, which is focussed on highlighting how peace processes and peacebuilding in Africa is shaping up and what lessons can be drawn from the various processes highlighted.

Recommended by Wairimu Wanjau

Video

Under the Sun, Vitaliy Mansky by Icarus Films

After years of negotiation the Russian director Vitaly Mansky was invited by the North Korean government to make a film about one girl and her family in the year she prepares to join the Children’s Union, on the ‘Day of the Shining Star’ (Kim Jong-Il’s birthday). The North Korean government cast the film, wrote the script, and provided guides to feed the actors their lines while managing every detail of the project. But the government handlers supervising the production did not realise that Mansky kept filming even after they had shouted “Cut.” The result is an extraordinarily revealing mixture of official propaganda and unauthorised behind-the-scenes footage

Recommended by Alex Bramble

 

In this piece our Peace Process Support Coordinator, Alexander Shoebridge reflects on how the events in Ukraine may create unforeseen entry points in Belarus, and can prompt civil society to rethink how they seek to counter the regime.

Few could have predicted what is now unfolding in Ukraine. More than one million people have become refugees in the course of a week and as Ukrainian cities become increasingly under siege Ukrainian civilians – IT specialists, engineers, nurses, and teachers – take up arms to resist invasion. While tension between Russia and Ukraine may have been steadily building for a number of years, the speed in which the situation has evolved is astounding. The range of scenarios and flow-on effects of the war which could emerge in the coming weeks and months is even more mind-boggling, ranging from the opening of democratic space in Russia and Belarus, through to a nuclear winter.

At Inclusive Peace, we think of moments like these as “critical junctures” – moments in time where the status quo is fundamentally challenged and where the range of potential futures is far wider than what could have otherwise been foreseen. In this piece, we reflect on what this moment in time means for civil society actors in Belarus.

While much of the media attention is rightly on Ukraine, the situation in neighbouring Belarus has received less attention. Since August 2020, the Belarusian regime has effectively exercised repression to either arrest political opponents, or force them to flee overseas. At the same time, the regime has moved to consolidate the position of President Lukashenko via a recent constitutional change process which has been seen by many as an attempt to prolong his stay in power, while simultaneously reducing the influence of the country’s Parliament.

In recent weeks, as the country approached the referendum, the Belarusian opposition faced fundamental questions regarding their medium-term strategy and points of leverage going forward.

On Sunday 27th February, as Russian troops continued their invasion of Ukraine, Belarusians went to the polls to partake in that country’s Constitutional Referendum. While the exiled-opposition had previously resisted the urge to call for protests inside Belarus – knowing the likely harsh response from the State’s security apparatus – the events in neighbouring Ukraine (and the role of the Belarusian regime in enabling them) prompted a shift. In a statement prior to the referendum, Svetlana Tikhanovskaya called for protesters to make their rejection – both of the referendum and the war – known. Though it is hard to verify the precise numbers, these calls were heeded by hundreds of Belarusians, marking the biggest public demonstration in more than a year. In Russia, more than 7,000 protestors have been detained across 100 cities, according to OVD (an independent human rights media project). In recent days, there have also been reports of Belarusians sabotaging Russian military equipment through cyber attacks and calls from President Lukashenko to punish any “backstabbing” of Russian allies.

A second shift has also occurred in relation to how parts of the democratic movement have sought to position themselves internationally, from exiled political opposition to an exiled government. While Belarus is currently the host of nascent talks between Russia and Ukraine, the exiled Tikhanovskaya had initially offered to play a mediation role, beating Lukashenko to the punch. Days earlier, Tikhanovskaya and other opposition figures announced the formation of a transitional cabinet as the national authority of Belarus. Other parts of the opposition movement have taken up arms in support of Ukrainian military and “territorial defence” units. These moves reinforced notions of illegitimacy of the current regime, and underlined the interdependent relationship between the current regimes in Minsk and Moscow. The raft of additional sanctions placed on Russia and Belarus may ultimately weaken this symbiotic relationship and simultaneously undermine the current political economy status quo within both countries. Such a set of circumstances would have been unthinkable just a few weeks ago.

One must not (and can not) lose sight of the tremendous human tragedies which have been experienced over the past week (and, sadly, will most likely continue for sometime, and long after the guns have fallen silent). At the same time, the possible futures that lie ahead present entry points to change the status quo in Belarus in ways which would have been impossible to imagine.

Read all news

This newest piece in our trend content series deals with some of the underlying factors for why women’s inclusion in peace and political transition processes is still lacking and what there is to do about it. Our Associate Director, Sarah Taylor and our Executive Director, Thania Paffenholz take a thorough look at the status of the WPS agenda and what it takes to move it forward.

Thania Paffenholz: Hello Sarah and welcome! It is a pleasure to have you here Sarah, our Director of Women, Peace and Security, currently on leave of absence as Policy Analyst at the the Compact for WPS and Humanitarian Action at UN Women. Today we are talking about women’s inclusion in peace processes and why women’s participation on the one hand seems to be advancing and on the other hand in a certain sense seem stuck. But before we start Sarah, what is in fact the Women, Peace and Security agenda?

Sarah Taylor: Sure, thank you Thania, it is so lovely to have this conversation with you, I can’t wait to see where it goes. Your question is an extremely broad question because the agenda encompasses a great many things – and it has truly evolved over the 21 years since the Security Council first adopted Resolution 1325. When it was adopted, the agenda pulled together efforts around mobilization particularly of women in communities affected by conflict demanding a set of things. Among other things, women should be recognized and supported in their roles and efforts in conflict prevention. The thread through the agenda is of course respect for women’s rights and to bolster the demands, there is this normative policy framework including multiple Security Council resolutions, national action plans etc.

Thania Paffenholz: OK, so to sum up, we are talking about a normative framework that puts the attention to women and girls in various circumstances of conflict; from protection to inclusion in peace processes coming from a rights-based normative approach. As a consequence, we now have people that call themselves WPS practitioners like yourself, so, what is a WPS practitioner? And what are you?

Sarah Taylor: I don’t know what I am!

Thania Paffenholz: Haha, OK, but how do you become a WPS practitioner? What has been your way?

Sarah Taylor: You know, there are multiple ways to be a WPS practitioner. You can think of a WPS practitioner as anybody who is engaged in a subsequent way around issues of conflict and crisis with a gender lens. You can be a women’s protection advisor for the UN working in South Sudan; you can be somebody who is working to facilitate the voices of women and girls in under-the-radar talks in for example Myanmar or you can be a uniformed woman – police or military – in Ukraine for example. You can also work at the policy level – in the UN, in civil society etc. – trying to get policy to be responsive to the particular considerations and concerns in the field. I fall into the latter category with an academic and policy background.

Thania Paffenholz: Thanks! OK, let’s move to the global challenges around women’s participation in peace processes. In short, we have this normative framework in place – but with current global developments, there is a need to protect the gains of the WPS agenda and to avoid that things are moving backwards. Could you explain what you see as the current limiting factors for the advancement of the WPS agenda?

Sarah Taylor: Yeah, it has been a couple of distressing years on multiple fronts. We have the continuation of a global pandemic which has wildly exacerbated not only global inequalities but also access to health care and vaccines. The pandemic has also catalyzed an absolute disaster in terms of violence against women – the incredible rise in the rates of domestic violence is just one example.

And at the same time, we have seen other distressing developments for women’s rights and participation; the coup in Myanmar, the ongoing violence in Ethiopia, the absolute disaster that is Afghanistan, the ongoing unrest and political violence in Sudan, the earthquake and intense political violence in Haiti and then ultimately the situation in Ukraine. And those are just the crises that are hitting the headlines, right? But all of those crises have a gender component to them – in Sudan women continue to be protesting in the streets against the coup, in Ethiopia the UN has repeatedly talked about sexual violence as part of that conflict, in Myanmar, women have fought for years to have their voices heard in efforts around the peace process and in Afghanistan.

