I think this is a really important issue. We often go to meetings to talk about women, peace and security, and 95% of the people sitting around the room are women. I think there are a number of issues. One is leadership. It is really important that support and legitimacy for this issue start at the top.
This is where I think General Vance has made real strides, because he has taken this seriously. I think there is much that we can learn from that. Often we have token support for these issues but we don't see male leaders actually attending the courses, sitting through the discussions, participating in the debates. They will often nominate a woman to go in their place, or they'll find another way not to go. Given military and security sector structures, leadership is absolutely crucial. We have to say that it starts at the top. The men have to put in the time.
We have the evidence now that looking at these issues is a legitimate security issue. We have research showing that peace agreements last longer when women's organizations are involved. We even have research showing that societies with more equal gender relations are less likely to go to war with their neighbours. In addition to being the right thing to do, looking at women, peace and security issues is also the smart thing to do in terms of building peace and in terms of the objectives we're trying to do.
So we have the business case, but we have a lot of people around the room who don't believe in this business case. I think that's an area where we need to have more discussions and more research. What is that tipping point or that nudge that gets people to take this issue seriously and as a legitimate point of departure in this area? I think inviting a broader spectrum of people to the table is a really important starting point. The saying, I think, is that military matters are too important to be left to the military. I think it really applies in this case.