In 2014 Sweden established their FFP or its Feminist Foreign Policy, the first of its kind, an agenda that aims to bring feminism into all aspects of Swedish foreign policy (Aarhus University, 2018). Feminist Foreign Policy is somewhat of an aspect that is still foreign to global south countries, as its focus heavily emphasizes on gender equality and the participation of women when conducting foreign policy, be it through embassy workers, diplomats, and other parties. It was established by Sweden’s minister of foreign affairs at that time, Margot Wallström, which was quickly applauded by several prominent actors in the humanitarian sector, such as Elisabeth Dahlin, Secretary General of Save the Children Sweden; Risa Hontiveros, Senator of the Philippines; and Margareta Wahlström, President of the Swedish Red Cross (Johansson, 2018). This type of foreign policy was the first of its kind, leading to a number of countries that also implemented their own versions of the Feminist Foreign Policy agenda, namely, Argentina, Chile, Colombia, France, Germany, and Canada (Clapp et al, 2024). However, Sweden abandoned its feminist foreign policy agenda in 2022, due to its desire to constrain the word “Feminist” has, implying that women’s needs and rights must be reflected in all policy-making endeavors (Walfridsson, 2022). Furthermore, other factors that led to Sweden’s abandonment of the FFP include the paradoxical nature of the FFP and Sweden’s relations with countries that do not uphold the same values, the trap created by the “feminist” label itself, and the neoliberal nature of the FFP. Thus it’s important to question, What were the factors which led to Sweden abandoning its Feminist Foreign Policy Agenda, despite its praises in 2014?
Feminism in this case refers to the way men and women are perceived in society, largely dictated by specific societal standards and expectations each gender must possess. Men and women behave in certain gendered ways; thus the term feminism is loosely based on the way females carry themselves in a leadership position. Feminism in foreign policy analysis can be derived from pro-gender norms that are established by the leader itself, as it is reflected in the institutions people work in (Aggestam et al, 2020). A person’s leadership style in an institution can be reflected in their projection of power, whether or not they exude feminine or masculine traits; however, this does not necessarily mean they are female, as male leaders can exhibit “feminine” traits in their style of leadership, through the norms in which they champion during their tenure (Aggestam et al, 2020). Examples of leaders that have established pro-gender policies include Canada’s Justin Trudeua, Sweden’s Margot Wallström, and Australia’s Julie Bishop (Aggestam et al, 2020). A feminist approach on foreign policy can help transform a system that is traditionally gendered and unequal, one that puts male and female into separate boxes, and therefore discriminates against one or the other, into one that champions gender equality, putting a heavy emphasis on women’s rights.
Although Sweden is a country that advocates for women and human rights, Sweden still purchases weapons from a country that has held grave violations of these rights, namely Saudi Arabia. Their feminist foreign policy holds gender equality and human rights in such high regard, and thus its principles should be reflected in the nations that Sweden decides to conduct relations with, whether bilaterally or multilaterally. The principles that were brought up in Sweden’s Feminist Foreign Policy agenda caused more harm than good, as diplomatic crises can stem from contesting ideas, between Sweden and other nations. This was shown by the 2015 diplomatic crisis between Sweden and Saudi Arabia, in which Margot Wallström, the same minister who introduced Sweden’s FFP, openly criticized Saudi Arabia’s flogging practice by calling it “medieval” (Crouch, 2015). Outraged, Saudi Arabia then decided to pull out its ambassadors from Sweden, as the government has criticized Saudi Arabia’s implementation of the Sharia Law 9 (Crouch, 2015). Furthermore, the criticism was fueled by Sweden’s contested view on Sharia Law, believing that it does not grant women their rights and abuses human rights. Weapons exports are a big part of Sweden’s economy, and Saudi Arabia is one of its biggest buyers, thus exporting weapons to a country that is notorious for human rights violations is a major moral issue. This moral issue serves as a major factor in the diplomatic crisis between Sweden and Saudi Arabia itself, as it caused the cancellation of a bilateral arms agreement between the two countries, totaling over 900 million pounds (Streitberg, 2018).
Another factor that led to the failure of Sweden’s FFP is falling into the trap of merely labelling an already existing foreign policy with the term “feminist”. Although the agenda itself reflects on the need to push representation of feminist ideals in Sweden’s foreign policy, it also pushes the need to conform to certain feminist or Swedish ideals when conducting agreements with other countries. The term “feminist” itself implies heavily that women’s rights must be included in all aspects of foreign policy, not necessarily a terrible matter, but it challenges governments that do not apply this form of foreign policy, or countries that are blatantly violating human rights (Walfridsson, 2022). By labelling Sweden’s already existing foreign policy with the term feminist automatically restricts Sweden when conducting relations with other states (Towns, 2023). However, this does not mean that Sweden is fully abandoning its stance on human rights, as Sweden itself is a pioneer in championing gender equality, but it merely means that Sweden has the ability to freely shift its stance when needed. This can potentially avoid another diplomatic crisis, as shown by Sweden’s relations with Saudi Arabia, as Sweden is no longer confined by a strict set of principles and must uphold it at all times.
Finally, the nature of Sweden’s FFP itself is very much based on the neoliberal approach to feminism. This then puts a high emphasis on the gender biases in which men and women face in the workplace, and the matter of the pay gap between both of these genders (Holin et al, 2024). Although the FFP itself champions gender equality and women’s rights, its basis is still very much global north-centric, thus it is then difficult to apply in global south countries. Going back to the aforementioned Saudi Arabia case, the implementation of the FFP is not inclusive enough, as Saudi Arabia does not acknowledge the same type of feminism Sweden applies. The problems that women face in Saudi Arabia are vastly different compared to Swedish women. For example, in Saudi Arabia, women being allowed to drive is already a significant achievement in itself, however, Sweden has never faced this problem, thus implementing the 3Rs of the FFP, Rights, Representation, and Resources is not ideal (Al-Garawi et al., 2022; Toms et al., 2023). Feminism according to the global south, is different from what the global north perceives it as due to the difference of issues that women face. Increasing female voters, female participation in politics, and increasing female participation in the labor market are some of the issues that global south women face, unlike women who live in global north countries, which focus more on workplace-related issues, such as income inequality between men and women (Daibes, 2022). This does not mean that the issues faced by the global north are insignificant; it just proves that the global north had their main issues addressed already, issues that the global south is still addressing, thus highlighting their privilege to do so. Due to this, it creates a hindrance when conducting agreements with countries that do not uphold the same feminist values as Sweden. The Swedish FFP might work between countries that have the same or similar values, such as Canada’s similar feminist foreign policy act, but it will have difficulties in applying the same principles in Middle Eastern countries.
In conclusion, Sweden’s choice to ultimately abandon their Feminist Foreign Policy is something that should be worth noting for, as when it was first announced, it became the first of its kind. Ultimately, the FFP itself did not present itself as the future of what foreign policy could be, but restricts what a country can or cannot do, under an FFP. With Sweden’s case, it is clear that the FFP needs further refining by putting inclusivity into consideration and being more careful in its implementation. Nevertheless, the FFP itself is still a pioneer in terms of applying feminist ideals in foreign policy, thus, Sweden’s efforts to implement it are already commendable.