FEMINIST CHALLENGES TO WAR
FiLiA Conference, 20 October 2019, Bradford
With Rebecca Johnson, Nounou Booto Meeti and Dr Bonnie Jenkins
1. Panel facilitated by Rebecca Johnson, from the Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy and International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), with opening remarks on 'Women, Peace and Disarmament: Intersecting identities and security imperatives'
2. Nounou Booto Meeti, programme director at the Centre for Peace, Security and Armed Violence Prevention (CPS-AVIP), Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF), International Action Network on Smalls Arms (IANSA) and International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) in DRCongo/East Africa, with powerpoint and presentation on 'Feminist activism for disarmament and peace in violent war zones'.
3. Dr Bonnie Jenkins, Founding and Executive Director of Women of Color Advancing Peace, Security and Conflict Transformation, Washington D.C., whose talk focussed on 'Expanding the involvement of women of colour and future generation perspectives for global security'.
4. Questions, comments, discussion and post-panel reflections (facilitated and summarised by Rebecca)
1) Women, Peace and Disarmament: Intersecting identities and security imperatives (Rebecca Johnson)
When FiLiA asked me to convene a panel on women and peace this year, I wanted to go beyond UN Security Council resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security, Greenham herstories and banning bombs, important though all these are.
With Nounou Booto Meeti from East Africa and the Centre for Peace, Security and Armed Violence Prevention, and Bonnie Jenkins former US State Department Counsel and the founder of Women of Color Advancing Peace, Security and Conflict Transformation, we will look at different ways to build solidarity and strengthen feminist nonviolence and actions that oppose not just weapons and war, but also the destructive policies and practices that reinforce institutional violence, injustice and climate destruction. The aim of this panel is to open conversations in FiLiA on feminist challenges to war and patriarchal violence perpetrated through militarism, racism, misogyny, and economic and political marginalisation of diverse peoples. We hope to discuss some of the ways in which women and girls can individually and collectively become more effective in changing the world to bring about justice, peace and disarmament, without which there cannot be security.
Words such as security, peace, disarmament, identity and intersectionality are open to question depending on "from where we stand". In her book with that title, Professor Cynthia Cockburn, discussed some of these contested meanings in women's activism. One of Britain's most perceptive feminist-peace writers and activists as well as a co-founder of London Women in Black , Cynthia sadly left us in September, aged 85. Her title reflects the important axiom of feminism that the personal is political.
African-American lawyer Kimberlé Crenshaw coined the term 'intersectionality' in 1989 to describe the ways in which Black women experience connecting forms and levels of discrimination and marginalisation based on their race and gender. Nowadays, the term is widely used to denote the interactions between a range of discriminations and oppressions, requiring multilayered strategies for building justice and equality.
Building on the insights of Black and feminist activists, we've learned to expose the power structures underlying discussions of "identity", and illuminate the ways in which the structures of oppression operate so that they can be more effectively addressed in all their forms. Feminist solidarity requires that we look at the personal and political implications of who we are and where we come from, and use the resources and power we have to enable others who have less.
As Pragna Patel noted in her powerful opening analysis to FiLiA2019, there are also dangers in how 'intersectionality' has become co-opted to justify divisive identity politics and blur the lines of power. The dangers of this are legion. Most of us develop our identities through the intersections of life and experience connected with our places of birth and upbringing, race/ethnicity, class/caste, sex/gender/sexuality, resources and education. These and other characteristics of identity intersect with personal and familial experiences of security and insecurity, including sexual and other forms of abuse and violence.
For liberation and progressive change, it is necessary that we recognise our relative privileges and oppressions. In so doing, we must challenge ourselves, and also do our best to recognise the power dynamics when privileged actors mobilise arguments about identity oppression to further their own personal and political interests and ambitions at the expense of others' genuine needs and struggles for rights and justice.
Oppression intersects at many points in our lives, and it should come as no surprise that many of us have at times sought refuge in thoughts about being born into the wrong family or wrong body, wishing we could have been someone different. Such yearnings are embedded in patriarchal inequalities, injustice and exclusion from equal opportunities and power. Wishing to be someone different, including at times of a different gender or racial identity, is not about being in the wrong bodies, but in wrong social constructs.
When I was bullied and unhappy after my family settled in England when I was seven, I used to wish that I was had been born an only child (and the boy that my sisters had hoped for). Since I am the youngest daughter of eight children born to a loving but impractical couple that raised us in a puritanically fundamentalist community in Paraguay, North Dakota and Pennsylvania, it doesn't take much psychology to see why I thought that changing the circumstances of my birth would solve my problems. But of course no such change was on the cards. Over time I found out that I am who I am, and it's up to me to reject efforts by others to make me feel that my upbringing, body and family are something to be ashamed of.
