Why abandoning the women, peace and security agenda is a mistake
When the WPS agenda was introduced by UNSC Resolution 1325 in 2000, it started an unprecedented movement by the international community to consider women as key partners to peace. The 10 UNSC resolutions adopted since then, nine of which were supported by the US, demanded that women be fully engaged in conflict resolution. It is imperative that we don't abandon the WPS agenda during this seminal year — when the UN observes its 25 th anniversary.
Progress and gains made since 2000:
While uneven, the gains that were brought by the WPS agenda are substantial and need to be recognised. By 2024, 108 countries had a National Action Plan (NAP) for WPS, which indicates a commitment to applying the agenda domestically and in foreign policy. Various international organisations, including Nato, the League of Arab States, the African Union and the European Union, have also officially adopted their own NAPs and strategies for WPS, embracing its principles.
Between 1992 and 2019, women constituted just 13 per cent of negotiators and 6 per cent of mediators in peace processes worldwide. The adoption of the WPS agenda helped increase women's representation, albeit in a modest way, and i n 2023, women made up 13.7 per cent of mediators and 26.6 per cent of signatories of peace agreements. The UN also increased the share of women in its mediation support teams to 43 per cent in 2022, an uptick from 30 per cent in 2019. Another improvement to note is that the presence of gender provisions found in peace agreements also rose since the 1990s. While only 12 per cent of peace agreements made references to women between 1990 and 2000, 31 per cent of agreements now include gender provisions.
It is easy to dismiss these numbers as tributes to an elitist agenda that helps women leaders keep their positions. But WPS serves a larger number of women who would otherwise remain invisible. Through subsequent resolutions, the WPS agenda has raised awareness against conflict-related sexual violence and provided mechanisms to hold perpetrators of gender-based violence (GBV) accountable for their crimes. It has also shed light on, and empowered, women's involvement in informal and community-centered peace processes. For example, Yemeni women formed networks and groups to de-escalate tensions and fighting over resources, and helped with the evacuation of schools during attacks. They also facilitated aid access, reintegrated child soldiers, and helped release over 300 prisoners.
The inclusion of women in informal peace efforts and local peacebuilding is important for peace. Women have access to domestic spaces that men do not. They can assist with disbursing aid, protecting victims of GBV and caring for other women and children in conservative contexts that are often overlooked during conflict. By recognising and formalising their efforts, we ensure that peace processes include everyone.
Where we go from here:
Abandoning the WPS agenda not only wipes out three decades of advocacy, it also erases past and current contributions made by women to global peace. With persistent global conflicts, women's role in finding solutions is key. Women bring local knowledge and access, they command trust within their communities and they offer unique perspectives that would otherwise be lost.
We would also be wise to remember that some of the main benefactors of the WPS agenda are women soldiers. The agenda clearly advocates for an increased presence of women in the military and seeks to create more equitable and safer security structures where women would be encouraged to join, serve and lead. In essence, the WPS agenda is compatible with all defence strategies that seek to see more women in combat roles and promoted to senior ranks. By emphasising women's continuous training for various peacekeeping operations, the agenda gives the defense industry valuable insights into how their missions could succeed in difficult contexts.
The benefits of the agenda are by no means 'woke'; they are real. And they are needed. The principles of the agenda are not 'divisive', they are inclusive. They make military structures stronger and more prepared to face threats and post-war scenarios where millions of women and children need help.
The WPS agenda should not be a mere box-ticking exercise for states to pledge allegiance to women's empowerment when it suits them, or discard when the political tide changes. It is a global and necessary multilateral effort that states have willingly adopted to redress historical gender imbalances that left women victimised and invisible for too long. To abandon it in 2025 is to renounce a moral and strategic imperative that will prove costly to millions.
Dr Sara Chehab is a Senior Research Fellow at the Anwar Gargash Diplomatic Academy in Abu Dhabi.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
3 hours ago
- The National
Trump says DC residents 'feel so safe' with National Guard posted
US President Donald Trump on Thursday said Washington residents "feel so safe already", after he ordered federal agents and members of the National Guard to patrol the streets in support of local law enforcement. The White House has said the move was needed amid a surge in violent crime, although city officials say crime has been decreasing in recent years. "I had calls from many, many friends, including Democrats, a lot of Democrat friends ... and they were thanking me so much for what I'm doing in DC," Mr Trump told reporters from the Oval Office. "So we will have crime under control very shortly in DC." Mr Trump said Washington officials and police had "fudged" the crime statistics to make it seem as if violent incidents were going down. "We're going to be getting the criminals the hell out of here. People are so happy to see our military going into DC and getting these thugs out of there," he said. The federal intervention is supposed to last 30 days but Mr Trump has said he will have Republicans in Congress push for extensions. A significant rise in the number of troops and federal agents could be seen on the streets on Thursday after the White House said the day before that more would be on patrol. It has said that more arrests are being made and homeless people are being forced to remove their tents from public spaces. The Pentagon says the 800 National Guard members who have been activated will have missions that include monument security and community safety patrols. They will not be armed, according to the Pentagon, and the White House said they will help with crowd control but will not be making arrests. National Guard Maj Micah Maxwell said troops will assist federal and local law enforcement in a variety of roles, including traffic and crowd control. The Guard members have been trained in de-escalation tactics as well as the proper use of crowd control equipment, Maj Maxwell said. Mr Trump has described the residents of Washington as "happy" to see troops and agents on the streets, but a viral video shows a man confronting a law enforcement officer and hitting him with a sandwich. The man was charged with a felony and fired from his job at the Justice Department.
The National
3 hours ago
- The National
I've lived in Washington for 30 years – the last thing the city needs is troops
Donald Trump's second term is demonstrating how foolhardy Congress has been over the past 60 years to endow the US presidency with effectively unchecked powers to meet any declared 'emergency'. But surely no president would routinely and groundlessly declare emergencies willy-nilly whenever he wants to act unilaterally and without oversight. And if one ever did, the Senate would certainly restrain that White House forthwith. Right? That's not exactly how it appears to be playing out. And his recent predecessors, including Barack Obama and Joe Biden, were not immune to the allure of unilateralism either. Mr Trump's latest dive into the warm waters of faux emergency has now allowed him to unilaterally seize control of the Washington, DC, Police Department and deploy 800 District National Guard troops to additional policing duties. It's preposterous because the magnificent city in which I have lived since 1998 bears no resemblance whatsoever to the President's depictions of it. He describes our gorgeous metropolis (I wouldn't live anywhere else on the East Coast) as 'a national disgrace' beset with 'violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals' and overrun by 'roving mobs of violent youth'. He also mischaracterised it as, 'horribly run, graffiti stained' and 'too dangerous' to visit. There are violent crimes here, but rates are at a 30-year low. There was a deadly insurrection on January 6, 2021, but all the malefactors have been summarily pardoned. DC is strikingly beautiful, filled with gorgeous parks, magnificent monuments, endless (mostly free) world-class museums and similar institutions of art and learning. As for being horribly run, the city was graded first in financial health out of 73 cities examined in a 2023 report by the non-partisan think tank Truth in Accounting. It has a surplus of $2.5 billion, and $9,000 for every citizen, and meets virtually 100 per cent of its pension and healthcare obligations. There is, however, inequality between the financial condition of African Americans compared to white and other communities. That's virtually ubiquitous in the US, given the history of slavery, segregation (the city only fully desegregated by the early 1960s and gained a measure of independence from Congress – like electing our own mayor – in 1973). Not all discrimination has been eliminated by any means. Plus, there is the ongoing impact of past abuses on present perceptions, where people live and services in those areas, as well as generational wealth, or