������Ƶ

There has been much ink spilled and many hands wrung on how far presidential candidates could set America back. Plenty of this has been by women— to stop one such candidate (namely, Donald Trump) from being elected.

Some comments made by such candidates deal not with women in the workplace but in the realms of foreign policy and national security. Donald Trump, for example, has said that he intends to reinstate the ban of women in combat and noted that rape in the military is to be expected, as it is “naturally” what happens when men and women are in the same room together.

But before we can make the mental leap of assuming that this means the election of certain candidates would set women back in the realm of national security and foreign policy, we must ask ourselves if enough recent progress has been made for women to have room to be pushed back.

Women play an important role in foreign policy and national security. That research-backed fact, at least, is what drove the United Nations to pass UN Security Council Resolution 1325 (– otherwise known as Women Peace and Security Resolutions, WPS) to the necessity of inclusion of women in foreign policy, that their life experiences, perspectives, priorities, and participation contribute to and often enable sustainable peace and development. The creation of UNSCR 1325 has changed the way some in the international community approach peace and security through its impact on international law, women’s empowerment, the military, and global security.

But that is international, not American, law. Has enough recent progress been made here that a regressive attitude at the helm of the executive branch could set American women in particular back in practice?

Yes.

It wasn’t until President Obama took office that the U.S. began to attempt to implement UNSCR 1325. In December 2011, his White House released the first (NAP) on Women, Peace and Security. It was accompanied by an instituting the NAP. Under it, Obama listed the concrete steps that his administration would take to advance women’s participation in, for example, conflict prevention and resolution.

However, Executive Orders can easily be reversed by the next President. Take, for example, Executive Order 13497 on regulatory planning and review which Obama in 2009. Administrations are crafted around the priorities and values of the presidential cabinet. Governmental leaders serve the current administration’s agenda, and Trump wants to significantly the U.S.’ engagement overseas. What this means, then, is that the prioritization and funding for issues Trump doesn’t value (like WPS) can be dramatically cut. This, in turn, impacts all of our current engagements—as outlined in the NAP—on .

But reversible progress is not limited to one resolution or executive order. Blake Peterson, a policy advisor on women, peace, and security in the Secretary’s Office of Global Women’s Issues at the State Department said in an interview that “by creating a strong policy foundation for these issues, women, peace, and security is now part of the policy and operational foundations of U.S. diplomatic efforts. It takes time for this type of work to take root, but we have come a long way since 2011 in laying a foundation for long term implementation of this agenda.” Peterson is not, of course, without bias; she served in the administration that put this in place. But there exist three noteworthy initiatives that have emerged from the NAP: 1) USAID, in partnership with the United States Institute of Peace, women as conflict mediators, peace builders, and change agents in Colombia’s transitioning society. To date, 33 core women mediators were trained in a series of workshops across the country. An unprecedented peace agreement with strong on gender inclusivity was announced late August. 2) (SFTS), a joint program between the U.S. Department of State and USAID, is an initiative that brings together governments, donors, and humanitarian responders to prioritize gender-based violence prevention and response from the onset of an emergency or crisis. From 2013-2015 the United States committed nearly $40 million to projects and activities in support of SFTS. 3) The NAP has helped U.S. operations such as providing WPS-related trainings for staff and contractors in U.S. bureaus and embassies.

The U.S.’s NAP is still in that it is only externally focused, meaning there is little reflection into our own defense policies and how they impact peace and security in conflict countries. While the seed has already been planted within our defense, diplomatic, and development institutions for women’s participation and inclusion under Obama’s administration, without a Chief Executive who values WPS, the budgetary commitments to U.S. diplomatic engagement with WPS could be jeopardized.

The traditional military paradigm portrays gender inclusivity and military effectiveness as  a . That is, that implementing a gender perspective or including women in combat units means lowering fighting power and military efficiency. Trump himself has espoused this view. However, studies have found that training and competence, , are the factors that most severely impact cohesion within the military. Rather, women can provide specific competencies and perspectives that improve the conduct of operations, such as through to local networks of women. suggests that gender equity in foreign policy and national security is connected to sustainable security and peace. Further, the very best predictor of a state’s peacefulness is not its level of wealth, its level of democracy, or its ethno-religious identity, but how well its women are treated.

It has been 16 years since UNSCR 1325 was passed, five years since the United States decided to adhere to it, and three years since women have been allowed to serve on the front lines. Tangible gains for women in national security and foreign policy have very recently been made.

Which means that, just as shortly, there could be something of substance for women to lose.