{"id":9484,"date":"2011-01-17T00:00:52","date_gmt":"2011-01-17T00:00:52","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=9484"},"modified":"2019-10-12T12:40:04","modified_gmt":"2019-10-12T11:40:04","slug":"why-peace-is-the-business-of-men-but-shouldn%e2%80%99t-be","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2011\/01\/why-peace-is-the-business-of-men-but-shouldn%e2%80%99t-be\/","title":{"rendered":"Why Peace Is the Business of Men (But Shouldn\u2019t Be)"},"content":{"rendered":"

A Modest Proposal for the Immodest Brotherhood of Big Men<\/em><\/p>\n

Looking for a way out of Afghanistan?\u00a0 Maybe it\u2019s time to try something entirely new and totally different.\u00a0 So how about putting into action, for the first time in recorded history, the most enlightened edict ever passed by the United Nations Security Council:\u00a0Resolution 1325<\/a>?<\/p>\n

Passed on October 31, 2000, more than a decade ago, that \u201clandmark\u201d resolution was hailed worldwide as a great \u201cvictory\u201d for women and international peace and security. In a nutshell, SCR 1325 calls for women to participate equally and fully at decision-making levels in all processes of conflict resolution, peacemaking, and reconstruction.\u00a0 Without the active participation of women in peacemaking every step of the way, the Security Council concluded, no just and durable peace could be achieved anywhere.<\/p>\n

\u201cDurable\u201d was the key word.\u00a0 Keep it in mind.<\/p>\n

Most hot wars of recent memory, little and big, have been resolved or nudged into remission through what is called a power-sharing agreement.\u00a0 The big men from most or all of the warring parties — and war is basically a guy thing, in case you hadn\u2019t noticed — shoulder in to the negotiating table and carve up a country\u2019s or region\u2019s military, political, and financial pie.\u00a0 Then they proclaim the resulting deal \u201cpeace.\u201d<\/p>\n

But as I learned firsthand as an aid worker in one so-called post-conflict country after another, when the men in power stop shooting at each other, they often escalate the war against civilians — especially women and girls<\/a>.\u00a0 It seems to be hard for men to switch off violence, once they\u2019ve gotten the hang of it.\u00a0 From Liberia to Myanmar, rape, torture, mutilation, and murder continue unabated or even increase in frequency. In other words, from the standpoint of civilians, war is often not over when it\u2019s \u201cover,\u201d and the \u201cpeace\u201d is no real peace at all.\u00a0 Think of the Democratic Republic of Congo, the notorious \u201crape capital of the world,\u201d<\/a> where thousands upon thousands of women are gang-raped again and again although the country has officially been at \u201cpeace\u201d since 2003.<\/p>\n

In addition, power-sharing agreements among combatants tend to fray, and half of them unravel into open warfare again within a few years. Consider Liberia throughout the 1990s, Angola in 1992 and 1998, Cambodia in 1997, and Iraq in 2006-2007.\u00a0 At this moment, we are witnessing the breakdown<\/a> of one power-sharing agreement in the Ivory Coast, and certainly the femicidal consequences of another, made in 2001, in Afghanistan.<\/p>\n

It is this repeated recourse to war and the unrelenting abuse and neglect of civilians during fleeting episodes of \u201cpeace\u201d that prompted the Security Council to seek the key to more durable<\/em> solutions.\u00a0 They recognized that men at the negotiating table still jockey for power and wealth — notably control of a country\u2019s natural resources — while women included at any level of negotiations commonly advocate for interests that coincide perfectly with those of civil society.\u00a0 Women are concerned about their children and consequently about shelter, clean water, sanitation, jobs, health care, education, and the like — all those things that make life livable for peaceable men, women, and children anywhere.<\/p>\n

The conclusion is self-evident. Bring women to the table in decision-making roles in equal numbers with male participants and the nature of peace negotiations changes altogether.\u00a0 And so does the result.\u00a0 Or at least that\u2019s what the Security Council expects. We can\u2019t be sure because in more than a decade since SCR 1325 was enacted, it has never been put to the test.<\/p>\n

At the time, at the exhilarating dawn of a new millennium, the whole world applauded SCR 1325 as a great achievement of the United Nations, pointing the pathway to world peace.\u00a0 Later, when men in war-torn countries negotiated peace, often with the guidance of the U.N., they forgot all about it.\u00a0 Their excuse was that they had to act fast, speed being more important than justice or durability or women.\u00a0 At critical times like that, don\u2019t you know, women just get in the way.<\/p>\n

Peace? Not a Chance<\/strong><\/p>\n

My special concern is Afghanistan, and I\u2019m impatient. I\u2019d like a speedy conclusion, too. It\u2019s been nine years since I started doing aid work there, and in that time several of the young Afghan women who were my colleagues and became my friends have died of illnesses they would have survived in better times under the auspices of a government that cared about the welfare of its citizens. Even its women citizens.<\/p>\n

Yet now, whenever I present my modest proposal for the implementation of SCR 1325 to American big men — thinkers, movers, and shakers — who lay claim to expertise on Afghanistan, most of them strongly object.\u00a0 They know the theory, they say, but practice is something else again, and they are precluded from throwing their weight behind SCR 1325 by delicate considerations of \u201ccultural relativism.\u201d Afghanistan, they remind me, is a \u201ctraditional\u201d culture that regards women as less than human.\u00a0 As Westerners, they say, we must be particularly careful to respect that view.<\/p>\n

Yet the eagerness of Western men to defer to this \u201ctradition\u201d seems excessive, and their tenderness for the sentiments of bearded men who couldn\u2019t clear airport security in Iowa City strikes me as deliberately obtuse, especially since very few of the Afghan men who actually governed Afghanistan between 1919 and 1989 would have shared their sentiments.<\/p>\n

Afghan culture is — and is not — traditional.\u00a0 Modern ideas, including the idea of equality between the sexes, have been at the heart of internal Afghan cultural struggles for at least a century.\u00a0 In the 1920s, King Amanullah founded the first high school for girls and the first family court to adjudicate women\u2019s complaints about their husbands; he proclaimed the equality of men and women, banned polygamy, cast away the burqa, and banished ultra-conservative Islamist mullahs as \u201cbad and evil persons\u201d who spread propaganda foreign to the moderate Sufi ideals of Afghanistan.\u00a0 His modern ideas cost him his crown, but Afghans still remember Amanullah and his modern, unveiled Queen Suraya for their brave endeavor to drag the country into the modern world.<\/p>\n

Thousands of Afghan citizens have shared King Amanullah\u2019s modern views, expressed later by successive leaders, kings and communists alike.\u00a0 But at least since 1979, when the United States and Saudi Arabia joined Pakistan in promoting the ideology and military skill of Islamist extremists who sought to return the country to the seventh-century world of the prophet, Afghanistan\u2019s liberal modernists have taken flight for North America, Europe, and Australia.<\/p>\n

Last summer in Afghanistan I talked with many progressive men and women who were running for parliament, hoping to push back against the inordinate power of the Afghan executive in the person of President Hamid Karzai.\u00a0 To them, he seems increasingly eager to do deals with the most extreme Islamists in opposition to all their progressive dreams for their country.<\/p>\n

Yet in August, when President Karzai flagrantly stole<\/a> the presidential election, President Obama telephoned to congratulate him and the U.S. officially pronounced the fraudulent election results \u201cgood enough.\u201d\u00a0 We might ask: In this contest between entrenched Islamist extremists and progressives who favor equality and democracy, why is the United States on the wrong side?\u00a0 Why are we on the side of a mistaken notion of Afghan \u201ctradition\u201d?<\/p>\n

Our Big Man in Kabul <\/strong><\/p>\n

In 2001, the U.S. and\u00a0by extension the entire international community cast their lot with Hamid Karzai.\u00a0 We put him in power after one of those power-sharing conferences in Bonn, Germany, to which, by the way, only two Afghan women were invited. We paid hundreds of millions of dollars to stage two presidential elections, in 2004 and 2009, and looked the other way while Karzai\u2019s men stuffed the ballot boxes<\/a>.\u00a0 Now, it seems, we\u2019re stuck with him and his misogynist \u201ctraditions,\u201d even though a growing number of Afghanistan watchers identify the Karzai government as the single greatest problem<\/a> the U.S. faces in its never-ending war.<\/p>\n

We could have seen this coming if we had kept an eye on how President Karzai treats women.\u00a0 George W. Bush famously claimed<\/a> to have \u201cliberated\u201d the women of Afghanistan, but he missed one: Hamid Karzai\u2019s wife.\u00a0 Although she is a gynecologist with desperately needed skills, she is kept shut up at home.\u00a0 To this day, the president\u2019s wife remains the most prominent woman in Afghanistan still living under house rules established by the Taliban. That little detail, by the way, should remind you of why you ought to care what happens to women: they are the canaries<\/a> in the Afghan political coal mine.<\/p>\n

And what has President Karzai done for the rest of the women of Afghanistan?\u00a0 Not a thing.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s the conclusion of a recent report issued by the Human Rights Research and Advocacy Consortium (HRRAC), an association of prominent aid and independent research groups in Afghanistan, including such highly respected non-governmental organizations as Oxfam, CARE,\u00a0and Save the Children. The Afghan researchers who did the study conducted extensive interviews with prominent male religious scholars, male political leaders, and female leaders locally, provincially, and nationally.<\/p>\n

The report notes that President Karzai has supported increasingly repressive laws against women, most notoriously the \u201cTaliban-style\u201d Shia Personal Status Law, enacted<\/a> in 2009, which not only legitimizes marital rape but \u201cprevents women from stepping out of their homes\u201d without their husband\u2019s consent, in effect depriving them of the right to make any decisions about their own lives. The report points out that this law denies women even the basic freedoms guaranteed to all citizens in the Afghan Constitution, which was passed in 2004 as part of a flurry of democratic reforms marking the start of Karzai\u2019s first term as elected president.\u00a0 The democratizing spasm passed and President Karzai, sworn to defend that Constitution, failed to do the job.<\/p>\n

In fact, Karzai\u2019s record on human rights, as the HRRAC report documents, is chiefly remarkable for what he has not done.\u00a0 He holds extraordinary power to make political appointments — another indicator of the peculiar nature of this Afghan \u201cdemocracy\u201d our troops are fighting for — and he has now had almost 10 years in office, ample time to lead even the most reluctant traditional society toward more equitable social arrangements.\u00a0 Yet today, but one cabinet ministry is held by a woman, the Ministry for Women\u2019s Affairs, which incidentally is the sole government ministry that possesses only advisory powers.\u00a0 Karzai has appointed just one female provincial governor, and 33 men.\u00a0 (Is it by chance that Bamyan — the province run by that woman — is generally viewed as the most peaceful in the country?)\u00a0 To head city governments nationwide, he has named only one female mayor.\u00a0 And to the Supreme Court High Council he has appointed no woman at all.<\/p>\n

Karzai\u2019s claim that he can\u2019t find qualified women is a flimsy — and traditional — excuse. Many of his highest-ranking appointees to government offices are notorious war criminals, men considered by the great majority of Afghan citizens to have disqualified themselves from public office.\u00a0 The failure of many of his male appointees to govern honestly and justly, or even to show up for work at all, is a rising complaint of NATO commanders who find upon delivery of \u201cgovernment in a box\u201d<\/a> that the box is pretty much empty.<\/p>\n

If fully qualified women are in short supply, having been confined and deprived for years thanks to armed combat and the Taliban government, isn\u2019t that all the more reason for a president sworn to uphold equality to act quickly to insure broad opportunities for education, training, jobs, and the like?\u00a0 The HRRAC report sensibly recommends \u201cbroad sociopolitical reform\u201d to provide \u201ceducation and economic opportunities for real women\u2019s leadership.\u201d\u00a0 Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai, former minister of finance, former president of Kabul University, and presidential contender, spoke in favor of such a \u201csensible and regular process.\u201d\u00a0 As he noted, however, \u201cOur government is not a sensible government.\u201d<\/p>\n

