Monday, September 30, 2013

Opposition Leader Mir Hossein Mousavi Refutes Reports of a Meeting with Iran’s Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council

Opposition Leader Mir Hossein Mousavi Refutes Reports of a Meeting with Iran’s Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council
By Banooye Sabz
September 24, 2013


Monday Sept 23rd, 2013 – [Kaleme] According to reports by Kaleme, the daughters of opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi were allowed to visit with their parents on Sunday September 22nd, 2013. When asked about the recent published reports regarding a reported meeting between Mousavi and Ali Shamkhani, Mousavi and Rahnavard both reiterated that no such meeting had taken place, adding that they will inform their daughters if and when there is any contact or if a meeting or any other event takes place.

A number of media outlets falsely reported on Sunday that Ali Shamkhani, the newly appointed Secretary of the Supreme National Council had met with opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi shortly after his appointment; a report that was welcomed by the public at large, particularly given the recent atmosphere of hope and optimism. Given that Mousavi’s daughters asked their parents about the validity of these reports, Kaleme can now confirm that the reports are false.

In the 950 days since the illegal house arrest of Mir Hossein Mousavi and his wife Zahra Rahnavard, with the exception of one meeting that took place during the first couple of months after their house arrest in which administrative details regarding the house arrest were discussed under an atmosphere of threats and pressure, no other government official has met with Mir Hossein and Rahnavard. The reports in media outlets claiming that meetings were held with individuals such as Nejat, Vahid and others over the past three years are also false.

Given the liberties taken by the media outlets associated with the ruling establishment, their respective agenda and the sensitivity associated with news regarding Mousavi, the family has repeatedly requested and reiterated that anyone interested in following the news regarding Mousavi should do so through the previously introduced credible sources.

Is there a desire for change?

Although there has been no attempt by the ruling establishment to lift the house arrest and a meeting with the opposition leader has not taken place to date, there has been much talk of a push towards reestablishing trust between the ruling establishment and the people through the potential lifting of restrictions and the house arrests. In an interview with Persian Deutsche Welle, Ardeshir Amir Arjomand, senior adviser to Mir Hossein Mousavi stated: “Both Mr. Rouhani and Mr. Shamkhani have exhibited a desire for change and we are hopeful that other government institutions will also cooperate and refrain from creating obstacles. The appointment of Shamkhani (to Secretary of the Supreme Security Council) is a positive sign. He has always been a revolutionary figure who has demonstrated rationality, moderation and integrity, refraining from taking extreme or inappropriate positions.”

Why a concern for political calm and stability?

Yesterday, Ali Motahari a Parliamentarian representing Tehran referred to the continuation of the house arrests as unjustified, describing the principals behind such an action as controversial. “Based on my information, the lifting of the house arrests of Mousavi and Karroubi will require the passage of time. Security officials and officials affiliated with the Ministry of Intelligence remain skeptical and don’t fully trust the political supporters of Mousavi and Karroubi. In any event, the officials need to feel confident regarding the ability to maintain a calm political atmosphere following their potential release. One must be cognizant of the fact however, that both Mousavi and Karroubi and their supporters have insisted upon the return to political stability, rationality, upholding the law and refraining from threats, intimidation and coercion. Their support in the recent elections of Mr. Rohani and his government of “prudence and hope” played an crucial role in the current stability and hope established in our country; a position that is undoubtedly satisfactory to the supporters of the Green Movement.”, stated Motahari.

Desire for an unconditional release

Meanwhile, in an interview with Rooz Online, Hossein Marashi, the spokesperson for the The Executives of Construction Party (Hezb-e Kaargozaaraan-e Saazandegi) expressed optimism regarding the potential lifting of the house arrests of Mir Hossein Mousavi, Mehdi Karroubi and Zahra Rahnavard, referring to it as a national demand for ending the political conflict at hand. As per Marashi, the ruling establishment is wise enough to know not to set any preconditions for Mousavi, for the authorities are familiar with Mousavi’s character and realize that he will not accept any preconditions. As such any attempts to lift the house arrest will undoubtedly occur without preconditions.

Source: Kaleme http://kaleme.org/1392/07/01/klm-159346/

Banooye Sabz
http://banouyesabz.wordpress.com/2013/09/24/irans-supreme-leader-pardons-80-prisoners-ahead-of-president-rohanis-visit-to-the-u-n/

Sunday, September 29, 2013

Iran-US presidents hold telephone conversation

Iran-US presidents hold telephone conversation
President Hassan Rouhani and his American counterpart Barack Obama have held a telephone conversation as the president was wrapping up his visit to New York for the 68th annual session of the UN General Assembly.
news id: 72044 - Friday 27 September 2013 - 22:59


Dr. Rouhani received the call from Obama on Friday as he was in a car heading to the John F. Kennedy International Airport to fly back to Tehran.

The two heads of state stressed Tehran and Washington’s political will to swiftly resolve the West’s dispute over Iran’s nuclear energy program, and exchanged viewpoints on various topics, including cooperation on different regional issues.

During the telephone conversation, Dr. Rouhani and Obama also assigned Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and US Secretary of State John Kerry to quickly set the stage for cooperation between the two countries.

Presidency of The Islamic Republic of Iran
http://www.president.ir/en/72044

Dr. Rouhani's speech in a gathering convened by Asia Society and the Council on Foreign Relations in New York

Dr. Rouhani's speech in a gathering convened by Asia Society and the Council on Foreign Relations in New York
news id: 71857 - Friday 27 September 2013 - 08:50


What follows are excerpts of President Rouhani’s speech:

Ladies and Gentlemen

I am very pleased to have this opportunity to meet with you face to face and discuss a number of issues that have preoccupied all of us for many years. I believe I could talk to you today as colleagues talk to each others, as I had the same job as yours until recently, leading a think tank i.e., the Center for Strategic Research, in Tehran for many years. I believe that more interaction at the level of think tanks may help foster more accurate knowledge and understanding among the peoples and the leaders of our two countries, thus thwarting biases and false prejudgments from serving as basis for policy making.

During my years in office, the word 'moderation' and common sense will guide my Government in making and implementing policies in every field. I ran on the platform of 'moderation' and won the election by a large margin. Thus, by the virtue of the strong mandate that I received from the electorate, I am committed to operating in the framework of moderation, which calls, inter alia, for a balance between realism and the pursuit of the ideals of the Islamic Republic.

In the field of foreign policy, that brings me to discard any extreme approach in the conduct of our relations with other states. In this framework, we will seek effective and constructive understanding and interaction with the outside world, focus on mutual confidence building with our neighbors and other regional and international actors and try to orient our foreign policy towards economic development of our country. To this end we will work on easing and removing tensions in our foreign relations and strengthening our relationship with our traditional and new partners in all regions. To do so, we obviously need consensus building at the national level and setting goals transparently, which is underway.

While we will avoid confrontation and antagonism, at the same time, we will actively peruse our larger interests. As we are living in an increasingly interconnected and interdependent world, we believe that challenges could only be addressed through interaction and active cooperation among states. Global challenges require collective responses. No country by itself and in an isolated way would ever be able to effectively address the challenges it faces. Big powers are no exception to this rule as they increasingly find it difficult to address unilaterally the challenges they face either.

The rapid growth of developing and emerging economies and their ability to achieve what is called “catch-up growth” suggest that their aggregate economic weight is about to surpass that of the advanced world. Longer-term forecasts suggest that today’s developing and emerging countries are likely to account for nearly 60% of world GDP by 2030, up from around 40% in 2000, which would enable them to play a much greater role in global politics. Under such circumstances and while interdependence and competitive-cum-cooperative approach, and not enmity, is the order of the day, zero-sum-game and win-lose approach in international relations has already lost ground, as no country could pursue its interests at the expense of the others. Those who may still insist on adopting and advancing such an approach will end up imposing a lose-lose approach on themselves and others.

In such period of transition, Iran has actual and potential capabilities for enhancing its role in the world arena. Our values are increasingly taking roots. The recent election in Iran, in which close to 75 percent of the eligible voters turned out to vote, showed how what we call religious democracy is maturing. Iran's millennial culture and civilization, its exceptional Iranian state continuity rooted in millennial, its distinguished geopolitics, the characteristics that foster Iran's social stability in the midst of a region in turmoil as well as the pool of its well-educated youth, all in all, enable us to confidently look to the future and aspire to assume the major role in the global level that our people deserve; a role that no actor in global politics can ever ignore.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

We are also considering the aspects of rebuilding and improving our bilateral and multilateral relations with the countries of Europe and North America on the basis of mutual respect and equal footing. That would include working on easing off any tension, removing hurdles in the way and comprehensively developing relations, including economic ties.

We can begin by avoiding any new tension in Iran-US relationship and, at the same time, endeavor towards removing tensions that we inherited from the past; tensions that continue to mar the relations between our two countries. While we may not be able to forget the major source of mistrust and suspicion that haunted the minds of the Iranian people in their thinking about the US Governments in the past 60 years, we need however to focus rather on the current situation and look forward to the future, trying to turn the turbulent past into a beacon lighting the path ahead. As leaders, we need to rise above petty politics and lead rather than follow the various interest and pressure groups in our respective countries.

