| Overview : Background:
Currently Myanmar’s peace process focuses on reaching a nationwide ceasefire agreement. In 2011/2012, rapid progress was made by the government in reaching preliminary ceasefire agreements with most nonstate armed groups, including with the main armed group in Mon State in February 2012. These negotiated peace arrangements have contributed to development initiatives by state, non‐state and civil society actors in Mon State. However, Myanmar’s ethnic conflicts are very complex and many challenges remain unresolved. Mon State, together with Kachin, Rakhine, Shan, Karen, Mon, Palaung and Chin States, has been noted by the CEDAW Committee for the high prevalence of sexual and other forms of violence against women perpetrated against rural ethnic women. Women are also exposed to forms of sexual and gender‐based violence that are indirectly linked to the conflict, for example violence within the family and community, for which legal, medical and psychosocial responses are extremely limited. Women and men experience armed conflict in distinct ways, even when members of the same ethnic/religious identity group, and they perceive the social, political, economic and environmental contributors and consequences of armed conflict from unique vantage points. Men make up the largest number of armed combatants and public decision makers as related to the conflict in Myanmar, but women also play supportive roles to the conflict in communities to varying degrees, providing food, heath care, and shelter to fighters. They are also reported to attend to the acute daily needs of communities facing armed conflict. Despite their contributions, because of the “masculinized” political and social environment focused on combat and fighting, opportunities for women to take up public leadership roles in the on‐going peace talks have been limited. To date, only a very few women are reported to hold decision‐making roles in the political branches of the non‐state armed groups, and a very small number of women serve as advisors and observers with influence to the official peace process now underway.
Thus, there is limited space for women to express their needs and concerns to authorities. There is no formal mechanism that facilitates women’s participation in discussions around the peace process and what peace is for them. The lack of women’s participation in the peace talks limits the legitimacy of the process, and global experience shows that when women are not present in the peace processes, women’s needs and concerns (in terms of access to health, legal and social services, need for better security, opportunities to advance their political participation, to have the gender specific violations of human rights addressed, and etc.) are often be overlooked in the transition process.
Please see Terms of Reference as enclosed. |
