Interview with political advisor: What is feminist foreign policy, Ms. Lunz?

The alliance of SPD, Greens and FDP was the first federal government to commit to a feminist foreign policy. But what follows from this? How can “Feminist Foreign Policy” working in a conflict like that between Russia and NATO? Kristina Lunz is an activist, political advisor and co-founder of the Center for Feminist Foreign Policy (CFFP), her book “The Future of Foreign Policy is Feminist” will be published soon. In an interview with ntv.de, she explains why the traffic light coalition agreement does not go far enough for her.

ntv.de: Ms. Lunz, Annalena Baerbock was sworn in as Federal Foreign Minister on December 8, she is the first woman in office. A good day?

Kristina Lunz: A great day. And not just because it is a small step towards a fair distribution of power. Ms. Baerbock is feminist and competent, she has a background in international law. I couldn’t imagine a better cast.

The traffic light parties have written “Feminist Foreign Policy”, i.e. a feminist foreign policy, in their coalition agreement. More participation by women in this area is one of the goals. What else is the government about?

She wants them United Nations (UN) Resolution 1325 implement from the year 2000. It recognizes for the first time that women’s experiences should count in the context of war and security. Since then, almost a hundred countries have drawn up an action plan for this declaration, and Germany now has three such plans. According to the coalition agreement, the government wants to further strengthen the decision.

Is that enough for you?

No. I have to say that the tradition of feminist foreign policy goes back at least to 1915, when at the International Women’s Congress in The Hague, more than 1,200 feminists not only demanded an end to the First World War, but also drafted some visionary resolutions. They, too, were in favor of the democratization of diplomacy and wanted to get away from it being exclusively men from elite circles who discussed war and peace. They were concerned with the rights of women and minorities. But even then the major goal was disarmament. We want to go back to that. We want to question the quest for power and dominance as a characteristic of international politics.

Why is disarmament feminist?

Feminism means taking action against patriarchal structures. It is not directed against men, but against a system in which men have supremacy in the family and in the state. The downside is that everyone else, with women being the largest group, has to live with violence and oppression. This ranges from harassment to murder and war. And because the exercise of violence with weapons works even more efficiently, disarmament has always been a core demand of feminist foreign policy.

But now we live in a world in which disarmament is seen as hesitation, inconsistency or even as a sign of weakness. There are international commitments like NATO’s two percent target and military demonstrations of power like the Russian one on the border with Ukraine.

Of course, utopia and reality collide with each other with full force. If only because every year much more is spent on rearmament than on peace policy. The federal government approved arms exports for 9.35 billion euros in 2021 – a record amount. Such is the reality. Of course it doesn’t make sense to say: as of tomorrow there will be no more weapons. That’s why it works Center for Feminist Foreign Policy Recommendations that are short, medium and long term. In the long term, there should be an end to the international arms trade. Temporary solutions are needed to get there.

This means?

An example of this is the Arms Trade Treaty of 2014. It is the first multilateral agreement to state that no arms should be supplied if there is a possibility that they could be used to commit sexualised violence or violence against women. So this treaty is a short-term compromise for controlled use of arms.

Another, at least felt, contradiction is that Germany is now to join the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons as an observer, but at the same time the federal government wants to stick to nuclear sharing.

Here, too, it is the case that Center for Feminist Foreign Policy in principle calls for the withdrawal of US nuclear weapons from Büchel and for Germany to become a permanent member of the UN Treaty on the Ban on Nuclear Weapons. Nuclear weapons are the most perverse expression of patriarchal violence. Nevertheless, our short and medium-term approach before the federal elections was that Germany should have observer status – as the second NATO state after Norway. It’s about not ignoring reality and getting closer to utopia step by step.

You speak of participation and disarmament. What else does feminist foreign policy mean?

It starts with a reorganization of the ministry. One could dedicate a separate office to the area. Ms. Baerbock also announced a strategy for feminist foreign policy in the Bundestag, and I hope that she will present a comprehensive strategy paper. It should also be about climate justice: 80 percent of climate refugees are girls and women. Feminist foreign policy must also clearly aim at respecting human rights. Attacks on women’s and LGBTQI rights have increased massively internationally in recent years. Turkey has withdrawn from the Istanbul Convention (the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence, note d. editor) and in Poland abortion is now de facto forbidden.

Should Germany limit its trade with countries where the rights of minorities and marginalized groups are severely curtailed? With China for example?

Again, one cannot think in black and white. Human rights are violated all over the world – also in Germany. These grievances must always be addressed, everywhere. And in the case of extreme injuries, as in China, there must be clear consequences. Restrictions on trade can of course be a way. One possibility is trade agreements like the one between Canada and Chile, which has been expanded to include an amendment for gender equality. Sweden, which has been the first nation to pursue a feminist foreign policy since 2014, suspended an arms treaty with the country after its foreign minister was banned from speaking in Saudi Arabia and because of the human rights situation there. I thought so.

Moscow has massed more than 100,000 soldiers on the Russian-Ukrainian border, and an invasion of Ukraine is conceivable. Can feminist foreign policy work in a crisis like this?

In my view, in the face of such aggression, being feminist means standing up and speaking out. Of course, feminist foreign policy in the case of the Ukraine conflict cannot mean that Annalena Baerbock talks to her Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov about fair representation of women. She must make it clear that Germany will not accept it if people in the region have to live in fear. She does. In this respect, the behavior of the Foreign Minister is, in my opinion, feminist and admirable.

one United Nations study found that peace processes involving women are more successful and long-lasting. Are women the better diplomats?

I wouldn’t think in the “better or worse” category. Women, who make up half of humanity, bring different life experiences and needs with them. This applies not only to them, but to all marginalized groups. Let’s take the Bosnian war: not a single woman had a say in the peace negotiations – while thousands of women were raped in this war. How do you want to build a stable society in the long term if certain experiences and traumata cannot be incorporated into the processing of such a conflict? Political decisions, especially in peace politics, are only ever as good as the diverse minds behind them.

After Baerbock’s visit to Moscow, a slip of the tongue by the Foreign Minister was mocked on social media. She wanted to say freedom of the press, but almost slipped out “freedom of the press”. Are female politicians judged particularly critically? Does it get personal or dismissive quicker than with their male colleagues?

There are clear numbers for this. So has about one Study by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue showed that comments about Baerbock in the past election campaign contained significantly more misinformation than comments about their competitors. But the difference isn’t just in the sheer volume of attacks. When it comes to women politicians, things are much more sexualized. That’s a fact. It is often all about delegitimizing a woman like Annalena Baerbock as a politician. This is also the case with the most recent example.

While some openly attack the foreign minister, others cheer for the first woman to head the Federal Foreign Office. Isn’t Annalena Baerbock also reduced to her gender in this way?

An important question. But both are possible: She is the first woman in the position and at the same time competent. It would be nice if we lived in a society where you didn’t always have to emphasize the former. But the exclusion of women from diplomacy has a long history, so it’s right to celebrate each and every success. This gives marginalized groups a sense of empowerment.

Because politics always works through language: Don’t you see the danger that some people will dismiss the word “feminist” even though they may even share many of the goals?

This question also hits a point. I see the danger, but I accept it. Our analyzes and ideals are one hundred percent in the tradition of the feminist movement. Without them my work would not be possible. That’s why I use this word, and it should also help to make a term that often has such bad connotations in our society a matter of course. The feminist movement is the most successful when it comes to dismantling patriarchal structures – no wonder that those who try to prevent this want to delegitimize the term.

Maximilian Beer spoke to Kristina Lunz