|
Do U.S. Rulers Aid Struggle of Afghan Women? by Carmen James from The Militant, 21 January 2002
PITTSBURGH--One justification used by Washington
for its slaughterous invasion and occupation of Afghanistan is the
mistreatment of
women there under the Taliban regime. Photos of some women taking off the
burkas, or cloth covering their faces, were featured in the
big-business
press after the defeat of the Taliban government.
Prominent U.S. figures who are women, such as Laura Bush, wife of
President
George Bush, and U.S. senator Hillary Clinton, have spoken out forcefully
in praise
of the U.S. "liberators" of Afghan women. They are echoed by Eleanor
Smeal,
president of Feminist Majority, and much of the media.
Also part of this imperialist war propaganda is the U.S. speaking tour
of
Tahmeena Faryal, from the Revolutionary Association of the Women of
Afghanistan
(RAWA). Faryal is getting a hearing. At her public meeting here in
Pittsburgh in
December, 700 people turned out, including many young women.
From the beginning, the meeting gave the impression that women's
oppression arose
only recently in Afghanistan. Welcoming the audience, for example, was
Esther
Barazzone, president of Chatham College which hosted the event. "Women in
Afghanistan have suffered deprivation of their rights and dignity for over
a
decade," she said. It was high time the U.S. military rectify that.
In a similar vein, Tahmeena Faryal stated at the opening of her talk
that "the
tragedy of women in Afghanistan started with the Soviet invasion" of 1979
and
continued "under the fundamentalists."
'Fundamentalists and terrorists'
"By fundamentalists RAWA means the misogynists, the terrorists, the
anti-civilization forces, and those who depend on foreign powers," she
explained,
echoing imperialist anti-Islamic propaganda.
The 1960s and early 1970s, when king Muhammad Zahir Shah was in power,
were a far
better time for Afghan women, she asserted. RAWA in fact favors a return
to monarchy
in Afghanistan as the best way to guarantee women's emancipation: "We
believe the
former king of Afghanistan is the only alternative." In the meantime, she
favors a
"multinational peacekeeping force" occupying her country, because "just
U.S. troops
might appear to be an invasion."
Faryal's main criticism of the U.S. government is that it paid no
attention to
women's status in Afghanistan prior to the war, and that it approved the
placement
of Northern Alliance leaders in the new interim regime that has replaced
the
Taliban. (RAWA strongly opposes the Northern Alliance, which had a brutal
record in
power in regard to women, just as it opposes the Taliban.)
Supports massacre of POWs
In the discussion period the RAWA spokesperson was asked where she
stood on
the U.S. bombing of her country.
"Bombing cannot get the terrorists," Faryal replied, although she noted
positively that Washington's bombardments "apparently destroyed some
terrorist camps
and the Taliban, especially the prisoners at Mazar-i-Sharif." However, she
continued, "we condemn the loss of life in the villages."
This fleeting reference to the rural poor in Afghanistan was the only
time in her
talk Faryal ever referred to the existence of peasants ( not to mention
workers) in
that country. She focused instead on the urban, middle-class women who
broke into
medical and teaching professions in the 1960s and won more freedoms in
general.
These advances, which Faryal attributed to the king's reign, ended "when
the
fundamentalists came to power and the professional women were forced to
stay at
home."
At the conclusion of her talk, socialist workers at the meeting handed
out flyers
announcing a socialist educational weekend on the question of Central Asia
and sold
the Militant. Quite a few people said they were uncomfortable with
the idea
that George Bush wants to liberate Afghan women. Some were disturbed by
Faryal's
comments on the current U.S. war there. Two days later, two women came to
the
Pathfinder bookstore with a flyer distributed at the RAWA meeting. One of
the women,
a student from Oman, bought a subscription to the Militant and
New
International no. 7 with the feature article "Opening Guns of World
War III:
Washington's Assault on Iraq." Both women returned a week later to
participate in a
socialist educational weekend featuring Ma'mud Shirvani, Farsi-language
editor for
Pathfinder Press.
