The missing pieces

In late August 2024, an interesting news story emerged: Colin Crooks, the British Ambassador to the Republic of Korea, boycotted the Global Korea Forum organised by South Korea’s Ministry of Unification. His reason was clear—the speakers were overwhelmingly male. Of the 20 panelists chosen by the Ministry, 19 were men and only one was a woman. This striking gender imbalance, with only one or two women included among a large group of men, is disappointingly common. Consider the photo below, for instance.

As seen in the image above, defense ministers of the Republic of Korea, the United States, and Japan signed a Memorandum of Trilateral Security Cooperation in Tokyo on July 28, 2024. The agreement aims to institutionalise security cooperation, including regularising trilateral military exercises.

Similarly, at the 25th ASEAN Plus Three Foreign Ministers’ Meeting in Vientiane on July 27, 2024, only two of the 15 foreign ministers present—Indonesia's Retno Marsudi and Japan's Yoko Kamikawa—were women.

The above examples highlight a persistent gender disparity in geopolitical spaces, revealing the ongoing male dominance in the fields of security and international relations. Despite decades of feminist and queer geopolitical critiques of mainstream geopolitics, inclusivity remains notably absent in these crucial areas.

Personal and Political: Persistence of Gender Inequality

While social contexts shape individual experiences and perspectives, one of most significant feminist insights—that the personal is political and the everyday is political, later emphasised by feminist theories—has become so ingrained in Western-centric global discourse that it risks losing its radical edge. Yet, despite its familiarity, the reality remains largely unchanged: the personal issues still often remain confined to private spheres, and the mundane continues to be overlooked.

In a 2022 article, Jo Sharp argued that while critical questioning has gained cultural prominence and fostered meaningful dialogue, it has largely failed to transform underlying socioeconomic structures. The narratives needed to drive profound societal change remain absent, and the critical mass required to address these issues comprehensively has yet to emerge. Sharp's point remains strikingly true today, as we continue to see the absence of narratives and critical mass needed for transformative change. This gap is not only evident in societal dialogues but also in the structural forces that perpetuate inequality, particularly within the state itself.

State Patriarchy: Gendered Power and Limits of Policy Reform

Beneath seemingly progressive agendas and discourse lies an entrenched patriarchy. This "ultimate patriarch" is the nation-state—a powerful force, albeit one that is often difficult to define. The concept of security has been monopolised by the state, with the entity guaranteeing security confined to the state itself. In this context, the security of individuals is seen as passive and reactive, gaining significance only within the framework of state security.

Catherine MacKinnon (1989) defined the state as fundamentally masculine, observing that it regulates gender and controls women's bodies, creating a family-centered structure upon which women's subjugation and the reproduction of labour are based—ultimately enabling capitalism and the state to coexist.

Feminists have used the term "state patriarchy" to highlight that the state fundamentally maintains male-dominated gender relations. They also argue that the nature of the state continues to evolve in response to the influence of various political groups. State patriarchy is an institutionalised form of gendered power, constructed within gender relations. Some have also defined the state as a public manifestation of patriarchy.

An interesting aspect of feminist efforts in national policy reform is the unintended consequence of the women's movement expanding the public face of patriarchy into state-led policies aimed at promoting women's rights. Instead of dismantling public manifestations of patriarchy, this shift only reconfigured the structure of women’s dependence—from individual patriarchal men to the state as a patriarchal entity. As a result, women were positioned as subjects of policies rather than as primary agents of change, thereby limiting their political agency and consolidating public patriarchy. This underscores the urgent need to critically examine the entrenched patriarchal structures within state institutions.

The examination of entrenched patriarchal structures and their impact on gender representation in global governance shows how deep-rooted imbalances continue to shape political and security dialogues. While efforts to address these disparities are underway, they often rely on mechanisms that still reinforce the dominance of powerful actors. This ongoing exclusion highlights the missing pieces in our pursuit of world peace—pieces that go beyond mere representation to challenge the very frameworks that perpetuate inequality.

The missing pieces for world peace

Ambassador Crooks' boycott was a significant blow to the forum organisers, the South Korean Ministry of Unification. As a former ambassador to North Korea, Crooks understands the situation on both sides of the peninsula. In response to his withdrawal, the Ministry scrambled to adjust the panel, increasing female representation from one woman in a group of 19 men to seven women among 27 men. This raised the percentage of women from 5 per cent to 26 per cent—a dramatic shift. Yet this progress was spurred by a powerful male-led boycott, highlighting a bittersweet irony. While Crooks’ voice carried weight, what about the countless others who have never been given the opportunity to protest exclusion.

Feminist and queer geopolitics have shattered the traditional notion of the singular, healthy male body as the central figure of geopolitical power. By deconstructing this archetype, this shift has expanded the scope of representation to include women, non-male identities, and ultimately all life-bearing beings across the global biosphere. However, a gap persists between this growing awareness and broader public consciousness. To bridge this divide, it is essential to address the multiple crises perpetuated by patriarchal states through the deconstruction of dominant male power structures.

Bell Hooks (1984) argued that the goal of feminism should not be to attain power equivalent to men but to establish a different value system. What does it mean to create such a system? A different value system rejects unilateral domination in favor of multilateral coordination and cooperation. It does not seek dominant power, but as Donna Haraway (1994) described, a "cat's cradle world"—a world that can only endure if all beings respond to each other, acknowledging their interconnections. To embody peace in such a world requires embracing both vulnerability and interdependence that arise from it.

Recently, I worked on a 1,000-piece jigsaw puzzle with my ten-year-old friend. The process was challenging, and at times I wanted to give up. But I pushed through, not wanting to betray her trust. Every piece had its place, and the puzzle remained incomplete until every piece was positioned correctly. The puzzle reminded me of interdependence: a complex collection of interconnected parts, where even a single missing piece leaves the entire image unfinished.

Although this article has focused on women as a key missing piece in the puzzle of peace, many other pieces remain absent. The patriarchal state often imagines itself as a significant, even central, piece of the puzzle. However, a jigsaw puzzle cannot be completed with only one or a few large pieces. Even if a small piece is missing, the whole picture remains incomplete. A new value system requires recognising the importance of these overlooked pieces.

Who do the individuals in the photographs above represent, and is their representation truly sufficient? Who else is missing? Broad categories like "non-men" fail to capture the full spectrum of absences. Where are the women, the queer individuals, the children, the youth, and the elderly? Where are the stateless, the refugees, the non-human beings? So many pieces are still missing, and until we find them, the puzzle of peace will remain incomplete.

The opinions and statements of the guest authors do not necessarily reflect the opinion and position of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung.