While in Edinburgh to receive an honorary doctorate from Edinburgh University, Madeleine took time to speak with Helen Kay, a member of the Scottish branch of WILPF.
Tuesday 24 November 2015
- What is preventing effective intervention in Syria?
- The UN’s ways of working and current effectiveness
- Inspirational women
- UNSCR 1325
- Working together on the environment and militarism
- Gender equality and the new masculinity
- Personal perspective
- WILPF in the UK
- What is preventing effective intervention in Syria?
Helen Kay (HK): One of the questions that members of UKWILPF are interested in is ‘what is preventing effective intervention in Syria, particularly by the UN?’
Madeleine Rees (MR): The UN is just a creature of its member states, and when member states refuse to agree on things, it becomes dysfunctional. We see that absolutely with the dancing that goes on in the Security Council around Syria, particularly, where everybody has their own dog in the fight and their own particular way of doing things and reasons for doing things. It was absolutely emblematic when the picture of the discussions of what went on in Vienna – there were all these men and one woman and no Syrians. So there you have it – a geo-political struggle, nothing to do with Syria and highly gendered: it is all these boys. And you know, that’s the truth of it. There has been no political will to stop Syria because there has been too many different areas of interest being played out.
It looked as if there was going to be a convergence of interest, once the Russians joined in because Putin needs a way out because he can’t get bogged down there. We had a moment of hope. Last week when I was speaking with the German Foreign Ministry, they told me that the French resolution to the Security Council had within it a prohibition on the use of barrel bombs. We heard that with deep joy. It looked as if finally an end to the biggest causation of people fleeing in Syria. So, if you did that, it would send a very strong message: yes, we are serious about Assad and we are serious about the war crimes being committed and this is part of the process, we are not just going to hit on ISIS.
We thought then that it was the beginning of a better understanding, and it still should be. But then when the resolution finally came out, it had nothing of that in it. And Reaching Critical Will and Rae [Acheson, Director, Reaching Critical Will] in particular, had been stressing that we should improve the language of the Vienna Declaration which was going to be a ceasefire and a prohibition on the use of indiscriminate weapons. What she was saying, and it is absolutely right, we must be calling for the prohibition of ‘explosive weapons in populated areas’. Do not bomb populated areas because you are then killing civilians and automatically committing a war crime. But that has not played out, probably due to Iranian and Russian opposition to such phraseology but it is OK if we can get a ceasefire. If we get a ceasefire, then we get a ceasefire and you don’t need additional ceasefire for particular weapons on top. But the intransigence of the various states is such that it is not happening. The ceasefire that was announced at Vienna, was broken within a week. And that is because, in part, Assad feels emboldened by the support he has got from the Russians and Iran, for sure, and in part because when that happens there are more defections to go and fight for ISIS as they are seen as the only people who could defeat Assad. It becomes a vicious circle.
The thing that the Syrians have told us over and over again is the way to defeat ISIS is not by bombing them, I mean it is not rocket science, as all that does is to increase their coherence. Because it is not coherent, in ISIS, the women who have given us this information, say there are so many internal contradictions, and of course there are, because they are a mish-mash of foreign fighters, local fighters, people of different political persuasions, even if they are Islamic: a lot of them are just men who have fled and boys who have been pushed into joining ISIS as it is the only place to be safe. You get the gun, you get the salary, you get the car and in fact you do quite well because they are funded by oil and, let’s track that, where is that money coming from and going to, we know that there are certain companies in Geneva who are actually funders of the Tory Party, who also participate in that oil trade but it is very, very difficult to expose.
So that funding enables them to keep people in a way that is safer and better than if they are simply part of another opposition group. While the main enemy is Assad, ISIS is not going anywhere. On the contrary, that is fuelled by that argument and also by Islamophobia, because the mantle of ISIL is, for sure, that Europe and the West is Islamophobic and the attack is not on us but an attack on Islam; and they are very good at their propaganda, so people think that. The narratives that come out of Europe now, particularly as a result of the atrocities in Paris there is a lot of Islamophobia. And so it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy again, fuelling all the time the conflict, instead of doing what you should be doing which is actually saying that the biggest problem that we’ve got is Saudi Arabia.
There is an Islamic State, it is called Saudi Arabia. ISIS is the wannabe of Saudi Arabia: they do the same things as Saudi does but they get more attention. At the same time as Saudi Arabia were being elected to the Human Rights Council, they were advertising for more executioners because they had too many naughty people that they needed to behead. Unbelievable! And that is the British who are giving them tremendous support for that.
The funding for ISIS is being channelled, for sure, through Saudi businessmen, if not directly from their Government and the Iranians. And all these things which are geo-political structures, geo-political interests, I should say, are the ones that are preventing the (stopping) of the slaughter of Syrians. Everybody’s got a different perspective on how it is to be fixed based on their own interests, not on the interests of the Syrian people; and until we address the interests of the Syrian people, there will not be an end to this conflict. They know how to fix it: they know what needs to happen.
Basically, there has to be a cease-fire, on all sides, even against ISIS, and see what happens, because that is not going to help. Having a holding pattern in the sky to bomb ISIS is not going to help. There are women and children who are non-ISIS affiliates in those areas. Are you going to say that is fine, too? No, it’s not fine. We have to be more intelligent in what we do. So you can’t do that: you should not be doing that.
There has to be a diplomatic solution, using the Security Council and it is interesting that the last resolution was under Article 6. Under Article 6 of Security Council of UN Charter. That does not automatically allow you to use military force. You need Chapter 7 resolution to do that. This was not under Chapter 7 – it just said ‘all measures’ which the French can interpret as they want, as they say it is an act of self-defence – but under article 6, it is practice, custom and practice for states to vote only against the resolution under Chapter 6, only if there vital interests are at stake. So in theory, they should be able to reach consensus around that, which they did. But then we did not get the barrel bombs in.
So why are they not actually playing by the rules of the game, and this is the fundamental problem that we are confronting, all of us right now – since 1948 we’ve had an International Order which has been governed by the rule of law and institutions to implement that rule of law. It started with the Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, The Human Rights Treaty, on and on; we have gradually being putting this together and interpreting; it is constantly being revised so that it is fit for purpose. It is not perfect. Law is an imperfect tool as it depends on the people who are wielding power to make it happen – we know all this – but there are rules. What has tragically happened ever since the Bush-Blair adventures – we can say, yes, that Reagan and his interventions prior to that in Latin America also violated international law, and they were caught for violating international law by Nicaragua and decisions from ICJ – they chose to ignore it but it was not as dramatic as the invasion of Iraq. And since then we have actually seen international law put on one side or deliberately misinterpreted so that they can pursue their military adventurism, and what we are seeing now are the consequences of that.
Basically if you have a big protector, no one is going to comply with international law. And so we have seen it in relation to the conflict itself, in relation to the conflict in Yemen where there is no Security Council resolution but where Saudi Arabia is committing acts on a par with genocide of Hutus, backed by the Americans, backed by the Europeans, largely. That is all quiet- Iran may have an interest – but it does not matter if we sneak things against international law in Yemen.
So that is a big one. In relation to conflict and acts of aggression, law is not being applied. In terms of international accountability, law is not being applied, and then in terms of protection of refugees, law is not being applied, whether it be looking at the directive from the European Union from 2001 on mass influx and what is supposed to be happening. Only Angela Merkel is adhering to that. Only she is saying ‘this is what we said we would do, and this is what international law demands that we do because it incorporates the Refugee Convention, Human Rights protections, fundamental principles that you do not allow people with well-founded fear of persecution to be sent back, or to drown or to be abandoned – you give them the right to apply for asylum.
HK: Are these national responsibilities?
MR: It is an international responsibility that applies to every State as signatories to Refugee Convention. Turkey is not, which is why no one can get asylum there but they are recognising the need for international protection. So no one gets refugee status in Turkey which is problematic if you want to have a normal life.
HK: The responsibility to provide for refugees. Is there an international organisation that has responsibility for that?
MR: It is national but if they cannot cope then, UNHCR say they have a mandate under international law because the refugee convention is applicable under humanitarian law. So basically the way it works, or should work, is that if a country cannot cope because it does not have the resources, they can ask for assistance and support from UNHCR who should step in and give the assistance needed. That is why it is not working in Europe now because the Europeans are not asking for help. That said, UNHCR are doing very, very little, as far as we saw.
HK: Even in Jordan?
MR: I was talking about Europe, when we talk about Greece, Bulgaria, Macedonia, and the transit through Serbia up to Croatia. It is the Croatian Government that has taken command of the situation, doing a very good job with incredible support of the Croatian people. In Serbia, it is more the civil society organisations that, again, are doing an incredible job. Without them, people would be dying. The Bosnians are coming to help them. It’s wonderful for me having spent so much time involved there to see them, all three helping. The people, as always it is the people.
