Opinion: Women, Peace and Security: Words Endure, but Government Action Lags

Twenty-five years ago, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1325, which recognised what women around the world had long demonstrated through their actions: that peace cannot be built without them, and that gender justice is essential for true security. Resolution 1325 recognised that women must be included in peace processes, and that conflict affects women and girls differently. Over the years, the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda has produced an extensive body of rhetoric: national action plans, reporting frameworks, new Security Council resolutions and regular open debates.

To date, 115 countries have adopted national action plans to promote the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda. Beyond the national level, organisations worldwide have embedded WPS principles into their structures and policies. These include the European Union, which has integrated the principles into its external action framework; NATO, which has made gender perspectives a core component of its operations; ASEAN, which has developed a Regional Plan of Action on WPS; the Organisation of American States, which promotes WPS through its Inter-American Commission of Women; and the African Union, which continues to support national implementation and regional coordination within the WPS framework.

However, amid the multiplication of crises across the globe, while words race ahead, clear, implementable actions from governments lag behind. On Monday (6 October), the UN Security Council held its annual open debate on women, peace and security (WPS). The meeting was opened by UN Secretary-General António Guterres, who observed: 'Too often, we gather in rooms like this one, full of conviction and commitment, only to fall short when it comes to bringing real change to the lives of women and girls caught up in conflict.' He could not have been more right.

Take Gaza, for example. According to the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, between 2023 and 2024, seven out of ten women killed in conflicts worldwide died in Gaza. Earlier this year, the Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security found that the Taliban had banned women from most professions in Afghanistan, prohibited them from travelling without a male chaperone and barred girls from studying beyond the age of twelve. Even the most basic freedoms, such as walking in a park, visiting a gym or participating in public life, have been stripped away. The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) has long been described as 'the rape capital of the world'. In Chad, women and girls face overlapping threats from climate stress and armed conflict. In Haiti, they are disproportionately targeted for killing and sexual abuse by gangs. In Sudan, women and girls experience brutal violence and widespread rape while trapped in one of the world's worst humanitarian crises. In Yemen, they are among the first to suffer from resource scarcity, environmental degradation and natural disasters exacerbated by climate change.

Yet, despite these challenges, women in these countries continue to resist and rebuild. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Justine Masika Bihamba coordinates Synergy of Women for Victims of Sexual Violence. She works to improve the lives of rural women, defend human rights, and support victims of war, particularly female survivors of sexual violence. In Israel, women have mobilised 15,000 people to call for an end to the war in Gaza and for a hostage deal to be reached. Bisan Owda, recipient of the 2024 Human Rights Defender Award, has spent the past two years documenting Israeli atrocities in Gaza. In Haiti, the programme 'Positive Masculinity' challenges harmful, traditional stereotypes of masculinity. In Yemen, women in Al-Qabaitah are driving local change through renewable energy projects and entrepreneurship. On 15 August 2025, the fourth anniversary of the Taliban seizing power, the United Afghan Women’s Movement for Freedom led an indoor protest against the Taliban.

These examples demonstrate that, while governments are talking about the need for action, women are refusing to stand still. Across regions, women's movements, journalists, peacebuilders and local organisations continue to take action where institutions hesitate. They document abuses, rebuild communities and campaign for justice, often at great personal risk. Their determination exposes a painful truth: the Women, Peace and Security agenda is not failing due to a lack of commitment from women, but due to a lack of courage and follow-through from governments. While governments may speak of gender equality in peace and security, it is women on the ground who keep the WPS agenda alive. From Kabul to Kinshasa and Gaza to Port-au-Prince, they fulfil the promises of resolutions.

What must governments do:

In order to close the gap between enduring words and lagging government action, the following must be implemented:

  1. Dedicated, predictable funding: National action plans and women's civil society organisations must be backed by multi-year budget lines. Women-led organisations and national plans that actively support women and girls in the affected regions should be funded by donors, multilateral agencies and state budgets.
  2. It's not just about reporting; it's about accountability. States must be routinely held accountable for implementation through independent monitoring and transparent evaluation. The Security Council itself must honour the commitments made at the Open Debate.
  3. Inclusion in peace processes: Women must be meaningfully involved at every stage of peacebuilding and negotiations, as key decision-makers, not just as symbolic participants.
  4. Protection and justice for victims of sexual and gender-based violence: Conflict-related sexual violence must be treated as a central issue, with the capacity to investigate, pressure to be applied to those responsible for the violence, and support to be provided to survivors.

As the WPS agenda enters its second twenty-five years, the question is no longer whether governments understand what needs to be done, but whether they are willing to act urgently and decisively.

Alexandra Dumitrescu is a Senior Research Associate at LINKS Europe Foundation and the news portal commonspace.eu.
 
The views expressed in opinion pieces and commentaries do not necessarily reflect the position of commonspace.eu or its partners

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).
Editor's choice
News
Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security

Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security

Ukraine and Russia could see European countries join the next round of peace negotiations, following talks between US special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow on Thursday (November 12). However, conflicting positions over European military involvement, Ukraine’s territorial future and the continent’s security arrangements highlight the difficulties facing the diplomatic process. Speaking after the meeting, Witkoff said European participation would be an important development, describing the countries concerned as key partners. Kushner also indicated that Washington had noticed a shift in European attitudes and believed their involvement would not obstruct progress. In a statement published on X, he said the expanded discussions would address broader European security arrangements alongside territorial disputes between Russia and Ukraine. The US envoys subsequently travelled to Dublin, where they met Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during a European summit. Zelenskyy welcomed the possibility of European participation and expressed hope that the negotiations would include measures to reduce tensions and establish ceasefires. He also reiterated the importance of European representation in decisions concerning the continent’s security. Moscow, however, has offered a more cautious interpretation of the proposed expansion. Putin's aide, Yuri Ushakov, suggested that European countries should first reconsider their military assistance to Kyiv, arguing that their current actions demonstrated an unwillingness to pursue peace. Putin similarly called on Washington to work with its European allies to establish whether they genuinely wanted peace or continued confrontation with Russia. The Russian president also rejected the prospect of European peacekeeping troops being deployed to Ukraine following a potential agreement, describing such a presence as a continuation of the war. His position reflects wider disagreements over the future European security architecture, with Moscow seeking discussions on the continent's broader security arrangements, while European leaders insist that such negotiations cannot replace a settlement of the war. Simultaneously, Zelenskyy raised concerns about disruptions to Starshield, the US-made satellite communications service used by Ukrainian forces. He described Washington’s discussions with Moscow about Europe's future security as unusual and warned against decisions that could undermine Ukraine's sovereignty. Despite the diplomatic activity, fighting continued. Russian drone attacks killed two people in Ukraine's Sumy region and injured five in Rivne, while a separate attack in Russia's Belgorod region killed one person and injured four. Ukrainian agricultural company Kernel Holding also suspended operations at all its oilseed extraction facilities following repeated Russian attacks.

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)