APWAPS preliminary submission to Beijing +20 on Women and Armed Conflict

Beijing +20 critical area E submission_APWAPS

Preliminary Submission to Beijing +20 Asia-Pacific Regional Review:

Revisiting Critical Area E “Women and Armed Conflict” in the Context of

Asia-Pacific Today

 

by the Asia-Pacific Women’s Alliance for Peace and Security


Background

 

The Asia-Pacific Women’s Alliance for Peace and Security (APWAPS) is an alliance of feminist organisations, women human rights defenders, women peacebuilders and others from across Asia and the Pacific who share a commitment to bring about the kind of peace and security that matters to local women in conflict-affected communities in this region.

 

The Alliance aims to link up existing actions, connect organisations, deepen conversations and expand access to information on the women, peace and security agenda. It is a regional initiative to respond to the specific concerns of women in Asia-Pacific region. We aim to generate political will and accountability at the regional and sub-regional levels for a meaningful WPS agenda. The alliance was initiated by the Asia-Pacific Forum for Women, Law and Development (APWLD), International Women’s Rights Action Watch – Asia Pacific (IWRAW-AP) and Cordaid, and a list of its members appears in Annex A.

 

APWAPS is pleased to have the opportunity to offer this preliminary submission to UN ESCAP and UN Women Asia-Pacific Regional Office on Critical Area E as input for Asia-Pacific Regional Review of Beijing +20. Its content based on consultations undertaken by APWAPS members from February to June 2014 and builds on the existing work of women’s organisations in communities across Asia and the Pacific. It is a precursor to more extensive and systematic process of knowledge building on the issue of women, peace and security that APWAPS will develop in 2014-2015. APWAPS looks forward to contributing to the Beijing +20 Regional Review and urges UN ESCAP, UN Women and member states to create opportunities for substantive participation by CSOs in the Regional Review in recognition of the our partnership and shared commitment to realise the BPFA.

 

Introduction

 

APWAPS endorses the Diagnosis offered in the pre-amble to Critical Area E “Women and Armed Conflict” and recognises its ongoing relevance in the context of Asia and the Pacific today. A recent review of global datasets on conflicts around the world found that Asia has among the world’s longest running armed struggles, often lasting multiple generations, at an average length of 45 years. The onset of new conflicts is often the re-emergence of pre-existing conflicts.[1]

 

In addition, there are new phenomena of armed conflict that have emerged in the two-decades since the BPFA. These should also be accounted for in the Regional Review in order to ensure the relevance of deliberations and outcomes on Critical Area E “Women and Armed Conflict.”

 

General Observations

 

In the regional context of women and armed conflict, APWAPS puts forward the following observations to be considered as part of the 20-year Review of BPFA:

 

  1. Re-defining armed conflict and underscoring the relationship to gender equality

 

APWAPS supports the BPFA’s Diagnosis that “Peace is inextricably linked with equality between women and men, and development.”[2] In conflict-affected communities in Asia and Pacific, the experience of women bears testimony to the direct relationship between the discrimination they face based on their gender and their vulnerability to armed conflict. APWAPS recognises also that women who face multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination – such as indigenous women, widows, women from minority groups[3] – face heightened insecurity and vulnerability in conflict situations.

 

In this regard, APWAPS asserts the relevance of the CEDAW Committee General Recommendation No. 30 on women in conflict prevention, conflict and post-conflict situations to the Regional Review of Beijing +20.

 

We propose that the comprehensive definition of conflict offered by GR 30 is particularly relevant to the nature of conflict in the Asia-Pacific region today. APWAPS encourages member states to also adopt the comprehensive definition and scope provided in CEDAW GR 30 in this review to include:

 

…international and non-international armed conflicts, situations of foreign occupation, as well as other forms of occupation and the post-conflict phase. In addition, the recommendation covers other situations of concern, such as internal disturbances, protracted and low-intensity civil strife, political strife, ethnic and communal violence, states of emergency and suppression of mass uprisings, war against terrorism and organized crime, that may not necessarily be classified as armed conflict under international humanitarian law and which result in serious violations of women’s rights…

 

Furthermore, APWAPS notes that, based on GR 30, state parties are bound to apply the Convention when they exercise territorial or extraterritorial jurisdiction, whether individually in unilateral military action, or as members of international or intergovernmental organizations and coalitions as part of an international peacekeeping force. The Convention also applies to bilateral or multilateral donor assistance for conflict prevention and humanitarian aid, mitigation or post-conflict reconstruction; in involvement as third parties in peace or negotiation processes; and in the formation of trade agreements with conflict-affected countries.

 

We note that the Convention requires States parties to regulate the activities of domestic non-State actors, within their effective control, who operate extraterritorially. This would extend to acts of national corporations operating extraterritorially, such as cases in which national corporations extend loans to projects in conflict-affected areas that lead to forced evictions and which call for the establishment of accountability and oversight mechanisms for private security and other contractors operating in conflict zones.

 

APWAPS maintains that the comprehensive scope of the definition established by CEDAW GR 30 provides a more substantive framework for policies and action, and is thus more responsive to the different contexts of women’s vulnerabilities in conflict and post-conflict situations in Asia and the Pacific today. We are concerned that many subnational conflicts in countries in Asia-Pacific are not recognised officially by states as armed conflicts, or their very existence is the subject of intense political debate and disagreement. Consequently, situations of long-standing violence, unresolved political uncertainty and daily forms of insecurity be void of any formal peace negotiation process. In this context, efforts to end violence, address deep-rooted inequalities and (re)establish the rule of law may not necessarily be acknowledged as part of a peacebuilding process, either by national governments or by international bodies on peace and security.[4]

 

APWAPS urges member states to apply CEDAW GR 30’s scope and definition in its Review of Beijing +20 and the outcome document. We propose that this is essential to accommodate the prevailing character of armed conflict in today’s Asia-Pacific context in a manner that encompasses all forms of conflict that impact upon women.

 

  1. Armed conflict and development

 

APWAPS also endorses the BPFA Diagnosis about the inter-connection between peace and development. APWAPS concurs with research that finds most of Asia’s subnational conflicts are a result of deep-rooted structural problems, such as discriminatory policies and practices by the state or local authorities; collusive relations between national and local elites that marginalize some minority populations; and, entrenched horizontal inequalities that concentrate power and resources in some ethnic groups at the expense of others.[5]

 

Ending or reducing these practices will only be possible through a shift in the political balance that has kept them in place for so long. Consequently, conflict resolution and peacebuilding cannot be in any way divorced from the task of transforming the overall development agenda of a conflict-affected country.[6]

 

Moreover, the state in Asia’s subnational conflict areas is neither weak nor fragile. In fact, the balance of power between the parties in conflict is often asymmetrical between a strong state at the national level and deeply marginalized minority communities in the country’s peripheries. Therefore, we find a complex nexus between peace, development and governance.[7]

 

As the Asia-Pacific Forum for Women, Law and Development has highlighted, the extent of economic inequality, both within and between countries, seen in Asia and the Pacific today could not have been predicted when the Beijing Platform was drafted. The extreme levels of inequality that now exist[8] not only pose a threat to inclusive political and economic systems, but also exacerbate the effects of gender equality.[9] The progress of governments in many of the Beijing Platform’s Critical Areas Review of Beijing +20, including the critical area “women and armed conflict”, is being determined by the broader macroeconomic framework.

 

In this review of Beijing +20, APWAPS urges member states to recognise not only the nexus between peace, development and governance, but also the deleterious impacts of current macroeconomic policies on gender equality and women’s rights, including the critical area “women and armed conflict.”

 

  1. Accountability mechanisms and financing

 

APWAPS endorses BPFA’s emphasis on the Geneva Conventions (and Additional Protocols), the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, and other international frameworks. We note that other relevant instruments have also entered into force in recent decades, including UNSCRs 1325, 1820, 1888, 1889, 196, 2106 and 2122 to form an international policy architecture relevant to this critical area of “women and armed conflict.” We recognise that five countries in the Asia-Pacific have formally agreed National Action Plans for UNSCR 1325, and a Regional Action Plan has been developed for the Pacific.[10]

 

While recognising the progress in establishing a normative framework, as well as action plans within the critical area “women and armed conflict”, APWAPS is concerned that this international policy architecture has failed to bring about a significant difference in the peace and security of women in conflict-affected communities.

 

APWAPS recommends that in reviewing progress on BPFA, member states, international and regional organisations, together with CSOs, identify ways to address the gaps in the implementation. Previous reviews of BPFA have identified ongoing challenges in realising women’s rights and gender equality. At this 20-year review, we recommend member states give serious attention to the impediments to progress and make meaningful commitments to implement robust accountability mechanisms.

 

APWAPS also recognises the need to develop measures to assist states in achieving greater progress in implementing the BPFA, as well as financing mechanisms. While BPFA highlights the need for gender-responsive budgeting in ODA and development programs, the slow progress in many areas of BPFA demonstrate that it is difficult to expect significant progress on many areas of critical concern simply through improved allocation of existing resources. Additional resources are needed for substantive implementation of BPFA; action plans need to be costed and funds need to be clearly earmarked for their implementation.

 

APWAPS welcomes the link made in Critical Area E to women’s rights and state military expenditure. We note that reduced military budgets would have the joint benefits of reducing militarization and freeing up financial resources for social and economic development, including gender equality. APWAPS also recognises that some of the financing mechanisms discussed in relation to UNSCR 1325[11] may be relevant to this critical area, and encourages a comprehensive and ambitious set of commitments to bring about accountability to BPFA through the mobilisation of necessary political and financial resources[12].

 

Observations on Strategic Objectives

 

Building on the general points made above, this submission offers some observations on the Strategic Objectives and the progress of member states in Asia and the Pacific in meeting these objectives.

 

Strategic Objective E1: Increase the participation of women in conflict resolution at decision-making levels and protect women living in situations of armed and other conflicts or under foreign occupation

 

Progress on Participation

APWAPS recognises that significant efforts have been undertaken at global levels to create a normative framework for women’s participation. We noted above that National Action Plans for 1325 have been formulated in five countries and regionally for the Pacific.

 

However, a large gap continues to exist between policy and practice. APWAPS finds that women are active participants in conflict resolution, however not at the decision-making levels that are the rightful focus of this Strategic Objective E1.

 

APWAPS commends the Philippines for its progress increasing the participation of women in peace processes at decision-making levels.[13] Nevertheless, we have found that women’s leadership in peace processes generally in Asia-Pacific remains largely informal. The National Coalition against Gender-based Violence in Indonesia draws attention to the fact that women played a minor role in recent peace processes. There was only one woman among the 45 people involved in the negotiations leading to the Helsinki Agreement and resolution of the conflict in Aceh. Peace processes in Central Sulawesi and Maluku also lacked the significant involvement of women[14].

 

Formal conflict resolution and peace processes continue to be gender biased and participation is dominated by men. This imbalance reflects the broader state of gender inequality that prevails in countries in Asia and the Pacific, and again underscores the fact that action on this Critical Area cannot be divorced from action on the underlying causes of women’s inequality and discrimination.

 

In this regard, APWAPS recognises that gender bias in religion and culture is a key factor perpetuating and maintaining gender inequality. A recent consultation in Pakistan also found that women’s vulnerability is exacerbated by cultural factors. Particularly women human rights defenders who step beyond cultural dictates are vulnerable to threat and attacks. Similarly, women’s potential as influential decision makers in conflict resolution and peace is undermined by the violence and the other vulnerabilities that arise from domestic violence, trafficking, and forced marriages associated with militancy.

 

The BFPA Diagnosis on “women and armed conflict” rightly notes:

 

If women are to play an equal part in securing and maintaining peace, they must be empowered politically and economically and represented adequately at all levels of decision-making.[15]

 

APWAPS urges member states to review critically the persistent power imbalances that are impeding progress with respect to women’s participation in decision-making roles in conflict resolution, and to take action to bring about the necessary shifts in the political and economic empowerment of women to promote their representation and meaningful participation at all levels of decision making.

 

Progress on Protection

The program for action by governments and regional and international organisations with regard to protection in the BPFA is sorely lacking. There is nothing substantive in the action plan against which progress can be measured.

 

APWAPS in concerned not only about the lack of attention to protection of women in armed conflict, but the prevalence of government policies in many states that are actually endangering women and violating their rights. We find this is an endemic problem across Asia and the Pacific.

 

For example, a recent study by the Chittagong Hill Tracts Commission documents the extreme vulnerability of women and girls, particularly in indigenous communities, as a result of the massive militarisation and the transmigration program that started on a large scale from 1976 onwards. The report documents not only a failure by the state to protect women from SBGV and other forms of abuse and discrimination, but the systematic impunity for such crimes[16].

 

A new report by CSOs in India also documents extensively how protracted and violent armed and unarmed conflicts in the North Eastern States of India, Kashmir and the central Indian regions have impacted on women and girls. It found that failures in protection have been devastating, debilitating and far reaching. There is extensive sexual violence, displacement, disappearances and extra judicial killings, the lack of all forms of human security and constant sense of fear. This has occurred amid a culture of impunity and corruption that undermines the basic dignity of women and girls and impedes gender equality and gender justice.[17] Again, this situation demonstrates not only of a failure in protection, but also rights violations by the state with impunity.

 

The importance of countering impunity is recognised under Strategic Action E2. APWAPS recognises that investigation and prosecution of perpetrators of violence against women, IHL and other human rights of women in armed conflict are important to address this. However, we also assert that access to justice for women subjected to violence and rights violations is a vital factor in ending impunity and promoting the legal empowerment of women. In considering progress on this issue, we encourage member states to review not only rates of prosecution, but also women’s access to justice in situations of insecurity and armed conflict.

 

In general, APWAPS finds that there is a lack of comprehensive data to demonstrate the situation of women in armed conflict. There is also a culture of silence that discourages women from reporting violations. Women may fear repercussions or may be pressured into maintaining their silence. The shame and social stigma associated with sexual violence that prevents them reporting. This Regional Review should acknowledge the incomplete data and understanding of the problem, as well as the lack of any accurate picture governments’ progress in addressing this. The difficulty in gaining accurate data should not be an excuse to continue to allow a void of attention to and action on this problem in countries in Asia and the Pacific.

 

The importance of data and research is not only relevant to Strategic Objective E4 on the culture of peace. APWAPS regards failures to protect women’s rights in armed conflict a direct consequence of the invisibility of women’s situation in conflict and the silencing of women’s voices. APWAPS recommends this Regional Review recognise the paucity of existing data sets of women and armed conflict, and commit to action to address this in cooperation with civil society.

 


Strategic Objective E2: Reduce excessive military expenditures and control the availability of armaments

 

Progress among UN ESCAP member states in reducing military expenditures has been poor. Only 3 countries, Timor Leste, Australia and Taiwan, reduced military expenditure in 2012-13.[18]

 

Not only has there been poor progress in reducing excessive military budgets, in fact in 2013-2014 a 3.6 percent increase in military spending was recorded in Asia and the Pacific, amounting to a total of USD 407 billion.[19] The region has also posted a 62 percent increase in military spending over the last decade.[20]

 

Despite the central role played by armaments in armed conflict, discourse and action to control arms are significantly lacking in discussions around women, peace and security or that explicit links between them are almost never made.

 

APWAPS maintains that the escalating military spending by countries in East Asia and massive influx of arms into the region are both symptoms and drivers of conflict. Excessive militarisation is a serious cause of concern for women; not only because of the impact on women’s peace and security in militarised settings, but because the financial resources channelled into military spending could be utilised to activities to promote social and economic development, and also provide resources needed for implementation of the BPFA and other gender equality interventions.

 

 

Strategic Objective E3: Promote non-violent forms of conflict resolution and reduce the incidence of human rights abuse in conflict situations

 

APWAPS appreciates the references to the Geneva Conventions and other international laws intended to protect the rights of women in conflict situations in the BPFA. However, in relation to this, we reiterate the importance of a comprehensive definition of armed conflict as noted above. There are many situations of armed conflict in Asia Pacific today that do not come under the Conventions.

 

APWAPS re-asserts its recommendation to apply a comprehensive understanding of armed conflict in the context of Asia-Pacific today in reviewing progress under this objective. APWAPS recommends this Regional Review considers progress and identifies priorities for future action under this objective based on the comprehensive definition of conflict offered by CEDAW General Recommendation 30.

 


Strategic Objective E4: Promote women’s contribution to fostering a culture of peace

 

APWAPS recognises the importance of a culture of peace, and also the important role that peace education plays in building a culture of peace. We appeal to member states to make meaningful steps to realise the plans for peace education in BPFA in all sectors of society.

 

APWAPS also welcomes the ASEAN Declaration on Human Rights and its articulation of a right to peace. This is expressed as:

 

Every person and peoples of ASEAN have the right to enjoy peace within an ASEAN framework of security and stability, neutrality and freedom, such that the rights set forth in this Declaration can be fully realised. To this end, ASEAN Member States should continue to enhance friendship and cooperation in the furtherance of peace, harmony and stability in the region.[21]

 

APWAPS finds ASEAN commitment to right to peace is very relevant to the review of Critical Area E in the BPFA. Internationally, the legal and normative framework for elaboration of the right to peace already exists. We encourage ASEAN and its partners in Asia-Pacific to show leadership to ensure that peace becomes enumerated as a fundamental human right, and to promote accountability of states parties and private actors at national and international levels to the realisation of this right.[22] APWAPS recognises that fulfilment of the right to peace is fundamental to this critical area, and that it will be difficult to make real progress or resolve issues around “Women and Armed Conflict” while armed conflict and militarisation continue to prevail.

 

 

Strategic Objective E5: Provide protection, assistance and training to refugee women, other displaced women in need of international protection and internally displaced women

 

APWAPS recommends that the protection, assistance and training in this Strategic Objective extend to women displaced by all forms of conflict. As outlined above, APWAPS maintains that the state of conflict in Asia-Pacific today requires a comprehensive definition to cover situations such as internal disturbances, protracted and low-intensity civil strife, political strife, ethnic and communal violence, states of emergency and suppression of mass uprisings, war against terrorism and organized crime, that may not necessarily be classified as armed conflict under international humanitarian law and which result in serious violations of women’s rights.

 

The deliberations and outcomes of this regional review should set forth priorities for states, regional and international organisations in providing protection, assistance and training to women displaced by all forms of conflict prevailing in Asia-Pacific.

 

Closing

 

In summary, APWAPS offers to following recommendation as part of this preliminary submission:

 

  • Apply the scope and definition of conflict offered by CEDAW General Recommendation No 30 for the purpose of this Review on Critical Area E. The comprehensive definition of conflict under GR 30 is highly relevant to the nature of conflict in Asia and the Pacific today and by applying this definition in the Regional Review, member states can ensure the significance of the Review’s outcomes.
  • Consider not only the nexus between development, governance and peace, but the deleterious impacts of current macroeconomic policies on women’s rights and progress on BPFA, including “women and armed conflict.”
  • Address impediments to implementation of BPFA and develop accountability and financing mechanisms to support greater progress. Critical Area E provides a mandate to critically review the excessive military spending of states.
  • Develop a standards of practice and tools to enable governments and other relevant actors to implement BPFA through practical means of enabling the inclusion of civil society, particularly women’s rights focused and women-led organizations.
  • Review critically persistent power imbalances that limit women’s participation in all levels of peace processes and bring about the necessary shifts to promote women’s representation.
  • Recognise the paucity of data on women’s situation in armed conflict and how this impacts on policy making. Take action to address the invisibility of women in conflict-affected communities in cooperation with civil society.
  • Seek accountability for the failure to meet commitments to reduce excessive military spending and demonstrate political leadership to re-allocate resources from military budgets to programs for social and economic development.
  • Follow the lead of ASEAN in recognising the right to peace and take action to realise this right with the realisation that issues of Critical Area “Women and Armed Conflict” will never be fully resolved while armed conflict and militarisation prevail.

 

 

Annex A: About the Asia-Pacific Women’s Alliance for Peace and Security (APWAPS)

 

APWAPS is an alliance of feminist organisations, women human rights defenders, women peacebuilders and others from across Asia and the Pacific who share a commitment to bring about the kind of peace and security that matters to women in conflict-affected communities in Asia and the Pacific.

 

APWAPS recognises that women’s rights continue to be violated in conflict. Gender inequality continues to breed violence. Gender-based violence is too often perpetuated with impunity. Women’s roles in building peace remain largely unrecognised.   Women in conflict areas are often invisible and their voices go unheard. Although there are international instruments intended to promote women’s peace and security, as well as national legislation in some countries, this policy architecture is not making a significant difference to women, particularly in conflict-affected communities.

 

APWAPS maintains that greater action and accountability is needed for the meaningful implementation of existing instruments, together with new commitments to bring about the kind of peace and security that matters to women.

 

Recognising the need to work more effectively and combine efforts to bring about the kind of security that matters to women, APWLD, IWRAW-AP and Cordaid convened a series of meeting among a group of feminist organisations, women human rights defenders, women peacebuilders and others from across Asia. This culminated in the launch of the Asia-Pacific Women’s Alliance for Peace and Security at the Asia-Pacific Feminist Forum on 1 June 2014, in Chiang Mai.

 

The Alliance aims to facilitate collaboration and conversations to work for a women, peace and security (WPS) agenda that places local women at the centre. This is an agenda that prioritises the concerns of women most directly impacted by conflict, respects women’s agency, upholds women’s human rights, stresses accountability, challenges discriminatory norms and practices – and will be achieved through a transformational shift in power relations between men and women.

 

The Alliance has set an immediate goal of utilising WPS-related policy process in 2014-15, including Beijing +20, the High Level Review of UNSCR 1325, post-2015 SDG process, among others. We will do this through advocacy, capacity building, knowledge building and networking.

 

This Alliance aims to link up existing actions, connect organisations, deepen conversations and expand access to information on the women, peace and security agenda. It is a regional initiative to respond to the specific concerns of women in Asia-Pacific region, as well as to generate political will and accountability at the regional and sub-regional levels.

 

Members of the Asia-Pacific Women’s Alliance for Peace and Security are listed below:

Orgnanisations:

  • Asia-Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development
  • Asian Circle 1325
  • Asian Muslim Action Network Women’s Commission
  • Chittagong Hill Tracts Commission
  • Cordaid
  • Fokupers
  • Fundasaun Alola
  • Global Network of Women Peacebuilders
  • Indonesia’s National Commission on Violence against Women
  • International Women’s Rights Action Watch Asia Pacific (IWRAW-AP)
  • Isis International
  • Kachin Women Peace Network
  • Korea Center for United Nations Human Rights Policy
  • National Alliance of Women Human Rights Defenders (Nepal)
  • National Coalition against Gender-based Violence (Indonesia)
  • North East Network (India)
  • Sentro Ng Alternatibong Lingap Panligal (SALIGAN)
  • Saathi (Nepal)
  • Tanggol Byi-Karapatan
  • We Act 1325
  • Women in Governance (WinG) India
  • Women’s Alliance of Communities in Transition – South Asia (WACT-SA)
  • Women’s Peace Network Arakan
  • 1325 Action Group, Nepal

 

Individuals

  • Ms Carla Natan

[1] Thomas Parks, Nat Colletta, Ben Oppenheim, “The Contested Corners of Asia: Subnational Conflicts and International Development Assistance,” The Asia Foundation, 2013.

[2] Paragraph 132 of the Women and Armed Conflict Diagnosis, Beijing Platform for Action

[3] The CEDAW Committee – through its General Recommendation No. 30 – gives particular attention to rural, indigenous and minority women in conflict situations. Additionally, it identifies specific groups of women and girls who are at risk of violence during and after conflict, namely internally displaced and refugee women; women human rights defenders; women belonging to diverse caste, ethnic, national, religious or other minorities or identities who are often attacked as symbolic representatives of their community; widows; and women with disabilities. Female combatants and women in the military are also vulnerable to sexual assault and harassment by State and non-State armed groups and resistance movements.

[4] The relevance of GR 30 is discussed in detail in Kamala Chandrakirana, “Implementing the Women, Peace and Security Agenda in Asia: Towards a Context-responsive Approach from the Bottom Up” (unpublished, 2013). This study forms the basis of APWAPS’ positioning on the WPS agenda.

[5] Thomas Parks, Nat Colletta, Ben Oppenheim, “The Contested Corners of Asia: Subnational Conflicts and International Development Assistance,” The Asia Foundation, 2013.

[6] Kamala Chandrakirana, op. cit. 2013

[7] Kamala Chandrakirana, op. cit.

[8] Reference to Oxfam, Working for the Few: Political Capture and Economic Inequality (2014) in APWLD, Submission to Beijing+20 Asia Pacific Regional Review: Progress in the Asia Pacific Region

[9] Ibid, p.21.

[10] The countries are the Philippines, Nepal, Republic of Korea, Kyrgystan and Australia

[11] For further information see Mavic Cabrera-Balleza and Nicola Popovic, Costing and Financing 1325: Examining the Resources Needed to Implement UN Security Council Resolution 1325 at the National Level as well as the Gains, Gaps and Glitches on Financing the Women, Peace and Security Agenda, Published by Cordaid and ICAN-GNWP, 2011.

[12] A global multi-stakeholder initiative facilitated by UN Women, Cordaid and GNWP on Financing Discussion Group for women, peace and security as part of the Global Study on WPS may be a reference and example of good practice that member states, international organisations and civil society can draw on for implementation of BPFA.

[13] Women in decision-making positions in the peace process between the Government of Philippines and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front included the Chair of the government panel was Miriam Coronel-Ferrer. Yasmin Busran Lao was also a member of the government peace panel. The MILF included two women in their Board of Advisers.

[14] Research on women’s involvement in peace processes for shadow reporting on Beijing +20 by the National Coalition against Gender-based Violence in Indonesia.

[15] Beijing Platform for Action, Paragraph 134.

[16] Dr Bina D’ Costa, Marginalisation and Impunity: Violence against Women and Girls in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, Chittagong Hill Tracts Commission, 2014.

[17] Dr. Roshmi Goswami, et. al. Special Chapter * General Recommendation 30 to CEDAW Commission, 2014.

[18] SIPRI, Trends in Military Expenditure 2013, page 5

[19] Ibid.

[20] Ibid.

[21] ASEAN Declaration on Human Rights, 2012

[22] Urmila Bhoola and Sanyu Awori, “Is there a human right to peace?”, unpublished, 2014