Development Channel

Last week, the government of Malawi took a big step toward protecting its girls and strengthening its families: it increased the legal age of marriage to eighteen. Previously, girls in Malawi were allowed to marry at sixteen or, with parental consent, at fifteen. The UN Population Fund reported that Malawi has the seventh highest rate of child marriage in the world, with half of all girls married before their eighteenth birthday, and nearly one in eight married by age fifteen. A 2014 Human Rights Watch report noted that in Malawi child marriage is often seen as a way to improve a family’s economic status, protect daughters from adolescent pregnancy—which is highly stigmatized—and ensure a family’s honor. Yet for girls, child marriage poses severe education and health risks. After girls are married, it is unlikely that they will continue to attend school. In parts of Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, child marriage has been shown to lower the likelihood that girls will achieve literacy. Furthermore, child marriage exposes girls to all of the risks associated with early pregnancy and childbirth. Girls aged fifteen to nineteen are twice as likely to die from causes related to pregnancy or childbirth than women in their twenties, and girls under age fifteen are five times more likely to die. According to the World Health Organization, teenage pregnancy accounts for 20 to 30 percent of maternal deaths in Malawi. This makes the unanimous passage of the Divorce, Marriage, and Family Relations Bill by their parliament a positive step in improving the lives of women and girls in Malawi. Yet more remains to be done. As former President of Malawi Joyce Banda said at a recent CFR roundtable I hosted on child marriage, “In Malawi this week, we have finally passed the bill of banning child marriage… But the passing of the bill is just the first step… Passing the bill is one thing, but implementing is yet another problem.” Civil society groups warn that the practice of child marriage cannot truly become a thing of the past without programs to eliminate poverty and change other local practices. For example, in parts of Malawi, girls reaching puberty may receive a night-time visit from an older man—known as a “hyena”—with the intent of preparing them for marriage. There are a variety of strategies available to governments facing high child marriage rates—such as Malawi—to further their push to end child marriage. These include community-based initiatives that mobilize local leaders as well as men and boys to change social norms, programs that focus on returning girls to school after marriage or providing them with vocational training, and conditional cash transfer programs that encourage parents to keep their daughters unwed and in school. Ending child marriage will not only allow girls to reach their full potential, it will also contribute to healthier families and improve Malawi’s economic growth as these girls are able to contribute fully to their society.

Last week, the White House sponsored an international summit on strategies to counter violent extremism (CVE), focusing on groups such as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and al-Qaeda. Among the strategies suggested to mitigate radicalization, President Obama listed an increased emphasis on human rights and democracy: “That means free elections where people can choose their own future, and independent judiciaries that uphold the rule of law, and police and security forces that respect human rights, and free speech and freedom for civil society groups.” Repression by an authoritarian regime, political disenfranchisement, and human rights abuses are considered to be among the factors that lead individuals to terrorism, rather than choosing peaceful means to protest. As the president said last Thursday, “When governments oppress their people, deny human rights, stifle dissent, or marginalize ethnic and religious groups, or favor certain religious groups over others, it sows the seeds of extremism and violence… Terrorist groups claim that change can only come through violence.  And if peaceful change is impossible, that plays into extremist propaganda.” At the CVE summit, President Obama also specifically emphasized women’s rights, calling on participating countries to commit to “expanding education, including for girls. Expanding opportunity, including for women. Nations will not truly succeed without the contributions of their women.” A critical component of investing in human rights is investing in women’s rights. UN Women Executive Director Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka and lead author of the UN secretary-general’s Global Study on Women, Peace, and Security Radhika Coomaraswamy wrote recently in Foreign Policy that “empowered women are the foundation of resilient and stable communities—communities that can stand firm against radicalization.” The UN Security Council echoed this sentiment in resolution 2178 in September 2014, when for the first time the Council referenced the need to empower women in order to halt the spread of violent extremism. The United States can support women and girls’ rights—and therefore mitigate the factors that often lead to radicalization—by improving girls’ educational opportunities abroad, along with supporting the rights of women and girls more broadly. Ensuring that girls have access to quality education not only improves their ability to flourish and improve their employment opportunities for their own future, but also increases the chances that their children down the road will grow up in healthy, stable homes and receive education themselves. In turn, this will generate economic growth and decrease poverty, and thus limit the potential for extremism to thrive in their communities. Furthermore, research suggests that improving the status of women and involving them in peace negotiations, peacekeeping, and postconflict reconstruction creates greater stability, more sustainable peace agreements, fewer relapses into conflict, and therefore more lasting peace. By reducing conflict and creating greater prosperity, involving women in core peace and security matters—and in the mainstream economy—has the potential to reduce conflict, undercutting the insecurity, poverty, and desperate circumstances in which extremism flourishes. Increasing the emphasis on human rights—including women’s rights—in U.S. foreign policy is critical for national security.  However, as Deputy National Security Advisor Benjamin J. Rhodes indicated in a recent New York Times article, the White House sometimes faces a disconnect between promoting human rights and partnering with human rights violators in the struggle to combat violent extremism. In the same article, Marc Lynch, director of the Institute for Middle East Studies at George Washington University, noted, “There is a very profound conceptual disagreement about whether the best way to counter violent extremism is through human rights and civil society or through an iron fist.” President of the advocacy group Human Rights First, Elisa Massimino, pointed out that the very composition of the White House summit underscored the inconsistency between the rhetoric and reality: “We’re sitting in that room with representatives of governments that are part of the problem.” Another challenge is that the United States runs the risk of being accused of exporting “Western feminism” in overtly linking women’s rights to the fight against violent extremism. However, it cannot hope to defeat ISIS and al-Qaeda without supporting women’s rights. By supporting local women’s rights efforts that have both legitimacy and on-the-ground knowledge, the United States can advance the rights of women and girls from the bottom up, which will not only help combat extremism, but also support more democratic, just societies.

Emerging Voices features contributions from scholars and practitioners highlighting new research, thinking, and approaches to development challenges. This article is by Dr. Khalid Koser, executive director of the Global Community Engagement and Resilience Fund (GCERF) and a nonresident senior fellow in foreign policy at the Brookings Institution. In his rallying cry for action to counter violent extremism (CVE) at the World Economic Forum in Davos a few weeks ago, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry concluded, “The bottom line is we need everyone involved—governments, foundations, philanthropists, NGOs, corporations, faith leaders, the private sector.” Of these groups, it is the last one—the private sector—that holds the most promise, but is also the most challenging to engage; the private sector has typically been leery of participating directly in initiatives related to security and especially counterterrorism. For example, the private sector tends to abstain from engaging in local political or social issues, so when threats of violence materialize or a security situation disintegrates,  the chief concern for corporations becomes the vulnerability of their assets on the ground. Over the last few months, I have worked to bring the private sector in to support the Global Community Engagement and Resilience Fund, the first global effort to support community-level initiatives aimed at strengthening resilience against violent extremist agendas. I have learned these five lessons: 1. Make the Business Case Countering violent extremism goes beyond the remit of corporate social responsibility for most companies. Instead, encouraging private sector involvement can be accomplished by making a more direct business case. This is perhaps easiest for those sectors already invested in parts of the world vulnerable to extremism, for example the extractive industries. Yet a business case can also be made for companies seeking to tap into new markets. Extremism poisons talent pools, disrupts supply chains, blocks the movement of goods and people, thwarts small and medium sized enterprises, and lowers the return on investment in entire regions. An investment in countering violent extremism is an investment in future growth in those regions. 2. Focus on Outcomes While the Global Community Engagement and Resilience Fund uses development tools to achieve security outcomes, a comprehensive approach to countering violent extremism includes military, security, and intelligence measures as well. Other than for those companies working directly in these fields, this makes the private sector nervous. Rather than emphasizing those approaches to CVE, pitches to private sector actors should highlight the outcomes of these programs: stabilizing economies and unleashing the potential of communities. 3. Start Local In my experience, it is both easier and more fruitful to engage local private sector actors in affected countries. Local firms ultimately have most to lose from the growth and spread of violent extremism, and though their room to maneuver through political constraints may be limited, they can be valuable assets. Yet this does not refer to small businesses alone. The national branches of multinational companies are likely to be more knowledgeable and more invested in countering violent extremism than their global headquarters, to whom extremism may seem like a smaller or more distant problem. 4. Seek Core Competencies, Not Capital While companies are unlikely to invest equity in CVE projects, they can certainly contribute skills and competencies that complement those of government and civil society. These competencies include operational, technical, and financial expertise; access to business and political leaders; and convening power in affected regions. 5. Widen the Focus Although the ISIS conflict in Syria and Iraq is undoubtedly the current epicenter of violent extremism, such extremism manifests itself in myriad ways—and not just in association with religion. Quick wins are required for the private sector to engage, and these are to be had in sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia, for example. It is certainly in the interest of the global effort to counter violent extremism to engage the private sector in these programs. In order for them to succeed, it should be made clear to the private sector that it is in their interest, too.