Feminist Foreign Policy in Theory and in Practice [1 ed.] 1032281669, 9781032281667

Citation preview

FEMINIST FOREIGN POLICY IN THEORY AND IN PRACTICE

Feminist Foreign Policy in Theory and in Practice outlines the foundations of feminist foreign policy and the fundamental concepts discussed and utilized by governments, civil society organizations, and those in the academic community as they define, formulate, and implement it. This book furthers the global conversation around how countries can develop and execute approaches to foreign policy and national security that go beyond conflict prevention and resolution and use a feminist or gender lens to increase gender equality and women’s leadership in the security sector. It reviews how governments have implemented feminist foreign, development, and trade policies at the multilateral and national levels, and sets forth the unique global role of the U.S. government, using case studies to discuss what would be needed to implement a feminist foreign policy in the U.S. The authors provide a roadmap, stressing the necessity of applying a gender analysis and perspective to all peace and security decision-​making and involving women in all aspects of conflict prevention and resolution, peacebuilding, post-​conflict reconstruction, and humanitarian relief. They tie together the movements for human rights, women’s rights, feminism, and peace and security, highlighting how each of these strands brings key perspectives to the study of foreign policy. This book complements the study of the women, peace, and security agenda. It will be of great use to practitioners, including government officials, addressing issues of foreign policy, multilateral and bilateral engagement, and the promotion of gender equality and social inclusion. It will also be of interest to students and scholars of foreign policy, security studies, international relations, gender studies, development, governance, and political science.

Stephenie Foster is Co-​founder of Smash Strategies, former Senior Advisor/​ Counselor to the Ambassador-​ at-​ Large for Global Women’s Issues, and Senior Advisor to the Coordinator for Afghan Relocation Efforts, U.S. Department of State, and Professorial Lecturer and Executive-​in-​Residence at the American University Women & Politics Institute, USA (2005–​2012, 2017–​2018). Susan A. Markham is Director of HFXX and Co-​Founder of Smash Strategies, former USAID Senior Gender Coordinator, former Director of Women’s Political Participation at the National Democratic Institute and Lecturer for Brown University, Carnegie Mellon University, Georgetown University, and George Washington University, USA (2017–​present).

FEMINIST FOREIGN POLICY IN THEORY AND IN PRACTICE An Introduction

Stephenie Foster and Susan A. Markham

Designed cover image: © Getty Images First published 2024 by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2024 Stephenie Foster and Susan A. Markham The right of Stephenie Foster and Susan A. Markham to be identified as authors of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-​in-​Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-​in-​Publication Data Names: Foster, Stephenie, author. | Markham, Susan A., author. Title: Feminist foreign policy in theory and in practice : an introduction / Stephenie Foster and Susan A. Markham. Description: Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY : Routledge, 2024. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2023016197 (print) | LCCN 2023016198 (ebook) | ISBN 9781032281827 (hardback) | ISBN 9781032281667 (paperback) | ISBN 9781003295617 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Women’s rights–International cooperation. | Feminism–International cooperation. | International relations. Classification: LCC HQ1236 .F67 2024 (print) | LCC HQ1236 (ebook) | DDC 323.3/4–dc23/eng/20230621 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023016197 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023016198 ISBN: 978-​1-​032-​28182-​7 (hbk) ISBN: 978-​1-​032-​28166-​7 (pbk) ISBN: 978-​1-​003-​29561-​7 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/​9781003295617 Typeset in Sabon by Newgen Publishing UK

CONTENTS

Acknowledgments Introduction

vi 1

1 Foundations of Feminist Foreign Policy

6

2 Feminist Foreign Policy Fundamentals

27

3 Feminist Foreign Policy in Practice

53

4 The Global Role of the U.S.

86

5 Operationalizing Feminist Foreign Policy in the U.S.

113

Appendix 1: Timeline of Selected Key Events Appendix 2: Summary of United Nations Security Council Resolutions on Women, Peace, and Security Index

137 142 146

newgenprepdf

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

There are many individuals and organizations who helped us while writing this book. Although we cannot name them all, we would like to acknowledge Our Secure Future for its support for the genesis of our work on feminist foreign policy and the International Center for Research on Women for its leadership and partnership on the issue. We also acknowledge the many government officials across the globe who are working to transform institutions and to move toward feminist foreign policies. Thank you, as well, to the reviewers of our initial book proposal: Dr. Joan Johnson-​Freese, Dr. Michelle Jones, Carla Koppell, Dr. Karen O’Connor, and Ambassador Don Steinberg. Their contributions and suggestions were integral to our framing of this book. Finally, thank you to our close friends and family who support us daily. You inspire us to keep working for gender equality, women’s leadership, and of course, a feminist approach to policymaking.

INTRODUCTION

The world today is both chaotic and interconnected. Current events, including multiple ongoing conflicts, climate-​related upheavals, and global health crises, have policymakers questioning traditional assumptions, considering new ways of thinking, and conceptualizing new solutions. The global balance of power is being transformed due to the rise of China and other autocratic states. The connections between domestic and international policy are clearer than they have ever been before. COVID-​ 19 and the accompanying economic downturn made it abundantly clear that individuals and nation-​states are globally interdependent. And in real time, the media has highlighted, using data and anecdotal stories, the gendered nature of the global events (Camera, 2022).1 All of this creates opportunities for paradigm shifts and transformational change. This opportunity includes reexamining traditional approaches to foreign policy and questioning assumptions about international relations, power, security, war, conflict resolution, and gender. Dr. Carol Cohn, the founding director of the Consortium on Gender, Security and Human Rights at the University of Massachusetts Boston writes, These ideas are deeply embedded in national security discourse, where they underlie core assumptions about what makes us more secure, and what counts as “rational,” “self-​evident,” and “realistic” in security policy.

1 For example, in the first few months of the pandemic in 2020, roughly 3.5 million mothers in the U.S. with school-​age children either lost their job, took a leave of absence, or left the labor market altogether, according to an analysis by the Census Bureau. DOI: 10.4324/9781003295617-1

2 Introduction

In so doing, they act as a preemptive deterrent to thinking complexly, creatively, and truly realistically about security. (Cohn, 2019) Many security assumptions are gendered, including the belief that the use of military force, often called “hard power,” is more important to national security than the use of diplomacy, development, and other levers of soft power. Other standard beliefs also under scrutiny include ones that hold that the human dimensions of security are secondary to geopolitics and should guide foreign policy and national security decisions. Over the past decade, the theory of feminist foreign policy has emerged to interrogate these traditional models of national foreign policy and international security. Although the name “feminist foreign policy” prevents some policymakers and thought leaders from considering it, feminist foreign policy is an approach for government action that is based on historical events and movements, encompasses a set of key principles, has been adopted by a small set of countries, is being implemented in some ways already by the U.S. government, and could be further operationalized. Feminism and Feminist Foreign Policy

Feminism is the idea that all people, regardless of sex or gender, should have equal political, economic, and cultural opportunities and rights. Feminism is a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression, and is focused on dismantling the belief that sex and gender should define a person’s role in society. The idea of feminism has been around for over a century and encompasses at least four “waves” that correlate with women’s right to vote and own property, legal frameworks of economic equality and antidiscrimination, sexual and reproductive rights, the expansion of the movement to account for the multiple and intersecting ways that characteristics such as race, ethnicity, religion, age, (dis)ability, education, economic status, gender and sexual orientation impact women’s lives, and the role of technology within the current context. Feminist foreign policy is a transformative concept that provides a new way of thinking about global engagement as it integrates the goal of gender equality across national foreign policy and international security. This translates into foreign policy that looks at gender equality across diplomacy, foreign assistance/​development, defense and security cooperation, and trade as both a means and an end. Feminist foreign policy builds on women’s movements and the work championed by feminists while bringing in multiple other strands of thought and advocacy including feminist international relations theory, human rights as women’s rights, and the women, peace, and security agenda.

Introduction  3

Feminist foreign policy widens the foreign policy aperture beyond preventing and resolving conflict and looks to “rebalance” approaches to global engagement, so that the full range of diplomatic, development, and defense strategies are used by governments and multilateral institutions to meet foreign policy goals and objectives. It also values the contributions of all people, regardless of gender, addresses barriers to gender equality and diversity, and ensures that chronically marginalized voices, most often those of women, are part of policymaking processes. Feminist foreign policy as a political framework unifies the various strands of gender-​focused foreign policies and programs designed and implemented by governments, whether in terms of advancing women’s political and economic leadership, the women, peace, and security agenda, or a gender focus in development assistance. It is a framework that allows the efforts of governments to be measured and for those governments to be held accountable for their commitments to women’s rights and gender equality. Feminist foreign policy in practice acknowledges that governments can take important steps that move closer to a more “gendered” and feminist foreign policy without leading to transformation. These types of changes have impact on their own and can also lead to longer-​term and sustainable changes. They include “gender mainstreaming” within and across foreign policy and national security, economic development, trade, aid, and humanitarian policies and at all levels of decision-​making; the hiring of gender advisors; the use of sex-​disaggregated data; international development assistance that substantially targets gender inequality and seeks to address and transform gender relations; a focus on women’s security and human rights as indicators of state stability and international security as evidenced by commitments to the women, peace, and security agenda; and other concrete mechanisms, such as establishing ambassadors or envoys for global women‘s issues (Aggestam & True, 2020). Some argue these types of changes are a simple “add women and stir” approach that 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 to shifting perspectives within government and putting policies in place that reimagine the way government does business. Both can be true. It is important to constantly evaluate these policies to determine their impact, understanding that some scholars and advocates will not see feminist foreign policy as truly successful unless patriarchal and colonial structures are dismantled. Sweden’s groundbreaking adoption of a feminist foreign policy in 2014 spurred this growing movement and a deeper consideration of how a feminist foreign policy works in reality. Feminist foreign policy is now a rallying cry globally for civil society advocates and academic literature is burgeoning. In

4 Introduction

the intervening nine years, additional countries have committed to a feminist foreign, development, and/​or trade policy and multilateral institutions, such as the European Union, have begun to adopt such a policy. But there has been backlash, particularly to the use of the term “feminist.” Moreover, in 2022, Sweden’s new conservative government retreated from its long-​ standing policy, saying the label could be counterproductive, while still reaffirming its commitment to gender equality. Book Overview

This book examines the theory underlying feminist foreign policy by outlining the numerous strands of thought, practice, and advocacy that shape its formulation. It reviews the historical events and movements that led to the current theoretical policy, examines the set of key principles that it is based upon, assesses the versions of the policy that have been adopted by a set of countries, evaluates how some feminist foreign policy ideas have been implemented by the U.S. government, and looks at how it could be further operationalized. Chapter 1 sets forth the theoretical and historical underpinnings, in terms of existing United Nations treaties, instruments, and conferences. This includes treaties and agreements focused on human rights and women’s rights, United Nations Security Council Resolutions on Women, Peace, and Security, and the World Conferences on Women that led to the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action. All these treaties, agreements, and consensus documents are foundational to feminist foreign policy. Chapter 2 discusses the key principles of feminist foreign policy in the context of gender equality, which is central to this framework. This underscores that women, men, girls, and boys interact with each other and with society differently due to several factors. These include laws, policies, and practices; cultural norms and beliefs; gender roles and responsibilities; access to and control over assets and resources; access to power and decision-​ making; and the impact of conflict and violence. Although there is not one universally accepted definition of feminist foreign policy across sectors, there are fundamental concepts that form the basis for the idea. These principles include gender equality as a goal and strategy, a broadened definition of security, the elevation of diverse voices, and a desire to address historic power imbalances. This chapter outlines these fundamentals. Chapter 3 reviews the countries that have committed to a feminist foreign policy, a feminist development policy, and/​or a feminist trade policy, and the specific contours of these policies. Sweden’s adoption of a feminist foreign policy in 2014 spurred a deeper consideration of how feminist policy works in the “real world” and how it might apply in other countries. Since then, there has been a steady drumbeat of interest. Additional countries have

Introduction  5

adopted such policies, including Canada, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Mexico, Mongolia, the Netherlands, Norway, and Spain, and with others beginning this process: Chile, Ireland, Liberia, Libya, and Scotland. Chapter 4 covers the unique role of the U.S. government and its large footprint in global economic and political affairs. It also discusses the shift in the U.S. government’s approach from a focus on women’s leadership and empowerment to gender equality and equity, mirroring global trends in the feminist and women’s rights movements, and how this affects the development of policies and programs. Chapter 5 provides a set of specific policy recommendations for the U.S. government, building on past and current work by the U.S. government and civil society. These recommendations lay out a roadmap for national security and foreign policy officials to promote security, gender equality, and cooperation by integrating principles of gender equality and a gender analysis into decision-​making and policy implementation. It provides an analysis of the progress made to date toward a feminist foreign policy in the U.S. and the openings that might accelerate such a commitment in an ever-​dynamic world. References Aggestam, Karin and Jacqui True, “Gendering Foreign Policy: A Comparative Framework for Analysis.” Foreign Policy Analysis Vol. 16, No. 2 (April 2020): 143–​162, https://​doi.org/​10.1093/​fpa/​orz​026 Camera, Lauren, “White House Looks to Push Congress on Universal Child Care.” U.S. News & World Report, 2022, available online at: www.usn​ews.com/​news/​ natio​nal-​news/​artic​les/​2022-​02-​22/​white-​house-​looks-​to-​push-​congr​ess-​on-​univer​ sal-​child-​care Cohn, Carol, “Gender and National Security: Thinking Complexly and Creatively about Security.” Ploughshares Fund, 2019, available online at: https://​ploug​hsha​ res.org/​iss​ues-​analy​sis/​arti​cle/​gen​der-​and-​natio​nal-​secur​ity

1 FOUNDATIONS OF FEMINIST FOREIGN POLICY

Feminist foreign policy is an approach for government action. It is based on historical events and movements, encompasses a set of key principles, has been adopted by a small set of countries, is being implemented in some ways already by the U.S. government, and could be further operationalized. For over a century, women and men have advocated for human rights, women’s rights, and the importance of peace and security in international security and foreign policy. The feminist foreign policy framework has emerged from these historical movements, associated international agreements and documents, and the creation and development of the concepts of women’s empowerment, gender equality, and feminism. This chapter outlines these origins. The Concept of Human Rights

The belief that everyone is equally entitled to human rights is a cornerstone of feminist foreign policy. The concept of human rights is rooted in the traditions and documents of many cultures and societies, some of which are set forth later. Yet virtually all of these traditions and documents originally excluded women from their frameworks as well as certain ethnic, social, religious, economic, and political groups (Flowers, 1998). Throughout much of history, people have acquired rights and responsibilities through their membership in a group: a family, an indigenous nation, a religion, class, community, or state. All societies, whether with oral or written traditions, have had systems of propriety and justice as well as methods to address the health and welfare of their members (Flowers, 1998). The Inca and Aztec codes of conduct and justice, the Hindu Vedas, the DOI: 10.4324/9781003295617-2

Foundations of Feminist Foreign Policy  7

Babylonian Code of Hammurabi, the Bible, the Quran, and the Analects of Confucius are some of the oldest written sources of individual duties, rights, and responsibilities, and how individuals relate to governing institutions. The Magna Carta (1215) introduced a rough concept of the “rule of law” and the idea that “all persons” have defined rights and liberties, offering protection from arbitrary prosecution and incarceration. Before the Magna Carta, the rule of law, now considered a key principle in any modern democratic society, was perceived as divine justice, to be solely distributed by the monarch or the king (Flowers, 1998). The Magna Carta had mixed provisions around the rights of women. Clauses 7 and 8 seem to provide equal inheritance rights for noble women: “At her husband’s death, a widow may have her marriage portion and inheritance at once and without trouble.” However, at the same time, Clause 54 weighted a woman’s testimony in court less than that of a man: “No one shall be arrested or imprisoned on the appeal of a woman for the death of any person except her husband” (Harris, 2015). The English Bill of Rights (1689) outlined specific constitutional and civil rights and ultimately gave Parliament power over the monarchy. The French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789) introduced the concept that all “men are born and remain free and equal in rights,” and specified the rights of liberty, private property, the inviolability of the person, and resistance to oppression (Harris, 2015). The U.S. Bill of Rights (1791), the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, includes specific prohibitions on governmental power in order to protect individual liberties. As with earlier writings, these documents and frameworks were largely gender blind. This reflected, at the time they were written, that women were not seen as equal to men and did not have equal rights to own property, vote, or control their own lives. In the U.S. context, First Lady Abigail Adams famously wrote to her husband President John Adams in 1776: I desire you would Remember the Ladies, and be more generous and favourable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the Husbands. Remember all Men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention is not paid to the Ladies we are determined to foment a Rebelion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any Laws in which we have no voice, or Representation. (Adams, 1776) In that time period, there were other essays and critiques that advocated for women’s rights. Mary Wollstonecraft’s A Vindication of the Rights of Women: With Strictures on Political and Moral Subjects, for example, called for women’s empowerment and was prompted by the refusal of the French revolutionaries to extend educational rights to women (Wollstonecraft, 1792). John Stuart Mill, in The Subjection of Women, condemned the legal

8  Foundations of Feminist Foreign Policy

subordination of women and argued that women and men are equal in “privileges and power” (Mill, 1869). By the 1800s, individual rights were defined by how a nation’s inhabitants related to the rulers of that nation, but events of the time expanded the idea of individual rights beyond national borders and governance, serving as a precursor for the concepts of universal rights and accountability (Geddis, 2017). The antislavery movement, for example, worked to end a global practice perpetuated by nation-​states against people who did not necessarily have a connection to a particular country. This eventually led to nation-​states agreeing to common rules of international behavior (Geddis, 2017). The antislavery movement, and the organizations created to support it, played a prominent role in building political will for universal human rights, although the collaboration between abolitionists and women’s rights groups was not always easy. In 1829, British born reformer Frances Wright toured the U.S. and lectured against slavery. She was one of many women, including Lucretia Mott and sisters Sarah and Angelina Grimké, who publicly advocated to abolish slavery (Grimke, 1838). These movements continued to grow and develop, leading to the abolition of slavery in the U.S. and related legal reforms. Women’s movements also continued to gain momentum, particularly around the fight for women’s suffrage, both in the U.S. and around the world. As further discussed later, the concept of universal human rights came to the forefront after the horrors of World War II and the term entered the global vocabulary in the 1940s (Moyn, 2012). Women’s Rights Organizations and Movements

In the mid-​1800s, the first international women’s movement was built by a small group of elite women in the U.S., the United Kingdom, Germany, and France. Their goals were civic and political equality for women, the right to vote and hold public office, and social justice in employment, education, and access to health care (Boles & Hoeveler, 2004). These women connected through a network based on letters, visits, a common body of published writings, and shared tactics and issues. Despite the unease of some antislavery activists, working to end slavery was foundational to the women’s movement and, as a result, important connections were made between the two groups of activists. In 1833, a group of White and Black women founded the Philadelphia Female Anti-​ Slavery Society. Noted abolitionist and suffragist Lucretia Mott interacted with parallel antislavery societies in the United Kingdom and the U.S. on behalf of the Philadelphia group (Melder, 1997), strengthening relationships, networks, and advocacy on both issues. Anti-​ Slavery International was founded as the British and Foreign Anti-​Slavery Society in 1839 and was key

Foundations of Feminist Foreign Policy  9

to both abolishing slavery and advocating for the equal rights of women and other marginalized groups. The Seneca Falls Convention was the first woman’s rights convention held in the U.S. in July 1848. The convention launched the women’s suffrage movement and decades of advocacy and activism for women’s right to vote. Abolitionists like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott boldly proclaimed in the Seneca Falls Declaration of Sentiments (U.S. National Park Service, 1848) that “We hold these truths to be self-​evident; that all men and women are created equal … [and] that to secure these rights governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” These feminists outlined over 15 “repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman,” and among other things, demanded “their sacred right” to vote. They foresaw the challenges they would face: “In entering upon the great work before us, we anticipate no small amount of misconception, misrepresentation, and ridicule; but we shall use every instrumentality within our power to effect our object.” Three hundred men and women, including noted abolitionist leader Frederick Douglass, signed the Seneca Falls Declaration. But the relationship between abolitionists and suffragists was not without tension. Some antislavery activists disapproved of women’s public role. Frances Wright was mocked in a cartoon, which depicted her as a goose (Lange, 2015). Ten years later, in 1840, the World Anti-​Slavery Convention refused to seat women delegates, but women still continued as leaders and organizers in some parts of the movement. When the Civil War ended, and women were not included in the 14th and 15th Amendments, many suffragists felt betrayed. Some in the movement refused to work for ratification of these amendments (Weiss, 2020). At the same time, Black women in the suffrage movement felt sidelined and marginalized, and there were racial overtones to both the pro-​and anti-​suffrage rhetoric during these many campaigns (Weiss, 2020). The ensuing fight for women’s suffrage in the U.S. spanned the next 70 years. From the first referendum held in 1867 to ratification of the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1920, U.S. suffragists were relentless advocates. In an era preceding mass media, they took on 480 petition and lobbying drives to get state legislatures to submit suffrage amendments to voters; 277 campaigns to get state political party conventions to include women’s suffrage planks in their party platforms; and 56 state referendum campaigns. Women in the western U.S. gained the right to vote before women in the rest of the country and in many places, women could vote for some, but not all, offices (Weiss, 2020). This struggle took place as women across the globe also fought for their right to vote. Between 1918 and 1921, women gained the right to vote in Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, Russia, and the United Kingdom.

10  Foundations of Feminist Foreign Policy

The movement in the U.S. culminated in the passage and ratification of the 19th Amendment in 1920. Despite the 19th Amendment, however, many non-​White women were not able to vote immediately due to literacy tests, poll taxes, and violence (Staples, 2019). Native American and Asian American women did not gain the right to vote until much later, as they did not hold U.S. citizenship at that time (Staples, 2019). Further, gaining the right to vote did not end discrimination against women. It continued and was embedded into numerous legal frameworks surrounding employment, jury service, access to credit, and criminal justice (Brown, 1971). A strong civil society was formed during this time in the U.S. and globally as women organized across various sectors, around interconnected issues, and in terms of affinity groups. Thousands of groups, of all sizes, advocated for both broad and narrow issues of women’s rights and gender equality. Examples from this “first wave” of feminism reflect a diverse set of issues. The YWCA was founded in the United Kingdom in 1855 to support women during the industrial revolution. It continued its fight for women’s rights and human rights during the European refugee crisis after World War II, the U.S. civil rights movement, and the struggle to end apartheid in South Africa (YWCA website). The American Association of University Women (AAUW) was founded in 1880 to advance opportunities for women to pursue higher education and careers, and for equal treatment with men. The League of Women Voters (LWV) was founded six months before the 19th Amendment was ratified to help women carry out their new responsibilities as citizens and voters. President Harry Truman later invited the LWV to consult with the U.S. delegation at the United Nations Charter Conference (League of Women Voters website). The National Federation of Business and Professional Women’s Clubs (NFBPWC) was founded in 1919 to focus on the issues relevant to working women. The establishment of the “Status of Women” commission in the U.S. in 1963 was due largely to NFBPWC’s efforts (National Federation of Business and Professional Women’s Clubs website). The National Council of Negro Women was founded in 1935 by Mary McLeod Bethune “to advance opportunities and the quality of life for African American women, their families and communities” (National Council of Negro Women website). Many of these organizations are still in existence today and have been joined by numerous others. Nongovernmental Peace Movements

Movements for peace and disarmament arose alongside the fights for human and women’s rights and in response to World War I. Jane Addams and other feminists organized the Woman’s Peace Party in 1915, which called for the limitation of arms and weapons, mediation of the European conflict, and the removal of the economic causes of war. The Women’s International League

Foundations of Feminist Foreign Policy  11

for Peace and Freedom, founded in Europe in 1915, today remains one of the world’s longest standing women’s peace organizations. The Second International Congress of Women 1919 (the Congress of Women) was held at the same time as the Paris Peace Conference to end World War I. The Congress of Women supported the creation of the League of Nations as an international platform to “represent the will of the people and promote international cooperation,” but argued that the terms of the peace proposal to end World War I violated the principles upon which a “just and lasting peace can be secured.” The Congress of Women also called for the full voting franchise for women, eligibility for women to serve in every position at the League of Nations, equal pay and opportunities in employment and education, economic support for mothers, and racial equality (Adams, 2014). In the U.S., the Women’s Peace Union (WPU) was founded in 1921 by former suffrage leaders and peace activists to focus on nonviolent means to address conflict. The WPU lobbied to end aggression toward other countries. It drafted a Constitutional amendment to make war illegal and prohibit the U.S. from preparing for, declaring, or engaging in war or armed conflict (Adams, 2014). By 1940, the peace movement in Europe and the U.S. almost collapsed after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii in December 1941. It was very unpopular to oppose the use of military means against the Nazi regime, Japanese forces, and even by the Red Army on the Eastern Front (Johansen, 2013). But near the end of World War II, as described later, world leaders came together and worked to establish the United Nations to avoid future world wars, maintain international peace and security, and promote international cooperation. In the 1960s, movements for both peace and women’s rights gained strength again. Women Strike for Peace formed in 1960 to oppose nuclear testing, stressing women’s responsibility to stop nuclear testing and protect future generations. The magazine Liberation was one of the earliest publications to engage in a dialogue focused on militarism and gender, promoting the writings of nonviolent theorist and activist Barbara Deming, who critiqued the too easy adoption of violent methods and support for wars of national liberation. In the 1970s, women became a major constituency of the peace movement. Many feminist activists and scholars addressed the issue of anti-​militarism, especially critiquing the male language of strategy. The UN Decade for Women (1976–​1985) led to increased global awareness of, and involvement in, the peace movement by women. As noted, women had already been active in peace movements, including the movement to end the Vietnam War. This work continued and deepened and focused in the 1980s on a nuclear freeze between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. to halt the testing, production, and deployment of nuclear weapons (Miller, 1982).

12  Foundations of Feminist Foreign Policy

Globally, and at every level, women have been active participants in conflict prevention and resolution. This work further informed and galvanized the women, peace, and security movement, which is further discussed later. In 2011, former Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Liberian peace and women’s rights advocate Leymah Gbowee, and Yemeni journalist Tawakkol Karman were jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for their “non-​violent struggle for the safety of women and for women’s rights to full participation in peace-​building work” (The Nobel Prize, 2011). Key International Agreements and Events

During World War II, Allied leaders began to envision a new international institution to ensure human rights, global peace, and cooperation once the war ended. In 1941, U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill signed the Atlantic Charter, committing their countries to international collaboration, common principles, and individual rights. The Charter outlined their collective views on a postwar international system (The Atlantic Charter, 1941). At later meetings in Tehran, Yalta, and San Francisco, delegates from Allied nations planned for an organization called the United Nations to replace the failed League of Nations. In the U.S. the essence of these global principles had been captured in President Roosevelt’s 1941 State of the Union Address where he spoke of a world founded on four essential freedoms: the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, the freedom from want, and the freedom from fear. This speech reflected President the Roosevelt’s hope that the U.S. would abandon the isolationist policies that followed World War I, and set forth what would become the ideological basis for involvement in World War II, framed in terms of individual rights and liberties. This echoed calls from across the globe for human rights standards to protect citizens from abuses by their governments and standards against which nations could be held accountable for the treatment of those living within their borders. The concept of universal human rights came to the forefront after World War II and the term entered the global vocabulary in the 1940s (Moyn, 2012). In 1945, 50 nations signed the United Nations Charter, with a primary goal of bolstering international cooperation and promoting human rights (Moyn, 2012). The UN Charter acknowledges that one of the UN’s purposes is “[t]‌o achieve international co-​operation … in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion” (United Nations, 1945). First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt was the first chair of the UN Commission on Human Rights. Under her leadership, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948. The UDHR established, for the first time, that fundamental human rights are to

Foundations of Feminist Foreign Policy  13

be universally protected and that both women and men have the same rights. It states: “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth [here] without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status” (Pietilä, 2002). In 1968, Roosevelt posthumously received one of the first United Nations Human Rights Prizes for her work. The UDHR is widely recognized as having expanded the body of human rights law, paving the way for the adoption of more than 70 additional human rights treaties (United Nations, 1948). These treaties include the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948), the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (also known as CEDAW) (1979), the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (1990), and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006). The idea of women’s rights as human rights, however, was still a radical concept when the UN was first discussed. At that time, women had voting rights in only 50 percent of UN member states. In the U.S., while most women could vote, there were still barriers to voting and political participation. Sex-​ segregated job announcements were still common, women could still be excluded from jury duty, could only obtain birth control if married, and needed to have their husband’s signature in order to obtain credit. Many of these restrictions on women’s human rights were not addressed for decades. In order to implement the commitments set forth in the UN Charter and the UDHR to equal rights for men and women, activists proposed the formation of a UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW). Eleanor Roosevelt opposed the creation of CSW because in her view, if rights were equally protected for men and women, such a body would not be necessary (Pfeffer, 1996). Despite her objections, however, CSW was established in 1946 as the principal global intergovernmental body exclusively dedicated to the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of women. It still meets annually each March. From 1947 to 1962, CSW focused on setting standards and formulating international conventions to change discriminatory legislation and foster global awareness of women’s issues and rights (UN Women, 2019). CSW drafted early international treaties on women’s rights, such as the Convention on the Political Rights of Women that was approved by the UN General Assembly in 1952. This Convention codifies international standards for women’s political rights including women’s equal right to vote, run for office, and hold public office, as well as women’s rights to exercise all public

14  Foundations of Feminist Foreign Policy

functions, established by national law, on equal terms with men and without discrimination. CSW also drafted the first international agreements on women’s rights in marriage. This included the Convention on the Nationality of Married Women (1957) and the Convention on Consent to Marriage, Minimum Age for Marriage, and Registration of Marriages (1962). CSW also contributed to conventions such as the International Labor Organization’s 1951 Convention concerning Equal Remuneration for Men and Women Workers for Work of Equal Value, which enshrined the principle of equal pay for equal work. The International Covenant for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) were both adopted in 1966. Both protected a range of civil and political rights and prohibited discrimination based on sex. The ICCPR included two key articles relevant to women. In Article 3, it provides that parties “undertake to ensure the equal right of men and women to the enjoyment of all civil and political rights.” Article 25 provides that every citizen has the equal right to participate in public affairs, vote, and be elected through universal and equal suffrage, and to have equal access to public services (United Nations, 1966). The UN General Assembly then declared 1976–​1985 to be the UN Decade for Women to highlight the importance of women’s rights. During this decade, several world conferences on women took place, drawing thousands of delegates and observers. The conferences and associated gatherings built momentum for gender equality broadly and for specific policy initiatives. Preparing for these conferences was valuable to women’s civil society organizations in terms of energizing advocates, gaining experience, forming networks, and organizing around common goals. In particular, in this time period, addressing violence against women became a central issue for organizing and action (Pietilä, 2002). In 1975, the first UN world conference on women took place in Mexico City, Mexico with 133 governments participating and 6,000 civil society representatives attending a parallel forum. At the Mexico City conference, delegates developed a ten-​year action plan, and addressed issues such as the importance of women’s economic empowerment and political participation, the key role women play in promoting development and peace, and the need for women’s equal access to education, health care, and family planning services. The conference addressed several contemporaneous foreign policy issues, such as control of the Panama Canal Zone, apartheid in South Africa, and the situation of women in Vietnam and Chile (United Nations, 1976). In 1979, the UN General Assembly adopted the Convention to End Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) (UN Women, 1979), often described as an international bill of rights for women. CEDAW explicitly defines discrimination against women and provides an overarching framework for

Foundations of Feminist Foreign Policy  15

gender equality by ensuring women’s equal access to, and equal opportunities in, political and public life, education, health, and the economy. CEDAW is the only human rights treaty that affirms the reproductive rights of women and addresses culture and tradition as influential forces that shape gender roles and norms. CEDAW sets forth concrete steps for governments to take to eliminate discrimination against women. In Article 7, parties to CEDAW agree to take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in the political and public life of their country and, in particular, to ensure that women have the equal right to: vote in all elections and public referenda, hold public office, and be elected to all publicly elected bodies; participate in the formulation and implementation of government policy; and participate in nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and associations concerned with the public and political life of the country. By ratifying CEDAW, countries commit to incorporate gender equality in their legal system, abolish all discriminatory laws and adopt laws prohibiting discrimination against women, establish mechanisms and institutions to protect women against discrimination, and ensure elimination of discrimination against women. Countries that have ratified or acceded to CEDAW commit to submit national reports to the CEDAW Committee, at least every four years, on the steps they have taken toward their obligations (UN Women, 1979). As of 2023, CEDAW has been ratified or acceded to by 189 countries. As of early 2023, the six UN member states that have not ratified or acceded to CEDAW are Palau, Somalia, Sudan, Tonga, and the U.S. In general, critics of CEDAW and other United Nations human rights covenants argue that while UN institutions monitor and encourage compliance with these declarations and treaties, there are no international enforcement mechanisms in place. Moreover, countries can disregard commitments on the ground of national security or make reservations to particular articles on the grounds of national law, tradition, religion, or culture (Levine & Kouvo, 2020). On the other hand, the commitments to equal rights and nondiscrimination that are included in UN documents have encouraged and supported action over time by activists and governments alike to end discriminatory policies and laws. The second UN world conference on women was held in 1980 in Copenhagen, Denmark, with delegates from 145 member states participating in the official session. The conference was initially planned for Tehran, but the Iranian Revolution of 1979 and the Iran hostage crisis led to the conference being hastily relocated to Denmark. The conference reviewed progress toward the goals of the Mexico City conference, focusing its attention on women’s employment, health, and education. An agreed-​upon Program of Action called for stronger national measures to ensure women’s property

16  Foundations of Feminist Foreign Policy

rights, rights to inheritance, and ability to pass along citizenship to their children (UN Women, 1980). The conference addressed foreign policy issues, including women in the Middle East, refugees, and apartheid. In 1985, the third UN world conference took place in Nairobi, Kenya with a mandate to move the goals of the UN Decade for Women (1976–​ 1985) forward. Participants included delegates from 157 member states and 12,000 participants at a parallel civil society forum. The conference outlined additional measures to achieve gender equality and promote women’s participation in peace and development efforts (UN Women, 1985). The conference document explicitly connects peace and development, outlining that “peace cannot be realized under conditions of economic and sexual inequality, denial of basic human rights and fundamental freedoms, deliberate exploitation of large sectors of the population, unequal development of countries, and exploitative economic relations.” There were also contemporaneous global movements to expand reproductive rights, which the World Health Organization defined as the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so, and the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health. (World Health Organization, 1994) This includes the right to access birth control and abortion, be free from coerced sterilization and contraception, and have access to information needed to make free and informed reproductive choices. The first international document recognizing these rights was the nonbinding Proclamation of Tehran in 1968, which stated that “[p]‌arents have a basic human right to determine freely and responsibly the number and the spacing of their children” (United Nations, 1968). In 1994, the Cairo Programme of Action, adopted by 184 United Nations member states, recognized that reproductive health and rights, as well as women’s empowerment and gender equality, are critical to population and development programs (UNFPA, 1993). Around the same time, the Declaration and Programme of Action was adopted by the UN World Conference on Human Rights in 1993. It concluded that human rights are universal and that nation-​states are not allowed to violate rights under the guise of cultural differences. With regard to gender equality, the Programme articulated that the rights of women and girls are fundamental parts of universal human rights (Sullivan, 1994). In 1994, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) introduced the concept of human security, which broadens the traditional definition

Foundations of Feminist Foreign Policy  17

of security, looking to address how people view security and the need for development to play a key role in building stronger societies. This is critical to current discussions of how to define the concept of security, a building block of feminist foreign policy. The associated UNDP Human Development Report set forth a new paradigm of sustainable human development to capture a potential peace dividend and restructure the system of global institutions (UNDP, 1994). All of these United Nations global meetings, documents, and campaigns were the backdrop for the seminal UN Fourth World Conference on Women: Action for Equality, Development and Peace (the Beijing Conference), held in China in 1995. Officials from over 180 countries gathered with more than 17,000 participants, including 6,000 government delegates, 4,000 accredited NGO representatives, and 4,000 members of the media. A parallel forum for NGOs was held in Huairou, China, over 30 miles from the main conference site in Beijing. That forum drew 30,000 participants (UN Women, 1995a). It was at the Beijing Conference that then First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton’s remarks explicitly linked women’s rights and human rights (Clinton, 1995). In her words, “[i]‌f there is one message that echoes forth from this conference, let it be that human rights are women’s rights and women’s rights are human rights, once and for all.” By 1995, the issues addressed at the Beijing Conference, and by women across the globe, reflected a broadened perspective on what constituted women’s rights, with a focus on economic and political participation, equal access to health care and education, and the need to address violence against women. During the gathering, the official delegates unanimously agreed to the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action (the Beijing Platform), which is not a binding treaty and is not enforceable. Nevertheless, it is still the most forward-​leaning global statement and agreement about the rights of women and girls and gender equality, reflecting the perspective that all issues are women’s issues, and that gender equality is central to basic human rights. The Beijing Platform was, and still is, a rallying cry for a wide range of civil society actors, who have used it to advocate for changes to legal frameworks at the local, national, and regional levels, and across numerous issues. The Beijing Platform set out 12 cross-​cutting issues to achieve political, social, economic, cultural, and environmental security: poverty, education, health, violence, armed conflict, the economy, power and decision-​making, mechanisms for women’s advancement, women’s human rights, the role of mass media, the environment, and the importance of the girl child. It highlighted the importance of governments mainstreaming gender and integrating gender perspectives into all legislation, public policies, and programs (UN Women, 1995b). At its heart, the Beijing Platform set forth the principle that underlies the women, peace, and security agenda, and the foundations of a feminist foreign

18  Foundations of Feminist Foreign Policy

policy: that if women are to play an equal part in securing and maintaining peace, they must be empowered politically and economically and represented adequately at all levels of decision-​making (UN Women, 1995b). Accordingly, the Beijing Platform called for an increase in women’s representation among economic and political decision-​makers (UN Women, 1995b) and endorsed quotas to guarantee that women are included at a prescribed minimum level in political institutions, recommending a quota of 33 percent (UN Women, 1995b). Notably, there has not been a world conference since Beijing, in large part due to fears that growing global conservatism and authoritarianism could lead to a weaker consensus document. In 2000, building on decades of major UN conferences and summits, as well as continued activism, world leaders adopted the United Nations Millennium Declaration. This committed member states to a new global partnership to reduce extreme poverty. It set out a series of time-​bound targets that became known as the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which were agreed to by all countries and the world’s leading development institutions (United Nations, 2015). The eight MDGs ranged from halving extreme poverty rates to halting the spread of HIV AIDS and providing universal primary education. Specifically, goal 3 of the MDGs focused on “promot[ing] gender equality and empower[ing] women” with a key target to eliminate gender disparity in primary and secondary education. That same year, the UN Security Council passed UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace, and Security (UNSCR 1325). It was the first UN Security Council resolution to specifically address the impact of war on women, and the importance of women’s contributions to conflict resolution and sustainable peace. Further, the debate accompanying its adoption was the first time the UN Security Council dedicated an entire session specifically to women (Cockburn, 2011). UNSCR 1325 was groundbreaking, and foundational to feminist foreign policy, as it stressed the importance of women’s equal participation and full involvement in maintaining peace and security and urged all actors to increase the participation of women and incorporate gender perspectives in all United Nations peace and security efforts. It called on all parties to conflict to take special measures to protect women and girls from gender-​based violence, particularly rape and other forms of sexual abuse. UNSCR 1325 and related resolutions address the disproportionate impacts of war and conflict on women and reflect the pivotal role women should, and do, play in conflict prevention, conflict management, and sustainable peace efforts. Collectively, UNSCR 1325 and related resolutions recognize sexual violence as a weapon and tactic of war (UN Security Council Resolutions 1820, 2008; 1888, 2009; 1960, 2010), link disarmament and gender equality (UNSCR 2122, 2013), highlight the importance of government collaboration

Foundations of Feminist Foreign Policy  19

with civil society (UNSCR 2242, 2015), recognize gender as a cross-​cutting issue to address violent extremism and terrorism (UNSCR 2242, 2015), recognize the women, peace, and security agenda as applicable to all countries (UNSCR 2242, 2015), and urge meaningful inclusion of women in peace talks (UNSCR 2493, 2019). Under these resolutions (see Appendix 2 for details) nations commit to engaging women in all aspects of conflict prevention, resolution, and post-​ conflict reconstruction. These resolutions were drafted and framed to guide work to promote gender equality and strengthen women’s participation, protection, and rights across all aspects of the conflict cycle. This framework reflects how women, and a gender perspective, are relevant to negotiating peace agreements, ensuring effective peacekeeping operations, and reconstructing societies post-​conflict. UNSCR 1325 is broadly accepted across the globe and to date has been translated into over 100 languages (Sen, 2020). In 2015, UN member states adopted the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), a series of 17 goals for the year 2030 to drive global efforts for sustainable change to benefit citizens in every country (United Nations, 2015). Unlike the MDGs, which had set goals and targets for developing countries only, the SDGs apply to all countries, regardless of development status (United Nations, 2015). While feminist analysts praised how the SDGs built on the MDGs, they also criticized the SDGs’ promotion of traditional economic models, as well as the SDGs’ failure to address the need for structural reform, to address existing power imbalances, and to emphasize the importance of human rights (Millard, 2017). These critics also noted that the SDGs are either silent or very weak on LGBTQI+​issues and the importance of using collective action and advocacy to meet the goals of the SDGs (Millard, 2017). Gender equality is both a stand-​ alone goal (SDG 5) and integrated across virtually all the other goals. Having said that, SDGs 5 and 16 are most relevant to a feminist foreign policy. As noted, SDG 5 is the primary goal focused on gender equality, taking a human rights–​based approach, and acknowledging the importance of women’s movements to activate and energize people to meet the other goals on the agenda. Most critics view SDG 5 as stronger than other goals in recognizing structural inequalities. However, criticisms focus on how SDG 5 addresses political participation and economic empowerment, equating the number of women in politics with policy change, and assuming that women should participate in the economy without recognizing that women are “over-​represent[ed] among informal workers, [and face] pervasive gender wage gaps, and occupational segregation” (Millard, 2017). SDG 16 promotes human rights and the rule of law in order to create peaceful and inclusive societies, strengthen institutions, and ensure access to justice for all. SDG 16 has been criticized as redundant, vague, and based on

20  Foundations of Feminist Foreign Policy

an incorrect premise that development assistance will serve national security agendas (One Earth Future, 2015). The Generation Equality Forum, held in 2021 because of the COVID pandemic (UN Women, 2022a), was intended to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Beijing Conference and Platform and structured to track progress on its implementation. It was the first global gathering of its kind since the Beijing Conference. Looking forward, the Generation Equality Forum sought to galvanize concrete actions and obtain commitments in order to accelerate change. It was convened by UN Women and cochaired by France and Mexico, in partnership with civil society and youth organizations. The forum kicked off in Mexico City, Mexico in March and culminated in Paris, France in late June, bringing together civil society, multilateral institutions, governments, the private sector, and trade unions, with approximately 50,000 people participating, most virtually due to restrictions imposed by COVID-​19. The Forum adopted a Global Acceleration Plan for Gender Equality. The Plan addresses six critical issues that underpin gender equality: the need to address gender-​based violence, ensure economic justice and rights, ensure bodily autonomy and sexual and reproductive health and rights, propel feminist action for climate justice, utilize technology and innovation for gender equality, and promote feminist movements and leadership. Governments and public sector institutions committed $21 billion to gender equality investments; the private sector committed $13 billion; and the philanthropic world pledged $4.5 billion (UN Women, 2022b). Further, over 100 governments, UN entities, regional and civil society organizations, academic institutions, and private sector entities signed the Compact on Women, Peace, and Security and Humanitarian Action (UN Women, 2022b). These signatories pledged to take concrete action on existing commitments including increased focus and financing for women, peace, and security initiatives, gender equality in humanitarian programming, economic security, and protection of women’s rights in conflict and crisis. Tracking these commitments and their impact is ongoing. Women’s Empowerment, Gender Equality, and Feminist Movements

The world events outlined earlier took place in parallel with, and as a result of, country-​specific and global movements for women’s rights and women’s equality. Broadly framed, these women-​led movements and the activities associated with them can be grouped into four waves of feminism (Daleo, 2021). Beginning in the early 1900s, first wave feminism dealt with women’s property rights and the right to vote and participate in public life. It is often

Foundations of Feminist Foreign Policy  21

associated with the campaigns for suffrage and the ratification of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution in the U.S. Second wave feminism, which started around World War II, focused on the need for economic equality and the enactment of antidiscrimination laws and frameworks. Other issues came to the fore, such as reproductive rights, domestic violence, and workplace harassment. Much of the movement’s energy in the U.S. focused on the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment. Second wave feminism had many successes, including the approval of the contraceptive pill by the Food and Drug Administration in 1960, the passage of the Equal Pay Act in 1963, the right of women to hold credit cards and apply for mortgages in their own name, the passage of Title IX in 1972, and Roe v. Wade in 1973. Third wave feminism, which began in the 1990s, was a diffuse movement with wide-​ranging goals and issues. It began around the time of the hearings to confirm Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court, as well as the emergence of the riot grrrl groups in the contemporaneous music scene (Daleo, 2021). Unlike first or second wave feminism, there is no single piece of legislation or major social change that is associated with the third wave: “The confusion surrounding what constitutes third wave feminism,” writes feminist scholar Elizabeth Evans, “is in some respects its defining feature” (Daleo, 2021). Third wave feminism was a reaction to the second wave’s perceived privileging of White, straight women and focused on a more broad-​based approach to feminism. It embraced the concept of intersectionality, which helps explain dynamic and complex power relations and encompasses the idea that people’s identities are multifaceted. This concept of intersectionality was introduced by Professor Kimberlé Crenshaw as a critique of feminism, rooted in the experience of White women, and excluding Black women’s experience (Crenshaw, 1989). Intersectionality, which has gained widespread traction in recent years, reflects the idea that gender, race, sexuality, disability, and social class shape how different individuals and groups experience life, and create interrelated systems of discrimination or disadvantage. It has become one of the guiding frameworks of both feminist studies and the broader feminist movement in the West. Unsurprisingly, the term has emerged as a central concept in feminist scholarship within the discipline of international relations. Fourth wave feminism began in the late aughts, building on intersectionality. It is characterized by a focus on the empowerment of women and the use of technology to share experiences of discrimination (Grady, 2018). This wave began as social media companies such as Facebook and Twitter were established and was firmly in place by 2012 when the Everyday Sexism Project was founded so that women could share their experience of misogyny online. The project embodies the feminist phrase “the personal is political,” a term that initially emerged in the 1960s and 1970s, encouraging women to

22  Foundations of Feminist Foreign Policy

understand how the issues they face are not individual but collective, and as a result might have political solutions. In 2017, the #MeToo movement exploded onto the global scene with a social media hashtag. Although the phrase was first coined in 2006 by Tarana Burke, a Black activist, actor Alyssa Milano used the term to encourage women and men to share their stories regarding sexual harassment and assault online. Over a few weeks, the phrase was used over 12 million times on social media, demonstrating the widespread nature of sexual assault and harassment and leading to an ongoing public dialogue with survivors sharing their stories publicly without fear (Gordon, 2022). As a result, several states passed laws prohibiting the use of nondisclosure agreements in sexual misconduct cases and in early 2022, the U.S. Congress passed legislation to end forced arbitration in workplace sexual assault and harassment cases, allowing survivors to file lawsuits in court against perpetrators (Wang, 2022). Several high-​profile cases, such as those against Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein and former USA Gymnastics team doctor Larry Nassar led to prison time for offenders and financial restitution for survivors (North, 2019). Summary

Taken together, these historical movements and global commitments to women’s rights, human rights, and the women, peace, and security agenda form the foundation of feminist foreign policy. Activists in the women’s and feminist movements, the abolitionist movement, and the peace movement, among others, created the conditions for these policies and legal developments to flourish and to be propelled forward. The UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, CEDAW, the Beijing Platform for Action, UN Security Council Resolutions, and multiple other international agreements and reports have elevated both human rights and women’s rights in policymaking across the globe. These frameworks have arisen because of the actions taken by advocates and government officials, and they have also spurred further action to transform and broaden the opportunities available to all. They have also brought to consider a new and more human-​focused definition of security. Over time, these efforts have coincided with four waves of feminism to empower women and girls in every part of society and in every part of the world. These parallel movements first centered on the importance of women’s leadership and its transformational potential and have evolved to include a focus on gender equality, gender equity, and intersectionality. Feminist foreign policy must be placed in this context, as it takes us to the next step, connecting an increase in gender equality to an increase in global security. With that step, feminist foreign policy becomes a framework

Foundations of Feminist Foreign Policy  23

to connect domestic and global policy spheres and place gender equality at the heart of foreign policy and national security. References Adams, Joshua, “All Aboard the Peace Train.” Arming All Sides website, 2014, available online at: https://​arm​inga​llsi​des.org.uk/​case_​stud​ies/​all-​abo​ard-​the-​peace-​train/​ Bill of Rights Institute, Bill of Rights, 1791, available online at: https://​billof​righ​tsin​ stit​ute.org/​prim​ary-​sour​ces/​bill-​of-​rig​hts Boles, Janet K. and Diane Long Hoeveler, Historical Dictionary of Feminism. Lanham: Scarecrow Press, 2004. Brown, Barbara A., “The Equal Rights Amendment: A Constitutional Basis for Equal Rights for Women.” Yale Law Journal Vol. 80, No. 5 (1971): 871. Clinton, Hillary Rodham, “Remarks to the U.N. 4th World Conference on Women Plenary Session.” 1995, available online at: www.ameri​canr​heto​ric.com/​speec​hes/​ hill​aryc​lint​onbe​ijin​gspe​ech.htm Cockburn, Cynthia, “Snagged on the Contradiction: NATO, UNSC Resolution 1325, and Feminist Responses.” 2011, available online at: www.cynt​hiac​ockb​urn.org/​ BlogN​ATO1​325.pdf Crenshaw, Kimberlé, “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics.” University of Chicago Legal Forum Vol. 139 (1989): 139–​167. Daleo, Margie, “A Brief Look at the Four Waves of Feminism.” The Humanist, 2021, available online at: https://​theh​uman​ist.com/​com​ment​ary/​a-​brief-​look-​at-​the-​four-​ waves-​of-​femin​ism/​ Flowers, Nancy, “A Short History of Human Rights.” University of Minnesota Human Rights Resource Center, 1998: Part 1, available online at: http://​hrlibr​ ary.umn.edu/​edu​mat/​hred​user​ies/​her​eand​now/​Part-​1/​short-​hist​ory.htm#:~:text=​ Docume​ n ts%20as ​ s ert ​ i ng%20ind ​ i vid ​ u al%20rig​ h ts%2C%20s​ u ch,of%20to​ day’s%20hu​man%20rig​hts%20do​cume​nts Franklin, D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum, “The Atlantic Charter.” 2016, available online at: www.fdr​libr​ary.org/​atlan​tic-​char​ter Geddis, Andrew, “The Philosophical Underpinnings of Human Rights.” In International Human Rights Law in Aotearoa New Zealand, edited by M. Bedggood, K. Gledhill, and I. McIntosh, Wellington: Thomson Reuters, 2017, pp. 19–​59, available online at: https://​pap​ers.ssrn.com/​sol3/​pap​ers.cfm?abst​ract​_​id=​ 3337​160 Gordon, Sherri, “What Is the #MeToo Movement?.” VeryWell Mind, 2022, available online at: www.veryw​ellm​ind.com/​what-​is-​the-​metoo-​movem​ent-​4774​817 Grady, Constance, “The Waves of Feminism, and Why People Keep Fighting over Them, Explained.” Vox, 2018, available online at: www.vox.com/​2018/​3/​20/​ 16955​588/​femin​ism-​waves-​explai​ned-​first-​sec​ond-​third-​fou​rth Grimke, Angelina, Letters to Catherine E Beecher in Reply to an Essay on Slavery and Abolition Addressed to A. E. Grimke, 1838. Harris, Carolyn, “Magna Carta and Women’s Rights.” Queen’s University Alumni Review (2015), available online at: www.quee​nsu.ca/​alumn​irev​iew/​artic​les/​2015-​ 11-​03/​magna-​carta-​and-​women-​s-​rig​hts#:~:text=​Magna%20Ca​rta%20was%20 not%20a,any%20per​son%20exc​ept%20her%20husb​and.%E2%80%9D

24  Foundations of Feminist Foreign Policy

Johansen, Jørgen, “World War II and Peace Movements (1939–​ 1945).” 2013, available online at: https://​jjohan​sen.net/​2013/​12/​30/​world-​war-​ii-​and-​peace-​ moveme​nts-​1939-​1945/​#:~:text=​In%20the%20USA%2C%20Fel​lows​hip%20 of,of%20t​hem%20r​emai​ned%20rel​ativ​ely%20sm​all Lange, Allison, “Women’s Rights Movement Emerges from the Abolitionist Movement.” National Women’s History Museum, 2015, available online at: www. crusad​efor​thev​ote.org/​abolit​ion League of Women Voters website, available online at: www.lwv.org/​about-​us/​hist​ory Levine, Corey and Sari Kouvo, “Gender, Human Rights and Security.” In The Gender and Security Agenda: Strategies for the 21st Century, edited by Chantal deJonge Oudraat and Michael E. Brown. Routledge, 2020, pp. 196–​213. Massachusetts Historical Society Adams Family Papers, “Letter from Abigail Adams to John Adams.” 1776, available online at: www.massh​ist.org/​digit​alad​ams/​arch​ ive/​doc?id=​L177​6033​1aa Melder, Keith E., Beginnings of Sisterhood: The American Woman’s Rights Movement, 1800–​1850. Schocken Books, 1997. Mill, John Stuart, The Subjection of Women. London: Longman’s Green Reader and Dyer, 1869. Millard, Abigail, “Feminist Critiques of the Sustainable Development Goals: Analysis and Bibliography.” Consortium on Gender, Security and Human Rights, 2017, available online at: https://​gender​ands​ecur​ity.org/​sites/​defa​ult/​files/​Femi​nist​_​Cri​ tiqu​es_​o​f_​th​e_​SD​Gs_​-​_​Ana​lysi​s_​an​d_​Bi​blio​grap​hy_​-​_​CG​SHR.pdf Miller, Judith, “3 Women and the Campaign for a Nuclear Freeze.” New York Times, May 26, 1982. Moyn, Samuel, The Last Utopia: Human Rights in History. Harvard University, 2012. National Council of Negro Women website, n.p., available online at: https://​ncnw. org/​ncnw/​miss​ion National Federation of Business and Professional Women’s Clubs website, n.p., available online at: www.nfb​pwc.org/​herit​age The Nobel Prize, “The Nobel Peace Prize 2011.” 2011, available online at: www.nob​ elpr​ize.org/​pri​zes/​peace/​2011/​summ​ary/​ North, Anna, “7 Positive Changes That Have Come from the #MeToo Movement.” Vox, 2019, available online at: www.vox.com/​ide​ntit​ies/​2019/​10/​4/​20852​639/​me-​ too-​movem​ent-​sex​ual-​har​assm​ent-​law-​2019 One Earth Future, “Prioritizing Peace: In Defense of SDG 16.” 2015, available online at: https://​one​eart​hfut​ure.org/​opin​ion-​insig​hts/​prior​itiz​ing-​peace-​defe​nse-​sdg-​16 Pfeffer, Paula, “Eleanor Roosevelt and the National and World Woman’s Parties.” The Historian Vol. 59, No. 1 (Fall 1996): 39–​57. Pietilä, Hilkka, Engendering Global Agenda: The Story of Women and the United Nations, 2002, available online at: https://​dig​ital​libr​ary.un.org/​rec​ord/​463​ 757?ln=​en Sen, Ashish Kumar, “Twenty Years after Resolution 1325: Women Remain Undervalued in Peacebuilding.” United States Institute of Peace, October 27, 2020, available online at: www.usip.org/​publi​cati​ons/​2020/​10/​twe​nty-​years-​after-​ res​olut​ion-​1325-​women-​rem​ain-​unde​rval​ued-​peaceb​uild​ing Staples, Brent, “When the Suffrage Movement Sold Out to White Supremacy.” New York Times, February 2, 2019, available online at: https://​nyti.ms/​3qjU​dXr Sullivan, Donna, “Women’s Human Rights and the 1993 World Conference on Human Rights.” The American Journal of International Law Vol. 88, No. 1 (January 1994): 152–​167.

Foundations of Feminist Foreign Policy  25

UN Audiovisual Library of International Law, Proclamation of Tehran. United Nations, 1968.UNDP, Human Development Report 1994, 1994, available online at: https://​hdr.undp.org/​cont​ent/​human-​deve​lopm​ent-​rep​ort-​1994 UNFPA, International Conference on Population and Development Programme of Action, 1993. United Nations, United Nations Charter, Article 1, 1945. United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948. United Nations, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 1966. United Nations, Report of the World Conference of the International Women’s Year, 1976, available online at: www.un.org/​wom​enwa​tch/​daw/​beij​ing/​other​conf​eren​ ces/​Mex​ico/​Mex​ico%20con​fere​nce%20rep​ort%20op​timi​zed.pdf United Nations, “The 17 Goals.” 2015. available online at: https://​sdgs.un.org/​goals United Nations, The Millennium Development Goals. 2015. available online at: www. un.org/​mill​enni​umgo​als/​bkgd.shtml United Nations, World Conference of the United Nations Decade for Women: Equality, Development and Peace, 1985. available online at: www.un.org/​wom​enwa​tch/​ daw/​beij​ing/​cop​enha​gen.html United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1820, S/​RES/​1820 (2008); UNSCR 1888, S/​RES/​1888 (2009); UNSCR 1960 S/​RES/​1960 (2010); UNSCR 2122, S/​RES/​2122 (2013); UNSCR 2242, S/​RES/​2242 (2015); UNSCR 2493, S/​RES/​2493 (2019). UN Women, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), 1979. UN Women, World Conference of the United Nations Decade for Women: Equality, Development and Peace, 1980, available online at: www.un.org/​wom​enwa​tch/​ daw/​beij​ing/​nair​obi.html UN Women, Report of the World Conference to Review and Appraise the Achievements of the United Nations Decade for Women: Equality, Development and Peace, 1985, available online at https://​docume​nts-​dds-​ny.un.org/​doc/​UNDOC/​GEN/​ N85/​380/​36/​PDF/​N8538​036.pdf?Open​Elem​ent UN Women, Fourth World Conference on Women, 1995a, available online at: www.unwo​men.org/​en/​how-​we-​work/​interg​over​nmen​tal-​supp​ort/​world-​conf​eren​ ces-​on-​women#:~:text=​The%20Beij​ing%20con​fere​nce%20bu​ilt%20on,in%20 law%20and%20in%20p​ract​ice UN Women, The Official Report of the FWCW containing the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action. 1995b. available online at: https://​www.un.org/​wom​ enwa​tch/​daw/​beij​ing/​pdf/​Beij​ing%20f​ull%20rep​ort%20E.pdf UN Women, “Women, Peace & Security and Humanitarian Action (WPS-​ HA) Compact.” 1995c, available online at: www.unwo​men.org/​en/​news/​stor​ies/​2021/​ 7/​press-​rele​ase-​lau​nch-​of-​the-​comp​act-​on-​women-​peace-​and-​secur​ity-​and-​human​ itar​ian-​act​ion UN Women, A Short History of the Commission on the Status of Women. 2019. UN Women, Generation Equality Forum, 2022a, available online at: https://​forum. gen​erat​ione​qual​ity.org/​about UN Women, “Generation Equality Forum Concludes in Paris with Announcement of Revolutionary Commitments and Global Acceleration Plan to Advance Gender Equality by 2026.” 2022b, available online at: https://​forum.gen​erat​ione​qual​ ity.org/​news/​gen​erat​ion-​equal​ity-​forum-​conclu​des-​paris-​annou​ncem​ent-​revolu​ tion​ary-​comm​itme​nts-​and-​glob​alU.S. National Park Service, “[Seneca Falls] Declaration of Sentiments.” 1848, available online at: www.nps.gov/​artic​les/​decl​ arat​ion-​of-​sen​time​nts.htm

26  Foundations of Feminist Foreign Policy

Wang, Amy, “Senate Passes Bill to End Forced Arbitration in Sexual Assault, Harassment Cases.” Washington Post, February 10, 2022, available online at: www.was​hing​tonp​ost.com/​polit​ics/​2022/​02/​10/​sen​ate-​sex​ual-​assa​ult-​for​ced-​ arbi​trat​ion/​ Weiss, Elaine, The Woman’s Hour. Penguin, 2020. Wollstonecraft, Mary, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman: With Strictures on Political and Moral Subjects. Peter Edes for Thomas and Andrews, 1792. World Health Organization, “Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research (SRH).” 1994. available online at: www.who.int/​teams/​sex​ual-​and-​repro​duct​ive-​hea​lth-​ and-​resea​rch/​key-​areas-​of-​work/​sex​ual-​hea​lth/​defin​ing-​sex​ual-​hea​lth YWCA website: available online at: www.worldy​wca.org/​about-​us/​hist​ory/​

2 FEMINIST FOREIGN POLICY FUNDAMENTALS

Feminist foreign policy is an approach for government action that is based on historical events and movements, encompasses a set of key principles, has been adopted by a small set of countries, is being implemented in some ways already by the U.S. government, and could be further operationalized. Based on the historical origins outlined in Chapter 1, the women, peace, and security agenda was developed and implemented by governments and civil society organizations and the field of feminist international relations emerged from academia and think tanks. These two ideas now overlap to frame and propel forward the movement for a feminist foreign policy. With the commingling of these ideas, feminist foreign policy has moved beyond the idea of women’s increased representation in peace negotiations and policymaking positions to a broader lens on international security and country-​specific foreign policy formulation and impact. Today, although there is not one universally accepted definition of feminist foreign policy across sectors, there are fundamental concepts discussed by governments, civil society organizations, and those in the academic community that form the basis for the idea. These fundamentals include gender equality as a goal and strategy, a broadened definition of “security,” the elevation of diverse voices, and a desire to address historic power imbalances. This chapter outlines these fundamentals and how they are reflected today.

Before we go any further, it is important to define and distinguish some key terms associated with how we discuss and understand feminism and gender equality.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003295617-3

28  Feminist Foreign Policy Fundamentals

While “sex” refers to the biological characteristics that define a person as female or male, “gender” is taught and refers to the economic, political, and cultural attributes and opportunities associated with being male or female. How gender is defined varies among cultures and can change over time (Markham, 2018). The term “gender” is often used interchangeably with “women and girls,” but they are not the same. “Feminism” is the belief that sex and gender should not define a person’s role in society and a movement against gender-​based discrimination and violence resulting from that belief. “Gender equality” is the concept that everyone should be free to develop their personal talents and abilities and make life choices without limitations set by rigid gender roles. It does not mean that women and men are the same, but that their rights, responsibilities, and opportunities should not depend on whether they are born male or female (Markham, 2018). “Gender identity” is a reference to how people experience their own sense of being a gendered individual. Everybody has a gender identity whether it is male, female, transgender, or nonbinary. “Sexual orientation” refers to whom one feels sexually attracted –​if at all –​and with whom a person wants to have sexual and/​or romantic relationships (Ehrt, 2019).

How Did We Get Here?

In any policy arena, it is important to understand the different stakeholders involved in advocating for, and implementing, that policy. The same is true for feminist foreign policy. These groups and individuals bring different imperatives and perspectives to the development and definition of such policy, depending on their roles as advocates, policymakers, program implementers, or academic researchers. In this landscape, the following types of institutions and individuals have developed different, yet somewhat similar, definitions of a feminist foreign policy: governments both shape and implement foreign policy; civil society and NGOs draft policy proposals and advocate for them with governmental and multilateral policymakers; and think tanks and academia research the foundations of policy, place their work in context of research in different academic fields, and advocate for policy change. Government

Governments are responsible for developing policy and making it work –​ that is, for operationalizing it –​within the constraints and confines of their political systems, political realities, and government bureaucracies. Their policies are tailored to navigate the pressures and realities they face and guide the day-​to-​day work of their officials at home and across the globe.

Feminist Foreign Policy Fundamentals  29

In 2014, Sweden was the first government to adopt a feminist foreign policy and is still the model against which other governments structure and measure their policies. Sweden established this policy after many years of promoting gender equality and human rights nationally and internationally. According to the Swedish Foreign Ministry at the time the policy was launched, it was a response to systemic gender discrimination. As a result, as conceptualized by Swedish policymakers, Feminist Foreign Policy was an agenda to strengthen the rights, representation, and resources of all women and girls as well as strengthen the effectiveness of Sweden’s foreign engagements (Government Offices of Sweden, 2014). Sweden viewed the ability of women and girls to enjoy human rights as an obligation within its international commitments and a prerequisite to achieving Sweden’s broader foreign policy goals of peace, security, and sustainable development (Government Offices of Sweden, 2014). This policy was structured to guide the actions of Swedish diplomats and officials abroad and while serving at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs in Stockholm. The handbook for implementing this policy was “focused on the practical implementation of the policy [and] … intended to support the Swedish Foreign Service in its ongoing work, while also satisfying the considerable national and international interest in Sweden’s feminist foreign policy” (Government Offices of Sweden, 2014). The handbook reviewed working methods to ensure impact and provided specific examples of policy change in foreign and security policy, development cooperation, and trade and promotion policy. In this regard, it was a guide for changing governmental personnel, planning, budgeting, and leadership norms. Government interactions with civil society organizations are complex and sometimes acrimonious. Even when policymakers and civil society leaders share values, the government officials’ ability to implement policies based on those values is often constrained by their official roles and the political realities and bureaucracies within which they operate. Representatives from governmental bodies often consult with civil society organizations in their policymaking process, however, they can balk at the idea that nongovernmental actors should have an equal say in policymaking, especially in foreign policy and security. In some cases, civil society leaders join their respective governments as either political or career officials and bring with them expertise and key contacts. These former advocates can become frustrated at the often slower pace of government action or government’s inability to develop cutting-​ edge policies due to political pressure or bureaucratic challenges. The United Nations

The women, peace and security (WPS) agenda is built on the theory that women’s participation in conflict prevention and resolution is integral

30  Feminist Foreign Policy Fundamentals

to more sustainable peace and security. This policy framework, first set forth by UN Security Council Resolution 1325 (UNSCR 1325) adopted in 2000, sets out four critical pillars reflecting a gendered perspective across the conflict cycle: participation, protection, prevention, and relief and recovery. The participation pillar calls for the full and equal representation of women at all levels of decision-​making in politics and policymaking. The protection pillar stands for the need to protect women and girls in conflict and post-​conflict settings. The prevention pillar stands for women’s engagement at all levels of conflict prevention, mediation, and resolution and the need to address the root causes of conflict. The final pillar, relief and recovery, addresses the need to ensure that women and girls can access the services they need to recover from conflict and conflict-​related violence (United States Institute of Peace, 2000). There are nine successor security council resolutions to UNSCR 1325: • UNSCR 1820 explicitly addresses sexual violence in conflict and post-​ conflict situations and recognizes the use of sexual violence in conflict and can impede the restoration of international peace and security. • UNSCR 1888 recognizes that the empowerment of women and support of women’s organizations are essential to peace and security. • UNSCR 1889 reiterates the key role of women in conflict prevention and peace building. • UNSCR 1960 affirms that preventing sexual violence contributes to international peace and security, and also puts sexual violence on the agenda of the UN Security Council. • UNSCR 2016 focuses on deepening accountability for perpetrators of sexual violence in conflict, as well as increasing women’s political and economic empowerment, and access to justice. • UNSCR 2122 places gender equality and women’s empowerment as central to international peace and security, recognizes the differential impact of conflict on women and girls as well as the need to address root causes of armed conflict. • UNSCR 2242 focuses on countering terrorism and violent extremism as part of the women, peace, and security agenda. • UNSCR 2467 focuses on conflict-​related sexual violence and affirms for the first time that a survivor-​centered approach is critical. • UNSCR 2493 addresses the need for women’s participation in all UN-​ supported peace processes and urges timely support for the full, equal, and meaningful participation of women in all stages of peace processes. Pursuant to UNSCR 1325, the UN Security Council urged all countries to develop a women, peace, and security national action plan. To date, 104

Feminist Foreign Policy Fundamentals  31

countries have adopted a national action plan (54 percent of countries) (Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, 2023). The first countries to adopt a national action plan were Denmark (2005), Norway (2006), Sweden (2006), and the United Kingdom (2006). According to Inclusive Security, a civil society organization that provides technical assistance on the development of national action plans, the plans with the highest impact are designed to fit the local context and priorities; are created in partnership with civil society; are clear about roles, responsibilities, and timelines; and have strong monitoring and evaluation plans (Lippai & Young, 2017). While over half of national action plans designate a role for civil society in implementation, less than a third of them include an allocated budget for implementation (Lippai & Young, 2017). To date, despite many global commitments, resolutions, and national action plans, women have been largely excluded from formal peace processes. On average, according to the most recent data, women constituted just 13 percent of negotiators, 6 percent of mediators, and 6 percent of signatories in major peace processes (Council on Foreign Relations, 2019). About seven out of every ten peace processes still do not include women mediators or women signatories, the latter indicating that few women participated in leadership roles as negotiators, guarantors, or witnesses. Civil society advocacy was instrumental in the adoption of UNSCR 1325 (United States Institute of Peace, 2000). This was in part driven by women’s intensified engagement in peace movements across the globe but also by the changing nature of conflict. As war and conflict have become more irregular, civilian targets have become more common, and many civilian targets were women and girls. As a result, women’s groups became more vocal in raising conflict-​related issues and demanding a global response (Johnson-​ Freese, 2018). In fact, the NGO Working Group on Women, Peace, and Security (the NGO Working Group), a coalition advocating for equal participation of women in creating and maintaining international peace and security, was formed specifically to call for a UN Security Council resolution focusing on this set of issues (Tryggestad, 2009). Through advocacy, monitoring, and gender analysis, the NGO Working Group continues to hold the UN Security Council, UN leadership and member states accountable under UNSCR 1325, and subsequent resolutions. Since 2000, it has also worked to bring the voices of women’s rights defenders and local peacebuilders into UN peace and security discussions at all levels (NGO Working Group on Women, Peace, and Security website). There are criticisms of UNSCR 1325. Feminist scholars criticize the contents, framings, and implications of the women, peace, and security agenda, as outlined by UNSCR 1325 and its successor resolutions, as reinforcing ingrained gender norms (Basu, Kirby, & Shepherd, 2020)

32  Feminist Foreign Policy Fundamentals

They see this framework as focusing on the role of women only as victims, peacemakers, and peacebuilders, needing protection, and reinforcing gender stereotypes. This criticism is raised even though the resolutions call repeatedly for women’s increased participation throughout the security sector and acknowledge women’s agency. Feminist scholars further posit that the set of resolutions do not address institutional and structural barriers to women’s equality and participation. For example, Professor Carol Cohn argues that UNSCR 1325 fails to deconstruct and transform the international, national, or local institutions which undercut gender equality in the long run (Cohn, Kinsella, & Gibbings, 2004). According to Dr. Cohn, UNSCR 1325 instead takes an “add women and stir” approach, where women are given a seat at negotiations but with little power, unable to determine their own place and contributions in a male-​ dominated system. Another criticism of UNSCR 1325 is that it does not address social and economic causes of inequality, such as poverty, lack of access to education, and gender norms, and does not consider power relations inherent in government and international organizations. These critics argue that the gender mainstreaming approach of UNSCR 1325 reinforces existing power structures (O’Connor, 2014). They also view this approach as silencing feminist critiques of militarism and those who argue that there can be no peace without gender equality (Rehn & Johnson Sirleaf, 2002). These critics also argue that calling for increased women’s participation in the security sector militarizes the peace movement (Skjelsbaek, 1998). Finally, critics see the women, peace, and security agenda as dominated by voices from the Global North (Basu, 2016), thereby replicating existing colonial hierarchies and ignoring the impact of colonialism and patriarchy (Parashar, 2019). For example, Soumita Basu, Paul Kirby, and Laura Shepherd argue that the women, peace, and security agenda co-​opts gender because the goal of “gendered peace may be accommodated in policies without challenging or transforming the arena of international peace and security.” These academics believe that the four pillars of UNSCR 1325 reflect a narrow view of security and subordinate a human rights or women’s rights agenda (Basu, Kirby, & Shepherd, 2020). Academic Community

Academic experts and scholars ground their analysis and development of policy frameworks in a theoretical, and often historical, context. They place work being done by governments and others in a broader context based on their own research and understanding of trends in, and schools of, academic thought. Their work often looks to bring different disciplines together to create new ways of thinking about policy.

Feminist Foreign Policy Fundamentals  33

Any discussion of feminist foreign policy must be placed in the context of international relations theory. The study of international relations is structured to advise governments about how to manage bilateral and multilateral relationships and advance their national interest. As traditionally defined, those working in, or examining, foreign policy and international relations look at the decisions made by those in power and the authority to commit resources, usually nation-​states (Hudson, 2005). Until recently, the field has addressed “macro” issues which are largely seen as gender blind, with less focus on how policies, and the decisions that flow from them, affect people. This has begun to change. The academic community, practitioners, and activists are raising the importance of understanding how foreign policies impact the lives of individual people and not just relations between nation-​ states. Since the Cold War, this has been reflected by the emergence of progressive foreign policy paradigms. Among the schools of thought around progressive foreign policy, one elevates democracy and the protection of human rights and argues for the use of power to promote these universal values and standards. Another emphasizes the necessity of global cooperation to address overarching challenges such as climate change, pandemic disease, and economic inequality (Wertheim, 2022). More recently, scholars are examining policy decisions through an ethical lens, moving from the more traditional view that ethical considerations are not part of foreign policy decision-​making. Political scientist Joseph Nye argues for a moral foreign policy approach that looks at foreign policy decisions in terms of weighing and balancing the intentions, the means, and the consequences of a president’s decisions (Nye, 2019). In general, scholars of ethical foreign policy argue that the presentation of foreign policy decisions in “ethical” terms is based mostly on domestic political imperatives and the need to increase political support for interventions (Nye, 2019). For example, U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair used these arguments in support of the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan: Look for a moment at the Taliban regime. It is undemocratic. … There is no sport allowed, or television or photography. No art or culture is permitted … Women are treated in a way almost too revolting to be credible. First driven out of university; girls not allowed to go to school; no legal rights; unable to go out of doors without a man. Those that disobey are stoned. (Prime Minister Tony Blair, 2001) Feminist international relations theory is a reaction both to traditional international relations theory and the movement toward an ethical foreign policy, both of which feminist scholars view as largely gender blind. These scholars have constructed feminist international relations theory as a policy

34  Feminist Foreign Policy Fundamentals

framework that “embraces the stories and lived experiences of women and other marginalized groups at the receiving end of foreign policy conduct” (Aggestam, Bergman Rosamond, & Kronsell, 2019). Feminist international relations theory focuses on how the core concepts of international relations and foreign policy –​war, peace, and security –​are themselves gendered. These scholars ask a broad set of questions about how these issues are raised on the global stage (Aggestam, Bergman Rosamond, & Kronsell, 2019). Feminist international relations scholars often link their work to scholarship on how gender shapes the current global political economy. They argue that a feminist foreign policy can expose injustices and struggles for gender justice, which include an analysis of the empowerment and protection of women and girls, the reduction of gendered inequalities and the root causes of violence, as well as uncovering the experiences and stories of other marginalized groups. Feminist scholars Karin Aggestam and Jacqui True (Aggestam & True, 2020) weave together international feminist theory and foreign policy analysis to address how power and patriarchy bear on comparative approaches to what they call “pro-​gender” foreign policy decision-​making. In their work, they identify four fundamental strands of “pro-​ gender equality” foreign policies: to explicitly practice gender mainstreaming as a policy approach, to ensure that development assistance targets gender inequality and transforms gender relations, to focus on women’s security and human rights, and to introduce institutional or legislative mechanisms promoting women’s leadership within foreign policy (Aggestam & True, 2020). They also develop a framework that acknowledges how patriarchal structures, like foreign policy institutions, can both constrain pro-​gender equality actions and create windows of opportunity at the same time. Ensuring that the voices of those who are affected by policy are heard is critical to these scholars. According to political analyst Dr. Cornelius Adebahr, feminist foreign policy is not primarily about women’s rights, but instead “puts the needs of all people first –​and not just those of the loudest or most powerful. It’s about human rights and conflict prevention, economic development and social participation, just as much as it’s about health and the environment” (Adebahr, 2022). As such, this academic work informs the work of both government and nongovernment actors by developing a more theoretical analysis. It is less likely to directly inform governments as they operationalize a policy framework adopted by their political leaders and policymakers. However, academic research builds a strong basis for policymaking and can serve as an anchor for the work of both governmental and nongovernmental institutions. Yet, with some exceptions outlined by Aggestam and True, few feminist scholars focus on how to address gender norms in foreign policy (Aggestam & True, 2020). It may be because of general skepticism that governments and

Feminist Foreign Policy Fundamentals  35

other institutional frameworks can, or will, further feminist political agendas. These scholars view nations as ingrained with patriarchal, hierarchical, and oppressive power structures (Aggestam & True, 2020) perpetuating social, political, and economic inequalities (Aggestam & True, 2020). Another reason may be a reluctance to engage with those in existing institutions, such as diplomats, military, and foreign policy leaders. In this framework, women operating within the system are not seen as change agents, but as accepting and adjusting to masculinized norms and co-​opted by male-​dominated power structures. Civil Society

As governments strive to create and implement feminist foreign policies, civil society organizations and advocates develop ideas with the goal of pushing governments and policymakers as far as they can. Because these entities are not responsible for implementing policy, these organizations are able to look beyond what is possible today and envision what might be possible tomorrow. They can also raise and weave in less popular, or less well-​known, ideas and concepts and begin to socialize them with others. There are many civil society organizations that focus on the implementation of the women, peace, and security agenda. These organizations exist at the local, national, and global levels and have often existed for decades. The organizations that exist around the development of feminist foreign policy are fewer in number and have emerged in the last decade. The Coalition for a Feminist Foreign Policy in the United States (the Coalition), the Feminist Foreign Policy Collaborative, the Centre for a Feminist Foreign Policy (Centre for an FFP), based in Berlin, Germany, and the Heinrich Böll Foundation are examples of civil society organizations that have created policy frameworks explicitly structured to disrupt the traditional methods of viewing, developing, and implementing foreign policy. These frameworks are central to the advocacy efforts of these groups as they interact with governments and multilateral institutions across the globe. The Coalition defines feminist foreign policy as a policy that guides governmental engagement with other states, women’s movements, and other non-​state actors. Its goal is to disrupt systems of patriarchy, racism, white supremacy, and colonialism. The members of the Coalition advocate that a feminist foreign policy should “prioritize peace, gender equality and environmental integrity; enshrine, promote, and protect the human rights of all; seek to disrupt colonial, racist, patriarchal and male-​dominated power structures; and allocate significant resources, including research, to achieve that vision.” The Coalition uses an intersectional approach, “one that takes a power-​ based analysis that reveals and works to dismantle disparate and intersecting

36  Feminist Foreign Policy Fundamentals

streams of discrimination and marginalization” (Coalition for a Feminist Foreign Policy in the United States, 2020). Further, it wants governments to “co-​create” policy with feminist activists, groups, and movements, at home and abroad, expressly bringing these outside actors “into the room” where policymaking occurs. Similar to the Coalition, the Centre for an FFP defines feminist foreign policy as a political framework centered around the well-​being of marginalized people and “invokes processes of self-​reflection regarding foreign policy’s hierarchical global systems” (Centre for a Feminist Foreign Policy website). This framework explicitly “takes a step outside the black box approach of traditional foreign policy thinking and its focus on military force, violence, and domination by offering an alternate and intersectional rethinking of security from the viewpoint of the most vulnerable,” and “scrutinize[s]‌the destructive forces of patriarchy, colonization, heteronormativity, capitalism, racism, imperialism, and militarism” (Centre for a Feminist Foreign Policy website). Like the Coalition, the Centre for an FFP seeks to elevate the voices and experiences of women and marginalized groups. The Heinrich Böll Foundation (Böll Foundation) is a political foundation affiliated with the German Green Party. It rejects a single “rigid and traditional” definition of feminist foreign policy and instead builds its vision for such a policy on five core values (Scheyer et al., 2021). The Böll Foundation argues that these values will help policymakers to think laterally rather than hierarchically and move away from an international relations theory centered on capitalism and colonialism. This flexible framework should also allow different political realities to be part of the conversation. The five core values offered by the Böll Foundation are intersectionality, acknowledging and addressing multiple and various forms of discrimination; the need to consider one’s own position within the existing power structure; the need for substantive representation and participation; accountability of policymakers to policy “beneficiaries”; and an active commitment to peace and abolishing all structured methods of violence and sources of insecurity (Scheyer et al., 2021). Moving beyond Increased Representation

Over time, most decision-​makers –​in foreign policy, national security, and in general –​have been men, often working in centralized and closely held processes. This is true across every region of the world, and in almost every sector. While there are more women today in high-​level political, foreign policy, and national security positions than there have ever been in the past, women are still underrepresented within these institutions and in terms of providing input from impacted countries.

Feminist Foreign Policy Fundamentals  37

For over a century, women’s rights activists have raised the issues of who makes decisions, the impact of those policies and decisions, and the need to take a broader view of policymaking (Tickner & True, 2018). Beginning in the early 1900s, for example, the Woman’s Peace Party in the U.S. and the International Congress of Women (ICW) advocated for policies that acknowledged the links between women’s equality, social justice, and peace (Tickner & True, 2018). A key goal of this advocacy over time has been to increase the number of women in leadership across the public and private sectors. As early as 1915, the ICW called for women, and civilians more generally, to participate in peace negotiations. Proponents of this approach argue that increasing women’s participation and leadership is necessary to institutions being more open to new paradigms and eventually to transformation. Increasing the number of women in foreign policy and national security fields is therefore an important strategy, although it does not translate automatically into the use of a gender lens or the adoption of feminist policies. Having said that, international relations theory and the women, peace, and security agenda have both been criticized for focusing too much on women’s participation in existing institutions and policies, and not enough on transformational change. In general, women’s participation in policymaking roles impacts outcomes. Studies show that women in elected office raise different issues and have different perspectives than their male colleagues. More women in elected office often lead to policies that emphasize quality of life and social protections (Pepera, 2018), such as a higher priority on health care access, an increase in social policy spending, and a decrease in poverty. Countries with more women legislators have higher childhood immunization rates and infant and child survival rates (Swiss et al., 2012), spend more on education (Chen, 2008), and are more likely to ratify environmental treaties (Norgaard & York, 2005). In addition, everyone brings their life experiences and perspectives to policy debates. This is certainly true of women, who face different challenges than men do, and often endure laws that impede access to full citizenship and opportunity, or that do not reflect women’s disproportionate responsibility for caregiving. In 2019, women in the Middle East and North Africa led campaigns to reform laws that dictated a woman could only inherit half of what a man could and changed laws restricting a woman’s ability to pass her citizenship to a spouse from a different country, or to children she has with that spouse (Bishin & Cherif, 2018). Women bring these perspectives to not only issues that are often considered women’s issues, such as education and health, but also to “gender neutral” issues. For example, even an issue like transportation is not gender neutral, as women use public transportation differently than men (Spector, 2012). It is important that policymakers understand these differences as they make

38  Feminist Foreign Policy Fundamentals

decisions about routes, fares, and safety. In addition to working outside the home, women have family responsibilities and run more household errands. As a result, they often combine multiple stops and destinations within a single trip, making public transportation more costly, since the traveler may have to pay for numerous one-​way tickets (Spector, 2012). Routes outside central commuter corridors may not have regular service during off-​peak hours, when women likely need transport for caregiving (Foster, 2018). Specific to issues of conflict and peace, when women are part of peace negotiations, agreements that arise from these negotiations are more likely to succeed and last between 2 and 15 years longer than if women were not involved (Council on Foreign relations, 2019). This is critical as most peace agreements fail within five years (Bache, 2019). In addition to more attention being paid to gender in the deliberations and the content of peace agreements, women’s engagement shifts dynamics and broadens the range of issues discussed. Women’s engagement leads to increased community support for agreements and to addressing root causes of conflict. An analysis of 40 peace processes since the end of the Cold War reflects that when women’s groups exercised a strong influence on negotiations, there was a much higher chance of an agreement being reached than when they had weak or no influence (O’Reilly, 2015). This research also found that women’s participation had the largest impact when women’s civil society organizations were able to push parties to resume stalled peace negotiations (O’Reilly, 2015). Examples include the Liberian peace talks, where women organized to support a peace agreement to end the second civil war. Leymah Gbowee, among others, mobilized an interreligious women’s coalition and the Women of Liberia Mass Action for Peace network, using pray-​ins and nonviolent protests to demand reconciliation and the resuscitation of peace talks. This organizing was the basis for her Nobel Peace Prize. Other examples include women’s advocacy to address the root causes of violence in Burundi and Kenya in the context of those peace talks (O’Reilly, 2015). As previously stated, however, women’s increased representation in politics, public life, and policymaking in government and the traditional foreign policy sectors of defense, diplomacy, and development, while important, is only one strategy within feminist foreign policy. Fundamentals of Feminist Foreign Policy

There is not one agreed upon definition of feminist foreign policy across governments, civil society, and academia. There are, however, a broad set of principles that appear in many discussions of feminist foreign policy and form the foundation of most definitions. These include the need to center

Feminist Foreign Policy Fundamentals  39

gender equality in foreign policy, broaden the meaning of security, elevate the role of women and feminists in foreign policy and national security decision-​ making, and address the issue of power. These can also be characterized as the minimum standards against which a foreign policy labeling itself feminist should be judged. Gender Equality

Feminist foreign policy is based squarely on the concepts of gender equality and equity. Within a feminist foreign policy, gender equality is both a goal of the policy and a strategy for implementing the policy. This is because gender equality is not only a moral imperative but central to global goals of security and international peace. Gender equality is at the very heart of universal human rights. Protecting and promoting women’s human rights is the responsibility of all nation-​ states. As outlined in Chapter 1, there is a long history of global support for women’s rights and international treaties that detail women’s economic, political, social, and reproductive rights. Any discussion of feminist foreign policy must take into account that gender inequality impacts everyone and that diverse characteristics such as class, caste, race, ethnicity, sexuality, religion, literacy, ability, and age all shape experiences of power and marginalization and the impact of government policies and programs. Gender equality forms the core of feminist foreign policy. Just as importantly, women’s empowerment and gender equality are associated with more peaceful and stable outcomes (Crespo-​Sancho, 2017). Research demonstrates that when gender equality is embedded in a society, as measured by its legal frameworks and policies, it is less likely to use military force to resolve disputes with other countries, and more likely to resolve conflicts short of violence (Marshall, 2000). Further, nations with high levels of gender equality are less likely to use force first in a conflict (Caprioli & Boyer, 2005). Scholars argue that this is because social norms of equality tend to create conditions for cooperation and the use of persuasion and diplomacy, not violence, to resolve conflict (Ross, 2000). According to research by Drs. Valerie Hudson and Andrea den Boer, women’s equality increases not only political stability but spurs economic growth. Countries with exaggerated gender inequality, which the authors define as countries with sex ratios highly favoring males, experience higher societal instability and diminished prospects for both peace and democracy (Hudson & den Boer, 2004). This is based on data gathered from Asian countries, particularly China and India, which have very skewed sex ratios. Hudson and den Boer argue that a surplus male population in a country threatens security. They cite the high rates of violent crime carried out by young unmarried men without stable social bonds and the deployment by

40  Feminist Foreign Policy Fundamentals

governments of young “surplus” men in military campaigns and high-​risk public works projects (Hudson & den Boer, 2004). Other research finds that the higher the level of violence against women in a country, the more likely that country will not comply with international norms and treaty agreements (Caprioli & Hudson, 2012). The researchers developed an overall measure of violence against women, including levels of domestic violence, rape (including marital rape), and murder (WomanStats Project website). For a 10-​ year period, Hudson and a team of scholars correlated this measure with data about state engagement in conflict. States with the highest level of violence against women were involved in a total of 334 militarized conflicts with other states in that time period (Caprioli et al., 2007). Of the 55 states with high levels of violence against women, only seven avoided international conflict during that decade. Definition of Security

Another common theme in feminist foreign policy is a broadened definition of what constitutes “security.” Feminist foreign policy redefines security to mean more than the absence of conflict. Security is not just about survival, “it is about the perpetuation of that which we value most, into the future” (Arctic Council Working Group, 2023). This broadens the definition of foreign policy beyond traditional bilateral and multilateral engagement to protect land and/​ or people, and beyond defense, diplomacy, and development. It considers other, everyday issues that also affect security, such as trade, food security, climate change, and global health. It looks to include nongovernmental actors, such as civil society organizations and individuals, in the development and definition of foreign policy and national security. As previously outlined, women and other marginalized groups bring different perspectives to the forefront of security policy debates. They often broaden the issues to be addressed in terms of security and conflict resolution. This is reflected in the women, peace, and security agenda, and specifically in United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325. In most peace processes, negotiators at the peace table are men. As a result, these negotiations do not always address the breadth of issues faced by a community or the reality of life on the ground. In the words of former U.S. Ambassador Don Steinberg, peace negotiators are “generally men with guns talking to other men with guns about men and guns.” In Northern Ireland, the cross-​ sectarian Women’s Coalition secured language in the Good Friday Agreement on victims’ rights, as well as provisions to integrate education and housing, all issues that men did not raise. In the negotiations leading to the 2006 Darfur Peace Agreement, women pushed to address safety for internally displaced persons and refugees, food security, and gender-​based violence. Women’s contributions to Guatemalan

Feminist Foreign Policy Fundamentals  41

peace talks led to the creation of the Office for the Defense of Indigenous Women, and legislation to combat sexual harassment and increase women’s access to land and credit (O’Reilly, 2015). This reflects the concept of “human security,” which was reintroduced in the 1994 United Nations Development Program’s Human Development Report. It is worth noting that for many centuries before the Napoleonic wars of the 19th century, security was defined from the standpoint of the individual (Hoogensen, 2005). Prevention of conflict is the core objective of human security, and as such, focuses on issues outside those traditionally seen as security issues. This is because human security reflects that the root causes of conflict are often issues such as climate change, natural disasters, persistent poverty, food insecurity, and pandemics. As noted in UN General Assembly resolution 66/​290 (2012), the construct of human security helps to identify and address “widespread and cross-​ cutting challenges to the survival, livelihood and dignity of people” (UN General Assembly Resolution 290, 2012). It calls for “people centered, comprehensive, context specific and prevention oriented responses that strengthen the protection and empowerment of all people.” It cuts across sectors to address the complex challenges inherent to ensuring peace and development. As a corollary, the range of issues that disproportionately impacts women and girls is not always seen as national security issues. This includes girls’ access to education, maternal and reproductive health, and child marriage. But nontraditional security issues such as these impact foreign policy. For example, in some countries, the groom’s family pays future in-​laws (“bride price”). In societies with little economic opportunity, this practice can prevent men from marrying, decrease their societal bonds, and increase the likelihood of joining criminal or terrorist groups, exacerbating state fragility. With this understanding, governments could take a proactive approach to address bride price, and at the same time, undercut drivers of the recruitment of men into extremist groups, rather than waiting to fight the groups after they have formed and are a threat to security. A recent analysis of how a feminist foreign policy would have addressed the crisis in Ukraine comes close to a radical and transformational approach to security. It begins by positing that nonviolence should be at the heart of a feminist approach to foreign policy and that “human security is not seen as the collateral cost of preserving state security” (Pradella, 2022). This challenges the narrative that the Russian invasion of Ukraine was the “first indication” that the international system preserving peace and security was not working. This analysis posits that earlier disruptions and ongoing conflicts in the Middle East, Sudan and South Sudan, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan are examples of how the dominant rule-​based order of the post-​World War II era did not lead to peace and stability for everyone.

42  Feminist Foreign Policy Fundamentals

A focus on human security would have widened the analysis and reflected that the securing of territory and protection of man-​made borders did not translate into security for many people. This approach also advocates for trusted local actors with local knowledge to be part of the policy process to identify security challenges that exist across and within nation-​states in order to bring foreign policy decisions closer to the realities of people’s lives (Pradella, 2022). Diverse Voices

A broadened definition of security means that it is important to not only expand the issues addressed and the solutions considered in the foreign policy environment, but also to ensure that women and other historically marginalized people are included in the creation and implementation of foreign policies and programs. A feminist approach to foreign policy and national security is focused on these diverse viewpoints being heard. This is based on the idea that traditionally “knowledge” is connected to power and the ability to exercise authority and define what constitutes a favorable outcome (Kapoor, 2004). Incorporating nontraditional voices broadens the policy discourse and the type of information provided to decision-​makers. These representatives can serve inside governments and act as external advocates. Within foreign policy institutions, it is imperative that voices advocating for feminism, gender equality, and women’s leadership are part of the core policymaking processes. These include policies to reduce gender gaps in access to, control over, and benefit from economic, social, and political resources; to prevent and respond to gender-​based violence; and to increase the ability and agency of women and girls to make decisions about their lives. This is different from a pure focus on increasing women’s representation, engagement, and involvement, or on increasing the number of women in key positions. While increased representation is important, in and of itself, it does not necessarily lead to more feminist or pro-​gender equality foreign policies. Further, feminist scholars and activists increasingly advocate for an intersectional understanding of power, where gender, race, class, sexuality, and other social categories are considered so that the situation of more privileged, and usually White, women is not seen as the norm (Nylund et al., 2022). As discussed, women and men tend to bring different perspectives to policy discussions, including around war and peace. Studies reflect that over time, women express less interventionist views. Public opinion surveys during the Vietnam War showed that women were consistently less supportive of the war and were strongly supportive of U.S. withdrawal from Southeast Asia. A contemporaneous review of polling found that women were generally less

Feminist Foreign Policy Fundamentals  43

supportive of military solutions to international disputes (Holsti & Rosenau, 1981). Similarly, in 1998, when President Saddam Hussein refused to allow UN weapons inspectors into Iraq, men were evenly divided as to whether the U.S. should intervene diplomatically or militarily. Women, by contrast, supported diplomatic over military engagement in Iraq by 25 percentage points (Moore, 2002). But not every woman is a feminist; not every person with a feminist voice is a woman. Men often advocate for a feminist analysis and policy, and women, depending on their differing life experiences, ages, classes, and ethnicities, can bring nuanced views. Being a woman does not mean you have a particular worldview or ideology, and it does not mean that you will necessarily advocate for certain policies. It cannot be assumed that every woman will have a less interventionist approach. For example, former U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was a defense hard-​liner. Her 1982 decision to “recover the Falkland[s]‌for Britain and for … [those] of British stock” cemented that reputation. The United Kingdom ultimately sent 38 warships, 77 auxiliary vessels, and 11,000 soldiers, sailors, and marines to fight in the Falklands, located over 8,000 miles away (Kennedy, 2020). Similarly, in 1985, Thatcher personally persuaded Saudi Arabia to spend over $62 billion on British fighter jets. At that time, the United Kingdom’s negotiations with the Saudis almost fell apart after the French made a rival offer. After a meeting that lasted several hours between Thatcher and Saudi King Fahd, the United Kingdom and Saudi Arabia signed an agreement, and the first jets were delivered in 1986 (Harding, 2016). They must be integrated across key foreign policy institutions because these cross-​cutting issues and perspectives must be considered in every part of the foreign policy and national security decision-​making process. Further, feminist foreign policy is based on the inclusion of individuals and communities impacted by foreign policy decisions made by nation-​states. By listening to those who have been previously and continue to be often marginalized and impacted, the definition of security is again broadened to reflect how individuals and communities define and understand security in their daily lives. If policymakers are unaware of these perspectives, they may develop and implement policies that can undercut security (Arctic Council Working Group, 2023). Addressing Historic Power Imbalances

Feminist foreign policy addresses both gender inequalities and the fundamental power imbalances that exist in numerous policy and political environments. Addressing such imbalances means a fundamental shift in how institutions work and necessitates rethinking how foreign policy and national security decision-​making are approached and structured.

44  Feminist Foreign Policy Fundamentals

These fundamental power imbalances include those within foreign policy and national security institutions (Department of Defense in contrast with the Department of State and USAID), between the implementers of foreign policy and those impacted by it (often rooted in colonialism), and within society and the systems in place writ large (often rooted in patriarchy and racism). Embedded in the current policy discourse are two overarching gendered assumptions about power and conflict resolution. The first assumption is that the ability to use military force makes a country more secure than the use of diplomacy and development. This viewpoint has been embedded throughout much of the modern era. During his first two years in office, President Biden has signaled a stronger commitment to using diplomacy and development as levers to address conflict, reflecting the use of soft power and the power of example. For instance, when the Biden Administration hosted the U.S.–​ Africa Leaders Summit in 2022, the announcement noted that President Biden “believes U.S. collaboration with African leaders, as well as civil society, business, diaspora, women, and youth leaders, is essential to unlocking the potential of this decisive decade” (U.S. Department of State, 2022). At the same time, this type of commitment can be tempered by prevailing geopolitical realities and domestic political pressures. The second assumption is that foreign policy decisions should be objective, based on “realism,” hard data, and geopolitics. This assumption diminishes the need for foreign policy actors to understand how foreign policy and national security decisions impact people. While the geopolitical and power dynamics of decisions are obviously important, considering the impact on communities, and individuals within those communities, provides additional nuance and analysis about the immediate and long-​term consequences of a policy decision. Providing a human lens, and the analysis of power imbalance, does not mean that foreign policy and national security decisions will be made by consensus or that to engage in conflict is off the table. A human lens gives decision-​ makers broader access to the most complete information and analysis possible, reflecting the differential impact of foreign policy decisions on various populations, including women, men, girls, and boys. This reaffirms a basic tenet of feminist foreign policy: policymakers should consider the impact of policy decisions on people and on communities. Without such a focus, policies will not adequately address the human impact of conflicts, invasions, monetary policy, and development assistance. For example, an analysis of the U.S. government’s intense bombing campaign in Laos from 1964 to 1975 reflects the impact of unexploded ordnance on Laotians and those in neighboring countries, especially in terms of health and access to education (Riaño & Caicedo, 2020). According to the Geneva-​based Landmine and Cluster Munition Monitor, since 1964,

Feminist Foreign Policy Fundamentals  45

there have been over 50,000 landmine-​related casualties in Laos (Riaño & Caicedo, 2020). Residents of these bombed areas have lower levels of literacy and health outcomes, and less access to electricity and water supplies, leading to lower incomes overall. Today, at least 20 percent of the land in Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam remains contaminated. In 2016, President Barack Obama pledged $90 million over a three-​year period for decontamination of these areas (Martin et al., 2019) and the U.S. Congress continues to address demining and the aftermath of this bombing campaign. There is often a disconnect between the local and the global in foreign policy. This is especially true with respect to development policy. Over the last several decades, however, a consensus has emerged that increased local engagement, ownership, and capacity development is critical to sustainable change. This is reflected in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), as well as best practices in the effectiveness of development assistance. An approach based on a commitment to local engagement better enables local individuals and networks to meet community needs, respond to crises, mobilize resources, influence policy, and move beyond the need for donor funding. So, What Is Feminist Foreign Policy?

Feminist foreign policy is a transformative concept that integrates the goal of gender equality into national security and foreign policy. It is a commonsense approach to governing that includes a focus on who makes decisions, the purpose of these policies, and the processes for implementing them. At its core, feminist foreign policy seeks to analyze existing systems and structures to address power imbalances, and to ensure that foreign policies benefit women and girls using the tools of diplomacy, development assistance, defense, and security cooperation. Feminist foreign policy creates a framework to analyze how governments develop and implement policies and programs that impact other countries and people. Feminist foreign policy, as it has been used so far, is a term that invites governments to be measured and held accountable for their commitments to women’s rights and gender equality in bilateral and multilateral relationships. It examines traditional security sectors such as defense, diplomacy, and development. Importantly, it also broadens how national security is defined by including trade and the environment, as well as initiatives like women’s political and economic leadership and the women, peace, and security agenda. Toward a Feminist Foreign Policy

Feminist foreign policy is seen as a radical notion by some, however, many of the fundamentals discussed here are, or could be, implemented within

46  Feminist Foreign Policy Fundamentals

existing institutions and systems of foreign policy. These tools, including the use of gender advisors, gender analysis, collection of sex-​disaggregated data, and gender mainstreaming do not involve a change in the political (mostly democratic) institutions or economic (mostly capitalist) systems currently in place. Gender analysis helps to identify, understand, and explain the gaps that exist in households, communities, and countries. Such analyses typically involve examining the differences in the legal status of women and men and their differential access to resources and opportunities; the influence of gender roles and norms on time use (such as paid employment, unpaid work, and volunteer activities); the influence of gender roles and norms on leadership roles and decision-​making; the constraints, opportunities, and entry points for narrowing gender gaps; and, the differential impacts of policies and programs, including unintended or negative consequences. Most gender analysis frameworks involve collecting both quantitative and qualitative information (USAID, 2021). Briefings to policymakers from the foreign policy, national security, and intelligence communities must include a gender analysis. This should start at the top with, for example, the U.S. President’s Daily Brief (PDB), a daily summary of high-​ level, all-​ source information, and analysis on national security issues produced for the president and key cabinet members and advisers. The PDB is coordinated and delivered by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence has been presented in some form since 1946 (Wright, 2023). Gender analysis can be conducted across many levels of government, and can be mandated by law. As an example, Canada uses gender analysis consistently in policy development to assess the different ways that women, men, and gender-​diverse people experience policies, programs, and initiatives (Government of Canada website). The formal framework, Gender-​ based Analysis Plus (GBA+​ ), acknowledges people’s lives are multidimensional. GBA+​goes beyond differences between biological (sexes) and sociocultural (gender) aspects and considers other identity factors such as race, ethnicity, religion, age, and mental or physical ability. Canada used this type of analysis to assess its large-​scale procurement projects and helped ensure that equipment and products purchased by the government meet the diverse needs of its citizens. GBA+​has also strengthened hiring strategies, expanded parental leave, health care access, and informed immigration policy. Gender advisors are experts in how gender impacts the way a sector is addressed in diplomatic, defense and development activities or programs, and these advisors often have sectoral expertise. Gender advisors conduct, facilitate, and/​ or review the mandatory gender analysis and ensure that findings are meaningfully integrated into policies, activity design and

Feminist Foreign Policy Fundamentals  47

implementation. Gender advisors also advocate for the collection and use of sex-​disaggregated data; collaborate to monitor, evaluate, and learn from activities with regard to their impact on gender integration; and advise on course corrections to further close gender gaps (USAID, 2022). While it is critical to have specified offices with gender mandates and expertise, responsibility for this work must be more widely dispersed. Accountability must be shared beyond, for example, the U.S. Secretary of State’s Office of Global Women’s Issues, the USAID Office of Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment, and the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy. The new U.S. Executive Order on the Establishment of the White House Gender Policy Council and its call for each agency to develop a gender strategy is a welcome step in this direction. The collection of sex-​disaggregated data is essential not only for gender advisors, but implementing organizations, government officials, and policymakers. Sex-​disaggregated data allow for an increased ability to ensure that differences or gaps that exist between those impacted by the foreign policy are taken into account and that those policies and programs do not perpetuate gender inequalities and patriarchal systems. This information is often available from national –​and regional-​level governments; reports to UN and regional human rights committees; and shadow reports and reports by UN and regional intergovernmental organizations, nongovernmental organizations, and implementers. According to Data 2X, a nongovernmental organization focused on closing gender data gaps, over 20 percent of countries do not collect sex-​disaggregated national statistics on even the most basic of information, including mortality rates, labor force participation, and education levels (Data 2X website). Further, 70 percent of countries do not disaggregate statistics by sex related to other key indicators, such as informal employment, business ownership and licensing, unpaid work, or domestic violence (Data 2X website). This means that, in many places around the world, governments are unable to track most basic aspects of the lives of women and girls and understand the scope of issues they face. This is an area where nongovernmental groups can play a role. For example, Together for Girls, a public–​private partnership between the UN, the U.S., and Canadian governments, and the private sector, has developed reliable information about sexual violence against children. Prior to this effort, countries lacked reliable information about the scale or scope of the problem, and its relationship to global health issues, such as the transmission of HIV/​ AIDS. This type of data is useful for government officials and advocates alike, and in foreign policy discussions and debates. Collecting sex-​disaggregated data, however, is not a panacea as concepts, definitions, and methods used in data production often reflect gender roles, relations, and inequalities in society. Some governments also use gender

48  Feminist Foreign Policy Fundamentals

budgeting and gender impact assessments to improve their gender lens in evaluating policies and programs (Federal Chancery, Republic of Austria). Even before formally adopting a feminist foreign policy, governments can focus on either stand-​alone policies and programs primarily focused on women and girls or a “gender mainstreaming” approach can be used to take gender into account more broadly. For instance, as noted elsewhere, women are underrepresented across the globe in public office. As of September 2022, only 26 percent of all national parliamentarians were women (Inter-​ Parliamentary Union, 2022). Both stand-​alone and mainstreamed policies and programs can address this issue. Stand-​ alone examples include the enactment of a legislative quota to ensure a minimum number of women serve in office or the training of women to run for political office. At the same time, a focus on gender is important to analyze issues such as political party structures, campaign financing laws, and voter registration processes to see if there are gender issues there (surprise –​there are!). Summary

For countries interested in developing and implementing a feminist foreign policy, it is important to understand key principles that guide this idea: gender equality as a goal and strategy, a broadened definition of security, the elevation of diverse voices, and a desire to address historic power imbalances. It is also critical to acknowledge the key institutions and individuals driving policy development: governments, political leaders, nongovernmental organizations and civil society, activists, and academics. Each plays a key role in how any policy is formulated and developed. Feminist foreign policy is focused on gender equality as both a precursor and a tool for peace and security. Feminist foreign policy goes beyond the inclusion of women –​in every institution and at every level –​to transform this work and address how gendered assumptions impact the way political and government leaders discuss and implement foreign policy. A nation’s security depends on greater gender equity and equality. If a society does not value half of its population, research reflects that it is more likely to engage in conflict. Increasing the number of women in policymaking positions is not enough, but it is a critical first step to broadening the perspectives that are brought into the decision-​making process. There must also be concerted efforts to ensure a diverse set of professionals and the inclusion of feminist voices. This is true whether those voices are from within the U.S. government or from civil society and feminist activists. Addressing power imbalances is at the heart of much of this work and is at its core the most difficult. These imbalances occur within the U.S. government, between those charged with exercising hard and soft power, and between U.S. officials and those are affected by U.S. policy.

Feminist Foreign Policy Fundamentals  49

Any foreign policy that calls itself feminist must be measured against these four core principles. In Chapter 3, we outline the countries that have launched or announced a feminist foreign, trade, and/​or development policy. It is important to consider how these countries measure up to these principles as they implement their policies. References Adebahr, Cornelius, “What Germany’s Turning Point Means for Its Feminist Foreign Policy.” Politico, March 21, 2022. Aggestam, Karin, Annika Bergman Rosamond, and Annica Kronsell, “Theorising Feminist Foreign Policy.” International Relations Vol. 33 (2019): 23–​39. Aggestam, Karin and Jacqui True, “Gendering Foreign Policy: A Comparative Framework for Analysis.” Foreign Policy Analysis Vol. 16 (2020): 143–​162. Arctic Council Working Group, Gender Equality in the Arctic Phase 3. Iceland's Arctic Council Chairmanship and the Arctic Council Sustainable Development Working Group, with the Icelandic Arctic Cooperation Network, the Icelandic Directorate for Equality, and the Stefansson Arctic Institute, 2023. Bache, Christina, Women’s Role in Peace Processes. European Parliament Policy Department, 2019. Basu, Soumita, “The Global South Writes 1325 (too).” International Political Science Review Vol. 37 (2016): 362–​374. Basu, Soumita, Paul Kirby, and Laura J. Shepherd, “Power and Danger in the Third Decade of Women, Peace and Security.” London School of Economics, 2020, available online at: https://​blogs.lse.ac.uk/​wps/​2020/​10/​23/​power-​and-​dan​ger-​in-​ the-​third-​dec​ade-​of-​women-​peace-​and-​secur​ity/​ Bishin, Benjamin and Feryal M. Cherif, “The Big Gains for Women’s Rights in the Middle East, Explained.” The Washington Post, July 23, 2018, https://​wapo.st/​ 2Vuf​CiE Blair, Tony, “Speech to the Labour Party Conference.” The Guardian, October 3, 2001. Caprioli, Mary and Mark A. Boyer, “Gender, Violence, and International Crisis.” The Journal of Conflict Resolution Vol. 45 (2001): 503–​518. Caprioli, Mary and Valerie Hudson, Sex and World Peace. Columbia University Press, 2012. Caprioli, Mary, Valerie M. Hudson, Rose McDermott, Chad Emmett, and Bonnie Ballif-​Spanvill, “Putting Women in Their Place.” Baker Center Journal of Applied Public Policy Vol. 1 (2007): 12–​22. Centre for a Feminist Foreign Policy website, 2023, available online at: https://​cen​tref​ orfe​mini​stfo​reig​npol​icy.org/​femin​ist-​fore​ign-​pol​icy/​ Chen, Li Ju, “Female Policymakers and Educational Expenditures: Cross Country Evidence.” Research Papers in Economics, 2008, pp. 1–​30. Coalition for a Feminist Foreign Policy in the United States, Solidarity Statement by the Coalition for a Feminist Foreign Policy in the United States, 2020, available online at::www.icrw.org/​wp-​cont​ent/​uplo​ads/​2020/​12/​FFP4​USA-​Com​mitm​ent-​to-​ Dism​antl​ing-​Rac​ism-​Dis​crim​inat​ion-​and-​White-​Suprem​acy.pdf Cohn, Carol, Helen Kinsella, and Sherri Gibbings, “Women, Peace and Security Resolution 1325.” International Feminist Journal of Politics Vol. 6, No. 1 (2004): 130–​140.

50  Feminist Foreign Policy Fundamentals

Council on Foreign Relations, “Women’s Participation in Peace Processes: Explore the Data.” 2019. available online at: www.cfr.org/​wom​ens-​partic​ipat​ion-​in-​peace-​ proces​ses/​expl​ore-​the-​data Council on Foreign Relations, “Women’s Participation in Peace Processes.” Updated January 30, 2019, available online at: https://​on.cfr.org/​37sp​0st Crespo-​Sancho, Catalina. 2017. “The Role of Gender in the Prevention of Violent Conflict.” Background Paper for the United Nations-​World Bank Flagship Study, Pathways for Peace: Inclusive Approaches to Preventing Violent Conflict, 2017. Data2X website, 2023. available online at: https://​dat​a2x.org/​ Ehrt, Julia, “Gender Is Where the Feminist and LGBTI Movements Meet. Here’s Why.” World Economic Forum, 2019, available online at: www.wefo​rum.org/​age​ nda/​2019/​07/​gen​der-​where-​femin​ist-​moveme​nts-​and-​lgbti-​moveme​nts-​meet/​ Federal Chancery, Republic of Austria, “Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Budgeting.” 2023. available online as of February 2023 at: www.bunde​skan​zler​ amt.gv.at/​en/​age​nda/​women-​and-​equal​ity/​gen​der-​mainst​ream​ing.html Foster, Stephenie, “Smart Cities Must Reflect Women’s Transportation Needs.” Global Policy, January 17, 2018, available online at: https://​bit.ly/​33DO​Fxk Government of Canada, “Gender-​ based Analysis Plus.” 2022. Tools available online at: https://​women-​gen​der-​equal​ity.can​ada.ca/​en/​gen​der-​based-​analy​sis-​ plus.html Government Offices of Sweden, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Handbook Swedish Feminist Foreign Policy, 2018. accessed online February 2023 at: www.swede​nabr​ oad.se/​globa​lass​ets/​amb​assa​der/​zimba​bwe-​har​are/​docume​nts/​handb​ook_​swed​ ens-​femin​ist-​fore​ign-​pol​icy.pdf Harding, Luke, “Declassified Papers Reveal Real Reason for Thatcher’s Dash to Riyadh.” The Guardian, August 23, 2016. Holsti, Ole R. and James N. Rosenau, “The Foreign Policy Beliefs of Women in Leadership Positions.” The Journal of Politics Vol. 43, No. 2(1981): 326–​347. Hoogensen, Gunhild, International Relations, Security, and Jeremy Bentham. Routledge, 2005. Hudson, Valerie M., “Foreign Policy Analysis: Actor-​Specific Theory and the Ground of International Relations.” Foreign Policy Analysis Vol. 1 (2005): 1–​30. Hudson, Valerie M. and Andrea den Boer, Bare Branches: The Security Implications of Asia’s Surplus Male Population. Belfer Center Studies in International Security, 2004. Inter-​Parliamentary Union, “Women in National Parliaments,” data as of January 1, 2022. Johnson-​Freese, Joan, Women, Peace and Security: An Introduction, Routledge, 2018. Kapoor, Ilan, “Hyper-​Self-​Reflexive Development? Spivak on Representing the Third World ‘Other’.” Third World Quarterly Vol. 25 (2004): 627–​647. Kennedy, Lesley, “How the Falklands War Cemented Margaret Thatcher’s Reputation as the ‘Iron Lady’.” History.com (2020). Lippai, Zsuzsanna and Angelic Young, Creating National Action Plans: A Guide to Implementing Resolution 1325, Institute for Inclusive Security, 2017. Markham, Susan, “Gender vs. Women’s Empowerment in Development.” Smash Strategies website, 2018, available online at: www.smas​hstr​ateg​ies.com/​2018/​09/​ gen​der-​vs-​wom​ens-​empo​werm​ent-​in-​deve​lopm​ent/​ Marshall, Donna Ramsey, Women in War and Peace. United States Institute of Peace, 2000.

Feminist Foreign Policy Fundamentals  51

Martin, Michael F. et al., “War Legacy Issues in Southeast Asia: Unexploded Ordnance (UXO).” Congressional Research Service (2019): Report no. R45749. Melander, Erik, “Gender Equality and Intrastate Armed Conflict.” International Studies Quarterly Vol. 49 (2005): 695–​714. Moore, David W., “Gender Gap Varies on Support for War.” Gallup (2002). NGO Working Group on Women, Peace and Security website, 2023. available online at: www.wom​enpe​aces​ecur​ity.org/​ Norgaard, Kari and Richard York, “Gender Equality and State Environmentalism.” Gender and Society Vol. 19 (2005): 506–​522. Nye, Joseph Jr., “What Is a Moral Foreign Policy.” Texas National Security Review Vol. 2 (2019): 96–​108. Nylund, Mia-​Lie, Sandra Håkansson, and Elin Bjarnegård, “The Transformative Potential of Feminist Foreign Policy: The Case of Sweden.” Journal of Women, Politics & Policy (2022): 1–​17. O’Connor, Talitha, “The UNSC & Women: On the Effectiveness of Resolution 1325.” Australian Institute of International Affairs, 2014, available online at: www.inter​ nati​onal​affa​irs.org.au/​news-​item/​the-​unsc-​women-​on-​the-​effect​iven​ess-​of-​res​olut​ ion-​1325 O’Reilly, Marie, “Why Women? Inclusive Security and Peaceful Societies.” Inclusive Security (2015). O’Reilly, Marie, Andrea Ó Suilleabhain, and Andrea Paffenholz, Reimagining Peacemaking: Women’s Roles in Peace Processes. New York: International Peace Institute, 2015. Pepera, Sandra, “Why Women in Politics?.” Women Deliver, February 28, 2018. Pradella, Joanna, “The Ukraine Crisis, Feminism and Australia’s Foreign Policy.” The Interpreter, March 8, 2022, available online at: www.lowyin​stit​ute.org/​the-​inte​ rpre​ter/​ukra​ine-​cri​sis-​femin​ism-​and-​austra​lia-​fore​ign-​pol​icy Rehn, Elisabeth and Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Women, War, and Peace: The Independent Experts’ Assessment on the Impact of Armed Conflict on Women and Women’s Role in Peace-​ building. United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM), 2002. Riaño, Juan Felipe and Felipe Valencia Caicedo, “Apocalypse Laos: The Devastating Legacy of the ‘Secret War’.” Vox (2020). Ross, Marc Howard, “The Relevance of Culture for the Study of Political Psychology.” Political Psychology: Cultural and Crosscultural Foundations, edited by S.A. Renshon, S.A. and J. Duckitt. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2000. Scheyer, Victoria, Dilek Gürsel, Marie Jelenka Kirchner, and Jessica Cheung, Practicing Feminist Foreign Policy in the Everyday: A Toolkit, Heinrich Böll Foundation, 2021. Skjelsbaek, Inger, “Gender Identity: Is Femininity Inherently Peaceful?.” Internasjonal Politikk, Vol. 56 (1998): 55. Spector, Dina, “Why Women Use Public Transit More than Men.” Business Insider, February 6, 2012. Swati, Parashar, “The WPS Agenda: A Postcolonial Critique.” In The Oxford Handbook of Women, Peace, and Security, edited by Sara E. Davies and Jacqui True. Oxford Academic, 2019, pp. 3–​14. Swiss, Liam, Kathleen M. Fallon, and Giovani Burgos, “Does Critical Mass Matter? Women’s Political Representation and Child Health in Developing Countries.” Social Forces Vol. 91 (2012): 531–​558.

52  Feminist Foreign Policy Fundamentals

Tickner, J. Ann and Jacqui True, “A Century of International Relations Feminism: From World War I Women’s Peace Pragmatism to the Women, Peace and Security Agenda.” International Studies Quarterly Vol. 62 (June 2018): 221–​233. Tryggestad, Torunn L. “Trick or Treat? The UN and Implementation of Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace, and Security.” Global Governance Vol. 15 (2009): 539–​557. UN General Assembly Resolution A/​RES/​66/​290. United Nations, October 25, 2012 United States Institute of Peace, “What Is UNSCR 1325? An Explanation of the Landmark Resolution on Women, Peace and Security.” 2020, available online at: www.usip.org/​gende​r_​pe​aceb​uild​ing/​about​_​UNS​CR_​1​325 USAID, Automated Directive Systems (ADS) 205: Integrating Gender Equality and Female Empowerment in USAID’s Program Cycle. U.S. Government, 2021. USAID, Automated Directive Systems (ADS) 201: Program Cycle Operational Policy. U.S. Government, 2022. U.S. Department of State, U.S.-​Africa Leaders Summit. U.S. Government, 2022. Wertheim, Stephen, “The Crisis in Progressive Foreign Policy: How the Left Can Adapt to an Age of Great-​Power Rivalry.” Foreign Affairs (2022). WomanStats Project website, 2023, available online at: www.wom​anst​ats.org/​ Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, “1325 National Action Plans (NAPs): WILPF Monitoring and Analysis of National Action Plans on Women, Peace and Security.” 2023. available online at: http://​1325n​aps.pea​cewo​men.org/​ Wright, Bryan Dean, “The President’s Daily Brief.” Apple Podcasts (2023).

3 FEMINIST FOREIGN POLICY IN PRACTICE

Feminist foreign policy is an approach for government action that is based on historical events and movements, encompasses a set of key principles, has been adopted by a small set of countries, is being implemented in some ways already by the U.S. government, and could be further operationalized. As of early 2023, at least ten governments have adopted an explicit feminist foreign or development policy, and many others have established “gendered” foreign policies. Sweden’s adoption of a feminist foreign policy in 2014 spurred a global conversation about the idea of feminist foreign policy, how such a policy could be implemented, and how the Swedish framework could be applied in other countries. Although Sweden’s new government rescinded this policy in October 2022, leaders expressed a continued commitment to gender equality (AFP in Stockholm, 2022). This chapter catalogs these country-​ specific policies, reactions from analysts, scholars, and civil society activists to the policies, and, if available, examples of how a country’s feminist foreign policy has worked in practice. While Sweden’s policy was in place for almost a decade, many of the policies established by other countries are fairly recent and have not been fully developed or implemented. As governments seek to implement a feminist foreign policy, there is no “one size fits all” approach. Most have attempted to address the fundamental concepts defined in Chapter 2 within the confines of the gender norms that exist in their country as well as their political systems, political realities, and government bureaucracies. In general, feminist foreign policy in practice has several commonalities. First, many of the governments commit to mainstreaming gender in national security and foreign policy activities and institutions. Second, they advocate for gender equality globally through DOI: 10.4324/9781003295617-4

54  Feminist Foreign Policy in Practice

their foreign and/​or development policies. Third, they work toward greater women’s representation in their foreign ministries. Fourth, they increase the resources focused on this work across the globe. These policies cover a broad range of issues, from more traditional foreign policy and security issues to women, peace, and security frameworks that strengthen women’s meaningful participation in peace negotiations and conflict prevention. In broadening the definition of security, most countries with a feminist foreign policy emphasize the importance of women’s equitable access to economic opportunity. Sweden and Canada have developed feminist trade policies. Canada, France, and Germany have reimagined development assistance with a feminist lens. Several have established new funding mechanisms so that local women’s organizations have access to increased funding as well as opportunities to participate in policy and program design. Canada, France, and Germany have used multilateral platforms, such as the International Group of 7 (the G7), to advocate for feminist foreign and development policies, and to address gender equality writ large. Finally, it is worth noting that while there are context-​specific responses and criticisms of the policies established by various governments, many of the reactions to Sweden’s policy, both positive and negative, apply to the policies developed by other countries, as most have used Sweden’s feminist foreign policy as a starting point. As such, one criticism of all of these feminist policies is that the governments have maintained domestic and foreign policy approaches that undermine their feminist initiatives and kept their foreign policy structures largely in place (Chueng et al., 2021). Sweden (2014–​2022)

Sweden was the first government to adopt a feminist foreign policy and is the model against which many other governments structure and measure their policies in this area. Sweden’s policy has also been the touchstone for foreign policies that, while not explicitly feminist, encompass a gendered perspective (Walfridsson, 2022). Sweden has long been a global leader on gender equality and human rights, but making an explicit commitment to a feminist policy heightened its visibility even further. In 2014, Margot Wallström, the former United Nations Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict, was appointed Swedish Minister of Foreign Affairs. As her political party, the Social Democrats, formed a coalition government that year, Wallström promised that Sweden would adopt a feminist foreign policy explicitly based on achieving equality between women and men (Scrutton, 2015). According to the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the policy responded to the discrimination and systematic subordination that characterizes

Feminist Foreign Policy in Practice  55

daily life for countless women and girls all over the world. It was based on the conviction that sustainable peace, security, and development could not be achieved if women, who comprise half the world’s population, were excluded. The policy was structured to guide the actions of Swedish diplomats and officials abroad and while serving at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs in Stockholm. Essentially, Sweden’s feminist foreign policy charged the Swedish Foreign Service with “strengthen[ing] all women’s and girls’ Rights, Representation and Resources, based on the Reality in which they live” (Government Offices of Sweden, 2019a). As set forth in numerous documents and in speeches by senior Swedish officials (Government Offices of Sweden, 2019a), gender equality is a fundamental aim of Swedish foreign policy, and the government reaffirmed this commitment in early 2023 even while rescinding the country’s feminist foreign policy (AFP in Stockholm, 2022). Sweden views the ability of women and girls to enjoy fundamental human rights as an obligation within its international commitments and a prerequisite to achieving Sweden’s broader foreign policy goals of peace, security, and sustainable development (Government Offices of Sweden, 2019a). Within the feminist foreign policy framework regarding rights, the Swedish Foreign Service was to promote all women’s and girls’ full enjoyment of human rights, including combating all forms of violence and discrimination that restrict freedom of action. Regarding representation, the Swedish Foreign Service was to promote women’s participation and influence in decision-​making processes at all levels and in all areas, and sought dialogue with women representatives at all levels, including in civil society. With respect to resources, the Swedish Foreign Service was to ensure that government resources be allocated to promote gender equality and equal opportunity. The 2019 handbook developed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs focused on the practical implementation of the policy and supported the Swedish Foreign Service in its ongoing work, “while also satisfying the considerable national and international interest in Sweden’s feminist foreign policy” (Government Offices of Sweden, 2019a). The handbook reviewed working methods used to ensure the policy had an impact and provided specific examples of policy change within foreign and security policy, development cooperation, and trade promotion policy. In this regard, it was not only a policy document but also a working guide for changing governmental personnel, planning, budgeting, and leadership norms. Sweden’s Action Plan on Feminist Foreign Policy for 2019–​2022 (Action Plan) required its foreign service to contribute to women and girls (1) full enjoyment of their human rights; (2) freedom from physical, psychological, and sexual violence; (3) participation in preventing and resolving conflicts, and post-​conflict peacebuilding; (4) political participation and influence in

56  Feminist Foreign Policy in Practice

all areas of society; (5) economic rights and empowerment; and (6) sexual and reproductive health and rights (Government Offices of Sweden, 2019a). The Action Plan explicitly linked the development of a feminist foreign policy with work to address climate change and the global impact of COVID-​ 19. Further, it directed the Swedish Foreign Service to promote women’s effective participation in peacebuilding and in peace processes through diplomacy and specific support, including contributing expertise from the Swedish Women’s Mediation Network (Government Offices of Sweden, 2019b). It also highlighted the importance of girls’ perspectives and active participation in peace processes and public life. The Action Plan utilized an intersectional approach, the use of gender analysis, and the collection of sex-​ disaggregated data. It directed the government to ensure consistency between its outward facing programs and its internal functions, highlighting ongoing initiatives to promote gender equality in recruitment, promotions and appointments, and the importance of training, beginning with ambassadors and high-​level staff. Building on its foreign policy, in 2019 Sweden adopted a feminist trade policy to address gender gaps in the economic benefits of trade and to ensure equal access to global markets (Government Offices of Sweden, 2019a). The Feminist Trade Policy focused on gender as a market access issue and prioritized sectors, products, and services that primarily affect women in trade negotiations. This exemplified how feminist foreign policy broadened perspectives and explicitly addressed issues other than those of traditional national security. Specific Examples of How a Feminist Foreign Policy Works

It is critical to understand how Sweden translated its feminist foreign policy both in outward facing programs and the way its government functioned internally. Sweden cataloged examples of its accomplishments under seven objectives (Government Offices of Sweden, 2017). One objective –​to support the transformation of Sweden’s foreign ministry and the work of its diplomats –​was internally facing. The rest of the objectives were external to its own government, advancing the following goals for women and girls globally: (1) full enjoyment of human rights; (2) freedom from physical, mental, and sexual violence; (3) participation in conflict resolution and peacebuilding; (4) political participation; (5) full enjoyment of economic rights and empowerment; and (6) sexual and reproductive health and rights. As examples of accomplishments in human rights, Sweden promoted domestic legislation prohibiting the purchase of sexual services, increased the focus of development cooperation on gender equality, and published 135 country reports on human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. With respect to freedom from violence, Sweden strengthened other countries’

Feminist Foreign Policy in Practice  57

capacities to prosecute perpetrators of gender-​based violence, assisted crime victims, and contributed to the knowledge base about the link between the spread of weapons and sexual violence against women. Further, with regard to participation, Sweden advocated for increased participation of women in peace processes and established and encouraged networks of women mediators. It also contributed to women’s political participation in numerous countries, supported women human rights defenders, and advocated for gender equality strategies at development banks and in environment and climate funds. In the realm of women’s economic empowerment, Sweden promoted girls’ education and women’s employment, advanced gender equality in trade policy and corporate social responsibility, and led in advancing the role of men in gender equality. Finally, Sweden intensified its efforts to promote sexual and reproductive health and rights through development cooperation and dialogue, by increasing the number of midwives, and by improving access to comprehensive sexuality education, contraception, and safe abortions. Responses to Sweden’s Feminist Foreign Policy

International reactions to Sweden’s policy have been generally positive, with the policy being lauded as addressing some of the most systemic challenges to equitable and ethical foreign policy, such as power imbalances based on patriarchy and racism, the vestiges of neocolonialism, and devaluing the voices of women and other marginalized groups (Zimmerman, 2020). Multiple global commentators have highlighted Sweden’s leadership on this issue. According to former U.S. Ambassador-​at-​Large for Global Women’s Issues Melanne Verveer, Sweden’s feminist foreign policy placed a gender lens on every issue that diplomats address and helped to ensure meaningful diplomatic engagements (Mansky, 2021). Verveer saw Sweden’s feminist foreign policy as an outgrowth of former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s approach to foreign policy (Verveer, 2017). Along the same lines, Swedish academics credited the government with developing and implementing a foreign policy that broadened the definition of security, challenged traditional power relations, departed from traditional elite-​ oriented foreign policy, and prioritized women’s inclusion and participation in peace processes (Aggestam & Bergman-​Rosamond, 2016). They acknowledged, however, that there was resistance to the challenges that a feminist foreign policy posed to existing institutions and structures. The rescission of the policy in 2022 reflects this unease, with the new foreign minister saying that the feminist label “could be counterproductive” (AFP in Stockholm, 2022). Professors and analysts Karin Aggestam and Annika Bergman-​Rosamond posit that by “using the f-​ word,” Sweden’s policy made an explicit

58  Feminist Foreign Policy in Practice

commitment to transforming the use of power and gender. It moved beyond gender mainstreaming to policies that were more edgy and controversial in that they explicitly sought to “renegotiate and challenge power hierarchies and gendered institutions that hitherto defined global institutions and foreign and security policies” (Aggestam & Bergman-​Rosamond, 2016). Aggestam and Bergman-​ Rosamond applauded Sweden’s feminist foreign policy’s commitment to “promoting gender sensitive dialogues” across borders and between various social groups (Aggestam & Bergman-​ Rosamond, 2016). To them, such a commitment informed, and reformed, policy by bringing new knowledge and perspectives into the policymaking process (Robinson, 2011). These advocates also supported the increase of women’s representation and meaningful participation in foreign policy and government more broadly. They reflected that Sweden, however, under Foreign Minister Wallström’s leadership mainly focused on increasing women’s representation in peace and conflict resolution processes, consistent with UNSCR 1325. They cited the 2015 launch of a Nordic women mediators network, which now contains mediators from Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden, as an example (Nordic Women Mediators website). Sweden’s feminist foreign policy was not without detractors from across the political spectrum. When Wallström announced this policy in 2014, there were reports that “she was met with a few smirks and some confusion even within her own diplomatic corps,” and a concern about how feminist foreign policy would shape Sweden’s diplomatic relationships (Nordberg, 2015). According to a Swedish defense researcher, “a feminist perspective [was seen by foreign policy traditionalists as] idealistic, naïve –​and potentially even dangerous –​in the realpolitik power struggles between nations” (Nordberg, 2015). Further, the use of the word “feminism” was seen as radical, inflammatory, and anti-​men. Scholars specifically criticized Sweden’s role as one of the world’s top arms exporters, especially selling to authoritarian states, such as Saudi Arabia, and the use of Swedish-​made arms in the war in Yemen. As of 2020, Sweden was the 13th largest arms exporter in the world (TheGlobalEconomy.com, 2020). In 2015, Sweden decided to end its military cooperation agreement with Saudi Arabia due to concerns about human rights. After a speech to the Swedish parliament about women’s rights and human rights issues in Saudi Arabia (Nordberg, 2015), Wallström was disinvited from speaking to the Arab League (Deutsche Welle, 2015). In response, Sweden announced it would not renew its arms agreement with Saudi Arabia, worth at least $39 million. Saudi Arabia recalled its ambassador to Sweden and Wallström was condemned by the Gulf Cooperation Council, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, and the Arab League. Saudi Arabia also charged that Wallström’s comments directly criticized Sharia law and Islam (Deutsche

Feminist Foreign Policy in Practice  59

Welle, 2015). One week later, a delegation of Swedish officials traveled to Riyadh, carrying letters from the Prime Minister and King explaining that Wallström had not intended to criticize Islam and offering official regrets for any misunderstanding. Arms sales resumed. Sweden’s policy, as well as other feminist foreign policies, have been criticized by some feminist scholars and civil society leaders as not transformational enough. They argue that these policies do not actually reshape governmental structures, decrease militarism, or address power imbalances. They also argue that the use of military power is often deployed to “protect” women and children, thus reinforcing gender norms and colonial power relations (True, 2017). They cite the use of language which reinforces traditional power structures, such as positing Sweden’s role as “humanitarian and moral nation,” reflecting the idea of moral superiority over less-​developed countries and the notion that problems found elsewhere can be solved by Sweden (Nylund et al., 2022). Scholars note that there has been less discussion of how Swedish feminist foreign policy affects its development programs, an area where postcolonial perspectives are often embedded in the frameworks undergirding development assistance (Nylund et al., 2022). Norway (2016–​)

Norway does not explicitly define its approach as feminist (Tryggestad, 2018), but is focused on equality of opportunity and on promoting women, peace, and security in foreign policy (Norway Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2021). The fundamental aims of Norway’s gender equality efforts are to increase the opportunities available to women and girls, promote rights to self-​ determination, and further empowerment. In practice, analysts view this framework as “at least as feminist” as Sweden’s foreign policy. As one commentator said, “The attitude in Norway has been that labels aren’t necessary; ‘We just do it’ ” (Tryggestad, 2018). There are three key documents guiding Norway’s policy. The first is the Action Plan for Women’s Rights and Gender Equality in Foreign and Development Policy 2016–​2020. This action plan, along with Norway’s National Action Plan on Women, Peace, and Security, and the International Strategy to Eliminate Harmful Practices are the framework for Norway’s foreign and development policy for gender equality (Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2016). Norway frames these efforts in the context of its commitment to human rights and women’s rights, citing the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the Beijing Platform, the Programme of Action adopted at the Cairo Conference on Population and Development, and the Sustainable Development Goals. In outlining its goals,

60  Feminist Foreign Policy in Practice

Norway acknowledges that the struggle for gender equality is complicated and characterized by contradictions. Norway cites the complexity of growing opposition to women’s rights in some places and juxtaposes that with a trend toward greater gender equality, as laws and norms change and evolve. As the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs set out in 2016, “At the core of the contradictions are ideologies that view gender equality as a threat to the institution of the family, pressure to maintain traditional gender roles and the fight for the right to decide over one’s own body and sexuality” (Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2016). The Action Plan promotes five key thematic areas. First, it promotes access to inclusive and equitable quality education for all girls and boys, which Norway views as foundational to women and girls developing agency and participating equally in all spheres of life. Second, it promotes the ability of women to participate in political life, giving women a voice to influence decisions and address the inequalities written into many legislative frameworks. Norway ties this goal to global efforts to advance women’s role in peace and security and its commitment to UNSCR 1325. The third area addresses full economic rights for women and equal opportunities for labor market participation, which are important for individuals and for society as it leads to economic prosperity and growth. Fourth, the Action Plan addresses the need to eliminate gender-​based violence and other harmful practices, which are barriers to participation in public and economic life and a violation of human rights. Finally, Norway is committed to increasing access to sexual and reproductive health and rights for girls and women. Norway incorporates gender equality into many aspects of its foreign and development policy. For example, Norway has established that half of all its bilateral aid must have gender equality as a principal or significant target. Norway’s Action Plan applies to its diplomats, staff at the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad), and at other public bodies that administer Norwegian funds and implement Norwegian foreign policy and development cooperation (Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2016). Specific Examples of How a Feminist Foreign Policy Works

Norway has supported a broad range of efforts to promote girls’ education through the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), and the Global Partnership for Education. It has supported teacher training and curricula incorporating a gender perspective, including the promotion of gender equality as a value and strengthening awareness of gender-​ based violence. Norway has also supported comprehensive sexuality education. Overall, its education efforts

Feminist Foreign Policy in Practice  61

have been targeted in seven priority countries: Malawi, Ethiopia, Nepal, Niger, South Sudan, Afghanistan, and Haiti. Norway has supported programs to increase women’s representation in politics, and in 2014, Norway sponsored the first United Nations resolution to protect women human rights defenders (UN General Assembly Resolution 68/​181, 2013). This resolution recognized the important role these defenders play and the urgent need to support their work and combat efforts to silence them through oppressive legislation, gender-​based discrimination, violence, and murder. Further, Norway also tied implementation of its National Action Plan on Women, Peace, and Security to this effort, specifically to increase women in peace processes (Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2019). With respect to economic participation, Norway has prioritized the reforming of family laws that hinder women’s ability to work and other laws that are obstacles to economic opportunities for women. It has integrated gender equality into the work of the Norwegian Investment Fund (Norfund website, 2023), which provides private capital to businesses in developing countries. Norway also highlights a European Economic Area grant program, which funds initiatives to reduce economic and social disparities, especially gender inequality, in 15 countries in Central and Southern Europe (Mission of Norway to the European Union). Key initiatives are focused on gender equality, addressing gender-​based violence, promoting work–​life balance, and increasing women’s workforce participation. With respect to addressing gender-​ based violence and other harmful practices, Norway has supported civil society organizations that combat gender-​based violence, initiated measures to involve men in efforts to combat gender-​based violence, addressed sexual violence in conflict, and supported efforts to eliminate child and forced marriage within a generation. With respect to sexual and reproductive health and rights, Norway prioritizes the promotion of this issue in all relevant negotiations in the UN, as well as within Norway’s development cooperation. Norway specifically highlights its work on abortion access in the UN Human Rights Council by presenting recommendations to promote legal and safe abortion more often than any other country. Responses to Norway’s Feminist Foreign Policy

As noted earlier, Norway has promoted a gender-​focused foreign policy, without overtly calling it “feminist.” Norway’s foreign policy aims for international consensus where feminism may be seen as too provocative and undermining rather than advancing peacemaking (Aggestam & True, 2020). Scholars Aggestam and True note that Norway has invested considerable resources over the last decade to burnish its leadership in conflict resolution and inclusive peace processes, which is reflected in the way Norway discusses

62  Feminist Foreign Policy in Practice

its foreign policy. Much of the framework and context is couched in the rhetoric of UNSCR 1325 and the women, peace, and security agenda. Further, according to Aggestam and True, Norway has institutionalized this work within its diplomatic service, which has made the advancement of gender-​ inclusive peace processes more possible. While some commentators, such as Dr. Torunn Tryggestad, see Norway’s policy as feminist but in a less visible manner than Sweden, others criticize Norway for integrating and highlighting gender equality in a manner that is “depersonalized” (Tryggestad, 2018). These scholars believe that Norway’s approach is more like traditional gender mainstreaming and less transformational (Aggestam & True, 2020). Canada (2017–​)

When Justin Trudeau was elected prime minister of Canada, he was asked why a gender-​balanced Cabinet was important, and he famously answered, “because it’s 2015” (Trudeau, 2015). When asked if he identifies as a feminist, Trudeau did not hesitate: “Yes, absolutely, I’m a feminist” (Global Affairs Canada, 2017a). In 2017, Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland declared that “[it] is important, and historic, that we have a prime minister and a government proud to proclaim ourselves feminists.” Further, the Foreign Minister stated that women’s rights and sexual and reproductive rights “are at the core of our foreign policy” (Global Affairs Canada, 2017a). Days later, Canada rebranded its foreign assistance program as the Feminist International Assistance Policy, with a specific mandate to promote gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls to “reduce extreme poverty and build a more peaceful, inclusive and prosperous world” (Global Affairs Canada, 2017b). This was a shift in how Canada conducted and provided foreign assistance. In addition to reframing parts of its foreign policy and international relations work, the Minister of International Development and La Francophonie is responsible for implementation of the feminist development policy. Canada also established a feminist trade policy (Government of Canada, 2020). Canada has aligned its Feminist International Assistance Policy with its support of the Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement on climate change. Using this framework, Canada’s feminist international assistance policy is both targeted and crosscutting. It targets initiatives that fight poverty and inequality by supporting gender equality and defending the rights of women and girls. The cross-​ cutting aspect means that all international assistance initiatives, across all sectors, should improve gender equality and empower women and girls. This framework also involves women and civil society more directly in the planning and design of initiatives that deliver foreign assistance. According

Feminist Foreign Policy in Practice  63

to the Minister of International Development and La Francophonie, implementing partners must involve women in all phases of project development, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation (Government of Canada, 2020). Further, Canada has committed to work closely with local women’s rights groups to fight against child, early and forced marriage, and to enable access to the formal economy and decision-​making. In 2018, to further this commitment, Canada partnered with philanthropists, the private sector, and civil society to launch The Equality Fund to support the work of local women’s organizations, committing $300 million to close gender gaps and eliminate barriers to gender equality (Global Affairs Canada, 2023). The Equality Fund provides predictable and flexible funding, along with technical assistance, to women’s organizations and movements in developing countries. During Canada’s presidency of the G7 in 2018, Prime Minister Trudeau established a Gender Equality Advisory Council (GEAC) to integrate gender equality throughout the G7’s policy agenda. We will discuss this further later as an example of how Canada, France, and Germany are using this multilateral platform to advance feminist polices. In May 2023, Canada announced its bid for a seat on the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council, pledging to advance issues such as gender equality and sexual health and reproductive rights.1 Women, Peace, and Security Agenda

In 2017, Canada launched the Elsie Initiative for Women in Peace Operations, which underscores how women peacekeepers enhance operational effectiveness of peace operations (Government of Canada, 2020). It is focused on providing more equitable opportunities for uniformed women personnel in United Nations peacekeeping operations. (In 2021, less than 6 percent of military peacekeeping contingents and 20 percent of military experts, military observers, and staff officers were women.) In announcing the initiative, Prime Minister Trudeau explicitly connected it to Canada’s feminist commitments and to the women, peace, and security agenda (Government of Canada, 2020). The initiative includes bilateral partnerships, a global fund, political advocacy, internal culture change, and significant research, monitoring, and evaluation. This fund is managed by UN Women and was established for an initial five-​year period (2019–​2024). Canada is the largest donor, contributing

1 “Joly announces Canada's bid for a seat on the UN Human Rights Council” CBC News, Dylan Robertson, The Canadian Press, May 09, 2023: www.cbc.ca/​news/​polit​ics/​joly-​can​ada-​ bid-​un-​human-​rig​hts-​coun​cil-​1.6836​990

64  Feminist Foreign Policy in Practice

$17.5 million to the fund, along with contributions from Australia, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, and the United Kingdom. Canada has also provided technical assistance and training to identify best practices and test solutions to overcome the barriers women face in the security sector. Canada created a publicly accessible assessment tool for use by military and police organizations to identify both universal and context-​ specific barriers to women’s full integration in these organizations. As part of the Elsie Fund, Canada established financial premiums for troop and police-​contributing countries that deploy gender-​strong units, which Canada defines as one that includes a substantial representation of women, provides gender-​equity training to all unit members, and the right equipment to ensure deployment parity. In 2019, Canada named its first ever Ambassador for Women, Peace, and Security, further reflecting its commitment to raising gender issues globally (The Globe and Mail, 2019). In creating this position, Prime Minister Trudeau explicitly linked it to Canada’s feminist foreign policy by “championing our women, peace, and security priority commitments at home and around the world” (The Globe and Mail, 2019). Ambassador Jacqueline O’Neill is a widely known and well-​respected expert in the field. She served as President of the Institute for Inclusive Security, a U.S.-​based civil society organization advocating for women’s meaningful participation in conflict resolution. She also advised the Government of Canada on the country’s first and second national action plans on women, peace, and security. Ambassador O’Neill characterizes her role as ensuring that government officials look at the gender dimensions of every issue and understand the need for sex-​disaggregated data to inform policy. In a 2021 interview, she gave the example of working with officials on chemical weapons. While many assumed there is no differential impact on women and girls, she cited examples, including the effect that toxic chemical agents have on women’s reproductive systems, the lack of women first responders leading to an adverse impact on women affected by chemical weapons, and the lack of understanding of women’s often traditional role in tending to the dead. Ambassador O’Neill also revised the process of approving licenses for arms sales, adding the rate of gender-​based violence in a country as a factor (O’Neill, 2021). Feminist Trade Policy

Canada has elevated its work in trade to account for the differential effects of trade policies on women and men (Council on Foreign Relations, 2020). By raising gender-​related issues in free trade agreements (FTAs), Canada has encouraged its trading partners to ensure that women, whether they are employees, executives, or entrepreneurs, equally benefit from opportunities

Feminist Foreign Policy in Practice  65

created by trade. In some trade negotiations, Canada has raised issues of gender equality and nondiscrimination, addressing employment discrimination in labor cooperation agreements and labor chapters in FTAs (Government of Canada, 2023). Canada has also advocated for stand-​alone chapters on trade and gender in these agreements. In 2017, the Minister of International Trade signed Canada’s first trade and gender chapter in the Canada–​Chile FTA, a first for Canada and for any G20 country. These agreements reaffirm the importance of a gender perspective in a broadened definition of security, including economic and trade issues. They include commitments to promote employment equity, address workplace gender-​based discrimination, and address the gender wage gap. There are other provisions prohibiting gender-​based discrimination in licensing, increasing the number of women owned businesses in government procurement, and requiring that companies nominate women for senior management or board of directors’ positions. Responses to Canada’s Feminist Assistance, Security and Trade Policies

Canada’s work in this arena, specifically its adoption of a feminist international assistance policy has been described as “ambitious and forward-​ thinking” (Rao & Tiessen, 2020). One group of scholars, policy experts, and development practitioners see this policy as building on decades of work by the Canadian government and civil society and as reestablishing Canada’s leadership on gender equality (Rao & Tiessen, 2020). The Canadian Council for International Cooperation, for example, welcomed the policy as supporting its members’ work, especially through the establishment of funding targets and the centering of gender equality and women’s empowerment (Canadian Coalition for International Cooperation, 2016). At the same time, Canada has been criticized for not matching some of its feminist rhetoric with appropriate funding. Scholars such as Jessica Cadesky raise overarching issues with Canada’s approach, including an inconsistent recognition of intersectionality and the conflation of gender equality with women’s empowerment (Cadesky, 2020). These scholars see Canada’s policy as not being transformational, focusing on women’s empowerment and gender equality instead of feminism and structural change (Olivius, 2014). Specifically, some question Prime Minister Trudeau’s feminist credentials, and whether his progressive rhetoric matches his actions. Canadian scholars Pascale Dangoisse and Gabriela Perdomo analyzed three years of his public remarks and found that his discussions of gender equality and women’s rights were mostly in the context of economic empowerment (Dangoisse & Perdomo, 2020). These critics see this approach as based on the view that individual empowerment and equal access to economic empowerment leads

66  Feminist Foreign Policy in Practice

to full equality. They argue this individualistic approach undermines the possibility of a transformative approach to policy. Specific questions have been raised about Canada’s feminist foreign policy in the context of the Taliban’s attacks on Afghan women’s rights. Journalists Mellissa Fung and Zahra Nader argue that expressing “deep concern” about the Taliban’s brutality is not enough under a feminist foreign policy (Fung & Nader, 2022). Canada has also been criticized for only applying feminist trade policy to FTAs with Chile and Israel, and not to the “new NAFTA” agreement between Canada, Mexico, and the U.S. According to a recent analysis, there are only occasional references to gender in the new NAFTA, notably around the promotion of small businesses owned by underrepresented groups, including women, indigenous people, and youth (Macdonald & Ibrahim, 2019). France (2019–​)

In 2019, a joint article by the French Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs and the Minister of State for Gender Equality and the Fight against Discrimination, was published in the daily newspaper Libération (Embassy of France in the Caribbean, 2019). In it they announced that France would establish: A foreign policy to combat sexual and sexist violence. A foreign policy to promote the education of girls and women, boys and men, throughout the world. A foreign policy to foster women’s economic empowerment worldwide, and particularly in Africa. A tangible foreign policy, not limited to mere words, which is truly active and produces real effects to support women, all women. (Embassy of France in the Caribbean, 2019) The Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs spearheads France’s feminist foreign policy, in terms of both outward facing engagement and internal change (Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs, 2021a). Externally, the ministry advocates for gender equality across all issues, including poverty reduction, economic growth, sustainable development, climate change, peace and security, defense, and promotion of fundamental rights. At the national level, France has committed that 50 percent of its official development assistance be attributed to projects with gender equality as a significant or main objective. This also builds on France’s commitment to the women, peace, and security agenda, and its three national action plans (Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs, 2021a). Internally, the ministry has adopted a proactive policy to promote gender equality by increasing the number of women in senior level management

Feminist Foreign Policy in Practice  67

and ambassadorial positions, providing training on gender issues for all its employees, and systematically including gender equality in the strategies and actions of the 12 agencies supervised or co-​supervised by the ministry. Like Canada, France prioritized gender equality as part of the policy focus during its G7 presidency and focused on access to education for girls and women, the fight against gender and sexual violence, and raising the status of African women (Frenchly, 2019). France launched the Affirmative Finance Action for Women in Africa (AFAWA) initiative to increase women entrepreneurs’ access to finance, to break down structural and regulatory barriers to that financing, and to provide technical assistance to partner financial institutions to better serve women entrepreneurs. Under this initiative, there were pledges of almost $1.5 billion in financing (Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs, 2018). France also established The Global Survivors Fund to support victims of conflict-​related sexual violence (Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs, 2018). This fund builds on the work of Congolese doctor Denis Mukwege and Nadia Murad, a Yazidi human rights activist, who jointly received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2018 for their work to end the use of sexual violence as a weapon of war and armed conflict. The fund enables survivors of such violence to access compensation and reparations and helps them reintegrate into society. France announced a contribution of $6.6 million to the fund between 2020 and 2022. Finally, France hosted one of the two Generation Equality Forums held in 2021, for the 25-​year anniversary of the Beijing Conference. As discussed earlier, the forum brought together world leaders as well as representatives of international organizations, civil society, youth, and the private sector to make commitments to advance gender equality (Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs, 2021b). At the Generation Equality Forum, France committed to advocate for women’s sexual and reproductive health and rights, ensure girls’ access to education, and support women human rights defenders (Generation Equality Forum, 2021). France earmarked half of its $350 million, multiyear commitment to the Global Partnership for Education to girls’ education and gender equality. France also provided over $400 million toward sexual and reproductive health and rights to international organizations, such as UNFPA, as well as civil society and feminist organizations (Permanent Mission of France to the United Nations in New York, 2022). Responses to France’s Feminist Foreign Policy

French advocates commended the government for dedicating resources to women and girls’ empowerment and establishing accountability mechanisms (Pallapothu, 2022). At the same time, they criticized the government for labeling every policy relevant to women and girls as feminist, as it reinforces

68  Feminist Foreign Policy in Practice

gender binaries, excludes LGBTQ+​and gender nonconforming people, and does not consider intersectionality. A 2022 report from Oxfam France, Equipop, and Care France concluded that Prime Minister Macron’s policies have been “largely insufficient” with respect to increasing gender equality (Oxfam France, 2022). Although the Macron administration received a low grade with regard to domestic efforts, feminist foreign policy was seen as an encouraging development. The report, however, criticized the level of funding as “not up to the stated ambition. France remains 26th out of 30 in the ranking of donor countries integrating [gender] equality into their aid” (Oxfam France, 2022). Further, there is criticism of the AFAWA initiative to foster women entrepreneurs’ access to finance in Africa. Critics cite it as a continuation of France’s colonial past in Africa, which includes allegations of complicity in the Rwandan genocide and French attempts to ban various facial coverings traditionally worn by Muslim women in public (Lang, 2021). Luxembourg (2019–​)

In 2019, Luxembourg’s Minister of Foreign and European Affairs announced a feminist foreign policy, explaining that such a policy “is not only in women’s best interests, but in everyone’s best interests, and contributes to our commitment to a stable and secure world” (Foreign Policy Address Presented by Mr Jean Asselborn, 2019). Luxembourg is committed to a “3D” approach to ensure that the principles of a feminist foreign policy are included in its diplomacy, development, and defense policies. Luxembourg’s Minister of Foreign and European Affairs is responsible for this policy framework (Chronicle.lu, 2021). Luxembourg’s policy framework acknowledges women’s rights as human rights and systematically defends the fundamental rights of women and girls, including political and economic rights, as well as the right to sexual self-​ determination. Like Norway and Canada, Luxembourg links its feminist foreign policy to the global women, peace, and security agenda. The government adopted its first National Action Plan for Women, Peace, and Security for the period 2018–​2023 (Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs, 2000). Luxembourg’s national action plan is a continuation of and reflects the commitments of the country’s National Action Plan on Gender Equality, which was implemented from 2015 to 2018. It increases the participation of women in the security sector and in peace processes. Luxembourg’s feminist foreign policy is also linked to its foreign assistance. In a 2019 address, the Minister of Foreign and European Affairs reinforced that support for women and girls is one of the key priorities of Luxembourg’s development assistance. This emphasis is included in Luxembourg’s Development Cooperation’s strategy (Foreign Policy Address Presented by

Feminist Foreign Policy in Practice  69

Mr Jean Asselborn, 2019). Luxembourg also works with the UNFPA and UN Women to support maternal health and family planning globally as well as to strengthen women’s economic role in their communities. In 2021, Luxembourg’s Foreign Minister reiterated the country’s thematic priorities in this regard (Chronicle.lu, 2021), women’s rights as an integral part of human rights, strengthening the representation and participation of women at all levels of society, and gender equality within Luxembourg’s diplomatic institutions. In presenting its candidacy to the United Nations Human Rights Council for the 2022–​2024 term, Luxembourg laid out its priorities, among them gender equality and the fight against all forms of discrimination (Government of Luxembourg, 2023). Luxembourg highlighted its commitment to adopt a feminist foreign policy “with the aim of promoting the equality between women and men, putting an emphasis on human rights and the representation and participation of women at all levels of society” (Government of Luxembourg, 2023). Mexico (2020–​)

In 2020, Mexico became the first Latin American country to adopt a feminist foreign policy. This policy is based on five principles applicable to Mexico’s foreign policy activities: conducting policy with the intent to advance gender equality and a feminist agenda; achieving gender parity at all levels in the foreign ministry; combatting all forms of gender-​based violence, including within the foreign ministry; making equality visible; and practicing intersectional feminism (Government of Mexico, 2020). This framework is structured to increase women’s voices and visibility in foreign policy decision-​making, and its policy is focused both internally and externally. Internally, this encompasses hiring more women into foreign policy leadership positions with a goal of gender parity. Further, the Mexico policy seeks to tackle structural inequalities, such as the gender pay gap in the foreign ministry. Externally, the Mexican government has committed to economic initiatives such as microfinance for women-​owned small businesses and reforming trade laws and tariffs that disadvantage women. The policy is being coordinated by the Undersecretary for Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights, through the office of the Director General of Human Rights and Democracy (Government of Mexico, 2020). Mexico’s feminist foreign policy builds on earlier gender-​focused policy initiatives. In 2019, Mexico advocated for a Gender Action Plan for climate policy at the COP25 gathering that was subsequently adopted. The same year, it began a partnership with the European Union and the United Nations to implement the Spotlight Initiative, a large-​scale program aimed at eliminating all forms of gender-​based violence against women and girls in

70  Feminist Foreign Policy in Practice

countries across Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, Latin America, and the Pacific (Deslandes, 2020). Responses to Mexico’s Feminist Foreign Policy

From the start, there has been fairly widespread skepticism about Mexico’s commitment to this policy. Mexico is considered one of the most violent countries in the world, with a high rate of femicide. At the same time the government announced a feminist foreign policy, funding was cut to Inmujeres, the Mexican federal agency that coordinates gender equality policies and combats violence against women. In a post for the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, Daniela Philipson wrote that while the policy might be well-​intentioned, “it conflicts with the Federal government’s general agenda which constantly undermines women and girls’ rights and wellbeing” (Philipson, 2020). Criticism is also linked to Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador and the view that his government “is based on a purely masculine vision” (BELatina, 2020). President López Obrador has been openly hostile to the feminist movement, which he views as politically motivated by his adversaries (Guerrero, 2021). On International Women’s Day in 2021, Mexican feminists demanded that the President end the “patriarchal pact” and rescind his support of the leading gubernatorial candidate in the state of Guerrero, Félix Salgado Macedonio, who was accused of rape, intimidations, and threats by at least two women. Along with France, Mexico was one of the two hosts of the United Nations Generation Equality Forum in 2021. With respect to both its adoption of a feminist foreign policy and its status as a host of Generation Equality Forum, Mexico was again criticized for its actions at home. Despite the adoption of this policy and the dramatic increase in the number of women elected to public office in Mexico, progress has been uneven (Sheridan, 2021). Spain (2021–​)

Spain’s Strategy for External Action, which sets forth its foreign policy principles, promotes gender equality as a cross-​ cutting principle and a fundamental tenet. It is based on five key principles: the use of a transformative approach, committed leadership, ownership throughout the foreign ministry, inclusive participation, and intersectionality and diversity (Government of Spain, 2021). In 2021, in her first appearance before the Spanish Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee, the Minister for Foreign Affairs announced this commitment to feminist diplomacy. The Ambassador-​at-​Large for Equality in Foreign Policy, a position that was created in 2018 (The Diplomat in Spain,

Feminist Foreign Policy in Practice  71

2018), is responsible for maintaining the global vision of Spain’s feminist foreign policy. Similar to other countries, Spain is mainstreaming this approach into all foreign policy instruments and actions. In terms of process, Spain will “progressively integrate” a gender perspective into foreign policy development, from drafting, planning, and implementation to follow-​up (The Diplomat in Spain, 2018). The policy calls for systematically placing issues of gender equality and women’s and girls’ rights on the agenda during high-​level travel and official visits, policy consultations, and political dialogue meetings, as well as in international negotiations. It further calls for including women and women’s organizations in decision-​making and greater representation of women in the Spanish foreign service. Spain’s priority issues are women, peace, and security; addressing gender-​ based violence; promoting human rights for women and girls, with a specific focus on sexual and reproductive rights; promoting women’s participation in decision-​making; and economic justice. In addition, Spain aims to address emerging areas in foreign policy, such as climate change, trade, and human trafficking. Germany (2022–​)

In 2022, three coalition partners formed Germany’s new government: the Social Democrats, the Greens, and the Free Democrats. In their Coalition Agreement, the three parties agreed to a feminist foreign policy (Zilla, 2022). Annalena Baerbock of the Green Party was named Foreign Minister and in her first speech to the German Bundestag, she announced that Germany would adopt a feminist foreign policy (Speech by Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, 2022). The new government stated that it wanted to pursue policies that reflect the realities of society and highlighted the policies of Canada and Sweden as models. Similar to the Swedish model, Germany’s feminist foreign policy focuses on representation, rights, and resources. Subsequently, the German Foreign Ministry outlined that the policy should “promote the rights, representation and resources of women and marginalized groups, as well as to enhance diversity” (German Federal Foreign Office, 2022). Further, according to the statement, feminist foreign policy “is not a policy ‘by women for women’,” but one that advances Germany’s overall foreign policy priorities. This reflects Germany’s long-​ term commitment, in both foreign and development policy to advancing the rights and equal participation of women, children, and marginalized groups, to ensuring protection against sexual violence and to eliminating discrimination. The fundamental difference noted between Germany’s previous work to advance gender equality in this sphere and the adoption of a feminist foreign

72  Feminist Foreign Policy in Practice

policy is a focus on the root causes of inequality and the conduct of foreign policy and development assistance going forward (German Federal Foreign Office, 2022). However, it is notable that in a speech by the Foreign Minister on the National Security Strategy later in 2022 she did not mention women, gender, or feminist foreign policy (Speech by Federal Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, 2022). In 2022, Germany also launched a feminist development assistance policy, with the goals of eliminating structural inequalities, unequal treatment, and discrimination, including racist structures and power relations (German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2023). According to the German Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), this policy will address hunger, poverty and inequality, human rights, and sustainable use of natural resources. “That is why the BMZ takes care in all its development activities to actively address gender inequalities and explicitly promote women, girls and other marginalized groups and ensure their equal participation” (German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2023). In March 2023, the Federal Foreign Office released “Shaping Feminist Foreign Policy,” which set out its guidelines for implementing feminist foreign policy (German Federal Foreign Office, February 2023). The guidance follows the rights, representation, and resources framework laid out initially by Sweden. Specific guidelines for foreign policy activities focus on peace and security, humanitarian assistance and crisis management, human rights, climate diplomacy and external energy, foreign trade and investment, and cultural and societal diplomacy (German Federal Foreign Office, February 2023). The guidelines also detail how the German foreign service must have an “internal culture that is free of discrimination, one that values our employees’ diversity, nurtures it and harnesses its potential” (German Federal Foreign Office, February 2023). Responses to Germany’s Feminist Foreign Policy

As this policy is still in formation as of early 2023, it is too early to fully analyze or evaluate it. Some activists used negotiations between Germany and Namibia as a positive example to show the positive benefits of feminist diplomacy. The negotiations focused on the official recognition and compensation from Germany of the Herero and Nama genocide by German colonizers in the early 20th century. Critics argued that the German government did not offer enough in compensation and did not take into account inequalities between the genocide victims (Scheyer et al., 2021). Moreover, while Germany has a reputation of military restraint, feminist researchers and activists point to Germany’s consistently high arms exports, the government’s lack of support for international disarmament initiatives, and the increasing tendency to

Feminist Foreign Policy in Practice  73

address humanitarian concerns such as migration and flight via military means as policy inconsistencies (Bernarding et al., 2021). Netherlands (2022–​)

In 2022, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation advised the Dutch Senate that a feminist approach will add value to foreign policy (Government of the Netherlands, 2022). According to the letter sent to the Senate by the two ministers, a feminist foreign policy means specifically striving for greater gender equality and diverse representation within the ministry and in outgoing delegations, promoting women’s entrepreneurship in trade and international cooperation, conducting gender analyses, broadening the focus on gender equality in, and making it a constant topic of, interventions during bilateral contacts and in all international forums. (Government of the Netherlands, 2022) Further, the Netherlands has recently appointed an Ambassador for Gender Equality and Women’s Rights. The letter also highlighted the Netherlands’ alignment with other countries that promotes gender equality but noted that there are gaps in integrating gender equality objectives into every area of the Netherlands’ international engagement. As the Ministers wrote, “[i]‌n order to achieve our foreign policy objectives, more account must be taken of the gender-​related implications of defense, trade, diplomacy and international cooperation” (Government of the Netherlands, 2022). The gaps referenced in the letter reflect the findings of a 2021 evaluation of gender mainstreaming at the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2021). The report found that while there is more attention given in the foreign ministry to gender equality, women’s rights, inclusiveness, and intersectionality, these topics are not central to key policy decisions and documents. The evaluation found that gender is largely seen as synonymous with women, that gender mainstreaming equates with an additional focus on including more women and girls in decision-​making or as beneficiaries, and that gender mainstreaming does not deal with more fluid gender identities. Further, according to this report, in Dutch humanitarian assistance, women and girls are considered a vulnerable group, but there is little recognition for their knowledge and skills. Finally, it found that addressing the power dynamics between men and women is still challenging. As of June 2022, the Dutch government committed to broad consultations with civil society

74  Feminist Foreign Policy in Practice

to ensure the meaningful development of the Netherlands’ feminist foreign policy. Mongolia (2022–​)

The government of Mongolia announced its intention to have a feminist foreign policy in coordination with two events: the appointment of six women ambassadors and its hosting of an international conference in support of UNSCR 1325 titled “Strengthening the Role of Women in Peacekeeping” (Friedrich-​Ebert-​Stiftung Mongolia & Mongolian Institute for Innovative Policies, 2022). The goals of the policy are to increase public awareness of Mongolia’s international efforts, to increase women’s participation in future UN peacekeeping missions, including as civilian police, and to empower women diplomats in decision-​ making processes (Friedrich-​Ebert-​Stiftung Mongolia & Mongolian Institute for Innovative Policies, 2022). As part of its feminist foreign policy, Mongolia specifically highlighted its support for international initiatives for women; expanding the role of women in the foreign service; and the active participation of Mongolian women in peacekeeping and related operations (Friedrich-​Ebert-​Stiftung Mongolia & Mongolian Institute for Innovative Policies, 2022). Others

Since Sweden established a feminist foreign policy in 2014, many other countries have announced an explicitly feminist foreign policy or a gendered foreign policy. In some cases, the actual policies have not been publicly released in an in-​depth manner or in English. In other cases, the announcement was made in late 2022 or early 2023 with little to no details about implementation. As this issue gains traction, we expect the number of countries announcing or implementing a range of such policies to grow and develop. Ireland

In 2004, Ireland released its Gender Equality Policy. The implementation of this policy is overseen by Development Cooperation Ireland, which is situated within the Department of Foreign Affairs (Development Cooperation Ireland, 2004). In 2015, the President of Ireland reinforced the country’s commitment to gender equality, saying: “… while Ireland has made gender equality a priority area of our foreign policy, our strategies at home and abroad will be … all the more robust because of our new universal commitment” (Address by Michael D. Higgins, President of Ireland, 2015).

Feminist Foreign Policy in Practice  75

Much of Ireland’s focus has been on women, peace, and security. Ireland is implementing its third national action plan, which was developed by a group that included government, civil society, and academia. It emphasizes Ireland’s commitment to gender equality and its work to examine the gendered impacts of poverty, inequality, climate change, and conflict and the root causes and gender norms that lead to violence, inequality, and conflict (Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, 2023). Ireland has also established an Oversight Group, with members equally divided between government and civil society (Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, 2023). Ireland has promoted the women, peace, and security agenda on the global stage. It cochaired the United Nations Security Council’s Informal Expert Group on Women, Peace, and Security, and advanced the agenda during its term on the UN Security Council (2021–​2023) (Department of Foreign Affairs 2023). In 2019, Ireland trained a contingent consisting of military, police, and nongovernmental actors on skills needed to investigate, document, and monitor sexual and gender-​based violence and sexual exploitation and abuse in overseas mission environments. Attendees included military personnel and representatives from Ireland, the United Kingdom, Germany, and NATO (Department of Foreign Affairs 2023). Ireland’s international development policy has four priorities: gender equality, reducing humanitarian need, tackling climate action, and strengthening governance. (Government of Ireland) Within the gender equality stream, the policy commits to increase funding for programs to address gender inequality, women’s economic empowerment, and girls’ access to education. A report found that over 46 percent of Ireland’s bilateral development assistance is focused on gender equality and women’s empowerment. Further, the report cites the work by the Irish Consortium on gender-​based violence, a collaboration between Irish humanitarian, development and human rights agencies, the Irish Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and the Irish Defence Forces, to build capacity to prevent and respond to gender-​based violence in developing countries. Australia

In 2011, Australia established the position of Ambassador for Women and Girls. (It is worth noting that the Prime Minister at the time was Julia Gillard.) According to the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), the position reflects the Australian Government’s “commitment to gender equality and women’s empowerment, including advancing the human rights of women and girls, particularly in the Indo-​Pacific region.” Since the position was established, there have been four ambassadors in this position

76  Feminist Foreign Policy in Practice

over successive political regimes (Australian Government, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 2023). Libya

Libya’s commitment to a feminist foreign policy was announced at the 2021 Generation Equality Forum by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. In doing so, the minister stated that a feminist foreign policy “would not only help Libya in achieving its stabilization but would also stabilize our region” (ICRW, 2021). Despite this commitment, analysts have seen little progress for Libyan women. In fact, there has been backsliding. In late 2021, there were protests against an agreement between Libya and the United Nations that committed Libya to implement the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). The protests claimed that CEDAW violated Islamic principles and values. In addition, the Commission of Civil Society in Libya, a state institution founded in 2011, released a communiqué against the mainstreaming of UNSCR 1325. Further, the Foreign Minister has been excluded from the presidential council, being suspended and banned from traveling for “administrative violations” (Ragrag, 2022). Chile

In March 2022, Antonia Urrejola, Chile’s Minister of Foreign Affairs announced in a speech that a feminist foreign policy will be a hallmark and vanguard element of our diplomacy, consistent with Chile’s commitment to human rights and the parity of the Constitutional process underway, and with the participation of women on equal terms, free from violence and discrimination. (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2022) She specifically committed to gender mainstreaming across the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, increasing the number of women in decision-​making processes at all political levels, and transforming the working language in the Foreign Ministry into an inclusive and nondiscriminatory. She also stated that the women, peace, and security agenda, work to eradicate violence against women and girls, and the promotion of sexual and reproductive rights would continue to be promoted by the Chilean government (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2022). Liberia

In June 2022, Liberia’s Foreign Minister, Her Excellency Ambassador Dee-​ Maxwell Saah Kemayah, Sr. expressed strong interest and political

Feminist Foreign Policy in Practice  77

commitment to support the adoption of a feminist foreign policy and requested support from the Government of Sweden to develop an action plan and roadmap (Front Page Africa, 2022). Scotland

In the 2021–​2022 Programme for Government, the Scottish Government reiterated its commitment to ensuring that its policies and actions abroad are consistent with its focus on fairness and inclusion at home, ensuring that its international work reflects a feminist approach to policymaking. In November 2022, the Scottish Government announced that it will develop its own working definition of a feminist approach to foreign policy based on conversations with stakeholders (Scottish Government, 2022). Development and Use of Multilateral Platforms

Countries with a feminist foreign policy have also used multilateral platforms to advance many of their policy priorities. As an example, in 2018, the G7 established a GEAC composed of subject matter experts to integrate gender equality throughout the G7’s policy agenda (Gender Equality Advisory Council website). Not all G7 members are committed to a feminist foreign policy, but to date three of the member countries are explicitly committed to these policies: Canada, France, and Germany. Canada established the initial GEAC, which was also convened during the G7 presidencies of France (2019) (Frenchly, 2019), the United Kingdom (2021) (gov.uk, 2021), and Germany (2022) (Gender Equality Advisory Council website). It was not convened during the U.S. presidency of the G7 in 2020 (Gender Equality Advisory Council website). During this time, the GEAC has made wide-​ranging policy recommendations, spanning both foreign and domestic policy. These recommendations include the adoption of feminist diplomacy and development assistance, a broadened focus on human security, the use of gender advisors, access to education and health care for girls and women, and addressing gender inequality. The French GEAC launched the Affirmative Finance Action for Women in Africa (AFAWA) initiative to foster women entrepreneurs’ access to finance. The GEAC held in the United Kingdom was set against the backdrop of the global COVID-​19 pandemic and addressed the impact of COVID-​19 on women and girls (Gender Equality Advisory Council, 2021). The German GEAC continued this work, also focusing on feminist diplomacy and the need for an intersectional focus (Gender Equality Advisory Council, 2022). In 2022, the G7 Dashboard was established to track progress toward gender equality within individual G7 countries, the G7 as a whole, the European Union, and the Organisation for Economic Co-​ operation and

78  Feminist Foreign Policy in Practice

Development (OECD). The dashboard is focused on data in the areas of employment, education, entrepreneurship, leadership, health, and funding. Summary

Since the Swedish government made its commitment to feminist foreign policy in 2014, at least ten other countries have explicitly adopted some form of a feminist foreign, development, or trade policy. Their commitments and implementation have not been without criticism and controversy about the assumptions embedded in these policy frameworks, and the lack of a consistent definition of a feminist foreign policy. However, the lessons learned can spur other governments to take similar actions. At the very least, countries may adopt policies that advance feminist foreign policies without explicitly calling them “feminist.” These countries have provided the space for that to occur and for women’s and feminist movements to advocate for further change. References Address by Michael D. Higgins, “President of Ireland at Summit Dialogue on Global Leaders’ Meeting on Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment United Nations.” September 27, 2015, accessed online February 2023 at: www.unwo​ men.org/​sites/​defa​ult/​files/​Headq​uart​ers/​Atta​chme​nts/​Init​iati​ves/​StepI​tUp/​Comm​ itme​nts-​Speec​hes/​Irel​and-​StepI​tUp-​Commi​tmen​tSpe​ech-​201​509-​en.pdf AFP in Stockholm. “Swedish Government Scraps Country’s Pioneering ‘Feminist Foreign Policy’.” The Guardian, October 18, 2022, available online at: www.theg​ uard​ian.com/​world/​2022/​oct/​18/​swed​ish-​gov​ernm​ent-​scr​aps-​count​rys-​pio​neer​ing-​ femin​ist-​fore​ign-​pol​icy Aggestam, Karin and Annika Bergman-​Rosamond, “Swedish Feminist Foreign Policy in the Making: Ethics, Politics, and Gender.” Ethics & International Affairs (October 2016), available online at: www.resea​rchg​ate.net/​prof​i le/​Karin-​Agges​ tam/​publ​icat​ion/​3080381​04_​S​wedi​sh_​F​emin​ist_​Fore​ign Aggestam, Karin and Jacqui True. “Gendering Foreign Policy: A Comparative Framework for Analysis.” Foreign Policy Analysis Vol. 16, No. 2 (April 2020): 143–​162, https://​doi.org/​10.1093/​fpa/​orz​026 Australian Government, Ambassador for Women and Girls. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 2023, accessed online February 2023 at: www.dfat.gov.au/​ about-​us/​our-​peo​ple/​homs/​amb​assa​dor-​for-​women-​and-​girls Balsillie School of International Affairs, “Women, Peace and Security: A Conversation with Canada’s First Ambassador, Jacqueline O’Neill Video.” February 12, 2021, available online at: www.yout​ube.com/​watch?v=​yO1​Sm0-​QHn0 BELatina, “Mexico Becomes the First Latin American Country to Establish a Feminist Foreign Policy.” January 21, 2020, available online at: https://​belat​ina.com/​mex​ ico-​femin​ist-​fore​ign-​pol​icy/​ Bernarding, Nina, Jennifer Menninger, Anna Provan, Victoria Scheyer, and Madita Standke-​Erdmann. How Militarised Is Germany’s Foreign Policy? Berlin: Heinrich

