Intelligent Compassion : Feminist Critical Methodology in the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom 9780199845248, 9780199845231

Citation preview

Intelligent Compassion

oxford studies in gender and international relations Series editors: J. Ann Tickner, University of Southern California, and Laura Sjoberg, University of Florida Enlisting Masculinity: The Construction of Gender in US Military Recruiting Advertising during the All-Volunteer Force Melissa Brown Gender, Sex, and the Postnational Defense: Militarism and Peacekeeping Annica Kronsell The Political Economy of Violence against Women Jacqui True

Intelligent Compassion Feminist Critical Methodology in the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom

Catia Cecilia Confortini

1

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford New York Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto With offices in Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and certain other countries. Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016

© Oxford University Press 2012 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above. You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Confortini, Catia Cecilia. Intelligent compassion : Feminist Critical Methodology in the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom / Catia Cecilia Confortini. p. cm.—(Oxford studies in gender and international relations) ISBN 978-0-19-984523-1 (hardcover : alk. paper) 1. Women and peace—History—20th century. 2. Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom. I. Title. JZ5578.C675 2012 303.6c6—dc23 2012003805

1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2 Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper

Dedico questo libro ai miei genitori, Piero e Tina, e alla memoria della mia zia Anna: il vostro affetto mi accompagna sempre.

This page intentionally left blank

CONTENTS

Acknowledgments List of Acronyms

ix xiii

1. What Is Feminist Peace?

3

2. Feminist Critical Methodology, Peace, and Social Change 3. “Evidence of Things Unseen”: WILPF and Disarmament 4. What Is Violence? WILPF and Decolonization 5. Orientalism and Peace: WILPF in the Middle East 6. Conclusion: Feminist Ways to Peace Epilogue

120

Notes 137 Bibliography Index 195

179

110

56 84

19 29

This page intentionally left blank

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

While I was writing the PhD dissertation that became this book, I read a blog that compared that effort to engaging in an endurance sport. Both are about stubbornly continuing to go forward despite extreme pain, partial failures, setbacks, and self-doubts; both require you to take stock of and reward yourself for each little achievement, trying to momentarily forget the overwhelming big picture. What I discovered is that, like an endurance sport, book writing is simultaneously a collective and individual effort. I know that I wouldn’t have crossed the finish line that is publication had it not been for the communities of people that, at different stages and in different ways, encouraged me, advised me, guided me, and helped me see that the end goal was in sight. I am thankful, first of all, to the women of WILPF. To those who are no longer in this world: I owe to their unremitting enthusiasm and endless passion for justice my persistence amid my own difficulties. Their spirits have carried me through the completion of this project as loving, passionate peace mothers. Three of them hold a special place in my chest of thankyous: Dorothy Hutchinson, for coining the phrase that titles this book and inspiring my thought on “intelligent compassion” as a method; Elise Boulding, for her generosity in sharing her WILPF memories, including her regrets, with me; Joyce McLean, who provided constant encouragement while I was writing and answers when I doubted but (like Elise) sadly passed away before this book was completed. Many present WILPFers have kindly offered their time (often many times) to a researcher who clumsily was making her way into the history of an organization that they knew and loved so well. I have benefitted of their knowledge of WILPF far beyond what words of theirs I have cited in this book: For this I am grateful to Edith Ballantyne, Felicity Hill, Libby Frank, Dolores Taller, Krishna Ahooja Patel, Aliyah Strauss, Bruna Nota, Marta

Benavides, Olga Bianchi, Regina Birchem, Samira Khouri, Maria Pilar Reyes, Marjorie Boehm, Darien DeLu, Sandy Silver, Laura Roskos, Mari Holmboe-Ruge, Linda Kaucher, Jean Gore, Mary Day Kent, Kirsty Kolthoff, Barbara (Babsi) Lochbiler, Liss Schanke, Dulcy de Silva, Mary Ziesak, Silvi Sterr, Lucinda Amara, Hanan Awwad, Susi Snyder, Karin Friedrich, and Madeleine Rees. I thank Felicity Hill for her permission to use her interview with Edith Ballantyne and I look forward to her biography of such a gigantic figure of today’s WILPF. I thank the members of the Los Angeles branch of WILPF for their encouragement, friendship, and support; the Northern California branches for allowing me to participate in and record their 2004 Cluster Meeting in San Jose, California; the Boston Branch for welcoming me into their fold when I moved to the East Coast; the Swedish and Costa Rican sections for their hospitality during the 2004 and 2011 International Congresses (respectively). Turning my dissertation into this book would not have been possible without the support and encouragement of my mentor, J. Ann Tickner, and my friend, Laura Sjoberg, the Oxford Studies in Gender and International Relations series editors. They were my guideposts, keeping me on track from start to finish. This book has benefited from the advice and constructive comments of many mentors, friends, and colleagues. I wish to mention with particular gratitude the following “endurance trainers”: the late Hayward Alker, Cecelia Lynch, Laurie Brand, Nelly Stromquist, Nancy Lutkehaus, Brooke Ackerly, Sandra Whitworth, Kathy Moon, Patricia Owens, Catherine Eschle, Lyn Boyd, Melissa Ince, Serena Simoni, Larry Rosenwald, Carol Cohn (for pointing me to the value of Sara Ruddick’s often misinterpreted work), and Julie Mertus (on the Middle East chapter). Discussants and participants at several International Studies Association meetings, especially the members of the Feminist Theory and Gender Studies section, helped me refine several empirical and theoretical points. For research assistance I thank David Hays at the University of Colorado at Boulder Archives and Wendy Chmielewski at the Swarthmore College Peace Collection. Amanda Chilton, Wendy Arce, Alison Walker, Lucy Braham, Vilma Cruz, and, last but not least, Pez Nagini helped me with research, editing, and transcriptions. The University of Southern California (USC) Graduate School, the USC School of International Relations, the USC Center for International Studies, and Wellesley College provided muchneeded institutional support. Taylor & Francis Group LLC granted permission to reproduce part of a chapter previously published as “Reclaiming Agency for Social Change: Feminism, International Relations and the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, 1945–1975,” in Feminism and International Relations: Conversations about the Past, Present

[x]

Acknowledgments

and Future, eds. J. Ann Tickner and Laura Sjoberg (New York: Routledge, 2011). Finally, many thanks must be given to my editors, Angela Chnapko, Lora Friedenthal, and the entire editorial team at Oxford University Press for their patience and enthusiasm as I completed this book. Book writing, like endurance sports, is also about keeping your spirit, body, and mind nurtured. Many friends and colleagues have fed mine well when I needed it most: Soumita Basu, Zoila Bejarano, Mara Bird, Toni Blasio, Lauren Campbell, Margaret Cezair-Thompson, Carlo Chiarenza, Linda Cole, Gary Commins, Jan Dark, Bina D’Costa, Claire Fontijn, Sue Giesen, Kristi Hagans, Penny and Dale Hardy, Diana Haye, Victor Kazanjian, Alan Kronstadt, Margaret and Steven Lesh, Wendy Lords, Donna Matson, Angela McCracken, Sheri and Jon Morse, Craig Murphy, Cynthia Olaya, the late Cecelia Osborn, Terry O’Sullivan, Geert Poppe, Kristin and Mark Powers, the late Giuditta Russo, Abigail Ruane, Sonalini Sapra, Anita Schjølset, Cynthia Schwan, Luda Spilewski, and Julie Von Pelz. A huge thank-you goes to the people who, by saving my life, made it possible for me to finish what I had started—Drs. Ryan, Meek, Kivuls, Abdalla, and Giorgi—and my Wellness Community Group, in particular its facilitator Pamela Stephan, therapist extraordinaire. I feel lucky to have had my students at Wellesley College do for me every day what they do with Boston marathon runners at the “scream tunnel”: Stand firmly by the side of the road, cheering me with cow bells, posters, and affection as I kept writing and grunting. My family in Italy housed me, fed me, helped me with child care, and loved me unconditionally: I thank my sisters, Mariangela and Raffaella; my parents Pietro and Martina, my late aunt Anna, and my brothers-in-law Angelo and Alessandro. The children in my life teach me every day to look at the world with hope and joy and inspire me to work to make it a better place: my nephews Gabriele, Luca, and Nate; my nieces Sofia and Maddie; my son’s closest friends Jordan, Cassidy, Felix, Marcelo, Paloma, Ben, Amica, Leila, and Max; and, most of all, my son Alessandro, who has lived and loved me through all my book anxieties and gratifying moments. Finally, my husband, Bruce Hardy, knows I truly could not have done this without him. I am blessed by his love and enduring loyalty (and the answer is, of course, 42). For all the people in my life without whom I would not have crossed the finish line (including those I might have forgotten to mention—you know who you are) I am thankful. All mistakes, of course, remain mine.

Acknowledgments

[ xi ]

This page intentionally left blank

LIST OF ACRONYMS

AEF AOF CONGO CSW DRC DDR ECOSOC FLN FLS ICWPP IEC INSTRAW IR NAP NATO NGO NIEO NPT PLO RCW SALT SAP SCPC SCR SSDII STAR

Afrique Equatoriale Française (French Equatorial Africa) Afrique Occidentale Française (French West Africa) Conference of Non Governmental Organizations (United Nations) Commission on the Status of Women Democratic Republic of Congo Disarmament Demobilization and Reintegration (United Nations) Economic and Social Council National Liberation Front/Front de Libération Nationale (Algeria) Forward Looking Strategies International Committee of Women for Permanent Peace International Executive Committee International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women International Relations National Action Plan North Atlantic Treaty Organization Non Governmental Organization New International Economic Order Nonproliferation Treaty Palestine Liberation Organization Reaching Critical Will Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty Structural Adjustment Program Swarthmore College Peace Collection (United Nations) Security Council Resolution Second Special Session on Disarmament Stop The Arms Race Campaign

TWFSC UCBA UNIFEM UN/UNO UNDP UNEF UNESCO UNHCHR UNRWA UNSCOP US/USA USSR WHO WIDF WILPF WMD WPA WSP WWII

[ xiv ]

Third World Feminists Social Criticism University of Colorado at Boulder Archives United Nations Development Fund for Women United Nations Organization United Nations Development Programme United Nations Emergency Force United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization United Nations High Commission for Human Rights United Nations Relief and Works Agency United Nations Special Committee on Palestine United States of America Union of Soviet Socialist Republics World Health Organization Women’s International Democratic Federation Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom Weapons of Mass Destruction Women’s Pentagon Action Women Strike for Peace World War Two

List of Acronyms

Intelligent Compassion

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER 1

What Is Feminist Peace?

INTRODUCTION

Less than a year after the dropping of the first atomic bombs, 200 women from thirteen countries gathered in Luxembourg to hold a postwar meeting; a similar meeting had taken place in Zürich almost 40 years earlier, following the First World War. Just as with the previous time, North American women stared in disbelief at the devastation the war had caused to their European friends’ bodies and spirits. And, like that first time, they looked in vain for friends lost to the conflict, with a heightened awareness of human beings’ capacity for destruction. At the 1919 Zürich meeting, they had been disillusioned about statesmen’s willingness and ability to keep the peace but remained determined to raise their voices as women to prevent another such conflict. They decided to formally constitute the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF), a women’s peace organization, to accomplish this task. At the 1946 meeting in Luxembourg, they wondered whether an organization like WILPF still had a purpose. They wondered if the words they had used to express their ideals of “freedom, democracy, justice, equality, peace .  .  . [had] been abused and degraded to such an extent that these words [had] become hollow shams.”1 They wondered whether, as women, they had a role to fulfill in the pursuit of peace. French delegates recounted their experiences of Nazi occupation and concluded that peace had no meaning without freedom, that death was better than slavery, and that war was better than servitude.2 Like their Dutch friends, the French women had participated in the armed resistance alongside men. Danish and Finnish women, too, had lived under occupation, yet they had opted for nonviolent resistance and humanitarian and relief work. In neutral and unoccupied Sweden, WILPF women had

focused on educational and humanitarian efforts. They had also worked on their visions for the future, launching a movement in favor of the United Nations (UN), which later became the Swedish branch of the United Nations Association.3 The German delegates were denied travel documents, but they had already reconstituted chapters in the Allied-occupied zone and let their friends know of their intention to work to “make the word ‘German’ honorable again.”4 Quite a few WILPFers had perished in concentration camps or at the hands of the Nazi army. Others had arrived at the Congress against many odds and nearly starving. Their concrete experience of wartime suffering made it compellingly urgent for them to figure out how to prevent such suffering and destruction from ever happening again. Their organization was born out of the social work and suffrage movements of the progressive era and was founded on the principles of liberal internationalism. In Luxembourg, they recognized the tension between their prewar liberal ideals and those ideals’ inability to prevent the Holocaust. Yet the women still believed that they had to find some ground on which to build the possibility of eliminating human suffering and annihilation. Overwhelmingly, they voted to continue the organization and immediately started deliberations on postwar planning for a future of peace. The women who met in Luxembourg in 1946 were peace activists. Their discussions highlight that, as activists, they were thinking theoretically about how to reconcile their belief in peace with their identities and roles as women, with their lived experiences of the war, and with the realization that their ideology had failed to prevent World War II. These women peace activists were theorists who, in the course of that debate and in the years that followed, tried to bring forth a theoretical vision of peace that would sit on more solid ground, while at the same time working to realize it in practice. They were mostly liberal activists who were questioning the extent to which their liberalism had failed them and the world, and wondering on what other ideological foundations they could draw to design a more solid peace. They were Western activists who had suffered conquest and were thinking about the dissonance between peoples’ freedom and an occupier’s “peace.” They were women activists who were wondering whether women had some different theoretical and practical contributions to make to peace, thinking about what linked women’s freedom to world peace, and reflecting on the relationship between militarism and their suffrage and feminist work. In the years that followed, WILPF wrestled with these questions and, in the process, reformulated its ideas about peace. Its story can help us make sense of the practical dilemmas and theoretical struggles of peace activists

[4]

Intelligent Compassion

in the postwar West. These activists participated in the reconstruction following the Second World War, despite skepticism of the ideological and political bases on which such reconstruction was being pursued. From their story, today’s feminists can draw lessons for their own theoretical reflections on peace and its relationship to feminism and women. Finally, their story can help us understand how organizations and social movements expand the boundaries of the ideological and historical milieu in which they are situated and open up possibilities for emancipatory social change. The case of WILPF’s postwar policies on peace offers an important opportunity to explore to what extent and how the organization overcame deeply entrenched assumptions and transformed its understanding of “peace.” In this book I reformulate the relationship between feminism, international relations (IR), and peace studies. Because feminist IR theorists have found the contention that women are more peaceful than men problematic, they have too often eschewed theoretical engagement with peace studies and peace research. On the other hand, IR has sidelined its original preoccupation with peace as both an empirical goal and a theoretical ideal. Thus, this project aims at making feminist peace theorizing once again part of the wider context of (feminist) IR by exploring the possibility of a feminist theory of emancipatory social change.

PEACE IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORIES

The discipline of IR was born in the aftermath of World War I out of a need to prevent war from breaking out again. Despite this, IR theory has not developed theoretical accounts of peace. Oliver Richmond contends that, although peace “was explicitly part of the institutional frameworks of the modern era,” IR theory tends to deal with peace only implicitly.5 He finds that different conceptions of peace underlie the different approaches to IR. The interwar idealist literature offered a normative, ethically oriented account of peace.6 As a precursor to contemporary liberalism, this literature claimed that reason and international law and institutions could enable mutual cooperation and bring about lasting peace, defined as the absence of all interstate violence.7 Following the outbreak of the Second World War, the disillusionment with this ideal of peace, which had been partially realized in interwar international institutions, is often credited with shifting the discipline’s focus toward realism. In realist accounts, peace was conceived negatively as the absence of war and viewed as an anomaly in an international system always

W H AT I S F E M I N I S T P E A C E ?

[5]

potentially at war. According to both classical and structural realists, in an anarchical international system, states pursue self-interest (understood as power maximization) and the best that can be achieved is a fragile balance of power of temporary stability in between wars. Believing otherwise was not only naïve; it was also dangerous. An idealist peace was unattainable in practice and as a concept not very useful for understanding the workings of the international system. Though realism became the predominant approach to IR theory during the Cold War, other approaches, which proposed their own visions of peace, coexisted with it. Marxist approaches, for example, introduced the idea of peace as economic justice and social emancipation, sometimes achievable only after revolutionary upheaval. Varieties of liberalism and pluralism saw peace as a consequence of the institutionalization of universal liberal norms of global governance and international cooperation. In general, however, peace was not theorized explicitly except within the subdiscipline of peace studies, which also emerged after the Second World War. The impetus for peace studies came first from the dangers that the invention and deployment of the atomic bomb foretold. In response, peace research (or peace science, as it was also known) devoted itself to the prevention of interstate war and to issues of arms control and disarmament (especially nuclear disarmament). But peace studies’ emergence can also be seen as a reaction to “the domination of the discipline of IR by what many peace and conflict researchers saw as a self-fulfilling militaristic paradigm obsessed with power and violence, interest and status.”8 Though marginalized within IR, peace studies has introduced concepts that have been widely utilized in international relations, such as the distinction between structural and direct violence and between positive and negative peace. Moreover, it has contrasted with the IR tendency to value the role and agency of individuals less than “grand scale political, economic, military, social and constitutional peace projects undertaken beyond the ken and capacity of the individual.”9 By attributing equal importance to individuals’ agency and their role in bringing about peace, peace studies has blurred the distinction between activism and scholarship. Since its beginnings, peace studies has drawn inspiration from nonviolent movements, such as Gandhian nonviolent mobilizations in South Africa and India and the antinuclear movement.10 This, together with the field’s normative agenda and its commitment to transdisciplinarity, make peace studies congenial to feminism. However, although feminists have historically made significant contributions to the theory and practice of peace, peace studies has marginalized issues central to feminist concerns. Rarely do nonfeminist peace studies scholars engage

[6]

Intelligent Compassion

in conversations with feminism or take into serious consideration feminist assertions that gender relations of power are implicated in conflict and peace processes.

PEACE, GENDER, AND FEMINIST INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Feminism encompasses scholarship or activism that starts from the lives of women and makes visible and subverts gendered relations of power in society.11 Feminists define gender as a socially and symbolically constructed dichotomy, based on perceived or real biological sex differences, that underlies the creation and reproduction of social relations of power. Gender, as a power relation, shapes and naturalizes other social relations of power by assigning them to mutually exclusive categories of super/subordination to each other. When people see the social world in terms of binary opposites, such as public/private, rational/emotional, objective/subjective, or active/ passive, they reproduce the masculine/feminine pair and the relationship of subordination mapped into it, where “the first, masculine, term is generally valued over the second, feminine, term.”12 In reality, these dichotomies obscure more complex relationships and naturalize both gender differences and the superiority in social life of attributes associated with the masculine. Feminists argue that gender relations of power are implicated in the social construction of violence and war. Framing violence and war in opposition to nonviolence and peace is a gendered move that reproduces the male/female hierarchical relation into the social realm and, with it, the superior standing of violence over nonviolence.13 When realists described “peace” in negative terms as absence of war and labeled it as “idealistic,” “passive,” and “utopian,” they were in fact gendering the notion (and practice) of peace as feminine and delegitimizing it.14 Feminists have joined a number of peace researchers in observing that, rather than being a passive concept, peace is a very destabilizing notion, because it aims at subverting the status quo.15 Despite this common assertion, peace studies has failed to adequately look at how the concept of peace is gendered, to study the ways in which women and men are differently affected by the presence or absence of armed conflict, and to include women’s experiences and feminist reflections about peace in its analysis.16 On the other hand, feminists have been divided over whether engaging with peace studies and theoretical questions about peace is useful or meaningful for feminism. Since the 1980s feminist debates on the relationship between feminism, peace, and women’s peace activism and scholarship have focused on one issue: whether, to what extent, and how women are

W H AT I S F E M I N I S T P E A C E ?

[7]

more peaceful than men. This debate has been inscribed in larger and older feminist conversations about whether, to what extent, how, and with what consequences women are like men or different from them. Some feminists think that feminist and peace projects are “natural” allies, because they both promote values and/or characteristics with which women are naturally or socially more endowed than men.17 Other feminists critique this assumption as perpetuating the same devaluation of both women and peace implied in realist thinking.18 They have argued that The association of femininity with peace lends support to an idealized masculinity that depends on constructing women as passive victims in need of protection. It also contributes to the claim that women are naïve in matters relating to international politics.19

As a consequence, feminist IR has rarely if ever engaged in theoretical questions about peace and gender.20 The reluctance on the part of many feminists to have their work associated with, or labeled as, peace research ironically ends up perpetuating this devaluation of peace and women. Yet, the many women who are engaged in social movements for peace force us to inquire into their vision of peace and their views about the relationship between peace and gender. The blurred boundaries between activism and research that are characteristic of much feminist and peace research confront us with questions of activists’ contributions to theorizing. Feminist scholars, either by being themselves activists or by cooperating with feminist movements, have deepened feminist activism’s self-reflection and sometimes efficacy through the development of regular (though not always friendly or sufficient) interactions between activists and scholars. This is true of women’s peace and antiwar movements too: Women peace activists have engaged in theoretical reflections on the relationship between their identities and roles as women and their peace activism for more than a century.21 Feminist IR should seize the opportunity to learn from their contributions to feminist peace theorizing. This book takes on this challenge, and, in doing so, it shows that not only is feminist peace theorizing possible and necessary, but it has also been pursued by women peace activists for many years. In response to preoccupations about easy associations between women and peace, it intends to develop what Linda Forcey calls the “finely tuned appreciation” of both equality and difference, “a pragmatic tolerance for ambiguity and more than a little theoretical untidiness,”22 to reveal the complexities of arguments regarding women, feminism, and peace. I also intend to be reflective regarding what can be gained in IR by looking at peace from a feminist perspective,

[8]

Intelligent Compassion

how international politics can be influenced and changed by thinking and acting about peace as feminists, and why it is important to do so. Adrienne Harris and Ynestra King claim that “women peace organizing is strengthened and transformed through confrontation with feminist questions of gender.”23 I contend that the reverse is equally true: Women peace activists offer strong theoretical contributions to the study of the relationship between gender, peace, and feminism that should be taken into account by feminist scholarship. I trace the evolution of the policies of the oldest Western international women’s peace organization (WILPF), in three of its areas of work, in order to understand what ideas of peace informed them, how they changed, and what made the changes possible. I take into serious consideration the possibility that, in the practices of WILPF, peace studies, feminist IR, and the discipline of IR can find important theoretical contributions to the study of peace.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

Different positions on the relationship between women, feminism, and peace have been present in WILPF since its inception. WILPF originated from an international gathering of women coming from several neutral and belligerent countries in 1915 during the First World War. Under the initiative of a number of US and European women with backgrounds in suffrage and social work, the women assembled in The Hague with the ambitious goal of stopping the war. Among them were prominent suffragists such as Aletta Jacobs and Rosa Manus from Holland,24 Emmeline PethickLawrence from England, Rosika Schwimmer from Hungary, and Anita Augspurg from Germany. Jane Addams, the founder of the settlement house movement in the United States, traveled to The Hague together with Emily Greene Balch, who was at the time a professor of economics and sociology at Wellesley College (but was fired in 1918 because of her pacifist work).25 Addams and Balch were the first American women to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, in 1931 and 1946 respectively. The plan that the women drafted at The Hague meeting shares many similarities with Woodrow Wilson’s famous Fourteen-Point postwar arrangement proposal of 1918,26 which (together with the establishment of the League of Nations) is viewed by some as an attempt to implement liberal ideals in the international realm.27 The Congress established two delegations that would travel to belligerent countries to present their case for the immediate cessation of hostilities and their plans for lasting peace: Between May and June 1915, seven

W H AT I S F E M I N I S T P E A C E ?

[9]

women visited fourteen governments urging them to end the war. Needless to say, the women’s initiatives did not stop the war, but they did lead to a second International Congress, held in Zürich, which gave birth to WILPF.28 In Zürich, Swiss delegate Clara Ragaz made the following observation: And even as we serve our country best in so far as we strive for its welfare incorporated in the greater good of humanity, so do we also best serve the cause of women by serving all mankind. It is a debatable question even among us women, whether the enfranchisement of women will in itself be a weapon for the prevention of future wars. But even if we may hold different opinions on that head, it seems to me that one thing is undeniable, that is that woman can only come into her full inheritance in a state, or a community life, which is founded not on force but on justice, for where mere force dominates, the lesser part will always fall to her share.29

In this speech Ragaz presented three different views of the relationship between feminism and peace, which she thought were present among the women assembled in Zürich: 1. Women’s liberation itself will lead to peace. 2. Women’s liberation will not in itself bring peace but is one piece of the puzzle (possibly not the first priority for WILPF women). 3. Women’s full liberation will happen only in a world of justice and peace. The distinctions that Ragaz raised were strategic and practical rather than purely theoretical distinctions between equality feminism and difference feminism in relation to peace.30 She did not ask whether women were more peaceful or peace-loving than men but rather how WILPF should pursue the equally important and perhaps related goals of women’s emancipation and peace. This heterogeneity of views underlined all decisions made at the Congress and during the subsequent years, although it would not always be made explicit. Among the first acts of this Congress was a resolute condemnation of the Versailles Peace Treaty, together with a cautious optimism about the nascent League of Nations. The women found that the treaty terms could not lead to a “just and lasting peace” because they violated fundamental principles: They imposed unfair and unnecessary burdens on the losers while sanctioning the victors’ rights to the spoils of war; they denied the right of self-determination; and they imposed unilateral rather than universal disarmament, thus continuing to sanction the use of force in international

[ 10 ]

Intelligent Compassion

relations. The women predicted that such terms would only increase animosities, poverty, and despair, which would eventually lead to another catastrophic war. They urged Allied and associated governments to amend the treaty terms to be more in accordance with President Wilson’s Fourteen Points. The founders intended WILPF to be a transnational organization, whose policies would be determined by consensus at the triennial International Congress, where, ideally, all national sections would be represented. Policies would then be carried out by an executive committee, if possible, in consultation with national sections that had relative autonomy regarding policy implementation. National sections were represented at the Congress by delegates elected domestically. WILPF’s official policies, statements, and various kinds of pronunciations were produced (and, in general, they still are) after extensive consultations among members. While stressing the centripetal character of the organization, where policies were created at the international level and implemented by each national section, national sections were encouraged to participate in the League’s decision-making process at different stages and in different forms (through study groups, committees, campaigns, etc.). Though individual sections could and did carry out humanitarian and activist work, the founders (and in particular Emily Greene Balch, its first international secretary) viewed relief as a distraction from WILPF’s primary political task of eliminating the causes of war. This was to be carried out through “the study of political and economic issues; objective fact-finding; personal reconciliation; and the formulation of just and humane policies.”31 National sections were expected to exercise political pressure on their governments and to approach government delegations at international conferences directly. The international office organized WILPF’s representation at these conferences and at the League of Nations (and later at the UN). It also set up fact-finding missions to travel to areas of conflict: For example, it was one of the first organizations to investigate the effects of the US occupation of Haiti in 1926,32 and in 1927 a WILPF delegation visited China and Indochina to assess the political situation and seek contacts with women’s groups.33 During the 1930s WILPF was predominantly engaged in pushing for economic and arms embargoes and convening international peace conferences to counteract the rise of the fascist regimes and to prevent or stop the wars that broke out prior to World War II. Political differences came to the fore in the mid-1930s, when the French and German members clashed with British, US, and Scandinavian women over economic justice, the use of violence, and WILPF’s methods of work. On the one hand, the French and Germans favored more radical involvement in issues of social justice,

W H AT I S F E M I N I S T P E A C E ?

[ 11 ]

cooperation with mass movements, and the use of violence in response to injustice. Other groups prioritized nonviolence and the conviction that no one social order would lead to peace, arguing that “peace is a method and not a state and .  .  . under every system there will be causes for clash.”34 These disagreements are particularly significant because they have constituted a defining characteristic of WILPF since its origins. They surfaced time and again in later years, particularly during debates on revolutionary movements in the 1960s and 1970s, a point that will be made clear and analyzed in chapters 4 and 5. In fact, since its beginning, the organization has been composed of women with very different political views, united by the belief that warfare should be eliminated and that economic and social justice was part and parcel of a system of peace. Its members did not identify with pacifism, though many were pacifists; they did not identify with feminism, though many were feminist; some were guided by secular humanist principles, and some by a religious ethic (the Quaker and Jewish constituencies were particularly strong). They mostly belonged to the upper and middle class, and the vast majority of them were white. The organization was, however, grounded in the principles of liberal internationalism. While there have been WILPF members who have described themselves as socialists, WILPF’s ideology and policies have generally reflected its founders’ faith in liberal ideals. WILPF’s principles, raisons d’être, and objectives were spelled out in their constitution and by-laws, which have changed relatively little throughout their existence. For WILPF, the preconditions and elements of a just peace centered on (a) freedom (loosely identified with the establishment of liberal democracy), (b) self-determination (an element of freedom), (c) total and universal disarmament, and (d) economic development and prosperity to satisfy human needs. WILPF’s idea of peace thus rested on liberal ideals and on the essentially liberal belief in the institutionalization of liberal norms of social, political, and economic cooperation and governance, based on liberal values, shared norms, and legal frameworks that would guarantee the rights and needs of people.35 But while their understandings of “peace” were embedded in (and thus defined and delimited by) the historical and ideological structure they inhabited, they were at the same time dynamic, as I will later show. The Second World War put the organization in limbo, but even as it raged the women had started postwar planning, stressing the need for a stronger international organization, a human rights charter, “constructive measures of world co-operation to prevent aggression,” and a “new concept of ‘security,’ not based on military power and prestige.”36 When they assembled in Luxembourg in 1946, however, their first debate centered on what kinds of contributions women could make to the cause of peace that would

[ 12 ]

Intelligent Compassion

be different from men’s; how and whether women should speak out, as women, in matters of war and peace; and whether a transnational women’s organization speaking for peace was relevant in a nuclear world. The vote for continuation did not imply that WILPF had resolved the issues that the debate had raised. In the years between 1945 and 1975, the organization was forced to reevaluate its role as an international women’s organization for the promotion of peace, in an international context that was itself in transition after the watershed of World War II, through the optimism of the early postwar years, the height of the Cold War, détente, the decolonization movement, the Vietnam war, and the resurgence of worldwide feminist organizing and networking. This book addresses the ways in which this ideological, political, and historical context intersected with WILPF’s debates and unstated assumptions about the role of women and feminism in international politics to produce different understandings of “peace.”

THE POSTWAR ORDER AND WILPF

Robert Latham calls the immediate aftermath of the Second World War a “liberal moment,” when the destruction of the old world order gave rise to an opportunity for the creation of a new one, within the macro-historical fabric of liberal modernity and with the hegemonic agency of the United States.37 Modernity, of course, did not emerge in the mid-1900s, but scholars alternatively characterize the time as “peak modernity”38 or “high modernity.”39 It saw liberalism join “visions of the planned transformation of society by rational scientific means”40 in the establishment of the UN, the codification of international law along the principles of liberal political thought, and the institutionalization of mechanisms of “embedded liberalism” in the economy.41 For postwar liberals, peace would be attainable through rational planning, organization, and institution building implemented by liberal states. A belief in progress and the power of rational norms and institutions to tame humanity’s primitive instincts was at the core of liberalism’s visions of peace. Economic, social, and scientific progress would eventually cause changes in the international system, which would induce peace. International institutions, multilateralism, and self-determination were seen as essential elements of the rational organization of the international system, as vehicles for the spread of the universal liberal values, norms, and rights so necessary to creating a peaceful international structure. Free markets and trade “would build up irrevocable and peaceful connections between states” by creating interdependence.42

W H AT I S F E M I N I S T P E A C E ?

[ 13 ]

But liberalism itself was multifaceted, composed of “a plurality of values” sometimes in tension with each other.43 James Richardson points out that a “liberalism of the powerful,” while viewed as essentially benign and good for peoples all over the world, in reality sometimes involved the imposition of liberal “universal” values with little consideration for cultural and historical diversity and with equally little concern with the way power shaped interstate relations in a liberal world.44 The postwar order was also characterized (at least in the West) by the hegemonic project of the United States, which, while being liberal, was not entirely benign.45 The system created after the Second World War had both consensual and coercive dimensions, and it entailed “a structure of values and understandings about the nature of order that permeate[d] a whole system of states and non-state entities.”46 Simultaneously, this “liberalism of privilege” coexisted with an “egalitarian, social, or inclusive” strand of liberalism.47 WILPF, like other nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), the UN, and its agencies and liberal states operated within that system, which shaped practices and ideas in the international realm.48 The postwar liberal order influenced and shaped the forms, purposes, and ideologies of the organizations that worked within that order. But because it was built on the unstable principles of modern liberalism, that order was also inherently contestable. It is therefore important to understand whether, to what extent, and how Western organizations could challenge and redefine the parameters of the postwar liberal order, thereby expanding the boundaries of what was possible within it. Was WILPF, as a Western organization, founded on the principles of liberal internationalism, embedded in the hegemonic liberalism that characterized the postwar order, or was it an organization that expanded liberalism’s boundaries and its own? To the extent that it was a critical voice within the liberal order, what made it possible for it to be so? Answers to these questions have important implications beyond the confines of the geohistorical scope of this book. They can help us understand how individuals and groups can transcend ideological, historical, and structural limits and effect social change. To this end, this book addresses the following questions: How did WILPF resolve questions about the relationship between women, feminism, and peace? Were its answers consistent through different historical circumstances, or did they vary along with the international context? If they varied, were different responses solely influenced by the external environment, or was something else at play? In other words, how did the historical, social, political, economic, and ideological context interact with WILPF women’s intentionality to determine different ideas about peace

[ 14 ]

Intelligent Compassion

and its relationship with feminism and/or women? Moreover, to the extent that their ideas and policies challenged, rather than reproduced, the ideological milieu in which they were situated and that defined them, what compelled, favored, or helped the organization in this move? Finally, what lessons can we learn from WILPF that might be relevant to actors interested in social change? In the next chapter, I use insights from both feminism and constructivism to address these questions. I argue that the possibility, extent, and kind of social change depend on actors’ methodology, whereby methodology I intend “guiding self-conscious reflections on epistemological assumptions, ontological perspective, ethical responsibilities, and method choices.”49 I also argue that, as a women’s organization not necessarily self-identified as feminist, WILPF practiced a feminist methodology that tended to subvert gendered relations of power in society and was, therefore, emancipatory.

WILPF AND SOCIAL CHANGE

WILPF is today the longest-living international Western women’s peace organization, with national sections on six continents. As an NGO, it was granted consultative status with the United Nations’ Economic and Social Council and a number of other UN agencies since the early postwar years. Through this status it has enjoyed a measure of communication with many national governments represented at the UN. WILPF today has a leading role in feminist peace advocacy internationally: Along with a number of other NGOs, it has been instrumental in bringing about UN Security Council Resolutions on Women, Peace and Security. In this sense, it is a “mainstream” NGO (i.e., not a radical social movement). In fact, at times, it has been considered “too mainstream” or entrenched in the postwar international system by organizations and social movements critical of this system.50 Yet it has also been considered “too radical” when its policies have challenged certain governments’ actions. It is an organization that navigates within the international system according to the parameters of liberalism, yet it is guided by principles, rules, and behaviors that are sometimes at odds with them. While continuing to be faithful to its liberal internationalist origins, and being an organization composed primarily of middle- to upper-class white Western women, WILPF has evolved into a leading critic of militarism, racism, sexism, environmental destruction, and unfettered capitalism, emphasizing the connection between all forms of oppression and exclusion. As an insider to the liberal system, it is stretching its boundaries, thereby

W H AT I S F E M I N I S T P E A C E ?

[ 15 ]

contributing to incremental emancipatory social change. Much of this transformation happened following both world wars and, in particular, during the thirty years after World War II. Yet this period has mostly eschewed the attention of feminist historians,51 who see feminism “in abeyance” prior to the reflourishing of the late 1960s and 1970s.52 Yet women of WILPF carved externally oriented political spaces for themselves even within a hostile context and paved the way for subsequent feminist activism. In the process of carving such spaces, they also redefined the selfimage of this important women’s organization. Learning how it made itself an agent of change can be of theoretical and practical help for understanding the possibilities of emancipatory agency. I focus my attention on three areas of WILPF’s work: disarmament, decolonization, and the Middle East. The three areas have been central for WILPF in the post–WWII period, and disarmament and decolonization have been two of its most prioritized areas, especially since 1945. Because they intersect at times with other issues, they highlight to what extent and with what kinds of rationale WILPF chose to relate them (or not) to other issues. The development of atomic energy and the demise of colonial empires gave new impetus and provided the opportunity for the organization to offer input into decisions being made in the international arena. The conflict in Israel/Palestine was a newer topic of attention and rose to prominence only after the creation of the state of Israel in 1948. This area of WILPF’s work represents a more grounded, more specific case that shows the overlap between disarmament and decolonization and with other areas of the organization’s work and sheds light on how ideas about peace translated practically in a specific geopolitical context. These three cases offer the opportunity to reflect on the relationship between ideas entrenched in a structural context and actors’ intentionality and ability to challenge that context. Specifically, they allow me to evaluate the extent to which WILPF’s practices pushed the boundaries of the ideological context that defined and limited their possibilities. As for my own methodologies, I have adopted a combination of interpretive tools. I draw from an understanding of knowledge as situated, and I start with the assumption that “the only way of knowing in a socially constructed world is knowing it from within.”53 I employ grounded theory as immanent critique54 to use the organization’s own learning as a basis for making theoretical and practical claims about emancipatory agency. This translates into a historical narrative (interpretive process-tracing)55 that uses a mixture of archives and secondary sources to outline a storyline highlighting both continuities and discontinuities in WILPF’s ideologies and policies in context.

[ 16 ]

Intelligent Compassion

My interpretation focuses on four aspects of the sources used. (1) I seek to interpret the contextual meanings of policy positions, casting a wide archival net and examining the international WILPF’s resolutions, statements, official policy documents, all discussions, comments, notes, proceedings of international meetings, official and nonofficial correspondence, and reports in the areas covered. I use interviews as a cross-check to relate directly to those activists who were involved with major decisions. Unfortunately, only a few of those personalities are alive today (which points to important limits of my interpretation). Their memories have helped me to better capture debates and disagreements with regard to who said what and when, sharpen my interpretation, fill gaps, highlight different and important directions that I might have sidelined, and sometimes correct my own misinterpretations of some documents. (2) I use secondary sources such as biographies, historical works, and theoretical critiques to situate policies in the ideational and historical context in which they were adopted. (3) I am particularly concerned with tracing changes, disjunctures, and moments of transition in order to (4) uncover the methodological principles that underscored the production of policy decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

This book intends to be a contribution to IR theory on three fronts: (a) It reformulates the relationship between feminism, IR, and peace studies by situating feminist peace theorizing in feminist IR, from which it has been excluded; (b) it proposes a feminist methodology for emancipatory social change, which (c) moves forward the agent-structure problem in constructivist IR. Chapter 2 introduces my theoretical framework: Starting with a discussion of feminist debates about peace, I outline their inadequacy for understanding WILPF’s own internal struggles. I then ground my analysis in a constructivist ontology of social construction and suggest the need to focus on methodology to develop a theory of emancipatory agency. After describing what feminists would require of such a theory, I summarize Brooke Ackerly’s Third World Feminist Social Criticism (TWFSC) as a point of departure. I highlight its contributions and potential for a theory of agency in IR. I suggest that its methodological tools need to be extended to encourage action in the direction of emancipation, in the context of defining and constraining structures. Chapter 3 follows the policies of WILPF on disarmament from 1945 to 1975. I show that WILPF’s worldview about the causes of war, militarization,

W H AT I S F E M I N I S T P E A C E ?

[ 17 ]

the arms buildup, and its elimination went through two distinct phases: from an emphasis on legal and political agreements as first steps in making nuclear arms unnecessary, a focus on nuclear abolition, and an optimistic view of the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes to the articulation of a harsher economic critique of the war system. WILPF’s critique emphasized that the nuclear arms buildup, together with nuclear energy use and traffic in small arms, were cornerstones of an economic system based on profits rather than needs. Thus, between 1945 and 1975, WILPF constructed its idea of peace around different ideologies, each imbued with its own sets of gender assumptions. I argue that shifts in the international environment are not enough to understand how or why WILPF formulated different ideas and policies about peace as related to disarmament issues in the 1970s. I show that the international environment favored increasingly self-reflective practices, which led to the articulation of more far-reaching peace and disarmament arguments. Chapter 4 follows WILPF’s policies on decolonization. I argue that an early 1970s resolution on the inevitability of violent revolutions, unprecedented until then, resulted from a shift in ideological beliefs. Though the international environment of the 1960s and 1970s favored this shift, WILPF arrived at its new policies thanks to an increasing reliance on feminist critical methods. I highlight the origins of the profound disagreements within the organization on this issue and the practices that allowed for their resolution. Chapter 5 explores the policy shifts of WILPF on the long-standing international conflict in Israel/Palestine. In the mid-1970s, WILPF declared its support for a two-state solution, a peace conference under UN auspices, and the creation of a WMD (weapons of mass destruction)-free zone in the area. With that declaration, and increasingly in subsequent years, WILPF went from being timidly pro-Israel (1947–1974) to assertively questioning Israel’s policies, the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and the democratic nature of the Israeli state. I argue that WILPF leadership’s changing ideas about Arab women and their roles, identities, and cultural norms influenced a change in policy. This policy change occurred despite its unpopularity with some important constituencies, especially in the United States, indicating continuing contestations over the meaning of peace. Finally, chapter 6 summarizes the empirical findings and assesses the extent to which Brooke Ackerly’s theory of TWFSC adequately represents WILPF’s methodology in the context of the postwar liberal West. Drawing on and expanding Ackerly’s theory, I outline a methodology for emancipatory social change in the context of the liberal West. A final epilogue briefly traces the development of WILPF’s policies after 1975, with particular attention to its participation in the global women’s movement until 2011.

[ 18 ]

Intelligent Compassion

CHAPTER 2

Feminist Critical Methodology, Peace, and Social Change

INTRODUCTION

As suggested in the previous chapter, focusing on equality–difference debates as the only point of contention in feminist thinking about peace subsumes under one umbrella a number of other potentially fruitful lines of contact, disagreement, and feminist reflection. Yet recognizing differences and engaging with them is important if we want to understand and derive lessons from the many women who also happen to be (feminist) peace activists. In particular, I propose that three separate questions are subsumed behind equality–difference arguments and have informed feminist contentions in the second half of the twentieth century: 1. To what extent are women more peaceful than men? 2. To what extent is peace a women’s issue; that is, do women have a special interest in peace? 3. What relationship, if any, exists between feminism and militarism? Dividing feminist debates along these three lines allows me to underscore the complexity of feminist arguments around peace, beyond the equality– difference divide. It also avoids placing women into a construction that might belong more to contemporary debates and hardly apply to the past. If different answers to these questions percolated among WILPF members, it is important, then, to understand how their policies on specific issues reflected divergences. To what extent were feminist ideological struggles imbricated in the formulation of WILPF’s postwar policies on disarmament, decolonization,

and the Middle East? And to the extent that they were, how did they intersect with the historical context of liberal modernity between 1945 and 1975? I am particularly concerned about defining a theory of agency that would take into account its co-constitution with structure and outline the possibilities for emancipatory action. If liberal modernity represented the hegemonic “mode of fashioning and sustaining aspects of social and political existence” through “practices, principles and institutions associated with liberal governance, rights, markets, and self-determination,”1 to what extent did WILPF women’s agency confront this broader historical context that defined and limited them? Did the organization’s views about peace conform to these hegemonic forces, or was WILPF able to challenge them? And, to the extent that it broke away from or expanded the limits of its own liberalism, what were the practices that allowed it to do so? In other words, how did WILPF women’s intentionality (agency) intersect with the constitutive presence of liberal modernity (structure)?

CONSTRUCTIVISM AND EMANCIPATION

Of the many approaches to international relations (IR), constructivism has consistently addressed and vigorously debated the relationship between structure and agency in the international realm.2 In fact, constructivism was born in the 1980s out of the necessity to understand social change, and one of constructivism’s most important insights is precisely the co-constitution of structure and agency. For constructivists, structures are understood as seemingly enduring patterns of relations and rules reflecting specific historical and social contexts and guiding expectations of behavior.3 Constructivism holds that individuals’ thinking and behavior are conditioned by structures but not determined by them. Individuals retain with a certain degree of agency the ability to change the rules and expectations that make up structures and to effect social change. Constructivists, then, share the common research agenda of understanding how and why certain ideas become institutionalized or changed, and they fundamentally concur that “agents or subjects create meanings within structures and discourses through processes and practices.”4 The larger question that this book addresses emanates from this agent– structure problem but is a concern of many fields in the humanities and social sciences: Specifically, to what extent can activists transcend the practices, rules, and relations of their era, given that they are also shaped by them? Among constructivists there exist several points of contention along epistemological and ontological lines, but one that was famously described by Robert Cox is particularly relevant to this book as a feminist peace project.

[ 20 ]

Intelligent Compassion

Cox proposed a distinction between “problem-solving” and “critical” IR theory: The first is concerned with the understanding and smooth functioning of existing power relations and the international system; the second “stands apart from the prevailing order and asks how that order came about.”5 In defining it this way, critical theory aims at denaturalizing and historicizing the social order in view of transforming it. There is, in other words, an essential normative component to critical theory that is not necessarily shared by other constructivists.6 Critical theory makes a normative judgment about global politics and, through its theoretical practice and sociological analysis, contributes to the transformation of those relations, rules, and expectations of behavior that go against the grain of emancipation.7 This element makes critical theory akin to both feminism and peace studies. It is, therefore, an ideal starting point for a study of emancipatory social change. A critical feminist project aims at understanding both how social change happens in the context of defining structures and how such change can be emancipatory— that is, how it is effectively transformative of unjust structures. Brooke Ackerly and Jacqui True claim that using feminist insights to inform methodology leads to better (more critical) IR theory.8 Following their lead, I consider the possibility of identifying a method that is relevant for activists and social movements interested in emancipatory social change. This critical practice should also be constructivist; that is, it should facilitate the expression of an agency that is conscious and critical of the structural constraints that define it and under which it operates. To the extent that such a theoretical method can be made explicit, it proposes a critical constructivist theory of emancipatory agency. FEMINISM AND EMANCIPATION

Most feminist approaches to IR share with constructivism an “ontology of becoming.” In this sense most feminist IR is constructivist.9 Because of its explicit normative orientation and its preoccupation with emancipation, most feminist theory can also be considered critical, in the sense identified by Robert Cox. However, feminism offers distinct contributions to constructivist critical theory that are important to a theory of agency. Where Are the Women?

Feminist IR starts with the observation that IR theory reflects the lived experiences of men, at the exclusion of women.10 Most feminist theorists view all knowledge as situated and partial. They argue that “perspective, or

F E M I N I S T C R I T I C A L M E T H O D OL O G Y, P E A C E , A N D S O C I A L C H A N G E

[ 21 ]

the situated locality of thought, is not a limitation but a condition of its possibility.”11 This awareness brings to the fore women’s experiences and ways of knowing, asking for women’s right to speak, be heard, and listened to about international relations. Such authority, many feminists would argue, is necessary on moral and political grounds. Starting theory from women’s lives “provides fresh and more critical questions about how the social order works.”12 As a consequence, feminist IR scholars “cannot discern the normative dimensions of their work without considering their implications for feminist practice and social change.”13 Moreover, feminist normative commitments are grounded in a “political ethics of care,” which starts from the position that the giving and receiving of care is a vital part of all human lives, and that it must therefore be a normative guide in the creation of decent societies. Such a framework may then be used as a basis for discursive analysis—of policy documents, for example—as well as a critical tool for the philosophical critique of actual human social arrangements, and, ultimately, the creation of transformative policy.14

The connection between theory, practice, and the ethics of care leads to the importance of drawing insights from women’s lives and feminist activism for developing theory and a set of practices conducive to social change. It also forces continual reevaluation of one’s theory in terms of its impact on those affected by it. The import of these principles for a critical constructivist theory of agency is the realization that, to be able to transcend structural constraints, actors need a method that will compel the continual interpellation of the entire community for an evaluation of the impact of any decision. The dialogue engendered needs to be aware of power differentials within the community and also between the community and outside critics.

Gender as Power

For feminists, gender is an indispensable concept for understanding power in the international system. Gender is both a social construct and an analytic category, which helps to organize the way people think about the world.15 As the socially and symbolically constructed dichotomy built on biological sex differences, gender is a relation of power, and as such it shapes, regulates, rationalizes, and justifies other social relations of power, which, in turn, are all gendered. From this perspective, gender is “systemic and transformative” as “the world is pervasively shaped by gender meanings.”16

[ 22 ]

Intelligent Compassion

Power is intersubjectively constituted and is inseparable from gender relations. Moreover, feminists often locate power and oppression at the intersection of social hierarchies, rather than within their boundaries, thus bringing out the hierarchical and power-laden web of relationships that constitute the so-called world order.17 This makes feminists acutely sensitive to those who are silenced or marginalized. Feminists are rarely, if ever, concerned about the liberation of women only. Rather, their emancipatory project involves an understanding of how the international system works to create, support, and perpetuate all forms of domination.18 Feminist insights, then, suggest that, to be able to transform the world, activists need to first be able to identify actual and potential forms of oppression and exclusion and their relation to each other. Without this ability, a methodology of social change cannot be fully emancipatory, because it would continue to hide systems of gendered power.

Power and Identity of the Knower

As a consequence of its awareness and alertness to power relations, feminism’s central epistemological preoccupation is with questions of truth claims as related to the knower’s identity. In other words, unlike other constructivists, feminists “critically reflect [.  .  .] on the location from which their knowledge issues, [.  .  .] thinking through the political and ethical implications of their knowledge/claims.”19 The basic constructivist ontology of co-constitution cannot but lead to an awareness that the theorist’s agency is itself conditioned by the particular normative-historical context in which he or she operates.20 But feminism also walks the fine line between acknowledging the historicity of any theory or concept (including emancipation) and the necessity of a nonassimilative feminist ethics, committed to some universal moral values.21 This ethics would have cross-cultural moral engagements emerge “out of encounters with others without reference to any substantive, transcendental, or teleological anchor in a ‘beyond.’”22 These encounters would then lead to “an attentiveness and openness in relation to the other through which both self and other may be transformed” beyond simple information-gathering or even understanding.23 Lily Ling describes this transformative process as the creation of hybrid subjectivities, which compel the recognition that the “Other exists in part within the . . . Self.”24 This has important implications for a theory of agency. The question of how we know whether a decision is emancipatory cannot be completely answered unless we scrutinize the degree to which our very definition of

F E M I N I S T C R I T I C A L M E T H O D OL O G Y, P E A C E , A N D S O C I A L C H A N G E

[ 23 ]

emancipation is structurally conditioned and contributes to perpetuating oppression, and the degree to which our practices are themselves exclusionary or oppressively assimilationist. At the same time, doing away with or sidelining normative precepts does not help us answer the practical question of how to effect social change. A critical theory of agency needs a method that encourages actors to question their very existence as political subjects, provides a tool for identifying and remedying actual or potential exclusionary and oppressive ideas and practices, and enables the actors to redefine their identities as hybrid-in-the-making.

THIRD WORLD FEMINIST SOCIAL CRITICISM AND EMANCIPATORY SOCIAL CHANGE

Feminist scholarship has often pointed out differences in decision-making styles between women’s and men’s organizations. Cynthia Cockburn’s study of women’s antimilitarist organizations, for example, finds that one of the reason women create separate organizations is that they object to male-led organizations’ bureaucratic or dogmatic approaches. The women in Cockburn’s study prefer inclusive, nonhierarchical approaches conceived to promote “shared work and skills, consensual decision-making, transparent processes and responsibility in relationships.”25 These ideals are not always realized, of course, but the women Cockburn studied believed that their methods should be feminist and antipatriarchal if they are to be effective in challenging militarism.26 Brooke Ackerly follows in this tradition, developing from her observations of a group of Bangladeshi women activists a model of social criticism that intended to improve deliberative democratic theory.27 She defines this model as feminist because it has been used by feminist activists all over the world.28 Ackerly faults theorists of deliberative democracy for underplaying exclusions and inequalities in all societies. Deliberations and collective decision making are important to achieve a more inclusive collective knowledge. But deliberative democrats need to enable citizens to practice democracy in the presence of inequality. Moreover, to effectively challenge inequalities and exclusions, deliberative democracy needs mechanisms for self-criticism. Ackerly draws from Third World women (and a variety of other feminist) activists a method that makes up for these shortcomings. She calls this practice “Third World Feminist Social Criticism (TWFSC)”; it employs three main tools, all useful to a theory of emancipatory social change: guiding criteria, deliberative inquiry, and skeptical scrutiny.

[ 24 ]

Intelligent Compassion

Guiding Criteria

Guiding criteria are “a list of minimum standards that critics use to challenge existing values, practices, and norms.”29 Such criteria help critics evaluate “competing claims to oppression” and direct their criticisms of values, practices. and norms.30 But they can be arbitrary and are bound to be limited and defined by the structure within which actors are embedded; there is no guarantee that they will be free of all exclusionary and oppressive practices, values, and norms or worked out as part of a self-reflexive methodology conducive to social change. Ackerly provides two further tools to assess and revise them.

Deliberative Inquiry

Deliberative inquiry is “the practice of generating knowledge through collective questioning, exchange of views, and discussion among critics and members of society.”31 In Ackerly’s model, this process of collective knowledge production needs to be constantly partial and evolving yet pragmatic, specifically oriented to the solution of problems identified by the community as problems. Ideally, deliberative inquiry promotes collective learning among those who have been silenced, who can then use it in the broader society to advance their claims.32 As a consequence of power relations within a society, the rules, language, and site of deliberation could, however, all work in favor of some and not other members of the collectivity. Ackerly engages both feminist and nonfeminist deliberative democracy theorists and faults them ultimately for requiring equality as a condition for participation in democracy (which is ideally supposed to promote equality). Ackerly proposes that TWFSC is a process that requires that “critics continually assess existing and potentially exploitative inequalities,” thus resolving the equality problem not by bracketing inequality but by “mov[ing] toward equality.”33 But deliberative inquiry by itself does not provide tools for the broader society (or the dominant groups within it) to understand or make the claims of silenced groups intelligible or legitimate.

Skeptical Scrutiny

Ackerly’s solution to the problems of effective communication without exclusions in deliberative situations is the strategy of skeptical scrutiny. According to Ackerly, “skeptical scrutiny is an attitude toward existing and

F E M I N I S T C R I T I C A L M E T H O D OL O G Y, P E A C E , A N D S O C I A L C H A N G E

[ 25 ]

proposed values, practices, and norms”34 that exposes how they “presume, reinforce, cause, or exploit power inequalities to the detriment of the less powerful.”35 The ultimate goal of skeptical scrutiny is to challenge and undermine such values, practices, and norms. Used in conjunction with deliberative inquiry and guiding criteria, skeptical scrutiny is a tool that allows actors to continually scout for actual and potential inequalities both in society’s practices, values, and norms and their own. In this sense, it is a reflexive tool through which people can question the very conditions of their existence as political subjects and redefine the characters and modalities of their identity.36

The Role of Social Critics

Because TWFSC enables the inquiry of existing practices, values, and norms; provides deliberative opportunities for all members of society; and promotes institutional change, it represents a model of “deliberative democracy in the real world.”37 Within this model, social critics are essential facilitators of society’s self-examination and provoke the examination of their own methods, roles, qualifications, and conclusions. To do this effectively, a variety of critics who offer multiple perspectives are necessary to collectively foster the ongoing and self-reflexive model of social criticism.38 Without a multiplicity of critics to facilitate TWFSC, the methodological tools of guiding criteria, deliberative inquiry, and skeptical scrutiny do not sufficiently guarantee the movement toward more equality (or emancipation) and the effective questioning of structure’s shaping powers. Critics from inside or outside the community and critics who can navigate between that community and the outside are all necessary to promote inquiry, deliberative opportunities, and institutional change.39

APPLYING TWFSC TO WILPF

Ackerly claims that feminist social criticism’s three elements together make the practice “conducive to incremental, informed, collective, and uncoerced social change”40 toward a “more democratic society (however envisioned).”41 She cautions that TWFSC does not guarantee such change and points at structural impediments to its achievement: “successful social change depends on a broad range of conditions determined by the familial, social, political, and economic context of the criticism and activism.”42 In other words, marginalized groups within a society may offer better, more informed

[ 26 ]

Intelligent Compassion

proposals for social change by following the prescriptions of TWFSC, but whether society adopts such proposals depends on whether those groups or individuals are themselves recognized as deliberative partners. Because she draws this method from the experiences of feminist activists in particularly marginalized contexts, Ackerly is acutely aware of the numerous limitations their political actions face from the outside. But Ackerly underestimates TWFSC’s potential: With a prescription for making silent voices intelligible and compelling to dominant groups, TWFSC becomes effectively a theory of emancipatory social change. The following chapters empirically test this potential by measuring TWFSC against the history of WILPF. The women of WILPF have paid particular attention to the interplay between their decision-making processes, methods, and policy positions since the very beginning of the organization. In her study of the relationship between British feminism and pacifist transnationalism immediately after the First World War, Jo Vellacott made a distinction between the militant and nonmilitant British suffrage organizations. According to her, it was not coincidental that the British women’s peace movement (and within it the British section of WILPF) was born from the latter during World War I, as the women stressed nonviolence and more democratic decision-making procedures.43 Vellacott claims that a thoughtful and intentional commitment to the congruence between goals (women’s suffrage) and methods (local, regional, and national networks of collective decision making) helped the nonmilitant suffragists reflect on the violent and militaristic foundations of a system that denied political equality to women.44 If similar processes were followed by the international WILPF, to what extent and how were they congruent with TWFSC? To the extent that they were congruent, what kind of impact did they have on the policies of WILPF? Particularly, to what extent did their understandings of “peace and freedom” change through their history and reflect in their policies? And, to the extent that WILPF used TWFSC, was it enough to challenge the ideational and historical milieu in which WILPF was situated? To the extent that its policies reflected a challenge to or a departure from liberal modernity, how did its methodology enable the changes?

