It was a unique event. Over 15 women leaders from 11 countries across the Middle East and North Africa region were invited to bring their voices together in a coalition to influence the outlook and priorities of policy-makers on foreign affairs in Washington, D.C. The date was set for March 5 to 7; the host was the US State Department and through the Middle East Partnership Initiative Programs; the theme was: “Women and Political Reform in the Middle East & North Africa.”

The process was clear. During the first session, the Arab women delegates shared with each other their perspectives on the impact that US foreign policies had on reform measures in their countries. Following that, they drafted a standard list of priorities and development programs in preparation for what was to come. The next two days were devoted to interactive discussions between the delegates and key policy-makers in Congress, the State Department, policy analysts in the academic community, and members of civil society organizations — all of whom did not have the opportunity to hear from women in the Arab world directly.

The task was not easy. From trying to achieve group consensus on a unified Arab reform priority list drafted by the delegates, to believing that 16 Arab women professionals and activists could actually influence Middle Eastern foreign policy in a couple of meetings was not only challenging but also quite unrealistic.

After all, hasn’t the Arab issue been the object of most world leaders’ attention for quite some time now, and with no solution in sight? So whoever said that a handful of Arab women could make a difference this time around?

Please don’t get me wrong. I don’t claim that the Arab predicament of chronic conflict will be resolved because 16 Arab women happened to meet with US policy-makers... certainly not; in fact, all of us agreed that our presence and our contribution to this conference did not reflect the opinion of our country folk; it only reflected our personal opinions as professionals and as citizens of our own countries. However, I do claim that if more and more women achieved leadership positions in all sectors and industries of public and private life, then our universe would be less war-torn, less pillaged, less poverty-stricken and less threatened to extinction.

Am I being presumptuous? Maybe, but then how do you explain the prosperity that resulted when queens such as Sheba, Hatshepsut, Cleopatra, Elizabeth 1, or Empress Wu Zetian of China, or Isabella of Castille, or Catherine the Great of Russia, or Maria Theresa of Austria ruled? None of us can deny that when most of these women ruled, the nations they managed witnessed an unprecedented renaissance that has not been seen thereafter. In any case, my argument for exploring the positive impact of women’s rule, in comparison to men’s, makes an interesting study but unfortunately it is not the subject of today’s article which is to answer the question: What did the 16 Arab women want from the US during this brief but enlightening visit?

For starters, the Arab women delegates advised their American counterparts that if US involvement in the region was to prove successful, then its support for political reform must first aim to foster genuine partnerships for developing the region before working toward the institutionalization of reform measures. According to them, such a partnership should seek to build the capacity of people through nurturing, promoting, and sustaining economic and social development in the region. Skill building programs that explore the values of democracy and target issues of literacy, economic and social opportunity, civic welfare, education and health, were according to the delegates, the key enablers to build the base for future advocates for democratic change.

The delegates also expressed the view that the American government had a primary role in safeguarding the security of the region by putting pressure on the UN Security Council to enforce all resolutions as well as international treaties regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The delegates also disagreed on the extent to which the US should pressure individual governments to implement constitutional and legal reforms, as this could cross the line from exercising influence to interfering in the internal affairs of a country. Some members felt that that little will be achieved without pressure from the outside, while others felt that any oncoming change must be driven from within each country.

As the conference came to a close, I wondered on our visit’s impact. Our requests were simple and not far from what world leaders have been calling for — but for a minor difference. What stood out in my mind is the difference between what women and men negotiate for; and how different each gender’s priorities are and yet how critical both perspectives are to the big picture at stake.

Whereas men usually prioritize their needs on geographic control, power distribution and resource allocation, my women colleagues’ priorities were to invest in building the capabilities of people and in providing them with their basic needs and rights. Strangely enough, no one way is better than the other; in fact each method actually complements the other as if they were the Ying and Yang elements of the same coin. Without one, the other is incomplete.

Perplexed I wondered why we live in a world that chooses to allow only one segment of its society to make incomplete decisions that affect the future of all.