In 2014, the Swedish coalition of the Social Democrats and the Green Party became the world's government to proclaim that it will adopt a Feminist Foreign Policy (FFP), with a goal to become the ‘strongest voice for gender equality and full employment of human rights for all women and girls’. This rather radical stance positions Sweden as a normative model for other countries to follow. Most recently, Mexico, under the leadership of Andrés Manuel López Obrador, became the first country in the Global South to announce a feminist shift in its foreign policy. But is an FFP practical in the current global political economy?
FFP derives its core tents from feminist international relations (IR) theory, which critiques state-centric notions of security and peace and the manner in which they 'invisibilize' power structures, hierarchies, and gendered boundaries. The foundational belief of most feminist IR theory is that gender is not an accidental, but an integral feature of military, economic, and diplomatic relations between nations.
Hence, feminist IR theory challenges the current international system that is and has been structurally and ideologically defined mainly by elite white men for decades. These Eurocentric and masculine practices fail to accommodate diverse perspectives or create an equal space for people belonging to other intersectionalities of gender, race, class, caste, and ethnicity. Thus, it builds on postcolonial, postliberal, and constructivist theories by adding an additional layer of gender-sensitivity to the existing discourse.
Some feminist IR theorists use the concept of hegemonic masculinity to describe the gendered nature of power distribution in the international system, which is generally understood as the collective, personal, and institutional mainstreaming of hierarchical and aggressive power. From a neorealist perspective, core security concerns usually deal with conceptions of state sovereignty, border control, and transnational trade, which are usually governed by military defence frameworks and protectionist migration laws.
Feminist security critics believe that the idea of using force and manipulating access to space, resources, goods, and services to particular groups of people is an inherently masculine trait that violates the idea of an equal quality of life for all people. Along with the military-industrial complex, these practices marginalize the value of femininity as being weak or inferior, and push forward the idea that the responsibility to protect is primarily a male one.
Hence, the practice of FFP as an action-oriented offshoot of feminist IR theory demanding the reimagination of power and security by modifying the decision-making of actors in the international system, facilitated through the involvement of women and other marginalized communities. It argued that this approach prioritizes development, peace, and human security. By accounting for the diverse intersectionalities of people, it is hoped that one can build a more empathetic political dialogue.
Critics of such an approach argue that the current FFP framework and its link with normative soft power undermine its capacity to challenge the premonition that feminist security policy will fail to confront aggression and hardcore security issues. However, FFP is not as closely associated with pacifism as it is assumed to be; in fact, it argues that state actors must alternate between hard and soft power according to the severity of threats.
From an international law perspective, FFP is a reflection of larger worldwide efforts following the formation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 (2000), which emphasizes the agenda of women, peace, and security (WPS) as a framework for security and foreign policy. This is the skeleton from which Sweden, Australia, Canada, Britain, and now Mexico have framed their policies to reflect a feminist shift.
However, the WPS agenda has been critiqued for its rudimentary application of feminist principles by way of its insistence on purely increasing the number of women represented at international forums.
A study by the UN Women and Inclusive Peace and Transition Initiative reveals that the mere inclusion of women at negotiating tables is not enough to achieve gender parity. Rather, the power or “level of influence” that they wield in such spaces is what truly makes a difference. To add to this, in her book Bananas, Beaches, and Bases, Cynthia Enloe talks about the lack of intersectional representation in such dialogues, and argues that there is a more pressing need to invite women from diverse backgrounds to play a role in international politics as they are systematically ignored, excluded, and often forgotten by a usually homogenous group of privileged, white world leaders.
Zillah Eisenstein, a postcolonial feminist, elucidates that while gender inclusion allows a partial restructuring of the gendered power race, it is not a complete power shift unless it deals with its inherent exclusion of non-elite and non-white women from theory and practice. It is a futile exercise to focus on increased representation without paying attention to the underlying assumptions guiding foreign policy and feminist discourse.
Despite these theoretical drawbacks, it is important to evaluate the current situation of FFP as it is being practiced. As the first country to adopt this model, Sweden focuses on three Rs in its FFP–rights, representation, and reallocation.
Put simply, this means that Stockholm advocates women’s rights as human rights; the protection of women and other marginalized groups from sexual and gender-based violence; the promotion of participation of women, particularly in peace processes; and the equitable and gender-sensitive distribution of global resources and income. The Swedish government also frequently refers to a subliminal fourth R, reality check, which indicates a reliance on policy-relevant research to assess the correlation between inclusive practices and sustainable peace efforts.
However, there is a natural tension between pragmatism and idealism. Many civil society groups have critiqued Sweden for its failure to live up to its FFP during the 2015 migration crisis when the country received around 160,000 asylum seekers. In particular, the administration’s strict family reunification policy outlined by its 2016 Temporary Aliens Act was inconsistent with its FFP as its effects were inexplicably gendered, with the wellbeing of women and children at high risk due to separation from their families.
Further, Sweden’s extensive record of arms exports also seems contradictory to its feminist goals. While the Swedish government views itself as a ‘good nation’ championing humanitarianism, Swedish-manufactured exported weapons are enabling and fuelling violence in various conflict zones–in August 2019, a year after signing the Stockholm Agreement with Yemen, it was reported that Swedish weapons and combat management systems were used in the conflict. UN Human Rights Council Resolution 30/18 on human rights capacity building for Yemen highlights that gender-based and sexual violence is rampant, while Recommendations 19 and 30 of the CEDAW and Article 7(9) of the Arms Trade Treaty also recognize a deep-rooted connection between the transfer of arms and the facilitation of violence against women and children in conflict.
