On the one-year anniversary of the war in Ukraine, Australia announced it will gift $33 million worth of spy drones to the besieged nation, adding to the $475 million it has provided in military assistance over the past year. Few would quibble with us helping Ukraine defend its sovereignty. But what if we were equally generous in investing in peace?
War causes needless human suffering. Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine a year ago some 200,000 Russian troops have been killed along with 130,000 Ukrainians, including more than 30,000 civilians.
The economic cost is also skyrocketing. The knock-on effects of the gas crisis and other trade-related issues are astronomical, yet difficult to calculate. But even if you look at the quantifiable direct support, the US Government has provided $US18.7 billion in military assistance to date, and the European Union 12 billion euros.
ActionAid has been working with women’s groups in Ukraine, Poland, Hungary and Moldova since the conflict begun and after a year, more than anything, they want an end to the bloodshed. “People dying is horrendous,” Maryna, a volunteer with one of ActionAid’s partners in Ukraine, told us recently. “And there are so many people who are mentally suffering.”
During war, women and girls face specific and unique risks to their safety, like sexual violence and human trafficking. Yet women, including local women groups who are responding to the fallout of war on the ground, are frequently excluded from decision-making processes.
The United Nations recognised this in 2000 when governments around the world came together to adopt the landmark United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security (WPS). At the core of the WPS agenda was a call to invest in women’s participation in peace building processes, now backed by solid evidence of its contribution to global peace and stability.
A review of 40 peace processes over the last three decades had shown that when women’s groups were able to effectively influence a peace process, an agreement was reached in all but one case. UN Women highlights that women’s engagement in peace processes shifts the dynamics, broadening the issues discussed with a greater focus on root causes and increased pressure on parties to reach an agreement.
And an analysis of data over the past 40 years indicates that an increase in the percentage of women in parliament by 5 per cent is associated with a state being five times less likely to use violence when faced with an international crisis.
It seems clear that investing in women’s participation in peace building is one of the surest ways to prevent human suffering and carnage. So why aren’t we applying these learnings to end the war in Ukraine?
Part of the problem is that peacebuilding is often perceived as something that comes after war. But for a sustainable and long-lasting peace we must invest in peace before, during and after conflict. And we must prioritise women-led peace building processes. Ultimately peace building is about addressing the underlying drivers of conflict and working to resolve differences peacefully without the resort to war. It lays the foundations to prevent further violence.
Peace talks between Russia and Ukraine have been deemed mission impossible for the moment. The evidence tells us that this conflict is more likely to end when women have a seat at the table.
Women generally bring a set of skills to the peace table that are too often undervalued by governments globally – listening, dialogue, and relationship building, for example. Women who have been involved in mediation and peace negotiations historically have built a reputation for building trust, engaging all sides and fostering dialogue. This has been evidenced in peace negotiations in Northern Ireland, Somalia and Sri Lanka. According to Inclusive Security, conflicting parties often see women as less threatening, which grants them access often denied to male leaders.
If the peace chest had equivalent resources as Ukraine’s military assistance it could support women’s leadership in peace talks, including as mediators from sister nations. It could build strong women’s movements inside both countries, and the region, to mobilise for peace. It could put the prevention of violence and protection of the most vulnerable at the forefront of the agenda.
Women-led peace processes should be recognised as a legitimate strategy for ending conflict and saving lives. A fair share of our international assistance should follow.