Not to be outdone, US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton announced earlier this week that the United States will develop its own National Action Plan, using the indicators set out in the Secretary General’s report on Women, Peace and Security.  Given the US’ continued importance in global affairs, having their leadership on this issue is extremely important and likely to both draw further attention to the challenges women face in conflict and post-conflict situations, as well as encourage other countries to draft their own action plans.

For those of you who aren’t quite as immersed in the women, peace and security milieu as some of us, you may be wondering why all the fuss now?  Well, this Sunday, Oct 31^st, isn’t just Halloween (in some parts of the world), it’s also the tenth anniversary of 1325 and a time for reflection on what we have accomplished in the last decade, a time to celebrate our achievements to date and a time to gather our strength to address the enormous challenges we still face in the decades to come.

At the Margins of Security Sector Reform: Gender and Informal Justice

Last week, the results of six months of research and organizational effort took centre stage and performed beautifully!  At a policy roundtable on issues “At the Margins of Security Sector Reform: Gender and Informal Justice” (co-hosted by NSI and CIGI), Research partners Victoria and Caroline presented the preliminary results of our research project to a group of policymakers, academics and civil society representatives in Ottawa.  Representatives from local universities as well as the Canadian development agency, foreign ministry, justice ministry, interior ministry and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police engaged with our colleagues on questions around the challenges donors face in meeting the language requirements of police trainees, differences in levels of corruption between male and female police officers and the links between DDR and police reform.

Technical aspects of research aside, we were also treated to a conversation

Participants listen attentively to presentations from African partners' presentations via videoconference.

with two female police officers, Jartu from Liberia and Martha from Southern Sudan.  From them, we learned of their motivations for joining the police – employment in Jartu’s case, to reduce crime in Martha’s – and how their families reacted to their career choices.  In a demonstration of the power of women even in challenging situations, Martha’s comment about how she told her future husband that she wasn’t going to be dominated by a man brought a smile to everyone’s face!  Martha and Jartu answered questions from the audience on morality laws in Sudan, recruitment of women into policing and how community members respond to policewomen on patrol.

Participants learned about new work that the Geneva Centre for Democratic

DCAF's Kristin Valasek answers questions while I listen intently and moderate the debate.

Control of Armed Forces and the Centre for International Governance Innovation are leading on surveying how ECOWAS countries have integrated a gender perspective into their main security institutions and the interface between SSR and “informal” justice systems, respectively.  DCAF’s preliminary results reminded us that while many countries’ policies and practices are largely gender-blind, some countries could serve as role models even for developed countries on issues such as break time for nursing mothers.  The CIGI-led panel on “informal” justice systems led to lively debate around entry points to working with “informal” structures and reconciling (or not) international human rights principles with the need to contribute to improving the lives of people living in conflict-affected contexts.

Missed the event?  Not to worry!  Victoria and Caroline’s presentations are available on our website and a short video of presentation highlights will be posted in the coming weeks.  For those of you eager to sink your teeth into something more substantial, our research reports are currently being finalized and we plan to have a small book ready for distribution late this year or early in 2011.

Watch this space!

Instead, I present to you the North-South Jennifer news reel of interesting and related (to the blog, not each other) news items:

1.  An Anonymous Colleague pointed out that I should have given more credit to the Government of Canada and its various agencies in their promotion of gender equality in response to these two stories:

Canadian CO relieved of Kandahar duty (CBC)

Canadian Commander in Haiti relieved of duty (CBC)

OK, it was a fair point and the system is clearly working.  That said, a number of things occurred to me today, such as:

• how many of these instances go unreported/undetected?
• what would have been the response to a relationship between two men or two women? (i.e. is this about power, gender, sex, control, hierarchy or some combination of them?)
• what more can be done on the prevention side of this equation?

2.  Any thoughts on the implications of this for Canada’s support for SSR overseas?

Top RCMP staff complain about boss (CBC)

3.  One sympathises with the sentiment of the following, while of course not endorsing wholly their tactics…

Wear a pink sari and carry a big stick (Slate)

Think Pink.

To quote a respected professor, Questions? Comments? Outrage?

Sexist cartoons pulled from military teaching materials

Three-week courses have been offered since 2007 and are mandatory for those deploying to Afghanistan

Dean Beeby

Ottawa — The Canadian Press Published on Sunday, Jul. 11, 2010 8:12PM EDT Last updated on Sunday, Jul. 11, 2010 8:16PM EDT

The military has launched a purge of its classroom materials after several offensive cartoons, including some featuring women in degrading sexual situations, were used in courses for soldiers headed to Afghanistan.

…

One cartoon, intended as an example of reading body language, shows a woman at a bar piled with empty glasses engaged in a sexual act with a man on a barstool. The caption reads: “How to tell when you don’t have to buy her any more drinks. …”

Another cartoon shows a senior male officer suggesting to a female sergeant that she become a “bargaining chip” in arms talks – a reference to her submission to a sexual act.

Good grief.

In a soon-to-be-released book chapter, former colleague Krista and I argue  that one of the major challenges to integrating gender and  SSR in developing contexts today is that – as I’ve discussed elsewhere in the blog - we don’t actually do such a great job of it ourselves.  Ladies and gentlemen, Exhibit A, above.

As discussed near the end of the news article, attitudes and behaviours like those demonstrated by whomever decided it would be appropriate or funny to include degrading, sexist imagery in training materials reflect a broader cultural acceptance and endorsement by the military (Canadian or otherwise) of sexism and – taken to an extreme – violence against women.  (indeed, the military’s acceptance of this is permitted, I would argue, by broader social acceptance of sexism.)

It will come as no surprise to you, Dear Reader, that I find this wholly unacceptable, particularly in situations like Afghanistan, or Haiti, or Sudan where Canadian men and women are serving great expense in – as the saying goes – blood and treasure.  Adding insult to injury are the cases where the promotion of women’s rights is used to justify military intervention, only to end up as more “collateral damage” when things go pear-shaped and war-fighting rather than peacebuilding ensues.

But how do you address these fundamental issues of culture that many argue are essential to unit cohesion and force effectiveness?  For me, it starts with two things:  dialogue and political will.  The dialogue part happens on many levels.  It’s about creating space with friends, family, neighbours and colleagues to talk about issues of gender equality and women’s empowerment (there’s a big education piece here, too, of course).  It’s about maintaining relationships with people who think differently than you and working with them to find creative ways to build and maintain a military ethos while at the same time respecting fundamental human rights.  It’s about actively and passively changing our behaviours so that the idea that it would be acceptable to include sexist cartoons in, well, anything, let alone a government document doesn’t even occur.

Speaking of government, I do also think that there’s an important leadership role for government to play here, not least of all because of the state’s monopoly on the legitimate use of force.  That said, if – to paraphrase a former professor – I had a bunch of spare political will in my bicycle panniers, more challenges than this would have been overcome a long time ago.  In short, political will is difficult to generate and even more difficult to control.  And I have no easy answers on that score.  I think it will take many small steps to achieve the kind of lasting cultural change that we’re looking for. On the plus side, military doctrine is strong and once it gets changed, the chain of command is hard to break.  If you can change it in a positive direction, the results can be speedy and profound.  And, encouragingly, some states are addressing issues of gender-sensitivity in the armed forces and their overseas activities, particularly through the full implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 and its sister resolutions.  

As 1325′s 10th anniversary approaches, that’s definitely a step in the right direction.

The second point is about the challenge of doing that.  Earlier today I participated in an experts’ consultation on the development of a Canadian National Action Plan on UNSCR 1325 (2000) on Women, Peace and Security.  1325 was the first UN resolution to acknowledge the specific roles that women play in conflict and the resolution of conflict.  It calls on member states to develop national action plans for its implementation.  To date, fewer than 20 states have completed their action plans.  Since 2000, 1325 has been reinforced by three other resolutions, 1820, 1888 and 1889.  But enough about that, my point is more about the conversation on Canada’s action plan which brought out how challenging it is to develop this kind of policy tool and get it approved by four different government ministers – the bureaucracy alone is astounding, let alone fostering the political will in the civil service, in government and in Canadian society at large.  Turning that into something which can be sustained over the long term is even more challenging.

