South Korea and feminist foreign policy approaches
South Korea and feminist foreign policy approaches
Nobody expects a future South Korean Administration to pursue a feminist foreign policy approach, but there are lessons to be learnt.
Over the last decade, countries like Sweden, Canada, and Australia sought to implement aspects of feminist foreign policy (FFP) into their diplomatic, defense, development, and trade policies. Each country faced difficulties on the way, and had to curtail aspects as geopolitical tensions increased, but also found that the approach opened new ways of thinking, inspired innovation, and attracted broader public support and engagement.
Anyone who knows the Korean political scene is aware that supporting a FFP approach would currently be political suicide. Even the mention of the word (and even the holding of the thumb and forefinger in the wrong positions) opens one to political attack. But the evidence is there. An FFP improves a middle power’s foreign policy and diplomacy. Could Korea pursue an FFP in all but name? What would it entail?
On the surface, FFP is an approach to international relations that seeks to address and rectify gender inequalities, both within the policy's own framework and in its interactions with other nations. It aims to promote gender equality and the rights of women and marginalized groups as central components of global peace, security, and development.
However, beneath the surface, it’s also about recognizing that foreign policy has been stifled - stuck in modes of thinking and acting that are predominantly patriarchal and dismissive of those who are disadvantaged. It’s about recognizing “the historical practice of foreign and security policy has led to a most insecure, unequal, and destructive global status quo that is failing most people” (further info). The key principles of an FFP approach typically include:
Human Rights and Gender Equality: FFP prioritizes the protection and promotion of human rights, with a strong focus on gender equality. It seeks to empower women and marginalized groups, ensuring their voices and needs are considered in all aspects of foreign policy.
Intersectionality: Recognizing that individuals face multiple, intersecting forms of discrimination, FFP takes into account how race, class, sexuality, disability, and other factors intersect with gender to affect people's lives.
Peace and Security: FFP advocates for peaceful conflict resolution, the prevention of violence, and the inclusion of women and marginalized groups in peace processes. It challenges traditional militaristic approaches to security, emphasizing instead human security and well-being.
Development and Humanitarian Aid: FFP promotes gender-sensitive development policies and practices, ensuring that aid and development projects address the specific needs of women and marginalized communities.
Global Justice: FFP emphasizes the importance of global justice, advocating for fair and equitable relations between countries. It seeks to address global inequalities and ensure that foreign policies do not reinforce existing power imbalances.
Accountability and Transparency: FFP calls for transparency in decision-making processes and accountability in the implementation of policies, ensuring that commitments to gender equality are met.
So how would an FFP approach tackle South Korea’s most enduring foreign policy challenge? How would an FFP approach deal with North Korea? (Note: “to deal with” is admittedly grossly patriarchal language for working with or interacting with a country - but I’m still learning).
Applying FFP to South Korea’s relations with North Korea would involve rethinking traditional approaches to diplomacy, security, and human rights through a gender-sensitive lens. Remember, our entire history of interaction with North Korea has been at the opposite end of the FFP approach.
For a classic example, think about the armistice negotiations that lasted two years (1951-53), which involved benignly childish patriarchal games (to put it politely). The two sides competed over negotiating room temperatures, flag sizes, chair heights and more - basically a lot of d&%@ measuring! Meanwhile, husbands, wives, sons and daughters were dying and families were torn apart. The FFP argument is that a more diverse negotiating structure would have had different priorities. Easy to argue for, but also easy to argue against.
So, in interaction with contemporary North Korea, an FFP approach would emphasize peace, human security, and the inclusion of marginalized voices, particularly women, in decision-making processes (summary of FFP and deterrence). Here’s how FFP could be integrated into South Korea’s foreign policy towards North Korea:
Human Security Over Military Security
Current Approach: South Korea’s approach to North Korea has traditionally emphasized military preparedness, deterrence, and close interaction with key allies, reflecting the ongoing conflict and the North’s nuclear ambitions.
FFP Approach: Shift the focus from militaristic security to human security. This would involve addressing the needs and rights of ordinary people on both sides of the border, especially women and children, who are often the most affected by conflict. Human security could include ensuring access to food, healthcare, education, and safety from violence.
Promoting Peaceful Dialogue and Diplomacy
Current Approach: Inter-Korean relations are often characterized by cycles of tension and sporadic engagement, with dialogue frequently breaking down.
FFP Approach: Encourage continuous, inclusive, and gender-sensitive dialogue. Women and marginalized groups, who have historically been excluded from peace negotiations, would be included in peace talks and diplomacy efforts. This could lead to more sustainable peace agreements that consider the diverse needs of all populations.
Humanitarian Aid and Development
Current Approach: Humanitarian aid to North Korea is politicized and linked to denuclearization efforts.
FFP Approach: Provide consistent, unconditional humanitarian aid with a focus on gender-sensitive development projects. This could include supporting maternal health, education for girls, and combating gender-based violence. Ensuring that aid reaches women and children in North Korea could help build trust and improve relations.
Supporting Women’s Participation in Peacebuilding
Current Approach: Women have been underrepresented in peacebuilding efforts between the Koreas.
FFP Approach: Actively promote and support the participation of women in peace processes, in line with UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace, and Security. This could involve creating platforms for women’s groups from both Koreas to engage in dialogue and share their perspectives on peace and reconciliation.
Addressing Human Rights and Gender Equality
Current Approach: Human rights issues in North Korea are often highlighted in international forums, but gender-specific issues are less frequently addressed.
FFP Approach: South Korea could advocate for the human rights of North Korean women, focusing on issues like trafficking, sexual violence, and the rights of female defectors. This could also involve working with international organizations to document and address gender-based abuses in North Korea.
Cultural and Educational Exchanges
Current Approach: Inter-Korean exchanges have occurred sporadically and have been heavily influenced by the political climate.
FFP Approach: Expand cultural and educational exchanges with a focus on women’s and children’s experiences. Programs could be developed to foster understanding and solidarity between women and youth in both Koreas, which could contribute to long-term peacebuilding.
Economic Empowerment Initiatives
Current Approach: Economic interactions, such as the Kaesong Industrial Complex, have been largely focused on macroeconomic goals.
FFP Approach: Implement economic initiatives that specifically aim to empower women. For example, supporting female entrepreneurs in North Korea or creating programs that provide vocational training for women could contribute to economic stability and peace.
Monitoring and Accountability
Current Approach: Monitoring of agreements between North and South Korea has often lacked a focus on gender impacts.
FFP Approach: Establish mechanisms to monitor the impact of inter-Korean agreements on women and marginalized communities. Ensure that gender perspectives are included in all stages of policy-making, from negotiation to implementation and evaluation.
Does it all sound familiar? Of course the above FFP approach is essentially the Sunshine Policy of Kim Dae-jung, Roh Moo-hyun, and Moon Jae-in rolled into a massive ball of gummy bears - ready to fall apart as the kitchen heats up. Now, nobody expects a future South Korea progressive administration to go ahead and call its approach FFP - that’s just impossible in the current political landscape.
What South Korea could do however, is seek to learn from FFP approaches. FFP approaches emphasize the importance of working with like-minded states to further shared interests in transforming international society.
Kim Dae-jung, Roh Moo-hyun, and Moon Jae-in all neglected to work with other middle powers. They believed and hoped they could convince the US to support their aims by themselves. Influencing major power behavior is hard work, particularly when security interests are at stake! It is much easier to do when working together with other like-minded middle power states.
If a future South Korean administration does shift towards policies that prioritize human security, gender equality, and the inclusion of marginalized voices in peace and security processes in action - it would be an FFP in all but name. This time, it’d be smart to look for like-minded states to help out!