The following article by Syed Hamad Ali was first published in the GulfNews Weekend Review, and then at: http://www.malalaijoya/com/dcmj/joya-in-media/523-fearless-campaigner.html.
The article is based on highlights of Malalai Joya's activism as a Afghan citizen who has worked tirelessly and courageously for peace and justice in her country, openly criticized the Karzai government for its corruption, the Taliban, the warlords, and the US-led occupation.
The article also includes a long interview with Malalai that gives the reader an idea of her devotion to justice and peace, her values and goals and world view. She has an unyielding belief in the actual or potential fairness and rationality of ordinary Afghan people and especially in the women of Afganistan. Bear in mind that Malalai was once elected by those in her home district to the Afghan Parliament in 2005. She was later banned from the Parliament because of her outspoken criticisms of the warlords in the Parliament.
On this blog, we have been impressed by Malalai Joya's courage and ideas since we first came upon them in her book, A Woman Among Warlords.
Fearless campaigner
Defying threats to her life, Malalai Joya singlehandedly fights for Afghanistan
Syed Hamad Ali, GulfNews Weekend Review, July 2, 2010
Malalai Joya is an Afghan politician who has publicly railed against the presence of warlords in the country's parliament and is a vociferous critic of the Taliban and the government of President Hamid Karzai. "The warlords and the Taliban — they are cancer for my country," she says.
Her outspoken nature has drawn the ire of her detractors, resulting in threats to her life. "My life in Afghanistan is not quite normal and I keep changing houses," she says.
Joya believes the United States is occupying her country and committing war crimes. "Democracy never comes with occupation," she says.
She brands George W. Bush "criminal" and says Barack Obama should first change his foreign policy if he wants to be any different from his predecessor. "His supporters are losing hope because of his wrong policies." She demands withdrawal of all the troops as soon as possible from Afghanistan. "We don't need this kind of so-called helping hand," she tells Weekend Review. "My people are so fed up they don't expect anything good from them. Just stop the wrongdoing. This is a war crime. They are bombing and killing civilians."
Joya holds Pakistan and the CIA responsible for the rise of the Taliban. "By supporting the warlords, who destroyed our unity, and the Taliban, they [the US] are hindering the growth of national unity in my country," she says.
Describing the Karzai government as a "puppet, corrupt mafia regime", she alleges that the Afghan president has joined hands with dubious elements to stay in power.
Joya has immense faith in the women of Afghanistan, who she says can play a crucial role in the development of the country. "This is the part of the population of my country which I believe has power."
Excerpts from an interview:
Question: You have repeatedly called on President Obama to apologise to the Afghan people. Why?
Malalai's response: When Barack Obama took office, his first news for my people was more war and conflict. His foreign policy is quite similar to criminal [George W.] Bush, even worse because he sent more troops to Afghanistan. And now, adding a soft tag to the Taliban, these terrorists, [he says] we are ready to negotiate with moderate Talib, when we have no moderate Talib. They are terrorist Talib.
These eight years they supported the Taliban directly and indirectly. Now [President Hamid] Karzai has been calling on Mullah Omar and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar to join the government but Obama is silent. If he [Obama] is honest to my people, he must first apologise to my people, criticise the wrong policy of the criminal Bush, and at least make powerless the minister of war, this Robert Gates, who was in the Bush administration. And apologise to the democratic nation of America in whose name they are committing these crimes.
After the war crimes they apologise to the Hamid Karzai regime. And Karzai's administration says thank you. That's it!
[It is] the blood of my people, not water, that they shed. It's worth as much as the blood of a Westerner.
My message to democratic people around the world, especially those from the countries with troops in my country, is that democracy never comes by cluster bombs, by white phosphorous. The troops themselves are the victims of the wrong policy of their governments, who send them for a bad cause. They are not children of Obama or Michelle that they will be sad if the soldiers get killed. It is the ordinary Afghans they are killing, not their family. This is just a war crime. They must end it.
Malalai Joya being welcomed in Kabul. 'Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor. It must be demanded by the oppressed,' she says [must go to source for photo].
Question: Many still insist on calling Iraq the ‘bad war' and Afghanistan the ‘good war'. How would you respond?
Malalai's response: They are wrong politicians who say good war and bad war. There are many similarities between the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the main being both these countries have been occupied. My country [has been occupied] under the banner of woman's rights, human rights and democracy — but they betray these values. In Iraq as well, they destroyed a Fascist regime when they made powerless a dictator such as Sad-dam Hussain. But now they have their own puppet regime there. The civilians are the victims. Ditto in my country, where they destroyed the Taliban — terrorist, fascist people — but they got into power a photocopy of the Taliban.
The US occupied Iraq because of oil. They occupied Afghanistan mainly because of the geopolitical location of Afghanistan. When they have their military base in Afghanistan, they can easily control Iran, China, Russia, Uzbekistan, etc. They will have easy access to the gas and oil of Central Asian republics.
The third reason is that they turned Afghanistan into a centre of drugs. Ninety-three per cent of the world's opium is produced from Afghanistan and billions of dollars are received for its distribution. This is not only a so-called war on terror in my country. This is a war of propaganda as well. Look at history of the US since the Second World War. In several countries, they have destroyed democrat regimes and supported dictators instead.
Question: What do you make of President Karzai's statement when he said that he might join the Taliban if he continues to be put under foreign pressure and also his accusations about fraud in the elections?
Malalai's response: For eight years he [Karzai] has deceived my people and now wants to deceive them again. But he cannot do that because now they understand him very well.
He supported compromise with dirty-minded elements such as Khallili, Fahim, Dostum and Esmail Khan. Hadi Arghandiwali, who is Karzai's minister of economy, is the key person in Gulbuddin Hekmatyar's party. Gulbuddin is not in power but his photocopy is. While Arghandiwali publicly says he belongs to this terrorist party, the US says Gulbuddin is on its blacklist. It makes no sense to my people. Now Karzai is inviting the terrorist Mullah Omar to join the corrupt, puppet regime. Karzai only wants to complete the circle of druglordism, warlordism and terrorism.
Question: When Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, Professor Noam Chomsky suggested your name as someone who should have been picked instead. What was your reaction when Obama won this prize?
Malalai's response: The support of Noam Chomsky, who I respect as an anti-war activist, and many others put extra responsibility on my shoulders. Because when you are involved in a struggle against occupation, against enemies of my people, warlords, the Taliban and their foreign master, their support gives me more courage, determination and hope.
But regarding the award that Obama got, I think it is a question for himself as well — in nine months what did I [Obama] do to receive the Nobel Peace Prize? There are thousands in the world who are risking their lives. They are the real heroes and heroines who do a lot for peace. But nobody even knows their names. In my country, around the world, they are the ones who must be winners of the Nobel Peace Prize. So this [award] is just making fun of peace.
What is going on in Palestine today? He is silent on the wrong policy of the Israeli regime. But he follows on in Iraq, in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen and then receives the Nobel Peace Prize.
Question: You have spoken out against some of the NGOs and aid agencies in Afghanistan, calling them NGO-lords, similar to the terms warlords and druglords.
Malalai's response: Unfortunately most Afghan and foreign NGOs are corrupt as the system is corrupt. Eighteen parties have been registered but we know what their backgrounds are. They belong to these warlords. And they have beautiful names. Same is the case with NGOs.
My life itself should be an example. Many attempts have been made to assassinate me and I am now receiving more death threats. I have been banned from meeting the media and going abroad. They took my diplomatic passport. I have gone underground and going from one country to another with great difficulty.
Unfortunately the NGOs — and heads of some of the NGOs are women — are getting into a compromise with warlords. For example, they are building schools with cheap material and most of the money goes into their pockets. After a year, if you see the school, you cannot believe it is the same building.
Question: In your book you mention how Benazir Bhutto helped in giving rise to the Taliban in the Nineties. Do people in Afghanistan blame her for it?
Malalai's response: She herself said that in an interview. Anyway she is not alive anymore and was even talking about secularism before she got killed. I condemn those who killed her. Of course they are terrorists but her policy when she was in power unfortunately supported the Taliban.
My people say Pakistan supported the Taliban and now the Taliban have become a problem for the Pakistanis themselves. Caught between all this, the ordinary people are the victims. Ordinary Pakistani people such as taxi drivers call the madrassas Talib-making factories because that is where they do the brainwashing.
The CIA created the Taliban.
Question: You are also critical of another figure, Ahmad Shah Masoud, looked upon almost as a legend in certain quarters in the West. Is he a misunderstood character?
Malalai's response: A terrorist of yesterday, he is a hero today. So the terrorist of today will be a hero of tomorrow. Ahmad Shah Masoud was imposed on my people as a hero by the CIA and the French government.
They even compare him with Che Guevara. His first act of treason was he signed a ceasefire with Russia. In Panjshir he killed at least 85 anti-Russia intellectuals. When he was in power from 1992-1996, he was the defence minister of warlords. This point says enough about this so-called hero of Afghanistan.
When you come to Kabul you go to Afshar, populated by the Hazara people. There was a massacre there during the civil war. Gulbuddin Hekmatyar was shooting from one side and Ahmad Shah Masoud from the other. My people, caught in between, were the victims. People of
Afshar call him the butcher of Afshar.
After 9/11, when Masoud was killed by his brothers in creed, the Taliban, the US tried to present him as a hero. The brothers of Masoud came to power. And this puppet, non-democratic, regime has named a street in Kabul after him.
Still today people do not call the street by Masoud's name because they hate him. A hero is always made by the people, not by a foreign country. Masoud has been imposed on my people.
Whether a person is alive or not, we have this famous saying in Afghanistan, if you want to know a person well, ask who his or her close friends are. As long as Masoud was in power, his close friends were Rabanni, Qanooni, Abdullah Abdullah, Sayyaf, Fahim. You can look up the Human Rights Watch website. These dirty-minded elements were close friends of Masoud. So this is enough to know who Masoud was.
Malalai Joya in a girls' school in Afghanistan (go to source for photo).
She believes if women are educated and play their role, many positive changes will take place
You grew up being inspired by Palestinian children who throw stones at those who have occupied their country.
Question: Do you draw strength from the Palestinians' struggle for the freedom of your own country?
Malalai's response: Every day that I spend, I realise the meaning of a sentence which my father told me: Try to be a ‘Palestinian of your own country'. When you compare my country with Palestine, there are many differences, but also similarities. The main similarity is that in both countries, ordinary people are the victims. For example, there the Israeli regime is killing ordinary people by the gun; in my country America plus 40 other countries who have occupied Afghanistan, are bombing and killing people. But the difference is: In Afghanistan, the regime in power is 100 per cent under the control of the US; but in Palestine, Israel is still trying to establish such a regime.
In Palestine, the people are part of a movement against Israel, even with stones, to defend their country. But in my country it is a prolonged struggle. Why? Because Palestine is a country where most people are educated. In my country most people are uneducated, so it takes more time.
Question: Given your fierce criticism of President Obama's Afghan policy, have you ever thought about arranging a meeting with Obama in the White House to explain your viewpoint?
Malalai's response: If I were to meet Obama in the White House or outside, I will tell him to stop this war crime and end this tragic drama of a war on terror which is a war on innocent civilians. I will tell him to stop the occupation. No nation can donate liberation to another nation. These eight years have been enough for my people to know about the wrong policy of the US government.
I love what Patrick Tyler says. He says there are two superpowers in the world. One is the US government and other is public opinion. I will tell him you are hiding the truth. You are betraying the truth through the mainstream media. But you cannot deceive the people forever. One day world public opinion will stand up [for our cause]. I trust the power of my people and the world. If the truth is told, I am sure they will never sit silent.
Similarly, in the parliament I exposed the warlords. That is why they couldn't tolerate me, they expelled me and even wanted to eliminate me.
Question: You are incredibly outspoken. Don't you feel scared?
Malalai's response: I don't fear death. I fear political silence against injustice. One day everyone will die. But I hope to be alive. As I always say, I am young, I have lots of energy and want to do a lot for my people — especially for women. If they get education and play their role, a lot of positive changes will take place. I compare my country, every society, to a bird. One wing is the woman, the other is the man. If one wing is injured, it will be impossible for the bird to fly.
Same is the case with society.
I always quote Samad Behrangi. He says death can come easily but I should not be the one to seek it. If it is my turn to go, it should not matter. What matters is whether my living or dying has a ramification on the lives of others. This is the only point I am always thinking about. I am sure if something happened to me, my people will not remain silent.
Question: During Obama's surprise trip to Afghanistan, he said: ‘The United States of America does not quit once it starts on something. You don't quit, the American armed services do not quit. We keep at it, we persevere, and together with our partners, we will prevail. I am absolutely confident of that.' What gives you hope in light of Obama's determination to continue this war?
Malalai's response: The resistance of my people is a big hope for Afghanistan. We are proud to have a history that we never accept occupation. The British wanted to occupy Afghanistan on three occasions but faced the resistance of my people. Russia, a superpower, wanted to occupy Afghanistan and faced the resistance of my people. Still the US government plays the role that the British did in the past — which was to divide and rule.
In front of every audience, I say no nation can donate liberation to another nation. Regarding Obama's comment, [I can say] as a democratic intellectual of my country, as a freedom-loving fighter, only this sentence is enough. In an interview before he came to power, Obama had said the war in Iraq was bad but the one in Afghanistan was a good war. Someone should ask him what is the difference between these two? He just deceives himself with such comments. He is a pro-war person, unfortunately no different from Bush.
[Because he was black,] some people even compared Obama with Martin Luther King. If King were alive today, he would have said, ‘Don't insult me.' King believed our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor. It must be demanded by the oppressed.
Blacks already had power in Bush's regime. Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell are examples. Black and white solve nothing. What matters is their policy. Unfortunately the foreign policy of Obama is quite similar to that of the criminal Bush, even worse. Why? Compare the number civilians killed in the short time that Obama has been power with the figures during Bush's presidentship.
It's a big question for my people. How does Obama recognise which terrorist is moderate and which one is not? Moreover, they have never apologised to my people. By making such comments, Obama is only deceiving himself, and maybe for a while, the people of the world.
He is the first president who in a short time — in one year — has lost lot of support. Do you know this extraordinary man John Pilger? In one of his speeches, he spoke about how Obama as a senator had voted for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Pilger also exposed Obama with many other examples.
Syed Hamad Ali is a writer based in London.
Showing posts with label democracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label democracy. Show all posts
Monday, July 19, 2010
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Time Magazine award to Malalai Joya distorts what she stands for
MAY 4, 2010 11:10AM
How TIME Magazine hijacked Afghan activist Malalai Joya
http://www.salon.com/blog/judy_mandelbaum/2010/05/04/how_time_magazine-hoodwinked_afghan_activist_malalai.joya
Malalai Joya (Source: Women's Space)
Judy Mandelbaum (JM) offers excerpts from her interview with Malalai Joya (MJ) and related commentary.
JM - Beware of Greeks bearing gifts, Homer wrote thousands of years ago. Today human rights activists would be well-advised to beware of major American news magazines passing out honors. Last week, noted Afghan politician Malalai Joya, the author of "A Woman Among Warlords" whom the BBC has called “the bravest woman in Afghanistan,” was named one of TIME Magazine’s “World’s Most Influential 100 People” of 2010. The trouble is, the magazine presented her to the world in a brief but misleading text by Islam critic and American Enterprise Institute fellow Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who concluded her tribute with the words: “I hope in time she comes to see the US and NATO forces in her country as her allies. She must use her notoriety, her demonstrated wit and her resilience to get the troops on her side instead of out of her country.”
JM - What an odd choice of words, considering that Ali is writing about a woman who wrote in the Daily Beast last week that:
MJ - more than eight years of occupation have made life bleak, and we are tired of being pawns in the US and NATO's game for control of Central Asia. We can longer bear the killing of our pregnant mothers, the killing of our teenagers and young children, the killing of so many Afghan men and women. We can no longer bear these "accidents" and these "apologies" for the deaths of the innocent.
JM - Are Ali and the editors of TIME really entitled to tell Malalai Joya what to think about her country's plight? To set the record straight and to find out what really motivates this activist, journalist Sonali Kolhatkar of UprisingRadio contacted Ms. Joya yesterday and conducted an interview, which I have excerpted below (you can – and should – read the entire discussion here):
MJ - I am very angry with the way they have introduced me [Joya said]. They have a completely painted a false picture of me that does not mention at all about my struggle against the occupation of Afghanistan by the US and NATO, which is disgusting. In fact every one knows that I stand side by side with the glorious-anti war movement around the world and have proved again and again that I will never compromise with the US and NATO who have occupied my country, empowered the most bloody enemies of my people and are killing my innocent compatriots [inaudible] in Afghanistan. What TIME did was like giving an award to someone by one hand and getting it back by another hand. I have sent my protest to it to the Defense Committee [for Malalai Joya] but TIME did not bother to even answer than protest letter. Perhaps this is the kind of freedom of expression exercised by TIME and the USA. …
JM - Regarding this freedom and the war that is supposedly designed to secure it:
MJ - Most of the civilian casualties take place in remote areas of Afghanistan where there is no media to report it. So no one notices it. In many cases after killing people NATO [releases] statements saying that many insurgents were killed. When you try to find out from the local people, they are actually many women and children, not insurgents. Afghan media are also truly in the hands of the Afghan criminal bands. They rarely report civilians killed by the US and NATO. … For the US it’s not just fighting a war through military means, but they also fight on the propaganda front. I think propaganda plays a major role. They are trying to show the war as justifiable. For this they are using their lie-machines. When they kill civilians they immediately deny it and say all they have killed are Taliban. …
JM - Regarding the upcoming US and NATO offensive in Kandahar, Ms. Joya said:
MJ - [T]he US does not want to defeat the Taliban forever. They only fight with them here and there to show the American people that the US is at war in Afghanistan and their presence is necessary here. The offensive of Kandahar will not be different from Marjah and other areas of Helmand where they had such operations in the past. They make such hue and cry about their military actions but in fact they just push the Taliban to other areas and then install some corrupt officials and police forces who are worse than the Taliban. In a few days the Taliban return as we experienced in the past as well. … They will launch the operation and then allow the Taliban to go to another area and then later start an operation there. This is a battle for show, not a real war against terrorism. Otherwise for the US and NATO, it is a task of a few days to uproot the Taliban and defeat them forever. But then everyone will ask them to end the occupation of Afghanistan. The only outcome of such operation is civilian casualties. Poor and innocent are killed in the war. But the Taliban do not experience any defeat and even major casualties. Afghans know well that the US will neither bring democracy nor peace in Afghanistan.
… I will continue the struggle as long as these criminals are in power, these sworn enemies of democracy, women’s rights, human rights, and as long as these occupation forces are bombing from the sky, and [inaudible] supporting the enemies of my people and killing innocent people of my country. So as long as I am alive I am the same person. As always I am saying if a thousand times they will kill me and again I will be alive, and see that these same enemies are in power with the mask of democracy and continue with their wrong policy and their crimes and war crimes, these internal enemies of my country, these warlords, also Taliban, and also their foreign masters, these occupation forces, the US and NATO.
JM - How to explain this discrepancy? Is TIME Magazine pursuing a sinister or at least tendentious editorial policy? You can bank on it. But TIME is also a commercial enterprise, and I suspect that this choice - like so much of our politics - has a lot to do with the middle-brow American take on the world, which always follows the rules of melodrama. As far as the money-driven mainstream media are concerned, our planet is packed to the rafters with heroes and villains, perpetrators and victims. It is particularly shaped by long-suffering heroines and noble fighters for human rights and justice, who must by necessity be allied with the United States, the leader of the “free world" and the very essence of truth and justice. If Malalai Joya hates the Taliban, it follows that she must love the US, right?
JM - I’m afraid that a heroine who hates both – and who openly protests the ongoing destruction of her country by remote-controlled drones in order to "save" it for... whom exactly? – is too complex for most Americans in the age of talk radio and “24.” Their brains simply can't process this sort of information anymore, rather like those African famine victims whose emaciated bodies can't absorb rich Western food supplies. Malalai Joya asks too many embarrassing questions and leaves behind too many messy loose ends. But I'm sure the American Enterprise Institute would love to have a go at her.
How TIME Magazine hijacked Afghan activist Malalai Joya
http://www.salon.com/blog/judy_mandelbaum/2010/05/04/how_time_magazine-hoodwinked_afghan_activist_malalai.joya
Malalai Joya (Source: Women's Space)
Judy Mandelbaum (JM) offers excerpts from her interview with Malalai Joya (MJ) and related commentary.
JM - Beware of Greeks bearing gifts, Homer wrote thousands of years ago. Today human rights activists would be well-advised to beware of major American news magazines passing out honors. Last week, noted Afghan politician Malalai Joya, the author of "A Woman Among Warlords" whom the BBC has called “the bravest woman in Afghanistan,” was named one of TIME Magazine’s “World’s Most Influential 100 People” of 2010. The trouble is, the magazine presented her to the world in a brief but misleading text by Islam critic and American Enterprise Institute fellow Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who concluded her tribute with the words: “I hope in time she comes to see the US and NATO forces in her country as her allies. She must use her notoriety, her demonstrated wit and her resilience to get the troops on her side instead of out of her country.”
JM - What an odd choice of words, considering that Ali is writing about a woman who wrote in the Daily Beast last week that:
MJ - more than eight years of occupation have made life bleak, and we are tired of being pawns in the US and NATO's game for control of Central Asia. We can longer bear the killing of our pregnant mothers, the killing of our teenagers and young children, the killing of so many Afghan men and women. We can no longer bear these "accidents" and these "apologies" for the deaths of the innocent.
JM - Are Ali and the editors of TIME really entitled to tell Malalai Joya what to think about her country's plight? To set the record straight and to find out what really motivates this activist, journalist Sonali Kolhatkar of UprisingRadio contacted Ms. Joya yesterday and conducted an interview, which I have excerpted below (you can – and should – read the entire discussion here):
MJ - I am very angry with the way they have introduced me [Joya said]. They have a completely painted a false picture of me that does not mention at all about my struggle against the occupation of Afghanistan by the US and NATO, which is disgusting. In fact every one knows that I stand side by side with the glorious-anti war movement around the world and have proved again and again that I will never compromise with the US and NATO who have occupied my country, empowered the most bloody enemies of my people and are killing my innocent compatriots [inaudible] in Afghanistan. What TIME did was like giving an award to someone by one hand and getting it back by another hand. I have sent my protest to it to the Defense Committee [for Malalai Joya] but TIME did not bother to even answer than protest letter. Perhaps this is the kind of freedom of expression exercised by TIME and the USA. …
JM - Regarding this freedom and the war that is supposedly designed to secure it:
MJ - Most of the civilian casualties take place in remote areas of Afghanistan where there is no media to report it. So no one notices it. In many cases after killing people NATO [releases] statements saying that many insurgents were killed. When you try to find out from the local people, they are actually many women and children, not insurgents. Afghan media are also truly in the hands of the Afghan criminal bands. They rarely report civilians killed by the US and NATO. … For the US it’s not just fighting a war through military means, but they also fight on the propaganda front. I think propaganda plays a major role. They are trying to show the war as justifiable. For this they are using their lie-machines. When they kill civilians they immediately deny it and say all they have killed are Taliban. …
JM - Regarding the upcoming US and NATO offensive in Kandahar, Ms. Joya said:
MJ - [T]he US does not want to defeat the Taliban forever. They only fight with them here and there to show the American people that the US is at war in Afghanistan and their presence is necessary here. The offensive of Kandahar will not be different from Marjah and other areas of Helmand where they had such operations in the past. They make such hue and cry about their military actions but in fact they just push the Taliban to other areas and then install some corrupt officials and police forces who are worse than the Taliban. In a few days the Taliban return as we experienced in the past as well. … They will launch the operation and then allow the Taliban to go to another area and then later start an operation there. This is a battle for show, not a real war against terrorism. Otherwise for the US and NATO, it is a task of a few days to uproot the Taliban and defeat them forever. But then everyone will ask them to end the occupation of Afghanistan. The only outcome of such operation is civilian casualties. Poor and innocent are killed in the war. But the Taliban do not experience any defeat and even major casualties. Afghans know well that the US will neither bring democracy nor peace in Afghanistan.
… I will continue the struggle as long as these criminals are in power, these sworn enemies of democracy, women’s rights, human rights, and as long as these occupation forces are bombing from the sky, and [inaudible] supporting the enemies of my people and killing innocent people of my country. So as long as I am alive I am the same person. As always I am saying if a thousand times they will kill me and again I will be alive, and see that these same enemies are in power with the mask of democracy and continue with their wrong policy and their crimes and war crimes, these internal enemies of my country, these warlords, also Taliban, and also their foreign masters, these occupation forces, the US and NATO.
JM - How to explain this discrepancy? Is TIME Magazine pursuing a sinister or at least tendentious editorial policy? You can bank on it. But TIME is also a commercial enterprise, and I suspect that this choice - like so much of our politics - has a lot to do with the middle-brow American take on the world, which always follows the rules of melodrama. As far as the money-driven mainstream media are concerned, our planet is packed to the rafters with heroes and villains, perpetrators and victims. It is particularly shaped by long-suffering heroines and noble fighters for human rights and justice, who must by necessity be allied with the United States, the leader of the “free world" and the very essence of truth and justice. If Malalai Joya hates the Taliban, it follows that she must love the US, right?
