35:43
|
[04 June 13] Speech on the 24th Demise of Imam Khomeini | Sayed Ali Khamenei - [English]
The following is the full text of the speech delivered on June 4, 2013 by Ayatollah Khamenei the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution on the occasion of the demise anniversary of Imam Khomeini...
The following is the full text of the speech delivered on June 4, 2013 by Ayatollah Khamenei the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution on the occasion of the demise anniversary of Imam Khomeini (r.a.). The speech was delivered at Imam Khomeini\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s shrine.
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful
All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds, and peace and greetings be upon our Master and Prophet, Ab-al-Qassem al-Mustafa Muhammad, upon his immaculate, pure, chosen, guided and infallible household, especially the one remaining with Allah on earth.
We are thankful to Allah the Exalted who gave us another opportunity to commemorate our magnanimous Imam (r.a.) on such a day and express our respect for him. Although the memory of Imam (r.a.) is alive among our people at all times, the 14th of Khordad is the manifestation of the Iranian nation\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s love for him. This year the demise anniversary of Imam Khomeini (r.a.) has coincided with the martyrdom anniversary of his great ancestor, Imam Musa ibn Ja\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'far (a.s.). Also, this occasion has coincided with the 50th anniversary of the determining and important event that took place on the 15th of Khordad in the year 1342. The 15th of Khordad was an important historical juncture. I would like to briefly discuss a few points in this regard and then I will discuss the pressing issues that are necessary to discuss.
The 15th of Khordad was not the beginning of the great movement by the people and the clergy. Before the 15th of Khordad, important events had taken place in the year 1341 as well as at the beginning of the year 1342. For example, the event in Feiziyeh School took place on the 2nd of Farvardin in 1342: it resulted in the injury of seminarians and the insult to the great marja taqlid, the late Ayatollah Golpaygani. Before that event, towards the end of the year 1341, there were demonstrations in Tehran\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s bazaar and the great marja taqlid, the late Ayatollah Hajj Sayyid Ahmad Khansari, was insulted. These things show that the movement by the clergy had reached such levels in 1341 and early 1342 that security forces of the oppressive regime had started to treat seminarians, religious scholars and even marja taqlids in a brutal way.
However, the 15th of Khordad of 1342 was a very important juncture. The reason is that the event which took place on the 15th of Khordad revealed that the bond between the people and the clergy had reached a so-called dangerous level. In that year, on the anniversary of Ashura - which fell on the 13th of Khordad - our magnanimous Imam (r.a.) delivered a historic speech in Feiziyeh School. Later on when they had arrested Imam (r.a.), on the 15th of Khordad there was a great movement in Tehran as well as in Qom and other cities and the taghuti regime decided to do everything in its power to suppress the movement by relying on its army, police and security organizations.
There was a popular uprising on the 15th of Khordad, which was indicative of the strong bond between the people of Iran and the clergy and marja taqlids, who were represented by Imam (r.a.). The point is that it was this bond that ensured the spread and victory of the movement. Wherever a movement is supported by the people, that movement will prevail. But if the people do not develop a bond with a protest movement, that movement will fail. For example, after the Constitutional Movement in Iran, there were certain events and certain activities by both leftist and nationalist groups, but all of them were destined to fail because they did not have the support of the people.
When the people step into the arena and support a movement with their hearts and minds and with their presence, it becomes possible for that movement to prevail and achieve victory. The event that took place on the 15th of Khordad proved this point. It proved that our people support the clergy. The arrest of our magnanimous Imam (r.a.) resulted in such an uprising in Tehran and certain other parts of the country that the regime had to step in to suppress the people in a brutal way. A large number of people were killed. The streets of Tehran were covered with the blood of pious people and youth. On the 15th of Khordad, the brutal and ruthless nature of the taghuti regime was fully revealed.
Another point regarding the event which happened on the 15th of Khordad - a point to which our youth and dear people should pay attention - is that no international community and none of the so-called human rights organizations protested against the brutal killings in Tehran and other parts of the country. All of them stayed silent. The people and the clergy remained in the arena. Marxists and leftist groups and governments even condemned the popular movement of the 15th of Khordad. They said that it was a feudalist movement. The nationalists - who were claiming to support anti-government activities - also condemned the movement. They said that the movement was a blind and aimless movement, that it was a radical movement.
Wherever lazy people fail to take risks and play a role in the arena, they accuse pious combatants of extremism. They said that the movement was an extremist movement. They rejected it as a radical movement. Imam (r.a.) remained in the arena, relying on the support of the people, and he managed to present the image of a truly decisive and determined spiritual leader to all people and to all history.
Our magnanimous Imam (r.a.) had three beliefs which made him decisive, courageous and steadfast: namely, faith in God, faith in the people and faith in himself. These three beliefs revealed themselves in the character, decisions and actions of Imam (r.a.) in the true sense of the word. Imam (r.a.) spoke to the people through his heart and the people accepted his call with their heart and soul. They stepped into the arena and resisted in a brave way. Their movement - which had no sympathizers in the world and received no assistance - gradually moved towards ultimate victory.
I would like to briefly explain the three beliefs of Imam Khomeini (r.a.). The points I will discuss in this regard are important points that can illuminate our path only if they find their way into our hearts.
Regarding faith in God, Imam (r.a.) was the manifestation of this holy ayah: \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Those to whom the people said: Surely men have gathered against you, therefore fear them, but this increased their faith, and they said: Allah is sufficient for us and most excellent is the Protector.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [The Holy Quran, 3: 173] Imam (r.a.) was firmly committed to \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Allah is sufficient for us and most excellent is the Protector\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" with all his heart and soul. Imam (r.a.) had faith in Allah the Exalted. He had faith in divine promises. He acted, worked and spoke for the sake of God and he knew that \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"if you help (the cause of) Allah, He will help you\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [The Holy Quran, 47: 7] is a divine promise and that it is definite and inviolable.
Regarding faith in the people, our magnanimous Imam (r.a.) knew the Iranian nation in the true sense of the word. Imam (r.a.) believed that our nation enjoys deep religious faith and is intelligent and courageous, a nation that has the capacity to shine like the sun in different areas only if it has competent leaders. One time an incompetent person like Shah Sultan Hussein caused the Iranian nation to retreat into a corner, but another time a courageous person like Nader Gholi - without those honorary titles - emerged among the people and became their leader by relying on his courage and as a result, our nation managed to expand the arena of its glory from Delhi to the Black Sea. Imam (r.a.) had noticed this truth about our history and he had witnessed the examples.
He believed in this truth. He knew our nation. He had faith in the Iranian nation. The people\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s deep religious faith - which had been concealed by materialistic people - was revived by our magnanimous Imam (r.a.). He provoked the people\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s religious pride and the Iranian nation became the role model of resistance and insight. In the eyes of our magnanimous Imam (r.a.), the people were the dearest and enemies of the people were the most hated. The fact that Imam (r.a.) did not stop his battle against the domineering powers even for one single moment, was mainly because the domineering powers were enemies of the people\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s happiness, and Imam (r.a.) believed that enemies of the people were his enemies too.
As for self-confidence, Imam (r.a.) taught the people of Iran to be confident. Before instilling a sense of confidence into the people of Iran, Imam (r.a.) first revived this sense of self-confidence in himself. He exhibited his faith in his capabilities in the true sense of the word. On the anniversary of Ashura in the year 1342, while he was alone, Imam (r.a.) threatened the Shah that he would ask the people of Iran to force him out of the country if he continued acting like that. He said this among the people and seminarians of Qom in Feiziyeh School and he threatened Mohammadreza Shah, who was wielding unrestricted power in the country by relying on America and other foreign powers. This threat was made by a cleric in Qom who had no weapons, no equipment, no money and no international support. He managed to resist in this arena by relying on his faith in God and in himself.
The day when Imam (r.a.) returned from exile, he threatened the government of Bakhtiar at Behesht Zahra Cemetery and he announced in a resonating voice that he would punch Bakhtiar\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s government in the mouth and that he would establish another government. This was indicative of Imam\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s (r.a.) self-confidence. Imam (r.a.) had faith in himself and in his capabilities. It was this self-confidence that was transferred to the people of Iran through his words and actions.
My dear ones, for a hundred years, they had convinced us that we were incapable, incapable of managing the country, incapable of achieving dignity and glory, incapable of developing the country, incapable of moving forward in the arena of knowledge and other such things. And we had started to believe these things.
Instilling a sense of inability - with the purpose of making nations lose faith in their capabilities - is one of the effective ways in which domineering powers spread their domination over different nations. In this way, they managed to keep the Iranian nation backwards in politics, science and economic activities as well as in all other arenas of life. Imam (r.a.) reversed this situation and took this means of hegemony away from the superpowers. He told the Iranian nation, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"You can.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" He restored our courage. He restored our determination. He restored our self-confidence. We people of Iran felt that we were capable again. We moved forward and we took action. For this reason, the Iranian nation has achieved victory over the past thirty-something in all the areas that I will discuss later on in this meeting.
These three beliefs of Imam (r.a.) - namely faith in God, faith in the people and faith in himself - became the axis of all his decisions, actions and policies. At the beginning of the movement, these three beliefs were a source of energy for Imam (r.a.). The same is true of the time when he was in exile, the time when he left for Paris and the time when he returned to Iran. It was these three beliefs that gave Imam (r.a.) the power to enter Tehran in those conditions. These three beliefs were exhibited in the events that happened during Bahman of 1357, in the fitnas that happened in the country, in the establishment of the Islamic Republic, in his open resistance against the oppressive global order, in the slogan of \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"neither the East, nor the West\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\", in the imposed war and in all the events that took place in those eventful ten years of Imam\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s life. These three beliefs were the basis of Imam\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s decisions, actions and policies.
