By Dinorah Arceta Casanova, one of our 'Walkie-Talkies' as part of the Walking The Talk
From August 10 to 15, 2025, Mexico City hosted the XVI Regional Conference on Women in Latin America and the Caribbean (CRM), a key regional governance forum that brought together governments, civil society, international organizations, parliamentarians, and social movements around the theme of "the care society." This edition took place in a complex context, marked by setbacks in women's rights, attacks and violence against feminists, the cessation of institutional funding for women-led organizations, and regressive discourse on gender equality and sexual diversity in several countries in the region.
In this context, it was essential to examine the place of feminist foreign policies (FFP), as some governments, such as those of Mexico, Colombia, and Chile, have chosen to officially adopt this approach, while others, such as Bolivia, are still in the process of developing it. The CRM provided an opportunity to critically assess whether these policies are succeeding in meeting the real needs of women in the territories or whether they risk becoming symbolic frameworks without transformative impact.
Feminist movements in the region are calling for "tax justice and accountability."
As is now tradition within the CRM, civil society organized in advance to collectively reflect on coordinating strategies to address violations of women's rights in the territories. For more than six months, feminists from Latin America and the Caribbean prepared for the Feminist Forum, which brought together more than 400 women on August 10. The final declaration, drafted collectively, denounced the fact that the profound inequalities faced by women in the region are linked to power relations inherited from colonialism, which today manifest themselves in new forms of neocolonialism such as extractivism, perpetual debt, and the plundering of common goods. The inaction of states and multilateral organizations in the face of wars, genocides, and humanitarian crises, such as in Palestine, Yemen, Haiti, and Ukraine, was also raised, and a fiscal policy based on feminist justice and the redistribution of public resources to those who have been historically excluded was demanded. In addition, spaces for horizontal dialogue were created, such as the "Care Pavilion." These spaces allowed for the sharing of solutions from different territories that place care and sustainability at the heart of the dialogue, based on intersectional approaches such as anti-racism, anti-ableism, and those of indigenous peoples.
When it comes to feminist foreign policy, the message was clear: there is no point in adopting an FFP if it does not translate into concrete actions with tangible results in terms of tax justice, peacebuilding, and the elimination of structural inequalities. FFPs must not remain mere symbolic frameworks but must be genuine tools for transformation. Faced with the rise of anti-feminist backlash in the region, a call was made to strengthen the unity of the Latin American and Caribbean feminist movement, so that states and actors promoting PEFs as "international models" do not remain silent in the face of setbacks in Latin America and the Caribbean. Their silence would amount to complicity.
The abandonment of the "feminist" label in PEFs
At least three side events at the 16th CRM addressed the progress of PEFs in the region. In the panel "Contributions of feminist foreign policy to the construction of care societies in Latin America and the Caribbean," it was emphasized that the concept of care as a right was developed many years ago by feminist movements, even leading to its inclusion in the Brasilia Consensus in 2010. But it was the COVID-19 pandemic that demonstrated on a global scale that "care sustains life," encouraging its integration into international agendas. In Latin America and the Caribbean, FFP contributed to the creation of the Global Alliance for Care and the Seville Commitment. However, the dismantling of institutions responsible for gender issues and the decline in international cooperation seriously threaten the rights and lives of many women. In multilateral spaces, concepts such as "woman" and "gender" are facing growing resistance, making it difficult to maintain the feminist approach without losing its essence. For this reason, it has been emphasized that the PEF must produce concrete results, such as the integration of care into macroeconomic policies, without even using the term "feminist." In this context, care could be a strategic pathway for advancing the feminist agenda in the face of the rejection that this term still provokes.
At the event "Do feminist foreign policies contribute to advancing women's rights and gender equality?", feminists from Chile, Colombia, Argentina, Bolivia, and Mexico presented a critical assessment of the impact of FFPs in their countries. They emphasized the need to build a Latin American model focused on the care society, South-South cooperation, and the eradication of structural violence, such as sexual violence, armed violence, and security-based approaches to migration, from a participatory perspective strongly rooted in feminist social movements. It was also recalled that many of the initiatives promoted by the PEFs are not new, but are part of historical struggles, and that to be truly feminist, these policies must integrate the priority themes of feminism within and outside their territories. Similarly, the importance of ensuring that international instruments relating to women's rights do not remain mere formal commitments, but are implemented in order to transform living conditions at the local level, was emphasized. Participants questioned the consistency of international leaders who promote a feminist image while violating women's rights at the national and local levels. The lack of meaningful participation in the development of PEFs (particularly in Mexico) and the silence of some governments in the face of setbacks in sexual and reproductive rights and the advance of militarization were also denounced. Finally, a call was made to provide PEF-related institutions with resources, political strength, and proximity to women's movements, including the recognition of diplomats as rights holders, who also face gender-based violence in their workplaces.
Finally, the side event "Feminist foreign policies and the care society: towards a Latin American model that promotes women's autonomy, " organized by the Mexican government, was particularly noteworthy. It focused on the institutional approach to FFP and presented the UNDP's "Gender Equality Label" as a good practice, which certifies institutions that integrate gender equality into their structures and processes, thereby contributing to the achievement of SDG 5 and the strengthening of institutional capacities in foreign policy. The project "Strengthening Feminist Foreign Policy and Feminist International Cooperation" was also presented. It aims to consolidate the capacities of the foreign ministries and international cooperation agencies of Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Germany to design gender-responsive policies.
On the other hand, it was noted that Mexico, nearly a year after announcing its feminist foreign policy program and developing it with limited participation (reduced to a survey and consultation with civil society), has finally made progress through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The program aims to promote real equality in all areas of foreign policy through five priority actions in five key areas, including two undersecretariats (External Relations and Latin America and the Caribbean) that previously did not envisage any action within the framework of the PEF. This shows that, although still in its infancy, the PEF continues to establish itself as a trend in the region, used by certain countries and international organizations to project their international leadership.
The Tlatelolco Commitment: an instrument of PEF?
Documents The Care Society and theTlatelolco Commitment represent the main outcomes of the XVI CRM. Although these instruments were negotiated primarily by governments, some feminists from civil society were able to participate in the round tables and plenary debates. The case of Mexico is particularly striking, where, for the first time in a long time, no public call for applications was issued to form the national delegation. Instead, the selection was made on a discretionary basis by the Secretariat of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Women, breaking with previous practices that guaranteed collective and transparent participation by civil society with access to negotiation spaces.
Despite these limitations, the final document managed to incorporate important observations from civil society, particularly those emphasizing the unavoidable responsibility of states to mobilize public resources with the greatest possible ambition in order to guarantee rights, including the right to care. Several organizations had expressed concern about a possible weakening of the wording ofthe Tlatelolco Commitment, particularly with regard to public funding as an essential condition for progress toward a caring society. Unlike previous commitments, there has been a worrying trend toward private financing mechanisms, which are contrary to the principles of guaranteeing the rights of women and dissidents.
Finally, a clear reference to public funding was included in the document, emphasizing that, while private investment can be complementary, it must be done through progressive tax contributions, within the framework of a fiscal pact that avoids the reproduction of inequalities resulting from the privatization and financialization of public services. With regard to the PEF,the Tlatelolco Commitment retained the wording previously agreed inthe Buenos Aires Commitment, encouraging the adoption of the PEF in accordance with each State's priorities and ensuring the full, effective, and meaningful participation of women in diplomacy and international spaces.
Conclusions
It is essential to continue leveraging regional governance spaces to promote more concrete and contextualized discussions on the real usefulness of feminist foreign policies for women. These spaces, particularly regional multi-stakeholder forums, are essential because they provide civil society with a specific venue for participation and direct interaction with governments, where it can voice its demands and propose solutions. Unlike international multilateral diplomacy, where structures marked by the coloniality of knowledge and power persist, feminist voices from the territories occupy a prominent place in these spaces. The CRM is a prime example: a forum designed in the Global South and for the Global South, driven by Latin American feminisms, which has made it possible to set its own agenda in order to address regional challenges. Faced with the rise of the anti-feminist movement both in the region and globally, it is urgent that PEFs contribute to building a Latin American feminist voice that is articulated between civil society and other influential actors, a voice that is its own, collective, and deeply rooted in the reality of the Global South.
