NATO and WPS: A Review of the Webinar on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) Agenda

by  Sandra Biskupski-Mujanovic and Tamara Lorincz

The webinar opened with remarks from moderator Sandra Biskupski-Mujanovic. Drawing on her research on women in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) and the United Nations’ peacekeeping operations, she argued that if NATO member states are truly committed to the WPS agenda, those commitments must apply not only externally in conflict zones and peace operations but also internally within military institutions. She emphasized that gender equality cannot simply be projected outward as part of foreign policy branding while unresolved structural inequities persist at home. Sandra described how many women in the CAF continue to navigate environments shaped by deeply entrenched masculine norms and how inclusion does not necessarily equal belonging. She included her critique of what she described as the “logic of operational effectiveness.” In both NATO and national militaries, gender inclusion is often justified because it supposedly improves military performance or strengthens mission strength. While this framing can create opportunities for women’s participation, it also risks instrumentalizing women rather than transforming institutions. Sandra’s contribution grounded abstract policy debates in the lived experiences of women serving within military institutions.

Margaret Kimberley, executive editor and senior columnist at Black Agenda Report, shifted the conversation to an important critique of imperialism. Speaking from the perspective of a US-based journalist and activist, Kimberley argued that NATO itself is fundamentally incompatible with genuine feminist peacebuilding because it operates as a militarized extension of US global power. While she acknowledged that women should have equal opportunities in all professions, including military service, she challenged the assumption that military institutions themselves are inherently progressive or peace-promoting. Margaret focused on military spending and the social consequences of militarization. She discussed the increasing pressure on NATO member states to devote larger percentages of gross domestic product (GDP) to defence spending and argued that such investments inevitably come at the expense of healthcare, childcare, education, and social welfare. Referencing comments by President Trump about prioritizing military protection over daycare and healthcare, she argued that militarization has profoundly gendered consequences because women continue to bear disproportionate responsibility for caregiving labour. In her analysis, the expansion of military budgets directly undermines the social supports that sustain human security. Margaret also argued that women’s rights are often mobilized rhetorically to justify military interventions. Using examples such as Libya and Iran, she argued that Western governments frequently frame military action as a form of rescuing oppressed women while simultaneously ignoring the devastating humanitarian impacts of sanctions, warfare, and regime change. 

Tamara Lorincz expanded on many of these critiques of NATO while grounding them in research on militarization and peace activism. Representing the organizations Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom Canada (WILPF Canada) and Canadian Voice of Women for Peace (VOW), Tamara presented feminist arguments challenging the military alliance’s compatibility with the WPS agenda. Describing how the WPS agenda emerged from anti-war feminist organizing rooted in demilitarization, disarmament, human security, and peacebuilding, she argued that NATO’s adoption of WPS discourse fundamentally distorts those origins by subordinating feminist goals to military objectives. Tamara provided the historical background and the political and economic interests behind the expansion of NATO after the Cold War, arguing that American weapons manufacturers and defence industries played a central role in driving enlargement and increasing military expenditures. This expansion of NATO was linked to broader patterns of arms production, geopolitical competition, and interventionism. Furthermore, it was discussed how NATO has destabilized other countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Ukraine, and the former Yugoslavia, which undermined WPS while simultaneously escalating global militarization and climate insecurity. Tamara also focused on how NATO’s demand to increase military spending in Canada and across NATO member states diverts resources away from healthcare, environmental protection, Indigenous relations, and social services, which are essential to the security of women and girls. Additionally, the adverse climate and environmental consequences of NATO’s military operations and Arctic militarization were emphasized. Tamara concluded by highlighting the growing international feminist opposition to the alliance, arguing that NATO cannot be transformed into a feminist institution and instead should be abolished altogether. 

Keiren McClelland offered a nuanced perspective on NATO and WPS by considering reformist engagement and structural critique. Drawing on her master’s research on NATO’s implementation of the WPS agenda between 2007 and 2024, Keiren argued that the alliance’s engagement with WPS reflects both progress and co-optation. Her presentation focused on how gender and WPS are incorporated into the military institution. Using frameworks from critical feminist security studies, she explored how NATO institutionalized WPS through gender advisers, strategic planning frameworks, reporting mechanisms, and policy reforms. It was acknowledged that these developments represent meaningful shifts in the global security landscape because gender is now firmly embedded within discussions of defence and security. However, she assessed that NATO’s implementation of the WPS agenda remains limited and often subordinated to the alliance’s operational effectiveness rather than to feminist transformation. The use of case studies on NATO’s intervention in Afghanistan and its enhanced Forward Presence in the Baltic states illustrated these contradictions. She found that NATO’s engagement with WPS doesn’t challenge militarism but reproduces the status quo. In both cases, she explained that NATO’s inclusion of gender and WPS has often been instrumentalized to justify the alliance’s military logic, operational effectiveness, and mission outcomes rather than serving as a transformative process for feminist peace and security. 

The webinar concluded with remarks from Dr. Katrina Leclerc, chair of the WPSN-C, who reflected on the significance of disagreement within the WPS community itself. She emphasized that the WPS field is not monolithic and should not be expected to produce a single unified perspective on institutions like NATO. Rather than viewing disagreement as a weakness, she argued that plurality reflects the political nature of feminist peacebuilding and the diverse realities that shape how people engage with security institutions. 

This panel combined feminist academic and activist perspectives and demonstrated that debates over NATO and the WPS agenda reflect diverse concerns among women peacebuilders. There was recognition that WPS has succeeded in pushing gender into spaces of international security policy that once excluded it entirely. Yet there is also deep unease about what happens when feminist language becomes embedded within military institutions whose primary function remains warfighting and how WPS can be integrated within institutions that do not aim for peace. Each speaker challenged the audience to think about what security is, who is protected, and whose voices are prioritized. The discussion opened up crucial space for thinking about whether peace and security can continue to be defined by an exclusive military alliance or by expansive feminist approaches that demand more dialogue, diplomacy, and disarmament. In an era of increasing militarization and geopolitical polarization, these debates are becoming increasingly urgent. 

This blog is intentionally published to coincide with the 2026 NATO Summit, held in Ankara, Türkiye. The authors encourage readers to watch the WPSN-C webinar recording and question the role of militarized institutions, such as NATO, within the WPS agenda and broader pursuit of peace. 

Sandra Biskupski-Mujanovic is a researcher at the University of Toronto’s Links Lab. She was previously a SSHRC Postdoctoral Research Fellow in the University of Waterloo Political Science Department and the Balsillie School of International Affairs. Dr. Biskupski-Mujanovic holds a PhD in Gender, Sexuality, and Women’s Studies with a specialization in Transitional Justice and Post-Conflict Reconstruction from Western University. She spent two years as a Steering Committee member at the Women, Peace and Security Network-Canada and has published peer-reviewed articles in International Journal, Canadian Foreign Policy Journal, Canadian Military Journal, and Sexuality Research and Social Policy. She also has several chapters in edited volumes on various facets of gender inequality and has written in numerous non-academic venues. She does critical work on security, militarization, and gender inequality. 

Tamara Lorincz is a PhD graduate in Global Governance at the Balsillie School of International Affairs at Wilfrid Laurier University. She has an MA in International Politics & Security Studies from the University of Bradford and an LLB/JD, and MBA from Dalhousie University. Dr. Lorincz is currently a fellow with the Canadian Foreign Policy Institute. She is also a researcher with the Canadian Voice of Women for Peace and a member of the Women’s International League for Peace & Freedom-Canada. She is active with the No to War, No to NATO network and the Global Women United for Peace Against NATO.

The views in this blog are those of the authors only and do not necessarily represent those of the WPSN-C or its membership.