This week, the global community watched and mourned as Queen Elizabeth II was laid to rest next to the Duke of Edinburgh in Windsor. The beloved ruler passed away peacefully on September 8th at Balmoral Castle, the Royal Family’s Scottish estate. As the period of mourning comes to an end, we reflect on the life and achievements of the United Kingdom’s longest-reigning monarch. She carried herself with dignity and respect, and understood the intricacies of her role. King Charles III now serves as the Head of State, stating on September 9 that he will work to uphold his mother’s lifelong dedication to the British people. While reflecting on the Queen’s life, one must consider her achievements and her role as a female leader.

Following the death of her father King George VI on February 6, 1952, Elizabeth ascended to the throne and was coronated on November 4 of that year. She traveled frequently during her reign, venturing beyond England’s borders more than any of her predecessors. Many of her voyages served as powerful political symbols, strengthening Britain's ties with other nations. In 1965, the Queen made a ground-breaking trip to Germany which sealed England's relationship with its neighbor following World War II. In 2011, she journeyed to the Irish Republic, becoming the first British monarch to do so in over 100 years. During a speech given at an official dinner, Elizabeth expressed remorse for the “troubled past” between Ireland and Great Britain and voiced hope for a future of continued friendship. Beyond her travels, the Queen has also been credited for modernizing the monarchy. Many highlight her management of the empire’s decline and the actions she took to slowly end British rule in Africa, Asia, and other regions.

Elizabeth remained a stoic and hardworking public servant throughout her 70-year long reign. In a quote from 1947, on her 21st birthday, she stated, “I declare before you all that my whole life whether it be long or short shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong.” This quote perfectly describes her dedication to the role throughout her lifetime. This commitment persisted to her last days, as she met with Prime Minister Liz Truss and signed her Platinum Jubilee letter with “your servant, Elizabeth.” Lord Gus O’Donnell, cabinet secretary to prime ministers Sir Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, and David Cameron, described Elizabeth as “the ultimate public servant.”

Although the Queen hardly ever spoke about politics or the role of feminism in such matters, her position as a female leader did not go unnoticed. Elizabeth remained highly dedicated to her work while also being a mother and wife. In doing so, she served as a counterexample to the presupposed mutual-exclusivity of the domestic and professional sphere. She proved that women can do both. “Through her deeds, far more than words, I think she has provided this very quiet alternative [to feminism] for women since she became queen,” says Arianne Chernock, a historian at Boston University studying the relationship between the British monarchy and the women’s rights movement. Yet, it must also be noted that the Queen stuck very rigidly to traditional gender norms. Her involvement in the monarchy forced her to adopt certain behaviors and clothing that upheld the stereotypical presentation of women as a wives and mothers.

Dedicated to her country until her dying days, Queen Elizabeth II served the British people for almost a century. She provided her subjects with a near constant source of comfort, helping the United Kingdom navigate several difficult transition periods. With lines of individuals waiting to pay their respects stretching up to eight miles long, the loss of the Queen cannot be understated, especially for those residing within Great Britain. Her diplomatic presence helped to strengthen the nation’s alliances and bolster its presence on the world stage. Moreover, while she was not outwardly a feminist, the symbolism of a female head of state was certainly significant, providing a subtle source of empowerment. The loss of such a stoic monarch must not be taken lightly, and with millions of others around the globe, we mourn her death.

Hannah Kubat is a student at Georgetown University and a Communications Intern at the WFPG

Eleanor Greenbaum is a student at George Washington University and a Programs Intern at the WFPG

On September 1, 2022, the Stimson Center hosted a timely and important webinar examining the link between state commitments made by United Nations (UN) member states and their follow-up domestic action, with a focus on combatting Violence Against Women & Girls (VAWG) and protecting human rights defenders. Joined by a round of experts, Stimson researchers discussed and built upon their recently published report “Strengthening Human Rights: Translating Multilateral Commitments into Action,” examining factors that influence the implementation of human rights norm commitments and practical steps to solve this challenging issue.

Hosted 11 days before the beginning of the 51st session of the Human Rights Council and during a time of growing authoritarianism, increased hate speech, and a decrease in funding for civil society efforts; the question on how to implement human rights norms and how to protect the people working on implementation remains critical to answer. The gap between boastful words about moral commitments to human rights at the UN and a lack of practical actions at home remains wide in some instances and does not only leave the international community wondering about what it means to “commit” to something, but also about the reliance of the multilateral system itself.

The discussion was opened with remarks by H. E. Williametta E. Saydee-Tarr, the Minister of Gender, Children and Social Protection in Liberia, and Richard Croker, the Ambassador to the General Assembly Affairs at the Permanent Mission of the United Kingdom to the United Nations. They immediately honed in on what the real challenge underneath a lack of human rights implementation is: moving on from merely recognizing the problem towards resolving the problem with practical ideas. The following panel was moderated by Lisa Sharland, Senior Fellow and Director of the Protecting Civilians in Conflict Program at the Stimson Center and coauthor of the referenced Stimson report. Speakers included Azril Abd Aziz, Deputy Permanent Representative at the Permanent Mission of Malaysia to the United Nations, Kalliopi Mingeirou, Chief for the Ending Violence against Women Section at UN Women, Patience S. Koteah, Gender and Advocacy Officer at Kvinna till Kvinna Liberia, and Jostein Hole Kobbeltvedt, Executive Director at the Rafto Foundation for Human Rights.

As speakers went on one by one, assessing the current landscape of multilateral commitments and offering their suggested solutions, multiple key takeaways crystallized:

Human Rights Are Evolving, But So Are Threats to Human Rights
Concerns about additional future challenges to implementing human rights were raised as well. Kalliopi Mingeirou of UN Women talked about the lack of protection of women and girls within progressing digitalization. She pointed out that there are major research gaps on how women and girls are truly affected by violence within the digital sphere and noted that UN Women is working on these challenges to protection. She emphasized the key role of civil society by referring to global feminist movements as the strongest factor in ending VAWG, but also noted the rise of anti-movements and new forms of “global harassment,” especially in the digital realm.

Women’s Rights Have Been an Issue for Decades
Putting in the work on the ground herself, Patience S. Koteah sees many issues in women’s rights’ implementation every day. Civil society and government engagement are crucial, she said. Sometimes, however, the biggest problems in implementation turn out to be the most basic ones, she recounted, such as simple logistics. An example she gave was the absence of police departments in rural areas, making it impossible for women and girls to attain immediate help and report violations of their rights.

Governments Need to Walk the Talk
Jostein Hole Kobbeltvedt circled back to how UN member states represent themselves and their priorities at the UN versus how they truly act domestically when it comes to addressing human rights violations or to implementing multilateral commitments. He called on governments to address human rights violations at home, but to also reflect their commitments within foreign policy. He also noted that protection for advocates and human rights defenders does not exist on the international stage and therefore governments should be required to protect human rights defenders wherever they can, even if that goes against the concept of sovereignty. Governments should show solidarity with civil societies in other countries, even if it means to interfere in national matters of foreign countries.

When asked about problems in practical implementation of norm commitments, the main issue mentioned by multiple speakers was a lack of resources, whether that be funding or simple logistics on the ground. Going forward, concrete steps to increase UN member states’ commitments would thus be an allocation of specific resources and increased focus on prevention of problems at the basis of implementation. What further stood out throughout the discussion was the repeatedly mentioned connection between government and civil society, in terms of communication, awareness raising, and grassroots organizing. Human rights are universal, so we all must work to uphold them instead of leaving protection up to individual governments. Especially for young, aspiring human rights defenders, like the author of this post, this means to learn how to set goals, work with communities, and engage with policy-makers to change policies. It is up to a strong civil society to make sure the multilateral system is upheld as the basis of a universal standard of well-being and protection. To those interested in watching a recording of the event, it may be accessed here.

Jennifer Engl is a recent graduate of Roanoke College and a Programs Intern at the WFPG

On Wednesday, September 7, 2022, Dr. Chris Blattman, in collaboration with Erol Yayboke and the Center for Strategic & International Studies’ project on Fragility and Mobility, discussed “the underlying causes for conflict and remedies for war,'' as related to his new book “Why We Fight: The Roots of War and the Paths to Peace.” In this conversation, Dr. Blattman shared his findings about the roots of violence, articulated why conflicts occur instead of finding compromise, and provided recommendations for how societies can shift towards peacebuilding.

The conversation began with a short discussion on Dr. Blattman’s motivations for writing the book and his academic background. He spoke briefly about his background in business and consulting, and then discussed his life-changing experiences working in a conflict-ridden Uganda in the early 2000s. This experience piqued his interest in conflict and began his academic journey. He is now a professor, economist, and political scientist studying global conflict, crime, and poverty mainly in Sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, and the United States. His academic works have made him an important voice when discussing conflict and poverty in the political science field.

He began his analysis of how society views conflict with an analogy. Doctors do not only see patients who are ill, just as they do not assume every patient who comes in to see them is ill. If they did, not only would it be demoralizing and draining, but they would never know which treatments do or do not work. Dr. Blattman stated conflict is very similar: conflict is not our natural state of affairs, and to assume so would be demoralizing. In fact, most conflicts get resolved before they become violent, just as most legal issues do not end up in court. He cites one reason for violent conflict not being the natural state of affairs: cost. Costs, whether that be human life, infrastructure destruction, or global economic costs, are often far too high to justify violent conflict. Using this framework, he then discusses why violent conflict occurs.

According to Dr. Blattman, violent conflict happens when leaders are willing to overlook the high costs for five general reasons, which he considers through the lens of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. First, leaders can be unaccountable for their actions. Vladimir Putin and other Russian political elites do not bear the brunt of the costs of the war. Since he will not be paying for it, Putin is too ready to use violence to advance his interests. Second is ideology, often expressed in terms of personal glory or greater pride for one’s country. Both personal glory and Russian pride are clearly motivational factors for Putin wanting to claim Ukraine as part of Russia. On the other hand, Ukraine turned down a deal to become a part of Russia despite knowing the consequence would likely be violent retaliation, demonstrating how their liberty-based ideology led to violence. Third, leaders may be overconfident due to confirmation bias or faulty intelligence. Dr. Blattman assumes that Putin was given institutionally biased information from his cabinet regarding the odds of winning the conflict against Ukraine; potentially a motivational factor to invade. Fourth, there is a level of uncertainty with any conflict. When considering the strength or lack thereof of the Russian military, the resilience of the Ukrainian people, and the unity of the West with sanctions, Russia got “a bad draw on all three.” Russia could not trust that the West would actually follow through with sanctions, Ukrainians would have such moral strength, or that Russian military strength would not be enough, and thus uncertainty of these aspects was a likely reason for invasion. Similarly, the final reason, that Dr. Blattman calls the “commitment problem,” describes a situation wherein one party cannot trust the other enough to know its motivations, often resulting in a preemptive strike. Russia was at its height of power against Ukraine, which was showing signs of growing as a democracy and strengthening its bonds with the West. This may have scared Russia into attacking despite no outward threat made by Ukraine.

The conversation ended with a brief discussion of how we can potentially solve or avoid conflict using this framework. Dr. Blattman stated that we must find a way to overlook the costs, placing a strong emphasis on the role of institutions and checks and balances within the governments of powerful countries to place limits on leaders’ power. Additionally, he spoke about how our world is naturally becoming more integrated, which can be an incentive against attacking another country. If one nation feels connected to or has empathy for another, it will be less likely to want to cause harm to that nation and its people, even if it may be strategically advantageous. He also briefly touched on the role of women in government and how they may help reduce violent conflict. He stated that although women tend to be more nonviolent, realistically this “nature” does not impact foreign policy. Instead, he stated excluding half the population from any decision-making leads to more unchecked power and thus creates more conflict.

Overall, Dr. Blattman’s analysis of why we fight provides a unique and simple framework to approach every conflict with. Although this makes his theory more accessible, it may be argued that this framework is at risk of oversimplifying the roots of violent conflict. There are a variety of other factors that may exacerbate conflict, or turn nonviolence into violence. Interference of foreign powers, ethnic tensions, food/water scarcity, and climate change are all factors that Dr. Blattman did not touch on or under-emphasized. Additionally, as is common within most conversations about peacebuilding, the role of women was hardly discussed and severely underestimated despite several reports and existing theories proving their importance in the peacebuilding process.

To conclude, this conversation between Dr. Chris Blattman and Erol Yayboke provided an interesting framework to consider conflict through. His clear and concise thesis of “most of the time conflicts do not occur due to their high costs, but when they do occur it is because leaders ignore their costs” makes assessing conflict accessible to a wide audience. To all of those interested in watching a recording of the event, it may be accessed here.

Eleanor Greenbaum is a student at George Washington University and a Programs Intern at the WFPG

In December 2021, the New York Times released an investigative series into civilian deaths from American airstrikes, uncovering disproportionate destruction and a lack of precision. In response to that, as well as to Congressional pressure and years of human rights groups’ advocacy, the Pentagon announced a directive that envisions changes to military doctrine on August 25, 2022. The directive prioritizes civilian protection in mission planning through further training and high-level planning initiatives. The aim is to improve reporting and response to civilian casualties in counterterrorism operations, large-scale conflicts against peer adversaries, and emerging warfare technologies.

In the Pulitzer prize winning New York Times series, we learn about several tragic incidents of “deadly failures” primarily in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria. The Pentagon’s estimates of civilian casualties and misidentification rates were found to be significantly lower than what the New York Times uncovered. The Times cites misidentification of civilians, failure to detect civilians, overlooking flawed intelligence, flawed video, civilians accidentally walking into a strike, and secondary explosions as the reasons why these mistakes occur. They discuss how the Department of Defense has failed to take responsibility for the damage that has been done, citing Captain Bill Urban, spokesman for the U.S. Central Command, who stated “even with the best technology in the world, mistakes do happen…”. Civil society groups have also been vocal about the government taking responsibility, participating in letter-writing campaigns for President Joe Biden to halt all air strikes over the course of his time in office.

In essence, the Pentagon’s “Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response Action Plan” (CHMR-AP) outlines comprehensive change through every level of the U.S. military while protecting civilians as a “strategic priority as well as a moral imperative” and clearly outlines an 11-step plan to decrease misidentification. Not only does the plan address civilian casualties, it recognizes loss of property and critical infrastructure as a priority. Primarily, the plan provides organization and direction for the Department of Defense with the establishment of a CHMR committee to oversee executive-level guidance, as well as a “Civilian Protection Center of Excellence” to ensure knowledge about civilian protection is institutionalized in D.o.D. culture. Guidance and education will also be incorporated into strategy, doctrine, plans, professional military education, training, and exercises regarding multinational operations and operations with non-state actors. Deliberate measures are being taken to reduce risk of misidentification, including department-wide procedures, data management, and review of potentially harmful procedures. Finally, dedicated CHMR positions will be created within a variety of relevant D.o.D components, including the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Joint Staff, combatant commands, military departments, and more.

This plan has received praise from journalists,human rights groups ,and government officals as an adequate response to years of advocacy and the most recent New York Times investigation. A senior defense official stated that the purpose of the plan is to “bake in expertise on reducing civilian harm to operations from the very beginning of mission planning:” clearly a step away from the previous philosophy of viewing civilian casualties simply as a strategic loss. The plan also recognizes past D.o.D. errors to a certain extent by addressing confirmation bias as harmful, which was discussed briefly in the New York Times investigation. Activist groups such as CIVIC “welcome the release” of CHMR-AP.

While the plan has been called “ambitious,”a ”hopeful shift,” and an “opportunity to address structural flaws in U.S. policy,” there are several questions that remain not fully answered. These gaps include how the military would track civilian casualties, whether military officials would be held accountable for violations of the civilian protection plan, and how the Pentagon would include information from outside organizations on civilian harm assessments. As the action plan strives for more accountability in incidents of civilian deaths, critics believe that it is crucial to revisit past cases which remain unacknowledged and without reparations paid. Experts in the field urge the Department of Defense to include these important accountability steps in order to move forward and learn from past mistakes.

Jennifer Engl is a recent graduate of Roanoke College and a Programs Intern at the WFPG

Eleanor Greenbaum is a student at George Washington University and a Programs Intern at the WFPG

As the Summer season wraps up at the Women’s Foreign Policy Group, the Summer 2022 interns would like to take a moment to reflect upon our experience at the WFPG.

This summer, we got the chance to take an active, hands-on approach in supporting a small nonprofit during an important transition period in the WFPG. From the hiring of a new Program Associate to the implementation of new programming initiatives, WFPG has grown with us this summer. As a group, we grew professionally and personally through this opportunity. We gained invaluable experiences in program management and event planning. We made professional connections with leaders in foreign policy and international relations through our Mentor Match and Mentoring Minutes programs. We participated both as interns and as members in WFPG programming that showed us new paths forward in our careers and gave us indescribable opportunities.

Without further adieu, here are some reflections from this summer at the Women’s Foreign Policy Group!

Skye (Programs Intern):
Spending the summer interning with WFPG has been an all-around wonderful experience as I go into my final semester of undergrad. I developed an array of professional skills that I am ready to use in my future endeavors, such as planning and executing events, conducting research and writing, communicating with international affairs experts and officials, and collaborating with a team.

With all of the wonderful experiences I’ve had with WFPG, I’d have to say the most gratifying part of the internship for me has been receiving mentorship, both directly and indirectly, from the incredible network of women that we’re exposed to every day.

Highlight: Receiving mentorship from the incredible network of women that we’re exposed to everyday.

Ginger (Programs Intern):
During my programs internship with WFPG, I planned and managed our summer events: North Korea’s Human Rights, German Ambassador Emily Haber, UAE Embassy conversation and luncheon, U.S. State Department’s Intersectionality in International Affairs, and Diplomat in Training. This consisted of overseeing RSVP lists, managing day-of event logistics, drafting run-of-shows, and photographing the events. I reported on our event with German Ambassador Emily Haber and wrote an article for our website, summarizing the interview. One of my favorite tasks of my internship was completing research on the war in Ukraine and its impacts on global food security, creating a background research guide for a future WFPG event. On the other side of our programming, I matched various mentee and mentor applicants for our mentorship network, facilitated internal and external communication, and prepared orientation materials. I also collected and archived membership statistics as well as managed financial invoices.

Highlight: Researching the war in Ukraine and its impacts on global food security

Tiana (Programs Intern):
This past summer, I worked as a Programs Intern at the Women's Foreign Policy Group (WFPG). As a Programs Intern, many of my responsibilities included program management, foreign policy research, and outreach to our membership base. This internship has given me a strong background in a wide variety of skills and foreign policy areas and helped connect me to an amazing network of international affairs professionals. I could not have asked for a better summer!

Highlight: One highlight from my time at the WFPG was getting the opportunity to visit different governmental agencies around Washington DC, such as the U.S. Department of State and the Embassy of the United Arab Emirates!

Travis (Communications Intern):
This Summer at WFPG, I have gained many skills and experiences that will move forward with me into my future career. From managing website coding and interface design to social media marketing, my job as a Communications intern has held varied responsibilities. I have been able to completely redesign our website to update and modernize the presence of the Women’s Foreign Policy Group. I am most grateful for the initiative this internship has taught me. The WFPG has pushed me to motivate myself around the things most important to me, like pitching and planning our August 4 Intersectionality in International Affairs event. I have had such a good time at the WFPG and will always carry this experience with me in my future endeavors.

Highlight: Expanding my knowledge of international affairs and gender issues through several informative and engaging events!

From the Summer 2022 intern cohort at the Women’s Foreign Policy Group, we wish you all a wonderful end to your summer season. To future interns, get ready for a monumental experience with the WFPG. To our members, thank you for making our events a success by continually attending and engaging with our programming. And, finally, thank you to the Women’s Foreign Policy Group for this opportunity!

Signing off for the last time,

The Summer 2022 Women’s Foreign Policy Group Interns
Skye Jannery-Barney, Ginger Matchett, Tiana Ruden, and Travis York

On August 4, 2022, the Women’s Foreign Policy Group convened experts in the field of foreign policy for a panel discussion on how the United States’ foreign policy can be approached using an intersectional lens. Speakers included Special Envoy to Advance the Human Rights of LGBTQI+ Persons Jessica Stern, Special Representative for Racial Equity and Justice Desirée Cormier Smith, and Special Advisor on International Disability Rights Sara Minkara. All of the panelists are new appointees who serve to advise the government on issues of gender and sexuality, race, and disability, respectively. Their positions have become hotbeds of political critique given these seats were not filled under the previous administrations. The conversation was moderated by Karine Lepillez, Director of Gender Policy and Practice at Navanti Group.

As guests entered the round-table room, hosted at the U.S. Department of State through the generous assistance of the Secretary’s Office of Global Women’s Issues, the relevance of the discussion became apparent. From young professionals to retired Foreign Service Officers, attendees of varying identities and perspectives recognized the necessity of having a conversation around diversity, equity, and inclusion in international affairs.

The conversation began with an introduction by WFPG Program Associate Jillian Bendlak, who explained the purpose and need of such an event for the Women’s Foreign Policy Group. Jill, who joined WFPG in July 2022, then passed the introductions to Kat Fotovat, the Senior Official of the Office of Global Women’s Issues. Fotovat introduced the Office of Global Women’s Issues and dove into her office’s work in promoting women’s rights across the globe. As an office under the Secretary of State, they work closely with other government agencies and other offices within the State Department to ensure that gender and women’s issues are addressed in all missions and goals. After Fotovat’s introduction, she passed the stage to Karine Lepillez, the moderator of the discussion, to introduce the topic and panelists.

Karine Lepillez, Director of Gender Policy and Practice at Navanti Group, then introduced the panelists and began the discussion. Leading the discussion in “Storycorps” style, Lepillez allowed panelists to engage with each other and ask questions to the other panelists, in order to foster a closer understanding of their points of view. Lepillez began by asking the panelists about their experiences creating policies that navigate the multiple identities many people hold. Highlighting their experience working across offices in the State Department, the panelists noted that this was their second time speaking together since all three of them have been appointed. Special Advisor Minkara, who was appointed in late 2021, spoke on the importance of creating policy that reflects the needs of all people, especially those with multiple intersecting identities. Special Envoy Stern expanded on this, stating “diversity in government makes for better policies. You can’t just write about it in a strategy, you have to implement it and you have to resource it. It can’t just be words on a paper.”

The next question posed to our panelists was relevant to their new careers within the State Department. Lepillez asked how the panelists have forged their own paths forward within new positions. She encouraged panelists to explain how they have worked within and outside of the existing gender-based model that agencies use for policy and practice in the government sphere.

Referencing the importance of having an intersectional approach to foreign policy issues, Special Representative Cormier Smith spoke on her desire for “bring[ing] this paradigm shift to the State Department.” The panelists proceeded to ask each other what systems they are trying to incorporate into their work in order for their positions to continue to make progress.

For the last question of the panel, Lepillez asked about identity and its impact on the work done within foreign policy. This question was met with compassion by the panelists, as their work relates closely to their identities. Special Advisor Minkara spoke on the need for those with disabilities to get a seat, and a voice, at the table when discussing policy issues that directly or indirectly relate to disability rights. One could hear the passion and emotion in the panelists’ voices when discussing this question. Cormier Smith spoke on the power of people’s agency, stating “it’s not my job to be a voice for the voiceless. People have agency.”

