Feminist Foreign Policy
Feminist Foreign Policy: Update and Significance
Introduction
U.S. foreign policy provides a framework that dictates its global understanding and practices to achieve national “security.” In a country with the most powerful military in the world, force is one of the primary global tools used in U.S. foreign policy to maintain “security” and sometimes to pronounce its imperialistic influences. Though the term “foreign” is used, U.S. foreign policy closely correlates to its domestic policy. During the Trump era, the U.S. approach to foreign policy took a turn to right-wing ideologies, heavily centered on national security related to defense and war. Consequently, racist and misogynist policies were implemented that attacked and threatened women’s rights, impacting domestic agendas critical to women’s bodily autonomy and health. Since then, the suppression of women’s rights in the U.S. has increased.
The Biden-Harris administration has made progress, deviating from right-wing ideologies and, should they win a second term, is committed to making continuous efforts in this direction. Regardless of their successive term, feminist foreign policy (FFP)—which includes prioritizing security through rights and representation, preventing SGBV, and disarmament—must not be a policy impacted by an administration’s political orientation. Should the U.S. want to be a leading country in advancing human rights, feminist foreign policy must be one of its principal values.
After a short review of feminist foreign policy in Sweden and other countries, this brief focuses on foreign policy in the U.S. and the significance of adopting feminist foreign policy.
I. Sweden: The Pioneer of Feminist Foreign Policy
The first “explicitly feminist” foreign policy was announced by Sweden in 2014.[1] There, the feminist approach covers three areas for promoting policy abroad and internally through the feminist lens: foreign and security policy, development coordination, and trade and promotion. The policy consists of three R’s: rights (the promotion of women’s issues, including countering gender-based violence and discrimination); representation (such as support for women’s participation at all levels of decision-making, from parliament to private sector boards to the legal system); and resources (ensuring equitable allocation among people of all genders, whether in government budgets or development projects).
The International Center for Research on Women (ICRW) reported in 2022 that Sweden was evaluated highest in overall rankings for FFP across 48 OECD nations.[2] Since 2014, sixteen governments have formally adopted feminist foreign policies, including Canada, France, Germany, and Mexico.
However, there are several limitations and criticisms presented against Sweden’s policy, along with FFP as an approach:
II. Other countries that adopted Feminist Foreign Policy
Although other countries that have adopted a feminist approach to foreign policy have differing FFP definitions, all focus on changing the existing paradigms to include or increase women and gender in their foreign policy theory and practice. By addressing a gender bias and hierarchy inherent in the fields of international relations and security as critical issues of feminist foreign policy, they share similar themes of security through disarmament, rights and representation, intersectional analysis, preventing gender-based violence, resource allocation, institutional policy, and climate change.[8] They view FFP as integral to advancing gender equality, defending human rights, and promoting peace.
III. U.S. Feminist Foreign Policy
The U.S. has yet to adopt a feminist foreign policy, though civil society has been working to resolve this. The leading organizations in this advocacy, timelines on critical efforts, and definitions are as follow:
Civil society
Timelines since 2019
2019: In August 2019, a group of U.S. foreign policy experts and advocates for global gender equality came together over the course of three days to sketch out an initial draft of a U.S. feminist foreign policy (discussion draft).
2020: ICRW released Toward a feminist foreign policy in the U.S.
2021:
January—the Biden administration created a new White House Gender Policy Council to advance gender equity and equality in both domestic and foreign policy development and implementation.
October—the National Strategy on Gender Equity and Equality laid out an agenda for advancing gender equity and equality domestically and internationally, detailing ten priorities that are similar to the priority areas described in the 2021 Defining Feminist Foreign Policy paper.
2022:
January—Coalition submitted the 2021 report card of the administration’s efforts.
2023:
January—Coalition submitted 2022 midterm evaluation (report card) of the administration’s efforts.
March—the Biden administration approved more than $3 billion federal budget for the year 2024 to advance gender equity and equality globally, to create opportunities for women and girls, including the LGBTQIA+ community, to respond to and prevent gender-based violence, advance women’s economic empowerment, and strengthen the participation of women in conflict prevention, resolution, and recovery.
May—the White House published the National Action Plan to End Gender-Based Violence (National-Plan-to-End-GBV.pdf ), emphasizing a whole-of-government approach addressing prevention, racial justice, and LGBTQIA+ equality, alongside intergenerational and community healing. It recognized GBV as a form of gender discrimination and was part of the implementation of the National Strategy on Gender Equity and Equality.[11]
September—discussing Feminist Foreign Policy in the United States: An Agenda for Action, a policy brief to guide the administration’s next steps through the end of this current term, was the main agenda at the Coalition for a Feminist Foreign Policy in the United States meeting on Sept. 14. This brief particularly highlights three critical issues: climate change, sexual and reproductive health and rights, and crisis response. The following day, the coalition launched the 2023 edition of the seminal Defining Feminist Foreign Policy paper. On Sept. 20, during UN General Assembly week, foreign ministers representing the United Nations’ Feminist Foreign Policy Plus group announced the first global declaration on feminist foreign policy. One of the top commitments is to “advance gender equality and the empowerment and autonomy of women and girls in all their diversity, as well as women’s full, equal and meaningful participation at all levels in decision making, to prevent all forms of discrimination and violence against them and promote, protect and fulfill their human rights.” This year, ICRW also published The Feminist Foreign Policy Index: A Quantitative Evaluation of Feminist Commitments.
November—the Coalition released the second term evaluation on Nov. 5.
Definitions
Both definitions place emphasis on protecting or safeguarding “the human rights of all” and peace over military dominance. It’s important to note that the coalition emphasizes that “feminism is an agenda everyone can promote, an agenda that seeks equity for all, not the dominance of one over one another.”[12] Advocating for a feminist agenda is not confined by a particular gender.
IV. Feminist Foreign Policy Findings
World
Since the adoption of feminist foreign policy, the following facts emerged worldwide:
One of the most striking U.S. foreign policy traits is reliance on the military. The U.S., a country with the strongest military power in the world, had the highest military spending in 2022, constituting nearly 40 percent of total military spending worldwide that year. U.S. arms exports increased by 14 percent between 2012–2016 and 2017–2021.[18] U.S. increased military spending goes against the values contained in feminist foreign policy definitions—definitions developed by two U.S. organizations—a central concept is protecting or safeguarding the human rights of all using peace over military dominance.
The U.S. pivot toward military dominance impacts the undermining of U.S. women’s human rights. In 2022, the U.S. turned back women’s reproductive rights when the Supreme Court overruled both Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), denying women and girls the right to safe and legal abortion. A series of anti-trans legislation, such as bans on gender-affirming care, have also been widespread.
V. Significance and urgency of the U.S. adopting a feminist foreign policy
It is vitally important that the U.S. adopt a feminist foreign policy (FFP). FFP prioritizes security through rights and representation, while also working toward the prevention of SGBV and disarmament, among others. A feminist foreign policy implemented in the U.S. can interrupt the current suppressive trends and provide a societal structure for women and girls to exercise their full humanity and rights. Civil society and women’s right groups worldwide have been working to address the significance of genuine peace and security for women. For example, in 2000, in response to persistent advocacy, the UN Security Council adopted the landmark Resolution 1325 on women, peace, and security. Recognizing the grave and unique impact armed conflict has on women, this resolution calls for women’s equal participation in all UN peace and security efforts. Eight years later, UN Security Council Resolution 1820 on women, peace, and security was adopted, identifying the use of sexual violence as a tactic of war. It states that “rape and other forms of sexual violence can constitute war crimes, crimes against humanity or a constitutive act with respect to genocide.” Since then, as of 2019, the UN Security Council has adopted eight more resolutions on women, peace, and security. Resolution 2493, adopted in October 2019, urges its Member States to reinforce measures to fully implement all provisions of its resolutions on women, peace and security.
As conflicts in many parts of the world continue to rise, the U.S.—a permanent member of the UN Security Council—must adopt a feminist-centered analysis and a gender-integrated structure. This is not only a responsible response to UN resolutions on women, peace, and security, but also an effective tool to increase peace and equality domestically and internationally. If not, long-existing problems will become exacerbated, irrevocably impacting the lives of countless women and children. Some of the problems associated with military-focused foreign policy abroad and at home are listed below:
Problems
Abroad
Women’s human rights aren’t variable values that can be ignored or violated for so-called national interest. As embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the promotion of respect for human rights has been a central goal of U.S. foreign policy. However, when it comes to women’s human rights issues, the U.S. prioritizes militarism and political interests over human rights. Sexual assault and harassment within the U.S. military has been a persistent problem, which is compounded when considering foreign installations, where extraterritoriality jurisdiction applies under Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAs). This agreement often allows the U.S. to retain exclusive jurisdiction over its service members in many Asian countries. U.S. military personnel overseas face lighter punishment for an array of human rights violations, including sexual violence committed in host countries. Additional problems associated with U.S. overseas military bases—such as systematic environmental pollution, including disposal of toxic waste into soil and water—are not included in the scope of this brief.
U.S. military installations in ROK and Japan
Prioritizing militarized security often threatens the security of communities near U.S. installations, especially in countries like ROK and Japan, where most U.S. military installations are located in the Asia Pacific region.
ROK
In 1992, 34-year-old Kenneth L. Markle (1972–2023), a U.S. serviceman, sexually assaulted and murdered Yun Geum-i, a waitress in the Dongducheon kijichon (U.S. camptown) in ROK, which hosts the U.S. military’s largest overseas installation at Camp Humphreys. Yun was found bludgeoned to death with a bottle stuffed into her vagina and an umbrella into her anus. Yun was only 26 years old. Markle was sentenced to life in prison and started serving that term in ROK two years later, yet his sentence was later reduced to just 15 years. In 2006, he was released early on parole and deported. Back in the U.S., he committed several crimes, including burglary and unauthorized use of a debit card, and died at the age of 50.
In another instance of SOFAs interfering with justice, on June 13, 2002, in South Korea’s Gyeonggi province, a U.S. armored tank driven by two U.S. military personnel ran over thirteen-year-olds Hyo-Soon and Mi-Sun. Both eighth-grade girls died on the spot. South Korea’s Ministry of Justice requested the U.S. waive the right to try the two soldiers in the U.S. so that South Korea could try them. However, referring to SOFA, the U.S. rejected the request. A U.S. court-martial found both of the accused not guilty of negligent homicide in November 2002.
Okinawa, Japan
Japan has the largest number of U.S. troops outside the U.S. And Okinawa, which accounts for only 0.6% of Japan's total land area, hosts 70.6% of Japan's U.S. military facilities. Just like women and girls near Kijichon in South Korea, Okinawan women and girls suffer the same problem. From 1945 to 2011, the Okinawa Women Act Against Military Violence (OWAAMV) reported that myriad crimes, including hundreds of rape cases, had been committed by U.S. military personnel against Okinawan women and children, who live with Japan’s highest [children’s] poverty rate and the highest number of single-mother households. [19] In 1995, for instance, custody transfers of three American servicemen who kidnapped and repeatedly raped a twelve-year-old Okinawan schoolgirl were delayed. The three men, who served terms in Japanese prisons, were released in 2003.[20] Then in 2016, the dumped body of 20-year-old woman was found after a 32-year-old former Marine civilian base worker sexually assaulted, raped, and killed her.
2015 “comfort women” agreement
The concept of U.S. exceptionalism often translates to a lack of accountability to the people in countries hosting U.S. military installations, which perpetrates a pattern of the U.S. undermining women’s human rights and justice. One such example is the flawed 2015 “comfort women” agreement between the ROK and Japan. Although survivors in Asia denounced it and demanded an immediate nullification of the agreement, the U.S. has taken an unaltered stance that is opposite to that of the surviving victims, and applauded the agreement instead. At a July 20, 2021 State Department press briefing, Spokesperson Ned Price reiterated that the U.S. welcomed efforts, such as the 2015 agreement. He added that, “…even while addressing sensitive historical questions, cooperation on our common regional and international priorities must proceed.” Genuine regional and international priorities must safeguard women’s human rights instead of proceeding over women’s human rights. The value of women’s human rights is constant, not variable.
Afghanistan
The hasty withdrawal of the U.S. from Afghanistan in August of 2021 left the rights and lives of Afghan women and girls at major risk of violence and becoming a casualty of conflict. The total dismissal of genuine security for Afghan women and girls threatens basic needs, including food security. Due to a massive funding shortfall, the World Food Programme (WFP), often the last lifeline for women, announced in September it would only provide food assistance to 3 million per month in Afghanistan, cutting off 10 million people. That means only a fifth of Afghanistan’s hungry population will be served. Hsiao-Wei Lee, WFP’s country director and representative in Afghanistan, said, “Amid already worrying levels of hunger and malnutrition, we are obliged to choose between the hungry and the starving, leaving millions of families scrambling for their next meal.”[21] With this drastic funding cut coupled with devastating earthquakes in September, poverty level this winter will reach unprecedented levels. The U.S. has a responsibility to turn this around.
Gaza
The situation in Gaza calls for an immediate ceasefire. Intense air bombardment and collective punishment in Gaza has killed, as of Dec. 10, more than 18,000 Palestinians, about 70% of them children and women. I want to refer to statements by leaders in the U.S. and Israel as well as a freed Israeli captive to summarize the catastrophic situation in Gaza and address the urgent need for peace.
On Oct. 7, the day Hamas attacked Israel, killing 1,200 Israelis and kidnapping around 240 people, U.S. President Joe Biden stated, “The U.S. stands with Israel.” Then on Nov. 5, Israeli Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu said, “Dropping a nuclear bomb on the Gaza Strip is one of the possibilities.” While U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken was in Jordan in November, he stated that a ceasefire in Gaza would allow Hamas to regroup and repeat its attack on Israel. A week later, Biden confirmed that there is “no possibility of Israeli ceasefire in Gaza.” On Dec. 3, Ronen Bar, chief of the Israel Security Agency Shin Bet, said, “Israel is determined to kill Hamas’ leaders ‘in every location’ in the world, including Qatar, Turkey, and Lebanon, even if it takes many years.” Based on his statement, it is not out of the question that the war on Gaza could spread to neighboring countries.
On Dec. 5, CNN reported that senior Israeli military officials commented that killing two Palestinian civilians for every Hamas militant is “tremendously positive.” Killing more than 10,000 civilians can never be “positive.” Across the world, even one premature baby lost in an incubator during a conflict is one too many. One child lost in an indiscriminate school bombing is one too many. One displaced mother losing a child as part of wartime collective punishment is one too many.
On that same day at an Israeli War Cabinet meeting with families of freed captives, Israel’s PM Benjamin Netanyahu stated that, “It wasn't feasible to bring everyone back alive…” An Israeli woman freed with her children but with her husband left in captivity confronted Netanyahu at the meeting, saying, “You put politics above the return of the kidnapped.” Politics must not be placed above innocent lives.
The following day, horrific sexual crimes Hamas had committed against Israeli women and girls during the attack on Israel were reported. Within days, on Dec. 8, the U.S. State Department used emergency authority, an Arms Export Control Act emergency declaration, for the sale of about 14,000 tank shells to Israel, bypassing the standard 20-day period of congressional committees’ review. On Dec. 8, at the United Nations Security Council, the U.S. vetoed a resolution calling for a cease-fire in the Israel-Hamas war. The U.S. deputy representative to the U.N., Robert Wood, said the resolution was rushed and ignored U.S. diplomatic efforts to get more aid into Gaza and free Israeli hostages. Wood added that the draft also "failed to acknowledge that Israel has the right to defend itself against terrorism.“ In response to the failure to support the call for a humanitarian cease-fire in Gaza, Jordan’s foreign minister Safadi said, “The failure is an endorsement of further killing of Palestinians, further violations of international law, further commitment of war crimes.“
Responding to the 10/7 attack by using unguided “dumb” bombs and white phosphorous-filled artillery shells, which is an incendiary weapon for restricted use, in populated civilian areas or civilian infrastructures, violates international humanitarian law. Killing three Israeli hostages on Dec. 13 mistaken for Hamas militants is an utter tragedy. What families of Israel hostages want most is to have their loved ones back. If Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza lasts months, as Israel Defense Minister Yoav Gallant said on Dec. 14, the catastrophe and tragedy will multiply.
The Biden administration twice bypassed Congress in December 2023 to use emergency authority to make emergency arms sales to Israel despite growing domestic and international opposition. On Dec. 8, the Biden Administration used an emergency authority, an Arms Export Control Act emergency declaration, to allow the sale of about 14,000 tank shells worth $106.5 million for immediate delivery to Israel without congressional review. On Dec. 29, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken told Congress that he had made a second emergency authority to allow more than a $147.5 million arms equipment sale to Israel.
Home
U.S. foreign policy has direct correlations to domestic policy. What is practiced toward other countries is often the reality at home. Since the start of the Trump-era, policies have been implemented that attack and threaten women’s rights, impacting domestic agendas that are critical to women’s bodily autonomy and health, increasing suppression of women’s rights. Women and girls’ reproductive rights is one of the main areas impacted by these regressive policies. CNN maps the current abortion status in the U.S. in the following index--https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/31/us/abortion-access-restrictions-bans-us/index.html
Solutions:
A central goal of U.S. foreign policy has been the promotion of respect for human rights. Given increasing military tension globally, the U.S. must step up to be an exceptional leading country for advancing human rights, instead of being an exception to it. U.S. must put its goal of promoting respect for human rights in action and make an inherent feminist approach central. As demonstrated by history, long-practiced militaristic foreign policy creates more violence than peace. Albert Einstein said, we cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. It’s time for the U.S. to increase genuine investment in peace and human security instead of arms.
Structural change
As indicated below, the FFP Index makes some concrete recommendations in the area of structural changes. Additional effective structural solution includes active implementation of the gender equity law Title IX (passed in 1972).
FFP Index
Areas of Improvement in FFP’s Seven Priority Areas:
Women, Peace and Security through education
Education is another effective solution. When addressing the significance of peace and countering sexual and gender-based violence, ESJF builds on the lessons learned from the dark history of the Japanese military’s sexual slavery system and the progress made by a transnational women’s human rights movement to bring genuine security and peace to women and girls in conflict. We also examine the impact of U.S. foreign policy on the history of redressing Japan’s WWII military sexual slavery system. Collaboration is another key. In addition to ongoing collaboration, this year, ESJF had an opportunity to work with the International Action Network for Gender Equity and Law’s (IANGEL) Teen Information Project, TIP, to educate the SF Bay Area high school students about their reproductive rights. I wrote a syllabi sample for UC Berkeley Law School students to use for TIP. These two topics—one from history and the other on making history today—also provide empowerment opportunities for women and girls to lead advocacy.
Conclusion
Global partnership focused on peace and human rights isn’t an abstract idea. In the U.S., the national social studies curriculum standards developed by the National Council for Social Studies (NCSS) list global connection as one of ten main themes for U.S. social studies curriculum standards. The 2010 edition of the National Curriculum Standards for Social Studies, a revised edition of the earlier social studies standards published in 1994, explains that “the realities of global interdependence require an understanding of the increasingly important and diverse global connections among world societies. This theme prepares students to study issues arising from globalization.”[30] One of the questions under this theme is: “How can individuals, groups, and organizations more effectively address critical issues (e.g., peace, conflict, disease, human rights, trade, and global ecology)?”[31] Since 1994, we have been teaching youth about peaceful resolutions over force, including military force. The U.S. government must no longer delay learning what the youth has already been learning. Inspired by Toni Morrison’s saying — “If you’re free, you need to free somebody else” — if the U.S. values women’s human rights in the U.S., it needs to value those of women in other countries.
As has been illustrated time and time again, violence escalates violence. For genuine peace to be achieved, we need a stronger and transnational peace movement that recognizes the sanctity of all lives. Adopting feminist foreign policy focused on peace is a big step in the right direction.
ESJF's intern Esmé Lee-Gardner provided basic research on feminist foreign policy in Sweden and other countries, including fast facts.
[1] Thompson, Lyric, Spogmay Ahmed, and Tanya Khokhar. “Defining Feminist Foreign Policy: A 2021 Update.” International Center for Research on Women, 1.
[2] Papagioti, Foteini. The Feminist Foreign Policy Index: A Quantitative Evaluation of Feminist Commitments. Washington, D.C.: International Center for Research on Women, 2023, 50.
[3] Thompson, Spogmay, and Khokar, “Defining Feminist,” 3.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Scheyer, and Kumskova, “Feminist Foreign Policy”, 64.
[6] Papagioti, “The Feminist Foreign Policy Index,” 8.
[7] Aggestam, Rosamond, and Kronsell, “Theorising Feminist,” 29.
[8] Papagioti, Foteini. The Feminist Foreign Policy Index: A Quantitative Evaluation of Feminist Commitments. Washington, D.C.: International Center for Research on Women, 2023, 8.
[9] Papagioti, “The Feminist Foreign Policy Index,” 53–60.
[10] Papagioti, “The Feminist Foreign Policy Index,” 13.
[11] “U.S. National Plan to End Gender-Based Violence,” Washington, D.C.: The White House, May 2023, 5, 23.
[12] Thompson, Lyric, Spogmay Ahmed, and Tanya Khokhar. “Defining Feminist Foreign Policy: A 2021 Update.” International Center for Research on Women, 26.
[13] Wallström, Margot. “Sweden’s Feminist Foreign Policy.” In The Nordic Edge: Policy Possibilities for Australia, edited by Andrew Scott and Rod Campbell, 79–97. Melbourne University Publishing Ltd, 2021, 84.
[14] Aggestam, Karin, Annika Bergman Rosamond, and Annica Kronsell. “Theorising Feminist Foreign Policy.” International Relations 33, no. 1 (2019), 30.
[15] Bigio, and Vogelstein, Understanding Gender Equality in Foreign Policy: What the United States Can Do. Council on Foreign Relations, 2020, 12.
[16] Bigio, Jamille, and Rachel Vogelstein. Understanding Gender Equality in Foreign Policy: What the United States Can Do. Council on Foreign Relations, 2020, 4.
[17] Papagioti, “The Feminist Foreign Policy Index,” 44.
[18] Papagioti, “The Feminist Foreign Policy Index,” 15 and 19.
[19] Suzuki T., & Tanabe, K. (2023). Analysis of Factors Affecting Child Poverty Rates in Prefectures. Japanese Society and Culture, 5(1), 150.
[20] “Okinawa Scourged by Storm of Sexual Violence Under Post-WWII US Rule,” The Mainichi, July 1, 2022.
[21] WFP website, Sept. 5, 2023, available at https://www.wfp.org/news/wfp-afghanistan-forced-drop-10-million-people-lifesaving-assistance-deepening-despair-and
[22] Papagioti, “The Feminist Foreign Policy Index,” 15 and 19.
[23] Papagioti, “The Feminist Foreign Policy Index,” 24.
[24] Papagioti, “The Feminist Foreign Policy Index,” 28.
[25] Papagioti, “The Feminist Foreign Policy Index,” 30.
[26] Papagioti, “The Feminist Foreign Policy Index,” 38.
[27] Papagioti, “The Feminist Foreign Policy Index,” 42.
[28] Papagioti, “The Feminist Foreign Policy Index,” 47.
[29] References in this list are to Papagioti, “The Feminist Foreign Policy Index”, 9, 20, 24, 28, 38, 42, 48.
[30] Papagioti, “The Feminist Foreign Policy Index,” 4.
[31] National Curriculum Standards for Social Studies, A Framework for Teaching, Learning, and Assessment 2018, 58.
Submitted by Sung Sohn
Introduction
U.S. foreign policy provides a framework that dictates its global understanding and practices to achieve national “security.” In a country with the most powerful military in the world, force is one of the primary global tools used in U.S. foreign policy to maintain “security” and sometimes to pronounce its imperialistic influences. Though the term “foreign” is used, U.S. foreign policy closely correlates to its domestic policy. During the Trump era, the U.S. approach to foreign policy took a turn to right-wing ideologies, heavily centered on national security related to defense and war. Consequently, racist and misogynist policies were implemented that attacked and threatened women’s rights, impacting domestic agendas critical to women’s bodily autonomy and health. Since then, the suppression of women’s rights in the U.S. has increased.
The Biden-Harris administration has made progress, deviating from right-wing ideologies and, should they win a second term, is committed to making continuous efforts in this direction. Regardless of their successive term, feminist foreign policy (FFP)—which includes prioritizing security through rights and representation, preventing SGBV, and disarmament—must not be a policy impacted by an administration’s political orientation. Should the U.S. want to be a leading country in advancing human rights, feminist foreign policy must be one of its principal values.
After a short review of feminist foreign policy in Sweden and other countries, this brief focuses on foreign policy in the U.S. and the significance of adopting feminist foreign policy.
I. Sweden: The Pioneer of Feminist Foreign Policy
The first “explicitly feminist” foreign policy was announced by Sweden in 2014.[1] There, the feminist approach covers three areas for promoting policy abroad and internally through the feminist lens: foreign and security policy, development coordination, and trade and promotion. The policy consists of three R’s: rights (the promotion of women’s issues, including countering gender-based violence and discrimination); representation (such as support for women’s participation at all levels of decision-making, from parliament to private sector boards to the legal system); and resources (ensuring equitable allocation among people of all genders, whether in government budgets or development projects).
The International Center for Research on Women (ICRW) reported in 2022 that Sweden was evaluated highest in overall rankings for FFP across 48 OECD nations.[2] Since 2014, sixteen governments have formally adopted feminist foreign policies, including Canada, France, Germany, and Mexico.
However, there are several limitations and criticisms presented against Sweden’s policy, along with FFP as an approach:
- The binary focus on women rather than gender, marginalizing LGBTQIA+ individuals[3]
- Sweden’s continuous engagement in arms dealing with Saudi Arabia, despite Saudi Arabia’s poor track record with women rights[4]
- The focus on the rights and experiences of women as individuals, instead of “addressing gendered power structures … building empathic communities, and rethinking … sovereignty, militarism, and nationalism”[5]
- The tendency to adopt a narrow agenda that prioritizes representation and diversity over systemic change[6]
- The themes of saviorism that assumes women from foreign countries are in need of Western masculine intervention and protection[7]
II. Other countries that adopted Feminist Foreign Policy
Although other countries that have adopted a feminist approach to foreign policy have differing FFP definitions, all focus on changing the existing paradigms to include or increase women and gender in their foreign policy theory and practice. By addressing a gender bias and hierarchy inherent in the fields of international relations and security as critical issues of feminist foreign policy, they share similar themes of security through disarmament, rights and representation, intersectional analysis, preventing gender-based violence, resource allocation, institutional policy, and climate change.[8] They view FFP as integral to advancing gender equality, defending human rights, and promoting peace.
