When Margot Wallström took office as Sweden’s foreign minister last fall, she brought with her a policy unlike any other. Wallström announced she would pursue a feminist foreign policy, aiming for gender equality in every aspect of Sweden’s foreign affairs.

Wallström wasn’t just throwing around “feminist” as a buzzword to attract publicity; she’s delivered on her promise. In February she called out Saudi Arabia’s many human rights violations, specifically ones against women. She also recently proposed that the European Union appoint a women’s issues representative.

Of course, Wallström’s plan doesn’t come without its downsides. But Wallström isn’t backing down, and she shouldn’t be. A feminist foreign policy has the potential to promote humanitarian efforts worldwide, and it’s something more countries — including the United States — should consider adopting.

The goals of a feminist foreign policy really aren’t that different from any other foreign policy. In a speech delivered to the United States Institute of Peace, Wallström said her policy promotes peace, human rights and human development worldwide. The big difference comes with how a feminist foreign policy aims to achieve those goals.

Instead of just aiming for gender equality, Wallström considers it a prerequisite for all of her other initiatives. Her reasoning stemmed from the United Nations Security Resolution 1325. In it, the U.N. acknowledged the huge impact war has on women and encouraged women to take on bigger roles in peacekeeping efforts.


With this resolution, the U.N. reaffirmed what Wallström was aiming for: equality and opportunities for women worldwide. But even though the resolution passed 15 years ago, an April 15 article in The New Yorker reported that 97 percent of U.N. peacekeepers are still men.

When it comes to world peace, this is a huge problem. As Valerie Hudson wrote in an April 2012 piece for Foreign Policy, “The best predictor of a state’s peacefulness is how well its women are treated.” Countries that respect and educate women are less likely to harbor terrorists, transmit pandemic diseases and be involved with human trafficking — in short, they’re safer and more stable.

By promoting a feminist foreign policy, the U.S. would also encourage this stability and help underdeveloped nations grow. But this doesn’t just help those in developing areas; it has positive returns for the U.S. as well. The State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development requested $50.3 billion for the USAID 2016 budget. But if the global economy grows through these feminist policies, the U.S. would be able to cut down on how much monetary and military aid it provides.

However, a feminist foreign policy can have some unintended consequences. After Wallström’s comments about its human rights violations, Saudi Arabia withdrew its Swedish ambassador and cut all ties with the country. And unfortunately more countries and international organizations supportive of Saudi Arabia soon followed its lead. This brought up big concerns about Sweden’s economy and exports, specifically the approximately $1.3 billion it exports to Saudi Arabia each year.

Controversial policies like Wallström’s never come without downsides. But in this case, the positives far outweigh the negatives. Money has trumped human rights for far too long, and it was high time someone like Wallström made a change.

Sweden’s feminist foreign policy is something America and the rest of the world need to look up to. This doesn’t mean completely disregarding economic consequences, but it does mean putting human rights first whenever possible. It’s time for America to step up and be a little braver — and a little more feminist — with its foreign policy.

Kathryn Krawczyk is a freshman magazine major. Her column appears weekly. She can be reached at kjkrawcz@syr.edu and followed on Twitter @KathrynKrawczyk.