Women, Peace and Security: Why Inclusion Still Matters

On 24 November 2025, UK Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper held a short but powerful speech on the 25^th anniversary of the Women Peace and Security (WPS) Agenda. The WPS agenda is a specific set of goals targeted at the inclusion of women in conflict resolution, peace process, in addition to upholding women and children’s rights during and after conflict.

Cooper has used this opportunity to stress the importance of women inclusion in conflict resolution at a time when there are more armed conflicts taking place around the world since World War II. An uncomfortable milestone.

Indeed tensions in the world are rising. At the beginning of 2025, Western democracies and key members of the Rules-Based International Order announced huge cuts to the development sector in favour of raising funds for defence and weaponry. As countries look inward, they are unwilling to hold others accountable to international standards.

At the same time, authoritarian threats are on the rise. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has been ongoing for almost four years now. The People’s Republic of China’s brutal crackdown of democracy and free press in Hong Kong has ramped up in recent years particularly around the 2019-2020 protests. In October, the PRC has unveiled plans to use these crackdowns as a model for Taiwan. The small democratic island ever remains the target of President Xi’s expansionist plans.

Now more than ever, at this inflexion point, women need to be involved in decision making, peace and security. Data gathered over the last 25 years proves this. Since WPS was set up in 2000:

• It has been shown that “women’s participation in peace negotiations increases the durability and the quality of peace” (Krause, Krause & Banfors, 2018)
• Yet “Only 1 in 10 peace talks in 2024 included women negotiators” (UN Women, 2025b) according the UN Secretary General’s annual report on WPS

Two successful examples of women involvement in peace processes were highlighted by the UK Foreign Secretary:

• In Liberia, during the Civil War in 2003. Women were particularly targeted violence throughout the war and took matters into their own hands. Muslim and Christian women in local communities joined forces to pressure their religious and political leaders towards peace through protest and community action, after 14 years of conflict.
• In Colombia, where a monumental peace process took place in 2016, with women making up 20% of the government negotiators and 43% of the revolutionaries (FARC) and a world first “fully integrated gender perspective” (UN Women, 2025a). The success during the peace process has led to further female involvement in judicial reforms since.

This moment must be used to look at whose voices are not being heard. When ceasefires and peace processes are being drawn out and failing in Ukraine, or between Israel and Palestine, or in Sudan, officials must look towards the inclusion of women in processes to create solutions. The world stands to endure much suffering and turmoil from current peacemaking processes, and stands to gain much from greater inclusion of Women in Peace and Security.

Ultimately, looking back in this moment shows us why gender inclusion must remain a mandatory requirement, not just for Peace & Security programmes, but all International Development programmes. We cannot underestimate the importance of gender inclusion at a time when the equality agenda is being globally challenged, and we are witnessing a winding back of policies and agendas.

For example, the current Dutch government are now moving away from their previous position as a global leader in gender-focused aid. Recent policy shifts involve significant budget cuts and the elimination of dedicated support for women’s rights and gender equality programs in development cooperation.

Another example is in the United States. Currently, Americans are experiencing a significant regression and stalling of progress on gender inclusion, marked by policy changes, a political backlash against established rights, and shifts in public opinion. This reversal follows decades of steady progress that began to slow around the early 2000s.