Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Trading Afghan Women's Rights for Political Power
New Afghan Law Comes as No Surprise: Women’s Rights Have Always Been Traded for Political Power
The proposed new Afghan law requiring (among other things), women to have sex with their husbands on demand and not leave home unescorted, has shocked the West. But for women in Afghanistan whose rights have always been bargaining chips to be given or taken away for political gain, it comes as no surprise. Despite the rhetoric from the Bush Administration in 2001 that “to fight against terrorism is also a fight for the rights and dignity of women (Laura Bush),” Bush’s own military strategy set the stage for the new Taliban-like law today. In hiring the fundamentalist warlords of the Northern Alliance to defeat the Taliban, the US knowingly sacrificed women’s rights for political gain.
The Northern Alliance warlords were notorious misogynists, criticized harshly by women’s rights groups like the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA). In statement made days after the fall of the Taliban, RAWA urgently declared that “[t]he people of the world need to know that in terms of widespread raping of girls and women from ages seven to seventy, the track record of the Taliban can in no way stand up against that of [the] … Northern Alliance.” It was a warning that went ignored to the detriment of all Afghan people, but especially women, who time and again have been promised liberation by (mostly male) warlords, foreign and domestic.
A Brief History of “Saving” Afghan Women
In 1979 the USSR invaded its Southern neighbor in part, it was said, to free women from the tyranny of Afghan fundamentalists. To that end, the Soviets even instituted some reformist laws during their brutal decade-long occupation granting city-dwelling women greater access to employment and education than before.
In response to the occupation and its reforms, extremist “Mujahadeen” leaders, taking advantage of the popular sentiment against the Soviet occupation, and of the billions of dollars of weapons and training from the US, waged a fierce war, again partly to “save” Afghan women from the “Godless communists.” After the Soviets left, these fundamentalist warlords turned their weapons on their own people, particularly women. According to Amnesty International, rape was “condoned … as a means of terrorizing conquered populations and of rewarding soldiers.”
When the Taliban emerged in the mid-90s, sponsored by Afghanistan’s southern neighbor, Pakistan, they quickly swept into power, taking over the majority of the country. As expected, part of their mission was to “save” Afghan women from the violence of the Mujahadeen. They “fulfilled” their promise by being much better at enforcing many of the same harsh anti-woman edicts that were instigated by their Mujahadeen predecessors.
Enter Bush in October 2001, fresh from the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, ready to wage a “war on terror” to, (you guessed it) “save” Afghan women from the medieval-minded Taliban.
This pattern continues to the present with the Obama Administration making the same claims. At the March 2009 International Conference on Afghanistan, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made it clear that “women’s rights are a central part of American foreign policy.”
Women’s Rights Systematically Eroded During US Occupation
Every step of the way, instead of being liberated, Afghan women have suffered: from the devastation of war and foreign occupation, to nation-wide oppression by indigenous and regionally imported fundamentalists. The past seven years have been no different since the launch of the US war in October 2001. Granted, at first many women were encouraged to start reentering civil society. But any progress made on the rights of women and girls was mostly on paper and has since been dramatically eroded. This regression began when the Northern Alliance warlords were rewarded for their role in the war with top posts in the new government in 2001/02. With their political power, these warlords began strengthening their militias, and repeating their crimes against women. In 2002 then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld personally met the notorious warlord of Western Afghanistan Ismail Khan, referring to him in the press as “an appealing man.” Khan preserved Taliban-style edicts against women from 2002-2005 in Herat, arresting women for driving cars, appearing outdoors without a burqa, and speaking to journalists. Under his rule, local police even ordered hospital “chastity tests” on unescorted women.
Also in 2002 the US-backed then-interim president Hamid Karzai appointed a fundamentalist chief-justice, Faisal Ahmad Shinwari, who began interpreting Islamic law in a Taliban-like manner. Shinwari moved to reinstate the Taliban’s infamous Ministry for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice under a new name: the Ministry for Haj and Religious Affairs. As a result women were systematically denied justice, particularly when it involved so-called “honor” crimes, as documented by Amnesty International in a 2003 report, “No-one listens to us and no-one treats us as human beings.” More recently, there have been reports of women being imprisoned for being victims of rape. The Independent (UK) reported in August 2008 of rape victims serving 20 year sentences for the “crime” of “illegal sexual relations.”
