Thomas P.M. Barnett

ìThe Payoff From Womenís Rights,î by Isobel Coleman, Foreign Affairs, May/June 2004, pp. 80-94.

ìSaudis Uneasily Balance Desires for Change and Stability: Seeking Liberties, But Fearing Chaos,î by Neil MacFarquhar, New York Times, 4 May, p. A3.

They say you can learn everything you need to know about a man by how he treats women. The same is true for countriesóeven for how they promote womenís rights through foreign aid.

In the concluding chapter to my book, I say you have to delay the first pregnancy of girls in developing countries and the best way to do this is keep them in school and give them birth control. After that itís microfinancing and quick as you can say, Bobís your uncle, weíre talking economic development.

The Coleman article is nothing less than a brilliant overview of all those points. I certainly would have footnoted it given the opportunity. If you are interested in this subject, check it out.

Hereís the opening pitch:

ìOver the past decade, significant research has demonstrated what many have known for a long time: women are critical to economic development, active civil society, and good governance, especially in developing countries. Focusing on women is often the best way to reduce birth rates and child mortality; improve health, nutrition, and education; stem the spread of HIV/AIDS; build robust and self-sustaining community organizations; and encourage grassroots democracy.

Much like human rights a generation ago, womenís rights were long considered too controversial for mainstream foreign policy. For decades, international development agencies skirted gender issues in highly patriarchal societies. Now, however, they increasingly see womenís empowerment as critical to their mandate.î

Where it this problem worst: southern Asia, the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa, or basically the three pillars of the Gap. Worst offenders all lie inside the Gap: Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Pakistan and Indonesia.

Great quote almost from my book too: ìEducating girls in the single most effective way to boost economic progress.î In my book, I write, ìOur goal should be very simple here: keep young girls in school at all costs, delaying sex and pregnancies.î [p. 375]

Another great line: ìRobust democracy is exceedingly rare in societies that marginalize women.î

Another great quote:

ìGiven the importance of women to economic and political development, it is no surprise that they are on the front line of modernization efforts around the world. But empowering women is rarely easy: it produces tensions everywhere, because it often collides with the twin powers of culture and religion.

Today, much scrutiny is given to the impact of Islam on women, often as evidence of a deep cultural rift between the West and conservative Muslim societies. But the real cultural rift may be within the Muslim world: between highly traditional rural populations and their more modernized urban compatriots or between religious fundamentalists and more moderate interpreters of Islam. Such tensions can be felt in countries ranging from Nigeria to Indonesia, but nowhere are they starker than in the Middle East.î

ìIn conservative societies,î she writes, ìdebate over gender equality is often a proxy for more difficult debagtes about religious liberties and human rights.î

Thatís because the disconnectedness of women in such conservative societies comes off to the West as something akin to racial segregation.

ìSaudi society is nearly completely segregated: in health care, education, and the work force. Women are treated as minors: they must have a male chaperon in public, they are not allowed to drive, and they need permission from their closest male relative to travel.î

Thatís basically Jim Crow for women, is it notóall cultural niceties aside?

The answers at the end of the article mirror my own: microfinancing, educating girls, womenís health and family planning. No great mystery here: when you liberate your women, you liberate your society and economy, and good things followóincluding democracy.

The article on Saudi Arabia speaks to the space between the rock and the hard place: reformers there want to push new ideas and institutions and policies, but fear that if things unravel just a bit too fast, down comes the House of Saud to be replaced by Osama-style theocracy oróworseócomplete chaos and civil war. The fact that America is seen as the harbinger of reform and democracy is an oft-cited excuse for inaction: the masses hate America over the takedown of Saddam (good guy he was to the Saudis) and our support to Israel. So better to stick with the ineffectual, uncaring, let-them-eat-cake royal Saudi mafia that does almost nothing to account for the 100,000 young males entering the workforce each year. Donít worry, theyíll export all the sour apples abroad for jihad, asking the Core to finance their exporting of terror through our purchasing of their oil. Now thereís a transaction worth preservingÖ