    [House Hearing, 114 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

            WOMEN FIGHTING FOR PEACE: LESSONS FOR TODAY'S CONFLICTS

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 MARCH 22, 2016

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 114-154

                                   __________

            Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                                     ______

                          U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    99-552PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2016

    _________________________________________________________________________________________
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
    U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
    E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                     EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman
    CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey     ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
    ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida         BRAD SHERMAN, California
    DANA ROHRABACHER, California         GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
    STEVE CHABOT, Ohio                   ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
    JOE WILSON, South Carolina           GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
    MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas             THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
    TED POE, Texas                       BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
    MATT SALMON, Arizona                 KAREN BASS, California
    DARRELL E. ISSA, California          WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
    TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania             DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
    JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina          ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
    MO BROOKS, Alabama                   AMI BERA, California
    PAUL COOK, California                ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
    RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas            GRACE MENG, New York
    SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania            LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
    RON DeSANTIS, Florida                TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
    MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina         JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
    TED S. YOHO, Florida                 ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
    CURT CLAWSON, Florida                BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
    SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee
    REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin
    DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan
    LEE M. ZELDIN, New York
    DANIEL DONOVAN, New York

         Amy Porter, Chief of Staff      Thomas Sheehy, Staff Director

                   Jason Steinbaum, Democratic Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                   WITNESSES

    Her Excellency Monica McWilliams, professor of women's studies,
      Transitional Justice Institute, Ulster University..............     4
    Hassan Abbas, Ph.D., professor and chair, Regional and Analytical
      Studies Department, National Defense University................    11
    Ms. Jacqueline O'Neill, director, The Institute for Inclusive
      Security.......................................................    25

              LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

    Her Excellency Monica McWilliams: Prepared statement.............     7
    Hassan Abbas, Ph.D.: Prepared statement..........................    14
    Ms. Jacqueline O'Neill: Prepared statement.......................    27

                                    APPENDIX

    Hearing notice...................................................    52
    Hearing minutes..................................................    53
    The Honorable Edward R. Royce, a Representative in Congress from
      the State of California, and chairman, Committee on Foreign
      Affairs: Material submitted for the record.....................    55
    The Honorable Brad Sherman, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of California: Material submitted for the record for the
      Honorable Eliot L. Engel, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of New York..............................................    59

            WOMEN FIGHTING FOR PEACE: LESSONS FOR TODAY'S CONFLICTS

                                  ----------

                            TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 2016

                           House of Representatives,

                         Committee on Foreign Affairs,

                                Washington, DC.

        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:52 a.m., in
    room 2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward Royce
    (chairman of the committee) presiding.
        Chairman Royce. This hearing will come to order. Our
    thoughts and prayers are with those in Brussels in the
    aftermath of this morning's attack.
        Let me share with you that in terms of this hearing today,
    this is the third in our series of hearings to examine
    challenges facing women worldwide.
        This hearing will examine the effect of women's
    participation on peace negotiations and other efforts to reduce
    violence and to reduce the extremism. Unfortunately, we learned
    just this morning that Betty Bigombe will not be able to join
    us due to her employer's policy on congressional testimony. We
    are disappointed by this development, but nevertheless honored
    to be joined today by an excellent panel, including Monica
    McWilliams. Ms. McWilliams risked much to end conflict in
    Northern Ireland, blazing a trail for women peacemakers to
    come.
        This is a critically important discussion. From Syria to
    Afghanistan to Sudan, armed conflicts are becoming increasingly
    deadly and disruptive. Efforts to negotiate their end are more
    important than ever.
        And simply put, when women are at the negotiating table,
    success is more likely. Research shows that a peace agreement
    is more likely to be reached, and is 35 percent more likely to
    last at least 15 years when women are involved.
        When you consider that historically, over half of all peace
    agreements fail within the first 5 years--women's involvement
    becomes imperative. Think about the lives saved. Think about
    the economies maintained by a 35 percent decrease in repeated
    conflicts.
        Moreover, the way in which peace agreements are negotiated
    is changing. Instead of a traditional ceasefire and division of
    territory, talks now lay the groundwork for future governance
    structures and social institutions.
        Not surprisingly, when women are excluded from these
    essential discussions, their rights and their interests are
    overlooked--and are often undermined. Out of nearly 600 peace
    agreements signed between 1990 and 2009, only 1 percent
    referenced violence against women.
        This has major implications, not just for a country's women
    and girls, but also for its broader governance and stability.
    In societies where violence against women goes unpunished, we
    see more violence, crime, and conflict on the whole. Men who
    abuse women to get what they want tend to take the same
    violent, uncompromising approach toward others too. What
    follows is a lack of law and order--an absence of stability.
        Nations also benefit from women's participation in law
    enforcement, in security institutions, realizing better crime
    reporting and higher levels of trust within the communities
    they serve.
        And women are essential to confronting one of the greatest
    national security threats of our time, the spread of what the
    9/11 Commission called violent Islamic extremism. Extremist
    groups are obsessed with suppressing and controlling women. No
    one understands this better than women themselves.
        Yes, some women embrace extremist ideologies, but the vast
    majority vehemently oppose such severe limitations on their
    education, on their work, on their movement, and on their
    public life. Yet in places where we are most concerned about
    the spread of extremism--such as Pakistan--women are largely
    absent from the tables of power. This seriously limits access
    to, and information from, what is arguably the most motivated
    half of the population: A nation's women. They are a huge
    bulwark against extremism if they are empowered.
        U.S. foreign policy has recognized the benefits of women's
    inclusion in working toward sustainable peace. While Iraq and
    Afghanistan have been challenging, our efforts to push for
    women's participation have been helpful, and current work by
    the State Department and USAID to train and assist women's
    groups should be supported.
        Of course, the struggle for women's participation is
    certainly not just a foreign concept, and we as a nation are
    still making progress. One of the important things that men can
    do is stand with and be deserving partners of women in their
    fight for representation and equality around the globe.
        And of course listen. Women on my staff made the point that
    we need to do a better job of recruiting female experts for our
    hearing panels. And I look forward to the day when we have more
    women serving on this committee, Ambassador Wagner.
        Because as I hope today's hearings will demonstrate, the
    benefits of women's participation and the risks of their
    exclusion in all aspects of governance and peacemaking are too
    great to ignore.
        Let me turn if I could to our ranking member, Mr. Sherman
    from Los Angeles, for his opening statement.
        Mr. Sherman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
    important hearing. And as you point out, one in a series of
    three hearings focusing on women and foreign affairs, our
    others being on women living under ISIS, and women in
    technology. In general, in 20 years on this committee I have
    learned that when a country educates its women, when a country
    allows women to participate in all aspects of the society and
    economy, that country grows both economically, socially, and in
    its ability to maintain communal peace.
        I want to join you in condemning the terrorist attacks in
    Brussels and expressing the sympathy of all of us for the
    victims and for their family members. I look forward to
    learning why the World Bank will not allow its officials to
    testify before us, and without objection, I would like to enter
    Jan Schakowsky's statement into the record, a fine Member of
    Congress who does not serve on our committee.
        Chairman Royce. So ordered.
        Mr. Sherman. Before I touch on the importance of women in
    the peace process, I want to point out the United States has
    made, under President Obama, progress in opening the door to
    involving women in our national security process. We have of
    course a woman as national security advisor, we have had women
    as secretary of state, and now just last week, President Obama
    named General Lori Robinson to head the U.S. Northern Command,
    making her our nation's first combatant commander.
        It is not only important though that we ensure that women
    are included not just in the military and national security,
    but in the peace process and in society at large. In
    negotiations it is important to involve people who have a stake
    in those negotiations and women make up over 50 percent of the
    world of course. Research indicates that when you include women
    in negotiations their inclusion helps produce a more durable
    peace, according to CRS.
        One comprehensive review of over 80 peace agreements found
    that formal or informal inclusion of noncombatant civil society
    actors in peace negotiations decreased the odds of return to
    conflict by 64 percent. Conflict disproportionately affects
    women and children. We have all seen the pictures, conflict
    after conflict, of noncombatants and injuries they have
    suffered. For this reason it is essential that women be equal
    partners in the conflict prevention, in conflict resolution
    process. The review of the research provides abundant evidence
    that inclusion of women is vital when it comes to preventing
    and resolving conflicts.
        For example, women and--well, this of course comes from our
    witnesses' statements, but I think these few sentences deserve
    being heard in this room twice. Women are also the first to
    resist violent fundamentalism which restricts their rights and
    leads to increases in domestic violence before the conflict
    ensues. I think the chairman has spoke eloquently of this
    factor.
        Increasing the number of female officers improves responses
    to domestic and sexual violence as victims are more likely to
    report gender based violence to female officers. And finally,
    in negotiations, belligerents often perceive women as honest
    brokers. Women can bridge divides and reach out to communities
    where men might find it more difficult.
        The chairman pointed to Pakistan as one example of a place
    where we should work for women's inclusion. I will point out
    that Pakistan has had a woman as head of state, and I know that
    everyone in this room looks forward anxiously to the day when
    we have a woman President. I yield back.
        Chairman Royce. This morning we are pleased to be joined by
    distinguished panel. Her Excellency Monica McWilliams, Ms.
    McWilliams is a professor in the Transitional Justice Institute
    at Ulster University in Northern Ireland. During the Northern
    Ireland peace process, Ms. McWilliams held a variety of
    leadership positions, including being elected to serve in the
    Northern Ireland Legislative Assembly. Ms. McWilliams received
    the John F. Kennedy leadership and courage award for her role
    in the peace negotiations in Northern Ireland.
        Dr. Abbas is a professor of International Security Studies,
    and he is chair of the Department of Regional and Analytical
    Studies at the National Defense University. Prior to this
    position, Dr. Abbas held positions at Harvard University and
    Columbia University, among others.
        Ms. Jacqueline O'Neill is the director of the Institute for
    Inclusive Security, a DC-based organization that promotes the
    inclusion of women in peace and security. Ms. O'Neill oversees
    all the Institute's initiatives in Afghanistan, Burma,
    Pakistan, Sudan, and Syria, while also training and advising
    military and police serving in NATO and serving in the U.N. and
    the U.S. military, among others.
        And without objection, the witnesses' full prepared
    statements will be made part of the record, and members here
    will have 5 calendar days to submit any statements or any
    questions that you have for the witnesses or any extraneous
    material for the record.
        So Ms. McWilliams, if you would please summarize your
    remarks. Thank you.