In 2004 while women were buoyed by the declaration of their equality to men in the new Afghan Constitution, at the last moment their joy was marred by the inclusion of an all-encompassing clause that made all laws of the land subordinate to Sharia law. This clause was an obvious gesture to the fundamentalist power structure that was reinforced, not weakened, by the US intervention. A Human Rights Watch report “Women Under Attack for Asserting Rights,” detailed the constant intimidation facing women’s democratic participation by both the anti-government Taliban and the warlords.
While a token minority of women is allowed to serve in Parliament due to quotas, those who have spoken out about the domination of fundamentalists have learned the hard way that democratic representation is just a façade. Malalai Joya, the popular young representative from Farah province, is the only MP who has dared to openly criticize the warlords. She has survived 4 assassination attempts, been publicly threatened with rape, and ultimately kicked out of Parliament for her views. Afghans across the country demonstrated against her suspension.
Violence against women and girls has surged as fundamentalism has spread. Sexual assault, rape, domestic violence, and forced marriages to women and young girls, were denounced publicly in 2005 by the Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights on Violence against Women, its Causes and Consequences. Last December, the UN Population Fund conducted a survey that concluded that 1 in 4 Afghan women face sexual violence. The violence has led to unprecedented numbers of women, particularly in the Western province of Herat, to literally burn themselves to death. Doctors had never before witnessed such large numbers of self-immolation by women.
Even though after the fall of the Taliban government, many girls across the country began attending school, over the past several years a majority of schools have been systematically burned down or shut down out of fear of being burned down. In the south of Afghanistan, over 600 schools were shut down in the first few months of 2009. In recent months a group of girls in Kandahar was attacked by Taliban with battery acid on their way to school. According to UNICEF, fifty percent of Afghan children do not attend school.
All Afghans, including women, suffer from grinding poverty. While Afghanistan has been impoverished for decades now, over the last 7 years the situation has worsened to the point where 1 in 3 Afghans now suffer from severe poverty, according to the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission. The poverty is marked by a severe lack of adequate healthcare, particularly for women. Afghanistan suffers from one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the world (1 in 55), second only to Sierra Leone.
Trading Women’s Rights for Political Power
Most of these widely reported heinous abuses and overall oppression of Afghan women during the US/NATO occupation have failed to incite outrage from the West. It is no wonder then that President Hamid Karzai seemed taken aback by the righteous shock aimed at him by Western leaders for signing the new law reviving Taliban-like edicts against women. Karzai is simply continuing to implement a policy set down for him by his guides in Washington: appease misogynist fundamentalists to obtain “stability.” In 2002 then-US-Envoy Zalmay Khalilzad declared: “The question really is how to balance the requirements of peace, which sometimes necessitates difficult compromises, and the requirements of justice, which requires accountability.”
Karzai has clearly forsaken justice, but along the way has lost the peace as well. He has earned the ire of his people for subjugating their interests to those of the warlords’. Recently he has also fallen out of favor with his US/NATO benefactors, whose bombs have exacted a terrible civilian toll that he has publicly criticized. Thus, he has turned to his only power-base, the mostly Shia warlords in Parliament, in exchange for their support in this summer’s election. It is for these men that the new “family law” circumscribing women’s rights was quickly pushed through Parliament and signed.
Karzai’s actions are a direct result of the past seven years of Western policy. He is only doing what many others have done before him: trading Afghan women’s rights for political gain. For those of us who have seen this dirty game played many times over, it comes as no surprise.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
28 Comments so far
Show AllDoes anyone find it interesting the target is Shia women? The Taliban, greater parts of Pakistan, Al Qeada and other areas in the Middle East and Gulf practice a form of Sunni Islam called Wahhabism, exported by Saudi Arabia. This is an extremely fundamentalist sect who detest Shia as "dogs". Shia make up less than 10% of Afghanistan's Muslim population (world wide Shites are about 12% or so of the entire Muslim population). I fear there will be more to come, and it won't be pretty.
