Two-time Pulitzer Prize winning journalist and author Nicholas Kristof sat down with The Herald after speaking in Salomon 101 Thursday night. The New York Times columnist discussed his bestselling book "Half the Sky," what issues are most important and what can constitute "leverage for change."
Herald: As you described tonight, "Half the Sky" tells the story of a variety of women from different backgrounds, all overcoming similar obstacles. And the book really explores very bleak subject matter: human trafficking, prejudice against women and the inequality these institutions perpetuate, but it evokes a really empowering tone throughout. How did you manage to maintain that tone?
Kristof: We really tried to make it kind of uplifting. We think that people sometimes get scared away from these issues because they think it's depressing, and, sure, there are some things that happen that are just heartbreaking. But overall, it seems to us that there is real progress, and there's potential for more progress on empowering women all over the world. So we wanted to convey that this is a story of hope and that there are some incredibly inspiring rode models out there.
And who was your intended audience for the book? Why is it important for students at Brown to read and learn about the issues in the developing world?
There's a sense that the hardcore international relations issues are things like Russian-American relations, nuclear warheads, Middle East peace, and that's all important, but there's this emerging set of issues like human trafficking, the environment, human rights. So we think these are profoundly important as well. And when you look at where you have leverage to bring about change, then frankly, empowering women and girls has ... an awful lot more leverage than you have in other areas.
And in a more general sense, where and how do you draw inspiration for your column in the times? With such an international focus, it must be difficult to pinpoint the issues you want to highlight - especially considering the relative power of your columns in that they often serve to push issues into the national dialogue.
I look for issues that are not currently on the agenda, but that, if I write about them, I can make people spill their coffee in the morning and get them on the agenda.
Recently, there has been a ton of media fervor around the case of a young Pakistani girl who was targeted and attacked by the Taliban in a very vicious fashion. A pessimist would ask why this particular case is any more important than the violence going on each and every day in the Middle East. Or even, for example, some of the women you highlight in "Half the Sky" who endured similar if not worse tortures. What do you think is so special about Malala - why is her case getting so much international attention?
I think that Malala reached people's hearts because she showed this incredible courage, this passion for education. In a country where there has not been a lot of real leadership, she showed true, moral leadership. I wrote about Malala today in my column, and one of the reasons was because I think that when we in the United States think about what leverage we have over countries, we tend to emphasize the military toolbox. And that's an important toolbox. You need that. But I think that education is also a hugely important toolbox to influence other countries, and I think we tend to underinvest in that toolbox. I think that Malala has kind of the bright idea that that's actually where you can bring ... more profound change than anywhere else.
In your column today, you wrote, "The greatest risk for violent extremists in Pakistan isn't American drones. It's educated girls." Can you explain what you meant by that? In what way do you think an educated class of women can pose resistance to the Pakistani government?
In both Afghanistan and Pakistan, I've seen the degree to which educated women - when they are in a household - they have a profound impact on their sons. Their sons don't end up joining the Taliban. They're also going to have fewer kids. Educated women tend to have many fewer children. In many ways, the phenomenon of extremism is about having these huge youth bulges. ... That's what you have when you have uneducated women, you have these huge families and this huge youth bulge population. So I think the Taliban knew exactly what it was doing when they targeted Malala. I think they legitimately saw her and girls' education as a huge threat to their influence in Pakistan or in Afghanistan. And I think it is a battle that has formed for girls' education - that's leverage for change.
What is the next step after education? You talked a little about Hillary Clinton during your lecture tonight. As a powerful symbol and figurehead for the U.S., what do you think someone like her represents for girls around the world? And, conversely, what do you think the lack of more figures like Secretary Clinton shows girls?
The evidence is that women leaders don't actually make a vast difference. In "Half the Sky" we looked at 'Does it matter if you have a woman president or woman prime minister?' and it turns out not to make a lot of difference for girls' education, for girl mortality. I think Hillary Clinton is actually someone who has - as part of her role as secretary of state - emphasized these issues. But I think, in general, women at the top have not. So, I think one can overplay the importance of having gender in top positions. I think there's pretty good evidence that it matters if you have women as village chiefs, as local grassroots leaders. There's good empirical evidence that that matters a great deal for policy.
- Sona Mkrttchian
