icon caret Arrow Down Arrow Left Arrow Right Arrow Up Line Camera icon set icon set Ellipsis icon set Facebook Favorite Globe Hamburger List Mail Map Marker Map Microphone Minus PDF Play Print RSS Search Share Trash Crisiswatch Alerts and Trends Box - 1080/761 Copy Twitter Video Camera  copyview Youtube
When the Line Between War and Peace Becomes Blurred, How Do We Keep Ourselves Safe?
When the Line Between War and Peace Becomes Blurred, How Do We Keep Ourselves Safe?
In Conversation with Isabelle Arradon
In Conversation with Isabelle Arradon
Op-Ed / Global

When the Line Between War and Peace Becomes Blurred, How Do We Keep Ourselves Safe?

Originally published in World Economic Forum

Is a more connected world a safer and more resilient one, or is it more brittle and fragile? It all depends on how we organize our defense. But the failure to stem the rise of terrorism over the past 15 years suggests we’ve not got it right. How can we restructure our defense systems to take into account the immense changes taking place, and the blurring distinction between war and peace?

An Out-of-Date Model

Today’s defense model is one of state-centric centralized defense. Each state is expected to protect its citizens against external threats by deterring state-to-state aggression and by intervening in those states whose failure provides a safe haven to non-state enemies.

States are also expected to protect people against internal threats; they do so through increased police and military presence in our cities, and through ever-expanding digital mass surveillance to detect anomalous behaviours and identify potential threats.

A Thin Line Between War and Peace

This model is not working. Whether it is little green men in Crimea or cyber-attacks, the line between war and peace has been blurred, and in a world no more structured by an ideological divide, exploiting the vulnerabilities of the enemy is a more effective way to wage war than confronting it head on.

As for failing states, 15 years of costly interventions should have taught us the limits of military intervention: foreigners may help but they can’t substitute for locally driven state building.

We need an alternative model of decentralized defense that will reflect the profound transformation brought upon us by the digital age...

Lastly, finding the needle of terrorism in the haystack of law-abiding citizens is proving to be a frustrating pursuit, which at worst could turn democratic countries into police states, and at best, generates many false flags and will never guarantee complete success, even if the record of security agencies is better than often alleged.

We need an alternative model of decentralized defense that will reflect the profound transformation brought upon us by the digital age and the increased connectivity.

A New Approach to Defense

What we have at present is the worst of both worlds: traditional centralized systems are inefficient at identifying and correcting local vulnerabilities, but connectivity increases vulnerabilities because it accelerates and multiplies the psychological, political and in some cases physical impact of an attack on any part of a system. This is very different from the terrorist attacks of the seventies, which were not a threat to our societies.

What, then, should our new approach towards defense look like? That’s not an easy question to answer, but whatever model we end up with needs to take into account five important points:

The enemy within

Internal fragilities are a greater risk than external threats. By any objective measure, terrorism and external aggression are low risks to our personal safety, but they exacerbate our pre-existing sense of vulnerability. The biggest risks are the political upheavals that such a sense of vulnerability can trigger and that malevolent actors can exploit.

We can’t let fear win

Communities brought together only by fear are vulnerable because fear destroys trust, which is the foundation of any long-term human community. A much greater effort is needed to foster a positive sense of common purpose. Civic organizations and public debate have a critical role to play in strengthening the fabric of society from the bottom up.

Cities will supplant states

Physical proximity is becoming more relevant as a counterweight to the anonymity of globalization: in an urbanized world, cities are likely to become increasingly important as political units and standard bearers of identity. Over time, they may become more relevant to our security than states, provided that mechanisms are put in place to ensure effective sharing of data.

The only way to restore some symmetry and stability is to organize defense at the lowest possible level...

The changing nature of warfare

Top-down provision of security, based on the Weberian model of the state enjoying a monopoly on the legal use of force, is ill-suited to the growing diffusion of power, including lethal power, which multiplies the capacities of individuals to wreak havoc in a society. Attack is becoming much cheaper than defense, especially, but not only, in the cyber world. We should not be surprised if this makes asymmetric warfare the most rational way of conducting war, which would generate increased instability.

The power of devolution

The only way to restore some symmetry and stability is to organize defense at the lowest possible level, empowering individuals to protect themselves against cyber-attacks through point-to-point encryption, and empowering cities to strengthen local connections among its citizens, making it more difficult for outsiders to launch attacks. Devolving power to individuals and to lower levels of government will also deprive enemies of targets whose value resides in their symbolic value as centres of great power, reducing the advantage of asymmetric attack. Nuclear warfare, but also cyber warfare, will be less likely if there is no target of strategic importance.

A Brave New World

The implications of this transformation will inevitably be gradual but they will be far-reaching.

Nuclear weapons for instance, are the ultimate expression of the traditional centralized state system: they need its resources to be developed, they require extreme concentration of decision for the threat of use to be credible, and they require similarly structured enemies for the threat to have a target. Their elimination – essential for the long-term survival of humanity – is unlikely to come from a decision to abolish them, but it may eventually happen through an evolution of political structures that will make them irrelevant, for lack of resources, centralized decision makers, and targets.

At the strategic level, the evolution of the world towards ever-bigger building blocks – the US, China, Europe, Russia – ­will be reversed. The ongoing backlash against a European super-state is partly an expression of nostalgic nationalism, partly an acknowledgement that big structures can be dangerous because the stakes are just too high when a change occurs at the top. But now the era of the big state is coming to an end.

At the same time, the world has benefited enormously from the economies of scale of globalization and from the dynamism brought about by diversity. Individuals, cities must be connected, but the connections are unlikely to replicate the pyramidal model of traditional federalism. The European Union will need to adapt to that new situation if it wants to stay ahead of its time.

More likely, in a flatter world, interoperability and communications between smaller entities will be achieved through a multiplicity of issue-specific arrangements that will balance democratic and technical legitimacy: think of the evolving governance of the internet.

The ongoing backlash against a European super-state is partly an expression of nostalgic nationalism, partly an acknowledgement that big structures can be dangerous...

At the operational level, just as “know your customers” has become an obligation for any law-abiding bank, know-thy-neighbour is likely to become a feature of tomorrow’s societies. If applied to big entities such as mega-states, or even mega-cities, it could destroy anonymity, which has been an essential dimension of freedom, and could make our societies oppressively Orwellian.

However, if there is a multiplicity of political entities, allowing us to choose our neighbours, and if we can protect privacy through robust encryption, that risk will be largely eliminated. Freedom will be ensured less through separation of powers and more through a juxtaposition of multiple powers.

Why Decentralization Makes Sense

The present experience with increased flows of refugees pouring into Europe provides the best example of the value of decentralization. When human beings are just part of a statistic, they can easily be perceived as a threat. When they acquire a human face, natural human empathy reasserts itself, as has been the case in many German small towns welcoming refugees.

Decentralized defense will operationalize that intuition: the abstraction of the nation feeds dangerous nationalism; the empowerment of individuals connected by proximity strengthens the fabric of a resilient and open society.

In Conversation with Isabelle Arradon

Originally published in The Brussels Binder

Interview conducted by Miranda Sunnucks.

Isabelle Arradon is the Director of Research and Special Adviser on Gender at the International Crisis Group, an organisation that seeks to prevent, mitigate and resolve deadly conflict. Her areas of expertise include human rights and the rule of law, security sector reform, and gender, discrimination and civil society.

In May 2017, Isabelle introduced a gender strategy for the International Crisis Group after consulting with staff across the organisation. A few months later, she established a gender, peace and security workstream to help further integrate the gender dimension across the organisation’s analytical work. With a dedicated team since September 2018, Isabelle has led projects on gender and militancy, specifically looking at the roles women play in supporting and sustaining insurgencies, women’s political participation, specifically the role of women’s groups to support peace efforts, and on the differentiated impact of conflict on men and women.

We sat down with Isabelle to talk about what motivates her, how she would like to reform the security sector, and what needs to happen to achieve gender equality.

You managed to implement a gender workstream at the organisation you work for. Why is it important to bring a gender lens to deadly conflict?

In 2003, when I was 24, I was working in the far western part of Indonesia, in Aceh. The Free Aceh Movement (GAM) was fighting an insurgency to create an independent state from Indonesia. I saw first-hand how years of armed conflict was having a major toll on civilians. While men suspected to be GAM fighters were at risk of torture or disappearance, women were often left with few options to look after their loved ones, as the men were gone and they were on the move with their children. I was struck by the role played by leading women’s rights activists – a prominent female lawyer Syarifah Murlina (who died two years later when a tsunami struck Aceh), an academic Khairani Arifin, also a mother of three, caring for the displaced, as well as young female activists seeking to make a difference for the local population. I was there again in the aftermath of the 2005 peace agreement, when Sharia-based local laws were implemented and new restrictions were imposed on women and gay men. In this post-conflict society where women were being told how they should dress and behave, amid a wider context of unresolved cases of conflict-related sexual and gender-based violence, I witnessed how the gender discourse was politicised and used as a scene of new power battles, limiting the space for dissent. These first-hand experiences showed me how women’s rights and gender is another battle-ground, an integral part of societal dynamics prior, during and after conflict, and therefore why a gender lens needs to be incorporated into conflict analysis.

Syarifah Murlina from the Legal Aid Foundation, January 2003, Aceh. Private

When I joined the International Crisis Group in August 2014, after ten years working for Amnesty International, I realised that, despite some strong research on women’s security and conflict (eg, on Pakistan), we were not systematically integrating a gender dimension into our analysis. If we did, I argued, we could better understand the vastly different and complex social dynamics of different communities, how they inform conflict and how war changes people – their needs, their roles, their aspirations. And yes, this is a huge challenge: adopting a gender perspective requires anthropological analysis; it requires the audacity to challenge stereotypes that we all have, and, as an analyst, to unpack those in the societies we study. It often requires asking questions in highly patriarchal contexts where ideas around women’s rights or gender are highly politicised and poorly understood. Together with other colleagues, and with initial support from Sanam Naraghi-Anderlini, a long-time advocate for women’s participation in our field, I emphasized that by doing this, we could do a better job. We could better analyse the dynamics at play prior to conflict, understand experiences of those caught up in conflict, and find more durable solutions for peace in the interest of all populations.

Furthermore, I argued that this workstream would allow us to carry out a political analysis of gender, taking into account the different layers of involvement in militancy for men and women, how armed groups and governments alike have viewpoints on what men and women should be doing in the public and private spheres, and how these discourses play out in conflict, inform recruitment into armed groups, and energise war strategies. I also insisted on the importance of challenging our understanding of power and influence, and how shedding a light on the role of women was extremely important. Lastly, I felt it was crucial to understand the importance of civil society and specifically women’s groups having a role to play to inform our research and broader policy discussions including on security arrangements to mitigate harm and support sustainable peace.

Isabelle Arradon with Acehnese civil society activists, April-May 2003, Aceh. Private

Was it a challenge to implement this workstream?

It was, and this is because everything is compartmentalised in this field – human rights, economic analysis, security and so on. Gender has traditionally been siloed to the domain of human rights, associated with the promotion of “women’s rights”, and too often has been left out of security studies or international relations. This was not just the case at Crisis Group but in other institutions as well. Nevertheless, I found it important that Crisis Group, an organisation that seeks to talk to all parties with the aim of resolving deadly conflict, analysed gender discourses in the same way that we analysed other social strands. I felt that more training of our staff was needed to help them understand what the concepts meant, and to clarify that gender analysis was not just the domain of human rights, but also our domain, that of conflict resolution. I explained that it was about looking at men and women away from the sole binary lens of victim-perpetrator, but also to unpack various levels of allegiances to militancy and what changes affected men and women during conflict. Since launching the workstream, which also builds on the excellent work of Crisis Group analysts over the years, our research has shown time and again that gender is in the domain of power politics.

For example, we have been working on women’s evolving role in militant groups, looking specifically at Boko Haram in Nigeria and Al-Shabaab in Somalia. We found that, while many women are coerced into joining these groups, many others join voluntarily, and take up key roles in recruitment, fundraising or arms smuggling. The concepts surrounding gender in conflict are complex and to reduce gender analysis to a focus on victims – while important – prevents us from uncovering other hidden truths: that despite challenging environments many women have agency and a role to shape peace as in the case of Aceh, that they can be spoilers in their own right as part of their role in insurgencies, or that men themselves are also at risk of a range of abuses – including sexual abuse.

So yes, mainstreaming gender analysis across our work was a challenge. But thankfully I benefited early on from the support of the top leadership at the organisation, and from the energy and continuous help of many wonderful colleagues across programs. Also, for all to see first hand how it helped bring nuances to conflict analysis, which otherwise would have been overlooked (eg, on Turkey and the Syrian youth) has energised the workstream. It is complicated to keep the debate in conflict prevention as it should be: non-political and with a view to improve the lives of civilians. Helping make a difference in the lives of conflict-affected populations is what I aim for Crisis Group’s work to deliver.

One of your areas of expertise is reform of the security sector. Security is a very male-dominated area of foreign affairs. How have you been able to navigate your way as a woman in this field? What has been the key to your success?

It’s true that early on in my career I encountered very male-dominated spheres, especially when I carried out my work on the security sector in South East Asia. While in Aceh, authorities were overwhelmingly men – military officials, the police, local government officials. Even civil society leaders were mostly male. Later with Amnesty International, I worked on policing issues and similarly I met dozens of male senior police officers, prison guards or security officials over the course of multiple field trips and human rights investigations.

Although I was quite young when I started, and perhaps perceived as less credible, I found strength in the injustice I was seeing and the support I was getting from fellow colleagues and tireless human rights activists on the ground. I was also lucky enough to come from a relatively privileged position, being from a country, France, which did not fuel particular animosity in this part of the world but carried some respect – probably in part due to its position on the UN Security Council; you can’t underestimate how different power dynamics interact together – it’s not just about gender, but also age, nationality, education status, socio-economic background, etc. We should always bear these multiple identities in mind when talking about inclusion. This is also why I find partnerships so powerful, it allows the more privileged to amplify the voices of those who have something to say but who are unable to. This is one of the reasons I felt it was so important for Crisis Group to partner with the Brussels Binder, whose core mission is to ensure all voices are heard.

I would also add that throughout my career, a huge number of men, directly working with conflict-affected populations or in decision-making roles, have worked with me to draw attention to these issues. There are so many men who care deeply about making a difference on the ground for all, and getting the right analysis out.

Isabelle Arradon presenting the gender workstream at Crisis Group Board Meeting, April 2017, Brussels. CRISISGROUP / Hugh Pope

You often find all-male panels in discussions on foreign affairs. Why is this?

This is a very gendered field. For some reasons security studies, geopolitical analysis and international relations seem to have attracted more male candidates. In contrast there are probably more women than men working for human rights organisations. In many societies impacted by deadly conflict and that Crisis Group works on, it is also notable that very few women are involved in politics or senior government positions. Also, it is mainly men who take up arms and negotiate peace deals, men who are the majority of peacekeepers or national security forces, and mostly men who are political leaders. You can count the number of female G20 leaders on one hand.

However, the small number of female politicians does not reflect the huge number of female experts working in this field, but for a myriad of reasons, they are not asked to participate on panels. There are many underlying causes: women not having the right job title or the right network. It can also be about the very compartmented way expertise is perceived, especially security in the most narrow sense, where the emphasis is state security instead of human security. For example, I don’t see human rights experts on security panels. Why not? I think they have something to contribute. The terminology may be different, but bringing these perspectives to the table, especially if based on input from grassroots organisations, is important. The Brussels Binder has understood this question and has taken significant steps to address it – enabling diversity of experience and perspectives to be reflected in policy debates can lead to innovative, inclusive policies that positively impact society.

Isabelle Arradon discussing the concept of human security at NATO inclusive, July 2018. Twitter / @brandonjlocke

If you could give one piece of advice to a woman who finds herself on an all-male panel, what would it be?

You must remember that you are as good as the other members of that panel. Make sure you prepare well so that you have something to say, and have the confidence to say it. If you are moderating, think about giving space to a diverse audience to ask questions, and that the content of the discussion touches on a range of issues, including the gender perspective, as appropriate. Beware as well that some men are champions of inclusive approaches, and can surprise you by bringing important elements to the fore that help address hidden dimensions of change.

What are, from your perspective, the biggest challenges for women in leadership roles?

In my experience, one major challenge is having a work-life balance. Becoming a mother changed the way I worked and my relation to time. I would never have been able to do what I do – which involved at times extended periods of field work abroad – without flexible working arrangements and help at home. It is important for employers to think about men and women who have families, or differing needs. Leadership should not require being in the office 24 hours a day. It should be understood in different ways so as to cater for different populations. Diversity is crucial to the health of an organisation, especially an international organisation like ours, so ensuring that women – from different parts of society and across different geographic areas – can be part of that conversation is key. In conflict areas and societies where free speech is curtailed, it is also about ensuring that women activists and political leaders can navigate life free from threats, harassment and other abuse. Recently I raised the alarm about protecting women’s space in politics.

What is the main point that you would like to make about equality today?

One must never underestimate the power of education. With education, women can make decisions about their lives in an informed way. However, while the quality of education is improving, society still needs to catch up. I have two teenage daughters, I can see that the world has infinite possibilities, but will the world catch up to accommodate those possibilities? Despite many contexts with similarly high levels of education, there is still a huge disparity between men and women’s access to leadership positions, especially in our field. Something needs to be adjusted so that the new generation can decide. It isn’t necessarily about all women being able to reach leadership positions. It is about giving them the choice.