P.O.Box 21375, Washington, D.C. 20009

UN Human Rights warns of Afghanistan’s descent into authoritarianism

September 11, 2022

Kate Clark

Afghanistan Analysts Network

print sharing button

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of Human Rights in Afghanistan has released his first report to the UN’s Human Rights Council. The situation in the country has deteriorated, Richard Bennett said, “to the point where the human rights crisis matches Afghanistan’s humanitarian and financial crises.” He holds the Taleban responsible for the worsening of Afghans’ civil, political and cultural rights, including “widespread gross violations” and is concerned that the country shows “strong signs of descending into authoritarianism.” On economic and social rights, however, he says that “all parties bear degrees of responsibility,” not only the Taleban but also the ‘international community’. AAN’s Kate Clark has been reading the report and brings her thoughts. 
Introduction

In this his first report, UN Special Rapporteur Richard Bennett writes that the Taleban have “effective control over the country” and so, even though they are not recognised by the countries of the world, are “responsible for fulfilling the obligations arising out of the various international human rights and humanitarian treaties to which Afghanistan is a party.”[1] He reports that in his meetings with the Taleban they said they were committed to Afghanistan’s international obligations and also that the great majority of international human rights norms were compatible with sharia. Even so, Bennett finds much to say about breaches of these obligations.

What is in the report

Most significant – presented first in his report – is what the Special Rapporteur calls “the staggering regression in women and girls’ enjoyment of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights since the Taliban took power.” In no other country, he says, “have women and girls so rapidly disappeared from all spheres of public life, nor are they as disadvantaged in every aspect of their lives.”

He writes about the sending home of most civil servants and the “numerous evolving rules” affecting women and girls: the suspension of secondary education for girls, the stipulation that women should stay at home unless necessary, the ban on certain travel without a mahram (a close male relative) and mandatory dress codes. The closure of specialist courts for women, and the sacking of female judges, he said, has also “adversely affecting women’s access to justice,” while an order that the “male family members are punishable for women’s conduct,” is “effectively erasing women’s agency and prompting increased domestic abuse.” He points out that

With the exception of one decree issued on 28 December 2021 (forbidding forced marriage, declaring widows have inheritance rights and the right to a dowry in a new marriage, and asserting the de facto courts will consider applications involving women), these directives violate the rights of women and girls. 

He stresses that Afghan women “have faced severe discrimination throughout history.” Even so, his comments paint a picture of women not only being stripped of many of their rights and freedoms by the Emirate but also the creation of an environment which facilitates abuse within the home. There has been a “collapse of mechanisms,” he said, “for victims to seek protection, support, and accountability.”

The second area of concern for the Special Rapporteur is Afghans’ “increasingly precarious” access to food and livelihoods which he puts down to “drought, rising commodities prices, reduced incomes, supply chain disruptions, decreased supplies caused by conflicts, including the war in Ukraine, and lack of donor support.” He notes that the government is “responsible for the realization of economic, social and cultural rights to the maximum of their available resources, including through domestic and international cooperation, under the ICCPR [International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]. He calls for more transparency from the Emirate over its revenues and spending and “notes with concern” that “reportedly a lower proportion of budget is allocated to basic services compared to the proportion allocated for military and security purposes.”

However, Bennett also raises “serious questions” over how “the relevant international actors” are applying the humanitarian exemption to UN Security Council sanctions (signed off in December 2021) and how this “appears to contribute to the humanitarian crisis.” One of Bennett’s recommendations is that UN member states should “continue to provide assistance and cooperation to ensure adequate resources are made available to realise human rights, particularly rights to adequate food, safe drinking water, sanitation, health and education without discrimination.”

This wide-ranging first report also covers conflict-related human rights violations – the arbitrary arrest, extrajudicial killing and torture of civilians, some amounting to collective punishment – and reprisal killings of former government officials and members of the security forces, and people the government associates with the Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISKP) or the National Resistance Front  (NRF).

In a section on ethnic and religious minorities, Bennett looks at the situation facing Hazaras and other ethnic and religious monitories in Afghanistan. Hazaras, who are largely Shia Muslims, he says, have been subjected to continuing sectarian attacks by the Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISKP) as well as what he calls “multiple forms of discrimination, affecting a broad-spectrum of human rights, including economic, social and cultural rights” by the state.

The Taliban have appointed Pashtuns to senior positions in government structures in Hazara dominated provinces, forcibly evicted Hazaras without adequate prior notice from their homes and imposed religious taxation contrary to Shia principles. There are reports of arbitrary arrests, torture and other ill-treatment, summary executions and enforced disappearances. In addition, an increase in inflammatory speech is being reported, both online and in some mosques during Friday prayers, including calling for Hazaras to be killed. 

Some of these allegations apply far more widely: it is not just Hazaras who feel excluded from an administration made up overwhelmingly of male, Pashtun clerics and, as Bennett’s report makes clear elsewhere, Afghan citizens of all stripes have been subject to arbitrary arrest, torture, enforced disappearances and other violent abuses. At the same time, the Sunni Muslim nature of the Emirate makes it inherently exclusionary for Shia Muslims and non-Muslims, and any discrimination or abuses they suffer are felt against the background of what Bennett calls the “historical persecution of Hazaras and other minorities.”

Fundamental freedoms and access to justice 

Towards the end of the report, Bennett assesses the threats to what he calls the ‘fundamental freedoms’ – the right to free speech and assembly, and notes the shrinking space for human rights defenders and civil society activists to operate in. He also points to serious flaws in the Taleban’s administration of justice. There is “uncertainty of the applicable laws and process,” he says, with cases “handled idiosyncratically across jurisdictions and venues.” Cases may be heard in the provincial and district courts, with all judges now having a religious rather than secular training, but in the provinces, officials who are not judges are also “empowered to administer justice.” Crimes such as theft or assault, he says, are often “dealt with by security forces without involving prosecutors or judges. In some provinces, more serious crimes may be tried without the assistance of either a prosecutor or a defence lawyer.”

Confusion over the law and who administers it facilitates wider abuses of human rights – as does curbing the freedom to speak and protest.  For this reason maybe, Bennett’s first recommendations to the Taleban authorities are to do with the legal framework: restore the constitutional order; review the rules and directives issued since the takeover bringing them in line with international human rights standards; restore clarity and certainty of applicable laws, judicial independence and capacity; protect judges and lawyers, especially women, from reprisals.

