Reading Mahmoud in Tehran: Ahmadinejad Engages (and Wins) in US Television Interview

Video and Transcript: Iran’s Ahmadinejad on ABC’s This Week (26 April)

ABC News, after its posturing earlier in the week over the Roxana Saberi case, finally broadcast the substance of its interview with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad yesterday.

This time, the signals are significant. Behind the rhetoric, Ahmadinejad made clear: no short-term breakthroughs, primarily because of June's Presidential elections, but the path is being laid for long-term talks. And, in preparation for those talks, Iran is reshaping the issues on the table: the priority is not Tehran's nuclear programme but a meaningful approach --- in which Tehran plays an accepted and significant role --- towards Palestinian statehood.

Even the fact that an interview took place carries weight. The last time that a crew from a major US network visited Iran was last autumn, for NBC's Today Show, and their stay did not include an audience with the President. The granting of the visas to ABC, plus 30 minutes face-time with Ahmadinejad, is an acceptance of engagement.

Which was not to say that the President was going to make the process easy. Responding to ABC's framing of Obama offering "a new relationship", Ahmadinejad gave the assurance, "We are calling for peace and security for all," but then put the burden of symbolic concession on the US:

In the past 29 years, different U.S. administrations have opposed the Iranian people. Now they say that we have given up that enmity....An administration which, up until yesterday, was saying that I’m going to kill you, and today says that I’m not going to kill you?

Ahmadinejad backed this up with the clever reminder that he had made the first step to reconciliation: "I sent a congratulatory message to Mr. Obama [when he was elected President]....I am yet to receive a response."

Doing this, the President could present an Iran biding its time to consider the possible change in US approach. On the proposed direct talks over Iran's nuclear programme, he said, "Planning needs to be made, and some timetables need to be set....Many new issues have been added to the agenda, so to speak, and we are reconsidering our proposed package."

ABC's George Stephanopoulos, turned into a teenager wanting his allowance now, begged, "Why not sit down right now with the U.S. and the European powers to discuss the nuclear program?.... Tell me your proposal....I just want to know, when will Iran sit down with the United States and the European powers to discuss the nuclear program?", which only reinforced Ahmadinejad's play-it-cool position:

We should just have a clear-cut framework for talks. The agenda should be clear.

This, however, was not just a case of a President stalling or holding the line. Turning around Stephanopoulos' bumbling presentation of the standard charges of Iran's anti-Israel policy and Holocaust denial, Ahmadinejad put forth Tehran's defence of rights and a just solution for Palestine:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Why do you insist on questioning the Holocaust even when it’s established as an historical fact, and even when politicians here in Iran worry that that kind of talk isolates Iran?

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): I’m going to talk about that as well. Don’t be hasty. I have posed two questions over the Holocaust. My first question was, if the Holocaust happened, where did it take place? In Europe. Why should they make amends in Palestine? The Palestinian people had no role to play in the Holocaust. They had no role, for that matter, in the Second World War. Racism happened in Europe, but amends are made in Palestine?

Perhaps more significantly, Ahmadinejad knocked back Stephanopoulos' next attempt clubbing --- Iran will never recognise Israel --- with this response:

AHMADINEJAD: we are asking for the legal rights of the Palestinian people. What we are saying is that the Palestinian people, like other peoples, have the right to determine their own fate....Nobody should interfere. Allow the Palestinian people to decide for themselves. Whatever they decide....

STEPHANOPOULOS: If the Palestinians sign an agreement with Israel, will Iran support it?

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): Whatever decision they take is fine with us. We are not going to determine anything. Whatever decision they take, we will support that. We think that this is the right of the Palestinian people.

It will be interesting to see how the President's interview is received within Iran, but my reading is that he successfully balanced the need to hold open the door to US-Iran engagement while putting off any substantive discussions during his bid for re-election. Washington undoubtedly recognises this; the immediate issue is whether it accepts this and holds off on any pressure against Tehran.

Then the interesting part begins. As Ahmadinejad tries to hold office, the US is making its (so far stuttering) move for a Middle Eastern reconfiguration in which Iran looks in from the outside --- that is why the Obama Administration needs a substantive advance on both Israel-Syria and Israel-Palestine talks.

Ahmadinejad's most important message, therefore, was: You can't keep us out. And, indeed, if the US makes little progress before July --- whether or not he still is President of Iran --- he might be right.

Video and Transcript: Iran's Ahmadinejad on ABC's This Week (26 April)

Latest Post: Ahmadinejad Engages (and Wins) in US Television Interview

VIDEO (PART 1 OF 2)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMwdlOk2wMw[/youtube]

VIDEO (PART 2 OF 2)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77eeYWxbqWQ[/youtube]

SPEAKERS: GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, HOST

PRES. MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD, IRAN

STEPHANOPOULOS: During the last administration, no other world leader next to you was as critical of the American administration as [Venezuelan President Hugo] Chavez. Yet, look at this picture right here. Is this a picture that you would like to see, you and President Obama? And what do you think the Iranian people would think of you and President Obama meeting, shaking hands, engaging in conversation?

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): Well, we are calling for peace and security for all. We would like international relations to be based on just this and friendship. Wherever a hostile relationship turns into friendship, that would make us happy.

STEPHANOPOULOS: President Obama says that’s exactly what he wants right now. He says he wants a new beginning in a relationship with Iran. He sent a message to the Iranian people on the occasion of the Novruz holiday, where he called Iran a great civilization.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: Very best wishes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: He talked about the Islamic Republic of Iran, where he signaled that he wasn’t interested in regime change, and he talked about his vision for the United States/Iranian relationship.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: It’s a future where the old divisions are overcome, where you and all of your neighbors and the wider world can live in greater security and greater peace.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you share that vision?

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): You need to appreciate that the American administration, 29 years ago, unilaterally cut its relations with Iran. In the past 29 years, different U.S. administrations have opposed the Iranian people.

Now they say that we have given up that enmity. That’s fine. We have welcomed such comments. But an administration which, up until yesterday, was saying that I’m going to kill you, and today says that I’m not going to kill you?

STEPHANOPOULOS: So there is change, though. What will Iran do in response? The United States has said that the United States is ready to talk with Iran and the other great powers -- Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China. Are you prepared to sit down at those talks without preconditions?

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): Well, previously, first of all, I sent a congratulatory message to Mr. Obama. This was a major decision, although the Iranian people were very much dismayed with the conduct of previous U.S. administrations, and I was criticized here at home in Iran.

Nevertheless, I did that. I am yet to receive a response.

With the European group and the American group, we will talk. We have announced as much, that we are going to negotiate. But...

STEPHANOPOULOS: When will you join those talks?

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): ... again, based on justice and mutual respect.

Well, after everything is said and done -- well, planning needs to be made, and some timetables need to be set. We believe in talking, in negotiating, based on sincerity and respect and justice. But the U.S. administration severed its relations with us.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But that was the past administration. And now President Obama said he is prepared to sit down, along with the other European powers, without any preconditions. And it sounds to me as if you’re suggesting now Iran is the one with the preconditions, echoing, in fact, the policy of the last U.S. administration.

Are there preconditions or not? Why not sit down right now with the U.S. and the European powers to discuss the nuclear program?

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): Last year we proposed a package of proposals for talks. Everyone knows that in this year many changes, developments have unfolded on the international stage. Many new issues have been added to the agenda, so to speak, and we are reconsidering our proposed package. We are adding new issues to the realm, if you will, of the talks. And we are going to make that public as soon as possible. We are always ready to talk...

STEPHANOPOULOS: Why not now?

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): ... with no preconditions.

What should I do?

STEPHANOPOULOS: Tell me your proposal.

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): Should I share that with you, sir?

STEPHANOPOULOS: The world, American viewers.

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): We are going to do that officially. We think that we should prepare the ground so that all states and peoples can have their say.

We are ready to contribute to international security, peace, and global friendship and global disarmament.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You say you want to talk on the basis of respect. The president has expressed his respect for the Islamic Republic of Iran, and he said he is ready to talk. I just want to know, when will Iran sit down with the United States and the European powers to discuss the nuclear program?

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): Well, the nuclear issue of ours is a special issue. We think that the nuclear issue needs to be resolved in the context of the agency and regulations.

We are just utilizing our legal rights.

I have no reservations when it comes to talking.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So you’re ready to talk without preconditions?

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): No, no. We should just have a clear-cut framework for talks. The agenda should be clear.

But so far we have only heard this from the media, the newspapers, that they’re interested in talking. And obviously, they’re going to receive a response from the papers.

I was fully expecting Mr. Obama to participate in the Geneva Conference. What issue is more important than racial discrimination? The United Nations has organized...

STEPHANOPOULOS: Yes, sir, since you bring that up...

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): ... such a conference. I don’t think or believe that Mr. Obama supports racism. However, the gentleman should have been there and should have condemned outright racism and racial discrimination.

This is a good possibility for talks and cooperation. We should all cooperate with one another to help racism to go away from the international...

STEPHANOPOULOS: What he doesn’t agree...

(CROSSTALK)

STEPHANOPOULOS: ... with, if I may (inaudible), is the idea that Israel is a racist state.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: I found many of the statements that President Ahmadinejad made, particularly those directed at Israel, to be appalling.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: And, frankly, many in the West look at your speech in Geneva, and they wonder whether you really do want a better relationship with the West when you deny that there was a Holocaust when it’s an established historical fact. They believe that you’re not showing respect for the West and the beliefs of the West.

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): Well, I was talking against the Zionist regime in the racism conference. The first proviso for successful talks would be to give the other party the freedom to speak. Mr. Obama has the right to have his own opinion, obviously.

He is ready to express his points of view. But the Geneva conference had been organized to combat racism, to oppose racism. My point of view is that the Zionist regime is the manifestation of racism.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Yet when you speak at that conference, Western diplomats walk out. Even the U.N. secretary-general condemns your remarks.

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): That’s fine. That’s fine. They are free to have their own points of view. Why do they want to deny me my ideas?

STEPHANOPOULOS: Why do you insist on questioning the Holocaust even when it’s established as an historical fact, and even when politicians here in Iran worry that that kind of talk isolates Iran?

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): I’m going to talk about that as well. Don’t be hasty. I have posed two questions over the Holocaust. My first question was, if the Holocaust happened, where did it take place? In Europe. Why should they make amends in Palestine? The Palestinian people had no role to play in the Holocaust. They had no role, for that matter, in the Second World War. Racism happened in Europe, but amends are made in Palestine?

My second question about the Holocaust. If this is indeed a historical event, why do they want to turn it into a holy thing? And nobody should be allowed to ask any questions about that? Nobody study it, research it, permitted to research it. Why?

STEPHANOPOULOS: It’s the most studied historical event in history. AHMADINEJAD (through translator): If this is a historically documented event, why do Western states show so much sensitivity towards a historical event?

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let’s talk about...

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): (inaudible) the lid to be taken off.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let’s talk about what’s happening right now.

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): I am asking them to permit studies.

STEPHANOPOULOS: President Obama has appointed Senator George Mitchell to help negotiate a peace between Israel and Palestine. Do you support that effort?

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): Well, we are asking for the legal rights of the Palestinian people. What we are saying is that the Palestinian people, like other peoples, have the right to determine their own fate. Muslims, Christians and Jews alike. We should -- they should allow them to engage in elections, free elections and a free referendum to determine for themselves their own fate. We must not repeat the mistakes of the past.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you believe President Obama’s new effort is repeating the mistakes of the past?

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): Well, I am yet to have a clear idea about Mr. Obama’s Palestinian policy. However, the gentleman’s support of the massacre of Gazans and support for the criminals who were responsible for that atrocity was a major mistake on the part of the gentleman.

I think that if Mr. Obama wants to help with the Palestinian issue, he has to move in accordance with justice, fair play. And also, again, I am calling for the right for the Palestinians to determine their own fate.

STEPHANOPOULOS: If the Palestinian people negotiate an agreement with Israel and the Palestinian people vote and support that agreement, a two-state solution, will Iran support it?

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): Nobody should interfere. Allow the Palestinian people to decide for themselves. Whatever they decide.

STEPHANOPOULOS: That’s all I’m asking. So if they choose a two- state solution...

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): It is the right of all human beings.

STEPHANOPOULOS: ... with Israel, that’s fine?

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): Well, what we are saying is that you and us should not determine the course of things beforehand. Allow the Palestinian people to make their own decisions.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But if they choose a two-state solution, if they choose to recognize Israel’s existence, Iran will as well?

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): Let me approach this from another perspective. If the Palestinian people decide that the Zionist regime needs to leave all Palestinian lands, would the American administration accept their decision?

