Latest news with #WomenPeaceSecurity
Zawya
2 days ago
- General
- Zawya
Beyond the Headlines: Sudan's Women Journalists Speak Out amid Conflict and Silence
'I was once a popular presenter — now I clean houses for $12 a month.' This was just one of many painful testimonies shared during a powerful session co-hosted by UN Women Sudan Office and Nala Feminist Collective, a Generation Equality Commitment Maker during the Generation Equality Media and Commitment Makers Forum. The session explored the role of media in advancing the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda in Sudan. Held against the backdrop of ongoing armed conflict, it brought together Sudanese journalists, communication specialists, and peace advocates to analyze media portrayals, identify gaps, and promote more inclusive, gender-sensitive reporting. The conversation also highlighted the challenges faced by women journalists and emphasized the urgent need for their protection and support. Media Marginalization and the Silencing of Women's Voices Much of the discussion drew on findings from an assessment conducted by Alalag Media Press, supported by UN Women Sudan Office. Speakers noted that Sudanese media continues to focus predominantly on political processes and elite actors, often sidelining women's stories and the broader impact of war on women and girls. Reports on sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV), women's leadership, and peace efforts remain rare. 'Women are active in peacebuilding, but rarely featured in the media narrative,' one speaker noted. 'And when SGBV is reported, it's often shallow, with little follow-up or survivor-sensitive coverage.' War's Toll on Women Journalists Since the outbreak of war in April 2023, nearly all local media institutions have shut down. As conflict consumed cities and newsrooms, women journalists were forced to flee, go into hiding, or abandon their work entirely. According to the Sudanese Female Journalists Network, 90 per cent of women journalists have become unemployed, and 89 per cent were displaced — either internally or to neighboring countries. Many have faced direct violence, harassment, and threats for simply being journalists. One journalist shared, 'I was detained and harassed for three days while crossing between states. I didn't even have the money to leave my home safely.' Another recalled, 'My younger brother stopped me from going out. He thinks journalism is shameful.' With their incomes lost and domestic pressures rising, many former journalists — once respected community voices — now find themselves silenced and isolated. Barriers to Inclusion and the Role of International Actors The session also addressed the disconnect between international humanitarian actors and Sudanese media institutions. While many international agencies produce their own communications materials, they often do so without engaging local media — particularly women-led outlets. Participants stressed the importance of including Sudanese women journalists not only as storytellers but as central actors in ensuring accountability, transparency, and inclusive peacebuilding. Recommendations for Action The session concluded with a series of recommendations, including investing in media capacity-building in humanitarian settings, particularly through training women journalists to ethically report on SGBV and peace processes. Support for the economic empowerment of refugee and displaced women journalists was also underscored. Participants called for the creation of women-led media platforms and online storytelling spaces to amplify women's voices during conflict. Establishing safe reporting mechanisms — including hotlines for SGBV survivors and access to mental health services — was also urged. 'It's not enough to record the violence,' said one participant. 'We need media that helps reduce stigma, brings healing, and supports change.' Media outlets from East and Southern Africa, present at the Generation Equality Media Forum, pledged to provide their platforms for Sudanese women's stories—a truly heartwarming moment of solidarity. This demonstrated Generation Equality's unique convening power for collective action, advocacy, and intergenerational dialogue. UN Women joins its partners in calling for stronger investment in media freedom and gender-responsive journalism in Sudan. Women journalists are not just messengers — they are witnesses, truth-tellers, and peacebuilders. Their safety, voices, and rights must be protected at all costs. Distributed by APO Group on behalf of UN Women - Africa.
Yahoo
5 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Opinion - Hegseth stampedes through the Pentagon
On April 29, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth announced that he was canceling Defense Department participation in actions generated by the Women, Peace and Security Act of 2017. Hegseth posted on social media that it was 'yet another woke divisive/social justice/Biden initiative that overburdens our commanders and troops — distracting from our core task: WAR-FIGHTING. WPS is a UNITED NATIONS program pushed by feminists and left-wing activists. Politicians fawn over it; troops HATE it.' Journalist Walter Pincus, who spent 40 years at the Washington Post covering topics ranging from nuclear weapons to politics, wrote in a recent column that Trump and Hegseth's defense strategy is riddled with irrelevant political considerations resulting in a series of strange moves that must surely weaken national security. In fact, as Pincus points out, what Congress had in mind in the Women, Peace and Security Act was to increase women's participation in preventing and resolving conflict, countering violent extremism and building post-conflict stability around the globe. It is hard to believe that the program was 'pushed by feminists and left-wing activists' when Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem co-sponsored the bill when she was in Congress, and President Trump signed the measure in 2017. Perhaps reminded of this doctrinal dilemma, Hegseth pivoted in a later tweet, arguing that 'the woke & weak Biden Administration distorted & weaponized the straight-forward & security-focused WPS initiative launched in 2017.' Hegseth said he will try to end WPS programs at the Pentagon in the next budget. Asked whether he believed Women, Peace and Security to be a diversity, equity and inclusion program, new Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine, at his confirmation hearing last month, replied, 'I do not,' adding, 'WPS helped us understand the full challenges that face us.' Hegseth unveiled another terrifying plan on May 5, when he announced 'General/Flag Officer Reductions' in a memo to senior Pentagon leadership to 'drive innovation and operational excellence unencumbered by unnecessary bureaucratic layers.' While the military may be top-heavy, it goes without saying that military firings should be based on merit, not political considerations or race-based policies. Hegseth's purge appears to be totally political. 'That's a recipe not just for a politicized military, but an authoritarian military,' Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.), a Marine officer in Iraq and a member of the House Armed Services Committee, told Politico. 'That's the way militaries work in Russia and China and North Korea. And by the way, it's a big part of why those militaries are not as strong and capable as our own.' Trump's military purge began in February, when the president fired Chairman of the Joint Chiefs CQ Brown — an African American, whom Moulton describes as 'one of the most talented general officers of his generation' — for no articulated reason. In April, Trump fired the redoubtable Gen. Timothy Haugh, commander of the U.S. Cyber Command. Laura Loomer, a conspiracy theorist who for unclear reasons consistently has the president's ear, urged Trump to fire certain officials due to their perceived lack of personal loyalty. She posted a message on social media saying Haugh had been fired for being 'disloyal' to Trump. So far, the administration has fired five four-stars, including three women: the first female chief of naval operations, the commandant of the Coast Guard, and Navy three-star Vice Admiral Shoshana Chatfield, former president of the Naval War College, who was the U.S. deputy military representative to NATO's military committee in Brussels. Yet women make up less than 10 percent of general and flag officers. It is baffling what Hegseth intended to accomplish with the purge. We do know that he has accomplished a decided weakening of national security. The measures were apparently meant to root out diversity, equity and inclusion from the military. Instead, the administration is paring much of the core of our officer cadre, throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Along with the May 5 memorandum, Hegseth released a two-minute video announcing what he ungrammatically called the 'Less Generals More GIs Policy.' He defensively explained that 'this has not been a slash and burn exercise — nothing could be further from the truth … It's going be done carefully. But it's going to be done expeditiously.' Hegseth said he sought to remove 'redundant force structure, to optimize and streamline leadership by reducing excess general and flag officer positions.' He proposed a minimum 20 percent reduction of four-star positions across the active military and of general officers in the National Guard, plus an additional minimum 10 percent reduction in general and flag officers under the new unified command plan. So, who will mind the store? And who will call the shots in a national emergency? The nation's top generals seem unsure about the implications of Hegseth's moves to reduce the general staff. At a hearing before the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness, Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. James J. Mingus testified about the flag office, saying, 'We began a general reduction inside the Army several months ago, before this was ever announced … I think it's probably a little too early to tell in terms of what the overall impacts are going to be.' Air Force Lt. Gen. Adrian L. Spain said, 'It's too soon to say what the exact impact to the Air Force specifically will be with the reductions, but we look forward to seeing the exact language following the announcement.' Hegseth has proved himself to be a bull in a china shop. It is worrisome, now that he has sent troops to the Southern border, that the military could be used in politically partisan ways. In Trump's first term, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper refused an order to have soldiers shoot Black Lives Matter protesters. Hegseth would be unlikely show as much backbone. A nervous nation — seeing Hegseth's obsessive loyalty to Trump and all the weaponizing, the political sturm und drang, the cuts and the dismissals — has to be on edge about how all this will end. James D. Zirin, author and legal analyst, is a former federal prosecutor in New York's Southern District. He is also the host of the public television talk show and podcast Conversations with Jim Zirin. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Khaleej Times
22-05-2025
- Politics
- Khaleej Times
Why abandoning the women, peace and security agenda is a mistake
US Secretary of Defence, Pete Hegseth, recently announced that he was ending the Department of Defence's support for the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda, accusing it of being a divisive, 'woke' and unnecessary programme from the Biden era. But by doing so, he not only risks undermining President Donald Trump's WPS Act, legislation signed during Trump's first term, but is also jeopardising the important gains made by the US defence department, which has seen steady growth in American women serving. That the United States is ending its support for the United Nations-led WPS agenda comes as no surprise amidst a domestic climate where DEI programmes are being rolled back, but the WPS agenda remains important to advocate for women's increased participation in the security sector. It is a multilateral agenda born out of the concern that women were historically left out of negotiations and peace building initiatives despite them being heavily impacted by war. 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.
