“Feminist Foreign Policy” Faces African Criticism

By | August 31, 2023

WASHINGTON, D.C., September 1 (C-Fam) As an increasing number of Western countries have adopted so-called “feminist foreign policy” strategies, two African female strategists published a critique of the paternalism of these countries’ approaches to international aid.

“Feminist foreign policies…should meaningfully include and reflect the knowledge and expertise of African people rather than telling us how to behave,” says Nimco Ali, the CEO of the Five Foundation which campaigns against female genital mutilation, and Aya Chebbi, a Tunisian diplomat and former African Union youth envoy.

The brand of feminism being promoted by the countries who adopt the label is aligned with the often-controversial priorities of Western countries, both at the UN and in their bilateral aid funding.  This includes an emphasis on human-caused climate change, gender ideology, comprehensive sexuality education, and abortion as a right.

However, these priorities fail to address—and sometimes exacerbate—the real problems faced by women in poorer countries.

According to Michael Shellenberger, the founder of the Breakthrough Institute which conducts environmental research, two and a half billion people in the world rely on wood and dung for energy, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa and southeast Asia.  “Cheap energy is women’s liberation,” said Shellenberger in a lecture at Austin University.  He referred to efforts to deprive people of natural gas and liquefied petroleum gas as “a moral abomination.”

The concept of “feminist foreign policy” rose to prominence in 2014, when Sweden began using the term.  Other countries, including Canada, France, and Mexico, took up the label shortly afterwards, followed by others.  While countries define the concept differently, a common theme is the promotion of “sexual and reproductive health and rights” (SRHR), including abortion, in recipient countries.

Canada in particular has touted its international assistance as “feminist” and pledged $650 million dollars for contraceptives, “safe and legal” abortion, comprehensive sexuality education and prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections.

Feminist groups in the U.S. have called on the Biden administration to adopt a “feminist foreign policy” and to include advocacy for SRHR as “a key domestic and foreign policy priority for the administration.”

In February, Representative Lois Frankel (D-FL) introduced a resolution in the House of Representatives urging the U.S. to take “a feminist approach to all aspects of foreign policy.”

In its opening paragraphs, the resolution makes clear that its definition of “sex” includes “gender identity or expression” and urges the U.S. to prioritize people facing “intersecting forms of discrimination” including “lack of access to sexual and reproductive health, rights, and justice.”  Like SRHR, “reproductive justice” is understood to include abortion.

The resolution envisions a world where “there is gender equality and women can fully participate in all spheres of life,” which could increase global gross domestic product by $28 trillion.  In reality, this figure refers to a scenario where “women participated in the economy identically to men,” which could only be called “empowerment” if women and their families actually desired it.

The family is barely mentioned in the resolution at all; twice in reference to “family planning,” once in the context of domestic violence, and once in a reference to “outmoded models of family” in immigration law.

The resolution currently has 45 cosponsors, all of them Democrats.

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter