 All right, so we're going live in a couple of seconds. Hi everyone, welcome. We're just going to wait a couple of minutes to begin. Welcome. Hi everyone, welcome. Okay, so we're going to begin. Firstly, welcome everyone to the Feminist Leadership in Disarmament webinar. A welcome of course to our five incredible speakers who we will officially introduce later on. Christine and one of our panellists is unable to join us now in real time due to unfavorable time differences, but we have her contribution pre-recorded. This webinar is very important to us all at Scrap. For many reasons, the first of which it's the opening webinar to our broader feminist assignment project, which in addition to a webinar series, we have been conducting research, writing blog posts and opinion pieces, and also launching a mass social media campaign. Our objectives are to raise awareness of women from the global south, in particular, but not exclusively, and their achievements and contributions to the field, as well as exploring the challenges facing women from entering and progressing in the field, and what steps can be taken to overcome these challenges. Secondly, what is the role of women and feminist perspectives for disarmament? Why is this important? As the opening webinar, we hope to have a diverse and broad discussion touching on these themes, which we also hope gives a taster to what the more focused sub webinars in our webinar series have to offer and we'll focus on. In terms then we hope that our project can contribute to the global movement and momentum which is working towards enhancing female representation and participation in disarmament, peace building and security discourses and policy. And lastly, a quick introduction to Scrap. We, Scrap Weapons, we are a campaign that suggests adopting legal international agreements as a basis for general and complete global disarmament. At Scrap we are constantly developing research projects about disarmament, verification, emergent technologies, and of course feminism in the field. And we hope to mobilise governmental, non governmental, economic and expert forces in support of the same outcome. And lastly, my name is Nancy and I'm a research assistant at Scrap Weapons, along with my colleague, Yanis. And together we will be moderating this webinar. I am part of a team of 13 Scrap members on the feminist disarmament project. And together we have been working for over six months now on the research, the organisation and the deliberation of this project. Thank you Nancy. The gender balance in disarmament forums is disturbing and problematic. According to a study in small forums, only around 20% of women in larger forums, the proportion stands around 32%. For improvement, the Disarmament and International Security Committee of the UN consisted of women for less than 10% in the 1980s, with 32% today. Taking a look at the other topic committees shows that disarmament has a particular problem. It is the least balanced committee of all six committees in the United Nations. And it suggests that there is more to the issue than numbers, that it's a systemic problem. Today in the upcoming 14 weeks, panellists will talk about representation about systemic issues and how they promote feminist leadership in disarmament through racism as well as diplomacy. You'll also talk about new legal instrument, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which aims to support these efforts. This series will consist of seven webinars in total. And we invited to join us every second Wednesday at 2pm English time from today until May. The format of this webinar will be as follows. Each of the speakers will give a brief presentation, and afterwards we will have time for Q&A. So please put your questions in the Q&A function during the webinar. When you ask the question, please include as well who of the panellists that is directed at. So without further ado, I shall introduce our first speaker for today, which is Rebecca Johnson. Dr Rebecca Johnson is an eco feminist peace activist and organizer from Greenham Common to ICANN and XR Peace. In the last 25 years of publications span women's nonviolent opposition to patriarchal violence, nuclear colonialism, humanitarian disarmament and diplomacy, including NPT meetings, INF Treaty verification, the nuclear ban process and the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Rebecca's presentation today is feminist transformations and women's participation, power, diplomacy and activism for security, peace and disarmament. Thank you very much indeed. I hope you can see the screen share. Is that working? Can you see my first slide on? Okay, excellent. I'd like to thank so as and also the scrap feminist project and all of you for inviting, for setting up this project and inviting me to take part. So, well true to feminist principles, my presentation is going to interweave the personal and the political and show also a number of photographs because as we all know, the visual, the photos can show things more quickly and directly often than a whole load of words. So I'll just start with a little bit of my story because I think it connects in what we need to think about because every single one of us has the power to change the future. There's pretty much the meaning of that green and web, you can see that poster in the, in the corner of the barbed wire of the US Air Force base. This was depicting with a spider's web, and you can just make out caught in that spider's web is a nuclear armed cruise missile. The poster comes from 1982, when I was first living at the camp when a group of us not very many of us at that time, we'd been evicted it was very nasty whether rain for 40 biblical days. But we organize this action on December the 12th and 13th, embrace the base and close the base. This was when I first really came to understand that me alone, I, you know, I'm not very important I'm very ordinary I, you know, I had been actually I was a student at so as at the time. As I became involved. And I think we need to remember back to the 80s where really we lived under the cloud under the shadow under the Damocles sword of nuclear war, it was very real and immediate to us in the way that climate destruction is very real and immediate to the, particularly the young people like Greta Thunberg and all those young people that came out with her in solidarity but in on their own read for their own reasons and their own fears but also their own recognition they had to act to stop climate destruction, they had to act for the future they went on on school strike they came out of the, you know, colleges they came out into the streets there was extinction rebellion out in the streets here in London. This was how it was for us in the 80s on nuclear weapons, particularly at the early part. So, our experiences growing up as girls in sexist racist societies. And also let us not forget the disadvantage that you know the class analysis that recognizes the disadvantage of poverty of diminished access to education that some girls, many girls throughout the world experience. It's a mix of positive and negative how we grew up, our families, our social situation, but both kinds have provided each of us with the concerns, the reasons, the insights, the ideas, the drivers that impel and equip us to work for disarmament peace and feminist security, by which I mean real human environmental humanitarian personal and political security. And so that's really my starting point and for me that journey started actually when I was living in Alaska at the age of 18 and I was, was, you know, cleaning houses and looking after other people's children, and I became inspired by environmental activists trying to stop an oil pipeline. I loved Alaska, you know I was there for about nine months. And I, you know, raised, you know I earned extra money singing in cafes and realize that all my songs were about about pollution and about the destruction of the earth but my songs during that nine months in Alaska also started to be much more about women and the power of women and sisterhood and doomed love. So violence against the planet and also violence against women were very much drivers. And then of course as I mentioned so as was another part of my, my journey. And so, you know at Greenham where I lived for 90 from 1982 until we got the INF Treaty. Yes, it changed my life. And that's why I've I was invited to choose my own subject and I looked at feminist transformations and women's participation, power diplomacy and action and that's really what I want to focus on. So from protests to treaties. I didn't really know about I was originally trained as a physicist, but I was at so as studying China, Japan, Korea, and the US Soviet rivalry and pressures in the Far East that was the subject I did my masters on and then I started a PhD on women's political participation in Japan. But by that time I was already at Greenham. And by after my second stint in Holloway prison. I was called by so as I had, you know, I was hardly there and kindly but very firmly told I had to choose between Greenham and my PhD. And, you know, like the climate activists. I didn't actually feel I had a choice. I felt that we had to do everything to stop nuclear war. And so I chose Greenham. Actually, it