STEPHANOPOULOS: I’ll ask them. But I’m asking you if they decide to say Israel should exist and (inaudible) Israel, would Iran support that?

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): Can I ask you questions as well?

STEPHANOPOULOS: I’m not part of the American government. I’ll put that question to the American government, but I have a question for you as president of Iran.

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): That’s fine.

STEPHANOPOULOS: If the Palestinians sign an agreement with Israel, will Iran support it?

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): Whatever decision they take is fine with us. We are not going to determine anything. Whatever decision they take, we will support that. We think that this is the right of the Palestinian people.

However, we fully expect other states to do so as well. The U.S. administration, European governments. The right to determine their fate by the Palestinians should be respected by all of them.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me ask you one final question. You are up for election on June 12th. If you are successful in this reelection, what is your hope for the Iranian-U.S. relationship over the next four years?

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): Well, Iran and U.S. relations are dependent on the decision taken by the U.S. administration. Mr. Obama sends us messages of friendship, but in the communique issued by the five plus one, enmity can be seen. So this is a dual route, if you will.

I have sent a message to Mr. Obama myself. We welcome change. We are praying to the Almighty for that. And we will help to bring change about.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Mr. President, thank you very much for your time.

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): Thank you. Good luck. And please convey my regards to the American people.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

STEPHANOPOULOS: President Ahmadinejad in Iran.

Scott Lucas in The Guardian: Obama Administration's Battle over Iran and Israel

Since I wrote this for The Guardian, there have been further developments, notably Israel's stepped-up campaign to bump Washington into a hard-line Iran-first policy. The efforts have been more political than military, notably Tel Aviv's threat that it will not enter meaningful negotiations over Palestine unless the US commits to further pressure upon Tehran.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton struck back yesterday, telling Israel to back off on the threat. That indicates that the Obama line of engagement is still prevailing within the Administration, as does the silence of Petraeus and Mullen over the last two weeks.

Forgive the somewhat dramatic headline, which led to a lot of irrelevant comments. The issue is not whether the US backs an Israeli airstrike but whether it suspends the gradual but clear move towards discussions with Iran.

To bomb, or not to bomb, Iran

Just over a month ago, President Barack Obama broke a 30-year embargo on US relations with Iran: he offered goodwill not only to "Iranians" but to the country's government. Speaking on the occasion of Nowruz, the Iranian New Year, he said:

"I want you, the people and leaders of Iran, to understand the future that we seek. It's a future with renewed exchanges among our people, and greater opportunities for partnership and commerce. It's a future where the old divisions are overcome, where you and all of your neighbours and the wider world can live in greater security and greater peace."

It's no surprise that this message, given a generation of tension between Washington and Tehran, has been challenged in the US. What's more interesting is that the greatest threat to Obama's engagement comes not from media sceptics from Fox News to the Wall Street Journal or the foundations now packed with refugees from the Bush administration or even the Middle Eastern institutes putting a priority on Israeli security. No, Obama's most daunting opponents are within his own administration.

Less than two weeks after the Nowruz address, General David Petraeus, the head of the US military command overseeing Iran and the Persian Gulf, offered a far different portrayal of Iran to a Senate committee:

Iranian activities and policies constitute the major state-based threat to regional stability. … Iran is assessed by many to be continuing its pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability, which would destabilise the region and likely spur a regional arms race.

The next day Petraeus's boss, Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, visited the offices of the Wall Street Journal, which has taken a consistent editorial line against dialogue with the Iranian government. Far from supporting his president, Mullen told the newspaper: "I think we've got a problem now. ... I think the Iranians are on a path to building nuclear weapons." Not even past enemies were as menacing: "Even in the darkest days of the cold war we talked to the Soviets. … [But now] we don't have a lot of time."

What's going on here? There are clear political goals behind Obama's approach of dialogue rather than confrontation. The hope is that Iran will not challenge the US approach to Middle Easten issues, in particular Israel-Palestine and Israel-Syria talks, through its connections with Hamas and Hezbollah. An easing of political tensions in turn may remove the motive for Tehran to reverse its suspension of research and development for a nuclear weapons – as opposed to civilian nuclear energy – programme.

Yet there are also military benefits from a US-Iran rapprochement. As Obama's envoy Richard Holbrooke has made clear, a partnership with Tehran could ease the American burden in Afghanistan, especially as the troop surge is being implemented. Better relations could assist with the political transition in Iraq as the US draws down its overt military presence. Eventually, an Iranian renunciation of nuclear weapons would finally remove a significant strategic question mark in the region.

In part, the calculation of Petraeus and Mullen is that Iran cannot be trusted in these areas. For years, US commanders in Iraq have alleged that Iran has been backing the insurgency, and Petraeus has also claimed that Tehran has supported the Taliban in Afghanistan. In his testimony to the Senate committee, the general expanded this into a grand nefarious Iranian scheme:

Iran employs surrogates and violent proxies to weaken competitor states, perpetuate conflict with Israel, gain regional influence and obstruct the Middle East peace process. Iran also uses some of these groups to train and equip militants in direct conflict with US forces. Syria, Iran's key ally, facilitates the Iranian regime's reach into the Levant and the Arab world by serving as the key link in an Iran-Syria-Hezbollah-Hamas alliance and allows extremists (albeit in smaller numbers than in the past) to operate in Damascus and to facilitate travel into Iraq.

Still, in their public opposition to Obama's Iran policy, the military commanders are playing one card before all others: Israel.

Petraeus's threat to the congressmen was far from subtle: "The Israeli government may ultimately see itself so threatened by the prospect of an Iranian nuclear weapon that it would take pre-emptive military action to derail or delay it." Mullen told the Wall Street Journal: "There is a leadership in Israel that is not going to tolerate" a nuclear Iran. This was a "life or death" matter in which "the operative word is 'existential'".

Are they bluffing? If so, it's a bluff that has been coordinated with Tel Aviv. Last summer, Israel asked for but did not get George Bush's support for an airstrike on Iran. It took only six weeks for the Israelis to revive the topic with the new Obama administration: the commander of the Israeli armed forces, General Gabi Ashkenazi, visited Washington with the message "that an Israeli military strike was a 'serious' option".

While Ashkenazi was told by Obama's political advisers to put his fighter planes away, the story of Israeli military plans continues to be circulated. Only last weekend, Sheera Frenkel of The Times was fed the story: "The Israeli military is preparing itself to launch a massive aerial assault on Iran's nuclear facilities within days of being given the go-ahead by its new government."

High-level Obama officials are fighting back. Aware that a frontal assault on the popular Petraeus would be politically dangerous, they have tried to curb the "Israel will strike" campaign. Vice-president Joe Biden told CNN that new Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "would be ill-advised to do that". Perhaps more importantly, secretary of defence Robert Gates said last week that an Israeli attack would have "dangerous consequences". Reading that signal, Israeli President Shimon Peres backed away from earlier tough talk and assured: "All the talk about a possible attack by Israel on Iran is not true. The solution in Iran is not military."

So, for this moment, Petraeus and Mullen appear to have been checked. However, they and their military allies, such as General Raymond Odierno in Iraq, have been persistent in challenging Obama over strategy from Kabul to Baghdad to Jerusalem. It is their manoeuvring, rather than Tehran's jailing of an Iranian-American journalist like Roxana Saberi or even Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speeches at UN conferences, that is Barack Obama's greatest foe.

Israel-Palestine: The Political Wreck on Netanyahu's Economic Track

Related Post: Israel’s Emerging Statesmen - Avigdor Lieberman and Natan Sharansky

Enduring America's Ali Yenidunya has dropped in on our partner website, Libertas, with a guest blog on the Israeli Government's new strategy on Palestine. His prediction? Prime Minister Netanyahu, trying to block a "two-state" resolution, is only making trouble for himself with an economics-first approach:

A month ago, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu opened a conference in Jerusalem. In contrast to other high-profile meetings such as that last week with US envoy George Mitchell and in May or June with President Obama, this was a quiet affair. However, the Jerusalem Wealth Management Conference, featuring Netanyahu’s participation, was far from insignificant.

The conference’s concern was difficulties with investments in Palestine and Israel, both for individuals and for companies. Amongst those considering the matter were the Bank of Israel, the Ministry of Trade, the International Monetary Fund, the Association of Banks in Palestine, the US Embassy in Israel, the new Israel-Palestine Chamber of Commerce, and the PalTel (Palestinian Telecommunications) Group. Discussions were in three main panels: Israeli Inc. as a Grade A Destination, Israel's Investment Opportunities, and Investment in the Palestinian Economy.