III. U.S. Feminist Foreign Policy
The U.S. has yet to adopt a feminist foreign policy, though civil society has been working to resolve this. The leading organizations in this advocacy, timelines on critical efforts, and definitions are as follow:
Civil society
- Feminist Foreign Policy Collaborative: The collaborative provides space for feminists working across government, civil society, and philanthropy to collectively strategize and advance feminist approaches to foreign policy. The collaborative supports two distinct groups working to advance this agenda: 1) the Global Partner Network for Feminist Foreign Policy; and 2) the Coalition for a Feminist Foreign Policy in the United States.
- The Coalition for a Feminist Foreign Policy in the United States: The Coalition for a Feminist Foreign Policy in the United States is a group of civil society organizations advocating for the U.S. to adopt a feminist approach to its foreign policy. ESJF is part of the coalition.
- The International Center for Research on Women: The International Center for Research on Women (ICRW), based in Washington, D.C, is an important resource that has contributed valuable research and updates for more than four decades regarding gender equity, inclusion, and shared prosperity. Since 2020, ICRW has released multiple papers on feminist foreign policy. In 2023, ICRW released an FFP index comprised of 27 key indicators[9] to review the 48 OECD countries across seven priority areas[10]: 1) Peace and Militarization (5 indicators); 2) Official Development Assistance (3 indicators); 3) Migration for Employment (3 indicators); 4) Labor Protections (3 indicators); 5) Economic Justice (5 indicators); 6) Institutional Commitments to Gender Equality (3 indicators); and 7) Climate (5 indicators). The most recent index is the 2023 edition of the seminal Defining Feminist Foreign Policy paper, launched by the Coalition for a Feminist Foreign Policy in the United States on Sept. 15, 2023.
Timelines since 2019
2019: In August 2019, a group of U.S. foreign policy experts and advocates for global gender equality came together over the course of three days to sketch out an initial draft of a U.S. feminist foreign policy (discussion draft).
2020: ICRW released Toward a feminist foreign policy in the U.S.
2021:
January—the Biden administration created a new White House Gender Policy Council to advance gender equity and equality in both domestic and foreign policy development and implementation.
October—the National Strategy on Gender Equity and Equality laid out an agenda for advancing gender equity and equality domestically and internationally, detailing ten priorities that are similar to the priority areas described in the 2021 Defining Feminist Foreign Policy paper.
2022:
January—Coalition submitted the 2021 report card of the administration’s efforts.
2023:
January—Coalition submitted 2022 midterm evaluation (report card) of the administration’s efforts.
March—the Biden administration approved more than $3 billion federal budget for the year 2024 to advance gender equity and equality globally, to create opportunities for women and girls, including the LGBTQIA+ community, to respond to and prevent gender-based violence, advance women’s economic empowerment, and strengthen the participation of women in conflict prevention, resolution, and recovery.
May—the White House published the National Action Plan to End Gender-Based Violence (National-Plan-to-End-GBV.pdf ), emphasizing a whole-of-government approach addressing prevention, racial justice, and LGBTQIA+ equality, alongside intergenerational and community healing. It recognized GBV as a form of gender discrimination and was part of the implementation of the National Strategy on Gender Equity and Equality.[11]
September—discussing Feminist Foreign Policy in the United States: An Agenda for Action, a policy brief to guide the administration’s next steps through the end of this current term, was the main agenda at the Coalition for a Feminist Foreign Policy in the United States meeting on Sept. 14. This brief particularly highlights three critical issues: climate change, sexual and reproductive health and rights, and crisis response. The following day, the coalition launched the 2023 edition of the seminal Defining Feminist Foreign Policy paper. On Sept. 20, during UN General Assembly week, foreign ministers representing the United Nations’ Feminist Foreign Policy Plus group announced the first global declaration on feminist foreign policy. One of the top commitments is to “advance gender equality and the empowerment and autonomy of women and girls in all their diversity, as well as women’s full, equal and meaningful participation at all levels in decision making, to prevent all forms of discrimination and violence against them and promote, protect and fulfill their human rights.” This year, ICRW also published The Feminist Foreign Policy Index: A Quantitative Evaluation of Feminist Commitments.
November—the Coalition released the second term evaluation on Nov. 5.
Definitions
- The Coalition for a Feminist Foreign Policy in the United States
- USWC
Both definitions place emphasis on protecting or safeguarding “the human rights of all” and peace over military dominance. It’s important to note that the coalition emphasizes that “feminism is an agenda everyone can promote, an agenda that seeks equity for all, not the dominance of one over one another.”[12] Advocating for a feminist agenda is not confined by a particular gender.
- ESJF
IV. Feminist Foreign Policy Findings
World
Since the adoption of feminist foreign policy, the following facts emerged worldwide:
- From 1990–2014, only 10 percent of peace agreements were signed by women; that is 13 out of 130 agreements with female signatures.[13]
- In 2012, just 2.5 percent of chief mediators, and 9 percent of negotiators, were women.[14]
- From 2015–2016, only 4 percent of bilateral aid by OECD countries was committed to gender equality programming. Governments often self-report higher levels of spending on programs with a focus on gender equality than meet the OECD criteria for gender equality programming.[15]
- In 2019, representation of female ministers globally reached a record high, with 20.7 percent of all ministry positions being held by women. Only ten countries have 50 percent or more positions in their cabinet held by female ministers.[16]
- According to a study cited in the ICRW report on the FFP Index, an increase of one unit in a country’s Women’s Political Empowerment index is linked to an 11.5 percent decrease in the respective country’s carbon emissions.[17]
- The top ranking countries over all priority areas are Sweden (0.8), Norway (0.73), Mexico and Finland (0.67), Costa Rica and Peru (0.65), and Germany (0.63). The U.S. is ranked the lowest, at 0.12.
One of the most striking U.S. foreign policy traits is reliance on the military. The U.S., a country with the strongest military power in the world, had the highest military spending in 2022, constituting nearly 40 percent of total military spending worldwide that year. U.S. arms exports increased by 14 percent between 2012–2016 and 2017–2021.[18] U.S. increased military spending goes against the values contained in feminist foreign policy definitions—definitions developed by two U.S. organizations—a central concept is protecting or safeguarding the human rights of all using peace over military dominance.
The U.S. pivot toward military dominance impacts the undermining of U.S. women’s human rights. In 2022, the U.S. turned back women’s reproductive rights when the Supreme Court overruled both Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), denying women and girls the right to safe and legal abortion. A series of anti-trans legislation, such as bans on gender-affirming care, have also been widespread.
V. Significance and urgency of the U.S. adopting a feminist foreign policy
It is vitally important that the U.S. adopt a feminist foreign policy (FFP). FFP prioritizes security through rights and representation, while also working toward the prevention of SGBV and disarmament, among others. A feminist foreign policy implemented in the U.S. can interrupt the current suppressive trends and provide a societal structure for women and girls to exercise their full humanity and rights. Civil society and women’s right groups worldwide have been working to address the significance of genuine peace and security for women. For example, in 2000, in response to persistent advocacy, the UN Security Council adopted the landmark Resolution 1325 on women, peace, and security. Recognizing the grave and unique impact armed conflict has on women, this resolution calls for women’s equal participation in all UN peace and security efforts. Eight years later, UN Security Council Resolution 1820 on women, peace, and security was adopted, identifying the use of sexual violence as a tactic of war. It states that “rape and other forms of sexual violence can constitute war crimes, crimes against humanity or a constitutive act with respect to genocide.” Since then, as of 2019, the UN Security Council has adopted eight more resolutions on women, peace, and security. Resolution 2493, adopted in October 2019, urges its Member States to reinforce measures to fully implement all provisions of its resolutions on women, peace and security.
As conflicts in many parts of the world continue to rise, the U.S.—a permanent member of the UN Security Council—must adopt a feminist-centered analysis and a gender-integrated structure. This is not only a responsible response to UN resolutions on women, peace, and security, but also an effective tool to increase peace and equality domestically and internationally. If not, long-existing problems will become exacerbated, irrevocably impacting the lives of countless women and children. Some of the problems associated with military-focused foreign policy abroad and at home are listed below:
Problems
Abroad
Women’s human rights aren’t variable values that can be ignored or violated for so-called national interest. As embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the promotion of respect for human rights has been a central goal of U.S. foreign policy. However, when it comes to women’s human rights issues, the U.S. prioritizes militarism and political interests over human rights. Sexual assault and harassment within the U.S. military has been a persistent problem, which is compounded when considering foreign installations, where extraterritoriality jurisdiction applies under Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAs). This agreement often allows the U.S. to retain exclusive jurisdiction over its service members in many Asian countries. U.S. military personnel overseas face lighter punishment for an array of human rights violations, including sexual violence committed in host countries. Additional problems associated with U.S. overseas military bases—such as systematic environmental pollution, including disposal of toxic waste into soil and water—are not included in the scope of this brief.
U.S. military installations in ROK and Japan
Prioritizing militarized security often threatens the security of communities near U.S. installations, especially in countries like ROK and Japan, where most U.S. military installations are located in the Asia Pacific region.
ROK
In 1992, 34-year-old Kenneth L. Markle (1972–2023), a U.S. serviceman, sexually assaulted and murdered Yun Geum-i, a waitress in the Dongducheon kijichon (U.S. camptown) in ROK, which hosts the U.S. military’s largest overseas installation at Camp Humphreys. Yun was found bludgeoned to death with a bottle stuffed into her vagina and an umbrella into her anus. Yun was only 26 years old. Markle was sentenced to life in prison and started serving that term in ROK two years later, yet his sentence was later reduced to just 15 years. In 2006, he was released early on parole and deported. Back in the U.S., he committed several crimes, including burglary and unauthorized use of a debit card, and died at the age of 50.
In another instance of SOFAs interfering with justice, on June 13, 2002, in South Korea’s Gyeonggi province, a U.S. armored tank driven by two U.S. military personnel ran over thirteen-year-olds Hyo-Soon and Mi-Sun. Both eighth-grade girls died on the spot. South Korea’s Ministry of Justice requested the U.S. waive the right to try the two soldiers in the U.S. so that South Korea could try them. However, referring to SOFA, the U.S. rejected the request. A U.S. court-martial found both of the accused not guilty of negligent homicide in November 2002.
Okinawa, Japan
Japan has the largest number of U.S. troops outside the U.S. And Okinawa, which accounts for only 0.6% of Japan's total land area, hosts 70.6% of Japan's U.S. military facilities. Just like women and girls near Kijichon in South Korea, Okinawan women and girls suffer the same problem. From 1945 to 2011, the Okinawa Women Act Against Military Violence (OWAAMV) reported that myriad crimes, including hundreds of rape cases, had been committed by U.S. military personnel against Okinawan women and children, who live with Japan’s highest [children’s] poverty rate and the highest number of single-mother households. [19] In 1995, for instance, custody transfers of three American servicemen who kidnapped and repeatedly raped a twelve-year-old Okinawan schoolgirl were delayed. The three men, who served terms in Japanese prisons, were released in 2003.[20] Then in 2016, the dumped body of 20-year-old woman was found after a 32-year-old former Marine civilian base worker sexually assaulted, raped, and killed her.
2015 “comfort women” agreement
The concept of U.S. exceptionalism often translates to a lack of accountability to the people in countries hosting U.S. military installations, which perpetrates a pattern of the U.S. undermining women’s human rights and justice. One such example is the flawed 2015 “comfort women” agreement between the ROK and Japan. Although survivors in Asia denounced it and demanded an immediate nullification of the agreement, the U.S. has taken an unaltered stance that is opposite to that of the surviving victims, and applauded the agreement instead. At a July 20, 2021 State Department press briefing, Spokesperson Ned Price reiterated that the U.S. welcomed efforts, such as the 2015 agreement. He added that, “…even while addressing sensitive historical questions, cooperation on our common regional and international priorities must proceed.” Genuine regional and international priorities must safeguard women’s human rights instead of proceeding over women’s human rights. The value of women’s human rights is constant, not variable.
Afghanistan
The hasty withdrawal of the U.S. from Afghanistan in August of 2021 left the rights and lives of Afghan women and girls at major risk of violence and becoming a casualty of conflict. The total dismissal of genuine security for Afghan women and girls threatens basic needs, including food security. Due to a massive funding shortfall, the World Food Programme (WFP), often the last lifeline for women, announced in September it would only provide food assistance to 3 million per month in Afghanistan, cutting off 10 million people. That means only a fifth of Afghanistan’s hungry population will be served. Hsiao-Wei Lee, WFP’s country director and representative in Afghanistan, said, “Amid already worrying levels of hunger and malnutrition, we are obliged to choose between the hungry and the starving, leaving millions of families scrambling for their next meal.”[21] With this drastic funding cut coupled with devastating earthquakes in September, poverty level this winter will reach unprecedented levels. The U.S. has a responsibility to turn this around.
Gaza
The situation in Gaza calls for an immediate ceasefire. Intense air bombardment and collective punishment in Gaza has killed, as of Dec. 10, more than 18,000 Palestinians, about 70% of them children and women. I want to refer to statements by leaders in the U.S. and Israel as well as a freed Israeli captive to summarize the catastrophic situation in Gaza and address the urgent need for peace.
On Oct. 7, the day Hamas attacked Israel, killing 1,200 Israelis and kidnapping around 240 people, U.S. President Joe Biden stated, “The U.S. stands with Israel.” Then on Nov. 5, Israeli Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu said, “Dropping a nuclear bomb on the Gaza Strip is one of the possibilities.” While U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken was in Jordan in November, he stated that a ceasefire in Gaza would allow Hamas to regroup and repeat its attack on Israel. A week later, Biden confirmed that there is “no possibility of Israeli ceasefire in Gaza.” On Dec. 3, Ronen Bar, chief of the Israel Security Agency Shin Bet, said, “Israel is determined to kill Hamas’ leaders ‘in every location’ in the world, including Qatar, Turkey, and Lebanon, even if it takes many years.” Based on his statement, it is not out of the question that the war on Gaza could spread to neighboring countries.
On Dec. 5, CNN reported that senior Israeli military officials commented that killing two Palestinian civilians for every Hamas militant is “tremendously positive.” Killing more than 10,000 civilians can never be “positive.” Across the world, even one premature baby lost in an incubator during a conflict is one too many. One child lost in an indiscriminate school bombing is one too many. One displaced mother losing a child as part of wartime collective punishment is one too many.
On that same day at an Israeli War Cabinet meeting with families of freed captives, Israel’s PM Benjamin Netanyahu stated that, “It wasn't feasible to bring everyone back alive…” An Israeli woman freed with her children but with her husband left in captivity confronted Netanyahu at the meeting, saying, “You put politics above the return of the kidnapped.” Politics must not be placed above innocent lives.
The following day, horrific sexual crimes Hamas had committed against Israeli women and girls during the attack on Israel were reported. Within days, on Dec. 8, the U.S. State Department used emergency authority, an Arms Export Control Act emergency declaration, for the sale of about 14,000 tank shells to Israel, bypassing the standard 20-day period of congressional committees’ review. On Dec. 8, at the United Nations Security Council, the U.S. vetoed a resolution calling for a cease-fire in the Israel-Hamas war. The U.S. deputy representative to the U.N., Robert Wood, said the resolution was rushed and ignored U.S. diplomatic efforts to get more aid into Gaza and free Israeli hostages. Wood added that the draft also "failed to acknowledge that Israel has the right to defend itself against terrorism.“ In response to the failure to support the call for a humanitarian cease-fire in Gaza, Jordan’s foreign minister Safadi said, “The failure is an endorsement of further killing of Palestinians, further violations of international law, further commitment of war crimes.“
Responding to the 10/7 attack by using unguided “dumb” bombs and white phosphorous-filled artillery shells, which is an incendiary weapon for restricted use, in populated civilian areas or civilian infrastructures, violates international humanitarian law. Killing three Israeli hostages on Dec. 13 mistaken for Hamas militants is an utter tragedy. What families of Israel hostages want most is to have their loved ones back. If Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza lasts months, as Israel Defense Minister Yoav Gallant said on Dec. 14, the catastrophe and tragedy will multiply.
The Biden administration twice bypassed Congress in December 2023 to use emergency authority to make emergency arms sales to Israel despite growing domestic and international opposition. On Dec. 8, the Biden Administration used an emergency authority, an Arms Export Control Act emergency declaration, to allow the sale of about 14,000 tank shells worth $106.5 million for immediate delivery to Israel without congressional review. On Dec. 29, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken told Congress that he had made a second emergency authority to allow more than a $147.5 million arms equipment sale to Israel.
Home
U.S. foreign policy has direct correlations to domestic policy. What is practiced toward other countries is often the reality at home. Since the start of the Trump-era, policies have been implemented that attack and threaten women’s rights, impacting domestic agendas that are critical to women’s bodily autonomy and health, increasing suppression of women’s rights. Women and girls’ reproductive rights is one of the main areas impacted by these regressive policies. CNN maps the current abortion status in the U.S. in the following index--https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/31/us/abortion-access-restrictions-bans-us/index.html
Solutions:
A central goal of U.S. foreign policy has been the promotion of respect for human rights. Given increasing military tension globally, the U.S. must step up to be an exceptional leading country for advancing human rights, instead of being an exception to it. U.S. must put its goal of promoting respect for human rights in action and make an inherent feminist approach central. As demonstrated by history, long-practiced militaristic foreign policy creates more violence than peace. Albert Einstein said, we cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. It’s time for the U.S. to increase genuine investment in peace and human security instead of arms.
Structural change
As indicated below, the FFP Index makes some concrete recommendations in the area of structural changes. Additional effective structural solution includes active implementation of the gender equity law Title IX (passed in 1972).
FFP Index
Areas of Improvement in FFP’s Seven Priority Areas:
- Peace and Militarization: U.S. ranks second lowest
- The United States led the ranking of countries with highest military spending in 2022, constituting nearly 40 percent of total military spending worldwide that year. Between 2012–2016 and 2017–2021, arms exports from the U.S. increased 14 percent.[22]
- Solution: Increase investment in peace and human security
- Reduction in military spending and reallocation of funds toward social services
- Official Development Assistance: U.S. ranks ninth lowest
- The U.S. is in the top five donors of gender-equality aid by volume, but when measured per capita this number drops significantly.[23]
- Solution: Collaboration between feminist movements and ODA donor governments
- Ensure that 100 percent of bilateral allocable commitments have gender equality as a significant goal
- Migration for Employment: U.S. ranks in the middle
- The ICRW evaluates the U.S. in the slightly favorable range, meaning it adopts an approach that promises equal rights, opportunities, and safety, yet to a lesser extent than the higher ranked countries.[24]
- Solution: A rights-based approach to migration
- Change discriminatory migration restrictions while increasing legal protections
- Labor Protections: U.S. evaluated with a score of 0
- For this indicator, countries are given a score of 1 if they have fully ratified all conventions in this priority area, a 0.5 for partial ratification, and 0 if they have not signed a convention.
- The U.S. is among three states (including India and China) that have not ratified a single convention.[25]
- Solution: Ratification of labor standards
- Economic Justice: U.S. ranks lowest
- The U.S. has the highest number of ISDS (Investor-State dispute settlement) cases and the highest financial secrecy score.
- It also has not signed the OECD MLI-BEPS instrument on tax evasion or endorsed the Buenos Aires Declaration on Trade and Women’s Economic Empowerment.[26]
- Solution: Reworking through a global economic justice lens
- Safeguard human rights in the conduct of business through legally binding instruments
- Institutional Commitments to Gender Equality: U.S. ranks fourth lowest
- The U.S. has not ratified the CEDAW, often referred to as the Women’s Bill of Rights, which makes it an outlier from the 30 countries that have fully ratified and the 17 who have ratified with reservations.[27]
- Solution: Ratification of CEDAW and an increase in meaningful representation
- Climate: U.S. ranks 14th lowest
- Solution: An increased dedication to climate commitments
- Codify net-zero pledges into law [29]
Women, Peace and Security through education
Education is another effective solution. When addressing the significance of peace and countering sexual and gender-based violence, ESJF builds on the lessons learned from the dark history of the Japanese military’s sexual slavery system and the progress made by a transnational women’s human rights movement to bring genuine security and peace to women and girls in conflict. We also examine the impact of U.S. foreign policy on the history of redressing Japan’s WWII military sexual slavery system. Collaboration is another key. In addition to ongoing collaboration, this year, ESJF had an opportunity to work with the International Action Network for Gender Equity and Law’s (IANGEL) Teen Information Project, TIP, to educate the SF Bay Area high school students about their reproductive rights. I wrote a syllabi sample for UC Berkeley Law School students to use for TIP. These two topics—one from history and the other on making history today—also provide empowerment opportunities for women and girls to lead advocacy.
Conclusion
Global partnership focused on peace and human rights isn’t an abstract idea. In the U.S., the national social studies curriculum standards developed by the National Council for Social Studies (NCSS) list global connection as one of ten main themes for U.S. social studies curriculum standards. The 2010 edition of the National Curriculum Standards for Social Studies, a revised edition of the earlier social studies standards published in 1994, explains that “the realities of global interdependence require an understanding of the increasingly important and diverse global connections among world societies. This theme prepares students to study issues arising from globalization.”[30] One of the questions under this theme is: “How can individuals, groups, and organizations more effectively address critical issues (e.g., peace, conflict, disease, human rights, trade, and global ecology)?”[31] Since 1994, we have been teaching youth about peaceful resolutions over force, including military force. The U.S. government must no longer delay learning what the youth has already been learning. Inspired by Toni Morrison’s saying — “If you’re free, you need to free somebody else” — if the U.S. values women’s human rights in the U.S., it needs to value those of women in other countries.
As has been illustrated time and time again, violence escalates violence. For genuine peace to be achieved, we need a stronger and transnational peace movement that recognizes the sanctity of all lives. Adopting feminist foreign policy focused on peace is a big step in the right direction.
ESJF's intern Esmé Lee-Gardner provided basic research on feminist foreign policy in Sweden and other countries, including fast facts.
[1] Thompson, Lyric, Spogmay Ahmed, and Tanya Khokhar. “Defining Feminist Foreign Policy: A 2021 Update.” International Center for Research on Women, 1.
[2] Papagioti, Foteini. The Feminist Foreign Policy Index: A Quantitative Evaluation of Feminist Commitments. Washington, D.C.: International Center for Research on Women, 2023, 50.
[3] Thompson, Spogmay, and Khokar, “Defining Feminist,” 3.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Scheyer, and Kumskova, “Feminist Foreign Policy”, 64.
[6] Papagioti, “The Feminist Foreign Policy Index,” 8.
[7] Aggestam, Rosamond, and Kronsell, “Theorising Feminist,” 29.
[8] Papagioti, Foteini. The Feminist Foreign Policy Index: A Quantitative Evaluation of Feminist Commitments. Washington, D.C.: International Center for Research on Women, 2023, 8.
[9] Papagioti, “The Feminist Foreign Policy Index,” 53–60.
[10] Papagioti, “The Feminist Foreign Policy Index,” 13.
[11] “U.S. National Plan to End Gender-Based Violence,” Washington, D.C.: The White House, May 2023, 5, 23.
[12] Thompson, Lyric, Spogmay Ahmed, and Tanya Khokhar. “Defining Feminist Foreign Policy: A 2021 Update.” International Center for Research on Women, 26.
[13] Wallström, Margot. “Sweden’s Feminist Foreign Policy.” In The Nordic Edge: Policy Possibilities for Australia, edited by Andrew Scott and Rod Campbell, 79–97. Melbourne University Publishing Ltd, 2021, 84.
[14] Aggestam, Karin, Annika Bergman Rosamond, and Annica Kronsell. “Theorising Feminist Foreign Policy.” International Relations 33, no. 1 (2019), 30.
[15] Bigio, and Vogelstein, Understanding Gender Equality in Foreign Policy: What the United States Can Do. Council on Foreign Relations, 2020, 12.
[16] Bigio, Jamille, and Rachel Vogelstein. Understanding Gender Equality in Foreign Policy: What the United States Can Do. Council on Foreign Relations, 2020, 4.
[17] Papagioti, “The Feminist Foreign Policy Index,” 44.
[18] Papagioti, “The Feminist Foreign Policy Index,” 15 and 19.
[19] Suzuki T., & Tanabe, K. (2023). Analysis of Factors Affecting Child Poverty Rates in Prefectures. Japanese Society and Culture, 5(1), 150.
[20] “Okinawa Scourged by Storm of Sexual Violence Under Post-WWII US Rule,” The Mainichi, July 1, 2022.
[21] WFP website, Sept. 5, 2023, available at https://www.wfp.org/news/wfp-afghanistan-forced-drop-10-million-people-lifesaving-assistance-deepening-despair-and
[22] Papagioti, “The Feminist Foreign Policy Index,” 15 and 19.
[23] Papagioti, “The Feminist Foreign Policy Index,” 24.
[24] Papagioti, “The Feminist Foreign Policy Index,” 28.
[25] Papagioti, “The Feminist Foreign Policy Index,” 30.
[26] Papagioti, “The Feminist Foreign Policy Index,” 38.
[27] Papagioti, “The Feminist Foreign Policy Index,” 42.
[28] Papagioti, “The Feminist Foreign Policy Index,” 47.
[29] References in this list are to Papagioti, “The Feminist Foreign Policy Index”, 9, 20, 24, 28, 38, 42, 48.
[30] Papagioti, “The Feminist Foreign Policy Index,” 4.
[31] National Curriculum Standards for Social Studies, A Framework for Teaching, Learning, and Assessment 2018, 58.
Submitted by Sung Sohn