The point is not to change our bodies or cover up our experiences, but to accept and use all the aspects of who we are to develop into the authentic and multifaceted people we are capable of becoming. Instead of cosmetic pretence, we need to create cultures of diversity and solidarity to eliminate the heavy burdens imposed by patriarchy. Through my feminist lens, that is the essence of security and peace-building.
From this background, I see war and militarism as the armed wings of patriarchy.
Militarism and war are the primary patriarchal means to project fear, power and control over other peoples and enable the imposition of religious and economic belief systems, colonialism, capitalism and sexual violence.
Through arming and fetishising violence, militarism continues to drive and enable gendered systems of oppression and violence against women and children. From the distant past and across most if not all cultures, militarism has been constructed and perpetuated to subdue and defeat everyone and everything that gets in the way of those in power. It defends and spreads exploitative extraction and seizure of natural resources, land-grabs and myriad economic and religious practices that have enslaved people and destroyed billions of lives and homes. Patriarchy needs militarism to implement its wars against women, diversity, nature and Mother Earth. From "scorched earth" practices to doctrines of "mutual assured destruction", militarism contributes massively to environmental and climate destruction, while continuing to weaponise technologies that project existential threats such as nuclear war into our future.
When we talk of women, peace and security, we have to distinguish feminist from patriarchal objectives. Patriarchal discourses on peace or security are generally framed in terms of power and weapons. Defence of women and children are portrayed as justifications for war and large military capabilities.
By contrast, feminists have demonstrated that violence against women is embedded in the racism, colonialist-capitalist expansionism, destruction and warmongering policies that are the causes, drivers and consequences of militarism and war. As well as abusing power in the the institutions of state, predators also operate in places of education, aid, and civil society peace and development organisations, where the vulnerable are often befriended and groomed before being abused. Collusion in sexual violence is another patriarchal hallmark. And this enabling complicity is not only practised by men or right-wingers.
Feminist activists expose how power, status and resources are distributed and manpulated. Although there is now a growing #MeToo consciousness, complainants still pay a high price for exposing men with status who are good at self promotion and manipulation. Punishment and threats are used to undermine female victims and whistleblowers who make accusations of racist or sexual harassment against privileged males, while perpetrators with positions, platforms and resources still get away with threatening the security, safety and equal opportunities of marginalised people, especially women and girls.
Building peace and justice requires ending collusion in racism, sexual violence and abuses of power, no matter how or by whom such abusive behaviours are dressed up and defended.
The questions we need to ask are: whose security, peace and defence are we supporting? achieved by what methods and under what conditions?
What does security and peace mean to you? How can we individually and collectively tackle security challenges we face and do more to build peace in the world?
How can we respect the rights, spaces and strategies of women and girls with different experiences of threat and oppression, while also building feminist solidarity, effective campaigning, and movements to work across the intersections and achieve peace and security for all of us?
Our environment and climate are at risk of irrevocable and existential destruction, while 13,000 nuclear weapons are in the hands of nine macho leaders who treat nuclear use and war as a virility test. As well as being climate deniers and conflict promoters, some of these leaders stand personally accused as perpetrators of sexual and racial harassment and misconduct. All of them devote obscene amounts of their nations' resources on militarism and deadly weapons. They appear to equate security with their own military-industrial freedom of action, while putting the security, survival and well-being of women and, indeed, all living creatures at risk with their policies and practices.
I do not generally identify as a pacifist, but I believe that we can achieve much higher levels of personal and political peace and security through collective nonviolent action for systemic change. Violence can sometimes change governments or personnel at the top, but active nonviolence is a far more effective way to bring about positive political, social and structural change, without which humanity cannot survive. The institutional violence and profiteering embedded in military-industrial establishments are direct causes of today's wars, nuclear threats and inability to tackle the climate emergency.
My nonviolence is intertwined with my feminism, and owes much to my experiences at Greenham Common, learning from the Suffragettes, Black Sash, Vandana Shiva, Whangari Maathai, Lijon Eknilang... and the networks of feminist rebels who for centuries have mobilised against patriarchal destruction with nonviolent resistence, courage and imagination. It's not that I don't acknowledge the writings and speeches of patriarchal gurus of nonviolence in the 20th centuries. We learned much from their struggles, including their limitations. As leaders with patriarchal assumptions about male roles, women, spirituality and power, transforming their own cultures was beyond them. It is not beyond us when we practise collective nonviolence, with mutual respect and shared power and leadership.
