Response to interpellation 2023/24:8 on the abolition of feminist foreign policy

Utrikesministern Tobias Billström (M)

Mr. Speaker! Linnéa Wickman has asked me if I consider that the abolition of the feminist foreign policy contributes to increasing equality in the world and if I intend to take any measures in this regard. She has also asked if I intend to take any initiative in light of what appears in EBA's study on the feminist foreign policy.

The use of the term feminist foreign policy has led to the label obscuring the content of the policy, and this government therefore chose to phase out the word. But there is no doubt that equality is a Swedish core value, both nationally and in foreign policy. As appeared in the recently submitted government statement, Sweden will continue to be a strong voice for equality, both here at home and globally.

The government's starting point for this work is every individual's equal value regardless of gender, age, sexual orientation or religion. Commitment to equality shall yield concrete results and focus on content, not labeling.

In foreign and aid policy, the government will focus, among other things, on women's economic empowerment, sexual and reproductive health and rights, support for democracy movements and human rights defenders, and countering all forms of sexual and gender-related violence. Sweden will therefore continue to contribute to increasing equality in the world, also with high ambitions in foreign agencies and other relevant agencies.

Of course, there are several ways to strengthen equality globally, and the government now chooses to work with a focus on concrete results. I therefore see no reason to take any further measures on the grounds of EBA's study.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Linnéa Wickman (S)

Mr. Speaker! Nearly a year ago, Foreign Minister Tobias Billström made the SD government's first statement on the foreign policy area. When the Minister's own party and its coalition partners had to prioritize, the abolition of the feminist foreign policy was something that was declared in principle almost immediately by the then new Foreign Minister.

The reasons stated were that the feminist foreign policy was merely a label that obscured the content of the policy, as we have just heard the Foreign Minister repeat. Sweden became with this both the first country in the world to, under an S-led government, raise ambitions for girls' and women's rights by launching a feminist foreign policy and is now also the first country in the world to, with SD and M at the helm, abolish it and deliberately take off the leadership jersey.

Mr. Speaker! EBA, the Expert Group for Aid Analysis, has recently released a comprehensive study on the feminist foreign policy. In it, they state that it was not just a label but that it implied a strong prioritization of the area which had a major impact in and outside Sweden and in various parts of the foreign administration. They also assess that the feminist framework signaled increased ambitions in the work with equality within foreign policy. They state that Sweden assumed a stronger international leadership, which is essentially the opposite of what the Foreign Minister himself says.

Mr. Speaker! We are seeing a regression in the world regarding the rights and living conditions of girls and women. The pandemic has strengthened and worsened poverty in the world, and we know that a majority of the world's poor are women. Gender-based violence has increased, and conservative forces in different parts of the world are attacking the human rights of girls and women. The struggle against oppression and violence and for the right to one's own body takes place every day, right now in Afghanistan, in Iran, and in many other places. It is in that context that the abolition of feminist foreign policy should be seen. We live in a time where equality is deliberately opposed, and it is precisely then that the SD government dismantles the framework that focused on girls' and women's rights, resources, and representation, which was implemented broadly within foreign and development policy. This policy has served as inspiration and an example for others. But that the word feminism is a problem is what the government wants to signal to the rest of the world.

Mr. Speaker! We know that the introduction of feminist foreign policy inspired a dozen countries such as Canada, Spain, France, Mexico, Liberia - to name a few. They followed Sweden. It is, of course, worth asking whether the Minister for Foreign Affairs thinks that these countries are conducting a foreign policy without actual content and where the word feminism obscures the view of the content - to use the Minister for Foreign Affairs' own words.

We know that the introduction caused authorities and embassies to significantly increase their efforts linked to equality and equality work. We know that trade policy was included for the first time in a clear expectation to contribute to increased equality, and we know that the introduction also obligated and raised expectations for Sweden. It will, of course, be deeply misleading to stand here in the Swedish Riksdag and pretend that the feminist foreign policy had no content whatsoever, even though EBA's studies show something completely different.

I intend to repeat my question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs: How does equality in the world increase by abolishing the feminist foreign policy?

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magdalena Thuresson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let me begin by stating that equality is a Swedish core value. I want to emphasize that equal rights, responsibilities, and opportunities for women and men have an intrinsic value in themselves, but there are, of course, several advantages to an equal society. This applies in particular to the socio-economic aspect, when both women and men have the same opportunities to achieve their dreams. In too many places in the world, girls and boys do not have the same opportunities to realize their dreams.

