More say and power for women up to a new female world order: Feminist foreign policy gives something to talk about. So do your contradictions.
At their assembly of delegates in Zug, the Greens called for a change in Swiss foreign policy.
What is dear to Annalena Baerbock is dear to the Swiss Greens. The German Foreign Minister is committed to a feminist foreign policy. If the local Greens have their way, Switzerland should now also commit to a feminist foreign policy. At the delegates’ meeting a week ago, the party approved a corresponding resolution. What the Greens want to achieve with feminist foreign policy is still pretty cloudy at the moment. “In militarized societies and in armed conflicts, psychological and physical violence, especially against women, is increasing,” says the resolution. Therefore, a “strategy for a gender-equitable foreign policy” as well as standards and control mechanisms “for a binding feminist Swiss foreign policy” are needed.
From pragmatic to radical
Opinions are likely to differ as to whether a feminist approach to foreign policy is the right one when dealing with autocrats like Vladimir Putin. Nevertheless, it would be insufficient to simply dismiss feminist foreign policy as a fad that will inevitably fail in reality. In political terms, however, the issue should not be underestimated. In addition to the German government, countries such as France, Spain, Canada and Mexico are now also committed to the Feminist Foreign Policy (FFP).
Exactly what feminist foreign policy is and what it aims for cannot be reduced to a single common denominator. There are several views and interpretations, some are more pragmatic and realistic, others are theoretical and radical. The FFP was “invented” by the former Swedish Foreign Minister and Social Democrat Margot Wallström. She championed three goals: equal rights, equal representation, and equal resources for women. The focus is on the global empowerment of women and girls, which not least includes distribution issues, cash flows and filling posts. One of the declared goals is to send more women into international management positions, security policy committees and the diplomatic service.
For many, especially young supporters of feminist foreign policy, this is only a first step. They aim for bigger things and see the FFP as a means to smash patriarchal power structures and regimes. It is necessary to unmask “destructive forces such as heteronormativity, capitalism, racism, imperialism and militarism” and to show “just alternatives”, as the German activist and author Kristina Lunz puts it. Giving up territorial borders is also one of the goals. The FFP should bring no less than a new world order.
Proportion of women in the FDFA is increasing
In Switzerland, the debate has not yet really got going. So far, it has primarily been NGO activists who have campaigned for the FFP. For example, Leandra Bias from Swisspeace, who in an interview with the “Wochenzeitung” called, among other things, for a redistribution of resources – money for a peace department instead of a defense department, for example. In the federal parliament, it is left-wing women like the Green Sibel Arslan or the SP representative Claudia Friedl who are demanding that the federal government take better account of women’s interests in its foreign policy, including in the budget.
The Federal Council, for its part, emphasizes what it has already done. The promotion of equality and the participation of women is already a priority in international cooperation. Switzerland is committed to ensuring that women are increasingly involved in conflict prevention and peace talks, as stipulated in a UN resolution. According to studies, peace negotiations in which women play a key role should reach their goals faster and last longer.
The foreign department itself is not in a bad position when it comes to women’s representation. The proportion of women is steadily increasing and, according to official figures, was more than 40 percent in middle and upper management in 2020. A third of management positions and a quarter of ambassadorships were held by women.
«Women solve crises»
We hear different things about whether the Ukraine war will advance feminist foreign policy or whether, on the contrary, it will expose it as an impractical construct. In any case, it is clear that the theory has to contend with considerable internal contradictions. The FFP assumes that foreign policy is still too much dominated by men and is too much geared towards their needs. For this reason, the interests of women and girls must be placed at the center of political decisions in the future.
Whether it is progress if you look at the world through women’s glasses from now on is another question. It is hard to imagine what a sensible foreign policy that is appropriate to the situation should look like if the needs of men and boys are ignored or regarded as secondary. As the Ukraine war shows very clearly, it is not only women who suffer in conflicts, but also men.
Another point is that feminist foreign policy is quite at odds with the claim of overcoming the much-criticized “antiquated” role models and discarding gender clichés. The FFP theory is actually based on the fact that women are ascribed positive feminine qualities: peacemaking, compassionate, careful, caring. “Men create crises, women solve them,” they say confidently. At the same time, the FFP supporters defend themselves against the accusation that their theory is based on gender-related clichés. “It’s not about biology, but about lived experiences, based on characteristics, of which gender is an essential one,” says Leandra Bias, for example.
Not all women are doves of peace
Now, in terms of the FFP theory, one can certainly take the view that women are the more peaceful people and that a world under their leadership would be a better one. But you can judge things differently. Critics happily point out that not all powerful women were doves of peace, neither the belligerent Catherine the Great nor Margaret Thatcher, who showed considerable martial determination on the Falkland Islands.
The fact that women-led countries like Sweden and Finland are now striving to join NATO is not necessarily a sign of peacebuilding. Yes, even the feminist foreign policy expert Baerbock is sometimes in doubt, for example when she called for the economic annihilation of Russia. This may be the right way to harm Putin, but it would also plunge millions of Russian women into poverty and misery. Is that compatible with a feminist foreign policy?