CONCLUSIONS

Feminist insights for a critical constructivist theory of agency suggest that, to theorize emancipatory social change, four principles need to be respected. A theory of emancipatory social change should: compel the

F E M I N I S T C R I T I C A L M E T H O D OL O G Y, P E A C E , A N D S O C I A L C H A N G E

[ 27 ]

self-examination of actors’ own assumptions, language, and embeddedness in a particular historical and ideological context; guide actors toward inclusivity and open them to input and ideas from (potentially) all members of society; provide tools for identifying actual and potential exclusions and inequalities in society and in their practice; and enable the continuous reevaluation of actors’ practices, ideas, and assumptions. TWFSC seems to satisfy these requirements well in theory and as applied to contemporary, especially Third World, feminist activism, but it also raises a number of questions when applied to a different context than the one that inspired its formulation. The empirical chapters that follow serve to exemplify these dilemmas and suggest ways in which the theory of TWFSC can be integrated. WILPF’s postwar history suggests that there is another methodological tool important for a theory of agency, such that deliberative inquiry, skeptical scrutiny, and guiding criteria in concert can promote emancipatory social change. Borrowing from a WILPF leader’s articulation, I call this tool “intelligent compassion.”45 It was used by WILPF and is part of the feminist methodological repertoire. Moreover, “intelligent compassion” can overcome TWFSC’s limits when applied to a liberal modern organization. I further develop this idea in this book’s conclusions.

[ 28 ]

Intelligent Compassion

CHAPTER 3

“Evidence of Things Unseen” WILPF and Disarmament

INTRODUCTION

Disarmament was an important component of WILPF’s vision of peace. The organization’s political platform in 1919 condemned the Versailles Peace Treaty for imposing unilateral military disarmament on World War I’s losers. WILPF never wavered from its advocacy for total and universal disarmament. The first thirty years after the Second World War, however, show significant, if subtle, shifts in WILPF’s thinking on this issue. In the first two decades, WILPF thought that the creation of an international system based on (liberal democratic) laws would be the most important step to make the resort to war obsolete and armaments unnecessary. Starting in the 1960s, the organization increasingly referred to “the economic and social aspects of disarmament,”1 until it arrived at a 1974 resolution advocating the need for a new economic system for the achievement of peace (hence the elimination of weapons). In most cases, new policies were advocated in conjunction with old ones and differently prioritized, but these subtle shifts reflected a profound questioning of the liberal modern values that guided the organization. An analysis of WILPF’s documents between 1945 and 1975 shows three interrelated ideational shifts in its ideas about disarmament as it related to peace: 1. From an early belief in the power of laws, liberal democracy as inscribed and implemented in international institutions (however imperfect), and rational thinking and deliberation to bring about disarmament through

peace, WILPF became ever more convinced that the current economic system, by fueling the arms buildup, was the source of wars. 2. From a belief that science and technology made compelling rational arguments for the elimination of weapons, which also made war possible, WILPF gained awareness of science’s ambiguities and the realization that science was not politically neutral. 3. While early on WILPF failed to see gender and feminism as relevant to disarmament questions, it increasingly offered a feminist critique of the arms race. I argue that these ideational shifts reflected a departure from WILPF’s liberal modern outlook of the 1940s and 1950s and represent a critique of its own earlier assumptions. This departure, in turn, was influenced by the revival of the international feminist movement, which brought with it a critique of the gendered assumptions of liberal political thought and practice. The years from 1945 to 1975 were characterized by other important international contingencies, such as the development and deployment of the atomic bomb and nuclear energy, the Cold War, the decolonization movement, the growth of international organizations (both governmental and nongovernmental) on a global scale, and the onset of neoliberal globalization. Such world events could not leave WILPF untouched, but it is important to understand how they intersected with the organization’s own setup, ideologies, and methodologies, thus influencing its ideas about the relationship between disarmament and peace (and, as a consequence, its policies). WILPF’s ideational changes regarding disarmament issues did indeed depend on historical circumstances, but such circumstances’ effects on the organization were mediated through their methodology. WILPF’s methodology allowed the organization to turn a reflective eye on its values, practices, and norms and bring about a gradual but by no means consistent, linear, or total departure from liberal modern assumptions.

LIBERAL POLITICAL THOUGHT, GENDER, AND WILPF

Liberal modernity was the transnational historical context in which WILPF was situated. The organization owed its very existence to modernity and to modernity-dependent principles of liberalism and liberal political thought. According to Robert Latham, liberalism was as much an ideology as it was “a way to organize social life”;2 specifically, following the Second World War, liberalism provided the mechanisms around which

[ 30 ]

Intelligent Compassion

international relations were ordered, an order in which the United States played a hegemonic role.3 That ordering involved the construction of practices, principles, and institutions to shape international life. WILPF, like other international organizations, was part of that design: Its very existence was woven into the fabric of the postwar liberal order. Many feminist scholars have exposed the gendered (and racialized) construction of key elements of liberalism,4 among which are concepts central to liberal political thought and praxis. They argue that “liberal political theory . . . extends a particular gendering experience into the norms of Western society.”5 In other words, feminists claim that Western liberal political theory’s values are inherently derived from the lived experiences of men, not women. This has specific consequences for the content of key concepts in liberal political thought.

Autonomy, Consent, and Obligation

The notion of citizenship in liberal political thought is gendered insofar as it derives from contractual theory. Carole Pateman claims that Western theories of social contract depend on a “sexual contract” that solidified patriarchy and the subjection of women and other categories of people. She argues that the notion of contract itself implies the alienation of one’s body and the erasure of the distinction between freedom and slavery. Paralleling Elshtain’s (later) argument about sovereignty, Pateman thus claims that the very thinking in terms of contract and free will inescapably binds one into “civil slavery.”6 Moreover, the notions of consent and freedom underlying contractual theory are profoundly sexist because they ignore or hide the reality and multiplicity of ways in which consent is denied to women7; however, they also shape and delimit imagination in that they do not allow us to think outside their very terms.8 Nancy Hirschmann adds that liberal doctrines’ notion of obligation is based on “voluntarist principles; that is, an obligation is a limitation on behavior, a requirement for action or nonaction, that the actor or nonactor has chosen or agreed to.”9 She argues that the liberal notion of “voluntary consent” harbors a masculine bias that denies the nonconsensual obligations that make up an important part of many women’s lives and in fact denies them full participation in public life.10 Although these critiques question the roles and expectations of individuals within the nation-state, they apply to the international realm insofar as consent, autonomy, and obligation represented some of the organizing principles of the postwar liberal order-making.11

“ E V I DE N C E OF T H I N G S U N S E E N ”

[ 31 ]

Many feminists have also observed how modern concepts of reason, rationality, and science rely on masculinist assumptions and imagery grounded in (and justified and rationalized through) the domination of men over women.12 Postmodern feminists and nonfeminists argue that liberal notions about science and rationality are based on a peculiarly modern need to find truths and certainties.13 In addition, they underscore that politics has always been an integral part of science praxis.14 Finally, postwar international relations practices as well as theories are infused with the modern “goals of scientific objectivity, emotional distance, and instrumentality,” which are characteristics associated with, and defining of, masculinity.15 The construction of the liberal order was thus dependent on previously existing gender ideology. As I have shown in chapter 1, WILPF was a participant to the building of the international liberal order. As long as the women of WILPF remained unquestioningly bound to the liberal internationalist tradition, they also reproduced the gendered assumptions of liberal political thought on which that order was built. WILPF was, in some important ways, a privileged international actor: As previously mentioned, its members were mostly white, upper- to middle-class, highly educated Western women; as a consultative member in the UN system, WILPF had access to many of the international institutions that had been created after the Second World War. In other ways, WILPF was marginal to the liberal ordering project. It was not a very influential actor in the international scene, by virtue of the scarce consideration that women’s opinions and issues or feminism garnered in international politics. Moreover, to the extent that militarism and war became progressively central features of that order, the antimilitaristic WILPF also belonged to the fringes, rather than the centers, of international political power.

LIBERALISM, WILPF, AND DISARMAMENT

Coming out of the Second World War, WILPF was decimated in numbers and spirit. The women assembled at their first postwar Congress asked themselves how it was possible for humanity to reach such levels of depravity as that seen prior to and during the conflict. Having fought alongside men during those years, they confronted the question of whether it still made sense to maintain a women’s organization. Having witnessed the destruction caused by the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they felt stunned by the enormity of the challenges ahead for an organization devoted to peace and freedom.

[ 32 ]

Intelligent Compassion

At the first International Congress after the war in 1946, the US section, which, despite its losses, had come out of the war as the largest and strongest section of WILPF, remained guided by a progressivist ideology, characterized by “a commitment to democracy, faith in scientific ‘truth,’ a concern for morality and social justice, and an unswerving belief in progress and the efficacy of education.”16 On the one hand, progressivist ideology implied a moral vision of the ideal society that defied social, political, and economic hierarchies. On the other, as a modern ideology, progressivism posited a trajectory of progress from uncivilized, ignorant, irrational states of being to the reign of logic, reason, and science, which would ultimately bring about human well-being. Members of the European sections were no less convinced of the necessity, if not inevitability, of such a transformation than were their US counterparts. The women of WILPF remained convinced that humanity’s worst instincts, which were the ultimate cause of war, could be tamed and controlled by a system of (liberal democratic) international laws: They valued deliberation as the means to achieve agreements based on rational arguments. They also stressed the principle of equality between states as the basis for organizing international institutions and laws. While they felt that the ideal move toward world government demanded limits to national sovereignty, they accepted (however, not enthusiastically) the nation-state as the main actor in international relations and the UN as the best avenue for the creation of a legal system that would make the existence of national armaments obsolete. WILPF’s positions on disarmament in the immediate postwar years reflected its belief in the power of law, rational thinking, and deliberation to bring about peace, both as absence of armed conflict and as a degree of social justice. In addition, it reflected a peculiarly modern belief in science’s objectivity and rationality as the most appropriate guides to political action.

Law

One of the pillars of peace ideology of the progressive era rested on the belief “that international norms and institutions had to possess the capacity to control, in addition to reform, states’ war-prone tendencies.”17 Starting at the first Congress after World War II and continuing through the mid1960s, WILPF members were convinced that laws and rational reasoning would lead to the elimination of the war system, thus of states’ weapons arsenals. This position was exemplified by a widely circulated report in 1963, in which the US section interpreted Jane Addams’s thought as follows:

“ E V I DE N C E OF T H I N G S U N S E E N ”

[ 33 ]

Jane Addams and the other founders of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom . . . exemplified and preached reconciliation and compassion but they never assumed that the world community was ready wholly to substitute these for war as a method for settling international disputes, maintaining order, and promoting human welfare. Their political proposals envisaged, not love, but law as the substitute for war. . . . According to their analysis, wars are caused by the fact that there is no other means to settle international disputes or bring about necessary changes in the international status quo and war can be prevented only by the creation of “an international government able to make the necessary political and economic changes.”18

Liberal democratic laws and enforcement mechanisms would bring about peace by minimizing the need to go to war. In the absence of a need for war, states would find it pointless to build up arms arsenals.19 Disarmament would necessarily follow the establishment of “a system of clearly defined world law and enforcement upon the individual offender.”20 Law and reason were more effective than (and opposed to) emotions in bringing about peace. WILPF believed that although the arms race diverted valuable resources and failed to provide security, it was not the ultimate cause of war, which resided in the lack of legal instruments to resolve disputes peacefully. International law would be the antidote to the use of violence in international disputes. Thus, the 1952 International Executive Committee (IEC) stated its support for the use and development of international law, engendering respect for the decisions of impartial tribunals so that law may grow to replace methods of violence, in international as in national conflicts.21

WILPF believed that if nations agreed to talk to each other, and if they had a permanent structure compelling them to meet, then they would not resort to war to solve their disputes. As a consequence, they would not feel the need to amass armaments. WILPF recognized a tension between the maintenance of sovereign rights and the system of international law that they envisaged but stressed that states needed to voluntarily relinquish some sovereign rights and submit themselves to international law. The only possible rational deduction from the dangers of the atomic era would lead to consent to a system of law. An international system based on liberal democratic principles and laws would not only inevitably bring about peace and disarmament, but it would bring “man [sic] and nations . . . to relinquish the war system, on which they

[ 34 ]

Intelligent Compassion

have relied to protect their vital interests or to end intolerable economic exploitation and political domination.”22 Thus, a system of democratic laws would constitute the solution to both political and economic conditions that lead to war and to the perceived necessity of armaments. As a consequence, just as they had supported the institution of the League of Nations three decades earlier, WILPF members enthusiastically supported the creation of the UN as the world’s “great organ for the expression of its common purposes and the carrying out of its common activities.”23 The UN was the democratic institution that allowed rational discussions and was a site partially immune to power struggles and differences.24 Gertrude Baer had been a Jewish German member of WILPF since 1919 and had become its representative to the League of Nations in Geneva prior to WWII. For her own and other WILPF members’ safety, she was transferred to New York, establishing there the temporary headquarters of WILPF during the war. From New York she published a regular circular letter and was instrumental in the survival of WILPF during the war years.25 By 1955 she had become WILPF’s representative at the UN and had returned to Geneva. In her report to the IEC, she expressed her trust in the institutions and principles of the postwar liberal order: Our aim must remain total and universal disarmament, the replacing of war through international law and the bringing about of solutions by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or any other peaceful means of the own choice of the parties to a dispute.26

Neither Baer nor most of WILPF’s leaders were unaware or uncritical of an international system dominated and influenced by Cold War power rivalries. Nevertheless, they did believe that choice, or consent, could be freely and autonomously expressed and exercised in such an environment, thus leading to just agreements between parties in conflict. Continuing throughout the 1950s, WILPF maintained its reliance and trust in the (admittedly imperfect) UN to encourage, promote, and sponsor disarmament talks at an international level. Only a system of “international law and order” could be a safeguard for all countries, small and big alike,27 and “the endeavors to attain law and order are at present associated with the UN.”28 Hence WILPF asked for universality of UN membership, including the recognition and the seating of the People’s Republic of China and the continued progress toward the inclusion of formerly colonized countries into the UN throughout the 1940s and 1950s (see chapter 4). In 1954 WILPF’s support for the UN went so far as to oppose any UN reform.29

“ E V I DE N C E OF T H I N G S U N S E E N ”

[ 35 ]

While WILPF recognized that the charter was imperfect and the result of compromise, it was concerned that a revision of the charter would lead to the dissolution of the organization.30 A far cry from the ideal world government, the UN was, nevertheless, for WILPF, the best existent forum for the development and implementation of international law and, with it, the maintenance of world peace.31 If all states would sit down together as equals at the negotiating table, WILPF believed, they would be more likely to reach rational, agreed-upon decisions. Dorothy Hutchinson was particularly insistent on the importance of law to bring about disarmament and worked hard to keep WILPF focused on the study of the possibility of the establishment of UN machinery for the peaceful settlement of conflicts. Hutchinson was born in Connecticut of a Methodist family but joined the Society of Friends in 1940 at the age of thirty-five, becoming an absolute pacifist. During WWII Hutchinson became one of the founders of the ill-fated Peace Now movement, which proposed a negotiated settlement with the Axis Powers. Despite being partially disabled by polio since age five, she worked tirelessly in several peace organizations and participated in the US civil rights movement as well as demonstrations against the Vietnam War later on. She presided over the US section of WILPF from 1961 to 1965 and then served as WILPF’s International Chairman32 until 1968.33 In 1966 Hutchinson wrote, In the triangle of related essentials for a warless world, the two sides are Disarmament and Peace Forces. But the base of the triangle, on which demilitarisation [sic] and peace-keeping must solidly rest, is adequate means for the Peaceful Resolution of International Conflict.34

While WILPF followed closely all arms-reduction negotiations, it continued to stress the need for “the establishment of a truly international constabulary based upon international law, which would develop the trust and confidence needed for healthy world reconstruction.”35 In a 1959 Congress resolution, the “WILPF urge[d] that the United Nations present machinery for political settlement be used to the full, and that it be strengthened wherever necessary to make it a universally acceptable and reliable alternative to the use of violence.”36 WILPF felt that total and universal disarmament was “mutually advantageous to all parties” and believed that the only solution was within the UN system.37 In the 1940s and 1950s, WILPF also believed that the arms arsenals diverted funds that could otherwise be used for “social welfare, education and cultural progress”38 and that the arms race was an obstacle to development insofar as it “disrupt[ed] the economy of the whole world.”39 In line

[ 36 ]

Intelligent Compassion

with liberal economic thought, WILPF believed that global trade and the free market would be conducive to world peace: We address a solemn appeal to all Governments to give priority to all measures apt to promote world-wide trade and commerce, to encourage and develop civilian production and consumption in their countries, build and extend social welfare and raise the educational and cultural standards of their populations.40

WILPF, and particularly its French members, did not disregard the social and economic causes of war. The French section was possibly the most sympathetic to Soviet Russia (USSR) during the late 1940s and 1950s41 and insisted on being rather critical of capitalism as a system based on profits rather than needs. But not all sections were so keen on the USSR. The US section was feeling the heat of McCarthyism and the Red Scare. Some of its members had been associated with the Communist Party. The section as a whole had suffered repeated harassment and the accusations of sympathizing with Communism. Under the leadership of Mildred Scott Olmsted it tried, with mixed results, to maintain independence from Communistleaning organizations, without succumbing to the Red Scare.42 Critiques of Communist Russia and a defense of liberal democratic nations appear in several documents from many of the other European sections, as well as indications that other sections were suffering the same divisions and difficulties due to the Red Scare. For example, in the early 1950s, following the publication of a list of alleged Communist conspirators (compiled by a “Committee of Action Against the Fifth Column”) that included several WILPF members, the German section split in two opposing segments, each claiming to be the official representative of WILPF in Germany.43 This meant that the League was challenged to maintain the unity of the organization in the face of sharp and fractionalizing dissent. Chairmen, vice-chairmen, and other respected personalities of WILPF often intervened with appeals for conciliation, and, at least in the case of Germany, the IEC decided which group to support as a formal and legally constituted section of the League.44 As a consequence, WILPF felt more reluctant to focus on economic arguments in defense of disarmament.45 This reluctance is exemplified by the animated discussions around the third paragraph of WILPF’s statement of aims, which, since 1934, had referred to “the present system of exploitation, privilege and profit” as an obstacle to “lasting peace and true freedom.”46 While a final agreement on all changes was not reached until 1959, it was clear during the 1950s that many sections were concerned that such an explicit reference to capitalism “suggest[ed]a party programme.”47

“ E V I DE N C E OF T H I N G S U N S E E N ”

[ 37 ]

Other sections apparently objected to the reference all together.48 According to Edith Ballantyne, who later became a very influential leader in WILPF, “the Cold War environment was such that all that smelled of Communism was regarded with suspicion.”49 The 1959 amendment eliminated from the statement of aims all economic references except for a general expression of hope in a future system “under which men and women may live in peace and justice free from the fear of war and of want”50 in a likely intentional reference to President Roosevelt’s 1941 Four Freedoms message to the US Congress.51 While references to a “system of exploitation and profit” would not return to the constitution until the early 1980s, it is important to stress that the 1960s and 1970s paved the way for a return to the economic critique of the 1930s.

Reason and Science

The belief in logical reasoning and an international system of law went hand in hand with a distinctly modern belief in science and rationality. During the two immediate postwar decades WILPF believed that reason and science would ultimately show people and world leaders alike that there was no way other than disarmament, because the rational, reasonable, and scientifically proven way to avoid wars was to get rid of the instruments of war. Between the end of World War II and the mid-1960s, WILPF remained convinced that the United States, the USSR, and other states could willingly let go of power politics if only they let themselves be guided by rationality. WILPF members did not deny the existence of power politics and Cold War machinations; rather, they believed that rational thought could prompt leaders of all countries to voluntarily consent to limitations of sovereign rights in the name of an obligation to save humanity from “the scourge of war.”52 Rationality and rule of law were found to be antithetical to the existing system based on irrationality and fear: We do believe that it is unrealistic to expect fear of weapons to prevent their use, for there is ample evidence that we can develop immunity to fear and horror. But fear and peace cancel each other out. There cannot be peace, freedom and security where there is fear and horror.53

WILPF believed that, while fear ruled contemporary policies toward disarmament, rationality and the “more civilised weapons of the mind” could bring about the willingness to “find ways and means of discussing their differences

[ 38 ]

Intelligent Compassion

as rational beings.”54 WILPF shared with other peace movements of the time55 the sense that the system of security based on fear and power politics was obsolete: Modern scientific warfare has made it obvious that the concepts and doctrines of security hitherto existing have become utterly obsolete and that new measures are urgently required—measures as bold and unparalleled as the evil design of making the fantastic progress in science and technical skill serve wholesale diabolic destruction.56

This statement reflected a trust in the scientific endeavor, which was corrupted by “evil design” but in itself was “fantastic” and ultimately good. But it also reflected a liberal modern belief in reason as the antithesis of, and superior to, emotion. Many feminists have observed that this is a profoundly gendered false dichotomy: Because emotion has been historically associated with women and reason with men, this dichotomy has been a foundational aspect of hierarchical social relations between men and women.57 In trying to convince the public of the desirability of nuclear disarmament, a women’s organization thus relied on a gendered dichotomy that served to keep women out of the public realm.58 In 1946 Clara Ragaz, a historic leader from the Swiss section, expressed her belief: It is true that we have . . . a new ally which pleads in favor of our cause in a more effective and pressing manner than we could do. It is the atomic bomb. With that I mean not only to say that the atomic bomb will pull even the indifferent out of their lethargy; fear is a bad advisor by itself and can lead to anything but reasonable conclusions. But it seems to me that the atomic bomb should show even to those most indifferent and to those most apathetic what war means, and make them understand that we are lost if we keep putting our trust in violence.59

Gertrude Bussey of the US section was cautiously optimistic about nuclear science itself. In her opinion, the discovery of atomic energy represented one of three “really revolutionary” developments of the postwar world, one that had the potential to benefit humankind if “placed under a social authority” and “used for the benefit of all men” [sic].60 Reason thus could lead to only one conclusion: If the possible outcome of any war, small or large, was the resort to the atomic bomb, which carried with it the possibility of world annihilation, then people would realize that all wars, and all preparation for war, had to be eliminated to avoid the likely consequences

“ E V I DE N C E OF T H I N G S U N S E E N ”

[ 39 ]

of the use of the atomic bomb. “Wars on a small scale, whether civil or international, carry within themselves the seeds of world war. A world war, even if begun with so-called conventional weapons, would almost certainly end as a nuclear war. We must neither begin such war deliberately, not slide into it accidently [sic].”61 Because reason, not politics, guided science, WILPF viewed science and technology with great optimism: It was through science and technology that humanity could be guided to salvation.62 When reporting her work at a World Health Organization63 meeting in Geneva in 1954, for example, Gertrude Baer was keenly aware of the dangers, contradictions, and political and nonpolitical problems raised by nuclear science and technology. She presented in great detail the possible public health consequences of radiation, the risks associated with the existence of nuclear reactors near inhabited locations, the dilemmas of safe disposal of nuclear waste, and other questions related to the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. However, her report also made it clear that these were technical questions that the global scientific community could and would address and solve.64 Moreover, Baer was eager to see the World Health Organization and other international bodies discuss questions related to the use of “nuclear energy for destructive purposes” from a “scientific” point of view. In 1954 she tried to convince Walter G. Whitman, Secretary General of the UN Atomic Energy Conference, to give opportunity for discussions on the public health effects of atomic weapons: scientific discussion of the questions of radiation through atomic weapons, if put into the context of the many other aspects with which the [UN] Conference [for Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy] is going to deal, may bring about a relaxation of the fear now obsession of vast populations. . . . We are convinced that a frank and open presentation would strengthen the confidence in those who organize and participate in the Conference and lessen the profound anxiety of so many people around the globe.65

Baer was not attempting to minimize the fears of potential or actual victims of nuclear tests; on the contrary, she believed that people’s sufferings were paramount when dealing with nuclear energy, whether used for peaceful or “destructive” purposes. She was, rather, expressing her faith in the power of the truth about atomic weapons, when expressed through the scientific, reasoned discussion of the health effects of nuclear experiments, to vindicate and give voice to victims and to convince everyone else of the need to stop using nuclear power for war preparations.66 Trust in science and scientific reason extended to scientists in general. WILPF considered scientists objective, far removed from political power,

[ 40 ]

Intelligent Compassion

and independent of nationalist interests. In 1946 US member Annalee Stewart declared that “the scientists of the world have admitted that the problems of the bomb belong not to the field of science, but to the field of human relationships. They have pointed out that the difficulties lie more with politics than physics.”67 She continued by stating that scientists all over the world had already shown examples of peaceful cooperation by agreeing to call for disarmament. While it is true that, ever since World War II, a movement of atomic scientists had developed that consistently criticized atomic weapons, Stewart did not address the contradictions inherent in the scientists’ roles as creators and developers of the technology that made nuclear weapons possible and their antinuclear weapons activism.68 Similarly, in 1958 Else Zeuthen, International Chairman of WILPF from Denmark, commented that preliminary results of a “conference of technicians”69 held in Geneva “confirm[ed] the experience that when technicians meet from either side there are no great difficulties in arriving at agreement, provided the political propaganda machine is kept at a distance.”70 WILPF saw international control of atomic energy, under the guidance of scientific and liberal democratic principles, as a sort of minimal (if not necessarily sufficient) guarantee that its utilization would increase humanity’s well-being. Even Hélène Stähelin, a Swiss member and one of the most ardent skeptics in regard to nuclear technology, cautioned WILPF about the dangers inherent in such technology yet insisted that international control and science free from military oversight would offer some minimal safeguards against its destructive uses.71 In 1946 WILPF passed a resolution on atomic energy that called for destruction of all atomic bombs, the need for international control, and the creation of a civilian “Atomic Development Authority” with complete power over supply of nuclear material and “directing all production for civilian purposes only, controlling power development and research activities, and encouraging the beneficial uses of atomic energy, especially in the healing of diseases and in industrial development.”72 In 1948 the IEC supported the 1946 UN General Assembly’s resolution calling for the establishment of international control of atomic agency to ensure that it be used for peaceful purposes.73 In 1957 WILPF IEC again reiterated its confidence in the possibility of using nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, provided that it was put under international control: “We must build a world organisation which makes possible the peaceful development of Atomic Energy and the avoidance of a military catastrophe.”74 WILPF’s appeals to the objectivity and political neutrality of science and to the power of rationality and logical reasoning to lead to disarmament

“ E V I DE N C E OF T H I N G S U N S E E N ”

[ 41 ]

were inscribed in a distinctly modern and liberal outlook,75 which was grounded in specific gender assumptions and dichotomies. That said, stigmatizing WILPF’s position over disarmament in the 1940s and 1950s as invariably and unquestioningly modern means to stereotype its members and box them into a category that hardly does justice to the nuances of thought within the organization, even at that time. This is because, even in the 1940s and 1950s, WILPF was following a critical methodology and planting the seeds for an eventual change in ideas and policies that would become manifest much later. However, the predominant view about disarmament in the 1940s and 1950s was one that underscored the importance of (liberal democratic) laws, international institutions, reason, and science in bringing about disarmament. This belief was modern and liberal, but it also must be understood in the context of the Cold War and the euphoria about the possibilities of using nuclear science for peaceful purposes76 during the building of an international system based on precisely those modern beliefs.

Women, Disarmament, and Peace

The 1946 debate on whether to maintain WILPF or dissolve it saw two distinct positions. Some, such as Dutch member J. Repelaer van Driel, argued that not only had war shown women to be as bellicose as men (or as peaceful as men) but that maintaining a separate women’s organization devoted to peace, after women had attained the right to vote in almost all countries where WILPF was represented, meant to perpetuate the status of women as inferior. Van Driel argued, To pull out in groups to aspire to such vast plans as that of International Concord, women too easily “donnent prise aux hommes” who raise their shoulders and judge those groups and their efforts as “really feminine,” “sentimental” or “out of touch with reality,” etc. without realizing, moreover, that they too try to hide their inferiority complex and their own failings in the achievement of universal peace.77

Van Driel stated that equating women with peace devalued both women and peace.78 Mildred Scott Olmsted instead spoke in favor of maintaining WILPF, using maternalist rhetoric and depicting women as “by nature more concerned than men with the conservation of life and the creation of conditions under which children may grow up safely and happily.”79 Olmsted did not quite say that women are more peaceful than men but rather that

[ 42 ]

Intelligent Compassion

they are more interested in peace because of their traditional roles as mothers and caregivers. As a consequence, women had much to offer to the cause of peace that could not be offered by men-only or mixed organizations in which women had only marginal roles. This debate mirrored feminist debates of the 1980s, but, after the 1946 Congress had accepted Olmsted’s argument and had voted overwhelmingly to maintain WILPF, during the rest of the 1940s and continuing in the 1950s, it rarely, if ever, entertained discussions on the relationship between women and peace. While WILPF worked on women’s rights and equal representation at the UN, for example, feminist-inspired reflections on disarmament, peace, and gender were notably absent from WILPF documents of the first two decades after the war. This absence partly reflected the lack of input from an organized feminist movement that publicly resurfaced only later.80

CHANGING IDEAS

The 1972 IEC meeting, and more strongly the 1974 International Congress, approved resolutions that indicate that, by that time, WILPF had radically reassessed its position toward the relationship between disarmament and peace. The 1974 resolutions, in particular, (a) indicted “an economic system based on production for profit rather than production for human needs” as ultimately responsible for the arms buildup and called for “fundamental economic change by non-violent means” as the only way to “eliminate war, racism, violence, repression and social injustice”;81 (b) strongly condemned nuclear power, “whether used for weaponry or peaceful purposes,” as a threat to peace and asked for the cessation of nuclear arms testing as well as the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes; and (c) linked women’s emancipation with “the achievement of peace and the relaxation of international tension.”82 These resolutions represented a switch in emphasis from a reliance on and faith in international law, arrived at through voluntary agreements, to a more sustained critique of the international economic system. They reflected an increased skepticism toward the rules of liberal democracy. This skepticism led WILPF to contest the idea that international laws based on voluntary consent and rational deliberation would be enough to guarantee disarmament. It led the organization to view peace as both the result of international mechanisms and the machinery for the peaceful resolution of conflicts (these initiatives were never abandoned) and most fundamentally as the outcome of a restructuring of an international economic system that provoked, fueled, and perpetuated a state of constant violence.

“ E V I DE N C E OF T H I N G S U N S E E N ”

[ 43 ]

WILPF had by this time initiated a radical reassessment of the role of power in international relations: By shifting its focus to the recognition of the power inherent in a “system of exploitation,” WILPF was also starting to doubt that principles of liberal democracy and democratic deliberation were in themselves sufficient to bring about peace in the context of unequal power relations. Thus, it came to see the world as divided into “three political blocs [US-, USSR-, and non-aligned] and two economic blocs (rich countries and poor countries).”83 Moreover, WILPF had begun to critique those elements of the international system that made impossible or negated, in WILPF’s view, human obligations to each other (including laws and agreements). Developing an economic critique of the arms race went hand in hand with revisiting WILPF’s early support of the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. This reversion of policies was made possible by an increasing skepticism toward the supposed “neutrality” of science. In fact, references to scientists and “experts” as the “saviors” of humanity are almost nonexistent in WILPF’s documents of the 1970s. Finally, the mid-1970s also saw a change in WILPF’s attitudes toward gender, women, and disarmament, when it started to systematically address women’s contributions to peace work and disarmament issues and discuss the incompatibility between feminism and militarism. WILPF had come to believe that women had the obligation of active political participation and a special interest in questions of peace. Swedish member Aja Selander, addressing the Conference of Women’s Organizations on European Cooperation and Security in 1973, proclaimed, Our task as European women is not only to work for equality and development. We should not hesitate to deal with all political questions that have impact on the future of mankind.84

Not only did women possess a special obligation toward peace. They also were uniquely apt at peace work: “Women have ways of overcoming difficulties and reaching agreement, and . . . women show understanding and tolerance.”85 In 1975 Kay Camp, president of WILPF from the US section, proposed the inclusion of the following statement in the UN Plan of Action for the International Women’s Year: Equality is impossible and development gravely hampered in a world wrecked by wars and impoverished by preparation for war. In our day, women are increasingly involved in warfare and increasingly victimized by it. The peril and cost of

[ 44 ]

Intelligent Compassion

militarism must be ended. Likewise, racism and sexism on which militarism thrives must go.86

Camp, and with her much of WILPF, had undertaken a critique of militarism as antithetical to feminism and women’s equality and as fueled by other harmful and related forms of social inequality. How did WILPF arrive at these three ideological and policy changes? I next offer an account of the methodological tools that allowed social and self-criticism to emerge and WILPF to move beyond its entrenchment in liberalism.

METHODOLOGY

Elements of a feminist critical methodology throughout the three decades that followed World War II made it possible for WILPF to maintain a vibrant interaction with the external environment and the structural and ideological constraints it presented. During these years, WILPF carved out its own agency within a structure that bounded it. It did so by continually applying elements of a feminist critical methodology.

Guiding Criteria

WILPF’s guiding criteria regarding disarmament had been enshrined in its constitution in 1919 and unambiguously stated what WILPF stood for: total and universal disarmament, the support for international law, the peaceful settlement of conflicts, and the development of a world organization. In 1948 WILPF IEC issued a resolution restating its “belief in the complete abolition of the war method and the universal acceptance of disarmament as the only assurance for the preservation of the human race.”87 As seen in the previous section, the economic critique present in the statement of aims since 1934 was strongly debated and eventually eliminated in 1959. In this time, WILPF’s policies regarding disarmament partially, but in very important ways, embodied liberal modern ideas about the role of states and international institutions to bring about peace and reflected its primarily Western, upper- to middle-class, white makeup. In fact, while WILPF consistently condemned the production, stockpiling, and trade of conventional, nuclear, biological, bacteriological, and chemical arms (referring to them as “weapons of mass destruction” as early as 1948),88 it never mentioned, for example, the trade in small arms until the 1980s, arguably a major concern of different constituencies of women. The

“ E V I DE N C E OF T H I N G S U N S E E N ”

[ 45 ]

1940s and 1950s were also characterized by the notable absence of reflections on the relationship between women, feminism, and peace. In general, WILPF saw the arms race as a problem that could be solved in theory by science and in practice by law. Consent, rationality, and autonomy as concepts enshrined in liberal political thought underpinned a postwar liberal order that included (though was not limited to) the militarization of international relations embedded in the East–West rivalry. The replication of those tenets went with the grain of a militarized order even as WILPF aimed at the opposite objective. WILPF, however, was not unquestioningly replicating those tenets. In reality, debates were going on all the time. This shows that WILPF was consciously employing critical methodological tools, which eventually allowed a more extensive critique of the international system and the arms race.

Deliberative Inquiry

The 1930s’ WILPF had employed different forms of direct political protest, which often offered the opportunity to cooperate with other international organizations. In the 1940s and 1950s, however, the leaders of the organization felt the need to shift away from those tactics: The mass protests, manifestoes and petitions of the 1930s were no longer adequate, although they were still being used by some organizations. The need now was not so much to protest when an international crime had been committed, as to anticipate the crisis and offer an alternative, practicable policy.89

The shift was due as much to the atmosphere of paranoia generated by the Cold War as to strategic assessments of what political actions would be most effective. The Cold War effects on the organization’s methods are exemplified by the consistent refusal to engage in any sustained and institutional way in cooperative efforts with other women’s organizations. The Red Scare had made WILPF particularly wary of Eastern European organizations.90 In 1957 it rejected an invitation from the Women’s International Democratic Federation (WIDF) to attend its conference in Potsdam out of (the not entirely unfounded) concern that the WIDF was aligned with Soviet Russia.91 The 1960s and 1970s saw the intensification of concerted actions between WILPF and other peace and women’s nongovernment organizations (NGOs), including the WIDF, and the more deliberate and consistent use of direct protest as a form of political action. In the second half of the 1960s, Dorothy Hutchinson initiated a debate on the “effectiveness of [the]

[ 46 ]

Intelligent Compassion

organization.”92 Some members were openly questioning both WILPF’s methods and its principles, which they saw as linked. Some critiqued the organization’s continued reliance on “methods of reason and persuasion,”93 public diplomacy efforts, and government lobbying, especially in the context of international government organizations. They favored more direct forms of action and public protest. Still others rejected these methods as not quite appropriate to WILPF or in harmony with its traditions.94 By 1967 the Red Scare had subsided, and many were ready to involve WILPF more actively in the transnational disarmament movement outside the framework of the UN. At the IEC meeting that year, disagreements centered on whether WILPF should join the International Confederation for Disarmament and Peace. US member Elise Boulding thought it imperative that WILPF strengthen contacts with organizations on the other side of the Iron Curtain. A naturalized US citizen born in Norway, Boulding was a devout Quaker and pacifist, a sociologist, and a matriarch of peace research. She strongly believed in developing women’s networks and in the untapped potential of women to develop cultures of peace in the world.95 The Australian section agreed with Boulding, but Gertrude Baer (with French member Yvonne Sée and Japanese member Fujiko Isono) wanted WILPF to maintain independence from organizations with a “partisan agenda” and reserve the right to decide whether to join their efforts until WILPF Congress met.96 A decision was tabled in this instance, but the discussion is relevant because it was starting to become clear that some leaders of WILPF were becoming progressively uncomfortable with a position of distance from other organizations. WILPF members so far had participated as observers at other organizations’ meetings. Sometimes WILPF maintained a loose form of association with umbrella organizations, but leaders favoring a stricter and more consistent form of cooperation with other organizations faced the opposition of others (most notably Gertrude Baer) who wanted to maintain independence. Boulding and other WILPF officials continued to press for greater cooperation with other organizations, and by the 1970s cooperation with other peace organizations, particularly with women’s organizations, became a central feature of WILPF’s activities.97 Individual (especially younger) WILPFers had participated in Women Strike for Peace (WSP) since the early 1960s. This movement gained recognition on November 1, 1961, when thousands of US housewives in sixty cities refused to work for one day and called for an end to the arms race. WSP was one of the first to protest against the Vietnam War and initiate contacts with Soviet and Vietnamese women. While this movement employed maternalist rhetoric to call for disarmament (at least in the United States), it had also very deliberatively developed into a horizontal,

“ E V I DE N C E OF T H I N G S U N S E E N ”

[ 47 ]

nonhierarchical organization. Horizontal and collective decision making has been a mainstay of feminism, though WSP members did not uniformly identify as feminists.98 It was those younger members who were the most ardent critics of both WILPF’s methods and its ideological entrenchment in liberalism.99 Participation in WSP actions was important in favoring WILPF’s future ideational and policy shifts. In fact, the 1960s’ revival of the feminist movement brought WILPF to rethink its relationship with feminism.100 Starting in the 1970s and continuing throughout the 1980s, WILPF became more engaged in various forms of direct protest, participating in the Greenham Common camps, for example. While these actions had been marginal to the organization’s activities in earlier years, they became increasingly prevalent in the 1970s and 1980s, as will be shown in this book’s epilogue. Led by International President Kay Camp, for example, WILPF actively participated in the preparations for the first UN World Conference on the Status of Women that took place in Mexico City in 1975. It also helped launch a series of disarmament campaigns and meetings that focused on women’s role in disarmament and peace. For example, on the occasion of the International Women’s Year in 1975, the WIDF and WILPF cosponsored a seminar on disarmament and peace, which was attended by several peace and women’s NGOs from different parts of the world.101 In 1975 the IEC decided to undertake disarmament actions on International Women’s Day. Finally it declared disarmament issues to be WILPF’s first priorities for the year to come.102 These new initiatives were not simply the consequence of WILPF’s new thinking on disarmament; rather, they made new thinking possible by delivering the contact with outside critics and the opportunity for listening and empathizing with marginalized voices. Direct protest and cooperation with other NGOs, as forms of deliberative inquiry, represented methodological choices that helped change ideologies and policies. Choosing these forms of political action was itself made possible by a changing historical context, but it also had an effect on WILPF ideology. More inclusive, deliberative opportunities by themselves, however, could potentially cause no change of ideas and policies if not for a willingness on the part of WILPF to question both those ideas and the organization’s own methodologies.

Skeptical Scrutiny

The debates over whether or not to cooperate with other organizations are an example of the use of the methodological tool that Brooke Ackerly names “skeptical scrutiny” as applied to WILPF’s own methods. Yvonne Sée had

[ 48 ]

Intelligent Compassion

encountered WILPF while taking refuge in a small village during Vichy France. She joined the organization soon after the war, becoming WILPF’s representative to United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 1965 and International Vice-Chairman in 1972.103 At her first IEC meeting that year, Sée described the strengths and weaknesses of WILPF’s modus operandi. While Sée stressed elements of continuity in WILPF’s work, she also considered it a strength that WILPF “re-evaluate and . . . adjust to new situations.”104 Thus, she saw WILPF’s work as focused on the objectives enshrined in its constitution, as well as continually in progress, and critical of established knowledge. She particularly expressed skepticism toward ideologies (which she saw “as brainwash [sic] in order to serve the establishment”) and the “universal status quo (boundaries, political and national ideologies)” and the need to “not feel bound to a particular viewpoint.”105 The deliberative opportunities created in the 1960s and 1970s favored the expression of skeptical scrutiny of WILPF’s thoughts on disarmament. Though changes in WILPF’s thinking about disarmament began to manifest themselves more visibly in the late 1960s, thanks to a more favorable international environment, there had been many occasions on which dissenting opinions had emerged in internal WILPF debates. From WILPF’s founding through the height of the Cold War, WILPFers had discussed the economic impediments to disarmament and the use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes at various times. Gertrud Woker, a leading Swiss authority on chemical and biological warfare, had been leading WILPF’s efforts “against the misappropriation of science for military purposes since 1924.”106 In 1957, as head of the Committee against Scientific Warfare, she convinced the IEC to issue a resolution condemning “those who profit from the war industry” and asking that governments in all circumstances, even in relation to the “peaceful uses of atomic energy,” . . . consider the life and health of the peoples above the economic advantages and profit interests of a reactor industry which may develop without any such inhibitions.107

The resolution further advocated the exploration of alternative sources of energy, other than nuclear.108 Though worded more mildly than the resolutions of the late 1960s and especially of the 1970s, the statement is indicative of the kinds of skeptical input that WILPF was accepting from some executive members on the political economy of nuclear energy and the potential dangers of nuclear science. The divisions that started to more clearly manifest themselves in the late 1960s over the relationship between the world economy and disarmament

“ E V I DE N C E OF T H I N G S U N S E E N ”

[ 49 ]

centered on whether it was the absence of a legal and political structure for the solution of conflicts that caused the need to arm or whether the arms themselves, and the market that produced them, were the origins of violent conflict. These issues were intensely and openly debated within national sections, as they had been in the 1930s. The Italian section, for example, was divided between those who believed that wars and the necessity for arming were fostered by the absence of legal and political mechanisms to peacefully solve disputes among states and those who believed that “the necessity to market the arms incessantly produced by the industries” caused and fed wars.109 In 1961 WILPF began a “serious study of the economic and social aspects of disarmament.”110 While this initiative was borne out of the concern that disarmament would lead to unemployment,111 it also reflected the extent to which WILPF was willing to inquire into how disarmament and the economy interacted at different levels. Tellingly, the wording of the final document had been changed from “economic consequences” to “economic aspects”112 of disarmament. Dorothy Hutchinson, who later initiated WILPF’s debates on methods and was prominent in supporting the view that the arms race was a consequence of the absence of legal mechanisms for the prevention of war, also strongly believed that a world without violence and war could not be achieved as long as hunger, illiteracy, and a widening gap between the have and the have-nots existed. Though the eventual development of “democratic political institutions” was desirable and conducive to peace in the long run, it could come about only after economic underdevelopment was addressed. In turn, this could not be possible in the presence of the arms race and of economic policies used as “instrument[s] . . . against the Communist bloc rather than for the recipients of that aid.”113 By 1966 WILPF had recognized the existence of powerful economic interests behind the urge to arm, but it was not yet ready to let go of its belief that rational deliberation and education could convince political and economic leaders of the fact that disarmament was in everyone’s interest. In 1966 another IEC resolution condemned “military-industrial interests’” blockage of disarmament negotiations and urged the drafting of a UN Convention against the export of arms across borders.114 The IEC also considered the possibility of “convinc[ing] industrialists that disarmament was not to their disadvantage.”115 Gertrude Baer had closely followed most UN-sponsored disarmament talks and negotiations on behalf of WILPF. In 1972 she expressed frustration and skepticism toward public declarations of goodwill and interstate agreements (specifically the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty I) as public displays with little practical effectiveness, and a dissatisfaction .

[ 50 ]

Intelligent Compassion

with limited-objective agreements that she felt hampered, rather than facilitated, what WILPF had advocated since its birth: universal and total disarmament. Further, she put forward her realization that international politics could not be separated from “certain world-wide industrial monopolies, which control military research, development and policy.”116 The 1960s and 1970s reassessment of WILPF’s thinking about the relationship between women, feminism, and peace was continuously subject to skeptical scrutiny. For example, in 1968 British member Margaret Tims critiqued WILPF’s attention to “women’s issues”: The two causes—of peace and freedom in the general sense and of women’s freedom in the particular sense—are no longer synonymous and should be treated separately. By continuing to link them together, WILPF is falling between two stools and being effective in neither cause. WILPF should therefore decide whether it is to concern itself specifically with women’s freedom, or, as it is now called, the status of women, with a much greater emphasis on the needs of women in the under-developed countries; or whether it is to go on pursuing the general aims of peace and freedom, from a broadly political viewpoint.117

Tims’s letter shows that WILPF did not passively absorb or reproduce the ideological and policy changes that a reinvigorated international feminist movement brought about. Rather, its methodological commitment to skeptical scrutiny made possible reflection on what kind of relation, if any, there was between “women’s freedom” and “the general aims of peace and freedom.” This reflection manifested itself in the policy statements and initiatives of the 1970s,118 and it indicated continuous self-examination of WILPF’s ideas, policies, and methods.

The Role of Social Critics

Many members of WILPF fulfilled the role of inside critics at different times: from Swiss member Hélène Stähelin in 1946, who advocated caution against nuclear energy and the possibilities of science, to Gertrud Woker and her Committee against Scientific Warfare, to Elise Boulding and Edith Ballantyne, who pushed for increased contacts and cooperation among women’s and peace organizations. As seen earlier, the women of the French section were more insistent than others in bringing out economic arguments whenever they spoke about disarmament. For example, at the first International Congress after the war, French member Gabrielle Duchêne expressed her

“ E V I DE N C E OF T H I N G S U N S E E N ”

[ 51 ]

view that “true democracy” was diametrically opposed to an economic system dominated by the power of money (i.e., capitalism).119 It is important to note that the critics’ collective efforts favored ideational and policy changes in WILPF. Individual members who promoted deliberative opportunities, initiated crucial dialogues, or pushed for institutional change were not necessarily ardent supporters of all new policies, ideas, or methods. Increased participation in NGO meetings and increased involvement in joint activities with other organizations meant increased contacts with outside critics, especially people whose views would not otherwise be represented in WILPF. Occasions for such contacts were rare in the 1950s, though WILPF had been in touch with several Japanese women and organizations since the war. In the 1960s Soviet and, in the 1970s, Vietnamese women fulfilled the roles of outside critics when WILPF actively pursued dialogues with them that had profound impacts on the organization. Finally, WILPF members who participated in WSP fulfilled the roles of multisited critics in that they promoted sustained discussions over WILPF’s own methods. WILPF remained (and remains) plagued by a chronic paucity of Third World members, which might have contributed to the relative absence of policies and discussions regarding small arms during this period. Third World members did not appear with any regularity in the organization’s discussions and memos around disarmament questions.

Intelligent Compassion

Meetings with women from the non-Western world might have led WILPF nowhere if not for another methodological tool, which Dorothy Hutchinson described in detail during her speech as outgoing WILPF Chairman to the 1968 Congress. Her description warrants a lengthy quote: Jane Addam’s greatness lay in her rare combination of two qualities . . . These are Intelligence—the mental capability which sets man apart, and Compassion— the emotional capability which enables Man, by an effort of his imagination, to feel suffering which is not his own, so acutely that he is compelled to act to relieve it. . . . The function of WILPF has always been to study public policy, to make moral judgments based on imaginative identification with those who are victimized by inhuman public policies, and to educate ourselves and others for effective political action to change these policies. . . . We have demonstrated that an enlightened and courageous minority can be the seed of social progress by consistently opposing laws, institutions and customs which glorify power

[ 52 ]

Intelligent Compassion

and prestige above human values. We have thus enabled our members to exercise their right to be fully human. “To express and to implement intelligent compassion is a human right.”120

This kind of “intelligent compassion” described by Hutchinson is not unlike a methodology that Christine Sylvester has called “empathetic cooperation” in feminist international relations121 and is part of the methodological repertoire of feminist social scientists in general.122 I would also argue that “intelligent compassion” is a necessary element of a feminist critical methodology for social change, as it brings “silent voices” to the fore.123 Whenever the women of WILPF met with outside critics, they often applied this practice. My interview with Elise Boulding, who recalled the first meetings with Soviet women, illustrates this: In 1961 WILPF was invited to participate in hosting a group of Soviet women . . . And so that was an extraordinary occasion because we came to see the real heroism of these women who had all survived the war under great, great difficulties, and seen very, very much suffering. And they had violence, more than we in the United States. We hadn’t really seen that kind of violence. We hadn’t been overseas. And they spoke with such—they had such a strong sense of their role and what they had to do and their calling to build a peaceful society. And they were so open to listening. We were all learning from each other. But we were so impressed with their character, and who they were as people. And so that was an amazing experience.124

Those meetings, as well as earlier meetings with Japanese women and the late 1960s’ and 1970s’ encounters with Vietnamese women, produced lasting changes in WILPF. For example, African American members’ exchanges with Soviet women at their second meeting in 1964 highlighted the connections they saw between racial relations in the United States and international tensions that contributed to a continued arms buildup: At the Moscow Conference, we discussed disarmament ways to strengthen cooperation in the United Nations, and the German problem. But after a school was burned in Alabama, we talked about how the racial turmoil in the United States affects international tension.125

Although initially wary of the way Soviet women seemed “reluctant to speak in any way but generalities about their government’s actions toward peace,” those African American WILPFers exited the meeting with the

“ E V I DE N C E OF T H I N G S U N S E E N ”

[ 53 ]

feeling that the United States “could learn something about race relations from them.”126 It is also worth noting that, according to Joyce Blackwell, African American members from the US section exerted an influence far beyond their marginal representation in the ranks of WILPF since the beginning of the organization. Several African American women served in position of leadership within WILPF US from after the Second World War and into the 1970s. Their numbers dwindled considerably after that decade.127

CONCLUSIONS

WILPF’s early confidence in liberal laws and international institutions was underpinned by a specific gender ideology that privileged a particular conception of both human nature and the international system grounded on masculinist notions of autonomy, freedom, consent, science, and rationality. This, in turn, led WILPF to underplay the role of economic and other structural constraints in shaping states’ policies toward disarmament. This chapter has asked to what extent WILPF participated in the construction of an international order, which was becoming heavily reliant on the arms race, even while ostensibly working against it. To the extent that WILPF did not question the normative underpinnings of that order, it paradoxically played a part in it. At the same time, it was its Achilles’ heel insofar as it was able to question its ideological foundations. In the years 1945 to 1975, WILPF underwent a shift from its entrenchment in liberal modern thought and belief in its institutions to more radical critiques of the international system. WILPF did not arrive at this radical revision of its beliefs and policies suddenly in 1974. Rather, the change was the result of a three-decade-long process, nurtured by the organization’s reliance on a feminist critical methodology composed of guiding criteria, deliberative inquiry, skeptical scrutiny, and intelligent compassion. Feminist critical methodology allowed WILPF not to abandon but to identify and critique the limitations of its ideological foundations in liberalism, thus enabling it to question an international order that was becoming increasingly reliant on the arms race and militarism. In the meantime, WILPF came to recognize law and science as a part of a gender-biased structure of global politics, the deconstruction of which was key to the deconstruction of the arms race. Certainly ideational changes in disarmament questions were not drastic, and the old policies and ideas were not totally abandoned. However, the decade following the 1974 resolution saw an increase of work relating

[ 54 ]

Intelligent Compassion

disarmament to questions of economic justice and of women-centered initiatives.128 Small arms and their impact on women’s lives also became a more consistent preoccupation of WILPF starting in the 1980s up to this day. While it continued to follow and mostly support the intensification of UN-linked disarmament negotiations and conferences, WILPF increasingly shifted its attention toward nongovernmental actions and focused on public initiatives to spread information on the political economy of the arms race.

“ E V I DE N C E OF T H I N G S U N S E E N ”

[ 55 ]

CHAPTER 4

What Is Violence? WILPF and Decolonization

INTRODUCTION

In the years between 1945 and 1975, WILPF, while supporting the selfdetermination of all people, remained paralyzed on the issue of revolutions; the use of violence by liberation movements; and the methods, degrees, and timing of self-rule for colonial territories. This chapter discusses how the organization worked to reconcile its positions on self-determination as an element of peace, with both its ideas about nonviolence (also fundamental to its idea of peace) and its entrenched, but largely unconscious, assumptions about race. It was a 1971 resolution, controversial within WILPF to this day, that openly declared the organization’s support for national liberation struggles while trying to maintain the superiority of nonviolence over violence. This resolution also marked the beginning of heightened self-reflection on issues of race. In this chapter, I show the degree to which WILPF’s policies (or lack thereof) on decolonization depended on its reliance on hierarchical gender(ed) and racial ideologies. I claim that, to the extent that WILPF definition of peace rested on the liberal concept of self-determination, as expressed in and limited by international law and international institutions, WILPF’s idea of peace was itself dependent on (gendered) assumptions about race and the non-European “other.” Finally, I argue that it was through the practice of a consciously feminist critical methodology that WILPF began a process (as yet unfinished) of engagement with anticolonialism and a critical awareness of “‘the intimate enemy’ that colonialism becomes, so thoroughly investing all social relations that even opposition to it remains framed by it.”1 My

purpose is to show that, lacking an intentional and sustained effort at empathetic understanding, feminist critical methodology cannot be truly self-reflective and inclusive. Hence its ability to effect emancipatory social change is severely curtailed. WILPF’s position on the issue of decolonization between 1945 and 1971 passed through three main phases. In the first period, roughly between 1945 and the mid-1950s, WILPF expressed a cautious optimism toward the decolonization process, the trusteeship system, and the future of world community in the wake of decolonization. I argue that this optimism reflected a trust in the liberal international order, which embodied contradictions about the subjects entitled to liberal rights and freedoms and racial assumptions about non-European others. The decolonization movement’s growing strength between the late 1950s and the late 1960s found WILPF divided between those who supported a gradual process toward decolonization and those who advocated the immediate withdrawal of colonizing powers from their remaining colonies and trusteeship territories. Discussions in this period brought racial assumptions to light more explicitly and at the same time enabled members to openly challenge them. Finally, in the late 1960s, WILPF reached a consensus regarding the support of struggles for independence, and that consensus manifested itself in the resolution of 1971. Feminist critical methodology facilitated WILPF’s critical evaluation of its own ideas, assumptions, and policies. While voices of dissent continued to be present and vocal within WILPF, the 1971 resolution was never repealed, and it stands to this day.

RACE, REPRESENTATION, AND DECOLONIZATION

Many scholars have pointed out that European colonial expansion to areas outside of Europe, which started with the 1492 “discovery” of the Americas and continued and intensified through the nineteenth century and well into the twentieth, was made possible by representational practices that depicted precolonized people and history as “primitive, underdeveloped, impoverished, and barbarous and characterized [the colonizers’] own activities as progressive and transformative.”2 Sandra Halperin contends that certain foundational myths about the rise of Europe formed the basis and justification for expansion and colonization of areas outside its borders. According to this myth, a European spirit of discovery and exploration gave rise to both internal economic expansion and development and extraEuropean voyages, which led to the “discovery” of a “backward” world in need of the civilizing mission and of the technological and institutional

W H AT I S V I OL E N C E ?

[ 57 ]

advances that the Europeans could and should share.3 Siba N’Zatioula Grovogui further argues that post-“discovery” Western constructs of nonEuropeans (as primitive, naïve, and endowed with various other characteristics that engendered the need for European guidance) have informed European– African (and by extension other non-European peoples) relations well beyond the colonization era.4 The nineteenth century doctrine of “the sacred trust of civilization,” which expressed the “white man’s burden” to extend civilization to “backward areas,” was codified in international law through Article 22 of the League of Nations,5 which established the mandate system and after the Second World War underpinned the trusteeship system. These systems were more the means by which European powers maintained a measure of control over former colonies than a step toward self-government, as they were publicly portrayed.6 The construction of the “native” as in need of European guidance thus allowed the maintenance of imperial relations at least through the 1940s and 1950s. Mark Salter points out that in the symbolic framework of what he calls the “European geopolitical imaginary,” which he traces back to Enlightenment thinkers, humanity is divided into three categories, each at different stages of civilizational development. This is part of a discourse that assigns to people essential characteristics, framing some as barbarians or savages and others as civilized and hence entitled to different treatments based on those supposedly immutable traits.7 Many feminists highlight that symbolically separating people into hierarchical, mutually exclusive, and unchanging categories is a gendered move that replicates the perceived dichotomy and hierarchical relationship between men and women, thus allowing the reproduction of social relations of super/subordination. Mutually dependent but concurrently opposed pairs such as culture/nature, rational/emotional, progress/ tradition, strong/weak, independent/dependent, and civilized/uncivilized8 are embedded in Western modern thought and have served the interests of imperialism as long as they have been used to characterize non-Western “others,” thus justifying oppression but also the implementation of different policies for people differently sexualized.9 For example, Mrinalini Sinha shows how a Victorian ideal of manliness and the corresponding construction of Bengali men as effeminate, primitive, and incapable of self-government served to legitimize and justify continued British colonialism in nineteenth-century Bengal. Gender relations were also implicated in the strategic construction of hierarchies of people among the colonized, so that “effeminate” Bengali men were represented as inferior to more “masculine” Punjabi and Northern Indian men, who were thus assigned higher political positions.10 Jennifer Milliken and David Sylvan show how, in the conduct of the Vietnam War, policy and strategy options

[ 58 ]

Intelligent Compassion

against South Vietnamese and North Vietnamese adversaries depended on the gender order, insofar as the gender imaginary/discourse of US policymakers determined different treatments for adversaries identified with a different sex: Female-identified South Vietnamese adversaries were viewed as bodies to dominate, while the male-identified North Vietnamese targets were sources of competition, hence targets for annihilation.11 Roxanne Doty observes that, in various North–South encounters, practices of oppression were contradictorily present alongside humanistic and Enlightenment values. This “uneasy coexistence” was made possible by representational practices that constructed hierarchical classifications of human beings with different degrees of entitlement to the ethical standards of the Enlightenment.12 During decolonization, such representational hierarchies allowed colonial authorities to make some anticolonial movements acceptable while making deviant and unacceptable those that demanded access to democracy, liberty, and independence outside a colonial framework. For example, themes of political immaturity, evil, and irrationality that pervaded British writings on the Mau Mau rebellion in mid-twentieth-century Kenya “performed a delegitimating function” for a movement, which refused to accept claims to European superiority and called for the return of stolen lands and the maintenance of indigenous cultural traditions.13 It is important to underscore that imperial and colonial representations have been particularly powerful to the degree to which they have appealed to people outside of or opposed to colonialist/imperialist efforts.14 In fact, to the extent that advocates of self-determination and opponents of colonialism uncritically accepted and reproduced the mutually dependent myths of European modernity and non-European backwardness, they contributed to the perpetuation of the hierarchical and exploitative system, of which these myths are constituent part.15 In doing so, they also reproduced the gender order that legitimized these myths. To the extent that racial representations constituted an important element of colonial relations and a further justification of imperialism,16 their use made even anticolonial activists in the West unaware accomplices to the colonial and imperialist enterprise. During the interwar years, WILPF’s documents show that the idea of an evolution from “backward” to “more advanced” races underpinned its support for the mandate system, while it was nominally espousing the principle of equality of all races.17 WILPF also did not question the organization of territories into mandates of different classes (A to C) with different degrees of capability to self-govern.18 Finally, WILPF advocated immediate independence only on an ad hoc basis in a few resolutions up to the Second World War.19

W H AT I S V I OL E N C E ?

[ 59 ]

WILPF AND DECOLONIZATION The First Phase: 1946 to 1955

According to some historians, the period between the initiation of the Second World War and the beginning of the Cold War in 1950 was a unique instance of “openness to pluralism and tolerance for experimentation,” a period when (together with the atrocities of the war) empires were “unhinged,” when there was no global hegemon or power, and when colonial entities participated in discussions about international questions together with their colonizers.20 After two European-initiated world wars, the idea of Europe as progressive and good became indefensible, at least for the time; hence “The discourse of ‘civilized/barbarian’ unraveled [and] for the first time, Europeans described themselves as barbaric and doubted their capacity for civilization.”21 WILPF, too, lived in this moment; disillusioned about the goodness of Europe after what they had seen and experienced during the Second World War, WILPF women framed the future as the rising of the “common man” and with him22 of “the dependent people of the world.”23 In the first years after the end of the war, paradoxically, there was much optimism about the possibilities of world peace. “No reasonable person can now think of war as a solution,”24 Gertrude Bussey proclaimed at the first postwar International Congress. With her, much of what was left of the leadership of WILPF believed that a new phase of international relations had started with the invention of the atomic bomb, which made the avoidance of war at all costs all the more imperative. Optimism about the conduct of international relations extended to optimism about the development of international law and, especially, of international organizations, in particular (as we have seen) the United Nations. WILPF understood that, in the upsetting of empires following the war, the opportunity to create a world of “peace and freedom” involved the recognition of the “just demands” of colonized people, and WILPF found consensus on both the righteousness and inevitability of self-determination: “We are not so blind as to suppose that when colonialism is overthrown, utopia will emerge, but we maintain both that this demand for national independence is right, and that it is impossible to oppose it successfully.”25 Accordingly, International Congress resolutions condemned military interventions in dependent territories, expressed support for their political and economic independence, and consistently denounced racial discrimination.26 For instance, the 1949 Congress had harsh words for French military attacks in Vietnam: Considering . . . that no prejudice of color, no idea of so-called superiority of the white race should be taken into account, [WILPF] energetically condemns the present military interventions, and requests the French Government to open

[ 60 ]

Intelligent Compassion

negotiations without any further delay with the Government of President Ho Chi Minh, the peoples of Viet Nam always remaining free to elect a government of their choice.27

Support for the self-determination of peoples was, however, neither unconditional nor unlimited, particularly concerning the timing, methods, and, at times, degrees of self-determination. WILPF was unequivocal in its support for the Trusteeship Council and urged that all member States, having recognized the right of Self Government for all Non Self Governing Territories, shall place these territories under the administration of the Trusteeship Council for a limited period of five to ten years, during which time they should gain their complete independence.28

In fact, WILPF could not see any way to attain complete independence for colonial territories other than its gradual achievement under international tutelage. So self-determination went hand-in-hand with economic and political reforms managed by the UN that, by improving the standard of living in colonial territories, would avoid “disastrous consequences.”29 While colonial rule was to be dismantled, WILPF believed that the colonial enterprise had carried with it some positive outcomes “in the spheres of health, education and the normal development of the colonial territories” and that it was up to “the mother country” to prepare “the subject races . . . to assume the complete responsibilities of self-government.”30 Immediate withdrawal could be deleterious for colonized territories and result in chaos.31 Support for the Trusteeship Council and the notion of gradual independence were based on two assumptions: that there existed some categories of people whose civilization was in more advanced stages of development than others and that the former possessed the obligation to “guide” the latter toward modernity and independence. Only once properly prepared would the “subject races” be ready to assume the full responsibility of selfgovernment and the conditions ripe for the development of peaceful and prosperous democracies. These underlying assumptions are evident in many of the official WILPF resolutions and in the reports of its leaders at International Congresses and Executive Committee meetings. The 1949 resolution on Vietnam quoted above, for example, was preceded by the following preamble: considering: that all colonial powers have promised to guide and orientate gradually the indigenous population towards political independence, that several

W H AT I S V I OL E N C E ?

[ 61 ]

such territories, among others the Viet Nam, have arrived at a self-governing state and now request such independence.32

It is also instructive in this regard that a 1953 Congress Report on Race Relations, while critical of notions of racial superiority and their role in producing and justifying colonialism and slavery, also referred to “the extreme backwardness of the Kenya natives” and the need to separate races that could not live together without conflict.33 In calling for UN assistance to “under-developed” countries, the 1952 International Executive Committee (IEC) compared national liberation movements in the Third World to the bourgeois revolutions of eighteenthcentury Europe: The revolutionary movements that are taking place at present in many parts of the continents are comparable to the European agrarian and industrial movements developing since the revolutionary period at the end of the 18th century. In most places such movements have achieved considerable results by raising the standard of living and the cultural possibilities of the groups involved.34

While on the one hand many contemporary historians have indeed emphasized similarities in the political and economic trajectories of postIndustrial Revolution Europe and the twentieth-century Third World, the contention that the Industrial Revolution brought about almost exclusively political, social, and economic advances in Europe is, on the other hand, part of a historiographic myth developed in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries to justify European political and economic domination over the Third World. Instead, capitalism in Europe, as in the contemporary Third World, “produced a socioeconomic system that was capitalist in many institutional aspects of production but feudal in its social relations.”35 While in the 1940s and 1950s WILPF was not a willing participant in the continuation of imperial linkages, by perpetuating such a myth and, as a consequence, faithfully relying on the UN machinery for the achievement of self-determination for colonial entities, it effectively allowed such linkages to stand, at least for the time being. Together with the myth of European cultural superiority came the belief in a hierarchy of dependent peoples. According to French delegate Isabelle Pontheil at the 1949 WILPF Congress, more “evolved” people based their demands for independence on Roosevelt’s liberalism; those more “modest” asked for a limited political participation “for the most enlightened” among them.36 These views were shared by Gertrude Baer—at the time WILPF’s representative to the UN in Geneva, who closely followed the work of the

[ 62 ]

Intelligent Compassion

Trusteeship Council on behalf of WILPF.37 Her reports formed the basis for WILPF resolutions in matters of self-determination in this decade, an indication of widespread agreement among leading members of WILPF on such matters. Baer thought that the reports of five administering authorities to the Trusteeship Council gave “evidence of a genuine effort on the part of the [administering authorities] to develop the territory and to improve existing conditions,” although political, economic, social, and educational “advancements” were limited at best.38 Baer also thought that a qualitative difference existed between the trusteeship system and the League of Nations’ mandate system, in that the mere existence and participation of former colonies such as the Philippines and Iraq, for example, compelled some compliance with international regulations on the part of administering authorities. Moreover, Baer thought that the trusteeship system had already proved that it could “make a contribution to the development of political consciousness and responsibility among the natives.”39 In reality, petitions from “natives” to the Trusteeship Council denounced the increased exploitation of their territories and a worsening of colonial relations.40 While WILPF was sometimes critical of the colonial powers’ and the administering authorities’ methods and intentions, Orientalist and gendered beliefs about the progress of civilizations interacted with a belief in international law and institutions and prevented the organization from questioning the existence and motivation of the trusteeship system.41 WILPF was also extremely concerned about the possibility that quests for national independence could result in international or civil wars. The women thought it paramount that violence be avoided at all costs; hence they strongly condemned the use of force and military intervention to maintain or conquer dependent territories, and they supported negotiations and international talks. They were particularly impressed by Mohandas Gandhi’s leadership in South Africa and India. Prompted by Emily Greene Balch (who at the time held the title of Honorary President), in 1951 the IEC established a committee to study nonviolent resistance in view of supporting “those movements within each nation which seek to resolve tensions and to work by non-violent means for those conditions in their own countries which can assure peace and freedom.”42 But, in this first postwar decade, WILPF had only just started to reexamine the relationship between nonviolence, peace, and freedom, and members pondered whether peace and freedom could be achieved by violent methods or whether only nonviolence could guarantee lasting peace and freedom for all.43 In fact, while they supported nonviolent liberation movements, they refrained from issuing condemnations of specific military-inspired nationalist movements.44 In

W H AT I S V I OL E N C E ?

[ 63 ]

the following years, WILPF was to divide along the violence/nonviolence line, and, for some, the choice of violent versus nonviolent methods would become a litmus test for judging the legitimacy of national liberation movements. In the early 1950s, when tensions between the Soviet Union and the United States showed no signs of abating, WILPF became increasingly disillusioned about the intentions of colonial powers. In fact, as the Cold War dragged on, the women decried that the East–West division framed, delimited, and determined all other international issues, including the national independence question for the colonized,45 and praised the 1955 First Asian–African Conference in Bandoeng as a watershed representing the development of “newer and better forms of relationship” between newly independent states.46 Calls for a loosening of colonial ties acquired new urgency: Taking a survey of the conditions in the colonial world, the W.I.L.P.F. thinks that it is of the utmost importance that the powers should immediately loosen the ties between them and their colonies. Regardless of the political and cultural development of the colonies the highest possible degree of independence and political freedom should be established in order to avoid bloodshed, apply universal democratic principles and prevent subject peoples being used as pawns in political struggles.47

It should be clear by now that WILPF’s attitudes toward decolonization reflected a struggle with inherent and sometimes unconscious contradictions: At the same time that the organization proclaimed its support for the independence of colonies, stemming from its belief in the equality of races, it also accepted as true the “sacred trust of civilization” handed down from the prewar period and its underlying assumption that certain categories of people were less advanced than others (hence the obligation on the part of the more advanced to guide the others toward their own betterment). Thus it supported the Trusteeship Council’s timelines and limits on the independence of colonial territories. This support withered as the first postwar decade drew to an end. Both increased self-criticism, and the heightened visibility of, and attention paid to, the voices of peoples in newly independent regions were at the origins of this decline.

The Second Phase: 1956–1966

Gertrude Baer’s experience at the Bandoeng Conference was transformative, but Baer was not the only one to view the rise of a nonaligned camp with optimism: A few of the most active members of WILPF shared her

[ 64 ]

Intelligent Compassion

enthusiasm for a movement that, in their view, was far from representing a “third bloc.” Rather, they felt that the conference had proved that “unanimity on important decisions” was possible in the context of avoiding “hostility and the formation of an inimical front directed against other states.” They viewed the group of countries represented in Bandoeng as peace brokers between the USSR and the United States and as “floating” states that on many occasions had “tried to reconcile existing differences or declared their neutrality on any given problem.”48 Therefore, the growth of UN membership as a consequence of the decolonization process raised some WILPF women’s hopes. It seemed that the participation of newly independent countries in world affairs, as full members of the UN, would lead to a different way of conducting international politics. The hope was that the old East–West ideological rivalries and power politics would fade as the nonaligned countries “assume[d] the role of mediator between the great powers.” In turn, this shift would transform the UN from being primarily an instrument of collective security (which has become a series of security systems dividing the two sides) to one which, we hope will be used to settle disputes peacefully, and one that will be used for the political, economic and social advancement of all people.49

Although part of WILPF leadership was increasingly stressing the urgency of decolonization, it still maintained its fundamental trust in the UN system and its eventual progress. In 1956 US member Gladys Walser, who had replaced Gertrude Bussey as WILPF’s representative to the UN General Assembly in New York, found both plausible and understandable colonial powers’ claims that Africans had yet to “awaken” and that their “economic and social advancement” had to be assisted by the rest of the world. She attributed the slow progress of decolonization only partly to “political expediency or economic advancement.” She thought that in fact some delegates “sincerely believe[d] that in the best interests of the indigenous populations, the changes must not come too rapidly as they emerge from slavery to freedom.”50 Baer, Walser, Japanese member Tano Jodai, and others began to support both the nonaligned movement and a General Assembly where Third World countries were in the majority. However, others started voicing concerns about nationalist struggles and the visibility of colonialism as an issue that, in their view, inappropriately dominated the workings of the UN. In fact, this decade is marked by incipient divisions within WILPF regarding decolonization, violence by nationalist movements, and WILPF’s

W H AT I S V I OL E N C E ?

[ 65 ]

principles. As decolonization moved to Africa and armed conflicts fueled by the Cold War broke out in numbers around the world, some members were starting to think about violence as both personal and structural.51 Others’ positions, however, seemed to crystallize on this issue, and these members were adamant in condemning direct violence but minimized the import and consequences of other forms of violence. These two different approaches also corresponded with two attitudes toward WILPF’s principles, programs, and priorities regarding decolonization in a Cold War context. They are well exemplified by the disagreements that emerged over the Algerian war of independence.

WILPF and the Algerian War

The Algerian armed resistance to French colonization started to receive increased attention during the latter half of the 1950s. Lacking any Algerian representative in WILPF, it fell on French members to describe and offer assessments of the conflict to the organization. This task was primarily fulfilled by Andrée Jouve. As one of only two French women to attend the 1919 Congress in Zürich, Jouve was among the founding members of WILPF. She was a teacher who had sympathized with the French resistance to Nazi occupation and the Vichy regime. She served in WILPF IEC from 1946 to 1949 and was WILPF’s representative to the UNESCO from 1947 to 1965.52 Jouve became one of the most visible and outspoken advocates of a position within the organization that claimed that no political, economic, social, or historical circumstances could justify the recourse to violence or make it inevitable or understandable; decolonization had to be achieved through gradual, nonviolent, and “intelligent” means and did not necessarily mean total independence; colonization had produced mostly positive effects, which needed to be preserved; decolonization’s adverse consequences partly manifested themselves in a Third World–dominated UN and its agencies; and a departure from the principles of absolute nonviolence and political and civil rights would mean betrayal of WILPF’s very raison d’être.53 In her “Report on Some African Problems,” presented at the 1957 IEC, Jouve characterized the Algerian revolt as a “murderous raid” of “isolated tribes” started in 1954 and fueled by Egypt and by the influx of arms from Tunisia. According to Jouve, propaganda work among “the dissatisfied and the unemployed” made an increasing percentage of the population “accomplices of 20 to 30,000 fellaghas” (the Algerian rebels who later organized

[ 66 ]

Intelligent Compassion

into the National Liberation Front [FLN]) dedicated to terrorist attacks against Muslims and Europeans alike and “stupid” acts of sabotage against the infrastructure of the country. Jouve portrayed precolonial Algeria as a desolate land, transformed by the agricultural and industrial engineering of the French, whose sole mistakes had been the underestimation of the consequences of modernization (i.e., population growth that was disproportionate to the country’s ability to absorb unemployment and provide food for all) and the failure to adequately promote the French-educated indigenous elite (the évolués) to positions of responsibility in the administration of the territory. While the FLN was a terrorist organization, the “intransigence” of European “minorities” was a reaction to the “considerable losses of lives and money” and to “perpetual fear and anguish.” Algerian independence would not only be opposed by “Algerians of European descent” but also by the French of the metropole, whose “generosity” and “great sacrifices” alone could improve Muslim Algeria’s “situation of under-developed country.”54 Jouve’s views on Algeria clearly reflected her opinions of Africa, the Africans (in particular Muslim Africans), and the effects and consequences of colonization: Jouve felt that colonization had mixed results but that it was necessary (because it represented a “revolution” required for Africa to develop) and had resulted in “relative good for the primitive populations.” Jouve was ostensibly quoting 1952 Nobel Peace Prize recipient Albert Schweitzer with the apparent intent to persuade the IEC to support her position. WILPF as a whole had a profound admiration for the Alsatian philosopher/musician/physicist/theologian/pacifist, with whom they professed to share an ethics of “reverence for life.”55 Schweitzer was, however, a complex figure, whose writings also reflect a “moral paternalism” toward Africans that is rarely acknowledged in Western moral iconography and who believed in the “moral” imperative of the European civilizing mission to Africa.56 Jouve clearly continued to believe in the superiority (or higher civilizational development) of Europeans and, as a consequence, in the moral duty of Europeans to spread and “help” maintain such advances in “backward” Africa. Jouve’s beliefs had important gender dimensions too: African backwardness was manifested for her in the treatment and situation of African women, who were “attached to tribal and fetishist traditions”: But now it would be necessary that women receive an education just as men do; that, if they vote, they know how and why, that they don’t shy away (they and their children) from medical care and basic hygiene. The more the men develop, the more they will ask the women to become their equal.57

W H AT I S V I OL E N C E ?

[ 67 ]

African women were seen as the symbol and proof of African backwardness, as “constituting the ‘essence’”58 of African culture. This provided the justification for the civilizing mission of the French: By allowing Africa to be led toward the development of liberal democratic institutions,59 modeled after the French metropole, WILPF would also contribute to the goals of global sisterhood.60 Contrary to Jouve’s assessment, however, while the 1946 constitution of the Fourth Republic had guaranteed women’s suffrage and nominal equality with men, French citizenship for women of the colonies was conditional on their father’s or husband’s consent, based on an “imperial fantasy” that constructed African “traditional” society in opposition (and inferior) to “modern” France.61 Thus the subjection of women in the colonies was reinforced, rather than challenged, by the practices of colonization. Moreover, it was disingenuous (or, at the very least, erroneous) of Jouve to proclaim that Algerians enjoyed full equality with French citizens of the metropole. The Lamine Guèye Law had extended rights of citizenship to colonial subjects in 1946 and was intended by its Senegalese author as an act that fundamentally established full equality for all subjects of France. However, in practice colonial subjects had been granted a “separate but equal” status, not unlike that of African-Americans in the US.62 Of this Jouve must have been aware but did not mention. So, though the time had come for decolonization, Jouve thought that it was in the interest of all, and in the first place of those who still need guidance and collaboration, that the de-colonisation shall proceed reasonably and without violence; that passionate propaganda against colonizers—as if every people had not contributed to colonization at some time or other in their history!—shall not prevent an intelligent de-colonisation with the time necessary to do it. Long and patient work must be done in countries which have been colonized and cannot return to their pre-colonial conditions without the loss of many precious acquirements.63

As a consequence, Jouve lauded the transition to the “French-African communauté” that had taken place in French West Africa, and she posited it in contrast to the violence in which Algeria was mired.64 Algerian independence would mean the abandonment of the sacred and just mission handed over by the French Revolution’s Declaration on the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789: It was the western philosophers, from among the oldest nations, steeped in Greco-Latin and Judeo-Christian antiquity, who first became aware of the natural

[ 68 ]

Intelligent Compassion

rights of man—a universal birthright for which society must enforce respect, encouragement and development; through intelligent measures society must create good examples and spread them over the world. . . . What was needed was to define these rights, then to enforce their observance and application, not only in a small area bordered by the Atlantic and the Mediterranean, but everywhere in the world.65

Jouve’s observations were eerily similar to the rhetoric employed by contemporary French advocates of a reformed colonialism that would include the “political and economic emancipation of the natives.”66 It must also be noted that French advocates of colonization and the évolués (who for a while advocated self-determination for Africa as autonomy in federation with France) shared ideas about French and African “authentic” societies and their “essential” differences. These ideas were sharply criticized by anticolonial writer, activist, and FLN revolutionary Franz Fanon, who presaged they would lead to the “mummification” of African societies and the “valorization” of imperialism’s roles.67 Eventually, many of the évolués became the leaders of their countries of origin at independence, but they did not fundamentally alter colonial structures or implement needed social reforms, particularly in regard to labor and women.68 Jouve felt that the increased membership in international governmental organizations, which was a result of decolonization, had made these organizations bureaucratic monsters, unable to cope with the many differences among countries.69 Similarly, in 1966 British member Mary Nuttall had strong doubts about the effectiveness of a larger UN: In her report about her work at the UN Economic and Social Council meeting on slavery, she explained how the concern of the African countries about Apartheid and Colonialism [was] dominating all the work of the United Nations and so obstructing much of the steady work for social reform in many fields. The newly independent countries [i.e., African countries] [were] now so numerous that if they [stood] together they [could] force their own desires on the UN to the exclusion of other members’ concerns.70

Nuttall was concerned about the possible “misuse” of the organization, and her report often used sarcastic tones to refer to African and Arab delegates who advocated a definition of slavery that included colonialism and apartheid. Other members of WILPF were beginning to critically reformulate their positions. From as far from Algeria and France as New York, Gladys Walser gave a different assessment of Algerian situation:

W H AT I S V I OL E N C E ?

[ 69 ]

Algeria has been a crucible in which France has tried to work out her theory of “assimilation,” which ideally is an affirmation of the equalitarianism of the French Revolution as well as a guarantee that people under French dominion overseas and at home would have all the rights of citizenship. In actual practice assimilation has not worked. Real assimilation assumes equality and that equality is denied in the relationship of Algeria to France.71

Walser continued her report by pointing out the many ways in which Algerian men and women were denied equal treatment politically and economically. She also made it clear that, because all “genuine nationalist organizations” in Algeria had been banned, it was impossible to assess the amount of support that the FLN enjoyed from the population. She then went on to describe the debate that had taken place in the First Committee of the General Assembly, a debate that centered on the proposed affirmation of the “right of self-determination of peoples as a fundamental human right”72 and that saw the French representative to the UN opposed to African and most of the Asian nations. Walser viewed the Committee’s compromise resolution positively as a sign that “a greater spirit of conciliation seemed to prevail,” but she held no illusion that it could “bring a solution [of the conflict] any nearer.” However, it was both clear and encouraging for WILPF representative that “the diplomatic language cannot obscure the firm stand of the majority against both the use of violence and the practice of outworn colonial policies.”73 Walser’s views of the Algerian question differed in significant ways from Jouve’s in that whereas she still held the opinion that negotiations were preferable to the continuation of violence, she also thought that selfdetermination was a collective human right; that colonialism was a form of violence; and that no amount of rhetoric about equality, democracy, or human rights could make up for practices that denied those very principles. By this time Gertrude Baer had also become more clearly supportive of these views: In her 1959 report, for example, she compared the First AllAfrican People’s Conference with the Bandoeng Conference and manifested her positive opinion of African people’s struggles for independence. As with the Bandoeng Conference, Baer expressed great confidence in the Accra event’s proceedings and results and in its independence from power blocs.74 Likewise, Dorothy Hutchison viewed it as a mistake of the West to view revolutionary movements in new countries as “Communist-inspired” and to support dictators and colonial powers “rather than supporting the struggles for freedom and independence.”75 Hutchinson was part of a group of WILPF leaders who took part in WILPF Commission on Political Settlements at the Stockholm Congress in 1959. In reference to the Algerian

[ 70 ]

Intelligent Compassion

situation and to “all those countries struggling for nationhood,” the Commission sharply criticized the racism of governments, which they viewed as an obstacle to “give earnest consideration” to claims of self-determination. In addition, while stressing that nonviolent resistance had become necessary in a world risking nuclear annihilation, and discussing whether nonviolence was “suited to the western temperament and tradition,”76 the group referred to injustice as a major cause of violence. Hence they concluded that to overcome violence, injustice and “other causes of discontent” had to be eliminated.77 It is important to note that, as mentioned in the previous chapter, the Cold War context significantly influenced many WILPFers’ attitudes toward decolonization in general and toward the Algerian conflict in particular. Fears of both communism and being accused of communism colored their opinions of less than absolutely nonviolent independent movements. But while these criticisms found fertile ground with some of the women, others explicitly refused to give in to red-baiting. As a result of these differences, WILPF produced policies that, while trying to accommodate all views, were worded in general and vague terms that effectively undermined its stand on the question of decolonization. At the 1957 IEC, fundamental disagreements on Algeria between Andrée Jouve and other members of the French section emerged. In response, a committee drew up a compromise statement that called for the eventual creation of a “North African Community, partly accommodating Jouve’s suggestions of a Franco–North African Community” along the French West African model.78 A diatribe surfaced again in 1960 when Jouve’s attempt to have the IEC include a statement on the protection of European minorities in the resolution on Algeria found Indian IEC member Sushila Nayar adamantly opposed. In this case the compromise wording included mention of the “rights of all minorities” while also recognizing the Algerians’ right to self-determination.79 The two positions continued to clash throughout the 1960s around other decolonization issues. For example, in 1964 the IEC discussed supporting possible sanctions against South Africa’s apartheid regime. US member Nell Greaves opposed sanctions against a government that was endorsed by a majority of whites on the grounds that they would lead to civil war. Several members of the IEC, on the other hand, questioned what kinds of sanctions would be the most effective but not whether or not to support them.80 Gertrude Baer was among the most vehement IEC members to advocate for a total oil embargo; she also suggested that WILPF ask government representatives at the UN to walk out when a South African representative spoke. Baer felt that, although this sort of action might induce South Africa to withdraw from the UN (thus violating a 1963 WILPF

W H AT I S V I OL E N C E ?

[ 71 ]

resolution against any actions that would “force or induce” a state to leave the UN), the walk-out was rendered necessary by South Africa’s “continued flagrant violation of human rights.”81 A walk-out was preferable to “remaining and appearing to give support” to the apartheid state. Divisions on this were, however, deep enough to prevent a resolution on the lines advocated by Baer at this time. WILPF instead passed a compromising statement, urging the United Nations (unless the situation in the Republic improves) strongly to recommend all its Member States, at whatever financial sacrifice to themselves, to apply, after November 1964, a total oil embargo on the Republic of South Africa, in order to induce a change in its present inhumane policies and practices.82

Finally, in 1966 the US section of WILPF proposed to the IEC two resolutions that would reaffirm the organization’s commitment to selfdetermination as a necessary element of peace and to the principle of universality of membership in the UN.83 These resolutions had their origins in a 1958 report on Asia by Elizabeth Weideman, which indicated very strongly the author’s (and the US section’s) opinion that violence in “underdeveloped countries” would “never cease until the gap between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’ [was] considerably decreased” and that the ideological divisions between East and West were secondary to this most pressing problem.84 As early as 1958, then, the US section was starting to undertake an economic critique of the international system and viewing problems of structural violence as unavoidably bringing about direct violence. Neither of these proposed resolutions was adopted by the 1966 IEC,85 indicating the continuing presence of divisions in the organization’s leadership at the time.

The Third Phase: The Late 1960s to 1975

By the mid-1960s: national liberation movements had propelled themselves to the forefront of the international agenda; The Johnson administration had escalated US involvement in Vietnam; two racist regimes (Rhodesia and South Africa) were engaged in the violent repression of their respective African nationalist movements; and the US civil rights struggle was in full swing and had garnered both the activism of the US section of WILPF and the attention of the international WILPF. This international context fostered WILPF’s further self-reflection on the meaning of peace as it related to decolonization and freedom. A 1971 statement marked one of the salient moments in a process of slow but steady disentanglement from unquestioned assumptions about

[ 72 ]

Intelligent Compassion

peace, freedom, race, and gender. It had been introduced on behalf of the US section by US Quaker Dorothy Steffens at the 1970 IEC meeting as a proposed resolution on “World Revolution.”86 Steffens emphasized that the proposal reaffirmed WILPF’s traditional support for nonviolence but also “accepted that oppressed people feel a need for revolution.” The US section was supported in this by Sushila Nayar. After an unnamed IEC colleague criticized the resolution for inaccurately and inappropriately quoting Gandhi, Nayar clarified that “while Gandhi had been against violence, he also held that those who can be silent witnesses to injustice will never develop the non-violence of the brave.”87 She could speak with authority on the subject: Nayar had been Mohandas Gandhi’s personal physician. Later, she also served in the Delhi State Assembly and in the lower house of the Indian Parliament. She was Delhi Minister of Health from 1952 to 1955 and India’s Minister of Health from 1962 to 1967.88 The resolution proposed by the US section was somewhat revised by the resolution committee of the IEC and then sent to the national sections for consideration, with a view to discussing it more fully during the following Congress.89 After three days of intense debate,90 WILPF Congress in Delhi issued the following statement: A society that is military and exploitative generates movements for rapid change towards social justice. It is a human right to resist injustice and to be neither silent witness nor passive victim of repression. Although we reaffirm our belief that violence creates more problems than it solves, we recognize the inevitability of violent resistance by the oppressed when other alternatives have failed.91

The same Congress denounced colonialism as “an absolute violation of the Charter of the United Nations.”92 In 1972 the IEC further specified that so long as the system of exploitation, privilege and profit continues, so long will the “have-nots” struggle for their just share and so long will the “haves” use violence to maintain and extend their privileged position. To end war, an economy must be built which will serve human needs rather than private profits.93

Finally, the 1974 Congress strongly pronounced itself against discrimination, “cultural assimilation,” and “neo-colonialism in all its forms and wherever it occurs,” calling for the withdrawal of governments’ support for and aid to repressive regimes. Moreover, it recommended that national sections and the international WILPF

W H AT I S V I OL E N C E ?

[ 73 ]

promote in the overdeveloped nations from which so many of its members come, education about the finite nature of world resources and everyone’s responsibility to see that they will be shared equally.94

Several differences between these statements and previous resolutions by WILPF deserve note. 1. The 1970s statements unequivocally identified “injustice” (i.e., structural violence) as a cause of violence rather than attributing the outbreak of violence to a generically stated inability to solve disputes peacefully (owing to unwillingness or lack of proper legal and political instruments). 2. They appealed to an economic ethic, rather than to ideas of political and civil rights, and equated injustice with unequal distribution of resources and material wealth across the globe (economic rights). 3. They proclaimed resistance to injustice to be a human right rather than solely relying on the human rights explicitly mentioned in the UN Declaration and Covenants. 4. While affirming the superiority of nonviolence, for the first time they declared the use of violence inevitable under certain circumstances.95 5. They firmly positioned WILPF on the side of “the oppressed” rather than maintaining the conciliatory role it had assumed in the previous decade. 6. They affirmed it a duty of WILPFers to reflect and educate themselves on their privileged position rather than proclaiming the superiority of Western culture and calling for the education of “underdeveloped” people. WILPF had effectively reached a consensus that reflected profound ideological changes. As in the case of disarmament, it had not arrived at these new policies suddenly. These were the result of a long transformative process, one that saw WILPF leaders and members debate these questions while trying to understand the world around them. These shifts in the organization’s policies reflected an increased self-awareness and critique of a long-held ideological framework. They also intersected with changing policies about cooperation and contacts with women and organizations across the Iron Curtain and in conflict countries. This coincided with a resurgence of the international feminist movement and the influx of new and younger WILPF members and leaders as a consequence of mass mobilization in the West against the Vietnam War. But the seeds of these changes had been planted much earlier by Gertrude Baer, Gladys Walser, Dorothy Hutchinson, and others. During the course of the previous two decades, they had reassessed their and the organization’s earlier positions anchored in the imperialist foundations of international law and organizations.

[ 74 ]

Intelligent Compassion

METHODOLOGY

The ideational and policy shift of the 1970s was the result of a gradual self-reflexive process facilitated by WILPF’s commitment to a feminist critical methodology. Members wrestled with their own assumptions about race and decolonization as they related to its understanding of its fundamental beliefs about peace and freedom in a historical context that had profoundly changed during the thirty years of the study. WILPF was influenced by the international structure, but it was also able to assert a certain degree of agency and, in doing so, affect institutional change. The unstated assumptions of the 1940s and 1950s that led to WILPF’s uncritical support of the Trusteeship Council were challenged through efforts to exercise skeptical scrutiny. However only when the late 1960s brought a critical mass of new members, committed to listening to the voices of outside and multisited critics to partially make up for the chronic scarcity of institutionalized inclusive deliberations, did WILPF radically change its views about peace as they related to questions of decolonization and racism. The ideological and policy changes of the 1960s were facilitated by some members’ commitment to subject the organization’s methods to skeptical scrutiny, thus bringing to the fore how the absence of adequate representation of voices outside WILPF’s traditional constituencies influenced the organization’s ideologies and policies. Moreover, the lack of representation made it imperative that skeptical scrutiny be complemented by intelligent compassion lest marginalized voices be misunderstood or unheard. In this next section, I briefly illustrate how WILPF’s feminist critical methodology related to the ideological and policy changes the organization went through starting in the late 1960s.

Guiding Criteria

Self-determination was among the principles on which WILPF was created and formed part of its resolutions and statements, dating back to the first International Women’s Committee of Permanent Peace at The Hague in 1915.96 Self-determination was seen as an element of freedom, which was in turn indissolubly connected to peace. The founders of WILPF had, in fact, purposely included “freedom” in the nascent organization’s name because, in the words of a delegate at the 1915 Congress, “only in freedom is permanent peace possible.”97 WILPF’s thinking in this regard revolved around three core beliefs: (a) peace was conditional on the achievement of equality between races (as well as between men and women), (b) peace was

W H AT I S V I OL E N C E ?

[ 75 ]

conditional on the achievement of freedom, and (c) freedom meant the realization of both self-determination and human rights. As I have shown, WILPF’s articulation and interpretation of these three beliefs underwent several changes and were subject to numerous debates between the late 1940s and the mid-1970s.

Deliberative Inquiry

As a primarily Western organization whose membership was organized according to nation-states, WILPF was not well equipped for inclusivity in deliberations regarding decolonization. As an organization with consultative status with the UN, it had access to a variety of views but only to the extent that these views were represented at the UN. Before the 1960s, however, the UN was itself hardly a mirror of the world’s population, and, after decolonization was completed, its state-centered liberal framework also limited inclusive deliberative possibilities. Nevertheless, many WILPF leaders were conscious of the implications of these limitations and consistently sought input from a variety of sources. Gertrude Baer, for example, was indefatigable in her efforts to have WILPF represented at the largest possible number of international governmental meetings, most notably the Bandoeng and Accra Conferences. For example, in 1959 WILPF sent an official delegation to the Second United Nations Conference of Nongovernment Organizations on the Eradication of Prejudice and Discrimination held in Geneva. Members of this delegation included Gertrude Baer, African American member of WILPF IEC Flemmie Kittrell, and Sushila Nayar.98 A Rome seminar on women and public life in 1966 prompted Baer to harshly criticize WILPF’s sections for having lost the ability to communicate and interact with women such as the ones that were represented in Rome, women whom she described as “people outside their social circle.” She added, “This kind of contacts are [sic] the stimulus and enrichment which is now completely lacking in our own WILPF International. This is one of the many other reasons why we circle around our tiny circles, alas!”99 As seen in the previous chapter, though Baer had opposed cooperation with women’s organizations, WILPF increasingly sought it out through the 1960s and 1970s. Such cooperation and the establishment of regular contacts across the Iron Curtain partially made up for WILPF’s chronic paucity of members from the Third World. Similarly, WILPF US contacts with Vietnamese women, Dorothy Hutchinson’s friendship with Coretta Scott King, and the influence of African American women brought about a critique of the Vietnam War that connected it to

[ 76 ]

Intelligent Compassion

racial and economic injustice in the United States.100 Moreover, the US section of WILPF emphasized the adverse consequence of war for women and their moral responsibility to bring about peace.101 These arguments were clearly indebted to and expanded on those of Martin Luther King Jr., but they were unfamiliar and not entirely clear to non-US members. Their requests for clarifications at the 1967 IEC meeting spurred yet another deliberative moment.102

Skeptical Scrutiny

While increasingly inclusive moments of deliberative inquiry favored WILPF’s reflection about the intersection between race, gender, economic justice, and peace, alone they were not enough to provoke institutional or personal change. Only to the extent that WILPF women were willing to subject their unstated assumptions about race, liberal political thought, and the international economic system to a self-reflexive process (hence exercising skeptical scrutiny) could they also feel compelled to challenge and modify their interpretation of their guiding criteria. WILPF had not been blind to its own inherent racism and classism. At the 1946 Congress, Gertrude Bussey stated, It is hard for people who look[,] as most of us in this group look[,] to accept the fact that the white race is not naturally superior. We may theoretically accept this fact on the basis of both science and religion, but actually there is usually hidden in the back of our minds some vestige of prejudice which is likely to reveal itself in action.103

The women of WILPF knew that awareness of racism would not necessarily translate into policy changes unless that awareness brought about a willingness to continuously scrutinize their own actions. Gertrude Baer summed up this urge as follows: It seems sometimes that WILPF, too, might do a little more to help maintain flexibility in a world which is growing increasingly uniform, dull and inflexible. This very inflexibility of thought and action is a real threat to Freedom since Freedom derives from and grows and develops in differentiation. Therefore we want constant revision and re-shaping of what we are doing. Sterility is the death of all movement. But it has, alas, crept into our own work, our own International Center.104

W H AT I S V I OL E N C E ?

[ 77 ]

A Hutchinson-initiated dialogue about the organization’s effectiveness brought forward the criticism that WILPF had compromised its principles by diluting its critiques of the capitalist system, the abolishment of which was the only hope to create “the economic conditions necessary for both peace and freedom.” The same debate also highlighted the fact that some members were asking themselves and WILPF to what extent peace and freedom could at times be at odds and whether it was in fact necessary to prioritize freedom over peace in cases where war was perceived to be the only way to restore freedom.105 Elise Boulding’s election as international chairman and Sushila Nayar as one of the vice-chairmen in 1968 also marked heightened efforts at expanding WILPF to other areas of the world and engaging in discussions on how the organization’s own structure, methods, and ideology hampered the participation of women outside the traditional geographical, racial, and class limitations of its member base.106 Skeptical scrutiny further reinforced awareness about the need to expand deliberative opportunities. For instance, Elise Boulding’s correspondence with Dorothy Steffens (who had moved to Nigeria in 1968107) and her efforts to share such correspondence with the Executive Committee aimed not at giving WILPF a portrait of the essential or typical “African woman” but at educating its members on the complexities of African societies, at helping them understand African perspectives on “white men,” and at exploring the possible avenues of cooperation with women in Africa.108 At the 1968 Congress, Steffens pointed out that it was “symptomatic of the problems” of WILPF that “a white woman from North America” like herself should be asked to speak about “new ways of working in Africa.”109 In Steffens’s view, the League was failing to be relevant to most women, and especially to women in the developing world, due to both organizational weaknesses and inadequate program priorities. Organizationally, WILPF was lacking in mechanisms to guarantee the continuity of contacts between Congresses, to cultivate the leadership of younger women, and to increase and maintain contacts and cooperation with women’s groups in countries not yet represented in the organization. She was unsure whether it was appropriate or timely for WILPF to try to expand its membership to the continent, but she felt very strongly that any work done there had to be done in a way that respected and encouraged the expression of local knowledge, skills, and cultures. Steffens opined that, programmatically, WILPF had lost its original dual focus on both peace and freedom. Recalling Jane Addams’s beginnings as a social worker, she criticized WILPF’s apparent disdain for “‘Social-Work’ type of activities.” Rather, she felt that those “close-to-home” activities

[ 78 ]

Intelligent Compassion

indicated a focus on “individual freedom” that was clear to WILPF’s founder but lost to the contemporary WILPF. As a consequence, WILPF suffered from “intellectual elitism” that distanced it from the women of the world: We speak in the language of statesmen and wonder that our refined voices do not become audible—from our safe distance—to the struggling women of the world. While, as an internationalist, I applaud our continuing focus on international peace activities, I submit to this Congress that we can only be effective in this word if we concentrate at least equal energy and resources on the “gut issues” of rural and urban development. In other words, become the “garbage collectors” of the world. And we must tool ourselves organizationally to do it effectively with modern technology and flexibility and all the intelligence we possess.110

Steffens added that it was not by chance that the US section was the most rapidly growing national section and that it had begun to grow after it had reprioritized its work on domestic issues, as well as the US involvement in Vietnam. The issues raised by Steffens’s 1968 report resonated in the discussions of the Commission on Future Directions of WILPF, which, partly reflecting Steffens’s recommendations, proposed the implementation of organizational reforms and programmatic studies. Among these, the Commission encouraged WILPF to “think out afresh the ways in which we relate to revolutionary movements which espouse violence in the pursuit of peace and freedom.”111 The same commission considered again the opportunity to maintain WILPF as a women’s organization and concluded that a women’s organization would help women find “a meaningful identity in public and international work, and .  .  . [find] ways of working effectively in their respective countries in the light of whatever cultural limitations may be placed on their role.”112 These discussions and reflections also constituted skeptical scrutiny that was directed both at WILPF’s guiding criteria and at its methodology. Subjecting the methodology itself to skeptical scrutiny allowed the organization to correct (though not eliminate) the methodological obstacles to wider organizational reach.

The Role of Social Critics

The role of social critics was of notable importance in helping WILPF make more informed decisions by stimulating skeptical scrutiny and by providing avenues of expression for marginalized voices. Outside critics

W H AT I S V I OL E N C E ?

[ 79 ]

included the participants and observers of the international governmental conferences and meetings at which WILPF was represented. As we have seen, the Bandoeng and Accra Conferences had been of particular influence for Gertrude Baer’s views in regard to decolonization. Outside critics also included the World Council of Churches and the Friends’ Service Council, whose policies Dorothy Steffens closely followed and indicated as examples to her colleagues on several occasions.113 Multisited critics included Coretta Scott King, who promoted skeptical scrutiny on the Vietnam War and the role of women in the peace process. Sushila Nayar spoke up to ask WILPF for a firmer stand against South Africa and insisted that it formulate a program that would respond to the needs of developing countries.114 Inside critics were also of decisive import in promoting deliberative inquiry and skeptical scrutiny. Dorothy Steffens, for example, was instrumental in facilitating the British section chair (and former diplomat’s wife) Sybil Cookson’s self-reflection and in breaking down some of her preconceived assumptions. In 1969 Cookson had traveled to Nigeria, Sierra Leone, and Ghana, where she visited Steffens and attended with her a UN Seminar for African Women Leaders.115 Cookson’s account of her trip can be juxtaposed with Steffens’s report on Africa, which I discussed in the previous section. Where Steffens criticized the ways in which WILPF failed to meet the needs of women in the Third World, Cookson pointed to the unreasonableness of “expecting [Africa] to move too fast, to achieve in two decades what Europe took centuries over.” On the other hand, Cookson was clearly influenced by Steffens as she tried to articulate her suggestions in a way that referred to historic and cultural specificities of the countries she visited and to assert Westerners’ obligation to “never feel any superiority.”116 As an inside critic, Steffens promoted deliberative inquiry. At the 1970 IEC meeting, it was Steffens who, among other proposals, asked WILPF to clearly state a position on “liberation movements”; to investigate the use of the organization’s financial investments “to support white supremacist governments”; and to allocate “funds to bring some of our African members to Congress.” During the attempted secession of Biafra from Nigeria, Steffens made it clear that, in her opinion, WILPF should not take sides or support a total arms embargo, which might result in giving the advantage to “the big-business forces . . . behind neo-colonialist attempts to balkanize Africa.”117 She argued that while “the liberal white world” was meddling in an internal struggle in Nigeria, oppressive regimes in South Africa, Rhodesia, and the Portuguese colonies were consolidating their power and the repression of African blacks. To Steffens, it was “crystal clear that the white governments [would] not relinquish control without an armed struggle.”118 For Steffens, revolutionary movements raised an issue that WILPF could no longer afford to ignore:

[ 80 ]

Intelligent Compassion

The nitty-gritty question for WILPF right now is whether to ally ourselves with the African freedom fighters in what is already, and is certain to become increasingly, a military struggle. . . . Given a situation such as exists in the Portuguese and Spanish colonies in Africa and in the minority-ruled white nations there, and recognizing that they will not give up their repressive, immoral dominance over millions of black people, how far are we willing to go in support of the freedom principle in our name when securing freedom conflicts with our peace aim?119

In Steffens’s view, the liberation struggles in Africa forced WILPF to confront the tension between peace and freedom.120 In the discussion that followed her intervention, IEC members asked themselves how it was possible for them to “reconcile [their] sympathy with the need to change the status quo with [their] faith in non-violence.” For some of them it was clear that violence took different forms. Structural violence and behavioral violence were different. Killing was not the only form of violence; suppressive government’s [sic] structural violence also killed and destroyed. Our opposition to violence must not mean acceptance of the status quo.121

Although the minutes do not indicate the author (or authors) of these comments, they are evocative of a paper that Gertrude Baer delivered at the 1968 Congress in which she urged “fundamental structural change” and “radical economic and social measures.” Though asserting the superiority of nonviolence as a “revolutionary creed and revolutionary deed,” Baer had alerted WILPF “to beware of the danger lest non-violent action lead to the indefinite prolongation of the status quo ante.”122 In outlining a collective methodology for feminist international relations, Laurel Weldon has suggested that “considering marginalized standpoints makes the limits of . . . dominant frameworks more visible” and thus results in better (more informed) theory. However, Weldon argues that, while “descriptive representation (the physical presence of members of marginalized groups)” is necessary, it is not sufficient in itself to ensure that their voices are heard. For this to happen, there must be, at a minimum, a critical mass of marginalized voices.123 This critical mass was obviously lacking in WILPF, thus making the presence of (outside, inside, and multisited) social critics crucial to the articulation of drastically new policy positions regarding decolonization. Nevertheless, the examples of Steffens and Jouve can illustrate how intelligent compassion enables social critics to promote the kinds of inquiry, inclusion, and scrutiny that are more conducive to emancipatory social change.

W H AT I S V I OL E N C E ?

[ 81 ]

Intelligent Compassion

Although preconceptions about African women were all but absent throughout Steffens’s letters and reports, it is important to note her constant efforts at learning from the women she met during her sojourn in Africa. Although she used comparisons between US society and African society, she did so to highlight common problems while recognizing the limits of oversimplifying and overgeneralizing arguments. When making her argument for opposing a total arms embargo against the warring sides in the Biafra conflict, she referred back to the Spanish Civil War, when the Western powers’ arms embargo on the Spanish legitimate government effectively “was a sanctimonious way of letting the rebels get all the arms and bombs they needed from the German and Italian fascists.” While she explicitly cautioned against equating the two conflicts, she also found relevant parallels, which led her to support WILPF’s neutrality.124 Intelligent compassion (or empathetic cooperation) had clearly informed Steffens’s analysis of the conflict. Furthermore, although Steffens advocated training for “grassroots women” (as opposed to “middle-class women”), she did so with an awareness of power imbalances manifested through language.125 In her 1969 report, she stated, Our lack of knowledge of the complexities of this vast continent makes us easy prey to the superficial evaluation and the western judgment, and the two weeks visit can make dangerous “instant experts” of the best of us. Far too many visitors have come with a mind-set of western values to look at Nigeria through our modern “sift” and see laziness where there is a relaxed work rhythm; immorality where there are kinship rather than marriage ties; and uneducability where there is resistance to irrelevant teaching. It is difficult to eliminate our years of prejudice and report only what we have seen without drawing invalid conclusions.126

Therefore, Steffens was critical of international agencies’ (including the UN’s) development programs, which she felt were too often irrelevant or simply “bad” for Nigerians. She saw the role of WILPF as one of “watchdog” of UN activities in developing countries and as “a pressure group” for effective project evaluations, and she cautioned against “march[ing] into Africa carrying the torch of enlightenment.”127 By contrast, Andrée Jouve, who had the opportunity of listening to a range of arguments on decolonization at UNESCO meetings, remained unwilling to subject her own assumptions to skeptical scrutiny; rather than welcome more inclusivity at UN forums as the decolonization process went on, she decried

[ 82 ]

Intelligent Compassion

it. Moreover, because Jouve failed to empathize with the concerns of Algerians, she also missed the opportunity to identify the similarities between them and the concerns, feelings, and ideas that the Nazi occupation had engendered in the French people in the 1940s. Jouve’s appeals to nonviolence in her reports on the Algerian war of independence are particularly remarkable because it was precisely Jouve who, as the French section representative at the 1946 Congress, passionately defended the military actions of the French resistance movement against Nazi occupation, specifically mentioning acts of sabotage and attacks against the communication infrastructure of Vichy France. On that occasion, Jouve had argued that peace and freedom could not exist separately and that war was better than servitude.128

CONCLUSIONS

Because of assumptions about race and gender, which were implicit and entrenched in liberal political thought, WILPF, as a liberal organization, could not escape a conception of peace that essentially failed to dismantle the structures of oppression and injustice that it proclaimed and intended to fight against. Only as national liberation conflicts gained increased international attention in the 1960s and 1970s was WILPF prompted to interpret the causes of violence and to formulate a response in accord with its principles. Elements of a feminist critical methodology were present throughout the postwar period, but the Cold War environment had stifled them to a degree. A changed international context did not automatically produce new ideologies or new policies. It was only after a number of years that WILPF created a policy that was meant to express support for liberation movements without sacrificing its ideals about nonviolence. The tension between stated ideology (equality, self-determination, economic justice) and implicit racial ideologies became visible to WILPF only as the international environment brought it to the fore. Historical changes prompted WILPF leaders to more actively seek contacts and the opinions of women outside of their traditional membership base. These contacts, in turn, promoted skeptical scrutiny of long-held assumptions on the part of WILPF and facilitated the ideological and policy shifts of the early 1970s. However, Steffens’s, as well as Jouve’s, examples illustrate the need for intelligent compassion as a necessary tool to complement guiding criteria, deliberative inquiry, and skeptical scrutiny and allow the silent voices to come to light.

W H AT I S V I OL E N C E ?

[ 83 ]

CHAPTER 5

Orientalism and Peace WILPF in the Middle East

INTRODUCTION

The two previous chapters have shown how WILPF progressively reframed and redefined its policies on disarmament (chapter 3) and decolonization (chapter 4) as two of the defining components of its ideas of peace. This chapter takes a more grounded approach and investigates the overlapping of disarmament, decolonization, and other dimensions of WILPF’s idea of peace into a specific geopolitical context—that of the conflict in Palestine/ Israel. Between 1945 and 1975, WILPF’s policies toward this area underwent a radical transformation as WILPF moved from timidly supporting the creation of Israel and its domestic and international policies to assertively questioning their democratic nature and the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. This policy shift reflected a departure from and a critique of WILPF’s entrenchment in Orientalism as a peculiarly modern ideology. Early on, an Orientalist framework underlined WILPF’s understandings of peace and its components as applied to the Palestine/Israel context, and it entailed the marginalization of Palestinian and Arab voices. From the beginning, Israel was posited as the “Western,” “modern,” thus more peaceful state in contrast with a “backward,” “bellicose” “other” (the Arabs, Arab states, and the Palestinians). Arab (particularly Muslim) women were taken as the symbol of this backwardness and their “liberation” as a justification for the establishment of a Western democracy (Israel) in the region. In a gradual and nonlinear process, WILPF’s feminist critical methodology allowed a challenge to these

ideological constructions and a reshaping of the ideological context in which WILPF was situated. As a consequence, WILPF formulated new policies and new views about “peace” in the Middle East that recognized the legitimacy of both Jewish and Palestinian aspirations to nationhood.

ORIENTALISM AND WILPF

According to Rita Felski, what distinguished modernity from other historical junctures is a symbolic-normative force as the “enunciation of a process of differentiation, an act of separation from the past.” Moreover, “modernity differ[ed] from other kinds of periodizations in possessing a normative as well as a descriptive dimension.” To be “modern” meant repudiating the past and committing to embrace change and the future.1 So the politics of modernity carried some ambiguity: Positing the “modern” in opposition to tradition legitimized the subversion of “hierarchical social structures and prevailing modes of thought by challenging the authority of tradition, custom, and the status quo.”2 But modernity’s alleged superiority also authorized a project of domination over those who were seen as nonmodern. According to Edward Said, modernity has been characterized by technologies of global domination, exerted by one area (Europe) over all the rest (the Orient or, geographically, the Middle East).3 For Said, the academic discipline of Orientalism formed the basis for a more general, imaginative meaning of Orientalism as “a style of thought based upon an ontological and epistemological distinction made between ‘the Orient’ and (most of the time) ‘the Occident.’”4 As part of the ideological discourse of modernity, Orientalism has been a carrier of basic Western notions of the European self and the non-Western other that generated unfalsifiable propositions about the superiority of Europeans to non-Europeans and was inextricably involved with European power. Orientalism, as “the corporate institution for dealing with the Orient,”5 was about the construction and self-elaboration of “our world” as well as the establishment of regimes of truth and knowledge about the Orient.6 Orientalism, as an academic discipline developed in Europe in the eighteenth century, provided the repetition and authority claims that made it possible to create unchanging “truths” about the Orient, its peoples, and its political and social customs.7 As Nicholas Thomas correctly argues, Orientalism was and is qualitatively different from other colonialist discourses, and it most appropriately applies to a specific geographical area during a specific historical period.8 This is strikingly obvious when looking at the ways in which views about gender and gender relations (though marginalized in Said’s own work)

OR I E N TA L I S M A N D P E AC E

[ 85 ]

shaped Orientalism. Feminists have observed that Arab, particularly Muslim, women became the symbols of Oriental difference and backwardness in peculiar ways: For example, early Orientalist texts associated the East with the harem, evoking images of despotism and sexuality9; contemporary Western obsession with the veil as the paradigm of women’s oppression in Islam is another case in point.10 Western women participated in the Orientalist project in different ways, at times contesting and at times reinforcing Western domination over the “Orient.”11 Joyce Zonana observes that “feminist Orientalist discourse” indeed assumed and reinforced the domination of the Orient by the Occident.12 However, its primary motivation was to displace the source of patriarchal oppression to Oriental societies, thus enabling Western Christians “to contemplate local problems without questioning their own self-definition.”13 Feminist demands could then be seen not as a threat but as “a conservative effort to make the West more like itself.” In other words, “feminist Orientalism” implied that, if patriarchal oppression was Oriental, women’s liberation was more truly Occidental.14 Orientalist women’s travel literature also exemplifies the complexities of women’s participation in the Orientalist plan. Billie Melman examines the travel accounts of Western middle-class women in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and finds them very different from the accounts of their male counterparts. Women anthropologists, missionaries, geographers, and others who traveled to the Middle East produced a vast array of literature (from letters to scientific papers to religious reports), which both reinforced the “civilizing” mission of the West and was in itself an act of disruption of the modernist discourse underlying such endeavors. These kinds of trips represented an emancipatory act for women, who were thus challenging modern assumptions about women’s and men’s spheres of activity and the public/private split. Women’s travel writings were highly diverse and presented heterogeneous views of the “Orient.” Moreover, such trips and the encounters with different cultures allowed in some cases the identification with the different and a critique of the writer’s own culture and thus possible contestations (rather than reinforcement) of their culture’s gender norms.15 WILPF had a long-standing practice of “fact-finding” missions, which (in the Middle East context) can be viewed as inscribed in the tradition of Orientalist travels and which had similar ambiguous implications.16 As far back as 1931, Swedish member and prominent suffragist Elisabeth Waern-Bugge had undertaken WILPF’s first official trip to Palestine. Its purpose was to recruit new members for the League and to establish a mixed Arab/Jewish WILPF section. Waern-Bugge’s report of her trip was to set the background and the precedent for WILPF’s postwar approach to the Middle East. I found

[ 86 ]

Intelligent Compassion

Waern-Bugge’s report amidst WILPF’s papers of the 1950s, which suggests that members who visited the area in that period had read the earlier report in preparation for the trip and thus had Waern-Bugge’s particular interpretation in mind as they undertook their missions. Of course, this does not mean that they subscribed to what Waern-Bugge said. My discovery nevertheless suggests that one of WILPF’s members’ first looks at the situation in Israel/Palestine was through Waern-Bugge’s eyes. The report offers a strikingly racist view of Arab people. Waerne-Bugge saw the Arabs as particularly suspicious, sensitive, backward, chauvinistic, and charged with “the bitterest hatred against the Jews.”17 Moreover, Arab women (and more so Muslim women) were depicted, in sharp contrast with Jewish and European women, as ignorant, child-like, and dependent on their husbands and their communities’ cultural and political norms. In her narrative, Western modernist assumptions intertwined with and reinforced Orientalist assumptions about race, religion, class, and gender. Thus modernity stood in opposition to tradition, in the same way that Arab (and particularly Muslim) women differed from and were inferior to Jewish women, particularly those of European and American ancestry. There was a marked hierarchy of modernity in Waern-Bugge’s views, whereas Christian Arab women were more “advanced” than their Muslim counterparts and less “advanced” than Jewish or European women. Class was a less apparent, but nevertheless present, distinction as “European education” and “higher standing” possessed a superior status. Finally, Waern-Bugge’s report reveals a notion of history as a linear progression from tradition to modernity, conveying both a sense of superiority of the latter over the former and a desirable future for the people of the Middle East. By defining the boundaries of historical progress in the framework of modernity and by positioning Arab women as outside of it, WaernBugge was prevented from seeing the possibility of genuine progress in relationships between Arab and Israeli women and ultimately in the construction of a more peaceful Palestine.18 On the one hand, Waern-Bugge desired to build groups of peaceful coexistence among Arab and Jewish women in Palestine; on the other, her Western, modern assumptions about Arab women trapped her in a vision that prevented her from reaching that very goal. Jewish and European mediators played an important part in hampering a full understanding of Arab women’s political positions and sociocultural milieu by preventing openness to their views and statements. Waern-Bugge’s trip had been facilitated by European diplomats and colonial authorities who were familiar with and sympathetic to the Jewish population of Palestine but less so to the Arabs. Moreover, the British section of WILPF and Emily Greene Balch had helped Waern-Bugge prepare for her trip by giving her background documents and other assistance. Finally, Jewish circles helped

OR I E N TA L I S M A N D P E AC E

[ 87 ]

establish the first contacts between Waern-Bugge/WILPF and Arab women, and Waern-Bugge’s trip depended heavily on Jewish upper-class women’s acceptance of her mission’s purposes.

