Problematic Positioning in the Women, Peace and Security Agenda

Gender-sensitive resolutions and texts are essential for achieving sustainable and just peace across the globe. However, the intent and content of such resolutions must align; their mere existence does not ensure the desired outcomes. The erroneous placement of women in most such documents, including in the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325, is adequate to argue that the women, peace and security (WPS) agenda somewhat reproduces gender-discriminatory practices. This article argues that the gap between the theory and practice of the WPS agenda is wide. Though it is important to work towards implementing these resolutions and texts in a much more effective manner, it is even more important to look within these resolutions and texts to identify the issues contributing to the inefficacy of the agenda. It is counterproductive to partially confront patriarchal stereotypes, and a special focus on the language of the document is necessary to ensure real impact. In this article, we are using the dichotomising of gendered experiences of conflict into binaries of ‘protector vs protected’ or ‘peaceful vs violent’ to argue that such an oversimplified grouping overlooks the complexities of manifold gendered experiences of women in conflict situations and reproduces the patriarchal theory and practice of discrimination and exclusion. The article argues that we cannot expect an effective change as far as gender equality is concerned if the WPS agenda remains fragile.