[Peace-discuss] Re: Interview With President of Iran

[megminer at alexia.lis.uiuc.edu]

Someone asked for a copy of this at last night's meeting.  I found it on another listserv this morning.
 
: November 10, 2001
: 
: TEXT
: Interview With President Khatami
: 
: The following is the full text of President Mohammad Khatami's interview 
: with The New York Times on Nov. 9,2001, as translated jointly by The New 
: York Times and the United Nations Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
: 
: Q: Iran is an Islamic republic, a theocracy. Afghanistan is a theocracy.  
: Yet the mentalities are different and American audiences may not
: understand the differences between your version of Islamic rule and the
: Taliban's version of Islamic rule. Please explain the differences.
: 
: A: I think that the differences are very clear and we don't really need to
: elaborate too much about them. In this world today, we must understand
: that humanity requires freedom and demands progress and development so one
: cannot have a view of the world that limits the freedom of humanity,
: including in the realm of governance.
: 
: Democracy is a principle accepted by the world today although even from
: the western perspective democracy has its own problems but humanity in its
: history has reached the conclusion that democracy is perhaps the best and
: t least costly system by which humanity can live in peace with each other  
: Democracy requires freedom as well as freedom of expression and freedom of
: understanding various points of view. Therefore democracy requires
: governments that are empowered by the will of the people. In order to
: promote religion in our days we must make it compatible with this
: understanding.
: 
: In the context of Islam itself we have a similar opinion about mankind a
: person that has the freedom to express what he wants. Our constitution
: explicitly states that absolute power belongs to God and it is God that
: has made man the ruler of his fate. Nothing and no one can take this right
: away from humans. This is a view of Islam which results in a system based
: on the rule of the people, a free system, a democratic one, and a system
: based on the rule of laws which themselves have been accepted and approved
: by the people.
: 
: We believe our country has suffered from imperialism and from dependence
: on foreigners, and for certain, in such a situation we must be
: independent.	Therefore, the kind of Islam that we offer is the kind of
: Islam that leads us to independence. To remain on the scene, we need to be
: powerful. And to be powerful means we need progress and progress is based
: on scientific and technical achievements as well as other developments. We
: have to pave the way for this kind of progress and development in various
: fields. This is what we aim at achieving. No doubt in achieving our goal
: of having an optimal system of government based on the will of the people
: as well as on ethical values.
: 
: We face problems, numerous problems, but regardless of these problems we
: maintain that we have made good progress in our society and I think that
: following the Islamic Revolution could create a good model for all Islamic
: countries that want to have their religion but at the same time move
: towards further democracy and freedom.
: 
: Q. So Taliban rule is not one that has the model you say you have in Iran.
: 
: A. Allow me to talk about concepts not groups, individuals. We're talking
: about how we interpret our understanding of religion and democracy. God
: willing, in the interfaith dialogue that we have for today I'm going to
: say that there are two ways to look at religion. One is the extremist,
: narrow-minded approach to religion which is inhumane and the second is an
: interpretation of Islam based on wisdom. God willing, as God has wanted
: for us, all of us, Christians Jews, Muslims, everyone, can interpret
: religion in a free manner based on wisdom and foresight to protect our
: religion as well as to provide peace for our region, God willing.
: 
: Q. Would you explain your vision for a future Afghanistan. Is there a role
: for the Taliban and is there a role for Zahir Shah?
: 
: A. Afghanistan is a very complex issue. For many years we've been warning
: the world community about the situation there not only for the country as
: well as for its people and the problems that will arise from that part of
: the world for the rest of us. But it has been overlooked. We're still
: continuing our warnings.
: 
: We're saying that wide-ranging military attacks on Afghanistan would
: actually lead to more suffering and pain for the people of Afghanistan and
: will not yield to results we are looking for following the tragic
: terrorist attacks on September 11. There has been a lot of sympathy to
: fight against terrorism. But if the suffering and pain of the people of
: Afghanistan continues as a result of war, these sympathies may wane and
: wither away slowly and the terrorists may even take advantage of this.
: 
: When we're talking about Afghanistan we're thinking about two processes.  
: The first process which is the main one is to pave the way for the people
: of Afghanistan from all groups and ethnic minorities to engage in
: decision-making for the future of their country to create an
: administration based on the will of the people. But we're talking about
: people who are suffering, who are in pain, who are displaced. They may not
: be ready to engage in this process at this point.
: 
: We believe in a transitional period that will be created by the
: international community under the sponsorship and supervision of the
: United Nations so that all groups in Afghanistan based on their
: representation, their weight in society can participate and engage in the
: transitional government and this government, this transitional system
: allow me to call it, would pave the way for the ultimate engagement of the
: people of Afghanistan.
: 
: I also hope the people who have victimized these poor people, those who
: have created such pain and suffering also be stopped and what matters is
: that the final government in Afghanistan should not be forced from
: outside.  It should be a form of government that engages all groups, all
: ethnic minorities, and we hope that at least Afghanistan after twenty
: years of displacement and of poverty of suppression and war and aggression
: in the near future we will see peace and stability in that country both
: for the sake pf the people of Afghanistan and for the sake of us, as
: neighbors of this country.
: 
: We have suffered a lot of pain because of the situation in Afghanistan in
: terms of drug trafficking and in terms of security so I am looking forward
: to that peace and security.
: 
: 
: Q. You are supporting the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan in a military
: campaign. You are supporting them with money, with weapons, with advisors
: on the ground. The U.S. military campaign is also working with the
: Northern Alliance. Could you describe in detail your assistance to the
: Northern Alliance. Aren't you indeed already involved in the military
: camp?
: 
: A. You know that Afghanistan has a legitimate interim government right
: now.	The Northern Alliance is present in the U.N., headed by Rahbani and
: has embassies in many countries. If there is a relationship between us it
: is between us and a legitimate government.
: 
: When it comes to the future of Afghanistan we need to be more
: comprehensive than we are now. We have not denied that as far as we could,
: based on our own security and the interests of the people of Afghanistan,
: we have cooperated with the Northern Alliance. And I believe that we have
: been able to converge on issues.
: 
: Hopefully we can make that turn into the formation of a more widely
: accepted transitional government. Obviously there might be some
: differences of opinion about the nature of that transitional government.
: in the negotiations of the 6 +2 forum [a United Nations sponsored forum on
: Afghanistan] in addition to our negotiations with the U.N. and with the
: U.N. representative, we have tried to reach more consensus on the future
: and we are continuing our cooperation with all nations interested in the
: future of Afghanistan. So we're looking forward to more comprehensive
: cooperation in this area.
: 
: Q. But you don't deny Iran's involvement in the military campaign in your
: support of the Northern Alliance?
: 
: A. Of course the military strife is inside Afghanistan between various
: factions in Afghanistan. I believe that many countries have tried to be
: involved and intervene in their affairs. We have not in any way been
: directly involved militarily with any group in Afghanistan.
: 
: Q. If you look at Afghanistan, both you and the United States support the
: Northern Alliance. Both you and the United States oppose the Taliban. You
: are both sitting down, your diplomats are sitting down in Geneva actually
: discuss planning for the future of Afghanistan. Does this mean you are
: moving towards a broader dialogue with the United States?
: 
: A. For the time being the most immediate matter is the question of
: Afghanistan and perhaps a more important question which led to the
: military attack against Afghanistan, that is the barbaric attacks of
: September 11 event which we condemned.
: 
: What matters to all of us now is to first find more logical ways of
: fighting terrorism. We do not want to resort to actions that might in the
: end actually help the terrorists in a way that they would take advantage
: of them. We also believe that the military attack against Afghanistan must
: stop as soon as possible while at the same time we need global consensus
: to find ways of fighting terrorism, its root causes. This can only be done
: with mutual agreement so Afghanistan is the major issue. We have to free
: people in Afghanistan from their suffering and pain, hopefully we will see
: a viable government in that country, a stable one and we hope that we can
: do as much as possible and play a role in this area.
: 
: Q. Some members of your parliament have called for dialogue and
: normalization with the United States. How do you see the evolution of
: relations with the United States with the Bush administration?
: 
: A. Your question is repetitive and naturally as the situation does not
: change substantively, the answer to that question will be a repetition of
: what I have said. And I don't think it would appeal to your readers.
: 
: Q. As a former journalist you are very aware of readers.
: 
: A. You know well that there are historical reasons for the disagreements
: between Iran and the United States. We need to change this atmosphere and
: we need to of course address the problems as well. In my previous
: interviews I said we need to take practical steps. It is not the US that
: has been a victim of this, it is Iran. We too have been victimized. So we
: have the right to expect to both see changes and practical steps in this
: regard and also be anxious that these changes do occur.
: 
: Until then, maybe our nation and our government do not feel ready to risk
: something else. In my previous talk right before you I said that in the
: previous administration some positive steps were taken. Had they continued
: in some way, it could have been very positive for our relations. The
: previous administration explicitly said that in regards to Iran, they had
: made mistakes and that their policy was faulty.
