Towards Gendered Peacebuilding Processes for Sustainable Peace

The idea of having women at peace negotiations tables is not a new idea in peace discourses. In 2000, the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 stressed and affirmed the vital role females play in conflict prevention and resolution. It stressed ‘the importance for their equal participation and full involvement in all efforts for the maintenance of peace and security, and the need to increase their role in decision-making with regard to conflict prevention and resolution’ (United Nations Security Council 2000).

While the United Nation Security Council Resolution 1325 emphasized the importance of including women in conflict resolution and peacebuilding, the resolution did not point out what women can bring in peace processes. Perhaps Tuft (2001: 152) is right to argue that ‘gender perspectives in conflict resolution cannot be based solely on considerations of the structural imbalances of power between men and women: it must reflect the different experiences experienced by women and men in how the direct and indirect impacts of conflict affect their lives.’ Men’s and women’s experiences in wartimes differ. While male combatants often die in wars; women frequently suffer both direct and indirect effects of war, such as deaths, rape, and abductions. Moreover, when men are on the warfront gender roles tend to change. Women become providers and heads of their families.

Whereas women have been actively involved in peace initiatives almost in every conflict; peace agreements are often exclusive to men (Bouta et al. 2005; Porter 2007). The United Nations (2002) observed that peace processes can no longer minimize or disregard the contributions of females in all stages of peace processes. Sustainable peace can be achieved with equal participation of males and females. It is clear that peace processes that do not value the active participation of women in all stages of conflict resolution and peacebuilding works against the attainment of sustainable peace. In order to mitigate conflicts and wars around the world, there is a need to utilize the full potentials and skills of both men and women in all aspect of peace negotiation and peacebuilding (United States Institute of Peace 2012). This is because every gender has much to contribute to peacebuilding processes.

Whereas men are generally portrayed as physically fit to fight wars (Bouta et al. 2005; Skjelsbaek and Smith 2001); the participation of women in peace negotiations is very important because ‘women can help to strengthen civil intervention in the conflict areas and for safe evacuation and resettlement of civilian populations’ (Samuel 2001: 200). According to Hunt and Posa (2001: 194) ‘allowing men who plan wars to plan peace is a bad habit’. Hunt’s and Posa’s view resonances with many views which often paint men as warmongers. In many instances war has been perceived to be a man’s job (Aroussi 2009; Bouta et al. 2005; Salla 2001; Skjelsbaek 2001; Skjelsbaek and Smith 2001). Moreover, in some societies the participation of a man in military service and war marks the transitional stage from ‘boyhood’ to manhood (Skjelsbaek 2001). The idea of war being a man’s job is reinforced by the socialization process which cuts across many cultures. Research has found out that ‘in many cultures, boys are encouraged to adopt the male ideals of toughness, strength, bravery, and aggression. These ideals promote the male status of warrior and the preparation for war as a core component of manhood’ (United States Institute of Peace 2012). Bouta et al. (2005: 12) indicate that warrior construction is reinforced by the socialization process which encourages men to subdue emotions in order to be effective on the battle field. ‘The militarized masculinity of men becomes prominent in conflict and is reinforced by women’s symbolic embodiment of “normal life” and by women witnessing male bravery.’ Conversely, the participation of women in war is rarely considered as an important event for identity formation for womanhood (Skjelsbaek 2001).

Literature of gender and peacebuilding is moving into a positive direction. There is a growing trend which is recognizing and appreciating peace efforts of both men and women. For instance, Martin Luther King, Mahatma Gandhi, and Leo Tolstoy were recognized as pacifists of the twentieth century (Salla 2001). A cursory reading on gender and peace, one quickly acknowledges that both men and women have won peace noble prizes. For example Nelson Mandela won a Nobel Peace Prize in 1993 (Mandela 1993). In 2011, Sirleaf and Leymah Gbowee ‘were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2011 for their non-violent struggle for the safety of women, and for women’s rights to full participation in peace-building work’ (United States Institute of Peace 2012).

