Rethinking Diplomacy: The Case of Gender-Sensitive Foreign Policy in Asia

Diplomacy as a field of study has largely overlooked the analytical category of gender, as well as the feminist ethics and normative templates it foregrounds. Historically, state-centered International Relations (IR) has privileged masculinity, depicting the ‘international’ as anarchic, ‘states’ as competitive, and ‘international order’ as reliant on power, military capabilities, and war. This framework rests on storytelling that privileges particular ways of understanding and practicing diplomacy—ways that erase, silence, and invisibilise women’s voices. For instance, Kautilya’s Arthashastra¹ is often celebrated as a cornerstone of diplomatic history and statecraft, yet Therigatha—a sixth century text written by Theris (the first women Buddhist monk)—is relegated to the category of ‘women’s writing,’ bereft of its political and international significance.

Scholarship on the genealogy of IR often remains trapped in epistemic diktats that define what politics should be. This tendency excludes alternative perspectives and locations of political significance. It is therefore essential to not only explore new sites of politics but also engage with their historical and geographical contexts. In the case of Asia, the region’s specific historical experiences, marked by politics of imperialism, colonialism, and coloniality, demand rethinking diplomacy from a situated lens. Drawing on Haraway’s insights, I emphasise the ‘politics of location,’ which resists fixation and finality while advocating for dialogue and difference.²

What, then, does rethinking diplomacy entail? How do feminist histories inform templates for feminist or gender-sensitive foreign policies in Asia?  What are the core components of such policies, and how do they intersect with normative and ethical orientations in foreign policy? Are there examples of gender-sensitive foreign policies in Asian countries? If yes, what makes them gender-sensitive, and what can others learn from them? Finally, how can gender justice be meaningfully integrated into the discourse on foreign policies across Asia?

Thinking through ‘differing’ feminist histories, and why?

In 1905, Rokeya Sakhawat Hossain (1880-1932), a Bengali Muslim woman, published 'Sultana's Dream' in the English-language journal The Indian Ladies’ Magazine. Hossain’s work, classified as feminist utopia, foregrounds the idea of Naristhan—'Ladyland'—where women break free from the patriarchal chains of subjugation. In this imagined society, science, technology, and education are deployed for the betterment of humanity, peace, and prosperity. Although Hossain lived in colonial India, her scathing critique of patriarchy and her vision of an alternative global order continue to foreground both feminist praxis and ethics.  Feminist scholars like Kumari Jayawardena stress the importance of both dialogue and difference in understanding feminism. Jayawardena points out that “Feminism was not imposed on the Third World by the West, but rather that historical circumstances produced important material and ideological changes that affected women, even though the impact of imperialism and Western thought was admittedly among the significant elements in these historical circumstances.”³ Key among these historical circumstances were the anti-imperialist and anti-colonial struggles that shaped transnational feminist solidarities in countries like Indonesia,  Vietnam, the Philippines, and Japan.

For instance, one of Indonesia’s first nationalist women organizations, Putri Mardika (Independent Women), was established in 1912 and closely aligned itself with Budi Utomo, the first nationalist movement in the country. While Global South solidarity is often associated with the Bandung Conference, earlier gatherings like the 1949 Conference of the Women of Asia—organised by the Women’s International Democratic Federation (WIDF) in partnership with the All-China Women’s Democratic Federation and Mahila Atma Raksha Samiti (MARS) (Women’s Self-Defense Committee) from West Bengal, India—received less attention. In 1958, the Asian-African Conference of Women was held in Colombo, Sri Lanka, under the aegis of five national women’s organizations from Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Burma, and Sri Lanka. Similarly, the 1961 Afro-Asian Women’s Conference in Cairo, Egypt, organised by the Afro-Asian Peoples’ Solidarity Organization, received strong support from the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), highlighting a new anti-imperialist solidarity movement for women in the Global South⁴.

The key point is that rethinking diplomacy starts with historicising the feminist gaze and paying attention to feminist ethics and praxis as they evolved through differing histories of anti-imperialist and anti-colonial struggles in Asia. It means exploring different ways in which women in these contexts traversed and navigated the politics of transnational solidarity, rooted in their specific experiences of location and polity. By acknowledging the differences in these histories and struggles, a more nuanced understanding of global feminist movements can be developed.  

Gender Norms, Feminist Activism, and the Transnational push?

The move towards gender-sensitive foreign policy needs to be understood in dialogue with decades of feminist activism, transnational feminist solidarities, and feminist scholarship, all of which have been instrumental in foregrounding gender both as a normative and analytical tool. Major watershed moments include the adoption of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) in 1979 and the United Nations (UN) Security Council resolution 1325 on Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) in 2000. Gender equality has since emerged as a significant issue on the global agenda, recognised both as a standalone Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) and through the “gender mainstreaming” framework adopted by many international institutions, states, and organisations.⁵

In the past decade, within the broader framework of Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda, states have made explicit commitments to feminist foreign policy. Sweden was the first to adopt this approach.⁶ While there is no universally agreed definition of feminist foreign policy, the number of countries adopting this approach continues to grow. Since Sweden’s adoption of the policy in 2014, fifteen countries have officially embraced this approach. The list includes Sweden (2014), Canada (2017), France (2019), Mexico (2020), Spain (2021), Luxembourg (2021), Germany (2021), and Chile (2022), among others. The Netherlands and Belgium are in the process of advancing their own feminist foreign policy template.⁷

While gender-sensitive foreign policy might seem new and innovative—seemingly propelled by the Western World—it has actually been adopted in various ways by states in Asia, across different times and spaces. In some cases, states explicitly use the term ‘gender-sensitive,’ while in others, they implicitly integrate gender-sensitive norms and ethics into the normative orientation of their foreign policies. However, even in contexts where there is a clear commitment to gender equality, and to the politics of rights, representation, and resources, many states still exhibit a strategic reluctance to explicitly use the term ‘feminist foreign policy.’

What does a gender-sensitive foreign policy mean for Asia?

In line with differing feminist histories and the politics of postcolonial states, it is important to recognise that a gender-sensitive foreign policy—unlike the more universalised template of feminist foreign policy—cannot be distilled into a reified or singular analytical template. Furthermore, in many cases, such as India, while the country’s foreign policy reflects specific gender commitments, there is a strategic hesitancy to explicitly deploy the template of feminist foreign policy. India’s External Affairs Minister states, “I agree that we need to look at the world from the perspective of women, and we need a gender-balanced foreign policy. We need to look at three things here: Getting more women to engage with foreign policy issues, reflect[ing] women’s interests in foreign policy, and bring[ing] in a feminist perspective to foreign policy.”⁸

For many countries in Asia, the focus is on pro-gender norms that include—but are not limited to—the 3R’s framework: Rights, Representation and Resources, as espoused by the feminist foreign policy framework originating largely in the Global North. While Sweden explicitly committed to a feminist foreign policy in 2014—a policy now overturned—Asian states have pursued foreign policy embracing feminist ethics and praxis through their histories of anti-colonial resistance, often without labelling these policies as such.

As we nudge the rethinking of diplomacy and gender-sensitive foreign policy, it is crucial to pay attention to the language and epistemic framing of foreign policies. Scrutinising the ethics and language of foreign policy is both pertinent and compelling as we attempt to construct a broader understanding of what constitutes gender-sensitive foreign policy beyond the 3R’s. For instance, there is a need to engage with concepts embedded in the language of Global South solidarity, resistance to bloc politics, push for strategic autonomy, and a refusal to be co-opted into competing military alliances.

The point of emphasis here is that each of these variables aligns with feminist ways of thinking and offers important entry points for evaluating foreign policies as gender-sensitive. In light of this, the next section elucidates how Asian states have embraced the ethics of gender-sensitive foreign policy.

From Bandung to BRICS: Challenging hierarchies, pluralising ‘International’?

Both historically and in contemporary times, Asian polities and civil societies have demonstrated a commitment to transnational solidarity, grounded in resistance to imperialism, colonialism, and, more recently, the politics of coloniality. This solidarity finds convergence in both feminist movements in Asia in terms of resistance to colonialism and in regional and trans-regional networks of global cooperation and action. In many ways, the ethics of solidarity, alliance, and resistance to colonialism and imperialism align closely with the template of feminist ethics, which challenges hierarchies, and emphasises the need for solidarities and alliance-building.

The Bandung Conference and the framework of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) are central to this discussion. During the Cold War, non-alignment was a foreign policy stance primarily adopted by post-colonial states seeking to maintain independence by avoiding alignment with either the United States or the Soviet Union. The first formal expression of the non-alignment approach was at the Bandung Conference (Asian-African Conference) held in Indonesia from April 18 to 24, 1955. Sponsored and organised by the newly established governments of Burma (Myanmar), India, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka, the Conference emphasised the need for solidarity among newly independent states.

It is crucial to understand non-alignment not only as a set of political norms and ethics in foreign policy but also as a subtle embodiment of feminist principles. For instance, its rejection of competitive militarisation, opposition to military bloc politics, and promotion of Global South solidarity can be seen as feminist in their orientation, even if these values were not explicitly articulated as such. Similarly, the push for New International Economic Order, with a call to rethink established trade patterns and introduce fairer terms of trade for developing countries, was infused with feminist ethics, despite the presence of explicit statements.

More recently, the BRICS has emerged as a significant force, echoing and furthering the quest for an alternative world order that challenges global hierarchies and fosters Global South solidarity. While sceptics may argue that these efforts do not explicitly centre gender, or that gender was not a main guiding variable, it is precisely here that the potential for feminist foreign policy lies. The language of foreign policies in Asia contains the raw material and ideational justification necessary for an explicit push toward gender-sensitive foreign policy.

Gendering Global Governance: Minilateralism and Multilateralism as the way forward

It is noteworthy that ‘gender’ is increasingly being prioritised as a goal within alliances that emphasise multilateralism as the path forward in global governance. A key development here is how rising powers like India have pitched their narrative of moral power or normative power by foregrounding gender mainstreaming as a priority. For instance, India’s G20 presidency accorded an opportunity  for India to set a benchmark and showcase its leadership on Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment (GEWE). In many ways, India has set the benchmark not as a norm taker, but as a norm entrepreneur, grounded in the politics of Global South solidarity. By doing so, India has advanced UN-led global normative frameworks, including Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), various UN General Assembly (UNGA) resolutions, the work of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), the Beijing Platform for Action with its 12 action areas of commitments, SDG 5 (Gender Equality), and UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security (WPS). While India is a signatory to CEDAW, it has refrained from formally endorsing the UNSCR 1325. However, its renewed focus on gender equality and empowerment within the framework of G20 has effectively reiterated its commitment to advancing the Global Gender Equality Compact⁹.

More recently, regional minilateral groupings—especially in regions like the Indo-Pacific—have started to gain traction in advancing gender-sensitive policies. Ambika Vishwanath and  Aditi Mukund rightly observe: “The opportunity to mainstream gender in minilateral groupings is still underexplored but is gaining traction. The Quad security dialogue, for example, now has provisions to mainstream gender equality in its Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief functions, while ASEAN has put in place a “Gender Mainstreaming Strategic Framework.”¹⁰

The critical takeaway here is that in Asia, gender-sensitive foreign policies are increasingly being translated and implemented through the politics of multilateralism and minilateralism. These platforms not only reinforce gender mainstreaming but also pave the way for a more inclusive and equitable approach to global governance.

Foregrounding Gender in Climate Responsive Finances

The ongoing climate emergency poses serious threats to states across Asia, with its impact shaping and exacerbating women’s vulnerabilities in unique ways. This raises a critical question: How have states in Asia responded to these gendered challenges?

While the road ahead remains long, promising initiatives have emerged. Notably, in 2023, the Maldives launched a gender-responsive climate financing strategy—the first of its kind by a small island state. The strategy aims to transition the country toward a low-carbon, climate-resilient economy.¹¹ The financing strategy foregrounds gender equality at the centre of all financing actions as an important cross-cutting theme and provides specific policy options to ensure that the strategy’s proposed actions are gender-sensitive. Similar progressive policy measures can also be observed in the Philippines, where climate finance strategies incorporate gender considerations, signalling a broader regional recognition of the need for inclusive, equitable, and climate-resilient development.

The Way Forward

What can we learn from the case of Asia, and what are the normative and policy options that can strengthen the push for gender justice in the region? Asia provides sharp, cross-cutting insights from the standpoint of comparative regional analysis. First and foremost, Asia pushes us to understand gender-sensitive foreign policies not as a readymade, universalistic template for policy action, but as a carefully stitched assemblage that foregrounds feminist ethics and praxis, extending beyond the 3R’s of feminist foreign policy. Second, there is a pressing need to recognise the differing language and histories of feminist movements in Asia. This requires giving due credence to foreign policy choices that, while not explicitly labelled as feminist, embody feminist ethics—such as Non-alignment during the Cold War. Finally, the goals of gender justice and gender-sensitive foreign policy can be significantly advanced by expanding regional platforms for engagement both within and beyond the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda.

The opinions and statements of the guest authors do not necessarily reflect the opinion and position of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung.

• ¹ An ancient Indian Sanskrit treatise on statecraft, politics, economic policy and military strategy.
• ² Haraway D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3): 575–599.
• ³ Jayawardena, K. (1986). Feminism and Nationalism in the Third World. London: Zed Books, p. 24.
• ⁴ Armstrong, E. (2016). Before Bandung: The Anti-Imperialist Women’s Movement in Asia and the Women’s International Democratic Federation. Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 41(2): 305-331.
• ⁵ True, J., & Mintrom, M. (2001). Transnational Networks and Policy Diffusion: The case of gender mainstreaming. International Studies Quarterly, 45 (1): 27–57.
• ⁶ See, Feminist foreign policy: where do France, Spain and Italy stand? Summary of the latest Gender in Geopolitics Institute report, available at focus2030.org/Feminist-foreign-policy-where-do-France-Spain-and-Italy-stand-Summary-of-the
• ⁷ For more details see, Feminist Foreign Policies: An Introduction, available at www.unwomen.org/sites/default/files/2022-09/Brief-Feminist-foreign-policies-en_0.pdf
• ⁸ See, Indian foreign policy needs more women, available at: www.hindustantimes.com/opinion/indian-foreign-policy-needs-more-women-101628340364750.html.
• ⁹ For more details see, Puri, L. (2023). Pushing the Frontiers of Women Led Development India’s G20 Presidency. Indian Council of World Affairs. Available at www.icwa.in/pdfs/IndiasG20PresidencyWeb.pdf.
• ¹⁰ For details see, Vishwanath, A., & Mukund, A. (2022). Feminist Foreign Policy Approaches to Strengthen Multilateral Cooperation. Journal of International Affairs, 75(1): 143–152.
• ¹¹ For more details see, Maldives Integrated National Financing Framework (INFF) Gender-Responsive Climate Financing Strategy, available at www.finance.gov.mv/public/attachments/lzyzZHIHy0ZWB7Yl17aw16YkFhE5o8DfVxThmruO.pdf