March 18, 2025 • 41 mins
In Ukraine, and in the Middle East, men say they are negotiating peace. But are they?
“Ending war is necessary to peace without a doubt, but ending war does not mean peace. So, whenever these men use the word ‘peace’ in order to say ‘ceasefire’ and ‘stop the guns’, this is not peace,” says Deborah Schibler from PeaceWomen across the Globe (PWAG).
“What the US is doing right now is an extractivist assertion of power, arguably even a second imperial ambition that we are seeing now alongside Russia. Democracy, peace and gender equality mutually reinforce each other,” adds Leandra Bias from the Universtiy of Bern.
So, where are the women in these “peace” negotiations? Our guests tell Inside Geneva that they should be everywhere... not nowhere.
“Women, women’s perspectives, gender perspectives and human security perspectives have to be in every process and every structure of armed forces,” says Mahide Aslan, head of women and diversity at Swiss Armed Forces.
“There are so many women who are really keen to get involved in these formal peace negotiations and who are ready for it, but it is made very difficult for them,” says Larissa Lee, from PWAG.
How can women’s voices be heard in peace talks? Join host Imogen Foulkes on our Inside Geneva podcast.
Get in touch!
- Email us at insidegeneva@swissinfo.ch
- Twitter: @ImogenFoulkes and @swissinfo_en
Thank you for listening! If you like what we do, please leave a review or subscribe to our newsletter.
For more stories on the international Geneva please visit www.swissinfo.ch/
Host: Imogen Foulkes
Production assitant: Claire-Marie Germain
Distribution: Sara Pasino
Marketing: Xin Zhang
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
This is Inside Geneva .
I'm your host, imogen Foulkes,and this is a production from
Swissinfo, the internationalpublic media company of
Switzerland, in today'sprogramme.
That was not a good war to gointo, and I think they have to
make peace.
That's what I think the men aremaking peace, or are they?
Speaker 4 (00:28):
Ending war is necessary to peace, without the
doubt, but ending war does notmean peace.
So whenever these men use theword peace in order to say cease
fires, stop the guns, this isnot peace.
Speaker 3 (00:41):
Have you said thank you once?
Offer some words ofappreciation for the United.
States of America and thepresident who's trying to save
your country.
Speaker 5 (00:50):
What the US is doing right now.
It's an extractivist assertionof power, arguably even a second
imperial ambition that we areseeing now in the picture
alongside Russia.
Speaker 2 (01:01):
The US will take over the Gaza Strip, we'll own it.
I don't want to be cute, butthe Riviera of the Middle East.
Speaker 1 (01:07):
There are so many women who are really keen to get
involved in these formal peacenegotiations and who are ready
for it, but it is made verydifficult for them All hell will
break out in the Middle East.
Speaker 2 (01:21):
All hell will break out.
I don't have to say anymore,but that's what it is.
Speaker 3 (01:24):
Women, women perspective, gender perspectives
, human security perspectiveshave to be in every process and
every structure of armed forces.
Speaker 5 (01:33):
Democracy, peace and gender equality.
They mutually reinforce eachother.
Speaker 2 (01:42):
Hello and welcome again to Inside Geneva.
I'm Imogen Fowkes.
We've got a really specialepisode for you today.
I'm in the radio studio rightacross from Switzerland's
parliament where, to markInternational Women's Day, we're
having a day for women and thefocus is on women and security.
(02:03):
Our focus today is going to beon women, peace and security.
I'm sure our listeners are notunaware that there are a number
of in inverted commas peacenegotiations going on around the
Middle East, around Ukraine,russia, men in suits one not in
a suit, maybe shouting at eachother.
(02:25):
We don't see too many women inthose negotiations.
But today we have women expertsin the field of women in peace
and security.
We're going to have a reallyinteresting conversation about
the crucial role they do butalso should more increasingly
play.
I'm going to introduce them.
(02:45):
We have Deborah Schiebler ofPeace Women Across the Globe.
That's an international networkfor women's participation in
peace building.
Larissa Lee, also from PeaceWomen Across the Globe.
Then we've got Leandra Bias ofthe University of Bern.
She's a specialist in what iscalled de-democratisation and
(03:06):
gender.
We're going to get into a veryinteresting discussion about the
relationship between women'srights and conflict and she has
a special focus interesting forus on Russia, ukraine and the
Western Balkans.
And finally, mahid Aslan, headof the specialist unit Women in
the Swiss Armed Forces andDiversity, and she can tell us a
(03:30):
lot about the role of women inpeacekeeping, something also
that sometimes gets neglected,and we've learned the hard way
why that can be a very bad thing.
So welcome to all of you.
It's great to have you here.
I'm going to start thisdiscussion just by asking each
of you to define briefly, butbased on your own
(03:53):
specialisations, what you thinkwomen's role in peace, whether
it's a peace process, peacebuilding, peacekeeping, conflict
prevention, what that should be.
Speaker 4 (04:04):
Deborah, maybe start with you.
Thank you very much.
Thank you for having us heretoday.
It's an exciting day, I think,and we really hope, to broaden
the participants' view on what apeace process is, because
lately we're hearing the wordbeing used for things that, in
my opinion, do not qualify assuch.
Women in peace and women inpeacees is actually a daily
(04:27):
business.
I think today, right now, as wespeak, women are engaged in
peace building around the worldin many different roles, on many
different levels, and webelieve that they need to be
heard, that their work need tobe visible to the eye and that
the contribution they areactually doing to peace is
(04:47):
really recognised.
Speaker 2 (04:49):
OK, Mahir, I'm going to look at it now with you from
the other point of view.
We're kind of not diametricallyopposed.
But peace keeping when evenlike feminist women like me
think of a peacekeeper I kind ofimagine a man in a blue helmet,
but women do this too.
I mean, would you say in yourexperience, women playing a part
(05:10):
in this is absolutely crucial.
Speaker 3 (05:12):
It is crucial because what the experience is over the
last years is that thecontribution of women, even as
peacekeepers, is a game changer.
So you have an easier access,for example, to population.
It's trust building which issomehow easier for women to do,
and you see that negotiationsduring this phase of rebuilding
(05:34):
trust is much easier when thereare mixed teams or women teams
doing this task.
So I think, besides havingdiversity, which is always good
for a team, and fulfilling thetasks, it's crucial here for
peacekeeping to have women,because there is much more
achievement and fasterachievement than without.
Speaker 2 (05:56):
Okay, so two very positive experiences there of
why it's really important tohave women involved.
Start to finish in between butthis is maybe for Larissa and
Leandra, but coming, I guess,from different perspectives we
don't see any women at all inthe talks about Russia, ukraine
(06:17):
or about the Middle East.
Not a single woman have I seenin any of these press
conferences and meetings andhandshakes and etc.
Etc.
We've also seen a report cameout from UN Women yesterday
about one in four countriesaround the world report a
backlash and erosion of women'srights, women's inclusion in the
(06:40):
big decisions, and that wouldalso be about peacemaking,
peacebuilding, conflictresolution.
So how challenging is it to getwomen involved?
I'll let you decide who wantsto go first.
Speaker 1 (06:51):
This is something that we can see right now in
many different cases andactually there are so many women
who are really keen to getinvolved also in these formal
peace negotiations and who areready for it, but it is made
very difficult for them.
But I can maybe speak of anexample of Sudanese women that
(07:15):
last summer were in Geneva whenthere was these talks on a
ceasefire.
Speaker 2 (07:21):
Heretically trying to bring a ceasefire to Sudan.
Speaker 1 (07:24):
Yes, yeah, again, no women were invited, only the
armed parties to the conflict.
But there was a delegation of15 Sudanese women who just
showed up despite this and theyjust said well, we were not
invited, but we're going to comeanyway.
And well, it was anunsuccessful endeavour because
(07:45):
not both armed parties showed upto these talks.
Speaker 2 (07:47):
Yeah, one boycotted, that's right.
Speaker 1 (07:49):
Exactly.
