Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, et al. – 2018-10-20 02:47:26
Special to Environmentalists Against War
Joint Statement on Gender and Disarmament
Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, et al.
(October 17, 2018) — The negative impacts of patriarchy on our society are on full display when it comes to weapons, war, and militarism. The dominant discourse on these subjects tends to reinforce the highly problematic gendered norm that men are violent and powerful and women are vulnerable and need to be protected.
Challenging these norms is an important aspect of our work in First Committee, where we must promote the norm that disarmament is a process of strength, rationality, and justice. That peace and nonviolence are credible objectives. That we can work collectively to achieve security through disarmament and restrictions on the use of force and violence.
Recently, some disarmament forums have taken up the task to highlight the importance of gender diversity and the inclusion of women in their processes.
* The UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons recognises â€œthat the equal, full and effective participation of both women and men is an essential factor for the promotion and attainment of sustainable peace and security, and committed to supporting and strengthening the effective participation of women in nuclear disarmament.â€
* The Chairâ€™s summary of the 2017 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Preparatory Committee reflects that NPT states parties “were encouraged, in accordance with their commitments under United Nations Security Council resolution 1325, actively to support participation of female delegates in their own NPT delegations and through support for sponsorship programs.”
* The final report of the Third Review Conference of the UN Programme of Action on small arms and light weapons (SALW) recognises the importance of eradicating the illicit trade in SALW for combating gender-based violence, and the need for states to mainstream gender dimensions in their implementation of the Programme of Action, among other things.
Women’s participation is important to our work. But so is the incorporation of a gender analysis. This includes looking at how gender norms affect disarmament policies and practices, and how we can change them in order to facilitate progress both in disarmament and gender justice.
Other forums have started to do this. For example:
* At the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW) in August, the government of Canada hosted a side event with civil society groups to provide an intersectional feminist analysis of autonomous weapon systems.
* In trainings for parliamentarians and gender advocates organised this year by the UN Regional Center for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific, participants identified ways to challenge the strong social and cultural association between masculinity and guns.
These developments are very welcome and should be continued and further developed in as many disarmament forums as possible. But we need to do more. Several states have begun the work of developing feminist foreign policies. These policies require disarmament and nonviolence to be at the core of their objectives and their processes.
In this context:
We call on First Committee delegates to collaborate with civil society to make First Committee resolutions more gender-sensitive.
We urge them to improve gender and other forms of diversity in their disarmament delegations, systematically record and publish data on the composition of their delegations, and share their experiences of including gender perspectives in their disarmament policies and initiatives.
We call on all countries to effectively implement provisions against gender-based violence in the Arms Trade Treaty, the UN Programme of Action, and other instruments dealing with weapons proliferation and use.
We call on governments to research and promote the linkages between sustainable development, gender justice, and disarmament. We also urge the consideration of the impacts that weapons have on diverse populations.
A gender perspective should be integral to any discussion about new or emerging weapon technologies, lest debates on algorithm-based violence and innovations in science and technology in the context of international security and disarmament risk perpetuating structural biases and harmful gender-stereotypes.
Finally, we urge that governments invest in gender justice and other human rights and sustainable development instead of militarism.
Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy
Center for Peace Education-Miriam College
International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) Womenâ€™s Network
International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War
Mines Action Canada
Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom
Gender and Disarmament: Gender Perspective
Gendered Impacts of the Use and Trade of Weapons
Women’s League for Peace and Freedom
Women and men can suffer disproportionate or differential impacts from the use or proliferation of weapons, inside or outside of armed conflict. Men tend to make up the majority of direct victims of armed violence. Sometimes, they are targeted just for being men.
Women, however, can face differential impacts from the use of weapons such as exacerbated social and political inequalities and pressures from the increase in female-headed households; inequalities in access to survivor assistance; and higher risk of sexual and gender-based violence.
Gender Diversity in Disarmament
The underrepresentation of women in disarmament and arms control discussions, negotiations, and processes is fueled in part by the tendency to treat women as vulnerable victims, usually grouped together with children and the elderly.
