Statement on Military Violence Against Women

October 11th, 2018 - by admin

International Institute on Peace Education – 2018-10-11 01:58:21

Statement on Military Violence Against Women
International Institute on Peace Education

“Violence against women (VAW) under the present system of militarized state security is not an aberration that can be stemmed by specific denunciations and prohibitions.

“VAW is and always has been integral to war and all armed conflict. It pervades all forms of militarism. It is likely to endure so long as the institution of war is a legally sanctioned instrument of state; so long as arms are the means to political, economic or ideological ends.

“To reduce VAW; to eliminate its acceptance as a “regrettable consequence” of armed conflict; to exorcize it as a constant of the “real world” requires the abolition of war, the renunciation of armed conflict and the full and equal political empowerment of women as called for by the UN Charter.”

Violence against Women
is Integral to War and Armed Conflict —

The Urgent Necessity of the Universal Implementation of UNSCR 1325

A Statement on Military Violence against Women
addressed to the 57th Session of the United Nations
Commission on the Status of Women, March 4-15, 2013

Note: This is an abstract for a longer paper being prepared for publication by Betty Reardon. The assertions that comprise the arguments of this statement derive from literature on gender and peace.

On the final day of the 57th Commission on the Status of Women there was relief among peace activists that the Agreed Conclusions included support for the Arms Trade Treaty and made reference to UNSCRs 1325 and 1820. However, it reflected far from adequate attention to issues of women’s right to participate in security policymaking and the necessity to move forward on the full implementation of 1325 on Women, Peace and Security.

The statement below is still as urgent as it was when circulated in the first days of CSW. We will continue to circulate the Statement for future presentation to UN Women, and consideration by those working toward the implementation of 1325.

Since the first version was circulated we have added a recommendation on the abolition of nuclear weapons as requested by some endorsers. While these genocidal weapons are a threat to all living things, the particular effects of radioactive fallout on women will be included in the full discussion of multiple forms of military violence against women in a more detailed future article.

More recently two forms of MVAW were also added, humiliation, upon learning of incidents in the DRC, and harm to health and wellbeing, acknowledging consequences of long-term weapons testing on the Puerto Rican island of Vieques. We will continue to add more forms of MVAW as we become aware of them.

We invite more endorsements to augment the over 100 organizations and 148 individuals worldwide who had endorsed the Statement as of this date.

Click here to see current endorsements

The Statement

Violence against women (VAW) under the present system of militarized state security is not an aberration that can be stemmed by specific denunciations and prohibitions. VAW is and always has been integral to war and all armed conflict. It pervades all forms of militarism. It is likely to endure so long as the institution of war is a legally sanctioned instrument of state; so long as arms are the means to political, economic or ideological ends.

To reduce VAW; to eliminate its acceptance as a “regrettable consequence” of armed conflict; to exorcize it as a constant of the “real world” requires the abolition of war, the renunciation of armed conflict and the full and equal political empowerment of women as called for by the UN Charter.

UN Security Council Resolution 1325 was conceived as a response to the exclusion of women from security policy making, in the belief that such gender exclusion is a significant factor in the perpetuation of war and VAW. The originators assumed that VAW in all its multiple forms, in ordinary daily life as well as in times of crisis and conflict remains a constant because of women’s limited political power.

Constant, quotidian VAW is unlikely to be significantly reduced until women are fully equal in all public policy making, including and especially peace and security policy. The universal implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security is the most essential means to reduce and eliminate the VAW that occurs in armed conflict,

in preparation for combat and in its aftermath. Stable peace requires gender equality. Fully functioning gender equality requires the dissolution of the present system of militarized state security. The two goals are inextricably linked one to the other.

To understand the integral relationship between war and VAW, we need to understand some of the functions that various forms of military violence against women serve in the conduct of war.

Focusing on that relationship reveals that the objectification of women, denial of their humanity and fundamental personhood encourages VAW in armed conflict, just as dehumanization of the enemy persuades armed forces to kill and wound enemy combatants.

It also reveals that the outlawing of all weapons of mass destruction, reducing the stocks and destructive power of all weaponry, ending the arms trade and other systematic steps toward General and Complete Disarmament (GCD) are essential to the elimination of military violence against women (MVAW.)

This statement seeks to encourage support for disarmament, the strengthening and enforcement of international law and the universal implementation of UNSCR 1325 as instruments for the elimination of MVAW.

