Revitalising the Women, Peace and Security Agenda in a Changing Global Order: The Vital Contribution of the Mediterranean Women Mediators Network
The optimism of the post–Cold War era that underpinned the early years of the WPS Agenda has given way to a markedly different geopolitical environment. The emergence of a multipolar order has disrupted traditional alliances, while the weakening of the multilateral system has broken down the relatively coherent normative frameworks that characterised previous decades of global governance. Women’s rights, long considered signs of democratic progress, are now challenged. In several contexts, gender equality is no longer perceived as a universal aspiration, but as a fault line in ideological struggles.
In this new scenario, the WPS Agenda faces several challenges (some persistent) that overlap and reinforce each other: (a) the challenge of implementation (translation into practice has been poor and uneven); (b) the expansion and better articulation of “anti-gender” movements; (c) the crisis of multilateralism; (d) a crisis of funding for the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (the WPS Agenda has suffered from a lack of adequate funding for 25 years); and (e) the crisis of the liberal order and a return to a realist vision of international relations in which geopolitical interest takes precedence over any other.
In a context of unprecedented levels of armed conflict and violence (the situation in the Middle East is particularly unbearable), geopolitical divisions make it difficult to prioritise comprehensive solutions to conflicts. Despite notable normative advances, after 25 years, the effectiveness of the WPS Agenda is threatened by a fragmented global panorama and faces significant challenges and setbacks.
For the Agenda to remain relevant, it is crucial that it evolves and adapts to the new global situation and updates its principles with an understanding of the local contexts in which it must be applied. This is where women mediators networks are key, as they have the best understanding and capacity to act on the ground, regarding the dynamics and the communities. The Mediterranean Women Mediators Network has progressively moved towards a localised approach, linking local actors and global processes; actors, both institutional and coming from civil society; and spaces, both formal and informal.
To ensure that the WPS Agenda remains relevant and effective in this changing geopolitical landscape, and to make the most of women mediators networks, the following 10 measures are proposed, with a particular focus on the Mediterranean Women Mediators Network:
1) Placing the WPS Agenda at the heart of a 21st century vision of security that goes beyond defence and prioritises and strengthens conflict prevention as the best investment in peace and stability, particularly at the local level. Mediterranean women mediators in Libya, Cyprus, Palestine and Israel, among other countries, are well-placed to carry out this task and are playing a role in difficult circumstances.
2) Ensuring, on the part of the countries that most actively defend the Agenda (in particular, those that have adopted a feminist foreign policy, such as Spain, Slovenia or Libya), the fulfilment of the most relevant commitments, going beyond rhetoric and thus contributing to demonstrating the Agenda’s effectiveness and positive effect. It will be essential to lead by example and to set concrete, unwavering goals. Civil society plays a key role in holding governments to these commitments.
3) Incorporating expanded and locally defined security needs – especially in situations of large-scale violence or occupation such as in Gaza – and the protection of communities.
4) Fostering inclusive mediation, recognising the diversity of traditions and actors, as in the case of the Mediterranean region, where the Mediterranean Women Mediators Network is taken into account.
5) Contributing to protect the integrity of the Agenda, ensuring that women’s participation is not applied selectively (to which end the MWMN and the rest of the Women Mediators Networks are instrumental), and promoting its coherent implementation.
6) Investing in infrastructure for inclusive mediation, creating funds, training and political spaces for women’s networks (as the MWMN has done) and grassroots organisations to actively influence the peace agenda.
7) Strengthening accountability, including civil society’s voice in monitoring National Action Plans (in several countries, members of the MWMN have contributed actively to this goal).
8) Re-politicising the Agenda (by making it a top political priority) and considering women’s inclusion as a political demand (rather than a technical exercise). The MWMN and its members have been vocal on this issue since its inception.
9) Reformulating women’s roles in peace and security, highlighting their leadership in resilience, conflict prevention, mediation and post-conflict governance and not only their vulnerabilities. Through its example and activities, the Mediterranean Women Mediators Network demonstrates the role and leadership – sometimes unseen – of women across the whole conflict cycle.
10) Mainstreaming the WPS Agenda into strategic security and defence policies, not confining them to development and aid frameworks. Women mediators are drivers of peace and security across the whole conflict cycle and can contribute to promote this goal in their respective countries and globally.
