By Daniela Philipson Garcia and Ana Velasco

In January 2020, Mexico announced its adoption of a feminist foreign policy, thus becoming the first country in the Global South to embrace feminism as a guiding principle for its international involvement. Global actors met the announcement with applause but Mexican feminist activists were skeptical of its intended impact. While it seeks to promote feminism abroad, President Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s administration opposes feminist activists and downplays gender-based violence in Mexico.[1] The president has criticized women for protesting gender-based violence and accused them of being part of a conservative plot to undermine him.[2] Despite a rise in violence against women in 2020 due to COVID-19 lockdowns, López Obrador even suggested that most domestic violence 911 calls were fake.

Mexico's attempt to embrace a feminist foreign policy sheds light on the power asymmetries between developed and developing countries. While developed countries such as Sweden, Canada, and France partly base their feminist foreign policies on Official Development Assistance (ODA), developing countries have fewer financial resources, limiting the scope of those engagements. Additionally, developed countries tend to perform better in international gender equality metrics. In the case of Mexico, its staggering domestic statistics on violence against women contradict its aim to promote gender equality abroad.

Mexico’s feminist foreign policy raises an important question: to what extent should foreign and internal policies be aligned? This article argues that, in an increasingly globalized world, feminism and feminist foreign policies should assert that global affairs are determined by local dynamics and local policies. The COVID pandemic, human trafficking, climate degradation, and the rise of authoritarianism are global problems that disproportionately affect women and historically repressed groups. They require the synergy of international and local responses. In other words, they highlight a local-global continuum where the concepts of foreign and foreigner should be replaced by a focus on our common humanity.[3]

Feminist foreign policies should seek alignment at the local level for three key reasons. First, the separation of global and local issues is arbitrary and goes against feminist values. Distinguishing between global and local issues prioritizes a state-centered security approach that puts national interests first. This is in opposition to the feminist human-centered approach that prioritizes communities and human rights. Further, feminist theory interrogates binary views of the world. For example, feminist security scholars, such as Jacqui True, Chris Cuomo, and Cynthia Cockburn, hold that violence works on a continuum and no clear boundary distinguishes war from peace.[4] Similarly, second-wave feminists, such as Carol Hanisch, challenged the separation of private and public spheres and argued that personal problems are political problems that require collective solutions.[5]

Racist narratives also underlie dividing global and local policy approaches. Western ("white") feminist discourse, dominated by authors from developed countries, was defined and articulated by white, Euro-American, middle-class women who ignored the experiences of colonized peoples and advocated for a liberal, universal model of emancipation. White feminism continues to be problematic in foreign policy. ODA funding from wealthier countries often portrays developing countries as backward and reinforces otherness.[6] Women in developing countries do face numerous challenges but it is wrong that the funding available to them stems from the issues white feminists decide should be central to women’s empowerment and, worse yet, that they become a facade to advance geopolitical objectives.[7]

Second, centering women and other marginalized actors in local policy helps fulfill foreign policy goals. Grassroots feminist groups have the expertise and skillsets to navigate the most challenging global problems, including violent conflict, climate change, economic inequality, and sustainable development. For example, female farmers have developed tactics for agricultural resilience against climate change, such as using sugar to reduce soil salinity and raising crop beds to protect them from flooding.[8]

Furthermore, instruments that could link local actors to global policy already exist. The United Nations (UN) Security Council's Women, Peace and Security Agenda—a cornerstone of feminist foreign policy—ought to be adapted to consider the experiences of the women it seeks to address.[9] A UN study found that “there must be a detailed mapping and understanding of local conditions with the participation of women themselves” before policies are designed or implemented.[10] 

As a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council, Mexico is uniquely poised to promote the Women, Peace and Security Agenda internationally while simultaneously expanding its protection and support of women peacebuilders’ endeavors in its crime-stricken areas. Mexico’s existing National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security (NAP) includes a program titled, Mujeres Constructoras de Paz (MUCPAZ).[11] MUCPAZ seeks to promote peace and reduce violence at the municipal level by supporting existing women’s networks and facilitating the exchange of best practices between female peacebuilders. Programs like MUCPAZ are crucial to localizing a feminist foreign policy and should be financially backed by governments labeling themselves as feminists.[12]

Third, building the bridge between local actors and the global policy can help mitigate potential risks like administration changes and concerning global trends. To ensure that feminist foreign policy survives electoral cycles, local institutions and civil society must feel ownership over it. Feminist foreign policy—geared towards enhancing gender equality and protecting women’s rights—must be constructed, implemented, monitored, and evaluated by local civil society organizations that ensure its inclusive and transformative approach. 

Global trends of rising authoritarianism and disinformation directly threaten women’s rights by promoting hate speech against marginalized people and attacking the institutions that protect these populations. Feminist policies can mitigate these threats by encouraging strategic alliances with civil society that promote local ownership of the feminist agenda. Efforts to protect local journalists and human rights defenders (many of whom are women and racial and ethnic minorities) should be prioritized, as they are on the frontline of reporting on and combatting urgent global issues.[13]

A feminist foreign policy from a developing country represents a new platform to advance gender equality and has the potential to radically transform policymaking globally. By breaking the dichotomy of the international and the local that has characterized foreign policy, this approach instead advocates for an innovative decision-making process. Furthermore, embracing a feminist foreign policy allows countries to blur the arbitrary lines separating the global from the local and best address the challenges of an increasingly globalized world.[14] Powerfully, it provides an opportunity to disrupt power asymmetries. Such effort must not rely solely on the initiative and goodwill of governments.

There is a silver lining to the Mexican government’s adoption of a feminist foreign policy. Perhaps inadvertently, it has opened the door for feminists, both locally and internationally, to demand congruence, accountability, and a seat at the table. This is an opportunity that must not be wasted. Without this engagement, Mexico’s feminist foreign policy risks merely paying lip service to a de facto patriarchal government.

About the Authors

Daniela Philipson is also a Co-Founder of Internacional Feminista. She is a Fulbright-Garcia Robles Scholar and a 2021-2022 Next Generation Women, Peace and Security Scholar. Daniela holds a Master’s in Public Policy from the Harvard Kennedy School. 

Ana Velasco is a Co-Founder of Internacional Feminista, a platform to promote dialogues on gender, international relations, and security in Latin America. She is a Fellow at Women In International Security and a researcher at the Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro. Ana holds a Master’s in Gender, Violence and Conflict from the University of Sussex.

Endnotes

1. “Falso que 90% de llamadas de emergencia de mujeres no sean reales,” Animal Político, 2020, https://www.animalpolitico.com/elsabueso/amlo-falso-llamadas-emergencia-mujeres-no-sean-reales/.

2. López Obrador señala a las feministas de querer “afectar” su Gobierno y las califica de “conservadoras,” El País, 2021, https://elpais.com/mexico/2021-09-29/lopez-obrador-acusa-a-las-feministas-de-querer-afectar-su-gobierno-y-las-califica-de-conservadoras.html.

3. Madeleine Reese, “FFP Summit Event: Making Feminist Foreign Policy: Hopes and Demands of Civil Society,” Center for Feminist Foreign Policy, 2022, https://centreforfeministforeignpolicy.org/cffp-events/2022/ffpsummitsideevent-makingforeignpolicyfeminist.

4. Jacqui True, “Continuums of Violence and Peace: A Feminist Perspective,” Ethics & International Affairs 34, no. I (Spring), pp. 85-95, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0892679420000064; Radhika Coomaraswamy, "Global Study on the Implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325," 2015, https://wps.unwomen.org/;  Chris J. Cuomo, “War is Not Just an Event: Reflections on the Significance of Everyday Violence,” Hypathia 11, no. 4: 30-45, 1996; Cynthia Cockburn, “The Continuum of Violence: A Gender Perspective on War and Peace.” In Sites of Violence: Gender and Conflict Zones, edited by Wenona Giles and Jennifer Hyndman. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2004.

5. Carol Hanisch,“The Personal Is Political: the original feminist theory paper at the author's website,” 1969, http://www.carolhanisch.org/CHwritings/PIP.html.

6. Toni Haastrup and Jamie J. Hagen, “Race, Justice and New Possibilities: 20 Years of the Women, Peace and Security agenda,” LSE Blogs, 2020, https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/wps/2020/07/28/race-justice-new-possibilities-20-years-of-the-women-peace-and-security-agenda/.

7. Rafia Zakaria, “What makes Foreign Policy 'Feminist',” The Baffler, 2022, https://thebaffler.com/latest/against-german-feminism-zakaria

8. Seith Abeka et. al, “Women Farmers Adapting to Climate Change,” Brot Fuer Die Welt, 2012, https://www.unscn.org/uploads/web/news/Women-farmers-adapting-to-Climate-Change.pdf.

9. The “Women, Peace and Security” agenda, aims to propose measures and mechanisms to advance policies and methods that are sensitive to gender equality, especially regarding the protection of women and girls, and their participation in all decision-making and power spheres in conflict resolution. Passed in October 2001, Resolution 1325 is the main reference for the development, strengthening and expansion of these policies aimed at promoting gender equality. To complement and strengthen the normative and programmatic framework of Resolution 1325, another nine resolutions were approved. The agenda is to be advanced by the United Nations’ Member States and civil society in the search for sustainable peace.; “Localising the WPS Agenda: A Toolkit for Leveraging UNSCR's 1325 15th Anniversary,” WILPF, 2015, https://www.wilpf.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/PeaceWomen_October-2015-High-Level-Review_WILPF-Sections-Advocacy-Toolkit.pdf.

10. Radhika Coomaraswamy, “Preventing Conflict Transforming Justice Securing the Peace: A Global Study on the Implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325,” UN Women, 2015, p. 16, https://wps.unwomen.org/pdf/en/GlobalStudy_EN_Web.pdf. 

11. The National Action Plans (PNA) are public policy and normative instruments developed by the States that define objectives and strategies for the operationalization of the commitments assumed from Resolution 1325 and the WPS agenda in general. The content and scope of the PNAs can and must be adapted to encompass the particularities of each region and country.

12. Unfortunately, the program was defunded last year when a component of the federal budget earmarked for supporting municipalities in public safety tasks was eliminated.

13. Ana Velasco, “UNSCR 1325 and the WPS Agenda: A Feminist Response to Authoritarianism,” Women in International Security, 2020, https://wiisglobal.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/UGALDE-JUNE-v6.pdf.

14. Since Chile announced its intentions of formulating a feminist foreign policy, the door has opened for both countries to explore south-south cooperation mechanisms that promote a feminist agenda that is bespoke to Latin America.