The Strategic Defence Review is sub-titled ‘Making Britain Safer’, so where is human security? Eva Tabbasam argues for the urgent recentring of the Women, Peace and Security agenda in UK defence and security strategies.
Just days after attending the third annual Women, Peace and Security (WPS) Forum in Kosovo, themed The Security Code for Our Generation, the gathered participants called for a bold reimagining of what security means, one that centers the individual, is intergenerational and inclusive. It is therefore deeply disheartening to return to the UK, and find that the UK’s 2025 Strategic Defence Review (SDR) is entirely silent on gender, or the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda, a long running UK commitment, even failing to mention ‘human security’, a more common entry point for defence actors. This erasure from the UK security landscape is dangerous.
The 2025 SDR ostensibly presents a vision for “Making Britain Safer”. However, it does so through a narrow, traditional, and deeply masculinised understanding of what constitutes security. In a world where insecurities are increasingly interlinked – climate collapse, democratic erosion, weaponised identities, and rising authoritarianism – this review doubles down on defence orthodoxy rather than embracing the integrated and holistic approaches the 21st century demands.
This SDR is more than just a missed opportunity; it is a reversal. Compare this Review to the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) of 2015, which acknowledged insecurities like sexual violence in conflict and called for a broader approach to stability. The Integrated Review (IR) in 2021, identified gender equality as one of its six global priorities. It further linked the UK’s security and prosperity with a rules-based international order that upholds human rights. By contrast, the 2025 SDR omits any mention of WPS, the UK’s National Action Plan on WPS (2023–2027), or JSP 985: Human Security in Military Operations, the MoD’s own directive on integrating human security – including WPS, into defence strategy and operations. This signals a fundamental misalignment with the UK’s international obligations and its stated values.
Missed evidence, misplaced investment
During the 2025 WPS Forum in Kosovo, I had heard first-hand from survivors of war, women peacebuilders, and community leaders about what a truly holistic approach to security looks like in practice. Kosovo has made genuine national efforts to integrate Women, Peace and Security and human security into its defence and security. Efforts backed by political will, legal frameworks and international partnership. That’s not to say the path has been without challenges, but what stands out is that the integration of WPS and human security is actively and intentionally pursued and not as a mere afterthought. Even in a context like Kosovo’s, a country that has faced existential threats and mass trauma, there is the understanding that true security requires inclusion, intergenerational dialogue, and addressing the root causes of violence – inequality and marginalisation. Their approach isn’t idealistic, but one that is pragmatic. It is built on the lived experiences of those most affected by conflict. And it works. So why does the UK refuse to learn from its own commitments or the evidence base, let alone from others leading the way in response to the same commitments?
In the GAPS submission to the SDR process, we urged the UK government to adopt a holistic, human-centred approach. We highlighted that the threats facing the UK – climate change, rising authoritarianism, technological weaponisation, inequality – are interconnected and mutually reinforcing. They demand a response that is equally intersectional, one that recognises how different forms of insecurity interact, and addresses them holistically, rather than through narrow and siloed approaches. We made the case that WPS is not a side issue, but a core capability. When women are meaningfully included in peace processes, agreements are 35% more likely to last over 15 years. When militaries engage with women-led organisations on the ground, their intelligence is sharper, and civilian protection is more effective. These are strategic advantages, not moral add-ons. Yet, our evidence submission was met with silence.
A chance to course-correct
While the SDR sets the direction of travel – including a commitment to raise defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027 – it is the Ministry of Defence’s Equipment Plan 2023–2033 that sets out a £288.6 billion ten-year budget for military equipment and support. Yet both documents fail to outline how any of it will address the UK’s obligations to the WPS agenda, Conflict Related Sexual Violence (CRSV) prevention, or gender integration. This absence of transparency is deeply troubling. The MoD is co-owner of the UK’s WPS National Action Plan. The Ministry has existing gender and human security architecture, trained focal points and advisors, and the JSP 985 as a guiding tool. But implementation and integration lags. GAPS’ shadow reporting shows repeated delays and underinvestment. Without accountability or funding, these commitments remain symbolic at best.
The wider political dynamics at play is very important. Although the SDR is presented as a Defence specific document, it has effectively taken the lead in shaping the UK’s security posture, setting the tone ahead of the forthcoming National Security Strategy. As a result, the SDR – not a cross-government strategy grounded in values – is now defining how the UK understands and responds to threats. Its vision leans heavily on militarised responses and a model of state-centric mobilisation; this is an approach that prioritises force over foresight and doesn’t consider the root causes of insecurity. This sequencing, and the narrowing of focus it enables, signals a serious imbalance in the UK’s approach to security. If the UK wants to lead globally, it must move beyond defence orthodoxy and short term deterrence, and instead invest in inclusive strategies not just new tech and weapons systems. The incoming National Security Strategy is one way of remedying this imbalance.
Further, If the UK wants to position itself as a “pacesetter” in the digital age, it must also lead in shaping how that innovation is governed. Leadership isn’t just about speed or scale – it is about direction and purpose. A truly forward thinking approach demands technologies that are inclusive by design and attentive to the dynamics of power, equity and impact. That means embedding gender not as an afterthought but as a core principle. AI, automated weapons, and surveillance tools often replicate systemic discrimination and with no accountability. Civilian targeting errors rooted in biased datasets are not abstract risks, they are real, documented harms. By failing to embed gender analysis into digital defence strategies, the UK is not only ignoring best practice- it is actively endangering civilian lives.
Security must be redefined. The UK can no longer afford to treat gender and WPS as “development” concerns, siloed off from its core defence and security strategy. While frameworks like the JSP 985 signal some recognition, meaningful integration remains lacking. Gender must not be confined to the margins as a question of diversity or representation – it must be embedded across policy and practice as a fundamental dimension of security itself. They are core to both risk and resilience.
The UK still has the frameworks, tools, and partnerships to lead on this. In the 25th anniversary year of the WPS agenda, the UK’s role as penholder at the UN Security Council carries both legacy and responsibility. Without meaningful action, the moment will be lost – and with it the UK’s chance to demonstrate that its commitments to gender, peace, and security are more than just rhetoric. Ultimately, a defence review that fails to grasp the importance of human security, or inclusive peace is not fit for purpose. The upcoming National Security Strategy offers a critical opportunity to correct course – embedding these principles not as peripheral concerns, but as core to the UK’s global role and credibility.
Eva Tabbasam is the Director at Gender Action for Peace and Security (GAPS), a network of development, human rights, humanitarian, and peacebuilding INGOs, based in the UK. She is a gender expert with diverse experience in development, humanitarian, refugee and asylum matters, and Women, Peace, and Security (WPS). Her expertise spans the realms of research, advocacy, policy, and programming, and she has worked with a wide range of stakeholders, including multilateral organisations, government agencies, donors, international and national NGOs, civil society groups, and women’s rights organisations, both within the UK and globally.
The views and opinions expressed in posts on the Rethinking Security blog are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of the network and its broader membership.
Image Credit: Peaceportal.org.
One thought on “Erased from Security: Why the 2025 SDR fails the Women, Peace and Security agenda”