This, however, was a conference with political as well as economic significance. It was no less than a forum for Prime Minister Netanyahu’s strategy towards the Israeli relationship with Palestine. In his commitment to “economic peace initiatives”, he was also drawing the line against a political two-state resolution. Netanyahu was once again declaring that peace talks could focus on building the Palestinian economy and its governing institutions, but there was no need for them to engage other issues such as settlements, refugees, the status of Jerusalem, and borders.

While there is no record to dissent from the gathered bankers, financiers, and investors to Netanyahu, the weakness --- possibly even the folly --- of his approach was clear. A progressive peace plan cannot be achievable merely through “investment”, strengthening the Palestinian economy and the economic relationship between Israel and the West Bank.

Read rest of article....

UPDATED Video and Full Transcript: Ahmadinejad Speech, Delegate Walkout at Durban Conference

Latest Post: Video and Transcript of Iran’s Ahmadinejad on ABC’s This Week (26 April)

Related Post: Durban II - Boycotts and Politics Take over Conference against Racism
Related Post: Israel’s Challenge - The Durban II Conference on World Racism

UPDATE 3: The video of President Ahmadinejad's entire speech is available via United Nations webcast (Real Player required --- hat tip to Rob)


UPDATE 2: Translation of President Ahmadinejad's speech is provided below the video (hat tip to Kiumars)

UPDATE: I have now found a 9-minute video, about half the speech, in Farsi. I cannot yet find a full video with English-language translation, but this does give a fuller impression of both the delegate walkout and the applause for Ahmadinejad.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9YdZbB9_88[/youtube]

AHMEDINEJAD: Mr. Chairman, honorable secretary general of the United Nations, honorable United Nations high commissioner for human rights, Ladies and gentleman:

We have gathered in the follow-up to the Durban conference against racism and racial discrimination to work out practical mechanisms for our holy and humanitarian campaigns.

Over the last centuries, humanity has gone through great sufferings and pains. In the Medieval Ages, thinkers and scientists were sentenced to death. It was then followed by a period of slavery and slave trade. Innocent people were taken captive in their millions and separated from their families and loved ones to be taken to Europe and America under the worst conditions. A dark period that also experienced occupation, lootings and massacres of innocent people.

Many years passed by before nations rose up and fought for their liberty and freedom and they paid a high price for it. They lost millions of lives to expel the occupiers and establish independent and national governments. However, it did not take long before power grabbers imposed two wars in Europe which also plagued a part of Asia and Africa. Those horrific wars claimed about a hundred million lives and left behind massive devastation. Had lessons been learnt from the occupations, horrors and crimes of those wars, there would have been a ray of hope for the future.

The victorious powers called themselves the conquerors of the world while ignoring or down treading upon rights of other nations by the imposition of oppressive laws and international arrangements.

Ladies and gentlemen, let us take a look at the UN Security Council which is one of the legacies of World War I and World War II. What was the logic behind their granting themselves the veto right? How can such logic comply with humanitarian or spiritual values? Would it not be inconformity with the recognized principles of justice, equality before the law, love and human dignity? Would it not be discrimination, injustice, violations of human rights or humiliation of the majority of nations and countries?

The council is the highest decision-making world body for safeguarding international peace and security. How can we expect the realization of justice and peace when discrimination is legalized and the origin of the law is dominated by coercion and force rather than by justice and the rights?

Coercion and arrogance is the origin of oppression and wars. Although today many proponents of racism condemn racial discrimination in their words and their slogans, a number of powerful countries have been authorized to decide for other nations based on their own interests and at their own discretion and they can easily violate all laws and humanitarian values as they have done so.

Following World War II, they resorted to military aggression to make an entire nation homeless under the pretext of Jewish suffering and they sent migrants from Europe, the United States and other parts of the world in order to establish a totally racist government in occupied Palestine. And, in fact, in compensation for the dire consequences of racism in Europe, they helped bring to power the most cruel and repressive racist regime in Palestine.

The Security Council helped stabilize the occupying regime and supported it in the past 60 years giving them a free hand to commit all sorts of atrocities. It is all the more regrettable that a number of Western governments and the United States have committed themselves to defending those racist perpetrators of genocide while the awakened-conscience and free-minded people of the world condemn aggression, brutalities and the bombardment of civilians in Gaza. The supporters of Israel have always been either supportive or silent against the crimes.

Dear friends, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen. What are the root causes of the US attacks against Iraq or the invasion of Afghanistan?

Was the motive behind the invasion of Iraq anything other than the arrogance of the then US administration and the mounting pressures on the part of the possessors of wealth and power to expand their sphere of influence seeking the interests of giant arms manufacturing companies affecting a noble culture with thousands of years of historical background, eliminating the potential and practical threats of Muslim countries against the Zionist regime or to control and plunder the energy resources of the Iraqi people?

Why, indeed, almost a million people were killed and injured and a few more millions were displaced? Why, indeed, the Iraqi people have suffered enormous losses amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars? And why was billions of dollars imposed on the American people as the result of these military actions? Was not the military action against Iraq planned by the Zionists and their allies in the then US administration in complicity with the arms manufacturing countries and the possessors of wealth? Did the invasion of Afghanistan restore peace, security and economic wellbeing in the country?

The United States and its allies not only have failed to contain the production of drugs in Afghanistan, but the cultivation of narcotics has multiplied in the course of their presence. The basic question is that what was the responsibility and the job of the then US administration and its allies?

Did they represent the countries of the world? Have they been mandated by them? Have they been authorized by the people of the world to interfere in all parts of the globe, of course mostly in our region? Are not these measures a clear example of egocentrism, racism, discrimination or infringement upon the dignity and independence of nations?

Ladies and gentlemen, who is responsible for the current global economic crisis? Where did the crisis start from? From Africa, Asia or from the United States in the first place then spreading across Europe and their allies?

For a long time, they imposed inequitable economic regulations by their political power on the international economy. They imposed a financial and monetary system without a proper international oversight mechanism on nations and governments that played no role in repressive trends or policies. They have not even allowed their people to oversea or monitor their financial policies. They introduced all laws and regulations in defiance of all moral values only to protect the interests of the possessors of wealth and power.

They further presented a definition for market economy and competition that denied many of the economic opportunities that could be available to other countries of the world. They even transferred their problems to others while the waves of crisis lashed back plaguing their economies with thousands of billions of dollars in budget deficit. And today, they are injecting hundreds of billions of dollars of cash from the pockets of their own people and other nations into the failing banks, companies and financial institutions making the situation more and more complicated for their economy and their people. They are simply thinking about maintaining power and wealth. They could not care any less about the people of the world and even their own people.

Mr. President, Ladies and gentlemen, Racism is rooted in the lack of knowledge concerning the root of human existence as the selected creature of God. It is also the product of his deviation from the true path of human life and the obligations of mankind in the world of creation, failing to consciously worship God, not being able to think about the philosophy of life or the path to perfection that are the main ingredients of divine and humanitarian values which have restricted the horizon of human outlook making transient and limited interests, the yardstick for his action. That is why evil's power took shape and expanded its realm of power while depriving others from enjoying equitable and just opportunities of development.

The result has been the making of an unbridled racism that is posing the most serious threats against international peace and has hindered the way for building peaceful coexistence in the entire world. Undoubtedly, racism is the symbol of ignorance which has deep roots in history and it is, indeed, the sign of frustration in the development of human society.

It is, therefore, crucially important to trace the manifestations of racism in situations or in societies where ignorance or lack of knowledge prevails. This increasing general awareness and understanding towards the philosophy of human existence is the principle struggle against such manifestations, and reveals the truth that human kind centers on the creation of the universe and the key to solving the problem of racism is a return to spiritual and moral values and finally the inclination to worship God Almighty.

The international community must initiate collective moves to raise awareness in afflicted societies where ignorance of racism still prevails so as to bring to a halt the spread of these malicious manifestations.

Dear Friends, today, the human community is facing a kind of racism which has tarnished the image of humanity in the beginning of the third millennium.

World Zionism personifies racism that falsely resorts to religions and abuses religious sentiments to hide its hatred and ugly face. However, it is of great importance to bring into focus the political goals of some of the world powers and those who control huge economic resources and interests in the world. They mobilize all the resources including their economic and political influence and world media to render support in vain to the Zionist regime and to maliciously diminish the indignity and disgrace of this regime.

