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

[American Visitor]

I enjoyed our discussion.

I agree there are certainly parallels between all terrorists. The major difference between the KKK and Al Queda is that the KKK were not trying to advance Christianity but their own political agenda. Most of their victims were already Christians.

With Al Queda you have individuals who do have a political agenda but are working primarily to advance Islam. It is somewhat like the conquistadors who imposed Catholacism on the Indians by force. We are involved in a religious war whether we like it or not.

The slave trade in Africa was very brutal. The death rate was enormous and the suffering was beyond imagination. Your point that we are all economic slaves is interesting especially since economic slavery actually does exist in some places. The difference between our American version of economic slavery and genuine slavery is partly a matter of degree and partly a matter of the physical and worst yet the permanent psychological damage which genuine slavery inflicts on the victim.

I believe George Bush means well. The poll numbers don't necessarily tell the whole story. However, the American people are a highly moral group and would probably give him more support if he would emphasize the moral aspects of the conflict, liberty, freedom of speech, freedom of religion etc. Democracy by itself is important but needs these other things to make it worthwhile fighting for.

Also I believe holding hands with the prince from Saudi Arabia sent the wrong message. This is a man who is not a democrat by any definition and has a country with almost no freedom whatsoever. Also Saudi Arabia has done much damage to countires like Pakistan by exporting their Wahabbi brand of Islam. No matter how much we need their oil, we shouldn't compromise our ideals.

Anyway, it was an interesting discussion.

[Oppenheimer]

"We are involved in a religious war whether we like it or not."

Takes two to tango. If you review the full text of Bush's inagural speech, and his state of the union address, you would understand why this isn't a religious war...on our part at least. And also you'll find exactly what you said was lacking regarding freedom, human rights, freedom of speech...etc.


As for Saudi Arabia....Time's are changing Visitor..

As well, there's a real interesting article on BBC regarding Ghaddafi's son, who has called for reconciliation and recompence for Libya's human rights abuses among it's own citizens over the years...

So, there's a hell of a lot of positive change afoot in the mideast...if you take the time to look for it.

Adios,

Oppie


Abdullah sees elected leaders within 15 yearsBy Nicholas Kralev
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
August 19, 2005
Saudi King Abdullah promised Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice a series of reforms that could give the desert kingdom an elected government within 10 to 15 years, says a senior U.S. official who was present when the two met in June.
"He professed to transform his country and talked about having a representative government within a decade or a decade and a half," said the official, who asked not to be named.
The 82-year-old king made the pledge during a June 20 visit by Miss Rice to the capital, Riyadh, when he was still crown prince and the kingdom's de facto ruler.
It is thought to be the first time a Saudi ruler has attached a timeline to moving toward a democratic process.
The Saudi Embassy in Washington did not respond to attempts to verify the U.S. official's account.
King Abdullah took over one of the world's few remaining absolute monarchies after his brother, King Fahd, who suffered a debilitating stroke a decade ago, died on Aug. 1.
When Miss Rice visited Riyadh, she and the future king agreed to maintain a "strategic dialogue" in four main areas: regional security; counterterrorism; the economy, including energy; and bilateral issues, including political reforms.
Pressing the Saudis on democracy, as well as the overall U.S. relationship with the oil-rich kingdom, has been one of the biggest challenges for the Bush administration since the September 11 terrorist attacks, in which 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi.
The administration often has argued that freedom and democracy in the Middle East will result in fewer people turning to extremism to achieve their political goals.
Miss Rice arrived in Riyadh hours after delivering a speech in Cairo in which she criticized the 60-year-old U.S. policy of pursuing "stability at the expense of democracy."
Late that night, at a press conference with Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal, she added, "There is no way in which the United States wishes to impose its own system or its will on others, but rather to help others in their efforts to choose freely."
The secretary also called for "further progress on the rights of women," although she declined to encourage Saudis to allow women to drive.
"It's just a line I've not wanted to cross, and I think it's important that we do have some boundaries about what it is we are trying to achieve," she told reporters on her plane on June 21.
The Saudis have taken a step toward democracy by holding elections for municipal advisory councils.
The senior U.S. official who was at Miss Rice's dinner with King Abdullah acknowledged the diplomatic challenge for Washington in promoting democracy in Saudi Arabia without appearing too pushy and demanding.
"It requires us to make awkward choices," he said. "We can offer sensitive advice, but they will have to do the changes."
He and other officials said developments in the Middle East have created an "opening" that must not be squandered.
"The expectations from Saudi Arabia are high," a State Department official said yesterday. "The people are seeing reforms around the region and want to be part of the trend, and leaders cannot afford to ignore that."
He said some of King Abdullah's actions since ascending to the throne, particularly his pardon of five imprisoned reform activists last week, "signal a response to popular demand."
"We applaud this decision," State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said after the Aug. 8 announcement. "President Bush has said that Saudi Arabia can demonstrate its leadership in the region by expanding the role of the Saudi people."
In a step toward opening to the world, the Saudi government said this week that it would liberalize its strict entry visa regime next year by ending discrimination against non-Muslims. The kingdom is attempting to qualify for membership in the World Trade Organization.
Still, Muslim women visiting the country would need to be traveling with a legal companion, while non-Muslim women would need only a sponsor, the Arab News daily reported.

[American Visitor]

[Oppenheimer]

Interview With Adam Garfinkle and Dan Kennelly of The American Interest


Secretary Condoleezza Rice
Washington, DC
July 25, 2005

(3:30 p.m. EDT)

QUESTION: We've seen from the Cold War that strong states were the source of
most international security problems. Nowadays, a lot of people argue that weak
and failing states are the larger source of problems because they leave room
for non-state bad guys to plot and plan. Do you think that's really true? And
if it is true, is it a passing blip or is this a real structural change in
world politics, that instance?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, first of all, I do think it's true at this particular
point in time that while there are strong states that have conflictual issues
from time to time, there are no really underlying conflictual interests that
would drive to the kind of animosity that we had between the Soviet Union and
the United States during the Cold War, for instance. And so, if you look at
most of the great powers out there, they actually have, perhaps, more in common
than they have in conflict.

Now, the really interesting question is, will that last over time or will this
kind -- is this a sort of structural, you know, (inaudible) period in which you
will see the re-emergence of great state conflict. I happen to think that
because international politics is partly about agency, not just grand events
moving or grand forces moving, that if we're smart about it then, in fact, you
can probably get to a position where you would not foresee great power conflict
for years, decades, maybe even longer to come. And if you go back to the
President's national security strategy, it essentially foreshadows that and
says that you could come to a time where great power conflict doesn't exist and
wouldn't exist again in the future.

Now, the flipside of that is the weak state theory, which I think is clearly
true for the time being, that the inability of states to engage in what people
have called responsible sovereignty, to do things like guard their borders, to
have police forces or border guards that are not corrupt, to manage their
internal affairs in a way that does not permit the growth of cells -- terrorist
cells and the like -- the ability to manage trade and flow, so that you don't
get trade and flow and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction materials
or the like. All of those are difficult for any state, but particularly
difficult for weak states. And so, the ability to strengthen the capacity of
states -- we had a long period in which I think we thought of globalization and
transnationalism as positive trends. And for the most part, when you talk about
trade and people and openness, they are positive trends. But there's a downside
to it, too, which is that if you don't have -- if sovereignty is breaking down
or if the ability to control those aspects and those elements that we associate
with sovereignty -- if that's breaking down, then you're very vulnerable. So, I
think for this moment in time, yes, I would say that's right.

QUESTION: Okay. The second one's a little bit more (inaudible), I guess. The
diplomacy of the Iraq war has suggested to many that we and some of our allies
-- I won't name them -- lack a basic consensus over what is a legitimate use of
force and what role international institutions, including the UN Security
Council, have in defining what the legitimate use of force is. Now, how serious
a lack of consensus is this? And I ask, because one contemplates NATO; how can
NATO be an effective organization in the long run if its members disagree about
first principles every time a serious crisis arises? What do you think that the
basis of this lack of consensus and what, if anything, can we do to reconcile
it?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I would be careful about extrapolation from a single
case. Iraq is a fairly, I think, unique phenomenon, in that you've had a
consensus about the problem and about the threat and about the outlaw status of
Saddam Hussein's regime or you would not have had 17 UN Security Council
resolutions and you would not have had sanctions on the Iraqis that we now know
were working -- not working very well, but nonetheless, the sanctions regime
that was completely supported in theory by the international community. So, I
don't think there was any disagreement about the threat of Saddam Hussein or
about the outlaw status of that regime. I don't think it's -- and so, that, in
a sense makes Iraq a bit unique. But I also don't think that there is anything
in history that suggests that you're always going to have consensus about the
timing of the use of force. When you think about the Kosovo situation, for
instance, you also didn't get a UN Security Council resolution.

