[Originally published in the Barre Times-Argus and Rutland Herald. Published with a few minor changes in the Herald of Randolph, April 30, 2009.]
American and other western media have learned recently of the existence of a new marriage law in Afghanistan that they have characterized as legalizing rape within marriage and forbidding married women from leaving the house without permission.
It has made good copy and, in playing on the “backward and anti-human rights” aspects of the bill, the media, at last count, have managed to incite protests from the British, United States, French, New Zealand and Canadian governments, as well as the United Nations and numerous feminine rights organizations. All have responded with righteous condemnation, a completely understandable reaction.
But this melodrama is interesting not just because of its inflammatory allegations of legalized rape, or for discussions of the appropriateness of the Western response to the story. It is far more interesting in the way it illuminates the problems that exist for the West in general and the United States in particular, in formulating and implementing foreign policies for the Muslim world.
Mohammad Asif Mohseni, a senior Afghan cleric and a main drafter of the law, has said that a woman must have sex on demand with her husband at least every four days, unless she is ill or would be harmed by intercourse. He amplified, saying, “it is essential for the woman to submit to the man’s sexual desire”.
In addition, he has said that the legislation cannot be revoked or changed because it was enacted through the bi-cameral legislative process and signed by President Karzai.
However, Mohseni’s most interesting and telling comment was that “The Westerners claim that they have brought democracy to Afghanistan. What does democracy mean? It means government by the people for the people. They should let the people use these democratic rights”. He further condemned the western outcry saying that Western countries were trying to thwart democracy because the results did not please them.
In our culture, forced sex in or out of marriage is equated with rape. It is therefore at least inappropriate and probably illegal.
In Afghanistan, the law that in our eyes “legalizes rape”, was drafted after three years of debate by Islamic scholars and Afghan legislators and is supported by hundreds of women who affixed their signatures or thumbprints to it.
Looking at the new law through our cultural filter, the American Government and most Americans roundly condemn such legislation as at least unethical or immoral, probably as illegal and certainly as unacceptable.
The Afghan government as well as most Afghan men and significant numbers of Afghan women, accept it as reflecting the Koran, Shariya law and tradition, the bases of Islamic law.
The 1948 U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR) was passed in 1948. No matter how appropriate and universal it seems to us, it has never been universally accepted. Quite the opposite, it has precipitated a nagging debate that has persisted over the last 60 years. Muslim countries have always objected, saying that the document was written in the Judeo-Christian tradition and as such, failed to acknowledge the cultural and religious differences of Islamic countries, thus denying Muslims the freedom and right to a dignified life under their universally accepted Shariya law.
How could anyone possibly object to such fundamental truths as those in the UNDHR, we ask?
Much as we would like to think that our laws are a perfect reflection of mankind, there are plenty of other humans who would argue that point. Those differences are greatest where the belief systems are farthest apart.
All human beings are victims or beneficiaries of their own ethnocentric cultural environments and biases. Laws exist as contemporary forms of cultural traditions and when one culture begins to tell another very different culture what is right and wrong, there is bound to be friction and conflict.
For a major world power like America, this often translates into a form of cultural imperialism which seems to compel us to export our philosophy of life and system of government. One of the many problems this brings on is that when America decides to export democracy an Islamic country, for example, we are heading for trouble. The extraordinary cultural differences between the regions, coupled with a curious inability of our leaders to understand those differences, lead us into situations we might better avoid and which we have great difficulty understanding.
Who are we to say that our culture is right and theirs is wrong? And yet, that is invariably the problem when we start to tell disparate parts of the world how to run their lives.
Absent a real understanding of Islam and the differences between us, it is incredibly difficult, as we have seen over the past seven years, to conceive and implement a successful foreign policy based on American cultural values for a region with wildly different cultural biases.
The best way for America to handle these differences is to show our way of life by example, not by preaching or by force. When we get to the point where we can do that consistently, people will admire our values and seek our systems and there will be no reason for us to try to export them. There is truth in the premise of John Winthrop’s “shining city on the hill.”
Haviland Smith is a former CIA station chief.
