Feminist foreign policy

Marissa Conway

Roxanne, I think you’re on mute.

Roxanne Escobales

Great, thank you, and I was talking. Good evening, I’ll start again. Good evening and welcome to Chatham House on International Women’s Day. I’m Roxanne Escobales, and I’m the Editor of The World Today, thank you for joining us.

Every year on the 8th of March, we’re reminded of how far women have come in the struggle for gender equality, and how much further we still have to go. In this panel discussion, we’ll be exploring what role international relations can play in achieving gender equality. Feminist foreign policy is an approach that’s in its infancy, yet if it’s embraced and implemented widely, it promises to deliver a more equitable, a more peaceful, a more prosperous and a healthier world. That’s according to its champions and practitioners.

The first feminist foreign policy was launched in 2014, by Sweden. The country’s Foreign Minister at the time, Margaret Wallström said, “Striving towards gender equality is not only a goal in itself, but also a precondition for achieving a wider foreign development and security policy objective.” Since then, Canada launched a feminist overseas aid policy, and Mexico became the first country in the Global South to adopt a feminist foreign policy.

A handful of other countries have committed to pursuing it, and they are France, Spain, Luxemburg, and most recently, Germany. But what does it mean to practice a feminist foreign policy, is it about balancing the scales in the name of gender equality? Or is it about upending the power structures that secure the dynamics of inequality throughout the world? These questions seem more urgent today than ever before, as we begin to emerge out of the global pandemic, which has seen women and girls disproportionately affected by the disruption to work, school and services.

On top of that, we’re facing a climate emergency that threatens to hit the most vulnerable and marginalised people in the world, the hardest. We’ll be exploring these issues and more tonight, with our panel. I’ll introduce them now and then finish up with some housekeeping before we hear from them in turn.

From Stockholm, we’re pleased to have Sofia Calltorp from the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs. Sofia is Sweden’s Ambassador for Gender Equality and Co-ordinator for the Feminist Foreign Policy. Sofia was also the International Director of the Swedish Red Cross, and has served as a Swedish Ambassador to Zimbabwe, Malawi and Mauritius.

We’re also joined by Christina Gallach, from Madrid. Christina is the former Spanish Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, as well as for Ibero-America and the Caribbean. She held that post when Spain pledged to adopt a feminist foreign policy two years ago. Christina also worked as Head of Equal Opportunities, in the European Union and in various positions at the UN, including a Special Advisor to the Secretary-General, and Under-Secretary-General for Communication.

Marissa Conway joins us from the Centre for Foreign Policy, which she co-founded in 2016. Marissa also wrote the cover story for the February/March issue of The World Today, on feminist foreign policy. She says, “During the past six years, she’s seen the methodology move from the fringe agenda, to a growing movement of states and political parties.”

And last but not least, from Washington, Sahana Dharmapuri is the Director of Our Secure Future, which aims to integrate the women, peace and security agenda into policymaking. Sahana is a gender expert and an Advisor to senior policymakers and military officials.

And now for a bit of housekeeping, I must let you know that this event is on the record and it’s being recorded. We encourage you to tweet about it using the #CHEvents. We also invite you to engage with the panellists by asking questions or sharing your thoughts and perspectives, which you can submit using the Q&A function, and I’ll read them out on your behalf. But first, let’s hear from the panellists. Now Sofia, I’ll start with you. Sweden blazed a trail with its feminist foreign policy nearly eight years ago, and in doing so, has provided a model for other countries. In the article you wrote for The World Today, you said that when you became Sweden’s Ambassador for Gender Equality, a little over six months ago, you were struck by an overwhelming cultural shift in the Swedish foreign service. What did you mean?

Sofia Calltorp

Thank you, Roxanne, for that question, and for having me on this important and interesting event. What I meant is that simply, and I’m quoting our Foreign Minister now, that really everyone within Sweden’s foreign service, sort of, had the gender glasses on, and that is quite amazing to realise. I’ve been with the foreign service for about 25 years and walking around the ministry, emailing with colleagues, in every parts of the world, from Mumbai to Uruguay, sort of, the gender aspect of our work, of our foreign policy is very much an integral part of everything we do.

Just to give a few concrete examples, I had a conversation with our Ambassador in India, last week, and he, sort of, was so thrilled about this partnership, he had embarked on with the Swedish companies, seeing how we can pursue our partners in India, to increase the numbers of women in the workforce. Because it’s just sort of a way of empowering women, but also contributing to economic development. And so those types of – I mean, I literally get tens of those examples every day, and really, it’s so fascinating to see how this feminist foreign policy has changed in a fundamental way, we work.

