Seventy-five years ago, 12 men representing 12 countries signed the North Atlantic Treaty in Washington DC, marking the beginning of the defence pact we now know as NATO.
In 2024, NATO is contending with some of the same threats but also a host of different ones. Although current US President Joe Biden has declared the alliance “more powerful than ever,” its future could become uncertain in a second Trump presidency.
But one thing remains the same for NATO: overwhelmingly, men are still coming together to discuss the treaty and consider its commitments.
The above “family” photo published on Wednesday tells the story. There are just four women present among the sea of men in suits.
NATO now has 32 members across Europe and North America. A number of Eastern European countries joined in 1991 following the collapse of the Soviet Union. More recently, Finland joined in April 2023 and Sweden in March 2024, following applications made in May 2022 alongside the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Australia is not a NATO member.
NATO is arguably more relevant than ever, given the invasion of Ukraine – which hopes to become a NATO member. While NATO has not sent troops to the conflict, individual member countries have supplied arms and sent funding to Ukraine to defend itself. The amount of GDP countries are now spending on defence has increased significantly over the past year (countries are asked to spend 2 per cent of national income on defence, with the BBC projecting 23 to do so in 2024 compared with just three in 2014).
There’s more money and more attention going to NATO, but women’s input and representation remain token at best – despite NATO’s own communications stating that conflict is having a disproportionate impact on women and girls and that women play a vital role in peace and security.
In a briefing statement released this week, NATO Allies noted they recognised the importance of women for peace and security. Women’s meaningful participation and leadership in security, peace, and decision-making processes is critical to the strength of democracies and, therefore, to NATO’s present and future effectiveness.
NATO has also delivered a new Women, Peace and Security (WPS) policy reflecting areas like the rise of climate-related crises, tech advancements and conflict-related sexual violence. Endorsed at the Washington Summit on Wednesday, the policy provides a “political framework” for NATO to promote WPS across the Alliance’s core tasks.
The “framework” offers several generalised statements, including “acknowledging” that “gender mainstreaming enhances NATO’s political decision-making, operation effectiveness and all efforts to achieve gender equality.”
It also declares it “recognises” that gender equality is “integral to sustainable peace”. Its four strategic objectives include strengthening gender-responsive leadership and accountability, increasing women’s participation at all levels, preventing threats that have a disproportional impact on women and girls and protecting women and girls against gender-based violence.
Despite its generalised language and much talk of “recognising”, there are promises to ensure “adequate personnel and financial resources” are allocated to implementing the policy and action plan, as well as independent assessments and civil society consultations. NATO has also promised an annual progress report to allies and associated partners, with WPS efforts to be discussed among NATO members every six months.
Out of this week’s conversations comes one clear funding package — to provide women’s body armour, boots and uniforms to the Ukrainian armed services “to further NATO’s non-lethal support to Ukraine and commitment to supporting women’s full and equal participation in defence and security”.
This is the first such “commitment” of the “Comprehensive Assistance Package” to Ukraine that directly offers resources to “advance Women, Peace and Security objectives,” according to a White House fact sheet. The package is worth around US$7 million.
It’s token, at best. It’s surprising it’s taken so long to deliver any such package for women under the CAP. While necessary, it’s a curious measure to place under the banner of “women, peace and security.” Surely, the particular needs of servicewomen should be met under more general funding packages.
What will NATO look like in another seventy-five years, if it still exists at all?