Reconceptualizing Gender, Reinscribing Racial-Sexual Boundaries in International Security: The Case of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on “Women, Peace and Security”¹

Abstract

The gendered boundaries of international security, historically identified by feminist scholarship, are being broken down since the passage of UN Security Council Resolution 1325, which calls on member states to mainstream a gender perspective into matters of conflict and peacebuilding. However, we should not read this as a positive step toward the transformation of the lives of women (and men) in conflict zones. Reading 1325 and subsequent resolutions through a postcolonial feminist lens reveals that this reconceptualization of gender occurs through a reinscription of racial-sexual boundaries, evocative of the political economy of imperialism. An examination of the discourses and practices of the ''war on terror'' exposes a similar configuration of gender, race, and sexuality. I argue that 1325 works in tandem with dominant security practices and discourses in the post-9 ⁄ 11 moment, normalizing the violence of counterterrorism and counterinsurgency measures. Understanding the significance of race and sexuality in the conceptualization of gender has implications for transnational feminist praxis and its ability to construct a counter-hegemonic project to transform the dominant structures of power that give rise to war, conflict, insecurity, and injustice.

'You will go far but no further': Applying a gendered lens to the women peace and security agenda in post-conflict Liberia

“…Some debates point to the absence of strong political will, defined accountability measures and effective monitoring and evaluation frameworks (Westendorf 2010: 22;Barnes 2006: 2;Coomaraswarmy et al 2015;Otto 2010: 113;UN Women 2012a;EPLO 2013;Anderlini and Tirman 2010) as indicators for the slower than hoped for implementation. Other debates focus on the scope of the WPS policy, tools of implementation and the WPS policy language as hampering the implementation progress (Shepherd 2008a;McLeod 2011;Pratt 2013). I also recognise the implementation site as a potential barrier.…”

“…Some scholars acknowledge the limitations of WPS policy language around gender, while others identify that the WPS policy contains different feminist perspectives of gender based on different strands of feminist thinking (Pratt 2013;Pratt and Richter-Devroe 2013;Shepherd 2008a). For example, Pratt (2013) identifies that while the WPS policy contains liberal, cultural and radical feminist constructs of gender it lacks a focus on a post-colonial/black feminist construct.…”

“…Specifically, I develop a three-legged 'gender stool' analytical frame that engages with the interconnections and links between the different gender perspectives, recognising rather than ranking or judging them (Pratt 2013).…”

“…That is, within a single policy framework, such as the WPS Agenda, the mix of gender perspectives can both enable and restrict the outcomes possible from its implementation. As noted by Pratt (2013), the WPS policy reflects liberal (gender-asequality), cultural (gender-as-difference) and radical (gender-as-difference) feminist theory but lacks a post-colonial/black feminist theory (gender-as-diversity perspective).…”

“…The dominance of this perspective foreshadows the lesser focus on a gender-as-equality perspective and lack of focus on a gender-as-diversity perspective. While other frames exist, the dominant frame at the global level reflects a 'women's issues' frame portraying women as victims in international peace and security discourse, which subsequently limits women's agency (Dharmapuri 2011;Otto 2010: 108;El-Bushra 2000: 135;Puechguirbal 2010: 180;Porter and Mundkur 2012: 79;Shepherd 2008a;Puechguirbal 2008;Pratt 2013).…”