issuesbeyondborders

Ending the war with the Islamist insurgency group Taliban in Afghanistan is the centerpiece of Barack Obama’s foreign policy. As Obama’s Secretary of State who has the mandate to handle US foreign affairs, Hillary Clinton is about to deal with the Taliban.

Clinton’s tenure will be entirely different from that of Condoleeza Rice whom she succeeds. Foreign affairs in the administration of George W. Bush has largely been interventionist. Obama, on the other hand, pledges to rebuild strained alliances and woo back some old US adversaries. Most significantly, Clinton comes in during a time when communism is no longer democracy’s arch-nemesis. She is about to slam against the tough wall of democracy’s current opposite: radical Islamism (whose main strategy is terrorism).

Rice started with being advisor on Soviet and East European Affairs at a rosy time when communism fell and democracy triumphed with the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the German reunification. She wanted democracy in the greater Middle East and general support for democratically elected governments, but this came tumbling down when the Hamas turned around and supported radical Islamist militancy after garnering popular majority in the Palestinian elections. She also saw how the US supported the authoritarian governments of Saudi Arabia and Egypt. The rest of the way, she mostly plugged the holes in the foreign affairs policy of a gung-ho president who utterly believed that war is a profitable business for the US. Bush did to Iraq exactly what he derided Bill Clinton for doing in Bosnia-Herzegovina – ‘nation-building.’

Obama’s foreign policy will not sail through smooth waters. And Clinton is expected to man the ship through the choppy seas. The US financial crisis has already started putting strains on overseas ties, and Obama’s logical move to safeguard US interests will surely clash with the interests of other countries. Now, more than ever, it will be apparent that resources are finite and competitively won.

Obama particularly needs Europe’s help in stabilizing Afghanistan and neutralizing terrorism. However, European governments have already been under considerable pressure from European people who generally do not approve of sending more troops to Afghanistan. So, the US faces a tough time ahead if it asks the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to contribute more troops in Afghanistan.

Unfortunately, Obama comes in a time when Bush is widely scorned in Europe. Bush antagonized Russia for attempting to increase NATO’s presence on the Russian border. He probably thought that John McCain would win, thus preparing to set the stage in relation to the latter’s wishes to make Russia the number one US enemy again. The miscalculated move, though, irked Russian president Dmitry Medvedev who now wants to place short-range missiles on Russia’s western border, sending a clear message to America’s incoming leader.

Obama needs Pakistan’s help if the US seriously tracks down senior al-Qaeda officers, as well as Osama bin Laden himself, who are said to be holed up in the jungles of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. Pakistan, however, has either been sorely incapable of the task or is deliberately unwilling to help the US in this regard. This is a sensitive area that needs careful diplomacy. Hillary Clinton is expected to carry this out as her position mandates the conduct of negotiations relating to U.S. foreign affairs.

Obama knows that Afghanistan is the most crucial factor in fighting terrorism. The Taliban’s power has dramatically risen over the last three years. Bush focused more time and resources on Iraq, leaving the Taliban to significantly increase strength in Afghanistan. Obama wants to withdraw from Iraq soon and transfer US troops to Afghanistan to finally finish the war there. However, Obama has received considerable advice from various sectors on the probability that the war in Afghanistan cannot be won through military might. Add the fact that NATO may not be able to commit more troops there due to tremendous opposition in Europe on the idea of its continued support to the war against the Islamic insurgents. Many have said that Afghanistan may opt for a political settlement and that diplomacy will win the day. Handling this political settlement and carrying out this imperative diplomacy rest squarely on Hillary Clinton’s shoulders.

Hillary Clinton is about to deal with the Taliban, a radical Islamist group that is widely notorious for their treatment of women.

The gender policies of the Taliban aren’t exactly commendable. The Taliban firmly believes that ‘women’s chasteness and dignity should be held sacrosanct within secure environments.’ Simply put, the Taliban distrusts women, and proves it by treating them as sub-human. Further translated, the Taliban has a twisted outlook on how a woman should be.

Women, under Taliban’s orders, are heavily restricted. They should wear the burqa because ‘the face of a woman is a source of corruption.’ They cannot wear high-heeled shoes because their footsteps may excite men. Women cannot speak loudly in public because any stranger should not hear a woman’s voice. Bright colors on women’s clothing are banned because these may be sexually attractive to men. Windows on the ground floor of houses should be painted, screened, or covered because women should not be visible from the street. Hence, women are also banned from being seen on the balconies of their homes. Also, pictures of women are banned from being featured in newspapers, books, and television. Their voices should not be heard over the radio. They should not be seen in any public gathering. Houses are even banned from displaying pictures of women.  In the first place, women cannot be photographed or filmed.

Women are not allowed to work. They are not permitted to study after the age of eight. Also, starting at age eight, a female is not allowed to be in direct contact with men, other than a close blood relative, husband, or in-law. Many sick women remain untreated because women are not allowed to be treated by male doctors or their bodies touched by a male health worker during medical consultation unless they are accompanied by a male relative. More absurdly, a tailor who is found to have taken the measurements of a woman for a dress to be sewn will be severely punished, so will a husband who allowed his wife to wash clothes in a public area such as a river.

Punishment for violations of Taliban orders is fierce and severe. Public flogging, lashing, torture during imprisonment, surprise repeated beatings in the streets, and public execution have been common forms of punishment. There, too, are more creative ways such as throwing acid on the face of the woman, public insult via public address system, stoning, and cutting the fingers of women who wear nail polish. Taliban beats a woman for walking all by herself in the street. Punishments are always conducted as public spectacle held in the streets, sports arenas, or town squares.

The Taliban will never give way to international criticism on how it treats women inhumanely. Reactions from international NGOs and other humanitarian agencies are negligible to the Taliban who only adheres to their interpretation of the Sharia law. The Taliban does not follow codes of the United Nations or any other human rights laws.

A woman will now directly deal with the matters of the Taliban. She is tasked to negotiate with a group that does not respect women, much less consider any suggestions coming from a female. Hillary Clinton will face a group that absolutely and uncompromisingly believes that she, along with her kind, are not only inferior to men but should also never be given any kind of trust whatsoever. Obama might as well wish upon the Eastern star.