Originally published on the CGS blog on August 21, 2015.
Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Mark Kirk (R-IL), and Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) recently introduced the Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) Act of 2015 “to ensure [the] promotion of women’s meaningful inclusion and participation in mediation and negotiation processes in order to prevent, mitigate, or resolve violent conflict.” If passed, this would be a huge step forward in a world where less than 30 percent of senior positions in government, military, academia, and think tanks are held by women, despite their making up 50% of the population. And yet, the lack of news coverage alone shows that the world still needs convincing of the significant impact more women in foreign policy could have.
Other than the obvious reasons of gender equality that make this act so crucial, including more women in foreign policy serves a practical purpose: they are better able to address the problems many women face in conflict zones, as they are women themselves. Sexual violence and sexual health in particular are issues that could be positively impacted by an increase in women leaders.
As Liz Ford notes, “The majority of preventable deaths of women and girls – often in pregnancy and childbirth – occur in countries affected by conflict, but these states receive 57% less funding for reproductive healthcare than stable nations.” Furthermore, she points out, “Only 14% of funding appeals for reproductive health services in humanitarian emergencies include provisions for family planning.”
These are the kinds of disparities that require a refocus toward women, both internally and externally. As Carla Koppell argues, this same refocus could be applied when combatting extremism:
Women often have influence within the family, giving them enormous potential to stem recruitment and radicalization. As community members frequently left behind in conflict zones to maintain the home and care for children and other family members, women and girls often have information and insights that can provide early warning of conflict or the potential for violence.
However, adopting this strategy takes not only the acknowledgement of women, but also the inclusion of women; representation matters, especially when engaging with female members of the community. As a woman, it is comforting and inspiring to see other women leading the way in addressing these distinctly gendered issues. This too, though, brings with it its own issues of representation and intersectionality: we must not settle just for women in foreign policy, but for women of all backgrounds in foreign policy.
Achieving this last goal will undoubtedly take time, but the WPS Act is a step in the right direction. Including more women in foreign policy is the only way to address conflict properly–not only to bring about peace, but also to sustain it.
