U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

99–552PDF 2016

WOMEN FIGHTING FOR PEACE: LESSONS FOR

TODAY’S CONFLICTS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MARCH 22, 2016

Serial No. 114–154

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/ or

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

PAUL COOK, California 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

CURT CLAWSON, Florida 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

DANIEL DONOVAN, New York 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

Her Excellency Monica McWilliams, professor of women’s studies, Transitional Justice Institute, Ulster University ......................................................... 4

Hassan Abbas, Ph.D., professor and chair, Regional and Analytical Studies 

Department, National Defense University ......................................................... 11

Ms. Jacqueline O’Neill, director, The Institute for Inclusive Security ................ 25

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Her Excellency Monica McWilliams: Prepared statement ................................... 7

Hassan Abbas, Ph.D.: Prepared statement ........................................................... 14

Ms. Jacqueline O’Neill: Prepared statement ......................................................... 27

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 52

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 53

The Honorable Edward R. Royce, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California, and chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs: Material 

submitted for the record ...................................................................................... 55

The Honorable Brad Sherman, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California: Material submitted for the record for the Honorable Eliot 

L. Engel, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York ............. 59

(1)

WOMEN FIGHTING FOR PEACE: LESSONS FOR 

TODAY’S CONFLICTS 

TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 2016

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:52 a.m., in room 

2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward Royce (chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Chairman ROYCE. This hearing will come to order. Our thoughts 

and prayers are with those in Brussels in the aftermath of this 

morning’s attack. 

Let me share with you that in terms of this hearing today, this 

is the third in our series of hearings to examine challenges facing 

women worldwide. 

This hearing will examine the effect of women’s participation on 

peace negotiations and other efforts to reduce violence and to reduce the extremism. Unfortunately, we learned just this morning 

that Betty Bigombe will not be able to join us due to her employer’s 

policy on congressional testimony. We are disappointed by this development, but nevertheless honored to be joined today by an excellent panel, including Monica McWilliams. Ms. McWilliams risked 

much to end conflict in Northern Ireland, blazing a trail for women 

peacemakers to come. 

This is a critically important discussion. From Syria to Afghanistan to Sudan, armed conflicts are becoming increasingly deadly 

and disruptive. Efforts to negotiate their end are more important 

than ever. 

And simply put, when women are at the negotiating table, success is more likely. Research shows that a peace agreement is more 

likely to be reached, and is 35 percent more likely to last at least 

15 years when women are involved. 

When you consider that historically, over half of all peace agreements fail within the first 5 years—women’s involvement becomes 

imperative. Think about the lives saved. Think about the economies maintained by a 35 percent decrease in repeated conflicts. 

Moreover, the way in which peace agreements are negotiated is 

changing. Instead of a traditional ceasefire and division of territory, talks now lay the groundwork for future governance structures and social institutions. 

Not surprisingly, when women are excluded from these essential 

discussions, their rights and their interests are overlooked—and 

are often undermined. Out of nearly 600 peace agreements signed 

2

between 1990 and 2009, only 1 percent referenced violence against 

women. 

This has major implications, not just for a country’s women and 

girls, but also for its broader governance and stability. In societies 

where violence against women goes unpunished, we see more violence, crime, and conflict on the whole. Men who abuse women to 

get what they want tend to take the same violent, uncompromising 

approach toward others too. What follows is a lack of law and 

order—an absence of stability. 

Nations also benefit from women’s participation in law enforcement, in security institutions, realizing better crime reporting and 

higher levels of trust within the communities they serve. 

And women are essential to confronting one of the greatest national security threats of our time, the spread of what the 9/11 

Commission called violent Islamic extremism. Extremist groups are 

obsessed with suppressing and controlling women. No one understands this better than women themselves. 

Yes, some women embrace extremist ideologies, but the vast majority vehemently oppose such severe limitations on their education, on their work, on their movement, and on their public life. 

Yet in places where we are most concerned about the spread of extremism—such as Pakistan—women are largely absent from the 

tables of power. This seriously limits access to, and information 

from, what is arguably the most motivated half of the population: 

A nation’s women. They are a huge bulwark against extremism if 

they are empowered. 

U.S. foreign policy has recognized the benefits of women’s inclusion in working toward sustainable peace. While Iraq and Afghanistan have been challenging, our efforts to push for women’s participation have been helpful, and current work by the State Department and USAID to train and assist women’s groups should be 

supported. 

Of course, the struggle for women’s participation is certainly not 

just a foreign concept, and we as a nation are still making 

progress. One of the important things that men can do is stand 

with and be deserving partners of women in their fight for representation and equality around the globe. 

And of course listen. Women on my staff made the point that we 

need to do a better job of recruiting female experts for our hearing 

panels. And I look forward to the day when we have more women 

serving on this committee, Ambassador Wagner. 

Because as I hope today’s hearings will demonstrate, the benefits 

of women’s participation and the risks of their exclusion in all aspects of governance and peacemaking are too great to ignore. 

Let me turn if I could to our ranking member, Mr. Sherman from 

Los Angeles, for his opening statement. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing. And as you point out, one in a series of three hearings focusing on women and foreign affairs, our others being on 

women living under ISIS, and women in technology. In general, in 

20 years on this committee I have learned that when a country 

educates its women, when a country allows women to participate 

in all aspects of the society and economy, that country grows both 

3

economically, socially, and in its ability to maintain communal 

peace. 

I want to join you in condemning the terrorist attacks in Brussels and expressing the sympathy of all of us for the victims and 

for their family members. I look forward to learning why the World 

Bank will not allow its officials to testify before us, and without objection, I would like to enter Jan Schakowsky’s statement into the 

record, a fine Member of Congress who does not serve on our committee. 

Chairman ROYCE. So ordered. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Before I touch on the importance of women in the 

peace process, I want to point out the United States has made, 

under President Obama, progress in opening the door to involving 

women in our national security process. We have of course a 

woman as national security advisor, we have had women as secretary of state, and now just last week, President Obama named 

General Lori Robinson to head the U.S. Northern Command, making her our nation’s first combatant commander. 

It is not only important though that we ensure that women are 

included not just in the military and national security, but in the 

peace process and in society at large. In negotiations it is important to involve people who have a stake in those negotiations and 

women make up over 50 percent of the world of course. Research 

indicates that when you include women in negotiations their inclusion helps produce a more durable peace, according to CRS. 

One comprehensive review of over 80 peace agreements found 

that formal or informal inclusion of noncombatant civil society actors in peace negotiations decreased the odds of return to conflict 

by 64 percent. Conflict disproportionately affects women and children. We have all seen the pictures, conflict after conflict, of noncombatants and injuries they have suffered. For this reason it is 

essential that women be equal partners in the conflict prevention, 

in conflict resolution process. The review of the research provides 

abundant evidence that inclusion of women is vital when it comes 

to preventing and resolving conflicts. 

For example, women and—well, this of course comes from our 

witnesses’ statements, but I think these few sentences deserve 

being heard in this room twice. Women are also the first to resist 

violent fundamentalism which restricts their rights and leads to increases in domestic violence before the conflict ensues. I think the 

chairman has spoke eloquently of this factor. 

Increasing the number of female officers improves responses to 

domestic and sexual violence as victims are more likely to report 

gender based violence to female officers. And finally, in negotiations, belligerents often perceive women as honest brokers. Women 

can bridge divides and reach out to communities where men might 

find it more difficult. 

The chairman pointed to Pakistan as one example of a place 

where we should work for women’s inclusion. I will point out that 

Pakistan has had a woman as head of state, and I know that everyone in this room looks forward anxiously to the day when we have 

a woman President. I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. This morning we are pleased to be joined by 

distinguished panel. Her Excellency Monica McWilliams, Ms. 

4

McWilliams is a professor in the Transitional Justice Institute at 

Ulster University in Northern Ireland. During the Northern Ireland peace process, Ms. McWilliams held a variety of leadership positions, including being elected to serve in the Northern Ireland 

Legislative Assembly. Ms. McWilliams received the John F. Kennedy leadership and courage award for her role in the peace negotiations in Northern Ireland. 

Dr. Abbas is a professor of International Security Studies, and he 

is chair of the Department of Regional and Analytical Studies at 

the National Defense University. Prior to this position, Dr. Abbas 

held positions at Harvard University and Columbia University, 

among others. 

Ms. Jacqueline O’Neill is the director of the Institute for Inclusive Security, a DC-based organization that promotes the inclusion 

of women in peace and security. Ms. O’Neill oversees all the Institute’s initiatives in Afghanistan, Burma, Pakistan, Sudan, and 

Syria, while also training and advising military and police serving 

in NATO and serving in the U.N. and the U.S. military, among 

others. 

And without objection, the witnesses’ full prepared statements 

will be made part of the record, and members here will have 5 calendar days to submit any statements or any questions that you 

have for the witnesses or any extraneous material for the record. 

So Ms. McWilliams, if you would please summarize your remarks. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF HER EXCELLENCY MONICA MCWILLIAMS, 

PROFESSOR OF WOMEN’S STUDIES, TRANSITIONAL JUSTICE 

INSTITUTE, ULSTER UNIVERSITY 

Ms. MCWILLIAMS. Good morning and thank you, Chairman 

Royce, Ranking Member Engel, Congressmen Sherman, and members of the committee. On behalf of the panel, I too would like to 

express my sympathy to the injured and my condolences to the 

families of the bereaved in Brussels where my own husband is currently working and living. 

My testimony today is informed by my experience as a negotiator 

and a signatory to the 1998 Belfast Good Friday Agreement. I am 

currently tasked by the Northern Ireland Government to develop a 

strategy for the disbandment of all paramilitary groups. I am the 

first woman to be appointed to such a high level monitoring panel 

in the post-conflict phase. 

Northern Ireland’s experience exemplifies the importance of having women involved at all stages of the peace process. At the commencement of our own peace talks, we women in civil society were 

very concerned by the scant attention that would be paid to the 

role that we had played during the previous 25 years of the conflict. Women in Northern Ireland, like women everywhere, had 

been credited with holding the line between the different factions 

and had created hundreds of active local groups which every day 

crossed the political/sectarian divide. 

But following the ceasefires in the mid-’90s, we became aware 

that the government parties, ex-combatants, and constitutional 

parties were being invited to participate in the formal peace talks. 

5

Women would be largely excluded because they had been previously underrepresented in these parties. 

And realizing that the process was in danger of excluding us, we 

in civic society came together and decided to form a women’s coalition that included women from Catholic and Protestant backgrounds, from Unionist and Nationalist backgrounds. In order to 

enter the peace talks, all groups had to form themselves into official political parties. The Women’s Coalition had 6 weeks to do so, 

and we became an official elected party. 

We went around the country convincing the electorate that 

women deserved to have a seat, and we earned enough votes to become one of the ten parties. And on the day that I entered the 

room, I looked around and realized that we were the only women 

delegates present. And at that time, we joined 3 percent of women 

across the world that became signatories of a peace agreement. Because we challenged the process at the pre-negotiation stage, the 

peace talks opened up to allow us as outsiders to become official 

insiders. 

And that is the first lesson that we learned. Peace negotiations 

need to be designed to create an effective, inclusive process so that 

women’s voices from civil society have an opportunity to be heard. 

Recently I have been involved in workshops from Syria who are 

participating currently in the talks in Geneva. After tremendous 

advocacy led by women in Syria in civil society, and by the commitment of the U.N. Special Envoy Staffan de Mistura, these talks 

have been opened up which is a sign of progress. 

The precedent has now been set at the Syrian talks for a civil 

society forum and a women’s advisory board to be present throughout these talks. They will sit in a parallel forum to the main delegations of which there are several women from each side, and they 

will act as advisors throughout the process in Geneva. Drawing on 

my own experience with the Women’s Coalition in Northern Ireland, I now prepare these Syrian women for the pushback that 

often accompanies women when they do come forward. 

In Northern Ireland, for instance, we had prepared ourselves for 

the various negotiation positions, but we were not prepared for the 

open hostility that we experienced from the other parties at the 

table which veered at times from downright misogyny to sectarianism. We attracted a great deal of media attention as a result, 

and slowly, slowly, the bad behavior and the male posturing began 

to change. 

So finding ways to create an inclusive process is key. We knew 

that once the ex-combatants agreed to abide by the principles of 

nonviolence for the talks, they too would be part of a different future. The Women’s Coalition established back-channels, we found 

ways to measure those who remain nervous about the process, and 

we kept the process moving. When violence is the norm, peace is 

the mystery, and the progress of the talks at times depended very 

much on our back-channeling. 

The second issue is the substance, what you can put on the table. 

Had women been absent, issues relating to victims, children, young 

people, mixed housing, integrated education, community development, and the civic forum would all have not made their way into 

the final agreement. And these issues are issues for sustainable 

6

peace. There is also gender-specific issues because conflict does 

have a differential impact on men and women’s lives, and those 

issues need to be put on the table. 

The final and third issue is how to implement and enforce what 

has been promised. Too often, what is agreed at the table is not delivered. For example, in Northern Ireland we had a quota of 50 

percent for Catholics to be recruited to the new police service. That 

quota did not exist for gender because it was argued that it was 

going to be discriminatory. 

So the lesson that was learned was that aspirational proposals 

need to become institutional guarantees. They need to be accompanied by benchmarks and timetables. And when there is an absence of a critical mass of women in the legislature and in the bureaucracy, we need to have champions. 

So here I want to commend the role of the U.S. Government at 

that time and right up to the present, which has ensured us that 

those champions have been available from both the Democrats and 

Republicans. Female U.S. Consul staff, high-ranking U.S. women, 

became involved in our peace process and they acted as role models 

in what was and still is a predominantly male culture. And they 

showed us that vital voices of women’s voices are crucial to all 

peace processes. 

Precarious progress has now been made and we move forward to 

a situation where gender perspectives have to be taken seriously 

and where policymakers see the inclusion of women as beneficial 

to the reforms that come with peace. Peace agreements are important because they address the past and they articulate the priorities for the future. Women need to be a central part of that and 

when they are mountains will move. My written testimony today 

includes several policy recommendations which I am happy to answer questions on. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. McWilliams follows:]

7


99552b-1.eps
8


99552b-2.eps
9


99552b-3.eps
10


99552b-4.eps
11

STATEMENT OF HASSAN ABBAS, PH.D., PROFESSOR AND 

CHAIR, REGIONAL AND ANALYTICAL STUDIES DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL DEFENSE UNIVERSITY 

Mr. ABBAS. Chairman Royce, Ranking Member Engel, Congressman Sherman, and other respected members of this committee, it 

is a great privilege and honor to be here and to testify and to contribute to this process. 

Up front I would argue and give my principle belief on the subject of why, very similar to the comments by my colleague, why 

more women in law enforcement and the broader criminal justice 

system play a key role. It is often interpreted as an issue of 

inclusivity, about gender balance or gender equality. It is not merely that. It is much more powerful. 

It is, in my view as an academic and as a former police official 

in Pakistan with my 15 years of academic work in the United 

States and my free studies mostly in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq: 

What I have learned is that it is an absolute necessity as a core 

element of the broader criminal justice system in policing to have 

more women, because it is directly linked to effective policing. More 

women are needed not because of inclusivity, they are needed because that is directly linked to effective and good policing. 

Now what is the evidence I have to suggest that? Because it 

sounds very good, and at times politically correct in certain context, 

in the West especially. I have two sets of evidence. One is very 

brief profiles that I will share with you of five women whose work 

at one level inspired me, but with whom I have worked firsthand. 

I saw their enthusiasm, I saw their clarity of mind, I saw their empathy, and I saw their contributions as security professionals both 

in terms of scholars and experts, and as police officers. And then 

I have a few items based on pure empirical academic research. The 

five profiles: And I am a proud American, but I am also, I love 

Pakistan. I have worked with, as a Pakistani, worked with Benazir 

Bhutto, the deceased Prime Minister. I just have two or three 

things. The first woman ever to become head of Muslims, any Muslim State. The clerics in Pakistan, the religious extremists had 

issued a fatwa, an edict saying a woman cannot be head of the 

State. The people of Pakistan voted against that and elected her. 

Then she was just cornered by the Pakistani military establishment, who thought she is a security threat. That was the headline, 

that she is a security threat. She cannot even go close to the nuclear installations. What she did in her first 6 months, she invited 

the Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi; and signed, negotiated a 

deal saying both countries will commit not to attack each other’s 

nuclear installations—a huge deal. 

Finally, I will jump to her final days. And I remember I met her 

here. When she went back, and I am personal witness to this, she 

was very clear that she was walking into a death knell. She 

thought she would stand up to extremists, and she lost her life. 

She gave her life. The message, from my point of view, is that she 

showed, more than any man in South Asia or the Middle East, she 

showed that standing up to extremism matters. 

My second example, my mentor Jessica Stern, who I remember 

sitting in her class, actually, on the eve of 9/11. Those were my 

first few days in the U.S. She was the professor of security studies 

12

and terrorism. And what I have seen in her work, she went to 

Pakistan among other countries, interviewed religious extremists. 

The head of Lashkar-e-Taiba at that time, Hafiz Saeed, she mentions his story in her book, ‘‘Why Religious Militants Kill.’’ By her 

work she created a new precedent as a security expert, scholar, and 

that contributed significantly for both men and women. 

My third example is a Pakistani police officer, Maria Taimur, 

who opted—she was a police officer in Pakistan—she opted not to 

go for a desk job; she will go and take up a job as an operational 

commander. 

My fourth example, a very important one, I am proud to mention 

one of my students, a U.S. Army colonel, Colonel Martha Foss. She 

served as an advisor and as a trainer for Afghan women judges. I 

asked her 2 or 3 years ago in my class amongst many students, 

what are your hopes and expectations when, as a U.S. ‘‘AFPAK 

Hand’’ at my College of International Security Affairs, when you go 

back after the master’s degree, what are your hopes and expectations? She said something which is still entrenched in my mind. 

She said, sir, I am going back because I saw hope in the eyes of 

the women judges that I trained. I am going back for them. 

My final example, Jane Townsley, a British police officer who as 

president of the International Association of Women Police created 

new partnerships, empowered women to come together from all 

over the world, and created new precedents. 

So these five stories I will share because, one, I knew all of these 

five and worked with them, greatly learned from them and then, 

now, secondly, builds to my just five sentences on what the empirical studies tell me. These may be my personal ideas. 

Five things empirical studies tell us: Number one, whenever 

there are more women in police they de-escalate violent situations. 

Whenever there are more women in police, and these are experiences from actual studies from the United States, that there are 

less complaints. When there are more women, there are less complaints about excessive use of force by police. Then, crime: This is 

from European Union countries, whenever there are more women 

in police, there are increased cases of crime reporting, especially 

about women. 

Last but not least, CVE, countering violent extremism and counterterrorism. And if I may quote from one of the major studies, it 

says clearly that wherever there are more women, the designing 

and the mechanisms by which we approach extremism, these designs and mechanisms improve. 

So I will conclude with this. Thank you for—I am a little over 

time, but my final sentence is, what can we do based on these two 

sets of things? I would say, number one, first and foremost, we 

should think about involving more women in advisory positions. 

Whenever we have these missions across in fundings, there have 

to be more women involved. Secondly, there has to be more funding 

to look at how the academic and the policy worlds, investment in 

them to see how more women in police has a direct impact on better policing. And last but not the least, better recognition of the 

works done by female leaders such as Benazir, such as the President of Kosovo who was a police officer, and like my colleague here, 

13

who have done tremendous things for the rule of law, for empowering women, but most importantly for justice. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Abbas follows:]

14


99552c-1.eps
15


99552c-2.eps
16


99552c-3.eps
17


99552c-4.eps
18


99552c-5.eps
19


99552c-6.eps
20


99552c-7.eps
21


99552c-8.eps
22


99552c-9.eps
23


99552c-10.eps
24


99552c-11.eps
25

Chairman ROYCE. Ms. O’Neill, if you would hit that red button. 

Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF MS. JACQUELINE O’NEILL, DIRECTOR, THE 

INSTITUTE FOR INCLUSIVE SECURITY 

Ms. O’NEILL. Chairman Royce, you have put a crucial topic 

squarely on the agenda of one of the prominent committees in Congress. Thanks to you, Ranking Member Engel, Mr. Sherman, and 

all members. For more than 15 years at the Institute for Inclusive 

Security, led by Ambassador Swanee Hunt, and thousands of members of our global Women Waging Peace Network, we have increased the inclusion of women in peace and security processes. 

We know very well that today’s hearing topic has always been 

rich with anecdotes. We hear about centuries-long traditions of 

women mediating between warring clans in Afghanistan and Somalia. We listen to pioneers like Monica, and Betty Bigombe from 

Uganda, whose testimony is available online and who literally 

walked into the jungle amidst a brutal civil war to sit down face 

to face with Joseph Kony and convinced the LRA to sit down 

around the table with the Ugandan Government for the first time 

ever. 

Just a few months ago, we even heard a story from Afghan 

women describing watching the very subtle recruitment of young 

men into violent extremist groups at weddings. When they went to 

report this to a government minister, he laughed at them condescendingly and said, the militants we deal with are far too sophisticated to recruit at weddings. A month later, those same 

young men killed 32 men and women on a bus. There are thousands of stories just like these. Yet, for decades as we have asserted that women play vital roles in ending war and building 

peace, we have been told, prove it. Now we can. There is a robust 

body of data to make the case. 

So let’s review three things we know. One, we know that woman 

get warring parties to the negotiations and they help them reach 

agreements that endure. A new study looked at 40 peace processes 

in 35 countries and found that when women’s groups had influence, 

an agreement was reached 98 percent of the time. Another study 

showed that a peace agreement is 35 percent more likely to last at 

least 15 years if women participate in its creation. Why is that? 

Studies document that women expand the conversation beyond 

where borders are drawn or who gets to control which ministry. 

They introduce priorities that lay a foundation for a stronger state, 

like abuses of police power or political exclusion. 

Two, we know that the ways that war is waged and peace is built 

are changing fast and that women are addressing challenges posed 

by non-state actors like terrorist groups. They are mediating conflicts at local levels, for example. It may sound hard to believe, but 

women in ISIS-controlled areas in Syria have been negotiating to 

reopen schools and keep them running. Women are also on the 

front lines of violent extremism, not only as mothers as we so often 

hear, but also as fighters, as community leaders, and as members 

of security forces. 

Three, we know that engaging women in decision making is not 

something that we do for women. We do it for all of us. States that 

26

respect and engage women are less likely to traffic in drugs, weapons, and people, to create or harbor terrorists, to enable criminal 

networks, to generate refugees. Ultimately, they are also less likely 

to need U.S. boots on the ground. 

It is clear that women’s inclusion is both a rights agenda and a 

national security imperative. In short, it is about making the 

money we spend abroad more effective and ultimately needing to 

spend less of it. Yet, perplexingly, despite knowing all of this, the 

practice of meaningfully including women is wildly inconsistent. 

So what can Congress do? My written testimony proposes five actions, but I will highlight just a few. First, pass the bipartisan 

Women, Peace, and Security Act to codify the U.S. National Action 

Plan on Women, Peace, and Security. The plan is a strategy to integrate women’s inclusion in all aspects of defense, diplomacy, and 

development. More work remains, but it has prompted meaningful 

change. Codifying the plan into law will help ensure that women’s 

inclusion is a focus no matter who sits in the White House. It will 

enable Congress to exercise its oversight role and send a clear signal that this is a foreign policy priority. 

Second, Congress can make small investments that pay big dividends. For example, last year for the first time, Congress ensured 

dedicated funding for the recruitment, retention, and 

professionalization of women in the Pakistani police force. Women 

constitute about 1 percent of those police forces and their absence 

has a tremendous negative impact on the ability to stabilize communities and counter violent extremism. 

This year we hope Congress will maintain its support and dedi- cate at least $5 million more for these efforts as was specified in 

the Senate spending bill last year. To put this in perspective, this 

is a tiny, minuscule fraction of overall U.S. spending on terrorism, 

with significant and disproportionate results. 