I remember Audre Lorde's 1979 essay "The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house" (Lorde 2017). We need both to live in this brutal and unjust world, and to transform it. Not just to dismantle patriarchy, but to imagine and build something much better in its place. By comparison with the 1980s, there is now more discussion of gender roles and impacts in relation to armed conflict, but we still face considerable resistance to recognizing gendered impacts of weapons, and feminist strategies for disarmament and security.
If the tools we currently use limit what can be done, we have three choices: do our best with what we've got; adapt the tools to increase their effectiveness for more challenges; or design new tools for transformative purposes. And we have to make these choices while living in today's world, with all the patriarchal weapons, mindsets, and institutions of power, oppression and insecurity. That makes our work difficult, but not impossible.
After many years of working at the interface between grassroots feminist activism and disarmament 'think tank' work incorporating treaty-making and the 'women, peace, security' and gender agendas, from 2008 onwards I've prioritised establishing the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) in Geneva, as a global humanitarian disarmament campaign to get a multilaterally negotiated, universally applicable treaty to ban and eliminate nuclear weapons. We achieved a significant breakthrough with the UN negotiations and adoption of the 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW, aka Nuclear Ban Treaty), which in turn followed from principles and strategies developed through the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty and 2008 Cluster Munitions Convention.
These disarmament agreements owe much to feminist as well as humanitarian politics and practice from the 1970s onwards. I'll turn now to Nounou who has put together this powerpoint showing how she got involved in feminist mobilising for women and peace, including working in East Africa and internationally for disarmament treaties such as these. She will be followed by Bonnie Jenkins, and we hope to leave plenty of time for questions, comments and discussion at the end.
2) 'Feminist activism for disarmament and peace in violent war zones' (Nounou Booto Meeti)
Nounou's powerpoint was narrated on the basis of the text provided below.
MY STORY IS YOUR STORY
In 1997, in the Democratic Republic of Congo, I escaped death by a whisker while waiting for a taxi in one of the busy centers of Kinshasa, a young man belonging to the rebel group in power at the time, asked me, , "you know since we took over power women do not wear trousers anymore." I told him; I did not know that. He then charged his weapon and pressed it to my belly. I could feel the cold metal against my abdomen.
He then ordered me to take my trousers off. Looking around, everyone, from the women selling good in the street, to the people passing by on their way from work, were visibly scared. As these rebels were not well-trained soldiers, we were not sure how they would react to my objection. So, I did not think twice. I took them off and handed them to him. He took them and walked away from me, then shot one bullet towards the sky. That bullet was already in the chamber, a trigger pull away. And it was meant for me. - but I humiliated myself, walking naked on the road to escape death.
My story could be about a Kalashnikov.
The story of my sisters from southeast Asia could be cluster munitions.
The story of my sisters from Syria could be tanks, or chemical weapons and others.
The story of my sisters from Angola, Somalia, Mozambique, Uganda, Colombia, Cambodia, Bosnia could be about Landmines. (See "Miss Landmines" line-up in Angola)
The story of my sisters in Belarus, Ukraine, Russia, Scandinavia, Europe, Korea, India, Pakistan and Japan could be about nuclear weapons, heat and radiation.
INSPIRING OUR ACTION -- WORKING TOGETHER
In order to be more effective in working together for peace, justice and an end to militarism, racist ‘’othering’’, environmental destruction and violence against women and children, we must work together in synergy, network and enhance our complementarity as feminists from North, south, East and west.
Women’s League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF/UK)
With other sisters we contributed to the establishment of WILPF section in the Democratic Republic of Congo. WILPF played a leading role in the UN Security Council's adoption in 2000 of UNSCR 1325 on Women, Peace and Security. The WILPF project 'Reaching Critical Will' took on UN reporting and contributing to arms control and disarmament as well as opposing militarism and promoting feminist approaches on security, peace and disarmament.
International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN)
Campaigned and advocated for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and now working towards its ratification, entry into force and effective implementation. You can see both Rebecca and me in this photo of nuclear ban campaigners from many countries, taken in Oslo after ICAN won the Nobel Peace Prize two years ago for mobilising governments and civil society to achieve the TPNW.
Control Arms Coalition
Campaigned and advocated for a robust Arms Trade Treaty, that entered into force in December 2014. Now working towards more effective implementation.
International campaign to ban Landmines (ICBL)
Working for a world free of anti-personnel mines and cluster munitions through implementation of the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty.
Campaign to Stop Killer Robots
Working to ban autonomous weapons that can lock onto targets and fire without meaningful human control and responsibility.