What happens next?

Bennett is due to present his report at a session of the UN Human Rights Council on 12 September. While much of the report is addressed to the Taleban, he also has strong words for the international powers that supported the Republic for twenty years and which will be among those addressed at the Council:

The international community must acknowledge its own role and responsibility for the situation unfolding in Afghanistan today. While much was done in the past 20 years to strengthen institutions designed to promote and protect human rights and to ensure the enjoyment of those rights by the people of Afghanistan, reflection is needed on what more could have been done to prevent the human rights crisis and what should be done now to resolve it. 

As to what happens next, Bennett says his first responsibility is “to report on the developing situation of human rights and to make recommendations to improve it” and this is the principal objective of his first report. He envisages undertaking research on thematic issues, working closely with other institutions, so that “the situation of Afghanistan continues to be kept high on political and human rights agendas.”

The UN does already have another entity on the ground working for human rights, UNAMA’s Human rights office (read its first report on human rights in Afghanistan after the Taleban capture of power here published in July 2022; AAN analysis here). It was established as part of UNAMA’s mandate from the UN Security Council and reports to the UN Secretary General and the Office of the High Commission for Human Rights (OHCHR). The Special Rapporteur position was created by the UN Human Rights Council and while it also has the support of OHCHR, it is independent. Bennett says he plans to “work with and complement other UN mechanisms, including UNAMA and UN agencies present in Afghanistan” and urges a strengthening of international support to UNAMA, “in particular its human rights service.”

Having two UN entities pushing for human rights in Afghanistan undoubtedly strengthens the cause. Additionally, Special Rapporteurs serve in a personal capacity, and do not receive salaries or any other financial compensation for their work. That means that Bennett with his independent voice can speak more freely.

He has also used his report to sow a seed for the idea that his mandate should be strengthened. In recommendation 99b he calls on UN member states to:

Take necessary measures to strengthen accountability for human rights violations and abuses, including through this mandate and others, including potential mechanisms to address impunity, provide redress for survivors and victims, and bring perpetrators to justice. 

Behind the scenes in Geneva, there have been discussions about whether to strengthen the Rapporteur’s mandate, or create an additional mechanism with accountability powers. A group of NGOs released a joint letter on 9 September calling for the renewal of the Rapporteur’s mandate, agreeing that it should be strengthened, as well as calling for the creation of a stronger accountability mechanism, which would be able to investigate and gather evidence of crimes and perpetrators. What Bennett suggests here is that his mandate could be given similar powers, not least because, in his words, his mandate already has “an important accountability component” and that he “plans to take this forward.” At the same time, he says he is not opposing additional mechanisms, which he also makes reference to. It will be interesting to see how far the Human Rights Council is prepared to move. Clearly, given the scale of human rights violations, many human rights defenders argue that while the Rapporteur mechanism is a welcome addition, it is not sufficient, at least in its present form.

So far at least, the Taleban have facilitated Bennett’s work, meeting him at a senior level and providing him with access to some places of detention, education and medical treatment during his visit to Afghanistan in May. He was also able to meet representatives from civil society and minority communities in Afghanistan, as well as people with disabilities, children and members of women’s groups. Bennett believes there must be fundamental changes to the Taleban’s approach if Afghanistan is to stop “descending into authoritarianism.”

The Taliban still has an opportunity to redeem the situation, which requires a substantial change of approach. The Taliban must be more inclusive, respect women’s rights, accept diversity and differences of perspective, protect the population, renounce violence, acknowledge and address human rights abuses and violations, rebuild the rule of law including oversight institutions, and accept, demand and provide accountability. They must close the gap between their words and their deeds and will continue to be judged on the latter. 

Thus far, the Taleban have proved fairly immune for calls to change what they see as their basic principles, for example policies on women and girls, or to address abuses they deny exist, for example extra-judicial killings and discrimination against ethnic or religious groups. Nevertheless, this is an administration conscious of how it is perceived by the wider world. It will be interesting to see if Bennett can get any more traction than donors, Afghanistan’s neighbours or Afghan civilians in pushing for change.

Finally, Bennett appears to see his role as looking to the past as well as the future, for example in this call:

The international community should pay particular attention to the calls from Afghans across all walks of life for accountability and justice, for concrete and effective challenges to the impunity pervasive in the country and to remedying the wrongs of the past to prevent their recurrence in the future.

Edited by Rachel Reid

References

References
↑1 They include: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR); International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR); Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW); Convention of the Rights of the Child; and Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) and; the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

 

UN Human Rights warns of Afghanistan’s descent into authoritarianism
read more

Afghanistan withdrawal remains the correct choice one year later

September 11, 2022

By Adam Smith

Fox News
August 26, 2022

President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump both reached the same conclusion about U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan — it no longer made sense.

Twenty years into our effort, it had become clear that no amount of money or U.S. and coalition troops could get the Afghan government to the point where it could provide for its own security and stability. We could no longer justify placing more American lives at risk and spending billions of additional taxpayer dollars on the effort. One year ago, Biden took the final step in the process started by the previous administration of ending our involvement in Afghanistan by ordering the withdrawal of the last few thousand American troops from Afghanistan.

Many lessons can be learned from this 20-year campaign. Last year, in the annual defense bill, Congress created a bipartisan commission to examine this very important issue. But the biggest lesson seems obvious. We could not remake Afghanistan, a country on the other side of the world with a vastly different history and culture than ours, through the sheer might of U.S. military power. 

Biden and Trump made the decision that needed to be made because they both acknowledged this reality.

Taliban fighters escort women march in support of the Taliban government outside Kabul University, Afghanistan.  (AP Photo/Bernat Armangue)

Some disagree with this point and insist that if the United States had simply kept trying and put more resources into the effort, then we could have built a stable government in Afghanistan that would have been a strong partner of the United States. Twenty years of effort by four different presidents and more generals and diplomats than most of us can now remember make it clear that this is not the case. If we had stayed, we would have simply lost more American lives and spent more money — only to wind up in the same place five, 10, or 20 years from now.

