 Sam Chaaban Peace negotiations are usually headline events: the handshake, the camera flash, and the possibility of a brighter future. However, beneath these promises of reconciliation lies a harsher reality. Nearly 40%of peace agreements made since 1975 fail within five years. Behind these failures is a blind spot that policymakers and mediators can no longer afford to ignore: the enduring impact of trauma and the persistent exclusion of women from peace processes. This piece examines the implications of neglecting trauma and gender disparities in derailing peace-making through the cases of Rwanda and South Sudan. In essence, there can never be permanent peace until the mediation process is trauma-conscious and gender-sensitive.
Trauma as an Unseen Negotiator Conflict leaves psychological scars that are profound not only on an individual level but also on society. WHO estimates that approximately 1 out of 5 individuals in conflict-affected regions address the mental health problem (depression, anxiety, or PTSD). This trauma shapes the trust, memory, and communication process, which are the key aspects of negotiation. It is frequently difficult for survivors to sit at the same table with the perpetrators, or the people who have caused the pain, and communities fractured by violence may reject settlements that feel detached from lived suffering. Nevertheless, many of the mediation processes tend to neglect the role and impact of trauma. Instead, the focus is usually on ceasefires, power sharing, and elections, while psychosocial wounds are often ignored. The result is peace deals that appear to be sound on paper, but when social cohesion is too weak, the deals often break down. Insights from the Issam Fares Institute’s discussion on “Geopsychiatry in Policy Making: Implications for War and Peace” similarly underscore that trauma and mental health are deeply political, shaped by geography, displacement, and structural inequality, and must be treated as core dimensions of conflict resolution and peacebuilding rather than secondary humanitarian concerns. Rwanda: Trauma and the Gacaca Model Few contexts illustrate the scale of collective trauma, such as the situation in post-genocide Rwanda. In just 100 days in 1994, around 800,000 people were killed, leaving a nation shattered. Traditional courts were unable to process the sheer volume of crimes. Rwanda’s answer was the “Gacaca” community-based courts, which tried nearly 1.9 million cases between 2002 and 2012, according to the National Service of Gacaca Jurisdictions. Gacaca was concerned with justice and reconciliation, bringing survivors and perpetrators face-to-face to address the atrocities of the genocide. Survivors emerged and gave their testimonies publicly, while perpetrators confessed, allowing entire communities to sit down and discuss the profound issues of violence and forgiveness. While this system accelerated accountability, its approach to trauma was complex and often contradictory. Studies revealed that the process had a dual impact: some of the survivors were re-traumatized due to the repeated retelling of their traumatic events in the lack of proper psychological, as well as psychosocial support. On the other hand, in other survivors, the social disclosure of the perpetrators and the process of telling their stories in front of their community produced deeply therapeutic results. This fact shows that, even though the Gacaca system was characterized by a significant lack of consideration of the psychosocial needs, in fact, it indicated the enormous potential of the community-based truth-telling to serve as a viable mechanism of healing and reconciliation. More importantly, women were also placed on the center stage of post-conflict reconstruction in Rwanda. Women currently occupy 61 percent of the seats in parliament, the highest percentage in the world. Their role in formulating gender-sensitive legislation, from inheritance rights to protection against gender-based violence, demonstrates how involving women can bring about change in the healing of a society. Rwanda is an exemplary case study that highlights the importance of recognizing and integrating the roles of trauma and gender in the pursuit of long-term peace. South Sudan: The Cost of Exclusion If Rwanda highlights progress, South Sudan reveals the costs of neglect. Since its independence in 2011, South Sudan has faced cycles of civil war that have displaced millions. The 2018 peace agreement was hailed as a breakthrough; however, women were largely sidelined, as only 15% of signatories in recent African peace processes have been women. This omission is far-reaching. Conflict-related sexual violence has affected South Sudanese women most; according to UN Women, rape is a common form of weapon of war. However, their voices in determining accountability and recovery processes remain muted. Community discussions usually proceed without the incorporation of trauma healing and leave the survivors virtually out of the national reconciliation process. As of 2022, South Sudan was ranked as one of the three highest nations in the world in conflict-related sexual violence. The absence of trauma-informed and gender-sensitive mediation has led to weak agreements that are likely to backfire, which explains the risk of recreating a hermetic, elite-led peace formula. The Gender Gap in Mediation Globally, women continue to be systematically underrepresented in formal peace processes: in 2023, women made up only 9.6% of negotiators, 13.7% of mediators, and 26.6% of signatories in peace and ceasefire agreements worldwide. This exclusion is not only unjust but also counterproductive. Research reveals that the active role of women is linked with the durability of peace agreements. The fact that women are included in the process of negotiations increases the chances of successful peace agreements that last at least 35% within a span of at least 15 years. Moreover, the involvement of women will tend to expand the system to include the elements of justice, education, and healthcare, which will support the pillars that will help promote long-term stability directly. The Role of the UN Security Council Resolution 1325 Driven by the UN Security Council Resolution 1325, the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda has transformed the discourse regarding conflict and peace in a fundamental way. This international framework became the first to take the discussion beyond the idea of women being victims of war and the critical and active part they have in creating peace. This agenda has resulted in major policy shifts within the last 25 years, which have seen gender considerations being institutionalized in peacekeeping missions and national action plans across the globe. Undeniably, these are notable achievements, but the path to full implementation is far from complete. The agenda was a necessary initial step, rather than a goal. There is still uneven progress, and the policy-practice gap is still there. Although there is an apparent requirement for meaningful inclusion of women, they are often tokenistic in formal peace processes; they are granted a seat at the table but are often marginalized in actual decision-making. We must move beyond symbolic actions to actual empowerment so that the voices of women and their personal experiences of conflict become central to the development of a more sustainable and peaceful world. Centering Survivors’ Healing: Trauma-Informed Mediation for Durable Peace When mediation overlooks the impact of trauma on communities, any peace that emerges rests on an unstable foundation. A trauma‑informed mediation framework recognises survivors’ emotional injuries, designs procedures that minimise the risk of re‑traumatisation, and embeds mental health and psychosocial support into peacebuilding. This can include community healing rituals, counselling and peer‑support groups, storytelling circles, and carefully sequenced political dialogue, all of which post‑genocide and post‑conflict studies show can help rebuild trust and foster reconciliation. Moreover, trauma-informed approaches are cost-effective in the long run. WHO estimates that every $1 invested in mental health yields a $4 return in improved health and productivity (WHO, 2020). In post-conflict settings, these dividends are not only economic but also political, reinforcing peace dividends that prevent relapse into violence. Toward Gender-Sensitive, Trauma-Informed Mediation The cases of Rwanda and South Sudan illustrate a clear lesson: peace processes that ignore the roles of trauma and gender are deficient and unsustainable. Moving forward, mediators, policymakers, and international organizations must:
The collapse of nearly 40% of peace agreements within five years is not inevitable; it is one of the symptoms of mediation that has overlooked the human dimensions of conflict. Rwanda’s progress and South Sudan’s struggles show that trauma and gender are not side issues, but central pillars of sustainable peace. We must reconsider mediation as the number of global conflicts increases. Peace is more than just a signature sheet; it is about healing wounds, regaining trust, and ensuring every voice is heard, especially those of women. Unless we make this transition, peace will remain fragile. Through it, mediation might transform a provisional ceasefire into a long-term foundation for justice and reconciliation. About the Author Sam Chaaban was an intern in IFI's Women, Peace and Security (WPS) Regional Hub.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
RSS Feed
The views expressed on this blog are solely those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy & International Affairs.