Artículo

Methodology

Our methodological approach links disparate categories of research and opens possibilities for different qualitative and quantitative methods and analytical perspectives. We believe this combination permits the development of interdisciplinary research. This paper incorporates primary and secondary resources on the existing legal framework referring to women in the military and the WPS (Women, Peace and Security) agenda through the resolutions of the UN Security Council and the Conference of the Defense Ministers of the Americas (CDMA), as well as literature on the status of exclusion and inclusion of female uniformed personnel and other data from different countries in the Western Hemisphere. The methodological underpinnings of this paper consist, in part, of statistical analysis, legal analysis, and fieldwork, to include autoethnography.

Autoethnography, an “avant garde method of qualitative research” (Wall, 2016, p.1), is “an approach to research and writing that seeks to describe and systematically analyze personal experience in order to understand cultural experience” (Ellis et al, 2011, p. 273). Employing autoethnography as methodology enables us to “foreground personal experiences in research and writing,” to “illustrate insider knowledge of a cultural phenomenon/experience,” and to “describe and critique cultural norms, experiences, and practices” (Adams et al, 2015, p. 26). Our decision to embrace autoethnography as methodology is twofold.

First, as argued by Syrjälä and Norrgrann (2018), “[o]ne of the biggest advantages of autoethnographic inquiry” is the “ability to graph phenomena that are otherwise inaccessible, or where other similar depths of understanding is difficult to obtain through other methods” (p. xiv). That is, autoethnography as methodology employs “personal experience to illustrate facets of cultural experience, and, in doing so, make characteristics of a culture familiar for insiders and outsiders” (Ellis et al, 2011, p. 276). As such, using autoethnography as a methodology has value within and beyond the confines of this paper.

Second, autoethnography, because it goes beyond “the limitations of academic voice,” provides a methodology to illuminate “truths we are able to recognize and transcribe, and the ways in which the academic voice silences the self, who is forced to hide or minimize the often very personal motivations for engaging” (Dauphinee, 2010, p. 799). That is, unlike the limitations of “traditional scientific approaches,” with autoethnography - “what I know matters” (Wall, 2006, pp. 147 - 148). Employing autoethnography as methodology opens an underutilized approach in studying militaries; this paper, by employing autoethnography as methodology, seeks to serve as a beginning blueprint for ending the silences surrounding practices of exclusion and thereby to open paths for the multiple voices of women in the military.

UN Security Council and UN Department of Peace Operations: Starting to Address Equal Access to Military Education

On 28 August 2020, the UN Security Council issued the first UN Security Council resolution to highlight the need for equal access to education, training and capacity building for uniformed female personnel - UNSCR 2538. Previously UNSCR 1325’s paragraph 4 (2000), UNSCR 1820’s paragraph 8 (2008), UNSCR 1888’s paragraph 19 (2009), UNSCR 1960’s paragraph 15 (2010), UNSCR 2106’s paragraph 4 (2013), UNSCR 2122’s paragraph 9 (2013), UNSCR 2242’s paragraph 8 (2015), and UNSCR 2493’s paragraph 2 (2019) all addressed female peacekeepers, but failed to address unequal access to military education as a barrier in the “efforts and initiatives” to “increase” the paltry number of female peacekeepers that States send. As of 2020, males constitute 95.2% of military contingents and 89.1% of formed police units in UN peacekeeping missions (United Nations Peacekeeping, 2020).

Preceding UNSCR 2538, the UN Department of Peace Operations (DPO) issued, as a result of its concern about the underinclusion of female uniformed personnel in peace operations, the Uniformed Gender Parity Strategy 2018-2028. The Parity Strategy stated:

DPO has consulted widely with contributing Member States and female uniformed personnel in the field to understand some of the external challenges (...) [to include] lack of training and selfdevelopment opportunities for women, including participation in Military Staff Colleges, Police Academies and UNrelated courses, to meet qualification prerequisites for UN deployments (DPO, 2018, p. 3).

In urging State compliance, the DPO warned:

If T/PCCs [Troop/Police Contributing Countries] do not meet the gender targets and cannot demonstrate actions made to reach the military and police targets, the UN will where possible reallocate posts to T/PCCs willing and able to deploy more qualified female officers and who are meeting their individual targets” (2018, p. 11).

The UN Security Council, in UNSCR 2538, called upon Member States, the United Nations Secretariat and regional organizations “to strengthen their collective efforts to promote the full, effective, and meaningful participation of uniformed and civilian women in peacekeeping operations at all levels and in all positions, including in senior leadership positions” (SC, 2020, p. 1). Regional organizations for the Western Hemisphere include the Organization of American States (OAS), the InterAmerican Defense Board (IADB), and the Conference of the Defense Ministers of the Americas (CDMA). The UN Security Council, through UNSCR 2538, built on the DPO’s findings by addressing the need for States to provide “uniformed women personnel with equal access to education, training and capacitybuilding” (SC, 2020, p. 2).

Military Academies: Equal Access to Education at the Entry Point?

Military academies, a first step to a military career as a line officer, serve as a first point of exclusion. In the U.S., military academies excluded women until 1976 (the graduating class of 1980). In Colombia, the Navy academy excluded women until 1997 (the graduating class of 2000), with only five women admitted (and all confined to the logistics branch). In Colombia, the Air Force academy also excluded women until 1997 (the graduating class of 2000, graduating the first female pilots). In Colombia, the Army academy excluded women until 2008, with the first women entering logistics, engineering, intelligence and communications in 2009, cavalry and artillery in 2016 (Mindefensa, 2018), and infantry in 2018 (ESMIC, 2018).

The admission decisions for acceptance to military academies appear to discriminate against women.

For example, data from Chile regarding acceptance rates at its Navy, Air Force and Army academies demonstrate a disparity between the acceptance rates for female applicants when compared with male applicants. For the Army, a male Chilean was more than twice as likely as a female Chilean to be selected. While correlation is not the same as causation, these data raise questions.

Table 1. Disparate Acceptance Rates into Chile’s Military Academies (2016)

Source: Weiss created table based on RESDAL (2016, p. 136)

Excluding women has consequences. To obtain the rank of commander/lieutenant colonel in Colombia requires 18 years of service after graduating from a military academy, to reach the rank of general or admiral in Colombia requires at least 29 years.⁵ That is, as a result of Colombia refusing to admit women to the military academies until recently, the first female graduates of the Navy and Air Force academies to reach the rank of commander/lieutenant colonel did not occur until 2018. And the first female graduates of the Army academy to reach the rank of lieutenant colonel will not occur until 2025. As of 2020, Colombia has only two active female generals of the Army⁶ – women who entered as professionals (not through the military academies). Colombia has no female Air Force generals and no female admirals. This absence of women in higher positions (due to laws, policies, and practices) means that decisionmakers inside the military are either predominantly or exclusively men.

The prohibition against women from entering military academies also had and has other consequences. For example, when Colombia appointed the first female civilian head of the Colombian Military Justice Corps, Colombia paid her 50% of what it had paid her predecessor, a male Army general, because she was not a general (Weiss, 2007). Yet, even at the time of her appointment, Colombia prohibited women from entering the Army academy. Thus, by prohibiting women to enter the Army academy, the Colombian government could then pay women onehalf of what it paid military men for the same job.⁷

Gender identity, as a defining category for members of the military, may reflect whether one has had access to military education (possessing the precondition of being male) or whether one has had access to military education denied (not possessing the pre-condition of being male). Rivera-Páez (2019) argues, because the military world is a masculine world, being a man does not make a difference, while a woman in such a world probably recognizes her gender identity as an important part of her military identity. Rivera-Páez (2019) researched the main feelings of belonging with which the officers of the Navy, Army and Air Force in Colombia identify. He found that only 2.22% of officers consider gender to be the most important category in defining who they are as a military member, with 6.35% of women and 1.62% of men indicating that gender was the most important element of their military identity.⁸ This low percentage, says Rivera-Páez (2019), can lead to the conclusion that diversity in terms of gender is not yet high.

“Senior Developmental Education”: Equal Access to Education to Enter Senior Positions?

Being selected to attend “senior developmental education” (consisting of over an academic year of study and frequently resulting in the granting of a master’s degree) is a grooming gate for promotion to the rank of general or admiral. In Colombia, senior developmental education -- the CAEM (Curso de Altos Estudios Militares)⁹ -- is limited to graduates of the military academies who have reached the rank of colonel/captain. (The military development education for military members who enter as professionals is different¹⁰). In 2020, all of the students in the CAEM were male (Army colonels, 3 Air Force colonels, and 5 Navy captains). As a result of the continued effects of excluding women from Colombian military academies until the 21st century, the Colombian military has promoted no female graduates of the military academies to the rank of colonel/captain; and because of the continuing effects of excluding women from military education, it will be until at least 2027 before women are even rank eligible to be selected to the CAEM.

However, given that female graduates have been promoted to lieutenant colonel/commander, and given that senior developmental education opportunities for Colombia’s future generals and admirals are not restricted to CAEM, Colombia has the opportunity to provide senior developmental education to female officers. Unlike CAEM, the criteria for proposed students for the Inter-American Defense College (IADC) are not restricted to colonels/captain, but instead require having:

(1) obtained the “rank of Lieutenant-Colonel or Colonel or equivalent rank within their organization” or, if civilian, having “attained positions with responsibilities similar to that expected of a Lieutenant-Colonel or Colonel in the military or public security force,”

(2) graduated from a command and staff school or have similar or equivalent professional education, and

(3) had 15-20 years of professional experience for military/public security force members and 5 years of professional experience for civilians. (Article 26, Selection of Applicants to Academic Programs.)

