Diverging views between key speakers such as Mounir Satouri, Lisa Davis, Tomasz Froelich, and Malalai Joya marked the European Parliament Subcommittee on Human Rights (DROI) and Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (FEMM) joint hearing. The main clashes centered on how to define and address gender apartheid in international law, and whether pragmatic cooperation with Taliban authorities in Afghanistan was justifiable or counterproductive. Satouri, Davis, and several activists advocated for a broadened, inclusive legal definition of gender apartheid as a crime against humanity, pushing for accountability mechanisms in international courts. Conversely, EEAS representative Aude Maio-Coliche refrained from endorsing a specific legal definition, while Froelich suggested some pragmatic engagement with the Taliban to deliver aid. Joya rejected any legitimization of the Taliban, calling for their prosecution.
This debate took place during the joint DROI-FEMM meeting on September 24, 2025, focusing on the EU’s strategy to promote and protect women’s human rights worldwide, especially in Afghanistan and Iran.
Several speakers presented specific policy proposals and concrete data. Micha Ramakers discussed the Gender Action Plan III (GAP III) implementation, highlighting budget increases and coordination under the Team Europe initiative offsetting USAID funding cuts in Afghanistan. Robert Biedroń emphasized the negative impact of US aid withdrawal on women’s services and called for enhanced EU funding structures. Susan Ferguson of UN Women detailed the operational challenges of delivering support in restrictive Taliban-controlled contexts. Golnaz Esfandiari and Smriti Singh proposed issuing visas, scholarships, and protection pathways to activists, directly linking EU credibility to practical solidarity measures.
Conversely, EEAS’s Maio-Coliche provided a broad overview of EU’s external action tools—sanctions, human rights dialogues, and investigative mechanisms—without detailed commitments or budgetary figures. Some speakers, like Tomasz Froelich, questioned the EU’s approach and sought pragmatic, results-oriented solutions to reduce human suffering.
From these contributions, clear cleavages emerge: on the legal front, advocates seek to expand the apartheid concept beyond race to explicitly cover gender-based systematic oppression, while institutional representatives remain cautious about committing to a binding definition. On engagement strategy, a split appears between those prioritizing principled non-recognition of the Taliban and those open to pragmatic cooperation for aid delivery. Funding debates reveal the EU grappling with a capability gap after USAID cuts, balancing coordination efforts with real limitations in resources.
Stakeholders directly impacted include women human-rights defenders facing systematic repression, EU institutions responsible for legality and funding, humanitarian organizations needing access and support, and Afghan and Iranian civil society seeking protection and international visibility. Expanding legal definitions and recognition as crimes against humanity could bolster women defenders’ protection and prosecution of abuses, but may also require the EU to enhance institutional coordination and funding capacity. Pragmatic cooperation with de facto authorities holds potential for aid delivery but risks legitimizing regimes, complicating EU’s human rights narratives.
Moving forward, the European Parliament’s continued advocacy for gender apartheid recognition and coherent asylum policies, coupled with ongoing EU external funding debates, will shape the signal the EU sends on gender-based human rights protection. The Commission and EEAS may have to provide more concrete strategies to close funding gaps and clarify engagement policies amid geopolitical complexities around Afghanistan and Iran.