lack thereof, within families. Mr Trump appears to want to scrub that bloodstained history pearly white. He is seizing control of the Smithsonian Institution, a national treasure, and focusing on eight of its superlative, and free, museums. He vows to rid them of 'divisive or ideologically driven' material and anything that could be construed as 'narratives that portray American and western values as inherently harmful or oppressive', especially given that the 250th birthday of the Declaration of Independence is next year. Any consideration of the irony of a group that included many committed slaveholders declaring that 'all men are created equal' will presumably be impossible or forbidden. The President insists on a sanitised history, particularly regarding race. This is dangerous. In my nearly 30 years in DC, I have seen little violent crime – though it certainly happens – or much that the President describes. According to the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia, violent crime is down by 26 per cent this year compared to the same point last year, and robbery is down by 28 per cent. And while the number of homicides in 2023 – 274 – was the highest in two decades, it was not for 'ever', as Mr Trump suggested. That figure has also dropped in subsequent years. Yet, the US President has declared a 'public safety emergency' that allows him to take over the DC police and station the National Guard. Washington certainly could use more police officers, but there is no emergency or anything similar. Moreover, the 'big beautiful budget bill' he recently squeaked through Congress punishes this city of 700,000 people with a $1.1 billion funding cut. It's a huge blow to housing, sanitation, public schools and transportation, and – you guessed it – police and emergency services. Mr Trump's executive order is not about crime but power. He is doing this to demonstrate that he can – not to free the city from the 'crime, bloodshed, bedlam, squalor, and worse'. Mayor Muriel Bowser sought the President's good graces by removing the unmistakable yellow painted words 'Black Lives Matter' on H Street immediately facing the White House. But she appears taken aback and is protesting the executive order, thus far in vain. Mr Trump will have control for at least 30 days, and longer if Congress agrees. Most alarmingly, The Washington Post reports that Mr Trump's team is planning to form a 'Domestic Civil Disturbance Quick Reaction Force'. That would provide him a potent domestic fighting force, a crucial and essential step in building strongman rule. The ultra-right-wing German political theorist Carl Schmitt viewed states of emergency – which many strongmen employed to seize permanent extra-constitutional powers – as crucial tests of true sovereignty and genuine authority. The power to unilaterally declare, and act upon, 'states of exception' demonstrates that a real sovereign can sweep aside traditional legal, moral or other constraints in a previously functional democratic order like the Weimar Republic, which Schmitt detested. Mr Trump's misuse of emergency powers illustrates this precisely. Since the end of the Second World War, time and again Congress has pondered the legitimate need for a robust executive that can act decisively in genuine states of sudden emergency, like nuclear war. They never imagined that the power would be used in conjunction with executive orders, often providing the president virtually unchallengeable authority. Like his administration's attempt to seize control of universities, intimidate media and law firms, and remove other crucial constraints on executive power, the de facto seizure of Washington DC's police is likely to be replicated in other Democratic-run cities with a large African-American population. This was already previewed in Los Angeles. As a proud, almost-30-year resident of DC (I have lived longer here than in Beirut, Amherst, Miami and London, in that order), I can do no better than quote the love letter to the city by the funk band Parliament in 1975:
The National
4 hours ago
- The National
Vladimir Putin praises 'sincere' US efforts to stop the war on eve of ‘one-to-one' Alaska summit
Russian President Vladimir Putin on Thursday praised 'sincere efforts' by the US to end the war ahead of his summit in Alaska with US President Donald Trump. Mr Putin said in televised comments that the US was 'making, in my opinion, quite energetic and sincere efforts to stop the hostilities, stop the crisis and reach agreements that are of interest to all parties involved in this conflict'. This was happening, he said, 'in order to create long-term conditions for peace between our countries, and in Europe, and in the world as a whole – if, by the next stages, we reach agreements in the area of control over strategic offensive weapons'. Mr Trump said that he believed Mr Putin was ready to negotiate. 'I believe now, he's convinced that he's going to make a deal. He's going to make a deal. I think he's going to, and we're going to find out,' Mr Trump said in an interview on Fox News Radio on Thursday. He also mentioned that he has three locations in mind for a follow-up meeting with Mr Putin and Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. 'Depending on what happens with my meeting, I'm going to be calling up President Zelenskyy, and let's get him over to wherever we're going to meet,' Mr Trump said, adding that a second meeting could focus on boundary issues. 'I don't want to use the word 'divvy things up,' but you know, to a certain extent, it's not a bad term, OK?' he said, emphasising that a second meeting was not guaranteed and he was not 100 per cent sure the Friday meeting would produce results. Meanwhile, Russian troops have captured two settlements in eastern Ukraine, it was announced on the eve of the summit between Mr Putin and his US counterpart. The Defence Ministry said Russian troops captured the village of Iskra and the small town of Shcherbynivka in Donetsk region, which the Kremlin claimed to have annexed in September 2022. Ukraine fired dozens of drones at Russia overnight into the early morning, wounding three people and sparking fires, including at an oil refinery in the southern city of Volgograd. The Russian army has accelerated its gains in recent months, with Mr Putin keen to seize as much territory as possible before the talks take place. Mr Zelenskyy, who was in London on Thursday to meet Prime Minister Keir Starmer, this week conceded that Russian troops had advanced by up to 10km in a narrow section of the front line. A stepped-up Russian offensive, and the fact Mr Zelenskyy has not been invited to the summit, have heightened European fears that Mr Trump and Mr Putin could strike a deal that forces painful concessions on Ukraine. The Kremlin has said the Alaska meeting would focus on 'the resolution of the Ukraine crisis'. The meeting will be the first between sitting US and Russian presidents since 2021, and comes as Mr Trump seeks to broker an end to Russia's nearly three-and-a-half year offensive. It will be the first time the Russian leader has been permitted on western soil since his invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Tens of thousands of people have been killed. The talks are scheduled to start in Alaska at 11.30am local time and will be held 'one-on-one' between the two leaders, with only their interpreters also in attendance, culminating in a joint press conference. There will also be negotiations between the delegations, which on the Russian side includes Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Defence Minister Andrei Belousov, Finance Minister Anton Siluanov and economic negotiator Kirill Dmitriev. Mr Zelenskyy met Mr Starmer at No 10 Downing Street in a strong show of support ahead of the Anchorage summit from which Kyiv and its European allies have been excluded. Mr Starmer greeted the Ukrainian leader with a warm hug and handshake on the steps of his residence, a day after the pair took part in a virtual call with Mr Trump. About an hour later, Mr Starmer walked Mr Zelenskyy back to his waiting car and the two leaders shared another embrace as the Ukrainian President left without making any public comment. Mr Zelenskyy later posted to social media that it has been a 'productive' meeting at which they had discussed the 'security guarantees that can make peace truly durable if the United States succeeds in pressing Russia to stop the killings and engage in genuine, substantive diplomacy'. The pair agreed there was a 'powerful sense of unity and a strong resolve' to secure peace, Downing Street said. Mr Starmer said on Wednesday there was now a 'viable' chance for a ceasefire in Ukraine after more than three years of fighting. With such high stakes, all sides were pushing hard in the run-up to the meeting. Mr Trump has sent mixed messages, saying he could quickly organise a three-way summit afterwards, with both Mr Zelenskyy and Mr Putin, but also warned of his impatience with Russia. Mr Zelenskyy, who joined Wednesday's call from Berlin alongside German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, has been keen to rally further support from Europe amid the possibility that the Trump-Putin meeting does not go his way. He said on Thursday that Kyiv had so far secured $1.5 billion from its European allies to purchase US weapons. 'As of today, we already have $1.5 billion pledged. Through the Nato Prioritised Ukraine Requirements List initiative, Nato members can co-operate to purchase US-made weapons for Ukraine – a mechanism that truly strengthens our defence,' he wrote on X. He said the Netherlands contributed $500 million, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden collectively pledged $500 million and Germany committed another $500 million. Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte posted on X: 'Thanks to Germany for stepping up once again by funding a package of US military equipment for Ukraine. Germany is the largest European contributor of military aid to Ukraine and this announcement further underlines its commitment to help the Ukrainian people defend their freedom.'
