Print
Share
Women and Girls Here…or Everywhere?
March 13, 2009
The Executive Order signed by President Obama this week creating the White House Council on Women and Girls signals that the Administration recognizes that special consideration is warranted to make sure government policies and programs don’t reinforce discrimination against women and girls — and in some instances should spur extra efforts to overcome gender-related economic and social barriers. But in the official announcement the messages are mixed about whether this concern will extend to the country’s international engagement. Any who doubt that it should need only consult a CGD report I co-authored: Girls Count: A Global Investment & Action Agenda.
In establishing the Council, Obama said, “the purpose of this Council is to ensure that American women and girls are treated fairly in all matters of public policy.” Americans, eh? But the composition of the Council, which includes the Secretary of State and the U.S. Trade Representative, hints at the potential to extend the mandate to consider the effects of U.S. policy on girls and women in other countries. And one of the first-year tasks laid out — “Working hand-in-hand with the Vice President, the Justice Department’s Office of Violence Against Women and other government officials to find new ways to prevent violence against women, at home and abroad” — could be interpreted as an opening to address at least one of the major manifestations of female disadvantage in the developing world.
The Council’s chair, Valerie Jarrett, and the executive director, Tina Tchen, should dash through that opening. They should be bold in interpreting the Council’s mandate to include examination of how America’s policies and programs affect the lives and livelihoods of girls and women in countries with which the United States has active diplomatic, economic, development and/or military engagement. The reason to look beyond our shores is self-evident: the wellbeing of women and girls in India, China, South Africa, Pakistan and virtually every other country shapes our collective destiny. Whether girls are educated and women have economic opportunities and dominion over resources are central determinants of the rate of growth of population and the health of the next generation. Young women in light manufacturing are integral to the global supply chain. (Remember those lead-filled toys from China? They were made by young women, who themselves were exposed to poison while they worked.) Getting a handle on HIV/AIDS prevention in the most heavily affected countries — the countries that we’re sending AIDS drugs to when prevention fails — can’t happen without looking at the realities of adolescent girls. In some countries, out of every four HIV+ young people, three are girls.
The risk of going for a broad vision is that the Council will lose focus and accomplish little. So let me respectfully offer five specifics about what the Council could do to embrace a truly global agenda:
1. Ask the U.S. Treasury to instruct the U.S. executive director of the World Bank to question how the proposed “Vulnerability Fund” will address the particular needs of women and girls affected by the global economic crisis. Don’t be satisfied with responses about the “safety net”; ask, too, about how investments in infrastructure and small business creation will be responsive to gender issues — and how the Bank will monitor results.
2. Call up the Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator and ask what PEPFAR has done for adolescent girls lately. For PEPFAR’s 15 focus countries, ask for incidence and prevalence by age and gender, and then find out what girl-focused prevention programs are in place — supported by the United States or others — and how we know whether they’re working.
3. Ask the Millennium Challenge Corporation to report on (a) the extent to which the 17 selection criteria incorporate metrics related to policies that foster the welfare of girls and women; (b) whether gender analysis is routinely conducted in the design of MCC programs; and (c) whether gender-specific issues are examined in MCC evaluations.
4. Invite USAID to present to the Council its strategy to reduce gender-based violence, including how much money went toward implementing programs in 2008, and how much will be programmed in 2009 and 2010.
5. Challenge the President’s close advisors to find one example to highlight in the 2010 State of the Union Address of a women in a low-income country whose life prospects were significantly improved by something — anything — resulting from American policy other than through an aid program.
All very do-able. All very useful, symbolically and substantively, to make sure that the Council is making its full contribution.
Share 
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
4 Responses to “Women and Girls Here…or Everywhere?”
Post a Comment
We value frank and constructive exchanges and encourage you to use your real name in your comments.
March 13th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
Great post Ruth! Other recent news suggests that women and girls everywhere is a priority issue for this administration: A sub-committee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, chaired by Barbara Boxer, charged with global women’s issues AND the State Department has named naming a new position of special ambassador for global women’s issues and appointed Melanne Verveer, the head of Vital Voices. So, the structures are being put in to place to tackle women’s issues, but to what end? Your suggestions for a concrete agenda of action are very timely and can begin to make that difference between a real agenda for women’s issues that has some results vs. an agenda that is high in the policy clouds. The forthcoming paper from the HIV/AIDS Monitor http://www.cgdev.org/hivmonitor will show how high level policy making on HIV/AIDS and gender vulnerabilities is an art that both donors and recipient countries have perfected, but implementation of those policies in Uganda, Mozambique and Zambia that really improves women and girls’ lives is less than perfect. As Nicolas Kristof writes in his NYT blog, http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/13/womens-issues-getting-traction/ women’s issues are not just about human rights and justice, but also about economic development (which you also describe in your blog).
” Women’s issues are rising on this new foreign policy agenda partly for reasons of simple justice. If human rights deserve attention, for example, they include not only the dissidents who are imprisoned for their politics but also the incomparably greater number of girls who are kidnapped into brothels or burned to death because their dowries are inadequate. But this isn’t just a justice issue. It’s also a matter of economic development. One of the things we’ve learned over the last 15 years is that you can’t fight poverty effectively unless you educate, emancipate and empower women, and bring them into the formal economy. So, with these new positions, onward!”
Onwards and downwards–from high level policies to action on the ground.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:06 pm
while I agree that the wording choice of “American” women and girls was not the best choice of words but i do not believe it is something that should be overly looked into..Obama has already proved his universal concerns, equality to all race/gender and is even acting upon those~ I believe people just need to be more educated and not so easily set off by mere wordage.
March 17th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Yes thank you for this post, and let’s hope the Council will address global issues. Recall that Vice President Biden introduced the International Violence Against Women Act last year in the Senate, which might be one reason why this issue flagged in the White House press release about the new Council.
I would add a couple of other suggestions to your list of concrete ways the Council could :
– ask the State Department and the Ambassador to the UN whether the United States will strongly champion a new, stronger and better-financed UN agency for women that will oversee gender issues for the UN as a whole as well as on-the-ground programs that promote gender equality. The General Assembly is expected to act on this proposal by next September.
– ask PEPFAR to develop a clear gender strategy, which should include measurable objectives, targets, and timelines. Also ask them when they are going to adopt indicators that measure improvements in women’s and girls’ lives, as they began to do last year, but new indicators were never finalized. Congress called for this in the reauthorization bill last year, but the agency has shown it needs to be pushed to take gender seriously.
– ask USAID about progress on its Gender Action Plan, which was adopted in 1996 and called for, among other things, a senior gender advisor in USAID’s Bureau of Policy and Planning, modifying the agency’s strategic framework to reflect gender, considerations, and incorporating gender into the agency’s management reforms and management training. Were any of these steps ever taken? Where is its strategy or action plan now?
March 18th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
I like Ruth’s clear and specific list. I propose just one amendment or better addition, using Ruth’s language on #5:
Challenge the President’s close advisors to find one example to highlight in the 2010 State of the Union Address of a women in a low-income country whose ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTION — as in “WOMENOMICS” (from Dina Powell at Goldman Sachs) TO HER COMMUNITY AND COUNTRY WAS MADE POSSIBLE by something — anything — resulting from American policy other than through an aid program.