Women's International League for Peace and Freedom Triennial Conference
"Women, Peace and Sustainable Futures"
23rd May, 2009
Brisbane City Councillor, Helen Abrahams,
International Vice President of WILPF (the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom) and this morning's keynote speaker, Ms Felicity Hill,
Joint National Coordinators of WILPF Australia, Cathy Dicone and Ruth Russell,
Assistant National Coordinator, Ms Stella Boyages,
Distinguished Guests,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
In the spirit of reconciliation that we wish to promote throughout our State and our nation, so that indigenous and non-indigenous Australians may better understand, respect and value each other, I acknowledge the traditional owners of the land on which we are gathered, the Jagera and Turrbal peoples and their descendants; and I thank Maroochy Barambah - songwoman and law-woman of the Turrbal People - for her distinctive "Welcome to Country".
I have heard Maroochy on many occasions and am always touched by her eloquence and by the dignity and power of the message she delivers, both through her voice and her presence. It seems especially fitting on this occasion, at a conference focusing on the role of women, that we should have a strong woman delivering this traditional welcome. Knowing the way that WILPF has consistently supported Indigenous Australians in their efforts to achieve social justice, I'm sure delegates share my appreciation of Maroochy's contribution and admiration of her many achievements. She has received many awards, both in Australia and overseas and chalked up many ‘firsts' - including being the first Australian to perform at the United Nations in New York - in 1993 - in honour of the International Year for the World's Indigenous Peoples.
To Maroochy's traditional "Welcome to Country", I wish to add my own "Welcome to Queensland."
As Queensland's Governor and Head of State I represent and speak on behalf of the people of Queensland and I can assure all WILPF members who have traveled to this Meeting from other States and overseas, that the decision to hold your Triennial National Conference here in Brisbane is one we welcome warmly. We hope that it will prove a stimulating and successful event, that you will enjoy the time you spend in our beautiful capital city and that having made the effort to travel here, you may be tempted to take the opportunity to stay a little longer, to discover and savour some of the many attractions of modern Queensland. It is a particularly good time to be here - not just because our temperatures during winter are warmer than most other parts of Australia - but because we are celebrating our sesquicentenary and there are a host of special activities, events and exhibitions on offer, beyond the usual attractions of what is now a very progressive and cosmopolitan city.
To the non-WILPF members attending the conference, I hope your attendance will deliver some interesting insights, not only into the subjects under discussion, but into the League itself. I haven't time to traverse the long and winding history of the organisation - dating from the First World War - but I am proud to remind everyone present that the Australian section is one of the founding sections of WILPF - with three Australian women - from Melbourne - having attended the 1919 Congress of Women which established the League; and also - in my role as a champion of Queensland - to draw attention to the fact that the Queensland Branch of WILPF was among the very first to be established - in fact, I believe it was the second after Victoria. The woman who pioneered the League's presence in Queensland in 1920, Felicia Hopkins, was, quite simply, remarkable. By my calculation, she was 79 when she did so. Described in the Australian Biographical Dictionary as a "tiny, active woman", her decision to set up a branch of the league in Rockhampton would have surprised no-one who knew her or has had occasion to read her history. Her parents - English immigrants - were members of the Society of Friends and, again according to the Australian Dictionary of Biography, "held radical political views...(including) supporting the rights of women". No doubt influenced by them, she championed various causes, notably the welfare of single working girls, setting up branches of the YWCA across Queensland, meeting and working to protect young women on migrant ships, organising lectures, classes and social evenings for working girls and taking unmarried pregnant girls into her own home until their future could be settled. She was similarly energetic in caring for orphans, including by founding, with her husband (they had five children of their own), a children's home where orphans could be boarded. Her Quaker origins, her practical assertion of the rights of women and her obvious commitment to activism would have drawn her to the League like a nail to a magnet - as it has so many other women through the 94 years since its founding - women who see the flaws in society and who want to do something about them; women who are willing to speak out on questions of human rights and social justice; women who, like Felicia Hopkins, are ‘active' - ready to take risks to achieve changes that they believe will benefit society.
Of course, WILPF is not the only organisation or vehicle for women who want to make a difference, to make their voice heard or influence felt - especially in relation to international issues and global challenges - to those large questions of war and peace, human rights, security and development. There are many pathways to achieving this. In my own case, my father was a public servant and through his example, I found the concept of public service an appealing one. Interested in international relations, I chose diplomacy and working within government structures, more attracted by the possibility of influencing policy development and decisions from the inside than lobbying from the outside; in the case of the Senators and city Councillors present today or planning to attend at some point in your three day conference, politics evidently appeared the best option, with all its associated responsibilities; for others, like Felicity Hill, the UN system offered scope for practical action - at least for a period; for many others the NGO world seemed - and still seems - the most obvious way forward - although dependent on volunteers, always needing to compete within the community for attention and resources, struggling to achieve profile and to maintain membership. NGOs also enjoy certain advantages. Although patently - in the broad sense of the word - ‘political' in character and purpose, by operating outside government, they are not limited by the processes of government or constraints of party politics, have great freedom to lobby, to mount campaigns for particular causes and to concentrate on these. For long-standing international NGOs like WILPF, there is the added benefit of a well-established network of contacts and of support structures - of people with shared sympathies and sense of purpose, stretching across countries and continents, increasing significantly the opportunities for exchanging information (because it is vital to be well-informed) and for developing effective strategies. And for some NGOs - WILPF, again, being one - there is scope to acquire enhanced status and to improve the chance of having an impact on national and international policies and responses to particular challenges, by achieving consultative status with the UN and UN bodies. I saw this practical reality time and time again during my years as a diplomat, attending international conferences and most notably during the seven years that I served as Australia's Ambassador to the UN and the several years I was Australia's Ambassador for the Environment: the NGOs with consultative status had far better opportunity to make their voices heard than those who did not. It gave them greater credibility, it secured them better access and it lent more authority to their voice - and with hundreds of organisations, thousands of voices clamouring for attention, often - particularly at big UN conferences and summits - drowning each other out in their eagerness to push their particular message - this was very important.
As it was - and still is - that they be well-organised and focused - at every level: local, regional, national and international - and - while holding out the ideal as the overall goal, also realistic and practical in setting targets and interim goals and in mapping out plans of action.
Failure to be well-organised, disciplined and strategic in defining and pursuing your goals (because everyone seems to want to achieve everything at once!), will result in messages being blurred, impact being dulled, and campaigns faltering or failing.
In saying this, I am mindful of several things: firstly, that you have set as the broad theme for this 2009 conference - ‘Women, Peace and Sustainable Futures' - which could encompass discussion of just about everything under the sun, so finding focus and drawing some concrete conclusions and outcomes will be important - in exactly the same way that the founders of the League did at the original congress of women in the Hague in 1915 - adopting twenty resolutions and differentiating between those for immediate action and others for the long-term. That seemed to me to be an excellent model: both purposeful and practical.
Secondly, I know that you have set one very specific objective for conference participants: to develop a national action plan for the implementation of UNSC Resolution 1325 on ‘Women, Peace and Security'. This is, in my view, an admirable ambition - the project is timely and one which, from a personal viewpoint, I welcome - as an input to processes and discussions that I assume are ongoing within government, in Australia and elsewhere.
In welcoming that particular conference goal, I am speaking with the perspective of an ‘insider' - having been very actively involved with the crafting and adoption of this resolution and having contributed directly to the effort to have the subject brought before the Security Council and discussed in an open meeting of the Council - which meant that countries not members of the Security Council - countries like Australia - could participate and contribute.
Again, I shouldn't dwell too long on the details - but I do want to let you know that getting this Resolution through the Security Council was a significant challenge and something that those of us involved felt represented a major achievement.
At the time - in October 2000 - I was Australia's Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the UN in New York. (I had served previously also as Australia's Ambassador to the UN in Geneva, as Australia's Ambassador for the Environment and as the Principal Adviser and then head of the UN and International Organisations Division in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in Canberra, so came to New York with a strong background on UN affairs and multilateral diplomacy). I was one of only a handful of women Ambassadors. In the four years I was Australia's Ambassador in New York we were never more than 11 - out of then 189 member states - and most of the time - single digit numbers i.e. less than 10. We were there to represent the full range of interests of our countries, across the full spectrum of issues on the international agenda -but there was an expectation - especially from women's groups and organisations, within the UN system and beyond and from NGOs championing women's causes, that the women Ambassadors would be especially active in supporting women and driving a ‘gender agenda'. In our own ways and according to our capacities (some of the women Ambassadors represented tiny countries - like Liechtenstein; or had very small Missions and scant resources to back them up - Panama and Jamaica; some were not career diplomats but political appointees, which imposed some constraints on them), I believe we each tried to meet or respond to that expectation. In doing so, we worked closely with the UN Secretariat, with UNIFEM, CEDAW and other Agencies and Offices within the UN which focused on women. In the case of the push to have the subject of Women and Peace and Security brought into the Security Council, we targeted some key governments and members of the Security Council to assist.
A major ally and driving force was the US Ambassador at the time - Richard Holbrooke -who was keen to have the Security Council have a number of thematic debates. This was strongly resisted in some quarters and by a number of countries ... some of them no doubt concerned about the scrutiny that might be brought to bear on their circumstances. Ambassador Holbrooke - a man of great energy and drive - was also strongly sympathetic to the subject, as he was to a range of other human rights and humanitarian concerns.
Despite the resistance encountered in some quarters, we did succeed - firstly in having the thematic debate, and secondly, in having the Security Council adopt this binding Resolution. In doing so, we made history in the UN - breaking new ground in process and substance.
I remember vividly drafting my statement to the Council - and - once approved by Canberra (all major statements made by Australian representatives in UN meetings require approval from the Government in Australia, often requiring elaborate and time-consuming inter-departmental consultations before finalisation, depending on the complexity and sensitivity of the subject; in this case, I was happy it was approved quickly, with little change) delivering it in the Council Chamber. Felicity Hill was there in the Public Gallery, monitoring the debate - and will be able to give you her perspective. I'm sure she will recall that it drew applause - something quite unprecedented within the Council Chamber. (In fact, I suspect that Felicity - who also worked vigorously through her channels and networks in support of the debate taking place - was probably one of the leaders of the applause). I felt - and it appears that others present agreed - that Australia's statement put down some important ideas and proposals. Whenever I made a statement in the UN, I tried to be practical and to present concrete proposals; I always sought to project Australia as a country which was realistic, pragmatic, prepared to work to achieve outcomes and capable of producing good ideas. Pious platitudes and emotional appeals are easy to make, but they do little to help move things forward; I also always tried to put things in context - and find ways of countering the negatives. I don't have time to take you through the statement I delivered - the full text is available on various websites, but I'll cite a few key points. I began by taking the critics - those who questioned the holding of the debate - head-on:
"As violence continues to grow in the Middle East - and the UN and its member states struggle to service a growing number of peace operations around the world - some may wonder about the value of the Council holding a thematic debate such as this. What does it achieve?
Well, Mr President, my delegation certainly thinks it worthwhile - and welcomes the opportunity to participate.
We consider it valuable for several reasons.
Firstly, it contributes to the ongoing process of opening up the Council, not just to non-members, but to new ways of thinking - about what constitutes threats to international peace and security and, more importantly, how to deal with them.
Secondly, it helps us to move forward our broad agenda for the advancement of women -raising awareness of gender factors, moving consideration of so-called ‘women's issues' out of the enclaves of the Third Committee and the Commission on the Status of Women and into the central, vital organs of the UN."
I put forward a range of suggestions for ways to involve women more directly and effectively in the UN system - including in peace-keeping and peace-making operations, on UN legal bodies - specifically on Tribunals, in Courts, in the ILC and the ICC - as Special Envoys and Representatives of the Secretary-General (all issues that the Women Ambassadors had been lobbying for consistently for some time, with little success).
Apart from these - and a number of other - practical suggestions of ways to help bring about change, there was one point that I was very keen to make in the statement - namely that we should move away from the idea of always thinking and talking about women as victims ...
I wanted to see a shift in thinking - to secure recognition of women's capacity to contribute and add value; and an acknowledgement of women as ACTIVE, PROACTIVE and STRONG - not reactive, passive and weak - and as participants in peace processes -rather than recipients of assistance.
I also wanted an acknowledgement that this shift would enable more progress to be made, would actually achieve better outcomes.
While not in any way diminishing the need for us to assist women who are vulnerable, who are victims of war and conflict, the attitudinal shift we needed then, in 2000 - and which is still needed today, almost nine years later - requires us to persist in demonstrating strength - and strength of purpose.
I concluded my statement with these words:
"Mr President,
I said at the outset that this was an important debate. It gives needed impetus to a clear trend towards greater involvement of women managing conflict and in peace processes. Australia hopes that it will result, also, in a renewed determination, on the part of both the UN and its Member States, to take the practical steps necessary to make this happen. Frankly, they are all within reach-but they need a good push.
There is a lot of talk in the UN about smart sanctions. Let us be smart in other ways by factoring women into the peace, security and conflict activities of the UN. By doing things differently, we can do them better."
I said a moment ago that women need to demonstrate strength - and strength of purpose - to achieve change.
The founders of the League did this - in 1919
Felicia Hopkins did it - in 1920
Felicity Hill is doing it now - in 2009.
As I was crafting my remarks for today, I noted the strange similarity of names between Felicia Hopkins and Felicity Hill, but then thought that there was a not-so-strange similarity between them - both women of energy, commitment and purposeful activity. Because it is that strength of purpose - linked to a profound wish to right injustice and advance the cause of peace and security, (including in our times finding the right balance between development and protection of the environment to achieve outcomes that are sustainable), that is the defining characteristic of activists such as yourselves - that draws people like Felicia, Felicity and you to join organisations like the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom - to want to work with others who are like-minded, to effect change.
I congratulate you on your commitment. I wish you continued energy and strength in pursuing your important goals and in particular - at this 2009 Triennial National Conference - the formulation of a national plan to implement UNSCR 1325.
It is now my pleasure to declare the conference open and to conclude by wishing you every success and satisfaction with your discussions.