Preview above: Can one Australian woman make a difference in South Sudan’s brutal civil war? Watch more here.
In the Daily Telegraph this week, Editor-At-Large Matthew Benns published ‘ADF New Age Worrriers’. Benns is angry that the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) has new doctrine on applying a gender perspective in contemporary operations, for example, how bombing a bridge might impact local women who use that bridge to collect food and water.
The editorial criticised the change as adding “another layer of decision-making that could lead to fatal hesitation in the heat of battle” and quoted former army officer Bernard Gaynor, asking, “What next? I’m guessing operational planners will be required to prepare ‘safe spaces’ for the transgender community during times of war. None of this helps to protect Australia.”
In sum, the article is dangerously inaccurate. What’s more, the RAAF should be congratulated for the new doctrine.
The three key inaccuracies in the article are:
1) That gender perspective would overburden military personnel such as bomber pilots.
2) That gender is irrelevant to decisions such as destroying bridges.
3) That a gender perspective has no place in modern warfare.
Benns quotes Bruce Relph, the NSW President of the Australian Peacekeeper and Peacemaker Veterans Association, “this is going to make the pilot hesitate, afraid he might be charged with war crimes, and that will put him in danger because the enemy will not be hesitating to shoot him down.”
But in reality, a pilot does not contribute to the decision to blow up the bridge at all. An individual pilot is not even involved in a decision as significant as blowing up a bridge. A targeting decision like that is made by operational commanders with a serious range of advice from experts in logistics, intelligence and international law. Including gender as one informing factor in that decision will have zero impact on a bomber pilot.
Applying a gender perspective to military operations means our troops can have the best possible understanding of a conflict zone, the causes of insecurity, how to accurately respond to security threats, and how best to protect civilians.
President Trump passed a law requiring all US government agencies to integrate a gender perspective into conflict management and resolution. The Nordic Centre for Gender in Military Operations have reported a range of examples in which applying a gender perspective to logistics, planning, intelligence and targeting has improved outcomes for operations from Afghanistan to the Congo, Kosovo, Lebanon, and Iraq.
Benns’ article was another shock piece with deep historical roots to where women are considered lesser in matters of peace and security. But applying a gender perspective in military operations isn’t a matter of ‘political correctness’, it’s a legal requirement and one that makes for more effective long-term outcomes for international peace and security operations.
This fact has been recognised by the United Nations Security Council who have passed not one, but eight resolutions on the topic of women, peace and security. It has been acknowledged by Defence Ministers, Ministers for Foreign Affairs and military commanders across the globe.
Seventy nine countries, including Australia, have National Action Plans on Women, Peace and Security. Not only does NATO have such a plan, but the Secretary General has a Deputy whose primary role is Women, Peace and Security.
Current Minister for Defence Industry, Senator Linda Reynolds has worked for years to champion the women, peace and security agenda.
“Defence considers a wide range of possible consequences when making operational decisions… This is particularly important for the delivery of strike weapons in contested areas” a spokesperson from the Department of Defence said last night. “By exploring and thinking through a range of perspectives and circumstances, Defence is better able to understand the operating environment and the means to optimise outcomes and minimise risks to non-combatants.”
For example, in recent operations in Iraq, coalition forces made the decision (within their legal rights) to destroy a bridge that was route for ISIS attacks on Iraqi security forces. Once the bridge destruction had served its purpose, a replacement bridge was built for the community. But a number of women were reported as drowned crossing the river and the local community was becoming very frustrated with coalition forces.
It was only when an Australian Gender Advisor was called in to investigate the situation that it was discovered women who used to walk across the bridge were now taking rickety boats instead. The bridge had not been rebuilt with pedestrian access. Once bridge alterations were made to remedy the error, community relations improved and coalition forces continued to provide important security assistance in the area.
Susan Hutchinson is a freelance contributor to Dateline. She has served in the Army, worked for the Department of Defence and non-government organisations. Susan is now undertaking a PhD at the Australian National University on how militaries implement the Security Council Resolutions on Women, Peace and Security. She is also a member of the Australian Civil Society Coalition on Women, Peace and Security.
Dateline is an award-winning Australian, international documentary series airing for over 40 years. Each week Dateline scours the globe to bring you a world of daring stories. Read more about Dateline
Have a story or comment? Contact Us