So, if we think we have it bad in the developed world, just think about how challenging these processes would be in a developing country that has few resources, ongoing low-level conflict, widespread poverty, systemic illiteracy, unclear legal frameworks, weak institutions, etc, etc, etc.

No wonder SSR is a long-term process.

One of the ways the course structure helps make those connections is by inviting AU and other students as well as practitioners to participate.  In our course, we had people working on peace and reproductive rights in Pakistan, peacebuilding in Kenya, peace and development in Sri Lanka, women and peacebuilding in Liberia and others who – though currently students – brought perspectives from Ethiopia and Ghana.  AU runs the program every year on issues beyond the one-week class that I took.  I highly recommend it and hope to go back in the future!

After the rollercoaster and messiness that Liberia and Sudan were at times, this was a refreshing way to get back into a focused, structured analysis and begin to make sense of what I and my research partners learned during our interviews and focus groups.  The course structure was focused on participation and learning from each other.  Students and facilitators shared their personal experiences in very powerful ways, relating, to quote one, “how my country died” and the impact of armed conflict on women and women’s bodies.  All of which very much helped to facilitate linking those micro-level processes that our policy research focuses on and the larger, interconnected struggles (both formal and informal) for peace and equality that are going on as I type this.  And, most importantly, those inspiring and quite personal stories from my classmates and the opportunity to be challenged and to reflect on the bigger picture renewed my commitment to these issues and the importance of development research.

Consequently, the extremes of any give trip are something I think about regularly.  This time around, now that I’ve recovered from being violently ill and am determined not to think on it any more (and, it could have been a lot worse), I think the worst part is the disappointment that comes with the inability to overcome prejudices despite one’s best efforts at openness, transparency and engagement.

I’m still processing the whole experience, but suffice to say that on a couple of occasions, I was met with very plain resistance to answer truthfully the questions I and my research partner were asking.  I don’t want to speculate about why or what might have contributed to that reaction and I can certainly – as I’ve mentioned before – understand the reluctance to be free with one’s trust after having lived through a civil war.  But perhaps it’s exactly because it was so infrequent and in such stark contrast to the willingness to share both information and experiences that we received from the vast majority of the people we met with that makes it rankle a bit.  And the positives – all the best parts of the trip – in addition to our research method (which means we’re not reliant on only one source for data) more than make up for it.  In fact, the response in itself is interesting data and, I think, speaks volumes about how long it takes to reestablish trust and consolidate peace in a society.

On the other side of the balance sheet – the best parts – is a list far too long to include here, but I will share two of the major highlights.  The first is about getting to work closely with two inspiring young female researchers and being able to provide them with a modest opportunity to work on these issues, broaden their networks and really lead on some cutting edge work.  The sense of empowerment that we all got from working on the project was only expanded by the second highlight which was having the value and importance of this modest project reinforced just about every day. Whether through the words of one of our interlocutors or through witnessing or hearing about an incident, we were reminded daily of the need to better understand how women and the police interact in these societies and how that interaction might be improved so that women in conflict-affected contexts have the space – in terms of a range of opportunities and a safe space in which to pursue them – to fully realize their rights.

So, Dear Reader, I give you the extremes of my three weeks in Africa.  What falls between them is voluminous and I hope that, through this blog, I’ve given you some insight into the challenges faced in parts of these societies as well as the value and importance of development research.  Now that I’m back in the office, my goal is to blog once or twice a week.  The gender and police reform project is by no means over, so I’ll certainly post more about how that progresses.  Thanks again for your comments and please don’t hesitate to get in touch if you have any questions!

