On Aug. 1, the prominent left-wing Feminist Majority Foundation declared a
"Victory
for Afghan Women."
Legislation approved by Congress will funnel billions of U.S.
tax dollars into reconstructing Afghanistan. FMF had campaigned
vigorously for the measure and undoubtedly expects to guide the
money slated for Afghan women.
Before this occurs, FMF should be called to account for its role
in funds directed toward the
Revolutionary
Association of the Women of Afghanistan. In a blitz of
post-Sept. 11 media, RAWA became the sine qua non of
Afghan women's oppression, largely due to PC feminists,
especially FMF, who acted as public relations and fund-raising
agents. The money poured in.
Skeptics who mentioned
fiscal
accountability were ignored. We are even less likely to be
acknowledged now that RAWA is embarrassing FMF.
In April, a widely circulated
letter
from a prominent RAWA member was posted on RAWA's ListServ.
The letter blasted the FMF-owned Ms. magazine as "the
mere mouthpiece of hegemonic, U.S.-centric, ego driven,
corporate feminism." Ms. magazine's sin? In "A
Coalition of Hope," an 11-page feature on Afghan women in the
magazine's spring 2002 issue, RAWA was not mentioned.
FMF has reacted with silence. A
search
on the current FMF site under "Revolutionary Association of the
Women of Afghanistan" or RAWA finds no matches.
Where else can a skeptic ask questions that might damage
FMF's credibility as a money manager for Afghan women?
RAWA provides an e-mail address for queries and a P.O. Box in
Pakistan to which funds should be directed. Funds can also go
through the Afghan Women's Mission, a California non-profit
organization. When the money is inserted into a FedEx envelope
to Pakistan, however, accountability seems to vanish.
For example, through RAWA's Teacher Sponsorship Program, a
donor can sponsor a teacher for $55 or $105 per month. But,
unlike organizations such as Christian Children's Fund that
encourage letter writing, AWM advises, "We are hoping to
establish a program of letter writing ... but that remains to be
seen ... there is no mail service whatsoever in Afghanistan."
Even now? And what of the refugee camps within Pakistan,
where RAWA is said to operate schools? (As the CCF sponsor of an
Ethiopian child, I communicated with her even during times of
war.)
It seems odd: RAWA can process foreign funds using Federal
Express and a non-profit organization; it maintains donation
buttons on an elaborate Web page and mirror site; it disburses
funds through a teaching network in a war zone. Yet, it is not
sophisticated enough to forward a donor's letter verifying the
disbursement. Why?
RAWA does not invite questions. If you are a member of
"the
media," you are asked to contact rawa@rawa.org, with the
warning: "It may be difficult to contact a member of RAWA as
they are overwhelmingly busy right now. There are no RAWA
members permanently stationed in the United States."
An article in the
L.A.
Times described one activity that keeps RAWA busy:
check-gathering in the upstairs of "a coffeehouse in Old Town
Pasadena" -- the "de facto office" of the AWM. The article
mentions: $500 from a doctor and his wife in Wisconsin; $697
raised by a woman who walked from New Hampshire to New York;
$102 from a bake sale held by a school's "femme club" and
"diversity club"; $500 from a prominent actress; $9 for RAWA
pamphlets; $5 in royalties for republishing a photograph; three
checks that total $1,950.
How were these -- or the "anonymous" check for $100,000
mentioned on the AWM's site -- ultimately spent? RAWA seems too
busy to explain.
Unlike relief agencies such as the Red Cross, RAWA has time
to take political stands. RAWA declares itself to be "a
political/social organization of Afghan women struggling for
peace, freedom, democracy and women's rights ..."
Apparently the struggle involves
slandering
prominent Afghan women who disagree. Consider Sima Samar, whose
non-profit group, Shuhada, runs hospitals and schools for girls
in Afghanistan. Through RAWA interviews and an e-mail campaign
conducted by a RAWA supporter, serious charges were leveled
against Samar; an investigation subsequently dismissed the
charges.
For such personal attacks, RAWA has been called the
"Talibabes." And, according to Sayed Sahibzada, an Afghan U.N.
Development Programme officer who works with women's groups, "I
have not heard one group that goes along with RAWA ..."
RAWA also condemns U.S. policy in Afghanistan. Consider RAWA's March 8
Statement
on International Women's Day. "RAWA has consistently
emphasized the fact that the Taliban, Usama & Co., and other
fundamentalist bands in Afghanistan are creatures of myopic U.S.
policies ... We look upon the U.S. military campaign in
Afghanistan ... as a fracas between patron and ex-protégés ..."
Given such statements, the open letter may be correct in
accusing FMN of backing away from RAWA due to FMN's political
ambitions.
But some feminists remain unconcerned. In a Salon.com
interview, Eve Ensler, author of The Vagina
Monologues, dismissed RAWA's alleged connection to Maoist
groups. "I may not be the most thorough investigator," she
admitted. Yet Ensler declared later in the same piece, "I've
become RAWA's greatest defender."
Whether maintaining silence or issuing blanket approvals, PC
feminists are not likely to call for an accounting from RAWA. It
might lead to an accounting of themselves in this same matter.