Modern Diplomacy Misjudges Women’s Contributions Through Inadequate Metrics

August 7, Kathmandu — The measurement of women’s participation in diplomacy today relies on a single metric: the percentage of women appointed as ambassadors by the state. According to the Women in Diplomacy Index, this figure stands at 22.5 percent worldwide. While this number is significant as it reflects representation in formal institutions, power, and access, and indicates a state’s willingness to decentralize authority, relying solely on this metric no longer captures the full picture.

This measurement was designed for a world where international cooperation was primarily conducted through embassies and formal state negotiations within ministries — a world that still exists to some extent. However, the contemporary global landscape has transcended these traditions. Issues such as climate change, pandemics, displacement, and humanitarian crises now require solutions emerging from coalitions of scientific institutions, civic networks, and cross-border partnerships that often operate outside foreign ministries. Diplomacy itself is evolving, yet frameworks to measure women’s participation have not advanced accordingly. This gap widens the divide between what is measured and the realities on the ground.

The discrepancy is most pronounced in peace processes. Formal statistics paint a disappointing picture of minimal female participation in major peace processes worldwide between 1992 and 2019: women made up only 13 percent of negotiators and 6 percent of signatories. By 2024, women’s involvement as formal conflict resolution negotiators has further declined to just 7 percent. These figures underscore the shortcomings of formal institutions in adequately including women at negotiation tables. However, these statistics reveal only part of the story.

For the first time, systematic research has been conducted on women’s involvement in informal peace processes, which are typically led by civil society. These often advance alongside formal governmental talks and, in many cases, sustain official negotiations. A study by the Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security found that of 63 formal peace processes reviewed, 38 had parallel ‘Track II’ processes, with nearly three-quarters showing active participation by identified women’s groups. This divergence is not only significant but structural: women often facilitate the consensus-building that enables agreements but are excluded from signing rooms.

Examples abound — women’s peace movements in Liberia transcended religious and political divides to end the civil war; women’s coalitions in Northern Ireland helped resolve long-standing disputes during the Good Friday Agreement; networks of women leaders mediate conflicts in Sudan, Colombia, and numerous local peace initiatives. Diplomats remain engaged in rebuilding trust beyond their offices. The anonymous contributions of women rely increasingly on international coordination beyond foreign ministries—a fact highlighted during the COVID-19 pandemic.

During the pandemic, women constituted nearly 70 percent of the global health and social workforce, operating not only as frontline caregivers but also in coordinating roles linking international bodies, communities, local governments, NGOs, and agencies across borders. Health experts now term this function “health diplomacy”: the ability and skill to manage risks that no single government can solve alone, relevant for vaccine access, pandemic preparedness, refugee health, and disease surveillance. Yet, of 115 national task forces established worldwide during COVID-19, 85 percent had a majority of men, despite women delivering the lion’s share of the response. Coordination was women’s work but recognition was largely withheld.

A similar story unfolds in the area of climate change, where impacts disproportionately affect women and girls. Women lead local adaptation initiatives and coordinate food security, water scarcity, emergency relief, and displacement efforts with stakeholders at local, national, and international levels. Mediation, trust-building, and dialogue among divided communities are core diplomatic tasks, and data show that peace agreements involving civil society representatives have a 64 percent lower chance of failure. An analysis of 40 post-Cold War peace processes found that where women had significant influence, agreements were almost always reached.

Women are actively engaged in diplomacy, but remain excluded from official counts. Why does measurement matter? This discussion is not opposed to formal representation — increasing the number of female ambassadors, ministers, and negotiators remains essential. At current rates, some countries may take over a century to achieve gender parity in diplomatic bodies. This calls for pressure on formal institutions. Measurements shape visibility, and visibility shapes power. Institutions validate, fund, and legitimize what they measure.

If diplomatic impact is gauged exclusively by formal appointments, entire realms of women-led leadership become invisible. The work exists but the definition of diplomacy excludes it. Participation frameworks lag behind diplomacy’s rapid evolution. On International Women’s Day, the question posed should extend beyond representation to broader consideration: Are women truly underrepresented in diplomacy, or are we failing to measure diplomacy in ways that capture women’s full contributions? What do these indicators leave out?

In Sudan, female peacebuilders practiced subtle diplomacy, crafting a shadow peace agreement that guided formal talks in Geneva. This required cross-border partnerships, coalition management, and sustained political strategy. In Côte d’Ivoire, women mediators reduced inter-community conflict in the Cavally region and legally guaranteed the implementation of a signed peace agreement for the first time. In Syria, women’s rights advocates established an entirely new UN mechanism for missing persons. None of these women held ambassadorial rank, and none appear on the Women in Diplomacy Index — yet all effected transformative outcomes.

Women are already contributing meaningfully. Is the world ready to recognize it? Recognition is not for women’s sake alone but essential for diplomacy itself.