. . . . . . . . . .

"WW III? No thanks...!" On-Line Library

What is an appropropriate response?
Political and philosophical considerations after the attack on the Word Trade Center

Let me go back to the issue of security. The Taliban, under the auspices of public disarmament and implementation of punishments such as amputation of the hands of thieves, stoning adulterers and execution of opponents have brought an apparent security to Afghanistan. When you listen to Shariat radio (Voice of Taliban) that only has a two-hour program daily, even if there is fighting somewhere, they don't announce it just to maintain a sense of national security. They say for example, that the people of Takhar, welcomed the Taliban and you know it means that the Taliban attacked and conquered Takhar. The rest is just news about Friday prayer or the amputation of the hand of some bandit in Bamian, the stoning to death of a young adulterer in Kandahar or punishment of some barbers who've cut a few teenagers' hair in the western style of infidels. Whatever it is, with all the punishments and propaganda, a sense of national security suffuses Afghanistan.

Afghanistan, however, lacks the economic strength for the Taliban to create public welfare, yet the Taliban are the only government that can bring security to the country. Those who fight the Taliban bring threats to security and those who support them reason that Afghans must rule in Afghanistan. Whoever is to become the ruler of Afghanistan must first bring security to the nation. Any kind of war gives way to insecurity and because Afghanistan is inclined towards tribalism, with the coming of anybody to power, security is again threatened. It is better to first recognize whoever aims to rule Afghanistan, so that he can save Afghanistan from its hunger crisis and then move on. The same group finds criticism of the Taliban irrelevant to the lack of freedom in Afghanistan, because an insecure and famished nation seeks welfare more than freedom and development.

In reply to the question of what the Taliban are, it must be said that politically, the Taliban are an instrument for government supported by Pakistan. Individually, they are starving youth turned students and trained in crusader-breeding schools in Pakistan. They first entered the premises for a loaf of bread and later exited to occupy political-military positions in Afghanistan. The Taliban as viewed by one political group, are protagonists of fundamentalism in the region and from the viewpoint of another political group, are the same Pashtoons who have been the only rulers of Afghanistan since the time of Ahmad Abdali.

Today, they have reasserted 250-years of their power after an era of internal chaos. They claim that in the past quarter millennium, except for a 9-month period that the Tajiks ruled and another two-years that the Tajik Rabbani governed, the Pashtoons have always had control and Afghanistan needs their experience in governing.

I hardly understand these issues. My job is to make films and if I have delved into these matters, it is because I want to write my script based on a more precise analysis. The further I go though I find the case more complicated. I keep asking people that when the U.S. found it necessary, it retook Kuwait from Iraq in three days. Why, however, with all its touting of modernism, does it not initiate an action to save the 10 million women who have no schools or social presence and are trapped under the burqa? Why doesn't it stop this primitiveness that has emerged in modern times? Does it not have the power or does it lack the incentive? I have already found the answer.

Afghanistan has no precious resources such as oil and it does not have a surplus oil income like Kuwait. I hear another answer too. If the United States supports the Taliban for a few more years, the ugly image that will be portrayed to the world of an eastern ideology, will make everyone immune to it like modernism in Afghanistan. If the revolutionary and reformative interpretations of Islam are equated with Taliban's regressive interpretation, then the world will become forever immune to the expansion of Islam. Some people find this analysis too shabby a clich?. They tell me to let go and I will.

Who is Molla Omar?

In my seemingly endless trip to Kandahar, everywhere there is talk of Molla Omar. His title is Amir-al-M'omenin (Commander of the Faithful). Some Iranian politicians believe that he was created to compete with the Iranian government but nobody really knows much about his background. Some say he is 40 years old and blind in one eye but there's no photograph of him to prove or disprove this. How does a nation choose a half-blind man overnight to lead them, whereas not even a picture has been seen of him? I get tempted to make a film about Molla Omar. For political reasons I avoid it but my curiosity isn't satisfied.

If Pakistan prepares a precise script for the war-stricken people of Afghanistan under the title of disarmament, and receives a positive welcome by what analysis do they plan for a leader called Molla Omar who has no prior image? Someone who's nobody or has not been seen by anybody, becomes the leader of a country in which each tribe or sect has its own leader. Perhaps this is where the secret lies. If a known person were appointed leader to Afghanistan, then every one would have an excuse to oppose him.

I hear a joke near the border about a teahouse. "A teahouse hosted Afghan customers on a regular basis. There was a TV set in this teahouse equipped with a windshield wiper so if necessary, the owner could spray some water on the screen and wipe clean any stains. The owner was asked about this feature and he said that whenever there was a TV program about the mujahedin that was visible in the border areas, their opponents spit on the TV and since the customers used snuff their secretions were colored. After a while the TV screen became unusable so he invented the wiper."

When the image of Afghan leaders is so deeply criticized and satirized, yet they are needed to rule Afghanistan, the best way is to design an imageless leadership that can't be criticized for its form or background and yet be able to free near-the-border television sets from wipers!

If I weren't ashamed of Buddha's shamefulness, I would title this article "Afghanistan, a country without an image". Every one I ask about Molla Omar says he is a representative of God on earth who instead of human laws brought the Qur'an as the country's constitution. He is extremely devout, as are his followers. His wages are as paltry as the Herat's governor's $15 and he lives like the poor people that are dying in the streets.

I realize that the image of this imageless man is complete and appealing because in the East, nobody expects leaders to be updated and specialized or possess a national and universal insight. If only the leaders seem a little like the ordinary, it's enough to satisfy the people. An Afghan expressed the idea that if he was starving, he was happy that Molla Omar was always fasting too and that they were like each other. He thanked God for such a leader.

In Herat I am speaking to a medical student. He is hesitant to be seen talking to me. I ask him if he knows the total number of college students in Afghanistan. While he keeps walking and looking directly ahead, he says: "A thousand". "In what major?" I ask. He says: "Only medicine and engineering." "Which one are you studying", I ask and he says: "Theoretical medicine." I asked what it meant and he said that Molla Omar thinks human dissection is a sin. I asked if he had ever seen Molla Omar's picture. He said no and left.

Among the Pashtoo speaking refugees, I ran across some whom although they hadn't seen Molla Omar knew of people who did. I even met Iranian politicians who believe Molla Omar does really exist and that he is also handsome. A group of Afghans who sleep in Iran at night and cross the border in the day to sell dates in Afghanistan happen to be fascinated by Molla Omar. They tell me that he is an ordinary monk who dreamed of Mohammad, the prophet one night and the prophet commissioned him to save Afghanistan. Since God was with him, he was able to conquer Afghanistan in one month.

The role of international organizations in Afghanistan

It is believed that some 180 international organizations are active in Afghanistan. They too avoid my non-political questions. Finally, I find out that they are in charge of a few tasks. One job is to distribute bread among the starving. A second is the struggle for exchanging of north-south prisoners and a third is to make artificial hands and legs for land mine victims.

Forgetting the insignificant role of the international organizations, I become fascinated by the young people who have come here through the Red Cross. I meet a 19-year old British girl who says the reason she has come "is to be useful". It is in Afghanistan that she can make several artificial hands and legs for people each day. She says that she can't get a job in England that offers so much satisfaction. Since she came, a few hundred people have been able to walk with the artificial limbs she has made.

I have a feeling that the role of international organizations is to remedy the deep and extensive wounds of this nation in a limited way and nothing more. Dr. Kamal Hossein, who is probably embarrassed about the visa to Pakistan, isn't calling me anymore.

