Post a Comment Print Share on Facebook

Feminist Foreign Policy? But then please correct

The protests in Iran are putting our German government's foreign policy self-image to the test.

- 3 reads.

Feminist Foreign Policy? But then please correct

The protests in Iran are putting our German government's foreign policy self-image to the test. They reveal what a gap there is between the rhetoric of "feminist foreign policy" and reality. Instead of spearheading international support for Iranian women, the German government is reticent -- doing little, and rather late.

Some are tempted to write off the concept of “feminist foreign policy” anchored in the coalition agreement as a result. But that would be the wrong step. Instead of further polarizing the debate, let's get it down to earth; discuss honestly where the concept can help us and where not.

There are certainly valid reasons why a foreign policy that deals more with issues of gender equality makes sense. The world of foreign policy is still heavily male-dominated. Only six percent of signatories to global peace agreements are women. And those who do not sit at the table when decisions are made are usually given less consideration.

Likewise, studies show that peace agreements concluded with significant participation of female actors tend to last longer. Nor can it be denied that in many parts of the world women still enjoy far fewer rights than men. A foreign policy that recognizes these problems, tackles them in a targeted manner and seeks a pragmatic solution is, first of all, sensible and praiseworthy.

But even if the thrust of Annalena Baerbock's women-oriented foreign policy is correct, there are still numerous points for legitimate doubts and criticism. There is an enormous range of interpretations under the slogan “feminist foreign policy”.

Does the Federal Foreign Office believe in the radical utopian version that some think tanks are calling for, which speaks of the end of all wars and wants to convert the defense ministry into a peace ministry? If so, this is more of a dream dance than an actionable political strategy.

Or do you take a more pragmatic approach that tries to take concrete steps to improve the current system? That would be more sensible, but here too questions arise. What "feminist" steps do you want to take, especially in times of crisis like in Iran? And how are these different from what previous governments did in similar situations? It is doubtful that the differences will be large.

In its work, the Federal Foreign Office has been focusing more on the role of women and minorities for years. So how much is truly radical new concept here, and how much is just clever "rebranding"? The naming is first of all branding. Is it really "Feminist" foreign policy?

In the end, the concept is not, as proponents themselves say, explicitly about women. It's about minorities and the weaker in general. Everyone should be considered. So is that feminist? Or would it not be much more accurate to describe this as a foreign policy guided by values ​​or human rights? But such a designation would of course not have the appeal of the new. So it would be less easy to market politically.

It is also meaningful to think outside the box. Because the path that the federal government now wants to go, other partners have been going for a little longer. First and foremost Sweden, which in 2014 was the first country to describe its foreign policy as “feminist”.

But Sweden's narrative suffers from incoherence. While parts of foreign policy have been adjusted, arms export policy has remained in the old structures: the country still exports arms worth millions to countries like Saudi Arabia. The fact that women's rights are trampled on there and that they are involved in bloody wars such as in Yemen should also be well known in Stockholm. But Sweden still delivers.

Does keeping “unfeminist” arms exports hamper positive changes in other parts of foreign policy? no But it puts them in perspective and shows that even in the land of the vanguard, "feminist" foreign policy is not always so radically different from conventional foreign policy.

We should therefore not overload this debate with ideology, but instead look at what can concretely advance it. So far it's not much. But hopefully that will change soon.

Avatar
Your Name
Post a Comment
Characters Left:
Your comment has been forwarded to the administrator for approval.×
Warning! Will constitute a criminal offense, illegal, threatening, offensive, insulting and swearing, derogatory, defamatory, vulgar, pornographic, indecent, personality rights, damaging or similar nature in the nature of all kinds of financial content, legal, criminal and administrative responsibility for the content of the sender member / members are belong.