[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great

[Spenta]

This is easily one of the best and most insightful articles on the left's ongoing grave mistakes about Iran that I have ever read.

It is a little long, but truly worth reading for all the heartbreaking episodes in this long disastrous relationship.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From IranianVoice.org

Double Standards and Deception: How the Left Treats Iran and the Middle East

"By Elio Bonazzi

In an article that appeared in the New York Post, in early March 2003, prior to the Coalition war on Iraq, Iranian-born journalist Amir Taheri denounced what he felt were the deeply hypocritical position of the peace movement, which had, in the build-up to the 2003 US-led war against Iraqi Pres. Saddam Hussein, organized marches and rallies throughout 600 cities and 25 countries.

Stalin founded this “peace movement” movement in 1946, when the USSR was in a distinctly weak position; he was trying to consolidate the newly conquered empire in Eastern Europe without nuclear weapons to counter the military predominance of the West. Pablo Picasso designed the emblem of the movement, the famous dove, and world-renowned poets such as French Paul Eluard and Chilean Pablo Neruda composed odes inspired by Stalin. The goal of the movement was to extend the influence of the various communist parties over the more moderate center-left political formations, to push the Kremlin’s agenda in the West with the support of forces which would have transcended the meager political weight of the various communist parties operating in what was then described as “the free world”. The symbol was a dove, rather than hammer and sickle; the emblem color was white, rather than red. But the International Section of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), operating behind the scenes in Moscow, orchestrated the “peace movement” to fulfill their goals.

In the course of its existence, the “peace movement” never betrayed its origins.

In his article, Mr Taheri reminds us that the movement was not opposed to all wars indiscriminately, but only to those that threatened the Soviet empire. The “peaceniks” (which is the appellation by which Mr Taheri refers to them) were comfortable with the Soviet annexation of 15 percent of Finland’s territory and the Baltic States, and did not demur when the Soviet tanks entered Budapest and Prague. But when the US led a coalition under a UN mandate to prevent North Korean communists from conquering South Korea, the “peace movement” was “up in arms”, denouncing the “imperialist ambitions” of the US. Peaceniks reached their peak during the Vietnam War. And once again they were silent when the USSR invaded Afghanistan, but became very vocal about the deployment of the Pershing theater-strategic surface-to-surface missiles in Europe in the years which followed that very invasion. The missiles were a response to the Soviet deployment of entire batteries of SS-20 ballistic missiles aimed at European capitals. But the peaceniks never asked for the dismantling of the SS-20s; their protest was only aimed at impeding the deployment of the Pershing SSMs.

While the “peace movement” is probably the most evident example of double standards, tolerated and even encouraged by the left, the recent events which have occurred in Iran and the repercussion which those events had in the Western world are a revival of the hypocrisy and duplicity by those who theoretically should be staunch supporters of democracy and freedom for the Iranian people.

The Islamic Republic of Iran is an extreme-right theocracy, which has increasingly lost consensus even among the clergy. It oppresses the large majority of Iranians, perpetrating what by accepted international standards would be described as “crimes against humanity” on a daily basis. Women are stoned to death, people [especially the young] are tortured and executed in public without trial, tens of thousands of political prisoners populate highly objectionable prisons; the oppressors must resort to Muslim foreigners for help in anti-riot policing, enlisting Palestinians, Afghani Talibans and even Syrians arriving straight from Damascus to Tehran via camouflaged chartered flights, because Iranian police will no longer beat fellow compatriots during demonstrations.

It is clear that Iranians want a secular, representative government ; anything short of that is not acceptable. Surprisingly, both liberals and left wing radicals have, up until now shown little or no support for a secular democracy in Iran. It is difficult to argue that the struggle for a secular democracy in Iran is not “progressive”. After all, the Iranian opposition forces are trying to defeat religious obscurantism, which is definitely not a left-wing ideological asset; they propose a modern democracy instead, which is certainly more in line with left-wing rhetoric.

Historically, whenever a brutal dictatorship teetered on the edge of collapse, left-wing movements and media worldwide stood up in support of the “freedom fighters”. For instance, the autocracy in Nicaragua which lasted until July 1979 and proceeded the fall of the Pres. Anastasio Somoza had liberal media worldwide in a campaign which completely discredited Somoza’s Administration. The turning point was the assassination of journalist Bill Stewart by a soldier of the regular Nicaraguan Army, captured on the video camera of a fellow journalist and promptly distributed throughout the world.

Something similar has recently happened in Iran. A Canadian-Iranian photojournalist, Zahra Ziba Kazemi, was raped and murdered (at the instigation of Tehran prosecutor Saeed Mortezavi) in June 2003 while detained after being arrested for filming anti-Government riots outside the political prison of Evin in Tehran. After an initial pathetic attempt to cover up this assassination, [the Islamic Republic officials injected her body with rapid decomposing chemicals and burying her hastily] essentially refusing to return her body to Canada, in spite of an official request made by her family and demand by the Canadian Government. The murder of Ms Kazemi, however, did not provoke the same amount of public outrage which forced Nicaraguan Pres. Somoza to step down.

For weeks during the month of June 2003 and on the occasion of the July 9, 2003, anniversary of the 1999 University protests in Iran, the opposition movement inside Iran challenged the authority of the Administration, marching and rallying, chanting anti-Government slogans, defying the guns and death squads of the various mullahs in key posts. As a result, thousands of political activists, students, and others, were rounded up and packed into prisons, subjected to torture, and in some cases murdered.

It is instructive to compare and contrast the articles about Nicaragua that appeared in liberal newspapers in 1979 and the articles about Iran today. In 1979 not a single liberal journalist strove to be “neutral”. From the perspective of the political left, there was no doubt: Somoza and his Government had to go.

The situation is totally different today. If it is to succeed, the growing opposition movement inside Iran needs tangible support from the West. Freedom fighters need laptops, fax machines and cellular phones to organize the uprising. If the Iranian opposition is to succeed, it also needs support from international media. But, significantly, that is not happening. The basic ingredients of the political situation in Iran — a growing opposition movement fighting against a leadership which oppresses the vast majority of the population — would normally be considered to be the perfect ingredients for a left-wing recipe to galvanize the masses in the name of freedom and democracy. It worked for Nicaragua, at the end of the 1970s; it worked for Poland and Solidarnosc in the 1980s. The question for analysts today is why the same recipe has failed to take hold in Iran.

Mainstream US liberal media barely reported on the Iranian uprising which occurred at the end of June and beginning of July 2003. Instead of praising the opposition demonstrators who literally risked their lives, soon after the end of the uprising, The New York Times, which in spite of recent scandals still remains one of the most prestigious national newspapers, published an Op-Ed by Mr Reza Aslan, a visiting professor of Islamic Studies at the University of Iowa.

In that article, Mr Aslan argued that the Iranian opposition was fighting for a religious democracy, not secularism, and religion must play a rôle in the country. Mr Aslan completely misrepresented the reality of Iran, and could not be further from the truth. The New York Times, by publishing that article, sided with those who sought to maintain the status quo in Iran. The most prominent Shi’ite scholars, ayatollahs like Taheri and Montazeri, have distanced themselves from the “political” clergy (Khamnei and Rafsjani), openly criticizing the very concept of Islamic Republic. Hossein Khomeini, himself an ayatollah and the grandchild of the Islamic revolution’s very leader, recently joined Taheri and Montazeri, criticizing religious interference in State matters, in a significant blow to the theocratic establishment. Mr Khomeini left Iran, and is now in Najaf, Iraq, which has once again become the most prominent Shi’ite theological center, relegating the Iranian holy city of Qom to a secondary rôle. Coalition forces in Iraq recently discovered a plot to assassinate Hossein Khomeini organized by the Shi’ite extremists sent by Iran’s “Supreme Leader”, “Ayatollah” Khamene’i and former Pres. Rafsanjani’s assassination teams.

Taheri, Montazeri and Khomeini the younger understand that Islam today is losing consensus in Iran and that the harshness of the Islamic revolution backfired. As a result, it is no longer appealing to Iranian youth; they now respond with either religious apathy or by embracing Zoroastrianism [the ancient religion of Iran, before Persians were forced to convert to Islam by the Arab invaders].

The “peace movement” taught us that only wars which were threatening the Soviet Union were worth protesting. Contemporary liberals would like to sell us a similar concept: siding with the “oppressed freedom fighters” against the brutal oppressors is not always politically correct. In the case of Iran, for example, the toppling of the mullahs could potentially benefit the US Bush Administration, simplifying the process of stabilization in Iraq, and extending US and Israeli influence in the Middle East. The perceived Bush-Sharon axis would come out undoubtedly stronger, after HizbAllah and HAMAS were left without their primary source of financial and logistic support, the Iranian clerics.

It is easy to understand why it is in the interest of the left to deliberately downplay the growing opposition movement in Iran. Apart from the more evident reason explained above, as far as Iran is concerned, the left still has a few skeletons in its closet, and must come to terms with past mistakes and faulty assessments.

To begin with, the left significantly contributed to the creation of the Islamic Republic, when US President Jimmy Carter deliberately destroyed the Shah, who had been a staunch ally of the US for 27 years. In the Shah’s White House visit of November 1977, Jimmy Carter and his aides — who demanded radical changes in the way the internal affairs of Iran were conducted — met the Shah with open hostility. They asked the Shah to institute the right of free assembly, at a time when the Soviet Union was stepping up a campaign of propaganda, espionage and even sabotage inside Iran, and Islamic fundamentalists where teaming up with the Iranian Communist Tudeh party to overthrow the Government.

Nureddin Klanuri, head of the Tudeh Party, who was living in exile in East Berlin, officially sanctioned the party line in support for Khomeini:

“The Tudeh Party approves Ayatollah Khomeini's initiative in creating the Islamic Revolutionary Council. The ayatollah’s program coincides with that of the Tudeh Party.”

