“Framers of 1325” Series: Dr. Peter Wallensteen

On the Origins of Resolution 1325¹

A Unique Resolution

UN Security Council Resolution 1325 (“the Resolution”), adopted in 2000, was a unique, path-breaking resolution that gave women an active role with real agency in peace processes.  In retrospect, the 1990s was a period of great leaps forward for women’s rights globally, and it is important to recall this from the perspective of the 2020s, when much of this progress is being challenged, threatened, and undermined. Resolution 1325 was a way to summarize the achievements of the 1990s and bring them firmly into the UN system. The number of peace processes going on in armed conflicts in the 1990s was high and impressive. Thus, it was timely to not only discuss how women were affected by the many wars, but also how to give them an independent voice as part of the processes that ended these conflicts. 

By introducing measurable action points into the Resolution itself, it became possible for the UN to continuously return to the issues raised, at the highest level of the UN system: the UN Security Council. UNSCR 1325  remains one of the most well-known UN resolutions, although it was not taken under Chapter VII and thus, was not compulsory for the entire UN membership. Its links to women’s organizations and other civil society movements have contributed to making it relevant. The measurable actions included in the Resolution also make clear that progress was difficult, particularly in the 2020s, when peace processes have been stalled, abandoned, or replaced by further military action. Thus, “1325” remains a vision waiting to be fully implemented.

The Resolution built on a document called the Windhoek Declaration and Namibia Plan of Action (“the Declaration”) (UN Document S/2000/693). This, in turn, was the outcome of a meeting in Namibia in May 2000 of a project initiated by the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) Lesson Learned Unit, led by Dr. Leonard Kapungu. Dr. Kapungu, a long-time colleague and friend from our early studies of economic sanctions, approached me and the Department of Peace and Conflict Research at Uppsala University in Sweden for a study of gender mainstreaming in peacekeeping operations. As there were several gifted young scholars in the Department interested in this topic, we agreed to conduct the project². By May 2000, we were ready to report our findings.  This event did not turn out to be a regular scholarly seminar with standard academic reporting. Instead, its chair, Dame Margret Anstee, turned the meeting into a policy workshop. The result of this was the Windhoek Declaration, which then was taken to New York by some of the participants. There, it gradually worked its way into a full-fledged UN resolution, accepted during Namibia’s last day of chairing the Security Council on October 31, 2000.

Declaration vs. Resolution

It is possible to compare the more academic Declaration to the politically-based Resolution. In a way, it demonstrates how scholarly work can filter itself into policy. Resolution 1325 is very clear and specific–presumably an effect of the scholarly impact–but it is also more operative than the Declaration. Our project emphasized definitional issues, empirical observations, and generalizations. Not surprisingly, the Windhoek Declaration had many propositions for further research!

As is clear from the origins of this effort, the Windhoek Declaration focused on peacekeeping, while the Resolution is considerably wider in its ambition. The Declaration contained 38 specific proposals, the Resolution just 20, but often with a wider scope. The Resolution clearly benefited from the Declaration, but it also avoided some of the proposals from the Windhoek seminar.

The first line in the Declaration reads, “Equal access and participation by women and men should be ensured in the area of conflict at all levels and stages of the peace process.” It can be compared to the first lines in the operative section of Resolution 1325 where the Council “urges Member States to ensure increased representation of women at all decision-making levels in national, regional and international institutions and mechanisms for the prevention, management, and resolution of conflict” (italics in the original text). As can be seen, both documents underline the importance of “all levels.” The word “participation” was, however,  replaced with “representation,” which–to this author–is somewhat weaker.

Resolution 1325 “urges the Secretary-General to appoint more women as Special Representatives and envoys to pursue good offices on his behalf” (italics in the original text). The Declaration said that “more determined efforts must be made to select and appoint female Special Representatives of the Secretary General and senior field staff for peace support operations.” Again, there is a strong parallel in the importance of changing the appointment procedures, but here the Resolution seems more straightforward than the original Declaration.

