a.Is armed conflict changing?  If so, how?
i.I am hesitant to answer “yes,” to this question. Certainly, there are evolving trends in the form and function of war – from things as obvious as the disappearance of the custom of declaring wars to things as subtle as fighting wars with dollars not guns, and much in between – new weapons, new tactics (including those which would not traditionally count as “armed conflict”), new (non-state) actors, etc. Still, saying that there is a “new” form of armed conflict/war risks permitting policy-makers to follow the example of G. W. Bush, disregarding the “old” analytical tools about armed conflict entirely to come up with a “new” (and more politically convenient) set of analytical tools and ethical guidelines.
b.What conflicts in particular do you see as representative of new forms of armed conflict?
i.The economic sanctions regime against Iraq, 1990-2003
ii.The “war on terror,” 2001-present
iii.… the 1991 Gulf War, the 1994 Rwandan “civil war,” the Vietnam war …. (I suppose what I am saying is I don’t think there’s a clear delineation between ‘old’ and ‘new,’ and that each of these conflicts has elements of things we classify as new security)
c.How have these changes affected men and women and girls and boys differently (in the conflicts you have named)?
i.Sure, as all warfare does – right? Warfare generally – be it an “old” World War I or a “new” war like the “war on terror” – affects men and women and girls and boys differently, because they are situated differently in the belligerent societies.
ii.(ex.) Economic warfare affects women differently – for example – because women lose their jobs first in economic hard times because those jobs are seen as non-essential, because gender-specific goods (like pre-natal vitamins) are often the first to leave markets, because women are most likely to suffer as a health system declines, because women are most likely to eat last when there is not enough food to go around, because sexual violence and domestic violence increase in times of conflict and deprivation, and suffering law enforcement systems do less to combat them …
iii.(ex.) The war on terror has gender-differential impacts as well – I have done a lot of work on gender/the war on terror. Women have been used as a casus belli (one of the justifications for the invasion of Afghanistan was protecting women from the Taliban) but are anything but safer in the aftermath of the war on terror.  For example, women have been less safe in many respects in “post-war” Iraq.  (New) participating private military corporations have a higher level of sexual abuse than traditional militaries, without the same (harsh) punishments militaries inflict.  The unwanted military presence in Iraq has made “hard-liners” more popular and powerful; it is likely that the “new” government of Iraq will be more hostile to women and women’s rights than the Saddam Hussein administration. Women are included in suicide terrorism throughout the Middle East (often as a show to the West that women are full participants in Islamic society – but also out of the desperation exaggerated by the “war on terror”) and arrested for their husbands’ participation in suicide terrorism (I just did a study which found that women are likely to be arrested/questioned for their husbands crimes in this arena) ….
iv.There are always gender-disparate impacts of conflict, and of changes in conflict – what is important is that we look at each conflict through gendered lenses, to see where these disparate impacts fall in each conflict. Some are generalizable, most are unique.
d.What are the most compelling needs of women, girls and boys in these conflicts?
i.There are very important individual material needs – but I think that the best thing that I can do with my limited space here is to note that what they really need is for those “in power” and making the policy choices to see and consider their needs. Many of these gender-based consequences of “new” wars are entirely foreseeable if the belligerents ask themselves what the gender implications of their decisions will be. If gender was mainstreamed in armed conflict decisions (in other words, if belligerents and their military actors thought about the gender implications of each decision they made), then these issues could be addressed much more effectively.
ii.(ex.) if the architects of the Sierra Leone DDR process had asked the right question (they asked – why don’t we have a DDR for women; they should have asked – what are the gendered implications of the DDR process), then the DDR process wouldn’t have been such a miserable failure for women (and, by extension, generally). By “providing for women,” the DDR process emphasized domestication rather than employment, marriage rather than independence, and reproduction rather than reintegration.  If it had asked about the gender implications of the process, it would have seen that women fighters had different needs than men fighters in the DDR process, but those different needs could not be detected through gender-essentializing stereotypes of what women should be.
e.What have been the greatest failures in responding to the needs of women, girls and boys in these conflicts?
f.Are there any opportunities for changing the way that policy makers and civil society actors respond to conflict that arise out of these shifts in the nature of conflict itself?

a.Is armed conflict changing?  If so, how?

The nature of conflict and warfare has never been static and is always changing. All cultures have always had, and still have, rules on warfare, which are always evolving over time. They are part and parcel of the cultural dynamics within and between societies, as these are constantly adapting to new circumstances and needs. In most societies, women and children are kept far from the practice of warfare. Since the Peace of Westphalia 1648, conflict has been guided by the principle of “Trinitarian warfare” or the belief that in war “it is the government that directs, the army that fights, and the people who suffer” (Van Creveld Martin, 1993, p. 20). In these traditional inter-state wars, warfare has been bound by rules and regulations such as on weapons to use and sovereignty of states.

From the late 1980s onwards, the nature of conflicts has shifted direction towards intra-state conflicts between ethnic, religious and economic groups as discussed in chapter 1. Increasingly it is neither the government that directs nor the army that fights. Instead, individuals and groups take up arms for self protection or to defend interests that their state can no longer guarantee (Braiton, 2002, p. 304). Conflict has moved into the informal economy and has become labor intensive too.  The most shocking features are the involvement of large numbers of armed civilians, including women and children, the rather extreme forms of violence used (Jensen & Stepputat, 2001). Weapons have become lighter and easier to carry, smuggle and repair by local armed groups.i These conflicts with their warfare tactics may give the impression of being less organized and less bound by rules and regulations, but in reality, this is not the case (Richards, 1996). Rules and regulations on war tactics are determined locally and, therefore, are more difficult to influence and to control at the national and international level, and escalations of violence have taken cruel forms that are nonetheless still regulated.

As the nature of conflict and warfare is changing, so is the group labeled “ex-combatants”. In “traditional” societies, most combatants were only part time. As a famous saying in anthropology illustrates: war is football. In these societies, reintegration of ex-combatants after combat was not an issue, with the exception of some form of ritual cleaning after blood shedding in certain societies. In the bigger inter-state wars the ex-combatants, as a clearly defined registered group of formal ex-soldiers who needed alternative jobs and sometimes trauma treatment, did pose problems. But they mostly received training in a variety of skills during their army period that they could use in their post-army life. The situation has changed in the current intra-state conflicts, where socio-economic reintegration of ex-combatants poses a set of complicated challenges and where it is never clear who should be classified as ex-combatant and who should not. Modern conflicts do not take place in combat zones but within civilian life and therefore have the tendency to destroy large parts of societies and their economies. Consequently, the labor-absorption capacities of these war-torn economies are extremely low and cannot accommodate yet another group of job seekers. Further more, the affected countries often suffer from extensive pre- and post-war poverty and the conflict often weakens societal, community and family cohesion with heightened social tensions in war-torn societies, due to excessive violence and losses experienced. These features make it particularly difficult for governments to devise and implement appropriate ex-combatant reintegration strategies and for the receiving communities to accept the returning former combatants.

The concept of security has changed as well. The “Kampala Document”,
reflecting the views of a wide range of influential African scholars and politicians, states for example that: “The concept of security goes beyond military considerations. It embraces all aspects of the society including economic, political and social dimensions of individual, family community, local and national life. The security of a nation must be construed in terms of the security of the individual citizens to live in peace with access to basic necessities of life while fully participating in the affairs of his/her society in freedom and enjoying all fundamental human rights” (Africa Leadership Forum, 1991, p. 9). Such a widened concept of security is close to the concept of human security, according to which the focus of security studies should shift from the state to the individual and should encompass military as well as non military threats (Kingma, 2000, p. 33; King & Murray, 2002, pp. 588-589). Reintegration programmes for youth should take into account these principles of human security in order to become effective and sustainable.