This is not simply a question of ignorance and one cannot conclude these ugly phenomena through consular campaigns. Efforts must be made to put an end to the abuse by Zionists and their political and international supporters and in respect with the will and aspirations of nations. Governments must be encouraged and supported in their fights aimed at eradicating this barbaric racism and to move towards reform in current international mechanisms.

There is no doubt that you are all aware of the conspiracies of some powers and Zionist circles against the goals and objectives of this conference. Unfortunately, there have been literatures and statements in support of Zionists and their crimes. And it is the responsibility of honorable representatives of nations to disclose these campaigns which run counter to humanitarian values and principles.

It should be recognized that boycotting such a session as an outstanding international capacity is a true indication of supporting the blatant example of racism. In defending human rights, it is primarily important to defend the rights of all nations to participate equally in all important international decision making processes without the influence of certain world powers.

And secondly, it is necessary to restructure the existing international organizations and their respective arrangements. Therefore this conference is a testing ground and the world public opinion today and tomorrow will judge our decisions and our actions.

Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen, the world is going through rapid fundamental changes. Power relations have become weak and fragile. The sound of cracks in the pillars of world systems can now be heard. Major political and economic structures are on the brink of collapse. Political and security crises are on the rise. The worsening crisis in the world economy for which there can be seen no bright prospect, demonstrates the rising tide of far-reaching global changes. I have repeatedly emphasized the need to change the wrong direction through which the world is being managed today and I have also warned of the dire consequences of any delay in this crucial responsibility.

Now in this valuable event, I would like to announce to all leaders, thinkers and to all nations of the world present in this meeting and those who have a hunger for peace and economic well-being that the unjust economic management of the world is now at the end of the road. This deadlock was inevitable since the logic of this imposed management was oppressive.

The logic of collective management of world affairs is based on noble aspirations which centers on human beings and the supremacy of the almighty God. Therefore it defies any policy or plan which goes against the influence of nations. The victory of right over wrong and the establishment of a just world system has been promised by the Almighty God and his messengers and it has been a shared goal of all human beings from different societies and generations in the course of history. Realization of such a future depends on the knowledge of creation and the belief of the faithful.

The making of a global society is in fact the accomplishment of a noble goal held in the establishment of a common global system that will be run with the participation of all nations of the world in all major decision making processes and the definite root to this sublime goal.

Scientific and technical capacities as well as communication technology have created a common and widespread understanding of the world society and has provided the necessary ground for a common system. Now it is upon all intellectuals, thinkers and policy makers in the world to carry out their historical responsibility with a firm belief in this definite root.

I also want to lay emphasis on the fact that Western liberalism and capitalism has reached its end since it has failed to perceive the truth of the world and humans as they are.

It has imposed its own goals and directions on human beings. There is no regard for human and divine values, justice, freedom, love and brotherhood and it has based living on intense competition, securing individual and cooperative material interest.

Now we must learn from the past by initiating collective efforts in dealing with present challenges and in this connection, and as a closing remark, I wish to draw your kind attention to two important issues:

Firstly, it is absolutely possible to improve the existing situation in the world. However it must be noted that this could be only achieved through the cooperation of all countries in order to get the best out of the existing capacities and resources in the world. My participation in this conference is because of my conviction to these important issues as well as to our common responsibility of defending the rights of nations vis-à-vis the sinister phenomena of racism and being with you, the thinkers of the world.

Secondly, mindful of the inefficiency of the current international political, economic and security systems, it is necessary to focus on divine and humanitarian values by referring to the true definition of human beings based upon justice and respect for the rights of all people in all parts of the world and by acknowledging the past wrong doings in the past dominant management of the world, and to undertake collective measures to reform the existing structures.

In this respect, it is crucially important to rapidly reform the structure of the Security Council, including the elimination of the discriminatory veto right and to change the current world financial and monetary systems.

It is evident that lack of understanding of the urgency for change is equivalent to the much heavier costs of delay.

Dear Friends, beware that to move in the direction of justice and human dignity is like a rapid flow in the current of a river. Let us not forget the essence of love and affection. The promised future of human beings is a great asset that may serve our purposes in keeping together to build a new world.

In order to make the world a better place full of love and blessings, a world devoid of poverty and hatred, merging the increasing blessings of God Almighty and the righteous managing of the perfect human being, let us all join hands in friendship in the fulfillment of such a new world.

I thank you Mr. President, Secretary General and all distinguished participants for having the patience to listen to me. Thank you very much.