How can the Women, Peace, and Security Agenda (WPS) help us navigate these turbulent times?

In a moment of militarisation, anti-gender rhetoric and exclusionary high-level “peace” negotiations, WPS thinking can offer an alternative vision for international peace and security politics- grounded in human security, structural analysis of conflicts and inclusive political processes.

One of the central difficulties of the WPS agenda lies in its isolation from mainstream peace and security discussions, both at the international and national levels. Since the adoption of UNSC resolution 1325, 25 years ago, institutions and governments have been selectively engaging with the agenda, siloing WPS’s discussions and tokenising gender experts in security studies. Many have been funding or endorsing some of WPS’ demands without actually integrating its reflections into their foreign policies and security approaches or undertaking deeper structural reform. A reductionist understanding of the WPS agenda by policymakers as well as academics, equating its scope to a matter of numbers of women in certain positions – such as peacekeeping missions, women mediators, or UN high representative positions– has failed to grasp the transformative power of feminist legal and political thought.

The recent withdrawal or weakening of endorsement of many governments and institutions for the WPS agenda and Feminist Foreign Policy (FFP), as they no longer perceive them as politically favourable, reveals how often their support was opportunistic. Rollback of Feminist Foreign Policy (FFP) in Sweden (George, 2022), Luxembourg, and the Netherlands, among others, alongside reductions in peacebuilding funds, and the absence, and even reference to, the participation of women and civil society in the most recent round of peace negotiations - from Israeli and Palestinian leaderships dialogue to Russia–Ukraine talks- are evidence of this shift. The electoral gains of far-right parties in elections, fuelled by anti-gender rhetoric and a renewed sense of a perceived era of realpolitik, have turned policymakers away from value-based approaches, relegating social justice and “soft” foreign policy to the margins (Stamm, 2025). This shift has also been apparent in the reduction, and even the dismantlement in the case of the US, of international development funding (OECD, 2025) and the loss of trust in multilateralism.

In the face of these changes, some may argue that there is little to gain from supporting the WPS agenda, given the limited appetite for moving it forward (Baldwin, G. & Bertea, M, 2024). Yet, they fail to see that the value of the WPS agenda lies not only in its individual resolutions but also in its political and intellectual framework, which can offer an alternative to a securitised and militarised narrative that is posited as unavoidable by many global leaders and geopolitical experts today.

WPS rationale enshrines a profound understanding of the complexities of violence and armed conflict that simplistic militaristic approaches fail to recognise. Its core insight is that sustainable and lasting peace cannot be achieved through militarised responses alone. Instead, WPS thinking emphasises the need to look at the power dynamics, historical grievances, and structural inequalities that push people toward violence in the first place. This approach highlights the importance of listening to marginalised groups, addressing the root causes of conflict, from unequal access to resources to flawed governmental institutions, that fuel instability. It draws lessons from past wars and peace processes, showing that inclusive negotiations, preventive diplomacy, and non-violent conflict resolution mechanisms can lead to more sustainable and just outcomes.

Military spending is one of the key areas where feminist thinking can also offer valuable guidance. Feminist security studies have shown that increased militarisation correlates with higher levels of gender-based violence, household insecurity, and weakened social institutions, amid the reduction of social spending that follows (WILPF International Secretariat, 2025).They have also long examined the micro-level impacts of weapons on individuals and communities, highlighting how the circulation of arms- whether through formal militaries, private security actors, or illicit trade- shapes daily life in ways that are often invisible in conventional analyses of defence budgets and strategic capabilities (Enloe C, 2000). Feminist thinking, therefore, advocates restraint on military spending not out of idealism or naiveté, but from a grounded understanding of how militarisation produces layered and enduring harms.

The times might not be favourable for the WPS agenda and its principles, but that is precisely why we must champion it more forcefully, rather than abandoning or hollowing it out to fit the current securitised narratives. The lack of capacity to envision a peaceful and just world - and to commit to charting and following a roadmap to that end - is not only dispiriting but dangerous, because it hands over the power to shape our world's future to tech magnates and far-right alliances that do have a vision. Our societies are not doomed to an endless era of militaristic races and wars. Abandoning WPS in times of polycrisis is, in fact, what will aggravate and protract these crises.