But what this delegation of 15sand Nice women, what they did,
was they really used thatopportunity to just lobby all
the co-hosts and the observanceto these talks to listen to
Sudanese women's and civilsociety at large also talks, to
listen to Sudanese women's andcivil society at large also, and
(08:09):
have actually managed that.
Now there is a groupestablished that, if there
should be further talks, willalso take in advice, women's and
civil society's demands forfuture talks.
So I think there's actuallymany examples of women who are
ready, who are very resourcefulin trying to get involved in
also these formal peacenegotiations and talks.
(08:30):
It's just a shame that there'sso many stones put in their way.
Speaker 2 (08:36):
There certainly are, Leandra.
What's your take?
As I said, you have writtenextensively about the oppression
of women's rights and links toconflict, and we are seeing that
more and more.
I mean not in Russia.
We have a rollback of women'srights and LGBT rights in the
United States as well.
Suggestions in Europe.
I think we're not as far downthat road, luckily.
Speaker 5 (08:59):
Yeah, absolutely, and I think Larissa's response just
showed that often what we do iswe just look at the surface.
Women aren't there, so there'sno discussion about feminism.
But if we just were to scratchthe surface, we would actually
have a much better understandingof the drivers of conflict,
therefore also of prevention andresolution of a conflict.
And what I'm usually missing isthat we go about counting women
(09:21):
in the pictures in thenegotiations, when what we would
need is to understand that andthis is fundamentally been
established in science for twodecades democracy, peace and
gender equality.
They mutually reinforce eachother.
You do need yes, probably quitean intuitive conclusion for us.
(09:42):
Usually, when you havedemocracy, gender equality
flourishes.
But the other way around aswell, you do need already
movements in favour for genderequality to have a more durable
democratisation process.
Therefore, to answer yourquestion on the rollback, this
is a political strategy byauthoritarian leaders to push
(10:02):
back against established women'sand LGBT rights, do promote an
illiberal regime, and we are nowat a point where that is no
longer just done domestically,it is done systematically and it
is done even to reframe anaggression, in the case of
Russia, as a prevention.
So, and just to give onesoundbite of that when the
(10:23):
invasion happened.
Putin did say on the night inhis speech we are doing this,
inter alia, because Ukraine hasalready been infected by gender
ideology of the West.
Speaker 2 (10:35):
Yeah, and I do remember, probably 10 years ago,
sergei Lavrov, the Russianforeign minister, coming to the
UN Human Rights Council inGeneva and promoting a
discussion on traditional familyvalues which was very
homophobic, intolerant of LGBTQrights.
(10:57):
He was hedging aroundintolerance of women's rights,
but you could see where it wasgoing.
So we are in a very unstableworld and, deborah, as you said
at the beginning, you didn'tthink that what was being termed
peace talks.
We want peace as the UnitedStates, we want peace as Russia,
(11:20):
we want peace as Israel.
You don't think the way theyare talking really merits the
word peace.
I'd be interested in hearingfrom you all, from the woman's
point of view, what needs to beon the table to really talk
about peace, because at themoment, both of these things to
(11:40):
me, looking at it, look a bitmore like an imposed deal and a
surrender of territory.
Speaker 3 (11:46):
Mahid my view is especially concentrated on this
exclusiveness.
We talked about who is sittingon the table when it comes to
the dialogue or the negotiation,but I think women have crucial
roles also in all phases, likein the prevention of war, during
war and also after, when it'sabout recovery.
(12:07):
And systematically.
Now it is tried not only todefine a war and the war outcome
by an exclusive group, with theexclusion of women.
It also makes it difficult tofoster all the measures which
were put in charge the lastyears and months.
I currently see a biggerdifficulty to keep the
(12:32):
achievements of the last yearsand in the discussion.
What makes me sad, or what isunfortunate, is that in this
East-West, which is no longerexisting, so we have a
multi-polarity, we have not onlynations, this concept of states
and nations dealing about warand dealing about peace.
(12:53):
It's not true.
There are much more groups,different groups, non-state
groups in these conflicts andwars, and so the question of how
do we handle this and how do weget the roles for women will
show that it is also a key,because in all these communities
, no matter what the concept is,you find women.
It's not important if it's on astate level, it's not important
(13:15):
if it's about community,everywhere you find opportunity.
But the question is, how manyobstacles and hindrances are
going to be built in the nextweeks, months and years?
Speaker 2 (13:26):
I've looked at different peace negotiations
over the year.
I remember with Syria whenStaffan de Mistura was the UN
special envoy.
He insisted every time therewere discussions in Geneva that
women came too.
Nothing too much came,unfortunately, of those
negotiations, but he did try andhe did see that this was
(13:48):
absolutely vital.
Again, maybe I'll ask you,deborah, what is it that is
being neglected that women canoften bring to a peace process?
Speaker 4 (13:59):
So to this question, I think there's one thing that
we need to consider very clearlyViolence and war, for men,
often are a crisis, something tobe solved.
So whenever war goes away, thecrisis has gone away.
But for women, violence issomething that starts with their
birth and ends with, in manycases I'm not generalizing, but
(14:19):
in many cases and ends with whenthey die.
So violence is a constant inwomen's lives.
So whenever we speak aboutending a war or ending violence
is bringing peace, we doabsolutely neglect women's roles
and Leandra said before genderequality issues that were
already there a lot before a warstarted or were even
(14:42):
exacerbated by the war or eventriggered a war.
That's also very clear.
And we can look at Afghanistanand I think it's interesting the
first women peace tables we hadwith Ukrainian women that were
before the full scale invasion.
Women actually told us when weasked them what does peace mean
to you?
They reflected on whether theyhad peace before 2014.
(15:04):
And many of them said butthere's also an issue of war us
not being able to live our lifefree of violence every day,
independent of the weapons thatare around.
So we really need to think.
Ending war is necessary topeace, without a doubt.
But ending war does not meanpeace.
So whenever these men use theword peace in order to say cease
(15:27):
fires, stop the guns, this isnot peace.
Speaker 2 (15:30):
Who else wants to comment on that?
Larissa Leandra, because whatI've seen?
I've spent quite a lot of timein conflict zones.
When the so-called peace isthere after the guns have
stopped, it's in no way peaceful.
There's so much to do.
All of the infrastructure needsrebuilding.
There are hundreds, thousandsof missing people.
(15:50):
None of these things.
When we talk about the currentnegotiations going on, I don't
hear these being discussed?
Speaker 5 (15:57):
Yeah, and if I may, I'd like to add I think Ukraine
has actually been trying to makethat point, like stressing the
idea of a durable and just peace, for the past three years.
And what the US is doing rightnow, it's an extractivist
assertion of power, arguablyeven a second imperial ambition
(16:17):
that we are seeing now in thepicture alongside Russia.
And what Ukraine has stressedis that we can't have that
conversation in a serious way,if we really want to avoid a
reassertion of violence, unlesswe include the protection of
human rights in thisconversation.
And that does mean that if it'sjust a ceasefire, then we are
(16:39):
not talking about what happensto the civil population in the
areas that are currently undercontrol by Russia, we are not
talking about justice for the13,000 disappeared children,
kidnapped children, etc.
Etc.
So for me, from a feministpoint of view, it always means
it's the inclusion and thepreservation of human rights for
(17:00):
all.
That would be and I know it's autopian vision, but that is
usually where everyone would be-safe to be themselves.
Speaker 1 (17:24):
Some of what you said there, though, they are things
that I've heard many times atthe UN, which is what makes a
sustainable peace and a quickdeal the different roles that
women can play during all stagesof peace processes right.
If the Ukrainian people, forexample, does not feel any
ownership of a potential peaceagreement and that goes for many
(17:48):
conflicts if it's just decidedby what is perceived either
elites or even outsiders, andthere have not been really
deeper talks about, andsometimes difficult discussions
about, what does peace reallymeans to us beyond just okay,
there's a ceasefire or the gunsstop, what does it really means
(18:11):
for all parts of society?
For us, then, peace processesare not sustainable.
Speaker 2 (18:17):
Mahid, you had your hand up.
You wanted to come in there.
Speaker 3 (18:20):
It reminds me a little bit of the discussion
when it comes to policy, forexample, if you have policies
and you want to implement them,sometimes there is a policy
setting and when you want toimplement them, you see, oh,
there are many factors we didn'tthink about when we developed
that policy.
What I experience is especiallythis distinction between a
formal, maybe military, maybestate driven idea of an
(18:44):
agreement.
And then what is what you weretalking about and I'm very glad
to hear that so, with specificexamples, the difficulty of what
it means in reality.
So it's describing a formalstate where there is a beginning
and an end.
You could formally declaresomething what started is now
ended and with that there waslike a solution.
(19:06):
But that is not true, andthat's why I opt also for women
in the armed forces, because Ialso believe, truly believe,
that women, women perspective,gender perspectives, human
security perspectives have to bein every process and every
structure of armed forces inorder to somehow find the glue
and also do some bridging withcivil societies and other actors
(19:30):
.
Speaker 2 (19:30):
That's a really interesting point.
Many countries do have women inthe armed forces now, but still
traditionally it's not what wethink.
Is that one of the reasons?
Do you think that the men insuits trying to make these quick
fix deals right now, they don'tconsult women because women
have not been doing the fighting?
Is that one of the reasons, orare they just not interested?
(19:52):
Leandra, I can see you shakingyour head.
Speaker 5 (19:55):
No, it just really goes to the root of patriarchy
and how nation states are builtfrom a patriarchal root and it's
really an exploitation of bothmale and female bodies.
Male bodies get conscripted todefend the nation.
By extension also, they havepossession rights over the
(20:18):
female bodies who they're alsosupposed to defend, and the
female body is exploited for therecreation of the nation.
That is really the basis of ournation states and therefore to
deconstruct that is extremelydifficult for them.
It doesn't even cross theirmind that politics and violence
(20:39):
and resolutions is somethingthat could involve women's
perspectives.
Speaker 2 (20:43):
How do we get those perspectives though?
How do women bang open thedoors of the current which is
troubling every person on theplanet?
The war in the Middle East, thewar between Russia and Ukraine?
Well, russia's aggressiontowards Ukraine, invasion of
Ukraine.
How do we get women in there?
How do we get them to make thepoint that, unless you address
(21:06):
not just the gun stopping, thisthing could start again?
Speaker 3 (21:09):
I'm a bit emotional right now because I want to add
one thing.
Ok, maybe it is necessary, butnevertheless it tires me to see
that we always discuss what thewomen have to do in order to get
access to initiatives or toprocesses etc.
And that's really disturbing forme.
We make the experience, or wetry to do also allyship, to
(21:33):
bring all together and say, ok,how can we develop further, by
also addressing patriarchy andwhat it means also for the men
and what kind of biases theylive, in order to show why there
is an enhancement needed, tosay how can we address things,
maybe from gender perspective,maybe also off gender
(21:53):
perspective, in order to reachthe goal we want to do?
I just wanted to make thatpoint.
Yes, there are strong women,there are many women actively
reaching out, searching tocontribute, but it should not be
only the women's effort.
There should be a way that wefind allies, that these doors
(22:14):
open quicker and that theselevels are easier reachable.
Speaker 4 (22:18):
Debra yeah, I very much agree with these allies,
and I think, first on the notincluding women because they
were not fighting part, I agreewith what Leandra said
absolutely, but it's also usedas a really bad excuse to
exclude women.
I mean, it's also so they'renot conscious about this.
That's one part, but then it'salso used as we just talk about
(22:40):
who stops fighting, and sinceyou do not have a gun, you don't
need to talk about that.
Yeah, don't worry, you're prettylittle head about it and we are
seeing something, a verydifficult change in addition to
all these difficult issues.
A very difficult change inaddition to all these difficult
issues is that peacenegotiations do no longer or
they're faltering in thinkingabout comprehensive peace
agreements, so they go reallyeven more so and even more so in
(23:03):
the future, to be seen intoceasefire agreements.
So let's just stop the fighting.
And I think, on allyships, it'svery, very important and I
agree with my.
It's not what women need to do,because they do.
Larissa said they presentthemselves, they said we were
not invited, but we're here.
But we need the ones that areclose to these processes and to
these, that they are building inhooks into ceasefire agreements
(23:26):
, for example, to say, ok, whatare the monitoring bodies of
ceasefire agreements?
So let's try and get hooks in,let's try and open doors for
women that this would bepossible.
And obviously I agree thisneeds to come also from a wide
public and maybe also all theselisteners to say this is not
normal.
But then we have to stop saying, ok, this is peace now.
(23:49):
Ok, what they're doing isthey're building peace.
That's not true.
So to ask for that and torefuse to hear the word peace
when actually what is meant is Iwant to make a transactional
win, or even, I have to say,blackmail.
Speaker 2 (24:05):
Yeah, you're not the first.
You're not the first.
I've heard a few people usethat term.
Speaker 4 (24:09):
So, when listeners hear these narratives on a daily
basis in the news, refuse tobelieve that this is peace and
really keep asking for peace andasking that women are part of
it.
It's not only the women's role.
Speaker 2 (24:22):
Larissa, I know you had your hand up too.
Speaker 1 (24:24):
Yes, because it's really not about women having to
try harder or having to findways to get involved.
They're already doing everythingthey can.
And then also with ceasefires,for example, and then
discussions about bringing evenjust armed conflict to stop and
the idea that maybe their womenmight not have that much
(24:47):
expertise to contribute, orsomething.
It's just such a wrong ideaBecause in a conversation that I
had with a network member, shetold me you know, I've been
doing this since the 90s and Ihave so much experience and I'm
just so worried because I knowfrom experience because this has
happened over and over againthat if now only men and only
(25:07):
the armed forces are negotiatinga ceasefire, they will for sure
forget to include in thatceasefire agreement that armed
forces have to also not occupyanymore, for example, the
hospitals and the schools.
They will just forget aboutthat, and it's something that me
and all my women activistsaround me, we know that and we
(25:32):
want to make sure they includethat, because without that
there's no chance that aceasefire is going to hold,
because if those hospitals andschools are occupied, the
tensions are just not going toeven have a chance to fizzle out
.
So I think, yes, there's justso many layers to this.
Speaker 2 (25:49):
I mean that's, I think, what Larissa said.
There's one of the hooks thatyou would build in Mahid, I
think you because she mentionedpeacekeeping bring your view in
here.
Speaker 3 (25:58):
She mentioned especially military, so I think
that's a little bit my roletoday.
I spoke about distinction ordifference between spheres and I
see exactly here thisdifference or distinction
between military and civilian.
Somehow it developed and Ithink one of the key factors is
(26:19):
also going to be how able we areto establish dialogue.
We had one workshop I rememberlike three months ago, and it
was also about the feministutopia of saying no armies, no
weapons, so no war.
And my contribution or myrecommendation that day was
although I like this utopia, thepoint is, if you just say we
talk about prevention and wetalk about the recovery the time
(26:42):
after, you're not contributingto the face of war.
So it's not only the militaryside or the official, the white
men, how you said before, or menin suits who exclude.
It's sometimes also a principlewhich says I'm not going to
have an interaction with thisevil bringing group.
(27:03):
And I think it's necessary thatwe get closer to each other and
try to understand what are thenecessities, what are the
beneficiaries, what are thethings we have to talk about and
what are the needs and what arethe urgencies from the civilian
side, but maybe also a bitbetter understanding of what the
military is doing, Becausecurrently, most of the time, I
(27:26):
feel as if there are twodifferent groups in their own
narratives and in their owndialogue, but not really a
bridge in between.
Speaker 2 (27:36):
That's an interesting point.
I guess that traditionally, ifwe're talking about liberal
values, left-wing values, themilitary is somewhere else.
So it's not just a genderdivide, it's an ideological or
political opinion divide.
Leandra, I see you nodding.
Speaker 5 (27:52):
Yeah, because I mean, in my research on Russia and
Ukraine, that's really one ofthe frictions that came out.
It kind of like really hadforced a lot of people to revise
, or at least reconsiderrevising I'm going to call them
innocent, innocent pacifistviews, and that Ukrainian
feminists very soon made clearat the latest in 2022 that you
(28:15):
are now just being a bystanderto imperial violence and that
sending us hand-knittledsweaters is not going to which
people did, and I think it comesfrom a good place, don't get me
wrong, but it's not going tohelp us.
And if we go back and that'sprobably what has helped me is
the feminist principle of Iextend my hand to you and grant
(28:39):
you that you know best what isright for you in your place at
this moment, and that, for me,is the way to collaborate and
then also to bridge, becausethat then means I do actually
start having a conversation onOK, what is military aid in that
context, which you are askingfor?
But equally, and that doesn'texclude, what is your concern
(29:03):
about?
You do now have a militarizedsociety.
You do have more circulation ofweapons.
What does that do with you?
Right, and also that's where Ibecome very emotional.
Can we in this discussionplease not just talk about
Ukraine.
There is a whole warringaggressor here who we are not
making any demands todemilitarize, to work on their
(29:27):
gender equality.
All that burden is only put onUkraine, who is completely
sidelined from those hardcorenegotiations.
And we have a wholeinternational norms around UN
women, peace and security.
It's even established in NATO.
But with the moment of the fullscale invasion that just went
(29:49):
out of the window.
Speaker 2 (29:50):
Okay, well, I am actually going to come towards
the end of the programme,summing up on a positive note.
But again, from your ownpersonal experiences, deborah,
we heard from you about hooksand I'm going to come back to
you about that.
I'm interested again in thecontext of the conflicts that we
(30:10):
have been discussing.
Let's think about the positivethings that can be achieved when
women really are in peaceprocess, peace building,
conflict prevention, whateveraspect of it there is, how that
can work better for everyone.
And, mahid, I kind of want toput a hypothetical to you Should
(30:34):
there be peacekeepers, werethere to be peacekeepers in
Ukraine, Women Now obviouslySwitzerland, we don't know.
So a very hypothetical.
But what are the positive hooksthat women peacekeepers can
bring in a situation like that?
Speaker 3 (30:52):
When you ask for female contribution to a
hypothetical peacekeepingmandate in Ukraine, I would just
refer back to what we justdiscussed before.
That's already after themandate discussed before.
That's already after themandate.
So there have to be hooks inthe mandate already and not
coming up when the mission isstarting or taking place.
(31:13):
So, yes, I think if you putthese hooks, which Deborah
mentioned, when you put them inthe mandate, and anyway it is
crucial that women participate,because it's a society of mixed
gender, even if you go furtherand look about gender identity.
So diversity, after all, is atopic we have to treat, also in
(31:36):
peacekeeping, also inreestablishing institutions, and
the more diversity you have,the more social interest in
social cohesion.
And, at the end, what is peace?
Peace, in my opinion, is thatwe aim for the best conditions
for everyone, no matter if it'sa man, it's a woman.
So we want to create the bestconditions that everyone is
(31:58):
nourished and can grow anddevelop and give something back
to the society.
And if you exclude a part of it, even with the ones who
establish, re-establish somehoworder or safe and secure
environment in order toestablish the institutions again
, you spare out half of the mostimportant part and that's just
(32:19):
wrong.
And especially after war, weknow that vulnerable people have
a longer way to find back tothese perfect conditions in
order to live on.
Speaker 2 (32:30):
Larissa, pretty much the same question to you.
Positive examples maybe that wecould draw on in the current
situation where women haveplayed a significant role.
Speaker 1 (32:41):
I think, probably a perfect peace process.
It would be difficult to findone name one, but the one in
Colombia that's concluded in apeace agreement in 2016 has many
very interesting, I think,facets to it, and we can see it
in the many gender provisionsand how diverse also the various
(33:02):
negotiators were and the civilsociety behind it.
The various negotiators were andthe civil society behind it,
and that's also something thatwe see in our network of
feminist peace builders acrossthe globe that this interest in
learning from each other isreally there.
So, for example, our Filipinapartners they were really
interested to learn from theColombian women how they managed
(33:26):
to get so many genderprovisions into that agreement
and what their strategies were.
I think it's one a question ofreally being curious, looking to
that and having a widerunderstanding of peace process
to be able to see these andrecognize these things that are
already being done.
To be able to see these andrecognise these things that are
(33:49):
already being done and then, onthe other hand, still pushing
for it to be easier and be ableto play all the different roles
during all different stages.
Speaker 2 (33:54):
Ok, well, leandra, and then we'll end with Deborah.
We heard some very positiveexamples and why women should be
need to be included.
But say again, hypothetical,say you were sitting in the Oval
Office and don't look quite sohorrified.
How would you say to PresidentTrump look the way you're
(34:16):
playing it.
I mean, great if you believe inpeace, great.
Speaker 5 (34:19):
But this one, this deal, is not going to work, and
this is why you need a differentapproach and you need women and
this is the moment in therecording where you had your
answer plan and now you'rethrowing me in the Oval Office
with Trump and I'm like lost forwords because I can't fathom
how I would bring that across tosomeone like him, because I
(34:41):
really believe he has aninherent authoritarian penchant.
He genuinely does want anilliberal refashioning of his
society and of the world.
So, however, if I were to havea reasoned, a rational actor in
front of me who wants toactually listen, the example I
(35:02):
would have brought to bring hopein the conversation, because I
said before I would actuallylike us to also swing the camera
from time to time to Russia isactually so.
I've been doing research on thefeminist anti-war resistance in
Russia and what I would argueit's marginal.
I mean, we're really talkingabout a marginal movement, yet
nevertheless, in Russia's modernhistory, the biggest we have
(35:24):
seen and extremely wellorganized, the less in Russia's
modern history, the biggest wehave seen and extremely well
organized.
And it's a rupture in Russiathat that movement for the first
time is talking aboutdecolonization.
And so for me, because when wesay durable right, it obviously
also means that Russia doesn'taggress anymore and that means
in the utopian world that you dohave a democratic reform of
(35:45):
Russia, and that woulddefinitely entail coming to
terms with the imperial violenceit has conducted, not just
vis-a-vis Ukraine, kazakhstan,the Baltic states, but within
that country.
So to see a feminist movementtake that up and actually
putting into light the imperialviolence indigenous people,
ethnic minorities within Russiahave suffered.
(36:05):
To me, that is the small hope Iam attaching to, and I would do
, of course, my best if I hadmore preparation to bring that
across to Trump.
Speaker 2 (36:15):
Good luck with that, deborah.
Final words to you.
We want to end on a moment ofpositive.
Everybody feels a bit depressednow, the state of the world,
but bring us some words ofpositive.
Everybody feels a bit depressednow, the state of the world,
but bring us some words ofmotivation.
Speaker 4 (36:29):
It's almost as difficult as speaking to.
Trump no pressure Words ofmotivation.
I think I will go back to how Istarted.
The women are out there.
So whenever people say womenare not included, they might not
be included, but they areworking for peace and very
resourceful, and just whatLeandra just now said sparks my
(36:53):
hope in this.
We take our motivation on adaily basis from them, from
everything that they say, thatthey are doing.
I think women networks gettogether and be able to be
solidary, the feminist principlethat Leandra said of extending
I know you know best.
I'm here to support, I'm hereto hold.
That is hope and I think that'swhat we need to strengthen in
(37:17):
general.
Everyone can support thesenetworks by saying I think what
you experience and what youthink is best, you go.
You do that.
Not try to impose our views,not try to impose peace, but
really create the soil for theagency of these women, to create
(37:38):
the support.
So I think that would be myhope.
Speaker 2 (37:41):
And, on that note, that brings us to the end of
this edition of Inside Geneva.
These wonderful women have tocross the road and go over to
Parliament and make their verycompelling case again.
Thank you all Mahid Aslan,Deborah Schiebler, Larissa Lee
and Leandra Bias we hope youenjoyed it.
I certainly did.
Fascinating conversation andone that really should get a lot
(38:05):
of listeners.
Male as well as female,generals as well as peace
builders Thank you, Deborah.
Generals as well as peacebuilders, although generals can
be peace builders Exactly,Exactly.
Thank you all for listening,for listening, and just a quick
(38:36):
reminder next time on InsideGeneva, we'll be bringing you
that in-depth interview onartificial intelligence, social
media threats to democracy, andwe'll be talking to a human
rights defender from Americaabout his take on what's
happening in his own country.
Join us on April 1st for that.
This is Inside Geneva .
I'm your host, imogen Foulkes,and this is a production from
Swissinfo, the internationalpublic media company of
Switzerland, in today'sprogramme.
That was not a good war to gointo, and I think they have to
make peace.
That's what I think the men aremaking peace, or are they?
Speaker 4 (00:28):
Ending war is necessary to peace, without the
doubt, but ending war does notmean peace.
So whenever these men use theword peace in order to say cease
fires, stop the guns, this isnot peace.
Speaker 3 (00:41):
Have you said thank you once?
Offer some words ofappreciation for the United.
States of America and thepresident who's trying to save
your country.
Speaker 5 (00:50):
What the US is doing right now.
It's an extractivist assertionof power, arguably even a second
imperial ambition that we areseeing now in the picture
alongside Russia.
Speaker 2 (01:01):
The US will take over the Gaza Strip, we'll own it.
I don't want to be cute, butthe Riviera of the Middle East.
Speaker 1 (01:07):
There are so many women who are really keen to get
involved in these formal peacenegotiations and who are ready
for it, but it is made verydifficult for them All hell will
break out in the Middle East.
Speaker 2 (01:21):
All hell will break out.
I don't have to say anymore,but that's what it is.
Speaker 3 (01:24):
Women, women perspective, gender perspectives
, human security perspectiveshave to be in every process and
every structure of armed forces.
Speaker 5 (01:33):
Democracy, peace and gender equality.
They mutually reinforce eachother.
Speaker 2 (01:42):
Hello and welcome again to Inside Geneva.
I'm Imogen Fowkes.
We've got a really specialepisode for you today.
I'm in the radio studio rightacross from Switzerland's
parliament where, to markInternational Women's Day, we're
having a day for women and thefocus is on women and security.
(02:03):
Our focus today is going to beon women, peace and security.
I'm sure our listeners are notunaware that there are a number
of in inverted commas peacenegotiations going on around the
Middle East, around Ukraine,russia, men in suits one not in
a suit, maybe shouting at eachother.
(02:25):
We don't see too many women inthose negotiations.
But today we have women expertsin the field of women in peace
and security.
We're going to have a reallyinteresting conversation about
the crucial role they do butalso should more increasingly
play.
I'm going to introduce them.
(02:45):
We have Deborah Schiebler ofPeace Women Across the Globe.
That's an international networkfor women's participation in
peace building.
Larissa Lee, also from PeaceWomen Across the Globe.
Then we've got Leandra Bias ofthe University of Bern.
She's a specialist in what iscalled de-democratisation and
(03:06):
gender.
We're going to get into a veryinteresting discussion about the
relationship between women'srights and conflict and she has
a special focus interesting forus on Russia, ukraine and the
Western Balkans.
And finally, mahid Aslan, headof the specialist unit Women in
the Swiss Armed Forces andDiversity, and she can tell us a
(03:30):
lot about the role of women inpeacekeeping, something also
that sometimes gets neglected,and we've learned the hard way
why that can be a very bad thing.
So welcome to all of you.
It's great to have you here.
I'm going to start thisdiscussion just by asking each
of you to define briefly, butbased on your own
(03:53):
specialisations, what you thinkwomen's role in peace, whether
it's a peace process, peacebuilding, peacekeeping, conflict
prevention, what that should be.
Speaker 4 (04:04):
Deborah, maybe start with you.
Thank you very much.
Thank you for having us heretoday.
It's an exciting day, I think,and we really hope, to broaden
the participants' view on what apeace process is, because
lately we're hearing the wordbeing used for things that, in
my opinion, do not qualify assuch.
Women in peace and women inpeacees is actually a daily
(04:27):
business.
I think today, right now, as wespeak, women are engaged in
peace building around the worldin many different roles, on many
different levels, and webelieve that they need to be
heard, that their work need tobe visible to the eye and that
the contribution they areactually doing to peace is
(04:47):
really recognised.
Speaker 2 (04:49):
OK, Mahir, I'm going to look at it now with you from
the other point of view.
We're kind of not diametricallyopposed.
But peace keeping when evenlike feminist women like me
think of a peacekeeper I kind ofimagine a man in a blue helmet,
but women do this too.
I mean, would you say in yourexperience, women playing a part
(05:10):
in this is absolutely crucial.
Speaker 3 (05:12):
It is crucial because what the experience is over the
last years is that thecontribution of women, even as
peacekeepers, is a game changer.
So you have an easier access,for example, to population.
It's trust building which issomehow easier for women to do,
and you see that negotiationsduring this phase of rebuilding
(05:34):
trust is much easier when thereare mixed teams or women teams
doing this task.
So I think, besides havingdiversity, which is always good
for a team, and fulfilling thetasks, it's crucial here for
peacekeeping to have women,because there is much more
achievement and fasterachievement than without.
Speaker 2 (05:56):
Okay, so two very positive experiences there of
why it's really important tohave women involved.
Start to finish in between butthis is maybe for Larissa and
Leandra, but coming, I guess,from different perspectives we
don't see any women at all inthe talks about Russia, ukraine
(06:17):
or about the Middle East.
Not a single woman have I seenin any of these press
conferences and meetings andhandshakes and etc.
Etc.
We've also seen a report cameout from UN Women yesterday
about one in four countriesaround the world report a
backlash and erosion of women'srights, women's inclusion in the
(06:40):
big decisions, and that wouldalso be about peacemaking,
peacebuilding, conflictresolution.
So how challenging is it to getwomen involved?
I'll let you decide who wantsto go first.
Speaker 1 (06:51):
This is something that we can see right now in
many different cases andactually there are so many women
who are really keen to getinvolved also in these formal
peace negotiations and who areready for it, but it is made
very difficult for them.
But I can maybe speak of anexample of Sudanese women that
(07:15):
last summer were in Geneva whenthere was these talks on a
ceasefire.
Speaker 2 (07:21):
Heretically trying to bring a ceasefire to Sudan.
Speaker 1 (07:24):
Yes, yeah, again, no women were invited, only the
armed parties to the conflict.
But there was a delegation of15 Sudanese women who just
showed up despite this and theyjust said well, we were not
invited, but we're going to comeanyway.
And well, it was anunsuccessful endeavour because
(07:45):
not both armed parties showed upto these talks.
Speaker 2 (07:47):
Yeah, one boycotted, that's right.
Speaker 1 (07:49):
Exactly.
But what this delegation of 15sand Nice women, what they did,
was they really used thatopportunity to just lobby all
the co-hosts and the observanceto these talks to listen to
Sudanese women's and civilsociety at large also talks, to
listen to Sudanese women's andcivil society at large also, and
(08:09):
have actually managed that.
Now there is a groupestablished that, if there
should be further talks, willalso take in advice, women's and
civil society's demands forfuture talks.
So I think there's actuallymany examples of women who are
ready, who are very resourcefulin trying to get involved in
also these formal peacenegotiations and talks.
(08:30):
It's just a shame that there'sso many stones put in their way.
Speaker 2 (08:36):
There certainly are, Leandra.
What's your take?
As I said, you have writtenextensively about the oppression
of women's rights and links toconflict, and we are seeing that
more and more.
I mean not in Russia.
