Gabriella Irsten, Policy & Advocacy Officer at Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom Sweden
/Three pieces of advice:
Dare to voice your opinion.
Always be well prepared and have your argumentation ready.
Don’t take democracy for granted.
CV in brief:
Education: B.A. in Political Science and Government at Stockholm University, M.A. in Humanitarian Assistance and Conflict Resolution (NOHA) at Ruhr-Universität Bochum
Career so far: Programme Associate at WILPF | Project Consultant at United Nations Office of Disarmament Affairs (UNODA) | Team leader at Stockholms stad | Policy & Advocacy Officer at WILPF Sweden
Date of Interview May 2020
Author Lara Twerenbold
You have been working as a consultant and policy advisor for many years. Can you tell us what sparked your interest in a career in the field of foreign policy?
The importance of political activism as well as the need to push for change as a citizen were inculcated by my parents since young. They have always been politically active and would engage me in discussions about international politics at home. It was only natural for me to pursue a degree in International Relations and Political Science at university as I was interested in the world. Afterward, I got my Master's degree in humanitarian aid with training as a humanitarian aid worker, but I soon realised that I didn’t want to work in this field.
I believe that ordinary people at the grassroots level with an understanding of the local environment should decide on local policies. The Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) shares these values which is why I decided to apply for two internships with them - one with the Women, Peace and Security Program and one with WILPF’s Disarmament Program, Reaching Critical Will. Originally, I wanted the first one, however, I was accepted for the second one. I always thought that security politics wasn’t for me since I was mainly interested in human rights and development but during my internship, I realised that analysing security policies with a feminist lens and a focus on human security was interesting and highly relevant. It also became obvious to me that the security world is patriarchal - extremely male-dominated, hierarchical, and exclusive. It lacks transparency and democracy. This was an enlightenment for me, and I've been passionate about security politics ever since.
How has your experience as a Policy & Advocacy Officer at Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom Sweden been? What does your work entail?
WILPF is a feminist peace organisation and is also one of the oldest women’s organisation in the world still running. At the international level, it is not overly institutionalised; rather, the work of each section depends on its specific local context. We believe that local women know their context the best and that they should push for change.
At WILPF Sweden, I develop policy recommendations for Sweden based on WILPF’s international ideas and strategies. At the same time, I actively encourage and advocate for Swedish politicians and other stakeholders to follow those guidelines. Notably, my colleagues and I are working towards Sweden to stop its arms exports to non-democratic countries, countries involved in war or armed conflict, and countries that violate human rights. We want to broaden the concept of security to include human security. Domestic violence is one of the biggest security threats to women which is why it needs to be included in the general debate on security. The more human security we achieve, the more people can feel secure in their society. Studies have shown that those societies are not as prone to break out in armed conflicts as easily.
From a militaristic perspective, security is only about securing borders, and the main actor is the military force defending these borders. At WILPF, we believe that many different actors should be involved in building security with a focus on preventing conflict rather than preparing for it. These actors together are the ones that will move us forward. Militarism, rather than giving us security, provokes more violence by triggering an arms race which then condenses into violence. By trying to bring feminist change to Swedish society, we want to get as many people as possible to question how things are being done. To show alternatives to the status quo is one of our main tasks.
In an article that you wrote for the Heinrich Böll Stiftung, you asserted that a feminist foreign policy must increase human security by promoting preventive methods such as disarmament and arms control. What are the challenges you face in implementing these policy proposals?
The main problem is that those in power benefit from today’s system and therefore do not want to give it up. Then, of course, there are people who believe that more weapons or a strong military will ensure our security. The security field is very exclusive and often shows no interest in transforming. One of WILPF’s everyday struggles is to get the security field to engage with us and listen. It is not uncommon that we get labelled as the enemy working for a foreign power, just because we are promoting a different idea on how to build security. For me, this proves that the power aspect is more in focus, rather than the actual idea of changing society for the better for everyone. The whole world is built around the idea of militarism and a particular view on masculinity embedded in violence, control, and dominance. Donald Trump in the White House shows in a very simple way what the world looks like. In one of his famous tweets directed at North Korea, he said: "I too have a Nuclear button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his.” This is just one example of how security, geopolitics and toxic masculinity are interwoven. Toxic masculinity is a tool of power, and those in power don't want to let go of it.
How can the demands of a feminist foreign policy be introduced so that they are supported by all?
It's about changing the system and bringing structural change. We have to keep on pushing by showing that everyone will benefit from a feminist foreign policy as it will make our societies safer and more equal. There are lots of men who are disadvantaged by today’s patriarchal structures, as well as women who are benefiting from the system. Therefore, it's valuable to look at masculinity versus femininity, and not only one gender versus another, to find out what coded words, behavior, or politics are seen as relevant. Feminism does not only want to get women ahead. We want to get the world ahead. We can’t only have feminism in foreign policy, but we need national feminist policies too since both areas are interconnected. If you take a look at the Swedish feminist foreign policy, it has been very successful when it comes to aid and human rights policies, but less so in the traditional security policy area. However, you can't take just one part of society or one part of foreign policy and declare it feminist. You have to go all the way.
In 2014 Sweden became the first country in the world to introduce its feminist foreign policy. How have other countries learned from Sweden’s experiences and where do you see room for improvement in the Swedish approach?
When former Swedish foreign minister Margot Wallström announced Sweden’s feminist foreign policy in 2014, she took the lead in an unknown area. By opening up the discussion on feminism in foreign politics - something no one had dared to do before - Sweden started a new movement. Since then, other countries like France, Canada, and Mexico have already taken after Sweden by implementing a feminist analysis in certain areas of their foreign policy.
To improve on the Swedish approach, a feminist analysis should be applied in all foreign policy areas and not just when it is of benefit to Sweden as a country. The government cannot promote human rights and feminist analysis in certain areas but then say that Swedish arms exports have nothing to do with feminist foreign policy, as our current foreign minister Ann Linde says. A country with a comprehensive feminist foreign policy would not allow arms exports to countries that violate human rights or that are involved in conflict. Sweden, however, exports arms and military equipment to five countries involved in the armed conflict in Yemen. For decision-makers in Sweden, the promotion of Swedish arms exports or Sweden’s own security is more important than the protection of human rights. It is in many ways a “Sweden first” mentality. Sweden's feminist foreign policy is focused on increasing the participation of women and marginalized groups, which is important but should not be the sole consideration. It is not about adding women to already patriarchal structures, but also about rethinking and transforming these structures.
What does a consistently feminist foreign policy in the 2020s look like?
A feminist analysis must be at the centre of all policy areas. It shouldn't be possible to prioritize other interests over human rights. You should always use a feminist intersectional lens to try to see who has the power and who doesn't, and how decisions affect different groups in different ways. One of feminism’s advantages is its ability to constantly question how our societies function, the small building blocks of society, and trying to change those.
What have been the most challenging aspects of your career, especially as a woman? How do you handle failure and deal with setbacks?
I'm a young woman working for a feminist organisation trying to change security policy. I'm constantly being minimised. People don't take me or my colleagues seriously, and in our everyday work, we experience suppression techniques and exclusion. This is not only directed at me as a woman but also as a civil society representative. If you are committed to human security and start talking about arms exports or nuclear disarmament, the opposition will use gender-specific language to minimise you by calling you naive, emotional or defining you as a pacifist (a word that is almost like a curse word in security and defence policy).
In my field of work, it is evident that the opposition has no line of argumentation. Instead of responding with new arguments on the subject, they try to belittle us as an actor in order to remove our agency. A well-known, and well used, patriarchal suppression technique. If you haven't done military service, they don't consider you a relevant actor. I have been told countless times that human rights have nothing to do with security politics. It's difficult to include new perspectives when it always comes back to that. When people use such repressive techniques, you have to call them out. Since those in power believe they have the right to speak, they do not always consider it necessary to come prepared. It is therefore all the more important for us to be well prepared and have our argumentation ready. Additionally, after experiencing such a situation at a meeting, I tell my colleagues about it. Supporting each other in dealing with difficult situations in a challenging environment is extremely important. That’s why one of feminism’s most important tasks is to be a supporting system for one another.
What advice would you give to young women hoping to pursue a career in the field of security policy?
When I started working at WILPF International, I was given a piece of advice that I've carried with me ever since: “When you go to meetings, just pretend you're an old white man. Take that space and talk like you have the right to talk just because you are you.” I was told this during my internship, and now I keep on giving this advice to everyone I meet, especially to women. It takes practice but once you start speaking up at meetings and just owning your space, it will get easier. It won't be as scary as it is the first time. It will get better with time. Dare to voice your opinion, and do not be intimidated by older and more “experienced” people.
Women and marginalised groups are disproportionately affected by Covid-19. What needs to be done to limit and mitigate the impact of this crisis on them?
What is happening now is very similar to what happens in times of armed conflict and war. Marginalised groups become even more marginalised when societies are shaken. Covid-19 has highlighted long-standing structural problems. However, this crisis has also shown that societies can change and that this change can happen quickly. The Swedish health system has been challenged for years. There haven’t been enough health workers, and with this crisis, these shortcomings have become apparent. Now the government is investing large sums of money to strengthen the health system. Covid-19 proves that structural change can be achieved if there is a will.
We have been talking about sustainable development for decades and we now have all the instruments we need to implement it properly. To mitigate and limit the effects of Covid-19, we must begin to implement these policies developed by scientists and the international community. After the end of a conflict, there is often a period of openness in which structural changes can be achieved more easily than before. During the crisis, we must try to limit its impact on the various groups by using a feminist lens and including as many perspectives as possible. But afterward, we must make use of this opening to bring about structural change.
In this time of crisis, what is your vision for the future as a woman, and as a human rights activist?
I see a future in which militarism is only one of many perspectives, not the dominant one. A future in which different perspectives together seek answers and form solutions. Feminist foreign policy has opened up a debate on feminism in all areas of politics, even if the Swedish version of a feminist foreign policy is mainly about increasing women’s participation. To achieve higher participation rates, however, you have to invite a variety of people to the table, which will generate new knowledge and new solutions.
Democracy comes with an obligation. In Sweden, we are a little spoiled because many groups have had it pretty good for a long time. You can be a working-class or middle-class person and still be able to go on summer holidays once a year and attend university. But in doing so we often forget that we have to be active in building our societies. Democracy is not just about voting every four years. You have to be active all the time. This can easily be forgotten, in the belief that an existing democracy cannot fall apart. However, if people don’t pay attention, anti-democratic forces will take advantage of this inactivity.