Flimsy, too, is the argument that Afghanistan\u2019s cultural traditions eliminate women from public service.\u00a0 Uzra Jafari, the mayor of Daikundi, reports that the city\u2019s inhabitants did not believe a woman could be a mayor, but they soon \u201caccepted that a woman can serve them better than a man.\u201d\u00a0 \u201cSocial obstacles can be overcome,\u201d she says, \u201cbut the main problem is the political obstacles.\u00a0 We have problems at the highest levels.\u201d\u00a0 The problem, in other words, is President Karzai, the only person in Afghanistan who has the power to install women in political offices and yet refuses to do so.\u00a0 In short, the president is far more \u201ctraditional\u201d than most of the people.<\/p>\n

Without the support of male leadership, women leaders (and their families) become easy targets for harassment, threats, intimidation, and assassination. When such threats come from the ultra-Islamist men who dominate the Afghan parliament, they prevent women parliamentarians from uniting in support of women and, in most cases, from speaking out as individuals for women\u2019s rights.\u00a0 Death threats have a remarkable silencing effect, disrupting the processes of governance, yet President Karzai has not once taken a stand against the terrorist tactics of his cronies.<\/p>\n

The Brotherhood of Men<\/strong><\/p>\n

Let\u2019s acknowledge that there are limits to what the West can and cannot do in the very different and more traditional culture of Afghanistan.\u00a0 Judging by what we have already done, it seems to be perfectly all right for the West — aka the U.S. — to rain bombs upon this agrarian country, with its long tradition of moderate Sufism, and impose an ultraconservative Islamist government and free market capitalism (even at the expense of indigenous agricultural markets) through the ministrations of thousands of highly paid private American \u201ctechnical assistants.\u201d But it is apparently not okay for any of those multitudinous, extravagantly paid American political and economic consultants to tweak the silken sleeve of President Karzai\u2019s chapan<\/em> and say, \u201cHamid, my man, you\u2019ve gotta get some more women in here.\u201d\u00a0 That would be disrespectful of Afghan traditions.<\/p>\n

I don\u2019t buy it.\u00a0 What we\u2019re up against is not just the intractable misogyny of President Karzai and other powerful mullahs and mujahideen<\/em>, but the misogyny of power brokers in Washington as well.<\/p>\n

Take, for example, the second most popular objection I hear from American male experts on Afghanistan when I raise my modest proposal.\u00a0 They call this one \u201cpragmatic\u201d or \u201crealistic.\u201d\u00a0 Women can\u2019t come to the negotiating table, they say, because the Taliban would never sit down with them.\u00a0 In fact, Taliban, \u201cex-Taliban,\u201d and Taliban sympathizers sit down with women every day in the Afghan Parliament, as they have in occasional loya jirgas<\/em> (deliberating assemblies) since 2001.\u00a0 Clearly, any Taliban who refuse altogether to talk with women disqualify themselves as peace negotiators and should have no place at the table. But what\u2019s stunning about the view of the American male experts is that it comes down on the other side, ceding to the most extreme Taliban misogynists the right to exclude from peace deliberations half the population of the country. (Tell that to our women soldiers putting their lives on the line.)<\/p>\n

Yet these days every so-called Afghanistan expert in Washington has a plan for the future of the country.\u00a0 Some seem relatively reasonable while others are certifiably delusional, but what almost all of these documents have in common is the absence of the word \u201cwomen.\u201d\u00a0(There are a few tiny but notable exceptions.)<\/p>\n