Resolution 1325 went on to tackle one of the most frequent counter-arguments to having more women in top positions–that there are no qualified female candidates available–by calling on “member states to provide candidates to the Secretary-General for inclusion in a regularly updated centralized roster.” This is a clear reflection of the corresponding statement in the Windhoek Declaration that “a comprehensive database with information specifically on female candidates with qualifications both military and civilian, should be maintained.”

These parallels make it interesting to also observe discrepancies. At the deliberations in the project and in the workshop in Windhoek, there were obvious fears, based on research that gender issues would not be taken seriously unless there was a particular unit assigned to this task. Resolution 1325 addressed this by saying that the Council is willing “to incorporate a gender perspective into peacekeeping operations, and urges the Secretary-General to ensure that, where appropriate, field operations include a gender component.”

This was an issue discussed extensively in the project. There was agreement on the need for such a unit, but there were also concerns it could easily be marginalized within any organization or operation. Thus, the Declaration had stronger language in this regard: “A gender affairs unit is crucial for effective gender mainstreaming and should be a standard component of all missions. It should be adequately funded and staffed at appropriate levels and should have direct access to senior decision-makers” (italics added by the author).

Clearly, the penholders formulating Resolution 1325 retreated from the Declaration’s tougher language and instead expressed a “willingness” to incorporate a gender perspective, stretching itself only to establishing a “gender component” and then only “where appropriate.” The UN was not ready for a separate, authoritative, and competent UN Women’s unit in 2000. Ten years later, times would change.

Beyond “1325”

The Declaration and the work behind it clearly informed the UN Security Council on what would be required to pursue a purposeful policy of gender mainstreaming. Research and practice had an impact. The resulting Resolution was a historical contribution: It moved the issue of gender equality in peacemaking forward and continues to be important, yet it is not fully implemented. The resolution did not go as far as researchers and practitioners would have wanted it to.

It is tempting to ask: “What research today should have guided a Security Council resolution on this issue?” For example, there are now more findings on the close connection between gender and peace in terms of more gender-equal societies having fewer wars, armed conflicts, and human right violations. This would have to be included if the Resolution is to be consistent with current research³. There is also an increasing scholarly basis for challenging traditional understandings of masculinity⁴. This would also be appropriate to incorporate in a follow-up resolution. Thus, research moves deeper into the questions of gender and war. But, the political winds are going in the entirely opposite direction, at least for the time being. Possibly one could hope for Resolution 1325 2.0, but today it might result in a reversal and an abandonment of this perspective. But times will change, again, making progress possible by, say, 2030?

Notes

[1] This essay builds on my chapter: Peter Wallensteen, “Resolution 1325 (2000): A Note on its Background and Formulation,” in Peter Wallensteen: A Pioneer in Making Peace Researchable (Springer, 2021): https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783030628475.

[2] For an account of this see Louise Olsson et al., “Preparatory Workshop on Mainstreaming a Gender Perspective in Multidimensional Peacekeeping Operations” (Executive Summary), Uppsala University: Department of Peace and Conflict Research, 1999.

[3] See for instance Elin Bjarnegård et al., “Gender, Peace and Armed Conflict,” in SIPRI Yearbook 2015 (Oxford University Press, 2015). This includes work by Mary Caprioli (see Mary Caprioli, “Gendered Conflict,” Journal of Peace Research 37, no. 1 (2000): 53-68) and Erik Melander (see Erik Melander, “Political Gender Equality and State Human Rights Abuse,” Journal of Peace Research 42, no. 2 (2005): 149-166). An early work on the gender-peace nexus is Ann Tickner, Gender in International Relations: A Feminist Perspective on Achieving Global Security (New York, NY: Colombia University Press, 1992).

[4] Indeed, these discussions have also led to new datasets, e.g., D.K. Cohen and R. Nordås, “Sexual Violence in Armed Conflict: Introducing the SVAC Dataset, 1989-2009,” Journal of Peace Research 51, no. 3 (2014): 418-428. On masculinity see for instance Elin Bjarnegård et al., “Armed Violence and Patriarchal Values: A Survey of Young Men in Thailand and their Military Experiences,” American Political Science Review 117, no. 2 (2023): 439-453.

About the Author

Dr. Peter Wallensteen is a Senior Professor of Peace and Conflict Research at Uppsala University in Sweden, where he formerly directed the Uppsala Conflict Data program, and the Richard G. Starmann Sr. Research Professor of Peace Studies at the Kroc Institute, University of Notre Dame. Dr. Wallensteen was also the first holder of the Dag Hammarskjöld Chair in Peace and Conflict Research at Uppsala (1985–2012). He is additionally affiliated with the Nordic Africa Institute, the Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation, and several advisory councils, including for the Folke Bernadotte Academy. He is the author of multiple influential works such as Understanding Conflict Resolution: Peace, War, and the Global System—published in multiple languages—and Peace Research: Theory and Practice.

Image Courtesy of Uppsala University.

Invited to ponder on the future of the Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) agenda, I revisited my UN Security Council (UNSC) remarks from 2000 and found in them an important reminder: it is–and remains–always about the context:

“The principles of gender equality and mainstreaming gender perspectives in all dimensions of societal interaction lie at the core of democratic societies …The maintenance of peace and security requires a contribution not by some or half of the world’s population, but by all. Equally important, if such a contribution is skewed and reflects either only men’s or only women’s masculine or feminine perspectives, it remains seriously impaired.”

UNSC Resolution (UNSCR) 1325 has achieved a remarkable legacy, fostering a robust body of international and national norms, to its initiators’ and enablers’ delight. Yet, these hard-won gains now confront formidable challenges at the intersection of WPS principles and shifting policies across global, regional, and domestic realms—encompassing governance, markets, and societal structures. These policy shifts emerge both as drivers and consequences of destabilizing trends, such as the erosion of international law and order, the constraints on democracies under strain alongside the rise of “civilization states”, the decline of soft power, and the proliferation of digital technologies with complex AI risks. Coupled with these dynamics is the accelerating impact of climate change and migration, adding layers of vulnerability and urgency. Is the legacy of a quarter century of progress under the WPS agenda irreversible?

In my view, holding onto and reaffirming the core principles of the WPS agenda in times of distress constitutes the first line of defense. The four key pillars of the agenda – Participation, Protection, Prevention, and Relief and Recovery – are so deeply integrated into global norms and practices that they can be considered irreversible. Thus, prioritizing further strengthening of the normative framework of UNSCR 1325 seems strategically justified. Let’s go for implementation.

Focusing on implementation by evaluating and validating the robustness of selected mature WPS norms in judicial fora could prove highly rewarding, particularly with successful outcomes across multiple national courts. National-level implementation complements and reinforces a broader adaptive strategy of localizing WPS principles, which is relevant in the contexts of both “civilization states”  and democracies in transition.

States that center governance on cultural and historical identity may opt to implement only culturally resonant commitments from the WPS agenda. Democracies may prioritize politically salient ones to ensure institutional and societal acceptance. Mainstreaming “manosphere” content supports masculine perspectives and muscular practices in domestic and international governance, while instead engaging young men through constructive narratives of positive masculinity contributes to comprehensive perspectives and practices.

Understanding and supporting localized interpretations of the WPS agenda remains crucial for identifying timely, context-specific solutions that buffer resistance to WPS multilateral frameworks. Formal and informal collegial advocacy networks, alongside decentralized grassroots movements empowered by digital and AI technology, offer immense potential. These efforts can advance a more nuanced integration of masculine and feminine perspectives in peace and security initiatives, promoting lasting equity and cooperation.

About the Author:

Jelena Grčić Polić is a diplomat who has held senior positions at the Croatian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Croatian Ministry of Defense, and the Croatian Embassy in the People’s Republic of China (PRC). At the time of the adoption of UNSCR 1325, Polić was the Deputy Permanent Representative at the Croatian Mission to the UN in New York (1998-2001). She holds a Ph.D. from the University of Pennsylvania and an LL.M. from Harvard Law School.

Image Courtesy of Flickr.

It was important to me that a resolution on women, peace, and security (WPS) be adopted at the UN Security Council (UNSC) because the UNSC was the most powerful body in the international system responsible for peace and security. I believed that if a resolution was adopted, especially unanimously, then world governments would be mandated to implement its principles. This would then increase the protection of women and girls in armed conflict and amplify responses to their needs in peace processes.

Having worked firsthand on regional and international African women’s issues in armed conflict from 1991 to 2000, I especially wanted to tell the stories of women and girls impacted by armed conflict in Sierra Leone and West Africa, whose suffering was often misunderstood, minimized, or dismissed. I became convinced that, combined with the collaboration, mobilization, and resources amongst women in the 1990s, a new opportunity existed for the UNSC to break the glass ceiling on this issue for women and girls. 

It is important to note that WPS initiators were building on the achievements of women’s movements at the international women’s conferences of 1975, 1985, and 1995. Though challenging, we wanted to take those achievements to the next level, and that was what provided us the motivation and inspiration to pursue a resolution at the UNSC. 

We also would not have been successful if we did not work with women across the board–from the grassroots to the elite women–to legitimize and capture the whole essence of the call to action at the UNSC. Therefore, those linkages should not be weakened or broken. The voices of those who are on the frontlines of armed conflict and at the bottom of the ladder provide a deeper understanding of what needs to be done.

Given this, my recommendations and observations for the next generation of WPS strategists include: 

• Recognize that change is never immediate: it is achieved in the long-term. Therefore, documenting your gains and remaining steadfast in your work is key to achieving meaningful change and transformation.
• Ground your initiatives to the specificities of women’s experiences in the current (and anticipated) contexts of political crisis, armed conflict, and war. Still, identifying operative experiences which are global and can resonate with a diversity of women can take WPS to the next level.
• Leverage social media tools and the internet to connect, research, and gain important knowledge that can convince leaders at every level to take action on this issue.

Ultimately, my vision for the future of the WPS agenda is expansion: to go beyond what the “framers” initially envisioned when UNSCR 1325 was first passed, to innovate the different ways that WPS work is done, and to open it up to issues that only strengthen its efficacy, not derogate from its foundations. 25 years ago, we did not get everything we wanted for UNSCR 1325 because we simply could not. But now, I believe there is room for the WPS agenda to consider legal, political, and development dimensions, which could be used to prevent conflict and secure sustainable peace.

About the Author:

Isha Dyfan is a Sierra Leonean lawyer and one of the activists who successfully advocated for the adoption of UNSCR 1325 at the UNSC in 2000. She has served at the UN in various distinguished positions throughout the years, including as the Independent Expert on the Situation of Human Rights in Somalia (appointed by the UN Human Rights Council in May 2020), the Chief of the Human Rights Section in the UN Hybrid Operation in Darfur, Sudan (UNAMID), and as the Senior Human Rights Officer responsible for the coordination of women’s human rights and gender at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). Prior to joining the UN, Dyfan worked for multiple international women’s NGOs in New York, and upon retirement from the UN, Dyfan served as the Director of International Advocacy at Amnesty International. Her career expertise and authorship spans across thematic issues of women, peace, and security; human rights and humanitarian law; and good governance. 

WIIS team members Karin Johnston and Mahathi Ayyagari interviewed Dyfan at her request. These remarks have been edited for clarity.

Image Courtesy of Hiiraan Online.

The 25th Anniversary of UNSCR 1325 and the WPS Agenda

For over a quarter of a century, WIIS has been at the forefront of raising awareness and promoting measures to enhance leadership opportunities for women in international peace and security. The Government of the Principality of Liechtenstein has been a long-standing partner in these endeavors, and I would like to congratulate WIIS on its many achievements in  advancing the provisions of United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1325. This landmark resolution has brought about a number of improvements. Despite the progress made, many gaps remain in its implementation, particularly three of the WPS agenda’s four pillars: prevention, protection and participation.

Prevention. Looking into the future, it is important to increase efforts to implement a gender empowerment lens to human rights violations. While protecting victims and witnesses, the United Nations International, Impartial, and Independent Mechanism (IIIM) works with civil society and individuals to collect, analyze, and preserve evidence in order to facilitate investigations and prosecutions against suspected perpetrators. In this respect, the gender dimensions of those efforts will make it easier for women to gain access to greater justice. Peace processes need to ensure accountability: we cannot walk back on the advances international criminal law has made in this regard.

Protection. In addition, renewed focus is required to address sexual violence in conflict situations. This problem is as topical as ever and, of course, includes violence against men and boys. New and additional communication channels need to be identified since it is very difficult to obtain accurate, reliable, and timely data on the nature and scale of sexual violence during ongoing conflicts.

Participation. We need to continue our efforts to increase the representation of women in conflict resolution and active peace processes. In the UN context, those numbers have dropped temporarily. We need more women as Special Representatives of the Secretary-General, as co-decision makers, and as influencers, mediators, and peacebuilders.

WIIS deserves our full support in expanding its efforts to close the gender gap through sponsored research, policy analysis, and fostering partnerships  with organizations worldwide to advance gender equality around the globe.

About the Author:

Claudia Fritsche is the former Ambassador of Liechtenstein to the United States, a distinguished role she held from 2002 to 2016 in Washington, D.C. Prior to this, Fritsche served as the Permanent Representative of the Principality of Liechtenstein to the UN from 1990 to 2002 in New York. Lichtenstein’s first female diplomat, Fritsche has been a champion for women’s equality through her many roles, including through her leadership on the European Committee on Equality between Women and Men and the Liechtenstein National Committee on Equality between Women and Men. 

Image Courtesy of Michelle Luberto for the Hoya.

Women In International Security: Shaping the Future 

Shaping the future requires us to look back into the past to identify successes, achievements, and shortcomings. In the particular case of the UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR 1325), it also requires us to examine key actors, what they brought to the table, the methods they used, and who they partnered with. This way, it is easier to incorporate the “missing links” (i.e., sidelined actors) moving forward, including by using modern technology that was not available 25 years ago. 

For global NGOs especially, it is essential to incorporate women’s experiences and indigenous knowledge from the so-called “third world” in peace and security efforts at the community and national levels. It is also important to note that women’s participation in peace and security is for the benefit of all citizens–young and old, and the usually marginalized. These experiences constitute women, peace, and security (WPS) in all nations leading to our global world. 

This is also how the “Framers of UNSCR 1325” worked. The process was not top-down, but bottom-up, starting from the rural women who have been involved in peace maintenance and conflict resolution since time immemorial, long before the founding of the UN and contemporary global institutions. This bottom-up process led to the mobilization for peace and security at global levels–providing unity of purpose in the world–and this momentum from lower levels propelled the initiative that led to a successful and unanimous vote for UNSCR 1325. 

However, the downturn and loss of momentum around UNSCR 1325 occurred at national and international levels, where actors did not “pick up the ball” sufficiently. Africa did try by implementing a 50/50 gender balance in the highest decision-making structure of the African Union (AU). This was followed by the institutionalization of FEMWISE, a group of women mediators within the Peace and Security Commission of the AU. Overall, countries, regional institutions, and the UN relaxed after the unanimous vote. There was no significant follow-up to ensure the implementation of what was agreed upon: the involvement of women in all peace processes. 

Looking forward, WIIS and the overall WPS community must pick-up where we left off. We must implement what was agreed upon, while adding and addressing what has happened in the last 25 years to ensure transformational change in the years to come.

About the Author:

Dr. Inonge Mbikusita-Lewanika is the former Ambassador of the Republic of Zambia to the US. Her distinguished career includes appointments as the Ambassador and Special Envoy to the Zambian President and a Member of the Zambian Parliament. Dr. Lewanika was among five women to brief members of the UNSC on the groundbreaking Resolution 1325. She has also held senior leadership positions at UNICEF and was the president of the Federation of African Women’s Peace Networks (FERFAP). She remains a champion of peace and the rights of women and children. 

Image Courtesy of the Zambia Foreign Ministry’s X Account.

What is Next for the WPS Agenda?

As the Executive Director of the UN Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM), my journey with the formulation and implementation of UNSCR 1325 taught me some of my most critical and hardest lessons during my entire career at the UN. I learned that although the UN was founded on principles of peace and human rights, principles are not enough in a world where the politics of hatred, division, violence, and exclusion permeate many of our societies. Working on many situations of conflict, I learned that we must be attentive to the reality that many powerful actors hold values that go against those enshrined in the UN Charter, and that often these actors mobilise popular fear to fuel the politics of division and hatred. I realised that principles and norms of the UN must continuously be renewed and reaffirmed, especially when they are shaken in the face of violence that dehumanises the other, shatters the moral compass of entire societies, and unleashes a downward spiral of revenge. I learned that particularly when lives are at stake, political leadership is critical, and that those who want to create change within a system as complex as the United Nations must engage leadership at multiple levels, linking realities on the ground to high levels of decision-making. 

In such a complex ecosystem, looking forward, those of us who have committed our lives to multilateralism and women’s transformational leadership need to reflect and rethink strategies to guide the future implementation of UNSCR 1325 to ensure sustainable peace, especially at this time when the rules of war are being constantly broken. Some of my initial thoughts contributing to future strategies are: 

• Build enough support from strategic people and Member states; 
• Generate widespread engagement and involvement of critical women and community leaders from conflict-affected countries that share the same aspirations and values;
• Increase momentum from civil society and networks through active collaboration and long-term trusted partnerships;
• Erode the resistance from the bureaucracy by engaging and convincing strategic high-level leaders in the system, and by being resilient in the face of opposition;
• Develop an instinct for new possibilities and windows of opportunity to involve women to change the way peace is negotiated and sustained;
• Invest in the infrastructure of peace in the rebuilding and reconstruction process: education, healthcare, livelihoods, equal citizenship and rights, accountability and justice;
• Keep the cohesion of the constituency by acknowledging the contribution of all by preventing fragmentation of competing interests and even stepping aside when others need great recognition.

Finally, through my work on UNSCR 1325, I also learned that space for change must be created, and leaders of change must be legitimized. But for change to last, it cannot simply be imposed from the top-down; rather, it must be championed by leaders who come from within communities themselves, deployed as a force to mobilise participation in transition and recovery for all members of society. I learned that while there is an important role for a strengthened multilateral system, the international community cannot be expected to fix all problems, especially at a time when the system itself has been severely weakened and is plagued by global geopolitical rivalry. Thus, we cannot depend on the UN and Member states alone; we must identify, recognise, legitimise and invest in leadership and agency for change at all levels, based on shared global values and shared responsibility. The United Nations remains an indispensable global institution in ensuring peace, security, and equality,  but without vision, courage, and people willing to take the risk to make those norms a reality, it will not be fit for purpose to serve its constituency. Indeed, it is “We the Peoples” who will make the UN fit for the 21^st century.   

About the Author

Dr. Noeleen Heyzer is the former Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations (UN), a position she held from 2007 to 2014 as the highest-ranking Singaporean national in the UN system. She was also the first woman from the Global South to lead the UN Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) and was its longest serving Executive Director for 13 years. At UNIFEM, Dr. Heyzer played a key role in UNSCR 1325’s adoption, established the UN Trust Fund to End Violence Against Women, and was instrumental in restructuring UNIFEM into UN Women, increasing its resources and impact and ensuring that women’s issues remained a priority within the UN. Dr. Heyzer has also served as the UN Secretary-General’s Special Adviser for Timor-Leste, as well as the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Myanmar, and was the first woman to lead the UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP). Throughout her career, Dr. Heyzer has been a strong advocate for women’s empowerment, sustainable development, and international peace, and her life’s work is shared in her memoir, Beyond Storms and Stars (Penguin 2021).

Image Courtesy of Korean Culture and Information Service.

History is important for knowing what to do in the future. I don’t know the future, but I can tell you what I know will matter for the future: movements matter, women and civil society matter, and equality and peace matter. 

Movements Matter 

Let me share two examples of why and how movements matter. One, the movie The Movement and the “Madman” shows that the October-November 1969 demonstrations against the Vietnam War, organized by two civil society movements, led Henry Kissinger to advise President Nixon not to use nuclear weapons against Vietnam. This was because the administration knew that they had no public support for bombing Vietnam. Two, Women Strike for Peace’s work documented the horrible consequences of atmospheric testing of atomic bombs, whose fallout was poisoning Americans’ food and quite literally killing communities. This movement helped convince President John F. Kennedy to sign the Partial Test Ban Treaty (formally known as the Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space, and Under Water) with the Soviet Union in 1963.

Women and Civil Society Matter

In other words, these stories show us that women’s movements matter, especially under the umbrella of civil society because civil society can make political change (here, “civil society” means everyone not including corporations and governments). When it came to the adoption of UNSCR 1325, civil society women were key; this was not a government-led movement. We have evidence that the participation of women in these collaborative movements have produced change, so keeping these movements going is of the utmost importance. We have to organize and keep these movements alive and women actively engaged in them. And we have to be positive. 

Equality and Peace Matter

This holds especially true since diversity, equity, and inclusion, and “women,” were the first things eliminated in the current situation we find ourselves in, and we need to bring them back. We see that equality, peace, women, civil society, and movements–they all matter equally. None is more important than the other.

One other thought that I wish to share: We have to abolish nuclear weapons. The word “abolish” is very important here, because it denotes a workable solution, not just a step-by-step reduction. Too many organizations call for reduction because they believe that if you reduce a nuclear weapon arsenal to 10, 15, or 30 out of 500, then that is progress. However, one is all that is needed. So reduction is not a workable idea, but abolition is.

UNSCR 1325 was adopted unanimously by the Security Council. Women’s movements and civil society made it happen. It is important to remind people that the unanimous adoption of UNSCR 1325 in 2000 means that it is international law and must be respected and observed. Some may not like this, but we should never give up on law. 

Every year, without exception, we have celebrated and honored “1325” (probably the four most popular numbers at the United Nations). This also matters, because celebrating UNSCR 1325 keeps its memory alive and promotes the WPS agenda in all its facets.

About the Author

At 91, Cora Weiss is a peace activist at the forefront of many international movements, including those for nuclear abolition, civil rights, and women’s rights. As a civil society member, Weiss was instrumental in drafting UN Security Council 1325, which launched the groundbreaking Women, Peace, and Security Agenda in 2000. She has led organizations such as Women Strike for Peace, the Hague Appeal for Peace, and the International Peace Bureau, and was nominated four times for the Nobel Peace Prize for her enduring efforts towards anti-war causes, peace advocacy, and women’s justice.

WIIS team members Karin Johnston and Mahathi Ayyagari interviewed Weiss at her request. These remarks have been edited for clarity.

Image Courtesy of Activist Video Archive.