 Hi everyone, welcome. We're just going to wait a few minutes before we start. Okay, so we are going to begin. Hi everyone again and welcome to the nuclear ban treaty a game changer for female participation webinar. Welcome also to our two incredible speakers, Marissa Chan and Alicia Sander-Sacre, who will be officially introduced later on. So this webinar is the first thematic webinar as part of our broader feminist leadership in disarmament project, which includes webinar series, along with research opinion and blog posts and social media campaign. The objectives of this webinar are to raise awareness on the achievements and contributions of women working in the field with the focus of women from the global south. We also aim to explore the challenges that women face as they enter and progress in the field of disarmament. For this particular webinar, we aim to discuss measures and ways on how the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons could help obtain a more effective participation of women in nuclear disarmament. And also to examine the role of civil society initiatives, showing up female participation after the treaty has entered into force. We hope that this webinar will challenge the dominant gendered narrative and examine ways in which the treaty indicates a strong support for practical change. So first scrap weapons is a campaign that suggests adopting international legal agreements as the basis for general and complete global disarmament. In this scrap, we are constantly developing research projects about disarmament verification, emerging technologies, and of course feminism in the field. And we hope to mobilize governmental, non-governmental economic expert forces in support of the same outcome. So briefly, my name is Marla and I'm a member of the research team at Scrap Weapons along with my colleague Yanis. And today together we will be moderating this webinar. Thank you so much Marla. I want to give a brief overview, very brief overview, about the medical objectives of this webinar. And would just like to start with the treaty itself with the TPNW. Just a quick recap, I'm assuming that most of you are familiar with the treaty, but we just want to make sure that we are on the same page with that. So the Treaty on the Provisions of Nuclear Weapons is really a comprehensive nuclear weapons ban. It's been developed since 2010 and initiated through the disappointment of non-nuclear weapon states that nuclear weapons states would not fulfill the provisions under Article 6 of the Non-proforation Treaty. That provision states that nuclear weapons states are obliged to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to nuclear disarmament. And the human turn turn is the objective is what can basically describe as the beginning of this whole process leading to the ban treaty. The human turn turn began in 2010 and led to the negotiations and adoption of the ban treaty in 2017. The ban treaty prohibits and I quote to develop, test, produce, manufacture, otherwise acquire, process or stockpile nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices and it also includes IEA safeguards and verification measures. After reaching 50 ratifications, the ban entered into force at the 22nd of January 2021. Why could the TPNW be feminist? I just want to give two very brief reasons. I mentioned one of our speakers of the first webinar stated in one of her papers that firstly it shifts a discourse from deterrence to disarmament, from patriarchy to feminist and human centered security. And second, the ban was achieved through the empowerment of women diplomats and activists from the global south. And it seems to explore, really explore these both elements, the discourses and the participation. That's why we invited a perspective from diplomacy, Ritsa Chan, and a perspective from civil society, Alicia, Sanders, Sakura. So make sure that you're all familiar with Zoom. We invite you to put your questions in the Q&A down here. And please make sure to add which speaker your question then is directed to. And we will have the Q&A after our speakers had a brief talk. Thank you, Yanis. So now I shall introduce our first speaker, which is Maritza Chan. Maritza Chan is an ambassador, deputy permanent representative of Costa Rica to the United Nations. She is an expert in peace and international security matters. She served before at the permanent mission of Costa Rica to the United Nations in New York. During her tenure at the United Nations, Ms. Chan was Costa Rica's arms trade treaty lead negotiator. She has also served at the permanent mission of Costa Rica to the organization of American states in Washington DC, and at the embassy of Costa Rica to the United States. In 2017, she returned to New York as part of the Costa Rican delegation to the Treaty of the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. In 2018, Maritza Chan went back to Washington DC as the head of the political section at the embassy of Costa Rica. She has a senior speech writer for the president of Costa Rica and has more than 20 years of experience as a professional writer. Maritza's presentation today focuses on the nuclear ban treaty and its role for enhancing female participation from a diplomatic discourse. Maritza, the floor is yours. Thank you very much. It's an honor to be here today. In September 2017, Costa Rica was a proud signatory on the treaty for nuclear weapons, for the provision of nuclear weapons. The ban treaty was, without a doubt, a large amount of achievement in the sanctories common goal of nuclear disarmament, but equally remarkable was the inclusion of two gender specific elements to the treaty. The first one in the preamble recognizes the proportion of impact on women and girls, including as a result of ionizing radiation, and the second mention in article six, recognize the need for gender sensitive assistance without discrimination in victim assistance and environmental protection. In its acknowledges of the gendered dimension of nuclear weapons, the nuclear ban treaty is lauded as the only gender sensitive nuclear weapons agreement in existence. This is a good thing. And girls have never had the privilege of accepting themselves from the horrors of words of the violence of weapons. But for too long, women and girls were completely absent from the negotiating table, and completely absent from the finished text of our collected records to mitigate these words and weapons. Indeed, in many cases, the effects of these weapons are felt disproportionately larger by women. Yet their voices are often, even now, left unheard in the process of finding solutions to conflict. So the nuclear ban treaty represents a massive step forward, but it's not enough, not nearly enough to fight ourselves on the back and consider gender inclusion a finished task. So the substantive effects of the nuclear ban treaty amount to just under 4,000 words. Of these 4,000 words, only two paragraphs, or just 111 words, deal directly with women and girls. That just about adapts to 3% just yes, I counted it, and yes, I did a math. First we cannot make gender inclusion just about the numbers. But I mentioned it to you to draw your attention to the fact that the treaty spends significantly more time discerning how state parties will equitably share the cost of hosting meetings and conducting its business, then it does making space for women and girls. If the nuclear ban treaty is going to be a game changer for female participation, we must take stock of where we are when it comes to the meaningful inclusion of women and girls and international business security. Gender remains a structural problem at the UN. The voices of women and girls have always been present, but often never truly heard. The motivation and success of some women and the inclusion of some female voices and perspectives does not remedy the fact that the voices of most women and girls remain secondary to the traditionally male oriented narrative politics and power. That is the foundation of the UN. Women and girls are ever present in the fears of world. We apologize for the technical problems, and we hope to carry on very soon. Let's just wait for a few seconds and hope that Marisa's internet connection. We'll resume. Otherwise, we would carry on with Alicia. Okay, Marisa, you're back on. Just a moment. I think you're mute. Can you hear me now? And where, where was I speaking? Where did I leave? Can you hear me now? I cannot hear you. Marisa, you were right at the comparison statistical comparison of the time spent dealing with gender inclusion as opposed to regular conference duties of payments and states contributions. Okay. So let me go back. If the nuclear bond treaty is to be a game changer for female participation, we must take stock of where we truly are when it comes to the minimal participation and inclusion of women and girls and international peace and security. Gender remains a structural problem at the UN. The voices of women and girls have always been present, but not truly heard. The elevation of success of some women and the inclusion of some female voices and perspectives does not remedy the fact that the voices of most women and girls remain secondary to the traditional and male oriented narrative of politics and power that is the foundation of the UN system. Women and girls are ever present in the feeders of world around the world as both combatants and diplomatic and NGO professionals at the UN. So why are we still having this conversation about gender inclusion? Why do women show up as less than 3% of what is universally acknowledged as a gender sensitive sense, gender sensitive perspective of nuclear weapons. The gender specific elements of the nuclear ban treaty are seeds that have been planted at the resolve of the tireless labor of people who have largely existed behind the scenes, some of whom I recognize here as participants on this panel. Now it's the time to begin the work of growing these seeds of gender empathy into a truly gender equitable future for the international peace and security. Now is the time to fully acknowledge the voices and contribution of women and girls. The nuclear ban treaty show us only the beginning of how is it possible to create and write a more inclusive future. A future in which the voices of women and girls are level equally along alongside those of men. A future in which the voices of women and girls are actually afforded the same level of respect and authority as the grand narratives of power that have traditionally informed our diplomacy. But how do we build this future from these seeds? Female women's participation and leadership. As you will know the presidency of the 2017 UN conference was held by a Costa Rican woman. What you may not know is that the negotiating delegation sent by Costa Rica to the conference was composed entirely of women. This gender composition of the Costa Rican delegation was not by specific design. It was by accident. But that in and of itself represents a core part of the problem. The inclusion and active participation of women needs to be by intention. In this sense the Costa Rica delegation to the conference for the nuclear ban treaty was an anomaly. Under 25% of the delegations to the conference were headed by a woman. Just over 30% of the overall delegates to the conference were women. These numbers are not terrible and may be seen by some as a measure of success. However, research have shown that larger conferences are more than 100 people tend to have an outside proportion of women compared to small firms that continue to be dominated by men. Indeed, if