We have a rollback of women'srights and LGBT rights in the
United States as well.
Suggestions in Europe.
I think we're not as far downthat road, luckily.
Speaker 5 (08:59):
Yeah, absolutely, and I think Larissa's response just
showed that often what we do iswe just look at the surface.
Women aren't there, so there'sno discussion about feminism.
But if we just were to scratchthe surface, we would actually
have a much better understandingof the drivers of conflict,
therefore also of prevention andresolution of a conflict.
And what I'm usually missing isthat we go about counting women
(09:21):
in the pictures in thenegotiations, when what we would
need is to understand that andthis is fundamentally been
established in science for twodecades democracy, peace and
gender equality.
They mutually reinforce eachother.
You do need yes, probably quitean intuitive conclusion for us.
(09:42):
Usually, when you havedemocracy, gender equality
flourishes.
But the other way around aswell, you do need already
movements in favour for genderequality to have a more durable
democratisation process.
Therefore, to answer yourquestion on the rollback, this
is a political strategy byauthoritarian leaders to push
(10:02):
back against established women'sand LGBT rights, do promote an
illiberal regime, and we are nowat a point where that is no
longer just done domestically,it is done systematically and it
is done even to reframe anaggression, in the case of
Russia, as a prevention.
So, and just to give onesoundbite of that when the
(10:23):
invasion happened.
Putin did say on the night inhis speech we are doing this,
inter alia, because Ukraine hasalready been infected by gender
ideology of the West.
Speaker 2 (10:35):
Yeah, and I do remember, probably 10 years ago,
sergei Lavrov, the Russianforeign minister, coming to the
UN Human Rights Council inGeneva and promoting a
discussion on traditional familyvalues which was very
homophobic, intolerant of LGBTQrights.
(10:57):
He was hedging aroundintolerance of women's rights,
but you could see where it wasgoing.
So we are in a very unstableworld and, deborah, as you said
at the beginning, you didn'tthink that what was being termed
peace talks.
We want peace as the UnitedStates, we want peace as Russia,
(11:20):
we want peace as Israel.
You don't think the way theyare talking really merits the
word peace.
I'd be interested in hearingfrom you all, from the woman's
point of view, what needs to beon the table to really talk
about peace, because at themoment, both of these things to
(11:40):
me, looking at it, look a bitmore like an imposed deal and a
surrender of territory.
Speaker 3 (11:46):
Mahid my view is especially concentrated on this
exclusiveness.
We talked about who is sittingon the table when it comes to
the dialogue or the negotiation,but I think women have crucial
roles also in all phases, likein the prevention of war, during
war and also after, when it'sabout recovery.
(12:07):
And systematically.
Now it is tried not only todefine a war and the war outcome
by an exclusive group, with theexclusion of women.
It also makes it difficult tofoster all the measures which
were put in charge the lastyears and months.
I currently see a biggerdifficulty to keep the
(12:32):
achievements of the last yearsand in the discussion.
What makes me sad, or what isunfortunate, is that in this
East-West, which is no longerexisting, so we have a
multi-polarity, we have not onlynations, this concept of states
and nations dealing about warand dealing about peace.
(12:53):
It's not true.
There are much more groups,different groups, non-state
groups in these conflicts andwars, and so the question of how
do we handle this and how do weget the roles for women will
show that it is also a key,because in all these communities
, no matter what the concept is,you find women.
It's not important if it's on astate level, it's not important
(13:15):
if it's about community,everywhere you find opportunity.
But the question is, how manyobstacles and hindrances are
going to be built in the nextweeks, months and years?
Speaker 2 (13:26):
I've looked at different peace negotiations
over the year.
I remember with Syria whenStaffan de Mistura was the UN
special envoy.
He insisted every time therewere discussions in Geneva that
women came too.
Nothing too much came,unfortunately, of those
negotiations, but he did try andhe did see that this was
(13:48):
absolutely vital.
Again, maybe I'll ask you,deborah, what is it that is
being neglected that women canoften bring to a peace process?
Speaker 4 (13:59):
So to this question, I think there's one thing that
we need to consider very clearlyViolence and war, for men,
often are a crisis, something tobe solved.
So whenever war goes away, thecrisis has gone away.
But for women, violence issomething that starts with their
birth and ends with, in manycases I'm not generalizing, but
(14:19):
in many cases and ends with whenthey die.
So violence is a constant inwomen's lives.
So whenever we speak aboutending a war or ending violence
is bringing peace, we doabsolutely neglect women's roles
and Leandra said before genderequality issues that were
already there a lot before a warstarted or were even
(14:42):
exacerbated by the war or eventriggered a war.
That's also very clear.
And we can look at Afghanistanand I think it's interesting the
first women peace tables we hadwith Ukrainian women that were
before the full scale invasion.
Women actually told us when weasked them what does peace mean
to you?
They reflected on whether theyhad peace before 2014.
(15:04):
And many of them said butthere's also an issue of war us
not being able to live our lifefree of violence every day,
independent of the weapons thatare around.
So we really need to think.
Ending war is necessary topeace, without a doubt.
But ending war does not meanpeace.
So whenever these men use theword peace in order to say cease
(15:27):
fires, stop the guns, this isnot peace.
Speaker 2 (15:30):
Who else wants to comment on that?
Larissa Leandra, because whatI've seen?
I've spent quite a lot of timein conflict zones.
When the so-called peace isthere after the guns have
stopped, it's in no way peaceful.
There's so much to do.
All of the infrastructure needsrebuilding.
There are hundreds, thousandsof missing people.
(15:50):
None of these things.
When we talk about the currentnegotiations going on, I don't
hear these being discussed?
Speaker 5 (15:57):
Yeah, and if I may, I'd like to add I think Ukraine
has actually been trying to makethat point, like stressing the
idea of a durable and just peace, for the past three years.
And what the US is doing rightnow, it's an extractivist
assertion of power, arguablyeven a second imperial ambition
(16:17):
that we are seeing now in thepicture alongside Russia.
And what Ukraine has stressedis that we can't have that
conversation in a serious way,if we really want to avoid a
reassertion of violence, unlesswe include the protection of
human rights in thisconversation.
And that does mean that if it'sjust a ceasefire, then we are
(16:39):
not talking about what happensto the civil population in the
areas that are currently undercontrol by Russia, we are not
talking about justice for the13,000 disappeared children,
kidnapped children, etc.
Etc.
So for me, from a feministpoint of view, it always means
it's the inclusion and thepreservation of human rights for
(17:00):
all.
That would be and I know it's autopian vision, but that is
usually where everyone would be-safe to be themselves.
Speaker 1 (17:24):
Some of what you said there, though, they are things
that I've heard many times atthe UN, which is what makes a
sustainable peace and a quickdeal the different roles that
women can play during all stagesof peace processes right.
If the Ukrainian people, forexample, does not feel any
ownership of a potential peaceagreement and that goes for many
(17:48):
conflicts if it's just decidedby what is perceived either
elites or even outsiders, andthere have not been really
deeper talks about, andsometimes difficult discussions
about, what does peace reallymeans to us beyond just okay,
there's a ceasefire or the gunsstop, what does it really means
(18:11):
for all parts of society?
For us, then, peace processesare not sustainable.
Speaker 2 (18:17):
Mahid, you had your hand up.
You wanted to come in there.
Speaker 3 (18:20):
It reminds me a little bit of the discussion
when it comes to policy, forexample, if you have policies
and you want to implement them,sometimes there is a policy
setting and when you want toimplement them, you see, oh,
there are many factors we didn'tthink about when we developed
that policy.
What I experience is especiallythis distinction between a
formal, maybe military, maybestate driven idea of an
(18:44):
agreement.
And then what is what you weretalking about and I'm very glad
to hear that so, with specificexamples, the difficulty of what
it means in reality.
So it's describing a formalstate where there is a beginning
and an end.
You could formally declaresomething what started is now
ended and with that there waslike a solution.
(19:06):
But that is not true, andthat's why I opt also for women
in the armed forces, because Ialso believe, truly believe,
that women, women perspective,gender perspectives, human
security perspectives have to bein every process and every
structure of armed forces inorder to somehow find the glue
and also do some bridging withcivil societies and other actors
(19:30):
.
Speaker 2 (19:30):
That's a really interesting point.
Many countries do have women inthe armed forces now, but still
traditionally it's not what wethink.
Is that one of the reasons?
Do you think that the men insuits trying to make these quick
fix deals right now, they don'tconsult women because women
have not been doing the fighting?
Is that one of the reasons, orare they just not interested?
(19:52):
Leandra, I can see you shakingyour head.
Speaker 5 (19:55):
No, it just really goes to the root of patriarchy
and how nation states are builtfrom a patriarchal root and it's
really an exploitation of bothmale and female bodies.
Male bodies get conscripted todefend the nation.
By extension also, they havepossession rights over the
(20:18):
female bodies who they're alsosupposed to defend, and the
female body is exploited for therecreation of the nation.
That is really the basis of ournation states and therefore to
deconstruct that is extremelydifficult for them.
It doesn't even cross theirmind that politics and violence
(20:39):
and resolutions is somethingthat could involve women's
perspectives.
Speaker 2 (20:43):
How do we get those perspectives though?
How do women bang open thedoors of the current which is
troubling every person on theplanet?
The war in the Middle East, thewar between Russia and Ukraine?
Well, russia's aggressiontowards Ukraine, invasion of
Ukraine.
How do we get women in there?
How do we get them to make thepoint that, unless you address
(21:06):
not just the gun stopping, thisthing could start again?
Speaker 3 (21:09):
I'm a bit emotional right now because I want to add
one thing.
Ok, maybe it is necessary, butnevertheless it tires me to see
that we always discuss what thewomen have to do in order to get
access to initiatives or toprocesses etc.
And that's really disturbing forme.
We make the experience, or wetry to do also allyship, to
(21:33):
bring all together and say, ok,how can we develop further, by
also addressing patriarchy andwhat it means also for the men
and what kind of biases theylive, in order to show why there
is an enhancement needed, tosay how can we address things,
maybe from gender perspective,maybe also off gender
(21:53):
perspective, in order to reachthe goal we want to do?
I just wanted to make thatpoint.
Yes, there are strong women,there are many women actively
reaching out, searching tocontribute, but it should not be
only the women's effort.
There should be a way that wefind allies, that these doors
(22:14):
open quicker and that theselevels are easier reachable.
Speaker 4 (22:18):
Debra yeah, I very much agree with these allies,
and I think, first on the notincluding women because they
were not fighting part, I agreewith what Leandra said
absolutely, but it's also usedas a really bad excuse to
exclude women.
I mean, it's also so they'renot conscious about this.
That's one part, but then it'salso used as we just talk about
(22:40):
who stops fighting, and sinceyou do not have a gun, you don't
need to talk about that.
Yeah, don't worry, you're prettylittle head about it and we are
seeing something, a verydifficult change in addition to
all these difficult issues.
A very difficult change inaddition to all these difficult
issues is that peacenegotiations do no longer or
they're faltering in thinkingabout comprehensive peace
agreements, so they go reallyeven more so and even more so in
(23:03):
the future, to be seen intoceasefire agreements.
So let's just stop the fighting.
And I think, on allyships, it'svery, very important and I
agree with my.
It's not what women need to do,because they do.
Larissa said they presentthemselves, they said we were
not invited, but we're here.
But we need the ones that areclose to these processes and to
these, that they are building inhooks into ceasefire agreements
(23:26):
, for example, to say, ok, whatare the monitoring bodies of
ceasefire agreements?
So let's try and get hooks in,let's try and open doors for
women that this would bepossible.
And obviously I agree thisneeds to come also from a wide
public and maybe also all theselisteners to say this is not
normal.
But then we have to stop saying, ok, this is peace now.
(23:49):
Ok, what they're doing isthey're building peace.
That's not true.
So to ask for that and torefuse to hear the word peace
when actually what is meant is Iwant to make a transactional
win, or even, I have to say,blackmail.
Speaker 2 (24:05):
Yeah, you're not the first.
You're not the first.
I've heard a few people usethat term.
Speaker 4 (24:09):
So, when listeners hear these narratives on a daily
basis in the news, refuse tobelieve that this is peace and
really keep asking for peace andasking that women are part of
it.
It's not only the women's role.
Speaker 2 (24:22):
Larissa, I know you had your hand up too.
Speaker 1 (24:24):
Yes, because it's really not about women having to
try harder or having to findways to get involved.
They're already doing everythingthey can.
And then also with ceasefires,for example, and then
discussions about bringing evenjust armed conflict to stop and
the idea that maybe their womenmight not have that much
(24:47):
expertise to contribute, orsomething.
It's just such a wrong ideaBecause in a conversation that I
had with a network member, shetold me you know, I've been
doing this since the 90s and Ihave so much experience and I'm
just so worried because I knowfrom experience because this has
happened over and over againthat if now only men and only
(25:07):
the armed forces are negotiatinga ceasefire, they will for sure
forget to include in thatceasefire agreement that armed
forces have to also not occupyanymore, for example, the
hospitals and the schools.
They will just forget aboutthat, and it's something that me
and all my women activistsaround me, we know that and we
(25:32):
want to make sure they includethat, because without that
there's no chance that aceasefire is going to hold,
because if those hospitals andschools are occupied, the
tensions are just not going toeven have a chance to fizzle out
.
So I think, yes, there's justso many layers to this.
Speaker 2 (25:49):
I mean that's, I think, what Larissa said.
There's one of the hooks thatyou would build in Mahid, I
think you because she mentionedpeacekeeping bring your view in
here.
Speaker 3 (25:58):
She mentioned especially military, so I think
that's a little bit my roletoday.
I spoke about distinction ordifference between spheres and I
see exactly here thisdifference or distinction
between military and civilian.
Somehow it developed and Ithink one of the key factors is
(26:19):
also going to be how able we areto establish dialogue.
We had one workshop I rememberlike three months ago, and it
was also about the feministutopia of saying no armies, no
weapons, so no war.
And my contribution or myrecommendation that day was
although I like this utopia, thepoint is, if you just say we
talk about prevention and wetalk about the recovery the time
(26:42):
after, you're not contributingto the face of war.
So it's not only the militaryside or the official, the white
men, how you said before, or menin suits who exclude.
It's sometimes also a principlewhich says I'm not going to
have an interaction with thisevil bringing group.
(27:03):
And I think it's necessary thatwe get closer to each other and
try to understand what are thenecessities, what are the
beneficiaries, what are thethings we have to talk about and
what are the needs and what arethe urgencies from the civilian
side, but maybe also a bitbetter understanding of what the
military is doing, Becausecurrently, most of the time, I
(27:26):
feel as if there are twodifferent groups in their own
narratives and in their owndialogue, but not really a
bridge in between.
Speaker 2 (27:36):
That's an interesting point.
I guess that traditionally, ifwe're talking about liberal
values, left-wing values, themilitary is somewhere else.
So it's not just a genderdivide, it's an ideological or
political opinion divide.
Leandra, I see you nodding.
Speaker 5 (27:52):
Yeah, because I mean, in my research on Russia and
Ukraine, that's really one ofthe frictions that came out.
It kind of like really hadforced a lot of people to revise
, or at least reconsiderrevising I'm going to call them
innocent, innocent pacifistviews, and that Ukrainian
feminists very soon made clearat the latest in 2022 that you
(28:15):
are now just being a bystanderto imperial violence and that
sending us hand-knittledsweaters is not going to which
people did, and I think it comesfrom a good place, don't get me
wrong, but it's not going tohelp us.
And if we go back and that'sprobably what has helped me is
the feminist principle of Iextend my hand to you and grant
(28:39):
you that you know best what isright for you in your place at
this moment, and that, for me,is the way to collaborate and
then also to bridge, becausethat then means I do actually
start having a conversation onOK, what is military aid in that
context, which you are askingfor?
