• What is AWM's Tax Identification Number?
• What does the Afghan Women's Mission do?
• AWM clarifies its stand on US foreign policy
• Are you a legitimate Non-Profit?
• How can I volunteer to help AWM?
• How Can I Sponsor an Afghan Teacher?
• How Can I adopt/foster an Afghan Child?
• How Can I Link My Site to AWM?
• How Can I Organize a Fundraiser?
• Can I Use Photographs From Your Website?

• Can you tell me if you have received my donation?
• Do you accept American Express?
• How Can I Send Items such as old clothes, blankets, shoes, instead of money?
• How do I send money raised at fundraisers for AWM/RAWA?
• Can Canadians get tax exemption by donating to AWM?

• What is AWM's relationship to RAWA?
• How does AWM send money to RAWA?
• What percentage of the money raised is sent to RAWA?

A supporter wrote in with the following questions shortly after AWM posted it's "Anti-War" Press Release:

1. It seems that your objectives (education, freedom for all, etc...) are in line with those that the US has for Afganistan. Yet, it seems that you disagree with the US being involved in Afganistan (and other places). Please clarify.

2. Do you request/desire more support from the US or less?

3. Do you request/desire support in a different manner than what is presently provided?

4. Specifically, what would you like the US to do?

AWM replies:

Dear ____,

Thanks for your inquiry and your genuine concern for the people of Afghanistan. A few of the supporters of RAWA, including donors to Afghan Women's Mission, have been expressing confusion regarding our critique of the United States government's foreign policy.

First, I should say that of the five board members of AWM, three of us are US citizens by birth and two are permanent US residents. As such we all pay taxes and three of us vote in the United States, so we consider it our right and our responsibility to analyze critically the actions of our government around the world.

The yardstick we use to measure the involvement of the US government anywhere is to ask a simple question - is the involvement helping or hurting? I think when you look beyond the rhetoric, you will find that the US involvement in Afghanistan has made some things better, but many things worse. We agree with you that scenes of young girls able to attend school for the first time are indeed heartening. But there are other features of the US campaign in Afghanistan which are disturbing, and do not bode well for Iraq.

You are absolutely right that our hopes for the people of Afghanistan are equivalent to the stated goals of the US government. But we feel that it is important to judge actions by their predictable consequences, not their stated goals.

The removal of the Taliban was a good thing, but it is no secret that the US used Afghan warlords interested in controlling Afghanistan (the Northern Alliance) to help topple the Taliban. The CIA distributed $100,000 per warlord in cash for help. They are now back in power. Many of these men are exactly like the Taliban in their fundamentalist ideology. If you read RAWA's statements, you will see that RAWA always condemned them as much as the Taliban and implored the US not to empower them. In some cases the only difference between the Northern Alliance commanders and the Taliban is that the Taliban were hostile to the US and the warlords aren't.

In last summer's Loya Jirga process, which could have led to a transition to a more democratic government and disempowered the warlords, the US helped to sideline the immensely popular former king as a candidate for head of state and ensured that Hamid Karzai, an unknown who was dependent on both the US and the warlords, became president. Karzai went on to appoint many feared warlords to his cabinet. Former minister for women's affairs Sima Samar said of the Loya Jirga, "This is not a democracy, it is a rubber stamp. Everything has already been decided by the powerful ones."

Two of our board members have published articles on the effects of US policy on Afghanistan. Two recent examples are "Afghanistan: The First Puppet Regime in the Post Sept 11 World" by myself (published on ZNet http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=49&ItemID=2565), and "Afghan Women: Enduring American 'Freedom'" by Sonali Kolhatkar (published in Foreign Policy in Focus http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2002/0211afwomen_body.html) We are not against the US government aiding Afghanistan, but we insist that aid must help, not hurt, the causes of human rights and democracy. You ask what we wish the US to do. The US could support a larger UN presence across the country, instead of limiting the peacekeeping troops to Kabul only. The US could contribute more money than it has to reconstruction, and less to bombing.

Instead of asking only what the US should do, it is important to ask what is the US doing that it should stop doing, since this is easiest to change (by ending the behavior). The US could withdraw its support from the Northern Alliance warlords. The US could have allowed the Afghans to make up their own minds at the Loya Jirga. The US could have bombed fewer villages and killed fewer civilians.

Ultimately, we look to Afghans to get a sense of what outsiders can do to help Afghanistan. An important survey of Afghans, written prior to the Loya Jirga, is the document "Human Rights and Reconstruction in Afghanistan," produced by the Center for Economic and Social Rights (http://www.cesr.org). The study concludes with 9 recommendations for the international community, which they say are supported by "the overwhelming Afghan consensus." The ninth recommendation is "change US policy." I'll quote at length from the report:

"...it is evident that little progress is possible without a significant policy shift by the United States. As the leading power in the UN system and the main external military force in Afghanistan, the US had used its decisive influence to veto the expansion of peacekeeping forces and continue arming factional warlords, at the same time failing to support human rights accountability and protection. These policies will only foster impunity, instability, and violence within and beyond Afghanistan. To avoid this outcome, the US government must make a meaningful public commitment to peace and security in Afghanistan based on explicit recognition of and support for human rights and democratic development. Specifically the US government should agree to: -Stop supplying arms and money to warlords throughout the country. -Support the expansion of international peace-keeping forces. -Accept legal and moral responsibility for damage to civilian lives and property by establishing a well-funded compensation program for Afghan victims."

The Afghan Women's Mission was founded to support RAWA, a group of Afghan women who we believe exemplify what a future Afghanistan could be. I encourage you to read their comments on the US involvement with their country at their web site (http://www.rawa.org). We would advise the US to support them and groups like them, and let them decide how to best achieve a stable future for Afghanistan.


Back to questions