Thank you for the question.
The data you referred to is the fact that we now know that peace agreements are at least 35% more likely to endure at least 15 years if women are meaningfully involved in their creation. Why is that? We have a lot of evidence that women tend to both change the process and influence the topic.
To give some examples, women in Northern Ireland, in negotiations, broadened the discussion so it included things like whether or not there would be segregated education going forward. Were they going to replicate the conditions that led to the division of their society that got them to that place? Women in Darfur raised issues of food security. Women in Colombia raised issues of land ownership and an ability to inherit property and land, and for women to own land and run for public office. These are things that ultimately add to addressing the root causes that bring a country to conflict in the first place. These are just a few examples.
I was at an event this morning with several women from Afghanistan, including women who are in Doha right now. The government has 21 negotiators on the government side; the Taliban have none. Four of the 21 negotiators are women. One of them was on today and was talking about the fact that women have to be spreading themselves across every single committee at these negotiations. They tend to be thought of as needing to be put in health or education or something related to a basic social service. They're saying, no, we have to be involved in discussing anti-corruption, the reform of our bloated security sector, a whole range of issues. It's primarily about broadening the agenda, not just issues related to so-called women's issues.