AUTHOR Bénédicte Aboul-Nasr, Senior Programmes Officer, Great Lakes - Peace Direct

Peace Direct has worked with such local peacebuilding organisations across Ituri, North Kivu, and South Kivu since 2007, supporting their efforts to transform conflict in their respective provinces. Partners’ have had to pivot to fill gaps left by funding cuts, blocked access, and the expanding military occupation of North and South Kivu.

Stated support and humanitarian efforts, with limited impact for local communities

After gaining significant ground in January, M23 attacked the city of Goma on the night of 26-27 January. Over four days, an estimated 3,000 people were killed. Warehouses and hospitals have been looted, hospitals attacked, and refugee camps bombed. In one particularly egregious incident, the UN estimates that at least 165 women were raped during the Muzenze prison break on 27 January. In February, M23 took the capital of South Kivu, Bukavu, displacing tens of thousands across the border into Burundi. Hundreds of thousands of people have been displaced.

International condemnation was swift, though concrete action much slower. Governments of the United Kingdom, United States, the European Union (EU), have expressed concerns at the scale of the crisis and suffering. United Nations Security Council adopted a Resolution on 21 February, calling on Rwanda to withdraw from DRC and cease its support to M23, and on the Government of Congo to cease supporting armed groups including the Forces Démocratiques de Libération du Rwanda (FDLR), whose existence Rwanda seeks to dismantle. The European Parliament called on the European Commission and Council to suspend the EU’s Memorandum of Understanding on Sustainable Raw Minerals Value Chains with Rwanda. The US Government imposed sanctions against Rwandan officials, while the UK announced a set of limited measures against the Rwandan government.

Despite these actions, M23 have continued their advance and taken control of Bukavu, the capital of South Kivu. Citizens in Uvira, bordering with Burundi, have experienced fighting between the Congolese Armed Forces (FARDC) and the Wazalendo (‘patriots’), groups of combatants fighting alongside FARDC, alongside serious fears that M23 may try to take control of Uvira itself. The relationship between Burundi, bordering Uvira, and Rwanda has declined for months.

Confronting discrepancies and their disproportionate impact on women and girls

TDRC adopted a National Action Plan for Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) in 2018, for the period between 2018-2022, and made commitments to strengthen the participation of women in politics and in the economy. While many civil society organisations and networks aim to strengthen the WPS Agenda, systemic issues remain, including violations of women’s rights and the use of sexual and gender-based violence in conflict.

In contrast, Rwanda is broadly recognised to engage meaningfully with Women, Peace and Security Agenda. The government last adopted a National Action Plan (NAP) in 2018. The Constitution mandates at least 30% of women in elected positions, with a higher level of representation to date in certain chambers. The country seeks to end gender inequality in line with the Sustainable Development Goals, and includes strong female participation in government, at the national and local levels, and across sectors. In the aftermath of the 1994 Genocide, this was deemed essential to support reconstruction efforts and promote stability for Rwandans. Protecting the rights and dignity of all affected by conflict, not only through inclusion but also meaningful participation in decision-making processes, is critical. But such respect for women’s rights and gender minorities must extend beyond borders, including in any military operations abroad – a glaring gap for Rwanda considering its role in the violence that women and girls in DRC have faced since M23’s resurgence in 2021, at exponential rates.

Linking humanitarian, peacebuilding, and WPS: connecting the disconnected to promote dialogue and peace

So far, military efforts to curb the escalation have failed, as diplomatic efforts have stalled and the international community bemoans the humanitarian crisis. While the Angolan Government announced it will will enter discussions with M23 to facilitate negotiations and revive the Luanda process, both Burundi and Uganda have bolstered their military presence in eastern DRC.

Humanitarian aid is critical, and statements to this effect are crucial. Yet statements come against a backdrop of major funding cuts –the impact on programming related to the rights of women, girls and marginalised groups have been the starkest. While the USAID cuts are the most drastic, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and other European governments have followed suit.

Our DRC partners speak of the humanitarian crisis, but also, and critically, of the need for the international community and stakeholders within the region to recognise the nuances of the region to meaningfully contribute to peacebuilding endeavours and peace processes. This requires that the international community, NGOs, stakeholders engaged with the region, foster inclusive dialogues, and inclusive spaces for marginalised communities and groups. It requires a clear commitment to justice and accountability, dedicated to dismantling the cycles of violence of the last 30 years.

