Aditi Pathak 

Foreign Policy has since long been associated with power, security, and strategic interest- often framed through lens of military prowess and national self interest (Tickner 1992). Yet in the last two decades, socialists and policy makers have increasingly talked about the “Feminization” of foreign policy- a term that suggests the introduction of values historically ignored in global affairs, such as empathy, cooperation, dialogue, and inclusivity (Enloe 2014). However, this terminology remains controversial, critics argue that labeling these attributes as “feminine” risks preserving existing stereotypes and binary thinking, which suggests that certain human attributes belong to a particular gender (Cohn 1987). This piece explores the meaning of feminization in foreign policy, examines real world examples and questions if it offers a genuinely transformative lens or if it is ultimately a mislabel that risks oversimplifying complex diplomatic concepts. 

Feminization vs. Feminist Foreign Policy: Evolving Debates and Diverse Voices

Feminization in foreign policy isn’t just about putting more women in high offices. It’s about reimagining how countries conduct diplomacy — shifting the focus toward empathy, dialogue, human security, and inclusivity (Tickner 1992). But feminist scholars warn that if these ideals don’t actively include diverse voices — especially from the Global South — they risk replicating the very power hierarchies they aim to challenge.

The distinction matters:

• Feminization changes the style and tone of diplomacy, encouraging cooperation and people-centered security, but doesn’t always push for a clear gender equality agenda.
• Feminist Foreign Policy (FFP), by contrast, is a political commitment to weave gender equality and women’s rights into every layer of foreign policy. It’s about transforming both goals and power structures. Sweden famously led the way in 2014, declaring gender equality essential for peace, security, and sustainable development (Government Offices of Sweden, Ministry for Foreign Affairs, n.d.).

Ann Tickner (1992) argues that true security isn’t measured only by military power but by protecting human well-being and justice. Cynthia Enloe (2014) highlights how global politics often ignores “the complicated lives of women,” even though women’s labor underpins both economies and security systems worldwide. Carol Cohn (1987) shows how hyper-masculine language in policy debates — words like “penetration” or “hardness” — sidelines humanitarian concerns as irrational or “soft.”

Newer feminist scholarship broadens these insights:

• Decolonial feminism insists that FFP must confront colonial histories and global power hierarchies (Mama 2020). African feminists like Rosebell Kagumire and Toni Haastrup critique Western-led FFPs for overlooking African feminist frameworks such as the Maputo Protocol, which enshrines women’s rights into African legal systems (AfricanFeminism 2023). As Haastrup puts it: “FFP does not exist in isolation from the histories and identities of the incumbent states.”
• Queer theory expands FFP beyond rigid gender binaries, insisting that sexual orientation and gender identity are integral to human rights (Wibben 2020). Yet activists in places like Uganda caution that Western diplomatic pushes around LGBTQ+ rights can provoke backlash or appear as neo-colonial impositions (Enloe 2014; Patel 2023).
• Ecofeminism links gender justice to environmental sustainability, showing that ecological crises disproportionately harm women, especially in the Global South (Salleh 2017). Memory Kachambwa criticizes carbon markets that displace Indigenous communities in the name of “green” projects, arguing true climate justice must be both feminist and anti-colonial (AfricanFeminism 2023).

These ideas play out in real-world politics. For instance, Bangladeshi women leaders from the 2024 July Revolution refused the U.S. International Women of Courage Award to protest American foreign policy on Palestine — a powerful reminder of the tensions between feminist ideals and imperial politics (Huq 2025).

All these diverse feminist lenses remind us that for FFP to be truly transformative, it must be intersectional, locally rooted, and historically conscious. Otherwise, it risks becoming just another Northern export rather than a genuine global movement for justice (Patel 2023; Arora 2023).

Importance and Strategic Value of Feminist Foreign Policy

Feminist foreign policy isn’t just a moral choice; it’s increasingly viewed as a strategic necessity. Research shows that societies where women are safer and more empowered tend to be more peaceful and less prone to conflict (Hudson et al., 2012).

Consider the evidence:

• Peace agreements are 35% more likely to last at least 15 years when women take part in negotiations (UN Women, 2015).
• Countries with higher gender equality are statistically more stable and resilient, even during crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic (World Economic Forum, 2023).
• Development aid that focuses on women’s rights and participation is significantly more effective at driving sustainable economic and social progress (OECD, 2021).

These outcomes highlight that gender equality is not just a human rights goal; it’s directly linked to global security and prosperity. Feminist foreign policy aims to tackle the roots of instability instead of just reacting to crises. For example:

• Development Aid: Gender-focused aid improves health, education, and economic outcomes (OECD, 2021).
• Climate Change: Women’s local knowledge enhances community resilience to climate disasters (CFFP n.d.).
• Countering Extremism: Women’s involvement disrupts extremist networks and supports early warning systems (UN Women, 2015).

Importantly, feminist foreign policy redefines security by focusing on human dignity, freedom from violence, and social justice instead of merely military power (Tickner, 1992). By doing this, it provides a practical path to a safer and fairer global order.

Global Momentum Behind Feminist Foreign Policy

Over the past decade, feminist foreign policy has moved from an abstract idea to concrete action in international diplomacy. Sweden led the charge in 2014, launching the world’s first official feminist foreign policy built around the “3 Rs”: rights, representation, and resources. The country pledged to assess arms exports and trade ties through a gender lens (Government Offices of Sweden, Ministry for Foreign Affairs, n.d.).

But here’s where reality complicates the story. Despite its feminist stance, Sweden authorized more than $1.3 billion in arms sales to Saudi Arabia in 2018—an authoritarian state notorious for gender oppression (WILPF 2019). This contradiction raises an uncomfortable but necessary question: Can a feminist foreign policy truly stand alongside the arms trade? As WILPF (n.d.) has pointed out, militarization directly clashes with feminist principles of peace and human security.

Canada offers another example. In 2017, it introduced the Feminist International Assistance Policy, aiming for 95% of its foreign aid to support gender equality by 2022 (Government of Canada, 2021). Yet, Canada continues to grapple with serious domestic challenges, particularly concerning Indigenous women’s rights and gender-based violence. Critics note this gap between projecting feminist values abroad and addressing inequalities at home.

Meanwhile, countries in the Global South have been charting their own paths. Mexico became the first Global South nation to adopt a feminist foreign policy in 2020, firmly linking gender equality with peace and security (Delgado 2020). Germany followed in 2023, earmarking 85% of new project funds for gender-focused initiatives (Centre for Feminist Foreign Policy, 2023). France, too, has woven gender equality into its diplomacy, especially in development and conflict contexts (La France à Chypre, 2025).

Civil society has been crucial in pushing governments to live up to their promises. Organizations like the UK’s Centre for Feminist Foreign Policy (CFFP) are vocal about issues like demilitarization and cybersecurity from a feminist perspective (CFFP, n.d.). WILPF, active since 1915, has highlighted how feminist foreign policy risks becoming more of a branding exercise if not backed by real change.

Feminist foreign policy holds incredible promise—but only if countries confront the tensions between their words and their actions. Otherwise, it risks becoming a label rather than a genuine tool for transformative change.

Feminist Foreign Policy in the Global South

Feminist foreign policy (FFP) isn’t only unfolding in Europe and North America—it’s also taking root, in distinct ways, across the Global South. Countries like Mexico, Rwanda, South Africa, and Bangladesh are shaping their own versions, grounded in local struggles, feminist movements, and histories of colonialism.

• Mexico became the first country in the Global South to adopt an official Feminist Foreign Policy (FFP) in 2020, connecting gender equality directly with peace, development, and diplomacy. Under this approach, Mexico has started including gender perspectives in all its foreign relations work, promoting women’s rights through regional groups like the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) and integrating gender into peacekeeping efforts (Delgado 2020). 
• Chile, Colombia, and Argentina have followed Mexico’s lead, exploring how feminist ideas can help address deep-rooted inequalities shaped by years of conflict, dictatorship, and social injustice. In Colombia, the 2016 peace agreement with the FARC included strong protections for women’s rights thanks to persistent advocacy from women’s groups (UN Women 2015). However, putting these promises into practice, especially in rural regions, remains a major challenge.
• Rwanda offers another significant example. Women now hold over 61% of seats in Rwanda’s parliament, the highest percentage in the world (Inter-Parliamentary Union 2023). But activists like Olive Uwamariya remind us that having more women in leadership doesn’t automatically transform social attitudes or laws. For instance, Rwanda’s parliament recently resisted expanding access to contraception for teenage girls, highlighting how cultural barriers persist (Uwamariya 2023). Despite this, Rwanda’s evolving National Action Plans on Women, Peace, and Security focus on preventing violence against women and involving women in community rebuilding after conflict (Uwarmiya 2023 ).
• In South Africa, debates around feminist foreign policy are increasingly framed through African feminist perspectives. Writers and activists like Rosebell Kagumire and Toni Haastrup argue that foreign policy must reflect Africa’s unique experiences instead of merely importing models from the Global North. They highlight how issues like climate change, militarization, and extractive industries disproportionately affect African women, calling for policies built on regional frameworks like the Maputo Protocol, which protects women’s rights across areas like health, politics, and protection from violence (AfricanFeminism 2023).
• Bangladesh offers another perspective from the Global South. During the 2024 July Revolution, women played key roles in protests demanding democracy. However, Bangladeshi feminists have also resisted external influence, as shown when women leaders rejected the U.S. International Women of Courage Award in protest of American policies on Palestine, underscoring how feminist movements in the Global South often navigate both local gender struggles and broader geopolitical dynamics (Huq 2025).

These examples show that the Global South isn’t simply adopting “Western” feminist templates—it’s redefining feminist foreign policy on its own terms. The challenge lies in ensuring these policies aren’t just new labels but genuine tools for dismantling inequalities, rooted in local context, and driven by grassroots voices.

Reimagining India’s Foreign Policy Through Feminist Principles

While India has not yet officially adopted a Feminist Foreign Policy (FFP), it has the potential to create a unique model for the Global South based on decoloniality, inclusion, and justice. With 18.5% of its Foreign Service represented by women (Khullar 2024), India has started its journey toward gender-responsive diplomacy, but a real transformation is still needed. Framing its foreign policy around feminist principles would go beyond achieving equal numbers. It would involve integrating equity, representation, and intersectionality into the foundation of its diplomatic practices.

Here’s what that could look like in practice:

1. Peacebuilding & Conflict Resolution  

India could strengthen its role in the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda by adopting a National Action Plan (NAP). This plan should include more women in peacekeeping and mediation missions, not just in caregiving roles, but also as negotiators, strategists, and leaders. Past involvement in all-women UN peacekeeping units in Liberia and Africa can serve as a model for expansion (Patel 2023).

2. Neighborhood First, Through a Gender Lens  

India’s “Neighbourhood First” policy could gain from adding feminist diplomacy. It could prioritize joint projects on gender equity, education, and health with SAARC countries. Regional collaboration might include platforms for women-led discussions on climate change, migration, and security, improving soft power and trust in the region (IMPRI 2023).

3. Disaster Diplomacy & Climate Justice  

Feminist foreign policy could enhance India’s humanitarian diplomacy. Disasters impact women more significantly, yet their voices are often silent in response strategies. India should focus on women’s leadership in regional disaster relief efforts like BIMSTEC and ensure that planning and aid are designed with gender considerations (Khullar 2024).

4. Migration and Refugee Responses  

India’s approach to refugee diplomacy could adopt an intersectional perspective, ensuring that displaced women and children, especially from conflict zones like Afghanistan, Myanmar, and Syria, receive dignity and protection. This should include measures against gender-based violence in camps and recognition of women’s contributions to rebuilding communities (UN Women 2015).

5. Women-Led Development & Global Engagement  

During its G20 Presidency, India emphasized “women-led development.” This idea can shape India’s wider engagement by supporting female entrepreneurs, tech innovators, and peacebuilders within global initiatives and bilateral agreements (Khullar 2024).

6.  Institutional Reform and Representation  

Internally, India must tackle the lack of women in foreign policy roles. Out of 731 IFS officers, only 135 are women (Khullar 2024). Increasing institutional support, mentorship, and leadership opportunities for women and marginalized groups is critical to reflecting feminist values in diplomatic work.

India’s rising global presence, leadership in G20, and involvement in multilateral organizations present an opportunity to lead with a feminist vision. This vision should be locally rooted, based in grassroots movements, and aligned with India’s constitutional principles of dignity and justice. A formal framework for feminist foreign policy that fits India’s political and cultural context could turn ethical commitments into real actions. By doing this, India would not simply imitate the Global North; it would forge a model for the Global South to follow.

