EuropaWorld 2/11/2001 Women, Peacekeepers and Stereotyping

"The commanders are all men and they enjoy war. Please be sure, however, that their own wives want peace." The speaker was an Afghan woman, unnamed in the UN's report of the meeting that she and her colleagues - a woman's group from Afghanistan - held with Lakhar Brahimi, the UN's Afghan supremo, in Pakistan this week.

There is a widespread belief, common among both men and women, that women are naturally more peace loving than men. What hard facts support this is hypothesis are uncertain. Women seem able to push firing buttons as readily as men and, what is more, often have greater resolve in doing so. That is when they reach positions in which those firing buttons are accessible. From Joan of Arc to Margaret Thatcher there have been a steady stream of combative female war leaders who have equalled, if not excelled, their male counterparts in ferocity.

But let's not allow facts to get in the way of a good story. Peace is clearly better than war and if women think they can manage our affairs more peaceably than men then good luck to them. What is more if we can believe that the way to peace lies through employing women in peacekeeping roles, then let's embrace this new philosophy enthusiastically.

Certainly this belief finds ready acceptance at the UN. One year after adopting its first resolution promoting an increased role for women in peacemaking, the United Nations Security Council this week reaffirmed its strong support for boosting women's contributions to conflict prevention and resolution.

If women can make war then they certainly can make peace. The Foreign Minister of Ireland - which now holds the Security Council Presidency - and whose republic women have not been slow actively to defend, renewed the call on member states 'to include women in the negotiations and implementation of peace accords, constitutions, and strategies for resettlement and rebuilding, and to take measures to support local women's groups and indigenous processes for conflict resolution.'

The Council also underlined the importance of including what it called a 'gender perspective' in all policies and programmes addressing armed conflicts, though exactly what a 'gender perspective' does that a 'human perspective' doesn't, is not clear. Words are occasionally used to hide meanings and it may be easier to get agreement for 'the inclusion of gender components in peacekeeping operations' rather than for women peacekeepers, though why the sex of peacekeepers should matter is left unsaid. Surely one wants the best peacekeepers, be they men, women or trained monkeys.

What is surely right is that women should have a voice in civil society and should be allowed to play a full role in all operations whether political, military or policy making, not specifically because they are women (or thought to prefer peace over war) but simply because by excluding women you exclude half the best brains and experience available. Given the limited talent available (to judge by results) this must be unwise. Unfortunately, this is a lesson better understood in some UN member states than in others. Even then it is not always applied.

So the Council may have had a point in calling for more women to be appointed as special representatives or special envoys of the Secretary-General to peace missions. (There are non such at present). However they fare they may serve as vital role models for the next generation and improve the total pool of talent available.

For the women of Afghanistan, perhaps uniquely discriminated against, it is surely right that they have a chance to make their views known to the UN and in other international forums. The European Parliament has also been mentioned in this respect. Yet it is difficult to imagine a feminine perspective for the country that differs from one based on democracy and human rights. Within such a framework some women will want collectivist solutions, some more libertarian, some will no doubt prefer secularism, others a strong element of religion. Some will believe in maintaining strong defence forces, others that these should be sacrificed to a health and education budget. And so on. We all want a better tomorrow, unfortunately your tomorrow is not my tomorrow.

To treat women as a monolithic group with identical opinions is surely to be guilty of exactly the same approach as the Afghan oppressors from whom they are seeking relief. Why not mixed sex groups of ordinary citizens? Is that not more democratic? Men are not the only ones with opinions.