What’s all the fuss about? - The 101 of Feminist Foreign Policy
By Anna-Magdalena Glockzin, 4 minutes.
When Former Swedish Foreign Minister Margot Wallström announced in 2014 that Sweden would adopt a Feminist Foreign Policy (FFP), she and Sweden as a country pioneered a feminist lens into foreign policymaking. This approach has often been ridiculed and not taken seriously, as foreign policy is regularly considered gender-neutral. In particular, it is perceived as “soft” and unable to counter crises and aggression. But is this true? What can FFP do, and who benefits from it? This article aims to dive deeper into the concept and the meaning of FFP, as a follow-up on my previous piece on the uncertain future of Feminist Foreign Policy in Germany.
What is a Feminist Foreign Policy?
But first things first. What is FFP? There is no clear definition of FFP in the academic literature or the think tank reports. This is rooted in the various conceptualisations of the policy approach based on different understandings of feminism and its implications for foreign policy. In addition, the characterisation of an FFP often depends on the actual practices of the FFP-endorsing states. Nonetheless, general commonalities of FFP approaches include aiming for gender equality, focusing on human security (instead of state security), and promoting and protecting the human rights of all. A central part of many FFPs is the United Nations’ Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda (Resolution 1325 adopted by the Security Council in October 2000). This document highlighted the importance of women’s participation in peace processes, as they are often invisible and excluded in these contexts. It also stressed the disproportionate impact that conflict has on the lives of women and girls, for instance, through gender-based and conflict-related sexual violence. Since Sweden’s move, other countries have followed suit.
Who is in the game?
But who is adopting this policy approach? As mentioned, Sweden introduced this policy in 2014 but abandoned FFP as the first country in the world in 2022, when a new centre-right government took office. In 2017, Canada joined the FFP club, followed by France (2019), Luxembourg (2019), Mexico (2020), Spain (2021), Libya (2021), Germany (2022), Chile (2022), Mongolia (2022), the Netherlands (2022), Slovenia (2023), and Colombia (2023). These countries have either adopted an FFP or announced that they would like to do so.
Who benefits from this approach?
The answer is short: everyone. Although there is often the misconception that feminism is about women, it is actually about everyone in society. The most important objective is achieving equality. This means that by including women, persons from the LGBTQIA+ community, ethnic minorities and other marginalised groups of society with their perspectives into policymaking, the world becomes a more just and safer place for all of us. Or as German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock stated: “As long as women are not safe, no one is safe.” By focusing on the individual and their needs, FFP moves away from the concept of security in terms of state security and turns to human security instead.
In the case of Russia’s war against Ukraine, an FFP would focus on preventing gender-based and conflict-related sexual violence, working together with Ukrainian NGOs on the ground. Another example is humanitarian assistance in Africa: Baerbock explained how a feminist approach considers the needs of women and children when rebuilding the sanitary facilities in a village for instance. While constructing them further out would be the default idea due to the smell, a longer walk at night can be dangerous for women and children, showing that this might not be the best solution. Moreover, numerous studies found that when women and other marginalised groups participate in the processes of conflict resolution and peacebuilding, the results have been more effective and enduring, enhancing the security of all.
What are the problems and criticisms?
However, FFP comes with a lot of critiques. One common criticism is the lack of consistency, in other words, the selectivity with which the policy is applied. One example is Sweden’s arms dealings with Saudi Arabia, a country that repeatedly breached human and especially women’s rights. Also, FFP is highly dependent on the political ideology of the government. As seen in Sweden, the Netherlands, and most likely Germany, a shift to the right in the government can lead to a ditch of FFP, which makes it difficult to achieve sustainable change at home and abroad. However, there are discussions about whether it is so easy to get rid of it, at least in the case of Sweden, which followed this approach for eight years.
In sum, feminist foreign policy is a policy approach that holds more than it seems at first sight. It aims to enhance the lives of all by mainstreaming a gendered perspective into policymaking, incorporating the realities of life and perspectives of everyone, and promoting equal participation in decision-making processes. FFP does not come without difficulties, yet it can be seen as an innovative, even radical and transformative approach to breaking up patriarchal and racist power structures.
