Malala Yousufzai has campaigned from the age of 11 for something our children never think twice about. The right for girls in Pakistan's Swat Valley to go to a school near them, without fearing for their safety and without their virtue being called into question. And for that she was shot in the head and neck by the Taliban.
Thankfully, the news is promising and it seems that following an operation to remove the bullet lodged in her brain, Malala is now making good progress at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham.
Following this act of immense cowardice by the Taliban - an attempted assassination of a child activist - condemnation has echoed around the world. Obama called the shooting, "reprehensible, disgusting, tragic", Ban Ki-moon called it "a heinous and cowardly act", while William Hague described Malala as as "inspirational example for young people". And we can be proud that we followed up our warm words with practical support and that some of our best medical staff will be doing everything they can to help Malala recover.
But this incident shines an uncomfortably bright light on one of the darkest realities of our foreign policy today. In far too many countries, many of them our allies, women and girls aren't even second class citizens, they are prisoners of war. I honestly can't think of another way to describe someone who is not allowed an education, who cannot choose what to wear or when to go out, where to go or with whom, who cannot drive a car or choose who to talk to or what they can say to them, who cannot seek confidential medical treatment (or sometimes any medical treatment), and whose husbands, brothers or really any men are permitted, certainly by culture and sometimes by law, to beat and rape them. In different degrees, we are talking about the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), about Libya, about Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Burma, North Korea, Nepal, Afghanistan ... I could go on but I want you to keep reading, not to give up in despair.
On the surface there's good reason to despair - the problems seem so entrenched, historical and widespread. What hope is there for change and even if change were possible what could we, the UK, possibly do to help anyway?
The hope lies in the very fact that in all of these countries, without exception, there are other girls and women like Malala, who are not simply victims, they are not even primarily victims, instead they are campaigners and activists calling for the right to go to school, get medical help, not to be beaten or raped and to be able to get medical assistance and justice if they are. And for this courage, like Malala, they and their families often face death threats, physical abuse and being stigmatised within their communities. But in the face of apparently overwhelming odds change is happening. The DRC has recently had landmark rape convictions of senior military commanders, women across the Middle East and North Africa stood alongside men calling for democracy, freedom, equality and a say in their future, and we all know the impact of Aung San Suu Kyi's stand against the Burmese military junta.
These girls and women are the single greatest resource for change in their countries and if we want our foreign affairs and international development policy to genuinely put women at its heart (as we are repeatedly assured), then this is who we should be supporting, protecting and promoting.
That is why this week I am chairing an event in parliament hosted by Amnesty International, GAPS, Peace Brigades and Womankind Worldwide, which will bring together women human rights defenders from Colombia, Iran, Kenya, Mexico and Nepal with UK Government officials, parliamentarians and legal experts. I hope we will be able to find new ways for all governments, including the UK, to offer greater support and protection for the vital and courageous work of human rights defenders like Malala Yousufzai.
Thirdly, yes we should valorize women activists and campaigners who play an important role in bringing about change but at the same time calling them the 'single greatest resource for change in their countries' is a bit of an over simplification and is somewhat of a romantic notion that overlooks the reality on the ground. Simply funding projects to promote such women might be futile given that very often such women don’t exist or then cannot speak out due to structural inequality. So before we go on to use aid to strengthen the role of such women we must ask ourselves whether it will really make more women come forward or lead movements. The reality is that power structures have oppressed so many women in so many developing countries for so long and while looking for women’s human rights defenders groups to support there must be a focus on tackling things such as poverty, lack of resources such as health and education which I mentioned above so that every woman can be a defender of her own human rights and those of other women around her. This is not to say that I dont believe that there should be a focus on women’s human rights defenders, but think that it must not take away from the fact that lasting change for women in developing countries comes from more than defending women’s human rights but in fact from tackling what prevents women from having rights in the first place.
Firstly I think that the way you have described the fate of women in southern countries is patronising and almost creates an 'us' vs. 'them' dichotomy where it is obvious that the power to 'save' is with 'us' not 'them'. Yes many of the problems in the global south are historical and entrenched but the way you speak about it almost seems to 'Other' the developing world making it look as if the developed world is free from any gender injustice.
Secondly since I have grown up and spent a majority of my life in Pakistan, I can tell you that there are countless Malala's there who suffer everyday but continue to be overlooked. Their problems don’t come just from the Taliban but the everyday nature of poverty, inequality, lack of funding in for health and education, gender discrimination, lack of access to resources and so on. So while on the one hand it is important to recognise the injustices committed by the Taliban, on the other hand it is as important if not more to see that the problem is deeper than the Taliban and other entities like it.
I wonder, then, why you voted for Nadine Dorries' bill to outlaw abortion providers such as Marie Stopes from providing abortion advice, a bill which would have drastically reduced women's ability to make informed choices about their own health. I also wonder why you continue to oppose David Cameron's plans to legalise gay marriage, which will bring more equality to many, both men and women, who are currently unable to marry those they love.