‘What Happens Next?’: Where Are Women in Peacebuilding?

Dr Susan Carland: Welcome back to What Happens Next?, the podcast that examines some of the biggest challenges facing our world and asks the experts, what will happen if we don't change? And what can we do to create a better future?

I'm Dr Susan Carland. Keep listening to find out what happens next.

Natasha Stott Despoja: The worry that I have is that this is one of the single biggest and particular attacks on the rights of women, and girls in particular, that we've seen in a long, long time.

Dr Susan Carland: Last week, we brought you a harrowing story of escape from Taliban rule.

In August, 2021, upon the withdrawal of all US troops from Afghanistan, the world watched in horror as the Taliban swept through the country with alarming pace, capturing towns and cities, including the capital city of Kabul with little resistance.

Monash University's Gender, Peace and Security Centre, along with its student-led International Affairs Society, leapt into action, coordinating the escape of a number of Afghan scholars and their family members. Many of these scholars, including our guest Parisa Sekandari, are women, or have spoken up on behalf of women, placing them at odds with a dangerous regime.

Among the many tragedies of this ongoing situation is that many of the people forced to flee for their lives are the future leaders of Afghanistan, specifically women whose involvement in international relations and peace-brokering could help end decades of violence for the conflict nation.

Professor Sharon Pickering is Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Education, and Senior Vice-President at Monash University. She's a leading international researcher in criminology with global expertise on border crossings, migration and trafficking. Sharon Pickering, welcome back.

Professor Sharon Pickering: Oh, thanks for having me back, Susan.

Dr Susan Carland: Let's start with an easy question. How is peacebuilding gendered?

Professor Sharon Pickering: Well, peacebuilding is gendered in, I think, a whole range of ways.

I think that the assumption is often that peace is just quite simply the absence of war, and what every example around the world has shown us is that's actually not the case. Peace is a process. It is active and it needs to take the whole community, the whole society, with it for it to last.

And there are countless examples, whether they're across the Pacific or across the broader Indo-Pacific region, that when women have not been engaged in the process, when women have not been at the table at every level, that peace has been more precarious. It has more likely been about the absence of war, rather than the building of the civil institutions, the building of the participation, the transformation of individual lives, and the lives of communities.

Dr Susan Carland: So what do women bring to peacebuilding that maybe men generally don't?

Professor Sharon Pickering: Well, I think what so many of the leading scholars in this area tell us is that women bring a whole range of experiences and understandings about day-to-day lived realities. That if they're not at the table, are absent – issues around the perpetration of violence in particular against women and children; in particular, the inequitable distribution of resources when fighting stops; the building of institutions that do not take account of a whole range of diverse experiences, not just actually about gender and gendered identities, but go well beyond gender; the kinds of things that we would talk about in relation to equity, and diversity, and inclusion of a whole range of people – that if they are left behind, the peace is just so much harder to hold. That the institutions being built actually aren't fit for purpose, because that cannot respond to all of the people in a given community, in a given society.

So those lived experiences of, what does it mean to try and get the day-to-day needs for your family? What does it mean in relation to try and access education, or work, or all of the institutions that enable a community to transition away from war? If those voices aren't there, the piece that is built is only ever partial.

Dr Susan Carland: Is it hard to get women to the table?

Professor Sharon Pickering: I think it's hard to get the door open so women can reach the table.

What we see, particularly across the Indo-Pacific, are incredibly impressive women leaders of organisations that are delivering on the ground, but also higher-level, higher-order organisations, if you like, as well.

However, the ways that the table has been assembled in the room, the number of seats at the table, and the kinds of expectations for who gets the first crack at filling those seats has meant that it's not been that there haven't been women, that there have not been a conscious effort to actually let them through the door to actually reach that table.

Natasha Stott Despoja: Hi, I'm Natasha Stott Despoja. I'm a treaty body member at the United Nations, specifically the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, and I'm a former diplomat, former senator. And also recently Chair of Our Watch, the national foundation to prevent violence against women and their children.

Dr Susan Carland: Natasha Stott Despoja, welcome to the podcast.

Natasha Stott Despoja: Thank you for having me.

Dr Susan Carland: We know that in times of conflict, violence and the effects of conflict seem to be much more experienced by women and children. And yet, so often they're not invited to the table to talk about the peace process, or give their suggestions on how it should work or what's most needed. Why do you think they're not included in these conversations?

