Robust Gender Analysis Will Be Key to Effective US Policy Development

As the Biden-Harris administration begins to develop and implement gender-focused policies across the federal government, it is a good time to deepen commitments to gender equality in policymaking, and fully empower the White House Gender Policy Council. In foreign policy and national security, this means both implementing existing requirements for gender analysis across the relevant agencies and ensuring that those requirements apply to all government decision-making.

Current Legal Framework for Gender Analysis

There are currently three laws that mandate gender analysis as part of foreign and/or development policy. These laws, however, are agency- or issue-specific, and do not provide an overall government requirement to use gender analysis.  The laws are:

  • The Women Peace and Security Act of 2017 (WPS Act) ensures that the U.S. promotes the meaningful participation of women in mediation and negotiation processes seeking to prevent, mitigate, or resolve violent conflict. To accomplish this, among other things, the WPS Act mandates the use of gender analysis to improve program design in four key national security and foreign policy institutions: the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the U.S. Department of State, the U.S. Department of Defense, and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.)
  • The Women’s Entrepreneurship and Economic Empowerment Act of 2018 (WEEE Act) mandates that U.S. international development-cooperation policy shall be gender-focused, and affirms women’s right to own and control land and property, to live free of violence, and to access the financial tools they need to start and grow businesses. It also requires that all international development work done by the U.S. government (with a focus on USAID) is subject to a gender analysis from planning and project design to measurement and evaluation.
  • The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (NDAA) references the gender analysis requirements of both the WPS Act and the WEEE Act. It also mandates the participation of women in the capacity-building activities of security-cooperation programs in several ways, including incorporating gender analysis and women, peace, and security priorities into educational and training programs, and integrating gender analysis into security sector policy, planning, and training for national security forces involved in such partnerships. With regard to post-conflict engagement on human rights in Afghanistan, the NDAA further mandates that activities use gender analysis and rigorous monitoring and evaluation methodologies. 

While these laws provide guidance to departments with regard to specific activities — gender and conflict, gender and economic opportunity, and gender and development — they are far from an overarching mandate to employ gender analysis across all national security and foreign policy agencies in the U.S. government, and they have yet to be fully implemented.

What is Gender Analysis?

Gender analysis is a socioeconomic analysis of quantitative and qualitative information to identify, understand, and explain differences in access, opportunity, and impact between people because of an individual’s identity. Such an analysis includes looking at a variety of factors, including gender, sex, race, ethnicity, sexuality, religion, age, economic status, education level, ability, and other factors.

In the context of foreign and/or development policy, a gender analysis examines the differences that exist (or do not) between women, men, girls, and boys in terms of:

  • access to and control over assets, resources, education, opportunities, and services;
  • access to and control over technology and the internet;
  • norms on how people divide their time between paid and unpaid work;
  • constraints, opportunities, and entry points for leadership roles and decision-making;
  • prevalence and impact of violence; and
  • potential differential impacts of development policies and programs, including unintended or negative consequences.

This type of analysis takes into account how women and men live and work, what they do to support their families and communities, and the constraints that they are under in doing so. Gender analysis should also include conclusions and recommendations to inform national security policies and interventions to 1) narrow these differences based on gender, 2) increase gender equality, and 3) improve the lives of women and girls.

Next Steps

While these mandates for gender analysis exist, and the White House announced the formation of the White House Gender Policy Council, it’s unclear how gender analysis will inform U.S. government policies. In order to ensure impact, we recommend the Biden-Harris administration take the following steps:

  • Empower and fund the White House Gender Policy Council: While previous iterations have focused on domestic issues and departments, the new council needs to ensure a partial focus on foreign policy and, more importantly, ensure that the United States is consistent across domestic and international policies regarding women, girls, and gender equality. U.S. values at home must match the values we promote across the globe, whether it is preventing gender-based violence or providing access to comprehensive reproductive health care or economic opportunity.
  • Embed gender expertise in each department at the highest level: All departments should ensure responsibility for the gender portfolio and agenda at the highest possible level by designating a full-time point person on these issues, reporting to the secretary or agency head. These gender advisors should play a critical role in effective policy and program development and should have gender expertise. While the White House Gender Policy Council is a great first step, this is not enough to develop and implement government-wide, gender-focused policies.
  • Ensure gender training for all staff: All national security and foreign policy entities should create at least one entry-level course on gender analysis for staff. In addition, a gender focus should be integrated into all courses at the Foreign Service Institute, USAID University, and military schools and academies. This includes training for incoming Foreign Service officers. Additional, ongoing gender training should be available by sector, in the field, and online. This is in addition to the requirement of the WPS Act that “appropriate” personnel receive training in conflict prevention, protecting civilians, and international human rights law.
  • Require gender analysis: The president should mandate gender analysis in every decision memo that comes to him and that goes to the heads of foreign policy and national security entities. The President’s Daily Brief should include a gender analysis of each issue presented. Further, gender analysis should be used to analyze the impact of government funding and resources, policy frameworks, and their implementation. There must be new ways to measure accountability regarding the participation of women in security, political, and economic processes, and to track U.S. government budget expenditures, as well as measure outcomes. Further, all relevant entities should collect sex-disaggregated data about program implementation and impact and make it available publicly.

This is a critical time for the U.S. government to focus on gender equality, as well as the rights of girls and women in the United States and around the world. As the Biden-Harris administration prioritizes issues such as COVID-19 recovery, economic relief, climate change, and racial equity, a strong White House Gender Policy Council and gender analysis will be key to ensuring the policy solutions are effective and have an impact.

This column originally appeared in Just Security.

News from Smash Strategies

Dear Friends,

It is with mixed emotions that we are announcing the closing of Smash Strategies at the end of September. We have had a great time building Smash and working with all of you to advance women’s leadership, gender equality and equity, and the opportunities available to all. We are immensely proud of the work we have done via Smash. We have decided to use other platforms to continue our work on gender equality. We are excited to co-author a book on Feminist Foreign Policy, due out next year.

In the short-term (at least), Stephenie will continue to work on behalf of Afghan women and girls. Susan will focus more on international security and foreign policy. A formal announcement will be made soon.

Thank you for your collaboration over the past 5½ years and your ongoing passion for the issues we care about.

Stephenie and Susan

Reconciling Two Key Frameworks:
Feminist Foreign Policy and Women, Peace & Security

Introduction
There are currently two main frameworks regarding gender equality and women’s participation in international policy and conflict resolution: the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) framework, codified in the landmark United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1325 in 2000, and the feminist
foreign policy framework (FFP) that became prominent in 2014 when Sweden became the first government to formally adopt a feminist foreign policy. Over the past decade, tension has existed between the civil society advocates who were/are involved in the development, passage, and implementation of UNSCR 1325 and those academics and practitioners who favor the newer feminist framework. Surprisingly (or not), an unpublished mapping exercise in 2019 between the two groups
found very few people who worked on both frameworks or who were using the WPS framework as a foundation for the newer FFP. We argue here that the goals of both frameworks—gender equality and peace—are the same and that the tension largely rests on differences in approach. This piece provides
background on both frameworks, what they have in common, some critiques, how they might approach current events, and recommendations on the way forward. We suggest that while these differences in approach are not insignificant, both frameworks would benefit from the greater acknowledgment
of and closer coordination with each other so that more progress can be made within the gender equality movement.

Background
Women, Peace and Security
The opening for ratification of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Political Rights (ICESCR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR),both in 1966, represented the heyday of human rights activity at the United Nations. Unfortunately, however, it was quickly realized that many of the countries that voted for those treaties had not assumed and did not recognize that the treaty provisions would also apply to women. Human rights were not inherently considered women’s rights. The United Nations subsequently followed up with the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) in 1979. Though, as of 2015, 189 countries have signed and ratified CEDAW (the United States signed but never ratified), many have done so with qualifications that render their commitments toothless. Hence, when First Lady Hillary Clinton declared, “human rights are women’s rights and women’s rights are human rights” at the 1995 Beijing Conference on Women, she stated what many had thought decades ago but had since come to understand as a continuing
battle.

Civil society groups continued to carry on the battle for gender equality through the United Nations, doing so not “just” as a matter of social justice but as a security issue. An increasing amount of case studies and empirically-based research demonstrated women’s multiple roles in security related affairs, the gendered differentiated effects of conflict on men, women, boys, and girls, and the linkage between
gender equality, stability, and good governance. Regrettably, social justice issues are often considered “desirable” though expendable issues on governmental agendas or “just too hard.” Security issues, however, tend to resonate more strongly with decision-makers. Ultimately, through the efforts of civil society groups, UNSCR 1325 was unanimously passed in 2000.

Implementation of UNSCR 1325 was left to states through National Action Plans (NAPs). As of 2021, 98 countries have adopted NAPs. Many of the early countries to adopt NAPs were Scandinavian countries already strong in gender equality. It took the United States 11 years to do so, finally accomplished while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. Of those countries with NAPs, only 36 percent have budgets attached, evidencing that the Women, Peace and Security framework has seen much more rhetorical than actual support in many countries.

The first iteration of the Women, Peace and Security Act in the United States was introduced in 2012. It was again initiated by a coalition of civil society organizations that championed the cause to bi-partisan congressional members and staffers. The Act was revised and reintroduced in both the 2013-2014
and 2015-2016 sessions of Congress, eventually gaining bipartisan sponsorship in both the House and the Senate. In 2017, the U.S. Congress passed the Women, Peace and Security Act. It was signed by President Donald Trump, making it the law of the land. Passage of the Act in 2017 was symbolically
important as it provided support for those in government seeking to take action regarding gender equality. It gave them a “hook” on which to hang actions. The Act also required the president to submit a government-wide implementation strategy to Congress. Initially, however, the Act was passed without funding attached. For a president who was confronted at the White House in 2017 by a crowd of protesting women estimated at three times the number who attended his inauguration, signing the Women, Peace and Security Act was a no-cost act of support for women.

After an implementation strategy for the Women, Peace and Security Act was delivered to Congress in 2019, the federal agencies charged with its execution (the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the U.S. Agency for International Development, and the Department of Homeland Security) began working on their own implementation strategies. The Defense Department, for example, outlined three objectives: 1) to exemplify a diverse organization that allows for women’s meaningful participation across the development, management, and employment of the Joint Force; 2) that women in partner nations meaningfully participate and serve at all ranks and in all occupations in defense and security sectors; and 3) that partner nation defense and security sectors ensure women and girls are safe and secure and that their human rights are protected, especially during conflict and crisis. Regrettably, in many instances support has been slow and often more rhetorical and performative than actual, as indicated by budgets, policies, and women’s representation in decision-making roles. In performative allyship, those with privilege and position profess solidarity with a cause or policy, often to distance themselves from potential scrutiny or position themselves for praise. This vocalized support is disingenuous and potentially harmful to marginalized groups by signaling to subordinates that real action is neither needed nor sought and that no one will be held accountable for inaction. That makes active oversight by Congress imperative.

Feminist Foreign Policy
Feminist foreign policy theory was born of the theoretical ideas of ethical foreign policy and feminist international relations. It gained prominence in 2014 when the Swedish coalition government, led by Sweden’s Foreign Minister Margot Wallström, adopted a feminist foreign policy. In this first practical application, feminist foreign policy is posited on the conviction that sustainable peace, security, and development cannot be achieved if women, who comprise half the world’s population, are excluded. As the Swedish Foreign Ministry’s website states, “The policy is a response to the discrimination and systematic subordination that still characterizes everyday life for countless women and girls all over the world. Feminist foreign policy is an agenda for change to strengthen the rights, representation and resources of all women and girls.” Regarding rights, the Swedish Foreign Service promotes all women’s and girls’ full enjoyment of human rights, which includes combating all forms of violence and discrimination that restrict freedom of action. Regarding representation, the Swedish Foreign Service promotes women’s participation and influence in decision-making processes at all levels and in all
areas, and seeks dialogue with women representatives at all levels, including in civil society. With respect to resources, the Swedish Foreign Service works to ensure that government resources are allocated to promote gender equality and equal opportunities for all. In the first three years of implementation, Sweden worked to raise the visibility of and combat destructive masculine norms and to strengthen countries’ capacities to prosecute perpetrators, assist crime victims, and reintegrate soldiers. Sweden also contributed to a growing body of knowledge about the link between the uncontrolled spread of weapons and sexual violence against women.

Since 2014, several countries have announced different versions of a feminist foreign policy. Norway has developed both an Action Plan for Women’s Rights and Gender Equality in Foreign and Development Policy 2016-2020 and a National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security. Canada’s feminist International Assistance Policy, announced in 2017, targets gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls at its core: “This is a matter of basic justice and also basic economics. We know that empowering women, overseas and here at home, makes families and countries more prosperous.” The French government’s feminist foreign policy, adopted in 2019, says that gender equality should be considered in all issues, from poverty reduction to sustainable development, peace and security, defense and promotion of fundamental rights, and climate and economic issues. Other countries have followed suit (Mexico in 2020, Luxembourg in 2021, Spain in 2021, and Germany in 2022).

In addition, there are discussions about incorporating a feminist approach to foreign policy taking place in the European Union, Chile, Denmark, Malaysia, Norway, New Zealand, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Governments, however, are many-armed creatures, sometimes with activities of one arm having no relation to another. Interest in or adoption of a feminist foreign policy
does not inherently mean a gender-equal society or even full government support of women. Mexico, for example, has expressed interest in a feminist foreign policy, though it has one of the highest global rates of violence against women. The International Center for Research on Women (ICRW), a non-profit center headquartered in Washington, D.C., hosts both the Coalition for a Feminist Foreign Policy in the United States and the Global Partner Network, which consists of more than 30 governments and leading civil society groups who are working to advance the field of feminist foreign policy. The working definition the Coalition for a Feminist Foreign Policy in the United States uses for feminist foreign policy: “Feminist foreign policy is the policy of a state that defines its interactions with other states, as well as movements and other non-state actors, in a manner that prioritizes peace, gender equality, and environmental integrity; enshrines, promotes, and protects the human rights of all; seeks to disrupt colonial, racist, patriarchal and male-dominated power structures; and allocates significant resources, including research, to achieve that vision. Feminist foreign policy is coherent in its approach across all its levers of influence, anchored by the exercise of those values at home and co-created with feminist activists, groups, and movements, at home and abroad.”

In 2020, ICRW separately released a global framework for feminist foreign policy that was developed following more than a year of research and global consultations with over 100 organizations in more than 40 countries. In order to inform the fledgling field of feminist foreign policy, this framework attempts to provide an outline, including five key ingredients necessary for countries considering a feminist foreign policy: the purpose of the policy within the government’s specific context; the definition of feminist foreign policy for the government; the scope or reach of the policy (what parts of the government will be impacted?); the intended outcomes of the policy and benchmarks to achieve over time; and a government plan to operationalize it.

Commonalities and Critiques
While there are differences in the WPS and FFP frameworks, both seek to expand global peace and security, increase women’s participation and leadership, integrate gender into humanitarian responses, and change the political and governance structures that reinforce gender inequality.

Peace and Security
One significant commonality between the WPS and FFP frameworks is a redefinition of the concepts of peace and security. Norwegian peace activist Johan Galtung first differentiated negative peace and positive peace in the 1960s. Negative peace is defined as the absence of violence without a society’s tendencies toward harmony and stability, whereas positive peace is more lasting and built on sustainable investments in economic development and institutions and characterized by societal attitudes that foster peace. WPS exemplifies positive peace through inclusiveness and consideration of gendered perspectives of policies and programs that lead to increased stability of all political orders. Yet a critique of the WPS framework is its focus on the protection of women and girls. The argument is that the WPS framework not only solidifies the militarized state but, in some cases, provides justification for conflict. The U.S.-led War on Terror, for example, was at least in part framed as a “fight for the rights and dignity of women.” University of Sydney Professor Laura Shepherd argues that multiple logics behind the “prevention” pillar—a logic of peace, a logic of militarism, and a logic of security—creates a paradox that “collapses back into a logic of security” contrary to the ultimate goal of peace. That is, in order to have peace, security must be obtained and retained through a heavy military presence and potentially military action, thus justifying such.

In a similar vein, feminist foreign policy seeks to change the very definition of “security” to go beyond the absence of armed conflict to include economic and political security, freedom from a fear of a global pandemic and climate change, and the feeling of safety within one’s community and home. The “security” issues discussed in FPP would be broadened to include access to drinkable water, the ability to walk home at night safely, the number of weapons in a country outside of the military, and many others. Likewise, the solutions considered would be more diverse. Data used to make those decisions would include information about human rights abuses, rates of child marriage, levels of gender-based violence, and other issues that Texas A&M Professor Valerie Hudson and other scholars have pointed to in several publications that show the connection between gender equality and state stability. Decisions made to protect the interests of a country would cover not only military personnel but civilians on all sides. The voices of those impacted by military activities, sanctions, or other actions would be included. In response, WPS advocates argue that working first on the protection of women, girls, and other vulnerable groups is a necessary precondition to inclusive gender equality and diversity. Women’s safety—the goal of protection—is necessary to ensure that women and girls have the ability to work toward other goals of economic and political power and can use their agency to shape their lives.

Women’s Representation
To reach the goals of gender equality and peace, both the WPS and FFP frameworks aim to increase the representation of women in country and global policy-making processes and activities. One of the four core pillars of the Women, Peace and Security framework focuses on the increased participation of women at all levels of decision-making in conflict prevention, management, and resolution, and in post-conflict relief and recovery efforts. But the WPS framework works within conventional peacemaking and post-conflict governance structures that accept conflict as inevitable. Subsequently, this framework has been criticized by Melbourne Law School Professor Dianne Otto, who argues that “the WPS agenda has served to refocus feminist attention from … making armed conflict impossible, to making armed conflict safer for women … as an end in itself.” Thereby, WPS can be perceived as a more incremental approach to positive peace, whereas FFP is more transformational. Like WPS, the goal of FFP is to increase the number of women serving in elected and non-elected political and government positions, in peace processes, in military and peacekeeping missions, and in development and humanitarian activities. FFP seeks to increase the number of feminist voices that will advocate for gender equality in all sectors, beyond peace and security, such as in the economy and climate adaptation, including a country’s own government as well as its government partners. A critique of this approach is that feminist foreign policy is too broad; it can’t just add more women and change everything all at one time—change requires incrementalism. The real-world implications of executing a feminist foreign policy are complicated. For instance, in Sweden, even with female leadership and a feminist foreign policy, the government has struggled to find a balance between human rights and its own arms industry.

Post-conflict and Humanitarian Settings
UNSCR 1325 urges local actors, Member States, and UN agencies to adopt gendered perspectives in peace operations, negotiations, and agreements, in acknowledgement that policies and programs affect men, women, boys and girls differently, and to include women in the resolution and recovery phase of conflict. It identifies women as active agents rather than passive recipients. This is important because it
identifies women’s participation as a right, not something that men are giving women out of goodwill, and as a post-conflict benefit to all parties. Research has shown that including women in peace negotiations increases the potential of peace agreement lasting two or more years by 20 percent, and
increases by 35 percent the probability of peace agreements lasting 15 years or longer.18 Additionally, including women starts to erode the idea of women as weak, meaning that the feminine will no longer be synonymous with weakness and fragility. The resolution empowers women and allows them to demand that they are heard and incorporated into processes at all levels.19 The critique here is that the considerations of women and girls are rarely included in peace negotiations and simply haven’t been taken into account, and that there is no mechanism for holding countries or other implementing
organizations accountable for including women and gendered perspectives in peace negotiations.

Similarly, the FFP framework calls for a feminist approach to humanitarian response that at its core centers the experience of women and people subjected to multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination. This focus highlights a wider array of concerns than considered in traditional paradigms, including the threat of gender-based violence, access to sexual and reproductive health, access to education, and the burden of unpaid care responsibilities in times of crisis. It urges the U.S.
government to take steps to change its humanitarian approach and push for change throughout the global humanitarian system.

Institutional Change
Both frameworks agree that reframing the discussion of peace and security involves shaking the very foundations of the patriarchy, a system that until recently was the exclusive purview of men and that deploys decision-making power through warlords, political elites, government, security communities, and the intricately linked military-industrial machine. Within the WPS framework, protection does not inherently or exclusively refer to women being physically (or in any other way) protected by men. It does, however, recognize that there are individuals made vulnerable through cultural, political, legal, economic, gender-related, and sexual orientation structures. It creates agency because it is only through agency that women will have the opportunity to participate in the kind of preventive actions that can lead to positive peace.

In response, FFP advocates would argue that this approach is too focused on the individual rather than the system. The FFP framework seeks to change the institutions and processes themselves. It wants to diversify more than just the voices in the room; it wants to expand the information collected, analysis conducted, and solutions considered to go beyond the traditional decision-making process. This strategy covers defense, development, and diplomacy programs conducted in other countries and how governments operate internally. Resources, both in terms of budget allocations and human investments, would be redistributed to reflect governments’ different priorities. Less would be spent on weapons and more would be spent on human infrastructure; more would go to multilateral organizations and those focused on global goals. WPS critics would say that even with provisions for structural agency, the entrenched nature of those in power through cultural norms and expectations forces a process of slower, more incremental change.

Applying WPS and FPP to Current Challenges
Democracy
In 2021, the annual Democracy Index found that less than ten percent of countries worldwide were considered “full democracies” and rated the United States a “flawed democracy” for the fifth year in a row. Though countries leaning toward populism and authoritarianism vary in many aspects, what they share are leaders who identify as rebels, bullies, and tough guys who flaunt authority, disregard civility, and encourage others to do so as well, such as Presidents Donald Trump, Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil, and Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines. Further, as American journalist Peter Beinart pointed out, authoritarian leaders “use gender to discredit one political order and validate another.”20 Many have targeted women, individually or as a group, as their evil-elite punching bags.

To address this issue, the WPS framework would return to concepts within UNSCR 1325 that have been fleshed out through nine additional security council resolutions: participation of women in all levels of decision-making, protection from sexual and gender-based violence, prevention of violence, and advancement of relief and recovery measures. Within this context, FFP would go beyond a focus on increasing individual women’s political participation to disrupt the colonial, racist, patriarchal, and
male-dominated power structures. It would support human rights activists and civil society organizations engaged in women’s rights movements globally, alter patriarchal political institutions, including parties and parliaments, and address issues such as violence against women in politics that serve as barriers to women serving in public life.

Reproductive Rights
Five years ago, the United States was considered a global leader in women’s reproductive rights, considered a critical aspect of women’s agency, but during the Trump administration became a global outliner with deep regression in that area. The Biden-Harris administration took several key actions to
advance sexual and reproductive health and rights in its first year, trying to reverse the Trump administration rollback. In his second week in office, President Biden issued an executive
memorandum on women’s health at home and abroad which stated that it is the policy of the U.S. government to support sexual and reproductive health and rights. It rescinded the global gag rule, withdrew the United States from the so-called Geneva Consensus Declaration, and directed the U.S. Secretary of State to restore funding for United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).2 But, based on the leaked Alito-authored draft court decision, Trump-appointed conservative Supreme Court justices appear ready to take American women’s reproductive rights back to the 1970s by overturning Roe v Wade (1973). The implications are staggering, not just regarding reproductive rights but further indicating the U.S. is moving away from democratic rule to populist authoritarianism.

The WPS framework does not address reproductive rights or abortion in UNSCR 1325 or in any of the subsequent resolutions or in the U.S. Women, Peace and Security Act. Feminist Foreign Policy, on the other hand, includes bodily autonomy and freedom from discrimination, violence, coercion, exploitation, and abuse as a key tenet. And while the current U.S. administration has taken steps to stop or reverse U.S. government backsliding on the issue, including potentially after the judicial demise of Roe v Wade, FFP advocates continue to push for more, such as a permanent repeal of the global gag rule, also known as the Mexico City Policy.

Conclusion
While differences in approach for WPS and FFP are not insignificant, both frameworks would benefit from closer coordination with the other.

Five years after the passage of the WPS Act in the United States, with the subsequent government-wide 2019 strategy and departmental strategies now in place, incremental progress in implementing the WPS framework is evident. Funding is being approved and allocated, for example, to offer meetings, workshops, and courses on Women, Peace and Security to members of security communities from many other countries, both in the U.S. and abroad. Those who participate in these events (men and women) say that attendance, and the gender push for gender empowerment from U.S. organizations, including the military, are making a slow but positive difference in their militaries and countries. A Women, Peace and Security Congressional Caucus was formed in 2020. Its focus is “to ensure that progress towards women’s empowerment and inclusion is a strong priority of U.S. foreign policy.” Efforts of the Caucus have included receiving briefs from various departments on their efforts to implement the Women, Peace and Security framework and expressing support for women in Afghanistan during the evacuation operations in 2021. Ensuring progress of the WPS Act, at home and abroad, requires proactive measures and holding those responsible for implementation accountable.

As this work continues, those pressing the U.S. government to adopt a feminist foreign policy need to acknowledge the work of those who developed and implemented the WPS Act. That legislation took more than a decade to be created and passed in a bipartisan fashion. Newer actors in this space might benefit by engaging with the activists who started their work around the 1995 Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing and then focused on the UN Security Council before turning to country-specific NAPs and legislation. There must be lessons learned about Hill staff and member relationships, allies in non-traditional departments and offices, effective messages, and budget strategies that have worked.

Moreover, the combined community can work together to increase women’s representation in U.S. foreign policy through the Leadership Council for Women in National Security (LCWINS), WIIS, the Civil Society Working Group on Women, Peace and Security, or the Coalition for a Feminist Foreign Policy in the United States. Research and advocacy must continue to make the link between both frameworks
and the promotion of democracy. And both WPS and FFP advocates can continue to push for the integration of the needs of women and girls in humanitarian and post-conflict settings and programs.

So far, however, Women, Peace and Security framework implementation seems to have remained focused on work done or to be done “over there,” wherever outside of the United States that happens to be, neglecting the important point that there are internal as well as external components to WPS. Similarly, one of the core principles of FFP is that there is coherence across all aspects of foreign policy that extends across domestic and foreign policy, with both realms embracing the same feminist values. That means structural and cultural constraints to gender empowerment within U.S. institutions must also be addressed. For example, while women in the military are no longer denied access to combat positions, they still do not receive the same encouragement and support necessary for success to join those previously prohibited positions as men do.

While differences in approach for WPS and FFP are not insignificant, both frameworks would benefit from closer coordination with the other. There are many opportunities to support the work of the other, as much progress is still needed in the United States and globally to reach gender equality, women’s empowerment, and a safer world.

This paper was co-authored by Joan Johnson-Freese and originally published as a Women In International Security policy brief.

Why a Focus on Gender Increases National Security

Early in his presidency, President Biden made clear his commitment to promoting gender equity and equality. On International Women’s Day in March 2021, he issued Executive Order 14020, establishing the White House Gender Policy Council and calling for the development of a government-wide strategy for advancing gender equity and equality in the United States and around the world. Among other things, the order recognizes that gender equity and equality are not only just but also are “a strategic imperative” that advances political stability, fosters democracy and is essential to the “security of our Nation and of the world.” In November 2021, the Biden-Harris administration issued the first-ever national gender strategy, which sets forth an aspirational vision and a comprehensive agenda to advance gender equity and equality in domestic and foreign policy.

While the Biden-Harris administration’s strategy may be new, the connections between women’s advancement, peace, gender issues and national security are not. Academics, civil society advocates and governments around the world have focused on these issues for decades through the 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 in 2000, and most recently through Sweden’s adoption in 2014 of a feminist foreign policy.

These earlier conventions and policies focused on preventing conflict, maintaining peace or rebuilding societies so that women will have the opportunity to fully enjoy their human rights and partake in the economic, political and social life of their communities or countries. But this theory has evolved, and what’s new and important here is the understanding that equality does not come from peace, but peace comes through equality. The security of a nation depends on greater gender equity and equality. If a society does not value half of its population, the chances are that society and its leaders will not value international agreements or the rule of law.

History 

The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) is the international women’s rights treaty. It sets the standards in international law for achieving gender equality, both normatively and practically, in terms of setting out the concrete steps governments need to take to eliminate discrimination against women in their countries. CEDAW was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1979 and has achieved nearly universal endorsement. The United States is one of only a handful of countries that have not ratified CEDAW.

The issue of women, peace and security (WPS)—the idea that women’s participation in the peace process is necessary for effective conflict resolution and peacekeeping—has been widely recognized through U.N. Security Council Resolution 1325 (UNSCR 1325). The resolution acknowledges the changing nature of warfare, in which civilians are increasingly targeted by parties to conflict, and the exclusion of women from peace processes. To that end, it calls for the increased participation of women at all levels of decision-making, negotiations and relief and recovery measures that take gender into consideration. Since 2000, nine successor resolutions have been passed to address specific issues and further implementation.

Research since the adoption of UNSCR 1325 shows that women’s participation in conflict prevention and resolution improves outcomes before, during and after conflict. Participation of civil society groups, including women’s organizations, made a peace agreement 64 percent less likely to fail. A study analyzing 130 peace agreements found a statistically significant relationship between peace agreements signed by women and the durability of peace. The same study also found that linkages between women signatories to agreements and women-led civil society groups led to more provisions in agreements focused on political reform, and higher implementation rates of those provisions, which increased the likelihood of durable peace.

Parallel to the implementation of UNSCR 1325, researchers began focusing on the linkage between women’s security and national security. In one notable study, a multidisciplinary team of researchers deployed historical process-tracing, in-depth case studies, and rigorous statistical analysis to examine the critical linkage between the presence of women’s rights and the security of nation-states. The final four years of the research project were funded primarily by the Minerva Initiative of the U.S. Department of Defense. This research is publicly accessible through the WomenStats Project database, which contains over 170,000 data points and covers over 350 variables for 175 nations.

The study concludes that if relations between men and women in a society are rooted in autocracy, exploitation, violence, insecurity and even terror, it primes the society for the same fate. The research also demonstrates that when societies previously broke free from this toxic cycle of female subordination, they achieved a much more stable, prosperous and secure future for their people. For instance, in northwestern Europe, a rise in democratic institutions can be attributed partially to a revolution in marriage law, encouraged by the church. These changes occured in the early seventh century and included the outlawing of polygamy and changing of inheritance law, which led to the strengthening of the position of women within families. This expansion of women’s property and inheritance rights further weakened gendered norms of impunity for men and the value of kinship, while increasing the value of the nuclear family, professional guilds and democratic institutions. Further research indicates that as the character of marriage changed, the character of the political and economic orders also changed. With regard to the relationships between men and women, “To treat the first ‘Other’ as oneself, fully deserving of respect, voice and bodily integrity, is arguably the key microfoundation of civility and self government within a society.”

The idea of feminist foreign policy became prominent in 2014 when the Swedish coalition government, led by Foreign Minister Margot Wallström, adopted a feminist foreign policy posited on the conviction that sustainable peace, security and development cannot be achieved if women are excluded. Since that time, Norway, Canada, France, Mexico, Luxembourg and Spain have followed suit. Additional discussions about incorporating a feminist approach to foreign policy are taking place in the European Union, Chile, Denmark, Malaysia, Norway, New Zealand, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Women, Gender, Peace and Security in the U.S. 

Globally, the women, peace and security framework has not been implemented well over the past two decades. There continues to be a disconnected, fragmented and siloed approach to the implementation of UNSCR 1325. There have been many poorly planned and underfunded programs and services in conflict-affected situations; impunity for acts of sexual exploitation, abuse and gender-based violence; and a lack of support for women’s civil society participation in peace processes. It wasn’t until 2004 that the U.N. Security Council encouraged national-level implementation of UNSCR 1325 through national action plans. Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the U.K. developed plans in 2005 and 2006, while the U.S. did not fully develop its own action plan until several years later.

In the U.S., implementation of the WPS agenda has also been uneven. President Obama took several actions early in his first term to further gender equality and this framework. First, he appointed his primary campaign opponent, Hillary Clinton, as secretary of state. He also tapped Susan Rice to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Obama repealed the global gag rule, regarding access to abortion, and he signed the Lily Ledbetter Act, regarding fair pay, in January 2009. He created the White House Council on Women and Girls and elevated the Office of Global Women’s Issues at the Department of State into the secretary’s office.

As secretary of state, in 2010, Clinton initiated the first-ever Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR) to lay out a four-year plan for the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). The QDDR outlines six specific focus areas and then says, “In each area, we will invest in women and girls at every turn, with the goal of empowering them.” With the secretary’s support and after more than a year’s collaboration between civil society organizations and executive branch working groups, Obama signed an executive order in December 2011 that instituted the first U.S. WPS national action plan to implement UNSCR 1325. The U.S. action plan was important because it outlined specific outcomes associated with objectives and these activities were assigned to specific agencies.

With a nod to the emerging research that links domestic levels of gender-based violence and state security, lawmakers introduced the International Violence Against Women Act in Congress to authorize appropriations to build the capacity of U.S. government staff to address gender-based violence in all humanitarian relief, conflict, post-conflict and disaster relief programs. Despite the bill’s bipartisan support and the fact that it has been introduced in the 110th, 111th, 112th, 114th and 116th congresses, it has never passed. In the meantime, USAID released the U.S. Strategy to Prevent and Respond to GBV Globally in 2010. In November 2021, Biden announced the creation of a National Action Plan to End Gender-Based Violence, which will bring a “whole-of-government approach to supporting survivors, promoting prevention, and shifting norms” using the full range of foreign policy tools.

In 2017, the U.S. Women, Peace, and Security Act (the WPS Act) was passed with bipartisan support and signed into law. It promotes women’s meaningful inclusion and participation in peace and security processes abroad to prevent, mitigate or resolve violent conflict. The law ensures congressional oversight in the U.S. government’s efforts to integrate gender perspectives across its diplomatic, development and defense-related work in conflict-affected environments. The U.S. is the first country in the world with a comprehensive law on WPS.

In June 2021, the U.S. government released its first report on the implementation of the WPS Act with specifics from the Department of State, the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security and USAID. It evaluated progress made across four lines of effort: participation, protection, internal capabilities and partnerships. The implementation of the WPS Act focuses on how the agencies facilitate women’s participation in conflict resolution, security initiatives, and efforts to protect civilians from violence and exploitation in other countries.

In November 2021, the White House released the first-ever National Strategy on Gender Equity and Equality focused on gender issues both domestically and globally. The goal of the strategy is to “close pernicious gender gaps and propel us toward a world with equal opportunity for all people.” With regard to foreign policy, the strategy states, “Recent conflicts and crises around the world have demonstrated, once again, that times of acute instability and authoritarian resurgence reflect and exacerbate gender inequality and that full participation is critical to meeting the global challenges we face.” To that end, the strategy includes guiding principles, 10 strategic and overlapping priorities, and a whole-of-government approach for how the strategy will be implemented.

Gender and Security Now 

The Biden-Harris administration has indicated its commitment to gender equity and equality through appointments and other executive actions, and it has aligned itself with the international community. Biden appointed a gender-balanced cabinet, established the White House Gender Policy Council and created a Defense Department Independent Review Commission on Sexual Assault in the U.S. Military. In 2021, the State Department revised the 2020 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices to include a broad range of issues related to sexual and reproductive health and rights. It has yet to be seen, however, if the U.S. government is fully prepared to take further concrete actions that mirror the values it extols in the statements and documents that have been released.

The WPS Act, focused on U.S. government activities abroad, has never been fully implemented. The overall strategy released by the Trump administration in June 2019; the implementation plans of the Defense Department, the State Department, USAID and the Department of Homeland Security in June 2020; and the progress report released in June 2021 show movement toward the institutionalization and integration of gender into national security policies and processes. But these efforts are limited to four agencies. Moreover, despite the provisions of the WPS Act, the U.S. government was widely criticized for not meaningfully including women, and issues of women’s rights, in the negotiations with the Taliban. Events that have since transpired—such as the fall of Kabul and the draconian restrictions the Taliban placed on women’s physical movement, access to education and the economy—have only demonstrated the reasoning behind the law and fueled the crisis in Afghanistan.

The 2021 national gender strategy is more expansive than the WPS Act as it sets policies for the executive branch to follow in both domestic and foreign policy and covers the actions of all executive agencies or government officials. It makes connections between a wide array of issues and the idea of security. It expands thinking about security beyond the formal battlefield to include the many ways individuals—and, by extension, the nation—can experience insecurity, including through labor force participation, global health issues, and extreme weather and disasters. The definition in the strategy of “national security” includes both domestic and global threats that threaten individuals, communities and the state.

But while the national gender strategy seeks to expand the definition of national security, the Biden-Harris administration has not always taken the opportunity to use this expanded definition. On the one hand, the Call to Action released in May 2021 regarding private-sector investment in the Northern Triangle—which includes the issue of immigration as part of security—seeks to address the root causes of migration from Northern Triangle countries and includes specific provisions to increase girls’ education, support women-owned businesses and provide access to financial services. On the other hand, while the national gender strategy includes climate change as a threat to national security and promotes equity to mitigate and respond to it, the president did not mention the important role of women, security or conflict as reasons to address climate change during his remarks at COP26, the 2021 U.N. climate change conference in Scotland. Advocates continue to be frustrated with the frequent discrepancy between the administration’s policies and its public actions.

The national gender strategy notes that it is intended to amplify the implementation of the WPS Act, however, the activities listed in the strategy—to promote inclusive diplomacy and to support the leadership of local women-led civil society organizations—do not expand the WPS Act beyond its original framework. It is unclear how or if any of the guiding principles have been used in recent foreign policy processes such as the preparation for or response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

The implementation of the national gender strategy is not centralized but, rather, is intended to be a whole-of-government process. There is a risk in this arrangement. Agency implementation plans should focus internally on dedicated staffing, funding, training, and accountability to advance women’s meaningful participation and leadership in conflict prevention, peace, security, and political processes within the federal government itself. Moreover, agencies are instructed to include gender equity and equality issues in planning and budget processes, human resource systems, and data collection and analysis. It will be important to see if the ambition of the strategy is reflected in White House and agency budget requests and implementation plans.

Early in 2022, some of the implementing agencies, including USAID, the State Department and the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation, have been holding consultation sessions with representatives from civil society organizations in the U.S. and around the world regarding their implementation plans, which are due within nine months of the strategy release (July or August 2022). Based on the national gender strategy, other agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Trade Representative, and the Environmental Protection Agency should also be engaged in a new way to maintain national security both domestically and globally. To date, those consultations have not taken place.

Conclusion 

The idea that women’s rights and gender equality should be taken into account when discussing national security is still new to many within the foreign policy establishment. Although academics and advocates have been promoting the idea for decades and research demonstrates relationships there, it is still not taken seriously. In the middle of a national emergency, when there’s always a more pressing matter, gender equality issues are viewed as beside the main point—something to be addressed later.

The Biden-Harris administration has gone further than any other in U.S. history to elevate women into decision-making positions and to create policies that integrate gender equality and gender data into decision-making processes. It is still too early to tell, however, if the research, the more diverse leadership, and the government policies will affect how the Biden-Harris administration will implement its foreign policy and protect national security.

Feminist Foreign Policy: One Path Forward in U.S.-China Relations

President Joe Biden’s meetings with G7 and NATO leaders on his first foreign trip addressed global challenges including economic growth, climate change, and COVID. China loomed large on the agenda, with both international alliances issuing rebukes of its leadership’s actions at home and on the world stage. As Biden wrote in the Washington Post, it is critical to demonstrate that democracies — not authoritarian regimes — are best positioned to meet these challenges and threats, whether “ending the COVID-19 pandemic everywhere, meeting the demands of an accelerating climate crisis, or confronting the harmful activities of the governments of China and Russia.”

When Secretary of State Antony Blinken outlined the administration’s foreign policy goals in March, he highlighted China as a top priority: “Our relationship with China will be competitive when it should be, collaborative when it can be, and adversarial when it must be.”

As the U.S. government reconsiders the contours of its relationship with China, the Biden-Harris administration’s renewed global diplomacy presents a unique opportunity to engage with China from a position of strength. Alongside American innovation, military might, and global partnerships, the United States also should showcase its deepened commitment to gender equality and women’s leadership as a driver of prosperity and resilience. Such a position would solidify the U.S. role as a global standard-setter. At the same time, it would empower the emerging Chinese feminist movement.

The United States can leverage the power of example to emphasize the importance of women’s leadership for robust civic engagement and economic growth. The U.S. Cabinet, for instance, is gender-balanced, with women leading key agencies: Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen, U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai, Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo, and Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm. Collectively, these officials  influence U.S. economic and trade policies and global economic engagement.

Beyond representation, the administration is committed to policies that promote gender equity and equality. As defined by a civil society coalition, feminist foreign policy seeks to be transformative and to imbue a rights-based approach across foreign policy with the overarching goals of gender equality, human rights, bodily autonomy, peace, and environmental integrity.

An Opening for Feminist Progress in China?

In addition to the U.S.-led resurgence of alliances and a renewed commitment to democratic principles, a confluence of events presents an opening to empower China’s growing feminist voices: domestic demographic woes, a crackdown on feminist forums, and tacit acknowledgement by Chinese President Xi Jinping that “wolf warrior diplomacy” has not been successful in projecting strength or commanding respect internationally.

Earlier this year, China’s Ministry of Public Security released preliminary statistics revealing that new birth registrations fell by 2.5 million from 2019, a year with the lowest recorded birth rate since 1949. This is the fourth straight year of decline with overall population growth slowing to a near halt. In a major policy shift last month, married Chinese couples may have up to three children vs. the two-child limit in place since 2016.

Like that earlier policy shift, this is not expected to increase the birth rate to address the economic risks stemming from a rapidly aging population. Chinese officials are now weighing lifting restrictions on childbirth by 2025. But given career choices, cost-of-living, and gender norms related to who is primarily responsible for care, Chinese women are not interested in increasing family size. In an online poll about the new policy, 29,000 of 31,000 respondents said they would “never think of it.”

Meanwhile, analysts say, both online and offline activities of feminists have given life to a grassroots mobilization in China not seen since the 1989 pro-democracy movement. In April, Beijing shut down 10 feminist social media platforms, which the government said promoted extreme political views and ideology. The blocked forums reportedly promoted women’s empowerment, as one journalist explained, by the “shunning [of] activities seen as centered upon or designed to benefit men.”

This was not the first targeting of feminist activists. On March 6, 2015, two days before International Women’s Day, five feminist activists were arrested for demonstrating against sexual harassment. The “Feminist Five” were held for more than a month and only released after international pressure, including from then-Vice President Biden.

At the same time, Xi has thrown cold water on “wolf warrior diplomacy,” a recent movement among Chinese diplomats to push back against any “deliberate insult” and defend China’s “national honor and dignity.” China’s wolf warriors are government officials who aggressively counter any criticism and hit back against perceived violations of its core interests with trade measures, travel bans, and diplomatic protests. Recently, Xi told senior party leaders to change the way they communicate with the world, and to “be open and confident, but also modest and humble.” As a result, many think the moment is ripe for a new way of engaging with both China’s government and its people.

Moving Forward From a Position of Strength

The Biden-Harris administration can take advantage of this moment to apply a feminist foreign policy lens in building on successes within the United States, sharing expertise abroad, and leading by example.

First, the United States can collaborate to address gender-based violence. Late to the table on these issues, China’s first legal prohibition against sexual harassment was enacted in 2005, and a legal definition of sexual harassment was not set forth in the country’s Civil Code until 2020. A law prohibiting domestic violence was not enacted until 2015. U.S. advocates provided technical expertise on addressing domestic violence via the U.S. China People-to-People Exchange and other U.S. based programs. Next steps could include strengthening implementation of the legislation by working with local law enforcement, the judiciary, and legal and health-care professionals.

Despite laws prohibiting sexual harassment, a Chinese women’s rights organization found only two court cases alleging sexual harassment from 2010 to 2017, and both failed. Things may be changing. In March 2021, a Shanghai court awarded approximately $15,000 in a sexual harassment suit to a woman whose colleague had sent disturbing text messages almost daily for six months.

A second avenue for empowering women could be opened in efforts on climate change. Because of their roles in many parts of the world — collecting water or as smallholder farmers, for example — women often are the first to recognize the impact of climate change and devise creative solutions as they wait for their government to make bigger, structural changes. Right now, women are absent from key conversations about climate change policymaking. The U.S. and Chinese governments could ensure women are represented in climate change negotiations and that the solutions proposed take into account their unique experiences and responsibilities as managers of household resources and community ecosystems. Women’s on-the-ground knowledge is needed to both inform and dramatically impact environmental policy.

Third, the United States can support women’s economic participation at home to increase competitiveness with China. One of the strengths of the U.S. economy is the diversity of its workforce and the number of women-owned and -led businesses. The U.S. government should continue to support the COVID-19 pandemic recovery and rebuilding of the U.S. economy, with a special focus on women. Retail, travel, and hospitality industries – fields dominated by women – were hit the hardest during the pandemic, with many women laid off or leaving the workforce to care for children when schools and childcare centers closed. As the world rebuilds, it is important for the United States to lead by example by expanding the care sector and increasing workplace flexibility. Improving opportunities for women makes the U.S. better able to compete with China while lifting the U.S. as a standard bearer for women in the workplace.

Fourth, shoring up gender equity in trade is a proven model that can strengthen the U.S. government’s negotiating position. We need look no further than the country’s northern border — Canada has prioritized gender equality in trade negotiations. For example, provisions referring to cross-border trade in services prohibit gender-based discrimination related to licensing and professional qualification requirements and procedures. The U.S. government could take similar positions in trade with China to improve workplace conditions for Chinese women.

Fifth, as the United States challenges China to do more on human rights and democracy promotion, the U.S. has several options to advance its argument. The increasing role and stature of women in government provides a powerful example. The Department of State’s annual International Women of Courage Awards are already used to highlight the efforts of individuals working to increase women’s political and human rights. To date, there have been five awardees from China.

As it marks the 100th anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party, and prepares for the 2022 Winter Olympic Games in Beijing, China looms large on the geopolitical stage. The upcoming anniversary of the September 1995 Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action offers another powerful opportunity to highlight the progress that countries have (and have not) made on women’s equality and human rights, and to assess a path forward. Reports of the Chinese government’s use of forced birth control and sterilization of Uighur women are human rights abuses that must be addressed in the public arena.

Finally, public diplomacy wields power, and now is the time to use it. Restoring and strengthening programs cancelled or weakened under the previous administration will deepen knowledge, create shared experiences, and build relationships between individuals who will be called upon to inform and navigate the U.S.-China relationship in the coming decades. These professional, educational, and inter-parliamentary exchanges include the Fulbright China Program and the U.S.-China People-to-People Exchange.

In reformulating U.S. relations with China, the Biden-Harris administration should use every tool available and make good on its stated commitment to gender equality and women’s empowerment by elevating the role of feminist organizations in China and the voices of women in both countries.

This column originally appeared in Just Security.

A Laser Focus on Women’s Rights Is Key to Sustainable Afghan Peace

As the U.S. withdraws troops from Afghanistan, President Joe Biden has vowed to continue support for Afghan women and girls “by maintaining significant humanitarian and development assistance.” Further, on a visit to Afghanistan, Secretary of State Antony Blinken firmly stated that the U.S. will continue to advocate “for equal rights for women, including their meaningful participation in the ongoing negotiations and their equal representation throughout society.” The importance of this focus is highlighted by the recent horrific attack on a school in Kabul, killing 50 people, many of them women and girls.

The Women, Peace, and Security Act (WPS Act), enacted in 2017, commits the United States to increase the participation of women in peacekeeping and security operations, and to support the inclusion of female negotiators, meditators, and peacebuilders around the world.

The WPS Act is critical to fulfilling the U.S. commitment to women and women’s rights in Afghanistan. It is important for the United States to use all possible tools in this regard, given the difficulties and uncertainty of a lasting and equitable peace with the Taliban. That includes continued support for the four women who are part of the Afghan government delegation to peace negotiations: Habiba Sarabi, former governor of Bamiyan province; Fatima Gailani, president of the Afghan Crescent Society; Sharifa Zurmati Wardak, a journalist and former member of the Afghan Independent Election Commission; and Fawzia Koofi, a member of the Afghan Parliament. They are emblematic of women leaders and advocates in Afghanistan: smart, committed, and dedicated to building a strong future for all Afghans.

There is ample evidence that when women participate in peace talks, outcomes are more sustainable. When women are engaged in peace processes, peace agreements are 35 percent more likely to last at least 15 years.

I have seen firsthand the impact of women’s leadership across Afghan society. From 2012 to 2013, I served at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, where I focused on women and civil society, and traveled extensively to work with individuals and organizations advancing the role of women in Afghan society. I met women and girls all over the country, working to build a stronger and more equitable society. They were teachers, businesswomen, journalists, civil society activists, health care workers, students, and government employees. Afghan women have been key players in reshaping Afghan society, building on their history. These women have been advocates throughout the lengthy process of engaging with the Taliban for a ceasefire and for protecting fundamental rights.

However, the presence of the four women alone in the Afghan delegation is not enough to protect women’s rights.

Two more actions can demonstrate the seriousness of the U.S. commitment. First, officials at the highest levels must be laser-focused on the end result of peace negotiations: an agreement that preserves women’s rights. The Biden administration must ensure that any accord has strong provisions that guarantee Afghan women a role in shaping their society. Without such a framework, it is unclear how the United States and other international actors could support an agreement. This means continued diplomatic and development support for women in civil society, media, the private sector, and the public sector. It includes continuing work to ensure that legal frameworks are respected and that policies ensuring the rights of women and girls — whether about access to finance, education, or health — are implemented.

Gender Analysis

Second, every plank of a proposed agreement between the Afghan government and the Taliban must be analyzed with a gender lens. Amid a process that will reshape Afghanistan’s policy and legal framework for years to come, it is essential to understand the differential impact policies have on women and men, girls and boys.

Using a gender analysis on all aspects of any agreement is important. We often think about access to education or health as the only issues that impact women and girls, but every issue that is the subject of such a negotiation has an impact on women and girls, whether in terms of security, access to services, or demobilization of radical fighters.

Gender analysis looks at quantitative and qualitative information to identify, understand, and explain differences in impact between people because of an individual’s identity. It can examine such differences that exist (or do not) on:

  • access to and control over assets, resources, opportunities, and services, including education;
  • access to and control over technology and the internet;
  • constraints, opportunities, and entry points for leadership roles and decision-making;
  • prevalence and impact of violence; and
  • potential differential impacts of development policies and programs, including unintended or negative consequences.

This type of analysis takes into account how women and men live and work, how they support their families and communities, and the constraints that they are under in doing so. For example, a 2012 study by the U.S. Agency for International Development with the Afghan Women’s Capacity Building Organization found that 80 percent of Afghan women have access to a cell phone, almost half owning their own, many of them having acquired it recently and many of them younger women, indicating access was increasing rapidly. But of those who didn’t own a phone, more than half cited “lack of permission from family members as a major obstacle to acquiring one.” That means it is still harder for women to access information. According to a recent gender analysis conducted by CARE, , 45 percent of Afghan women cannot access adequate information about COVID-19, thereby reinforcing existing health disparities.

One way to ensure that this gender analysis is completed in a systematic manner is to embed at least one gender advisor in the U.S. and Afghan delegations. Gender advisors are essential to effective policy and program development. Effective gender advisors have the technical skills, competencies, and experience necessary to provide appropriate, in-depth guidance to integrate a gender lens, and a gender analysis, throughout the process of policy formulation and program development.

Afghan Women Negotiators Urge Representation and Aid Conditions

Afghan women negotiators like Fawzia Koofi and others have asked the U.S. and other international partners to vigorously pursue at least two specific objectives that could at least provide some measure of security and empowerment for women in Afghanistan’s future. First, that they press both the Afghan government and the Taliban to reserve at least 30 percent of elected seats and appointments in Afghan political institutions for women. Second, that international aid to Afghanistan be conditioned on protecting the constitutional role of women in Afghanistan’s governing institutions. Conditioning aid to the Afghan government might provide a very real incentive to ensure women’s rights are protected both on paper and in reality. These are key demands.

In the United States, there is a bipartisan commitment on Capitol Hill to protect the hard-fought gains that women and girls have made since the fall of the Taliban government 20 years ago. Senators Menendez (D-NJ) and Risch (R-ID), the leaders of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, both expressed their concerns about the impact of the U.S. decision to withdraw on women and girls.

Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Joni Ernst (R-IA) just introduced a bill to protect Afghan women and girls after the U.S. military withdraws. Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), the only woman on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has consistently raised the impact of U.S. policy on Afghan women and girls. She was instrumental in the declassification of a National Intelligence Council memo that sets out concerns about the continued rigidity of the Taliban’s views of the role of women and girls, though it also suggests possible opportunities for internal and external pressure that might moderate its policies.

As the process of U.S. troop withdrawal from Afghanistan continues over the coming months, it is essential that the Biden administration ensures that Afghan women are part of the peace process and that every issue in the negotiations is analyzed with an eye towards gender equality and women’s rights.

This column originally appeared in Just Security.

Gender Equality is Fundamental to Promoting Democracy

The United Nations Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) meeting that concluded in late March was focused on the theme of “Women’s full and effective participation and decision-making in public life.” Importantly, at CSW, Vice President Kamala Harris emphasized the key connection between women’s leadership and strong democratic government: “The status of women is the status of democracy. The status of democracy also depends fundamentally on the empowerment of women, not only because the exclusion of women in decision-making is a marker of a flawed democracy, but because the participation of women strengthens democracy.”

Indeed, gender equality strengthens democracy. Research and on-the-ground experience shows that democratic institutions such as government ministries, elected decision-making bodies, political parties, and civil society organizations are stronger with gender equality. All must include women’s voices. But the world has a long way to go on this front. In national legislative bodies, 22 percent of parliamentarians, and 20 percent of parliamentary speakers, are women. Furthermore, women hold only 10 percent of political party leadership positions.

As Harris noted, women’s political participation results in tangible gains for democracy. This includes greater responsiveness to citizen needs and increased cooperation across party and ethnic lines. Women’s meaningful participation in politics affects the range of issues considered and the types of solutions proposed. Countries with high marks on civil rights and political liberties have higher proportions of women in national legislatures than countries with low marks. Higher numbers of women political leaders also correspond with higher standards of living, better outcomes in access to education, infrastructure and health, and more responsive government.

In addition to bringing their lived experiences to policymaking, women tend to work in less hierarchical, more participatory and more collaborative ways. Globally, women lawmakers are perceived as more honest and responsive than male counterparts, qualities that encourage confidence in institutions.

Gender Equality and Democratic Principles

There is a global movement to infuse foreign policy and national security with a gender lens. To date, feminist foreign and/or development policies have been adopted by the governments of Sweden, Norway, Canada, France, Luxembourg, and Mexico. Current feminist foreign policy discussions encompass many issues, including climate change, global health, and food security. Missing from much of this discussion is the importance of democratic institutions and governments.

There has been recent, growing advocacy in the U.S. on feminist foreign policy. Some practitioners are focused on incremental change, while others are more radical. The Biden administration has announced several policies and institutional changes which align with proposals from advocates: a White House Gender Policy Council, a commitment to diversity of political appointments, and robust civil society consultation. This emphasis on gender is in contrast to a focus on solely women and girls and a critical step toward institutionalizing structural change.

The following principles provide a framework for progress and are linked to a widening global conversation on feminist foreign policy. They are critical to advancing both gender equality and strong democratic governance.

  • Representation in politics and public life. As noted above, women are vastly underrepresented in political office and democratic institutions. Yet, beyond increasing the number of women, more feminist voices—men and women—need to champion gender equality in public life. Not every woman is a feminist; not every person with a feminist voice is a woman. Last month, the Violence Against Women Act passed the U.S. House of Representatives with the support and sponsorship of both male and female House members.
  • Participation and input from those affected by policies. Over the last decade, many governments have focused on responsiveness to citizens’ needs, but often these efforts have been gender-blind. Decision-makers must consider more feminist and women’s voices to better understand the impact of policies and how those policies are perceived. During the 2014-2016 Ebola crisis in West Africa, local women’s organizations identified community needs and informed elected leaders about the health situation in their districts and how best to respond.
  • Accountability and transparency. A more open government can accelerate gender equality and close critical gaps in information, access, and participation when the experiences of women and girls are taken into account. Elected and appointed leaders, women and men, must prioritize the collection, reporting, and sharing of sex-disaggregated data at every level of government. Kenya’s public procurement policy, for example, reserves 30 percent of government contracts for women, youth, and persons with disabilities.

The overlapping of these joint principles has not always been acknowledged. Doing so would strengthen the movements for both gender equality and for democracy. Funders and implementers of democracy promotion should insist on gender equality as a core democratic principle, while those advocating for feminist foreign policy intentionally work for its implementation through democratic systems and institutions.

Feminist Foreign Policy and Democracy Promotion

In addition to the shared principles above, feminist foreign policy and democracy promotion programs both seek to address structural constraints to equality and correct power imbalances, but those working on the issues often do not see them as related or mutually reinforcing. This is an opportunity to make that connection. Women’s leadership is indeed critical to strong institutions, and electoral quotas have been used to increase women’s access to political decision-making. However, increasing women’s participation or leadership is no longer enough.

As we look forward to a Global Democracy Summit, a declared priority of the Biden administration, the summit’s agenda as well as democracy assistance programs must address gender equality, structural barriers, and power.

First, structural change is needed because civil society organizations, election management bodies, political parties, and governing institutions are unwelcoming to women in many aspects of their day-to-day operations, procedures, and internal cultures. Often, these institutions are structured and operated in a way that is intended, in fact, to protect male incumbents rather than to serve their members and citizens well. For instance, candidate qualifications, such as education level, while gender neutral, disproportionately disqualify women seeking to run. Also, current democracy assistance programming focuses almost exclusively on the training and capacity-building of individual women and the development or strengthening of entities such as legislative caucuses or women’s wings of political parties.

With both a democracy promotion and feminist foreign policy lens, structural changes would include an assessment of and changes to the formal and informal ways civil society organizations, election management bodies, political parties, and governing institutions function. That would include how they handle staffing, share information, and schedule meetings and votes.

Second, power imbalances between men and women, as well as between dominant decision-makers and other marginalized groups such as youth, ethnic and religious minorities, and rural citizens, must be addressed. Current democracy assistance programs almost exclusively include the easiest-to-reach and most eager individual participants, who often have attended many foreign government-funded workshops and meetings.

Conversely, applying both a democracy promotion and feminist foreign policy perspective, outreach and programming would focus on those who are most impacted by government policy (or the lack or abuse of it) and heard from the least. Further, grassroots organizations would receive long-term support to build sustainable movements, which is not current standard practice. The Equality Fund in Canada, a partnership between the government and the private sector, directly funds communities of activists to advance their own solutions to improve women’s rights and gender equality in their own contexts.

This is the time to bring together work on women’s empowerment, gender equality, and democracy promotion. A feminist foreign policy is a framework for transforming how the U.S. government supports democracy abroad and addresses power imbalances that serve as barriers to women’s leadership.

This column originally appeared in Just Security.

Driving Meaningful Impact out of International Women’s Day

Successful companies not only meet their customers’ needs, they invest in innovation and new markets, build communities, and ensure they have a diverse staff. In today’s marketplace, companies play a critical role as corporate citizens and can be trusted partners with the public sector. A focus on gender equality, diversity, and women’s leadership is not just a philanthropic goal, it is central to business success and must be integrated into business operations.

Companies that are committed to equality and sustainability — both internally and externally — can expand market share, and burnish their reputation as good citizens, as consumers look for products reflecting their values. Globally, almost two-thirds of consumers prefer to buy from companies that reflect their personal values and beliefs.

Diverse teams increase profitability, innovation, and the ability to identify new markets and opportunities. A McKinsey and Co study found that companies in the top 25 percent for gender diverse executive teams were over 20 percent more likely to exceed average profitability. Diverse teams help companies benefit from different viewpoints and avoid missteps, such as Gucci’s launch of a sweater during Black History Month that reinforced racial stereotypes and Apple’s programming of Siri to respond inappropriately to user questions about sexual harassment. 

There are other concrete steps that companies can make to achieve meaningful success through their equity strategies.  Companies should buy more goods and services from women-led and other diverse businesses. Companies should identify barriers in their own systems, such as cumbersome and lengthy application processes, that prevent diversity in supply chains. For example, Walmart leverages its size and scale to source more from women-owned businesses, but this type of supply chain diversification doesn’t have to be limited to large organizations.

Companies can also partner with the public sector to develop strong enabling and legal environments critical to women’s success, including skill development and laws that make it easier for women to access quality education, child care, and health care. Legal frameworks that ensure non-discrimination, and protect against sexual harassment, assault and violence are good for business as they help attract and retain talent.

Enhancing enterprise-wide equality and diversity are not only the right thing for organizations to prioritize, but this effort is foundational to business success.

Women Entrepreneurs in the Year of COVID

While COVID has upended everyone’s lives, women have borne the brunt of the pandemic in so many ways. COVID-19 has exposed and exacerbated gender inequalities and many of women’s economic gains have come to a standstill. Women business owners and entrepreneurs have suffered more than their male colleagues, as have women workers who have absorbed 54 percent of job loss despite comprising 39 percent of the global workforce. The public sector, private sector and civil society can all act to halt these losses. This article focuses on the impact COVID has had on women entrepreneurs and policies to address these issues.  

Globally, the over 250 million women entrepreneurs drive growth, creating jobs and economic opportunity. In the U.S., more than 25 percent of small businesses have closed since December. Among those still operating, many fear for their futures, with only half saying they could survive another year under current economic conditions. Women are more likely than men to own businesses in sectors hard-hit, such as restaurants, personal services, and retail. Further, women and people of color often lack the same access to capital as White men whose businesses are more established.

According to a survey by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, only 47 percent of American women business owners rated their business health as “good,” while 62 percent of male owners said the same. Just 49 percent of these women expect revenues to increase in early 2021, a 14 point decrease from earlier in 2020. Only 32 percent of women-owned small businesses plan to increase investments in the coming year, compared to 39 percent of their male counterparts.

Similarly, Babson College’s Diana International Research Institute conducted a series of surveys to understand the business challenges faced by women entrepreneurs during the pandemic. The surveys found 67 percent said revenue had dropped; 23 percent closed down their businesses permanently, while 26 percent reduced employees’ hours and 38 percent preferred low interest federal loans to assist their businesses. 

Findings were similar globally. A Cherie Blair Foundation survey of women in entrepreneurship mentoring programs reflected that 93 percent were negatively impacted by COVID, with 43 percent reporting reduced or no access to customers. WEConnect International, a global network connecting women-owned businesses to qualified buyers, also surveyed its members. That survey found 82 percent negatively impacted by the pandemic between April and June 2020, with 84 percent reporting decreased sales/revenue. And similar to U.S. women business owners, these entrepreneurs reduced the amount of time spent on work due to increased caregiving responsibilities (25%). 

Government programs to address COVID-related financial stresses did not reach firms owned by women and men equally. While women own 40 percent of U.S. businesses, just 16 percent of firms receiving Paycheck Protection Program loans are female-owned. Similarly, 24 percent of the women surveyed by WeConnect said they were unable to access needed additional resources. 

But, despite these daunting statistics, entrepreneurship is up. As of December 2020, there were more than 1.5 million new business applications in the U.S., up 82 percent. Many of these businesses are being started by women, whether out of necessity or because entrepreneurship gives them more control. 

Key Steps to Support Women Entrepreneurs

The Public Sector plays a unique role developing legal frameworks and setting policy. 

  • Because of this role, the leadership (and membership) of all government bodies and teams focused on COVID-19 response, recovery and future preparedness must be gender-balanced. This is fundamental to an economic recovery that is effective, inclusive and responsive to the needs of women and men, particularly those from marginalized backgrounds. Women’s organizations, often at the forefront of community response, must be consulted in this process. 
  • Since women face a disproportionate burden of caregiving, governments develop a stronger policy infrastructure for caregiving, including equitable parental leave, quality and affordable care for children and other family members, and policies promoting equal participation of men and domestic partners in unpaid care and domestic work. Government can also promote investment in the care economy, including increased quality of care jobs. The European Union, for example, directs its Member States to grant maternity leave of at least 14 weeks to self-employed women workers.
  • Governments need to support closing both the gender and rural/urban digital divides by investing in needed infrastructure and enhancing digital skills development. The pandemic has accentuated the urgent need for connectivity and digital literacy for women entrepreneurs. Those lacking access to the Internet, smartphones and other vital technologies are falling further behind. 
  • With a tailored and gender-responsive approach, governments can also buy more goods and services from women-owned businesses through procurement of goods and services. Kenya’s public procurement policy, for example, reserves 30 percent of government contracts for women, youth and persons with disabilities.

The Private Sector can address challenges faced by women starting and running businesses in terms of access to financial and investment products as well as supply chains. 

  • Access to credit, including credit guarantees, is important for women entrepreneurs who are more likely to see substantially reduced revenue. Moreover, financial services companies can support COVID response and recovery by streamlining access to new financing for women entrepreneurs. The Tory Burch Foundation, in partnership with Bank of America, provides women entrepreneurs in the U.S. the opportunity to access affordable loans through community lenders.
  • Like the public sector, corporations can commit to buying more goods and services from women-led businesses, and encourage the production of goods and services from the same. The private sector can identify barriers in their own systems, such as cumbersome and lengthy application processes, that prevent diversity in supply chains. For example, Walmart leverages its size and scale to source more from women-owned businesses, seeing this as the “right thing to do” and foundational to providing products and services their customers need. When buying from women-owned businesses is not an option, companies can source from companies offering fair pay and benefits for women employees. 

Civil society non-profit and advocacy organizations, academia, business associations and program implementers can foster policy change through the use of research-driven and evidence-based insights and advocacy. 

  • Civil society can underscore the need for the private and public sectors to create a more enabling environment for women entrepreneurs. Where discriminatory laws remain, it can advocate for legal reforms regarding business ownership, access to capital, and non-discrimination. For example, WE EMPOWER, a project of the European Union, UN Women and the International Labour Organization advocated for sustainable, inclusive and equitable policies around women’s economic empowerment in the public and private sectors in G7 countries. 
  • Civil society organizations, business associations and academia can identify the needs of women business owners, create opportunities for sharing useful practices, and provide skills training. Women’s business networks can provide peer-to-peer learning and assist women entrepreneurs as they seek markets for their goods and services. WEConnect enhances the capabilities of women entrepreneurs to transact business globally, and has worked with the Royal Bank of Scotland to develop a supplier diversity code of conduct and concrete plan to increase gender diversity in supply chains.

Across All Sectors and initiatives, it remains important to collect and report data disaggregated by sex, age, ethnicity and race to inform policy. This intersectional data helps ensure that resources are provided to those that need it most. This data should include information about access to finance, access to networks, and ability to compete for both public and private sector procurement opportunities. 

This article originally appeared on the Diana International Research Institute (DIRI) at Babson College membership platform.

Transforming the US Human Rights Report to Reflect Gender Rights — and Security

President Joe Biden has a record of standing up for human rights across the globe. He has backed Chinese rights activists and defenders, and advocated for full equality for the LGBTI community. During the campaign, he and Vice President Kamala Harris pledged to stand up to the forces of authoritarianism worldwide, rejoin and reform the United Nations Human Rights Council, and place democratic values at the core of foreign policy. Biden told the New York Times, “When I am president, human rights will be at the core of U.S. foreign policy.”

One way his administration can follow through on that pledge is by reversing the politicization of the State Department’s annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices (also known as the Human Rights Reports). Another is to add reporting on the status of human rights in the United States. A third is to reject the findings of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s Commission on Unalienable Rights, an issue analyzed extensively at Just Security.

The Trump administration damaged the credibility of the annual Human Rights Reports, which previously were considered the “gold standard” of objective information about human rights around the world. It is critical to return to the kind of reporting that accurately and fully addresses human rights issues, especially those faced by women and girls. This is also an opportunity to rethink the reports, so they are more dynamic, reflecting progress toward gender equality and documenting the interplay between the treatment of women and girls and a country’s level of peace, security, and stability.

Background on Human Rights Reports

The United States was a key architect of both the U.N. Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Further, pursuant to the U.S. Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and the Trade Act of 1974, the Department of State submits human rights reports on all countries receiving assistance and on all U.N. member states. The U.S. began compiling these annual reports in 1976, and they cover internationally recognized individual, civil, political, and worker rights as set forth in the UDHR and other international agreements. In the 1995 Beijing Platform for Action, the United States and 188 countries affirmed their commitment to women’s human rights across the political, economic, educational, and health spheres. From 2011 to 2016, the Human Rights Reports included detailed information on women’s reproductive rights.

In February 2018, under Pompeo’s predecessor, Rex Tillerson, Politico reported that State Department officials were ordered to cut back on passages in the Human Rights Reports discussing reproductive rights and violence against women, as well as sections on racial, ethnic, sexual, and gender-based discrimination.

While the framework of the Human Rights Reports remained largely intact during the Trump administration, experts found that reporting downplayed the seriousness of human rights abuses on the ground and was not consistent with reporting by other reliable sources of information. A recent study shows reporting on women’s human rights dropped by a third between 2016 and 2017. In the Afghanistan report, women’s rights and issues were mentioned 195 times in 2016 and only 85 times in 2017.

According to the Asylum Research Centre, the Trump administration omitted or altered critical information, including about torture, reproductive rights, and persecution based on sexuality. For example, the 2019 Eritrea report no longer mentioned widespread sexual violence against women in military training camps amounting to torture, and the forced domestic service of women and girls in training camps amounting to sexual slavery.

Further, in 2019, Pompeo formed his Commission on Unalienable Rights to provide advice on human rights grounded in our nation’s founding documents and the UDHR. The commission’s report ignored advancements in the legal and human rights of racial minorities, women, children, people with disabilities, and the LGBTI community, and declared that religious freedom and property rights are the “foremost” human rights. As a good start, Secretary of State nominee Antony Blinken said during his Jan. 19 Senate confirmation hearing that the Biden administration would reject the findings of that commission.

Opportunities for the Biden Administration

In the 2021 Human Rights Report, in addition to restoring critical reporting, the administration has an opportunity to think more broadly about women’s human rights and embed these issues within the national security context.

The prevalence of gender-based violence in a country is a national security issue. It can predict a nation’s potential for hostility toward other nations, as well as internal political violence and civil conflict. Gender-based violence, as well as the lack of women’s human rights, are not simply problems faced by an individual, family, or community. A study funded by the Department of Defense and published just last year, demonstrates that a country’s commitment to upholding women’s human rights is intertwined with nearly every dimension of national security. Countries that foster gender equality are less likely to go to war or use force first when in conflict. Moreover, higher levels of women’s political participation and personal empowerment at the household level decrease conflict and instability.

Accordingly, we urge the Biden-Harris administration to take four immediate actions.

First, the State Department should restore reporting on maternal mortality and access to reproductive health care. Make no mistake — this is a human rights issue. In 2011, the U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women decided that U.N. member States have a human rights obligation to guarantee all women timely and non-discriminatory access to appropriate maternal health services. In the relevant case, Pimentel v. Brazil, an Afro-Brazilian woman died from pregnancy-related causes after misdiagnosis and the delay of emergency obstetric care.

Second, such reporting should consistently include quantitative data points on gender-based violence, including the age of marriage. Often, country reports describe current law but not the prevalence of the abuse. For instance, the 2019 Human Rights Report on Colombia includes both the law regarding early and forced marriage and data from UNICEF on the prevalence of these practices, while the same year’s Guatemala report only describes a 2017 national decree prohibiting underage marriage and provides no independent statistics.

Moreover, the reports should include reporting on emerging trends, such as online violence and/or violence against women in politics. One in 10 women in the European Union report cyber-harassment, including unwanted and/or offensive sexually explicit emails or text messages, or offensive and/or inappropriate advances on social networking sites. In a 2020 report by the Inter-Parliamentary Union, an organization of national parliaments, 34 percent of women parliamentarians were exposed to torture, ill treatment, and acts of violence, compared with 18 percent of male colleagues. In the same report, 98 cases of violations against women were reported in 2020, up from 85 in 2019.

Third, overarching gender indicators should be added to place the human rights reporting in context. There are several well-established reports with gender data points on education, health, economic opportunity, and political office for virtually every country, such as the World Economic Forum (WEF) Global Gender Gap Report, the UNDP Gender Inequality Index, and the World Bank Women, Business and the Law report. Utilizing consistent indicators for each country will help place the status of women and girls in a broader context. As an example, for the last 15 years, the WEF report has tracked progress towards gender equality, ranking 53 countries on four key dimensions and allowing for effective comparisons across and within regional peers.

Lastly, the State Department should begin to report on human rights, including women’s rights, in the United States. In 2010, the State Department’s Trafficking in Persons Report added the United States to that annual report, given that trafficking occurs in every country, including this one. Considering the U.S. public’s increased focus on issues such as policing and the criminal justice system at home, this reporting is critically important. It will also send a signal globally that, as Biden said, the United States will lead with humility and take its own human rights violations seriously.

Taken together, these concrete actions will demonstrate the new administration’s deep commitment to human rights both at home and abroad, and perhaps begin to rebuild U.S. credibility and diplomatic strength with allies, partners, and adversaries.

This column originally appeared in Just Security.

Contact Us

+1.202.262.9743 – Stephenie Foster
+1.202.744.0892 – Susan Markham
smash@smashstrategies.com

Sign-Up for Our Newsletter



© Smash Strategies 2017 | All Rights Reserved
Privacy Settings
We use cookies to enhance your experience while using our website. If you are using our Services via a browser you can restrict, block or remove cookies through your web browser settings. We also use content and scripts from third parties that may use tracking technologies. You can selectively provide your consent below to allow such third party embeds. For complete information about the cookies we use, data we collect and how we process them, please check our Privacy Policy
Youtube
Consent to display content from Youtube
Vimeo
Consent to display content from Vimeo
Google Maps
Consent to display content from Google
Save