Communist perspective At a Militant Labor Forum here the day
after Faryal's talk, garment worker
Patricia Burns presented a different picture of the roots of women's
oppression in
Afghanistan and the road to their liberation.
She explained that "the imperialist oppression and exploitation of
Afghanistan is
the fundamental reason for the situation of women there today--not Islamic
religious
currents or the former Soviet Union."
Bush's claim to want to liberate Afghan women is sheer hypocrisy, said
Burns. In
just the first few days of taking office he barred U.S. funds from going
to
international organizations that even mention the existence of abortion as
an
alternative and later proposed budget cuts that would deny 200,000 women
and
children WIC food supplement programs. Before Bush, William Clinton drove
through
legislation ending public assistance through welfare for millions of women
and
children.
"So are the same capitalist politicians attacking women's rights here
all of a
sudden liberators of the women of Afghanistan?" asked Burns. "No. The
capitalist
class and the politicians serving it have a direct stake in keeping women
down
around the world. The oppression and superexploitation of women in the
workforce and
in the home is a major prop of the profit system. That's why the
U.S. rulers have
consistently backed rightist forces in Afghanistan, including the Taliban
at one
time and the Northern Alliance, in their drive against not only women but
workers
and peasants as a whole."
1978 revolutionary uprising
Washington's involvement with these groups dates back to the 1970s,
Burns
explained. Afghanistan was affected by the political ferment throughout
that region
of the world. The king was overthrown in 1973 by one of his relatives,
Muhammad
Daud. Protests by students, oppressed nationalities, women, and others in
the cities
continued and deepened, however, and in 1978 a coup overturned the
Mohammed Daud
regime and the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) came to
power. "The PDPA initiated some reforms that benefited women, including
lowering the
bride price and banning child marriage," said Burns. "The new government
released
political prisoners, allowed publication in languages of oppressed
nationalities,
began a literacy campaign and school construction, legalized trade unions,
and
canceled peasants' debts to landlords."
"But the PDPA was a petty-bourgeois party centered in the professional,
military,
and government bureaucracy layers," Burns noted. "It had few roots in the
country's
small working class or among peasants, who are the majority in
Afghanistan. It did
not mobilize workers or farmers to fight for change, but instead relied on
the
government apparatus and army."
In fact, the PDPA sought to impose change. For example, Burns
explained, instead
of organizing the toilers to campaign for education, the PDPA made
literacy classes
compulsory and coeducational--in a society where traditionally women were
separated
from men.
Such measures alienated many toilers initially favorable to the PDPA
regime. When
Soviet troops entered the country in large numbers in 1979 to back up the
regime,
this was "a further blow to the Afghan revolution," Burns explained. The
troops
burned crops and strafed villages believed to be anti-regime, turning many
more
against the changes. Washington took full advantage of this situation to
organize
and arm the landlords, merchants, and drug smugglers under the banner of a
"holy
war" against "atheistic communism."
Burns pointed out that RAWA, formed in 1977 by Maoist activists,
opposed the PDPA
from the start as a "puppet regime" of the Soviet Union. From its support
to the
monarchy to the imperialists' military occupation of the country, RAWA has
served to
point women in the opposite direction of that needed in the struggle for
their
liberation. "It's from the rural villages and the factories in Afghanistan
that the
masses of women will come to help lead the revolution that's needed to
emancipate
women and all the toilers of Afghanistan," Burns said in
conclusion. "Today, most of
these women are in burkas."
The communist movement has a rich history on this question, Burns
continued. She
read from a speech by Turkish communist Najiye Hanum at the 1920 First
Congress of
the Peoples of the East, held in Baku. "The women's movement beginning in
the East
must be looked at not from the standpoint of those frivolous feminists who
are
content to see woman's place in social life as that of a delicate plant or
elegant
doll," said Najiye. "This movement must be seen as a vital and necessary
consequence
of the revolutionary movement taking place throughout the world. The women
of the
East are not fighting merely for the right to walk in the streets without
wearing
the chador.... [T]he question of the chador, it can be said, comes last in
priority."
_____________
home
|
subscribe
|
talk
|
help-about
|
back issues
|
resources
|