At South Africa’s National Women’s Day commemoration on August 9, President Cyril Ramaphosa spoke, among other things, about the Taliban’s systematic oppression of women and girls in Afghanistan. Standing alongside him, Malala Yousafzai urged governments to recognize this system for what Afghan women have long called it: gender apartheid.
“South Africans know what it means when the law is used to determine where people may go, what they may learn, what work they may do and what place they may occupy in society,” Ramaphosa said.
For South Africans, that comparison carries particular weight—because of its history with apartheid, the nation speaks with particular authority when calling for dismantling of systems of domination when they appear elsewhere. President Ramaphosa recognized this in his speech, saying South Africa has a “duty to stand in solidarity with victims of sexism and gender apartheid, wherever they are.”
Human Rights Watch has documented how the Taliban have systematically stripped women and girls of their rights, including by banning girls from education beyond sixth grade and severely restricting women’s employment, movement, and participation in public life. These abuses amount to the crime against humanity of gender persecution. The International Criminal Court has already issued two arrest warrants for senior Taliban leaders on charges of gender persecution; United Nations experts and Afghan women’s rights defenders have described the situation as gender apartheid.
Afghan women have also been leading the fight to have gender apartheid recognized in international law, and for its inclusion with the existing crime of apartheid on grounds of race, in a new international treaty on crimes against humanity. Human Rights Watch has also advocated for this, alongside Afghan women’s rights defenders and other civil society organizations. Seven state delegations so far support the inclusion of gender apartheid as a crime against humanity in the treaty.
Governments are now preparing to negotiate this treaty. South Africa should use those negotiations to emphatically support the inclusion of gender apartheid as a crime against humanity and urge all other governments to do the same. Doing so would honor National Women’s Day and the memory of the 20,000 South African women who marched against apartheid pass laws in 1956, with the understanding that laws controlling movement and everyday life are instruments of domination.
Facts Only
* President Cyril Ramaphosa spoke at South Africa’s National Women’s Day commemoration on August 9th.
* Ramaphosa addressed the Taliban’s systematic oppression of women and girls in Afghanistan.
* Malala Yousafzai urged governments to recognize the Afghan experience as gender apartheid.
* Ramaphosa noted that laws determining movement, education, work, and societal place constitute a form of domination, referencing the history of apartheid.
* Human Rights Watch documented the Taliban’s actions against women and girls, including banning education beyond the sixth grade and restricting employment, movement, and public participation.
* These abuses are described as gender persecution amounting to a crime against humanity.
* The International Criminal Court has issued two arrest warrants for senior Taliban leaders on charges of gender persecution.
* United Nations experts and Afghan women’s rights defenders have described the situation as gender apartheid.
* Afghan women have led efforts to recognize gender apartheid in international law, seeking inclusion with the crime of apartheid in a new treaty on crimes against humanity.
* Seven state delegations currently support the inclusion of gender apartheid as a crime against humanity in that treaty.
Executive Summary
President Cyril Ramaphosa spoke about the Taliban’s oppression of women and girls in Afghanistan during South Africa’s National Women’s Day commemoration on August 9th. Malala Yousafzai urged governments to recognize this system as gender apartheid. Ramaphosa referenced the historical context of apartheid when calling for dismantling systems of domination, asserting South Africa’s duty to stand in solidarity with victims of sexism and gender apartheid globally.
Human Rights Watch documented that the Taliban has systematically stripped women and girls of rights by banning education beyond the sixth grade and restricting their employment, movement, and public participation. These actions are characterized as a crime against humanity of gender persecution. The International Criminal Court has issued two arrest warrants for senior Taliban leaders regarding charges of gender persecution, and UN experts have described the situation as gender apartheid. Afghan women have advocated for recognizing gender apartheid in international law, seeking inclusion alongside the crime of apartheid in a new treaty on crimes against humanity. Governments are preparing to negotiate this treaty, and South Africa is encouraged to use these negotiations to support the inclusion of gender apartheid and urge other governments to do so.
Full Take
The narrative constructs a powerful bridge between historical struggle and contemporary human rights advocacy by framing gender-based subjugation not merely as political oppression but as an extension of systemic domination, drawing a direct parallel to the history of apartheid. The strategy relies on invoking South Africa's established moral authority concerning dismantling oppressive systems elsewhere, effectively leveraging historical memory to apply present-day moral pressure. This linkage forces the conversation away from purely domestic political concerns and into the realm of universal human rights accountability.
The pattern involves establishing a high-stakes comparative framework: linking gender apartheid to race-based apartheid, thereby demanding an expansion of international legal categorization. The implication is that withholding recognition creates a systemic gap in global justice mechanisms. The call for South Africa to use its voice in treaty negotiations serves as an appeal for the nation to actively shape the normative definition of these crimes, moving beyond passive solidarity toward active legal and moral leadership. The challenge lies in ensuring this powerful rhetoric translates into sustained pressure against state actors who benefit from the ambiguity of international legal definitions regarding gender-based atrocities.
What foundational assumptions about universal human dignity are being challenged by demanding a specific legal category—gender apartheid—rather than relying solely on existing frameworks? If gender persecution is recognized as a crime against humanity, what practical mechanisms are required to ensure accountability for these localized, yet systematic, violations across various jurisdictions? What costs are placed on nations that resist this expansion of legal recognition?