ISRAEL/PALESTINE AND WILPF AFTER WORLD WAR II

Reports from trips undertaken after the Second World War, official documents of the League, and my own interviews confirm that many of WILPF’s members’ views about Arabs remained mired in Orientalist assumptions between 1946 and the 1970s. WILPF women shared a modernist ideology that constructed “the Arab” as antithetically different from and inferior to the West (and the Jews). However, post-World War II documents were less explicit and offered more nuanced understandings than the one-sided 1931 report. For example, in 1955 Emily Greene Balch wrote a letter to the Israeli section: It would seem that anything that the WIL women in Palestine could do to help would best be on Gandhi [sic] principles and on the level of high magnanimity though I fear the Arabs’ chivalrous vein cannot be counted on to respond, and I fear it would be very painful to our Jewish friends to have our suggestions take this shape. Still it is what I find in my heart to suggest. For the only possible steps to a way out for the Jewish women, to whom the ethical aspect is always of supreme importance, seems to be to invent ways of rising above the conflict.19

Once again, Arab supposed national character was contrasted with Jewish moral superiority and ability to address the Middle East question pragmatically. The responsibility for peace rested on Jewish women, though the Arabs were not capable of reciprocating magnanimous, rational, and moral thinking. A 1958 trip report by Madeleine Bouchereau, a Haitian member of WILPF and wife of the Haitian consul in Hamburg, described “Arab masses” as mired in “obscurantism.”20 In Lebanon, democracy was “not practiced as a natural thing. Individual Lebanese do not have respect for law.”21 The Arabs were again juxtaposed against the Jews, when Bouchereau stated, paraphrasing a Lebanese physician, that “the Palestinians who have worked with Jews are excellent administrators—they learn quickly and are in demand with business firms.”22 Arab women also fell short of her expectations, as Bouchereau decried their supposed lack of interest in politics, manifested by their failure to vote (in Lebanon) and their adherence to “the weight of customs” in Syria.23 Edith Ballantyne, who became the Secretary General of WILPF in 1971, confirms that up to at least the mid-1970s, “the Palestinians were really seen as kind of ignorant” by many of WILPF’s leaders.24

[ 88 ]

Intelligent Compassion

Orientalism still colored the League’s postwar approach to the Palestine question, with the result that Palestinian/Arab narratives about the conflict that erupted after the creation of Israel were effectively silenced. Narratives about this conflict acquired particular significance for the two people whose national identities and self-determination aspirations (in the context of nineteenth-century imperialism and twentieth-century decolonization) converged and diverged in the territory of Palestine.25 On the one hand, the Palestinian narrative regards Israel as a creation of the Western powers and an extension of colonialism in the area. On the other hand, the Israeli/Zionist narrative conveys the view that Israel was created despite the Western powers, with the intent of providing a safe home to a persecuted minority and a return to the ancestors’ land, rightfully belonging to the Jewish people. There are several corollary narratives deriving from or supporting those two basic narratives. In the years following World War II and until the mid1970s, WILPF privileged Zionist/Israeli narratives of the conflict in Israel/ Palestine and defined “peace” according to such narratives.

ORIENTALISM AND “PEACE” IN PALESTINE/ISRAEL

As seen in chapter 1, in WILPF’s own brand of “egalitarian, social, or inclusive” liberalism,26 the preconditions and elements of a just peace centered around (a) freedom (loosely identified with the establishment of liberal democracy), (b) self-determination (an element of freedom) (c) total and universal disarmament, and(d) economic development and prosperity to satisfy human needs. I have already discussed how two of these three elements were differently interpreted during the course of the first thirty postwar years, although WILPF theoretically viewed them as universally valid and universally applied. But how did they translate practically in the context of WILPF’s policies toward Israel/Palestine? In an Orientalist framework, WILPF employed an idea of peace that silenced Arab and Palestinian visions, highlighted Arab and Palestinian aggressiveness, and selectively chose to ignore or minimize the Israeli state’s own aggressive policies and motives.

Liberal Democracy and Freedom

As seen in chapter 3, at WILPF’s first postwar Congress in 1946 in Luxembourg, it was apparent that the leaders of WILPF read the trajectory leading to and of the war not as a consequence of the failure of international institutions Instead they saw it as a result of the failure of states to relinquish

OR I E N TA L I S M A N D P E AC E

[ 89 ]

specific sovereign rights in order to make international organizations strong enough to prevent conflicts and achieve human progress. This they saw tied to the achievement of individual freedoms, self-determination, and the satisfaction of human needs. Political and civil rights were seen as the foundation of good living. WILPF saw the liberal state as the only feasible and legitimate actor and co-creator of a peaceful international order; individual rights could not be “conceived in the spirit of atomistic individualism but as an essential element in the new socially organized community.”27 International governance was thought essential to the ordering of human relations and the recognition of individual rights and thus to the achievement of world peace. But the experiences of European women in the prewar and war years also shaped WILPF’s priorities in the postwar world and determined a renewed emphasis on freedom (physical freedom, freedom of expression, and collective self-determination) as a prerequisite for peace. WILPF had witnessed the incarceration, torture, exile, and murder of several of its European members at the hands of the Nazi regime. It also had to reckon with the expedient ignorance of the Jewish Holocaust in the international community at large. These experiences helped shape the League’s initial attitudes toward the creation of Israel. The US delegation to the first WILPF Congress after the war in 1946 viewed US attitudes in support of the establishment of Israel in a positive light, as “motivated in part by moral principles.”28 At the time, Zionist lobbyists had started influencing the US government’s and particularly President Truman’s decisions over the fate of Palestine, which led Truman to support the majority UN Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) partition plan in 1947.29 While aware and critical of the US government’s political and strategic considerations in support of a Jewish state in Palestine (as for other international issues), WILPF framed the issue as a question of justice for the persecuted European Jews. WILPF immediately started to depict Israel as a new democratic experiment, one that was unique to the area, and one that was to set the example for a new form of democracy that represented a renewed hope for peace and freedom in the region: It was in Israel that Moslem women cast their vote for the first time in Arab history and their response to the franchise conferred upon them as citizens of Israel once more proves that once people are free to use the instruments of freedom, freedom itself will soon be fully established.30

WILPF thus heralded Israel’s first election as bringing freedom to Muslim women who, in need of emancipation, found their liberty in Israel’s

[ 90 ]

Intelligent Compassion

democracy. Later on, WILPF visitors to several countries in the Middle East decried Arab women’s lack of political participation (in elections) and attributed it to their cultural backwardness. The League’s mission was then to interest women who have newly acquired their political rights to use their new power for the welfare of their people and the respect of human rights in order to bring about conditions which will lead to the establishment and the preservation of peace and freedom at home and abroad.31

Arab women could thus be educated by an enlightened and progressive (more advanced) organization to evolve into agents of liberal political change. WILPF’s leadership overlooked the creation of domestic institutions in the new state of Israel that were incongruent with or threatened to challenge the development of liberal democracy in that state. Thus they did not address the codification of the supremacy of Jewish citizens over citizens of Arab descent that the 1950 Law of Return inherently expressed. This law “permitted any Jew of good character to enter Israel and to receive citizenship” and created circumstances in which the needs of the existing Arab populations became subordinate to the needs of incoming Jewish settlers and to the security needs of the state.32 Discrimination against Arab citizens of Israel was viewed as no more than a correctable glitch in the practical implementation of liberal democratic principles. Their education, citizenship and economic rights, and political representation were a matter of discussion and subject to progress in the learning curve of the Israeli government toward the attainment of a fully liberal democratic state. Any measures to improve the living conditions of Arab people living in Israel were seen as signs of magnanimity and subordinated to Israel’s security concerns. In 1958 Signe Höjer, a Swedish member of WILPF and an international civil servant’s spouse on an unofficial visit to Israel observed, Of the total population of 1,900,000, 213,000 citizens are Arab refugees [sic]. . . . Certainly their wellbeing is considered most important. Many of them are allowed to go home to their countries once a year to visit relatives, for example in Jordan. . . . Reliable people told me that Israel had not fully understood the real importance of this matter until lately. In the first years of building the new state, Arab workers had not—for several reasons—been granted the opportunity of taking part in this work to the same extent as the Jewish population. This was naturally not done intentionally, since the Jewish people have themselves suffered so much from discrimination. But the Arabs might have felt it this way.33

OR I E N TA L I S M A N D P E AC E

[ 91 ]

In a 1967 official trip to the Middle East, Johanne Reutz Gjermoe (a Norwegian heading WILPF Committee on the Middle East from 1965 to 1975) did not compare the living conditions and political and economic rights of the Palestinians in Israel with the Jewish citizens of Israel but with their counterparts in Arab countries. Thus while Arab-Israelis suffered some discrimination in Israeli society and popular resentment toward them was widespread, they were better off in Israel than they would have been in an Arab country. However accurate, this comparison betrayed a view of the Palestinians as “guests” in Israel, rather than legitimate and entitled inhabitants of the land. Any concessions were therefore generous if sometimes inadequate gifts of the sovereign government. Similarly, never did WILPF question Israel’s policies of discrimination against Jewish immigrants to Israel from areas other than Europe.

Self-Determination

WILPF inscribed the Middle East in the framework and language of self-determination immediately after the war, sometime after the area became the subject of Western powers’ decisions over boundaries and sovereignty. Inscribing the Middle East question in the framework and language of self-determination meant that the approach to peace in the Middle East depended on how self-determination was defined. At the time of the final UNSCOP partition proposals, the Arabs’ positions relied on the UN Charter’s codification of the right of self-determination of peoples: As the Arabs formed the majority in Palestine, they had a right to self-determination as established by the UN Charter. They claimed that Zionist religious claims and the illegal Balfour declaration could not be the basis for the establishment of a Jewish state. The Zionist view, together with Jewish religious claims regarding territorial rights to Palestine, also appealed to a right to self-determination but viewed it as the right of a minority to establish an independent state in an area predominantly occupied by an Arab majority. While adhering to self-determination as codified by the UN Charter, WILPF adhered to a Zionist interpretation of that right, with little to no regard to Arab positions. Thus, WILPF did not question the existence of the state of Israel and, most important, did not fully acknowledge the quest for self-determination of the nationality whose self-determination was crushed with Israel’s creation. Of course, WILPF was not alone in this oversight. Indeed, Zionism long attracted . . . much support among organized labour and the left; a diagnosis of the grounds of its original appeal does not so much endorse the

[ 92 ]

Intelligent Compassion

movement, as help explain how something that was recognized by a range of those involved at the time as a brutal exercise in dispossession could also be represented as a progressive, collectivist form of pioneering that redressed rather than created a historical injustice.34

WILPF saw Israel’s creation precisely in this light, as a collectivist progressive enterprise. It did so in the absence of Arab representation in its ranks, against the background of vivid memories of the Holocaust, and WILPF leadership’s views of Arab people, as handed down from the prewar period. The domestic and international political environment in which WILPF operated obviously constrained and limited WILPF’s own interpretation of the situation. As a consequence, the voices of Palestinians inside the UN-established Israel borders, and in the territories occupied by Israel in subsequent wars, were rendered invisible or downgraded as a humanitarian rather than a political issue. At the IEC meeting of 1948, WILPF condemned the Arab states’ refusal to accept the UNSCOP partition as an act of aggression.35 However, it did not denounce Israel for taking over (also UN-determined) Palestinian territory in the second part of the 1948 wars, and the later (October 1948) invasion of the Negev. It also failed to mention the policies of forced expulsions and settlement that the Israeli state started to implement, despite the fact that 1948 saw the fleeing of thousands of Arabs from Arab villages inside and outside 1947 UN-established borders.36 Forced expulsions and settlement policies were ignored for many years within WILPF. Its leaders were not so naïve as not to be aware and critical of the geopolitical and strategic considerations of the Western powers in their support for the newly created state.37 Despite these considerations, WILPF did not critically reflect and reevaluate its support for the establishment of Israel, in view of the long-term political implications of its creation. Orientalism obscured the existence of Palestinians and denied their right to self-determination. Self-determination became limited to selfdetermination for Jews in Israel until 1975. This point is best illustrated by Gertrude Baer’s decrial of the lack of invitation of Israel to the first AfroAsian Conference against colonialism held in Bandoeng in 1955.38 Since Israel was a newly decolonized country, WILPF leaders could not fathom why it had been excluded from Bandoeng. Well into the 1960s Palestinians were most often referred to as “refugees”39 whose “national” home was Jordan, not Palestine. For example, in 1967 Johanne Reutz Gjermoe, commented in her trip report: The situation in Jordan is particularly absurd because the 700,000 refugees there comprise two thirds of the entire population. What would happen to Jordan if

OR I E N TA L I S M A N D P E AC E

[ 93 ]

these 700,000 people left the country and returned to “occupied Palestine”? Jordan could not survive such depopulation.40

Because Gjermoe viewed Jordan as a predominantly Palestinian state that could not survive without its Palestinian population, she also thought that “Jordan [was] a country which could have helped in solving the greatest part of the refugee problems together with Israel.”41 In adhering to an Israeli narrative, Gjermoe effectively made surging Palestinian nationalist claims to an independent state invisible.42 While continuously calling for negotiations and the peaceful settlement of the disputes between Israel and the Arab countries, WILPF could not produce statements that addressed the specific political issues of the “refugee question.” Finally, in the 1960s and early 1970s, WILPF often referred to Palestinian organizations as “terrorists” or “guerrilla” even after the 1971 Congress resolution supporting revolutionary movements. For instance, in 1972 Johanne Reutz Gjermoe affirmed the need for a Palestinian political leadership willing to work with Israel for a peaceful solution to the conflict, “not terror organizations that only hurt their cause in the eyes of the world and makes [sic] it worse to reach a settlement of peace, such as the situation has developed since the Munich drama.”43

Economic Development

WILPF viewed development as a precondition to peace, and it related it to technological and scientific endeavors and the rational organization of the economy. Military expenditures diverted resources from economic development and accentuated tensions between Eastern and Western blocs. Speaking at the 1949 Congress, Gertrude Bussey articulated the relationship between economic development and peace: Adequate economic resources are a necessary basis for secure living. We cannot expect peace if the peoples of the world have to struggle for their share in a diminishing food supply. On the other hand the full use of the world resources depends on peaceful cooperation since war and economic competition destroy precious resources.44

Bussey and WILPF thought that economic well-being did not preclude war and that peace was to be achieved through a long-term educational, ethical, and religious struggle. But fear (including fear of economic losses) was at the origin of conflicts, and rational thought, aided by the presence

[ 94 ]

Intelligent Compassion

of basic civil rights, was still a cure for it. Bussey viewed the equitable distribution and “constructive” use of resources as inscribed into an inevitable and desirable model of development, which involved the large-scale restructuring of local practices. She linked the equitable distribution of resources to extensive agricultural and industrial development. For Bussey the idea of progress corresponded to a break from traditional practices and from a society based on small-scale, sustenance industry and agriculture. Science and rationality, and the work of international institutions, in particular the UN, were the best hope for peace. In the late 1940s the economic development of Israel was viewed in the context of a supposed Jewish industriousness and technological knowhow, demonstrated by Israel’s exploitation and transformation of a barren land. Israel was seen as an experiment in the “constructive utilization of resources under the guidance of scientific knowledge without exploitation of the people.”45 In 1958 Signe Höjer portrayed the Israeli state as a pioneering progressive enterprise, which transformed a desert into productive land: “Incredible efforts have been and are being carried out to conquer the wilderness and to settle the immigrants.”46 And again in 1967, assumptions about the value of technology-driven development, rational progress, and pioneering spirit guided Johanne Reutz Gjermoe’s impression of Israeli society: To travel from the Jordanian part of Jerusalem to the Israeli part is to enter another world, less picturesque, more modern and decidedly more European. It is a miracle what the Jews have wrought to Israel since 1948. . . . One of the oldest pioneers from pre-world war I [sic] times told us how Palestine looked in those days, and she felt that it was the Arabs who had forced their way into Palestine, not the Jews—the latter had always been there. In her earliest childhood most of the Arabs had come streaming in from Egypt and other Arab lands to work on the roads and railroads, and had never returned to their homelands. . . . In the beginning the Jewish immigrants bought the arid land, rebuilt it, and used farmhands who by this labor earned enough to buy their own land. This is how the Arab farmers originated.47

In this context, the solution to Palestinian refugees’ economic woes was resettlement in the countries to which they had fled after Israel’s creation, to be followed with a mixture of economic assistance to those countries and professional training of the refugees. Development programs were seen as a necessary precondition to the achievement of peace in the Middle East. This practically translated into an endorsement of the United Nations

OR I E N TA L I S M A N D P E AC E

[ 95 ]

Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) professional training schools, without questioning the UNRWA’s failure to provide secondary education for refugees, a prerequisite for university access, or the inadequacy of UNRWA technical schools to adapt to local employment demands. WILPF also did not address the UNRWA practice of gender segregation in occupational training, whereby girls and boys were trained for traditional sex-specific jobs, like teaching and hairdressing for women or mechanics and plumbing for men.48 The refugees’ return to the areas they had abandoned during the different wars was, at best, impractical and irrational: The official version was everywhere the same that the refugees should return to their homes in Palestine. Our efforts to point out to them that the refugees would not find their homes again, nor their fields, for all was changed in Palestine, fell on dead [sic] ears. But when we spoke privately with leading Arabs, people who had experience from the mandate period or under the UN, or with non-Arabs, we got a different point of view. Most of these people were convinced that if the refugees themselves were asked, at most 20% would want to return. And with reference to compensation, there were not many in the camps to-day who had owned very much in the place from which they had come. Those who had received a good education and good positions in the Arab countries would probably not want to return to Palestine. But no one wanted to be the first to say this straight out and be called a traitor.49

Disarmament

WILPF consistently advocated for building a “culture of peace” and training for nonviolence. It studied and pushed the idea of creating an international mechanism for the peaceful settlement of disputes, without which it thought states would not commit to disarm. As seen in chapter 3, WILPF always paired these goals with efforts towards total and universal disarmament—that is, the elimination of conventional, nuclear (after the Second World War), and biological/chemical armaments. It saw these military expenditures, and corresponding militarization of societies, as obstacles to economic development, as well as to the development of peaceful relations among states. WILPF consistently condemned the arms trade, identifying it as one of those obstacles. Until 1975 WILPF issued general statements of condemnation of great powers’ arms sales to the Middle East, observing the increased danger that a militarized and heavily armed Middle East constituted to world peace.

[ 96 ]

Intelligent Compassion

Most of the time, however, it avoided specific denunciation of increasing US military assistance to Israel but contested, for example Soviet aid to Nasser’s Egypt. WILPF glossed over several of the Israeli army’s aggressive maneuvers or explained them as an understandable, if not completely justifiable, reaction to the constant threat from and fear of Arab (and later Palestinian groups’) aggression. For instance, part of WILPF’s executive’s interpretation of the Suez crisis in 1956 relied extensively on the Israeli section’s correspondence and reports and did not overtly condemn Israel’s role in the invasion of Egypt. In a circular letter written at the beginning of 1957,50 Danish member Else Zeuthen (at the time International Chairman) extensively cited an Israeli section’s letter she had received, relying on it to explain and justify both the Israeli army’s invasion of the Sinai and the Israeli section’s failure to condemn its government’s actions: “Needless to say, we—whose work aims at the achievement of peaceful solutions to conflicts—suffered a terrible shock when war suddenly broke loose in our area. Not the slightest hint had been given to warn the public that this act was imminent. The severe tension and the concern for our security had almost become a matter of daily routine. . . .” The letter goes on to describe the dangers and attacks to which Israel was constantly exposed. The letter continues: “The fear of the threatened attack eventually caused the action of our Army, which is considered by the majority of our people to be an act of self-defence in the twelfth hour.”51

Emerging disagreements about the nature of and possible solutions to the Arab/Israeli conflict prevented a general policy statement on the Suez crisis and only resulted in unanimous support for the UN Emergency Force. Disagreements existed on the nature and duration of the stationing, which engendered doubts on whether peacekeeping forces might actually hamper the reaching of a durable peace settlement.52 Israel’s peaceful attitudes and intentions were frequently contrasted with Arab states’ hostility. Thus, at the July 1964 meeting, WILPF IEC agreed on the text of a letter to be sent to UN Secretary General U Thant expressing WILPF’s concern at “some nations .  .  . disseminating hostile propaganda and amassing weapons with the stated intention to destroy one small nation in their midst . . . created by United Nations decision.”53 When the June 1967 war broke out between the Arab states and Israel, Johanne Reutz Gjermoe accepted at face value the Israeli government’s denials of territorial claims and their declarations about peaceful coexistence and saw Arab intransigence as a sign of belligerence:

OR I E N TA L I S M A N D P E AC E

[ 97 ]

In the beginning of the war, Israel declared that they had no territorial claims. It is therefore a common supposition now that this controlling of foreign territories is kept up as a basis for negotiations with the Arab states, about the recognition of Israel as a State by the Arab countries, and the solution of the refugee problem, and a long-term solution of the economic and social development in the whole area. . . . Soviet and the Arab States are eager to condemn Israel as the aggressor and demanding the Israeli troops to withdraw before any negotiations are going to take place. . . . I think the war came as a surprise for some of the Arab countries.54

Gjermoe made rather extensive use of Cold War rhetoric in her 1968 Middle East report to Congress: Johnson’s public proclamations warning of the danger of an arms race in the region were held up to Soviet arms shipments to Egypt; Soviet-friendly Arab states were portrayed as uncompromisingly rigid and compared to Israel’s willingness to negotiate and its benevolence toward the refugees.55 This is particularly striking considering that Israel’s earlier friendliness toward the Soviet Union was never questioned. Moreover, Gjermoe’s statements contrast with WILPF’s concomitant criticism of US Cold War rhetoric regarding the Vietnam War. The juxtaposition of the two camps was further accentuated by referring to Al Fatah as a terrorist organization attacking Israeli civilians and “agricultural settlements” and to Israeli army’s actions as directed against military targets or “terrorist bases.”56 WILPF’s almost exclusive reliance on the Israeli section’s reports throughout the late 1940s and 1950s resulted in a view of the Israeli Army that contradicted its usual emphasis on demilitarization and disarmament as necessary steps to peace. In 1956, for instance, Hannah Rosenzweig (president of the Israeli section) depicted the Israeli Army as a “special” kind of army, one that provided the necessary training ground for new immigrants, in view of their integration in Israeli democracy.57 This portrayal of the Israeli army as an apparatus necessary to the development and functioning of civic society in a new country was uncontested within WILPF. This, together with the depiction of Israel as constantly under threat, prevented WILPF from outright questioning the militarization of its society.

METHODOLOGY

It would be all too easy to claim that the ideological context in which WILPF operated crystallized its policies and thoughts, thus determining the possibility or impossibility of change. On the contrary, beginning at least in the 1950s, and most notably after the Suez crisis in 1956, contestations within

[ 98 ]

Intelligent Compassion

WILPF about the meanings of “peace” in Israel/Palestine appeared. This led WILPF to a sort of paralysis, where for years it was unable to produce a comprehensive policy statement on the conflict in the area. This failure was more than an indication of a lack of agreement among leaders and members of the League; rather, the organization was painstakingly trying to figure out how two different narratives about the struggle over territory could be reconciled, in order to produce policies that reflected an inclusive and better informed meaning of “peace” for Israel/Palestine. The year 1975 represented a breakthrough moment for WILPF. It was in this year that WILPF IEC issued a landmark policy statement demanding (a) the withdrawal of Israel to pre-1967 borders; (b) a comprehensive peace settlement including the recognition of Israel by Arab states and the creation of a Palestinian state; (c) negotiations between Israel, Arab states contiguous to Israel, and representatives chosen by the Palestinians under the aegis of the UN, the United States, and the USSR; (d) the inclusion in the negotiation terms of the “possible return and/or reparations for refugees, the special problems of Jerusalem and steps toward the demilitarization of the area”; (e) an end to all arms sales to the region; and (f) the channeling of all economic aid through the UN Development Programme or other UN agencies.58 This statement (together with the fact-finding trip that preceded it and the debates at the workshops that produced it) was the first in a series that 1. recognized self-determination as a right of both Palestinians and Jews, which could not be satisfied by even a “benevolent occupation”; 2. acknowledged a specific political and national identity of Palestinians, including the right to return to a “national home” (or be compensated); 3. viewed the presence of Palestinian refugees and of Palestinian military organizations in Arab countries as entailing certain social and economic costs, which, for example, contributed to the kind of domestic instability that had impacted Lebanon; 4. departed from earlier understandings about economic aid, which had ignored the international political dimensions of such aid and had viewed any “development plan” as a peace-fostering prerequisite of conflict resolution; 5. admitted that conflict and militarization in Middle East societies affected and were affected by the levels and quality of political involvement for Arab/Palestinian and Israeli women (and men); and 6. conceded that in the Middle East context (as in other contexts) militarization of both Israeli and Arab and Palestinian societies precluded economic development by diverting resources and maintaining a constant state of alertness and fear.

OR I E N TA L I S M A N D P E AC E

[ 99 ]

The program of action accompanying the 1975 resolution included support for humanitarian work in cooperation with other international organizations in two towns, one in Lebanon and one in Israel. Diverging from earlier programs, WILPF stressed that “these kinds of actions not be a substitute for political activity . . . but a tangible way to show solidarity for victims of war and oppression.”59 The two sides of the conflict were no longer Israel and the Arab states but “the oppressors and the oppressed. This distinction cut . . . across all national and religious boundaries.”60 WILPF was able to arrive at this change thanks to an increasing reliance on a feminist critical methodology, which guided WILPF throughout a large part of the thirty-year span I cover but which came to fruition in the mid-1970s. Guiding Criteria

Clearly the components or prerequisites of “peace” as WILPF defined them (i.e., freedom and democracy, self-determination, economic development to satisfy human needs, and disarmament) were their starting points and were derived from their liberal internationalist tradition. As I have shown earlier, modernity and its assumptions about race, gender, and class relations shaped how these general principles translated practically in the context of the Middle East. So Israel was hailed as the only democracy in the Middle East (capable of bringing a freedom previously unknown to Arab women), but its undemocratic practices were unquestioned; Palestinians’ claims to self-determination went mostly unheard; Israel’s economic model was celebrated as bringing development “without exploitation of the people”61; an international development model that reproduced gender relations was uncontested; and military belligerence was ascribed to Arab states and (later) Palestinian organizations but not to Israel. However, WILPF did not start questioning its ideas and policies toward the Middle East, and with them its guiding criteria, only in 1975. Rather, a self-reflexive methodological process was applied with some regularity, if not consistently, beginning at least as far back as the Suez crisis. This process included deliberative inquiry, skeptical scrutiny, and intelligent compassion. Deliberative Inquiry

Deliberative inquiry was an essential part of WILPF’s methodology in regard to the Middle East question and as a general practice. However, the League was never (and is not now) a mass organization, though some

[ 100 ]

Intelligent Compassion

current members see this as an elitist characteristic of WILPF.62 For various reasons, it has had historical difficulties in recruiting members from the working classes and racial minorities in the United States and Europe, and in forming and maintaining sections outside this limited geopolitical area.63 Until 1962 (when a Lebanese section was admitted), the League had no members or sections from Arab countries. Information about the Middle East came almost exclusively from the Israeli section reports, the Middle East Rapporteur or Middle East committee members, reports from official and unofficial trips to Israel/Palestine, and reports from the UN representative. There was, however, a lot of uneasiness about the lack of Arab and Palestinian voices. In the 1964 IEC, for example, Madeleine Bouchereau questioned the Israeli section about the absence of Arab women among its members and Gertrude Baer regretted that no Arab country was represented at that year’s IEC, despite the fact that the League had a new section in Lebanon.64 Further, Baer spoke against the issuing of a Middle East resolution arrived at without the participation of the Lebanese section (which had been admitted to the League two years earlier).65 Throughout the 1960s WILPF continued efforts aimed at establishing and maintaining contacts with Arab women. As shown in chapter 4, the search for more inclusive deliberations within WILPF went beyond the Middle East and included bids to establish sections in the Third World, in the global context of the rising Non-Aligned Movement, the struggle against the apartheid regime in South Africa, and the growing US military involvement in Southeast Asia. Lacking adequate representation, WILPF tried to gather information through fact-finding trips to areas outside of WILPF’s geopolitical reach. But trips could also result in a confirmation of previously held positions and ideas. This was the case, for example, of Elisabeth Waern-Bugge’s 1931 mission, for reasons I have explained earlier. Both a willingness by WILPF’s delegates to seek contacts and dialogue with a variety of people, and the consistent application of skeptical scrutiny to a delegate’s own beliefs were necessary to produce reports and influence policies that were considerate of all voices and inclusive of those most marginalized. WILPF’s various trip reports therefore reflected the extent to which these efforts were made. For example, there is a remarkable difference between Madeleine Boucherau’s and Signe Höjer’s trip reports of 1958. Though, to a degree, both reports reflected Orientalist views of Arab women, Bouchereau’s efforts at reaching out to Arabs and Palestinians resulted in conclusions

OR I E N TA L I S M A N D P E AC E

[ 101 ]

that took into consideration Arab and Palestinian views of the conflict. Höjer’s report on the contrary almost exclusively reflected the Israeli narrative, because her only interlocutors were Israelis or Israeli-friendly contacts (she also visited only Israel).66 Madeleine Bouchereau’s 1958 trip resulted in the admission of a Lebanese section (which included Palestinian women) in 1962. The presence of the Lebanese section changed the dynamics of conversations within the League: On the one hand, discussions became progressively more heated and, at times, direct dialogue almost impossible; on the other hand, the presence of the Lebanese section in international meetings of WILPF provided a direct link with and gave voice to Arab and Palestinian opinions about Israel/Palestine. Though a turning point, this presence did not translate to immediate changes in policy. According to Elise Boulding (who was WILPF’s International Chairman for a term around this time), “it took a while to see the two different histories [of Palestinians/Arabs and Israelis] and the two different kinds of needs. And some people saw it sooner than others. [. . .] The Lebanese section began reeducating us about Palestine.”67 Eventually for the first time in 1974, Lebanese, Israeli, and other members of WILPF met in a workshop, and together they came to an agreement on short-term initiatives that would serve the long-term purpose of producing a comprehensive policy statement. This workshop provides further evidence of WILPF’s reliance on inclusive deliberative inquiry (and its ability to influence a change in ideas and policies). It was led by Libby Frank during the 1974 Congress. Frank, a US Jewish member, had been active in the Zionist movement in the 1940s and 1950s. She had demonstrated against the forced repatriation to Europe of Jewish refugee boats trying to enter Palestine. Frank recalls the personal development of her political thinking toward the Middle East as follows: I also wanted to move to Israel at that point. I wanted to live in Israel and it was to help the Jewish people in the Jewish homeland. And then I realized that the Jews in Israel weren’t going to be safe if they weren’t safe everywhere and then I realized-this is not in one day this is over years-I realized that the Jews weren’t going to be safe if everybody wasn’t safe.68

Within the US section first, Frank had initiated a dialogue that had involved Palestinian women. While fighting sharp opposition to her opening toward Palestinians, she also found some supporters. This strongly encouraged her to take an active stance at the international level.69 Frank tried to position herself as a friendly mediator. First, Ruth Gage Colby, a US Quaker from Minnesota and by then WILPF’s representative at

[ 102 ]

Intelligent Compassion

the UN, introduced her to the Lebanese delegation. In Frank’s recollection sharing a meal with the Lebanese women was a defining moment: [Colby] knew the Arab women in WILPF and she introduced me to them and told them I was a good person and that was a good opening. But this is all, this is all necessary—here I am, Jewish, and you know I’m going to be leading these workshops and there’s a lot of hesitation and a lot of questions about that. So Ruth had me eat one meal with them and get to know them. She was my go between so they knew to give me a chance.70

Over the following two or three days, WILPF women from many sections, including the Lebanese and Israelis, gathered in a workshop in order “to identify some short term action which WILPF or others could take in the next six months to help relieve tensions and violence in the Middle East.”71 In addition to some “standard” rules of debate (“you don’t interrupt, you don’t speak twice”), the group agreed to limit arguments to references to the present situation, with no discussion of past history; to refrain from accusations; to avoid criticizing any government but one’s own.72 Despite great tension73 and the initial feeling on the part of some participants (namely the Danish section) that a general debate would lead to “more hostility rather than constructive attitudes,”74 the workshop succeeded in getting the Lebanese and Israeli delegates in the same room to talk to each other directly. Some participants in the workshop attributed this partial success to Libby Frank’s organizing and leadership skills and to the methodology of the workshop process.75 In addition, Frank was able to position herself as a “multi-sited critic,”76 enabling her to gain the trust of many sides. The workshop did not produce or was meant to produce at the time significant comprehensive policy changes, but the Congress agreed to finance a new fact-finding mission the subsequent year followed by another Middle East workshop. In the meantime, sections were asked to undertake “an extensive study program” in preparation for 1975.77

Skeptical Scrutiny

As far back as 1948, a lone voice within WILPF’s executive, Dorothy Warner of Great Britain, actually thought that, while she did not agree on partition, the existence of Israel was a fact that could not be reversed and that WILPF’s work should have been to convince the Arabs “not that the Jews have a ‘right’ to the State of Israel, but that it would be politically wise to accept the creation of a Jewish state.”78 Thus, although strategic considerations should have

OR I E N TA L I S M A N D P E AC E

[ 103 ]

led the Arab states to accept the fait accompli of Israel’s creation, Warner did not believe that a right to self-determination of the Jewish people in Palestine should have produced a partition that effectively denied the right to self-determination of a large section of the population of the area. In 1957 Gladys Walser started considering the possibility that the portrayal of refugees as entirely politically manipulated and turned into hostile enemies of Israel by Arab countries was at least partially inaccurate. In addition, Walser proposed that Israel had “sustained a moral setback” when in 1948 it took over properties of Arabs fleeing the war and did not permit repatriation. Walser thus was questioning the previously held faith in Israel’s higher moral standing and was willing and able to reconsider that people that had been living in the area had a legitimate desire and claim to return. In other words, she was starting to consider the question of refugees a political issue.79 WILPF grew also increasingly skeptical of the UN Security Council’s ability and willingness to serve “justice for the disputing parties” as opposed to the “interests of the Permanent Members of the Security Council” and toward the benevolence of US brokerage of the Middle East question.80 Once hailed for its “moral stance” in its support of Israel’s creation, the United States came to be viewed in a less sympathetic way and the context of the Cold War (with its repercussions for Middle East politics) as a smokescreen that prevented a human-centered approach from taking priority in international relations. That WILPF was consciously applying skeptical scrutiny (though not articulating it as such) to its own ideas and policies is further exemplified by Dorothy Hutchinson’s concern about individual sections’ methods. At the end of her three-year term as chairman, Hutchinson stressed the prominence of WILPF’s principles over national loyalties: I am troubled that a few of our Sections seem to feel less free than in the past to criticize their own or other governments when the policies of these governments are at variance with those of WILPF.81

It was during this address that Hutchinson articulated her interpretation of Jane Addams’ “intelligent compassion,”82 which she believed ideally, though not always, guided WILPF’s own methods.

The Role of Social Critics

Inside, outside and “multi-sited critics”83 promoted deliberation and skeptical scrutiny and facilitated policy changes. Critics formed an essential element of WILPF’s methodology. For example, WILPF’s UN representative

[ 104 ]

Intelligent Compassion

Gladys Walser arrived at her considerations about the morality of Israel’s actions in 1957 after having listened to Henry Labouisse, then director of UNRWA, and having read an article from a US Jewish pacifist newsletter.84 In the immediate aftermath of the Suez crisis, Walser had described the Arab states as rigid and unwilling to negotiate a settlement with Israel,85 her change of mind was strongly influenced by these contacts and her willingness to subject her opinions to skeptical scrutiny. Henry Labouisse and the authors of the US Jewish newsletter fulfilled the roles of “outside critics,”86 who had some knowledge of the voices that were being silenced within WILPF and who prompted a WILPF member’s inquiry about her exclusionary ideas and practices. Inside, outside, and “multi-sited critics” played a role in promoting skeptical scrutiny, representing the “silent voices” in WILPF, facilitating dialogue between the Israeli and the Lebanese section, performing a sort of “shuttle diplomacy” between members who would not speak directly to each other,87 calling for representation of Arab and Palestinian women in international meetings of WILPF, and searching for a variety of interlocutors during fact-finding missions. In 1960 Sushila Nayar for the first time forced WILPF to face its own assumptions about Arab women (and people in developing countries in general). Reporting a conversation with a Lebanese woman, Nayar pointed out how “Arab women feel unwelcome in international gatherings of women who seem unwilling to recognise that the Arab women have a point of view and dismiss them as morally prejudiced.”88 She further gave voice to prevailing Arab sentiments toward Israel: The Arabs believe that Israel is an outpost of the West. If she [sic] is to have good will in the area she must be “of” them not an outpost of the West. They believe that Israel has the weight of the USA behind her and that arms she is getting from the U.S. are colossal and that with large numbers of immigrants coming in, Israel will seek more land.89

Finally, she conveyed a message about people’s common hopes when she expressed concerns about Western financial aid, which she found needed to be bestowed “in a manner that will not offend the recipients,” as independence, economic development, and education were common aspirations of “modern man [sic]” in developing and developed areas.90 As a multisited critic, Nayar thus encouraged the practice of intelligent compassion by presenting the Arab narrative about the conflict and the problems with Western aid and pointing out that they shared a common humanity.

OR I E N TA L I S M A N D P E AC E

[ 105 ]

Elise Boulding took on a conciliatory role in 1969 when she called the Lebanese and Israeli sections to “support the moderate factions in each country,”91 identified with “able peacemakers . . . whose voices cannot be heard just now because the military response has the upper hand.”92 In this way Boulding was trying to foster inclusive dialogue and the promotion of her own guiding principle of nonviolence. Libby Frank and Edith Ballantyne also fulfilled the roles of social critics when, after returning from their 1975 fact-finding trip, they proposed that the entire WILPF initiate systematic internal discussions and studies on the Middle East, starting with a Middle East workshop at the Hamburg IEC meeting in 1975. They felt that a seminar with outside speakers would do little to break the deadlock within the organization, which could be solved only through direct internal confrontation. Such confrontation could not, however, be limited to a discussion between Middle East sections “with the rest sitting on either side or in the middle, but it must be between all members with equal responsibility.”93 It was that meeting that produced the 1975 breakthrough policy statement.94 Critics within and outside WILPF and multisited critics promoted institutional change by facilitating WILPF’s self-examination of its ideas about “peace” in the Middle East.

Intelligent Compassion

WILPF’s members’ memories of the Holocaust and the struggle against Nazism and anti-Semitism in Europe facilitated WILPF’s early identification with Israeli/Zionist aspirations. In 1958 Signe Höjer reported: “First of all I would compare the situation in Israel with that in which Sweden found itself during WWII, when the country was surrounded by Hitler’s armies and expecting at any moment to be invaded.”95 Intelligent compassion made it easier, in this case, to portray Israel as a peace loving country, contrasting it with Arabs’ hatefulness and belligerence, and explaining away Israeli nationalism as a reaction to outside aggression: “In Israel, the hatred is not on her side, even if nationalist feelings such as were to be found in my own country during the war, have an easy terrain to thrive in.”96 The reading of Israel’s position through Höjer’s own experiences in World War II could only lead to a failure to contextualize the Israeli state position in 1958 as complexly inscribed in the existing international context of East–West rivalry, with particular local repercussions and consequences for the Arab populations affected by Israel’s creation. On a couple of occasions, accusations were leveled against Nasser’s Egypt of harboring German Nazis as counselors in the government and the army.97 This

[ 106 ]

Intelligent Compassion

example shows how intelligent compassion alone cannot induce emancipatory social change but has to be practiced in conjunction with deliberative inquiry and skeptical scrutiny. There were numerous occasions on which intelligent compassion was used together with deliberative inquiry and skeptical scrutiny to make better informed judgments about the Palestine/Israel conflict. For example, deliberative inquiry and intelligent compassion guided Libby Frank and Edith Ballantyne’s 1975 fact-finding trip. The two women thought that the League could make a unique contribution to understanding in the area if the Mission studied the problems Arab and Israeli women face in the current conflict situation and in gaining a better knowledge of their status in society, their activities and their aspirations.98

Therefore, Ballantyne and Frank approached their trip with the understanding that the situation in Israel/Palestine was better evaluated through an empathetic view of the insiders’ perspectives. Only through this method, they (and particularly Edith Ballantyne) believed the League could come to an agreement and take a definite policy stand on some “significant international issues, even on those that are the most controversial.” Ballantyne felt that WILPF needed to identify the causes of war and the obstacles to peace in order to achieve its constitutional aims. This necessarily implied that WILPF “must be prepared to take sides against those who threaten peace or are guilty of breaches of the peace,” while working “to conciliate international differences.”99 Although Libby Frank had admittedly come to the trip carrying with her stereotypes about Arab women as “backward,”100 she soon revisited her assumptions based on her observations and contacts. Israeli, Arab, and Palestinian women, engaging in dialogue among themselves and with other members of WILPF, thus fulfilled the roles of social critics in promoting inclusive and empathetic deliberative inquiry within WILPF on the Israel/Palestine conflict. Libby Frank recalls that a breakthrough moment in her understanding of Palestinian/Israeli relations happened during a discussion she had with Siba Fahoum, one of the Lebanese section members, while on a plane trip to the 1975 IEC: I had a book, which was anti-Semitic. It was ostensibly put out by the PLO, . . . and I showed it to her, we were sitting together on the plane and I would say: Siba, look at this. How could they put out something like this? And she looked at it and she said: “we didn’t do that. The PLO didn’t do that.” And I said: “what do you mean?” It showed a picture of a huge Arab, a huge Arab ogre wanting to

OR I E N TA L I S M A N D P E AC E

[ 107 ]

devour tiny little Israel.  .  . . What the booklet indicated was that the Arabs wanted to destroy Israel and she said: “we don’t, never, that’s not how we portray that situation.” She said: “we Palestinians and Arabs, we show Israel as a big ogre, and they are the military strength and they are trying to defeat us.” . . . It was very interesting. It was very enlightening.101

By reading the booklet with skeptical eyes and practicing an empathetic understanding of the concerns and interpretation of the interlocutor, Fahoum and Frank together arrived at the conclusion that the booklet was part of the Israeli government’s propaganda. Thus a willingness to subject her interpretation of a racist pamphlet to skeptical scrutiny and to imaginatively identify with a different interpretation, Frank revisited her assumptions about a supposedly peaceful Israel and a belligerent (Arab/ Palestinian) other.102

CONCLUSIONS

The statement and program of action arrived at in 1975 was amended several times in the following years, though WILPF maintained its basic framework. From 1975 on, sections and branches took on Frank and Ballantyne’s suggestions to actively study the question and participate as equally involved parties to discussions “about the options available for a peace in the Middle East.”103 They also continuously and consistently facilitated and mediated contacts between Middle East sections’ members and with other peace organizations.104 The practice of inclusive discussion, confrontation, and intelligent compassion inherited from WILPF founders (Jane Addams in particular) and continued as a tradition within WILPF over the years allowed the League to start listening to the voices of excluded collectivities, providing a methodology through which modernist assumptions could be questioned and transformed. This conversion did not happen suddenly and unexpectedly in 1975; neither did the progression operate in a linear fashion and in the absence of contestations and reversals. International and national politico-economic conditions contributed to shifts and reevaluations of policies toward the Middle East, and WILPF’s views about gender, race, and class relations both influenced and were influenced by historical circumstances. However, WILPF’s methodological commitments (and the agents that formulated, implemented, and reinforced these commitments)105 provided the avenue through which personal assumptions, institutional structures, and views about international politics could be transformed.

[ 108 ]

Intelligent Compassion

The changes brought about in 1975 were not without consequences for an organization, which was heavily dependent on the support of a large US Jewish constituency and of members (in the United States and Europe) whose memories of the Holocaust were still vivid. In fact, many of my interviewees claim that WILPF lost many members as a result of its change in policies. However, Libby Frank was willing to take the risk: She recalls having pledged, as Chair of the Middle East Committee, to recruit one new member for each member that left WILPF and claims to have been able to do so.106 To be clear, WILPF is still struggling to find institutional and deliberative forms that are more inclusive and considerate of non-Western political tools and paradigms. But the history of the period between 1946 and 1975 shows that an increasing reliance on four feminist critical methodological practices allowed WILPF to challenge the political and ideational milieu within which it was inscribed, thus contributing to reframing the parameters of modernity, depart from Orientalist positions, and reformulate its ideas about peace in the Middle East.

OR I E N TA L I S M A N D P E AC E

[ 109 ]

. Gertrude Baer. Source: Swarthmore College Peace Collection.

. Dorothy Hutchinson. Source: Swarthmore College Peace Collection.

. Edith Ballantyne. Source: Swarthmore College Peace Collection.

. Dorothy Steffens. Source: Swarthmore College Peace Collection.

. Kay Camp. Source: Swarthmore College Peace Collection.

. Elise Boulding. Source: Swarthmore College Peace Collection.

. Else Zeuthen. Source: Blackstone Studios, 54 W. 57th St., NY, NY.

. Gertrude Bussey. Source: Udel Bros.

. Clara Ragaz. Source: Swarthmore College Peace Collection.

. Libby Frank. Source: Swarthmore College Peace Collection.

. US WILPF Press Conference, Washington, DC, March 28, 1968. Left to right: Kay Camp, Dorothy Hutchinson, Coretta Scott King. Source: Swarthmore College Peace Collection.

. Bryn Mawr Conference of USSR and US women, Bryn Mawr, PA, November 1961. Source: Swarthmore College Peace Collection.

. 23rd International Congress, New Delhi (India), December 28th, 1970–January 2nd, 1971. US delegation. Source: Swarthmore College Peace Collection.

. WILPF Delegation to Vietnam, Hanoi, 1973 with Premier Pham Van Dong, Elizabeth Birangui (Union Revolutionaire de Femmes Congolaises) and Marii Hasegawa (US WILPF President). Source: Swarthmore College Peace Collection.

. Delegates to 15th International Congress, Asilomar 1962: Elise Boulding, US, is fourth from the left in back row; Fujiko Isono, Japan, is first on the left in front row; Hannah Rosenzweig, Israel, is third from the left in front row. Source: Swarthmore College Peace Collection.

. Conference of USSR and US Women, Moscow, April 1964. Source: Swarthmore College Peace Collection.

. Conference of USSR and US Women, Moscow, April 1964. Source: Swarthmore College Peace Collection.

. Jane Addams House, Spittal-Dran, Austria, 1960. Sushila Nayar is second from right on second row. Source: University of Colorado, Boulder Archives.

CHAPTER 6

Conclusion Feminist Ways to Peace

T

his book contributes to constructivist international relations (IR) by arguing that feminist critical methodology offers a theory of agency that takes into account the co-constitution of agents and structures. The previous chapters established that methodology matters in the pursuit of peace or, in other words, that how one pursues peace is important to the kinds of peace that might result. Between 1945 and 1975, WILPF’s understanding of peace, as expressed in its policies on disarmament, decolonization, and the conflict in Israel/Palestine, underwent several changes. Such changes were made possible by a feminist critical methodology that guided WILPF toward self-reflection about its ideas and practices and toward more inclusivity in decision making. This methodology helped the organization to identify and remedy potential and actual forms of oppression and exclusion in society and in its practice. While far from perfect, feminist critical methodology contributes to IR a theory of emancipatory social change. In the third chapter, I showed that WILPF’s views on the causes of war, militarization, the arms buildup, and their elimination went through two distinct phases, which reflected different understandings of peace. During the first phase, WILPF believed that disarmament would follow peace. This, in turn, would be established with the help of a set of rational laws and consensual agreements among states that would make the resort to war unnecessary. Science and technology, guided by rationality and reason, had the ability to guide humanity toward progress and tame nuclear energy for peaceful uses. Though it was important to have an avenue like WILPF where women could speak out on matters of international politics and in favor of

disarmament, peace, and the rational, peaceful utilization of nuclear energy, WILPF thought that women had no special knowledge or special interest in peace. These positions reflected liberal modern understandings about the nature of law and science and WILPF’s adherence to the normative and ideological framework that was shaping the creation of the postwar international order. WILPF gradually worked its way out of these constraints while not entirely abandoning the liberal principles that guided it. In the second phase, the organization came to understand peace as an outcome of disarmament (or disarmament as a prerequisite of peace), which would follow the establishment of a human needs based and just economic order. Its economic critique of the international system brought WILPF to question the profit-driven nuclear and military industries as inextricably linked to weapons production. Finally, WILPF came to see disarmament and a just economy to be of special interest to women; it began to view peacework as a task for which women had developed useful skills, and it started to understand militarism and the arms race as incompatible with the goals and principles of feminism as a political movement for people’s equality and well-being and, ultimately, for peace. The fourth chapter showed that WILPF’s initial cautious optimism toward the decolonization process, the trusteeship system, and the future of world community in the wake of decolonization reflected a trust in the liberal modern roots of the international order, which embodied contradictions about the subjects entitled to liberal rights and freedoms and racial and gendered representations of the non-European other. The decolonization movement’s growing strength between the late 1950s and the late 1960s found WILPF divided between those who supported a gradual and nonviolent process toward decolonization and those who advocated the immediate withdrawal of colonizing powers from their remaining colonies and trusteeship territories. Discussions in this period brought racial and gendered assumptions to light more explicitly yet at the same time enabled members to openly question them. The mid-1960s international context fostered WILPF’s further self-reflection on the meaning of peace as it related to decolonization and freedom. In this third phase, WILPF reached consensus in support of struggles for independence, while maintaining its belief in the superiority of nonviolence over violence. WILPF used stronger words to denounce colonialism and neo-colonialism: It talked about a “system of exploitation, privilege and profit” as the ultimate source of (structural) violence and referred to “overdeveloped” nations rather than “underdeveloped” ones. This policy shift reflected an ideological shift, a critique of the liberal principles that had guided WILPF for many decades and ultimately represented a different understanding of

CONCLUSION

[ 111 ]

peace, one that expanded the boundaries of a historical and ideological context partially of its own making. Finally, chapter 5 followed the policies of WILPF in a particular geopolitical context, the conflict in Israel/Palestine. It demonstrated that their idea of “peace” was influenced and shaped by the two intertwined ideological discourses of modernity and Orientalism. As a consequence, WILPF privileged Israeli narratives and denied legitimacy to Palestinian claims. In the mid-1970s, WILPF declared its support for a two-state solution, a peace conference under UN auspices, and the creation of a weapons of mass destruction–free zone in the area. With this resolution, and increasingly in subsequent years, WILPF went from being timidly pro-Israel to assertively questioning Israel’s policies, the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and the democratic nature of the Israeli state. WILPF had thus reframed its idea of peace around the recognition of Palestinian, as well as Israeli, aspirations. As activists, WILPF’s women made theoretical contributions to feminist IR by proposing different ways to think about the relationship between women, feminism, and peace.1 Between 1945 and 1975 they remained divided over whether women were more peaceful than men. Yet they continued to have faith in the necessity of an organization of women devoted to the promotion of peace. To the feminist IR preoccupation about tooeasy associations between women and peace they responded with different questions: To what extent is peace a women’s issue; that is, do women have a special interest in peace? And what relationship, if any, exists between feminism and militarism, and between feminism and peace? These questions implicitly informed WILPF as its members debated their policy positions. Different responses to these questions undergirded their policies on disarmament, decolonization, and the conflict in Israel/Palestine. From thinking that women’s interests and priorities were a matter of fairness but had little relationship to the pursuit of peace, WILPF came to the conclusion that peace was of special concern to women. While they all agreed on this, they continued to differ over the reasons why this was so and over whether it made sense to even talk about common, generalizable women’s interests. For many years after the Second World War, WILPF refrained from discussing the relationship between feminism and militarism. Eventually, its critique of militarism, racism, and the international order became more explicitly informed by feminist theory and activism, as it described all forms of hierarchy, marginalization and oppression as interrelated. I asked how WILPF arrived at these changes and I teased out the methodological components of their practices. I started with the basic constructivist

[ 112 ]

Intelligent Compassion

claim that structures and agents are mutually constituted. While constructivism’s debates on the co-constitution of agent and structure focus on ontological and epistemological questions, I shifted my attention to methodology. I sought to point out that theoretical methods influence the way agents see the world and act on it. I argued that WILPF’s policy and ideational shifts were made possible by a feminist critical methodology that WILPF largely implicitly but consciously followed, which allowed the organization to break out of the entrapment of the context that created and shaped it. As activists WILPF’s women practiced a theoretically informed methodology whenever, in the course of making policy decisions, they reflected on the relationship between their views about the world (ontology), their understanding of how they knew what they (thought they) knew (epistemology), their ethical stances about world problems and the issue of peace, and the ways they chose to act on them (methods). I thus suggested that the story of WILPF offers a contribution to the agent-structure debate in constructivism by showing how a group of women peace activists advanced, through the practice of a feminist critical methodology, a critical constructivist theory of agency. In the theoretical methods applied by WILPF, I identified the possibility of a political agency that is conscious and critical of structural limits and is therefore useful for activists and social movements interested in emancipatory social change. In other words, by using feminist critical methodological tools, organizations and social movements will be more likely to effect emancipatory social change. Feminist critical methodology was embedded in WILPF’s practices, but there were contextual obstacles to its application, particularly in the 1940s and 1950s. Later on, historical and contextual changes facilitated its implementation. WILPF’s story is one of interacting structural and agential factors in understanding social change. It is a story of women trying to make sense of a world that was changing and that required them to figure out how to react to those changes while remaining faithful to the spirit and principles of their founders, as expressed in WILPF’s constitution and bylaws. Changes in the international context alone were not enough to understand or explain how WILPF’s positions were reshaped in the course of thirty years. The international context of the 1960s (with the surge of citizens’ protests, second-wave feminism, and the nonaligned movement) provided the opportunity for increased input from outside and multisited critics, who promoted more inclusive deliberative processes and the critique of WILPF’s often unstated assumptions and practices. But WILPF in the 1960s was often ahead of other organizations in formulating wider reaching understandings of peace; it did not follow others.2

CONCLUSION

[ 113 ]

While WILPF was influenced by feminist movements and their emphasis on horizontal, nonhierarchical structures, it maintained its essentially liberal organizational framework and formal decision-making procedures. Optimally, within those spaces it practices “a horizontal, participatory, inclusive, responsible, educative and nurturing way of doing things—a way that some would claim as feminist,”3 though as seen in the empirical chapters, this was not always so. In the following years WILPF stepped farther away from liberalism as it came to critique the rising global neoliberal ideology. Between 1975 and 1985 the West experienced a resurgence of anticommunist paranoia and accusations of communism were leveled against WILPF once again. This time WILPF did not go on the defensive but continued and intensified its critique of the international order and pursued alliances with women’s organizations from Eastern Europe. These examples show that WILPF’s policy changes did not represent an adaptation to a changing political and economic environment. Rather, WILPF’s is a story among many of organizations and social movements that brought about changes in the international realm. The literature on the role of social movements in effecting international change illustrates this point.4 Ian Welsh claims that “one measure of movement success [can be] the extent to which the cultural artefacts of movements, as opposed to their knowledge claims, are adopted within a particular social formation.”5 In this sense, antinuclear and antimilitarist movements of the Cold War enabled the formation of contemporary social movements and influenced their structures, cultures, and methods. Thus their reach extended beyond their actual or perceived impact on the nuclear policies of nation-states.6 The story of WILPF also reframes the relationship between feminism and peace studies in that it suggests that a feminist methodology, rather than a firm set of principles, can lead to broader and more accurate conceptualizations of peace. In chapter 2, I suggested that, rather than identifying a firm set of principles about what constitutes emancipation, social change, or even peace, a critical constructivist theory of agency needs a methodology that 1. allows actors to identify and remedy actual or potential forms of oppression and exclusion in society and in their own practice; 2. guides actors toward inclusivity and opens them to input and ideas from (potentially) all members of society; 3. fosters critical self-reflection over actors’ assumptions, language, and embeddedness in a particular historical and ideological context; 4. enables the recurrent evaluation of actors’ practices and ideas.

[ 114 ]

Intelligent Compassion

I contend that feminist critical methodology satisfies these requirements and is therefore a useful and necessary tool for critical social movements in their quest for social transformation, insofar as change requires shifts away from exclusionary and/or oppressive ideas and practices. Feminist critical methodology draws from and extends Brooke Ackerly’s Third World Feminist Social Criticism (TWFSC). Ackerly’s starting point and inspiration for her theoretical model are groups of Bangladeshi women activists and community leaders living in particularly marginalized contexts struggling against harmful inequalities in their societies and their lives. Ackerly finds that TWFSC is also practiced by other Third World women’s organizations and by the international women’s human rights movement. It is in fact both a Third World model and a feminist model. While describing the efforts of this movement, Ackerly highlights that some of the movement’s shortcomings reflect its failure to apply all elements of TWFSC to their deliberative processes: Continuous skeptical scrutiny of its achievements would reveal how the movement institutionalized exclusive and oppressive practices thus failing, for example, to fully incorporate non-Western women or to heed their criticism of the movement’s excessive focus on antidiscrimination at the expense of socioeconomic justice. I argue that these failures point to the need to add to TWFSC another methodological tool, in order to help dominant groups and the broader society to even hear (thus be able to make sense of) silenced and marginalized voices. People in a position of privilege need a tool to enable them to overcome the limitations of their social positioning to be able to effect social change.

INTELLIGENT COMPASSION: A FEMINIST CRITICAL METHODOLOGY FOR SOCIAL CHANGE

I suggest that “intelligent compassion,” a phrase that I borrow from Dorothy Hutchinson’s 1968 speech as outgoing Chairman of WILPF,7 complements TWFSC. Together, TWFSC and intelligent compassion make up a feminist critical methodology, which I argue has been used by WILPF to challenge its ideological foundations; its embeddedness in liberalism; and notions about gender, race, and class relations inscribed in those foundations. Intelligent compassion fosters the enactment of a feminist ethics of care, which is necessary to a full skeptical scrutiny of entrenched ideas, thus enabling an agency that challenges structural constraints. The empirical chapters have shown that WILPF’s guiding criteria (their idea of peace as expressed in three policy areas) partially depended on exclusionary and oppressive ideologies and practices. Inside, outside and multisited critics

CONCLUSION

[ 115 ]

promoted deliberative inquiry and collective learning within the organization. The limitations of WILPF’s noninclusive structure and membership were evident as the organization often had to rely on outside critics to guide it through the exercise of skeptical scrutiny of its values, practices and norms. TWFSC ideally enables deliberation and political participation for the less powerful, for those who have been silenced or marginalized. But TWFSC has value beyond its roots in the Third World. Those who are at the centers of (political, economic, or social) power can be trapped in and blinded by the historical, ideological, and political context they inhabit and participate in creating. Therefore, they need to overcome the limitations of their social positioning to be able to effect social change. As previously observed, unhampered communication requires a method for social interactions that enables both the questioning of the conditions of one’s own existence and the creation of new hybrid subjectivities, the recognition that the “Other exists in part within the . . . Self.”8 I propose that this dual objective can be facilitated by extending TWFSC’s tool box with a strategy whose articulation is inspired by WILPF’s practice, but it is also part of feminists’ ethical/methodological repertoire.9 It is, however, not exclusively feminist nor is it exclusively for IR. Karen Armstrong refers to a similar practice by historians of religion, who use compassion (feeling with) to “make an imaginative, though disciplined, identification”10 with the writer of a text and her ideas. Christine Sylvester’s notion of “empathetic cooperation” as a method for IR can be such strategy. Empathetic cooperation refers to a process of positional slippage that occurs when one listens seriously to the concerns, fears, and agendas of those one is unaccustomed to heeding when building social theory, taking on board rather than dismissing, finding in the concerns of others borderlands of one’s own concerns and fears.11

Empathetic cooperation comes from feminist practice and has none of the “anchors” that Gayatri Spivak identifies as obstacles to conversations with the other.12 Sara Ruddick sees it in the “attentive thinking” that “prepare[s us] to come into respectful relationship with phenomena as they appear, or occur, to us.”13 It is based on the feminist principles of “learning to learn,” “hybridization,” “poesis,” and a political ethics of care which brings the silent voices to the fore. Empathetic cooperation is importantly composed of two elements. It involves taking on board the struggles of others by listening to what they have to say in a conversational style that does not push, direct, or break through to a “linear

[ 116 ]

Intelligent Compassion

progression which gives the comforting illusion that one knows where one goes.”.  .  . Together, empathy and cooperation enable “different worlds and ourselves within them.”14

I have called this empathetic cooperative practice within WILPF “intelligent compassion” out of deference for WILPF’s own articulation, which precedes Sylvester’s by several decades. Sylvester has described her method as useful for IR theory, but she too has found it practiced by women activists (her cases were the women of Greenham Common in the 1980s and an intergovernmental organization “negotiating in tacit empathy” with women in Zimbabwe to secure European Community funding for their microenterprises).15 Intelligent compassion involves “attentive thinking” to ideas that at first we do not understand or whose relation to the question at hand seems incomprehensible. It involves striving to make connections before attempting judgment, especially when the context is completely alien to us. It involves “willing, thoughtful receptivity to whatever we encounter in the world,” opening us “to relating to other people in a way that already is moral or, a condition for the possibility of morality.”16 It involves interrogating our own subjectivities to formulate questions that make sense for others’ subjectivities. Finally, it involves the constant alertness to the possibility that our empathetic efforts could involve acts of “appropriation” or imperialist moves.17 As a tool of privileged activists intelligent compassion is, therefore, important to learning across diversity, developing solidarity across differences, and making space for the emancipatory agency of others.18 The empirical chapters have shown that where intelligent compassion failed, guiding criteria, deliberative inquiry, and skeptical scrutiny were not enough to bring about changes in WILPF’s policies and ideologies. On the other hand, intelligent compassion needs the complement of the other three tools in order to be more than superficial and uninformed “do-goodism.”19 In concert, guiding criteria, deliberative inquiry, skeptical scrutiny, and intelligent compassion provide a feminist critical methodology that is conducive to emancipatory social change and responds to postcolonial suspicions of liberal values.20 As the previous chapters have shown, by 1975 WILPF was a different sort of organization than the one that came out of the destruction of WWII. Though WILPF did not completely transform, and it continued to be an essentially liberal modern organization, the tools of feminist critical methodology, when used, allowed it to enlarge the boundaries of the possible, question the very bases that sustained its

CONCLUSION

[ 117 ]

existence as a liberal organization, and push toward emancipatory social change.

CONCLUSIONS

One may reasonably argue that my theory of social change and feminist critical methodology themselves are products of the structure within which I, as a social scientist, am embedded. This is a question of relative importance for the feminist normative scholar whose primary interest lies in the pragmatic issues relating to the implications of theory for feminist practice and social change and in the continual assessment of one’s theory vis-à-vis the lived experiences of women.21 However, I did not come up with an idea of what emancipatory social change should look like. I put forward a method to help organizations reach better, more informed, more inclusive, more critical, and consciously provisional political decisions. More important, while I hope for this theory to be of use to organizations and social movements in dominant contexts, I am cognizant that organizations in situations of marginalization might find it less useful, as it does little to help them induce attentiveness, inclusivity, reflexivity, and empathetic cooperation by dominant groups, whoever they may be. More broadly, a study of a single organization in a limited period of time is questionably generalizable to larger organizations, different contexts, or the global political arena. I propose this theory as a point of departure and as a suggestion for critical IR theory, feminist IR, and feminist peace studies to interact in more sustained and perhaps more productive ways. WILPF was a Western liberal middle-class white women’s organization, which stretched the boundaries of the liberal context within which it was inscribed and from which it both drew inspiration and tried to break free. WILPF that came out of this period was a different kind of organization, one that showed a more intentional and more intensive effort at becoming a truly international organization, rather than a Western organization guided by liberal internationalist principles. While WILPF operated within a liberal modern zeitgeist, it also pushed liberalism and internationalism toward a more inclusive, less hegemonic form. Yet it was unable to do so completely, perhaps reflecting a problem of social movements and organizations in the West and of liberal internationalism more generally.22 WILPF’s policy and ideational changes were internally contested at the time but WILPF continues to be an avenue for many marginalized voices to

[ 118 ]

Intelligent Compassion

be heard, albeit in a very imperfectly. It is in a way a testament to WILPF’s persistent feminist liveliness that a “cacophony” of voices is still heard at international congresses, in meetings and email exchanges.23 To this day within WILPF there are very different opinions on the relationship between women, feminism, and peace; the organization somehow manages to welcome a wide range of them while continuing to be a critical voice for peace and to articulate the interrelationship between all forms of violence, hierarchies, and oppressive or exclusionary practices and structures.

CONCLUSION

[ 119 ]

Epilogue

INTRODUCTION

While offering a contribution to international relation (IR) theories of social change, this book has suggested that the first thirty years after World War II were an important period of transformation for WILPF as a women’s organization. I have shown that WILPF’s development of and commitment to a number of feminist methodological principles between 1945 and 1975 prepared the organization to be open to multiple visions of peace and alternative ways of working for it. Such arguments call for a brief assessment of WILPF vis-à-vis the broader constellation of women’s and feminist groups from 1975 onward and of the ways in which it continued to evolve and push the boundaries of the international liberal order. By the mid-1970s, WILPF had become both more receptive to the globalization of the women’s movement and more explicitly feminist.1 According to Deborah Stienstra, longer-established (mostly Western) women’s groups of this time in general adopted “mainstreaming” strategies; that is, they engaged with governments and the UN, working within the global governance system to achieve their goals. By contrast, newer groups formed during and after the UN Women’s Decade mostly pursued “disengaging” strategies, working outside and sometimes in opposition to official structures.2 Mary Meyer has shown that, as a longer-established women’s group, WILPF used both types of strategies. At the international level (through its Secretariat and UN office), WILPF adopted mainstreaming strategies. However, its flexible structure allowed for the extensive use of disengaging strategies at the national and local levels.3 WILPF also distinguished itself from other older international women’s and feminist organizations by its focus on peace and its connection with women’s political, economic, and social rights. It emphasized the disconnection between the arms race and

the achievement of a just economic order. It denounced an international discourse on development that did little to challenge the links between militarism, militarization, and the neoliberal development model, which sacrificed people’s (and especially women’s) well-being in the name of militarized security. In its work against colonization and racism, the organization took on the case of self-determination for indigenous people, as well as apartheid and the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, drawing links between peace, disarmament, and social, economic, and environmental justice. WILPF used these multiple thematic and strategic foci to press for the inclusion of peace into the international women’s agenda at the series of UN World Conferences of Women, starting with Mexico City in 1975. In the following decades WILPF became an active participant in the struggle to carve a public role for women and the inclusion of a women’s peace agenda in the global governance system.4 In particular, WILPF continually promoted greater inclusivity and the participation of excluded or marginalized voices in international women’s fora. Thus WILPF was crucially involved in the fostering of nongovermental organizations’ (NGO) networks and linkages that eventually replaced the dominance of Western-led liberal organizations in the international arena, gradually developing a more inclusive global women’s movement.5 The Fourth UN Women’s Conference in Beijing in 1995 marked a turning point for WILPF when, having firmly established peace as one important item of the UN women’s agenda, it started working in coalition with other groups to bring women and peace to the main UN agenda.6 By the early 2000s, WILPF had become an important actor, capable of shaping international norms,7 as attested by its leadership in the initiation, drafting, and follow-up to UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security. From that moment on, WILPF concentrated its efforts on the implementation and radical reinterpretation of that resolution in an international environment increasingly militarized and neoliberalized. In the following sections I offer an overview of WILPF’s activities between 1975 and 2011, focusing specifically on its relations with the global women’s movement. I stress that if international practice continues to fall short of WILPF’s and other organizations’ expectations, WILPF remains committed to change the core values of the system within which it works.

THE UN WOMEN’S DECADE: 1975–1985

For at least a decade starting in the mid-1970s, the world underwent a series of severe economic crises, characterized by economic recession in the North and debt emergencies in much of the Third World. International

EPILOGUE

[ 121 ]

financial and trade organizations reacted with the imposition of structural adjustment programs (SAPs) on debtor countries. The neoliberal ideology on which these programs were based focused on the privatization and deregulation of industry and the reduction of trade barriers, to foster market-oriented economies that would be more financially solvable and economically stable. However, SAPs also deepened the reliance of newly industrialized countries on women’s cheap labor, all but eliminated the welfare state, and dismantled the social contract between labor, government, and industry.8 As a result, women’s vulnerability and poverty through the Third World increased. At the same time and despite USSR-US Cold War détente, the arms race continued to escalate, reaping substantial advances in military technology and profits for related industries. For example, the net value of US Department of Defense contracts increased from US$32.5 billion in 1974 to US$120 billion in 1983.9 During this time, a new global movement on women and development led the UN and its member states to recognize the importance of women’s experiences, needs, and interests.10 Outside the global governance framework, women’s communication networks developed with often a more explicitly feminist analysis of international politics.11 Newly organized NGOs and leaders from what came to be known as the global South challenged established Western-led women’s NGOs to bring forward new analyses. These groups stressed the intersection of different forms of oppression and, through this, pushed the women’s movement toward a more inclusive agenda. Following the internal process of earlier decades, WILPF became an important actor in this shift, while concentrating its efforts toward bringing peace into the women’s agenda. The transformation began in 1972 when a number of women’s groups persuaded the Commission on the Status of Women to propose that the UN General Assembly declare an International Women’s Year and a UN Women’s Decade.12 Though WILPF was not officially part of this coalition, different sections lobbied their governments to support the proposal and participated actively in the preparations for the year and decade.13 In 1975 the First UN Conference on Women was held in Mexico City with the themes of “Equality, Development and Peace.”14 The Mexico City conference was characterized by deep divisions between North and South: Third World women felt marginalized both because they were excluded from decision making and because the issues they cared about (such as imperialism, racism, and the impact of the international economic system into their lives) were excluded from discussion as being too “political.”15 Despite being an organization with strong US and European ties, WILPF was sympathetic to Third World women’s concerns and rejected the idea

[ 122 ]

Intelligent Compassion

that any women’s issues could be in fact apolitical or even that women’s marginalization and oppression could be isolated from all other forms of marginalization and oppression. In Mexico City a few WILPF women led by Kay Camp distributed literature stressing how economic development was impossible without peace. They attempted to have disarmament included in the final World Plan of Action,16 but their proposal was also rejected as “politicizing” the women’s agenda.17 WILPF’s position was well summarized by the following statement made by Edith Ballantyne toward the end of the decade: Some governments and even some NGO’s [sic] warn against the “politicization” of the conference and forum and want to see only “women’s issues” discussed. We should understand that every women’s issue is political. One cannot seriously discuss questions of health, education, employment, development, and all others without considering each in its political and economic realities and possibilities. Peace is a political issue above all and it is a women’s issue.18

WILPF worked both within and outside of international institutions with Western, Eastern European, and Third World women to press for the inclusion of a broad understanding of peace into the women’s agenda, one that included economic, racial, and gender justice. While WILPF was present at the official UN-sponsored conference and NGO Forum in Mexico City, it also participated in a coalition with the Women’s International Democratic Federation (WIDF), the Pan African Women’s Organization, and other women’s groups to convene a rival NGO meeting called “World Congress for the International Women’s Year,” eventually held in East Berlin in October 1975.19 This congress tackled directly the issues that the UN-sponsored meeting had sidelined and “asserted that ‘women’s problems’ could not be discussed separately from the context of world conflicts, and the widespread oppression, exploitation, and discrimination that the conflicts created and exposed.”20 In May 1975, also in cooperation with the WIDF, WILPF cosponsored a New York conference called “Women of the World United for Peace: Disarmament and Its Social Consequences.”21 Cooperation with Eastern European women gained WILPF, once again, the reputation of “Soviet International front,”22 this time with no substantial consequences for its political initiatives and ideology. WILPF women reveled as multisited critics, grounded in but not strictly bounded to Western liberal mindsets and structures yet open to and facilitating opportunities for meaningful and constructive encounters between Western-led organizations and Third World and Eastern European women’s organizations.23

EPILOGUE

[ 123 ]

In 1976 Ballantyne became the first leader of a peace organization elected to be president of the Conference of Non-Governmental Organizations in Consultative Relationship with the United Nations (CONGO).24 In that capacity, Ballantyne was put in charge of organizing the NGO meeting parallel to the mid-decade UN conference to be held in Copenhagen in 1980. Learning from the Mexico experience and her previous experiences as chief organizer of the NGO Conference Against Apartheid and Colonialism in 1974, Ballantyne was concerned about broadening decision-making powers in the organization of the meeting. She insisted on the creation of two organizing committees, one in New York and one in Geneva. When the two did not seem to work in concert, Ballantyne lamented the lack of public consultation and the failure to balance the need for efficiency with democratic, feminist, and participatory decision-making processes.25 Further, she urged other NGO conference organizers to include a large number of women from the Third World in the NGO forum and to allow NGO forum participants to determine the agenda and content of meetings, rather than having the organizing committees do so.26 WILPF was selected to coordinate the NGO sessions related to peace, and, thanks to this, it became quite a visible force in Copenhagen. If in Mexico Western-led organizations had limited debate to what they considered “apolitical” women’s issues, they faulted instead the Copenhagen meeting for being too “political,” reinforcing, from WILPF’s perspective, a “false dichotomy” between political issues and women’s issues.27 Outside of the UN framework, the early 1980s were marked by the proliferation of women’s and feminist antimilitarist movements for disarmament primarily (but not exclusively) in the West.28 WILPF integrated two different approaches to disarmament issues: One involved studying issues, following negotiations, lobbying governments, and navigating within the UN system (mainstreaming strategies); the other was joining the more passionate, populist, and more explicitly feminist actions (disengaging strategies) of the newer women’s peace groups.29 WILPF was explicit and deliberate in choosing both approaches, rather than limiting itself to one, and most WILPFers thought of this as an uncommon strength of the organization.30 The “politics of protest” was expressed in many forms of feminist nonviolent action, often inspired by the ecofeminism of the 1980s.31 A peculiar manifestation of feminist nonviolence were the peace encampments, such as the ones in Greenham Common (England), Seneca, New York (where the US section of WILPF bought a farm to support the campers32), and Comiso (Sicily, Italy), where women camped for months protesting NATO missiles and bases in Europe and North America as well as nuclear arms

[ 124 ]

Intelligent Compassion

more generally. Women’s Pentagon Action (WPA), a US group with strong ecofeminist positions against imperialism, military spending, and nuclear weapons development, organized two women’s marches on the Pentagon to oppose the Cold War and the arms race in 1980 and 1981. In November 1981, in conjunction with other women’s peace organizations, WILPF sponsored a meeting in Amsterdam called “Women of Europe in Action for Peace” that saw women from twenty-five countries talk together about nuclear war and détente.33 The Stop the Arms Race (STAR) campaign was another extremely popular WILPF initiative that involved most WILPF sections across the world. Started on International Women’s Day in 1982 under the slogan “One million women can stop the arms race. Be one in a million,” its purpose was to collect women’s signatures against nuclear weapons development and testing and in support of UN disarmament efforts.34 Other than these general aims, the petition drive was shaped differently in each country and adapted to regional and local needs and demands. For example, the Sri Lankan section included an appeal against US bases in the Indian Ocean, while the British section protested the stationing of nuclear submarines in their harbors.35 One million signatures were delivered to NATO in Brussels one year from the launch of the campaign.36 WILPF also helped organize one of the largest peace demonstrations ever held in the United States: Between 750,000 and 1 million people marched to and rallied in New York’s Central Park in occasion of the UN General Assembly’s Second Special Session on Disarmament (SSDII) in June 1982.37 The march was accompanied by a month-long series of events, which included demonstrations and sit-ins in front of the embassies of major nuclear powers, cultural events, concerts, and lectures.38 WILPF sponsored two women’s peace conferences shortly before the SSDII meeting.39 Out of one of these meetings, organized by WILPF US and the American Friends’ Service Committee, came the idea of the Seneca Women’s Encampment for a Future of Peace and Justice mentioned above.40 These large demonstrations and movements were, however, unable to influence SSDII toward any substantial action, and the session was considered by many an “unmitigated failure.”41 In all these actions, WILPF’s main message was not only one of disarmament but one that stressed the human and environmental costs of the development, testing, and deployment of nuclear and other types of weapons. For instance, in the summer of 1982 WILPF changed its statement of aims to a formulation critiquing the economic roots of the arms race and war, a reference that had been eliminated in 1959 (as explained in chapter 3). Moreover, the 1983 International WILPF Congress in Goteborg issued a

EPILOGUE

[ 125 ]

resolution defining development as “a process of individual and social betterment of people . . . providing them with an improved quality of life in the fullest sense” and proclaiming the right to development as inclusive of “all human rights.” Further, the resolution stated: “It is demonstrable that the arms race is a part of the larger issue of injustices in international economic relations, there being close links between disarmament and peace and the present crisis of development with a growing share of the world’s resources going toward armaments rather than basic needs such as food, shelter, clothing, health care, etc.”42 On the other hand, the same international congress passed a resolution on the women’s decade that acknowledged the responsibility of the North in perpetuating global inequalities at the expense of recognition for Third World women’s agency.43 The mid-decade conference in Copenhagen had a long-term positive impact on women’s organizing in general and on WILPF in particular, both because it constituted an important bridge between Mexico and the endof-decade conference in Nairobi44 and because contacts established at the conference allowed for the creation of two new sections (French Polynesia and the Netherlands) in the years to come.45 For WILPF, lessons learned from Mexico and Copenhagen included the need to expand the planning circle to Third World women. To this end, in 1985 WILPF International organized a seminar in Madras (Chennai) and WILPF Australia convened a Pacific women’s conference to solicit input, gather ideas, and encourage Asian women’s participation in the upcoming meeting in Nairobi.46 In the same year, a conference on women’s alternative conceptions of security consolidated Edith Ballantyne’s idea of establishing a (WILPF) Peace Tent at the NGO Forum in Nairobi to create “a space for women to speak about their differences in a safe place.”47 The conference organizers selected Ballantyne to develop the program for the NGO forum sessions on peace and supported the creation of the Peace Tent.48 This became a space set aside on the University of Nairobi campus to share experiences and views about conflict in a “neutral setting and avoid the escalation of emotions and rhetoric that occurred in more public and political arenas, where the media sought out sensational confrontations.”49 Ballantyne had the following to say about the forum and the Peace Tent: In WILPF and groups like it, we always think we have so much to teach, but we have found there that we have so much to learn, particularly from those who are deeply oppressed. They brought a reality to the discussions that helped make clear the links between equality, development, and peace. That helped women to rise above some very real differences and disagreements and seek accommodation.50

[ 126 ]

Intelligent Compassion

In fact while the Nairobi NGO Forum was more structured than previous ones, participants were also freer to make up their own agenda and program.51 Conflicts remained but were generally thought as productive, and the Peace Tent provided an important and safe space to foster constructive dialogue on conflictual topics. Nairobi was also more widely representative of the world population than previous conferences had been, with 60 percent of the forum participants coming from the Third World.52 The forward looking strategies (FLS) of the official conference adopted a much broader look at women and gender relations than previous documents and advocated the “mainstreaming of gender considerations into all programmes and areas of the UN system.”53 In relation to peace and security, the FLS explicitly identified armed conflict and the arms race as obstacles to the full participation of women in “international decision making with respect to peace and related issues,” hence to their full enjoyment of human rights.54 The UN Decade represented a “fundamental shift in global governance norms,”55 and by 1985 “the global women’s movement was well on the way to transforming itself but was only beginning to transform the world.” Different meetings between women from the South and the North helped develop a global feminism.56 WILPF actively participated in this development by cultivating contacts and inclusive deliberations, as well as bringing peace as a political issue of concern to women to these encounters. In turn, the growing synergy between WILPF and newer women’s groups nurtured the organization’s renewed emphasis on its prewar feminist roots.57

WOMEN, FEMINISM, AND PEACE FROM NAIROBI TO BEIJING (1985–1995)

The consultations among women’s organizations started in Mexico continued after the Nairobi conference and eventually led to the fourth UN Conference on Women held in Beijing in 1995. Following Nairobi (and thanks in part to WILPF’s efforts at the women’s conferences), women’s networking became more organized around global issues, more explicitly antiwar, and more explicitly focused on the relationships between disarmament and development, bridging the concerns of women in the South with those in the North.58 Moreover, whereas in the previous decade women’s organizations were only marginally concerned with “human rights standard-setting” at the UN,59 during this time such concerns became more visible and central to their work.

EPILOGUE

[ 127 ]

WILPF continued to work on several fronts, “making the links” between arms production and proliferation with the political economy of war, racism, human rights’ violations, and environmental disaster. During a meeting of women peace activists, Edith Ballantyne expressed WILPF’s principles with these words: “There [can] be no development or equality without peace, but there [can] be no peace either without equality and development, without justice. The issues [are] inextricably linked.”60 In 1986 WILPF adopted a program titled “Toward a Nuclear-Weapon and Hunger-Free Twenty-First Century” and called for a “Global Women’s Network for Disarmament and Development.” In many subsequent gatherings, it continued to further the debate on women’s economic and social rights, peace, and development that had started in the preceding decade using the Nairobi FLS as an organizing tool for the implementation of its program.61 WILPF also became more involved in the broader women’s networks that participated and co-organized NGOs’ involvement in several UN conferences in the early 1990s, such as the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, the 1993 World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna, and the 1995 World Summit for Social Development in Copenhagen.62 Following Chernobyl, WILPF called for halt in nuclear power plants and the development of renewable energy technologies.63 In 1990 it produced a document pointing to the effects of military activity on the environment, which was submitted as part of a statement by seventeen NGOs to the preparatory committee for the UN Conference on Environment and Development.64 Among the first organizations to call for a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty,65 in 1991 WILPF protested the failure to achieve one by calling, together with several other NGOs, for a “People Test Ban Treaty.”66 In its 1992 meeting, WILPF IEC condemned Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait and the subsequent Gulf War, equating the two to Israel’s occupation of Palestine and Lebanon. In this specific resolution, WILPF managed to express support for the UN and opposition to UN policies by decrying the manipulation of the Security Council for “political means,” the selective enforcement of resolutions, and “big states’” political pressures on small states. At the same time, WILPF opposed indiscriminate economic sanctions, declaring the primacy of human rights, both in the imposition of sanctions and in the cost-benefit analysis of their consequences.67 In 1994 WILPF reluctantly renewed its support for the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT; though it decried its discriminatory character) but urged that the review conference scheduled for the next year call for a five-year extension in view of providing a deadline for complete disarmament.68 Finally, WILPF took up Security Council reform in its 1995 congress, asking that it democratize by electing all members without distinction

[ 128 ]

Intelligent Compassion

between permanent and nonpermanent ones: It called on women to take on the cause of Security Council on the basis of nondiscrimination. In this decade WILPF continued to prioritize the struggle against racism, pointing to the necessity of recruitment of a multiracial membership and nurturing alliances with multiracial and antiracist organizations69 in an effort to compensate its continuous “lack of consistent Third World input.”70 As wars raged in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, WILPF called for peace and the equal participation of women in the peacemaking process, building its case on the Nairobi FLS.71 WILPF’s unremitting involvement in the growing global women’s movement of the 1990s brought with it the idea of a Peace Train to Beijing. The brainchild of then WILPF Secretary General Barbara Lochbihler, the Peace Train departed from Helsinki, the site of WILPF’s eightieth anniversary International Congress and carried 240 women through several countries to Beijing. The train was specifically organized to put a spotlight on Eastern European women’s problems and their perceived lack of input in the preparatory meetings for the Fourth UN Conference on Women. During the seven stops along the way, specifically selected to draw attention to areas of potential conflict and undergoing difficult political and economic transitions, the travelers on the Peace Train met with representatives of local NGOs. These included Russian and Chechen soldiers’ mothers, Women in Black from Belgrade, and women in the antinuclear movement in the Ukraine and Kazakhstan. On the train, women organized workshops, trainings, and social events to prepare themselves for the meeting in Beijing and to develop stronger ties with each other.72 If Nairobi was “the coming of age” of the women’s movement,73 in Beijing the movement was even closer to maturity. Despite controversies, Chinese government obstruction, and organized opposition to feminist goals, Beijing saw an ever-increasing participation of NGOs, especially from the global South, with 4,035 NGO representatives to the official conferences of 4,995 government delegates and 31,000 activists at the NGO Forum.74 At the NGO Forum held in Huaroi, WILPF organized another Peace Tent, which became again a safe space for discussing differences and difficult subjects. Because the conference was held shortly after French nuclear tests in the South Pacific and Chinese nuclear tests in Xinjiang province, WILPF facilitated many activities around the question of nuclear weapons,75 explicitly tying disarmament and demilitarization to other women’s issues and was the only women’s organization to do so.76 WILPF women welcomed the inclusion of a section on “Women and Armed Conflict” in the Beijing Platform for Action, specifically linking disarmament, development, and equality between women and men. The section emphasized the

EPILOGUE

[ 129 ]

need for the protection of women in armed conflicts, as well as the promotion of their participation in both official and unofficial peacemaking, to foster the promotion of a culture of peace.77 These were the same concerns and demands that WILPF had been insisting on for years. They became the basis on which WILPF was to lead a coalition of other women’s NGOs to draw the subject to the attention of the UN Security Council.

BEYOND BEIJING: WOMEN, PEACE, AND SECURITY: 1995–2000S

Following Beijing, WILPF continued to search for alliances outside its membership reach while providing institutional and know-how support to women’s NGOs willing to engage with the UN. Felicity Hill, a young woman from Australia who had traveled on the Peace Train and had been a WILPF disarmament intern, became the director of WILPF UN Office in New York. Thanks to her leadership, WILPF’s work consolidated around two major areas, both drawing inspiration from the Beijing Platform for Action: Women, peace and security, and nuclear disarmament. Of course, WILPF did not cease to be concerned with other issues; on the contrary, it continued to integrate all of its activities in an expansive understanding of peace using the emerging concept of human security as an overarching framework. In a twist on traditional associations between peace and security (which in policy and mainstream IR was intended as military security), peace became, for WILPF and other women’s groups, associated with a conception of security that included human and environmental rights,78 paying particular attention to the lives of women. Two important projects specifically propelled WILPF once again to the forefront of the feminist peace movement. The first project was inspired by the need to coordinate NGO actions around the NPT. The 1995 NPT review conference decided to extend the treaty indefinitely but failed to reach agreement on a number of contentious issues. In anticipation of the following review conference, in 1999 WILPF New York office created Reaching Critical Will (RCW) to “promote and facilitate the engagement of non-governmental actors in UN processes related to disarmament.”79 RCW became a warehouse of information on nuclear disarmament at the UN, including speeches and documents from the United Nations General Assembly and the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva.80 When the review conference began its sessions in April 2000, RCW produced daily analyses of its work through a newsletter and organized “opportunities for NGOs to formulate coherent demands and strategies for realising [sic] them.”81 The 2000 NPT Review Conference

[ 130 ]

Intelligent Compassion

concluded with a thirteen-point action plan, to which all signatories committed and which was to bring about total nuclear disarmament.82 States’ eventual abandonment of the thirteen steps and the failure or near failure of subsequent review meetings did not deter WILPF or cause the cessation of RCW. On the contrary, RCW continues to link nuclear disarmament to human security, democracy, women’s rights, environmental degradation, total and universal disarmament, the reduction of military spending, and global demilitarization.83 Today RCW promotes women’s access to the NPT and other disarmament forums and coordinates international actions and joint NGO activities. Through RCW and national sections, WILPF has taken an active role in the dissemination of accessible technical and political information on nuclear weapons negotiations and on other crucial disarmament questions, including small arms and light weapons, the relationship between disarmament and development, land mines, the health and environmental implications of nuclear technology, the weaponization of space, the relationship between gender and disarmament, the impact of the nuclear age on First Nations’ lands, and many other topics.84 RCW conducts its work within the women, peace, and security framework85 and in close coordination with the other major project of WILPF at the UN, PeaceWomen. The impetus for this other WILPF initiative came from the 1998 meeting of the Commission on the Status of Women at the UN, where the Women and Armed Conflict section of the Beijing Platform for Action was debated. At the time, WILPF coordinated a caucus of women’s NGOs with the purpose of making women’s agendas a part of the main agenda of the UN.86 On Women’s Day 2000, the president of the Security Council (Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury of Bangladesh) emphasized the need for the Security Council to examine the intersections between gender, peace, and security. In March 2000 the government of Namibia hosted a workshop on “Mainstreaming a Gender Perspective in Multidimensional Peace Support Operations” in Windhoek. Seizing these occasions, at the 2000 CSW the caucus was renamed the NGO Working Group on Women, Peace, and Security and began to work specifically on a Security Council resolution.87 Up until then, the Security Council had never issued a resolution focused on women or gender, and WILPF was determined to change that. The Windhoek Declaration had made of Namibia, whose presidency of the Security Council was coming up in October, an obvious ally for the NGO Working Group on Women, Peace, and Security.88 Namibia (together with Canada, Jamaica, and Bangladesh) started to push forward the idea of an open meeting within the Security Council89 with the help of arguments and documentation provided by the Working Group, including a

EPILOGUE

[ 131 ]

draft resolution given to the Namibian delegation.90 When other states started seriously considering the possibility of such a meeting the women worked directly with them, providing their delegations with copies of recent academic books on the theme of gender and security, together with summaries of each. At the “Arria formula” meeting, a number of women shared their experiences during armed conflict with members of the Security Council and described women’s grassroots efforts at peacebuilding.91 Finally, Namibia thoroughly edited and modified the draft resolution before presenting to the Security Council.92 United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 (SCR 1325) on Women, Peace, and Security was formally and unanimously adopted on October 31, 2000. Although it had retained only part of the original language used by women’s NGOs,93 the resolution represented a breakthrough for women for a number of reasons. First, it was unprecedented for the Security Council to devote an entire resolution to the subject of women and armed conflict. SCR 1325 points to women’s different experiences in armed conflicts: It recognizes their victimization and right to protection, as well as their contributions to peace-building. It emphasizes women’s right to participate in all phases of peacemaking processes. It asks that a gender perspective be adopted in all peace support and Disarmament Demobilization and Reintegration operations and for better women’s representation in the UN system as a whole.94 Second, as I have shown, SCR 1325 was almost entirely the result of women’s lobbying, and it has since been the catalyst and impetus for increased women’s activism and networking in areas affected by violent conflict and areas called “at peace.”95 Finally, it has spurred a number of subsequent, more specific SCRs on women, peace, and security (1820, 1888, 1889, and 1960) and the sustained attention and dedication of a number of member states, which formed a “Friends of 1325” group to improve its implementation in the UN system.96 Created in the wake of the passing of SCR 1325, WILPF’s PeaceWomen Project has become a widely used portal for a large network of women’s organizations working with and through 1325. Its website (http://www.peacewomen.org) now publishes information from women in war zones, bibliographies, tools, and materials on SCR 1325 and follow-up resolutions; coordinates their translation (over 100 languages as of the end of 2011); publishes reviews of its implementation (including information on National Action Plans); and holds regional and international consultations. The portal has been an important resource for women worldwide, who use SCR 1325 to press their governments to include them in all decision making regarding peace and security. Many WILPF national sections have taken an active role in supporting SCR 1325 and PeaceWomen, including but not limited to pressuring women’s participation

[ 132 ]

Intelligent Compassion

in the drafting of National Action Plans in their specific countries. Such has been the case of the Swedish, Congolese, Australian, and US sections.97 Many feminist commentators have criticized SCR 1325 for not going far enough and for failing to offer a pathway for ending all wars and rather making “war safe for women.”98 They have pointed out the ambiguous implications of securitizing women’s human rights,99 as well as SCR 1325’s failure to challenge “the gender regime that causes women’s victimization in war and their exclusion from peace processes.”100 WILPF and other groups working for its implementation acknowledge lacunae due to SCR 1325’s liberal underpinnings and the assumptions and language of the UN Security Council. Some of its original advocates have become quite disillusioned by what they see as a cooptation of the women anti-militarist resolution by states and military alliances.101 In view of the obstacles to the implementation of SCR 1325’s “transformative potential,”102 WILPF’s official position at this juncture is to push for the interpretation of the resolution through a human rights framework. In WILPF’s view international human rights law would provide “an entry point for the critique of militarism and militarization,”103 as well as of the social and economic roots of violent conflicts. In its approach to SCR 1325, WILPF continues to offer “an undiluted clear unashamed politics critical of militarism and war per se, and the specificities of what that implies in specific conflict situations and issue areas.”104

CONCLUSION

For almost thirty years after World War II, WILPF worked with most agencies of the UN system, while many other women’s organizations’ primary referent was the Commission on the Status of Women.105 From the UN Women’s Decade onward, WILPF started paying more attention to UN women’s agencies and took an increasingly important role in the women’s movement, becoming one of the most vocal advocates for the inclusion of peace in the developing UN women’s agenda. Later, it capitalized on its expertise about and connections with the UN system to funnel women’s demands into the system while facilitating the creation of and nurturing of a global women’s network. WILPF did not abandon either the UN or the liberal cornerstones of its foundations. However, it worked within that system to make it more inclusive and responsive to women’s voices, as well as more transparent and democratic, without losing sight of its own transformational goals. In the absence of inclusion of different constituencies in its own ranks, it kept searching for inclusivity in its decision making. The ideas about

EPILOGUE

[ 133 ]

women, peace, and security that WILPF (together with other organizations) brought to the UN had been discussed, negotiated, defined, and redefined with different women from around the world for many years. They expressed a connection between the promotion of human rights (in particular women’s rights), an economy centered on human needs, the safeguard of our environment, and the abandonment of militarism. As SCR 1325, subsequent resolutions on women, peace, and security, and the recently established UN Women attest, the UN was also changed by women’s and WILPF’s work. Critics may observe that gender mainstreaming at the UN is little more than lip service and that it reflects a limited (liberal) understanding of gender relations with little potential for systemic change. Common questions even in WILPF today are whether or not to cooperate, and to what extent, with the UN and whether there is space for transformative action within it. Nevertheless, while it is important to recognize how far the women’s movement has come, transformation lies in the ways in which the process that brought about this limited change transformed the women’s movement itself and WILPF in particular. WILPF’s ambivalent relationship with the global governance system is exemplified by the appointment of Madeleine Rees as Secretary General in 2010. Rees is a British antidiscrimination lawyer who held prominent positions for the UN High Commission for Human Rights (UNHCHR). During her years at UNHCHR, she became a vocal advocate for the effective prosecution of international operatives for human rights violations in host countries.106 As head of the UNHCHR office in Sarajevo, Rees, together with former US police officer-turned-UN International Police Force monitor Kathryn Bolkovac and others, exposed the role of private US military contractors and UN personnel in human trafficking networks in BosniaHerzegovina. Her outspokenness about UN accountability on this and other issues eventually cost her her job. When her contract with the UN was not renewed, Rees engaged in litigation against her former employer107 and she joined WILPF soon after her dismissal. Rees retains her trust in the power of international law to effect structural change, if used and transformed by women’s advocacy to suit women’s needs and agendas. Yet she is skeptical of a UN system that subordinates women’s agendas to political expediency.108 While the organization’s hierarchical structure has come up for debate time and again within WILPF, there is continuing appreciation of the great flexibility that WILPF’s constitution and by-laws allow in local and national actions, organizational frameworks, and policy work. In describing feminist antimilitarist groups in Britain from the 1820s to the 1908s, Jill Liddington claims that they often emerged in response to particular crises and

[ 134 ]

Intelligent Compassion

were, therefore, highly cyclical and temporary.109 Mary Meyer observes that, by contrast, WILPF’s formal organizational structure facilitated its longevity and, by extension, its capacity to adopt long-term transformational work.110 Today WILPF’s greater obstacle to continued international relevance is its difficulty in attracting and retaining new members and especially young women.111 This is an urgent task, given the organization’s numbers: in August 2011 it counted fewer than 5,000 active members in less than 40 national sections.112 With the rise of social networks and internet activism the relevance of membership-based organizations might seem to be waning. However, some sections (for example, WILPF Sweden, Colombia, and newer sections in Mexico, the DRC, and Nigeria) are indeed successful in recruiting young women and fostering their leadership. It is not by chance that sections who have nurtured the involvement and leadership of young women seem to be also the ones who have had greater success in attracting more diverse membership and supporting the development and growth of sections in the Third World (for example, Colombia and Sweden were instrumental in the formation of new sections in Mexico and Nigeria, respectively). Young WILPF women seem to be interested in new forms of engagement with each other and with structures of power at the local, national, and international level, including making extensive use of technology and online activism. At the same time, they express the desire for concrete, direct actions to effect change beyond what they perceive as WILPF’s endless debates on questions of principles. They are willing to sacrifice ideological purity and accept more “theoretical untidiness”113 while continuing to use a mixture of both mainstreaming and disengaging strategies locally, nationally, and globally. Inclusivity, skeptical scrutiny, and intelligent compassion are expressed in solidarity and shared actions rather than in deliberations. They prefer decentralization and networking to rigidity in structure, ideology or strategies. They put in practice horizontal leadership models without worrying too much about their abstract design prior to practice, working synergetically with international and national staff members. As WILPF moves toward its 100-year birthday, it will be a challenge and a necessity for older WILPFers to adapt to the changes asked by young WILPFers and let these new members lead the way.

EPILOGUE

[ 135 ]

This page intentionally left blank

NOTES

CHAPTER 1 1. International Chairmen’s Letter of Invitation to National Sections, in Gertrude Bussey and Margaret Tims, Pioneers for Peace: Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, 1915–1965 (London: WILPF British Section, 1980), 179. 2. Andrée Jouve, “Reports of the National Sections: France,” in Xth International Congress of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom at Luxembourg: August 4th–9th, 1946 (Geneva, Switzerland: WILPF, 1946), 78–89; microfilm reel 141.2, SCPC. 3. Bussey and Tims, Pioneers for Peace, 184. 4. Bussey and Tims, Pioneers for Peace, 182. 5. Oliver P. Richmond, Peace in International Relations (New York: Routledge, 2008), 8. 6. I use the conventional description of this literature in calling it “idealist” with the awareness that the label was applied to it somewhat unfairly by selfdescribed “realists” in the course of the so-called “first debate.” See Lucian M. Ashworth, “Did the Realist–Idealist Great Debate Really Happen? A Revisionist History of International Relations,” International Relations 16, no. 1 (April 2002), 33–51. 7. Richmond, Peace in International Relations, 21–39. 8. Richmond, Peace in International Relations, 98–99. 9. Richmond, Peace in International Relations, 13. 10. Johan Galtung, who is widely considered to be one of the founders of the field of peace studies, credits Gandhi for having inspired him to think about structural violence. 11. Brooke A. Ackerly, Political Theory and Feminist Social Criticism (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 17. 12. Charlotte Hooper, Manly States: Masculinities, International Relations, and Gender Politics (New York: Columbia University Press, 2001). 13. Catia C. Confortini, “Galtung, Violence, and Gender: The Case for a Peace Studies/Feminism Alliance,” Peace & Change 31, no. 3 (2006), 333–67. 14. For an insightful discussion on how gendered discourse works to delegitimize all notions associated with the feminine, see Carol Cohn, “Wars, Wimps, and Women: Talking Gender and Thinking War,” in Gendering War Talk, eds. Miriam Cooke and Angela Woollacott (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993), 227–46.

15. See J. Ann Tickner, “Feminist Perspectives on Peace and World Security,” in Peace and World Security Studies: A Curriculum Guide, 6th ed., ed. Michael T. Klare (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1993), 43–54; J. Ann Tickner, “Introducing Feminist Perspectives into Peace and World Security Courses,” Women’s Studies Quarterly 23, no. 3 (Fall 1995), 48–57. 16. Tickner, “Introducing Feminist Perspectives.” 17. For example, Betty Reardon, Sexism and the War System (New York: Teachers College Press, 1985); Jodi York, “The Truth about Women and Peace,” in The Women and War Reader, eds. Lois Ann Lorentzen and Jennifer E. Turpin (New York: New York University Press, 1998), 19–25; Birgit Brock-Utne, Feminist Perspectives on Peace and Peace Education (New York: Pergamon Press, 1989). 18. For example, Jean Bethke Elshtain, “The Problem with Peace,” in Women, Militarism, and War: Essays in History, Politics, and Social Theory, eds. Jean Bethke Elshtain and Sheila Tobias (Savage, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1990), 255–66; and Christine Sylvester, “Some Dangers in Merging Feminist and Peace Projects,” Alternatives 12, no. 4 (October 1987), 493–509. 19. J. Ann Tickner, Gender in International Relations: Feminist Perspectives on Achieving Global Security (New York: Columbia University Press, 1992), 59. 20. The literature on gender and conflict is, by contrast, very rich, and early feminist literature on gender and peace has greatly informed the international relations (IR) subfield of feminist security studies; see Annick Wibben, Feminist Security Studies: A Narrative Approach (New York: Routledge, 2011), 4–5. 21. For example, in 1915 C. K. Ogden and Mary Sargant Florence published a pamphlet titled “Militarism versus Feminism: An Enquiry and a Policy Demonstrating that Militarism Involves the Subjection of Women.” Reprinted in Karen Offen, European Feminisms 1700–1950: A Political History (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2000), 258. 22. Linda Rennie Forcey, “Women as Peacemakers: Contested Terrain for Feminist Peace Studies,” Peace & Change 16, no. 4 (October 1991), 331–54. 23. Adrienne Harris and Ynestra King, “Introduction,” in Rocking the Ship of State: Toward a Feminist Peace Politics, eds. Adrienne Harris and Ynestra King (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1989), 2. 24. Francisca de Haan, “Getting to the Source: A ‘Truly International’ Archive for the Women’s Movement (IAV now IIAV): From Its Foundation in Amsterdam in 1935 to the Return of Its Looted Archives in 2003,” Journal of Women’s History 16, no. 4 (2004), 150. 25. Kristen E. Gwinn, Emily Greene Balch: The Long Road to Internationalism (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2010). 26. A contentious point among historians is the extent to which Wilson was indeed influenced by the women’s plan. Jane Addams’s biographer Louise W. Knight falls short of making a connection between the two: She rather claims that six of Wilson’s Fourteen Points “were moderate versions of resolutions in the ICWPP’s [International Committee of Women for Permanent Peace] platform, which, as Wilson recognized, while having a good deal in common with many other peace platforms, was more complete.” See Louise W. Knight, Jane Addams: Spirit in Action (New York: W. W. Norton, 2010), 222–23. On the other hand, Wilson’s biographer John Cooper traces the Fourteen Points speech to a plan drafted by a “freestanding committee” of experts and modified by Edward House and Wilson himself. See John Milton Cooper, Woodrow Wilson: A Biography (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2009), 421–23. Though Cooper never refers to the influence of peace

[ 138 ]

Notes to Pages 7–9

27.

28.

29.

30.

31. 32. 33.

34. 35.

36. 37. 38. 39. 40.

groups on this committee or on Wilson, Liddington quotes Jane Addams reporting that Wilson said to her that the women’s congress “was by far the best formulation [of a peace plan] which up to the moment has been put out by anybody.” See Jill Liddington, The Road to Greenham Common: Feminism and Anti-Militarism in Britain since 1820 (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1991), 104. J. L. Richardson, Contending Liberalisms in World Politics: Ideology and Power (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2001), 63; Richmond, Peace in International Relations, 33. See also Cooper, Woodrow Wilson, 423. For a fascinating and thorough insider’s account of the birth and history of WILPF up until 1965, see Bussey and Tims, Pioneers for Peace. This historical summary is largely derived from that volume; from Catherine Foster, Women for All Seasons: The Story of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1989); and from Leila J. Rupp, Worlds of Women: The Making of an International Women’s Movement (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1997). Clara Ragaz, “Swiss Section Report,” in Report of the International Congress of Women, Zurich, May 12 to 17, 1919, English ed. (Geneva, Switzerland: WILPF, 1920), 16; microfilm reel 141.1, SCPC. Karen Garner similarly finds that Western women’s and feminist movements from 1925 to 1985 transcended the theoretical dichotomy between “equality” and “difference” feminism and, rather, “as circumstances demanded, employed various strategies to advance feminist empowerment.” See Karen Garner, Shaping a Global Women’s Agenda: Women’s NGOs and Global Governance (Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 2010), 4. Bussey and Tims, Pioneers for Peace, 35. Gwinn, Emily Greene Balch, 136–40. As a result of that first fact-finding trip to China, urged support for the Kuomintang as the legitimate government of China on the ground that “Chiang Kai-Shek [was] definitely working with committees and cabinet and [was] trying to build up a civil Government.” See Edith Pye’s report in Bussey and Tims, Pioneers for Peace, 62. Kathleen Innes, in Bussey and Tims, Pioneers for Peace, 121 (emphases in original). Richmond, Peace in International Relations, 21–39. WILPF favored the strengthening of the League of Nations (and, since 1945, the United Nations), advocating for universality of membership, the establishment of machinery for international peace, and total and universal disarmament. It worked on the relationship between disarmament and economics, particularly viewing free trade as an incentive to international peace. It declared its opposition to all forms of imperialism and colonialism. Message of the Three International Chairmen to the UN President, April 1945, in Bussey and Tims, Pioneers for Peace, 177. Robert Latham, The Liberal Moment: Modernity, Security, and the Making of Postwar International Order (New York: Columbia University Press, 1997). For example, Ian Welsh, Mobilizing Modernity: The Nuclear Moment (New York: Routledge, 2000), 17–18. For example, Anthony Giddens, The Consequences of Modernity (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1990). Welsh, Mobilizing Modernity, 18.

Notes to Pages 9–13

[ 139 ]

41. John Gerard Ruggie, “International Regimes, Transactions, and Change: Embedded Liberalism in the Postwar Economic Order,” International Organization 36, no. 2 [Special Issue: International Regimes] (Spring 1982), 379–415. 42. Richmond, Peace in International Relations, 21–39. 43. Richardson, Contending Liberalisms, 2. 44. Richardson, Contending Liberalisms, 9. 45. Latham, Liberal Moment. 46. This is Cox’s definition of hegemony in Robert W. Cox, “Towards a Post-Hegemonic Conceptualization of World Order: Reflections on the Relevancy of Ibn Khaldun,” in Governance without Government: Order and Change in World Politics, eds. James N. Rosenau and Ernst Otto Czempiel (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 140. 47. Richardson, Contending Liberalisms, 20. 48. Latham, Liberal Moment, 62. 49. Brooke A. Ackerly, Maria Stern, and Jacqui True, “Feminist Methodologies for International Relations,” in Feminist Methodologies for International Relations, eds. Brooke A. Ackerly, Maria Stern, and Jacqui True (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 6. 50. Catia C. Confortini, “Women, Feminism, and Peace: Highlights from the 2005 World Social Forum,” Peace & Freedom 65, no. 1 (Spring 2005), 18. 51. The few notable exceptions include Leila J. Rupp and Verta A. Taylor, Survival in the Doldrums: The American Women’s Rights Movement, 1945 to the 1960s (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987); Deborah Stienstra, Women’s Movements and International Organizations (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1994); Garner, Shaping a Global Women’s Agenda. 52. Drawing on resource mobilization theory, Verta Taylor defines abeyance “as a holding process by which movements sustain themselves in non-receptive political environments and provide continuity from one stage of mobilization to another.” Verta Taylor, “Social Movement Continuity: The Women’s Movement in Abeyance,” American Sociological Review 54, no. 5 (October 1989), 761. 53. Dorothy E. Smith, The Conceptual Practices of Power: A Feminist Sociology of Knowledge (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1990), 22. 54. Brooke A. Ackerly and Jacqui True, Doing Feminist Research in Political and Social Science (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010), chapter 11; Brooke Ackerly and Jacqui True, “Studying the Struggles and Wishes of the Age: Feminist Theoretical Methodology and Feminist Theoretical Methods,” in Feminist Methodologies for International Relations, eds. Brooke A. Ackerly, Maria Stern, and Jacqui True (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 244. 55. Audie Klotz and Cecelia Lynch, Strategies for Research in Constructivist International Relations (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 2007). CHAPTER 2 1. Latham, Liberal Moment, 14–15. 2. Following Cecelia Lynch and Audie Klotz, within the label “constructivist” I group a variety of scholars who may differ on ideological and epistemological grounds but who share three common ontological principles: (a) the need for contextualizing the issues under analysis; (b) the belief that the social world is, for some important part, made up of intersubjective understandings; and (c) the insistence on the co-constitution of structure and agency (Klotz and Lynch, Strategies for Research).

[ 140 ]

Notes to Pages 13–20

3. Klotz and Lynch, Strategies for Research, chapter 2. 4. Audie Klotz and Cecelia Lynch, “Translating Terminologies,” International Studies Review 8, no. 2 (June 2006), 357. 5. This is Cox’s definition of critical theory, which I view as part of the larger constructivist project because it is informed by a constructivist ontology of agent–structure co-constitution. Robert W. Cox, “Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory,” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 10, no. 2 (June 1981), 129. 6. J. Ann Tickner, “What Is Your Research Program? Some Feminist Answers to International Relations Methodological Questions,” International Studies Quarterly 49, no. 1 (March 2005): 1–22. 7. Ken Booth, “Security and Emancipation,” Review of International Studies 17, no. 4 (1991), 313–26. 8. Ackerly and True, “Studying the Struggles,” 244. 9. See Birgit Locher and Elisabeth Prügl, “Feminism and Constructivism: Worlds Apart or Sharing the Middle Ground?” International Studies Quarterly 45, no. 1 (March 2001), 114. 10. Cynthia H. Enloe, The Curious Feminist: Searching for Women in a New Age of Empire (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004); Tickner, Gender in International Relations. 11. Alcoff, Linda Martín. “Rethinking Maternal Thinking,” APA Newsletter on Feminism and Philosophy 3, no. 1 (Fall 2003), 86. 12. Sandra Harding, “Rethinking Feminist Standpoint Epistemology: What Is ‘Strong Objectivity’?” in Feminist Epistemologies, eds. Linda Alcoff and Elizabeth Potter (New York: Routledge, 1993), 62. 13. Ackerly and True, “Studying the Struggles,” 248. See also Catherine Eschle, Global Democracy, Social Movements, and Feminism (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2001), 13. 14. Fiona Robinson, “Methods of Feminist Normative Theory: A Political Ethic of Care for International Relations,” in Feminist Methodologies for International Relations, eds. Brooke A. Ackerly, Maria Stern, and Jacqui True (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 222. 15. V. Spike Peterson and Anne Sisson Runyan, Global Gender Issues, 2nd ed. (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1999), 5. 16. V. Spike Peterson, “Introduction,” in Gendered States: Feminist (Re) Visions of International Relations Theory, ed. V. Spike Peterson (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1992), 8–9. 17. Ackerly and True, “Studying the Struggles,” 246. 18. Cynthia H. Enloe, “Margins, Silences and Bottom Rungs: How to Overcome the Underestimation of Power in the Study of International Relations,” in International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, eds. Steve Smith, Ken Booth, and Marysia Zalewski (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 190, 200. 19. Locher and Prügl, “Feminism and Constructivism,” 121. 20. Locher and Prügl, “Feminism and Constructivism,” 121. 21. Kimberly Hutchings, “Feminism, Universalism, and the Ethics of International Politics,” in Women, Culture, and International Relations, eds. Vivienne Jabri and Eleanor O’Gorman (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1999). 22. Kimberly Hutchings, “From Morality to Politics and Back Again: Feminist International Ethics and the Civil-Society Argument,” Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 29, no. 3 (June–July 2004), 242.

Notes to Pages 20–23

[ 141 ]

23. Spivak as interpreted in Hutchings, “From Morality to Politics,” 254. 24. L. H. M. Ling, “The Fish and the Turtle,” in Millennial Reflections on International Studies, eds. Michael Brecher and Frank P. Harvey (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2002), 286. 25. Cynthia Cockburn, From Where We Stand: War, Women’s Activism and Feminist Analysis (New York: Zed Books, 2007), 157. 26. Cockburn, From Where We Stand, 156–80. 27. Ackerly, Political Theory and Feminist Social Criticism. 28. Ackerly, Political Theory and Feminist Social Criticism, 31. 29. Ackerly, Political Theory and Feminist Social Criticism, 10. 30. Ackerly, Political Theory and Feminist Social Criticism, 116. 31. Ackerly, Political Theory and Feminist Social Criticism, 10. 32. Ackerly, Political Theory and Feminist Social Criticism, 78. 33. Ackerly, Political Theory and Feminist Social Criticism, 194. 34. Ackerly, Political Theory and Feminist Social Criticism, 75. 35. Ackerly, Political Theory and Feminist Social Criticism, 10. 36. Kevin Olson, “Constructing Citizens,” The Journal of Politics 70, no. 1 (January 2008), 47. 37. Brooke A. Ackerly, “Listening to the Silent Voices: Deliberative Democracy in the Real World,” paper presented at the annual Thinking Gender Conference, UCLA, March 7, 1997. 38. Ackerly, Political Theory and Feminist Social Criticism. 39. Ackerly, Political Theory and Feminist Social Criticism, chapter 5. 40. Ackerly, Political Theory and Feminist Social Criticism, 14. 41. Ackerly, Political Theory and Feminist Social Criticism, 6. 42. Ackerly, Political Theory and Feminist Social Criticism, 122. 43. Jo Vellacott, “A Place for Pacifism and Transnationalism in Feminist Theory: The Early Work of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom,” Women’s History Review 2, no. 1 (March 1, 1993), 23–56. See also Jo Vellacott, “Women, Peace and Internationalism, 1914–1920: Finding New Words and Creating New Methods,” in Peace Movements and Political Cultures, ed. Charles Chatfield and Peter Van den Dungen (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1988). 44. Vellacott, “Place for Pacifism,” 26–28. 45. Dorothy Hutchinson, “The Right to be Human,” Chairman’s Keynote Address, 1968,p. 7, box 25, 16th International Congress Report 1966 and 17th International Congress Report 1968, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA . CHAPTER 3 This biblically inspired title is borrowed from Marriane Higgins’s homonymous love story, set against the backdrop of the discovery of the deadly effects of x-rays and the atomic bomb; see Marriane Higgins, Evidence of Things Unseen: A Novel (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2003). Portions of this chapter have been previously published as “Links Between Women, Peace and Disarmament: Snapshots from the WILPF,” in Gender, War, and Militarism: Feminist Perspectives, eds. Laura Sjoberg and Sandra Via. Copyright © (2010) by ABC-CLIO, LLC. Reproduced with permission of ABC-CLIO, LLC.” 1. WILPF (hereinafter IEC), Resolutions Passed, 1961, p. 3, box 3, folder 17, Resolutions/Statements 1955–64, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. 2. Latham, Liberal Moment, 34.

[ 142 ]

Notes to Pages 23–30

3. Here “hegemony” is intended in the Gramscian (as adapted by Robert Cox for IR) sense of dominance achieved through a mix of moral persuasion and consent by ruling elites over the majority of society. See Antonio Gramsci, Prison Notebooks, ed. Joseph A. Buttigieg (New York: Columbia University Press, 1992); Robert W. Cox, “Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: An Essay in Method,” Millennium: Journal of International Relations 12, no. 2 (1983), 162–75. 4. Susan Moller Okin, Women in Western Political Thought (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1979); Carole Pateman, The Sexual Contract (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1988); Christine Di Stefano, Configurations of Masculinity: A Feminist Perspective on Modern Political Theory (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1991); Jean Bethke Elshtain, “Sovereignty, Identity, Sacrifice,” in Gendered States: Feminist (Re)Visions of International Relations Theory, ed. V. Spike Peterson (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1992); Tickner, Gender in International Relations; Brooke A. Ackerly, Universal Human Rights in a World of Difference (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2008), especially chapter 3. 5. Christine Sylvester, “Feminists and Realists View Autonomy and Obligation in International Relations,” in Feminist International Relations: An Unfinished Journey (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 186. 6. Pateman, Sexual Contract, 39–76. Jean Bethke Elshtain critiques the modern nation-state as embedded in sacrificial themes far from the feminist ethic of responsibility. She observes that the concept of sovereignty presupposes a gendered understanding of power as domination. Elshtain, “Sovereignty, Identity, Sacrifice,” 150. 7. Carole Pateman, The Problem of Political Obligation: A Critical Analysis of Liberal Theory (New York: Wiley, 1979); Pateman, Sexual Contract. 8. Charles Mills importantly shows how Western societies as well as Western political theory are also based on a “racial contract” that reproduces and legitimizes white supremacy at the local and global level. See Charles W. Mills, The Racial Contract (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1997). For an interesting study of how the racial and sexual contracts underpinned India’s transition to independence and the framing of its Constitution, see Christine Keating, “Framing the Postcolonial Sexual Contract: Democracy, Fraternalism, and State Authority in India,” Hypatia 22, no. 4 (Fall 2007), 130–45. 9. Nancy J. Hirschmann, “Freedom, Recognition and Obligation: A Feminist Approach to Political Theory,” The American Political Science Review 83, no. 4 (December 1989), 1227. 10. Hirschmann, “Freedom, Recognition and Obligation,” 1229. 11. Hirschmann, “Freedom, Recognition and Obligation,” 1229. 12. Evelyn Fox Keller, “Feminism and Science,” Signs 7, no. 3 [Special Issue: Feminist Theory] (Spring 1982), 589–602; Evelyn Fox Keller and Helen E. Longino, Feminism and Science (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), chapter 4; Carolyn Merchant, The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology, and the Scientific Revolution (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1980); Sandra G. Harding, The Science Question in Feminism (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1986); Tickner, Gender in International Relations, 64–65, 103–4. 13. Marysia Zalewski, Feminism after Postmodernism: Theorising through Practice (New York: Routledge, 2000), 35–36. 14. See, for example, Zalewski, Feminism after Postmodernism, 55–59. 15. Hooper, Manly States, 13.

