tv Women and Foreign Policy Part 2 CSPAN December 24, 2015 5:45pm-6:55pm EST
to get mad at me for the way i wrote that column. told what i wrote, i'm glad he read it. at 8:00r: sunday night eastern. c-span takes you on the road to the white house and into the classroom. cam year our student contest tells us what they want to hear from the candidates. www.c-span.org. texas a&m university hosted a forum on foreign policy. we hear from advisers on international women's issues and the authors of the book "the hillary doctrine."
this is just over an hour. >> thank you, everyone. i am honored to be here, some of the old friends, new friends, new generations who are coming behind us and picking up our baton. i do first want to say that although all of us are so steinemnted that gloria could not join us in person, we are thrilled to learn that she is with us now,. justin spirit, now, not just in spirit, but watching our proceedings in live stream. -- howdy,loria gloria. [applause] ms. ponticelli: i think we really want to dive into the
discussion, the biographies of these amazing experts, activists, change leaders here today. if i were to list their compliments, it would take the whole time for our panel. so i will just mention briefly i do encourage you to look up their bios, their amazing of concerts. we have with us today robin morgan. award-winning novelist, poet, activists, journalists, editor. she is the author of 22 books, and i think for me, the thing that really grabbed me looking at the body of her work were the titles of her classic anthologies -- " sisterhood is powerful," " amen. anne-marie goetz from new york
university. i love the range of topics she has covered in her work, in her and in all her experience and activities. let me mention a few. democratization, politics of recovery in fragile states, women's participation in public decision-making, public accountability systems. and in terms of policymaking, preventing sexual violence in conflict, effective peace building, some of the themes again, a conviction that young people must be more effectively engaged in the struggle for gender equality. another thing, the value of norm development in addressing the unfinished agenda in women's rights. and also capacity of technology to enable a deepening of the
women's right process. i picked a phrase out of one of her writings that i think is just fabulous. women's human rights have no country. and we are especially pleased to have with us on this panel patricia, who is standing in for one of our colleagues, who was hit with the strep throat, and i via thend -- is with us live stream, so howdy, and we wish you could be here. we are happy to have patricia as well, and why? because she is the co-author of this wonderful book, which i hope you will get and read. it is pretty interesting. ofa very unique compendium past accomplishments, future
challenges, and present endeavors. to lead offwant with our three panelists with some of the questions that valerie posed when she brought us together. she wanted our panel to look at the question, when we are considering a state foreign policy that would really take seriously the cause of women and girls, what should that policy look like? what would the different? what would our priorities be? who would our allies be or not be? what would our red lines look like? and how do we following on to michelle's presentation, how do --do that alan thing act that balancing act of the separate entities from getting from point a to b versus the
ultimate goal of integration of women's issues in all sectors of activity, and the mantra for mainstreaming? how do we close the gaps?entation how do we close that gap between rhetoric and action? without further and do, we will start with our three panels, and, robin, will you be off. can you all here ?uestion mar q&a, thee it to the most interesting part. i want to start by thanking the inspires of this conference, the wonderful valerie hudson and patricia, not only for this book, but for the other research they have done.
peace" isworld incredibly important. their scholarship has made coverage of with the women's movement -- now they have proved us right. thank you very much. these are distinguished academicians and policy makers. i am simply a humble country writer and activist and organist -- not an organist, actually -- organizer. coming from that perspective, and one of my aims is to get us away from fashionable ways of ender" and remind us there is a real world of suffering out there and it has to do with women, because the w gets lost a lot o these days. it is fashionable to have a gender lens, that we have to
develop a gender lens of factoring things. i propose that we have a gender lens and we need to strip that off we do not just kiev of the world that happens to h ave penises. this year is what is at stake and the enormity of what we are talking about here, a very few stats do add on to what fowler he went through this morning -- salary went through this sort of. 90% of the refugee population in the world are women and children and the displaced populations. of all illiterates are illiterate scum and while the rate is falling, the female illiteracy rate is rising. lucian and toxic waste take their first polls as cancers of the female reproduction system and stillborn births, across the
pacific, when french atomic testing was happening there. considered less educable, and where there opportunities have to do with factory work at u.s. a day, or working in prostitution. the standard model of radiation tolerant in the scientific community is that of a male, 150 30's0 pounds, in his late and 40's. this leaves out most women and most men in asia. all issues are women's issues. let's never again use the phrase women's issues.
first and worst from every world problem, and we are the last and least considered. we are here to talk about women and foreign policy, which translate into women and power. we do not often like to put those words together as if, some womenle why have fled from power because the guys have not used it, arguably, well. we are talking about power to an odd power over. i will suggest five specific and general things that i hope will be taken up as themes by other panelists later today, just to put them out there. some are specific, some are more general. they are not in order of precedence. the overlap and they intersect. i hope they might be useful. first, listen to women.
last night at the dinner, wonderful journalist mentioned, touched on this, but every organizer knows that is step one. we are here at this conference earlye as early as the 1970's, the women's movement was dealing with the question of what about women and foreign policy? magazine did a special issue and convened a roundtable that was chaired by the late hours woman relatives of -- the abzug.lla this is all a trickle up. we have been pounding our fists on the doors of power, this wave alone, for 50 years
and not listen to. we are here thanks to the bush school for politics, and yet we our fists on that administration, both bush administrations, and other administrations for decades about afghanistan and gender apartheid, no one was interested in doing anything until after 9/11, and that is when women went to afghanistan. listen to the women. foreign aid is a strong part of foreign policy. when there was a major famine sahel the state department went in and replaced dead cattle with a head of cattle for each powerful, but they interpreted it as head of families.
traditionally, cattle care was the women's job. women knew how to do it, and they were so offended that the cattle were given formally to the men, who did not know how to care for them. the women views to do it at all, and all the cattle died. number one, mrs. of the women. number two, connect the dots. i have been in screaming matches with senators over whether population and overpopulation was relevant to women's reproductive rights. honest to god. in any areanow where women are educated and given real reproductive choice organically and naturally population rates fall. connect the dots. in the united states, the single most effective boost the economy would be equal pay for women -- connect the dots. hillary rodham clinton, when she was secretary of state, arrange
for hundreds of thousands, it may have been in the millions of stoves to go to women in the south because there are such higher rates of emphysema, lung cancer, tuberculosis, etc. this is a health issue for women and families. it is also an environmental issue, because smokeless -- smoke stoves produce black carbon. black carbon is a major polluted. unlike other pollutants, when it gets in the atmosphere, it lasts for a short time unless you are producing more of it. so that less black carbon that is in the atmosphere, the more that actually disappears. connect the dots. the connections. hammer them over and over and over because the guys tend to forget. three, economic aspect. women do not basically around the world exist in capitalism or any other system other than
feudalism, because women's unpaid labor is a global shocking shame. let woman is in labor, and say she is in labor in the best circumstances, she is in a hospital, a midwife, a doctor, an obstetrician, nurses, anesthesiologist, all there, each of those people, their work is considered productive because they exist in the formal wage market. the woman in labor is not considered productive. she is not producing anything, you understand. since we are based on a market economy, most women do not exist in that sense. we're not considered to have found. i would recommend a book, because among other things she exposes where this system came to be. it is ace on the united nations system of national accounts. was created by john and richardes
stone, both of them -- one american, one british -- who called the paper the national income and how to pay for the wars. that is the system on which the united nations systems of national accounts is based. the first thing you can do and everybody can do this is to pressure your government, in this case cannot united states, but every national government to factor women and women's work and all that unpaid labor -- gardening, housework, child raising -- we produce the labor force -- thfactor that into the census forms because the gdp shifts 40% to 60%. where are we up to? four.up to never underestimate the value of individual audacity in moving systemic change, because these
are systemic problems we are facing. but individual acts of audacity are not only fun and outrageous, but they make differences. just untilfriend about a year ago, the high commissioner for human rights, that when she was the judge president of the rwanda tribunal, entered into the annals, the concept that rape in war is a crime against humanity. we might ask if it is in peacetime, but we take this one step at a time. that was a huge act of audacity, and it exists in judicial annals. the kind of academic audacity that fowler he and patrice showed in producing the kinds of studies they do, or that dr. unmasking who on the climate change deniers really are. in office or in
policy circles, like that of -- and ingenuity and audacity, gender court being a perfect example, founded by a swede, that is currently deployed in toh afghanistan and in congo protect. it is taking the concept of responsibility to protect, which i hope we get back to at some point, which has been batting around for 10 years in united nations circles, it is a force employed to protect women in crisis situations. it is run by women. the force is male and female combined. and my fifth, we have to sever the texas -- between violence and eroticism and the combination being defined as what is manhood. i spent an entire book on this, and that is the hardest thing in front of us at all. basically, do not --
i do not think we can ask is it possible to make these changes. the point is it is not only necessary, is imperative. this is the missing link. women are the politics of the 21st century, and not only for the fairness in terms of women, for the salvation of the kind. i came just about a minute over. thank you.lli: thank you so much. thank you for those powerful comments. we now turn to you. >> thank you very much. patricia andns to salary, and for the leadership in this area. and thank you to all of you for the interest and commitment you have shown to this issue. the going to speak about imperative of the u.s. in taking a very strong on a vigorish -- i unambiguous role.
i will answer your questions about what are some priorities for foreign policy. the end with my list of elements of a feminist foreign policy, and i will come back to the list. youris starts with yours, first point. listen to women. the u.s. has got to exercise and politics of recognition, respect, and solitary come up with women around the world, and that requires breaking the silence and invisibility. is symbolic,that but has endorsed impact in terms of taking concrete efforts to out women from silent and invisibility. the second is the politics of redistribution. it is inescapable. redistribution of foreign area
id and military resources. you have to pay for it if we want to have women's rights internationally. the third is domestic activism. andering and supporting building women's leadership domestically and abroad, building women's power. in the process, the u.s. has got to do more to build a global alliance for women's rights to counter increasingly coordinated \ forces. there have been vacuums of ance in parts of the world. the u.s. has to stand up for women's rights at every opportunity. a politics of accountability and consequences for neglect of a women's rights agenda, which will require questioning some of the u.s.'alliances.
let me make it clear that the u.s. is already a global leader on women's rights. i worked at the u.n. n for a decade as an advocate, and i knew where i had to go when i needed a friend, and i always did. home, andission was this was important to note the u.s. was a leader on women's issues. it could be more consistent and it could act sometimes with a lot more conviction. the issue of where is the conviction and top leadership is something that has to be addressed. geopolitical factors show opportunities for the acceptance or rejection of demands of women's rights internationally. the interests of state and the relations between them and the relations with powerful nonstate actors ranging from armed groups to private corporations shape women's rights everywhere and
shape opportunities that advance the status of women. the weight united states navigate past the current global sees on women's rights will have massive repercussions or feminism around the world in years to come. i can give a brief post world war history sketch, the story of women's rights internationally, we have the formation of the united nations after the war, and the u.s. response to the cold war with the soviet union and the east was to limit the u.n.'s power over domestic power and to limit the expansion of women's rights is a distinct area of the u.n. system. 1970's.nge in the there was the top. the major ways of postcolonial meant --ion, which
many of whom turned out to be interesting in women's rights having women's participation in national liberation movements. the u.s. emerged from the early 1970's as the outfront leader on women's right in united nations and the multilateral field. it sponsored international women's year. it sponsored an international women's conference and sponsored the drafting of the convention of termination of discrimination against women. that was a republican administration that did that. under the next administration sponsored the houston conference, the famous conference that provided a massive -- did the mistake feminist movement in the u.s.. there was a stagnation of all of this in the 1980's and a backtracking of multilateralism, and then in the 1990's there was a third wave of democratization, tremendous expansion of international ngo's and a major
international conferences that set up huge achievements on women's rights and agreements on piano, cairo, -- beijing. and of course the post-9/11 period since, particularly, 2008, there has been a refrigeration relations between east and west and a lot more could you did it -- lot more rigidity. there is what has been called the democratic stalling. there has been the occupation of governments backgrounds in other countries, by islamic extremists, economic and the u.s. loss of credibility on a leader of human
rights because of the fallout of invasions of iraq and afghanistan. so i do not want to depress you, but we need to take stock of the current situation, and it is so bring assumptions about it continuous upwards of progress and democratization around the world have been unseated by a range of developments, and erosion of democracy even in the oligarchiche rise of types of patterns of decisions, the importance of democracy, and even here, where money trumps merit in competition for power, and even an individual called trump is presenting -- that kind of oligarchic decision-making. the defeat of revolutionary ideology in the 20th century has also paved the way for new types of anti-globalization and anti-materialism, has shifted from goals like democracy, economic development, and secularism, and it was an alternatives to capitalism, to
two-violence,s -- masculine expressions of violence, religious fundamentalism, all of which is articulated as anti-u.s. positions. forettably, when u.s. women's rights, that becomes the reason to oppose it by many of these anti-imperialist groups. these shifts in political and social attitudes are compounded the deepening of inequalities within and between states him and his inequalities are sharpening, not eroding gender differences. i believe that is what you were alluding to. -- i am surert of and running out of time -- what we see is the emergence of an explicit antifeminist double coalition, and it has a name, and this has a process. is called the group of the friends of the family's.
sounds sweet. , but this group was announced in january of this year by the ambassador of belarus, and let me tell you who the members are. below loaders, egypt, indonesia, iran, kuwait, libya, nigeria, pakistan, tar, russian federation, turkmenistan, yemen, and zimbabwe. that was the group in january. it has still expanded considerably. this is a serious alliance of current u.s. allies, some of the world's biggest democracies, with huge feminist movements, like nigeria and malaysia and indonesia. plus former socialist states, creeping towards -- islamist the accuracies, what do they have in common? they have in common a commitment to erode women's rights and also the rights of sexual minorities. and this group is operating as a
bloc. heavier before the commission, they are treated to a retreat in arizona at a spot where they get training in how to negotiate international negotiations on women's rights. the argument explicitly which. where's the coalition on women's rights? the reason there is not an explicit want is there is a reluctance to suggest this is a western issue, which it is not just a western issued at all. so i am out of town, so what do we need? coming back to the policy of recognition, so there, and redistribution. u.s. is a global leader on women's rights. also ation that's universal idea. it has had a complex and ambivalent relationship with multilateralism. and it has to get past its reluctance to engage in multilateralism. it has got to be a leader on these universal pounds. -- it can lead it out without resorting to military an duration.
this leads to commitments to women's rights as a re-examination of the u.s. alliances, triumphs is, and it also means a clear legislative framework for this which means kept has still got to be on the foreign relations committee relations committee agenda, also has international violence against women act. third, the politics of recognition requires going out there and looking for the women because we will not see them if you are involved in the social project amend talking to men about what they think on the concerns men. you got to look for them. that means promoting affirmative action policies, saying we want to engage in peace talks. olitics of solidarity requires building constituencies. it is women say what women want.
mechanisms for uniting includes things like building networks. the biggest nonevent this year was the holding of a fifth world conference on women's rights, which was due this year on the 20th anniversary of beijing. these conferences build solidarity's and networks. institutionalizing change in the state department and other parts of the u.s. administration has serious money and appointment of significant high-level staff to positions on women's rights. negotiators at the security council that were sent by the p5 on resolutions on women's rights, and this would be their first assignment. we need the same kind of authority that iran is sending to these negotiations, polished, experienced different lots who know how to -- experienced diplomats.
avoid vacuums in women's collective action. i have no time. i will finish with the point that you added it to, the virginia woolf quote -- country.n, i have no anti-woman, i want to know country. as a woman, a country is a whole world. this is the important women's rights, transnational and some the arena that we have been fighting for runs rights, -- for women's rights, but the time con for a country. women need a country. we need many countries working in alliance for women's rights, and the u.s. should be a leader in its foreign policy on this. thank you.lli: you have packed a lot into a great presentation. and now you will be followed by your colleague, our colleague patricia, who we are so grateful you can pick up the baton for
lauren. patricia is a journalist, and marie, patricia has quite a great deal of experience with you and agencies in multilateralism. i hope you will get to sprinkle your own insights regarding that. patricia: that will have to wait for the questions and answers, because i have been tasked to read lauren's speech. lauren, if you are watching, i'm sorry, i will try to maintain your voice as much as possible, so without much ado, i will go on. -- she is here in spirit. when does the violation of women's bodies coming redline? how many millions of lives must be ruined for we consider that a redline? i'm not talking about the random acts of violence that systemize the use of rape and relation undertaken by armed forces or
militant controlled by governments and our position in another on state actors? i'm talking about a policy of targeting women and girls to some of the most part behind abuses conceived. years ago this week i became angry. i had been tracking sexual violence in the syrian war and received a policy response. cases piled up along with the bodies and the response was nil. now suddenly president obama was responding but not in cases of rape or torture, but to the possible use of chemical weapons. redline, thealled one thing that would propel his administration into action. so chemical weapons are abhorrent, but so is the destruction of female bodies and minds. how many lives will be destroyed before the shirt of women's bodies and sanctity of our
rights become the red line? during this angry days, spoke with the author of a book who advocates on behalf of women in the congo, a country that has had 16 years of warfare. as many of you know, the congo is one of the worst countries in the world in which to be born a woman. like syria, all parties to the conflict target women and girls. so much so the researchers have coined the term vaginal destruction to describe the extreme nature of the abuse. he asked me years have we been banging on the doors of the white house saying thousands and thousands of women have been raped? he was not advocating for a military intervention in places where women bear the brunt of the fallout of war. they are asking for a political intervention based on human rights violations, but still no one seems to be listening.
why? world leaders like representatives in congress have turned a blind eye to the violence for some reason -- it does not disturb their preconceived notions about where violence is normal. destituteunderstand normal and not normal acceptable and not acceptable and makes a terrible kind of sense. violence is women has been normalized, especially in afghan. the example of the refugee crisis can be explained by the response to one particularly damning question. do the people matter to the people in power, and the answer we are seeing is no. i want to imagine a world in which all people matter, including women and girls. what would that look like? here i will paraphrase what she described in the next few paragraphs of her speech, which will be uploaded online and
which you can access later on. because lawrence is a journalist, she was privileged affectedomen were most by this for policy attention, as i had in afghanistan and yemen and central america. in her full speech, she describes to women, syrian refugees whose life are defined by being born female and four. one is pretty, so she was married against her will to someone who will better hair. the other is to impoverish to afford the tools of her tray. both face helpless fish. lauren says i find it fascinating that while the media talks about the board young men, their silent to things like one of these women's mental health. putting aside for now that girls like her sister are being sold off into a marriage, let's think what happens to others.
this often does not make sense for what occurs to the lost generation of women and stop thinking about the old man. apart from fears of radicalization, the reason that educating young women makes economic sense, as we have seen with previous speakers. the woman and girls i have met living the reality of war tell me conflict is not what the media makes it out to be. it is not bombs or not just on bombs. war is what happens to the people caught in the war zone. those people are mainly civilians, often refugees who make up nearly 90% of conflict-related casualties create the safest place to be in a modern conflict is the guy with the gun. at it is lack of mental health care that accompanies it. war is rate, and the silence and
the suffering that surrounds the victims, but neither the act or the perpetrator. war is the acknowledgment that soldiers are worthy of reparations when they are injured, but civilians who have been sexually violated or born of rape, such as an entire generation of kids in rwanda, are not. it took 20 years to bring reparations to any victims of wartime rape in bosnia, and is worth noting that the men who had been ordered to pay insist they cannot afford to pay lane $15,000. because i work in the media, i asked myself if what happens to women and children are soft stories or traditionally left off the front page. is it because the media run by men reflects a prioritized mail male experience? it is because they are not negotiated -- is it because they
are not at the negotiating table and it comes to creating peace in this country, or is it just a symptom? years after the signing of the u.n. resolution on women's peace and security, these agreements are almost exclusively negotiated by men and for man. o leader said when we talk about women at the table, the men see the women as -- she also said the future of syria should not be decided by those carrying guns. once we conceived of what we think of as a software, the one that includes civilians as the predominant feature of fighting in the 20th century, maybe we would think about and address the plight of refugees differently. we would think of what it does how tos like these two stop a sharp uptick in domestic violence, where men become
frustrated and take it out on their wives. the one person or powerless than they are. could we prevent this knowing full well that is a difficult of displacement and statelessness? the bottom line is this is not just about women when we discuss them in this context of foreign policy and national security. sexual trauma and violence stores families with repercussions that cut through all generations. it cuts through communities and sows the seeds of future violence, and it is attempting to rehabilitate perpetrators. or better yet a system in society to understand that are based violence for what it is before it occurs. and that is this -- a gender-based violence is the most basic and entrenched of human rights violations. which brings us to the proverbial elephant in the war zone. what happens to former soldiers
in places like congo where researchers revealed men who are not properly reintegrated into civilian life after demobilization will continue to rake. these researchers discovered something very strange, that when the fighting ends, the incidence of rate increased as much as 70 times. so why does our coverage of war and when the bullets stop flying and the bonds stop falling -- bombs stop falling? these kind of realities exist all over the world. we her about only a slice of what makes up the experiences of conflict. from my journalist perspective, i cannot help you point out that media attention sheet diplomatic and military response. so when the need it gets it's times rather than rate than a will be awar, that redline, but the other is not.
women havetoo many never seen or ever considered justice in their lives for the crimes they have suffered. next to nobody prosecuting these crimes, having them money or systems, the fact is just as this unattainable for many women in particular. it is not defined by the larger issues of conflict. tribunals in which women are prevented from coming forward, and local levels there are problems of police. rerape women. this cycle of violence depends on how we prioritize it. if we need attention to all facets of the conflict as a select few are doing, if we can gain the attention of policymakers, and the world coming more peaceful ways in which women's and men's lives are equally valued? i'm glad there are so many you view out there pushing the
boulder up the hill. thank you. lauren wolfe. ms. ponticelli: great job. briefly, because we have little bit of time left, maybe 10 withes, 10, 15, interaction among the three of you, because there's so little time, there are so many questions that pop into my head. but i think the biggest one is the one that valerie mentioned this morning, the very simple yet weighty question, how do we do this? that is a question i want to throw out to you all. we are working on headlines now. i think it is wrong to say that the world is not watching, listening, or seeking what is going on. it is what we do and how do we do it. how do we create a critical mass of alliances that we need for the critical questions that we how doing question mark
we find those resources and distribute those resources that anne-marie talked about question ? maybe a rapid response that would help those who are on the redline right now. and how to better connect the dots in terms of our bureaucracy, our alliances, in terms of our multilateral association, though there are several questions that go under that one, but i want to throw out to you -- how do we do it? way that helps internationally and at home is to understand that there is a global women's movement. and i'm delighted and proud of the united states' part in it. but feminism is
it is our job in the global north to listen and work with that. you are mentioning the pattern of ethnic bigotry in the world at large, religious fundamentalism, violent rhetoric and violent acts. what happens when we look at and morewe find more ethnic bigotry, religious fundamentalism, i call it the domestic u.s. taliban, the bombers of abortion clinics, the violent rhetoric and even acts, and we don't even have a sane domestic policy on guns. probably the most progressive people in texas are in this room, which makes me nervous. they could drop a net over all of you. it is true, we have to look to our own house and not position
ourselves as the beacon of the world, even in those rare occasions where we are and i'm thed of those, and approach international community with the kind of humility that has been butussed before in rhetoric never really practiced with what i would call feminist diplomacy. women around the world are in the same boat. that does not mean women in the u.s. who suffer by us, particularly european american women, are in the same boat with a woman in afghanistan or in iraq. it does mean that the settings and the costumes and dialogue may differ in extreme, but the the same.actly when we realize we're in the same boat, that female genital mutilation was practiced in the united states up until the 1940's as a cure for lesbianism and masturbation, we are not
pointing", savages in some other place. it's a matter of approaching the global women's community, and beyond that, with humility and respect, and listening to women ourselves and starting at home. that is one way. [applause] i've spent quite a bit of time in the field in afghanistan and yemen, and i also do reputation management as well. one of my observations over the years is that if you want to have credibility, you have to have credibility. you have to be seen to have credibility. component of credibility is humility and the ability to listen. the issues that used to confront me when i worked in yemen and afghanistan is my staff would come up to me and say, we thought you were better than we were. but here you are, firing people without cause. you are harassing your female
staff, your female contractors are being fired without cause because they are pushing gender too much, it's making their male colleagues uncomfortable, so where is your credibility? how can you tell us about what democracy is, what human rights are when we see you abusing the human rights of your own staff? and i think that's really important great if you want to be a leader, you have to be better than everyone else. -- the u.s. from many decades was that way. but to maintain that leadership you have to maintain rigid lengths and constantly be keeping your own house in order and creating the kind of sanctions, benchmarks, indicators, hard targets that are necessary to establish a cap -- accountability. >> in terms of the house, what do we do? >> probably the most important
effective thing that can be done is something that may not sound like foreign policy, but it is giving space and voice to women's movements and enabling women to thrive. the u.s. has an important role to play in protesting the abuse of women human rights defenders who are coming under enormous attack in places like afghanistan. in terms of funding and things like that, there is an unfortunate problem which comes from the u.s. was of credibility on human rights in general, which is this problem of feminism being seen as a western concern, which it is not. when the u.s. supports women's movements around the world, that can lead to their loss of credibility. what kind ofis funding processes would help to foster an enriching of women's collective action around the world? think back to what valerie said earlier, in countries where
there is high gender a quality low violence against women, there is less a resort to conflict or none. they are more stable. what leads to countries having high gender equality and low violence against women? strong, vocal women's movements engaged in public decision-making. this is a key part of social transformation. there is a very interesting funding experiments being run by the dutch government, which is to support women's collective north africa and the middle east by funding women's organizations but not by funding women's organizations projects. the entire funding world works on projects that people have to be accountable for outcomes. rather, funding women's organizations development is organizations, paying for a financial officer, the purchase of computers, development of an internal system enabling them to
be organizations and developed constituencies. funded to doe this, pricewaterhousecoopers steps in to do an audit. that's an interesting approach. domestic feminism is strong in many countries that should be part of a global alliance on women's rights, like south africa, brazil, india, domestic feminism in india -- india probably has the biggest women's movement in the world in terms of numbers. it is strong, but it is not influencing foreign policy parade arguably that is the case at times in american history too. and there's the question of supporting democratization in these countries in order to enable more of a feminist voice in foreign policy and make international decision-making more transparent. how, it of the concrete
is striking to people like me and many here that we know that sexual violence is going to happen in almost every conflict, domestic violence goes up exponentially in many conflicts, yet we don't anticipate this problem as part of humanitarian work and foreign aid and we don't set in place systems to deal with it. we know that refugees need food and shelter. we know they need asylum procedure set in place, and we set those up automatically. why don't we do these things on gender? we know if women have control over land they will increase agricultural production. starting to incorporate this knowledge into the reflex of foreign aid and foreign affairs is crucial. that is my question to all of you, why doesn't that happen? you all know it. the state department knows it and usaid knows it. >> can we open it up to the
floor? we have a few minutes for q&a. any questions? great. >> hi, my name is olivia, i'm a sophomore at texas a&m. what are your views on abortion? shouldn't women have a say in what can be done with their bodies? policyerms of a foreign perspective -- >> as opposed to a domestic question about it. that it can be seen as a foreign-policy issue as well. could, because it might bridge other questions that might be out there, might you also be interested in in terms of a pillar of u.s. health,policy, women's including women's reproductive health, which we've had some discussion today. be better tomight
lead us to where do we go from here. let's throw out the health issue, and i think valerie made the great correlation today between health and women's inclusion. is aer the "a" word problem or not. unless and until women's right to control her own rip -- reproductive -- as a basic human right, her own reproductive system, is a pillar of our foreign policy and domestic policy as well, women cannot be full human beings. politicaleen a football of our foreign policy, back-and-forth, depending on different administrations. this has got to stop. it's simply a basic human right and that's all there should be to it and nothing more needs to be said. the vatican islamist coalition
that seems to have forgotten the crusades because it's more important to stop women from controlling their own reproduction has to be swept aside and this has to stop being a political football at home so that it isn't one of broad. period. [applause] >> this is a trigger issue. maybe i should not use the word trigger when were talking about conflict and guns. is the reason why u.s. foreign-policy on women's rights is not stronger. policy, in u.s. domestic policy, there is such a profound risk on this issue. we could go on and on about this. i would say, talk to the women who are in conflict zones. what do they need?
if you're in congo in a rape crisis center, a young, 14-year-old girl came in once pregnant with a hole in her side from a wound and a baby on the other side. she said, do i have to have this rapist baby? resolutionline in 2122 of the un security council which is extremely interesting. says, anybody who has been made a victim of war has the right to medical treatment without discrimination. it is part of foundational humanitarian aid and law. has a right, soldier or civilian, to medical treatment without discrimination. if we take the term without yourimination, it means can't discriminate between the medical needs of women and men.
women have different medical needs than men do. and especially somebody coming d, needsas been rape antiretrovirals right away and a chance to decide what to do about a pregnancy. >> i want to weigh in on another issue about the denial of contraceptive -- contraception and safe abortion is a violation of women's human rights. inhave examples, for example hunt deer us, and what a mile and el salvador, where it's illegal for a woman to have an abortion, even if she has a neck topic pregnancy -- in a situation where a woman has no chance of surviving, her child has no chance of surviving, she can still not obtain an abortion. so, what is that? state sanctioned murder? i would suggest it is. the issue of access to contraception, safe abortion in my opinion is critical to the development -- critical to peace and security, critical to human
development. nationso worked in many as micro palace's have, where as met women who have had 10, 12 children, and they've gone insane because of the combination -- i met one woman who had 12 children and 9 of them had died. she was effectively a prison of her own -- prisoner of her own body. down the road there was another aid agency dispensing viagra for men. i won't say where this was, but that was considered a critical health need in that area. and yet women were not getting contraceptive --contraception. >> i would like if i could, having covered some of these for some years, and particularly in the context of afghanistan, i think there's some issues there are very
connected to women's health and the health of girls, and that are connected to practices that are allowed by tradition or excused to culture or the lack of legal implementation. i want to mention the problem that has broken my heart for 13 years when i worked with afghan women, and that is the issue of forced and child marriages. 60% of theo unicef, young woman in afghanistan are under the age of 16 when they are married. there are eight-year-old girls who are forcibly married to 40, 50, 60-year-old men. i think it should be part of the red line for all of us working together. it's an issue i feel strongly about, and if you look at early -- we've of girls
talked about women today, but there are girls here who i think are pretty voiceless. and the problem of obstetric a very that occurs when younger albert as a child. it's a horrible problem, the clinics are full, this not enough help. the question is a good one but it's very complicated, and there's a lot of different challenges involved. do we have time for one more, valerie? >> i was going to ask a question. >> oh, good. >> alyssa, this is for you. i've heard the panelists talk about democratize a should in. challenge you. it seems to me on the basis of what we saw in the arab uprising that democracy has been bad for women, and that in fact, some of the best regimes for women have
been long-standing autocrats who towards the end of their lives have finally realized that women are people and they should do something for them. the second question i'd like to ask, is even though a couple of you have mentioned how our alliance structures would change if we took the cause of women seriously, give me an example. who would you drop as an ally and what would the consequences be? >> thank you. allies?ould you drop as >> drop or draw? >> drop. >> probably are only allies would be the scandinavians. [laughter] my first thought it my second is a realization would be the scandinavians and all the villages at village level around the world, where the women who are maybe nonliterate, who were supposedly non-powerful, supposedly just women, reside.
would understand, and that's a very powerful set of allies. i don't know yet since i'm just making that was scandinavians, how that gets organized. those would be the extremes. and probably not somebody in the middle. whether they had oil or not. [laughter] start with the point on alliances, which is a terribly difficult one. there is no question it is an enormously difficult question and requires trade-offs, but there's a lot of creative work that can be done there. the u.s. has really interesting alliances. n., or potential
allies that i do not feel are being cultivated enough on this issue. the big voices in women's rights debates this year and last year were small and not very powerful countries during uruguay, philippines, south korea, and middle size countries that are enormously interesting. chile, argentina, brazil. there's many more. most of the central american countries -- they are complicated because of catholicism, but there are some very interesting allies. sometimes, turkey. beyond the scandinavians and the obvious europeans. a lot more can be done to work with those countries to develop an explicit shared commitment to work together on these issues. when the u.s. comes forward with women's rights, it becomes a red the and a trigger for opposition. but the u.s. can work behind these countries in this debates.
i'm out of time. complicated question. i'm being told that time is up. women would have done much better in the arab spring at the brotherhood been supporting democratic development there for much longer, and supporting women's capacity to mobilize politically so they did not collapse the minute elections came andy brotherhood moved in. women need electro machines too. >> historically, what we've seen with revolutions is they are typically followed by terror. whenever there's a power vacuum it's going to be filled by the most extreme elements, the bolshevik revolution was followed by terror, the french revolution. on.uld go on and
in terms of foreign policy, the united states and its allies have to be wary of supporting revolutions because there are unintended consequences which can actually be far worse than the original tyranny that precedes it. that in the world of sort of realpolitik feminism, it's probably wiser to support the secular devil that you know than the nonsecular extremist devil that you don't. at least in a secular society, there isl be change, education, women will be educated, people can in their cafes and talk for the most part. we've seen under saddam hussein women had tremendously -- enjoy tremendously more rights than they do now. similarly in egypt under mubarak. behooves the united states and its allies to be very, very careful in the future and not to be too quick to support
rebellions, particularly when they are islamic in nature or when -- the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. we have to choose our allies very carefully and figure out who will actually represent the process of democratization in the long run to it when i say democratization, i mean the inclusive security, observing, and honoring the rights of all people. >> thank you. if i can wrap up with maybe an observation, as a former diplomat, former person who had worked at the state department and on international women's issues, i just to find that how we make the case is just as important as who do we make it to. potential new alliances, i think we have to do a better job making the case about why standing up for the cause of women and girls is not
a soft thing. tos not just the right thing do, it's a smart thing to do, and you make that case and i have, with men from other countries across the desk when you say, here is the win-win and this is why this will be the smart thing for you to do for your country. afghanistan, men have seen that when their wives, their daughters get jobs, the bottom line improves for them too. i think michelle made this point very well this morning, what works, what's going to make the whole thing more effective, and what are the better results you're going to see? and so, get off the moral -- we know what is right he cousin its right, but what is smart because it is smart. be --cluding remark would and i think often of this proverb, it's an african proverb
, and it is something along the lines of, if you want to go fast, go alone. if you want to go far, go together. let's find ways we can go together, build that, in crowd, when i look at the road ahead and as we look at the challenges ahead, i think we couldn't have any better traveling companions than the wonderful people we have with us here on this panel and in this audience today. thank you very much for your attention. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> tonight on c-span, christmas at the white house. a tour of the white house holiday decorations, and the annual national christmas tree lighting ceremony. christmas at the white house, christmas eve, tonight at 8:00 eastern you're on c-span. -- here on