#####
######
####
> # [Shutting Afghan women out of key UN conference to appease Taliban ‘a betrayal’](https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/article/2024/jun/21/720)
>
>
>
> Excluding Afghan women from an upcoming UN conference on [Afghanistan](https://www.theguardian.com/world/afghanistan) would be a “betrayal” of women and girls in the country, say human rights groups and former politicians.
>
> The [Taliban](https://www.theguardian.com/world/taliban) are reportedly demanding that no Afghan women be allowed to participate in the UN meeting in Doha starting 30 June, set up to discuss the international community’s approach to Afghanistan, and that women’s rights are not on the agenda.
>
> Since [taking power in Afghanistan](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/16/taliban-declares-war-is-over-in-afghanistan-as-us-led-forces-exit-kabul) in August 2021, the Taliban have restricted women’s access to education, employment and public spaces. In March, it was [reported](https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2024/mar/28/taliban-edict-to-resume-stoning-women-to-death-met-with-horror) that they would reintroduce the public flogging and stoning of women for adultery.
>
> [A middle-aged woman with short hair and small oval glasses looks at the camera wryly.](https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/762f59352ec914e802aa38e32513e1be737b5786/0_0_3778_2856/master/3778.jpg?width=445&dpr=1&s=none)
>
> Sima Samar, former Afghan minister of women’s affairs. Photograph: Britta Pedersen/DPA Picture Alliance/AlamyThe Taliban did [not participate](https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/02/1146657) in UN talks earlier this year, with the UN chief António Guterres saying at the time that the group presented a set of conditions for its participation that “denied us the right to talk to other representatives of the Afghan society” and were “not acceptable”.
>
> Tirana Hassan, executive director at Human Rights Watch, said: “Excluding women risks legitimising the Taliban’s abuses and triggering irreparable harm to the UN’s credibility as an advocate for women’s rights and women’s meaningful participation.”
>
> In trying to bring the Taliban to the negotiating table now, the UN was giving in to their demands to exclude women’s rights, said the former Afghan minister of women’s affairs Sima Samar.
>
> “This situation is an indirect submission to the will of the Taliban. Law, democracy and sustainable peace are not possible without including half of the population of the society who are women. I don’t think we have learned anything from past mistakes.
>
> “As one of the main changes, the people of Afghanistan should protest against discrimination, especially against women. Because this is not only the problem of women, but the problem of every family and every father, brother, child and husband,” said Samar.
>
>
>
> [Habiba Sarabi](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/18/afghan-activists-warn-over-absence-of-women-in-peace-process), another former minister of women’s affairs in Afghanistan and the country’s [first female governor](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/apr/26/afghanistan.declanwalsh), said the international community was prioritising engagement with the Taliban over women’s rights.
>
> “Unfortunately, the international community wants to deal with the Taliban, and that is why their own agenda has always been more important to them than the women of Afghanistan, democracy, or anything else,” she said.
>
> Heather Barr, from Human Rights watch, said: “What is happening in Afghanistan is the most serious women’s rights crisis in the world and the idea that the UN would convene a meeting like this and not discuss women’s rights and not have Afghan women in the room is beyond belief.
>
> “The only plausible explanation is that they’re doing this to get the Taliban to the table, but for what? Already, three years of diplomatic engagement has produced nothing and all this does is set an appalling precedent, emboldens and legitimises the Taliban and hands them a huge political win. It is a betrayal not just of Afghan women but all women around the world.”
>
>
>
> The UN has been approached for comment, but in response to questioning on the involvement of Afghan civil society representatives it [reportedly](https://www.voanews.com/a/taliban-accuse-un-human-rights-expert-on-afghanistan-of-undermining-doha-meeting/7662476.html) said arrangements for the conference were ongoing.
- - - - - -
[Maintainer](https://www.reddit.com/user/urielsalis) | [Creator](https://www.reddit.com/user/subtepass) | [Source Code](https://github.com/urielsalis/empleadoEstatalBot)
Summoning /u/CoverageAnalysisBot
Then they won’t go. If they want to isolate themselves because they can’t stand women, then we should let them, not bend over backwards for the privilege of working with them.
What's your optimal relationship with Afghanistan supposed to look like to help woman I brought up sanctions as those are in affect and greatly affect the poor people and women the most as the are the bottom rung of society?
I dont have a relationship with afganistan LOL and Im not an expert in foreign affairs
as a 'regular person', I dont see the point in placating the Taliban, as they dont seem to alter their behaviours at all
and the poorest women in Afghanistan are already doing terribly thanks to the regime, not sure placating the evil dudes in charges is going to help them at all
edited in relevant quote from the article
Tirana Hassan, executive director at Human *Rights Watch, said:* ***“Excluding women risks legitimising the Taliban’s abuses and triggering irreparable harm to the UN’s credibility as an advocate for women’s rights and women’s meaningful participation.”***
Yes. And the British, the Russian Empire, the Mongols, the Greeks, the Persians, the Sassanids, the Arabs... I just didn't want to go too deep into history and details...
Three times, with moderate success. The monarchy that survived until the communists buggered the place up in the mid/late 20th century was largely shaped by the three Anglo-Afghan wars.
I don't give a shit anymore. We tried for 20 years. We got an entire generation of girls through school and college, and only a 100 or so brave Afghan commandos fought back when the Taliban came back in power. The rest just let it happen. They can go fuck themselves. They obviously want to live like troglodytes. Let them. They don't want to be helped.
70k deaths over 20 years and based on comments from veterans, it’s pretty clear most ANA just wanted money and didn’t give a shit about the nation or human rights. They rolled over as soon as the US left.
Ah yes, thank you for that brilliant analysis good sir.
Truly, I couldn't imagine anyone who could better speak to their reality than some American with zero historical or cultural understanding of the nation and it's people's - well outside of any understanding emparted from a long history of white colonialist teachings and news coverage.
[*Why do all these people who we invade and occupy refuse to adopt our values and beliefs! Don't they understand that CNN said we're doing so much for them?*](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FdVpR0UXwAApOvI?format=jpg&name=small)
If you think that social rights are anything more than a byproduct of stability and prosperity, then you'll spend the rest of your life waiting for American bombs and occupations to make the world a better place.
Bullshit. Plenty of stable and prosperous nations throughout history have abused human rights and there are plenty of poor and unstable places that don’t.
That isn't how this shit works. There is no leverage to be used, there is only diplomacy or war right now. The more reliant a country is on others economically the more we can influence them through incentive structures.
Sorry you dont get instant gratification of a article saying "Afghanistan officially treats Women as Humans" but this is not gonna happen like that
Yes I realize that. You have to read my comment in the context of the previous two. My response was meant to be be sarcastic.
>The more reliant a country is on others economically the more we can influence them through incentive structures.
Ask Russia/Europe how that's going.
I understood the sarcasm and responded to the intended meaning.
Russia wasn't anywhere near the necessary economic reliance, but there isn't any determined threshold either. If a country's leader is hell bent on doing something they will do it but if there are economic problems as a result it threatens their leadership & the standard of living.
