Education

Rachel Brown is a research associate in Asia Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. Amid the flurry of press coverage surrounding President Xi Jinping’s visit to the United States in September, his gift of a dawn redwood tree to be planted on the campus of the Global Innovation Exchange (GIX) program in Seattle received little attention. However, the GIX program, a collaboration between China’s prestigious Tsinghua University and the University of Washington, reflects a next step in China’s soft power strategy. Presenting a model for higher education has characterized global powers from nineteenth century Germany to the present day United States, and China now seems to be making a bid to promote its own educational model abroad. While over the past two decades, American and other foreign universities have flocked to establish campuses and centers in China, GIX will be the first outpost of a Chinese university in the United States. The GIX campus itself is still being built and designed, but when it opens in the fall of 2017, the school will host the second year of a dual degree program offering a master’s degree in technology innovation to approximately thirty students. There are plans to offer other programs and by 2025 to enroll 3,000 students. The initial program will cover the legal, technological, and entrepreneurial aspects of “Internet-connected devices,” playing to both Tsinghua’s strengths in business and computer science as well as the campus’ location in Seattle. Courses will be taught in English by faculty from both universities and the two universities will play equal roles in curriculum design, university administration, and admissions. GIX will be funded by a forty million dollar contribution from Microsoft as well as contributions from both Chinese and American companies. While GIX stands out as the first instance of a Chinese university establishing a physical presence in the United States, it fits into a pattern of recent initiatives to expand China’s global educational footprint. China’s domestic higher education system has been growing rapidly in both quantity and quality, and thus it is perhaps natural that the growth would continue into foreign markets. Affiliates of other Chinese universities have already been established in other nations including a campus of Soochow University in Laos, a branch of Xiamen University under construction in Malaysia, and a joint lab sponsored by Zhejiang University and Imperial College London in London. Chinese higher education has also internationalized in other ways. Central to the educational dimension of Chinese soft power have been Confucius Institutes, government-sponsored centers that promote Chinese language and culture abroad. Already, more than 480 Confucius Institutes operate in over 120 nations. Chinese universities also currently offer over one hundred online courses. Tsinghua University alone provides more than twenty online courses on the edX platform for massive open online courses. These classes include “China’s Perspective on Climate Change” and “Introduction to Mao Zedong Thought,” which has approximately 3,100 viewers. Courses such as these contribute both to the spread of Chinese views on certain topics and to raising the profile of Chinese institutions. But initial efforts to spread aspects of the Chinese education system globally have met resistance. Certain Confucius Institutes have triggered controversies surrounding academic freedom. Several universities in Canada and the United States, including the University of Chicago, decided not to renew Confucius Institutes at their schools, and the American Association of University Professors has argued for the closure of all American Confucius Institutes citing opaque contracts that lead universities to compromise their integrity. Not all of the online courses have been popular either, as some American students likened Tsinghua’s edX class on Mao Zedong Thought to propaganda. Similar controversies could also arise at GIX. While the leader of the project on the Chinese side, Zhang Tao, argues that one of the advantages of the collaboration is that Americans who hope to sell tech products in Asia will be exposed to Chinese preferences and business practices through courses with Chinese students and faculty, the program’s emphasis on technology also raises potential concerns. Particularly troubling are issues surrounding Internet censorship and intellectual property protection where practices in the two countries diverge sharply. Nevertheless, given the Chinese government’s commitment to expanding soft power through education, collaborations between Chinese and American universities on this side of the Pacific seem poised to spread.

Welcome to “Women Around the World: This Week,” a series that highlights noteworthy news related to women and U.S. foreign policy. This week’s post,  from August 26 to September 1, was compiled by Valerie Wirtschafter, Dara Jackson-Garrett, and Ariella Rotenberg.   Nigeria marks five hundred days since the abduction of over two hundred and fifty schoolgirls by Boko Haram Last week, Nigeria marked five hundred days since Boko Haram abducted more than two hundred and fifty girls from a government secondary school in the remote town of Chibok. A candlelight vigil was held in the capital city of Abuja where marchers criticized the slow government response to the abduction. The U.S. government also released a statement this week renewing its commitment to assist in the rescue of the Chibok girls. Although 57 of the girls have escaped, there is no information about the other 219. Eyewitness testimony has indicated that some of the remaining girls may now be committing atrocities on behalf of Boko Haram. Several of the young women who managed to escape have recently resettled in the United States to reenter school and rebuild their lives. Migrants arriving in Europe at high risk of violence, extortion An estimated 107,500 migrants arrived in the European Union (EU) in July, triple the number that made the journey during this month last year, according the EU border agency, Frontex. The large number of migrants—many from Syria—has led to the proliferation of smuggling rings and human trafficking. Smuggled migrants, especially women and children, are at high risk of violence, forced labor, extortion, and prostitution during their journey. Last week’s discovery of seventy-one suffocated migrants in the back of an unventilated, abandoned truck in Austria drew international attention to the growing crisis and shed light on the high risks migrants take to reach the EU. Europe has so far struggled to respond to what some are calling the largest migrant crisis since World War II. More than 100 girls breathe in toxic gas at school in possible terrorist attack Earlier this week, 124 girls were hospitalized after breathing in toxic gas at their school in the Herat province of Afghanistan. Officials are now investigating whether this incident was a deliberate attack by the Taliban, who have been accused of using similar tactics in the past. The Taliban’s rejection of education for girls is well documented. During the group’s rule from 1996 to 2001, women and girls were barred from attending school. The Taliban also made international headlines for its assault on girls’ education in 2012 when a group of masked gunmen attempted to murder girls-education advocate, Malala Yousafzai on her way to school in Karachi, Pakistan. Though major barriers still limit girls’ education in Afghanistan, the government has succeeded in increasing the number of students in primary and secondary school from one million in 2001 to 8.4 million in 2015, of which 39 percent are girls.

In my last blog post, I examined the rise of anti-intellectualism in China from a historical perspective. As if to corroborate my argument, last week police in China’s Jiangxi province detained Wang Lin, a semi-illiterate qigong (a Chinese spiritual martial art) mystic, for his role in the alleged kidnapping and murder of one of his former “disciples.” What dragged Wang into the limelight was not the incident itself, but the laundry list of his followers and clients exposed after Wang’s fall. They included Jack Ma, Jet Li, and a number of other celebrities and high-profile businessmen. Chinese websites also circulated photos showing Wang with high-ranking government officials, including several former Politburo Standing Committee members and at least four former central government ministers. Among them was the now disgraced railway minister Liu Zhijun, to whom Wang promised to set up a magic stone in his office so that he would never fall from power. Wang was not the only phony master whose tricks have been revealed or debunked. Over the past three decades, China has seen the emergence of a popular soothsayer/mystic/qigong expert every few years. Mostly poorly educated, they were nevertheless successful in fooling a huge number of Chinese, from ordinary people to powerful leaders. Cao Yongzheng, a mysterious “sage” from Xinjiang, was introduced by China’s former security czar Zhou Yongkang to be his “most trusted person.” This led Wang Shuo, a Chinese cultural icon, to lambaste Chinese business and political elites as “having low I.Q.” and “lacking the most basic scientific knowledge.” This might not be true, but the obsession with spiritual phonies  by Chinese elites does suggest that anti-intellectualism has reached the top echelons of China’s hierarchy. The rising anti-intellectualism does not bode well for China’s political development. According to Professor Yu Ying-Shih of Princeton University, only through thorough debates and discussions could democracy as a Western concept take root and grow in China. Until very recently, Chinese intellectuals—despite government controls—had managed to carve out some limited space through which they could influence public discourse. This is changing. Beginning in the second half of 2013, the Party’s mouthpieces have published numerous articles criticizing “historical nihilism,” “constitutional democracy,” and “universal values.” In October 2013, college professors were asked not to touch upon seven topics: universal values, press freedom, civil society, citizens’ rights, the party’s historical aberrations, the “privileged capitalistic class,” and judicial independence. The efforts to promote ideological unity also led to accusations against the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) of having been “infiltrated by foreign forces.” Yu Jianrong, a prominent scholar at CASS, recently revealed that the party secretary of his institute asked him to submit a written explanation on his “unapproved” participation in a newly established NGO. Rising anti-intellectualism in China also has important implications for China’s foreign policy. It encourages the Chinese public and even some intellectuals to uncritically embrace any nationalist writings and ideas as truth and to dub any dissenting voices as “anti-China” or treat those dissenters as standing for “hostile forces.” Against this backdrop, conspiracy theories that defy the conventional wisdom can easily go viral. A recent piece that was circulated widely on WeChat, for example, “exposed” a 15-year long U.S. “Cultural Cold War” strategy against China, in which the United States was blamed for distorting Chinese history, even creating China’s food safety problems. Similarly, leading U.S. financial institutions were initially blamed for the free fall of China’s stock market last month, despite the government’s restriction on foreigners investing in Chinese stock exchanges. However odd and erroneous these accusations are, the nationalist claims and comments have a large number of followers. Many of Zhou Xiaoping’s writings are rants against the United States, but his Weibo (Chinese version of Twitter) has attracted more than 11 million visits. With robust social bases and government acquiescence, these nationalist voices not only undermine the plausibility of official rhetoric on China’s peaceful rise, but also further constrain the leeway of foreign policy making in China. True, anti-intellectualism is not unique to China: few political leaders, especially those in their bid to consolidate power, would find intellectuals as desirable as blockheads. The former by definition are good at questioning, criticizing, and challenging politicians’ authorities and policies. This logic explains Dwight Eisenhower’s scoffing at intellectuals, Joseph Stalin’s support of Trofim Lysenko’s pseudoscience, and Pol Pot’s killing off people who wore eyeglasses (because they were educated). Unlike liberal democracies, where anti-intellectualism is counterbalanced and constrained by pluralism and free speech, anti-intellectualism in non-democracies can be practiced and popularized by unchecked political power. That explains why even though the essay by Zhou Xiaoping “Broken Dreams in America” was full of factual errors, a point-by-point rebuttal with detailed references by anti-fraud campaigner Fang Shimin (aka Fang Zhouzi) quickly vanished from online. When Fang protested, he found himself being denied access to his own social media accounts. The good news is that despite the repressions and regressions, anti-intellectualism does not represent the mainstream of the public discourse in China. Unlike the Mao era, when power and charisma of political leaders made anti-intellectualism a national ideology, today’s anti-intellectualism has not led to the attack on the intellect itself. President Xi himself is a ferocious reader familiar with the works of Montesquieu, Voltaire, and Rousseau. What is alarming is its increasingly systematic expression in some major aspects of social-political lives. Given its long history and strong social bases in China, anti-intellectualism, when mixed with nationalism and populism, has the potential to delay (if not derail) China’s political development and drive China into a collision course with its neighbors and the United States.

This year—2015—is an auspicious moment for global development. In September, as the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) expire, UN member states will adopt a new framework that will guide international development over the next fifteen years. In advance of the fall summit on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)—as well as the upcoming Third International Financing for Development Conference in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia—I hosted Thomas Gass, assistant secretary-general for policy coordination and inter-agency affairs at the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, and Ambassador Elizabeth Cousens, deputy chief executive officer at the United Nations Foundation and former U.S. chief negotiator on the SDGs, to discuss gender equality and the future of the international development agenda. It is indisputable that over the past fifteen years the MDGs have contributed to advancement for women and girls—particularly in the area of maternal health, where mortality rates have been halved, and in access to primary education, where the global gender gap has virtually closed. However, many argue that the MDGs could and should have done more to improve the status of women and girls. Several issues critical not only to women’s progress, but also to overall prosperity and stability—such as child marriage, violence against women, and valuation of women’s work—were overlooked. The SDGs afford a critical opportunity to dramatically expand upon progress for women and girls and increase our collective ambition for achieving gender equality. Importantly, early drafts of the SDGs include a specific gender equality goal with targets that are considerably more comprehensive than those included in the MDG framework, and issues related to the advancement of women and girls have been integrated throughout the post-2015 goals. Yet questions remain over the implementation of the proposed SDGs. The UN zero draft of the SDGs released earlier this month includes seventeen goals and 169 targets. Given the high number of goals and targets, how will countries prioritize their efforts? And how can global actors ensure attention to gender equality—an issue that is too often siloed or overlooked, despite considerable evidence of the connection between women’s progress and development? There have been encouraging signs that the commitment to gender equality outlined in the SDGs is strong. During our conversation last week, former Ambassador Cousens noted that the goal on gender equality was the first on which government and civil society groups reached a consensus during the initial stages of the Open Working Group process that formed the basis of the SDG zero draft. But the real test of this commitment will be the extent to which gender equality targets are financed, and how member states are held accountable. Indicators of progress for the SDGs will not be adopted until next March, and although the current proposal includes many references to women and girls, it is unclear whether some potentially contentious issues—for example, female genital mutilation—will survive the negotiation process. The comprehensive gender equality targets included in the SDG zero draft are a positive step forward for the post-2015 development agenda. The promise of this framework, however, will only be realized if member states and development practitioners are held accountable for financing and implementing progress toward the equality of women and girls.

Earlier this month, Pakistani authorities revealed that eight of the ten men accused in the 2012 attack on Malala Yousafzai were acquitted, despite a previous announcement that all ten were sentenced to twenty-five years in prison. Malala’s case is especially remarkable considering she won the 2014 Nobel Peace Prize, recognizing her advocacy for girls’ education even after being shot in the head for her work. The regional deputy police chief, Azad Khan, was quoted in the New York Times saying that the men “were released for lack of evidence,” chalking the verdict up to a failure of Pakistan’s justice system. The trial was reportedly held in one of Pakistan’s secretive anti-terrorism courts, where decisions are made behind closed doors in an attempt to protect judges. According to the same article, “such trials are hampered by poor evidentiary standards and the security forces’ widely documented pattern of rounding up suspects, sometimes on flimsy grounds, and of obtaining confessions through torture.” Yet the acquittal of Malala’s attackers comes at a moment when Pakistan is coming under scrutiny from human rights organizations for the opposite reason: exceedingly harsh punishments—including nearly 140 executions in the last six months—from the same flawed anti-terror courts. A recent New America Foundation paper details the recent changes in Pakistan’s counterterrorism legal system, instituted following the December attack on a school that killed over 130 children. The paper argues that although the amendments have the “commendable goals of reducing delays and ensuring better security for judges trying terrorism cases, the legitimacy of the process has suffered from stripping away the traditional protections like an open trial, right to counsel, and burden of proof on the prosecution” that used to be afforded the accused. While this disregard for the legal and human rights of terrorism suspects is a significant flaw in Pakistan’s justice system, so too is the inequality evident in the handing down of sentences from these courts. While terrorism suspects are hanged “left, right, and center,” members of extremist groups who are suspects in cases of gender-based violence, like Malala’s, or attacks on religious minority groups go unpunished. According to International Crisis Group, women in Pakistan have long been the “principal victims of state policies to appease violent extremists.” Despite a pledge from Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif on March 8, 2015, International Women’s Day, that the “government would take all necessary legislative and administrative steps to protect and empower women,” it is clear that such legal reforms are still lacking. Pakistan’s justice system is flawed in many ways, and reform is necessary to ensure the protection of the human and legal rights of the accused. Yet any reform must also address the unequal application of the law toward women and girls, like Malala, who are survivors of gender-based violence.

Earlier this month, Pakistani authorities revealed that eight of the ten men accused in the 2012 attack on Malala Yousafzai were acquitted, despite a previous announcement that all ten were sentenced to twenty-five years in prison. Malala’s case is especially remarkable considering she won the 2014 Nobel Peace Prize, recognizing her advocacy for girls’ education even after being shot in the head for her work. The regional deputy police chief, Azad Khan, was quoted in the New York Times saying that the men “were released for lack of evidence,” chalking the verdict up to a failure of Pakistan’s justice system. The trial was reportedly held in one of Pakistan’s secretive anti-terrorism courts, where decisions are made behind closed doors in an attempt to protect judges. According to the same article, “such trials are hampered by poor evidentiary standards and the security forces’ widely documented pattern of rounding up suspects, sometimes on flimsy grounds, and of obtaining confessions through torture.” Yet the acquittal of Malala’s attackers comes at a moment when Pakistan is coming under scrutiny from human rights organizations for the opposite reason: exceedingly harsh punishments—including nearly 140 executions in the last six months—from the same flawed anti-terror courts. A recent New America Foundation paper details the recent changes in Pakistan’s counterterrorism legal system, instituted following the December attack on a school that killed over 130 children. The paper argues that although the amendments have the “commendable goals of reducing delays and ensuring better security for judges trying terrorism cases, the legitimacy of the process has suffered from stripping away the traditional protections like an open trial, right to counsel, and burden of proof on the prosecution” that used to be afforded the accused. While this disregard for the legal and human rights of terrorism suspects is a significant flaw in Pakistan’s justice system, so too is the inequality evident in the handing down of sentences from these courts. While terrorism suspects are hanged “left, right, and center,” members of extremist groups who are suspects in cases of gender-based violence, like Malala’s, or attacks on religious minority groups go unpunished. According to International Crisis Group, women in Pakistan have long been the “principal victims of state policies to appease violent extremists.” Despite a pledge from Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif on March 8, 2015, International Women’s Day, that the “government would take all necessary legislative and administrative steps to protect and empower women,” it is clear that such legal reforms are still lacking. Pakistan’s justice system is flawed in many ways, and reform is necessary to ensure the protection of the human and legal rights of the accused. Yet any reform must also address the unequal application of the law toward women and girls, like Malala, who are survivors of gender-based violence.

