Is Feminist Foreign Policy Still A Good Idea?

This year Feminist Foreign Policy turns 10, but I hesitate to celebrate the milestone.

A wolf in sheep’s clothing. On the nose, I know.

From 2016-2022, my career was hyperfocused on promoting Feminist Foreign Policy (FFP) as a path toward equality and peace. I was a cheerleader for the potential of FFP to prevent harm and address the root causes of inequality. But over the past decade, FFP has developed into a Western-centric tool that upholds, not dismantles, patriarchal norms. My initial optimism has turned to concern.

So as we mark the 10 year anniversary of FFP, I’m spelling out a few of my core concerns. This article has been a long time coming.

First, the basics. What is FFP?

Sweden was the first country to develop an FFP framework in 2014, which also marked the first time a government openly embraced feminist principles in its foreign policy. The first iteration of Sweden’s FFP centred on three Rs: the rights of women, resources for gender equality initiatives and representation of women in politics. A new precedent was established for bringing feminist ethics into mainstream foreign policy, and since then more than a dozen countries have have engaged with FFP to varying degrees, including Canada (2017), France (2019), Mexico (2020), Spain (2021), Luxembourg (2021), Germany (2021), Libya (2021), the Netherlands (2022), Belgium (2022), and Chile (2022), as well as political parties in the UK and the US. Sixteen countries make up the United Nations’ Feminist Foreign Policy Plus Group which most recently drafted this joint declaration.

Despite this uptake, there are strong discrepancies between feminist values as historically developed by activists and academics, and the FFP frameworks recently developed by states. Though frustrating, I also find this understandable. Feminism has been taboo for a long time, and historically patriarchal spaces like foreign policy aren’t easily compatible with feminist thinking. Existing geopolitical and militaristic power dynamics won’t disappear overnight just because a government commits to FFP. Even 10 years on, the feminism that shows up in FFP frameworks is going to be relatively watered down in order to be compatible with existing norms and not rock the boat.

But it doesn’t mean the hypocrisy shouldn’t be called out. Take Germany, for example. It launched its FFP last year citing a commitment to “naming entrenched power structures, overcoming them and thus promoting equitable participation and equality for all people around the world.” And yet in December 2023, Germany withheld funding from an Egyptian anti-trafficking organisation after its chair joined calls for a stop to Israel’s assault on Gaza, in which over 30,000 Palestinians have died. Using funding as a mechanism to silence calls for peace is in direct violation of the anti-militarist and anti-violence principles of feminism.

This leads me to my first point of concern.

1. FFP is mostly about branding.

It seems governments are taking notice of the growing appeal that feminism has and are eager to position themselves in relation to it. States are using FFP to align with current progressive trends and enhance their global standing, however it’s rare that substantive policy changes follow. A gap between rhetoric and action is now becoming the norm within FFP. The true essence of a feminist approach – which involves a fundamental rethinking of power dynamics and a commitment to addressing structural inequalities – appears to be overshadowed by the desire to appear a certain way on the global stage.

If the use of the term ‘feminist’ does not translate into meaningful action, then it might be more accurately described as branding. Although a handful of countries have now announced they have an FFP, only a few have formalised their intentions into concrete policy plans. France, for example, published an article on International Women’s Day in 2019 announcing its ‘feminist diplomacy’, later citing its already published 2018-2022 International Strategy on Gender Equality as the basis of both its feminist diplomacy and its FFP. However, the strategy makes no mention of either of these things and only uses the word ‘feminist’ once in reference to civil society. Gender equality is an outcome of feminist work and the two terms are not necessarily interchangeable. France, however, deemed the connection sufficient and began to describe its policies as feminist without making any further updates.

During my time in the sector I also observed a certain “girlbossification¹” of FFP, of which I am guilty of participating in myself, where individual white women both at state and civil society levels acted as the “faces” of FFP. In its extreme, I saw this result in gatekeeping where “girlbosses” prevented other, less personal-brand savvy feminists from accessing FFP spaces due to a desire to maintain access to power for themselves. There was a period of time where the same people were involved in every conversation about FFP, regardless of where in the world it was taking place, and the field was extremely insular. However, I’ve noticed the the FFP sector has expanded substantially in the past few years, and it seems as though the trend of people branding themselves as FFP-istas has thankfully begun to wind down.

2. The exclusively external focus of FFP trends toward ideological colonialism.

The nature of foreign policy is that it’s externally facing, which means that FFP frameworks have likewise been designed to look outward toward other countries. However, when a state only applies feminism to its foreign policy and doesn’t do the same to its domestic policy, feminism becomes an ideological export, something imposed on others, rather than a shared journey. The funding that sits under FFP initiatives in particular hinges on a recipient country adhering to the feminist ideologies promoted by a donor country.