      STATEMENT OF HER EXCELLENCY MONICA MCWILLIAMS, PROFESSOR OF
        WOMEN'S STUDIES, TRANSITIONAL JUSTICE INSTITUTE, ULSTER
                               UNIVERSITY

        Ms. McWilliams. Good morning and thank you, Chairman Royce,
    Ranking Member Engel, Congressmen Sherman, and members of the
    committee. On behalf of the panel, I too would like to express
    my sympathy to the injured and my condolences to the families
    of the bereaved in Brussels where my own husband is currently
    working and living.
        My testimony today is informed by my experience as a
    negotiator and a signatory to the 1998 Belfast Good Friday
    Agreement. I am currently tasked by the Northern Ireland
    Government to develop a strategy for the disbandment of all
    paramilitary groups. I am the first woman to be appointed to
    such a high level monitoring panel in the post-conflict phase.
        Northern Ireland's experience exemplifies the importance of
    having women involved at all stages of the peace process. At
    the commencement of our own peace talks, we women in civil
    society were very concerned by the scant attention that would
    be paid to the role that we had played during the previous 25
    years of the conflict. Women in Northern Ireland, like women
    everywhere, had been credited with holding the line between the
    different factions and had created hundreds of active local
    groups which every day crossed the political/sectarian divide.
        But following the ceasefires in the mid-'90s, we became
    aware that the government parties, ex-combatants, and
    constitutional parties were being invited to participate in the
    formal peace talks. Women would be largely excluded because
    they had been previously underrepresented in these parties.
        And realizing that the process was in danger of excluding
    us, we in civic society came together and decided to form a
    women's coalition that included women from Catholic and
    Protestant backgrounds, from Unionist and Nationalist
    backgrounds. In order to enter the peace talks, all groups had
    to form themselves into official political parties. The Women's
    Coalition had 6 weeks to do so, and we became an official
    elected party.
        We went around the country convincing the electorate that
    women deserved to have a seat, and we earned enough votes to
    become one of the ten parties. And on the day that I entered
    the room, I looked around and realized that we were the only
    women delegates present. And at that time, we joined 3 percent
    of women across the world that became signatories of a peace
    agreement. Because we challenged the process at the pre-
    negotiation stage, the peace talks opened up to allow us as
    outsiders to become official insiders.
        And that is the first lesson that we learned. Peace
    negotiations need to be designed to create an effective,
    inclusive process so that women's voices from civil society
    have an opportunity to be heard. Recently I have been involved
    in workshops from Syria who are participating currently in the
    talks in Geneva. After tremendous advocacy led by women in
    Syria in civil society, and by the commitment of the U.N.
    Special Envoy Staffan de Mistura, these talks have been opened
    up which is a sign of progress.
        The precedent has now been set at the Syrian talks for a
    civil society forum and a women's advisory board to be present
    throughout these talks. They will sit in a parallel forum to
    the main delegations of which there are several women from each
    side, and they will act as advisors throughout the process in
    Geneva. Drawing on my own experience with the Women's Coalition
    in Northern Ireland, I now prepare these Syrian women for the
    pushback that often accompanies women when they do come
    forward.
        In Northern Ireland, for instance, we had prepared
    ourselves for the various negotiation positions, but we were
    not prepared for the open hostility that we experienced from
    the other parties at the table which veered at times from
    downright misogyny to sectarianism. We attracted a great deal
    of media attention as a result, and slowly, slowly, the bad
    behavior and the male posturing began to change.
        So finding ways to create an inclusive process is key. We
    knew that once the ex-combatants agreed to abide by the
    principles of nonviolence for the talks, they too would be part
    of a different future. The Women's Coalition established back-
    channels, we found ways to measure those who remain nervous
    about the process, and we kept the process moving. When
    violence is the norm, peace is the mystery, and the progress of
    the talks at times depended very much on our back-channeling.
        The second issue is the substance, what you can put on the
    table. Had women been absent, issues relating to victims,
    children, young people, mixed housing, integrated education,
    community development, and the civic forum would all have not
    made their way into the final agreement. And these issues are
    issues for sustainable peace. There is also gender-specific
    issues because conflict does have a differential impact on men
    and women's lives, and those issues need to be put on the
    table.
        The final and third issue is how to implement and enforce
    what has been promised. Too often, what is agreed at the table
    is not delivered. For example, in Northern Ireland we had a
    quota of 50 percent for Catholics to be recruited to the new
    police service. That quota did not exist for gender because it
    was argued that it was going to be discriminatory.
        So the lesson that was learned was that aspirational
    proposals need to become institutional guarantees. They need to
    be accompanied by benchmarks and timetables. And when there is
    an absence of a critical mass of women in the legislature and
    in the bureaucracy, we need to have champions.
        So here I want to commend the role of the U.S. Government
    at that time and right up to the present, which has ensured us
    that those champions have been available from both the
    Democrats and Republicans. Female U.S. Consul staff, high-
    ranking U.S. women, became involved in our peace process and
    they acted as role models in what was and still is a
    predominantly male culture. And they showed us that vital
    voices of women's voices are crucial to all peace processes.
        Precarious progress has now been made and we move forward
    to a situation where gender perspectives have to be taken
    seriously and where policymakers see the inclusion of women as
    beneficial to the reforms that come with peace. Peace
    agreements are important because they address the past and they
    articulate the priorities for the future. Women need to be a
    central part of that and when they are mountains will move. My
    written testimony today includes several policy recommendations
    which I am happy to answer questions on. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. McWilliams follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                   ----------

    STATEMENT OF HASSAN ABBAS, PH.D., PROFESSOR AND CHAIR, REGIONAL
     AND ANALYTICAL STUDIES DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL DEFENSE UNIVERSITY

