Tag Archive for: Women

Gender mainstreaming in United Nations peace operations: An unfulfilled promise?

The principle of gender equality is a cornerstone of the United Nations (UN). Centred on equal access to rights, opportunities, resources and decision-making powers irrespective of gender, it’s embedded within the UN Charter and championed in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Mechanisms such as the inaugural resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agreed to in 2000 by the UN Security Council (UNSC), and the adoption of an additional nine WPS resolutions, further represent the critical intent to achieve this goal. The purpose of such WPS mechanisms is to cultivate gender balance, foster diverse leadership and champion gender equality in a global effort to establish sustainable peace after conflict.

Yet, as we stand on the threshold of the 25th anniversary of UNSC resolution 1325, the UN’s stride towards gender equality for uniformed women in peace operations has been ‘exceedingly slow’. The lofty aspiration of ‘equal opportunity peacekeeping’ through gender mainstreaming policies and practices remains elusive, entangled in a web of misconceptions and entrenched systemic barriers and institutional challenges.
The purpose of this ASPI report is threefold.

First, it examines the blocks to implementation and the effects of gender mainstreaming strategies.
Second, it advances three strategic interventions for the UN system and its global peace and security community:

  • redefining peacekeeping benchmarks for an efficient and effective uniformed component
  • shifting the narrative on peacekeepers’ contributions regardless of gender
  • incorporating feminist voices and practices in the development of policies and practices for the deployment of peacekeepers.

These proposed interventions offer a unique prospect for the final section of this report: encouraging Australian Government departments and agencies that have responsibilities for and commitments to execute the Australian National Action Plan (NAP) on WPS. Those commitments extend to fostering gender equality in both domestic and international WPS endeavours, thereby strengthening Australia’s position as a proactive UN member state.

An informed and independent voice: ASPI, 2001-2021

To mark its establishment in August 2001, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute has published an intellectual history of its work over two decades: An informed and independent voice: ASPI, 2001–2021.

ASPI’s mission is to ‘contribute an informed and independent voice to public discussion’. That was the vision embraced by the Australian Government in creating ‘an independent institute to study strategic policy’, designed to bring ‘contestability’ and ‘alternative sources of advice’ to ‘key strategic and defence policy issues’.

The story of how the institute did that job is told by ASPI’s journalist fellow, Graeme Dobell. He writes that ASPI has lived out what its name demands, to help deliver what Australia needs in imagining ends, shaping ways and selecting means.

An informed and independent voice covers the terrorism era and national security; the work of the Defence Department; Australia’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; the evolution of Australia’s strategy in the Indo-Pacific; relations with China and the US; cyber and tech; Japan, India and the Quad; Indonesia and Southeast Asia; Australia’s island arc—the the South Pacific and Timor-Leste; Northern Australia; Women, peace and security; Climate change; Antarctica; 1.5 track dialogues; the work of the digital magazine The Strategist; and ‘thinking the ASPI way’.

The submission to cabinet on ASPI’s founding said that the principles of contestability had ‘not yet been effectively implemented in relation to defence and strategic policy, despite the vital national interests and significant sums of money that are at stake’. That demand, at the heart of the institute’s creation, has been met and still drives its work.

Introduction: sometimes we will annoy you

A senior diplomat from one of Australia’s close ‘Old Commonwealth’ partners tells a story about hosting an Australian visit from his country’s defence minister, an aspiring political operator. The minister came to ASPI for a 90-minute roundtable with senior staff. Mark Thomson briefed on Defence’s budget woes—this was one of those years when financial squeezing was the order of the day, and a gap was quietly appearing between policy promises and funding reality.

Andrew Davies reported on the challenges of delivering the Joint Strike Fighter, the contentious arrival of the ‘stop-gap’ Super Hornet and the awkward non-arrival of the future submarine. Rod Lyon spoke about the insurmountable problems of Iraq and Afghanistan, the rise of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and our own government’s foreign policy foibles. It was, like many ASPI meetings, a lively and sustained critique of policy settings. Driving back to the High Commission, a somewhat startled minister muttered to his diplomatic escort: ‘Thank God we don’t have a think tank like that back home!’

The genius of ASPI is that it’s designed to be a charming disrupter. Sufficiently inside the policy tent to understand the gritty guts of policy problems, but with a remit to be the challenger of orthodoxies, the provider of different policy dreams (as long as they’re costed and deliverable), the plain-speaking explainer of complexity, and a teller of truth to power. Well, that’s perhaps a little too grand. ASPI aims to be a helpful partner to the national security community, not a hectoring lecturer. But the institute ceases to have any value if it just endorses current policy settings: the aim is to provide ‘contestability of policy advice’. Not always easy in a town where climbing the policy ladder is the only game.

The story of ASPI’s creation has been told by several present at the creation1 and, very enjoyably, by Graeme Dobell in the second chapter in this volume. With the release of the Howard government cabinet records for the year 2000, we now get to see that the National Security Committee of cabinet deliberated carefully over ASPI’s composition, charter, organisational location, geographical location and underlying purpose. The annual expenditure proposed ($2.1 million) was, by Defence’s standards, trivial even in 2000. What the government was chewing over was the sense or otherwise of injecting a new institution into the Canberra policymaking environment.

The case for a strategic policy institute was set out in a cabinet submission considered on 18 April 2000:

There are two key reasons to establish an independent institute to study strategic policy.

The first is to encourage development of alternative sources of advice to Government on key strategic and defence policy issues. The principles of contestability have been central to our Government’s philosophy and practice of public administration, but 2 An informed and independent voice: ASPI, 2001–2021 these principles have not been effectively implemented in relation to defence and strategic policy, despite the vital national interests and significant sums of money that are at stake. The Government has found in relation to the COLLINS Class Submarines project for instance, and more recently in relation to White Paper process, that there are almost no sources of alternative information or analysis on key issues in defence policy, including the critical questions of our capability needs and how they can best be satisfied. The ASPI will be charged with providing an alternative source of expertise on such issues.

Second, public debate of defence policy is inhibited by a poor understanding of the choices and issues involved. The ASPI will be tasked to contribute an informed and independent voice to public discussion on these issues.2

‘An informed and independent voice’. There couldn’t be a better description of what the institute has sought to bring to the public debate; nor could there be a more fitting title for this study of ASPI’s first 20 years by Graeme Dobell, ably assisted by the voices and insights of many ASPI colleagues.

The April cabinet meeting agreed that ASPI should be established, but the government went back to Defence a second time to test thinking about the institute’s organisational structure.

In July, the department proposed several options, including that ASPI could be added as an ‘internal Defence Strategic Policy Cell’, or operate as an independent advisory board to the Minister for Defence, or be based at a university, or be a statutory authority, executive agency or incorporated company. Having considered other possibilities, the government accepted Defence’s recommendation (endorsed by other departments) that ASPI be established as a government-owned incorporated company managed by a board ‘to enhance the institute’s independence within a robust and easy to administer corporate structure’.3

The most striking aspect of this decision is that the government opted for the model that gave ASPI the greatest level of independence. There were options that would have limited the proposed new entity, for example, by making it internal to Defence or adding more complex governance mechanisms that might have threatened the perception of independence. Those options were rejected. A decision to invite a potential critic to the table is the decision of a mature and confident government. It’s perhaps not surprising that there aren’t many ASPI-like entities. Prime Minister Howard was also keen to see that the institute would last beyond a change of government. ASPI was directed to be ‘non-partisan’, above daily politics. The leader of the opposition would be able to nominate a representative to the ASPI Council. ASPI would also be given a remit to ‘pursue alternate sources of funding and growth’, giving the institute the chance to outgrow its Defence crib.

Interestingly, the August 2000 cabinet decision to establish ASPI as a stand-alone centre structured as an incorporated company and managed by a board of directors also stated that: ‘The Cabinet expressed a disposition to establish the centre outside of the Australian Capital Territory.’4 By the time ASPI was registered in August 2001 as an Australian public company limited by guarantee, the institute’s offices were located in Barton in the ACT, where they remain to this day.

The government appointed Robert O’Neill AO as the chair of the ASPI Council, and the inaugural membership of the council was appointed in July 2001, meeting for the first time on 29 August 2001. That month, the council appointed Hugh White AO as the institute’s executive director and Hugh set about building the initial ASPI team. A fortnight later, the world fundamentally changed. Terrorist attacks on New York’s World Trade Center and the Pentagon and one unsuccessfully aimed at the White House jolted the strategic fabric of the Middle East and the world’s democracies. ASPI couldn’t have started at a more challenging time for strategic analysis.

Writing in ASPI’s first annual report, Hugh White reported that the institute in 2001–02 ‘did a small amount of work directly for government, including a substantial assessment for the Minister for Defence, Senator Hill, of the implications of September 11 for Australia’s defence’.5

ASPI’s first public report was a study by Elsina Wainwright, New neighbour, new challenge: Australia and the security of East Timor. This was followed by the first of Mark Thomson’s 16 editions of The cost of Defence: the ASPI defence budget brief 2002–03. This included a rundown of the top 20 defence capability acquisition projects. The slightly cheeky cartoon covers—state and territory seagulls pinching Defence spending chips is my favourite—didn’t start until 2003–04, but the first Cost of Defence began the trend to report Defence’s daily budget spend: $39,991,898.63. (The 2021–22 Cost of Defence records the daily spend at $122,242,739.73.)

Hugh White closed off his 2001–02 Director’s report with ‘Clearly the task of defining our role in the policy debate will take some time to complete, but we believe we have made a good start.’ It was quite a foundation year: tectonic global security shifts, challenging regional deployments, defence budget and capability analysis. ASPI’s course was set, and the rest, as they say, makes up the history that Graeme Dobell and ASPI colleagues cover in this book. Graeme’s analysis makes sense of what, to the participants, might have felt from time to time like one damned thing after another. But patterns do emerge, and they coalesce into the realisation that ASPI’s first 20 years have marked some of the most turbulent shifts in Australia’s security outlook. All of which puts, or should put, a tremendous premium on the value of strategic policy, contestable policy advice, an informed and engaged audience and a new generation of well-trained policy professionals.

ASPI today is a larger organisation working across a wider area of strategy and policy issues.

The annual report for 2019–20 lists 64 non-ongoing (that is, contracted) staff, of whom 45 were full time (22 female and 23 male) and 15 were part time (11 female and four male). The overall ASPI budget was $11,412,096.71, of which $4 million (35%) was from Defence, managed by a long-term funding agreement. A further $3.6 million (32%) came from federal government agencies; $0.122 million (1%) from state and territory government agencies; $1.89 million (17%) from overseas government agencies, most prominently from the US State Department and Pentagon and the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Defence industry provided $0.370 million (3%); private-sector sponsorship was $1.241 million (11%) and finally, funding from civil society and universities was $0.151 million (1%).6

Behind those numbers is a mountain of effort to grow the institute and sustain it financially.

Think tanks need high-performing staff, and high-performing staff need salaries that will keep them at the think tank. The nexus between money and viability is absolute. Around the world, there are many think tanks that don’t amount to much more than a letterhead and an individual’s dedicated effort in a spare room at home. The reality is that building scale, research depth, a culture of pushing the policy boundaries and a back-catalogue of high-quality events and publications takes money. In the early stages of ASPI’s life, I recall the view expressed that the institute couldn’t possibly be regarded as independent if the overwhelming balance of its resources came from the Department of Defence. More recently, the charge is that the ‘military industrial complex’ or foreign governments must be the tail that wags the dog. The Canberra embassy of a large and assertive Leninist authoritarian regime can’t conceive that ASPI could possibly be independent in its judgements because, well, no such intellectual independence survives back home. ASPI must therefore be the catspaw of Australian Government policy thinking.

None of those contentions are borne out by looking at the content of ASPI products over the past two decades. There are plenty of examples (from critiques of the Port of Darwin’s lease to a PRC company; analysis of key equipment projects such as submarines and combat aircraft; assessments of the Bush, Obama, Trump and now the Biden presidencies; assessments of the Defence budget; differences on cyber policy) in which the institute’s capacity for feisty contrarianism has been on full display. In my time at ASPI, I haven’t once been asked by a politician, public servant, diplomat or industry representative to bend a judgement to their preferences. It follows that, for good or ill, the judgements made by ASPI staff, and our contributors, are their views, and their views alone. ASPI is independent because it was designed to operate that way. Its output demonstrates that reality every day.

And as you will see in these pages, ASPI has views aplenty. It became clear several years ago that the institute needed to broaden its focus away from defence policy and international security more narrowly conceived to address a wider canvas of security issues. That’s because the wider canvas presents some of the most interesting and challenging dilemmas for Australia’s national security. We sought to bring a new policy focus to cyber issues by creating the ASPI International Cyber Policy Centre. This was followed by streams of work addressing risk and resilience; counterterrorism; policing and international law enforcement; countering disinformation; understanding the behaviour of the PRC in all its dimensions; and, most recently, climate and security.

Does ASPI’s work have real policy effect? One of the curiosities of the Canberra environment is that officials will often go to quite some length to deny that a think tank could possibly shift the policy dial. To do so might be to acknowledge an implicit criticism that a department or agency hasn’t been on its game. Changing policy is often more like a process of erosion than a sudden jolting earthquake. It can take time to mount and sustain a critique about policy settings before the need for change is finally acknowledged. And it has to be said that the standard disposition of Canberra policymakers is to defend current policy settings. That shouldn’t be too surprising: current policy settings in many cases will be the result of government decisions, and, at times, the role of the public service is to raise the drawbridge and defend the battlements. So, it’s often the case that a department’s response to the arrival of an ASPI report isn’t a yelp of joy so much as the cranking up of a talking points brief for the minister that explains why current policy settings are correct, can’t be improved upon and quite likely are the best of all possible worlds.

ASPI’s influence is therefore more indirect than that of the Australian Public Service (APS), but, as Sun Tzu reminds us, ‘indirect methods will be needed in order to secure victory.’7 The institute has some natural strengths in this approach. ASPI has the advantage of being small and flexible; it has a charter to look beyond current policy settings; it can talk to a wide range of people in and out of government to seed ideas; it can engage with the media; it allows expertise to develop because more than a few ASPI staff have stayed in jobs for years and built a depth of knowledge not necessarily found in generalist public servants who frequently change roles.

Taking a longer view, I would suggest that ASPI has indeed managed to influence the shape of policy in a number of areas. The institute has helped to create a more informed base of opinion on key defence budget and capability issues. This has helped to strengthen parliamentary and external scrutiny of the Defence Department and the ADF. ASPI is really the only source providing detailed analysis of defence spending and has helped to lift public understanding about critical military capability issues, such as the future submarine project, the future of the surface fleet, air combat capabilities, the land forces, space, and joint and enabling capabilities.

ASPI has had substantial impact on national thinking about dealing with the PRC, and that has helped at least set the context for government decision-making on issues such as the rollout of the 5G network, countering foreign interference, strengthening security consideration of foreign direct investment and informing national approaches to fuel and supply-chain security.

ASPI has sought to make policy discussions about cyber, critical and emerging technologies more informed and more accessible. The institute has offered many active, informed and engaged voices on critical international issues of importance to Australia, from the Antarctic to the countries and dynamics of the Indo-Pacific, the alliance with the US, the machinery of Defence and national security decision-making, the security of northern Australia and even re-engaging with Europe.

It’s best left to others to judge the success or otherwise of the institute. Both from the approval, and sometimes disapproval, that ASPI garners, we can see that people pay attention to the institute’s work. That’s gratifying and motivates the team to keep doing more. 

Coincidentally to ASPI’s 20th anniversary, the Australian Parliament’s Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee has been conducting an inquiry into funding for public research into foreign policy issues. In making a submission to that inquiry, I offered what I hoped was useful advice about the contours of what a notional ‘foreign policy institute’ should look like if the government wanted to promote in the field of foreign policy what ASPI seeks to do for defence and strategic policy. That led me to suggest the following seven approaches, presented here with minor edits:

  1. A foreign policy institute must be genuinely independent, with a charter that makes its core functions clear and a governance framework that supports its independence. If the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) were to be the prime source of funding, it should be made clear that DFAT should not influence the policy recommendations of the institute’s work. A government-appointed council, including a representative of the leader of the opposition, should provide overall strategic direction for the institute. Any entity that is part of a larger government department will inevitably come to reflect the parent. A clear separation between the parent department and the institute is essential.
     
