The Hillary doctrine: sex and American foreign policy

Abstract

Following the defeat of Hillary Rodham Clinton in the 2016 United States presidential election, does The Hillary doctrine have any political purchase? The answer is an affirmative in light of the authors' contention that this foreign policy doctrine is not solely about Clinton, its most fervent champion, but about the growing—albeit patchy—attention in US policy circles to ‘the proposition that the empowerment of women and girls is a stabilizing force for peace in the world, and should thus be a cornerstone of American foreign policy’ (p. 4). The fine-grained account of the evolution and implementation of this doctrine, particularly in parts one and three of the volume, suggests that while individual proponents and detractors are crucial, advancements made in terms of specific policy mechanisms and the establishment of offices would be difficult to dismantle in the immediate future. From the outset, Valerie M. Hudson and Patricia Leidl address the expected critique of the doctrine being a manifestation of ‘imperial feminism’: women in the global North protecting women in the global South from local threats. They recognize that this foreign policy approach tends to be interventionist and non-pacifist, characterizing it possibly as a ‘feminist hawk’ position. Reflecting on the potentially harmful effects of such a doctrine on women, as in the case of Iraq, and mindful of the fallout of earlier US support to the Afghan mujahideen, the authors propose the ‘Steinem test’ (named after the American feminist Gloria Steinem): ‘in a conflict where one side aspires to create (or has created) a worse situation for women than the other side, the United States should not back that side’ (p. 328; emphasis in original text).