Geneva Gender Debate: A feminist approach to peace and security

The annual Geneva Gender Debate brings together decision-makers of all genders to break down barriers for gender equality. It is an opportunity to raise awareness on matters of gender equality through the art of debate by fostering nuanced exchanges on the challenges and changes needed to achieve gender equality, and it showcases the interconnectedness of gender equality with international policies. By embedding gender equality across its external action, the EU acts on the evidence that inclusive societies are stronger and more resilient.

In her opening remarks, EU Ambassador Deike Potzel underlined the need for equality and inclusion. Evidence shows that when women meaningfully participate in peace processes, agreements are around 35% more likely to last at least 15 years. Countries with higher levels of gender equality tend to be more stable overall. 

Inclusion is not symbolic, it is strategic. I don’t claim that women are by nature better negotiators or more peaceful. They are probably not. But they are clearly no more prone to failure than men. The issue is not superiority, but equality and effectiveness. | EU Ambassador Deike Potzel

After highlighting that inclusive societies are stronger and more resilient, she reminded the audience that the very concept of inclusive foreign policy faces increasing pressure. As anything labelled “feminist” is often contested or dismissed in the current political climate, even though it does not mean ‘no men allowed’, because inclusion is not just about bringing more women to the table.

In her remarks, Ambassador Potzel outlined the underlying question of the evening: How can we ensure that the men who are already at the table understand and actively engage with the principles of inclusive approaches to peace and security. How can they become partners in creating truly inclusive processes? 

Patrick Anderseck

Having set the floor, the debaters discussed whether feminist approaches are necessary to overcome the failures of traditional methods in foreign policy, or if they fall short in addressing modern security challenges. For this Oxford-style debate, the four debates were assigned in two teams whose task it was to argue in favour of or against the motion, and therefore the positions expressed during the debate may not reflect their personal views.

Nathalie Chuard, Director of the Geneva Centre for Security Sector Governance, together with Randolph de Battista, Ambassador of Malta to the United Nations in Geneva, had the task to argue for taking a feminist approach. Shedding light onto successful feminist peace movements in Liberia, Colombia, and Nepal, they underlined that peace would last longer if women meaningfully participated in securing it. Arguably, to strengthen society and the international order, strategic modernization, adaptation and a more inclusive model of society must be adopted. After all, inclusion and equality would be indicators of stability. Together, they phrased feminism as drawing from the full talent, experience, and legitimacy of all of society.

Arguing against a feminist approach, by advocating for a community-led and outcome-driven approach to security were Dr. Khalid Koser, Executive Director at the Global Community Engagement and Resilience Fund, and Dr. Musonda Mumba, Secretary General for the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands.

The two put forward the argument that security must not be doctrine-driven. Instead, it must align with practical action and be responsive to regional, national, communal, and indigenous needs, through bringing the collective together in order to find a solution. Both underlined that the art of listening to a collective community and strengthening local ownership would allow for a successful bottom-up approach in solving conflicts in peaceful ways. Adding a label – like ‘feminism’ – to this process would only create a barrier towards creating a more stable and resilient security, they argued.

It was a close call, but ultimately the ‘Against-Team’ was able to sway more voters  than the ‘Pro-Team’ and won this year’s debate. We congratulate the winners and look forward to next year’s debate!