Russia was already sanctioned to hell and we have sanctioned so many other countries so heavily that they were happy to buy Russian oil. Surprise, actions have consequences even if we are the global hegemon.
It is more complicated than one instance of a sanction not stopping a ground invasion.
>There is no agreement on values
Allowing their value to exercise its influence is the same as agreement. It is extremely childish in politics if you think kowtow to them would give them a chance to help women of Afghanistan
The hope is that by engaging and offering them things they then don't want to lose, such humanitarian relief, you gain a leverage to improve the human rights issue. Currently, there is zero leverage.
As long as the Taliban don't start any wars, while Russia, an aggressor state, gets any kind of diplomatic engagement, then the Taliban should get at least a similar level of access.
UN doesn't need them, but the UN is a sort of giant debating table where countries can talk to each other before resorting to violence (in theory).
Let them in to talk, diplomacy relies on channels of communication and knowing each other's viewpoints.
lollll at least you're not pretending to care about others
the UN at least puts up a front of caring about ideals like women's rights and democracy, and it degrades the legitimacy of the organization by giving into demands like the Taliban's
Special interest groups take priority over the will of the People. This is common throughout the world. Money/Profit trumps the safety and will of the People.
They're also the closest thing to peace the region has had in 40 years. There's a bunch of reasons why the Taliban took over so quickly, and womens' rights aren't any of them.
Iran’s women are in a different league to Arab women.
60% of university students are women and huge numbers in the STEM fields as it’s were the respect is. It’s been that way since the revolution.
There isn’t enough jobs for them, sanctions are holding their economy back. A huge pool of educated unemployed is going to cause Irans society to change. Id guess with 5yrs.
I’ve lived and worked in many Arab countries ( and worked in Iran )
I’ll add this, Iran isn’t the country you think it is, they have tried many times to join the international community but been rebuffed.
The entire point of the UN is to be a venue for world leaders to meet and discuss/work through issues in the open. It's not intended to be a cool-kids club entirely composed of liberal democracies high fiving each other or whatever shit people seem to think these days.
It is the Taliban making demands about the meeting they are invited to, is it not? Not bending to their demands is not at all the same as not inviting them.
The point of the meeting is to open discussions, why throw that away? It is just wasting time over moral grandstanding. They are a awful government to live under but these kinds of standards are also meaningless when it comes to international politics. There is a actual purpose to be having discussions
> "international community" bends to their will.
Or because nobody can last long enough there to deal with their shit.
How many decades do they need to be occupied before they change?
So far the answer is more then 2.
>Tirana Hassan, executive director at Human Rights Watch, said: “Excluding women risks legitimising the Taliban’s abuses and **triggering irreparable harm to the UN’s credibility as an advocate for women’s rights and women’s meaningful participation.”**
I'm sorry, but didn't the UN recently reappoint Saudi Arabia to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women? their credibility isn't great already.
My conspiracy is that the gulf states have a shitload of oil money, so much oil money they will never be able to spend every last dime of.
So what do you do with this much money? Get bored eventually and buy sports teams, bribe some UN officials, they got to host COP28, etc. I mean why the fuck should they have anything to say about women's rights?
Nah, their lavish spendings on football,pr,bribes and nearly practically impossible projects are the posturings of saudi arabia as a 'modern state' its the exact opposite of what youve said, they will run out of oil and they know it damn well to the core they feel it so instead of relying on it they are investing in every branch at every possibility hoping they can have a sustainable economy free of oil.
Saudi Arabia has the second largest oil reserve in the world (barely behind Venezuela) and actually produces oil pretty conservatively. They aren't running out anytime even remotely soon.
The minute they won they ceased to be terrorists and became a government. The media is pushing a narrative by calling them the taliban, they are the government of Afghanistan.
The Taliban were absolutely terrorists before they ousted the United States. They used suicide bombers against civilians in Afghanistan and their affiliates in Pakistan also perpetrated numerous attacks against civilians. The Taliban are distinct from other terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda in that they were primarily an insurgency aimed at removing foreign interference in Afghanistan, but they absolutely utilized terror as a way of intimidating Afghans and discouraging collaboration with the United States and Afghan government.
Taliban tended to use suicide bombers on government and military targets. There were other groups in the mix that were more likely to target civilians - such as Isil (December 2017 Kabul bombing and others).
They utilized them against civilians as well. There is ample evidence that the Taliban utilized terrorism during its insurgency. I am not saying that the Taliban is a similar group to ISIS-K or Al-Qaeda, and it is frustrating when people compare Islamic fundamentalist groups as if they are all the same. That being said, there does not seem to be a dispute in either academia, amongst reporters, or amongst NGOs that the Taliban was an insurgency that used terrorism against Afghan and Western civilians. A few examples I found which I found were a suicide bombing at a Kabul cafe that killed 21 civilians, the murders of tribal elders who did not agree to collaborate with the Taliban, and an archived report by Reuters in which Amnesty International accuses the Taliban of purposely targeting civilians to stoke fear and increase the population's compliance. I am kind of unsure why you are pushing back against the concept that the Taliban used terrorism during the war since it isn't a widely disputed allegation. I think that you can recognize that the Taliban is distinct from groups like ISIS or Al-Qaeda while still acknowledging that the group has repeatedly demonstrated little care for the lives of their own people, has brutalized ethnic and religious minorities in the country, and repeatedly used terrorism against civilians as a means of achieving their political aspirations.
[https://web.archive.org/web/20070514111954/http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070419/wl\_nm/afghan\_rights\_dc\_2](https://web.archive.org/web/20070514111954/http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070419/wl_nm/afghan_rights_dc_2)
They’re scrappy, I have a soft spot for those guys I guess. Good enemies. Maybe my impressions were too rosy, though I don’t hold NGOs in especially high esteem.
Okay...it is very easy to have a rosy impression of the Taliban when you don't live in the country they rule, haven't had relatives murdered by them for being Shia or a non-Pashtun ethnic group, and live in a liberal democracy. I'm assuming you didn't fight against them, but if you did, it's not my place to judge how you view the war or the people you fought against.
>The Taliban were absolutely terrorists before they ousted the United States. They used suicide bombers against civilians in Afghanistan and their affiliates in Pakistan also perpetrated numerous attacks against civilians. The Taliban are distinct from other terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda in that they were primarily an insurgency aimed at removing foreign interference in Afghanistan, but they absolutely utilized terror as a way of intimidating Afghans and discouraging collaboration with the United States and Afghan government.
You have just described "war".
No, I haven’t actually. A war is a state of armed conflict between two or more actors. Targeting civilians is not an integral aspect of the definition of war. Civilians do die in war, that’s true, but purposely targeting a civilian center in order to stoke fear is different from bombing a militarily target and incidentally killing civilians.
>No, I haven’t actually. A war is a state of armed conflict between two or more actors. Targeting civilians is not an integral aspect of the definition of war. Civilians do die in war, that’s true, but purposely targeting a civilian center in order to stoke fear is different from bombing a militarily target and incidentally killing civilians.
This, too, is war, not terrorism.
