Germany, as the Berlin government has decided, and as Green Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock in particular wants, will pursue a “feminist foreign policy” in the future.
Since we cannot assume that this is one of those legendary miracle weapons with which wars are won from a difficult situation – in this case, that Putin dies laughing at this “feminist foreign policy” on the spot, and literally -, I have a few questions.
What, I ask myself, has Germany actually done for foreign policy in terms of gender? In any case, the obvious answer – a masculine or at least male one – is out of the question, because then Europe and parts of the world would be in a better state today. One cannot necessarily accuse German foreign policy of the last few decades of an excess of male determination, courage and bravery.
But please, that’s spilled milk now, the future is going to be bright because feminist. Or so. »A peaceful world remains a utopia as long as foreign policy is not feminist«, was recently read in a local quality newspaper. »Feminist foreign policy is a departure from old concepts of security policy based on the exercise of power and dominance (…) More women lead to more peace.«
Well, I don’t really know. It seems to me rather uncertain that China will one day refrain from annexing Taiwan, if necessary by force, because the West, inspired by feminism, at best refrains from “exercising power and dominance”. The stupid thing is that the West’s strategic opponents wouldn’t even dream of doing without these traditional instruments. They aren’t stupid, but they increasingly think we are, something that I, as an old white man, can well understand.
Should I ever be mugged, I would definitely prefer the police not to send me a feminist radio patrol who renounces power and dominance, but rather two officers or female officers who know how to use their Glock.
And we’re already at the heart of the matter. What do our German neighbors actually understand by “feminist foreign policy,” what does that mean in everyday diplomatic practice?
As an example of the new course, the German foreign office cites that in future, for example, employees of German embassies will no longer take part in public discussions or TV debates around the world if the number of women and men on the respective podium is not the same. Which will probably rarely be the case in many countries, especially in the Islamic world.
Well, maybe I don’t understand something there, but the result will be that no representative of Germany will have a say in many of the debates. To what extent this contributes to improving the lives of women in these countries is somehow not clear to me. On the contrary – if we now assume that a German contribution to such debates would be more women-friendly, the whole thing is actually a shot in the foot.
Apparently the Germans are now taking their climate policy, which has been completely smashed against the wall and is ruining their industry and thus their prosperity, as a model for their foreign policy. It’s going to be really nice.
Incidentally, I also have considerable doubts as to whether the thesis that »more women lead to more peace« is not a bit daring. One doesn’t have to have witnessed conflicts between power women like the two who recently poured olive oil over each other’s hair in a downtown bar out of deep mutual dislike to admire the potential intensity of feminist warfare.
History teaches us similar things. Margaret Thatcher did not win the Falklands War she started by renouncing power and dominance, but by sinking an Argentine battleship on May 2, 1982 (323 dead sailors).
Absolutely nothing speaks against more women in the highest foreign policy offices, certainly – but the assumption that the world would become more peaceful as a result is unfortunately not very reliable.