Now
Available from
CounterPunch for Only $11.50 (S/H Included)
Today's
Stories
March 2, 2004
William Blum
If Kerry's the Answer, What's the
Question?
March 1, 2004
Alexander Cockburn
Morris
Thanks War Criminal in Front of Billions
Richard Oxman
Oscar's
Obit: Thanking Bob McNamara
Elaine Cassel
Writing and Reading as "Terrorism"
Mickey Z
Thomas Friedman's Education
Mike Whitney
George Will and Anti-Semitism: a Cul-de-Sac of Prejudice
Heather Williams
Haiti
as Target Practice: How the US Press Missed the Story
Cathy Crosson
Chanson d'amour haïtienne
Website of the Day
God Hates Shrimp
February 28 / 29, 2004
Stephen Green
Serving
Two Flags: Neo-Cons, Israel and the Bush Team
Gary Leupp
Another Senseless Bush Battle: Defining and Protecting Marriage
William A. Cook
Israel:
America's Albatross
Ron Jacobs
Kucinich: Good Fight; Wrong Battlefield
Ben Tripp
A Nosegay of Posies: Queer Weddings at Last!
Leilla Matsui
Dances with Crucifixes
Mike Whitney
Dismantle
the Military Goliath
Yoel Marcus
Down and Out in the Hague
Uri Avnery
The Dancing Bear
Linda S. Heard
Britons and Americans Condemned to a Hobson's Choice
Al Krebs
Unmasking a Secret American Empire: Land, Water & Cotton
Stan Cox
Life (Pat. Pend.): Genetic Commandeering
JG
The Haiti Boomerang: "After The Looting & Pillaging,
Your Hunger Will Remain"
Rick Giombetti
Censorship at the Seattle P-I on Forced Psychiatry
Keith Hoeller
The Bankruptcy of Mental Health Insurance Parity
Dave Zirin
Colorado Football: Buffalo Swill
NADERAMA
Alan Maass
Nader and the Politics of Lesser
Evils
Michael Donnelly
Regime
Rotation: Anybody But Bush...Again?
Niranjan Ramakrishnan
Exeunt Serenaders; Enter Nader
Doug Giebel
So Nader's Running? Get Over It
Bruce Jackson
An Open Letter to Naderites
CounterPunch Wire
Stalinists for Kerry! and Other Roars from the Crowd
Poets' Basement
Davies, Scarr, Kearney & Albert
February 27, 2004
Thomas C. Mountain
A
White Jesus During Black History Month?
Laura Carlsen
Americans
Abroad: Bush is Persona Non Grata
John B. Anderson
Nader's Campaign Brings Back Memories: Creating an Open Electoral
Process
Jason Leopold
Spying
on Kofi Annan
John Chuckman
Nader,
Risk and Hope
Standard Schaefer
An
Interview with Michael Hudson on Putin's Russia
Ray McGovern
Punished
for Honest Intelligence
Saul Landau
The
Haiti Redux
Website of the Day
Bush: Why I'm Running for Re-election
February 26, 2004
Brandy Baker
Is Nader
on to Something?
Jacques Kinau
AEI
to Colombia: "Can't Give You Anything But Guns, Baby"
Norman Solomon
Bugging Kofi Annan: UN Spying
and the Evasions of US Journalism
Greg Weiher
A Purloined Letter: the Zarqawi Gambit
Walt Brasch
Janet Jackson, Bush & No. 542: There are No Halftime Shows
in War
Shadi Hamid
The Music World Explodes in Anger
Norman Madarasz
As Canadian as Corruption
Chris Floyd
Bullets and Ballots
Virginia Tilly
The
Deeper Meaning of the Wall
Amy Goodman / Jeremy
Scahill
Haiti's
Lawyer Says US is Arming Haiti's Anti-Aristide Paramilitaries
Website of the Day
Clear Channel Sucks
February 25, 2004
Dr. Susan Block
Saddam's
Sex Therapist and the Rape of Free Speech
Bruce Anderson
Treacherous Bastards: The Greens and the Dems and Nader
Ron Jacobs
Our Power is on the Streets and
in Our Hearts
Mike Whitney
Bush
and Gay America: the Politics of Duplicity
Sam Husseini
Jesus in 100 Words
John L. Hess
Kick Off or Flub?
