The Women, Peace and Security Agenda in Today’s Geopolitical Environment

At a moment when bolstering security and defence is at the forefront of policymaking, it is essential to reflect on the role of women and how to shape a more inclusive approach in security. Key security organisations, such as NATO, and its member and partner countries are essential to pushing forward the role of women in security through their commitments to the WPS agenda.

The WPS agenda’s cornerstone was laid 25 years ago in 2000 when the first UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) in the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda was passed. Since then, the agenda has grown to 10 UNSCRs spanning a range of issues from the consideration of women and girls as victims of conflict, to the inclusion of women in lasting peace solutions, to the important role of women in countering terrorism and violent extremism.

Progress

It is important to recognise that having high-level international consensus within the UN system on the importance of including women in security and defence and addressing gender inequality demonstrates the significant progress made in this field over the last 25 years. With this consensus has come widespread recognition from organisations such as NATO of the responsibility that its members and partners have to commit resources to implementing the WPS agenda. This includes ensuring that gender analysis informs their peace and security operations, as well as raising awareness of the many roles women can play in relation to security, rather than relying upon stereotypes and assumptions about the roles that they may be good at.

The last century has been one of incremental progress for women’s rights, evolving from the right to vote to women gaining political and military leadership positions. Societies across the globe have fundamentally challenged and pushed back against the male-centric, realist roots of the international relations system and moved towards broader inclusivity. NATO member and partner countries have adopted National Action Plans for WPS and appointed Advisors in the armed forces to ensure gender mainstreaming. Furthermore, there is growing recognition that insecurity means different things to different people and that it is not enough to suggest that defending the security of the state will amount to defending the security of all its citizens in a way that recognises their different needs. This has been captured through the evolution of the human security agenda, which often compliments WPS priorities and approaches.

Backlash

However, as Newton’s laws of physics state, ‘For every action, there must be an equal and opposite reaction.’ Fundamentally, humans are objects in motion. Security is a conception, which in its most basic form, reflects the interpretations of powerful individuals’ goals and necessities – most of whom, around the world, have been men. Suggesting that peace and security must be more complex to capture the complexity of individual experience exerts pressure upon their actions, causing an equal and opposite reaction – a need to reassert an oversimplified sense of control.

Reflecting on the WPS agenda’s evolution over the last 25 years, there is an ever increasing need to protect its foundation. It is not surprising that no individual or structure inherently wants to give up power and there is a growing trend of backlash towards gender equality and diversity and inclusion goals and policy frameworks. Unfortunately, the advancements that have been made towards gender equality have perhaps not reflected enough on how and why equality is good for everyone, as well as how it can strengthen security and defence institutions. The equality argument is often interpretated as pitting homogenised groups of men and women against each other in a struggle for the upper hand, easily lending itself to the backlash playing out today. To strategically communicate the importance of gender equality, countries and institutions should make WPS operationally relevant using tangible case studies, as our recent report highlighted.

Perhaps, if the argument is made that sharing the load of security alleviates some of the burdens that all genders experience, this messaging might be less of an affront. There are expectations of masculinity in most cultures that revolve around being the security provider and breadwinner. These expectations often come with an immense amount of pressure in challenging circumstances, which can be drivers for criminal activity, extremism, violence, mental health challenges, and more. When considering these harms, sharing the burden potentially becomes more amenable.

It seems counter-intuitive to suggest that diversity, equality and inclusion efforts present a threat to equality. However, this is what is happening as these efforts become politicised representations of an agenda. Today, feminists are being accused of causing the very misogyny that they experience. Equality is being defined as survival of the fittest, with no consideration to the structural barriers that hamper certain groups from having equal opportunities to compete at the same level and enhance systems with their unique strengths. Which brings us back to the key element of the WPS agenda – the focus on women.

Historically, women have been excluded from the security domain, so while the fundamental goal of gender mainstreaming is equality, the WPS agenda recognises that in the near term there needs to be extra efforts to empower women to be meaningful and equally included in peace and security solutions in order to overcome the historic biases that have denied them access to these spaces. Ultimately, gender should not be an exclusionary factor from having your security needs considered and your voice heard in the development of solutions.

What Next

Equal inclusion in peace and security is evidenced to improve the effectiveness and impact of solutions. There is an argument that can be made in relation to operational and strategic success that presents the same ideas of gender mainstreaming but packages them with a label that is less threatening to the patriarchy. Reframing equality goals with language that emphasises the transactional benefits is likely to be the best course for continued progress considering changing geopolitical priorities.

However, it remains important to consider that this reframing means going around – rather than addressing – the more fundamental issue of reckoning with the social rejection of fundamental human rights, such as gender equality. For the goal of reaching more equitable distribution of, and contribution to, peace and security solutions, there is a need to work towards a world in which everyone can work together to find the most inclusive solutions for sustainable peace that endows all individuals with a sense of safety and security.

© Jessica White, Isabella Vogel, and Balazs Gyimesi, 2025, published by RUSI with permission of the author.

The views expressed in this Commentary are the authors’, and do not represent those of RUSI or any other institution.

For terms of use, see Website Ts&Cs of Use.

Have an idea for a Commentary you’d like to write for us? Send a short pitch to commentaries@rusi.org and we’ll get back to you if it fits into our research interests.View full guidelines for contributors.