These proposals seek to make the WPS Agenda a dynamic and effective framework for a more sustainable and inclusive peace, a goal where women mediators networks are of immense value and have consistently demonstrated their relevance and remarkable effectiveness. In a context of women’s rights pushback, conflict proliferation and geopolitical fragmentation, the Mediterranean Women Mediators Network is not only a vital tool for conflict prevention, peace and security in a region particularly hard-hit by conflict, but also a guarantee of the revitalisation of the WPS Agenda. After 25 years, it is more necessary than ever.
Beyond Representation: Advancing Meaningful Participation of Women in Mediation Processes
Across the Mediterranean region, numerous mediation processes aimed at resolving or preventing conflicts or reaching political settlements have taken place in the last 20 years. In many of these contexts, national mediators and international actors have made efforts to include women and ensure minimum participation thresholds either as mediators or as participants in mediation processes. While these efforts represent an important step forward, some processes fall short of ensuring meaningful participation.
In many mediation processes, women’s participation has been promoted through formal mechanisms like quotas and advisory bodies, such as Syria’s Women’s Advisory Board, or by encouraging gender-balanced participation and the inclusion of women in official delegations.
However, representation alone does not necessarily translate into influence and meaningful participation. Too often, the inclusion of women risks becoming a procedural requirement rather than a genuine effort to integrate women’s perspectives into negotiations.
Encouraging conflict parties to nominate women as part of their delegations remains essential. Quotas can help normalise women’s presence in high-level political processes that have historically been dominated by men. Yet, women who participate as members of political delegations are often constrained by party positions and loyalties. In practice, they may primarily represent the interests of their political faction rather than advancing broader priorities around women’s participation and inclusion.
For this reason, complementary mechanisms are critical. Alongside women’s inclusion in official delegations, parallel processes can create space for women across political divides to identify shared priorities and articulate collective demands. These processes allow women to engage beyond political affiliations and to advance perspectives rooted in their priorities and demands. The experience in Libya during the Libyan Political Dialogue Forum (LPDF) in November 2020 illustrates the value of such an approach.
Within the framework of the first round of the LPDF, and in parallel to the main dialogue process, women participants engaged in a dedicated track that enabled coordination across political affiliations and alignment around shared demands. This effort led to the adoption of a joint statement which was recognised as an official outcome of the negotiations. This contributed to the appointment of three women as ministers, including two in sovereign ministries. The process demonstrated how parallel mechanisms and processes can complement formal negotiations and strengthen women’s collective influence.
At the same time, meaningful participation in mediation processes should be grounded in sustained and inclusive engagement. It requires long-term investment in strengthening women’s capacities to negotiate, mediate, lead and shape mediation processes. Capacity-building efforts are essential to ensure women’s meaningful readiness and participation in multi-track mediation processes. Women’s participation cannot be a one-time event through ad hoc or temporary tracks. Rather, it should be continuous, with sustained accompaniment to support women’s roles within broader political and peacebuilding ecosystems.
It is important to create opportunities for women and to strengthen their agency to engage in national and local mediation initiatives, reconciliation committees and community-level conflict resolution efforts. This can be seen in recent experiences from north-east Syria, where women have participated in local reconciliation committees addressing community-level disputes, including cases involving women formerly detained in Al-Hol camp. Through these efforts, women have contributed to resolving sensitive social conflicts and facilitating reintegration processes. At the national level, a prominent example is the Tunisian National Dialogue, where one of the members of the Quartet that convened and facilitated the dialogue was a woman, highlighting women’s roles in high-level mediation efforts.
Participation in political institutions, such as parliaments, constitutional bodies, public administrations, governance structures and political parties, also plays a key role. This includes adopting measures such as gender parity laws or quotas to ensure women’s representation, as well as addressing legal and administrative barriers, including electoral frameworks. For instance, while Tunisia has made significant progress in women’s political representation, including in sovereign positions, electoral laws based on individual candidacies have created obstacles for some women’s access to representation.
Over time, these experiences help normalise women’s leadership in political life, conflict resolution and prevention, and increase acceptance of their roles in high-level mediation processes. They also contribute to cultivating a more diverse pool of women able to engage meaningfully in mediation efforts. Ensuring women’s meaningful participation requires a comprehensive and sustained approach at both local and national levels. Successful initiatives should not remain isolated or one-off efforts, but rather be embedded within longer-term processes that promote continuity, institutional support and effective participation.
Ultimately, advancing women’s meaningful participation requires moving beyond representation toward genuine influence. Ensuring women’s inclusion in multi-track mediation processes remains essential, but it must be complemented by parallel mechanisms that amplify women’s voices and support their participation in the political and public spheres at both national and local levels. Bridging these dimensions is key to transforming women’s participation from symbolic inclusion into meaningful engagement in peace processes.
Bridging the Gap: From WPS Commitments to Real Change on the Ground
Today, as I watch the global security architecture crumble under the pressure of new forms of domination, my mind returns to 1996. The peaceful reintegration of Croatia’s Danube region was not merely a triumph of international law – it was proof that the deepest trenches are not crossed with weapons, but with the painstaking, unwavering persistence of women at the negotiating table. That experience has never felt more relevant than it does today. In my coordination with leaders, I saw firsthand that “hard power” opens the door, but it is the “persistent power” of women that keeps the room from collapsing.
We are living through a moment of profound disruption. The rules-based international order is under severe strain. Across the world, we are witnessing the brutal return of “conquest logic”, the anachronistic idea that borders are drawn in blood, not in treaties. When international law retreats, the first mechanisms to be discarded are precisely those that protect the most vulnerable: women, children and civilian communities.
But here lies the paradox: peace that excludes women is not peace. It is merely a temporary ceasefire between two cycles of violence.
My experience during Croatia’s peaceful reintegration taught me that women mediators bring the pragmatism of survival. In my coordination with international missions and local leadership, I saw that while men often focused on the grand “exit strategies”, women were resolving the questions that actually determine whether peace holds: Will displaced families be able to return? How do we identify the missing? How do we rebuild institutions without triggering a new spiral of revenge?
In what ways were the “grand exit strategies” lacking?
1. The return of displaced families
Exit strategies were focused on the withdrawal of forces and the formal handover of territory – but rarely addressed what comes next for the people living there. Without concrete plans for the safe and dignified return of displaced families, the formal “exit” simply created a power vacuum at the human level, leaving communities fractured and unable to reconstitute themselves.
2. Identifying the missing
A peace agreement that does not account for thousands of missing persons leaves a wound permanently open. Families cannot grieve, communities cannot close chapters, and the unresolved fate of the missing becomes a perpetual source of grievance that can reignite conflict. Grand exit strategies were focused on borders and sovereignty – not on this forensic, deeply human infrastructure of closure.
3. Rebuilding institutions without triggering cycles of revenge
Perhaps the most consequential gap: exit strategies often left the institutional architecture either in ruins or – equally dangerous – handed back to the very structures that had enabled the conflict. Without a deliberate, sequenced approach to rebuilding courts, local governance and public services in a way that victims could trust, the formal peace easily mutated into a new power asymmetry, planting the seeds of the next cycle of violence.
In short, the “grand exit strategies” were concerned with ending the conflict on paper, while the questions the author raises are concerned with making peace livable in practice. One is a geopolitical event; the other is a generational project – and the former was being mistaken for the latter.
I remember the moments when I thought everything was about to fall apart, when the tension in the room was so thick that no one believed a way forward was possible. In those moments, I learned to offer something softer: a new angle, an unexpected idea, a human opening in what had seemed like a wall. And more often than not, it was accepted. It was not always easy to sit across from those on the other side. But I never gave up on peace: not when others had already written it off, not when the situation seemed hopeless, not when I was the only one in the room who still believed it was possible. That stubbornness, I have come to understand, is not a weakness. It is the most powerful tool a mediator can carry.
I remember the faces of women who had lost everything and yet were the first to extend a hand across the divide. They did not see only geostrategic interests; they saw the infrastructure of life. This is not naive idealism. It is the highest form of strategic thinking. It is what made the reintegration possible without a single shot being fired in 1997.
In the world of 2026, the Women, Peace and Security Agenda must rise to meet this moment. It cannot remain a policy commitment for stable times; it must be a resilient framework for when the order is fragile. Women mediators must no longer be decorative participants. They must be recognised as strategic actors, early warning systems and agents of sustainable peace.
Where the powerful seek amnesty for short-term stability, women insist on justice for lasting peace. Where others see stalemate, women find the human thread. Whether in Croatia in 1997 or in the crisis zones of today, one truth remains: genuine peace is not built over the backs of women. It is built with them at the table as negotiators and equal partners.
It is time to move from the rhetoric of inclusion to the reality of leadership. Because in a world losing its way, women are the path back to sanity.
