Against all odds: implementing feminist approaches to international politics

Last spring, the Federal Foreign Office (AA) and the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) published feminist guidelines for the policies of their respective departments. Welcomed and critically and constructively commented on by feminist civil society, they have led remarkably quickly to greater acceptance of feminist approaches in some socio-political areas and scientific institutions. However, the implementation of the concepts of Feminist Foreign Policy (FFP) and Feminist Development Policy (FDP) is now being jeopardised by political headwinds much sooner than feared. Following on from previous discussions, this article examines the challenges and risks of repetition that we as progressive feminist forces should address if we want to safeguard, further develop and sharpen these concepts.

Key terms in danger of being watered down

Looking back on the development of human rights and gender concepts, it becomes clear that the social and feminist movements have shaped all normative rules and frameworks for more social and gender justice. They have played a decisive role in fighting for obligations of the international community that are still universally applicable today. The relatively young political concepts of FDP and FFP are also rooted in international political agreements that were enforced through many years of struggle by international feminist movements. They did not just emerge after “harmless” consultation processes with civil society, but rather represent compromises and achievements of the often very tough disputes within and between the international feminist movements. 

That is why feminists have repeatedly criticised the possible dilution of key terms relating to equal opportunities and anti-discrimination. These terms reflect the perspectives of those who want to change something. The transition of terms from the movements to the institutions is therefore also a question of the power of definition and the authority of interpretation – and the underlying fear of appropriation. 

This is what happened with the empowerment approach: the original, system-critical concept of a collective gaining of power “from below” – presented by the Southern network DAWN in 1985, at the UN World Conference on Women in Nairobi 1 – must be seen as paving the way for today’s FDP approach, which sees itself as power-critical, post-colonial and anti-racist. However, the once radical power reversal concept became a toothless tiger as a counterpart to gender mainstreaming in the so-called dual approach of state development co-operation and as a quota instrument (in the form “GG2 measures” that pursue gender equality as the main objective).2But in the BMZ’s strategy, the term “empowerment” only appears in a footnote. However, this should not be the answer to the previous trivialisation of this important approach from the Global South. After all, how do we want to understand the transformation of the gender hierarchy, i.e. the overcoming of discrimination and exclusion, fought for by the actors themselves, without the category of “gaining power” – especially since this process should be at the stated centre of feminist development co-operation? 

Is the optimism about transformation backfiring?

The BMZ has now further concretised the implementation in development policy practice and supplemented the feminist strategy with both a development policy action plan on gender equality and a new human rights strategy for German development policy. The action plan explains gender-transformative approaches: they “create social awareness of gender inequalities and aim to actively and sustainably change the underlying causes”; this should be achieved primarily by changing or abolishing discriminatory laws and unequal social norms and practices. The definition of this approach to fundamental change is complex and takes into account other dimensions that also go back to the demands of the international feminist women’s human rights movements, because feminist politics sees itself as human rights-based, intersectional and, above all, critical of power. Numerous examples of transformative project approaches are provided for the various action areas: from sex education and work with men to strengthen women’s sexual and reproductive rights, to the networking of local environmental activists in the fight against climate change and the decision-making power of indigenous women in the energy sector, to education campaigns and advocacy work at international level.

The implementation of feminist development policy will be broadly based and no longer limited to the former traditional sectors (education, health, microcredit). The downside of this positive development, however, lies in the lack of clarity in the political assessment of the limitations: how much system-changing power actually lies in a – good and undeniably important – education project?

A wave of “transformation optimism” can currently be observed in the German development policy community, as “gender-transformative projects” are sprouting up like mushrooms. This harbours the risk of so-called donor codes being adopted in order to get project applications approved, instead of pursuing real transformation and the implementation of international women’s human rights. Further discussions and much more situation- and context-dependent definitions are urgently needed here to ensure that the issue of systemic change is not watered down in the project application and approval process – especially against the backdrop of expanding autocratic regimes and repressive systems that are putting women’s human rights and their defenders under pressure worldwide3. 