This is troublesome as feminism is very context specific. It is deeply rooted in the cultural, social, and historical contexts of different communities, meaning it cannot be universally defined or applied. What works as feminist action or policy in one country might not be appropriate or effective in another, especially in societies where Indigenous and local forms of feminism have evolved in response to unique historical injustices and social dynamics.

By designing FFP frameworks without sufficient sensitivity to these nuances, there is a risk of imposing a one-size-fits-all model of feminism that does not fully recognise or respect the diverse expressions of feminist thought and practice around the world. And due to the way FFP has developed, it’s usually a Western, Eurocentric feminism found within these frameworks, which is then presented as globally universal. Only recently have I begun to see Global South feminists and feminisms embraced in FFP development, both at state and civil society levels. Still, overall, the design of FFP frameworks often mirrors colonial and imperial tendencies, where dominant powers enforce their own values and frameworks on diverse communities. This not only diminishes the validity and importance of non-Western feminist movements but also risks repeating historical patterns of cultural imposition and erasure.

Canada's approach aptly illustrates the contradiction between foreign and domestic policies. It has described its foreign policy as feminist since 2019 despite only implementing a feminist aid policy. Under this policy, engagement with Canada’s feminist agenda becomes a criteria for aid. In other words, Canada is holding other states to higher feminist standards than they are holding themselves. The issue of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls in Canada has been a long-standing crisis. Investigations reveal systemic violence, racism, and discrimination against Indigenous communities, with Indigenous women disproportionately affected. The National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, which concluded in 2019, declared that the high levels of violence against Indigenous women and girls amounted to a form of genocide. A ‘feminist’ country would take this issue far more seriously than Canada currently does.

3. Grassroots activists are regularly excluded.

Feminism originated as a grassroots project in response to the everyday and systemic sexism faced by women. Women’s organising was almost always in opposition to governments and laws at the time, and it was instrumental in initiating changes in public perceptions as well as securing legislative reforms. Feminist movement building in general has long been characterised by its bottom-up approach, relying on local and community-based actions to effect change on a wider scale.

FFP, however, has been designed and implemented through a top-down approach, first beginning with government entities and sometimes including large charities and international organisations in consultations. This has led to a frequently critiqued disconnect between policymakers and the grassroots activists who are directly involved with and understand the challenges faced by communities at the local level.

Mexico’s FFP, for example, was developed in almost total isolation from Mexican feminist activists, many of whom were not even aware of the policy change. There were no consultations with civil society and while Mexico has collaborated with larger international feminist charities, like my former place of work, it demonised rather than collaborated with Mexican feminist activists. In fact, the Mexican Ministry of Defence listed feminist collectives as a national security threat alongside drug cartels and Al Qaeda. This dynamic speaks volumes about the way Mexico is leveraging FFP as a brand to build international goodwill, yet doing little at home to address issues like violence against women and femicide, which Mexican feminists have long been campaigning against.

Conclusion

It’s an odd experience to do a 180 from something I once was so passionate about. I founded an organisation focused on promoting FFP, poured myself into it, and ended up walking away with an overwhelming feeling of disappointment but a much stronger moral compass. My experience in the FFP sector has not just transformed my opinion of policy but also my identity and my values, making me decidedly more anti-capitalist than I had ever been before. The founder journey that is so idolised, especially in American society, is one I find difficult to reconcile at times because of this.

More than ever, I find a feminist lens an exceptionally useful tool to understand how to reshape global power dynamics and promote gender equality. On this I more determined than ever. However, I also have my eyes wide open to the constraints imposed by existing geopolitical structures and the entrenchment of patriarchal norms in undertaking this work. As countries continue to adopt FFP with varying degrees of commitment, it’s apparent that the transformative potential of feminism in foreign policy is being diluted by a combination of political expediency and a failure to fundamentally challenge the status quo.

So as I reflect on the ten-year journey of FFP, it is clear that the path forward requires a recommitment to the core principles of feminism. Feminism is not something that can be achieved, or arrived at, but is always a work in progress, requiring continuous self-examination, accountability, and a willingness to evolve. Feminism should make people in power uncomfortable. It has always been about confronting uncomfortable truths, about challenging the status quo and advocating for radical change. And maybe there’s still a tiny part of me that hopes to see more of this in FFP frameworks.

1. “Girlboss” is a term that was popularised in the mid-2010s, and now refers to a market-oriented version of feminism which is hyper-focused on individual success within capitalist structures instead of challenging systemic inequalities or advocating for collective rights and reforms.