In the Loony Tunes category is former diplomat and National Security Council Deputy Robert D. Blackwill\u2019s \u201cPlan B in Afghanistan\u201d appearing in Foreign Affairs<\/em>, which calls for<\/a> the U.S. military to flee the south, thus creating a \u201cde facto partition\u201d of Afghanistan and incidentally abandoning — you guessed it — \u201cthe women of those areas,\u201d as well as anyone else in the south who wants \u201cto resist the Taliban.\u201d\u00a0 This scenario may call to mind images of helicopters departing the American embassy in Saigon in 1975, but Blackwill clings to his \u201cstrategy,\u201d calling the grim fate of those left behind \u201ca tragic consequence of local realities that are impossible for outsiders to change.\u201d<\/p>\n

In the relatively reasonable category is the plan<\/a> of the Afghanistan Study Group: \u201cA New Way Forward: Rethinking U.S. Strategy in Afghanistan.\u201d\u00a0 Its first recommendation\u00a0says, \u201cThe U.S. should fast-track a peace process designed to decentralize power within Afghanistan and encourage a power-sharing balance among the principal parties.\u201d\u00a0 Whoops!\u00a0 No mention of women there.\u00a0 And power sharing?\u00a0 We know where that\u2019s headed.\u00a0 Afghanistan, the undisputed small arms capital of the world, might easily spontaneously combust into civil war.<\/p>\n

But what becomes of women?\u00a0 Even Matthew Hoh, who resigned his position<\/a> in 2009 as a political officer in the foreign service to protest U.S. policy in Afghanistan, and now heads the Afghanistan Study Group, can\u2019t seem to imagine bringing women to the negotiating table.\u00a0 (He says he\u2019s \u201cworking on it.\u201d) Instead, the Study Group decides for women that \u201cthis strategy will best serve [their] interests.\u201d\u00a0 It declares that \u201cthe worst thing for women is for Afghanistan to remain paralyzed in a civil war in which there evolves no organically rooted support for their social advancement.\u201d\u00a0 Well, no.\u00a0 Actually, the worst thing for women is to have a bunch of men — and not even Afghan men at that — decide one more time what\u2019s best for women.<\/p>\n

I wonder if it\u2019s significant that the Afghan Study Group, much like the Bonn Conference that established the Karzai government in the first place, is essentially a guy club.\u00a0 I count three women among 49 men and the odd \u201ccenter\u201d or \u201ccouncil\u201d (also undoubtedly consisting mostly of men).\u00a0 When I asked Matthew Hoh why there are so few women in the Study Group, he couldn\u2019t help laughing.\u00a0 He said, \u201cThis is Washington.\u00a0 You go to any important meeting in Washington, it\u2019s men.\u201d<\/p>\n

Maybe the heady atmosphere engendered by all those gatherings of suits in close quarters was what inspired Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia to abandon all discretion recently and declare<\/a> that the promise of equal protection in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not extend to protecting women against sex discrimination. If states enact laws discriminating against women, he opined, such laws would not be unconstitutional. (You can be sure some legislators have gotten right to work on it.)<\/p>\n

That opinion puts Justice Scalia cozily in bed with former Chief Justice Shinwari, President Karzai\u2019s first appointee to head the Supreme Court of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, who interpreted Article 22 of the Afghan Constitution, which calls for men and women to have equal rights and responsibilities before the law, to mean that men have rights and women have responsibilities to their husbands. (Could this mean that the United States is a traditional culture, too?)<\/p>\n

Women leaders in Afghanistan complain that their government does not see them as \u201chuman,\u201d but merely uses them as tokens or symbols, presumably to appease those international donors who still rattle on about human rights.\u00a0 George W. Bush used Afghan women that way.\u00a0 Obama doesn\u2019t mention them.\u00a0 Here in the U.S. you take your choice between cynical exploitation, utter neglect, and outright discrimination.<\/p>\n

In Afghanistan, Karzai names a High Peace Council to negotiate with the Taliban.\u00a0 Sixty men.\u00a0 The usual suspects: warlords, Wahhabis, mujahideen<\/em>, long-bearded and long in the tooth, but fighting for power to the bitter end.\u00a0Thomas Ruttig of the Afghan Analysts Network reports<\/a> that among them are 53 men linked to armed factions in the civil wars of the 1980s and 1990s including 13 linked to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar\u2019s Hezb-e Islami, currently allied with the Taliban.\u00a0 An additional 12 members of the High Peace Council held positions in the Taliban\u2019s Emirate government between 1996 and 2001.<\/p>\n

