Feminist Foreign Policy
Feminist Foreign Policy: Update and Significance
USWC Webinar on December 13, 2023
Summary
After a brief review of Sweden’s feminist foreign policy (FFP) and those of other countries, this webinar discusses U.S. foreign policy’s reliance on militarism, efforts of civil society to bring feminist foreign policy to the U.S., and the significance of the U.S. adopting a feminist foreign policy as seen in examples of conflict-related sexual and gender-based violence. It ends with recommendations for achieving FFP in the U.S.
I. Feminist Foreign Policy in Sweden and Other Countries Sweden announced the first “explicitly” feminist foreign policy in 2014, covering three areas: foreign and security policy, development coordination, and trade and promotion. Sweden’s FFP also consists of three R’s: rights, representation, and resources. Since 2014, sixteen governments, including Canada, France, Germany, and Mexico, have formally adopted feminist foreign policies. While all countries that have adopted a feminist foreign policy have differing definitions and limitations, all of them focus on changing the existing paradigms to include or increase women and gender in their foreign policies of advancing gender equality, defending human rights, and promoting peace.
II. United States Foreign Policy
The U.S. has yet to adopt a feminist foreign policy. Instead, its foreign policy practice has long demonstrated heavy reliance on military force to maintain “security.” In 2022, the U.S., already a country with the strongest military power in the world, had the highest military spending, constituting nearly 40 percent of total military spending worldwide. As a permanent member of the UN Security Council that adopted Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) in 2000, the U.S. has a responsibility to uphold it and the rest of the WPS resolutions. Adopting an FFP will be a significant step toward that effort.
U.S. Militarism Abroad
Sexual assault and harassment within the U.S. military has been a persistent problem. It is compounded when considering foreign installations, where extraterritoriality jurisdiction applies under Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAs). These agreements often allow the U.S. to retain exclusive jurisdiction over its service members in many countries, including the ROK and Japan. U.S. military personnel overseas face lighter or sometimes no punishment for an array of human rights violations, including sexual violence. The webinar highlights a few cases handled unjustly in South Korea, which hosts the U.S. military’s largest overseas installation at Camp Humphreys and Japan. Besides these individual cases, the webinar discusses the flawed 2015 “Comfort Women” agreement, examining a case of collective injustice against women in Asia. The 2015 agreement, which the U.S. welcomed and supported, illustrates the U.S. choosing political relationships over human rights.
The Central and Middle East Asian regions are also gravely impacted by U.S. foreign policy focused on militarism. The webinar shares examples from Afghanistan and Gaza. The U.S.’s hasty withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021 left the rights and lives of Afghan women and girls at major risk of violence and threatens their basic needs, including food security. In Gaza, intense air bombardment and collective punishment has killed, as of Dec. 10, 2023, more than 18,000 Palestinians, about 70 percent of them children and women. Yet once again, the U.S. chooses political relationships over the reality of severe human rights violations.
U.S. Militarism at Home
Although the term “foreign” is used, U.S. foreign policy is closely tied to its domestic policy. What the U.S. has practiced in other countries is often the reality at home. During the Trump-era, many racist and misogynist policies were implemented that attacked and threatened U.S. women’s rights. The U.S. pivot toward military dominance impacts the undermining of U.S. women’s human rights.
III. The Road to U.S. Feminist Foreign Policy
To resolve the problems and issues associated with human rights violations and violence worldwide, it is critical that the U.S. adopt a feminist foreign policy. Civil society has been urging the U.S. to adopt a feminist foreign policy, including: Feminist Foreign Policy Collaborative, The Coalition for a Feminist Foreign Policy in the United States, and The International Center for Research on Women (ICRW). In the most recent release of The Feminist Foreign Policy Index: A Quantitative Evaluation of Feminist Commitments, among the 48 OECD countries, ICRW found the highest-ranking country over all priority areas is Sweden and the lowest ranking country is the U.S.
In addition to collaboration with civil society, education is a vitally effective solution to advance human rights and promote peace for all. 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. ESJF also examines the impact of U.S. foreign policy on the history of redressing Japan’s WWII military sexual slavery system.
As has been illustrated time and time again, violence escalates violence. Silently watching a conflict implicitly condones that violence and aggravates problems. For genuine peace to be achieved, we need a stronger and transnational peace movement that recognizes the sanctity of all lives. The U.S. adopting feminist foreign policy focused on peace is a big step in the right direction. The U.S., the leading country in the world, has the power to interrupt the current suppressive trends and provide a societal structure for women and girls to exercise their full humanity and rights.