All those developments are not heartening. And the major struggle for the international community is the question of what to do in a situation like Afghanistan. I mean, you saw what happened. All of this energy has been put into highlighting women’s rights and then when the Taliban took over, the international community was stuck in terms of what to do other than say to the Taliban: as the Taliban, you need to respect women’s rights. But the response was muddled – you had international delegations of ALL MEN going to talk to the Taliban. You had international organizations telling their women service providers and humanitarian workers: Stay home. Which is NOT the message we want to be sending to the Taliban. So, when it comes to these rapid inflection points, the international community is still really confused about what to do. And unfortunately, it is the women in these communities that pay the price.

Thania Paffenholz: So, globally we have a situation that is not looking great – we have authoritarian backlashes, we have extremists coming into power and setting an example for other extremists and we have an international community that is not doing enough to support women in these crises. Essentially there is, as in Afghanistan, an enormous focus on women’s rights and then in one day – DAFF! – all of the effort is gone. In our work in contexts like Syria and Yemen for example, we see that despite of the fact that the peace processes have been stuck since years and that peace talks are non-existing, the activities for women on the ground are still operating under the illusion that women will be included in the next round of peace talks – talks that are nowhere in sight.

Sarah Taylor: Yes, there is a divorce from the reality of the situation, right?

Thania Paffenholz: Yes, I think that is a good point – and the question is if the international community understands the realities of contemporary conflict? It seems to me that what you are saying is that the WPS agenda and gender issues can’t be separated from the international way of dealing with crises. Is that right?

Sarah Taylor: Yes, definitely. There is a need to recognise what conflict and crisis looks like in other settings and to learn from that. We need to ask ourselves, what can we learn from the way women have engaged as activists, as practitioners in political crises in Latin America? What can we learn from women that are dealing with an existential humanitarian crisis which is climate change and big power confrontation in the Pacific? They are mobilized and they are working! How are both activists, WPS practitioners, states and UN actors grappling with the crises that are not the classic state vs. state conflicts? What can we learn from those situations where we are addressing really complex crises that are long-term and ongoing? Can we take some of those tools and apply them?

Thania Paffenholz: Yes, since World War II, the international community has come up with these frameworks, institutions and mechanisms in order to deal with world peace. In relation to Ukraine for example, you have the OSCE that was basically founded in order to keep Russia in dialogue with the West. The OSCE is still there, but is it functioning? We have a Security Council where Russia is in, but if Russia and the US are in confrontation, we will most likely witness a repeat of the scenery of the eighties where the Security Council was paralyzed. So, there are these tools, institutions and mechanisms, but somehow they are not fit for purpose. That’s on the level of states, but then as you rightly say: There are so many experiences from women groups all over the world that have done so much – and we need to listen to those.

However, the problem is that the world is still operating in a certain way where the states in their manifestations are trying to fix the world and are incapable of it. Then we have the multilateral institutions, such as the UN, which are run by states, and we can’t expect these to fix the situation, because they are an accumulation of states. And then there is civil society trying their best, but the efforts are disconnected.

Sarah Taylor: Yes, one of the things that I always find fascinating is for example the perception of what the Security Council can and cannot do. I mean, pick your multilateral or any regional institution – if the members are states, you are going to have an inevitable diminution in terms of what that multilateral institution will be able to “do”, because it is states with all their political baggage and perspectives coming to the table. And to a certain degree the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, but the degree to which it is greater really varies.

So one of the lessons learned on WPS, for me at least, is: When it comes to a woman who is Head of State or otherwise sits in the halls of power, as much as we would like that to be an immediate lever of change, it is not. We have to accept the realities of what it means to be somebody who progresses into leadership of a specific institution. Male, female, non-binary or other; a leader has a constituency and that constituency is their institution and the values of that institution is what that person is representing. If that institution has gender equality and rights as a priority, then the person that is leading the institution will hold those values and put them forward. But the idea that an individual can be responsible for overturning all of these institutionalized inequalities is just not going to hold.

