1
The future is female
How women, peace and security became included in the United Nations Security Council agenda.
11.08.2016 A. Brouwer S1124501 Crisis and Security Management Leiden University Supervisor: Dr. I.N.M. Denissen Second reader: Prof. E. Bakker
2
Preface
In front of you is the cherry on top of the Crisis and Security master I studied last one and a half year. I studied the creation of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 on women, peace and security. After six months in which I went to bed and woke up with my thesis in mind I am now finally writing the lasts words. Even though there have been some rough days, I enjoyed researching and writing about the resolution a lot. The women, peace and security agenda still does not bore me. On the contrary, I am motivated to continue studying in this field and can’t wait to start with the Gender, Rights and Globalisation master. The last statement might not be entirely true, I would not give up few weeks of vacation for all the money in the world.
With this, I would also like to thank a few people which have contributed to this thesis. Thanks Ingeborg, for your guidance and feedback during this process. Thanks for your flexibility and trust.
Thanks Sanam Naraghi-Anderlini, Anwarul Chowhury and Cora Weiss for sharing information about the creation of the resolution.
Thanks Hepke, for your unconditional support.
Thanks mom and dad, for not asking too much and therefore not stressing me out about my thesis. Thanks for the good care and food you gave me during my weekends with you.
Thanks Annemerieke, that you, as a self-proclaimed research methods expert (because you had to redo the course four times) were always keen to help me with my methodology. Thanks for our ever-interesting discussions about feminism and gender.
Thanks Anna, Christine, Dianthe, Esther, Kirsten, Madeleine, Maria, Marjolein, Nynke, Rosa-Lisa and Sifra, for each and every lovely Monday evening in which I could enjoy the best company and good meals.
Thanks Esther, Jan, John, John, Maciek and Paul for checking parts of my thesis on spelling and grammar.
I explicitly am not thanking you Nelleke, your obsessive tagging on Facebook on every holiday or fashion sale you countered did not motivate me the way you thought it would. Andrea Brouwer,
Leiden August 2016
3
Abstract
As late as the mid-1990s, it was inconceivable that the Security Council would discuss thematic issues such as women’s human rights and link them to matters of international peace and security. The adoption of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 marks the first time that the Security Council specifically dealt with women’s issues. The adoption is therefore considered to be the first formal step in the comprehensive change in the discourse of women and peace. In this thesis is by means of the securitization framework analyzed how this change in discourse came about. There is a successful securitization move if a securitizing actor claims that a highly valued referent object is existential threatened and convinces an audience to use extraordinary measures to fight the threat immediately. The Women and Armed Conflict caucus which arose in 1999 makes a successful securitization move. The caucus created a campaign and convinced the Security Council to unanimously adopt resolution 1325 on women, peace and security. The Security Council thereby recognizes two important issues. First, the Security Council recognizes the importance of the participation of women in all decision-making processes related to the prevention, management and resolution of conflicts and post-conflict reconstruction (peace process). Second, the Security Council recognizes that women can be a specific target for violence in conflict. The caucus convinced the Security Council by claiming that conflicts could only be resolved if women would participate equal in the peace process. Peace would never be sustainable if women kept being excluded.
This research provides the possibility to react on statements of Lene Hansen. She argues that the securitization framework leaves no room to include gender aspects. First, one of the conditions imposed on the securitization move is that the threat in the securitization analysis has to threaten the survival of a larger collectivity. Women are therefore often excluded in becoming the referent object. The referent object is the “thing” that is seen to be existentially threatened and that has a legitimate claim to survival and therefore needs to be protected. Gender security often falls under social security whereby individuals are threatened. The recognition of the specific threat of violence against women by the adoption of resolution 1325 shows the opposite of Hansen’s statement. Second, Hansen argues that women are often not able to raise the threat since they do not always have the right means, connections or resources. The adoption of resolution 1325 shows that the Women and Armed conflict caucus succeeded in their goal to get a resolution on women, peace and security. However, the caucus was supported by allies, the resolution would probably not been adopted without their help.
4 Contents
Preface ... 2
Abstract ... 3
1. Introduction ... 6
1.1 Change of view on women during and after conflicts ... 6
1.2 Relevance of the research ... 10
1.3 Research design ... 12
2. Body of knowledge ... 13
2.1 The debate between the traditionalists and the wideners within International security studies ... 13
2.2 Constructivism ... 15
2.3 Securitization process ... 16
2.3.1 Desecuritization ... 19
2.3.2 Criticism of securitization ... 20
2.3.3 Gender and securitization ... 21
2.4 International, national and human security ... 22
2.5 Critical security studies ... 23
2.5.1 Critical Theory and the normative goal of security ... 24
2.6 Feminist security studies ... 25
2.7 Conclusion ... 27
3. Research design ... 28
3.1 Operationalization ... 28
3.1.1. Indicators defined ... 28
3.2 Methodology ... 29
3.2.1 Holistic single case study design... 30
3.2.2 Data collection methods ... 33
3.3 Limitations of the study ... 35
4. Analysis ... 37
4.1 The UN World Conferences on Women from 1975 to 1985 ... 37
4.1.1 An indirect contribution to the adoption of resolution 1325 ... 37
4.1.2 Focus on equal access to resources during the first conferences ... 38
4.1.3 Equality, development and peace as politicized issues instead of securitized issues ... 40
4.2 The UN World Conference on Women in Beijing (1995) ... 41
5 4.2.2 A shift towards the impact of conflict on women and girls and their role in the peace
process... 42
4.2.3 How is this framing received? ... 45
4.2.4. Sub conclusion ... 46
4.3 The evaluation and review of the Women and Armed Conflict chapter in march, 1998 ... 47
4.3.1 The CSW as responsible actor for Beijing Plus Five ... 47
4.3.2 Various roles of women in armed conflict ... 47
4.3.3 How is this framing received? ... 49
4.4 The emergence of the Women and Armed Conflict caucus in 1999 ... 50
4.4.1 The Women and Armed Conflict caucus as the securitizing actor ... 50
4.4.2 The formal campaign of the caucus as speech act ... 51
4.4.3 The draft of Resolution 1325 by civil society ... 53
4.4.4. Sub conclusion ... 53
4.5 The press statement of Anwarul K. Chowdhury in March 2000 ... 55
4.5.1 Anwarul K. Chowdhury, an ally of the Women and Armed Conflict caucus ... 55
4.5.2 Women both victims as well as indispensable actors ... 55
4.5.3 Resistance from the Security Council ... 56
4.5.4 Sub conclusion ... 57
4.6 The Arria formula meeting in October, 2000 ... 58
4.6.1 Namibia, an ally of the Women and Armed Conflict caucus ... 58
4.6.2 women both as victims as well as champions for peace... 58
4.6.3 From Arria formula meeting to open session ... 59
4.7 The open debate on women, peace and security in October, 2000 ... 61
4.7.1 Angela King and Noeleen Heyzer, allies from the UN ... 61
4.7.2 How did the securitizing actor define the existential threat? ... 61
4.7.3 The unanimous adoption of resolution 1325 ... 64
4.8 The use of extraordinary means or measures ... 66
5. Conclusion ... 68
5.1 Answer to the research question ... 68
5.2 Discussion ... 70
6
1. Introduction
1.1 Change of view on women during and after conflicts
Until the first World War, most of the victims of armed conflicts were male soldiers. Since the end of the 20st century, ninety percent of the victims of worldwide armed conflicts are civilians, of which seventy percent amounts women and children. Women and girls are not only a target for murder, they can also become a victim of sexual violence which is often used as a humiliating and destructive weapon of war. Despite the fact that women got more often directly involved in conflict, their voices remained absent in decision making about conflicts and reconstruction. Women movements therefore advocated increasingly for an active role of women during and after conflict (Strop-von Meijenfeldt, 2010: 2).
The Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) is a commission of the United Nations (UN) which is exclusively dedicated to the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of women. In order to contribute to their goal the commission organized several World Conferences on Women since 1975. The attention for women in armed conflicts increased during the preparation for the United Nations fourth World Conference on Women in 1995 in Beijing. Women and armed conflict became one of the twelve chapters in the resulting action plan and can be summarized as the goal to increase the participation of women in conflict resolution at decision-making levels and to protect women living in armed conflict or under foreign occupation. The women and armed conflict chapter appears to be a precursor of the United Nations Security Council (the Security Council) resolution 1325 concerning women, peace and security since its six strategic objectives are more or less included in resolution 1325.
Resolution 1325
Resolution 1325 is the first formal legal instrument that requires parties to better protect the rights of women and girls during armed conflicts. October 31 in the year 2000 was a historic moment for the women movements and a milestone in the history. It was the day where the resolution concerning women, peace and security was unanimously adopted by the Security Council (Strop-von Meijenfeldt, 2010: 2). After years of hard work, it was internationally recognized that women are entitled to protection in times of war and armed conflict, but especially that they no longer be should excluded as peace builders (Meyboom, 2015: 1). The resolution contains 18 provisions, which can roughly be separated into four main categories.
7 1) The Security Council acknowledges the importance of an active role of women in the prevention, control and resolution of armed conflicts. It calls to include a gender perspective in peace negotiations and increased women's participation in peace negotiation, peace keeping and peace building.
2) The Security Council recognizes the existence of gender-based violence, particularly rape and other forms of sexual abuse, in situations of armed conflict and its implications for sustainable peace and development. It calls on all parties in armed conflict to take special measures to protect women and girls to all kinds of violence. 3) The Security Council recognizes the need to adopt a gender perspective
in peacekeeping operations and training of peacekeeping personnel on the protection, special needs and rights of women and children in conflict. The resolution therefore requires the member states and the UN itself to do so.
4) Additionally, the Security Council calls upon member states to increase women's participation at all levels of decision-making in national, regional and international institutions. The UN itself is also required to ensure gender balance within in at the Special Representatives and envoys and in field operations, particularly among military observers, police, human rights, and humanitarian personnel.1
The UN urges its member states to develop National Action Plans so they can address the member states individually on their efforts. These National Action Plans promote the development of a concrete and unambiguously national agenda for women and sustainable peace. The process of the development of a National Action Plan also creates the possibility for civil society to exert influence on the priorities for the concrete implementation of the resolution, both nationally and internationally. This makes the National Action Plans an important tool for the national and international peace and security agenda (Kluppels, 2016: 1). However it is not mandatory to implement a National Action Plans and the resolution does not contain agreed monitoring mechanisms to report violations or to measure results (UNIFEM, 2008).
A major change in the global security discourse because of resolution 1325
As late as the mid-1990s, it was inconceivable that the Security Council would discuss thematic issues such as women’s human rights and link them to matters of international peace and security. The adoption of resolution 1325 is considered to be the first formal step in the
1
8 comprehensive normative change in the discourse on international peace and security. The resolution marks the first time that the Security Council specifically dealt with women’s issues. The resolution marks an important political recognition that the indispensable capabilities of women on the area of conflict prevention, peacekeeping, conflict resolution and reconstruction were undervalued and underexploited. Additionally, it recognizes the specific and disproportionate impact of armed conflict on women. In a way, the UN recognizes the specific role and position of women within international security by unanimously adopting this resolution. The other adopted resolutions concerning women, peace and security who followed on resolution 1325 and the increasing attention from academics and professionals, points to the emergence of a new discourse on women, peace and security. There is a change in the norms and attitudes towards women on their life, work and participation around the world. Women are not only objects who need protection, they are also considered as “contributors to development and peace”.2 In this thesis will be examined how this significant change in thinking came about and how women were included in the international security agenda. The process of securitization will be used as an analytical lens.
Process of securitization
Since the end of the Cold War, security studies scholars had different opinions about the scope of security studies (Walt, 1991: 212). The debate is between the traditionalists, who would like to maintain the security field's focus only to be on military conflict, and the wideners, who believe that security in the modern world also involves economic, environmental, political and social issues (Buzan, Waever and de Wilde, 1998: 4). Buzan, Waever and de Wilde (1998) formulated the securitization framework in order to expand the focus to non-military sectors without damaging the concept of security by appointing too many security issues. The authors set the condition that security threats should be in line with international security in order to keep the security agenda pure. Buzan, Waever and de Wilde “claim to analyze international security without losing sight of its original purpose” (1998: 8). The securitization framework provides indicators to analyze the construction of an issue into a threat. If all aspects of the securitization process are present or fulfilled, there has been a successful securitization move and therefore construction of a security issue. According to the authors there is a successful securitization move if a securitizing actor claims that a highly
2 Statement by the World Federation of United Nations Associations (WFUNA) to the Fourth World Conference
9 valued referent object is threatened and convinces an audience to use extraordinary measures to fight the threat immediately. The security threat is not an objective given, it is regarded and accepted as a threat at a certain time (Buzan and Hansen, 2009: 217). The issue is therefore constructed into an existential security problem. A well-known example of securitization is how terrorism is a top priority in security discussions, even though people are much more likely to be killed in a traffic accident or because of preventable diseases. An important aspect is that analysts who use the securitization framework do not want to determine what a security issue should or should not be. They do not give normative statements whether the issue is rightly set as a security issue (Buzan, Waever and de Wilde, 1998: 33).
No possibility to include gender-based insecurity in the security analysis
Lene Hansen raises a shortcoming in the use of the securitization framework of a security analysis. There is no place to include gender-based insecurities because of two main problems. The first one is the “security as silence” problem which she refers to as the absence of a possibility for potential female securitizing actors to raise issues as a security problem. There may be no access to the right means, connections and resources to draw attention to the issue. The potential securitizing actors may also be hold back because of the so called silent security dilemma. This dilemma refers to a situation in which it is not possible to speak about the security threat because that would only increase the threat. Hansen uses honor killings as an example to clarify this dilemma. Women could affect the honor of their man if they draw attention to the issue of honor related violence in the community. This might result in an increased risk to become a victim of honor related violence. This problem is crucial since the securitization framework depends on the ability to speak security. The second problem within the framework is the “subsuming of security”. One of the elements of securitization is the presence of an existential threat towards a referent object, something that is seen as threatened and therefore is entitled to protection. Hereby distinguishes the framework between international security and social security. International security is about survival, while social security concerns entitlement and social justice; international security threatens a larger collectivity, while social security threatens individuals. The common thought is that the inclusion of gender in security analysis “falls under the category of social security, not international security, and that it concerns individual, not collective security” (Hansen, 2000: 287). This results in the inclusion of gender as an individual security problem which does not fit in the international security realm which is set in the securitization framework.
10 Methodology
Aspects of women’s security and equality entered the Security Council when resolution 1325 was adopted. First, a distinction was made between what contains a security threat towards men and women. Second, the Security Council insisted to increase the participation of women in conflict prevention, resolution, and peacebuilding. In this thesis will the emergence of the resolution be analyzed though the different components of the securitization framework in order to create insight and knowledge about the relation between securitization and gender. There will be researched who the securitizing actor is, how the actor got women, peace and security on the agenda, how they describe the existence of an existential threat, who the audience is and if there are extraordinary means or measures deployed to counter the threat. This will be done through analysis of UN documents, debates and through interviews with persons involved in the emerge of the resolution.
1.2 Relevance of the research Academic relevance
One of the criticisms on the securitization framework is that it gives no room to include gender in the analysis. Securitization moves in other domains such as the environment, migration or religion are often analyzed. Gender and women’s security however is an underexposed research area. This striking absence of gender has seldom been a subject of discussion and cases related to the security of women are barely analyzed trough the securitization framework. The creation of resolution 1325 will be analyzed through the securitization framework in order to create more knowledge about the construction of security issues in relation to gender. The Copenhagen School has developed a useful instrument to study security as a dynamic, communicative and inter-subjective process. The goal of security studies and the role of analysts is not to designate objective threats but to gain an understanding of who securitizes, for whom, on what issues, why, with what results and under what conditions (Buzan, Waever and de Wilde, 1998: 32). What is that particular thing that is being done when women security and equality became labelled as an international security issue? How are issues build up as security issues? How are problems constructed as threats? How come that some issues do get on the radar of policy makers or politicians and others do not? When is something a security issue? Under what circumstances do processes of security politics work? How is the securitization of an issue is achieved and to what extent does it enable new (useful) actions? (Balzacq, 2011: 117).
11 The use of this framework in the analysis of the creation and adoption of resolution 1325 serves two purposes. On the one hand the framework offers indicators where to look to explain the change of discourse and to examine the process of the creation of the resolution, in particular with a view to the criticism of Hansen. To what extent the “security as a silence” problem is present is explored by analyzing how the securitizing actor raised the issue. On the other hand, the framework makes it possible to dissect analytically how this discourse places women and girls within the security context. How women and therefore gender, became a referent object in the field of international security, in contrast to what Hansen considers possible, is assessed by studying the framing of the existential threat towards the referent object.
Societal relevance
It is important to assess how, under what conditions and why some issues turn out as security issues and others do not to gain insight in paranoia and complacency on the security agenda. Paranoia is present if a society sees threats which are not there in an objective sense and complacency is present when societies do not define something as a threat where it actually is one (Buzan, 2007: 106). Paranoia is undesirable since simply tacking the word security onto an ever wider range of issues results in a devaluation of the issues (Buzan, Waever and de Wilde, 1998: 1). Threats might be taken less serious if they emerge in various shapes and sizes on the security agenda. In addition, there is always a tradeoff linked to a successful securitization move. There is scarcity of time, energy and money. If new problems are successfully constructed as new security threats, this will be at the expense of resources divided between the security threats which are already on the agenda. It is also important to analyze unsuccessful securitization moves or, if possible, the lack of securitization moves in order to find out why some issues do not turn out on the security agenda. One of the dangers might be that especially those threats that are directly experienced become securitized. What happens with issues which might form a threat in the future and which could possibly be prevented if they would receive attention on the current security agenda?
The aim is to provide insight how and to what extent the issue is successfully formulated and accepted as an existential threat to security. The knowledge about paranoia or complacency in the security agenda could be shared with professionals, decision makers and politicians working on security policy at governments. It is then up to them to make a normative judgment. They are responsible to critically asses the relevance of current problems on the agenda with the knowledge about how they were created in mind. In addition they should
12 critically think about whether there are potential threats which did not became securitized for whatever reason.
Link with Crisis and Security Management master
Security plays an important role on the societal, political as well as the academic agenda. Crisis and security management often tries to relate topics to the government and (public) policy. Central aspects of crisis and security management are among others the agenda setting of security issues and the changes in thinking about security. In this thesis are the complex and ever-changing phenomenon of security policy and agenda setting analyzed, which suits the subject of the master perfectly. By researching the role of several actors and events in the creation of resolution 1325 through the securitization framework, insight is generated about the relation between gender and the broadening of the security agenda. It will also provide information about different actors and outcomes in new security topics.
1.3 Research design
In this thesis is an in-depth study of the creation of resolution 1325 conducted. The change of discourse on women, peace and security is investigated by using the securitization framework as an analytical lens. The content of debates in the Security Council about women, peace and security are analyzed together with several reports about relevant events like the Beijing conference and the behavior of relevant actors such as active lobby groups. Thereafter some interviews are conducted with persons who were closely involved with the creation of resolution 1325. In the research design section will be elaborated on the design, reliability and validity of the two research components.
13
2. Body of knowledge
In this part of the thesis is the securitization framework assessed and embedded in academic literature. The securitization framework offers a possible solution to the central debate within International Security Studies. First is this central debate explicated. Thereafter is the securitization framework comprehensively described, discussed and linked to gender.
2.1 The debate between the traditionalists and the wideners within International security studies
The traditionalists and the wideners are two confronting approaches which can be outlined from the articles that have been written about the conceptualization of security. At one side are the traditionalists who define security as the absence of any objective military threat to the state’s survival in an anarchic international system. Stephen Walt’s definition of security studies is probably the most explicit way to convey the traditionalists’ understanding of the definition. Security studies are “the studies of the threat, use, and control of military force” (Walt, 1991: 212). This approach is characterized by two assumptions. First, it is based on a ontological point of view that the social truth is mostly a result of material factors influence or, as Ejdus expresses, “the social relations as well as security threats are result of material factors and they exist objectively” (2007). Second, the usual method of these theories is the positivist method. The premise is that social facts should be regarded as things – like in natural sciences. The causal relations and laws of social phenomena should be discovered by description and arrangement of visible facts.
The traditionalists fit within the ideology of the realist approach in International Relations. The realist approach defines security in the traditional narrow way, with the state as the sole referent object of analysis and with security threats described solely in terms of war and military conflict (Smith, 2015: 14). A well-known articulation of the classical realistic worldview is written by Hans Morgenthau in Politics among Nations: the Struggle for Power and Peace (1948) where the focus of states is solely on national interest and the increase of military power. States strive for power and security since the most important goal within the realist approach is the longer-term survival of the state. The state aims to protect its territory, its population and its own way of life. Several leading scholars adopted his view in their definition of security (Smith, 2015: 15).
14 The roots of securitization lie within the realist tradition (Willams, 2003: 512). Williams links the radical form of realpolitik which is developed during the 1920’s by Carl Schmitt with the securitization framework. He stresses that there is no connection with authoritarian politics of Schmitt however “the specificity of security as a particular kind of speech-act in the work of the Copenhagen School is underpinned by an understanding of the politics of enmity, decision, and emergency which has deep roots in Schmitt’s understanding of political order” (Williams, 2003: 515). Schmitt defines politics by exclusion and enmity which matches the focus on existential threats by the securitization framework. Only existential threats to the survival of the state can be included in the securitization framework. In addition, Schmitt stresses the decision and the politics of emergency which suits the act of securitization in which an issue is placed beyond normal politics into extraordinary measures (Williams, 2003: 516).
In addition to the traditionalist are on the other hand the wideners with a different conceptualization of security. Horizontally, the wideners think that the security concept should not only exclusively focus on the military sector since threats also occur in the political, economic, societal and environmental sector. Pointing to other threats is in a sense a way to keep the military down and to relativize their importance. Vertically, the wideners enlarge the object (or ideal) that is being threatened and needs to be protected. It used to be only the state and is broadened to individuals, social groups and humanity as a whole.
The wideners may be associated with the liberalist approach within International Relations. Firstly because liberalists do not see the state as an unitary actor, they consider the interests and actions of national groups and non-governmental actors as key in international relations (Smith, 2015: 20). Secondly, liberalism contributes to the broadening of the concept of security by focussing on the economic dimensions of the cooperation between states. Liberalists find democracy, free trade and the rule of law as factors that reduce the likelihood of war. An open market for example, will not only have a positive impact on wealth, it will also contribute the security of a state (Moravcsik, 1992). Liberals suggest that transnational economic connections decrease the likelihood on intrastate conflict since war would only destroy economic cooperation and the consequences would be disastrous for respective countries (Burchill, 2005: 63). Liberals are inspired by Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye in Power and Interdependence (2001) who state that the military force is losing its importance in foreign policy since states pursue economic interaction which is needed in order to flourish in a globalizing world.
15 2.2 Constructivism
The constructivist thought is another way to approach security studies. Since constructivism has many variants it cannot be referred to as one approach. However all constructivist share one assumption: “human reality is a socially constructed reality” (Peoples, Vaughan-Williams, 2014: 16). The traditional approaches forgot about the term “social construct. Berger and Luckmann focus on the way “the intersubjective common-sense world is constructed” (Peoples, Vaughan-Williams, 2014: 16). The authors argue that a person does not create his or her own world in loneliness. People live in societies and are a social being. The consequence of this is that social habits, patrons and institutions influence how a person looks at the world. The identity of an individual is therefore mainly formed by interaction with the social world. When people adopt standards and values of a society, they undergo a process of socialization. Individual identities arise out of a complex process of intersubjective interaction and on-going process of identity formation. The term intersubjectivity indicates that these processes take place, because of interaction between different individuals, whereby each individual is developing his or her own identity. Intersubjectivity indicates a situation whereby people share the same vision of an object. It does not assume that everyone lives in his or her own world, however it also does not state that there is one knowable world.
Constructivist approaches, which are concerned with security, have two general assumptions. First, security and insecurity are categorizations which arise because of human activity. Second, the concepts of Berger and Luckmann, “construction of reality” and “intersubjectivity, identity formation and socialization”, are equal applicable to security studies as to any other social field (Peoples, Vaughan-Williams, 2014: 16).
Conventional and critical constructivism
Critical constructivism is mostly intertwined with critical social theory, although it shares important theoretical foundations with the conventional variant. Critical constructivism consist of the following three elements. First, critical constructivists see reality as social constructed. Second, constructs reflect and determine power relations and certain actors (re)produce reality. Third, critical constructivism takes dominant structures apart (deconstruction, extrication).
The conventional constructivism of Wendt tries to be compatible with the critical approaches. However Wendt also shares a few important assumption with the traditional approaches, such
16 as the anarchy of the international system, “anarchy is what states make of it” (Peoples, Vaughan-Williams, 2014: 19). He argues that traditional approaches underestimate the importance of the variety of state identities. In the conventional constructivism of Wendt is searched for constructivist solution by traditional approaches produced issues. So it still revolves around states and military relations.
It is explicitly stated by Buzan, Wæver and de Wilde that their conception of security is ‘‘constructivist all the way down’’ (1998:245). The authors deny the existence of objective threats and stress the subjectivity of security issues. There are no natural things which are security threats and others that are not, according to them. Certain actors choose to deal with things in a particular way and to name them as security issues. And when they do so, something happens to that issue and our interaction around it. Buzan, Wæver and de Wilde do not want security analysts to label certain issues as security issues and other issues not. According to them, security analysts need to understand the particular thing what is being done when certain issues are labelled as a security issue. The entire social construction of security issues should be analysed by means of the securitization framework.
2.3 Securitization process
Buzan, Waever and De Wilde (1998) are the core of the Copenhagen School, scholars who do research into International Relations. These authors argue that traditional security scholars have avoided ever having to think about what security actually means by defining security almost exclusively in terms of the military sector (Buzan, Waever and de Wilde, 1998: 195). On the other hand emphasize the authors the danger of considering too many issues as security issues. It has a high price to call something a security issue and act according to that. There is scarcity of time, energy and money. If new problems are successfully constructed as new security threats, this will be at the expense of resources divided between the security threats which are already on the agenda. Securitization might also cost in terms democracy if the threat is mentally engraved as an necessity that has to be dealt with immediately and without further discussion. Additionally, the authors of the securitization process are afraid that security loses its content when too many issues will be addresses as security issues. Buzan, Waever and de Wilde introduced therefore the securitization framework in order to expand the analysis of security to non-military sectors without damaging the concept of security by pasting the security label on too many issues. “Threats and vulnerabilities can arise in many different areas, military and non-military, but to count as security issue they
17 have to meet strictly defined criteria that distinguish them from the normal and the merely political” (Buzan, Waever and de Wilde, 1998: 4). The criteria are as following defined in the securitization framework. The securitization framework considers security as a speech act (1) where a securitizing actor (2) designates a threat to a specified reference object (3) he considers this threat to be existential (4) implying a right to use extraordinary means (5) to fend it off. The securitization move needs to be socially accepted by an audience (6) which acknowledges the urge of survival (7) against the existential threat. This definition consists out of several closely linked concepts which will be explained in more detail in the following paragraphs.
An ubiquitous debate within the security domain is whether threats are objective or subjective. Buzan, Waever and de Wilde do not assume that certain issues are security issues and others are not. Security is seen as a process in which actors consider certain issues as a threat to security and in that way security is a social construct. Threats to security in this perspective are constructed by people and are no isolated given. This does not mean that it by definition is an intentional process, something can become a threat to security without someone’s intention. The authors state that some issues are socially constructed as a threat by a speech act (1). Securitization refers to how an issue is linguistically portrayed as an existential threat irrespective of whether it constitutes a threat of that magnitude in reality or not (Emmers, 2007: 117) This is usually a matter of calling something a threat. The uttering of can be viewed as an act in which all kind of issues (military, political, economic, and environmental) can become staged as a threat (Buzan, Waever and de Wilde, 1998: 26). Language is therefore crucial in the process of securitization because it is needed to explain the threat to security. ‘It is by labeling something a security issue that it becomes one’ (Wæver 2004: 13). Even though the term speech act seems to imply that the threat is pronounced orally, it may as well be written. Language becomes security in the sense that particular forms of language- spoken or written in a particular context- constitute security (Waever, 1995: 55).
An important implication of the speech act in the securitization process is that everyone could be a securitization actor. Securitization actors (2) are defined as actors who securitize referent objects by declaring them threatened by an existential threat. The role to construct something as a threat through language is in theory open to all. Buzan, Waever and de Wilde argue however that the securitizing actor needs a certain degree of authority and therefore often is the government of a state. Those actors are in positions of power and influence which will most likely contribute to the acceptance of the claims by the audience (Buzan, Waever and de
18 Wilde, 1998: 33). But this does not necessarily has to be the case, other agencies like political parties, civil society groups, pressure groups or even individuals such as for example political figures can also contribute to the securitization of a subject.
The referent objects (3) are those things or ideals that are seen as threatened and therefore are entitled to protection (Buzan, Waever and de Wilde, 1998: 36). The referent object is something that needs to survive and therefore justifies extraordinary measures. The nation, freedom or the future welfare are a few examples of referent objects which might be at stake (Buzan, Waever and de Wilde, 1998: 27). Buzan, Weaver and de Wilde refuse conceptualisation of security in individual terms and set a condition which has to be met in order to expand the concept of security to other areas then the military one. The mode of reasoning has to be in line with international security, i.e. collective survival. Social security which refers to ‘entitlement and social justice’ covers fundamentally different threats and is not located within the rhetoric of danger, urgency and survival. Threats towards individuals are located within social security, not national security, and does not concerns collective security (Hansen, 2000: 287). An existential threat (4) is an object (or ideal) that has been identified as potentially harmful towards the referent object. It is existential in the way that it threatens an issue which has to be protected and preferably as soon as possible. It is unacceptable not to deal with it and therefore has priority and urgency. By giving the threat this urgent security label, the securitization actor causes that this threat is treated with extraordinary measures (5). A clear example is the violation of privacy or other human rights during the state of emergency that has been in place since November’s Paris attacks (De Zeeuw, 2016). However, Buzan, Waever and de Wilde leave the exact meaning of exceptional measures quite open. “We do not push the demand so high as to say that an emergency measure has to be adopted, only that the existential threats has to be argued and just to gain enough resources for a platform to be made from which it is possible to legitimize emergency measures or other steps that would not have been possible had the discourse not taken the form of existential threats, point of no return, and necessity” (Buzan, Waever and de Wilde, 1998: 25)
A crucial condition for the process of securitization is that it is accepted by the relevant audience (6). Securitization is inter-subjective which means that securitization of a subject is closely related to its acceptance by an audience. Urgency, priority, focus and ability to act are gained when the relevant audience accepts something as a security issue. Several securitizing actors can raise a security issue, however something only happens to that topic when an audience accept the relevance of the topic (Buzan and Hansen, 2009: 217). This implies that
19 securitization cannot be undertaken by the securitizing actor himself, but that the audience plays an equally important role. As the audience does not acknowledge the existential threat or if they do not value the referent object enough, there cannot be a successful securitization move. Important in this process is that it is formulated and accepted with success as an existential threat to security.
It is important to explain the use of three similar looking concepts in this research, namely a (successful) securitization move, the securitization process and the securitization framework. There is a successful securitization move if all above named conditions are met. An important aspect is that the authors do not give normative statements whether the issue is rightly set as a security issue (Buzan, Waever and de Wilde, 1998: 33). If not all the conditions are met, there is only a securitization move. The securitization process refers to the entire process carried out by an securitizing actor and the securitization framework refers to a means to analyze the securitization move.
Analysts who use the securitization framework do not want designate objective threats (Buzan, Waever and de Wilde, 1998: 33). The securitization framework is a tool to analyze the construction of an issue into a threat. The goal of analysts is to gain understanding of who securitizes, for whom, on what issues, why, with what results and under what conditions (Buzan, Waever and de Wilde, 1998: 32). How is it that some issues are build up as security issues? How are problems constructed as threats? How come that some issues do get on the radar of policy makers or politicians and others do not? When is something a security issue? Under what circumstances do processes of security politics work? How is the securitization of an issue is achieved and to what extent does it enable new actions? (Balzacq, 2011: 117).
2.3.1 Desecuritization
The Copenhagen School distinguishes between three kind of issues: non-politicized issues, politicized issues and securitized issues. When issues are non-politicized, they are not a subject of discussion at all. Publicly debated issues are politicized. When issues are considered as existentially threated which necessary need to be dealt with immediately, they are securitized. The Copenhagen school warns for the consequences of securitization and considers it as a necessary evil. Securitization leads to the downfall of the regular political process and liberal democratic procedures. Therefore they propose the opposite process, desecuritization. Desecuritization takes place when certain matters are removed from the security agenda where they were treated with urgency, into regular matters in the domain of
20 public sphere and normal politics. There is thus always a switch in securitization as well as desecuritization (Sulovic, 2010: 4).
2.3.2 Criticism of securitization
The securitization framework is criticized for divergent reasons. The downfall of the regular political process and liberal democratic procedures and intellectual incoherence within the security studies are already mentioned, other criticism will be described.
Claudia Aradau (2001) and Jef Huysmans (1999) raised moral and ethical motivated criticism against securitization. Huysmans states that research on securitization moves are fueling the securitization of issues. He argues that the “securitizing analyst cannot escape from the fact that its own security writing risks to contribute to the securitization of an area’ (1999: 18). Waever recognizes this to a certain extent however stresses that the securitization move itself is a political choice by the securitizing actor. The analyst who researches this move ‘can never replace the political act [that is securitization] as such’ (Wæver 2000: 252). Aradau argues that it would be more effective to focus on the normative question of security studies; what should security do? (Taureck, 2006: 58). Or derived questions such as: what should be achieved or which values should be protected? This criticism on the securitization framework seems to be unjustified since it seeks to answers questions which the theory never intended to answer. The framework is designed in order to analyze the construction of security threats, it has an inherent analytical goal. The securitization framework seeks to answer the positivist question: what does security do?
Other criticism focuses mainly on practical limitations of the securitization framework. Claire Wilkinson argues that the securitization framework can only be applied to cases in Europe and the West. Securitization assumes an universal understanding of the society and the state in Europe as well the world, while she is convinced that securitization is not applicable to all cases. In addition she stresses that the securitization framework has defined the speech act too narrow. It does not leave room for other forms of expression such as physical action, which is more common outside the west (Wilkinson, 2007). Williams agrees and stresses that political communications nowadays is increasingly embedded within televisual images. Reality compels to adapt to this trend and one must therefore develop a broader understanding of new media, structures and products in order to address questions of empirical explanation as well as ethical appraisal in security practices adequate (Williams, 2003: 525). McDonald agrees
21 with Williams and adds that the securitizing actors which are described as actors who can reach a large audience should also be broadened (McDonald, 2008: 564).
2.3.3 Gender and securitization
The criticism which plays a central role in this thesis is the criticsm of Lene Hansen, associate professor at the Institute of Political Science, University of Copenhagen. She believes that the securitization framework has a problem when it comes to a threat to the security of men or women individually. The securitization framework has two blank spots which make the security analysis gender insensitive. The first blank spot relates to the speech act. Hansen claims that there is not always the possibility for potential female securitizing actors to raise something as a security threat. She calls it the “security as a silence” problem. Potential female securitizing actors are unable to utter the threat since they do not have access to the right means, connections, resources etc. These potential securitizing actors can also be hold back because of the so called silent security dilemma. This is a situation in which it is not possible to speak about the security issue since it would only increase the threat. As shown in the previously described example about honor related violence. This is a crucial problem since the securitization process depends on the ability of a securitizing actor to speak about the security threat.
The second blank spot, 'subsuming security', arises because the conditions imposed for becoming a referent object exclude man or women separately almost completely from qualifying (Hansen, 2000: 300). This is because of the distinction between social and international security made by the authors of the securitization framework. The concept of security can be widened as long as the mode of reasoning resembles the one of international security, which is about collective survival located within the rhetoric of danger and urgency. The threat should be dangerous for collective security, since the measures to fight the threat should be collectively accepted (Buzan, Waever and de Wilde, 1998: 21). Social security refers to ‘entitlement and social justice’ and covers therefore fundamentally different threats. Threats towards individuals such as crime are located within society instead of against society and can therefore not be a referent object. Only “if these threats threaten the breakdown of society do they become societal security issues’ (Buzan, Waever and de Wilde, 1998: 121). Both silences are due to the Copenhagen School’s joint foci of societal security (while ignoring individual or group security) as well as their definition of security as survival. Therefore the authors refuse to conceptualize security in individual terms.
22 2.4 International, national and human security
The individual can only be included in the securitization framework when there is a threat to the entire society. The two main questions are: who should be protected for what threats? National, international and human security provide different answers to those questions. National security can be defined as the ability of a state to provide for the protection and defence of its citizens. National security is again divided into different sectors of security. The most important ones are the military sector, political sector, economic sector, environmental sector and societal sector. Buzan (1991: 19-20) describes those security sectors as follows. The military security is mainly about the interplay between the armed offensive and defensive capabilities of states and states perceptions of each other’s intentions. Political security is about the stability of the social order which is closely linked to the military and social sector. This entails the organizational stability of states, systems of government and the ideologies that give them legitimacy. If a nation has the freedom to create policy which invites economic security, it will focus on the access to the resources, finance and markets necessary to sustain acceptable levels of welfare and state power. Societal security refers to “the ability of a society to persist in its essential character under changing conditions and possible or actual threats” (Waever, 1993: 23). Therefore it concerns the sustainability, within acceptable conditions for evaluation, of traditional patterns of language, culture and religious and national identity and custom. Environmental security concerns the upkeep of the local and global biosphere since a significant share of human enterprises depend on this system.
International security and national security are inherently linked. International security is just like national security—concerned with survival, danger, urgency, and threats to a larger collective. The international security paradigm evolved because of the changing nature of threats. The global interconnection and interdependence among states that the world has experienced and continues to experience since the end of the Cold War makes it necessary for states to cooperate more. International, or global, security requires measures to be taken by states and international organizations, like the UN and the European Union, to guarantee survival and security. Examples of these measures are military actions and diplomatic agreements such as treaties and conventions (Williams, 2008).
Several scholars and professionals in the field recognized that these views of security did not result in the full security of citizens (King and Murray, 2001). Professionals moved the focus of security from nation-states to the individual and non-military aspects by introducing the
23 human security agenda (Owen, 2004: 20). Human security is commonly understood as prioritizing the security of people, especially their welfare and wellbeing, rather than that of states (Duffield, 2006: 11). The individual is more important than something abstract like a state. States are communities of people, and people should therefore be included in understandings of security. The state must draw legitimacy from its citizens instead of power and independence (Owen, 2004). Human security focuses on issues which do not necessarily affect all the people; “human security gives political voice to the otherwise politically marginalized” (Hampson 2002: 373).
The United Nations Development Programme's 1994 Human Development Report has an important role in the promotion and articulation of human security. According to the report, there were legitimate concerns of ordinary people who sought security in their daily lives that had been forgotten. “For many of them (civilians), security symbolized protection from the threat of disease, hunger, poverty, crime, social conflict, political repression, human rights abuses and environmental hazards.” (UNHDP, 1994: 22). Human security is defined in the report as “freedom from fear and freedom from want,” encompassing new categories of economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community, and political security. In order for a country to be safe, it must include these seven categories of security (Paleri, 2008: 64). The “logic of security” should not solely focus on territorial defence and national interests to include “universal concerns,” as the authors of the securitization process argue, but should also involve a cooperative global effort to eradicate poverty and underdevelopment (UNDP, 1994: 22). The referent object of security was shifted from nation-states to that of people. To be “people-centered” was to be “concerned with how people live and breathe in a society, how freely they exercise their many choices, how much access they have to market and social opportunities – and whether they live in conflict or in peace” (UNDP, 1994: 23). Approaches to human security should “protect and empower.”
2.5 Critical security studies
Critical security studies refer to a full range of critics who distances themselves from the state-centric militarism that applies within the traditional security studies. Criticism of traditional approaches resulted in three core ideas within Critical security studies. The first core idea is that security is a derivative concept, which means that the way one looks at security is derivate from the way one sees the world and the way world politics work. Which aspects of world politics are considered the most important influences the way one thinks
24 about threats, what should be protected, and therefore the way security is defined. During the Cold War, the realists were dominant and answered those questions with war and states. However, according to critical security studies, the definition of realists is a derivative concept, since the approach is based on a realist worldview, which is mainly focused on anarchy.
The second core idea is the broadening and deepening of the security agenda. Broadening entails the expansion of the analytical horizon, which also involves the environment, the economy, politics, and the society in addition to the military sector. Deepening means that not only is the state considered the referent object, but also other actors such as institutions, individuals, and groups (Peoples, Vaughan-Williams, 2014: 5). Threats affect citizens instead of states. States are communities of people; thus, the individual is more important than something abstract like a state (Booth, 1991: 319).
2.5.1 Critical Theory and the normative goal of security
The Critical Theory of the Welsh School is a self-contained theory grouped under the Critical security studies. The Welsh School also wants a sharpening of the security agenda next to the broadening and deepening. The sharpening points to the normative goal of security to effectuate a secure and more emancipated society. Proponents of Critical Theory argue that the “corporeal, material existence of human beings should be the central focus of security studies,” that is, security should ultimately be concerned with the “real world” security of human beings (Peoples, Vaughan-Williams, 2014: 35). Critical Theory should therefore deal with illuminating aspects which restrict the wellbeing of human beings. Theoretically, Booth equates emancipation to security. Security is the absence of threats; emancipation is the freedom of people from restrictions which make sure they cannot do the things they want to. These restrictions could arise not only because of war, but also because of poverty or bad education. Emancipation causes security and vice versa. Security does not equal survival in this vision. Therefore, Booth calls security survival plus “an instrumental value that allows individuals and groups (to a relative degree) to establish the conditions of existence with some expectations of constructing a human life beyond the merely animal” (Peoples, Vaughan-Williams, 2014: 37).
25 2.6 Feminist security studies
Feminist security studies also aim to include people, and more specifically, men and women separately, as a referent object. In addition, the scholars are in favor of the sharpening of the security agenda and the raising of the existing power relations and the relationship between women and peace.
The first book to include an extensive conceptual engagement with security from a feminist perspective was Tickner’s Gender in international relations (1992). Tickner’s conceptualization of the referent object in this book contains a shift from the state towards the individual. Tickner specifically opposes realism, which is also characteristic for other feminist security theorists. In response to the traditional approaches, Feminist Security Studies scholars asked what object actually was being secured (Tickner 2001: 62). The state-centric view of security contains the assumption that states provide protection to those within its borders. Feminist Security Studies question the protection of women by the state. “National security often takes precedence over the social security of individuals” (Tickner, 1992: 28). She pleads to approach security from the perspective of the individual, which involves “definitions of security that are less state-centered and less militaristic” (Tickner, 1992: 53). In addition, people live in different contexts, which influences their views on what security entails. Static and exclusive concepts of security should be avoided since they are often problematic and unrepresentative (Sylvester, 1994: 183).
Feminist Security Studies scholars go a step further than other wideners. The scholars claim that there has to be a distinction made between security needs of men and women. There is a lack of focus on the vulnerabilities and insecurities which may be linked to one’s gender identification in human security (Detraz, 2012: 139). There is a gendered difference in how men and women are affected and what problems are considered “proper” security problems. Women are not necessarily more likely to die, but they are threatened in other ways than men. Many of the insecurities experienced by women do not have a direct connection with military state-centric security: women die from malnutrition, impoverished health care, environmental hazards and economic deprivation—issues that only figure within international security to the extent that they impact the military capabilities of the state (2012: 144). In other words, women and men are not equal referent objects before the state. Their insecurities are validated differently within state-centric security discourses (Sjoberg, 2009: 205). Gender should be a specific object of analysis within the security studies in order to draw a more complete picture (Enloe, 1990: 167). This will make security a more inclusive practice and concept.
26 Besides differentiating the different threats towards men and women, the Security studies scholars are also in favor of the sharpening of the security agenda. Security is also about the presence of social and economic justice (Tickner, 1992: 55). Feminist security strives to fight inequality and promote emancipation. Tickner and other Feminist security scholars build on the line of Ken Booth regarding the connection between security and emancipation. Emancipation is “a concern with the ability of people to freely make choices” (Detraz, 2012: 18). Feminist International Relations has the aim “to begin larger conversations about how to engage in scholarship and policymaking that is guided by an overall goal of human wellbeing” (Detraz, 2012: 20). The concept of emancipation is indispensable in order to achieve the aim. Tickner claims that social and gender justice must be at the heart of any enduring peace; political, economic, and ecological relationships characterized by domination and subordination cannot coexist with authentic security (1992: 129). The authors of the securitization process argue the opposite: “Social security focuses on entitlement and social justice of individuals and has nothing to do with a certain security character” (Buzan, Waever and de Wilde, 1998: 21).
Another move within Feminist Security Studies raises the question of the absence of women in international security politics by putting forward the gender and power relations in international relations (Blanchard, 2003: 1290). There is a gendered nature of the values prized in the realm of international security which produces insecurity for women (Hooper, 1998: 31). The state has the legitimacy to use violence and claims control over the constitution and regulation of “acceptable” systems and practices (Peterson 2003:40). Since the world system is dominated by masculinity in thinking and doing, it produces women’s subordination, insecurity, and normalized patriarchal practices (Peterson, 1992: 45). The state is the “main organizer of the power relations of gender” which gives advantage to “masculinist social control” and structural violence in which women are subjugated to feminized spheres in labor, social order, and status (Peterson 1992: 46).
The last move which is relevant to illustrate in this research is about the easily made causality between women and peace. Feminist security scholars impeach the easily made connection between women and peace. The role women have played in wars is generally ignored in research or solely portrayed as “woman as nonviolent, offering succor and compassion”. Men on the other hand are often described as “just warriors”, as “violent, whether eagerly and inevitably or reluctantly and tragically” (Elshtain, 1995: 4).
27 2.7 Conclusion
A debate within International Security Studies is about whether the security agenda should be expanded from a focus on solely military security threats with the state as referent object to inclusion of diverse forms of threats towards security and several referent objects. Buzan, Waever, and de Wilde claim to have found a solution in the form of the securitization framework. The securitization framework considers security as a speech act where a securitizing actor designates a threat to a specified reference object and declares an existential threat implying a right to use extraordinary means to fend it off. The securitization move needs to be socially accepted by an audience which acknowledges the urge for survival against the existential threat. The securitization framework is open to widen the security agenda but warns not to label too many problems as security issues since this would devaluate the agenda. Therefore, they set the condition that the threat must relate to international security. Threats should be about survival and should concern the whole society. Hansen argues that that condition implies that the securitization process leaves no room for men or women to raise security issues or to be the referent object.
28
3. Research design
The theoretical concepts of the previous chapter are operationalized into measurable concepts in this chapter. The research of this master thesis consists of two components, namely content analysis and interviews. Both focus on the creation of resolution 1325, the central unit of analysis in this research. After the operationalization, the two types of data gathering will be explained separately from each other in this chapter.
3.1 Operationalization
First follows a recapitulation of the problem described in the introduction. The adoption of resolution 1325 by the Security Council shows the inclusion of women and gender in the international security arena. The adoption of the resolution marks the emergence of a new discourse on women, peace, and security. Women were finally considered as “essential actors in achieving peace.” Thereby, it was recognized that women were specific targets for violence. One of Hansen’s criticisms is that the securitization framework leaves no room to include gender. This thesis will analyze the creation of resolution 1325 about women, peace, and security through the securitization framework in order to react to the statements of Hansen and gain insight into the position of gender in the securitization framework.
The central research question is as follows:
To what extent can the change of discourse on women, peace, and security be explained by a successful securitization move?
An analysis of the creation of resolution 1325
3.1.1. Indicators defined
The Security Council consciously took the difference in gender into account by the adoption of resolution 1325. For the first time the Security Council made a distinction between the needs and responsibilities of men and women in international peace and security. The adoption of resolution 1325 marks the beginning on a new discourse on women, peace, and security. The key question is how this change, this new way of thinking, came about. The securitization framework is adopted in this study as a starting point since that question is too comprehensive and there may be several causes for the new discourse. The securitization
