When it comes to women's rights in Afghanistan, the cynics were right
The US and international allies have long used women’s rights as a central rational to remain in Afghanistan. This was more about maintaining public support than meaningful outcomes for women.
Emily Nickerson (EN) is a graduate student at the Max Bell School of Public Policy where she is co-editor of The Bell. Emily is passionate about promoting sustainable, inclusive growth, and ensuring that natural resources are well governed. Write us at newsletterthebell@gmail.com
WOMEN IN AFGHANISTAN and rights groups are reeling after Joe Biden announced last week that the United States would be withdrawing completely from Afghanistan by September 11, 2021.
In his speech, Biden essentially declared “mission accomplished” in Afghanistan, saying that the threat from al-Qaeda had been neutralized and Afghanistan was no longer able to serve as a base from which terrorist groups could launch attacks on the US. “We were attacked. We went to war with clear goals. We achieved those objectives,” Biden said.
As for the other objectives and rationales that have been layered onto the original counter-terrorism mission, such as building a stable democracy and protecting the rights of women and girls in Afghanistan, Biden has been almost shockingly dismissive. During last fall’s election campaign, he told a reporter he would feel “zero responsibility” if the status of Afghan women suffered after a US withdrawal. And administration officials have made it clear that leaving Afghanistan by the 20th anniversary of the terrorist attacks that launched the global war on terror is a hard deadline that will not be affected by security conditions in Afghanistan. It’s going to be good bye, and good luck.
Yet this insouciance about security, stability, and the status of women is at odds with the terms laid out in a set of principles designed to fast track the ongoing Afghanistan peace talks between the Islamic Republic and the Taliban, which were leaked in early March. In those documents, the Biden administration appeared to be trying to correct the shortcomings of the previous administration that negotiated terms for ceasefire, prisoner swap, and US troop exit directly with the Taliban, without participation of the Afghan government. Not only did women’s rights fall by the wayside during these talks in February 2020, but the legitimization of the Taliban by directly negotiating with them has many wondering whether the decades of rhetoric that promoted participation in the war in Afghanistan as a fight for women’s rights was simply a guise to maintain public support.
To recap: with the capture of Kabul in 1996, the Taliban expanded their control to three quarters of Afghanistan and ended the Afghan Civil War. The Taliban takeover of the country included implementing a particularly harsh form of Sharia law. During the years under their rule, the Taliban drew widespread condemnation for their treatment of women, who were banned from attending school, largely barred from working, severely restricted from going outside, denied health care, and subjected to extreme violence. After the Taliban refused to turn over al-Qaeda leaders responsible for the 9/11 attacks on the US, including Osama bin Laden, the US overthrew the Taliban in late 2001. This set in motion a war now 20 years in the making with over 150,000 deaths.
Almost since the start, there has been mixed messaging about the rationale for the war in Afghanistan. Just days after President George W. Bush announced the “war on terror,” First Lady Laura Bush emphasized that this war was for women’s liberation. And even as the rhetoric of the war on terror faded, the protection of women’s rights continued to be a core justification for the American presence in Afghanistan. It was also a substantial pretext for NATO’s ongoing participation in the war.
Indeed, even as the war stretched on and it became increasingly obvious that it was un-winnable, the mission objectives expanded from very narrow counter-terrorism objectives to broader nation-building ambitions. Throughout this time, the protection of women was used by successive administrations to maintain public support, even as internal documents showed that women’s rights were not within reach, and that US and NATO allies were largely losing ground on all fronts, noting increasing instability and incessant corruption in Afghanistan.
Fast forward to today, many are concerned about what an agreement resulting from the current peace talks could mean for the protection of women. Though the Taliban have maintained that they would allow women to go to school, questions remain about whether they would renege on this promise if they return to power. Mawlai Qalamuddin, former deputy head of the Taliban’s Promotion of Virtue and Elimination of Vice, insisted that restrictions on women’s education in the past were largely due to a lack of infrastructure, including an absence of designated schools for women and safe transportation. However, groups such as Human Rights Watch emphasize that the Taliban commitment to education is inconsistent. The Taliban are still said to restrict girls’ access to education in many regions of Afghanistan, across the 65 percent of the country that they currently control.
Through direct negotiation with the Taliban last year, the US has not only legitimized the Taliban internationally but also set the peace talks up to be centred on power sharing. As peace talks now continue between the Taliban and the Afghan government, many are worried women’s rights will not be protected, or will simply remain an aspiration on paper that few Afghan women will ever experience. Compounding concerns, Afghan President Ashraf Ghani may be willing to make concessions related to women as he increases the role of opposition figures in the peace talks, including older, mujahideen-era elites, and back-channel communications between Afghan opposition leadership and the Taliban may be expanding.
There is no doubt that some progress has been made to advance women’s rights over the years. Women are substantially more active in Afghan society, from attending school to holding public office. Now, 40 percent of schoolchildren are girls and 27 percent of parliamentarians are women. But this could all be undermined now that the US wants out, with fast-tracked talks to meet the May 2021 deadline for withdrawing US troops.
When Biden’s secret peace plan was leaked back in March, the inclusion of provisions for protecting these gains gave hope that “women’s rights” was more than just a cynical rationale to maintain public support for the war and hide questionable outcomes. He could have doubled down by emphasizing, in public, that protecting women needs to be central to the negotiation, and that US troop withdrawal and financial support for a future Afghan government is contingent on whether this priority is upheld. While Biden committed in his speech last week to maintaining humanitarian and development assistance, this should be contingent on whether the Afghan government continues to protect and advance women's rights.
Hope has largely evaporated that women’s rights will be prioritized as the US retreats from Afghanistan. The Taliban’s commitment to uphold women’s rights is tenuous at best, and President Ghani seems willing to make concessions as he flanks his circle with more opposition figures in a desperate attempt to maintain power.
The cynics have been proven correct, and Afghan women see terrible days ahead. (EN)
Read: Is Canada as cool as it thinks? Weigh in on the recent Olympics jean jacket uniform debate.
Listen: Born Ruffians made history releasing three albums - Pulp, Squeeze, Juice - during the pandemic. Give them a listen.
Watch: From the Big Bang to multicellularity in one minute.
___
The Bell is edited by Emily Nickerson, Mariel Aramburu, and Andrew Potter of the Max Bell School of Public Policy at McGill University. If you have any feedback or would like to contribute to this newsletter, please send an email to the editors at newsletterthebell@gmail.com