This debate is about the previous government's feminist foreign policy. Was it just a label, or was it a label with content behind it? That it was a label, we should all agree on. Regarding the content, the report from EBA, which Member Wickman refers to, states that the launch of feminist foreign policy did not entail any new methods for working with equality. In some areas, a little more was done, perhaps a little differently, but above all, much of what had been done before was still done. The governance in the area is also described as weak.

Mr. Speaker! There are many labels that we could discuss for Swedish foreign policy. Why do the Social Democrats not advocate that Sweden should have the label of an HR-focused foreign policy with a particular focus on and specific efforts to increase democratic space and respect for human rights all around the world? Why do the Social Democrats not advocate that Sweden should have the label of an LGBTQI-certified foreign policy with a particular focus on and specific efforts for a group of people who, in large parts of the world, are oppressed and cannot be themselves? Why do the Social Democrats not advocate that Sweden should have the label of a climate-neutral foreign policy with a particular focus on and specific efforts to reduce climate change and its effects for people, animals, and nature?

Mr. Speaker! There are certainly many labels we could discuss and use to mark foreign policy. The counter-questions to the Social Democrats are as follows: Sweden does not mark its foreign policy with a special focus on human rights – does that mean that human rights are not in focus for Swedish foreign policy? Of course not. That Sweden does not mark its foreign policy as having a special focus on the principles of the rule of law, does that mean that the principles of the rule of law are not in focus for Swedish foreign policy? Of course not. And, Mr. Speaker, that Sweden does not mark its foreign policy as feminist, does that mean that equality is not in focus for Swedish foreign policy? Of course not.

If we are to talk about labels, is it not a better label that we should conduct a foreign policy based on Swedish interests? It is about Swedish interests where equality is an absolute core value, where democracy, human rights and the rule of law are absolute core values and where the issue of climate change permeates in principle all policy areas.

This is both clearer and better - a foreign policy that originates from Swedish interests and works for Swedish interests and Swedish core values, with a focus on content, not on labels.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Alexandra Völker (S)

Mr. Speaker! History shows time and again that the norm in foreign policy is the male perspective. Every time peace negotiations are to be held, conflicts resolved, military interventions or democratic processes initiated, or power distributed, it is full of men around the table. Both history and research show that when politics is shaped by men, it also becomes for men; women and children are left out. And the consequences show themselves every time. For long-term solutions, women must be part of the solution. This also shows the research.

But if there is one thing that we are historically and actually every day proven to, it is that this does not happen by itself. For women to be part of the solution and for women's conditions to be improved, it is required that we have a strategy - that we ensure that we lift and educate women early and work strategically to promote women.

We have previously debated here today the situation in Iran and how women in Iran bravely protest against the regime's oppression and fight for their own rights and their freedom, with their lives at stake. Despite this, seen in light of history and how it always turns out in international situations, we can assume that the women will not be highlighted as part of the solution. We can assume that it will also be full of men around the negotiating table. For why would it be different when it comes to handling power?

In order for it to be different, it is required that we actively act for this - that we work actively to highlight women and ensure women's share of power. That is why feminist foreign policy is needed.

I therefore repeat the question from the interpellor Linnéa Wickman: What risks does the Minister for Foreign Affairs see with abolishing the feminist foreign policy?

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Eva Lindh (S)

Mr. Speaker! I would first like to thank Linnéa Wickman, who is resolutely driving this issue together with Alexandra Völker. Feminist foreign policy is an incredibly important issue.

Let me then state a few things. What is feminism? Feminism is that one should have the same rights and opportunities regardless of whether one is a woman or a man, i.e., equality between women and men.

What is feminist foreign policy then? Well, it is that equality shall permeate all foreign, trade, and security policy.

Has this then yielded any result? Sweden was first and led the way when it comes to implementing this, and now it has also been looked into to see if it gave results. The answer is yes. We know it now – it gave results, it made a difference, it was not just a label.

It is not honorable for the Foreign Minister that he continues to refer to the fact that this label would obstruct the work and the content. It is not honorable for him that he cannot take in the knowledge that actually exists on the table.

The report actually shows that it was exactly the opposite. It made a difference on the ground, for real. I just want to give a few examples where I myself have truly seen and heard what the feminist foreign policy actually played a role in.

I was in Zimbabwe in 2019. We who were there came from several parties, and someone was a bit critical of the feminist foreign policy and asked the aid organizations and those we met whether it really made any difference. The answer was unambiguous: It makes a difference; we are so grateful that Sweden pursues a feminist foreign policy. It makes a difference for the content but is also important for how the interventions are carried out.

We know that aid policy, when it targets women, does not only affect the women. It also affects the children in another way, and it benefits the entire society.

When I was at the women's summit in February, the information that the new government in Sweden had abolished the feminist foreign policy had not reached everyone. That was why many, at public seminars, thanked Sweden and said it was good that we had a feminist foreign policy. Politicians and civil society from all parts of the world appreciated this and stated that it was good that Sweden leads the way. It matters and gives us strength and energy, they said.

A few months later, I was invited to speak about women, peace, and security in Washington. At that time, many were very sad and worried, because a country was needed that leads the way and truly shows that equality matters; it makes a difference. They lamented that the government had made this decision. I also regret that the government did so, especially before one had been able to see the results of whether the feminist foreign policy made a difference or not. Now we know that it did.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Utrikesministern Tobias Billström (M)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by saying that just as Linnéa Wickman points out in her question, the world has recently seen a regression when it comes to girls' and women's rights and living conditions. The Covid-19 pandemic, the war in Ukraine, and the growth of extreme ideological forces have all had a negative impact on equality. Under the current circumstances, it is extra important to focus on concrete results rather than on labeling.

Let me therefore give three examples of how our work for equality makes a real difference, just as Magdalena Thuresson touched upon earlier.

Economic autonomy, that is, the possibility of shaping one's own life through one's own economic resources, is often a prerequisite for broader political participation. In a time when anti-democratic movements are growing stronger, Sweden's support for women's ability to earn and manage their own money constitutes an important contribution to strengthening both women and democracies worldwide.

Here Afghanistan is an all too telling example of what happens when women are excluded from participating in social life and thus cannot contribute to the livelihood of themselves or their families, something that also affects the country's possibility for economic growth.

Thus, the government's focus on sexual and reproductive health and rights, including the work to counter all forms of sexual and gender-related violence, constitutes a concrete contribution that both strengthens individuals' rights and promotes a safer society. Here, the government builds upon and develops the work surrounding SRHR that Sweden has carried out for decades, under several different governments, otherwise. Our support to the UN Population Fund UNFPA contributes every year to preventing millions of unintended pregnancies and unsafe abortions, hundreds of thousands of cases of female genital mutilation and tens of thousands of cases of maternal mortality. Minister for Development Cooperation and Foreign Trade Forssell also highlighted the importance of SRHR issues and unsafe abortions at a side event during the UN's annual high-level meeting in New York.

Tens of thousands of midwives have been trained, and millions of women have gained access to safe births in humanitarian crises. Through a targeted grant of 120 million kronor, Sweden also specifically supports women and girls in Ukraine and in Moldova. The support aims, among other things, to assist those who are systematically subjected to conflict-related sexual violence.

To date, a total of 75,700 women and girls have, thanks to Swedish support, received help from UN Women through the Safe Space center, which offers women psychological, humanitarian, and social services and support. The contribution has also enabled UNFPA to reach 200,000 individuals exposed to gender-based violence with life-saving interventions.

Finally, Sweden contributes to strengthening the Security Council's resolution 1325 on women, peace and security - an important work that aims partly to take into account the specific risks that women and girls face in conflict situations, and partly to strengthen women's role in conflict prevention efforts for peace. Sweden has contributed to Ukraine being able to launch its updated national action plan for women, peace and security this spring, in line with what the interpellator and other participants have requested here in the chamber today. We also support OSCE's important work in the area through targeted contributions aimed at strengthening the equality aspect in conflict situations.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Linnéa Wickman (S)

Mr. Speaker! I concluded my previous contribution by repeating the question that is the background to why I have taken the initiative for this debate, namely whether removed feminist foreign policy contributes to increased equality in a world where girls' and women's rights are under attack. The answer to that question seems to be no.

There is also no interest in learning from the important and extensive study that EBA has conducted. It is a goldmine of constructive proposals, also regarding how feminist foreign policy could have been implemented even better. How the feminist foreign policy could have been developed is something that this debate could have been about.

Instead, I must state that the Foreign Minister in this debate puts some effort into arguing that the word feminism stands in the way of Sweden's foreign policy interests. I note, however, that this seems to apply mostly for Sweden's part and not for the other countries that have been inspired and also adopted a feminist foreign policy.

Sweden has for a long time pursued the issue of equality in foreign policy. We are also bound by various international agreements and conventions that safeguard this. But the major breakthrough that feminist foreign policy has de facto contributed to – that is, that girls' and women's rights are moved higher up on the agenda in the international community – is something that will likely be able to remain for a while, because the entire framework has meant that much staff at our foreign agencies and in the foreign administration have been trained in and worked with this for eight years. That some efforts nevertheless continue in certain forms is therefore not something that happens thanks to the government we have, but rather despite the current government. Now, the feminist foreign policy is instead being further developed by other countries.

Unfortunately, we are also seeing step by step the concrete consequences of this policy being dismantled in combination with cuts in aid. During 2023, UN organizations such as UN Women, UNDP, and UNFPA, which concretely work with issues concerning sexual and reproductive health, poverty reduction, strengthened equality, and the elimination of violence and discrimination against women, were affected by cuts. All of them have received a cut compared to the previous year of approximately 25 percent. We know that the appropriations have been cut to the Folke Bernadotte Academy, which works for peace promotion and contributes to UN resolution 1325 on women, peace, and security, and we know that this work is needed because women are so heavily underrepresented in peace processes. But when women are represented, we know that the peace also becomes sustainable.

A concrete example of how the work has deteriorated is the dismantling of the female mediation network with experienced female diplomats and peacebuilders who have participated in complex mediation efforts via Sweden, the EU, and OSCE in Afghanistan, Georgia, Somalia, and Syria, to give some examples. It is a network that has concretely contributed to women being included and women's interests being taken into account in difficult peace processes. This has now been put on hold by the government pending an evaluation that should have been completed several months ago but can now not be found.

This is how I could continue. It is very clear now, Mr. Speaker, that Sweden lacks the framework for equality and the clear direction that feminist foreign policy represented and that could have been strengthened and improved. And this has consequences. Cuts are being made. Sweden has lost its global leadership, and we have a Foreign Minister who considers the word feminism to be a problem and not part of the solution.

To make matters worse, the Foreign Minister is not even interested in learning from the study that EBA has conducted. It is too bad!

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magdalena Thuresson (M)

Mr. Speaker! In the debate, it cannot just here today but generally from the Social Democrats' side sound as if if one does not have the label feminist foreign policy, one also does not prioritize issues concerning equality and the rights of women and girls. That is of course not true, and I believe that everyone following this debate also understands that.

Equality is a Swedish core value that also permeates Swedish foreign policy. Let me also emphasize that it was this far back before Margot Wallström launched the concept of feminist foreign policy. I do not know if the Social Democrats are aware of it, but their rhetoric thus undermines their own previous foreign ministers.

The rhetoric that without the label feminist foreign policy there are no priorities when it comes to women's and girls' rights also means that, for example, Anna Lindh, Laila Freivalds and Jan Eliasson did not have a focus on equality. I do not believe that the Social Democrats truly mean that. I want to bring to the record that I, at least, do not. The focus should be on content, not on labels.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Alexandra Völker (S)

Mr. Speaker! I want to start by thanking Linnéa Wickman for this incredibly important interpellation. These are very important issues.

Equality is a core value. We have heard that several times now. And it is important that women and men have the same rights and opportunities. This is exactly the point: There is a difference between being for something and actively working for it. It is precisely here that we Social Democrats constantly differ from the right when it comes to equality policy. The conflict lies between being for equality and achieving equality through strategic feminist work.

Feminism is a tool. It is to see women's and children's specific vulnerability at every step and to actively work for women's share of power.

I do not question that the government thinks equality is important. But by abolishing the feminist foreign policy, one no longer puts equality first. Linnéa Wickman has also highlighted several clear examples of the practical policy that follows the abolition of the feminist foreign policy.

It is certainly not a signal value, but even if it were a signal value, I think we should at least be able to agree on the significance of signal values in foreign policy. Accordingly, we should also realize what signal value it actually has to abolish feminist foreign policy.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Eva Lindh (S)

Mr. Speaker! Crises tend to worsen the situation for those who have it toughest. Inequalities and segregation have increased, and women and girls were hit particularly hard during the covid-19 crisis. It is perhaps especially now that an equality policy in all areas is needed more than ever.

Actually, I did not intend to address some of the strange statements that have been made here regarding what people think about former foreign ministers or previous policies, but I just want to say this: In politics, it is also important what we say and what we do. As my colleague Linnéa Wickman has shown, it is not just about words but about politics and what is done. The practice is also affected, therefore.

Words are important. We politicians know that – we work with this all day. Words and carrying them out in action matter. It wouldn't have been a problem if it were only us Social Democrats who thought it was a bit strange or who have reflected on the fact that the feminist foreign policy was removed. That perhaps wouldn't have been the biggest problem, but the big problem, which I touched upon in my previous speech, is that others see it as a clear signal from Sweden when the feminist foreign policy is removed.

It is not only we who think this, but many out in the world wish that we should continue to lead the way and show with words and actions that it is important to continue to fight for equality in the world.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Utrikesministern Tobias Billström (M)

Mr. Speaker! When listening to this debate, one cannot avoid asking the question whether we have read the same report. One of the EBA's conclusions is that the label feminist foreign policy was precisely a label and not a question of new content. In terms of content, it was therefore nothing new, as Sweden has worked for strengthened equality for decades, just as Magdalena Thuresson told here in the rostrum just now.

This leads to a question for Eva Lindh, who admittedly does not have any more speeches, but nevertheless: What was it actually that they thanked us for at the seminar? Was it the etiquette, or was it the content? I believe that the people the member listened to thanked us for the etiquette, and I believe they were right to do so.

The term feminist foreign policy has been polarizing rather than unifying in many countries, and Sweden has had to devote time and effort to explaining what feminist foreign policy actually means rather than focusing on concrete actions.

The attitude of our closest neighboring countries is very telling. Despite the fact that we have very similar views on the importance of equality, they have never adopted the concept of feminist foreign policy. Linnéa Wickman does not mention this, but it is actually worth considering. They have focused on the content rather than the label. I therefore see no risks, but on the other hand, I see many opportunities.

As I pointed out already in the foreign policy declaration, every individual's equal value, regardless of gender, age, sexual orientation or religion, is a matter of freedom that is prioritized by the government. Last week I repeated this in the rostrum of the UN General Assembly when I delivered Sweden's national address, and I particularly emphasized women's and girls' right to human rights.

With this said and with regard to today's interpellation debate in the chamber, EBA's evaluation is nevertheless interesting. The report draws conclusions, among other things, on how to get the Ministry for Foreign Affairs to work with politically prioritized issues, and these are lessons that can be transferred to other areas. As such, the study is a welcome contribution for a Minister for Foreign Affairs who is keen to achieve results. And that is I.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Linnéa Wickman (S)

Mr. Speaker! Wherever we turn in the world, it is clear that feminism has not gone far enough, and this places demands on us as a country.

The groundbreaking policy that Sweden's S-led government launched to include a feminist framework within all parts of foreign policy was discarded without blinking by the Tidö agreement. Not even the evaluation that the Foreign Minister mentioned can provide good momentum for the future – it couldn't even be awaited. It simply didn't matter what difference the policy had made or what lessons could be drawn, feminism was to be removed.

I still think, here at the end of the debate, that it is unclear what the word feminism, according to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, obscures in politics more than that it would, in fact, polarize against the gender-conservative forces in the world that push back against girls' and women's rights.

Feminist foreign policy was a commitment and a promise to the world's girls and women, and it was a pioneering work where one led the way. It gave strength to women's rights activists all around the world in a time when we see political leaders who deliberately contribute to turning back the clock.

Feminist foreign policy was a driving force to coordinate in a new way and take steps forward from Sweden's side and develop how we contribute to a more equal world through our foreign policy. To continue to call it a label and try to give the impression that the last eight years have not focused on results in foreign policy is deeply misleading.

I thank you for the debate, because I believe it has clearly shown that the SD government's abolition of the feminist foreign policy does not contribute to increasing equality in a world that has such inconceivable gaps between women and men and between rich and poor. Instead, only the void of the lack of a clear direction, ambition, and will to show global leadership echoes.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Utrikesministern Tobias Billström (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let me thank the interpellator and the other participants for the debate, which has truly shown that the feminist foreign policy was just an empty label that created more problems than it solved.

Let me conclude by once again highlighting the government's concrete view on the issue of equality, which guides us in our work. In multilateral forums such as the EU and the UN, Sweden stands up for a strong language that emphasizes the importance of equality. There, SRHR in particular is an important dividing line where Sweden stands united against the countries that refuse to compromise on issues such as, for example, the right to safe abortion and access to comprehensive sex education.

Equality is also a deeply integrated aspect of development cooperation. Here it is important to emphasize that equality is about more than just rights. It is also a prerequisite for democracy and a tool for economic development. Research also shows, just as has been highlighted in the debate, that peace agreements where women have been part of the process are more sustainable over time. Therefore, equality constitutes an important issue for Sweden in most of our bilateral and regional development strategies but also in global thematic strategies, which govern, for example, Sida's activities.

Mr. Speaker! It is through this concrete work, not through labels, that Sweden supports equality in the world.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)