International Network on Explosive Weapons (INEW)
Calling for immediate action to prevent human suffering from the use of explosive weapons in populated areas.
3) 'Expanding the involvement of women of colour and future generation perspectives for global security' (Bonnie Jenkins).
Bonnie did not provide a written presentation but recommended links to two of her recent articles that cover much of what she discussed. These are 'How a UN Treaty on nuclear weapons makes international security policy more inclusive', Brookings, 12 July 2017; and
'Grand challenge: bringing a diversity of perspectives into nonproliferation policy'
Brookings, 8 June, 2018
I have had the pleasure to work in the areas of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons nonproliferation and disarmament for all of my career. I have witnessed and been a part of U.S. delegations to negotiations, review conferences, implementation bodies, and treaty ratification processes. Throughout those years, there has been at least one constant: the very small representation of people of color in professional roles. Fortunately, while still very small, there are young people of color entering the field—in speaking with some of them, it’s clear to me that there are many reasons it remains hard to diversify the field.
A number of recent articles have described the lack of women and people of color in national security, including WMD nonproliferation. Fewer people of color means fewer opportunities for different perspectives on high-stakes security issues that affect so many people around the world. For example, in dealing with the North Korea WMD challenge, among others, it is important to understand the relevant cultural context, including how U.S. positions may impact a country’s perception of us in unanticipated ways. WMD issues, which are global issues, should have a more global representation of decisio nmakers.
The challenges facing aspiring leaders
My own constant is a life-long desire to work in public service. I am from New York, and my first government jobs were in New York City then the New York state government, and I moved to Washington as soon as I could and landed a position as a Presidential Management Fellow at the Department of Defense. After I attended a meeting on strategic arms reduction, my interest in weapons of mass destruction came fast and, as they say, from left field.
It did not occur to me, at the time, that there would be very few people of color in the field. And as my career has progressed, I’ve taken note. Why are there so few people of color in this field, and what is it that led the handful of people of color who are here to join? Most importantly, how can we continue to cultivate people of color to have an interest in peace and security to help diversify the perspectives behind policy choices—policy choices that impact the security of all Americans and others around the world?
“I stumbled into the field of nuclear weapons issues.”
Lovely Umayam is a lovely young woman (pardon the pun), who is from the Philippines and first-generation immigrant. She works at the Stimson Center on nuclear security. Like me, her interest in the field of nuclear nonproliferation and security was not anticipated. A college professor encouraged her to go more in-depth into the nuclear policy field as part of a related course, ultimately leading her to the Monterey Institute of International Studies, where she continued her studies in nuclear nonproliferation.
In my interview with her, Lovely made clear that she “stumbled” into the field of nuclear nonproliferation and would not be in the field without the influence of a mentor and others’ encouragement. She calls her path a “winding road”—both in finding the issue area and in sticking with it.
“Arms control is really about politics and at the core of those relationships [is] security.”
Derrick Holmes is a 27-year-old African-American man who is a new national security consultant at the Hudson Institute. He recently graduated from college, and after several months of trying, finally feels that he is entering, professionally, the field of nuclear nonproliferation.
Derrick first became interested in nuclear weapons issues after reading a tweet about the timeline of a nuclear weapon launch. While he had not given nuclear weapons much thought before, he dove into studying the topic.
Derrick said he wonders whether he should be thinking about other career choices—when he attends panels on nuclear nonproliferation, he does not see people of color on stage. He does not see himself reflected in the field, which can be discouraging.
Meanwhile, none of Derrick’s friends are interested in the same topic—in fact, they wonder why he is interested in something that seems so esoteric. Why not focus on an issue that impacts him and his community more specifically and more directly, like civil and voting rights, the police treatment of young black men, poverty, or educational opportunities? It is an issue that is far off for most young people, and especially for young people of color. However, Derrick stays interested, eager to learn. This, despite the fact that the field is not very inclusive.
“My classmates would look at me funny when I talked about the nuclear war.”
Lucas Waterbury-Enriquez, 14 years old, lives in San Francisco. A naturally curious youth who tends to ask himself about larger issues that affect Americans, he grew interested in nuclear weapons issues and was surprised that people around him did not know or seem to care. He recognized that if there were a nuclear war, the younger generation would be most affected, facing the fallout for many years.
During a class on climate change, Lucas asked how a nuclear war would affect the environment. He did not get a satisfactory answer, so he decided to do some research. Conducting his community project on nuclear war, he sought to engage his friends and educate them on the effects of nuclear war. While his classmates focus on problems like assault, homelessness, animal care, and business—which Lucas agrees are important—he wanted to think strategically and “out of the box.”
His friends look at him a bit “funny,” he says, for pursuing these issues. At the same time, he’s continuing to raise awareness: He is writing a letter and seeking 100,000 signatures to send to Congress on the political, social, and economic results of nuclear war—a “call to action.”
Thoughts on Next Steps
The nonproliferation, arms control, and disarmament community is often seen as a “club,” and one that is not an easy one to enter. Nor is there a specific path, as is clear from the stories above, including my own. This is particularly true for people of color, who may be more likely to enter fields addressing other issues that are perhaps perceived as closer to real life.
The closest thing to a “path” into the field is through an internship or fellowship, and the best place to do that is in Washington, where aspiring professionals can meet and work with the members of the club. However, many internships and fellowships themselves do not have a strong representation of people of color. The typical pathways (who you know, graduate programs focused on security policy, internships and fellowships) for bringing young people into these fields are, quite frankly, not effective enough in drawing in people of color.
Based on my own experience and on discussions with others, these are some important considerations as we think about a way forward:
o It is problematic that so many internships in Washington are unpaid, and this exacerbates the general lack of diversity. (At Brookings, all interns are either paid or receive academic credit.) Derrick remarked on this challenge, pointing out that many young people leave college with a lot of debt, so it’s difficult to forego paid work. This is also a challenging issue for many young people of color. If they cannot break into the club before their funds run out, they have to go back home. And since there are so few people of color in the field, when faced with such challenges, some decide it is preferable to do something different with their time and energy.
o Mentors are critical—both for professional success and for actively seeking to diversify these fields. Outreach is particularly important for young people of color who do not see many role models who look like them. For this reason, each person in “the club” should be an ambassador to the next generation.
o We in the field should be conscious of how the “who you know” aspect of hiring in Washington may result in fewer people of color in the field, and consider new ways to include those who are faced with more obstacles because they are not in “the circle.” It is common for people to hire someone they know or have worked with in the past, but this creates another barrier, particularly for people of color. Since entry into the field is challenging, it is particularly important that we look at a broader range of potential candidates to fill a position.
o Existing internship and fellowship programs must do a better job at outreach toward people of color. We as a field should brainstorm new ways to engage young people of color and encourage them to consider WMD policy as a potential career. Such information would be helpful earlier in their careers, so that issues of nonproliferation are not viewed as “out there.”
o Finally, nothing will work unless there is a long-term commitment from the entities that are directly and indirectly involved in policy discussion and decision making on WMD nonproliferation . That includes government, and those entities outside government like think tanks, academic and research institutions, foundations, non-governmental organizations and others. Temporary efforts lead to temporary fixes, but not long-term
“This is about the Korean people…This is about what South Korea, a major U.S. ally wants, which is an end to the war.”
Today, the United States is engaged in serious deliberations on issues of nuclear nonproliferation with North Korea and Iran. We are taking complex decisions in Asia and the Middle East, and these decisions have an impact where there are significant populations of color. However, that diversity largely isn’t reflected when one looks at the people who are involved in discussions and decision-making about U.S. policy. A cultural lens to our deliberations and decision-making is missing.
In an interview I did with Christine Ahn from Women Cross DMZ, she said: “[T]his is about Korea, this is about the people…and far too many white men are speaking about Korea without having any kind of connection to the people or to the history or to the land.” Concerns regarding North Korea, as a salient current example, are not solely nuclear nonproliferation concerns. What the United States decides regarding its policy on North Korea will affect the lives of all people in Northeast Asia, the vast majority of whom are people of color.
PROGRESS ON NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT ('How a UN Treaty on nuclear weapons makes international security policy more inclusive', Brookings, 12 July 2017)
Reactions to the recently-adopted U.N. Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons focus on the fact that none of the states possessing nuclear weapons were part of the negotiations. This is a valid concern, as these countries have shown no interest in joining the treaty. However, something different caught my attention when I read the new agreement. The final three paragraphs of the preamble are unusual for a weapons of mass destruction (WMD) disarmament treaty. In those paragraphs, the treaty negotiators recognize the role of women, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and education in addressing nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. In other words, the agreement acknowledges the importance of an inclusive process that engages civil society in maintaining international security, one founded on the principle of an educated global citizenry.
The new treaty, negotiated by over 130 countries, represents a positive step forward in nuclear disarmament, though naturally it has its challenges. The crucial provisions call on states with nuclear weapons to “remove them from operational status and destroy them as soon as possible but not later than a deadline agreed by the first meeting of States Parties.” The treaty also requires states possessing nuclear weapons to report on their progress until disarmament is completed.
