Rethinking humanitarian diplomacy through gender

We, the authors of this blog, could not come from more different worlds. One of us is a humanitarian practitioner and protection advocate working with local and national actors. The other comes from a diplomatic background, working between Geneva-based diplomatic spaces and frontline humanitarian negotiations. And yet, we reached the same conclusion: something is wrong with how humanitarian diplomacy is often practiced, and it needs to be rethought.

The problem is not the absence of women or a lack of capacity. It is a system that continues to deny them influence, legitimacy, and resources.

The system still operates as if diplomacy belongs to a narrow group, too often dominated by the same profiles, the same institutions, the same power holders.

Who holds the power in today's system?

Spaces continue to be dominated by those who present themselves as champions of human rights and protection, while rarely relinquishing control. We cannot continue to accept a model where power remains concentrated in rooms filled with the same profiles, speaking about communities they do not live in, and gender dynamics they do not experience, and calling it representation.

What needs to change?

If humanitarian diplomacy is about people, then it must make space for people. Real space. Because right now, even so-called participation is restricted and tokenized.

At a global event, we both had to secure funding equal to, if not more than, a person’s monthly salary just to get an online link for a speaker – a woman leader from Lebanon – who could not travel because of the war. Even her remote participation came at a great cost.

So what inclusion are we talking about? What space are we claiming to open?

When participation depends on money and presence in specific circles

If participation itself is gated by cost, geography, language, and bureaucracy, then the system is not inclusive, it is exclusion by design.

This is, among other factors, why the current approach is not working.

We have spent years trying to “include” women in international humanitarian diplomacy spaces. And yet, if we are honest, the system has not delivered the change it promised.

Women are not absent from humanitarian diplomacy. They are already negotiating access, mediating conflicts, protecting communities, and sustaining social cohesion, often in the most dangerous conditions; however, their efforts are rarely recognized or even acknowledged by the system as humanitarian diplomacy.

The myth of ‘neutral’ humanitarian diplomacy

Humanitarian diplomacy has long been framed by some as a technical, neutral process led by international actors and mostly focused on humanitarian access, more specifically international organizations’ access. But this is a convenient myth.

Diplomacy is political. It determines whose lives are prioritized, whose voices are heard, and whose risks are taken seriously.

The issue is not that humanitarian diplomacy is political, it is the fact that it is captured by existing power structures instead of challenging them.

Why representation alone is not enough

Similarly, for too long, gender has been reduced to tokenized representation, whether in meetings, statistics, program ‘beneficiaries’ etc. We celebrate when there are more women in the room or among our reached population. But presence is not influence.

Women are often consulted in the international system without influencing decisions, tasked with implementation without meaningfully influencing or controlling its resources, and invited into spaces that remain fundamentally unchanged.

If we continue like this, we are not transforming the system, we are reproducing inequality in a more inclusive language.

What is needed is not better apparent inclusion. It is a redistribution of power.

This requires international actors – diplomats, UN agencies, donors, INGOs – to reflect on a difficult truth: meaningful inclusion requires sharing more power, resources and decision-making influence.

Not symbolically, but materially. Not temporarily, but structurally.

Inclusion cannot be conditional only on compliance with international frameworks or comfort with institutional norms. It must also mean allowing women-led and feminist actors to define priorities, shape strategies, and control resources. It means accepting that they are political and so is change.

Ceding power to women is not enough if we do not also rethink what we mean by gender.

Gender-transformative humanitarian diplomacy requires not only increasing the participation and leadership of women and feminist actors, but also transforming the gendered norms, power relations, institutions, and intersecting system.

Gender is not a box to tick, nor a category to balance. It is about power.

It is about the structures that produce violence, exclusion, and inequality. Gender-transformative action means addressing:

• root causes (yes, that is a legitimate, and maybe one of the most important legitimate humanitarian goals)
• patriarchy
• conflict economies
• racism
• political systems that sustain harm, not just adapting services to their consequences.

Why intersectionality matters

It also means rejecting simplistic notions of “women” as a homogeneous group. Intersectionality is not optional, it is essential. A young displaced woman, an older widow, a woman with a disability, or a woman living under occupation experience power differently. If humanitarian diplomacy does not account for this, it cannot be effective.

Ultimately, we need to move beyond a 50/50 mindset.

Equality in numbers is not the goal. Nor should women’s inclusion be justified only because they represent “half the population” or are expected to speak solely for women and girls.

Transformation is about recognizing women as political and humanitarian actors whose leadership, analysis and contributions strengthen outcomes for entire communities. A gender-transformative humanitarian diplomacy is one that broadens whose voices shape decisions, and what outcomes are pursued. It is one that values local, relational, and community-rooted diplomacy as much as high-level negotiations.

It is one that is accountable not to institutions, but to the people it claims to serve.

Women are already leading this transformation on the ground. The question is whether the system is ready to follow.

This blog was developed by Oxfam in collaboration with the Centre of Competence on Humanitarian Negotiation (CCHN) as part of broader reflections on gender and humanitarian diplomacy. Read Gender and Humanitarian Diplomacy, the companion piece to this blog written by CCHN that explores how to strengthen your diplomatic practice.

Fur further reading you can also explore Oxfam's policy note titled Humanitarian Diplomacy Re-Imagined.

Yasmine Chawaf

Yasmine is Protection Advocacy Coordinator for the Global Humanitarian Team, Oxfam.

Aurélie Rime

Aurélie is Diplomatic Adviser for the Centre of Competence on Humanitarian Negotiation (CCHN).