October 31, 2020 marks the 20th anniversary of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace, and Security. This resolution was the first of its kind to acknowledge that women are uniquely impacted by armed conflict and play an important role in conflict resolution and peacebuilding. In recognition of the anniversary, CIVIC is posting a series of blogs amplifying the voices and actions of women in the conflict affected areas where we work as well as the efforts of actors such as the UN to implement UNSCR 1325 and related resolutions.
Collectively, the ten thematic resolutions on Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) passed by the UN Security Council over the last twenty years recognize conflict-related sexual violence (CRSV) as a threat to international peace and security. They also outline a critical role for peacekeeping missions in preventing and responding to CRSV. In their efforts to implement the WPS resolutions, Member States and peacekeeping missions have focused a great deal of attention on increasing the number of women serving in the military, police, and civilian components of multidimensional peacekeeping missions. Female peacekeepers are not inherently any more knowledgeable about CRSV or more likely to prevent it than their male counterparts.[1] However, in at least some cases, female peacekeepers are better able to access women in communities and women survivors of CRSV feel more comfortable reporting CRSV to female peacekeepers. Therefore, having diversity in mission staffing can help ensure peacekeeping missions are able to access information on CRSV from women, men, girls, and boys.
However, ensuring women are deployed into active roles within the military components of Missions (also referred to as the Force) has proven particularly difficult. To address this challenge, Missions have begun utilizing female engagement teams (FETs) or mixed engagement teams with a higher number of female troops than other patrols. As part of a broader research project on how peacekeeping Missions are analyzing and responding to CRSV, CIVIC assessed the effectiveness of FETs and mixed engagement teams in addressing CRSV in the Central African Republic (CAR), the Democratic Republic of the Congo (the DRC) and South Sudan. Our findings on FETs are summarized in a textbox of an upcoming CIVIC report titled, We Have to Try to Break the Silence Somehow:” Preventing Conflict-Related Sexual Violence through UN Peacekeeping. Ahead of the release of the full report, CIVIC is sharing an excerpt of the textbox on FETs through our blog.
MINUSCA was an early adopter of FETs comprised of all female peacekeepers from the Zambian Battalion. These units placed an emphasis on accessing and engaging women. The expectation was that all-female units would be better accepted by women and have improved access to information about the threats facing them.[2] Since then, the concept has been utilized by a variety of troop contributing countries deployed to other missions, and it is recognized in the United Nations Infantry Battalion Manual as a key capability for engagement.[3] Sometimes, the term “female engagement team” is used by different missions to refer broadly to units that have a higher number of female troops than most units, even if they are not entirely composed of women. Such units are also called mixed engagement teams or, simply, engagement teams (ETs). A number of UN and Mission officials who spoke with CIVIC voiced a preference for teams to be mixed rather than all-female.[4] One MONUSCO military official explained this preference by noting that having all-female teams perpetuates the idea that gender is only about women rather than about understanding the perspectives of all segments of society. The official also noted that mixed teams were better-equipped to interview both men and women.[5]
Most peacekeepers interviewed by CIVIC felt that having FETs or mixed engagement teams did improve their Mission’s ability to engage with women and potentially learn about experiences of CRSV.[6] However, Mission officials were not always able to explain the benefit in concrete terms or answer more detailed questions about the work and impact of these teams. For example, there was disagreement among Mission personnel about whether reporting on CRSV and gendered-threats by FETs was better than other troops[7] or the same.[8] One MONUSCO military official told CIVIC, “FETs, we just do it like window dressing and it is a nice photo, but we are not getting back to what their [women’s] needs are.”[9] However, several other MONUSCO officials gave examples of FETs being intentionally deployed to areas where there were reports of CRSV or where peacekeepers suspected it was occurring to document and verify these threats.[10] A MINUSCA military official told CIVIC that one of the FETs in the Mission had specifically developed an action plan for documenting and responding to CRSV.[11]
These differences in opinion and perspective can partly be attributed to how FETs and mixed engagement teams are utilized and managed by UNMISS, MONUSCO, and MINUSCA. “Currently there is a lack of strategic, operational, and tactical clarity on what is the end state and what is intended on the ground to be achieved [with gender-integrated patrols],” observed one UNMISS military official.[12] To be useful, sector and battalion commanders have to recognize their value, and the Missions need to strategically deploy them. Missions should also better monitor and make use of their reporting and ensure that key personnel, like Force Gender Advisors, have access to their reports.[13]
While most peacekeepers expressed to CIVIC that, under the right circumstances, mixed engagement teams can be an asset for missions, they also stressed the need for all peacekeepers to be better-trained, empowered, and responsible for effectively engaging civilians on gendered-threats. “If the problem is community engagement at large and how [the] Force is conducting patrols, this is the issue that needs to be addressed,” explained one MONUSCO civilian official. He added, “Don’t use these FETs as the silver bullet. …FETs could be used in certain areas, but don’t address the basic issues of troops who don’t speak the language or who don’t stop in villages to speak with people.”[14]
[1] For analysis on this issue, see, for example, Nina Wilén, “What’s the ‘Added Value’ of Male Peacekeepers? (Or—Why We Should Stop Instrumentalising Female Peacekeepers’ Participation,” Africa Policy Brief 29 (February 2020); Georgina Holmes, “Female Military Peacekeepers Left Feeling Overwhelmed After Inadequate Training,” The Conversation, May 29, 2019, https://theconversation.com/female-military-peacekeepers-left-feeling-overwhelmed-after-inadequate-training-114887; Sabrina Karim and Kyle Beardsley, Equal Opportunity Peacekeeping: Women, Peace, and Security in Post-Conflict States, Oxford University Press, 2017. [2] “MINUSCA’s Female Engagement Team,” YouTube video, 11:08, posted by MINUSCA, November 26, 2018, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOYcN60OR68. [3] UN, “Infantry Battalion Manual,” January 2020. The Uniformed Gender Parity Strategy of the UN for 2018 to 2028 also notes that requests for troops from troop contributing countries will now include a requirement that they provide Engagement Teams composed of at least 50 percent women. [4] CIVIC interview with Mission military official, #38, Goma, February 2019; CIVIC interview with Mission civilian official, #59, Goma, February 2019; CIVIC interview with Mission military official, #57, Juba, December 2019. [5] CIVIC interview with Mission military official, #38, Goma, February 2019. [6] CIVIC interview with Mission military official, #21, Bangui, February 2020; CIVIC interview with Mission civilian official, #40, Bangui, February 2020; CIVIC interview with Mission military official, #42, Bangui, February 2020; CIVIC interview with Mission civilian official, #59, Goma, February 2019; CIVIC interview with Mission military official, #212, Goma, October 2019; CIVIC interview with Mission military official, #33, remote call from Washington, DC, to Goma, March 2020. [7] CIVIC interview with Mission civilian official, #40, Bangui, February 2020; CIVIC interview with Mission military official, #41, Bangui, February 2020; CIVIC interview with Mission military official, #33, remote call from Washington DC to Goma, March 2020. [8] CIVIC interview with Mission military official, #38, Goma, February 2019; CIVIC interview with Mission civilian official, #59, Goma, February 2019; CIVIC interview with Mission military official, #57, Juba, December 2019. [9] CIVIC interview with Mission military official, #38, Goma, February 2019. [10] CIVIC interview with Mission civilian official, #213, Goma, October 2019; CIVIC interview with Mission military official, #33, remote call from Washington, DC, to Goma, March 2020. [11] CIVIC interview with Mission military official, #21, Bangui, February 2020. [12] CIVIC interview with Mission military official, #57, Juba, December 2019. [13] Research by other organizations has led to similar conclusions. See, for example, International Peace Institute, Uniformed Women in Peace Operations: Challenging Assumptions and Transforming Approaches, June 2020. [14] CIVIC interview with Mission civilian official, #59, Goma, February 2019.
