COMMENTARY

The dead end of
| counter-revolution

KABUL — Every people’s revolution confronts its
counter revolution. What are the forces composing the
counter revolution in Afghanistan which our big busi-
ness press portrays as ‘‘freedom fighters’’, “‘rebels’’,
“defenders of Islam’’ and ‘‘Guerrillas?”’

In the first place they are those who for centuries
benefitted from the privileges of feudalism: big land-
Owners who held poor peasants and their families in
bondage, their ‘‘enforcers” both in the legal apparatus
and what we would call gangsters, the extreme reaction-
ary wing of the clergy, fascist-like fanatics, members of
the terrorist, Muslim Brotherhood.

Sebghatullah Mujaddedi, one of the notorious leaders
of the counter revolutionary bands supported by the CIA
and operating from Pakistan, was a wealthy feudal land-
Owner, member of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose
“patriotic” goal is to regain the land now distributed to
the peasants whom he long exploited.

Mujaddedi’s band has burned mosques and tortured to
death many peasants. Burhanuddin Rabbani before the
revolution owned thousands of hectares of land. He, too,
is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. His group has
kidnapped and murdered many workers, peasants and
burned down more than 30 hospitals.

However, the counter revolution draws many inno-
cent people into its net. For large numbers, especially
among the most culturally and economically backward,
the upheaval in centuries-formed feudal relations is dif-
ficult to understand and even harder to adjust to. This is
particularly the case with Afghanistan’s three million
nomads grouped into many tribes and clans, who largely
live not far from the Pakistan border.

For centuries, these tribes who are almost totally illit-
erate, have migrated, many with their flocks of sheep,
spending summers in Afghanistan and winter in Pakis-
tan. They freely moved across the borders. Many even
have families in both countries.

One of the particular and peculiar features of the Af-
ghan democratic revolution is that it confronts a special
problem in dealing with tribes who make up about one-
sixth of the country’s population and are in a constant
state of mobility. Moreover, their movement is not only
within but outside the country.

Counter revolution and U.S. imperialism took advan-
tage of the ‘‘opportunity’’. The nomadic tribes were
suddenly transformed into ‘‘refugees’’ held in miserable,
disease-ridden camps by coercion and deceit and sub-
Jécted to ceaseless anti-Afghan propaganda. Rarely was
there a more captive audience. Playing on their back-
wardness and fears, bribing and intimidating, the tribal
youth became a particular source for recruiting into the
murder gangs. More than 50 per cent of the gangs are
composed of youth from these nomadic tribes.

The Democratic Republic of Afghanistan has set up a
special Tribal Commission to deal with their special

From Afghanistan

Mike Davidow

needs and problems. It has offered material aid, shelter,
food, clothing, medical aid and has as its ultimate aim to
provide them with a more settled, stable way of life.
Considerable progress has already been made. The pa-
tient, understanding help of the government and the
revelation of the true character of the counter revolution
led large numbers to rally to the support of the
revolution.

This was dramatically hit home to us at a most unusual
press conference in Kabul. On the platform, facing more
than 100 journalists of the Afghan and international ,,
press, six former leaders of counter revolutionary bands <
sat in stone-faced silence. With the exception of a |
white-bearded patriarch, they were heavily-mustached &
young men. Two wore rich-looking karakul -hats which =
stood out in sharp contrast to their modest dark baggy
pants.

The first to speak was Hairashin, a young man from
Herat province, with a long drooping black mustache.
Staring at us intently for a minute or two, Hairashin cried
in the outraged tone of the prophets: ‘‘I speak in the
name of those forced to flee their homes, to abandon all
that is dear to them, their families and country. I speak in
the name of women made widows, children left orphans.
I speak for those murdered by the counter revolutionary
bands.”’

It was a cry of pain as well as outrage. Listening to
Hairashin’s story you understood why. Confused and
then alarmed by Amin’s atrocities, he was terrorized by
village feudal hanger-ons, who threatened to kill his fam-
ily unless he joined the counter revolution. He was par-
ticularly taken in by their lie that the revolution was
destroying Islam. In the training camp near Islambad,
Pakistan, one of his instructors was a U.S. officer. In the
hotel where the press conference took place weapons,
particularly supplied by the U.S. were on display.

Hairashin was visibly shaken as he recalled how he
witnessed the beheading of 50 soldiers of the Revolu-
tionary army. Murder followed upon murder. ‘‘I will
take you to the well in a village where the bodies of 22
peasants butchered in cold blood were thrown’’. He
looked at us with haunted eyes as he exclaimed ‘‘And all
this was done in the name of Islam. May they be cursed
to the end of their days.”

Abdulah, age 22, who brought 140 others with him to
the side of the government, was asked whether the
counter revolutionary bands were getting stronger or
weaker. ‘‘After Amin, he noted, they certainly grew
stronger. Now, however their ranks are being steadily

?

é y ae “i

Captured weapons on display in Kabul. Murder, Kidnap-
ping and arson are the stock-in-trade on Afghanistan’s
terrorist bands.

depleted. What have they to offer the people? De-
stroyed schools? The bodies of teachers and children?
Death and destruction?’’ Abdulah, who had already
drunk deeply from the bitter cup of deception, put his
finger on the dead end of counter revolution.

Many only learn from their own sad experience. This
is particularly the case in a land steeped in centuries of
feudalism and tribalism. The leaders of the Democratic
Republic of Afghanistan are well aware of their coun-
try’s special problems and while they are firm in dealing
with counter revolution they are patient and under-
standing with those who, like Abdulah, learned to dis-
tinguish between friends and enemies of the people.

The result is that thousands like Abdulah have come
over to the side of the revolution. This was dramatically
demonstrated at an extraordinary meeting of 310 former
leaders of armed bands at the headquarters of the Na-
tional Fatherland Front. :

The gathering was addressed by Babrak Karmal, who
was cheered to the rafters when he called on these
former enemies to join hands with the Government to
build a prosperous, progressive, democratic Afghan-
istan. The resolution adopted by all declared: ‘‘We are
compensating for the past through our action — what we
lost by deception we will make good again.”’

Mike Davidow is Moscow correspondent for the U.S.
Daily World. Third in a series.

NATO leaders’ visits ease tensions

By FILS DELISLE —
Tribune Berlin Correspondent

_BERLIN — In the past few weeks,

_ world attention has been focused on the

meetings of the leaders of NATO and

Warsaw Pact countries with the declared

aim of moving from confrontation and

spiralling armaments to authentic negotia-
tions and coexistence.

The meetings have strengthened the
view that Cold War two need not lead to
nuclear extermination if all the peace for-
Ces and sane statesmen follow the lead of
the east-west consultations in socialist Ber-
lin, Prague, Bucharest, and Budapest. In
the economic field, appeals for interna-
tional cooperation and negotiations were
buttressed by the signing of a comprehen-
sive trade agreement between the Soviet
Union and France in Paris.

The most dramatic of the new-style

initiatives was the exchange of views in
Berlin between Canadian Prime Minister
Pierre Trudeau and Erich Honecker,
GDR Party and State Council leader.

The Canadian prime minister’s visit to
socialist Berlin, and the views he expressed
here, have made a deep impression on all
sections of the population.

Neues Deutschland, newspaper of the
Socialist Unity Party, wrote: “The citizens
of the GDR followed the meeting between
Erich Honecker and Pierre Trudeau with
lively sympathy. The frank dialogue, the
good results of their consultations and
their announced intention of working in a
constructive spirit for the improvement of
the international situation and for the
banning of the threat of war — fully
express the basic concern of our people.”

Emphasizing the importance the GDR
attached to the Trudeau-Honecker talks,
Neues DeutschYand wrote: “The mere fact

that a leading statesman of a NATO state
and a Warsaw Pact country came together
for political talks in the present aggravated
political situation...deserves everyone’s
attention. But it is especially the results of
this dialogue which command respect in
the world, and for good reason. Honecker
and Trudeau, regardless of their divergen-
ces, found a joint language in the most
important, most urgent problems which
concern all peoples. They showed that on
the most basic aspects of the issues con-
cerning the destiny of mankind they are in
agreement or have views that are close to
one another.”

The paper reiterated the statement of
Honecker that the GDR has a high esti-
mation of Prime Minister Trudeau’s initia-
tives for disarmament, reduction of
nuclear weapons, negotiations instead of
confrontation, and coexistence. The GDR,
it said, “supports these (proposals) with

joint or parallel actions”, and can be
counted on to do everything in its power to
implement them. ~

Though the Trudeau visit was a more
dramatic turn in world affairs, the France-
GDR declaration for entente instead of
confrontation during the visit here of
French foreign minister Claude Cheysson
were seen as equally significant. Cheys-
son’s visit also reflected the refusal of
another NATO power to be bulldozed by
Washington to joining a cold war drive
against the socialist countries. That was
also the outcome of a visit by GDR For-
eign Minister Oskar Fischer, several weeks
earlier, to Paris. f

The events were considered an expres-
sion of the desire of the two countries to
pursue a policy of getting to know each
other better, to advance their mutual eco-
nomic interests and to work together for
peace in the world.

PACIFIC TRIBUNE, FEBRUARY 15, 1984 e 5