On the 1st of June the Public Panel Discussion “Women and Armed Violence: Peace and Gender Equality” was hosted at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies. Part of the TERRE DES FEMMES Switzerland annual speaker series, VOIX DES FEMMES, the event was organised by the Small Arms Survey and the Graduate Institute’s Programme on Gender and Global Change (PGGC). The public discussion aimed at reassessing the role of women in violence prevention and reduction in conflict, post-conflict and non-conflict settings.

The keynote speaker, Irene Morada Santiago – former Nobel Peace Prize nominee and recipient of the 2013 N-Peace Award – talked about her vast international experience in advocating for the inclusion of women in peacebuilding and mediation, as well as her long career as part of the Philippine delegation during the peace negotiations with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF). The rest of the panel was composed of academics and policy practitioners, including:

• Patricia Schulz, Expert on the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) Committee
• Rahel Kunz, Lecturer at the University of Lausanne and Research Associate at the Graduate Institute's Programme on Gender and Global Change (PGGC)
• Mihaela Racovita, Associate Researcher, Small Arms Survey

The moderator of the event was Luigi De Martino, Coordinator of the Secretariat of the Geneva Declaration on Armed Violence and Development.

Irene M. Santiago began her talk narrating the successful experience of the Philippines in increasing the participation of women in peacebuilding initiatives by 30%. Nevertheless, reflecting on the role of women in the peace negotiations with the MILF, she also pointed out three strong barriers to women’s participation in peace processes (present in almost all peace processes):

1. Conceptual – the social attitudes present among women and men that prevent female inclusion in decision making processes, such as peace negotiations. This barrier also refers to how we understand peace negotiations, which should be about building peace rather than ending war. There is a need to shift attitudes and mindsets regarding the role of women in society and the purpose of peace negotiations in order to increase female participation.
2. Technical –  the architecture of the peace process (track 1, official negotiators; track 2, civil society; track 3, grass roots organisations, etc…). If the tracks are structured in terms of hierarchical importance then there is less chance that women can participate effectively; if they are assigned equal importance then meaningful female participation is more likely. Female participation is also more likely if there is a considerable number of highly specialised women who can participate.  
3. Political – as the engagement of women in peace negotiations generally follows pre-existing societal power dynamics, which in many cases tend to be male-led. In situations where there is a lack of political will for the inclusion of women in peace processes, international organisations can play a key role in exerting pressure on the political elite and insist on female representation at the negotiating table. Similarly, pressure for female inclusion can also be exerted from the local constituency, especially in those cases – such as in the Philippines – where there is a history of an active civil society and a prominent women’s movement.

Irene M. Santiago concluded her talk stressing the importance of having women’s organisations coming together for a common cause. She urged the new generation of academics, activists, and policy practitioners to “find the three words” that will facilitate progress to continue the dialogue towards a more egalitarian society. Just as her generation’s motto – "the personal is political" – transformed gender responsiveness through bringing domestic issues to the public sphere, she called for the engagement of the new generation to reflect on the issues affecting women today and to find an appropriate motto that will drive the development of national and international policies and practices for the inclusion of women in decision-making processes and the prevention and reduction of violence.

The expert contributions brought different nuances to the debate. Patricia Schulz stressed the importance of the CEDAW convention for tackling the threats faced by women today, namely that the convention can be used for the protection and inclusion of women in both conflict and non-conflict settings. In terms of the latter, she highlighted the example of Mexico, where pressure was put on the government for not investigating violence against women on the border with the US. Nevertheless, Schulz presented the challenges of measuring what is a meaningful participation of women in peace processes, as well as of the lack of political will in nationally implementing/ internationally enforcing legal documents related to the issue.

Rahel Kunz added to the discussion by pointing to the dangers of regarding women as agency-less actors in conflict. The nature of female participation is complex, and cannot be simply reduced to the role of victims or of peace negotiators. Women also tend to play an active role in conflict, as combatants and perpetrators of violence, as activist calling for the protection of women and girls, and as ‘peacemakers’ engaging in peace negotiations.

Lastly, Mihaela Racovita drew upon larger questions regarding women and gender violence, especially given the empirical evidence that the conflict vs. non-conflict division is becoming increasingly less relevant. She highlighted the recent findings from the Global Burden of Armed Violence which show that 9 out of 10 deaths occur outside conflict settings, and that a considerable proportion of the 60’000 women that die violently each year do so in non-conflict, albeit highly violent, settings. She reflected on the importance of these findings for how we think of violence against women and the types of national and international policies for preventing and reducing such violence. Especially in terms of implementing  Security Council Resolution 1325, she stressed that there needs to be a movement away from the "discursive" acceptance of women’s role and potential, to behavioral and structural change in including women in decision making processes and violence prevention. The discussion ended with a very constructive debate with the audience.