Sam Hamod
Bush's Newest Red Herring
Cockburn / St. Clair
Winning
with Nader
Website of the Day
VotePact
February 24, 2004
Ralph Nader
Why
I'm Running for President
Greg Moses
Rally
the Mob! Bush, Gay Marriage and the Constitution
Douglas O'Hara
The
Merchants of Fear: Smearing Nader
Phillip Cryan
Frozen in Time: The WSJ's Paranoid
Lens on Latin America
David Lindorff
John Kerry's China Connection
Jason Leopold
Cheney's Shame: Halliburton Faces New Charges
Gary Younge
Haiti: Throttled by History
Kromm, Masri & Purohit
Why No Democracy in Iraq?
Steve Perry
Tangled Up in Red and Blue: Beware the Electoral College
February 23, 2004
Neve Gordon
Israel's Apartheid Wall on Trial
at The Hague
Kurt Nimmo
Richard Perle, Executioner: "Heads Should Roll"
Jonathan Franklin
US Soldier Seeks Refugee Status in Canada
Al Krebs
The Liberal "Intelligentsia" v. Nader
Josh Frank
Nader's Nadir? Not a Chance
Bruce Jackson
Nader, Another View: "He's as Evil as Bush"
Gary Leupp
A Misguided
Attack, The Passion, Rabbi Lerner and the Gospels
February 20 / 22, 2004
Cockburn / St. Clair
Kerry:
He's Peaking Already!
Derek Seidman
Chasing
Judith Miller from the Stage: Watch Her Run!
Ghada Karmi
Sharon is not the Problem
Vanessa Jones
This Week in Redfern, a Boy Dies, Chased by Cops
Ben Granby
Anatomy of a Night Raid on Balad, Iraq
John Holt
An Air That Kills: Greed, Apathy, Dead People
Saul Landau
Entry from a White House Diary
Tom Jackson
Why They Couldn't Wait to Invade Iraq
Frederick B. Hudson
Slave Power and the Constitution: Jefferson, Slaves, Haiti and
Hypocrisy
Roger Burbach
Argentina Fights Back
Kate Doyle
Lessons on Justice from Guatemala
Mike Whitney
Operation Enduring Misery: the Afghanistan Debacle
Greg Moses
What Gives Texas A&M the Right to Trample the Civil Rights
Act?
David Krieger
US Elections: an Opportunity to Debate Nuclear Weapons
Sam Bahour
Palestinian Issue Riddles Bush's Budget
David Grenier
You Could Get 10 Years in Prison Just for Reading This
Charles Sullivan
Corporatism vs. Single Party Politics
Poet's Basement
Hilda White, Larry Kearney & Stew Albert
Website of the Weekend
The Rumsfeld Fighting Technique
February 19, 2004
Cecilie Surasky
Anti-Semitism
at the World Social Forum? That's Not What I Saw
Ray McGovern
Iraq
Hawks and Deceptive Intelligence: Did They Really Think They'd
Get Away With It?
Tariq Ali
How Far
Will Bush Go in Iraq?
Ralph Nader
Whither
the Nation?
Wayne Madsen
Would Kerry Purge the Neo-Cons?
Norman Solomon
The Collapse of Dean's Cyber-Bubble
Christopher Brauchli
Cheney, Halliburton and the NYT
Mike Whitney
Bush's Iraq Strategy: "I Hope They Kill Each Other"
Lewis Carroll
Bush the Mighty Helmsman from Yale
Website of the Day
Sex Toy Horoscope
February 18, 2004
William Wilgus
Bush:
AWOL and Dereliction of Duty
William Blum
Mush-Minded
Liberals
Dave Lindorff
Bush's China Syndrome
Greg Weiher
Why
is Kerry Getting a Pass?
Mike Griffin
Killing the Messenger: the AFL-CIO's Attack on Harry Kelber
Mark Hand
Kerry Tells Peace Movement to "Move On"
February 17, 2004
Mike Ferner
The
Countryside Murders in Iraq
Mokhiber / Weissman
Corporation
as Psychopath
Marjorie Cohn
DrakeGate:
a Victory for Free Speech
Kurt Nimmo
Bush's
Endgame: a Review of Chalmers Johnson's "Sorrows of Empire"
Greg Bates
Nader Ambush: a New Low for The
Nation
Ximena Ortiz
A Bush
Doctrine, of Sorts
Gary Leupp
Whatever Happened to Gen. Khazraji?