War is a legally sanctioned tool of state. The UN Charter calls upon members to refrain from the threat and use of force (Art.2.4), but also recognizes the right of defense (Art. 51) None-the-less most instances of VAW are war crimes.

The Rome Statute of the ICC substantiates rape as a war crime. However, the fundamental patriarchalism of the international state system perpetuates impunity for most perpetrators, a fact finally recognized by the UN in the adoption of UNSCR 2106. So the full extent of the crimes, their relationship to the actual waging of war and the possibilities for the enforcement of the criminal accountability of those who have committed them need to be brought into all discussions on the prevention and elimination of MVAW.

A greater understanding of particular manifestations of these crimes and the integral role they play in warfare may lead to some fundamental changes in the international security system, changes conducive to ending war itself. To promote such understanding, listed below are some forms and functions of MVAW.

Identifying Forms of Military Violence
And their Functions in Warfare

Listed below are several forms of military violence against women (MVAW) committed by military personnel, rebels or insurgents, peacekeepers and military contractors, suggesting the function each serves in waging war.

The core concept of violence from which these types and functions of military violence are derived is the assertion that violence is intentional harm, committed to achieve some purpose of the perpetrator. Military violence comprises those harms committed by military personnel that are not a necessity of combat, but none-the-less an integral part of it.

All sexual and gender based violence is outside actual military necessity. It is this reality that is recognized in the Beijing Platform for Action’s addressing of armed conflict and the Security Council resolutions 1820, 1888 and 1889 and 2106 that seek to curb MVAW.

Included among the types of MVAW identified below are:
military prostitution,
trafficking and sexual slavery;
random rape in armed conflict and in and around military bases;
strategic rape;
the use of military arms to inflict violence against women in post-conflict as well as conflict situations;
impregnation as ethnic cleansing;
sexual torture;
sexual violence within the organized military and domestic violence in military families;
domestic violence and spouse murders by combat veterans;
public humiliation and damage to health.

No doubt there are forms of MVAW not taken into account here.

Military prostitution and the sexual exploitation of women have been features of warfare throughout history. At present brothels can be found around military bases and at the sites of peace-keeping operations.

Prostitution — usually work of desperation for women — is openly tolerated, even organized by the military, as essential to the “morale” of the armed forces. Sexual services are deemed essential provisions for waging war — to strengthen the “fighting will” of the troops. Military sex workers are frequently victims of rape, various forms of physical abuse and murder.

Trafficking and sexual slavery is a form of VAW that stems from the idea that sexual services are necessary to fighting troops. The case of the “comfort women,” enslaved by the Japanese military during WWII is the best known, perhaps the most egregious instance of this type of military VAW.

Trafficking to military bases continues to this day abetted by the impunity enjoyed by the traffickers and their military facilitators. More recently, trafficked women have been literally enslaved in conflict and post-conflict peacekeeping operations. Women’s bodies are used as military supplies.

Viewing and treating women as commodities is absolute objectification. Objectification of other human beings is standard practice in making war acceptable to combatants and civil populations of nations at war.

Random rape in armed conflict and around military bases is an expected and accepted consequence of the militarized security system. It illustrates that militarism in any form increases the possibilities of sexual violence against women in militarized areas in “peace time” as well as war time.

This form of MVAW has been well documented by Okinawa Women Act against Military Violence. OWAAMV has recorded the reported rapes of local women by American military personnel from the invasion in 1945 to the present. The consequence of the misogyny that infects military training, when it occurs in war rape functions as an act of intimidation and humiliation of the enemy.

Strategic and mass rapes — like all sexual assaults — this deliberately planned and undertaken form of MVAW intends to inflict sexual violence as a mean of humiliating, not only the actual victims, but, most especially their societies, ethnic groups, and/or nations. It is also intended to lessen the adversary’s will to fight.

As a planned assault on the enemy, large scale rape is a special egregious form of military violence against women, usually inflicted en masse in attacks that demonstrate the objectification of women as property of the enemy, military targets rather than human beings. It serves to shatter the social and familial cohesion of the adversary in that women are the base of societal relationships and domestic order.

Military arms as instruments of VAW are used in the rape, mutilation, and murder of non-combatant women. Weapons are often the emblems of manhood, conceived within patriarchy, as tools for enforcing male power and dominance. The numbers and destructive power of weapons are a source of national pride in the militarized state security system, argued to provide defensive deterrence.

The militarized masculinity of patriarchal cultures makes aggressive masculinity and access to weapons enticements to many young men to enlist in the military.

Impregnation as ethnic cleansing has been designated by some human rights advocates as a form of genocide. Significant instances of this type of MVAW have occurred before the eyes of the world. The military objective of these purposeful rapes is to undermine the adversary in several ways, the main one being by reducing the future numbers of their people and replacing them with the offspring of the perpetrators, robbing them of a future and a reason to continue to resist.

Sexual torture, psychological as well as physical, is meant to terrorize the civilian population of an enemy nation, ethnic group or an opposing political group, intimidating them so as to gain compliance to occupation or to discourage civilian support of the military and strategic actions of the opposing group.

It is often inflicted on the wives and female family members of opposing political forces, as has happened in military dictatorships. It manifests the general misogyny of patriarchy intensified during war so as to reinforce objectification of women and “otherness” of the enemy.

Sexual violence in military ranks and domestic violence in military families has recently become more widely publicized through the courage of victims, women who have risked their military careers and further harassment by speaking out. Nothing makes more obvious the integral relationship of MVAW to war, to preparation for it and to post conflict than its prevalence within the ranks of the military.

While not officially condoned or encouraged (It recently came under congressional investigation and review by the US Department of Defense) it still continues where there are women in armed forces, serving to maintain the secondary and subservient position of women, and the intensification of aggressive masculinity, idealized as military virtue.

Domestic violence (DV) and spouse murder by combat veterans occurs on the home return of veterans of combat. This form of MVAW is especially dangerous because of the presence of weapons in the home. Believed to be a consequence of both combat training and PTSD, DV and spouse abuse

in military families it derives in part from the systemic and integral role of VAW in the psychology of some warriors and symbolizes extreme and aggressive masculinity.

Public humiliation has been used to intimidate women and cast shame on their societies, a means of denying human dignity and self worth. It is an assertion of coercive power intended to establish the superiority and control of those inflicting it, often the victor in a conflict on women of the vanquished or the resistant. Strip searching and enforced nudity demonstrating the vulnerability of the victims have been used for this purpose recently in African conflicts.

Harm to health, physical and psychological well-being is suffered by women not only conflict areas, but also in post conflict areas where sustenance and services do not assure fundamental human needs. It also occurs in areas of military training and weapons testing.

In such areas the environment tends to become toxic, harming the general health of the local population, it is especially harmful to women’s reproductive health, producing sterility, miscarriages and birth defects. Beyond the physical harm, being in the area of constant military activity — even if only training and testing — with a high noise level and the daily fear of accidents take a high toll on psychological health.

These are among the uncounted costs of the militarized security system that women pay in the name of a “necessity of national security,” constant preparation and readiness for armed conflict.

Conclusions and Recommendations
The present system of militarized state security is an ever-present threat to the human security of women. This very real security threat will continue so long as states claim the right to engage in armed conflict as a means to the ends of the state; and so long as women are without adequate political power to assure their human rights, including their rights to human security sacrificed to the security of the state.

The ultimate means to overcome this ongoing and pervasive security threat is the abolition of war and the achievement of gender equality. Some of the tasks to be undertaken toward this end are: the implementation of the Security Council resolutions 1820, 1888 and 1889 intended to reduce and mitigate MVAW; actualizing all of the possibilities of UNSCR 1325 with emphasis on the political participation of women in all matters of peace and security, reiterated in UNSCR 2106; pursuing measures that hold promise of achieving and end to war itself, such as the following recommendations.

Originally put forth for the outcome document of CSW 57, peace activists and educators are urged to continue pursuing them.

Some specific recommended tasks include measures to end violence against women and measures that are steps toward the ending of war as an instrument of state:

1. Immediate compliance by all member states with the provisions of UNSCR 1325 and 2106 calling for women’s political participation in the prevention of armed conflict.

2. Development and implementation of National Action Plans to actualize the provisions and purposes of UNSCR 1325 in all relevant circumstances and at all levels of governance — local through global.

3. Special emphasis should be placed on immediate implementation of the anti VAW provisions of UNSCR resolutions 1820, 1888 and 1889.

4. End impunity for war crimes against women by bringing to justice all perpetrators of MVAW, including national armed forces, insurgents, peacekeepers or military contractors. Citizens should take action to assure that their governments comply with the anti-impunity provisions of UNSCR 2106. If needed to do so member states should enact and implement legislation to criminalize and prosecute all forms of MVAW.

5. Take immediate steps to sign, ratify, implement and enforce the Arms Trade Treaty (opened for signature on June 3, 2013) to end the flow of weapons that increase the frequency and destructiveness of violent conflict, and are used as instruments of MVAW.

6. GCD (General and Complete Disarmament under international controls) should be declared the primary goal of all arms treaties and agreements that should be formulated with a view toward: reduction and elimination of MVAW, the universal renunciation of nuclear weapons and repudiation of armed force as a means to conduct conflict. Negotiation of all such agreements should involve the full participation of women as called for by UNSCRs 1325 and 2106. GCD and gender equality are the essential and fundamental means of assurance of a just and viable world peace.

7. Conduct a global campaign to educate about all forms of MVAW and the possibilities that the Security Council Resolutions offer for overcoming them . This campaign is to be directed toward the general public, schools, all public institutions and civil society organizations. Special efforts should be made to assure that all members of all police, military, peacekeeping forces and military contractors are educated about both MVAW and the legal consequences risked by perpetrators.

Educators and activists undertaking to advance such a campaign are requested to inform the International Institute on Peace Education (IIPE) of their efforts so as to share them with other educators.

Drafted by Betty Reardon March 2013, revised March 2014, continuing to gather endorsement in addition to those below.

ACTION: Click here or scroll to the bottom to endorse the statement.

Organization / Institutional Endorsements

1. International Peace Bureau (Nobel Laureate organization)

2. Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom

3. Global Network of Women Peacebuilders

4. Pax Christi International

5. Global Fund for Women

6. Women Peacemakers Program (WPP), Hague, Netherlands
8. International Institute on Peace Education

9. Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict (GPPAC), Netherlands

10. World Council for Curriculum and Instruction

11. People’s Movement for Human Rights Learning, USA

12. Feminist Scholar/Activist Network on Demilitarization

13. Global Kids, USA

14. Canadian Voice of Women for Peace

15. Peace Action, USA

16. DidiBahini, Nepal

17. Shantimalika, Nepal

18. Permanent Peace Movement

19. Middle East and North Africa Partnership for Prevention of Armed Conflict

20. Women Engaged in Action on 1325

21. Engender

22. Liga de Mujeres Desplazados, Colombia

23. Women in Black Belgrade

24. Peace Education Center, Miriam College, Manila, Philippines

25. Ashta no Kai, India

26. Asian Circle 1325

27. Okinawa Women Act Against Military Violence, Japan

28. Latin American & Caribbean Committee for the Defense of the Human rights of Women

29. Femlinkpacific

30. Sansristi, India

31. Nepal International Consumers Union

32. Pacific Network for Peace and Disarmament

33. Sonke Gender Justice Network (by Bafana Khumalo)

34. Women’s UN Report Network

35. South Asian Forum for Human Rights

36. The Prajna Trust, Chenai (by Rita Manchanda)

37. JASS (Just Associates)

38. Manipur Women Gun Survivors

39. Red de Educacion Popular Entre Mujeres de Latinoamerica y Caribe (REPEM LAC)

40. Interfaith Council of New York

41. UNESCO Chair for Peace — University of Puerto Rico

42. Peace Geeks, Canada

43. Alianza de Mujeres Viequenses, Puerto Rico

44. Colectivo lle` (an anti-racist women’s collective in Puerto Rico)

45. Ma’a Fafine mo e Famili Inc. / femlink

46. Women’s Active Museum on War and Peace, Japan

47. Women Making Peace, South Korea

48. National Peace Academy, USA

49. Sierra Leone Peace Alliance and Salone Foundation

50. The Center for Nonviolence and Democratic Education, University of Toledo OH, USA


52. Operation 1325, Sweden

53. SIGNIS, the World Catholic Association for Communication, Belgium

54. Initiatives for International Dialogue (IID), Philippines

55. Asia-Pacific Solidarity Coalition

56. Mindanao Peaceweavers, Philippines

57. SERAPAZ, Servicios y Acesoria para la Paz A.C., Mexico

58. Nansen Dialogue Centre Montenegro

59. Nansen Dialogue Centre Serbia

60. Northeast Asian Regional Peacebuilding Institute (NARPI), South Korea

61. CIASE, Colombia

62. Center for Serenity, USA

63. Women Peace Initiatives-Uganda

64. Women Problems Research Union-Woman’s Institute, Azerbaijan

65. The Peaceful Educator Foundation, USA

66. Nonviolence International, Canada

67. Malaysian Physicians for Social Responsibility

68. Naga Women’s Union, India

69. Basel Peace Office, Switzerland

70. US Peace Council

71. International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War — Turkey

72. Women in Peacebuilding Network, WANEP Nigeria

73. CHILDREN-Nepal

74. GMCoP: Global Movement for the Culture of Peace, USA

75. Peace Boat, Japan

76. Center for Constitutional Rights, USA

77. Alternatives to violence, Bogotá, Colombia

78. Schools of Peace Foundation, Colombia

79. Peace Support Network, USA

80. Akson Nepal

81. Asian Circle 1325, Philippines

82. Institute for Peace and Security Studies at Addis Ababa University (IPSS AAU), Ethiopia

83. Peace Union of Finland

84. Latin American Circle of International Studies (LACIS), Mexico

85. National Ethical Service, USA

86. Women4NonViolence in Peace+Conflict Zones, Norway


88. DarfurWomen Action Group, USA

89. Partners in Sustainable Development, Pakistan

90. Non State Actors Forum-Zimbabwe

91. Eugene City of Peace, USA

92. School Sisters of Notre Dame, USA

93. IHAN: International Health Awareness Network, USA

94. Network of African Youth for Development — Ghana

95. World Vision Advocacy Forum (WVAF), Nepal

96. Philippine Women’s Network for Peace & Security

97. Centre For Peace Education Manipur (CFPEM), India
99. PAN-Africa Peace Associates Network, Uganda

100. Sonke Gender Justice Network, South Africa/Burundi

101. African Migrant Women Association in South Africa (AMWASA)

102. Global Campaign for Peace Education, USA

103. ECCHR: European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights

104. Peace Foundation Disarmament and Security Centre,
Christchurch, New Zealand

105. CDSC (Civilian Defence Research Center), Italy

106. The Ribbon International, USA

107. Berkshire Citizens for Peace and Justice (BCP&J), USA

108. International Health Awareness Network, USA

109. International Day of Peace NGO Committee at the UN

110. Global Organisation for Life Development,(GOLD), India

111. Peace Education Resource Centre (PERC), New Delhi, India

112. International Fellowship of Reconciliation, the Netherlands

113. Latin American Circle of International Studies (LACIS), Mexico

114. HEALEverywhere (for survivors of domestic violence), USA

115. Association for Women’s Rights in Development (AWID), Global

116. Le Mouvement de la Paix, France

117. Feminist Peace Network, USA

118. Peace is Loud, USA

119. Femin Ijtihad/ Strategic Advocacy for Human Rights, Afghanistan

120. Women United for Social,Economic&Total Empowerment (WUSETE) — Kenya

121. Veterans For Peace ch. 159, USA

122. Community Alliance of Lane County, USA

123. Solider’s Heart Inc.

Cameroon Peace Foundation, Cameroon

Individual Endorsements
(Institutions listed for identification purposes only)

1. Jody Williams, Nobel Peace Laureate and Chair, Nobel Women’s Initiative, USA

2. Mairead Corrigan-Maguire, Nobel Peace Laureate, Ireland

3. Dr. Vandana Shiva, Navdanya Research Foundation for Science and Technology, India

4. Alyn Ware, 2009 Right Livelihood Award Laureate, New Zealand

5. András Bíró, 1995 Right Livelihood Award Laureate, Hungary

6. Anwar Fazal, 1982 Right Livelihood Award Laureate, Malaysia

7. Shrikrishna Upadhaya, 2010 Right Livelihood Award Laureate, Nepal

8. Tarja Cronberg, Finland. Member, European Parliament (MEP). Board Member, International Peace Bureau (IPB). Chair, Finnish Peace Union.

9. Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury, Bangladesh

10. Riane Eisler, Center for Partnership Studies, USA

11. MinouTavarez Mirabel, MP, Dominican Republic; Chair, International Council, Parliamentarians for Global Action

12. Peter Weiss, Vice President, Center for Constitutional Rights

13. Prof. Ritu Dewan, Mumbai University

14. Saloni Singh , Didibahini, Nepal

15. Samita Karmacharya, Lalitpur Women Forum, Nepal

16. Namuna Kahadga, PEACE, Nepal

17. Kanti Bajracharya, Kathmsndu Mahila Manch, Nepal

18. Sarita Kuwar, Bhaktapur, Nepal

19. Manju Chaudhary, WPEDE, Parsa, Nepal

20. Tony Jenkins, National Peace Academy, USA

21. Prof. Anita Yudkin, University of Puerto Rico

22. David J. Ragland, USA

23. Janet Gerson, International Institute on Peace Education, USA

24. Edward Kamara, Sierra Leone Peace Alliance & Salone Fdn

25. Lapang Chrisantus Defuna’an, Centre for Conflict Management and Peace Studies,University of Jos, Jos Plateau State, Nigeria

26. Tina Ottman, Kyoto University, Japan

27. Victor Grizzaffi, USA

28. Janet Weil, CODEPINK, USA

29. Julie Ngozi Okeke, Women Initiative For Peace & Good Governance (WIPGG), Nigeria

30. Jeffrey R. Heeney, Canada

31. Margaret S. Fairman, USA

32. Steven Gelb, University of San Diego, USA

33. Dale Snauwaert, The University of Toledo, USA

34. Larry M Warren, United Methodist Church, USA

35. Fredrik S. Heffermehl, Norway

36. Lisa Worth Huber, Academic Director, MA program Conflict Transformation, USA

37. Ra Savage, New Zealand

38. Lynida Darbes, USA

39. Mary Lee Morrison, Pax Educare Consulting, USA

40. Michael Abkin, National Peace Academy, USA

41. Dr Lisa S Price, Canada

42. Damilola Agbalajobi, Obafemi Awolowo University, Nigeria

43. Stephanie Van Hook, USA

44. Aaranya Rajasingam, Regional Centre for Strategic Studies, Sri Lanka

45. Jill Strauss, USA

46. Mark Chupp, Case Western Reserve University, USA

47. Shazia Rafi, Secretary General, Parliamentarians for Global Action

48. Alice Slater, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, NY, USA

49. Alfred L. Marder, President, International Association of Peace Messenger Cities, USA

50. Jalna Hanmer, United Kingdom

51. Kelly Guinan, USA

52. Brian J Trautman, Berkshire Citizens for Peace and Justice, USA

53. Professor Alicia Cabezudo, UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL DE ROSARIO , Rosario — Argentina

54. Carmen Lauzon-Gatmaytan, Philippines

55. Madelyn MacKay, Voice of Women for Peace Canada

56. Miriam Saage, Germany

57. G. Gala, gcmp, Canada/USA

58. Christine Newland, Canada

59. Sofia Giranda, University of Jember, Indonesia

60. Erin Niemela, USA

61. Richard Matthews, Canada

62. Unto Vesa, TAPRI, Finland

63. Cécile Barbeito Thonon, peace educator, Escola de Cultura de Pau (School for a Culture of Peace ), Spain

64. Danielle Goldberg, Program on Peace-building and Rights, Columbia University, USA

65. J.V. Connors, Ph.D., USA

66. Mrs. Eryl Court, Canadian Voice of Women for Peace, Canada

67. Alba Arrieta, Colombia

68. Donna Torsu, Atlas Corps, Ghana

69. Dr. Shyrl Topp Matias, USA

70. Kazuyo Yamane, Japan

71. Rev. Dr. Priscilla Eppinger, USA

72. Cecilia Deme, Kurve Wustrow, Hungary

73. Som Prasad Niroula, Nepal Institute of Peace (NIP), Nepal

74. Tigist Yeshiwas, IPSS, AAU, Ethiopia

75. Chieko Baba, Seisen University, Japan

76. Daniela Rippitsch, Austria

77. Anitta Kynsilehto, University of Tampere, Finland

78. Lynne Woehrle, USA

79. Kristin Famula, National Peace Academy, USA

80. Dehanna Rice, USA

81. Jacqueline Stein, USA

82. Bev Tittle-Baker, USA

83. I Spellings, GMCoP, USA

84. Mintze van der Velde, Switzerland

85. Irene Dawa, Uganda/Italy