These essential provisions will prove difficult for states possessing nuclear weapons to accept, especially since they opted out of the negotiation of the agreement itself. However, the treaty has the potential to set the stage for making tangible progress on the long-awaited goal of nuclear disarmament. The treaty has reaffirmed the desire of many states to move toward the conclusion of a treaty to rid the world of nuclear weapons and strengthen the global norm against their use, which is in itself a very positive result. The agreement’s ultimate success, however, will depend on how the states possessing nuclear weapons react to the treaty and whether they decide to take steps toward joining it.
Recognizing women's role in dealing with hard security issues
The treaty’s preamble recognizes the importance of “equal, full and effective participation of both women and men” for promoting peace and security, as well as the engagement of women in nuclear disarmament. It also acknowledges the role of peace and disarmament education in “raising the awareness of the risks and consequences of nuclear weapons,” and also highlights the efforts of the NGO community in calling for the elimination of nuclear weapons.
As a woman of color who has worked in the area of arms control and non-proliferation, as well as WMD threat reduction for over 20 years, I am always pleased when policies represent the input of experts from throughout society. I am therefore especially pleased that women are finally being highlighted for what they do and can bring to the table on weapons of mass destruction issues. In my experience at the former U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and as legal advisor to U.S. delegations negotiating arms control treaties and to treaty implementation bodies such as the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO), I do not recall any particular effort to ensure women’s voices are a part of such negotiations or any language in prior treaties advocating for peace and disarmament education.
The recognition that women are valuable agents of change in advancing peace and security, and yet are often absent in peace and security negotiations, is what prompted the adoption of U.N. Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1325, which calls for women to participate in peacebuilding and end gender discrimination. The resolution reaffirmed the importance of women’s “equal participation and full involvement in all efforts for the maintenance and promotion of peace and security.” At a time when we are facing increased threats to international security, from North Korean nuclear weapons, terrorism and cyber attacks, to climate change and infectious diseases, diverse expert input, including the voices of women, is essential to devising and implementing effective policy responses.
Since I began working in this field in the 1990s, the number of women in influential positions in international security, both in government and in NGOs, has steadily increased, though gender parity remains a far-off goal. Female diplomats such as Elayne Whyte Gómez played an important role in negotiating the text of the new treaty. It is important to recognize the inclusion of gender-related language in the convention, even if only in the preamble. Demonstrating global engagement of women on an issue long dominated by men would advance the goals expressed in UNSCR 1325 and help ensure the more of the best minds work on the important issue of nuclear disarmament.
Beyond Governments: The role for NGOs in addressing global threats
Also, while NGOs have previously engaged in treaty implementation and negotiations—notably, the significant role of the Chemical Manufacturers Association in the negotiation of the Chemical Weapons Convention—no previous WMD disarmament treaty has recognized the importance of nongovernmental organizations. In the past few years, several initiatives set up to prevent and respond to WMD terrorism, such as the Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Material of Mass Destruction, increasingly incorporate entities outside of government. Those organizations attend official meetings as observers, and their views can be represented in final documents. UNSCR 1540, which recognizes WMD proliferation as a threat to international peace and security under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, also encourages partnerships with civil society as a means of enabling states to meet their non-proliferation responsibilities.
The NGO community was very active in engaging the U.S. public on the importance of ratifying the 2010 START treaty with Russia. In the lead-up to the ratification of the treaty, NGOs mobilized college students and conducted outreach to senators about the importance of ratification, convening monthly meetings to develop strategies, and launching a major grassroots effort to educate citizens and editorial boards around the country. A more educated citizenry helped to ratify a treaty to strengthen global security.
On transnational threats such as WMD and infectious disease, the Obama administration engaged in significant outreach to entities outside government, reflecting a recognition of the importance of a multisector approach that includes all relevant voices. In preparations for the four Nuclear Security Summits that took place between 2010-16, the U.S. government sought to include the nuclear industry. The Nuclear Energy Institute, for example, hosted side events at each of the summits with an international audience of industry representatives, in order to highlight the importance of nuclear security in their activities.
Similarly, on global health security, I led outreach efforts to the private sector, academic and research institutions, foundations, humanitarian organizations, and others. For instance, the Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA) Private Sector Roundtable (PSRT) and the GHSA Consortium of NGOs were established to sustain civil society engagement around the goal of preventing, detecting, and responding to infectious disease threats. The Roundtable has been instrumental in bringing private sector perspectives to the efforts to advance global health security through its direct engagement with the World Health Organization and the establishment of several working groups, including one focusing on supply chain issues. In addition, the GHSA Next Generation brings an international youth perspective to issues of infectious disease.
The preamble to the new U.N. Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons recognizes the role of various sectors and entities in nuclear disarmament. It also acknowledges the importance of ensuring a global community that, through education, becomes more aware of nuclear weapons issues. The text can be an important aspect of the treaty and enhances the critical principle of representative governance in international security, whether or not the agreement succeeds in promoting tangible progress toward disarmament.
4) FiLiA Workshop Discussion and reflections
The issues raised in questions and comments from participants included:
• importance for feminists to recognise that militarism is the armed wing of patriarchy;
• how the legacy of Greenham Common has fed into contemporary feminist activism and extinction rebellion;
• continuity and change in feminist-humanitarian disarmament approaches from Greenham to the Nuclear Ban Treaty;
• UNSCR 1325 positives and limitations - has the UN's women, peace, and security agenda been coopted by governments and femicrats to the detriment of the real needs of women and girls around the world?
• how feminist nonviolence differs from patriarchal concepts of nonviolence;
• rethinking security and defence to promote climate justice and tackle violence against women;
• One participant, Marie-Claire Faray, talked about the dangers of greenwashing and technical fixes that cause further harm for vulnerable communities and future sustainability. From her standpoint as a feminist peace activist from the Congo, Marie-Claire informed the workshop about how the growing market for cobalt, a component of most new phones and electric cars, is increasing conflict, exploitation amd violence against vulnerable communities in Africa, most notably in the Congo, accompanied by increased harm for women and girls. Noting how capitalist extractivism of oil, diamonds, gold, uranium, and now rare minerals such as cobalt, cause environmental destruction, conflict and violence, she called on feminists and environmentalists to raise awareness of the human costs of mobile phones, electric cars and other tech developments that are presented as alternatives for necessary communications, defence and energy needs. She argued passionately that we cannot save the planet by inflicting even more destruction and harm on its most vulnerable peoples, and that we all have a responsibility to highlight these connections, prevent further harm, and support women and affected communities.
Responses and reflections following the workshop
(Rebecca Johnson)
As noted above, militarism and war are fundamental for maintaining patriarchal systems of power, gender based violence and religious, social and economic control. Patriarchy needs militarism to implement its wars. There are various psychosexual and anthropological theories about why militarism is so closely associated with patriarchal masculinity including the observation that war provided older, powerful men to get rid of younger male rivals. Be that as it may, it is true that until 1939-45, wars mainly normalised the killing of young men, the rape of women, and extended power for victorious leaders over land, resources and vulnerable communities. Since 1945, nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction have changed the equation.
Superficially it may appear that nuclear weapons are equal opportunity instruments of mass destruction, killing and irradiating whoever gets in their way. And since 1945 we have seen the willingness to launch nuclear weapons be socially normalised -- more than that, ability to launch mass murder is elevated as a leadership quality and responsibility. Men and women who refuse to commit to this extinction trap are not just derided as weak, but dismissed as unfit for leadership. And since WMD technologies and remote killing through drones and autonomous weapons (killer robots) have marginalised the role of biological strength, women and people from diverse ethnic backgrounds are encouraged by mainstream military recruitment drives to join up and prove their equality. Instead of leading the lives of excitement and comradeship shown in the ads, such recruits are more likely to suffer sexual and racial violence. And if they rise in the ranks, it is to reinforce militarism's roles in the patriarchal project, not to transform or undermine them. Because of how patriarchal power works, equality legislation is too easily coopted to reinforce those in power and open further ways for misogynists and militarists to undermine women's needs, rights, security and ideas for living differently.
Similarly, arms control and non-proliferation advocates have utilised disarmament rhetoric, but in policy and practice the purpose was to manage and perhaps limit certain weapons to maintain dominant and status quo defence interests and prevent developments by states outside an existing club of possessors. In recent decades women-led civil society initiatives have challenged these regimes and mobilised the majority of UN members to negotiate and adopt disarmament agreements that represent feminist-humanitarian principles of legal equality and harm-prevention. Whether or not such treaties explicitly reference women -- some do, some don't -- they are feminist and humanitarian in how the security purposes and objectives are framed, putting people's needs above military-industrial profits and assumptions, and holding governments accountable for their military policies and weapoms impacts on civilians, and especially women and children.
The 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons is a clear example. Negotiated and adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2017, bypassing a tactical boycott by the permanent members of the Security Council and their allies, the Treaty has now achieved over two-thirds of the necessary states parties and is on track to enter into full legal force in the next two years. Paragraph 4 of the TPNW's preamble illustratres its feminist-humanitarian underpinnings:
"Cognizant that the catastrophic consequences of nuclear weapons cannot be adequately addressed, transcend national borders, pose grave implications for human survival, the environment, socioeconomic development, the global economy, food security and the health of current and future generations, and have a disproportionate impact on women and girls, including as a result of ionizing radiation…"
Peace, security and international law have largely been framed by dominant powers and patriarchal assumptions. Even nonviolence turns out to be gendered, as I discovered while living at Greenham Common. Much has been written about the Women's Peace Camp that was established in 1991 outside NATO's US cruise missile base in Berkshire. Over time, the Women's Peace Camp became the most effective grassroots anti-nuclear focus of the twentieth century, being publicly acknowledged by President Gorbachev and others for our role in bringing about the INF Treaty. To be successful, however, we had to challenge not only the nuclear weapons deployments, militaries, police and British and American courts, but also oppressive, patriarchal behaviour of military, media and macho men who said they knew better than us how to make the world nuclear free.
Greenham women were frequently harassed and vilified by as "smellies", "whores" and "dirty lesbians". Some, including men in masks or uniforms, attacked us with direct physical and sexual violence. One Greenham woman hitch-hiking to Camp was abducted, raped and murdered. Within mixed peace and political movements men carried on with predatory behaviour that spanned from stealing credit for women's work and ideas through to coercion, sexual violence and rape.
We were constantly being criticised for being committed to women's space and not doing nonviolence correctly - by which they meant quiet and passive as men were taught to do by leaders like Gandhi and Martin Luther King. Within weeks at Greenham I was learning something very different, drawing on women's empowerment and experiences. Feminist nonviolence does not treat conflict as the problem. Violence, coercion and, yes, the passivity of doing nothing in the face of violence are major problems. Along with weapons and terror, these are patriarchal tools of control. As the suffragettes and liberation mobilisers understood, conflict is necessary to challenge and change unjust laws and the status quo.
As feminists we argue that conflict is an engine of change. The central problem is how violence and weapons are used to silence "the other", turn political struggles into war, and try to coerce and control one or more of the conflicting voices into "defeat". As feminists, we know that the personal is political. We all have to take responsibility for our political and personal choices and actions. "Passive resistance" techniques of previous generations included following a leader's orders and putting people deliberately into harm's way.
Unlike men following instructions to keep quiet and refuse to move, passivity in women didn't empower us or challenge males in authority. On the contrary, they seemed to like it, even get off on it. For many women, traditional nonviolent theories made us feel disempowered. We needed to take into account how women have experienced insecurity and violence. You can't be effectively nonviolent if you are doing things that suppress and disempower you. We discussed and developed different, feminist philosophies and practices of nonviolence – not passive, but active and imaginative resistance, built on assertive empowerment and shared responsibilities. We didn't talk about suppressing fear and anger but to channel these powerful, righteous emotions into action that changed dynamics, situations and people using violence, without giving in to them. These developments have permeated many other campaigns now, even as Greenham women's actions and impacts have been marginalised and erased from most mainstream histories.
With our feminist nonviolence we recognised that we are all responsible for the safety of ourselves and others, as far as possible. We shouted, we sang, we disrupted bases and nuclear war exercises by occupying or blocking them with webs, locks, dances, picnics and allsorts. We opened doors and windows in military facilities with boltcutters, legal strategies, mutual support and treaty texts. We shared what we could, and supported each other through physical and mental challenges, courts and prison systems. The spider's web epitomised the connections we built - intersectional and sharing power, links, weight and responsibility.
Under the 'Greenham Women Everywhere' banner, when the INF Treaty eliminated the cruise missiles, Greenham women carried the experiences, empowerment and insights home, into lives, work, families and campaigns around the world. That legacy can be seen in Women in Black, ecofeminism, the post cold war revival of WILPF, UNSCR 1325, Faslane 365, the nuclear ban campaign and treaty, Extinction Rebellion and Hong Kong, to name but a few. There's much more to be said about the feminist perspectives that grew out of the Greenham experience and have been infused into subsequent campaigns for disarmament, peace and climate justice.
Feminist practice and nonviolent actions can change the world by opposing "power over" and amplifying our "power of" (hearts, minds, bodies and communities) and "power to do" (liberate, inform, transform and create). We highlight not just the risks but the inhumanity of the weapons and behaviours we oppose, and the humanity we share with lives that are targeted for destruction. "Not in our name" we insist, when governments bomb ahead with policies that destroy the security, peace and human rights of others - and ourselves. Through our intersections and interconnections we challenge warmongers and their weapons, oppression, violence and exploitation.
