Visions for “Peace and Beyond” are untenable without women: shortcomings of the Clinton Global Initiative’s special session

Nine years ago, Swanee Hunt and Cristina Posa wrote an article for Foreign Policy called “Women Waging Peace.” They wrote,

“You can’t end wars simply by declaring peace… Fundamental social changes are necessary to prevent renewed hostilities. Women have proven time and time again their unique ability to bridge seemingly insurmountable divides. So why aren’t they at the negotiating table?”

While much has changed in the last nine years regarding the inclusion of women in international security issues, much has stayed the same. There is a large gap between growing concern for “women’s issues”—maternal mortality rates, reproductive rights, and campaigns for greater access to education and political structures, for example—and the inclusion of women in decision-making positions worldwide. Nowhere is this ongoing inconsistency more noticeable than at the Clinton Global Initiative’s Annual Meeting, which took place at the end of September.

The Clinton Global Initiative’s Annual Meeting: Victories and Shortcomings

On one hand, the Clinton Global Initiative’s Annual Meeting highlighted “Empowering Girls and Women” as an action area for the coming years, placing it at the forefront of issues discussed during the three day summit. Breakout sessions included “Preparing Girls for the World,” “The Key to Women’s Economic Empowerment,” and “Securing the Health and Safety of Girls and Women.” The Clinton Global Initiative’s efforts will undoubtedly result in commitments to action by business executives, heads of state, and leaders of nonprofit organizations, and that is good news for activists.

On the other hand, the special session on “Peace and Beyond in the Middle East” seemed like a scene out of the past—a staged event from ten years ago or more. At a time when international organizations and leaders around the world are emphasizing the importance of including women in the security arena, the panel discussion with former United States President Bill Clinton, HRH Prince Salman bin Hahmad al-Khalifa of Bahrain, former Israeli President Shimon Peres, and former Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad was notably devoid of women or recognition that women have a vital part to play in bringing peace to the region.

The discussion on “Peace and Beyond in the Middle East” focused largely on the economic potential that a unified Middle East could harness if it were to work as an integrated region. The panelists also discussed the agricultural, environmental, and technological consequences of a unified Middle East: large scale projects to better manage scarce water supplies and improve infrastructure that have been on hold for years will be possible if peace can be brought to the region. These are all positive future outcomes, and if they came to fruition, the enhanced infrastructural stability will become a lasting deterrence against the continued influence of extremist forces.

But is this the whole picture? Is someone going to march down to the checkpoints that divide Israel and occupied Palestine and say, “Hey. If you all could stop fighting for just a second here, we could really start to better manage our scarce water supplies. And that would be good! And then after a couple of years, you all will start feeling the economic benefits of increased political integration and regional stability!”

I don’t think so.

The big problem with “Peace and Beyond in the Middle East” is that it forgot about the women.

“Peace and beyond” is only possible with the cooperation of all the Middle East, not just its men and certainly not just its businessmen and politicians.

Continued hostilities in the Middle East (and in other conflict zones) feed off of a willingness to focus on the past—the sense of historic injustice, remembering more recent injuries, and channeling the impulse towards revenge into violence. The promise of economic benefit is compelling, but (for better or for worse)  it has not and will not overcome the strength of personal conviction. The Middle East will achieve “peace and beyond” only when a critical mass  becomes convinced and personally committed to creating stability within their homes, their communities, and their country. That critical mass cannot be made up of all men; it must be composed of and led by women in partnership with men.

As Swanee Hunt and Cristina Posa noted, “Women are crucial to inclusive security since they are often at the center of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), popular protests, electoral referendums, and other citizen-empowering movements whose influence has grown with the global spread of democracy.” More recently, at the NATO “Women, Peace, and Security” conference, Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen stated unequivocally, “Women are far too often excluded from playing a role in maintaining, restoring, and defending stability.” This panel was an opportunity for major players in the Middle East and the United States to connect and commit themselves to meaningful action, and the exclusion of women from the conversation is an oversight the undermines the Clinton Global Initiative’s ability to achieve its goals.

As an organization that has consistently promoted the advancement of women, the Clinton Global Initiative should have recognized the lack of women on the panel as problematic. Empowering girls and women goes beyond improving their access to health care and economic systems; empowering girls and women also requires including them in discussions about their regions’ future. As international organizations like the UN, NATO, and the World Bank continue to reinforce the importance of empowered, educated women in the all facets of civil, political, and economic life, visions of peace in the Middle East and other conflict areas must include the participation of women on all levels of society and in all of the many roles women play throughout their lives.

Visions of peace and international security require the inclusion of women.

Ongoing conflict in the Middle East and other areas historically torn by religious or political tensions will never come to an end without the involvement of women. Including women in decision making positions in the security arena is not just an issue of fairness—it’s a pragmatic necessity. The Middle East will not be magically stabilized by the promise of economic development (nor will Kashmir,  Afghanistan, or Yemen, for that matter).  The Middle East will only become peaceful when the people who live there become emotionally invested in a future with peace and all that it demands, including the challenge of former enemies having to forgive (if not forget) one another and live side-by-side with memories of past injustices and hopes for a better future. This kind of fundamental societal sea change is not possible in only 50% of the population. The support and participation of women is crucial.

Women are mothers, soldiers, wives, politicians, and activists for peace and for war. “Peace and Beyond in the Middle East” is not a future that belongs only to men. The future of the Middle East belongs to its women too, and both common sense and fairness speak to the need for greater inclusion of women in decision making positions in the security arena.

Are you new to Gender Across Borders? Please read this first. We may update the site, and you can stay in contact with us through our Twitter feed and our newsletter. Like Gender Across Borders on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter and Tumblr. Subscribe to our monthly newsletter.