Sen. John Kerry
"The Cause of Israel is the Cause of America"
Steve Perry
Kerry
1, Drudge 0
February 16, 2004
James Johnston
Huddling
with the Cheeseheads in a NASCAR World
Sara Eltantawi
To
Wear the Hijab or Not
Bruce Anderson
Kevin
Cooper and the Midnight Needle
Elaine Cassel
Feds
on Campus: the Drake Subpoenas
Rahul Mahajan
Bush,
Is the Tide Finally Turning?
Kevin Cooper
The Ritual of Death
Stan Cox
Goodbye, Howard Dean
Larry David
My War
Steve Perry
Bush and the Guard: the Cover-Up's the Thing
Website of the Day
Prison Patriots: Help This Vital Film Get Made
Hot Stories
Alexander Cockburn
Behold,
the Head of a Neo-Con!
Subcomandante Marcos
The
Death Train of the WTO
Norman Finkelstein
Hitchens
as Model Apostate
Steve Niva
Israel's
Assassination Policy: the Trigger for Suicide Bombings?
Dardagan,
Slobodo and Williams
CounterPunch Exclusive:
20,000 Wounded Iraqi Civilians
Steve
J.B.
Prison Bitch
Sheldon
Rampton and John Stauber
True Lies: the Use of Propaganda
in the Iraq War
Wendell
Berry
Small Destructions Add Up
CounterPunch
Wire
WMD: Who Said What When
Cindy
Corrie
A Mother's Day Talk: the Daughter
I Can't Hear From
Gore Vidal
The
Erosion of the American Dream
Francis Boyle
Impeach
Bush: A Draft Resolution
Click Here
for More Stories.
|
March
2, 2004
An Interview with
"Mariam" from RAWA
Afghanistan:
The Liberation That Isn't
By RA RAVISHANKAR
While Iraq continues to hog the headlines, Afghanistan
has slipped beyond the mainstream media's radar screen.
In a region of ever-changing allegiances,
the Revolutionary Association
of the Women of Afghanistan has won wide support and respect
for its principled anti-fundamentalist stance. On the current
state of affairs in "liberated" Afghanistan, let's
hear from a RAWA representative, who, for security reasons, will
only be identified by her pseudonym Mariam.
1) How long have you been associated
with RAWA? How did you join?
I joined RAWA as an active member in
1996. Before that, I was raised in a RAWA orphanage and school.
I left my country and took refuge in Pakistan after my father
was killed fighting the Soviet invasion. Since 1996, I've been
working in Pakistan and, sometimes, also inside Afghanistan.
I've also represented RAWA in meetings and speaking tours in
European countries, Brazil, Japan, South Africa, etc. Currently,
I am a member of the Cultural Committee of RAWA and (am) active
in publishing magazines and booklets and organizing functions
and demonstrations.
2) On Nov. 17, 2001, the U.S. First
Lady Laura Bush proclaimed: "Because of our recent military
gains in much of Afghanistan, women are no longer imprisoned
in their homes. They can listen to music and teach their daughters
without fear of punishment." Two years later, human rights
organizations and news reports paint an entirely different picture.
Amnesty International quotes an international NGO worker as saying:
"During the Taliban era, if a woman went to market and showed
an inch of flesh, she would have been flogged. Now she's raped."
Is this an accurate depiction of reality? Are the much publicized
human rights victories entirely delusional?
Actions speak louder than words. Fundamentalists
are fundamentalists, no matter where, which religion they belong
to or defame and whatever name they might bear. Both the Northern
Alliance and the Taliban are very similar in their nature and
actions; they are two sides of the same coin. The Jehadi forces,
which are now called the NA, are but a bunch of fanatics that
were powered by America during the anti-Russian resistance. The
puppets have since turned masters and destroyed our country to
the extent possible.
At the end of the Russian puppet regime,
under the NA's rule between 1992 and 1996, Afghanistan resembled
nothing but a hell where destruction, killings, looting, rapes
and suicides were rampant. It was the NA who first -- even before
the Taliban -- banned education for women, destroyed hospitals,
schools, educational institutions, museums and cinema halls.
They were the first who banned women from going out and imposed
the veil on them. If Hitler had been alive, even he would have
exclaimed, "Alas ... I didn't know these new methods of
torture." Pakistani General Akhtar Abdul Rehman ordered,
"Kabul must burn." And the NA criminals did just that,
burning our country and destroying its entire moral and material
fabric.
If a crime race is arranged, the Taliban
and the NA will both emerge winners. Replacing one monster with
another can't guarantee a better life because Afghanistan needs
political change, a systemic change rather than a change of dictators.
