July 29, 2019
Between a Rock (Gender Inequality) and a Hard Place (Counterterrorism Measures): Examining the Shrinking Space for Women’s Civil Society
By: Dr. Lana Baydas
After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the international community took “all necessary steps” at the national, subregional, regional and international levels in order to strengthen a global response to this serious challenge and threat to international security. Since the attacks, 140 governments have adopted a raft of counterterrorism measures. These measures frame the new constraints in the context of counterterrorism and other security-related objectives and show minimum or no adherence to international human rights principles and standards.
The “preservation of national security” and the global “war on terror” are repeatedly invoked to justify actions that curtail civic freedoms and close civic space. Since the attacks, approximately 111 countries adopted legislation or undertook practices to curtail civic space. Today, two billion persons of the world population live in a closed civic environment, while only 280 million individuals enjoy an open civic space. In 2018, sixty-eight percent of the communications of the Special Rapporteur on the Protection of Human Rights While Countering Terrorism addressed assaults on civil society actors in the name of fighting terrorism.
Civil society actors, female and male, are already subjected to various forms of intimidation ranging from smear campaigns to arbitrary detention, torture, involuntarily disappearance, life imprisonment and killings and in increasing numbers. Groups advocating for women’s rights and gender equality (including female human rights defenders), however, have experienced the impact of counterterrorism more and differently—impacts exacerbated by preexisting traditional and institutionalized gender inequalities. Many female activists, working in patriarchal contexts for human rights and gender equality, challenge the political and social status quo. In opposing and criticizing political power, these activists risk criminalization, labelling as “terrorists” and stigmatization. In 2016 for example, the Egyptian authorities arrested the founder of the Center for Egyptian Women’s Legal Assistance, later charging her with “undermining national security and establishing an illegal entity.” Recently, seventeen Saudi female human rights defenders were detained and tortured for advocating for women’s rights. They faced charges of “coordinated and organized activities… that aim to undermine the Kingdom’s security, stability and national unity”.
As such, for women’s organizations, the negative impact of counterterrorism measures is compounded. Women’s organizations in regions in which counterterrorism strategies are carried out, which tend to be smaller and more informal (thus, their existence), are targeted for and particularly and significantly affected by “terrorist” designations. Such labelling frequently coincides with increased legal and administrative constraints. Access to funding for women’s organizations, for example, has been adversely impacted by the indiscriminate implementation of a number of the Financial Action Task Force’s (FATF’s) recommendations. These restrictions pose an existential threat to women’s organizations. At times, these restrictions affect even those who are not labelled. As the FATF conducts periodic assessments on counterterrorism financing, upon which many country’s bond ratings, access to financial markets, trade, and investments depend, governments become incentivized to avoid risk of negative economic impact. Particularly where monitoring capacity is limited, some governments choose instead to staunch illicit financial flows by imposing broad restrictions across the non-profit sector more generally.
The mere existence of these measures and their use against female human rights defenders and women’s organizations is sufficient to silence critical voices, halt activities that are crucial at the grassroots level and restrict engagement in sites of most need. Such labelling—whether as “terrorists” or as “recipients of funds from terrorist groups”— severs the relationships of women’s groups with their beneficiaries and constituencies. A Kenyan activist affected by counterterrorism restrictions shared, in a recent conversation, that these measures have adversely impacted women’s organizations relationships with their communities. As a result of strict counterterrorism policies, those communities in which women’s groups work to prevent violent extremism become extremely distrustful and afraid to confide in or share critical information with women’s organizations. This has led women’s organizations, in various regions and countries, to suspend their operations and activities or to alter their mandate.
These are worrying trends, particularly in light of the substantial body of empirical evidence connecting—and often equating— investments in women’s meaningful inclusion to investments in international security and stability and the growing body of international law (including various UN Security Council resolutions) encouraging countries to meaningfully engage with women’s organizations and increase the meaningful participation of women in shaping policies and strategies. Women’s groups remain excluded from conversations, dialogue and decision-making processes surrounding national security and counterterrorism, which continue to occur behind closed doors and in isolation from these key actors. The exclusion of women weakens their collective voice, hindering their ability to call attention to the gendered impacts of these restrictions on their work in the field.
It is clear that women’s rights and protecting the civic space for women’s organizations and female human rights defenders occupy the lowest priority of the national agenda, particularly at times of and in regions characterized by high levels of insecurity and violence. It is clear that women civil society organizations’ issues and concerns are sidelined from debates on the impacts of counterterrorism measures. But it is also clear that, for global, regional and national counterterrorism and countering violent extremism strategies to be effective, they must be diverse and inclusive. It is also clear that paying lip service to women is not, and was never, enough.
The international community must do better. It can start by incorporating gender perspectives and allowing significant space for civil society’s meaningful engagement.
Lana Baydas, Ph.D. is a human rights expert. She has worked as both an academic and a practitioner in the fields of human rights, gender equality and international development for the last 17 years, holding posts at headquarters and in field operations with the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), the United Nations, Crisis Action and the International Committee of the Red Cross. Dr. Baydas has extensive experience in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region.
