Why a Feminist Foreign Policy

After the Labour Party’s landslide victory that ended fourteen years of Conservative rule and ushered in a record number of women parliamentarians, the United Kingdom’s (UK) newly elected Labour government appears set to blaze a new path in its foreign assistance policy. Foreign Secretary David Lammy’s policy blueprint declares that, “Our development policy will be proudly feminist, recognising the disproportionate impacts of poverty on women and girls.” In adopting a feminist development policy, the UK joins the growing list of countries committed to addressing historic imbalances in policies and outcomes related to gender.  

The UK would be the sixteenth country to join a trend that began in 2014 when Sweden adopted a feminist foreign, development, and/or trade policy, including Canada (2017), Chile (2022), Colombia (2023), France (2019), Germany (2022), Luxembourg (2019), Mexico (2020), Mongolia (2022), the Netherlands (2022), Norway (2016), Slovenia (2023), and Spain (2021). Multilateral institutions, such as the European Union, have also begun to adopt such policies. Sweden’s government rescinded the moniker in 2022 but affirmed its continuing commitment to the underlying principle of equity and actions in support of it. 

As we explain in our book, Feminist Foreign Policy in Theory and Practice, the past decade has seen the development of a theory and practice of feminist foreign policy (FFP) to transform traditional models of foreign policy and national security through adopting women’s rights, participation, and access to resources as central objectives that benefit women and entire societies. FFP builds on over a century of civil society activism as well as UN, regional, and country-specific treaties and agreements focused on human rights and women’s rights, including the UN Security Council resolutions on Women, Peace and Security and the World Conferences on Women that led to the landmark Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action in 1995. 

But What is a Feminist Foreign Policy? 

FFP is a bold commitment, signaling to those inside the government, civil society, and other states that a country sees gender equality as fundamental to peace, security, and stability. Modern traditional foreign policy frameworks, largely established after World War II, do not adequately address gender equality as a foreign policy and national security imperative. The FFP frameworks being adopted explicitly acknowledge that gender equality is a foreign policy goal that can decrease conflict, build more secure societies, and ensure that a full range of talent and input is used to solve problems.  

Countries that establish a set of feminist policies—including a FFP, a feminist development policy, and/or a feminist trade policy—commit to a transformational approach to policy-making and external engagement. These countries do so within their own political contexts, and as a result, policies look different in each country. Having said that, there are four common principles that emerge.  

• Gender equality as a strategy and a goal: Feminist policies are more than simply integrating a focus on women and girls into programs and policies; they explore how government institutions must change to advance gender equality and equity as a goal of foreign and security policy. Research is clear that countries with more gender equality engage less in conflict, are strong global citizens, and are more prosperous and secure. 
• Broadened definition of “security:” Not every security issue can be solved through militarized means. FFP acknowledges the need to bring in both diplomacy and development to address security concerns for individuals and within a community or country. This includes issues beyond the military and state borders, such as economic security, global health, climate change, and personal safety. It is also a commitment to address these fundamental human security concerns through both domestic and international policies and programs. 
• Inclusion of more diverse voices: A FFP goes beyond parliamentary quotas and gender-equal cabinets to address women’s leadership and participation. It brings in more feminist voices from different communities and with a broad set of equities. This means not just advancing the leadership and meaningful contributions of women, but of feminists broadly, and using an intersectional lens. FFP is also a commitment to include the voices and views of those who are often most impacted by foreign policy—civil society, women’s groups, and citizens themselves. 
• Addresses historic power imbalances: FFP addresses issues of power, such as colonialism, that often go unspoken within and between governments. Dynamics based on gender, race, sexuality, religion, economic power, education level, (dis-)ability, and other factors are included in gender and policy analysis and decision-making. 

What does FFP mean in practice? 

These commitments raise the question: How does FFP differ from a more traditional foreign policy, or even one that is focused on advocating for, and advancing the rights of, women and girls? In short, an FFP integrates the goal of gender equality across national foreign policy and international security institutions. This translates into policies that prioritize gender equality across the departments and agencies responsible for diplomacy, foreign assistance/development, defense and security cooperation, and trade as both a means and an end.  

High-level leadership and political will are critical if FFPs are to be implemented, for example through gender councils in the executive branch, staffed by officials with significant power to influence government-wide decisions. Budgetary commitments are also vital for targeted resources for diplomacy and development efforts, and for strategies that prioritize outcomes of gender equality and equity, not just performative women’s leadership. 

FFP translates into a renewed emphasis on tactics such as the meaningful use of gender advisors, the collection (and use) of sex-disaggregated data, and importantly, a mandate to utilize gender analysis in every foreign policy and national security decision.  

The FFP movement acknowledges that governments may take important steps towards a more “gendered” and feminist foreign policy without institutional transformation. These types of changes have an impact on their own and can lead to longer-term and sustainable changes. This includes “gender mainstreaming” within and across foreign policy and national security, economic development, trade, aid, and humanitarian policies and at all levels of decision-making; development assistance that substantially targets gender inequality and addresses gender relations; a focus on women’s security and human rights as indicators of state stability and international security; and other concrete mechanisms, such as ambassadors or envoys for global women’s issues.  

Canada, France, and Germany have all adopted frameworks to institutionalize FFP and ensure gender equality is squarely part of policy decisions. Canada’s feminist international assistance policy targets inequality in order to most effectively eradicate poverty around the world. France looks to address inequality, sustainable development, peace and security, the defense and promotion of fundamental rights, and climate and economic issues. Germany focuses on women and marginalized groups’ rights, representation and adequate resources, and cuts across all areas of activity of its Federal Foreign Office. The current U.S. administration has taken many actions that might be included in an FFP, while not explicitly committing to one.  

Some argue these types of changes are a simple “add women and stir” approach to tinker on the margins of foreign policy and national security institutions, and that without wholesale institutional change, past mistakes will be repeated, and traditional paradigms of colonialism and patriarchy left in place. Others see these changes as key in shifting perspectives within government and putting policies in place that reimagine the way government does business.  

However, civil society advocates seek more transformational changes that include higher-level personnel and robust resources, beyond a limited scope of gender-focused offices, to inform foreign policy decisions broadly. In order to create a foreign policy that is feminist in both scope and practice, the balance of power in decision-making must be shifted. Some scholars and advocates will not see FFP as truly successful unless patriarchal and colonial structures are dismantled. While this is difficult to visualize, the point is that tinkering around the edges of our institutions is not enough and that a new vision for foreign policy is critical to propel new thinking. This forces experts and practitioners alike to continually ask questions about the way they make policy decisions, measure their impact, and ensure that gender equality is at the center of each and every foreign policy and national security decision. 

As governments globally grapple with numerous complex challenges, it is clear that more traditional approaches are not enough. Thinking in a broader way and utilizing an approach that centers gender equality—and gender analysis—will ensure policymakers better understand the impact of foreign policy decisions on individuals and every part of a community.