This framing reinforces persistent constructions of women as the “weaker sex,” in need of protection by “powerful” men, and enables women’s continued exclusion from authoritative social and political roles. Meanwhile, the framing of all military-aged men as “potential” or actual militants entrenches a tendency to support “violent masculinities” — a social construction in which masculinity is linked with preparedness to use military action and to wield weapons.
Gendered perspectives on disarmament and arms control
The framing of women as weak and vulnerable is also often used to construct “a feminized and devalued notion of peace as unattainable, unrealistic, passive, and (it might be said) undesirable.”
The devaluation of certain perspectives, ideas, and, interests because they are marked as “feminine,” coupled with the equation of masculinity with violence gives war positive value as a show of masculine power. This means that even if women do participate in negotiations or discussions on matters related to peace and security, their positions or ideas are often forced to conform to the dominant perspective in order to be taken seriously.
This is not to say that women bring one perspective to a conversation and men bring another. It rather highlights the gendered understandings of war and peace, disarmament and armament, strength and weakness, which dictate what is considered “acceptable” by the dominant perspective in such conversations.
UN Security Council Resolution 1325, adopted in October 2000, is a watershed political framework recognising that men and women experience wars differently. It requires these differences be taken into account and recognises that women’s full and equal participation in all aspects and stages of peace processes is essential to building sustainable peace.
Resolution 1325 “makes the pursuit of gender equality relevant to every single Security Council action, ranging from elections to disarmament efforts.” However its promise to transform women from victims to peacebuilders has not been realised in practice.
There have been seven follow-on Security Council Resolutions that, together with 1325, comprise the Women, Peace and Security international policy framework. Those resolutions are 1820 (2009); 1888 (2009); 1889 (2010); 1960 (2011); 2106 (2013); 2122 (2013); and 2242 (2015).
In 2015, UN Women published a Global Study on 1325 that highlights some of the obstacles and challenges to full implementation of the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda.
WILPF and other civil society organisations have routinely called for clearer monitoring and evaluation of the resolution by the UN and its Member States. WILPF’s Women, Peace and Security programme (PeaceWomen) actively monitors UNSCR 1325â€™s implementation.
While 1325 brought the concept of “gender mainstreaming” to bear on UN offices and programmes dealing with disarmament and arms control issues, it was not until 2010 that the General Assembly began to consider its specific implications for disarmament with the adoption of resolution 65/69 on “Women, disarmament, arms control and non-proliferation.”
There have been three further General Assembly resolutions on this topic. 67/48, adopted in 2012, urges member states and other relevant actors to promote equal opportunities for women in disarmament decision-making processes and to support and strengthen the effective participation of women, including through capacity-building efforts, in the field of disarmament.
68/33, adopted in 2013, made very little progress on 67/48. 69/61, adopted in December 2014, notes the imminent entry into force of the Arms Trade Treaty and encourages States parties to “fully implement all the provisions of the Treaty, including the provision on serious acts of gender-based violence.”
It also encourages UN Member States “to better understand the impact of armed violence, in particular the impact of the illicit trafficking in small arms and light weapons on women and girls . . . .”
Statement on Military Violence Against Women
“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.
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
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
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
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
51. CONNECT, 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
74. GMCoP: Global Movement for the Culture of Peace, USA
75. Peace Boat, Japan
76. Center for Constitutional Rights, USA
77. Alternatives to violence, BogotÃ¡, 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
87. CENTRE FOR RESEARCH AND ACTION ON PEACE (KEDE), Greece
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
(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. AndrÃ¡s BÃrÃ³, 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. CÃ©cile 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 SobÃ¡ 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 MÃ¼nchen, Germany
181. Jay Yamashiro, Austria
182. Patricia Green, USA
183. Swarna Rajagopalan, The Prajnya Trust, India
Posted in accordance with Title 17, Section 107, for noncommercial, educational purposes.