The Essential Frontline: Why Global Stability Depends on Reclaiming the Women, Peace, and Security Agenda
Across the fractured landscapes of modern conflict, the voices of women and girls rise in a singular, rhythmic demand: “Ceasefire.” “End the war.” “Stop the brutality.” These are not merely pleas for a temporary pause in violence; they are foundational blueprints for a different kind of world. For UN Women, these calls are the pulse of an institutional mission, yet as we approach a quarter-century since the world formally recognized that peace cannot be achieved without gender equality, the gap between rhetoric and reality is widening into a chasm.
The logic is statistically unassailable: when women occupy seats at the negotiating table, peace agreements are more inclusive, more durable, and significantly more likely to address the root causes of instability. Yet, twenty-five years after the inception of the Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) agenda, the international community is faltering. At a time when world leaders should be doubling down on the proven efficacy of female leadership in diplomacy, many are instead retreating into traditional, male-dominated power structures that have historically failed to sustain long-term stability.
To understand the stakes of this moment, one must look back to October 31, 2000. On that day, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) did something unprecedented: it unanimously adopted Resolution 1325. This was not just another bureaucratic document; it was the culmination of decades of tireless advocacy by civil society. For the first time in history, the world’s most powerful security body acknowledged that war impacts women differently and that women have an inherent, legal right to equal participation in every stage of peace processes. Today, that original resolution has expanded into a suite of ten binding UNSC resolutions, forming the backbone of the WPS agenda.
The WPS framework is built upon four essential pillars: Participation, Protection, Prevention, and Relief and Recovery. These are not isolated categories but interconnected strategies designed to shift the global security paradigm. Participation ensures that women are not just present, but influential in decision-making roles, from local councils to international summits. Protection focuses on the safety and human rights of women and girls, particularly against gender-based violence. Prevention addresses the structural causes of conflict, including the marginalization of women, while Relief and Recovery ensures that humanitarian aid and post-conflict reconstruction are designed through a gender-sensitive lens.
The impact of this agenda is best seen through the lives of those who embody it. In Palestine, Randa Siniora, a lawyer and human rights defender, has spent over thirty years proving that justice under military occupation requires a feminist perspective. As the first Palestinian woman to brief the Security Council, Siniora has consistently argued that women should not be viewed solely as victims. “We are initiators of change,” she asserts, demanding a shift from mere protection to meaningful political agency.
Similarly, in the fledgling nation of South Sudan, Police Commissioner Christine Fossen leads the UN Police component with a philosophy that leadership is defined by voice and example rather than rank. By mentoring the Network for Uniformed Women Peacekeepers, Fossen is transforming the face of security in a region where the presence of female officers often facilitates trust and reporting that male-dominated units cannot achieve. These stories are echoed in Mozambique, where Quibibi Faquihe Buana, a displaced woman herself, serves as a district facilitator. Her work in the Marrocane resettlement center demonstrates that the most effective peacebuilders are often those who have lost the most, using their lived experience to prevent violence and support survivors within their own communities.
Despite these individual triumphs, the broader horizon is darkening. The United Nations Secretary-General’s 2025 report on Women, Peace, and Security offers a sobering assessment of the current global climate. We are witnessing a period of chronic under-investment and a palpable backlash against women’s rights. One in four countries now reports an active regression in gender equality protections. As military spending surges globally, funding for conflict prevention and peacebuilding—the very sectors where women’s organizations thrive—is being slashed.
The financial crisis facing the WPS agenda is particularly acute. Drastic cuts to humanitarian budgets are forcing frontline organizations to shutter their doors, precisely when they are needed most. These cuts do more than just end programs; they dismantle the infrastructure of justice. When the UN’s ability to monitor crimes or support grassroots peacebuilders is reduced, the departure of peacekeeping missions leaves women and girls exposed to predators and systemic abuse without any layer of protection.
Furthermore, a critical lack of gender-specific data is rendering the suffering of women and girls invisible. Without accurate statistics on sexual violence or women’s representation in local governance, it is impossible to hold perpetrators accountable or allocate resources effectively. This data gap is not an accident; it is a symptom of a system that still views gender issues as secondary to “hard” security concerns. Yet, the data we do have is harrowing. Women in fragile or conflict-affected environments are nearly eight times more likely to live in extreme poverty than those in stable regions. In 2023, a staggering 60 percent of maternal deaths occurred in countries in crisis, many from preventable causes that could have been addressed with gender-sensitive health infrastructure.
The violence of modern conflict is also evolving. Beyond the physical battlefield, women officials and activists are facing a surge in digital abuse, trolling, and technology-facilitated stalking designed to silence them and drive them out of public life. This “insidious violence” is a direct challenge to the WPS agenda’s goal of participation. If a woman cannot speak online without facing a barrage of threats, she cannot effectively lead in the physical world.
In Sudan, leaders like Mona Mohamed Omaer Hamad are fighting to ensure that this silence does not take hold. Working with the Sorkenat Organization, Hamad pushes for women to be present in state institutions as decision-makers who can resolve conflicts side-by-side with men. In Haiti, Minister Pédrica Saint-Jean, a survivor of armed attacks herself, echoes this sentiment, arguing that the fulfillment of women’s rights is not a luxury to be deferred until “stability” is reached, but a prerequisite for that stability to exist in the first place.
As we look toward the future, the roadmap remains the same one drafted twenty-five years ago, though the urgency has intensified. Today, 115 countries have developed National Action Plans for the WPS agenda, but the majority of these plans remain unfunded “paper promises.” The upcoming 30th anniversary of the Beijing Declaration provides a vital opportunity to course-correct. The Beijing+30 agenda calls for a massive mobilization of capital to support women’s frontline organizations and to fully finance national WPS commitments.
Progress will not be measured by the number of speeches given in New York or Geneva, but by the tangible shifts in power on the ground. It will be measured by more women voting in liberated districts, fewer girls forced into child marriage as a survival strategy in refugee camps, and more women leading the community dialogues that prevent a localized dispute from escalating into a national war.
The Women, Peace, and Security agenda is not merely a policy framework; it is a growing social movement that spans generations. It recognizes that gender equality is the most reliable predictor of a state’s peacefulness. When women lead, the focus shifts from the mechanics of war to the requirements of life: education, healthcare, justice, and sustainable development. The question for world leaders in 2025 is no longer whether they know what to do, but whether they have the political courage to listen to the women who have been telling them the answer for twenty-five years.
