Convinced that their interpretation of Islam is the only legitimate one, Afghanistan’s Taliban leaders continue to issue decrees that strip the country’s women and girls of their rights and freedoms. Their latest edict bans Afghan women — already prohibited from speaking in public — from praying aloud or reciting the Koran in the presence of other women.
“When women are not permitted to call takbir [Allahu akbar] or athan [the Islamic call to prayer], they certainly cannot sing songs or music,” declared Mohammad Khalid Hanafi, the minister for the propagation of virtue and prevention of vice.
Just months ago, there was some hope that the Taliban might ease its restrictions on women and girls’ education. Instead, the regime seems intent on entrenching its gender apartheid system. In response, Richard Bennett, the UN special rapporteur on human rights in Afghanistan — who remains barred from entering the country — has launched a review of the Taliban’s repressive policies, calling its latest decree a “pivotal moment.”
Meanwhile, the UN’s Sixth Committee (Legal) recently approved a draft global treaty targeting crimes against humanity. As many human rights groups, including Amnesty International, have argued, this treaty, which is to be the subject of further discussion in January 2026, must recognize and codify gender apartheid as a crime under international law. Such a designation would represent a historic step toward ending the systemic discrimination, oppression and subjugation of women and girls in Afghanistan, Iran and beyond.
The Taliban’s gender apartheid underscores the urgent need to confront this profound moral failure. Over the past three years, the regime has denied Afghan girls and young women access to schools and universities, barred women from most forms of employment, prohibited them from traveling without a male chaperone and excluded them from most public spaces. It also enforces a draconian dress code requiring women to wear burqas that cover them from head to toe.
In August, the Taliban intensified its efforts to silence women, banning them from singing, reciting and speaking in public. During multilateral negotiations in Doha earlier this year, Afghan women and women’s groups were excluded, while the regime refused even to acknowledge their plight.
Despite these restrictions, Afghan girls — many of whom were already in school when the Taliban returned to power in 2021 — continue to dream of becoming doctors, nurses, teachers, engineers and entrepreneurs. At great risk to themselves and their families, some attend underground schools, participate in local home-schooling initiatives or pursue remote learning. A few have managed to leave the country to study abroad. However, these efforts fall far short of bridging the gap between the number of girls entitled to an education under international law and those who receive one.
The oppression of Afghan women has had far-reaching — and devastating — consequences. According to a recent UN Women report, child marriage has increased by 25 percent, owing partly to girls’ exclusion from secondary education. Mental distress, depression and suicide attempts have also soared, and the risk of maternal mortality has surged by at least 50 percent, fueled by a rise in childbirth deaths among young girls.
Encouragingly, the international community has made progress in mobilizing a legal response to the Taliban’s oppressive policies. In March last year, prominent Afghan jurists and women’s rights advocates launched the End Gender Apartheid campaign, calling for its recognition as an international crime. Building on this momentum, the UN Working Group on Discrimination Against Women and Girls recommended including gender apartheid in the draft treaty on crimes against humanity. During the April session of the UN’s legal committee on draft articles, several member states expressed support for its inclusion.
The discussions in January 2026 would consider the proposed definition of gender apartheid as “inhumane acts committed within the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic discrimination, oppression and domination by one group over another or others, based on gender, and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.”
This definition encompasses violations of fundamental human rights, such as access to education, healthcare and employment, as well as freedom of expression, assembly and participation in political, social, economic and cultural life.
However, the question remains: Can the proposed treaty deliver justice to victims of systemic discrimination? While it obligates signatories to prosecute crimes against humanity, its enforcement mechanisms remain limited. Member states would be required to cooperate and provide legal assistance on matters like extradition, but the draft lacks a firm commitment to suppress crimes — a key provision of the 1973 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid. Moreover, the draft treaty focuses on the criminal responsibility of individuals, overlooking the role of institutions and organizations in establishing and sustaining gender apartheid.
The international community must make it clear that it would not normalize relations with the Taliban until the regime ends its war on women, and predominantly Muslim countries could play a critical role. Notably, Qatar — which has long acted as a mediator between the Taliban and the West — has condemned the Taliban’s policies, as has Saudi Arabia. The United Arab Emirates has gone further, denouncing Afghanistan’s ban on girls’ education as a violation of “the teachings of Islam” that “must be swiftly reversed.”
Muslim-majority countries should lead the effort to bring a case against Afghanistan before the International Court of Justice for violating the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. Doing so would send a clear message: There would be no creeping reintegration or de facto recognition of the Taliban regime as long as it maintains its oppressive policies.
Importantly, such a move would also deliver a message of solidarity and hope to Afghan girls and young women that their suffering has not been overlooked and that their oppressors would be held accountable. The world cannot afford another year of inaction while these egregious human rights violations persist.
Gordon Brown, a former British prime minister, is UN Special Envoy for Global Education and chair of Education Cannot Wait.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS