On 31 October 2000, the United Nations Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1325 calling for women’s increased participation in conflict prevention, as well as their specific protection from sexual and gender-based violence. Marking the first time that the UN Security Council had dealt specifically with gender issues and women’s experiences in conflict situations, Resolution 1325 also encouraged key actors to integrate a gender perspective into peace operations, negotiations and agreements. In this the resolution built on a body of feminist scholarship that has highlighted men and women’s differential experiences of war and conflict, redefined sexual violence as a weapon of war, and recognised the role of women as agents in building peace and guaranteeing security.
Over the past two decades, a plethora of policies, action plans, principles and other initiatives, as well as nine additional Resolutions on the same topic, have made up the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda. Several key international actors on the security scene have also taken up the cause. For example, NATO developed its first policy on Women, Peace and Security in 2007, and in 2012 appointed a Special Representative to the Secretary General for Women, Peace and Security.
The 20th anniversary of the passing of Resolution 1325 has prompted much reflection on the achievements and future directions of the WPS agenda. While it is clear that much remains to be done on advancing women’s representation and protection in conflict scenarios, the moment also provides an opportunity to re-assess the assumptions driving the agenda. Here a perspective from LGBTIQ+ studies and queer inquiry can provide valuable insights. Building on a feminist approach, queer approaches in international relations draw attention to how conflict dynamics, military operations and international politics more broadly are shaped not only by gender but also by norms around sexuality.
The following analysis suggests that the next step in the development of the WPS agenda should involve real engagement of a queer perspective, and that ‘queering’ the WPS agenda would allow it to fulfil its true potential. There is an urgent need to address the security needs of LGBTIQ+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, intersex and queer) people in conflict, notably through developing the currently limited understanding of gender inherent in the WPS architecture. Furthermore, queering the agenda can have radical implications for approaching security more broadly.
The problem of LGBTIQ+ exclusion
At its core, the Women, Peace and Security agenda is about the inclusion of women and of gender perspectives in all peace and security processes and institutions. However, the current agenda is not inclusive of those who challenge traditional norms of gender and sexuality. There are practical similarities between the issues faced by women and LGBTIQ+ people in conflict, including sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) which refers to ‘any act that is perpetrated against a person’s will and is based on gender norms and unequal power relationships’. Indeed, conflict actors in numerous contexts have targeted LGBTIQ+ people for sexual assault, exploitation, humiliation, blackmail and extortion.
Despite these commonalities, activities under the WPS agenda have rarely mentioned or addressed the needs of LGBTIQ+ individuals, and they are typically excluded from monitoring and reporting in WPS programmes. Of the 26 indicators currently proposed by the UN Technical Working Group on Global Indicators for 1325, none specifically mentions the LGBTIQ+ population. Furthermore, attention to the needs of LGBTIQ+ people is lacking in all eight of the UN Security Council resolutions on WPS documents and throughout the formal WPS architecture.
The past five years have seen some progress toward a more inclusive WPS agenda, with the UN Secretary-General’s annual report on conflict-related sexual violence referencing LGBTIQ+ people every year since 2015. Nevertheless, this population remains overlooked in terms of concrete policy efforts. Going forward, WPS should include the needs of LGBTIQ+ people with dedicated recognition of the specific issues they face due to their gender identity and/or sexual orientation. There is also an urgent need to promote the inclusion of LGBTIQ+ people themselves in policymaking, monitoring and reporting capacities under the WPS agenda.
A limited understanding of gender
While Resolution 1325 has highlighted gender-based insecurity in conflict, it also reinforces a limited understanding of gender which gives rise to LGBTIQ+ exclusion. The result is a narrow categorisation of who is most vulnerable to violence as a result of their gender, with a focus on the needs of women within a heterosexual social and familial structure.
This points to a combination of two problems in the WPS architecture: heteronormativity and cisprivilege. Heteronormativity is the idea that heterosexual attraction and relationships are the default or ‘normal’ mode of sexual orientation, which effectively erases people who experience same-gender attraction. This can affect anyone whose identity is represented under the LGBTIQ+ umbrella. Furthermore, the name of the agenda associated with Resolution 1325, with its focus on women, has also reinforced a binary notion of gender that perpetuates cisprivilege, the social advantage enjoyed by people whose gender aligns with the sex they were assigned at birth (also referred to as ‘cisgender’). Those who experience the negative effects of cisprivilege include transmen, transwomen, and non-binary, intersex and agender people. It should also be noted that heterosexual and cisgender people are not immune to the effects of heteronormativity and cisprivilege including in conflict situations, as any kind of non-conforming or ‘transgressive’ gender or sexuality may be targeted.
Although heteronormativity and cisprivilege are two separate concepts which may affect different groups within the LGBTIQ+ community, they are connected in this context as they are both the result of a limited understanding of gender. Taken together, these assumptions exclude individuals whose sexuality, familial relations, and/or gender expression do not align with the perceived ‘default’ norms. A narrow understanding of gender as restricted to the inclusion of heterosexual women therefore has two main outcomes. Firstly, it excludes those who are not women who also experience vulnerabilities based on gender and sexual orientation in conflict settings, including gay men, transgender men and non-binary people. Indeed, the WPS architecture does not address homophobia or transphobia as a form of SGBV. Secondly, it does not account for the experiences of women included in the LGBTIQ+ acronym, including lesbians, bisexual women and transgender women, and therefore does not actively address the need for their protection from specific forms of SGBV in conflict. Consequently, rather than ensuring protection, insecurities are reproduced for women with queer sexualities and non-normative gender expression. This points to the need for an intersectional approach, which provides a tool to recognise how an individual’s multiple social identities compound the risk of violence against them. This can include interactions between race, ethnicity, social class or wealth, religion, disability, but also between gender and sexuality, as heteronormativity and cisprivilege may have a combined effect.
Going forward, it is imperative to expand the understanding of gender within the WPS architecture to recognise the role of heteronormativity and cisprivilege in both preventing the needs of LGBTIQ+ people being addressed and only catering to a specific group of (cisgender, heterosexual) women. This is essential for the WPS agenda to fulfil its stated aims of protecting all women from violence in conflict.
Queering the agenda: some wider implications for security
To grasp the broader implications of a truly inclusive implementation of Resolution 1325, it is useful to distinguish between two approaches: LGBTIQ+ studies and queer theory. In general, the framework of LGBTIQ+ studies limits the scope of its concerns to discrimination, inclusion and human rights. While these are important and valid considerations, queer inquiry goes further; it seeks to destabilise norms and reveal their political nature, analysing how sexed, gendered, and sexualised binaries are normalised in various arenas, including conflict settings. A queer approach therefore does more than simply highlighting LGBTIQ+ issues, and holds the potential to fundamentally transform how gender and sexuality are understood within the WPS agenda.
Such a perspective also has a wider application within security studies. In particular, queer approaches consider the links between norms of gender and sexuality and norms which shape other practices in conflict, such as militarism, soldiering and war itself. In the context of the changing security environment currently faced by both state and non-state actors, methods and assumptions which once held true are being questioned and are taking on new directions. At this critical juncture, integrating a queer approach into programmes and policies in international security – starting with the WPS agenda – can ensure these are better equipped to understand all dimensions of new security challenges. For example, research has highlighted the emergence of new ‘humanitarian’ security regimes in the Global South which ostensibly espouse human rights, but whose military and police security apparatuses draw their power from the targeting of nonnormative sexualities and gender expressions which they portray as threats to public safety. This demonstrates the need for a queer analysis to uncover the role that sexuality and gender norms play in sustaining systems of political power.
Conclusions
As Resolution 1325 moves into its third decade, there is an urgent and timely need to queer the agenda. The present moment presents an opportunity to radically reform the way gender is understood in peace and security work by developing a more nuanced understanding which breaks with heteronormative and cissexist assumptions. This would be a first step in addressing conflict-related violence directed towards individuals because of their sexual orientation and/or gender identity. Moreover, understanding (in)security through a lens which analyses gendered and sexualised norms can shape how policymakers perceive security more broadly.
To effectively implement a queer perspective in policymaking, dedicated recognition of issues facing LGBTIQ+ people in conflict environments is needed in the UN Security Council framework. Current indicators should also be made more inclusive of LGBTIQ+ people to capture forms of SGBV which are currently undocumented within WPS monitoring mechanisms. To achieve effective change, WPS programmes should work more closely with civil society actors committed to safeguarding LGBTIQ+ human rights in the international arena to ensure that inclusion measures are genuine and meaningful. Finally, all efforts around inclusion needs to be underpinned by the operationalisation of a more complex understanding of gender which accurately captures the full spectrum of diversity occupied by LGBTIQ+ individuals.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this blog are personal to the author(s) and do not reflect the official policy or position of any other agency, organisation or employer.
Comments