As such, Colombia is in the position to nominate female lieutenant colonels and commanders for the 2021-2022 academic year (and subsequent years) to attend the IADC. The career-enhancing power of being selected to attend IADC is demonstrated by Mireya Cordón López, a Colombian police colonel who, after graduating from IADC, was promoted to Brigadier General and then subsequently to Major General (IADC, 2019).¹¹ She was the first female sent by Colombia to attend IADC (she was a member of the class of 2010-2011). Subsequently Colombia has sent other female police officers. Yet, as of 2020, Colombia has not sent any female military officers.

A correlation may exist between whether a director of a military institution is female or male and the number of female students at that institution. In comparing the percentages of female students admitted during the tenure of female directors and male directors, the example of IADC is illuminating. Under Admiral Martha Herb’s tenure as Director of the Inter-American Defense College, in 2015-2016 the class was 16% women, in 2016-2017 the class was 16% women, and in 2017-2018 the class was 15% women (IADC, 2019). Then, under the current male director’s tenure (June 2018 – present), the class was reduced to 10% women in 2018-2019, stayed below that of Admiral Herb’s tenure by rising only to 12% women in 2019-2020 (IADC, 2019), and plummeted to only two females for the class of 2020-2021. While correlation is not causation, the numbers are stark in revealing that the 2020-2021 class (under a male director) has half the number of female students of a decade ago, the 2010-2011 class (under a female director, Admiral Moira Flanders). Explanations for this correlation do not necessarily implicate active discrimination on the part of a male director. The disparity may be the result of:

• whether, and to what extent, a director, while in formal and informal conversations with sending States, addresses the need to avoid restricting the candidate pool to men only.
• images of leaders speaking louder than words; that is, if a director is female, sending States may think about nominating women and if a director is male, sending States might not think about nominating women; and
• the perception of greater or lesser emphasis placed on the tenets of UNSCR 1325, to include whether (1) to initiate conferences that address Women, Peace and Security (which Admiral Martha Herb did) and whether (2) to hold Women, Peace and Security conferences annually (which Admiral Martha Herb did) or only every two years (which appears to be the practice under the current male director).

Internal Barriers to Equal Access to Education in Education

Eliminating the barriers to enter institutions of military education is only one-half of the solution for equal access to military education. The other half is to address barriers that are erected internally. Barriers created by sexual harassment and other unprofessional behavior (to include addressing female students by their first names while addressing male students by their military titles and last names) engaged in against female students by male classmates, visiting lecturers, and others is an area that is not explored in this paper, but which we acknowledge constitutes an area in need of research. The barriers explored below may explain gaps in military education, such as the failure to include gender analysis, and the consequences of such failures.

Questions about the invisible aspects of military education predominate, to include questions as to why it appears that military education exacerbates gender stereotype blindness by male students (whereas military education does not appear to blind female students). In the Boyce and Herd (2003) study on gender stereotypes held by military cadets, the authors found that male cadets held gender stereotypes in relation to military leadership, with gender stereotypes held by male cadets becoming more pronounced by the final years of their schooling. In contrast, Boyd and Herd (2003) found that successful female cadets were not blinded by gender stereotypes, but instead “perceived women and men both to possess characteristics necessary for military leadership” (p. 375). They contended: “If this genderfree view of requisite officer characteristics continue as these women advance as officers, we might expect them [female officers] to treat men and women more equitably, on the basis of performance criteria rather than gender role expectations, in their selection and promotion decision processes” (Boyd & Herd, 2003, p. 375).

A question that Boyd and Herd (2003) failed to explore was whether the gender-stereotyped blindness exhibited by the male cadets could be anticipated to result in these males treating women on the basis of gender role expectations (rather than on the basis of performance criteria), when these males (in their future military careers) made selection and promotion decisions about female and male military members. Only four years after ending the prohibition against women entering the academies, the top graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy was female – Kristine Holderied, Class of 1984 – and two years later the top graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy was female – Terrie Ann McLaughlin, Class of 1986 (Mahany, 1986). Yet, given that Boyd and Herd (2003) study was conducted almost 20 years after the first woman graduated at the top of her academy class, questions abound as to (1) why military academies fail to educate the males to see reality rather than be blinded by stereotypes about females and males, and (2) why military academies instead serve to harden stereotypes held by male cadets about females and males. Today, 17 years after Boyd and Herd study, the same questions continue. 

Equal access includes providing students also with material authored by women. A 2020 analysis of syllabi for Civil-Military Relations (CMR) courses at U.S. and non-U.S. civilian and military institutions (to include military academies and war colleges as well as regional institutions such as the Perry Center) revealed that despite more than 175 female authors producing materials on CMR, some institutions, such as the Inter-American Defense College, included only CMR material created by men and excluded any and all CMR materials created by women (Weiss, 2020). Providing an education that teaches only material composed by men serves to create a belief that only male authors are worthy to be studied and/or that female-authored material does not exist.

Equal access includes being taught by professors who are not only, or substantially only, male. Students at CAEM are reduced to being taught only by male professors. Students at IADC are reduced to being taught by 82% male professors (IADC employs only 2 female professors, both more recently hired, and only one as a permanent professor). Students at the U.S. Army War College also appear to be impoverished by the failure of the College to employ a gender-balanced ratio of female and male professors (Patton, 2020). Arguably, a “best practice” for ending exclusion and inequality is the promotion of female leadership in teaching and research at military institutions of education.¹²

Military education requires that students be educated enough to understand the declarations issued by the biannual Conference of the Defense Ministers of the Americas (CDMA). The CDMA has issued declarations related to UNSCR 1325 since 2008. The declarations address “gender perspective” (2008, 2010, 2018), “gender mainstreaming” (2008), “participation of women” (2014), “integration of women” (2016), “gender equality training” (2018), “gender policies” (2012), and “contribution of women to peace and security and in promoting the prevention and response to conflict-related sexual violence, as well as the protection of chil-dren’’ (2012). Given that curricula of a decade ago, when many current generals and admirals graduated from senior developmental education, failed to include gender analysis (Weiss, 2013), it is doubtful -- given that it appears that military education continues to exclude gender analysis as part of the curricula -- whether any current military leaders can articulate, for example, what is meant by “gender perspective” as opposed to “gender mainstreaming.”

Further, it is doubtful whether such military leaders possess the analytical tools to think on tactical, operational and strategic levels about questions ranging from how to prevent rapes at camps for internally displaced persons and refugees -- hint: lighting the pathways reduces rapes by 70%), to how to achieve more du-rable peace -- hint: end the marginalization of women, which delays and undermines the achievement of durable peace, security, and reconciliation (UNSCR 1889; 2009). At minimum, during military education, pro-active education at war colleges would require that students analyze their national security and military strategies and white papers, as well as UNSCR 1325 National Action Plans (NAPs): (1) to determine their obligations to implement UNSCR 1325, (2) to analyze operational risks caused by failing to include a gender analysis (Prescott, 2020), and (3) to draft plans on how they propose to implement their country’s “gender policies.” For States without NAPs, such as Colombia, a useful and practical exercise would be to assign students to draft proposed NAPs.

The Boyd and Herd (2003) study may also explain the failure to provide education on gender analysis in military education. That is, the composition of military decision-makers. For example, the decision-makers concerning academic programs of the Inter-American Defense College are the Council of Delegates of the Inter-American Defense Board (IADB). The IADB Council of Delegates “[i]ssue[s] directives and operational guidelines (...) to the IADC Director” (OEA, 2006, Article 11d) and “[a]pprove[s] the academic programs of the IADC based on the recommendations of the IADC Director and academic advisors consulted for that purpose” (OEA, 2006, Article 11e). Whether the members of the IADB Council of Delegates (composed of all male generals and admirals), if called upon, can articulate the differences between the panoply of “women and gender” terminology used by the CDMA is unknown. What is known is that as of 20 November 2017, after a presentation on women in the military (at which this article’s co-author Weiss was present), IADB representatives expressed hostility about women in the military, to include using words such as “women hormones” and “false rape accusations.” All of the IADB representatives at the table were male, prompting a male Brazilian Navy Captain to point out the invisible obvious: “No women sitting at the Junta” (the IADB).

Whether the all-male Junta violates IADB’s Article 33, Prohibition against Discrimination, is an area for further analysis. Article 33 mandates: “The IADB shall not allow any restriction based on (...) gender with respect to eligibility to participate in the activities of the IADB or to hold positions therein” (OEA, 2006). It is arguable that the publicly stated beliefs against women, as exhibited by IADB members on 20 November 2017 (to include not a single male IADB member standing up and speaking out against the anti-women statements), constitute a prohibited “restriction based on gender,” violating the Prohibition Against Discrimination.

In addition to the anti-women beliefs asserted, other statements at the 2017 IADB meeting made by one or more members of the IADB Board included that there are “no discriminatory laws” and that “we simply need to wait for women to get to positions of power.” The assertion that there are no discriminatory laws is legally incorrect, both for the past and the present. In the past, discriminatory laws forbid women from entering military academies. The effect of past discriminatory laws continues the discrimination against women, to include excluding women from senior developmental education in 2020 because of “time issues” (caused by the past discriminatory laws). Further, discriminatory laws and policies continue to exist. In the U.S. in 2020, for example, while “top performing” females are clamoring to serve on submarines, the U.S. Navy, even though it rescinded its “male-only” policy for submarines in 2010, continues to fail to provide “berthing” (living space) for females, but then uses its own failure to provide “berthing” to rationalize excluding women (Werner, 2019).

Thus, assertions that we need women in positions of power appear to be factually correct. For example, despite Peruvian women holding the rank of lieutenant colonel as of 2012, almost a decade later Peru continues to send only male military members to IADC. Given that those who make the decisions as to who to nominate and send to IADC may be all men, the result is the appearance, if not reality, that military males in positions of nominating military members for IADC are incapable of nominating female military members. Instead, there exists continued affirmative action for men, to include short courses (such as hosted by the IADC) populated by males who appeared more interested in compiling on-line shopping lists continuously throughout the course rather than actively listening to the materials presented (Weiss observation). In the 20 November 2017 IADB meeting, Weiss challenged the Board members to ensure that they send women to courses, to promotion and selection boards – to ask, “where are the women?”¹³ Weiss, after revealing to the Board that the top graduate of her IADC class was female, queried when, like men, more average-performing women would also be accepted into military education. (In the U.S., “[d]espite women making up just under 20 percent of the 2018 West Point class, eight of the top 10 graduates were women, and women made up 44 percent of honor roll students” (Haring, 2019, np)).

Excluding Women Jeopardizes Military Education

Excluding women has the potential to jeopardize the accreditation and funding of institutions providing military education.

For example, because IADC is accredited by the Office of Education Licensure of the District of Columbia, IADC must comply with the laws of the District of Columbia. The District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977 mandates there is to be no discrimination “for any reason other than that of individual merit, including, but not limited to, discrimination by reason of (...) sex” (D.C. Official Code § 2-1401.01). According to the District of Columbia Notice of Final Rulemaking by the Office of the Education Licensure Commission of the Office of the State Superintendent, provisional licensure requires a “certification of non-discrimination, in conformance with the District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977” (Chapter 80, 8007.3(j)) and permanent licensure requires that the “postsecondary degree granting educational institution shall be compliant with applicable District of Columbia laws and regulations” (Chapter 80, 8009.2(a)).

Excluding women from U.S. funded military education violates the mandates of the U.S. 2011 and 2016 Women, Peace, and Security National Action Plans to “[i]ncrease partner nation women’s participation in US funded training programs for foreign police, judicial, and military personnel, including professional military education (PME)” (Outcome 2.1, 2011, p. 15; Outcome 2.1, 2016, p. 21). Further, excluding women violates the 2017 U.S. Women, Peace, and Security Act, which required the U.S. president to “encourage increased participation of women in ex-isting programs funded by the United States Government that provide training to foreign nationals regarding law enforcement, the rule of law, or professional military education” (Section 5(d)(3)). According to the 2020 U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) Women, Peace, and Security Strategic Framework and Implementation Plan, partner nation women are to have “increased access to and participate in U.S. security (...) education opportunities’’ (Effect 2.1.1, at 17). Failure by U.S. military and civilian personnel leading U.S. funded programs -- to include by those leading U.S. based military academies, regional entities (such as the Perry Center), and senior military education institutions -- to comply (with compliance to include proactive measures), as well as failure by sending States to send women, raises questions such as whether funding will continue for institutions that are not in compliance with the DoD Women, Peace, and Security Strategic Framework and Implementation Plan, to include U.S. provided funding for IADC.

Recommendations

While the cause of the disparity in initial and continuing unequal access to military education is unclear,¹⁴ what is clear is the need for proactive measures. We use Brazil, Colombia, and U.S., as well as U.S. based, institutions of military education as examples to demonstrate proactive measures to be taken. Our recommendations are not all-inclusive; they are intended only to serve as a start of actions needed.

For States such as Brazil, which excluded women from its Army academy until 2017, we urge that instead of reinforcing and compounding past discrimination against women (such as by sending only academy graduates to institutions such as IADC, meaning that it will be decades before any female academy graduates reach the rank eligible to attend IADC), Brazil can partially remedy past discrimination by sending today’s rank eligible non-academy graduate female officers to IADC.

In the case of Colombia, the lack of engagement with the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda represents a major issue if the military is serious about the participation of women. If the WPS agenda is not central to the equal access process, it is doubtful that UNSCR 2538 will result in needed structural changes. Strategies for senior military educational levels include:

• Increase the number of female professors at the CEM and CAEM.
• Introduce bibliography written by women in both courses.
• Introduce topics about gender and the WPS agenda in the syllabus and in seminars and events. 
• Implement protocols of good practices related to eliminating gender hierarchies in classrooms.