Danger of feminist achievements evaporating

The AA’s Feminist Foreign Policy guidelines dramatically demonstrate how problematic it is when the core principles of hard-won policies and UN agreements are disregarded. The challenges for FFP could hardly be greater in view of the current crises and conflicts. Moreover, the disappointment over the actions of the German government is enormous, because it calls into question the principles of human rights and international law, but above all the core elements of Resolution 1325 (such as mandating a ceasefire to enable access to humanitarian aid, which in turn is essential for women’s rights to sexual and reproductive health). In order to regain its lost credibility, the German government should address the failures immediately while making sure to involve international feminist experts. The many critiques and discourses of feminist international relations, which criticise FFP as a neo-colonial export of norms and reject the supposed protection of women that is used to justify wars, must be taken into account. This is particularly common in the case of Muslim women, who are portrayed exclusively as victims of extremist forces (so-called securo-feminism)4. 

We must also listen to the voices warning against the pinkwashing of authoritarian powers such as Saudi Arabia, which brazenly jump on the feminist bandwagon of the donor nations of the North, for example by involving women in security-relevant and peace-building tasks and thus presenting themselves as modernisers.

No feminist foreign policy without 1325 

To judge the current wars and crimes in Ukraine and Gaza as a “test” of the practical viability of feminist foreign policy seems cynical towards all victims. Rather, the current political situation requires an explicit return to UN Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security and its successor resolutions in order to do justice to the guiding principles and core agreements of FFP. For the failure of realpolitik is obviously due to the “systematic cutting off of instruments that have been fought for over decades” (Claudia von Braunmühl), and thus to an insufficiently developed narrative of the FFP, which is susceptible to the de facto influence of political decision-makers who fill this vacuum based on their own interpretation of what is required.

Feminist networks face collapse due to lack of funding

For many years, international feminist organisations have complained about the chronic underfunding of their work and structures. In the feminist guidelines the BMZ recognises this shortcoming, but also sees itself as powerless to change anything. In fact, there is a need for a comprehensive reform of budget and grant law in international co-operation, i.e. it is time to develop explicit feminist funding guidelines for both ministries within the framework of gender budgeting, so that international feminist organisations can finally work with flexible core funding instead of having to keep their heads above water through project applications that come with a huge administrative burden. Donors need to recognise the urgency of having funding in place, whether it’s at grassroots level, in the movements or in public budgets. This is also especially true for democracy-promoting advocacy work by feminist human rights organisations. The funding NGO Mama Cash is therefore calling for the use of other accountability mechanisms that benefit both sides, as the current reporting requirements are bureaucratically burdensome but mostly apolitical and do not help parliamentarians advance their positions in committees on gender inequality and gender-based human rights violations. 

However, in view of the severe budget cuts, which will particularly affect the Federal Foreign Office and the BMZ, to the tune of over 12% and nearly 17% respectively in 2025, it is highly questionable that there will be better quality and more reliable funding for feminist organisations going forward. Instead, the two ministries with the most gender-equitable budgets have been set back in their planning. Criticism from women’s rights and development aid organisations has been harsh, warning that feminist (development) policy is in danger of being wound down as a result of the dwindling financial support for the guidelines.

Defending progress – developing feminist guidelines together 

Domestically, there is not only a lack of understanding of the importance of feminist politics for social justice and peace, but above all a lack of policy coherence. This is because there is no indication from Germany’s Federal Cabinet that gender equality is a guiding principle for national action. In terms of foreign policy, both the credibility and effectiveness of the new normative approaches are being called into question by realpolitik actions in the face of current human rights violations and conflicts. The pressure from conservative forces on progressive political approaches is increasing enormously at both national and international level. Nevertheless, both FFP and FDP should be further developed together as open political frameworks and quickly institutionalised. This requires knowledge of the condensed, sometimes ambivalent discourses of feminist movements worldwide and recognition of their advocacy achievements. Because there is so much available: from policy instruments that are binding under international law, to regional declarations, to a variety of gender-responsive instruments for operationalisation. Only together and by defending our achievements can we counter their appropriation and erosion by political opponents.