In our view, building on and cooperating about issues of interest and concern to both sides could also be another starting point, as it would be in the interest of easing off the ongoing tensions in our region as well. In so doing, we need to counter those interest groups, here in the US and there in the region, whose objective is to keep Iran issue boiling. They seek to further their goal of distracting international attention from issues directly involving themselves and precluding Iran from enhancing its status in the region and diminishing the chance for a negotiated agreement on the Iranian nuclear program and thus increase the chances of a continued Iran-US standoff.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The choice the Iranian people made in the recent election came at a time when our region is more than ever grappling with sectarianism, enmities among different groups and potential new breeding grounds and instigation for extremism and terrorism. At the same time, the recent use of chemical weapons in Syria could haunt the peoples in the region for many years to come. We believe that, under such circumstances, a voice of moderation emanating from the region would have a soothing effect and could impact the course of events in a constructive and positive way.

It is unfortunate that, as we speak, many countries in our region wrestle with domestic and/or international issues and challenges with grave repercussions for other regional and international actors. There is no doubt that they mostly consist of issues of interest and concern to many regional and global actors, who need to join force and make common efforts to address them. My country, as a major power in the region, is fully prepared to move in this direction and spare no effort to facilitate solutions to these issues, thus contributing to the maintenance of international and regional peace and stability. Under these circumstances, we consider the efforts by certain capitals aimed at portraying Iran as a threat and undermining Iran's credibility in the region and in the world are counterproductive and they should cease in the interest of peace and tranquility in the region and beyond.

I am profoundly disturbed over the spawning humanitarian tragedy in Syria and the enormous suffering that the Syrian people have incurred over the past two years and a half. Representing a people who experienced the horror of chemical weapons, my Government strongly condemned the use of chemical weapons in the ongoing conflict. I am also concerned about the breeding grounds created in parts of Syrian territory for extremist ideologies and rallying point for terrorists, which is reminiscent of the situation in another region adjacent to our eastern borders in the 1990s. This is an issue of concern, not only to us but also to many other countries, which requires cooperation and joint efforts aimed at finding a durable intro-Syrian political solution.

At the same time, we are pleased that diplomacy finally could have its way with regard to at least one aspect of Syrian crisis and sober judgment prevailed over saber rattling. We need to build on the partial headway that was made and try to reach an understanding on the fact that Syria is now a place in dire need of coordinated regional and international efforts. We are ready to contribute to peace and stability in Syria in the course of any serious negotiations among regional and extra-regional parties. Here too as in everywhere else, we need to avoid embroiling in a zero-sum game.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Allow me to conclude by briefly touching upon the Iranian peaceful nuclear energy program, which has been subject to enormous hype over the past several decades. You know that how many predictions regarding how close Iran was to acquire a nuclear bomb proved to be baseless. We can trace these predictions back to early 1990s. Throughout this period, alarmists kept trying to paint the face of Iran as a threatening one to its region and the whole world; a claim that have always turned out to be utterly false. And we all know also who the chief agitator is and what purposes are to be served by hyping this issue. We know also that this claim fluctuates in proportion to the size of the international pressure to stop the settlement activity and end the occupation of the Palestinian lands. These false alarming bells are oblivious, among other things, to the fact that the US national intelligence estimates maintained that Iran has not decided to build a nuclear weapon.

We are committed not to work towards developing and producing nuclear bomb. As enunciated in the fatwa issued by the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, we strongly believe that the development, production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are contrary to the Islamic norms. I also should reiterate that, in our view, we never contemplated the option of acquiring nuclear weapon. We believe that such weapons could undermine our national security interest, and as such, they have no place in Iran’s security doctrine and even the perception that Iran may pursue a nuclear weapons program is detrimental to our security and overall interest.

During my presidential campaign, I committed myself to do whatever in my power to fast track a solution for the standoff over the Iranian nuclear energy program. To fulfill this commitment and benefit from the window of opportunity that the recent election opened up, my Government is prepared to leave no stone unturned in seeking for a mutually acceptable solution. To this end, we are ready to work with 5+1, its members and others with a view to ensuring full transparency surrounding our nuclear program.

The peaceful nuclear capability that we have achieved is bound to be exercised within a transparent, internationally recognized framework, accessible to the IAEA, under its safeguards mechanisms and international monitoring, as has been the case in the past several years. We believe that it is in this appropriate and lawful way that the international community can ensure the exclusively peaceful nature of the Iranian nuclear program. In such framework, we are also ready to work towards removing any ambiguity and answer any reasonable question about Iran's nuclear energy program. Having done so, let me reiterate that we will never forgo our inherent right to benefit from nuclear energy under any circumstances.

The continuation of pressure, arms twisting, intimidation and extra territorially imposed measures directed against the Iranian people and innocent civilians, trying to prevent them from having access to a whole range of necessities from technology to medicine, from science to food stuff could only poison the atmosphere and undermine the conditions necessary for making progress and weaken our resolve.

With the above elements in mind, we are fully prepared to seriously engage in the process towards a negotiated and mutually agreeable settlement and do so in good faith and with a business-like mind. We hope that our counterparts, too, benefit from this window of opportunity and are as much serious and ready to come along with an open mind and predicated on concrete and objective norms and criteria.

While thanking you ladies and gentlemen for listening to my remarks, I now look forward to listening to your comments and taking your questions.

Presidency of The Islamic Republic of Iran
http://www.president.ir/en/71857

Statement by H.E. Dr. Hassan Rouhani President of the Islamic Republic of Iran on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement at the High Level Meeting of the General Assembly on Nuclear Disarmament

Statement by H.E. Dr. Hassan Rouhani President of the Islamic Republic of Iran on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement at the High Level Meeting of the General Assembly on Nuclear Disarmament
(New York, 26 September 2013)


In the Name of God, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful

Mr. President,

Mr. Secretary General,

Excellencies, Distinguished Delegates,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is a special privilege to address this historic gathering. The participation of many world leaders in this first ever meeting of the Assembly on nuclear disarmament is indeed a clear manifestation of the wide support for this important subject. On behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement that initiated this meeting, I thank you all for your support.

I am also very grateful to you Mr. President, for your efforts and those of your predecessor in organizing this meeting. I also thank you, Mr. Secretary General, for your remarks.

Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,

A peaceful and secure world remains a shared ideal for us all.

The horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki deepened our resolve to prevent the recurrence of such unspeakable death and destruction.

To that end, the very first resolution of this Assembly rightfully called for ridding the world of nuclear weapons. We have now an architecture of treaties, norms, and forums that aims to achieve this agreed goal. Yet, thousands of these weapons continue to pose the greatest threat to peace.

Steps for de-targeting, de-alerting or reducing the number of nuclear weapons are not a substitute for their total elimination.

Any use of nuclear weapons is a violation of the UN Charter and a crime against humanity. Doctrines justifying such use are unacceptable. Likewise, threatening non-nuclear-weapon States with nuclear weapons should be ended. Modernization of these weapons also undercuts efforts for their total abolition. These should therefore be stopped.

Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,

I wish to recognize the important contribution of some non-nuclear-weapon States to nuclear disarmament by voluntarily renouncing or dismantling nuclear weapons.

I also recognize the valuable contribution of nuclear-weapon-free zones to nuclear disarmament and international peace and security. I commend the seminal role of non-nuclear-weapon States, particularly NAM States, which make up the bulk of these zones.

The Movement calls upon all Nuclear-Weapon States to ratify related protocols to all treaties establishing such zones, withdraw any reservations or interpretative declarations incompatible with their object and purpose, and respect the de-nuclearization status of these zones.

NAM urges the early signing and ratification by the Nuclear-Weapon States of the Protocol to the Treaty on Southeast Asia Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone and its related documents without reservations.

Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,

Almost four decades of international efforts to establish a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East have regrettably failed. Urgent practical steps towards the establishment of such a zone are necessary. Israel, the only non-party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty in this region, should join thereto without any further delay. Accordingly, all nuclear activities in the region should be subject to the IAEA comprehensive safeguards.

The international community has to re-double its efforts in support of the establishment of this zone. This would constitute a contribution to the objective of nuclear disarmament. In this regard, I reaffirm that the NAM State Parties to the NPT urge the convening of the Conference on the establishment of a zone free of nuclear weapons and all other weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East, without any further delay, with the participation of all countries in the region to avoid unwanted consequences.

Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,

The World has waited too long for nuclear disarmament. The indefinite possession of nuclear weapons cannot be tolerated nor can their complete elimination be further delayed. Nuclear-weapon States have the primary responsibility for nuclear disarmament. I strongly urge them to comply with this long overdue legal obligation.

Fulfillment of nuclear disarmament obligations must not be delayed any further or held hostage to progress on non-proliferation or the perceived notions of strategic stability.

Nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation are mutually reinforcing. They should be pursued simultaneously, not one at the cost of the other. Non-proliferation derives its legitimacy from the larger objective of nuclear disarmament. It should be implemented in a comprehensive and non-discriminatory manner.

As long as nuclear weapons exist, the risk of their use, threat of use and proliferation persist. The only absolute guarantee is their total elimination. Pending that day, nuclear-weapon States should refrain from any threat or use of nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon State under any circumstances. The current declarations on negative security assurances are inadequate. They must be codified into a universal legal instrument.

Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,

Nuclear disarmament remains our highest priority. To take forward the nuclear disarmament agenda, the Movement proposes the following roadmap:

First, early commencement of negotiations, in the Conference on Disarmament, on a comprehensive convention on nuclear weapons for the prohibition of their possession, development, production, acquisition, testing, stockpiling, transfer, use or threat of use, and for their destruction.

Second, designation of 26 September every year as an international day to renew our resolve to completely eliminate nuclear weapons. We invite all governments and civil society, academia, and media to join hands in making this vision a reality.

Third, convening a High-level International Conference on Nuclear Disarmament in five years to review progress in this regard.

The Movement will present a resolution to this Assembly regarding this roadmap. I trust that it will enjoy your support.

Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,

No nation should possess nuclear weapons; since there are no right hands for these wrong weapons, as you, Mr. Secretary General have rightly put it.

NAM is determined to make every effort to realize the vision of a nuclear-weapon-free world without further delay. Instead of nuclear weapons, let us invest in development and in eradicating poverty, ignorance, and diseases.

Let us bestow upon future generations a nuclear-weapon-free world. This is their right and our responsibility. Let us prove that we are the United Nations: nations united for peace.

I thank you Mr. President.

Islamic Republic of Iran Permament Mission to the United Nations
http://iran-un.org/en/2013/09/26/26-september-2013/

Edited transcript: An interview with Hassan Rouhani

Edited transcript: An interview with Hassan Rouhani
By David Ignatius, Published: September 25, 2013 at 4:55 pm

President of Iran Hassan Rouhani (Presidency Office, Rouzbeh Jadidoleslam/Associated Press)

Editor’s note: In his latest column, David Ignatius writes about his one-on-one interview with Iran’s president, Hassan Rouhani. A transcript of the full interview is below:

Q: U.S. officials say that you have been given full authority by the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei to negotiate the nuclear file. I would like to ask you if that’s true, and what instructions you have been given from the Supreme Leader in these negotiations?

A: In general I would tell you that settlement of the nuclear file is one of the responsibilities of my government. It is regarding the general strategy on the issue that the Supreme Leader also has his own views. You know that since I myself led the nuclear negotiations for several years, I’m quite fully cognizant of the general framework, in terms of strategy. So within that political framework, my government is fully empowered to finalize the nuclear talks. I have delegated the task to the foreign minister.

Q: On the issue of transparency, should we understand you to be saying that Iran is prepared for full transparency including the additional protocols of the IAEA and also inspections dealing with “possible military dimensions” as they’re called, as part of this transparency effort?

A: You are aware that from 2003 to 2005 Iran had actually committed itself to the additional protocol. And it was because the nuclear dossier went to the Security Council that the [Iranian] parliament decided to withdraw from the additional protocol. In my opinion, this was the juncture where the West was mistaken on how to proceed. The reason the decision was made to transfer the nuclear file to the Security Council in 2005was simply because Iran had operationalized the Isfahan site. Isfahan, as you know, is a UCF site in which the yellowcake is converted into UF6. The Isfahan site, you will be interested to know, from Day One came under the supervision of the IAEA, even when the building of the site started. And the IAEA itself had declared that as far as the Isfahan site was concerned there had been no deviation whatsoever.

Q: To get away from the old question of Isfahan and look forward, should I understand that when you speak of the additional protocols and “other military dimensions” that is part of the standard IAEA language, that this is what you mean by transparency, yes?

A: I understand. I just want to make sure that you also recognize that the point I was trying to make was that in 2003 Isfahan was actually adhering to the additional protocol. The sole purpose of its withdrawal was that mistakenly the West chose to transfer the nuclear dossier to the Security Council, even though the activities at the Isfahan site were clearly not controversial activities. It was a mistake that created this misunderstanding over the additional protocols to begin with. You might also be interested to know that with reference to sites with certain alleged “military dimensions” that between 2003 and 2005 and we actually gave the IAEA authority to supervise a number of our military sites that they were concerned about, as well. If the IAEA or the West sought to clarify or shed light on our activity we would be transparent. And why is it that when we go through transparent steps it is only Iran? I would say that in fact one principle issue on our mind is: Is the sensitivity of the nuclear issue just an excuse, or is it really a real question? There are those in Iran who believe that, should it be an excuse, then what’s the purpose of going further [in cooperation]? Therefore we expect that one of the purposes of us getting together with P5+ 1 group can demonstrate that the issue is a real concern. If that’s the case, I can guarantee that it can be settled very quickly.

You need to recognize the severity [for Iran] of the nuclear file. It’s a file under the UN Security Council, with sanctions and unilateral sanctions. From Iran’s perspective these were all illegal under international law. Iran feels it’s a very heavy file. If the West recognizes Iran’s legal rights then there’s really no hurdle in creating full transparency that’s necessary to settle this case.

Q: Do you have authority from the Supreme Leader to settle other issues outside the nuclear file, such as Syria? What if Iran were invited to Geneva 2, would you participate?

A: My government has full authority based on discussions with the Supreme Leader to negotiate any issue that is necessary to be negotiated to preserve Iran’s security and national-security interest. That includes any necessary cooperation at the international level to help settle the Syria crisis, ending the civil war there and to insure the right of self determination of the Syrian people. We would enter in any talks or meetings including Geneva 2 as long as there are no preconditions for Iran’s participation.

Q: The UN inspectors have delivered a powerful report on use of chemical weapons that describes how missiles carrying chemical weapons were fired from government positions toward rebel positions. What is your view of the chemical weapons issue?

A: Well, let me just say we know that chemical weapons have been used. We don’t know by whom or which group. That is unclear. We do know that it has been used and we are happy that Syria has agreed to join the Chemical Weapons protocol, and that is one result of agreeing to negotiate.

Q: I want to ask you to look more broadly about the turn in U.S.-Iranian relations that may now be possible, and the opportunity for normalization of relations. What is the path to normalization? Should it include opening embassies, for example, as is normal with countries?

A: From the point of view of the Islamic Republic and the Iranian people, and the point of view of my government, when we look at U.S. policies for the region, we think they have been completely wrong. But having said that, if Mr Obama and I were to get together, we would both be looking at the future, and the prospects ahead and our hopes for that future. The notes and letters and exchanges between us are in that direction, and they will continue. We need a beginning point. I think that is the nuclear issue.

Q: What is the time frame for resolving the nuclear issue? There are reports that you would like to get it done quickly, even by the end of the year.

A: If we are on the issue of the nuclear file, we need resolution in a reasonable time. Then the road will be paved for further activities. The only way forward is for a timeline to be inserted into the negotiations that’s short–and wrap it up. That is a decision of my government, that short is necessary to settle the nuclear file. The shorter it is the more beneficial it is to everyone. If it’s 3 months that would be Iran’s choice, if it’s 6 months that’s still good. It’s a question of months not years.

Q: What about negotiating other bilateral issues, such as reopening Embassies?

A: Once the nuclear file is settled, we can turn to other issues. After resolution of the nuclear issue there are no impossibilities in term of advancing other things forward. The foundation for all this is the confidence that has to be built. That clearly will help everything else. Everything is possible after the settlement.

Q: You spoke during the campaign about your desire to prevent “securitization” of the Iranian state. And the Supreme Leader said on Sept 17: “There is no need for the Guards to exercise leadership in the political field. What does this mean?

A: One of the programs and pledges on my campaign was to insist on bringing a cultural, social and political environment in Iran and diluting the security dimensions of society at the moment. Regarding the IRGC, it’s an important institution. It helped Iran emerge victorious from the Iraq-Iran war. What the Supreme Leaders said, and I have also said, is that the IRGC should understand and analyze political affairs. But it shouldn’t get itself involved in any political groupings or activities.

Q: If you had met with President Obama, what would you have said to him?

A: It didn’t happen. But if it had happened we would have talked about opportunities and hopes for the future.

Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/09/25/transcript-an-interview-with-hassan-rouhani/

Saturday, September 28, 2013

TRANSCRIPT: Amanpour Rouhani interview

TRANSCRIPT: Amanpour Rouhani interview
September 25th, 2013
02:26 PM ET


EDITOR'S NOTE: This is the full, raw transcript of CNN's Christiane Amanpour's interview with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, HOST: Mr. President, welcome. Welcome to the program. Thank you for joining us.

PRES. HASSAN ROUHANI, IRAN (through translator): I thank your program and you for preparing this interview.