We need to simultaneously push for female leadership and for institutional change. And then we need to apply this more nuanced perspective to what change looks like. When you for example take a look at advocacy around the mandates for the UN in Afghanistan, the Informal Expert Group or the discussions UAE will be having on WPS the coming month, it becomes clear that there are very concrete ways to shift and move and change the way that the UN body is doing its work. And it has changed, so I think if we are more nuanced in the way that we think about how these institutions can and cannot affect change, we can find avenues for it.

Thania Paffenholz: Yes, fully agree – one should be careful not to overload the idea of women leadership. You can’t just say: You are a woman, fix the situation. Because we know that the systems are so hard to change. But it is also good that you point out that there are spaces within the systems that can be influenced. What we need is responsible leadership be it female or male or whatsoever, and I think that is what we are often still lacking.

But Sarah, if we are to sum this conversation up, it very much shows us that the WPS agenda is NOT a separate agenda. It is part of the context we live in and the context we live in is apparently not the same as the international community seems to handle in the current way of dealing with conflict and crisis. We need more reality based treatment of conflict and crisis situations globally. And then as you rightly say, we need to highlight and get inspired by women and men who have influenced change be it of systems or in daily lives. Thank you very much, Sarah! Do you have any last ideas or words for us?

Sarah Taylor: Well, I think that in many ways the WPS agenda is flawed and we haven’t seen the results that we want, need and deserve. But the WPS agenda remains a useful tool and if we look at the agenda in the same nuanced way that we have just discussed in relation to how the entire international system acts and what realities are, I think we can see a lot of successes from the WPS agenda. We can also see that there is a lot of work still to be done. And I think that the agenda can provide a useful lever if we are conscious about how to use it. One of the things that I think we can definitely do better is to help provide connected tissue between the normative frameworks and how actors and activists in particular situations can use it.

Thania Paffenholz: Yes, that is also what I see. There are successes and then there are backlashes and a lot of things left to do. I think that if we get to what we in this conversation called a reality-based perspective to the crises and conflicts of today – which I call perpetual peacebuilding – then the implication is that the WPS agenda will never be achieved, it is this constant process. There might be achievements, but the agenda will remain something that always will have to be recontextualised and renegotiated depending on the context.

Sarah Taylor: Definitely, it is a continuum, yes, and we have the ability as the international community to help impact that ongoing movement towards change – we have a role and an obligation to affect that.

Thania Paffenholz: Indeed, Sarah, I think we could go on for a while but let’s end it here – thanks a lot for having this conversation with me!

Sarah Taylor: Thank you too!

Read all news

Created through a partnership between Inclusive Peace, PeaceRep: The Peace and Conflict Resolution Evidence Platform, and Monash University, the PeaceFem App brings together available data on women and gender provisions in peace negotiations and implementation in one easy-to-use app.

The platform was designed specifically with the advancement of the WPS agenda in mind and is intended for use by women’s rights advocates, mediation and negotiation teams, and other actors working in peace and mediation processes. As such, and as any other resource that we provide, we are constantly trying to improve the aptness of tools we can offer fellow peacebuilders and customise them to their needs.

PeaceFem v2 walkthrough video

Here are 4 reasons why you should give the app a try:

COMPARATIVE STRATEGIES: PeaceFem provides information about strategies women’s rights advocates have used to influence peace agreements, information about the enabling and constraining factors that shaped the space for influence, and the gender provisions in the peace agreements that resulted and information as to how well they were implemented.

EVIDENCE-BASED RESEARCH: The app draws on PA-X peace agreement data from the University of Edinburgh, and 30 case studies developed by Inclusive Peace and Monash University’s Gender, Peace and Security Centre. Additional countries in this 2023 version features case studies from Afghanistan, Myanmar, Indonesia, and Tunisia.

CUSTOMISATION: The platform is easy to use and intuitive – you can filter your search by region, country/entity, peace process, provision category, and strategy category

ACCESSIBILITY: All content is accessible in both English, Arabic, French, and Indonesian and can, moreover, be downloaded and is then easily available offline, so the app can even be used in areas with little or no internet connectivity.

Not convinced yet? Here is a bonus reason: the platform is a free resource that is meant to inspire and help focus your work while only taking up 50MB on your phone.

Download the app here for Android or iOS and try it for yourself! Also, feel free to let us know what you think under our designated feedback channel: peacefem@ed.ac.uk

Read all news

Each month we bring you a selection of key peacebuilding dates in the month to come. Here our choice of selected March events and observances. 

March 8: International Women’s Day 2022

“Celebrate women’s achievements. Raise awareness against bias. Take action for equality.” This year’s international Women’s Day celebration, observed on the 8th of March, sets a clear agenda. With a focus on #BreakTheBias organisers of this year’s observance have partnered with major companies to fight gender inequality by fostering connections and offering entry points for collective action towards empowering women’s work in different industries and creating more visibility. Check out the initiatives here.

March 14-25: Commission on the Status of Women

Every year during March, the UN hosts the Commission on the Status of Women – the world’s biggest gathering on women’s rights where high-level leaders, policy-makers and WPS practitioners meet to discuss the progress of global gender equality and next steps to advance women’s rights on a global scale. This year, the CSW takes place in a hybrid format where formal negotiations will take place in person, while side events will all be virtual. This year CSW will focus on achieving gender equality and empowerment of women and girls in relation to climate change, environmental and disaster risk reduction policies and programmes.

Read all news

While the UN Security Council’s agenda continues to be dominated by emerging and sustained crises, recent efforts by non-permanent Member States show a promising level of imagination and collaboration.

Following recent debates in the UN Security Council, we at Inclusive Peace observe a focus not only on current crises, but also on structural questions. This gives hope to how the UN Security Council can be used to address peace and security in a more holistic, preventive and inclusive way. Here are a couple of examples from recent debates that we think highlight this trend:

Focus on Women, Peace & Security
Recent debates in the UNSC included a strong focus on the Women, Peace, and Security agenda, where the joint efforts of Ireland, Kenya and Mexico in November/December 2021 look set to be carried forward by Norway, the UAE and Albania throughout their respective Presidencies in 2022. In January, Norway furthermore used their Presidency to host a Ministerial-level Open Debate on “Protecting Participation: Addressing Violence Targeting Women in Peace and Security Processes”.

Non-permanent UNSC members have more say
Efforts have also been made to revitalize the “early warning” focus of the UNSC, while also placing a further emphasis on the linkages between climate change and peace and security. These actions demonstrate the potential influence non-permanent UNSC members can have on the substantive focus of the UN Security Council, which can serve to counter the positions of other actors who may have traditionally been less open to bringing such matters to the UN Security Council.

A close up of the gavel in the hand of Juan Ramón de la Fuente Ramirez, Permanent Representative of Mexico to the United Nations and President of the Security Council for the month of November. Photo: UN Photo/Loey Felipe

At Inclusive Peace, we view these efforts as providing a critical forum – including for civil society actors – to advocate and influence implementation by the UN Security Council. However, efforts to advance these progressive agendas are often frustrated by dynamics amongst the permanent members of the council which in turn limits the extent to which progressive agendas can actively shape the work of UN envoys and good offices “on the ground”. At the same time, many UN-supported peace negotiation processes are frustrated or stalled.

We very much welcome the energy, imagination and determination of a significant number of Member States in trying to move the needle forward on key agendas – including on WPS and inclusion more broadly – and see our work at Inclusive Peace as a contribution to these efforts in practical, concrete ways both through our peace process support and our research agenda.

Read all news