was a choice. So my first point here really is be true to yourself. I could only be an activist at that time because I didn't have the expertise or the education or nobody would have listened to me I didn't have any of those things. As an activist I connected up with so many other women and the direct aspects of what we did and you can see in these pictures, you know, blockading that that's a US Air Force bus and then going into the nuclear weapons silos on New Year's Day of 83. So I ended up dancing at the top of them that was the iconic picture. And then when they did bring the nuclear convoy, the nuclear weapons in and start take them, taking them out on the roads. There we were together with local people as cruise watch there will be green and women and local people, and we were both leaders and organizers and and followers and that's something else I want to stress is that women have kind of different things. This is not biological this is structural and societal, if you like, but our experiences have been that different. And at Greenham, I really learned the power, the difference between power over as enjoyed and practiced and perpetuated if they were able to get away with it by patriarchal leaders and the power of the power we can grow within ourselves to make the changes that are needed. That will seek to help us amplify our power of change our power to do. And here I just wanted to show you know that there's Ellen in front of the Fasle nuclear base there's set to go speaking in. Sorry, I've. Yeah, there's set to go speaking in. Yeah, set to go speaking in the UN during the negotiations on the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons. There are the young people who are part of the amplify youth group of I can from Australia from Iran at one of the led to that and I know Ray is going to talk much more about that, but it's this collectivity of the power of one multiplied. And I also and have the picture in the corner. I hope you can see clearly enough of 2018. The women cross DMZ and you can see a number of activists. And I think Christine on is is in the bit that's covered by my. I can't see it very clearly on my, very clearly on my screen. So these are some of the issues. So the next thing is the ask questions, and then get involved. And don't be afraid be true to yourself and recognize that it's all different kinds of involvement so I want to move a little bit more quickly. The greatest threat to our planet is the belief that someone else will save it. That again is such a powerful motivation for women. So if you take an action like I did where I actually decided I was just going to live outside a nuclear base until we got rid of the, of the nuclear weapons which we did as part of a great movement. I actually lose out I keep being asked about sacrifice. It was a choice, but I still had my science training, I still turned that into a way to be a diplomat and activist a citizen's diplomat if you like. So women's political participation is in it enhances creativity. It gives it shows different ways of looking at the problems and therefore different ways to find the solutions. It's more sustainable. There's, there's lots of studies now about more sustainable security disarmament, more sustainable agreements across diplomacy, if women are involved. And I was very influenced by order Lords 1979 essay the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house. She also said, our silence will not protect us. So those are the motivating things, but our silence can be represented in a number of different ways, or rather, our, our refusal to be silent can be reflected in a number of different ways and here again. These are just examples on the top. That's actually an all women panel in the conference on disarmament chamber, talking about the science behind the comprehensive test ban treaty or it might have actually been a space security panel. I'm on that. And it was both accidental and intentional that women should should be on that panel. It's not the experts in those issues, but often overlooked. And so I want to pay tribute to women like Patricia Lewis and you see her there at one of the humanitarian impacts of nuclear weapons conferences that led to the, the recent tragedy, but there she is presenting, but she was Unidea's director for 10 years from 1997. And in her time, she really brought in women very very practical feminist action to make it possible for far more women to get on to the next steps to speak to learn to to to be part of diplomacy that pressure then filtered through so far more women than when I first was at the in Geneva as a campaigner for the comprehensive test ban treaty, and that there was only a handful of ambassadors who were women to now when I was there. And then also the role in vial in in verification and disarmament implementation and this was a CTB to on site inspections. The exercise in Kazakhstan that lasted actually a month and I was very privileged to be able to join it and be part of it and then and women are increasingly coming into those areas as experts and being trained up. So I also want to talk about the ways in which if we see ourselves as working together then we see ourselves as, you know, this was the web of Greenham, where we connect up and we support each other. The other, other one is the picture of Ambassador Elaine White Gomez sharing as president of the conference here just to remind us nonviolent power. Feminist nonviolent power is very very active we have nothing to do with the passive resistance, but it is not about violent aggression, just as we recognize that conflict is essential for change. So violence is not essential for start resolving conflicts and this again is where women's perspectives come into these conflicts and start to work on them in ways that involve far more people far more women far more diverse people and to make the changes that's what we did at Greenham and of course that picture of Gorbachev and Reagan signing the INF treaty in 1987 was all about men. It was in those days, it still is to a large extent when we think of the obstacles misogyny and an underestimation of, you know, the skills the resources the, the ideas the creativity, the effectiveness of women. So these are obstacles we have to overcome and we can only overcome collectively, but we can do this one by one and together, and we have to keep working and that the middle picture is the, the picture of that nuclear weapons silo at Greenham common that had gone, I took that picture in 2000, the weapons had gone, the Americans had got the, you know, the US Air Force had gone. The silo had to stay so that the Soviets, now Russians of course, could inspect, sadly Putin and Trump in a patriarchal sense have, have, have, have destroyed that treaty. But for the sake of the, of the world, we need to be nonviolent activists who are analytical activists and activist analyzers. It is vital for raising public awareness on many dimensions through parliamentarians, not just symbolic, but also through communication education, and it is sometimes disruptive, but it creates transformation and that is what we need to do in order to prevent nuclear war to prevent or to tackle climate destruction. And as we see to tackle COVID, and these pandemics, look who are the leaders that are doing that best. I think I must have used up my time. Sorry. I'm sorry to interrupt you. Oh, sorry, I over but anything because it was I had my screen, let me stop sharing now. Thank you so much. It's, it's amazing to hear, you know, your, your experiences and your activism and it's incredibly inspiring. So thank you so much for that. Thank you. Yeah, thank you for the insights Rebecca that was really, really interesting. Next speaker is Ray Atchison. Ray Atchison is the director of reaching critical will the disarmament program of the women's International League for peace and freedom, as well as steering representative of the international campaign to abolish nuclear weapons, I can, and the campaign to stop killer robots. And the author of the book is the author of the book, banning the bomb smashing the paycheck key, which will be released in June 2021. I did pre-ordered already. And she's going to talk about the importance of enhancing feminist perspectives in negotiations of the TPMW and why a feminist process produced a feminist treaty. Thank you, Diana, and thanks to scrap for organizing this important webinar series. I'm looking forward to hearing all of the different segments. I'm building off of what Rebecca has said about the importance of diversity in participation. I really want to talk about why that is so important. And in terms of the perspectives that it brings into the spaces that have been dominated for so long by a certain part of the world's population, which has overwhelmingly been Western white straight men. And so that's not to say that men that fit into that category can't be feminist themselves because of course they can and that's one of the things that I want to put forward is that when I'm talking about gender, when I'm talking about men or women, I want to give a caveat that I'm not talking about absolute. So I'm talking about the way that we are socialized within all of our societies around the world in terms of how we're expected