Under some international pressure, Karzai belatedly added 10 women, the only members of the High Peace Council with no ties to armed militias past or present; they represent the interests of civil society, which is to say the people who might actually like to live in peace for a change and do their utmost to sustain it.\u00a0 The U.S. signed off on this lopsided Council.\u00a0 So did Hillary Clinton, a woman who, as Secretary of State, has solemnly promised<\/a> again and again never to abandon the women of Afghanistan, though she never remembers to invite them to a conference where international and Afghan men decide the future of their country.<\/p>\n

Okay, so my modest proposal doesn\u2019t stand a chance.\u00a0 The deck is stacked against the participation of women, both there and here.\u00a0 Even I don\u2019t expect men in power to take seriously the serious proposition that women must be equally and fully involved in peacemaking or you don\u2019t get durable peace.\u00a0 Too many men, both Afghan and American, are doing very nicely thank you with the present traditional arrangements of our cultures.\u00a0 So, searching blindly for some eventual exit and burdened by their misbegotten notions of “peace,” U.S. and NATO officials busy themselves repeatedly transporting to Kabul, at vast expense, a single high-ranking Taliban mullah to negotiate secret peace and power-sharing deals with President Karzai.\u00a0 American officials tout these man-to-man negotiations as evidence that U.S. strategy is finally working, until the \u201cmullah\u201d turns out to be an imposter<\/a> playing a profitable little joke on the powers that be.\u00a0 Afghan women, who already suffer the effects of rising Taliban power, are not laughing.<\/p>\n

Consider this.\u00a0 We\u2019re not just talking about women\u2019s rights here.\u00a0 Women\u2019s rights are human rights.\u00a0 Women exercising their human rights are simply women engaging in those things that men the world over take for granted: going to school, going to work, walking around.\u00a0 But in Afghanistan today — here\u2019s where tradition comes in again — almost every woman and girl exercising her rights does so with the support of the man or men who let her out of the house: father, husband, brothers, uncles, sons.\u00a0 Exclude women from their rightful equal decision-making part in the peacemaking process and you also betray the men who stand behind them, men who are by self-definition committed to the dream of a more egalitarian and democratic future for their country.<\/p>\n

The sad news from Afghanistan is that a great many progressives have already figured out their own exit strategy. Like generations of Afghans before them, they will become part of one of the world\u2019s largest diasporas from a single country.\u00a0 Ironically, I\u2019ll bet many of those progressive Afghan men will bring their families to the United States, where women appear to be free and it\u2019s comforting to imagine that misogyny is dead.<\/p>\n

____________________<\/p>\n

Ann Jones is the author most recently <\/em>of War Is Not Over When It\u2019s Over: Women Speak Out from the Ruins of War<\/a> (Metropolitan 2010) on the way war affects women from Africa to the Middle East and Asia.\u00a0 She wrote about the struggles of Afghan women in <\/em>Kabul in Winter (Metropolitan 2006). She is currently a fellow at the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study at Harvard. To listen to Timothy MacBain’s latest TomCast audio interview in which Jones discusses why wars never end for women and girls,\u00a0click here <\/a>or, to download it to your iPod,\u00a0here<\/a>. <\/em><\/p>\n

[Note on further reading:<\/strong> The HRRAC report on \u201cWomen and Political Leadership\u201d can be found online in .pdf format by clicking here<\/a>.]<\/em><\/p>\n

Copyright 2011 Ann Jones<\/em><\/p>\n

Go to Original \u2013 tomdispatch.com<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A Modest Proposal for the Immodest Brotherhood of Big Men<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[219],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9484","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-asia-2"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9484","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9484"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9484\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9484"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9484"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9484"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}