Three Things To Know: The Women, Peace, and Security Act of 2017

I’ll let you in on a little secret. New legislation that you probably haven’t heard about. And why haven’t you heard?

Because it is good, bipartisan legislation that Donald Trump supports.

But liberals don’t like that news. It doesn’t fall in line with their narrative. So they don’t report it.

Women, peace, security. All three are very, very good things. No?

According to the Council on Foreign Relations:

Last week, the United States government enacted the Women, Peace, and Security Act of 2017, which was signed into law by President Trump on October 6. The bipartisan act will strengthen efforts to prevent, mitigate, and resolve conflict by increasing women’s participation in negotiation and mediation processes.

There are three very important things to know about this law. First and foremost, it “reflects the growing body of evidence confirming that the inclusion of women in peace processes helps to reduce conflict and advance stability. The participation of women and civil society groups in a peace negotiation makes the resulting agreement 64 percent less likely to fail and 35 percent more likely to last at least fifteen years.”

Secondly, it requires “a U.S. strategy to grow women’s participation in security efforts.”

Congress affirms that to “improve American peace and security efforts, the Women, Peace, and Security Act mandates the creation of a government-wide strategy to increase the participation of women in peacekeeping and security options, due to Congress within one year of its enactment.”

How will this be done?

The law requires training “for diplomats, development professionals, and security personnel to support the inclusion of female negotiators, mediators, and peacebuilders around the world.”

Requirements will be placed on particular agencies to promote accountability, specifically the Departments of State, Defense, and Homeland Security.

Finally, this legislation “reflects a growing global movement to advance women’s inclusion in the security sector.”

For the past seventeen years, the UN Security Council “has enacted eight resolutions to promote women’s participation in conflict resolution and reconciliation process and address issues such as conflict-related sexual violence.”

What are those eight resolutions?

The United Nations Women website provides information on these measures:

I’m not sure how I feel about this legislation.

Of course, I’m all about peace, and I’m all about more women entering into politics. Not simply to have a presence of more ovaries but because I believe women do need more encouragement and confidence to enter into spheres they had not once occupied.

And, if this message is indeed true — that women naturally and effectively create longer lasting peace and resolve conflicts quicker — then of course we should push all of the legislation.

But my other knee-jerk reaction is that government legislation, an enhanced bureaucracy, and greater checks on said bureaucracy have rarely created solutions.

Instead, it has produced more red tape, a greater demand for tax-payer dollars, and few results.

It will certainly appease liberals, especially considering its efficacy will rival that of hybrid automobiles. And it acknowledges the innate difference of women yet provides access in a way only “gender-neutral” legislation can.

But what are your thoughts? Is this a liberal measure? A conservative measure? Share your thoughts in the comments below!