: 
: It wasn't explicitly said that they supported and actually conducted the
: 1953 coup in Iran or did not explicitly express their involvement in the
: Iran-Iraq war, nor have explicitly talked about sanctions. But the
: expectation was that owning up to the fact that U.S. policy towards Iran
: and the Middle East was faulty would be the first step. This first step
: would then be followed up with practical steps, which unfortunately did
: not happen, and we are still under the same kinds of pressure and seeing
: the same accusations against Iran.
: 
: It is obvious that in order for your question to not be repetitive and for
: my answer to not be repetitive either, and for your readers to not be
: bored, conditions need to change and then we can say newer things. So,
: they also need to add to that the policy of the United States towards Iran
: and the Middle East is wrong and this would be a practical step.
: 
: Unfortunately it has not been taken yet. We need to see more of that but
: what we see instead right now is the same pressures, the same accusations
: against Iran so in order to not repeat the questions and answers we need
: to change the situation so that we can talk about newer things.
: 
: Q. The United States claims that Iran is a state that sponsors terrorism.  
: What do you say in response to that accusation?
: 
: A. This is one of the injustices of the United States against us. To see a
: change in our ties, we have to change this perception. No! Iran is one of
: the biggest victims of terrorism. To this day terrorists are resorting to
: all sorts of acts against Iran. They attack us, they target us, we have
: suffered a lot from terrorism. We also believe there is state terrorism.  
: There are few governments that would come out and say we actually kill our
: opponents. But we know that these things do happen, these are things that
: we see in the world. At the same time a lot of these governments. are
: legitimized. They are supported by the West or in some form but at the
: same time they accuse us of supporting terrorism, of state terrorism. I
: hope we can change these perceptions in reality. Do you know of a state
: that officially says we will assassinate our opponents and then goes and
: assassinates them? But in Israel we see this on a daily basis and
: unfortunately, those movements and governments are accepted and supported  
: And then a country, a people, a government that itself is a victim of
: terrorism is accused of supporting terrorists and terrorism. We hope this
: mentality changes and that along with it we will see practical changes.
: 
: Q. With all due respect in your speech today you say you have proposed a
: meeting of heads of state to combat terrorism, yet it is also claimed that
: several leading perpetuators of terrorism either are or have recently been
: living in Iran. Among them are Ahmed Ibrahim al-Mughassil, Hassan
: Izz-al-Din, Ali Atwa and Imad Mughniyah. President Clinton even wrote you
: a letter asking for your help in apprehending those who murdered 19
: Americans in Saudi Arabia in 1996. Could you explain your country's
: reluctance to surrender these people?
: 
: A. As the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, I want to state that
: under no conditions will we allow any terrorists, as individuals or groups
: to enter Iran. There are no terrorists in Iran.
: 
: The list that you gave me requires evidence and proof to show first of all
: that they were engaged in acts of terrorism. Just to claim that they were
: is not enough. We too can claim that many groups and people are terrorists
: and have resorted to acts of terrorism, what matters is the evidence that
: we put forth. The list that you provided, those people are not present in
: Iran, they are not in Iran, and we believe we are responsible to
: participate in a world coalition to combat terrorism under the supervision
: of the U.N. based on a fair and rational definition of terrorism. My
: suggestion at the U.N. as you will hear is to create a coalition of peace
: based on justice that would replace the coalition of war.
: 
: I believe that terrorism itself is a kind of war. War must not create war  
: We must find other means to put an end to war. Iran has been a victim of
: terrorism itself and not a supporter of it. The issue about Mr. Clinton,
: the one that you mentioned, we had no involvement in the Khobar tower
: incident. The other side in this issue is Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has
: said as well, that the claim made by the United States has no backing by
: evidence, we were not involved at all and we don't know of the people who
: were involved either.
: 
: They are not in Iran so rest assured that if we find terrorists, we will
: fight them.
: 
: Q. Mr. President, why is someone like Osama bin Laden, why is his message
: so powerful in the Islamic world? Why does it resonate on the streets of
: the Muslim world?
: 
: A. I don't believe that his message really resonates strongly in the
: Muslim world. Public opinion in the Muslim world in general wants peace,
: security, and stability and the right to defend their religion and their
: freedom. As long as there is oppression, suppression, as long as people
: are humiliated and no one hears their cries, we will have a kind of
: feeling among the humiliated and desperate people, a kind of feeling among
: them that make them susceptible to extremist views or perceptions. It is
: therefore incumbent upon all of us to address the root causes, the issue
: of poverty to eliminate that, to assist people in pain. Once we assist
: them, we can help humanity but if we don't there will be people who will
: endanger themselves and humanity so this is a threat to all of us, we need
: to eliminate extremist statements in all directions. We need to need to
: combat desperation, injustice and oppression so that extremists' words and
: actions would not have a place to grow and expand.