Even in the last few days of his life, nobody noticed any signs of despair, doubt, exhaustion, weakness or submission in the words and actions of our magnanimous Imam (r.a.). Many revolutionaries throughout the world start to have doubts and become conservative as they grow older. Sometimes they even take back their main statements. The statements that were issued by Imam (r.a.) during the last few years of his life were sometimes even more strongly worded and revolutionary than his statements in the year 1342. He was growing old, but he was young at heart and his soul was vibrant. This is the same steadfastness that has been described in the Holy Quran: \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"And that if they should keep to the (right) way, We would certainly give them to drink of abundant water.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [The Holy Quran, 72: 16] In another ayah, Allah the Exalted says: \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"(As for) those who say: Our Lord is Allah, then continue in the right way, the angels descend upon them, saying: Fear not, nor be grieved, and receive good news of the garden which you were promised.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [The Holy Quran, 41: 30]
These three beliefs kept Imam (r.a.) young and vibrant. They consolidated Imam\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s thought and path for our nation and then these three beliefs gradually spread among our people, our youth and individuals from different social backgrounds. These three beliefs created hope. They created self-confidence. They resulted in reliance on God. These things replaced despair and pessimism. The people of Iran changed their characteristics and Allah the Exalted changed their conditions. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Surely Allah does not change the condition of a people until they change their own condition.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [The Holy Quran, 13: 11] The people of Iran reformed their path, their movement and their motives and Allah the Exalted helped and supported them. What was the result? The result was that Iran became an independent country.
There are many lessons that our dear youth should learn from the dependence of the taghuti Pahlavi regime - which is was even worse than the reactionary and disgraced Qajar regime - on England and subsequently on America. Their dependence had reached a disgraceful level. After the Revolution, an outstanding American diplomat mentioned the same thing in his writings. He said that it was the Americans who used to tell the Shah what he needed and what he did not need. It was the Americans who used to tell him with whom to establish relations and with whom not to. They used to tell him how much oil he had to produce and sell. It was the Americans who used to tell him to whom he should sell oil and to whom he should not.
Our country used to be managed on the basis of America\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s policies and plans, and before that our country used to be run on the basis of the plans and policies of England. That dependent country transformed into an independent and proud country. Corrupt, treasonous and materialistic rulers, who were immersed in their carnal desires and human passions, were in charge of our country. They were replaced by representatives of the people. They were replaced by officials who had been elected by the people. In the past thirty-something years, the individuals who have assumed power in our country and taken control of our policies and economy, have been representatives of the people. They did not line their own pockets after assuming power, which is a very important point. Of course, some of them were more pious than others.
Those evil, dependent and greedy politicians who were submissive against the enemies and treated the people in an angry way, were replaced by representatives of the people. Our scientifically backward country transformed into a country that was advanced in terms of science. Before the Revolution, we had not made any scientific achievements in the country. Today international centers say that the rate of Iran\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s scientific progress is eleven times more than the global average. Is this an insignificant achievement? International scientific centers predict that in a few years - by the year 2017 - Iran will rank fourth in the world in terms of science. Is this an insignificant accomplishment? Our country, which had made no scientific achievements, has achieved this position.
There was a time we had to ask foreigners to send their engineers to our country to build dams, roads and factories for us whenever we needed a road, a highway, a dam or a factory. Today Iranian youth are building thousands of factories and hundreds of dams, bridges, roads and highways in the country without receiving the slightest help from foreigners. Today our scientific and technological growth and our capabilities to develop the country have reached this level. Would it be appropriate if we ignored these things?
In areas relating to health and medicine, Iranian patients who had the money had to travel to Europe for slightly complicated operations, and those who did not have the money had to die. Today the most complicated operations - liver transplants, lung transplants and important things in other medical areas - are being carried out in our country, not just in Tehran but in many distant cities across the country. These capabilities exist today in our country. The Iranian nation does not need foreigners in this area. Our nation has achieved independence and self-sufficiency in this vital area.
Many parts of this country had been ignored. Before the Revolution, I used to travel to different places across the country. Remote parts of the country used to be completelyignored. However, different services are being offered in different parts of the country, including remote towns and villages. Today nobody can say that a particular area does not have electricity or roads and other such things. Before the Revolution, it was surprising to see a remote place that enjoyed such facilities. Today the opposite is surprising. At that time, our population was 35 million and there were 150,000 university students in the country. Today our population has increased a hundred percent, but the number of our university students has increased by 20, even 30 times. This means that we have paid attention to science. The number of students, professors and universities in the country is remarkable. In every remote town, there are one, two, five and sometimes ten universities. At that time, there were certain provinces in which the number of high schools was less than ten. Today in every city of the same provinces, there are several universities. This is a great movement by the people of Iran which is the result of the Revolution and selfless efforts of Iranian youth and government officials over the past thirty-something years. These are important developments. Thanks to the Revolution, many infrastructure-related projects were carried out in the country. Thousands of factories were built. Many mother companies were built. The products which we had to beg for and buy in small amounts from foreigners are being mass produced in the country today. It is necessary to see these things. All of these things are the blessings of the three beliefs that Imam (r.a.) instilled into our nation: faith in God, faith in the people and faith in oneself.
I am not saying these things in order to create a false sense of pride and happiness. I am not saying these things to make you feel happy and thankful for the victory that has been achieved. No, there is still a long way to go. I would say that if we compare our conditions with the era of taghut, these achievements will look remarkable, but we will realize that we have a long way to go if we compare our conditions with the conditions of an ideal Islamic Iran - namely, a country which Islam wants us to have, a society that Islam wants us to have, a society in which there is worldly pride and welfare as well as religious faith, ethics and spirituality, all in abundance. I am saying these things so that our dear youth and our courageous nation realize that they can continue this path by relying on the three beliefs that I spoke about. You should know that there is a long way to go, but you have the capability. You have the power to continue this path. You have the necessary means. You can continue traversing this long path at a high speed until you reach the peaks in a powerful way. I am saying these things so that you realize that the enemies who want to create despair in our hearts are acting out of spite. All the signs show that we should remain hopeful.
The roadmap lies in front of our eyes. We have a roadmap. What is this roadmap? Our roadmap is the principles of our magnanimous Imam (r.a.), the same principles that transformed that backward and humiliated nation into this pioneering and proud nation. These principles will be useful for us along the path and they will be our roadmap. Imam\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s principles are clear principles. Fortunately, his statements and writings have been made available to our people in the form of twenty-something volumes [of Imam Khomeini\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s speeches] and the main points have been presented in his testament. Everybody can refer to those documents and read them. I believe it is not advisable to keep mentioning the name of Imam (r.a.) but let his principles sink into oblivion. This is wrong. The name and memory of Imam (r.a.) is not sufficient in itself. Imam (r.a.) will remain a leader for our nation with his principles and his roadmap. Imam (r.a.) gave this roadmap to us. He had specific principles.
As for domestic policy, the principles of Imam (r.a.) require relying on the votes of the people, preserving unity of the people, choosing rulers who are populist and non-aristocratic [humble], having government officials who are committed to national interests and making comprehensive efforts in order to bring about progress for the country.
As far as foreign policy is concerned, the principles of Imam (r.a.) require that we put up a resistance against interventionist and domineering policies, that we establish brotherly relations with other Muslim nations, that we develop relations with all countries except the ones that have drawn their swords against the Iranian nation and are being hostile, that we fight Zionism, that we resist in order to liberate Palestine, that we help oppressed people throughout the world and that we put up a resistance against oppressors. Imam\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s testament is available to us. His writings and statements have been recorded and are available in the form of books.
Regarding culture, the principles of Imam (r.a.) require rejection of the permissive Western culture, rejection of rigidity and reactionary attitudes, rejection of hypocrisy in religion, decisive defense of ethics and Islamic commands, and fighting the spread of immorality and corruption in society.
As for economic matters, the principles of Imam (r.a.) require relying on the national economy, relying on self-sufficiency, ensuring economic justice in production and distribution, defending underprivileged people and confronting the capitalist culture coupled with respect for ownership rights. Imam (r.a.) rejected the oppressive capitalist culture, but he also stressed the need for respecting ownership and property rights, capital and labor. Also, the principles of Imam (r.a.) require that we resist melting into the global economy and that we preserve independence of our national economy. These are Imam\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s principles regarding economic matters. These things are obvious in Imam\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s statements.
Imam (r.a.) always demanded government officials of the country to implement these principles in a powerful and wise way. This was the roadmap of our magnanimous Imam (r.a.). The Iranian nation can bridge the gap between current conditions and those ideal conditions by following this roadmap, by relying on their firm religious faith, by remembering their Imam (r.a.). The Iranian nation can move forward. Considering its capabilities and talent and the outstanding individuals who are thankfully present among our people, the Iranian nation can continue the revolutionary path that we have been following over the past thirty-something years with more power and firmer determination. By Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, our nation will be able to become a genuine role model for other Muslim nations.
Now let me speak about the elections, which is a sensitive and current issue these days. Dear brothers and sisters and dear people of Iran, elections are the manifestation of all the three beliefs of Imam Khomeini (r.a.) and we should have faith in the same things. Elections are the manifestation of faith in God, because taking part in elections is a religious obligation. It is our responsibility to play a role in the destiny of our country. Everybody in our country has this responsibility. Elections are the manifestation of faith in the people, because the will of the people manifests itself in the form of elections: it is the people who choose government officials through elections. Elections are the manifestation of having faith in oneself, because anybody who casts his vote into the ballot box feels that he is playing a role in the destiny of the country and that his role is determining in its own right. This is a very important point. Therefore, elections are the manifestation of faith in God, faith in the people and faith in oneself.