This is a guest post by Latanya Mapp Frett, Executive Director of Planned Parenthood Global, the international arm of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Zahra, a teenage Muslim girl living in Northern Nigeria, fought back tears as she recently addressed a crowd in Senegal about an unlikely transformation her father had undergone. “My father is supportive of my use of contraception,” she said. Furthermore, “he supports my counseling and providing condoms and other [contraceptive] methods to my peers.” Zahra’s father’s position is unique in her conservative community, which has some of the highest rates of child marriage in the world and where less than half of all female adolescents receive sexuality education of any kind. Her father’s acceptance came only after Zahra’s mother died from complications related to HIV/AIDS, leaving her family devastated—and leaving Zahra responsible for rearing her siblings. It is hard to imagine the circumstances that Zahra must face as a young woman in her country today. She is vulnerable to abductions that are carried out by the militant terrorists of Boko Haram. But she faces other challenges as well. She is under immense pressure to marry and start a family; she must share in the financial upkeep of her family, necessitating work both inside and outside the home; she has few opportunities to continue her education; and, she wrestles with the same interests, desires, and concerns as many teenage girls living in our modern era. After the death of her mother, Zahra knew that she wanted to do everything she could to prevent her fate from befalling others. Zahra became a Youth Peer Provider (YPP) with Planned Parenthood Global’s partner organization NKST, a faith-based group that runs health centers and community education campaigns. NKST trains young people as community health workers to serve peers in their own communities—increasing knowledge, dispelling myths, changing social norms, and promoting healthy behaviors. YPPs go one step beyond traditional youth peer educators by providing not only education but also contraceptive products and services where they might not otherwise be available. They also advocate that their governments—in Zahra’s case, it was the Nigerian health ministry—expand access and support for sexual and reproductive health services in their communities. As a result of such advocacy, the Nigerian government recently launched new guidelines in Nigeria calling for the inclusion of youth-friendly services in government-run primary health facilities. Planned Parenthood Global worked in partnership with the government to shape and to launch this landmark policy, and continues to work to create youth-friendly materials as resources for these government health facilities, many of which will now be offering youth-friendly services for the first time. Currently, most services designed specifically to meet young people’s needs are operated by private, non-governmental health facilities, but the new guidelines aim to change that and mark an important step in granting Nigerian youth today greater access to sexual and reproductive health services. More young people in Nigeria now have access to health and especially sexual and reproductive health information and care than before. They are thereby able to make healthier choices and lead healthier lives. It is to be hoped that the newly elected administration will also value these principles to protect and encourage young people and their futures.

This week, during the Afghan President Ashraf Ghani’s White House visit, U.S. President Barack Obama announced that he will delay the schedule for U.S. troop withdrawal from Afghanistan and current troop levels will be maintained through the end of 2015. While I have reservations about the use of U.S. military power abroad more generally, a brief extension of the American military presence in Afghanistan makes sense to secure the substantial U.S. investment there. Obama’s announcement should allay Ghani’s concerns over Afghanistan’s ability to manage the security transition. As the Afghan president said in a CFR meeting on Thursday, “2015 is going to be a very difficult security year… We have demonstrated our capability and will, but we are going to be tested.” Yet in his address to Congress, Ghani maintained an emphasis on Afghan self-reliance. “I know American people are asking the same question as the Afghan people. Will we have the resources to provide a sustained basis for our operation? And the answer is: within this decade, we will.” However, for now, Afghanistan’s own security forces have limited airlift capability—a serious shortcoming in light of Afghanistan’s mountainous terrain. Afghanistan also currently lacks the high-end intelligence-collecting technology that American forces possess and have used to secure Afghanistan against insurgents. While the United States cannot and should not remain in Afghanistan indefinitely, Obama’s decision reflects the realization that the transition envisioned by both the U.S. and Afghan governments cannot happen overnight. Slowing the pace of U.S. withdrawal will allow Afghanistan time to build up their self-reliance and capacity without fear of collapse. As I have written before, the success or failure of the security transition has implications for women’s rights in Afghanistan. Afghan women have made incredible strides since the fall of the Taliban in 2001—especially in education and health care, as Ghani reminded Congress. And the Afghan president has plans to continue increasing women’s rights and opportunities in Afghanistan. In his address to U.S. lawmakers, Ghani described the three pillars of his approach to empowering women: education, economic opportunity, and a “mental and cultural revolution… over the treatment of women.” Empowering Afghan women and girls is critical to their own dignity and wellbeing first and foremost, but it also has benefits for Afghanistan’s prosperity and stability more broadly. Yet without a foundation of security, none of these reforms will be possible; women and girls have been under attack on their way to work and school, and female politicians have been threatened. A short extension of the U.S. presence in Afghanistan—to provide more time for the Afghans to strengthen their own security apparatus—is critical for the development of Afghanistan’s programs for women. Of course, there are good reasons to be wary of the extension of the U.S. military presence—given that it is reportedly in part geared toward bolstering capacity for U.S. secret drone strikes from United States military bases. Cross-border CIA drone strikes in Pakistan’s tribal areas have caused resentment against the United States, are troubling from a legal standpoint, and set a worrisome precedent for other governments to use drones strikes against American citizens and potentially against political dissidents and other disfavored groups. I am also generally cautious about the use of American military power and wary of the trend toward militarizing women’s human rights, when diplomacy and soft power may be more effective and sustainable, less costly, and more protective of American and Afghan lives. Plus, military interventions can undermine—rather than support—local women’s rights efforts. However, in the short term, maintaining U.S. troops in Afghanistan is a practical step, and since their mission is advisory, not combat, the dangers of exercising U.S. power is reduced. Plus, whether through U.S. Army female engagement teams or USAID and State Department programs, the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan has actually supported and worked in partnership with community-based women’s organizations. Supporting such local capacity continues to be the right and smart thing to do. In an ideal world, military power would never be necessary to create conditions of gender equality. Yet given Afghanistan’s history—including the allegations of fraud in last year’s election that delayed the political transition and Ghani’s ability to stand up a new government quickly—the United States would be remiss if it did not extend support to Afghanistan while it regains its security footing.

This week, during the Afghan President Ashraf Ghani’s White House visit, U.S. President Barack Obama announced that he will delay the schedule for U.S. troop withdrawal from Afghanistan and current troop levels will be maintained through the end of 2015. While I have reservations about the use of U.S. military power abroad more generally, a brief extension of the American military presence in Afghanistan makes sense to secure the substantial U.S. investment there. Obama’s announcement should allay Ghani’s concerns over Afghanistan’s ability to manage the security transition. As the Afghan president said in a CFR meeting on Thursday, “2015 is going to be a very difficult security year… We have demonstrated our capability and will, but we are going to be tested.” Yet in his address to Congress, Ghani maintained an emphasis on Afghan self-reliance. “I know American people are asking the same question as the Afghan people. Will we have the resources to provide a sustained basis for our operation? And the answer is: within this decade, we will.” However, for now, Afghanistan’s own security forces have limited airlift capability—a serious shortcoming in light of Afghanistan’s mountainous terrain. Afghanistan also currently lacks the high-end intelligence-collecting technology that American forces possess and have used to secure Afghanistan against insurgents. While the United States cannot and should not remain in Afghanistan indefinitely, Obama’s decision reflects the realization that the transition envisioned by both the U.S. and Afghan governments cannot happen overnight. Slowing the pace of U.S. withdrawal will allow Afghanistan time to build up their self-reliance and capacity without fear of collapse. As I have written before, the success or failure of the security transition has implications for women’s rights in Afghanistan. Afghan women have made incredible strides since the fall of the Taliban in 2001—especially in education and health care, as Ghani reminded Congress. And the Afghan president has plans to continue increasing women’s rights and opportunities in Afghanistan. In his address to U.S. lawmakers, Ghani described the three pillars of his approach to empowering women: education, economic opportunity, and a “mental and cultural revolution… over the treatment of women.” Empowering Afghan women and girls is critical to their own dignity and wellbeing first and foremost, but it also has benefits for Afghanistan’s prosperity and stability more broadly. Yet without a foundation of security, none of these reforms will be possible; women and girls have been under attack on their way to work and school, and female politicians have been threatened. A short extension of the U.S. presence in Afghanistan—to provide more time for the Afghans to strengthen their own security apparatus—is critical for the development of Afghanistan’s programs for women. Of course, there are good reasons to be wary of the extension of the U.S. military presence—given that it is reportedly in part geared toward bolstering capacity for U.S. secret drone strikes from United States military bases. Cross-border CIA drone strikes in Pakistan’s tribal areas have caused resentment against the United States, are troubling from a legal standpoint, and set a worrisome precedent for other governments to use drones strikes against American citizens and potentially against political dissidents and other disfavored groups. I am also generally cautious about the use of American military power and wary of the trend toward militarizing women’s human rights, when diplomacy and soft power may be more effective and sustainable, less costly, and more protective of American and Afghan lives. Plus, military interventions can undermine—rather than support—local women’s rights efforts. However, in the short term, maintaining U.S. troops in Afghanistan is a practical step, and since their mission is advisory, not combat, the dangers of exercising U.S. power is reduced. Plus, whether through U.S. Army female engagement teams or USAID and State Department programs, the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan has actually supported and worked in partnership with community-based women’s organizations. Supporting such local capacity continues to be the right and smart thing to do. In an ideal world, military power would never be necessary to create conditions of gender equality. Yet given Afghanistan’s history—including the allegations of fraud in last year’s election that delayed the political transition and Ghani’s ability to stand up a new government quickly—the United States would be remiss if it did not extend support to Afghanistan while it regains its security footing.