Third, ask targeted questions at every hearing, particularly of 

nominees. Imagine if a potential appointee was asked how the principles of the U.S. National Action Plan are reflected in his or her 

priorities. Even the fear of simply being caught without an answer 

would prompt meaningful reflection. 

And fourth, as the chairman and his staff apparently referred to 

earlier, when holding hearings related to international crises, 

peace, stability, and security assistance, be sure to invite a significant number of female experts. Brookings did a study last year 

looking at the 45 congressional hearings on the Iran deal over 1 

year. Out of 140 named witnesses, only six were female. And as 

one creative pundit pointed out, that demographic breakdown is 

strikingly similar to that of Iran’s own Parliament. 

The evidence could not be clearer. When women are included societies are more stable. We can’t afford for this to be an afterthought. As a member of our network from Afghanistan recently 

said, the world talks about including women; the extremists are already doing it. By convening this hearing, Congress sent a powerful 

signal of bipartisan support to the millions of the women around 

the world who are seeking a voice and a role. The legislative action 

that I hope will follow would be a meaningful declaration that their 

work is valued and that the U.S. Congress stands behind them. 

Thank you. 

27

[The prepared statement of Ms. O’Neill follows:]


99552d-1.eps
28


99552d-2.eps
29


99552d-3.eps
30


99552d-4.eps
31


99552d-5.eps
32


99552d-6.eps
33


99552d-7.eps
34

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Ms. O’Neill. The first question I 

would ask, in our first hearing in this series we learned about ISIS’ 

horrific use of sexual violence to devastate families, to devastate 

communities, but the Assad regime’s, the prisons, are notorious 

also for the unbelievable level of rape and torture. We had Caesar, 

the military photographer who documented some of this, testify 

here. So you have thousands and thousands of Syrian women who 

have been imprisoned in those jails, in Assad’s jails, many simply 

for organizing aid deliveries or rescue operations that defied 

Assad’s blockades. 

So Ms. McWilliams, you have been helping to train Syrian 

women who are now participating in this latest round of the U.N. 

brokered talks. In a traditional society like Syria where even the 

suspicion of rape can break families apart, can you speak a little 

about the importance of women’s inclusion to address the long term 

effects of widespread sexual violence in conflict? 

Ms. MCWILLIAMS. Thank you very much, Chairman. And let me 

give you a picture of what it was like last month when I was with 

the women and word came from Riyadh that there may be some 

detainees going to be released as a confidence building measure in 

order to get the talks started. 

And so we asked the women to sit down and consider which 

women would be on a list if they were to be released, and therein 

lay the first problem. There was a documented list and a non-documented list. And the women started to argue about whether they 

could switch some of the women who were undocumented because 

their parents had come to the women and said to them, we do not 

want anyone to know that our daughters are inside Assad’s prisons 

because when they get out this will be an issue of their honor. 

And so the women had to carefully negotiate that night which 

women would go on the list and be sent back as a confidence building measure before the talks would start that a number of them 

would be released, both women and children. And that for me coming from a different culture was a real lesson. 

And so the issue of sexual violence is horrendous. There were 

women in the room who had experienced sexual assaults and who 

had been raped in all male prisons, and who couldn’t speak. And 

they also said other women and got up and expressed their solidarity toward them and apologized to them and said, we are so 

sorry that you were left alone, but again we and the community 

were told not to single you out in case this word came out that you 

were there. 

So you can see the difficulties, Chairman. And this is what I 

meant when I was giving my testimony about the differential impact of conflict on men and women’s lives. 

The other issues that we are facing are in the refugee camps. 

The women were telling us that in some of these camps ISIS were 

trying to take the camps over. They were incredibly courageous, incredibly resilient, and they were refusing to let that happen. There 

were some concerns about the Sharia courts being used to make 

judgments on very young girls who they knew to be raped and so 

that was also an issue. 

But what they are doing, and I think it is incredibly important, 

and what we did too, was they are documenting all of this so that 

35

these human rights violations will be on the record. There should 

be no impunity for such incredible sexual violations and they are 

making sure that one day if transitional justice comes about that 

these issues will get the priority, which in the past, as you know 

in the Second World War they did not. 

Chairman ROYCE. Yes. Ms. O’Neill, although Ms. Bigombe was 

not able to join us today, I know you are familiar with her very 

successful work with Ugandan women to encourage a large number 

of defections from the Lord’s Resistance Army where Joseph Kony 

had captured children, the girls were concubines, the boys were 

child soldiers for him and his lieutenants. 

I find this kind of community outreach very compelling and potentially very relevant to other conflicts in which it is very clear 

that we need to be smarter about countering this kind of extremist 

recruitment, for example, al Qaeda or ISIS in particular, or Daesh. 

Can you speak a little more about what these kinds of initiatives 

mean in terms of the untapped potential for women in many places 

where we are trying to counteract this terrorist recruitment that 

is underway? 

And I would afterwards ask Mr. Abbas for any insights, any comments he might have as well. 

Ms. O’NEILL. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You referenced Betty 

Bigombe’s work. Briefly to describe, for example, one of the things 

that she did, she organized groups of women to write letters to 

LRA combatants, to LRA soldiers, explaining what would happen 

to them, what services would be available to them, what programs 

they could access were they to voluntarily demobilize, come out of 

the bush and rejoin their communities. They handwrote these letters and they had their female members, wives, friends deliver 

them directly. 

So Betty organized a group of other women to do this. They did 

so in a way that appeared non-threatening, non-political, no one assumed that they were doing anything scary because they were a 

group of women organizing. They created these letters, delivered 

them, and as a result, 2,000 members of the LRA voluntarily demobilized. Can you imagine the cost savings and the savings in 

human lives from that not being a military action or a forced demobilization? And that is exactly the type of creative solution that 

women around the world are using. 

Women that we speak with and work with around the world talk 

about the importance of having women in all aspects of decision 

making regarding government and other programs aimed at countering violent extremism so that women are not viewed solely as 

victims who need protection or the provision of services from the 

state, but who are also providers of services and who have agency 

in their own, noting to us that one of the ways that some women 

are actually attracted to these violent extremist movements by 

false promises of agency, of being a lioness in some senses, of being 

targeted for the opportunity to make a change or a difference, and 

so the importance of providing an alternative narrative for hope for 

a role in determining their country’s future, et cetera. 

And the more women you have engaged in the upstream program 

design and upstream thinking, including in security forces, the 

36

more women you will have are going to be affected and actually, 

authentically, reached by these outreach efforts. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. Mr. Abbas. 

Mr. ABBAS. Sir, as reference to both the points, I would substantiate that with some examples, especially from the case of Pakistan 

and also from Iraq. But in the case of Pakistan, for instance, we 

know that when in one case Swat, Swat where the militants had 

taken what, around 2009, if you remember, we knew that they 

were about 100 miles, one hard drive from Islamabad. 

And that whole episode of the rise of extremism and militancy 

was studied, and we came to know that some of the militants in 

that area, Fazlullah, who is now head of the Tehrik-I-Taliban Pakistan, or Pakistani Taliban, he was specifically targeting women because he was using his radio transmissions during the daytime 

when he knew full well that men are mostly out in the farms or 

in the field and that he would inspire somehow women who were 

at home who were listening to the radio. It took, I mean, the research came out 3 years later because no one was—and there was 

a group of women who were actually involved in finding that out. 

So that substantiates the point that even when it, in these cases 

where extremists and terrorists and radicals try to use all channels 

available, somehow in the case of South Asia, if it is women whether they were human rights activists or whether they were from the 

law enforcement or security agencies—security agencies when I am 

saying, I am thinking again because there are so few, but those 

who are in the civil society. 

Civil society in Pakistan and Iraq has played an important role 

also. An example, recently we had a young woman from Iraq, actually, who came to the College of International Security Affairs at 

NDU and spoke about how her father was a Shia and mother was 

a Sunni, and how she was working in Iraq now to bring both the 

sectarian groups together. 

So there is a lot of evidence. It is an issue of empowering them. 