Giving rise to political valor through epic presence of the people at our polling stations is the most important point regarding the upcoming elections. What is the meaning of valor? Valor means that the attempt to achieve glory should be accompanied by excitement and enthusiasm. Every vote that you cast into the ballot box for any of the eight honorable candidates is a vote for the Islamic Republic. A vote for any of the candidates is a vote for the Islamic Republic: it is a vote of confidence for the [political] system and its electoral mechanism. When you enter the arena of elections - either as a voter or as a candidate - your mere presence in this arena means that you have confidence in the Islamic Republic and in our electoral mechanism. On a less important level, your presence results in a vote for the person whom you consider as more valuable for the future of the country than the other candidates.
Our helpless foreign enemies are thinking of a way to turn this election into a threat against the Islamic Republic. This is while an election is a great opportunity for the Islamic Republic. They are hoping for a cold and lifeless election so that they can say the people are not interested in the Islamic Republic or they can create a fitna after the election, just as they did in the year 1388 after that enthusiastic election. These are what the enemies of our nation are after. But they are making a mistake. They do not know our people.
The enemies of our nation have forgotten the 9th of Dey. Those who think that in our country there is a silent majority who are opposed to the Islamic Republic, have forgotten that over the past thirty-four years massive numbers of people have taken to the streets every year on the 22nd of Bahman in different cities of our country in order to support the Islamic Republic and shout \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"death to America\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\". In order to make our elections lifeless, their think tanks constantly produce ideas and feed them to their media and their spokesmen. One day they say our elections have been engineered, another day they say our elections are not free, yet another day they say our elections are not legitimate in the eyes of the people. They do not know our people, neither do they know our elections and the Islamic Republic. And those who are aware of the facts, make unfair comments. They do not shrink from making such comments.
In which part of the world are different candidates - ranging from famous figures to unknown individuals - allowed to use national and state media equally? If somebody knows an exception, he should come forward and say it. In which part of the world does such a thing exist? Does it exist in America? Does it exist in capitalist countries? In capitalist countries, if candidates are members of the existing two or three parties and enjoy the support of capitalists, company owners, wealthy people and mafias of wealth and power, they can campaign and if not, they cannot even campaign.
Anybody who has followed American elections - which I have - will confirm this. There were certain individuals who did not enjoy the support of the Zionists and blood-thirsty international capitalist networks, and they could not enter the arena of election no matter how hard they tried. They neither had access to a media outlet, nor were any TV channels available to them. For every second of campaigning, they had to spend huge amounts of money. In our country, candidates are given equal opportunities to speak to the people for many hours through state media without having to spend one single rial. In which part of the world do such things exist?
The only thing that controls entry into our elections is the law. According to the law, some people can run in our elections and some others cannot. The law has specified what the conditions are, what the qualifications are and who are in charge of vetting. All of these things are being done on the basis of the law. Our foreign enemies close their eyes to these realities and say certain things, and as I have pointed out before, sadly there are impious people who repeat the same things. But by Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor and with their presence, resistance and firm determination, our people will respond to all these machinations and their response will be crushing and decisive.
Now I would like to give a piece of advice to the honorable candidates. The honorable candidates speak critically in the televised programs. This is their right. They can criticize whatever they believe should be criticized. However, they should pay attention to the point that criticism should signify a determination to move towards a future that is full of hard work and glory. It should not signify an effort to paint a bleak picture and promote pessimism and unfair comments. They should pay attention to this point. I do not favor anybody. From this moment onwards, foreign media will say with ulterior motives that I favor a particular candidate. This is a lie. I do not favor anybody. I only lay out the facts.
I advise the brothers who want to win the people\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s trust that their comments should be fair. They can make criticisms, but in doing so, they should not paint a bleak picture and deny the outstanding achievements that have been accomplished under the incumbent administration or previous administrations thanks to the constant efforts of individuals like themselves.
Criticism does not mean denying positive aspects. Criticism means that one should point out the positive thing that has been done and then point out the weaknesses and flaws as well. The next president will not have to start from zero: thousands of outstanding things have already been done. Over the course of many years, thousands of fundamental infrastructure-related projects have been carried out in the country under different administrations. There has been scientific progress. There has been industrial progress. There has been progress in areas relating to infrastructure. Very important things have been planned and implemented in different areas. They should not disregard these things. Whenever they want to do something, they should start from the achievements that have already been made. We cannot afford to deny all this work under the pretext that we have economic problems, that we have the problem of rising prices and inflation. After all, this is not the right thing to do. Yes, we have economic problems and inflation. By Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, the person who will be voted into office will be able to resolve these problems and remove these obstacles. This is the wish of the Iranian nation. However, this does not mean that we should deny everything that has been done in order to present a solution to the existing problems.
Also, the candidates should not make impossible promises. You should speak in a way that if your recorded statements are replayed to you next year in Khordad, you do not feel ashamed. Make such promises that you would not have to blame other people under the pretext that they did not let you do what you wanted to do. Only make promises that you will be able to fulfill.
In our country and according to our Constitution, the president has extraordinary powers. The Constitution has given vast powers to the president. The president has control over the national budget. He has control over all executive pillars of the country. He has control over the implementation of the laws and regulations in the country. He has the power to utilize the capacities of all experts throughout the country. The president has room for maneuver in the case of different issues. The only thing that restricts the president in our country is the law. His actions can only be restricted by the law, which is not in fact a restriction. The law provides guidance: it does not restrict. The law shows the path and tells us how to move forward.
Those who address the people today and say different things, should discuss what they are capable of doing and what the people need. They should promise that they will act in a wise and prudent way. If they have plans for different areas, they should present their plans to the people. They should promise that they will move forward on this path in a persistent and steadfast way. They should promise that they will make use of all the capacities of the Constitution in order to carry out their great responsibility.
They should promise that they will manage the conditions of the country. They should promise that they will focus their efforts on the economy - which is a challenge that has been imposed on the Iranian nation by foreigners. They should promise that they will not create controversy. They should promise that they will not give their friends and relative a free rein. They should promise that they will not prefer the interests of foreigners over the interests of the Iranian nation under different pretexts.
Some people argue that we should make concessions to the enemies in order to appease them and in this way they effectively prefer the interests of the enemies over the interests of the Iranian nation. This is wrong. They are angry because you exist, because the Islamic Republic exists, because Imam (r.a.) is alive in the minds of the people and in our national plans, because the people show their feelings for Imam (r.a.) every year on his demise anniversary. These are the causes of their anger. The enemy\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s anger should be controlled and suppressed with our national power.
If our nation becomes powerful and capable, if it reduces its needs, if it eliminates its problems, if it manages to improve the economy which is our main issue today, the enemy will be defenseless against the Iranian nation. In any case, what is important is to have determination, faith in God, faith in the people and faith in ourselves, and this applies to both the presidential candidates and the people. My dear brothers, my dear ones, there will a great test in ten days, and by Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor we hope that in this great test Allah the Exalted will cause an auspicious instance of valor with brilliant outcomes for our nation. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"There is no power except with the permission of Great Almighty Allah.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"
Greetings be upon you and Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s mercy and blessings
More...
Description:
The following is the full text of the speech delivered on June 4, 2013 by Ayatollah Khamenei the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution on the occasion of the demise anniversary of Imam Khomeini (r.a.). The speech was delivered at Imam Khomeini\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s shrine.
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful
All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds, and peace and greetings be upon our Master and Prophet, Ab-al-Qassem al-Mustafa Muhammad, upon his immaculate, pure, chosen, guided and infallible household, especially the one remaining with Allah on earth.
We are thankful to Allah the Exalted who gave us another opportunity to commemorate our magnanimous Imam (r.a.) on such a day and express our respect for him. Although the memory of Imam (r.a.) is alive among our people at all times, the 14th of Khordad is the manifestation of the Iranian nation\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s love for him. This year the demise anniversary of Imam Khomeini (r.a.) has coincided with the martyrdom anniversary of his great ancestor, Imam Musa ibn Ja\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'far (a.s.). Also, this occasion has coincided with the 50th anniversary of the determining and important event that took place on the 15th of Khordad in the year 1342. The 15th of Khordad was an important historical juncture. I would like to briefly discuss a few points in this regard and then I will discuss the pressing issues that are necessary to discuss.
The 15th of Khordad was not the beginning of the great movement by the people and the clergy. Before the 15th of Khordad, important events had taken place in the year 1341 as well as at the beginning of the year 1342. For example, the event in Feiziyeh School took place on the 2nd of Farvardin in 1342: it resulted in the injury of seminarians and the insult to the great marja taqlid, the late Ayatollah Golpaygani. Before that event, towards the end of the year 1341, there were demonstrations in Tehran\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s bazaar and the great marja taqlid, the late Ayatollah Hajj Sayyid Ahmad Khansari, was insulted. These things show that the movement by the clergy had reached such levels in 1341 and early 1342 that security forces of the oppressive regime had started to treat seminarians, religious scholars and even marja taqlids in a brutal way.
However, the 15th of Khordad of 1342 was a very important juncture. The reason is that the event which took place on the 15th of Khordad revealed that the bond between the people and the clergy had reached a so-called dangerous level. In that year, on the anniversary of Ashura - which fell on the 13th of Khordad - our magnanimous Imam (r.a.) delivered a historic speech in Feiziyeh School. Later on when they had arrested Imam (r.a.), on the 15th of Khordad there was a great movement in Tehran as well as in Qom and other cities and the taghuti regime decided to do everything in its power to suppress the movement by relying on its army, police and security organizations.
There was a popular uprising on the 15th of Khordad, which was indicative of the strong bond between the people of Iran and the clergy and marja taqlids, who were represented by Imam (r.a.). The point is that it was this bond that ensured the spread and victory of the movement. Wherever a movement is supported by the people, that movement will prevail. But if the people do not develop a bond with a protest movement, that movement will fail. For example, after the Constitutional Movement in Iran, there were certain events and certain activities by both leftist and nationalist groups, but all of them were destined to fail because they did not have the support of the people.
When the people step into the arena and support a movement with their hearts and minds and with their presence, it becomes possible for that movement to prevail and achieve victory. The event that took place on the 15th of Khordad proved this point. It proved that our people support the clergy. The arrest of our magnanimous Imam (r.a.) resulted in such an uprising in Tehran and certain other parts of the country that the regime had to step in to suppress the people in a brutal way. A large number of people were killed. The streets of Tehran were covered with the blood of pious people and youth. On the 15th of Khordad, the brutal and ruthless nature of the taghuti regime was fully revealed.
Another point regarding the event which happened on the 15th of Khordad - a point to which our youth and dear people should pay attention - is that no international community and none of the so-called human rights organizations protested against the brutal killings in Tehran and other parts of the country. All of them stayed silent. The people and the clergy remained in the arena. Marxists and leftist groups and governments even condemned the popular movement of the 15th of Khordad. They said that it was a feudalist movement. The nationalists - who were claiming to support anti-government activities - also condemned the movement. They said that the movement was a blind and aimless movement, that it was a radical movement.
Wherever lazy people fail to take risks and play a role in the arena, they accuse pious combatants of extremism. They said that the movement was an extremist movement. They rejected it as a radical movement. Imam (r.a.) remained in the arena, relying on the support of the people, and he managed to present the image of a truly decisive and determined spiritual leader to all people and to all history.
Our magnanimous Imam (r.a.) had three beliefs which made him decisive, courageous and steadfast: namely, faith in God, faith in the people and faith in himself. These three beliefs revealed themselves in the character, decisions and actions of Imam (r.a.) in the true sense of the word. Imam (r.a.) spoke to the people through his heart and the people accepted his call with their heart and soul. They stepped into the arena and resisted in a brave way. Their movement - which had no sympathizers in the world and received no assistance - gradually moved towards ultimate victory.
I would like to briefly explain the three beliefs of Imam Khomeini (r.a.). The points I will discuss in this regard are important points that can illuminate our path only if they find their way into our hearts.
Regarding faith in God, Imam (r.a.) was the manifestation of this holy ayah: \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Those to whom the people said: Surely men have gathered against you, therefore fear them, but this increased their faith, and they said: Allah is sufficient for us and most excellent is the Protector.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [The Holy Quran, 3: 173] Imam (r.a.) was firmly committed to \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Allah is sufficient for us and most excellent is the Protector\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" with all his heart and soul. Imam (r.a.) had faith in Allah the Exalted. He had faith in divine promises. He acted, worked and spoke for the sake of God and he knew that \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"if you help (the cause of) Allah, He will help you\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [The Holy Quran, 47: 7] is a divine promise and that it is definite and inviolable.
Regarding faith in the people, our magnanimous Imam (r.a.) knew the Iranian nation in the true sense of the word. Imam (r.a.) believed that our nation enjoys deep religious faith and is intelligent and courageous, a nation that has the capacity to shine like the sun in different areas only if it has competent leaders. One time an incompetent person like Shah Sultan Hussein caused the Iranian nation to retreat into a corner, but another time a courageous person like Nader Gholi - without those honorary titles - emerged among the people and became their leader by relying on his courage and as a result, our nation managed to expand the arena of its glory from Delhi to the Black Sea. Imam (r.a.) had noticed this truth about our history and he had witnessed the examples.
He believed in this truth. He knew our nation. He had faith in the Iranian nation. The people\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s deep religious faith - which had been concealed by materialistic people - was revived by our magnanimous Imam (r.a.). He provoked the people\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s religious pride and the Iranian nation became the role model of resistance and insight. In the eyes of our magnanimous Imam (r.a.), the people were the dearest and enemies of the people were the most hated. The fact that Imam (r.a.) did not stop his battle against the domineering powers even for one single moment, was mainly because the domineering powers were enemies of the people\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s happiness, and Imam (r.a.) believed that enemies of the people were his enemies too.
As for self-confidence, Imam (r.a.) taught the people of Iran to be confident. Before instilling a sense of confidence into the people of Iran, Imam (r.a.) first revived this sense of self-confidence in himself. He exhibited his faith in his capabilities in the true sense of the word. On the anniversary of Ashura in the year 1342, while he was alone, Imam (r.a.) threatened the Shah that he would ask the people of Iran to force him out of the country if he continued acting like that. He said this among the people and seminarians of Qom in Feiziyeh School and he threatened Mohammadreza Shah, who was wielding unrestricted power in the country by relying on America and other foreign powers. This threat was made by a cleric in Qom who had no weapons, no equipment, no money and no international support. He managed to resist in this arena by relying on his faith in God and in himself.
The day when Imam (r.a.) returned from exile, he threatened the government of Bakhtiar at Behesht Zahra Cemetery and he announced in a resonating voice that he would punch Bakhtiar\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s government in the mouth and that he would establish another government. This was indicative of Imam\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s (r.a.) self-confidence. Imam (r.a.) had faith in himself and in his capabilities. It was this self-confidence that was transferred to the people of Iran through his words and actions.
My dear ones, for a hundred years, they had convinced us that we were incapable, incapable of managing the country, incapable of achieving dignity and glory, incapable of developing the country, incapable of moving forward in the arena of knowledge and other such things. And we had started to believe these things.
Instilling a sense of inability - with the purpose of making nations lose faith in their capabilities - is one of the effective ways in which domineering powers spread their domination over different nations. In this way, they managed to keep the Iranian nation backwards in politics, science and economic activities as well as in all other arenas of life. Imam (r.a.) reversed this situation and took this means of hegemony away from the superpowers. He told the Iranian nation, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"You can.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" He restored our courage. He restored our determination. He restored our self-confidence. We people of Iran felt that we were capable again. We moved forward and we took action. For this reason, the Iranian nation has achieved victory over the past thirty-something in all the areas that I will discuss later on in this meeting.
These three beliefs of Imam (r.a.) - namely faith in God, faith in the people and faith in himself - became the axis of all his decisions, actions and policies. At the beginning of the movement, these three beliefs were a source of energy for Imam (r.a.). The same is true of the time when he was in exile, the time when he left for Paris and the time when he returned to Iran. It was these three beliefs that gave Imam (r.a.) the power to enter Tehran in those conditions. These three beliefs were exhibited in the events that happened during Bahman of 1357, in the fitnas that happened in the country, in the establishment of the Islamic Republic, in his open resistance against the oppressive global order, in the slogan of \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"neither the East, nor the West\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\", in the imposed war and in all the events that took place in those eventful ten years of Imam\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s life. These three beliefs were the basis of Imam\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s decisions, actions and policies.
Even in the last few days of his life, nobody noticed any signs of despair, doubt, exhaustion, weakness or submission in the words and actions of our magnanimous Imam (r.a.). Many revolutionaries throughout the world start to have doubts and become conservative as they grow older. Sometimes they even take back their main statements. The statements that were issued by Imam (r.a.) during the last few years of his life were sometimes even more strongly worded and revolutionary than his statements in the year 1342. He was growing old, but he was young at heart and his soul was vibrant. This is the same steadfastness that has been described in the Holy Quran: \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"And that if they should keep to the (right) way, We would certainly give them to drink of abundant water.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [The Holy Quran, 72: 16] In another ayah, Allah the Exalted says: \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"(As for) those who say: Our Lord is Allah, then continue in the right way, the angels descend upon them, saying: Fear not, nor be grieved, and receive good news of the garden which you were promised.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [The Holy Quran, 41: 30]
These three beliefs kept Imam (r.a.) young and vibrant. They consolidated Imam\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s thought and path for our nation and then these three beliefs gradually spread among our people, our youth and individuals from different social backgrounds. These three beliefs created hope. They created self-confidence. They resulted in reliance on God. These things replaced despair and pessimism. The people of Iran changed their characteristics and Allah the Exalted changed their conditions. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Surely Allah does not change the condition of a people until they change their own condition.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [The Holy Quran, 13: 11] The people of Iran reformed their path, their movement and their motives and Allah the Exalted helped and supported them. What was the result? The result was that Iran became an independent country.
There are many lessons that our dear youth should learn from the dependence of the taghuti Pahlavi regime - which is was even worse than the reactionary and disgraced Qajar regime - on England and subsequently on America. Their dependence had reached a disgraceful level. After the Revolution, an outstanding American diplomat mentioned the same thing in his writings. He said that it was the Americans who used to tell the Shah what he needed and what he did not need. It was the Americans who used to tell him with whom to establish relations and with whom not to. They used to tell him how much oil he had to produce and sell. It was the Americans who used to tell him to whom he should sell oil and to whom he should not.
Our country used to be managed on the basis of America\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s policies and plans, and before that our country used to be run on the basis of the plans and policies of England. That dependent country transformed into an independent and proud country. Corrupt, treasonous and materialistic rulers, who were immersed in their carnal desires and human passions, were in charge of our country. They were replaced by representatives of the people. They were replaced by officials who had been elected by the people. In the past thirty-something years, the individuals who have assumed power in our country and taken control of our policies and economy, have been representatives of the people. They did not line their own pockets after assuming power, which is a very important point. Of course, some of them were more pious than others.
Those evil, dependent and greedy politicians who were submissive against the enemies and treated the people in an angry way, were replaced by representatives of the people. Our scientifically backward country transformed into a country that was advanced in terms of science. Before the Revolution, we had not made any scientific achievements in the country. Today international centers say that the rate of Iran\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s scientific progress is eleven times more than the global average. Is this an insignificant achievement? International scientific centers predict that in a few years - by the year 2017 - Iran will rank fourth in the world in terms of science. Is this an insignificant accomplishment? Our country, which had made no scientific achievements, has achieved this position.