Others argue that we should have kept a smaller military force in the country, not in an effort to remake the government or build up Afghan security forces, but to fight and contain terrorist groups in the country. But this approach does not make sense, either. Who would have secured this small force from the Taliban insurgency rising in Afghanistan? This small force would have been under constant threat, spending the majority of their time on force protection and not adequately conducting their counterterrorism mission. It would have become apparent that this force would either have to be withdrawn or tens of thousands of more troops would need to be deployed to provide force protection for this counterterrorism mission, placing more Americans at risk and costing billions of more dollars.

Lastly, a large number of people focus their criticism on the details of the peace agreement agreed to by Trump, and on the way Biden and his team executed the final withdrawal from Afghanistan last year.

Ending the war in Afghanistan was never going to be easy or without risk. We stayed as long as we did precisely because U.S. government leaders understood this. Analysts knew that without the support of the United States and our coalition partners, the Afghan government would not be able to stand against the Taliban. And the takeover by the Taliban would mean a return to their violent, brutally repressive rule.

Trump bought some time for U.S. and allied forces with the peace agreement he reached with the Taliban in February 2019. This agreement did nothing to stop the Taliban’s war against the Afghan government, but it did stop the Taliban from attacking U.S. and coalition forces. This agreement, however, ended in May 2021. Only Biden’s decision right before that deadline to begin withdrawing remaining U.S. troops stopped the Taliban from again targeting our service members and the coalition forces.

The end was tragic. We lost 13 more brave U.S. service members during the last efforts to evacuate as many Americans and Afghan allies as possible, and the Afghan people have suffered horribly under the return of the Taliban-led government. But the United States and our coalition partners made the decision to leave precisely because we realized that, after 20 years, a large military force was not going to be able to prevent this outcome. More lost American lives and spent U.S. dollars were not going to change that.

The evacuation was chaotic, but it was the inevitable outcome of the Afghan government proving unable to provide for its own security and stability. While we clearly need to examine the details of the evacuation to learn what could have been done better, we also need to look at the 20 years of decisions that came before it.

Removing our military forces from Afghanistan, however, was the right decision.

Congressman Adam Smith, D-Wash., represents Washington’s 9th congressional district, serving parts of King and Pierce counties including Seattle, Bellevue, and Tacoma. As a senior member of Democratic leadership in the House, Congressman Smith also serves as Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

Afghanistan withdrawal remains the correct choice one year later
read more

Afghan girls take to streets to protest school closure in Paktia

September 11, 2022

Al Jazeera

10 September 2022

Dozens of girls protest in Gardez city after the Taliban shuts four schools, which were reopened on the intervention of tribal elders and school principals.

Dozens of girls have protested in Afghanistan’s Paktia province after Taliban authorities shut their schools just days after classes resumed, agencies and local media reported, as an estimated three million secondary school girls are shut out of school for more than a year now.

The Taliban has gone back on its promise to allow women’s education and job opportunities and has since imposed curbs on women’s rights, bringing back memories of its first stint in power between 1996-2001 during which women’s education was banned and women were banished from public life.

Late last month, a senior Taliban leader told Al Jazeera that the group is working to create a so-called “safe environment” for girls and women in secondary schools and the workplace, adding that Islam grants women the right to education, work, and entrepreneurship.

Earlier this month, four girls’ schools above sixth grade in Gardez, the provincial capital, and one in the Samkani district began operating after a recommendation by tribal elders and school principals, but without formal permission from the Taliban’s Ministry of Education.

When students in Gardez went for classes on Saturday, they were told to return home, a women’s rights activist and residents told AFP.

“This morning when they did not allow the girls to enter schools, we held a protest,” activist Yasmin and an organiser of the rally, told the news agency over the phone.

Images on social and local media, including TOLO news, show the girls dressed in their school uniforms – some in head-to-toe burqas, others in school uniforms and white veils – marching through the centre of Gardez to protest the closure.

“Why have you closed our schools? Why are you playing with our emotions?” one girl is heard saying through tears in one of the videos.

“The students protested peacefully, but soon the rally was dispersed by security forces,” one Gardez resident who asked not to be named told AFP.

Officials maintain the ban is just a “technical issue” and classes will resume once a curriculum based on Islamic rules is defined. A year after the Taliban took power in Afghanistan, a few public schools continue to operate in parts of the country following pressure from local leaders and families.

They remain shut in most provinces, however, including the capital Kabul, as well as Kandahar.

The Taliban has also imposed restrictions on women’s movement and required them to cover themselves from head to toe in public.

In March, they shuttered all girls’ secondary schools hours after reopening them for the first time under their rule.

Approximately three million girls are currently banned from getting secondary education in Afghanistan, according to UNICEF.

More than half of Afghanistan’s 39 million people need humanitarian help and six million are at risk of famine, according to the UN.

SOURCE: AL JAZEERA AND NEWS AGENCIES
Afghan girls take to streets to protest school closure in Paktia
read more

Tajikistan ‘rounding up and deporting Afghan refugees’

September 10, 2022
and Hikmat Noori

The Guardian

Fri 9 Sep 2022 08.03 EDT

The Tajikistan authorities are rounding up Afghan refugees and forcing them to cross the border back into Afghanistan, despite some having been granted asylum in other countries.

According to reports from Tajikistan’s 10,000-strong Afghan refugee community, people are being picked up off the street and houses raided in a spate of recent round-ups of Afghan families, who have been sheltering in the country since the Taliban seized power in August 2021.

The UN’s refugee agency, UNHCR, confirmed that 80 Afghan refugees and asylum seekers had been deported from Tajikistan since 16 August.

The UNHCR has appealed to the Tajikistan authorities to stop the forced deportations. It is not clear what the motivation or policy is behind them; until a few weeks ago the Tajikistan government was cooperating with the UNHCR to shelter and resettle Afghans fleeing the Taliban authorities.

Elizabeth Tan, UNHCR’s director of international protection, said: “We are asking Tajikistan to stop detaining and deporting refugees, an action that clearly puts lives at risk.

“Forced return of refugees is against the law and runs contrary to the principle of non-refoulement, a cornerstone of international refugee law,” she said, referring to the legal tenet that forbids a country receiving asylum seekers from returning them to somewhere they would be at risk of persecution.

The UN documented a case of five Afghans forced back on 23 August. They included “a family comprising three children and their mother, [and] were returned to Afghanistan through the Panji Poyon border checkpoint in southern Tajikistan, despite UNHCR’s interventions to halt the deportations”, the UN agency stated.

Afghans in Tajikistan who spoke to the Guardian say that the numbers being forced back over the land border into Afghanistan is running into the hundreds, with forced deportations increasing over the past fortnight. They said that many Afghan refugees were being sent back without passports or identity documents and left to fend for themselves, with no way of getting to a place of safety.

For nearly a week, no one in Samira’s family has dared to step out of their flat in a small town in northern Tajikistan. Her children have not been to school and they have not felt safe enough to get groceries or medical supplies.

All around them, they say, other members of the Afghan refugee community are being detained and forcibly deported back to their home country without clear reason or justification.

“We are living with a lot of fear that we might be detained by the police and deported at any minute,” said Samira*, a former security official who escaped Afghanistan after repeated attempts on her life.

“We will be arrested by the Taliban the moment we enter Afghanistan. I spent years fighting them, they will seek their revenge.”

“Even those with proper documents and ongoing asylum cases in western countries are being picked from the streets and dropped off at the border between Afghanistan and Tajikistan … which is why we stopped going outside,” said Ejaz*, Samira’s husband.

“With one of the families we know, the husband was deported without even being allowed to appeal against the decision or see his wife and kids. The family had a flight scheduled for 12 September to Canada, where they were emigrating. But now the husband is back in Afghanistan, while the wife and two kids are struggling to survive here.”

Maryam, a former Afghan media personality who fled to Turkey to escape the Taliban, is frantic with worry for the rest of her family, who are refugees in Tajikistan. They have locked themselves inside their home and are living in terror.

“They told me that it started with Afghans being rounded up from the streets, so they stopped leaving their homes. But then they [authorities] started raiding homes and picked up people from their places of work,” she said.

“I am afraid to talk to them on the phone or to check in with friends. Everyone is afraid they will be tracked and deported.”

While Samira and her family are also in the final stages of emigrating to Canada, she is racked with dread over the deportations. Her concern is mainly for her children, who have already experienced immense trauma. “The refugee life has been hard on children. They deserved a better future,” she said.

The Tajikistan authorities have been contacted for comment.

* Names have been changed to protect their identity

Tajikistan ‘rounding up and deporting Afghan refugees’
read more

Afghanistan’s Women Are on Their Own

September 9, 2022
By Shaharzad Akbar

Foreign Affairs

How the International Community Turned Its Back

Life under the Taliban is the worst women’s rights crisis on the planet. When the Taliban returned to power last August, they imposed immediate and brutal restrictions, the harshest of which were reserved for women. They quickly imposed a ban on girls’ secondary education, which remains in place despite domestic and international demands to lift it. They also placed restrictions on women’s movement, requiring women to be accompanied by a male family member while traveling, and women’s dress, ordering women to cover their faces in public. Girls and women are also no longer allowed to play sports.

Afghan women working for the government, with the exception of those doing jobs in the education and health sectors, were told to stay home and not report to work. The Taliban have also dissolved the Ministry of Women’s Affairs and the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, an institution that I led until January. These moves have left female victims of domestic violence with no legal remedy or support at a time when there are reports of increased forced marriages, including child marriages. The Taliban have excluded women from appointments in government and participation in major national events, including a large political gathering in June to discuss the country’s future. When a reporter asked Abdul Salam Hanafi, the Taliban’s deputy prime minister, about the lack of women’s participation, Hanafi said that women would be participating, in a way, because their sons would be attending. This kind of rhetoric, along with the new rules, promotes a demeaning narrative about women and their place in society and nullifies two decades’ worth of positive changes in public attitudes about the social and political roles that should be available to women.

The international community’s response to these events has been pitifully insufficient. Members of the UN Human Rights Council, as well as countries that have explicitly feminist foreign policies, such as Canada, France, Germany, and Sweden, have done little more than make statements of condemnation. The same is true for leaders in the Islamic world. Even imposing a travel ban on Taliban leaders has been a struggle, because Russia and China have blocked it at the UN Security Council. The UN Human Rights Council has yet to establish a strong, well-resourced accountability mechanism for Afghanistan despite repeated calls from the human rights community. Diplomats, including those from the United States, continue to engage with Taliban leaders at international conferences and in bilateral talks that exclude Afghan women and members of Afghan civil society. As a result, for the Afghan women at the forefront of the nonviolent resistance to the Taliban, a disturbing truth has sunk in: they are mostly on their own.

This total abandonment requires those working for women’s rights in Afghanistan to question their assumptions about the will and influence of the international community to help. Understanding that foreign partners are not going to show up requires changing the approach of those working in diaspora and on the ground. The focus for the Afghan women’s rights movement should be to strengthen its cohesion and prevent any divisiveness between the diaspora and activists inside the country. The Afghan women’s rights movement also needs to cultivate new allies inside the country and in the region. These should include Afghan writers, cultural activists, and moderate religious thinkers. Afghan women’s rights organizations need to strengthen their partnerships with organizations in Iran, Pakistan, Qatar, and other countries in the region to increase their engagement beyond the Western world. The women’s rights movement should invest in long-term social and cultural change in Afghan society through producing and disseminating content about women’s rights in local languages, strategic engagement with the Afghan media, and finding resources for educational and cultural exchanges for Afghan youth. Although the women’s movement needs to maintain a degree of engagement with Western countries and international human rights bodies, expectations for the international community should be based on a clear-eyed assessment of its near-nonexistent response over the past year.

IMMEDIATE CRACKDOWN

After the Taliban takeover last summer, Afghan women’s lives changed dramatically. For young women across the country, the situation presents a complete absence of hope. I know teenage girls who are suffering severe depression due to the closure of secondary schools. Although universities have not been closed to women, the classes have been separated for women and men and women’s clothing is policed. These restrictions have caused some female university students to abandon their studies. They have also lost their motivation to attend school because there are no employment opportunities waiting for them when they graduate. Households where the woman was the top earner now struggle as women have been sent home from their jobs or have had to shut down their businesses. Although the restrictions on women’s clothing and movement are not always enforced, they have created an environment of intimidation and fear where the act of leaving one’s house now requires immense courage.

As women confront this new reality, they are also reckoning with the severe humanitarian and economic crises that are threatening Afghanistan. An estimated 97 percent of households are unable to meet their basic needs. Tens of thousands of children are suffering malnutrition and being admitted to hospitals every month. Women and girls have been hit the hardest by the humanitarian crisis and lack of access to income, food, and health-care services as most women in the public sector have lost their jobs, and there has been an increase in reports of families selling their daughters into marriage.

Despite their anger, frustration, and loss, women are the only group inside Afghanistan consistently protesting the Taliban’s policies. Female activists have marched in the streets in Kabul and other cities, demanding the restoration of their basic rights. They have organized public events and spoken about the right to education and the need to reopen schools. Just as they did in the 1990s, when the Taliban were last in power, Afghan women have set up secret schools for girls so that they can continue to learn. The Taliban’s response to this civic activism has been a brutal crackdown. Female protesters have been violently dispersed, abducted, and held in illegal detention. They have also been subject to forced confessions. The Taliban have further tried to delegitimize female activists by claiming that they have staged their own abductions to seek asylum. Following the Taliban’s crackdown, the protests have become less frequent and now mostly take place in Kabul—and only if participants can ensure that some international media will be present, in the hope that it will offer greater protection. On some occasions, women gather inside their homes and release protest videos from there.

Women are the only group inside Afghanistan consistently protesting the Taliban’s policies.

Women in the Afghan diaspora have also mobilized, writing and speaking to shed light on the situation in Afghanistan and pressing Western officials and diplomats to take a variety of actions, including setting up independent monitoring mechanisms to make sure that humanitarian aid reaches Afghan girls and women, increasing political pressure on the Taliban to ensure girls’ access to education and women’s right to employment, and keeping in place targeted travel bans on Taliban leaders. Sanctions placed on the Taliban by the UN Security Council in 2011 banned 135 members of the group from traveling outside the country. But 13 Taliban leaders were granted an exemption so that they could meet officials abroad and travel to talks with the United States in Doha during the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump. That exemption was renewed regularly until it finally expired in early August. Now, no Taliban leaders are allowed to travel outside the country. China and Russia are pushing to change this, but Western countries have argued that the number of leaders allowed to travel should be smaller and the approved destinations fewer.

Western support for the travel bans is heartening, but too often the international response to the plight of women in Afghanistan has been hollow condemnations. Although officials from the United States, the EU, and the UN have held many meetings with women activists, there has been little if any concrete follow-up. Women’s rights activists have called for the UN Human Rights Council to establish an Afghanistan fact-finding mission, which would investigate human rights violations, but they have received only partial support from the council members. In October 2021, the council appointed Richard Bennett, a longtime human rights official at the UN, as a special rapporteur to monitor and report on the human rights situation in Afghanistan. Bennett traveled to Afghanistan in May and visited women’s rights activists, families of victims of various attacks, and members of Afghan civil society. He has said that the Taliban “is unparalleled globally in its misogyny and oppression.” His report is expected to be released in September. The work of a rapporteur is important, but Bennett is not paid for his work and his team members are not UN staff. Given the ongoing and widespread violations of human rights in Afghanistan, much more is needed. A more robust response would require a fully mandated and resourced investigative mechanism, such as a fact-finding mission or a commission of inquiry, both of which would require mandates from the UN Human Rights Council.

YOU’RE ON YOUR OWN

This is not the first time that the demands of Afghan women are falling on deaf ears. Throughout the U.S.-initiated talks with the Taliban, which began under the Trump administration and lasted from 2018 until February 2020, Afghan women campaigned, wrote, and organized mass gatherings to demand an inclusive peace process. But their appeals went unheeded. I attended a round of talks with the Taliban in Doha and heard firsthand their worryingly vague and general statements on women’s rights “within Islam.” Following this, in many interactions with U.S. officials, including Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. envoy who negotiated the Doha deal, I raised concerns about the lack of participation of women and victims of war in the talks and the emptiness of the Taliban’s reassurances. None of these concerns or warnings were taken seriously. Instead, I and others in the women’s movement were constantly told that the Taliban have changed.

Additionally, a convenient counternarrative took hold, pushed by male diplomats and male commentators, who claimed that the demands of Afghan women’s rights activists were not representative of rural Afghan women, and instead represented a Western imposition and were therefore not legitimate. In the end, the Doha agreement excluded any references to women’s rights, human rights, or civilian protection, key areas of concern for all Afghan people. Even while the United States and its allies made proclamations committing to protect the women of Afghanistan, they let the Taliban set the conditions of the talks. They participated in a process that would decide the fate of millions of Afghan women but that included zero Afghan women at the negotiating table.

This has meant that in addition to standing up to the Taliban and battling patriarchy inside Afghanistan, advocates for the rights of Afghan women have also had to contend with condescension, gaslighting, and marginalization at the hands of Western officials and alleged experts on Afghanistan. Women activists who fled Afghanistan after the Taliban took control last summer have had to endure this while also navigating the bureaucracies of various Western countries as they try to gain legal asylum. Although Western leaders have talked for the last two decades about supporting Afghan women, at critical junctures, where women’s rights activists’ rights and lives are on the line, Western countries have provided limited support for them or their cause, exposing a deep hypocrisy.

None of this is to say that the situation in Afghanistan is an easy challenge to solve. The Taliban won the war, and nobody wants to stand by and watch Afghans starve in a humanitarian crisis. So outside powers and organizations must deal with the Taliban regime in at least a limited way.

Yet Western officials have exercised poor judgment in picking their Taliban interlocutors and in setting the public tone of their engagement. Consider, for example, how Western governments and even the UN continue to deal with Sirajuddin Haqqani, Afghanistan’s acting interior minister and the leader of the Haqqani network, who remains on the FBI’s most wanted list because of his involvement in some of the bloodiest terrorist attacks in Afghanistan over the last 20 years. The world was reminded of his ties to al Qaeda earlier this summer when a U.S. drone strike killed al Qaeda’s leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, who was living in Kabul in a house owned by a top aide to Haqqani, according to U.S. intelligence.

Western officials may have to meet with Haqqani, but they should be mindful of how their interactions further normalize him and whitewash his deeply problematic background. In June, in a tweet noting a “farewell meeting” between Haqqani and Deborah Lyons, the outgoing Afghanistan representative for the UN Secretary-General, the UN used the honorific term “al hajj” in referring to Haqqani, which is typically reserved for people who have completed a pilgrimage to Mecca and connotes a level of respect. The tweet referred to discussions between him and Lyons on issues including counterterrorism, which infuriated Afghan human rights activists who have worked with victims of the Haqqani network’s terrorist attacks for years.

It is possible to deliver foreign aid through Afghan and international nongovernmental organizations without having to cozy up to some of the world’s most wanted terrorists. The EU is one of the biggest contributors of humanitarian aid to Afghanistan, and EU Special Envoy Tomas Niklasson has continued to be outspoken about the human rights issues and violations by the Taliban. He also engages with Afghan women and men outside the Taliban’s leadership.

PAINFUL TRUTHS

What has become excruciatingly clear is that Afghan women’s rights activists should not assume that the leaders of the democratic world will stand with them; such leaders and the institutions they represent no longer have much ability to protect Afghan women, nor much interest in doing so. Afghan women’s rights activists should also not assume that the leaders in Muslim-majority countries will pressure the Taliban into protecting even the most basic rights, such as girls’ access to education. It has been a year since the Taliban’s return to power, and not a single government leader from the Islamic world has issued a strong condemnation of the Taliban’s oppression of women, let alone applied any meaningful political pressure. Pakistani leaders, for instance, have continued engaging with the Taliban as if it is business as usual, while women in Afghanistan are imprisoned in their homes by the Taliban’s misogynistic and un-Islamic policies.

These are difficult realizations for the Afghan women’s movement. In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, many American politicians spoke about the protection of Afghan women as part of the “war on terror,” and a great deal of the progress that Afghan women experienced in the two decades that followed depended on the United States. Afghan women leaders learned to put pressure on foreign embassies and Western politicians to push the Afghan government to improve legal protections for women and to enhance its own performance on gender equality. In some cases, Afghan women invested more time cultivating relationships with donors and allies in the West than in the communities they intended to serve. This is one of the dynamics that needs to change to ensure the movement’s continued effectiveness and relevance on the ground.

The weak international response to the plight of Afghan women also reflects the ineffectiveness of the global human rights system. Afghanistan is a signatory to many treaties, including the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, but none of these commitments are serving the needs of Afghan women and girls under the Taliban regime. International agreements on human rights often rely on naming and shaming wrongdoers. But the current situation in Afghanistan exposes the limits of that approach, as the Taliban themselves admit to widespread violations of women’s rights. They have no shame. Unless there are concrete punishments on them, such as banning their travel or excluding their leaders from regional and international platforms, naming them will do nothing.

Western officials have exercised poor judgment in picking their Taliban interlocutors.

Coming to grips with the international community’s limited commitment to human rights should not deter Afghan women’s rights activists from carrying on with their struggle. They must continue to demand the world’s attention, seek increased humanitarian aid, and push for a sense of urgency in responding to the economic crisis. And they should continue to call out foreign leaders and countries who normalize the Taliban’s oppression of women’s rights.

They must also remember, however, that this is only half the battle, and that little can be achieved without increasing regional and domestic pressure on the Taliban. Afghan women in the diaspora should align with and support the civil society in Afghanistan in that effort. Creating a broader domestic alliance in support of women’s rights will require creativity and patience. Afghan women should mobilize civil society in the region and in Islamic countries to more forcefully stand in support of Afghan women’s rights. This can be achieved by Afghan women leaders in the diaspora investing more time and resources in regional engagements and building strategic partnerships in the region. Women in the Afghan diaspora should act in solidarity with their sisters on the ground, amplifying their demands by providing platforms to activists in Afghanistan and facilitating their access to the networks and resources outside the country. The long-term strategic goal of the movement should be broader cultural and social change in support of women’s rights among Afghans, not just exerting external pressure on the Taliban.

The Taliban’s systematic oppression of women will have devastating implications for generations to come. To change the situation in Afghanistan, activists must go beyond knocking on the same doors and hearing only the same halfhearted statements of support. Meanwhile, if the international community continues its desultory approach to women’s rights in Afghanistan, it will lose its credibility on the issue across the globe.

  • SHAHARZAD AKBAR is the former Chair of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission. She was previously Deputy on the Afghan National Security Council for Peace and Civilian Protection and served as Country Director for Open Society Afghanistan from 2014 to 2017. She is currently an Academy Fellow on Human Rights at Chatham House.
Afghanistan’s Women Are on Their Own
read more

One Year On, Official Cabinet of the Islamic Emirate Still Not Announced

September 9, 2022
TOLOnews
TV Network
Tolo News
07 SEPTEMBER 2022

The Islamic Emirate’s spokesman stated that the current cabinet is only temporary and will be replaced in the future.

Even though it has been more than a year since the Islamic Emirate’s acting cabinet was established, the formal cabinet has still not been announced by the current government, and all of the ministers are still serving as acting heads.

The Islamic Emirate’s spokesperson, Zabiullah Mujahid, cited reasons including the lack of a constitution, the inability to create a council, and a few other governance-related issues as key reasons why an official cabinet has not been announced.

“At the moment, our cabinet is acting; however, this is still the result of some wisdom, since there are still some governance shortages in the country that need to be addressed. For instance, we do not yet have a council, the constitution has not yet been established, and there are still some other issues. Let us come together as a nation, and if we achieve stability, the system will no longer be acting,” he remarked.

In addition to this issue, the Islamic Emirate has not been recognized by any country for more than a year, and the international community has consistently called for the creation of an inclusive government. Kabul, however, has continually emphasized that the current government is already inclusive.

“Tell us so that we truly understand what kind of government you want. Believe me, they haven’t told us what kind of government they want up until now. However, the Afghan government must be the one to find a solution to that country’s issues,” said Amir Khan Muttaqi, the acting foreign minister.

But analysts have different views about the cabinet of the Islamic Emirate.

“Where there is no legislation, the relationship between the people and the government is not established, the structure of the government is not defined, the responsibilities, obligations, and duties of each power are not stated, it is difficult to announce the official cabinet,” said Sayed Javad Sajadi, another political analyst.

“The Taliban should construct a normal government with all the standards, with national legitimacy, a ruler, and declare their cabinet– if the Taliban really want to work for their country for their survival, and if they have come to rule,” said Aziz Marij, a political analyst.

One of the issues that sparked controversy during the past year was the current cabinet’s lack of female representation.