        Mr. Abbas. Chairman Royce, Ranking Member Engel,
    Congressman Sherman, and other respected members of this
    committee, it is a great privilege and honor to be here and to
    testify and to contribute to this process.
        Up front I would argue and give my principle belief on the
    subject of why, very similar to the comments by my colleague,
    why more women in law enforcement and the broader criminal
    justice system play a key role. It is often interpreted as an
    issue of inclusivity, about gender balance or gender equality.
    It is not merely that. It is much more powerful.
        It is, in my view as an academic and as a former police
    official in Pakistan with my 15 years of academic work in the
    United States and my free studies mostly in Afghanistan,
    Pakistan, Iraq: What I have learned is that it is an absolute
    necessity as a core element of the broader criminal justice
    system in policing to have more women, because it is directly
    linked to effective policing. More women are needed not because
    of inclusivity, they are needed because that is directly linked
    to effective and good policing.
        Now what is the evidence I have to suggest that? Because it
    sounds very good, and at times politically correct in certain
    context, in the West especially. I have two sets of evidence.
    One is very brief profiles that I will share with you of five
    women whose work at one level inspired me, but with whom I have
    worked firsthand. I saw their enthusiasm, I saw their clarity
    of mind, I saw their empathy, and I saw their contributions as
    security professionals both in terms of scholars and experts,
    and as police officers. And then I have a few items based on
    pure empirical academic research. The five profiles: And I am a
    proud American, but I am also, I love Pakistan. I have worked
    with, as a Pakistani, worked with Benazir Bhutto, the deceased
    Prime Minister. I just have two or three things. The first
    woman ever to become head of Muslims, any Muslim State. The
    clerics in Pakistan, the religious extremists had issued a
    fatwa, an edict saying a woman cannot be head of the State. The
    people of Pakistan voted against that and elected her.
        Then she was just cornered by the Pakistani military
    establishment, who thought she is a security threat. That was
    the headline, that she is a security threat. She cannot even go
    close to the nuclear installations. What she did in her first 6
    months, she invited the Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi; and
    signed, negotiated a deal saying both countries will commit not
    to attack each other's nuclear installations--a huge deal.
        Finally, I will jump to her final days. And I remember I
    met her here. When she went back, and I am personal witness to
    this, she was very clear that she was walking into a death
    knell. She thought she would stand up to extremists, and she
    lost her life. She gave her life. The message, from my point of
    view, is that she showed, more than any man in South Asia or
    the Middle East, she showed that standing up to extremism
    matters.
        My second example, my mentor Jessica Stern, who I remember
    sitting in her class, actually, on the eve of 9/11. Those were
    my first few days in the U.S. She was the professor of security
    studies and terrorism. And what I have seen in her work, she
    went to Pakistan among other countries, interviewed religious
    extremists. The head of Lashkar-e-Taiba at that time, Hafiz
    Saeed, she mentions his story in her book, ``Why Religious
    Militants Kill.'' By her work she created a new precedent as a
    security expert, scholar, and that contributed significantly
    for both men and women.
        My third example is a Pakistani police officer, Maria
    Taimur, who opted--she was a police officer in Pakistan--she
    opted not to go for a desk job; she will go and take up a job
    as an operational commander.
        My fourth example, a very important one, I am proud to
    mention one of my students, a U.S. Army colonel, Colonel Martha
    Foss. She served as an advisor and as a trainer for Afghan
    women judges. I asked her 2 or 3 years ago in my class amongst
    many students, what are your hopes and expectations when, as a
    U.S. ``AFPAK Hand'' at my College of International Security
    Affairs, when you go back after the master's degree, what are
    your hopes and expectations? She said something which is still
    entrenched in my mind. She said, sir, I am going back because I
    saw hope in the eyes of the women judges that I trained. I am
    going back for them.
        My final example, Jane Townsley, a British police officer
    who as president of the International Association of Women
    Police created new partnerships, empowered women to come
    together from all over the world, and created new precedents.
        So these five stories I will share because, one, I knew all
    of these five and worked with them, greatly learned from them
    and then, now, secondly, builds to my just five sentences on
    what the empirical studies tell me. These may be my personal
    ideas.
        Five things empirical studies tell us: Number one, whenever
    there are more women in police they de-escalate violent
    situations. Whenever there are more women in police, and these
    are experiences from actual studies from the United States,
    that there are less complaints. When there are more women,
    there are less complaints about excessive use of force by
    police. Then, crime: This is from European Union countries,
    whenever there are more women in police, there are increased
    cases of crime reporting, especially about women.
        Last but not least, CVE, countering violent extremism and
    counterterrorism. And if I may quote from one of the major
    studies, it says clearly that wherever there are more women,
    the designing and the mechanisms by which we approach
    extremism, these designs and mechanisms improve.
        So I will conclude with this. Thank you for--I am a little
    over time, but my final sentence is, what can we do based on
    these two sets of things? I would say, number one, first and
    foremost, we should think about involving more women in
    advisory positions. Whenever we have these missions across in
    fundings, there have to be more women involved. Secondly, there
    has to be more funding to look at how the academic and the
    policy worlds, investment in them to see how more women in
    police has a direct impact on better policing. And last but not
    the least, better recognition of the works done by female
    leaders such as Benazir, such as the President of Kosovo who
    was a police officer, and like my colleague here, who have done
    tremendous things for the rule of law, for empowering women,
    but most importantly for justice. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Abbas follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  ----------

        Chairman Royce. Ms. O'Neill, if you would hit that red
    button. Thank you.

     STATEMENT OF MS. JACQUELINE O'NEILL, DIRECTOR, THE INSTITUTE
                         FOR INCLUSIVE SECURITY

        Ms. O'Neill. Chairman Royce, you have put a crucial topic
    squarely on the agenda of one of the prominent committees in
    Congress. Thanks to you, Ranking Member Engel, Mr. Sherman, and
    all members. For more than 15 years at the Institute for
    Inclusive Security, led by Ambassador Swanee Hunt, and
    thousands of members of our global Women Waging Peace Network,
    we have increased the inclusion of women in peace and security
    processes.
        We know very well that today's hearing topic has always
    been rich with anecdotes. We hear about centuries-long
    traditions of women mediating between warring clans in
    Afghanistan and Somalia. We listen to pioneers like Monica, and
    Betty Bigombe from Uganda, whose testimony is available online
    and who literally walked into the jungle amidst a brutal civil
    war to sit down face to face with Joseph Kony and convinced the
    LRA to sit down around the table with the Ugandan Government
    for the first time ever.
        Just a few months ago, we even heard a story from Afghan
    women describing watching the very subtle recruitment of young
    men into violent extremist groups at weddings. When they went
    to report this to a government minister, he laughed at them
    condescendingly and said, the militants we deal with are far
    too sophisticated to recruit at weddings. A month later, those
    same young men killed 32 men and women on a bus. There are
    thousands of stories just like these. Yet, for decades as we
    have asserted that women play vital roles in ending war and
    building peace, we have been told, prove it. Now we can. There
    is a robust body of data to make the case.
        So let's review three things we know. One, we know that
    woman get warring parties to the negotiations and they help
    them reach agreements that endure. A new study looked at 40
    peace processes in 35 countries and found that when women's
    groups had influence, an agreement was reached 98 percent of
    the time. Another study showed that a peace agreement is 35
    percent more likely to last at least 15 years if women
    participate in its creation. Why is that?
        Studies document that women expand the conversation beyond
    where borders are drawn or who gets to control which ministry.
    They introduce priorities that lay a foundation for a stronger
    state, like abuses of police power or political exclusion.
        Two, we know that the ways that war is waged and peace is
    built are changing fast and that women are addressing
    challenges posed by non-state actors like terrorist groups.
    They are mediating conflicts at local levels, for example. It
    may sound hard to believe, but women in ISIS-controlled areas
    in Syria have been negotiating to reopen schools and keep them
    running. Women are also on the front lines of violent
    extremism, not only as mothers as we so often hear, but also as
    fighters, as community leaders, and as members of security
    forces.
        Three, we know that engaging women in decision making is
    not something that we do for women. We do it for all of us.
    States that respect and engage women are less likely to traffic
    in drugs, weapons, and people, to create or harbor terrorists,
    to enable criminal networks, to generate refugees. Ultimately,
    they are also less likely to need U.S. boots on the ground.
        It is clear that women's inclusion is both a rights agenda
    and a national security imperative. In short, it is about
    making the money we spend abroad more effective and ultimately
    needing to spend less of it. Yet, perplexingly, despite knowing
    all of this, the practice of meaningfully including women is
    wildly inconsistent.
        So what can Congress do? My written testimony proposes five
    actions, but I will highlight just a few. First, pass the
    bipartisan Women, Peace, and Security Act to codify the U.S.
    National Action Plan on Women, Peace, and Security. The plan is
    a strategy to integrate women's inclusion in all aspects of
    defense, diplomacy, and development. More work remains, but it
    has prompted meaningful change. Codifying the plan into law
    will help ensure that women's inclusion is a focus no matter
    who sits in the White House. It will enable Congress to
    exercise its oversight role and send a clear signal that this
    is a foreign policy priority.
        Second, Congress can make small investments that pay big
    dividends. For example, last year for the first time, Congress
    ensured dedicated funding for the recruitment, retention, and
    professionalization of women in the Pakistani police force.
    Women constitute about 1 percent of those police forces and
    their absence has a tremendous negative impact on the ability
    to stabilize communities and counter violent extremism.
        This year we hope Congress will maintain its support and
    dedicate at least $5 million more for these efforts as was
    specified in the Senate spending bill last year. To put this in
    perspective, this is a tiny, minuscule fraction of overall U.S.
    spending on terrorism, with significant and disproportionate
    results.
        Third, ask targeted questions at every hearing,
    particularly of nominees. Imagine if a potential appointee was
    asked how the principles of the U.S. National Action Plan are
    reflected in his or her priorities. Even the fear of simply
    being caught without an answer would prompt meaningful
    reflection.
        And fourth, as the chairman and his staff apparently
    referred to earlier, when holding hearings related to
    international crises, peace, stability, and security
    assistance, be sure to invite a significant number of female
    experts. Brookings did a study last year looking at the 45
    congressional hearings on the Iran deal over 1 year. Out of 140
    named witnesses, only six were female. And as one creative
    pundit pointed out, that demographic breakdown is strikingly
    similar to that of Iran's own Parliament.
        The evidence could not be clearer. When women are included
    societies are more stable. We can't afford for this to be an
    afterthought. As a member of our network from Afghanistan
    recently said, the world talks about including women; the
    extremists are already doing it. By convening this hearing,
    Congress sent a powerful signal of bipartisan support to the
    millions of the women around the world who are seeking a voice
    and a role. The legislative action that I hope will follow
    would be a meaningful declaration that their work is valued and
    that the U.S. Congress stands behind them. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. O'Neill follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  ----------