There was a time we had to ask foreigners to send their engineers to our country to build dams, roads and factories for us whenever we needed a road, a highway, a dam or a factory. Today Iranian youth are building thousands of factories and hundreds of dams, bridges, roads and highways in the country without receiving the slightest help from foreigners. Today our scientific and technological growth and our capabilities to develop the country have reached this level. Would it be appropriate if we ignored these things?
In areas relating to health and medicine, Iranian patients who had the money had to travel to Europe for slightly complicated operations, and those who did not have the money had to die. Today the most complicated operations - liver transplants, lung transplants and important things in other medical areas - are being carried out in our country, not just in Tehran but in many distant cities across the country. These capabilities exist today in our country. The Iranian nation does not need foreigners in this area. Our nation has achieved independence and self-sufficiency in this vital area.
Many parts of this country had been ignored. Before the Revolution, I used to travel to different places across the country. Remote parts of the country used to be completelyignored. However, different services are being offered in different parts of the country, including remote towns and villages. Today nobody can say that a particular area does not have electricity or roads and other such things. Before the Revolution, it was surprising to see a remote place that enjoyed such facilities. Today the opposite is surprising. At that time, our population was 35 million and there were 150,000 university students in the country. Today our population has increased a hundred percent, but the number of our university students has increased by 20, even 30 times. This means that we have paid attention to science. The number of students, professors and universities in the country is remarkable. In every remote town, there are one, two, five and sometimes ten universities. At that time, there were certain provinces in which the number of high schools was less than ten. Today in every city of the same provinces, there are several universities. This is a great movement by the people of Iran which is the result of the Revolution and selfless efforts of Iranian youth and government officials over the past thirty-something years. These are important developments. Thanks to the Revolution, many infrastructure-related projects were carried out in the country. Thousands of factories were built. Many mother companies were built. The products which we had to beg for and buy in small amounts from foreigners are being mass produced in the country today. It is necessary to see these things. All of these things are the blessings of the three beliefs that Imam (r.a.) instilled into our nation: faith in God, faith in the people and faith in oneself.
I am not saying these things in order to create a false sense of pride and happiness. I am not saying these things to make you feel happy and thankful for the victory that has been achieved. No, there is still a long way to go. I would say that if we compare our conditions with the era of taghut, these achievements will look remarkable, but we will realize that we have a long way to go if we compare our conditions with the conditions of an ideal Islamic Iran - namely, a country which Islam wants us to have, a society that Islam wants us to have, a society in which there is worldly pride and welfare as well as religious faith, ethics and spirituality, all in abundance. I am saying these things so that our dear youth and our courageous nation realize that they can continue this path by relying on the three beliefs that I spoke about. You should know that there is a long way to go, but you have the capability. You have the power to continue this path. You have the necessary means. You can continue traversing this long path at a high speed until you reach the peaks in a powerful way. I am saying these things so that you realize that the enemies who want to create despair in our hearts are acting out of spite. All the signs show that we should remain hopeful.
The roadmap lies in front of our eyes. We have a roadmap. What is this roadmap? Our roadmap is the principles of our magnanimous Imam (r.a.), the same principles that transformed that backward and humiliated nation into this pioneering and proud nation. These principles will be useful for us along the path and they will be our roadmap. Imam\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s principles are clear principles. Fortunately, his statements and writings have been made available to our people in the form of twenty-something volumes [of Imam Khomeini\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s speeches] and the main points have been presented in his testament. Everybody can refer to those documents and read them. I believe it is not advisable to keep mentioning the name of Imam (r.a.) but let his principles sink into oblivion. This is wrong. The name and memory of Imam (r.a.) is not sufficient in itself. Imam (r.a.) will remain a leader for our nation with his principles and his roadmap. Imam (r.a.) gave this roadmap to us. He had specific principles.
As for domestic policy, the principles of Imam (r.a.) require relying on the votes of the people, preserving unity of the people, choosing rulers who are populist and non-aristocratic [humble], having government officials who are committed to national interests and making comprehensive efforts in order to bring about progress for the country.
As far as foreign policy is concerned, the principles of Imam (r.a.) require that we put up a resistance against interventionist and domineering policies, that we establish brotherly relations with other Muslim nations, that we develop relations with all countries except the ones that have drawn their swords against the Iranian nation and are being hostile, that we fight Zionism, that we resist in order to liberate Palestine, that we help oppressed people throughout the world and that we put up a resistance against oppressors. Imam\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s testament is available to us. His writings and statements have been recorded and are available in the form of books.
Regarding culture, the principles of Imam (r.a.) require rejection of the permissive Western culture, rejection of rigidity and reactionary attitudes, rejection of hypocrisy in religion, decisive defense of ethics and Islamic commands, and fighting the spread of immorality and corruption in society.
As for economic matters, the principles of Imam (r.a.) require relying on the national economy, relying on self-sufficiency, ensuring economic justice in production and distribution, defending underprivileged people and confronting the capitalist culture coupled with respect for ownership rights. Imam (r.a.) rejected the oppressive capitalist culture, but he also stressed the need for respecting ownership and property rights, capital and labor. Also, the principles of Imam (r.a.) require that we resist melting into the global economy and that we preserve independence of our national economy. These are Imam\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s principles regarding economic matters. These things are obvious in Imam\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s statements.
Imam (r.a.) always demanded government officials of the country to implement these principles in a powerful and wise way. This was the roadmap of our magnanimous Imam (r.a.). The Iranian nation can bridge the gap between current conditions and those ideal conditions by following this roadmap, by relying on their firm religious faith, by remembering their Imam (r.a.). The Iranian nation can move forward. Considering its capabilities and talent and the outstanding individuals who are thankfully present among our people, the Iranian nation can continue the revolutionary path that we have been following over the past thirty-something years with more power and firmer determination. By Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, our nation will be able to become a genuine role model for other Muslim nations.
Now let me speak about the elections, which is a sensitive and current issue these days. Dear brothers and sisters and dear people of Iran, elections are the manifestation of all the three beliefs of Imam Khomeini (r.a.) and we should have faith in the same things. Elections are the manifestation of faith in God, because taking part in elections is a religious obligation. It is our responsibility to play a role in the destiny of our country. Everybody in our country has this responsibility. Elections are the manifestation of faith in the people, because the will of the people manifests itself in the form of elections: it is the people who choose government officials through elections. Elections are the manifestation of having faith in oneself, because anybody who casts his vote into the ballot box feels that he is playing a role in the destiny of the country and that his role is determining in its own right. This is a very important point. Therefore, elections are the manifestation of faith in God, faith in the people and faith in oneself.
Giving rise to political valor through epic presence of the people at our polling stations is the most important point regarding the upcoming elections. What is the meaning of valor? Valor means that the attempt to achieve glory should be accompanied by excitement and enthusiasm. Every vote that you cast into the ballot box for any of the eight honorable candidates is a vote for the Islamic Republic. A vote for any of the candidates is a vote for the Islamic Republic: it is a vote of confidence for the [political] system and its electoral mechanism. When you enter the arena of elections - either as a voter or as a candidate - your mere presence in this arena means that you have confidence in the Islamic Republic and in our electoral mechanism. On a less important level, your presence results in a vote for the person whom you consider as more valuable for the future of the country than the other candidates.
Our helpless foreign enemies are thinking of a way to turn this election into a threat against the Islamic Republic. This is while an election is a great opportunity for the Islamic Republic. They are hoping for a cold and lifeless election so that they can say the people are not interested in the Islamic Republic or they can create a fitna after the election, just as they did in the year 1388 after that enthusiastic election. These are what the enemies of our nation are after. But they are making a mistake. They do not know our people.
The enemies of our nation have forgotten the 9th of Dey. Those who think that in our country there is a silent majority who are opposed to the Islamic Republic, have forgotten that over the past thirty-four years massive numbers of people have taken to the streets every year on the 22nd of Bahman in different cities of our country in order to support the Islamic Republic and shout \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"death to America\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\". In order to make our elections lifeless, their think tanks constantly produce ideas and feed them to their media and their spokesmen. One day they say our elections have been engineered, another day they say our elections are not free, yet another day they say our elections are not legitimate in the eyes of the people. They do not know our people, neither do they know our elections and the Islamic Republic. And those who are aware of the facts, make unfair comments. They do not shrink from making such comments.
In which part of the world are different candidates - ranging from famous figures to unknown individuals - allowed to use national and state media equally? If somebody knows an exception, he should come forward and say it. In which part of the world does such a thing exist? Does it exist in America? Does it exist in capitalist countries? In capitalist countries, if candidates are members of the existing two or three parties and enjoy the support of capitalists, company owners, wealthy people and mafias of wealth and power, they can campaign and if not, they cannot even campaign.
Anybody who has followed American elections - which I have - will confirm this. There were certain individuals who did not enjoy the support of the Zionists and blood-thirsty international capitalist networks, and they could not enter the arena of election no matter how hard they tried. They neither had access to a media outlet, nor were any TV channels available to them. For every second of campaigning, they had to spend huge amounts of money. In our country, candidates are given equal opportunities to speak to the people for many hours through state media without having to spend one single rial. In which part of the world do such things exist?
The only thing that controls entry into our elections is the law. According to the law, some people can run in our elections and some others cannot. The law has specified what the conditions are, what the qualifications are and who are in charge of vetting. All of these things are being done on the basis of the law. Our foreign enemies close their eyes to these realities and say certain things, and as I have pointed out before, sadly there are impious people who repeat the same things. But by Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor and with their presence, resistance and firm determination, our people will respond to all these machinations and their response will be crushing and decisive.
Now I would like to give a piece of advice to the honorable candidates. The honorable candidates speak critically in the televised programs. This is their right. They can criticize whatever they believe should be criticized. However, they should pay attention to the point that criticism should signify a determination to move towards a future that is full of hard work and glory. It should not signify an effort to paint a bleak picture and promote pessimism and unfair comments. They should pay attention to this point. I do not favor anybody. From this moment onwards, foreign media will say with ulterior motives that I favor a particular candidate. This is a lie. I do not favor anybody. I only lay out the facts.