  2. The institute should not be part of a university, because university priorities would weaken the institute’s capacity to retain a sharp focus on public policy. The committee might like to test this proposition by seeing whether it can identify any contemporary foreign policy research outfit that is part of a university which has substantially shaped Australian foreign policy. My view is that you will search in vain. This is true in the main because universities have priorities other than shaping public policy outcomes. How universities recruit, reward and promote, what they teach and the outcomes they regard as constituting excellence are shaped towards other ends than providing contestable and implementable foreign policy.
     
  3. The institute needs scale to develop excellence. Successful think tanks—such as those at the top end of the University of Pennsylvania’s ‘Go To’ index—attract people interested in policy ideas and with lateral thinking skills and with some entrepreneurial flair. The quality of their thinking is strengthened by being able to test their ideas with colleagues and collaborate on interesting policy work. Some scale is needed to bring a group of people like that together, offering terms and conditions that allow people to develop skills over a few years. This approach stands in contrast to the instinct of some departments to offer one-off, short-term, small funding grants. In my experience, multiple ‘penny-packet’ grants become difficult for departments to administer, produce reports that lack an understanding of how public policy is really done and do not develop skills.
     
  4. The institute will need some time to establish itself. ASPI is 20, and every day is a story of how we manage the tasks of offering policy contestability, engaging with our stakeholders and sustaining ourselves financially. It took probably 15 years for an acceptance to be built in the rather tightknit defence and security community that ASPI was not simply to be tolerated but could add value and even be constructively brought into policy discussions. A foreign policy institute will take a similar amount of time to build an accepted place for itself. Hopefully, an institute would start producing good material on day one, but it will take years for such a group to be seen as a natural (indeed, essential) interlocutor in critical foreign policy discussions.
     
  5. The institute must be non-partisan, reaching out to all parts of parliament. Because foreign policy is a public policy good, it is appropriate and likely that the bulk of funding for a foreign policy institute will come from the public sector. If it is successful, the institute will survive through changes of governments, ministers and senior officials. As such, it can’t afford to be partisan in the way that many private think tanks are. That will still leave scope for engaged debate on policy options, which leads to approach number 6.
     
  6. Accept that the institute will, from time to time, annoy you. This is the price of contestability of policy advice. There is no question that ASPI has annoyed governments, oppositions and officials over the years on all manner of issues, from key bilateral relationships to defence equipment acquisitions, military operations, budgets and the rest. To advance policy thinking, it’s necessary from time to time to question existing policy orthodoxies. The test for the institute’s stakeholders is whether the value of contestable policy advice is worth the occasional annoyance. The test for the foreign policy institute will be whether the issue in question has been appropriately researched and thought through.
     
  7. A professional outfit needs appropriate funding. To succeed, a foreign policy institute needs to be able to attract a mix of staff who can be remunerated in line with their skills. As in all walks of life, one gets what one pays for. Funding of between $2 million and $3 million would set up an institute able to build some critical mass, working out of offices fitted out to an appropriately modest APS standard. The institute should have a remit to grow its funding base through its own efforts. This would be sufficient to enable a promising start to a potentially nationally important organisation.

    ASPI was designed to place the executive director position at (approximately) the level of the APS Senior Executive Service Band 3 (deputy secretary) level. Salary and conditions are determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. The executive director, on direction from the ASPI Council, determines salary levels for ASPI’s staff, who are recruited on contracts. The intent is to recruit people with the mix of policy skills and hands-on public policy experience who can realistically shape policy thinking. Government departments and agencies are, in general, willing to support staff taking positions at ASPI, using options for leave without pay from the APS. For more senior staff, the hope is that some time spent at ASPI will enhance their careers, perhaps enabling them to return to the APS with new skills and capacities. For more junior staff, the aim is to equip them with skills that will make them attractive new hires for departments and agencies.8

Of course, I was doing little more than describing the ASPI business model developed more than 20 years ago and validated through two decades of enthusiastic policy research and advocacy by many dozens of ASPI staff.

Speaking personally, it has been the privilege of my professional life to spend almost a decade as the executive director of the institute since April 2012, and a few more years before that as ASPI’s director of programs between 2003 and 2006. My commitment to the organisation comes about because of the value I believe it adds to Australia’s defence and strategic policy framework. These policy settings matter. They’re the foundation of the security of the country, the security of our people and the very type of country that Australia aspires to be. Australia would be better defended if we had more lively debates about the best ways to promote our strategic interests. ASPI has truly been a national gem in sustaining those debates.

At the core of this book is Graeme Dobell’s sharp take on the intellectual content of hundreds of ASPI research publications, thousands of Strategist posts and many, many conferences, seminars, roundtables and the like. Graeme has done a wonderful job of breathing life into this body of work, reflecting some of the heat and energy that came from ASPI staff and ASPI contributors investing their brain power into Australia’s policy interests. In these pages, you read the story of Australia’s own difficult navigation through the choppy strategic seas of the past 20 years. It’s a thrilling ride and a testament to the many wonderful people who have worked at or supported the institute.

We should all hope that ASPI reaches its 40-year and even 50-year anniversaries, because there’s no doubt in my mind that Australia will continue to need access to contestable policy advice in defence and strategic policy. The coming years will be no less difficult and demanding than the years recounted here. In fact, Australia’s future is likely to face even greater challenges. 

