Women’s status has changed a great deal in recent times. Women can own property, vote, work outside of the home, and can keep their last name after getting married. At least, that is how it is in America. In many countries, women have no status. This is an international problem that rests in the state level. Because no world government exists, states vary in their treatment of women. Therefore, because no world government exists, human rights are being violated.

In Afghanistan, for instance, women are not allowed medical attention, unless by a female doctor (Marsden, 1998). They have to be completely covered from head to toe by a garment called a burqa. They are beaten if they do not comply with this. Women cannot walk outside alone. A male family member must accompany them. They also cannot hold jobs or attend schools. This is due to a fundamentalist right-wing militia called the Taliban.

In the early 1990s the state of women was much better than today. They could hold jobs, attend schools, own property, and many other things now denied to them. But, this was not always the way. Due to custom, girls are less desirable than boys are by parents. Why? The bride’s family pays for the wedding expenses. Girls are too expensive to keep. In addition, by culture, women are inferior because men do the hardest labor and are the scholars and the breadwinners of the family. A woman’s work is to clean the house and to raise the children (Marsden, 1998 and Rahimi, 1991). But, according to "Strategies of Resistance among the Muslim Minority in West Yorkshire: Impact on Women" by Haleh Afshar, this is not how Islam views women:

But, starting in the reign of Amir Habibullah from 1901-1919, things have changed (Magnus and Naby, 1998 and Rahimi, 1991). First, Habibullah stressed that women should be given an education. After 1919, did the education for women start, though attendance never rose to equal that of men. In 1921, "a special theatre for women was established . . . During the same year, a newspaper for women called "Irshadun-nisa" or Guidance for Women, began its publication." Also that year, the first women’s and children’s hospital was opened. In 1927-1928, a law for improving women’s living conditions was made. And, in 1929, under King Amanullah, "all reforms connected with women’s problems were abolished." In 1946 came the Women’s Welfare Association in Kabul. Women in 1957 participated in an Asian Women conference in Sri Lanka and a woman delegate was sent to the UN. In 1959, women of the royal family appeared in public without a veil, something that was very controversial, but did abolish the mandatory wearing of the veil until the Taliban appeared (a veil is part of a burqa). In 1964, the constitution changed to give equal rights to men and women. Four women were elected to Parliament in 1965. Also in that year, the Women’s Democratic Organization of Afghanistan (WDOA) was created. And, by 1978, the DRA (Democratic Republic of Afghanistan) "abolished legally all types of segregation, inequalities and injustice towards women." Things seemed fine until the Taliban formed in 1994.

The Taliban saw that the current state of Afghanistan was immoral and corrupt because it was westernized. They swooped across the country, conquering small towns and cities. They closed down schools where women taught or attended. They forced the women back into their homes and into a covering (the burqa) that concealed their form. The Taliban has used the Qur’an to justify these actions. However, the burqa was never mandatory and was never used before as a shame garment:

Also, according to the Muslim Women’s League (the MWL), with regards to economic equality,

Who does this affect, besides the women? Who else is involved? The key actors in this are NGOs. NGOs (non-governmental organizations) are groups whose members are individuals and are not run by any government. The Taliban is not comprised of just Afghans. There are many members from Pakistan (Marsden, 1998 and Maley, 1998), making this something like a nation (because they are a people who have common characteristics, such as religion, culture, and history), rather than a state. NGOs are involved as well. Some are USAID, UNICEF, and the Save the Children Fund of the United Kingdom (Marsden, 1998). They have a difficult time doing their humanitarian work because of the restrictions the Taliban has put on them. They cannot help the women because they must comply with the country's laws ("When in Rome . . . "). There are very few exceptions: " . . . elements within the Taliban have permitted humanitarian agencies to employ women in particular roles, where access to women is needed or where women work separately from men, under the direction of other women." In other words, the chances of a humanitarian NGO getting its job done are between slim to none. One female aid worker from the western world was beaten because she would not wear a burqa. The Taliban has since apologized for this. However, this clearly shows how much control they have.

Many NGOs have asked the Taliban to give women an education again and to be able to see medical attention, as these violate the UN’s laws on human rights. The UN says that, "discrimination against women violates the principles of equality of rights and respect for human dignity . . . hampers the growth of the prosperity of society . . . " The Taliban has said that women will again be enrolled when an acceptable curriculum has been created (Marsden, 1998). No one knows how long that will be.

As far as medical attention, female doctors may now see women, because it is a sin for a woman to be examined by a male doctor. Thus, this (the doctor) is the only occupation a woman may hold. But, because women may no longer attend schools, there is not a continual supply of female doctors. It is not known what will happen when this small amount of aid is gone.

This affects international relations very well because the Taliban violates many rules set down by the UN, especially those set down by the Declaration of Human Rights from 1948 (two years after Afghanistan joined the UN) through to the present day. Some rules of human rights that they violate are:

Also, as shown in the afore-mentioned aid worker’s story, the control affects other countries. It seems no one is safe, even thought the Taliban has stayed within Afghanistan’s borders, making it a more civil than international event. But, NGOs, as said earlier, cannot fight for their humanitarian causes. Also, other countries cannot bear to be associated with such a group. This causes large changes in trade and economy. When one country loses a trading partner, they cannot make the revenue they need to, and, so, their economy suffers. All partners must exist for economies to have a chance at stability.

So, if this poses such a problem, why are not people doing anything about it? To answer this, we need to look at who has power. But, before saying who has power, we need to define what power is. According to World Politics: International Politics on the World Stage, Brief by John T. Rourke and Mark A. Boyer, power is defined as: "The totality of a country’s international capabilities." Also, what is sovereignty and who has it? Again, the book defines sovereignty as: ". . . political independence from any higher authority." This issue is one of sovereignty. What does it cover? It covers the state. A state is a geographically located political unit that has a central authority that also has sovereignty, so that it does not have to answer to any higher authority. Because many people from other countries (mainly Pakistan) are coming across to establish this hard rule, sovereignty is not being respected. Also, should another country come in to take a stand against the Taliban, or should the Taliban decide to control other countries (perhaps Pakistan), that again would cause problems with sovereignty. What is anarchy? Page 435 says that an anarchical system, "is one in which there is no central authority to make rules, to enforce rules," etc. Is there also anarchy involved? Not really, as the Taliban is the only controlling force.

If some state did make a stand and use force or negotiations to stop this oppression of women, who would win? There are two basic ways to look at this: realism and idealism. Realists are analysts who say that those who have the most military power will win over those who have less military power. According to realists, if the US were to use force against the Taliban, it would win. If a lesser force or local force were to fight against the Taliban, the Taliban would win. However, realists do not look at civil issues such as this. They are only concerned with military power and would only want the Taliban out, should the Taliban become a threat to the United States. Idealists are analysts who believe that states are not the only important actors, but NGOs, MNCs, individuals, etc are as well. Again, however, idealists are not concerned with these cases. They are mostly concerned with how international organizations would affect this, and many have not. Therefore, neither group has a stance. That does not mean that nothing will happen. The US has a way to finding a cause for which to fight and using force to stop the atrocities. However, this is not seen as an atrocity yet because women are not being murdered or raped, they are just being forced into following a strict religious law. This is no Kosovo or East Timor. That is probably a good reason why the US has not intervened. Another reason, given by Magnus and Naby is: " . . . after the fall of Kabul to the Taliban, the State Department announced that the United States intended to establish contact with the new regime, despite its unacceptable policy toward women." It will be interesting to see what does happen.

A solution would be to find a way (through writing to our representatives in Congress, etc.) to get the US to intervene. It will take a long time, since the State Department’s decision (above) and because there are many other atrocities in the world. But, just because none are dying from the force (just from the neglect), does not mean it is not an important cause. There is no way to say that this will ensure women’s rights on the local level, but it may help. The only possible way that women will have their rights back is if some larger force were to overtake the Taliban and return Afghanistan to its original state.

The human rights law and law against women’s discrimination were not created on a whim, they were created to enforce the truth: that all humans should be treated with dignity, respect, and care. All religions agree with this. Or, so we think. The Taliban’s treatment of women affects everyone, or at least, one-half of the population. Basic rights are being violated through right-wing fundamentalism. In order for women to be given their due, the Taliban must be gotten rid of or changed. How this will happen or whether it will is still to be seen.

Bibliography

Afshar, Haleh "Strategies of resistance among the Muslim minority in West Yorkshire: impact on women" from Gender, Ethnicity and Political Ideologies edited by Nickie Charles and Helen Hintjens (Routledge, London, 1998)

Amnesty International, Human Rights are Women’s Right (Amnesty International, New York, 1995)

Boyer, Mark A. and Rourke, John T. World Politics: International Politics on the World Stage, Brief (Dushkin/McGraw-Hill)

Magnus, Ralph H, and Naby, Eden Afghanistan: Mullah, Marx, and Mujahid (Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, 1998)

Maley, William "Interpreting the Taliban," from Fundamentalism Reborn? Afghanistan and the Taliban edited by William Maley (New York University Press, New York, 1998)

Marsden, Peter The Taliban: War, Religion and the New Order in Afghanistan (Zed Books, London, 1998)

Muslim Women’s League http://www.mwlusa.org

The Untied Nations http://www.un.org

Wali M. Rahimi Status of Women: Afghanistan (UNESCO, Bangkok, Thailand, 1991)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws