Historical context reveals the long-standing, albeit often underappreciated, connection between gender equality and conflict resolution. The Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda, formalized within the UN Security Council in 2000, recognized the crucial role women play in preventing, resolving, and rebuilding from conflict. The OSCE, a cornerstone of this agenda, has spent decades promoting women’s participation in peace processes, supporting National Action Plans, and fostering gender-responsive humanitarian action. However, recent events, specifically a coordinated global effort to curtail women’s rights, threaten to derail this established approach.
“The rollback in women’s rights isn’t happening in a vacuum,” explains Dr. Eleanor Vance, Senior Fellow at the International Crisis Group. “It’s fueled by a resurgent conservative political movement across multiple continents, coupled with a deliberate disinformation campaign designed to undermine established norms and institutions. This creates a volatile environment, making the OSCE’s traditional methods of engagement significantly less effective.” The 2024 reporting period, overseen by the UK government as a key contributor, has been marked by a push to “mainstream” gender equality within the OSCE, a strategy that, according to observers, has struggled to translate into tangible influence given the intensifying geopolitical pressures.
The UK’s own position reflects this difficulty. As articulated in a recent communication to the Permanent Council, the UK acknowledged a “significant global rollback in the rights of women and girls” and a rise in misogyny, framing the situation as “precarious.” This statement, while emphasizing the severity of the issue, underscores a core dilemma: the OSCE’s mandate, rooted in multilateral diplomacy, is inherently slow and reliant on consensus, a state of affairs that seems increasingly ill-suited to address rapidly escalating threats.
Key stakeholders, including the newly appointed OSCE Chairperson-in-Office (currently Malta), are attempting to navigate this landscape. The “WIN” program, supported by the UK, continues to provide funding for women’s leadership and gender-responsive humanitarian action in Ukraine – a protracted conflict representing a significant operational challenge for the OSCE. However, the scope of the program remains limited, primarily focused on a single crisis zone, and its impact is overshadowed by the broader global trend.
Data from the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) reveals a worrying correlation between declining women’s political representation and increased risk of violent conflict. States with lower levels of female political participation consistently experience higher rates of armed conflict and instability. Moreover, a recent study by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue identified a “gender-blind” approach to security analysis as a key driver of miscalculation and escalation in several volatile regions.
“The OSCE’s institutional inertia is a major impediment,” argues Professor Anya Petrova, a specialist in conflict mediation at Oxford University. “They need to move beyond rhetoric and adopt a more proactive, targeted strategy. This requires leveraging influence within the broader international system, coordinating with regional actors, and, crucially, holding states accountable for upholding international norms.”
The OSCE’s efforts to implement the WPS agenda have been hampered by several factors. Operational constraints, driven by budgetary limitations and political disagreements among member states, have restricted the organization’s ability to deploy personnel and conduct field operations. Furthermore, the rise of authoritarian regimes and the decline of democratic values have eroded the OSCE’s leverage within some member states. The organization’s reliance on voluntary contributions has also created financial instability, hindering its long-term planning and operational capacity.
Recent developments illustrate this complexity. Following the passage of restrictive reproductive rights legislation in several European countries, the OSCE’s ability to engage effectively in discussions surrounding gender-based violence and women’s human rights has been severely curtailed. Moreover, the organization’s response to the ongoing conflict in Sudan, where women and girls are disproportionately affected by violence, has been criticized as being too cautious and lacking in concrete action.
Looking ahead, the short-term impact of this global regression is likely to be a further weakening of the OSCE’s ability to address conflict and fragility. The organization’s credibility is already under strain, and its effectiveness is increasingly questioned by both internal and external stakeholders. In the next six months, we can anticipate continued challenges in implementing the WPS agenda and a growing disconnect between the OSCE’s rhetoric and its actions.
In the long term, the consequences could be far more profound. A sustained decline in women’s participation in peace processes and governance could lead to protracted conflicts, increased human rights abuses, and a destabilization of entire regions. Moreover, the erosion of women’s rights could exacerbate existing inequalities and fuel social unrest.
Ultimately, the unfolding crisis demands a fundamental rethinking of the OSCE’s approach. The organization must become more assertive, more strategic, and more willing to challenge the powerful actors driving this global regression. Failure to do so will not only undermine the OSCE’s credibility but also jeopardize the stability of the international security landscape. The question remains: can the OSCE adapt quickly enough to navigate this unprecedented challenge, or will it be swept aside by a tide of reactionary forces?