Rawa: 'for a democratic popular front' in Afghanistan

by punky Mon Jul 13, 2009 01:56

See the 'Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan' article on en.wikipedia.org and you will see that they're neither terrorist nor a Taliban front. It's a feminist democratic organisation struggling to advance human rights in Afghanistan.

by MichaelY - IAWM Mon Jul 13, 2009 09:42

On Wednesday July 15th, at 19.00 hours in Dublin's Davenport Hotel, we will all have the opportunity to listen first hand to a RAWA speaker.....explaining why they fought the Russians when they invaded their country, why they fought the Taliban and why, now, they're fighting the US and NATO invaders.
It would be very instructive for people like Andrew above to cease arguing for censorship and, for a change, put their thinking caps on.....if that's at all possible of course.

by Sceptic Mon Jul 13, 2009 10:33

The government of Hamid Karzai was validly elected in 2004 and is subject to re-election again in 2009. It has its shortcomings but it cannot be so summarily dismissed in a line or two as above by people who have no evidence of representativeness themselves.

The position is Afghanistan may be inauspicious but that does not mean that progress could not be made over time within the present political framework. This is also a very Islamic county and it cannot be helped that some of its laws will reflect that if its legislation is produced by a freely elected assembly as was the case with the law giving a man a right to sex within marriage. Change in a more progressive direction can only be expected to be evolutionary. At least women are not being stoned for adultery as was the case before and there is schooling for girls again an improvement on the Taliban regime. The same is true of women’s rights to work which was absent under the Taliban - it had been banned along with music.

The problem with the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan is that it appears to have little hope of effecting political change in Afghanistan if it rejects the current political order. At least it is a great deal less repressive than the previous Taliban regime and there are possibilities for political openings in a way that there were not prior to 2001. But Afghanistan is a primitive society much affected by poor governance. A manifesto based only on fault finding and an insistence on a political order which would be acceptable to western leftists and feminists albeit with a native colouring is merely oppositional dreaming.

by Topper Mon Jul 13, 2009 11:47

I'd rather listen to RAWA, which has been active on the ground in Afghanistan for decades, during Soviet occupation, Taliban rule and the present US-led occupation, than a western cyber-commentator who considers Afghanistan to be a "primitive society" - it's typically ignorant to blame the current prevalence of fundamentalist elements on the alleged backwardness of the Afghan people, the fundamentalists only took off as a political force in the 1980s thanks to the Soviet invasion which allowed them to pose as patriots fighting the occupation, and massive US support which transformed them into an effective force.

by Sceptic Mon Jul 13, 2009 18:08

The term is not a value judgement on the Afghan people and is widely applied in political and other social sciences.

To posit as has been done here that the present Government, which is elected – more than can be said for the old monarchist government, the Soviets, the Taliban or the RAWA – is equivalent to the Taliban especially in the realm of women’s rights is flying in the face of the evidence.

It is not proposed by the Karzai Government to bring the Taliban in – only if elements of same are reconciled to peaceful and democratic change only as part of a nascent peace process if things ever get to that stage.

If RAWA have support in Afghanistan or the prospect of any at least there is now a civil society space of some kind in which there ideas can be retailed. Admittedly it is pretty difficult when Taliban elements aim to kill women politicians, police officers and activists both there and in Pakistan. Unless the security issue is addressed there can be no progress. Just ignoring this and dismissing the elected Government out of hand as the RAWA have done is the road to nowhere. They cannot wish a revolutionary feminist government into being y ignoring realities.

by Topper Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:39

To describe any society as "primitive" is most certainly a value judgement - that kind of language has a long and ugly history, being used to justify western colonialism for centuries. The current state of Afghan society owes less to its internal flaws than it does to the massive interference of the two superpowers in the 1980s, who treated it as a playground for their rivalry, caused enormous destruction, and fuelled the rise of religious fundamentalism (the Soviets by allowing them to pose as patriots fighting foreign invasion, the US by directly supporting them with money and guns). The roots of the present mess in Afghanistan can be found in Moscow and Washington, not in Kabul or Helmand province - labelling their society "primitive" covers up that reality, consciously or unconsciously.

Again, I'd much rather listen to RAWA, who have been active on the ground for decades, than to someone in the west who has no direct experience of Afghanistan - they clearly have no faith in the capacity of the occupation forces to bring "security" to Afghanistan, not surprisingly since their presence is itself a source of massive violence - both the violence of the US-led forces themselves, and the violence of their Taliban opponents who are given credibility as nationalists by the presence of foreign troops, just as the proto-Taliban were given credibility by the presence of Soviet troops in the 1980s.

by MichaelY - IAWM Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:56

Preparing for tomorrow's debate, details of which above, below please find two paragraphs sent to us by Malalai Joya.
Malalai was elected to the Kabul Parliament but was e x p e l l e d "for using intemperate language". She's now in hiding.

"! While Obama took office with much hue and cry, his first news for Afghan people was more war and conflict and continuation of the wrong policy of the Bush administration and even worse. The recent operation in Helmand Province by 4000 Marine troops is simply serving a façade for the regional, economic and strategic interests and is meant to stabilize the presence of the US troops in Afghanistan. Obama plan to surge forces in Afghanistan will only add to problem and miseries of Afghan people and even larger number of our suffering and innocent people will be killed during their air raids. Only few weeks back over 150 innocent civilians were massacred in the US raid on a village in my hometown of Farah, many more such tragic incidents have taken place in the past few months.

Secondly Obama administration is planning on decorating some of the brutal and barbaric Taliban and terrorist party of Glubuddin Hekmatyar as "moderate" and share power with them while there no moderate Taliban exist. This is a dreadful policy for Afghan people. In 2001, the US and allies imposed the criminal warlords on our people, which was the first critical mistake and main cause of the current disaster and deadlock in Afghanistan, but when another bunch of terrorists and brutal bands are also included in this collection, then the future of Afghanistan will be even worse and bloody than today.So now majority of our people are against the occupation forces and ask for their withdrawal. If they did not voluntary pull out, then they may face resistance from people of Afghanistan".

This is a link to Malalai’s BBC interview:

http://malalaijoya.com/movies/joya_hardtalk_bbc.htm

Btw, Septic, instead of spouting your usual nonsense, watch the interview and come to the debate tomorrow evening in the Davenport. You may learn something.

by Clara Zetkin Sun Aug 16, 2009 22:17

Is Karzai any better than the Taleban? Is this the sort of democracy that the US/UK Coalition are fighting for?

Row over Afghan wife-starving law
By Sarah Rainsford
BBC News

Female supporter of Hamid Karzai shows his picture at an election gathering in Kandahar on 16 August 2009
Critics accuse President Hamid Karzai of betraying Afghan women

An Afghan bill allowing a husband to starve his wife if she refuses to have sex has been published in the official gazette and become law.

The original bill caused outrage earlier this year, forcing Afghan President Hamid Karzai to withdraw it.

But critics say the amended version of the law remains highly repressive.

They accuse Mr Karzai of selling out Afghan women for the sake of conservative Shia support at next week's presidential election.

The law governs family life for Afghanistan's Shia minority.

by The Watcher. Mon Aug 17, 2009 17:06

The Real problem is that Hamid Karzai is a very weak leader.

Not personally weak,it is just that he is barely hanging on to power by the skin of his teeth.

And by the guns of the Americans and British etc.

If he falls, and the foreigners pull out ,THEN you will see how many rights Afghan women have.

They will have NONE...they will be slaves and chattels.

Whipped, beheaded and yes.... starved to death at the whim of their "Owners"

They will have less rights than a dog or a cat has in Europe.

(Try starving a cat to death here in Europe and see what happens to you.)

"Primitive" isn't a strong enough word for the Taliban.