Countries emerging from armed conflict acknowledged that the successful reintegration of their ex-combatants is a key condition for their peace process, and many countries do have serious problems with (auto)demobilized soldiers creating social unrest and committing crimes due to their non-integration. Youth unemployment is defined as a key issue, which is not only one of the root causes of massive youth participation in conflicts, but it is also a major obstacle for their reintegration into civilian life. For individual rebels and regular soldiers alike, peace and demobilization mean immediate loss of income and status for them and their families. Massive numbers are demobilizing, often within very short periods, and their military experiences, skills and competencies often have little relevance in civilian society. Traumatic experiences, military habits and lack of information and understanding of civilian life and institutions may translate into violent or passive attitudes. In addition, many ex-combatants suffer drug dependency. Rapid assistance is necessary to facilitate their transition from military to civilian life in particular in creating jobs, allowing them to earn a decent livelihood and a place in their community.

b.    What conflicts in particular do you see as representative of new forms of armed conflict?
Africa
c.    How have these changes affected men and women and girls and boys differently (in the conflicts you have named)?

The role men and women play in conflict is often considered in binary and oppositional terms: men as aggressors, women as victims. However, a more careful examination reveals a complex dynamic where both men and women gain and lose as the result of conflict and shows that the war is experienced differently between and within the genders (ILO, 1998a, p. 6). Women (and girl-) combatants, however, tend to be more vulnerable than their male colleagues in several ways: as women during conflict (such as with regard to the reaction of the society) and by having difficulties in taking advantage of the possible benefits.

Women combatants are frequently victims of physical, verbal or psychological harassment and violence. Their personal life and freedom are seriously compromised, and the risk of ill treatment and sexual violence is known (Lindsey, 2000, p. 564). As rape is all too often used as a weapon in various conflicts, women are also more vulnerable to HIV/AIDS, other conflict-related trauma and undesirable pregnancies and children of war. ii In contradiction, having a gun might actually reduce their vulnerability and, in the Democratic Republic of Congo, is a key reason for young girls to register as combatants.

Women who actively participated in conflicts are confronted with additional difficulties during their reintegration process, as they are faced with the community’s negative perception of their involvement. In many conservative and patriarchal societies, military activities are considered “unsuitable” for women (Rochaya Aw-Ndiaye, 2001, p.29). As a result, many women face rejection by their families and in-laws upon return from the conflict, which means that they risk being excluded from traditional community-based social-support systems. The discrimination against them as job seekers or starting entrepreneurs is also an issue, and some opt to bresttle in areas where their personal history is not known.

In addition, they seem to have difficulties in taking advantages of demobilization benefits and reintegration assistance. Earlier programmes did not take their special needs into account, and nowadays they remain badly informed about their demobilization rights, as many of the former female combatants do not show up at the assembly points for demobilization. Fear of social exclusion makes them want to hide their history as combatants, even if this eliminates them from assistance programmes. Additional difficulties result from the fact that most women ex-combatants are generally much younger than their male counterparts at the time of recruitment (ILO, 1997a, p. 128). This puts them in a disadvantaged position in the struggle for the few employment possibilities that are available in the immediate post-conflict period. The fact that they have family obligations (many of them even have to raise their children alone) makes it hard to compensate for the lack of basic education, as they simply lack the time or the financial means to attend the training courses that could ameliorate their living conditions.

d.    What are the most compelling needs of women, girls and boys in these conflicts?
Young women and men can make important contributions to the reconstruction and recovery of a war-torn country. They are often at the forefront of social movements, calling for and promote change, a more equitable society. Their energy and capacity of innovation are priceless resources that no country can afford to squander.1 Although they have considerable potential, young people also suffer high economic and social vulnerability. The sense of alienation and marginalization of jobless frustrated young people results, in many pre- and post-conflict contexts, in violent behaviour, juvenile delinquency and in their recruitment into gangs, armed groups and forces. If not properly addressed, these behaviours can jeopardize a relative frail state of peace.
The multifaceted aspects related to the transition from childhood to adulthood, coupled with the complexity of the transition from war to peace, require comprehensive responses that capture the distinct features of young people, their diverse needs and aspirations, and address their specific vulnerabilities. All too often, DDR programmes address former soldiers as “a group” and fail to target the different sub-sets of challenges that are specific and vary according to the life-stage of the targeted population. Moreover, factors like age, gender, ethnicity, social class, household size, education and training levels, disability, etc, must be taken into consideration. These factors help identify youth vulnerabilities to social exclusion and target the interventions that aim at overcoming the specific disadvantages faced by many young people in while entering and remaining in the labour market.
Among young women, lack of employment opportunities has contributed to the increasing feminization of poverty all over Africa. It has also encouraged prostitution as a means of survival in several African towns and cities. Furthermore, it has encouraged trafficking in women and girls across international borders to engage in prostitution.  In the context of conflict, women and especially girls are especially hit hard. With sexual violence as a common war weapon, many young girls are raped and have to bear the consequences of being HIV-positive, teen mothers of “enemy” babies and victims of social exclusion due to their roles in combat as fighters, sex slaves, etc. Left alone by their “bush-husbands” they have real difficulties as single mothers to access training and employment, even when peace arrives.

e.    What have been the greatest failures in responding to the needs of women, girls and boys in these conflicts?
A peace agreement followed with a DDR process is not sufficient to assure a durable peace if the socio-economic situation is not improved, and youth are unable to find their place in society. In the peace process, the voices of the young are normally neglected, and their needs are rarely taken into account in the DDR and the reconstruction of the economy and society. As a result, the post-conflict period tends to remain highly unsatisfactory for these young people, pushing many of them into criminality or prostitution and all of them into insecurity. Young people are particularly vulnerable in this context: they are perpetrators and victims in conflict at the same time. Their involvement often likens to a marché de dupes, with them being manipulated and used for the benefit of power claims and ambitions (political and economic) of a minority2.
Being young in a war-torn county often means having to "grow up" quickly and assuming adult roles, like taking responsibility for the survival of the family or fighting in the war. With schools being closed and few options of finding a decent job, many lose their sense of pride and place in the community as well as hope for the future. Additionally, boys and girls are extremely vulnerable to sexual violence during conflicts, resulting in AIDS infections and unwanted pregnancies. Many young people are driven by despair and revenge when they join armed groups; some also join to contribute to the small incomes of their family and/or protect them.
The challenge to make DDR efforts respond to the needs and aspirations of youth is indeed enormous. Neglecting them, however, is simply unacceptable as they constitute the majority of DDR programmes' target group. DDR policy makers and implementers should recognise youth's resilience, coping strategies and distinct experiences in conflict situations. Young people can provide leadership and inspiration to their societies if they are given opportunities. It is important that the youngsters find a meaningful role in the post-conflict period that is equivalent in terms of responsibility and status to the role they played during conflict. It is important to stress that the value systems of armed factions do not need to be violent and neither that they are chaotic or anarchic. "They are rooted in the specific way a group manages restrictions and regulations. Rather than trying to break down these modalities during the demobilization process, they should be considered as valuable social capital that can put be put to peaceful use in the right circumstances and environment."3 They should have a stake in the post-conflict social order so that they support it rather than undermine it.
DDR programmes should analyse and address the reasons why young people join armed forces. Understanding their fears and worries can inform the type of reintegration assistance that would make them feel secure. In doing so, it is, of course, equally important to give these chances to those who, faced with similar circumstances, chose not to join armed forces. However, if DDR programmes address the critical issues that lead young people to join armed forces - like the lack of education and jobs - other young people would benefit as well.

f.    Are there any opportunities for changing the way that policy makers and civil society actors respond to conflict that arise out of these shifts in the nature of conflict itself?

The key factors making these young people vulnerable to military participation reflect the particular situation of adolescents. As an age group they attend school in fewer numbers than younger children; even more so in the case of adolescent girls. They find themselves heading households and taking on adult responsibilities while having lower earning power and missing out on traditional opportunities to earn a trade, and in the case of adolescent girls are more likely to be sexually abused.  At the same time they have capabilities: they are physically stronger than younger children and are, therefore, more prone to be targets for all forms of work, including military recruitment; they have ideas, imagination, commitment and the capacity to take independent action.
Youth are being regarded as agents for change, the "only hope for the future", "the vulnerable" as well as the biggest potential source of instability and war. It is important to stress that youth as such have common features but are not a homogeneous group, neither are the young ex-combatants. What they share however is having been socialised in violent environments "claim(ing) social space by intimidation and destruction, 'resocialize' youngsters in a self-centred enclave culture, and rearrange power relations and the social order. Youths socialized in such 'cultures of violence' will remain an element of instability in any society trying to reconstitute itself in the post-conflict phase. Depending on the force of common values in the wider society, the presence of positive social incentives, and the legitimacy and efficacy of the political system upholding them, young people will not successfully 'return'."4
In addition, understanding the ambitions of girls should also receive adequate attention. Exploring the motives of girls for joining up, their various roles in armed forces, their reasons for or against demobilizing and their needs in terms of socio-economic reintegration needs more attention in DDR operations. At the national level, before DDR programmes are finalized and started, time and resources need to be invested to find the girls and start understanding their potential, their vulnerabilities but also their dreams and ambitions. Empowering ex-combatant girls to become valuable social, political and economic actors in the new society is called for.

a.    Is armed conflict changing?  If so, how?

Since the end of the cold war and the turn into the new millennium, the nature of conflicts has changed tremendously and we see a lot of intra-state conflicts coming up instead of inter-state conflicts. This has significantly created a redirection of the concept of human security because in the recent years we have see more people dying in the hands of their governments and fellow citizens than from foreign aggression. Terrorism could not be classed as a new form of armed conflict but it is a great menace that is having tremendous consequences on lives and properties and I believe it is one of the biggest problems of our generation.

 b.    What conflicts in particular do you see as representative of new forms of armed conflict?

 The Conflict in Ivory Coast, Darfur, Terrorist activities in Afghanistan and Iraq, etc.

c.    How have these changes affected men and women and girls and boys differently (in the conflicts you have named)?

      Women and children suffer extreme mental and physical torture at the hands of all the armed forces. They are treated in the most unbelievable manner; they are subjected to the trauma of indignity and compulsion. They lose their sense of identity and humanity. They are forced to watch as their loved ones get killed, they are made to witness scenes they would never forget in their lives. They are brutally dealt with and they will carry the scars till the end of their days.  Going through the trends of all conflicts you would realize that it is the women and children that suffer most and because the rules of war are not respected the vulnerable ones are actually targeted by the fighting forces as the soft targets and they are also used as human shields.  

d.    What are the most compelling needs of women, girls and boys in these conflicts?

There is the intertwining of the concepts of human security and human needs. The cry for protection and security, the desire to be left alone and be left in tranquility and peace. The lives of people get disrupted, children lose parents and they become the victims of circumstance, hungry and cold they are but no one cares. Even though the needs may differ depending on the nature of the conflict on a broader note, basic human needs and security may be of intrinsic significance.

e.    What have been the greatest failures in responding to the needs of women, girls and boys in these conflicts?

Mostly in some of these conflicts, the country gets totally polarized and no one is in full control and no one wants to take responsibility. And the concentration of governments during these periods is not on improving the situation of the people in terms of meeting their needs; it is mostly about amassing ammunition. For the international community it becomes easy to term it as an internal conflict and thus limiting them to mediation role if called upon. For e.g. in Kenya now people are not really taking interest in what is happening to poor women and children. They are hungry and starving and there is the recommendation for sanctions which will only make things worse for the people and not the leadership. Sanctions have helped to kill lots of people in Zimbabwe and Mugabe is surviving and will continue to survive because he can feed himself and those around him but the poor women and children cannot.

f.    Are there any opportunities for changing the way that policy makers and civil society actors respond to conflict that arise out of these shifts in the nature of conflict itself?

The nature of conflicts in particular the shift from inter to intra-state conflicts shows that home works are not been done by the leaderships in various countries. There is a deep root of corruption, tribalism, nepotism, marginalization and differentiation in many countries and these provide the recipe for disaster that spark up flames of revolution.  In responding to the shift, policy makers should begin to treat their people seriously and begin to design projects and programmes that will bring better standards of living and the young people should be reached, educated and empowered so they will contribute meaningfully to the development of their countries and they will not see the gun as a means to an end (survival). And educated and empowered character would not easily become a gun totter. If the needs of the people are met and the policy makers and civil society come together and educate their people on the evils of violence and why they should say yes to peace and no to the things that are dividing them, their countries would be safe havens for their children and their children’s children.

a.    Is armed conflict changing?  If so, how?
I’m hesitant to say that the ‘New Wars’ are really that different from past forms of conflict and I reject the idea of ‘New Barbarism’. Certainly the traits of contemporary conflicts are the deliberate targeting of civilians (resulting in IDPs and refugees), the multiplication of actors (esp non-state including militias, private military/security companies), the prolonged duration of conflicts, the inability of external actors (including peacekeepers) to force a termination of armed conflict, links to illegal and nefarious trafficking of goods to finance armed groups.

b.    What conflicts in particular do you see as representative of new forms of armed conflict?
Somalia, Darfur, Eastern DRC, Central African Republic, Northern Uganda etc.

The conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan are particular cases in which the combatants include many non-nationals (Allied forces, insurgents from many different countries).

c.    How have these changes affected men and women and girls and boys differently (in the conflicts you have named)?

Conflict often exacerbates tension between generations; it also disrupts social support networks, like family. Displacement and disbursement of families put at risk younger members of the family who often have to fend for themselves. Female headed-households including children make up the majority of internally displaced persons and refugees. In many of these conflicts women and girls are vulnerable to gendered-based violence, in particular to the systematic use of rape to destroy communities and spread fear.

Children and youth are not only victims, but in some cases are also active participants and decision makers in violent environments.

d.    What are the most compelling needs of women, girls and boys in these conflicts?

Besides basic needs, civilians and their property need to be shielded from intentional and targeted attacks by state and non-state combatants, not only in theory, but also in practice. All of these groups should be protected from gender-based violence, including rape, kidnapping and torture.

e.    What have been the greatest failures in responding to the needs of women, girls and boys in these conflicts?

One of the most glaring failures has been the unwillingness of the UN to deal decisively with peacekeepers who abused their position as protectors. Several missions (e.g. Kosovo, Haiti, Liberia, Burundi, DRC, etc.) have been tainted by allegations of sexual misconduct, including rape, pedophilia, and the exchange of food for sex. Despite some limited UN reforms, many of the allegations are swept under the rug and internal investigations are inconclusive. The peacekeepers are returned to their country of origin unpunished as the UN does not want to embarrass contributing countries. This leads to perceptions of impunity in cases of sexual misconduct. This is also a problem for private contractors who are increasingly being used in armed conflicts and peace operations (e.g. cases in Iraq, Bosnia).

Women and girls continue to be poorly integrated into programmes of DDR, disarmament and armed violence reduction because they are not perceived to be the users of weapons or labelled as combatants. Nor do these programmes adequately address the direct and indirect ways that women and girls promote the use of violence and arms. They tend only to be viewed as victims.

f.    Are there any opportunities for changing the way that policy makers and civil society actors respond to conflict that arise out of these shifts in the nature of conflict itself?

The ‘New Wars’, or intra-state conflicts, are often portrayed as a complete breakdown of a society’s structures. However lots of interesting research has been done to demonstrate how new social and economic structures develop and are perpetrated by conflict, so that some actors have no incentive to seek a resolution to the conflict. Those seeking to mediate conflicts should be aware of which actors might be ‘spoilers’. Other interventions might be targeted specifically at youth, to address their social and economic exclusion from society and neo-patrimonial structures, which often times are their motivations for joining armed groups.

a.)A number of scholars have argued that qualitative changes have occurred in the nature of violent conflict and as a result, it is now possible to speak of ‘contemporary’, ‘modern’ or ‘new’ war .  However, the concept of ‘new war’ has also come under considerable scrutiny, discussion and debate, with many questioning its validity and veracity.  Scholars have argued that what has been deemed ‘new’ aspects of conflict are, in fact, not new at all .   For example, factors characterizing ‘new wars’, such as high civilian casualties, have been present in conflicts, to varying degrees, throughout the last hundred years. Perhaps what is different about the current context of war, is that academics, policy analysts and politicians are focusing on these factors to a greater degree than in the past, thus artificially inflating their significance.  Moreover, advances in communication and the media have worked to bring the realities of civil war and atrocities to public attention.  Ultimately, I am not convinced that armed conflict today is qualitatively different that in the past.
The increased proliferation of small arms, has undoubtedly affected the nature of armed conflict…ready available weaponry has increased the risk of violence within communities and fuels conflict.

Alongside the increase in small arms, the increase in civil conflicts as compared to conflicts between states is clear and unequivocal.

b.)What conflicts in particular do you see as representative of new forms of armed conflict?

Conflicts in Sub-Saharan Africa

c.)How have these changes affected men and women and girls and boys differently (in the conflicts you have named)?

The increasingly blurred lines between civilians and combatants have inevitably increased the victimization and participation of women, girls and boys in armed conflict.  

Women and girls are increasingly being viewed as resources to be exploited during conflict.
 
Children appear ubiquitous in contemporary conflict – while their participation may not have increased from conflicts in the past, they appear to be increasingly involved in frontline fighting.

d.)What are the most compelling needs of women, girls and boys in these conflicts?

Protection from violence (personal security)
Long-term economic security, participation in the economy
Political security, political rights, political participation
Health security (particularly in relation to HIV/AIDS)
For women and girls – protection from sexual violence, and importantly reproductive health rights.

e.)What have been the greatest failures in responding to the needs of women, girls and boys in these conflicts?

Outright neglect of women and girls in periods of de-mobilization and reconstruction. 
Lack of participation of young people in decision-making
Failure to address long-term reintegration needs of children and youth (have tended to be short-term)
Lack of educational opportunities for the young, particularly girls – who are the least likely to go to school.
Failure to provide viable and gainful employment in a variety of sectors; participation in economic structures to women, girls and boys.
Child care for women and girl mothers

In Sierra Leone, for example, statistics indicate that women and girls face ongoing structural discrimination in practice, particularly in the areas of education, economics and politics. Girls remain the least educated sector of Sierra Leone’s population (UNICEF, 2005). Females have unequal access to land and technology, and are less likely to be literate than males (Government of Sierra Leone, 2000). In the formal employment sector, women constitute only 40% of clerical staff and 8% of administrative and managerial staff (Ministry of Social Welfare, Gender and Children’s Affairs, 2000). Moreover, women and girls are mainly involved in informal petty training, soap-making and tie-dying, where cash returns are low. Within the political arena, women were not granted the right to vote or to stand for election for political office until 1961.

f.)Are there any opportunities for changing the way that policy makers and civil society actors respond to conflict that arise out of these shifts in the nature of conflict itself?

Women, girls and boys are increasingly taking on roles of responsibility and authority in conflict (as commanders, leaders, and resisters of violence).  It would be an important to tap into such agency and leadership in the aftermath of conflict and involve them in decision-making at all levels of society.

a.Does ‘security’ always trump attention to the different needs of women, men, girls and boys?  Should it?  Why/why not?
i.This kind of opens the “what do you mean by security” can of worms.  The current use in international politics of “security” is sort of as a proxy for “national security,” a concept which falsely portrays a state as a unitary actor with a single set of interests/idea of security, when really a state’s “security” often increases the insecurity of women, minorities, and the poor within that state. My problem with this, though, is not the security discourse – but the referent of the state as the only entity which needs/can achieve security. Instead, a feminist perspective suggests that we evaluate security starting with what it would mean for an individual woman to have security. It would, of course, take economic security, physical security, health security, environmental security – the ideas currently bound up in the concept of human security … or, in the terms of Galtung/Tickner – freedom from structural violence.  If this is what “security” is (and this understanding of security gets the majority of attention from policymakers inside and outside of “conflict zones,” then the world looks a lot different, and “security” does not trump attention to the different needs of women, men, girls, and boys – it demands that attention.

Example Liberia Girls

Fighting for equality
With the advent of war and the widespread gun possession by men, the rates of rape increased with house-to-house searches where all the women were systematically raped. Against this background, large numbers of girls and young women joined the armed forces. Remarkable among the girls in Liberia are the explicit feminist reasons many girls gave for taking up arms.

Some of the girls’ specific reasons were directly related to this GBV and the changed gender roles and relations. Many girls wanted to fight against the sexual violence that was committed against them and other women. Some took up arms to protect themselves some even said that this was not enough for them and took up arms to seek revenge. Liberia is one of the first cases where girls also explicitly stated that they were fighting to protect other girls.

Still others wanted to prove equality by fighting, just as the men did. They thereby challenged stereotypes of women as victims and peace-loving care givers. Many girl combatants derived a certain pride from being part of an activity that was typically preserved for men. They felt challenged to prove their equality with men. The notion of “women can even do better than men” became one of the slogans of the Women's Artillery Commandos (WAC).

In most cases, a combination of factors can explain girls’ reasons for taking up guns and becoming part of a female fighting unit as actual fighting girls. Overall, carrying a gun has empowered girls and brought for some equality with men. Especially high-ranking girl combatants gained status and respect in the military,

The gender-specific reasons to join also explain some of the dynamics in WAC units. LURD's Women's Artillery Commandos (WAC), for example, was characterized by a higher degree of discipline and order and was known for their fighting capacity. The shared objective of achieving equality that would ultimately render them less vulnerable to gender-based violence and discrimination raised the fighting morale. As one of the girl combatant put it, “we were fighting with our heart”. Drugs and alcohol misuse existed in all military units but was, for example, less widespread in the female than in the male units. They wanted to keep a clear head, as they fought with a mission. Some Liberians also describe the female combatants as more revengeful than their male colleagues as a result of their personal hardship. The common traumatic experience of war and rape brought girls together in female fighting units and gave them a clear purpose to fight what created a sense of unity, solidarity and commitment in the WAC.

Some girls explicitly stated that they were fighting against rape, thereby also wanting to protect other girls. As many of the WAC’s girl combatants have been raped, they can identify with this unit as women and relate to its objective of fighting against rape. In this sense, the fight against rape became one of the uniting factors and objective of girl units with men as their common enemy. The girls’ solidarity through their shared experiences of rape was sometimes more important then political affiliation. Their sense of solidarity sometimes went beyond the boundaries of armed groups, no matter on which side they were fighting.
 
Just as many girls regarded their commanders as their ultimate protectors, which established relationships of extreme dependency, there was generally also a sense of responsibility of the commanders to protect the girls. This partly explains the close relationship between the girls and their commanders as well as among the girls.

Non-fighters: red shoes and protection
In contrast to the feminist reasons of some girls to fight, other girls got involved as a result of highly un-feministic reasons. Although their specific reasons were also directly related to the changed gender roles and relations and driven by the increased lack of security, many girls were driven into the arms of male combatants to find protection or material goods. In war-torn Liberia there were no other means to get items as “red shoes” and make-up. This became their entry point into the fighting force.

Girls could also get involved through rape. Many girls stayed with the male combatants after being raped by him. This phenomenon can be explained in different ways. First of all it might be a way of coping with the experience and giving into an unchangeable situation. Some might have really fallen in love. Nevertheless, it is probably the ultimate prove that this generation of girls can accept almost anything as "normal". They have learned to survive and accept the unacceptable.

The reasons for joining up also affected the roles girl combatants had in fighting forces. Those who were getting involved with a member of the fighting forces would generally become non-fighting girls in supporting roles in predominantly male units.

“Bush husbands”
Parallel and related to the question of voluntary and forced recruitment is the question how voluntary the wartime "bush marriages" were. While some girls were physically forced to marry, others were simply not able to make a free decision as the broader context of seriously limited their options. Others "married" clearly out of free will. The majority of younger girls got involved with a male fighter by a combination of peer pressure, their love for material goods and the need for protection. Because of their age, they are particularly susceptible to the influences of their friends in which high importance is attributed to signs of wealth like clothes.

The involvement with a male combatant unfortunately did not mean that incidents of rape did not occur within the fighting forces, although it diminished. Especially the younger non-fighting girls and those under male command were still vulnerable to rape. Being unarmed and at the bottom of the military structure, left them at the mercy of male combatants. Especially male commanders could send for any girl. Therefore a girl’s best option was to get involved with a commander, as they were the only ones who could truly protect their “wives”.

Rape or love?
The underlying reasons for getting sexual involved with male combatants and the question whether it is voluntary or forced brings out the need to discuss the definition of rape. Although it clearly seams that most girls did not get sexual involved with full consent, most girls said though that they agreed in getting having sex. No matter if she sought protection, longed for material goods or when a commander sent for her. Even when girls said they were initially raped most of them directly said after this that it was done by the man they loved. This shows the complexity in the interpretation of the term rape. It appears that the girls themselves often don’t use the term rape and prefer to say they voluntary agreed in a sexual relationship. The term rape is only used by them referring to the house-to-house group rapes of enemy soldiers.  Social workers on the other hand often say that these sexual relationships cannot be classified as voluntary, but merely finding a reasonable coping strategy in an environment where rape against single women remains unsanctioned. Hereby they classify these “voluntary” sexual relationships also as a form of rape.

When evaluating the degree of force involvement, one should consider whether this decision was the result of their perceived need for protection and economic survival. Further, it is doubtful whether a young girl is able to make an informed decision about getting sexually involved; the age of a man and his possession of a gun might impress and/or frighten her. Whether forced or voluntary, these marriages tied the girls to the fighting forces. They relied on their “husbands” for protection and their material welfare. This made them dependent on de male fighters and rendered them even more inferior to men then before the war.

In post-conflict Liberia, many of these relationships continue. It is hard to say if these “bush-marriages” will be recognized by society and will be accepted in the legal system. It will be very important to monitor this as it includes a number of essential rights such as inheritance, non-paid bride prices, child recognition, land rights etc.

Overall, involvement in fighting forces has empowered some girls but the situation of the large majority of girl combatants, as they were non-fighters, did not provide them with more equality to boys or men.

a.    Does ‘security’ always trump attention to the different needs of women, men, girls and boys?  Should it?  Why/why not?
One of the most important and yet least considered aspects of the discussion on youth in conflict is war itself. Few young people go looking for a war to join; for many, war comes to them and becomes part of their normal environment. With it, war brings insecurity. It causes schools to close, impoverishes and disrupts families through death, injury and displacement, and leaves few avenues of employment other than military ones. The presence of war creates military role models and status symbols far beyond the conflict area itself, and validates violence as a means of protection. These are all background factors which can encourage participation, but they impact particularly on adolescents, for whom family, school and role models are especially strong influences. For them, war, whether at home or abroad, may provide an opportunity: many adolescents are running away from domestic exploitation or abuse.

It is, therefore, self-evident that eliminating armed conflicts would be the single most effective means of preventing youth participation. Thus all measures aimed at addressing the causes of conflicts, of peace-building, non-violent conflict resolution and peaceful settlement of disputes, as well as bringing existing conflicts to an end, should be strenuously sought. Young people should be specifically included in these processes. At the same time, there are many steps that can be taken before, during and after armed conflicts to reduce the likelihood of young people being involved. Many of these are addressed under separate headings, although caused or exacerbated by war, or otherwise interrelated. At the same time, any means of discouraging military and political leaders from deliberately seeking to recruit the young people would also be helpful. This is where a strong legal framework is important, including criminal penalties for recruiters.
In addition, I would like to suggest using the concept of human security, meaning protecting people’s essential freedoms, which is a useful concept for developing youth policies and programmes. It means protecting them from serious and pervasive threats, building on their strengths, and helping them to achieve their goals. It also means creating systems that serve people as building blocks for their survival, dignity and livelihood. Why should one consider youth in a human security framework? There are at least five good reasons:  
•    Understanding the root causes of the conflict. Youth’s economic and food insecurity is often a root cause of armed conflict. They might consider joining armed forces a viable option for earning a living. Many conflict-stricken countries struggle with extremely high rates of youth unemployment. Without an occupation and future, young people become frustrated and thus vulnerable to recruitment by criminal organisations and armed groups.
•    Understanding youth differently. Youth experience the consequences of armed conflict in their daily lives. In situations of armed conflicts, educational, training, and work facilities are being destroyed. Families and communities can no longer offer the support to young people they require. The state fails to fulfil its basic functions, e.g. guaranteeing security and providing basic services like health care and education. Young people’s rights are constantly being violated and their needs ignored.
•    Recognizing the negative potential of youth. Youth could develop into spoilers of a fragile peace when their interests and concerns are neglected in the peace process. Their violent behaviour would then feed into already existing negative stereotypes, portraying them as irresponsible, aggressive, and rebellious. Youth can threaten human security.
•    Recognizing their positive potential. Youth could develop into peace builders when given opportunities to contribute to reconstruction and reconciliation processes. They should be seen as an asset in building a new society with justice, development and human security at its core. Youth can foster human security; they are the future.

a.    Does ‘security’ always trump attention to the different needs of women, men, girls and boys?  Should it?  Why/why not?
In lots of interviews I have done with former combatants especially children who willingly volunteered into fighting forces, a key point for wanting to join is security. They do not want to be raped, they do not want to die, they want the protection f the fighting forces and they think through this they may also be able to protect some people they love. Some children and women have totally lost their families and the fighting forces could be their new families and they will have people who would want to protect them their. Security is of great significance and it is a corner stone that lulls people into fighting. Some factions have also been formed in different conflicts because the people want to protect their vulnerable ones e.g. the Kamajors in Sierra Leone was formed mainly to protect the people of South/Eastern Sierra Leone.

First of all, we should be aware that men and women often define their security differently. Security can be described in terms of personal safety, state security, at the community/ethnic/tribal/local/national levels. In my research, women often described security for themselves and their family in terms of food security, personal safety (and ease of mobility) and access to health and education services. This was different then men, who focused more on personal, economic and community security.

In practice, women, the elderly, children and youth are not protected by international humanitarian law in most conflicts; despite many international conventions combatants do not respect IHL. The ICC is an interesting means of pursuing those who flaunt IHL; however the process of indictments and prosecution has proved politically problematic and slow. (For example, the ICC indictments of LRA leaders have been an impediment to a negotiated solution to the civil war in N. Uganda) The ICRC has an interesting program of training national police and armed forces in IHL.

In terms of protecting child soldiers, The Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers has highlight situations in which children are vulnerable to recruitment:
-Children separated from their families or with disrupted family backgrounds.
-Economically and socially deprived children (those with little access to education and vocational training).
-Other marginalized groups (e.g. street children, minorities, refugees, and the internally displaced).
-Children from conflict zones. 
Addressing the social, economic and security needs of these vulnerable groups, or better yet assisting local communities to do it themselves, might reduce the potential for recruitment.


b.Does ‘security’ always trump attention to the different needs of women, men, girls and boys?  Should it?  Why/why not?

Definitely not! There is no reason why these stakeholders shouldn’t be included in attempts to improve security for all members of the affected society. In fact, program planners should make a concerted effort to include the needs of different social groups. Gender advisors in UN agencies are now including in planning for complex peace operations and post-conflict reconstruction activities.

Despite increased discourse and attention to concepts such as ‘human security’ (and its related focus on protection and empowerment), it would appear that on the ground little has changed in the everyday lives of marginalized and socially excluded women, girls and boys.
 
c.Does ‘security’ always trump attention to the different needs of women, men, girls and boys?  Should it?  Why/why not?

Women, girls and boys are consistently last on the post-conflict agenda.  More recent definitions of security (human security) have only minimally helped to alter the agenda.  Moreover, they have played a role more in the theoretical and conceptual realm rather than on the ground in the everyday lives of people.

a.Given that armed conflicts often force a shift in traditional roles and hierarchies (female or child-headed households, for example), does this represent an opening for changes in relations of power?
i.I don’t think power relations are really that simple.  In the most basic sense, yes, changes in hierarchies from armed conflict can create spaces for gender emancipation (e.g., women’s acquiring the right to vote after WWI largely as a direct result of the war-demanded changes in gender roles).  At the same time, not every wartime change in gender roles changes the gendered power dynamic in a positive direction.  For example, the increased participation of women in armed conflict has brought mixed results in post-conflict situations.  In some places (e.g. Rwanda, the United States), women’s participation in armed conflict has translated into both recognition and gains in political participation. In others (e.g., Iraq, Sierra Leone), women’s participation in armed conflict has caused problems for women’s status, especially in terms of difficulties having women who participated in violence reintegrated into existing, conservative understandings of gender roles in peacetime.

Given that armed conflicts often force a shift in traditional roles and hierarchies (female or child-headed households, for example), does this represent an opening for changes in relations of power?

a.    Given that armed conflicts often force a shift in traditional roles and hierarchies (female or child-headed households, for example), does this represent an opening for changes in relations of power?

There are sure some openings for change in power relations. Most women and children have to be heads of households during conflicts. When the conflicts end there are new forms of conflicts arising within the households of who really is in charge after the husbands might have returned from the war. Many men have come to understand that women have the same potentials they have and can make things happen some time even better than them. It was like the efforts made by women in Europe and America during the World Wars. And that even had many men supporting Ellen Johnson Sirleaf to become the president of Liberia they were impressed with the roles played by women as fighters and as heads of households. This is the case in Sierra Leone too and in some households women are technically the head, with them continuing what they were doing during the war heading the house while the men continue to play very dormant roles.

Interventions need to be understood the context of new and shifting hierarchies of power and social and economic structures created by or flourishing in conditions of armed conflict. Such as warlords, organized criminal groups, militias, inter-generational conflict. Interventions, such as peacebuilding activities, armed violence reduction, and post-conflict reconstruction, by international actors are not solely technical or value-neutral, but are political in their nature. They have political consequences. This is little understood by policymakers who seek ‘Lessons Learned’ and ‘Best Practices’ so that programmes can be replicated in other conflict situations, irrespective of the local context.

I mentioned earlier political, social and economic exclusion of youth as a powerful incentive for joining armed groups. Education and training for young ex-combatants in the post-conflict period is essential for their re-integration into society and to address their marginalization.

b.    Given that armed conflicts often force a shift in traditional roles and hierarchies (female or child-headed households, for example), does this represent an opening for changes in relations of power?
Yes, but the opportunities to positively affect change in relations of power usually occur in the post-conflict reconstruction phase (i.e. after armed conflict has abated.) This can also be problematic though, when mostly male combatants return to their communities and need to be reintegrated into their family and the community. The ex-combatants often expect to return to their position as the head of the household, but can suffer from trauma (and other mental health problems), unemployment, etc.

b.Given that armed conflicts often force a shift in traditional roles and hierarchies (female or child-headed households, for example), does this represent an opening for changes in relations of power?

Yes, there are important opportunities to help shift traditional roles and relations of power, particularly in the aftermath of conflict.  However, time and again, history has demonstrated that the once powerful women and children who acted as leaders, negotiators, and resisters of violence during conflict often resume marginalized and excluded roles in the aftermath of conflict. 

a.I wish that policy-makers would re-examine the idea that “equal relations of power” are the goal of gender-based policies. In intellectual discourse since Aristotle, equality means treating people who are similarly situated in the same ways. The problem with the application of equality to gender issues, especially as they relate to armed conflict, is that men and women are not similarly situated. Accounting for women in armed conflict, then, is not about treating them the same, and is not even necessarily about “equalizing” power. It is, instead, much more about assuring that the needs of different gender, race and age groups are met.  This requires a reformulation not only of the relationship between those groups and the state, but of the state generally. The state often defines itself by the interests of its most powerful citizens, rather than by the interests of the majority of its citizens. Above and beyond that, the state has yet to move away from the association of prized citizenship and the (male) citizen-warrior who defends the (innocent) woman from the enemy (men from another state). This self-constitution on the part of the state is at the base of inequities in power between genders and of states’ failures to address the needs of women, men, boys, and girls.

Child soldiers have recently received increasing attention in DDR-thinking, and so did women, but what about those who fall under both categories - what about the girls among them? If women have received scarce attention in DDR processes, girls hardly even figure as a target group in their own right in most programmes, although they do form a substantial and increasing share of armed groups in many violent armed conflicts. There has been, for instance, large-scale involvement of girls in Sri Lanka, Colombia, Sierra Leone and the Philippines. Although most girls in armed forces are assuming more auxiliary roles than fighting on the frontline, in Congo-Brazzaville and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) there were even exclusively female units, the so-called "Amazons". Girls have been involved in the liberation struggles in East Timor and South Africa but have also been recruited into the armed forces of the United Kingdom. In Liberia girls armed themselves to revenge and protect themselves and the other women against rape; they were feared as tough soldiers by their male opponents.5
Girls who actively participated in conflicts are confronted with additional difficulties during their reintegration process, as they are often faced with the community’s negative perception of their involvement. In many conservative and patriarchal societies, military activities are considered “unsuitable” for women (Rokhaya Aw-Ndiaye, 2001, p.29). As a result, many women face rejection by their families and in-laws upon return from the conflict, which means that they risk being excluded from traditional community-based social-support systems. The discrimination against them as job seekers or starting entrepreneurs is also an issue, and some opt to settle in areas where their personal history is not known.

Women and men are impacted differently by war and the ways they react differ a lot. In Sierra Leone the cultural relations that were existing before the conflict and the events that unfolded themselves were eye openers. Women before the war were seen as objects to be used, misused and abused by men. Men never thought women were capable of unleashing mayhem when the opportunity presents itself. Though this affected some women after the war and they were shunned by their societies because they have taken part in activities that were perceived to be “unwomanly”; some men began to treat women seriously. Some people in West Africa argue that the war has helped a lot in the change of perception on women and that for the first time women are trying to have their voices heard and that the move to have a female president in Liberia was a protest against male domination and now the sits women have in the Sierra Leone parliament has increased and they are advocating for 50/50 representation in all spheres of control. They believe that it is the time now to break the ice-ceiling of discrimination and differentiation. Slowly, slowly, women are working towards taking part in decisions that affect them and try to help address them in the way they think will suit them best for it will only be then that their needs would be addressed adequately and appropriately.

Obviously state-society relations, particularly with the different groups, are important for national reconciliation and conflict resolution. We should not expect that these relations will change over night. However, Liberia is an interesting example of how more equal relations of power can be prioritized in the post-conflict period. President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf has focused on youth issues, and I believe the Liberian Parliament has a high percentage of female representatives (much higher than in Canada). Rwanda also has a high percentage of female parliamentarians.

In general though, youth need to be included in political, economic and security debates, beyond the traditional sectors of education, health and social services.

a.The “new” militarized masculinity maintains all of the toughness and bravery that has characterized idealized militarized masculinities throughout modern history, but adds a tenderness to the qualities demanded of the ideal militarized man.  The ideal militarized man is now tough but  tender – he (ex. Chris Carter, U.S. soldier-celebrity in the war in Iraq) can at once do the traditional tasks required of a soldier, like winning battles and taking territories, and the tasks that used to be outside of a soldier’s defined job duties – like rescuing ‘enemy’ civilians and sending video-messages back home to his baby (in baby talk). At a time when there seems to be some convergence of gender roles in society more generally (in terms of women occupying jobs traditionally reserved for men, etc.) and even in militaries specifically (for example, the U.S. deployed force in Iraq has been almost 30% women, double the percentage in the first Gulf War), gender role ideal-types demonstrate that this apparent convergence hides what are still very serious differences in how women are viewed, how they are treated, and how they experience citizenship, inside and outside of the military setting. That women now constitute 30 percent of the US military force does not mean that they’ve entered a de-gendered military. Instead, they are not soldiers but women soldiers, defined by what they are seen as unable do (commit violence) as much as they are by what they can do (join the military). Additionally, women soldiers are often included, but in terms very different then men’s. A survey of the recruiting ads for the U.S. military which feature women showed that most of them picture women with long hair, wearing makeup and nail polish, and often sporting high heels. The idealized militarized femininity, then, is a woman who can do everything men do, but maintain her femininity. It is these images which the next generation will aspire to – which are, in my opinion, even more impossible than the expectations for previous generations, both in terms of individual potential and in terms of ending gender subordination.

While girl combatants have been equals as comrades in armed groups, many occupational paths are denied to them as girls during peace times, tracking them into a narrow range of industries and occupations that are generally lower-skilled and lower-paid (Date-Bah, 2003). The lack of employment opportunities for women has contributed to the increasing feminization of poverty in many developing countries. Young women face even greater discrimination than adult women in the labour market as it is believed that they will soon get married and leave their employment or become less productive. Gendering DDR has often only meant the provision of some special measures for women such as vocational training courses in “women’s skills”.
Some girl combatants have occupied leadership roles in military structures but are rarely included in peace negotiations. While political positions are bestowed on their male colleagues, these female military leaders are generally neglected and security-related matters such as DDR left to men (Farr, 2003). Gender-based power relationships are thereby reinforced. At the same time, an opportunity is missed to reassess gender relations and find ways to make them more conductive to a more peaceful society. In fact, many revolutionary movements have listed gender equality as one of their initial goals to mobilize women but have broken their promises in actual peace negotiation.
Finally, perceptions of male and female roles before, during, and after conflict play a crucial role in the DDR process. On the one hand, war tends to strengthen prevailing notions in society that portray men as "either warriors and/or protectors" (Myrttinen 2003, 42), leading to an increase in domestic violence in the aftermath of war. Likewise, Girl combatants challenge the common image of peaceable, passive, and domestically oriented women. In post-conflict reconstruction, it is crucial to be sensitive to these changing gender notions and relations and account for them in DDR programs and policies. What could substitute for guns and violence as symbols of masculinity? Do girl combatants face additional obstacles and/or opportunities as a result of femininity? For example, non-fighting or civilian women normally receive greater attention than female combatants during post-conflict reconstruction because they correspond to the image of peace-loving women. On the other hand girl combatants, challenge this image. External actors, however, have to grapple with the question whether and how much they can and should interfere in femininity, masculinity, and gender relations.  Creative thinking of potential alternative notions of  non-violent masculinity are crucial in war-to-peace transitions periods.

In recent conflicts women are seen playing very important or leading roles while in inter-state conflicts it was not always the case. In many conflicts especially the one in the Mano River Basin, women were seen playing crucial roles being commanders and heads of units and they were very feared and revered by their male counterparts. There was a symmetric relationship with opportunities ad possibilities available for all within the fighting forces. The sad part is after these conflicts with the disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programmes taking place, women and girls are drawn to the back and the concentration is laid on men.

Obviously a strong disassociation between the use of violence/use of arms and macho notions of masculinity need to be encouraged. But this again, often reverts back to the idea of creating political space and social/economic opportunities for youth, especially boys. With economic and social opportunities, a means of venting their frustrations and communicating them to older generations (in power) the possibility of alternate conceptions of masculinity are created.

In the pastoralists communities that I have studied, this was essential. Young men with very poor economic prospects are competing with older more establish men for wives in polygamous societies. These youth are easily recruited into gangs of armed cattle raiders or join the militias of local criminal bosses for the economic benefits. They vent their frustrations by disrespecting traditional cultural norms on the use of force.

Masculinity and power may come to be defined in relation to holding a weapon, holding power and authority over civilians, and intimidating women and girls with threats of sexual violence.  These relations of power may inevitably transgress to the post-conflict existence and profoundly influence and recreate hierarchical and unequal relationships between boys and girls, as well as imbue these relationships with the normalization of violence.

a.We have too narrow of a definition of sexual violence in war.  We see wartime rape as sexual violence in war, but we do not trace that out to see the victimization of children born of wartime rape and other long-term consequences.  We also often fail to see sexual violence in armed conflict that is not wartime rape.  For example, prostitution camps around military bases and combat zones are an integral part of a war culture which surrounds itself with sexuality and sexualisation.  If a soldier is “charged up” for battle with pornography and then expected to understand the difference between his motivational video and how he is supposed to conduct himself, we have a real problem with a war system that at once is permeated by sexuality and (in theory) wants to eliminate sexual violence as a weapon.  In order to eliminate sexual violence as a weapon, we need to de-sexualize the language and practice of war-making and war-fighting.

Early action, don’t wait till everybody is raped, Advocacy, putting up posters, warning it is against the law, discussions with war-lords etc. Starts can be made. Are we starting in Kenia now…rape has started!

1. Naming and shaming those involved in it.

       2. Prosecuting those who get involved in such act. A good example the Special Court for Sierra Leone

       3. Domesticating CEDAW and the Convention against Torture into national laws.

       4. Launch serious international campaigns against the use of sexual violence as a weapon and strategy of war.

        5. Committing signatories on implementation and encourage more states to sign and implement it.

Prosecuting perpetrators of sexual violence needs to continue at the national and international level to create norms of behaviour during armed conflict and as a deterrent. Since the Balkans conflict, at least the issue has received greater attention.

However, the victims of sexual violence often suffer through considerable stigmatization by their local community and family, particularly if the rape leads to the birth of a child. The systematic destruction of the ‘other’ community. There are also serious issues of trauma and health problems that are often not adequately dealt with. It’s difficult to say what should be done, because healing and reintegration are often culturally-bound processes.

To achieve greater long-term security for war-affected populations, including women and girls who have experienced sexual violence, human security initiatives aimed at individual protection and empowerment must occur alongside the reformation of existing social, political, economic and educational structures and institutions, particularly as they relate to gender.

Tackling unemployment of boys and girls
The relationship between youth unemployment and conflict is twofold: youth unemployment is a root-cause of armed conflict and also gets worsened by it. Analyses and responses should therefore be based upon this dual relationship. Youth unemployment is a complex phenomenon, which manifests itself in different ways across the region and has multiple causes and effects. It is not a marginal problem; unemployment among the youth is indeed a concrete reality which affects 21 % in Sub-Saharan Africa of the unemployed population. Estimates show that youth unemployment affects a broad spectrum of socio-economic groups, including the less and well educated youth, but also from educated youth that could not find employment, such as in Ivory Coast. Overall however, it particularly affects youth from low-income backgrounds and those with limited education; girls share an unfair burden.
In countries that are relatively stable, youth unemployment should be tackled as a way to prevent conflict from spreading further via the recruitment of young unemployed and/or youth. Reducing the frustration and availability of youth is probably the most effective preventive measure. The Youth Employment Network (YEN) has provided a roadmap of ways for governments to prioritize policies aimed at addressing youth unemployment and the present study will take into consideration the work done so far.
The political will of governments to address youth unemployment as a pressing issue is crucial to ensure sustainable peace and security for future generations.
Mobilising youth for integration
So far, armed youth has been regarded as the most problematic group of combatants to disarm, demobilize and reintegrate and are treated as the group providing the highest security risks. DDR programmes must, however, deal with youth as victims, as potential spoilers, but most importantly, as potential economic and social actors. Their energy and ability to mobilize themselves and other section of society can be channelled towards recovery and peace building. Youth must be integrated into the reconstruction, peace and long-term development process of post-conflict societies. It is crucial to involve them throughout the DDR process, as one of their biggest frustrations is that they are seldom asked or heard; yet they are expected to be "the future" of their societies. DDR programmes have to be founded on a solid understanding of the country specific needs and potential of youth. Since they constitute the majority of combatants in most DDR efforts, youth should not be singled out as a special group. Rather, DDR should become youth-focused.
Programmes for the socio-economic reintegration of young former combatants require integrated approaches that respond to their diverse needs, experiences and disadvantages, which differ depending on age, gender, ethnicity, social class, household size, education and training levels, disability, etc. These factors help identify youth vulnerabilities to social exclusion and target the interventions that aim at overcoming the specific disadvantages faced by many young people while entering and remaining in the labour market. The necessity for an integrative approach and response becomes obvious when looking at the principal needs of youth and taking into account what they have to offer. This group has often lost everything during the conflict. Young people tend to be the first to be laid off and the most unlikely to find work. Furthermore, conflict leads to a breakdown of social support systems. Education and training are sometimes disrupted for long periods, and young people can get idle and frustrated if they are constrained to subsistence work in the informal economy. Moreover, family and community networks may have weakened, depriving them of a protective environment and positive role models. The accumulation of all these factors risks pushing young people into the vicious cycle of poverty and social exclusion and makes them vulnerable to recruitment and re-recruitment into armed forces and gangs.
What DDR programmes need to accomplish is to break this cycle of risks for those young people who have been fighting. At the same time, using a structured and coherent response should target young soldiers and civilian youth simultaneously, building on the solidarity and recognition of youth's distinct identity and role in society. After war, youth are mostly excluded from decision-making structures; elders and government members pay scant attention to them. These are some of the issues that can trap a country in cycles of conflict as these youth are "today's partners" as well as "tomorrow's leaders".6
Youth and Drugs
During their period in the armed forces, many young people have been offered and forced to take drugs by commanders. Many of them have been part of military life at a significant time of their personal development and have been on drugs for years. This dependency increases their mental but also physical dependency on the fighting forces, thus preventing their successful reintegration into civilian life. Criminality, youth gangs, drugs trafficking and creates an overall lack of security in most post-conflict societies, even after the completion of DDR programmes. Prospects for sustainable peace and development are therefore limited if large numbers of unemployable drug addicted youth are destabilising social and economic life.
In Liberia, Colombia, Haiti, Afghanistan and many more countries thousands of young ex-combatants will have to find ways to quit their drug habits with little available help even in countries with intense international support and dedicated United Nations Engagement. Commanders across warring factions in Liberia, for example, are known to have doped their young charges throughout the war that raged in West Africa from 1999 to August 2004. Humanitarian agencies have reported that children as young as 10 are seriously drug-addicted from their time as part of fighting forces, and suffer from drug-related paranoia and delusions. UN officials have considered this a serious concern for DDR, but have justified their lack of action (even for drug screening) with the limited budget and/or expertise.  Underscoring this lack of resources is a lack of knowledge about how acute the problem is, and what is needed to alleviate it in the context of peacebuilding and recovery. 
So far, DDR programmes have not focused sufficiently on the detoxing, rehabilitation and reintegration of drug dependent youth. Provisions on drug addiction are limited to demobilization and mostly concerns health-related rather than social aspects. Drug treatment, rehabilitation and reintegration of addicted young ex-combatants within the scope of DDR programmes can, however, reduce the likelihood of (re)recruitment of young people or their engagement in criminal or other harmful activities. First of all, they would no longer need their commanders to supply them with drugs. Second, they can turn into productive members of their societies; an income, meaningful activity and social acceptance renders them less susceptible to recruitment. Although drugs may not be a sole reason for (re)joining fighting forces, addiction reinforces existing vulnerabilities. In addition to its social consequences, the health risks should not be underestimated.
Moreover, as a result of reused drug injection equipment, drug problems can aggravate the HIV/AIDS pandemic in the continent and hinder the development process in several post-conflict countries.  Addressing drug addiction among young combatants could therefore also be an important step towards achieving target 7 of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals (MDG), namely to "have halted by 2015 and begun to reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS". The Report of the Secretary-General "In larger freedom: towards development, security and human rights for all" (A/59/2005) focuses attention on HIV/AIDS, small arms and post-conflict societies. Drugs is a "nexus" in all these global problems.
There is little capacity in the relevant countries to address the issue systematically neither do local service providers have the capacity and knowledge to accompany these young people. In addition, no international organisation has come forward to tackle this important dimension of DDR. Existing handbooks on drug rehabilitation and treatment have not been adapted to take the specific conflict context into consideration. The International Crisis Group has demanded "giving greater priority to the demand side of the drug equation" but so far thousands of addicted demobilise soldiers hang-out in the receiving communities spoiling fragile peace and development efforts and spending their "reinsertion allowance" and business start-up capital on drugs.
Prevention: youth employment in West Africa
According to the recent study of UNOWA7 analysing youth unemployment in West Africa and its Linkages to Conflicts in the Region, the lack of appealing opportunities for youth is a strong contributing factor to the escalation of armed conflict and violence.
"There are 3 major challenges to peace and security in the West Africa region today", said Ambassador Ahmedou Ould Abdallah, UN Special Representative of the Secretary General for West Africa. "The first is the increasing consolidation of an arc of instability, comprising large zones of lawlessness in the region. The second is the ever-growing criminalization of armed conflict, in which conflict has now become a business-oriented venture, whether the profit be for diamonds, timber or the trafficking of arms. The third is increasing youth unemployment across the region which represents a great threat to peace and security. Today, 43.5% of the population in West Africa is under-15 years of age. This group numbers in the millions and faces acute unemployment. One could conclude that armed conflict may be the biggest employer of young people in the region."
The past twenty years brought West Africa into a cycle of violence and conflicts; the economic, political and humanitarian impacts have been felt throughout the region. Given the specific environment of West Africa, characterized by its porous borders, and often strong military and sometime weak governance, the scourges of instability not only spread but also are recycled from one country to another. It is now largely recognized that insecurity is a shared risk and peace a collective challenge. Conflicts in Sierra Leone, Liberia, Guinea Bissau and Cote d’Ivoire have further highlighted the interdependence of security in West Africa and the importance of a regional approach to conflict management.  In order to have an effective lasting change, countries have to work together. Given the specificity of the conflict environment in West Africa, there is a need to adopt realistic standards that not only reflect national economic, political and social circumstances, but also take into consideration the impact of any threat to peace and security in a given country beyond states’ boundaries.
Participation
Youth unemployment has been increasingly perceived by political leaders as a threat to national and regional security. Youth’s violent behaviour can be partly a reaction to their states’ neglect for their concerns, foremost in education and employment, and the consequential inequality and intergenerational conflicts on a societal level. Policy makers need to take into consideration the importance of empowering youth as part of the strategy to address youth unemployment. Trust and confidence need to be rebuilt as the youth have often a strong feeling of disenfranchisement and powerlessness. Youth have their own recommendations to governments, the private sector, the school system, and development partners.
Youth are a demographic majority that sees itself as an outcast minority. Political candidates, who motivation is not necessarily the empowerment of youth, but their votes, sometimes use youth as a mere political tool prior to elections. Youth participation in the political life can prevent conflict from being recycled throughout the region. One of the challenges is to establish a process of social and economic growth in an enabling environment where youth is empowered at all levels.  It is important that the State translates these concerns into policies at the regional level for strategies to be undertaken. “Youth unemployment is only one aspect of a deeper problem encompassing economic, social political and cultural facets. Who belongs to society and who does not? Who has a voice and what is the basis for being a member of society? This is a debate which centres on issues such as the role of the State, its representation, good governance, political citizenship, poverty, conflict, and inequality. Tackling it will demand work in addressing political and social, as well as economic, aspects of the marginalization of young people.”  “Appealing” is the key word, which includes visions of a path, a career and moving towards a better future!
Yet youth have frequently emerged as important social actors in crises. By denouncing injustices and demanding changes, they can be key representatives of society in crisis response. At the same time, if left unattended, they can become more radical and disruptive, as young people are easily influenced and manipulated. Unemployed youth fuel insecurity in conflict zones: arms gives them with the illusion of empowerment, providing them an activity which generates both recognition and remuneration. In this way, West African conflicts provide “employment” for many young people. Their energy and ability to mobilize themselves and other sections of society should be channeled towards recovery and reconstruction.

1. Lack of Early Warning Systems and Structures (Conflict Prevention).

2. The treatment of DDR as a project and not a programme.

3. The discrimination and differentiation used in DDR programmes against women.

4. Unemployment of Young People- An Idle Mind is the Devils Worksop.

5. Illiteracy- You cannot claim your rights if you do not know them

The issue of male rape is very rarely addressed when discussing gender-based violence and the systematic use of rape in armed conflict.