United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 represents the first ever official acknowldgement by the UN Security Council that women often play a crucial role both in conflict and in peacemaking. It is one of very few Security Council resolutions which has its own constituency, and there are all kinds of debates around its assumptions, its significance and its implementation, some of which I hope to go into in more depth later on. For me, though, the most important thing about UNSCR 1325 is that gives women's organisations the right to demand that they be included in the processes of conflict resolution and peacebuilding.
Of course, having the right to something doesn't always mean you get it, and international law is full of theoretical rights which mean little to the many people who do not, in practice, have them fulfilled. Nonetheless, UNSCR 1325 offers an internationally legally binding document which women can point to to say "this is why you must include us".
Six years after the Resolution was passed, the UK Foreign Office came up with an action plan to implement UNSCR 1325. The plan includes several elements, which involve everything from the UK's role in framing UNSC resolutions to the training of UK soldiers and civil servants in gender issues to encouraging its partners in the international community, including states and civil society institutions, to put women in senior decision-making positions in conflict resolution and peacebuilding.
Monitoring the government's performance in carrying out this plan is a huge task. Just as NGOs were instrumental in framing UNSCR 1325 and getting it passed, so they are still the driving force in pushing for its implementation, and GAPS UK carries out that role in this country. Here I focus on one small but important area: the Middle East conflict.
Why should the UK government be supporting the implementation of UNSCR 1325 in Israel and Palestine? It can't do so in every part of the world, after all - the money just isn't there. The answer is fairly simple: the UK has historically been, and continues to be, a significant player in the Middle East conflict and the "peace process". I do not wish to overstate this - clearly the US became the major third party when Britain terminated its mandate and turned the 'Palestine Question' over to the UN, and today Britain's involvement in the region is channelled largely through the EU. Nonetheless, the UK's Department for International Development (DFID) has pledged almost £47 million to help Gaza recover from the most recent conflict there, and the government plans to provide over £250 million over three years to help build the institutions of a future Palestinian state. It is therefore closely involved in many of the processes to which UNSCR 1325 directly applies, and is in a good position to support its implementation.
In response to a Parliamentary question from Jo Swinson MP, Foreign Office Minister Bill Rammell gave the following answer:
Jo Swinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent steps he has taken to promote the inclusion of women in conflict resolution and peace building in Israel and Palestine as provided for under UN Security Council Resolution 1325; and if he will make a statement.
Bill Rammell: In both international organisations and at local levels, the UK remains a leading supporter of women's roles in delivering sustainable peace and security. We led the call for the adoption of both UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1325 and the follow on resolution UNSCR 1820 and continue to support the inclusion of language that reaffirms the importance of UNSCR 1325 in UN peacekeeping mandates.
In Israel and Palestine, we have supported organisations working to promote women's roles in political processes and their ability to influence public policy.
I must admit, after reading this response I was deeply sceptical as to whether the UK government was doing anything at all to promote UNSCR 1325. Answers to Parliamentary questions are notoriously vague, evasive and often misleading. A statement of commitment is not a description of action, and "the inclusion of language" in resolutions often, as people on both sides of the Middle East conflict know, means little. The phrase "we have supported organisations", I suspected, implied "we no longer support". It turns out I was right, though the record is not quite as bad as I had anticipated.
A Freedom of Information request I submitted to the DFID revealed that it does not currently provide funding to any organisations in Israel or Palestine which promote women's participation in political processes and their ability to influence public policy.
However, the answer to another Parliamentary question to the Foreign Office revealed that last year it provided £7,050 for a project by Itach Maaki, or Women Lawyers for Social Justice, in the Negev. Between 2005 and 2007 the FCO gave £329,600 to a project run by the Civic Forum Institute to train newly elected women in Palestinian local councils.
If the answer to what the UK is doing to promote UNSCR 1325 in Israel/Palestine is that it has provided support to women's organisations, but in fact it is not currently providing any such support, then, by a process of deduction, it would appear the UK government is currently doing nothing to that end. This may simply indicate that the projects it funded (and the project-based nature of donor assistance is another topic I hope to come back to) have finished, and perhaps it is seeking new opportunities. But when the government is giving so much funding to improve the situation in that region, particularly in relation to peace, security and state-building - when we know that women are suffering in many of the ways UNSCR 1325 highlights and yet none of that money is going towards its implementation - doesn't that suggest that our government's statement of commitment is more talk than action?
0 comments:
Post a Comment