Never forget that strategy and policy matter. Profoundly so. That’s why ASPI matters.

Peter Jennings

Download

Readers are encouraged to download the full publication in PDF format here.

About ASPI

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute was formed in 2001 as an independent, non‑partisan think tank. Its core aim is to provide the Australian Government with fresh ideas on Australia’s defence, security and strategic policy choices.

ASPI is responsible for informing the public on a range of strategic issues, generating new thinking for government and harnessing strategic thinking internationally. ASPI’s sources of funding are identified in our annual report, online at www.aspi.org.au and in the acknowledgements section of individual publications. ASPI remains independent in the content of the research and in all editorial judgements. It is incorporated as a company, and is governed by a Council with broad membership. ASPI’s core values are collegiality, originality & innovation, quality & excellence and independence.

ASPI’s publications—including this report—are not intended in any way to express or reflect the views of the Australian Government. The opinions and recommendations in this report are published by ASPI to promote public debate and understanding of strategic and defence issues. They reflect the personal views of the author(s) and should not be seen as representing the formal position of ASPI on any particular issue.

Important disclaimer

This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in relation to the subject matter covered. It is provided with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering any form of professional or other advice or services. No person should rely on the contents of this publication without first obtaining advice from a qualified professional.

© The Australian Strategic Policy Institute Limited 2021

This publication is subject to copyright. Except as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part of it may in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, microcopying, photocopying, recording or otherwise) be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted without prior written permission. Enquiries should be addressed to the publishers. Notwithstanding the above, educational institutions (including schools, independent colleges, universities and TAFEs) are granted permission to make copies of copyrighted works strictly for educational purposes without explicit permission from ASPI and free of charge.

ISBN 978-1-925229-67-7 (print)
ISBN 978-1-925229-68-4 (online pdf)

Funding statement: No specific sponsorship was received to fund production of this report

  1. See, for example, Kim Beazley, John Howard et al., ASPI at 15, ASPI, Canberra, October 2016, online. ↩︎
  2. Cabinet memorandum JH00/0131—Establishment of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute—Decision, 18 April 2000, online. ↩︎
  3. Cabinet decision JH00/0216/CAB—Australian Strategic Policy Institute—alternate models to establish a strategic policy research centre—Decision, online. ↩︎
  4. Cabinet decision JH00/0216/CAB. ↩︎
  5. Australian Strategic Policy Institute, Annual report 2001–2002, ASPI, Canberra, October 2002, 10, online. ↩︎
  6. Australian Strategic Policy Institute, Annual report 2019–2020, ASPI, Canberra, October 2020, online; staff numbers are on page 10; funding data is on page 154. ↩︎
  7. Sun Tzu, The art of war, translated by Lionel Giles, Chapter V, 5, online. ↩︎
  8. My submission to the inquiry is available via the internet home page of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee, Inquiry into funding for public research into foreign policy issues, online. ↩︎

Women, peace and security: The way forward

The articles in this Strategic Insights paper, originally published on the ASPI Strategist website throughout March 2017, include analysis about what women, peace and security (WPS) means for Australia’s defence and national security. The authors of individual pieces are Elisabeth Buchan, Amanda Fielding, Jenny Lee, Brendan Nicholson, Sofia Patel, Lisa Sharland, Laura J Shepherd, Amy Sheridan, Leanne Smith and Jennifer Wittwer.

The Sultanate of Women: Exploring female roles in perpetrating and preventing violent extremism

This paper examines the appeal of Islamic State (IS) to Western women and explores how women can be employed in countering violent extremism (CVE) structures to prevent further involvement. It aims to deliver a comprehensive analysis for academics, policymakers and practitioners working in CVE program and policy design and implementation in order to bridge the gap between community development work and security and intelligence.

Two case studies of Australian women—Zehra Duman (a.k.a. Umm Abdullatif al-Australi) and Zaynab Sharrouf (a.k.a. Umm Hafs)—illustrate the appeal as well as the contradictions.

A series of recommendations suggests changes to existing CVE structures and their approaches to integrating, women.

Sofia Patel discusses the paper.

Tag Archive for: Women

International Women’s Day 2025: progress and possibilities

International Women’s Day (IWD) serves as both a celebration of progress and a reminder of the ongoing challenges women face worldwide. Across national security, diplomacy, human rights and digital spaces, women continue to break barriers. Yet, systemic hurdles persist. From ensuring meaningful representation in leadership roles to addressing targeted threats against women in politics and online spaces, the fight for gender equality is far from over. In this piece, ASPI staff examine the role of women, their impact and the importance of intersectionality in shaping inclusive policies and practices. This work is a part of sustained action to ensure gender equality remains a cornerstone of a secure, just and prosperous world.

 

Women in national security—Raelene Lockhorst, deputy director of National Security Programs

Women are force multipliers in Australia’s national security, serving across the Australian Defence Force, Australian Federal Police, Australian Border Force, and Australian Public Service.

In the ADF, women excel in operational and technical domains and enhance capability and adaptability by leading combat missions, directing intelligence efforts and pioneering defence technologies. In the police and border forces, they strategically counter transnational crime and secure borders, disrupting threats and protecting our national interests. Within the public service, women shape strategic policy to reinforce our national security architecture.

As global challenges such as geopolitical tensions and emerging threats intensify, women in national security remain indispensable. Women often bring heightened emotional intelligence and resilience, forged through navigating systemic barriers, which enhances team cohesion and long-term planning. Their ability to ‘expand the strategic toolkit’ makes national security more robust through inclusion, not sameness.

On IWD 2025, we celebrate their leadership and achievements, their progress paving the way for a more secure, progressive future, reinforcing that inclusivity is a cornerstone of national strength.

 

Women in international security—Raji Pillai Rajagopalan, resident senior fellow

This IWD takes place in a world defined by tension and deepening conflicts. This will no doubt affect women too; in fact, we know that conflicts negatively affect women’s rights and well-being. Across conflicts in Ukraine, Gaza, Congo and elsewhere, women are the most affected, with sexual violence being the singular marker in all such conflicts. Moreover, as great power conflict intensifies, human rights in general and women rights in particular may take secondary place or worse to what are seen as other, ‘more important’ priorities.

But this IWD is also an opportunity to celebrate progress. There are now more women than ever before working on security issues. Young women are much more open to pursuing a career in this field as policymakers, administrators, scholars, journalists and other professionals. We have raised awareness of gender issues, including adequate representation at all levels. It is heartening to see more young women willing to enter areas of hard security and bring their unique perspectives. The numbers look more promising today than they were three decades ago when I entered the security field, but they are not reflected adequately in leadership, managerial and mentorship roles. While we celebrate wins, breaking gender barriers remains a work in progress.

 

Mainstreaming intersectionality—Afeeya Akhand, researcher

This year’s IWD theme is ‘For ALL women and rights: Rights. Equality and Empowerment’. The word ‘all’ has been deliberately capitalised by the United Nations, highlighting the importance of not treated women as a homogenous whole.  When putting together panels, events and media coverage about IWD, we need an intersectional lens to reflect the diversity of experiences and traits of all women, including with respect to differences in race, religion, age, sexual orientation and more.

An intersectional lens of IWD celebrations in Australia is particularly important as it helps represent our cultural, linguistic and racial diversity. We are one the most multicultural countries in the world, being home to the world’s oldest continuous culture and non-Indigenous Australians identifying with more than 300 different ancestries. However, as highlighted in a 2024 survey of 1017 Australians who identify as women or non-binary (womxn), CALD and immigrant womxn reported growing exclusion from IWD celebrations. Asked whether they felt meaningfully represented in IWD events, media and professional panels, these two groups reported, respectively, an 11 and 7 percent decline in representation compared to the 2023 survey.

We all have a role to play in elevating and supporting women, especially women from traditionally marginalised backgrounds. IWD is about elevating equality and human rights, so we must continue to translate diversity into reality.

 

Women and online safety—Fitriani, senior analyst

Women’s online safety is a serious issue as digital threats disproportionately target women, restricting their public participation. A 2021 UNESCO report found that 73 percent of women journalists have faced online violence, while a 2020 Economist Intelligence Unit study revealed that 85 percent of women globally have experienced or witnessed online harassment. The rise of AI-driven technology has worsened this issue, with cases of non-consensual deepfake pornography increasing by around 500 percent between 2019 and 2023.

Women in politics are especially vulnerable. According to a 2022 Centre for International Governance Innovation study, 50 percent of female politicians in Southeast Asia and 90 percent in India, Nepal, and Pakistan faced abuse, including online. The impact is severe: 76 percent of women change how they engage on social media due to online abuse, and 32 percent stop posting on certain issues.

Despite these alarming trends, as of 2023 only 22 countries had legal protections against online gender-based violence. Governments, tech companies and civil society must take urgent action, including stronger regulations, better platform accountability and digital literacy programs. Platforms must improve content moderation and privacy tools, while law enforcement must hold perpetrators accountable. This IWD we strive for the creation of safe and inclusive digital space for all so everyone can positively benefit from it.

 

Reproductive rights in the United States—Bethany Allen, head of China Investigations and Analysis

Women’s reproductive healthcare is facing systematic challenges in the US. After Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022, 19 US states have banned or placed tight restrictions on abortions, in some cases with severe legal penalties for hospitals and doctors found in violation of the law. In states with total abortion bans and only vague carve-outs for the woman’s life and health, media outlets have documented the deaths of several pregnant women after hospitals feared acting too soon to mitigate life-threatening medical emergencies such as sepsis would expose them to legal liability. In these states, obstetricians are packing up and moving to states without abortion restrictions, exacerbating the healthcare deserts for American women in small towns and rural areas. In states with total abortion bans there are also cases of women who have experienced miscarriages facing scrutiny to ensure their miscarriage wasn’t an induced abortion.

These challenges are only set to deepen over the next four years as anti-abortion extremists within the Republican Party are empowered to implement their agenda. Items on this agenda include: revoking FDA approval for medical abortion pills (currently used in around two thirds of abortions in the US), which would make it unavailable nationally; making it a crime to put medical abortion pills in the mail; passing laws that criminalise assisting women crossing state lines for abortion care; and requiring providers to report abortion data to the federal government, creating an abortion surveillance state. A lawmaker in one state has even proposed legislation that would create a registry of pregnant women who are ‘at risk’ of getting an abortion.

 

Foreign aid for women’s and LGBTQI+ rights—Daria Impiombato, analyst

The US turn on women and LGBTQI+ rights is also seen in the freeze of USAID, which before the pause accounted for 40 percent of global aid. Reproductive health programs overseas that have been saving lives for decades are now halted. While in 2022 the US was the second largest government funder of LGBTQI+ aid projects, after the Netherlands, its support has ground to a halt under the Trump administration.

Organisations dealing with women and LGBTQI+ issues are particularly vulnerable: often their local governments are the biggest perpetrators of the abuses against them and in many cases, being queer or having an abortion is considered illegal, so there is simply nobody else to turn to.

While some have suggested that China may step in and expand its influence through more aid programs, the country’s approach to women’s and LGBTQI+ rights is problematic. From the legacy of the One Child Policy, which caused innumerable forced sterilisations and killings of newborn girls, to the recent turn towards a pro-natalist approach to tackle a demographic timebomb, women in China are still considered as instruments of the state. Meanwhile, LGBTQI+ people are increasingly harassed, and more and more LGBTQI+ rights organisations have been forced to shut down, with people’s accounts censored or banned online.

With the two world’s superpowers hugely regressing on these issues, the picture is bleak. It is now more important than ever for middle powers such as Australia, where women and LGBTQI+ people enjoy far greater rights, to step up targeted foreign aid.

 

Practical barriers to female participation—Elizabeth Lawler, subeditor

Women often fight an uphill battle to exist in male-dominated fields. But the battle rarely ends when we enter those spaces. Instead, women face practical disadvantages, often having to make do with equipment and facilities that are designed for men.

We see this in the armed forces. Uniforms and armour present challenges for women that they do not present for most men. Uniforms are often ill-fitting, with limited smaller sizing options available. The same is true for armour, which is rarely designed to accommodate women’s bodies. These issues affect performance and present unacceptable safety concerns. On top of that, female uniforms often cost more than their male equivalents.

While change is a long-term process, it is important to celebrate progress. According to a UN report on women in defence, data collected from 52 countries showed that a majority had begun to adapt military uniforms and facilities to accommodate women. The Australian army has been working with industry partners to develop female-specific body armour. In 2022, the US military announced its first military-issue bra.

Women can’t safely participate in areas that are designed for a world without them. All fields, particularly those that are historically male-dominated, must strive for equity.

How Australia is advancing gender equality in the Indo-Pacific

Women’s rights and protections are regressing on the international stage, from the Taliban’s erasure of women from public life to US President Donald Trump’s misogynistic rhetoric and decision to suspend USAID.

Against this backdrop, Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) has launched its International Gender Equality Strategy. This strategy aims to deepen its partnerships in the Indo Pacific region, with a focus on gender responsive humanitarian and climate aid.

It is led by the notion that gender equality is the key to unlocking economic productivity, poverty reduction, climate action and wellbeing. Its inextricable link to policy outcomes calls for a stronger plan for delivery.

The strategy centres on five priorities:

—Working to end sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) and protecting reproductive rights;

—Pursuing gender responsive peace and security efforts;

—Delivering gender equitable climate action and humanitarian assistance;

—Promoting economic equality and inclusive trade; and

—Supporting locally led women’s leadership strategies.

Under its first priority, the strategy estimates the global annual cost of SGBV as US$1.5 trillion. To integrate SGBV protection and international engagement, Australia intends to invest in response services as well as agencies for sexual and reproductive health and rights. The strategy also outlines Pacific partnerships for cervical cancer screening and treatment.

Notably, Australia will hold nations accountable for violating international laws protecting women, such as the action brought against Afghanistan for violating the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women under the Taliban’s governance. In a welcome development, the strategy also advocates for working with boys and men to change perceptions and reduce incidents of SGBV.

The second priority will be guided by Australia’s second National Action Plan on Women Peace and Security (WPS). This priority focuses on addressing gendered aspects of security and supporting women’s participation in peace processes, particularly in the Indo-Pacific. It includes encouraging women’s mediator networks in the Pacific and working with partners to strengthen legislation designed to prevent gendered crimes.

Under this priority, the strategy also aims to confront new challenges under the WPS agenda. DFAT’s document highlights the increased risk of manipulation, online radicalisation and gender bias caused by a weakening distinction between online and offline worlds. The strategy aims to address these issues by sponsoring women’s participation and training in these spaces, while working to identify further opportunities and solutions.

Priority three highlights the need for equity in climate action and humanitarian responses. DFAT’s 2023 International Development Policy mandated that all investments over $3 million must include a gender equality objective. The strategy’s third priority reinforces the need to consider gender-specific approaches to development and assistance, while outlining the importance of working with diverse Indo-Pacific groups on adaptation and resilience.

The strategy aims to ensure trade benefits flow to all people through priority four, promoting women’s economic equality and inclusive trade. Unpaid care responsibilities exclude 708 million women are excluded from the labour force. Australia is supporting workplace reform and financial inclusion, targeting key indicators of economic equality. The need to reorient the norms and perceptions of women in the economy, however, is not addressed in this strategy.

The strategy highlights that women’s rights movements are the ‘most effective drivers of lasting change’. This motivates its fifth priority: to increase women’s leadership through supporting local women’s rights organisations. The strategy outlines methods such as funding education, professional development and amplifying underrepresented voices. Apart from Pacific Women Lead, details of DFAT’s specific partnerships are excluded. This lack of detail weakens the overall priority.

Five principles underpin DFAT’s practical approach. The first two are supporting local leadership and implementing outcome-based reforms. The third concept accounts for potential resistance against gender equality measures and highlights a commitment to avoiding unintended negative consequences. To do so, DFAT will bolster safeguarding mechanisms, including through reporting and accountability measures, and maintain a zero-tolerance approach.

DFAT’s fourth principle is to pursue both targeted and mainstream strategies. This twin-track approach will ensure that gender-specific issues are addressed, while also incorporating gender into general policies and activities. Under the final principle, DFAT commits to using high-quality evidence-based approaches to create effective responses. It will incorporate individual experiences to evaluate and revise programs.