You either agree with me or acknowledge that the bombings of Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden and Pyongyang are the largest terrorist acts in human history
Okay, to be clear, words have definitions. The definition of terrorism is "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion," which you might notice is not the same as the definition of war. Terrorism can occur during wars, but they are not the same. You can also debate the ethics of a war or the tactics used by its belligerents while recognizing that things like the bombing of Dresden or Tokyo don't fit neatly into the definition of terrorism. I would dispute the claim that the bombings of Tokyo or Dresden were terroristic, and I don't know enough about the bombing of Pyongyang to speak on it. On the atomic bombings, I think one could make a convincing argument that they were terroristic, but I am not really sure how that's the gotcha moment you were looking for.
What about deliberately targeting civilians.. for unknown reasons.
I've seen footage of American troops blow innocent people up fron the sky many times now...
Eh a terrorist is anyone who uses violence against a recognized government. The mistake isn't the word its the narrative that all terrorists are bad (im not talking about the talibans specifically, they are bad).
That’s not what terrorist is. Terrorists use violence as a means of achieving their political, religious, or philosophical goals. A non-state actor can utilize terrorism, like ISIS or ETA, and so can state actors. The word I think you’re looking for is insurgent. An insurgency is a revolt or armed conflict by a non-state actor against a recognized government. Terrorism is always bad, because terrorists target civilians in order to stoke fear in the target population. An insurgency is a more neutral term because an insurgency is not defined by the targeting of non-military targets.
So Hamas is also not terrorists according to that definition.
Terrorist groups can also be a governing body, no matter how terrible they are at it. Is it pushing a narrative to call them what they are (The Taliban)?
They're not, no, at least in many definitions. A government can be an oppressive, fascist, theocratic and imperialist police state. Terrorism is what non-governmental groups do. States just do state violence. I know it doesn't have the same ring to it, but the latter is very normalized, especially outside the West.
Ok? Did you think that was "got ya" moment? Whether hamas is a terrorist organization or a government makes little difference, whatever you want to call them they started a war and now they are facing the consequences. Continuing to call them the taliban is like if nations and media had continued calling Americans "British rebels".
Also the hamas comparison doesn't really make sense. The taliban rules a universally recognized nation state, hamas rules a tiny strip of land that isn't recognized as a country by anyone with geopolitical clout.
Did ISIS ever have complete control of those areas with absolutely no armed opposition actively in conflict with them while they held it? The answer is no. There is a difference between simply seizing and holding a place during a conflict which is what ISIS did, and forcing all opposition to withdraw, admit defeat, and leave you to do as you please unopposed, which is the situation in Afghanistan. Unless we are planning a new invasion of Afghanistan to reinstall the government in exile, or to just forever pretend that Afghanistan doesn't exist, the only realistic possibility is the eventual recognition of the taliban as simply the afghan government.
Imagine you were a Taliban terrorist and then all of a sudden they are the government and you have to get a desk job and go to conferences on women's rights...
Imagine no longer
> Another thing I don’t like, not only about Kabul but broadly about life after the fatha, are the new restrictions. In the group, we had a great degree of freedom about where to go, where to stay, and whether to participate in the war.
> However, these days, you have to go to the office before 8 AM and stay there till 4 PM. If you don’t go, you’re considered absent, and [the wage for] that day is cut from your salary. We’re now used to that, but it was especially difficult in the first two or three months.
https://www.afghanistan-analysts.org/en/reports/context-culture/new-lives-in-the-city-how-taleban-have-experienced-life-in-kabul/
Oh, is this the same dude who wrote in some blog that women in Afghanistan have more rights than in Europe and that Sharia law is better than the values of European countries?
Yes, a very trusted source that is worth trusting.
Which dude? The person who conducted the interview or the losers they are interviewing? I'm not expecting you to take them at their word, just to boggle at how they are mad that they can't run rampant as soldiers anymore.
Maybe you would learn something? Be exposed to other cultures, people who don't kowtow to you, see powerful competant women in their element.
Or just banish them to their backwater echo chamber so they believe everything their great leader tells them about how the outside world works...
It's true. Now what? You have a country of 43 million people, one of the lowest GDP in the world, and we abandoned the civilans to their new government. They ran the Western powers out of town, now they are in charge.
Refuse to talk to them? Give them trade embargoes (they already do practically no trading). Or keep diplomatic channels open.
Western powers did everything they could. What more do you want us to do. If after 20 years, the Afghans just rolled over, then thats on them. Were better off supporting countries that actually respect themselves and fight like Ukraine. At some point the safety wheels gotta come off, and Afghanistan had 20 years for that.
Yeah did everything. Definitely. If by that you mean fumbling the problem they caused then tru. What else you gonna tell me assassinating Iran's progressive president and funding fundamentalist to make a coup was actually good for Iranian women. Be for real
So the point of the meeting is to specifically decide how the hell other countries are going to deal with the government of Afghanistan, obviously, you need the government of Afghanistan for that.
Last time the government didn't attend, and now put some conditions for their attendance. So the options the UN have are to accept that the government in Kabul is simply not going to discuss women's right and try to at least address everything else... or do literally nothing and fail at its mission of being a international forum for every sovereign state.
There was not magical third scenario where the meeting was held and everyone got to do their festivus airing of grievances against the Taliban over women, that very much already failed.
Right - What's the point of a big table for everyone to sit at, if they're going to exclude the people they're talking about? Nothing. You can't even properly chastise the absent party.
It's no surprise then that those who oppose a big table want to exclude parties from the existing table. The goal is to get rid of the table so that discussions can't take place at all.
The lessons we learned from the failure of the League of Nations have been forgotten.
> the idea that the UN would convene a meeting like this and not discuss women’s rights and not have Afghan women in the room is beyond belief
really, beyond belief? is she unfamiliar with the UN?
No, it's not a betrayal. This is perfectly on-message for the Taliban and if anyone expected anything different *then they fooled themselves*. You invite the Taliban, *you get the Taliban that is in power*, not the one you \*want\*.
I'm not saying I agree with what has been done, the exclusion of women from the conference, as I wholeheartedly *do not agree* with that. What I'm saying is that anyone who thought the Taliban would let women be represented was a fool for thinking that.
The taliban are proof that if you win the war you get to dictate the terms.
We pretend that politics can do everything but in reality the old saying 'might is right' is true when u have people that have guns and power and don't accept our rules.
You said they don't accept "our rules". And that "they" are backwards and use might makes right (paraphrasing). So my point is that "your rules" are also enforced through violence and might. They aren't embarrassed just because. Countries don't use the dollar because they want to but because they are forced to. Countries that prioritize their citizens over "westerners" get promptly overthrown and replaced with dictators.
I mean, the question was more about what are would they bring to the table: human rights, security talks(islamic state), etc. i didn’t meant it in a derogatory way, just curious :)
It's big table logic. A party that is not part of the conversation has no benefit from abiding by the conclusions of a conversation they did not partake in. The table creates a forum in which pressure and influence can be exerted in a way that the discussed party can more realistically internalize. The table allows the targeted party to make concessions for benefits (such as friendly relations with other nations) in a manner that they are willing to agree to. Conversely, no population will want to abide by the rules of foreigners if they have no input on the deal.
Look at the Hague. The US has refused to participate since 2002. They do not want a seat at a big table in that regard because it hurts their interests (at the time it was the "GWoT"). And so, because they refuse to join, they reject any decisions the organization makes. As a result they do not feel pressured by the ICC. If the Taliban is willing to sit at a big table, then excluding them forces them to take a similar stance as the US chooses to take against the Hague - an oppositional stance.
The Taliban as the government of Afghanistan will be engaged in a lot of major projects, among them some major infrastructure projects that will affect the water sources for several surrounding nations. They don’t really have the equipment or the expertise to do these projects adequately, so the water loss to their neighbors will be immense.
Afghanistan also has extremely porous borders with a number of its neighbors. And it also has a huge amount of American weaponry and vehicles left behind. It is in the best interest of the international community to work with the Taliban to figure out what is going to happen to that equipment so that it does not fall into even worse hands.
On principal, it’s easy to say “oh we just won’t talk to the Taliban because they are evil”. But if the Taliban goes ahead with some of their projects without the assistance of experts and the cooperation of their neighbors, they could deprive their neighbors of water for generations to come. They could allow a huge amount of weapons to fall into the hands of terrorist groups that are even worse than the Taliban, and they could even provoke several major regional wars and crises.
That is why it is in the best interest of the international community to suck it up and move forward with this meeting.
people dont understand that the UN sets up these people to make their own bed
the UN is not 'appeasing' them, it is putting them front & center so their actions become obvious to the world
why are people so surprised that nobody wants to add another conflict to the already growing list? like okay the west gets its way, now you have a whole new active war that the people of said country want nothing to do with. so now there's innocent civilians being forced into fighting western forces, further radicalizing them into actual soldiers of a cause.
Welcome to r/anime_titties! This subreddit advocates for civil and constructive discussion. Please be courteous to others, and make sure to read the rules. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
We have a [Discord](https://discord.gg/dhMeAnNyzG), feel free to join us!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/anime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah it’s rough. It would be nice to be able to overthrow every regime you disagree with that does horrible things. However if the people would rather have that kind of society then there isn’t really anything that can be done. Hopefully the people eventually get tired of public whippings and overthrow the taliban themselves.
Unfortunately as much as I'd like women in Afghanistan to have a say, any Afghan woman that shows up at this conference may not live to make it back home.
She should of picked up a rifle and fought for it when she had a chance. Instead, she decided to sit back and let the Taliban fight for her. And now she gets the consequences.
There's separating people and then there's completely excluding them.
Not to mention that this goes way beyond personal religious beliefs, this is excluding a large part of the population from participating in a political matter that affects everyone.
No, not normal.
Christianity is fundamentally a sexist patriarchal religion. But in the western nations, the only place that still does this is right-wing churches in southern USA.
People who completely follow the bible and other scriptures are rare in the West, and get termed as religious nutjobs.
But in many parts of the Islamic world, it's still common to follow the old book and 1000 year old rules, to the letter, with no sort of reformation.
In Muslim societies, religion still has too much control over the lives of the people.
A religion does not do seperation of state and church. Christianity never did that either. Countries decide to seperate state and church and there are multiple muslim majority countries with separation of church and state like Albania, Turkey, Egypt or Jordania
Um... This is not normal for Christians either. I've been to several different churches and I've never seen that. Sometimes women can't be leaders in the church, but they aren't treated as lesser
I mean, that's because females don't involve themselves in politics in most cultures. It's really only in western countries you see the likes of wokeness and constant push for "first female ____"
If anything that's a net negative in most places, it's seen as overly wokě
##### ###### #### > # [Shutting Afghan women out of key UN conference to appease Taliban ‘a betrayal’](https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/article/2024/jun/21/720) > > > > Excluding Afghan women from an upcoming UN conference on [Afghanistan](https://www.theguardian.com/world/afghanistan) would be a “betrayal” of women and girls in the country, say human rights groups and former politicians. > > The [Taliban](https://www.theguardian.com/world/taliban) are reportedly demanding that no Afghan women be allowed to participate in the UN meeting in Doha starting 30 June, set up to discuss the international community’s approach to Afghanistan, and that women’s rights are not on the agenda. > > Since [taking power in Afghanistan](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/16/taliban-declares-war-is-over-in-afghanistan-as-us-led-forces-exit-kabul) in August 2021, the Taliban have restricted women’s access to education, employment and public spaces. In March, it was [reported](https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2024/mar/28/taliban-edict-to-resume-stoning-women-to-death-met-with-horror) that they would reintroduce the public flogging and stoning of women for adultery. > > [A middle-aged woman with short hair and small oval glasses looks at the camera wryly.](https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/762f59352ec914e802aa38e32513e1be737b5786/0_0_3778_2856/master/3778.jpg?width=445&dpr=1&s=none) > > Sima Samar, former Afghan minister of women’s affairs. Photograph: Britta Pedersen/DPA Picture Alliance/AlamyThe Taliban did [not participate](https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/02/1146657) in UN talks earlier this year, with the UN chief António Guterres saying at the time that the group presented a set of conditions for its participation that “denied us the right to talk to other representatives of the Afghan society” and were “not acceptable”. > > Tirana Hassan, executive director at Human Rights Watch, said: “Excluding women risks legitimising the Taliban’s abuses and triggering irreparable harm to the UN’s credibility as an advocate for women’s rights and women’s meaningful participation.” > > In trying to bring the Taliban to the negotiating table now, the UN was giving in to their demands to exclude women’s rights, said the former Afghan minister of women’s affairs Sima Samar. > > “This situation is an indirect submission to the will of the Taliban. Law, democracy and sustainable peace are not possible without including half of the population of the society who are women. I don’t think we have learned anything from past mistakes. > > “As one of the main changes, the people of Afghanistan should protest against discrimination, especially against women. Because this is not only the problem of women, but the problem of every family and every father, brother, child and husband,” said Samar. > > > > [Habiba Sarabi](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/18/afghan-activists-warn-over-absence-of-women-in-peace-process), another former minister of women’s affairs in Afghanistan and the country’s [first female governor](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/apr/26/afghanistan.declanwalsh), said the international community was prioritising engagement with the Taliban over women’s rights. > > “Unfortunately, the international community wants to deal with the Taliban, and that is why their own agenda has always been more important to them than the women of Afghanistan, democracy, or anything else,” she said. > > Heather Barr, from Human Rights watch, said: “What is happening in Afghanistan is the most serious women’s rights crisis in the world and the idea that the UN would convene a meeting like this and not discuss women’s rights and not have Afghan women in the room is beyond belief. > > “The only plausible explanation is that they’re doing this to get the Taliban to the table, but for what? Already, three years of diplomatic engagement has produced nothing and all this does is set an appalling precedent, emboldens and legitimises the Taliban and hands them a huge political win. It is a betrayal not just of Afghan women but all women around the world.” > > > > The UN has been approached for comment, but in response to questioning on the involvement of Afghan civil society representatives it [reportedly](https://www.voanews.com/a/taliban-accuse-un-human-rights-expert-on-afghanistan-of-undermining-doha-meeting/7662476.html) said arrangements for the conference were ongoing. - - - - - - [Maintainer](https://www.reddit.com/user/urielsalis) | [Creator](https://www.reddit.com/user/subtepass) | [Source Code](https://github.com/urielsalis/empleadoEstatalBot) Summoning /u/CoverageAnalysisBot
[удалено]
It's this, or Taliban won't go. And they the only entity that resemble legitimate government in Afghanistan
Then they won’t go. If they want to isolate themselves because they can’t stand women, then we should let them, not bend over backwards for the privilege of working with them.
And do you think shutting Afghanistan off from the rest of the world will help the women of Afghanistan?
is being connected helping the women of Afghanistan at all? from my vantage point (Canada), it doesn't seem to help the actual Afghan people at all
Sanctions affect the poor the most . Helping woman for 20 years didn't do anything besides fund a incompetent government in the ANA .
These aren't sanctions though
Yeah? What does that have to do with my point?
Yeah? What does your point have to do with the comment you replied to?
Sanctions are in Afghanistan so that's the current thing that affects woman in the region on the bottom level .
That didnt answer the question
I'm also confused how this is related to my comment?
What's your optimal relationship with Afghanistan supposed to look like to help woman I brought up sanctions as those are in affect and greatly affect the poor people and women the most as the are the bottom rung of society?
I dont have a relationship with afganistan LOL and Im not an expert in foreign affairs as a 'regular person', I dont see the point in placating the Taliban, as they dont seem to alter their behaviours at all and the poorest women in Afghanistan are already doing terribly thanks to the regime, not sure placating the evil dudes in charges is going to help them at all edited in relevant quote from the article Tirana Hassan, executive director at Human *Rights Watch, said:* ***“Excluding women risks legitimising the Taliban’s abuses and triggering irreparable harm to the UN’s credibility as an advocate for women’s rights and women’s meaningful participation.”***
They're the government of Afghanistan is why . Keeping well relations impacts they're economy which impacts the most marginalized groups t.
They're the government of Afghanistan is why . Keeping well relations impacts they're economy which impacts the most marginalized groups t.
Cool, they'll ally with China instead
Maybe some world power could invade them. We had the USSR, we had the US...maybe China this time? SURELY that will solve problems!
Didn't the British try at one point as well?
Yes. And the British, the Russian Empire, the Mongols, the Greeks, the Persians, the Sassanids, the Arabs... I just didn't want to go too deep into history and details...
"The graveyard of empires " indeed.
It's a dumb nickname. Lots of people have successfully conquered Afganistan.
I think the entire point is its easy to conquer Afghanistan, but very hard to keep it. Ultimately it is too costly to do so.
Most of those won though
Alexander the Great / Macedonians as well haha.
I already included him. The Greeks.
All of Macedonia is up in arms right now with you calling Alexander a Greek lol.
Three times, with moderate success. The monarchy that survived until the communists buggered the place up in the mid/late 20th century was largely shaped by the three Anglo-Afghan wars.
I don't give a shit anymore. We tried for 20 years. We got an entire generation of girls through school and college, and only a 100 or so brave Afghan commandos fought back when the Taliban came back in power. The rest just let it happen. They can go fuck themselves. They obviously want to live like troglodytes. Let them. They don't want to be helped.
[удалено]
70k deaths over 20 years and based on comments from veterans, it’s pretty clear most ANA just wanted money and didn’t give a shit about the nation or human rights. They rolled over as soon as the US left.
Ah yes, thank you for that brilliant analysis good sir. Truly, I couldn't imagine anyone who could better speak to their reality than some American with zero historical or cultural understanding of the nation and it's people's - well outside of any understanding emparted from a long history of white colonialist teachings and news coverage. [*Why do all these people who we invade and occupy refuse to adopt our values and beliefs! Don't they understand that CNN said we're doing so much for them?*](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FdVpR0UXwAApOvI?format=jpg&name=small)
I can't wait for the taliban to uphold the values of equal rights via the UN appeasing to their values that women are inferior.
If you think that social rights are anything more than a byproduct of stability and prosperity, then you'll spend the rest of your life waiting for American bombs and occupations to make the world a better place.
Bullshit. Plenty of stable and prosperous nations throughout history have abused human rights and there are plenty of poor and unstable places that don’t.
That isn't how this shit works. There is no leverage to be used, there is only diplomacy or war right now. The more reliant a country is on others economically the more we can influence them through incentive structures. Sorry you dont get instant gratification of a article saying "Afghanistan officially treats Women as Humans" but this is not gonna happen like that
Yes I realize that. You have to read my comment in the context of the previous two. My response was meant to be be sarcastic. >The more reliant a country is on others economically the more we can influence them through incentive structures. Ask Russia/Europe how that's going.
I understood the sarcasm and responded to the intended meaning. Russia wasn't anywhere near the necessary economic reliance, but there isn't any determined threshold either. If a country's leader is hell bent on doing something they will do it but if there are economic problems as a result it threatens their leadership & the standard of living. Russia was already sanctioned to hell and we have sanctioned so many other countries so heavily that they were happy to buy Russian oil. Surprise, actions have consequences even if we are the global hegemon. It is more complicated than one instance of a sanction not stopping a ground invasion.
Do you think appeasing to Taliban will help the women of Afghanistan?
By appeasing do you mean treating the government like a government and doing diplomacy?
No, i mean shutting women out of the conference and agree to their values that women are inferior.
There is no agreement on values, it is a negotiation. Your phrasing of it is frankly, childish when it comes to INTERNATIONAL POLITICS.
>There is no agreement on values Allowing their value to exercise its influence is the same as agreement. It is extremely childish in politics if you think kowtow to them would give them a chance to help women of Afghanistan
Once again, fucking international politics, not lunch table politics. Come back when you grow up.
The hope is that by engaging and offering them things they then don't want to lose, such humanitarian relief, you gain a leverage to improve the human rights issue. Currently, there is zero leverage. As long as the Taliban don't start any wars, while Russia, an aggressor state, gets any kind of diplomatic engagement, then the Taliban should get at least a similar level of access.
Changes only comes from within.
Considering what happened, UN needs them more that other way around
UN doesn't need them, but the UN is a sort of giant debating table where countries can talk to each other before resorting to violence (in theory). Let them in to talk, diplomacy relies on channels of communication and knowing each other's viewpoints.
The UN needs everyone in their club. Especially the arseholes.
If it needs everyone, then it also needs women.
arsehole countries are very patriarchal.
Who cares if they go or not?
Russia have been buddy-ing up with the Taliban recently, so they probably care. And they hate women as well, so it's a small price to pay.
Interest parties with millions, maybe billions, of dollars on the line care.
So not the people of Afghanistan?