We need to keep in mind that making war or peace is not gender exclusive. The inclusion of women is a crucial component to understanding the origins of a conflict and also to ‘developing innovative, viable solutions that can help establish sustainable peace’ (United States Institute of Peace 2012). It is pertinent to have females and males at peace negotiation tables to mitigate war and conflict occurrences. Marshall (2000: 8) has pointed out that ‘if war is a problem, putting more pacific women in leadership roles would dampen the resort to war; if war is a solution, having more pacific women in leadership roles would hamper the successful conduct of war.’ Marshall’s argument points to the idea that war solutions can sometimes be situational. Therefore, strategies aimed at making peace may need to include contingent measures.

There are many benefits of using a gendered peacebuilding approach toward achieving sustainable peace. The inclusion of women in peacebuilding processes brings in different approaches to peacebuilding; women bring in the emotional and social intelligences and the notion of motherhood which are vital for peacebuilding processes. A gendered peacebuilding approach is significant in peace processes because men and women are socialized differently (Gierycz 2001; Salla 2001). Females are socialized to be relational thinkers (Aroussi 2009; Groves 2005; Lawless 1979; Rutherford 2001) while males are socialized to be rational thinkers (Klenke 1996). According to Skjelsbaek and Smith (2001: 9) ‘relational thinking …gives hope for peaceful solutions to conflicts.’ Relational oriented persons are able to influence people, are good team players and solve conflicts in a constructive manner (Helgesen 1995; Yukl 2006).

The inclusion of women in peace negotiations and peacebuilding brings ‘an alternative, gendered view to peacebuilding that leads to transformation at both structural and practical levels’ (Alaga 2010: 2). The benefit of having women on peace negotiation tables is that women frequently hold ‘the most powerful voices for moderation in times of conflicts. While most men come to the negotiating table directly from the war room and battlefield, women usually arrive straight out of civil activism’ (Hunt and Posa 2001: 194). Women’s civil activism often carries a message of ending a war which is done in a persuasive and nonviolent manner.

A gendered peacebuilding strategy also brings in new experiences in peacebuilding discourses and in the long run it changes approaches to war and the impacts of war on the population (Hunt and Posa 2001; Skjelsbaek 2001). For instance during the peace negotiation processes in Northern Ireland when the warring parties got stuck in abstract war issues and historical crimes, women would bring in new perspectives by tabling issues about the lost lives of their beloved ones, their children but without losing sight of the bright future. Such approach ‘helped keep the talks focused… Women’s experience reminded the [warring] parties that security for all citizens was what really mattered’ (Hunt 2001: 198). Women’s concerns during war often go beyond who wins the war. Women’s approach to peacebuilding does not only focus on issues that promote humanity; it also widens the peace agendas. It incorporates the concepts of care (Aroussi 2009; Gilligan 1982; Snyder 2009; Tronto 1993) and interconnectedness ‘of all people and all forms of life, thereby broadening the concept of security beyond national security to the entire human family’ (Snyder 2009: 46). Apart from using the ethics of care, women also employ the notion of empathy during conflict resolution and peace negotiations (Cohen, 2003; De Waal 2010; Eagly and Carli 2007). Empathy is very important for peace negotiations because it builds trust and also brings other people’s realties into our own lives (Nussbaum 2001; Trofino 2000). The inclusion of women on the peace negotiation table creates trust between warring parties and this helps to identify needs that cut across the negotiating parties.

Furthermore, females tend to encourage international understandings and are oriented toward consensus building; transparent, accountability with regard to the disappearance of people during war. Women also foster constant communications among warring nations. They often call for justice with regard to crimes committed against humanity (Hunt and Posa 2001; Salla 2001; Samuel 2001). Women’s concern and care for all humanity during war shifts war dynamics to a different level of horizons. Women’s approach toward peacebuilding has a transformative effect on children because it helps the children to learn that conflict needs to be resolved constructively, humanitarianly, and non-aggressively. Women often encourage their children to be cooperative rather than being competitive. Women monitor what their children read and watch on Television. The reason for monitoring their children is not only to protect their children from overwhelmed by violent images and messages of the war and conflict but also to critically analyze them so as to find the better alternatives (Reardon 1993). Whereas the competitive mentality encourages the victor mentality; the cooperative approach to war encourages win-win situation in war times. The win-win approach is more likely to establish mutual understanding between warring parties than an approach that does not give room for compromise.

Women’s approach to peacebuilding also varies in matters of strategy and focus. It focuses on many issues ranging from nonviolence to cutting down the budget earmarked for buying military weapons (Gierycz 2001; Mazurana 2005; Rey 2006; Salla 2001; Snyder 2009). In the Philippines, women opposed ‘the establishment of military detachments and supporting declarations that the community be a demilitarized zone’ (Rey 2006: 144). Furthermore, females tend to be ‘concerned with the preservation of peace and more opposed to any form of increased militarization or nuclear energy’ (Gierycz 2001: 25). Instead of relying on military weapons, women tend to advocate for nonviolent means of bringing peace.

Nonviolent strategy is a powerful tool that can overturn the powers of dictators and war dynamics. For instance

A women’s peace group helped end a bloody civil war in Liberia in 2003. The Women of Liberia Mass Action for Peace movement brought together thousands of women—across Christian and Muslim divides—to engage in nonviolent demonstrations against the war. They pressured then-President Charles Taylor to attend peace talks in Ghana at which the women staged a sit-in and blocked all the doors until a peace agreement between the conflicting parties was realized. These efforts ultimately paved the way for Taylor to be turned over to a war crimes court and for Liberia to see a free and fair election that enabled Ellen Johnson Sirleaf to become the first female president in Africa (United States Institute of Peace 2012).

In Bougainville women used nonviolence until they established peace. They used church committees as a strategy to stop violence (United States Institute of Peace 2012). With the use of nonviolence, women in Pakistan and India have managed to turn impossible to possible. In 1995, for example, women ‘activists joined forces on behalf of fishers and their children who were languishing in each side’s jails because they had strayed across maritime boundaries. As a result, the adversarial governments released the prisoners and their boats’ (Hunt and Posa 2001: 195).

In the Middle East, some Israelis and Palestinian women took the ‘initiative in drafting principles for comprehensive settlements. The platform of Jerusalem Link, a federation of Palestinian and Israeli women groups, served as a blueprint for negotiations over the final status of Jerusalem during the Oslo process’ (Hunt and Posa 2001: 195). In Northern Ireland, women have been instrumental in calming the bloody marching season. They often act as mediators between the Catholic nationalists and the Protestant unionists. The Northern Ireland women often manage to bring together the important members of each community to make sure that Catholic nationalists and Protestant unionists do not crush (Hunt and Posa 2001).

Furthermore, in 1988, women organization called Women in Black was founded in Israel. With the use of nonviolence strategy, it employs the notions ‘of womanhood and motherhood in the ongoing struggle to end the Israel-Palestinian Conflict’ (Hunt and Posa 2001: 197). The Women in Black movement has spread to other continents, such as Europe, USA, and Asia. Even though the number of women in black has decreased in Israel, these women continue to ‘meet every Friday afternoon at a busy Jerusalem intersection wearing all black and holding hand-shaped signs that read: “Stop the Occupation”’ (Hunt and Posa 2001: 197). Stopping occupation is a big step toward establishment of peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

In Asia, Women in Black unveiled many shocking forms of violence and protested against wars (Hunt and Posa 2001). In 1970 women in Argentina founded a movement called Madres de la Plaza de Mayo. It demonstrated against the unclear circumstances that lead to the disappearances of their children at the hands of the military government. In Russia, the ‘Committee for Soldiers’ Mothers’; a group that was established in 1989 to reinstate the rights of their sons in Russian army is still considered as best group which can tackle the toughest and the hardest hostilities of the Russian military government (Gierycz 2001; Hunt and Posa 2001). Women in Uganda have been actively involved in peace efforts. In 1985 the ‘National Council of Women organized over 2,000 women to demonstrate on the streets of Kampala for peace and against the mistreatment of women by the military’ (Mulumba 2002: 113).

