UN Security Council urged to classify Taliban oppression of women as ‘gender apartheid’

Experts on Tuesday urged the international community to officially recognize the “gender apartheid” in Afghanistan amid the escalating restrictions imposed on women and girls by the Taliban regime in the country. (AP/File Photo)
Short Url
Updated 27 September 2023
Follow

UN Security Council urged to classify Taliban oppression of women as ‘gender apartheid’

  • ‘The Taliban are not simply failing to uphold women’s rights, this oppression of women is central to their system of governance,’ says lawyer and campaigner Karima Bennoune
  • Council members unanimously condemn the treatment of women and girls in Afghanistan but stop short of using the word ‘apartheid’ to describe it

NEW YORK CITY: Experts on Tuesday urged the international community to officially recognize the “gender apartheid” in Afghanistan amid the escalating restrictions imposed on women and girls by the Taliban regime in the country.

During a media event on the sidelines of the 78th session of the UN General Assembly, shortly before a special meeting of the UN Security Council to discuss the situation in Afghanistan, international lawyer and civil society representative Karima Bennoune said the “drastic restrictions” on 50 percent of the population were “unparalleled” in the world.

“I believe the ‘gender apartheid’ approach is the most promising way forward as the Taliban are not simply failing to uphold women’s rights, this oppression of women is central to their system of governance,” she added.

“Deeming the situation to be gender apartheid not only implicates the perpetrators of the apartheid but, as was the case with racial apartheid in South Africa, it means that no member state can be complicit in or normalize the Taliban’s illegal actions.”

The International Criminal Court defines the crime of apartheid perpetrated by a regime as the systematic oppression and domination by one racial group of one or more other racial groups with the aim of maintaining that regime.

During the Security Council meeting, Bennoune noted that UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and a number of governments have already labeled the Taliban’s actions against women and girls as a form of apartheid, and called on the UN to officially codify this approach under international law by adding the word “gender” to the existing definition.

“The apartheid framework recognizes that the ordinary human rights approach, centering the state as the actor to implement human rights, cannot work here,” she said.

“Positive change will only be possible with a consistent, principled international response led by this council, mandated by its 10 Women, Peace and Security resolutions, and supported by states from all regions.”

Sima Sami Bahous, the executive director of UN Women, echoed Bennoune’s views during her comments at the meeting.

The members of the council unanimously condemned the treatment of women and girls in Afghanistan but stopped short of using the word “apartheid” to describe it.

Albania’s permanent representative to the UN, Ferit Hoxha, whose country holds the presidency of the council this month, said of the Taliban: “This regime and its rules are medieval and retrograde, with extrajudicial killings and arbitrary arrests simply unacceptable.

“Two years on from the Western withdrawal from Afghanistan, the situation remains dire, with the international community struggling to balance its support for the Afghan people without rewarding the de facto authorities.”

Representatives from several states, including China, Japan, Mozambique, the UK and the US, all called for a reversal of the Taliban restrictions on women and girls.

Speaking on behalf of Gabon, Ghana and Mozambique, the three current African non-permanent members of the Security Council, Mozambique’s representative to the UN, Pedro Comissario Afonso, said: “The lack of representation of the diversity of the Afghan people at the ethnic and social level in the political sphere is both apparent and deplorable.”

With winter approaching, council members expressed concern that the continued failure to reintegrate women into the positions they held before the Taliban takeover will serve only to exacerbate people’s

suffering amid a shortfall in funding for international aid, and the reluctance of many countries to engage with the regime.

Citing a recent UN Development Program report that said gross domestic product in Afghanistan fell by 3.6 percent in 2022, following a 20.7 percent contraction in 2021, China’s representative, Zhang Jun, attributed the decline to a “sharp drop” in humanitarian funding.

“The report claims two thirds of Afghanistan will need humanitarian assistance next year, with 41 million Afghans in a state of food insecurity, and yet the humanitarian assistance program is just 27 percent funded at present,” he said.

“This is a clear demonstration that the cutback in funding is of an ideological and political nature that only stands in the way of the Afghan people; winter is coming.”

Both India and Iran, who share borders with Afghanistan, expressed concern about the “potential consequences for regional insecurity” caused by the situation in the country. However, the Chinese envoy suggested that “on the whole,” the security situation had improved since the Taliban took control.

The Taliban’s choice of representative to the UN is not recognized by the international organization. Naseer Faiq, the representative of the former Afghan government that was toppled by the Taliban, strongly rejected the Chinese representative’s suggestion.

“Taliban assertions of counterterrorism and counternarcotics efforts ring hollow as they are leaders, are deeply involved in narcotics production and smuggling within the Taliban centers of power and resources distribution,” he told the council.

“Tragically, two years since the Taliban seized control, the situation of Afghanistan has not improved … the Afghan people continue to suffer.”

Describing Afghanistan under the Taliban as a “hub for terrorism,” Faiq said that despite the challenges, the Afghan people are nonetheless “resolute” in their diversity and would continue to “work tirelessly” to defend their rights.

Echoing calls by Afghan community organizations, he urged the council and international partners to maintain the pressure on the Taliban and demand the reversal of policies that deny women their rights.

“We also call on the UN to recognize and classify the plight of woman and girls as gender apartheid, and emphasize the necessity of ongoing humanitarian assistance for the people of Afghanistan, subject to rigorous monitoring and supervision of aid delivery,” Faiq said.

“We can help shape a better future for the Afghan people and prevent the country from once again becoming a breeding ground for extremism.”


UK pays Guantanamo detainee ‘substantial’ compensation over US torture questions

Updated 12 January 2026
Follow

UK pays Guantanamo detainee ‘substantial’ compensation over US torture questions

  • Abu Zubaydah has been held at Guantanamo Bay without charge for 20 years
  • British security services knew he was subjected to ‘enhanced interrogation’ but failed to raise concerns for 4 years

LONDON: A Saudi-born Palestinian being held without trial by the US has received a “substantial” compensation payment from the UK government, the BBC reported.

Abu Zubaydah has been imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba for almost 20 years following his capture in Pakistan in 2002, and was subjected to “enhanced interrogation” techniques by the CIA.

He was accused of being a senior member of Al-Qaeda in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terror attacks on the US. The allegations were later dropped but he remains in detention.

The compensation follows revelations that UK security services submitted questions to the US to be put to Abu Zubaydah by their US counterparts despite knowledge of his mistreatment.

He alleged that MI5 and MI6 had been “complicit” in torture, leading to a legal case and the subsequent compensation.

Dominic Grieve, the UK’s former attorney general, chaired a panel reviewing Abu Zubaydah’s case.

He described the compensation as “very unusual” but said the treatment of Abu Zubaydah had been “plainly” wrong, the BBC reported.

Grieve added that the security services had evidence that the “Americans were behaving in a way that should have given us cause for real concern,” and that “we (UK authorities) should have raised it with the US and, if necessary, closed down co-operation, but we failed to do that for a considerable period of time.”

Abu Zubaydah’s international legal counsel, Prof. Helen Duffy, said: “The compensation is important, it’s significant, but it’s insufficient.”

She added that more needs to be done to secure his release, stating: “These violations of his rights are not historic, they are ongoing.”

Duffy said Abu Zubaydah would continue to fight for his freedom, adding: “I am hopeful that the payment of the substantial sums will enable him to do that and to support himself when he’s in the outside world.”

He is one of 15 people still being held at Guantanamo, many without charge. Following his initial detention, he arrived at the prison camp having been the first person to be taken to a so-called CIA “black site.”

He spent time at six such locations, including in Lithuania and Poland, outside of US legal jurisdiction. 

Internal MI6 messages revealed that the “enhanced interrogation” techniques he was subjected to would have “broken” the resolve of an estimated 98 percent of US special forces members had they been subjected to them.

CIA officers later decided he would be permanently cut off from the outside world, with then-President George W. Bush publicly saying Abu Zubaydah had been “plotting and planning murder.”

However, the US has since withdrawn the allegations and no longer says he was a member of Al-Qaeda.

A report by the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence said Abu Zubaydah had been waterboarded at least 83 times, was locked in a coffin-like box for extended periods, and had been regularly assaulted. Much of his treatment would be considered torture under UK law.

Despite knowledge of his treatment, it was four years before British security services raised concerns with their American counterparts, and their submission of questions within that period had “created a market” for the torture of detainees, Duffy said.

A 2018 report by the UK Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee was deeply critical of the behavior of MI5 and MI6 in relation to Abu Zubaydah. 

It also criticized conduct relating to Guantanamo detainee Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, widely regarded as a key architect of the Sept. 11 attacks, warning that the precedent set by Abu Zubaydah’s legal action could be used by Mohammed to bring a separate case against the UK.

MI5 and MI6 failed to comment on Abu Zubaydah’s case. Neither the UK government nor Mohammed’s legal team would comment on a possible case over his treatment.