But equally, and that doesn'texclude, what is your concern
(29:03):
about?
You do now have a militarizedsociety.
You do have more circulation ofweapons.
What does that do with you?
Right, and also that's where Ibecome very emotional.
Can we in this discussionplease not just talk about
Ukraine.
There is a whole warringaggressor here who we are not
making any demands todemilitarize, to work on their
(29:27):
gender equality.
All that burden is only put onUkraine, who is completely
sidelined from those hardcorenegotiations.
And we have a wholeinternational norms around UN
women, peace and security.
It's even established in NATO.
But with the moment of the fullscale invasion that just went
(29:49):
out of the window.
Speaker 2 (29:50):
Okay, well, I am actually going to come towards
the end of the programme,summing up on a positive note.
But again, from your ownpersonal experiences, deborah,
we heard from you about hooksand I'm going to come back to
you about that.
I'm interested again in thecontext of the conflicts that we
(30:10):
have been discussing.
Let's think about the positivethings that can be achieved when
women really are in peaceprocess, peace building,
conflict prevention, whateveraspect of it there is, how that
can work better for everyone.
And, mahid, I kind of want toput a hypothetical to you Should
(30:34):
there be peacekeepers, werethere to be peacekeepers in
Ukraine, Women Now obviouslySwitzerland, we don't know.
So a very hypothetical.
But what are the positive hooksthat women peacekeepers can
bring in a situation like that?
Speaker 3 (30:52):
When you ask for female contribution to a
hypothetical peacekeepingmandate in Ukraine, I would just
refer back to what we justdiscussed before.
That's already after themandate discussed before.
That's already after themandate.
So there have to be hooks inthe mandate already and not
coming up when the mission isstarting or taking place.
(31:13):
So, yes, I think if you putthese hooks, which Deborah
mentioned, when you put them inthe mandate, and anyway it is
crucial that women participate,because it's a society of mixed
gender, even if you go furtherand look about gender identity.
So diversity, after all, is atopic we have to treat, also in
(31:36):
peacekeeping, also inreestablishing institutions, and
the more diversity you have,the more social interest in
social cohesion.
And, at the end, what is peace?
Peace, in my opinion, is thatwe aim for the best conditions
for everyone, no matter if it'sa man, it's a woman.
So we want to create the bestconditions that everyone is
(31:58):
nourished and can grow anddevelop and give something back
to the society.
And if you exclude a part of it, even with the ones who
establish, re-establish somehoworder or safe and secure
environment in order toestablish the institutions again
, you spare out half of the mostimportant part and that's just
(32:19):
wrong.
And especially after war, weknow that vulnerable people have
a longer way to find back tothese perfect conditions in
order to live on.
Speaker 2 (32:30):
Larissa, pretty much the same question to you.
Positive examples maybe that wecould draw on in the current
situation where women haveplayed a significant role.
Speaker 1 (32:41):
I think, probably a perfect peace process.
It would be difficult to findone name one, but the one in
Colombia that's concluded in apeace agreement in 2016 has many
very interesting, I think,facets to it, and we can see it
in the many gender provisionsand how diverse also the various
(33:02):
negotiators were and the civilsociety behind it.
The various negotiators were andthe civil society behind it,
and that's also something thatwe see in our network of
feminist peace builders acrossthe globe that this interest in
learning from each other isreally there.
So, for example, our Filipinapartners they were really
interested to learn from theColombian women how they managed
(33:26):
to get so many genderprovisions into that agreement
and what their strategies were.
I think it's one a question ofreally being curious, looking to
that and having a widerunderstanding of peace process
to be able to see these andrecognize these things that are
already being done.
To be able to see these andrecognise these things that are
(33:49):
already being done and then, onthe other hand, still pushing
for it to be easier and be ableto play all the different roles
during all different stages.
Speaker 2 (33:54):
Ok, well, leandra, and then we'll end with Deborah.
We heard some very positiveexamples and why women should be
need to be included.
But say again, hypothetical,say you were sitting in the Oval
Office and don't look quite sohorrified.
How would you say to PresidentTrump look the way you're
(34:16):
playing it.
I mean, great if you believe inpeace, great.
Speaker 5 (34:19):
But this one, this deal, is not going to work, and
this is why you need a differentapproach and you need women and
this is the moment in therecording where you had your
answer plan and now you'rethrowing me in the Oval Office
with Trump and I'm like lost forwords because I can't fathom
how I would bring that across tosomeone like him, because I
(34:41):
really believe he has aninherent authoritarian penchant.
He genuinely does want anilliberal refashioning of his
society and of the world.
So, however, if I were to havea reasoned, a rational actor in
front of me who wants toactually listen, the example I
(35:02):
would have brought to bring hopein the conversation, because I
said before I would actuallylike us to also swing the camera
from time to time to Russia isactually so.
I've been doing research on thefeminist anti-war resistance in
Russia and what I would argueit's marginal.
I mean, we're really talkingabout a marginal movement, yet
nevertheless, in Russia's modernhistory, the biggest we have
(35:24):
seen and extremely wellorganized, the less in Russia's
modern history, the biggest wehave seen and extremely well
organized.
And it's a rupture in Russiathat that movement for the first
time is talking aboutdecolonization.
And so for me, because when wesay durable right, it obviously
also means that Russia doesn'taggress anymore and that means
in the utopian world that you dohave a democratic reform of
(35:45):
Russia, and that woulddefinitely entail coming to
terms with the imperial violenceit has conducted, not just
vis-a-vis Ukraine, kazakhstan,the Baltic states, but within
that country.
So to see a feminist movementtake that up and actually
putting into light the imperialviolence indigenous people,
ethnic minorities within Russiahave suffered.
(36:05):
To me, that is the small hope Iam attaching to, and I would do
, of course, my best if I hadmore preparation to bring that
across to Trump.
Speaker 2 (36:15):
Good luck with that, deborah.
Final words to you.
We want to end on a moment ofpositive.
Everybody feels a bit depressednow, the state of the world,
but bring us some words ofpositive.
Everybody feels a bit depressednow, the state of the world,
but bring us some words ofmotivation.
Speaker 4 (36:29):
It's almost as difficult as speaking to.
Trump no pressure Words ofmotivation.
I think I will go back to how Istarted.
The women are out there.
So whenever people say womenare not included, they might not
be included, but they areworking for peace and very
resourceful, and just whatLeandra just now said sparks my
(36:53):
hope in this.
We take our motivation on adaily basis from them, from
everything that they say, thatthey are doing.
I think women networks gettogether and be able to be
solidary, the feminist principlethat Leandra said of extending
I know you know best.
I'm here to support, I'm hereto hold.
That is hope and I think that'swhat we need to strengthen in
(37:17):
general.
Everyone can support thesenetworks by saying I think what
you experience and what youthink is best, you go.
You do that.
Not try to impose our views,not try to impose peace, but
really create the soil for theagency of these women, to create
(37:38):
the support.
So I think that would be myhope.
Speaker 2 (37:41):
And, on that note, that brings us to the end of
this edition of Inside Geneva.
These wonderful women have tocross the road and go over to
Parliament and make their verycompelling case again.
Thank you all Mahid Aslan,Deborah Schiebler, Larissa Lee
and Leandra Bias we hope youenjoyed it.
I certainly did.
Fascinating conversation andone that really should get a lot
(38:05):
of listeners.
Male as well as female,generals as well as peace
builders Thank you, Deborah.
Generals as well as peacebuilders, although generals can
be peace builders Exactly,Exactly.
Thank you all for listening,for listening, and just a quick
(38:36):
reminder next time on InsideGeneva, we'll be bringing you
that in-depth interview onartificial intelligence, social
media threats to democracy, andwe'll be talking to a human
rights defender from Americaabout his take on what's
happening in his own country.
Join us on April 1st for that.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.