QUESTION: And NATO is good enough.

SECRETARY RICE: So NATO -- you've got a NATO resolution, but you were not able
to get a Security Council resolution at that time. So, the only times in which
you were actually able to get a UN Security Council resolution on the use of
force was the Korean crisis when, of course, the Russians had walked out of the
room. And the Gulf War in 1991, which I think was potentially well, possibly,
a kind of crack in time where you've had such an egregious behavior by the
Iraqis and also the fact that the Russians were in a particular state at that
point that you got agreement on the use of force.

So, I think that the Iraq situation is, in many ways, unique. But the fact that
you can't get consensus on the use of force is actually not really unique in
international history. So, it means that at any given time, you may be
operating with a coalition of the willing. In fact, NATO was a -- was not a UN
Security Council resolution either. And so, I mean, NATO acted not -- without
any UN Security Council resolution as well. So, I think this is, in many ways,
an argument that's more theoretical than practical.

QUESTION: Okay.

SECRETARY RICE: You'd obviously always like to have the widest possible support
for the use of force, but -- you know, when you have 17 violated security
council resolutions and when you have a state that has wreaked as much havoc in
a region as important as the Middle East as Iraq has, then I think somebody
sometimes has to take a decision to act and it was a coalition that took a
decision to act.

QUESTION: Okay. Let's move to Asia now for a moment, okay. A lot of observers
of Asia see a trend toward Pan-Asian attitudes and institutions at the expense
of Trans-Pacific ones. You have the ASEAN plus three and the summit coming up.
And I know you know about this because it was the main theme of your Tokyo
speech in March.

SECRETARY RICE: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Is this a problem for the United States? And if it is, how many
options do we have to actually do anything about it?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I don't think it's a problem that there is an identity
that is Pan-Asian, no. I think it would be a problem if it becomes an
exclusivist identity. And I don't think that all the states in that who are a
part of that identity wanted to be exclusivists. I don't think Japan wants to
be exclusivists. In talking to a number of the Southeast Asians, they don't
want to it be exclusivist. The Australians most certainly don't want it to be.
And so, the idea that you would have existing, side-by-side organizations that
are Pan-Asian or organizations that are Trans-Pacific, I think, is
unproblematic. The advantage to the, sort of, Trans-Pacific ones is that it
brings together democratic forces as well and so, that needs to be kept in
mind.

But I think there are plenty of institutional possibilities to strengthen those
Trans-Pacific ties and the United States has a lot of leverage and considerable
influence by which to do that.

QUESTION: You have stressed transformational diplomacy. That's the phrase that
we've heard a lot and as I understand it, that's the determination to actually
fundamentally solve the problem when you can, as opposed to just tinkering with
it or managing it. But obviously, potential judgment has to come to bear
because not every problem has a solution. So, assuming that there's such a
thing as a bridge too far in foreign policy, how do you know when you're on the
near side of one?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I don't think you can think of it in those terms. I think
you have to decide what is critical to American interests and American security
interests and you have to go after those problems. And I also think that, you
know, the other part of transformational diplomacy is that what you're trying
to do is to increase the capacity of states to deal with these -- with problems
as well and it goes back to the first point about weak states.

If you don't believe that you can tolerate a situation in which weak states
become either breeding grounds for terrorism or transit ports for terrorism or
unable to control the environment and therefore, have a spillover effect in the
international system, then you have to do something to increase capacity. And
so, part of it is -- part of transformational diplomacy is actually working
with other states to increase their capacity, to change people's lives, to
change state capacity, to actively transform in that -- actively transform
other states in their capacity in people's lives.

And you're not going to be able to do it in every case, no. But clearly, there
are enough key places that you're going to have to be able to do that -- Middle
East (inaudible), Africa. And I actually think if you have it as a goal that
it's not just up to the United States to do this, but that you have partners
and that you actually have willing states as well who want to be a part of
this, that it doesn't overstretch your capacity to try and do it. No, you're
not going to dissolve every problem, but if you manage to do well in some
percentage in those cases, you're going to leave a better world -- a lot better
off than if you hadn't tried.

QUESTION: Absolutely. Next question. The hallmark of President Bush's second
term was established in the inaugural -- second inaugural, which is the spread
of democracy worldwide as America's mission. So in that light, what do you make
-- what do you make of the arguments that we've all heard from time to time
that if electoral democracy comes too soon before the institutions of liberal
democracy are established, you can end up with a populist demagogy. And I'm
sure you also know of the data, which suggests that young democracies correlate
with both interstate and civil war.

So presumably, the application of this mission, which I don't think anybody
would doubt, has to be done with some care. How does that actually apply in the
real world say, in the Middle East where its focus is today?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, the first thing is that democracy is not just elections.
Democracy is, in fact, also the creation of liberal institutions, the
strengthening of civil society, because most of our democracy programs are
actually aimed at those sorts of elements. It's fairly later into the process
that you get into election assistance. We've been working in a lot of these
places for a long time on civil society development and institutional
developmental.

You look at a place like Ukraine. I was in Ukraine in 2001. You would never
have guessed that the Orange Revolution in 2001, you would never have guessed
that the Orange Revolution was actually going to be led by a combination of
opposition and civil society. But those groups have been strengthened and
supported over a period of time.

So, democracy is more than just elections. It is also institutions in civil
society and you have to work in all elements of it. But I also reject the
notion that because democracy is hard and because there are risks associated
with democratization, to sort of then decide -- the question I always have for
people is: "Okay, then, what is the answer? Is it continued authoritarianism?"
Well, that hasn't gotten us very far, particularly in the Middle East where all
it's done is bred opposition outside of reliable channels or outside of
legitimate channels, so that you get, instead, extremism.

It clearly isn't the case that the United States of America ought to argue that
"Well, those people just aren't ready for democracy." And from that side, is
that the answer to -- there might be risks associated with democracy. And when
it comes to the question of whether you might, in fact, get extremists elected,
which is another way that this is somehow sometimes put, I think you have to
ask yourself if you are better off in an situation in which extremists or
Islamists or others get to hide behind their mask and operate on the fringes of
the political system, because there is no accountability in the political
system or which actually, you'd rather have an open political system in which
people have to actually contest for the will of the people and who does best in
a contestation for the will of the people. To a certain extent, you have to
trust these values and you have to believe that while democracy is very hard,
it is certainly not an easy system to bring into being. I would have two
answers: first, it's certainly better than anything else that we can point to
and secondly, what's the alternative?

QUESTION: Okay. During the Cold War, we were all familiar with varieties of
anti-Americanism, mostly on the left. A lot of people now say that not only is
anti-Americanism greater, but that its sources are more diverse, it's coming
from other places on the political spectrum than the left. Do you think that's
so? And if you do, where does this come from? Is it just, you know, a reaction
to American conduct after the 9/11 attacks or is -- is there something -- is it
because we're "number one" and there's a natural envy? What do you think
accounts for this?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I think you have to be a little bit more -- people have
to be more rigorous in what they mean by anti-Americanism. Clearly, this is
still the most popular place in the world to come if you are a student or want
to come and be educated or if you want to emigrate, this is still a pretty
popular place, the United States. American culture, both good and bad, is very
much sought after abroad.

So -- and I still think that the values that the United States espouses are the
most universal of all values. Now, I do think that we've gone through a period
of time in which the United States has had to do very difficult things as the
most powerful state in the international system, if you will, to decide that
you were going to have to shape the environment so that things began to change.
And I would give a couple of examples where those decisions were wildly
unpopular at the time but now have become almost common wisdom.

The decision that we weren't going to deal with Yasser Arafat because he was a
failed, bankrupt leader and there was going to be no peace in the Middle East
until the Palestinians had new leadership. Now, it's almost common wisdom. But
when the President said that in June of 2002, it was considered an outrageous
statement.

QUESTION: It made me happy.

(Laughter.)

SECRETARY RICE: You're unusual. For most people it was, "How can you do that?
You have to deal with Arafat. You'll never get a peace without him." Well,
we've learned something very different.

QUESTION: Well, we may not get a peace without him, but we certainly weren't
going to get one with him.

SECRETARY RICE: And the President's point was that the Palestinian people
deserved better. They deserved a government that was democratic and not corrupt
and transparent and all those things. Now, everybody talks about transparency
in the Palestinian Authority. The Palestinians, by the way, talk about
transparency in the Palestinian Authority. So that's just an example of taking
a difficult course.

QUESTION: Yeah. He changed the whole conversation.

SECRETARY RICE: Yes. And he completely changed the conversation about that. So
that's the kind of thing where the United States has to take a difficult
decision. We had to take a difficult decision in Iraq. Not everybody likes it.
I do think now, though, if you go, like I did to the Brussels conference, and
you have a list of people talking about how a stable, democratic Iraq at peace
with its neighbors and at peace with itself could change the entire structure
in the Middle East, it's now common wisdom that that is the case.

So, the United States has had, from time to time, to take difficult decisions.
And when you have to take difficult decisions, sometimes people want to shoot
the messenger. And on some of these hard things that have had to be said,
that's the way it's been. But it's also the case -- and here, I think, 60 years
of American policy is somewhat at fault. And I don't try now to go back and
prejudge or to judge, in retrospect, the decisions that were taken over the
whole history of the Cold War about the Middle East and authoritarianism. But
the sense that the United States was associated with authoritarian regimes and
that there was a kind of Middle East exceptionalism when it came to democracy,
I think that has hurt us. But the President is on a different course now and I
still -- I do think it's appreciated.

QUESTION: I wish I had time to go into more detail on that particular matter
because there's some things that I -- well, let me ask you one thing.

SECRETARY RICE: Yeah.

QUESTION: I mean, does that mean, for example -- just take one example out of
dozens you can think of. Does that mean that the President thinks or that you
think possibly that putting the Shah of Iran back in his peacock throne in 1953
was a mistake and that that did not bring stability for 25 years?

SECRETARY RICE: Oh, like I said, -- and listen, I'm sure at the time it was a
very tough decision because what you can't do very effectively is go back in
time and try to put yourself in the context of what everybody was dealing with
at that particular point in time. You take decisions in a particular political
and temporal context. And I have never been one to go back and say, "Well, they
made a mistake in X, Y or Z," because I understand. But the cumulative effect
of policies over a long period of time, where not only did we not speak out
about authoritarian practices, but where those practices then denied a
legitimate channel to descent, have indeed come back, I think, to haunt us.

QUESTION: Right. Well, you and I both went to graduate school, inundated with
arms control and (inaudible) and all that stuff. And now there's no more Soviet
Union.

SECRETARY RICE: Right.

QUESTION: And now people are talking about the second nuclear age of incipient
medium power-- all that stuff that we learned in graduate school.

SECRETARY RICE: Yeah.

QUESTION: Is it worth a hoot?

SECRETARY RICE: (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Is any of it useful or does some of it actually get in the way of
clear thought?

SECRETARY RICE: I always say that I'm clearly a dinosaur, since the first book
that I wrote was called "The Soviet Union and the Czechoslovak Army" and
neither of those countries exist anymore, so, I'm 0 for 2.

I do think that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a break in the old system
and the beginning of a new one. I don't think we really I've always thought
that the end of the Soviet Union and 9/11 were kind of bookends. There was that
period in between where we didn't really know what the shape of international
conflict was going to look like and so -- but I found that what was useful from
studying as a political scientist and earlier in economics and then in
political science as a graduate student was, you gained certain analytic tools
about the international system.

You know, you learn to understand how incentives are imprinted on the
international system by the most powerful states and how states respond to them
or don't. I mean, those are the kinds of things that I think are useful. But,
yeah, much of the arms control theory that we learned, I think, is probably
it goes the way of people who studied early ancient text. But the key is to
make current policy respond to the new threats on the proliferation side, not
to remain

QUESTION: Stuck.

SECRETARY RICE: stuck in the past. I mean, I remember the debates at the time
of the United States' decision, the President's decision, to move beyond the
ABM Treaty and to finally decide that the ABM Treaty should be put out of its
misery. And I remember having discussions with people from time to time and
they would say, "But, you know, it's prevented war." And I would think, "No, it
hasn't prevented war."

Actually, to the degree that it was a part of a system that had mutually
assured destruction at its core, okay, maybe. But on what grounds today would
you expect that the United States and Russia would engage in suicidal nuclear
war? So nothing so even if you want to grant that at the time of the Soviet
Union and the United States -- when really, the only thing that we agreed about
was that we would prefer not to annihilate each other.

And by the way, that's why, when there would be summits, everything was focused
on arms control, because the summit between Brezhnev and Carter or -- you know,
Reagan and Gorbechev was an opportunity to reassure the rest of the world that
we actually didn't want to annihilate each other and, by the way, them as well.

And so, this was a system, this kind of -- this system of strategic stability,
which I wrote papers on and I'm sure you did too. The strategic stability was a
system that came out of a particular political context in which the United
States and the Soviet Union were mortal enemies but essentially didn't want to
annihilate each other and so, they created strategic stability as the content.

When you lost the political venom that was underneath the U.S.-Soviet
relationship, you no longer needed this system of strategic stability, but
people couldn't let go of the ABM Treaty because it was a part of strategic
stability. That, to me, was a good lesson in why you have to be able to move
beyond whatever it was you were taught in graduate school.

QUESTION: Great. Next question. Dr. Kissinger said a couple of months ago that
he thought it might be a good idea if the world's main energy consumers sat
down together and sort of thought through, in concert, how they might avoid
beggar-thy-neighbor, 19th century-style competitions for resources. What do you
think of this idea of sitting down privately in a sort of Metternichian concert
diplomacy? Is it a good idea or not? Do you think we yet have a coherent
diplomacy of global resource policy?

SECRETARY RICE: It's an interesting question and I don't I do think that
energy is becoming an increasingly important part of the diplomatic calculus
and I'm not quite sure that we have fully accounted for it in our diplomacy.
The President has begun to do that because when he talks to nations about
economic growth and development, energy is always a part of his discussion with
them. It's also the case that this cannot simply be competition for fossil
fuels. If it's competition for fossil fuels, you are back into a kind of 19th
century world of scarce resources with everybody trying for the same pie. And
it seems rather antiquated in a world in which, you know, oil is a traded
commodity, it's where -- because you're not in the same situation where people
are simply trying to put their stake on this field or that field, but it has
that feel when you think of just competition for fossil fuels.

If you'd think of it, though, in a more 20th century post-World War II, the way
that we can see that the global trading system, which was not zero-sum, but
rather one in which you could have additive policies, there are ways to
approach this in which the pie of energy expands; now, not in the immediate
term, but technology for instance, so that -- I thought that what came out of
the G-8 on global climate change had advantages not just for the environment,
but advantages on the energy side that you would have commitment to trying to
find clean sources of energy through technological innovation. It gives you a
whole different way to think about the energy problem.

You're obviously going to have to solve the nuclear energy problem if states
are going to be able to diversify their energy sources, which is why we're
exploring, as you know, with India, civil nuclear energy. You simply can't be
in a position in which you have huge growing economies like China and India and
others where the energy supply is finite. And so, the combination of increasing
the exploration and production of fossil fuels -- I mean, this sort of thing
that Saudi Arabia has promised to do in the longer run -- but also making that
energy resource less finite through the applications of new technologies and
the engaging of civil nuclear, I think, are all ways that you can avoid the
kind of 19th century competition for resources that underlay the whole collapse
of the concert system.

QUESTION: Right.

MS. STEVENS: You have time for about one more question.

