f human trafficking, which is largely domestic (of India’s 3 million prostitutes, 40% are children; the Indian National Human Rights Commission estimates that 60,000 children go missing annually in India, with fewer than a third being found). India also has the highest female infanticide and feticide rate in the world, as parents opt to have boys for cultural, economic and social reasons. Somalia came fifth as the most dangerous country in the world for women. Somali women endure high levels of rape, female gentile mutilation, limited access to education and health care, leading to a high rate of maternal mortality. (The Guardian, June 17, 2011)
Since the 1990s the international community has sought to promote “human security” – freedom from want and freedom from fear. This has led to some major changes in international politics such as the prosecution of those engaging in sexual-based violence, which includes rape, sexual abuse and public humiliation. (Prosecutor v. Akayesu ICTR-96-4-T, 2 September 1998) The Security Council has contributed to the campaign by adopting resolutions placing gender at the heart of peacekeeping operations (Security Council Resolution 1325 (2000)) as well as demanding an end to sexual violence (Security Council Resolution 1888 (2008)). The economic world through various initiatives and programs has sought to promote women’s economic empowerment and self-sufficiency. And yet, the question remains as to why women continue to experience immense human rights violations?
The answer lies, as Charlsworth noted more than a decade ago, in the gendered nature of international relations (Hillary Charlesworth 1994). By not seeing gender inequality as a national security issue, an opportunity is missed to challenge those seeking to keep gender in the “private realm.” When looking at the Thompson Reuters study in none of the five countries do national security and gender issues intercede. This is unfortunate as by making women’s right a national security issue it becomes possible to not only punish individuals that use archaic cultural or religious practices to subvert women, but to change the national discourse about gender. By showing the national benefits that come from allowing women to own land or receive an education, the State is strengthened as women repeatedly prove themselves capable providers, entrepreneurs and policymakers.
UNWomen, gender advocates, donor states and emerging countries (China, Brazil South Korea are major investors in the developing world, which provides them with enormous say in global politics) must challenge governments that fail to see gender as a national security issue. Governments that fail to promote gender equality do not recognize that every year that a girl spends in secondary school increases her future wages by 15-20%. (The Guardian May 18, 2011) This makes major differences to the fragile states. Undoubtedly the economic argument in gender and specifically “investing in women” helps perpetuate myths in respect to gender roles, but it is also the language that the male-dominate political system understands. In other words, the male dominated political system has to be shown the tangible advantages that come from empowering women, instead of arguing that it is a basic right (even if it is such a thing). Using human rights discourse to advocate gender equality has not born many fruits especially when it has been applied to the countries where women’s rights are at their lowest. Thus, by changing the discourse and using national security, it would be possible to advance gender equality.
 The Loomba Foundation’s report “Invisible, Forgotten Sufferers: The Plight of Widows around the World” (June 2010), which claimed that out of the 245 million widows worldwide approximately 115 million live in extreme poverty. The British charity Plan UK, [http://www.plan-uk.org] asserts that there are approximately 10 million child brides (girls under the age of 18) every year. The June 2011 US State Department’s 400-page “Trafficking in Persons” Report [http://www.state.gov/g/tip/rls