No Comment from Hillary Clinton as USAID Pulls Back on Goals for Helping Afghan Women

In May 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that the United States would never “abandon” the women of Afghanistan by allowing President Hamid Karzai to make any deals with the Taliban.   Specifically, Clinton told three senior female Afghan officials that “we will not abandon you. . . . [I]t is essential that women’s rights and women’s opportunities are not sacrificed or trampled on in the reconciliation process.”  Clinton also said that she had promised Karzai that the U.S. would not “abandon Afghanistan in its quest for peace and long-term stability and we will not. And I make the same pledge to the women of Afghanistan. We will not abandon you, we will stand with you always.”  And last month, Clinton promised that the United States “will not . . . support a political process that undoes the social progress that has been made in the past decade.”

However, Clinton has made no comment as USAID (United States Agency for International Development) has eliminated provisions in contracts that would have ensured at least some help for Afghan women.  Even though this is not in the context of Karzai making deals with the Taliban, it seems awfully clear that this is an abandonment of the women.  Why are we hearing nothing from Clinton?  As I said in that July post, “Hillary Clinton, please remember your pledge to the women of Afghanistan.”  Clearly, she has forgotten that pledge.

In March 2010, USAID sought bids for a $140 million land reform program in Afghanistan.  The bid required that the winning contractor meet specific goals to promote women’s rights: “The number of deeds granting women title had to increase by 50 percent; there would have to be regular media coverage on women’s land rights; and teaching materials for secondary schools and universities would have to include material on women’s rights.”  However, before the contract was awarded, USAID removed all of those specific requirements.  Similarly, in a $600 million contract for a municipal government program, USAID removed all specific provisions related to women’s rights.

The reasons given by U.S. government officials for these changes are extremely troubling.  The director of USAID’s Office of Afghanistan and Pakistan Affairs says that the elimination of specific women’s rights provisions were done because they were not “realistic”:  “If you’re targeting an issue, you need to target it in a way you can achieve those objectives.  The women’s issue is one where we need hardheaded realism. There are things we can do, and do well. But if we become unrealistic and overfocused . . . we get ourselves in trouble.”

Another senior government official (anonymously) says that the reason for the changes is because there is a “desire at the top levels of the Obama administration to triage the war and focus on the overriding goal of ending the conflict” and that “[g]ender issues are going to have to take a back seat to other priorities.  There’s no way we can be successful if we maintain every special interest and pet project. All those pet rocks in our rucksack were taking us down.”

So, in the words of that official, women’s rights in Afghanistan is a “special interest” and a “pet project.”  Ms. Clinton, do you agree with that?  If not, why are you not commenting?

And, Ms. Clinton, what do you think about President Karzai drafting new rules that would “bar private safe houses for women who are fleeing abuse and place new rules on those seeking refuge in the country’s 14 public shelters, including forcing women to submit to medical examinations and evicting them if their families want them back”?  Isn’t that also an abandonment by the U.S.?

Karzai’s “Reach Out” to the Taliban Would Be a Disaster for Women

In May, I wrote about Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s statement that the United States would not abandon the women of Afghanistan by allowing President Hamid Karzai to make any deals with the Taliban.  Clinton told three senior female Afghan officials that “we will not abandon you. . . . [I]t is essential that women’s rights and women’s opportunities are not sacrificed or trampled on in the reconciliation process.”  Clinton also said that she had promised Karzai that the U.S. would not “abandon Afghanistan in its quest for peace and long-term stability and we will not. And I make the same pledge to the women of Afghanistan. We will not abandon you, we will stand with you always.”

However, Afghanistan’s President Hamid Karzai is still said to be “seeking a rapprochement with the Taliban movement, with the ultimate goal of drawing it into the political process.”  I haven’t heard anything more from Clinton about the situation.  Any rapprochement could have egregious impact on Afghanistan’s women.  For example, the Taliban is against any education of women after an early age.  As a result, in areas under Taliban control, the Taliban has been suspected in a series of poisonous gas attacks against school girls in 2010 and the past few years, including in 2008, when around 15 girls and teachers in Kandahar were sprayed with acid by men on motorbikes.  Female teachers are also being threatened.  One female teacher at a girls’ school in a southern Afghan province received a letter saying: “We warn you to leave your job as a teacher as soon as possible otherwise we will cut off the heads of your children and will set fire to your daughter.”

This past week, Human Rights Watch issued a report titled The ‘Ten Dollar Talib’ and Women’s Rights: Afghan Women and the Risks of Reintegration and Reconciliation. The report was based on interviews with 90 women in districts largely controlled by the Taliban.  The report’s purpose was to show that any claims that the Taliban are mostly influenced by money, rather than ideology, are wrong.  The report summarizes that:

“Afghan women want an end to the conflict. But as the prospect of negotiations with the Taliban draws closer, many women fear that they may also pay a heavy price for peace” and that “Reconciliation with the Taliban, a group synonymous with misogynous policies and the violent repression of women, raises serious concerns about the possible erosion of recently gained rights and freedoms.”

All of the women interviewed for the HRW report said they had lost freedoms. In some cases, women have been killed.  In April, a 22-year-old woman was threatened and then killed for working for an American development organization.  A day after the killing, another woman received a letter saying that she should stop working for the infidels and “in the same way that yesterday we have killed Hossai, whose name was on our list, your name and other women’s names are on our list.”  In late 2009, women were warned not to ring up radio stations and request songs and were told that, if they did, they would be beheaded or acid thrown in their faces.  More generally, women have been forced to give up their jobs and stay at home.  Women active in politics have been targeted and a number of the most prominent assassinated.

Hillary Clinton, please remember your pledge to the women of Afghanistan.