Furthermore, Sadegh Ghotbzadeh, a key figure in Khomeni’s entourage, was known for his strong connections with Soviet and Eastern European intelligence.

The Shah was left with little room for maneuver; he had to succumb to the blackmail of the Carter Administration and release political prisoners, ending military tribunals and granting rights of assembly in order not to lose vital US military supply and training. But the mechanism designed by Carter to provoke an escalation of the opposition to the Shah was already in motion. In addition to the support of the Tudeh party and Eastern intelligence, Khomeini could also count on US leftist radicals like Ramsey Clark, who had served as Attorney-General in the Lyndon B. Johnson Administration. Mr Clark went to Tehran and to Paris, to visit Khomeini. Upon his return to the US, he played a behind-the-scenes rôle to influence prominent senators and congressmen not to allow the US military to back the Shah in case of popular upraising against the Peacock throne.

Mr Clark is today still proud of his crusade of 1979. In a recent interview he talked of overthrowing the Shah as “the” accomplishment of his lifetime, quoting overly exaggerated numbers of supposed Shah’s victims as the moral justification for his actions. The smear campaign orchestrated by left media while the Shah was still on his throne, and which continued well after his fall, depicted the Shah as a mass murderer, responsible for the killing of 60,000 people, who died between 1963 and 1979. That number was fabricated by Khomeini, and never verified, not even by Western media, which took for granted the “official truth” of the newly installed Islamic Administration.

Only recently a respected historian, Emad al-Din Baghi, who had access to the files of the so-called “Martyrs Foundation”, told the truth about the real number of Shah’s victims. For years, The Martyrs Foundation collected the names of the victims of the revolution against the Shah, classifying them by age, sex, education, etc. The findings where never disclosed by the Islamic Republic, in order not to contradict the official number “established by decree” by Khomeini. The statistical breakdown of victims covering the period from 1963 to 1979 adds up to a figure of 3,164. Emad al-Din Baghi left the Martyrs Foundation to write books about his findings. According to his historically accurate account, the worst moment of the uprising against the Shah, culminated in the massacre at Jaleh Square, gave the “revolutionaries” the chance to grossly inflate the number of victims, from 88 to initially 3,000, which later became 4,000. Western media never bothered to verify the accuracy of the numbers, based on rumors and anti-Shah hysteria, and helped perpetuate the inflated figures.

Not only the left contributed to the creation of the Islamic Republic; in more recent years, during the US Clinton Administration, the media and left-wing politicians helped the Islamic Republic propaganda, repeating and magnifying the “Big Lie” about Iran and its “Reformist Leaders”. “Big Lie” is a term originally coined to describe a characteristic form of nazi (and later Soviet) propaganda. The essence of the Big Lie propaganda technique is that if one repeats the lie often enough over enough channels, people will soak it up deep into their pores and come to believe it as something of “common knowledge” or “fact”.

In this case, the “Big Lie” consisted of portraying current Iranian Pres. Hojjat ol-Eslam (Ali) Mohammad Khatami-Ardakani and his Government as a genuine force capable of reforming the Islamic Republic “from within”, expanding democracy and meeting the requests of Iranians who voted for change against hard-line clerics in 1997. The “Big Lie” remained credible for a short time, and even opposition forces of the Iranian diaspora initially credited Mr Khatami with good intentions. But soon after the electoral victory of May 1997, it appeared evident that Khatami was a mere façade figure, whose task was to restore an image of respectability, which the Islamic Republic had lost when Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsajani, the former President, had ordered the elimination of anti-Islamic Republic activists [carried out by Iranian killers] in Berlin. After several European countries recalled their ambassadors from Tehran to protest against the assassinations perpetrated on European soil and threatened to reconsider business deals with Iran, the clerical apparatus in charge of the Islamic Republic decided to give itself a new and more presentable look.

The Iranian society had already sent strong signals of deep disaffection towards Islamic rule. It was easy to maneuver the elections; spiritual leader Ali Khamene’i handpicked a fossilized, ultra-conservative mullah, Nategheh-Nouri, the Speaker of Parliament (Majlis), as the candidate of the establishment, knowing full well that the electorate would have voted for the alternative candidate.

But what kind of alternative was Khatami? One should not forget that “democratic elections” are in reality nothing more than a farce in Iran. Opposition parties that do not pledge their allegiance to the Islamic regime are banned. And as if that is not enough, the all-powerful Council of Guardians subjects all candidates to a close examination of their loyalty to the “system”. The latter represents the “will of God”, while the Parliament (Majlis) represents the “will of the People”. Needless to say, the will of God always prevails over the will of the people. The “Spiritual Leader” Ali Khamene’i, who presides the Council of Guardians, is, to all intents, an absolute monarch. Of the initial 240 candidates who wanted to run for the May 1997 election, the Council of Guardians chose four who were deemed sufficiently Islamic to run. All women candidate were filtered out, leaving Khatami, carefully screened by the establishment, as the only reasonable choice. With his image of well-spoken, clean-shaven mullah capable of debating without losing his temper, Khatami was the perfect choice to rebuild the shattered image of Iran, especially in the eyes of the European powers.

The fictitious contraposition between “conservatives” and “reformists” and the “electoral victory” of the latter was the PR stunt that allowed the Europeans, anxious to continue usurping cheap oil and gas from Iran, to feel morally justified when they restored diplomatic and business relations with the Islamic Republic. The Western media on both sides of the Atlantic did the rest, generating a false sense of confidence in the “good guys”, the reformists, who, in spite of all the obstacles erected by the conservatives, would have eventually succeeded in fulfilling the needs and the democratic aspirations of Iranians. In all fairness, it has to be said that all mainstream media, irrespective of political leaning, initially praised Khatami’s election, to the extent of giving him the nickname of “Ayatollah Gorbachev”. The mullahs benefited from the newly-found line of political credit by cracking down on internal opposition with renewed vigor. A few months after Khatami’s “landslide victory”, journalists and intellectuals were killed in what went down the annals of history as the “chain murders”. In addition, real opposition magazines and newspapers were banned and forcibly closed down.

In spite of the repression of internal dissent, Khatami was invited by the major European powers for State visits. He went to Italy in March 1999, where he delivered a speech to the Parliament, to France in October 1999, where he was welcomed by Pres. Chirac at the Elysée Palace, and to Germany in July 2000, where he met federal Chancellor Gerhard Schröder and Foreign Minister Joseph Fischer.

The Big Lie represented a perfect win-win situation for Iranian officials and European powers. It legitimized the Islamic Republic and its crackdown of the opposition, while justifying the Europeans in their renewed business interests with Iran, because, as German Foreign Minister Fisher claimed: “any opposition to Khatami only benefits his conservative opponents”. Khatami visited Germany exactly one year after the July 1999 student protests, during which security forces and Islamic militia murdered several young people. Khatami explicitly supported the repression of the protest, and in spite of receiving thousands of petitions; he did not intervene to stop the tortures and the arrests if students who were then sentenced to death after mock trials. But that was not enough to defeat the Big Lie; the sad reality of Iran was not convenient for liberal media and European politicians, anxious to clear the way to lucrative business deals with Iran.

The latest elections held in Iran on February 2003 also showed that the Emperor had no clothes; in Tehran only 10 percent of voters cast their votes, in other parts of the country the percentage of voters was higher, but in average no more than 25 percent. That sent Iranian authorities and the world a strong message of the distaste the Iranian public felt towards Islamic rule. Initially, only the Council of Guardians was labeled “the unelected few”; today the same can be said about the entire ruling class.

US non-liberal mainstream media finally woke up and started questioning the Big Lie, reporting on the June/July 2003 uprisings, realizing that Iran needed a secular democracy and not the false promises of a better future by a powerless mullah. In several occasions, however, liberal media still described the Iranian situation in terms of internal fighting between reformists and conservatives, demanding that the US State Department open a dialogue with “reformist forces” to reach a compromise on the Iranian interference in Iraq and the nuclear facility being built in central Iran.

Left-wing radical fringes recently gave birth to a Committee called the “International Committee for Transition to Democracy in Iran”. Radical celebrities like Noam Chomsky, Costa Gavras and the Nobel Laureate Jose Saramago were among the founders of the committee, which mixes anti-US and anti-Imperialist rhetoric with legitimate requests for a genuine democratization in Iran. It is now time for the more moderate mainstream left to start the long overdue process of self-criticism of past mistakes, and to recognize that the only reasonable political position is to side with the growing opposition movement that wants to overthrow the mullahs to create a secular democracy in Iran. The left opposed the war in Iraq using morally charged messages like “no blood for oil”. In order not to lose its credibility, the left can no longer ignore the legitimate aspiration of Iranians for a secular democracy. If the left insists on perpetuating its mistakes as far as Iran is concerned [trading long term benefits for myopic short term anti-Bush gains], it will be caught, once again, on the wrong side of history. It is not too late for the left to recognize its mistakes and to rectify its position on Iran, after a factual and honest debate; but that must begin now.

The Author:

Elio Bonazzi is an Italian-born political scientist and IT professional, with extensive experience covering Iranian issues."

[stefania]

Dear Spenta, i agrwee 100% with this journalist.
this is what i always say about the Left ( the italian left,in particular) and the so-called 'peace movement' ( which is not for peace, but it is for anti-americanism and anti-israelism)..the demonstrations here in Italy were so stupids. Many youth shouted "Peace" then they burned the american and israeli flags,carried pictures of Bush,Blair and Berlusconi dressed like Hitler,Goebbles and Mussolini,svastikas on the american and Israeli flags(i don't guess that the Israelis have much to do with the nazis)..
dear, they are not for peace.. it's a great decieving..
they are against America and Israel..why don't they protest the african civil wars? Answer:there are their favourite dictators, and America is not involved. Why don't they protest against Palestinian homicide BOMBers? Answer: they are their friends,becoz they are against America and Israel and many of them have simpathy for communism.
Why don't they go to do the human shields on the Israeli buses,restaurants,discos,etc..??From what i see and read, Israelis never placed bombs on palestinian buses ( tell me if i am wrong)..let me tell you the truth.. they are with Hamas,IJ,Arafat,etc.. they are in favor of homicide bombers and armed Intifada.. ( you can visit Indymedia website to verify their support for world terror against America)..
why don't they support the Iranian people?
answer: the islamic regime supports war against Israel, supports the palestinians,help them in their work,so it is helpful to the palestinian cause, so dear to them!
Initially,the italian communists and leftists seemed to support the iranian protests, but for only a reason: they thought the iranian people support the MKO communists. When they knew that the MKO does not have support, then they stopped to support the iranian people,specially when they knew that Fidel Castro supports the Islamic Regime..
this is the truth dear.. I have been a communist and i know how i thought and what vision of the world i had..
thanks God i am now a libertarian..

anyway, where is that italian journalist? what newspaper he writes for?
_________________
Referendum AFTER Regime Change

"I'm ready to die for you to be able to say your own opinions, even if i strongly disagree with you" (Voltaire)

[stefania]

Dear members of this board, i am tring to send you private messages but no one answers me!!
plus i am asking how can i find my petition on the site www.petitiononline.com-- i am unable to find it!! please help me!!!!
_________________
Referendum AFTER Regime Change

"I'm ready to die for you to be able to say your own opinions, even if i strongly disagree with you" (Voltaire)

[salinescape]

[stefania]

why no one answers me?? I sent a lot of private messages and no one answers me!! why??
i really need help.. how can i find my petition online??? www.petitiononline.com
plsss!!
_________________
Referendum AFTER Regime Change

"I'm ready to die for you to be able to say your own opinions, even if i strongly disagree with you" (Voltaire)

[Spenta]

Dear Stefania,

I don't see any messages from you.

I don't know if you had sent them to me or not, but my screen says "You Have No New Messages" ? I'm not sure why.

[Saman]

That goes for me too. If you did try to send me one in the first place
_________________
Zoroaster's philosophy: Good thoughts, good words, good deeds.
Pâyandeh bâd xâke Irân e mâ!

[stefania]

[quote="kian)Stef, sorry for the delay.. Which petition are you looking for...????? ----

this one which is on your blog? - www.petitiononline.com/1573845/petition.html

or have you created another...??

kian[/quote]

yes that is the petition but it is not online??? why??? who can help me?? i can give you in private every information so that you can do it for me..ok?? help me , plss!!
_________________
Referendum AFTER Regime Change

"I'm ready to die for you to be able to say your own opinions, even if i strongly disagree with you" (Voltaire)

[haleh]

Hey Stef, I can help you... private msg me and tell me what exactly you are looking to do.. lets see if we can't get this problem of yours solved!

khodahafez -
Haleh

[Khorshid]

Update...

.

[BitWhys]

wow

I should have read this weeks ago.

I don't think they're gonna like it, but its not like I have anything to lose

maybe that'll rattle a few cages.

(that link with Chomky's name on it oughta raise a few eyebrows at least)
_________________
"Riding the SNAFU wav(e)"

[Rasker]

Heres the International Committee for Transition to Democracy in Iran (Chomsky Committee's) website http://www.iranebidar.com/citdi.html and here is their letter to the European Union in January 2004:

http://www.iranebidar.com/images/citdi/lettreUEe.html

Open Letter to the European Union*


31 January 2004

Addressed to the:


Mr. Pat Cox, President of the European Parliament

Deputies of the European Parliament

Signore Romano Prodi, President of the European Commission

Mr. Bertie Ahern, Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland and President of the European Union

copies addressed to

Mr. Paul E.P. Martin, Prime Minister of Canada

Mr. Peter Milliken, M.P., Speaker, The House of Commons, Canada

Ladies and Gentlemen,

On the eve of the forthcoming Parliamentary elections in Iran and due to the permanent crisis provoked by the authoritarian procedures imposed by the by the anti-democratic Constitution of that country, the application of which is entrusted to the notorious Council of Guardians of the neo-Islamic State, International Committee for Transition to Democracy in Iran would respectfully wishes to draw your attention to the situation and the future of democracy in that country. The upcoming elections are considered by many as a turning point for the future of Iran as well as peace, democracy, and socioeconomic development for the whole of Western Asia.

The lamentable situation in Iran has further degraded since the second election of Mr. Khatami as President in 2001 hardly needs to be pointed out. The degradation of the political situation in Iran is principally due to the tenacity of what might be called the ultra-conservative clericrats, who hold the reins of effective power in this neo-Islamic State. It is hardly a secret that the overwhelming majority of the people of Iran are profoundly disappointed with the utter failure of the measures the reformists (led by President Khatami) had promised during the 1997 election campaign. The 1997 landslide electoral victory installed Mr. Khatami in office, but did not succeed in bringing him to real power, thanks to the political structure of Iran comprising several supreme non-elected offices.

Having realized the constitutional limits of the electoral process, Iranians unequivocally showed their disappointment in the Reform Movement during the February 2003 local council elections in which, according to official figures, the participation rate was no more than 39 % in the country as a whole and between 12 and 15 % in the three major cities, including the capital Tehran—a devastating refutation of the legitimacy of the regime

Up until 1997 only political opponents had been the target of the vast repressive political police apparatus and the state-run murder squads. Since the advent of the reformist government and the subsequent relative slackening of press censorship, an increasing number of journalists and writers have fallen victims to the fearless and untamed strongmen of the clericratic regime. The victory of the reformists had initially caught conservative hardliners by surprise. But the latter soon managed to control the extent of this relative opening through their murder squads and bands of thugs, the Ministry of Intelligence (political secret police) and the Judiciary Branch (and its the prosecuting “judges,” such as Mr. Mortazavi, who was implicated, inter alia, in the brutal murder of the Irano-Canadian photo journalist Zahra Kazemi).

Numerous reports by various Human Rights organizations, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Reporters sans Frontières (to which this Committee has referred in its letter to the United Nations Secretary-General, copy enclosed), have abundantly documented the escalation of violations of the fundamental rights of the Iranian people.



A century-long struggle for democratization of the country

The people of Iran have, since their Constitutional Revolution (1905-1911, struggled for the establishment of a democratic system based on universally accepted values; that is, for one hundred years.

In the present context, it must be recalled that Iran has been a centerpiece in Western Asia's quest for the institutionalization of democracy. Its first Constitutional Revolution inspired, a year later, a secular revolution in the Ottoman Empire, and a couple of years later another revolution in China. Iran's anti-colonial movements during World War I and immediately thereafter that aimed at the expulsion of Russian, British, and Turkish occupying forces were strongly felt both in the neighboring Arab lands and the Caucasus. Likewise, Iran's pioneering democratic movement for the nationalization of its oil left an unmistakable influence on the anti-colonial movements in the region, in spite of the fact that the government of its patriotic and democratic leader, Dr. Mohammad Mosaddeq, was vilified, through the concerted efforts of the British government by the influential press in the West. It is now a well documented and officially admitted fact that Dr. Mossadeq's democratic government was overthrown in August 1953 through a CIA-MI6 engineered coup d'état.

Few observers of the world political scene have failed to remark that the Iranian Revolution of 1978-1979 heralded, during its initial stages, a new era for democracy in the region, but in its concluding phase bring Ayatollah Khomeini to power, led to a sadly regressive outcome, not only for Western Asia, but also for regions beyond Iran's geo-strategic reach. This revolution has been a disaster for the entire world.

Iran has thus played an important role in the movements have shaped Western Asia and surroundings. This immediate experience seems to suggest that a democratic, prosperous, and stable Iran would lead to the tranquility and sustained development of Western Asia. Conversely, the experiences of the past quarter century, since the 1978-79 Revolution, prove that an Iran led by the present fanatical ruffians will increasingly cause unthinkable troubles, especially if the country falls into the grips of a civil war or a quagmire such as that of Iraq today.

The European Union's interest in stabilizing the region

It seems reasonable to think that a politically stable region sustained by democratic and secular regimes would be the best guarantee for the safeguard of mutual interests between the European Union and the region and the entire world.

If these suggestions are correct, it will follow that the European Union should pay serious attention to the democratic processes in Iran in order to put an end to the neo-Islamic ideological onslaught and bring about sustained cultural, political, and economic development in a region that is, not only rich in natural resources but also endowed with human intelligence and professional competence as attested to by the tens of thousands expatriates who work in various scientific fields and academic centers in the West. A collaborative alliance between the European Union and a democratic and secular Iran would provide the answer to a great number of apparently insoluble problems that country faces now; problems with potentially grave ramifications and consequences.



To intervene in this electoral juncture in favor of democracy

On the eve of parliamentary elections in Iran the situation can be depicted as such: it is extremely unlikely that the Iranians will take part in the election. As a result, the avowedly powerless reformists in office will be unable to stand the increasing pressure of hardline conservatives. As in the past, the candidates are screened and filtered by a special committee appointed by the all-powerful Council of Guardians, a pseudo constitutional council manned by the clericrats. This Council considers that only those Iranians known for their commitment and 'theologically correct' practices should be authorized to run as candidates for election. On the other hand, President Khatami, who recently declared in Geneva that the Islamic Republic would put into practice democracy as known in the West, back in Iran declared that candidacy for election would be limited only to those who support the Islamic regime in power, with its anti-democratic Constitution. (At Davos, President Khatami, who should surely know the Iranians century-long struggle for democracy-continuously stifled by the Pahlavis and the ayatollahs- in order to justify that democracy will not see the light in Iran tomorrow, resorts to a colonialist argument according to which 'democracy cannot be exported'; and in order to establish it, a 'long time is needed'! BBC World, 19hrs, 21 January 2004)

There have never been free elections in neo-Islamic Iran. Given the delicate situation of Iran today, it is absolutely necessary that the European Union bring effective pressure to bear upon those self-appointed and non-elected strongmen who control Iran politically, culturally, and economically, in a way that they make real concessions with regard to democratic demands of the Iranian people, namely, a truly unrestrained electoral process, during which every eligible Iranian citizen (woman and man alike and regardless of their religious and political affiliations) would be able to stand as candidate and all Iranian citizens could choose their representatives. It would be an illusion to hope that a compromise between the reformists and the ultraconservatives can lead the country to democracy, as we know it.

The application of universally accepted rules of the democratic game would not only encourage Iranian citizens to enter the political arena once again-and this time more effectively-it would also remove the clericratic system and the dark shadows of its killers from the Iranian political scene.

Potentially, free parliamentary elections, in presence of international observers, would prepare the grounds for a later stage in which the much-demanded referendum could be held, under the auspices of international authorities, in to decide the political future of the country.



Avoiding the repetition of the short-sighted decisions in favor of the Shah and Saddam Hussein

The long-term interests of the European Community would require the crafting of a long-term policy that could assure a lasting alliance with this highly important but heretofore volatile area. It seems that a long-term policy of a sustained development in this region would pay off a great deal more-and avoid future catastrophes for the world-than the short-sighted, ill-thought-out options that the Western governments made with regard to the Shah and Saddam Hussein. If any lessons are to be learned from the recent history of the relations between the region and Europe, it is the lack of foresight and perspicacity in the formulation of a long-term policy. Today, the region finds itself in the grips of terrorist gangs, whose advent cannot but be explained in the light of shortsighted policies of the past several decades.

Given the present impasse in which Iranians find themselves and the ensuing dangers for the world, there is need for a courageous and imaginative policy with concerted efforts by everyone. It is instructive to consider that had effective pressure been brought to bear upon Saddam to hold truly democratic elections, the present tragedy in Iraq could have been avoided. In particular, in order to overcome the constitutional deadlock in Iran, it seems necessary for the European Union to intervene, on humanitarian grounds, so that the Iranian people could be freed from their present shackles and determine their own destiny.



To demand that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights be applied

Whatever the veiled intentions of the craftsmen of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights may have been, this unique document emerged as a universally firm response to the atrocities committed prior to and during World War II, so that dictators and dictatorial elites could no longer flout the basic rights of mankind in the name of a "greater ideal" or "superior mandate." The lesson learnt since the last world war is that, thanks to concerted and relentless solidarity, enormous pressure can be exerted upon dictators and chase them out of power without any need to resort to violent means, whose consequences cannot but be greater misery for the entire world.

The very advent of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and attempts at applying it have been a vivid testimony to the need for humanitarian intervention that must take the place of brutal and selfish intrusions. Experience has demonstrated that the effective insistence upon the application of Human Rights has always borne fruit, while invasions, aggressive intrusions, and even diplomatic parleying have reaped but unhappy results, i.e., increasing the chances of the rise of other dictatorships or hysterical tendencies towards terrorism.

The legacy the Pahlavi regime left for its neo-Islamic successor, as well as that of Saddam leading to the present quagmire in Iraq, are vivid and striking examples of the wrong policies of the past. The people living today under oppressive regimes, however powerless they may be, will no longer be duped by diplomatic maneuvers, since the latter cannot but reinforce dictatorial regimes and lead, in time, to the re-birth of violence in the world. If diplomacy is to be meaningful today, it must be tied in to the complete and effective application of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

This means that international organizations, such as the United Nations and the European Union, must intervene through peaceful means to bring pressure to bear upon dictatorial rulers, such as those in Iran, who reign in the name of a "superior ideal" but lean on the superiority of bayonets. Only the type facilitating the peaceful transfer of the reins of power to the true representatives of the people, through fair elections held under the supervision of international bodies, would be welcomed by the oppressed and discontent people and avert the crescendo of violence.

Not to be confined to the demand of denuclearization

The global toll of the possession by the ayatollahs of nuclear weapons would certainly not be greater than those of the continued existence of the present regime itself, for it could finally, as in the past, circumvent international controls in the nuclear field. The disappearance of the regime itself would ensure the disappearance of the nuclear menace as well. Any entente on the nuclear question alone runs the serious risk of not definitely removing its potential menace, but certainly would flout democracy in Iran.

If the European Union's policy successfully persuades the neo-Islamic regime in Tehran to abandon its program of nuclear enrichment, it will demonstrate how feasible political pressures are in other domains, including the obligation to respect the wishes of the people and to observe fully international conventions concerning the electoral process.

The need for the European Union to devise and to put into practice a long-term policy of unhesitating defense of democratic institutions in Iran and Western Asia resides in its own long-term interests. The people of Iran have also the right to ask themselves in what way they deserve less than others, such as Georgians, to receive assistance for the removal of their oppressors.



For all these reasons we consider:

- that completely free elections in Iran, without any interference on the part of the Council of Guardians and other non-elected bodies, would pave the way for a national referendum aiming at the establishment of a democratic and secular republic.

- that an effective intervention on the part of the European Union would be more in the interest of Europe than it would be beneficial to the democratic socio-economic development of Iran and its neighbors.

- that such a measure would guarantee fully a satisfactory end to the present deadlock allowing every Iranian citizen to stand freely as candidate and/or to vote in the forthcoming parliamentary elections.
_________________
The Sun Is Rising In The West!Soon It Will Shine on All of Iran!

[BitWhys]

I used the one that call for a referendum.

they're probably gonna have a cow when they see that.

International Committee for Transition to Democracy in Iran

Manifesto for Iran



Founded on the principles and values enunciated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and various conventions adopted by the United Nations since, Comité International pour la Transition à la Démocratie en Iran (CITDI) sets itself the task of contributing to and facilitating the transition of Iran to a republic, based on parliamentary democracy and the separation of the state and the religious authority, expressing the unfettered will of the Iranian people. In order to achieve this aim, CITDI will use all legal, democratic, and nonviolent means at its disposal. In particular, CITDI will endeavour to mobilize the international public opinion and draw the attention of international authorities concerned with the application of the principles of Human Rights in order bring pressure to bear on those clinging to a power that is not based on the democratic will of the people of Iran.



We are cognizant of the present international situation and the serious attempts being made atseizing totally the vast natural resources of Central Asia, and of the fact that Iran, having proven itself, throughout the 20th century the centrepiece of the region, today constitutes the major obstacle to the realization of such ambitions. Given such a perspective, we hold that the peaceful transition of Iran to a democratic republic, free of all interference by religious authorities in the affairs of the state, would enable the decisive forces of the society—such as wage-earners, women, the youth, university students and professors, who have demonstrated their democratic will over the last six years— to play the principal role in the destiny of their country. Such a transition could spare the entire region the specter of a civil war in Iran—a tragedy with incalculable consequences for the region and a world that aspires to the legitimate desire to live in peace. Indeed, in the most optimistic scenario, the consequences of such a tragedy could be no less than those of the turn the Iranian revolution took in 1979.



Such a democratic Iran would undoubtedly be a powerful and central element in establishing and safeguarding peace in the region, thereby facilitating the just exploitation of the resources in the region for the economic progress and welfare of their owners as well as the satisfaction of economic wants of the countries that need access to them.



On the path to the establishment in Iran of democracy within a secular republic, CITDI will do all in its power to:

1- Help establish unconditionally all fundamental liberties;

2- Ensure the freedom of the media and journalists;

3- Help free all political prisoners, irrespective of their political or religious creeds;

4- Contribute to putting an end to the arbitrary rule of illegal courts that have acted contrary to the principles of Human Rights;

5- Help to bring about conditions in which those responsible for the imprisonment, kidnapping, and murder of Iranian opponents, dissidents, and intellectuals will be brought to trial under the newly established international laws judging crimes against humanity;

6- And finally, to contribute to the conditions in which a referendum could be held under the auspices of international observers, so that the people of that country could express their will for a democratic future, exercising full sovereignty over their economic resources and putting them at the service of their development and prosperity, in such a way that they could contribute to the creation of peaceful conditions and justice in Western Asia as in the rest of the world.

******

thread'll drop like a rock. watch 'em drag up old stuff from the backwaters just to bump the topic off the latest 100 list.
_________________
"Riding the SNAFU wav(e)"

[Rasker]

heh, poor old BitWhys, bringing light unto the heathens:

DValdron Canada | Member 5037, Joined Feb 21, 2002 | 1692 posts Posted: 2005-04-12 19:17

Hmmmm

Bitwhys, before you get kicked off, you might take a moment and refresh yourself looking over the guidelines for this site?

Reply to this post | Reply with quote |

3 of 10. WatchThisDrive Here & Now | Member 17130, Joined Sep 23, 2003 | 1710 posts

Posted: 2005-04-12 19:25

Dude....

Are you sure you're at the right place for a person of your political beliefs??
- - - - - - - -
I suppose the guidelines are that Bush is always wrong, and anyone agreeing with him one any given issue is guilty of ChimpThought = ThoughtCrime.

Well Bit, it should comfort you that of Jesus' 13 apostles only one died a natural death, the others died in interesting ways in places as far flung as India (Thomas) and Iran (Thaddeus).

It might also disturb these folks that the European Parliament has voted by a huge margin to recommend that the PMOI/MEK resistance organization should be removed from the terrorist list, in large part because of the tyrannical nature of the IRI regime [another thread on this forum].

As a counter-demonstrator was assaulted in Paris recently, he was holding a sign that said "Sometimes the Cowboy is Right".
_________________
The Sun Is Rising In The West!Soon It Will Shine on All of Iran!

[BitWhys]

LOL

Chimpthought!

yeah they're quite the crew.

check it out. someone's sabatoging my nickname.
_________________
"Riding the SNAFU wav(e)"