“When girls get educated—when they learn to read and write and think—that gives them the tools to speak up and to talk about injustice, and to demand equal treatment. It helps them participate in the political life of their country and hold their leaders accountable, call for change when their needs and aspirations aren’t being met.” These were the words of First Lady Michelle Obama as she addressed Peace Corps volunteers in Cambodia last weekend, part of her trip to promote the administration’s Let Girls Learn program. In fact, the Let Girls Learn initiative is a consolidation of many programs that already existed to support girls’ education—including those under the U.S. Agency for International Development and Peace Corps—now with the presidential stamp. Beyond repackaging and rebranding, the White House also added 650 new Peace Corps volunteer positions specifically tasked to work on girls’ education. At nearly 10 percent of the Peace Corps’ current size, these new volunteers are not insignificant. This expansion remains in line with the original mission of the Peace Corps founded by President John F. Kennedy in 1961; the first-ever Peace Corps mission to Ghana comprised fifty-one teachers, and nearly two-fifths of the current Corps focuses on education. Founded during the Cold War as a means of winning hearts and minds among nonaligned developing nations, the Peace Corps’ mission is to provide trained manpower and to promote understanding between Americans and people in the countries served. Because Peace Corps is a small, cost-effective operation with a superb reputation across party lines, both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama separately pledged to double the size of the Peace Corps. President and Mrs. Obama’s personal announcement of Let Girls Learn—including the expansion of Peace Corps’ capacity to support it—demonstrates a strong commitment to girls’ education as part of the U.S. foreign policy agenda. With the help of celebrities and social media, the White House has marked girls’ education abroad as a priority for the administration and a piece of the Obamas’ presidential legacy. As the first lady’s comments to Cambodia Peace Corps volunteers indicate, the White House’s support of girls’ education is not only an important end in and of itself. Investment in girls’ education pays dividends for women’s rights, economic growth, and stability abroad.

In the lead up to the announcement of the UN Sustainable Development Goals in September, I had the opportunity to host a conversation with Julia Gillard, chair of the Global Partnership for Education and former prime minister of Australia, at the Council on Foreign Relations. Education was the focus of our discussion: education as a security issue, a foreign policy priority, and a development imperative when it comes to the fight against global poverty. The conversation spanned topics including the relationship among education, national security, and radicalization—and the urgency of creating hope among a young generation of children displaced by conflict and upheaval—to the role of the private sector in funding education initiatives and the battle to end child marriage. These topics are inextricably linked, and the role of education is central to any development, security, or economic growth discussion. Yet often these conversations remain in silos. Part of the roundtable’s discussion was aimed at the question of how to break down those barriers among policymakers. How is education tied to terrorism and national security? In the words of Prime Minister Gillard, “anger is disappointed hope,” and when children in refugee camps see themselves with no future, no possibility to improve their lives peacefully, extremist narratives catch hold, and the process of radicalization begins. The White House recently focused on girls’ education in a high profile event where President and Mrs. Obama unveiled the new Let Girls Learn initiative. As the president said in his weekly address, “I’m convinced that a world in which girls are educated is a safer, more stable, more prosperous place. When girls are educated, their future children are healthier and better nourished. Their future wages increase, which in turn strengthens their families’ security. National growth gets a boost, too. And places where women and girls are treated as full and equal citizens tend to be more stable and more democratic.” Education is also linked to child marriage. For adolescent girls in some parts of the world, their parents may choose marriage over education. For them, the discussions of child marriage and education are not separate—they are one and the same. As President Obama noted in a White House event to launch the Let Girls Learn initiative, “Maybe girls aren’t in school because they’re expected to get married and become mothers while they’re still teens—or even earlier. Even today, in too many parts of the world, girls are valued more for their bodies than for their minds. That’s not just antiquated. It’s not just a bad strategy for any country that’s serious about growing their economy.” Continued the president, “We know that when girls are educated, they’re more likely to delay marriage. Their future children, as a consequence, are more likely to be healthy and better nourished. Their future wages increase, which, in turn, strengthens the security of their family. And national growth gets a boost, as well.” And in order to make a real impact in the lives of girls and women—and boys and men—on the ground, barriers preventing girls from staying in school must be tackled. The fight to keep girl children from becoming child wives and child mothers must be won. And to win these battles, policymakers must address the challenges of national security, child marriage, and education as one.

