The success or failure of peace talks can depend on many factors, including the level of conflicting interests and the nature of the agreement to be negotiated. But the way that negotiations are framed also matters: It’s widely assumed, for example, that peace is a zero-sum game and that an agreement will end violence and suffering instantly. In fact, peace often takes a long time to achieve and may require difficult compromises from all parties.
Often, however, those involved in peace talks don’t seek out social movement participation because they believe it won’t produce a satisfactory outcome. Instead, they focus on engaging the most powerful belligerent political leaders, a strategy that can be difficult to sustain when civil society movements are determined to participate in peace processes and push for concrete changes.
Peace actors should make it a priority to look for entry points to create opportunities for peace, and they should recognize the value of women’s participation in peace processes. All mediators, envoys and leaders of peace missions should be required to include gender-responsive provisions in all meetings, consultations and agreements and train their teams on these issues. Moreover, they should actively support civic advocacy groups that are engaged in track 2 diplomacy to promote women’s systematic engagement in official peace processes, and publicly report on their progress.
The international community also should invest in developing tools that examine the gendered impacts of various outcomes from peace processes, including federalism, constitution making and transitional justice. Finally, it should encourage the most powerful national political actors, especially those in belligerent countries, to engage with women’s organizations in their delegations and provide incentives like training, logistical support and added delegate seats to do so.