Furthermore, women ‘have been at the forefront of informal movements related to global peace and nonviolence’ (United States Institute of Peace 2012). More importantly women ‘have proved instrumental in building bridges rather than walls’ (Hunt and Posa 2001: 195). In 1999, women from the Southern Sudan (current South Sudan) organized under the New Sudan Council of Churches organized the Wunlit tribal Summit. This Wunlit tribal summit successfully ended the bloody hostilities that existed between the Nuer and Dinka. Wunlit tribal summit established peace which resulted into the Dinka and Nuer sharing natural resources, such as water, fishing, and grazing grounds. It also established freedom of movement for both the Dinka and Nuer and prisoners were sent free (Hunt and Posa 2001). Therefore, including women in the peace negotiations will tremendously change war dynamics. The inclusion of women in the peace negotiations and peacebuilding brings in new strategies and different perspectives of conflict resolution and prevention.

It is worth mentioning that women’s approach to peace negotiations somehow reflects unequal power gender relations in many societies. In many traditional societies women continue to hold a second status. According to Hunt and Posa (2001), women’s second status to a certain extent make the society to be less suspicious of them and this gives them advantage of not getting caught. On the other hand, women’s second status is becoming a powerful tool for peace processes. Women’s second status gives them an added advantage when it comes to matters to do with peace negotiations. Hunt and Posa (2001: 195) contend that

because women are not ensconced within the mainstream, those in power consider them less threatening, allowing women to work unimpeded and ‘below the radar screen.’ Since they usually have not been behind a rifle, women, in contrast to men, have less psychological distance to reach across a conflict line.

Reading between the lines, the subordinate status of women gives them moral authority in matters of peace negotiations.

Motherhood is another peace-negotiating element that women can bring at the peace negotiation tables. Motherhood gives women an edge with regard to peace negotiations (Samuel 2001) and it is also a notion that cuts across ethnicity and geographical boundaries and it creates interconnectedness which promotes the protection of humanity (Marshall 2000). The nurturing roles of women in their families often give them an added advantage in matters to do with peace processes. The fact that women often are aware of what takes place in their communities (Aroussi 2009; Hunt and Posa 2001), ‘they can predict the acceptance of peace initiatives, as well as broker agreements in their own neighborhoods’ (Hunt and Posa 2001: 195). In Sri Lanka, women ‘have been able to appropriate their “motherhood” as a political force to bring about significant changes in the political power balance’ (Samuel 2001: 184). It is alleged that the mother’s ability to make ‘kids to play nicely together is similar to getting people to talk about concerns that divide them, like turf issues’ (Wachs 2001).

Motherhood is similarly giving women a political advantage in South Asia. It is building bridges of peace. For instance, Chandrika Kumaratunge the former president of Sri Lanka used the motherhood strategy to negotiate the end of hostilities with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (Samuel 2001). Using motherhood as a strategy to bring about peace facilitates women to express their anger and emotions. Most significantly, motherhood brings effective means of peacebuilding where males’ models of peacebuilding have failed (Samuel 2001). Motherhood equips women with communication skills and also negotiation skills (Fox-Genovese 2004; Helgesen 1995) which will help the warring parties to reach a common ground. In many societies, the notion of motherhood does not only carry a moral duty but also is a symbol of duty, protection, and preservation (Samuel 2001).

