When the coalition agreement was presented last week, a funny anecdote haunted political Berlin: The FDP did not want the term “feminist foreign policy” in the coalition agreement, but “feminist foreign policy” (FFP) was an acceptable compromise for them. Sure, that sounds a lot more like Silicon Valley. Kristina Lunz has no objection to Anglicisms either: The 32-year-old is the founder of the “Center for Feminist Foreign Policy”, based in Berlin. To the Friday she revealed how she managed to get FFP included in the coalition agreement.
Ms. Lunz, how much did you lobby for “feminist foreign policy” to end up in the coalition agreement?
Kristina Lunz: Of course I wish that we could ascribe this passage completely to our work. I don’t know if that’s the case. But at least we had published our “Manifesto for a Feminist Foreign Policy” for the Bundestag election: It explained on 80 pages what FFP could mean for Germany.
So what could it mean?
That the fundamental paradigms and narratives in foreign and security policy are questioned. For example, that “more military” always means “more power”. We direct our focus on demilitarization and peace, question arms exports, want our foreign policy to be decolonized. Shortly before the general election, we also published a policy brief in which we demanded that Germany ratify the Nuclear Weapons Prohibition Treaty.
Instead, we are sticking to nuclear participation: US nuclear weapons are still stationed in Büchel.
Yes, but at least Germany has committed itself in the coalition agreement to take part as an “observer” at the next conference of the parties to the nuclear weapons ban – which is pretty huge! So far, only one other NATO state has promised: Norway. NATO had actively called on its members not to participate and not to sign the contract.
Kristina Lunz, born in 1989, is the co-founder of the “Center for Feminist Foreign Policy” (CFFP), which actively advocates a “feminist foreign policy”. In 2016 she received the Clara Zetkin Women’s Prize as part of the #exceptions initiative. Her book The future of foreign policy is feminist will be published by Econ-Verlag in February 2022 (400 pages, 23 €)
Now I still don’t really understand what FFP means.
If you will, let’s turn our backs on the “great thinkers” of foreign policy. So from this supposedly “realistic” understanding, according to which all states are in anarchy to one another because there is no supranational government.
I also learned that while studying politics.
Problematic, right?
But who did you have to talk to in order for FFP to be included in the coalition agreement? You pose with Annalena Baerbock on Instagram. Did you go to her and say: Annalena, we need this passage – and then she said yes?
Oh, that would be nice. That’s how I would like to imagine it. The picture with Annalena Baerbock is older, it was taken during the election campaign. But you wanted to know how it works: the Center for Feminist Foreign Policy has been in Berlin for three years. And during that time we have already held many events to which our “stakeholders” have come. Lots of “closed-door-events” … Sorry for all the Anglicisms!
Could you give us a name?
Gyde Jensen from the FDP was there at our big launch party in September 2018. I did Insta-Live events with the Greens Agnieszka Brugger. Michelle Müntefering sits on our advisory board. But that’s all public.
There are two ways to interpret the concept of “feminist foreign policy”. Either: The government drives projects in countries where women are worse off, builds schools and supports organizations that campaign for equality. Or: You actively take action against the misogyne regime, I would think of Iran – but then you become a hardliner in foreign policy.
I would disagree that these are the two interpretations. Let’s go back in history: in 1915, the foundation stone for feminist foreign policy was laid in The Hague. There are 1,200 Feminists for the third peace conference – and the first women’s peace conference! – met around the end of the First World War and to demand a democratization of foreign policy. In addition, the right to vote for women and the abolition of the military-industrial complex. And then they said: Dear Heads of State, this should not work together in the internal network! With these gestures of power and all the armament.
the Swedish The government has been pursuing “feminist foreign policy” since 2014. When a delegation from that same government went to Iran in 2017, they were attacked for wearing the hijab. It was said to be anti-feminist, a sign of the oppression of women.
I have a problem with breaking down a concept like FFP to the question: “Wear a hijab or not?” But well. In this specific case, one could do a kind of “check-in” beforehand and ask the feminist actors on site: Pay attention, folks, what would you like best if we come to your state visit? Would it help you if we show solidarity and wear the hijab? Or should we oppose it?
“Feminist visions meet structures that are decades old”
Sweden is also a major arms exporter, supplying its war products to 56 countries – including Pakistan, Oman and the United Arab Emirates. Doesn’t that contradict the goals of feminist foreign policy?
Absolutely! For two years or so we have had an article on this on our website that deals with the question: “How feminist is Swedish foreign policy?” Incidentally, the former Swedish Foreign Minister, Margot Wallström, is also on our advisory board. She invented the concept of “feminist foreign policy” in 2014 and was laughed at for there at the time. Now Margot is no longer a foreign minister. But I’ve talked to her often since then and she always says: “You, if I could choose that, there wouldn’t be more arms trade anywhere in the world!” But people like her, with feminist visions, naturally encounter structures that are decades old . You can’t knock them over overnight – even if we want it to.
But the demands of FFP themselves are already weak …
… not with us!
Okay, but with the Swedish government. On their internet pages they always talk about “women and girls”. There are no trans people or others.
That is a point that we also constantly criticize. But such contradictions are not unique to Sweden. We take a look at France, for example: the government there has been saying since 2019 that it is pursuing “feminist diplomacy”. And yes, they did some cool things too. For example, they held the Generation Equality Forum with Mexico this year and also spent a lot of money on women in development cooperation. But France is also one of the five recognized nuclear powers in the world. And there is no debate in the country about how that fits in with feminist goals. Nuclear weapons are the most perverse expression of patriarchal violence.
One could also say: FFP is a convenient means of giving one’s own interests a “progressive” look. Like in Afghanistan back then, where the West has improved the situation for women, but was actually only there because of the raw materials.
Nah, that had nothing to do with feminist foreign policy. This is more like “embedded feminism”: Feminism was used as a pretext to assert one’s own interests. Afghanistan is a really good example of how it doesn’t work. When the peace negotiations started in Doha last year, actors from feminist civil society in Afghanistan made numerous suggestions as to how the negotiations should proceed. But they were ignored for years. It was only when the situation in Afghanistan escalated in August that everyone suddenly wanted to speak to organizations like “Woman Human Rights Defenders”. Always only when the poop is steaming.
What are your hopes for the new government?
I read the coalition agreement with an incredibly positive feeling. Take the deletion of Section 219a of the Criminal Code: three weeks ago we published a briefing on how Germany’s legal situation on the subject of abortion is in complete contradiction with its international human rights obligations. For example with the “Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women”. That is the UN women’s rights convention from 1979. Of course, there is still a lot of vagueness in the coalition agreement. For example, the commitment to stricter arms control. Greenpeace has shown what an effective arms control law could look like. Do we have to see how Germany develops there? But the tone of the contract is right.
.