        Chairman Royce. Thank you, Ms. O'Neill. The first question
    I would ask, in our first hearing in this series we learned
    about ISIS' horrific use of sexual violence to devastate
    families, to devastate communities, but the Assad regime's, the
    prisons, are notorious also for the unbelievable level of rape
    and torture. We had Caesar, the military photographer who
    documented some of this, testify here. So you have thousands
    and thousands of Syrian women who have been imprisoned in those
    jails, in Assad's jails, many simply for organizing aid
    deliveries or rescue operations that defied Assad's blockades.
        So Ms. McWilliams, you have been helping to train Syrian
    women who are now participating in this latest round of the
    U.N. brokered talks. In a traditional society like Syria where
    even the suspicion of rape can break families apart, can you
    speak a little about the importance of women's inclusion to
    address the long term effects of widespread sexual violence in
    conflict?
        Ms. McWilliams. Thank you very much, Chairman. And let me
    give you a picture of what it was like last month when I was
    with the women and word came from Riyadh that there may be some
    detainees going to be released as a confidence building measure
    in order to get the talks started.
        And so we asked the women to sit down and consider which
    women would be on a list if they were to be released, and
    therein lay the first problem. There was a documented list and
    a non-documented list. And the women started to argue about
    whether they could switch some of the women who were
    undocumented because their parents had come to the women and
    said to them, we do not want anyone to know that our daughters
    are inside Assad's prisons because when they get out this will
    be an issue of their honor.
        And so the women had to carefully negotiate that night
    which women would go on the list and be sent back as a
    confidence building measure before the talks would start that a
    number of them would be released, both women and children. And
    that for me coming from a different culture was a real lesson.
        And so the issue of sexual violence is horrendous. There
    were women in the room who had experienced sexual assaults and
    who had been raped in all male prisons, and who couldn't speak.
    And they also said other women and got up and expressed their
    solidarity toward them and apologized to them and said, we are
    so sorry that you were left alone, but again we and the
    community were told not to single you out in case this word
    came out that you were there.
        So you can see the difficulties, Chairman. And this is what
    I meant when I was giving my testimony about the differential
    impact of conflict on men and women's lives.
        The other issues that we are facing are in the refugee
    camps. The women were telling us that in some of these camps
    ISIS were trying to take the camps over. They were incredibly
    courageous, incredibly resilient, and they were refusing to let
    that happen. There were some concerns about the Sharia courts
    being used to make judgments on very young girls who they knew
    to be raped and so that was also an issue.
        But what they are doing, and I think it is incredibly
    important, and what we did too, was they are documenting all of
    this so that these human rights violations will be on the
    record. There should be no impunity for such incredible sexual
    violations and they are making sure that one day if
    transitional justice comes about that these issues will get the
    priority, which in the past, as you know in the Second World
    War they did not.
        Chairman Royce. Yes. Ms. O'Neill, although Ms. Bigombe was
    not able to join us today, I know you are familiar with her
    very successful work with Ugandan women to encourage a large
    number of defections from the Lord's Resistance Army where
    Joseph Kony had captured children, the girls were concubines,
    the boys were child soldiers for him and his lieutenants.
        I find this kind of community outreach very compelling and
    potentially very relevant to other conflicts in which it is
    very clear that we need to be smarter about countering this
    kind of extremist recruitment, for example, al Qaeda or ISIS in
    particular, or Daesh. Can you speak a little more about what
    these kinds of initiatives mean in terms of the untapped
    potential for women in many places where we are trying to
    counteract this terrorist recruitment that is underway?
        And I would afterwards ask Mr. Abbas for any insights, any
    comments he might have as well.
        Ms. O'Neill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You referenced Betty
    Bigombe's work. Briefly to describe, for example, one of the
    things that she did, she organized groups of women to write
    letters to LRA combatants, to LRA soldiers, explaining what
    would happen to them, what services would be available to them,
    what programs they could access were they to voluntarily
    demobilize, come out of the bush and rejoin their communities.
    They handwrote these letters and they had their female members,
    wives, friends deliver them directly.
        So Betty organized a group of other women to do this. They
    did so in a way that appeared non-threatening, non-political,
    no one assumed that they were doing anything scary because they
    were a group of women organizing. They created these letters,
    delivered them, and as a result, 2,000 members of the LRA
    voluntarily demobilized. Can you imagine the cost savings and
    the savings in human lives from that not being a military
    action or a forced demobilization? And that is exactly the type
    of creative solution that women around the world are using.
        Women that we speak with and work with around the world
    talk about the importance of having women in all aspects of
    decision making regarding government and other programs aimed
    at countering violent extremism so that women are not viewed
    solely as victims who need protection or the provision of
    services from the state, but who are also providers of services
    and who have agency in their own, noting to us that one of the
    ways that some women are actually attracted to these violent
    extremist movements by false promises of agency, of being a
    lioness in some senses, of being targeted for the opportunity
    to make a change or a difference, and so the importance of
    providing an alternative narrative for hope for a role in
    determining their country's future, et cetera.
        And the more women you have engaged in the upstream program
    design and upstream thinking, including in security forces, the
    more women you will have are going to be affected and actually,
    authentically, reached by these outreach efforts. Thank you.
        Chairman Royce. Thank you. Mr. Abbas.
        Mr. Abbas. Sir, as reference to both the points, I would
    substantiate that with some examples, especially from the case
    of Pakistan and also from Iraq. But in the case of Pakistan,
    for instance, we know that when in one case Swat, Swat where
    the militants had taken what, around 2009, if you remember, we
    knew that they were about 100 miles, one hard drive from
    Islamabad.
        And that whole episode of the rise of extremism and
    militancy was studied, and we came to know that some of the
    militants in that area, Fazlullah, who is now head of the
    Tehrik-I-Taliban Pakistan, or Pakistani Taliban, he was
    specifically targeting women because he was using his radio
    transmissions during the daytime when he knew full well that
    men are mostly out in the farms or in the field and that he
    would inspire somehow women who were at home who were listening
    to the radio. It took, I mean, the research came out 3 years
    later because no one was--and there was a group of women who
    were actually involved in finding that out.
        So that substantiates the point that even when it, in these
    cases where extremists and terrorists and radicals try to use
    all channels available, somehow in the case of South Asia, if
    it is women whether they were human rights activists or whether
    they were from the law enforcement or security agencies--
    security agencies when I am saying, I am thinking again because
    there are so few, but those who are in the civil society.
        Civil society in Pakistan and Iraq has played an important
    role also. An example, recently we had a young woman from Iraq,
    actually, who came to the College of International Security
    Affairs at NDU and spoke about how her father was a Shia and
    mother was a Sunni, and how she was working in Iraq now to
    bring both the sectarian groups together.
        So there is a lot of evidence. It is an issue of empowering
    them. And if I make this quote in brief, one of my colleagues,
    a British police officer who I have quoted in statement in
    length, she had said we often forget that we talk about
    equipping them and we talk about empowering them, but it is
    also about at the end of the day enabling them. And that
    enabling role is mostly in the hands of men, whether it is
    about toward the extremism or the other side. So we have to
    focus on the enabling part. Thank you.
        Chairman Royce. Well, and girls like Malala. Thank you, Dr.
    Abbas. We go now to Mr. Sherman, the ranking member.
        Mr. Sherman. Thank you. Ms. O'Neill, what role have women
    played in the current Colombia negotiations and what difference
    does it make?
        Ms. O'Neill. Thank you. So women have played roles on all
    sides of the conflict in Colombia for decades. One of the least
    known aspects of the current round of negotiations is that
    women were very instrumental in getting the parties to the
    talks. So in the pre-talks phases we pay a lot of attention to
    the talks that are largely deemed right now as successful, we
    hope there will be a ceasefire announced soon, women, to use an
    unfortunate metaphor, set the table, for those talks to get
    parties there and have kept them there for some time. So women
    have been members of both negotiating delegations, as well as
    women in civil society have played a broad range of very
    important roles surrounding the talks.
        So, women in civil society advocated for those present at
    the talks, all of the negotiators, to hear directly from
    victims of the conflict. And to our knowledge this is the first
    time that any round of negotiations has heard testimony where
    both sides of the talks heard directly from those most affected
    by the war about their experiences and about their hopes. It
    was women in civil society who are instrumental in providing
    and ensuring the voices of victims were directly spoken and
    heard by the negotiators.
        They also formed what is called the Gender Subcommission,
    again the first commission of its type at any negotiation to
    take all of the topics on the table and address and examine
    whether or not there is a different impact for men and women.
    And that is important for all of the reasons that Betty and
    Hassan mentioned, and also for an additional reason which is
    that the FARC in Colombia is composed of about 40 percent
    women.
        So the Colombian military, for example, has about 1
    percent, the FARC has about 40 percent women. So when we are
    talking about the next stage of demobilizing paramilitaries and
    bringing them back into communities, typical programs of
    reintegration we see time and again around the world discount
    the fact that there are women present and they do things like
    train them to be hairdressers or seamstresses. And we are
    talking about women that have commanded platoons and
    battalions, fought in the jungle and carried weapons.
        And so women around those tables, women designing those
    programs directly are going to know exactly what it is going to
    take to get women out of the FARC and back into communities in
    a meaningful way. So in conclusion, their response and their
    impact has been substantial.
        Mr. Sherman. Thank you. Dr. Abbas, I have been trying to
    understand Pakistan for 20 years. You describe a Pakistan that
    one time elected Benazir Bhutto and ignored or discounted the
    fatwa against her gender, and of course there are a lot of
    people who voted against her for reasons that had nothing to do
    with her gender.
        Now I see a Pakistan in which girls are attacked for going
    to school, those who try to punish their attackers are
    attacked, and those who attack are glorified. Has Pakistan
    changed or have these very different views on the role of women
    been there and had substantial support for decades?
        Mr. Abbas. Thank you very much for that question. I will be
    candid. I saw Pakistan drifting toward extremism in a very step
    by step fashion, from the Afghan jihad years onwards, and I
    will not go into that history. You know that better than me.
        But that changed Pakistani dynamics. When militants from
    30, actually 40 different countries, exactly the way it is
    happening with ISIS today, when those militants from all across
    the world came in, Pakistan housed them. And thinking they
    would use them in the Afghan jihad, when the U.S. was on board,
    Saudi Arabia was funding, everyone, and but they forgot the
    Pakistani security establishment, especially that those people
    who were performing those roles had an internal agenda as well,
    which was a radical, extremist, non-democratic, non-pluralist
    Pakistan. And those forces, who for instance all the religious
    parties together could never win more than 8 or 9 percent of
    the vote ever, but then there was one stage on which they
    became very powerful.
        I would argue one of the reasons why that happened, and
    this is honestly and frankly not very much discussed in, I
    would say, U.S. policy circles, the idea of authoritarianism
    and military dictatorships, which, if I may take liberty,
    Musharraf, General Musharraf, I worked with him, great man. His
    heart was in the right place. But the damage that his
    authoritarianism did to Pakistan was also irreparable.
        So it is Pakistan's involvement in conflicts, Pakistan's
    entrenched rivalry with India, in which they think anyone who
    is fighting in India is doing a freedom fight. And how all
    those people have radicalized Pakistan. And then, last but not
    least, these authoritarianism issues and no investment in
    education. And when I say ``no,'' it is less than 1 percent
    investment.
        So with all the carryover bill, and carryover Burman bill
    contributions, which I think was one of the best things we did,
    the trend toward extremism in Pakistan has been growing faster
    than what we were from outside investing or what the Pakistani
    progressive elements were doing. The progressive elements were
    sidelined because Pakistan was derailed from democracy. I think
    these are the three very critical factors. With the
    continuation of democracy, people like Benazir will become
    powerful.
        Mr. Sherman. I will try to sneak in one more question. We
    have Voice of America, we have Public Diplomacy, is there
    anything we should do to more effectively reach women? I will
    ask Ms. McWilliams and Ms. O'Neill.
        Ms. McWilliams. Well, you have just heard from the panel
    about disarmament and demobilization. The third piece of that
    is reintegration. And I am now specifically involved in trying
    to reintegrate ex-paramilitaries, ex-combatants as partners to
    our peace process.
        But too often, and you have just asked earlier about
    Uganda, what I saw in Gulu in front of me was that when the
    combatants and the child soldiers came back, they were the ones
    who got the reparations and the women got nothing. And they
    were the mothers of the children who had been taken away as
    concubines. And it was shocking for me to watch this.
        And I learned a lesson that these women are survivors and
    not just victims. They are in my own process agents of change.
    But too often they are bypassed. After peace agreements are
    reached, the reintegration focuses entirely on the man and not
    on the women.
        So if the Voice of America and Diplomacy and the United
    States was to continue to focus on transition from conflict to
    peace, it would be to put resources and investment and
    intention on the women in those post-conflict processes and not
    to exclude them and leave them out in the cold.
        Chairman Royce. Thank you. Mr. DeSantis.
        Mr. DeSantis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. O'Neill, in some
    of these societies where women haven't been afforded
    opportunities to serve in high positions of government, how do
    you convince some of the negotiation organizers that they have
    something to offer? Are there alternative qualifications that
    can be stressed and how do we make sure that those voices can
    be heard?
        Ms. O'Neill. Thank you. First thing is that I try not to
    convince them, I let the women themselves convince them. And
    there is never a shortage of women who will speak up for their
    own interests and their own desire to have a decision or a say
    in the decisions that affect their own lives. So the most
    important resource that we all have available is the women
    within countries affected by war who are at the front lines
    already calling for their change, and our objective is to
    amplify their voices.
        You asked about alternative qualifications and that is an
    interesting question because, first of all, many women
    themselves don't recognize the qualifications that they have to
    be part of those conversations. So they are connected to their
    communities. They have a unique ability to bridge divides
    between warring groups and disparate parties. They have an
    ability to reach compromise and consensus. They are constantly
    negotiating and seeking middle ground.
        These are the skills and the talents and the qualifications
    that we need most around negotiating tables, whereas we have a
    system right now that tends to reward those only who took up
    arms, so those who did the very challenging work during a war
    and will do the challenging work of rebuilding it afterwards
    are perceived as not having the right qualifications. So what
    can we do to get them there is, number one, recognize that and
    ask the women in every country in which we are working how we
    can best support them.
        And also to Mr. Sherman's earlier question, what can we do,
    what voice, how can we use this voice? Many people look to what
    the United States says diplomatically for guidance of what is
    important or what are priorities, and when the U.S. is speaking
    about it, when it adopts a national action plan, when it
    codifies it into law, the U.S. is making a clear statement that
    women's inclusion is not an add-on or an afterthought, but that
    we see it as core to actually achieving all of the rest of our
    foreign policy objectives and that it is not something that can
    be culturally discarded or left in the hands of only a few
    people, but it is something that matters to us.
        So in all of our strategic dialogues, Pakistan-U.S.
    strategic dialogue, pre-negotiations with the Taliban in
    Afghanistan, anywhere else we have significant high-level
    negotiations or contact, our most senior diplomats, and not
    just women but men too, should be raising this issue and
    emphasizing to all of our partners the importance of women's
    voice for the exact purpose of their being able to enhance the
    sustainability of any agreement that is reached.
        Mr. DeSantis. Thank you. Ms. McWilliams, can you tell us a
    little about your experience in Northern Ireland, was what you
    were doing effectively implemented after the Good Friday
    Agreement was reached?
        Ms. McWilliams. Well, the women were credited in Northern
    Ireland at the immediate stage post the agreement being signed
    of going to the people in a referendum. And my recollection in
    memory is it was the women who took to the streets. We had got
    these buses and we put our kids on the buses, and we went
    around the country to every village and we knocked on doors and
    we begged people to say yes for the future.
        And when I looked around I wondered, where are all the
    political parties who should be out doing the same job as what
    we are doing? And of course the political parties were back in
    their offices getting ready for the election, and it was women
    who were out on the streets and villages every day for 6 weeks.
    And we did get to yes.
        And so that is always the role that people expect of women
    is to be the people behind the scenes doing the work on the
    streets and in the villages. But I was disappointed after our
    agreement. I am still one of those who think our process
    worked, and thank God it has all these years later, but it was
    the women who went backwards.
        Conflict does an amazing thing to me as a woman. I was an
    ordinary woman who fell into extraordinary times and was asked
    to do extraordinary things that I never thought in my life I
    would be asked to do, and we did it. And after the agreement
    was over, like women everywhere in the world we were told,
    okay, now we have settled the government arrangements, we have
    got all of these, you can go back to what you were doing
    before. And we lost out.
        And that is why in answer to Congressman Sherman's earlier
    question about diplomacy. That is where we needed the United
    States and the champions from the United States to continue to
    say these clauses were also in the agreement about the role of
    women in political participation. Where is the timetable for
    that? You were able to release all of the political prisoners 2
    years after the agreement was signed, how come you couldn't
    increase the role of women in political life? A much easier
    thing to do you would think than releasing people from jail. It
    has still not been implemented.
        So that is where for me the U.S. diplomats came in and we
    had U.S. special envoys. From the Republican side we had Paula
    Dobriansky, and earlier the first lady came and pushed all the
    time, as did the first Ambassador under President Obama,
    Melanne Verveer as the Ambassador for Global Affairs. And these
    roles are incredibly important.
        And the last thing I would say on this is I learned so much
    from my experience that I am now giving this experience to
    others who are in the same process as the women in Colombia and
    the women in Syria and anywhere else, because this also was
    something America did for us. NGOs enabled us to go and speak
    to women in other transitions, and the people who know best
    about those experiences are the women who have been through it
    themselves, like me.
        And so again, the United States was incredibly important
    because we didn't have the resources, we didn't have the
    finances, and that is where that role was important and still
    remains important where we can exchange our lessons from our
    own conflicts with women all over the world.
        Mr. DeSantis. Well, thank you for coming. I really
    appreciated your testimony, and I yield back.
        Chairman Royce. Thank you. Mr. Connolly.
        Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the
    panel for a fascinating set of conversations. It is interesting
    to note, Ms. McWilliams, on your last point that the last three
    Presidents, including the current President, have each chosen a
    woman to be secretary of state, our number one diplomat, who
    have traveled all over the world and at the U.N. in conflict
    situations, in negotiating in diplomatic situations.
        It would be interesting to think back on that at some
    point, did that serve as a change agent? What changed, if
    anything, by having a female face, an American female face in
    front of lots of different cultures that would find that
    difficult to accept in their own cultural milieu?
        Ms. McWilliams. Well, let me tell you how important it was,
    and I have met all three secretaries of state. All three of
    them at different stages, actually, have been in Northern
    Ireland. For such a small country we attracted a great deal of
    attention----
        Mr. Connolly. I have been there myself.
        Ms. McWilliams [continuing]. Good--and for which we are
    very grateful. But it did make a difference. When we went to
    the peace table, Congressman, we were told the only women that
    should be at that table are the women who are going to polish
    the table. We were told to go home and breed for the country.
    We were insulted. We started an insult of the week notice board
    and we hung it outside our office, and we put the person who
    was making the insults' name on the door or on the board, and
    the insult, and eventually it stopped.
        But it definitely stopped when women from the United States
    in these high-ranking positions came into the country and said
    this behavior is not acceptable. They didn't, in diplomacy,
    actually call it that, but they told us that they would
    encourage us to challenge it, they are behind us, they would
    stand in solidarity with us.
        And I now hear from some of those high-ranking women that
    they have saved women's lives in the countries that they have
    been in. When we get a photograph standing next to them,
    suddenly we are elevated into a position that we never were
    before, and that is so important.
        Mr. Connolly. Well, good god, Ms. McWilliams, imagine if we
    actually elected one a President. But that is a different
    thought.
        Dr. Abbas and Ms. O'Neill, I am really struck by your
    testimony because--I wonder if you would address this. I am
    struck with the fact that the cultural barriers in some places
    are so enormous to the point where a figure we would point to,
    a feminist, a self-confident, accomplished professional woman
    here, is actually seen as in very disparaging terms through a
    cultural filter in some other places, and all kinds of Western
    stereotypes imagined about who this person is and as a
    justification for, frankly, putting her or women in that
    cultural milieu in their place.
        And here is my question to you both. How do we overcome
    that without ethnocentrism on our own part? We make value
    judgments about what we consider subjugation, the non-
    empowerment, but in a different cultural setting that is the
    proper role. And how do we address this to further the
    empowerment of women and to finally take advantage of the
    productivity of half of humanity?
        Ms. O'Neill. Thank you. First, we have to be extremely
    careful who we allow to define culture. So do we let the
    Taliban in the year 2000 define culture? Do we let the Afghan
    women who have fought so very hard on their own merit for the
    last 16 years to define culture? We have to look inside the
    culture at the various forces within it. And I think one of the
    most dangerous things that we can do is take a surface look at
    culture, believe we understand it, and then end up supporting
    really those who have a vested interest in preserving the
    culture or more realistically preserving power.
        Then what we have to do is ask women within those
    communities and that has to be an authentic conversation, it
    can't be a 45-minute meeting one time only, but to ask them how
    to support them. So in my perspective, culture informs tactics,
    it doesn't inform our fundamental values. So if we believe that
    it is a value, equal treatment is a value, an opportunity that
    women have a right to do that and that women's presence is
    actually an investment on our part, then it is upon us to ask
    how we can do that; how we can work with those women in a way
    that makes the most sense.
        And to keep in mind that the entire, this whole issue is
    not something that originated in the West. Even at the United
    Nations, the topic was first brought up by countries from the
    global south, from Rwanda, from Bosnia, women who had lived in
    the war, who had these vital experiences of being on the front
    lines of stopping the conflict, of building communities,
    putting them back together, et cetera, and then they are the
    very ones who sometimes hear, often from Western policymakers
    that it is against your culture for you to be around this
    table.
        So we have to listen to the women saying allow us to define
    our own culture, our own changing culture, to recognize that
    war changes culture, and to allow us to assume the role that we
    want to play for ourselves. I don't want to diminish the
    importance of doing this carefully and with great respect, but
    to simply say that it is culturally inappropriate or it is
    culturally fine for certain practices to happen in some place
    versus another, when in fact it is against what we
    fundamentally stand for and value and that we know is to be
    efficient, isn't an effective argument.
        Mr. Abbas. Congressman, I would mention three things that
    first come to my mind, and the examples are in one case
    beginning from Pakistan. For instance, there is in many--when I
    say Pakistan, I mean it to be South Asian states and many
    Middle Eastern states. It is the common feature of their
    cultural notions that women are not seen in roles of national
    security or as police officers or as even intelligence
    officers, or who are coming out defending their nations,
    defending their societies.
        And that role, two or three examples tell us, can change
    very quickly. Indonesia: In Indonesia what they did very
    smartly was they started appointing women as judges of what
    they call Islamic courts, and that had a huge impact. More
    women started coming out, the scene started to change. Turkey
    did the same thing in their policing sector.
        In the case of Pakistan, before Benazir Bhutto, I think
    there were hardly any women who you could mention who were
    playing any important role, but now whether it was an
    Ambassador from Pakistan, Sherry Rahman, who is Ambassador to
    U.S., Maleeha Lodhi, who is currently Pakistani Ambassador to
    the U.N., and so many experts from the human rights side. On
    security, security expertise has been developed because that
    one agent of change inspired and motivated so many others. And
    so anything we can do to support that. For instance, my
    question is one, when the counterterrorism money was given to
    Pakistan and other countries that was somehow always tilted
    toward the very, very military side of things. We never talked
    that law enforcement; but the criminal justice system can
    actually help defeat extremism or militancy. Then when we
    started thinking about it and started giving money to the law
    enforcement forces, women's issues or their representation was
    never the priority it is now becoming, thanks to all of you.
        But one more point very briefly I want to touch upon and
    that is, I say it as a proud Muslim, but in Middle East and
    South Asia, many Muslim countries, something has gone terribly
    wrong with the religious education spectrum. And even though in
    Muslim history I can mention so many women, there is one, just
    one I will mention, because I think and I heard from Benazir
    Bhutto that she was inspired by that Muslim figure. Although if
    I today do a survey and ask in the Middle East--with all the
    due respect, I have great friends there, I go there all the
    time--if I ask them about any historical Muslim figure who had
    done or played a prominent role, probably they will come up
    with very few names.
        One name, Zaynab. Zaynab was a granddaughter of the
    prophet, but she had taken a stand against Yazid. Yazid was a
    caliph, a Muslim caliph of 7th century. She challenged him
    against his oppression, singlehandedly her whole family, this
    is related to Karbala, where Husayn was killed and buried. That
    is why all the people go to those shrines.
        But the message of Karbala Husayn or that biggest tragedy
    was not propagated through men, it was done through a woman
    named Zaynab. And if I ask today most Muslims about it, the
    tragedy is, yes, the Sufis would know, the Shias would know,
    most Muslims would not be able to tell me this prime example of
    leadership. So something has gone wrong in those cultural
    religious issues as well.
        Mr. Connolly. I must thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Royce. Thank you. The gentleman's time has
    expired. Without objection, would please to recognize
    Congresswoman Ann Wagner.
        Ms. Wagner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the committee,
    also, for their focus on women fighting for peace, including
    the ranking member. It is good to be with you, Mr. Sherman,
    also.
        I thank the chairman for his kind invitation. I had the
    great privilege of being a woman diplomat as a former United
    States Ambassador. I am committee-crashing from the Foreign
    Services Committee at the moment, but I have done that on
    several occasions with the Committee on Foreign Affairs. And I
    want to thank all of you for being here today to discuss what
    is proving to be a very difficult process, I believe, in Syria,
    and I would like to delve into that a little bit more.
        In preparing for today's hearing, I was struck by the
    research and how it demonstrates that the inclusion of these
    noncombatant civil society actors in peace negotiations--
    specifically today we are speaking about women--how it
    decreases the odds of a return to conflict by I believe the
    number that was quoted was 64 percent.
        I have to say as a former woman diplomat, it is an
    imperative that we be at the table on, I believe, all issues of
    the foreign policy peace process. It is imperative in terms of
    the success of the negotiations, but perhaps even more
    important and duly noted here today as a pre-talk process that
    we play, but most importantly selling the policy and the peace
    back at home. That I think is a very important thing for us to
    do.
        And Ms. O'Neill, in your testimony you talked about some of
    the indicators, some of the reasons why women are so successful
    in these kinds of negotiations. And I would submit here for the
    record that we are successful because we do it because we don't
    care who gets the credit at the end of the day. We are doers
    who just want to get the job done. And one of the most specific
    takeaways is that the extremists are doing it already. So we
    must catch up.
        And then Dr. Abbas, I have to say that I have had the
    privilege and continue to come back and work in leadership
    roles as a woman in business, as a party chair in politics for
    a number of years, as a former United States Ambassador, and
    now as a Member of Congress because I too see, to quote your
    words, ``the hope in the eyes of other women,'' in America's
    daughters. But perhaps more importantly, I see the increased
    level of respect and understanding in the eyes of America's
    sons. I have two sons myself and a daughter, and they will talk
    about my being a role model to my daughter, when, frankly, I
    think I am a more important role model to my two sons.
        Speaking as such, I am also, speaking of one of those sons,
    a proud mother of a United States Army captain who has served
    in combat in the Middle East, and I am very interested and,
    frankly, very invested that a peaceful solution to the Syrian
    civil war be found, not only for what this means for the Syrian
    people and their struggle, frankly their genocide in many ways,
    but also for what it means for the American people too.
        So Ms. McWilliams, can you talk a little bit about your
    efforts to create the linkage between the formal peace process
    and the women civil society advocates on the ground in Syria?
        Ms. McWilliams. Thank you very much for that question. The
    interesting process that is going on in Geneva at the moment
    not only has a civic society parallel forum, it also has a
    women's advisory board parallel forum. And then inside the
    opposition coalition there are three woman delegates amongst
    the 15, and amongst the regime there are three woman delegates.
    And the opposition coalition formed an advisory committee of 15
    women.
        So for me it is definitely setting a precedent of the
    acknowledgment that women have in that process from civic
    society, but also women being able to be participants inside
    the United Nations process that is currently being run at some
    of the talks.
        And one of the things that I concentrated on was some of
    the issues that you raised earlier around culture; that the
    women need to prepare themselves for a new constitution and
    they should not allow forced marriage to return at the age of
    13. And they are stateless if their husbands die, and many of
    them are now widows and they can't pass on statehood to their
    children because it is not allowed as women.
        And if those women were not at the table, if they weren't
    inside the process, those issues would, I suspect, not be
    prioritized in the agenda and perhaps forgotten about once the
    agreement was signed. Statelessness for you and me would be
    incredible and to not be able to pass that on to our children,
    and given that so many men have lost their lives this is a very
    real issue. And there are many other issues like that which we
    already touched on.
        So these are political issues, there is no doubt in my
    mind. We used to say in our process that the women were
    expected to put the small p on the table, but this is the big
    p, and these are big p political issues that need to sit
    alongside what always gets concentrated on if only the ex-
    combatants are at the table, which is release of prisoners,
    which is security sector reform of the army and the police,
    criminal justice reforms. All of those are exceptionally
    important, but for sustainability of peace, which is what you
    have just----
        Ms. Wagner. Right.
        Ms. McWilliams [continuing]. Referred to, that is where the
    women become crucial.
        Ms. Wagner. And that, Ms. McWilliams, is what you talked
    about in terms of the reintegration effort that must be a part
    of keeping the peace; and that women, if they are at the table,
    must be a part of that reintegration process. And I do hope
    that to the extent that the West is involved and certainly the
    U.S. that we can serve in a greater capacity in elevating that
    in terms of the sustainability.
        Chairman Royce. The gentlewoman's time has expired. The
    chair will now recognize Mr. Bera.
        Mr. Bera. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for this
    hearing, and I certainly want to thank the witnesses.
        Here in the United States this is Women's History Month,
    and when we look at great women throughout our history whether
    it is Eleanor Roosevelt, Rosa Parks, or Harriet Beecher Stowe
    who President Lincoln credits with very much ending slavery in
    the United States, we still have a long ways to go in our own
    country to elevate the role of women. If we think about it,
    women are over 50 percent of the population in America, over 60
    percent of the undergraduates, over 60 percent of the masters
    degrees, yet less than 15 percent of the CEOs in the United
    States are women, less than 5 percent of CEOs at Fortune 500
    companies are women. Here in our own politics in Congress, less
    than 20 percent of the congressional membership are women and
    only 10 percent of the governors around the country are women.
    So we have a long ways to go.
        Without getting political, can I ask the witnesses what
    their opinion would be of the public perception if the United
    States of America was to elect the first female President of
    the United States? How would the world perceive this?
        Mr. Abbas. I think that would be fabulous, number one. I
    think that will have a huge impact. In terms of and
    irrespective of the politics, I mean, the mere fact that a
    woman--and this is often asked. Bangladesh has the leader of
    the House who is the President, the Prime Minister, the leader
    of opposition who becomes Prime Minister, both of them women.
    India, Indira Gandhi, Pakistan of course, Kosovo, there are so
    many other countries, Israel. There are many other countries
    who have produced amazing women as heads of state. Why not the
    United States? That is, we often hear discussion.
        I think, yes, it is recognized that women's empowerment--
    that the way it is happening in United States--is unparalleled
    also. I mean that is recognized. I think what was mentioned was
