The Fragility Study Group is an independent, non-partisan, effort of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the Center for a New American Security and the United States Institute of Peace. The chair report of the study group, U.S. Leadership and the Challenge of State Fragility, was released on September 12. This brief is part of a series authored by scholars from the three institutions that build on the chair report to discuss the implications of fragility on existing U.S. tools, strategic interests and challenges. 

Why Women Matter to International Security

Physicians refer to the “golden hour” as the period after traumatic injury when successful emergency treatment is still possible. The chapeau paper1 for this series, U.S. Leadership and the Problem of State Fragility, defines fragility as the breakdown or absence of a social contract between people and their government. The collapse of social and political order in response to natural disasters, population displacements, violence, and/or war, however, can paradoxically provide opportunities for societal change. The need to reimagine and rebuild ruptured institutions can create openings for renegotiating gender roles and establishing the basis of an inclusive and more stable society. Unless gender equality receives high level and dedicated support during this “golden hour,” long-standing patterns of inequality are likely to be reestablished.2 As noted by an expert on security studies, “Promotion of gender equality goes far beyond the issue of social justice and has important consequences for international security.”3 

The golden hour for gender is not after the peace treaties have been signed. The social contract on gender equality must be conceived before the crisis has ended, and then written into the new constitution, implemented in the reconfigured institutions, and prioritized in newly developed education textbooks.

Across the board, women as a demographic group make up nearly half of the human population. They are among the most excluded and unequal in fragile societies—economically, politically, and socially—this has large repercussions for continued fragility.4 According to the World Bank,5 progress on gender-related issues in fragile states appears to be stagnating or losing ground altogether. 

Gender inequality slows economic growth. A recent McKinsey report estimates that narrowing the economic gender gap could increase the global GDP by $12 trillion.6 There are additional economic payoffs for reducing inequality as well—agricultural output and food security increase when women gain access to productive resources, and improved health and reduced economic costs result when sexual and gender-based violence is reduced.7 Gender inequality and poverty go together: Of those living in severe poverty, 43 percent live in fragile states10 and the majority of those are women, youth, and children. 

Cross-country comparisons demonstrate a strong correspondence between the physical security of women and the peacefulness of states.8 Countries where women’s civil liberties are restricted tend to be less stable politically. By contrast, women’s participation in peace processes have been linked to more successful rebuilding of institutions and legal frameworks.9 

A new approach to fragility must take into account that gender inequality has far-reaching economic and political ramifications. As the next U.S. administration formulates its approach to fragility, it must therefore abandon the gender-neutral assumptions that since peace benefits everyone, gender inequality can wait. 

Nora Dudwick is a gender and social inclusion specialist and Kathleen Kuehnast the senior gender advisor at the U.S. Institute of Peace.

Related Publications

Four Things to Know About Libya’s Conflict and Foreign Interference

Four Things to Know About Libya’s Conflict and Foreign Interference

Wednesday, July 8, 2020

By: Thomas M. Hill

Libya’s post-2011 conflict has degenerated into a theater for regional and major power competition. The competing Libyan factions—the western-based, internationally recognized Government of National Accord (GNA) on one side and Khalifa Haftar’s forces and the Tobruk-based parliament on the other—each have significant foreign support that has only exacerbated the country’s existing conflict drivers. Despite repeated attempts by the international community to limit foreign interference, the major players only continue to deepen their involvement. What does this all mean for Libya’s political future and for its people? Here are four things you need to know.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Conflict Analysis & Prevention; Global Policy

Understanding Russia’s Interest in Conflict Zones

Understanding Russia’s Interest in Conflict Zones

Tuesday, July 7, 2020

By: Paul M. Carter Jr., Ph.D.

Under Vladimir Putin, Russia’s global ambitions have steadily increased, including in unstable areas of the Middle East, Africa, and the Western Hemisphere. For the most part, Moscow’s activities in these and other areas run counter to Western interests and undermine efforts to mitigate conflict through broad-based, transparent processes. This report outlines the factors that appear to be motivating the Kremlin’s conflict-zone interventions and places them within the larger context of Russian foreign policy interests.

Type: Special Report

Conflict Analysis & Prevention

U.S., Russian interests overlap in Afghanistan. So, why offer bounties to the Taliban?

U.S., Russian interests overlap in Afghanistan. So, why offer bounties to the Taliban?

Tuesday, July 7, 2020

By: Andrew Wilder

Recent intelligence reports indicating that Russian bounties paid to the Taliban to kill U.S. troops have bolstered American and Afghan officials long-held allegations that Moscow has been engaged in clandestine operations to undermine the U.S. mission in Afghanistan. Russia’s support for the Taliban, however, has largely been tactical in nature. Both Washington and Moscow ultimately have a converging strategic interest in a relatively stable Afghanistan without a long-term U.S. presence that will not be a haven for transnational terrorists. USIP’s Andrew Wilder looks at what this means for the decades-long Afghan conflict.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Conflict Analysis & Prevention; Global Policy

View All Publications