AMANPOUR: I want to ask you what it feels like to be what some people have called the "it" man of this UNGA? Highly anticipated. You seem to be the focus of attention, and unusually, for Iranian presidents, people are looking at you with some, at least cautious optimism. What does it feel like to be in this position?

ROUHANI: Before beginning to respond to your question, I would like to actually say my greetings to the people of America, who are very dear and near to the hearts of the Iranian people and to wish them a good time and good times ahead. Now, for any president, in order to use an opportunity to the benefit of others, would require him to use the platform given by his people to project that in places such as specifically the United Nations. Therefore, I am glad that this opportunity has been presented to me to transport the views of my people to the representatives of other governments and other nations who have gathered here.

AMANPOUR: There was a lot of expectation, maybe too high expectations, that you and President Obama might at least shake hands today at the United Nations. Nobody thought there was going to be a formal meeting, but perhaps that you would at least say hello, shake hands, break the ice. But you didn't. Why didn't you?

ROUHANI: There were some talks about it, in fact, to perhaps have - arrange for a meeting between President Obama and myself, so that given the opportunity, we can talk with each other. And the preparation for the work was done a bit, as well. The United States declared its interest in having such a meeting. And in principle, Iran could have, under certain circumstances, allowed for it to happen. But I believe that we didn’t have sufficient time to really coordinate the meeting to the full extent that we needed to. But speaking of the ice-breaking that you mentioned, in my opinion, the rift is already there. It's already beginning to break, because the environment is changing. And that has come about as a result of the will of the people of Iran to create a new era of relations between the people of Iran and the rest of the world. Our hope, our expectation, in fact, indeed is that all nations, and in this nation, as well, will response positively to the people of Iran.

AMANPOUR: Are you authorized to start talking, negotiating, with the United States? Are you authorized by the supreme leader back in Iran?

ROUHANI: I think that the president of Iran has the authority wherever which - where - wherever the national interests of the country are involved and when it is necessary and expedient and required to speak and talk with others in order to promote the rights of its nation that the president can take that initiative.

Now, we have to remember that when it comes to the United States, for 35 years, there has been no relations between the two countries, between Iran and the United States. The - the higher officials of the two countries have never spoken with one another, especially at a level of president. You know, they have for two presidents to sit down, this has not happened for 35 years. So necessarily, we must give time for diplomacy to - to work itself, for dialogue to come about, to - for circumstances to be laid properly. The supreme leader of Iran has said that should negotiations be necessary for the national interests of the country that he, in fact, is not opposed to it. He has specifically mentioned in a recent talk that he is not optimistic regarding the issue of talks with the United States, but when it comes to specific issues that, um, government officials may speak with their American counterparts.

Now, if an opportunity was created today, had risen today, and the prep work for that had been done, most possibly the talks would have shaped and taken place, primarily focused on the nuclear issue or on developments on the Middle East. And therefore, the supreme leader has, I can tell you, given the permission for my government to freely negotiate on these issues.

AMANPOUR: So you do have that authorization?

ROUHANI: Yes.

AMANPOUR: President Obama, today, in his speech to the United Nations, said that he had authorized and placed Secretary John Kerry at the head of the negotiating team. They're going to meet with your foreign minister, Mr. Zarif, in terms of the nuclear issue.

Are there other issues, too, bilateral issues, that you can start discussing, or your representatives, with the United States, or is it just nuclear, and, as you said, other Middle Eastern issues?

ROUHANI: There are numerous issues that could be discussed by the two governments. But my principle has been from the outset that the nuclear issue can be an important test for the two governments to fulfill their negotiations and - and to reap the benefits of it. So for the benefit of both nations, I believe that both our priority and perhaps possibly the priority of the other side, the United States, is the nuclear issue. If the nuclear issue is settled conclusively, I believe that that will pave the way for numerous other issues that can be discussed based on a priority basis by the two sides.

AMANPOUR: You spoke in your address to the General Assembly about a peaceful resolution to the nuclear issue.

Can you give me the framework, the principles of what you would see as the possibility of a deal?

ROUHANI: On the nuclear issue, the first point is that the entire world must recognize that Iran does not seek a nuclear weapon, nor shall it seek a nuclear weapon. Iran rejects weapons of mass destruction based on its belief system, its religious belief system, as well as well as its ethical standpoint. And you're well aware that the supreme leader has, in fact, issued a decree that bans the production and the stockpiling of any weapons of mass destruction, specifically the nuclear weapon, as being haram.

Therefore, it is our position that the world must understand that there has been a lot of negative propaganda, in fact, in this area, that has pointed fingers at us. But Iran does not seek nuclear weapons. But at the same time, it would insist that it will seek its rights like any other nation within the framework of international law and exert an - you know, exert its will to fulfill those rights for its nation.

Therefore, as long as it is under the preamble of international law, then, well, I believe such understanding can be achieved between us and the rest of the world. But not under pressure or sanctions.

AMANPOUR: You say - and you've said many times, and every Iranian president has said it, and so has the supreme leader said it, that Iran does not want nuclear weapons.

However, you know the issue is a confidence issue and that, frankly, many people don't believe it. They want to know what you can do to raise the confidence level. As you know, sir, every U.N. resolution uses the word confidence. It's all about confidence.

So what can you specifically do?

What is Iran prepared to do to inspire confidence in its nuclear program?

You say that you want to retain the right to enrichment.

What can you do for transparency?

Are you prepared to go even further than what the NPT demands and go to even further transparency under that?

ROUHANI: You see, confidence is possible through two ways. The first path is the legal path, which means a recognition of international rules and laws and to follow those.

Why was the agency or the IAEA created?

It was created to build confidence to - for the world community based on its supervisory system. You are aware that all of Iran's nuclear materials are calculated by the milligram under the auspices of the IAEA. And this is the first step to gain world confidence is to recognize that the IAEA should be fully in control of the nuclear material of all countries.

We have actually signed the safeguards agreement and that was concluded and enforced and is being enforced on an ongoing basis with the IAEA, because their inspectors are routinely coming to Iran and checking our facilities and their cameras are all over and they record all the activities.

So the legal confidence path, so to say, is really the path of the NPT and the safeguards and the promotion of those to allow the countries of the world to engage in peaceful nuclear activities, while, at the same time, building confidence and assuring that there is no deviation.

The IAEA, after hundreds of hours of numerous inspections and continual work, did, in 2004, issue a clear resolution clearly stating that there was no evidence, with regards to Iran's nuclear program, of a deviation to that program. And that resolution was actually endorsed and approved by all members of the board of directors of the IAEA, including the United States of America.

So the agency felt that its inspections were sufficient and strong enough that it could say that it had no evidence that there was any deviation.

Now, the second path for confidence is - is really a political path, when there are no ties between two countries, where the two countries are not talking and negotiating with one another, it's possible that some lack of confidence could emerge.

Our discussions with the P5-plus-1 has actually aimed to look into the details of the issues and through the agreements that Iran and the P5-plus-1 can attain, create not only a legal, but also a political confidence.

Therefore, talking with and negotiating with the IAEA is certainly the best confidence we can give to the world and to the world's public opinion. And remember, this comes from a country that was the victim of weapons of mass destruction itself.

AMANPOUR: Will you freeze enrichment at 20 percent?

Will you trade your existing 20 percent enriched fuel for - for buying it or accessing it from outside the country?

ROUHANI: These are talks that countries will engage with through negotiations. What we can announce through the press to the world, is that Iran, like all countries, believes in its rights for peaceful nuclear pursuits. And therefore, whatever prerogative or authority that any other country has in this realm, so does Iran. And there should be no difference or discrimination in this regard.

Now, what - as to what we would do on a temporary basis or later, these are the issues that need to be placed on the table for negotiations and an agreement for - over them.

AMANPOUR: One of the confidence issues is the, uh, the facility at Fordow near Qom. One of the reasons that the world is very suspicious is because it was a fait accompli before it was declared.

So the question is, would you close the Fordow plant?

ROUHANI: What difference is there between the Fordow plant with other enrichment plants?

Fordow is one of other - many other centers in which enrichment does take place, such as Natanz. In Natanz, enrichment takes place. In Fordow there is an enrichment program, as well.

So why is there such sensitivity on the question of Fordow?

I believe that was - may have perhaps allowed - let to Fordow to become activated along with Natanz. And I would urge you to recall that over a year ago Iran also announced that 10 other sites, such as Natanz and Fordow, would be built.

Um, so what now is creating pressure over Fordow is really the threats that have culminated into this question over Fordow. When threat happens it actually violates any principle of negotiation which says come to the table because we want to talk.

There's only one issue on the table as far as Iran is concerned, and it reflects the same confidence that you spoke of. That is to come to the negotiating table to negotiate every - to negotiate.

But there shouldn't be any prerequisite to build that confidence, to sit at the table. If that prerequisite is a threat of military action, that, to us, implies that the negotiations are not for real.

So if we speak of confidence, confidence must be mutual for certainty. This is the foundation of confidence building. It’s foundation to be created by both sides. And it should be built by both sides. The building of confidence cannot be built unilaterally.