states can send one person to a meeting, they almost always send a man, which begs the question. Why is it still the case that there's only space make for women after men have taken their seat at the table? We need to do more to challenge this dark reality. Women belong at the negotiating table, women belong in technical groups, women belong in deal work and inspections. So beyond adding to our numbers, how do we really challenge at the end the structure that has incubated this problem? Second, making real space for feminist perspectives and narratives. The participants to the conference of the nuclear ban treaty did remarkable work within a rigid structure of existing power politics, a structure that has repeatedly treated women as token participants or treated women and girls as verbal victims of little consequential value. We must not underestimate the work that women did in negotiating the nuclear ban treaty or the work in writing a gender sensitive tree task. But we cannot continue to expect women to simply walk into spaces from which they have traditionally been excluded and expect them to start talking the language of those who have traditionally excluded their voices. Introducing more women with decent security specializations into their foreign service, it's a good start. Having more women entered with female diplomats and negotiators is a step, it's another step in the right direction. But this cannot be the only concessions to the problem of gender at the UN. If we are to fully acknowledge gender as a structural problem at the UN, our mentoring efforts must be more about more than teaching a select group of women how to make their way into a men's world. Yes, we must address the problem of women inclusion, but the burden of gender equity cannot fall solely on the shoulders of women who have been mentored into the old system. Mentorship must be about leading by example, showing the next generation of young women and young men that their contributions and their experience and that value only in their relation to the traditional narratives of hard power politics. In this regard, the nuclear ban treaty is a monumental step forward. An undergraduate student learning about nuclear disarmament in 2021 will see women's reproductive health written as a primary concern of nuclear disarmament. Imagine with me the impact of that inclusion in the next generation of scholars and diplomats who will continue this work when we are done. As seed has been planted indeed, mentorship must be about more than making space for women or making sure that there are enough women at the room. It's about creating a space that is truly capable and honoring and valuing the experience and contribution of women and girls, including in meetings that are held virtually. And about creating a space for alternative approaches to international peace and security. The work is not done, we'll still have the road towards the first conference of state parties, and we need to get it right, especially for female participation. I thank you. Thank you so much, Maritza. I think your presentation shows very, very well how treaties practically relate and also structurally relate to the participation also to narratives within diplomacy, but also shows where, of course, there's also work to do. To the audience, please be reminded to submit your questions in the Q&A, and we will ask them after Alicia's talk. Alicia Sander-Sacre is the policy and research coordinator at the international campaign to abolish nuclear weapons, ICANN. She is the author of over 100 articles, tutorials and reports on nuclear weapons, many on the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, and has provided expert analysis for news outlets, including The Guardian, Bloomberg, DW and Newsweek. She's going to talk about the female participation of the DPNW from civil society perspective, and how the treaty challenges a patriarchal narrative on nuclear weapons. Alicia, it's your turn. Great. Well, thank you so much for having me. It's really my pleasure to be here and to speak after such an insightful contribution from my fellow panelists. I'm just going to share my screen. Just give me a moment. It's really, again, my pleasure to be here. I'll be talking about covering kind of a lot of what's been outlined about feminism, the weapons, female participation, and specifically looking at the DPNW and civil society contributions. First, just a little bit about ICANN for those who aren't familiar with us. We're a campaign of over 500 partner organizations in more than 100 countries. We're headquartered in Geneva where I'm speaking to you from. And we have the common goal of banning, stigmatizing and eliminating nuclear weapons. We rewarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2017 for our work alongside many dedicated diplomats, of course, to achieve the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons. And now we're really focused on promoting adherence to implementation universalization of the treaty. I'm going to just start out by kind of asking the question, why are we talking today about feminism and nuclear weapons? What's kind of the background here in terms of, again, both participation and the narratives that we hear about nuclear weapons. And a lot of this really ties back into the DPNW. But just to give a bit of a general overview. So starting out, you know, it's been about a decade and we've had a number of UN resolutions addressing different aspects of women and disarmament. And, you know, first, of course, the landmark UN Security Council resolution 1325, which really tied gender into all aspects of security action, Security Council action, including of course disarmament. In 2010, there was another UN Security Council resolution, looking at women, disarmaments, arms control and non-proliferation, and then a UN General Assembly resolution in 2012 as well. And so all of this kind of proceeded, of course, the DPNW and kind of built up some of this discussion and narrative within the UN. One, you know, kind of clear link in terms of why do we need to talk about women and feminism when we talk about nuclear weapons is looking at the impact of nuclear weapons. And there is a clear disproportionate impact of nuclear weapons on women and girls. And there's a number of examples. Sorry, this is a bit text heavy, but just so you kind of have a lot of information here. There's been, you know, really a lot of research looking into the disproportionate impact of ionizing radiation on women and girls who are more likely to develop cancer and other diseases due to exposure. But that comes from, you know, studies from Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well as Chernobyl. There's the impacts that pregnant women face from nuclear radiation and the impacts on their children. And, you know, what's really, I think, even more compelling and concerning about this impact is that there's also been research looking at how kind of we understand the impact of radiation and at the model for understanding the impact of radiation on humans is often man. And that really then leads to a misunderstood impact on on women kind of as a whole overall and I put in brackets Mary Olsen has written a lot about that. I'll just kind of touch on this briefly because because it's it's already been mentioned, but there's consistent under representation of women despite in some ways they're kind of unique contribution to these discussions on the weapons in diplomatic for and this is really across the board. And there's been a lot of research on this as well that I can, I'm happy to share more in addition to of course the experience is that that really any diplomats or civil society from who've been in the UN can can share. And I think this this really gets to, I think the heart of the issue that's beyond, you know, really speaks to why we have to talk about more than just just representation of women as important as that is. So when we talk about feminism and nuclear weapons is really this at the heart of nuclear weapons and security, international security discourse more broadly is this really skewed perspective of, you know, what's rational and strong. What security is that that, you know, values weapons and and devalues cooperative human security approach, really to the detriment of global security peace and security. I just put one kind of historical example of how this this approach can really threaten initiatives to pursue disarmament to pursue common security. This is a historical example. But of course we hear kind of tryps like this all the time about people who want to pursue disarmament. You know, I know, I think every every woman certainly and and most people who are working in pursuing disarmament might have been told like they're not serious or they're emotional. I think Ray Acheson spoke about this and in the previous panel in the series but there's really no shortage of examples here. And I think it's really important to tackle this perspective head on if we really need to make progress on disarmament. That kind of brings me to the TPNW. And I certainly agree with what my previous previous panelists mentioned about the fact that the TPNW is certainly a step forward but it's not the be all end all solution there's still a lot of work to be done. So I do want to emphasize that while also pulling out a little bit of what you know we tried to do differently on the TPNW when it came to how you know nuclear weapons and gender and participation. Go through this. So first I mean I think that's looking at the civil society angle there it really is a long incredibly inspiring history of women from around the world and particularly women from Indigenous and impacted communities who've spoken out about the impact of nuclear weapons. This is not a new thing and it's really you know one thing that's very empowering to be a part of the ICANN movement is to continue to kind of build on this long history of women who have spoken about the need to disarm and really brought a human perspective to these issues. So I've just put a few pictures here one is a compilation of women from the Pacific who spoke out about you know their experience in activism with nuclear weapons testing and efforts for nuclear free Pacific. This is the portrait of three different Hibakusha women who survived the Hiroshima Nagasaki bombings who have become really leading activists in the abolition of nuclear weapons. And then here this is a picture of Helen Caldecott who founded Physicians for Social Responsibility in the US and was really known for delivering these very powerful very human speeches about what would actually happen medically when a nuclear weapon is dropped in terms of you know in kind of graphic details what these weapons actually do pulling back this curtain of you know security deterrence to really to really give you the truth about nuclear weapons. And I think this is something that all of these women have done and speaks to linking not just you know why female participation is important but also the importance of new perspectives and human perspectives. So you know this we certainly saw the continuation of female leadership in civil society in the movement to ban nuclear weapons and get the TPNW. So here this is just a photo of several ICANN campaigners outside the United Nations in New York, and then we have Beatrice Finn and Setsuko Thurlow accepting the Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of ICANN after getting the treaty. And so again I think following on this this legacy of female participation elevating the humanitarian perspective that was really core to achieving the TPNW in as was mentioned in the introduction. The series of humanitarian conferences that preceded the TPNW and of course within the treaty itself. So this was also mentioned already but I just wanted to have a chance to show you what we saw in terms of impact of this process of really featuring female perspectives and and and the humanitarian kind of element of security. And in the preamble. Of course we have the references that were mentioned already really groundbreaking in terms of international law on nuclear weapons. I think I think this is a good example of what how the process can really change the product. And then of course with Article 6, again, on providing assistance for victims of nuclear weapons use and testing and remediating contaminated environments, which at its core is, you know, centering again the survivor the human experience, the human impact of nuclear weapons, and of course picking up the importance of gender sensitive assistance. You know to conclude I think I agree that we've seen that you know there's still a huge problem in terms of the dominant narrative on nuclear weapons and the TPNW hasn't magically changed that. But it does provide a really important new and fresh perspective on feminism and nuclear weapons and human security and joining the TPNW really represents an important step forward in terms of recognizing the humanitarian impacts of nuclear weapons and you know the the leadership of female survivors from around the world on on nuclear disarmament. And it's important step for all countries to take. I think, again, going forward, certainly we need to continue to work to ensure there's strong female participation, and, and not just, you know, not just women from the global north, but really representative female participation within the next meetings of the treaty as it as advances and goes forward. And that that continues I think it's it will be an ongoing effort, and we can't we can't forget about it. And just to also conclude that again, we see the TPNW is really a revolutionary step forward. But there are also many other kind of existing international fora where disarmaments and nuclear weapons are discussed and so it's important to bring this approach, a feminist approach to all relevant international fora. So with that, I look forward to taking more questions. Thank you so much, Alicia. Thank you it's really amazing to hear this great insights on the TPNW and thank you for your contribution and for shedding particular light on the role of civil society in leading the treaty to further accomplishments. We can now request the audience to add some questions through the Q&A function. We will have two initial questions, and then we'll proceed to the Q&A afterwards. We would like to start with Maritza. By mentioning the idea that there might be strong participation of women, however, the challenge is how to make sure that their voices have been heard. So how do you think the TPNW could help in addressing this particular challenge? I think that we can do that now by setting the right foundations and structure towards the first conference state parties to ensure that the mandates that are enshrined in the text of the treaty are uphold and respected and honored by the state parties and by those who may join afterwards. I don't think that the job is done. We have a long way to go. We have one year towards the first conference state parties, and there is where we can ensure that we honor the treaty text and the promises that were written in it. Thank you so much Maritza. The next question from our side is for Alicia. We spoke about feminism, but I want to ask a more concrete question. How important do you think it's an intersectional understanding of feminism for the TPNW, especially also considering the role of post-colonial perspectives? Yeah, absolutely. I mean, I think it's absolutely critical. And we've seen, I mean, I spoke about the disproportionate impact of nuclear weapons on women and girls, but we've also seen certainly the disproportionate impact of nuclear weapons on Indigenous people and peoples of color due to where nuclear weapons were tested and even where they were dropped. And I think that that is such a critical perspective and those who have direct experiences with the impact of nuclear weapons are the real experts of nuclear weapons and who should be centered in conversations about disarmament and about these weapons. And so, yeah, absolutely. I think it's about having representative perspectives that are not concentrated in one gender or one region of the world or one race, but that are really reflective of the global community and the global security that we need. Thank you so much, Alicia. Also, interesting questions are coming up in the chat, so I'm going to take the first one, the first one addressed to Maritza. Why do you think that the percentage of texts about women and girls is that low and where are so many passages cut or where they never drafted in the first place? Because it's always a struggle to include gender texts and treaties. And I saw that doing the negotiations of the Amstrad treaty when it was a fight between states to include gender-based violence as a consequence of the illicit transfer of weapons to certain countries. It's always a battle. It's not something that negotiating, that is not in the mindsets of people with security backgrounds. Having a human security approach to weapons, it's something that this treaty does, but it's just the beginning. It's very hard when you have people with different mindsets of what security means and that translates to treaty text. That would be my answer. Thank you so much. The next one is by Anna for Alicia. What thoughts do you have regarding some global powers, for example, the Biden administration and the discourse on nuclear weapons and gender inclusivity in this regard and these global powers and administrations? Sure. I think I've spoken a little bit about the dominant discourse on nuclear weapons and what's problematic about it from a feminist perspective. And this relates certainly to how the United States thinks and speaks about nuclear weapons in that claiming that nuclear weapons can provide or do provide security for the United States really overlooks who nuclear weapons do not provide security for. And that's people within the United States who live near nuclear weapons laboratories that are still contaminated from nuclear weapons production or near former test sites who are suffering from the impacts of nuclear weapons tests decades ago. You know, the downwinders in the United States as well who are still suffering really tragic rates of cancer in their communities due to the impacts of nuclear weapons testing. I think it's just this conceptualization of security that ignores the most impacted within a country and within the global community. That's really problematic and is really why we need to approach the nuclear weapons conversation and disarmament discourse with a feminist perspective with a common and human security lens to truly understand what actually does provide security for any given country and for the international community. Yeah, thank you Alicia and I think it's crucial to think about the risks in order to move from like the security understanding and moving from state centering approach to human centering approach and to see what are the risks of these nuclear weapons. Thank you for these insights and the next question is to Maritza, could you expand on women and meaningful participation in diplomacy and UN deliberations. So as opposed to having women merely for the numbers and how to enhance their participation, how can male counterparts contribute to ensuring that women take leading roles in diplomacy. Personally, I believe that sometimes the feminist discourse have been held by a group of countries from the global north. And during a day work has led the way for many of us from the global south to replicate those voices, but the feminist agenda does not belong to a regional group. It belongs to all of us. As I've read the work of one of the participants in this panel, I love the perception of the notion of being part of the resistance. And as a woman, you are born as part of the resistance as a diplomat from the global south, I'm also part of the resistance. As a country does not have nuclear weapons and the values is its security and interprets insecurity in terms of human security and invest more of its GDP in education and health and many of our neighboring countries. We try to convey that into what we understand of as the feminist approach and also the participation of women. And that means creating alliances working with other female diplomats from the global south and making sure that we support each other on the negotiating table, that we are support each other vocally when we are negotiating on the treaty text or resolutions, and that we create a front in which we are able to have our own say, because there is no exclusivity in in in this fight. It's our fight it's it's it's something that women from the north from the south have to do together. Creating alliances working with other delegations that's key and sometimes when it comes to the male counterparts. Sometimes they do recognize your contribution and they step aside or say, this is the person who's leading with that process. And sometimes it doesn't. What you can do is best thing. And I think that's my best advice to anyone, and particularly for women, if you work with excellence, if your work is pristine, if you show up early and leave, you know, and you do your job well. It's undeniable that you will be called to the negotiating table that you will call for a delegation, because you have done your job. And also, you know, having someone that recognize that that there's value added in bringing you to a group for a delegation, but it means also working in cooperation and not in competition. So next we have, thank you Maritza next we have a very, very connected question I guess from Maria like to give to Alicia. So, Alicia what are some of the specific challenges you have as a woman in civil society diplomacy in all the disarmament forums. What are the things you suggest one can do when you're in a space where there are male individuals inhibit your chance to speak, or may make it difficult for you to fully participate. And Maritza if you want to add something as well after that feel free. Yeah, so I mean I guess speaking from from personal experience. I think in in many ways I've been very lucky that in in every organization that I've worked I've had really excellent female colleagues and and mentors and supervisors who have really acted as you know real real helpers to me in terms of elevating my my own opportunities and and and experiences. So I think that you know certainly just speaking from a personal perspective it's, it is really helpful to be able to find kind of a female mentor who you can kind of ask questions and who can, who can help push you forward in a way. Yeah, I think it's, it's also partly about kind of recognizing your own, your own intelligence and value and contribution to the to the conversation. And, you know, I think there's, there can be a number of factors. And sometimes it can be a bit intimidating to want to contribute or to speak, speak up and I'd say, you know, do do what you can to try to do that. But I think, yeah, outside of that certainly finding a mentor can be very useful. But, but I would say I haven't, I've been very lucky to to to be surrounded by as I mentioned in civil society discernment civil society there are a lot of really, really strong female leaders so I've been very lucky to be surrounded by them for most of my career. Thank you Alicia really great tips to encourage women to participate in such like environment and then we move to a more practical or like particular question to Maritza, what are some concrete steps that states can take to address the structural inequality at the same time at the same time, what are some concrete steps that the UN can take to address and resolve such representation issue. There is, there are several studies on the cascade effect, which means that members of the permanent members of the Security Council have an advantage in appointing their people to senior level positions at the UN. It shouldn't be like that, it should be my merit. It should be an open and transparent process to find the best person for a job. So that's one of the structural problems that we face. And it's one of the proposals that Costa Rica has for the election of the Secretary General, or the process of selection of the next Secretary General, that this practice must change that we need to ensure that the best people for the job are employed. He has the current Secretary General has made the case for gender balance in senior posts, and I welcome that approach, but there are still certain positions that are just kept for the P5. So that's a structural problem at the United Nations. So how can you break that? It takes time, raising the issue is one step, including it in the discussions of the processes like the revitalization of the General Assembly on whenever we have an open debate at the Security Council on the working methods or, you know, if the chance comes, we address it. It's a long way to go because the structures are there, and you need to be really, really smart to have to navigate those waters. But I think that you can do it respectfully, and sometimes someday they might listen. Thank you. I think it's a really good step to speak out about that, as you did now very openly about what goes wrong in the end, and I think that hopefully is the first step to real change. We want to proceed with a little bit of a question. She thanks you for the enlightening presentations and she says that she would love to hear from you both. The experience over the past years has the shift of many forums and conferences from in person to online, both within the UN and other institutions helped or hindered women's participation and the effort to make their voices heard. And of course meant in the past year and in the past years. Yeah, what has covered to do with all of that. Alicia, do you want to start and then Maritza. Yeah, I can kind of speak from the civil society perspective and I think there has been a lot of concerns about ensuring active and meaningful civil society participation in online for. And, you know, I think you do lose something when you're not all in the in the physical same place together in terms of dialogues and exchanges that might happen more informally on a normal basis. That can be a bit more difficult to maintain in an online setting. So I don't know that it's specific to women, but you know perhaps given there is a lot of female leadership in civil society on weapons and nuclear disarmament issues. I think it is something that we're certainly monitoring and and want to ensure that there is, you know, full and effective participation of women and civil society. When it comes to future TP and W meetings, which hopefully will not be online, but yeah, it's certainly I think been something to to monitor and be aware of. In our, I think it has improved because there are no costs associated with women traveling to come to meetings or conferences and even at the Security Council sometimes you hear their voices. I hope to see that in the next commemoration of the of the women International Day on March 8. To hear the voices from women from the global south or Africa or Syria that haven't been affected by conflict. In a way, it has improved because the cost associated with traveling with with having bringing one woman or another to a meeting decreased. But it also about it's about connectivity are all these women able to connect to the Internet. Are they networked. Are they part of a rose a list of experts or people that you will call for information or insights. And that we lost with the with the pandemic. In person meetings continue to be key and important to develop these relationships that you need when we are working towards line minded states or civil society and together as one voice towards an end goal. Exactly. I mean, more efforts is needed to just face the challenges that we are facing with the COVID-19 pandemic. So I'll move to the next question. How do you envision the discourse and narrative on international security and disarmament along with the patriarchal understanding of it that change was successful gender inclusivity. So Alicia and then Maritza if you can add anything on after Alicia, you're welcome. I mean, I think this this is really one reason why the effective and equal participation of women and women from around the world is is so important is is to really have an accurate dialogue representative dialogue on these issues and to really change kind of the, the conceptualization of the weapons and security to one that's very, you know, defined in a patriarchal kind of hard security way to to more of this as we've discussed collective human security framework. And I think that certainly the participation of women of impacted communities is so important to bring about that change and discourse. But of course it's not really the only thing. There's also a lot of need for and has been, you know, a lot of kind of research on this, these problems and criticizing kind of the the dominant security framework