to behave, how we're expected to think, and how we're expected to relate to each other and the world based on these categories that were put in. So I'm a category smasher. I don't like binaries. I don't like to fulfill expectations of how we're supposed to be in this world. And so I invite all of you to come along on that journey and smash some categories with me. And that's why I'm talking about perspectives more than who is participating and I want to talk about bringing feminist perspectives into the spaces that we operate in, and I really mean an intersectional feminist perspective so post colonial anti racist, an anti ableist, and a non violent type of feminism and anti militarist anti war kind of feminism, who has been doing this work since 1915 so I'm building off of a very long legacy of more than a century of work of feminists critiquing militarism from this perspective. And really it brings a lot of crucial things to our conversations about weapons and war in particular. It helps us to understand how people can be differentially or disproportionately impacted by specific weapons, or by conflict and violence and there's a lot of work that's gone on around that but it also gives key insights about gender norms that I was just talking about that are really imperative in my opinion to understanding weapons proliferation and possession and use, and to understand why our world is so militarized the way it is. So for example, if we look at nuclear weapons. I really think of them as the leading edge of the patriarchal militarist mindset of this idea that might makes right and the best way to be secure is to be able to commit massive genocidal violence, and that weapons are the only way to make your country, or your government safe and secure, but nuclear weapons don't keep us safe. They've only ever caused harm, but this is completely discounted by the policy establishment elite because it's not harm to them. They profit from nuclear weapons. It both politically and militarily but also financially, but they don't experience the effects of uranium mining or the fallout from nuclear weapon testing or from radioactive waste. Those harms are born by communities around the world that are largely indigenous, poor, and folks of color. And that is where the differential impacts come in but it's also where the sort of policy elite versus actual lived reality and lived experience, our attention with each other. And that's why the policy elite is able to treat deterrence as if it's the gospel truth of nuclear weapons. And, you know, in universities in the corridors of power, we're not allowed to critique deterrence that would be considered illegal and unrealistic and naive and we don't really understand how geopolitical security works, etc, etc. But there's a lot of evidence to point out that deterrence is a myth. And without getting into that debate, which is, you know, largely about proving negatives, we need to look at the material reality of nuclear weapons that I was just talking about which is exclusively harm from development testing use and waste. And nuclear weapons also make the world way more dangerous we can see this just by reading the news and looking at the mounting tensions around the world. And the threats that they pose to exacerbating climate change and resulting in famine and global catastrophe in many different ways. So, these understandings help us sort through the myths and the challenges that this supposition that nuclear weapons are about security mount to us feminist understandings about power, and about dominance are very important to waiting through these arguments and understanding not just what makes the support for nuclear weapons problematic, but why that support has persisted for so long, despite the overwhelming evidence that nuclear weapons are bad for our safety our security and our human and planetary well being. I believe that without this feminist analysis, it's really easy to miss how the norms around masculinity, which I was talking about earlier so what it means to be a real man in how we're socialized not in what it actually is to be a man or a woman or non binary. All these ideals are really based on the equation of violence with strength and weapons with power, and we've inherited this patriarchal system where we're steeped in it we're immersed in it. And it's organized international relations and it's organized domestic budgets around the idea that strength and security can best be secured through violence. So nationalism helps us unpack this for what it is and it opens space then to consider what we actually need in order to achieve peace and equality and justice and safety for the most people possible it helps us to break through the paradigm of relations as an exercise of violent masculinity that's on display all the time in the UN and bilateral relations and within alliances, and to really pursue a different path of collective security of cooperation of building bridges and understanding each other's positions and really working for a common ground. I saw in the negotiation of the treaty on the prohibition nuclear weapons, a lot of these dynamics play out, which is why I wanted to use it as an example today but really you could pick a lot of different examples of treaty making in the UN or, you know, NATO actions around the world and the positions of a lot of the major players. So there's a lot to draw and but I wanted to focus on the TPNW because I think it's such a great case study. There's a lot of resistance from the nuclear armed states and some of their nuclear supportive allies like NATO and South Korea, Japan, Australia. In this collective resistance to the prohibition of nuclear weapons. We could see a lot of gender tactics a lot of patriarchal tactics used to try and prevent this process from going forward. Not just the activists but also the diplomats and government officials that were promoting the humanitarian initiative and engaged in the humanitarian conferences, leading up to the treaty making process. They were told that they were irrational that they didn't have any real security interests in the world they just didn't understand the value of nuclear weapons. They were told that they were being emotional that all of this work to develop international law was emotional work. And I think that for many diplomats working on this of all genders and orientations it was really kind of a key wake up moment of how patriarchal and gendered the opposition to banning nuclear weapons really was. What I try and think and write about the TPNW is that it was a feminist response to this pressure to not move forward to not try to take on the most quote unquote powerful states in the world, and to oppose their weapons of violence and to deconstruct their narratives all of these are feminist things standing up to power deconstructing, you know, dominant narratives and unpacking concepts and really problematizing things that have been long held truths in our world. It was a feminist response, it was a feminist process, and in the end a feminist product as well so in relation to process. The treaty negotiations were not rendered beholden to a few heavily militarized countries, which is how a lot of things work in the UN, unfortunately, is that the most powerful heavily weaponized countries like the US and Russia, and others have an outsize say in what can move forward and what can't move forward and what countries can do. But with them boycotting this process it really created the space for an alternative approach to treaty making, giving more equitable space to all countries of the world. Making more inclusive and transparent involving activists in a real way survivors academics international organizations working together with states. There was an emphasis on trying to promote diversity amongst the diplomats that were involved so there was sponsorship funds for bringing young women diplomats into the negotiations and into other meetings leading up to the negotiations. And then in its provisions itself of the treaty, which I described as our first feminist international law on nuclear weapons. The treaty recognizes the gendered impacts of nuclear weapons, it promotes women's participation in nuclear disarmament discussions and initiatives. It recognizes the impacts of nuclear weapon activities on indigenous communities, and includes victim assistance and environmental remediation obligations in the treaty. So, it's not a perfect instrument the process wasn't perfect and I'm not trying to say either of those two things, but I do think that in terms of the efforts that have been made to both have a process and product that reflected the feminist principles this is so far the closest that we've come in the world of nuclear weapons and it gives us so much to build on in the future to move all of these agendas forward together. Thanks a lot. Thank you so much. I think, you know, the TPNW is a milestone event and we needed this incredible news and positive news for 2021 following the year that everyone has had so yeah thank you so much for your input there. Thank you to our third speaker, Charlene Rupinareen. Charlene is an international relations officer at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Trinidad and Tobago. Her