Feminist Foreign Policy in Practice  79

Böll Foundation, 2021, available online at: www.boell.de/​sites/​defa​ult/​files/​2021-​ 09/​CFFP-​Heinr​ichB​oll-​EN-​Fin​al2.pdf Biography of Jacqueline O’Neill, 2023, accessed online February 2023 at: https://​ pm.gc.ca/​en/​news/​backgr​ound​ers/​2019/​06/​12/​jac​quel​ine-​one​ill Cadesky Jessica. “Built on Shaky Ground: Reflections on Canada’s Feminist International Assistance Policy.” International Journal: Canada’s Journal of Global Policy Analysis Vol. 75, No. 3 (2020): 298–​312, available online at: https://​ journ​als.sage​pub.com/​doi/​full/​10.1177/​00207​0202​0953​424 Canadian Coalition for International Cooperation (CCIC), “Transforming Our World: Canadian Perspectives on the Sustainable Development Goals.” 2016, accessed online February 2023 at: www.acti​onca​nada​shr.org/​resour​ces/​repo​rts-​ analy​sis/​2016-​01-​20-​trans​form​ing-​our-​world-​canad​ian-​persp​ecti​ves-​sust​aina​ble-​ deve​lopm​ent-​goals Carpenter, Julie. “Justin Trudeau Is a Feminist. For Him, That’s a Given.” CNN, November 12, 2018, available online at: www.cnn.com/​2018/​11/​12/​succ​ess/​jus​tin-​ trud​eau-​femin​ism/​index.html Cheung, Jessica, Dilek Gürsel, Marie Jelenka Kirchner, and Victoria Scheyer, Practicing Feminist Foreign Policy in the Everyday: A Toolkit, Berlin: Heinrich Böll Foundation, 2021, available online at: https://​eu.boell.org/​en/​pra​ctic​ing-​femin​ ist-​fore​ign-​pol​icy-​every​day-​tool​kit Chronicle.lu, “Luxembourg Presents Feminist Foreign Policy at International Meeting.” February 19, 2021, available online at: https://​chroni​cle.lu/​categ​ory/​ abr​oad/​35646-​lux​embo​urg-​prese​nts-​femin​ist-​fore​ign-​pol​icy-​at-​intern​atio​nal-​ meet​ing The Conversation, “Will Chrystia Freeland Lead a Feminist Post-​ Coronavirus Recovery?” September 21, 2020, available online at: https://​thec​onve​rsat​ion.com/​ will-​chrys​tia-​freel​and-​lead-​a-​femin​ist-​post-​coro​navi​rus-​recov​ery-​145​912 Council on Foreign Relations, “Advancing Gender Equality in Foreign Policy.” April 7, 2020, available online at: www.cfr.org/​rep​ort/​advanc​ing-​gen​der-​equal​ity-​fore​ ign-​pol​icy Dangoisse, Pascale and Gabriela Perdomo. “Gender Equality through a Neoliberal Lens: A Discourse Analysis of Justin Trudeau’s Official Speeches.” Women’s Studies in Communication Vol. 44, No. 3 (2020): 419–​ 447, https://​doi.org/​ 10.1080/​07491​409.2020.1781​315 Department of Foreign Affairs, “Ireland and Women, Peace and Security on the International Level.” 2023, accessed online February 2023 at: www.dfa.ie/​our-​ role-​polic​ies/​intern​atio​nal-​pri​orit​ies/​peace-​and-​secur​ity/​women-​peace-​and-​secur ​ ity/​irel​and-​and-​women-​peace-​and-​secur​ity/​ Deslandes, Ann. “Checking in on Mexico’s Feminist Foreign Policy: Almost One Year in, an Ambitious Set of Norms Has Had Mixed Results.” Foreign Policy, December 30, 2020, available online at: https://​foreig​npol​icy.com/​2020/​12/​30/​ mex​ico-​femin​ist-​fore​ign-​pol​icy-​one-​year-​in/​ Deutsche Welle, “Sweden Cancels Saudi Arms Deal.” March 10, 2015, available online at: www.dw.com/​en/​swe​den-​canc​els-​saudi-​arms-​deal-​after-​human-​rig​hts-​ row/​a-​18306​674 Development Cooperation Ireland, “Gender Equality Policy.” April 2004, accessed online February 2023 at: http://​irish​aid.ie/​media/​irish​aid/​allw​ebsi​teme​dia/​20news​ andp​ubli​cati​ons/​pub​lica​tion​pdfs​engl​ish/​irish-​aid-​gen​der-​equal​ity-​pol​icy-​april-​ 2004.pdf

80  Feminist Foreign Policy in Practice

The Diplomat in Spain, “Spain’s Government Creates Position of Ambassador for Gender Equality,” October 3, 2018, available online at: https://​the​dipl​omat​insp​ain. com/​en/​2018/​03/​spa​ins-​gov​ernm​ent-​crea​tes-​posit​ion-​amb​assa​dor-​gen​der-​equal​ity/​ Embassy of France in the Caribbean, “France Promotes Feminist Foreign Policy.” March 8, 2019, accessed online February 2023 at: http://​lc.amb​afra​nce.org/​Fra​ nce-​promo​tes-​femin​ist-​fore​ign-​pol​icy Foreign Policy Address Presented by Mr Jean Asselborn, Minister of Foreign and European Affairs to the Luxembourg Parliament, March 13, 2019, accessed online February 2023 at: https://​maee.gouve​rnem​ent.lu/​cont​ent/​dam/​gouv_​m​aee/​min​ ist%C3%A8re/​d%C3%A9cla​rati​ons-​de-​politi​que-​%C3%A9tr​ang%C3%A8re/​ 2019/​EN-​Decl​arat​ion-​de-​politi​que-​etrang​ere-​2019.pdf Frenchly, “Marlène Schiappa Is Making Gender Equality a Priority at the Next G7.” January 26, 2019, available online at: https://​frenc​hly.us/​marl​ene-​schia​ppa-​gen​ der-​equal​ity-​prior​ity-​G7/​ Friedrich-​Ebert-​Stiftung Mongolia & Mongolian Institute for Innovative Policies, “Mongolia’s Feminist Diplomacy: The Need for a Strategy.” 2022, accessed online March 2023 at: https://​libr​ary.fes.de/​pdf-​files/​bue​ros/​mongo​lei/​19311.pdf Front Page Africa, “Foreign Minister Kemayah Holds Talks with Swedish Counterpart in Stockholm.” June 24, 2022, available online at: https://​frontp​agea​fric​aonl​ine. com/​news/​libe​ria-​fore​ign-​minis​ter-​kema​yah-​holds-​talks-​with-​swed​ish-​coun​terp​ art-​in-​stockh​olm/​ Fung, Mellissa and Zahra Nader. “Opinion: If Canada Has a ‘Feminist’ Foreign Policy, Why Are We Ignoring the War on Afghanistan’s Women?” The Globe and Mail, May 12, 2022, available online at: www.theg​lobe​andm​ail.com/​opin​ion/​arti​ cle-​if-​can​ada-​has-​a-​femin​ist-​fore​ign-​pol​icy-​why-​are-​we-​ignor​ing-​the-​war-​on/​ Gender Equality Advisory Council, “Gender Equality Advisory Council Report 2022: A Shared Vision for Gender Equality.” 2022, accessed online February 2023 at: https://​g7g​eac.org/​wp-​cont​ent/​uplo​ads/​2022/​12/​2022-​12-​21_​F​ullR​epor​ t_​Fi​nal.pdf Gender Equality Advisory Council, “Report of the G7 Gender Advisory Council 2021: Building Back Better for Women and Girls.” 2021, accessed online February 2023 at: https://​ass​ets.pub​lish​ing.serv​ice.gov.uk/​gov​ernm​ent/​uplo​ads/​sys​tem/​uplo​ ads/​atta​chme​nt_​d​ata/​file/​1028​387/​Report_​of_​the_​G7_​Gender_​Equ​alit​y_​Ad​viso​ ry_​C​ounc​il_​2​021-​_​Building_​Back_​Bett​er_​f​or_​W​omen​_​and​_​Gir​ls_​.pdf Gender Equality Advisory Council website, 2023, accessed online February 2023 at: https://​g7g​eac.org/​about/​ Generation Equality Forum, “France Commits to Gender Equality and Women’s and Girls’ Rights.” Press Release, 2021, accessed online February 2023 at: www.dip​ loma​tie.gouv.fr/​IMG/​pdf/​cp_​e​ngag​emen​t_​de​_​la_​fran​ce_​-​_​en_​cl​e439​bfb.pdf German Federal Foreign Office, “Inclusion Rather than Exclusion: What Is Feminist Foreign Policy?” May 3, 2022, accessed online February 2023 at: www.auswa​erti​ ges-​amt.de/​en/​aussen​poli​tik/​the​men/​femini​stis​che-​aussen​poli​tik/​2525​304 German Federal Foreign Office, “Shaping Feminist Foreign Policy.” February 2023, accessed online March 2023 at: www.shapi​ngfe​mini​stfo​reig​npol​icy.org/​pap​ers/​ Guideli​nes_​Femi​nist​_​For​eign​_​Pol​icy.pdf German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, “Feminist Development Policy for Sustainable Development,” 2023, accessed online February 2023 at: www.bmz.de/​en/​deve​lopm​ent-​pol​icy/​femin​ist-​deve​lopm​ent-​pol​ icy#anc=​Ziele

Feminist Foreign Policy in Practice  81

Global Affairs Canada, “Address by Minister Freeland on Canada’s Foreign Policy Priorities.” June 6, 2017a, accessed online February 2023 at: www.can​ada.ca/​en/​ glo​bal-​affa​irs/​news/​2017/​06/​address_​by_​ministerfreelandoncan​adas​fore​ignpo ​ lic​ ypri​orit​ies.html Global Affairs Canada, “Canada’s Feminist International Assistance Policy.” 2017b, accessed online February 2023 at: www.intern​atio​nal.gc.ca/​world-​monde/​ass​ets/​pdfs/​ iap2-​eng.pdf?_​ga=​2.6094​065.355491​334.167​6411​797-​693100​226.167​6411​797 Global Affairs Canada, “The Equality Fund: Transforming the Way We Support Women’s Organizations and Movements Working to Advance Women’s Rights and Gender Equality.” 2023, accessed online February 2023 at: www.can​ada. ca/​en/​glo​bal-​affa​irs/​news/​2019/​06/​glo​bal-​affa​irs-​can​ada-​-​-​the-​equal​ity-​fund-​trans​ form​ing-​the-​way-​we-​supp​ort-​wom​ens-​organi​zati​ons-​and-​moveme​nts-​work​ing-​to-​ adva​nce-​wom​ens-​rig​hts-​and-​g.html TheGlobalEconomy.com, Arms exports –​Country rankings 2020, accessed online February 2023 at: www.thegl​obal​econ​omy.com/​ranki​ngs/​arms_​expo​rts/​ The Globe and Mail, “Trudeau Appoints Jacqueline O’Neill as Canada’s First Ambassador for Women, Peace and Security,” June 12, 2019, available online at: www.theg​lobe​andm​ail.com/​polit​ics/​arti​cle-​trud​eau-​appoi​nts-​jac​quel​ine-​one​ill-​ as-​cana​das-​first-​amb​assa​dor-​for/​ Government of Canada, “Elsie Initiative for Women in Peace Operations.” Government of Canada, 2020, accessed online February 2023 at: www.intern​atio​ nal.gc.ca/​world-​monde/​iss​ues_​deve​lopm​ent-​enjeu​x_​de​velo​ppem​ent/​gend​er_​e​qual​ ity-​ega​lite​_​des​_​gen​res/​elsie​_​ini​tiat​ive-​initi​ativ​e_​el​sie.aspx?lang=​eng Government of Canada, “Trade and Gender in Free Trade Agreements: The Canadian Approach.” 2023, accessed online February 2023 at: www.intern​atio​nal.gc.ca/​ trade-​comme​rce/​gend​er_​e​qual​ity-​ega​lite​_​gen​res/​trade​_​gen​der_​fta-​ale-​com​merc​e_​ ge​nre.aspx?lang=​eng Government of Ireland, “A Better World: Ireland’s Policy for International Development.” 2023. accessed online February 2023 at: www.irish​aid.ie/​media/​ irish​aid/​abou​tus/​abetterworldirelandspolicy​fori​nter​nati​onal​deve​lopm​ent/​A-​Bet​ ter-​World-​Irela​nds-​Pol​icy-​for-​Intern​atio​nal-​Deve​lopm​ent.pdf Government of Luxembourg, “Brochure for the UN Human Rights Council 2022–​ 2024.” 2022, accessed online February 2023 at: https://​maee.gouve​rnem​ent.lu/​ dam-​ass​ets/​dir​ecti​ons/​d1/​cand​idat​ure-​cdh/​EN-​Broch​ure-​cand​idat​ure-​CDH.pdf Government of Mexico, “Mexico Adopts Feminist Foreign Policy.” January 9, 2020, accessed online February 2023 at: www.gob.mx/​sre/​pre​nsa/​mex​ico-​ado​pts-​femin​ ist-​fore​ign-​pol​icy?idiom=​en Government of the Netherlands, “Letter of 13 May 2022 from the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation to the Senate on the Added Value for the Netherlands of a Feminist Foreign Policy.” May 13, 2022, accessed online February 2023 at: www.gov​ernm​ent.nl/​min​istr​ies/​minis​ try-​of-​fore​ign-​affa​irs/​docume​nts/​lett​ers/​2022/​05/​17/​let​ter-​on-​the-​added-​value-​for-​ the-​neth​erla​nds-​of-​a-​femin​ist-​fore​ign-​pol​icy Government of Spain, “Spain’s Feminist Foreign Policy: Promoting Gender Equality in Spain’s External Action,” 2023, accessed online February 2023 at: https://​ rm.coe.int/​2021-​02-​polit​ica-​exter​ior-​femini​sta-​eng/​168​0a28​7c3 Government Offices of Sweden, “Handbook, Swedish Feminist Foreign Policy,” 2019, accessed online February 2023 at: www.swede​nabr​oad.se/​globa​lass​ets/​amb​assa​ der/​zimba​bwe-​har​are/​docume​nts/​handb​ook_​swed​ens-​femin​ist-​fore​ign-​pol​icy.pdf

82  Feminist Foreign Policy in Practice

Government Offices of Sweden, “Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Sweden’s Feminist Foreign Policy Examples from Three Years of Implementation,” 2017, available online at: https://​pol​icy.nl.go.kr/​cmmn/​FileD​own.do?atc​hFil​eId=​209​473&fil​ eSn=​51212 Government Offices of Sweden, “The Swedish Foreign Service Action Plan for Feminist Foreign Policy 2019–​2022, Including Direction and Measures for 2021,” 2019a, accessed online February 2023 at: www.gov​ernm​ent.se/​497​00e/​conten​tass​ ets/​9992f​701a​b404​23bb​7b37​b2c4​55ae​d9a/​utrike​sfor​valt​ning​ens-​handli​ngsp​lan-​ for-​femi​nist​isk-​utr​ikes​poli​tik-​2021_​eng.pdf Government Offices of Sweden, “The Swedish Women’s Mediation Network,” 2019b, accessed online February 2023 at: https://​fba.se/​conten​tass​ets/​eb9af​971a​ 0954​bb5b​09f1​b7c0​ab30​859/​swed​ish-​wom​ens-​mediat​ion-​netw​ork.pdf Gov.uk, “G7 Gender Equality Advisory Council (GEAC) Presents Recommendations to Drive Global Gender Equality,” June 11, 2021, accessed online February 2023 at: www.gov.uk/​gov​ernm​ent/​news/​g7-​gen​der-​equal​ity-​advis​ory-​coun​cil-​geac-​prese​ nts-​reco​mmen​dati​ons-​to-​drive-​glo​bal-​gen​der-​equal​ity Guerrero, Mauricio. “At the UN, Mexico Works for Women’s Rights, Back Home It’s a Different Story.” PassBlue, March 29, 2021, available online at: www.passb​ lue.com/​2021/​03/​29/​at-​the-​un-​mex​ico-​works-​for-​wom​ens-​rig​hts-​back-​home-​its-​a-​ differ​ent-​story/​ ICRW, “More than 30 Governments and Organizations Now Working to Advance Feminist Foreign Policy around the World.” July 1, 2021, available online at: www. icrw.org/​press-​relea​ses/​more-​than-​30-​gove​rnme​nts-​and-​organi​zati​ons-​now-​work​ ing-​to-​adva​nce-​femin​ist-​fore​ign-​pol​icy-​aro​und-​the-​world/​ Lang, Cady. “Who Gets to Wear a Headscarf? The Complicated History behind France’s Latest Hijab Controversy.” Time, May 19, 2021, available online at: https://​time.com/​6049​226/​fra​nce-​hijab-​ban/​ Macdonald, Laura and Nadia Ibrahim. “The New NAFTA Is a Missed Opportunity for Gender Equality.” The Monitor, January 23, 2019, available online at: http://​ behin​dthe​numb​ers Mansky, Jackie, “Feminist Foreign Policy Can Offer a Modern Lens to a Modern World.” Zocalo Public Square, March 3, 2021, available online at: www.zoc​alop​ ubli​csqu​are.org/​2021/​03/​03/​femin​ist-​fore​ign-​pol​icy/​eve​nts/​the-​takea​way/​ Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs, “France’s International Strategy for Gender Equality (2018–​2022),” 2018, accessed online February 2023 at: www.dip​loma​ tie.gouv.fr/​en/​fre​nch-​fore​ign-​pol​icy/​human-​rig​hts/​women-​s-​rig​hts/​fra​nce-​s-​intern​ atio​nal-​strat​egy-​for-​gen​der-​equal​ity-​2018-​2022/​ Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs, “France’s 3rd National Action Plan 2021–​ 2025,” November 2021a, accessed online February 2023 at: www.dip​loma​tie. gouv.fr/​en/​fre​nch-​fore​ign-​pol​icy/​human-​rig​hts/​women-​s-​rig​hts/​eve​nts-​6401/​arti​ cle/​fra​nce-​s-​3rd-​natio​nal-​act​ion-​plan-​2021-​2025 Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs, “The Generation Equality Forum: A Historic Global Feminist Event (30 June–​2 July 2021),” 2021b, accessed online February 2023 at: www.dip​loma​tie.gouv.fr/​en/​fre​nch-​fore​ign-​pol​icy/​femin​ist-​diplom​acy/​gen​ erat​ion-​equal​ity-​forum-​2021/​ Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs, “Gender Equality: A Priority for France.” Feminist Diplomacy, accessed online February 2023 at: www.dip​loma​tie.gouv.fr/​ en/​fre​nch-​fore​ign-​pol​icy/​femin​ist-​diplom​acy/​

Feminist Foreign Policy in Practice  83

Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Gender Mainstreaming in the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs,” 2021, accessed online February 2023 at: https://​engl​ish.iob-​evalua​tie.nl/​ resu​lts/​publi​cati​ons/​eval​uati​ons/​2021/​06/​27/​gen​der-​mainst​ream​ing-​in-​the-​dutch-​ minis​try-​of-​fore​ign-​affa​irs Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Foreign Minister Antonia Urrejola: “The Development of a Feminist Foreign Policy Will Be a Distinguishing Hallmark and a Vanguard Element of Our Diplomacy,” March 22, 2022, accessed online February 2023 at: www.min​rel.gob.cl/​fore​ign-​minis​ter-​anto​nia-​urrej​ola-​the-​deve​lopm​ent-​of-​a-​ femin​ist Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs, “National Action Plan ‘Women and peace and security’ 2018–​ 2023 for the Implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 (2000).” The Government of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, 2023, accessed online February 2023 at: http://​1325n​aps.pea​cewo​ men.org/​wp-​cont​ent/​uplo​ads/​2020/​12/​Lux​embo​urg-​NAP-​2018-​2023-​Engl​ish.pdf Mission of Norway to the EU, “What Is the EEA? Ten Facts.” 2023, accessed online February 2023 at: www.nor​way.no/​en/​missi​ons/​eu/​ten-​facts-​about-​the-​eea2/​ Nordberg, Jenny. “Who’s Afraid of a Feminist Foreign Policy?” The New Yorker, April 15, 2015, available online at: www.newyor​ker.com/​news/​news-​desk/​swed​ ens-​femin​ist-​fore​ign-​minis​ter Nordic Women Mediators website, 2023, accessed online February 2023 at: https://​ nordi​cwom​enme​diat​ors.org/​ Norfund. The Norwegian Investment Fund for Developing Countries website, 2023. accessed online February 2023 at: www.norf​und.no/​ Norway Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Women’s Rights and Gender Equality,” March 5, 2021, accessed online February 2023 at: www.regj​erin​gen.no/​en/​top​ics/​fore​ign-​ affa​irs/​the-​un/​inns​ikt/​womens​_​rig​hts/​id439​433/​ Norwegian Ministries, “National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security 2019–​ 2022.” 2019, accessed online February 2023 at: www.regj​erin​gen.no/​globa​lass​ets/​ dep​arte​ment​ene/​ud/​dok​umen​ter/​pla​ner/​act​ionp​lan_​wps2​019.pdf Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Freedom, Empowerment and Opportunities: Action Plan for Women’s Rights and Gender Equality in Foreign and Development Policy 2016–​ 2020.” 2016, accessed online February 2023 at: www.regj​erin​gen.no/​globa​lass​ets/​dep​arte​ment​ene/​ud/​vedl​egg/​fn/​womens​_​rig​ hts.pdf Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Norway’s International Strategy to Eliminate Harmful Practices 2019–​2023.” 2019, accessed online February 2023 at: www. regj​erin​gen.no/​conten​tass​ets/​fc555​0176​1024​732b​c7b1​3d82​346e​313/​elem​inat​e_​ ha​rmfu​l_​pr​acti​ces.pdf Nylund, Mia-​Lie, Sandra Håkansson, and Elin Bjarnegård, “The Transformative Potential of Feminist Foreign Policy: The Case of Sweden.” Journal of Women, Politics & Policy (September 20, 2022), http//​doi.org/​10.1080/​15544​ 77X.2022.2113​662 Olivius, Elisabeth. “Displacing Equality? Women’s Participation and Humanitarian Aid Effectiveness in Refugee Camps.” Refugee Survey Quarterly Vol. 33, No. 3 (2014): 93–​117, https://​doi.org/​10.1093/​rsq/​hdu​009 Oxfam France, “Gender Equality: Great Cause, Small Results.” March 3, 2022, available online at: www.oxfa​mfra​nce.org/​rappo​rts/​egal​ite-​fem​mes-​hom​mes-​gra​ nde-​cause-​petit-​bilan/​

84  Feminist Foreign Policy in Practice

Pallapothu, Vaishnavi. “POLICY ANALYSIS: France’s Feminist Foreign Policy.” The gender security project, August 29, 2022, available online at: www.gender​secu​rity​ proj​ect.com/​post/​fra​nce-​s-​femin​ist-​fore​ign-​pol​icy Permanent Mission of France to the United Nations in New York, “July 2022, One Year after the Generation Equality Forum.” Press Release, July 2022, accessed online February 2023 at: https://​onu.dele​gfra​nce.org/​july-​2022-​one-​year-​after-​the-​ gen​erat​ion-​equal​ity-​forum Philipson, Daniela. “Mexico: Champion of Women or Detractor?” Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF), April 1, 2020, available online at: www.wilpf.org/​mex​ico-​champ​ion-​of-​women-​or-​detrac​tor/​ Ragrag, Nouran. “What Does a Feminist Foreign Policy Mean for Libya?” The Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy, February 28, 2022, available online at: https://​timep.org/​com​ment​ary/​analy​sis/​what-​does-​a-​femin​ist-​fore​ign-​pol​ icy-​mean-​for-​libya/​ Rao, Sheila and Rebecca Tiessen. “Whose Feminism(s)? Overseas Partner Organizations’ Perceptions of Canada’s Feminist International Assistance Policy.” International Journal: Canada’s Journal of Global Policy Analysis Vol. 75, No. 3 (2020): 349–​366, http//​doi.org/​10.1177/​00207​0202​0960​120 Robinson, Fiona. The Ethics of Care: A Feminist Approach to Human Security. Chicago: Temple University Press, 2011. Scheyer, Victoria, Dilek Gürsel, Marie Jelenka Kirchner, and Jessica Cheung. Practicing Feminist Foreign Policy in the Everyday: A Toolkit. Berlin: Heinrich Böll Foundation, November 2021, available online at: https://​eu.boell.org/​en/​pra​ ctic​ing-​femin​ist-​fore​ign-​pol​icy-​every​day-​tool​kit Scottish Government, “Scotland’s Feminist Approach to Foreign Policy: Background Note.” November 2, 2022, accessed online February 2023 at: www.gov.scot/​publi​ cati​ons/​bac​kgro​und-​note-​scotla​nds-​femin​ist-​appro​ach-​fore​ign-​pol​icy/​#:~:text=​ 1.,a%20f​emin​ist%20a​ppro​ach%20to%20p​olic​ymak​ing. Scrutton, Alistair, “Margot Wallström: Can Sweden’s Feminist Foreign Minister Be Both Radical And Influential –​and Make the Country a ‘Moral Great Power’?”. The Independent, March 16, 2015, available online at: www.inde​pend​ent.co.uk/​ news/​world/​eur​ope/​mar​got-​wallst​rom-​can-​swe​den-​s-​femin​ist-​fore​ign-​minis​ter-​ be-​both-​radi​cal-​and-​infl​uent​ial-​and-​make-​coun​try-​moral-​great-​power-​10112​ 015.html Sheridan, Mary Beth. “Mexico’s Bold Break with Machismo: Congress Is Now Half Female, and Gender Parity Is the Law.” Washington Post, September 9, 2021, available online at: www.was​hing​tonp​ost.com/​world/​2021/​09/​07/​mex​ico-​women-​ gen​der-​par​ity/​ Speech by Federal Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock at the Event to Launch the Development of a National Security Strategy, “Security for the freedom of our lives.” March 18, 2022, accessed online February 2023 at: www.auswa​erti​ges-​ amt.de/​en/​newsr​oom/​news/​baerb​ock-​natio​nal-​secur​ity-​strat​egy/​2517​790 Speech by Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock in the German Bundestag on Foreign, European and Human Rights Policy. January 12, 2022, accessed online February 2023 at: www.auswa​erti​ges-​amt.de/​en/​newsr​oom/​news/​spe​ech-​baerb​ock-​bundes​ tag/​2506​234 Statement of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, “The Elsie Initiative for Women in Peace Operations.” November 17, 2017, accessed online February 2023 at: https://​pm.gc. ca/​en/​news/​backgr​ound​ers/​2017/​11/​15/​elsie-​ini​tiat​ive-​women-​peace-​ope​rati​ons

Feminist Foreign Policy in Practice  85

Statement of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, “Prime Minister Names First Ambassador for Women, Peace and Security.” June 12, 2019, accessed online February 2023 at: https://​pm.gc.ca/​en/​news/​news-​relea​ses/​2019/​06/​12/​prime-​minis​ter-​names-​first-​ amb​assa​dor-​women-​peace-​and-​secur​ity Trudeau, Justin. 2015. “Because It’s 2015!” video. YouTube, available online at: www. yout​ube.com/​watch?v=​LLk2​aSBr​R6U True, Jacqui. “Gender and Foreign Policy.” In Navigating the New International Disorder: Australia in World Affairs 2011–​2015, edited by Beeson, Mark and Sahar Hameiri, 224–​241, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017, available online at: https://​resea​rch.mon​ash.edu/​en/​publi​cati​ons/​gen​der-​and-​fore​ign-​pol​icy Tryggestad, Torunn L. “The Feminist Foreign Policy Agenda: Resolution 1325’s Legacy.” Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO), October 26, 2018, available online at: https://​blogs.prio.org/​2018/​10/​the-​femin​ist-​fore​ign-​pol​icy-​age​nda-​res​ olut​ion-​1325s-​leg​acy/​ UN General Assembly Resolution 68/​ 181, “Promotion of the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms: Protecting Women Human Rights Defenders.” 2013, accessed online February 2023 at: https://​dig​ital​libr​ary.un.org/​rec​ord/​764​453?ln=​en Verveer, Melanne, “Is There Such a Thing as Feminist Foreign Policy?” Friends of Europe, March 7, 2017, available online at: www.frie​ndso​feur​ope.org/​insig​hts/​ is-​there-​such-​a-​thing-​as-​femin​ist-​fore​ign-​pol​icy/​ Walfridsson, Hanna, “Sweden’s New Government Abandons Feminist Foreign Policy.” Human Rights Watch, October 31, 2022, available online at: www.hrw. org/​news/​2022/​10/​31/​swed​ens-​new-​gov​ernm​ent-​aband​ons-​femin​ist-​fore​ign-​pol​icy Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF), “Ireland-​ 2020 Commitments.” 2023. available online at: http://​1325n​aps.pea​cewo​men.org/​ index.php/​2019-​commi​ttme​nts/​irel​and-​2020-​comm​itme​nts/​ Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF), “Ireland National Action Plan.” 2023. available online at: http://​1325n​aps.pea​cewo​men.org/​index. php/​irel​and/​ Zilla, Claudia. “Feminist Foreign Policy Concepts, Core Components and Controversies.” German Institute for International and Security Affairs, August 2022, available online at: www.swp-​ber​lin.org/​publi​cati​ons/​produ​cts/​comme​nts/​ 2022C4​8_​Fe​mini​stFo​reig​nPol​icy.pdf Zimmerman, Shannon, “The Value of a Feminist Foreign Policy.” WIIS Policy Brief, February 2020, available online at: www.wii​sglo​bal.org/​wp-​cont​ent/​uplo​ads/​ 2020/​02/​WIIS-​Pol​icy-​Brief-​Femin​ist-​Fori​egn-​Pol​icy-​Febru​ary-​2020.pdf

4 THE GLOBAL ROLE OF THE U.S.

Feminist foreign policy is an approach for government action that is based on historical events and movements, encompasses a set of key principles, has been adopted by a small set of countries, is already being implemented in some ways by the U.S. government, and could be further operationalized. The U.S. government has not adopted a feminist foreign policy. With the ongoing advocacy of civil society, however, it is important to examine the unique context within which the U.S. government operates in the international arena, what actions the U.S. government has taken in response to international and domestic movements for women’s rights, the current foundation that exists for a feminist foreign policy within U.S. government institutions, and recent actions on gender equality that have been taken within the U.S. foreign policy apparatus. Global Role of the U.S.

The U.S. is a global superpower. Simply put, it is often called the “indispensable nation” in multiple international fora and in efforts to resolve conflicts and diplomatic crises. According to foreign policy scholars, the U.S. remains the essential pillar of the postwar liberal order due to its political and financial stability and promotion of important values. This is often tied to the concept of “American exceptionalism,” which, proponents argue, means that the U.S. must “actively lead the rest of the world to a better future” (Restad, 2014). At the same time, there is a strain in the U.S. outlook on global engagement that is wary of robust intervention, often called the “city on the hill” tradition. This approach is not per se isolationism but prioritizes

DOI: 10.4324/9781003295617-5

The Global Role of the U.S.  87

the promotion of U.S. values over global activism on behalf of those values (Restad, 2014). Debates about the legitimacy and extent of America’s role have come into sharp focus over the last decade. Many prominent scholars and practitioners have argued that the U.S. should preserve the current post-​ World War II international order, which has contributed to economic stability, unprecedented levels of prosperity, relative peace, and the longest period in modern history without war between major powers. These scholars cite that U.S. government leadership since World War II not only helped to create this framework but has been instrumental to its success (“Preserving Alliances” Petition & Nye, 2018). Several hundred international relations scholars signed a letter to this effect in the New York Times in 2018. The letter outlined their alarm at President Trump’s attacks on the postwar order. The signatories argued for reforming, not destroying the global system “that has served the United States and its allies well for over seven decades,” stating further “[a]‌lmost nobody benefits from a descent into the chaos of a world without effective institutions that encourage and organize cooperation.” Signatories included Dr. Anne Marie Goetz, a professor at New York University and a former official at the United National Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) and UN Women, Louise Olsson, a prominent scholar on the gendered aspects of armed conflict and the impact of United Nations Security Council Resolutions on Women, Peace, and Security, and Dr. Amy Yuen, a professor at Middlebury College and a scholar of peacekeeping efforts (“Preserving Alliances” Petition). Others declined to sign the letter (“Preserving Alliances” Petition). These critics see the international order and postwar institutions as “neither global nor always very liberal,” and argue for global institutions to be transformed. There are other criticisms of “American exceptionalism,” including that America is not always a place “where a better way of life exists, one to which all other peoples should aspire” (Rosensteil, 2006). Historical Context and Background

During the 20th century, the U.S. replaced the UK as the world’s largest economy, and its intervention in World War I was seen as central to a resolution of the war. After World War II, the U.S. drove the creation of new international institutions, such as the United Nations, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund, all structured to promote global cooperation and efforts to rebuild after the war. In 1947, U.S. Secretary of State George C. Marshall announced a multibillion-​ dollar aid plan and the U.S. provided military assistance to rebuild Western Europe’s armies. In 1949, the U.S., Canada, and ten European countries formed the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to provide

88  The Global Role of the U.S.

collective security, with a treaty obligation that an attack on one NATO member would be treated as an attack on all. Further, the U.S. occupied and assisted in the postwar reconstruction of Japan. In addition to being the world’s military heavyweight, after World War II the U.S. dollar became the global currency against which all other major currencies became fixed. The U.S. economy doubled in size between 1939 and 1945, while Western Europe’s economy contracted by almost 20 percent and Japan’s economy by half. Today, the U.S. is still the world’s largest economy, with a gross domestic product (GDP) in 2021 of $25 trillion (International Monetary Fund, 2022). The world’s second largest economy is China, with a GDP of $18 trillion, followed by the economies of Japan, Germany, and India (International Monetary Fund, 2022). The U.S. has used its global influence to promote both soft power and hard power. For example, then Presidential candidate John F. Kennedy challenged Americans to serve their country in the cause of peace. This formed the nucleus of the Peace Corps, which since 1961 has deployed over 240,000 American volunteers across the globe (Peace Corps). As President, however, Kennedy also sent 17,000 American military advisers to Vietnam, beginning the escalation that would lead to large protests and the defeat of the U.S. by a grassroots insurgency, the Viet Cong. This U.S. involvement in the Korean and Vietnam Wars highlighted readiness to use U.S. military strength to resist communism. Since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. has been involved in seven wars and military interventions. All of this is foundational to understanding the impact that the U.S. government has in terms of international security and foreign policy globally, and for this discussion, the global impact if the U.S. adopted and fully implemented a feminist foreign policy. Further, it is important to note that there has been an evolution of thinking about women’s and girls’ roles in society among global and domestic policy professionals and advocates. This thinking has transformed from a focus on protecting women and girls to encouraging women’s leadership and participation in decision-​making to a focus on women’s agency, gender equality, and inclusion more broadly. The Structure and Size of the U.S. Government

The U.S. government is large and complex with 15 executive departments or agencies and an annual budget of $4 trillion. Overall, the federal government employs slightly over 9 million workers, which in 2019, translated to almost 6 percent of the total U.S. workforce (Hill, 2020). More than 70 percent of the federal workforce serves in a wide range of defense and security agencies including the Department of Defense, the intelligence community, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) (Hill, 2020).

The Global Role of the U.S.  89

There are three major U.S. government institutions traditionally seen as critical to the promotion and protection of U.S. national security interests abroad: the Department of Defense, the Department of State, and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). While all three are key to U.S. national security, their approaches and resources reflect their distinct missions, roles, legal authorities, and congressional mandates. Other government entities are also important. The Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) and the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) both play key roles in the U.S. government’s development work. The MCC is an independent U.S. foreign assistance agency providing time-​limited grants to countries that make commitments to principles of good governance and accountability (Millennium Challenge Corporation website). The DFC partners with the private sector to provide financing for development solutions across sectors such as energy, health care, infrastructure, and technology (International Development Finance Corporation website). The U.S. has taken a “3D” approach to foreign policy, beginning in the administration of President George W. Bush. This approach emphasizes that diplomacy and development, as well as defense, are critical to U.S. national security and that these work streams are mutually reinforcing. This requires the key agencies to collaborate and coordinate to achieve U.S. policy goals. The Obama Administration also utilized the 3D framework to anchor its national security and foreign policy objectives and goals (Syed, 2010). In fact, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton spoke of the importance of the 3D approach to U.S. national security policy in her first speech to the Department of State workforce. Having said that, historically, the U.S. budget disproportionately funds defense functions as compared to diplomacy and development. Overall, U.S. spending on defense accounts for more than 10 percent of all federal spending and nearly half of discretionary U.S. government spending (Peter G. Peterson Foundation, 2022). The U.S. national defense budget, which includes the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, nuclear weapons expenses, and intelligence accounts, constitutes nearly 40 percent of global military spending (O’Hanlon & Miller, 2019). As of 2021, the U.S. spent more on national defense than the combined defense budgets of ten countries: Australia, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and South Korea. Department of Defense officials, however, recognize the importance of diplomacy and development to robust national security and to advancing their mission. In 2017, U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis said, “If you don’t fund the Department [of State] fully, then I need to buy more ammunition ultimately. … The more that we put into the State Department’s diplomacy, hopefully the less we have to put into a military budget” (Lockie,

90  The Global Role of the U.S.

2017). This was reinforced in a 2018 speech by General Paul Selva, then the Vice Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: Every dollar spent on diplomacy and development –​the growth of democratic institutions or at least civil institutions in countries that allow their leadership to be sensitive to the needs of their citizens –​are immensely more effective … than having to deploy soldiers, sailors, airmen or marines to a crisis where we have to fix a problem. We’re an immensely expensive enterprise. (Saldinger, 2018) There are ongoing efforts to address these spending imbalances, although over time lawmakers have consistently voted for large defense budgets (Ray, 2021). For the Fiscal Year 2023 budget, the White House asked Congress for $773 billion for national defense (U.S. Department of Defense, 2022). In the same budget request, the White House requested $60.4 billion for the Department of State and USAID, a 14 percent increase (Ward & Forgey, 2022); $2.6 billion of that request focused on efforts to advance gender equity and equality, including $200 million for the Gender Equity and Equality Action (GEEA) Fund to advance the economic security of women and girls (The White House, 2022a). Still, the Fiscal Year 2023 budget request for defense spending was 13 times that of the request for civilian diplomacy and development efforts. The large request for defense spending includes funding for staff resources and expensive weapons systems. The defense budget also supports more people than the budgets for diplomacy and development combined: there are 1.4 million members of the uniformed military (including the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Space Force, and Coast Guard),1 as well as over 800,000 civilian employees, and 600,000 contractors. In contrast, the State Department and the USAID have a combined total of less than 80,000 full-​ time employees (Ray, 2021). Currently, the military’s health care budget alone is just slightly lower than all of U.S. foreign assistance (Ray, 2021). In addition to supporting larger and larger defense outlays, the budget imbalance has also led to what some call the “militarization of diplomacy.” Several authors have written extensively about the U.S. becoming more dependent on the military to manage its role in world affairs. They argue that this is in part because defense agencies and military personnel have assumed public diplomacy and assistance responsibilities that the civilian agencies do not have the trained staff to fill (Ray, 2021). USAID staffing declined

1 The U.S. Coast Guard is actually part of the Department of Homeland Security but can be deployed under the Department of Defense in times of war or other emergencies.

The Global Role of the U.S.  91

from approximately 15,000 in the 1970s to several thousand in Fiscal Year 2020 (Ingram, 2021). Over time, Department of Defense resources have been used as part of humanitarian and health crises, such as the one in Africa responding to Ebola (U.S. Department of Defense, 2014). Others, like Washington Post writer Dana Priest, argue that beginning with President Bill Clinton and accelerating after 9/​11, military leaders began to surpass civilian leaders in influence around the world. This occurred as regional combatant commanders were often addressing political and economic issues. Priest argues that these generals and admirals engaged not just with ministers of defense but with heads of state, offering materiel, training, and, in some cases, development assistance (Priest, 2003). In Afghanistan and Iraq, for example, the Commander’s Emergency Response Program (CERP) allowed U.S. commanders to use funds to respond to urgent humanitarian relief and reconstruction needs within their areas of responsibility. These commanders used CERP funds to build roads, schools, medical clinics, and university dorms, or provide other types of humanitarian aid (Kopp, 2021). CERP was discontinued in 2021, after spending $3.71 billion (Lawrence, 2021) with mixed results. According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, many commanders had inadequate training in development, and the project funding was vulnerable to fraud and corruption due to a lack of oversight (Lawrence, 2021). Women’s Roles in the U.S. Government

There has been a marked increase in women’s participation at the highest levels of the U.S. government over the last 80 years. Frances Perkins was the first woman to serve in a presidential Cabinet. She was appointed as Secretary of Labor by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933 and served throughout his presidency. She helped to draft and implement many of the key pieces of New Deal legislation (Center for American Women in Politics, 2021). Twelve U.S presidents (five Democrats and seven Republicans) have appointed women to their Cabinet or to Cabinet-​ level positions. As of early 2023, 65 women have held a total of 73 such positions in presidential administrations, with eight women serving twice. Of the 65 women, 42 of them were appointed by Democratic presidents and 23 by Republican presidents (Center for American Women in Politics, 2021). There are six women who served as the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, seven who served as Secretary of Labor, five who served as Secretary of Health and Human Services, and six who served as Administrator of the Small Business Administration (SBA) (Center for American Women in Politics, 2021). The first Black woman serving in a Cabinet, Patricia Roberts Harris, was appointed Secretary of Housing and Urban Development by President Jimmy Carter in 1977. The first Latina, Aida Alvarez, was appointed as Small

92  The Global Role of the U.S.

Business Administrator by President Bill Clinton in 1997. The first Asian Pacific Islander, Elaine Chao, was appointed Secretary of Labor by President George W. Bush in 2001. She later served as Secretary of Transportation in the Administration of Donald Trump. The first Native American woman to serve in a Cabinet, Deb Haaland, was appointed Secretary of the Interior by President Joe Biden in 2021. As of early 2023, the U.S. Cabinet is gender balanced, with women leading multiple key agencies and institutions across both the domestic and foreign policy arenas. They are Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo, Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Marcia Fudge, Secretary of Interior Deb Haaland, Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen, U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai, and Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines. Collectively, these officials are influential in U.S. global engagement. This is the case both in foreign policy agencies and in arenas that affect our engagement globally but are sometimes not considered central to foreign policy, such as trade and economic engagement. With respect to women’s roles in foreign policy and national security, the U.S. Foreign Service did not allow women to serve until 1922. The first woman ambassador representing the U.S. was not appointed until 1949. There are three women who have served as Secretary of State: Madeleine Albright (1997–​2001), Condoleezza Rice (2005–​2009), and Hillary Clinton (2009–​2013). There has never been a woman serving as Secretary of Defense, but there have been women serving as the head of specific services. President Trump appointed Heather Wilson as Secretary of the Air Force and President Biden appointed Christine Wormuth as Secretary of the Army and Linda Fagan as Commandant of the Coast Guard (Center for American Women in Politics, 2021). President Obama nominated Melanne Verveer to be the first ever U.S. Ambassador-​ at-​ Large for Global Women’s Issues at the Department of State in 2009. He then appointed a second Ambassador-​at-​Large, Catherine Russell, to serve during the tenure of Secretary of State John Kerry. The Trump Administration made attempts to eliminate this position but then appointed Kelley Currie as Ambassador-​at-​Large for Global Women’s Issues role in January 2020; she served until the end of the Trump Administration in early 2021. In May 2023, Dr. Geeta Rao Gupta was confirmed as Ambassador for Global Women’s Issues for the Biden administration. In summary, these are the highlights regarding the numbers of women in key roles at the Department of State, Department of Defense, and USAID: • As of early 2023, three of the 70 secretaries of state and two of the 26 directors of national security have been women. • As of 2020, about 35 percent of the senior foreign service personnel at the Department of State are women (Congressional Research Service, 2020).