86. Bianca Cseke, Romania

87. Rachel E. McGinnis, USA

88. Shahla TabassumFatima Jinnah Women University, The Mall, Rawalpindi, Pakistan

89. Donna J. McInnis, Soka University, USA/Japan

90. Wim Laven, Instructor of Conflict Resolution, USA

91. Miass Abdelaziz , Sudan

92. Amel Aldehaib, Sudan

93. Anam Mushtaq, Fatima Jinnah Women University, Pakistan

94. Alisa Klein, USA

95. Dr Morgan Jeranyama, Non State Actors Forum-Zimbabwe

96. Beverley Stewart, International Anglican Women’s Network, Canada

97. Chizuru Asahina, Japan

98. Carlyn Jorgensen, USA

99. Ifigenia Georgiadou, Greece

100. Charles Christopher Weisbecker, USA

101. Staci M Alziebler-Perkins, NYC Genocide Prevention Coalition, USA

102. Jeff Garringer, USA

103. Jamie Snyder, USA

104. Denay Ulrich, USA

105. Rana Ehtisham Rabbani, GAMIP, Pakistan

106. Aida Santos Maranan, WEDPRO, Inc., Philippines

107. Mary Hope Schwoebel, USA

108. Genoveva Evelyn (Gennie) Ramos, New Zealand

109. Leban Serto, India

110. Signe Atim Allimadi, Gulu, Northern Ugadna

111. Danilo B. Galang, Philippines

112. Gedefaw, Zewdu Belete, Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia

113. Lauren Wadsworth, USA

114. Guyo Liban, National Cohesion and Integration Commission, Kenya

115. Luisa Ribeiro, Portugal

116. Matthew Johnson, USA

117. M. Madasamy (IPBIM), Guiness World Records Holder, Member, International Peace Bureau, India

118. Emily Doherty, Ireland

119. Susan Mason, USA

120. Kelly Guinan, Peace Support Network, USA

121. Dr. Sorosh Roshan, USA

122. Eid Abu Sirhan, Jordan

123. Timothy Elder, USA

124. Sharon Cohen, USA

125. Gita Brooke, co-founder Operation Peace Through Unity (OPTU), New Zealand

126. Dr Ibrahim Choji, National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies, Nigeria

127. Prof. Elizabeth L. Enriquez, University of the Philippines

128. Sandra Turner, USA

129. Nick Redding, AC4, Columbia University, USA

130. Jason Lemieux, USA

131. Christina Dawkins, USA

132. Niki I., USA

133. Rajarshi Guha Ray, India

134. Betty Sitka, USA

135. Godwin Yidana, Ghana

136. Yuriko Yabu, Kinokuni Children’s Village Senior High School, Japan

137. Sundas, Fatima Jinnah Women University, Pakistan

138. Tasmia Matloob, Pakistan

139. Sonia Randhawa, Malaysia

140. Achan Mungleng, India

141. Ashley Walsh, Canada

142. Adam Khan, Canada

143. Luis Gutierrez-Esparza, Latin American Circle of International Studies (LACIS), Mexico

144. Fran H. , USA

145. Steve Nation, USA

146. Fatoumata Toure, Global Pan African Movement , Uganda

147. Lester Kurtz, George Mason University, USA

148. Miriam Sobá Peterson, Vieques, Puerto Rico

149. Penelope Hetherington, Canada

150. Tina Ottman, Japan

151. Shelley Corteville, USA

152. Kirk Boyd, USA

153. Sally Jo Gilbert de Vargas, Soldier’s Heart Seattle, Interfaith Community Sanctuary, USA

154. Michael E. Peterson, USA

155. Adriene J. Royal, USA

156. Aysha W., United Kingdom

157. Kristina Brun Madsen, Denmark

158. Hillary Siedler, USA

159. Barbara Yoshida, USA

160. Patricia Green, USA

161. Marsha McDonald, USA

162. Laura Patterson, USA

163. Patricia Raney, USA

164. Ben Bonner, USA

165. Stan Taylor, USA

166. Teresa Coppola, USA

167. Joseph Calbreath, USA

168. Jennifer Hixon, USA

169. Michael Leeds, USA

170. Mike Colkett, USA

171. Chontel Pelkey, USA

172. June Fothergill, USA

173. Lori Lonergan, USA

174. Keith Royal, USA

175. Susan Joyce, USA

176. Jan Walter, USA

177. Christopher Hurt, USA

178. Sue Lange, USA

179. Mary Jane Fothergill, USA

180. Prof. Dr. Susanne Nothhafft, Katholische Stiftungsfachhochschule München, Germany

181. Jay Yamashiro, Austria

182. Patricia Green, USA

183. Swarna Rajagopalan, The Prajnya Trust, India