With the use of motherhood, women are able to influence their male counterparts to resort to constructive peacebuilding strategies. For instance, the Mothers’ Front of Sri Lanka opposed arbitrary arrest, torture, imprisonment, and disappearances (Samuel 2001). Motherhood gives women an added advantage in matters of trust and morale duty. Conversely, ‘women are often better placed to seek common ground, to address the underlying structural causes of conflict … to take negotiations back to grassroots constituencies and get support for them, and to use their capacities and experiences to heal communities torn apart by conflict’ (United States Institute of Peace 2012). Using the notion of motherhood, women in Latin America confronted and challenged the repressive regimes by the use of demonstrations and hunger strikes. According to Marshall (2000: 23), women in Latin America

responded to state violence and the disappearance of their children not with the expected passivity and meekness that their culture and their government demanded, but with outrage and single-minded purpose that took the military regimes by surprise. They invaded the streets and plazas, representative of the political realm and a male preserve, thereby politicizing and publicizing their private grief. They openly challenged the regimes, converging on the most visible and symbolic public places, defying the ban on public gatherings and claiming a space for themselves and their demands for justice. These actions, openly taken and defiant, constituted a striking counterpoint to the silence, secrecy, and compliance demanded by the regimes.

Women’s concern for the preservation of human life irrespective of race, ethnicity, and religion is something which comes to women naturally.

Furthermore, women are able to move across the divide during wartime. For instance Maria Cristina Cabellero was able ‘to go where a man could not go, venturing on horseback alone, eight hours into the jungle to tape a four-hour interview with the head of the paramilitary forces in Colombia’ (Hunt and Posa 2001: 196). Having realized that the military approach could not bring peace in Northern Uganda, the president of Uganda Yoweri Museveni chose Betty Oyella Bigombe to start the peace talks with the Lord’s Resistance Army leader Joseph Kony. Even though Kony did not sign the peace agreement to end the war in Northern Uganda, Kony trusted Bigombe as the only person who could break the peace talks between the Ugandan government and the Lord’s Resistance Army leader (Mutaizibwa 2011).

Conversely, women also possess moral authority and are trusted within societies and families. Consequently, women are able to play a significant role in the promotion of forgiveness and reconciliation. In some countries that are rebuilding from war, for instance Afghanistan, Liberia, and Burma ‘women are becoming important voices for peace… They are increasingly mobilizing across communities and using their social roles and networks to prevent violence and promote peace’ (United States Institute of Peace 2012). However, there is a need to avoid overstating the motherhood skill at the expense of threshold skills, such as technical and conceptual skills. Such positions can easily post women in the grassroots peace movements rather than placing them at national and international peace negotiation tables. If peace is to prevail; then the grassroots activism needs to be equally represented. The inclusion of women in formal peacebuilding at all stages does not only create widow opportunity for women to have a greater representation in formal peacebuilding processes but also helps in laying ‘the groundwork for engendering post-conflict reconstruction and rehabilitation’ (Bouta et al. 2005: 50).

Women’s participation in peacebuilding is vital because they possess emotional intelligence. Persons with higher emotional intelligence tend to maintain the social fabric among people compared to those who score low on emotional intelligence (Avery 2004). Persons with higher emotional intelligence are able to ‘assess the emotions of others and relate in a manner that diffuses anger and conflicts’ (Stichler 2006: 189). Therefore, emotional intelligence is important on the peace negotiation table.

Social intelligence is also one of the key elements women can bring to peacebuilding processes (Goleman 2008; Grove 2005). Social intelligence is vital in peace negotiation processes because it facilitates a person to scan and understand what is happening in a social situation and also to understand other persons’ perceptions (Fisher 1999; Goleman 2007). Social intelligence helps in peace negotiations because it senses whether there is need to change peace process strategy. According to Fisher (1999) female tend to scan the situation in a contextual and integral manner and leave their options open for other alternatives. Reardon (1993: 143) indicates that

Women tend to see reality as a set of interconnected experiences and interrelationships. They measure the desirability of an action in terms of its human consequences… Because of their concern with relationships, women tend towards holistic views of the world that focus on problems in their general context over a long time period, including past as well as future. For example, women in the peace movement tend not to focus on specific weapons in isolation from the overall arms development dynamic, not to see the arms trade as separate from general condition of world militarization. They tend to instead see the interrelationship among circumstances and trends.