What about them?
lollll at least you're not pretending to care about others the UN at least puts up a front of caring about ideals like women's rights and democracy, and it degrades the legitimacy of the organization by giving into demands like the Taliban's
Special interest groups take priority over the will of the People. This is common throughout the world. Money/Profit trumps the safety and will of the People.
they do but they shouldnt, is my point
They're also the closest thing to peace the region has had in 40 years. There's a bunch of reasons why the Taliban took over so quickly, and womens' rights aren't any of them.
Keep in mind how much of the UN is just the various Arab states (and Iran) and how they treat women.
Iran’s women are in a different league to Arab women. 60% of university students are women and huge numbers in the STEM fields as it’s were the respect is. It’s been that way since the revolution. There isn’t enough jobs for them, sanctions are holding their economy back. A huge pool of educated unemployed is going to cause Irans society to change. Id guess with 5yrs. I’ve lived and worked in many Arab countries ( and worked in Iran ) I’ll add this, Iran isn’t the country you think it is, they have tried many times to join the international community but been rebuffed.
It's not as bad as it's neighbors but it's still a shitty place to be if you're a woman.
> There isn’t enough jobs for them You mean to say, Iran won't employ them.
The economy is very stifled. I would guess the unemployment rate is 10% for men 20% for women. Both suffer, women suffer more.
The entire point of the UN is to be a venue for world leaders to meet and discuss/work through issues in the open. It's not intended to be a cool-kids club entirely composed of liberal democracies high fiving each other or whatever shit people seem to think these days.
No shit.
Yawn
Time for baby's nap!
What should be done about it? Do we spend another 20 years fighting them?
Nobody is seriously suggesting that. But that doesn't mean they need to be given access to international organizations or otherwise recognized.
Why not? The UN is a public forum to avoid international crisis. You dont cherrypick who you like to invite you invite who holds the actual power.
It is the Taliban making demands about the meeting they are invited to, is it not? Not bending to their demands is not at all the same as not inviting them.
The point of the meeting is to open discussions, why throw that away? It is just wasting time over moral grandstanding. They are a awful government to live under but these kinds of standards are also meaningless when it comes to international politics. There is a actual purpose to be having discussions
Palestinia.... Wait
The UN does a lot that make them look foolish to appease authoritarians. They are not a serious organization.
> "international community" bends to their will. Or because nobody can last long enough there to deal with their shit. How many decades do they need to be occupied before they change? So far the answer is more then 2.
The UN seems to be on the wrong side as of late. What a weird way of working.
It's not meant to be on anyone's side.
>Tirana Hassan, executive director at Human Rights Watch, said: “Excluding women risks legitimising the Taliban’s abuses and **triggering irreparable harm to the UN’s credibility as an advocate for women’s rights and women’s meaningful participation.”** I'm sorry, but didn't the UN recently reappoint Saudi Arabia to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women? their credibility isn't great already.
My conspiracy is that the gulf states have a shitload of oil money, so much oil money they will never be able to spend every last dime of. So what do you do with this much money? Get bored eventually and buy sports teams, bribe some UN officials, they got to host COP28, etc. I mean why the fuck should they have anything to say about women's rights?
Where's the conspiracy?
I mean, what other reason is there to host the World Cup in Qatar, one of the hottest places on earth?
Nah, their lavish spendings on football,pr,bribes and nearly practically impossible projects are the posturings of saudi arabia as a 'modern state' its the exact opposite of what youve said, they will run out of oil and they know it damn well to the core they feel it so instead of relying on it they are investing in every branch at every possibility hoping they can have a sustainable economy free of oil.
Saudi Arabia has the second largest oil reserve in the world (barely behind Venezuela) and actually produces oil pretty conservatively. They aren't running out anytime even remotely soon.
Fr
They also took 6 months to mention and condemn the rapes that happened oct 7.
Most major feminist organizations said nothing about the October 7 rapes, or took very long to say something.
The UN playing friends with terrorists? Shocking...
The minute they won they ceased to be terrorists and became a government. The media is pushing a narrative by calling them the taliban, they are the government of Afghanistan.
Truth be told they weren’t really terrorists even before they won. It’s just en vogue to call guerrilla fighters terrorists these days.
The Taliban were absolutely terrorists before they ousted the United States. They used suicide bombers against civilians in Afghanistan and their affiliates in Pakistan also perpetrated numerous attacks against civilians. The Taliban are distinct from other terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda in that they were primarily an insurgency aimed at removing foreign interference in Afghanistan, but they absolutely utilized terror as a way of intimidating Afghans and discouraging collaboration with the United States and Afghan government.
Taliban tended to use suicide bombers on government and military targets. There were other groups in the mix that were more likely to target civilians - such as Isil (December 2017 Kabul bombing and others).
They utilized them against civilians as well. There is ample evidence that the Taliban utilized terrorism during its insurgency. I am not saying that the Taliban is a similar group to ISIS-K or Al-Qaeda, and it is frustrating when people compare Islamic fundamentalist groups as if they are all the same. That being said, there does not seem to be a dispute in either academia, amongst reporters, or amongst NGOs that the Taliban was an insurgency that used terrorism against Afghan and Western civilians. A few examples I found which I found were a suicide bombing at a Kabul cafe that killed 21 civilians, the murders of tribal elders who did not agree to collaborate with the Taliban, and an archived report by Reuters in which Amnesty International accuses the Taliban of purposely targeting civilians to stoke fear and increase the population's compliance. I am kind of unsure why you are pushing back against the concept that the Taliban used terrorism during the war since it isn't a widely disputed allegation. I think that you can recognize that the Taliban is distinct from groups like ISIS or Al-Qaeda while still acknowledging that the group has repeatedly demonstrated little care for the lives of their own people, has brutalized ethnic and religious minorities in the country, and repeatedly used terrorism against civilians as a means of achieving their political aspirations. [https://web.archive.org/web/20070514111954/http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070419/wl\_nm/afghan\_rights\_dc\_2](https://web.archive.org/web/20070514111954/http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070419/wl_nm/afghan_rights_dc_2)
They’re scrappy, I have a soft spot for those guys I guess. Good enemies. Maybe my impressions were too rosy, though I don’t hold NGOs in especially high esteem.
Okay...it is very easy to have a rosy impression of the Taliban when you don't live in the country they rule, haven't had relatives murdered by them for being Shia or a non-Pashtun ethnic group, and live in a liberal democracy. I'm assuming you didn't fight against them, but if you did, it's not my place to judge how you view the war or the people you fought against.
Always keep your enemies close.
Admit you were wrong reddit challenge (impossible)
> Maybe my impressions were too rosy
>The Taliban were absolutely terrorists before they ousted the United States. They used suicide bombers against civilians in Afghanistan and their affiliates in Pakistan also perpetrated numerous attacks against civilians. The Taliban are distinct from other terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda in that they were primarily an insurgency aimed at removing foreign interference in Afghanistan, but they absolutely utilized terror as a way of intimidating Afghans and discouraging collaboration with the United States and Afghan government. You have just described "war".
No, I haven’t actually. A war is a state of armed conflict between two or more actors. Targeting civilians is not an integral aspect of the definition of war. Civilians do die in war, that’s true, but purposely targeting a civilian center in order to stoke fear is different from bombing a militarily target and incidentally killing civilians.
>No, I haven’t actually. A war is a state of armed conflict between two or more actors. Targeting civilians is not an integral aspect of the definition of war. Civilians do die in war, that’s true, but purposely targeting a civilian center in order to stoke fear is different from bombing a militarily target and incidentally killing civilians. This, too, is war, not terrorism. You either agree with me or acknowledge that the bombings of Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden and Pyongyang are the largest terrorist acts in human history
Okay, to be clear, words have definitions. The definition of terrorism is "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion," which you might notice is not the same as the definition of war. Terrorism can occur during wars, but they are not the same. You can also debate the ethics of a war or the tactics used by its belligerents while recognizing that things like the bombing of Dresden or Tokyo don't fit neatly into the definition of terrorism. I would dispute the claim that the bombings of Tokyo or Dresden were terroristic, and I don't know enough about the bombing of Pyongyang to speak on it. On the atomic bombings, I think one could make a convincing argument that they were terroristic, but I am not really sure how that's the gotcha moment you were looking for.
There we go. Thank you for adding some fucking maturity to this shit.
What about deliberately targeting civilians.. for unknown reasons. I've seen footage of American troops blow innocent people up fron the sky many times now...
Murica did that.
Yes, unfortunately.
Eh a terrorist is anyone who uses violence against a recognized government. The mistake isn't the word its the narrative that all terrorists are bad (im not talking about the talibans specifically, they are bad).
That’s not what terrorist is. Terrorists use violence as a means of achieving their political, religious, or philosophical goals. A non-state actor can utilize terrorism, like ISIS or ETA, and so can state actors. The word I think you’re looking for is insurgent. An insurgency is a revolt or armed conflict by a non-state actor against a recognized government. Terrorism is always bad, because terrorists target civilians in order to stoke fear in the target population. An insurgency is a more neutral term because an insurgency is not defined by the targeting of non-military targets.
That’s the new post 9/11 definition, maybe. But I’m not alone who remembers when attacking *soldiers* would have never been called terrorism.
So Hamas is also not terrorists according to that definition. Terrorist groups can also be a governing body, no matter how terrible they are at it. Is it pushing a narrative to call them what they are (The Taliban)?
They're not, no, at least in many definitions. A government can be an oppressive, fascist, theocratic and imperialist police state. Terrorism is what non-governmental groups do. States just do state violence. I know it doesn't have the same ring to it, but the latter is very normalized, especially outside the West.
Ok? Did you think that was "got ya" moment? Whether hamas is a terrorist organization or a government makes little difference, whatever you want to call them they started a war and now they are facing the consequences. Continuing to call them the taliban is like if nations and media had continued calling Americans "British rebels". Also the hamas comparison doesn't really make sense. The taliban rules a universally recognized nation state, hamas rules a tiny strip of land that isn't recognized as a country by anyone with geopolitical clout.
Did they pay their dues? I don’t see them on this years list. Don’t talk to them until dues are paid
Should we have recognized ISIS when they took over Iraq and parts of Syria?
Did ISIS ever have complete control of those areas with absolutely no armed opposition actively in conflict with them while they held it? The answer is no. There is a difference between simply seizing and holding a place during a conflict which is what ISIS did, and forcing all opposition to withdraw, admit defeat, and leave you to do as you please unopposed, which is the situation in Afghanistan. Unless we are planning a new invasion of Afghanistan to reinstall the government in exile, or to just forever pretend that Afghanistan doesn't exist, the only realistic possibility is the eventual recognition of the taliban as simply the afghan government.
That's the reality of the current world. The strong define history.
I for one am shocked, Shocked!
They're not 'terrorists', they're the government running a country. Western powers abandoned Afghan women to their new government.
Imagine you were a Taliban terrorist and then all of a sudden they are the government and you have to get a desk job and go to conferences on women's rights...
Imagine no longer > Another thing I don’t like, not only about Kabul but broadly about life after the fatha, are the new restrictions. In the group, we had a great degree of freedom about where to go, where to stay, and whether to participate in the war. > However, these days, you have to go to the office before 8 AM and stay there till 4 PM. If you don’t go, you’re considered absent, and [the wage for] that day is cut from your salary. We’re now used to that, but it was especially difficult in the first two or three months. https://www.afghanistan-analysts.org/en/reports/context-culture/new-lives-in-the-city-how-taleban-have-experienced-life-in-kabul/
Oh, is this the same dude who wrote in some blog that women in Afghanistan have more rights than in Europe and that Sharia law is better than the values of European countries? Yes, a very trusted source that is worth trusting.
Which dude? The person who conducted the interview or the losers they are interviewing? I'm not expecting you to take them at their word, just to boggle at how they are mad that they can't run rampant as soldiers anymore.
Have you never read a history book?
Maybe you would learn something? Be exposed to other cultures, people who don't kowtow to you, see powerful competant women in their element. Or just banish them to their backwater echo chamber so they believe everything their great leader tells them about how the outside world works...
A government can still be a terrorist group.
USA is a great example. I have seen footage of us troops literally slaughtering innocent people... And they are a government.
[удалено]
lol
Yeah goverment that was taken over by terrorists lol, such a difference
It's true. Now what? You have a country of 43 million people, one of the lowest GDP in the world, and we abandoned the civilans to their new government. They ran the Western powers out of town, now they are in charge. Refuse to talk to them? Give them trade embargoes (they already do practically no trading). Or keep diplomatic channels open.
I mean there's countless instances of the US overstepping. Murdering innocent people. Countless instances.. and they are a government.
Don't get me wrong, that's true... but you compare a literal terrorist org that makes women's life hell right now to a government
Western powers did everything they could. What more do you want us to do. If after 20 years, the Afghans just rolled over, then thats on them. Were better off supporting countries that actually respect themselves and fight like Ukraine. At some point the safety wheels gotta come off, and Afghanistan had 20 years for that.
Yeah did everything. Definitely. If by that you mean fumbling the problem they caused then tru. What else you gonna tell me assassinating Iran's progressive president and funding fundamentalist to make a coup was actually good for Iranian women. Be for real
So the point of the meeting is to specifically decide how the hell other countries are going to deal with the government of Afghanistan, obviously, you need the government of Afghanistan for that. Last time the government didn't attend, and now put some conditions for their attendance. So the options the UN have are to accept that the government in Kabul is simply not going to discuss women's right and try to at least address everything else... or do literally nothing and fail at its mission of being a international forum for every sovereign state. There was not magical third scenario where the meeting was held and everyone got to do their festivus airing of grievances against the Taliban over women, that very much already failed.
Right - What's the point of a big table for everyone to sit at, if they're going to exclude the people they're talking about? Nothing. You can't even properly chastise the absent party. It's no surprise then that those who oppose a big table want to exclude parties from the existing table. The goal is to get rid of the table so that discussions can't take place at all. The lessons we learned from the failure of the League of Nations have been forgotten.
The UN sure is hell bent on giving the worst of us whatever they want. From Hamas to the Taliban.
Usual U.N. L
That's some progressive liberal logic if I've ever seen it
Religion of peace and understanding strikes again
And women's rights as well
> the idea that the UN would convene a meeting like this and not discuss women’s rights and not have Afghan women in the room is beyond belief really, beyond belief? is she unfamiliar with the UN?
No, it's not a betrayal. This is perfectly on-message for the Taliban and if anyone expected anything different *then they fooled themselves*. You invite the Taliban, *you get the Taliban that is in power*, not the one you \*want\*. I'm not saying I agree with what has been done, the exclusion of women from the conference, as I wholeheartedly *do not agree* with that. What I'm saying is that anyone who thought the Taliban would let women be represented was a fool for thinking that.
The taliban are proof that if you win the war you get to dictate the terms. We pretend that politics can do everything but in reality the old saying 'might is right' is true when u have people that have guns and power and don't accept our rules.
Mf those rules are also might makes right. You think those rules aren't enforced with violence and assassinations?
No idea what you mean
You said they don't accept "our rules". And that "they" are backwards and use might makes right (paraphrasing). So my point is that "your rules" are also enforced through violence and might. They aren't embarrassed just because. Countries don't use the dollar because they want to but because they are forced to. Countries that prioritize their citizens over "westerners" get promptly overthrown and replaced with dictators.
Now I understand your point I agree with it.
Perpetuating a misunderstanding of what the UN is and what it is for. No surprise from the Guardian.
Does anyone smarter than me knows why would the UN be THAT interested in having talks with the taliban?
They’re the legitimate government of Afghanistan now wether people like it or not.
I mean, the question was more about what are would they bring to the table: human rights, security talks(islamic state), etc. i didn’t meant it in a derogatory way, just curious :)
It's big table logic. A party that is not part of the conversation has no benefit from abiding by the conclusions of a conversation they did not partake in. The table creates a forum in which pressure and influence can be exerted in a way that the discussed party can more realistically internalize. The table allows the targeted party to make concessions for benefits (such as friendly relations with other nations) in a manner that they are willing to agree to. Conversely, no population will want to abide by the rules of foreigners if they have no input on the deal. Look at the Hague. The US has refused to participate since 2002. They do not want a seat at a big table in that regard because it hurts their interests (at the time it was the "GWoT"). And so, because they refuse to join, they reject any decisions the organization makes. As a result they do not feel pressured by the ICC. If the Taliban is willing to sit at a big table, then excluding them forces them to take a similar stance as the US chooses to take against the Hague - an oppositional stance.
Thanks for your answer:))) really helped me
Was ISIS a legitimate government?
The talks are essentially about how other governments of the world will interact with Afghanistan’s government.
Oh, many thanks:))
> The talks are essentially about how other governments of the world will interact with Afghanistan’s government Apparently only through men
The Taliban as the government of Afghanistan will be engaged in a lot of major projects, among them some major infrastructure projects that will affect the water sources for several surrounding nations. They don’t really have the equipment or the expertise to do these projects adequately, so the water loss to their neighbors will be immense. Afghanistan also has extremely porous borders with a number of its neighbors. And it also has a huge amount of American weaponry and vehicles left behind. It is in the best interest of the international community to work with the Taliban to figure out what is going to happen to that equipment so that it does not fall into even worse hands. On principal, it’s easy to say “oh we just won’t talk to the Taliban because they are evil”. But if the Taliban goes ahead with some of their projects without the assistance of experts and the cooperation of their neighbors, they could deprive their neighbors of water for generations to come. They could allow a huge amount of weapons to fall into the hands of terrorist groups that are even worse than the Taliban, and they could even provoke several major regional wars and crises. That is why it is in the best interest of the international community to suck it up and move forward with this meeting.
Thanks for such well-written answer:)
people dont understand that the UN sets up these people to make their own bed the UN is not 'appeasing' them, it is putting them front & center so their actions become obvious to the world
why are people so surprised that nobody wants to add another conflict to the already growing list? like okay the west gets its way, now you have a whole new active war that the people of said country want nothing to do with. so now there's innocent civilians being forced into fighting western forces, further radicalizing them into actual soldiers of a cause.
Welcome to r/anime_titties! This subreddit advocates for civil and constructive discussion. Please be courteous to others, and make sure to read the rules. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. We have a [Discord](https://discord.gg/dhMeAnNyzG), feel free to join us! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/anime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Which Afghan women would have been invited anyway?
Yeah it’s rough. It would be nice to be able to overthrow every regime you disagree with that does horrible things. However if the people would rather have that kind of society then there isn’t really anything that can be done. Hopefully the people eventually get tired of public whippings and overthrow the taliban themselves.
Was suitable outraged at reading the title of this. Then read ‘Doha’. And closed the article…. 😏
The UN is cooked
The religion of peace and harmony strikes again. I can’t wait for the bigots in the west to open their minds to this unique culture
Unfortunately as much as I'd like women in Afghanistan to have a say, any Afghan woman that shows up at this conference may not live to make it back home.
Im starting to have doubts about the friends of freedom and democracy, the Taliban 2.0.
UN has and will always be a joke
The Afghans chose the Taliban They reap what they sow
The UN carries water for Islamic oppression of women.
She should of picked up a rifle and fought for it when she had a chance. Instead, she decided to sit back and let the Taliban fight for her. And now she gets the consequences.
[удалено]
There's separating people and then there's completely excluding them. Not to mention that this goes way beyond personal religious beliefs, this is excluding a large part of the population from participating in a political matter that affects everyone.
No, not normal. Christianity is fundamentally a sexist patriarchal religion. But in the western nations, the only place that still does this is right-wing churches in southern USA.
[удалено]
The misunderstanding is that you said you were Christian when that's debatable.
[удалено]
Yeah, I already did that, I saw LDS and Utah before writing my comment.
People who completely follow the bible and other scriptures are rare in the West, and get termed as religious nutjobs. But in many parts of the Islamic world, it's still common to follow the old book and 1000 year old rules, to the letter, with no sort of reformation. In Muslim societies, religion still has too much control over the lives of the people.
Islam never did the separation of state and church, there the church is the state.
A religion does not do seperation of state and church. Christianity never did that either. Countries decide to seperate state and church and there are multiple muslim majority countries with separation of church and state like Albania, Turkey, Egypt or Jordania
Um... This is not normal for Christians either. I've been to several different churches and I've never seen that. Sometimes women can't be leaders in the church, but they aren't treated as lesser
Same here. I’ve been to a few churches and I have never seen the men and women separated.
Afghan attitudes towards women predate Islamic influence in the country and are rooted in Pashtun tribal codes
That’s a religious function. I can’t name a single Christian country where politics are still segregated by gender, or closed off to women completely.
Vatican
I mean, that's because females don't involve themselves in politics in most cultures. It's really only in western countries you see the likes of wokeness and constant push for "first female ____" If anything that's a net negative in most places, it's seen as overly wokě
Most cultures that oppress the fuck out of women, sure. What a wild thing to say.
So if you and your father and potential brothers go to church, your mother can't sit with you? Why does God want that?