Retrieved #2 Gender in arms trade and defense policy

0:00:06
“The G7 summit wrapped up Sunday in Hiroshima, Japan”. “As war rages on in Ukraine, the leaders from the world's richest economies are converging on the city to call for a world without nuclear weapons”. “As the G7 summit opens in Hiroshima, one survivor of the 1945 atomic bomb attack has a message for the world, especially for the leaders of countries with nuclear arsenals”.

0:00:37
Christina: Russia's aggressive war in Ukraine has forced countries across the world to rethink their stance on everything from the arms trade to nuclear proliferation. But what are the sex and gender specific impacts of our arms and defense policies?

George: And how might a feminist foreign policy help? Is total disarmament the answer? Or can weapons, at times, do good? And how do frameworks like the Arms Trade Treaty and the Women, Peace and Security Agenda help tackle the issue?

0:01:09
Christina: I'm Christina.

George: And I'm George. And we're journalists and producers at the Greek Podcast Project. 

Christina: And this is ‘Retrieved’, the podcast that shines a light on the new chapter of foreign policy, taking it out of its dusty past and into a fairer future. George, who are we speaking with today?

George: We're speaking with Merle Spellerberg, who is at 26 years old, one of the youngest members of the Bundestag for the German Green Party. And she sits on the Committee of Foreign Affairs and Defense and she specializes in defense policy. And after speaking with Merle, we'll also be checking in with Renata Hessmann Dalaqua, head of the Gender and Disarmament Program at UNIDIR.

George: Yeah, we've got a pretty packed show, so let's get into it.

Christina: Let's do it.

0:02:08
Christina: Hi Merle, welcome to the show.

Merle: Hi, thanks for having me.

Christina: Should we dive right in?

Merle: Yes, absolutely.

Christina: Fantastic. Right off the bat, we want to talk a little bit about your background. We find it quite impressive, the both of us, that at only 26 years old, you're one of the youngest members of the Bundestag. So first of all, congratulations. Quite a big deal.

Merle: Thank you very much.

0:02:32
Christina: How do you feel about that, about being one of the youngest members of the Bundestag?

Merle: I think it is really important to have a broad range of every aspect of representation and age is one of them in parliament. And I'm actually quite happy that I am not the youngest, but that there are many more young people next to me. I'm quite happy that by now, when there are, for example, articles on me that young is not necessarily mentioned all the time anymore, but that the focus actually shifts towards my field of politics that I'm working on.

Christina: Definitely, that's quite an interesting perspective. And can you tell us a little more about what you do at the Bundestag? What does your day-to-day look like and what are some of the key projects that you're involved in right now?

0:03:20
Merle: Yeah. So in the German Bundestag there are pretty much like two different types of weeks. There are those weeks where we have plenary sessions, where I am in Berlin when we have committee sessions, the party group meetings and all of that. So that's always a very long week with very long days and a lot of work. And then we have the weeks in our constituency where we meet the citizens of our cities, of our constituencies. And in Berlin, I am sitting on the Committee on Foreign Affairs as well on the Committee on Defense and the subcommittee on disarmament and non-proliferation and arms control, as well as the so-called UNCAD Commission for Afghanistan, where we want to learn from all the mistakes that we did in Afghanistan over the last 20 years.

0:04:15
George: Could you maybe just elaborate on that last project a little bit and sort of give us a brief understanding of what kind of work you're doing and how you're assessing those mistakes?

Merle: Yes, absolutely. So that commission is not like your regular committee in the Bundestag in the German Parliament because they're not just parliamentarians sitting in that committee but they're actually scientists as well. So each party group was able to name experts, external experts and we are coming together every, I think, third or fourth week and, again, having external experts discuss about the German work, especially of the army, but also when it comes to development cooperation and state building, for example, the police as well in Afghanistan, over the course of the last 20 years.

0:05:12
And first of all, we're now looking at what actually happened in the past. I don't want to take anything from the final report in the end or the report in between, but for example, just looking whether there was an actually strategy shared by all the partners and the question of whether we had enough knowledge actually on the country, on the people, which I think it's not too much to say that no, we did not. And so first it is to analyze mistakes, but also see what was maybe not done wrong. And then the second step for us is to take those mistakes and make them into learnings, because there are still other countries where we are present to see that we do not repeat our mistakes, but that we learn from them. And I think that is something very important as politicians to do, to also really look back from time to time and see what we need to do better.

0:06:11
George: Yes, really interesting and important work. So just off the back of that, I guess we can dive right into the traditional sort of arms and defence and security policies. Do you mind kind of painting a picture of the kind of dominant narratives surrounding arms and defence policy and why are they problematic, do you think?

I still really do not like arms but there are still certain situations where arms do not necessarily worsen the situation but actually contribute to come to hopefully peace as soon as possible

Merle: I think it really depends on which part of arms and defence you look up because I think especially after last February and the Russian aggression against Ukraine, a lot of the perception has really changed towards arms. I think many people are more aware of how difficult it actually is to deal with arms because also speaking for me personally, I still really do not like arms but there are still certain situations where arms do not necessarily worsen the situation but actually contribute to come to hopefully peace as soon as possible. But I think we still really need to pay attention to non-proliferation and to arms control, especially when we look at nuclear arms and the fact that Russia now also paused the New START agreement between the US and Russia, which made a lot of the things that were going on with nuclear arms more transparent and therefore really contributed to security.

0:07:43
George: So would you say that since last February and Russia's aggressive war on Ukraine, do you think that the public sort of attitude towards security and arms has changed then and do you think a lot of governments kind of positions and stances on that has changed as well?

0:08:01
Merle: Speaking for governments, I think it's probably a bit less, even though when looking at Germany, of course, we had the Zeit and then the speech of the Chancellor, with looking at the 100 billion extra budget for the military. And speaking for the Greens, we would have really liked to see an extra budget for a broader understanding of security, because military is one aspect of security, but certainly not the only one. 

The dominant narrative around defense policy and security is really often state-centric and that disregards the human experience of war and conflict, especially that of women and marginalized people who often face intersecting challenges

We also have to look at humanitarian aid, development cooperation, all the civil measures that do exist as well. We supported the budget in the end, but still it was not how we would have done it all by ourselves. Because I think what we can also see now is that the dominant narrative around defense policy and security is really often state-centric and that disregards the human experience of war and conflict, especially that of women and marginalized people who often face intersecting challenges. Sometimes, of course, state security and human security are maybe not exactly the same, but they are opposed to each other. But then if we look, for example, at authoritarian states, let's say Iran, then human security and state security are absolutely opposite things. So it's really important to differentiate and to centre human rights.

0:09:34
George: And so, as this is a podcast about feminist foreign policy, could you just maybe expand on what a feminist approach to foreign policy looks like in terms of arms and defense and security?

Merle: Yes, absolutely. I mean, I think in general when talking about feminist foreign policy we have the famous three R's when it comes to human rights representation and the distribution of resources. And in general when centering human rights and human security, usually weapons and arms are rather opposed to that. But then, for example, if we look at Ukraine right now, we see that weapons are needed to actually defend the freedom and the lives of civilians, of humans and the civilian population in Ukraine. But again, I think it's important to differentiate between short term and long term, because in the long run, of course, we do need lesser weapons on this planet to actually live in a secure world.

I think it's important to differentiate between short term and long term, because in the long run, of course, we do need lesser weapons on this planet to actually live in a secure world

0:10:45
Christina: Yeah, it's quite interesting, because as we've been reading into a feminist foreign policy we have been seeing that it argues really for disarmament. But even when arms are necessary, there are ways to do arms and defence policy right. And this is where gender parity and representation in security and defence comes into play. So we read this quite interesting fact that in a 2019 study, the UNIDIR found that men make up about 80% of participation in arms control and non-proliferation and disarmament diplomacy meetings and that the proportion of women tends to decline as the importance of the position increases. Why is this the case and why is it important to have diversity in voices in these kinds of decision-making processes?

0:11:35
Merle: I think the reasons are probably the same as they are everywhere, but it is important to have the different perspectives included in these rooms to be able to listen to them. And I think it's important to not just focus on women here, but to really focus on the aspect that in these talks, in these debates, there are actually also civil society actors really present and included and not just the state representatives. And I think that's something that's working really, really well when we're looking, for example, at the TPNW, the Treaty Prohibiting Nuclear Weapons, which really is based on civil society and ICANN, who also won the Nobel Peace Prize for that. 

And I think also when talking about what a feminist foreign policy is, including civil society and really honestly including them is also really, really a big part of that

At those state conferences, there are also, for example, the survivors and organizations representing them of nuclear weapon tests. And having those voices, the voices of survivors and of civil society, that is really important and is key. And I think also when talking about what a feminist foreign policy is, including civil society and really honestly including them is also really, really a big part of that.

0:12:55
Christina: Definitely. I think this is something we've been gathering throughout researching the show and speaking to our guests. Thank you very much for your time, Merle. It was lovely speaking to you. I hope we can check in again at some point and hear your views on the rest of our topics.

Merle: I would love to.

Christina: Bye-bye.

George: Thank you so much, Merle.

0:13:23
Christina: Welcome back to hear more on the gender perspective in arms control and nuclear negotiations. We've got Renata Hessmann Dalaqua on the second part of the podcast. She's head of the Gender and Disarmament Programme at UNIDIR.

George: And she's written quite extensively on these topics, so we're really excited to hear her thoughts on everything from nuclear disarmament to the arms trade treaty.

0:14:00
Christina: Hi Renata, welcome to the show.

Renata: Hi Christina, thank you so much for having me.

Christina: Can you very briefly tell us your full name, your title, and a little bit about your background?

0:14:11
Renata: Yeah, so I'm Renata Hessmann Dalaqua. I work at the UN Institute for Disarmament Research, UNIDIR. And we are based in Geneva. We support the policy community on issues related to arms control and disarmament. And we have this very unique initiative, which is a dedicated gender and disarmament program, where we look at gender norms, gendered impacts and women's meaningful participation across all areas of arms control and disarmament.

Christina: So our first question is on nuclear arms and nuclear testing. Do these two things have a gender impact?

0:14:51
Renata: There is a lot of research actually showing that nuclear tests and nuclear weapons use impact different groups of society differently. There are many studies looking at survivors from Hiroshima that showed that women and girls in the long term have a higher chance of developing and dying from cancers than men. And in addition to sex-specific effects, you can also think about gender defects, you know, people exposed to nuclear radiation and contamination and how they are viewed in society. There's evidence from Japan, again, that cultural perceptions about women's body meant that women faced different types of stigma. So yes, there's definitely a gender aspect to exposure to nuclear tests and nuclear explosions.

George: So let's go on to talk a little bit about nuclear arms, which we've obviously touched on, a little bit. Can you just sort of outline the feminist foreign policy stance on nuclear arms?

0:16:00
Renata: The work that we do at UNIDIR, which is the UN Institute for Disarmament Research, we look at feminist approaches to arms control and disarmament broadly, and then specifically related to different weapons systems, right? 

Our research shows that women are underrepresented in discussions related to weapons. They comprise around a third of the diplomats, and so men outnumber women two to one in discussions related to weapons

So I think we can look at different kind of elements that a feminist stance could bring to discussions on weapons. First of them is, you know, who's at the table discussing these weapons issues, and we know that most of the time it's men. Our research shows that women are underrepresented in discussions related to weapons. They comprise around a third of the diplomats, and so men outnumber women two to one in discussions related to weapons. And a second element would be, you know, in addition to who's at the room negotiating and discussing this, it's whose interest is being represented there. And I think that's very much a contribution from the feminist perspective is to bring a lot of the voices from, you know, marginalized groups. So I think a feminist stance on weapons issues is one that makes a distinct effort to achieve equality and to bring diverse voices, marginalized voices, underrepresented voices into the discussion.

Very much a contribution from the feminist perspective is to bring a lot of the voices from, you know, marginalized groups

George: So if we can move on now to talk a little bit about the Arms Trade Treaty. So if you could tell us why it's significant, what it is that it aims to change and whether it is in line with a feminist foreign policy.

0:17:39
Renata: Yeah, so the Arms Trade Treaty it regulates arms transfers, right? And among the different clauses, it has one in particular that's very significant for this discussion, which is Article 7.4. This article requests that state parties do an assessment of whether the material, the military material being exported, could be used to facilitate gender-based violence. So it is a way of acknowledging that weapons have been used to commit gender-based violence and it is a way to embed this concern in a legal framework. So it's very much, you know, a landmark in terms of arms control and disarmament.

0:18:25
George: Right and if you can quickly just define what gender-based violence looks like and maybe does it differ in war time, does it differ in peace time, how can we sort of define it in all of its forms?

Renata: Yes, so gender-based violence is an umbrella term and it encompasses different types of violence that are directed to someone based on their gender. I think it's fair to say that most of the times are women and girls that are victims of gender-based violence. But you can also think of sexual minorities or gender non-conforming people, and even men and boys. I think there are reports of men and boys being subjected to gender-based violence.

0:19:08
Christina: As you were speaking about the ATT, I kept having the question: How can we evaluate how an arms deal is affecting gender-based violence in the recipient countries, so the country that we're sending arms to? How can we trust that those countries are transparent about gender-based violence in the first place?

Renata: Yes, so different organizations have dealt and grasped with this question that you are asking me because it is a difficult one, right? But there are indicators and data that can be collected to assess what is the state of, you know, gender equality in a given country, what is the level of femicide, what is the proportion of femicide that is committed with the aid of a weapon, and so on and so forth. So there are guidelines available in the public domain and there's even, I can think of one developed by this organization called Control Arms, which they, you know, break down what is the kind of data that state parties should be looking at and where could they find that source of data. And a lot of the times it could be official data provided by the government, but I also think civil society group and feminist organizations working on the ground can also provide a lot of insight about the situation in a given country.

0:20:36
Christina: Right. That's very interesting, especially the civil society organization part, because it goes to show that there are other actors other than the government that can shed some light on this issue. So from what I understand, there's some harder data like femicides, for example, that are easier to quantify, but there's also like self-reporting. How easy is it to gather this kind of data when the issue is so sensitive?

0:21:02
Renata: Yeah, gathering data is really a challenge that we see in our work. Even national statistics, they are not disaggregated a lot of the times by gender or by type of weapon. Even within a country, there are different organizations collecting the data in a different way, so you have statistics from the police and you have statistics from the health system, and they are not necessarily matching. So in one side of things, there is kind of a lot of work to be done in terms of mainstreaming best practices in data collection, so we can get a better picture of the issues. And civil society plays a crucial role in that regard as well because if sometimes a government is overwhelmed, doesn't have the resources or doesn't have the political will, civil society groups can do some kind of monitoring. It can be based on grassroots organizations, it can be data collected from hospitals, it can be based on media monitoring. So there is a lot of different tools that civil society groups can use to complement or even provide a better picture than what the government has.

0:22:29
George: I'd like to move on to talk about the Women, Peace and Security agenda now. Can you just tell us why it's significant for security and defence? Maybe just walk us through its key pillars.

0:22:39
Renata: So the Women, Peace and Security agenda, we say agenda, but it really started with one resolution from the Security Council, it's Resolution 1325, which was approved in the year 2000. So that resolution set the tone for several other resolutions and then action plans and then a lot of projects and programming on the part of national governments and the UN. And the Women, Peace and Security agenda, it has been developed in a way that has four main pillars. The first pillar is participation, so to ensure that women are present and can participate in security decision-making. Then you have the second and third pillars, which is protection and prevention of violence against women and girls. And the fourth pillar is called ‘relief and recovery’, and it's a shortcut for us to remember that it's important to take into account women and girls' needs in relief and recovery efforts. It's really a landmark resolution and a really important normative framework that guides the work of national governments, but also international organizations. What's interesting about the Women, Peace and Security resolutions is that they are very much about protecting women and girls in conflict, but they don't really mention specific weapons. So a lot of the times, you know, the debate around Women, Peace and Security, they talk about armed groups, they talk about armed violence, but they don't talk about the arms. So the work that we do at UNIDIR is very much to connect the dots and say, you know, weapons are fueling this conflict. We need to get specific.

0:24:23
George: I just want to pick up on the, so the Women, Peace and Security agenda, you said it started as a resolution in 2000 and it's like a framework. Are there proven instances in the past 20 or so years that you can sort of draw on to say how it has kind of worked?

Renata: Yes, I think the Women, Peace and Security agenda has led to more research in this area, more research about women in the military, about women as peace-keepers, about women as peace-negotiators, and that has led to data and evidence of results, which is always important when we are doing advocacy. In addition to that, states have adopted this practice of developing national action plans. So these national action plans is how they are going to implement the Women, Peace and Security agenda at a local level, at a national level. So as part of that, I think there has also been funding and resources directed to women's organization working at national context. And that is very important because a lot of the times, you know, we hear a lot saying: “oh, it's important that women get involved, it's important that we ensure women's equals right”. But we actually need funding and resources to make that happen.

0:25:45
Christina: That's very interesting. You're painting a very practical picture of how these goals can be put into practice.

Renata: Yeah, and it goes across different levels. You have member states in the Security Council and then you have the United Nations providing support and at national level governments issuing action plans and working with local organizations. So it's a whole ecosystem of actors.

Christina: Do you think that a broader participation of genders in foreign policy would generally just lead to a less violent world?

0:26:18
Renata: Oh, that's a difficult question. As a researcher I would say at the moment we don't have the data to respond to this question.

George: Classic response from a researcher.

I believe that making sure that everyone's interest is represented is a basis for better decision-making

Renata: Just because thus far decision making has been very much dominated by men. If you look at heads of states, for instance, it's very, very low proportion of women and foreign ministers also very low proportion of women. So I think it's been very much dominated by men and we don't know yet what inclusive decision-making looks like, I think. But I also believe that increasing diversity of perspectives leads to better outcomes. I believe that making sure that everyone's interest is represented is a basis for better decision-making. I also think, you know, in specific field of arms control and disarmament, a broader inclusive decision-making process, and if we may, you know, a feminist stance in this policy area would definitely lead to more ambitious efforts to, you know, not only reduce weapons, but also reduce the harm caused by weapons, also support survivors, hold perpetrators accountable, empower women and non-binary people and also build more resilient societies. So even though I don't have the data, I would like to say that I believe that more inclusive decision-making process would lead to better results.

0:27:58
Christina: That's a lovely note to end by, I think.

George: I think so, yeah.

Christina: Well, that was a very interesting conversation, Renata. We learned a lot. Thank you for being here.

Renata: Thank you very much for this invitation. It was lovely to chat with you today. 

0:28:13
George: Thanks so much to both of our guests today for discussing some tough but very important topics.

Christina: They were fascinating conversations. And in the next episode, we're going to be speaking with Neda Noraie-Kia from the Heinrich Böll Foundation about how a feminist foreign policy can help hold countries accountable where migration policy is concerned. Stay tuned.

This podcast series is produced by the Greek Podcast Project and supported by the Thessaloniki office of the Heinrich Böll Foundation, distributed under a Creative Commons NonCommercial-ShareAlike license.