Halle L. Wallis
Introduction
In the context of modern history, Afghanistan serves as a palpable manifestation of chronic instability and conflict, much of which the formidable activities and influence of the Taliban have predominantly instigated. In the aftermath of the U.S. troop withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021, the Taliban—after waging a twenty-year insurgency—quickly seized power, appropriating dominion over both the nation and the governing apparatus in Kabul. The Taliban’s resurgence heralded a wave of newly imposed draconian measures targeting women, culminating in an “unprecedented deterioration of [their] rights.” At the heart of their plight, Afghan women endure not only profound marginalization but also a calculated and systematic erosion of their fundamental liberties and autonomy, being treated as subhuman and denied the dignity inherent to every individual. Notably, several international entities have labeled Afghanistan as the world’s “worst” place to be a woman—a sentiment that even leading authorities have reached a consensus on.
Brief Background
Between 1996 and 2001, the Taliban—a movement characterized by Sunni Islamic fundamentalism and a significant Pashtun demographic—held an indomitable sway over most of Afghanistan. On October 7, 2001, following al-Qaeda’s offenses on September 11, the United States launched large-scale military combat in Afghanistan with “Operation Enduring Freedom,” also known as OEF, which rapidly dismantled the Taliban’s power in Afghanistan. After the U.S. orchestrated the invasion, Taliban leadership withdrew to southern Afghanistan and crossed into Pakistan—where they engaged in an insurgency against the Western-backed Kabul government, Afghan national security forces, and international coalition personnel. Ultimately, on December 9, 2001, the Taliban reached a conclusive demise when both the regime’s forces and Mullah Umar, the movement’s supreme leader, fled the city of Kandahar, relinquishing control to the jurisdiction of tribal law. Subsequently, in March 2002, U.S. and Afghan military forces undertook “Operation Anaconda” in the Paktia province, which was the first major ground assault and most extensive military operation since Tora Bora in December 2001.
In 2003, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld denoted an end to “major combat activity” citing a move to a period of “stabilization and reconstruction.” This announcement aligned with President Bush’s “mission accomplished” proclamation, signaling the cessation of military hostilities in Iraq. However, by 2006, the Taliban resurfaced, reclaiming tactical territory in southern Afghanistan. Consequently, an influx of violence ensued, epitomized by what has been termed “a bloody resurgence.” Even amid a series of Afghan electoral successes in 2005, some contended that a fragile central government was responsible for the colossal uptick in violence. One year later, in a coordinated effort, Afghan, U.S., and NATO forces successfully eliminated Mullah Dadullah, a notorious Taliban military commander who reportedly led guerrilla warfare in the Helmand province. In July 2009, the U.S. Marines engaged in a major operation in southern Afghanistan, constituting a crucial trial of the military’s newfound counterinsurgency strategy. Approximately 4,000 Marines launched the offensive in response to the burgeoning Taliban insurgency in the country’s southern territories, particularly the Helmand province. This mission sought to restore government infrastructure, enhance the capacity of local law enforcement, and ensure civilian protection from Taliban encroachment.
On December 1, 2009, nearly a year after reaffirming the U.S. commitment to the Afghan war effort, President Obama announced a sizable escalation of the mission—deploying an additional 30,000 personnel to bolster the endeavor, alongside the 68,000 already stationed. President Obama, in an unprecedented move during the eight-year conflict, crafted a definitive timeline for U.S. military involvement, pinpointing July 2011 as the start of troop withdrawal. The president, however, did not disclose the anticipated timeline for the drawdown’s completion. Though President Obama eventually sought to remove all combat forces by 2014, many remained skeptical of the Afghan government’s competence in protecting the nation.
Upon the culmination of the U.S. and NATO-led coalition’s combat mission in 2014, the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF) assumed primary responsibility for security, spearheading initiatives in security provision that led to a marked enhancement in their efficiency. The U.S. reduced the troop contingent to roughly 8,600 personnel, which was maintained to ensure and facilitate the continued training and support of Afghan military forces until the drawdown was implemented in 2020. Nonetheless, the ANDSF encountered considerable difficulties maintaining control over territory and safeguarding urban, civilian areas. For more than half a decade, the war largely stagnated—notwithstanding a slight augmentation in U.S. troop deployment in 2017, ongoing combat ventures, and a strategic transformation in U.S. military strategy aimed at disrupting Taliban revenue by targeting opium production sites and drug laboratories with airstrikes. In May 2018, the Taliban temporarily assumed control of the capital of the Farah province, which was followed by their seizure of the capital of the Ghazni province in August, where they sustained control for nearly a week before U.S. and Afghan forces intervened to restore order and stability.
After over a year of diplomatic mediation, in February 2020, the U.S. government and the Taliban finalized a peace deal, termed the “Doha Agreement,” which established a timeline for the unilateral withdrawal of American forces from Afghanistan. However, the purported peace process notably excluded Afghan women, whose grievances regarding the rising targeted violence against them and their opposition to the narrative of a reformed “Taliban 2.0” were overlooked. Moreover, no formal agreement to cease hostilities was technically reached. After a brief reduction in violence, the Taliban quickly escalated their offensives against Afghan security forces and the civilian populace.
By August 2021, the Taliban had advanced to the gates of Kabul and by August 15; they had captured the city, signifying the disintegration of the Afghan republic. Slightly more than a week after capturing Kabul, the Taliban announced their first decree, mandating that all women in Kabul should remain inside, citing the rationale that their servicemen were untrained in respecting women and thus could not ensure their safety in public spaces.
The Onslaught of Decrees
Although the Taliban initially vowed moderation, their promises quickly proved false as they aggressively rolled back two decades of progress made by Afghan women. The Taliban’s early tenure in power revealed a striking consistency with their treatment of women during their rule in the 1990s, displaying a lack of reformation in the modern day. The regime achieved this through the issuance of approximately 80 decrees directly targeting women, thereby revealing the “systematic, institutionalized, and punitively enforced nature of gender apartheid in Afghanistan.” The Taliban has also rebranded and restructured the Attorney General’s Office, which is now designated as the “General Directorate for Monitoring and Follow-up of Decrees and Directives,” indicating a calculated intention to amass power and impose adherence through authoritarian oppression. Moreover, the Taliban methodically eradicated critical entities, such as the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, the Commission for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, refuges and safe houses for battered women, civil society-led protection and empowerment initiatives, and women-led enterprises. They have also abrogated previous legislation and policies designed to combat violence and harassment against women.
It may be argued that the Taliban has annihilated all liberties afforded to women. Some international representatives have trivialized the seriousness of gender apartheid in Afghanistan by portraying it as an expression of cultural or religious practices, inadvertently reinforcing Taliban propaganda. Nonetheless, international law categorically repudiates the invocation of culture or tradition as a valid justification for violating fundamental human rights. Furthermore, before the Taliban’s ascension to power, women in Afghanistan had made significant progress in gender equality in every facet of life—economic, cultural, social, and political—further highlighting that these decrees are more indicative of a control mechanism than a genuine cultural expression.
Since 2021, amidst restrictive policies and pervasive violence, Afghan women have chronicled the dismaying decline in the state of gender apartheid—braving considerable danger to expose the systemic discrimination that defines their immensely bleak reality. At the outset of their current rule, the Taliban imposed decrees that barred women from employment in government offices and public universities. As of December 2022, universities, formerly open and accessible to women, now forbid any female student or educator from entering both public and private campuses. On September 12, 2021, the Taliban forbade girls’ enrollment in secondary education—a decision that curtailed their avenues for learning and imperiled the very bedrock of their future. On June 1, 2022, the Taliban enforced a regulation stipulating that (female) children from fourth to sixth grade cover their faces during their commute to school, with expulsion looming as the penalty for noncompliance.
The Taliban initially prohibited women from traveling beyond a fifty-mile radius from home without a mahram (i.e., a male guardian). At present, however, women must obtain the accompaniment of a male guardian to step outside their homes—which radically erodes their autonomy and mobility. The regime mandated that the most “appropriate” form of facial covering for Afghan women is to don a burqa (or chadari), which completely obscures their bodies from head to toe. As an alternative, the regime states that women can refrain from leaving their homes altogether. This edict dictated the burqa’s color and the clothing that must be worn underneath. Women found to have adorned themselves in stylish and vividly-colored clothing under their burqas—in an effort to regain any semblance of their identity and freedom—are publicly beaten, whipped, and humiliated. The Taliban, in another turn, has recently outlawed women’s voices in public.
Many have expressed that the Taliban aspires to nullify the existence of women, aiming to render them entirely invisible. Some argue that Afghan women are being erased and silenced. The Taliban’s decrees reverberate throughout every aspect of Afghan women’s lives—from basic participation in society to education, employment, and access to justice.
The Taliban Versus International Law
Although “gender apartheid” is devoid of a formal definition in international law and is not recognized within U.S. asylum and refugee legislation, it deserves acknowledgment and consideration. A multitude of advocates have urged the U.N. to amend the current legal definition of apartheid, aiming to ensure that the severe oppression of women is recognized and prosecutable as a crime against humanity. Both the 1974 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid and the 2002 Rome Statute—which created the International Criminal Court (ICC)—codify the crime of apartheid, currently limited to a race-based scope, as a crime against humanity. Moreover, advocates assert that the Rome Statute’s protective measures against “gender persecution” fall short of reflecting the significant domination and repression that states inflict on women under apartheid.
Consequently, in a report from July 2024, the UN Human Rights Council urged an amendment to the Rome Statute’s definition of apartheid to encompass “inhumane acts committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one gender group over any other gender group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.” This expanded definition would illuminate the entrenched, systemic features of gender apartheid, granting the ICC the jurisdiction to investigate, prosecute, and ensure accountability for those violating the statute.
Now What?
The issue lies in the Taliban’s primary takeaway from their unforeseen victory after a grueling, decades-long insurgency: loyalty is among the most vital Islamic virtues, and unity is essential for success. Thus, despite considerable private opposition from notable Taliban authorities regarding the disempowerment of women, the religious authority wielded by Sheikh Haibatullah Akhundzada, coupled with the practical awareness of the Taliban’s fragility in potential division, enforces compliance with Haibatullah’s contentious decrees.
However, the international community can actively implement strategies to dismantle the Taliban’s gender apartheid. The international community can persist in exerting public and private pressure from all sides to deter the normalization of the Taliban’s gender apartheid, amplifying other forces of change in the process. Offering political and financial backing to international accountability entities—including the International Criminal Court, the UN Special Rapporteur, and organizational bodies that document human rights abuses—will also foster progress. In addition, establishing a connection between international sanctions and the abuse of women’s and girls’ rights, rather than focusing exclusively on counter-terrorism rationales, could serve as an effective deterrent.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the plight of Afghan women under Taliban rule is emblematic of a profound violation of their dignity and integrity, serving as an urgent call for sustained international intervention. Under the veil of cultural or religious rationales, the Taliban actively suppresses women to eradicate their agency and presence, cultivating a regime steeped in gender apartheid. To counter this, the international community must adopt a multi-faceted approach, leveraging political, legal, and financial pressures to confront the Taliban’s policies head-on.
Comments