ED 262 mylineONLINE: Gender, Sexism, & Sexual Orientations

This post is by Catherine Powell, fellow for CFR’s Women and Foreign Policy Program; and Amelia Wolf, research associate for CFR’s Center for Preventive Action and International Institutions and Global Governance Program.

The recent increase in attacks by the self-proclaimed Islamic State (IS)—known until recently as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)—and the group’s claims to territory in northern Iraq have spurred observers to draw comparisons between the current crisis in Iraq and the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan. In Iraq, the IS has begun to impose Sharia law in areas under its control, forcing boys and girls to be separated at school, requiring women to wear the niqab in public, and banning music. There have been reports that the IS has forced women to marry or have sex with militants, ordered families to hand over their daughters, and distributed leaflets promoting the rape of women. In addition, a Saudi-based cleric recently issued a fatwa allowing militants to rape women in towns claimed by the group. All this has caused fear and concern that the drawdown of U.S. troops in Afghanistan by the end of 2016 will result in a similar unraveling and a revival of extremism in the country—which would undermine the primary intent of a decade of U.S. intervention.

Whether or not the crisis in Iraq compares directly to Afghanistan—given the historical, cultural, geographic, ethnic, and political differences between the two countries—it certainly provides a cautionary tale for U.S. policy toward Afghanistan. In particular, just as gender equality is threatened by the rise of IS in Iraq, the gains made by Afghan women and girls over the course of the U.S. presence in the country would be greatly imperiled by a resurgence of the Taliban if the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) are not strong enough to step in as U.S. troops withdraw.

Prior to the overthrow of the Taliban, women and girls were banned from schools; segregated in many aspects of public life, including the workplace; and prevented from leaving their homes without a male guardian. In 2001, virtually no girls were enrolled in school, and women rarely participated in the formal economy and or held leadership positions. Now, more than ten years later, women have made great strides in education, health, political participation, economic empowerment, and social engagement. Approximately 40 percent of children enrolled in schools are girls and maternal mortality has fallen from 1,600 to 327 deaths per 100,000 births. Additionally, women hold three out of twenty-five cabinet seats and 120 judicial positions. Backsliding on this progress would undermine security, stability, and development, as gender equality and stability are correlated.

Even if U.S. troops stay in Afghanistan beyond President Barack Obama’s December 2016 deadline for complete withdrawal, U.S. public opinion and funding for an ongoing U.S. military presence much beyond that date is unlikely to change, given the other potential demands on the U.S. military and constraints on resources. Obama’s recent announcement that U.S. military involvement will come to an end before he leaves office reflects this political reality as well as his desire for a legacy of pulling the United States out of two wars and refocusing U.S. counterterrorism efforts on new fronts in the Middle East and North Africa. While policymakers and media have focused on the continued presence of U.S. troops, severe cuts to U.S. funding of the ANSF are in the works and pose a great threat to the rights of women and girls going forward. U.S. policymakers should utilize the leverage they currently have in Afghanistan to strengthen the ANSF’s own ability to prevent the country from a fate similar to that of Iraq.

The 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq was a fool’s errand from the beginning–particularly since a focus on Afghanistan instead would have better served U.S. interests in the region. However, once the United States toppled Saddam Hussein, it had a responsibility to assist the country with an orderly transition to a society in which human rights and security are guaranteed. Part of the current problem in Iraq is the fact that the United States withdrew before adequately training Iraqi forces. To avoid a similar erosion of security and backtracking on gender equality in Afghanistan, Washington should follow the recommendations outlined in a recent CFR report, Women and Girls in the Afghanistan Transition:

Support the ANSF’s ability to maintain security and enhance the environment for the participation of women and girls in public life.
Double funding to support women’s integration into the ANSF.
Invest in women’s rights and leadership–including in rural areas–as this will support sustainable development for the country as a whole.
Maintain and expand girls’ education in Afghanistan.

In comparing the Afghanistan and Iraq, it is important to remember the crucial differences between the two countries. For example, gains made by women and girls since 2001 have been widely supported by a majority of Afghans, including men. This has not been the case is Iraq. In addition, sectarian divisions that lie at the heart of the resurging violence in Iraq do not exist to the same extent in Afghanistan. Lastly, while Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki refused to an agreement for a U.S. residual force in Iraq, the runoff candidates in Afghanistan—Abdullah Abdullah and Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai—have both agreed to sign the bilateral security agreement to ensure a U.S. presence in the country. A security agreement is essential to ongoing cooperation between the two countries to achieve shared policy goals, including promoting the participation of women and girls in public life.

On International Women’s Day this past Monday, I attended the release of the Clinton Foundation’s No Ceilings: The Full Participation Report, which Hillary Clinton launched alongside Melinda Gates and Chelsea Clinton. Building off the momentum generated at the UN Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995, the No Ceilings report uses data collected over the last twenty years to note both the gains and gaps in women and girls’ participation globally.

This September marks the twentieth anniversary of the Beijing Conference, a landmark moment where world leaders, in effect, embraced then-First Lady Hillary Clinton’s statement at the Conference that “women’s rights are human rights.” Clinton and her family’s foundation have continued to push for women’s rights and empowerment. Full disclosure: having attended the Beijing Conference and been moved by Clinton’s speech there, I later had an opportunity to work on the Secretary of State’s Policy Planning Staff under her leadership and Policy Planning’s first woman director, Anne-Marie Slaughter.

The No Ceilings report highlights the progress women and girls have made, for example, in increased access to primary education, an overall drop in maternal mortality, and the growing recognition of the importance of women to peace and security. At the same time, it underscores the gaps that persist for women and girls, including the life expectancy of women in poor and marginalized areas, low rate of attainment in secondary education, the continuing epidemic of violence against women, overall stagnation in women’s workforce participation, and women’s exclusion from peace and security processes.

The report’s emphasis on data—and, indeed, Secretary Clinton’s focus on gender data as a way to address these issues—measures the progress of women and girls internationally and invites policymakers, academics, and activists to take stock of the women’s rights movement. Where is the movement now, and where should it head next?

Since the Beijing Conference, there has been a major push for the inclusion of women in international matters, including peace and security discussions, and this drive has elicited a promising response. Though there is still work to be done—as Ambassador Melanne Verveer noted at Monday’s event, only 4 percent of peacekeeping forces are female—policy developments such as UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace, and Security (and various countries’ national action plans implementing Resolution 1325) show the broad acceptance of the idea that women and women’s rights are critical to the peace and security dialogue. Yet the question remains: has the security paradigm actually changed, or are women simply inserting themselves in a male-dominated regime and culture? To what extent are women transforming the paradigm to pave the way for stemming conflicts, countering violent extremism, and establishing more sustainable peace?

And if a major goal of the women’s rights movement, at least since the Beijing Conference, has been to open up opportunities for women’s leadership—not only in peace and security matters, but in other sectors as well—what is the movement’s main objective now? Much has been said about breaking a final glass ceiling: electing a woman president. As Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf said at the No Ceilings event, “That glass ceiling is broken—by me.” However, what about the sticky floors and broken ladders to opportunity that women and girls around the globe still face? Will placing more women into positions of power help them?