I hope everybody who reads this article googles RAWA. There are ways we can help the women and children. RAWA shows us what they need. We do not have to feel or be powerless about this situation. Also months ago I saw a Dan Rather interview in which he pointed out that we should be in contact with the women and children. RAWA has an extensive photo gallery of not only the suffering of the women and children but also their brave organized activity opposing what the Taliban does to them.
Take note ---------- The article states the USA occupation has caused a decline in womens rights and an increase in poverty.
There is no valid excuse for the Obama's USA war against Afghanistan's people.
double post
"Bush’s own military strategy set the stage for the new Taliban-like law today. In hiring the fundamentalist warlords of the Northern Alliance to defeat the Taliban, the US knowingly sacrificed women’s rights for political gain."
And when conservative's violent tactics blow back as they usually do, they can always blame the liberals.
Conservatives will always attack the liberals no matter what. The liberals should quit cowering to the conservatives, period. Take your chances, win or lose.
Right on the former. Liberals don't cower to conservatives though, they are simply more tolerant. But you're right. Conservatives should be engaged, not dismissed.
Sioux Rose
Years ago when the Taliban first took over there was an impressive article published by Ms. Magazine citing the cruel facts of life to women who had formerly been in significant career niches. Now they were all confined to virtual house arrest. Can readers in this forum begin to imagine what that is like? It must be a modern version of one of Dante's hells... to have trained for a profession, prepared to offer one's contribution to the world, only to have the ugly face and muscle of misogyny deny one's fundamental PERSONhood.
Any place that establishes unequal access to the basic fundaments of life becomes its own hell. Of course it's always been remarkable to me that sects that purportedly hate each other all conform to the same oppression of women; and had the facilitators been born elsewhere, would probably find comraderie with those whose sentiments match their own.
Although of small comfort, the long arm of karma will see that those who raped the 8 year old girl, or "married" her to "make it right" by Sharia law, will BE that 8 year old next time round.
I rant about MARS rules... when we see men in any and almost every culture use weapons or their often greater physical force to subdue and dehumanize women, this hatred of the feminine is all too present. It is bizarre to me the extent to which men will brutalize the BIRTH CANAL as an act of HATRED directed against life itself. They can make all their mantras to some male god, but the bottom line is, this disgusting abuse of women, the GIVERS of life, speaks for their "religion." It is diabolical as are they. This SICK and sickening trait can be found in men in all regions, of course in impoverished lands where people feel powerless, machismo orders tend to thrive most.
And that the US would add bombs and wounds to this zone already struggling with its own agonizing existence? So, too, does the US (largely through a celebration of and funding for its massive military) conform to a worship of "the god of big bang" and exploded ordnance, not any Giver of Life. Tragic does not begin to describe the levels of folly operating.
"Any place that establishes unequal access to the basic fundaments of life becomes its own hell."
That sure explains why my state of MS never pulled out of its economic slumber even in the best of times.
"Of course it's always been remarkable to me that sects that purportedly hate each other all conform to the same oppression of women; and had the facilitators been born elsewhere, would probably find comraderie with those whose sentiments match their own."
You hit the nail on the head ! If you compared the nasty Christian evangelicals all over my state to the Taliban in Afghanistan, you wouldn't be able to tell any characteristic difference between the two. Abusing women is still commonplace out here in the Magnolia as is rape and teen pregnancy. I don't know how minorities are treated in Afghanistan but if they're like MS, then we're in big trouble.
"And that the US would add bombs and wounds to this zone already struggling with its own agonizing existence? So, too, does the US (largely through a celebration of and funding for its massive military) conform to a worship of "the god of big bang" and exploded ordnance, not any Giver of Life. Tragic does not begin to describe the levels of folly operating."
The only way Obama will stop is if we keep getting stuck in more financial meltdowns. Dubya couldn't pull a war with Iran since the country's economic woes got worse year after year after the war in Iraq started.
One of my coworkers is Afghan and she gave me all the details about the freedom women had back up until the late 1970s and into the 1980s when it all declined. She even told me that her mother could dress up any way she wanted to without getting sexually harassed, even miniskirts and shorts. I was already disgusted with Barry last year when he campaigned for escalating the war in Afghanistan. My Afghan coworker begged me to change my mind of voting for Nader and consider Barry. I tried to convince her that a vote for Barry or McSame was a vote for more bloodshed in Afghanistan but she kept begging me to consider that maybe he'll soften up. I forgave her for voting for Barry as I understand the brainwashing that is so powerful. She has already lost 3 of her relatives in Afghanistan and another 8 relatives of her live in the most dangerous areas of the country and have long been reduced to total poverty status. Sometimes, I have to console her when she's upset about her losses and even worries about more to come. I'll bet there are plenty more in this country who have friends and/or family members living in Afghanistan who don't deserve to be put through any more such suffering. I've been trying to get my reps and sens to listen and tell Barry to stop but they won't listen so far. And then America wonders why Afghanistan hates her.
I'm glad to hear that you understand what your Afghan friend is going through. I wish your Afghan friend well and hope her relatives out there make it alive and well despite Obama's moving troops into that country. Good luck.
She had a tough time finding a job as it was and I remember interviewing her for the job position and thought she was very well qualified and in fact she has turned out to be an excellent employee. Unfortunately, before she could get in, I had to intervene and ask my boss to reconsider his rejection and my other 3 coworkers who also interviewed her also agreed and we wouldn't back down without a clear explanation. The next day he pretended that he just had a bad day and hired her in. It is pretty tough trying to figure out how to comfort someone who is worried that his or her relatives are in danger of losing their lives. Neither she nor I have any control over it. I wish there was a way. I assume that her 8 relatives are used to living in Afghanistan and I don't believe in begging people to just come to America because even in this country, Afghan immigrants get treated poorly often times.
TO RMG: I'm afraid you have it backwards. Actually, The Shia branch of the Muslim faith is much more conservative & repressive than that of the Sunni's. For eg., the Shia's are the only ones who still hold valid the practice of "temporary marriage", where a Shia man can "marry" a woman for a very short time - ef.24 hours (or more)- and at the end of that time the "marriage" is over. This is a way to protect Shia men from breaking their long-term marriage vows when they want to have sex with another woman other than their "long-term" wives, who are the ones with which they have their children, homes, etc. Shia's are much more oppressive to women than Sunni's are.
You have got to be kidding! There is nothing more repressive than Sunni Wahhabism. There are 4 nations who have a Shiite majority population, Iran, Iraq, Bahrain and one of the 'Stans (I always forget which one :)) - Lebanon would be the fifth if it wasn't for the size of their Christian population. Take a look at the treatment of women in these nations vs. the treatment in Sunni nations. I do agree with how wrong this whole thing is.
I wonder if my fellow Canadians serving in Afghanistan, like other Western troops, are actually accomplishing something with their sacrifices of blood and treasure. I mean, here we are dealing with the same institutional misogynous laws that the Taliban brought in, and we are the ones who are keeping Karzai in power. It is like so much madness.
You just catching on? Of course it's madness. The madness of the human garbage who rule the US filth empire and their stupid flunkies in Canada.
What is conspicuously from Sonali Kolhatkar's piece is any mention of Puktanwali (the Pashtun tribal honor code that includes some of the worst purdah restrictions upon women in the Muslim world). Kolhatkar ignores, omits, or simply can not fathom that Karzai is throwing a desperate sop to those whom would otherwise join the Taliban. Progressives should recall that Dubya, Cheney, & Co. did much the same thing, throwing a sop to their christian fundamentalist supporters by reversing sane polices in regards to choice and contraception, among other things. Karzai is doing the same thing.
The Pushtuns are not shia Nate. The minority Tajiks and Hazaras are shia.
Karzai is buying votes with this law. Lots of Afghans both men and women are disgusted and appalled by this horrendous law. 30 years of war has taken its toll on all of the Afghan civilians. The only winners have been the brutal fundamentalist war lords and the Taliban it seems. The war lords and radical mullahs have their members represented in parliament and in local governments. These people should not be holding office...hell they need Nuremberg style trials and the Afghan people are thirsty for justice after what the war lords did during the civil war. As for the Taliban they are supported by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. These nations are the source of that problem.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB227/index.htm
One more thing to point out though is the minority groups in Afghanistan the Tajiks, Hazaras, and Uzbeks have all traditionally treated thier women better then the Pushtuns. The women in Northern Afghanistan are still doing better then their southern sisters. More women in the north are working and enrolled in schools then the Pushtuns.
