Women Increasingly Excluded from Peace Negotiations, Reversing Decades of Progress

Efforts to include women in peace negotiations and post-conflict reconstruction, which saw progress in the decades following the Cold War, are now facing a significant reversal. Global peacemaking organizations are fracturing, leading to a narrowing of focus that allows conservative factions and armed groups to exclude women from discussions on war and peace. This exclusion not only silences women's voices but also potentially undermines the prospects for lasting peace.

While the United Nations has made strides in integrating women into peace processes from Guatemala to Bangsamoro, this progress is now being actively reversed. The current trend sees women absent from the negotiating table in recent diplomatic efforts, including talks concerning Sudan, trade negotiations with China, and Gaza's Board of Peace. Even in contexts where women's representation may remain a stated priority for some governments, such as the selection of a new UN Secretary-General, it has become less visible in the day-to-day practice of peacemaking.

This shift contrasts with processes like the Colombian peace agreement, which, despite its shortcomings and incomplete implementation of gender provisions, involved consultations with civil society groups on issues ranging from rural reform to accountability for wartime atrocities, including sexual violence. Women's groups had a voice in these discussions, resting on the premise that engaging individuals with local legitimacy and knowledge could foster enduring agreements.

The Challenges of Modern Peacemaking

Several factors contribute to the declining inclusivity in diplomatic efforts. Stalemates on the battlefield have led to a minimalist approach, where diplomats prioritize stopping the fighting over establishing conditions for sustainable peace. The increasing complexity of conflicts and post-war transitions leaves less room for diplomats to pursue long-term goals like political representation. Furthermore, diversity itself has become a point of contention, with some administrations actively challenging efforts to increase the representation of historically marginalized groups.

This minimalist approach to peacemaking struggles to secure even basic protections against sexual violence. In 2025, none of the 13 ceasefire agreements reached prohibited sexual violence. The absence of women from these discussions is a practical and moral loss. Women often possess unique political networks, acting as bridges between humanitarian actors and communities, and linking local leaders to national processes.

Regional Examples of Exclusion

In Sudan, mediation efforts led by the United States, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt have struggled to achieve even a humanitarian truce. While some diplomatic initiatives have attempted to include civil society groups, including women's organizations, these efforts have failed to engage the warring parties. For mediators involved in the Sudan talks, gender is considered a "non-starter" by both the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces, factions more concerned with retaining power and avoiding accountability for atrocities.

In Syria, concerns over stabilization and security have taken precedence over discussions of women's representation in post-war planning. Despite civil society advocacy and UN urging for increased political representation, women hold a disproportionately small number of seats in the newly formed parliament, falling below established quotas and targets. While women maintain influence in local community life, their absence from national politics creates a gap that a more inclusive system could better address.

Shifting U.S. Foreign Policy and Diversity

The United States' foreign policy has also seen a shift, with past administrations challenging efforts to increase diversity and gender justice. Opposition to diversity has been framed as a core tenet, with a rejection of the idea that groups can be considered oppressed based on characteristics like sex, race, or religion. This stance, often articulated in opposition to quotas and representation goals, has been portrayed by some officials as a weakness, linking traditional markers of masculinity to effective deterrence.

This approach reinforces trends of minimalist peacemaking with narrow elite interlocutors and a limited scope of discussion. Some governments may hesitate to raise diversity issues with the U.S. administration for fear of retaliation, while others find their own reservations about diversity validated.

Local Peacemaking Persists

Despite the setbacks in elite diplomacy, diversity remains vital at the community level. In Sudan, women have organized through Emergency Response Rooms and established Women's Response Rooms to address urgent needs during the ongoing war. These groups have leveraged networks built through years of activism to negotiate humanitarian access, mediate local disputes, and sustain communities through conflict and displacement. This crucial work often operates outside formal peace talks. While high-level peace processes may be changing, local peacemaking efforts persist, highlighting the importance of including individuals with the legitimacy and relationships necessary to sustain societies through war and into peace. The question remains whether diplomats will recognize the value of these community-level efforts and avoid excluding the very people who are vital to rebuilding their societies.