portfolio includes issues related to disarmament, non-proliferation and arms control and women, peace and security. She remains engaged with the United Nations entities and NGOs to advocate for the women, peace and security agenda. Charlene was also facilitator of Resolution 6569, the only United Nations General Assembly resolution to address the issue of women disarmament, non-proliferation and arms control. This will be the topic of Charlene's presentation today. Thank you Nancy. And I would like to thank Scrap Weapons for the invitation to participate in this very important webinar series on focused on women and feminist perspectives in disarmament. I speak in my capacity as facilitator of Resolution 6569 from 2012 to 2018 and this resolution is entitled Woman Disarmament, Non-Proliferation and Arms Control and it's piloted by Trinidad and Tobago in the first committee of the General Assembly. As Nancy said, 6569 is the first resolution to formally address the links between women and disarmament. And it was especially timely as the international community had just celebrated in 2010, 10th anniversary of Security Council Resolution 1325, which was also the first Security Council resolution that specifically addresses the impact of war on women and women's contributions to conflict resolution and sustainable peace. In fact, also the year 2020 marked a significant milestone in the life of Resolution 6569, as that was also the 10th anniversary of this resolution. 6569, if I were to think back, was one of the more popular resolutions in the first committee, one of the resolutions that was a bit more contentious because of its very nature. Because for the first time, a resolution did to explicitly address the issue of women in arms control. This was inconsistent with the traditional tone and tenor of the first committee, which is usually dominated by men in black suits. The introduction of 6569 in 2010 to some extent, I would say, disturb the committee's status quo. Resolution did receive overwhelming support from many states, but a few were reluctant to accept or simply did not understand what place a resolution about women has in a committee that discusses weapons. You could not conceptualize discussing the role of women in the context of disarmament and international security, but as we often hear how could there be any meaningful progress in disarmament if half of the population is excluded. So imagine the audacity of a small island developing state, which is not a large scale import of small arms and light weapons, which has no nuclear capabilities, introducing a text on women disarmament nonproliferation and arms control to the first committee. This was exactly my introduction to the field of disarmament in general. A young diplomat and female with a mission to have as many states support resolution 6569, which was a direct vision of the first female Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago. So she actually announced in her maiden contribution to the General Assembly in 2010 that Trinidad and Tobago would be piloting this text. So the margin of pressure since she had a vested interest in this young diplomat in a male dominated committee, pushing for countries to support a resolution of this kind. So I think 6569 remains one of the proudest achievements of my professional life, but the genesis of this journey felt a lot like the story of David and Goliath. I've encountered situations where some male colleagues did not engage directly with me in consultations on the resolution, but would instead address their issues with my male ambassador when he was in the conference room. He did not consult with me on matters of substance, but had no problem suggesting to me that the resolution is better placed in the third committee that covered social humanitarian and cultural issues. But we remained unmoved, because in our region Karakom, we are gravely affected by the illicit proliferation of small arms and like weapons and its ammunition. The rates of gun violence, gun related violence, and the prevalence of gun related fatalities due to the proliferation of illegal arms and illicit drugs for which women and girls are disproportionately affected made it even more urgent for Trinidad and Tobago to push a resolution of this nature. After this initial pushback on the resolution, and as the years progressed support for the text grew and importantly the language in the resolution was strengthened to include references to the arm street treaty, specifically the groundbreaking article seven four, which speaks to gender based violence. Also, for small learning development states. The sustainable development goals is very important. So there is mention of that in resolution 6569 the latest text also speaks to the coronavirus pandemic and progress made in gender equality. For our pop it would be remiss if I did not recognize the very important role played by civil society in advocating for this resolution over the years. I always remember drafting text for the 2012 vision with Fouladi at the permanent mission, perhaps close to midnight on some nights, and Ray has been involved. He's actually someone I looked up to since the very start since the inception of this process. So I would really like to thank them and so many other persons and organizations for supporting 6569 over the years. And with that I want to thank you again for this opportunity to share my experience. Thank you. Thank you for making really important resolution and thank you for your contribution as well. And thank you also for the shout out to civil society, and would like to give that back to the mission of today that to nations. Thank you so much. Our next speaker is Christine on Christina is the founder of women's cross of the Korean, the militarized zone, a global movement of women mobilizing to end the Korean War. And that's have been the New York Times, Washington Post and Time magazine, and she has appeared on CNN MSNBC and the NBC Today show. She is the recipient of the 2020 US Peace Prize. She's going to speak about women in the Korean War, as well as the work and strengthening feminist perspectives in Korea. Due to the time difference Christina is not able to present, but we have a video. If there are any questions, please do still write them in the chat in the in the Q&A function. As Christine has kindly agreed to answer the questions which will be included in our report, which is following the webinar and what now colleague guess to put up the video. Thank you so much for having me today at this important gathering. I want to first thank the organizers and also my fellow panelists Rebecca Johnson and Ray Atchison who have been on this journey with us to end the Korean War. I thought I would make the best use of my time by first sharing with you the work of our transnational feminist campaign. And also the tactics and strategies that we've used and use my remaining few minutes to just share some of my perspectives on doing this work and I'm setting the timer now so that I don't go far too over so let me first start by sharing a little PowerPoint presentation that I've put together and this journey together. So, many of you may not know this but the Korean War, which was from 1950 to 53 ended with four million lives claimed mostly Koreans, innocent civilians, and it ended with a ceasefire. And that means that the military commanders from the United States representing the UN command, which was frankly the first coalition of the willing, and the DPRK the Democratic People's Republic of Korea North Korea signed on behalf of them and there was also the Chinese Military People's Army so they signed the ceasefire putting down their weapons, and they promised to return within 90 days to negotiate permanent peace settlement, and that has not since happened and so a state of war has defined relations between the South Korea for 70 years. So, I set up to say well what are we going to do about this and what I learned was that the first meeting of North and South Korean women took place in 1991. That was facilitated by a Japanese member of the diet and so for the 70th anniversary of the Korea's division by Cold War Powers the US and the former Soviet Union. And that helped lead a women's peace march across the demilitarized zone from North to South Korea with 30 women peacemakers. This is the delegation and included some really seasoned peace activists such as Lema Gaboi from Liberia and Maraid Maguire from Northern Ireland, as well as Patricia Guerrero from Colombia, and so many more. We held women's peace symposiums in both Pyongyang, and also in Seoul, where we heard from women about the impact of the unresolved war on their lives. And we marched, we marched with 10,000 Korean women on both sides of the demilitarized zone in Pyongyang that was the previous picture this is in K-Song, and then we crossed the DMZ into Paju in South Korea. And then as I noted we held a peace symposium in Seoul as well. And, you know, frankly, why do we do this because we know that when women are involved in peace processes it actually leads to a peace agreement it leads to one that is far more durable and lasting. And we know that there are now international and national laws mandating women's inclusion. And it's not just about doing this because it's law and it's the norms and we know that the studies show that we should be included but it's also the actual peace agreements that are negotiated. We know that now that it actually leads to better gender provisions that protect women better, provide greater participation in politics and in all areas of life. So that is why we continue to do this. And some of the strategies that we've used is we believe that it's really critical to reframe the debate and put in our feminist perspectives and ensure that, you know, we are the ones that are shaping the narrative and not just always the retired military generals or, you know, people that are part of the military industrial complex. This is what we must do as feminists and, you know, I know that many women are very uncomfortable being in TV being writing op-eds but this is what we must do. And, you know, it's so important to be engaging with those who are the policymakers those who are the ones that will make the decision as we continue to advocate for our seat at the table we must continue to be engaging. And so it's critical that we bring women together. So this is what we've been doing. Rebecca, there she is in a delegation that we took to Seoul as the peace process was unfolding between the two Koreas and between the US and North Korea. And so this is what we've been doing. We've been walking and talking and bringing women together. Now, given that the US is the largest obstacle to advancing a peace agreement with North Korea, we have been really trying to build the political will for peace with North Korea and our key strategy has been engaging members of Congress, cultivating peace champions. So Ro Khanna, who introduced the House of Resolution 152 calling for an end to the Korean War with a peace agreement, now has 42 co-sponsors, including a Republican, and there will be a new resolution introduced in this new Congress. And part of why we've been successful, if we compare it to a decade ago for the 60th anniversary of the Korean War, we could only get two members of Congress to support peace, much less with a peace agreement. So now we have almost 50 on record supporting a peace agreement with North Korea. And part of our success is because we believe in grassroots mobilization. We engage multi-generational, multi-racial, you know, grassroots community members. And we have a seamless strategy of advocacy as well as the grassroots mobilization. And so lastly, two other things that we have produced is reports. One is on the gendered, human and gendered impacts of sanctions on North Korea, which got a lot of coverage. And then lastly, we just released this report. It's available on KoreaPeaceNow.org. And I would say it's the most comprehensive report that makes the case for a peace agreement to end the Korean War. And there are sections on obstacles that are always presented on why we should not engage with peace with North Korea. So in my final few minutes, I believe I have, I just wanted to quickly, you know, share some thoughts on my experience in doing this work and why it's so crucial that we have feminist perspectives in our work towards disarmament and ending endless wars. And these are some principles that I think are really important and that we must infuse in our efforts in bringing an end to all wars. So one is we believe it's so important to center the voices and the experiences that are most impacted. And so that's why when we talk about ending the Korean War, when we talk about denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, we also have to bring in the experiences of women, for example, that live around US military bases, or the experiences of those that are being displaced whose livelihoods, are farmers, women sea divers that live around US military bases, and also the women of North Korea who are being impacted by the sanctions. Sanctions is war by other means. And so it's really crucial as feminists that we center the voices of those that are most impacted by this unresolved war. This, I mean, I think what I shared some of the strategies and the tactics that we use is perfecting democracy. And I think foreign policy has been one of those domains that have largely been dictated and shaped by white men, frankly. And it's so crucial that we democratize the process of US foreign policy, because in the United States, which is the largest spender of the military weapons of mass destruction around the world, more than the next 10 countries combined. It is crucial that we get involved in the process Americans, people from all walks of life get involved in the process of shaping US foreign policy because not only does it impact all the people around the world where we have over 800 military bases, where we wage wars, where we still have bases that are impacting the people in those countries. And because we won't be able to achieve the things that we want in this country, Medicare for all good paying jobs addressing climate change, you know, having a proper vaccination system in this country, providing vaccines for people all around the world, not just for those that are wealthy. And I guess the final point is, as feminists, we have to be redefining what makes us secure. And that has been a really important message that we have been using in our campaign. And, and I think it's about reframing, you know, why we must end this war because it is in the interest it is about providing the best kind of security for not just Koreans but also Americans as well because when we maintain this posture and stance of perennial war. Because people don't benefit. And so peace benefits us all. And so that's why it's so crucial as feminists that we do this and it has not been an easy journey. I think that gender is often used, obviously, in my case, race, Orientalism, ageism, and I think that's why as feminists we, we work together, we, we build horizontal movements together, and we cross boundaries, and that's why we're so effective in doing the work that we do. And so it's just, I know that it's just so, so compressed in such a little amount of time but I hope you know that my email is always open to you and I look forward to seeing this organization continue to grow and to be a part of it in some capacity. So thank you so much for having me. Aloha. Thanks, Christine for for that amazing presentation as Christine mentioned as well please do put questions in the chat if you want because she has kindly said that she will answer them and we will get them put in the report afterwards. So just moving on to our last speaker for the day mutata for that day is a founder and executive director of the Women's Institute for Alternative Development based in Trinidad and Tobago. She brings her womanist perspective to her work on security and small arms control, along with her advocacy skills developed over a lifetime of community engagement, social policy, development research and leading change. So today we'll speak about how winners work in challenging global governance and the global community with regards to power relations, gender and arms producers and consumers. Thank you for that day. Thank you very much Nancy. Hello to everybody and congratulations to scrap on this project, which I think is going to add to the body of knowledge on women leading change globally. So thank you for inviting Winad as a women's organization firmly committed to advancing the rights of women and girls. I also want to congratulate all the panelists and affirm the panelists on this call today and to thank each and every one of you really for the work that you do. Thank you very much. I want to talk briefly about when adds contribution as a woman's organization to the successful Caribbean negotiations of the United Nations arms trade treaty, because I think to understand when adds contribution to the global work on arms control the disarmament, non proliferation and peace building requires a bit of attention to our context. I'll work on gender and arms control in Trinidad and Tobago. Let us on an outreach to Caribbean civil society to pull our thoughts or skills and our resources and to work collaboratively to reduce and prevent armed violence, which is the most challenging issue that the region has to deal with some way may argue. As a matter of fact, all governments referred to small arms and light weapons as the region's weapons of mass destruction. I mean, gave us snippet of the extent to which the proliferation and misuse of illicit small arms in the region has impacted lives and economies. And this is what brought when adding to this work, and which is what gave birth to CD rav which is the Caribbean coalition for development and the reduction of violence in 2006. initiated by when add and when add continues to serve as the secretary for CD rav. And through the collective genius of civil society in the Caribbean, and our commitment to save lives and end human suffering. This is the path to securing the active participation of curriculum governments in the global pursuit of an instrument to control the international trade in conventional arms. Of course, our vision for the curriculum role in this process evolved. And into a leadership role for for carry come along the way and I'm precisely the role that carry come eventually