Critiques of Feminist Foreign Policy

Despite its potential, feminist foreign policy (FFP) faces significant critiques that reveal tensions between its ideals and actual practice:

1. Intersectionality: Critics argue that many FFPs overlook how race, class, sexuality, and other identities intersect with gender. Policies often focus on middle-class, cisgender women while marginalizing others (Crenshaw 1991).
2. Performativity: There is concern that FFP becomes merely symbolic, relying on statements or gender checklists instead of creating real systemic change (Butler 1990).
3. Militarization: Some worry that FFP ironically legitimizes military interventions by claiming to “save women.” This links feminist goals to security agendas and geopolitical interests (Abu-Lughod 2002).
4. Essentialism: FFP risks portraying women as naturally peaceful or nurturing. This reinforces gender stereotypes instead of challenging them (Mohanty 1988).
5. Instrumentalization: States may use feminist language to enhance soft power or improve their diplomatic image without committing to meaningful reforms. This is a kind of “feminist washing” (Fraser 2013).
6. Lack of Grassroots Involvement: Many FFP initiatives are driven by elite groups and often disconnect from women’s movements or local realities. This reduces their authenticity and effectiveness (Enloe 2014).

These critiques also offer a path forward. For FFP to truly reflect its transformative ideals, it must go beyond symbolic actions. Governments should base policies on grassroots input, ensure intersectional analysis informs all choices, and avoid using feminist narratives to justify militarized agendas. A genuine feminist foreign policy should dismantle harmful power structures, remain self-aware, and focus on diverse lived experiences. It should prioritize real human security over geopolitical appearances.

Conclusion : 

The conversation around the feminization of foreign policy reflects both meaningful progress and persistent tensions in how we shape modern diplomacy. It challenges decades of approaches driven by military power and rigid hierarchies proposing instead that empathy, dialogue, and human security are strategic assets not weaknesses. (Enloe 2014)

Yet words matter. Calling values like care, cooperation, and peace-building “feminine” risks reinforcing the same stereotypes feminist foreign policy hopes to dismantle. These qualities, often labeled feminine, are in truth universal human values vital for effective diplomacy (Tickner 1992).

The future of foreign policy shouldn’t be boxed into masculine or feminine labels. Instead, it calls for a human-centered approach rooted in dignity, equality, justice, and compassion. True security isn’t just about weapons or economic clout, it’s about addressing the deep roots of conflict in inequality and marginalization (Hudson et al. 2012).

Real strength lies in listening, negotiating with integrity, and prioritizing human welfare over narrow interests. Whatever we call it, feminization or human-centered diplomacy, the world urgently needs a foreign policy grounded in our shared humanity.

References 

Books

1. Butler, Judith. 1990. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge. Accessed June 28, 2025. https://www.routledge.com/Gender-Trouble-Feminism-and-the-Subversion-of-Identity/Butler/p/book/9780415389556. 
2. Enloe, Cynthia. 2014. Bananas, Beaches and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics. 2nd ed. Berkeley: University of California Press.
3. Fraser, Nancy. 2013. Fortunes of Feminism: From State-Managed Capitalism to Neoliberal Crisis. London: Verso Books. Accessed June 28, 2025. https://www.versobooks.com/en-gb/products/2305-fortunes-of-feminism. 
4. Mama, Amina. 2005. “Gender Studies for Africa’s Transformation.” In African Intellectuals, edited by Thandika Mkandawire, [pages if known]. London: Zed Books. Accessed June 28, 2025. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348744314_Gender_studies_for_Africa’s_transformation. 
5. Salleh, Ariel. 1997. Ecofeminism as Politics: Nature, Marx and the Postmodern. London: Zed Books. Accessed June 28, 2025. https://www.arielsalleh.info/published-work/books/Edwards_EasP_rev.pdf. 
6. Tickner, J. Ann. 1992. Gender in International Relations: Feminist Perspectives on Achieving Global Security. New York: Columbia University Press.
7. Wibben, Annick T. R. 2010. Feminist Security Studies: A Narrative Approach. London: Routledge.

Journal Articles

1. Abu-Lughod, Lila. 2002. “Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving? Anthropological Reflections on Cultural Relativism and Its Others.” American Anthropologist 104 (3): 783–790. https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/aa.2002.104.3.783. 
2. Cohn, Carol. 1987. “Sex and Death in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 12 (4): 687–718. https://share.google/RZ16epricg9ctjej5. 
3. Crenshaw, Kimberlé. 1991. “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color.” Stanford Law Review 43 (6): 1241–1299. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1229039. 
4. Mohanty, Chandra Talpade. 1988. “Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses.” Feminist Review 30 (1): 61–88. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1057/fr.1988.42. 
5. Huq, Chaumtoli. 2025. “Feminist Interventions from the Global South in International Law: Insights from Bangladesh.” Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, July 2. Accessed July 4, 2025. https://share.google/NvnwnYQYT1WTUs2Cj. 