Women Mediators Navigating a Changing Mediation Landscape
Mediation is not only under strain – it is undergoing a structural shift. What was once anchored in shared norms and multilateral frameworks is increasingly shaped by leverage, access and political capital. As legitimacy becomes more transactional and context-driven, inclusion risks shifting from a principled commitment to a discretionary choice. This has direct implications for the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) Agenda, which has long relied on the assumption that gender equality is not negotiable.
In this evolving landscape, the question is not only whether WPS remains relevant, but how women mediators can translate it into context-responsive action.
One way forward, especially in contexts of active violence, is to reframe WPS in the language of security. In a context where policy attention is increasingly shaped by deterrence and hard security logic, WPS cannot be advanced solely as a normative or rights-based framework. It must also be articulated as a matter of effectiveness. As such, excluding women and civil society actors creates blind spots in conflict analysis including security risks. It could weaken agreement implementation and increase the risk of relapse. Framing WPS as a risk-reduction strategy allows women mediators to engage more credibly with security actors who may not otherwise prioritise it.
Second, women mediators need to adapt to the changing landscape of mediation. In a more fluid and decentralised environment, there is rarely a single formal table where inclusion can be negotiated. Decision-making is often dispersed – across regional capitals, subnational tables, technical committees, humanitarian channels and informal networks. Translating WPS into action therefore means identifying where influence actually lies and ensuring that gender perspectives are integrated into those spaces. This requires flexibility, political awareness, strategic political communication and a willingness to engage beyond traditional mediation formats.
Third, coalition-building is essential. As mediation actors diversify, so too must partnerships. Engaging regional, emerging and potential insider mediators early – including those who do not explicitly frame their work in WPS terms – may be more effective than advocating for inclusion from the outside. Building alliances around shared interests, rather than shared language, can create more meaningful entry points for advancing women’s rights and a gender lens in practice.
Taken together, these shifts suggest that the task ahead is not simply to defend existing frameworks, but to adapt how they are operationalised. The WPS Agenda was institutionalised in a different international context. Today, its relevance will depend on its ability to speak to new power configurations and evolving definitions of legitimacy.
Mediation will continue to evolve, as it always has. The challenge is to ensure that gender equality remains embedded within that evolution – not as an optional add-on, but as a core component of effective conflict resolution and sustainable peace.
From Policy to Practice: Translating the Women, Peace and Security Agenda in the Mediterranean
Across the Mediterranean, conflicts are growing more complex and more deeply rooted in local realities. Against this backdrop, the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) Agenda remains one of the most vital global frameworks for building inclusive peace. Yet its greatest test has never been in the writing of policies – it has always been in their application on the ground.
Women across the Mediterranean are already peacebuilders. In Lebanon, women’s civil society networks have been at the forefront of cross-sectarian reconciliation, organising peace marches and mediating community tensions – long before formal processes were activated. In Libya, women mediators opened back-channel dialogue between the communities of Tawergha and Misrata through the Women’s Peace Team they built themselves, even as they were systematically excluded from the formal drafting of the subsequent Skhirat Agreement. In Tunisia, feminist activists played a decisive role in the post-2011 transition, defending constitutional gains and brokering dialogue across political fault lines. Long before formal mediation begins, women are organising humanitarian responses, holding communities together and quietly resolving tensions that, left unaddressed, could escalate into violence.
This points to a deeper challenge: the gap between international frameworks and local realities. Conflicts in the Mediterranean are shaped by dynamics no single template can capture – tribal and kinship structures in Libya, confessional fault lines in Lebanon, rural-urban divides in Tunisia, displacement realities facing Syrian and Palestinian communities across the region. Meaningful implementation requires adapting to context, rather than imposing standardised approaches from the outside.
Closing this gap begins with recognising who is already doing the work. Local women leaders bring something formal mediators often cannot: deep community knowledge, trusted relationships and access to stakeholders that institutional actors rarely reach. In Iraq, women mediators working in displacement contexts around Mosul and Sinjar have demonstrated precisely this, opening conversations that external actors simply could not initiate. Supporting these local efforts – rather than replacing them – is essential to building peace that lasts.
There is also an urgent need to create clear pathways from informal contribution to formal participation. As one Libyan woman mediator who participated in the Libyan Political Dialogue Forum put it, women were “usually excluded from the negotiation table during formal meetings” – not because they lacked expertise, but because no one was listening. Moving beyond this pattern requires deliberate action: investing in capacity strengthening, building institutional support structures and treating women’s mediation expertise as the professional qualification it genuinely is.