: 
: Q. Doesn't Iran have a role in combating this message of hate in the name
: of Islam?
: 
: A. Just as the Crusades should not lead to a point of view that says
: Christianity was the reason for war, or for example, what is happening in
: Ireland or in the Basque region should not be blamed on Christianity. If
: there are extremist movements and terrorist movements around the world, we
: should not blame Islam for that. Islam brings a message of peace for
: humanity.
: 
: I think there are dirty hands involved that are trying to take advantage
: of this situation. They want to stir negative feelings against the west in
: the Muslim world and against the Muslims in the West. So we must strongly
: prevent a clash among civilizations and religions and the spread of
: hatred.  We need to prevent the spread of this hatred which results from
: wrong perceptions, and we need to refocus our attention on the people who
: terrorize humanity.
: 
: Q. What specifically would you like to see the Bush administration do in
: the Middle East to try and stop the conflict there?
: 
: A. There is no solution to the problem of Palestine other than the
: official recognition of the rights of the people of Palestine, the return
: of all refugees to their land, the creation of a Palestinian state with
: its capital in Jerusalem, the recognition of the right of the people of
: Palestine, the people of Palestine regardless of whether they are Jewish,
: Christian, or Muslim, to decide their own future, and have a right to
: live, have security, and their rights given to them, is the main path to
: stable peace in the Middle East.
: 
: I hope the recent events and the things that are said that can be
: positive, that the West and the Americans are saying we must pay more
: attention to Palestine and Palestinians, I hope this is not merely a
: tactic to go through this particular stage but that it is a strategy, in
: any case, if refuges and people who have been repressed and humiliated are
: not recognized, the problems in that area will not be solved.
: 
: Q. Is this compatible with the existence of the state of Israel?
: 
: A. We of course do not recognize Israel and we believe that the land of
: Palestine has been usurped. But of course it is up to the people of
: Palestine themselves and it is they who have to decide what to do. I think
: that whatever all the Palestinians want must be accepted by the entire
: world.
: 
: Q. Iran's official position on Israel is opposed to its very existence.  
: Several Iranian academics have recently floated the idea that Israel
: should alter its opposition to be more in line with some Arab countries
: which oppose Israel's occupation of Palestinian lands but accept its right
: to exist. Could you accept this?
: 
: A. We take a historical view on this issue, which is how and what events
: occurred for the state of Israel to be created, the vast repression, the
: killings, the terrors, the displacement of people from their own land, so
: from a human perspective, we believe a government founded on terror and
: killings is not an acceptable and good government. And of course as I
: said, in Palestine and Israel we take no practical initiatives and our
: exact suggestion is that all Palestinians, Jews, Christians, Muslims, both
: those inside Palestine and those displaced, have the right to return to
: their land and also have the right to make decisions about their land. As
: I said it is the people of Palestine that have the last word, and
: naturally when the Palestinians themselves accept an issue, the rest of
: the world will accept it too.
: 
: Q. So if the people of Palestine accepted Israel's right to exist that
: would be acceptable to the government of Iran?
: 
: A. If the Palestinians accept this issue, while from a moral standpoint we
: believe that a government founded on oppression is not an acceptable
: government, we will respect the wishes of the Palestinian nation.
: 
: Q. Mr. President, will you visit the site of the World Trade Center and do
: you have a message for the people of New York as you visit our country and
: our city?
: 
: A. I had seen the World Trade Center before. When I watched the tragic
: events on television I was deeply saddened. I was the first or one of the
: first heads of state who came out to express my condolences and the
: condolences of the people of Iran to the people of America. We were deeply
: saddened.
: 
: It will be terribly sad to visit that site. It is hard to see what anger
: does, the anger of the terrorists, destroys souls and lives. This anger
: was so extreme that we are unable to find the bodies, the remains of many
: of those victims. This is terribly saddening. I would like to once again
: use this occasion to express my deepest condolences to the nation of
: America and to the families of the survivors including the Iranians who
: lost their lives in that tragic event. We hope that the bitter event of
: September 11 will be the last and that we will see peace.
: 
: Q. Does Iran have evidence that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda were behind
: the attacks through its own intelligence services? Do you accept that
: these were the perpetuators?
: 
: A. We have not been given and clear or written evidence in this regard.  
: Some activities attached to these people or these groups have carried out
: acts that no doubt can be interpreted as acts of terrorism. But in this
: particular respect we have no evidence except this speculation that has
: been made and statements made about having evidence. We haven't seen it
: ourselves but no doubt extremist groups who resort to acts of terrorism
: and want to solve problems based on coercion, are the kind of people who
: can easily resort to future acts of terrorism. That's quite
: understandable.
: 
: Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company
: 
: