By Mavic Cabrera-Balleza
NEW YORK, Mar 13 2020 (IPS)

Where are the women and youth peacebuilders in the Beijing+25 and the Generation Equality Forum processes?

Their absence raises serious questions about the effectivity and coherence of the work of the UN on gender equality since armed conflict is both a cause and a consequence of gender inequality.

Over the last five months, I have spent most of my waking and sleeping hours strategizing with our team at the Global Network of Women Peacebuilders (GNWP) about how to keep peace and security on the agenda of the Generation Equality Forum (GEF), the incarnation of the 25th anniversary of the Fourth World Conference on Women.

Many of our friends and allies within the Women and Peace and Security community ask me: Is it worth putting our limited time and resources into trying to participate in these bureaucratic and non-binding processes? Is it worth engaging with government and UN bureaucracies to advance our feminist agendas?

My answer to these questions is a resounding yes! But only if women and youth peacebuilders are part of the process. Here is why.

An inspiration for the Women and Peace and Security and Youth, Peace and Security agendas

Nearly 25 years ago, in August and September 1995, more than 30,000 women from around the world convened in Beijing, China to participate in the Fourth World Conference and NGO Forum on Women.

It was a watershed moment for the global women’s movement not only because of its magnitude, but mainly because it brought forth the Beijing Declaration and the Platform for Action (BPFA), by far the most comprehensive global agenda for women’s empowerment and gender equality.

The BPFA set strategic objectives and actions for the advancement of women and the achievement of gender equality in 12 critical areas of concerns, ranging from women and poverty to women and armed conflict, and women’s human rights.

The BPFA resulted in the establishment of more than 100 national institutions for women’s advancement, including Ministries of Gender in many countries. It led to advocacy for—and the adoption of—the UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women and Peace and Security (UNSCR 1325) in October 2000.

The adoption of the UNSCR 1325 was a major achievement and a result of the unyielding work of women peacebuilders around the world. It established a normative framework for women’s meaningful participation in decision-making, conflict resolution, conflict prevention and peacebuilding; as well as protection of women and girls’ rights, and prevention of sexual and gender-based violence in conflict-affected situations.

For those of us who are working towards the effective implementation of the Women and Peace and Security (WPS) and the Youth and Peace and Security (YPS) agendas, the BPFA is a foundation document and a model for robust civil society ownership and participation.

It stands alongside the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the UN Security Council Resolutions on WPS and YPS as one of the most important international instruments on women’s rights, youth rights, and gender equality.

More than two decades later, the Generation Equality Forum (GEF) is underway. Much like the Beijing Conference and Platform for Action, the GEF and its outcomes will not be legally binding.

This raises concerns among some civil society groups as to the resources and energy spent on these processes. Indeed, forums and conferences use up considerable resources; and the laws and policies that come out of them are, after all, just words on paper.

Nonetheless, with strong civil society ownership and participation, the GEF can lead to outcomes that shape not only laws and policies, but concrete actions on women’s rights and gender equality. In the same way that the Beijing Conference and the Platform for Action did.

A test of legitimacy and accountability of the Generation Equality Forum

The success of the GEF and its outcomes are dependent on the extent and quality of the participation of civil society groups representing diverse issues and initiatives.

In line with the accountability framework for the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, the GEF process aims to map progress and reactivate commitments to implementation. It proposes to do so by launching Action Coalitions, which will catalyze collective action, spark global, inter-generational conversations, and deliver results to further advance equality for women and girls.

This is where a major problem arises. Women peacebuilders and youth peacebuilders are not represented in the decision-making structure of the GEF. As a result, WPS and YPS have been left out from the Action Coalitions identified by the Forum organizers.

This is particularly astounding, since the WPS and YPS agendas are integral to all three pillars of the United Nations—peace and security, human rights and development. Equally important, the exclusion of WPS and YPS raises serious questions about the scope of civil society consultations, and how decisions are made in the GEF.

Many years of experience in the women’s movement tells us that the legitimacy of—and accountability to—decisions on women’s rights and gender equality largely depend on the participation and ownership of civil society organizations representing women’s interests that may be impacted by such decisions.

Call for an Action Coalition on Women and Peace and Security and Youth, Peace and Security

WPS and YPS agendas are critical to realizing the promise of the BPFA. They cannot be effectively mainstreamed in any of the six Action Coalitions. Recognizing this, more than 150 feminist, grassroots women’s rights organizations and networks from around the world sent an Open Letter to the Governments of France and Mexico and UN Women, expressing concern about the serious risk of leaving out key priorities and needs of women and youth peacebuilders in the GEF.

Their call was backed by the Civil Society Advisory Group to the GEF, the UN High-Level Advisory Group for the 2015 Global Study on UNSCR 1325, and the Government of South Africa who supported the establishment of a stand-alone Action Coalition on WPS and YPS.

As the GEF process unfolds, its organizers must acknowledge the diversity of women’s issues. They also need to recognize civil society as a partner on equal footing with the Governments of France and Mexico, and UN Women. This means responding to the reverberating calls of the more than 150 feminist and women’s rights organizations, and the Civil Society Advisory Group to form a stand-alone Action Coalition on WPS and YPS.

Marking the 25th anniversary of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, the Generation Equality Forum presents a global momentum to advance gender equality. Yet, to date, it fails to address the biggest and most persistent challenge that the international community confronts: armed conflicts that are becoming more and more vicious and fragmented.

As UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has said in his January 22, 2020 speech to the General Assembly, the lack of peace and security remains as one of greatest threats to 21st century progress.

Is Beijing +25 worth civil society’s limited time and resources? Yes, but only if it fully integrates peace and security at its core and meaningfully includes women and youth peacebuilders to achieve it.

Excerpt:

By Mavic Cabrera-Balleza
NEW YORK, Mar 7 2018 (IPS)

I am one of millions of women who posted #MeToo on social media. The call to post was like a flash of light that brought back vivid memories of cat calls, male colleagues making passes, lewd jokes, men rubbing their bodies against mine in packed buses and trains and a man in an act of public sexual self-gratification on the subway.

Posting #MeToo was a cathartic moment. I was able to say publicly that these horrible things happened to me and I’m not going to let them happen again! Like many people, I am looking forward to the new day that Oprah Winfrey described in her Golden Globe speech, “when nobody ever has to say “me too” again.” Let us examine how #MeToo can be made obsolete.

The #MeToo campaign is well-known—–at least in the US and Europe and in some major cities of the world. But what is Security Council resolution 1325? Its full name is United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security.

The number comes from the order in which international laws are adopted by the UN Security Council, the UN body that is responsible for international peace and security. Resolution 1325 is a ground breaking international law that recognizes that women do not participate in decisions to go to war.

All of us—women and men, girls and boys are affected by war. However, because women and girls are regarded as second class citizens in most societies, they suffer more. Resolution 1325 also says that even though women make up most of war victims, they are not passive victims. They are peacebuilders, decision-makers and change agents.

Resolution 1325 calls on governments to adopt national action plans and create enabling conditions so that women are able to participate in all levels of decision-making. The wonderful thing about Resolution 1325 is that it goes far beyond the US and European capitals and major cities.

With efforts to localize its implementation, grassroots women’s organizations in Colombia, Democratic Republic of Congo and Nepal—among many other countries—are using Resolution 1325 to organize and mobilize to participate not only in peace negotiations but also in elections, in re-writing constitutions, in policy-making and implementation, and in humanitarian actions.

The power of #MeToo

#MeToo became phenomenal because of its social media platforms. Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram made it easy, fast and safe to say #MeToo! Many women felt safe to go public and say that they were sexually harassed or assaulted because they were not pressured to provide details of the incidents. They can speak about the details when they are ready.

The stigma attached to sexual violence was not very palpable—for once. There is also safety in numbers. Knowing that millions of other women are speaking out and speaking up against the crime and their perpetrators, #MeToo snowballed because women felt that they are not alone; many women are experiencing the same sexual violence and harassment.

Furthermore, when rich, famous and beautiful women name their rich, famous and influential perpetrators, audiences paid attention. #MeToo allowed the world to realize the magnitude of the problem.

Where #MeToo doesn’t make a difference

Anyone can say #MeToo. But can women from around the world really post? Sadly no. Since it is social media-based, #MeToo is mainly an urban phenomenon.

My work takes me to many war-affected places: Surkit, Nepal; Cauca, Colombia; Apac, Uganda; North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo. Many of these places are rural communities where electricity is limited; and often, no internet connectivity. When internet is accessible, the connectivity costs more than the family’s monthly food budget.

Social media is not part of people’s daily lives. It is through person-to-person discussions and dialogues that they tackle their problems, manage their community affairs, and get things done.

In addition, weak or absent legal framework hinders the popularization of #MeToo campaign in many developing countries. A study by UCLA’s WORLD Policy Analysis Center found that 68 countries do not have any workplace-specific prohibitions of sexual harassment. Where they exist, such laws are also limited because they only address work place situations. What about schools, farms, churches, hospitals and market places?

Together 1325 and #MeToo can lead to a truly global movement

Localization of Resolution1325 is an implementation strategy pioneered by the Global Network of Women Peacebuilders (GNWP) which enables local population especially grassroots women to work with government authorities in policy-making and implementation.

This strategy can help the #MeToo campaign reach remote rural communities. Building on various efforts to stop the use of rape as a weapon of war, grassroots women’s organizations can gather women in local communities and provide safe spaces to talk about the sexual harassments and sexual assaults they have experienced.

Organized women can also work with influential local leaders to denounce sexual violence and declare that it is not part of their culture. The Localization of Resolution1325 and its supporting resolution 1820 on sexual violence in conflict is already enabling this to happen in Colombia, Sierra Leone and Uganda.

GNWP members in these countries work with indigenous leaders, paramount chiefs and community elders to eliminate sexual and gender-based violence, including traditional practices that violate women and girls’ rights such as child marriage and female genital mutilation.

A localized replication of #MeToo in grassroots communities which I imagine to be similar to village or neighborhood dialogues, will factor in social and cultural identifiers such as caste, class, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, and educational background.

These identifiers make women more vulnerable and give sexual harassment and sexual assault a more complex dimension. A response to the problem including victim support programs and preventive measures should take these identifiers into consideration.

Currently, these identifiers do not play out in the #MeToo campaign. In India for example, sexual harassment cases become more difficult to pursue when the perpetrators are upper caste men. In Colombia, there are reports that LGBT people are specific target of sexual attacks by rebels, militias and private armies.

Replicating #MeToo in local communities can also discourage perverted “solutions” and distorted understanding of sexual abuse. In a number of countries, women who are raped are married off to their perpetrators. This allows a rapist to escape punishment for his crime so long as he marries the victim.

The “marry your rapist laws” are gradually being repealed in several countries. #MeToo can spread the word about this and inspire more women to organize campaigns to abolish them; and replace them with more progressive and comprehensive laws that will protect women and girls’ rights.

Combining the broad outreach of #MeToo and the people-to-people solidarity that the Localization of 1325 guarantees can break the culture of silence on sexual abuse. Families and communities who tell victims to keep quiet because it will bring them dishonour will think twice if they hear it is now more common to support the victim and encourage her to report the crime.

In addition, the combination of #MeToo and Localization of 1325 can refute the warped logic by mostly male politicans in developing countries that “western” women’s clothing, lifestyle and values are the cause of the rapes and other sexual assaults.

Grassroots women activists who have been trained in the Localization of 1325 program have challenged such beliefs espoused by some people in their communities. With their knowledge of policy-making and implementation that was also developed through their participation in the Localization of 1325 program, women activists can work with local authorites towards effecive implementation of laws and policies on sexual and gender-based violence.

What needs to be done? Expand #MeToo, expand #Time’s Up, and allow local communities—especially grassroots women to lead the implementation in order to suit local context. I challenge the proponents and supporters of #MeToo and #Time’s Up, in the United States and Europe—including Ms. Winfrey to use their resources and influence to support local efforts in preventing sexual and gender-based violence in developing countries.

I also call on colleagues in women’s rights organizations in developing countries to understand the realities of women in the United States and Europe and strengthen our solidarity with each other. Sexual and gender-based violence in these regions of the world may have different nuances but patriarchy is our common denominator.

If we do this, we are looking at a truly global movement with #MeToo, #Time’s Up and Resolution 1325 as our shared platforms and instrument. Only then “when nobody ever has to say “me too” again.”

Excerpt:

By Mavic Cabrera-Balleza
NEW YORK, Nov 29 2017 (IPS)

It’s the fifth day of the 16 days campaign on violence against women but I feel like the campaign started months ago because of the powerful #MeToo campaign. While I applaud this campaign, I have some thoughts that I believe could make this a truly global watershed moment in the fight against sexual and gender-based violence.

Expand the “clicktivism”– the use of social media and the Internet to advance social causes— to real life activism. The issue of sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) needs to be addressed in multiple ways beyond hashtags. Women must be able to tell their stories beyond a few clicks on a computer or a smart phone.

There is nothing more cathartic for victims/survivors than to be able to share their stories in a safe environment with caring people who are ready to support them. This can help in breaking their feelings of isolation, guilt and shame and convey the message that they are not being judged and that help is available.

Creative approaches to story telling by victims of SGBV including through writing, use of theater techniques, poetry, dance and music must be supported and enhanced. This is where the convergence of real life activism and online activism would again prove helpful.

Online platforms allow for sharing of these creative approaches in working with victims/survivors of SGBV. They can inspire support groups to explore, replicate and modify such approaches that in turn can result into more diverse and more effective interventions.

The issue of sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) needs to be addressed in multiple ways beyond hashtags. Women must be able to tell their stories beyond a few clicks on a computer or a smart phone.
Expanding and strengthening networks of SGBV support groups is another area where online activism can augment real life activism. Social media are an effective platform to reach out to the “unusual suspects” –i.e., those who describe themselves as not the “activist type.” This can result into very concrete actions including technical support as well as funding for SGBV prevention programs.

Protection of victims/survivors is paramount. Silence protects the perpetrator and imprisons the victim. As a feminist activist, I strongly believe this. However, I’m also aware that it is easy to utter these words especially when you are not the victim. Whether one is working online or in person or both, the protection of victims/survivors is critical.

The success and failure of any intervention depends on how adequately victims/survivors are protected—especially those who speak out about the abuses committed against them. In many cases, the victims/survivors risk their lives when they speak out to provide details about the crime and when they identify the perpetrator.

Thus, all institutions and individuals in the intervention chain: the doctor who examines the victim and issues the medical certificate, the police officer who conducts the investigation, the journalist who reports about the crime, the judge who prosecutes the case, the psychologist who provides counseling services, the social worker who lends overall support to the victim/survivor must be highly qualified professionals. They all must play as part of a team whose singular mission is to establish the truth and seek justice for the victim.

Accountability in all places. There are numerous international instruments that have been adopted by the United Nations to combat SGBV. They include General Recommendation 12 adopted in 1989 by the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). In 1990, General Recommendation 14 addressed female circumcision and other traditional practices harmful to the health of women.

In 1992, the Committee adopted General Recommendation 19, which defines gender-based violence to be violence that is directed against a woman because she is a woman or that affects women disproportionately. The 1993 UN General Assembly Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women outlines steps that governments and the UN, should take to address gender-based violence, and makes clear that governments should not invoke any custom, tradition, or religious consideration to avoid their obligations with respect to its elimination, and should exercise due diligence to prevent, investigate and, in accordance with national legislation, punish acts of violence against women, whether those acts are perpetrated by the State or by private persons.

There is also the groundbreaking UN Security Council Resolution 1325 and the supporting resolutions on Women and Peace and Security that aim to prevent the use of rape and other forms of sexual violence as a weapon of war. These international laws and policies are reinforced by regional and national legal mechanisms in various countries.

It is clear is that there is no shortage of laws and policies to combat sexual and gender-based violence. What is lacking is implementation. A strong civil society is crucial in holding the UN and governments accountable and call for effective implementation at all times.

However, I would like to emphasize that accountability should be demanded from everyone, from all places. While we hold public authorities accountable, we also need to hold families and communities accountable. Many SGBV crimes are committed in the private sphere.

Furthermore, it is also families and communities that demand victims/survivors to suffer in silence as they will bring dishonor if they speak out. When news about the crime goes out—particularly in cases of rape, the women are married off to their rapists or driven away if they refuse.

A lot more needs to be done in order to have a world free from violence for all women and girls. I have no doubt that linking clicktivism with real life activism; and broadening the outreach of real life activism by complementing it with digital activism could help create that world.

Excerpt: