Adolescent Girls in Crisis

B_077XzWAAAt8oc

Originally featured in Huffington Post here.

By Ambassador Melanne Verveer and Sarah Degnan Kambou


“I was in the field when they came. They came out of nowhere and they took me away, into the bush. I was just a child. They stole us away. They stole our innocence. They stole our lives from us.”

These are the words of Espérence, a girl taken from her family when war erupted in her village in the east of the Democratic Republic of Congo. And we know that there are tens of thousands more like her around the world. From villages in Northern Nigeria, to refugee camps in Jordan and Turkey, to communities fleeing their homes as a result of natural disasters, conflicts and crises are devastating the lives of men, women and children.

Conflict razes more than homes and cities. It dismantles social systems, leaving girls like Espérence particularly vulnerable to displacement and exploitation. In these settings, girls remain acutely vulnerable to physical and psychological abuse, rape, forced marriage, unwanted pregnancy and premature death. For adolescent girls living in these conditions, harassment and abuse are daily occurrences; basic safety is never taken for granted and fear is one of life’s few constants.

And yet, adolescent girls are powerful tools in building a better future. Ignoring or overlooking their rights and needs compromises any chance for long term sustainability and security. Joblessness, disrupted education, and untreated mental and physical wounds today are tomorrow’s peace and security problems. Moreover, we cannot possibly respond to these needs without talking with girls themselves.

We must shelve piece-meal approaches that neglect the expressed needs of adolescent girls and have subsequently proven to be woefully inadequate in mitigating their risk. Rather, the global community must move to a more effective approach – one that is girl-centric, comprehensive and integrated, and one that reduces risk and nurtures leaders for post-conflict societies.

Fundamentally, global leaders and policy makers must take a strong, principled stand against organizations, entities and individuals who are perpetrating violence, creating mayhem and devastating the lives of all citizens, but targeting adolescent girls in particular. Agencies entrusted with protecting civil society and the public good must condemn heinous, barbaric acts, such as forcing young girls to marry or act as sex slaves.

These global platforms are absolutely critical in focusing the world’s attention, and indeed resources, toward improving the lives of those living through conflict and crisis. But they are not enough. Above all, the global community must help societies marred by conflict and crisis to build up the community’s resilience to resist the further spread or a resurgence of a conflict.

What stands in the way of advancing a girl-centered strategy when responding to conflicts and crises? First, we lack critical information. Research documents how adolescent girls are faring globally, but these findings are reflective of more stable settings. Second, the media coverage of girls in crisis – from the Chibok Girls in Nigeria to girls in refugee camps in Jordan, to sex slaves held under ISIS – far too often sensationalizes coverage of girls’ horrific circumstances. Instead, the media must take a broader view of girls’ realities and report back on the rebuilding of lives and communities after the traditional media cycle for crises has ended.

Third, civil society groups, who are often frontline responders in crises, represent an under-tapped resource in building knowledge on how to address the needs of adolescent girls. Field staff trained to work in post-crisis settings can play an important role in facilitating critical reflection and documenting evidence that will inform policy and programs moving forward.

Fourth, those who have perpetrated violence against women and girls often emerge from conflict with impunity, or even as powerful leaders of new regimes. We must use law and policy tools at our disposal to ensure those who are responsible for perpetrating violence against girls are held to account. Moreover, we must pioneer new tools, which specifically advance the rights and lift up the voices of girls and women who have survived. We must work together to establish a new policy agenda for girls in crisis, which not only protects them from violence and exploitation in such instances, but also advance their rights.

In all spheres, let’s not move forward without the active involvement of girls themselves, who, through lived experience, are deeply familiar with difficult and dangerous times, and are knowledgeable about practical solutions that will meet immediate needs and prepare girls for the day when crisis abates and communities rebuild.

Each and every one of us has the power to say this is not the future we want for adolescent girls like Espérence. Let’s start today.


Ambassador Melanne Verveer is the Executive Director of the Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security, and former Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues.

Sarah Degnan Kambou is the President of the International Center for Research on Women.

Commemorating the Third Anniversary of the U.S. National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security

Screen Shot 2015-02-02 at 1.14.21 PM

On December 19, 2011, President Obama launched the United States National Action Plan (NAP) on Women, Peace and Security (WPS) through Executive Order 13595. Last week, USAID hosted a Third Anniversary Event to commemorate this fundamental change in how the U.S. government approaches diplomacy, development and defense to support women in conflict zones. The event featured speakers from USAID; the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor; the National Security Council and the Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security. The panel focused its remarks on successes and barriers to NAP implementation, including research gaps, in anticipation of the three-year review of the U.S. NAP.

The U.S. NAP represents the government’s express commitment to realizing UN Security Council Resolution 1325 (2000), which seeks to increase women’s participation in peacebuilding and protect women from conflict-related sexual violence. Bringing more women to negotiation tables, integrating solutions and justice for women into peace agreements, and increasing women in security and justice systems “is not just a nice thing to do, it is a strategic thing to do,” said Karen Hanrahan, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL) at the U.S. Department of State.

Echoing this sentiment, those in the WPS field must recognize that “we cannot sell the agenda with rights-based arguments alone,” said Dr. Robert Egnell, Senior Faculty Advisor at the Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security. “[And] we are still [unfortunately]…in a startup phase 15 years after the initiation of the agenda.” We need evidence-based research, which Egnell acknowledged tends to indicate a desire for quantitative figures—a report that can show “including women at the peace table is 70% more effective,” for example. However, there are so few cases of women’s inclusion in peace talks that it would be statistically insignificant research to form quantitative analyses at this juncture. Instead, Egnell suggested that we emphasize qualitative examples so we can begin to understand how women impact peace processes. Another facet of the WPS research agenda that Egnell raised is the need to shift from viewing women as victims to seeing them as change agents, so that 1325 can have the intended empowering effect.

To gauge the U.S. government’s success in implementing its NAP, Executive Order 13595 called for a comprehensive review after three years—which is due to take place in 2015. Contemplating the successes and challenges of the U.S. NAP, Carla Koppell, Chief Strategy Officer of USAID Office of the Administrator, shared her reflections on a recent trip to Uganda: There is a palpable difference in how individuals engage in conversations around gender today, versus three or four years ago. “Today, everyone at the mission thinks about gender issues as woven into the entire post-conflict reconstruction program.” Additionally, Dr. David Yang, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Bureau of Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance at USAID, highlighted that USAID has made significant progress in the past three years. Signs of this progress include the integration of WPS objectives into the overall USAID business model, mandatory country-level and project-level gender analysis, gender training for staff, and adopting mission orders at the country level on gender integration. While these are welcome indicators of success, many challenges to fully implementing the U.S. NAP still exist.

There are several tactical choices that the U.S. will need to address when reviewing its NAP and overall implementation strategy: Should there be a focus on rights based arguments or strategic arguments? An emphasis on gender perspectives or integration, on gender mainstreaming or specific functions? Where should the government initiate the process of change? After addressing these concerns, the U.S. will need to think about how to alter “centuries of ingrained bureaucratic processes…there are questions about how to effectively integrate organizational change that we still don’t have answers to,” Egnell indicated.

It is a point of critical importance: How do we get the appropriate stakeholders—at home and abroad – to accept this agenda and meaningfully incorporate it into preexisting structures? This is a fundamental challenge of working in the WPS field, especially in crisis environments where governments experience problems of political will and capacity, and cannot always plan beyond the urgency of the conflict at hand. Furthermore, we need to ascertain how “we address societal discrimination and cultural values associated with the WPS effort,” stated Regina Waugh, Director of Human Rights and Gender at the National Security Council. She asserted, “the type of social change that needs to happen is not an overnight thing.”

Hanrahan remains positive, noting the U.S. is “trying to improve how we do business” and is “committed to leading by example,” but cautions, “we must also be somewhat humble as we review [our] global track record.” In light of the upcoming 15th Anniversary of UNSCR 1325, the third anniversary of the U.S. NAP and its upcoming review, and the post-2015 development agenda, Hanrahan shared, “We are viewing 2015 as the year of women, peace and security,” and “we are pushing to place gender equality and women and girls at the heart of the post-2015 development agenda.”

In addition to the identified priorities, research gaps, successes and challenges, the U.S. and all countries committed to the WPS agenda will need to explore how to move beyond the numbers when assessing gains in women’s political participation. Yang stressed, “It is not just about increasing quotas, it is about devising, conceptualizing and achieving women’s true influence, power and leadership.” This is the essence of UNSCR 1325, and one of the fundamental goals of the WPS agenda.

As Koppell underscored in her remarks, “civil society is essential” to government accountability and mainstreaming this commitment across sectors. The involvement of civil society will be indispensable in designing a review of the U.S. NAP that addresses these identified gaps and ultimately strengthens the government’s commitment to effectively implementing 1325.


Ashley Binetti is the 2014-2015 Hillary Rodham Clinton Law Fellow at the Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security. She received her J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center in 2014, specializing in human rights and transnational law.

Japan Reaffirms Its Commitment to Women’s Participation in Peacebuilding

In partnership with the Institute for Inclusive Security, Georgetown University’s Institute for Women, Peace and Security co-hosted the inaugural National Action Plan Academy December 3-5 at Georgetown University to share best practices on developing, implementing and reviewing National Action Plans.

A National Action Plan (NAP) on Women, Peace and Security represents a country’s express commitment to realizing UN Security Council Resolution 1325 (2000), which seeks to increase women’s participation in peacebuilding and protect women from sexual violence. While the UN Security Council called upon member states to create NAPs in a 2004 presidential statement, only 48 Countries currently have NAPs, with Afghanistan being the most recent. There is still a long way to go—this number represents less than 25 percent of all UN member states, and the existence of a plan does not guarantee its implementation.

During the Academy, we had the privilege of speaking with Rui Matsukawa, Director of the Gender Mainstreaming Division in the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to learn more about Japan’s forthcoming NAP.

Japan began developing its NAP in September 2013, and is hoping to publish the plan in early 2015. When asked about the inspiration for embarking on this journey, Ms. Matsukawa said it was greatly facilitated by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s enthusiasm: “Prime Minister Abe’s government is really interested in women’s empowerment and gender equality—domestically and internationally. The Prime Minister’s leadership is the ‘why now’ piece.” She also noted the Prime Minister’s work on increasing women’s participation in the Japanese business world through womenomics, as well as Japan’s recent $3 billion contribution in Official Development Assistance for women’s empowerment initiatives.

In its NAP, Japan has focused on five themes contained within UN Security Council Resolution 1325: participation, protection, prevention, relief and recovery, and monitoring and evaluation. In summarizing the NAP’s focus, Ms. Matsukawa stated, “First, it’s about gender mainstreaming in peace and security; second, its about promotion of women’s rights issues more broadly.” The NAP’s provisions encompass prevention of and training on sexual and gender-based violence, assistance after natural disasters, peace education, victim assistance, participation of women in the community both politically and economically, and assistance to internally displaced persons and refugees, and more. Furthermore, the action items in the NAP apply not only to improving women’s status internationally, but within Japan’s own population as well. “If we promote externally, we promote internally,” Ms. Matsukawa affirmed.

The effort to develop Japan’s NAP has been a truly collaborative affair. Several government agencies and civil society organizations have come together to create a holistic, multi-layered approach. The government departments involved include the Ministry of Foreign affairs, Ministry of Defense, National Police Department, Ministry of Justice, Department of the Interior’s Peace Keeping Operations Secretariat, and Natural Disaster Department, among others. Each ministry has a representative in the office that coordinates internally within their department, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs serves as the coordinator.

“Our NAP is very specific and special in terms of its process,” Ms. Matsukawa shared, “It is not only about working on these issues, but how we work on them. We are working with civil society, and creating accountability towards civil society, which is very important.” The Ministry of Foreign Affairs held ten consultations within the central government, and five regional consultations with more than 30 civil society organizations (CSOs) in various regions of the country. The CSOs first met together to form a consensus, and then negotiated with the government agencies to shape the NAP’s focus and the indicators against which progress would be measured. Ms. Matsukawa noted that the interaction between CSOs and the government will extend beyond the NAP’s publication: “We will face difficulties with the CSOs, together—we will review our NAP over time, and may change focus or indicators to respond to feedback—but in that phase too there [will be] partnership between civil societies and [government] agencies.”

The NAP Academy has helped Japan assess potential areas for improvement before it renders the final version of its NAP. One Japanese CSO representative shared her concern that Japanese Parliament has not yet been involved in the NAP process, which might mean lessened political will for the implementation of the plan. Another uncovered issue concerned the number of proposed indicators in Japan’s NAP. Maki Mitsuoka of Japan’s Gender Mainstreaming Division reflected on what she had heard from peer country delegations who already had NAPs in place: “We have too many indicators…we will have too much data to collect.” Ms. Matsukawa also expressed her concern, noting, “We want improvement, and we want to be practical. Time and resources spent on information gathering can take away from implementation efforts.” The Japanese delegation indicated that it planned to bring this newly gained knowledge back home and reassess.

Implementation is crucial—without tangible actions, a NAP is a collection of words on paper. “We want to make sure it’s not just a [NAP] launch, but an implementation,” said Jacqueline O’Neill of the Institute for Inclusive Security as she addressed the NAP Academy delegates. The same idea holds true for the overarching implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1325—without countries identifying and executing clear action plans, the resolution will have nominal impact. When asked how to best support other countries in joining in this process, Ms. Matsukawa stated,

“The reason why womenomics is taken seriously in Japan is that it makes sense—it increases GDP. Similarly, including women in security efforts makes sense. If countries are educated on the benefits of adopting a NAP and inclusion of women in decision-making and peace and disaster management—that’s the motivation that will encourage them to act.”


Special thank you to Rui Matsukawa, Maki Mitsuoka, and Junichi Sumi for making this interview possible.

Ashley Binetti is the 2014-2015 Hillary Rodham Clinton Law Fellow at the Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security. She received her J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center in 2014, specializing in human rights and transnational law.