All the best,

North-South Jennifer

Thanks for joining me on this ride; hopefully I’ll find something to blog about once I’m back at the office as well.

Cheers!

Our Liberia police FGD (that’s focus group discussion) was organized by the professional association of police officers in Liberia.  Our South Sudanese one was organized by us, through contacts at the SSPS (one of CPDS’ graduate students is also an SSPS officer).  The women who turned up in Monrovia were, overall, much higher ranking than those who participated in Juba, and many had been in the LNP long before the war and the reform process was initiated.  Finally, if I haven’t mentioned it already, police reform is much more advanced in Liberia, particularly when it comes to integrating a gender perspective.

That said, the comparisons are fascinating. I won’t go through them all here, since we need a) some time to think them through and b) our Communications people would kill me if I gave away all the best bits in the blog when we have a report coming out later on!  But, I can say that once again! – context matters.  The LNP officers Research Partner Caroline and I met with two weeks ago were engaged, open and thoughtful.  They have been working with the gender concept for years and are comfortable with it.  Thirty years of civil war and the fact that many of the current female (and male) SSPS officers are ex-SPLA combatants who still take a very military approach to their profession takes its toll on their openness and willingness to tell outsiders the whole truth.  Understandable, but difficult – and doubly difficult when only a couple of the fifteen spoke English (despite having specifically asked the police to identify English speakers for the focus group).  We muddled through, but I know I missed a lot:  one more reason to work with a local partner who can at least function in Arabic!

The other interesting comparison is the difference between Friday’s civil society focus group and this morning’s chat with the police.  There were some blatant contradictions and some unsurprising perspectives.  For instance, this morning the police officers noted that the community members don’t respect them.  Well, wouldn’t you know it, but on Friday, the community members said the police don’t respect them!  In a situation that could easily devolve into defensive posturing on both sides, the challenge for the SSPS and South Sudanese more broadly will be to find a way to dialogue on these and a host of other issues in a positive and respectful way.  Here’s hoping that there are some cool-headed leaders on both sides.  Otherwise, the modest gains that have been made in security over the past few years could be jeopardized.

Photo of the participants can be found here.

As of today – a day on which I woke up, wide awake at the unconscionable hour of 04:34 (what’s the ‘o’ stand for? Oh my God it’s early!) – I have a day and a half left in Juba.  And, in traditional Jennifer style, I’ve started making lists – what absolutely needs to get done before I leave (1. Focus group with female police officers later today; 2. Develop paper outline with Victoria; 3. Send that proposal to the folks at NSI…), what I can jettison to lighten my luggage & avoid paying exorbitant overweight fees (1. Reference material – leave it for CPDS!  2. Leftover snacks – bring to focus group! …), and what I need my remaining Sudanese pounds for to determine whether I’ll have to change more US cash at a terrible rate before leaving (1.  Drinks for focus group; 2.  Fuel for CPDS vehicle? 3. Tips …)

But, the lists that are really taking hold as I approach tomorrow afternoon and my imminent departure from Juba, if not yet Africa (I have a day-long layover in Nairobi) are Letterman-esque*:  that is to say, somewhat amusing, but unlikely to elicit a guffaw unless you’re reading them after midnight.   And so, ladies and gentlemen, I present to you, Two Lists:

Top Five Reasons I will miss Africa

5. The excitement that comes two to three hours after eating when you realize that what you ate was OK!

4.  The truly impressive rainy season storms.

3.  Wacky, malaria-medication-induced dreams!

2.  Being out of the office.

And the number one reason I will miss Africa:  The people.

Top Five Reasons I can’t wait to get home

5.  My own bed.

4.  Modern banking facilities! (Carrying this much cash around is just too stressful.)

3.  Three words:  Salad. For.  Dinner.

2.  Vehicles with functional seatbelts.

And, the number one reason I can’t wait to get home:  Sidewalks (and the security to walk them alone, à volonté).

* I know, I know, Letterman does Top Ten lists, but give me a break, it’s 6am…