In January, I had the privilege of spending two weeks in the Persian Gulf (although they call it the Arabian Gulf), touring Kuwait, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, and Riyadh (Saudi Arabia). The trip was thanks to a Kuwaiti woman I met initially in 2008 when she was a Fulbright Scholar at Whittier College, where I was teaching at the time. I worked with another faculty colleague to apply for the Fulbright scholar as part of a new program created after 9/11 called “Outreach to the Islamic World.” The goal of the program was to foster better understanding between the United States and scholars in the Islamic world, broadly defined. We specifically requested a woman who could teach about Islam with a special focus on women and Islam. It turned out Alanoud Alsharekh was the perfect fit. Alanoud spent a semester on campus and then returned as a Visiting Scholar in 2017 under the auspices of the Center for Engagement with Communities at the College when I was the Director. Alanoud had often invited me to visit Kuwait, but the time was never right. This year, in January 2025, the stars aligned.
Category: Articles Page 1 of 2
After a (much too) long 15-hour flight and an eight-hour layover, I was finally on the last leg of my journey to Erbil from Washington, D.C. Among the handful of Americans onboard, I sat next to a young Kurdish man raised in the UK. His curiosity about my visit revealed how rare it is for people to travel to Kurdistan purely for tourism. Given Iraq’s turbulent history with war and, more recently, the brutality of ISIS, this was understandable. Iraqi Kurdistan remains largely unknown to most Americans and absent from many mainstream discussions. But I was excited to begin my trip, knowing that Iraqi Kurdistan would offer much more than just a narrative of violence or conflict.
Upon landing, entering the country was surprisingly seamless, with a quick passport stamp, a warm smile, and a “Welcome” from the customs officer. My journey would take me through Erbil, Duhok, Rawanduz, Choman, and Akre, where I experienced the food, people, history, politics, and peacebuilding community that shape Kurdistan today.
The drive to invest large sums of money in mining and infrastructure projects in lower- income countries can lead to negative consequences for local communities, for governments and for investors unless accompanied by meaningful projects to promote human-centered development and security. There are ample examples where large investments have led to negative social outcomes for local communities including violent responses.
US-led initiatives are mobilizing unprecedented amounts of capital from the public and private sectors to diversify the sourcing and processing of minerals critical to the creation of climate-friendly economies and meeting demand triggered by technological innovations.
To ensure communities impacted by these investments prosper, community members must be full participants in designing human-centered projects with the aim of improving their lives and livelihoods. The provisioning of quality healthcare and education are typically high in the priorities of local communities. If local educational needs are not addressed, capital investments in the extractive sectors run the risk of alienating youth. This article reviews the literature largely with a focus on African countries to highlight sound practices that enables schools to become instruments of peace, conflict resolution, social cohesion and healthy behaviors, highlighting the best practices for obtaining positive outcomes and avoiding negative consequences.
Critique of UNSCR 1325: Intersectionality Matters[1]
UNSCR 1325 (and the numerous resolutions that followed) has been hailed as critically important for the ways in which it drew attention to the plight of women and girls in times of conflict, but also for its recognition of the important role that women can and do play in preventing conflict and then working toward peace in the event of conflict or war. Few would disagree with the importance of 1325 and the points it raises. Nonetheless, there are a number of issues or critiques that can be raised about UNSCR 1325 almost twenty-five years after it was passed. These are especially salient when reviewing UNSCR 1325 from an intersectional perspective.
On October 31, the anniversary of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 marked twenty-four years since its entrance into the international order. UNSCR 1325 was commemorated as the long-sought resolution to ensure women’s full participation in global peace and security (broadly defined). Its existence would not have been possible without the efforts of both civil society and the United Nations member states. This resolution[1] focused on addressing the significant gap in women’s participation in all levels of peacekeeping, peacebuilding, and post-conflict reconstruction, including combating gender-based violence. After twenty-four years, UNSCR 1325 has brought forth subsequent resolutions, nine in total, continuing to address sexual-based violence both in the conflict and post-conflict environment and barriers to women’s participation in peace processes from the most localized level to the extent of high-level decision-making processes. Others, such as Security Council Resolution (SCR) 2242[2], sought to highlight women’s role in preventing and countering terrorism, and the most recent, SCR 2467[3] in 2019, challenged member states in their commitment to the previous resolutions. One of the primary ways in which UNSCR 1325 and the subsequent resolutions were to be implemented was through countries adopting National Action Plans focused on the 1325 agenda in the context of their state.
Today, approximately fifty-six percent of the United Nations member states have adopted[4] one or more National Action Plans (NAPs) to further the Women, Peace, and Security agenda. Despite fifty-six percent of member states adopting NAPs, many countries have not consistently or successfully implemented them. National Action Plans require significant funding, governmental capacity, and cooperation, vital for their success and sustainability. Because of the challenges of adopting NAPs, some critical questions have been raised. For example, how can NAPs be implemented during a civil war, a country that recently emerged from violent conflict, or why do many global North countries primarily focus their NAPs on the Global South rather than gaps in their own country? The WPS agenda and National Actions Plans have continuously been scrutinized for not addressing the root causes and drivers of conflict through a gendered lens and instead focusing on the security aspects of WPS rather than peace.
I have a confession to make. I am the child of immigrants, one of whom crossed our southern border a century ago, and so I am extremely sympathetic to the many people arriving at our southern border in search of a better life.
The demonizing of migrants for political ends by Donald Trump and other political figures angers me. The demonization needs to stop. This dehumanizing strategy is all about creating fear of others in an effort to manipulate people to support him as he promises to protect them from the demonized. It is a classic political manipulation technique. As a journalist, I witnessed how such demonization unfolded in the Rwandan genocide, and I wrote a book on Al Qaeda in eastern Africa, in which I recounted how Osama bin Laden and his subordinates used demonizing techniques to make people fearful, positioning them to commit violence against the “others.” We, Americans, can do better than this.
Adrienne Castellón, Program Associate, IWA
Margaret Smith, Director of Trauma Healing and Community Resilience, IWA
- Executive Summary
This pilot project convened a group of subsequent generation Salvadorian-Americans (2nd generation and 1st generation who came over as children/adolescents) with strong ties to community work to discuss and better understand the experiences and needs of the Salvadorian-American and Salvadorian community in the DC Metropolitan area.
An iconic image from 2015 is of young Iranians dancing in the streets of Tehran when news of a preliminary framework agreement with the West on Iran’s nuclear program was announced. There was genuine hope among a younger generation of Iranians that the nuclear deal, formally called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), would usher in a new era of economic improvement and greater people-to-people contact between Iran and the West.
At last, and after more than a two year wait, the Lebanese parliament has elected former Army General and disputed Prime Minister, Michel Aoun, as the country’s next President.
It has been almost thirty years since the adoption, in October 1989, by the Lebanese Parliament of the Taif Accord. The agreement put an end to a civil war that engulfed Lebanon for more than 15 years. Between 1989 and 2005, the Taif Accord remained largely unimplemented because of internal disputes between Christian and Muslim Lebanese and foremost because of Syria’s heavy-handed manipulation of politics in the country.