Therefore, there's no difference between our various enrichment sites. The key issue is to negotiate and to see how we can build confidence through negotiations and that should be mutual, to see what confidence they can give us and what confidence we can give them.

AMANPOUR: What about the Arak heavy water facility where people are worried that you could start extracting plutonium. That's yet another danger and a - a worry for the - for the rest of the world. It's due to come online perhaps in the spring.

Will you delay putting it online, the Arak facility?

ROUHANI: You are aware that the Arak site is there to meet the medicinal needs of our country and that was the case, and from the outset, when we announced the site. Therefore, as long as Arak becomes operational, there is still a significant amount of time left until it actually becomes fully operational.

Now, it is possible that in the future, such talks could take place between Iran and the P5-plus-1 on such issues. But so far, the issue of Arak - Arak was never on the negotiating table.

AMANPOUR: But it could be?

ROUHANI: Anything is possible in negotiations. We can - it's possible to talk about anything.

AMANPOUR: In - in - in broad, what is it that you're willing to do to inspire confidence?

I know I've asked you this already, but I don't hear you saying - I don't - maybe I don't understand, but clearly what people want is full transparency.

So is Iran, yes or no, willing to give that level of confidence, that there is no doubt that what you say you're doing, you're actually doing?

ROUHANI: Over 40 countries have enrichment capacities. And many of them have ongoing enrichment operations.

What is the difference between Iran and those countries?

There are countries that have not even accepted the NPT or even agreed to work with the IAEA.

But Iran has accepted and is committed to the NPT. Iran has accepted and committed itself to the safeguards agreement. All of its activities are under the supervision of the IAEA.

Therefore this issue of confidence and if Iran is a threat or not falls into two categories: propaganda in - in that category, when some decide to say that Iran is a threat or a danger, they'll keep on saying it no matter.

And on the second level, there are regional concerns. We are willing to allay some of those regional concerns, not suspicions in the name of concerns.
there is - there are suspicions of concerns that the press and the propaganda around it talks about. And it has no value to us.

But if a regional country, within the region, has concerns, the P5-plus-1 is a venue able to alleviate those concerns. And we are very committed in those talks and have told the other parties that we will be very serious in those talks. I have given the authority for those talks to the foreign ministry, and headed by the foreign minister himself as the chief negotiator, to handle those talks.

Therefore, our foreign ministry is responsible for those talks. And the P5-plus-1 will be - can consider sending its senior authorities, such as their own foreign ministers, just as it was the case when I led the negotiating team, if you recall my, um my team was met with the foreign ministers of the three other parties at the time.

So we believe that the negotiations have to quickly start, seriously be pursued and very quickly be resolved and settled because the current circumstances are not to the benefit of anyone. It is a loose, loose situation for all. Therefore, we need to create a win-win situation for everyone to benefit.

Under the current circumstances of the world, given the economic debacle surrounding us, given the serious issues in our own region that confront us, it is necessary to settle such issues to boost the world economy, regional economy and regional security, as well.

AMANPOUR: And what are you looking for in return?

I know you want sanctions lifted.

Do you think you'll get them all at once or what are the most important things you want?

ROUHANI: Nothing except law. We seek the law to be enforced. International law must be enforced. And that will - is what we require.

We believe that unilateral sanctions violate international law, in fact. They violate free trade. They violate human growth and development, human development, and that when you actually sanction a bank of a country, the meaning of it is quite clear. You're sanctioning medicine for the people. You're sanctioning medical needs and tools for the people and you're even sanctioning food supplies for the people.

This is inhumane. This violates all principles and rules and regulations of the international legal system or international law.

And therefore, all we want in return is the enforcement of international law. And we seek to invite anyone who's deviated from that enforcement of international law to return to the path of enforcing it. For them to understand that with pressures on a nation, there will be no results.

We tell them that the pressure - pressures are pressure on the people of Iran. They are inhumane in our eyes. They are incorrect and the results are to create hatred in the hearts of that nation toward those who sanction it. The more hatred there is, the conditions become ripe – less ripe for creating peace, for creating security and friendship among nations.

Therefore, what we seek is the enforcement of international law. We believe sanctions is illegal and inhumane and therefore, we certainly believe that the sanctions must be removed. We believe sanctions have no effect. The goal of the - who sanction us, whatever it may be, they will not reach that goal.

The only path ahead is negotiations. We must sit down and talk and settle this for once and finally.

AMANPOUR: You have presented a different face of Iran, a different face than we'd had, certainly, for the last eight years. You came here saying you wanted to present the true face of Iran.

You have been busy Tweeting - at least your office has. You have been giving interviews. You've been giving statements, a real media blitz. Some might call it a P.R. blitz, a spin job.

Um, what is - what is your answer to Tweeting and posting on social media when the people of Iran don't have access to that?

You have said that you would work to reduce censorship inside Iran.

Will you do that?

ROUHANI: All my efforts are geared to ensure that the people of Iran will comfortably be able to access all information globally and to use it. There are large social networks at a global level around today. And I believe that all human beings have a right, and all nations have a right to use them.

Now, it is possible that a country might - a certain country might have a framework, an ethical and moral concern. And many countries do, in fact, have that, that they try to follow. And in Iran, there are certainly such frameworks in place, as well.

ROUHANI: But at the same time, my efforts are geared, for the next few months, to deliver all the promises that I did during my election campaign, to make them happen and, as you say, of course, in doing the election campaign, these networks, my supporters actually used them, um, a great deal. And today, those supporters, and even those who criticized me, are still on the same social networks and use them. And I always welcome their views on these networks, as well as those who criticize me, because the government does need to be open to criticism.

So one of my plans is to reduce the problems that people face currently on these issues, so that within those sort of moral frameworks that we have for ourselves, that we are able to access these social network sites.

AMANPOUR: One of the things you did, and also your foreign minister did, was to Tweet new year greetings to Jews in Iran and around the world, Rash Hashanah greetings.

You also brought with you on this delegation the only Jewish member of the Iranian parliament.

Why was it important for you to bring him here?

ROUHANI: Our effort here is to tell the world public opinion that Iran is not only not anti-Semitic, but rather that it respects the customs and beliefs of the Jewish people. You will know that we respect the divine book of the Jewish people. We respect their prophet, Moses. And you are aware that in the Iranian parliament, given that the number of Jews in Iran are very small, that they still retain a representative in - in the parliament. And that representative, uh, can use the platforms given to him to speak for him - his views and the views of the minority that he represents in Iran.

And therefore, this Jewish representation can actually speak of the reality of the lives of the Jewish people in Iran. We are proud of peaceful – our history of peaceful coexistence with followers of all belief systems. You know that many of the worshipping places of minority religions, uh, have - have their base in Iran. And they are located in different parts of Iran. And people who follow them , those worshippers - those worshipping sites have not only representatives in the parliament, but are allowed to freely practice their creed and belief system.

AMANPOUR: One of the things your predecessor used to do from this very platform was deny the Holocaust and pretend that it was a myth. I want to know you, your position on the Holocaust.

Do you accept what it was?

And what was it?

ROUHANI: I have said before that I am not a historian personally and that when it comes to speaking of the dimensions of the Holocaust as such, it is the historians that should reflect on it.

But in general, I can tell you that any crime or - that happens in history against humanity, including the crime that the Nazis committed towards the Jews, as well as non-Jewish people, is reprehensible and condemnable, as far as we are concerned.

And just as even such crimes are - if they are to happen today against any creed or belief system or human being as such, we shall again condemn it.

So what the Nazis did is condemnable. The dimensions of whatever it is, the historians have to understand what it is. I am not a historian myself, but we - it must be clear here, is that when there is an atrocity, a crime that happens, it should not become a cover to work against the interests or - or justify the crimes against another nation or another group of people.

So if the Nazis, however criminal they were, we condemn them, whatever criminality they committed against the Jews, we condemn, because genocide, the taking of the human life, is condemnable and it makes no difference whether that life is a Jewish life, a Christian or a Muslim or what.

For us, it's the same. It's the taking of a human life and an innocent human life is (INAUDIBLE) in Islam. It's actually something that we condemn and our religion also rejects.

But this does not mean that, on the other hand, you can say, well, the Nazis committed crimes against, you know, a certain group, now, therefore, they must usurp the land of another group and occupy it. This, too, is an act that should be condemned, in our view.

So there should be an even-handed discussion of this.

AMANPOUR: Another thing that your predecessor used to do - and, in fact, President Obama referred to it today in his speech - was threaten Israel with destruction. He used the word wipe Israel off the map. The president of the United States today said we cannot allow any country to threaten our ally with destruction.

Is it the policy of Iran to threaten Israel with destruction?

ROUHANI: You are aware that not only in these past 35 years, but in the past 200 years or so, Iran has never attacked another country. We have no intention of attacking any country or getting into a war with any country.