HK: The newspapers here give the impression that they are being nasty to the refugees?
MR: Of course, you see, the narrative of the Balkans is that it is rough neighbourhood and they are all violent and it is the ancient tribal hatreds that helped to form the narrative that this caused the war in the Balkans in the first place. We forget that there were millions of people on the streets demonstrating to have peace. And they were in the majority. But the media went for the ‘Ancient Tribal Hatreds’ narrative because that is good press – and misunderstood what was happening in the Balkans. That helped to inform the policy decisions of policy makers and before we knew where we were, we were not looking at saving Yugoslavia, we were not listening to the narrative of ordinary people. We helped to create and foment ancient tribal hatreds because we were not paying attention to the truth. And it is the same now.
2. The UN’s way of working and current effectiveness
HK: Does the loss of Norwegian funding put your Crisis Intervention projects under threat?
MR: It does, because the Norwegians have been excellent in understanding the necessity of doing prevention work, and in fact they spoke very well at Security Council Resolution 2242 when they pledged 4 Million for civil society to continue the work on prevention. The Global Study, the global study on how well UN1325 has been implemented, the independent study by Radhika Coomaraswamy – I was part of the Advisory Board on that – it very clearly says that it is not working because the funding is not getting to the right people – it needs to get to the grass roots. But it also shows that if you do that work, it works. It works. If you do the upstream work, to actually create greater equality, if you use your aid budget to increase levels of education, particularly for girl children and increased access to health care, number and spacing of children, understanding of all the things that have to happen in terms of health care and reproductive rights, and also in terms of maternal mortality – all of those things – if you fund that – you get more equal societies. If you have more equal societies, you are less likely to end up with the creation of violent masculinities. Where you get more participation in governance which is one step, and as a result of that, which is what we said at the 100th (Anniversary Conference), less likely to end up with creation of violent masculinities and stereotyped gender roles, you get a more peaceful society. And a peaceful society tends to be more economically energetic and less likely to have violent extremism. It is a win-win for everyone and less likely to end up in violent state conflict. It has been proven. The empirical evidence is out there. The research has been done. But the UN is not convinced. Member States are not convinced. You only have to look at what happens the minute you get to a peace process and then suddenly it reverts to type.
HK: Why is the UN not more effective?
MR: I think it has got worse. As you know, I used to work for the UN, and it was not as bad then as it is now.
I think an absolute case in point was in Serbia where you have a complex humanitarian crisis with floods of refugees coming through. There should be 50, 60, 70 years of experience in dealing with refugee floods like this. Nothing! Instead of hiring people with the knowledge to do it, the person they brought over is a PR specialist. Why do you need a PR specialist to do this work unless it is spin, to say we are doing a fantastic job. That is symptomatic of the way the world is working, unfortunately, with NGOs as well. You have to have a PR person – we are playing in that nasty corporate branded approach of doing work. And it is just not right. And the UN is into that. And the competition between the different agencies is legion.
It’s all about keeping your jobs and not offending member States. So there is a crisis in UN. It has become not fit for purpose. We saw that with the launch of the Global Study here. They do not include women civil society at all. They are just not interested. We are not going to play that game any more.
3. Inspirational women
HK: Is there anyone who has inspired your work?
MR: Broadly, Mary Robinson. Because she puts decency, principles, human rights, law before political gain. She was my boss when I worked at the High Commission for Human Rights. Fortunately I got to work with her a bit.
When she was running for Presidency of Ireland, she was also involved as a barrister in the case of Dublin Wellwoman Clinic, which was about the right to abortion, and she did that, she did not withdraw from the case, which she could have done. But it was a matter of principle. She had been instructed, on what she thought was a human right; so she went ahead with the case. The Irish people respected that and went ahead and elected her, and still adore her. I do think of her as a very inspirational figure, because of that decency, the common practical sense of decency, that you know that you are going to be safe.
The times I was in Bosnia, I took a particular stand on the trafficking, as you know, and also on the rendition cases, the UN was complicit in both, as you know. And everyone else in UN, apart from head of UNICEF, would not stand with me. The UN family were like, ‘this has nothing to do with us. We do development, we do whatever’ but they were not touching these issues because they were far too contentious, and obviously I had already done stuff and she said to me ‘I want you on the record at all times on this and you have my complete backing. Very public. On the record. Explain it how it is.’ So that was great.
HK: A woman of principle. Have there been any big wins for women peace-builders?
MR: An interesting question. I think there have been – the fact that we got several of Nobel Laureates – Lehmah, Jodi, Tawakkol, Mairead – they have been inspirational because they have not just got their peace prize and kept quiet. On the contrary, they have received their peace prize and they have gone off and ratchetted it up, the need to address that. I think of it in terms of looking for successes, Liberia, sure. Other parts of the world, maybe the Solomon Islands where women have participated and done, been able to engage. I think it is too much to claim that there have been direct successes but I think the success that we have had, is the gradual, incremental understanding of the absolute necessity of looking at political economy, looking at structures of society more broadly and understanding gender and then addressing the structures of power. And then from that, the participation of women in peace as being fundamental to that peace.
We are not there yet but what has happened over the last few years, I think, because I have been doing it for so long it is interesting to see how it is manifesting, – a much better collaboration with academic research, practical implementation, real grass roots organisation and using the international system. WILPF can be proud of that because that is the WILPF history. That is what WILPF has always done and always said was important. Finally lots of other people are catching up with us. And doing it in a way which feeds totally into that process. I think that has been a success. I think we are getting there in terms of our understanding. What is tragic now, just as we are getting there, the funding is going to go, the political climate is really difficult and invidious. For me that means that we have to look to ourselves.
Just because they are moving in the wrong direction, it makes it even more important that we move in the right direction. We must not lose what we know. We must not give up on that because that is what will get us through. And it means building those alliances with other civil societies and organisations, helping them to work on the issues that we are all working on but to look up and see the bigger picture – so that they know that what they are doing feeds into what we are doing. So when I am talking to women’s organisations in South Africa, for example in Stellenbosch, who are protecting women farm workers – how the hell does that fit into what WILPF does? It does absolutely because what you are looking at is back to political economy, the rights of women to participate, to have a decent wage, to be protected, to be participant in government structures in your area, in your region, in the Trade Unions, so that you can have a say in what your governments are doing. And it is all of that that we are putting together, and not to lose sight of it. Much of it does not cost anything, what costs is for us to bring them into the narrative, to get their voices heard. That is the problem and we should be able to do this.
4. UNSCR 1325
HK: When I was reading about the history of UNSCR1325, and how that came about, it seemed to me that it brought about a change in way of working.
MR: What was really tragic about that – and this came out when we were doing the global study and its launch, it was to really change the way business had always been done, and instead they hijacked it. They hijacked it again to getting women into the military, counting numbers, and not doing the real grassroots work that needed to be done to make it transformative. We need to claim that back. What has happened since 1325 is that we lost the word ‘peace’. It wasn’t about peace it was about a different type of militarisation, the way they interpreted it. I think the various resolutions since then, and now with the global study saying, putting ‘miltarisation’ and ‘arms’ right back into the agenda, that should help to make a difference. The problem we have got again, is the changed environment to have that conversation because when the global study was written, yes, there were concerns about violent extremism but we were not where we are now. Full-on, Third World War.
5. Working together on the environment and militarism
HK: There seems two different moves going on – the move to right wing ideas but also the environmental lobby is saying much more about bringing ‘peace and justice’ into the environmental movement.
MR: I would love WILPF to campaign for the inclusion of eco-crimes in the Rome Statute. There is a movement growing, and started by a woman called Polly Higgins. She is a barrister and she was pondering while she was waiting for a judgement, that the earth needs a lawyer to defend her. She has now developed the theory of ecocide and how it fits with international law and international criminal law and why it is that we should be able to prosecute CEOs of companies who pollute deliberately or with disregard to the consequences, knowing or should have known that their actions would lead to terrible environmental degradation. They should be before the ICC. That will encourage States to prosecute and they will have to bring that into their criminal legislation. It would make a huge difference and it’s not that complicated. For WILPF if this is a campaigning thing, perfect, let’s get behind it. Let’s push it through.
HK: That is an interesting issue that is worth looking at.
MR: Environmentalism and accountability.
HK: The WILPF UK autumn seminar was about climate change, environment and militarism. The environmental lobby is just thinking about this
MR: Yes they are dipping into our world and we can dip a bit into theirs – we don’t have to repeat what they do because they do an excellent job but what we are looking at as well is environmental degradation as a driver of militarism. You chop down a forest and you cause displacement, you chop down a forest to get money to buy tanks, you then you cut down the forest to see your enemy and flush them out and you don’t replant afterwards and then you have got a tiny bit of space for everyone to live on and that perpetrates the next conflict.
6. Gender equality and the new masculinity
HK: One of the things our members have asked you about – do you think we are making any progress toward gender equality internationally, or any other areas that we should be working on?
MR: It is difficult. I think we are making progress in terms of equality between the sexes, and that is not the same thing. I think there is a danger when we say ‘gender equality’ we are merely looking simply to include women into what is really, patriarchy. So in terms of that, ‘Are we making progress?’ Yes, we are. There are more women politicians, there are more women in business and in the military. South Africa has 34% women in the military, and are lauded at UN for having achieved that. So there is the straightforward application of the good old fashioned sex discrimination legislation is having an impact in those areas.
In terms of gender equality, I would say ‘no’. All that has happened is that we are transforming this stereotype of the woman into that world, which is scary. At the same time we are fighting hard to say that a woman can have kids, and be the CEO of a company: the two are antithetic, and that is just plain wrong. Not that you cannot do both, but that you have to negate the importance of the one in order to show that you can achieve the other – that is patriarchy. It is all about competition, and proving that you are so much better than your rival, your competitors. ‘Having your cake and eating it.’ That is not what gender equality is about.
When we have gender equality, we will no longer have gender. We won’t talk about intersex, transsexual, homosexual, none of those things because it will be an understanding of people. Because we will have broken down the power dynamics that create gendered stereotypes. It is how we see each other, how we perceive each other. We perceive each other as unequal and then we have to compete, comparing like with like. That is not right, because also it undermines, or misunderstands, concepts of masculinity, as if men are a homogenous block, they are not.
I watched the film ‘Testament of Youth’ on the plane over. It is absolutely tragic really. The good part at the end where Vera Brittain who became a great pacifist – she lost everybody – she lost her fiancé, she lost her brother, she lost friends, they all died because they were sent off to the Front first, and she said ‘who were the ones sending them off? We women. We were the ones saying ‘Off you go for honour and glory’’. The same thing is happening in the Ukraine now. And the ones getting killed are the men. And the conscientious objectors, the real heroes, are the ones who said ‘no. A plague on both your houses. I am not fighting for the Empire’. They were the ones vilified by everybody, given white feathers. It still happens. And so the non-violent men have nowhere to go.
HK: There was a letter in the Press here asking why were the young men coming through as refugees? Surely they should stay in Syria and fight for their country?
MR: And who would they fight for? And who would they fight with? Belligerent evil dictator or ISIS? I mean why would you want to fight with either of those two? So in fact, this is my point, the guys, the ones who are leaving Syria right now we should be putting on pedestals and saying ‘well done. You have eschewed this masculine role and actually said ‘we don’t want to fight. We want to live in peace with our family, and have decent lives like you do. And we don’t want to kill anybody.’ So they risk this horrific journey in order not to do that, not to turn to a gun.
In Ukraine, the same thing. ‘Why did you leave Eastern Ukraine?’ ‘Because I am not going to kill my fellow Ukrainians. Why would I do that?’ Actually when I had that conversation, it was the same time as the Scottish referendum debate, and the guy knew about this and he said ‘In Scotland and England you are having this conversation with exactly the same things that we should be talking about in Ukraine – levels of devolution, who controls the economy, do we need an independent country – you are having a conversation and a referendum and we are killing each other.’ And I thought that was a really good answer. And he was a man that was getting a bit of crap for having abandoned the east, because if he was pro-Ukraine, he should be pro-Ukraine and be prepared to go and die for it. He was saying ‘no, you can discuss this without killing each other. Who benefits?’ So those are the guys that should be the epitome of the new masculinity that we want – the non-violent, wanting peaceful settlements. So we must not allow that to be overtaken by the horrific narrative that we have created all the time – the masculine warrior.
And now it is changing as well – it is the masculine warrior and it is the female warrior. I don’t know if you have noticed every single film also has the kickass woman. It is never just the hero that does the violence, it is now the woman who does the violence as well.
The masculinised response to the refugees, that is what gender is all about. It is about the stereotype of the violent male. If we keep on having that, we will have people living in fear, and while we are fearful, we will have a violent response: instead of thinking actually they are not: obviously they are not. Allowing and supporting, being proud of men who want to not do this. Because it is really hard not to. You’ve got the media baying at you, when you have women pushing for you to do it, and there is an excellent film by Deeyah Khan Jihad: A British Story. I was really taken aback because these were the guys who were the main recruiters for Western Europe to go off and fight in Bosnia, in Afghanistan – they have been all over the world fighting Jihad, and they are British. It is quite weird, they have big beards, Brummie accents, northern accents and they are funny, they are emotional, they are intelligent and you want to hear more from them. They have all now decided that Jihadi is wrong in Islam, it is corrupt evil, wrong. So they have changed their message and now they are trying desperately to de-radicalize the young men. That is what they do. One of them had this fantastic analysis, he said ‘we experience discrimination in Britain’ – they are all of Pakistani origin, they are not white, so they have experienced discrimination and they are Muslims, and they are in families. You see everyone else going off and doing their own thing but they are not going to get the job, they are not going to get the girl, or you are going to have an arranged marriage, you are frustrated by all the things, with all that. Basically you are pretty much a nothing, a sad person – and then all of a sudden, Jihad comes and you can grow your beard, you can have the biggest turban you want – and then you get the uniform and the gun, let’s be honest the gun is no more than, no less than a penis extension and you get a girl and then maybe – suddenly you are the cool guy – and it is as simple as that.
HK: So how do we get a peace message over to young people?
MR: We make it cool or sexy. Cooler and sexier than carrying a gun as a penis extension! Those people who go and do it, know that it is not cool and sexy to be in war.
HK: But it is too late then.
MR: It is too late when they can come back and have their legs repaired, nerves shattered and all the rest of it, then you know. But that is not a sexy message because we see the action films all the time. I think our message has got to be enough to get to those who know the truth as in ‘it is not good’ – to help them to understand that actually working for peace – that is what these Jihadis said – the bravest thing they have ever done is to work for peace, the most difficult thing to get done is to work for peace because it is the one thing that people are afraid of talking about because it does not look tough. So if we can persuade, particularly young men, it is difficult, it is dangerous, it is hard work and it is the most important thing you will ever do in your entire life. That makes it cool. We could even knit them a jumper and call it a uniform.
7. Personal perspective
HK: How do you cope with this work at international level and the pressures of that work?
MR: You have to think that actually the work that I do, and we do, is a privilege to be able to do it. That if we don’t do it, who is going to do it? You know we are in a position, had the education, had the background, got the OBE- gives me more access whatever, to be able to do the advocacy on behalf of people who do not have that opportunity. If we do not do it, then we are wrong. It is an obligation but it is also a privilege. You have to keep that in your head and do a lot of mountain-biking. And have dogs and children. And see them every now and then.
8. WILPF in the UK
MR: I am very glad that WILPF has a strong section in Scotland. And we need to be stronger. We need to get more people out there. We need more people in the UK.
I really wanted to have seen a strong response to this Cameron Government and his belligerence. We need to be out there showing that 187bn dollars toward a war effort, for the future, is just not something that is conscionable because it will make conflict inevitable. So the militarisation that is going on under Cameron is appalling, instead of doing the work that would keep people safe. You know, the police, the front line, intelligence but intelligent intelligence, about decency, about increasing levels of education, ending Islamophobia, making a more equal society – you don’t hear that from him. Not now, and that is scary; so we need to step that up.
We need to be getting our politicians to ask Parliamentary questions all the time. If Jeremy Corbyn is true to his word in saying that he will ask the questions constituents put to him. Let’s get these questions in.
HK: Any hints on how we can engage with younger women?
MR: It’s interesting. That is a discussion we have been having forever! We have to be cool and sexy. If, from what I have seen and heard, there is a degree of alienation – that is why Jeremy Corbyn has been good in mobilising, he speaks to what young people are concerned about; and if young people want a future then they have got to be concerned about what we are concerned about. So it is getting that message out. And I think that the universities are great recruitment grounds, especially this one, seems to be fantastic.
Part of the problem of being such an old organisation, we still have practices, constitutions and things – are they really what we need now? There is an endless debate around just now about whether somewhere like India which is vast, whether you have to be a member of the section or you can be an international member. And how we are going to manage all that. Because that tends to be the thing – people don’t want to go to local meetings anymore, they go to global gatherings. So we need to make it broad enough church to have the movement as well as the sections and it is a question of, ideally we get all people joining the sections and being the real powerhouse which then can be part of the movement. But we are not there yet.
HK: It may be part of globalisation process, people want to be part of the international? Originally there were international memberships in WILPF – it was set up as an international organisation, the sections were only there to change attitudes within their own country and support the international group of women, the group of women working internationally.
MR: We need more joined-up thinking.