This question concluded the panel discussion and led the program into a question and answer section. With two questions from the audience, our panelists and Kat Fotovat expanded on the need for real action to be taken regarding women’s equality in the global sphere. Stern referenced that, “writing intersectional policy isn’t hard to do – it’s an excuse to say it’s hard to do. It’s not.” Cormier Smith, citing the differing needs of women in the United States compared to other countries, claimed, “we cannot apply a U.S. lens to the problem of global racism.” These remarks ended the discussion and brought the group to a networking opportunity where attendees discussed the conversation and the ways they engage in the work of intersectional foreign policy. Finally, the event concluded with remarks by Travis York of the Women’s Foreign Policy Group. They discussed the importance of this conversation and their hope for these types of conversations to continue in the future.

WFPG’s Intersectionality in International Affairs panel discussion was a vital event to advance women’s foreign policy issues both in the United States and across the globe. Intersectional lenses and approaches to foreign policy are more essential now than they have ever been. In a growingly diverse global community, intersectionality allows policy makers to ensure all voices are being heard and all people are being protected and provided for in foreign policy decisions.

Travis York is a student at Princeton University and a Communications Intern at the WFPG

On Thursday, June 23, 2022, the Women’s Foreign Policy Group (WFPG) partnered with the Federal Republic of Germany’s Embassy and German Ambassador Emily Haber as part of our Embassy Series. This WFPG program hosts events at embassies, consulates, and diplomatic residences that facilitate conversations to highlight issues pertinent to the host country. Along with an opening and closing reception, the evening program titled “Ukraine and Germany’s Response,” was moderated by the award-winning CBS News Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Margaret Brennan. Brennan posed a series of topics to Ambassador Haber, ranging from the effects of the war on food security, the state of the energy industry, and current European geopolitical conflicts.

On the issue of food security, Ambassador Haber noted that food and fertilizers are being weaponized, and Russia prepared itself to use this to their advantage long before their invasion in February. Brennan mentioned that some experts surmise that increased food insecurity from the war is not imminent in 2022. Ambassador Haber pointed out that this is exactly the reason why action needs to be taken immediately to lessen the severity of the crisis that will emerge in the following years. She said allies of Ukraine must facilitate the export of grain from Ukraine, as the nation is among one of the top five global exporters and contributes to a third of the world’s wheat, maize, and sunflower oil. Additionally, it is a major supplier of the U.N. World Food Programme, the world's largest humanitarian organization focused on hunger and food security. As a result of Russia’s actions, the political instability in Ukraine has created direct risks for the 81 countries that draw on their assistance.

With the gas and energy industries also pertinent for inclusion in discussions when assessing global impacts of the war in Ukraine, Brennan asked the ambassador about Germany’s current and projected positions due to connections the country has with Russia in these markets. Ambassador Haber expressed Germany’s support for Ukraine in the tragic state of conflict by noting that since Russia’s invasion, the country has decreased gas imports from Russia by 20 percent, creating agreements with Norway, Qatar, and the Netherlands to alternatively source their gas. She stated that by the end of the year, Germany will transition to importing no amount of gas from Russia.

Speaking about geopolitical relations among various European and Eurasian nations, Brennen inquired into the causes that led Russia to invade Ukraine and how the public can best support Ukraine in this time of peril. Ambassador Haber responded that Russia believes a democratic Ukraine would be a threat to their attempts for dominant influence in the region. She voiced that the public should not believe the narrative that NATO was encroaching the border of Russia. Additionally, she emphasized the importance of paving a way for Sweden and Finland to join NATO as well as having Europe strengthen ties with Ukraine to establish improved relations for the future.

Ambassador Haber acknowledged that Germany was at first slow in communication and action towards supporting Ukraine after the invasion, but reinforced her country’s commitment to showcase their solidarity for Ukraine by highlighting Germany’s work in sending state-of-the-art military supplies and civilian assistance. While repercussions towards Russia are necessary, Ambassador Haber believes that nations should take considerable care when acting upon sanctioning Russia for a number of reasons. For example, many policies enacted during the conflict will likely still be in place after the crisis is resolved and may be difficult to reverse, such as increasing military budgets in Europe.

As Russian aggression has shifted its relationship that they will have with Europe and other countries, the “new Cold War”, as referred to by the German ambassador, has widened any type of crack that may have previously existed between Russia, Europe, and the rest of the global community. Responding to this monumental event in history, Ambassador Haber ended the evening program with highlighting the importance of unity in making decisions that are sustainable and focus on addressing issues with long-term trajectories, as the situation will evolve in ways no one can predict with certainty.

The evening was very insightful on Germany’s perspective and actions responding to the war in Ukraine, and WFPG members along with esteemed guests appreciated the presence and interaction with honorary German Ambassador Emily Haber. As the first woman to hold the posts of appointed Political Director in 2009 and State Secretary in 2011, Ambassador Haber is a model inspiration for Women’s Foreign Policy Group’s mission to advance female leadership in international affairs and amplify their voices through substantive discussions on global issues.

Ginger Matchett is a student at American University and a Programs Intern at the WFPG

As June 2022 strides on and people around the United States begin to celebrate their pride, we must ask ourselves and our communities important questions of inclusion, diversity, and intersectionality. June commemorates LGBTQIA+ Pride Month; cities around the United States celebrate with weekends of parades, marches, and other events. We celebrate and uplift the queer voices that are often neglected by society at large. Throughout this celebration, we must remain critical of the intricacies of queer representation, espcially in the field of international affairs.

In the world of international affairs, many queer people have been forced to take a back seat. Not only in policy impacting their abilities to live life to its fullest but also in the active role of being decision-makers in these political processes, queer people have been shunned out of the operation. This blatant evasion of inclusion, however, appears to be changing. Most recently, with the nomination of the first openly queer black woman to the position of Press Secretary, the LGBTQIA+ community can finally see themselves being taken seriously in the domain of politics and international affairs.

On Thursday, June 30, 2022, when Karine Jean-Pierre took to the podium for the first time since her nomination as President Biden’s Press Secretary, the world was shaken. For the first time, the United States would have an openly gay black woman as its Press Secretary. The symbolic nature of Jean-Pierre addressing her nomination on the eve of Pride Month cannot be lost. As the United States kicks off a month of identity-based flags and rainbow-plastered business logos, we are seeing a woman break glass ceilings that have long been in place for her communities within the world of politics and international affairs. Jean-Pierre, a child of immigrant parents, notes the moment standing proudly, “This is a historic moment, and it’s not lost on me.” She hopes that her taking up of this position brings a spotlight to the possibility of success within politics and international affairs for queer children, black children, young girls, and anyone who finds themselves in her.

Jean-Pierre represents a broader appearance of intersectionality within international affairs. Her identity as a woman, as black, as queer, and as a child of immigrants cannot be separated from each other. These identities are invaluable on their own; when looked at in combination, they appear overlapping and critical to each other’s valuehood.

As young people look toward career options, they must be able to envision themselves in these positions to see their own success emerge. While possible, as shown by the many trailblazers of past and present, to forge one’s own path toward success, it becomes immensely more feasible with a helping hand, a beacon of success and hope, and a guiding light forward on one’s own path. Without consistent intersectional representation in international affairs and politics, how can society as a whole expect new voices to emerge within this realm?

The WFPG celebrates its queer members and all those in the LGBTQIA+ community. As Pride Month strolls on, we commemorate LGBTQIA+ pasts, presents, and futures and work to uplift the voices of those often pushed to the interstices of society. There must be constant work to uplift intersectional queer comunities. This effort cannot end on June 30, 2022. Rather, we must continue the struggle for equality in international affairs throughout all of our work as individuals, organizations, and structures.

Travis York is a student at Princeton University and a Communications Intern at the WFPG

On June 2, 2022, the Women’s Foreign Policy Group (WFPG) partnered with the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea (HRNK) to host a speaker panel that provided an in-depth look into human rights in North Korea. The event featured Dr. Rana Siu Inboden, a Senior Fellow with the Robert S. Strauss Center for International Security and Law at the University of Texas at Austin, and Greg Scarlatoiu, the Executive Director of the HRNK. The discussion was moderated by Roberta Cohen and centered around how the North Korean government benefits from protection in the United Nations human rights system.

Today, North Korea remains one of the most isolated and repressive countries in the world. Under the authoritarian rule of Kim Jong-un, the North Korean government has made significant efforts to tighten its grip on civil society and restrict the freedom of citizens. In 2014, the United Nations Commission of Inquiry published a report on human rights violations in North Korea and found that the regime was responsible for a multitude of crimes against humanity, including systematic torture, enslavement, forced disappearances, and sexual violence. Despite the North Korean government’s claims that women have equal rights with men, they are often the most common victims of human rights violations at state-run detention centers and prison camps.

North Korean officials continue to deny any accusations of human rights abuses, flouting international law and enforcement mechanisms for human rights. While many international actors believe that the North Korean government should be investigated and charged for its crimes, numerous barriers stand in the way. During their conversation, Inboden and Scarlatoiu drew attention to one prominent challenge in particular. According to the two scholars, a disturbing development has emerged in recent years with authoritarian countries organizing to protect North Korea at international bodies, such as the United Nations. Inboden stated that this like-minded group of nations headed by autocratic leadership – including China, Russia, Syria, Iran, and Burundi – have sought to stifle attempts at conducting investigations and gathering evidence on human rights crimes committed by the North Korean government.

Rather than condemning North Korea for violations of international human rights law, these countries have highly praised the government’s policies to reform healthcare and education. As noted by Inboden, the language used to commend the regime draws countless parallels to that of North Korean propaganda. In addition, this group of authoritarian countries has leveraged their power on the international scene to aid North Korea by criticizing economic sanctions as a mechanism to enforce human rights and providing “soft” recommendations to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, such as proposals for vague legislation and international human rights treaties, which are difficult to enforce. Inboden argues that these recommendations are largely divorced from reality because they do little to impact the situation on the ground in North Korea, where citizens suffer from state repression in nearly every aspect of daily life.

Inboden and Scarlatoiu believe that this pact of countries has joined together to defend North Korea on the international stage as an act of authoritarian solidarity and mutual defense against democratized nations. Both scholars agree that this development is highly troubling because it suggests elaborate coordination and orchestration among authoritarian states to shield the North Korean government from accountability for its infringements on human rights. Much like North Korea, these authoritarian countries have committed countless human rights abuses in the past, as illustrated by China’s genocide against its Uyghur population in Xinjiang and Russia’s recent war crimes in Ukraine.

During the second half of the conversation, Scarlatoiu talked about potential solutions to addressing the problem of authoritarian solidarity in defense of North Korea. He stated that institutional change at the international level is a long and arduous process. As a result, dramatic changes to institutional processes, such as altering the balance of member-states at international institutions to favor democracies, are unlikely to succeed. Instead, Scarlatoiu emphasized the importance of civil society groups and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) as a way to bring about meaningful reform. Scarlatoiu leads a civil society organization himself, serving as the Executive Director of the HRNK, an NGO dedicated to bringing attention to the conditions in North Korea. Civil society groups and NGOs have published many highly successful and widely read open-source investigations in the past, making them essential to raising awareness and generating momentum about international issues.

Despite the challenges, it is clear that cooperation between civil society and state governments is vital to holding North Korea accountable for its crimes against humanity and pressuring authoritarian countries to refrain from protecting the regime on the international stage. By doing so, the international community can better ensure that human rights norms are upheld for every citizen around the world.

Tiana Ruden is a student at Princeton University and a Programs Intern at the WFPG

As a WFPG intern and Young Professional Network member, I was thrilled to hear that Hon. Henrietta H. Fore was also a member of the organization. “As women, we have to lift each other up,” Henrietta Fore, former UNICEF Executive Director, said to WFPG members after her exit interview at CSIS.

Henrietta Fore, a trailblazer for feminism in the international development sector, served as the first woman Administrator of USAID and Director of US Foreign Assistance. She has had an accomplished career in public service, the private sector, and nonprofit leadership across the areas of economic development, education, health, humanitarian assistance, and disaster relief.

With her devotion to international development and women, it was no surprise that she discussed the importance of education for girls in her exit interview with CSIS. As girls have often been left behind in education in developing societies, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, UNICEF has made girls education a priority issue for the organization to focus on.

For girls to build better futures for themselves, participate more in their societies, and earn higher incomes, UNICEF emphasizes that it is imperative to provide girls with not just access to schools, but also to quality education. Fore spoke of UNICEF’s implementation of “occupational education” programs, where girls are taught skills that will be relevant and valuable for jobs, including communication and negotiation skills, critical thinking, and self-management.

Moreover, the number one request out of adolescents is a modern education, which has led UNICEF to integrate technological education into their programs to ensure that children in developing countries are able to access education when they must be at home, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic. Girls in particular face pressure to be in the home for housework and family care, which has made re-entering education since the pandemic difficult. Henrietta has urged governments to invest further in education, especially for marginalized children, so they can remain in school through the pandemic by providing catch-up classes, mental health and nutrition support, vaccines, and digital connectivity, to uphold UNICEF’s mandate, “no child left behind.”

Under Fore's leadership, UNICEF successfully implemented programs to mitigate the issue of girls out of school that the pandemic has exacerbated. UNICEF has worked with the governments of Ghana, South Sudan, and Zimbabwe, for example, to boost girls as schools reopen through Back-to-School campaigns, online and offline lessons, and catch-up programs. Some of UNICEF’s strategies to influence government policy include Skills4Girls, Building Back Equal: Girls back to school guide, and Reimagining Girls’ Education: Solutions to Keep Girls Learning in Emergencies. These tools enable countries to put girls' education at the forefront of their priorities and ensure that girls are being encouraged and supported to receive their education.

Fore discussed UNICEF’s focus on girls’ education in particular, which really resonated with WFPG’s YPN members attending the interview. Part of our mission at WFPG is to amplify women’s voices, and Henrietta did that in her discussions, encouraging all YPN members to support other women near and far, prioritize girls’ education, and continue speaking up.

Henrietta very aptly mentioned in her interview, “If you give a girl an education, you open up every opportunity for her, but the payback, the reward, the return to the world is enormous.” As young women explore and navigate their futures, we create the change, and prioritize uplifting other women, here in our own country, in developed nations, and in other developing countries around the world. Thank you Henrietta Fore for leading by example and sharing the beacon of hope for future young professionals like us.

Skye Jannery-Barney is a student at The George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs and a programs intern at the WFPG