This approach definitely opens window for fresh and new ideas which foster peace negotiation. On the contrary, males often ‘tend to focus on the immediate dilemma rather than putting the issue in a large context. Unless facts are obviously pertinent, men are inclined to dispense with them. They progress in a straightforward, linear, casual path towards a specific goal: the solution’ (Fisher 1999: 5–6). However, men’s ability to focus on immediate problem can give immediate solutions in emergency situations during wartime.

The inclusion of women in peace negotiations, conflict resolution, and negotiations is important because women possess ‘an ability to “read” people from their posture, gestures, facial expressions, and tone of voices; a finely tuned intuitive sense; [have] a win-win attitude during negotiations; [and possess] mental flexibility’ (Fisher 1999: 167). Significant to mention that Fisher’s argument does not imply that women have superior natural skills compared to their male counterparts. The fact that both men and women have different natural talents justifies the use of a gendered peacebuilding strategy to achieve sustainable peace. When the special skills and talents of both men and women are brought together on the peace negotiation tables, they will definitely contribute greatly to sustainable peace in the world. More importantly, women’s mentality toward the win-win situation during negotiation processes creates a stepping stone for achieving sustainable peace. This is because warring parties enter into peace negotiations without a fixed position. They try to map out their commonalities and where compromises can be made (Marshall 2000). The strategy which is flexible in terms of finding commonalities and ready to make some compromises is more likely to achieve sustainable peace than an approach that has uncompromised position.

Barriers that Prevent Women from Peace Negotiation Processes

Despite women’s contributions toward peacebuilding processes, the paradox is that women continue to be discriminated in peace negotiations and they remain at the margins of diplomatic peace processes (Bouta et al. 2005; Hunt and Posa 1995; Mazurana et al. 2005; Snyder 2009). Mazurana et al. (2005: 3) indicates that

although it was the first major peace accord implemented after the Fourth World Conference on Women and the Beijing Platform for Action, the Dayton peace Accord failed to take gender into account; in fact, gender aspects of the conflict or postconflict period were never discussed.

Women in Sri Lanka were actively involved in collecting signatures and they established the ground for peace negotiations between the Sri Lankan government and the Tamil paramilitary leadership. Samuel (2001: 190) indicates that

Throughout the second half of the 1980s, Women for Peace organized marches, vigils and protests, calling for peace and denouncing the anti-Tamil and undemocratic practices of the state. This campaign involved calls for the repeal of the draconian Prevention of Terrorism Act, the freeing of political detainees, the dismantling of security zones in the north, humanitarian assistance for the displace and protests against illegal detentions and disappearances.

Surprisingly, none of these women from Women for Peace were called to participate in those peace negotiations (Samuel 2001). In the same way, women in Bosnia ‘were not invited to participate in the Dayton talks, which ended the war in Bosnia, even though during the conflict forty women’s associations remained organized and active across ethnic lines’ (Hunt and Posa 200: 195). It is beyond reasonable doubt that the discrimination of women at the peace negotiation tables is a disservice to peacebuilding processes. Schnabel et al. (2012: 3) are right when they argue that

Opportunities for long-term peacebuilding are lost, and sustainable peace and stability are at risk, when a significant proportion of stakeholders in a society’s future peace and conflict architecture… are marginalized and excluded during efforts to heal the wounds of war and build a new society and state.

The inclusion of women in peace negotiations and peacebuilding is paramount because it creates opportunities for establishing sustainable peace.

Structural Problem and Patriarchal Tendencies

One of the barriers that prevent women from accessing peace-negotiating tables is the structural problem. Worldwide, the number of women in the political sphere is increasing steadily; however, ‘they still remain bound by patriarchal control, subordinate to male political leadership and removed from high-level political decision-making’ (Samuel 2001: 184). This is because most ‘presidents, prime ministers, party leaders, cabinet secretaries, and generals who typically negotiate peace settlements are overwhelmingly men’ (Hunt and Posa 2001: 198). Women’s involvement in peacebuilding remains at the levels of human rights and election monitoring and information administration (Hudson 2005). In many patriarchal societies, masculinity and femininity determine the participation in peace negotiations. In patriarchal societies, traditional gender stereotypes are emphasized even during war times. During war, men take on a role of a fighter while women are to take care of the homes and children (Smith 2002). A woman is often valued as a child bearers and a wife and not as a powerful force that can contribute greatly to peacebuilding processes (Aroussi, 2009; Samuel 2001). In this respect, the deconstruction of patriarchal structures and mindset will greatly increase women’s participation in peacebuilding and processes at the top leadership position.