    so true. It is an issue of respect that women get as equals,
    and that there is no doubt that the U.S. is recognized for
    that. But political positions, I think they also have an
    impact. The message will be very strong in itself if that
    happens.
        Mr. Bera. And just to play on that, within the Muslim world
    you touched on, Dr. Abbas, the fact that women are not often
    given a seat at the table, et cetera, if just the symbolic
    nature of the leader of the free world being a female in
    negotiations and so forth, do you think that elevates the role
    of women and empowers women?
        Mr. Abbas. I think most certainly. I would say when
    Secretary Clinton at the time she had visited Pakistan, she was
    the first outside leader who walked into Pakistan into a shrine
    which was of a very famous saint. Those pictures, if you Google
    U.S.-Pakistan relations, that picture still come up, very right
    up front.
        So this impacts. I think most of the countries, I am
    thinking more of the more recent states, they will have to
    cease to think about it. Probably they will have to appoint a
    few senior people, so this will have a cascading impact, I
    think.
        Mr. Bera. Right. Ms. O'Neill.
        Ms. O'Neill. So certainly I think the number one
    qualification has to be someone being qualified. They have to
    be able to fulfill their role. Fortunately there are 3.5
    billion women in the world that I am quite certain that at
    least one would be qualified to assume the leadership of any
    major country or organization.
        And I do think the symbolism matters tremendously,
    symbolism that is not token symbolism, but symbolism that is a
    signal of what the country values. And people outside of this
    country are extremely smart. They see, they understand when
    something is token or when something is sort of a patch to hide
    something else versus when something is a signal that there is
    authentic change in a country and that there is a pipeline of
    women coming up at all levels and all ranks and in all fields
    who are not just one top leadership, woman in top leadership,
    but a pipeline of women who are going to be positioned to serve
    in a whole range of areas. So it does send a powerful signal,
    yes, and it is noted.
        Mr. Bera. Ms. McWilliams.
        Ms. McWilliams. Most certainly, because I know the former
    first lady and secretary of state personally, and believe it or
    not we again are such a small country that she has come back
    time and time and time again and to make sure that our peace
    process kept going. And the whole country, whether or not they
    agree ideologically with the politics of the Democrats,
    absolutely agreed that this was a tremendous thing that Hillary
    Clinton did. And should she become President, again I think it
    would speak volumes.
        But again I agree with the panel that it is not just the
    face and the tokenism, it has to be the politics. The person
    has to walk the talk alongside women who have struggled.
    Otherwise they don't speak the same language and they are
    simply there as an opportunistic position, and I don't believe
    that in her stature that she has done that. She has walked the
    talk and she doesn't just make it out that it is for political
    reasons or for votes, although that may also be part of it. And
    I think it would be a tremendous symbol to the world to have
    someone like her become President.
        Mr. Bera. Great.
        Chairman Royce. The gentleman's time has expired. Without
    objection, I recognize Congresswoman McSally.
        Ms. McSally. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for holding
    this hearing today on this really important issue, and thanks
    to the panelists for your expertise.
        For my background, I was in the military 26 years. I was a
    fighter pilot in the first group of women to do that and first
    to fly in command in combat. I have long advocated in the U.S.
    that women need to be fully included into our security
    structure. I have long advocated that we need to be picking the
    best men for the job, even if it is a woman, across the board.
        My last military assignment was at Africa Command, and in
    addition to my responsibilities in operations I was asked to
    help Botswana integrate women into their military for the first
    time, and did some other engagements in Swaziland, Lesotho, and
    in fact my last week in active duty was in Sierra Leone
    addressing some of these issues. I had never heard about a U.N.
    Security Council Resolution 1325 in my military career.
        I was a professor after that at the Marshall Center, and as
    we started addressing some of these issues with our colleagues
    and our partners in other countries is when I started to
    understand like, oh, we have got this thing out there that I
    have been living and advocating for, but I didn't realize that
    the U.S. really was paying little attention to it.
        I was excited to see that we were finally coming up with
    our national action plan, and quite frankly, when we finally
    rolled it out I was shocked to discover that our focus was
    arrogantly on how we are helping other countries without
    looking internally and realizing at that time we didn't even
    allow women in all positions in our military, for crying out
    loud. That we were talking about how we are going to help other
    people, while we still had a long way to go both in our
    military, our security forces, in Congress--I mean, give me a
    break. We need to set a better example across the board.
        So I ended up lecturing on this. I went to OSCE meetings.
    One of the frustrations is that it seems like only women were
    interested. And unless we can get men to realize that this is
    not a women's issue, this is a security issue, and women must
    be at the table, which you all know well, then we are speaking
    in an echo chamber. So this hearing helps certainly to raise
    awareness.
        The second issue is you all know there is good examples
    that we have seen where lasting peace and security have been a
    result of women's full engagement, and we have bad examples,
    like Angola comes to mind, where it wasn't. In the military we
    often talk about lessons learned, I say they are lessons
    identified. They are not lessons learned until they are
    actually learned.
        And so I really have two questions. One is, what can we be
    doing more as the United States to be not just providing lip
    service to this issue? I mean, again we have our own internal
    issues, but as we are dealing like the current negotiations
    right now, the ones that come to mind are Syria and Afghanistan
    you have talked about, what more should we doing as the United
    States to demand that women must be at the table?
        I am leading a codel of all women to Afghanistan in May,
    second year in a row. What else should we be doing in demanding
    that women be at the table because it is a security and lasting
    peace? And number two, where have we actually learned the
    lessons? Where have they been lessons learned versus lessons
    identified in our current contemporary negotiations? I would
    just go down the panel, starting with Ms. O'Neill.
        Ms. O'Neill. What more you can do. First, within Congress,
    give the National Action Plan legislative authority, so pass
    the bipartisan Women, Peace, and Security Act to ensure that
    that National Action Plan cannot be set aside by any future
    political leader.
        Secondly, you talk very specifically about how some of this
    guidance or these directives aren't actually part of the DNA of
    our security institutions yet. That is often very much a
    reflection that the value of women's contributions is not
    understood as an issue of operational effectiveness, as you
    said of national security.
        So speaking in those terms, raising those issues, raising
    that vocabulary and having, as you also said, senior male
    military leaders speak about the value and the importance of
    having women at all levels and at all ranks in the U.S. armed
    services is essential. It cannot be an issue of only women
    speaking to other women about doing this for women. It has to
    be senior men and women talking about the value to the mission
    of having women fully integrated.
        What can you do about negotiations? Be vocal. There is
    absolutely no reason in the United States, that any negotiation
    in which it participates, cannot say we will not have a
    meeting, we will not sit down unless there are 50 percent
    females present.
        There will be challenges along the way, but negotiations
    are a very sticky, very difficult thing. And the U.S. perhaps
    more than any other body actually has the moral authority or
    sort of the actual authority to do so. So making it a clear
    priority and raising it at every single interaction that we
    have.
        I will let Monica speak to some of the lessons learned. I
    think she will probably address some of the Syria case. But
    there are instances slowly, slowly where we are applying some
    of these lessons, but we are also, I think, identifying some
    lessons from conflicts in Afghanistan and also where we are
    operating in exceptionally conservative societies and then
    applying those lessons, unfortunately, in other contacts where
    they may not even deserve to be applied, so we have to be
    careful in both ways.
        Ms. McSally. Great. And unfortunately my time has expired,
    so I do, I look forward to following up with all of you on some
    of the other questions on how we can be more helpful as
    specifically related to my trip to Afghanistan as well, so
    thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, yield back.
        Chairman Royce. Thank you, Congresswoman McSally. I want to
    thank our excellent panel today. I thank you for your
    significant contributions on this important subject, and also I
    just wanted to convey that the committee looks forward to
    working with you on a path forward to address many of these
    issues. And so at this point the committee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:17 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]