Wasn't Karzai some CIA worker or something? The CIA gets worshipped a lot as somehow critical for winning that war on terror crap. This country's still crazy to support that satanic agency who gave us Osama bin Laden.
Hi DCBeltway1,
I often wondered myself as to how the Afghan men could tolerate their women suffering like hell. Without mothers and wives, how do great men expect to succeed? Now with respect to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia supporting the Taliban, you're referring to the rulers and the militants, not the civilians correct?
Most Afghan men have also suffered though 30 years of war but the media doesn't report it. I'm married to one. He's been to hell and back poor soul. Whole families have been torn apart and destroyed from all the wars there people really have no idea.
Pakistan's ISI and some of the radicals in Saudi Arabia do support the Taliban. Most ordinary Pakistanis don't like the Taliban and are beggining to suffer under Pakistan's own frankenstein monster which has boomeranged back.
That's even more depressing than I thought. At this rate, Obama's invasion of those two countries will only strengthen their disgust with the USA. Pleased to meet you by the way. My remote and distant friend, whose userid is JWVerez on this site, who I once met in person when I visited my company's business partner, told me a lot about you and your foreign policy background. I only know so much myself about Afghanistan and its history. While I have a friendly Afghan coworker who's also a friend of mine since I protected her from hiring discrimination, I don't feel comfortable asking her about the politics and the situation in Afghanistan. She doesn't mind telling me and has volunteered to give a few dirty secrets away but I fear that she would lose what little happiness she has if I were to get her into the details. I hope it's not too much to ask from you a lot of what's going on and what the media hides. I'll look at your older posts as well.
P.S.:
You are a braveheart by the way to marry an Afghan. I'm not sure my parents will take it well if I choose to marry an Afghan since they're Christian conservative. Then again, maybe they'll lesson a bit since nowadays, after my last potential date who turned out to be abusive, they don't appear to mind if I marry let alone who I marry as long as I'm happy. As long as he's not planning on making me a slave wife and he and I are willing to work out our differences and accept each other for who we are, I think I'll be interested in meeting an Afghan man.
The irony in the the USA is that parts of the country aren't much different at all from Afghanistan and yet those parts of the country still treat Afghanistan as if it's some "terrorist" nation. Having lived in MS all my life and putting up with the race hell for decades, I'm not surprised everytime I come across another racist comment against Iraqis and Afghans. I try to tell them that those civilians ain't got anything to do with 9/11 but they don't listen. They still keep calling them enemies and terrorists and buy into the myth that they'll somehow grab a hold of nuclear WMDs and heavy artillery as an excuse for getting stuck there. Does anyone know how minorities are treated in Afghanistan? Is it as bad as women? If so, there sure ain't a darn difference between MS and Afghanistan !
If you want to help the women [and children] of Afghanistan there is an organization called Childlight Foundation that travels once a year to Afghanistan distributing medicine, educational aid, and they fund wells and reconstruction projects. They visit the women in the prisons and give them aid and books, and toys for their children. 98% of all donations go directly to the women and children of Afghanistan as Childlight workers fund their own travel. Also they must give at least $500 of their own money per year to these Afghan projects. Those are the rules. For the rest of us Childlight have PayPal and no donation is too small. Please check them out and see what you think.
http://www.childlightfoundation.org/index.htm
Thank you Murray. I will pass this info to others.
Another good organization is Help the Afghan Children started by Suraya Sadeed over 20 years ago. Suraya is an Afghan-American.
http://www.helptheafghanchildren.org/
we decided to engage in nation building. iirc, didn't iran offer to help with the taliban to get obl turned out of afganistan? no, it was much more important that we invade. so the decision was made to engage in nation building which meant that we would create a jeffersonian democracy at gunpoint with little to no thought of local cultural conditions, tribal issues, religious issues etc. that women suffer there was and is obvious. that there is little to nothing that we can do about it short of engaging in more instensified warfare is also obvious. there is no good end result for this situation. we "installed" democracy in afaganistan and they have proceeded to phucque thinks up. that is the possibility when democracy is the form of government.