QUESTION: One more question. I only have two left, doing pretty good. Here's a
question that loops back to the failed-state issue, but it starts from a
different direction. When the international environment, one of the things we
all learned in school I hoped you learned in school when the international
environment changes, governments need new skill sets to deal with those
changes. And sometimes, to get those new skill sets, we have to reorganize
ourselves. And so, we've seen in recent years, a Homeland Security Department,
a new intelligence arrangement, it's quite logical and normal.

Well, one of the skill sets that everybody acknowledges we need is how to deal
with weakened, failing states in post-conflict situations. And, I mean, we know
how to, you know, set up a hospital. We know how to, you know, do basic sort of
like well, wait, we don't know how to create viable, self-sustaining real
institutions in a lot of the countries that don't have it. So, we have a new
office in this building that Carlos Pasqual is running. And I know you voiced
very strong support for that, that whole effort.

SECRETARY RICE: Yes.

QUESTION: So, how is that office coming along so far, and how far does it have
to go until you are satisfied that it has the operational capacity you think we
need?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, Carlos is doing a terrific job with it and I think it's
coming along. It's got great support in our committees on the Hill, but it's
going to have to get larger.

And I have a second point that I want to make about its connection to others in
the international system, but let me take on the point of skills first. It's
absolutely the case that when I sit here, whether I'm talking to the
transitional Liberian leadership or talking with people about Haiti or talking
with John Garang, who I talked to recently about Sudan, or talking to the
Iraqis or talking to the Afghans, you know, the same issues keep coming up.
These are states without reliable police forces, for instance. They are states
without a reliable system of border and customs management. They are states
that haven't quite yet figured out a number of the economic issues that they
have to deal with. I mean, it's just capacity, capacity, capacity and it's the
same issues time and time again.

And we're talking about states that are in the Caribbean, states that are in
the Middle East, states that are in Africa, the Palestinians. It doesn't
matter. It's the same set of issues. They don't have reliable and -- you know,
reliable civilian-controlled security forces. You can go (inaudible.) And we
haven't been organized to help them do it.

So what we've done every time one of these has come out -- and by the way, the
first came to light in Bosnia. So what we did was we had ad hoc arrangements
for each one. And so finally, you say to yourself, "Okay, when are we going to
realize that this is not an ad hoc problem? This is a problem that's going to
continue to occur," and that's when you start to get institutional capacity
inside the Department of State. And the Defense Department would be the first
to tell you the military can do some of these things on a temporary basis, but
it's not their forte and they certainly don't want to have to do it on a
long-term basis.

Now to my mind, not only do we need to strengthen our own capacity, but we also
need to strengthen -- we need to have other states strengthen their capacity.
So, one thing that Carlos has been talking to other states about is who can
create the equivalent of a civil -- a kind of civil reserve -- civilian reserve
in civil servants who can help with all these various elements. It's sometimes
as simple as, how do you setup and maintain a ministry. You've got a minister,
now what's underneath him? And so, getting other states to do this too will be
very crucial.

And then there has to be some kind of international coordinating mechanism. And
there are different stages that states go through, but particularly when
they're coming out of a post-conflict situation. They need immediate help in
some of these areas and then they need medium-term help and then they need
longer-term help. And I'm really hopeful. It's one of the issues of this
peace-building commission that the UN is talking about as a part of UN reform
could really deal with how do you get that immediate help into the field. It's
one of the reasons that we've pushed so hard that you've got to have broad UN
reform and not just UN Security Council reform.

QUESTION: Absolutely.

SECRETARY RICE: Because while everybody's talking about, you know, the Security
Council and, in fact, you know, Security Council reform is important. But I was
out in Sudan looking at the need to build a comprehensive to sustain the
Comprehensive Peace Agreement between north and south of Sudan, solved the
Darfur problem and began to deal with Darfur as a part of this, thinking,
"Where is the capacity, internationally, to do this?" So yes, these
transformations of the international first of all, of our foreign ministries
and the State Department have to get done and then, I think we have to have
better international capacity as well.

MR. MCCORMACK: This will be your last question

QUESTION: One more, yes. I've only got one left.

SECRETARY RICE: Yeah, yeah.

QUESTION: This is a soft policy.

(Laughter.)

QUESTION: In January of 2009, I think it is, there'll be a new President. We
don't know if he's going to be a Democrat or a Republican or whatever. And it's
a long time from now.

SECRETARY RICE: Yes, yes.

QUESTION: You know, but still, from the vantage point of the summer of 2005,
what do you think, though, are the one or two principal legacies of these two
terms will be or, even better, what would you like them to be?

SECRETARY RICE: Yeah. Well, I really do think that the President's second
inaugural will stand as one of the most important statements of American policy
of many, many, many years.

QUESTION: I agree.

SECRETARY RICE: And the response to that has been pretty dramatic around the
world if you look at, (inaudible), the kind of multiple democratic sprouts that
are out there now. And so, I think the real issue is, can you leave a
foundation in which those sprouts are beginning to grow into something more
sustainable. I do not believe for a minute that by 2009, you will have stable
democracies in all of these places. I just don't see that. You didn't have a
stable democracy in the United States for a fair number of years and forget
after 1776; after 1789.

And it takes institutions have to grow not just in capacity, but in
legitimacy and it takes kind of repeated interaction by the population with
those institutions to believe in them and to begin to channel their problems
through those institutions instead of outside of them. That's all the process
of democratic consolidation. But what the legacy has to be is to leave the
foundation in place for that and to leave an American policy and American
institutions that can support and sustain that process of democratic
consolidation. So, I really think that's where it is. I do think that there are
-- you know, the other major issues will be the progress on the new
proliferation agenda. You know, we were laughing a few minutes ago about angels
dancing on a head of an SS-18 when we were in graduate school.

QUESTION: Well that was a big bust.

(Laughter.)

SECRETARY RICE: Yeah, which was -- listen, you know, a lot of angels could
dance on the head of that thing. But now, you know, the kinds of challenges are
very different, where you're talking about secretive regimes, dual-use
technologies, not something you can necessarily see the national technical
means, not necessarily something that they parade through the streets. How do
you deal with that proliferation challenge? How do you deal with the A.Q. Khan
phenomenon? Those are major issues. And then finally, on the terrorism front, I
think when people talk about it, you know, being able to deal with to break
up these organizations like al-Qaida and the like, that's all critical; defend
the homeland, that's all critical.

But again, when we have laid a foundation in which moderate Islam is on the
ascendant, if I look at places like Pakistan, I know that in 2001, it was, I
think, on its way to extremism. It's now pulled back from that brink and you
have a president in Pakistan who's trying to move it in a different direction.
There are stories like that across the broader Middle East and the moderates
have to win.

QUESTION: Thank you, Madame Secretary.

SECRETARY RICE: Thank you.
2005/830



Released on September 1, 2005

************************************************************
See http://www.state.gov/secretary/ for all remarks by the Secretary of State.
******

[American Visitor]

Thanks for the post. Condi Rice is a very smart woman. I'm not a Bush basher since I think he is much better than some other presidents we have had and I support his attempts to promote democracy in the Middle East.

I believe we all agree on the goal although we may disagree in exactly how to arrive at that point. Here is my wish list:
1. Universal brotherhood of all mankind. There is no room in a free country for racism, tribalism or sexism. This principle includes actually caring for and looking out for the welfare of those people of other religions, races and cultures who are willing to share in this great experiment. Since this is a foundational principle of our national culture, we should demand an acknowledgement of this principle from all new immigrants. Those who don't agree should be asked to stay out of our country.
The US is a secular government, not a secular people. This is a big difference which has been recognized from the founding of this nation. The roll of government is to recognize the important part religion plays in society and be respectful of religious beliefs; not to support religion directly but certainly not to promote the rights and beliefs of the secularists at the expense of the religious.
2. Freedom of religion. This freedom like all others has its limits. If people promote murder, terrorism or treason from their places of worship there will have to be limits.
3. Freedom of speech. All speech is protected except for that which maliciously attempts to severely damage or kill other people.
4. All other freedoms guaranteed in our constitution including the right to own and bear arms.

[Oppenheimer]

Viewpoint: The global voices reclaiming Islam
By Ziauddin Sardar
Presenter, BBC Two's Battle for Islam


Ziauddin Sardar, travelling around several Muslim countries, finds that thinkers, activists, political leaders and ordinary Muslims across the globe are refusing to be defined by the ideology of violence and intolerance, but their responses are diverse.


Pakistani-born Sardar discussed "enlightened moderation" with President Pervez Musharraf
This has been a terrible year to be a Muslim.

But, revolted by what is being perpetrated in the name of Islam, the Muslim world is bringing a whole range of new debates to the fore.

For decades the core debate in the Muslim world was about establishing an ideological "Islamic state" and returning to the Sharia, the historical body of Islamic law.

This debate, often led by so-called "Islamic movements", produced a narrow, intolerant, obscurantist, illiberal, brutal and confrontational interpretation of Islam. It is this interpretation that gave rise to what we now know as "Islamic fundamentalism".

But the fixed simplistics of fundamentalists never were the whole of the debate - even though the fundamentalists shout the loudest and dominate the globe through violent expression.

Sharia debate

Now, fundamentalism is being challenged by emerging and alternative visions of Islam, each taking shape in different ways in different countries.

Pakistan was founded as the first modern Islamic state. But it was only in 1978 under the military regime of General Zia ul Haq that Sharia was made the law of the land.

BATTLE FOR ISLAM

Zia Sardar presents a 90-minute documentary
Monday, 5 September, 2005
BBC Two, 2100 BST
What followed was a series of cases where the implementation of the law acquired a notorious reputation for practical injustice, especially towards women.

And it is women who are really standing up to this law.

The essence of the argument against the Sharia is much more than the fact that its interpretation and application is illiberal and contrary to contemporary ideas of human rights.

The fundamentalist position is that the Koran is the source of all legislation in Islam and therefore the Sharia is an immutable body of sacred law.

It is this concept itself that is now being challenged.

Sharia, it is being widely argued, is not divine but a "jurists' law", that was formulated and socially constructed during the early phase of Islamic history.

It can be changed, modified and reformulated - in its entirety.

Thus the Sharia, as an inherited body of rulings and precedent, is being reclaimed in Pakistan.

Muslim scholars are demanding the same right as their forebears to investigate the sources for alternative interpretations, new ways of framing and operating precepts and law.

Activists' agenda

We can see this activism not just in Pakistan but also in Morocco.

In Morocco an entirely recast family law aspect of Sharia has been produced by Islamic scholars.

It was promulgated by the King in response to widespread public demonstrations by women and, when published, became an instant best-seller.


What might the younger generation bring to Islam?
While it has its opponents, including women, its impeccable Islamic intellectual credentials - advancing the case for gender equality, poverty eradication, economic advancement and the development of free expression through civil society - are now the agenda of debate.

The irony is that neither Pakistan nor Morocco are democracies: one a thinly veiled military regime, the other a near-absolute monarchy.

But the activist proponents of this alternative interpretation of Islam are clear that it can never be fully realised without democracy; indeed that democracy is an essential hallmark of a genuine Islamic society.

Separation from state

Indonesia has the world's largest Muslim population.

Eight years ago, it threw off 30 years of dictatorship backed by the military. Democracy has led to a great outpouring of new thinking.


The reality of the Muslim world is its immense diversity

Zia Sardar
Established organisations such as Mohammadiyah and new civic society organisations such as the Liberal Islam Network - which have followings in the tens of millions - are revising the conventional views of Islam and the state.

In seeking an interpretation of Islam that is both authentic and moderate, liberal, tolerant, open and democratic, they stress the importance of separation between religion and state.

And thus they come to a vision of modernity for Muslims that is rooted in, and inspired by, Islam, yet does not lay claim to being an infallible expression of religion and therefore closed to debate.

It is these agents of civil society that are setting the pace of change.

Diverse solutions

The demands they make on governments are producing a response. But it is no longer a case of seeking one solution.

There is a diversity of responses according to the particular circumstances of different countries, with different histories and different experiences of modernising and modernity.

Countries visited for the documentary
Pakistan
Indonesia
Malaysia
Morocco
Turkey


Find out more with our clickable map
The extremists have one all-embracing, all-constraining ideology.

But the reality of the Muslim world is its immense diversity.

The new ideas battling for the soul of Islam have a clear set of common principles but they are varied and must be heard in their own context and place.

A journey around the populous periphery of the Muslim world clearly demonstrates that the extremists are not only a minority but that the fossilised traditionalism from which they derive their legitimacy is also on the retreat.

There is a new air of optimism and confidence in many places that an Islam that is moderate, tolerant and democratic not only should - but will - actually be the future.

This new spirit, and the new ideas it is producing, is not tentative.

But it would be too soon to assert that the ideas are carrying all before them and have secured their dominance.

It is, however, beyond question that to understand the changes taking place in the Muslim world, and appreciate how Islam is being reformed, one has to listen to these voices from the edge.

[American Visitor]

[Oppenheimer]

Quote:
But the activist proponents of this alternative interpretation of Islam are clear that it can never be fully realized without democracy; indeed that democracy is an essential hallmark of a genuine Islamic society.

--------
I don't follow the logic here. No Islamic government in history has been a democracy so how is that a natural result of Islam? A sober analysis of the facts and not make believe is the only way to genuine freedom and democracy.


---------------------

I think the concept is that Freedom is not something bestowed by governments, but as a natural, inalienable right of all men and women they were born with, but not always allowed to practice by governments.
Or religion in general for that matter, on many occasions throughout history.

But there are practical, pragmatic means to realize this in today's world, and yes the internal changes within Islam are party to that global change in mindset, as outlined "in Larger Freedom".

I don't know how much you "cruise" the topics on this board, and you may have missed this....

http://www.daneshjoo.org/article/publish/article_3326.shtml

The "Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy
in Iran" (SMCCDI)
_____________________


September 7, 2005

The Honorable John Bolton,
United States Ambassador to the UN
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20520

Via Federal Express & Fax (202) 647-0244


Dear Mr. Ambassador,

On behalf of the membership of the "Student Movement
Coordination Committee for Democracy in Iran" (SMCCDI), and
the people of Iran who have striven so long for freedom of
speech, worship, assembly, a free press, civil liberties,
woman's rights, the application of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, and the rule of law; We
congratulate you on your nomination as America's Ambassador
to the UN.

Comes now this Iranian opposition group, to apprise you of
the facts, the conclusions and suggestions we have been
given to put forward herein this letter, as context to the
2005 UN Summit, and the pending address to the UN of the
Islamic Republic regime's appointed president, Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad, with the gravest concern for the welfare and
common good of all people, and generations to come...


"In Larger Freedom"

The body of evidence compiled over the long history of
the Islamic Republic's systemic methodology of torture,
political repression and murder of journalists and
dissidents; crimes against humanity including the past and
current crackdown on ethnic and religious minorities, and
"troublemakers" (i.e.: political dissidents of the regime);
applying a Gender Apartheid policy and sexual
discrimination against women; sponsoring and officially
engaging in terrorism (internally and externally), by its
leadership and proxy; suppression of the press, closing of
TV and newspapers as well as confiscation of satellite
dishes, the arrest of "bloggers" and the shutting down of
internet sites, arbitrary arrest and lack of "due process";
the denial of requested information to the UN Commission on
Human Rights (and its sub committees), the denial of access
and information to the IAEA, false declaration to various
UN committee; The failure to uphold the tenants of the UN
Charter signed by Iran in 1948 (in multiple aspects,
consistently and premeditative, and the long history of
denial, subterfuge, bribery, and false public statements on
the record in the UN we believe must be addressed in
totality, before the Security Council, along with other
issues and recommendations brought before the council
regarding this regime, to obtain a holistic solution to a
common threat.

We understand that the UN Commission on Human Rights
mandate covers only one aspect of the larger picture that
must be addressed, and while the "1503 procedure" states, "
No communication will be admitted if it runs counter to the
principles of the Charter of the United Nations or appears
to be politically motivated." and further states, "As a
rule, communications containing abusive language or
insulting remarks about the State against which the
complaint is directed will not be considered."

We believe it is essential that you and the Commission
understand that SMCCDI's intent is not "politically
motivated" in seeking greater freedom for Iran's people,
nor does any member aspire to become a representative of
any new political structure that may exist in a future free
Iran. It is important for us that you and the UN understand
the nature and precepts of SMCCDI as well as the long road
that has brought the opposition in general to the
conclusions and suggestions expressed herein.

While the 1503 procedure states that no "insulting
language" be used, the truth is different from opinion, and
evil is as evil does. Therefore, while the Islamic regime
will no doubt claim insult and injury to its reputation,
one must in all honesty; call it like one sees it being
manifest in action. Using logic over emotionalism, truth
over viewpoint, and ethics over all.

This is one of the reasons we welcome your tenure as UN
Ambassador, as you have the reputation of manifesting
tangible results, whether it be on UN reform, proliferation
of WMD, or state sponsors of terrorism. We wish to inform
you as a courtesy that a copy of this letter will be hand
delivered to the door of the UN, on September 14th, for
your kind inspection, while thousands of freedom loving
Iranians outside the UN protesting this regime cheer you on
as well as cheering on other free nations' representatives
as measures are taken to address the theocratic regime's
abysmal activities before the UN general assembly.

As you may face the incarnation of boycott and the
regime's answer to the aspirations of the Iranian people's
desire to self determination in the form of an evil man who
has come to power illegitimately; who comes to usurp the
chair of membership in the UN which is by right the chair
belonging to the Iranian people; Usurped by an unpopular
regime that has never held credence to the premise of the
UN charter, or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in
word or deed; we urge you, and all free nation's
representatives to address this issue of , and consider
wisely the matter of the regime's membership, as a matter
of UN reform.


Sir,

Our opposition movement (SMCCDI) is bound by a charter
formed on principals such as; Human Rights, Democracy,
separation of church and states, and free markets. We
believe these principals represent the most fair and
efficient means for humanity to realize its potential.

Ultimately, no repressive, intolerant regime can withstand
the spread of these ideals.
The Islamic Republic regime currently in power in Iran or
any Islamic variances that may exist there in the future
are no exception. By staying true to these values our
people's triumph is absolutely, positively, and undeniably
inevitable.

It is these precepts voiced by Secretary General Kofi
Annan; "Today, our challenge -- as it was for the founders
of the United Nations -- is to pass on to our children a
brighter legacy than that bequeathed to us. We must build
a future as envisioned in the UN Charter -- a future in
larger freedom"; that the Iranian opposition, and the
democracy movement in Iran is based upon, referencing the
Universal Declaration on Human Rights, so often among the
various opposition groups over these past years.

The horror of this evil regime's hypocrisy, and methodical
atrocities can only be likened to a daily Auschwitz for the
stain it brings on the honor of those who appease and
support and lengthen the life span of this barbaric and
tyrannical regime through silence, economic incentive,
"engagement" and illusion. Blind or not as they may be of
what is taking place in our country, or the intent of the
regime in many aspects that threaten the security of the
international community.
Nor can the international community, or any member of any
government that holds in their heart the values of freedom
continue to turn their back on these long standing issues,
and still call themselves human. Or allow this regime,
along with other human rights abusers to block necessary UN
reform of the human rights commission, or the draft
measures in reference on "responsibility to protect".

As a "test case" for UN reform, the Islamic Republic
regime qualifies in every conceivable way.

It is our hope placed in trust that you (as have the US
President and his Secretary of State and many members of US
Congress in the past) will illuminate the plight of our
people that have struggled to shrug off the oppressors and
theocratic chains which have bound the Iranian people for
so long. Chains which have silenced the voice of the people
in utterance, and stilled them with overwhelming force.
Chains denying the Iranian people a better future for our
children, and our children's children for over a generation
in this process

Speaking in regard to "International Woman's Day, March 8,
2005" the US Secretary of State said, "Freedom, the
protection of fundamental human rights, economic
opportunity and prosperity, equality and the rule of
law...these are all elements of the democratic process.
Women are integral to the process of building responsible
governments and democratic institutions. Women's
participation and empowerment at all levels of society will
be key to moving these new democracies forward."

It is the women, who represent a large part of the
opposition and will make a major contribution through their
degree of knowledge and political and civil maturity to the
democratic and peaceful revolution we seek to manifest, as
well as to a future democratic Iran. We cannot carry such
baggage or the individuals who continue to deny women their
place in society in this process of regaining our freedom
and their equality in the process.


Mr. Ambassador,

When one considers the IRI in totality, the abysmal human
rights record, its long-standing support for terrorism,
it's WMD programs in violation of signed agreements; logic
dictates that with or without referral by the IAEA, this
ideological and unelected regime should not just be
sanctioned, but booted out of the UN altogether for gross
violation of the UN charter, which the Iran Nation is a
signatory to, believing it to be criminally negligent for
any nation to support the continuance and aspirations of
the Islamic Republic system one day longer, and remaining
"seized of the matter." As Churchill put it, "Given the
choice between war and dishonor, Chamberlain chose dishonor
and got war."

To this point, the only leader of free nations who's had
that alternate vision of an Iran existing within the
community of nations..."in larger freedom", and had the
guts to voice the option is President George W. Bush...."..
and to the Iranian people I say tonight, as you stand for
your own liberty, America stands with you." The man
presented possibilities to people in so doing, as a
president will on occasion.

Those words of hope to our people must now be joined in
chorus among all free nations, standing in solidarity with
the tenets and premise of "in larger freedom". The freedom
from fear, from want, the hope to raise our children in
dignity and in religious freedom in a nation that is truly
secular and representative of the people's will.

We shall see if the UN honors the precepts of its founding
Charter, whether the EU, Russia, China and India will
continue to trade and negotiate with a tyrannical and
terrorist regime, and whether the UN membership comes
together in solidarity of it's founding principals to honor
the words of President Bush to the Iranian people.

If the UN cannot see fit to honor the tenets of its
founding by enforcing its Charter on members signatory to
it, we in the Iranian opposition will briefly bow our heads
in shame being witness to this, but only briefly as time is
short, and our heads will rise looking only forward, as our
feet continue to trod the path of freedom in process,
whether the international community supports us or not. But
whether this popular movement is successful, or crushed,
depends now upon free nation's support for the aspirations
of Iranian liberty.

It is self-evident that the international community cannot
live with terrorists, nor terrorist regimes in its midst.
There is but one solution to common security in larger
freedom.

To prevent war and/or civil war, the Islamic regime must
be disavowed by the UN as not legitimately representative
of the People of Iran, and held accountable for its
activities.
Nor can its newly unelected leader, self confessed to
having fired coup de grace bullets into political prisoners
after being tortured; under investigation for hostage
taking and other murders outside of the territory of Iran;
claim any "diplomatic immunity", nor be afforded any claim
by the regime under the rules of UN membership, nor be
granted same by the UN, or host nation, if the
investigation warrants prosecution.

We ask very simply that America, and every democratic
member nation of the United Nations, and their
representatives and leaders stand united with the Iranian
people now. Not as diplomats or representatives neither of
nations, nor even as members of the UN per se, but simply
as Humans. For this, and the hope of liberty and justice is
what binds all people, and the UN together in unity, under
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the premise
of the UN Charter.

Indeed, the Islamic Republic regime is engaged in terror,
torture and atrocity on a daily basis, and this
illegitimate regime dares to call itself Democratic, an
advocate of human rights, and protector of the oppressed
throughout the region. A cruel joke added onto the injury
to our nation's pride and heritage, as reportedly the
regime via a dam, will submerge the founder of Persia,
Cyrus the Great's tomb and the archeological sites of
Pasargad and Persepolice under water.
The only way our people can regain our honor, civil
liberties and the trust of the world for a WMD-free Iran
that seeks to provide a safer future for the world and
adheres to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is by
providing us, the people of Iran, the support for our
legitimate aspirations of liberty necessary to restore hope
to the land that Cyrus the Great brought Democracy to over
2500 years ago.

Those ancient precepts regarding freedom of worship,
individual right to own property, freedom from slavery,
representative government in a democratic "federalist"
government that respected the states rights to determine
local laws so long as they were consistent with the
inherent rights of the people, respecting territorial
integrity in the process, have proven themselves over time
and among many cultures. The UN has a replica of this vital
document on display in the entrance lobby. It is as if to
us, the regime intends to submerge the very tenets that
civilization was founded upon, honored and recognized in
the UN, on display. This is not just Persia's heritage
that is at stake, but mankind's, and we hope that a
resolution will be tabled and mandated to protect and
preserve this historical legacy for future generations.


Sir,

With the firm unanimous voice of the UN, and the pressure
that may be applied "in greater freedom" The UN may honor
the precepts of its founding principals, and reform itself
into an effective, cohesive, transparent instrument for the
common good of all men and women. But if not starting with
the "test case" the regime poses, where will, and when
will, UN reform becomes manifest in action and intent, "
being seized of the matter"? All reform must have some
gage or measure to assess its merit; we propose this as a
means to that end.

1. Implementation of full international economic and
military sanctions on the Islamic Republic regime via UN
Security Council resolution based on human rights, support
for terrorism, and this to be tabled with or without IAEA
board recommendation on the nuclear threat the theocracy
poses. These two issues alone should be viewed as
circumstance the world cannot turn it's back upon, at risk
of civilization itself.

Such measures should include coordination with oil
producing nations to ensure stable world supply while
sanction persists, as well as the halting of any and all
arms transfers to the Islamic Republic regime via the
Proliferation Security Initiative.

2. Full diplomatic sanction and closing of Islamic
republic's embassies worldwide, removal and deportation of
regime representatives, their agents and spies from all
nations.
Diplomatic sanction by the UN, revocation of UN membership
and removal of representation from this international forum
till such time as a legitimate interim government can be
established in Iran.

Note: We ask that concerns regarding lack of consular
functions as a result of this action be cooperatively
addressed, so as to continue to allow emergency visas to be
issued. (i.e. family emergencies, etc.) It may be possible
to retain the minimum consular functions, under tight
supervision, but they are well known in their recruiting
of, and issuing visa to potential martyrs and terrorists.

3. Freezing of any and all financial assets of the Islamic
Republic system, current and former leadership, and
corporate interests worldwide, till such time as a new
interim government can be established.

As well as allocation of portions of these assets now to
legitimate non-violent opposition groups inside and outside
Iran, to provide the tangible support needed while civil
disobedience becomes manifest in action. Only in this way
can this action be self-sustaining till it succeeds. Poland
couldn't have become free without support, nor can we, as
this is much to expect of a people under the boot of
repression for over a generation.

4. Repeated statements by world leaders publicly calling
for the leadership of the Islamic Republic regime to step
down peacefully, and to relinquish the government to the
hands and will of the Iranian people, and a UN monitored
"direct" referendum to choose a legitimate, representative,
secular government structure.

5. The coordinated post-regime rebuilding of vital social
institutions and infrastructure of democracy should be
implemented now in preparation, along with he training of
judges, civil servants, police, etc. The Iranian exile
community can provide some of the talent initially, and
there are many more inside Iran supporting the opposition
who will answer the call to service as the situation
permits. This will speed up the post-regime stabilization
process, and greatly enhance institutional development in
the interim government, and constitutional process.

In addition, while SMCCDI does not speak for other groups
in the opposition, we believe it is vital for our efforts
to become coordinated in the formation of a working group
among leaders of opposition groups, in conjunction with
free nation's representatives to help facilitate and
coordinate all of the above measures in a roundtable "Forum
for the Future" of Iran.

The coordination of economic and military sanction,
freezing of assets, closing of embassies, banishment from
the UN General Assembly and other UN related institutions,
such as UNESCO, and other non-violent measures as may be
found worthy under international law will be overwhelming
to the Islamic Republic of Iran, providing solid legitimate
purpose and support among the people of Iran to effect
change from within.


Mr. Ambassador,

We have striven in our legitimate aspirations for liberty
for over two decades, and often frustrated as the pace of
those aspirations seem to be like that of traveling on the
back of a snail. The vast majority has therefore concluded
that any real democratic reform though legitimate election
or national referendum on the people's choice for a secular
political structure in Iran cannot be possible so long as
this evil ideological regime continues in power. Nor can
the international community relegate terrorism to the
dustbin of history while this regime remains in power.

While our aspirations include taking our future into our
own hands, we are convinced after this long in a most
pragmatic way, that those aspirations cannot be obtained in
isolation or silence, we need the entire international
community firmly by our people's side in word and deed if
the agenda the US president has laid out for global freedom
is to become manifest in Iran.

This noble endeavor in common cause does not require
military intervention, nor do we ask for, or seek this in
any form. The method of civil disobedience has a long
history of painful success throughout history, and with
international support will serve to liberate our people
from tyranny and the world from the blind ambitions of the
theocratic regime in a rather short period of time, if they
are implemented in full now, and in a coordinated and
simultaneous manner.

We in the opposition movement see the strong two-faced
diplomacy the Islamic Republic regime is engaged in, that
has not only caused nations to appease the regime with
offers of economic incentive, but that has caused others to
support their blind ambitions, through various means,
including silence and abstention of action on Human Rights
within the various mechanisms of the UN, sale and smuggling
of arms and WMD technology, and economic trade.

We see the effects of this diplomacy and blatant
propaganda on some members of the US Congress, various
governments and international think tanks, as well as the
IAEA. We see the confusion in policy that has been proposed
by former members of various governments, as well the many
cases in which the UN Commission on Human Rights failed in
the past to be unanimous in their condemnation of the
Islamic Republic regime's human rights record and we
strongly urge you and other free nations' representatives
to address their perceptions in this most grave and
dangerous illusion of providing "political benefit of the
doubt" that some members have apparently been following, as
soon as possible.

We, the membership of the Iranian opposition, among all
the various groups have no doubt of the regime's intent, or
continued activities as described and documented over a
long period of time. There are no "rogue elements" of the
regime involved in the transport of shaped munitions into
Iraq, no "rogue elements" of the regime training martyrs
for terrorism operations, recruiting them through public
advertisement, no "rogue elements" committing crimes
against humanity among our people. No "rogue element"
harboring al-quaida. These are fully supported by,
instructed by, and funded by the Islamic Republic of Iran
in whole, not in part, nor independent of its appointed
president's knowledge, and done so by mandate of the
Guardian Council.

Failure to address these grave issues now will be a
dereliction of the UN's founding mandate, and those member
states that fail to recognize this must answer to history.


In conclusion Sir,

It would therefore be in our opinion (reflective of the
1503 procedures), criminally negligent for members of the
UN Commission on Human Rights, and the UN Security Council
to fail to act on the body of evidence regarding security
issues and threats the IRI poses at this time to the
international community and of systematic human rights
abuse (in all aspects) by the Islamic Republic regime; due
to "political considerations" within their respective
nations who's Human Rights records are not the best, or
economic factors in trade with the regime playing a part in
debate, threat of veto, or abstention of moral
responsibility.

It would be quite logical therefore were the UN to
disavow any vote that was deemed "politically motivated" in
the Security Council, calling for a two-thirds majority
vote in the General Assembly to implement any resolution
not achieved in SC decision, along with GA voting on ending
any and all participation, membership and communication
from the Islamic Republic regime (other than answering to
charges brought), for the regime itself is in consistent
and conscious violation of multiple aspects of the UN
Charter, and the Universal Declaration on Human Rights that
the UN is founded upon.

It is for these reasons described herein (as well as the
fact that while Iran is an original signatory to the UN
charter, the current regime flaunts the tenets and is not
legitimately in an of itself, a signatory to it.), that we
have suggested revocation of UN membership through the UN
General Assembly by a two-thirds majority vote as may be
done under the governing rules of the UN, until such time
as a new interim government is established in its place
which will re-ratify Iran's adherence to the UN Charter and
rejoin the family of nations in good standing.

Whereas: "a consistent pattern of gross and reliably
attested violations of human rights and fundamental
freedoms exists." in multiple source documentation
independent of this letter.

Whereas: "communications may be submitted by individuals
or groups who claim to be victims of human rights
violations or who have direct, reliable knowledge of
violations."

Whereas: "each communication must describe the facts, the
purpose of the petition and the rights that have been
violated." And we have striven to do so.

Whereas: "domestic remedies have been exhausted", and it
is convincingly apparent that "solutions at the national
level have been ineffective" - "over an unreasonable length
of time."

We therefore respectfully ask that this letter also be
taken in this context as such a petition to provide proper
perspective to you, the Whitehouse, the UN member states,
President of the General Assembly Ping as well as to
Secretary General Annan on the issues we have addressed
herein with the gravest concern for the welfare of
humanity.

Regarding the security risk the regime poses to its
citizens through its WMD programs and intent in acquiring
this capability. We believe this too, constitutes a
violation of our basic civil liberties (having no voice in
the matter) and poses an unacceptable risk to the
population of Iran and the region through potential and
perhaps unavoidable catastrophic conflict, if the UN does
not act accordingly to prevent further tragedy now.


With gratitude

On behalf of SMCCDI,


Aryo B. Pirouznia (Movement's Coordinator)




SMCCDI
5015 Addison Circle #244 Addison, TX 75001 (USA)
Tel: +1 (972) 504-6864; Fax: +1 (972) 491-9866;
E.Mail: smccdi@daneshjoo.org
www.daneshjoo.org ; www.iranstudents.org

[blank]

If you want to understand islam, you might want to read the book by Robert Spencer Called:
The Politically incorrect Guide to Islam.
www.jihadwatch.org

[Oppenheimer]

Dear Blank,

Any chance you can post an English translation on Reza Phalavi's speeches and interviews? Or provide such a link to the Secretariat if his site has it translated already?

In the meantime....



Aiding Islamists
By Nicole Sadighi
FrontPageMagazine.com | June 6, 2005

I recently returned from a speaking engagement at which Muslims, Jews and Christians gathered together in Washington D.C.’s Freedom Plaza on May 14, 2005 for an anti-terrorism rally.

The organizers had hoped for a turnout of approximately 1000. Alas, only about 50 arrived. Despite the low turnout, the event symbolized the escalating problem that the world faces today. It illustrated that Islamic radicalism is a lethal danger that affects not only Muslim communities but is a matter of concern for the entire world. Representatives and speakers from differing religious groups and factions--such as Michael Meunier of U.S. Copts Association, Mr. Hashim El-Tinay, founder and president of the Salam Sudan Foundation, and Aldo Leiva, director of the Cuban American National Foundation, to name but a few--all agreed that the matter needs to be given the highest priority in the international community.

Unfortunately, it has taken tragic atrocities for the world to stand up and take serious notice. And even when the international community is exposed to news coverage of terrorist attacks—such as 9/11 and the Madrid bombings or kidnappings and beheadings in Iraq—much of the free world does not take the matter seriously enough. As was proven this May 14, there is still a long way to go in achieving the kind of exposure that is essential in uncovering the true dangers of this new kind of threat.

Among the factors that are to blame for this lax attitude is Europe’s ongoing—and regrettable—effort to normalize the existence of clerical dictatorships such as the Islamic Republic of Iran. It is this attitude that drives the EU’s continued efforts to achieve financially palatable relations with the Mullahs. According to a speaker at the rally, Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi, an Iranian-American activist for democracy and a secular government in Iran:

“the neo-colonialist Europeans have helped perpetuate the Islamist establishment giving it an aura of international legitimacy in order to do lucrative business with those mullahs…European’s appeasement of the mullahs and their turning a blind eye to the plight of Iran and the greater Middle East and the hideous human rights abuses have contributed to the weakening of security of not only neighboring countries but also in the west and the immanent threat to Europe itself which is the ultimate target of the mullahs’ Islamist fury.”

There are many examples that illustrate the danger that our enemies are being bred from within Europe. The war in Iraq has made many mainstream Muslims line up in protest against the war; they oppose new anti-terror laws and warn of the dangers of Islamophobia. But there is a more radical fringe presently using these protests to their advantage. These are the hardliners and jihadists, such as Saajid Badat, the infamous “shoe bomber” from Gloucester in UK, and Abu Hamza, the Muslim cleric from London who incited racial hatred amongst young Muslims and even encouraged the burning of the British flag (the US has been seeking to extradite Hamza for his links to al-Qaeda); Asif Mohammed Hanif from London and Omar Khan Sharif from Derby, who carried out suicide bombings in Tel Aviv; and Lotfi Raissi from London, who was arrested in connection with the terrorist attacks in New York, are but a few representatives of the breed of fanatics whose numbers are speedily growing in the UK and across Europe.

Although this is a threat to all free countries, Europe has become an extremely easy target. This is because its geographical proximity to the Islamic world plays a major role in spreading fundamentalism throughout western communities. According to the Worldwide Faith News (www.wfn.org), Europe’s Muslim population has surpassed 52 million with an annual growth rate of 6.5 percent. With a populace of 750 million Europeans, comprised of approximately 269 million Catholics, 171 million Orthodox, 79 million Protestants, and 28 million Anglicans, the Muslim faith will soon be the second largest religion in Europe. Although it is unlikely that these statistics are exactly accurate, it does give us an idea of the scale we are talking about.

In addition, Europe has provided a safe haven for terrorists to thrive, manipulate and undermine democratic systems to their advantage. The EU’s financial relations with countries such as Libya, Syria and Islamic Republic of Iran ultimately keep the dangers of fundamentalism alive.

By now, the dangers of Islamic fundamentalism should be clear: Islamists have slowly managed to spread their evil ideology beyond their own borders. And yet, the freedom-loving people of Europe continue to appease the theocratic regimes and dictatorships in the Middle East—the same dictatorships that terrorize their own people and endorse and fund terrorism internationally. How many more warning signs will it take for the international community to reconsider this strategy? What will it take for the world to wake up and understand the dangers that have been brewing for years? How many more lives have to be sacrificed before the free people of the world open their eyes and take heed of what is happening around them?

[blank]

[quote="Oppenheimer"]Dear Blank,

Any chance you can post an English translation on Reza Phalavi's speeches and interviews? Or provide such a link to the Secretariat if his site has it translated already?"


Dear Oppie:
If you go to his site www.rezapahlavi.org under "The Latest" there are many interviews that are in English. I don't have any particular link on only the English ones. You might want to suggest that to his secretariat rpsec@rezapahlavi.org I am sure they would be happy to hear from our American supporters.

[Oppenheimer]

Dear Blank,

Been to the site a number of times..in fact I got a reply to an email I sent some time ago thanking me for standing with the Iranian people, and the perspective I offered on nuclear issues, which has been consistant for a long time and does not need repeating here.

But I swear, that site it technicly so screwed up I don't see how he gets any message out....and it's really not my place to critique it in a letter to the secretariat....

It needs total overhaul, where one can click on Farsi, English, French (perhaps) total transcript (text format as well as audio-visual) access, by date, subject or title w/ search option

I browse sites all day long , and this is by far the most user-unfriendly one by any political standards.

I mean...go to any US senator's website just as example...

Blank, in my opinion he can't afford to let this problem continue, so you are welcome to pass my thoughts on if you care to.

How you managed to even access the links is beyond me, I tried...and you know I'm no idiot where it comes to accessing site info.

[blank]

[Oppenheimer]

Thanks for the suggestion. As for offering critique of his site, or suggestion how his personal outreach efforts may be improved with a new web design....remember...as an an American, I'm not one of his "constituents", this is best left to those that are.

When I wrote, it was to offer a personal perspective on nuclear issues, and to express solidarity with the Iranian people's aspirations for liberty.

Remaining "nuetral" between various opposition groups is a matter of ethics for me....while I respect the man, as I do SMCCDI's coordinator, and others involved...if I wern't objective in my support, or criticism, my words would lack credibility as such. Perhaps the only exception to this is the MEK, for while they are still on the list of terror org's...I cannot by law, nor would I by ethics, offer tangible or material support to them.

Besides, such critical assesment is best done via a "homeboy" like yourself...no insult this....American slang for a person "from the neighborhood".

As you are Iranian...you have more credibility than I would with him anyway. Though he fully agreed with my assesment of the nuclear issues surounding the IRI, and potential nuclear terrorism.

[blank]

I think RP will welcome any constructive suggestion from anyone, including Americans or other nationalities. So, don't worry if you feel like it, go ahead and tell them about the site. I did the same with SMCCDI but was nicely ignored
I have a question; you may be able to answer, when I try to transfer articles to this site by "copy & paste" for some reason the pictures will never come out, it is always a blank space. Therefore, I have to post everything in a link in order for the pictures to be seen, and sometimes people cannot open the link. I thought you may know of a magic way to copy and paste so the pictures will appear at the same time.