Online Articles, Reports, Policy Documents, and Webpages

1. AfricanFeminism. 2023. “Defining and Reclaiming Feminist Foreign Policy in Africa.” AfricanFeminism, December 21. Accessed July 4, 2025. https://share.google/kekyHZ94a1R3cju37. 
2. Arora, Rehmat. 2023. “A Perspective from the Global South on Feminist Foreign Policy.” IMPRI, September 25. Accessed July 4, 2025. https://share.google/jb4yAeUd7zkbe1AvC. 
3. Centre for Feminist Foreign Policy (CFFP). n.d. “The Centre for Feminist Foreign Policy.” Accessed June 28, 2025. https://centreforfeministforeignpolicy.org/. 
4. Centre for Feminist Foreign Policy (CFFP). 2023. “Germany’s Feminist Foreign Policy – A First Analysis.” March 8. Accessed June 28, 2025. https://centreforfeministforeignpolicy.org/2023/03/08/blog-post-germanys-feminist-foreign-policy-a-first-analysis/. 
5. Delgado, Martha. 2020. Mexico’s Feminist Foreign Policy. Accessed June 28, 2025. https://martha.org.mx/una-politica-con-causa/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Mexico%E2%80%99s-Feminist-Foreign-Policy-1.pdf. 
6. Government of Canada. 2021. Canada’s Feminist International Assistance Policy. August 24. Accessed June 28, 2025. https://www.international.gc.ca/world-monde/issues_development-enjeux_developpement/priorities-priorites/policy-politique.aspx?lang=eng. 
7. Government Offices of Sweden, Ministry for Foreign Affairs. n.d. Handbook: Sweden’s Feminist Foreign Policy. Accessed June 28, 2025. https://share.google/y8tSQnPCQOGZCTXj3. 
8. IMPRI. 2023. “Analyzing the Impact of Feminist Foreign Policy in India: A Critical Perspective on South Asia.” By Vibhuti Patel. IMPRI Insights, July 16. Accessed July 4, 2025. https://share.google/kbeE6pPyFUr1EN00C. 
9. Khullar, Akanksha. 2024. “Work in Progress: India’s March Towards a Feminist Foreign Policy.” Australian Institute of International Affairs, June 26. Accessed July 4, 2025. https://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/australianoutlook/work-in-progress-indias-march-towards-a-feminist-foreign-policy/. 
10. La France à Chypre. 2025. “France’s International Strategy for Feminist Diplomacy (2025–2030).” March 11. Accessed June 28, 2025. https://cy.ambafrance.org/France-s-international-strategy-for-feminist-diplomacy-2025-2030. 
11. OECD. 2021. “A Feminist Foreign Policy to Advance Gender Equality Globally.” Development Co-operation Tips, Tools, Insights, Practices. Accessed June 28, 2025. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2021/03/development-co-operation-tips-tools-insights-practices_d307b396/a-feminist-foreign-policy-to-advance-gender-equality-globally_21138678.html. 
12. UN Women. 2015. “Women’s Participation and a Better Understanding of the Political.” In A Global Study on the Implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325. Accessed June 28, 2025. https://wps.unwomen.org/participation/. 
13. UN Women. n.d. Feminist Foreign Policy: An Introduction. Accessed June 28, 2025. https://share.google/ANA44uHWDV3A97dHl. 
14. Uwamariya, Olive. 2023. “Feminist Foreign and Development Policies: A Reflection from a Rwandan Feminist.” Accessed July 4, 2025. https://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/mosambik/20410.pdf. 
15. WILPF (Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom). n.d. “Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom.” Accessed June 28, 2025. https://www.wilpf.org/. 
16. WILPF (Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom). 2015. “Sweden’s Feminist Foreign Policy Put to Test Over Decision on Arms Sales.” November 2. Accessed June 28, 2025. https://www.wilpf.org/swedens-feminist-foreign-policy-put-to-test-over-decision-on-arms-sales/. 
17. World Economic Forum. 2023. Global Gender Gap Report 2023. Geneva: World Economic Forum. Accessed June 28, 2025. https://www.weforum.org/reports/global-gender-gap-report-2023/.