In the lead up to the announcement of the UN Sustainable Development Goals in September, I had the opportunity to host a conversation with Julia Gillard, chair of the Global Partnership for Education and former prime minister of Australia, at the Council on Foreign Relations. Education was the focus of our discussion: education as a security issue, a foreign policy priority, and a development imperative when it comes to the fight against global poverty. The conversation spanned topics including the relationship among education, national security, and radicalization—and the urgency of creating hope among a young generation of children displaced by conflict and upheaval—to the role of the private sector in funding education initiatives and the battle to end child marriage. These topics are inextricably linked, and the role of education is central to any development, security, or economic growth discussion. Yet often these conversations remain in silos. Part of the roundtable’s discussion was aimed at the question of how to break down those barriers among policymakers. How is education tied to terrorism and national security? In the words of Prime Minister Gillard, “anger is disappointed hope,” and when children in refugee camps see themselves with no future, no possibility to improve their lives peacefully, extremist narratives catch hold, and the process of radicalization begins. The White House recently focused on girls’ education in a high profile event where President and Mrs. Obama unveiled the new Let Girls Learn initiative. As the president said in his weekly address, “I’m convinced that a world in which girls are educated is a safer, more stable, more prosperous place. When girls are educated, their future children are healthier and better nourished. Their future wages increase, which in turn strengthens their families’ security. National growth gets a boost, too. And places where women and girls are treated as full and equal citizens tend to be more stable and more democratic.” Education is also linked to child marriage. For adolescent girls in some parts of the world, their parents may choose marriage over education. For them, the discussions of child marriage and education are not separate—they are one and the same. As President Obama noted in a White House event to launch the Let Girls Learn initiative, “Maybe girls aren’t in school because they’re expected to get married and become mothers while they’re still teens—or even earlier. Even today, in too many parts of the world, girls are valued more for their bodies than for their minds. That’s not just antiquated. It’s not just a bad strategy for any country that’s serious about growing their economy.” Continued the president, “We know that when girls are educated, they’re more likely to delay marriage. Their future children, as a consequence, are more likely to be healthy and better nourished. Their future wages increase, which, in turn, strengthens the security of their family. And national growth gets a boost, as well.” And in order to make a real impact in the lives of girls and women—and boys and men—on the ground, barriers preventing girls from staying in school must be tackled. The fight to keep girl children from becoming child wives and child mothers must be won. And to win these battles, policymakers must address the challenges of national security, child marriage, and education as one.

In 2014, GDP growth in the region slowed to less than 1 percent. Expectations for 2015 are just slightly better, with forecasters predicting growth of nearer to 2 percent. The downturn reflects external factors, including the European Union’s continuing problems, a slower China, and falling commodity prices. But it also results from domestic barriers that hold these nations back. The vast majority of Latin American countries have transitioned from low- to middle-income countries according to the World Bank. But most now remain mired in what economists call the middle-income trap. Only Chile, Uruguay, and a few Caribbean countries have joined the ranks of the world’s high-income countries. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) recent 2015 Latin American Economic Outlook makes the case that the main barriers to climbing the economic ladder in Latin America are education, skills, and innovation. World Bank, "World Development Indicators," 2015. On the plus side, education spending has increased throughout the region. And so too has enrollment. 84 percent of children now complete the primary grades. Still, schools underserve the crucial early years as well as advanced study—pre-K and university enrollment are low relative to other OECD countries. What students get for their extra time in the classroom is also questionable—Latin American students score far behind their OECD peers on the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) test. The test also reveals a strong socio-economic tilt—the wealthier the student, the better the score. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, "Latin American Economic Outlook 2015: Education, Skills and Innovation for Development," 2014. Coupled with weak educational systems is a skills mismatch. More than in other emerging economies, employers can’t find workers with the necessary abilities, particularly for more productive knowledge- and technology-intensive economic sectors. Instead employers face an unskilled labor surplus, many of which flood into the informal economy. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, "Latin American Economic Outlook 2015: Education, Skills and Innovation for Development," 2014. Finally, the report highlights the limited expenditure on “knowledge capital,” defined as a country’s capacity to both innovate and then disseminate those advances. Latin America spends on average 13 percent of GDP, less than half OECD rates. The region falls particularly behind in R&D expenditure (as opposed to tertiary education or information and communications technology infrastructure), a recognized driver of innovation. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, "Latin American Economic Outlook 2015: Education, Skills and Innovation for Development," 2014. So what can Latin American nations do? Education reform matters—revamping curriculum, improving teaching, and creating opportunities especially for those not in the upper echelons of society.  Expanding technical and vocational training can also help develop the skills needed for new industries. And greater innovation—building up “knowledge capital”—will come from not just from more foreign direct investment in R&D-intensive sectors, but also by forging links between these multinationals and the rest of the domestic economy. The path out of the middle-income trap is fraught—only a dozen or so newly emerging countries can boast GDP per capita rates comparable to those of developed economies today. But only with better policies can more Latin American countries aspire to join them.