Epistemology and Power: Critique of Feminist Foreign Policy

Gender is engraved in International Relations where women’s ‘lived experience’ is bypassed within the international order. Terms such as sovereignty, power, nationalism, and fraternity have masculine connotations. This issue briefly examines the feminist epistemology that strives to eradicate this imbalance by asking who has the power to define knowledge and whose voices shape policy.Feminist epistemology has influenced foreign policy in Sweden, Canada, and India by pivoting around women’s rights and participation.  

Epistemology is another lens through which feminism can be approached. State and Gender have a reciprocal relationship. Feminist foreign policy attempts to redistribute epistemic power in global politics by treating women’s perspectives as legitimate sources of knowledge. Yet, Sweden, Canada, and Germany reveal both the potential and limitations of this approach: while each has opened space for women’s leadership and feminist frameworks, contradictions between rhetoric and practice demonstrate how entrenched interests and masculinist logics of International Relations constrain transformative change. 

Sweden: Pioneer of Feminist Foreign Policy 

Under the leadership of Foreign Minister Margot Wallstrom, Sweden became the frontrunner in Feminist Foreign Policy in 2014. The Swedish framework encompasses ‘the three Rs’: women’s Rights, backed with Resources and supporting increased female representation. This represents a 

feminist epistemology that intrinsically values women’s empowerment while shaping international politics. Sweden put Feminist Foreign Policy into practice in the domains of diplomacy, development, and security. At the United Nations, Sweden endorsed the Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) agenda and proposed a mediation process involving female negotiators. Embassies were instructed to integrate gender analysis into their programming, with diplomats trained to collect sex-disaggregated data and consult women’s organisations in host countries. Development aid also reflected this lens, prioritising reproductive rights, education for girls, and support for survivors of gender-based violence. 

Despite all its efforts, Sweden’s Feminist Foreign Policy faced challenges. Firstly, its feminist approach and national interest led to a conflict, as Sweden’s track record as a leading exporter of arms is often used to illustrate the inconsistencies embedded in its feminist foreign policy conduct. Secondly, from a postcolonial perspective, the pro-gender state can act as a colonizing force pursuing a ‘civilizing mission’ to bring gender equality to women in need of being ‘liberated’. Thirdly, the resources and funding allocated for the “She Decides” initiative implementing Feminist Foreign Policy have not been transparent to the public. Lastly, the new government surrendered all the FPP labels and initiatives, which shows how fragile the whole facade was.  

Canada’s Feminist International Assistance Policy (FIAP) 

In June 2017, following Sweden, Canada looked at Feminist Foreign Policy through the  Development Aid instead of a full spectrum. FIAP’s central claim was that promoting gender equality is the most effective approach to eradicating poverty and building a more peaceful, inclusive, and prosperous world. Thus, while Sweden emphasised equality as an intrinsic good, Canada framed it as an instrumental pathway toward development outcomes. The FIAP approached Feminist Foreign Policy through 6 priority areas, including Gender Equality, Human Dignity, Women’s Economic Empowerment, Climate Action, Women’s Political Participation, and Peace and Security. Canada also focused on getting direct consultation from women recipients in the design and implementation of projects.  

But Canada faced a lot of implementation hurdles, including analysts arguing that FIAP risks reproducing a narrow, liberal feminism that excludes intersectional concerns such as Indigenous women’s rights or LGBTQ+ perspectives. It also faced a lot of criticism because no funds were allocated to FIAP; thus, existing aid was supposed to be reallocated. 

Lastly, Canada’s arms deal with Saudi Arabia faced criticism as it demoted feminist values. This inconsistency raises doubts about whether feminist epistemology is genuinely mainstreamed or confined to the softer domain of development.

From Equity to Deterrence: Germany’s Feminist Foreign Policy  

Under the Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, Germany adopted a feminist foreign policy, leading to a transition in its diplomatic and security ties. It had some major successes, such as the institutionalisation of gender perspectives across policy initiatives, funding in women-led 

civil organisations, foregrounding sexual and reproductive health and rights in development cooperation, and pushing the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda in multilateral forums. Germany also put weight on women's concerns in the EU and UN, signalling that gender equality is not a soft issue but central to peace and democracy. 

Although the national implementations of FFP only partially realised feminist demands, the mere fact of official policy referencing feminism challenges traditional ways of thinking and political patterns. This shows the use of the term “feminism” as a form of enhancing rhetoric, not to bring a transformational change in the activities of the sovereign nations. Germany further worked in the opposite direction of its FFP goals via its arms exports to conflict zones in the Ukraine-Russia War. Instead, geopolitical credibility and deterrence, or realist and masculinist concepts of security, were prioritised over feminist ideals of demilitarisation and human security. In addition, the policy was largely contained within the realm of diplomatic elites, providing little room for feminist voices from the Global South or intersectional approaches. This reveals a fundamental contradiction: Germany’s FFP fights gender blindness in foreign policy but remains part of a state system that privileges power, dominance and militarisation, notions which are associated with masculinity. 

Conclusion 

Ultimately, the pursuit of feminist foreign policy is about epistemic justice; recognizing that knowledge about global politics does not reside in think tanks, generals, or diplomats, but also in the lived experiences of women, marginalized communities, and grassroots movements worldwide. The cases of Sweden, Germany, and Canada reinforce the belief, widely held

throughout the world by both men and women, that military and foreign policy are arenas of policy-making, least appropriate for women. Strength, power, autonomy, independence, and rationality, all typically associated with men and masculinity, are characteristics we most value in those to whom we entrust the conduct of our foreign policy and the defence of our national interest. It further questions the policymaking process that is taken for the states, excluding the guidance, consultations, and participation of half the population.