JM - I’m afraid that a heroine who hates both – and who openly protests the ongoing destruction of her country by remote-controlled drones in order to "save" it for... whom exactly? – is too complex for most Americans in the age of talk radio and “24.” Their brains simply can't process this sort of information anymore, rather like those African famine victims whose emaciated bodies can't absorb rich Western food supplies. Malalai Joya asks too many embarrassing questions and leaves behind too many messy loose ends. But I'm sure the American Enterprise Institute would love to have a go at her.
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Statement by Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA)
http://www.rawa.org/rawa/2010/03/07/emancipation-of-afghan-women-not-attainable-as-long-as-the-occupation-taliban-and-national-front-criminals-are-not-sacked.html
Emancipation of Afghan women not attainable as long as the occupation, Taliban and “National Front” criminals are not sacked!
Statement of the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) on the International Women’s Day, March 8, 2010
Today, on the 8th of March, Afghan women are mourning for the gang-rape of Bashiras and Saimas, for being flogged by most lowed elements, for being auctioned in open market and for their young daughters who put an end to their miserable lives by self-immolation. But the perpetrators of all these crimes are forgiven; therefore they enjoy complete immunity, are still holding their official positions and tightening it through plundering our people and country.
February 2010: Local warlords in Ghor province in Western Afghanistan publicly flogged two Afghan women.
Though we don’t expect anything different from the most corrupt and dirty puppet regime of the world, the pain of Afghan women turns chronic when the world believes that the US and NATO has donated liberation, democracy and human and women rights for Afghanistan; whereas, after eight years of the US and allies’ aggression under the banner of “war on terror”, they empowered the most brutal terrorists of the Northern Alliance and the former Russian puppets – the Khalqis and Parchamis – and by relying on them, the US imposed a puppet government on Afghan people. And instead of uprooting its Taliban and Al-Qaeda creations, the US and NATO continues to kill our innocent and poor civilians, mostly women and children, in their vicious air raids.
In such conditions, we saw that Karzai, as the most demagogic and flagrant President, turgidly talks about the London Conference, which in fact had no positive outcome for Afghan people, where he only bargained and dealt for the return of the terrorist Taliban and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar to power and the pouring of millions of more Dollars which will go to the pockets of the Karzai family and the mafias of Fahim, Khalili, Dostum and other murderers.
The Karzai puppet and reactionary regime is implicated in corruption and blood of the poor from top to bottom. Only the hundreds of people killed in the recent avalanche tragedy in Salang and the miseries of millions of refugee Afghans in the hands of the Iranian criminal regime are enough to punish and jail many of the so-called high ranking officials for negligence and inattention to the problems of our people.
But the US government does not try to curb its Afghan stooges and allows them to commit many crimes, betrayal and lootings, so they could repress and intimidate Afghans in any possible way and stop the emergence of any anti-fundamentalist and pro-independent uprising in Afghanistan. Therefore, it comes of no surprise that the decay and corruption of top criminals such as Rabbani, Sayyaf, Dr. Abdullah, Qanoni, Karzai family, Zia Massoud, Fahim, Khalili, Saddique Chakari, Mirwas Yassini, Zahir Aghbar, Hadi Arghandewal, Anwar Jakdalak, Ismael Khan, Atta Mohammad and others are even reflected in some Western media, who have made dirty businesses and multi-billion Dollar investments in Afghanistan and Dubai as a result of their lootings and drug-dealings in Afghanistan.
To show to the world that they value women’s rights, the US and its Afghan mafia lackeys nourished a bunch of flunkeys and pro-occupation women to hold conferences and meet the so-called “his Excellency” President Karzai and his US-assigned spokespersons Wahid Omer, Siamak Herawi, Sibghatullah Sanjar and other traitors to ask for more ministries for Afghan women. But they are grasping the intentions of others with their own dirty mirrors and think ordinary Afghan women are unaware of the fact that even if all the members of the cabinet are made up of reactionary women such as Amina Afzali, Hassan Bano Ghazanfar, Massouda Jalal, Noorzia Atmar, Qadria Yazdanparast, Shukria Barakzai, Fouzia Kofi, Manija Bakhtari and others linked to brutal warlords, still it will not bring any positive change for Afghan women, because such women, acting as committed agents of the US government and its fundamentalist and non-fundamentalist menials, only define themselves by raising soft criticisms and asking for some reforms acceptable for the governing criminals and their foreign masters.
With money and offers of official posts, the US and its Afghan agents have bought many Afghan intellectuals. Many of the writers and poets are paid by the blood-thirsty Iranian regime who instead of raising people’s awareness and mobilizing them for pro-independence, pro-democracy and anti-fundamentalism struggle, try to pave the way for Iranian theocratic regime’s deeper involvement in Afghanistan and inflame and fuel ethnic, sectarian and lingual tensions among Afghan people.
RAWA always believes that women’s problem is a political issue and we cannot tackle it separately from the current catastrophic political situation. Without the overthrow of the current puppet regime, which is becoming more mortal and odorous than before by the inclusion of Taliban and Gulbuddini murderers, none of the thousands of the problems of our unhappy people will ever be solved.
Slogans about restoring peace, security, democracy and women’s rights will be empty and amplified claims, as long as Afghanistan has not gained its independence; the Taliban and the Northern Alliance killers are not prosecuted and the billions of wealth they have pillaged from people are not taken back from them. The benchmark to judge if any individual or organization is truly patriotic and progressive in the current situation is their struggle in any possible means against US occupation, the criminal Taliban -- who have the enslavement harness of Pakistan around their nick -- and the hirelings of Iran and the US in the “National Front”.
RAWA is eager to get united in solidarity with individuals and forces that are ready to fight for democracy in an independent front against the occupation, the Taliban, Jehadi and Khalqi and Parchami homeland-sellers.
While women of Afghanistan are experiencing a new era of captivity and are in the grip of the fundamentalist monsters, RAWA sends it heartfelt salutations to struggling brave women of Iran, Palestine, Kurdistan, Sudan, Nepal, India and the rest of the world and announces solidarity with them.
Emancipation of Afghan women not attainable as long as the occupation, Taliban and “National Front” criminals are not sacked!
Statement of the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) on the International Women’s Day, March 8, 2010
Today, on the 8th of March, Afghan women are mourning for the gang-rape of Bashiras and Saimas, for being flogged by most lowed elements, for being auctioned in open market and for their young daughters who put an end to their miserable lives by self-immolation. But the perpetrators of all these crimes are forgiven; therefore they enjoy complete immunity, are still holding their official positions and tightening it through plundering our people and country.
February 2010: Local warlords in Ghor province in Western Afghanistan publicly flogged two Afghan women.
Though we don’t expect anything different from the most corrupt and dirty puppet regime of the world, the pain of Afghan women turns chronic when the world believes that the US and NATO has donated liberation, democracy and human and women rights for Afghanistan; whereas, after eight years of the US and allies’ aggression under the banner of “war on terror”, they empowered the most brutal terrorists of the Northern Alliance and the former Russian puppets – the Khalqis and Parchamis – and by relying on them, the US imposed a puppet government on Afghan people. And instead of uprooting its Taliban and Al-Qaeda creations, the US and NATO continues to kill our innocent and poor civilians, mostly women and children, in their vicious air raids.
In such conditions, we saw that Karzai, as the most demagogic and flagrant President, turgidly talks about the London Conference, which in fact had no positive outcome for Afghan people, where he only bargained and dealt for the return of the terrorist Taliban and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar to power and the pouring of millions of more Dollars which will go to the pockets of the Karzai family and the mafias of Fahim, Khalili, Dostum and other murderers.
The Karzai puppet and reactionary regime is implicated in corruption and blood of the poor from top to bottom. Only the hundreds of people killed in the recent avalanche tragedy in Salang and the miseries of millions of refugee Afghans in the hands of the Iranian criminal regime are enough to punish and jail many of the so-called high ranking officials for negligence and inattention to the problems of our people.
But the US government does not try to curb its Afghan stooges and allows them to commit many crimes, betrayal and lootings, so they could repress and intimidate Afghans in any possible way and stop the emergence of any anti-fundamentalist and pro-independent uprising in Afghanistan. Therefore, it comes of no surprise that the decay and corruption of top criminals such as Rabbani, Sayyaf, Dr. Abdullah, Qanoni, Karzai family, Zia Massoud, Fahim, Khalili, Saddique Chakari, Mirwas Yassini, Zahir Aghbar, Hadi Arghandewal, Anwar Jakdalak, Ismael Khan, Atta Mohammad and others are even reflected in some Western media, who have made dirty businesses and multi-billion Dollar investments in Afghanistan and Dubai as a result of their lootings and drug-dealings in Afghanistan.
To show to the world that they value women’s rights, the US and its Afghan mafia lackeys nourished a bunch of flunkeys and pro-occupation women to hold conferences and meet the so-called “his Excellency” President Karzai and his US-assigned spokespersons Wahid Omer, Siamak Herawi, Sibghatullah Sanjar and other traitors to ask for more ministries for Afghan women. But they are grasping the intentions of others with their own dirty mirrors and think ordinary Afghan women are unaware of the fact that even if all the members of the cabinet are made up of reactionary women such as Amina Afzali, Hassan Bano Ghazanfar, Massouda Jalal, Noorzia Atmar, Qadria Yazdanparast, Shukria Barakzai, Fouzia Kofi, Manija Bakhtari and others linked to brutal warlords, still it will not bring any positive change for Afghan women, because such women, acting as committed agents of the US government and its fundamentalist and non-fundamentalist menials, only define themselves by raising soft criticisms and asking for some reforms acceptable for the governing criminals and their foreign masters.
With money and offers of official posts, the US and its Afghan agents have bought many Afghan intellectuals. Many of the writers and poets are paid by the blood-thirsty Iranian regime who instead of raising people’s awareness and mobilizing them for pro-independence, pro-democracy and anti-fundamentalism struggle, try to pave the way for Iranian theocratic regime’s deeper involvement in Afghanistan and inflame and fuel ethnic, sectarian and lingual tensions among Afghan people.
RAWA always believes that women’s problem is a political issue and we cannot tackle it separately from the current catastrophic political situation. Without the overthrow of the current puppet regime, which is becoming more mortal and odorous than before by the inclusion of Taliban and Gulbuddini murderers, none of the thousands of the problems of our unhappy people will ever be solved.
Slogans about restoring peace, security, democracy and women’s rights will be empty and amplified claims, as long as Afghanistan has not gained its independence; the Taliban and the Northern Alliance killers are not prosecuted and the billions of wealth they have pillaged from people are not taken back from them. The benchmark to judge if any individual or organization is truly patriotic and progressive in the current situation is their struggle in any possible means against US occupation, the criminal Taliban -- who have the enslavement harness of Pakistan around their nick -- and the hirelings of Iran and the US in the “National Front”.
RAWA is eager to get united in solidarity with individuals and forces that are ready to fight for democracy in an independent front against the occupation, the Taliban, Jehadi and Khalqi and Parchami homeland-sellers.
While women of Afghanistan are experiencing a new era of captivity and are in the grip of the fundamentalist monsters, RAWA sends it heartfelt salutations to struggling brave women of Iran, Palestine, Kurdistan, Sudan, Nepal, India and the rest of the world and announces solidarity with them.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Malalai Joya - more admiration for a courageous and democratic rebel
Afghanistan's soft-spoken rebel
January 13, 2010 By Andrew Oxford Source: LMD Andrew Oxford's ZSpace Page
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/23618
Malalai Joya is only 32, but she has been an exile, a refugee, a teacher of girls in the Taliban's Afghanistan, and now that country's youngest member of parliament. She's still on the run though, and still threatened with assassination
Afghanistan is a young nation ravaged by old conflicts. This does not refer to the new government created after the 2001 invasion (or the violent battles between different tribes that have carried on into the new millennium). Its youthfulness is a statistical fact buried in UN and World Bank reports: 60% of the country is under the age of 25, and many may not live much beyond that (1).
Nearly a decade has passed since Nato troops, led by the US, "liberated" Afghanistan. But there is little to show for the occupation, the billions of dollars of aid money, and the thousands of soldiers and civilians killed. Not much is heard from the young majority. The political discourse in Kabul neglects their future; it is dominated by the usual suspects, bearded bureaucrats and provocateurs of wars past.
"They are law brokers not law makers," says Malalai Joya. At 32, she is Afghanistan's youngest member of parliament (and has adopted the name Malalai after the Afghan nationalist hero Malalai Maiwand). She is an outspoken critic of the fundamentalists who subjugate the women of her country. Now she is internationally prominent as the voice for an independent Afghanistan. Her message - end the occupation and the Karzai government - is refreshing and daunting, a manifesto for what the West should really be fighting for.
Her parliamentary career began with the Loya Jirga, or grand assembly, of 2003, which sought to shape the "free" Afghanistan. As Afghan politicians fought for their place in the new government and hammered out a constitution, interest groups jockeyed for power. Malalai Joya lobbied just for a chance to speak, shouting "We kids can't get a word in!" from the back of the room. She's tiny and has a frustratingly soft voice, so it is hard to imagine that she is a formidable opponent of warlords. But when she takes to the microphone, it's clear how easily she makes enemies.
A tired chairman allowed her to speak for three minutes because she had "travelled far". Ninety seconds proved too much. Denouncing the "warlords and criminals" present at the Loya Jirga, she blamed them for the terrible state of their country and called for them to be jailed and prosecuted rather than given positions of power. "They might be forgiven by the Afghan people but not by history," she said before the microphone was cut. A small burst of applause was drowned by jeers of outrage as delegates leapt from their seats and charged towards her. The chairman demanded that security remove her for "crossing the lines of common courtesy".
We saw nothing but war
"We are the war generation," she recently told me after addressing supporters at the City University of New York. "We saw nothing in our lives but disaster, war, violence, and all these catastrophic situations." As the classroom began to empty and those who remained clustered around the refreshments table, she drifted between English and Persian, shaking hands, and posing for pictures as any good politician would. Her appearance does not betray the refugee camps, the safe houses and the five assassination attempts.
She is the daughter of a medical student who left school to fight the Soviets, and her life has been lived on the run. Four days after her birth, the Communist government took power and prepared for the Russian invasion. She has lived in exile in Iran, Pakistan and any number of refugee camps, and she grew up among the forgotten casualties of war who would later be her proudest constituency: the widows, the orphans, the displaced. After the Soviets fled, civil war engulfed Afghanistan, and the Taliban emerged victorious, a chauvinist and extremist government took hold of her homeland and turned Malalai Joya into a quiet rebel. At 15, she began work as an underground teacher for a women's rights group. Teaching girls how to read, she constantly dodged the watchful authorities; and in the austerity of her fugitive existence, among the illiterate and oppressed, she became a committed activist.
With the feminist Organisation for Promoting Afghan Women's Capabilities, Malalai became a prominent voice for women in the shadows of subversion. In 2001, when Nato ran the Taliban out of Kabul, she and her colleagues were poised to seize the opportunity of building a new nation. "After 9/11, they occupied my country under the banner of women's rights and human rights and democracy, but they bring into power this photocopy of the Taliban," she told supporters in New York. "That's why today, the situation in Afghanistan is a disaster." Malalai is quick to point out the reality of occupation for average Afghans. Poverty remains endemic (2), corruption is flourishing thanks to the billions of dollars foreign governments and NGOs have poured in, and the recent election was, she says, "a ridiculous drama ... just rubbing salt in the injured heart of my people"; for despite a few legal and political benefits, women are still treated like property.
"The situation of woman is a disaster and just as catastrophic as under the domination of the Taliban," she said. Having lived through the Taliban's rule as an underground teacher, Malalai has been an eyewitness to the terror of the fundamentalists. The liberation, she says, has brought little change. Considering the rise in self-immolation and rape in recent years, Malalai says: "Women are the most victimised because women are a big power, one wing of the bird. When one wing of the bird in society is injured, how can the bird fly?"
The burgeoning opium poppy trade has underscored what Malalai had always suspected about the occupation. "In the last eight years, they have turned my country into the centre of drugs." It was not unexpected. "They are saying to the poor farmers 'stop planting poppies' but the governors of these provinces are drug traffickers. Four persons who have high posts in Karzai's cabinet are famous drug traffickers." The US complicity in the multibillion dollar drug trade, as evidenced by Hamid Karzai's brother's close connections to both the CIA and the heroin underworld (3), have made it clear that poppies are not just a convenient cash crop for the struggling farmers. They are a new natural resource and the drug lords and their occasional allies in the occupation forces are the new colonialists who mean to prosper in the market that leaves most Afghans living in dire poverty.
Geopolitics have defined Afghanistan from the ancient trading routes through the mountains to the British, Soviet and US expeditions and occupations. Its location has been a blessing and a curse. "They invaded my country to have access to the gas and oil of the Asian republics," Malalai said. "And now the people of my country are crushed between three powerful enemies: the occupation forces bombing and killing innocent civilians, most of them women and children; and the Taliban and these warlords."
Truth is the first casualty
As a member of the parliament representing the rural Farah province, Malalai was suspended by her colleagues years ago for making remarks considered too critical. She says this suspension was a plot by the fundamentalists to silence her. So she travels widely, in her country and the world. "The first casualty in war in a country like Afghanistan is the truth," she says. "The truth itself is political." But it could be her best weapon.
"They say a civil war will happen in Afghanistan if the troops leave but nobody wants to talk about today's civil war. As long as these soldiers are in Afghanistan, there will be civil war." The US and Nato soldiers are seen as just another enemy in a nation that prides itself on ferocious independence. The British, the Soviets and the US and its cohorts cannot tame Kabul or the Khyber Pass; even the native forces of the Taliban and the Northern Alliance struggle to restrain a population historically inclined to buck occupation.
Malalai hopes democracy can replace decades of colonisation and strife. She is quick to acknowledge how naive she seems; yet she is an unwavering believer in the power of her own people, who are their only agents of action. "No nation can donate liberation to another nation. My people can liberate themselves if they let us live in peace. Over these 30 years, we lost almost everything. But we did gain one important thing and that is political knowledge. The resistance of my people is day by day increasing." "When the people stand up, they can defeat them."
January 13, 2010 By Andrew Oxford Source: LMD Andrew Oxford's ZSpace Page
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/23618
Malalai Joya is only 32, but she has been an exile, a refugee, a teacher of girls in the Taliban's Afghanistan, and now that country's youngest member of parliament. She's still on the run though, and still threatened with assassination
Afghanistan is a young nation ravaged by old conflicts. This does not refer to the new government created after the 2001 invasion (or the violent battles between different tribes that have carried on into the new millennium). Its youthfulness is a statistical fact buried in UN and World Bank reports: 60% of the country is under the age of 25, and many may not live much beyond that (1).
Nearly a decade has passed since Nato troops, led by the US, "liberated" Afghanistan. But there is little to show for the occupation, the billions of dollars of aid money, and the thousands of soldiers and civilians killed. Not much is heard from the young majority. The political discourse in Kabul neglects their future; it is dominated by the usual suspects, bearded bureaucrats and provocateurs of wars past.
"They are law brokers not law makers," says Malalai Joya. At 32, she is Afghanistan's youngest member of parliament (and has adopted the name Malalai after the Afghan nationalist hero Malalai Maiwand). She is an outspoken critic of the fundamentalists who subjugate the women of her country. Now she is internationally prominent as the voice for an independent Afghanistan. Her message - end the occupation and the Karzai government - is refreshing and daunting, a manifesto for what the West should really be fighting for.
Her parliamentary career began with the Loya Jirga, or grand assembly, of 2003, which sought to shape the "free" Afghanistan. As Afghan politicians fought for their place in the new government and hammered out a constitution, interest groups jockeyed for power. Malalai Joya lobbied just for a chance to speak, shouting "We kids can't get a word in!" from the back of the room. She's tiny and has a frustratingly soft voice, so it is hard to imagine that she is a formidable opponent of warlords. But when she takes to the microphone, it's clear how easily she makes enemies.
A tired chairman allowed her to speak for three minutes because she had "travelled far". Ninety seconds proved too much. Denouncing the "warlords and criminals" present at the Loya Jirga, she blamed them for the terrible state of their country and called for them to be jailed and prosecuted rather than given positions of power. "They might be forgiven by the Afghan people but not by history," she said before the microphone was cut. A small burst of applause was drowned by jeers of outrage as delegates leapt from their seats and charged towards her. The chairman demanded that security remove her for "crossing the lines of common courtesy".
We saw nothing but war
"We are the war generation," she recently told me after addressing supporters at the City University of New York. "We saw nothing in our lives but disaster, war, violence, and all these catastrophic situations." As the classroom began to empty and those who remained clustered around the refreshments table, she drifted between English and Persian, shaking hands, and posing for pictures as any good politician would. Her appearance does not betray the refugee camps, the safe houses and the five assassination attempts.
She is the daughter of a medical student who left school to fight the Soviets, and her life has been lived on the run. Four days after her birth, the Communist government took power and prepared for the Russian invasion. She has lived in exile in Iran, Pakistan and any number of refugee camps, and she grew up among the forgotten casualties of war who would later be her proudest constituency: the widows, the orphans, the displaced. After the Soviets fled, civil war engulfed Afghanistan, and the Taliban emerged victorious, a chauvinist and extremist government took hold of her homeland and turned Malalai Joya into a quiet rebel. At 15, she began work as an underground teacher for a women's rights group. Teaching girls how to read, she constantly dodged the watchful authorities; and in the austerity of her fugitive existence, among the illiterate and oppressed, she became a committed activist.
With the feminist Organisation for Promoting Afghan Women's Capabilities, Malalai became a prominent voice for women in the shadows of subversion. In 2001, when Nato ran the Taliban out of Kabul, she and her colleagues were poised to seize the opportunity of building a new nation. "After 9/11, they occupied my country under the banner of women's rights and human rights and democracy, but they bring into power this photocopy of the Taliban," she told supporters in New York. "That's why today, the situation in Afghanistan is a disaster." Malalai is quick to point out the reality of occupation for average Afghans. Poverty remains endemic (2), corruption is flourishing thanks to the billions of dollars foreign governments and NGOs have poured in, and the recent election was, she says, "a ridiculous drama ... just rubbing salt in the injured heart of my people"; for despite a few legal and political benefits, women are still treated like property.
"The situation of woman is a disaster and just as catastrophic as under the domination of the Taliban," she said. Having lived through the Taliban's rule as an underground teacher, Malalai has been an eyewitness to the terror of the fundamentalists. The liberation, she says, has brought little change. Considering the rise in self-immolation and rape in recent years, Malalai says: "Women are the most victimised because women are a big power, one wing of the bird. When one wing of the bird in society is injured, how can the bird fly?"
The burgeoning opium poppy trade has underscored what Malalai had always suspected about the occupation. "In the last eight years, they have turned my country into the centre of drugs." It was not unexpected. "They are saying to the poor farmers 'stop planting poppies' but the governors of these provinces are drug traffickers. Four persons who have high posts in Karzai's cabinet are famous drug traffickers." The US complicity in the multibillion dollar drug trade, as evidenced by Hamid Karzai's brother's close connections to both the CIA and the heroin underworld (3), have made it clear that poppies are not just a convenient cash crop for the struggling farmers. They are a new natural resource and the drug lords and their occasional allies in the occupation forces are the new colonialists who mean to prosper in the market that leaves most Afghans living in dire poverty.
Geopolitics have defined Afghanistan from the ancient trading routes through the mountains to the British, Soviet and US expeditions and occupations. Its location has been a blessing and a curse. "They invaded my country to have access to the gas and oil of the Asian republics," Malalai said. "And now the people of my country are crushed between three powerful enemies: the occupation forces bombing and killing innocent civilians, most of them women and children; and the Taliban and these warlords."
Truth is the first casualty
As a member of the parliament representing the rural Farah province, Malalai was suspended by her colleagues years ago for making remarks considered too critical. She says this suspension was a plot by the fundamentalists to silence her. So she travels widely, in her country and the world. "The first casualty in war in a country like Afghanistan is the truth," she says. "The truth itself is political." But it could be her best weapon.
"They say a civil war will happen in Afghanistan if the troops leave but nobody wants to talk about today's civil war. As long as these soldiers are in Afghanistan, there will be civil war." The US and Nato soldiers are seen as just another enemy in a nation that prides itself on ferocious independence. The British, the Soviets and the US and its cohorts cannot tame Kabul or the Khyber Pass; even the native forces of the Taliban and the Northern Alliance struggle to restrain a population historically inclined to buck occupation.
Malalai hopes democracy can replace decades of colonisation and strife. She is quick to acknowledge how naive she seems; yet she is an unwavering believer in the power of her own people, who are their only agents of action. "No nation can donate liberation to another nation. My people can liberate themselves if they let us live in peace. Over these 30 years, we lost almost everything. But we did gain one important thing and that is political knowledge. The resistance of my people is day by day increasing." "When the people stand up, they can defeat them."
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Give the Afghan people a choice on whether the occupation should continue
Published on Thursday, January 7, 2010 by CommonDreams.org
What If The People Of Afghanistan Could Choose?
by Cliff Kindy & Neil Wollman
After an intense review, President Obama recently ordered about thirty thousand more U.S. troops to Afghanistan. The question is, should this decision have been made by the U.S. government? The goals for the United States are to prevent an Al Qaida threat in the homeland and to stabilize the Afghan situation, allowing for some level of central government control and a face-saving withdrawal. But who else could or should have weighed in on this decision, and what are their motivations?
The Afghan government realizes that any downsizing of the U.S. presence could threaten its hold on political power. President Karzai recently stated that he expects the U.S. military presence to continue until 2024. The U.S. public is split, mainly along party lines, between those who want an early withdrawal of troops to prevent a quagmire, and those who support the U.S. military presence and fear that withdrawal would squander the investment already made.
The missing voice among these acknowledged players is that of the Afghan public. No country can impose on another a decision that country cannot abide. History is filled with attempts by strong powers to force actions upon weaker ones. This has worked sometimes in the short run, but usually crashes in the long term. The power of democracy is its dependence upon the will of the people who are impacted by a decision.
Indeed, the Afghan citizenry seems to have no say, yet is the group that stands to gain or lose the most from the U.S. occupation. Modern warfare kills and wounds more local civilians than armed actors (about 80 percent, compared to 20 percent). Yet those civilians have little or no ability to choose their own participation.
What if Afghani citizens were to determine whether the U.S. military continues a surge or withdraws troops? Certainly this is a fitting step in encouraging democracy. It would also provide the incentive for Afghanis to really own and support a chosen policy on the ground. And perhaps the Afghanis themselves know best how to create a stable nation that does not house terrorists.
In January 2010, Iraq was to hold a referendum on withdrawing the remaining U.S. troops. This plan was scrapped when it became clear it would only reduce U.S. presence by a few months and so was not worth the logistic and financial costs. If a referendum on U.S. troop presence is of merit for Iraqi citizens, is it not also for Afghans, before U.S. troops become more firmly entrenched there?
Who knows what the Afghans would decide if the choice was theirs. Poll results in Afghanistan have varied by region and ethnicity, with a fairly large margin of error. But Afghanistan could hold a national binding referendum on U.S. military presence at the same time as planned parliamentary elections in May. (Given the experience of their last public vote, for president, improved preparations and precautions are needed.) First, the U.S. President or Congress must assert their intent to open a space to hear the voice of the Afghan people. They could encourage Afghan lawmakers to consider such a referendum as a way of respecting the will of the people and of seeking the support of their own citizens.
Would a referendum change the dynamics of the war? If the Afghanis voted to keep troops there, then the U.S. could expect better cooperation from the public (in both Afghanistan and the U.S.) and would be confident it is respecting the will of the citizens. (This is especially so if there is strong voter participation and the results show a wide margin.) It might also convince mainly skeptical world opinion and governments to provide more military and other aid. If the Afghanis voted against the troops remaining in Afghanistan, and the U.S. honors that, again we are respecting what Afghanis want for their own country. Then U.S. options might include undertaking training of police and military personnel; providing support for building the country’s economic, political, and educational systems; and making payments to militia in the same way that the U.S., perhaps in large part, bought its way out of an insurgency in Iraq. Significant resources could be made available in all these ways if there was no combat presence to financially support.
Our nation asserts that it sends its military overseas to protect freedoms at home and promote freedom and democracy elsewhere. The United States can take another step toward democracy in the world by encouraging it in Afghanistan—and it might even bring other benefits, as well. The United States can let the people of Afghanistan choose.
Cliff Kindy is an organic market gardener and has for the last twenty years worked frequently with Christian Peacemaker Teams in the war zones of the world. kindy@cpt.org [1]
Neil Wollman is Senior Fellow, Bentley Alliance for Ethics and Social Responsibility, Bentley University, and the author of a 2005 op ed suggesting that Iraqis hold a referendum concerning U.S. troop presence. NWollman@Bentley.edu [2]Note to readers: Please direct all communication to the Neil Wollman.
Article printed from www.CommonDreams.org
URL to article: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/07-8
What If The People Of Afghanistan Could Choose?
by Cliff Kindy & Neil Wollman
After an intense review, President Obama recently ordered about thirty thousand more U.S. troops to Afghanistan. The question is, should this decision have been made by the U.S. government? The goals for the United States are to prevent an Al Qaida threat in the homeland and to stabilize the Afghan situation, allowing for some level of central government control and a face-saving withdrawal. But who else could or should have weighed in on this decision, and what are their motivations?
The Afghan government realizes that any downsizing of the U.S. presence could threaten its hold on political power. President Karzai recently stated that he expects the U.S. military presence to continue until 2024. The U.S. public is split, mainly along party lines, between those who want an early withdrawal of troops to prevent a quagmire, and those who support the U.S. military presence and fear that withdrawal would squander the investment already made.
The missing voice among these acknowledged players is that of the Afghan public. No country can impose on another a decision that country cannot abide. History is filled with attempts by strong powers to force actions upon weaker ones. This has worked sometimes in the short run, but usually crashes in the long term. The power of democracy is its dependence upon the will of the people who are impacted by a decision.
Indeed, the Afghan citizenry seems to have no say, yet is the group that stands to gain or lose the most from the U.S. occupation. Modern warfare kills and wounds more local civilians than armed actors (about 80 percent, compared to 20 percent). Yet those civilians have little or no ability to choose their own participation.
What if Afghani citizens were to determine whether the U.S. military continues a surge or withdraws troops? Certainly this is a fitting step in encouraging democracy. It would also provide the incentive for Afghanis to really own and support a chosen policy on the ground. And perhaps the Afghanis themselves know best how to create a stable nation that does not house terrorists.
In January 2010, Iraq was to hold a referendum on withdrawing the remaining U.S. troops. This plan was scrapped when it became clear it would only reduce U.S. presence by a few months and so was not worth the logistic and financial costs. If a referendum on U.S. troop presence is of merit for Iraqi citizens, is it not also for Afghans, before U.S. troops become more firmly entrenched there?
Who knows what the Afghans would decide if the choice was theirs. Poll results in Afghanistan have varied by region and ethnicity, with a fairly large margin of error. But Afghanistan could hold a national binding referendum on U.S. military presence at the same time as planned parliamentary elections in May. (Given the experience of their last public vote, for president, improved preparations and precautions are needed.) First, the U.S. President or Congress must assert their intent to open a space to hear the voice of the Afghan people. They could encourage Afghan lawmakers to consider such a referendum as a way of respecting the will of the people and of seeking the support of their own citizens.
Would a referendum change the dynamics of the war? If the Afghanis voted to keep troops there, then the U.S. could expect better cooperation from the public (in both Afghanistan and the U.S.) and would be confident it is respecting the will of the citizens. (This is especially so if there is strong voter participation and the results show a wide margin.) It might also convince mainly skeptical world opinion and governments to provide more military and other aid. If the Afghanis voted against the troops remaining in Afghanistan, and the U.S. honors that, again we are respecting what Afghanis want for their own country. Then U.S. options might include undertaking training of police and military personnel; providing support for building the country’s economic, political, and educational systems; and making payments to militia in the same way that the U.S., perhaps in large part, bought its way out of an insurgency in Iraq. Significant resources could be made available in all these ways if there was no combat presence to financially support.
Our nation asserts that it sends its military overseas to protect freedoms at home and promote freedom and democracy elsewhere. The United States can take another step toward democracy in the world by encouraging it in Afghanistan—and it might even bring other benefits, as well. The United States can let the people of Afghanistan choose.
Cliff Kindy is an organic market gardener and has for the last twenty years worked frequently with Christian Peacemaker Teams in the war zones of the world. kindy@cpt.org [1]
Neil Wollman is Senior Fellow, Bentley Alliance for Ethics and Social Responsibility, Bentley University, and the author of a 2005 op ed suggesting that Iraqis hold a referendum concerning U.S. troop presence. NWollman@Bentley.edu [2]Note to readers: Please direct all communication to the Neil Wollman.
Article printed from www.CommonDreams.org
URL to article: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/07-8
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
A review of Malalai Joya's book, A Woman Among Warlords
A Voice of Resistance in Afghanistan
January 05, 2010 By Suzanne Weiss Source: Socialist Voice Suzanne Weiss's ZSpace Page
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/23558
A Woman Among Warlords: The Extraordinary Story of an Afghan Who Dared to Raise Her Voice, by Malalai Joya, with Derrick O'Keefe. Scribner, 2009.
Afghan social activist and writer Malalai Joya is the voice of another, hidden Afghanistan - the partisans of independence, democracy, and human rights who have no voice under the corrupt U.S.-sponsored regime of Hamid Karzai.
She has survived multiple assassination attempts for her outspoken advocacy of women's rights and withdrawal of U.S., Canadian, and other NATO armed forces. She believes the people of Afghanistan, especially the women, can organize the struggle for fundamental rights such as health care, education, control of their bodies and their lives - but only when the foreign occupiers leave their country.
Her book challenges us all to redouble efforts for this goal. Written from the heart and from profound experience, it tells the story of war and warlordism in Afghanistan, and how it has devastated the fabric of life there.
Tradition of resistance
Joya tells us of her background as an inquisitive child in a family and community with a tradition of centuries of resistance to foreign occupiers. She was named after a national hero, Malalai of Maiwand, who rallied Afghan forces to win a decisive victory over British invaders in 1880, sacrificing her life in the famous Battle of Maiwand.
Joya chronicles her family's suffering under the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, which began in 1979 when she was still an infant in her mother's arms. During these years, millions of Afghans fled for their lives to the neighboring countries of Iran and Pakistan. Most refugees settled in detention camps that, Joya says, are like "concentration camps, designed to humiliate and break the Afghan national spirit and pride."
Joya's father, an important influence in her life, insisted that she and her siblings be educated. This led the family to move from Iran to Pakistan, where she was able to attend the Watan School for Afghan refugees in Quetta. It was there that she first got acquainted with the Revolutionary Women's Association of Afghanistan (RAWA) founded by Meena, a social activist who was martyred in 1987. (See www.rawa.org/meena.html)
For women's rights and democracy
Joya, although not a member herself, champions RAWA as waging an "uncompromising struggle for women's rights and democracy." Today the organization operates underground within Afghanistan, for fear of retribution for their outspoken criticism of the Afghan government.
While still a student at the age of 14, Joya dedicated herself to teaching other youth in Pakistan. She received a small stipend to help her family income. She used innovative incentives to encourage women to come to her classes. Later, she became a social activist with the Organization for Promoting Afghan Women's Capabilities (OPAWC), a non-governmental organization seeking to ameliorate the health and education of women and girls.
During her 16 years in exile, Joya came to admire the Palestinian resistance and resolved to "become a Palestinian" in her own country.
Betrayed hopes
The Taliban regime that ruled from 1996 to 2001 was widely hated for institutionalizing anti-women and brutal practices. When the U.S. attacked Afghanistan in 2001, it proclaimed the goal of releasing women from this bondage. Many Afghans hoped that conquest by the U.S. might bring a better future. But that was not to be.
The U.S. hypocritically clothed its invasion in feminist garb. "The purpose of the American invasion [is] to restore women's rights," said "First Lady" Laura Bush. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell claimed, "The rights of women in Afghanistan will not be negotiable."
Joya counters that it was obvious from the very first days of the war that the United States had not the slightest intention of supporting the women of Afghanistan, but aimed instead "to sustain the worst enemies of women in that country."
The U.S. supported the Northern Alliance, a vicious league of anti-Taliban warlords, notorious for the use of torture, as the Taliban before them, used rape as a weapon to dominate and terrorize the people, Joya says. "Men were also subjected to rape ... even children [were] raped, as young as four."
When the Taliban fled under U.S. bombardment, the Northern Alliance occupied Kabul. One of its first actions, in November 2001, was to ban a planned women's march through the streets of the city. Conditions of women did not improve.
If Afghanistan is a failed state today, Joya says, "it is because the warlords who had failed our country before were once again in power."
In 2001, Joya returned to her native western Afghan province of Farah, where she opened and directed the Hamoon Health Care Clinic under the auspices of OPAWC. It had three physicians, half a dozen nurses, and an ambulance service operated through volunteers.
The provincial government warned that they would not guarantee her safety as project director, but at the initial opening, the local people expressed their support, promising to guarantee her security themselves. Joya experienced many acts of solidarity which represent what she describes as the "quiet resistance of people who are risking their lives to rescue their fellow countrymen."
Afghanistan was now dominated by new occupiers - the U.S. and its NATO allies. Joya accuses the new U.S.-sponsored rulers of using the "name of Islam and Jihad to make war on their own people and oppress Afghan women."
Most people in the West believe that the "severe oppression of women there began under the Taliban regime" (1996-2001), Joya notes. "But this is a lie." The main props of the entrenched subjugation of women are the warlords who have dominated Afghanistan both before and after the Taliban and now provide the main support for the government of Hamid Karzai. The "worst atrocities ... were committed during the civil war [in the 1990s] by the men who are now in power," she says.
Hypocrisy and deception
The widely hated burqa, or full body veil, is often seen as a symbol of subjugation linked to the Taliban. However, Joya testifies that even today, "Afghanistan women are obliged to wear the burqa for fear of being kidnapped, raped, and murdered." Joya assures us that "many Afghan men are very sympathetic," and risk their lives to protect women. However, the many women who are raped or abused often become despondent and fall into hopelessness and "self-immolate to escape their misery." Joya cries out, "Afghanistan remains like a bird with one wing-women-clipped. As long as the subjugation of women persists, our society will not be able to take off and move forward."
The U.S. is now sending tens of thousands of additional soldiers to "fight the Taliban." But war and occupation brings only grief to the Afghan people, Joya says. Money flows freely for military expenses and policing, but funds for health care, education, or day care are scarce. Joya's book honors the memory of many women martyred under the NATO occupation because they struggled for social services and education, women's rights and bettering the conditions for children.
"There is nothing in Islamic religion," Joya explains, dictating that women should be subjugated. In fact, women suffer similar religious constraints under some forms of Christianity, Judaism, and Hinduism. The hijab - veil, or headscarf - is not unlike the wigs or scarves worn by women of other religions.
Voice of resistance
Malalai Joya does not stand alone. The people of her province elected her in 2005 to the Wolesi Jirga, the lower house of the Afghan parliament. She received the second-highest number of votes in Farah province. Joya aimed to find a way to put an end to the rule of "the warlords and fundamentalists," she tells us. "I knew the great majority of Afghan men and women shared this aim," she writes. "My mission would be to expose the true nature of the Jirga from within it."
Inside the parliament, she boldly challenged leading politicians who were drug lords and criminals of the Northern Alliance. In response, she was undemocratically suspended from the Wolesi Jirga in 2007 and threatened with sexual violence by members of that body.
Many people demonstrated against her suspension, in the streets in Kabul and other towns and cities across the country. But often the police prevented peaceful protest on the pretext that they were protecting demonstrators from potential violence. In Jalalabad, women and men marched to the UN office to demand her reinstatement. Joya found that many women had defied the odds and voted for her at tremendous personal risk. Joya recalls the words of Meena, the martyred founder of RAWA, "Afghan women are like sleeping lions who when awakened ... [they] will play a tremendous role in any Afghan social revolution."
Joya lashes out at these rulers and spits out their names like poison off her tongue, bearing witness to the anger of her people who know each one of these politicians and their crimes. These men shamefully "use the name of Islam and jihad to make war on their own people and oppress Afghan women," she declares. They received millions from the American CIA and the Pakistani ISI [security force]. Joya also denounces the women who have been appointed to the Wolesi Jirga to rubber stamp the repression of the government, although she concedes that these women, are "themselves victims of the system."
Joya sees the Afghans today as "trapped between two enemies: the Taliban on one side and U.S./NATO forces and their warlord hirelings on the other." One wonders about the hopes and goals of the resistance fighters, universally labeled "Taliban" by pro-U.S. media. Are they really identical in outlook to the brutal rulers of the late 1990s? This question remains unexplored.
Joya herself is not a solitary figure. She is a bold spokesperson for a current of opinion in Afghanistan that is silenced by the Karzai regime and its NATO backers. She cites the firm convictions and courageous actions of many of her women co-thinkers in Afghanistan.
Joya is clear on the role of the United States and NATO, which "brought the warlords and druglords to power." She views Obama's insertion of another 30,000 U.S. troops into Afghanistan "as continuance of the Bush policy." As she would say: "same donkey, but with a new saddle."
Her clarion call is for all the foreign troops to leave Afghanistan now.
January 05, 2010 By Suzanne Weiss Source: Socialist Voice Suzanne Weiss's ZSpace Page
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/23558
A Woman Among Warlords: The Extraordinary Story of an Afghan Who Dared to Raise Her Voice, by Malalai Joya, with Derrick O'Keefe. Scribner, 2009.
Afghan social activist and writer Malalai Joya is the voice of another, hidden Afghanistan - the partisans of independence, democracy, and human rights who have no voice under the corrupt U.S.-sponsored regime of Hamid Karzai.
She has survived multiple assassination attempts for her outspoken advocacy of women's rights and withdrawal of U.S., Canadian, and other NATO armed forces. She believes the people of Afghanistan, especially the women, can organize the struggle for fundamental rights such as health care, education, control of their bodies and their lives - but only when the foreign occupiers leave their country.
Her book challenges us all to redouble efforts for this goal. Written from the heart and from profound experience, it tells the story of war and warlordism in Afghanistan, and how it has devastated the fabric of life there.
Tradition of resistance
Joya tells us of her background as an inquisitive child in a family and community with a tradition of centuries of resistance to foreign occupiers. She was named after a national hero, Malalai of Maiwand, who rallied Afghan forces to win a decisive victory over British invaders in 1880, sacrificing her life in the famous Battle of Maiwand.
Joya chronicles her family's suffering under the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, which began in 1979 when she was still an infant in her mother's arms. During these years, millions of Afghans fled for their lives to the neighboring countries of Iran and Pakistan. Most refugees settled in detention camps that, Joya says, are like "concentration camps, designed to humiliate and break the Afghan national spirit and pride."
Joya's father, an important influence in her life, insisted that she and her siblings be educated. This led the family to move from Iran to Pakistan, where she was able to attend the Watan School for Afghan refugees in Quetta. It was there that she first got acquainted with the Revolutionary Women's Association of Afghanistan (RAWA) founded by Meena, a social activist who was martyred in 1987. (See www.rawa.org/meena.html)
For women's rights and democracy
Joya, although not a member herself, champions RAWA as waging an "uncompromising struggle for women's rights and democracy." Today the organization operates underground within Afghanistan, for fear of retribution for their outspoken criticism of the Afghan government.
While still a student at the age of 14, Joya dedicated herself to teaching other youth in Pakistan. She received a small stipend to help her family income. She used innovative incentives to encourage women to come to her classes. Later, she became a social activist with the Organization for Promoting Afghan Women's Capabilities (OPAWC), a non-governmental organization seeking to ameliorate the health and education of women and girls.
During her 16 years in exile, Joya came to admire the Palestinian resistance and resolved to "become a Palestinian" in her own country.
Betrayed hopes
The Taliban regime that ruled from 1996 to 2001 was widely hated for institutionalizing anti-women and brutal practices. When the U.S. attacked Afghanistan in 2001, it proclaimed the goal of releasing women from this bondage. Many Afghans hoped that conquest by the U.S. might bring a better future. But that was not to be.
The U.S. hypocritically clothed its invasion in feminist garb. "The purpose of the American invasion [is] to restore women's rights," said "First Lady" Laura Bush. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell claimed, "The rights of women in Afghanistan will not be negotiable."
Joya counters that it was obvious from the very first days of the war that the United States had not the slightest intention of supporting the women of Afghanistan, but aimed instead "to sustain the worst enemies of women in that country."
The U.S. supported the Northern Alliance, a vicious league of anti-Taliban warlords, notorious for the use of torture, as the Taliban before them, used rape as a weapon to dominate and terrorize the people, Joya says. "Men were also subjected to rape ... even children [were] raped, as young as four."
When the Taliban fled under U.S. bombardment, the Northern Alliance occupied Kabul. One of its first actions, in November 2001, was to ban a planned women's march through the streets of the city. Conditions of women did not improve.
If Afghanistan is a failed state today, Joya says, "it is because the warlords who had failed our country before were once again in power."
In 2001, Joya returned to her native western Afghan province of Farah, where she opened and directed the Hamoon Health Care Clinic under the auspices of OPAWC. It had three physicians, half a dozen nurses, and an ambulance service operated through volunteers.
The provincial government warned that they would not guarantee her safety as project director, but at the initial opening, the local people expressed their support, promising to guarantee her security themselves. Joya experienced many acts of solidarity which represent what she describes as the "quiet resistance of people who are risking their lives to rescue their fellow countrymen."
Afghanistan was now dominated by new occupiers - the U.S. and its NATO allies. Joya accuses the new U.S.-sponsored rulers of using the "name of Islam and Jihad to make war on their own people and oppress Afghan women."
Most people in the West believe that the "severe oppression of women there began under the Taliban regime" (1996-2001), Joya notes. "But this is a lie." The main props of the entrenched subjugation of women are the warlords who have dominated Afghanistan both before and after the Taliban and now provide the main support for the government of Hamid Karzai. The "worst atrocities ... were committed during the civil war [in the 1990s] by the men who are now in power," she says.
Hypocrisy and deception
The widely hated burqa, or full body veil, is often seen as a symbol of subjugation linked to the Taliban. However, Joya testifies that even today, "Afghanistan women are obliged to wear the burqa for fear of being kidnapped, raped, and murdered." Joya assures us that "many Afghan men are very sympathetic," and risk their lives to protect women. However, the many women who are raped or abused often become despondent and fall into hopelessness and "self-immolate to escape their misery." Joya cries out, "Afghanistan remains like a bird with one wing-women-clipped. As long as the subjugation of women persists, our society will not be able to take off and move forward."
The U.S. is now sending tens of thousands of additional soldiers to "fight the Taliban." But war and occupation brings only grief to the Afghan people, Joya says. Money flows freely for military expenses and policing, but funds for health care, education, or day care are scarce. Joya's book honors the memory of many women martyred under the NATO occupation because they struggled for social services and education, women's rights and bettering the conditions for children.
"There is nothing in Islamic religion," Joya explains, dictating that women should be subjugated. In fact, women suffer similar religious constraints under some forms of Christianity, Judaism, and Hinduism. The hijab - veil, or headscarf - is not unlike the wigs or scarves worn by women of other religions.
Voice of resistance
Malalai Joya does not stand alone. The people of her province elected her in 2005 to the Wolesi Jirga, the lower house of the Afghan parliament. She received the second-highest number of votes in Farah province. Joya aimed to find a way to put an end to the rule of "the warlords and fundamentalists," she tells us. "I knew the great majority of Afghan men and women shared this aim," she writes. "My mission would be to expose the true nature of the Jirga from within it."
Inside the parliament, she boldly challenged leading politicians who were drug lords and criminals of the Northern Alliance. In response, she was undemocratically suspended from the Wolesi Jirga in 2007 and threatened with sexual violence by members of that body.
Many people demonstrated against her suspension, in the streets in Kabul and other towns and cities across the country. But often the police prevented peaceful protest on the pretext that they were protecting demonstrators from potential violence. In Jalalabad, women and men marched to the UN office to demand her reinstatement. Joya found that many women had defied the odds and voted for her at tremendous personal risk. Joya recalls the words of Meena, the martyred founder of RAWA, "Afghan women are like sleeping lions who when awakened ... [they] will play a tremendous role in any Afghan social revolution."
Joya lashes out at these rulers and spits out their names like poison off her tongue, bearing witness to the anger of her people who know each one of these politicians and their crimes. These men shamefully "use the name of Islam and jihad to make war on their own people and oppress Afghan women," she declares. They received millions from the American CIA and the Pakistani ISI [security force]. Joya also denounces the women who have been appointed to the Wolesi Jirga to rubber stamp the repression of the government, although she concedes that these women, are "themselves victims of the system."
Joya sees the Afghans today as "trapped between two enemies: the Taliban on one side and U.S./NATO forces and their warlord hirelings on the other." One wonders about the hopes and goals of the resistance fighters, universally labeled "Taliban" by pro-U.S. media. Are they really identical in outlook to the brutal rulers of the late 1990s? This question remains unexplored.
Joya herself is not a solitary figure. She is a bold spokesperson for a current of opinion in Afghanistan that is silenced by the Karzai regime and its NATO backers. She cites the firm convictions and courageous actions of many of her women co-thinkers in Afghanistan.
Joya is clear on the role of the United States and NATO, which "brought the warlords and druglords to power." She views Obama's insertion of another 30,000 U.S. troops into Afghanistan "as continuance of the Bush policy." As she would say: "same donkey, but with a new saddle."
Her clarion call is for all the foreign troops to leave Afghanistan now.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Poll of Afghan political attitudes
Juan Cole reviews some of the principal findings of a poll of Afghan attitudes by the Asia Foundation (http://asiafoundation.org/). On this blog, we have been influenced by the writing of Malalai Joya, her book, A Woman Among Warlords, and the presentations she has given in various parts of the US and Canada on a recent tour promoting her ideas. Joya makes the point that many Afghan people hold democratic values, perhaps often repressed but nonetheless present. She contends, given propitious conditions, democratic values will surface at the grassroots, in village after village, and serve to transform the country. The poll by the Asia Foundation provides some empirical support for her optimism about the potential for democracy in Afghanistan.
Bob
-----------------------------------
Juan Cole, Informed Comment, January 5, 2009
A survey of the Afghan People by the Asia Foundation
Afghans supported Personal Freedoms, Women's Education in Asia Society Poll
Surprises in the Asia Society poll done in June, 2009, of attitudes of Afghans.
It was a big poll, with some 6400 respondents from all over the country. It reveals a society increasingly connected by new communications technology, where devotion to democratic values is deepening and commitment to women's rights is rapidly growing. The stereotype of Afghan traditionalism and rigidity, and the stagnation of a traditional society, is powerfully challenged here. So too is the idea that Talibanism is coming back as an appealing ideology.
Here are some things I didn't expect:
Afghans were more optimistic than before about the direction of their country.
They also had, in June, a touching confidence that the August presidential election would be carried out in a fair way.
Afghans said in unprecedentedly high numbers that that freedom (54%) and peace (41%) were among the greatest benefits they expected from democracy. They are more realistic, though, that it won't end corruption and may not lead to prosperity. But it seems that a sense of personal liberty is growing in most of the country, to which people are becoming attached. They also seem to have reached a conclusion that democracy leads to social peace because conflicts are reworked into politics.
On the other hand, they are not sure they have liberty. Some 40% said that people are now free to express their opinions publicly, while 39% disagreed, complaining that speech is restricted. Fewer (29%) cited security concerns as a limit on free speech than ever before (in 2007 it was 40%). One in five specifically name the Taliban as part of that threat to freedom of expression.
Some 61% said it is unacceptable to speak ill of the government, a pretty authoritarian, pro-Karzai stance. But that was down from 69% in 2007.Some 78% say democracy is the best form of government in 2009 (down slightly from 2008, but still the overwhelming majority). Last summer, 69% said that they were satisfied with how it is working in Afghanistan, unchanged from the previous year.
Half of Afghans believe that illiteracy is the major problem bedeviling Afghan women. There is also growing support for their right to work outside the house. The report says: "over the same period there has been a consistent rise in the proportion of respondents who identify the lack of employment opportunities for women as a significant issue, from two percent in 2006 to 19 percent in 2007, 24 percent in 2008 and 28 percent in 2009."A quarter of Afghans now think there are too few jobs outside the home for women up from 2% three years ago! Some 67 percent think women should be allowed to work. (This employment for women outside her own house had been forbidden by the Taliban, even though the country is awash in widows)
Afghans, aside from a small Taliban fringe, strongly support education for women and equal rights for them under the law. Some 87% support equal opportunity for education for both sexes, and 83% favor women continuing to have the right to vote.
On the other hand, Afghans' enthusiasm for women serving at all levels of political life has declined. Most get their news from transistor radio, although radio ownership is declining.
A majority of Afghans (52%) now use cell phones--a big increase over previous years. The ubiquity of cell phones would have implications for political mobilization, since people can now network more easily. We've seen it in neghboring Pakistan.It is clear from these responses that the hard line ideology of the Taliban is rejected by the vast majority of Afghans, for whom it has no appeal. Indeed, openness to new thinking-- the importance of personal liberty, freedom of speech, employment opportunities and education for women-- has been rapidly increasing.
One rather fears that Karzai's alleged stealing of the presidential election may have weakened faith in democracy. We'll know more the next time such a survey is done. One thing is clear: ideas and values are in enormous flux, and the idea of a return of the Taliban to power in a country that thinks like this is highly unlikely.
Bob
-----------------------------------
Juan Cole, Informed Comment, January 5, 2009
A survey of the Afghan People by the Asia Foundation
Afghans supported Personal Freedoms, Women's Education in Asia Society Poll
Surprises in the Asia Society poll done in June, 2009, of attitudes of Afghans.
It was a big poll, with some 6400 respondents from all over the country. It reveals a society increasingly connected by new communications technology, where devotion to democratic values is deepening and commitment to women's rights is rapidly growing. The stereotype of Afghan traditionalism and rigidity, and the stagnation of a traditional society, is powerfully challenged here. So too is the idea that Talibanism is coming back as an appealing ideology.
Here are some things I didn't expect:
Afghans were more optimistic than before about the direction of their country.
They also had, in June, a touching confidence that the August presidential election would be carried out in a fair way.
Afghans said in unprecedentedly high numbers that that freedom (54%) and peace (41%) were among the greatest benefits they expected from democracy. They are more realistic, though, that it won't end corruption and may not lead to prosperity. But it seems that a sense of personal liberty is growing in most of the country, to which people are becoming attached. They also seem to have reached a conclusion that democracy leads to social peace because conflicts are reworked into politics.
On the other hand, they are not sure they have liberty. Some 40% said that people are now free to express their opinions publicly, while 39% disagreed, complaining that speech is restricted. Fewer (29%) cited security concerns as a limit on free speech than ever before (in 2007 it was 40%). One in five specifically name the Taliban as part of that threat to freedom of expression.
Some 61% said it is unacceptable to speak ill of the government, a pretty authoritarian, pro-Karzai stance. But that was down from 69% in 2007.Some 78% say democracy is the best form of government in 2009 (down slightly from 2008, but still the overwhelming majority). Last summer, 69% said that they were satisfied with how it is working in Afghanistan, unchanged from the previous year.
Half of Afghans believe that illiteracy is the major problem bedeviling Afghan women. There is also growing support for their right to work outside the house. The report says: "over the same period there has been a consistent rise in the proportion of respondents who identify the lack of employment opportunities for women as a significant issue, from two percent in 2006 to 19 percent in 2007, 24 percent in 2008 and 28 percent in 2009."A quarter of Afghans now think there are too few jobs outside the home for women up from 2% three years ago! Some 67 percent think women should be allowed to work. (This employment for women outside her own house had been forbidden by the Taliban, even though the country is awash in widows)
Afghans, aside from a small Taliban fringe, strongly support education for women and equal rights for them under the law. Some 87% support equal opportunity for education for both sexes, and 83% favor women continuing to have the right to vote.
On the other hand, Afghans' enthusiasm for women serving at all levels of political life has declined. Most get their news from transistor radio, although radio ownership is declining.
A majority of Afghans (52%) now use cell phones--a big increase over previous years. The ubiquity of cell phones would have implications for political mobilization, since people can now network more easily. We've seen it in neghboring Pakistan.It is clear from these responses that the hard line ideology of the Taliban is rejected by the vast majority of Afghans, for whom it has no appeal. Indeed, openness to new thinking-- the importance of personal liberty, freedom of speech, employment opportunities and education for women-- has been rapidly increasing.
One rather fears that Karzai's alleged stealing of the presidential election may have weakened faith in democracy. We'll know more the next time such a survey is done. One thing is clear: ideas and values are in enormous flux, and the idea of a return of the Taliban to power in a country that thinks like this is highly unlikely.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
What does the US government owe the Afghan people and why this debt will go unpaid while the occupation continues?
Regarding Afghanistan, Jon Wiener offers his views below on what the US government can do to make up for the devastation and human losses for which it is directly and indirectly responsible over the last three decades. There are three parts of his proposal, namely, that we support a democratic government, fight a different kind of war, and stay in the country for an indefinite number of years. By "a different kind of war," he means that "we stop killing civilians, work locally, disown corrupt officials, emphasize social and economic construction."
Wiener says we are not achieving any of what he would like to see us achieve, with the implication that we are failing the Afghan people, likely to continue to fail them, as the mis-conceived and mis-directed US-led occupation compounds the damage. He emphasizes that we have been working with a corrupt, undemocratic government, fighting a war that kills and maims civilians and that spends far more on the military occupation than on re-building the social and economic structures of local villages.
On this blogsite, we have taken the position, given the circumstances, that the Afghan people can best be served by the withdrawal of US troops and an end of the occupation. Malalai Joya and many other authors whose articles we have printed call for a withdrawal of foreign troops as well. The thrust of how we differ from Wiener is that the reconstruction of Afghan should not be expected from US leadership but should come from regional governments, international support through the UN, and from some experienced NGO and independent efforts on the ground. Most importantly, however, is that the Afghan people in the villages and towns that criss-cross Afghanistan play the major role in defining the specific reconstruction that is undertaken in their various parts of the country. None of this now seems likely.
Thus, we hold to the position that the war in and occupation of Afghanistan should be stopped, hopefully while plans are developed with true Afghan leaders that will support the reconstruction goals and improve the lives of the Afghan people themselves.
Bob
----------------------------------
The Best Argument for the Afghan War - and What's Wrong with It
posted by Jon Wiener on 12/17/2009 @ 10:40pm
http://www.thenation.com/notion/507353/
For those of us on the left, the best argument in favor of the Afghan war is not Obama's claim that we need to stop Al Qaeda from returning to its bases in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda doesn't need to be in Afghanistan, the 9-11 plot was hatched by Saudis in Hamburg and Miami, and they can relocate to Somalia or Yemen or someplace else if they need to. (They have already relocated to Pakistan.)
The best argument is that we have an obligation to the Afghan people – especially to the feminists, secular teachers, labor organizers, health workers, democrats, all those working to build a secular, civil society. We encouraged them to help create a real alternative to religious fundamentalism. It would be wrong now to abandon them to the Taliban.
That argument is made by Michael Walzer at the Dissent magazine website, where he writes that "a version of democratic politics has emerged" in Afghanistan -- "radically incomplete but valuable still. And all the people involved in these different activities would be at risk--at risk for their lives--if the United States simply withdrew."
That is an argument that Obama did not make.
If we accept the argument that we have incurred an obligation to protect democratic activists in Afghanistan, what exactly do we owe them? First of all, we owe it to them not to support an undemocratic government there. The Karzai government exists only because the US created and sustained it, despite massive election fraud, monumental corruption, and myriad failures to win popular support.
If we accept the obligations argument, we also owe it to the Afghans to fight a different kind of war – to stop attacking and killing large numbers of civilians. The way we have been fighting the war creates more enemies than are killed. Walzer is hopeful that Obama has "replaced the people who did everything wrong with people who are trying to do everything right." That means the US military must "stop killing civilians, work locally, disown corrupt officials, emphasize social and economic reconstruction." They have not been doing this for nine years, partly because that kind of careful, close-in fighting creates more American casualties than bombing suspected enemy locations.
And this commitment to Afghan democrats is not going to end in July 2010; it is open-ended. As long as the Afghan army and police are unable to protect teachers, feminists, health care workers, etc., we seem to have obligation to protect them – for as long as the Taliban fights to create their own Islamic state.
So: we owe it to the Afghans to support a democratic government, to fight a different kind of war, and for an indefinite number of years.
"One of the key criteria of a just war," Walzer writes, "is that there be a realistic possibility of achieving a just peace." He knows that "it may be too late" for that. But we need to ask: Is there a realistic possibility the US will abandon Karzai in favor of a democratic government? that the US military will fight the right kind of war? That the American people will be willing to keep paying for this war for many more years? What's wrong with the obligations argument is that the answer to each of these questions is "no."
Wiener says we are not achieving any of what he would like to see us achieve, with the implication that we are failing the Afghan people, likely to continue to fail them, as the mis-conceived and mis-directed US-led occupation compounds the damage. He emphasizes that we have been working with a corrupt, undemocratic government, fighting a war that kills and maims civilians and that spends far more on the military occupation than on re-building the social and economic structures of local villages.
On this blogsite, we have taken the position, given the circumstances, that the Afghan people can best be served by the withdrawal of US troops and an end of the occupation. Malalai Joya and many other authors whose articles we have printed call for a withdrawal of foreign troops as well. The thrust of how we differ from Wiener is that the reconstruction of Afghan should not be expected from US leadership but should come from regional governments, international support through the UN, and from some experienced NGO and independent efforts on the ground. Most importantly, however, is that the Afghan people in the villages and towns that criss-cross Afghanistan play the major role in defining the specific reconstruction that is undertaken in their various parts of the country. None of this now seems likely.
Thus, we hold to the position that the war in and occupation of Afghanistan should be stopped, hopefully while plans are developed with true Afghan leaders that will support the reconstruction goals and improve the lives of the Afghan people themselves.
Bob
----------------------------------
The Best Argument for the Afghan War - and What's Wrong with It
posted by Jon Wiener on 12/17/2009 @ 10:40pm
http://www.thenation.com/notion/507353/
For those of us on the left, the best argument in favor of the Afghan war is not Obama's claim that we need to stop Al Qaeda from returning to its bases in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda doesn't need to be in Afghanistan, the 9-11 plot was hatched by Saudis in Hamburg and Miami, and they can relocate to Somalia or Yemen or someplace else if they need to. (They have already relocated to Pakistan.)
The best argument is that we have an obligation to the Afghan people – especially to the feminists, secular teachers, labor organizers, health workers, democrats, all those working to build a secular, civil society. We encouraged them to help create a real alternative to religious fundamentalism. It would be wrong now to abandon them to the Taliban.
That argument is made by Michael Walzer at the Dissent magazine website, where he writes that "a version of democratic politics has emerged" in Afghanistan -- "radically incomplete but valuable still. And all the people involved in these different activities would be at risk--at risk for their lives--if the United States simply withdrew."
That is an argument that Obama did not make.
If we accept the argument that we have incurred an obligation to protect democratic activists in Afghanistan, what exactly do we owe them? First of all, we owe it to them not to support an undemocratic government there. The Karzai government exists only because the US created and sustained it, despite massive election fraud, monumental corruption, and myriad failures to win popular support.
If we accept the obligations argument, we also owe it to the Afghans to fight a different kind of war – to stop attacking and killing large numbers of civilians. The way we have been fighting the war creates more enemies than are killed. Walzer is hopeful that Obama has "replaced the people who did everything wrong with people who are trying to do everything right." That means the US military must "stop killing civilians, work locally, disown corrupt officials, emphasize social and economic reconstruction." They have not been doing this for nine years, partly because that kind of careful, close-in fighting creates more American casualties than bombing suspected enemy locations.
And this commitment to Afghan democrats is not going to end in July 2010; it is open-ended. As long as the Afghan army and police are unable to protect teachers, feminists, health care workers, etc., we seem to have obligation to protect them – for as long as the Taliban fights to create their own Islamic state.
So: we owe it to the Afghans to support a democratic government, to fight a different kind of war, and for an indefinite number of years.
"One of the key criteria of a just war," Walzer writes, "is that there be a realistic possibility of achieving a just peace." He knows that "it may be too late" for that. But we need to ask: Is there a realistic possibility the US will abandon Karzai in favor of a democratic government? that the US military will fight the right kind of war? That the American people will be willing to keep paying for this war for many more years? What's wrong with the obligations argument is that the answer to each of these questions is "no."
Monday, November 9, 2009
No Nation Can Liberate Another
Speech: Malalai Joya
November 3, 2009
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
is known around the world as a courageous opponent of the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan, the corrupt regime presided over by President Hamid Karzai--and the Taliban and other conservative Islamist forces battling U.S. and Afghan government troops.
An uncompromising fighter for women's rights, Joya was elected to parliament in 2005, where she denounced the presence of representatives who she called "warlords" and "war criminals." In 2007, she was suspended on the grounds that she had "insulted" fellow members. An international solidarity campaign has rallied support for her.
Joya has been the target of assassination attempts and must travel in Afghanistan with armed bodyguards, wearing a burqa as a disguise. She has written a new book about her life, A Woman Among Warlords: The Extraordinary Story of an Afghan Who Dared to Raise Her Voice [1].
As the first stop on a speaking tour of the U.S., was the featured speaker on a panel discussion at the Northeast Socialist Conference in New York City on October 23. Introducing her were several American opponents of the U.S. war on Afghanistan, including Iraq Veterans Against the War member Mathis Chiroux. Here, we print edited excerpts from Joya's speech.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GOOD EVENING, everyone. First of all, let me thank the International Socialist Organization, which invited me here and gave me this opportunity to talk about the ongoing disaster in my country, and about the activities of the so-called "war on terror" by the U.S. and NATO--which is not a war on terror, but a war on innocent civilians.
And let me thank our dear brother Mathis. We are so proud of you, Mathis. I am short of words on behalf of my people to express my feeling to Mathis and the many Mathises and all of you who will not leave us alone in this disastrous situation. By your support, you give us more determination and courage, and hopes that will not sit silent.
I will never forget the first time that I met Mathis--it gave me that much hope in the meantime. Like now, Mathis was talking, and I couldn't control my tears, because he was apologizing to me for the war crimes of the U.S. government. I said no, it is your government that must first of all apologize to democratic people like you, for deceiving you and sending you to war in my country. And not only in my country, but Iraq--and today, as one of our friends mentioned, what they are going to do in Pakistan by drone attacks.
I said to Mathis that they first of all must apologize to you, the democratic people of United States, and especially to the troops, because they are the victims of a wrong policy of their government--they have been sent for a bad cause, for war.
Democracy never comes by gun. Democracy never comes by cluster bomb. Democracy never comes by war.
I hope that we will have more brothers like Mathis, who will stand up and refuse to go to war in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, the United States occupies these two countries, and especially in my country, it is under the banner of woman rights and democracy.
It is even worse than Iraq. Why? Because they brought into power a photocopy of the Taliban, with a mask of democracy, and a suit and tie. But do not believe it. They are still deceiving people around the world. They are responsible for the current disaster in Afghanistan. They are the foreign masters, the U.S. government and its allies in NATO. And now they are going to negotiate with the Taliban.
I have a lot to say about the ongoing disaster in my country, and I can talk for hours about how much this means, the actions of Mathis and the many Mathises. Mathis, you said I am a hero, but you are our hero. We really love you, and my people hope one day that we will see you in my country--in a democratic Afghanistan. This is my dream for the future of Afghanistan.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
THERE IS a famous saying: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Your international solidarity is key. As always, nations are separate from the policymakers. It is the governments that are committing these war crimes. They are betraying democracy, women's rights and human rights, and they are betraying the truth. The mainstream media is still trying to throw dust in the eyes of democrat people around the world.
You know what your government is doing now? They have put a soft name on the Taliban, these terrorist people, to bring them into power as well. Mullah Omar--this fascist man, this dinosaur--is not in power, and neither is Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, but they want to bring them into power to complete the circle of warlordism and drug lordism and terrorism in my country.
The U.S. is occupying my country and making a military base there. They are not leaving my country because of their strategy and policies. They don't care about the wishes of my people--how much they are fed up by the situation. Now, my people are sandwiched between two powerful enemies.
Democracy is the alternative for the future of Afghanistan. But there are still many risks for us. Those who tell the truth, those who stand and praise the war against injustice, insecurity and occupation receive death threats. They get killed or they have to leave Afghanistan. The first casualty is the truth.
Let me say a few things about the role of troops first, since now Obama wants to surge with more troops in Afghanistan. His foreign policy is quite similar to the wrong policy of the Bush administration. It's even worse--according to officials statistics, even more civilians have been killed than during the same time period under Bush.
The worst massacre in Afghanistan from September 11 to now happened during the presidency of Obama. In May, in Farah province, a bombing killed 150 civilians, most of them women and children. They were even using white phosphorus and cluster bombs. On September 9, a bombing in Kunduz province--you may have heard about this through the media--killed 200 civilians, and again, most of them women and children.
Then, after all these crimes, White House says it apologizes, and Karzai's government--this puppet regime--says thank you. That's it. My people are so fed up that they want an end of the occupation--the end of this so-called war on terror--as soon as possible. As long as these troops are in Afghanistan, the worse the war will be. Through the mainstream media, they are telling you and democratic people around the world that civil war will happen if the U.S. withdraws, but nobody is talking about civil war today.
Eight years ago, the U.S. and its allies invaded Afghanistan under the banner of women's rights. Today, the situation for women--half of the population of the country--is hell in most of the provinces. Killing a woman is as easy as killing a horse. A few days before I come here, in Sar-e Pol province in the north of Afghanistan, a 5-year-old girl was kidnapped and killed. The rape of women and kidnapping and acid attacks--all of this violence is increasing rapidly, even at historical levels. And all of these crimes are happening in the name of democracy, women's rights and human rights.
I'm saying that as long as these warlords are in power along with these occupation forces, there is no hope to make positive changes in the lives of the men and women of my country.
It's not only women who are suffering. If I talked only about conditions for women, it would be all morning, but I wouldn't even be finished. All of this shocking news that the media never even gives to the people around the world. Women don't even have a human life.
But today, women and men don't have liberation. Millions of Afghans suffer from injustice, insecurity, corruption, joblessness, etc. Your government says that it sent troops there so that girls can go to school, but according to official figures from the government, more than 600 schools have been closed. When the girls go to school, they throw acid on their faces.
I think education is important--very important in my country. I always say that it's the key to our emancipation. But security is more important than food and water. They keep the situation dangerous like this so they can stay longer in Afghanistan because of their strategy and policies.
To know more about the deep tragedy of Afghanistan, during these eight years, they changed my country to the capital of the center of drug trade.
Today, 93 percent of opium produced in the world is from Afghanistan. The brother of Hamid Karzai, Ahmed Wali Karzai, is a famous drug trafficker, as the New York Times recently wrote. Through dirty business of opium, every year, $500 million goes into the pocket of Taliban alone. And since 2001, there has been a 4,500 percent increase in opium. If the U.S. government don't stop this wrong policy, the drugs will find their way onto streets of New York, and destroy the life of youth here as well.
Another example of the catastrophic situation of my country is that a few days ago, the United Nations human development index ranked Afghanistan 181st out of 182 countries. This is a country where the government received $36 billion over the past years, according to official reports. Where did that money go? Into pockets of warlords and drug lords--these criminals and misogynists.
Today, 18 million people of my country live on less $2 a day. Mothers in Herat and Ghor provinces are ready to sell their babies for $10 because they cannot feed them. And this is another example of many shocking examples that never made it to mainstream media.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
MY PEOPLE are caught now between two powerful enemies, and they are being crushed. From the sky, the bombs of the occupation forces are falling, killing civilians. And on the ground, there is the Taliban, and also these warlords. So we have three kinds of enemies. But the withdrawal of one enemy--these U.S. occupation forces whose government sends them for war, and that also supports the corrupt mafia system of Hamid Karzai with more money and guys--will make it much easier to fight the enemies that are left.
I promise I will never be tired as long as war is in Afghanistan as well as in other countries--what is going on in Iraq, in Burma, in Pakistan, in Palestine. The list can be longer. No nation can bring liberation to another nation. These are nations that can liberate themselves. The nations that pose themselves as liberators to others will lead them into slavery. What we have experienced in Afghanistan and in Iraq prove this point.
If the U.S. and its allies let us have a little bit of space and peace, then we know what to do with our destiny. The people of Afghanistan don't want occupation. They need honest support, they need educational support, they need your powerful voice--which means, first of all, international solidarity against the warmongers of your government.
Regarding Barack Obama, and the Nobel Peace Prize, they are giving the Peace Prize to the president of war--who is carrying out war in Afghanistan, in Iraq and in Pakistan, and is also supporting the criminal regime of Israel and what is going on today in Palestine. Many heroes and heroines are risking their lives and doing a lot for peace, but nobody knows their name. They must be nominated for the prize. I think the question for Obama is, so far after nine months, what did he do for piece that he received this Nobel Peace Prize?
And in such a disastrous situation, they are talking about so-called democratic elections. I think you would agree with us that an election under the shadow of guns, warlordism, drug lordism, awful corruption and occupation forces has no legitimacy at all. There's a famous saying that it's not important who's voting, it's important who is counting. That's our problem. Some democrats ran for the election in Afghanistan, but all the ballot boxes are in the hands of mafia. They betrayed the vote of my people.
Before the results of the election, people in my country discussed among each other that the result is like the same donkey--hopefully, I won't be insulting to donkeys--but with a new saddle. Everyone knows that winner of the election will be picked by the White House.
There's a huge difference between the presidential election and the parliamentary and provincial elections. For the parliamentary election, we have some chance for democrats to run, and that is my message to my people. If a few of us are allowed, it's good to be in these national bodies to be a small voice of our people. As I experienced, in this parliament, I said it was worse than animals--that it's like a zoo. These criminals told me that I must apologize for this comment. I said that I must say apologize to the tanimals that I insult.
Don't misunderstand--in our parliament, we have a few democrats, men and women. Unfortunately, you can count them very quickly, but it's good to be the voice of the people. But for the presidential election, we have one choice--the person who will be the next puppet.
Do not be deceived with this melodrama of a so-called democratic election--I think it's the most ridiculous election anywhere in the world. They spent $250 million for the election while people do not have enough food to eat. Less than 10 percent of people participated in the election. And now they want to waste more money. That's why we believe that your government and NATO are wasting taxpayer money and the blood of your soldiers in Afghanistan by supporting such a terrorist.
I gave only a few examples of the disastrous situation of my country. I'm saying that my people can liberate themselves. But we need your helping hand. As always, I again stress that we separate people from the -policy makers of their government. We are honored that we have the support of democratic-minded and peace-loving people in the U.S. But we need more of your solidarity and support for our country.
Let me conclude my speech with a quote from Bertolt Brecht, who said that "Those who struggle may fail, but those who do not struggle have already failed." Thanks a lot for your solidarity and support.
Transcription by Christine Darosa
- [1] http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FWoman-Among-Warlords-Extraordinary-Afghan%2Fdp%2F143910946X%3Fie%3DUTF8%26s%3Dbooks%26qid%3D1257101246%26sr%3D8-1&tag=socialistwork-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325
- [2] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
