Historically, the term “apartheid” has been associated with the racial-segregational policies that divided South Africa in the 1948s. This system was officially abolished in 1994, however, the concept of apartheid did not die with it. Instead, apartheid remains a relevant subject that can be used in modern discussions on human rights and oppression towards specific groups of people. Despite the traditional understanding of apartheid to surround solely racial discrimination, the definition of apartheid can, in a modern world, be expanded to include other forms of suppression, which operate with similar methods and purposes.
A significant case to draw a parallel to is the systematic oppression towards women in Afghanistan. Since the Taliban’s ascent to power, women and girls in Afghanistan have been stripped of fundamental human rights. This has contributed to creating a powerful division between women and men, and sparked the discussion of whether or not gender apartheid exists and whether making it an internationally-recognized term would contribute to Afghan women’s fight for equal rights.
The case of Afghanistan
The oppression women and girls have faced in Afghanistan consists of stripping them of basic rights, both in the public and private space. Women are not allowed to move freely around in public spaces without a male relative, they cannot attend secondary school, and are prohibited from working in nearly all sectors. These rules are some of many policies which have been implemented to further strengthen a system designed to oppress Afghan women and transfer all privilege and authority to men – a system which closely relates to the laws implemented during apartheid in South Africa. The policies presented above display how the current oppression of women in Afghanistan follows the same methods of systematic discrimination and oppression as used in South Africa. Likewise, they are targeted at an enforced second-class group of individuals in the country. This comparison between black citizens in South Africa and women in Afghanistan supports the argument that the official definition of apartheid should be extended also to include gender.
According to the “International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid” the crime of apartheid is defined as “policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination as practised in southern Africa, shall apply to the following inhuman acts committed to establish and maintain domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them”. This definition is restricted to racial segregation, not recognizing other forms of systematic oppression. However, the emerging movement “End Gender Apartheid”, constituted by a group of Iranian and Afghan women leaders, legal practitioners and activists among others, urges their states to recognize and counteract the crime of gender apartheid. Their demands include, more than the acknowledgment of gender apartheid, the issuing of resolutions and reshaping of policies to condemn these crimes of apartheid and the expansion of gender apartheid under international and national law.
What could the addition of gender in the (legal) definition of apartheid change?
The sanctions against South Africa in reaction to its apartheid system
The United Nations and various member states called for international measures against South Africa, primarily economic sanctions. However, many measures were inconsistent due to powerful trading partners of South Africa opposing these measures due to economic interests, such as the USA, France and the United Kingdom. The UN attempted to enforce several sanctions, however, none were made mandatory.
The international community’s reaction to the oppression occurring in South Africa specifically changed after apartheid was classified as a crime under international law by the UN in the 1976 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid. The approach towards South Africa changed and an increasing number of sanctions and other measures were implemented, including cultural boycotts and aid to victims. This shift in behaviour demonstrates the importance of illegalizing the systematic oppression within apartheid and applying the term to the actions that took place at the time.
Likewise, it indicates that expanding the term apartheid also to include the systematic oppression towards a specific gender group will likely increase the international focus on women in Afghanistan, making it harder for powerful states and organizations to ignore the issue at hand. It would no longer “only” be a breach of basic human rights but also a direct violation of international law, obliging the international community to act.
However, before concluding this, it is crucial to understand the differences between the role of South Africa in the international community at the time compared to the current role of Afghanistan. So far it has been easy for many Western states to ignore the issue in Afghanistan and push it aside by labeling it as an internal conflict instead of an international crisis.
South Africa was a trading partner with many Western countries at the time (mainly with England), meaning that sanctions from these countries were impactful in South Africa. We cannot draw the same parallel with Afghanistan. One of the primary reasons the sanctions imposed by the international community against South Africa were effective was the significant economic role South Africa played at that time. In contrast, Afghanistan does not hold a significant position of economic importance in global trade. Consequently, economic sanctions would not have the same impact on Afghanistan as they had on South Africa since Western countries have already severed financial ties with Afghanistan and the country is not dependent on them like South Africa was.
Afghanistan’s largest trading partners are Pakistan, India, China, United Arab Emirates, and Turkey, with minimal trade occurring with other nations. This means that if countries were to leverage this change in definition as a reason to impose sanctions, the effects would likely be minimal. Moreover, there is a very real possibility that its trading partners would not comply with such sanctions, as those nations have historically refrained from imposing sanctions on other countries to promote human rights.
Furthermore, it is important to note how the decades-long political and military involvement from the Western world in Afghanistan has resulted in a resigned and uninterested attitude towards any further involvement with Afghanistan. There is a lack of will from political leaders as well as citizens due to “fatigue” regarding the long war in Afghanistan and a feeling of hopelessness in light of the many years the West was present in Afghanistan.
We remind the reader that this discussion is based on the hypothetical scenario that gender could be included in the definition of apartheid. Despite the existence of the movement and a petition working towards those goals, there is no guarantee that it will happen.
Opening a conversation
In this article, we drew a parallel with South Africa, and perhaps the biggest lesson we can take away from that case is that public demand leads to international action. Student organizations all around the world demanded that their governments contribute to the solution of the crises, push for action on an international platform, leading to the determination of apartheid as a crime under international law, and implement sanctions. The movement started with people acknowledging injustice and calling for action. Similarly, at this moment, the best way we can assist is by raising awareness about the situation.
On an ending note, recognizing gender apartheid as a legitimate form of systemic oppression is essential in amplifying the struggle for women’s rights in Afghanistan and beyond. And as in the case for South Africa, where these amplification of the struggles of the oppressed community led to an era of heightened awareness and activism, the recognition of gender apartheid can ignite a similar response today.
History has shown us that the acknowledgement and condemnation of oppressive practices boost the momentum for the movements fighting them. We hope that by uniting under this cause, we can challenge the status quo and advocate for a future where every individual, regardless of gender, can enjoy their fundamental rights without fear of oppression. The journey toward gender equality must begin by shedding light on these injustices and demanding accountability on a global scale.
We invite you to share your thoughts and engage in this important conversation. While this ongoing situation allows for speculation, we hope this article serves as a starting point for a much-needed dialogue.
Please share your insights and thoughts with us by sending them to: peacejusticeunya@gmail.com
Here you can learn more about the petition: https://endgenderapartheid.today
Bibliography
The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica (2025, February 14). apartheid. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/apartheid
End gender apartheid. (n.d.). End Gender Apartheid. https://endgenderapartheid.today/
Women in Afghanistan: the back story. (n.d.). https://www.amnesty.org.uk/womens-rights-afghanistan-history
Afghanistan Trade | WITS Data. (n.d.). https://wits.worldbank.org/countrysnapshot/en/AFG
No. 14861. International convention on the suppression and punishment of the crime of apartheid. Adopted by the general assembly of the United Nations on 30 November 1973. (1999). In Treaty series/Treaty series – United Nations (p. 452). https://doi.org/10.18356/770ae15b-en-fr