US Elections 2016: On Hillary Clinton and feminist foreign policies

In a few days, we will know whether one of the world’s toughest glass ceilings has been shattered or not. This is an election result that will have consequences for all of us, given the impact that US policies have on lives worldwide. It is, therefore, an opportune moment to reflect on an idea that has been around for a long time but has acquired a certain weight in the last decade— a feminist foreign policy.

Hillary Rodham Clinton has played an important part in raising the visibility of this idea, so much so a recent book discusses “The Hillary Doctrine”, the process whereby women’s empowerment became an important part of US foreign policy rhetoric. Although her association with social issues, especially child rights is old, for feminists around the world, Clinton first came to be associated with their cause when she asserted at the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995, “Women’s rights are human rights and human rights are women’s rights.” An old idea, but coming from Clinton who was then the First Lady of the US, this formulation became a mantra for those working for women’s rights worldwide. As Secretary of State, Clinton spoke about women’s rights, met women’s organisations and established an institutional base within the US State Department to promote gender equality issues around the world.

However, it has been pointed out that actions did not always match rhetoric. Perhaps the will to change did not go too far beyond the Secretary of State. Perhaps sexism was too deeply rooted in institutions and their people to change with one four-year term. Perhaps it would take more than four years for people to learn how to ‘do’ gender equality work. Most importantly, perhaps it was not enough to place gender equality and women’s rights on the agenda of things to do; perhaps it was more important to consider the old ways of doing foreign policy that needed to be undone. From including women in planning and decision-making to considering the horrendous, violent impact of American foreign policy actions on their lives—from supporting the most violent, conservative allies (state and non-state), to drone attacks to supporting high levels of militarisation, to capitalist projects that destroy environments, livelihoods and communities—a cup of tea in most places will buy you a litany of American foreign policy ills. And most of them have grave gendered consequences. 

The importance of Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State will ultimately be that she was able to take some of that clout and those resources and put them towards women’s rights. The politics of Clinton’s own feminism came under bitter attack during her campaign for the Democratic nomination—but that does not take away from what she has managed to do in institutional terms, I think. If that glass ceiling does shatter next week, and I will be hoping that happens, we will know whether in the Oval Office, Clinton is able to take forward this part of her agenda, whether she is hamstrung by the standard operating procedures of government and whether she is able to make women’s empowerment a part of the way things are done in the US government. 

Meanwhile, in 2014, Margot Wallström took over as Sweden’s Minister for Foreign Affairs (the other two ministers in the ministry responsible for development and trade are also women). She came to this job from a career that spanned media, development and a stint as UN Special Rapporteur on Sexual Violence in Conflict. As Special Rapporteur, she instituted the system of “naming and shaming” violators in her annual report, placing on the record the sexual violence used to be effaced from histories of conflict and more importantly, making it real by stating who was using sexual violence. More forthright than Clinton’s interventions on women’s empowerment interventions—perhaps unencumbered by imperial-scale power and empire-scale bureaucracy—Wallström’s Sweden has articulated explicitly and implemented stridently “a feminist foreign policy.” The Ministry for Foreign Affairs states on its website:

“Equality between women and men is a fundamental aim of Swedish foreign policy. Ensuring that women and girls can enjoy their fundamental human rights is both an obligation within the framework of our international commitments, and a prerequisite for reaching Sweden’s broader foreign policy goals on peace, and security and sustainable development.” 

For Wallström’s ministry, a feminist foreign policy means taking human rights very seriously. On her watch, Sweden has reacted strongly to human rights violations in the Middle East. One of her first acts was to recognise Palestine, altering Sweden’s relationship with Israel. She has criticised Saudi Arabia for its human rights track record, disregarding the cost of her criticism to the Swedish arms industry. Women’s participation in peace processes, like the one for Syria, is an important plank of Sweden’s current foreign policy efforts. 

Sweden is a much smaller country than the US, of course, but it has a large footprint in the development and technical assistance universe, and the relatively egalitarian societies of Northern Europe set an example for others. But even granting all that, Wallström’s insistence on bringing her lifelong politics to bear as fully as she can, underscores how much more could be possible if Clinton should choose, as President, to make feminism a fundamental value of US foreign policy.

Margot Wallström (AFP)

What does it mean to talk about feminism in foreign policy? Traditionally, foreign and military matters have been seen as areas of interest and concern to men. As women have entered diplomatic corps around the world, taken up UN and international NGO jobs, acquired a (very small, very marginal) voice through their writing on foreign policy issues and begun playing a variety of police, military and peace-keeping roles, it has become harder to pretend that they do not belong in this arena. It is even harder to pretend that foreign and military policy—security policy, in fact—does not have a gender-differentiated impact on their lives. That has been too widely and well-documented.

For over a hundred years, though, the women’s movement has understood this. Women’s Day and Mother’s Day both originated as observances to bolster women’s work for peace. Peace work was initially associated with women as mothers, but for a long time now, we understand that women are also advocates of peace because they understand that violence and conflict do no good for their communities (or countries). We have evidence that women are excluded from the formal negotiations for peace, the agreements fail to last. And so it is time to ask how feminism—as a set of values—would alter foreign policy.

It is easier to list some broad principles that feminist governments would follow.

— Prioritising human rights would be important, including advocacy against the tendency to cultural relativist positions that sanction abuses in the name of custom.

— A commitment to equality would be implicit, meaning gender equality in its most inclusive sense. Not only would such a government speak for the participation of women in conflict resolution (as UN Security Council Resolution 1325 mandates) but also create the conditions for more women to become part of both the security establishment and the security discourse within the country.

— The elimination of sexual and gender-based violence and ending impunity for it would be a central element and a yardstick for evolving relationships.

— Economic policies would lend themselves to ecological balance, sustainability and equity. 

The true challenge is to internalise these priorities— a challenge for the US and almost any other country, for instance. You can advocate human rights abroad but if you cannot face up to violations at home, your advocacy is bound to fail. A government that cannot take a principled position on human rights violations at home may as well stay out of this conversation. A commitment to gender equality on the world stage must be a commitment to social and political equality at home, first. A government that turns a blind eye to trafficking, domestic violence and sexual harassment by those in its own ranks cannot pontificate on the world stage about ending impunity. And on all these counts, most governments will fail. Transformation truly does begin with the self— both the individual and the collective self. 

The Clinton and Wallström moments are important because they teach us where we can begin with this work given our present institutions and they demonstrate that getting more people with the right ideas and instincts into positions of power can raise the profile of any agenda for social change. They need not have precisely the same ideas and words we do, but they must have the ability to listen and the will to work (both of which, we hear, Clinton has). There are no easy fixes and a permanent, organic transformation takes time. But as we look forward, with hope, to a Clinton presidency, it is important to acknowledge the opportunity that may be available to us in a few days and to ask how we can help. How can we further this agenda for gender equality, each of us from our own little corners around the world? How can we harness the clout a possible Clinton presidency could bring to this cause? How can we ensure this opportunity is not lost? This is neither the agenda, nor the responsibility, nor the work, of one person or one government. 

Swarna Rajagopalan is a political scientist by training.