New tools are also reshaping what is possible. The Mediterranean Women Mediators Network connects women mediators from Tunisia, Libya, Lebanon and beyond, exemplifying an emerging regional architecture for context-responsive peacebuilding. But these innovations are instruments, not substitutes for the harder work of building trust.
Ultimately, sustainable mediation rests on trust. And women mediators – particularly in societies where divisions run deep – are often uniquely positioned to build it, precisely because they are embedded in the communities they serve. In Iraq, mediator Zainab Qassim negotiated the terms of return for families accused of ISIS affiliation by meeting directly with women on both sides of a community divide – the kind of access that official processes never had. These are not soft assets. They are strategic ones.
The WPS Agenda provides the vision. Women across the Mediterranean provide the resilience, the relationships and the leadership required to bring that vision to life. The task now is to ensure that the structures surrounding them finally catch up – and that the peace they have long been building is recognised as the foundation it truly is.
Beyond the Checklist: Making WPS Matter in Mediterranean Mediation
As the international landscape shifts, it is worth reflecting on what might keep women mediator networks not merely active in advancing the Women, Peace and Security Agenda, but genuinely relevant. Drawing on my experience observing mediation efforts in the Mediterranean, I offer three practical adaptations to keep WPS relevant – and women mediators and their networks at the centre.
First, go where the WPS is unheard of. International sanctions, export controls and other international regulatory frameworks come to mind as a good example. Peace mediation is not a monolith; it comprises a range of discrete technical components – from ceasefire monitoring to constitutional drafting – and sanctions, export controls, and anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing regimes are one such component, often overlooked by traditional WPS frameworks. These are arenas where states negotiate binding measures with direct implications for conflict and peace. Women do possess considerable technical knowledge in these fields – as legal advisers, compliance officers or financial experts. However, they tend to enter such rooms, when they do, solely from a technical angle, leaving their mediation skills at the door. The opportunity lies in combining the two. A woman who understands the intricacies of a sanctions regime and knows how to facilitate dialogue between hostile parties is a rare asset. Networks might therefore invest in training that bridges technical expertise and mediation practice, and then actively seek seats at those negotiating tables.
Second, turn networking into strategic entry. We live in an era of short-lived peace deals resembling sales contracts more than lasting settlements. What are often referred to as “new” mediators are often very old actors, now more visible as the multilateral system erodes. Consider Libya: mediation tables have multiplied, run by whoever holds leverage at the moment, including Turkey, Russia, Egypt, the UAE and a sidelined UN. Women mediator networks have a core asset: the ability to network and build trust with everyone. This potential should be used to map all ongoing initiatives, then intentionally build trust with each actor by demonstrating value – offering discreet channels, technical expertise or on-the-ground insights. The women mediators network could analyse cases such as Libya, Afghanistan, Ethiopia and the Saudi-Iran rapprochement, learn from past efforts, and use those lessons to enter future talks with greater strategic intent.
Third, rethink intergenerational engagement in a meaningful way. Too often, when we speak of involving younger generations, we fall into a familiar pattern: watch from the sidelines for decades, then maybe step into a role when we are older. Women mediator networks can play a key role in ensuring that younger generations learn by mediating, not only before mediating. If networks wish to remain relevant and effective in advancing the WPS Agenda, they might step up efforts in universities – but also go to unusual places such as stadiums, community centres or vocational institutes. Mentorship programmes, along the lines of the WIIS Italy model, are a valuable starting point. But they should be paired with other steps, such as shadowing programmes that expose young generations to live and ongoing mediation efforts, fund their research in strategic technical topics, and so forth. Relevance, after all, is not inherited; it is renewed with each generation.
In sum, the landscape is changing. A diplomatic, forward-looking posture – one that seeks out overlooked spaces, acknowledges new actors and genuinely empowers younger voices – may be key to making the WPS matter in the Mediterranean through women mediator networks in the years ahead.
Translating the Women, Peace and Security Agenda into Local Action: The Experience of Women Mediators in Algeria
In a Mediterranean context marked by rapid social transformations, translating the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) Agenda into concrete action requires an approach firmly rooted in local realities. In Algeria, the experience of the network of women mediators illustrates how this international framework can be adapted in a practical and effective way.
While the WPS Agenda is often associated with armed conflict, its implementation in our context primarily focuses on the prevention of social and family conflicts. Through the establishment of a network of women mediators, we have developed a community-based approach grounded in listening, dialogue and the restoration of social ties.
In practical terms, we intervene in the resolution of family disputes, which often represent the first level of tension within society. These conflicts may involve marital disagreements, inheritance issues or breakdowns in communication among family members. By facilitating dialogue between the parties, we not only help to ease tensions but also prevent their escalation into broader community conflicts.
This work directly contributes to the prevention pillar of the WPS Agenda. By acting at an early stage, women mediators play a crucial role in maintaining social cohesion. At the same time, our network promotes the active participation of women in the management of local conflicts, thereby strengthening their role as agents of peace within their communities.
We have also begun to structure our efforts by creating spaces for consultation and exchange among mediators. These meetings allow us to share experiences, identify recurring challenges and harmonise our practices. They represent an initial step toward formalising a mediation model tailored to the Algerian context.
Another important aspect of our work lies in supporting vulnerable individuals, particularly women facing situations of violence or precarious conditions. In such cases, mediation goes beyond conflict resolution and becomes part of a broader process of protection and referral to appropriate support services.
Thus, through concrete and daily actions, the network of women mediators contributes to translating the principles of the WPS Agenda into tangible realities. This experience demonstrates that peace is not built solely at the institutional level, but also within families, neighbourhoods and interpersonal relationships.
In this regard, it is essential to recognise, support and institutionalise the role of women mediators as key actors in conflict prevention and peacebuilding. Their field experience represents a strategic lever for the effective, inclusive and sustainable implementation of the Women, Peace and Security Agenda across the Mediterranean region.
From Trauma to Mediation: Rethinking the Women, Peace and Security Agenda in the Mediterranean
In a constantly evolving mediation landscape, a fundamental question arises: how can women mediators in the Mediterranean translate the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda into concrete actions that are adapted to local realities?
For me, this question is deeply personal. As a survivor of terrorism during Algeria’s “Black Decade,” I witnessed how violence can shatter social bonds, weaken communities, and leave lasting trauma. My journey has been that of a victim who became a survivor, a survivor who became resilient, and a resilient individual who became a peacebuilder. This experience has shaped both my academic and professional commitment, from my research on radicalization to my work as a mediator and reconciliation practitioner.
The Women, Peace and Security agenda, launched through United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 and reinforced by Resolutions 1820 and 2242, paved the way for international recognition of women’s role in conflict prevention and mediation. Yet, a major challenge remains on the ground: the gap between political commitments and their practical implementation within communities affected by conflict.
In Mediterranean societies that have experienced war, terrorism, or political crises, populations continue to live with collective trauma and deep social mistrust. Translating the WPS agenda into these contexts therefore requires going beyond institutional frameworks and working closely with local communities.
This is precisely where women mediators can make a decisive contribution. Through my mediation experience and my involvement in networks of women mediators across the Mediterranean, I have observed that women often develop mediation approaches grounded in listening, empathy, and the rebuilding of social ties. They intervene not only in formal dialogue settings but also within communities, alongside families, young people, and victims.
These approaches are particularly important for preventing radicalization dynamics and strengthening societal resilience. By creating inclusive spaces for dialogue and valuing the experiences of local communities, women mediators help bridge the gap between international policies and realities on the ground.
For the Women, Peace and Security agenda to become truly operational, several adaptations are needed. It is essential to provide greater support for local mediation initiatives, strengthen regional networks of women peacebuilders, and integrate trauma-sensitive approaches into conflict resolution processes. Societies that have experienced violence need not only political agreements but also processes of collective healing and trust-building.
In a changing geopolitical context, women mediators in the Mediterranean therefore have a key role to play in rethinking and adapting the WPS agenda to local realities. By connecting community dynamics with international frameworks, they contribute to building more resilient societies that are better equipped to prevent future violence.
My own journey has taught me that peace is not built solely through institutions or diplomatic agreements. It is also built through the resilience of communities and through societies’ capacity to transform the memory of violence into a collective commitment to peace.
From victim to survivor, from survivor to peacebuilder, every woman who transforms her pain into commitment becomes a beacon for her community and an architect of peace for future generations. Peace is not negotiated only in conference rooms; it is built through the courage of survivors, the resilience of communities, and the capacity to heal together.