The international community must leverage its position to support the region’s residents, beyond political and economic imperatives. In February, the African Union, East African Community, and South African Development Community, all exhorted the conflicting parties to resume dialogue. For any such dialogue to be sustainable and peace process to resume, the international community should increase support to these efforts, and to grassroots and national organisations, for their voices and perspectives to be heard. Women rights organisations, and women-led organisations, are most at risk and least likely to receive such support; centring them is critical.

Efforts must reflect the complexity and nuances that exist amongst communities in eastern DRC and in the broader Great Lakes region, and the Global North must meaningfully address the economic drivers of the conflict. Those who stand to bear this brunt are communities across the region, first and foremost women, girls, and marginalised groups.

Sangeetha Navaratnam-Blair- Policy, Advocacy and Communications Manager (GAPS)

In 2024, around 1.5 billion people in over 60 countries will be voting in significant elections. Much of the world’s population will be looking on cautiously at the US election – an election that impacts so many people beyond the borders of the US and one which offers the potential of the first woman of colour US President, specifically one with Jamaican and Indian heritage. With this, discussions on representation naturally arise. This is also a hot topic in the world of Women, Peace and Security (WPS), with the ‘1 for 8 Billion’ campaign group calling for the next Secretary-General of the United Nations (UN) to be a woman.

Women’s participation is a core pillar of the WPS agenda. The specific language of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 states the need for ‘increased participation of women at all levels of decision-making, including in national, regional and international institutions’ and specifies, among other areas, the need for women’s participation ‘in peace operations, as soldiers, police, and civilians’. This is a call for the representation of women in high-level positions, in all countries and international bodies, as well as in specific state institutions throughout society. Participation in this framework aims to contribute to and intertwine with the other pillars of Resolution 1325 of prevention, protection, and relief and recovery. 

However, we must question how this has been implemented. Is there a focus on representation for representation’s sake? As a sector we must ask ourselves what the purpose of representation is and whether it always offers a radical shift in power dynamics and a push towards gender equality. Women deserve to be at the table – we make up half of the population – but does the mere presence of a woman at the table result in more peaceful policies and outcomes? Are women inherently more peaceful? 

Women participating in processes that impact them 

GAPS recognises the greater sustainability of peace agreements and improved community cohesion that results from women’s participation, but we also emphasise the need to view this as a secondary, ‘bonus’ outcome to the goal of truly meaningful participation: women deserve to be part of peacebuilding as part of the realisation of their rights. This not only needs to happen with women at high-level elected political positions, but also women working on peace and development in their own communities. 

As discussed in GAPS’s Pillars for Peace,‘…it is important not to further this instrumentalist approach to gender and call for women’s participation for its own sake. Women should be consulted, be recognised, make decisions about and participate in processes that they have a stake in and which impacts upon them.’ As a result of gendered societal norms, women are often responsible for people throughout the whole community, in particular those who are most vulnerable to the impacts of conflict. Therefore they hold specialised knowledge and are specifically well placed to provide this expertise to the peacebuilding space.  

In addition to the contextual insights that these women carry, there is also an underappreciated wider expertise on conflict and peacebuilding that must be recognised and utilised by those working on conflict prevention and reconstruction programming. These women are, however, ignored and dismissed by decision makers, and when they are consulted, their insights are not escalated up to high-level decision making. Of the 18 peace agreements reached in 2022, only one was signed or witnessed by a local women’s rights organisation – this was reflected in the two-thirds of the agreements that did not include any provisions related to women, girls or gender.

The number of women participating in UN-led peace processes is very low and decreasing year on year. Though equal participation is a key aspect of gender equality and gender inequality is a driver of conflict, efforts to redress this are seen as a low priority by power brokers when it comes to responding to war. 

Tick box exercise 

All of this endorses the need for a pillar on women’s participation, and in particular reiterates the need for the voices and participation of the women most impacted by conflict, in all their diversities. However, for many in the WPS sector and the international community at large, this ends up as a tick box exercise – with simply having a woman at the table the ultimate end goal. The objective of ‘gender mainstreaming’ has become popular in international institutions such as the UN, through their application processes and reporting systems. This has often allowed decision makers to be content that they are addressing the topics of gender without being gender transformative. 

True gender transformation is crucial to reshape the existing power dynamics and structures that cause gender inequality and other intersecting forms of oppression and violence. But to achieve so-called ‘gender mainstreaming’, decision makers seek the views of elite women who have various intersecting privileges such as living in a capital city, being white, able-bodied, straight, married and middle-aged, who already hold positions of power and access to high-level spaces. These women are often from established organisations, with politics aligned with the status quo.  

Readers may be aware of the ‘woman drone pilot’ comic by Sam Wallman, which portrays the incongruence of celebrating the ascension of women into positions of power where they order and implement violent and militaristic policies. There are important critiques of this specific piece and its prevalence on social media, but it does illustrate the limitations of women’s representation. Specifically, it asks the audience: is a woman in charge an inherently progressive move if that woman is going to enact the same violence and conflict that her male predecessors have? 

We must ask ourselves this same question when it comes to calling for improved women’s participation in the WPS space, in peacebuilding, conflict resolution and more – indeed in all foreign and defence policy of global superpowers and donor states. We cannot simply ask for ‘representation’ in positions of leadership and in event panels and deem that a success. Women are just as capable of causing harm and furthering conflict as men are, just as men are subject to harms enacted against them in conflict.  

Women who do achieve positions of power at times even defend patriarchal positions and push regressive policies, such as anti-abortion and anti-LGBTQ+ policies. Complex dynamics within populations of women can mean that those who are chosen or able to reach high positions recreate unequal power structures. This pattern is sometimes seen in instances of people from minoritised groups who have reached senior positions in politics, potentially due to their acceptance of the status quo and alignment with regressive government policies, specifically because they are not champions of progressive politics.

A woman in charge vs. meaningful participation 

Herein lies the damage of representation for representation’s sake and of tokenising women: progress is not achieved automatically when a woman is in charge. As succinctly, and repeatedly, stated in a speech by Professor Dr Ruha Benjamin to students at Spelman College earlier this year: “Black faces in high spaces are not going to save us.” While her words have a specific intention with her specific audience (Dr Ruha Benjamin’s speech was delivered during Spelman College’s Founder Day Convocation 2024, to students and faculty at Spelman College which is a historically Black, women’s college in the USA) we can translate this into our context and say that women in high spaces will not inherently save all women.  

What are we striving for by promoting the WPS agenda? The answer may be: a more peaceful and equal world where conflict is less prevalent, women do not face a disproportionate impact from conflict, and gender is not a barrier to full and meaningful participation. Therefore, the decision makers within WPS need to push for policies that facilitate these outcomes, for all women – especially those who are marginalised and disproportionately impacted by conflict. We must strive for a positive impact that truly advances women’s perspectives in peacebuilding. Sometimes this is through meaningful participation, but it is not a panacea.  

The WPS sector must have additional policy asks alongside calls for more women in decision-making spaces. All leaders, regardless of gender, must push for action on gender inequality and injustice and must not replicate existing power structures that lead to conflict or gender inequality. 

Chiara Capraro- Gender Justice Programme Director | Amnesty International UK

The UK has traditionally been a champion for gender equality in multilateral spaces. However, as the anti-gender movement spreads moral panic and influences policy, media and elections, the new UK government must reorient its actions to successfully strengthen multilateral consensus on human rights protections for women and LGBTI+ people. 

The anti-gender movement is an ecosystem of organisations (both religious and secular) and state actors that believe patriarchal norms are natural and immutable. It opposes those who question this framework to advance women’s right to bodily autonomy, human rights protections for LGBTI+ people and social justice more broadly. While the motivations of anti-gender actors are varied, they are united in fighting the enemy of ‘gender ideology’, namely an ‘attack on the nation and traditions, as well as an attack on the family, marriage, and religious freedom’.  

Anti-gender actors operate transnationally and can count on huge funding flows. For example, anti-gender actors from Russia, the US and Europe invested US$707.2 million between 2009–2018 to campaign to overthrow laws related to abortion and LGBTI+ rights. Alliance for Defending Freedom, a major anti-gender outfit that campaigned to overthrow Roe v. Wade, increased its spending in the UK from £390,000 in 2020 to £770,000 in 2022. In contrast, feminist and human rights organisations can count on much less money. The Global Philanthropy Project found that, in the period 2013–2017, LGBTI+ movements worldwide received $1.2 billion, while the anti-gender movement received $3.7 billion.

In the context of the United Nations (UN), concerns about ‘gender ideology’ – a concept developed by the Holy See– first arose in the 1990s. The 1990s and early 2000s saw progress for women’s rights with the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, the Cairo International Conference on Population and Development, and the UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security. However, since then anti-gender groups have progressively gained influence and progress has stalled. 

Fighting the backlash or business as usual? 

While feminists have sounded the alarm about anti-gender actors at the UN for a long time, it was not until 2023 that the previous UK government explicitly recognised the threat posed, as part of the International Women and Girls Strategy. The strategy includes a commitment to use the UK’s role in the UN General Assembly, the Security Council, the Human Rights Council and other multilateral forums to ‘stand up for the rights of women and girls’. The strategy also explains that ‘systematic attempts by regressive actors to roll back on women’s and girls’ rights have gained momentum at the international, national and community level, and are amplified online’ While we certainly agree with this analysis, we want to interrogate this new interest of the UK to fight the anti-gender movement. Why now? Is it serious? Is it credible? In the context of the Commission of the Status of Women (CSW), the UK has routinely worked with ‘like-minded’ member states, such as the EU, Canada, Norway and Iceland, to advance – or at least protect – agreed language on gender equality, women’s rights, and sexual and reproductive health and rights. However, the UK has also refused to agree to and champion language on economic justice issues that require transferring resources from North to South, such as climate financing, debt relief or access to COVID vaccines.  

This behaviour contributes to entrenching a divide between the Global North and the Global South, which anti-gender actors are ready to exploit. One tactic used by anti-gender actors is to take a legitimate concern and twist it to advance their agenda. In this case, concerns about the ongoing legacy of colonialism and resource extraction from South to North is twisted to paint the protection and promotion of the human rights of women and LGBTI+ people as a Western imposition that must be resisted. There is irony in this, as most of the funding for anti-gender actors in Africa comes from the US.

The UK uses its advocacy for gender equality in multilateral spaces to paint itself as a champion for gender equality and human rights. At the same time, it ignores its role in creating and upholding structural economic and power inequalities that impact women, girls and gender minorities the most. According to Meghan Doherty, Director of Global Policy and Advocacy at Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights , as we face multiple connected crises ‘many states are looking for ways to justify the forceful defence of their national interests while maintaining the illusion of working for the shared global good’. These states use their commitment to gender equality and the pursuit of a feminist foreign policy as a way to show that ‘they are “the good guys”’ (ibid). However, the mask quickly slips once the game gets tough – as we have seen with the UK’s continued sale of arms to Saudi Arabia and Israel. The UK also has a credibility problem, considering the rise of domestic anti-trans narrative in politics and the media and attempts at rights stripping.  

Looking ahead  

As the UK continues its advocacy for gender equality in a silo, its commitment to fighting anti-gender actors is tested further.  

Having gained power in spaces dedicated to gender equality, anti-gender actors are expanding their reach and aiming to influence other multilateral processes dedicated to different issues. Ipas analysed 13 cases of anti-gender actors campaigning in unexpected places, including the Committee on World Food Security, the World Health Organization’s global strategy on infection prevention, and even UN internal policies and budgets. This approach is successful because all multilateral processes at least nod to gender equality and many states, like the UK, still see the ‘women and girls’ agenda as separate from broader structural issues.  

The new UK government must seize the opportunity to change direction and place its advocacy for gender equality within a wider framework of protection of human rights, international justice and accountability mechanisms. This will require an honest look at the damage of its policies and legislation and unequivocal and credible action to remedy harm caused. This reckoning is more urgent than ever, as CSW69 will be chaired by Saudi Arabia in March 2025. We will see then if the UK is putting its money where its mouth is.