Even if our armed forces are built up, it is for defense purposes alone. You are fully aware that there was an eight year war between Iran and Iraq during which Saddam Hussein attacked us and we were forced to defend ourself. And we learned how important defense is, and, therefore, how important it is not to wage war.

When it comes to the issue of Palestine, we believe in the public vote, the ballot in a sense, is that vote for the people of that region that has to happen to settle the dispute that's been lingering for 60 years there.

We believe that all the Muslims, Palestinians that have been displaced or are refugees must have an opportunity to come and live where they like, alongside other people there. They should refer to the ballots and see what people say.

And we will submit to that will and to that ballot and accept it. Therefore, what I'd like to say here is that when it comes to the settlement and resolution of regional issues, we believe that the only path is through the ballot box, through democracy. And we believe that war is not an answer for any of our problems.

AMANPOUR: On the issue of human rights, just before you came, there was an announcement that 80 prominent human rights activists were released from jail in Tehran, many of them having been taken into jail in the dispute in 2009 after the reelection of - of President Ahmadinejad.

One of them was Nasrin Soutedh. I spoke to her. And she said to me, it's great that I'm free, but how about all the others that are still in jail.

What is your - what are you going to do?

What is your government going to do to release prisoners of conscience, and particularly two politicians, opposition politicians, Mahdi Karroubi and Mir Hossein Mousavi, who are still being held?

What will your government do to work for their freedom and to enable them to continue their political activities?

ROUHANI: You know that in the election campaign that recently took place, I insisted on an issue which I called the citizenship charter. I promised the people to put together and publicize a citizenship charter which I would then present as a bill to legislate on and to allow our society to settle many of the problems that it faces right now.

You know that our constitution has a very high capacity in restoring the rights of the Iranian people, by language and wording. One of the prerogatives of the president of Iran is the enforcement of the constitution.

So I have actually authorized the legal department that works under me to create a committee working on this issue in specific. And I believe that very soon this, uh, charter, citizen charter, will be ready, which I can present to the public opinion. And there's a team that's putting it together.

I will publicize it and we'll allow the people an opportunity to criticize it, to debate it, to work on it with us. We'll gather the viewpoints of anyone, and experts included, on this issue. And I am hopeful that in the next few months, that this sort of collection of citizenship rights will be created in the form of a tri - a charter and presented and actually enforced.

And it should a law need to be created to, uh, submit as a bill to the Islamic Office of Assembly, our parliament.

So basically I'm very sensitive about the question of citizenship rights, of the rights of minorities, the rights of the ethnic groups. I am glad that when every prisoner leaves the jail - the prison, I rejoice in that. I hope the day will come when our prisons will be empty, but knowing - recognizing that every country will still have its prisons and will have its criminals. But the fewer, the better. Uh, people in - in prison, it is better to have fewer. And that allows our government to rejoice in it, as well.

So I will spare no effort to ensure that those who are currently in prison will see an opening door.

AMANPOUR: Secretary of State John Kerry has made a specific appeal to you and to the Iranian government, asking you to help three - free three Americans who have been detained for many, many years. And their families are desperate for news of them. They've given us interviews. They've spoken to us. They really are desperate for news of these people - Bob Levinson, who's been disappeared since March of 2007; Amir Hekmati, who's a 30-year-old jailed since 2011 and says on - on a coerced false confession; and Saeed Abedini, who's 33 years old and was jailed a year ago on religion-related charges.

What can you say to, uh, the secretary of State, or to the American people and the families of these people?

Will you do something to finally unlock these cases?

ROUHANI: You see, there are two issues.

First, you mentioned a person that I've never heard of. Mr. Levinson, we don't know where he is, who he is. Sometimes you are speaking of people who come before a court of trial and other times, there are people who disappear. It's not a clear question to put these two categories side by side.

He is an American who has disappeared. We have no news of him. We do not know where he is. We are willing to help and all the intelligence services in the region can come together to gather information about him to find his whereabouts. And we're willing to cooperate on that.

But if somebody has been arrested, the second category, you know that there's a trial system. There is the judiciary that has to handle the case. Our constitution accepts the separation of our three powers, one being the judiciary, and it has to act independently.

So when someone is in prison and there is a case against him, he has the right to an attorney and representation. And we have numerous courts. We have different levels and this case can go through multiple levels.

But as to what governments can do, perhaps, on this issue, I think it's a very positive gesture for any government to do what it can to help. But I would like to say that we also have people who are in prison here in the United States. And we have all - this is a sort of a mutual request. Um, the U.S. government, who must assist those Iranians, those people who are of Iranian citizenship who are in prison here, as we should assist those people who have American citizenships that are incarcerated in Iran.

But having said that, our judiciary is independent and based on the constitution, the government has no right to interfere in the judicial process.

AMANPOUR: You don't think that it would be a gesture, as a new president who's talked quite warmly about trying to make better relations, that maybe Amir Hekmati, for instance, might get some attention?

ROUHANI: I've said governments should - if they decided to render any help, it is a very good thing to do. But at the same time, I'm trying to say that we cannot interfere in the judicial process. Not even the head of the judiciary can interfere in the decision of a court. And, um, there's a process, a due process that has to be completed.

But having said that, governments can assist. They can step in when it comes to the enforcement of laws and they can step in to facilitate the process. And I believe any government should do that. And if the U.S. government does that, the Iran - and if the Iranian government does that well, that would be a very good thing.

And, again, we have prisoners here in the United States. We have for a long time sought to see what help and assistance they can receive to be freed. And without speaking of their, you know, charges, whether they're real or not, I don't think this is the platform for it, I would conclude by saying that it's just good to help a human being.

I would be glad to help a human being. And American authorities, I hope, will also rejoice in assisting our - the Iranian citizens here in prison, as well.

AMANPOUR: Let me ask you about Syria. You have said that you've exchanged letters with President Obama on the issue of Syria. Today, the French president, Hollande, told me that Iran would be welcome in any peace conference regarding Syria, but under certain conditions, that you would accept the parameters of the conference. For instance, in this regard, Geneva 2, a transition that would see President Bashar al-Assad step aside for a political resolution.

Are you willing to accept that?

ROUHANI: We cannot accept any preconditions. We are ready to help in any international gathering if we can be of help. We believe it's our duty to help the Syrian people. I have told Mr. Hollande that we are prepared to cooperate with any country so that the civil war in Syria comes quickly to an end.

I have exclusively said to Mr. Hollande. And he agreed with me, in fact, that when it comes to the issue of Syria, the sole decision-makers are the people of Syria. No foreign power has the right to decide for the Syrian people or for the future of Syria.

We must all try to put an end to the civil war - there. We must all pave the way to allow people to participate in an election in Syria.

Now, having said that, where Syria is today, until where it can be when an election does take place, there is a clear distance where everyone must step in and shorten that distance.

At the same time, when it comes to Syria, a key issue that has to be taken into account is the presence of terrorists there. This should create concern by all. Clearly, the more al Qaeda terrorists or other terrorist groups that were around the region, the hard - it seems that all of them have actually gathered in Syria right now.

So this should be a cause of concern for everyone. It looks like they're all there. No action should be taken that assists terrorists. Assisting terrorists will be to the disadvantage of all of us. You know that there is a conflict in Syria. There are groups that are opposed to the gov - the Syrian government. The war in Syria today is not a war between the opposition and the government. It is a war between the terrorists and the Syrian government. And this is an issue that we must try to do, meaning silence that war, the flames of war have to be put out. We need to facilitate a Syrian-Syrian dialogue between the Syrian opposition and the Syrian government that could lead eventually to an election.

AMANPOUR: I know the Syrian position and yours, obviously, you've just stated it, is that all the opposition are terrorists. Many dispute that, as you know, because they believe that they are people who want to have a different kind of life.

Isn't Iran a direct player?

ROUHANI: I didn't say that. I didn't say that all the opposition in Syria are terrorists. I said that those who are fighting the government are the terrorists. Those who are the opposition are not fighting. The opposition isn't the opposition. We are in touch with the opposition. We have contacts with the opposition. We are saying that the opposition and the Syrian government must negotiate. That negotiation must be materialized.

But what I am saying is that there are terrorists that have gathered from all around the region and the Syria - are a danger to Syria. I didn't say that the entire oppositions are terrorists. There are - there's the opposition and there are terrorists.

AMANPOUR: OK. But isn't Iran a direct participant in this war?

A key commander, General Suleimani, is in there. He's got his men in there. There's many, many men - maybe more than thousands of Iranians in there fighting on the side of Bashar Al-Assad.

You have written an op-ed saying that you want to use your government to try to resolve this issue.

But isn't one of the resolutions also to take out your fighting men?

ROUHANI: When you say thousands from Iran are there, I don't know where you get that information. Even hundreds. You can say hundreds. You can say 10s.

But where do you gather that information?

AMANPOUR: Are there any?

ROUHANI: We'll get there. We'll get there. If you let me just com - complete my answer and then if you have other questions, I'm glad to take them.

The thousands that you speak of is an incorrect figure. Even if you say hundreds it's an incorrect figure. It is not what is correct as far - as far as the reality on the ground is concerned. We have close relations with Syria from a long time ago. We have had defense agreements with the Syrian government. Some of our army and officials – military officials have assisted Syria in - or helped in the upkeep, actually, or repair of the weapons that we had from years ago given to Syria. We have people who are military attaches and military experts who are stationed there. They are the liaisons, the military liaison between our country and Syria that - a liaison that has existed from years ago. But - but to speak of hundreds...

AMANPOUR: However many ...

ROUHANI: - or tens of hundreds of these...

AMANPOUR: - however many it is...

ROUHANI: - that's not incorrect.

AMANPOUR: They appear to be directing the war on behalf of President Assad. People do say, very serious military people, diplomatic people say that if it wasn't for your military help, planes bringing weapons and personnel, flying over Iraq, members of the Revolutionary Guard there, that President Assad's regime would have fallen already.

Do you agree?

ROUHANI: You see that you say that we are assisting militarily Syria.

Could you clarify what you mean?

AMANPOUR: - Weapons, plane loads of them.

ROUHANI: Well, I understand but what you are saying. What is - what I'm really questioning is the source of it. Again, there's a level of propaganda involved that I would caution you about that is baseless here. You are aware that there are planes that left Tehran to Damascus were actually forced to land in Baghdad, not only once or twice, but on numerous occasions, under pressure by the Americans and they - they couldn't find anything on those planes. As you say, we have loads - weapons on those planes now.

There are governments that are officially - saying that we are giving weapons to the Syrian fighters. And they are just saying it. I would say yes, we are providing those arms into Syria. And yet, there seems to be two treatments here.

What we are get - assisting Syria with is some food programs, medicine. We offer medicine on an ongoing basis. And even though we have such shortages in our own country, we consider this an obligation.

Now, if there a forces going from Iraq or elsewhere into Syria?

We are not the government of Iraq, we are not the government of Syria, we are the government of Iran. We speak for our actions and that alone.

But I want to bring to your attention the fact that there are many problems in Syria. And I believe that all governments have to step in responsibly and fix the situation.

You know very well where the terrorists are coming from. You know where the crossings are. You know who is supplying them quite well. You know where they're getting their training. You may not know personally, but many governments, Western governments or non-Western governments, are cognizant of this flow of arms into Syria and such.

Rather than pointing the finger at each other, rather than speaking of this government or that government, we must all collectively try to end the civil war in Syria.

Number one.

Secondly, the terrorist groups are the real threat here - the real danger here to the entire region, even to Western governments. These will present, these terrorists, threats in the future.

How is it that their threat is talked about much less, in a certain way, when the finger-pointing comes to us?

You know that months ago, we informed the American officials that the Syrian terrorists have been equipped with different weapons...

ROUHANI: - including chemical weapons.

It's important to be sensitive enough to the dilemma, the problem in Syria. Now, talking about weapons of mass destruction, the chemical weapons, anyone who may have used it, anyone, a country or anyone, we categorically condemn it. And I have said this on numerous occasions in my interviews, as well, because we have been a victim of chemical weapons ourselves. We know the dangers.

All these years after the Iran-Iraq War, we are still treating the chemically wounded in our hospitals, almost after two decades have passed. They - suffering is a daily problem for our eyes.

So rather than talking in propaganda terms again for the Syrian crisis, it's better to understand and recognize that Syria is a serious problem. It's a country in the region where we are and we are all responsible to this - for - to find a settlement to the problem. And we are ready as much as we can to solve these problems.

AMANPOUR: Just briefly, are you encouraging the regime to give up its chemical weapons as the deal between the U.S. and Russia says?

ROUHANI: We believe in general that the entire region of the Middle East has, as far as that region is concerned, all weapons of mass destruction, including chemical weapons, have to be eradicated from the region. We are glad that Syria has submitted to the Convention for the prohibition of chemical weapons, committed itself to that Convention. And we actually encourage everyone to submit to this, actually, the governments, to the decisions of such - as laid down by governments as such through these conventions in the hope that our region will be a region free of, uh, weapons of mass destruction.

AMANPOUR: And, finally, we end where we began.

Can you give me a sentence in English that you would like to say to the American people?

This is your first interview here in the United States.

ROUHANI: Well, I have to begin by saying that I have not spoken English for years now. I'm talking about a long many years that I have not practiced my English.

I would like to say to American people, I bring peace and friendship from Iranians to Americans.

Thank you.

AMANPOUR: Mr. President, thank you very much.

Thank you for joining us.

ROUHANI: I thank you, as well, and your group, your team here. As for the questions that you raised, that are questions of concern, I hope that it will help the American public opinion in shaping their views, as they should on world matters.

AMANPOUR: Thank you very much, indeed.

ROUHANI: Thank you

Amanpour
http://amanpour.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/25/transcript-amanpour-rouhani-interview/

Friday, September 27, 2013

Statement by H. E. Dr. Hassan Rouhani, President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, at the Sixty-eight Session of the United Nations General Assembly

Statement by H. E. Dr. Hassan Rouhani, President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, at the Sixty-eight Session of the United Nations General Assembly
(New York, 24 September 2013)


In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful

Praise be to God, the Lord of the worlds. Blessing and Peace be upon our Prophet Mohammad and his kin and companions.

Mr. President, Mr. Secretary-General,
Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,

At the outset, I would like to offer my most sincere felicitations on your deserved election to the presidency of the General Assembly and seize the moment to express appreciation for the valuable efforts of our distinguished Secretary-General.

Our world today is replete with fear and hope; fear of war and hostile regional and global relations; fear of deadly confrontation of religious, ethnic and national identities; fear of institutionalization of violence and extremism; fear of poverty and destructive discrimination; fear of decay and destruction of life-sustaining resources; fear of disregard for human dignity and rights; and fear of neglect of morality. Alongside these fears, however, there are new hopes; the hope of universal acceptance by the people and the elite all across the globe of "yes to peace and no to war"; and the hope of preference of dialogue over conflict, and moderation over extremism.

The recent elections in Iran represent a clear, living example of the wise choice of hope, rationality and moderation by the great people of Iran. The realization of democracy consistent with religion and the peaceful transfer of executive power manifested that Iran is the anchor of stability in an otherwise ocean of regional instabilities. The firm belief of our people and government in enduring peace, stability, tranquility, peaceful resolution of disputes and reliance on the ballot box as the basis of power, public acceptance and legitimacy, has indeed played a key role in creating such a safe environment.

Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen,

The current critical period of transition in international relations is replete with dangers, albeit with unique opportunities. Any miscalculation of one's position, and of course, of others, will bear historic damages; a mistake by one actor will have negative impact on all others. Vulnerability is now a global and indivisible phenomenon.

At this sensitive juncture in the history global relations, the age of zero-sum games is over, even though a few actors still tend to rely on archaic and deeply ineffective ways and means to preserve their old superiority and domination. Militarism and the recourse to violent and military means to subjugate others are failed examples of the perpetuation of old ways in new circumstances.

Coercive economic and military policies and practices geared to the maintenance and preservation of old superiorities and dominations have been pursued in a conceptual mindset that negates peace, security, human dignity, and exalted human ideals. Ignoring differences between societies and globalizing Western values as universal ones represent another manifestation of this conceptual mindset. Yet another reflection of the same cognitive model is the persistence of Cold War mentality and bi-polar division of the world into "superior us" and "inferior others." Fanning fear and phobia around the emergence of new actors on the world scene is another.

In such an environment, governmental and non-governmental, religious, ethnic, and even racial violence has increased, and there is no guarantee that the era of quiet among big powers will remain immune from such violent discourses, practices and actions. The catastrophic impact of violent and extremist narratives should not - in fact, must not - be underestimated.

In this context, the strategic violence, which is manifested in the efforts to deprive regional players from their natural domain of action, containment policies, regime change from outside, and the efforts towards redrawing of political borders and frontiers, is extremely dangerous and provocative.

The prevalent international political discourse depicts a civilized center surrounded by un-civilized peripheries. In this picture, the relation between the center of world power and the peripheries is hegemonic. The discourse assigning the North the center stage and relegating the South to the periphery has led to the establishment of a monologue at the level of international relations. The creation of illusory identity distinctions and the current prevalent violent forms of xenophobia are the inevitable outcome of such a discourse. Propagandistic and unfounded faithphobic, Islamo-phobic, Shia-phobic, and Iran-phobic discourses do indeed represent serious threats against world peace and human security.

This propagandistic discourse has assumed dangerous proportions through portrayal and inculcation of presumed imaginary threats. One such imaginary threat is the so-called "Iranian threat" -which has been employed as an excuse to justify a long catalogue of crimes and catastrophic practices over the past three decades. The arming of the Saddam Hussein regime with chemical weapons and supporting the Taliban and A1-Qaida are just two examples of such catastrophes. Let me say this in all sincerity before this august world assembly, that based on irrefutable evidence, those who harp on the so-called threat of Iran are either a threat against international peace and security themselves or promote such a threat. Iran poses absolutely no threat to the world or the region. In Fact, in ideals as well as in actual practice, my country has been a harbinger of just peace and comprehensive security.

Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen,

Nowhere in the world has violence been so deadly and destructive as in North Africa and West Asia. Military intervention in Afghanistan, Saddam Hussein's imposed war against Iran, occupation of Kuwait, military interventions against Iraq, brutal repression of the Palestinian people, assassination of common people and political figures in Iran, and terrorist bombings in countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon are examples of violence in this region in the last three decades.

What has been - and continues to be - practiced against the innocent people of Palestine is nothing less than structural violence. Palestine is under occupation; the basic rights of the Palestinians are tragically violated, and they are deprived of the right of return and access to their homes, birthplace and homeland. Apartheid as a concept can hardly describe the crimes and the institutionalized aggression against the innocent Palestinian people.

The human tragedy in Syria represents a painful example of catastrophic spread of violence and extremism in our region. From the very outset of the crisis and when some regional and international actors helped to militarize the situation through infusion of arms and intelligence into the country and active support of extremist groups, we emphasized that there was no military solution to the Syrian crisis. Pursuit of expansionist strategies and objectives and attempts to change the regional balance through proxies cannot be camouflaged behind humanitarian rhetoric. The common objective of the international community should be a quick end to the killing of the innocent. While condemning any use of chemical weapons, we welcome Syria's acceptance of the Chemical Weapons Convention, and believe that the access by extremist terrorist groups to such weapons is the greatest danger to the region that must be considered in any disarmament plan. Simultaneously, I should underline that illegitimate and ineffective threat to use or the actual use of force will only lead to further exacerbation of violence and crisis in the region.

Terrorism and the killing of innocent people represent the ultimate inhumanity of extremism and violence. Terrorism is a violent scourge and knows no country or national borders. But, the violence and extreme actions such as the use of drones against innocent people in the name of combating terrorism should also be condemned. Here, I should also say a word about the criminal assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists. For what crimes have they been assassinated? The United Nations and the Security Council should answer the question: have the perpetrators been condemned?

Unjust sanctions, as manifestation of structural violence, are intrinsically inhumane and against peace. And contrary to the claims of those who pursue and impose them, it is not the states and the political elite that are targeted, but rather, it is the common people who are victimized by these sanctions. Let us not forget millions of Iraqis who, as a result of sanctions covered in international legal jargon, suffered and lost their lives, and many more who continue to suffer all through their lives. These sanctions are violent, pure and simple; whether called smart or otherwise, unilateral or multilateral. These sanctions violate inalienable human rights, inter alia, the right to peace, fight to development, right to access to health and education, and above all, the right to life. Sanctions, beyond any and all rhetoric, cause belligerence, warmongering and human suffering. It should be borne in mind, however, that the negative impact is not merely limited to the intended victims of sanctions; it also affects the economy and livelihood of other countries and societies, including the countries imposing sanctions.

Mr. President, Excellencies,

Violence and extremism nowadays have gone beyond the physical realm and have unfortunately afflicted and tarnished the mental and spiritual dimensions of life in human societies. Violence and extremism leave no space for understanding and moderation as the necessary foundations of collective life of human beings and the modem society. Intolerance is the predicament of our time. We need to promote and reinforce tolerance in light of the religious teachings and appropriate cultural and political approaches. The human society should be elevated from a state of mere tolerance to that of collective collaboration. We should not just tolerate others. We should rise above mere tolerance and dare to work together.

People all over the world are tired of war, violence and extremism. They hope for a change in the status quo. And this is a unique opportunity - for us all. The Islamic Republic of Iran believes that all challenges can be managed - successfully - through a smart, judicious blend of hope and moderation. Warmongers are bent on extinguishing all hope. But hope for change for the better is an innate, religious, widespread, and universal concept.

Hope is founded on the belief in the universal will of the people across the globe to combat violence and extremism, to cherish change, to oppose imposed structures, to value choice, and to act in accordance with human responsibility. Hope is no doubt one of the greatest gifts bestowed upon human beings by their All-Loving Creator. And moderation is to think and move in a wise, judicious manner, conscious of the time and the space, and to align exalted ideals with choice of effective strategies and policies, while cognizant of objective realities.

The Iranian people, in a judiciously sober choice in the recent elections, voted for the discourse of hope, foresight and prudent moderation - both at home and abroad. In foreign policy, the combination of these elements means that the Islamic Republic of Iran, as a regional power, will act responsibly with regard to regional and international security, and is willing and prepared to cooperate in these fields, bilaterally as well as multilaterally, with other responsible actors. We defend peace based on democracy and the ballot box everywhere, including in Syria, Bahrain, and other countries in the region, and believe that there are no violent solutions to world crises. The bitter and ugly realities of the human society can only be overcome through recourse to and reliance on human wisdom, interaction and moderation. Securing peace and democracy and ensuring the legitimate rights of all countries in the world, including in the Middle East, cannot - and will not - be realized through militarism.

Iran seeks to resolve problems, not to create them. There is no issue or dossier that cannot be resolved through reliance on hope and prudent moderation, mutual respect, and rejection of violence and extremism. Iran's nuclear dossier is a case in point. As clearly stated by the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, acceptance of the inalienable right of Iran constitutes the best and the easiest way of resolving this issue. This is not political rhetoric. Rather, it is based on a profound recognition of the state of technology in Iran, global political environment, the end of the era of zero-sum games, and the imperative of seeking common objectives and interests towards reaching common understanding and shared security. Put otherwise, Iran and other actors should pursue two common objectives as two mutually inseparable parts of a political solution for the nuclear dossier of Iran.

1. Iran's nuclear program - and for that matter, that of all other countries - must pursue exclusively peaceful purposes. I declare here, openly and unambiguously, that, notwithstanding the positions of others, this has been, and will always be, the objective of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Nuclear weapon and other weapons of mass destruction have no place in Iran's security and defense doctrine, and contradict our fundamental religious and ethical convictions. Our national interests make it imperative that we remove any and all reasonable concerns about Iran's peaceful nuclear program.

2. The second objective, that is, acceptance of and respect for the implementation of the right to enrichment inside Iran and enjoyment of other related nuclear rights, provides the only path towards achieving the first objective. Nuclear knowledge in Iran has been domesticated now and the nuclear technology, inclusive of enrichment, has already reached industrial scale. It is, therefore, an illusion, and extremely unrealistic, to presume that the peaceful nature of the nuclear program of Iran could be ensured through impeding the program via illegitimate pressures. In this context, the Islamic Republic of Iran, insisting on the implementation of its rights and the imperative of international respect and cooperation in this exercise, is prepared to engage immediately in time-bound and result-oriented talks to build mutual confidence and removal of mutual uncertainties with full transparency.

Iran seeks constructive engagement with other countries based on mutual respect and common interest, and within the same framework does not seek to increase tensions with the United States. I listened carefully to the statement made by President Obama today at the General Assembly. Commensurate with the political will of the leadership in the United States and hoping that they will refrain from following the short-sighted interest of warmongering pressure groups, we can arrive at a framework to manage our differences. To this end, equal footing, mutual respect, and the recognized principles of international law should govern the interactions. Of course, we expect to hear a consistent voice from Washington.

Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen,

In recent years, a dominant voice has been repeatedly heard: "The military option is on the table." Against the backdrop of this illegal and ineffective contention, let me say loud and clear that "peace is within reach." So, in the name of the Islamic Republic of Iran I propose, as a starting step, the consideration by the United Nations of the project: "the World Against Violence and Extremism." (WAVE) Let us all join this "WAVE." I invite all states, international organizations and civil institutions to undertake a new effort to guide the world in this direction. We should start thinking about "Coalition for Enduing Peace" all across the globe instead of the ineffective "Coalitions for War" in various parts of the world.

Today, the Islamic Republic of Iran invites you and the entire world community to take a step forward; an invitation to join the WAVE: World Against Violence and Extremism. We should accept and be able to open a new horizon in which peace will prevail over war, tolerance over violence, progress over bloodletting, justice over discrimination, prosperity over poverty, and freedom over despotism. As beautifully said by Ferdowsi, the renowned Iranian epic poet:

Be relentless in striving for the cause of Good
Bring the spring, you must, Banish the winter, you should

Notwithstanding all difficulties and challenges, I am deeply optimistic about the future. I have no doubt that the future will be bright with the entire world solidly rejecting violence and extremism. Prudent moderation will ensure a bright future for the world. My hope, aside from personal and national experience, emanates from the belief shared by all divine religions that a good and bright future awaits the world. As stated in the Holy Qur'an:

And We proclaimed in the Psalms, after We had proclaimed in the Torah, that My virtuous servants will inherit the earth. (21:105)

Thank you Mr. President

General Assembly of the United Nations
http://gadebate.un.org/sites/default/files/gastatements/68/IR_en.pdf