|
This part:'Iran has come a long way. Exactly a century ago,
when the whole of Asia was still living in dark ages, this nation
began its eventful journey to the modern world of human dignity,
seeking social equality, politic al integrity and economic prosperity.' refers to the first Iranian parliamentary revolution in 1905 ( American missionaries who assisted that endeavor are still honored in Iran)
thr 093
Iran-US-Bush /POL/
Scholar slams Bush for calling Iran an `axis of evil' state
London, Feb 5, IRNA -- A London-based Iranian scholar has lashed out
at the US President George W. Bush for accusing Iran of supporting
terrorism.
Pirouz Mojtahed-Zadeh, Ph.D. researcher in political geography, in
a letter addressed to President Bush regretted that while the IRI
President speaks of `dialogue among civilisations' with the hope of
promoting harmony among nations, his American counterpart resorts to
threats of war and slander which can only increase the possibility of
`clash of civilisations'.
In his `state of the union' address of Tuesday (29 January),
President Bush said that Iraq, North Korea and Iran were `axis of the
evil.' In his s subsequent speeches the following days Bush said 'a
nation is terrorist if it harbors or supports terrorists', clearly
referring to the people of Iran.
'The question here is why such a remark from the President of the
United States? Some may suggest it is because this time Washington has
targeted Iran to play the role of the imaginary foe, a new `evil
empire', to justify flexing military muscles to make George Bush
Senior's old dream of global domination under the pretext of his New
World Order a reality. Others may suggest that it is because Ariel
Sharon's supporters in US Congress and their collaborators in the
administration like Mr. Wolfewitz and Richard Pearl have succeeded in
securing control of thoughts in the Oval Office as well. There
might be an electioneering reason and the intention of exploiting the
September 11 tragedy for election success by insulting and threatening
other nations, one cannot help finding th is whole exercise below the
dignity that is meant to be attached to the office of the President of
the United States.
'In your remarks if you had Iran's domestic affairs in mined, let
us not make mistake that Iran is not Afghanistan or Iraq to have been
created by former British Empire for the geostartegic needs of the
time and can be played with by other powers whenever desired. Iran is
a nation of about 70 million with a very long history of civilization
and substantial cultural influence in the region. As a nation state
in the modern era, Iran has come a long way. Exactly a century ago,
when the whole of Asia was still living in dark ages, this nation
began its eventful journey to the modern world of human dignity,
seeking social equality, politic al integrity and economic prosperity.
In this long journey, Iran has experienced many ups and downs, but
never succumbed to the indignity of accepting outside interests
deciding for its destiny.
'In your remarks Mr. President, you spoke of the `unelected few'
without clarifying whether you meant to describe all members of
Iran's political establishment as the `unelected few' or you wanted
to imply distinction between the elected and unelected ones. In any
event such matters should remain the concern of the Iranians alone.
Whether the Iranians are for or against the ruling regime, or should
they demand a more democratic definition of the role of the
non-elected position of Velayat-e Faqih (guardianship of
jurisprudence) it is a ma matter only for the people of Iran to
debate. Even in more detailed political developments, if the Iranians
want a more reliable process of discerning suitability of candidates
in the election system, it is their right and their prerogative.
'When accusing Iran of `exporting terrorism' you might have meant
to refer to Iran's support for the Palestinian groups. Should this be
the reason for the outburst, then you have done away with your promise
in the aftermath of September 11 that your government would adopt a
more balanced approach in its Middle East policies. IRI authorities
may need to observe more vigorously their undertaking that 'though
they are against the peace process, they would not actively interfere
in it', but labelling any sympathy with those who strive to defend
their homes as supporting terrorism does not represent a just and
balanced approach.
'The Israelis may of course want to have it both ways: supporting
certain Palestinian groups to rival certain others when it suites
them, and labelling the same as `terrorists' when no longer they need
them. Whether these Palestinian groups can be described as `freedom
fighters' or as `terrorists' should be a matter of impartial debate
by the international community.
'Certainly if it was left to the Palestinians or Israelis to
decide, the outcome would not be but one-sided, prejudicial to the
other side, and unacceptable, let alone threatening Iran for
supporting the Palestinians on the basis of such a one-sided view.'
KS/KS
End
::irna 21:53
|
|