The Global Role of the U.S.  93

As of 2021, almost 31 percent of U.S. Ambassadors were women (Anwar Gargash Diplomatic Academy, 2021). There has never been a woman U.S. Ambassador to approximately 15 countries, including China, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, all central to U.S. foreign policy. The first woman to serve as U.S. Ambassador to Russia was sworn in in January 2023. • As of 2021, women comprised 18 percent of Army officers, 20 percent of Navy officers, 23 percent of Air Force officers, and 9 percent of Marine officers (Statista, 2021). • As of early 2023, only three of the 19 confirmed administrators of USAID have been women, including the administrator confirmed in May 2021, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power (Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development website) As of data available in 2020, approximately 30 percent of USAID mission directors are women (Archive for the United States Agency for International Development). While women have served in the U.S. military since 1775, originally in the civilian fields of nursing, laundering, mending clothing, and cooking, their roles expanded tremendously during the 20th century with women allowed to serve in a wider range of roles, although still mainly in support functions. For example, during World War II, almost 500,000 women served as pilots, drivers, and mechanics, as well as more traditional positions. Based on the valuable role women played, the Women’s Armed Services Integration Act in 1948 was passed. This legislation both recognized women as full members of the military but, at the same time, restricted the number of women who could become officers and limited women to only 2 percent of each branch. Women continued to serve throughout the post-​World War II conflicts. In 1972, for the first time, women could command military units that included men, although women were still excluded from certain specific combat roles until 2016. Since 2016, more than 300,000 women have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, more than 9,000 women have earned Combat Action Badges and today, women make up 18 percent of the U.S. Armed Forces, serving in every branch of the military. There have been many concerted efforts by civil society organizations and other advocates to increase the number of women serving at the highest levels of both national security and foreign policy. The current number of women in key leadership roles reflects this advocacy along with numerous parallel movements to promote women’s leadership across all sectors of society. One early effort in this regard was conducted by the Women’s Foreign Policy Group (WFPG), founded in the early 2000s. This organization was one of the first civil society organizations to advocate for increasing women’s leadership in international affairs. It did so by providing events and platforms for women policy experts to showcase their expertise in these issue areas

94  The Global Role of the U.S.

and also by developing critical mentoring programs. For many years, WFPG compiled a directory of women experts in foreign policy and national security fields to highlight their skills and promote their careers (Women’s Foreign Policy Group website). This work helped to counter the often-​heard lament in policy circles: “I would like to have a woman on my panel (or hire a woman), but I just can’t find a woman expert in this field.” More recently, the Leadership Council for Women in National Security (LCWINS) was founded to also ensure that more women are represented at the decision-​making table. This organization has a database of over 900 women of both political parties who are well-​qualified and ready to serve in senior national security positions. LCWINS has also organized sessions to help job candidates better understand the political appointments process and advocated to improve diversity in foreign policy and national security leadership (Leadership Council for Women in National Security website). The U.S. Government Response to Global Action on Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment

As detailed previously, U.S. government policy has evolved in the context of the waves of the feminist movements in both the domestic and international spheres. This is reflected by these various, and ongoing, movements for women’s suffrage, then for increasing women’s economic rights, and then a shifting understanding of women’s roles in society. In parallel to international agreements put forward by the United Nations and the UN Commission on the Status of Women, President Kennedy established a President’s Commission on the Status of Women in 1961 with Eleanor Roosevelt as its first chair (Spruill, 2017). The Commission’s inaugural report, American Woman, was issued in 1963 and focused on domestic issues. In response to the growing number of women entering the workforce, it called for government-​supported childcare centers and occupational training for women. One of the earliest and most visible results of the report was the Equal Pay Act of 1963, aimed at abolishing pay disparities between women and men (also referred to as the gender pay gap) (Spruill, 2017). There is still a gender pay gap in the U.S. but since passage of this law, average wages for women have risen from slightly over 59 percent of men’s earnings in 1979 to over 80 percent in 2019 (National Committee on Pay Equity, 2020). In 1966, activists came together to press the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to enforce Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibiting sex discrimination in employment. These activists wanted to form an organization “to speak on behalf of women in the way civil rights groups had done,” and established a “temporary” organization to do so. The National Organization for Women (NOW) had the following purpose: “to take action to bring women into full participation in the mainstream of

The Global Role of the U.S.  95

American society now, assuming all the privileges and responsibilities thereof in truly equal partnership with men” (National Organization for Women website). NOW is still in operation. To many, the U.S. has fallen short on national legal frameworks to enshrine gender equality. This is particularly reflected in the failure of the U.S. government to adopt the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) to the U.S. Constitution and to ratify the Convention to End Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). The ERA would embed gender equality in the U.S. Constitution, by simply stating that “equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.” The amendment was first drafted in 1923 by two leaders of the women’s suffrage movement. Beginning that year, and in every Congress since, Members of Congress have introduced the ERA. It made little progress until the 1970s, when it was approved by Congress and sent to state legislatures for ratification (Cohen & Codrington, 2020). A majority of states ratified the ERA within a year, but battles became heated at the State level, culminating in 30 states –​but not the required 35 –​ratifying by the deadline. CEDAW is considered the international bill of rights for women. It has been ratified by 189 states, but not the U.S. After CEDAW was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1979, President Jimmy Carter signed the convention and submitted it to the U.S. Senate for ratification in 1980.2 It did not pass. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee then held hearings on CEDAW in 1988, 1990, 1994, and 2002. It reported CEDAW favorably to the full Senate, subject to certain conditions, in 1994 and 2002. The Obama Administration supported CEDAW ratification, and in 2010, the Senate Judiciary Committee made an effort to move ratification forward (Congressional Research Service, 2015). It is noteworthy that in 2010, a nationwide public poll found that 89 percent of respondents supported CEDAW ratification (Wakefield, 2010). During the 2020 presidential election, the Biden campaign stated, It is simply embarrassing that the U.S. has not ratified [CEDAW]. We are in the company of some of the most oppressive countries in the world, including Iran, Sudan, and Somalia. … As president, Biden will continue 2 For any treaty, ratification by the U.S. Senate requires 67 votes. The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations (SFRC) may recommend that the Senate approve a treaty conditionally, subject to certain stipulations that the President must accept before proceeding to ratification. These stipulations are generally referred to as “Reservations, Understandings, and Declarations” (RUDs). The President may also propose RUDs at the time the treaty is being considered. U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Treaties and Other International Agreements: The Role of the United States Senate, committee print, prepared by the Congressional Research Service, 106th Cong., 2nd sess., January 2001, S. Prt. 106-​71 (Washington: GPO, 2001).

96  The Global Role of the U.S.

to push the Senate to ratify this important treaty, so that we can better advance the rights of women and girls here at home and around the world. (Biden campaign website) As of early 2023, the full Senate has not considered the issue of CEDAW ratification (Congressional Research Service, 2015). With CEDAW ratification efforts stalled, U.S. activists and public officials around the country have organized the Cities for CEDAW campaign to promote gender equality at the local level and create momentum for ratification from the grassroots. In 1998, San Francisco, California became the first U.S. city to adopt an ordinance reflecting the principles of CEDAW (Cities for CEDAW website). There are now over 25 cities with ordinances or resolutions supporting CEDAW. Critics such as legal scholar Ann Piccard argue that U.S. ratification of CEDAW would make little difference in the lives of American women, and further that if the U.S. ratified CEDAW for symbolic purposes only, it would have no motivation to take active steps to end discrimination (Piccard, 2010). Piccard sees ratification of CEDAW without a commitment to ending discrimination as hollow and harmful, “sweep[ing] the problem [of discrimination] under the carpet” and not addressing the core issue of discrimination against women. The U.S. government, however, has implemented other UN agreements regarding gender equality and women’s empowerment. Eleven years after the unanimous passage of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security (UNSCR 1325), President Obama issued Executive Order 13595 mandating a national action plan on women, peace, and security (The White House, 2011). This set the stage for work on women, peace, and security within the U.S. government, primarily through the Departments of State and Defense and USAID. Pursuant to this Executive Order, the U.S. restated the importance of promoting women’s participation in conflict prevention, management, and resolution, as well as in post-​conflict relief and recovery, and the impact of that participation on national security, economic and social development, and international cooperation. It further addressed issues of sexual violence in conflict and its role in exacerbating and prolonging armed conflict, thereby impeding the ability of countries and communities to restore peace and security. The Departments of Defense and State and USAID were designated as the primary agencies with responsibility to implement the Executive Order and each developed plans to do so. Further, the agencies were required to submit the national action plan, and these agency implementation plans to staff at the highest level of the National Security Council. The U.S. government’s first national action plan on women, peace, and security was released by Secretary Hillary Clinton in 2011 and covered the

The Global Role of the U.S.  97

period 2011 to 2015. It focused on institutionalizing this set of issues in U.S. government activities abroad by taking steps to increase the participation of women in peace processes and decision-​making; protect women and children from violence; promote women’s participation in conflict prevention; and ensure that women and children had access to relief and recovery programs. The second U.S. national action plan, drafted in 2016 and covering the period 2016 to 2018, further emphasized the need for enhanced foreign assistance programming to empower women and girls, and added an emphasis on preventing and responding to emerging challenges such as violent extremism and climate change. It also aligned with other key frameworks including the U.S. National Security Strategy (released in 2010 and 2015) and the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR) (also released in 2010 and 2015). Work on women, peace, and security in the U.S. has had general bipartisan support. In 2017, President Trump signed the Women, Peace, and Security Act into law. The Act largely codifies the principles and objectives of UNSCR 1325. While it does not call for a national action plan, it does mandate a U.S. Strategy on Women, Peace, and Security, the functional equivalent of a national action plan. The agencies responsible for implementation were broadened to include the Department of Homeland Security. While the two national action plans are similar in level of detail and areas of focus, the US Strategy on Women, Peace, and Security is significantly shorter and does not acknowledge the two previous national action plans. In June 2019, the Trump Administration released its strategy for implementing the WPS Act. Specific plans from departments and agencies were published in 2020 (The White House, 2019). All three documents (the two national action plans and this strategy) approach this agenda through the prism of achieving national and global security. The U.S. Strategy, put forward by the Trump Administration, however, specifically highlights that U.S. engagement with “WPS principles at the global level will be selective” and “in ways that advance America’s national interests” (The White House, 2019). In 2022, the Biden Administration issued the U.S. Government Women, Peace, and Security Report to Congress (The White House, 2022b). The report, the first of the Biden administration, outlined accomplishments by the four key agencies and set out the common metrics used to measure progress. These metrics include consultations with civil society, the designation of senior officials at each agency, and safeguarding standards. The Evolution of Foreign Assistance in Terms of Women’s Engagement and Agency

U.S. foreign policy, and specifically the way the U.S. government has sought to support women around the world through development programs, has

98  The Global Role of the U.S.

been shaped by global movements. Following World War II, the modern-​day concept of international development assistance took shape. The policies and programming of development agencies focused largely on men as drivers of economic development and growth. Women beneficiaries of aid were defined “almost solely in their roles as wives and mothers” and programs that existed concentrated primarily on social welfare concerns such as nutrition, education, and family issues (Razavi & Miller, 1995). In 1973, the Percy Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act directed USAID to explicitly address women’s roles in the development process and in its work. It required that assistance programs pay “particular attention to those programs, projects and activities which tend to integrate women into the national economies of foreign countries, thus improving their status and assisting the total development effort.” The amendment still defined women as beneficiaries of assistance, but it did recognize them as active contributors to, and agents of, economic development and growth. In this same time frame, the second wave of feminism was taking place which sought recognition of women’s personal and economic agency. Domestic feminist organizations fought for equal economic, political, and social rights and opportunities for women, and for approaches that ensured women’s views were taken into account in policymaking. One particular area for that advocacy was women’s equal economic opportunity. There were global efforts, such as the UN Decade for Women and early United Nations women’s conferences, to strengthen legal frameworks protecting women’s employment rights and combating employment discrimination. Combined with Dr. Ester Boserup’s seminal paper, this led to development programs focused on increasing women’s status in their communities and increasing women’s productive labor (U.S. government). As a result, those designing foreign assistance programs began to consider women’s more diverse roles in their communities and their impact on community development and growth. This Women in Development (WID) framework was used throughout the 1980s and 1990s. The forward-​leaning United Nations Comprehensive Outline of a World Survey on the Role of Women in Development (United Nations, 1981. See also Sen & Grown, 1987) further highlighted the need for development interventions to recognize women’s agency. The survey’s recommendations were premised on the need to utilize women’s skills and knowledge and fully integrate women into program formulation, design, and implementation. It called for sectoral analysis and a focus on the commonality of issues faced by women in the various stages of the life cycle (United Nations, 1981. See also Sen & Grown, 1987). Around this same time, the term “gender” was first used at USAID during the Reagan Administration. In 1982, USAID released the A.I.D Policy Paper on Women in Development in order to institutionalize the integration of “women’s needs and talents from the outset of project design through

The Global Role of the U.S.  99

completion of evaluation of project effectiveness” (United Nations, 1981. See also Sen & Grown, 1987). In the late 1990s, the WID approach evolved from a focus on women alone to a focus on gender and development (Taşli, 2007). This approach looked at the broader social and cultural construct of gender, using an analysis of “what men and women do” at its core (Razavi & Miller, 1995). In the last decade, there has been a continued shift to encompass the true diversity of gender norms and roles. This means that the international community and those providing development assistance are beginning to look beyond the binary of men/​boys and women/​girls. Moreover, attention has grown around the multiple other characteristics that impact how programs and policies are implemented. Gender equality and social inclusion (GESI) is a burgeoning concept that addresses unequal power relations experienced by people on the grounds of gender, sex, age, race, ethnicity, sexuality, religion, economic status, education level, ability, or a combination of these dimensions (United Nations, 1981). It is closely aligned with current discourse around the need to use intersectionality as a way to fully understand women’s lives. In late 2022, the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) launched an Inclusion and Gender Strategy, focusing on the impact of persistent, structural barriers to economic, social, and political opportunity. This new GESI-​like strategy builds on the MCC’s earlier gender strategies (Millennium Challenge Corporation, 2022). The Impact of Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton

The appointment of U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State by President Obama in 2009 elevated global efforts around gender equality and women’s empowerment. Although not a traditional “gender” appointment, because of her public role at the Beijing Conference and in subsequent years, Clinton’s appointment signaled that the issue of women and girls would be elevated across U.S. foreign policy. Subsequently, President Obama nominated Melanne Verveer to be the first ever U.S. Ambassador-​at-​Large for Global Women’s Issues at the Department of State. Not only was the elevation of the post a signal, the appointment of Verveer, a long-​time Clinton advisor and gender advocate, indicated the importance of global women’s issues. In December 2010, Secretary Clinton released the QDDR, an assessment of U.S. diplomacy and international aid efforts and a comprehensive blueprint for change in the U.S. approaches to these issues. The QDDR argued that women and girls are key to overall U.S foreign policy and national security interests, and that U.S. efforts overseas would be more efficient and effective if designed with men and women, girls and boys in mind (Miller & Bertone, 2011). Women and girls are mentioned a total of 133 times in the QDDR’s 242 pages (Hudson & Leidl, 2015). In addition, as previously described, the

100  The Global Role of the U.S.

U.S. government’s first national action plan on women, peace, and security was released by Secretary Clinton in 2011. Throughout her tenure, Clinton advocated for a new “smart” power doctrine for the U.S. that would place as much or more emphasis on diplomacy and defense as it did on defense. She elevated the issue of women and girls within the Department of State, meeting consistently with women’s groups and women leaders globally. She sought and obtained an increase of more than 7 percent in funding for the Department of State and USAID (Hudson & Leidl, 2015). And through it all, she asserted that “the subjugation of women is a direct threat to the security of the United States” (DAWN, 2010). Relevant U.S. Legal Frameworks and Strategies Laws Mandating Gender Analysis in Foreign Policy and National Security

Currently, there are three pieces of legislation that mandate the use of gender analysis in certain U.S. government programs and agencies focused on diplomacy, development, and defense. While these laws provide guidance to specific departments with regard to specific activities –​gender and conflict, gender and economic opportunity, and gender and development –​they do not constitute an overarching mandate to employ gender analysis across the U.S. government, and they have yet to be fully implemented. Further, they do not reflect an explicit commitment to an intersectionality or the use of the broader GESI analysis. The WPS Act codifies U.S. policy to promote the meaningful participation of women in mediation and negotiation processes seeking to prevent, mitigate, or resolve violent conflict. To accomplish this, among other things, the WPS Act mandates the use of gender analysis to improve program design in four key national security and foreign policy institutions: the Department of State, the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, and USAID. The Women’s Entrepreneurship and Economic Empowerment Act of 2018 (WEEE Act) mandates a gender focus for international development cooperation policy. It affirms women’s right to own and control land and property, to live free of violence, and to access the financial tools needed to start and grow businesses. It also requires that all international development programs overseen by the U.S. government (primarily implemented by USAID) use gender analyses from planning and project design to measurement and evaluation. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (NDAA) references the gender analysis requirements of both the WPS Act and the WEEE Act. It also mandates the participation of women in the capacity-​building

The Global Role of the U.S.  101

activities of security cooperation programs in several ways, including incorporating gender analysis and women, peace, and security priorities into educational and training programs, and integrating gender analysis broadly into the work of the security sector. Agency-​and Department-​Specific Gender Policies

In 2006, MCC was the first U.S. government agency to release a gender policy (Millennium Challenge Corporation, 2022), occurring during the administration of President George W. Bush. The MCC policy required that gender inequalities be identified and considered throughout its project cycle, from the initial selection of countries to the development and design of programs, their implementation, and relevant monitoring and evaluation of impacts. Pursuant to the policy, unless MCC and the government receiving support agreed otherwise in writing, all projects and activities funded or supported by MCC had to comply with its Gender Policy and Gender Integration Guidelines (Millennium Challenge Corporation, 2017). Further, the second disbursement of compact funds was contingent on the country completing, and MCC approving, a gender action plan. Using this gender policy as a tool, MCC devoted resources, staffing, and leadership support to all its programs. These efforts have resulted in programs that address social exclusion and gender inequality in such areas as education, health, agriculture, and land tenure. MCC has also supported a growing number of programs that specifically focus on women’s economic security and empowerment. As noted earlier, in late 2022, MCC launched an Inclusion and Gender Strategy, focusing on the impact of persistent, structural barriers to economic, social, and political opportunity. This new GESI-​like strategy builds on MCC’s earlier gender strategies (Millennium Challenge Corporation, 2022). In 2012, USAID issued its first-​ ever Gender Equality and Female Empowerment (GE/​FE) Policy (USAID, 2012). The policy set forth its rationale and a short history of gender work at USAID, guiding principles, evidence regarding the impact of gender integration; the relevant organizational roles and responsibilities; and the agency requirements including reporting, training, and human resource practices (USAID, 2012). It also set forth the outcomes hoped for as a result of this policy: the reduction of gender disparities in terms of control over and benefit from resources, wealth, opportunities, and services; the reduction of gender-​based violence; and the increased capability of women and girls to realize their rights, take control of their lives, and influence decision-​making. The GE/​FE Policy called for USAID missions to appoint mission-​level gender advisors, and to report on how USAID funding was advancing both gender equality and the ability of women and girls to access programs and

102  The Global Role of the U.S.

resources (in budget speak, these are called “gender attributions”). Bureaus located at headquarters were instructed to support the missions in this work and have at least one gender advisor with appropriate expertise. Moreover, senior level officials, such as Assistant Administrators, Deputy Assistant Administrators, and office directors, were charged with accountability for implementing it in bureau portfolios and staff responsibilities (USAID, 2012). In addition to the USAID policy, during the Obama Administration, the U.S. government adopted several other interlinked policies and strategies to reduce gender inequality and to enable girls and women to realize their rights, determine their life outcomes, influence decision-​making, and become change agents in households, communities, and societies. These included: • The first and second U.S. National Action Plans on Women, Peace, and Security (discussed earlier). • The U.S. Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Gender-​ Based Violence Globally. • U.S. Global Strategy to Empower Adolescent Girls. • The USAID Vision for Ending Child Marriage and Meeting the Needs of Married Children. • The first-​ever USAID Counter-​Trafficking in Persons Policy. USAID’s GE/​FE policy was updated and released on January 8, 2021, mere days before the end of the Trump Administration and it was never implemented (Saldinger, 2021). A new USAID gender policy was released in 2023. The Biden Administration revised this policy as part of the gender-​ focused process it set in motion across the U.S. government to develop agency-​specific strategies to address gender inequality. In March 2013, the Department of State issued policy guidance, Promoting Gender Equality to Achieve our National Security and Foreign Policy Objectives (Department of State, 2012). The policy guidance established a commitment to promote gender equality and advance the status of women and girls across all bilateral, regional, and multilateral diplomatic activity. This included all types of diplomatic engagement with host governments, civil society, business leaders, and the media. According to policy guidance, the Department of State committed to a gender-​focused approach to diplomacy as well as to provide development assistance, and humanitarian aid. But, as the guidance noted, that alone was insufficient to advance the status of women and girls. The Department was also instructed to focus on a cross-​ cutting manner “across all of our work to reduce disparities and proactively promote gender equality to foster economic growth, peace, and security” (Department of State, 2012). The policy outlined mechanisms to ensure the effectiveness of this work, including the development of strategic plans to promote gender equality and

The Global Role of the U.S.  103

advance the status of women and girls; the incorporation of these plans into the Department’s overall strategic planning and budgeting process; the use of U.S. assistance programming to address gender disparities; the use of sex-​ disaggregated data to guide policy; and appropriate and sufficient staffing on gender, including the expansion of training at the Department of State Foreign Service Institute. This policy was not revised during the Trump Administration. As discussed below, the Biden Administration has revised this policy as part of the process mandated government wide to develop agency-​specific gender strategies but has only released a summary to date. White House Gender Policy Council and Gender Strategy

In March 2021, President Biden created a U.S. Gender Policy Council (GPC), with a goal to advance gender equity and equality in both domestic and foreign policy development and implementation (The White House, 2021c). The GPC’s work is based on the premise that advancing gender equity and equality “is a matter of human rights, justice, and fairness [as well as] a strategic imperative that reduces poverty and promotes economic growth, increases access to education, improves health outcomes, advances political stability, and fosters democracy.” The GPC is responsible for a range of issues, including economic security, health, gender-​based violence, trade, and education. The director of the GPC serves as an assistant to the president, the highest staff position in the White House, reflecting the importance of this issue to the Biden Administration (The White House GPC website). The GPC works in coordination with the other White House policy councils, such as the Domestic Policy Council, the National Security Council, and the National Economic Council, and across all federal agencies. While not explicitly calling its work intersectional, the GPC is tasked with advancing equity in government policy for those facing discrimination and bias based on multiple factors. This includes members of the Black, Latina, Native American, Asian American Pacific Islander (AAPI), and LGBTQI+​ communities, as well as persons with disabilities. As an example of this, the GPC works closely with others in the administration addressing inequities based on race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. These policy directives are promulgated via several executive orders, including Executive Order 13985, Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities through the Federal Government (The White House, 2021a), Executive Order 13988, Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation (The White House, 2021b) and Executive Order 14091, Further Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities through the Federal

104  The Global Role of the U.S.

Government (The White House, 2023). The most recent executive order on racial equity specifically mandates coordination with the GPC “to align efforts to advance gender equity with broader equity efforts.” As part of this approach, the Biden Administration developed a “whole of government” strategy to advance gender equity and equality. This National Strategy on Gender Equity and Equality (the Gender Strategy), released in October 2021, includes a wide range of recommendations on policies, programs, and initiatives that should be proposed, passed, and/​or implemented to advance gender equity and equality in the U. S. and around the world. This Gender Strategy calls on all executive branch agencies and offices to develop their own gender strategies, and to identify and address “existing gender and racial disparities, capitalize on the skills and contributions of people of all genders, and ensure that policies and programs are accessible and responsive to needs irrespective of gender” (The White House, 2021f). It specifically looks to address intersectional discrimination and bias on the basis of “gender, race, and other factors, including sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, disability, age, and socioeconomic status” (The White House, 2021f). USAID released the updated version of its gender policy in the Spring of 2023. The State Department is developing an action plan to guide its implementation of the White House Gender Strategy and apply an intersectional approach that addresses the discrimination, systemic barriers, and human rights abuses and violations that impede equity (Department of State, 2022). The overarching goal of the State Department’s action plan is to show “measurable progress on the rights and empowerment of women and girls through implementation of targeted, high-​impact goals and the advancement of an integrated U.S. foreign policy architecture on gender equity and equality” (Department of State, 2022). It outlines specific outcomes to address gender-​based violence, women’s economic security, women, peace, and security, gender integration, and the climate crisis. Since the beginning of the Biden Administration, in addition to the Gender Strategy, the Department of State and/​or USAID have released a number of related strategies, including: • An updated U.S. Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Gender-​ Based Violence Globally (USAID, 2022b). • The first ever U.S. Strategy on Global Women’s Economic Security (Department of State, 2023). • An Equity Action Plan to integrate Executive Order 13985, mandating that federal agencies advance racial equity and support for underserved communities (Department of State, 2022).

The Global Role of the U.S.  105

The National Security Strategy

The National Security Strategy (NSS) is prepared every four to five years by the executive branch and sets forth the administration’s assessment of threats and opportunities. The legal foundation for the NSS is spelled out in the Goldwater–​Nichols Act of 1986, which streamlined the military command structure and increased the power of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Act set forth the most extensive changes to the Department of Defense since the department was established and also sought to address intraservice rivalries. The NSS was envisioned as a tool to unify and rationalize work on security-​ related issues across the interagency, including Defense, State, USAID, and intelligence agencies. It provides a broad framework and is further refined by the National Defense Strategy and the National Military Strategy, all of which guide the work of national security institutions. The Trump Administration delivered its only NSS in 2017. The document named China and Russia as “revisionist powers” and removed climate change as a national threat. In a break with past doctrine, it characterized the world as a competitive arena rather than a “community of nations” or “international community” as previous documents had done. There was little focus in the Trump Administration’s NSS on women, but “empowering women and youth” is listed as one of the NSS’s five priority actions. President Biden’s NSS focuses on revitalizing American democracy as a fundamental competitive advantage for the U.S. and an approach that ensures the American people can live in peace, security, and prosperity (The White House, 2021d, 2022c). It addresses the rising threat of authoritarianism, also specifically mentioning Russia and China. It is largely silent on gender and the rights of women and girls, mentioning those topics only in passing. The NSS does, however, advocate for breaking down the silos between foreign and domestic policy, noting that for the U.S. to succeed globally, it must invest in innovation and build resilient and sustainable communities at home. It further states that “to advance shared prosperity domestically and to uphold the rights of all Americans, we must proactively shape the international order in line with our interests and values” (The White House, 2022c). Funding for Gender-​Focused Programs

In order for any policy to be effective, it must be robustly funded. Governmental initiatives to mobilize resources and use funds to advance gender equality are tracked in over 30 countries by the Organisation for Economic Co-​operation and Development (OECD) using its Development Assistance Committee (DAC).

106  The Global Role of the U.S.

The OECD DAC gender equality policy marker tracks government funding for gender equality. This tracking strengthens the transparency and accountability in development financing and provides a way to identify gaps between donor country policy commitments and financial commitments. This is particularly helpful for nongovernmental organizations, activists, and academics who track these commitments and gaps, but also for legislators and those inside government who are advocating for increased gender funding. As noted earlier, the Biden Administration’s proposed Fiscal Year 2023 budget increases USAID funding by 12 percent. This includes a doubling of funding –​to $2.6 billion –​for USAID and the Department of State to promote gender equality and the political, economic, and social empowerment of women and girls globally, to prevent and respond to gender-​based violence, and to expand access to child, elder, and home care services (USAID, 2022a). The $2.6 billion request is a significant increase relative to the past several years, particularly with respect to the budget request made by the Trump Administration. That administration placed a lower priority on global investments in gender equality, which was reflected in its low budget requests (Brechenmacher & Salgamemarch, 2022). However, in 2019, Ivanka Trump, President Trump’s daughter and senior advisor, launched a dedicated fund focused on women’s economic empowerment, called the Women’s Global Development and Prosperity Initiative (W-​GDP), housed at USAID. Funding for W-​GDP was initially $50 million annually (Fordham, 2019). According to the W-​GDP 2019–​2020 Annual Report, $300 million in resources had been allocated or attributed to the initiative overall (The White House, 2020). The Biden Administration has also launched some new, specific gender-​ focused efforts. They include the GEEA Fund, which looks to increase resources for women’s and girls’ economic security, with $200 million in funding, as well as $33.5 million to advance women’s and girls’ civic and political leadership. The GEEA Fund was launched at the Summit for Democracy in 2022. The GEEA Fund addresses economic opportunity for women broadly, including access to decent jobs in the formal economy, ensuring labor and social protections, promoting entrepreneurship, expanding access to care, and focusing on gender-​specific barriers to full participation. Guiding principles for the GEEA Fund include the need for gender analysis, addressing sexual exploitation and abuse, localization, intersectionality, and the importance of consultation with those on the ground (Gender Equity and Equality Action Fund website). In comparison to other international donors, however, according to the OECD DAC, the vast majority of foreign assistance provided by the U.S. does not target gender equality, either as a primary or even as a secondary objective (OECD Development Assistance Committee website). While the U.S. was the

The Global Role of the U.S.  107

third-​largest donor of gender equality aid in 2019, it ranked almost at the bottom of the list of OECD DAC members. Summary

While the U.S. government has not adopted a feminist foreign policy, it has taken steps to advance women’s leadership and gender equality, particularly with regard to development and diplomatic engagement. Given the large role that the U.S. plays around the world, these actions are important stepping stones toward a feminist foreign policy within U.S. government institutions and have global implications. The work done throughout the U.S. government has also taken place in the context of an evolution of thinking about women and girls’ roles in society from a focus on protecting women and girls to encouraging women’s leadership and participation in decision-​making to a focus on women’s agency, gender equality, and inclusion more broadly. This also is foundational for the U.S. to move even closer to a foreign policy that is decidedly feminist. References Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development website, Wikipedia, 2023, accessed online February 2023 at: https://​en.wikipe​dia.org/​wiki/​ Administrator_​of_​the_​United_​States_​Agency_​fo​r_​In​tern​atio​nal_​Deve​lopm​ent Anwar Gargash Diplomatic Academy, “AGDA Women in Diplomacy Index 2021.” 2021, available online at: www.agda.ac.ae/​docs/​defa​ult-​sou​rce/​Publi​cati​ons/​agda-​ women-​in-​diplom​acy-​mar-​2021.pdf?sfv​rsn=​4 Biden campaign website, “Fact Sheet: International Women’s Day.” available online at: https://​joebi​den.com/​fact-​sheet-​intern​atio​nal-​wom​ens-​day/​ Brechenmacher, Saskia and Salgamemarch, Nikhita, “How the U.S. Gender Equality Funding Increase Can Actually Be Effective.” Carnegie Endowment for Peace, March 22, 2022, available online at: https://​carneg​ieen​dowm​ent.org/​2022/​03/​22/​ how-​u.s.-​gen​der-​equal​ity-​fund​ing-​incre​ase-​can-​actua​lly-​be-​effect​ive-​pub-​86686 Center for American Women in Politics, “Women Appointed to Presidential Cabinets.” 2021, available online at: https://​cawp.rutg​ers.edu/​sites/​defa​ult/​files/​ resour​ces/​women​appt​dtop​resc​abin​ets.pdf Cities for CEDAW website, 2019, available online at: www.cit​iesf​orCE​DAW.org Cohen, Alex and Wilfred U., Codrington III. “The Equal Rights Amendment Explained.” Brennan Center, January 23, 2020, available online at: www.brenna​ ncen​ter.org/​our-​work/​resea​rch-​repo​rts/​equal-​rig​hts-​amendm​ent-​explai​ned Congressional Research Service, “The U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW): Issues in the U.S. Ratification Debate.” July 23, 2015, accessed online February 2023 at: www.eve​rycr​srep​ort.com/​ files/​20150723_​R40750_​23d1ed01375d3​5bac​894f​ded0​7174​05e5​b592​ed4.pdf Congressional Research Service, “Diversity in the U.S. Department of State Foreign Service: Background and Issues for Congress.” July 2, 2020, accessed online February 2023 at: https://​crs​repo​rts.congr​ess.gov/​prod​uct/​pdf/​IF/​IF11​591/​2

108  The Global Role of the U.S.

DAWN, “Hillary Sees Subjugation of Women as Threat to Security.” March 14, 2010, available online at: www.dawn.com/​news/​857​688/​hill​ary-​sees-​subj​ugat​ion-​ of-​women-​as-​thr​eat-​to-​secur​ity Fordham, Evie, “Ivanka Trump Announces $50M for Women’s Global Development Fund.” Fox Business News, November 18, 2019, available online at: www.foxb​ usin​ess.com/​money/​iva​nka-​trump-​w-​gdp-​dev​elop​ing-​countr​ies Gender Equity and Equality Action Fund website, 2023, accessed online February 2023 at: www.usaid.gov/​geeaf​und High Level Presidential Appointments website, Center for American Women in Politics, 2021, accessed online February 2023 at: https://​cawp.rutg​ers.edu/​level​s_​ of​_​off​i ce/​high-​level-​presi​dent​ial-​appoi​ntme​nts Hill, Fiona, “Public Service and the Federal Government.” The Brookings Institute, May 27, 2020, available online at: www.brooki​ngs.edu/​pol​icy2​020/​vot​ervi​tal/​pub​ lic-​serv​ice-​and-​the-​fede​ral-​gov​ernm​ent/​ Hudson, Valerie and Patricia Leidl, The Hillary Doctrine: Sex and American Foreign Policy, New York: Columbia University Press, 2015. Ingram, George, “Making USAID a Premier Development Agency.” The Brookings Institute, February 17, 2021, available online at: www.brooki​ngs.edu/​resea​rch/​ mak​ing-​usaid-​a-​prem​ier-​deve​lopm​ent-​age​ncy/​ Kopp, Harry, Career Diplomacy: Life and Work in the US Foreign Service, Second Edition, Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2021. Lawrence, J.P., “Congress Calls for End to Program That Gave Out Billions to Win Support in Iraq and Afghanistan.” Stars and Stripes, February 5, 2021, available online at: www.stri​pes.com/​theat​ers/​midd​le_​e​ast/​congr​ess-​calls-​for-​end-​to-​prog​ ram-​that-​gave-​out-​billi​ons-​to-​win-​supp​ort-​in-​iraq-​and-​afgh​anis​tan-​1.661​126 Leadership Council for Women in National Security website, 2023, available online at: www.lcw​ins.org/​about Lockie, Alex, “Mattis Once Said If State Department Funding Gets Cut ‘Then I Need to Buy More Ammunition’.” Business Insider, February 27, 2017, available online at: www.busi​ness​insi​der.com/​mat​tis-​state-​dep​artm​ent-​fund​ing-​need-​to-​buy-​more-​ amm​unit​ion-​2017-​2 Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC),“Millennium Challenge Compact between the United States of America Acting through the Millennium Challenge Corporation and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan Acting through the Ministry of Water and Irrigation.” 2017, accessed online February 2023 at: https://​ass​ets. mcc.gov/​cont​ent/​uplo​ads/​2017/​05/​comp​act-​jor​dan.pdf Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), “Inclusion and Gender Strategy.” October 2022, accessed online February 2023 at: www.mcc.gov/​resour​ces/​doc/​ inclus​ion-​gen​der-​strat​egy Miller, Barbara and Andrea Bertone, Integrating a Gender Perspective into Development: What Works and Why?, Washington, DC: George Washington University, December 2011, available online at: https://​bpb-​us-​e1.wpmu​cdn.com/​ blogs.gwu.edu/​dist/​1/​1435/​files/​2018/​04/​IntegratingaGende​rPer​spec​tive​into​Deve​ lopm​ent-​10q6​0lj.pdf National Committee on Pay Equity, “The Wage Gap over Time: In Real Dollars, Women See a Continuing Gap.” 2020, available online at: www.pay-​equ​ity. org/​ i nfo-​ t ime.html#:~:text= ​ I n%201 ​ 9 63%2C%20wo​ m en%20who%20wor​ ked,half%20a%20c​ent%20per%20y​ear! National Organization for Women (NOW) website, 2023. available online at: https://​ now.org/​about/​hist​ory/​

The Global Role of the U.S.  109

Nye, Joseph, “The Two Sides of American Exceptionalism.” Project Syndicate, September 4, 2018, available online at: www.proj​ect-​syndic​ate.org/​com​ment​ary/​two-​sides-​of-​ ameri​can-​exc​epti​onal​ism-​by-​jos​eph-​s-​-​nye-​2018-​09?utm_​t​erm=​&utm_​c​ampa​ign=​ &utm​_​sou​rce=​adwo​rds&utm​_​med​ium=​ppc&hsa_​acc=​122​0154​768&hsa_​cam=​ 1237​4283​753&hsa_​grp=​11751​1853​986&hsa​_​ad=​49956​7080​219&hsa_​src=​g& hsa_​tgt=​aud-​124931​6001​277%3Adsa-​1995​9388​920&hsa​_k ​ w=​&hsa​_m ​ t=​&hsa_​net=​ adwo​ r ds&hsa_​ v er=​ 3 &gclid=​ C jwKCAjwnZaVBhA6E​ i wAV​ Vyv9​ O CNc​ k NVe​ x1no​MiCY​m6N-​0Y-​LURhX​cjxY​iyhE​D5oZ​CJHx​oKO-​rOy​nhoC​R6gQ​AvD_​BwE The Obama White House archived website, “FACT SHEET: Obama Administration Record for Women and Girls.” 2014. accessed online February 2023 at: https://​ obam​awhi​teho​use.archi​ves.gov/​ O’Hanlon, Michael E. and James N. Miller, “Focusing on Quality over Quantity in the US Military Budget.” The Brookings Institution, December 2, 2019, available online at: www.brooki​ngs.edu/​pol​icy2​020/​bigid​eas/​focus​ing-​on-​qual​ity-​over-​ quant​ity-​in-​the-​us-​milit​ary-​bud​get/​ Organisation for Economic Co-​operation and Development (OECD), Development Assistance Committee (DAC) Gender Equality Marker, 2023, available online at: www.oecd.org/​dac/​gen​der-​deve​lopm​ent/​dac-​gen​der-​equal​ity-​mar​ker.htm Peace Corps, “The Founding Moment.” 1960. accessed online February 2023 at: www.pea​ceco​rps.gov/​about/​hist​ory/​found​ing-​mom​ent/​#:~:text=​Follow​ing%20 up%20on%20the%20i​dea,in%20f​i ve%20co​untr​ies%20in%201​961 Peter G. Peterson Foundation, “U.S. Defense Spending Compared to Other Countries.” Graph. May 11, 2022, available online at: www.pgpf.org/​chart-​arch​ ive/​0053_​defe​nse-​com​pari​son Piccard, Ann M., “U.S. Ratification of CEDAW: From Bad to Worse.” Minnesota Journal of Law & Inequality Vol. 28, No. 1 (2010): Article 3, available online at: https://​scho​lars​hip.law.umn.edu/​cgi/​view​cont​ent.cgi?arti​cle=​1133&cont​ext=​ lawi​neq “Preserving Alliances” Petition, 2018, available online at: https://​docs.goo​gle.com/​ forms/​d/​e/​1FAIpQLSesHdZWxpp13plS4nkLOSM​Hv4D​g1ja​ksBr​CC6k​Wv6O​ fVAm​O5g/​viewf​orm Priest, Dana, The Mission: Waging War and Keeping Peace with America’s Military, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2003. Ray, Ambassador Charles, “Why Defense Gets 12 Times More Money than Diplomacy.” Washington International Diplomatic Academy, April 25, 2021, available online at: https://​diplom​atic​acad​emy.us/​2021/​04/​25/​diplom​acy-​defe​nse-​ bud​get/​ Razavi, Shahrashoub and Carol Miller, “From WID to GAD: Conceptual Shifts in the Women and Development Discourse.” United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD), February 1, 1995, available online at: www.files. ethz.ch/​isn/​38688/​OP%200​01c.pdf Restad, Hilde Eliassen, American Exceptionalism: An Idea that Made a Nation and Remade the World, London: Routledge, 2014. Rosensteil, Thomas, “The Problem of American Exceptionalism: Our Values and Attitudes May Be Misunderstood, but They Have Consequences on the World Scene.” Pew Research Center, May 9, 2006, available online at: www.pewr​esea​ rch.org/​2006/​05/​09/​the-​prob​lem-​of-​ameri​can-​exc​epti​onal​ism/​ Saldinger, Adva, “Investment in Diplomacy, Development More Effective than Defense, Says Senior US Military Official.” DevEx, June 19, 2018, available online

110  The Global Role of the U.S.

at: www.devex.com/​news/​inv​estm​ent-​in-​diplom​acy-​deve​lopm​ent-​more-​effect​ive-​ than-​defe​nse-​says-​sen​ior-​us-​milit​ary-​offic​ial-​92956 Saldinger, Adva. “New USAID Gender Policy Driven by Politics, Not Best Practice, Advocates Say.” DevEx, January 8, 2021, available online at: www.devex. com/​news/​new-​usaid-​gen​der-​pol​icy-​dri​ven-​by-​polit​ics-​not-​best-​pract​ice-​advoca​ tes-​say-​98874 Sen, Gita and Caren Grown. Development, Crises and Alternative Visions: Third World Women’s Perspectives, London: Monthly Review Press, 1987, available online at: www.dawn​net.org/​sites/​defa​ult/​files/​artic​les/​devt_​cris​esal​t_​vi​sion​s_​se​n_​ an​d_​gr​own.pdf Spruill, Marjorie. Divided We Stand: The Battle over Women’s Rights and Family Values That Polarized American Politics, New York: Bloomsbury, 2017. Statista, “Gender Distribution of Active Duty Officers in the U.S. Department of Defense in 2021, by Service Branch.” 2023. available online at: www.stati​sta. com/ ​sta ​tist​ i cs/​ 2 32​ 6 08/​g en​ d er-​o f-​u s-​ d od-​o ffic ​e rs-​ in-​ 2010-​by- ​s erv​ice-​ bra​ nch/​ #:~:text=​ A cr​ o ss%20all%20b ​ r anc ​ h es%20of%20the,compa ​ r ed%20to%20 17%2C275%20fem​ale%20o​ffic​ers Syed, Nafees Ayisa, “The 3 D’s of Foreign Affairs.” Harvard Political Review (2010, September). Taşli, Kaan. “A Conceptual Framework for Gender and Development Studies: From Welfare to Empowerment.” Österreichische Forschungsstiftung für Entwicklungshilfe (ÖFSE), 2007, available online at: www.oefse.at/​filead​min/​cont​ ent/​Downlo​ads/​Publik​atio​nen/​Foren/​Foru​m32.pdf The White House, “United States Strategy on Women, Peace and Security.” June 2019, accessed online February 2023 at: www.pea​cewo​men.org/​sites/​defa​ult/​files/​ WPS-​Strat​egy-​FINAL-​PDF-​6.11.19.pdf The White House, “Women’s Global Development and Prosperity Initiative White House Annual Report 2019–​ 2020.” 2020, accessed online February 2023 at: https://​trum​pwhi​teho​use.archi​ves.gov/​wp-​cont​ent/​uplo​ads/​2020/​02/​WGDP-​ 2019-​Ann​ual-​Rep​ort-​02102​020.pdf The White House, “Executive Order on Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities through the Federal Government.” January 20, 2021a, accessed online February 2023 at: www.whi​teho​use.gov/​brief​i ng-​room/​presi​dent​ ial-​acti​ons/​2021/​01/​20/​execut​ive-​order-​advanc​ing-​rac​ial-​equ​ity-​and-​supp​ort-​for-​ unde​rser​ved-​comm​unit​ies-​thro​ugh-​the-​fede​ral-​gov​ernm​ent/​ The White House, “Executive Order on Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation.” January 20, 2021b, accessed online February 2023 at: www.whi​teho​use.gov/​brief​i ng-​room/​presi​dent​ial-​acti​ons/​ 2021/​01/​20/​execut​ive-​order-​pre​vent​ing-​and-​combat​ing-​dis​crim​inat​ion-​on-​basis-​ of-​gen​der-​ident​ity-​or-​sex​ual-​orie​ntat​ion/​ The White House, “Executive Order 14020, Establishment of the White House Gender Policy Council.” March 8, 2021c, accessed online February 2023 at: www. whi​teho​use.gov/​brief​i ng-​room/​presi​dent​ial-​acti​ons/​2021/​03/​08/​execut​ive-​order-​ on-​establ​ishm​ent-​of-​the-​white-​house-​gen​der-​pol​icy-​coun​cil/​ The White House, “Interim National Security Strategic Guidance.” March 2021d, accessed online February 2023 at: www.whi​teho​use.gov/​wp-​cont​ent/​uplo​ads/​ 2021/​03/​NSC-​1v2.pdf The White House. “United States Government Women, Peace and Security (WPS) Congressional Report.” June 2021e, accessed online February 2023 at:

The Global Role of the U.S.  111

www.whi​ t eho ​ u se.gov/ ​ w p- ​ c ont ​ e nt/ ​ u plo ​ a ds/ ​ 2 021/​ 0 7/​ U SG_​ Women_​ P eace_​ Security_​WPS_​Cong​ress​iona​l_​Re​port​_​FIN​AL6.30.2021-​Upda​ted-​July-​16.pdf The White House, “National Strategy on Gender Equity and Equality.” October 22, 2021f, accessed online February 2023 at: www.whi​teho​use.gov/​wp-​cont​ent/​uplo​ ads/​2021/​10/​Natio​nal-​Strat​egy-​on-​Gen​der-​Equ​ity-​and-​Equal​ity.pdf The White House, Executive Order 14091, Further Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities through the Federal Government, 2023. The White House, “Fact Sheet: The President’s Budget for Fiscal Year 2023.” March 28, 2022a, accessed online February 2023 at: www.whi​teho​use.gov/​omb/​brief​i ng-​ room/​2022/​03/​28/​fact-​sheet-​the-​pre​side​nts-​bud​get-​for-​fis​cal-​year-​2023/​ The White House, “Fact Sheet: U.S. Government Women Peace and Security Report to Congress.” July 18, 2022b, accessed online February 2023 at: www.whi​teho​ use.gov/​brief​i ng-​room/​sta​teme​nts-​relea​ses/​2022/​07/​18/​fact-​sheet-​us-​gov​ernm​ent-​ women-​peace-​and-​sec​urit​yrep​ort-​to-​congr​ess/​ The White House, “National Security Strategy.” October 2022c, accessed online February 2023 at: www.whi​teho​use.gov/​wp-​cont​ent/​uplo​ads/​2022/​10/​Biden-​Har​ ris-​Admi​nist​rati​ons-​Natio​nal-​Secur​ity-​Strat​egy-​10.2022.pdf The White House, “Gender Policy Council, about the Director website.” 2023. accessed online February 2023 at: www.whi​teho​use.gov/​gpc/​about-​the-​direc​tor/​ United Nations, “Comprehensive Outline of a World Survey on the Role of Women in Development: Report of the Secretary-​General.” 1981, available online at: https://​ dig​ital​libr​ary.un.org/​rec​ord/​24542?ln=​en United Nations, “Gender Equality and Social Inclusion: UN Peace Fund for Nepal Strategies and Lessons Learned.” 2016. available online at: https://​relief​web.int/​ sites/​relief​web.int/​files/​resour​ces/​Gen​der%20E​qual​ity%20and%20Soc​ial%20Incl ​ usio​n_​1.pdf U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), “USAID Gender Equality and Female Empowerment Policy.” March 2012, accessed online February 2023 at: https://​2012-​2017.usaid.gov/​sites/​defa​ult/​files/​docume​nts/​1865/​Gen​derE​qual​ ityP​olic​y_​0.pdf U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), “Press Release: Fiscal Year 2023 President’s Budget Request.” March 28, 2022a, accessed online February 2023 at: www.usaid.gov/​news-​info​rmat​ion/​press-​relea​ses/​mar-​28-​2022-​fis​cal-​ year-​2023-​pre​side​nts-​bud​get-​requ​est U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), “United States Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Gender-​Based Violence Globally 2022.” 2022b, accessed online February 2023 at: www.state.gov/​wp-​cont​ent/​uplo​ads/​2022/​12/​GBV-​Glo​ bal-​Strat​egy-​Report​_​v6-​Acc​essi​ble-​1292​022.pdf U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), USAID Mission Directors website. 2017–​ 2020 Archive for the United States Agency for International Development, 2020, accessed online February 2023 at: https://​2017-​2020.usaid. gov/​who-​we-​are/​organ​izat​ion/​miss​ion-​direct​ors U.S. Department of Defense, “DoD Brings Unique Capabilities to Ebola Response Mission, Official Says.” November 12, 2014, accessed online February 2023 at: www.defe​nse.gov/​News/​News-​Stor​ies/​Arti​cle/​Arti​cle/​603​631/​dod-​bri​ngs-​uni​ que-​capab​ilit​ies-​to-​ebola-​respo​nse-​miss​ion-​offic​ial-​says/​ U.S. Department of Defense, Goldwater–​Nichols DOD Reorganization Act, 10 USC 162, 1986. accessed online February 2023 at: https://​hist​ory.defe​nse.gov/​Port​als/​ 70/​Docume​nts/​dod_​refo​rms/​Goldwa​ter-​Nic​hols​DoDR​eord​Act1​986.pdf

112  The Global Role of the U.S.

U.S. Department of Defense, “Statement by Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III on the President’s Fiscal Year 2023 Budget.” March 28, 2022, accessed online February 2023 at: www.defe​nse.gov/​News/​Relea​ses/​Rele​ase/​Arti​cle/​2980​014/​the-​ dep​artm​ent-​of-​defe​nse-​relea​ses-​the-​pre​side​nts-​fis​cal-​year-​2023-​defe​nse-​budg/​ U.S. Department of State, “U.S. Department of State Policy Guidance: Promoting Gender Equality to Achieve our National Security and Foreign Policy Objectives.” March 2012, accessed online February 2023 at: https://​2009-​2017.state.gov/​ docume​nts/​organ​izat​ion/​189​379.pdf U.S. Department of State, “Equity Action Plan.” April 2022, accessed online February 2023 at: www.state.gov/​wp-​cont​ent/​uplo​ads/​2022/​04/​Equ​ity-​Act​ion-​Plan-​Webs​ ite-​04132​022.pdf U.S. Department of State, “United States Strategy on Global Women’s Economic Security.” January 2023, accessed online February 2023 at: www.state.gov/​wp-​ cont​ e nt/​ uplo​ads/​2 023/​0 1/​ U .S.-​ S trat​egy-​ o n-​ Glo​bal- ​Wom​ e ns-​Econo​mic-​ Secur​ ity.pdf U.S. Government, “Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.” 1961, accessed online February 2023 at: www.govi​nfo.gov/​cont​ent/​pkg/​COMPS-​1071/​pdf/​COMPS-​1071.pdf U.S. Government, “William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021.” 2020. accessed online February 2023 at: www.congr​ess. gov/​bill/​116th-​congr​ess/​house-​bill/​6395/​text U.S. Government, “Women, Peace and Security Act of 2017.” 2017. accessed online February 2023 at: www.congr​ess.gov/​bill/​115th-​congr​ess/​sen​ate-​bill/​1141 U.S. Government, “Women’s Entrepreneurship and Economic Empowerment Act of 2018.” 2018. accessed online February 2023 at: www.congr​ess.gov/​bill/​115th-​ congr​ess/​house-​bill/​5480 U.S. International Development Finance Corporation website, 2023. accessed online February 2023 at: www.dfc.gov/​who-​we-​are U.S. Millennium Challenge Corporation website, 2023. accessed online February 2023 at: www.mcc.gov/​about Wakefield, Penny. “CEDAW Ratification: Backseated Once Again.” American Bar Association, July 1, 2010, available online at: www.amer​ican​bar.org/​gro​ups/​crsj/​ publi​cati​ons/​hum​an_​r​ight​s_​ma​gazi​ne_​h​ome/​huma​n_​ri​ghts​_​vol​37_​2​010/​sum​mer2​ 010/​cedaw_​ratific​atio​n_​ba​ckse​ated​_​onc​e_​ag​ain/​ Ward, Alexander and Quint Forgey. “Here’s What’s in Biden’s Natsec Budget.” Politico, March 28, 2022, available online at: www.polit​ico.com/​news​lett​ers/​natio​ nal-​secur​ity-​daily/​2022/​03/​28/​heres-​whats-​in-​bid​ens-​nat​sec-​bud​get-​00021​009 Women’s Foreign Policy Group website, 2023. available online at: www.wfpg.org/​ about-​wfpg Women Thrive Worldwide, “Women and Gender in the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR).” 2011. Not available online. World Economic Outlook Database, International Monetary Fund, October 2022, available online at: www.imf.org/​en/​Publi​cati​ons/​WEO/​weo-​datab​ase/​2022/​ Octo​ber

5 OPERATIONALIZING FEMINIST FOREIGN POLICY IN THE U.S.

Feminist foreign policy is an approach for government action that is based on historical events and movements, encompasses a set of key principles, has been adopted by a small set of countries, is being implemented in some ways already by the U.S. government, and could be further operationalized. This chapter investigates what would be needed to implement a feminist foreign policy within any government and specifically within the U.S. government. While the U.S. government has not adopted a feminist foreign policy to date, it has taken numerous steps toward a gender-​focused policy. These steps started in earnest in the mid-​1990s as countries including the U.S. prepared for the UN Fourth World Conference on Women: Action for Equality, Development and Peace, held in Beijing, China. These efforts continued throughout successive administrations of both political parties, although depending on the party in power, they were broader or narrower in scope and reflected differing approaches to ensuring women’s participation in the economy and public life. The Biden Administration has taken a number of concrete and far-​reaching actions in this regard, building particularly on the work done during Barack Obama’s presidency and Hillary Clinton’s tenure as U.S. Secretary of State. As learned from the experience of other countries, as detailed in Chapter 3, the necessary ingredients include political will (which is a precondition for the other three); structural and institutional changes; the increased representation of women across all parts of government, particularly in the fields of national security and foreign policy; and the commitment of resources. Feminist foreign policy is based squarely on the concepts of gender equality and equity. Within a feminist foreign policy, gender equality is both a goal of the policy and a strategy for implementing the policy. This is because gender DOI: 10.4324/9781003295617-6

114  Operationalizing Feminist Foreign Policy in the U.S.

equality is not only a moral imperative but central to global goals of security and international peace. Feminist foreign policy requires a shift in perspective to account for the differential impact of policies on women and men and a transformation of government institutions and policies. This chapter describes events, activities, and policies of other countries that have been used to integrate principles of gender equality and a gender analysis into foreign policy and security decision-​making and policy implementation. These events, activities, and policies are, of course, context-​and country-​ specific but also present models that can be adapted and implemented in the U.S. and other countries across the globe. As has been discussed in earlier chapters, the U.S. government has made strides to address gender equality and equity and improve the lives of women and girls globally. This work has evolved and developed over time, and is reflected by treaties signed by the U.S., national legislative frameworks (Women, Peace, and Security Act of 2017; the Women’s Entrepreneurship and Economic Empowerment Act of 2018) and foreign policy initiatives and strategies (National Strategy on Gender Equity and Equality, 2021). As discussed in Chapter 1, this includes a wide range of international agreements such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Beijing Declaration and Platform, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and the UN Security Council Resolutions on Women, Peace, and Security. In 1995, then-​First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton spoke at the Fourth World Conference on Women (the Beijing Conference), explicitly linking women’s rights and human rights (Clinton, 1995). National legislative frameworks include the Women, Peace, and Security Act of 2017 and the Women’s Entrepreneurship and Economic Empowerment Act of 2018. There has been gender guidance promulgated within U.S. government agencies, beginning with guidance issued by the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) in 2006, albeit it has been unevenly launched and implemented. In addition, agencies have developed specific strategies around addressing gender-​based violence, the issues faced by adolescent girls, and how to further women’s economic empowerment (U.S. Department of State, 2023). The Departments of Defense, State, Homeland Security, and USAID have produced national action plans or strategies to implement the women, peace, and security agenda (U.S. Strategy on Women, Peace and Security, 2019). The texture of this work, both across the globe and within the U.S. government, has expanded and transformed over time. It has evolved from a focus on women and girls as somewhat passive beneficiaries of development assistance to a framework focused on gender equality and equity. This expansion is predicated on an evolving recognition that women and girls are not simply passive recipients of assistance or other programs but have the agency, skills, and knowledge to address the issues facing

Operationalizing Feminist Foreign Policy in the U.S.  115

them, their families, and communities. It also reflects an understanding that gender norms are part of this ecosystem. These norms must be examined and changed in order for fundamental and transformational change to occur. Further, all members of the community, including men and boys, must be part of these efforts. Using an overtly feminist lens, and centering gender equality in foreign policy and national security policymaking processes, is the next iteration of this work. Operationalizing a Feminist Foreign Policy

As advocates argue for a U.S. foreign and national security policy that is more explicitly feminist, examples from other countries can inform and accelerate the use of this approach. These examples reflect the following imperatives for a transformational policy: the importance of political will and leadership commitment; structural and institutional changes; the increased representation of women across government, particularly in the fields of national security and foreign policy; and the allocation of resources, both financial and otherwise. Political Will and Leadership Commitment

Political will is fundamental to any kind of social change, but it is often difficult to outline what it means in practice. It is a necessary precondition to the other fundamentals of a feminist foreign policy: advancing structural and institutional changes, increasing representation of women across all parts of government, particularly in the fields of national security and foreign policy, and committing financial resources. Political scientists define political will as the sustained commitment of political actors to invest the necessary resources to undertake reforms and implement policy framework, even if that policy framework is not immediately successful or popular (Oxfam GB, 2005). This is reflected by visible and sustained commitment by elected and appointed leaders, which is crucial to changing attitudes, policies, and programs. This is the case in general, but also the case with respect to advancing gender equality and ensuring that related policy reforms and changes are sustainable. This type of commitment can be reflected by ratification of international treaties or the introduction and passage of national or subnational laws. External pressure from donors, voters, advocates, and civil society organizations can also increase commitment. According to Lori Ann Post and her coauthors, collective political will exists when a sufficient set of decision-​makers with a common understanding of a particular problem on the formal agenda support a commonly perceived, potentially effective policy solution (Post et al., 2010). Most critical is how

116  Operationalizing Feminist Foreign Policy in the U.S.

to judge what constitutes both a “common understanding” of a problem and an “effective policy solution.” The clearest signal of a common understanding of a problem is when a large political coalition forms to focus on a problem and that coalition uses common terms and language. Further, the authors posit there must be a general consensus on the solution to the problem the group is organized around and some good-​faith belief that the solution/​policy response will be effective. Others underscore that, while political will is important, it is only one part of the explanation for any political outcome (Government of the United Kingdom). In the context of feminist foreign policy, most of the initial impetus, and political will propelling these policies forward, has initially come from individual political and governmental leaders or the political platforms of ruling parties and not specifically from advocacy and/​ or grassroots movements. These initial efforts, however, have been greatly influenced by other initiatives and grassroots advocacy to increase women’s leadership and participation in the context of peace and security. This includes the advocacy and activism that led to UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace, and Security, which many see as a precursor to feminist foreign policy (Johnson-​Freese & Markham, 2022). Although civil society has played a significant role in creating an enabling environment for numerous feminist and gender-​ focused policies, recent research from the International Women’s Development Agency in Australia shows the decision to label policies as “feminist” was often made by an individual minister or head of government. This analysis highlights that political will for these announcements can come from a mix of personal views, political ideologies, values, and opportunistic drivers (Ridge & Pradella, 2021). In this research, leaders from civil society advocating for gender equality as a priority reflected that they had not anticipated the declaration of an explicitly feminist policy by their governments. One Canadian advocate noted that [t]‌here was [a] push from a whole range of civil society organisations to have stronger emphasis on gender equality [but] … a lot of us were really surprised when the Government put feminism in the title of the Feminist International Assistance Policy in 2017. (Gill-​Atkinson et al., 2021) Sweden adopted the first feminist foreign policy in 2014, driven in large part by Margot Wallström and the governing coalition formed by her political party. At that time, her political party, the Swedish Social Democrats, formed a coalition government and in that process committed that Sweden

Operationalizing Feminist Foreign Policy in the U.S.  117

would adopt a feminist foreign policy (Scrutton, 2015). Wallström is widely seen as the driver of this policy initiative and analysts link her commitment on this issue to her activism and world view (Bengtsson, 2019). After she was appointed foreign minister, the country adopted such a policy, which continued through successive governments until 2022 when it was rescinded by a newly elected conservative government. When Justin Trudeau was elected prime minister of Canada, he was asked why a gender-​ balanced Cabinet was important. He famously answered, “because it’s 2015” (Trudeau, 2015). Trudeau’s Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland at the time later said, “It is important, and historic, that we have a prime minister and a government proud to proclaim ourselves feminists” (Freeland, 2015). This government has since created a feminist international assistance policy, a feminist trade policy, and appointed an Ambassador for Women, Peace, and Security. More recently in 2022, in her first speech to the German Bundestag, Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock announced that Germany would adopt a feminist foreign policy. She acknowledged the challenges with the term feminist foreign policy but said: “it’s actually quite simple: this is about representation, about rights and about resources. After all, if half of the population are unable to participate as equals and do not have equal representation or pay, then democracies are not complete” (Baerbock, 2022). These are all examples of how political will can impact policy change. In all three cases, commitment to the principles of feminist foreign policy was centered at the highest levels of government. Individual political actors and political parties led the way in promoting an ideology based on women’s leadership and gender equality and, importantly, in moving bureaucratic mechanisms and institutions to meet their goals. Importantly, these countries, as well as others that have adopted some version of feminist foreign policy, used a fairly common broad definition of the problem they are seeking to address: that leaving women, girls, and gender equality out of foreign policy and national security made their citizens less safe, prosperous, and secure. It is important to note that leaders of more developed countries, such as those discussed earlier, and leaders of countries who have suffered invasion, civil war, economic fragility, and environmental chaos do not necessarily define security in the same way. Generally, more developed countries are comfortable with the current world order because it has led to prosperity and economic growth. Further, this structure has meant that, for the most part, armed conflict has not occurred on their territory. While this post-​World War II sense of security has been tempered by terrorist attacks, such as those that took place in New York on September 11, 2001, it has not led to a wholesale transformation of how developed countries define security. A broadened

118  Operationalizing Feminist Foreign Policy in the U.S.

definition of security is critical to these policy debates and discussions and must take into account factors that lead to instability, and often to conflict. These factors include economic instability, changing environment, social upheaval, disease, chronic violence, and lack of rule of law. In this context, the push for feminist foreign policy comes from two distinct groups. The first group comprises countries where the level of social, economic, and political gender equality is already quite high. These societies see that in practice greater equality helps everyone in society, and they do not necessarily see a feminist foreign policy, or a gender-​focused foreign policy, as radical. The challenge is that the feminist policies adopted by these countries are mostly focused on transforming the institutions with mandates around development and diplomacy, but not defense. Countries in the Global South are also advocating for feminist policies. Unlike developed countries, however, they do not see the global system working for them, due to civil war and conflict, uneven and unfair economic models, and extraction of natural resources without adequate compensation. Their citizens know because of global communication and social media about the economic and social gaps that exist, are frustrated, and have reverted to domestic protest and sometimes violence to communicate their frustration. These are the women of Iran, the protestors from rural Peru, and the demonstrators in Myanmar, India, Sudan, and Georgia. Within the U.S. political structure and system, the development of a feminist foreign policy will take strong leadership and political will across the Executive and Legislative Branches. The President, members of her or his cabinet, civil servants, foreign service officers, military leaders, and Members of Congress must believe that the U.S. would be safer with a different kind of foreign policy and support the policy and programmatic work needed to ensure that change occurs. According to the 2022 Scorecard on Feminist Foreign Policy in the U.S. (Coalition for a Feminist Foreign Policy in the United States, 2022), conducted by the Coalition for a Feminist Foreign Policy in the United States (the Coalition), the Biden Administration has made some key efforts to advance core goals of gender equality, human rights, bodily autonomy, environmental integrity, and peace, “even if they have fallen short of a comprehensive feminist foreign policy.” The Coalition, however, gave the Biden Administration just a 50 percent overall score for its first year in office, arguing that the Biden Administration must increase high-​level political will focused on gender equality, further integrate gender across all of the issues addressed by U.S. foreign policy, and significantly increase resources to gender equality and women’s leadership. In the “mid-​term” report in early 2023, the Coalition acknowledged the dramatic increase in the administration’s budget request for gender equality

Operationalizing Feminist Foreign Policy in the U.S.  119

in foreign assistance, its work to reverse many of the harmful elements of the previous administration and steps taken to support civil society consultation and cocreation in foreign policy decision-​ making spaces (Thompson et al., 2023). This analysis reflects the challenges of implementating policy commitments, especially in terms of the length of time it takes to move and transform government institutions within the U.S. system. It also reflects that moving such changes legislatively can also be difficult in an environment with a closely divided government and partisan divides across many issues. Having said that, administrations of both political parties have supported increased representation of women in leadership and greater equality, but there has been no consensus across political parties for a truly feminist foreign policy. The Obama Administration was a global leader in creating an Ambassador-​at-​Large for Global Women’s Issues, which spurred the creation of similar positions in many countries and an increased focus on women and gender in foreign policy, development, and national security. The Biden Administration established the U.S. Gender Policy Council to send a strong signal, both internally and externally, about its beliefs and commitment, and about the need to link domestic and outward facing policies. But, advocates do not see this as enough, even as they laud the steps taken toward a feminist foreign policy in the U.S. As the Coalition stated in its 2022 Scorecard, [d]‌ espite these gains [outlined], however, many gender equality and women’s rights advocates argue that the Biden-​ Harris administration missed a unique opportunity in the last year to demonstrate swift and assertive leadership in tackling systemic inequality in order to strengthen the domestic recovery and renew U.S. global leadership. (Coalition for a Feminist Foreign Policy in the United States, 2022) The 2023 Scorecard noted that pursuing transformative policies is harder with a divided government after the midterm elections (Thompson et al., 2023). In general, the ability of a political leader to effectively argue for a feminist foreign policy is based on more than having the commitment to that policy. That leader –​or set of leaders –​must be able to convince others that such a policy is fundamental to making the U.S. safer and more secure. This can be a challenging argument as there are deeply ingrained and gendered views about the effective exercise of power and what it takes to ensure national security. The challenge is to develop a deeper understanding that security encompasses more than acquiring weapons systems and expanding defense capabilities but is also based on expanding the knowledge base and range of tools the government uses to deliver comprehensive, concrete results for

120  Operationalizing Feminist Foreign Policy in the U.S.

real people. This includes explaining connections between food insecurity, climate change, migration, instability, and national security. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken broadened the security lens and approach in his first foreign policy speech, A Foreign Policy for the American People (Speech by Secretary Antony Blinken, 2021). In that speech, he outlined the foreign policy priorities of, and challenges facing, the Biden Administration, including COVID-​ 19, global economic growth, climate change, and the need to renew democracy. After doing so, he asserted that these critical priorities are “simultaneously domestic and foreign issues,” and that in this era, distinctions between domestic and foreign policy “have simply fallen away.” Blinken also connected U.S. foreign policy with American values, which include “stand[ing] up against injustice toward women and girls, LGBTQI people, religious minorities, and people of all races and ethnicities.” The U.S. National Strategy on Gender Equity and Equality builds on this commitment and decades of work across the government to make the case that gender equality builds stronger, prosperous, and more secure societies (National Strategy on Gender Equity and Equality, 2021). Having said that, there has not been enough of an explicit policy connection between gender equality and increased national security. Exceptions include U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-​NH). Commenting on the first U.S. Strategy on Global Women’s Economic Security, Shaheen said, When women’s personal freedoms and economic opportunities are suppressed, their growth potential suffers … It is both a moral prerogative and in the best interest of U.S. national security to prioritize policies that tear down these barriers and promote gender equality. (Shaheen, 2023) When it comes to political will, there are also challenges with the label “Feminist Foreign Policy.” Some in political leadership, such as the current Swedish government, see the term as divisive. Norwegian policymakers are more focused on policy content than the name of the policy. A number of advocates, however, see the term “feminist foreign policy” as important, as it sends a signal of commitment to a core set of principles and perspectives. Discussing Sweden’s decision to rescind its feminist foreign policy label, feminist advocates argue: “Sweden’s feminist foreign policy made it clear, once and for all, that gender equality [is] not a side issue. Rather, it is central when looking at global security, economic prosperity and climate disaster” (Thompson, 2023). So, while the Biden Administration has taken some steps toward a more feminist foreign policy, it has not labeled its initiatives as such. Some advocates want a bolder statement and a clearer sign of political will.

Operationalizing Feminist Foreign Policy in the U.S.  121

Structural and Institutional Change

Structural and institutional change is predicated on leaders having the political will to envision new ways of organization and focus. To date, the majority of interventions and structural changes that governments have launched and adopted as part of feminist foreign policy have expanded the understanding of what constitutes foreign policy. These changes have taken place within existing ministries or have prioritized gender issues and women’s leadership across government. Some governments have expanded the definition of foreign policy by elevating foreign assistance or development programs within the 3D structure of development, diplomacy, and defense. That is, they have elevated nondefense functions in an attempt to change the balance of power between the 3Ds and often placed more emphasis on development programs. In 2015, Canada restructured its development assistance program and renamed it the Feminist International Assistance Policy. This policy has a specific mandate to promote gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls to “reduce extreme poverty and build a more peaceful, inclusive and prosperous world” (Government of Canada, 2017). In June 2017, Canada’s first new policy statement on foreign assistance in over a decade set an ambitious agenda, making gender equality and feminism central to this work (Government of Canada, 2017). Under this policy, Canada’s approach is to both target specific programs that support gender equality and ensure that all of its development programs have a gender aspect. This dual approach –​both targeted and crosscutting –​ is structured to maximize the impact of dollars spent. The targeted aspect focuses on fighting poverty and inequality by supporting gender equality and defending the rights of women and girls. The cross-​cutting aspect means that all international assistance initiatives are to be crafted and implemented to improve gender equality and empower women and girls. This framework calls for women at the local level to be involved more directly in the planning and design of development programs. According to the Minister of International Development and La Francophonie, entities that implement Canada’s foreign assistance programs must involve women and women’s organizations in planning, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of projects (Government of Canada, 2017). Canada has committed to work closely with local women groups, particularly on sexual and reproductive health, child, early and forced marriage, and access to the formal economy and decision-​making. When Germany launched its feminist foreign policy in 2020, it also committed to a feminist development assistance policy, with the goals of eliminating structural inequalities, unequal treatment and discrimination, including racist structures and power relations (Government of Germany,

122  Operationalizing Feminist Foreign Policy in the U.S.

2020). According to the German Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), this policy and its implementation will help address hunger, poverty and inequality, human rights, and sustainable use of natural resources. The policy notes that it was developed in consultations with over 400 entities and individuals from German civil society and across the globe, another key tenet of feminist foreign policy (Government of Germany, 2020). These consultations were both in person and held virtually. The recommendations made based on those extensive consultations have the goal of transforming the nature of German development assistance. The recommendations included the need for more diversity and gender expertise within the BMZ, the elevation of the BMZ’s gender division within the organizational structure, an increase in funding and other resources for this work, a commitment to policy cocreation with civil society, the incorporation of decolonial and antiracist perspectives in project design, and the importance of building alliances with local women’s groups (Government of Germany). While the results do not necessarily reflect the position of the BMZ, they were published on BMZ’s webpage and according to BMZ, the recommendations “create an important basis for the development of the BMZ’s feminist development policy strategy as well as the third Gender Action Plan” (Government of Germany). In addition to the elevation of development with the foreign policy framework, feminist foreign policy expands what is seen and perceived as foreign policy. Trade is one of these areas. Trade policy is often seen as adjacent to foreign policy and national security. It is also seen as gender neutral. Neither is the case. The goal of feminist trade policy is to address gender-​specific trade barriers, including legal frameworks and practices, and to ensure that men and women benefit equally from, and have equal access to, global markets and the opportunities that flow from trade and investment. Feminist trade policy acknowledges that women and men are affected by trade in different ways. A more gender-​focused trade policy addresses legal frameworks and practices that disproportionately affect women. This can mean changing laws, advancing women’s role in trade through free trade agreements (FTAs), and using the World Trade Organization and other bodies to better understand trade’s impact on gender equality. As an example, a bilateral or multilateral free trade agreement can strike burdensome licensing requirements, which can disproportionately hurt women-​owned businesses because they tend to be smaller than those owned by men and have fewer funds to hire professionals to comply with regulations (Lim et al., 2021). Both Sweden and Canada have integrated a feminist approach in their trade policy and trade agreements. In 2019, Sweden adopted a feminist trade policy to focus on gender as a market access issue and prioritize the sectors, products, and services that primarily affect women in trade negotiations

Operationalizing Feminist Foreign Policy in the U.S.  123

(Thompson & Clement, 2019). Sweden also committed to recruit more women in trade policy positions, given that less than 30 percent of Swedish trade commissioners were women, and to report sex-​disaggregated data on its trade and commercial delegations. In addition, Sweden examined consumer product design, in order to ensure that men and women’s different body sizes were considered in design processes. For example, women in Sweden are 47 percent more likely than men to be injured in car accidents because safety standards had been developed, and vehicles manufactured, in accordance with specifications based on male bodies (The Local, 2019). Canada also has a feminist approach to trade policy (Council on Foreign Relations, 2020) and raised gender equality and nondiscrimination in some of its ongoing trade negotiations, most notably to eliminate employment discrimination in labor cooperation agreements and revise labor chapters in FTAs (Government of Canada). This means advocating for provisions to ensure that all parties to a FTA enforce gender equality laws; do not lower the standards set forth in gender equality laws to attract trade; ensure that women have access to, ownership of, and control over economic resources; and make a commitment to advance gender equality and women’s economic empowerment (Giroux, 2019). As of 2022, two of Canada’s trade agreements have gender provisions. In 2017, Canada’s first gender chapter was included in the revised Canada–​ Chile FTA. This chapter has been replicated in the Canada–​Israel FTA, signed in 2018. These provisions reaffirm the importance of a gender perspective on economic and trade issues and reaffirm the parties’ commitments to gender equality and women’s rights. The agreements also establish dedicated trade and gender committees to advance accountability and transparency. Similarly, Canada established a Gender and Trade Advisory Group to seek input from a wide range of stakeholders on the intersection of gender and trade, including trade and gender experts, academics, and leading organizations on women in business. To date, the U.S. has not used a gendered approach to trade although Ambassador Katherine Tai, the U.S. Trade Representative in the Biden Administration, has taken initial steps to tackle racial and gender trade inequities. At the 2021 Summit for Democracy, Ambassador Tai explicitly linked gender equality and equity with better economic outcomes, reiterating that countries with greater gender inequality are more likely to face higher levels of poverty, violence, and authoritarianism [and] conversely, countries that promote inclusivity and gender equity are more peaceful, more stable, and enjoy higher economic growth. Empowering women and girls is not just a moral imperative, but it helps us achieve greater global prosperity and security.

124  Operationalizing Feminist Foreign Policy in the U.S.

She also set out that her office is developing policies around inclusive economic growth and prosperity, including woman-​owned businesses and women entrepreneurs (Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, 2021). Additionally, the U.S. intends to join the Joint Declaration on the Advancement of Gender Equality and Women’s Economic Empowerment within Trade. There has not, however, been a specific commitment by the U.S. to incorporate human rights and gender equality into trade agreements or a new mechanism to link gender equality with environmental and labor issues in those agreements (Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, 2021). Within the U.S. government, structural and institutional changes leading to a rebalance between defense, diplomacy, and development are often politically difficult. Defense spending accounts for nearly half of all discretionary spending (Earl, 2022). To put this in context, the U.S. government fiscal year 2022 defense budget was 13 times larger than the combined budgets of the Department of State and USAID (Foreign Policy For America, 2021). President Biden has, however, taken steps to elevate development and diplomacy in the structure of the U.S. government. He elevated the USAID Administrator to the National Security Council and created the U.S. Gender Policy Council. However, a key recommendation from the Coalition for a Feminist Foreign Policy in the United States is to fully resource the Gender Policy Council and elevate gender “within the portfolios of foreign policy leadership, including the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the USAID Administrator, [and] the Director of National Intelligence” (Coalition for a Feminist Foreign Policy, 2022). To date, while progress has been made according to the Coalition, this recommendation has not been fully implemented. Increased Representation of Women Across Government

Over time, most decisions in foreign policy and national security have been made by a small group of men in centralized and closely held processes, although as noted in Chapter 4, this is changing. Gender parity and other types of diversity in appointments have expanded. A key tenet of feminist foreign policy, increased diversity helps to ensure that U.S. foreign policy and national security agencies can more effectively carry out their missions. Often, increasing the number of women across government, especially at high levels, is perceived as the end goal of a more gender-​focused or a feminist foreign policy. Increased representation of women is both an important public sign of commitment to a new way of governing and a tool for implementing a feminist foreign policy; however, increased women’s participation is only one of many parts of the framework. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, creating and elevating new high-​level positions to address women, girls, and/​or gender equality

Operationalizing Feminist Foreign Policy in the U.S.  125

and equity have symbolic power, and indicate a country’s commitment to women’s leadership and gender equality as a foreign policy priority (Bro & Turkington, 2020). These roles can also influence political and policy development. The U.S. has led in this area. In 2009, when President Obama appointed Melanne Verveer as the first-​ever U.S. Ambassador-​at-​Large for Global Women’s Issues, there was no equivalent position globally. Almost more important than Verveer’s appointment, however, was that the new position was not seen as symbolic. The fact that her position reported directly to the Secretary of State sent a strong signal throughout the U.S. government broadly, the Department of State, and the world (Bro & Turkington, 2020). Since then, a growing number of countries have followed the U.S. in creating similar high-​level positions within their foreign ministry focused specifically on women and girls, gender equality, or feminist policy. In 2014, Sweden appointed an Ambassador for Gender Equality and Coordinator of Feminist Foreign Policy. This Ambassador led an internal group working on policy development, operational planning, communication, and representation. The Ambassador also worked closely with the Division for Gender Equality at the Swedish Ministry of Employment to coordinate domestic and foreign policy initiatives on gender equality across the government. By 2019, almost ten other governments created similar high-​ level ambassadorial or special envoy positions focused on gender equality or the importance of women and girls in foreign policy: the Seychelles, Australia, Norway, Finland, the United Kingdom, Iceland, Spain, Canada, and the Netherlands (Bro & Turkington, 2020). The individuals filling these positions are responsible for similar issue sets, some with an overt focus on women and girls, others on gender equality, women, peace, and security, or feminist foreign policy. While most primarily focus their efforts externally in terms of diplomatic engagement, some also have an internal mandate to mainstream gender equality within government departments. Spain’s Ambassador for Gender Equality is specifically responsible for maintaining the global vision of Spain’s feminist foreign policy (The Diplomat in Spain, 2018). Both Norway and Canada have appointed an ambassador or special envoy for women, peace, and security (Trudeau, 2019). In naming its first-​ ever Ambassador for Women, Peace, and Security, Prime Minister Trudeau explicitly linked this appointment to Canada’s overall feminist foreign policy and to “championing our women, peace, and security priority commitments at home and around the world” (Government of Canada, 2019). Importantly, he noted that this position will “recommend actions we can take to protect the rights of women facing insecurity and violence and promote their meaningful participation in our development, humanitarian, and peace and security efforts around the globe.” Accordingly, the Ambassador’s mandate spans eight Canadian departments, and one

126  Operationalizing Feminist Foreign Policy in the U.S.

federal agency, to ensure these entities and officials share lessons learned, ideas, and challenges with each other. Outside of a high-​level diplomatic position on gender equality, most, if not all of the countries with a feminist foreign policy, have committed to increasing the number of women in leadership in foreign policy and national security. As examples, France and Mexico have both committed to increase the number of women ambassadors and other high-​ level management positions in the foreign ministry. Mexico and Spain are committed to hiring more women into their respective foreign services. These commitments also extend to using programming and foreign assistance as incentives for countries that receive aid to increase the number of women in leadership positions. For example, in 2017, Canada launched the Elsie Initiative for Women in Peace Operations (Global Affairs Canada, 2017). Prime Minister Trudeau grounded this initiative in Canada’s feminist commitments and to UN Security Council Resolution 2242, which links women’s meaningful involvement in peace operations and the achievement of sustainable peace (Trudeau, 2019). In terms of assessing U.S. leadership broadly, the Coalition for a Feminist Foreign Policy in the United States found that in its first two years, the Biden Administration implemented almost 60 percent of its recommendations on increasing the diversity of foreign policy leadership but fell short of implementing many recommendations that would shift the balance of power within foreign policy decision-​ making. This includes creating a Cabinet-​ level position for the Director of the White House Gender Policy Council, high-​ranking gender advisors within all foreign policy entities, and robust and frequent articulation of a commitment to gender equality at the highest levels (Coalition for a Feminist Foreign Policy, 2022). As of early 2023, the Director of the Gender Policy Council has been elevated to the highest-​level staff position in the White House, Assistant to the President (The White House, 2022), but the Biden Administration’s nominee for the position of Ambassador-​ at-​ Large for Global Women’s was not confirmed until May 2023, over two years after the beginning of the Biden Administration. In 2021, the Department of State appointed its first-​ever Chief Diversity and Inclusion (DEI) Officer, former Ambassador Gina Abercrombie-​ Winstanley, who reports directly to the Secretary of State (Department of State, 2021). This is a position created to make the Department of State workforce and the U.S. diplomatic corps more representative and reflects the Biden Administration’s commitment to diversity, equity, and racial justice. USAID Administrator Samantha Power signaled the Agency’s commitment to DEI on her first day as Administrator, when she signed USAID’s DEI Strategic Plan. This plan commits USAID to improve and enhance diversity throughout the Agency, enhance inclusion and equity in the workplace, and strengthen accountability for promoting and sustaining a diverse workforce

Operationalizing Feminist Foreign Policy in the U.S.  127

and an inclusive culture (USAID, 2021). USAID established the Office of the Chief Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility Officer in early 2022 to advance, coordinate, and provide technical expertise in support of this type of programming and implementation across USAID (USAID, 2022a). IMPORTANCE OF INCREASING WOMEN IN PEACE PROCESSES Mediators assist parties to a conflict, with their consent, to prevent, manage, or resolve that conflict by helping them to develop mutually acceptable agreements. The goal of mediation is to address and resolve conflict in a constructive and nonviolent manner (Bercovitch & Lee, 2003). Several countries with a feminist foreign policy have developed and promoted networks of women mediators to address the persistent dearth of women serving as high-​level mediators of international and regional conflicts. Between 1992 and 2019, women constituted only 13 percent of negotiators, six percent of mediators, and six percent of signatories in major peace processes. Approximately seven out of every ten peace processes still did not include women mediators or women signatories (Council on Foreign Relations website). This is important because when women participate in peace processes, the resulting agreements are more durable and last longer. Initiatives to increase the number of women mediators are an example of how feminist foreign policy can focus on structural and institutional changes as well as elevate women’s leadership. Sweden and Norway launched the Nordic Women Mediators network in 2015 (Norwegian Centre for Conflict Resolution website). This network of women mediators is composed of women from each of the five Nordic countries who have diverse professional experiences, ranging from foreign affairs and international law to working in multilateral and regional organizations and civil society. This network is one of several regional networks of women mediators, including one launched by the African Union (Global Alliance of Women Mediators Networks website) and a Mediterranean Women Mediators Network, spearheaded by Italy (Mediterranean Women Mediators Network website). Norway has emphasized its leadership role in this effort as an example of its feminist foreign policy. It has urged parties to peace negotiations to include women in both formal and informal delegations, and to engage local women’s organizations. Norway has taken action in this regard as well. The percentage of women on Norwegian teams to peace negotiations has ranged from 46 to 65 percent in recent years (Government of Norway, 2019–​2022). Norway appointed its first woman special representative to a peace process in 2014. In 2018, Norway had women special representatives in the two peace processes in which it was a formal facilitator: Colombia and the Philippines. Norway

128  Operationalizing Feminist Foreign Policy in the U.S.

links these efforts to outcomes of these processes, with the goal of including a gender perspective in peace agreements and processes, and ensuring that more facilitators and mediators, both women and men, actively integrate a gender perspective in their work (Government of Norway, 2019–​2022).

Allocation of Resources

As discussed, the necessary building blocks for a feminist foreign policy include political will, structural and institutional changes, and the increased representation of women across all parts of government, particularly in national security and foreign policy. But these are not enough. In order for a policy to be effective and have its intended impact, it must be robustly funded and have sufficient resources over time. This includes government funding, both for the internal staff and organizational structures needed to do the diplomatic work, and for the international activities and programs implemented by global partners and local women’s organizations. It includes ensuring that government investments in, and with, the private sector have a gender component and related resources. Finally, it means that a portion of government funding must be redirected to national and local women’s organizations, to ensure they have multiyear, core funding for their work. Capturing the amount of gender-​ related funding is a difficult task. The Organisation for Economic Co-​operation and Development (OECD) has the largest open-​source dataset on foreign assistance. These data are based on government reporting on funding to the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC), which uses a “Gender Equality Policy Marker” to tag spending objectives (Organisation for Economic Co-​ operation and Development, 2016). The use of the gender marker reflects whether a government activity is designed with gender equality as its main objective; has gender equality as an important but not main focus or does not target gender equality at all (Organisation for Economic Co-​operation and Development, 2016). According to the OECD-​DAC Handbook, this marker is the only common tool available to DAC members to track bilateral aid in support of the implementation of the SDGs commitments on gender equality. It also contributes to identifying gaps between policy and financial commitments (Organisation for Economic Co-​operation and Development, 2016). Even with this tool, it is still difficult to track current and projected gender financing. The marker itself is only an estimate of the overall funding allocated by a government and does not calculate the exact amount a government spends on gender equality (Organisation for Economic Co-​operation and Development, 2016). It also tracks donor spending commitments, which are defined as “a firm obligation, expressed in writing and backed by the

Operationalizing Feminist Foreign Policy in the U.S.  129

necessary funds, undertaken by an official donor to provide specified assistance” and not funds actually spent (Organisation for Economic Co-​ operation and Development, 2016). According to the latest data available, donor governments targeted almost $45 billion annually toward gender equality and women’s equality as either a significant (secondary) or principal (primary) objective, with an average of 38 percent of assistance having a gender focus (Organisation for Economic Co-​ operation and Development, 2019). At the same time, funding for dedicated programs with gender as the principal objective remained low at 4 percent, with 62 percent of assistance remaining gender blind (Organisation for Economic Co-​operation and Development, 2019). Outside of bilateral and multilateral funding, it is particularly difficult to track resources from other funders. While the OECD is a starting point, capturing government funding, a variety of other data platforms also play a role in attempts to quantify funding (Publish What You Fund, 2021). These other platforms can help quantify gender financing and initiatives from the private sector, development finance institutions (DFIs), such as the World Bank, NGOs, and philanthropists. They also can create platforms which allow data to be compared across countries, institutions, and sectors more easily. With respect to the U.S. in 2021, President Biden’s first budget request reflected an increase from the Trump Administration in terms of funding for gender equality. The 2023 budget request increased USAID funding by 12 percent and requested $2.6 billion to advance gender equality. (For context, $2.6 billion is less than 9 percent of the overall bilateral foreign assistance request.) This is an increase of approximately $300 million (in inflation-​adjusted dollars) from the previous highest budget request in this category (Grabowski, 2022). This earlier and highest request was made in 2014 by President Obama. However, there is no explicit requirement for U.S. government programs to conduct a gender analysis or collect sex-​/​gender-​disaggregated data in order for the funds spent to be attributed as gender equality programming under the U.S. government’s framework for counting how dollars are spent (Beasley, 2022). In addition, this process for counting (or attributing) how dollars are spent on programs is confusing at best and may not accurately reflect spending as these attributions can be “double-​counted” within the budget process. A different approach is for governments to build gender equality into the private sector investments they fund. The Norwegian Investment Fund (Norfund), which provides equity and risk capital to build sustainable businesses and industries in developing countries, integrates gender equality into its projects (Norwegian Investment Fund 25 website). In 2020, Norfund developed a new gender equality policy to ensure that equal opportunity and

130  Operationalizing Feminist Foreign Policy in the U.S.

gender balance are embedded throughout Norfund and to promote equal opportunity in companies receiving its investments (Norwegian Investment Fund 25 Annual Report). Norfund also collects sex-​disaggregated data on employment from companies in its portfolio. In 2021, the number of jobs held by women in these companies increased by 3 percent. The U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) is analogous to Norfund, partnering with the private sector to finance solutions to challenges facing the developing world. The DFC’s 2X Women’s Initiative has elevated investment in projects that are owned or led by women or that provide a product or service that empowers women (U.S. International Development Finance Corporation, 2X Women’s Initiative). The DFC also applies a gender lens overall as it considers projects for funding to ensure that women will benefit. In addition, it is important for governments to directly fund local organizations and initiatives that address gender equality and women’s leadership. USAID has recently announced a push toward localizing funding of its projects (USAID, 2022). In particular, Canada and France have used this approach over time to allocate funds to women’s organizations and women leaders. Canada has been a leader in efforts to direct more resources to local women’s organizations and women leaders. Its Feminist International Assistance Policy, launched in 2017, included the Women’s Voice and Leadership Program, a $150 million initiative to directly fund local women’s organizations. Through this initiative, Canada has funded projects across the globe, including in Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Haiti, Peru, Colombia, Morocco, and Tunisia (Global Affairs Canada, 2017). In 2018, Canada launched The Equality Fund to create more predictable sources of funding for local women’s organizations (Global Affairs Canada, 2018). The Equality Fund is “unapologetic[ally] feminist,” and supports grantmaking to empower women and girls. It has an Investment Advisory Council of investors, feminist activists, and economists to ensure that investments reflect community needs. Canada committed $300 million to this effort and has brought together government, philanthropists, the private sector, and civil society to leverage over $1 billion toward gender equality (The Equality Fund website). Tactically, both of these initiatives provide more predictable and flexible funding, along with technical assistance, to women’s organizations and feminist movements especially in the Global South. The Equality Fund has worked with 179 initiatives globally. One example is funding for the Sarajevo Open Centre which has worked with local governments to adopt Gender Action Plans to address issues faced by women and LGBTQI+​people. The plans provide clear plans to reduce discrimination, including training for

Operationalizing Feminist Foreign Policy in the U.S.  131

police officers on addressing and reducing hate crimes (The Equality Fund website). Similarly, France created the Global Fund for Survivors of Conflict-​Related Sexual Violence in 2019 to enhance access to reparations for survivors of conflict-​related sexual violence. In 2021, this fund received over $8.3 million in contributions, primarily from governments serving on the fund’s board: Belgium, Japan, Norway, South Korea, and the UK (Global Survivors Fund, 2021). As of 2022, there were projects in the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guinea, and Iraq. Preparation for additional projects in Nigeria, South Sudan, and Turkey (working with Syrian survivors) are ongoing (Global Survivors Fund website). As noted earlier, in 2022, USAID launched its localization efforts, looking at reforms to ensure its work strengthens local systems and is responsive to local communities. As part of that effort, USAID is channeling a larger portion of assistance funding directly to local partners (USAID, 2022). Specifically, USAID will provide at least 25 percent of program funds directly to local partners by 2025 and 50 percent by 2030. As part of this localization effort, USAID has also committed to codesign programs with local communities. As we have outlined, advocates for a feminist foreign policy urge that the balance of spending between defense and diplomacy/​development be reoriented in a fundamental manner, such that defense spending is drastically decreased. The Canadian Feminist Foreign Policy Working Group explicitly calls for reduced military spending, reduced production and sale of arms, and a redirection of resources toward initiatives that promote human security. In particular, the group strongly advocates to end the transfer of light-​armored vehicles to Saudi Arabia (Feminist Foreign Policy Working Group, 2021). Unfortunately, while the U.S. has made important strides to advance gender equality, these funding streams for defense, diplomacy, and development have not yet been fundamentally rebalanced. Overall, despite advocacy and increased commitment by government leaders, there have never been sufficient resources from the U.S. government for the work to implement gender-​focused policies. The offices across the U.S. government tasked with this responsibility must be fully resourced to accelerate the adoption of gender mainstreaming internally, and the promotion of gender equality abroad. In addition, there must be key staff installed at the highest level. We most often think of resources in terms of money, which is important, but the right mix of people and expertise (human resources) is also key. Summary

This chapter set out to investigate what would be needed to implement a feminist foreign policy specifically within the U.S. government. While the U.S. government has not adopted a feminist foreign policy to date, it has

132  Operationalizing Feminist Foreign Policy in the U.S.

taken numerous steps toward a gender-​focused policy, starting in earnest in the mid-​1990s, as countries including the U.S. prepared for the Beijing Conference. These efforts continued throughout successive administrations of both political parties, although depending on the party in power, they were broader or narrower in scope and reflected differing approaches to ensuring women’s participation in the economy and public life. The Biden Administration has taken a number of concrete and far-​reaching actions in this regard, building particularly on the work done during Barack Obama’s presidency and Hillary Clinton’s tenure as U.S. Secretary of State. The necessary ingredients for a transformational change such as feminist foreign policy are political will (which is a precondition for the other three); structural and institutional changes; the increased representation of women across all parts of government, particularly in the fields of national security and foreign policy; and the commitment of resources. Many countries have labeled their policies as feminist, reflecting necessary political will, and have moved their policy framework, allocated resources toward that end goal, and promoted women’s leadership in these fields. This is an evolving policy landscape, with more countries joining this movement and Sweden exiting (at least for now). It is within this context that we continue to evaluate the efforts of U.S. policymakers and advocates as they move collectively toward –​at the very least –​a U.S. foreign policy that is more gender-​focused than ever before. References Beasley, Stephanie, “USAID’s Biggest-​Ever Push to Close the Gender Gap.” DevEx, June 14, 2022, www.devex.com/​news/​devex-​newsw​ire-​usaid-​s-​bigg​est-​ever-​push-​ to-​close-​the-​gen​der-​gap-​103​449 Bengtsson, Jesper, “The Making of Feminist Foreign Policy.” IPS Journal (2019), available online at: www.ips-​jour​nal.eu/​regi​ons/​eur​ope/​the-​mak​ing-​of-​femin​ist-​ fore​ign-​pol​icy-​3717/​ Bercovitch, Jacob and Su-​Mi Lee, “Mediating International Conflicts: Examining the Effectiveness of Directive Strategies.” The International Journal of Peace Studies (2003), available online at: www3.gmu.edu/​progr​ams/​icar/​ijps/​vol​8_​1/​Ber​covi​tch. html#:~:text=​Mediat​ion%20is%20defi​ned%20h​ere%20as,author​ity%20of%20 a%20le​gal%20sys​tem Bro, Alexandra and Rebecca Turkington, “Ambassadors for Gender Equality: Who They Are, What They Do, and Why They Matter.” Council on Foreign Relations (2020), available online at: www.cfr.org/​blog/​amba​ssad​ors-​gen​der-​equal​ity-​who-​ they-​are-​what-​they-​do-​and-​why-​they-​mat​ter Clinton, Hillary Rodham, “Remarks to the U.N. 4th World Conference on Women Plenary Session.” 1995, available online at: www.ameri​canr​heto​ric.com/​speec​hes/​ hill​aryc​lint​onbe​ijin​gspe​ech.htm Coalition for a Feminist Foreign Policy in the United States, Feminist Foreign Policy in the U.S.: A Scorecard on the Biden-​Harris Administration’s First Year, 2022,

Operationalizing Feminist Foreign Policy in the U.S.  133

available online at: www.icrw.org/​publi​cati​ons/​ffp-​in-​us-​scorec​ard-​on-​biden-​har​ ris-​adm​inis​trat​ion-​first-​year/​ Council on Foreign Relations, “Advancing Gender Equality in Foreign Policy.” 2020, available online at: www.cfr.org/​rep​ort/​advanc​ing-​gen​der-​equal​ity-​fore​ign-​pol​icy Council on Foreign Relations, “Women’s Participation in Peace Processes,” 2023, available online at: www.cfr.org/​wom​ens-​partic​ipat​ion-​in-​peace-​proces​ses/​ The Diplomat in Spain, “Spain’s Government creates position of Ambassador for Gender Equality,” March 11, 2018, available online at: https://​the​dipl​omat​insp​ain. com/​en/​2018/​03/​spa​ins-​gov​ernm​ent-​crea​tes-​posit​ion-​amb​assa​dor-​gen​der-​equal​ity/​ The Equality Fund, “Why and How We Invest,” 2023, https://​equal​ityf​und.ca/​what-​ we-​do/​inv​estm​ent/​ Feminist Foreign Policy Working Group, Be Brave, Be Bold: Recommendations for Canada’s Feminist Foreign Policy, 2021, available online at: www.amne​sty.ca/​ sites/​amne​sty/​files/​FFP%20Be%20Br​ave%20Be%20B​old%20EN.pdf Foreign Policy for America, “International Affairs Budget.” available online at: www. fp4​amer​ica.org/​intern​atio​nal-​affa​irs-​bud​get Gill-​Atkinson, L., Ridge, A., Pradela, J., Tilbury, B., Warambourg, C., Peña Porras, T. From Seeds to Roots: Trajectories towards Feminist Foreign Policy, International Women’s Development Agency, 2021. Global Alliance of Women Mediator Networks, “FemWise Africa.” 2023, available online at: www.globa​lwom​enme​diat​ors.org/​femw​ise-​afr​ica/​ Global Survivors Fund, Annual Report, 2021. available online at: https://​stat​ic1.squa​ resp​ace.com/​sta​tic/​5ff7d​9f4d​d4cd​c650​b24f​9a4/​t/​62bd7​6edc​bf3c​0791​1cb9​945/​ 165658​3935​778/​GSF_​An​nual​_​Rep​ort_​2021​_​LR.pd Government of Canada, “Canada’s Feminist International Assistance Policy.” 2017, available online at: www.intern​atio​nal.gc.ca/​world-​monde/​iss​ues_​deve​lopm​ent-​ enjeu​x_​de​velo​ppem​ent/​pri​orit​ies-​priori​tes/​pol​icy-​politi​que.aspx?lang=​eng Government of Canada, “Trade and Gender in Free Trade Agreements: The Canadian Approach.” 2023, available online at: www.intern​atio​nal.gc.ca/​trade-​ comme​rce/​gend​er_​e​qual​ity-​ega​lite​_​gen​res/​trade​_​gen​der_​fta-​ale-​com​merc​e_​ge​nre. aspx?lang=​eng Government of Canada, Global Affairs Canada, “Address by Minister Freeland on Canada’s Foreign Policy Priorities.” 2017, available online at: www.can​ada.ca/​en/​ glo​bal-​affa​irs/​news/​2017/​06/​address_​by_​ministerfreelandoncan​adas​fore​ignpo ​ lic​ ypri​orit​ies.html Government of Canada, Global Affairs Canada, “Canada Announces New Partnership to Fund Gender Equality and Empower Women and Girls in Developing Countries.” 2018, available online at: www.can​ada.ca/​en/​glo​bal-​affa​irs/​news/​ 2018/​05/​can​ada-​announ​ces-​new-​part​ners​hip-​to-​fund-​gen​der-​equal​ity-​and-​empo​ wer-​women-​and-​girls-​in-​dev​elop​ing-​countr​ies.html Government of Canada, Global Affairs Canada, “Elsie Initiative for Women in Peace Operations.” 2020, available online at: Government of Canada, Global Affairs Canada, “Women’s Voice and Leadership Program.” 2020, available online at: www.intern​atio​nal.gc.ca/​world-​monde/​iss​ ues_​deve​lopm​ent-​enjeu​x_​de​velo​ppem​ent/​gend​er_​e​qual​ity-​ega​lite​_​des​_​gen​res/​ wvl_​p​roje​cts-​proj​ets_​vlf.aspx?lang=​eng Government of Canada, Presentation by Andre Francois Giroux, “Integrating Women in International Trade: The Canadian Approach.” World Trade Organisation Workshop, March 28, 2019.

134  Operationalizing Feminist Foreign Policy in the U.S.

Government of Canada, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, “Prime Minister Names First Ambassador for Women, Peace and Security.” June 12, 2019, available online at: https://​pm.gc.ca/​en/​news/​news-​relea​ses/​2019/​06/​12/​prime-​minis​ter-​names-​first-​ amb​assa​dor-​women-​peace-​and-​secur​ity Government of Germany, Federal Foreign Office, “Speech by Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock in the German Bundestag on Foreign, European and Human Rights Policy.” January 12, 2022, : available online at: www.auswa​erti​ges-​amt.de/​ en/​newsr​oom/​news/​spe​ech-​baerb​ock-​bundes​tag/​2506​234 Government of Germany, German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, “Feminist Development Policy for Sustainable Development.” 2022, available online at: www.bmz.de/​en/​deve​lopm​ent-​pol​icy/​femin​ist-​deve​lopm​ ent-​pol​icy#anc=​Ziele Government of Norway, “Women, Peace and Security –​Action Plan (2019–​2022).” 2019, available online at: www.regj​erin​gen.no/​en/​his​tori​cal-​arch​ive/​solbe​rgs-​gov​ ernm​ent/​andre-​dok​umen​ter/​ud/​2019/​plan_​wps/​id2625​029/​ Government of the United Kingdom, “Analyzing Political Will.” 2023, available online at: https://​ass​ets.pub​lish​ing.serv​ice.gov.uk/​media/​57a08​cbfe​d915​d622​c001​ 551/​R82​36Ap​pend​ix3.pdf Grabowski, Aria, “Opinion: 3 Gender Equity Actions for the Biden-​ Harris Administration,” DevEx, June 2, 2022, available online at: www.devex.com/​news/​ opin​ion-​3-​gen​der-​equ​ity-​acti​ons-​for-​the-​biden-​har​ris-​adm​inis​trat​ion-​103​344 Johnson-​ Freese, Joan and Susan Markham, “Reconciling Two Key Frameworks: Feminist Foreign Policy and Women, Peace & Security.” Women in International Security Policy Brief, 2022, available online at: https://​wii​sglo​ bal.org/​wp-​cont​ent/​uplo​ads/​2022/​07/​Reco​ncil​ing-​Two-​Key-​Fra​mewo​rks-​Pol​icy-​ Brief.pdf Lim, Jasmine, Ally Brodsky, and Jack Caporal, “Toward a More Equitable Trade Policy: Empowering Women.” Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2021, available online at: www.csis.org/​analy​sis/​tow​ard-​more-​equita​ble-​trade-​sys​ tem-​emp​ower​ing-​women Mediterranean Women Mediators Network, 2022, available online at: https://​wom​ enme​diat​ors.net Norwegian Centre for Conflict Resolution (NOREF), “Nordic Women Mediators.” 2023, available online at: https://​noref.no/​Work-​areas/​gen​der-​and-​incl​usiv​ity/​nor​ dic-​women-​mediat​ors Norwegian Investment Fund 25 (Norfund), 2023, available online at: www.norf​ und.no/​ Norwegian Investment Fund 25 (Norfund), 2021, available online at: www.norf​und. no/​annua​lrep​ort-​2021/​resp​onsi​ble-​inves​tor/​gen​der/​ OECD, “Aid in Support of Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment: Donor Charts.” 2019, available online at: www.oecd.org/​dac/​financ​ing-​sust​aina​ble-​ deve​lopm​ent/​deve​lopm​ent-​fina​nce-​top​ics/​Aid-​to-​gen​der-​equal​ity-​donor-​cha​rts-​ 2019.pdf OECD, “DAC Gender Equality Policy Marker.” 2023, available online at: www.oecd. org/​dac/​gen​der-​deve​lopm​ent/​dac-​gen​der-​equal​ity-​mar​ker.htm OECD-​ DAC Network on Gender Equality, Handbook on the OECD-​ DAC Gender Equality Policy Marker. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2016, available online at: www.oecd.org/​dac/​gen​der-​deve​lopm​ent/​ Handb​ook-​OECD-​DAC-​Gen​der-​Equal​ity-​Pol​icy-​Mar​ker.pdf

Operationalizing Feminist Foreign Policy in the U.S.  135

Oxfam GB, Developing Capacity to Achieve Gender Equality in Education, Education and Gender Equality Series, 2005. Post, Lori Ann, Amber Raile, and Eric Raile, Defining Political Will, Politics and Policy, 2010. 10.1111/​j.1747-​1346.2010.00253.x Publish What You Fund, “Making Gender Funding More Transparent.” 2021, available online at: www.pub​lish​what​youf​und.org/​proje​cts/​track​ing-​gen​der-​aid-​ data-​for-​bet​ter-​gen​der-​equal​ity/​mak​ing-​gen​der-​financ​ing-​more-​tran​spar​ent/​ Ridge, Alice and Joanna Pradela, “Forgiveness Not Permission: A Feminist Foreign Policy.” The Interpreter, 2021, available online at:www.lowyin​stit​ute.org/​the-​inte​ rpre​ter/​forg​iven​ess-​not-​per​miss​ion-​femin​ist-​fore​ign-​pol​icy Scrutton, Alistair, “Margot Wallström: Can Sweden’s Feminist Foreign Minister Be Both Radical and Influential –​and Make the Country a ‘Moral Great Power’?” The Independent, October 2015, available online at: www.inde​pend​ent.co.uk/​news/​ world/​eur​ope/​mar​got-​wallst​rom-​can-​swe​den-​s-​femin​ist-​fore​ign-​minis​ter-​be-​both-​ radi​cal-​and-​infl​uent​ial-​and-​make-​coun​try-​moral-​great-​power-​10112​015.html Statement of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, “The Elsie Initiative for Women in Peace Operations.” June 12, 2019, available online at: https://​pm.gc.ca/​en/​news/​news-​ relea​ses/​2019/​06/​12/​prime-​minis​ter-​names-​first-​amb​assa​dor-​women-​peace-​and-​ secur​ity “Sweden to Invest in ‘Feminist Trade Policy’,” The Local, August 2, 2019, available online at: www.thelo​cal.se/​20190​802/​swed​ish-​minis​ter-​calls-​for-​femin​ist-​trade-​pol​icy/​ Thompson, Lyric, Gayatri Patel, Gawain Kripke, and Megan O’Donnell, “Toward a Feminist Foreign Policy in the United States: A Midterm Review of the Biden-​Harris Administration.” Coalition for a Feminist Foreign Policy, Washington: ICRW (International Center for Research on Women), 2023. Thompson, Lyric, “Sound the Alarm –​Sweden Drops ‘Feminist’ and Returns to Mere ‘Foreign Policy’,” Ms. Magazine, January 19, 2023. Thompson, Lyric and Rachel Clement, “Defining Feminist Foreign Policy.” International Center for Research on Women, 2019, available online at: www. icrw.org/​wp-​cont​ent/​uplo​ads/​2019/​03/​Defin​ing-​Femin​ist-​Fore​ign-​Pol​icy-​Brief-​revi​ sed.pdf Timothy, Earl, “U.S. Defense Budget 2022: How Much Does the United States Spend on Its Defense Budget?.” ExecutiveGov, June 27, 2022, available online at: https://​ execu​tive​gov.com/​artic​les/​u-​s-​defe​nse-​bud​get-​2022-​how-​much-​does-​the-​uni​ted-​ sta​tes-​spend-​on-​its-​defe​nse-​bud​get/​#:~:text=​Milit​ary%20s​pend​ing%20on%20 defe​nse%20a​ccou​nts,defe​nse%20and%20non%2Ddefe​nse%20s​pend​ing. “Trudeau Appoints Jacqueline O’Neill as Canada’s First Ambassador for Women, Peace And Security.” The Globe and Mail, June 12, 2019, available online at: www.theg​lobe​andm​ail.com/​polit​ics/​arti​cle-​trud​eau-​appoi​nts-​jac​quel​ine-​one​ill-​ as-​cana​das-​first-​amb​assa​dor-​for/​ Trudeau, Justin, “Because It’s 2015.” 2015, available online at: www.yout​ube.com/​ watch?v=​LLk2​aSBr​R6U United States National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security (2011). www. global​wps.org/​data/​USA/​files/​2011-​2014.pdf United States National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security (2016). www.usip. org/​sites/​defa​ult/​files/​US-​NAP-​June-​2016.pdf United States Strategy on Women, Peace and Security (2019). https://​trum​pwhi​ teho​use.archi​ves.gov/​wp-​cont​ent/​uplo​ads/​2019/​06/​WPS_​Stra​tegy​_​10_​Octo​ber2​ 019.pdf

136  Operationalizing Feminist Foreign Policy in the U.S.

USAID, “Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility.” 2022a, available online at: www.usaid.gov/​about-​us/​divers​ity-​equ​ity-​inclus​ion USAID, “United States Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Gender-​Based Violence Globally 2022,” 2022b. USAID, “Localization at USAID: The Vision And Approach”, 2022, available online at www.usaid.gov/​sites/​defa​ult/​files/​2022-​12/​USA​IDs_​Loca​liza​tion​_​Vis​ion-​ 508.pdf USAID Equity Action Plan, 2022, available online at: www.usaid.gov/​equ​ity/​equ​ity-​ act​ion-​plan U.S. Department of State, “Official Biography of Ambassador Gina Abercrombie-​ Winstanley.” 2021, available online at: www.state.gov/​biog​raph​ies/​gina-​aber​crom​ bie-​win​stan​ley/​ U.S. Department of State, Speech by Secretary Antony Blinken, “A Foreign Policy for the American People.” March 3, 2021. U.S. Department of State, “United States Strategy on Global Women’s Economic Security.” January 2023. U.S. Government, “Women’s Entrepreneurship and Economic Empowerment Act of 2018.” accessed online February 2023 at: www.congr​ess.gov/​bill/​115th-​congr​ess/​ house-​bill/​5480 U.S. Government, “Women, Peace and Security Act of 2017.” accessed online February 2023 at: www.congr​ess.gov/​bill/​115th-​congr​ess/​sen​ate-​bill/​1141 U.S. International Development Finance Corporation, 2X Women’s Initiative, 2023, available online at: www.dfc.gov/​our-​work/​2x-​wom​ens-​ini​tiat​ive U.S. Office of the Trade Representative, “Remarks by Ambassador Katherine Tai at Summit for Democracy.” December 2021. U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen, Press Release: “Shaheen Lauds Biden Administration for First-​Ever U.S. Strategy on Global Women’s Economic.” January 4, 2023), available online at: www.shah​een.sen​ate.gov/​news/​press/​shah​een-​lauds-​biden-​adm​ inis​trat​ion-​for-​first-​ever-​us-​strat​egy-​on-​glo​bal-​wom​ens-​econo​mic The White House, “National Strategy on Gender Equity and Equality.” 2021, available online at: www.whi​teho​use.gov/​wp-​cont​ent/​uplo​ads/​2021/​10/​Natio​nal-​ Strat​egy-​on-​Gen​der-​Equ​ity-​and-​Equal​ity.pdf The White House Gender Policy Council, “About the Director Jennifer Klein.” available online at: www.whi​teho​use.gov/​gpc/​about-​the-​direc​tor/​

APPENDIX 1 Timeline of Selected Key Events

539 bc 1215 ad 1689 1789 1791 1792 1833 1839 1848 1851 1855 1869 1880 1893 1915 1916 1919

Cyrus Cylinder inscribed Magna Carta agreed to by King John English Bill of Rights adopted French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen adopted U.S. Bill of Rights adopted A Vindication of the Rights of Women published by Mary Wollstonecraft Philadelphia Female Anti-​Slavery Society (PFASS) founded Anti-​Slavery International founded (originally as the British and Foreign Anti-​Slavery Society) Seneca Falls Convention held and Declaration of Sentiments promulgated The Enfranchisement of Women published by Harriet Taylor Mill YWCA founded The Subjection of Women published by John Stuart Mill American Association of University Women (AAUW) founded National Council of Jewish Women (NCJW) founded Woman’s Peace Party (WPP) founded Jeannette Rankin elected to the U.S. House of Representatives International Labor Organization established Second International Congress of Women held National Federation of Business & Professional Women’s Clubs (BPW) founded

138  Appendix 1

1920

19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution adopted, establishing women’s suffrage in the U.S. League of Women Voters (LWV) founded National Council of Catholic Women (NCCW) founded 1921 Women’s Peace Union founded 1922 Women allowed to join the U.S. Foreign Service 1923 Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution first drafted 1941 Four Essential Freedoms speech by President Franklin D. Roosevelt 1945 United Nations established 1946 UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) established 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) approved Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide approved Women’s Armed Services Integration Act signed into law by President Harry Truman 1949 U.S. appoints first woman to serve as an ambassador 1951 International Labor Organization Convention on Equal Remuneration for Men and Women Workers for Work of Equal Value approved 1952 Convention on the Political Rights of Women approved 1960 Women Strike for Peace founded 1963 U.S. Equal Pay Act enacted 1965 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination approved 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights approved 1968 Proclamation of Tehran 1972 Women allowed to command U.S. military units that include men 1975 UN First World Conference on Women, held in Mexico City, Mexico 1976–​1985 UN Decade for Women 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) 1980 UN Second World Conference on Women held in Copenhagen, Denmark 1985 UN Third World Conference on Women held in Nairobi, Kenya 1987 Women in International Security (WIIS) founded 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 Human Rights Watch establishes a Women’s Rights Project 1993 Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action 1994 Cairo Programme of Action

Appendix 1  139

1995 1997 2000 2004 2005 2006 2008 2009 2010 2011 2013 2014 2015 2016

UN Fourth World Conference on Women, held in Beijing, China President’s Interagency Council on Women established by President Bill Clinton White House Office on Women & Girls established by President Bill Clinton Madeleine Albright confirmed as first woman to serve as U.S. Secretary of State U.N. Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1325 adopted Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) adopted Women’s Foreign Policy Group founded (approximately) Vital Voices Global Network founded Ireland establishes a Gender Equality Policy Condoleezza Rice confirmed as U.S. Secretary of State Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities International Civil Society Action Network (ICAN) founded UNSCR 1820 on Women, Peace, and Security passed Hillary Rodham Clinton confirmed as US Secretary of State White House Council on Women and Girls established by President Barack Obama First ever U.S. Ambassador-​at-​Large for Global Women’s Issues appointed by President Barack Obama UNSCR 1888 on Women, Peace, and Security passed UNSCR 1889 on Women, Peace, and Security passed UNSCR 1960 on Women, Peace, and Security passed The Seychelles appoints an Ambassador for Women’s and Children’s Affairs The U.S. Civil Society Working Group on Women, Peace, and Security (U.S. CSWG) established Secretary Hillary Clinton establishes the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR) Australia appoints an Ambassador for Women and Girls First U.S. National Action Plan on Women, Peace, and Security released UNSCR 2016 on Women, Peace, and Security passed UNSCR 2122 on Women, Peace, and Security passed Sweden adopts the first ever Feminist Foreign Policy Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) adopted UNSCR 2242 on Women, Peace, and Security passed UNSCR 2250 on Youth, Peace, and Security passed Norway establishes a Feminist Foreign Policy Second U.S. National Action Plan on Women, Peace, Security released

140  Appendix 1

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

All combat roles opened to women in the U.S. military Canada establishes a Feminist Foreign Assistance Policy Canada establishes a Feminist Trade Policy Women, Peace, and Security Act enacted Heather Wilson confirmed as U.S. Secretary of the Air Force #MeToo movement Canada established the Gender Equality Advisory Council (GEAC) during its presidency of the G7 The Women’s Entrepreneurship and Economic Empowerment (WEEE) Act enacted UNSCR 2467 on Women, Peace, and Security passed UNSCR 2493 on Women, Peace, and Security passed France establishes a Feminist Foreign Policy Luxembourg establishes a Feminist Foreign Policy Canada appoints first-​ ever Ambassador for Women, Peace, and Security France continues the Gender Equality Advisory Council (GEAC) during its presidency of the G7 Leadership Council for Women in National Security (LCWINS) founded Mexico establishes a Feminist Foreign Policy Spain establishes a Feminist Foreign Policy Libya announces a Feminist Foreign Policy The U.K. continues the Gender Equality Advisory Council (GEAC) during its presidency of the G7 Christine Wormuth confirmed as U.S. Secretary of the Army White House Gender Policy Council established by President Joe Biden U.S. National Strategy released on Gender Equity and Equality Generation Equality Forums held in Mexico City, Mexico and Paris, France Germany establishes a Feminist Foreign Policy and a Feminist Development Policy Germany continues the Gender Equality Advisory Council (GEAC) during its presidency of the G7 The Netherlands establishes a Feminist Foreign Policy Chile announces a Feminist Foreign Policy Mongolia announces a Feminist Foreign Policy Scotland expresses interest in a Feminist Foreign Policy Liberia expresses interest in a Feminist Foreign Policy Sweden’s Feminist Foreign Policy rescinded Admiral Linda Fagan assumes duties as Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard

Appendix 1  141

2023

Revised USAID Gender Policy released Revised U.S. Department of State Gender Policy Guidance released U.S. Strategy on Global Women’s Economic Security released

APPENDIX 2 Summary of United Nations Security Council Resolutions on Women, Peace, and Security

UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1325, passed in 2000, reaffirms the important role of women in the prevention and resolution of conflicts, peace negotiations, peacebuilding, peacekeeping, humanitarian response, and in post-​conflict reconstruction. It also stresses the importance of their equal participation and full involvement in all efforts for the maintenance and promotion of peace and security. UNSCR 1325 urges all actors to increase the participation of women and incorporate gender perspectives in all United Nations peace and security efforts. It calls on parties to conflict to take special measures to protect women and girls from gender-​ based violence, particularly rape and other forms of sexual abuse. With respect to UN mechanisms, UNSCR 1325 encourages the UN Secretary-​General to increase the number of women in peace processes and in conflict resolution. There is no enforcement mechanism. This resolution sets out four critical pillars that reflect the importance of a gendered perspective across the conflict cycle: (1) participation; (2) protection; (3) prevention; and (4) relief and recovery. The participation pillar calls for the full and equal representation of women at all levels of decision-​making in politics and policymaking institutions. The protection pillar stands for the need to protect women and girls in conflict and post-​conflict settings. The prevention pillar stands for the need to have women fully engaged at all levels of conflict prevention, mediation, and resolution and the need to address the root causes of conflict. The final pillar, relief and recovery, addresses the need to ensure that women and girls have access to the services they need to recover from conflict and conflict-​related violence. UNSCR 1820, passed in 2008, explicitly addresses sexual violence in conflict and post-​conflict, and recognizes a direct relationship between the use

Appendix 2  143

of sexual violence in conflict and impeding international peace and security. UNSCR 1820 calls for an increased role for women in peacekeeping; reiterates a zero tolerance policy for United Nations peacekeepers who engage in sexual exploitation and abuse (SEA); and calls for training of United Nations troops on the SEA zero tolerance policy. With respect to UN mechanisms, UNSCR 1820 requests that the UN Secretary-​General develop guidelines for peacekeeping to protect women and girls; asks the UN Peacebuilding Commission to address sexual violence and ensure consultation with women’s civil society organizations; and importantly, allows sanctions against parties who commit rape and/​or sexual violence in conflict. UNSCR 1888, passed in 2009, recognizes that the empowerment of women and support of women’s organizations are essential to peace and security. It calls for United Nations member states, donors, and civil society to provide support for increasing the number of women in peacekeeping; the UN Secretary-​General to deploy experts in situations where sexual violence is an issue; the Secretary-​General to work with United Nations personnel and national governments to strengthen the rule of law; and, for the first time, for the appointment of a special representative on conflict-​related sexual violence. With respect to UN mechanisms, UNSCR 1888 calls for gender guidelines for military personnel in peacekeeping; calls on United Nations missions to share information about sexual violence in conflict countries with relevant actors on the ground; and reiterates the use of sanctions for acts of rape and/​or sexual violence. UNSCR 1889, passed in 2009, reiterates the key role of women in conflict prevention and peacebuilding. It calls for increased participation of women at all stages of peace processes, particularly as mediators and in peacekeeping; for the Secretary-​General to submit a report to the UN Security Council focused on women’s participation and inclusion in peacebuilding activities; and for the appointment of gender advisors to UN missions. With respect to UN mechanisms, UNSCR 1889 encourages member states to develop national action plans on women, peace, and security; forms a UN steering committee to strengthen United Nations coordination on these issues; calls on the Secretary-​General to formulate global indicators for measuring progress toward UNSCR 1325; requests that the Secretary-​General include all issues relevant to UNSCR 1325 in his/​ her annual report, including number of women in United Nations missions; and requested the collection of gender-​ disaggregated data. UNSCR 1960, passed in 2010, reaffirms that preventing sexual violence contributes to international peace and security, and also expresses willingness to address sexual violence when considering issues on the United Nations Security Council’s agenda. It demands an end to all acts of sexual violence by parties to conflict and asks the Secretary-​General to track and monitor implementation of these commitments. Further, it encourages United Nations

144  Appendix 2

member states to deploy more women peacekeepers and to train all military and police to address sexual violence. It reiterates the importance of gender advisors. With respect to UN mechanisms, UNSCR 1960 encourages detailed information on parties credibly suspected of sexual violence in Secretary-​ General’s annual report; requests that the Secretary-​ General strengthen monitoring and data collection; and sets forth that sexual violence should be taken into account when considering and adopting sanctions. UNSCR 2016, passed in 2013, focuses on strengthening existing commitments around women, peace, and security; deepening accountability for perpetrators of sexual violence in conflict, as well as women’s political and economic empowerment; and supports access to justice. It also reaffirms the important role of gender advisors and women protection advisors to facilitate the implementation of the women, peace, and security framework. With respect to UN mechanisms, UNSCR 2016 commits to the establishment and review of peacekeeping and political mandates, emphasizes the need for enhanced coordination, information sharing, analysis, response planning; and requests that mediators address sexual violence issues in all peace processes. UNSCR 2122, passed in 2013, positions gender equality and women’s empowerment as critical to international peace and security; explicitly affirms an “integrated approach” to sustainable peace; recognizes the differential impact of conflict on women and girls as well as the need to address root causes of armed conflict, and calls for consistent application of women, peace, and security across the UN Security Council’s work. With respect to UN mechanisms, UNSCR 2122 requests high-​level briefings on women, peace, and security be better integrated into the deliberations of the UN Security Council; increased engagement and consultation with civil society; and dedicated women, peace, and security funding. Further, the resolution links women, peace, and security to women’s full participation and protection in election preparation and political processes, disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programs, security sector and judicial reforms, and wider post-​conflict reconstruction processes. UNSCR 2242, passed in 2015, establishes an Informal Experts Group on women, peace, and security; addresses persistent obstacles in implementing the women, peace, and security agenda, including financing and institutional reforms; and calls for improved UN Security Council working methods on women, peace, and security. This resolution importantly focuses on greater integration in developing strategies to counterterrorism and violent extremism. With respect to UN mechanisms, UNSCR 2242 urges United Nations leadership to redouble efforts to integrate women’s needs and gender perspectives into the work of peacekeeping and conflict resolution, calls for gender analysis and technical gender expertise to be included throughout all stages of UN mission planning; calls for senior-​ level gender advisors

Appendix 2  145

with resourced offices and calls for increased funding for gender-​responsive training, analysis, and programs. UNSCR 2467, passed in 2019, is focused on conflict-​ related sexual violence and affirms for the first time that a survivor-​centered approach is critical. It positions addressing conflict-​related sexual violence as firmly rooted in the broader women, peace, and security agenda; stresses justice and accountability efforts; calls for support and protection to women’s civil society organizations; affirms that services should include provisions for women with children born as a result of sexual violence in conflict; and urges member states to strengthen access to justice for victims including using reparations and strengthened criminal law. With respect to UN mechanisms, UNSCR 2467 encourages independent investigative entities to address sexual violence in armed conflict, encourages the use of experts, investigators, and monitoring teams that take into account the needs of survivors; and urges the continued use of women protection advisors. UNSCR 2493, also passed in 2019, calls for full implementation of all previous women, peace, and security resolutions; requests the UN to develop context-​specific approaches for women’s participation in all UN-​supported peace processes; and urges UN member states to ensure and provide timely support for the full, equal, and meaningful participation of women in all stages of peace processes, including in the mechanisms set up to implement and monitor peace agreements.

INDEX

Australia 64, 75, 89, 116, 125, 139 abolition of slavery 8–​10 Beijing Platform for Action 17, 18, 22, 59, 114 Biden, Joseph 44, 92, 95–​7, 102–​6, 113, 118, 124–​30 Canada 5, 46, 54, 62–​8, 71, 77, 88, 117, 121–​3, 125, 126, 130, 140 Centre for a Feminist Foreign Policy 35–​6 Clinton, Hillary Rodham 17, 57, 89, 92, 96, 99–​100, 113, 114, 132, 139 Chile 5, 14, 65, 66, 76, 123, 140 Coalition for a Feminist Foreign Policy in the United States 35–​6, 118, 119, 124–​6 Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) 13, 14, 138 Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) 13–​15, 22, 59, 76, 95–​6, 138 Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) 21, 95, 138 feminist waves and movements 20–​2, 98 feminist International Relations Theory 33–​5

Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing 17, 113, 114, 139 France 5, 20, 54, 63, 66–​8, 70, 77, 89, 126, 130, 131, 140 gender analysis 46 Generation Equality Forum 20, 67, 70, 76, 140 Germany 5, 8, 9, 35, 54, 63, 64, 71–​3, 75, 77, 88, 89, 117, 121–​2, 140 Hudson, Valerie 39–​40 human rights 1–​4, 6–​8, 10, 12, 13, 15–​17, 19, 22, 29, 32–​5, 39, 47, 54–​61, 67–​9, 71, 72, 75, 76, 103, 104, 114, 118, 122, 124, 138 human security 41 intersectionality 21, 22, 36, 65, 68, 70, 73, 99, 100, 106 Ireland 5, 74–​5, 139 Liberia 5, 12, 38, 76–​7, 140 Libya 5, 76, 140 Luxembourg 5, 68–​9, 140 #MeToo movement 22 Mexico 5, 14, 15, 20, 66, 69–​70, 126, 138, 140 Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) 89, 99, 101, 114

Index  147

Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) 18, 19, 139 Mongolia 5, 74, 140 National Action Plan(s) on Women, Peace and Security 75, 96, 97, 100, 102, 114, 139 Netherlands 5, 9, 64, 73–​4, 125, 140 19th amendment 9, 10, 21, 138 Norway 5, 31, 58, 59–​62, 64, 68, 125, 127, 128, 131, 139 Organisation for Economic Co-​operation and Development (OECD) 78, 105–​7, 128, 129 Peace Corps 88 peace movements 10, 11 Roosevelt, Eleanor 12, 13, 94 Scotland 5, 77, 140 sex-​disaggregated data 46, 47–​8 Spain 5, 70–​1, 125, 126, 140 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 19, 45, 114, 128, 139 Sweden 3, 4, 29, 31, 53–​9, 62, 71, 72, 74, 77, 116, 120, 122, 123, 125, 127, 132, 139, 140

United Kingdom 8–​10, 31, 43, 64, 75, 77, 116, 125 United Nations 12–​20, 29–​32, 87 United Nations Development Program (UNDP) 16, 17 United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 (UNSCR 1325) 18, 19, 30–​2, 40, 58, 60, 62, 74, 76, 96, 97, 114, 116, 139, 142 United States Agency for International Development (USAID) 44, 46, 47, 89, 90, 92, 93, 96, 98, 100–​2, 104–​6, 114, 124, 126, 127, 129–​31, 141 United States Department of Defense 44, 88–​92, 96, 100, 105, 114, 118 United States Department of State 44, 89, 90, 92, 96, 99, 100, 102–​6, 114, 124–​6 United States Gender Policy Council (GPC) 103–​4 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) 12, 13, 114, 138 Wallström, Margot 54, 116–​17 Women’s Entrepreneurship and Economic Empowerment Act 100, 114 Women, Peace and Security Act (WPS Act) 97, 100, 114 women’s suffrage 8, 9, 11, 14, 21, 94, 95, 138