Malalai Joya versus US State Department

Malalai Joya versus US State Department

Malalai Joya is widely acclaimed across the globe for her work as an Afghan citizen, former elected official, as a critic of the Karzai’s government, warlords, druglords, the Taliban and oppressors of women, as an indomitable activist, as an author, and as an opponent of the US/NATO war and occupation. Why does she deserve wide attention? You can get a sense of her well-deserved achievements at Wikipedia, Malalai Joya http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

Entry Visa Denied

This extraordinary woman made the news on March 19, 2011, and ensuing days when she was initially denied an entry visa by the US embassy in Afghanistan to re-visit the United States. Joya had been scheduled for a three-week speaking tour in the US to discuss the paperback edition of her memoir, A Woman Among Warlords, written with Derrick O’Keefe, along with her views on the US/NATO war/occupation of her country and other issues.

She has long taken the position that all foreign troops should leave the country as soon as possible, not a slow multi-year withdrawal of troops, not a continuing occupation until 2014 or later, but a full withdrawal as soon as possible, certainly sometime this year.

Reason for rejection of Visa: Bureaucratic rigidity?

The Afghanistan Women’s Mission identifies the official US reasons for the visa rejection, namely, that “[c]olleagues of Ms. Joya’s report that when she presented herself as scheduled at the U.S. embassy, she was told she was being denied because she was ‘unemployed’ and ‘lives underground.’ http://www.afghanwomensmission.org/?p+1255"

It is true that Joya lives “underground” and may thus not conform to the rigid bureaucratic visa rules of the US State Department, but, hey, she does so to protect her life for having spoken the truth about the Karzai government, warlords, Taliban, and the war/occupation.

Here is what the Afghan Women’s Mission has to say about it. “Because of her harsh criticism of warlords and fundamentalists in Afghanistan, she has been the target of at least five assassination attempts. ‘The reason Joya lives underground is because she faces the constant threat of death for having had the courage to speak up for women’s rights – it’s obscene that the U.S. government would deny her entry,’ said Sonali Kolhatkar of the Afghan Women’s Mission, a U.S. based organization that has hosted Joya for speaking tours in the past and is a sponsor of this year’s national tour.”

Reason for rejection: Ideological exclusion?

Opposition to US decision quickly grew.

The news spread on the internet, stirring a widespread furor over the embassy’s decision to reject Joya’s request for an entry visa. Derrick O’Keefe gives some sense of this outpouring of support for Malalai Joya. In a post on malalaijoya.com, he shares his observations. “In just a few days, over 2500 people have signed an to protest the denial of a U.S. travel visa to Afghan women's rights activist and author Malalai Joya, who was to make a three-week U.S. tour to promote the updated edition of A Woman Among Warlords.

O’Keefe adds: “The effort to overturn this visa denial continues. On March 18, a letter signed by six congresspeople and three senators urged that Joya be allowed the right to travel and complete her book tour in the United States.”

US rescinds its earlier decision and grants Malalai Joya an entry visa, as she originally requested

The Afghan Women’s Mission happily posted that “US Responds to Broad Public Campaign, Grants Malalai Joya Visa!” http://www.afghanwomensmission.org/?p=1301.

Here are excerpts:

“A U.S. Embassy today granted acclaimed Afghan human rights activist and former MP Malalai Joya, a visa, a little over a week after she was initially turned down….

“Afghan Women’s Mission’s Co-Director Sonali Kolhatkar responded to the news saying, ‘We are ecstatic and gratified that the government finally did the right thing and allowed Malalai Joya into the country so that Americans could hear what she has to say about the reality of the war, and particularly how Afghan women are faring under the occupation.’

The basis for Malalai Joya’s optimism There can be an end to the foreign occupation and a transition to a better Afghanistan.

The fourteenth chapter of Joya’s book, A Woman Among Warlords, is titled “The Long Road Ahead,” where she offers her alternative vision for Afghanistan. The basis for Malalai Joya’s optimism is captured by her beliefs in the basic goodness of the majority of the Afghan people. Here is how she expresses this optimism.

“…I believe that, given the opportunity, the Afghan people are capable of charting a course toward peace and independence.” (211)

“You can kill me, but you can never kill my spirit.

