The aim of this idea is to set some elements to consider in a Feminist Foreign Policy design.
A “Feminist” Foreign Policy (FFP) implies at least two aspects: its principles or values, structure, processes and issues; and a structural transformation from the feminism experience, not only its issues or agenda.
These two components need to be transformed in a structural way for many reasons. A feminist approach serves to recognize not only women’s issues or gender relations issues as a thematic or sectorial perspective, but also serve to recognize those values, structures and processes that support gender-based inequalities and oppresions anywhere -including foreign policy scope-, such as the patriarchal and hegemonic masculinity values and logics which are considered as the humanity referent.
In this sense, foreign policy -seen as the policy of a State to conduct its international relations- has to become feminist in its principles or values, structures, processes and issues. Until now, internacional history and relations have been androcentric, based on a hegemonic masculinity construction. According to R. Connell, masculinity consists in social organization practices, culturaly associated with men; and its configuration is around the following components: power exercise, control, hegemony, hierarchy, and dominance; from men to the rest of the context (women, other men, the environment, etc.), as well as is associated to the gendered division of the public (men) and private (women) sphere. In simple terms, international relations and foreign policy have been historically a social order reserved for men and masculine practices; it means that its principles, structures, processes and issues of interest have been designed and exercised with a masculine logic (power exercise, control, hegemony, hierachy, and dominance over others). For that reason, international relations history has been focused on the competition and rivalry among States for power and dominance, in the masculine logic.
Changing these, could represent a structural transformation, to shift from just “adressing women’s issues” (from the masculine logic, structures and its conception of how to address them), into a new and feminist way to conduct and develop international relations. A good example of a FFP could be how a State give up its interest to have any power over other States an over the international community, to collaborate with sorority in the solution of common problems; without violence, oppression, imposition and any other hegemonic masculinity value.
In the case of México, there are two aspects that could help to dimension another FFP challenge. Based on the current national and international legal framework, the Mexican State and all its institutions, policies and mechanisms must guarantee women’s human rights (human rights in general, indeed). It means that they must guarantee them in the two main spheres of activities: the internal sphere (organizational and labor culture) and the external sphere (its subject matter).
In Mexico, the recent announcement of a FFP was only based on: 1) the Foreing Minister’s speech, 2) a list of actions to be taken, and 3) some spaces for discussion on some issues of the international gender agenda; and more recently, on 4) an official study wich was redundant in the international gender agenda. However, it should be noted that none of these proposals were sufficiently explained about the way in which the country's foreign policy would change in terms of how to become its principles into feminist ones; how to shift the foreing policy structures, processes or mechanisms into feminist ones; or how to widely achieve the international gender agenda with a feminist perspective. Indeed, the list of activities released by the Ministry referred to issues of the internal scope of any public institution of the Mexican State, such as: parity in the occupation of public positions within the Ministry; labor leave for maternity and paternity, or addressing sexual harassment cases within the organization. However, these are not particular aspects of a foreign policy, but obligations of any public institution in Mexico.
On the other hand, from the gender equality theory and practice, there is a subfield focused on working with men and their masculinities transformation, and from here, there is a significant accumulated experience on methodologies for men and masculinities reeducation. In general terms, this kind of work is useful to understand that hegemonic masculinity practices could be change through an individual and colective processes with men, but could not be enough to change the masculine logic and structures of a hole foreign policy, including its principles, structures, institutions, mechanisms, etc.
For that, it is important to recognize the need to develop methodological and technical strategies to shift foreign policy elements in the different involved levels, with a feminist, gender and masculinites perspective, but they may/should include those individual and colective processes for men involved in foreing policy, oriented to deconstruct their hegemonic masculinity practices and perspectives.
Even these transformation could be a big and unreachable challenge even in the long term, we need to start these discussion and design, considering the current tendency to name “feminist” certain foreign policies. So, its time to make it happen.