Notes to Pages 31–32

[ 143 ]

16. Carrie A. Foster, The Women and the Warriors: The U.S. Section of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, 1915–1946 (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1995), 6. 17. Cecelia Lynch, Beyond Appeasement: Interpreting Interwar Peace Movements in World Politics (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1999), 56. 18. WILPF US Section, The United Nations and World Law, 1963, p. 1, box 119, folder 7, The United Nations and World Law, WILPF Second Accession, UCBA. 19. It is relevant to note the similarity of this position with that of liberal feminism, which generally points to the need for laws to remedy gender inequalities. See Rosemarie Tong, Feminist Thought: A More Comprehensive Introduction, 2nd ed. (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1998), 10–44. 20. WILPF US Section, The United Nations and World Law, 13. 21. WILPF IEC, Resolutions Adopted, 1952, p. 2, box 3, folder 16, Resolutions/ Statements 1946–54, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. 22. Dorothy Hutchinson, Message to the World Council of Peace Meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, 1966, p. 1, box 12, folder 8, Releases 1955–94, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. 23. WILPF IEC, Resolutions, “U.N.O.,” 1947, p. 2, box 46, folder 6, Resolutions 1948–52, WILPF Second Accession, UCBA. 24. This optimism and faith in the UN as the best deliberative and democratic organ did not vanish in the two decades that followed. Indeed, WILPF has retained trust in the UN system, in principle, up to this day, despite the critiques mounted against the organization from several other women’s NGOs. But starting in the mid-1970s, trust was limited to a sense that the UN was the best that humanity could do, given the circumstances. 25. Foster, Women for All Seasons, 22, 32–33. 26. Gertrude Baer, Report of the Work of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom with United Nations in Geneva from the Meeting of the International Executive Committee in Magleaas, Denmark, August 1954 until the Meeting of the International Executive Committee in Hamburg, Germany, July 1955, 1955, p. 9, box 14, folder 3, Reports 1955–56, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. 27. Else Zeuthen, “Regional Pacts and Peace,” in XIth International Congress of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, at Copenhagen, Christiansboro Castle, August 15th–19th, 1949 (Geneva, Switzerland: WILPF, 1949), 218, microfilm reel 141.2, SCPC. 28. Zeuthen, “Regional Pacts and Peace,” 219. 29. WILPF IEC, Statement on Current Affairs, 1954, p. 2, box 3, folder 16, Resolutions/Statements 1946–54, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. 30. See WILPF IEC, Statement on Current Affairs, 1954, p. 2, box 3, folder 16, Resolutions/Statements 1946–54, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA; Baer, Report of the Work of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom with United Nations in Geneva from the Meeting of the International Executive Committee in Magleaas, Denmark, p. 19. See also Pax et Libertas, United States 1951–59, “We and the Bombs,” Pax et Libertas (March–May 1954), p. 10, box 45, folder 1, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. 31. The 1947 IEC referred to the UN General Assembly as “the great forum of one world”; see WILPF IEC, Resolutions, “U.N.O.,” 1947, p. 2, box 46, folder 6, Resolutions 1948–52, WILPF Second Accession, UCBA). 32. I refer to WILPF leaders’ titles as they were officially specified in its constitution and by-laws and used in its official documents. Significantly, the titles of

[ 144 ]

Notes to Pages 33–36

33.

34.

35.

36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42.

43.

44.

45.

46. 47.

Chairman and Vice-Chairmen were replaced in 1974 with President and Vice-Presidents. Anonymous, Introduction to Dorothy Hutchinson’s Papers, http://www.swarthmore.edu/library/peace/DG100-150/DG125DHutchinson. html (accessed March 10, 2008). Dorothy Hutchinson, “Developing World Community,” 1966, p. 105, box 25, 16th International Congress Report 1966 and 17th International Congress Report 1968, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA . Emphasis and capitalization in original. WILPF IEC, Resolutions Adopted, 1948, p. 4, box 3, folder 16, Resolutions/ Statements 1946–54, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. See also WILPF, International Congress Resolutions, 1959, p. 1, box 26, folder 8, Circular Letters January 1958–November 1959 & 1969–70, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA; WILPF, Statement Issued at the Close of the Congress, “Alternatives to Violence,” 1959, p. 1, box 26, folder 8, Circular Letters January 1958–November 1959 & 1969–70, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA; WILPF IEC, Resolutions, 1960, pp. 1–2, box 3, folder 17, Resolutions/Statements 1955–64, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. WILPF, International Congress Resolutions, 1959, box 26, folder 8, Circular Letters January 1958–November 1959 and 1969–70, 1. WILPF, International Congress Resolutions, 1959, box 26, folder 8, Circular Letters January 1958–November 1959 and 1969–70, 1. WILPF IEC, Resolutions Adopted, 1952, p. 1, box 3, folder 16, Resolutions/ Statements 1946–54, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. WILPF IEC, Resolutions Adopted, 1952, p. 2, box 3, folder 16, Resolutions/ Statements 1946–54, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. WILPF IEC, Resolutions Adopted, 1952, p. 1, box 3, folder 16, Resolutions/ Statements 1946–54, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. Bussey and Tims, Pioneers for Peace, 192. Margaret Hope Bacon, One Woman’s Passion for Peace and Freedom: The Life of Mildred Scott Olmsted (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1993), 261–67. See also Joyce Blackwell, No Peace without Freedom: Race and the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, 1915–1975 (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2004), 156–60. See correspondence and news clippings following the controversy in WILPF, Disinformation Folder 1948–1991, WILPF Geneva Headquarters Historical Files. Accusations of communism were not new to WILPF in the 1950s, but the Cold War gave them new impetus and spurred heightened internal tensions. Marie Lous-Mohr, Gertrude Bussey C. and Agnes Z. Stapledon, Letter to German Section Members, 1951, WILPF Disinformation Folder 1948–1991, WILPF Geneva Headquarters Historical Files. For example, in their discussions about the 1960 Freedom from Hunger Campaign, IEC debated the opportunity of publicly expressing the link it perceived between disarmament and development. Indian IEC member Sushila Nayar and British IEC member Mary Nuttall were strongly in favor of proposing and advertising the link; see (WILPF IEC, Minutes, 1960, p. 7, box 5, folder 11, IEC Meeting Minutes 1960–64, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA). WILPF, Constitution, Bylaws and Rules of Order, 1934, p. 2, box 6, folder 6, Constitution 1934, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. WILPF, Draft of Interim Report of the Constitution Committee to be Presented to the Executive of WILPF, 1950, p. 1, box 6 folder 7, Policy Statements 1946–54,

Notes to Pages 36–37

[ 145 ]

48.

49. 50. 51.

52. 53. 54. 55.

56.

57.

58. 59.

WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA; Edith Ballantyne, interview by the author, July 13, 2003; and Edith Ballantyne, interview by the author (transcript revised by Edith Ballantyne), July 13, 2003. A constitution committee formed at the 1949 congress spent several years consulting national sections about changes that they would have liked to see implemented; see WILPF, Draft of Interim Report of the Constitution Committee to be Presented to the Executive of WILPF, 1950, pp. 1–2, box 6 folder 7, Policy Statements 1946–54, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. Edith Ballantyne, interview by the author (transcript revised by Edith Ballantyne), July 13, 2003. WILPF, Constitution: Statement of Aims, 1959, p. 1, box 6, folder 8, Constitution 1956–59, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. Emphasis mine. Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms included freedom of speech and expression, freedom of religion (“freedom of every person to worship God in his own way”), freedom from want (“economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants”), and freedom from fear (“a worldwide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor”). The text of the entire speech, which Roosevelt delivered as his annual address to Congress, can be found at Schlager Group, “Milestone Documents,” http://www.milestonedocuments.com/document_detail. php?id=90&;more=fulltext (accessed January 23, 2009). United Nations, Charter, http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter (accessed January 25, 2008); the quote is from the Preamble to the Charter. WILPF IEC, Decisions and Summary of Records, 1957, p. 20, box 26, folder 7, Circular Letters October 1956–December 1957, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. WILPF IEC, Decisions and Summary of Records, 21. This was arguably more true for early antinuclear movements of the late 1940s and early 1950s. See Lawrence S. Wittner, One World or None: A History of the World Nuclear Disarmament Movement through 1953 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1993); Lawrence S. Wittner, Resisting the Bomb: A History of the World Nuclear Disarmament Movement, 1945–1970 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1997); Welsh, Mobilizing Modernity, 261. Gertrude Baer, Report of the Work of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom with United Nations in Geneva from the International Congress in Paris, France, July 1953 Until WILPF XIII International Congress, Birmingham, July 1956 (Geneva, Switzerland: 1956), p. 3, box 14, folder 3, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. Christine A. James, “Feminism and Masculinity: Reconceptualizing the Dichotomy of Reason and Emotion,” International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 17, no. 1/2 (1997), 129–52. See also Raia Prokhovnik, Rational Woman: A Feminist Critique of Dichotomy, 2nd ed. (Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press: 2002), 6–10, 56–112; Tickner, Gender in International Relations; Harding, The Science Question in Feminism; Keller, “Feminism and Science”; Keller and Longino, Feminism and Science; Donna Jeanne Haraway, Primate Visions: Gender, Race, and Nature in the World of Modern Science (New York: Routledge, 1989). Tickner, Gender in International Relations, 137. Clara Ragaz, “Discours d’Ouverture,” in Xth International Congress of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom at Luxembourg: August 4th–9th, 1946 (Geneva, Switzerland: WILPF, 1946[?]), 17, microfilm reel 141.2, SCPC.

[ 146 ]

Notes to Pages 37–39

60. Gertrude C. Bussey, “Political and Economic Cooperation,” in Xth International Congress of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom at Luxembourg: August 4th–9th, 1946 (Geneva, Switzerland: WILPF, 1946[?]), 143–44, microfilm reel 141.2, SCPC. 61. WILPF IEC, Statement on Policy, 1955, p. 1, box 3, folder 17, Resolutions/ Statements 1955–64, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. Ragaz did not conclude, however, that disarmament and the elimination of the war system would bring about “real peace”: This could be accomplished only by guaranteeing political and civil rights as well as a collective right to self-determination (Ragaz, “Discours d’Ouverture,” 17–18). 62. In Edith Ballantyne’s words, “science and technology became the saviour” (Edith Ballantyne, e-mail message to author, September 24, 2006). For an example of the rich literature on science and democracy, see Mark Brown, Science in Democracy: Expertise, Institutions, and Representation (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2009). 63. It is particularly interesting to notice here that Gertrude Baer referred to the WHO as “non-political” (Baer, Report of the Work of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom with United Nations in Geneva from the Meeting of the International Executive Committee in Magleaas, Denmark, p. 7). 64. Baer, Report of the Work of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom with United Nations in Geneva from the Meeting of the International Executive Committee in Magleaas, Denmark, pp. 1–8. 65. Baer, Report of the Work of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom with United Nations in Geneva from the Meeting of the International Executive Committee in Magleaas, Denmark, p. 9. 66. Baer also tried hard to convince the WHO Secretary General to include the issue of “the destructive use of atomic energy” within the scope of the WHO, a suggestion that he rejected (Baer, Report of the Work of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom with United Nations in Geneva from the Meeting of the International Executive Committee in Magleaas, Denmark, p. 1.) 67. Annalee Stewart, “World Security-International Control of Atomic Energy,” in Xth International Congress of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom at Luxembourg: August 4th–9th, 1946 (Geneva, Switzerland: WILPF, 1946[?]), 150, microfilm reel 141.2, SCPC. 68. For a more complete account of the political activities of atomic scientists in favor of or in opposition to the development and proliferation of nuclear weapons and the scientists’ relationships with the pacifist movement, see Wittner, One World or None; Welsh, Mobilizing Modernity. 69. Zeuthen was likely referring to the Second UN Conference on Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy, held in Geneva in 1958. 70. Else Zeuthen, International Chairman’s Report, 1958, p. 5, box 14, folder 4, Reports 1957–58, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. 71. H. Stähelin, “L’énérgie Atomique et Ses Applications Scientifiques,” in Xth International Congress of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom at Luxembourg: August 4th–9th, 1946 (Geneva, Switzerland: WILPF, 1946[?]), 151–54, microfilm reel 141.2, SCPC. 72. WILPF Tenth Congress Resolutions and Recommendations, in Xth International Congress of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom at Luxembourg: August 4th–9th, 1946 (Geneva, Switzerland: WILPF, 1946[?]), 198–99, microfilm reel 141.2, SCPC.

Notes to Pages 39–41

[ 147 ]

73. WILPF IEC, Resolutions Adopted, 1948, p. 4, box 3, folder 16, Resolutions/ Statements 1946–54, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. 74. WILPF IEC, Decisions and Summary of Records, 1957, p. 19, box 26, folder 7, Circular Letters October 1956–December 1957, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. 75. For a discussion of the relationship between science and (democratic) politics, see Brown, Science in Democracy. 76. Welsh, Mobilizing Modernity. 77. J. Repelaer van Driel, “Devons-Nous Dissoudre la L.I.F.P.L.?,” in Xth International Congress of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom at Luxembourg: August 4th–9th, 1946 (Geneva, Switzerland: WILPF, 1946[?]), 127, microfilm reel 141.2, SCPC. 78. See Confortini, “Galtung, Violence, and Gender.” 79. Mildred Scott Olmsted, “Shall the W.I.L.P.F. Continue Or Dissolve?” in Xth International Congress of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom at Luxembourg: August 4th–9th, 1946 (Geneva, Switzerland: WILPF, 1946[?]), 126, microfilm reel 141.2, SCPC. 80. See Foster, Women for All Seasons, 32. 81. WILPF, International Congress Resolutions, 1974, http://www.wilpf.int.ch/ statements/1974.htm (accessed October 17, 2007). 82. WILPF, International Congress Resolutions, 1974, http://www.wilpf.int.ch/ statements/1974.htm (accessed October 17, 2007). 83. Yvonne Sée, “On WILPF Aims and Purposes,” 1972, p. 1, box 2, folder 8, IEC Meeting Switzerland August 1972, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA . 84. Aja Selander, Address to the Conference of Women’s Organizations on European Cooperation and Security, 1973, p. 2, box 7, folder 7, Correspondence Meetings Seminars Elsinki 1973, WILPF Second Accession, UCBA. 85. Pax et Libertas, Meeting in Preparation for the World Congress for the International Women’s Year, December 1974,p. 22, box 162, folder 1, Pax et Libertas (published edition) 1971–79, WILPF Second Accession, UCBA. 86. Pax et Libertas, Proposed Addition to the UN Plan of Action Section IIA, December 1975, p. 3, box 162, folder 1, Pax et Libertas (published edition) 1971–79, WILPF Second Accession, UCBA. 87. WILPF IEC, Resolutions Adopted, 1948, p. 4, box 3, folder 16, Resolutions/ Statements 1946–54, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. 88. WILPF IEC, Resolutions Adopted, 1948, p. 4, box 3, folder 16, Resolutions/ Statements 1946–54, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. 89. Bussey and Tims, Pioneers for Peace, 203 (talking of the mid-1950s). 90. For an overview of “Communist-led peace movements” see Wittner, One World or None, 183. 91. WILPF IEC, Decisions and Summary of Records, 1957, p. 17, box 26, folder 7, Circular Letters October 1956–December 1957, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. The WIDF had, in fact, been established during an international congress convened in Paris by French communist women. In 1953 the WIDF claimed to be the largest and most wide-reaching women’s organization and presented itself as a militant group for women’s rights, colonialism, and peace (Offen, European Feminisms 1700–1950, 11, 387; Garner, Shaping a Global Women’s Agenda, 168). 92. Dorothy Hutchinson, Chairman’s Report to International Executive Committee, 1967, p. 1, box 2, folder 4, IEC Meeting 1967, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. 93. Hutchinson, Chairman’s Report to International Executive Committee, p. 2.

[ 148 ]

Notes to Pages 41–47

94. Part of this discussion was also the issue about the use of force in liberation struggles, which I address in the decolonization and racism chapter. 95. Mary Lee Morrison, Elise Boulding: A Life in the Cause of Peace (Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2005). 96. WILPF IEC, Minutes, 1967, pp. 15–16, box 5, folder 12, IEC Meeting Minutes 1965–69, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. Gertrude Baer was specifically concerned with the WIDF, which she saw as a “communist front” (Edith Ballantyne, e-mail message to author, November 5, 2011). Interestingly, Baer was herself instrumental later in bringing about an International NGO Conference on Disarmament (Patricia Shannon, Working Paper, “Aims and Objectives of WILPF in our Time, Future Direction and Action,” 1972, p. 1, box 2, folder 8, IEC Meeting Switzerland August 1972, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA). 97. The 1970 IEC discussed the issue once more: Some of the IEC members insisted that “WILPF seek wider cooperation with other women’s groups, especially those in the East which have contact with women in developing areas.” Others, again, “felt that WILPF must be careful to maintain its independence” (WILPF IEC, Minutes, 1970, pp. 1–2, box 5, folder 13, IEC Meeting Minutes 1970–77, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA). 98. See Wittner, Resisting the Bomb, 250–53. 99. See Bussey and Tims, Pioneers for Peace, 244–45; Foster, Women for All Seasons, 27–28. 100. Foster, Women for All Seasons, 32. 101. International Women’s Year Seminar on Disarmament and Peace, January– March 1975, p. 3, box 162, folder 1, Pax et Libertas (published edition) 1971–79, WILPF Second Accession, UCBA. 102. WILPF IEC, Minutes, 1975, p. 8, box 2, folder 10, IEC Meeting Germany October 1975, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. 103. Foster, Women for All Seasons, 133–37. 104. Sée, “On WILPF Aims and Purposes,” 1. 105. Sée, “On WILPF Aims and Purposes,” 1. 106. Bussey and Tims, Pioneers for Peace, 212. 107. Cf. Resolution of WILPF Committee against Scientific Warfare (WILPF IEC, Decisions and Summary of Records, 1957, p. 3, box 26, folder 7, Circular Letters October 1956–December 1957, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA) with Resolutions and Statements Adopted (WILPF IEC, Decisions and Summary of Records, 1957, p. 22, box 26, folder 7, Circular Letters October 1956–December 1957, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA). 108. Gertrude Baer had suggested studying the utilization of solar energy as early as 1955 at the WHO (Foster, Women for All Seasons, 27). 109. Marina Della Seta, Letter to Dorothy Hutchinson and Sybil Morrison, Appendix I in Dorothy Hutchinson, D. H. Circular Letter no. 3/1968, 1968, WILPF International 1968–75, p. 7, Dolores Taller Collection (unprocessed), UCBA. 110. WILPF IEC, Resolutions Passed, 1961, p. 3, box 3, folder 17, Resolutions/ Statements 1955–64, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. 111. Baer, Report of the Work of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom with United Nations in Geneva from the Meeting of the International Executive Committee in Magleaas, Denmark 8–9. 112. WILPF IEC, Resolutions Passed, 1961, box 3, folder 17, Resolutions/Statements 1955–64, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA.

Notes to Pages 47–50

[ 149 ]

113. Dorothy Hutchinson, “Political Settlements,” in 14th International Congress of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, Stockholm, Sweden, 27th to 31st July 1959: [Proceedings] (Geneva, Switzerland: WILPF, 1959[?]), 33, microfilm, reel 141.3, SCPC. 114. WILPF IEC, Resolutions Adopted, 1966, p. 4, box 2, folder 3, IEC Meeting 1966, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. 115. WILPF IEC, Minutes, 1966, p. 7, box 5, folder 12, IEC Meeting Minutes 1965–69, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. 116. Gertrude Baer, Report on Disarmament, 1972, p. 2, box 2, folder 8, IEC Meeting Switzerland August 1972, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. 117. Tim’s Circular Letter, cited in Foster, Women for All Seasons, 55. 118. The internal debate continued through the 1970s and 1980s, and the organization’s relation with feminism remains ambiguous to this day. 119. G. Duchêne, “La Situation Politique et les Conditions de la Paix,” in Xth International Congress of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom at Luxembourg: August 4th–9th, 1946 (Geneva, Switzerland: WILPF, 1946), 139–42, microfilm reel 141.2, SCPC. 120. Hutchinson, “The Right to be Human,” 7–8. 121. Christine Sylvester, “Empathetic Cooperation: A Feminist Method for IR,” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 23, no. 2 (1994), 315–34. Sylvester has so defined “empathetic cooperation” in IR: “a process of positional slippage that occurs when one listens seriously to the concerns, fears, and agendas of those one is unaccustomed to heeding when building social theory, taking on board rather than dismissing, finding in the concerns of others borderlands of one’s own concerns and fears” (Sylvester, “Empathetic Cooperation,” 317). 122. See for example Mary Margaret Fonow and Judith A. Cook, Beyond Methodology: Feminist Scholarship as Lived Research (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991); Bina D’Costa, “Marginalized Identity: New Frontiers of Research for IR?” in Feminist Methodologies for International Relations, eds. Brooke A. Ackerly, Maria Stern, and Jacqui True (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 129–52; Diane L. Wolf, Feminist Dilemmas in Fieldwork (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1996); Rosalind Edwards, Feminist Dilemmas in Qualitative Research: Public Knowledge and Private Lives (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 1997); Sandra G. Harding, Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Thinking from Women’s Lives (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1991); Sandra G. Harding, Is Science Multicultural? Postcolonialisms, Feminisms, and Epistemologies (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1998). 123. Robert Cox puts empathetical thinking at the center of his own critical theorizing in “For Someone and For Some Purpose: An Interview with Robert W. Cox,” in Critical Theory in International Relations and Security Studies: Interviews and Reflections, eds. Shannon Brincat, Laura Lima, and João Nunes (New York: Routledge, 2011). For a conversation between the author and Brooke Ackerly on the role of “intelligent compassion” in a methodology for social change, see Catia C. Confortini, “Reclaiming Agency for Social Change: Feminism, International Relations, Peace and the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, 1945–1975,” in Feminist International Relations: Conversations about the Past, Present and Future, eds. J. Ann Tickner and Laura Sjoberg (New York: Routledge, 2011); and Brooke A. Ackerly, “Intelligence and Compassion: The Tools of Feminists,” in Feminist International Relations:

[ 150 ]

Notes to Pages 50–53

Conversations about the Past, Present and Future, eds. J. Ann Tickner and Laura Sjoberg (New York: Routledge, 2011). 124. Elise Boulding, interview by the author, May 21, 2005. 125. Erna P. Harris, cited in Blackwell, No Peace without Freedom, 174. 126. Blackwell, No Peace without Freedom, 174. 127. Blackwell, No Peace without Freedom, 165–94. 128. See Foster, Women for All Seasons, 72–73. CHAPTER 4 Portions of this chapter have previously been published in “Doing Feminist Peace: The Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom and the Decolonization Process, 1945–1975,” International Feminist Journal of Politics 13, no. 3 (2011), 349–370. Reprinted by permission of the publisher (Taylor & Francis Ltd, http:// tandf.co.uk/journals/rfjp)”. 1. Shampa Biswas, “Patriotism in the U.S. Peace Movement: The Limits of Nationalist Resistance to Global Imperialism,” in Interrogating Imperialism: Conversations on Gender, Race, and War, eds. Robin L. Riley and Naeem Inayatullah (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006), 64. 2. Sandra Halperin, “International Relations Theory and the Hegemony of Western Conceptions of Modernity,” in Decolonizing International Relations, ed. Branwen Gruffydd Jones (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2006), 46. 3. Halperin, “Hegemony of Western Conceptions of Modernity.” 4. Siba N’Zatioula Grovogui, Sovereigns, Quasi Sovereigns, and Africans: Race and Self-Determination in International Law (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996), 3. Antony Anghie argues that international law has been itself animated by the civilizing mission of Europeans; see Antony Anghie, Imperialism, Sovereignty, and the Making of International Law (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005). 5. See Michael D. Callahan, A Sacred Trust: The League of Nations and Africa, 1929–1946 (Portland, OR: Sussex Academic Press, 2004); Robert H. Jackson, Quasi-States: Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Third World (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1990). 6. Grovogui, Sovereigns, Quasi Sovereigns, 180. See also Branwen Gruffydd Jones, “Introduction: International Relations, Eurocentrism, and Imperialism,” in Decolonizing International Relations, ed. Branwen Gruffydd Jones (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2006), 1–19; Uday Singh Mehta, Liberalism and Empire: A Study in Nineteenth-Century British Liberal Thought (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999). 7. Salter, Barbarians and Civilization, 23. 8. See, for example, Harding, The Science Question in Feminism; Peterson and Runyan, Global Gender Issues; Tickner, Gender in International Relations; Confortini, “Galtung, Violence, and Gender”; J. Ann Tickner, Gendering World Politics: Issues and Approaches in the Post-Cold War Era (New York: Columbia University Press, 2001). 9. Tickner, Gender in International Relations, 48–49. 10. Mrinalini Sinha, “Gender and Imperialism: Colonial Policy and the Ideology of Moral Imperialism in Late Nineteenth-Century Bengal,” in Changing Men: New Directions in Research on Men and Masculinity, ed. Michael S. Kimmel (Newbury Park, CA: SAGE, 1987); Hooper, Manly States, chapter 2. 11. Jennifer Milliken and David Sylvan, “Soft Bodies, Hard Targets, and Chic Theories: US Bombing Policy in Indochina,” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 25 (June 1, 1996), 321–60.

Notes to Pages 53–59

[ 151 ]

12. Roxanne Lynn Doty, Imperial Encounters: The Politics of Representation in North– South Relations (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996), 23–25. 13. Doty, Imperial Encounters, 99–121. Edward Said distinguishes between nationalist movements, which acted within a Western cultural framework, and liberation movements, whose claims hardly fit into Western categories. Edward W. Said, Culture and Imperialism (New York: Knopf, 1993), 263–64. 14. Roxanne Doty illustrates this point while examining the case of the annexation of the Philippines to the United States at the turn of the twentieth century. See Doty, Imperial Encounters, 27–49. See also Jane Haggis, “White Women and Colonialism: Towards a Non-Recuperative History,” in Gender and Imperialism, ed. Clare Midgley (Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 1998), 63–64. 15. This is convincingly proposed by Sandra Halperin in reference to IR theory in Halperin, “Hegemony of Western Conceptions of Modernity,” 58. 16. The literature on gender and imperialism is rather rich: See, for example, Clare Midgley, Gender and Imperialism (Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 1998); Julia Ann Clancy-Smith and Frances Gouda, Domesticating the Empire: Race, Gender, and Family Life in French and Dutch Colonialism (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1998); Angela Woollacott, Gender and Empire (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006); Vron Ware, Beyond the Pale: White Women, Racism, and History. Questions for Feminism (London: Verso, 1992); Himani Bannerji, Shahrzad Mojab, and Judith Whitehead, Of Property and Propriety: The Role of Gender and Class in Imperialism and Nationalism (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2001); Anne McClintock, Imperial Leather: Race, Gender, and Sexuality in the Colonial Contest (New York: Routledge, 1995); Robin L. Riley and Naeem Inayatullah, Interrogating Imperialism: Conversations on Gender, Race, and War (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006). 17. Referring to the international order established post the Berlin Conference of 1884–85, Siba N’Zatioula Grovogui states that emancipationists (i.e., those opposed to the exploitation of African colonies and their “integration . . . into the global political economy”) shared with colonialists “the systematic belief in black inferiority.” Therefore, while they advocated for the “well-being” of Africans, they mostly rejected the idea of complete self-government. Grovogui, Sovereigns, Quasi Sovereigns, 77–81. 18. Mark B. Salter interprets the establishment of categories of mandate as the embodiment of a hierarchy of non-European peoples: from the “savages” to the “barbarians.” Mark B. Salter, Barbarians and Civilization in International Relations (Sterling, VA: Pluto Press, 2002). 19. For example, the 1921 Congress called “attention to other urgent claims for self-determination, besides those of Ireland, for example those of Armenia, Georgia, the Ukraine, India, and Egypt.” WILPF, International Congress Resolutions, 1921, http://www.wilpf.int.ch/statements/1921.htm (accessed November 28, 2007); and the 1926 Dublin Congress demanded immediate independence for the Philippines. WILPF, International Congress Resolutions, 1926, http:// www.wilpf.int.ch/statements/1926.htm (accessed November 11, 2007). 20. Siba N’Zatioula Grovogui, Beyond Eurocentrism and Anarchy: Memories of International Order and Institutions (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006), 9. 21. Salter, Barbarians and Civilization, 91. 22. Noticing the use of the noun “man” when referring to humankind is inevitable. It would be too simplistic, however, to overspeculate about this common practice on the part of and read into it something that the women neither intended nor implied.

[ 152 ]

Notes to Pages 59–60

23. Gertrude C. Bussey, “Political and Economic Cooperation,” in Xth International Congress of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom at Luxembourg: August 4th–9th, 1946 (Geneva, Switzerland: WILPF, 1946[?]), 144, microfilm reel 141.2, SCPC. 24. Bussey, “Political and Economic Cooperation,” 147. 25. Gertrude C. Bussey, Reflections on the World Situation, 1952, p. 2, box 14, folder 2, Reports 1952–54, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. 26. Following a UN General Assembly resolution, the twelfth Congress affirmed WILPF’s belief in “the right to exploit freely natural wealth,” lest “the dangerous discrepancy now developing between . . . political emancipation on the one hand and . . . economic dependence on the other hand creates constant serious tension and must eventually lead to major conflict and war.” WILPF, International Congress Resolutions, 1953, http://www.wilpf.int.ch/statements/1953.htm (accessed January 30, 2008). Moreover, as early as 1952, WILPF condemned the practice of apartheid that had just been institutionalized in the Union of South Africa and praised “the non-white population” for its nonviolent and “self-respecting resistance.” WILPF would not cease to condemn South Africa’s system of racial discrimination in the years to come. Resolution on Racial Discrimination in WILPF IEC, Resolutions Adopted, 1952, p. 3, box 3, folder 16, Resolutions/ Statements 1946–54, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. See also WILPF IEC’s Letter to the President of the UN General Assembly and to the Secretary General of the UN on the Union of South Africa in WILPF IEC, Resolutions, 1960, p. 3, box 3, folder 17, Resolutions/Statements 1955–64, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. 27. WILPF, Resolutions, Recommendations and Declarations, in XIth International Congress of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, at Copenhagen, Christiansboro Castle, August 15th–19th, 1949 (Geneva, Switzerland: WILPF, 1949), 261–62, microfilm reel 141.2, SCPC. 28. WILPF, Resolutions, Recommendations and Declarations, in XIth International Congress of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, at Copenhagen, Christiansboro Castle, August 15th–19th, 1949 (Geneva, Switzerland: WILPF, 1949), 263–64, microfilm reel 141.2, SCPC. The phrase “Non Self Governing Territories” referred to areas under colonial administration over which the UN had no effective oversight mechanism. In this resolution, WILPF intended to urge colonial powers to hand over all such territories to the UN Trusteeship Council as a means to both ensure their “advancement” and guarantee their ultimate independence, once the conditions were ripe. See Gertrude Baer, “LOWUN no. 2/1949 with a Study of the Trusteeship System,” 1949, box 92, folder 17, Circular Letters/Reports re: WILPF and UN 1949/1961–69, WILPF Second Accession, UCBA. The two types of territories were dealt with in separate chapters of the UN Charter: Chapter XI (Articles 73 and 74) included provisions specifically directed at non-self-governing territories; trusteeships were covered under Chapter XII (Articles 75–85). See United Nations, “Charter,” http://www.un.org/aboutun/ charter (accessed January 25, 2008). It must be noted that postwar WILPF’s understanding of the concept of self-determination, as embodied in the UN Charter, extended beyond what the signatories of the Charter had intended and for whom the right to self-determination clearly did not mean the right to achieve independence; see Antonio Cassese, Self-Determination of Peoples: A Legal Reappraisal (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 37–43. 29. See Bussey, “Political and Economic Cooperation,” in Xth International Congress of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom at Luxembourg: August

Notes to Pages 60–61

[ 153 ]

30. 31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39. 40. 41.

4th–9th, 1946 (Geneva, Switzerland: WILPF, 1946[?]), 144–47, microfilm reel 141.2, SCPC. WILPF IEC, Resolutions Adopted 1948, p. 1, box 3, folder 16, Resolutions/ Statements 1946–54, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. See C. P. Bal’s assessment of the situation in Indonesia in C. P. Bal, “The DutchIndonesian Situation,” in XIth International Congress of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, at Copenhagen, Christiansboro Castle, August 15th–19th, 1949 (Geneva, Switzerland: WILPF, 1949), 230, microfilm reel 141.2, SCPC. WILPF, Resolutions, Recommendations and Declarations, in XIth International Congress of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, at Copenhagen, Christiansboro Castle, August 15th–19th, 1949 (Geneva, Switzerland: WILPF, 1949), 261–62, microfilm reel 141.2, SCPC. G. McGregor Wood, “Race Relations,” in XIIth International Congress of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, at Paris, Mairie De Montrouge (Seine), August 4th–8th, 1953 (Geneva, Switzerland: WILPF, 1953), 252, microfilm reel 141.2, SCPC. Resolution on UN Assistance to Under-Developed Countries in WILPF IEC, Resolutions Adopted, 1952, p. 3, box 3, folder 16, Resolutions/Statements 1946–54, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. Sandra Halperin contends that the transition from a universally intended traditional society to an equally universally intended modern society “described by liberal and modernization theories bear no resemblance to processes of change in the contemporary developing world” or to eighteenth-century Europe, for that matter; see Sandra Halperin, In the Mirror of the Third World: Capitalist Development in Modern Europe (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1997), 189, 195. Isabelle Pontheil, “Indochine,” in XIth International Congress of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, at Copenhagen, Christiansboro Castle, August 15th–19th, 1949 (Geneva, Switzerland: WILPF, 1949), 221–22, microfilm reel 141.2, SCPC. Gertrude Baer’s correspondence is voluminous and quite detailed but does not follow a consistent pattern. In some years she reported her work bimonthly via international letters; in other years she wrote extensive annual reports to the IEC. In the 1950s her title changed from Liaison Officer to WILPF Representative to the UN. From October 1950 to August 1952, Baer worked as Director of International Headquarters in Geneva while retaining her role as WILPF Representative to the UN. Gertrude Baer, LOWUN no. 2/1949 with a Study of the Trusteeship System, 1949, box 92, folder 17, Circular Letters/Reports re: WILPF and UN 1949/1961–69, WILPF Second Accession, UCBA. Baer, LOWUN no. 2/1949 with a Study of the Trusteeship System, 16. Grovogui, Sovereigns, Quasi Sovereigns, 153. See also Gladys Walser’s report on her work at the UN Headquarters in New York, where she expressed approval of the General Assembly’s rebuke of the Trusteeship Council for “its lagging efforts in furthering self-government or independence for subject peoples” and of its call “for reports on social and community developments as well as scholarships to train leaders and speed the capacity for independence” in other colonial areas. Walser too refrained from questioning the adequateness of the system to the stated goal of regarding the self-determination of peoples as a fundamental element of its idea of peace; see Gladys Walser, “Work with the United Nations at U.N. Headquarters in New York,” in 13th International Congress of the Women’s International League for Peace

[ 154 ]

Notes to Pages 61–63

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

and Freedom: Birmingham, UK, 23rd–28th July, 1956 (Geneva, Switzerland: WILPF, 1956), 60, microfilm reel 141.3, SCPC. Statement on Non-Violent Methods in WILPF, International Congress Resolutions, 1953, p. 10, box 3, folder 16, Resolutions/Statements 1946–54, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. These were not new debates within WILPF. In fact, the 1930s rise of dictatorships in Europe had prompted similar discussions, but they were new to the post– World War II period and framed in somewhat different terms, precisely because at stake, this time, was the freedom of people under European colonial liberal rule. For Gertrude Baer, the responsibility for violence rested on the colonial and imperial powers: “It depends on the white man whether the emancipation of the colored races will come about by violent or peaceful means. Self-government and Freedom liberate. They are the instruments which turn opponents into partners in the struggle for more productivity, social and economic justice and peace”; see Baer, WILPF Report of its Work with United Nations, in XIIth International Congress of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, at Paris, 121. See also Gertrude Baer, Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom: Report of its Work with the United Nations, 1953, box 14, folder 2, Reports 1952–54, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. See, for example, Else Zeuthen, “Eastern Situation” (1952); box 14, folder 2, Reports 1952–54, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA; Gertrude Baer, “The Asia Conference-Negotiated Peace or War,” Pax et Libertas (March–May 1954), p. 3, box 45, folder 1, Pax et Libertas United States 1951–59, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA; Gertrude Bussey, “American Foreign Policy in Indochina,” Pax et Libertas (March–May 1954), p. 8, box 45, folder 1, Pax et Libertas United States 1951–59, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA; Gertrude Baer, G. B. International Letter no. 10, 1954/1955, 1955, box 26, folder 5, Circular Letters September 1952–May 1955, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. Gertrude Baer, Report of the Work of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom with United Nations in Geneva from the Meeting of the International Executive Committee in Magleaas, Denmark, 22. WILPF IEC, Statement on Current Affairs, 1954, p. 2, box 3, folder 16, Resolutions/Statements 1946–54, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. Emphasis mine. It is relevant to note that at this juncture WILPF qualified its appeal to self-determination by asking for “the highest possible degree of independence,” thus failing to quite entirely commit to independence tout-court while calling for complete independence five years earlier. Evidence, however, is insufficient to show that WILPF had retreated from earlier positions or that it no longer considered total independence as a synonym for self-determination at this point. Baer, Report of the Work of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom with United Nations in Geneva from the International Congress in Paris, 20. The women often put forward the example of Nehru’s India’s proposals that resulted in cease-fires in Korea and Indochina. See Japanese member Tano Jodai’s intervention at the 1956 International Congress: Tano Jodai, “East–West Relations,” in 13th International Congress of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom: Birmingham, UK, 23rd–28th July, 1956 (Geneva, Switzerland: WILPF, 1956), 107–8, microfilm reel 141.3, SCPC. For further evidence of many WILPF leaders’ optimism on expanding UN membership, on the Bandoeng Conference, and in the conciliatory role of newly independent countries, see Gladys Walser, Final Report of the Tenth Session of the General Assembly, 1956, box 14, folder 3, Reports 1955–56, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA; and Hutchinson, Notes to Pages 63–65

[ 155 ]

49. 50. 51.

52. 53.

54. 55. 56.

57. 58. 59.

60.

61. 62.

63.

“Political Settlements,” in 14th International Congress of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, Stockholm, Sweden, 27th to 31st July 1959: [Proceedings] (Geneva, Switzerland: WILPF, 1959[?]), 28, microfilm, reel 141.3, SCPC. Walser, Final Report of the Tenth Session of the General Assembly, 1956, p. 8, box 14, folder 3, Reports 1955–56, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. Walser, Final Report of the Tenth Session of the General Assembly, 1956, p. 9, box 14, folder 3, Reports 1955–56, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. The distinction between personal and structural violence was most famously made explicit by peace researcher Johan Galtung in 1969. According to Galtung, while personal or direct violence is violence with a perpetrator, structural violence “is built into the structure, and shows up as unequal power and consequently as unequal life chances.” It is the unequal distribution of resources and the unequal distribution of the “power to decide over the distribution of resources” that give rise to structural violence. Johan Galtung, “Structural and Direct Violence: Note on Operationalization,” in Peace: Research, Education, Action. Essays in Peace Research, Vol. 1 (Copenhagen: Ejlers, 1975), 110–11. For a feminist critique of Galtung’s understanding of violence, see Confortini, “Galtung, Violence, and Gender.” Foster, Women for All Seasons, 134; Bussey and Tims, Pioneers for Peace. Jouve was instrumental in formulating prewar WILPF policy on colonialism, which while opposed “every kind of imperialism” in principle supported the mandate system’s extension to all colonial territories. WILPF International Congress Statement, 1926, cited in Bussey and Tims, Pioneers for Peace, 56. Andrée Jouve, “Rapport Sur Quelques Problèmes Africains,” 1957, pp. 1–8, box 14, folder 4, Reports 1957–58, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA . See Else Zeuthen, Andrée Jouve, and Emily Parker Simon, Open Letter to Dr. Albert Schweitzer, 1957, box 26, folder 7, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. Manuel M. Davenport, “The Moral Paternalism of Albert Schweitzer,” Ethics 84, no. 2 (January 1974), 116–27. For a discussion of African perspectives on Albert Schweitzer, see Francis Higginson, “The Well-Tempered Savage: Albert Schweitzer, Music, and Imperial Deafness,” Research in African Literatures 36, no. 4 (Winter 2005), 205–22. Jouve, “Rapport Sur Quelques Problèmes Africains,” 1957, p. 10, box 14, folder 4, Reports 1957–58, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. Nira Yuval-Davis, Gender & Nation (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 1997), 43. This representation selectively disregarded the specific case of Algeria, where women were active participants to the Front de Libération Nationale whose platform included a “radical view of gender equality”; see Hamideh Sedghi, “Third World Feminist Perspectives on World Politics,” in Women, Gender, and World Politics: Perspectives, Policies, and Prospects, eds. Peter R. Beckman and Francine D’Amico (Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey, 1994), 97. For an investigation of similar colonial era’s representations of colonized (and/or enslaved) women by Western feminist abolitionists, see Clare Midgley, “AntiSlavery and the Roots of ‘Imperial Feminism,’” in Gender and Imperialism, ed. Clare Midgley (Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 1998), 161–79. For more on how colonial relations were built on “imperial fantasies,” see McClintock, Imperial Leather, 449. James Eskridge Genova, Colonial Ambivalence, Cultural Authenticity, and the Limitations of Mimicry in French-Ruled West Africa, 1914–1956 (New York: Peter Lang, 2004), 231. Andrée Jouve, “Africa in 1958: A Brief Sketch,” 1958, p. 2, box 14, folder 4, Reports 1957–58, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA .

[ 156 ]

Notes to Pages 65–68

64. Jouve recognized that France had limited choices in regard to its AOF and AEF colonies, after a disastrous war in Indochina and in the midst of the Algerian revolt. AOF refers to Afrique Occidentale Française (French West Africa), which comprised the territory today roughly covered by Mauritania, Senegal, Niger, Mali, Guinea, Ivory Coast, Bourkina Faso, and Benin. AEF stands for Afrique Equatoriale Française (French Equatorial Africa) and covered the territory of today’s Gabon, Republic of the Congo, Chad. and Central African Republic. With the exception of Guinea (which chose independence), all other states chose federation to France in a 1958 referendum proposed by Charles de Gaulle, first President of the Fifth Republic. The French communauté was, however, short lived, and all the AOF and AEF countries had declared their independence by 1960. See Raymond F. Betts, France and Decolonisation: 1900–1960 (London: Macmillan, 1991); Tony Chafer, The End of Empire in French West Africa: France’s Successful Decolonization? (New York: Berg, 2002), 163–221; Genova, Colonial Ambivalence, 253–58; Patrick Manning, Francophone Sub-Saharan Africa, 1880–1995, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 143–47; Raymond F. Betts, Decolonization, 2nd ed. (New York: Routledge, 2004), 32–33. 65. Andrée Jouve, “Respect and Application of Human Rights, Second Part: Evolution,” 1965, p. 1, box 118, folder 3, Reports/Essays by Andrée Jouve, WILPF Second Accession, UCBA . It must be noted that her 1959 human rights speech was so focused on individual rights that even her discussion of “the freedom of determination” referred to a “right to take part in the government of his country” (i.e., the right to participate in public and political affairs, elections, and universal suffrage) but never mentioned a collective right to self-determination. Andrée Jouve, “Human Rights and Civil Liberties, First Part,” 1959, pp. 7–8, box 118, folder 3, Reports/Essays by Andrée Jouve, WILPF Second Accession, UCBA . 66. One of these advocates, and the author of the quote above, was Marius Monet, minister of Overseas France during the Fourth Republic. He is cited in Genova, Colonial Ambivalence, 227. James E. Genova claims that “that discursive web [which simultaneously affirmed the universal rights of man and the superiority of French culture over those “others” it ruled] constrained the possibilities for imperial action in West Africa while it opened spaces for the colonized population to challenge the legitimacy of France’s dominance in the federation.” While recognizing the ambivalence and unwanted effects of this “discursive web,” it is important to stress that, for the French of the metropole—colonialists and anticolonialists alike—this appeal to the 1789 declaration would have a particularly powerful draw (Genova, Colonial Ambivalence, 227). 67. Cited in Genova, Colonial Ambivalence, 281–82. See also Frantz Fanon, Black Skin, White Masks [Peau noire, masques blancs] (New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1991); Frantz Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth [Damnés de la terre], trans. Richard Philcox (New York: Grove Press, 2004). 68. Genova, Colonial Ambivalence, 275–77. 69. Jouve, Rapport de la Représentante de la L.I.F.P.L. Auprès de l’UNESCO, in 14th International Congress of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, Stockholm, Sweden, 27th to 31st July 1959: [Proceedings] (Geneva, Switzerland: WILPF, 1959[?]), 60–61, microfilm reel 141.3, SCPC. See also Bussey and Tims, Pioneers for Peace, 228. 70. WILPF IEC, Minutes, 1966, p. 8, box 5, folder 12, IEC Meeting Minutes 1965–69, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. Notes to Pages 68–69

[ 157 ]

71. Underscore in the original. Gladys D. Walser, The Fourth and Final Report of the Eleventh Session of the General Assembly, 1957, p. 6, box 14, folder 4, Reports 1957–58, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. 72. It must be noted that, by contrast, Jouve’s 1959 human rights speech was so focused on individual rights that even her discussion of “the freedom of determination” referred to a “right to take part in the government of his country” (i.e., the right to participate in public and political affairs, elections, and universal suffrage) but never mentioned a collective right to self-determination; Jouve, “Human Rights and Civil Liberties, First Part,” 1959, pp. 7–8, box 118, folder 3, Reports/Essays by Andrée Jouve, WILPF Second Accession, UCBA). 73. Gladys D. Walser, The Fourth and Final Report of the Eleventh Session of the General Assembly, 1957, p. 11, box 14, folder 4, Reports 1957–58, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. 74. Gertrude Baer, Report of the Work of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom with United Nations and its Specialized Agencies in Geneva and Rome from the 13th International Congress in Birmingham, July 1956 Until the 14th International Congress in Stockholm, July 1959 (Geneva, Switzerland: 1959), pp. 26–33, box 8, folder 4, WILPF Second Accession, UCBA. 75. Hutchinson, “Political Settlements,” in 14th International Congress of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, Stockholm, Sweden, 27th to 31st July 1959: [Proceedings] (Geneva, Switzerland: WILPF, 1959[?]), 28, microfilm, reel 141.3, SCPC. 76. On this, members of the group mentioned the civil rights struggle in the United States and the Black Sash Movement in South Africa to exemplify nonviolent movements “by people of Western culture.” 77. Sushila Nayar, Dorothy Hutchinson, and Margaret Tims, Reports of Commissions, “Political Settlements,” in 14th International Congress of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, Stockholm, Sweden, 27th to 31st July 1959: [Proceedings] (Geneva, Switzerland: WILPF, 1959[?]), 87, microfilm reel 141.3, SCPC. 78. WILPF IEC, Decisions and Summary of Records, 1957, p. 19, box 26, folder 7, Circular Letters October 1956–December 1957, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. 79. WILPF IEC, Minutes, 1960, pp. 8–9, box 5, folder 11, IEC Meeting Minutes 1960–64, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. 80. WILPF IEC, Minutes, 1964, pp. 5–6, 23, box 5, folder 11, IEC Meeting Minutes 1960–64, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. 81. WILPF IEC, Minutes, 1964, p. 6, box 5, folder 11, IEC Meeting Minutes 1960–64, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. 82. WILPF IEC, Resolutions Adopted, 1964, p. 4, box 3, folder 17, Resolutions/ Statements 1955–64, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. 83. WILPF US Section, Resolution to the International Executive Committee, Meeting in Stockholm, August 1996, “The Revolution of Rising Expectations,” 1966, box 3, folder 18, Resolutions/Statements 1965–74, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA; WILPF US Section, Alternate Resolution to the International Executive Committee, Meeting in Stockholm, August 1966, “Universality of Membership in the United Nations,” 1966, box 3, folder 18, Resolutions/ Statements 1965–74, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. 84. Elizabeth Weideman, Report on Asia, 1958, p. 2, box 14, folder 4, Reports 1957–58, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. The phrase “revolution of rising expectations” was borrowed from Adlai Stevenson. In this, Weideman concurred with the opinion of the contemporary Indian ambassador to the United States,

[ 158 ]

Notes to Pages 70–72

85.

86.

87. 88.

89.

90.

G. L. Mehta, and with the future UN Secretary General, U Thant, then Burma’s ambassador to the UN. Cf. WILPF IEC, Resolutions Adopted, 1966, box 2, folder 3, IEC Meeting 1966, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA; and WILPF US Section, Alternate Resolution to the International Executive Committee, Meeting in Stockholm, August 1966, “Universality of Membership in the United Nations,” 1966, box 3, folder 18, Resolutions/Statements 1965–74, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA;WILPF US Section, Resolution to the International Executive Committee, Meeting in Stockholm, August 1996, “The Revolution of Rising Expectations,” 1966, box 3, folder 18, Resolutions/Statements 1965–74, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. The final title, as it was approved by the Delhi Congress, was “World Revolutionary Movements for Social Change.” WILPF, Statement, in 18th Congress of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom: New Delhi, India, December 28, 1970 to January 2, 1971 (Geneva, Switzerland: WILPF, 1971[?]), 31, mirofilm reel 141.3, SCPC. It is relevant to note that WILPF approved the final wording as a statement, which was considered a more general declaration of principles than a resolution (and was intended as a policy recommendation). The resolutions of that year’s Congress condemned colonialism as “an absolute violation of the Charter of the United Nations and in direct contradiction to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights” and asked for the dissolution of NATO and all military pacts, which made citizens of the NATO countries “complicit” in the evil of colonialism and war. WILPF also demanded the dissolution of NATO and all military pacts; see WILPF, Resolutions, in 18th Congress of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom: New Delhi, India, December 28, 1970 to January 2, 1971 (Geneva, Switzerland: WILPF, 1971[?]), 32–33, microfilm reel 141.3, SCPC. WILPF IEC, Minutes, 1970, p. 5, box 5, folder 13, IEC Meeting Minutes 1970–77, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. S. P. Tare, “Obituaries: Dr. Sushila Nayar 1914–2001,” International Journal of Leprosy and Other Mycobacterial Diseases 69, no. 2 (June 2001), http://findarticles. com/p/articles/mi_qa3754/is_200106/ai_n8987778 (accessed March 11, 2008). WILPF IEC, Minutes, 1970, pp. 4–5, box 5, folder 13, IEC Meeting Minutes 1970–77, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. It is interesting that the written records of WILPF are somewhat in contrast with the recollection of those who were present at the 1970 IEC meeting and at the later 1971 Congress. Edith Ballantyne recalled that it was the German section that proposed the resolution and that several US branches fought against its adoption (Edith Ballantyne, interview by the author, July 13, 2003). Similarly, Elise Boulding thought it was an initiative of the European women, who also thought of the US section as naïve in these matters (Elise Boulding, interview by the author, May 21, 2005). Although the British section had apparently discussed the issue at its annual meeting in 1969 or 1970, it is clear that not only was the resolution formally put forward by the US section, but it was actively pushed by one of the Quaker pacifist members of the organization. Other Quakers, including Boulding, were not in agreement, and the Baltimore branch, after the Congress, threatened to leave if it did not renounce the statement. The threat never materialized. Ballantyne also recalls that the resolution provoked heated discussions at the Congress and that the reference to violence begetting violence made it finally possible for consensus to be reached (Edith Ballantyne, e-mail message to author, December 19, 2008). Foster, Women for All Seasons, 62–64.

Notes to Pages 72–73

[ 159 ]

91. WILPF, Statement, in 18th Congress of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom: New Delhi, India, December 28, 1970 to January 2, 1971 (Geneva, Switzerland: WILPF, 1971[?]), 29–31, microfilm reel 141.3, SCPC. 92. WILPF, Resolutions, in 18th Congress of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom: New Delhi, India, December 28, 1970 to January 2, 1971 (Geneva, Switzerland: WILPF, 1971[?]), 32–34, microfilm reel 141.3, SCPC. 93. WILPF IEC, Final Report of the International Executive Committee Meeting, 1972, box 2, folder 8, IEC Meeting, Switzerland, August 1972, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. The 1972 IEC statement was followed by a 1974 much more elaborate, but essentially similar, Congress resolution, on which I commented extensively in chapter 3. It is important to note that this phraseology was not completely new to WILPF: It very closely reproduced the statement of aims of the 1934 WILPF Constitution which, as seen in chapter 3, had been modified in 1959. But WILPF was not returning with this to its prewar stance; rather, while reclaiming its roots and distancing itself from Cold War–inspired rhetoric, it also moved forward to a new interpretation of the international system, inspired by changed circumstances. Finally, it is worth mentioning that the first of these calls for a new economy preceded the UN General Assembly’s Declaration on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order (NIEO). For a history of NIEO ideology, see Craig Murphy, The Emergence of the NIEO Ideology (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1984). The text of the UN NIEO Declaration is available online: United Nations General Assembly, “Declaration on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order,” A/RES/S-6/3201, May 1, 1974, http:// www.un.org/ga/sessions/special.shtml (accessed March 10, 2008). 94. Pax et Libertas, Action Recommendations of the 19th Triennial Congress to WILPF Sections, 1975, p. 17, box 162, folder 2, Pax et Libertas Annual 1975–79, WILPF Second Accession, UCBA. 95. It is also relevant that the specific circumstances under which violence would be “inevitable” for remained unstated. I do not think, however, that this omission implied a lack of commitment by WILPF; rather, the 1971 resolution left the interpretation of each situation open to the people who lived in that situation the judgment about choices and paths to freedom and peace. 96. The 1915 resolutions did not use the specific phrase “self-determination,” which made its first appearance only in the resolutions and statements of the subsequent Congress; rather, it referred to “the right of the people to self-government, . . . autonomy and a democratic parliament.” WILPF, International Congress Resolutions, 1915, http://www.wilpf.int.ch/resolutions/1915.htm (accessed January 15, 2008). 97. Cited in Mercedes M. Randall, Improper Bostonian: Emily Greene Balch, Nobel Peace Laureate, 1946 (New York: Twayne, 1964), 271. Most of the founders of WILPF came from the women’s suffrage movement, social work, and/or social democratic activism field. They “had long worked in social movements that aimed to free mankind not only from war, but from the restrictions of undemocratic governments, from discrimination against women, and from the tentacles of a competitive economic system” (Randall, Improper Bostonian, 271). 98. WILPF IEC, Minutes, 1959, p. 8, box 5, folder 10, IEC Meeting Minutes 1955–59, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. 99. Gertrude Baer, Confidential Evaluation Requested on October 28/66, 1966, p. 1, box 92, folder 17, Circular Letters/Reports re: WILPF and UN 1949/1961–69, WILPF Second Accession, UCBA.

[ 160 ]

Notes to Pages 73–76

100. The US section of WILPF had been variously though not uniformly engaged in racial justice dialogues and actions since its founding, often confronting the racism of US foreign policy head-on. For an early history of WILPF US in the context of racial politics, see Melinda Plastas, A Band of Noble Women: Racial Politics in the Women’s Peace Movement (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2011). 101. See, for example, WILPF US Section and Vietnamese Women’s Movement for the Right to Live, Joint Peace Declaration, 1971, box 39, folder 4, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. See also Dorothy Hutchinson, “Most Dangerous Moment in U.S. History,” Pax et Libertas, April–June 1966, p. 14, box 45, folder 3, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. The Indian section had also been increasingly working within a more explicitly feminist framework, at least insofar as it proclaimed it a special responsibility of women to bring about “peace and prosperity”; see Dorothy Hutchinson, D. H. Circular Letter no. 3/1968, 1968, WILPF International 1968–75, 5, Dolores Taller Collection (unprocessed), UCBA. 102. WILPF IEC, Minutes, 1967, p. 6, box 5, folder 12, IEC Meeting Minutes 1965–69, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. By 1970 WILPF had abandoned its previous plea for an “honorable peace” and called instead for immediate US withdrawal. WILPF International Office, letter to US President Nixon, reproduced in Pax et Libertas, Viet Nam, April–June 1970, p. 23, box 45, folder 3, Pax et Libertas 1966–68, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. 103. Bussey, “Political and Economic Cooperation,” in Xth International Congress of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom at Luxembourg: August 4th–9th, 1946 (Geneva, Switzerland: WILPF, 1946[?]), 144, microfilm reel 141.2, SCPC. 104. Gertrude Baer, WILPF Work at Geneva, October 1950–May 1951, 1951, p. 6, box 14, folder 1, Reports 1949–51, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. 105. Dorothy Hutchinson, Chairman’s Report to International Executive Committee, 1967, pp. 2–3, box 2, folder 4, IEC Meeting 1967, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. 106. In 1968 WILPF formed a Committee on Contacts and Sections. See Elise Boulding, “From Rhetoric to Reality,” Pax et Libertas, July–September 1968, p. 36, box 45, folder 3, Pax et Libertas 1966–68, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. 107. In Nigeria Steffens followed up on the 1968 Congress Recommendation to look for avenues for WILPF work in Africa, a task that was actively supported and encouraged by Elise Boulding, as new International Chairman. Steffens would later be hired as US Executive Director, a position that she held from 1971 to 1977. WILPF US personnel records are held at the Swarthmore College Peace Collection and a list of contents is accessible online: SCPC, Records of Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, DG 043, Series H,3: Personnel Records, http://www.swarthmore.edu/Library/peace/DG026-050/dg043wilpf/ SeriesH3-Personnel.htm (accessed March 13, 2008). 108. It was through the correspondence in 1968 and 1969 that Steffens put forward the idea of approaching other international women’s organizations to push for the creation of an International Women’s Development Fund; Elise Boulding further suggested that the UN Commission on the Status of Women might welcome the proposal; see Elise Boulding, Memo on Possible WILPF Work in Africa, 1968, box 10, folder 7, Literature 1965–87, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. These first steps eventually led to the creation by the UN General Assembly of the United Nations Development Fund for Women in 1976. 109. With this observation Steffens anticipated feminist theoretical debates on the problems and questions of speaking on behalf of marginalized groups. See

Notes to Pages 77–78

[ 161 ]

Judith Roof and Robyn Wiegman, Who Can Speak? Authority and Critical Identity (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1995). 110. Dorothy Steffens, “New Ways of Working in Africa,” 1968, pp. 2–3, box 118, folder 13, Reports on Africa 1968–70/1994, WILPF Second Accession, UCBA. With the phrase “garbage collectors” Steffens was referring to Jane Addams’s first public office (and the only paid position she ever held in her life) as inspector of garbage for the city of Chicago in 1895; see Victoria Brown, The Education of Jane Addams (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004), 4. 111. Elise Boulding, Summary of Discussions, Commission I, “Future Directions of WILPF,” in 17th International Congress of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom: Nyborg Strand, Denmark, 18th to 24th August, 1968 (Geneva, Switzerland: WILPF, 1968), 14, microfilm reel 141.3, SCPC. 112. Elise Boulding, Summary of Discussions, Commission I, “Future Directions of WILPF,” in 17th International Congress of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom: Nyborg Strand, Denmark, 18th to 24th August, 1968 (Geneva, Switzerland: WILPF, 1968), 13, microfilm reel 141.3, SCPC. 113. See Dorothy Steffens, “Africa: No Freedom, No Peace,” 1970, box 118, folder 13, Reports on Africa 1968–70/1994, WILPF Second Accession, UCBA. See also Dorothy Steffens’s telegram reprinted in Elise Boulding, Addendum to E. B. Circular Letter, “Last-Minute Nigeria Advice from Dorothy Steffens,” 1969, WILPF International 1968–75, Dolores Taller Collection (unprocessed), UCBA. 114. Sushila Nayar at WILPF IEC, Minutes, 1967, pp. 7–8, 10, box 5, folder 12, IEC Meeting Minutes 1965–69, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. 115. Dorothy Steffens, “WILPF Presence in Africa,” 1969, box 2, folder 6, IEC Meeting 1969, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. 116. Sybil Cookson, Report on Africa: Sierra Leone, Ghana and Nigeria, 1969, pp. 1–2, box 2, folder 6, IEC Meeting 1969, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. 117. Steffens, “WILPF Presence in Africa,” 1969, p. 4, box 2, folder 6, IEC Meeting 1969, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. See also WILPF IEC, Minutes, 1969, box 5, folder 12, IEC Meeting Minutes 1965–69, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. In a short communication sent in March 1969, Steffens suggested that the members of the IEC “read Frantz Fanon, especially the section in which he speaks of the ways in which tribalism will be used to promote neo-colonialism”; see Dorothy Steffens’s telegram reprinted in Elise Boulding, Addendum to E. B. Circular Letter. This position antagonized some other members of WILPF in 1969, who took issue with Steffens’s wording against WILPF’s actions on Africa (WILPF IEC, Minutes, 1969, pp. 1–14, box 5, folder 12, IEC Meeting Minutes 1965–69, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA). Nevertheless, Steffens had promoted reflection, inquiry, and scrutiny about arms embargoes in the specific Nigerian conflict, and in a 1970 report to the IEC, she expressed her pleasure that had maintained official neutrality on the conflict; see Dorothy Steffens, “African Outreach,” 1970, p. 1, box 9, folder 2, WILPF Statements 1967–90, WILPF Second Accession, UCBA. 118. Steffens, “African Outreach,” 1970, pp. 2–3, box 9, folder 2, WILPF Statements 1967–90, WILPF Second Accession, UCBA. 119. Steffens, “African Outreach,” 3. 120. See also Steffens, “Africa: No Freedom, No Peace,” 1970, pp. 1–3, box 118, folder 13, Reports on Africa 1968–70/1994, WILPF Second Accession, UCBA. 121. WILPF IEC, Minutes, 1970, p. 3, box 5, folder 13, IEC Meeting Minutes 1970–77, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA.

[ 162 ]

Notes to Pages 78–81

122. Gertrude Baer, “Revolution: The Responsibility for Peace,” 1968, pp. 62–67, box 25, 16th International Congress Report 1966 and 17th International Congress Report 1968, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. 123. Laurel S. Weldon, “Inclusion and Understanding: A Collective Methodology for Feminist International Relations,” in Feminist Methodologies for International Relations, eds. Brooke A. Ackerly, Maria Stern, and Jacqui True (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press: 2006), 75–80. 124. Steffens, “WILPF Presence in Africa,” 1969, p. 4, box 2, folder 6, IEC Meeting 1969, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. 125. Boulding, E. B. Circular Letter no. 4/1969, 1969, WILPF International 1968–75, Dolores Taller Collection (unprocessed), UCBA. 126. Steffens, “WILPF Presence in Africa,” 1969,p. 2, box 2, folder 6, IEC Meeting 1969, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. 127. Steffens, “WILPF Presence in Africa,” 2–4; Sybil Cookson, Report on Africa: Sierra Leone, Ghana and Nigeria, 1969, pp. 1–2, box 2, folder 6, IEC Meeting 1969, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. 128. Jouve, “Reports of the National Sections: France,” 78–89. In this the French section differed from the Finnish and Danish sections who, instead, had upheld their countries’ examples of nonviolent resistance to Nazism and their absolute pacifism. Else Zeuthen, “Reports of the National Sections: Denmark,” in Xth International Congress of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom at Luxembourg: August 4th–9th, 1946 (Geneva, Switzerland: WILPF, 1946), 70–76, microfilm reel 141.2, SCPC; Anonymous, “Reports of the National Sections: Finland,” in Xth International Congress of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom at Luxembourg: August 4th–9th, 1946 (Geneva, Switzerland: WILPF, 1946), 76–78, microfilm reel 141.2, SCPC. Interestingly, Mary Nuttall, who in 1966 had regarded with a measure of antipathy the efforts by Arab and African countries to equate colonialism and apartheid with slavery, seemed to have enjoyed a personal conversion by 1970. She concluded her 1970 report stating that “Apartheid, Racism and Discrimination are all the aftermath of slavery or the continuation of the mentality of slave-owners”; see Mary Nuttall, Report on Slavery, 1970, p. 2, box 2, folder 7, IEC Meeting 1970, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. CHAPTER 5 1. Felski, Gender of Modernity, 13. 2. Felski, Gender of Modernity, 13–14. 3. See Edward W. Said, Orientalism, 1st Vintage Books ed. (New York: Vintage Books, 1979); Abdirahman A. Hussein, Edward Said: Criticism and Society (London; New York: Verso, 2002). 4. Said, Orientalism, 2. 5. Said, Orientalism, 3. 6. Said, Orientalism, 12. 7. Nicholas Thomas, Colonialism’s Culture: Anthropology, Travel, and Government (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994), 23. 8. Nicholas Thomas, Colonialism’s Culture, 27. 9. Midgley, “Anti-Slavery,” 174–75. 10. Leila Ahmed, Women and Gender in Islam: Historical Roots of a Modern Debate (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1992). 11. Feminist critiques of Orientalism (particularly in literary studies and history) are numerous, as well as works dealing with women’s experiences of, and participation

Notes to Pages 81–86

[ 163 ]

12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

17. 18. 19.

20.

21.

22.

in, the Orientalist project. See, for example, Reina Lewis, Gendering Orientalism: Race, Femininity, and Representation (New York: Routledge, 1996); Meyda Yeğenoğlu, Colonial Fantasies: Towards a Feminist Reading of Orientalism (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1998); Mari Yoshihara, Embracing the East: White Women and American Orientalism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003); Madeleine Dobie, Foreign Bodies: Gender, Language, and Culture in French Orientalism (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2001); Susan Fraiman, “Jane Austen and Edward Said: Gender, Culture, and Imperialism,” Critical Inquiry 21, no. 4 (Summer 1995), 805–21; Harriet D. Lyons, “Presences and Absences in Edward Said’s Culture and Imperialism,” Canadian Journal of African Studies /Revue Canadienne Des Études Africaines 28, no. 1 (1994), 101–5; McClintock, Imperial Leather; Sara Mills, Discourses of Difference: An Analysis of Women’s Travel Writing and Colonialism (New York: Routledge, 1991); Billie Melman, Women’s Orients— English Women and the Middle East, 1718–1918: Sexuality, Religion, and Work (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1992); Mary Taylor Huber and Nancy Lutkehaus, Gendered Missions: Women and Men in Missionary Discourse and Practice (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1999). For studies on gender and imperialism in the discipline of IR, see, for example, Hooper, Manly States; Sinha, “Gender and Imperialism,” Mrinalini Sinha, Colonial Masculinity: The “Manly Englishman” and the “Effeminate Bengali” in the Late Nineteenth Century (Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press; St. Martin’s Press, 1995); Mrinalini Sinha, Specters of Mother India: The Global Restructuring of an Empire (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2006). Joyce Zonana, “The Sultan and the Slave: Feminist Orientalism and the Structure of Jane Eyre,” Signs 18, no. 3 (Spring 1993), 594. Joyce Zonana, “The Sultan and the Slave,” 593. Joyce Zonana, “The Sultan and the Slave,” 594. Melman, Women’s Orients. See also Huber and Lutkehaus, Gendered Missions. I have mentioned in chapter 1 the example of fact-finding missions to Haiti in 1926 and China and Indochina in 1927. These, of course, were not trips to the Middle East, and the Orientalist analogy has only limited application. However, these trips can also be seen as having the ambiguous significance that Melman describes. Elisabeth Waern-Bugge, Report on Palestine, 1931, p. 3, box 65, folder 6, Israel 1970–78, WILPF Second Accession, UCBA. Waern-Bugge never mentioned, for example, the political, social, and economic ramifications of the British mandate over Palestine. Cited in Marie Lous-Mohr, M.L.M. Circular Letter no. 2 1955/56, 1955, p. 1, box 26, folder 6, Circular Letters November 1955–May 1956, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. In some documents is referred to as WIL. Emily Parker Simon Report with Excerpts from the Report of Madeleine Bouchereau’s Mission to the Middle East, Spring 1958, 1959, p. 9, box 118, folder 4, Reports on the Middle East 1958–59, WILPF Second Accession, UCBA. Bouchereau, citing an unnamed Lebanese professor of political science (Emily Parker Simon Report with Excerpts from the Report of Madeleine Bouchereau’s Mission to the Middle East, Spring 1958, 1959, p. 4, box 118, folder 4, Reports on the Middle East 1958–59, WILPF Second Accession, UCBA). Emily Parker Simon Report with Excerpts from the Report of Madeleine Bouchereau’s Mission to the Middle East, Spring 1958, 1959, p. 5, box 118, folder 4, Reports on the Middle East 1958–59, WILPF Second Accession, UCBA.

[ 164 ]

Notes to Pages 86–88

23. Emily Parker Simon Report with Excerpts from the Report of Madeleine Bouchereau’s Mission to the Middle East, Spring 1958, 1959, pp. 5–6, box 118, folder 4, Reports on the Middle East 1958–59, WILPF Second Accession, UCBA. Women in other parts of the non-Western world are never mentioned with the same insistence or held in the same symbolic significance as Muslim women in the Middle East. This further points to the need to distinguish between WILPF’s Orientalist attitudes toward the Arab world from its approach to decolonizing areas more generally. 24. Edith Ballantyne, interview by the author, August 7, 2004. It is interesting to note as well that, not unlike the rest of the world, WILPF did not start to mention “Palestinians” and kept referring to them as “refugees” until the late 1960s. 25. I am indebted to Israeli peace movement Gush Shalom for pointing out that, underlying this enduring conflict, are radically contrasting narratives, which can, however, be reconciled (Gush Shalom, Truth Against Truth, http://zope. gushshalom.org , accessed January 27, 2008). 26. Richardson, Contending Liberalisms, 20. Also see chapter 1. 27. WILPF, “Address to the Representatives of the 21 Governments Assembled at the Peace Conference in Paris (Voted Unanimously at the Opening of the Congress),” in Xth International Congress of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom at Luxembourg: August 4th–9th, 1946 (Geneva, Switzerland: WILPF, 1946[?]), 28; microfilm reel 141.2, SCPC. 28. Dorothy Detzer and Dorothy Robinson, “Reports of the National Sections: United States,” in Xth International Congress of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom at Luxembourg: August 4th–9th, 1946 (Geneva, Switzerland: WILPF, 1946), 119; microfilm reel 141.2, SCPC. 29. Steven L. Spiegel, The Other Arab-Israeli Conflict: Making America’s Middle East Policy, from Truman to Reagan (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985), 25–28. 30. Gertrude Baer, LOWUN no. 2/1949 with a Study of the Trusteeship System, 1949, p. 3, box 92, folder 17, Circular Letters/Reports re: WILPF and UN 1949/1961–69, WILPF Second Accession, UCBA. 31. Madeleine Bouchereau, Conclusions and Recommendations, Mission to the Middle East. 1958, p. 1, box 118, folder 4, Reports on the Middle East 1958–59, WILPF Second Accession, UCBA. 32. Charles D. Smith, Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 5th ed. (Boston: Bedford/ St. Martin’s, 2004), 219–220. 33. Signe Höjer, Visit to Israel in February/March 1958, 1958, pp. 13–14, box 26, folder 8, Circular Letters January 1958–November 1959 and 1969–70, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. 34. Thomas, Colonialism’s Culture, 17. 35. WILPF IEC, Resolutions Adopted, 1948, box 3, folder 16, Resolutions/Statements 1946–54, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. 36. Smith, Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 200–201. 37. See for example Gertrude Bussey, “World Survey,” in XIth International Congress of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, at Copenhagen, Christiansboro Castle, August 15th–19th, 1949 (Geneva, Switzerland: WILPF, 1949), 171–91; microfilm reel 141.2, SCPC. 38. Baer, Report of the Work of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom with United Nations in Geneva from the Meeting of the International Executive Committee in Magleaas, Denmark, p. 22.

Notes to Pages 88–93

[ 165 ]

39. The use of the term refugee was not unique to WILPF, of course. Many UN General Assembly resolutions throughout the 1950s and 1960s refer to Palestinians as such. 40. Johanne Reutz Gjermoe, Report from WILPF Middle-East Fact-Finding Mission in the Arab States and Israel, April 10–May 10, 1967, Summarized from a Report to the Nobel Committee, 1967, pp. 8–9, box 14, folder 7, Reports 1965–69, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. 41. Johanne Reutz Gjermoe, “On Middle East Mission,” 1967, box 2, folder 4, IEC Meeting 1967, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. 42. See also Israeli UN Ambassador’s response to Arafat’s address at the United Nations General Assembly in 1974, reprinted in Smith, Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 339–40. 43. Johanne Reutz Gjermoe, “Peace and Justice in the Middle-East,” 1972, box 14, folder 8, Reports 1970–79, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. She was referring here to the hostage crisis at the Munich Olympic games on September 5, 1972, which saw the death of all Israeli athletes and many of their captors (Smith, Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 310). 44. Gertrude Bussey, “World Survey,” in XIth International Congress of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, at Copenhagen, Christiansboro Castle, August 15th–19th, 1949 (Geneva, Switzerland: WILPF, 1949), 187, microfilm reel 141.2, SCPC. 45. Gertrude Bussey, “World Survey,” in XIth International Congress of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, at Copenhagen, Christiansboro Castle, August 15th–19th, 1949 (Geneva, Switzerland: WILPF, 1949), 183–84, microfilm reel 141.2, SCPC. 46. Signe Höjer, Visit to Israel in February/March 1958, 1958, p. 2, box 26, folder 8, Circular Letters January 1958–November 1959 and 1969–70, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. 47. Johanne Reutz Gjermoe, “On Middle East Mission,” 1967, pp. 10–11, box 2, folder 4, IEC Meeting 1967, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. 48. Lina Abu-Habib, “Education and the Palestinian Refugees in Lebanon—A Lost Generation?” Refugee Participation Network 21 (April, 1996), http://www. fmreview.org/HTMLcontent/rpn218.htm (accessed March 3, 2009). In 1962 WILPF launched a program where members of WILPF in different countries could donate money to a fund destined to sponsor the training of an Arab refugee woman in a UNRWA school in Jordan. This initiative was conducted in cooperation with UNRWA and continued for a couple of years. The progress of the sponsorship recipient was followed closely and her picture and correspondence were rather widely advertised in WILPF correspondence and publications. WILPF saw this sponsorship in the context of Arab-Israeli dialogue, and pertaining to the same spirit that saw the admission of a new Lebanese section to WILPF’s ranks (in the same year-see Adelaide Baker, “New Vistas in the Middle East,” Pax et Libertas, January-March 1963, box 45, folder 2, Pax et Libertas 1960–1965, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA). 49. Johanne Reutz Gjermoe, Report from WILPF Middle-East Fact-Finding Mission in the Arab States and Israel, April 10–May 10, 1967, Summarized from a Report to the Nobel Committee, 1967, pp. 8–9, box 14, folder 7, Reports 1965–69, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. 50. Circular Letters were used occasionally by WILPF international leaders to communicate with sections and members in between Congresses. Though they

[ 166 ]

Notes to Pages 93–97

51.

52.

53.

54. 55.

56.

57.

58. 59. 60.

did not form part of WILPF official policy making they were important for keeping sections abreast of each other’s activities and of events of significance for WILPF work. Else Zeuthen, E. Z. Circular Letter no. 5 1956/7, 1957, box 26, folder 7, Circular Letters October 1956–December 1957, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. See also Rahel Straus and Hannah Rosenzweig, Israel Section Letter to WILPF International Executive Committee, 1957, box 14, folder 4, Reports 1957–58, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. This letter expresses gratitude to WILPF’s headquarters and “many sections which have shown their understanding and their warm sympathy.” The Israeli section’s reluctance to condemn its own government stands in stark contrast with both the British and the French sections’ immediate protestations against their governments’ military actions in Egypt (see WILPF British Section’s Statement on Suez Crisis and WILPF French Section letter to French Premier Guy Mollet in Else Zeuthen, E.Z. Circular Letter no. 3/1956, 1956, box 26, folder 7, Circular Letters October 1956–December 1957, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA). WILPF IEC, Decisions and Summary of Records, 1957, pp. 1–24, 19, box 26, folder 7, Circular Letters October 1956–December 1957, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. A 2005 study found that the presence of peacekeeping operations in a conflict area inhibits both the likelihood of mediation or negotiation attempts and their success rates once they are initiated (J. Michael Greig and Paul F. Diehl, “The Peacekeeping–Peacemaking Dilemma,” International Studies Quarterly 49, no. 4 (2005), 621–646). WILPF IEC, Resolutions Adopted, 1964, p. 4, box 3, folder 17, Resolutions/ Statements 1955–64, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. The statement was WILPF’s direct response to the meeting of Arab heads of States in Cairo in 1964, convened by Nasser which resulted, among other things, in the creation of the Palestine Liberation Organization. It also came in the context of a resurgent preoccupation with anti-Semitism between the mid-1950s and the mid-1960s (see for example Baer, Report of the Work of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom with United Nations in Geneva from the Meeting of the International Executive Committee in Magleaas, Denmark, p. 14. Johanne Reutz Gjermoe, “On Middle East Mission,” 1967, p. 2, box 2, folder 4, IEC Meeting 1967, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. Emphasis in the original. Johanne Reutz Gjermoe, Report on the Middle-East, June 1967–June 1968, 1968, box 118, folder 14, Reports on the Middle East 1968–75, WILPF Second Accession, UCBA. Johanne Reutz Gjermoe, Report on the Middle-East, June 1967–June 1968, pp.12–13, 1968, box 118, folder 14, Reports on the Middle East 1968–75, WILPF Second Accession, UCBA. Hannah Rosenzweig, “Israel in the Middle East,” in 13th International Congress of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom: Birmingham, UK, 23rd–28th July, 1956 (Geneva, Switzerland: WILPF, 1956), 114–15, microfilm reel 141.3, SCPC. WILPF IEC, Minutes, 1975, p. 10, box 2, folder 10, IEC Meeting Germany October 1975, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. WILPF IEC, Minutes, 1975, p. 11, box 2, folder 10, IEC Meeting Germany October 1975, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. Libby Frank, Report of Middle-East Committee Chair to International Executive Committee, 1976, p. 7, box 2, folder 11, IEC Meeting Switzerland July 1976, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA.

Notes to Pages 97–100

[ 167 ]

61. Gertrude Bussey, “World Survey,” in XIth International Congress of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, at Copenhagen, Christiansboro Castle, August 15th–19th, 1949 (Geneva, Switzerland: WILPF, 1949), 183–84, microfilm reel 141.2, SCPC. 62. Cf. for example Edith Ballantyne, interview by the author, July 13, 2003 with Joyce McLean, interview by the author, April 19, 2004. 63. There has been much speculation as to why the organization (as well as other international women’s and feminist organizations) has not been historically very good at attracting members from the Third World. Deborah Stienstra attributes this limitation in part to the bureaucratic, centralized and UN-linked structure of established women’s organizations, which required that executive positions be mostly filled on a voluntary basis. Such structure, as well as modest financial resources, limited participation and leadership to middle-to-upper class women from First World countries, who had the time and means to devote to full (or almost full) time unpaid work for the organization (Stienstra, Women’s Movements, 96–103.). 64. WILPF IEC, Minutes, 1964, p. 10, box 5, folder 11, IEC Meeting Minutes 1960–64, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. 65. WILPF IEC, Minutes, 1964, p. 24, box 5, folder 11, IEC Meeting Minutes 1960–64, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. 66. Cf. Emily Parker Simon Report with Excerpts from the Report of Madeleine Bouchereau’s Mission to the Middle East, Spring 1958, 1959, box 118, folder 4, Reports on the Middle East 1958–59, WILPF Second Accession, UCBA, and Signe Höjer, Visit to Israel in February/March 1958, 1958, box 26, folder 8, Circular Letters January 1958–November 1959 and 1969–70, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. 67. Elise Boulding, interview by the author, May 21, 2005. 68. Libby Frank, interview by the author, May 10, 2004. 69. Libby Frank, interview by the author, May 10, 2004. See also Edith Ballantyne, interview by the author, August 7, 2004. 70. Libby Frank, interview by the author, May 10, 2004. 71. Dolores Taller, WILPF 19th Triennial Congress Middle East Workshop: A Brief Report, 1974, 1, WILPF International 1968–75, Dolores Taller Collection (unprocessed), UCBA. 72. Dolores Taller, WILPF 19th Triennial Congress Middle East Workshop: A Brief Report, 1974, 1, WILPF International 1968–75, Dolores Taller Collection (unprocessed), UCBA. See also Libby Frank, interview by the author, May 10, 2004. 73. Divisions within WILPF were so sharp that Frank was once reproached for having been seen talking in private to a “pro-Palestinian” member. However, Frank was also reassured by the explicit support of some US Jewish members of the League (Libby Frank, interview by the author, May 10, 2004). 74. Dolores Taller, WILPF 19th Triennial Congress Middle East Workshop: A Brief Report, 1974, 2, WILPF International 1968–75, Dolores Taller Collection (unprocessed), UCBA. 75. Dolores Taller, Notes from 19th WILPF Congress, 1974, 6, WILPF International 1968–75, Dolores Taller Collection (unprocessed), UCBA. 76. Ackerly, Political Theory and Feminist Social Criticism, 24. 77. Dolores Taller, Notes from 19th WILPF Congress, 1974, 5, WILPF International 1968–75, Dolores Taller Collection (unprocessed), UCBA. Later that same year,

[ 168 ]

Notes to Pages 100–103

78.

79. 80.

81. 82. 83.

84.

85.

86. 87.

88. 89. 90. 91. 92.

93.

Yasser Arafat made his historical appearance in front of the UN General Assembly, denouncing Zionism, inscribing the Palestinian struggle in the decolonization and national liberation movements, while extending a symbolic olive branch to the Israeli government. Cited in WILPF, Search for Peace in the Middle East: A Brief Record of Efforts by WILPF to further Peaceful Solutions of the Conflict in the Middle East, http://www. wilpf.int.ch/publications/2000middleeast1930.htm (accessed April 20, 2006). Gladys D. Walser, The Fourth and Final Report of the Eleventh Session of the General Assembly, pp. 11–13, 22. Dolores Taller, Notes from 19th WILPF Congress, 1974, 3, WILPF International 1968–75, Dolores Taller Collection (unprocessed), UCBA. See also Edith Ballantyne, Letter to Dolores Taller, July 11, 1975, 1, WILPF International 1968–75, Dolores Taller Collection (unprocessed), UCBA. Hutchinson, “The Right to be Human,” p. 9. See chapter 3. According to Brooke Ackerly, “[t]he multi-sited critic has the unique perspective of an individual who has been an insider or outsider vis-à-vis more than one group: she has acquired local knowledge about more than one group. She is able to move between the places and ideas of those groups. And she is generally self-conscious about her perspective” (Ackerly, Political Theory and Feminist Social Criticism, 154). Gladys D. Walser, The Fourth and Final Report of the Eleventh Session of the General Assembly, 1957, pp. 11–13, 22, box 14, folder 4, Reports 1957–58, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. Gladys Walser, Work with the United Nations at U.N. Headquarters in New York, In 13th International Congress of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom: Birmingham, UK, 23rd–28th July, 1956 (Geneva, Switzerland: WILPF, 1956), 71, microfilm reel 141.3, SCPC. Ackerly, Political Theory and Feminist Social Criticism, 152–55. Libby Frank recalls having been told that “at earlier meeting, at earlier congresses people actually threw their purses at each other, slammed out of the room” (Libby Frank, interview by the author, May 10, 2004). And Edith Ballantyne recalls that Lebanese and Israeli delegates for a time categorically refused to even be in the same room, relying on a mediator to convey messages to each other (Edith Ballantyne, interview by Felicity Hill, March 19, 2005). WILPF IEC, Minutes, 1960, p. 13, box 5, folder 11, IEC Meeting Minutes 1960–64, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. WILPF IEC, Minutes, 1960, p. 13, box 5, folder 11, IEC Meeting Minutes 1960–64, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. WILPF IEC, Minutes, 1960, p. 13, box 5, folder 11, IEC Meeting Minutes 1960–64, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. WILPF IEC, Minutes, 1969, p. 1, box 5, folder 12, IEC Meeting Minutes 1965–69, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. Elise Boulding, Letter to the Officers and Members of the Lebanese and Israeli Sections of WILPF, 1969, p. 2, box 35, folder 8, Israel 1964–1982, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. Libby Frank, WILPF Middle East Mission, April–May 1975: Report, 1975, p. 10, box 2, folder 10, IEC Meeting Germany October 1975, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. See also Edith Ballantyne, Middle East Mission-A Personal Report (April 19–May 2, 1975), 1975, p. 23, box 118, folder 14, Reports on the Middle East 1968–75, WILPF Second Accession, UCBA.

Notes to Pages 103–106

[ 169 ]

94. I have to point out that the Israeli section did not participate in the 1975 meeting. The section had undergone a change in leadership, which had resulted in a radicalization of their position and an abrupt rupture with WILPF. Frank and Ballantyne feel that the change in leadership had transformed the section into a propagandistic arm of the Israeli government (Edith Ballantyne, interview by the author, August 7, 2004; Libby Frank, interview by the author, May 10, 2004). The section was later disbanded and a new section formed and admitted in 1982 from members of the pacifist organization Gesher L’Shalom. The new section continued to participate in the formulation of WILPF policies together with the Lebanese and, starting in 1989, the Palestinian sections (Aliyah Strauss, interview by the author, August 1, 2004.). 95. Signe Höjer, Visit to Israel in February/March 1958, 1958, p. 12, box 26, folder 8, Circular Letters January 1958–November 1959 and 1969–70, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. 96. Signe Höjer, Visit to Israel in February/March 1958, 1958, pp. 12–13, box 26, folder 8, Circular Letters January 1958–November 1959 and 1969–70, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. 97. See Gertrud Woker’s intervention in WILPF IEC, Decisions and Summary of Records, 1957, p. 9, box 26, folder 7, Circular Letters October 1956–December 1957, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. See also WILPF IEC, Minutes, 1960, p. 13, box 5, folder 11, IEC Meeting Minutes 1960–64, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. 98. Libby Frank, WILPF Middle East Mission, April–May 1975: Report, 1975, p. 1, box 2, folder 10, IEC Meeting Germany October 1975, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. 99. Edith Ballantyne, “League’s Aims: As Valid Today as When Founded,” Pax et Libertas, 1975, p. 20, box 162, folder 2, Pax et Libertas Annual 1975–79, WILPF Second Accession, UCBA. 100. Quoted in Marsha Romeranz, “Int’l Peace Group Seeks Dialogue between Women of the Mideast,” The Jerusalem Post, May 13, 1975, WILPF International 1968–75, Dolores Taller Collection (unprocessed), UCBA. 101. Libby Frank, interview by the author, May 10, 2004. 102. Frank also thought that racial and historical myths were not the exclusive prerogative of Israeli and US Jews: Arabs and Palestinians had misconceptions about the nature of Zionism, which she felt they equated with “that demand for Jewish exclusiveness and sovereignty in Israel which result[ed] in discrimination against Arabs and particularly Palestinians” (Libby Frank, “The Zionist/ Racist Resolution at the UN,” 1975, p. 1, box 91, folder 13, Middle East Libby Frank Correspondence 1975–81, WILPF Second Accession, UCBA). Libby Frank was especially concerned about how discussions over the nature of Zionism distracted attention from the search for solutions to the conflict. She felt that the UN General Assembly’s resolutions equating Zionism with racism and the South African apartheid regime (in 1973 and 1975) were used as politically expedient tools by “the most hawkish and intransigent of the Israelis and the Americans” and by Arab regimes to rally people to their causes, hide their governments’ racist or racist-supporting actions, and further accentuate the artificial “us vs. them” divide in the Middle East (Libby Frank, “The Zionist/Racist Resolution at the UN,” 1975, p. 1, box 91, folder 13, Middle East Libby Frank Correspondence 1975–81, WILPF Second Accession, UCBA). Therefore, she pressed the League against supporting those resolutions.

[ 170 ]

Notes to Pages 106–108

103. Libby Frank, WILPF Middle East Mission, April–May 1975: Report, 1975, p. 10, box 2, folder 10, IEC Meeting Germany October 1975, WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. See also Edith Ballantyne, Middle East Mission-A Personal Report (April 19–May 2, 1975), 1975, p. 23, box 118, folder 14, Reports on the Middle East 1968–75, WILPF Second Accession, UCBA. 104. Dolores Taller, interview by the author, April 21, 2004. 105. Some of WILPF’s founders in earlier times, Libby Frank, Edith Ballantyne, the Lebanese/Palestinian delegation, Dolores Taller, for example, but also the many members of WILPF who studied and participated in many forms in WILPF’s decision-making. 106. Libby Frank, interview by the author, May 10, 2004. CHAPTER 6 1. In drawing theoretical lessons from feminist activism, I join IR feminists such as Catherine Eschle and Bice Maiguashca, “Rethinking Globalised Resistance: Feminist Activism and Critical Theorising in International Relations,” British Journal of Politics and International Relations 9, no. 2 (May, 2007), 284–301; Eschle, Global Democracy; Ackerly, Universal Human Rights; and Brooke A. Ackerly, “Feminist Methodological Reflection,” in Qualitative Methods in International Relations: A Pluralist Guide, eds. Audie Klotz and Deepa Prakash (Basingstoke, UK; New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008). 2. Karen Garner documents the influence of women’s organizations, including WILPF, on the global governance system from the 1920s to 1985. My argument supports her finding that the concerted efforts of women’s organizations changed both that system and the organizations themselves. Garner, Shaping a Global Women’s Agenda. 3. Cynthia Cockburn, “Feminist Antimilitarism and WILPF,” http://www.wilpf.int. ch/events/20081B/cockburn_speech.html (accessed February 22, 2009). 4. See for example David Cortright, Peace Works: The Citizen’s Role in Ending the Cold War (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1993); David Cortright, Peace: A History of Movements and Ideas (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2008). 5. Welsh, Mobilizing Modernity, 29. 6. A similar argument is made regarding the interwar peace movements by Lynch in Beyond Appeasement. 7. Hutchinson, “The Right to be Human,” pp. 7–8. 8. Ling, “The Fish and the Turtle,” 286. Edward Said describes one such method as contrapuntal. The contrapuntal method goes “beyond the usually polar oppositions that lock collective antagonists together in conflicts” to understand empire, its variations, and the histories within it as interdependent and unintelligible without each other (Edward W. Said, “A Method for Thinking about just Peace,” in What Is a Just Peace?, eds. Pierre Allan and Alexis Keller (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), 176. For a more extensive description of contrapuntal style see Said, Culture and Imperialism; and Geeta Chowdhry, “Edward Said and Contrapuntal Reading: Implications for Critical Interventions in International Relations,” Millennium-Journal of International Studies 36, no. 1 (December 1, 2007), 101–16. 9. I believe that the suggestions that follow are entirely consistent with Ackerly’s theory and intentions. My purpose here is to make intelligent compassion explicitly part of a methodology for emancipatory social change. Ling explicitly mentions empathetic cooperation and other similar strategies for cross-world

Notes to Pages 108–116

[ 171 ]

10. 11.

12. 13.

14.

15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23.

communication. She claims that they are not enough and that tools that facilitate hybrid-making are needed. Karen Armstrong, The Spiral Staircase: My Climb Out of Darkness, 1st ed. (New York; Toronto: Alfred A. Knopf, 2004). Sylvester, “Empathetic Cooperation,” 317. That this strategy is in general part of the methodological repertoire of feminism is clear by confronting for example Edwards, Feminist Dilemmas in Qualitative Research; Harding, Whose Science?; Harding, Is Science Multicultural?; Fonow and Cook, Beyond Methodology; Wolf, Feminist Dilemmas in Fieldwork. See Chapter 2. The first quote comes from the late Sara Ruddick’s response to a series of articles honoring her as “Distinguished Woman Philosopher” of 2002 (Sara Ruddick, “Response from Sara Ruddick,” APA Newsletter on Feminism and Philosophy 3, no. 1 (Fall 2003), 97–101). The second quote is by Elizabeth Kamarck Minnich’s reading of Ruddick’s thought in the same newsletter (Elizabeth Kamarck Minnich, “Thinking Friends, Moral Taste, Public Concerns: For Sara Ruddick,” APA Newsletter on Feminism and Philosophy 3, no. 1 (Fall 2003), 94–97). Sylvester, “Empathetic Cooperation,” 326. The first quote is from T. Minh-Ha Trinh, Woman, Native, Other: Writing Postcoloniality and Feminism (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1989). The second is from Maria Lugónes, “Playfulness, ‘World’-Travelling, and Loving Perception,” in Making Face, Making Soul = Haciendo Caras: Creative and Critical Perspectives by Feminists of Color, ed. Gloria Anzaldúa, 1st ed. (San Francisco: Aunt Lute Foundation Books, 1990), 390–99. WILPF’s ideas about peace also represent a tension between a “a feminism of totality” which is coopted “into the discourses of the powerful,” while not being intentionally so, though lacking “a discourse based on a radical critique of the present” and “an engaged feminism, one that refuses co-optation, or uniform definitions of what it is to be a liberated self” ( Vivienne Jabri, “Feminist Ethics and Hegemonic Global Politics,” Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 29, no. 3 (06/01, 2004), 265). Sylvester, “Empathetic Cooperation,” 330–33. Kamarck Minnich, “Thinking Friends,” 95. Sylvester, “Empathetic Cooperation,” 327. Ackerly, “Intelligence and Compassion,” 40–47. Wibben, Feminist Security Studies, 112–13. Ackerly, “Intelligence and Compassion.” See Ackerly and True, “Studying the Struggles” for the synergies between the sociological, normative and praxeological dimensions of feminist critical theory. Ackerly, “Intelligence and Compassion,” 46. Epilogue Several feminist IR theorists have described feminism as a “cacophony” of voices (Christine Sylvester, “Riding the Hyphens of Feminism, Peace, and Place in Four-(Or More) Part Cacophony,” Women’s Studies Quarterly 23, no. 3–4 (Fall, 1995); Helen Kinsella, “For a Careful Reading: The Conservativism of Gender Constructivism,” International Studies Review 5, no. 2 (2003), 287–302; Marysia Zalewski, “Do We Understand Each Other Yet? Troubling Feminist Encounters with(in) International Relations,” The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 9, no. 2 (2007), 302–12). I borrow shamelessly from them to describe the wildly different opinions that are welcomed within WILPF on matters of peace and feminism.

[ 172 ]

Notes to Pages 116–119

EPILOGUE 1. Foster, Women for All Seasons, 72–98. 2. Stienstra, Women’s Movements, 96–103. 3. Mary K. Meyer, “The Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom: Organizing Women for Peace in the War System,” in Gender Politics in Global Governance, eds. Mary K. Meyer and Elisabeth Prügl (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1999), 113. 4. Garner, Shaping a Global Women’s Agenda; see also Nitza Berkovitch, From Motherhood to Citizenship: Women’s Rights and International Organizations (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999). 5. Garner, Shaping a Global Women’s Agenda, 193–286; Stienstra, Women’s Movements, 91–117. 6. According to Cynthia Cockburn, this subtle shift specifically occurred at the Commission on the Status of Women’s meeting in 1998. Cockburn, From Where We Stand, 140. 7. Meyer, “The Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom.” 8. Richardson, Contending Liberalisms, 42–45; Stienstra, Women’s Movements, 92–96. 9. US Comptroller General, “Statement of Charles A. Bowsher, Comptroller General, Before the Subcommittee on General Oversight and Renegotiation of the Committee on Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs, United States House of Representatives on Profits on Defense Contracts,” (March 21, 1984), 1, http:// archive.gao.gov/d40t12/123696.pdf (accessed November 11, 2011). According to the US General Accounting Office, “defense contractors were 35 percent more profitable than commercial manufacturers during 1970–1979 and 120 percent more profitable during 1980–83” (GAO Report to Congressional Requesters. “Government Contracting: Assessment of the study of Defense Contractor Profitability,” GAO/NSIAD-87–50 (December 1986), 3. 10. Garner, Shaping a Global Women’s Agenda, 199–206. Also see Jutta Joachim on the importance of “organizational entrepreneurs” for bringing women’s agenda to the United Nations: Jutta M. Joachim, Agenda Setting, the UN and NGOs: Gender Violence and Reproductive Rights (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2007). 11. Stienstra, Women’s Movements, 106–10. 12. Garner, Shaping a Global Women’s Agenda, 215–16. It has to be noted that all the UN Decade’s initiatives on women were characterized by a more meager budget, shorter preparatory time, smaller institutional and member states support than other UN functional initiatives. However, they eventually had some important institutional consequences, including the establishment of the UN International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women (INSTRAW) and of a voluntary fund which later became the UN Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) (Stienstra, Women’s Movements, 134–42; Garner, Shaping a Global Women’s Agenda, 239–41). 13. Edith Ballantyne, e-mail message to author, November 5, 2011. 14. According to Karen Garner the “peace” theme was insisted upon by the WIDF and East European organizations (Garner, Shaping a Global Women’s Agenda, 216). Unlike many other Western women’s organizations, WILPF supported the inclusion of this theme, e-mail message to author, November 5, 2011). 15. Stienstra, Women’s Movements, 123–27. The Conference produced a World Plan of Action that asked governments to increase women’s political and economic

Notes to Pages 120–122

[ 173 ]

16. 17.

18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23.

24. 25. 26. 27.

28. 29. 30. 31.

32. 33. 34. 35.

participation, promote women’s education, improve health and nutrition, and develop gender-conscious social programs in areas of women’s concern. This plan had been drafted by the Western conference organizers and had the approval of Western government delegates. A second document, the Declaration of Mexico on the Equality of Women and Their Contribution to Development and Peace, included more “political” questions, such as the promotion of a NIEO, disarmament, the elimination of racism, imperialism and foreign intervention. This document was approved by a majority of participants, but the US and other Western allies either rejected it or abstained from voting. Garner, Shaping a Global Women’s Agenda, 225–27; and Judith P. Zinsser, “From Mexico to Copenhagen to Nairobi: the United Nations Decade for Women, 1975–1985,” Journal of World History 13, no. 1 (Spring 2002), 143. Foster, Women for All Seasons, 75–76. Meyer, “The Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom.” It was, however, included in the Declaration of Mexico on the Equality of Women and Their Contribution to Development and Peace, mentioned at note v. Foster, Women for All Seasons, 96. Garner, Shaping a Global Women’s Agenda, 230. Garner, Shaping a Global Women’s Agenda, 230. Foster, Women for All Seasons, 76. Foster, Women for All Seasons, 90. In this regard, it is important to note that at this time WILPF consistently pronounced itself against occupation and dictatorships, from West Iran to US interference in Latin America to South Africa’s apartheid Regime, as well as in favor of indigenous people’s rights all over the world; see WILPF. “International Congress Resolutions 1915–2010,” http://wilpfinternational.org/resolutions/ index.htm (accessed November 17, 2011). Meyer, “The Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom,” 111; Foster, Women for All Seasons, 77–78. Garner, Shaping a Global Women’s Agenda, 255–56. Garner, Shaping a Global Women’s Agenda, 254–63. Stienstra, Women’s Movements, 128–30. Garner, Shaping a Global Women’s Agenda, 260–61. Although the UN mid-decade Conference was more inclusive than Mexico City in the organizing phase, the final document continued to reflect different geopolitical priorities. However, it did not shy away from tackling political and economic issues, recognizing women’s diversity, and prompting data gathering on women’s access to education, health care and employment. Garner, Shaping a Global Women’s Agenda, 253. Liddington, The Road to Greenham Common; Foster, Women for All Seasons, 82–94. Foster, Women for All Seasons, 84. Edith Ballantyne cited in Foster, Women for All Seasons. Deborah Steinstra. “Making Global Connections Among Women, 1970–1999,” in Global Social Movements, ed. Robin Cohen and Shirin Rai (New York: Athlone Press, 2000), 77. See also Harriet Hyman Alonso, Peace as a Women’s Issue: A History of the U.S. Movement for World Peace and Women’s Rights (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1993), 245–48. Alonso, Peace as a Women’s Issue, 249. Foster, Women for All Seasons. Alonso, Peace as a Women’s Issue, 229. Foster, Women for All Seasons, 86.

[ 174 ]

Notes to Pages 122–125

36. Alonso, Peace as a Women’s Issue, 229. 37. On this occasion, the Reagan administration denied over 300 visas to the US for applicants thought to be Soviet sympathizers, including a number of WILPF women. Foster, Women for All Seasons, 90. 38. Foster, Women for All Seasons, 87 and Alonso, Peace as a Women’s Issue, 229–30. 39. Foster, Women for All Seasons, 88. 40. Alonso, Peace as a Women’s Issue, 247–49. Women from WPA participated in the events of June 1982 and were also instrumental in bringing the Seneca camp to life. 41. Homer A. Jack, “Overcoming the Failure of the Second U.N. Special Session on Disarmament,” Security Dialogue 13, 3 (July 1982), 177. 42. WILPF. “International Congress Resolutions 1915–2010.” 43. WILPF. “International Congress Resolutions 1915–2010.” 44. Judith P. Zinsser, “From Mexico to Copenhagen to Nairobi,” 151–57. 45. Foster, Women for All Seasons, 79. 46. Foster, Women for All Seasons, 95. 47. Stienstra, Women’s Movements, 115. 48. Garner, Shaping a Global Women’s Agenda, 277–78. 49. Garner, Shaping a Global Women’s Agenda, 277. 50. Ballantyne cited in Foster, Women for All Seasons, 97. 51. Garner, Shaping a Global Women’s Agenda, 278–80. 52. Arvonne S. Fraser, The U.N. Decade for Women: Documents and Dialogue (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1987), 199. 53. Garner, Shaping a Global Women’s Agenda, 281. 54. United Nations. “The Nairobi Forward-looking Strategies for the Advancement of Women Adopted by the World Conference to Review and Appraise the Achievements of the United Nations Decade for Women: Equality, Development and Peace,” paragraph 253, http://www.un.org/esa/gopher-data/conf/fwcw/nfls/ nfls.en (accessed November 17, 2011). 55. Garner, Shaping a Global Women’s Agenda, 288. 56. Garner, Shaping a Global Women’s Agenda, 283. 57. Foster, Women for All Seasons, 74–98. 58. Stienstra, Women’s Movements, 98. 59. Jane Connors, “NGOs and the Human Rights of Women at the United Nations,” in The Conscience of the World: The Influence of Non-Governmental Organizations in the U.N. System. ed. Peter Willets (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1996), 148. 60. Edith Ballantyne, Message to Inge Langen, Suggested Introduction to Information Book Re Nairobi Film, 1985 [?]), box 9, folder 2, WILPF Statements 1967–90, WILPF Second Accession, UCBA. At the third meeting of women’s peace activists in Warsaw in April 1986, Ballantyne talked of “women’s liberation as a necessary part of peace struggle” and said that “conversely, women’s struggle for peace is part of the struggle for her liberation” (Edith Ballantyne, Speech at the Third Meeting of Women Peace Activists, Warsaw, April 25–30, 1986, “From the Hague 1915 to Nairobi 1985,” 1986, box 9, folder 2, WILPF Statements 1967–90, WILPF Second Accession, UCBA). 61. Barbara Lochbihler, “A Forward-Looking Retrospective: Fifteen years after the World Conference on Women in Beijing,” in Listen to Women-For a Change, eds. Irmgard Heilberger and Barbara Lochbihler (Berlin: Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, German Section, 2010), 8; WILPF, International Congress Resolutions 1915–2010.

Notes to Pages 125–128

[ 175 ]

62. Lochbihler, Listen to Women, 7. 63. WILPF. “International Congress Resolutions 1915–2010.” 64. “Development in a Sustainable Environment” Pax et Libertas 56, 3, 6 (September 1991). Boulder 2nd Accession, 163, 2. 65. Meyer, “The Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom,” 113. 66. WILPF. “International Congress Resolutions 1915–2010.” 67. Hence WILPF was opposed to economic sanctions against Iraq, as they had a disproportionate negative impact on the Iraqi population, while it supported sanctions against apartheid South Africa. Compare the 1985 resolution on South Africa with the 1992 resolution on Iraq in WILPF. “International Congress Resolutions 1915–2010.” 68. Felicity Hill claims that WILPF has a love-hate relationship with the NPT. On the one hand, it legally binds nuclear states to disarm; on the other it declares nuclear energy an “inalienable right.” Felicity Hill, “Reaching Critical Will: Nuclear Disarmament on the Political Agenda,” in Listen to Women for a Change, eds. Irmgard Heilberger and Barbara Lochbihler (Berlin: Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, German Section, 2010), 9–30. 69. WILPF. International Congress Resolutions 1915–2010. 70. Janet Bruin, cited in Foster, Women for All Seasons, 111. 71. WILPF, International Congress Resolutions 1915–2010. 72. Irmgard Heilberger, “From Helsinki to Beijing: Fifteen Years after the Women’s Peace Train,” in Listen to Women for a Change, eds. Irmgard Heilberger and Barbara Lochbihler (Berlin: Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, German Section, 2010), 43–44. 73. Nita Barrow, cited in Garner, Shaping a Global Women’s Agenda, 279. 74. Hilkka Pietilä and Jeanne Vickers, Making Women Matter: The Role of the United Nations (London: Zed Books, 1996), xiv–xvi. 75. Hill, “Reaching Critical Will,” 26–34. 76. Meyer, “The Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom,” 112. 77. United Nations. Fourth World Conference on Women. “Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action,” http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/beijing/platform/ (accessed November 17, 2011). 78. The concept of human security originated from a 1994 UNDP Human Development Report, which linked security to economic development and transferred the security referent from states to people. Since then human security has become one important area of debate and focus for IR and Peace Studies. See S. Neil MacFarlane, Yuen Foong Khong, Human Security and the UN: A Critical History (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2006). 79. Reaching Critical Will, “History,” http://reachingcriticalwill.org/about/aboutindex.html (accessed November 17, 2011). 80. Hill, “Reaching Critical Will,” 30. 81. Hill, “Reaching Critical Will,” 30. 82. For a text of the final report of the review conference, see http://www.un.org/ disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/2000-NPT/2000NPTDocs.shtml (accessed November 17, 2011). 83. Reaching Critical Will, http://reachingcriticalwill.org/ (accessed September 9, 2011). 84. For the many issues in which RCW is involved, see the project website at http:// reachingcriticalwill.org (accessed September 9, 2011). See also WILPF’s International Congress and IEC resolutions at http://wilpfinternational.org/resolutions/ index.htm (accessed November 17, 2011).

[ 176 ]

Notes to Pages 128–131

85. Reaching Critical Will, http://reachingcriticalwill.org/ (accessed September 9, 2011). 86. Cockburn, From Where We Stand, 140. 87. Carol Cohn, Helen Kinsella, and Sheri Gibbings. “Women, Peace and Security.” International Feminist Journal of Politics 6, no. 1 (March 2004), 131. 88. Cohn, Kinsella, and Gibbings, “Women, Peace and Security,” 131; and Cockburn, From Where We Stand, 141. 89. In an open debate, or “Arria formula” meeting, members of the Security Council meet and listen to representatives of civil society. Cockburn, From Where We Stand, 142. 90. Felicity Hill, How and When Has Security Council Resolution 1325 (2000) on Women, Peace and Security Impacted Negotiations Outside the Security Council? Master’s thesis, Uppsala University, 2004–2005, 29. 91. Cockburn, From Where We Stand, 142. 92. Hill, How and When, 29–30. 93. Hill, How and When, 30. 94. UNIFEM (now absorbed into the new UN Women entity) assembled an annotated version of the resolution. PeaceWomen Portal. “1325—Annotated Text: What It Means (UNIFEM),” http://www.peacewomen.org/pages/about-1325/ scr-1325-what-it-means (accessed September 8, 2011). 95. It is also the only Security Council resolution whose anniversary is celebrated and its accomplishments reviewed each year. Carol Cohn, “Feminist Peacemaking,” Women’s Review of Books 21, no. 5 (February 2004), 8. 96. Cohn, “Feminist Peacemaking,” 8. 97. In 2011, the US section wrote a statement following the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s announcement of a US National Action Plan (NAP) in implementation of SCR 1325. In the statement WILPF US emphasized the need for a human security approach focused on the fulfillment of human rights aiming at the long term goal of war prevention; urged the domestic application of UNSCR 1325 advancing the status of women in the US in addition to an external application focused on US-occupied regions; and called for civil society’s and women’s organizations’ input to the development and implementation of the US NAP. WILPF US Section, “Statement on US SCR 1325 National Action Plan Development,” http://www.wilpf.org (accessed November 1, 2011). WILPF US subsequently organized and facilitated consultations between State Department representatives and civil society organizations in five US cities, producing a final report intended to influence the US State Department’s formulation of a NAP and hold it accountable for eventual gaps and provisions that would contradict civil society’s expressed needs. Theresa De Langis, “Report of the Civil Society Consultations on the Development of the United States National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security (UN SCR 1325),” e-mail message to author (November 21, 2011). 98. Cohn, “Mainstreaming Gender in UN Security Policy: A Path to Political Transformation?,” in Global Governance: Feminist Perspectives, eds. Shirin Rai and Georgina Waylen (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008), 185–206. The phrase “making war safe for women” has become somewhat of a mantra for what organizations and individuals working on SCR 1325 do not want the resolution to mean. See for example WILPF. International Women’s Day Seminar March 2011; Women, Disarmament, Non-Proliferation and Arms Control Outcome Document Geneva, 2011, 11; Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury, (July 2010), Genesis of

Notes to Pages 131–133

[ 177 ]

1325—What Next after Ten Years? Keynote Address at the Working Meeting on UNSCR 1325: Strategies for Implementation, USIP, Washington, DC; Cora Weiss, “Peace is a Human Right: Give Us Women Who Get It,” On the Issues Magazine, http://www.ontheissuesmagazine.com/2011summer/2011summer_weiss.php (accessed September 8, 2011). 99. Natalie Florea Hudson, Gender, Human Security and the United Nations: Security Language as a Political Framework for Women (New York: Routledge, 2010). 100. Cockburn, From Where We Stand, 147. See also Laura J. Shepherd, Gender, Violence and Security: Discourse as Practice (London: Zed Books, 2008). 101. For example, Felicity Hill has disassociated herself from the resolution, claiming that “it has made people talk about women women women and not war war war, it has made peace women only talk about women and not have positions AS women about ENDING WAR” (personal Facebook message, February 20, 2012). See also Cynthia Cockburn, “Snagged on the Contradiction: NATO, UNSC Resolution 1325, and Feminist Responses,” http://www.cynthiacockburn.org/ BlogNATO1325.pdf (accessed April 14, 2012). 102. Cohn, “Feminist Peacemaking,” 8. 103. Personal conversation with Madeleine Rees, March 2, 2012; see also Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, “International Law, Disarmament, Women, and Human Rights: An Outcome Document of an Expert Meeting Organized by Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom,” December 1–2, 2011, http://wilpfinternational.org/events/IWD2012/IWD_Outcome_2012.pdf (accessed April 15, 2012). 104. Edith Ballantyne and Felicity Hill, “Edith Ballantyne and Felicity Hill on SCR 1325, Circa 2005,” Peace and Freedom: Magazine of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom 72, no. 1 (Spring 2012), 16. 105. Connors, “NGOs and the Human Rights of Women,” 153. 106. PeaceWomen Portal. “WILPF Secretary General, Staff and Board,” http://www. peacewomen.org/pages/about-us/wilpf-staff-and-board (accessed November 17, 2011). 107. Kathryn Bolkovac and Cari Lynn’s The Whistleblower: Sex Trafficking, Military Contractors, and One Woman’s Fight for Justice (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011), 222. See also the 2011 film The Whistleblower, dir. Larysa Kondracki. 108. Madeleine Rees, e-mail message to author (November 19, 2011). 109. Liddington, The Road to Greenham Common, 9. 110. Meyer, “The Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom,”108. 111. The following paragraphs are the result of participant observation at discussions during WILPF’s International Congress in Costa Rica, July 30–August 6, 2011. 112. Karin Friedrich, e-mail message to author (November 5, 2011). 113. Forcey, “Women as Peacemakers,” 333.

[ 178 ]

Notes to Pages 133–135

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abu-Habib, Lina. “Education and the Palestinian Refugees in Lebanon— A  Lost Generation?” Refugee Participation Network 21 (April 1996). http://www.fmreview.org/HTMLcontent/rpn218.htm (accessed March 3, 2009). Ackerly, Brooke A. “Feminist Methodological Reflection.” In Qualitative Methods in International Relations: A Pluralist Guide, eds. Audie Klotz and Deepa Prakash. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008: 28–42. Ackerly, Brooke A. “Intelligence and Compassion: The Tools of Feminists.” In Feminist International Relations: Conversations about the Past, Present and Future, eds. J. Ann Tickner and Laura Sjoberg. New York: Routledge, 2011. Ackerly, Brooke A. “Listening to the Silent Voices: Deliberative Democracy in the Real World.” Paper presented at the annual Thinking Gender Conference, University of California, Los Angeles, March 7, 1997. Ackerly, Brooke A. Political Theory and Feminist Social Criticism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Ackerly, Brooke A. Universal Human Rights in a World of Difference. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Ackerly, Brooke A., Maria Stern, and Jacqui True. “Feminist Methodologies for International Relations.” In Feminist Methodologies for International Relations, eds. Brooke A. Ackerly, Maria Stern, and Jacqui True. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Ackerly, Brooke A., and Jacqui True. Doing Feminist Research in Political and Social Science. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. Ackerly, Brooke A., and Jacqui True. “Studying the Struggles and Wishes of the Age: Feminist Theoretical Methodology and Feminist Theoretical Methods.” In Feminist Methodologies for International Relations, eds. Brooke A. Ackerly, Maria Stern, and Jacqui True. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2006. “Action Recommendations of the 19th Triennial Congress to WILPF Sections.” Pax et Libertas, 1975. Box 162, folder 2. Pax et Libertas Annual 1975–79. WILPF Second Accession. UCBA. Ahmed, Leila. Women and Gender in Islam: Historical Roots of a Modern Debate. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1992.

Alcoff, Linda Martín. “Rethinking Maternal Thinking.” APA Newsletter on Feminism and Philosophy 3, no. 1 (Fall 2003): 85–89. Alonso, Harriet Hyman. Peace as a Women’s Issue: A History of the U.S. Movement for World Peace and Women’s Rights. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1993. Anghie, Antony. Imperialism, Sovereignty, and the Making of International Law. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Anonymous. Introduction to Dorothy Hutchinson’s Papers. http://www.swarthmore.edu/library/peace/DG100-150/DG125DHutchinson.html (accessed March 3, 2008). Armstrong, Karen. The Spiral Staircase: My Climb Out of Darkness. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2004. Ashworth, Lucian M. “Did the Realist–Idealist Great Debate Really Happen? A Revisionist History of International Relations.” International Relations 16, no. 1 (April 2002): 33–51. Bacon, Margaret Hope. One Woman’s Passion for Peace and Freedom: The Life of Mildred Scott Olmsted. Syracuse Studies on Peace and Conflict Resolution Series. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1993. Baer, Gertrude. “Report of the Work of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom with United Nations in Geneva from the Meeting of the International Executive Committee in Magleaas, Denmark, August 1954 until the Meeting of the International Executive Committee in Hamburg, Germany, July 1955,” 1955, Box 14, folder 3, Reports 1955–56. WILPF SCPC Accession. UCBA. Ballantyne, Edith. “League’s Aims: As Valid Today as When Founded.” Pax et Libertas, 1975. Box 162, folder 2. Pax et Libertas Annual 1975–79. WILPF Second Accession. UCBA. Ballantyne, Edith, and Felicity Hill. “Edith Ballantyne and Felicity Hill on SCR 1325, Circa 2005.” Peace and Freedom: Magazine of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom 72, no. 1 (Spring 2012). Bannerji, Himani, Shahrzad Mojab, and Judith Whitehead. Of Property and Propriety: The Role of Gender and Class in Imperialism and Nationalism. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2001. Baker, Adelaide. “New Vistas in the Middle East.” Pax et Libertas, January– March, 1963. Box 45, folder 2. Pax et Libertas 1960–1965. WILPF SCPC Accession. UCBA. Berkovitch, Nitza. From Motherhood to Citizenship: Women’s Rights and International Organizations. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999. Betts, Raymond F. Decolonization: The Making of the Contemporary World. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge, 2004. Betts, Raymond F. France and Decolonisation: 1900–1960. London: Macmillan, 1991. Biswas, Shampa. “Patriotism in the U.S. Peace Movement: The Limits of Nationalist Resistance to Global Imperialism.” In Interrogating Imperialism: Conversations on Gender, Race, and War, eds. Robin L. Riley and Naeem Inayatullah. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006: 63–100.

