It’s a Good Day to be a Girl

I don't even have to write an article, I could just give you Malala quotes.

Today, the Nobel Peace Prize committee announced its youngest winner ever, Pakistani education advocate and world-famous terrorism survivor Malala Yousafzai. Her co-recipient Kailash Satyarthi,is an equally impressive child labor activist, who goes beyond rhetoric to leading actual raids of factories employing children, even standing down armed guards. Together, they are excellent representatives of the people who actively fight every day against fundamentalism, extremism, and violence.

Ms. Yousafzai’s activism on behalf of women and girls’ education everywhere has earned her nearly universal praise from the West, including this latest honor, yet she still cannot return home to Pakistan due to fears for her and her family’s life. While she is widely known and celebrated abroad, feted by heads of state, and has even met Queen Elizabeth II, Malala is often called a Western pawn or CIA agent in the Pakistani media, with some even doubting the veracity of the Taliban’s attempt on her life in 2012.

When A Drone Strike Backfires

This past Friday, the leader of the Pakistani Taliban was killed in North Waziristan, on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. The United States’ drone program has been under sharp debate for months – proponents see it as a way to wage more specific warfare against American threats with limited civilian casualties and no American troops on the ground, while opponents see it as a power that could be easily abused, and do not agree that civilian casualties are necessarily limited. While the debate rages on, however, the program has not abated, and Friday’s killing was considered a great success. Hakimullah Mehsud, the leader killed, had a $5 million bounty over his head, and was widely thought to be one of the most important figures in the hierarchy of the Taliban.

This strike was not necessarily a success, however. Mehsud, who was not exactly a revered figure in Pakistan and certainly not one in neighboring Afghanistan, is now being mourned by the very people who despised him while alive. That the U.S. killed him does nothing but exacerbate our ongoing issues with civilians in the Middle East, who typically view our drone program as too large in scope and unbiased in attacks. In killing a monster, we created a martyr.

Mehsud speaking to supporters

But civilians discontent with the U.S. may not even be the biggest setback from this strike. Pakistan announced yesterday that they will be “reviewing” their relationship with the U.S., with some politicians going as far as to say Pakistan should block U.S. supply routes to Afghanistan in retaliation. This is not something new, and the U.S. hopefully prepared for this fallout. Pakistan-U.S. relations have been strained for years because of drone strikes liberally executed in Pakistani territory, many of which the Pakistani government has no knowledge of until after the fact. This has sowed seeds of mistrust, and the animosity directed at the U.S. will surely grow with this latest strike.

Mehsud’s death highlights the glaring paradox that the U.S. drone program has struggled with since its inception: a successful attack on dangerous insurgents on one hand means those insurgents are no longer a threat to U.S. interest. But on the other hand, how many family, friends, or even bystanders affected by a successful attack will have their minds changed radically enough that they themselves become threats to U.S. interest? It is impossible to quantify this, but it certainly exists. Personally, I support the drone program in a limited scope, and agree that the civilian casualties are almost guaranteed to be less than that of conventional warfare, and that drone strikes limit the number of Americans we need to put in the line of fire. But I do not subscribe to the belief that the drone program works flawlessly. Terrorism will continue to flourish if groups such as the Taliban can continue to portray their fallen leaders as martyrs and encourage civilians to take up the fight on their behalf. To ignore this would be a fatal mistake – the U.S. needs to focus its efforts on combating propaganda in the future just as much as they focus on eliminating these high-profile targets.

Malala Yousafzai and the Fight for Female Education

The girl enters the studio stage left, and the crowd goes wild. She is dressed in traditional Pakistani garb, poised, smiling, and impossibly mature. The next 16 minutes make you alternately want to cry, scream, cheer, and laugh. In an interview destined to go viral, Malala Yousafzai left host Jon Stewart speechless with her beyond-her-years wisdom and eloquence. In the past few weeks, Malala’s name – and her cause – have been inescapable, especially after she became the youngest person ever on the short list for a Nobel Peace Prize. She has met the Queen of England, taken tea with Angelina Jolie, had a biography published about her life (at 16, no less), and put a face on the struggle to educate girls, especially in the developing world.

It is striking that at only 16, Malala has achieved global celebrity not even Hollywood starlets could dream of, and all without a stint in rehab. In a documentary about the Taliban in Swat Valley, the viewer is offered a glimpse of Malala just a few years ago: markedly shier, she hides her face behind her hands as she cries on camera. The reason for her tears: the next day, a Taliban ban on girls in school will take effect, and her schooldays would come to a (brief) end. Her father smiles and pats her back, telling the cameraman that he simply could not risk his daughter’s life because he “fell in love with her” the moment she was born. Four years later, Malala says of the moment, “We don’t learn the importance of anything until it’s snatched from our hands… Education is power for women, and that is why the terrorists are scared of education.”

Let's Give the Middle East a Break (Week in Review)

What with all the discussion in recent weeks of Syria, Iran, and the situation in the Middle East in general, I think I speak on behalf of my colleagues when I say we are growing a bit tired of the repetitive writing (as I'm sure our readers are growing tired of reading repetitive pieces!) It's highly relevant though, not to just to the immediate region but to the entire global political arena, and therefore is high priority on our list of things to discuss each week - and will continue to be. However, this Friday I thought it would be nice to do a broader week-in-review, highlighting some other important events and situations taking place around the globe. For those who want to read about Syria and Iran, I would recommend this article and this interview. Otherwise, here are some other notable things from the last week:

Sudan: Over the past week, Sudan has seen some of the worst unrest in years - perhaps in a decade. This is interesting when put in the context of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir being the recipient of virtually universal vitriol over his publicly expressed desire to apply for a U.S. visa and attend the UN General Assembly this week. Sudan has officially lifted major subsidies on fuel, substantially raising the prices for consumers in the country, which resulted in inevitable protests. Things turned ugly when the police cracked down on these protestors, injuring and killing several. The Sudanese public retaliated with a much more violent protest of over 3,000 people, who have been clashing with police in Khartoum for several days now. Death tolls are estimated at around 50 so far - all civilians with gunshots to the head or chest.

Qatar: The publication the Guardian has revealed egregious and horrific mistreatment of Nepalese workers helping Qatar prepare for the 2020 World Cup, their report shows. These workers, of which there are thousands, have been dying at almost one-per-day since the World Cup work began. Numerous human rights groups across the globe have spoken out, calling the situation "modern slavery" and urging for international humanitarian intervention or, at the very least, Qatar to assuage concerns and begin to improve the workers' living and working conditions.

Italy: The Italian government is (shocker) on the verge of political bedlam in the coming weeks, as numerous center-right MPs vowing allegiance to former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi have threatened to resign from government should he lose his seat in the Senate. Mr. Berlusconi was recently convicted of tax fraud, and faces a vote from a Senate Committee October 4th which will decide whether or not he loses his Senatorial seat. President Napolitano will then face a choice - should his acolytes in Parliament follow him out of government, Napolitano will either have to dissolve Parliament altogether, or dissolve and rebuild a new coalition government (neither an optimal choice).

Pakistan: Pakistan has been in the news a lot this week. On Tuesday, Pakistan experienced a 7.7-magnitude earthquake that left behind a death toll upwards of 250. Later this past week, Pakistan announced plans to continue developing a gas pipeline that will stretch into Iran - a brazen violation of U.S. economic sanctions currently imposed on Iran. It looks like the U.S.-Pakistan relationship will continue to be strained.

Finally, Pakistan has experienced a surge in terrorist-related violence this past week, the most recent occurring yesterday in Peshawar as a bus explosion killed 18 and wounded at least 44. Given that Pakistan will continue needing U.S. aid and encouragement in combatting terrorist cells that wreak havoc weekly in the country, it is probably in Pakistan's best interest to try and reach a compromise regarding their proposed pipeline.

No Coup is Good Coup: Pakistan's 2013 Elections

In a country whose history is marred by military interference, ranging from bullying to outright takeover, the first peaceful democratic transition from one civilian government to another is about to take place. On May 11, 2013, Pakistan held general elections that resulted in two-time Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League taking at least 125/272 seats. The world’s fifth-largest democracy appears to be on the verge of finally deserving its title.

Thumbs up: A woman casts her ballot in Lahore. (AP Photo/K.M. Chaudary)

Since independence in 1947, there have been three successful and many more unsuccessful military coups in Pakistan. In its 66 years of independence, Pakistan has spent 33 years under military rule. Although elections have taken place in the interim, the public’s perception of military control over civilian governments has historically led to low voter turnout in elections. The previous election in 2008, which transferred power from the coup-initiated government of Gen. Pervez Musharraf, saw only a 44 percent turnout amid widespread reports of election fraud. Saturday’s election already has a projected 60 percent turnout, an increase that indicates a return of voter confidence that their voices would not go unheard.

PM-elect Nawaz Sharif’s victory has also boded well for Pakistan’s struggling economy. The Karachi stock exchange jumped to historic highs once Sharif’s win became apparent. He is viewed as a free market, pro-business politician that will focus his efforts on increasing Pakistani trade, especially with traditional enemy India. Sharif himself was toppled in a military coup led by Gen. Musharraf in 1999, spending several years in exile until returning to a more favorable political climate in 2007. Musharraf was forced into exile in turn at the end of his rule, and in a hugely symbolic case was arrested following his return in March 2013 and charged with corruption in one case, and also placed under house arrest for his role in Benazir Bhutto’s assassination in another.

The detention of the military’s old guard aside, Saturday’s election success came amid widespread pre-election violence and threats, which makes the high voter turn-out all the more impressive. Sixty-four people were killed in attacks on election day itself, while over 100 have died in pre-election violence. The son of former PM Yousef Raza Gilani, Ali Haider Gilani, was kidnapped in May, and the police chief of Balochistan’s home in Quetta was bombed. Despite these high-profile incidents of violence, even in the most dangerous districts voters would not be deterred from the polls.

Pakistan’s new government faces large and looming problems as it takes office: a destitute economy, a severe shortage of electricity, and ongoing homegrown terrorism. While on the first two issues Sharif has strong prospects for success, he has a lukewarm history of fighting terror. His power base derives from Punjab province, home to several terrorist organizations including Lakshar-e-Taiba, and he depends upon their constituents’ support in elections. Even with this obstacle to peace in Pakistan, the country still has a stronger democracy, more assertive and independent judiciary, freer media, more extensive youth engagement, and better relations with India than it has had in decades. Pakistan will depend on continued improvement in the years to come: American withdrawal from Afghanistan is right around the corner in 2014, and the chaos that will almost certainly ensue on Pakistan’s border will require Sharif’s government to uphold its promises of democracy more fervently than ever before. 

At Bagram Prison, US leaves behind legacy of cruelty

On the tail end of Pres. Obama’s trip throughout the Middle East, Secretary of State John Kerry made his first trip to Afghanistan in his new position, during which he announced the turnover of Bagram Prison (or Parwan Detention Center, as it’s now known) to Afghan control. The detention center has been a hotspot in US-Afghanistan relations since President Karzai began his repeated demands for the prison and associated air base to be placed under Afghan jurisdiction during President Obama’s first term. Yet during Pres. George W. Bush’s terms in office, Bagram was infamous for more than causing political tensions: it was known as the “Afghan Guantanamo,” a stopover spot for suspected terrorists to be vetted before they went to Cuba. Allegations of torture and other inhumane treatment abounded from prisoners, many of who were later cleared of any wrongdoing.

Prisoners and guards inside Bagram. Source: AP

The New York Times brought national attention to the mistreatment of prisoners in Bagram when it published a 2005 investigation into the 2002 deaths of two detainees: Habibullah and Dilawar. Both men suffered extreme beatings at the hands of US service members who were both undertrained and undersupervised as they reached beyond the bounds of acceptable interrogations. Their methods of full-body suspension, threats with attack dogs, sleep deprivation, peroneal strikes, and more would later turn up in the case files at Abu Ghraib. In many ways, Bagram appears to have been the staging ground for many interrogators' later careers in the Gulf. While Habibullah was almost certainly guilty of supporting terrorists, Dilawar turned out to be a hapless taxi driver who was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, and died for it. Several US military personnel were charged for the deaths, yet if the torture was systemic (as it appears to have been), it will take more than uprooting a few bad seeds to fix the problem.