As part of my internship with CARE International UK, I spent two days in Parliament last month at events on women in conflict and peace-building. The new UK aid strategy allocates 50 per cent of DFID’s budget to conflict-affected and fragile states, so I was keen to find out what the current political commitment to the Women, Peace and Security agenda looks like – and how this plays out in country.
A ‘golden moment’ at the APPG on Women, Peace and Security
My first insight into the UK government’s current political commitment was at the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Women, Peace and Security. Baroness Hodgson described the event as a ‘golden moment’ for the WPS agenda, with three committed ministers from the Department for International Development, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence working closely together for the first time. This is a welcome initiative, and demonstrates the government’s willingness for joined-up thinking and a leadership role in the agenda.
The APPG focused on tangible action around the UK National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security 2014-2017. So what progress has been made?
Firstly, it is clear that the UK Government is a key player in the Women, Peace and Security agenda on the global stage, with significant input into the High-Level Review of UNSCR 1325 helping to frame it as an opportunity for governments worldwide to make ambitious commitments.
The UK also made its own important pledges at the High-Level Review to ensure that women’s voices are heard in all future UK-hosted peace-building events and to help secure positive outcomes for women and girls at the World Humanitarian Summit.
But what are the gaps?
The APPG also saw the launch of a new shadow report from Gender Action for Peace and Security (GAPS), of which CARE is a member.
GAPS welcomed the pledges made at the UN High-Level Review, but the report also highlighted the need to translate this commitment at the global level into comprehensive action in Whitehall. With champion governments such as Sweden formulating a ‘Feminist Foreign Policy’, surely this is a challenge to the UK government to do the same?
Further, there is work to be done on ensuring the meaningful participation of women from conflict-affected contexts in peace-building events. This means more than just tokenistic representation and will require UK officials and partners to collaborate more with local level networks and platforms already established in country. Not only is this positive for gender equality but it also helps build better and more durable peace agreements.
By Madeline Moore, Policy and Advocacy Intern, CARE International UK
