Human rights, explained.
Afghan burqa-clad women rest along a roadside in Kandahar on 28 December 2024 (Sanaullah Seiam/AFP via Getty Images)
International peace and security requires due consideration of the world’s women. This is no radical social theory.
Subscribe to The Informer for monthly expert analysis, and to Events for advance notice of visiting world leaders and distinguished guests.
You may unsubscribe from Lowy Institute newsletters at any time. For information on our privacy practices and how to unsubscribe, see our Privacy Policy.
What does the Trump presidency mean for Women, Peace and Security?What does the Trump presidency mean for Women, Peace and Security?
During his inauguration speech this week, President Trump notably redefined American gender policy. Within a few breaths, he also said he would “sign an order to stop our warriors from being subjected to radical political theories and social experiments while on duty. It’s going to end immediately. Our armed forces will be free to focus on their sole mission: defeating America’s enemies.”
It is difficult not to think this will mean an end to US implementation of the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda. Under Trump’s last presidency, the UN Security Council experienced its first ever negotiation on a WPS resolution which had previously passed unanimously. The negotiations were disrupted by US concerns on sexual and reproductive health rights for survivors of conflict-related sexual violence. Even when detailed health language that had previously been agreed by the UN was removed from the draft resolution, the US failed to support it.
The WPS agenda is more than 25 years old this year. The first UN Security Council resolution, 1325, was passed 25 years ago, but civil society organisations and UN bodies have been working towards the objectives contained in the resolutions for far longer than that.
There are now ten Security Council resolutions on the subject. There is an Open Debate each October, and one on Conflict-Related Sexual Violence that occurs earlier in the year. More than 100 countries have National Action Plans on how they will implement these resolutions, General Recommendation 30 of the Committee on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women, and other relevant treaty law including the Rome Statute and Genocide Convention.
But the situation for women affected by conflict has been getting progressively worse for years. Last time he spoke at the Open Debate, the UN Secretary-General António Guterres told the Security Council “conflict and persecution is at a record high; and 50 per cent more women and girls are living in countries threatened by fighting than in 2017”. Last year, there was a 50 per cent increase in the number of UN-verified cases of conflict-related sexual violence since 2023.
Sexual violence is perpetrated by combatants as diverse as regular armed forces of members of the Security Council, armed forces of less developed countries, guerrilla groups, and terrorist organisations. It has occurred in international armed conflicts between states, non-international armed conflicts, and guerrilla warfare.
Sexual violence is an indicator of insecurity, a driver of insecurity, and a barrier to peace and security. Indeed, Texas A&M University’s Professor Valerie Hudson has statistically shown that “the best predictor of a state’s stability and security is the level of violence against women.” But there remains a dearth of real-time prevention and accountability for conflict-related sexual violence.
When Trump sent his emissary, Zalmay Khalilzad, to negotiate the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan, he entirely sidestepped the democratically elected government of Afghanistan and refused any participation by Afghan women, in direct contradiction of the WPS agenda and the WPS Act.
The US has a Women, Peace and Security Act, which is supposed to require that nations’ government departments implement and enforce the tenets of the WPS agenda. But time and time again, both great and middle powers deprioritise the rights and security of women for some other objective.
In 2014, thousands of Yazidi women of Syria and Iraq were kidnapped by tens of thousands of foreign fighters from countries including Australia and the United States, countries which have national legislation criminalising the sexual crimes perpetrated against the Yazidis. But those nationals have not been prosecuted for those crimes.
When Trump sent his emissary, Zalmay Khalilzad, to negotiate the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan, he entirely sidestepped the democratically elected government of Afghanistan and refused any participation by Afghan women, in direct contradiction of the WPS agenda and the WPS Act. In doing so, Trump and Khalilzad handed Afghanistan back to the Taliban. They were warned what would happen to Afghan women, but they chose to ignore it.
For Trump to say in his inaugural speech, “we will measure our success not only by the battles we win, but also the wars that we end,” was a slap in the face to the millions of Afghan women for whom that war is certainly not over. Those women are now legally not allowed to have their voices heard in public, or be seen through a window outside their home, let alone attend school or earn a living wage.
The fierce women of Afghanistan who continue to fight for their rights and face such danger that they are sometimes forced to flee a country they still love certainly won’t think of Trump as a peacemaker and unifier. His administration won’t even grant them the sanctuary to which they are entitled, fleeing a country now overrun not just by the Taliban but other terrorist groups including ISIS and al-Qaeda affiliates.
Meeting the objectives of international peace and security requires due consideration of the security of the world’s women. This is no radical social theory. One can only hope that President Trump, and those in his administration, act accordingly.
About the author
Susan Hutchinson
Susan Hutchinson is a civil-military professional with experience in government, military and non-government organisations.
The most-pressing world events explained by Lowy Institute experts and global contributors, in your inbox, every Thursday.
You may unsubscribe from The Interpreter at any time. For information on our privacy practices and how to unsubscribe, see our Privacy Policy.
