On Tuesday a Taliban member shot an
activists for women’s rights and education in the head. Malala Yousafzai at the
mere age of 14 was the victim of this outrageous attack. The Taliban targeted Yousafzai
for her active voice to promote women’s rights and education. She mainly spoke
out on these issues in a blog under a pen name. But this didn’t stop the
Taliban from tracking her down. When the Taliban exercised vast power before
the war they banned education for women and severely limited women’s rights.
The outcry by Yousafzai contradicted these values set in place by the Taliban.
In response the Taliban threatened to shut down the women’s school in which
Yousafzai attends and to eliminate her. Even with the threat in place,
Yousafzai brave enough embraced for the worst and attended school. However, the
Taliban was serious about their threat and they carried out the attack and shot
Yousafzai in the head. After the attack, she was rushed to the hospital where
she is currently listed as in critical condition. Pakistani Taliban spokesman
Ehsanullah Ehsan said, “She is a Western-minded girl and we will target anyone
who speaks against the Taliban” (NY
Daily News). Ehsan’s statement captures the essence of the seriousness for
the Taliban to claim their dominance over the Pakistani people. (BBC, BBC Video)
![]() |
| Yousuf Raza Gilani, Pakistan's prime minister, presents Malala Yousafzai with a National Youth Peace Prize. |
Yousafzai’s actions to defy the Taliban should be a message sent to the Pakistani people and to the rest of the world. The courageous acts of Yousafzai should be a signal to all people that the Taliban can be stopped. The Taliban is only one group of people and with the courage and strength of the Pakistani people and other intervening peoples they can be halted and shut down. They are not invincible. If Yousafzai, who is only 14-years-old, can stand up for what she believes in then there must be others out there who are willing to do the same thing. All that needs to happen is for all these activists and intervening people to collaborate one common plan of action. The Taliban can be stopped, it’s going to take the right mindset, but with actions like Yousafzai maybe this idea is not far out and could potentially occur within the near future.
Now, it is
important to point out the arguments Walzer makes in his book Just and Unjust Wars about intervention.
Walzer’s claims for justified intervention are drawn up through the legalist paradigm.
Walzer asserts that intervention is acceptable if it involves human rights and
other humanitarian concerns. Now, according to the article Yousafzai was shot
over her claims for women’s rights and education. Under Walzer’s justification,
Yousafzai actions would fall under human rights. She has been oppressed by a
terrorist group and is being denied rights in which all humans should be granted.
Also the Taliban has shot a young woman and will continue to cause violent acts
that will inflict upon humanitarian concerns. I now believe that after this
specific attack, nations from around the world should open up their eyes to the
violence that is happening. These nations under Walzer’s ideals have the
justification to intervene within the conflict. The Pakistani people and other
nations should be motivated to shut the Taliban down for good, to ensure
humanitarian values.

A very nice post, William. I was especially interested in your claim at the end, that this incident might license armed intervention, at least by Walzer's standards. First off, this is a nice connection to course material, and I'm thrilled to see you doing it so early...I hope you continue to draw similar connections in the future. But second, and more to the point, doesn't Walzer think that human rights violations have to be "massive" in order to justify intervention? And isn't it the Afganistan government's job, along with the US troops there on the ground, to protect Afghans' human rights? I want you to think more carefully about how an intervention in Afghanistan against the Taliban's human rights violations would proceed. Should countries be allowed to intervene unilaterally, all by themselves if necessary, to stop the abuses? How would the US respond to that? Or the fledgling Afghan government?
ReplyDelete