I remember his words the day he came to our office expressing how he felt his job and efforts were in vain and he wanted to become my assistant. And even now that I've finished making Kandahar, I feel vain about my profession. I don't believe that the little flame of knowledge kindled by a report or a film can part the deep ocean of human ignorance. And I don't believe that a country whose people in the next 50 years will loose their hands and legs to anti-personnel devices will be saved by a 19-year old British girl. Why does she go to Afghanistan? Why does Dr. Kamal Hossein with all his despair, still report to the UN? Why did I make that film or write this note? I don't know, but as Pascal put it: "The heart has reasons that the mind is unaware of."

The Afghan woman, the most imprisoned woman in the world

Afghan society is a male-dominant society. It can even be claimed that the rights of 10 million Afghan women who make up half of the populution in Afghanistan, are less than the weakest unknown Afghan tribe. No tribe is an exception in this regard. The fact that Afghan women even as viewed by the Tajiks, don't have the right to vote in elections is the least that can be said about them.

With the coming of the Taliban girls' schools were closed and for a long time, women were not allowed in the streets. More tragically, even before the Taliban one out of every 20 women were able to read and write. This statistic indicates that the Afghan culture had practically deprived 95% of women from schooling and the Taliban deprived the remaining 5%. Then why shouldn't we more realistically ask whether the culture of Afghanistan is affected by the Taliban or was it the cause for the Taliban's appearance?

When I was in Afghanistan, I saw women with burqas on their head begging in the streets or shopping in second hand stores. What caught my attention were the ladies who brought out their hands from under the burqas and asked little peddler boys to polish their nails. For a long time, I wondered why they didn't buy nail polish to use at home? Later I found out it was the cheapest way to do it. Buying nail polish was more expensive than a one-time use. I told myself again that this is a good sign that women under burqas still like living and despite their poverty, care about their beauty to that extent. Later on, however, I reached the conclusion that it is not fair to isolate and imprison a woman in an environment or a certain costume and be content that she still puts on make up.

An Afghan woman has to maintain herself so that she won't be forgotten in the competition with her rivals. Polygamy is quite common among young men too, and has turned many Afghan homes into harems. Although the marriage allowance is so high that getting married means buying a woman, I saw old men, while filming, give away 10-year old girls and with the marriage price that they received, considered marrying other 10-year old girls for them selves. It seems that limited capital is exchanged from one hand to the other to replace girls from one house to the other. Among them there are women who have an age difference of 30 to 50 years with their husbands.

These women mostly live in the same house or even the same room and not only have they surrendered but they have also gotten used to these customs. I had brought a lot of dresses and burqas from Afghanistan and Pakistan for my film. Many of the women who agreed to be in the film as extras after strenuous and lengthy persuasion, requested that we gave them burqas instead of money. One of them wanted a burqa for her daughter's wedding, and I, fearing that burqas may become popular in Iran, didn't give any to anyone.

Once when we had asked some Afghan women to be in the film, their husband told us that he was too chaste to show his women. I told him that we would film his women with their burqas on but he said that the viewers watching the movie know that it is a woman under the burqa and that would contradict chastity.

Time and again I asked myself, did the Taliban bring the burqas or did the burqas bring the Taliban? Do politics affect change in culture or does culture bring politics?

In Niatak camp in Iran, the Aghans themselves closed down the public bathhouse reasoning that anyone who passes along the walls knowing that the opposite sex is naked behind those walls, is engaged in a sin.

At present there are no woman doctors in Afghanistan and if a woman wants to refer to a doctor she has to bring her son or husband or father and through them talk to the doctor. As far as marriage, the father or the brother, not the bride, say yes.

Afghan aggression

According to Freud human aggression stems from human animalism and civilizations only cover this animalism with a thin veneer. This thin skin splits at the snap of a finger. Violence exists in both East and West what is different is the style not the reality of its existence.

What's the difference between death by decapitation using knives, daggers or swords or dying by bullets, grenades, mines and missiles? In most cases, criticism of aggression is really the disapproval of the means of aggression. The death of one million Afghans as a result of injustice in the world is not regarded by the world as aggression. The death of 10% of the Afghan population by civil war and war with Russia is not perceived as aggression but the decapitation of someone with a sword will long be the main headline of satellite TV news.