Marginalization and Gender Stereotypes

Gender stereotyping is another barrier that undermines women from participating in peace negotiation processes. In most cases waging a war continues to be considered as a man’s preserve. Consequently, war prevention and peace negotiations are men’s prerogatives. Women’s underrepresentation in all stages of peace processes is not that women are wanting but it is because ‘everyone recognizes just how good women are at forging peace’ (Hunt and Posa 2001: 198). In order for men to maintain their status quo in peacebuilding processes; they have to exclude or limit the numbers of women in the peace processes. While it is evident that women possess negotiation skills which are vital for establishing sustainable peace; women in most African countries are frequently debarred from peace negotiations and peacebuilding processes ‘because the war leaders “are afraid the women will compromise” and give away too much’ (Hunt and Posa 2001: 198).

In most conflict situations, women have been portrayed as people who are vulnerable (Özge et al. 2017; Giles and Hyndman, 2004; Hunt and Posa, 1995; Theidon et al. 2011) and not as person who can effectively contribute to peacebuilding. Women are often perceived as victims of rape (Aroussi 2009; Bouta et al. 2005; Mazurana et al. 2005; Oosterveld 2005; Samuel 2001; Sharon 1995; Skjelsbaek 2001; Skjelsbaek and Smith 2001; Slapsak 2001; Twagiramariya and Turshen 1998; Vandenberg 2005) during wars. In addition,

Language and images invoke very specific notions of masculinity and femininity: men are fighters, the protectors who are ready to sacrifice their lives to protect women and children while women (and children) are the ever-present, passive, victim in need of protection. Images of mothers [who] have wept for their sons and our children and our children’s children have been used throughout the speech to emphasize that the threat of violence and terror had to be met with militaristic and masculine actions of defence and sacrifice (Sharon 1995: 12).

While language and images have been used to portray a different picture of women as vulnerable and wanting in peacebuilding and processes, it is important to mention that the gendered peacebuilding approach is based on concept of women’s resilience and not vulnerability (Hunt and Posa 1995; Snyder 2009). The advantage of gender inclusiveness in the peacebuilding processes is that it increases the tools and resources available to military and diplomatic structures by enlarging cooperation with local efforts to attain sustainable peace (Hunt and Posa 2001). Therefore, there is a need to deconstruct negative and biased views that paint a bad picture of women. The views most traditional societies hold that women are good at caring and nurturing jobs can be utilized productively. For that reason, caring and nurturing ‘would assist in bringing about harmony, in seeking negotiation and preventing conflict. Ironically, these arguments have been used to justify excluding women, by claiming that such characteristics have no place in real politics at any level’ (Chenoy and Vanaik 2001: 132). Traditional stereotypical views tend to represent women as less likely to ‘adopt decisions that lead to the organized use of force in resolving domestic and international conflict’ (Salla 2001: 68). The irony with such position is that it portrays women as homogenous class who react in a monolithic manner and with no room for maneuver during war.

Conclusion

A gendered peacebuilding strategy is neither about equalization of both men and women on peace negotiation tables nor about women bringing in the best strategy in peace negotiations. Rather, a gendered peacebuilding process brings in diverse gender negotiation skills. Different gender negotiation skills open more opportunities for establishing sustainable peace. However, it is significant to mention that the inclusion of women in peace negotiations is not a panacea for sustainable peace. Achieving sustainable peace depends on many factors at play. It involves appreciation of what women can bring on the peace negotiation tables and the readiness from men’s side to revisit the strategies they often employ during peace negotiation and conflict resolution.