Zahra Shafei, cultural researcher
Here you are, Freedom
“Because of our recent military gains in much of Afghanistan, women are no longer imprisoned in their homes. They can listen to music now. The terrorists and the Taliban wouldn’t allow them to paint their nails.” These were the words of Laura Bush, the First Lady of the United States, in a radio address to the American people on November 17, 2001. Following the US military invasion of Afghanistan, the US government equated the liberation of Afghan women from Taliban rule with the fight against terrorism and extremism, making it one of the main objectives of the war. This humanitarian voice was heard from the wife of the US president in Washington. In this speech, she equated patriarchy with terrorism and framed the so-called “war on terror” as a battle for the freedom and dignity of women. Just days after American bombs began to rain down on Afghan homes, a female member of the US Congress, dressed in the traditional blue burqa worn by Pashtun women – which had been portrayed in Western media as the most grotesque symbol of oppression and backwardness – expressed her appreciation for this "compassionate war."
During the days of the military invasion of Iraq, after the US failed to find any "weapons of mass destruction," the issue of defending the rights of Iraqi women became a headline in the media campaigns of the coalition countries. With the cooperation of organizations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, public opinion in the West supported the continuation of the war in Iraq, which left millions dead and displaced. This occurred despite the fact that Saddam Hussein's regime was secular, and the hijab worn by Iraqi women and their lifestyle was not a result of Ba'athist intervention, but rather a reflection of the beliefs and culture of the Iraqi people.
It took 15 years and several million deaths for the next President of the United States to make a shocking confession: "They want to wear it [the hijab]. [They say] we've worn them for a thousand years. Why would anybody tell us not to. What are we getting involved for?"
Like father, like son
From the British colonization of India to the French occupation of Algeria and the subsequent military occupation of Iraq by the United States, a Western power that inherited the legacies of the former two, a recurring pattern of using women's rights as a pretext to advance the goals of Western countries is clearly observable.
In 1893, while Britain was busy expanding its influence and dominance in India and fighting against Muslim Resistance Movements, Western writers referred to the liberation of girls and widowed women from the oppression and tyranny of "Mohammedans" as one of the accomplishments of Britain's invasion of India.
They had written that, before Islam, women in Hindu and Sikh culture were free and educated. Interestingly, more than 40 years later, when Hindus also joined the resistance against British colonialism, Katherine Mayo, who had a history of writing books against anti-colonial movements, wrote the book Mother India to criticize Hindu culture and its treatment of women, reinforcing a negative image of Indian culture.
On May 16, 1958, just four years before Algeria would free itself from 130 years of French rule, French generals eager to demonstrate their commitment to continued colonization and provide evidence of Algerian support to the French government, hired hundreds of locals to chant pro-French slogans. While staged pro-French rallies were common during the colonial era, what was different this time was the presence of a group of Algerian women who had been unveiled by French women. This act was aimed at undermining the values of Algeria's freedom fighters and Muslim revolutionaries[1].
Support for women's rights: A cover for colonial goals
In his 1959 book Algeria Unveiled, Frantz Fanon writes: "The dream of a total domestication of Algerian society by means of 'unveiled women aiding and sheltering the occupier' continues to haunt the colonial authorities." The same France that defended the "right to freedom of dress" for Algerian women banned the wearing of the hijab in its schools and universities decades later. The same Britain that fought against the 'oppression of Muslim women' was a major supporter of tribes in their struggle against the Ottomans, who paid no attention to the actual rights of women in Islam.
The United States also formed a coalition of countries to attack Iraq, using countries that had even made it illegal for women to drive. It is clearly evident that "defending women's rights" has been nothing more than a pretext for extensive military campaigns. These profitable campaigns could not have dragged on for so long without a humanitarian veneer.
In a meeting with various groups of Iranian women on December 17, 2024, Imam Khamenei highlighted the West's instrumental use of women's rights. He stated: "Global capitalists and politicians intervene in the topic of women just as they do in all aspects of people’s lifestyle. What is their goal? Their true goal is political and colonial intrusion. They intervene to lay the groundwork and provide cover for further encroachment, and greater interference. This motive is hidden behind a humanitarian appearance."
For the colonialists and capitalists, what could be a greater incentive than the fact that during the approximately 150 years of British colonial presence and occupation of India, this country injected a sum of 45 trillion dollars into its own economy. India, which once had the largest textile and spice industries in the world, fell under British rule and was forced to pay tribute to Britain for its exports.
France, having almost lost the Mediterranean in its colonial competition with Britain, seized one of the most important shores of the Mediterranean, Algeria, under the banner of civilization and freedom. During its more than 130 years of colonial occupation of Algeria, France confiscated all the Islamic endowments of the Algerian people and plundered its natural resources. Statistics show that between 80 and 180 billion dollars were transferred to the French treasury as a result of this plunder.
The United States, the self-proclaimed champion of women's rights worldwide, accused Iraq of developing weapons of mass destruction and collaborating with terrorists after Saddam Hussein decided to take Iraq's oil out of the petrodollar system. At a time when the Ba'athist regime in Iraq was actually using German-made weapons of mass destruction against the people of Iran and its own people, the United States provided the Iraqi regime with detailed intelligence on Iranian military infrastructure through its spy planes. However, as soon as Saddam stood against the US, the issue of Iraqi women being subjected to misogyny and oppression became the main concern of mouthpieces in all international human rights platforms. Today, all of Iraq's oil export revenue is directly deposited into American accounts. Even for basic expenses such as paying salaries, the Iraqi government has to request dollars from the United States in writing, and receive it in suitcases.
The attack on Afghanistan, not only generated substantial profits for the US arms industry and private contractors but also fostered an environment conducive to drug production and trafficking. Moreover, it positioned the United States in a strategically advantageous position to encircle and attack Iran. As the Imam Khamenei stated in his speech on January 1, the main goal of the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq was to encircle and destroy Islamic Iran. Achieving this goal would have given the United States complete control over the world's largest oil-producing region.
It is plausible to speculate that, following Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran would have been next in line for the US to ostensibly "bring rights and freedoms for women."
[1] Abu-Lughod, Lila. Do Muslim Women Need Saving? Harvard University Press, 2013, pp. 33–34.
Comment