Natasha Stott Despoja: Well, your point's really pertinent right now, isn't it? I mean, you only have to look at the images that are emanating from, obviously the unfolding humanitarian conflict and awful situation in Ukraine, or more recently in places like Syria and, of course, Afghanistan. You don't see women around the table.

In fact, obviously Afghanistan, you don't see women at really any table. There's a cabinet that's devoid of women. There are ministers… ministry that doesn't include women. And obviously there's a lot to unpack in that.

But certainly particularly with the changing nature of warfare, so increasingly where civilians are targets now – not just collateral, but targets – we've seen that there is a unique and disproportionate effect on women and children, or women and girls, when it comes to conflict, whether that's violence generally, or whether it's sexual violence specifically.

So why aren't women at that table? Well, I suspect, you know that answer as well, the sense of male-dominated institutions that we've seen in all countries, regardless of our developed or developing nature. So there's a lack of history, there's a lack of opportunity.

And there's also just the issue of power and the fact that very few people relinquish power. And in most cases, men are not sharing that power at the decision-making table even if – and this is the extraordinary part of it – even if it was to the benefit of their country or community. Or indeed, as we've seen, there is an inextricable link between success in peace agreements and peace processes when women are reflected and represented at the table.

Dr Susan Carland: What do you think will be the future of conflict if women continue to be excluded from the table where these decisions and solutions are discussed?

Natasha Stott Despoja: Oh, well, I think it's a predictably negative one.

There's one statistic I really like, and it's, I think, applicable to any country or community, but they've actually shown that if you decrease the percentage of women in a parliament by 5 per cent, you actually see that country as five times more likely to use military intervention when it comes to resolving international disputes.

And that is just in my head at the moment constantly, for obvious reasons.

Dr Susan Carland: Let me interrupt – I want to make sure I heard that figure correctly. Decrease the number by 5 per cent, and the increase is five times the amount?

Natasha Stott Despoja: Indeed. I'm going to check all my stats for you, but that's the one that's haunting me at the moment.

But I guess the more reliable and other statistics, which are very clear, show that peace agreements are more likely to be robust, sustainable, long-term, basically more successful, if women are involved in that process. Not only in the decision-making and the negotiating, but ensuring that the issue and the concerns affecting women are included in those processes.

So when you ask, what's the future? Well, the future's pretty bleak unless we resolve some of these issues. And I would say, across the board, not including the talents of half your population… whether it's in peacekeeping, whether it's in negotiations, whether it's in the general running of your country, when we know that more women in leadership roles does lead to maintenance of infrastructure that's better, better distribution of public resources, really has a beneficial effect right down to measures as simple as profit and loss. So the future is bleak unless we really start to grapple with this.

And as you know, and something that you've talked about often and passionately, it's got to be a reflection that includes all our diversity and difference. It's got to be intersectional. So we can't leave people behind, but certainly we've left women behind for too long.

Dr Susan Carland: What's your take on why there is that staggering difference – if you decrease the number of women by just 5 per cent, the likelihood of going to war or conflict increases five times. How do you interpret why that happens?

Natasha Stott Despoja: It's a really good question, because it's a hard one, isn't it? Does it mean that women have an ameliorating effect on parliaments and countries? Well, not necessarily, although I'm sure there are many people who would sort of take a biological, sort of determinist approach to that, that says, “Well, we're mothers, and we're more caring, and we're this and we're that”.

And arguably, of course, there's some element of, certainly the fact that women – and we know this from research – that women tend to reinvest more, whether they’re as leaders in community or in parliaments, etcetera, they tend to invest more in issues that affect women and children. So there's definitely a community-minded element in that.

We know that more women in those leadership roles actually does lead to efforts that better address the issue of violence against women.

So I think that there is this… whether it's innate or otherwise, we know that women and diversity generally means you have better approaches, different approaches. In terms of whether or not it means we're inherently peacekeepers. I don't know. I like to think so, but the reality is diversity is good for any decision-making institution, and that has to include women, of course.

Dr Susan Carland: Here's Sharon Pickering.

Do you have examples of communities or cities or countries that have included women in the decision-making, that have really demonstrated successful outcomes in terms of peacebuilding? And maybe then examples of the opposite as well, when women haven't been included and there's been terrible, knock-on effects?

Professor Sharon Pickering: The one example I would give you is the absence of that. And I think this is what we see in Afghanistan right now.

We were really fortunate in Monash a few years ago where we hosted a senior group of female Afghan leaders who came to talk to us, who had been very much engaged in working through the peace process, had tried to be part of that.

But as those negotiations shifted under Trump's leadership, they were in essence cut out. They did not get anywhere near the space at the table that we would expect, given all the learnings that we've had from other places. And that was for a whole host of reasons. But there's a direct correlation between that, and the fact that there are no girl children in schools right now in Afghanistan.

Now, to me, it is implausible that a peace would've been brokered with a decent proportion of women at the table that would've got that outcome. It's implausible to me that that would've occurred, and it has. And for every month, for every year, they are not in school that will reshape the destiny of Afghanistan. It will reshape who leaves Afghanistan. It will reshape those who remain behind.

Dr Susan Carland: Can you see any areas where we can try to be hopeful about the future of Afghanistan, particularly for women and girls?

Professor Sharon Pickering: It's very difficult to see that right now.

You see that so many women and girls have had to flee Afghanistan because of their participation in education, their leadership in education, their activism, meant as soon as the Taliban came back into power, that they were at increased, and grave, risk. And so, so many have fled.

For those that are left behind, they face a daily risk. For many of them, they are at home, unable to study or work. They've basically been immobilised. So it is difficult to see a way forward.

That said, I think that we are seeing incredibly impressive leadership, and incredibly impressive efforts despite those conditions, but the aggregation of responsibility by the international community has meant that they are incredibly isolated by the community of nations that has abandoned them. What we are now working on is the mobilisation of civil society around the world to attempt to support them in whatever ways that are meaningful.

But there are very genuine prospects of famine as they head into the depths of this winter. You've got an economy that has entirely collapsed. So it is difficult to see that way forward. It is not impossible, but we are now most likely at best facing years, more likely decades and generations until we see a genuine change.

Dr Susan Carland: Here's Natasha Stott Despoja.

Tell us your take on what's happening in Afghanistan, particularly for women and girls. Do you have any hope for the situation there?

Natasha Stott Despoja: Look, I'm hopeful, and I guess something that gives me hope – although I'm disheartened.

Hopeful in the sense that, look at the agency and the bravery in the strength of people in that country, but particularly women who have challenged, who have spoken out. Not only the women who are now expats in other parts of the world, I mean. Some of the extraordinary politicians or former politicians who are speaking out in the international context.

The fact that we are talking about it is important. The fact that you are seeing some action from countries specifically, or the multilateral framework generally.

I guess though, the worry that I have is that this is one of the single biggest and particular attacks on the rights of women, and girls in particular, that we've seen in a long, long time. And I think the UN Secretary General has warned that this is symptomatic of what is happening with women's rights around the world, because in the midst of a global pandemic, which has done us no favours, either, when it comes to the exacerbation of sort of gender stereotypes and roles, we've got some real problems.

So when you say hope, I want to have hope and that's why I get involved in different agencies in the hope that we will see change, but we are scrutinising very, very closely, and there are important recommendations that have been made, not only around ceasefires, and provision of support, and reinstating human rights and women's rights.

I have to have hope, but this one, it's really challenged me to be honest.

Dr Susan Carland: Mmm. You mentioned that just remarkable statistic about the decrease of women by 5 per cent correlating with an increase of five times the amount of, perhaps, going into conflict. I wondered if you've got any evidence of the reverse – that when countries, nation-states, communities invest in women and girls, we see an increase in safety and security?

Natasha Stott Despoja: Absolutely. There are examples around the world where not only if you have – I mean, it is proven, apparently, that if you have greater gender equality, you are less likely to see that kind of civil conflict or violence, let alone violence against or among other countries.

I guess what I find fascinating, too, is that when we are talking about peace agreements – and, as you would know, it was only 20 years ago really… Well, just over – that the United Nations Security Council came up with landmark Resolution 1325, which, for the first time, acknowledged that unique role of women and girls in conflict. And it wasn't only about acknowledging the impact and the effects on women and girls as victims, but it was about recognising their essential role as peacebuilders, and there's certainly evidence around that. The peace agreements that have been struck that have involved women, not only at the table, but civil society, etcetera, they've been more successful.

And we've seen, even in our region, the extraordinary role of women in, say, Solomon Islands, places like that, Mindanao… These examples of trying to resolve conflict in those countries have been aided and abetted, if not led, by women.

So there's definitely plenty of research out there that suggests it. So it makes you wonder, doesn't it, why aren't we seeking to reflect more equally, or at least with some degree of parity in all our institutions around the world, the role of women in particular?

So yeah, it staggers me. Even in our country, I don't understand why we are so far – we are so far behind the rest of the world now, in so many respects. We're fiftieth in the world when it comes to representation of women in Parliament, and we're 30 times behind our nearest neighbour, New Zealand. I mean, that's extraordinary to me after such world-leading, really pioneering progress that we made more than a century ago.

So it can happen anywhere.

Dr Susan Carland: What is a feminist foreign policy?

Natasha Stott Despoja: Oh, I love the F-word in foreign policy!

Dr Susan Carland: [Laughter]

Natasha Stott Despoja: When I was Ambassador for Women and Girls, I had that role between 2013 and 2016 in Australia. And I used to have what I called a “title envy”, because some of my colleagues and counterparts, particularly from Sweden and Finland – you know, the really show-offy countries… no, I'm kidding – they were all “Ambassadors for a Feminist Foreign Policy”, and I thought, “Oh, I really want that”. But Australia wasn't then quite ready for it, and I would argue, hmm, perhaps not ready for it yet.

But essentially, the Lowy Institute and others, when we talk about a feminist foreign policy, it's defined as having a foreign policy in which no action, no program, no project can proceed without understanding its impact on, and effect on, women and girls, but also making sure that any of those things contribute to increased gender equality.

So in fact, in many ways, believe it or not, Australia's foreign policy – when it comes to international development and foreign policy – does really centre gender in its policy, but we're not quite brave enough to call it “feminist” yet. I hope that will change.

Dr Susan Carland: To the average person, average Australian listening at home to this, that might want to support the women of Afghanistan, but also help to sort of advocate for increased gender equality in international relations – although you do make the good point that we've got work to do at home as well – what advice would you give to someone that does want to help or contribute in some way?

Natasha Stott Despoja: Oh, look, my answer when people ask what they can do is always really quite simple, and that is just do something. Have informed discussions, contact your local community to see if you can assist, be that with voluntary work, or donations, or, indeed, the literal assisting of refugees in this day and age.

I think the greatest thing I would like to see from the community is a bit more momentum – and there has been recently, I can't deny that, and it makes me really happy – but more momentum around changing Australia's heinous laws in relation not only to detention, but the fact that... I think we've committed to take 3,000 refugees from Afghanistan, and that initial recruitment was not in addition to our annual humanitarian intake, it was as part of it. And our intakes are so, so low.

So I'd love to see more of a discussion and a debate and momentum build around changing these laws because they've been, I don't know, the bane of my existence since I was in politics and had to… I was a leader during the Tampa crisis, and that was a watershed moment and changed community perceptions, as well as public policy, in the most deleterious way.

So people can… you can lobby, you can donate, you can work on these issues. You can get involved in organisations, be it the United Nations, refugee work, or whether it's the Australian Refugee Association. There are many, many others, refugee asylum support centres, etcetera. But I do think we need to change those laws at the very, very top end.

Dr Susan Carland: An emerging theme we keep coming across on What Happens Next? is the imperative of including diverse voices from all walks of life – of all genders, all ages, all identities – in decision making. Whether it's at a smaller scale, such as making changes around your neighbourhood so that it's safer and friendlier to fight loneliness, or at a larger scale, such as including women in international peacebuilding processes, the evidence shows again and again that we need a range of voices to change our world for the better.

Thank you to our guests on this series: Parisa Sekandari, Professor Jacqui True, Professor Sharon Pickering, and Natasha Stott Despoja AO. And thank you, too, for joining us for season six of What Happens Next?.

This is the final episode of our season. We'll be back in a few short months with a new series investigating new challenges, and how each of us can make a difference. You can also dig deeper into many of the topics we've covered in this season by visiting Monash Lens at lens.monash.edu.

Do you have a topic you'd like us to examine in season seven? We'd love to hear from you! Email podcasts@monash.edu with your idea.

You can also leave us feedback – the good kind only, please – by rating and reviewing What Happens Next? on your preferred podcast platform. (You'll find only the five-star button works, don't take it up with us.) It helps us improve, and it helps listeners like you discover the show.

In the meantime, be sure to explore our back catalogue of episodes, such as right-wing extremism, hustle culture, the future of comedy, and psychedelics for mental health.

Thank you also to the Monash University Performing Arts Centre’s David Li Sound Gallery, where a portion of this season was recorded.

Thanks again for listening. We'll see you on the next season of What Happens Next?.