The U.S. and British first ladies tried to project the bombardment
of Afghanistan as benefiting Afghan women, but the entire world
knew that it was a punishment given to the puppets by the masters
and nothing else.
3) I assume it was impossible -- for
security reasons -- for RAWA to have participated in the Loya
Jirga (a grand council of tribal elders and representatives).
The changes expected by the rest of the
world, but not by RAWA, have not materialized. We still look
forward to the day when we would be able to work in a much more
open political environment, but such a day won't come if fundamentalist
domination prevails. The rule of the NA poses a grave danger
to RAWA and others struggling for democratic secularism, so we
still cannot appear under the banner of RAWA. However, this cannot
stop our work and from influencing activity in such important
and historical gatherings as the Jirga.
4) The Loya Jirga includes three of
the worst criminals -- Burhanuddin Rabbani, Abdul Sayyaf and
Abdul Dostum -- and several of their henchmen. In June 2002,
when the Jirga met to set up a provisional government, one delegate
aptly called it a "commanders' council" and Human Rights
Watch concluded that the whole exercise had only strengthened
the warlords. In December 2003, a similar farce was enacted,
only this time to approve a new constitution. The Chairperson
of the convention got away with proclaiming women to be half
of men and branding some delegates (who advocated removal of
the word "Islamic" from "Islamic republic")
"infidels". On the contrary, when the courageous Malalai
Joya accused some of her fellow delegates as criminals and said
they "should be tried in national and international courts,"
she was almost thrown out of the convention. With the criminals
once again having their way, has the Jirga fallen in public esteem?
Has any good come of this farcical exercise?
We have always asserted that unless the
domination of fundamentalist elements ends, there cannot be any
hope for political change and stability in Afghanistan. Criminals'
being in power is for sure a source of hopelessness for Afghanis.
The proceedings of the Loya Jirga proved
it to be anything but a free and democratic grand assembly. What
transpired there only proved the claims of democratic forces
like RAWA, who from their steadfast anti-fundamentalist position
have been exposing the real nature of these criminals. However,
sick and tired of wars and instability, our people had put all
their hopes in the Jirga. They are now a disappointed lot, though
the presence of brave delegates like Malalai Joya gives some
hope.
Also, conditions in Afghanistan have
changed a little. Earlier, the two fundamentalist forces (NA
and Taliban) used to hold all aces, but now, democratic forces
have sneaked in. Though in a minority and suppressed by the fundamentalists,
their mere presence is cause for some hope. Of course, the presence
of fundamentalists will surely affect the process of democratization
of Afghanistan, particularly if they gain international support
as in the past.
5) In the last few years, the foreign
powers seemed more interested in a rapprochement between the
Taliban and the NA rather than holding them accountable for their
various war crimes. Needless to say, this was also a clear thumbs
down to Afghan civil society. How did this affect the activist
landscape in Afghanistan?
A few people might have lost hope and
diverted others from their struggle, but this can't lead to a
general decrease of steadfastness in defending human rights.
As those who believe in themselves and have faith in the nobility
of their aims, we know very well that struggle for the cause
of democracy in a country like Afghanistan -- which is in a worse
state than Hitler's concentration camps -- is no less than a
revolution. If not attained democratically, it might lead to
the necessity of armed struggle.
RAWA does not ask the foreign powers
to come and "liberate" us. As an Afghan saying goes,
"if you can't do something good for us, please don't do
us any bad." We strongly believe that no foreign power can
or would want to liberate us unless we ourselves fight for freedom
and democracy. Foreign support can only facilitate this process.
Also, when we ask the world community for help, we mainly count
on people everywhere to put pressure on their respective governments
to stop meddling in our country's affairs. We have always maintained
that there is a huge difference between people and governments
of countries. For instance, while we have suffered from the pro-fundamentalists
policies of the U.S. government for several decades, we have
received generous moral and material support from the U.S. people
for which we are always thankful.
6) The consequences of appeasing the
criminals are obvious, but there have been frequent calls for
'moderation' (a euphemism for appeasement), often from unexpected
quarters. In November 2002, Daria Fane, the U.S. State Department's
coordinator for Afghanistan Women's Issues had the gall to say,
"It is better to have warlords in the government rather
than outside, causing mayhem." Last year, after Malalai
Joya's brave comments at the Loya Jirga, Faitana Gailani, founder
of the Afghan Women's Council (an NGO purportedly working for
women's rights), advised restraint. She advocated suppressing
such uncomfortable facts "till we are strong, till the country
is strong, till our democracy is strong, till women's situation
in this country is strong." RAWA has also been variously
accused of being confrontational, being fiercely judgmental and
being very westernized. While the elite in Afghanistan and outside
are fixated with "reconciliation" and "alliance
building", there does seem to be considerable public support
for bringing the criminals to justice. For instance, when Malalai
Joya returned from the Loya Jirga to her village, she was welcomed
by a cheering crowd of about 10,000 people. Does the conciliatory
position (toward the criminals) adopted by the elite reflect
Afghani public opinion at large?
RAWA's 26 years of struggle, be it against
the Soviet puppet regime or other Jehadis or Taliban, has shown
that the only way to obliterate the fundamentalists is through
a decisive and irreconcilable struggle against fundamentalism.
Some women who have relations with these criminals raise misgivings
that can only strength the warlords. RAWA's uncompromising stance
is also questioned, but this doesn't concern us. What does matter
is that our stance is well received and accepted by the majority
of our innocent Afghanis, who have borne much pain in the last
few decades.
A few words by Joya aroused a lot of
passion among people all over Afghanistan and her shorter then
two minutes speech made her a heroin. Why? Because she said something
that was from the hearts and minds of the Afghan people, something
they knew all along but were only too frightened to openly talk
about. In Afghanistan, anyone who dares to bare the truth is
silenced and threatened to death; the reaction of the fundamentalists
in the Loya Jirga against Joya was very typical. They ask our
people to forget their past and present and accept them their
rulers!
RAWA has always maintained that compromising
with fundamentalists would only make them more rabid and strong.
If only there were a few more voices like Joya and RAWA, the
fundamentalists would have never been in a position to openly
try to silence Joya in the Loya Jirga. There has never been such
a strong and open opposition to them, so when a woman raises
her voice, they regard it as a warning and act menacingly so
as to desist others from following Joya.
As the sole anti-fundamentalist voice
of the Afghan women, we have pledged to expose and condemn the
murderous and rapist Jehadi and Taliban in anyway and place possible;
for we know that the eyes of our mournful people are watching
us. RAWA will not for a moment give up its struggle for freedom,
democracy, secularism and women's rights in fundamentalism-blighted
Afghanistan. We will continue our committed pledge to tell the
truth, even if this pledge requires us to pay a high price. Telling
the truth is always revolutionary, and we will remain revolutionary
forever.
Daria Fane's comments are exactly the
same as that made by U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Robin
Raphel in 1996: "if we wish them (Taliban) to moderate their
policies, we should engage with them". We condemned her
remarks then (http://www.rawa.org/raphel.htm),
and the U.S. government still continues to rely on criminals
rather than the Afghan people. On April 27, 2002, U.S. Secretary
of Defense Donald Rumsfeld praised warlord Ismail Khan as an
"appealing person, thoughtful, measured and self-confident."
A more accurate portrayal was given by Human Rights Watch which
called Khan an "enemy of human rights in the west of Afghanistan"
and stated that it was Iran and the U.S. which had placed Khan
in such a position. It is indeed very strange that even those
who clearly see the warlords as the main obstacle to peace and
stability in Afghanistan still want them to be in power.
We firmly believe that the Taliban and
NA warlords must be dislodged. The emergence of "moderate"
elements among them will not last long; even the "moderates"
are also so rotten that one cannot compare them to, say the "reformist"
or "moderates" in the Iranian regime. Instead, they
would only serve to perpetuate the horrible tyranny through deceit.
7) Far from doing anything to curb
the influence of the warlords and the fanatics, Afghan President
Hamid Karzai has sought to make peace with them. He nominated
their worst specimens -- Dostum to the Loya Jirga and an ally
of the dreaded and reviled Sayyaf as the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court -- to influential positions. The Taliban's Department
of Vice and Virtue has reappeared as the Ministry of Religious
Affairs and married women have been debarred from schools. The
Ministry of Women's Affairs exists but only on paper. And the
list goes on. Did Karzai's appeasement of the criminals stem
from a realization of his very tenuous position at the top --
some reports have it that he didn't have much support from the
warlords and the Loya Jirga delegates and wouldn't have been
elected President but for considerable U.S. pressure?
You are right, this is the point that
we have always condemned him for. RAWA statement on March 8,
2002 read: "Mr Karzai, not a fundamentalist himself, has
a history of colluding and hobnobbing with Burhanuddin Rabbani
and his band, and has therefore deluded himself into thinking
that putting up with the criminals he has around him and honoring
arch-warlords like Rabbani would bring him political dividends.
Unfortunately he either does not know or does not want to know
that his key ministers are perpetrators of heinous crimes against
our people - infamies which are manifold times more unpardonable
and inexpiable than those of the Taliban. Mr Karzai can rest
assured that the Rabbani gang he has around him, having already
had a taste of a number of years of power and government and
unfettered drug trafficking and legendary hoarding of wealth
under the cloak of diplomatic immunity, will never be content
with the simple usurpation of key government posts. They will
bide their time to once again seize undivided and uncontested
power." Also see our statement "Don't be Afraid Mr
Karzai! Target the Sharks Not the Fish!" on http://www.rawa.org/karzai.htm.
This is the main reason Karzai is losing
his credibility among the Afghan people. The U.S. government
is also to blame since he is only doing their bidding. If he
becomes President again, it could only be because he is the United
States' chosen man and also because our people don't have a better
alternative now. Our civil society has been brutally suppressed
in the past 25 years and is only starting to re-emerge; till
the emergence of a strong democratic alternative, Karzai and
his like might collect the vote of people.
8) Does the new constitution have
any provisions that guarantee women's rights?
I won't go into details of what the new
constitution might have for our women and our nation at large,
what is important is whether the laws -- not sufficient and up
to demand -- get implemented. Given the lawlessness of the last
three decades, this is the primary concern of every Afghani.
A failure to implement the semi-democratic articles of the constitution
would only bring more misery for our long suffering nation.
9) The new constitution confers strong
powers for the President; has Karzai shown any promise so far
that one could justifiably hope his widely expected re-election
(in the elections scheduled for later this year) to herald a
new era of peace with justice?
In the past 3 years, Mr. Karzai has make
many promises to people but did nothing tangible, so people now
make fun of his promises. However, having suffered from different
criminal regimes, the Afghanis are now willing to vote for anyone
who could promise them relative peace and justice. And the absence
of a strong democratic force in Afghanistan has made Karzai a
better option over the Jehadi parties. Moreover, Karzai's re-election
would not be determined so much by the vote he gets than the
fact that he enjoys strong American support.
10) The new constitution proclaims
Afghanistan to be an Islamic republic. Do you think this reflects
the majority opinion? As a long-time votary of a secular state,
do you consider secularism to be a prerequisite to a successful
democracy?
A large number of delegates in the Loya
Jirga advocated removing the word "Islamic" (from "Islamic
republic"), but the Jirga's chief rejected this without
any discussion. Despite the fact that the majority of Afghanis
are Muslims, they were not in favor of naming Afghanistan as
an "Islamic Republic." Both the Jehadi and Taliban
misused Islam as an oppressive tool, and our people are fed up
by those who talk about Islam but inflict brutalities.
The U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Khalilzad's
influence in the Loya Jirga was very clear. A majority of our
people feel that the naming of Afghanistan an Islamic state is
an American seal of approval to the fundamentalists. The U.S.
Government intervened when its interests were at stake, so it
could have also easily insisted on a secular state. But it didn't.
In our opinion, secularism and democracy
are two sides of the same coin. Democracy without secularism
is incomplete. And the new name ("Islamic Republic")
will give nothing positive to our people but will give an extra
excuse to fundamentalists to suppress our people under the guise
of Islam. Only a few days after the Loya Jirga, warlord Ismail
Khan in Herat province announced that since Afghanistan is an
Islamic state, he will turn his province into a real Islamic
place by removing any un-Islamic phenomenon. His actions included
putting more pressure on women.
11) A new law banning head-scarves
in public places has been enacted in France. Would you support
a similar measure in Afghanistan?
I won't go for a generalization on this
issue. France is a country with very different conditions, culture
and lifestyle. Judging their conditions while sitting here might
lead me to conclude this as a not-so-democratic change. On the
other hand, when I remember the dress code imposed on our women,
I dream of such a law in my country.
That said, I don't think scarves and
burkas are the main problem for women, or that they play a vital
role in their emancipation. Women are deprived of many more vital
rights. Besides, such laws might provoke negative reactions as
it did in our country. In the 1920s, when King Amanullah's modern
policies strayed too far from the cultural and social setup of
then Afghan society, certain fanatic elements used it as an opportunity
to cash on the public cultural and religious resentment.
12) When international governments
and bodies were collaborating with criminal groups, did you receive
support from any NGOs and mass movements?
Since the anti-Russian movement began
in Afghanistan, different governments and organizations drew
their attention to Afghanistan for their vested interests. Unfortunately,
the Islamic parties were the prime beneficiaries. The West never
thought of the consequences that their aid would bring, they
only wanted to pose a threat to the Soviet army.
RAWA has also had wide support -- though
not financial -- from many mass movements. With the income from
selling handicrafts and informational packets produced in our
centers, and membership fee and donations from our supporters
all over the world, we run various projects for women and children
in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Though individual supporters provide
the bulk of our financial support, we've also received support
from a few groups. V-Day ["a global movement to end violence
against women and girls"], for instance, has provided us
with material and moral support in the past few years.
13) I assume your refugee camps are
based primarily in Pakistan and you have the support of some
prominent human rights activists including Asma Jehangir. However,
given the Pakistan government's cordial ties with the Taliban
and your strongly anti-Taliban stance, how/why did it allow you
to establish a base there?
We have faced many problems in Pakistan
over the last two decades primarily due to our strong stand against
the fundamentalism-fostering policies of the Pakistan government.
Our leader and her two aides were assassinated in Pakistan by
KHAD [Afghanistan branch of the KGB, Soviet secret service agency]
and fundamentalist agents of the ISI [Inter-Services Intelligence,
Pakistan's secret service agency]. Our demonstrations have been
brutally attacked by the Jehadis and the Taliban. Some of our
assets have been confiscated by the Pakistani authorities. Most
of our activists in Pakistan are under constant surveillance,
our phones are tapped, and our project members are frequently
investigated. The ISI has repeatedly warned us NOT to condemn
the Taliban. And recently, they were pressurizing us not to say
anything against Gulbuddin Hekmatyar [an NA 'leader'], Masoud
[an NA warlord], and other "Jehadi leaders." Early
last year, a woman minister in General Musharraf's cabinet warned
our representative -- who had gone to seek her help for releasing
our shipment that had been confined for months in the Customs
-- that RAWA is an illegal organization that needs to be traced
by concerned Pakistani authorities.
RAWA can hold demos in Pakistan only
due to the courage of its supporters, who operate at the risk
of being subjected to attacks, being wounded and even shot by
the fundamentalist terrorists. Almost all our demonstrations
have been staged without permission, for we knew the authorities
would never allow us to hold any rally against their Jehadi or
Taliban puppets. That we actually hold anti-fundamentalist demonstrations
in Pakistan distinguishes us from groups affiliated overtly or
covertly with Jehadis or Taliban.
Despite this, Omaid, a weekly published
by the NA in the US, accused RAWA of being ISI agents. We held
our first ever demonstration in Peshawar against the Jehadi traitors
when they were the blue-eyed boys of the ISI; the Taliban hadn't
emerged then. So how is it possible that the ISI installs the
fundamentalist bands in Kabul, but at the same time likes RAWA
to condemn them as traitors and terrorists? Ironically the slanderers
themselves admit that RAWA members "shout anti-Pakistani
slogans!" The farce continues to the extent that our demonstrators
are attacked by the fundamentalists while the police are watching,
and participants become seriously wounded and hospitalized! To
the Omaid slanders, we responded: "We don't want to moan
or implore, but would like to say that nobody can understand
our hardships in Pakistan unless she/he spends some time with
us or herself/himself is engaged in tangible anti-fundamentalist
activities for even a short period. They'll come to know how
ISI has created some Afghan women's and cultural organizations
in Pakistan to overshadow RAWA and use them against RAWA."
The Pakistan government cannot directly
attack a democratic women's organization as it will negate the
democracy they claim of. While this affords us certain minimal
protection, we still work semi-underground due to the presence
and influence of fundamentalist elements in the Pakistan government.
We have never been able to open an office here in Pakistan due
to security threats.
However, as the sole anti-fundamentalist
voice of Afghan women, we accept any consequences of our fight
against the murderous and rapist Jehadi forces and the Taliban.
And there are thousands of Afghanis and others who sympathize
with us.
14) What is the general opinion among
the Afghanis about the United States? How has the United States'
cluster bombing of children and innocents and legitimization
of the warlords gone with the public?
The majority of Afghanis see the U.S.
government as the main source that channeled money and arms to
the Islamic fundamentalists who have since then laid everything
to ruin and committed heinous crimes against women and men. The
U.S. government and Pakistan were the only forces behind the
creation of the Taliban. At present, Afghanis know very well
that the U.S. aid assistances are serving its long term strategy
in Afghanistan.
Why have the Afghanis not risen against
the U.S. forces as they did against the Soviets? The answer is
simple: Afghanis have been crushed by 25 years of war and are
now controlled by very powerful criminal parties. So they welcome
anyone that could guarantee their existence. In the present situation,
the Afghanis know that the presence of the U.S. troops can stop
another civil war in Afghanistan and if the leave even for a
day, the warlords will again start a reign of terror and repeat
the dark days of 1992-96 when they were in power.
15) There's a long history of foreign
interference in Afghanistan, with consequences almost always
disastrous. In 1929, a British-inspired coup put an end to the
progressive reign of king Amanullah. In July 1979, U.S. President
Jimmy Carter authorized military aid to the now reviled 'Islamic'
fanatic opponents of the pro-Soviet Afghan regime. In December
1979, the former USSR invaded Afghanistan and installed a reformist-cum-repressive
puppet regime. In the 1990s, the "lackey-breeding policies
of Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Uzbekistan and the United
States" ensured continuous misery for the Afghanis. And
now, far from learning from the Taliban fiasco, the United States
continues to arm and fund the Northern Alliance warlords. Given
the history of warlord-appeasing by international governments
and even the United Nations, do you support calls for expanding
the International Security Assistance Force"? If not, what
is the way forward?
It is true that Afghanis have proudly
opposed any external intervention that threatened their sovereignty.
They fought the mighty USSR and liberated their land at great
human costs, but their freedom was snatched by the Islamic fundamentalists.
The Jehadi parties and their Taliban brethrens committed such
unparalleled crimes that people soon proclaimed, "28th April
is darker than 27th April" (27th April is the day Russia
installed its puppet regime in Kabul and 28th April is when the
Jehadi parties took power). The Afghanis have now come to a situation
where they welcome any force who could free them from the fetter
of the fundamentalists. This was the reason they welcomed the
ISAF with flowers. They knew if Kabul was not controlled by a
foreign peace keeping force, the NA would again fight for power.
16) Despite successive U.S. governments
not being helpful to the women's cause in Afghanistan, support
from the American public has been forthcoming, at least after
9/11. What is your message to them?
First of all, we send our gratitude to
all great American people for their generous help and support
to the Afghanis, particularly women. Afghanis draw a red line
between the American governments and its people; we believe that
successive U.S. governments have backed very anti-democratic
forces in Afghanistan. Our message to all American people is
to extend their support to freedom-loving Afghanis and pressurize
their government not to let the fundamentalist forces seize power
again.
Ra Ravishankar
is a student at the University of Illinois. Email: ravishan@students.uiuc.edu
Weekend
Edition Features for February 28 / 29, 2004
Stephen Green
Serving
Two Flags: Neo-Cons, Israel and the Bush Team
Gary Leupp
Another Senseless Bush Battle: Defining and Protecting Marriage
William A. Cook
Israel:
America's Albatross
Ron Jacobs
Kucinich: Good Fight; Wrong Battlefield
Ben Tripp
A Nosegay of Posies: Queer Weddings at Last!
Leilla Matsui
Dances with Crucifixes
Mike Whitney
Dismantle
the Military Goliath
Yoel Marcus
Down and Out in the Hague
Uri Avnery
The Dancing Bear
Linda S. Heard
Britons and Americans Condemned to a Hobson's Choice
Al Krebs
Unmasking a Secret American Empire: Land, Water & Cotton
Stan Cox
Life (Pat. Pend.): Genetic Commandeering
JG
The Haiti Boomerang: "After The Looting & Pillaging,
Your Hunger Will Remain"
Rick Giombetti
Censorship at the Seattle P-I on Forced Psychiatry
Keith Hoeller
The Bankruptcy of Mental Health Insurance Parity
Dave Zirin
Colorado Football: Buffalo Swill
NADERAMA
Alan Maass
Nader and the Politics of Lesser
Evils
Michael Donnelly
Regime
Rotation: Anybody But Bush...Again?
Niranjan Ramakrishnan
Exeunt Serenaders; Enter Nader
Doug Giebel
So Nader's Running? Get Over It
Bruce Jackson
An Open Letter to Naderites
CounterPunch Wire
Stalinists for Kerry! and Other Roars from the Crowd
Poets' Basement
Davies, Scarr, Kearney & Albert
Keep CounterPunch Alive:
Make
a Tax-Deductible Donation Today Online!
home / subscribe
/ about us / books
/ archives / search
/ links /
|