In the case of all U.S. and U.S. based institutions of military education, including the Inter-American Defense College, engaging proactively would require:

• Upon receipt of a list of candidates that include only or substantially only men as candidates, directors of U.S. funded institutions, to include IADC, formally (1) inquiring whether no women exist who meet the admission requirements, (2) requesting a list of women who do meet the admission requirements, and (3) refusing to consider lists of candidates from sending States that then include only or substantially only men as candidates to be selected to attend U.S. funded institutions.
• DoD enforcing its Women, Peace, and Security Strategic Framework and Implementation Plan by refusing to seat students of sending States that fail to send female students to the U.S. for military education. 

In the case of IADC, given that IADC is “a unique international college hosted and heavily resourced by the host nation,” the IADC Director is “legally responsible and accountable to the Host Nation for the management and the use of the facilities, national resources, as well as operating procedures within the host nation’s installations” (IADC Regulations, Article 1). That is, the IADC Director is responsible for complying with US laws and policies. Proactive measures to ensure compliance with U.S. law, policies, and plans would include, for example, the Director of the Inter-American Defense College (IADC) advising partner nations that, under U.S. law, policy and plans, women (not just men) are to be included in the students chosen by the sending State to attend the Inter-American Defense College. Boyce and Heard define “token status” as less than 15% (Boyce and Herd, p. 377). Thus, given Article 26.1 of the regulations of the IADC, which states that “IADC seeks to diversify its student body,” it appears that the Director of the IADC is also obligated by its own internal regulations to diversify its student body to the extent, at minimum, that diversity reflects more than token status for female students.

Female military members certainly do exist. Let us take, for example, the State of Peru. Even if we limit ourselves to examining only the rank of O-6 (Army colonel/Navy captain/Air Force colonel), it appears there are at least women who met the entry requirement for IADC in 2020 (Barriga, 2020). They are:

Colonel Lourdes Barriga Abarca

Colonel María Dibós Mori

Colonel Paola Peggy Polanco Ponce

Colonel María de los Milagros Carrasco Cabrejos

Colonel Milagros del Carmen Gayoso Cervantes

Captain Patty Ayala Robles

Captain IvetteHuamboChávez

Captain Isabel Molina Rodriguez.

Captain Bertha Reaño Vidal

Colonel RaqueldelPilarSeminarioSoto

Colonel Hazel Katia Sciutto Cook

Colonel Nancy Pamela Mejía Cruz

The qualifications of, for example, Peruvian Colonel Lourdes Barriga Abarca are superior to the qualifications of many IADC male students. Colonel Barriga Abarca was not only the first Peruvian female military member of an Antarctic expedition, she also served in a UN peace operation in Africa. Further, her qualifications range from holding a parachute badge to holding a Ph.D. Colonel Barriga Abarca is a 2009 graduate of the Escuela Superior de Guerra, a 2011 graduate of the Escuela de las FFAA, a professor in 20at the Escuela Superior de Guerra del Ejército, Peru - Escuela de Posgrados, and currently the Director of the Science and Technology Institute for the Army of Peru (Perera & Turner (eds.), 2020, p. 213).¹⁵ Excluding such Peruvian female colonels from military education at IADC only serves to reinforce perceptions that States, and militaries place greater priority on male hegemony than on the national and international security they are tasked to provide. 

Conclusion

UNSCR 1325 opened the gate to increase the participation of women in peace-keeping operations and in all levels of representation of conflict resolution and decision making. However, it took the UN almost 20 years to acknowledge a barrier erected against the participation of women – the refusal of States to ensure equal access to military education. This paper is a start to addressing the barriers, but even more importantly, it is a start to addressing solutions. The responsibility for implementing solutions lies on the shoulders of UN Member States.

The 20th anniversary of UNSCR 1325 is a wake-up call to reflect on what has been accomplished between October 31, 2000 and today. Further, the twentieth anniversary of UNSCR 1325 is a reflection point to understand what has failed and why, to address how to improve on the successes and how to mitigate the failures, and to clarify what remains to be accomplished. And finally, the twentieth anniversary of UNSCR 1325 is the clarion call to prepare our institutions so that, by the 25th anniversary of UNSCR 1325, we live in an equal world, rather than the current model in which States and militaries erect barriers to basics, like education, against women. Whether States and militaries will ignore, or will champion, their responsibilities to eliminate barriers and to provide women equal access to military education remains to be seen.

Notes

4. For example, in Colombia military service is mandatory for men. The Law 48 of 1993 dictates that all Colom-bian men must “define” their military status when they turn 18 or, failing that, when they finish high school. This means that they must report to the nearest recruiting station and be examined. All men must have a “libreta militar” which is a military ID. This is mandatory to access some government positions. This military ID, which is part of the citizenship of Colombian men, can be seen as a differentiating factor compared to the citizenship of women, which is not directly permeated by military institutions at any time. According to Law 48 of 1993, women are permitted to perform voluntary military service, but before 2017 the law restricted women to the tasks of logistical, administrative, social, cultural and environmental support.

5. After the four years of the undergraduate education, the officers start to reach ranks in the following way (Army and Air forces have the same names, Navy have the equivalents with different ones): Subteniente/Teniente de Corbeta (4 years), Teniente/Teniente Fragata (4 years), Capitán/Teniente de Navío (5 years), Mayor/Capitán de Corbeta (5 years), Teniente Coronel/Capitán de Fragata (5 years), Coronel/Capitán de Navío (5 years), Brigadier General/Contralmirante (5 years), Mayor General/Vicealmirante (5 years) and General/Admiral (chief of the forces). 

6. Major General Clara Esperanza Galvis Díaz, a medical doctor and currently the chief of the Military Hospi-tal, and Major General Maria Paulina Leguizamón, a lawyer and currently the Deputy Chief of the Institu-tional Legal Staff. Both hold the second highest rank in the military.

7. While the salary divide is articulated as a difference of being a civilian or a military member (not as a dif-ference of being male or female), men (not women) had the opportunity to attend the military academy; Colombia forbade women’s admission to the military academy. The effect: sex-based pay discrimination.

8. The total sample of officers in this survey was 1,185 officers, of which 152 were women (Rivera-Páez, 2019).

9. In Spanish, Curso de Altos Estudios Militares. In the U.S., referred to as “war college.” We have elected not to use the term “war college” in this paper given that in Spanish the term “war college” is more expansive, including also intermediate education (for entering field grade officers such as majors and lieutenant com-manders). In Colombia, a course for majors/lieutenant commanders to be promoted to Lieutenant Colonel/Commander is CEM (Curso de Estado Mayor). The 2020 CEM course included only 14 women (out of 453 officers) and only of the Air Force and the Navy; again, the continued effects of excluding women from the Army academy.

10. The war college in Colombia accepts professionals but in a different course that is called CIM (Curso de Información Militar in Spanish); if officers in the rank of major complete this course, they are promoted to lieutenant colonels.

11. The first female general in Colombia was Luz Marina Bustos in 2008. The police academy stopped excluding women in 1980. Bustos was part of the first class open to women. Bustos reached the rank of Major General, retiring in 2016 (Revista Semana, 2016). General Cordón López was the second woman to reach the rank of general, she retired in 2017 (El Tiempo, 2017). 

12. One of the strategies that women in STEM careers have found to encourage girls to explore these careers is the visibility of female role models working and teaching science, technology, engineering and math, “role models (i.e., people we wish to emulate) provide direct and indirect influence related to career choices and professional identity development, emphasizing competencies and commitment to the profession” (Smith & Rosenstein, 2016, p. 263). Applying the same principle of women as role models in military leadership posi-tions can be a positive strategy for female officers, made possible through equal opportunities in education as male peers.

13. Asking questions like this are indispensable, as Enloe (2016) said, to reveal the unequal relations of power that exist in the military. If education in the higher levels remains the same, the lived realities and participa-tion of male and female generals and admirals will differ. All gender relations are “crossed by power.” Waiting until women reach higher ranks, without any proactive changes in military education, is a guarantee for continued barriers. Given that access to military education is the only way for female military members to reach positions of power, military education must guarantee equal opportunities for male and female officers in all aspects of the educational processes.

14. One reviewer of this paper suggested that causes of disparity are unclear because most research disregards everyday life in the implementation of reforms to military institutions. We thank the anonymous reviewers of this paper for their invaluable suggestions.

15. Part of this list of accomplishments is also derived from Barriga’s CV, a copy of which is in the authors’ files.

References

Adams, T., Holman Jones S. & Ellis, C. (2015). Autoethnography: Understanding Qualitative Research. Oxford University Press.

Barriga, L. (2020). Experiencias Exitosas del Desarrollo de la Mujer en Defensa y Seguridad: Perú. Powerpoint presentation.

Boyce, L.A., Herd, A.M. (2003). The Relationship Between Gender Role Stereotypes and Requisite Military Leadership Characteristics. Sex Roles 49, 365–378. https://doi.org/10.1023/A

Dalby, S. (1994). Gender and critical geopolitics; reading security discourse in the new world disorder. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 12(5), 595-612.

Dauphinee, E. (2010). The ethics of autoethnography. Review of International Studies, 799-818.

District of Columbia. (1977). Human Rights Act of 1977.

DPO. (2018). Uniformed Gender Parity Strategy 2018-2028. UN, New York. Education Licensure Commission. (nd).

District of Columbia Notice of Final Rulemaking. Chapter 80, 8007.3(j)), Chapter 80, 8009.2(a).

Ellis, C., Adams, T. E., & Bochner, A. P. (2011). Autoethnography: an overview. Historical Social Research, 36(4), 273-290. https://doi.org/10.12759/hsr.36.2011.4.273-290 

El Tiempo. (01 June 2017). Mireya Cordón, mayor general de la Policía, pre-senta su retiro. https://www.eltiempo.com/justicia/servicios/mujer-mayor-general-de-la-policia-presenta-su-retiro-944

Enloe, C. (2016). Words to investigate by. In: Globalization and Militarism: Feminists make the link. Rowman & Littlefield: Maryland.

ESMIC. (2018). La primera mujer de Infantería en la historia del Ejército Nacional. https://www.esmic.edu.co/sala_prensa/noticias/la_primera_mujer_infanteria_2681_2681Haring, E. (27 November 2019). “Why are There so Few Women at West Point? Ask Congress,” Politico Magazine. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2019/11/27/why-are-there-so-few-women-at-west-point-ask-congress-074130.Inter-American Defense College (IADC). (2019).

Inter-American Defense College Metrics, “Gender.” IADC Repository. http://iadc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/IADC-Metrics.-June-2019.pdf

Inter-American Defense College (IADC). (2016). Michelle Bachelet. Hall of Honor. https://iadc.edu/hoh-recipient/michelle-bachelet/

Inter-American Defense College (IADC). Regulations, Article 26, Selection of Applicants to Academic Programs.

Lynn, M., Smith., L., & Worthington, K. (2008). Fitting the Methodology with the Research: An exploration of narrative, self-study and auto-ethnography. Studying Teacher Education, 4(1), 17-28, DOI: 10.1080/17425960801976321

Mahany, B. (29 May 1986). Air Academy’s Best: Just Call Her Sir. Chicago Tribune. https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1986-05-29-8602080444-story.htm

Masson, L. (2010). “Las mujeres en las Fuerzas Armadas ¿Qué tipo de incorporación?. En: Género y Fuerzas Armadas: algunos análisis teóricos y prácticos. Ministerio de Defensa - Fundación Friederich Ebert. pp. 71-78.

Ministerio de Defensa Nacional. (2018). Política Pública sectorial de transversalización del enfoque de género para el personal uniformado de la Fuerza Pública. https://www.justiciamilitar.gov.co/irj/go/km/docs/Mindefensa/Documentos/descargas/Prensa/Documentos/politica_genero.pdf

OEA/Ser.P, AG/RES. 1 (XXXII-E/06) (15 March 2006). Statutes of the Inter-American Defense Board, https://2009-2017.state.gov/p/wha/rls/75579.htm

Patton, E. (2020). Women of Army War College make history. https://www.armywar-college.edu/news/article/1650#:~:text=The%20first%20female%20faculty%20member%20joined%20the%20war,is%20a%20USAWC%20Distinguished%20Fellow%2C%20inducted%20in%201996 

Perera, S., & Turner, D. (eds.). (2020). Twenty years, Twenty stories: Women, Peace, and Security in the Western Hemisphere. William J. Perry Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies.

Prescott, J. (2020): Moving from Gender Analysis to Risk Analysis of Failing to Consider Gender, The RUSI Journal, DOI: 10.1080/03071847.2020.1831950

RESDAL. (2016). A Comparative Analysis of Defense in Latin America and Caribbean. https://www.resdal.org/ing/assets/atlas_2016_ing_completo.pdf

Revista Semana. (13 January 2016). El retiro de la primera mu-jer general de policía. https://www.semana.com/nacion/articulo/general-luz-marina-bustos-se-retira-de-la-policia/456512-3/

Rivera-Páez, S. (2019). Militares e identidad. Autorrepresentación y construcción de paz en el cuerpo de oficiales de las Fuerzas Militares colombianas. Editorial Pontificia Universidad Javeriana.

Security Council. (28 August 2020). Resolution 2538. http://www.unscr.com/en/resolutions/doc/2538

Security Council. (29 October 2019). Resolution 2493. http://unscr.com/en/resolutions/doc/2493

Security Council. (13 October 2015). Resolution 2242. https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/s_res_2242.pdf

Security Council. (18 October 2013). Resolution 2122. https://undocs.org/en/S/RES/2122(2013)Security Council. (24 June 2013). Resolution 2106. https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/s_res_2106.pdfSecurity Council. (16 December 2010). Resolution 1960. https://www.securitycoun-cilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/WPS%20SRES%201960.pdf

Security Council. (05 October 2009). Resolution 1889. http://unscr.com/en/resolutions/doc/1889Security Council. (30 September 2009). Resolution 1888. https://www.un.org/ruleoflaw/files/N0953446.pdf

Security Council. (19 June 2008). Resolution 1820. https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/CAC%20S%20RES%201820.pdf