Submitted by Sung Sohn
USWC Webinar on December 13, 2023
Summary
After a brief review of Sweden’s feminist foreign policy (FFP) and those of other countries, this webinar discusses U.S. foreign policy’s reliance on militarism, efforts of civil society to bring feminist foreign policy to the U.S., and the significance of the U.S. adopting a feminist foreign policy as seen in examples of conflict-related sexual and gender-based violence. It ends with recommendations for achieving FFP in the U.S.
I. Feminist Foreign Policy in Sweden and Other Countries Sweden announced the first “explicitly” feminist foreign policy in 2014, covering three areas: foreign and security policy, development coordination, and trade and promotion. Sweden’s FFP also consists of three R’s: rights, representation, and resources. Since 2014, sixteen governments, including Canada, France, Germany, and Mexico, have formally adopted feminist foreign policies. While all countries that have adopted a feminist foreign policy have differing definitions and limitations, all of them focus on changing the existing paradigms to include or increase women and gender in their foreign policies of advancing gender equality, defending human rights, and promoting peace.
II. United States Foreign Policy
The U.S. has yet to adopt a feminist foreign policy. Instead, its foreign policy practice has long demonstrated heavy reliance on military force to maintain “security.” In 2022, the U.S., already a country with the strongest military power in the world, had the highest military spending, constituting nearly 40 percent of total military spending worldwide. As a permanent member of the UN Security Council that adopted Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) in 2000, the U.S. has a responsibility to uphold it and the rest of the WPS resolutions. Adopting an FFP will be a significant step toward that effort.
U.S. Militarism Abroad
Sexual assault and harassment within the U.S. military has been a persistent problem. It is compounded when considering foreign installations, where extraterritoriality jurisdiction applies under Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAs). These agreements often allow the U.S. to retain exclusive jurisdiction over its service members in many countries, including the ROK and Japan. U.S. military personnel overseas face lighter or sometimes no punishment for an array of human rights violations, including sexual violence. The webinar highlights a few cases handled unjustly in South Korea, which hosts the U.S. military’s largest overseas installation at Camp Humphreys and Japan. Besides these individual cases, the webinar discusses the flawed 2015 “Comfort Women” agreement, examining a case of collective injustice against women in Asia. The 2015 agreement, which the U.S. welcomed and supported, illustrates the U.S. choosing political relationships over human rights.
The Central and Middle East Asian regions are also gravely impacted by U.S. foreign policy focused on militarism. The webinar shares examples from Afghanistan and Gaza. The U.S.’s hasty withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021 left the rights and lives of Afghan women and girls at major risk of violence and threatens their basic needs, including food security. In Gaza, intense air bombardment and collective punishment has killed, as of Dec. 10, 2023, more than 18,000 Palestinians, about 70 percent of them children and women. Yet once again, the U.S. chooses political relationships over the reality of severe human rights violations.
U.S. Militarism at Home
Although the term “foreign” is used, U.S. foreign policy is closely tied to its domestic policy. What the U.S. has practiced in other countries is often the reality at home. During the Trump-era, many racist and misogynist policies were implemented that attacked and threatened U.S. women’s rights. The U.S. pivot toward military dominance impacts the undermining of U.S. women’s human rights.
III. The Road to U.S. Feminist Foreign Policy
To resolve the problems and issues associated with human rights violations and violence worldwide, it is critical that the U.S. adopt a feminist foreign policy. Civil society has been urging the U.S. to adopt a feminist foreign policy, including: Feminist Foreign Policy Collaborative, The Coalition for a Feminist Foreign Policy in the United States, and The International Center for Research on Women (ICRW). In the most recent release of The Feminist Foreign Policy Index: A Quantitative Evaluation of Feminist Commitments, among the 48 OECD countries, ICRW found the highest-ranking country over all priority areas is Sweden and the lowest ranking country is the U.S.
In addition to collaboration with civil society, education is a vitally effective solution to advance human rights and promote peace for all. 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. ESJF also examines the impact of U.S. foreign policy on the history of redressing Japan’s WWII military sexual slavery system.
As has been illustrated time and time again, violence escalates violence. Silently watching a conflict implicitly condones that violence and aggravates problems. For genuine peace to be achieved, we need a stronger and transnational peace movement that recognizes the sanctity of all lives. The U.S. adopting feminist foreign policy focused on peace is a big step in the right direction. The U.S., the leading country in the world, has the power to interrupt the current suppressive trends and provide a societal structure for women and girls to exercise their full humanity and rights.
Submitted by Sung Sohn