Meanwhile, one of the demands of the international community over the past year was that Afghanistan’s territory not be used against other nations, and Kabul has consistently said that it is bound to this commitment.

“No person or group has been able to use Afghan land against any country in the past twelve months,” said Amir Khan Muttaqi, acting foreign minister.

The Islamic Emirate’s spokesman stated that the current cabinet is only temporary and will be replaced in the future.

One Year On, Official Cabinet of the Islamic Emirate Still Not Announced
read more

OCHA, WFP Express Concerns Over Crisis in Afghanistan

September 9, 2022
By Hadia Ziaei
Tolo News
9 Sept 2022

Right now there are many people who are facing poverty and living in bad conditions in Afghanistan.

The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) in Afghanistan and the World Food Program (WFP) expressed concerns over the deteriorating economic crises in Afghanistan.

In a tweet, OCHA in Afghanistan said that 25 million people in Afghanistan are facing poverty.

“19M people are facing food insecurity, 25M people are living in poverty, 5.8M people are in protracted internal displacement, thousands of houses damaged by floods and earthquake.

To survive the winter, they require food, nutrition support, warm clothing & a roof over their heads,” tweeted OCHA.

In the meantime, the World Food Program has voiced concerns about the economic crisis in Afghanistan.

“The economic crisis wiped out jobs, salaries & livelihoods across Afghanistan, helping families & communities support themselves is more important than ever,” said WFP on Twitter.

“A nation cannot reach prosperity until the poverty and unemployment are eradicated, so the way that can end poverty and unemployment is strengthening the private sector, attracting investment and creating employment in the country,” said Abdul Naseer, political analyst.

Right now there are many people who are facing poverty and living in bad conditions in Afghanistan.

Mohammad Amin was teaching in a literacy center. He has turned to shoemaking for a living and criticized the process of distributing humanitarian aid.

“Nobody has assisted me, they repeatedly asked for my ID card and photo to assist, and I gave it, but I never received aid,” said Mohammad Amin, a teacher.

Some people who are street workers have criticized the lack of working opportunities and say that humanitarian aid is not distributed transparently.

“Changes have happened, unemployment is rising, we cannot afford shelter, paying the daily expenses and electricity bills,” said Nazir, a worker.

OCHA, WFP Express Concerns Over Crisis in Afghanistan
read more

Human Rights Groups Call on UN for Stronger Accountability in Afghanistan

September 9, 2022
TOLOnews
TV Network
8 Sept 2022

This comes as Kabul has repeatedly denied the reports of the violations of human rights, and called them baseless.

Human rights groups in an open letter to the UN called for the establishment of a dedicated accountability mechanism by the Human Rights Council (HRC), alongside the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan.

“The signatory organizations call your attention to the deplorable state of human rights in Afghanistan and in particular the absolute lack of accountability for gross and systematic human rights violations and abuses, including crimes under international law, occurring in Afghanistan, especially against women and girls, ethnic and religious minorities, journalists, and human rights defenders,” the letter reads.

Meanwhile, Farah Mustafavi, a women’s rights activist, voiced criticism over the activities of the human rights organizations in Afghanistan.

“The results of the one-year activities of the UN representatives, the human rights representatives and national and international organization for human rights in Afghanistan, have not been satisfactory for the people of Afghanistan,” she said.

Richard Bennett is the current UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan, and the renewal of his post was called for in the open letter.

“The Western countries will call for the renewal of Richard Bennett. China and Russia will also accept it but the report of Richard Bennett is made from outside Afghanistan. For better transparency, it is better that Richard Bennett stays in Kabul and write the report from Kabul,” said Torek Farhadi, a political analyst.

This comes as Kabul has repeatedly denied the reports of the violations of human rights, and called them baseless.

The Islamic Emirate stressed that it is committed to human rights and women’s rights based on Islamic values.

Human Rights Groups Call on UN for Stronger Accountability in Afghanistan
read more

Taliban: UAE firm to run flight services on Afghan airports

September 9, 2022
By RAHIM FAIEZ
Associated Press
8 September 2022

ISLAMABAD (AP) — The Taliban and the Abu Dhabi-based firm GAAC Solutions signed a contract Thursday for the Emirati company to provide flight services and manage planes landing and taking off on key airports in Afghanistan.

The flight guidance services deal will also include equipping the facilities and training Afghan staff at country’s three major airports, including the one in the capital of Kabul, the Taliban said.

The two other airports covered under the deal are in the cities of Herat, in the country’s west, and in Kandahar, in southern Afghanistan and a Taliban heartland during the insurgents’ 20-year war with U.S. and NATO forces.

The Taliban have faced withering international criticism of their rule since seizing the country in August 2021 amid the last weeks of the American and NATO troop withdrawal from Afghanistan. Since the Taliban takeover, Qatar’s government has agreed to represent the United States in the Taliban-run country, following the closure of the U.S. Embassy in Kabul.

Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, the Taliban-appointed deputy prime minister, said at Thursday’s deal-signing ceremony in Kabul that the “strengthening of the economy is a priority for the government.”

“”This agreement will have a positive effect on trade and economic growth of the country,” he added.

The international community, wary of the Taliban’s harsh rule when they were last in power more than 20 years ago, has withheld official recognition of the Taliban government and Afghanistan’s assets abroad have been frozen.

Taliban’s acting minister for transportation and civil aviation, Hamidullah Akhundzada said that contract’s main goal is to develop air services for flights and provide services at airports.

In March, the same company signed its first deal to manage ground-handling on the same airports. At the time, Baradar described the arrangement as renewing an airport ground-handling agreement with the UAE, a federation of seven sheikhdoms home to the long-haul carriers Emirates and Etihad Airways.

GAAC Solutions had reportedly signed a $47 million service contract in 2020, with Afghanistan’s then-U.S.-backed government to run airports in the country, including ground handling, information technology and security.

GAAC Solutions had once described itself on a one-page website as an Abu Dhabi-based joint venture whose partners include the firm G42, which is believed to have the backing of the ruling family of the Emirati capital. G42, however, has said it no longer is a part of GAAC Solutions. A telephone number or contact information for GAAC Solutions could not be immediately found Thursday.

Taliban: UAE firm to run flight services on Afghan airports
read more

Afghan Adjustment Act: What does it mean for refugees in US?

