In
\n2014, Cynthia Cockburn wrote the first article in the 12-month lead up to the
\n100th anniversary of the Women\u2019s International League for Peace and
\nFreedom. She reprised the formation of the organisation reminding us of our
\nhistory in April 1915: \u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cMore than a thousand women assembled to talk peace. They In Now Over Manifestos The Militarism The The Social Patriarchy, Environmental All At The The A The The One I In July this year representatives from UN member States If Issue Issue Issue It Organising So The Lawyers Changing No Our Our \u00a0<\/em><\/strong>Read more articles from WILPF's <\/em><\/strong>Centenary Conference in <\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>50.50's series Women's Power to Stop War.\u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In 2014, Cynthia Cockburn wrote the first article in the 12-month lead up to the 100th anniversary of the Women\u2019s International League for Peace and Freedom. She reprised the formation of the organisation reminding us of our history in April 1915: \u00a0 \u201cMore than a thousand women assembled to talk peace. They travelled there from…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1288","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/googmn.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1288","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/googmn.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/googmn.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/googmn.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/googmn.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1288"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/googmn.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1288\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/googmn.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1288"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/googmn.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1288"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/googmn.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1288"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\ntravelled there from twelve countries, on both sides of the Atlantic and both
\nsides of the conflict, drawn by a belief that women could achieve something
\nmale leaders were unwilling or unable to do: stop the carnage. The organisation
\nemerging from the Hague Congress called itself the International Women's
\nCommittee for Permanent Peace. A few years on, it would be renamed the <\/em>Women's International League for Peace and Freedom<\/em>.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n
\nher article on oD 50.50, Cockburn announced WILPF\u2019s main strategy to prepare for the
\ncentenary: to roll out world-wide mobilisation under the bold headline Women\u2019s
\nPower to Stop War<\/em>, and to ask the cogent question \u201cis this a statement a
\nfact, or mere aspiration?\u201d<\/p>\n
\nit is August 2015, and the anniversary is over. A congregation of two parts:
\nthe Congress and the Conference. The former to devise and approve the WILPF
\nprogramme for the next three years, the latter to start building anew, a
\nmovement for change, an alliance of women and men to realise women\u2019s power to
\nstop war. Not unambitious, certainly aspirational, but then again one has to
\nbe – given what we are up against.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\nthe last 12 months our sections and members from over 40 countries – many in the midst
\nof conflict – discussed and debated the fundamental issues of women, war and
\npeace. At our Congress in April, we adopted a Manifesto reflecting the
\nculmination of that process.\u00a0 <\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\ncan be tricky things. There is always the risk that they can become dogmatic,
\ninflexible, and ultimately part of the problem, or too different from what
\nexists – with the risk of being disregarded as idealistic nonsense.
\n\u00a0<\/p>\n
\nManifesto we adopted serves to re-state our purposes as an organisation. To
\nre-visit our history – a history of opposing war, of identifying conflicts\u2019 root
\ncauses, and of adhering to principles of multilateralism as a means to address
\nthese concerns. In our Manifesto, we contextualized the issues and the
\nchallenges of today\u2019s world and clearly outlined the obstacles to peace: <\/p>\n
\nas a way of thought, and the militarisation of societies, such that perceived
\nthreats are likely to be met with weaponry rather than words;\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n
\ncapitalist economic system, involving the exploitation of the labour and
\nresources of the many by the few, wantonly harming people and the environment,
\ngenerating conglomerates of global reach and unaccountable power;\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n
\nnation-state system as it is today, involving dominant states, Imperialist
\nprojects, inter-state rivalry, contested borders, and, inside those borders,
\nall too often, failure of democracy, political repression and intolerance of
\ndiversity;\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n
\nsystems of racist supremacy, cultural domination and religious hierarchy;\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n
\nthe subordination of women by men, in state, community and family, perpetuated
\nby the social shaping of men and women into contrasted, unequal and limiting
\ngender identities, favouring violent masculinities and compliant femininities.<\/em>\u00a0<\/p>\n
\ndestruction and ecocide as both cause and consequence of conflict and possibly
\nthe greatest danger we face in the modern world.<\/em><\/p>\n
\nof these obstacles are interlinked and need to be addressed coherently,
\nconsciously, and constantly re-appraised, evaluated and monitored so that
\nwe – those who choose peace over conflict – can see and understand when and how to
\nengage. \u00a0<\/p>\n
\na conference full of like-minded and inspiring people from 80 countries, it\u2019s
\neasy to get swept away by the euphoria of the moment, by the recognition of
\ncommonality of purpose and a unified passion for change. But then you have to
\nmake it work. Our Manifesto did set out some of the main issues (as summarized
\nabove) that have to be addressed, but these were taken further by the
\nconference – not surprisingly given the range of talents, experience, activism,
\nand commitment of the participants. <\/p>\n
\nmain question was and is: how do we implement the Manifesto and the outcomes of
\nthe conference? There were some immediate and obvious things identified by the
\nconference:\u00a0<\/p>\n
\nfirst element is to campaign for and demand a UN Secretary General who is
\nappointed justly, and not by some secret negotiating process in the Security
\nCouncil. The ideal is to appoint a person who will truly respect the charter.
\nWho will be serious about human rights and how to realise them. A long list of
\nattributes is necessary, but someone like Mary Robinson has them and she is not
\nthe only one.\u00a0 <\/p>\n
\nsecond element is to engage with men to restructure power and to improve our
\nunderstanding of gender identities. \u00a0<\/p>\n
\nthird element is to critically analyse what a feminist foreign policy should really<\/em>
\nlook like. A policy that combines the talents of the academics, the economists,
\nthe lawyers, the environmentalists, and the development experts. \u00a0A policy
\nthat works with the people of a country and uses their input, their
\ninformation, and their expertise to really implement change, to really
\nmake an impact. Let that be a formula for all foreign policy and see what a
\ndifference it would make. It would hit all of the issues in our Manifesto, both
\ndirectly and indirectly. More importantly, it would not leave Margot Walstrom,
\nthe Minister for Foreign Affairs in Sweden, as the lone political advocate of a
\nfeminist foreign policy. She has opened the door, it behoves us all to follow
\nher through it.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\nfourth major issue discussed at the conference was engagement with the United
\nNations and the multilateral system. Feelings of betrayal surfaced with what
\nthey do and how they do it. Words like patriarchy, arrogance, machismo,
\nineptitude and corruption, were interlaced with a less printable lexicon. The
\nUN is not what it was hoped it would be. The claim was that we must take it
\nback, bring it back to the Charter; engage, on our terms not theirs and on
\nevery issue – from development to environment to the women, peace and security
\nagenda – and to be aware that we cannot all do it all. We need to combine, to
\nlook at who is doing what and make sure we make the connections.<\/p>\n
\nof the most obvious answers to how we can achieve these goals can be answered
\nin that old clich\u00e9: it starts with ourselves. This time, however, we need to
\nanalyse our context; we need to understand where we stand in 2015 and adapt to
\nthe changing environment. <\/p>\n
\nwant to give one simple example of how this could work:<\/p>\n
\ngathered in Geneva for a week-long first session of the intergovernmental
\nworking group (IGWG) towards a Treaty on Transnational Corporations (TNC)
\ncovering multinational and domestic corporations and other business enterprises,
\nwith regards to human rights.\u00a0This was the start of a series of
\nnegotiations, which could lead to a legally binding treaty framing the work of
\ntransnational companies and making them accountable for violations of human
\nrights. In some respects, this process implicates the seven points of
\nengagement (as mentioned in the new WILPF Manifesto listed above) and
\ndemonstrates the intersectionality of all of the issues while also providing us
\nwith a chance to roll out the \u201chow\u201d.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\nthe \u2018how\u2019 part of implementing our Manifesto starts with ourselves (the peace
\nmakers, even if not signed up as full members yet) then issue one is knowledge:
\nhow many people in the world know that this is happening and what an incredible
\nimpact it could have in protecting their rights? Everything from greater food
\nand water security, greater environmental protection, improved working
\nconditions, less exploitation, less discrimination, accountability for
\nviolations, adherence to ILO conventions. Environmental responsibility. The
\nlist of potential benefit is endless.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\ntwo is States response: most governments stayed away in the first round,
\nthe EU tried to block the process. Other States such as Russia and Switzerland
\nstated that the UN Guiding Principles on business and human rights work, and
\nthat a treaty would be premature.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\nthree is systemic fault lines: this is the exemplification of what is wrong
\nwith a mono-economic culture. The dominating principle is neoliberalism, the
\nextremist form of capitalism that puts profit ahead of law, regulation
\nor – heaven forbid – the well being of people or the environment.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\nfour is the multilateral system: it\u2019s good that the working group has convened,
\nbut it\u2019s not so good that the ways in which negotiations occur is to avoid
\nacknowledging the power dynamics. Look at who the sponsoring states are, then
\nat who is in opposition, and put money on who will prevail? The reason for this
\nlies in the first three issues. Keeping people ignorant of what is happening
\nenables governments and states – which have a primary responsibility for
\nprotecting human rights – to subvert legal obligations and
\nconsequently to protect the neoliberal economic system which can only survive if
\nregulation based on human rights norms are not enforced. The multilateral system reflects
\nthis power imbalance and nothing changes.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\ndoes not take genius to see the implications of this for the other issues in
\nour new Manifesto. In particular, the militarisation and consequent arms transfers
\nto \u2018protect\u2019 areas where there are natural resources that feed the neoliberal
\nsystem and hence must be available to the companies who would extract them.<\/p>\n
\nintelligently: communication is key in all issues that are dealt with in the
\nmultilateral system. The biggest obstacle is knowledge and the media is
\ncrucial. Most people see the big picture as too overwhelming to address. They
\nare either too engaged in their own plight – distracting themselves from that of
\nothers – to engage in trying to make change on this or any other issue. In the
\nTNCs there is greater responsibility on the States that are the main
\nopponents to the treaty. These are the industrialised \u201cdemocracies\u201d where we
\nhave access to elected representatives and media – if we choose to use
\nthem.\u00a0 \u00a0<\/p>\n
\nnow revert to the \u2018how\u2019. Imagine a system that works: civil society, including
\ntrade unions, academic institutions and NGOs (including those which are not
\nusually involved in issues of International corporations or human rights)
\nrecognise the link to their issue and engage. There is advocacy and lobbying of
\nelected officials, work on the media to make sure more and more people are
\naware of what is being done, and being done in their name. We must demand the
\nstate actually does what international law (all the human rights conventions,
\narms trade treaty, the Charter of the UN) demands. \u00a0<\/p>\n
\nconcept of due diligence is such that states should be regulating the conduct
\nof companies registered in their territories. A treaty would give the state
\nmore leverage in controlling the activities of these non-state actors and would
\ntherefore facilitate the state meeting its obligations under international law.
\nAt present, there is a plethora of complicated regulations that severely
\ninhibit the states engagement. I personally know of one case where a state was
\nfairly sure that violations of human rights were being perpetrated by a
\nparticular transnational extractive company in DRC, and would have wanted to
\ntake action, but there were so many sub- contractors that it would have taken
\n200 lawyers over a year to work through them all, and even then there would have
\nbeen little hope of attribution, something which is untenable. In these
\ncircumstances the power of the TNC becomes greater than that of the State. That
\ncannot be what people want. Unelected, non-transparent, unaccountable bodies
\ncan act with impunity. It\u2019s not what many TNCs themselves want, as witnessed by
\nthose that try to comply with the UN Guiding Principles on business and human rights. \u00a0<\/p>\n
\nneed to engage using international human rights law. Academic institutions
\nneed to engage using the research already available that violations of social
\nand economic rights when combined with the gendered dynamics of political
\neconomy, lead inexorably to conflict. <\/p>\n
\nthe position of the powerful states is a function of democracy. It would make
\nthe multilateral system closer to its purpose under the UN Charter.\u00a0 By
\nengaging on the issue of the TNC treaty we would all be putting into action the
\nelements of the WILPF Manifesto for the 21st century and proving it can
\nwork.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\none ever said this is easy. Mobilising and encouraging people to be engaged in
\nissues they do not see as interesting, in places that are remote, in negotiations
\nwhich seem interminable and hence irrelevant is not for the faint hearted, but
\nit is what we must do. \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\nconference was full of belief in change, not na\u00efve, not merely aspirational but
\nsolid, committed and entirely possible. When women from Syria, Libya, Iraq,
\nDRC, -and of all places Palestine\u2014(you name the place which inspires hand
\nwringing and helplessness and there were women from there showing anything but
\n), embrace that belief, and drive it forward as a way of dealing with their
\ndaily experience, then we have something! \u00a0<\/p>\n
\nManifesto states the what, the how, and the consequence if we make it happen.
\nIf we do want sustainable peace then we know what we have to do to get it\u2014the
\nTNC treaty is merely one part of the jigsaw.\u00a0<\/p>\n