It is naturally fearsome and horrible to see a person being decapitated but why doesn't the death of people every day by land mines give us the same feeling? Why are knives aggressive but not mines? What's criticized in the modern West of Afghan aggression, is form and not substance. The West can create a tragic story for a statue but for death by millions, it suffices with statistics. As Stalin put it: "The death of one person is tragedy, but the death of one million is only a statistic."

Afghanistan is a country inclined to tribalism and a tribal order dominates it. These tribes aggressively resisted against foreign dominance, yet benefited from the conflict of interest among its tribes. Although Afghanistan is called the museum of races and clans, tourists have never visited this museum. If anyone passed through Afghanistan, it was either Nadir Shah intending to conquer India or the Soviets seeking to reach warm waters. Thus, the rough Afghan besides what he has learned from the harshness of nature, has always been faced with foreign aggression as well.

The consequences of war in Afghanistan

Afghanistan became independent from Iran about 250 years ago and about 150 or according to other sources about 82 years ago, its borders were determined by the Durand line. It encountered a premature modernism about 77 years ago. Some 20 years ago it was invaded by the Soviets and it has been involved in a civil war for the past 10 years. About 40% of Afghanistan's population have been tragically killed or become refugees.

Nevertheless, this country and its people have either been neglected or considered as threats or they have been used as a means of threat against others. When I was crossing the border, I saw Iranian cannons pointed towards Afghanistan and when I entered Afghanistan, I saw cannons pointing to Iran. These cannon indicated that both countries regard each other as threats.

On the other side of the border I heard the region's military commander had called the Iranian consul and told him that their homes were made of clay so what did the Iranian cannons aim to target? He had said, "The worst is that you bombard our houses and when it rains well take the wet mud and build our homes anew again. Don't you find it a pity if our cannons destroy your beautiful homes? You can't make glass and iron and ceramics with rain. Why don't you come and build the road to Herat for us?"

When I ride to Herat from Dogharoon, I feel like I'm sailing on a turbulent sea. I remember a time when I got trapped in a storm in the Persian Gulf while filming. The waves would take our small boat up for several meters and bang us back on the water's surface. The boatman told us if the craft turned over, it was goodbye. And now I see those waves again, but they are waves of dirt. At the beginning of the road the car goes downhill and comes back up the hill and in the middle of the trip the car beats against the dirt waves. Although this area is flat and includes the non-mountainous part of Afghanistan, the road is worse than the winding roads of Iran.

Above the height of each wave, shovel-holding men and boys stand for eternity. As far as the eye can see, these shovel-holding men are visible. As soon as our car gets close to them, they start filling up the ditches with dirt and while throwing worthless Afghan paper currency to them, we see them in the dust the same way that we saw the dance of leaves in Once Upon A Time Cinema. It is a scene of shovel-holding men who disappear in the dust and have created an occupation for themselves out of nothing. This is the most surreal scene that I see in Afghanistan.

I ask the driver how many cars pass this road every day. He says: "About 30." I ask if these thousands of shovel-holding men gather for only 30 cars, but the driver is paying attention to driving and he is not in the mood to answer me. Slowly, I turn on the radio. It's been years since I quit listening to the radio or watching TV and I haven't read any papers for months. It is September 23rd of 2000, the 2:00 o'clock Iranian news is on. It makes me cry to hear that two million Iranian kids have gone to first grade today. I don't know if it is out of joy for the children who are going to school or out of sorrow for those who don't go to school in Afghanistan.

I look at the road and I feel like I'm watching a movie. The driver tells me that in some of these houses girls schools are established secretly and some girls study at home. I keep thinking here is a subject for a film. I arrive in Herat and see women polishing their nails from under the burqas. I tell myself here is another film subject. I see the 19-year old British girl who has come to dangerous Afghanistan to be useful. I tell myself again, here is another subject. I see loads of lame men who've lost their legs to mines. One of them, instead of an artificial leg, has tied a shovel to the left side of his body and walks with it. I tell myself, here is yet another subject.

I arrive in Herat and see dying people covering the streets like carpets. I no longer see it as another subject. I feel like quitting cinema and seeking another occupation. When Massoud, Afghanistan's top military chief was asked what he wished for his children to become, he replied, "politicians". It means that war as a solution has reached a dead-end in the mind of the commander. He thinks that the solution to Afghanistan's salvation is more political than military. In my opinion, the only solution for Afghanistan is a rigorous scientific identification of its problems and presentation of a real image of a nation that has remained obscure and imageless both for itself and for others.

Resolution of employment crisis

Once the industrial countries saturated their internal markets with their products, they went after international markets. In paying the price for their consumption, the non-industrial countries each offered a product and others, cheap labor. In this game, Afghanistan, due to mountainous geography and lack of roads was unable to exploit its raw materials cost-effectively.

Due to mismanagement, dispersion of population--arisen from the farming period-- and disunion which is a quality of the tribes, Afghanistan did not have the potential to offer its labor force to the world in exchange for other goods or services. Thus, Afghanistan stayed away from the global game of subsistence and lived on by its insignificant wealth from the grasslands. The entrance of the Soviet Union resulted in a nationwide reaction and the farmers turned to fighters. With the Soviet retreat, these fighters would not consent to going back to farming.

On one hand the civil war spread because of a power struggle. Since then insecurity and emigration increased. The 30% of Afghan emigrants probably experienced better living in other cities and did not want to be dependent on grasslands for a living, especially, since they would be threatened by periodic drought. Afghans desired a more civil share of life. This means that Afghanistan with all its historical tardiness has announced its need to enter world trade.

What is the most immediate wealth, however, that can be offered to enter the world of production-consumption or vice versa? Doubtlessly, the answer is Afghanistan's cheap labor. Labor is more obtainable than exploiting raw materials in the roadless mountainous Afghanistan. The dominant outlook on Afghanistan should cast aside its military-political prism. It should be replaced with an economic direction perspective. If employment is taken both as the root and final solution for the present crisis, through national management, Afghanistan can also enter world trade and the circle of international subsistence. It can achieve its real share and pay for its cost which is to offer labor, consumer products and take advantage of present-day civilization and modernism. This was well experienced in Mao's China, Gandhi's India and quite successfully accomplished in diligent Japan.

Viewed from this the point of vantage the illness of Afghans is not a disaster. It is a market for Afghan doctors. The lack of specialist physicians is not a disaster, It is a market to teach medical assistants with a few months of education. Hunger is not a disaster. It is a market for consumption of bread. Lack of bread is not a disaster. It is a market for wheat. Lack of wheat is not a disaster. It is a market for harnessing wasted waters.

Waters harnessed by labor mean dams. Dams built by labor mean wheat. Wheat is bread. Bread is satiation. Beyond satiation, it is surplus. Surplus satiation is development. Development is civilization. Stalin had said, "The death of one person is a tragedy, but the death of one million is a mere statistic."

Since the day I saw a little Afghan girl 12 years of age, the same age as my own daughter Hanna--fluttering in my arms of hunger--I've tried to bring forth the tragedy of this hunger, but I always ended up giving statistics. Oh God! Why have I become so powerless, like Afghanistan? I feel like going to that same poem, to that same vagrancy and like that Herati poet, get lost somewhere, or collapse out of shame like the Buddha of Bamian.

I came on foot, I'll leave on foot
The same stranger who had no piggy bank, will leave.
And the child who had no dolls, will leave.
The spell on my exile will be broken tonight.
And the table that had been empty, will be folded.
In suffering, I wandered around the horizons.
It is me, who everyone has seen in wandering.
What I do not have, I'll lay and leave.
I came on foot, I'll leave on foot.

Source:
http://www.iranian.com/Opinion/2001/June/Afghan/index.html