that helps to to shape and change perspectives, as well as certainly activism to really get the message out there beyond diplomatic forum. So I think certainly this is, you know, one reason why the participation of women is so important is to to bring a new perspective and to change kind of this problematic thinking about nuclear weapons, but we also need more than just that to change, to change this this discourse. I see it in two levels. First, there's an obstacle and is the pandemic, which means that most resolutions will be technically updated so there will be no discussion or inclusion of new paragraphs, or proposals on on the issue. There's an advantage, and this that's the role of civil society and and tools like reaching critical will of the icon. Newsletters or publications and certain issues that are key to educating us the states on what is the important angles and and we members and I can tell you this member states read what you publish member states appreciate the angle, and that creates and they listen. So, there is an advantage right here right now to educate convey the main points and issues that need to be raised, once we are able to negotiate and introduce text to resolutions that need that need more than a technical roll over. The text of certain resolutions must be strengthened. You can only do that if you have the time to identify those resolutions, and to work coordinated with a group of countries that will push for those inclusions and defend it. But you can only do that if you work together with other states, ideally, within different regions. So it doesn't sound like something from just a geographical group, but it will come a global concern. Thank you so much. And I think it's really important also to stress this. Yeah, working together of diplomacy and civil society and I think this dialogue is very good example of this. So, we're going towards the end of this really interesting discussion so I would just like to have one last question for you both. Before we wrap this discussion up. And yeah, let me let me ask the question for both of you. To face this strong opposition by dominant male and power narratives in the field of disarmament. We need a collective partnership of civil society and diplomatic actors I think that's something we just spoke about as well. What do you think are the main strategies to achieve the cooperation and if deeper cooperation, and how does the TPMW contribute to it and there's also a symbol of this cooperation. And how does this start my start. I can start some. Yeah, I mean I agree I think this, the TPMW has been a really, really great example of cooperation between civil society and states and it's been, you know, a real joy and privilege to work so closely with so many dedicated diplomats on the treaty. This is something that I think will certainly continue and has continued past the negotiation of the treaty and, and into its implementation. I can works very closely with with all states parties on, for example, ensuring that that all states had submitted their declarations which is an obligation under article two of the treaty. And, and, you know, putting forward recommendations for how states can implement obligations on, you know, universalizing the treaty for example, and thinking about implementing the the positive obligations as well. And it's very much a, I'd say a close partnership. And I think, in order to make that happen a lot of it is really about relationship building. And this is something that I really, I really noticed when I came in came into I can was really the importance on the kind of social aspects of relationships and understanding you know we're all people too and it's important to get to know each other and to support each other and to work together, beyond just, you know, negotiating any given article or implementing a given article. So I think it's, it's really taking a relation, relational relationship kind of approach to to working relationships is so critical to have effective cooperation. I think that we should continue to work as partners civil society has done a great job with raising the level of ambition, and you must continue to do that. And as a, as a state, I urged you to continue asking states to raise the level of ambition, because civil society is there to push us to do better to be fair to be more inclusive. And I thank you for that. Also, you have civil society organization play a major role in in educating experts and in something that we truly need now on the road towards the next to the first conference state parties. There's a new group of experts in New York Geneva and Austria that we're not part of the negotiations is actually an anomaly that sort of us are back. Most of them have rotated are going to different posts so we need to raise the knowledge level of the experts. So we have substantive ambitious creative ways to set the structure for the next conference state parties and this is the job that we need to do now. Great inspirations. Thank you so much. And your cooperation is needed more than ever today to face and to reject the dominant narrative. Unfortunately, we won't be able to respond to all of the questions, but we will answer them in the subsequent report after the webinar. To the end of our webinar, however, it's not the end of our discussion on feminist leadership in disarmament. This was the webinar two of out of seven, and our next webinar of the series is on patriarchal structures in disarmament in two weeks. Thank you everyone to join the next webinar and you can find more information and the link to register on our website and social media. Many thanks to our amazing speakers, Marissa Chan and Alissa Sanders Zachary and to everyone who has joined us. I hope you found it thoughtful and interesting. Thank you so much.