And if I make this quote in brief, one of my colleagues, a British 

police officer who I have quoted in statement in length, she had 

said we often forget that we talk about equipping them and we talk 

about empowering them, but it is also about at the end of the day 

enabling them. And that enabling role is mostly in the hands of 

men, whether it is about toward the extremism or the other side. 

So we have to focus on the enabling part. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. Well, and girls like Malala. Thank you, Dr. 

Abbas. We go now to Mr. Sherman, the ranking member. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. Ms. O’Neill, what role have women 

played in the current Colombia negotiations and what difference 

does it make? 

Ms. O’NEILL. Thank you. So women have played roles on all 

sides of the conflict in Colombia for decades. One of the least 

known aspects of the current round of negotiations is that women 

were very instrumental in getting the parties to the talks. So in the 

pre-talks phases we pay a lot of attention to the talks that are 

largely deemed right now as successful, we hope there will be a 

ceasefire announced soon, women, to use an unfortunate metaphor, 

set the table, for those talks to get parties there and have kept 

them there for some time. So women have been members of both 

37

negotiating delegations, as well as women in civil society have 

played a broad range of very important roles surrounding the talks. 

So, women in civil society advocated for those present at the 

talks, all of the negotiators, to hear directly from victims of the 

conflict. And to our knowledge this is the first time that any round 

of negotiations has heard testimony where both sides of the talks 

heard directly from those most affected by the war about their experiences and about their hopes. It was women in civil society who 

are instrumental in providing and ensuring the voices of victims 

were directly spoken and heard by the negotiators. 

They also formed what is called the Gender Subcommission, 

again the first commission of its type at any negotiation to take all 

of the topics on the table and address and examine whether or not 

there is a different impact for men and women. And that is important for all of the reasons that Betty and Hassan mentioned, and 

also for an additional reason which is that the FARC in Colombia 

is composed of about 40 percent women. 

So the Colombian military, for example, has about 1 percent, the 

FARC has about 40 percent women. So when we are talking about 

the next stage of demobilizing paramilitaries and bringing them 

back into communities, typical programs of reintegration we see 

time and again around the world discount the fact that there are 

women present and they do things like train them to be hairdressers or seamstresses. And we are talking about women that 

have commanded platoons and battalions, fought in the jungle and 

carried weapons. 

And so women around those tables, women designing those programs directly are going to know exactly what it is going to take 

to get women out of the FARC and back into communities in a 

meaningful way. So in conclusion, their response and their impact 

has been substantial. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. Dr. Abbas, I have been trying to understand Pakistan for 20 years. You describe a Pakistan that one 

time elected Benazir Bhutto and ignored or discounted the fatwa 

against her gender, and of course there are a lot of people who 

voted against her for reasons that had nothing to do with her gender. 

Now I see a Pakistan in which girls are attacked for going to 

school, those who try to punish their attackers are attacked, and 

those who attack are glorified. Has Pakistan changed or have these 

very different views on the role of women been there and had substantial support for decades? 

Mr. ABBAS. Thank you very much for that question. I will be candid. I saw Pakistan drifting toward extremism in a very step by 

step fashion, from the Afghan jihad years onwards, and I will not 

go into that history. You know that better than me. 

But that changed Pakistani dynamics. When militants from 30, 

actually 40 different countries, exactly the way it is happening with 

ISIS today, when those militants from all across the world came in, 

Pakistan housed them. And thinking they would use them in the 

Afghan jihad, when the U.S. was on board, Saudi Arabia was funding, everyone, and but they forgot the Pakistani security establishment, especially that those people who were performing those roles 

had an internal agenda as well, which was a radical, extremist, 

38

non-democratic, non-pluralist Pakistan. And those forces, who for 

instance all the religious parties together could never win more 

than 8 or 9 percent of the vote ever, but then there was one stage 

on which they became very powerful. 

I would argue one of the reasons why that happened, and this 

is honestly and frankly not very much discussed in, I would say, 

U.S. policy circles, the idea of authoritarianism and military dictatorships, which, if I may take liberty, Musharraf, General 

Musharraf, I worked with him, great man. His heart was in the 

right place. But the damage that his authoritarianism did to Pakistan was also irreparable. 

So it is Pakistan’s involvement in conflicts, Pakistan’s entrenched 

rivalry with India, in which they think anyone who is fighting in 

India is doing a freedom fight. And how all those people have 

radicalized Pakistan. And then, last but not least, these 

authoritarianism issues and no investment in education. And when 

I say ‘‘no,’’ it is less than 1 percent investment. 

So with all the carryover bill, and carryover Burman bill contributions, which I think was one of the best things we did, the 

trend toward extremism in Pakistan has been growing faster than 

what we were from outside investing or what the Pakistani progressive elements were doing. The progressive elements were sidelined because Pakistan was derailed from democracy. I think these 

are the three very critical factors. With the continuation of democracy, people like Benazir will become powerful. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I will try to sneak in one more question. We have 

Voice of America, we have Public Diplomacy, is there anything we 

should do to more effectively reach women? I will ask Ms. 

McWilliams and Ms. O’Neill. 

Ms. MCWILLIAMS. Well, you have just heard from the panel 

about disarmament and demobilization. The third piece of that is 

reintegration. And I am now specifically involved in trying to reintegrate ex-paramilitaries, ex-combatants as partners to our peace 

process. 

But too often, and you have just asked earlier about Uganda, 

what I saw in Gulu in front of me was that when the combatants 

and the child soldiers came back, they were the ones who got the 

reparations and the women got nothing. And they were the mothers of the children who had been taken away as concubines. And 

it was shocking for me to watch this. 

And I learned a lesson that these women are survivors and not 

just victims. They are in my own process agents of change. But too 

often they are bypassed. After peace agreements are reached, the 

reintegration focuses entirely on the man and not on the women. 

So if the Voice of America and Diplomacy and the United States 

was to continue to focus on transition from conflict to peace, it 

would be to put resources and investment and intention on the 

women in those post-conflict processes and not to exclude them and 

leave them out in the cold. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. Mr. DeSantis. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. O’Neill, in some 

of these societies where women haven’t been afforded opportunities 

to serve in high positions of government, how do you convince some 

of the negotiation organizers that they have something to offer? 

39

Are there alternative qualifications that can be stressed and how 

do we make sure that those voices can be heard? 

Ms. O’NEILL. Thank you. First thing is that I try not to convince 

them, I let the women themselves convince them. And there is 

never a shortage of women who will speak up for their own interests and their own desire to have a decision or a say in the decisions that affect their own lives. So the most important resource 

that we all have available is the women within countries affected 

by war who are at the front lines already calling for their change, 

and our objective is to amplify their voices. 

You asked about alternative qualifications and that is an interesting question because, first of all, many women themselves don’t 

recognize the qualifications that they have to be part of those conversations. So they are connected to their communities. They have 

a unique ability to bridge divides between warring groups and disparate parties. They have an ability to reach compromise and consensus. They are constantly negotiating and seeking middle 

ground. 

These are the skills and the talents and the qualifications that 

we need most around negotiating tables, whereas we have a system 

right now that tends to reward those only who took up arms, so 

those who did the very challenging work during a war and will do 

the challenging work of rebuilding it afterwards are perceived as 

not having the right qualifications. So what can we do to get them 

there is, number one, recognize that and ask the women in every 

country in which we are working how we can best support them. 

And also to Mr. Sherman’s earlier question, what can we do, 

what voice, how can we use this voice? Many people look to what 

the United States says diplomatically for guidance of what is important or what are priorities, and when the U.S. is speaking about 

it, when it adopts a national action plan, when it codifies it into 

law, the U.S. is making a clear statement that women’s inclusion 

is not an add-on or an afterthought, but that we see it as core to 

actually achieving all of the rest of our foreign policy objectives and 

that it is not something that can be culturally discarded or left in 

the hands of only a few people, but it is something that matters 

to us. 

So in all of our strategic dialogues, Pakistan-U.S. strategic dialogue, pre-negotiations with the Taliban in Afghanistan, anywhere 

else we have significant high-level negotiations or contact, our most 

senior diplomats, and not just women but men too, should be raising this issue and emphasizing to all of our partners the importance of women’s voice for the exact purpose of their being able to 

enhance the sustainability of any agreement that is reached. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Thank you. Ms. McWilliams, can you tell us a little about your experience in Northern Ireland, was what you were 

doing effectively implemented after the Good Friday Agreement 

was reached? 