September 9, 2022
By Brian Osgood
Al Jazeera
Published On 9 Sep 2022

Legislation could give Afghans paroled to the US a path to permanent residency after months of uncertainty.

A bipartisan group of legislators in the US Congress have introduced the Afghan Adjustment Act (AAA), a bill aimed at giving tens of thousands of Afghans in the United States a path to citizenship.

Since the US withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021, the Department of Homeland Security says it has brought more than 80,000 Afghans to the country. Many came in under humanitarian parole, a fast-track system that enabled tens of thousands of people to enter the country quickly, after the collapse of the US-backed Afghan government, and a chaotic and messy airlift out of Kabul.

Humanitarian parole allows Afghans to live and work in the US for two years but does not offer a clear path to permanent residency. In this way, it differs from programmes such as the Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) for Afghans who worked with the US government.

The AAA, which was introduced in Congress in August and could be brought up for a vote before the end of the current session, may offer a new process for parolees.

Here, Al Jazeera takes a look at the proposed legislation and what effect it would have on the lives of Afghan refugees in the US:

What is in the bill?

The AAA would create a path to permanent residency for Afghans brought to the US through parole if they meet certain criteria and undergo additional vetting.

It would also expand SIV eligibility to a few additional groups, including the Female Tactical Teams of Afghanistan, the Afghan National Army Special Operations Command, the Afghan Air Force, and the Special Mission Wing of Afghanistan. The bill would establish a task force to develop a strategy for assisting SIV-eligible individuals still in Afghanistan.

Is there support for the bill?

When Kabul fell to the Taliban last year, there was an outpouring of support for Afghans, along with calls to stand by those who had worked with the US during the two-decade war. Some legislators see the AAA as a much-needed step towards fulfilling that promise.

An October 2021 poll found that 72 percent of Americans favoured granting entry to the US to Afghans who worked with the US or Afghan governments, and 42 percent supported granting entry to others who feared living under the Taliban.

US President Joe Biden asked Congress to take action to provide Afghans with a path to permanent residency in May. Immigrant rights groups have urged legislators to move swiftly.

The International Rescue Committee, a humanitarian organisation that works with refugees, called the AAA “a clear demonstration of American values in action”, while the Afghan resettlement aid group 5ive Pillars said it could “lift tens of thousands of Afghan allies out of impending legal limbo”.

Will the bill pass?

The chances of the AAA successfully passing through the US Congress are not certain. Despite its emphasis on rigorous security vetting for applicants, it is not clear whether that will be enough to gain support from the 10 Republicans needed to overcome a potential filibuster in the Senate, or whether it will even be brought to a vote anytime soon.

Republicans have cited a February report by the Department of Defense that found 50 Afghans had been granted entry despite “potentially significant security concerns”.

The bill’s chances could also be affected by the midterm elections in November, which could see Congress shift to Republican control.

As it stands, the legislation has the support of a wide variety of legislators, including Republican Senator Lindsey Graham and moderate Democrats such as Senators Amy Klobuchar and Chris Coons. “We owe an enormous debt of gratitude to the Afghan people for the ways they supported US forces for almost 20 years, often at great personal risk,” Coons said in a statement.

What can Afghans do if the bill fails?

If the AAA fails to move forward, Afghans who were paroled into the US will have to apply for permanent residency through traditional programmes, such as refugee admissions or SIV.

But traditional programmes are plagued by enormous backlogs and long processing times. Navigating the US immigration system can require enlisting the help of immigration lawyers, which can be complicated and expensive. Some Afghan American and immigrant rights groups offer help with this process, but their resources are scarce.

Since March, the Biden administration has also allowed Afghans in the US to apply for “temporary protected status”, shielding them from deportation — but just for 18 months. If other immigration pathways fail, many could find themselves in limbo.

What will happen to Afghans who are still overseas?

While the US was able to evacuate tens of thousands of Afghans last year, many were left behind, and the pathway for them to come to the US looks increasingly shaky.

Nearly 50,000 more Afghans have applied for humanitarian parole since July 2021, according to US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), but as of this month, just 410 have been accepted.

The majority have not yet received a response to their applications, and USCIS says that about 70 percent of these applicants are in Afghanistan, while the rest are in third-party countries.

What are the current conditions in Afghanistan?

While Afghanistan has seen an overall decrease in violence since the US war ended, the country has been devastated economically by the evaporation of international aid, along with US sanctions and a cash freeze.

Millions of people are at risk of famine, according to the United Nations, and Afghan women have seen their access to education and personal freedoms rolled back by the Taliban. A July report from the UN detailed a litany of human rights abuses, including abductions and executions, since the group came back to power in August 2021.

Washington has been heavily criticised for its failure to offer assistance to Afghans left behind, and rights groups have accused the US immigration system of employing a racist double-standard in how it applies parole to Afghans.

“We’re still asking the government to use its generous parole authority to bring more Afghans to safety,” Laila Ayub, an immigration lawyer who helps Afghans apply for parole, told Al Jazeera. “This kind of legislation can ensure that any Afghans who get here have a pathway to legal status, but there has to be an ongoing effort to bring more Afghans to safety.”

USCIS says it receives about 2,000 requests for humanitarian parole in a typical year, and is struggling to cope with the scale of demand.

Could the US create a programme for Afghans like it did for Ukrainians?

Critics say the US has shown it can address these issues when it wants to, by creating a special programme that streamlines the parole process and waives certain requirements, as it did for Ukrainians in April.

When the White House announced the creation of its “Uniting for Ukraine” programme, some Afghans lamented what they saw as a double standard.

But the Biden administration last week promised to discontinue the use of humanitarian parole to bring large numbers of at-risk Afghans into the US, shifting its focus to resettling those already in the country. It was unclear how the new policy, which takes effect on October 1, would affect Afghans with pending parole applications.

What does the future hold for Afghans?

As conditions deteriorate inside Afghanistan, more Afghans may embark on perilous journeys in search of refuge in other countries.

Afghan-American advocates say the US must do more to give Afghans a new home in the country, while alleviating suffering in Afghanistan by rethinking some of its economic policies, such as sanctions and the cash freeze.

Afghans in the US, meanwhile, face open questions about their future. Resettling in a new country always comes with challenges, but without a secure pathway to permanent status, that process is mired in uncertainty.

Afghan Adjustment Act: What does it mean for refugees in US?
read more

Recent Posts