WTF is 'Feminist Foreign Policy'? Spoiler Alert: 'Idiocracy' is Here, Courtesy of the 'Green' Böll Stiftung

The Green-Funded Böll Stiftung (Think Tank) Explains the the West's Broken OODA Loop

Today’s posting is a bit of a mixture as we explore some of the ‘ideas’ (sic) and ‘concepts’ (if that is, in fact, the correct term) that underly the current foreign policy (if that is a thing) of Germany.

Come with me down that particularly fascinating rabbit hole that started off as a ‘WTF is this?’ moment when I recently checked my LinkedIn account—and was mesmerised by what someone had posted.

Emphases mine, so—buckle up!

Feminist Foreign Policy, according to a Practitioner

Institutions and individuals increasingly seek more inclusive and thoughtful policies for women and girls, from multilateral institutions such as the United Nations and the World Bank to the White House and State Department, to research organizations, NGOs, and academia. One approach that is gaining traction but also encountering obstacles is feminist foreign policy.

Thus opens Sofiia Shevchuk her ‘reflections’, apparently one of the Heinrich Böll Stiftung’s current (or at least quite recent) holders of a ‘Feminist Foreign and Development Policy fellowship’.

Keep in mind that, like literally everything else in life, whatever one does can be deemed to ‘gain traction’ but will inevitably ‘also encounter obstacles’, be it on the discursive plane or, if you’d like to jump the queue, by physics (as others perhaps won’t let you pass). NSA, or ‘no shit analysis’, Ms. Shevchuk.

Source. Picture credit as in the original. This is for illustrative purposes only. Ms. Shevchuk is (presumably) among the people in this picture.

But I digress, for this piece is awesome. During her fellowship,

we, the fellows, explored the pressing issues in feminist foreign policy design and implementation with officials of government and international organizations, representatives of civil society and academia, and with researchers. The discussions covered the range of what feminist foreign and development policy (FFDP) stands for, and revealed where personal and community interests and experiences intersect with regional and global challenges.

So, now we get a fancy acronym (FFDP) and it is revealed that fellows ‘covered the range of what [FFDP] stands for’. What does FFDP stand for?

Lo and behold, the directly following paragraph contains this gem (and, mind you, I have not cut a single character from in-between):

FFDP is a relatively new concept and is still being defined and formulated, while at the same time already bearing some fruit from implementation. Ideally, an FFDP approach develops and implements policies not by a majority acting above all, but in concert with and by genuinely including, listening to, and empowering a range of minorities and others who have been silenced and underrepresented.

Not at a loss for words (albeit for meaning), Ms Shevchuck at-once reveals, apparently unknowingly, that the two sections I have cited directly are mutually contradictory. It is, in fact, mindbogglingly idiotic, if not entirely impossible, to claim a) that ‘discussions covered the range of FFDP’ while holding b) that FFDP, being ‘a relatively new concept’, which ‘is still being defined’.

I will leave aside, for a moment at-least, c) the illogical and outright dangerous non-sequitur of FFDP ‘already bearing some fruit from implementation’.

FFDP ‘Means’ (presumably) ‘One for All, and All for One’

One could certainly claim that FFDP is merely a bit of empty words emanating from the dumpster fire masquerading as (Germany’s) Green party, but since Annalena Baerbock, currently serving (sic) Germany as foreign minister, has elevated precisely this kind lunacy (‘FFDP’) to her country’s guiding principle in foreign affairs, it is worthwhile to consider.

The following are sections (highlights, if you will) of these guidelines (‘Leitlinien’) issued by Ms. Baerbock. Again, these being unavailable in any official translation, I have translated the following passages and added emphases:

Not an end in itself, but a means to an end

Structural discrimination still prevails in many places around the world. Feminist foreign policy counters this—and starts within its own ranks. The guidelines for feminist foreign policy provide a framework for the actions of all Foreign Service staff and encourage reflection and initiative. They were formulated together with international partners, Foreign Service staff and in dialogue with civil society. Germany is thus following the example of other countries, such as Sweden, Canada or Mexico…

Women’s rights are an indicator of the state of societies. However, feminist foreign policy is by no means directed only at women. Rather, a feminist foreign policy pays more attention to people who are marginalised because of their origin, religion, gender identity, disability, sexual identity, or other reasons.

So, transcribed from this hogwash we may learn: advocacy for one group presumed to be ‘structurally discriminated’ against (women) is proclaimed to be tantamount to standing by, as an ‘ally’, next to literally all other ‘marginalised’ groups everywhere.

A Common Thread For German Foreign Policy

Ten guidelines provide a framework and direction for the actions of Foreign Service staff—both internally and externally. Feminist foreign policy, the focus on the rights, representation, and resources of women and marginalised groups, affects all areas of work at the Federal Foreign Office. In peace and security policy, for example, the issue is participation in peace processes; in humanitarian aid and crisis management, intersectional and gender-specific risks are given greater consideration; and in foreign cultural and social policy, marginalised people in art and culture, research and science, education and the media can become more visible through funding.

Emphases on this or that aspect alone, however, is not nearly enough for the acolytes of this new kind of ‘idealism’ in foreign relations. Quoth Ms. Baerbock:

The Foreign Service has also set itself ambitious goals for the allocation of project funds: by 2025, 85% of project funds are to be allocated in such a way that the needs of women and marginalised groups are also taken into account.

Translation: we shall strive to allocate the majority of taxpayer funding based no longer on the notion of equality of opportunity or need, but on the basis of what—who, by the way?—is perceived by someone else. In other words: we are declaring in a borderline illegal way that we intend to discontinue adherence to virtually any notion of procurement law. As a consequence, how dare you to question our spending priorities, you retrograde bigot.

Foreign policy action [Marx would call this ‘praxis’] can only be credible if working methods in the Foreign Service also change. The guidelines therefore also address the aspects that need to be done within the Foreign Service in order to strengthen equal opportunities, diversity and inclusion, and to inspire the most diverse people with their talents and abilities to work in the Foreign Service so that it can be a reflection of a modern and forward-looking German society.

That means—struggle sessions and the implementation of activist discriminatory policies for those who already work there, as well as those who desire to do so.

One thing is clear: feminist foreign policy is not a magic wand that can eliminate all difficulties—but it is an important, overdue step in the right direction. It will be constantly developed further in dialogue with civil society and international partners and adapted to meet challenges.

At long last, it is driven home, yet again, that FFDP is not a kind of cult-ish group-think, far from it. Still, it is expected of the disciples of Ms. Baerbock’s new creed that they must be constantly at the ready, never get too comfortable while implementing her directives, for FFDP ‘will be constantly developed further’.

Please allow me to translate this gibberish non-sense for you: Germany, more or less proudly, just declared its irrelevance for all world to see. There is to be no more constancy in foreign affairs for anyone, to say nothing about the moral cowardice of career diplomats and the utter intellectual bankruptcy of literally everyone in legacy media.

Bismarck, if anyone, must be rolling over in his grave.

Back to the ‘reflections’ of Ms. Shevchuk to close this out.

FFDP starts at home. We all come from places of community, and we value respect. We believe that, as humans, as citizens, each of us on this planet has a duty to ensure that all living creatures are cared for. We exist because of others—that is what makes us human. Inclusion is one of the core elements of FFDP, starting from mutual respect and empathy. FFDP serves everyone because it includes everyone. It is about translating our personal stories and our community stories into actions, be those local, regional, or global. FFDP is about achieving a peaceful, equal, and just world for us all—not favoring only the majority, but favoring all. FFDP is about human security.

So, in a heartbeat, Ms. Shevchuk went from all but acknowledging biological realities (‘we exist because of others’) to Marxian-sounding gibberish that betrays her apparently barely suppressed ideological biases.

Please note that I don’t know Ms. Shevchuk personally, so I cannot state that she is a Marxist disciple, but her words certainly sound like a very crude, if ill-informed, caricature thereof.

‘FFDP serves everyone because it includes everyone’, is a nice thing to state, but it is extra-hard to believe that kind of BS.

Starting ‘at home’, ‘we all come from places of community’—is utter BS. ‘Home’, or Heimat, that in-translatable word is literally the place where families live (see Celia Applegate’s wonderful treatise from the early 1990s). Yet, for Ms. Shevchuk and her ilk, ‘home’ is ‘a place of community’ (note the abstract ‘community’, which leaves me to why this is not capitalised).

It is held that we need—nay, must—’translate our…stories into action’. What at first glance reads like fairly conventional post-modernist boilerplate BS about the power of ‘narratives’ is actually borderline demonic: everything derives from ‘our stories’, Ms. Shevchuk boldly declares, include, quite explicitly, our homes, families, and biological realities, such as the virtually exclusively ‘bipolar’ reality of reproduction. For Ms. Shevchuk and her ilk—which very much includes Ms. Baerbock, mind you—this is all a bunch of ‘stories’.

In the final analysis, FFDP is also staunchly anti-democratic—and hence unconstitutional—to say the least. By invoking that FFPD is ‘not favoring only the majority, but favoring all’, this is major accomplishment in gaslighting, if there ever was one.

An Open Conspiracy by the UN

By definition, the rule of law based on a constitutional order in a liberal, democratic is about the rule of the majority. Last time I checked, Ms. Baerbock did not re-write the constitution (yet, I fear), but constitutional liberalism also comes with strong protections for minorities and other marginalised groups, hence there is de facto and de iure no need to actually conjure up anything new.

Yet, I fear that by actually doing so, Ms. Baerbock and her ilk are actively subverting what is arguably the crowning achievement of Western civilisation, that is, the promulgation of, in its beautiful rendition by Thomas Jefferson, our ‘inalienable rights…to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’.

What FFDP stands for, by contrast, is a creed that is the exact opposite of the inalienable natural rights to make individual decisions (life), do so unencumbered by others (liberty), and private property (pursuit of happiness).

Remember, ‘no-one is safe until everyone is vaccinated’? It’s the same kind of totalitarian, collectivist nightmare that is pushed while ‘equity’ and ‘diversity’ are invoked. ‘All Love is Love’, remember?

In a nutshell: this might be extremely stupid nonsense, but it is also the official position espoused and pushed by incompetent party hacks like Annalena Baerbock and her ilk.

By invoking the example of others, esp. the UN-sponsored notion of ‘human security’, FFDP is ‘going global’ these days. According the UN General Assembly Resolution 66/290, ‘human security’ calls for ‘a common understanding’ and its role: ‘Human security calls for people-centered, comprehensive, context-specific and prevention-oriented responses that strengthen the protection and empowerment of all people.’

Here’s the addition by Ms. Shevchuk:

Relatedly, FFDP questions the traditional understanding of state security and calls for a people-centered approach to peace and security in domestic policies and in carrying out policies abroad, where a country’s decisions are likely to affect those of various communities. 

While feminism is often seen as a Global North concept, feminist foreign policy (FFP) has gained popularity across the world. Since Sweden famously first adopted FFP in 2014 under Foreign Minister Margot Wallström, other countries have followed. As of July 2022, according to UN Women, they were: Canada (2017), France (2019), Mexico (2020), Spain (2021), Luxembourg (2021), Libya (2021), Germany (2021), and Chile (2022). The Netherlands ‘has put its feminist foreign policy into action’, according to a November 2022 article on a government website.

Thankfully, the current Swedish gov’t has abandoned FFP in 2022, and Ms. Shevchuk further decries that ‘the European Union remains behind in developing and implementing a feminist foreign policy’.

Some countries around the world that speak of seeking ‘human security’ may in fact be incorporating key tenets of feminist foreign policy in their approaches without using that term, due to the history, misunderstanding, and negative connotations of ‘feminism’. In fact, one line of discussion throughout various meetings during the fellowship was about whether to stop using the term ‘feminism’ in order to effect bigger changes and reach a wider audience. A number of institutions and individuals from both governmental and non-governmental structures are doing the work in line with FFDP but avoid the term to reduce obstacles, amid a sense of urgency to make progress.

And here, ladies and gentlemen, is why this is important: ‘both governmental and non-governmental structures’ may be telling you one thing—while doing something else. In my book, this is called ‘lying’.

Here’s a brief interjection—as in: free life advice—for those working in ‘governmental and non-governmental structures’: if you ever wonder why people don’t trust you, why don’t you stop lying to them? But I digress.

Towards a Definition of FFDP

And this brings us towards attempting to define FFDP. Here is what Ms. Shevchuk has to say:

Considering this reality that the Global North has imposed, taught, and defined for centuries, it might be time to step back and learn, listen, ask, and yield the floor to those who were silenced, not heard, ignored, paternalized, and colonized. FFDP requires learning from our mistakes, questioning existing power structures, and challenging our biases—and that is where FFDP starts. It starts with us. 

Let us all commence struggle sessions. Identity politics, anyone? (Hi, Chairman Mao.)

Clearly many obstacles remain to arrive at the goal of a feminist foreign and development policy. Is there a peaceful way to get there? How can we ensure that we are all on board?

Sure, it’s a long and winding road, but since, as by Ms. Shevchuk’s own admission (see above), there is not defined goal. There even may not be a define-able end goal, which is why she frets about ‘is there a peaceful way to get there?’. This as highly insane as it is telling: given that FFDP expressly also affects domestic policy, to me, this sounds suspiciously like a the Hobbesian ‘war of all against all’, perhaps replete with Hobbes’ proposed resolution: an all-powerful Leviathan as the (yet unspoken-of) end result.

FFDP is about challenging and changing traditional ways of thinking and standard approaches to foreign and development policy. Changes are still slow, and some institutions still lag considerably. There is a lot of pressure on women to do all the work in pursuit of such a policy, to be the so-called ‘gender people’ [I have no clue as to what that means] and to be the ones who care [but, go ahead, proactively claim victimhood will certainly endear you to Ms. Baerbock and her ilk; line break added].

In doing so, we constantly come up against those who are used to the status quo, who are afraid of change and innovation, who do not want to share their power, who do not want to open doors or share a seat at the table [oh, you dastardly, retrograde, and reactionary bigots, all we want is a ‘seat at the table’—is that really too much to ask?]. Yet the revolutions, wars, and other conflicts around the world speak for themselves—we cannot keep doing business as usual. Something must change, through increased engagement and cooperation worldwide. FFDP opens that possibility to listen, learn, and DO things differently.

Ah, more Marxian’esque calls to praxis.

Here’s a brief interjection, Ms. Shevchuk: what about competence, as in, excelling at what one does as the basis for advancement?

Here’s a fair question to you: what percentage of your success so far would you deem to derive from merit and competence as opposed to, say, affirmative action?

Lest I forget: here is my (admittedly para-plagiariased) definition of ‘FFDP’:

FFDP is an approach to international affairs that examines the nature of foreign relations, its gender-based normativity, and how society defines and polices the concepts of foreign affairs, international relations while incorporating individual and community-based stories.

As a branch of International Relations, FFDP theory aims to deconstruct what is acceptable or ‘normal’. FFDP theory opens new avenues of thought to define concepts considered central to the intersections of individual and group identity and identity politics.

You’re welcome.

Bottom Lines

This pseudo-Marxian hogwash sounds like borderline lunacy, alright, but it is actively implemented by Western countries and supranational institutions, such as the EU.

It is highly corrosive as it offers no clear-cut definitions, which is actually a feature, and not a bug because the absence of anything that is clearly defined, and define-able, is actually useful to blackmail people into struggle sessions, continually bludgeon people into admissions of (made-up) failures, which are, of course, all personal and individual, even though these failures would, in part at least, derive from the invoked mantra of ‘structural forces’ determining individual forces.

If this sounds contradictorily, well, that is because it is. Deriving in small part from Marx’s delusions about human society, there is little wonder that this sounds like the utter nonsense that it is.

Sadly, this is the currently-reigning orthodoxy of the Green-Woke Cult, which is on a rampage and it will not stop doing so anytime soon, in part because, as Ms. Shevchuk admitted, these people will lie, distort reality, and gaslight you, me, or anyone for pointing this out.

Buyer beware.