The Dual Standards of Foreign Governments Towards Afghanistan

By: Mohammad Dawod Ishaqzahi “Yousfi”

Mawlawi Abdul Kabir, the political deputy Prime Minister of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, addressed the National Conference on Strengthening Educational Institutions, stating, “Based on an economy-oriented foreign policy, the Islamic Emirate is committed to maintaining positive interactions and balanced bilateral relations with all countries worldwide.”

He further mentioned, “Currently, Afghan mission are active in nearly twenty countries.” These are the words of a senior Afghan government official.

In recent months, the main focus of Afghan authorities has been centered around opening national and local economic projects, safeguarding the rights of Afghan citizens within and beyond borders, combating narcotics and terrorist groups, and ensuring societal security and territorial integrity. It is evident that the officials of the Islamic Emirate are tirelessly working around the clock to provide a peaceful and secure environment for the people of Afghanistan. However, certain international organizations, driven by specific agendas, are attempting to disrupt this peace under various pretexts. One day, they claim to defend the rights and immunity of journalists, and the next day, they advocate for the rights of women, religious minorities, and the security of government opponents. Such interventions rob our nation of comfort and tranquility, keeping them entangled in turmoil and unrest.

If we compare Afghanistan with other countries worldwide, we will find that similar events occur on a daily basis, becoming a regular feature of governmental affairs. However, while these incidents receive little attention in other nations, they are disproportionately highlighted in Afghanistan. Many countries that advocate human rights have banned hijab, for instance, but when questioned about this prohibition, they conveniently justify it by claiming that it ensures their country’s security and peace. They evade their responsibility to eliminate racism and ensure equal rights for their own citizens. Yet, when a similar decision is made in Afghanistan to make Islamic covering and hijab mandatory in accordance with Sharia laws, as a means to preserve the country’s peace and people’s well-being, all cameras turn towards this issue without respecting the autonomy and sovereignty of a state. They zoom in and analyze it for days, putting pressure on the Afghan government and limiting their options.

Isn’t the closure of mosques and Islamic educational centers under false pretexts in European countries a violation of human rights? Why aren’t they addressing this distressing crisis and taking action to protect the rights of religious and ethnic minorities?

It goes without saying that Afghanistan is an Islamic country where all institutions and active groups must adhere to Sharia and Islamic standards. This adherence to regulations demonstrates respect for the traditions of the Afghan people.

What country allows international institutions and groups to operate in its borders against its own laws?

Yasser Arafat, the leader of the Palestinian liberation movement, was invited to the United Nations General Assembly in 1988. However, the American government denied him a visa. In 1973, the United Nations and the United States signed the “Headquarters Treaty,” outlining the organization’s rules and procedures in New York City. According to this treaty, the United States is obligated to facilitate the entry of all country representatives to the UN headquarters without exception, issuing visas to them free of charge and as quickly as possible.

Paragraph 12 of this treaty explicitly states that the United States must allow the entry of country representatives “regardless of their government’s relationship with the United States government.” In other words, if a country is at war with the United States, the presence of that country’s representative at the UN headquarters in New York should not be impeded.

In 2010, the American Congress approved the “Foreign Relations License” bill, granting the president powers that contradict the headquarters treaty. Under this law, the president can deny entry to the United States and the United Nations headquarters to individuals who have been “involved in espionage activities against the United States or pose a threat to national security.”

Now the question arises for our nation: when any country can act according to its own interests and consequences without considering internal and external reactions, why are these media propagandas and psychological pressures only directed at Afghanistan and not at them?

These inconsistent behaviors and double standards indicate self-serving biases and prejudices, exemplifying the saying, “blind to one’s faults and keen-sighted to others’.”