played, which was the leadership role in the negotiations of the ATT. And so to talk a little bit about what CD rav brought to the process. I think that we brought several several very high valued things. We brought across across functional team because we were coalition of NGOs from across the region at least 10 of our 14 member states were represented in the coalition at the time. And we were able to have not only a diverse geographical mix because we had organizations from different parts of the region, but also organizations with different focus women use the environment. Farmers, labor unions, et cetera, et cetera, academics, and so on. We also brought legitimacy as advocates with a history of successful interventions in the region. We also brought along the trust that that many of our governments had in the organizations that in that that resided in their particular territories, but also the trust they had a verse in us as a coalition and our ability to deliver. I think CD rav also brought its inclusive approach to mobilizing and managing resources, especially human resources, and of course, our pool of subject matter experts, along with our international network as members of control arms and I answer. And of course we all know that I answer has been the leading global organization in terms of the work around small arms and light weapons and control arms led the civil society movement is that successfully got a treaty that controls the conventional trade in the international trade in conventional arms. But just a bit about the building blocks that we use as to get what I consider to be a very successful campaign done. We went about identifying a champion state within our region. And that state happened to be my own country, Trinidad and Tobago, and then inside there, we identified a driver for that process within the state sector. Driver that we identified actually is the unit that Charlie is located in the treaties legal and treaties unit of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and then we also developed a stakeholder management strategy for how we were going to manage the relationship with our champion state and the institution that was going to drive the process within the context of Trinidad and Tobago's leadership. We then looked for resources and I have to thank always the government of Australia, which finance the four regional workshops that that we held in the region for governments and for civil society. To agree on a common negotiating position, going into the arms trade treaty, so able to mobilize resources as a civil society entity. And for us, as you've already heard, we needed to establish the prominence of small arms and light weapons and their ammunition in the hierarchy of considerations for the provisions of the arms trade treaty. This is largely based really on the impact that small arms are having on our region, coming out of the research that we had done over time. And then we entered into a number of relationships with key regional organizations that were responsible for security within the region, and coordinating the work of the regional block in the multilateral sphere. And I think that we were also able to successfully maintain our relevance as a partner in the process by providing logistical and coordination support for the team, the curriculum team. And so, in order to one of the ways that we did that really was identify key stakeholders across the region, the subject matter experts as it will, and brought them, got their governments to really deploy them and second them to the negotiating team, so that we could have the capacity that we needed for the negotiations. We also served on the leadership team for Carrie Karma, which was responsible for the coordination, etc, etc. And I think we worked strategically as well with our government, especially the government of Trinidad and to be able to keep that team in place for three years. And for those of us who may be into human resource management, we know how difficult it is. The other team is all well and good, but retaining the team really is where the work is. And so we've been very proud of our ability as a leadership team of government and civil society to have done that. And just a little bit before I conclude about the composition of our team going into the negotiations of the arms trade treaty. The actual negotiating team had about just about just over one third of a man. Our technical people and the subject matter experts were about 80% men. The diplomats, particularly in New York were 80% women. And in terms of the civil society component, we were about at 80% women in the civil society component, as I said. So in conclusion, I would say that when I was able to demonstrate the effectiveness of women's leadership and the potential for inclusive approaches to work in the efforts at arms control disarmament and non-proliferation. And I think in so doing, we established the efficacy of 1325 and the women peace and security framework, as well as 6569 that the Charlene spoke about, which is pioneering work in and of itself and I'm very proud of the work that Trinidad and Tobago has been doing around that history. And I remember the very early days when we were trying to get that off the ground. And thank you Charlene for your contribution in that regard. So that when I defined its role and our strategy for securing a space in the leadership of the regional team, and we were purposeful in all that we did. Recognizing that really we're operating in this military space, a space that has been designed in that way to uphold the patriarchal tenets and norms and maintain power and control over, as Rebecca pointed us to in her presentation. But it really is a space that we are committed to challenging gender norms in, and so we'll continue to do the work that we do as members of international organizations, because we're also members of ICANN, and also to pilot pioneering through CDRAB within all region and globally. And I thank you for your attention. Thank you so much. I think there were great insights and into how activism works and how the arms strategy is also very important how small arms and light weapons also play a very crucial role, not only weapons of mass destruction. And we will now come to the Q&A. And I think we have very interesting questions in the chat that we would like to post to our great panelists. We would like to start with Charlene. You spoke about your main counterparts and about heart security, and we have one question in the chat that reads, how can men in the field contribute more strongly as allies for women in forwarding feminist discourse and security and disarmament. So we're really interested to hear your insights on that as well. Sorry. Thank you, Yanis. I think it's important, first of all, for men, people to understand that disarmament is the stigma that's attached to disarmament and international security, where you kind of have this idea of, as I said, men in suits. I would like to speak from that perspective as a diplomat represent in my country in the first committee, being one of the very few female representatives delegates in the first committee. And being just going into that committee in fall, October after the high level week always felt like a very intimidating experience just to be very honest. And there has to be and there has been a mental shift. Again, because of all the advocacy and all the work being done in the area of women and disarmament. I think there has to be a realization that disarmament is about people. There is also humanitarian perspective when it comes to disarmament. So we have to be aware that women are victims and we must always be seen as passive players. That has to be demystified. In fact, women are actually we bring a lot more to the table, a lot to the table, different ideas, different perspectives. As far as 569 advocates women should be seen as instrumental actors as empowered agents of change. I think first and foremost, as I said, there needs to be that mental shift. And then, you know, that would help in a great way to kind of make it equitable for women in the area of disarmament and non proliferation and arms control. Thanks. Thanks, Charlene. I'm going to swiftly move on to the next question. I think it's an interesting question that came up in the chat. Asking for insights about trans participation, perspective so taking gender beyond women and man and in these intersectional feminist spaces. Can you talk about this in your presentation? Could you provide any further insight into this question from the chat? Sure. Yeah, I think queer perspectives have a lot to bring to the table in these conversations. And I do include that also in the book. We're talking about the sort of feminist intersectional approach and process in terms of confronting power and deconstructing narratives. This is also a part of that of that process. The sort of resistance to or willingness to confront what is considered normative is extremely important to any of the processes that we're engaged in that I believe a queer perspective can bring unique things and reflections to. Ideas about how we can organize ourselves and build community is extremely important as well. And the process to ban nuclear weapons. We really did spend years building up community of activists and diplomats and academics to take on the structures of dominance and the militarist organization of international relations exactly what Charlene was talking about confronting those rooms full of men in suits can be intimidating but when you build a community of people who are willing to take that on and not accept the structures that we're told are this is the way things work. This is the way the world is supposed to work. This is the way our relationships are supposed to work. All of that can be really empowering and emboldening and really help to to clear the process and to clear the way that we see the world in the way that we see each other and our ability to engage in that for anybody that's more interested in the subject I'm going to post in the chat a link to a really great radio done in Melbourne Australia with three queer activists that have been involved in anti nuclear organizing there and also I can has queer branch or arm or whatever you want to call it called international Queers against nukes which is I can instead of I can so you can follow us on Twitter and we try and promote these types of perspectives and resources there as well. That's no nukes queers on Twitter. Thank you Ray. I'm really looking forward to to listen to the radio interview as well. And next question is for for Lada. You spoke about patriarchal structures, a little bit in the end and then how that is hindering you to support women's integration and integration of feminist perspectives. I really like to to YouTube gives you some space to elaborate more on that. How did you feel about the patriarchal structures when pushing the the ATT in the Caribbean and globally and yeah how how you felt about that and how you develop strategies to to deal with that. Thank you very much for the question and I think I want to take the opportunity to link that question was a question that I saw coming up about how do we work with men as allies. We approached the words that we were doing as I said it was purposeful very very intentional which is why we had to develop a strategy really a stakeholder management strategy, because we know that it is not just a question of us managing the relationship with the big powerful countries that produce the weapons and so on, and who opposed to having any kind of standards applied or or or control of the operations, but that we also had to manage the regional tensions in two ways one is the regional tension that you have between governments and NGOs, and like any other region you have tensions between states and civil society, it happens in the Caribbean as well. You also manage the relationship that you have with men who are accustomed to having power over, so that they have power over their, their staff, their portfolios, the particular environment that they're operating in. We talked about the, the, the, the energy in the first committee. So we are working with men who are in a security environment and security for most people, particularly men has to do with with bro and and power over and and and and and and and violence. And we are a women's organization entering that space. From all work in Trinidad and Tobago that as a woman's organization entering the security space. You are coming into contact with men who immediately feel put upon. And because we are concerned and committed to, of course ensuring women's leadership in every and any issue, but also saving lives. We are seeing the impact. And we know that the gender analysis of the gun violence in the region has not a clue that our governments have been responding to the perpetrators and the victims of the violence were largely men. So that for us, there was a specific strategy around, how do you manage men in a patriarchal militarist environment as a woman's organization. So we did a lot of work in that area. And that's why I want to link it to the question around how do we get men as allies. And my question to that question is, what men are you talking about, because we have men with varying experiences, men with varying levels of power. So, as we talk about building allies, we have to start determining who are the men we are talking to, and who are the men that we are seeking to win over as allies. And what would that look like, because it is going to differ. And therefore our messaging and our strategies have got to take that into account and be different. And I hope that that helps. Yes, and it's so important thinking about, as you and Charlene have spoken about today about, you know, hard policy and soft policy and kind of the stereotypes associated women with entering soft policy and security issues and not as much in the hard sense of defence and security issues. So I think, yeah, it's, it's a challenge to overcome these deep rooted norms and stereotypes. So thank you for your contribution. Another question from the chat that's hopefully Rebecca, you may be able to provide some insights. What do you think are concrete measures that can be taken to detach the discourse about international security and peace from the more intrinsically patriarchal narrative of power and military military strength. Yeah, I mean, I think that as a feminist humanitarian treaty that followed on both from the, the generations of feminists from the, you know, the women working for the vote to, you know, Rosa Parks refusing to, to to the back of the bus in the civil rights movement to Greenham Common that I talked a little bit about right up to to now, but also drawing from the increasing humanitarian connections that were drawn first, most explicitly, when the coalition came together to ban landmines, then then developed further for the cluster munitions, and then developed further in, in our strategies to ban nuclear weapons. And those, those, those two strands really show where some of those answers are because I've worked both as an activist, an activist on the ground but also as an analyst who could, you know, swap with the, you know, with any of the military industrial bureaucratic academic discourses, indeed did for for for many years of my career in various different kinds of ways on deterrence and on power know I know how nuclear weapons work because I also have done work on verification and you need to know those things, but but who deliberately, you know, kept trying to emphasize that those theories trap all of us, and I think Ray really described this very very clearly, trapped all of us into the territory of the objectives and the military industrial patriarchal colonialist objective objectives that, sorry I just got put off because something something cropped up on my my pay in front of me. Yeah. And they're very comfortable you know that the non proliferation treaty framework, all of these are very very comfortable with power, carrying on in the hands of the nuclear armed states and who then manage the process supposedly of of arms control of reductions, and I think both the feminist and the humanitarian approaches did was cut right through that and demand that you know the problem with these weapons are that they exist. And I think one of these weapons are that they are part of a mechanism of power that uses force and projection of force and others, you know, creates situations in which instead of being all of humanity recognizing that we're all together and we sink or swim and we certainly should be recognizing that with COVID and and climate destruction kept forcing us back into their narrative about, you know, nation states in perpetual conflict and of course if you create that narrative that's what you're going to get you're going to get if you weaponize for that narrative, that's what you're going to carry on getting. And so that's why it's so important that women get, you know get involved and actually say no security isn't that security and that's why I brought security is about what makes us safe, and that is, you know, health, education. And that's about, you know, the services about resources going into a range of conflict. I think it's a whole different way of looking at conflict not the conflict as I said earlier is not the problem. It is the use of weapons and the violence used to further the conflict that then snaps it back into territory very familiar and very powerful for those with the indigenous and the patriarchal, most of, of whom are men but let us not forget, we can have patriarchal leaders for all kinds of reasons like, you know Margaret Thatcher was very very realistic, precisely because that was the only way in which she could gain political power now what we're trying to say as feminist disarmers is we need a lot more women, we need a lot more people with different analyses and I agree with with the response on the question. I, you know, I'm behind that banner on that very wet demonstration of women's march for to ban nuclear weapons. The day before the negotiations restarted at the UN on the TPNW. You know, we intersect in many different ways. We're having our experience and we've got to actually analyze let's always remember patriarchy has a lot of different tools and weapons that they can use to silence and intimidate those that resist. In a lot of countries and places, primary among those that resist our women. And therefore, when we are silenced and intimidated militarism wins. And we have to recognize that in order to really challenge that we have to speak up but we've got to speak up and build alliances with those that share the politics of non violence and of shared power. It isn't either or it's both. Thank you, Rebecca. Really interesting, especially to give some some picture on the connections of activism and more theoretical thinking. I think to wrap this whole discussion up and I think we had a really interesting insight for presentations and discussion. We would like to pose a question to all of you. And to look forward a little bit to ask ourselves which are the next steps for feminist leadership in this element. And we would like to do that. We would like you to do that within one minute. And I would like to start in the opposite direction of how we started the talks so we would like to start with for a lot of them than Charlene Ray and Rebecca. So the question is, which are the next steps for feminist leadership in this arm and looking forward. Thank you very much for the question and also as we wrap up thank you very much for the opportunity to be on this panel and and thank you for the work that you're doing. In terms of a next step I think that there is need really for a very bold push to privilege the feminist perspective. I think it's important for us to count the numbers of women that we have who are representing either governments or civil society in the work around nonproliferation and control the summer month and so on and so forth. But I think unless we are purposeful in terms of what the message on our intent is, we can allow ourselves to fall into a false sense of security that with the increasing numbers, our agenda is being advanced. And so I think that we must not retreat. Those of us who are clear about what needs to happen. We must not retreat in terms of advancing that position and not allow ourselves as well to get caught in the narrative around women's leadership is a softer approach. We have to, we have to ensure that when we talk about women's leadership that we present it for what it is. If as Rebecca said we're talking about what how we should be talking about seeking and addressing security in that alternative way of looking at human security and recognizing the relationship between human security and the weapons that we are seeking to disarm or to prevent from, from, from circulating. It gives us the authority and the confidence to advance our agenda. And I want to say it is really important for us to be very full in advancing our agenda. It's a feminist perspective, and it is the way to change the world. And I want to to affirm all the women on this panel for all that you're doing to advance that agenda and say thank you. Thank you for what we would like to echo that, of course, to advance that agenda. And, yes, the, the same question which are the next steps for feminist leadership in disarmament for Charlene for one minute. Thank you, Janice. I would totally agree exactly with what, with what Felade said, and not allowing ourselves to be caught up in in a narrative. There is so much progress as it relates to woman in disarmament over the past few years, but I would always try to see things or see things from from a state perspective. While discussions like this are amazing and they've been ongoing and help in such a great way. It comes back to the decisions that are made in the conference rooms, the discussions that takes place in the conference rooms. On Saturday, it really comes down to practical measures and initiatives that government working with civil society always have been an advocate of civil society, working together to advance the role of women in disarmament. So I would say that conversations are good, it's well and fine, but at the end of the day there needs to be practical interventions, practical measures in order to advance the subjective and to take it forward and to keep it moving. Thanks. Thank you, Charlene. Really important as well to stretch the practical measures. I have a question as well to right now. What are the next steps for feminist leadership in disarmament from your perspective, and one minute for you. So I agree of course with what Felade and Charlene have have said and just building on that I think for me one thing I'm quite keen to do is to move from on the progress that Charlene says that we have made in terms of awareness about the importance of women's participation in disarmament and to really broaden that out beyond just the binary and to frame it in a broader context of diversity so that we're not just talking about women, but we're talking about people with a variety of perspectives and experiences to bring into the conversation diversity in terms of all genders, as well as race and ethnicity and region, etc. So we really focus our work, be it the discussions or the practical initiatives or whatever it is that we're doing really focus on the on the diversity of perspectives that we're bringing into the room, and that we are building community to bring the line of challenge and resistance in order to reconstitute what is considered credible, because this is really one of the main challenges that we face inside the conference rooms that Charlene has has discussed and, you know, Rebecca mentioned in her lecture we can bring up other women leaders over time who have, you know, they become encapsulated themselves within the military system that they're working within in order to maintain power and be considered credible and rational so what we actually want to do is not just be participants in the system, but change the system itself, and where we need to to build new systems and structures in order to do that as well. Thank you Ray for applying the intersectional angle to change the system really. Yeah, the last one is Rebecca. And Rebecca for you as well. The question which are the next steps for feminist leadership in disarmament in one minute. Okay thank you. Can I start by saying I think I feel I just feel it's such a privilege to be sharing this this panel with such wonderful strong feminist leaders in disarmament and security, you know from a number of different countries. And I really agree with every point that you've made so let me just add a different one in that I think often gets missed and that is, we have really got to recognize that in order for any of our movements or our work to really go forward in whatever area we work we have to be tackling violence, physical, sexual, and psychological violence used against women and girls. We have them in all of our organizations whether you know the UN peacekeepers the, the NGOs that work on on peace and disarmament. And sometimes claiming to be feminist, the obviously in politics that these are abuses of power, but they have an absolutely pernicious impact on other objectives that we have which is to bring more women into working in all of these areas of work and in, in, in developing their own strengths and skills. So, I would say, recognize that too many of our organizations when faced with incidences or, you know complaints of violence against women will either try to shut them down or try to, to, to, to wrap them up somewhere for the sake of the credibility of carrying on in that particular organization we've seen this, you know, from the top to bottom of politics and civil society. We must not do that, because when we do that we signal that, you know, the direct violence against, you know, individual women is not taken seriously by us. And how can we be talking about eliminating the violence from weapons wielded by power abusers. And if we are not really taking on these issues in tandem with each other and creating a space that is inviting and safe and, and, and possible for women to enter into this this this connects with I think all of the things that the other speakers have said, but I think it needs to be said, said really directly, because it is violence against women that maintains the structures and tactics of the military industrial extractivist profiteering institutions that bring us the weapons and the, you know, and the controls that we then are trying to undo. I totally agree brought everything together that has been spoken about very nicely and thank you again for further inspirational advice for, for women to enter and progress in the field. Thank you. Unfortunately, we are going to have to end this discussion. Now, it seems a shame because I feel that there's so much more to speak about. But just a reminder that this is the opening webinar to our webinar series we will be having these important discussions every two weeks on Wednesdays at two o'clock UK time. So the next webinar in two weeks time is on the third of March, the nuclear ban treaty, a game changer for female participation. You can find information on scraps website on our social media so please keep, keep an eye out for all that's going on. So, to everyone that has come today I hope you have also found it very interesting, thought-provoking, especially a huge thank you to our incredible five speakers as well Christine Anne. We can't forget who is not here but we will certainly be in contact with her. Rebecca Johnson, Ray Atchinson, Charlene Rubinari, Fulade Mutauta and Christine Anne. Thank you.