And obviously one is sort of thinking about how did this happen, and this sort of cultural shift that I really do think it is a cultural shift. And as you said, we were the first country in the world to launch a feminist foreign policy, about eight years ago, and I still remember our Foreign Minster then, Margaret Wallström, when she talked about this, how we sort of looked at each other, as Diplomats of all ages and gender, and wondering what did she really mean?

But I think three things have been extremely important. First of all, the political leadership that we have seen, from sort of our Minister then, but continuing, we now have Ann Linde being our Foreign Minister, and this political leadership has been extremely important. But it has also been quite a systematic process of involvement and ownership, where all departments, all embassies, quite early on, were deliberately asked how they could contribute within sort of their area of expertise, their area of work, be it disarmament, or Middle East politics, sort of, applying again this gender lens to the policy area at hand. Which created a process of creativity, but also then, all those ideas and reflections were used when we put together our handbook and our action plan.

So we now have this handbook for feminist foreign policy, where we describe our method for which we work, with our – which is sort of looking at women’s and girl’s rights, representation and resources, the three Rs as we call them. And it’s really quite a practical way of looking at foreign policy from a gender perspective, that’s been quite important, I think, in making this cultural shift. And then the third thing, which is linked to the handbook, it’s this quite operational and practical approach, that we have undertaken.

So yes, it definitely is a cultural shift, but again, there are still a number of things to do, and of course, now when we have more countries adopting a feminist foreign policy, it’s really interesting to share experiences and knowledge, and to see how we can move forward together. Because it’s definitely a work in progress also, for us in Sweden.

Roxanne Escobales

Thank you [pause].

Marissa Conway

Roxanne, I think you’re on mute again, we missed that.

Roxanne Escobales

I beg your pardon, and I’m just pushing the space bar, thinking I’m unmuting, and it’s not unmuting, so bear with me while I get to grips with my equipment. So, Marissa, I wanted to ask you to mute you, in the cover story you wrote for The World Today, and you take the feminist one policy community to task for not being feminist enough. I’m simplifying your argument there, but could you just talk me through what you mean?

Marissa Conway

Yeah, sure. I mean, first of all, thank you so much for having me join the panel today. I’m very excited to be here, with all these wonderful other panellists, happy International Women’s Day, everybody. First of all, I just want to say that I am very much in admiration of what has happened so far regarding feminist foreign policy. There’s been a longer history in the international world, international affairs, talking about gender equality, talking about women’s rights, but the word itself, ‘feminism’, has been quite taboo, and what Sweden did in 2014, was extraordinarily ground-breaking, simply by invoking this word.

Since then, there’s been a huge boom of civil society activity around this, and a lot of feminist activism, to kind of expand what we want see out of feminist foreign policy agendas. And I think, on the one hand, you know, if you think about the context in which this has arisen, where we’ve got how many centuries of history of very patriarchal foreign policy, where women have historically been completely marginalised, and silenced, and not included in these spaces.

So I think we’re at a very interesting turning point, just in the history of humanity, where we’re seeing much greater levels of inclusion, inclusion of women, inclusion of feminist ideas, feminists themselves, and so there’s this real turning point, I think, as to, like, what this actually means. And having done this work now for about six years almost, there are four particular things that I myself want to see out of feminist foreign policy agendas, and are themes that I hear from civil society as well, and other feminist activists.

And so the first one is more intersectional lens, so instead of just this explicit focus on women and girls, incorporating ideas in intersectionality, which basically means looking at how many different social categories influence someone’s access to power, or if somebody doesn’t have access to power. So, it’s basically arguing you can’t look at gender alone, to understand oppression and subjugation, you also have to look at race and class and ethnicity, these types of things.

The second one is incorporating more bottom-up processes, so, I mean, in this instance, I mean engagement with civil society, and really grounding feminist foreign p0licy agendas, in the knowledge generated by feminist activists, who have been pushing this kind of work for so many decades now, and making sure that feminist foreign policy processes begin with activists and end with the activists.

The third thing I would really love to see is the balance of short-term thinking, and long-term thinking, and the way I kind of define these two sets of goals, is that short-term goals tend to focus more on inclusion in existing systems. So this is where you get conversations around representation, diversity, it’s about bringing people into these systems. And the longer-term goals have to do with systems change, and I think making sure that feminist foreign policy agendas balance both of these, is really important to, kind of, sticking to these authentic feminist routes.

And then the last one is just an incorporation of feminism in domestic policies as well. And making sure that as much as we’re looking externally, we’re also looking inwardly, to see what can we be doing in our own countries, to further this agenda, not just in an externally facing capacity? I’ll leave it there. I’m very excited to hear from everybody else, and thank you so much for the question.

Roxanne Escobales

Thanks, Marissa. I mean, that is quite meaningful, you know, points that you bring up around where we are with that. Now Christina, you’ve worked, you know, at national level, at regional level in the EU, and at international level at the UN, so you’ve had a wide range of seeing what the challenge is, and the opportunities are. Is it fair, what Marissa’s saying about what needs to happen, and is it realistic?

Cristina Gallach

I think it’s very fair, and it makes us think that we need to work harder, and we need to shepherd more people around the feminist foreign policy. Let me mention briefly that Spain declared the feminist foreign policy as a matter of coherence. Our Prime Minister and our government is a feminist government, and with the Foreign Minister we pushed for the open declaration together with a shorter brief to what it – about what it meant. It took us two seconds to convince the Prime Minister to have him coming out and declare in a public event that we were engaging in that road.

It was in the middle of the pandemic, and it has already been said how much COVID was pushing girls and women around the world, to the corner, and how much it was difficult to bring them out. In fact, we tried at the UN, and we managed to get a General Assembly resolution on girls and women, and COVID, and it was not the easiest diplomatic undertaking. So, a matter of coherence, and a matter of as it was very well said by our Swedish friend Sofia, bringing a lens of inclusion, a lens of feminism, to all across the board, making it systemic, this is very important.

Now, let us admit that we are not in good shape internationally. It is harder when the CSW meets every year, in the last period of time, to have deeper discussions among member states, and sometimes not to be able to have a resolution, a joint resolution, because member states, some of them in the UN system, are more and more reluctant to move, not on a feminist foreign policy, on basic women and girls’ rights. And we saw it, the Black Lives, that the MeToo, you know, reacted to, but at a multilateral level, there is a major warning, and in fact, setback.

We are going to see what happens next week in New York, at the CSW, and we’ll know that the resolutions that so clearly spell what needs to be done, are not implemented as they should. That’s why it is so important that nations, governments, declare feminist foreign policy, and then we mind that this is implemented. And we mind that this is implemented at national level, through our bilateral and multilateral diplomacies. At UN level, we can leave it for a little bit later, but UN is not doing what it should be doing, with the feminist perspective and UN, and I’m sure that some of you, or all of you, that you get UN experience, will notice that – how we are getting backwards, in terms of sexual rights, in terms of the work of key UN nations sees that are not funded as they should be.

So, yes, I think it’s very important to have this political leadership for declaring feminist foreign policy, yes, we are not doing all what we should be doing, and we need to step up our efforts. Over to you.

Roxanne Escobales

And Christina, you make some really good points around resolution, and I think it’s very easy to, you know, declare something and say you believe in something, and much harder to actually, you know, act it out, and implement it, and it seems like that’s where the stumbling block is.

Now moving on with that idea around resolutions, Sahana, you know, I’m going to bring us now to where we are, what’s happening in the world today, with current events, ‘cause here in Europe we’re now seeing the conflict in Ukraine, like, unfold in real time, in our social media feeds. Well, it’s certainly not the only conflict worth our attention, and let’s stick with it, to test one of the foundations of feminist foreign policy, which is the UN Security Council Resolution 1325. That’s around women, peace and security, what would you like to see happening, as we move through this current conflict in Ukraine, as laid out in 1325?

Sahana Dharmapuri

Thank you so much, Roxanne, for the question, and thanks to you my co-panellists, it’s really a pleasure to be here today, and I think it’s a really fascinating conversation. I will answer your question, I think since we’re grounding in 1325, and women, peace and security and what is a feminist foreign policy, do want to actually underscore the fact that yes, feminist foreign policy is relatively new on the world stage, that terminology and that approach by nation states publicly, to adapt a feminist lens robustly, is relatively new. But the foundation of it, the UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on women, peace and security, is really where it all stems from, more than 20 years ago.

And that issues that, that feminist lens, of applying a gender perspective to all security peace decision-making, was brought to the world stage by women in non-Western countries. So they were very much what Marissa was saying, we feel might be missing from a feminist foreign policy for today, which I actually disagree with or have a different view on, let’s say. Because I think the intersectional purge, that is what applying a gender perspective is, and a gender lens is, and that’s what we should see, and we hope to be happening in Ukraine. I’d like to say it a little bit more in detail, what that might look like.