Sweden’s inability to fully realize these dilemmas in policy practice is illustrated by its relationship with Saudi Arabia. In 2015, Swedish foreign minister Margot Wallström publicly criticized the Saudi regime for its poor human rights record, describing the punishment of Saudi blogger Raif Badawi as “medieval”. This caused a major diplomatic dispute between the two nations; Saudi Arabia recalled its ambassador and accused Wallström of criticizing Islam. The rest of the Arab world–including Palestine, who had previously lauded Sweden for its recognition of its authority–also responded harshly to the Swedish government and even cancelled Wallström’s speech at the year’s Arab League summit. Despite the blowback, Stockholm cancelled its arms deal with Riyadh, a decision that its own financial and diplomatic experts criticized. Even Sweden’s former foreign minister Carl Bildt stated that the move damaged Sweden’s international reputation.
Postcolonial understandings of such events posit that the construction of a liberal FFP is dependent on an ‘otherization’ of the Global South, as the international system has been constructed to recognize Western conceptions of human rights and liberalism as superior to the practices of non-Western traditions. This is why nations like Sweden, while aspiring to shine a light on violations, fail to acknowledge their complicity and face backlash for their ‘white saviour complex’ attitudes towards feminist issues.
In response, Columba Achilleos-Sarll offers an alternative to Sweden’s three Rs to combat this predicament–recentering intersectionality, reinstating connected histories, and reconfiguring normative orders. This presents a more comprehensive and nuanced framework that accommodates diverse perspectives based on the lived experiences of women and other minorities.
Feminist ethical frameworks expect to see visible and tangible gender-sensitive results. However, systematically changing patriarchal structures in international institutions are long-term goals that will most certainly be met with resistance and rejection. Diplomacy is regulated by compromise, even if it means inconsistency with ethical ideals to achieve an overarching goal. While this may result in contradictory practices, it is essential for countries at the forefront of the FFP movement to maintain amicable international relations to build trust and aid sustainable change.
In its current form, FFP's reliance on the UN's WPS model, which focuses on increasing gender equality through representation alone, leaves ample room for predominant neorealist structures to undermine and deflect its efforts. The UN itself is intrinsically hierarchical; substantive power rests in the hands of a few nations. It is questionable whether UN proposals on equality of any sort hold value when its own structure is so unbalanced. To be fair, FFP has attempted to be more inclusive of other genders and marginalized communities by involving male leaders in the #HeForShe initiative. However, meaningful, long-term, systemic change will remain elusive unless Sweden, Canada, and the like actively work to restructure the current system to encourage the cooperation and acceptance of FFP by other Western nations and emerging powers in the Global South.
Reference List
Achilleos-Sarll, C. (2018). Reconceptualising Foreign Policy as Gendered, Sexualised and Racialised: Towards a Postcolonial Feminist Foreign Policy (Analysis). Journal Of International Women’s Studies., 19(1).
Aggestam, K., & Bergman Rosamond, A. (2019). Re-politicising the Gender-Security Nexus: Sweden’s Feminist Foreign Policy. Special Issue: The Politicisation Of Security: Controversy, Mobilisation, Arena Shifting, (3-2018), 30-48. doi: 10.3224/eris.v5i3.02
Aggestam, K., & Bergman-Rosamond, A. (2016). Swedish Feminist Foreign Policy in the Making: Ethics, Politics, and Gender. Ethics & International Affairs, 30(3), 323-334. doi: 10.1017/s0892679416000241
Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs, U. Women, Peace and Security | Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs. Retrieved 22 January 2020, from https://dppa.un.org/en/women-peace-and-security
Eisenstein, Z. (2007). Sexual Decoys: Gender, Race and War in Imperial Democracy. Zed Books.
Enloe, C. (2014). Bananas, Beaches and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics. University of California Press. Retrieved January 22, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctt6wqbn6
Rao, N. (2018). Feminist Voices Could Change the Nature of International Diplomacy. Retrieved 22 January 2020, from https://thewire.in/women/foreign-affairs-diplomacy-feminism-womens-day
Rosén Sundström, M., & Elgström, O. (2019). Praise or critique? Sweden’s feminist foreign policy in the eyes of its fellow EU members. European Politics And Society, 1-16. doi: 10.1080/23745118.2019.1661940
Scheyer, V., & Kumskova, M. (2019). Feminist Foreign Policy: A Fine Line Between “Adding Women” And Pursuing A Feminist Agenda. Journal Of International Affairs, 72(2), 57-76. Retrieved January 22, 2020, From Www.Jstor.Org/Stable/26760832
Taylor, A. (2015). Sweden’s Subtly Radical ‘Feminist’ Foreign Policy is Causing a Stir. Washington Post. Retrieved January 22, 2020 from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/10/07/swedens-subtly-radical-feminist-foreign-policy-is-causing-a-stir/
Thompson, L. (2020). Mexican Diplomacy Has Gone Feminist. Retrieved 22 January 2020, from https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/01/14/mexican-diplomacy-feminist-foreign-policy/