29th May 2024
On Tuesday 29th May 2024 the programme “Gender and International Politics” of Polis180 hosted an online event discussing the evolution of feminist foreign policy (FFP). The event is part of our programme’s project Feminist Foreign Policy(s): An On-Going Journey through Global Policies and is intended to provide an opportunity to discuss the development(s) of FFP. Asking how FFP’s past, present and future are intertwined and how we can trace its multidimensional and non-linear development, moderator and Gender Programme co-ordinator Lena Wittenfeld was joined by our two wonderful speakers Jessica Cheung and Madita Standke-Erdmann.
Jessica Cheung is a PhD candidate at the Freie Universität Berlin. Her research interests include feminist foreign policy, anti-colonialism, transnational feminism, femonationalism and homonationalism. Prior to starting her PhD, she worked at UN Women in Beijing and ATGENDER in Utrecht. Most recently, she has worked with the Foundation for European Progressive Studies to publish a chapter on imagining a new gender equality contract for foreign policy.
Madita Standke-Erdmann is a doctoral researcher at the War Studies Department at King’s College, London. Her research is situated in the fields of feminist and postcolonial International Relations, global political economies, colonial histories and Feminist Security Studies. Her PhD project studies legacies of empire in German foreign policy in India. She holds an MSc in International Relations Theory from the London School of Economics and has worked in German and global civil society networks. She is a board member of the German Association for Peace and Conflict Studies.
What does FFP mean to you personally and professionally?
Madita relayed the experience of FFP in recent years, as well as the limitations observed in this context. In her view, the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF), where she has been active for several years, is a great example of an organisation pushing for a FFP in Germany. Envisaging FFP as a positive concept, she emphasised its ability to be a political space for creativity, exchange and allyship at the local and global levels, where people can conceive progressive, emancipatory and feminist policies to shape foreign policy. In other words, a space to overcome and understand patriarchal, racist and colonialist structures that dominate international and foreign policy spaces.
For her, it’s interesting to see how politics around FFP can be performative. Policies may call for civil society inclusion but often result in „pretty words with no action.“ Thus, she questions the viability of using the term feminist in government documents (e.g. related to the EU border agency Frontex and German colonial histories) and wonders how feminist policies can survive in an international space that is misogynistic and produces „neocolonial structures through its political economies.“ While Madita stressed that FFP should be seen as an ongoing process, she also noted that its implementation has been slow and often disappointing.
Jessica initiated by outlining her understanding of FFP on a critical note, emphasising how few career opportunities there are for early-career scholars and activists to participate in these discussions and the importance of creating space for dialogue. Evaluating FFP, Jessica critically regarded its implementation by countries as a working model, rather than as a fundamental concept. Jessica understands FFP as both a practice (working method) and also as a concept/theory. There is a tension between these two understandings of FFP. Ultimately, Jessica argued that FFP is theoretically grounded in an ethics of care. Thus, in approaching FFP as a practice we need to be conscious of the colonial and gendered power relations that are reproduced. Further, she lamented the limits and boundaries of FFP at a global level within the current normative political climate. Further, FFP might be an institutional structure that is monopolised by certain communities or countries “as a branding tactic that is fundamentally rooted in colonialism.”
Nonetheless, Jessica positively notes that FFP builds on a legacy of grassroots activism and domestic organising. However, this work at a local level is often translated at a state level into a normatively liberal approach to feminism. Accordingly, some countries explicitly adopt FFP, while others engage in comparatively similar approach to gender equality in foreign politics minus the explicit label (e.g. Norway). The designation of policies as FFP can enhance accountability, yet it also raises questions about recognition and promotion. This is because it acknowledges the political benefits of FFP. In conclusion, she characterizes feminism as „the politics of struggle.“
A Critical View on the Past and Present of Feminist Foreign Policy
In examining the past of FFP and its foundation on numerous achievements of international feminist advocacy, Madita referenced the 1915 peace conference in the Hague, which was attended by (predominantly European) women activists. This conference offered departure points for expanding feminist movements’ discussions on militarism. Subsequently, she cited the 1995 Beijing Conference and the UN Resolution 1325 as other pivotal feminist moments. The discussion then turned to the latter and the related Women, Peace and Security (WPS) Agenda, from which FFP includes concepts drawn from WPS but also differs. Madita valued the WPS Agenda’s contributions to women’s rights but also criticised it elaborating on its binary understanding of gender, its exclusion of queerness and diverse gender identities and sexualities, alongside its normalisation of women and children experiencing violence in conflict, perceived by some critics. Further, she referenced the worries of some practitioners that the WPS Agenda is weakened by the ‘trendiness’ of FFP. Whilst some civil society representatives want the notion of ‘research’ to be incorporated more strongly, Madita questioned whether incorporating this framework into FFP supports or depoliticises the concept.
Referring to inadvertent consequences that stem from the use of FFP as a tool by some liberal feminists, Jessica noted that liberal feminism is the most dominant and visible form at the global level. While she sees it problematic to dismiss the work behind it by feminist actors, she stressed the importance of separating the work from exclusionary ideology. Such ideology includes the ‘add women and stir’ approach which reproduces many Western colonial practices of power. Further, liberal approaches can, according to Cheung, replicate institutional or state-based violence, making them ineffective tools for the dismantling of harmful structures.
Diving deeper into notions of liberal feminism, the phenomenon of ‘girlbossification’ of FFP, where some individuals have come to represent the entire movement, was critically regarded. This idea was the focus of a recent newsletter for Marissa Conway, founder of the Centre for Feminist Foreign Policy. Madita explained more broadly how ‘girlbossification’ is an expression of neoliberal individualization and congruent with capitalist logics that perpetuate harmful power hierarchies. It does not serve the common good. Naming it ‘girlbossification’ is thus an anti-capitalist critique of dynamics within some FFP communities. From a personal perspective, her initial enthusiasm for FFP faded after noticing how the ‘gilbossification’ present within FFP circles can benefit an exclusion group and not the cause itself.
In the present of FFP, Jessica lamented the fact that no policy stands out as being particularly effective and that there is no truly positive example of FFP. For her, the French and Canadian approaches to FFP are limited. She recounted how integrating a feminist approach into international development was the only way for Canada to utilise feminism at the time of the policy’s implementation. As for France, she believed it lacks a clear understanding of how to mobilise feminism in foreign policy. She viewed the Swedish policy as the most expansive, referring to its uniquely feminist approach to international trade. She also reiterated earlier concerns of governments monopolising the FFP label to create “new lines of inclusion and exclusion” of who “has a seat at the foreign policy table.” Cheung advocated for expansive FFPs that are rooted in a transnational feminist perspective.
What direction might Feminist Foreign Policy take in the future?
Whether FFP should be clearly defined or remain abstract due to a lack of international consensus on its feminist ideology, Jessica warned that FFP emerging outside the Global North risks becoming another Western colonial export if it is not critically applied and sensitive to different contexts. Although it must operate within existing structures to be seen as legitimate within the global order, this limits opportunity for radical approaches. Madita further adds that the rising influence of corporate and philanthropic actors on FFP, meaning that FFP actors must design their programmes to fulfil philanthropic or corporate objectives. She advocated for open FFP spaces, so such policies can meet their fundamental principles of reacting to the needs of specific communities on the receiving end of foreign policy.
The label of FFP as feminist is often discussed in regard to FFP’s accountability. Referring to Germany, Madita noted the disappointment of civil society actors when their ideas have not been implemented after consultations with German state actors. Though, she mentioned that the German guidelines uniquely address the country’s colonial history and unequal power relations, advocating for contextualising FFPs and taking corner stones of consultation processed into account. Jessica also mentions discussions concerning colonialism during consultation, often pushed by non-government actors, and noted that anti-colonialism is incorporated into policies in socially acceptable ways. Thereby, Jessica stressed balancing expectations with reality and navigating the tension between domestic and foreign policies. For the future of FFP, FFP has no credibility if it doesn’t oppose problematic domestic policies. While Sweden has dismissed its FFP in 2022 in the aftermath of a change of government, a small symbol of hope can be abstracted from the Swedish case as some elements of Sweden’s FFP have remained in place. Though, those elements need to be fought for leading to a call for solidarity with actors promoting feminism behind the scenes. Finally, Jessica further stated that it is fundamentally better for FFP to have a label than not and she elaborated on Madita’s previous point on how private sector engagement is enabled by state actors wanting to shift the social and economic burden.
Concerning possible transformative potentials, our speakers assessed how the WPS-Agenda can be transformed into a more queer-friendly or pacifist way (with FFP or without). Madita spoke about the importance of understanding non-cis and non-heterosexual normative ways of living; from Cheung, we heard about the problematic ‘tacking-on’ of queer rights onto FFP and the strong historical links between feminist and pacifism that need to be re-examined and reconsidered in light of modern conflicts and violence.
To conclude, both speakers reiterated the need for feminist organising in today’s difficult climate and how everyone’s voice matters in feminist discourse.
We thoroughly thank our speaker for taking the time and joining us for this event.
For further questions you are welcome to contact Lena (lena.wittenfeld@polis180.org).
Event organisation and event report written by Lara Brett & Lena Wittenfeld
Zurück