“As I often say, there are many others to follow me. Afghans are more than just a handful of warlords, Taliban, drug lords, and lackeys. I have a country full of people who know what I know and believe what I believe: "That we Afghans can govern ourselves without foreign interference. That democracy is possible here but can never be imposed at gunpoint. That the blood of millions of freedom-loving martyrs runs through our veins, and their memories live on in every corner of our country. That Afghan women have been at the forefront of our struggle throughout our proud history” (228-229). “Our enemies can cut down the flower, but nothing can stop the coming of the spring” (229).

>Is it all just wishful-thinking?

It is not when you read about the uplifting experiences and achievements described in Greg Mortenson’s books, Three Cups of Tea and Stones into Schools. It is not when we learn about the challenges to or overthrow of dictators in North Africa and the Middle East. It is not when you become informed about the election of democratic governments in South America, despite generations of US domination. There may be possibilities for peace and justice that we have not dreamed of….

Malalai Joya is what such dreams, and their actualized expressions, are made of. As she titles the concluding chapter of her book, “A River is Made Drop by Drop.”

The case for withdrawal from Afghanistan

Nick Turse is the editor of a new book on the US-led Afghanistan war/occupation, the title of which is The Case for Withdrawal from Afghanistan. Turse “is an award-winning journalist, historian, essayist, and the associate editor of the Nation Institute’s TomDispatch.com. He is the author of The Complex and has written “for the Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Nation, Le Monde Diplomatique, In These Times and the Village Voice.”

The Case for Withdrawal includes an introduction by Turse, followed by 22 articles written by “leading commentators, politicians, and military strategists.” The articles are organized into four “parts”: “The Wars for Afghanistan”; Incompetence, Corruption, and the War on Women”; “Facts on the Ground”; and “The Case for Withdrawal.” While there are some differences among the contributing authors, they all agree, “some tacitly, some explicitly,” that there is a need to build “a solid case for a foreign troop withdrawal from Afghanistan” and to make Americans cognizant of the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan as a serious option (xviii).

In this post, I want to outline major points from the book’s concluding article, “How to Get Out,” by Robert Dreyfuss. Of the authors included in this collection, Dreyfuss offers the most comprehensive view, in broad outline of how the goal of withdrawing US and NATO troops can be achieved without leaving the country even worse off than it is. His proposals identify major challenges and make logical sense. At the same time, they seem highly idealistic and politically improbable both with respect to US domestic politics and in relevant international relations. There is also some confusion on the role that the UN will play. In the end, the US military involvement in Afghanistan may be more like the end of the Vietnam War.
,
First, Dreyfuss joins a host of other critics and contends that the Karzai government is an obstacle to real change. He writes: “The corrupt government of President Karzai and his cronies is no long sustainable, whether or not there is a second round the fraud-marred election” [and this is true as well regarding the election that was just held].

Dreyfuss then offers his views on (1) creating a new government structure, (2) the US government as a facilitator in the transition to a new Afghan government and (3) in seeking international and regional support to buttress a new government, and (4) the need for the withdrawal of US/NATO troops.

#1 – “A new government in Kabul must emerge, in the process accommodating Pashtun nationalists, the Taliban, and other insurgents,” including as well “tribal and ethnic leaders, various warlords, and representatives of Afghanistan’s myriad political factions.” The national accord that results from this process “will probably not be a strong central government but rather a decentralized federal system, in which provinces and districts retain a significant degree of autonomy.”

“To secure international support, the United States must defer to the United Nations to convene a conference in which Afghans themselves hammer out the new way forward.”

#2 – The US government as a facilitator.

“…the president [Obama] should encourage the convening of an international Bonn II conference involving the UN, the major world powers, and Afghanistan’s neighbors – including Iran, India, and Pakistan – to support the renegotiation of the Afghanistan compact….

“In advance of that, the United States should join other nations and the UN to persuade President Karzai, his main electoral opponents, and other Afghan politicians to form a coalition that would create an interim caretaker regime until the establishment of a more broadly based government.”

Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are key parts of the problem “[T]he Afghan Taliban are” in effect “a branch of Pakistan’s army and its intelligence service.” Saudi Arabia channels large sums of money to insurgent groups. Therefore, “Obama must strongly encourage Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to bring key elements of the three interlinked insurgency movements – the Taliban, the Hezb-i-Islami ofGulbuddin Hekmatyar, and the Haqqani network to the bargaining table….China, Pakistan’s ally, which has a vital interest in Central America, should be willing to use its influence in Pakistan to make sure Islamabad and Rawalpindi are on board.”

“…Obama will have to work to get Iran, India, and Russia to help persuade the remnants of the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance (most Tajiks, Uzbeks, and Hazaras) to make room in Kabul for an enlarged Pashtun role, including the Taliban, in which could become a stable power-sharing arrangement.”

#3 – International support - “The world community must pledge its support of Afghanistan financially for years to come.”

#4 – These steps must be accompanied by “an unconditional withdrawal of US and NATO forces” and the recognition that a military victory in Afghanistan is not feasible.

In addition, “the Obama administration will have to give up its massive nation-building project, dismantling the empire of US departments, agencies, provincial reconstruction teams, and the rest….”

“With the agreement of the Afghan government, a limited US intelligence and counterterrorism mission designed to monitor the remnants of al Qaeda can remain in Afghanistan.”

Malalai Joya - courageous and dedicated as ever

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.

Taliban want to renew or reinforce the subjugation of girls and women

Patrick Cockburn, well-known for his excellent first-hand reporting in the Middle East, writes in the article below that the Taliban are bent on limiting the education of girls and restricting women to their homes and the close supervision of male relatives or husbands. Cockburn's most revealing evidence is from a Human Rights Watch report based on interviews "with 90 women in districts largely held by insurgents [Taliban] in four different districts." The report indicates that women in insurgent/Taliban districts "are being deprived of all rights."

Cockburn notes that the HRW report conflicts with the notion that most Taliban rank-and-file participants are local men who are joining insurgencies/Taliban for practical reasons rather than ideological reasons.

The article leaves us with questions. Would the results of the HRW report be confirmed by additional research? For example, have Afghan women been gaining rights to continue their education and to work outside the home in districts not dominated by the Taliban? Is the Taliban a single movement that is unified on the question of women's status in life? What about the position of girls and women in districts and villages that are dominated by warlords, drug-lords, or village elders?

The article and the question have important policy implications for whether the Karzai government's proposal to negotiate with some Taliban leaders is potentially harmful to or horrific for Afghan women.

We on this blog have taken the position that US military forces should be withdrawn from Afghanistan, beginning in a substanital way by next summer. We had hoped a withdrawal would commence sooner than this. Malalai Joya, Greg Mortenson, Andrew Bacevich, and others have influenced our view. They maintain the US-led military occupation does little to advance the interests of most Afghanis, is very costly in lives and resources for all involved, and therefore should be brought to an end. Malalai Joya and the Revolutionary Afghanistan Women's Alliance, among others, oppose the US-led occupation and war as the worst of all situations.


'Leave your job or we will cut your head off your body...'
With violence on the rise, Afghan women are terrified at the prospect of a deal between President Karzai and the Taliban


By Patrick Cockburn
Saturday, 17 July 2010

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/leave-your-job-or-we-will-cut-your-head-off-your-body-2028706 (The article was also printed at antiwar.com on July 18, 2010.)


A report by Human Rights Watch shows that Afghan women are again being deprived of their rights.

Women in Taliban-held areas of Afghanistan say they are once again being threatened, attacked and forced out of jobs and education as fears rise that their rights will be sacrificed as part of any deal with insurgents to end the war in Afghanistan.

Women have reported attacks and received letters warning of violence if they continue to work or even contact radio stations to request songs.

One female teacher at a girls' school in a southern Afghan province received a letter saying: "We warn you to leave your job as a teacher as soon as possible otherwise we will cut off the heads of your children and will set fire to your daughter."

Another woman, Jamila, was threatened in August 2009, in a letter bearing the Taliban's insignia when she was working for a local electoral commission. It said: "You work in the election office together with the enemies of religion and infidels. You should leave your job otherwise we will cut your head off your body."

Jamila ignored the letter, but days later her father was murdered. She left her job and moved house.

Activists are fearful that their rights will be sold out in a deal between the Taliban or other insurgent groups and the US-backed Afghan government. They believe that if the Taliban is given a share in power, women will again be reduced to a condition close to slavery, as when the Taliban ruled most of Afghanistan in 1996-2001. Then, women could not leave their house without a close male relative and had to cover their faces and bodies with an all-enveloping burka or chadori.

Women, who had made up 70 per cent of teachers and 50 per cent of civil servants, were banned from working except in healthcare. Even as medical workers, there were severe restrictions and many women died either in childbirth or from disease because of lack of medical attention. The UN estimated that only 3 per cent of girls received primary education under Taliban rule.
With the war reaching a stalemate over the last year, Afghan and foreign leaders have prepared the ground for talks with insurgents by claiming they are more moderate and pragmatic than the Taliban government overthrown in 2001. The head of the International Security Assistance Forces' reintegration unit, Lt-General Graeme Lamb, said: "Who are these Taliban? They are local people. The vast majority are guns for hire; not fighting for some ideological reason."

The idea that the present day Taliban is less hostile to women than the old is contradicted by the experiences of women in Taliban-held districts. A report by Human Rights Watch – based on interviews with 90 women in districts largely held by insurgents in four different provinces – shows that women are being deprived of all rights.

The report, entitled The 'Ten Dollar Talib' and Women's Rights: Afghan Women and the Risks of Reintegration and Reconciliation, is released this week. It says the belief that new Taliban has emerged influenced by money rather than ideology is wrong.

It criticises the idea of the "Ten Dollar Talib" who fights for money, as an attempt by US and Nato forces to make power-sharing with them more palatable to western audiences who had previously been told they were an enemy to be defeated. Hostility to women is shared by other insurgent leaders as well as the Taliban. The strongest rebel force in the provinces south of Kabul is the Hezb-i-Islami, which Western and Afghan leaders have spoken of as a group that might be tempted to join the government.

The movement's leader is Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, whose first political act was reportedly to throw acid in the faces of unveiled female students at Kabul University in the early 1970s.
The HRW report is the first time that repression of women in Taliban- controlled areas in Afghanistan has been systematically studied. All the women interviewed – who are referred to by pseudonyms for safety reasons – said they had lost freedoms. In some cases, women have been killed.

On 13 April this year a female aid worker, Hossai, 22, was shot as she left the office of an American development organisation and died the next day. She had been threatened by the Taliban the previous week. Many of the threats are contained in letters delivered to the door at night – known as "night letters" – or left at the local mosque. Soon after Hossai was killed, Nadia – who worked for an international NGO – got a letter telling her to stop working for infidels and "in the same way that yesterday we have killed Hossai, whose name was on our list, your name and other women's names are on our list". Sometimes the same letter is sent to a number of women. In late 2009, in Kapisa province east of Kabul, women were warned not to ring up radio stations and request songs. They were told if they did they would be beheaded or acid thrown in their faces.

Many women have been forced to give up their jobs and stay at home, even though half the population earns less than $2 a day and there is a chronic lack of employment.

Girls' schools, which sprang up again after 2001, are once more being ordered to close. In Kunduz province in the north, the shadow Taliban governor sent out orders that no girls were to be educated past puberty. One threatening letter delivered to a school read: "You were already informed by us to close the school and not mislead the pure and innocent girls under this non-Muslim government."

In Kunduz these threats were reinforced by arson, rocket and bomb attacks. There have also been outbreaks of unexplained sickness at several schools, which could be the result of mass poisoning. One Taliban spiritual leader explained the targeting of girls' schools: "We are opposed to un-Islamic education for women. We close those schools that teach adultery, nudity and un-Islamic behaviour."

Women active in politics have been targeted and a number of the most prominent assassinated. The failure to catch the killers discourages other women from playing an active role. The Afghan government has also been ambivalent in its attitude to the issue.

The report says that women should be involved and able to protect their interests in any negotiations about reintegration or reconciliation with the Taliban. One female member of parliament doubts this is possible because "the Taliban would rather see a woman die in the streets than go to a restaurant to get food if men were there. These are the kind of people we're talking about".

Letter of the law

"You are working with the government. We Taliban warn you to stop working for the government otherwise we will take your life away. We will kill you in such a harsh way that no woman has so far been killed in that manner. This will be a good lesson for those women like you who are working. The money you receive is haram [forbidden under Islam] and coming from the infidels. The choice is now with you."

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.