Ms. MCWILLIAMS. Well, the women were credited in Northern 

Ireland at the immediate stage post the agreement being signed of 

going to the people in a referendum. And my recollection in memory is it was the women who took to the streets. We had got these 

buses and we put our kids on the buses, and we went around the 

40

country to every village and we knocked on doors and we begged 

people to say yes for the future. 

And when I looked around I wondered, where are all the political 

parties who should be out doing the same job as what we are 

doing? And of course the political parties were back in their offices 

getting ready for the election, and it was women who were out on 

the streets and villages every day for 6 weeks. And we did get to 

yes. 

And so that is always the role that people expect of women is to 

be the people behind the scenes doing the work on the streets and 

in the villages. But I was disappointed after our agreement. I am 

still one of those who think our process worked, and thank God it 

has all these years later, but it was the women who went backwards. 

Conflict does an amazing thing to me as a woman. I was an ordinary woman who fell into extraordinary times and was asked to do 

extraordinary things that I never thought in my life I would be 

asked to do, and we did it. And after the agreement was over, like 

women everywhere in the world we were told, okay, now we have 

settled the government arrangements, we have got all of these, you 

can go back to what you were doing before. And we lost out. 

And that is why in answer to Congressman Sherman’s earlier 

question about diplomacy. That is where we needed the United 

States and the champions from the United States to continue to 

say these clauses were also in the agreement about the role of 

women in political participation. Where is the timetable for that? 

You were able to release all of the political prisoners 2 years after 

the agreement was signed, how come you couldn’t increase the role 

of women in political life? A much easier thing to do you would 

think than releasing people from jail. It has still not been implemented. 

So that is where for me the U.S. diplomats came in and we had 

U.S. special envoys. From the Republican side we had Paula 

Dobriansky, and earlier the first lady came and pushed all the 

time, as did the first Ambassador under President Obama, 

Melanne Verveer as the Ambassador for Global Affairs. And these 

roles are incredibly important. 

And the last thing I would say on this is I learned so much from 

my experience that I am now giving this experience to others who 

are in the same process as the women in Colombia and the women 

in Syria and anywhere else, because this also was something America did for us. NGOs enabled us to go and speak to women in other 

transitions, and the people who know best about those experiences 

are the women who have been through it themselves, like me. 

And so again, the United States was incredibly important because we didn’t have the resources, we didn’t have the finances, 

and that is where that role was important and still remains important where we can exchange our lessons from our own conflicts 

with women all over the world. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Well, thank you for coming. I really appreciated 

your testimony, and I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. Mr. Connolly. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the 

panel for a fascinating set of conversations. It is interesting to note, 

41

Ms. McWilliams, on your last point that the last three Presidents, 

including the current President, have each chosen a woman to be 

secretary of state, our number one diplomat, who have traveled all 

over the world and at the U.N. in conflict situations, in negotiating 

in diplomatic situations. 

It would be interesting to think back on that at some point, did 

that serve as a change agent? What changed, if anything, by having a female face, an American female face in front of lots of different cultures that would find that difficult to accept in their own 

cultural milieu? 

Ms. MCWILLIAMS. Well, let me tell you how important it was, 

and I have met all three secretaries of state. All three of them at 

different stages, actually, have been in Northern Ireland. For such 

a small country we attracted a great deal of attention——

Mr. CONNOLLY. I have been there myself. 

Ms. MCWILLIAMS [continuing]. Good—and for which we are very 

grateful. But it did make a difference. When we went to the peace 

table, Congressman, we were told the only women that should be 

at that table are the women who are going to polish the table. We 

were told to go home and breed for the country. We were insulted. 

We started an insult of the week notice board and we hung it outside our office, and we put the person who was making the insults’ 

name on the door or on the board, and the insult, and eventually 

it stopped. 

But it definitely stopped when women from the United States in 

these high-ranking positions came into the country and said this 

behavior is not acceptable. They didn’t, in diplomacy, actually call 

it that, but they told us that they would encourage us to challenge 

it, they are behind us, they would stand in solidarity with us. 

And I now hear from some of those high-ranking women that 

they have saved women’s lives in the countries that they have been 

in. When we get a photograph standing next to them, suddenly we 

are elevated into a position that we never were before, and that is 

so important. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Well, good god, Ms. McWilliams, imagine if we 

actually elected one a President. But that is a different thought. 

Dr. Abbas and Ms. O’Neill, I am really struck by your testimony 

because—I wonder if you would address this. I am struck with the 

fact that the cultural barriers in some places are so enormous to 

the point where a figure we would point to, a feminist, a self-confident, accomplished professional woman here, is actually seen as 

in very disparaging terms through a cultural filter in some other 

places, and all kinds of Western stereotypes imagined about who 

this person is and as a justification for, frankly, putting her or 

women in that cultural milieu in their place. 

And here is my question to you both. How do we overcome that 

without ethnocentrism on our own part? We make value judgments 

about what we consider subjugation, the non-empowerment, but in 

a different cultural setting that is the proper role. And how do we 

address this to further the empowerment of women and to finally 

take advantage of the productivity of half of humanity? 

Ms. O’NEILL. Thank you. First, we have to be extremely careful 

who we allow to define culture. So do we let the Taliban in the year 

2000 define culture? Do we let the Afghan women who have fought 

42

so very hard on their own merit for the last 16 years to define culture? We have to look inside the culture at the various forces within it. And I think one of the most dangerous things that we can 

do is take a surface look at culture, believe we understand it, and 

then end up supporting really those who have a vested interest in 

preserving the culture or more realistically preserving power. 

Then what we have to do is ask women within those communities and that has to be an authentic conversation, it can’t be a 

45-minute meeting one time only, but to ask them how to support 

them. So in my perspective, culture informs tactics, it doesn’t inform our fundamental values. So if we believe that it is a value, 

equal treatment is a value, an opportunity that women have a 

right to do that and that women’s presence is actually an investment on our part, then it is upon us to ask how we can do that; 

how we can work with those women in a way that makes the most 

sense. 

And to keep in mind that the entire, this whole issue is not 

something that originated in the West. Even at the United Nations, 

the topic was first brought up by countries from the global south, 

from Rwanda, from Bosnia, women who had lived in the war, who 

had these vital experiences of being on the front lines of stopping 

the conflict, of building communities, putting them back together, 

et cetera, and then they are the very ones who sometimes hear, 

often from Western policymakers that it is against your culture for 

you to be around this table. 

So we have to listen to the women saying allow us to define our 

own culture, our own changing culture, to recognize that war 

changes culture, and to allow us to assume the role that we want 

to play for ourselves. I don’t want to diminish the importance of 

doing this carefully and with great respect, but to simply say that 

it is culturally inappropriate or it is culturally fine for certain practices to happen in some place versus another, when in fact it is 

against what we fundamentally stand for and value and that we 

know is to be efficient, isn’t an effective argument. 

Mr. ABBAS. Congressman, I would mention three things that first 

come to my mind, and the examples are in one case beginning from 

Pakistan. For instance, there is in many—when I say Pakistan, I 

mean it to be South Asian states and many Middle Eastern states. 

It is the common feature of their cultural notions that women are 

not seen in roles of national security or as police officers or as even 

intelligence officers, or who are coming out defending their nations, 

defending their societies. 

And that role, two or three examples tell us, can change very 

quickly. Indonesia: In Indonesia what they did very smartly was 

they started appointing women as judges of what they call Islamic 

courts, and that had a huge impact. More women started coming 

out, the scene started to change. Turkey did the same thing in 

their policing sector. 

In the case of Pakistan, before Benazir Bhutto, I think there 

were hardly any women who you could mention who were playing 

any important role, but now whether it was an Ambassador from 

Pakistan, Sherry Rahman, who is Ambassador to U.S., Maleeha 

Lodhi, who is currently Pakistani Ambassador to the U.N., and so 

many experts from the human rights side. On security, security exVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:32 Apr 28, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\032216\99552 SHIRL
43

pertise has been developed because that one agent of change inspired and motivated so many others. And so anything we can do 

to support that. For instance, my question is one, when the counterterrorism money was given to Pakistan and other countries that 

was somehow always tilted toward the very, very military side of 

things. We never talked that law enforcement; but the criminal justice system can actually help defeat extremism or militancy. Then 

when we started thinking about it and started giving money to the 

law enforcement forces, women’s issues or their representation was 

never the priority it is now becoming, thanks to all of you. 

But one more point very briefly I want to touch upon and that 

is, I say it as a proud Muslim, but in Middle East and South Asia, 

many Muslim countries, something has gone terribly wrong with 

the religious education spectrum. And even though in Muslim history I can mention so many women, there is one, just one I will 

mention, because I think and I heard from Benazir Bhutto that she 

was inspired by that Muslim figure. Although if I today do a survey 

and ask in the Middle East—with all the due respect, I have great 

friends there, I go there all the time—if I ask them about any historical Muslim figure who had done or played a prominent role, 

probably they will come up with very few names. 

One name, Zaynab. Zaynab was a granddaughter of the prophet, 

but she had taken a stand against Yazid. Yazid was a caliph, a 

Muslim caliph of 7th century. She challenged him against his oppression, singlehandedly her whole family, this is related to 

Karbala, where Husayn was killed and buried. That is why all the 

people go to those shrines. 

But the message of Karbala Husayn or that biggest tragedy was 

not propagated through men, it was done through a woman named 

Zaynab. And if I ask today most Muslims about it, the tragedy is, 

yes, the Sufis would know, the Shias would know, most Muslims 

would not be able to tell me this prime example of leadership. So 

something has gone wrong in those cultural religious issues as 

well. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I must thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Without objection, would please to recognize Congresswoman Ann 

Wagner. 

Ms. WAGNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the committee, 

also, for their focus on women fighting for peace, including the 

ranking member. It is good to be with you, Mr. Sherman, also. 

I thank the chairman for his kind invitation. I had the great 

privilege of being a woman diplomat as a former United States Ambassador. I am committee-crashing from the Foreign Services Committee at the moment, but I have done that on several occasions 

with the Committee on Foreign Affairs. And I want to thank all of 

you for being here today to discuss what is proving to be a very 

difficult process, I believe, in Syria, and I would like to delve into 

that a little bit more. 

In preparing for today’s hearing, I was struck by the research 

and how it demonstrates that the inclusion of these noncombatant 

civil society actors in peace negotiations—specifically today we are 

speaking about women—how it decreases the odds of a return to 

conflict by I believe the number that was quoted was 64 percent. 

44

I have to say as a former woman diplomat, it is an imperative 

that we be at the table on, I believe, all issues of the foreign policy 

peace process. It is imperative in terms of the success of the negotiations, but perhaps even more important and duly noted here 

today as a pre-talk process that we play, but most importantly selling the policy and the peace back at home. That I think is a very 

important thing for us to do. 

And Ms. O’Neill, in your testimony you talked about some of the 

indicators, some of the reasons why women are so successful in 

these kinds of negotiations. And I would submit here for the record 

that we are successful because we do it because we don’t care who 

gets the credit at the end of the day. We are doers who just want 

to get the job done. And one of the most specific takeaways is that 

the extremists are doing it already. So we must catch up. 

And then Dr. Abbas, I have to say that I have had the privilege 

and continue to come back and work in leadership roles as a 

woman in business, as a party chair in politics for a number of 

years, as a former United States Ambassador, and now as a Member of Congress because I too see, to quote your words, ‘‘the hope 

in the eyes of other women,’’ in America’s daughters. But perhaps 

more importantly, I see the increased level of respect and understanding in the eyes of America’s sons. I have two sons myself and 

a daughter, and they will talk about my being a role model to my 

daughter, when, frankly, I think I am a more important role model 

to my two sons. 

Speaking as such, I am also, speaking of one of those sons, a 

proud mother of a United States Army captain who has served in 

combat in the Middle East, and I am very interested and, frankly, 

very invested that a peaceful solution to the Syrian civil war be 

found, not only for what this means for the Syrian people and their 

struggle, frankly their genocide in many ways, but also for what it 

means for the American people too. 

So Ms. McWilliams, can you talk a little bit about your efforts 

to create the linkage between the formal peace process and the 

women civil society advocates on the ground in Syria? 

Ms. MCWILLIAMS. Thank you very much for that question. The 

interesting process that is going on in Geneva at the moment not 

only has a civic society parallel forum, it also has a women’s advisory board parallel forum. And then inside the opposition coalition 

there are three woman delegates amongst the 15, and amongst the 

regime there are three woman delegates. And the opposition coalition formed an advisory committee of 15 women. 

So for me it is definitely setting a precedent of the acknowledgment that women have in that process from civic society, but also 

women being able to be participants inside the United Nations 

process that is currently being run at some of the talks. 

And one of the things that I concentrated on was some of the 

issues that you raised earlier around culture; that the women need 

to prepare themselves for a new constitution and they should not 

allow forced marriage to return at the age of 13. And they are 

stateless if their husbands die, and many of them are now widows 

and they can’t pass on statehood to their children because it is not 

allowed as women. 

45

And if those women were not at the table, if they weren’t inside 

the process, those issues would, I suspect, not be prioritized in the 

agenda and perhaps forgotten about once the agreement was 

signed. Statelessness for you and me would be incredible and to not 

be able to pass that on to our children, and given that so many 

men have lost their lives this is a very real issue. And there are 

many other issues like that which we already touched on. 

So these are political issues, there is no doubt in my mind. We 

used to say in our process that the women were expected to put 

the small p on the table, but this is the big p, and these are big 

p political issues that need to sit alongside what always gets concentrated on if only the ex-combatants are at the table, which is 

release of prisoners, which is security sector reform of the army 

and the police, criminal justice reforms. All of those are exceptionally important, but for sustainability of peace, which is what you 

have just——

Ms. WAGNER. Right. 

Ms. MCWILLIAMS [continuing]. Referred to, that is where the 

women become crucial. 

Ms. WAGNER. And that, Ms. McWilliams, is what you talked 

about in terms of the reintegration effort that must be a part of 

keeping the peace; and that women, if they are at the table, must 

be a part of that reintegration process. And I do hope that to the 

extent that the West is involved and certainly the U.S. that we can 

serve in a greater capacity in elevating that in terms of the sustainability. 

Chairman ROYCE. The gentlewoman’s time has expired. The 

chair will now recognize Mr. Bera. 

Mr. BERA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for this 

hearing, and I certainly want to thank the witnesses. 

Here in the United States this is Women’s History Month, and 

when we look at great women throughout our history whether it 

is Eleanor Roosevelt, Rosa Parks, or Harriet Beecher Stowe who 

President Lincoln credits with very much ending slavery in the 

United States, we still have a long ways to go in our own country 

to elevate the role of women. If we think about it, women are over 

50 percent of the population in America, over 60 percent of the undergraduates, over 60 percent of the masters degrees, yet less than 

15 percent of the CEOs in the United States are women, less than 

5 percent of CEOs at Fortune 500 companies are women. Here in 

our own politics in Congress, less than 20 percent of the congressional membership are women and only 10 percent of the governors 

around the country are women. So we have a long ways to go. 

Without getting political, can I ask the witnesses what their 

opinion would be of the public perception if the United States of 

America was to elect the first female President of the United 

States? How would the world perceive this? 

Mr. ABBAS. I think that would be fabulous, number one. I think 

that will have a huge impact. In terms of and irrespective of the 

politics, I mean, the mere fact that a woman—and this is often 

asked. Bangladesh has the leader of the House who is the President, the Prime Minister, the leader of opposition who becomes 

Prime Minister, both of them women. India, Indira Gandhi, Pakistan of course, Kosovo, there are so many other countries, Israel. 

46

There are many other countries who have produced amazing 

women as heads of state. Why not the United States? That is, we 

often hear discussion. 

