Acceso usuarios
Desde finales del 2014, tras el anuncio de Suecia de embarcarse en una Política Exterior Feminista (PEF), dicho concepto ha sido utilizado de forma amplia en ámbitos académicos y políticos, sin que se haya avanzado en la deconstrucción y delimitación del mismo, desde una mirada plural y crítica del feminismo. Las formulaciones teóricas existentes, provenientes casi todas de académicas/os estadounidenses y/o europeas/os, se limitan a registrar una serie de características mínimas y ambiguas, influenciadas por una lectura liberal y etnocéntrica de los feminismos. Esto permite que se utilice la noción de PEF para nombrar situaciones diversas, y que se establezca, al menos desde lo simbólico, un signo de igualdad entre casos que poco tienen en común; como pueden ser las políticas exteriores de Suecia, Canadá y México. Esta situación no resulta neutral, ya que, por un lado, le quita trascendencia y contundencia a las propuestas que desde hace décadas los feminismos vienen elaborando en materia de teoría de las Relaciones Internacionales; y por el otro, le permite a funcionarios/as, intelectuales y comunicadores/as, apropiarse y hacer un uso superficial de postulados feministas forjados al calor de las intensas luchas que las mujeres, y otros sectores feminizados, vienen llevando a cabo históricamente.Frente a este panorama, resulta necesaria una disputa por el sentido que recupere los elementos más trasformadores de la tradición feminista. El abordaje utilizado en este trabajo es desde las perspectivas feministas críticas en Relaciones Internacionales. Primero, problematizamos algunas definiciones de política exterior feministas que circulan, y analizamos críticamente las autodenominadas políticas exteriores feministas de Suecia, Canadá y México, señalando falencias y contradicciones que las atraviesan. En una segunda instancia, procedemos a la elaboración de una definición de PEF que incorpora elementos provenientes de múltiples feminismos (decolonial, autónomo, negro, indígena), y que se asume explícitamente situada desde una perspectiva geográfica y cultural, subalternizada y contrahegemónica. Finalmente, proponemos una gradualidad en la categorización de aquellas políticas exteriores que empiezan a abandonar posicionamientos androcentristas y cisheteropatriarcales, a partir de la construcción de los conceptos de “Politica Exterior con Perspectiva de Género” (PEPG), y “Politica Exterior con Perspectiva de Género y Agenda Feminista” (PEGAF), cuyos significados y diferencias desarrollamos.
Since 2014 Sweden has had a Feminist Foreign Policy (PEF in Spanish). This concept has been widely used in academic and political circles, without enough progress in its proper definition and delimitation. Scarce theoretical formulations, almost all of them coming from American and/or European academics, fail to provide the improvement of the concept and are limited to a series of minimal characteristics, which are influenced by a liberal and ethnocentric reading of feminism. It allows the notion of PEF to be used to refer to many diverse situations, and to establish, at least symbolically, a sign of equality between cases that have little elements in common; for instance, the foreign policies of Sweden, Canada, and Mexico. This situation is not insignificant, since, on the one hand, it reduces the importance and impact of the proposals that feminism has been developing for decades in the field of international relations theory; and on the other hand, it allows government officials and some intellectuals to appropriate and make superficial use of principles established in the intense struggles that women and other feminized sectors have been involved in for a long time.
Faced with this panorama there is a need to conceptualize. It recovers the most transformative elements of the feminist tradition. To this end, we will problematize some theoretical definitions of PEF, and the self-denominated Feminist Foreign Policies currently in existence, showing the notable weaknesses and contradictions that cross them. We then proceed to the elaboration of a definition of PEF that incorporates elements coming from multiple feminisms (radical, decolonial black, indigenous), and that above all adopts explicitly a geographical, cultural, subalternate and counterhegemonic perspective. Likewise, we propose a gradual categorization of those foreign policies that begin to abandon androcentric and cisheteropatriarchal positioning, from the concepts of Foreign Policy with a Gender Perspective (PEPG in Spanish), and Foreign Policy with a Gender Perspective and Feminist Agenda (PEGAF in Spanish), and whose meanings we shall develop.
Although the concept of PEF could be used for naming a foreign policy that gives a complete and uncontradicted account of the postulates upheld by feminism, we believe that it is more appropriate to use other, less comprehensive concepts. In general terms, the PEF corresponds to a liberal and institutional feminist approach, which underestimates other social actors as legitimate interlocutors. Their strategies are based on a gender mainstreaming approach, perfected in international organizations and replicated by various state entities; as such they ignore the ethnic, cultural, religious and socioeconomic particularities of the populations in which they are applied. In them, divergences between the multiple governmental spheres are not unusual. Moreover, even within the Ministries of Foreign Affairs it is possible to identify notorious incongruities between sectors that are, or are not, crossed by the gender perspective.
Secondly, we suggest the use of the concept of Foreign Policy with a Gender Perspective and Feminist Agenda. Considering that the levels are cumulative, to the previous characterization, we add the importance of substantive representation; the identification and sanctioning of the different forms of violence within and outside national borders; and the need to at least begin to question the heteropatriarchal structures of oppression from a discursive point of view, for which the field of diplomacy is fundamental. This gradually problematizes the meanings and stereotypes disseminated by institutions, understanding that the dispute over women’s rights and other sex gender identities must also take place at the symbolic level.
In the Swedish case, we understand that it corresponds to what we have called PEGAF. Indeed, Sweden has done important work concerning development assistance, and the financing of international institutions related to the protection of rights and the empowerment of women. Likewise, of all the cases considered, Sweden is the one in which there is the greatest congruence between its foreign policy and its domestic policy, as well as the work that the Nordic country has been carrying out within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to consolidate a gender approach. Even from a discursive point of view, the Swedish authorities have questioned certain characteristics of the international system, and have had diplomatic disputes with some countries based on issues related to the violation of human rights. However, none of the above has been sustained over time, and the back and forth has been constant. There have been notable discrepancies in the commitment to a feminist agenda among the different ministries, and in some areas, such as defense, the transformations have been insignificant. In addition, on many occasions, Sweden has abandoned its commitment to the defense of feminist postulates, when obstacles or risks have arisen in relation to the national interest- as defined in androcentric terms. The conservative turn in immigration matters, or the government’s refusal to confront the strategic sector of the arms industry, are evidence of this Based on the analysis carried out on the case of Canada, we consider that this country can be framed within Foreign Policies with Gender Perspectives (PEPG), since it presents domestic and international antecedents in the work on women’s issues. However, the fact that it defines its foreign policy only in one area, such as development assistance, and focuses its empirical work mainly on economic issues, means that it does not achieve the necessary comprehensiveness to place it at the highest level. Likewise, Canada does not make progress in criticizing or questioning, even discursively, the hegemonic global dynamics and institutions, nor does it question its place in the international structure.
Finally, evaluating the Mexican case, we ask ourselves: How can we think of a feminist foreign policy when at the domestic level the drug cartels and human trafficking networks continue to exercise their power and violence with total impunity, and in conjunction with broad sectors of politics, justice and the police? How could the Mexican PEF make sense in a country where people continue to “disappear” or become victims of extrajudicial executions within the framework of democracy, most of the time with representatives of the security forces as the ones responsible? In which part of the gender equality plan can we frame the femicides and transfemicides that place Mexico as one of the most dangerous countries to be a woman or dissident of the heteronorma? Regrettably, we consider that the country is not even in a position to aspire to the lowest level described here –that is,the PEPG- since all its current actions (and those of the last decades) are detrimental to the values and principles that the feminist stance upholds.
The criticisms raised in the three case studies addressed has sought to identify their weaknesses and to construct more appropriate concepts that would point to the different types of external policies that are currently oriented towards women. Moreover, this would make it possible to define them with an appropriate term that is in line with their real actions and not mere rhetoric. Our work, of course, is not limited to a conceptual correction; but, above all, it tries to generate a concrete contribution for the generation of tools and the definition of public policies that have a positive impact on the life of the communities represented.
