On Oct. 18, 2022, Sweden abruptly abandoned this approach, with the new government calling the “feminist” label counterproductive. Perhaps it should come as no surprise that Sweden made this dramatic policy shift. The new minority government is backed by the far-right Sweden Democrats, the latter riding on a hardening stance against immigration in recent years. The biggest winners in the September elections, the Sweden Democrats, emerged as the second-largest party behind the Social Democratic Party. In the end, the Moderate Party was able to form a governing coalition with the Christian Democrats and the Liberals, a sharp shift to the right. The center-left Social Democratic Party had been in power for the past eight years, and had dominated the political landscape since the 1930s.

We argue that feminist foreign policy is not simply a matter of Swedish domestic politics. The concept itself is flawed and needs to be broadened. We advance “Fair Foreign Policy” as an alternative approach that could be less polarizing and achieve better outcomes.

Feminist Foreign Policy is Flawed

Feminist foreign policy was launched eight years ago by Sweden’s then-Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Margot Wallström. Today, there is still no consensus on how to define feminist foreign policy. There are no cross-country comparisons of impact. Differing interpretations have resulted in frictions between governments and civil society. Aside from conceptual difficulties and uncertain impact on foreign policy, we posit that feminist foreign policy has four deep flaws that greatly limit its potential.

First, as we have witnessed in Sweden, the term “feminist” can be polarizing and distract from its objectives. In a recent interview, Wallström herself admitted that the term could be “somewhat controversial” and that it could have a “negative connotation” in some countries. In a 2020 survey about Canada’s Feminist International Assistance Policy, more than 50 percent of respondents believed feminism, gender equality and/or programs on women’s empowerment did not benefit women and instead undermined men and boys.

Second, feminist foreign policy does not consider intersectionality if it focuses only on women and girls as Sweden did. In Sweden’s model, it was unclear whether intersectionality was implemented especially with respect to marginalized groups. Neglecting these groups can fuel false narratives connecting immigration to crimes, unemployment, and insecurity.

Third, feminist foreign policy appears concerned with an outward-looking mandate and not ensuring policy coherence. In 2017, Wallström was fiercely criticized by Swedish human rights activists for hypocrisy for supplying weapons to Saudi Arabia in the latter’s war against Yemen.

Fourth, feminist foreign policy may oversimplify debates and create false binaries of militarization versus peace. The ongoing war in Ukraine demonstrates the necessity for self-defense in the face of military attacks. Military capacity building and weapons stockpiling constitute acts of deterrence, not aggression.

Fair Foreign Policy or FFP 2.0

We advance “Fair Foreign Policy” or FFP 2.0 as a broader and more inclusive concept. Where feminist foreign policy uses a gender lens, fairness is inclusive of all groups, without favor or disfavor to any. We employ the term “fair” broadly, meaning “treating an individual or a group of people in a right or reasonable manner, equally, not colored by personal opinions or judgement.” Fairness may be viewed in terms of rights, entitlements, and responsibilities.

Second, FFP 2.0 is explicitly intersectional and creates space for gender diversity. FFP 2.0 disrupts historic norms such as colonialism, racism, patriarchy, ableism, and sexism, and recognizes the rights of those marginalized such as the LGBTQI+, rural, and Indigenous peoples. FFP 2.0 promotes accountability and centers equity within foreign policy.

Third, Fair Foreign Policy is untarnished by neocolonial links to the term “feminist” and would have greater international resonance. A FFP 2.0 would foster greater policy coherence between a country’s foreign and domestic spheres.

Fourth, Fair Foreign Policy permits self-defense while acknowledging realpolitik. For example, FFP 2.0 supports Sweden’s decision to join NATO.

A New Approach

Fair Foreign Policy resolves issues faced by feminist foreign policy while extending its strengths in an intersectional and equity-centered framework. In examining the lived experiences and challenges faced by marginalized communities including women and children, FFP 2.0 accommodates complexity while strengthening policy coherence.

Eirliani Abdul Rahman is a doctoral student in public health at Harvard University. She is a member of Chatham House.

Jesse B. Bump is executive director of the Takemi Program and lecturer on Global Health Policy, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health.

The views expressed in this article are the writers’ own.