But the other aspect that I wanted to respond to, too, is incorporating those grassroots voices, those feminist movements, from local women in peace building initiatives, or social justice movements, is very much part of 1325 on women, peace and security. It’s enshrined in the necessity to have consultation and dialogue with women’s organisations and groups, within the security and defence and foreign aid structures that countries have. So, in the US, we have a law that was passed in the year 2017, that provides those tools of operationalising this agenda, even though we may be somewhat allergic to using the word ‘feminism’ in our security and defence institutions, applying a gender perspective is actually using a feminist lens, exactly in the way Marissa described, which is paying attention to all aspects of our experience, right? And I think one of the things that we, kind of, get wrong when we look at women, peace and security, and so we’re looking at the Ukraine situation, or Afghanistan, in the summer when the US went through the withdrawal, which really, this had horrific consequences, in my opinion. And women, peace and security, we often really misinterpret or don’t fully understand the ‘us’, in the women, peace and security, that what does security mean? What is the involvement and the inclusion of a diverse set of voices in security decision-making actually mean?

That means agency, that means people who have not typically been involved in security governance structures, get to be involved in it, and voicing their – not just their opinions, but really contributing to security decision-making, by, you know, sharing their experiences of conflict throughout the conflict cycle, their priorities, their values, where their needs are, so that we can have better security decision-making for everyone.

So, analysing population dynamics, by age and gender, is a very important aspect of WPS, but not just age, gender, it’s ethnicity, it’s so many factors, right, that make up our identity, and it should happen across the stages of conflict. So, what does that actually kind of look like, with it and having a gender perspective on the Ukraine situation? And I think does answer your question, what we’d like to see.

In the broader terms, what do we want to see from NATO, and other allied forces, in how they’re going to approach the situation? What do we want to see with preventing our – and documenting war crimes? What do we want to see with combatting cybersecurity? I mean, there’s a whole range of issues here, protection of civilians, what we absolutely want to see is an attention to gender and the gender perspective and analysis being integrated into the security analysis and then integrated into operationalising those decisions, resulting from that analysis.

I wanted to note that the OSCE has a special monitoring mission, that’s been observing the contact mine in the Donbas region, and they have really noticed and are aware of the gender and gendered impacts of what’s been happening before the Russian invasion. And there are several areas that I think, if we use a gender perspective, will really impact the way we think about hard security issues, we bring a feminist lens to it. So if we look at where there are mines placed, around educational facilities, agricultural areas, who is this having a disproportionate effect on in the civilian population? It’s women and children, right?

I have not heard that talked about in the commentary or narration of the conflict. There’s also a lot of thematic recording that OSCE has done, on the extreme impacts of conflict on the elderly, particularly along this contact line, impacting them both physically and financially. And one OSCE observer actually said to me and quite poetic, which is not great, but it’s the face – she said, “The face of this conflict is actually the face of an elderly woman, when we look at what’s happening in that region.”

So I think, I mean, my final point is what we really want to see is a gender perspective applied to all security decision-making. And when we talk about the inclusion of women, we also see in the OSCE reporting that women continue to face really a lot of obstacles in participating in high level decision-making and security. So going back to what is NATO doing? What is – what are we doing, the international community doing and documenting war crimes? What are we doing on combatting cybersecurity, disinformation, protection of civilians?

Those approaches need to have a gendered language and perspective, and understanding, in order to really help provide solutions for the Ukrainian people, and to really increase our chances for security for everyone else too. So I think I’ll stop there, ‘cause I’m sure others…

Roxanne Escobales

You know, I think, Sahana, as well, you know, I think you bring up some good points in that, you know, some of the most poignant images we’re getting out of Ukraine are – I’m thinking of that family that was shelled by, you know, killed trying to flee, it was hard to – and then in Irpin, it was a really poignant image, in newspapers of civilians being evacuated by Ukrainian soldiers, and an elderly woman with the walking stick, walking across, you know, a plank, trying to cross water, being supported by a Ukrainian soldier. And those images, you know, they stay with us, and speak to the vulnerability of lots of different types of people.

But sticking with that, I also found it interesting, your focus on the S part of WPS being security, especially with the news that’s going round now. So I’d like to just ask Sofia, this weekend, we’ve just seen the two female Prime Ministers of your country, Sweden and Finland, announce a stronger security co-operation, and what does that mean from your position as Co-ordinators of Sweden’s feminist foreign policy, as well as in terms of UNSCR 1325?

Sofia Calltorp

Now I think many of the points that Sahana raised are quite valid in that context because for Sweden, the concept of a sort of – I mean, the broad security concept, where consider issues of women, the women, peace and security agenda, sort of, an integral part of security is quite key for us. And we were actually chairing the oversea last year, and our Foreign Minister really made a strong point, in always raising the issue of women, peace and security in that context. Looking at the concept of broad security and really, sort of, bringing those issues into the heart of the, sort of, hard security military matters.

And Sahana talked about Donbas and the monitoring mission, of oversea, that’s been active throughout. And to really make sure that there is integrated – that there is agenda perspective integrated in all that effort, is what I would say, something that we hope we can bring now, in those discussions, when we are with our allies and our partners, within the EU, but then, of course, also, in our close partnership with NATO. Bringing and highlighting that perspective, because we are quite convinced that if we integrate agenda perspective, if we take, sort of, the security of those women that we talk about, into account, there will be more peace, and there will be more stability. And that is such an important factor, to create long-term peace and stability, to really bring in the gender perspective. Thank you.

Roxanne Escobales

Great, I’ve got one more question, you know, focusing on Ukraine, and bring back just Sahana, before we hear from the other panellists, and then we’ll take questions from the audience as well. So please do pop the question into the Q&A box. But Sahana, let’s look at the peace part, I mean, we’ve – how can we ensure that women are actually embedded in that process? We’ve already seen delegations of Ukrainians and Russians getting together to negotiate, there’s no women in those images, what’s going on?

Sahana Dharmapuri

Yeah, absolutely, I mean, I think you’re pointing out something we’ve all noticed, that there’s a lack of women’s representation, and high level security decision-making, particularly when we have a crisis like this. It’s very obvious, and we can’t, you know, stop things in the middle, right, and say “Oh well, we didn’t, you know, we didn’t make sure that we had enough women in the pipeline, to get them to this stage, at this point, and so now we have to – we’ll do better next time,” right?

There – I think, at this stage, there are many women experts working already for their governments, that are fully available to participate in these processes. But there is also quite a number of non-governmental organisations that are women-led. And I would also say a big aspect of, you know, I think this month of International – or sorry, this month’s CSW theme is breaking the bias. And one of the biases, I think we have to really address, is with men and gender bias.

I also think this time we’re living in has many more male champions of gender equality, and women’s participation than we’ve ever had. The question is, how do we get those men to act on that commitment? And I think maybe that is a lever to push on ensuring that we have more female candidates that should be looked at as negotiators, that should be brought into the conversation. I think some of the things that Sofia mentioned, about bringing women into the conversation from outside of official political leadership, I know Sweden also supported in other conflict situations, bringing in women from civil society, to – perhaps they couldn’t participate in the actual official negotiations, but they were present at the place where the negotiations were happening. So they were able to meet with the official negotiating team, during meals, lunches, etc., informally, and get their views across.

And I do want to underscore something that confuses a lot of people, I think, which is the reason why I was championing men in this regard, is because I would like to have a man or a woman use a gender perspective, on security decision-making, because what I’m interested in is the way we change the way we think about security. And that is a feminist perspective, and I believe men can be feminist and they can actually have that perspective. I don’t think women have to shoulder that burden. It does take a lot of cultivation and work, I don’t think that we’re there yet. But I do think the work over the last 22 years of this global constituency of women and men, who mobilise behind women, peace and security, has created, over 90 something countries, have national action plans, and local – and there’s others that have created localisation plans, right? To implement these feminist principles, and embed them and operationalise them within their structures, right?

So, I don’t think we can expect things to change overnight. I do think that we have many more resources, people, political will, leadership, expertise, than we ever have had. And also, to – and I might just end on a positive note, I really think one thing we forget, and I think Marissa also pointed out, is we have never, as a species, ever used this perspective in our state-to-state relations, and our non-state-to-state relations. This idea that gender equality matters to people’s security.

That has really been championed by women, which is why I don’t have a problem saying it’s feminist, women brought that to the table, women championed that, right? And it’s new, and we’ve never done it before, but that’s fine, we can do it now, right? I just don’t think we’re going to get it all right, all the time, the first time we do it.

Roxanne Escobales

Perfect. It’s a journey under progress, and a process, absolutely. I’m really struck there by what you said around the fact that there’s never been more, you know, champions and supporters of women, than ever before, and of course men can be feminist, but how do we make them act? And Cristina, I want to come to you on that question because you said, “It took two seconds for, you know, the Spanish male leadership to say yes, of course, let’s have a feminist foreign policy.” But at the same time, there’s less than a third of the Diplomats in Spain are women, and there’s not great representation, not just Spain, but other countries as well, just in the foreign service. And I know Sofia, that Sweden has seen a lot of progress on that front, but how do we get the male leadership to act, not just the male leadership, but just leadership in general, Cristina?

Cristina Gallach

I think it is as easy as ensuring that on every decision, on every bilateral event, on every bilateral agreement or action, on every multilateral action, you bring the gender perspective and this lens at the table. And I think we try to…

Roxanne Escobales

What does that look like, Cristina? Sorry to interrupt, but what does that look like, can you just bring that to life for me a little bit?

Cristina Gallach

That looks like, for example, in Latin America, where we are extremely active, if we go to Paraguay, the first thing that we put at the table is how do we confront a situation where the majority of women that are in Spain, that have been victims of human trafficking, are from Paraguay? Therefore, how do we establish a plan to ensure that these women, which end up being trafficked because they’re socioeconomic situation brings to this inevitability of being trafficked?

Or how do we do the same in Central America? Where we see tremendous amount of issues relating to indigenous, relating to human rights, etc? And I think we can’t do, so we need to decide, and I can tell you, when I was at the Ministry, we dissected the actions, in a manner that we could influence and bring this perspective. The same with our EU partners, we engage a lot with Sweden and with Finland and other countries, on upgrading the gender balance, improving the gender balance, in new missions and operations. And particularly in the Sahel, where we know that the women there need to be confronted in a different way, they are confronted, they need to be part of the solution.

I think it is clear as well, that we do not just want to apply the victim side to the current protection, but also the empowering side and the resourceful, women are resourceful. This was being done a lot in the Ukraine. I have had the chance of working very closely with the people, gender advisors and observers and monitors, that have been in Eastern Ukraine and I think we have a number of examples. The Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs, of the Ukraine, is a woman. I dealt with her, I hope she’s still around, and she was extremely engaged.

We have more than 35,000 women in the Ukrainian armed forces, which it’s now making a difference somehow, in this very strong patriotic and also engaging and decisive role that they are having. So I think there are aspects that bring results, but you need to plunge yourself at the different layers, different moments, different aspects, and I think it has to be, as we say it in French, to the [inaudible – 42:18], right? So you have the vision, you know where you want to go, and you roll it out wherever you act, and if you act in an EU environment, this is clear that we need to work more in the EU environment, so that we have a much more gender perspective.

I think in development policy, in co-operation policy, in the European Union programmes, there is quite a high level of gender perspective. I think the security policy, EU security policy is yes, is less apparent. I think there are some advances.

Roxanne Escobales

Wonderful, thank you. There is a lot of talk about applying this gender land, and, you know, we’ve heard from Marissa earlier, and I wanted to go back to you, Marissa, because I was going to talk to you a little bit about intersectional lens, and there’s some questions from the audience. There’s one from Basita Javeed, who asks that, “If possible, can you very kindly talk a bit more about the intersectional approach in feminist foreign policy?” Marissa, can you describe a bit what that might look like in practice, as we want to broaden the gender lens perhaps?

Marissa Conway

Yeah, so the term ‘intersectionality’ was coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw, and this was specifically to discuss the double subjugation she was experiencing in the American legal system, both as a woman and as a Black person. And she couldn’t – I mean, you can’t separate out these different experiences, based on these two identities, these were things happening because both of these identities together, they were compounded. So there’s a really strong tie to systems of inequality when you’re discussing intersectionality. It’s not just looking at a person’s identity and how this relates to their oppression, but directly relates to how the system is contributing to that oppression, and upholding very specific hierarchies that are shaped around and by our different social categories and identities.

I think one of the best practices in trying to action intersectionality in any policy, whether in a feminist foreign policy framework, or just any policy, is to just go back to the people who are impacted by that policy, and make sure that they’re included in the decision-making process, in the policy development process, and that their needs are first and foremost, centred for whatever that policy issue is. So just to give a more specific example, right now I’m doing some work on intersectionality in cybersecurity policy in the context of the UK’s cybersecurity policy. And one of the things we see is a huge information gap around undocumented immigrants, which I think probably surprises nobody. Both because the system is set up to really penalise undocumented immigrants, not to help them. And so they are very unwilling to share information about themselves. So, we have huge data gaps on the needs of this particular community, because they know if they’re vocal about what they need, they’ll get shut up in a detention centre. And the UK doesn’t have a limit on how long you can be shut in a detention centre.

If I’m recalling it correctly, it’s the only country in the EU, I think, that doesn’t have a cap on its detention time, or Europe, sorry, we’re not in the EU any more. So I think I saw another question asking about feminist foreign policies for the Global South?

Roxanne Escobales

Yeah.

Marissa Conway

And, like, my answer is the same, like, this is not for us to decide, it’s for that country in the Global South, to decide what a feminist foreign policy means for them. Otherwise we’re replicating the very imperialistic, kind of, mechanisms that feminist foreign policy is meant to critique in the first place. This isn’t an idea that should be exported to others. We shouldn’t be using it to tell other people how to behave or how to act, but really seeing this as a platform that, kind of, first and foremost, centres collaboration, whether at a local level, with domestic policies, or at wider international levels. And I’ll stop there and let somebody else join in.

Roxanne Escobales

Well I know that particular question was asked by a Mexican Researcher, Daniella Thorson. With Mexico being the first country in the Global South to adopt a feminist foreign policy, it’s actually faced a lot of criticism, because it has not a great track record when it comes to women and women’s right, especially in Latin America, with femicide, yeah, a big problem down in Latin America. So, I think, you know, it’s a valid question of how then, I know Cristina, you talked about, you know, when you’re in Central America, and Paraguay bringing it up, that is something I think, Sofia, that like Sweden has shown probably some leadership on, and I don’t know if there are any examples where other countries have come to you, to ask for support, come to Sweden to ask for support, and what sort of challenges you see that other countries might be facing, when it comes to implementing feminist foreign policy?

Sofia Calltorp

Thank you. I mean, this is interesting, and I would, I mean, first of all, I do think that of course, a feminist foreign policy is not only for the Global North, but really for everyone, and I think Mexico is a good example, because – and also, Sweden’s, sort of, gender equality journey and our feminists, but the way we have approached feminism in our domestic affairs is of course, sort of, mirroring now our international work. So, to me, those are quite interlinked, and for a country to pursue a feminist foreign policy, although there are still quite a lot of issues domestically, to tackle, I think that’s not – I mean, of course there are a lot of challenges, but for me, the issues are quite interlinked, and the lesson that we have learned in Sweden, is that our sort of – the reforms that we have pursued domestically, over the past decade, is of course, sort of, what we are now – I mean, how should I say this? That’s the lessons learnt, domestically, is why we then choose to adopt a feminist foreign policy, because we do – have learnt that you need to include women in all areas of society.

You need to make sure that there is – they are, sort of, equal representation. We had our first gender neutral government in 1994, and since then, Swedish governments have always been sort of 50/50 men and women. So, for us, it’s – the main point is that feminists benefit society as a whole, and of course, you need to apply that both domestically and in your international work. But they go very much hand-in-hand, so for a country in the Global South, to adopt a feminist foreign policy, and I get a lot of questions by the way, from all different parts of the world, and I enjoy so much, interacting with countries from the Global South, because very often I’m asked, “But you in Sweden, you are so advanced, this is only for you, what can we do in a country?” yeah, without mentioning a specific country, but I interacted a lot with African countries, as an example. And they keep saying it’s, everyone can do something, and to adopt this approach is the first step, and then obviously, each and every country will face their challenges, according to their specific situation.

But at the end of the day, and we talked about that a bit earlier, feminism has become this buzzword, or sort of polarising word, but it’s very much about, I mean, antidiscrimination, it’s a very fundamental issue, so equality that we want to address, both nationally and internationally. So, yeah, keep asking the question, and I really do think that it’s one of the key questions, looking ahead of course, to make sure that this is an approach for everybody, not only for us, here in the Global North. Thank you.

Roxanne Escobales

Thank you, Sofia. Cristina.

Cristina Gallach

Yes, if I may, just an example, on the Global South, I travelled a lot to Africa, in particularly to West Africa, and mind you, the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, in West Africa, were so powerful, and many of them were women, many of them from Ivory Coast to Ghana to Guinea-Bissau, very strong, very determined, and number two of Ecoverse, and you know, they had strong convictions. It’s true their institutional setup, the resources, the economic situations, the Vice President of Gambia. So, just examples of very strong women, the Foreign Minister of the Senegal, and there was no way we were going to teach them something that they didn’t know, because they were truly feminist, convinced feminists. And this made me think that you can advance very well, if your convictions are as strong, and you bring these convictions to the areas of action, bilaterally, regionally, multilaterally, but setbacks are huge, and that’s why, you know, nothing better than to dissect well, the situation, and bring about solutions for transformation with these inclusive and feminist lenses.

Roxanne Escobales

Wonderful, thank you, Cristina. Sahana, yes.

Sahana Dharmapuri

Yeah, I just wanted to add just a conversation with the Global South, I think one thing that’s interesting to me and a bit perplexing, is that there are more than – I think now more than 99 countries that have adopted national action plans on women, peace and security. And in fact, those women, peace and security plans, whether or not a country officially states it has a feminist foreign policy, when you look at those plans and you look at the way those plans have been adopted, actually, have all taken the approach, this feminist approach of, it’s including civil society, in government, security decision-making, addressing priorities of that government, with civil society, particularly women-led civil society, laying out these are the things that we think need to be addressed. Here’s where we have an opinion about it. This is what we think should be done, right, and we want to work together, with you.

That act in itself, of creating national action plans, has changed security governance, decision-making. It’s very difficult for civil society to participate in the black box of security decision-making, on most security matters. The fact that women have been able to do that, because of 1325, because of the women, peace and security agenda, and now we have almost 100 countries that have established accepted national action plans, which are policy agendas, right?

Now I’m not saying it’s perfect, because very few of these have budgets behind them, right? Very few of these have operational plans behind them, so I’m not saying that’s, you know, it’s – we’ve got it all wrapped up. But I think that yes, six countries have publicly stated and made the commitment to a, what we’re calling a feminist foreign policy, but 100 countries have already adopted national action plans, that apply a feminist lens, a feminist approach, to protection, prevention of conflict, women’s participation, gender mainstreaming, through defence, diplomacy, development, right, so that’s a huge undertaking.

The results that we see then are South Africa, its Defence Ministry has Gender Advisors up and down its ranks, as part of its formal structure, right? So does Ireland, so does – right, like we can go – but the US doesn’t have that yet. The US has legislation, right, that is mandating the State Department, the Department of Defence, USAID, Department of Homeland Security, to adopt their own implementation of plans. Did the US announce a feminist foreign policy? No, but aren’t those actions and those commitments, those are legal commitments, the policy agenda, the money that’s going towards it, all the people who are working on it, the Gender Military Advisors, isn’t that part of operationalising a feminist foreign policy agenda?

So, I think that sometimes, we kind of shoot ourselves in the foot, when we start applying categories that other people may apply to women’s work, right? That this agenda has been around for a long time, we’ve called it lots of different things. There has been a lot of action on it, and it’s stemmed from the Global South. So I think that, you know, I agree with everything, all the speakers have said, I think I just wanted to put a fine point on the fact that there are many countries and civil society movements within at least 100 countries, that have adopted officially, these actions, whether we call it or they call it a feminist foreign policy or not, it is structural, it depends on collaboration, it depends on gender perspective, it depends on feminist movements, to be actualised, right? And it’s very pragmatic, it is not an academic exercise.

Roxanne Escobales

That’s an important point actually, is actually looking at what actions are being taken rather than what something’s being called. I’ve got just one more question before we wrap up, and that’s for Marissa. “If money and political will were no object, there was no challenges there, what would be the first thing you would focus on, to pursue a feminist foreign policy, sort of, at scale?”

Marissa Conway

Oh man, that’s such a good question and such a tough one to answer. Hmmm.

Roxanne Escobales

And anyone else can pipe up, while Marissa’s thinking.

Marissa Conway

I don’t know if this is like the answer, I’ll probably change my mind five minutes after this event ends, and go “Oh no, I should have said that thing.” But I think, as a start, using a feminist analysis, in every single foreign policy decision. So, this specifically means adopting feminist methodologies, to policy development, and actively searching out who has power, who doesn’t have power, and why, and ultimately going to those people who don’t have power, and who are impacted by policy, and making sure that their needs and concerns are the number one priority of whatever piece of work is going on. Yeah, handover to the next person.

Roxanne Escobales

I’m afraid we actually have to leave it there, ‘cause we’re out of time, but what a fascinating discussion we’ve had and what better day to do it than International Women’s Day. I want to thank our audience for joining us tonight, and – but heartfelt thanks for everyone on the panel, Cristina, Sofia, Sahana, Marissa, thank you so much from me.

Sofia Calltorp

Can I have one last point?

Roxanne Escobales

One final, yes, of course.

Sofia Calltorp

One last thought for Afghanistan, and the women in Afghanistan, I think it has been such a terrible failure of international policy, and particularly feminist foreign policy, what happened, and I think the crisis in Iran – in the Ukraine, is making us forget what goes on in there, and how to support the women that have left. So, just one last thought, women in Afghanistan and women in the Ukraine.

Roxanne Escobales

Absolutely, and actually, let’s have one last thought for women all over the world, today on International Women’s Day. Thank you for your time, and it’s been a fascinating discussion, thank you so much.

Sofia Calltorp

Thank you.

Marissa Conway

Thank you, everyone. Have a good day, good evening.