[ 180 ]

Bibliography

Blackwell, Joyce. No Peace Without Freedom: Race and the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, 1915–1975. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2004. Bolkovac, Kathryn, and Cari Lynn. The Whistleblower: Sex Trafficking, Military Contractors, and One Woman’s Fight for Justice. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011. Booth, Ken. “Security and Emancipation.” Review of International Studies 17, no. 4 (1991): 313–26. Boulding, Elise. “From Rhetoric to Reality.” Pax et Libertas, July–September, 1968. Box 45, folder 3. Pax et Libertas 1966–68. WILPF SCPC Accession. UCBA. Brincat, Shannon. “For Someone and For Some Purpose: An Interview with Robert W. Cox.” In Critical Theory in International Relations and Security Studies: Interviews and Reflections, eds. Shannon Brincat, Laura Lima, and João Nunes. New York: Routledge, 2011: 1–26. Brock-Utne, Birgit. Feminist Perspectives on Peace and Peace Education. New York: Pergamon Press, 1989. Brown, Mark B. Science in Democracy: Expertise, Institutions, and Representation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2009. Brown, Victoria. The Education of Jane Addams. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004. Bussey, Gertrude. “American Foreign Policy in Indochina.” Pax et Libertas, March–May 1954: 8. Box 45, folder 1. Pax et Libertas United States 1951– 59. WILPF SCPC Accession. UCBA. Bussey, Gertrude, and Margaret Tims. Pioneers for Peace: Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom 1915–1965. London: WILPF British Section, 1980. Callahan, Michael D. A Sacred Trust: The League of Nations and Africa, 1929– 1946. Portland, OR: Sussex Academic Press, 2004. Cassese, Antonio. Self-Determination of Peoples: A Legal Reappraisal. Hersch Lauterpacht Memorial Lecture Series. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Chafer, Tony. The End of Empire in French West Africa: France’s Successful Decolonization? New York: Berg, 2002. Chowdhry, Geeta. “Edward Said and Contrapuntal Reading: Implications for Critical Interventions in International Relations.” Millennium-Journal of International Studies 36, no. 1 (December 2007): 101–16. Chowdhury, Anwarul K. Genesis of 1325–What Next after Ten Years? Keynote Address at the Working Meeting on UNSCR 1325: Strategies for Implementation, USIP, Washington, DC, July 2010. Clancy-Smith, Julia Ann, and Frances Gouda. Domesticating the Empire: Race, Gender, and Family Life in French and Dutch Colonialism. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1998. Cockburn, Cynthia. “Feminist Antimilitarism and WILPF.” http://www.wilpf. int.ch/events/2008IB/cockburn_speech.html (accessed February 22, 2009).

Bibliography

[ 181 ]

Cockburn, Cynthia. From Where We Stand: War, Women’s Activism and Feminist Analysis. New York: Zed Books, 2007. Cohn, Carol. “Feminist Peacemaking.” Women’s Review of Books 21, no. 5 (February 2004): 8–9. Cohn, Carol. “Mainstreaming Gender in UN Security Policy: A Path to Political Transformation?.” In Global Governance: Feminist Perspectives, eds. Shirin Rai and Georgina Waylen. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008: 185– 206. Cohn, Carol. “Wars, Wimps, and Women: Talking Gender and Thinking War.” In Gendering War Talk, eds. Miriam Cooke and Angela Woollacott. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993: 227–46. Cohn, Carol, Helen Kinsella, and Sheri Gibbings. “Women, Peace and Security.” International Feminist Journal of Politics 6, no. 1 (March 2004): 130–40. Confortini, Catia C. “Galtung, Violence, and Gender: The Case for a Peace Studies/Feminism Alliance.” Peace & Change 31, no. 3 (2006): 333–67. Confortini, Catia C. “Reclaiming Agency for Social Change: Feminism, International Relations, Peace and the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, 1945–1975.” In Feminist International Relations: Conversations about the Past, Present and Future, eds. J. Ann Tickner and Laura Sjoberg. New York: Routledge, 2011. Confortini, Catia C. “Women, Feminism, and Peace: Highlights from the 2005 World Social Forum.” Peace & Freedom 65, no. 1 (Spring 2005): 18. Connors, Jane. “NGOs and the Human Rights of Women at the United Nations.” In The Conscience of the World: The Influence of Non-Governmental Organizations in the U.N. System, ed. Peter Willets. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 1996: 147–80. Cooper, John Milton. Woodrow Wilson: A Biography. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2009. Cortright, David. Peace: A History of Movements and Ideas. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Cortright, David. Peace Works: The Citizen’s Role in Ending the Cold War. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1993. Cox, Robert W. “Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: An Essay in Method.” Millennium: Journal of International Relations 12, no. 2 (1983): 162–75. Cox, Robert W. “Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 10, no. 2 (June 1981): 126–55. Cox, Robert W. “Towards a Post-Hegemonic Conceptualization of World Order: Reflections on the Relevancy of Ibn Khaldun.” In Governance without Government: Order and Change in World Politics, eds. James N. Rosenau and Ernst Otto Czempiel. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1992: 132–59. Davenport, Manuel M. “The Moral Paternalism of Albert Schweitzer.” Ethics 84, no. 2 (January 1974): 116–27.

[ 182 ]

Bibliography

D’Costa, Bina. “Marginalized Identity: New Frontiers of Research for IR?” In Feminist Methodologies for International Relations, eds. Brooke A. Ackerly, Maria Stern, and Jacqui True. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2006: 129–52. “Development in a Sustainable Environment.” Pax et Libertas 56, no. 3 (September 1991). WILPF Second Accession. UCBA Box 163, folder 2. Di Stefano, Christine. Configurations of Masculinity: A Feminist Perspective on Modern Political Theory. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1991. Dobie, Madeleine. Foreign Bodies: Gender, Language, and Culture in French Orientalism. Stanford, NY: Stanford University Press, 2001. Doty, Roxanne Lynn. Imperial Encounters: The Politics of Representation in North-South Relations. Borderlines 5. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996. Edwards, Rosalind. Feminist Dilemmas in Qualitative Research: Public Knowledge and Private Lives. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 1997. Elshtain, Jean Bethke. “Sovereignty, Identity, Sacrifice.” In Gendered States: Feminist (Re)Visions of International Relations Theory, ed. V. Spike Peterson. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1992: 141–54. Elshtain, Jean Bethke. “The Problem with Peace.” In Women, Militarism, and War: Essays in History, Politics, and Social Theory, eds. Jean Bethke Elshtain and Sheila Tobias. Savage, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1990: 255–66. Enloe, Cynthia H. “Margins, Silences and Bottom Rungs: How to Overcome the Underestimation of Power in the Study of International Relations.” In International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, eds. Steve Smith, Ken Booth, and Marysia Zalewski. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Enloe, Cynthia H. The Curious Feminist: Searching for Women in a New Age of Empire. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004. Eschle, Catherine. Global Democracy, Social Movements, and Feminism. Feminist Theory and Politics. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2001. Eschle, Catherine, and Bice Maiguashca. “Rethinking Globalised Resistance: Feminist Activism and Critical Theorising in International Relations.” British Journal of Politics and International Relations 9, no. 2 (May 2007): 284–301. Fanon, Frantz. Black Skin, White Masks. New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1991. Fanon, Frantz. The Wretched of the Earth. New York: Grove Press: 2004. Felski, Rita. The Gender of Modernity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995. Fonow, Mary Margaret, and Judith A. Cook. Beyond Methodology: Feminist Scholarship as Lived Research. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991. Forcey, Linda Rennie. “Women as Peacemakers: Contested Terrain for Feminist Peace Studies.” Peace & Change 16, no. 4 (October 1991): 331–54. Foster, Carrie A. The Women and the Warriors: The U.S. Section of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, 1915–1946. Syracuse Studies on Peace and Conflict Resolution Series. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1995.

Bibliography

[ 183 ]

Foster, Catherine. Women for All Seasons: The Story of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1989. Fraiman, Susan. “Jane Austen and Edward Said: Gender, Culture, and Imperialism.” Critical Inquiry 21, no. 4 (Summer 1995): 805–21. Fraser, Arvonne S. The U.N. Decade for Women: Documents and Dialogue. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1987. Galtung, Johan. “Structural and Direct Violence: Note on Operationalization.” In Peace: Research, Education, Action: Essays in Peace Research. Copenhagen: Ejlers, 1975. Garner, Karen. Shaping a Global Women’s Agenda: Women’s NGOs and Global Governance. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 2010. Genova, James Eskridge. Colonial Ambivalence, Cultural Authenticity, and the Limitations of Mimicry in French-Ruled West Africa, 1914–1956. Francophone Cultures and Literatures 45. New York: Peter Lang, 2004. Giddens, Anthony. The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1990. Gramsci, Antonio. Prison Notebooks. Ed. Joseph A. Buttigieg. New York: Columbia University Press, 1992. Greig, J. Michael, and Paul F. Diehl. “The Peacekeeping–Peacemaking Dilemma.” International Studies Quarterly 49, no. 4 (2005): 621–46. Grovogui, Siba N’Zatioula. Beyond Eurocentrism and Anarchy: Memories of International Order and Institutions. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006. Grovogui, Siba N’Zatioula. Sovereigns, Quasi Sovereigns, and Africans: Race and Self-Determination in International Law. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996. Gruffydd Jones, Branwen. “Introduction: International Relations, Eurocentrism, and Imperialism.” In Decolonizing International Relations, ed. Branwen Gruffydd Jones. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2006: 1–19. Gush Shalom. “Truth against Truth.” http://zope.gushshalom.org (accessed January 27, 2008). Gwinn, Kristen E. Emily Greene Balch: The Long Road to Internationalism. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2010. Haan, Francisca de “Getting to the Source: A ‘Truly International’ Archive for the Women’s Movement (IAV now IIAV): From Its Foundation in Amsterdam in 1935 to the Return of Its Looted Archives in 2003.” Journal of Women’s History 16, no. 4 (2004): 148–72. Haggis, Jane. “White Women and Colonialism: Towards a Non-Recuperative History.” In Gender and Imperialism, ed. Clare Midgley. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 1998: 45–75. Halperin, Sandra. “International Relations Theory and the Hegemony of Western Conceptions of Modernity.” in Decolonizing International Relations, ed. Branwen Gruffydd Jones. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2006: 43–63. Halperin, Sandra. In the Mirror of the Third World: Capitalist Development in Modern Europe. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1997.

[ 184 ]

Bibliography

Haraway, Donna Jeanne. Primate Visions: Gender, Race, and Nature in the World of Modern Science. New York: Routledge, 1989. Harding, Sandra G. Is Science Multicultural? Postcolonialisms, Feminisms, and Epistemologies. Race, Gender, and Science Series. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1998. Harding, Sandra G. “Rethinking Feminist Standpoint Epistemology: What is ‘Strong Objectivity’?” In Feminist Epistemologies, eds. Linda Alcoff and Elizabeth Potter. New York: Routledge, 1993: 49–82. Harding, Sandra G. The Science Question in Feminism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1986. Harding, Sandra G. Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Thinking from Women’s Lives. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1991. Harris, Adrienne, and Ynestra King. “Introduction.” In Rocking the Ship of State: Toward a Feminist Peace Politics, eds. Adrienne Harris and Ynestra King. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1989: 1–12. Heilberger, Irmgard. “From Helsinki to Beijing: Fifteen Years after the Women’s Peace Train.” In Listen to Women for a Change, eds. Irmgard Heilberger and Barbara Lochbihler. St. Paul, MN: Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, 2010: 42–53. Higgins, Marianne. Evidence of Things Unseen: A Novel. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2003. Higginson, Francis. “The Well-Tempered Savage: Albert Schweitzer, Music, and Imperial Deafness.” Research in African Literatures 36, no. 4 (Winter 2005): 205–22. http://tinyurl.com/37o78q (accessed February 8, 2008). Hill, Felicity. How and When Has Security Council Resolution 1325 (2000) on Women, Peace and Security Impacted Negotiations Outside the Security Council? Master’s thesis, Uppsala University, 2004–2005. Hill, Felicity. “Reaching Critical Will: Nuclear Disarmament on the Political Agenda.” In Listen to Women for a Change, eds. Irmgard Heilberger and Barbara Lochbihler. St. Paul, MN: Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, 2010: 9–30. Hirschmann, Nancy J. “Freedom, Recognition and Obligation: A Feminist Approach to Political Theory.” The American Political Science Review 83, no. 4 (December 1989): 1227–444. Hooper, Charlotte. Manly States: Masculinities, International Relations, and Gender Politics. New York: Columbia University Press, 2001. Huber, Mary Taylor and Nancy Lutkehaus. Gendered Missions: Women and Men in Missionary Discourse and Practice. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1999. Hudson, Natalie Florea. Gender, Human Security and the United Nations: Security Language as a Political Framework for Women. New York: Routledge, 2010. Hussein, Abdirahman A. Edward Said: Criticism and Society. New York: Verso, 2002. Hutchinson, Dorothy. “Developing World Community,” 1966; Box 25, 16th International Congress Report 1966 and 17th International Congress Report 1968. WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA.

Bibliography

[ 185 ]

Hutchinson, Dorothy. “Message to the World Council of Peace Meeting in Geneva, Switzerland,” 1966, Box 12, folder 8, Releases 1955–94. WILPF SCPC Accession, University of Colorado at Boulder Archives. Hutchinson, Dorothy. “Most Dangerous Moment in U.S. History.” Pax et Libertas, April–June 1966: 1. Box 45, folder 3. WILPF SCPC Accession. UCBA. Hutchinson, Dorothy. “The Right to be Human.” Chairman’s Keynote Address, 1968; Box 25, 16th International Congress Report 1966 and 17th International Congress Report 1968. WILPF SCPC Accession, University of Colorado at Boulder Archives. Hutchings, Kimberly. “Feminism, Universalism, and the Ethics of International Politics.” In Women, Culture, and International Relations, eds. Vivienne Jabri and Eleanor O’Gorman. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1999: 17–38. Hutchings, Kimberly. “From Morality to Politics and Back Again: Feminist International Ethics and the Civil-Society Argument.” Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 29, no. 3 (June 2004): 239–64. “International Women’s Year Seminar on Disarmament and Peace, January– March 1975.” Box 162, folder 1. Pax et Libertas (published edition) 1971–79. WILPF Second Accession, UCBA. Jabri, Vivienne. “Feminist Ethics and Hegemonic Global Politics.” Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 29, no. 3 (June 2004): 265–85. Jack, Homer A. “Overcoming the Failure of the Second U.N. Special Session on Disarmament.” Security Dialogue 13, no. 3 (July 1982): 177–78. Jackson, Robert H. Quasi-States: Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Third World. Cambridge Studies in International Relations 12. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1990. James, Christine A. “Feminism and Masculinity: Reconceptualizing the Dichotomy of Reason and Emotion.” International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 17, no. 1/2 (1997): 129–52. Joachim, Jutta M. Agenda Setting, the UN and NGOs: Gender Violence and Reproductive Rights. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2007. Jouve, Andrée. “Reports of the National Sections: France.” In Xth International Congress of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom at Luxembourg: August 4th–9th, 1946. Geneva, Switzerland: WILPF, 1946: 78– 89; microfilm reel 141.2, Swarthmore College Peace Collection. Kamarck Minnich, Elizabeth. “Thinking Friends, Moral Taste, Public Concerns: For Sara Ruddick.” APA Newsletter on Feminism and Philosophy 3, no. 1 (Fall 2003): 94–97. Keating, Christine. “Framing the Postcolonial Sexual Contract: Democracy, Fraternalism, and State Authority in India.” Hypatia 22, no. 4 (Fall 2007): 130–45. Keller, Evelyn Fox. “Feminism and Science.” Signs 7, no. 3 [Special Issue: Feminist Theory] (Spring 1982): 589–602. Keller, Evelyn Fox, and Helen E. Longino. Feminism and Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. Kinsella, Helen. “For a Careful Reading: The Conservativism of Gender Constructivism.” International Studies Review 5, no. 2 (2003): 287–302.

[ 186 ]

Bibliography

Klotz, Audie, and Cecelia Lynch. Strategies for Research in Constructivist International Relations. International Relations in a Constructed World Series. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 2007. Klotz, Audie, and Cecelia Lynch. “Translating Terminologies.” International Studies Review 8, no. 2 (June 2006): 356–62. Knight, Louise W. Jane Addams: Spirit in Action. New York: W. W. Norton, 2010. Latham, Robert. The Liberal Moment: Modernity, Security, and the Making of Postwar International Order. New Directions in World Politics Series. New York: Columbia University Press, 1997. Lewis, Reina. Gendering Orientalism: Race, Femininity, and Representation. Gender, Racism, Ethnicity Series. New York: Routledge, 1996. Liddington, Jill. The Road to Greenham Common: Feminism and Anti-Militarism in Britain since 1820. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1991. Ling, L. H. M. “The Fish and the Turtle.” In Millennial Reflections on International Studies, eds. Michael Brecher and Frank P. Harvey. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2002: 283–88. Lochbihler, Barbara. “A Forward-Looking Retrospective: Fifteen years after the World Conference on Women in Beijing.” In Listen to Women-For a Change, eds. Irmgard Heilberger and Barbara Lochbihler. St. Paul, MN: Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, 2010: 7–13. Locher, Birgit, and Elisabeth Prügl. “Feminism and Constructivism: Worlds Apart or Sharing the Middle Ground?” International Studies Quarterly 45, no. 1 (March 2001): 111–29. Lugónes, Maria. “Playfulness, ‘World’ Travelling, and Loving Perception.” In Making Face, Making Soul = Haciendo Caras: Creative and Critical Perspectives by Feminists of Color, ed. Gloria Anzaldúa. San Francisco: Aunt Lute Foundation Books, 1990: 390–99. Lynch, Cecelia. Beyond Appeasement; Interpreting Interwar Peace Movements in World Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1999. Lyons, Harriet D. “Presences and Absences in Edward Said’s Culture and Imperialism.” Canadian Journal of African Studies/Revue Canadienne Des Études Africaines 28, no. 1 (1994): 101–5. MacFarlane, S. Neil, and Yuen Foong Khong, Human Security and the UN: A Critical History. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2006. Manning, Patrick. Francophone Sub-Saharan Africa, 1880–1995. 2nd ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1998. McClintock, Anne. Imperial Leather: Race, Gender, and Sexuality in the Colonial Contest. New York: Routledge, 1995. “Meeting in Preparation for the World Congress for the International Women’s Year.” Pax et Libertas, December 1974. Box 162, folder 1. Pax et Libertas (published edition) 1971–79. WILPF Second Accession. UCBA. Mehta, Uday Singh. Liberalism and Empire: A Study in Nineteenth-Century British Liberal Thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999. Melman, Billie. Women’s Orients—English Women and the Middle East, 1718– 1918: Sexuality, Religion, and Work. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1992.

Bibliography

[ 187 ]

Merchant, Carolyn. The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology, and the Scientific Revolution. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1980. Meyer, Mary K. “The Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom: Organizing Women for Peace in the War System.” In Gender Politics in Global Governance, eds. Mary K. Meyer and Elisabeth Prügl. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1999: 107–21. Midgley, Clare. “Anti-Slavery and the Roots of ‘Imperial Feminism.’” In Gender and Imperialism, ed. Clare Midgley. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 1998: 161–79. Midgley, Clare. Gender and Imperialism. Studies in Imperialism Series. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 1998. Milliken, Jennifer, and David Sylvan. “Soft Bodies, Hard Targets, and Chic Theories: US Bombing Policy in Indochina.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 25 (June 1, 1996): 321–40. Mills, Charles W. The Racial Contract. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1997. Mills, Sara. Discourses of Difference: An Analysis of Women’s Travel Writing and Colonialism. New York: Routledge, 1991. Morrison, Mary Lee. Elise Boulding: A Life in the Cause of Peace. Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2005. Murphy, Craig. The Emergence of the NIEO Ideology. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1984. Offen, Karen. European Feminisms 1700–1950: A Political History. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2000. Ogden, C. K., and Mary Sargant Florence, “Militarism versus Feminism: An Enquiry and a Policy Demonstrating that Militarism Involves the Subjection of Women.” In European Feminisms 1700–1950: A Political History, by Karen Offen. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2000: 258. Okin, Susan Moller. Women in Western Political Thought. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1979. Olson, Kevin. “Constructing Citizens.” The Journal of Politics 70, no. 1 (January 2008): 40–53. Pateman, Carole. The Problem of Political Obligation: A Critical Analysis of Liberal Theory. New York: Wiley, 1979. Pateman, Carole. The Sexual Contract. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1988. PeaceWomen Portal. “1325–Annotated Text: What It Means (UNIFEM).” http://www.peacewomen.org/pages/about-1325/scr-1325-what-itmeans (accessed September 8, 2011). PeaceWomen Portal. “WILPF Secretary General, Staff and Board.” http://www. peacewomen.org/pages/about-us/wilpf-staff-and-board (accessed November 17, 2011). Peterson, V. Spike. “Introduction.” In Gendered States: Feminist (Re)Visions of International Relations Theory, ed. V. Spike Peterson. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1992: 1–30. Peterson, V. Spike, and Anne Sisson Runyan. Global Gender Issues. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1999.

[ 188 ]

Bibliography

Pietilä, Hilkka, and Jeanne Vickers. Making Women Matter: The Role of the United Nations. London: Zed Books, 1996. Plastas, Melinda. A Band of Noble Women: Racial Politics in the Women’s Peace Movement. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2011. Prokhovnik, Raia. Rational Woman: A Feminist Critique of Dichotomy. 2nd ed. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 2002. “Proposed Addition to the UN Plan of Action Section IIA.” Pax et Libertas December 1975. Box 162, folder 1. Pax et Libertas (published edition) 1971–79. WILPF Second Accession. UCBA. Ragaz, Clara. “Discours d’Ouverture.” In Xth International Congress of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom at Luxembourg: August 4th-9th, 1946 (Geneva, Switzerland: WILPF, 1946[?]), 17; microfilm reel 141.2, Swarthmore College Peace Collection. Ragaz, Clara. “Swiss Section Report.” In Report of the International Congress of Women, Zurich. May 12 to 17, 1919, English ed. Geneva, Switzerland: WILPF, 1930: 16; microfilm reel 141.1, Swarthmore College Peace Collection. Randall, Mercedes M. Improper Bostonian: Emily Greene Balch, Nobel Peace Laureate, 1946. New York: Twayne, 1964. Reaching Critical Will. “Key Resources.” http://reachingcriticalwill.org/ (accessed September 9, 2011). Reaching Critical Will. “History.” http://reachingcriticalwill.org/about/ aboutindex.html (accessed November 17, 2011). Reardon, Betty. Sexism and the War System. New York: Teachers College Press, 1985. Richardson, J. L. Contending Liberalisms in World Politics: Ideology and Power. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2001. Richmond, Oliver P. Peace in International Relations. Routledge Studies in Peace and Conflict Resolution Series. New York: Routledge, 2008. Riley, Robin L., and Naeem Inayatullah. Interrogating Imperialism: Conversations on Gender, Race, and War. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006. Robinson, Fiona. “Methods of Feminist Normative Theory: A Political Ethic of Care for International Relations.” In Feminist Methodologies for International Relations, eds. Brooke A. Ackerly, Maria Stern, and Jacqui True. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2006: 221–40. Romeranz, Marsha. “Int’l Peace Group Seeks Dialogue between Women of the Mideast.” The Jerusalem Post, May 13, 1975. Dolores Taller Collection (unprocessed), UCBA. Roof, Judith, and Robyn Wiegman. Who Can Speak? Authority and Critical Identity. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1995. Ruddick, Sara. “Response from Sara Ruddick.” APA Newsletter on Feminism and Philosophy 3, no. 1 (Fall 2003): 97–101. Ruggie, John Gerard. “International Regimes, Transactions, and Change: Embedded Liberalism in the Postwar Economic Order.” International Organization 36, no. 2 [Special Issue: International Regimes] (Spring 1982): 379–415.

Bibliography

[ 189 ]

Rupp, Leila. Worlds of Women: The Making of an International Women’s Movement. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 1997. Rupp, Leila J., and Verta A. Taylor. Survival in the Doldrums: The American Women’s Rights Movement from 1945 to the 1960s. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987. Said, Edward W. “A Method for Thinking about just Peace.” In What Is a Just Peace? eds. Pierre Allan and Alexis Keller. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006: 176–94. Said, Edward W. Culture and Imperialism. New York: Knopf, 1993. Said, Edward W. Orientalism. 1st Vintage Books ed. New York: Vintage Books, 1979, 1978. Salter, Mark B. Barbarians and Civilization in International Relations. Sterling, VA: Pluto Press, 2002. Schlager Group. “Milestone Documents.” http://www.milestonedocuments.com/document_detail.php?id=90&more=fulltext (accessed January 23, 2009). Sedghi, Hamideh. “Third World Feminist Perspectives on World Politics.” In Women, Gender, and World Politics: Perspectives, Policies, and Prospects, eds. Peter R. Beckman and Francine D’Amico. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey, 1994: 89–105. Shepherd, Laura J. Gender, Violence and Security: Discourse as Practice. London: Zed Books, 2008. Sinha, Mrinalini. Colonial Masculinity: The “Manly Englishman” and the “Effeminate Bengali” in the Late Nineteenth Century. Studies in Imperialism Series. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 1995. Sinha, Mrinalini. “Gender and Imperialism: Colonial Policy and the Ideology of Moral Imperialism in Late Nineteenth-Century Bengal.” In Changing Men: New Directions in Research on Men and Masculinity, ed. Michael S. Kimmel. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE, 1987. Sinha, Mrinalini. Specters of Mother India: The Global Restructuring of an Empire. Radical Perspectives Series. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2006. Smith, Charles D. Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict. 5th ed. Boston: Bedford, 2004. Smith, Dorothy E. The Conceptual Practices of Power: A Feminist Sociology of Knowledge. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1990. Spiegel, Steven L. The Other Arab-Israeli Conflict: Making America’s Middle East Policy, from Truman to Reagan. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985. Stienstra, Deborah. “Making Global Connections among Women, 1970–1999.” In Global Social Movements, eds. Robin Cohen and Shirin Rai. London: Athlone Press, 2000. Stienstra, Deborah. Women’s Movements and International Organizations. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1994. Swarthmore College Peace Collection. “Records of Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom.” DG 043, Series H3: Personnel Records. http://www.swarthmore.edu/Library/peace/DG026-050/dg043wilpf/ SeriesH3-Personnel.htm (accessed March 3, 2008).

[ 190 ]

Bibliography

Sylvester, Christine. “Empathetic Cooperation: A Feminist Method for IR.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 23, no. 2 (1994): 315–34. Sylvester, Christine. “Feminists and Realists View Autonomy and Obligation in International Relations.” In Feminist International Relations: An Unfinished Journey. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2002: 182–206. Sylvester, Christine. “Riding the Hyphens of Feminism, Peace, and Place in Four-(Or More) Part Cacophony.” Women’s Studies Quarterly 23, no. 3–4 (Fall 1995): 136–46. Sylvester, Christine. “Some Dangers in Merging Feminist and Peace Projects.” Alternatives 12, no. 4 (October 1987): 493–509. Tare, S.P. “Obituaries: Dr. Sushila Nayar 1914–2001.” International Journal of Leprosy and Other Mycobacterial Diseases 69, no. 2 (June 2001), http:// findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3754/is_200106/ai_n8987778 (accessed March 11, 2008). Taylor, Verta. “Social Movement Continuity: The Women’s Movement in Abeyance.” American Sociological Review 54, no. 5 (October 1989): 761–75. The Whistleblower. Film. Dir. Larysa Kondracki. Perf. Rachel Weisz, Vanessa Regrave, Benedict Cumberbatch, David Strathairn, Monica Bellucci. Samuel Goldwyn Films, 2010. Thomas, Nicholas. Colonialism’s Culture: Anthropology, Travel, and Government. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994. Tickner, J. Ann. “Feminist Perspectives on Peace and World Security.” In Peace and World Security Studies: A Curriculum Guide, 6th ed., ed. Michael T. Klare. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1993: 43–54. Tickner, J. Ann. Gender in International Relations: Feminist Perspectives on Achieving Global Security. New Directions in World Politics Series. New York: Columbia University Press, 1992. Tickner, J. Ann. Gendering World Politics: Issues and Approaches in the Post-Cold War Era. New York: Columbia University Press, 2001. Tickner, J. Ann. “Introducing Feminist Perspectives into Peace and World Security Courses.” Women’s Studies Quarterly 23, no. 3 (Fall 1995): 48–57. Tickner, J. Ann. “What is Your Research Program? Some Feminist Answers to International Relations Methodological Questions.” International Studies Quarterly 49, no. 1 (March 2005): 1–22. Tong, Rosemarie. Feminist Thought: A More Comprehensive Introduction. 2nd ed. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1998. Trinh, T. Minh-Ha. Woman, Native, Other: Writing Postcoloniality and Feminism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1989. United Nations. “Charter.” http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter (accessed January 25, 2008). United Nations. Fourth World Conference on Women. “Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action.” http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/beijing/platform/ (accessed November 17, 2011). United Nations. General Assembly. “Declaration on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order.” A/RES/S-6/3201. May 1, 1974. http:// www.un.org/ga/sessions/special.shtml (accessed March 10, 2008).

Bibliography

[ 191 ]

United Nations. “The Nairobi Forward-Looking Strategies for the Advancement of Women Adopted by the World Conference to Review and Appraise the Achievements of the United Nations Decade for Women: Equality, Development and Peace.” http://www.un.org/esa/gopher-data/conf/fwcw/nfls/ nfls.en (accessed November 17, 2011). United States Comptroller General. “Statement of Charles A. Bowsher, Comptroller General, Before the Subcommittee on General Oversight and Renegotiation of the Committee on Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs, United States House of Representatives on Profits on Defense Contracts” (March 21, 1984): 1 http://archive.gao.gov/d40t12/123696.pdf. (accessed November 10, 2011). United States General Accounting Office. GAO Report to Congressional Requesters. “Government Contracting: Assessment of the Study of Defense Contractor Profitability.” GAO/NSIAD-87–50 (December 1986): 3 http://archive. gao.gov/d2t4/132095.pdf. (accessed November 10, 2011). Vellacott, Jo. “A Place for Pacifism and Transnationalism in Feminist Theory: The Early Work of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom.” Women’s History Review 2, no. 1 (March 1, 1993): 23–56. Vellacott, Jo. “Women, Peace and Internationalism, 1914–1920: Finding New Words and Creating New Methods.” In Peace Movements and Political Cultures, eds. Charles Chatfield and Peter Van den Dungen. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1988: 106–24. “Viet Nam.” Pax et Libertas (April–June 1970). Box 45, folder 3. Pax et Libertas 1966–68. WILPF SCPC Accession. UCBA. Ware, Vron. Beyond the Pale: White Women, Racism, and History. Questions for Feminism Series. New York: Verso, 1992. “We and the Bombs.” Pax et Libertas (March–May 1954). Box 45, folder 1. Pax et Libertas United States 1951–59. WILPF SCPC Accession, UCBA. Weiss, Cora. “Peace Is a Human Right: Give Us Women Who Get It.” On The Issues Magazine. http://www.ontheissuesmagazine.com/2011summer/ 2011summer_weiss.php (accessed September 8, 2011). Weldon, Laurel S. “Inclusion and Understanding: A Collective Methodology for Feminist International Relations.” In Feminist Methodologies for International Relations, eds. Brooke A. Ackerly, Maria Stern, and Jacqui True. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2006: 62–87. Welsh, Ian. Mobilizing Modernity: The Nuclear Moment. International Library of Sociology Series. New York: Routledge, 2000. Wibben, Annick. Feminist Security Studies: A Narrative Approach. New York: Routledge, 2011. Wittner, Lawrence S. One World or None: A History of the World Nuclear Disarmament Movement through 1953. Stanford Nuclear Age Series. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1993. Wittner, Lawrence S. Resisting the Bomb: A History of the World Nuclear Disarmament Movement, 1945–1970. Stanford Nuclear Age Series. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1997.

[ 192 ]

Bibliography

Wolf, Diane L. Feminist Dilemmas in Fieldwork. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1996. Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom. Dolores Taller Collection (unprocessed). UCBA. Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom. Geneva Headquarters Historical Files. Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom. International Congress Resolutions 1915–2010. http://wilpfinternational.org/resolutions/index.htm (accessed November 17, 2011). Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom. “International Law, Disarmament, Women, and Human Rights: and Outcome Document of an Expert Meeting Organized by Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom.” December 1–2, 2011. http://wilpfinternational.org/ events/IWD2012/IWD_Outcome_2012.pdf (accessed April 15, 2012). Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom. International Office. Reports of the International Congresses, 1915–1924. Microfilm reel 141.1, Swarthmore College Peace Collection. Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom. International Office. Reports of the International Congresses, 1926–1953. Microfilm reel 141.2, Swarthmore College Peace Collection. Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom. International Office. Reports of the International Congresses, 1956–1986. Microfilm reel 141.3, Swarthmore College Peace Collection. Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom. International Women’s Day Seminar March 2011; Women, Disarmament, Non-Proliferation and Arms Control Outcome Document. Geneva, 2011. Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom. Search for Peace in the Middle East: A Brief Record of Efforts by WILPF to Further Peaceful Solutions of the Conflict in the Middle East. Birmingham, UK: WILPF, 2001. http:// www.wilpf.int.ch/publications/2000middleeast1930.htm (accessed April 20, 2006). Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom. Swarthmore College Peace Collection Accession. University of Colorado at Boulder Archives. Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom Swarthmore College Peace Collection Second Accession. University of Colorado at Boulder Archives. Woollacott, Angela. Gender and Empire: Gender and History. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006. Yeğenoğlu, Meyda. Colonial Fantasies: Towards a Feminist Reading of Orientalism. Cambridge Cultural Social Studies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1998. York, Jodi. “The Truth about Women and Peace.” In The Women and War Reader, eds. Lois Ann Lorentzen and Jennifer E. Turpin. New York: New York University Press, 1998: 19–25. Yoshihara, Mari. Embracing the East: White Women and American Orientalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.

Bibliography

[ 193 ]

Yuval-Davis, Nira. Gender & Nation. Politics and Culture Series. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 1997. Zalewski, Marysia. “Do We Understand Each Other Yet? Troubling Feminist Encounters with(in) International Relations.” The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 9, no. 2 (2007): 302–12. Zalewski, Marysia. Feminism after Postmodernism: Theorising through Practice. New York: Routledge, 2000. Zeuthen, Else. “Regional Pacts and Peace.” In XIth International Congress of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, at Copenhagen, Christiansboro Castle, August 15th–19th, 1949. Geneva, Switzerland: WILPF, 1949; microfilm reel 141.2, Swarthmore College Peace Collection. Zinsser, Judith P. “From Mexico to Copenhagen to Nairobi: The United Nations Decade for Women, 1975–1985.” Journal of World History 13, no. 1 (Spring 2002): 139–68. Zonana, Joyce. “The Sultan and the Slave: Feminist Orientalism and the Structure of Jane Eyre.” Signs 18, no. 3 (Spring 1993): 592–617.

[ 194 ]

Bibliography

INDEX

Ackerly, Brooke A. on feminism and IR , 21 on intelligent compassion, 150n123 on multi-sited critics, 169n83 TWFSC and, 24–27, 48, 115–16 Addams, Jane on disarmament, 33–34 intelligent compassion and, 52–53, 108 Jane Addams House, Plate 18 as social worker, 78 WILPF and, 9 AEF (Afrique Equatoriale Française, French Equatorial Africa), 157n64 Africa. See Algerian War; decolonization; specific countries African women, 67–68, 78, 80, 82 Afro-Asian Conference (Bandoeng, 1955), 64–65, 70, 76, 80, 93 agency constructivism and, 20, 21, 112–13 feminism and, 21–24, 27–28 Algerian War, 66–71, 83 All-African Peoples’ Conference (Accra, 1958), 70, 76, 80 American Friends’ Service Committee, 125 Anghie, Antony, 151n4 antinuclear movement, 6 anti-Semitism, 106, 167n53 AOF (Afrique Occidentale Française, French West Africa), 157n64 apartheid Nuttall on, 163n128 UN and, 71–72, 170n102

WILPF and, 69, 71–72, 80, 101, 121, 153n26, 174n23, 176n67 Arab women, 84, 86, 87–88, 90–91, 105, 107 Arafat, Yasser, 168–69n77 arms embargoes, 11, 80, 82 arms race feminism and, 30, 124–25 United States and, 98, 122 WILPF and, 30, 34, 36, 44, 46, 50, 111, 120–21, 125–26 WSP and, 47 See also disarmament arms trade, 96–97 Armstrong, Karen, 116 atomic bomb, 30, 39–42. See also nuclear power Augspurg, Anita, 9 Australia: WILPF national section, 47, 126, 132–33 autonomy, 46 Baer, Gertrude Accra Conference and, 70, 76, 80 on apartheid, 71–72 Bandoeng Conference and, 64–65, 70, 76, 80, 93 on cooperation with other NGOs, 47, 76 on decolonization, 74, 155n44 on disarmament, 50–51 on Middle East, 93, 101 on nonviolence, 81 on nuclear power, 40 photographs, Plate 18 on self-determination, 62–63, 70 skeptical scrutiny and, 77

Baer, Gertrude (continued ) on solar energy, 149n108 WIDF and, 149n96 as WILPF representative to the UN, 35–36, 62–63, 154n37 Balch, Emily Greene, 9, 11, 63–64, 87, 88 Ballantyne, Edith on Cold War and Communism, 38 CONGO and, 124 on cooperation with other NGOs, 51 on decolonization, 159n89 on Middle East, 88, 106, 107, 108 Peace Tent and, 126 photographs, Plate 3 on science and technology, 147n62 on WILPF’s principles, 128 on women and peace, 123 Bandoeng Conference (1955), 64–65, 70, 76, 80, 93 Bangladesh, 131–32 Bengal, 58 Biafra, 80, 82 Birangui, Elizabeth, Plate 14 Blackwell, Joyce, 54 Bolkovac, Kathryn, 134 Bouchereau, Madeleine, 88, 101, 101–2 Boulding, Elise on cooperation with other NGOs, 47, 51 on decolonization, 159n89 on meetings with Soviet women, 53 on Middle East, 102, 106 photographs, Plate 6, Plate 15 as WILPF’s International Chairman, 78, 102 Bussey, Gertrude, 39–40, 60, 77, 94–95, Plate 8 Camp, Kay, 44–45, 48, Plate 5, Plate 11, 123 Canada, 131–32 capitalism, 15, 37–38, 51–52, 62, 78 China, 11, 35, 164n16 Chowdhury, Anwarul K., 131 citizenship, 31 Clinton, Hillary, 177n97 Cockburn, Cynthia, 24, 173n6 Colby, Ruth Gage, 102–3 Cold War WILPF and, 30, 38, 46, 64–65, 71 WPA and, 125 See also communism

[ 196 ]

Index

Colombia: WILPF national section, 135 colonialism, 57–59, 67–68, 73. See also decolonization; Orientalism Comiso (Italy), 124–25 communism, 37–38, 70–71, 114 Communist Party (US), 37 Conference of Non-Governmental Organizations in Consultative Relationship with the United Nations (CONGO), 124 Congo: WILPF national section, 132–33, 135 consent, 46 constructivism, 20–24, 112–13 Cookson, Sybil, 80 Cooper, John Milton, 138–39n26 Cox, Robert W., 20–21, 140n46, 143n3, 150n123 critical theory, 21–24, 113 Declaration on the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789), 68–69 decolonization gender relations and, 59 WILPF and: first phase (1946–1955), 56–57, 60–64 second phase (1956–1966), 56–57, 64–66 third phase (1966–1975), 56–57, 72–74 Algerian War and, 66–72, 83 disarmament and, 30 methodology and, 75–83 deliberative democracy, 24–26 deliberative inquiry overview, 25 WILPF and, 46–48, 76–77, 80, 100–103, 107, 117 democracy, 51–52, 90–92, 100. See also freedom Denmark: WILPF national section, 3, 103, 163n128 disarmament peace studies and, 6 Versailles Peace Treaty and, 10, 29 WILPF on: Conferences of Women and, 123, 129–130 international economic system and, 29–30, 37–38, 43–44, 45, 49–50, 54–55, 111

international law and, 29–30, 33–38, 43, 45–46, 54, 110–11 methodology, 45–54 Middle East and, 96–98 NPT and, 128, 130–31 peace and, 12 reason and science and, 30, 34, 38–42, 44, 46, 50, 54, 110–11 strategies and, 124–26 Doty, Roxanne Lynn, 59 DRC (Democratic Republic of Congo): WILPF national section, 132–33, 135 Driel, J. Repelaer van, 42 Duchêne, Gabrielle, 51–52 ecofeminism, 124–25 economic development, 12, 94–96, 123 Egypt, 66, 97, 98, 106, 167n51 Elshtain, Jean Bethke, 31 emotion, 39 empathetic cooperation, 53, 116–17. See also intelligent compassion equality feminism and, 10, 19, 25 WILPF and, 33, 44–45, 70, 75, 144 ethics of care, 22 Evidence of Things Unseen (Higgins), 142 Fahoum, Siba, 107–8 Fanon, Frantz, 69, 162n117 Al Fatah, 98 Felski, Rita, 85 feminism arms race and, 30, 124–25 critical theory and, 21–24, 113 empathetic cooperation and, 53 equality and, 10, 19, 25 on gender relations and colonialism, 58–59 international relations and, 21–24, 53, 81, 112 on liberalism, 31 militarism and, 19, 24, 44–45, 111, 112 Orientalism and, 86 peace and, 5, 7–9 peace studies and, 6–7, 114–15 on reason and emotion, 39 on SCR 1325, 133 WILPF and, 12, 16, 48, 51

feminist security studies, 138n20 Finland: WILPF national section, 3, 163n128 Florence, Mary Sargent, 138n21 Forcey, Linda Rennie, 8 Four Freedoms speech (Roosevelt), 38 Fourteen Points speech (Wilson), 9, 11 France Nazi occupation of, 3, 66, 83 Vietnam and, 60–61 WILPF national section, 3, 11–12, 37, 83, 163n128, 167n51 women’s suffrage in, 68 See also Algerian War Frank, Libby Middle East and, 102–3, 106, 107–8, 109, 169n87 photographs, Plate 10 free market, 37 freedom contractual theory and, 31 Jouve on, 83 WILPF and, 3, 12, 51, 63, 75–76, 78, 80–81, 89–92 See also democracy; self-determination of peoples Freedom from Hunger Campaign (1960), 145n45 French Polynesia: WILPF national section, 126 French Revolution, 68–69 Friends’ Service Council, 80 Front de Libération Nationale (Algeria), 66–67, 69, 70, 156n59 Galtung, Johan, 137n10, 156n51 Gandhi, Mohandas Karamchand, 6, 63, 73 Garner, Karen, 139n30, 171n2, 173n14 Gaulle, Charles de, 157n64 Gaza, 121 gender colonialism and, 58–59 conflict and, 138n20 definition of, 7 Orientalism and, 85–86 power and, 7, 22–23 Genova, James Eskridge, 157n66 Germany Nazi occupation of France, 3, 66, 83 WILPF national section, 4, 11–12, 37, 159n89

Index [ 197 ]

Gesher L’Shalom, 170n94 Ghana, 80 Gjermoe, Johanne Reutz, 92, 93–94, 95, 97–98 global trade, 37 globalization, 30 Gramsci, Antonio, 143n3 Great Britain Greenham Common Women’s Peace Camp, 48, 117, 124 India and, 58 WILPF national section, 27, 87, 125, 159n89, 167n51 women’s peace movement in, 27 Greaves, Nell, 71 Greenham Common Women’s Peace Camp, 48, 117, 124 Grovogui, Siba N’Zatioula, 58, 152n17 guiding criteria overview, 25 WILPF and, 45–46, 75–76, 100, 117 Gulf War, 128 Gush Shalom, 165n25 Haiti, 11, 164n16 Halperin, Sandra, 57–58, 152n15, 154n35 Harris, Adrienne, 9 Hasegawa, Marii, Plate 14 Higgins, Marianne, 142 Hill, Felicity, 130, 176n68, 178n101 Hirschmann, Nancy J., 31 Höjer, Signe, 91, 95, 101–2, 106 Hutchinson, Dorothy on decolonization, 70–71, 74 on disarmament, 36, 50 on intelligent compassion, 52–53, 104, 115 C. King and, 76–77 photographs, Plate 2, Plate 11 on WILPF’s effectiveness, 46–47, 78 on WILPF’s principles, 104 idealism, 5, 6 identity, 23–24 India, 58, 155–56n48, 161n101 Indochina, 11, 164n16 Industrial Revolution, 62 intelligent compassion Addams on, 52–54

[ 198 ]

Index

TWFSC and, 28 WILPF and, 52–54, 75, 82–83, 104, 106–8, 115–18 International Confederation for Disarmament and Peace, 47 international law disarmament and, 29–30, 33–38, 43, 45–46, 54, 110–11 peace and, 60 self-determination and, 56 international relations (IR) constructivism and, 20–21 feminism and, 21–24, 53, 81, 112 liberalism and, 30–31 peace and, 5–7 International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women (INSTRAW), 173n12 International Women’s Committee of Permanent Peace (The Hague, 1915), 9–10, 75 International Women’s Development Fund, 161n108 International Women’s Year (1975), 44–45, 48, 122 Iraq, 63, 128 Isono, Fujiko, 47, Plate 15 Israel Lebanon and, 144 WILPF and, 89, 90–93, 95, 99–100 WILPF national section, 88, 97–98, 101, 103, 105, 106, 170n94 Italy Comiso peace encampment, 124–25 WILPF national section, 50 Jacobs, Aletta, 9 Jamaica, 131–32 Jane Addams House (Spittal-Dran, Austria), Plate 18 Japan, 52, 53 Jewish women, 87–88 Jodai, Tano, 65 Johnson administration, 72, 98 Jordan, 93–94, 166n48 Jouve, Andrée, 66–69, 70, 71, 82–83 Kamarck Minnich, Elizabeth, 172n13 Kenya, 59, 62 King, Coretta Scott, 76–77, 80, Plate 11

King, Martin Luther, 77 King, Ynestra, 9 Kittrell, Flemmie, 76 Klotz, Audie, 140n2 Knight, Louise W., 138n26 Kuwait, 128 Labouisse, Henry, 105 Lamine Guèye Law (1946), 68 Latham, Robert, 13, 30–31 Law of Return (1950), 91 League of Nations liberalism and, 9 mandate system and, 58, 59, 63 WILPF and, 10, 11, 35 Lebanon democracy in, 88 humanitarian work in, 100 instability in, 99 Israel and, 144 WILPF national section, 101, 102–3, 105, 106, 166n48 liberal feminism, 144n19 liberalism and liberal internationalism Baer on, 35 idealism and, 5 international relations and, 30–31 League of Nations and, 9 peace and, 6, 13 postwar order and, 13–14 on science and rationality, 32, 39 WILPF and, 4, 12, 15–16, 29–42, 44, 45–46, 57, 83, 89–90, 100, 111–12, 114, 117–18 Liddington, Jill, 134–35, 139n26 Ling, L. H. M., 23, 171–72n9 Lochbihler, Barbara, 129 Lynch, Cecelia, 140n2 mandate system, 58, 59, 63 Manus, Rosa, 9 Marxism, 6 Mau Mau rebellion (Kenya), 59 McCarthyism, 37 Mehta, G. L., 158–59n84 Melman, Billie, 86 men, use of term, 152n22 Mexico: WILPF national section, 135 Meyer, Mary K., 120, 135

militarism feminism and, 19, 24, 44–45, 111, 112 WILPF and, 15 “Militarism versus Feminism” (Ogden and Florence), 138n21 Milliken, Jennifer, 58–59 Mills, Charles W., 143n8 modernity, 85 Monet, Marius, 157n66 Muslim women, 86, 87–88, 90–91 Namibia, 131–32 Nasser, Gamal Abdel, 97, 106, 167n53 National Liberation Front (FLN, Algeria), 66–67, 69, 70, 156n59 NATO, 159n86 Nayar, Sushila on Algerian War, 71 on apartheid, 80 on Arab women, 105 on disarmament, 145n45 on nonviolence, 73 photographs, Plate 18 UN and, 76 as WILPF’s vice-chairman, 78 neoliberalism, 30, 122 The Netherlands: WILPF national section, 3, 126 New International Economic Order (NIEO), 160n93 Nigeria, 78, 80, 82, 135 Nobel Peace Prize, 9 Non-Aligned Movement, 101 Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), 128, 130–31 nonviolent resistance, 6, 63–64, 73, 81, 83, 111 nuclear power ecofeminism and, 125 peace studies and, 6 WILPF and, 30, 39–42, 43, 44, 49, 51, 110–11, 128, 129 Nuttall, Mary, 69, 145n45, 163n128 obligation, 31 Ogden, C. K., 138n21 Olmsted, Mildred Scott, 37, 42–43 Orientalism overview, 85–86 WILPF and, 63, 84–85, 86–98, 101–2, 112

Index [ 199 ]

Palestine Lebanese WILPF section and, 102 UNSCOP and, 90, 92–93 Waern-Bugge in, 86–88 WILPF and, 89, 93–94, 95–96, 99–100 WILPF national section, 170n94 Palestine Liberation Organization, 167n53 Pan African Women’s Organization, 123 Pateman, Carole, 31 peace accounts of, 5–6 economic development and, 12, 94–96 feminism and, 5, 7–9 free market and, 37 international law and, 60 international relations and, 5–7 security and, 130–33 women and, 7–8, 10, 12–13, 19, 42–43, 44–45, 51, 111, 112 peace activism scholarship and, 6, 7–8 WILPF and, 4–5 peace demonstrations, 125 Peace Now (movement), 36 peace studies (peace science) Boulding and, 47 feminism and, 114–15 overview, 6–7 Peace Tents, 126–27, 129 PeaceWomen Project, 132–33 People’s Republic of China, 11, 35, 164n16 Pethick-Lawrence, Emmeline, 9 Pham Van Dong , Plate 14 Philippines, 63 Pioneers for Peace (Bussey and Tims), 139n28 pluralism, 6 political protest, 46–48, 124–25 Pontheil, Isabelle, 62 power gender and, 7, 22–23 identity and, 23–24 in international relations, 44 progressivism, 33 Quakers, 12, 36, 159n89 race and racism Arab people and, 87–88

[ 200 ]

Index

colonialism and, 57–59 WILPF and, 15, 53–54, 56–57, 59, 61–63, 64, 76–77, 83, 111, 128–29 See also apartheid racial contract, 143n8 Ragaz, Clara, 10, 39, Plate 9 Reaching Critical Will (RCW), 130–31 Reagan administration, 175n37 realism, 5–6, 7 reason and rationality disarmament and, 30, 38–42, 46 vs. emotion, 39 masculinity and, 32 peace and, 95 Red Scare, 37, 46–47 Rees, Madeleine, 134 Rhodesia, 72, 80 Richardson, James, 14 Richmond, Oliver P., 5 Roosevelt, Franklin Delano, 38 Rosenzweig, Hannah, 98, Plate 15 Ruddick, Sara, 116 Said, Edward W., 85, 152n13, 171n8 Salter, Mark B., 58, 152n18 Schweitzer, Albert, 67 Schwimmer, Rosika, 9 science and technology, 30, 32, 38–42, 95 security, 130–33 Sée, Yvonne, 47, 48–49 Selander, Aja, 44 self-determination of peoples use of term, 160n96 Versailles Peace Treaty and, 10 WILPF and: decolonization and, 56, 60–61, 70–72, 75–76, 121 Middle East and, 92–94, 99, 100, 104 peace and, 12, 56, 70, 72, 75–76 See also trusteeship system Seneca Women’s Encampment for a Future of Peace and Justice, 124–25 settlement house movement, 9 sexism, 15 sexual contracts, 31 Sierra Leone, 80 Sinha, Mrinalini, 58

skeptical scrutiny overview, 25–26 WILPF and, 48–51, 75, 77–80, 83, 101, 103–4, 107, 117 small arms, 45, 52, 55, 131 social contracts, 31 social critics overview, 26 WILPF and, 51–52, 79–81, 104–6 social democratic activism, 160n97 social work, 160n97 Society of Friends, 12, 36, 159n89 solar energy, 149n108 South Africa, 6, 63, 72. See also apartheid Spanish Civil War, 82 Spivak, Gayatri, 116 Sri Lanka: WILPF national section, 125 Stähelin, Hélène, 41, 51 Steffens, Dorothy, 73, 78–79, 80–81, 82, Plate 4 Stewart, Annalee, 41 Stienstra, Deborah, 120, 168n63 Stop the Arms Race (STAR), 125 structural adjustment programs (SAPs), 122 structures, 20, 21, 112–13 Suez crisis (1956), 97 Sweden: WILPF national section, 3–4, 132–33, 135 Sylvan, David, 58–59 Sylvester, Christine, 53, 116–17 Syria, 88 Taller, Dolores, 171n105 Taylor, Verta, 140n52 technology. See science and technology Thant, U, 97 Third World Feminist Social Criticism (TWFSC), 24–27, 28, 115–16. See also deliberative inquiry; guiding criteria; skeptical scrutiny Thomas, Nicholas, 85 Tims, Margaret, 51, 139n28 travel literature, 86 True, Jacki, 21 Truman administration, 90 trusteeship system, 57, 58, 61–64, 75, 111 Tunisia, 66

UN Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM), 161n108, 173n12, 177n94 UN High Commission for Human Rights (UNHCHR), 134 UN Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), 90, 92–93 UN Women, 134, 177n94 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), 66 United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), 95–96, 105 United Nations (UN) apartheid and, 71–72, 170n102 decolonization and, 61, 62, 65, 69, 70 disarmament and, 125 liberalism and, 13 membership, 35, 72 nuclear power and, 41 Rees and, 134 on self-determination, 92 Sweden and, 3–4 WILPF and: consultative status with, 11, 15, 32, 49, 76, 82 disarmament and, 50–51, 55 on membership, 35 Middle East and, 97, 104 on peace and security, 132–34 support of, 33, 35–36, 41, 60, 62, 95 World Conferences of Women and, 121, 122–23, 124 Women’s Decade and, 120–27 United States arms race and, 98, 122 civil rights struggle in, 36, 72 Israel and, 97, 104 liberal postwar order and, 13–14, 31 occupation of Haiti, 11 WILPF national section: African American women and, 53–54 ecofeminism and, 124–25 Hutchinson and, 36 on international law, 33–34 Israel and, 90 M. L. King and, 77 membership, 78 Palestinian women and, 102 PeaceWomen Project and, 132–33 personnel records, 161n107

Index [ 201 ]

United States (continued ) progressivism and, 33 racial relations and, 53–54, 161n100 Soviet women and, 53–54 USSR and, 37 on violence and nonviolence, 72, 73 See also Cold War USSR Egypt and, 97, 98 Israel and, 98 WIDF and, 46 WILPF and, 37, 46, 52, 53–54, Plate 12, Plate 16, Plate 17 See also Cold War Vellacott, Jo, 27 Versailles Peace Treaty (1919), 10–11, 29 Vietnam United States and, 72, 79 WILPF and, 52, 53, 60–62, Plate 14 Vietnam War gender relations and, 58–59 opposition to, 36, 74 WILPF and, 74, 76–77, 80, 98 WSP and, 47 Waern-Bugge, Elisabeth, 86–88, 101 Walser, Gladys, 65, 69–70, 74, 104–5, 154–55n41 Warner, Dorothy, 103–4 weapons of mass destruction, 45 Weideman, Elizabeth, 72 Weldon, Laurel S., 81 Welsh, Ian, 114 Whitman, Walter G., 40 WILPF. See Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) Wilson, Woodrow, 9, 11 Woker, Gertrud, 49, 51 women armed conflicts and, 132 Orientalism and, 85–88 peace and, 7–8, 10, 12–13, 19, 42–43, 44–45, 51, 111, 112, 122–23 SAPs and, 122 small arms and, 55 See also African women; Arab women; Muslim women

[ 202 ]

Index

Women of Europe in Action for Peace (Amsterdam, 1981), 125 Women of the World United for Peace (New York, 1975), 123 Women Strike for Peace (WSP), 47–48, 52 Women’s International Democratic Federation (WIDF), 46, 123, 149n96 Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) Algerian War and, 66–72, 83 cooperation with other NGOs, 46–48, 51, 52, 76, 121, 131 on decolonization: first phase (1946– 1955), 56–57, 60–64 second phase (1956–1966), 56–57, 64–66 third phase (1966–1975), 56–57, 72–74 Algerian War and, 66–72, 83 disarmament and, 30 methodology, 75–83 on dictatorships in Europe, 155n43 on disarmament: Conference of Women and, 123, 129–130 international economic system and, 29–30, 37–38, 43–44, 45, 49–50, 54–55, 111 international law and, 29–30, 33–38, 43, 45–46, 54, 110–11 methodology, 45–54 Middle East and, 96–98 NPT and, 128, 130–31 peace and, 12 reason and science and, 30, 34, 38–42, 44, 46, 50, 54, 110–11 strategies and, 124–26 on economic development, 94–96, 123 feminist critical methodology and: deliberative inquiry, 46–48, 76–77, 80, 100–103, 107, 117 guiding criteria, 45–46, 75–76, 100, 117 intelligent compassion, 52–54, 75, 82–83, 104, 106–8, 115–18 overview, 26–27, 110, 112–13, 114, 117–18 skeptical scrutiny, 48–51, 75, 77–80, 83, 101, 103–4, 107, 117 social critics, 51–52, 79–81, 104–6

historical background, 9–13 on injustice, 71, 73–74 international congresses: Zürich (1919), 3, 10, 66 Luxembourg (1946), 3–4, 12–13, 32–33, 41, 42–43, 77, 83, 89–90 Stockholm (1959), 70–71 Nyborg Strand (1968), 52–53, 78–79, 81 New Delhi (1970–71), 73, Plate 13 Birmingham (1974), 43 Goteborg (1983), 125–26 Helsinki (1995), 129 leaders’ titles and, 144–45n32 membership, 15, 32, 52, 74, 75, 76, 100–101, 109, 116, 118, 128–29, 135 on Middle East: methodology, 98–108 Orientalism and, 84–85, 86–98, 101–2, 112 national sections, 11 on nuclear power, 30, 39–42, 43, 44, 49, 51, 110–11, 128, 129 political protest and, 46–48, 124–25 on race and racism, 15, 53–54, 56–57, 59, 61–63, 64, 76–77, 83, 111, 128–29 on security, 130–33

on self-determination: decolonization and, 56, 60–61, 70–72, 75–76, 121 Middle East and, 92–94, 99, 100, 104 peace and, 12, 56, 70, 72, 75–76 on violence and nonviolence, 11–12, 56, 63–64, 65–66, 71, 73–74, 81, 83, 111 Women’s Pentagon Action (WPA), 125 women’s suffrage, 68 women’s suffrage movement, 27, 160n97 women’s travel literature, 86 World Congress for the International Women’s Year (East Berlin, 1975), 123 World Council of Churches, 80 World Health Organization (WHO), 40 World War I. See Versailles Peace Treaty (1919) World War II Peace Now and, 36 WILPF and, 12 Zeuthen, Else, 41, 97, Plate 7 Zionism, 92, 170n102 Zonana, Joyce, 86

Index [ 203 ]