I think, yes, it is recognized that women’s empowerment—that 

the way it is happening in United States—is unparalleled also. I 

mean that is recognized. I think what was mentioned was so true. 

It is an issue of respect that women get as equals, and that there 

is no doubt that the U.S. is recognized for that. But political positions, I think they also have an impact. The message will be very 

strong in itself if that happens. 

Mr. BERA. And just to play on that, within the Muslim world you 

touched on, Dr. Abbas, the fact that women are not often given a 

seat at the table, et cetera, if just the symbolic nature of the leader 

of the free world being a female in negotiations and so forth, do you 

think that elevates the role of women and empowers women? 

Mr. ABBAS. I think most certainly. I would say when Secretary 

Clinton at the time she had visited Pakistan, she was the first outside leader who walked into Pakistan into a shrine which was of 

a very famous saint. Those pictures, if you Google U.S.-Pakistan relations, that picture still come up, very right up front. 

So this impacts. I think most of the countries, I am thinking 

more of the more recent states, they will have to cease to think 

about it. Probably they will have to appoint a few senior people, so 

this will have a cascading impact, I think. 

Mr. BERA. Right. Ms. O’Neill. 

Ms. O’NEILL. So certainly I think the number one qualification 

has to be someone being qualified. They have to be able to fulfill 

their role. Fortunately there are 3.5 billion women in the world 

that I am quite certain that at least one would be qualified to assume the leadership of any major country or organization. 

And I do think the symbolism matters tremendously, symbolism 

that is not token symbolism, but symbolism that is a signal of what 

the country values. And people outside of this country are extremely smart. They see, they understand when something is token 

or when something is sort of a patch to hide something else versus 

when something is a signal that there is authentic change in a 

country and that there is a pipeline of women coming up at all levels and all ranks and in all fields who are not just one top leadership, woman in top leadership, but a pipeline of women who are 

going to be positioned to serve in a whole range of areas. So it does 

send a powerful signal, yes, and it is noted. 

Mr. BERA. Ms. McWilliams. 

Ms. MCWILLIAMS. Most certainly, because I know the former first 

lady and secretary of state personally, and believe it or not we 

again are such a small country that she has come back time and 

time and time again and to make sure that our peace process kept 

going. And the whole country, whether or not they agree ideologically with the politics of the Democrats, absolutely agreed that this 

was a tremendous thing that Hillary Clinton did. And should she 

become President, again I think it would speak volumes. 

But again I agree with the panel that it is not just the face and 

the tokenism, it has to be the politics. The person has to walk the 

talk alongside women who have struggled. Otherwise they don’t 

speak the same language and they are simply there as an opporVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:32 Apr 28, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\032216\99552 SHIRL
47

tunistic position, and I don’t believe that in her stature that she 

has done that. She has walked the talk and she doesn’t just make 

it out that it is for political reasons or for votes, although that may 

also be part of it. And I think it would be a tremendous symbol to 

the world to have someone like her become President. 

Mr. BERA. Great. 

Chairman ROYCE. The gentleman’s time has expired. Without objection, I recognize Congresswoman McSally. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for holding 

this hearing today on this really important issue, and thanks to the 

panelists for your expertise. 

For my background, I was in the military 26 years. I was a fighter pilot in the first group of women to do that and first to fly in 

command in combat. I have long advocated in the U.S. that women 

need to be fully included into our security structure. I have long 

advocated that we need to be picking the best men for the job, even 

if it is a woman, across the board. 

My last military assignment was at Africa Command, and in addition to my responsibilities in operations I was asked to help Botswana integrate women into their military for the first time, and 

did some other engagements in Swaziland, Lesotho, and in fact my 

last week in active duty was in Sierra Leone addressing some of 

these issues. I had never heard about a U.N. Security Council Resolution 1325 in my military career. 

I was a professor after that at the Marshall Center, and as we 

started addressing some of these issues with our colleagues and our 

partners in other countries is when I started to understand like, 

oh, we have got this thing out there that I have been living and 

advocating for, but I didn’t realize that the U.S. really was paying 

little attention to it. 

I was excited to see that we were finally coming up with our national action plan, and quite frankly, when we finally rolled it out 

I was shocked to discover that our focus was arrogantly on how we 

are helping other countries without looking internally and realizing 

at that time we didn’t even allow women in all positions in our 

military, for crying out loud. That we were talking about how we 

are going to help other people, while we still had a long way to go 

both in our military, our security forces, in Congress—I mean, give 

me a break. We need to set a better example across the board. 

So I ended up lecturing on this. I went to OSCE meetings. One 

of the frustrations is that it seems like only women were interested. And unless we can get men to realize that this is not a women’s issue, this is a security issue, and women must be at the table, 

which you all know well, then we are speaking in an echo chamber. 

So this hearing helps certainly to raise awareness. 

The second issue is you all know there is good examples that we 

have seen where lasting peace and security have been a result of 

women’s full engagement, and we have bad examples, like Angola 

comes to mind, where it wasn’t. In the military we often talk about 

lessons learned, I say they are lessons identified. They are not lessons learned until they are actually learned. 

And so I really have two questions. One is, what can we be doing 

more as the United States to be not just providing lip service to 

this issue? I mean, again we have our own internal issues, but as 

48

we are dealing like the current negotiations right now, the ones 

that come to mind are Syria and Afghanistan you have talked 

about, what more should we doing as the United States to demand 

that women must be at the table? 

I am leading a codel of all women to Afghanistan in May, second 

year in a row. What else should we be doing in demanding that 

women be at the table because it is a security and lasting peace? 

And number two, where have we actually learned the lessons? 

Where have they been lessons learned versus lessons identified in 

our current contemporary negotiations? I would just go down the 

panel, starting with Ms. O’Neill. 

Ms. O’NEILL. What more you can do. First, within Congress, give 

the National Action Plan legislative authority, so pass the bipartisan Women, Peace, and Security Act to ensure that that National 

Action Plan cannot be set aside by any future political leader. 

Secondly, you talk very specifically about how some of this guidance or these directives aren’t actually part of the DNA of our security institutions yet. That is often very much a reflection that the 

value of women’s contributions is not understood as an issue of 

operational effectiveness, as you said of national security. 

So speaking in those terms, raising those issues, raising that vocabulary and having, as you also said, senior male military leaders 

speak about the value and the importance of having women at all 

levels and at all ranks in the U.S. armed services is essential. It 

cannot be an issue of only women speaking to other women about 

doing this for women. It has to be senior men and women talking 

about the value to the mission of having women fully integrated. 

What can you do about negotiations? Be vocal. There is absolutely no reason in the United States, that any negotiation in 

which it participates, cannot say we will not have a meeting, we 

will not sit down unless there are 50 percent females present. 

There will be challenges along the way, but negotiations are a 

very sticky, very difficult thing. And the U.S. perhaps more than 

any other body actually has the moral authority or sort of the actual authority to do so. So making it a clear priority and raising 

it at every single interaction that we have. 

I will let Monica speak to some of the lessons learned. I think 

she will probably address some of the Syria case. But there are instances slowly, slowly where we are applying some of these lessons, 

but we are also, I think, identifying some lessons from conflicts in 

Afghanistan and also where we are operating in exceptionally conservative societies and then applying those lessons, unfortunately, 

in other contacts where they may not even deserve to be applied, 

so we have to be careful in both ways. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Great. And unfortunately my time has expired, so 

I do, I look forward to following up with all of you on some of the 

other questions on how we can be more helpful as specifically related to my trip to Afghanistan as well, so thank you. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman, yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Congresswoman McSally. I want 

to thank our excellent panel today. I thank you for your significant 

contributions on this important subject, and also I just wanted to 

convey that the committee looks forward to working with you on 

49

a path forward to address many of these issues. And so at this 

point the committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:17 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(51)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

52

f


99552n.eps
53


99552m-1.eps
54

f


99552m-2.eps
55

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE EDWARD R. ROYCE, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND CHAIRMAN, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS


99552e-1.eps
56


99552e-2.eps
57


99552e-3.eps
58

f


99552e-4.eps
59

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE BRAD SHERMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FOR THE HONORABLE

ELIOT L. ENGEL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Æ


99552f.eps