Accountability on these priorities will be measured by existing mechanisms, namely official development assistance summaries, the Australian Development Cooperation report and the AusDevPortal. The strategy builds on this by establishing thematic evaluations of gender equality initiatives.

In some areas, the document lacks analysis and detail in its reforms. These include the tenuous links between promoting women’s economic equality and establishing policies, as well as a lack of details on how Australia will support local leadership organisations.

Despite this, the International Gender Equality Strategy shows that Australia is pursuing an inclusive liberal democracy in an age where increasingly illiberal policies are gaining traction. The strategy reaffirms ‘the centrality of Australia’s commitment to gender equality’ and provides a framework for advancing the rights and perspectives of women on the global stage.

Celebrating 10 years of ASPI’s Women in Defence and Security Network

When Hayley Channer and Nicole Seils attended a defence-related event in Canberra in 2014, they realised they were two of only a handful of women in the room. Stranger still, they had not known each other before that evening.

That meeting between an ASPI analyst and the then head of government relations at Lockheed Martin Australia sparked the idea for ASPI’s Women in Defence and Security Network. Later supported by another ASPI analyst, Natalie Sambhi, their aim was to create a forum for women across defence, national security, government, industry and civil society to connect, build their networks, and mentor and support each other on the difficult path towards changing the status quo.

A decade on, ASPI last month hosted a gala dinner for 150 guests to celebrate the 10-year anniversary of the WDSN. Much of the discussion and sage advice shared during the evening reflected on key points from Elizabeth Cosson’s inaugural speech when WDSN was launched: the value of good leadership; authenticity; the willingness to listen; the importance of giving yourself the time and space to think and reflect; and the courage to take a chance.

The women leaders who spoke at the dinner—Catherine Burn from ASIS, Michelle Chan from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Hayley Channer from the United States Studies Centre, Stephanie Copus Campbell Australia’s Ambassador for Gender Equality, and Jessica Hunter from the Australian Signals Directorate—shared hard-earned insights with the audience. Each has paved a way for women in their fields.

WDSN has been fulfilling the mission that the three founders set for it—spotlighting women’s impact in national security, creating opportunities for women and men to gather and talk about their journeys and achievements, and the challenges of navigating this traditionally male-dominated field.

The network has hosted networking and speed mentoring events, panel discussions, roundtables, podcasts and professional development workshops. These have traversed themes of gender, peace and security, women in the Australian Defence Force and defence industry, counterterrorism and intelligence, human rights and international law. They have engaged women and girls from students and early-to-mid-career professionals to senior leaders, as well as male champions and allies.

Both the 2016 Defence White Paper and DFAT’s Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment Strategy recognised that gender equality and increasing female participation in defence and leadership roles were vital to Australia’s defence capability, national security, foreign policy, diplomacy and development programs. Studies have proven that the private sector also benefits enormously from women’s participation.

Since its creation, the WDSN has grown to more than 3500 subscribers—and it is still growing. The gala was a chance to reflect on the progress, while acknowledging the work to be done to ensure that inequalities and challenges arising from the intersection of gender with other aspects of people’s identities continue to be addressed so that all women and people of diverse backgrounds can advance their careers.

A theme that stood out was the tendency for women not to pursue opportunities because they felt they were not ready, reflecting a lack of confidence that statistics show is less common in men. Panellists spoke about the need to raise awareness of unconscious biases in hiring managers, employers and colleagues. With retention of women and people of diverse backgrounds an ongoing challenge, it is vital to cultivate work environments that are attractive and inclusive to ensure everyone’s continued and meaningful participation.

The panellists discussed the ways that girls were socialised from a young age to be more risk-averse than boys. Unlearning these lessons can be a challenging experience that also highlights the importance of taking the time to explore your passions.

They advocated a ‘curious not furious’ mindset—one panellist citing the hit show Ted Lasso—to understand the viewpoint and behaviour of others, and to understand our own passions, ambitions and frustrations. That said, rage and frustration at obstacles can be a ‘fuel that never runs out’, provided it is channelled into positive action. ‘Watering your garden with humour’ was one way to offset frustrations and serve as a pressure valve.

We find inspiration in all sorts of places, including TV shows and movies about law enforcement and intelligence. As the audience heard, the only difference between a dream and a goal is having a plan.

The panellists and audience members shared their faith in the importance of tending to yourself. While empathy for others is indispensable, you still need to ‘put the oxygen mask on yourself first’.

The dinner was a celebration of a decade’s effort to create a space to share, connect and support one another. The difference this time, compared to 10 years ago, was that nobody was alone. From three came 150.

Gender and empowerment: women political leaders in Africa

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton meets with Liberian President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf at the U.S. Department of State in Washington, DC April 21, 2009. The Prime Ministership of Julia Gillard raised important issues about the treatment of women political leaders in Australian society. Gillard’s impassioned ‘misogyny speech‘ was a defining moment of her leadership. In her resignation speech Gillard said:

There’s been a lot of analysis about the so-called gender wars . . . [The] reaction to being the first female Prime Minister does not explain everything about my Prime Ministership, nor does it explain nothing about my Prime Ministership… And it is for the nation to think in a sophisticated way about those shades of grey. What I am absolutely confident of is it will be easier for the next woman and the woman after that and the woman after that—and I’m proud of that.

Given the difficulties a woman faced in a developed country, it’s interesting to consider the position of women political leaders in African states, amid the experiences of conflict and severe development challenges. Read more