I advise the brothers who want to win the people\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s trust that their comments should be fair. They can make criticisms, but in doing so, they should not paint a bleak picture and deny the outstanding achievements that have been accomplished under the incumbent administration or previous administrations thanks to the constant efforts of individuals like themselves.
Criticism does not mean denying positive aspects. Criticism means that one should point out the positive thing that has been done and then point out the weaknesses and flaws as well. The next president will not have to start from zero: thousands of outstanding things have already been done. Over the course of many years, thousands of fundamental infrastructure-related projects have been carried out in the country under different administrations. There has been scientific progress. There has been industrial progress. There has been progress in areas relating to infrastructure. Very important things have been planned and implemented in different areas. They should not disregard these things. Whenever they want to do something, they should start from the achievements that have already been made. We cannot afford to deny all this work under the pretext that we have economic problems, that we have the problem of rising prices and inflation. After all, this is not the right thing to do. Yes, we have economic problems and inflation. By Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, the person who will be voted into office will be able to resolve these problems and remove these obstacles. This is the wish of the Iranian nation. However, this does not mean that we should deny everything that has been done in order to present a solution to the existing problems.
Also, the candidates should not make impossible promises. You should speak in a way that if your recorded statements are replayed to you next year in Khordad, you do not feel ashamed. Make such promises that you would not have to blame other people under the pretext that they did not let you do what you wanted to do. Only make promises that you will be able to fulfill.
In our country and according to our Constitution, the president has extraordinary powers. The Constitution has given vast powers to the president. The president has control over the national budget. He has control over all executive pillars of the country. He has control over the implementation of the laws and regulations in the country. He has the power to utilize the capacities of all experts throughout the country. The president has room for maneuver in the case of different issues. The only thing that restricts the president in our country is the law. His actions can only be restricted by the law, which is not in fact a restriction. The law provides guidance: it does not restrict. The law shows the path and tells us how to move forward.
Those who address the people today and say different things, should discuss what they are capable of doing and what the people need. They should promise that they will act in a wise and prudent way. If they have plans for different areas, they should present their plans to the people. They should promise that they will move forward on this path in a persistent and steadfast way. They should promise that they will make use of all the capacities of the Constitution in order to carry out their great responsibility.
They should promise that they will manage the conditions of the country. They should promise that they will focus their efforts on the economy - which is a challenge that has been imposed on the Iranian nation by foreigners. They should promise that they will not create controversy. They should promise that they will not give their friends and relative a free rein. They should promise that they will not prefer the interests of foreigners over the interests of the Iranian nation under different pretexts.
Some people argue that we should make concessions to the enemies in order to appease them and in this way they effectively prefer the interests of the enemies over the interests of the Iranian nation. This is wrong. They are angry because you exist, because the Islamic Republic exists, because Imam (r.a.) is alive in the minds of the people and in our national plans, because the people show their feelings for Imam (r.a.) every year on his demise anniversary. These are the causes of their anger. The enemy\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s anger should be controlled and suppressed with our national power.
If our nation becomes powerful and capable, if it reduces its needs, if it eliminates its problems, if it manages to improve the economy which is our main issue today, the enemy will be defenseless against the Iranian nation. In any case, what is important is to have determination, faith in God, faith in the people and faith in ourselves, and this applies to both the presidential candidates and the people. My dear brothers, my dear ones, there will a great test in ten days, and by Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor we hope that in this great test Allah the Exalted will cause an auspicious instance of valor with brilliant outcomes for our nation. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"There is no power except with the permission of Great Almighty Allah.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"
Greetings be upon you and Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s mercy and blessings
*Important* Full Speech by the Leader in Azerbaijan - 16 February 2013 - [ENGLISH]
Supreme Leader\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s Speech to People of East Azerbaijan
22/02/2013
The following is the full text of the speech delivered on February 16, 2013 by Ayatollah Khamenei...
Supreme Leader\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s Speech to People of East Azerbaijan
22/02/2013
The following is the full text of the speech delivered on February 16, 2013 by Ayatollah Khamenei the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution in a meeting with the people of East Azerbaijan. The meeting was held on the anniversary of the uprising by the people of Tabriz on the 29th of Bahman of 1356.
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful
I welcome all you dear brothers and sisters and the dear youth. In particular, I welcome the dear families of martyrs, religious scholars and government officials who have come here from distant places, brought a valuable gift of affection from the dear people of Azerbaijan on this occasion and delivered their message of resistance. I hope that Allah the Exalted bestows great blessings and infinite mercy on all of you.
I would tell you dear brothers and sisters and all the people of Azerbaijan and Tabriz including religious men and women that the presence of the people of Azerbaijan and Tabriz has truly played a determining role in the movement of the Iranian nation throughout all the eras in our history - from 100, 150 years ago until today. And today nothing has changed. It is you who have managed to protect the dignity of our country and our nation against the enemies with your firm determination, your pride and your faith. And Azerbaijan has played an increasingly significant role in different arenas.
Thirty-five years have passed since the 29th of Bahman of 1356. Today, in terms of faith, resistance and wisdom, Azerbaijan is even better than it was during those important and fateful times. There have been so many vicious plots to separate the people in different parts of the country. But these plots have backfired. It is you who have always managed to play a leading role. In fact, it is you who are the anchor of peace in this country. As you said in the poem you recited: \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"You are the peace in the heart of Iran.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [Audience shout in the Azeri language, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"We are prepared to lay down our lives. We are Khamenei\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s soldiers.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"]
One can clearly see that the dear people of Azerbaijan have a specific characteristic. This characteristic exists in other parts of the country, but in Azerbaijan it is more visible. This characteristic is that the political activities and the proud movement of the people of Azerbaijan in different eras - in the case of the Constitutional Movement, the military occupation of Azerbaijan and different other issues - were based on religion and religious faith. And they played a leading role in many of these issues.
Despite the fact that the leftist intellectual movement and the movement which was dependent on the west were active in Azerbaijan since after the introduction of the unhealthy intellectual movement into our country and despite the fact that they were trying to separate the people from religion, the movement of the people was based on religion. If you take a look at the movements which were started in Azerbaijan - many of these movements were national movements, and the people of Azerbaijan were pioneers - you can see that despite the efforts of those leftist movements, the people and the leaders of these popular movements in Azerbaijan expressed their commitment to religious issues more openly than the people in other cities.
In Tabriz, Sattar Khan used to say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"The fatwa of the ulama of Najaf is in my pocket\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\". That is to say, this great and brave man used to coordinate with the marja taqlids of Najaf. What he did was exactly the opposite of what eastern and western intellectual movements wanted to achieve at that time in the country. Today nothing has changed and nothing will change in the future either.
The Iranian nation considers religious faith as the standard. I cited Azerbaijan as an example of this religious faith, but people throughout the country are, more or less, like this. The movement of the Iranian nation is one that is accompanied by pride, courage and a sense of responsibility. But it is based on religious teachings and religious faith. This is very valuable. That is why the dangers caused by global powers, which other nations are usually faced with and which make them waver, did not threaten the people of Iran and did not make them waver.
When the enemies wanted to impose sanctions and exert pressures they said, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"We want to impose crippling sanctions on the people of Iran.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" And they did this. Two, three days before the 22nd of Bahman, they put a new round of sanctions into the equation. Besides, a few months ago, in Mordad of this year, they did the same thing. That is to say, they increased their so-called pressures on the people before the 22nd of Bahman of this year.
What do they hope to achieve? They do these things in the hope of weakening the people. What was the response of the people? The people of Iran responded by participating in the rallies on the 22nd of Bahman more enthusiastically. All the people participated. People from different parts of the country participated. They participated with great spirit and with a smile on their faces. The people of Iran are such people. Each year on the 22nd of Bahman, the people of Iran deal a blow to the enemies. They strike the enemies and the opponents like an avalanche. This avalanche struck them this year too. I deem it necessary to express my gratitude again - even if one expresses his gratitude 100 times, one is not overdoing it - to the people of Iran for their glorious and impressive presence [in the rallies on the 22nd of Bahman]. One should bow before such insight. The people of Iran are such people.
I would tell you that in these conditions, the enemies have taken a passive role. Despite the fact that they pretend to be active, they are not active. The enemy has taken a passive role in the face of the Iranian nation. Enjoying firm determination, wisdom and faith, our people know what they want and they know the way to achieve their goals. They endure the hardships with great courage. Different political, military and economic weapons do not work on our nation. Therefore, the enemy has taken a passive role and for this reason, they make irrational moves.
I would tell you that American politicians are irrational people. They make irrational statements. They act in an irrational and thuggish way. They expect other countries to give in to their unreasonable demands and their bullying. Well, some people give in to their demands. Some governments and some political personalities in certain countries give in to their bullying. But the Iranian nation and the Islamic Republic will not give in. The Islamic Republic of Iran has many things to say. It has logical reasons. It has power and authority. For this reason, the Islamic Republic does not give in to irrational statements and actions.
In what ways are they irrational? The sign of their irrationality is the contradictions between their words and actions. Their words are not in line with their actions. No other piece of evidence can show their irrationality more clearly. A reasonable person makes a convincing comment and then he sticks by it. These men, American politicians and their western followers, are not such people. They say a certain thing and make a certain claim, but they do exactly the opposite of what they have claimed or said. I would like to give a number of examples:
They claim that they are committed to human rights. The Americans have raised the flag of human rights. They say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"We are committed to human rights not only in our country, America, but also in the entire world.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" Well, this is a claim. What have they done in practice? In practice, they inflict the most serious harm on human rights and they hurl the biggest insult at human rights in different countries. Their secret prisons throughout the world, such as their prisons in Guantanamo, in Iraq, in Abu Ghraib and their attack on civilians in Afghanistan, Pakistan and in different areas are examples of the Americans\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\' claim to support human rights. Based on the news that is reported every day from Afghanistan and Pakistan, their drones both spy for them and pressure the people. Of course, as an American journal said a few days ago, these drones will be a source of trouble for them in the future.
They say that they are committed to non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. Their pretext for attacking Iraq 11 years ago was that the regime of Saddam wanted to build nuclear weapons in Iraq. Of course, they went there and they did not find anything. It became clear that it was a lie. They say that they are committed to non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. This is while they support an evil government - the Zionist government - which has nuclear weapons and which threatens to use them. That is what they say and this is how they act.
They say that they are committed to establishment of democracy in the world - I do not want to speak about the kind of democracy America itself has. Under this claim, they constantly confront the Islamic Republic which has the most genuine democracy in the region. This is while they shamelessly support countries in the region which do not know the first thing about democracy and in which the people have not seen ballot boxes even once. This is their commitment to democracy. Notice how different their words and actions are.
They say that they want to resolve their issues with Iran. They have said this many times. Recently, they are speaking about it even more than before. They say that they want to negotiate and resolve their issues with Iran. This is what they say. But in practice, they resort to imposing sanctions and broadcasting negative propaganda. They publish inappropriate and false things about the Islamic Republic and the people of Iran.
A few days ago the President of America delivered a speech about the nuclear issue of Iran. He spoke as if the conflict between Iran and America is over Iran\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s decision to build nuclear weapons. He said that they will do everything in their power to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons. If we wanted to build nuclear weapons, how would you stop us? If Iran had decided to build nuclear weapons, America would not be able to stop it in any way.
We do not want to build nuclear weapons and this is not because this will upset America, rather it is because of our beliefs. We believe that building nuclear weapons is a crime against humanity and they should not be built. Besides, we believe that the existing nuclear weapons should be destroyed. This is our belief. It has nothing to do with you [Americans]. If we did not have this belief and if we decided to build nuclear weapons, no power could stop us, as they could not stop other countries. They could not do this in India, Pakistan and North Korea. The Americans were opposed to development of nuclear weapons in these countries, but they built nuclear weapons.
The Americans claim, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"We will not let Iran build nuclear weapons.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" This is deceptive talk. Is this an issue of nuclear weapons? Regarding Iran, the issue is not related to nuclear weapons. The issue is that you want to deny Iran its natural and inalienable right to enrich uranium and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes through using its domestic capacities. Of course, you cannot do this either and the Iranian nation will not renounce its right.
American politicians make irrational statements. One cannot use logic when he speaks to an irrational person - after all, he is irrational. Irrational means thuggish. It means somebody who speaks nonsense. This is a fact which we have become aware of through our involvement in different global issues. We understand who our opposing side is and how he should be confronted.
I have written down a few things to discuss with you dear brothers and sisters and the entire Iranian nation. Of course, these statements are addressed to the people of Iran. When they speak, when the American president speaks, when his companions and followers speak, they want to mislead public opinion -public opinion in the world, in the region or if they can, in our country. At the moment, I do not want to speak about public opinion in the world. The global media network, which is under the domination of the Zionists and the Americans, either does not reflect our statements or it reflects them in an incomplete or distorted way. Therefore, I speak to the people of Iran.
The power of the Islamic Republic has nothing to do with public opinion in the world. The Islamic Republic has not gained its power and it has not achieved dignity and glory with the help of public opinion in the world. It has achieved these things with the help of the people of Iran. The firm and solid foundation which the Iranian nation has built and the news of which is quickly spreading throughout the world is based on the Iranian nation itself. I speak to the people of Iran. I will not address other nations, but they can listen if they want to. They can reflect on my statements or not reflect on them. But the people of Iran should know about these things. Therefore, the first point is that they are unreasonable. They speak without believing in what they say and their words and actions are different.
The second point is that they have raised the issue of negotiations. They say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Iranian officials should come to us so that we can sit and negotiate.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" The same unreasonable behavior can be seen in their offer of negotiations. Their purpose is not to solve the problems and resolves the issues - I will explain this later. Their purpose is creating hype. They want to say to Muslim nations, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"This was the Islamic Republic with all that intense determination and resistance. But finally, it had to negotiate with us. Even the Iranian nation ended up like this. What can you do?\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"
They need negotiations in order to suppress countries which have just gained power, in which the breeze of Islamic Awakening has blown, countries which feel they have dignity because of Islam. They want to make these countries hopeless. Since the beginning of the Revolution, this was one of their goals. Since the beginning of the Revolution, one of their goals was to drag Iran to the negotiating table and make it deal with it. One of their goals was to gain the opportunity to say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Did you see that finally Iran - which claimed to be independent and courageous and which claimed that it has stood up against us - was forced to come and sit at the negotiating table?\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" Today, they pursue the same goal. This is an important issue. When the purpose of negotiations is not resolving the main issues and when the purpose of negotiations is creating hype, it is clear that the opposing side, the Islamic Republic, is not naïve and it has not closed its eyes. It understands what your goal is. Therefore, it responds on the basis of your intentions.
The third point is that in the eyes of the Americans and powers which seek domination, the true meaning of negotiations is accepting what they say at the negotiating table. This is their goal of negotiations. They say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Let us sit and talk so that you come to the conclusion that you should accept what you would not accept before.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" They say in their propaganda about negotiations - you may have heard about it - that they should directly negotiate with Iran and they cause a stir and create hype about it. Even the statements they made today clearly conveyed the message that they want to convince Iran to stop enriching uranium and producing nuclear energy. This is their goal. They do not say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Let us sit and negotiate so that Iran can give its own reasons and so that we stop pressuring them, imposing sanctions on them and interfering in political and security issues.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" Rather, they say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"We should negotiate so that Iran accepts what we say.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"
This kind of negotiation does not serve any purpose. It will not reach any results. Even if Iran accepts to negotiate and even if our officials sit and negotiate with the Americans, what kind of negotiations is it when their goal is this [making Iran surrender]? It is obvious that Iran will not give up its rights. During negotiations, whenever they see that the opposing side speaks reasonably and they have nothing to say against Iran, they break off negotiations. Then, they say that Iran does not want to negotiate. Political networks as well as news networks are under their control and they broadcast propaganda. We have experienced this.
During the past 15 years, two or three times the Americans sent a message about a specific issue. They insisted that there is a very important and a very critical issue and that we should sit and talk with them. Well, executive officials - usually one or two people - went to a certain place and spoke to them. As soon as these officials made their rational statements and the Americans found out that they have no response, the negotiations were broken off unilaterally. Of course, they achieved their propaganda purposes. This is our experience. Well, it is wrong to test something which has been already tested.
The fourth point is that they pretend in their propaganda that if Iran sits at the negotiating table and negotiates with America, sanctions will be lifted. This is a lie too. Their goal is to make the people of Iran become eager to negotiate with America by promising to lift sanctions. They think that the people of Iran are exhausted by the sanctions and are frustrated. They think that everything is in a mess and that they can tell us, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Well, come and negotiate with us so that we lift the sanctions.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" They think this will cause the entire Iranian nation to ask them to negotiate.
This is also one of their irrational and deceptive statements and it is a tool for bullying. First, as I said, when they ask us to negotiate with them, they do not really mean fair and rational negotiations. Negotiations mean that we should accept what they say and surrender so that they lift the sanctions. If the Iranian nation wanted to surrender, they would not have carried out a revolution. America was dominant over the issues of Iran and it did what it liked. The Iranian people carried out a revolution in order to free themselves from the yoke of America. Now should they surrender to you again? This is the first problem with their offer of negotiations.
Another problem is that the sanctions will not be lifted with negotiations. I would tell you that the purpose of sanctions is something else. The purpose of sanctions is exhausting the people of Iran and separating them from the Islamic Republic. Even if negotiations are conducted but our people stay present on the scene and stand up for their rights, sanctions will continue. What will the Iranian nation do to counter this wrong idea that the enemies have?
There is an idea in the minds of the opposing sides. Let us elaborate and analyze this idea. They say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"The Islamic Republic relies on the people. If we manage to separate the people from the Islamic Republic, the power to resist will be taken away from the Islamic Republic.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" This is how the opposing side thinks. Well, this idea has two parts. The first part, that the Islamic Republic relies on the people, is accurate. There is no source of support for the Islamic Republic except the people. The people are the fortifications that protect the country and the Islamic Revolution. The second part, that they thought they can bring the people to their knees by imposing sanctions and bullying them on international, commercial and other such issues, is false. If they think that they can take away this source of support from the Islamic Republic, they are wrong.
The Iranian nation will think of some ways to counter what the enemy wants to do. The Iranian nation is looking for economic blossoming, economic progress and complete prosperity. But it does not want to achieve this goal by being humiliated before the enemy. It wants to achieve this goal with its own capabilities, courage, advancements and with the capabilities of the youth. It does not want to achieve this with anything else. There is no doubt that sanctions exert pressures on the people and bother them. But there are two ways to approach these pressures. Weak nations surrender to the enemy when he exerts pressures and they bow and show regret before him. But a brave nation, like the Iranian nation, tries to use its own capabilities as soon as it sees that the enemy is exerting pressures and it tries to pass through the danger zone. And our nation will definitely do this. We have 30 years of experience in this regard.
There are certain countries in the region which have been under the domination of America for more than 30 years. The governments in these countries have been servants of America. They have been obedient to America and they have been taking orders from it. What is their position? The Iranian nation has been putting up a resistance against America for more than 30 years. What is the position of the Iranian nation? In the face of 30 years of pressures by America, the Iranian nation has reached such a position - in terms of scientific, economic and cultural progress and in terms of international dignity, political influence and political power - that the people and government officials during the time of Pahlavi and Qajar regimes could not even dream of.
We have experienced this. We have tested this. We have stood up against the pressures of America for 30 years. We have such a position. But there are nations which have been under the domination of America for 30 years and they are behind other countries to a great extent. We did not suffer a loss as a result of resisting. Resistance revives the inner strength of a nation. It makes it active. The sanctions which they impose will be helpful to the Iranian nation. By Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor and grace, sanctions will help the Iranian nation achieve growth and blossoming. This is an important point.
Well, you saw what the people did in the rallies. We cannot say that the people have no complaints about the high prices and the existing problems. Prices are high and there are certain economic problems and the people, particularly underprivileged people, feel them. But this did not make the people separate themselves from the Islamic Republic. The people know that the Islamic Republic, dear and powerful Islam and the officials who are committed to Islam, are the powerful hands which can solve the problems. They can solve the problems. Surrendering to the enemies will not solve any problems.
The last point is that unlike American politicians, we are reasonable. Our officials are reasonable. Our people are reasonable. We accept rational statements and rational actions. If the Americans show that they will not bully us any more, if they show that they will not commit evil deeds, if they show that they will not say and do irrational things, if they show that they will respect the rights of the Iranian nation, if they show that they will not fuel the fire of discord in the country, if they show that they will not interfere in the internal affairs of Iran - like the interference by supporting those who started the fitna in 1388 - then they will see that the Islamic Republic is benevolent and the people are reasonable.
In the fitna of the year 1388, they supported those who started the fitna and they put social networks at the service of these people. In those days, a social network wanted to close down in order to fix some technical problems. They asked the network not to close down so that they could exert influence over the fitna. If they stop doing these things, then they will see that the Islamic Republic is well-wishing. The only way to establish relations with the Islamic Republic is this and there is no other way. They can establish relations with the Islamic Republic in such a way. The Americans should prove that they have good will. They should prove that they are not after bullying. If they prove this, then they will see that the Iranian nation will make an appropriate response. If they do not commit evil deeds, if they do not interfere, if they do not bully and if they acknowledge the rights of the Iranian nation, then an appropriate response will be given by the Iranian nation.
I would like to say a few things about the internal issues of our country. This is an important issue. An event took place in the Majlis. It was a bad and inappropriate event. It made both the people and our elites unhappy. I became upset for two reasons. The first is the fact that the event itself happened and the second is the fact that the people are unhappy about this issue. In this event, the head of a certain branch made an accusation against the other two branches on the basis of an unproven allegation which had not even been considered by a court of law. This course of action was bad and inappropriate. These acts are against sharia and the law and they are immoral. They violate the basic rights of the people. One of the basic rights of the people is living in peace and in psychological and moral security.
If a person is accused of corruption, one cannot accuse other people on the basis of this accusation. Even if he is found guilty - let alone the current case in which the accused has not been found guilty, he has not been summoned by the court and he has not come to trial - one should not accuse others. Accusing other people, the Majlis and the judiciary branch on the basis of an accusation that has been leveled against another person is an appropriate course of action. It is a wrong course of action. For the time being, I offer a piece of advice. This behavior is not appropriate for the Islamic Republic.
On the other hand, the questioning [of the minister] in the Majlis was a wrong course of action. Questioning should serve a certain purpose. What is the purpose of questioning a minister - a few months before the end of this administration\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s term - over an issue which is not related to the minister? Why did they do this?
I have heard that inside the Majlis, a number of people said inappropriate things. This course of action was also wrong. All these events are inappropriate for the Islamic Republic. Neither that accusation, nor that behavior, nor that questioning was appropriate. The things which the honorable Speaker of the Majlis said in his own defense were excessive. It was not necessary to do that.
We are all brothers. When there is a common enemy in front of us and when we see plots, what should we do? Until today, the officials have always stayed by one another\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s side. Now, too, they should act like this. They should always act like this.
I have always supported the officials of the three branches and the officials of the country. I will continue to support each person who has a responsibility. I will help him. But I do not like these acts. This kind of behavior is not in line with the oaths they take and with the promises they make. Take a look at the greatness of the people. These people deserve to be treated in a different way. Today, the officials should focus all their efforts on solving economic problems. Three or four years ago, during a speech which I delivered in the beginning of the year, I explicitly said to the people and the officials that the plot of the enemies of the Iranian nation would be to focus - more than everything else - on our economic issues.
Well, you see that the enemies did this. Both the executive branch and the Majlis should focus all their efforts and all their attention on pursuing accurate economic policies. A few years ago, I wrote a letter to the heads of the three branches of government about combating economic corruption. You should combat economic corruption. This problem is not solved by speaking about it. You should combat economic corruption in practice. You repeatedly speak about economic corruption. When did you combat economic corruption? What was done in practice? What did you do in practice? These issues make one distressed.
Now that the enemies have increased their hostility, I expect the officials to strengthen their friendship. Piety, piety, piety! We expect the officials to focus all their efforts on solving the problems of the people by exercising patience, by suppressing unrestrained emotions and by taking the issues of the country into consideration. By Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, this benevolent piece of advice will draw the attention of the officials, particularly high-ranking officials. They should be committed to this issue.
I should add another point. The things that I said today and the complaints I made against a number of officials should not make some people shout slogans against such and such people. I am against this course of action. Some people label a certain person as anti-wilayat, anti-insight and anti-whatever. Then they shout slogans against him and create disruption in the Majlis. I am against these moves. I would like to speak openly about these issues. I am against the kind of events which happened in Qom. I am against the kind of events which happened at Imam Khomeini\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s (r.a.) holy shrine. I asked the officials many times to prevent these things. Those who do such things - if they are really hezbollahi and religious - should stop doing them. You can see that we consider these moves as harmful to the country. We do not benefit from them.
It is not helpful to set out to shout slogans against such and such people by releasing emotions. These slogans will not solve any problems. Keep this anger and these emotions for the time when it is necessary to express them. During the Sacred Defense Era, if basijis had decided to act at will, then the country would have been destroyed. Discipline and social order are necessary and it is necessary to take certain things into consideration. If these people do not pay any attention to these principles, then they should be treated in a different way. But those who pay attention to these principles and who believe they should not move against sharia, should take care not to make such moves.
Thankfully the people of Iran have insight. I would tell you dear youth that the day when we are gone and you are in charge, the situation of the Iranian nation will be much better in terms of material and spiritual prosperity. The Iranian nation is moving towards light. There are bright prospects for us. We should watch our behavior.
We should ask Allah the Exalted to help us. We should ask the immaculate souls of our martyrs and the immaculate soul of our magnanimous Imam (r.a.) to help us. By Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, you and I will benefit from the prayers of the Imam of the Age (may our souls be sacrificed for his sake).
Greetings be upon you and Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s mercy and blessings.
http://english.khamenei.ir//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1744&Itemid=4
More...
Description:
Supreme Leader\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s Speech to People of East Azerbaijan
22/02/2013
The following is the full text of the speech delivered on February 16, 2013 by Ayatollah Khamenei the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution in a meeting with the people of East Azerbaijan. The meeting was held on the anniversary of the uprising by the people of Tabriz on the 29th of Bahman of 1356.
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful
I welcome all you dear brothers and sisters and the dear youth. In particular, I welcome the dear families of martyrs, religious scholars and government officials who have come here from distant places, brought a valuable gift of affection from the dear people of Azerbaijan on this occasion and delivered their message of resistance. I hope that Allah the Exalted bestows great blessings and infinite mercy on all of you.
I would tell you dear brothers and sisters and all the people of Azerbaijan and Tabriz including religious men and women that the presence of the people of Azerbaijan and Tabriz has truly played a determining role in the movement of the Iranian nation throughout all the eras in our history - from 100, 150 years ago until today. And today nothing has changed. It is you who have managed to protect the dignity of our country and our nation against the enemies with your firm determination, your pride and your faith. And Azerbaijan has played an increasingly significant role in different arenas.
Thirty-five years have passed since the 29th of Bahman of 1356. Today, in terms of faith, resistance and wisdom, Azerbaijan is even better than it was during those important and fateful times. There have been so many vicious plots to separate the people in different parts of the country. But these plots have backfired. It is you who have always managed to play a leading role. In fact, it is you who are the anchor of peace in this country. As you said in the poem you recited: \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"You are the peace in the heart of Iran.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [Audience shout in the Azeri language, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"We are prepared to lay down our lives. We are Khamenei\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s soldiers.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"]
One can clearly see that the dear people of Azerbaijan have a specific characteristic. This characteristic exists in other parts of the country, but in Azerbaijan it is more visible. This characteristic is that the political activities and the proud movement of the people of Azerbaijan in different eras - in the case of the Constitutional Movement, the military occupation of Azerbaijan and different other issues - were based on religion and religious faith. And they played a leading role in many of these issues.
Despite the fact that the leftist intellectual movement and the movement which was dependent on the west were active in Azerbaijan since after the introduction of the unhealthy intellectual movement into our country and despite the fact that they were trying to separate the people from religion, the movement of the people was based on religion. If you take a look at the movements which were started in Azerbaijan - many of these movements were national movements, and the people of Azerbaijan were pioneers - you can see that despite the efforts of those leftist movements, the people and the leaders of these popular movements in Azerbaijan expressed their commitment to religious issues more openly than the people in other cities.
In Tabriz, Sattar Khan used to say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"The fatwa of the ulama of Najaf is in my pocket\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\". That is to say, this great and brave man used to coordinate with the marja taqlids of Najaf. What he did was exactly the opposite of what eastern and western intellectual movements wanted to achieve at that time in the country. Today nothing has changed and nothing will change in the future either.
The Iranian nation considers religious faith as the standard. I cited Azerbaijan as an example of this religious faith, but people throughout the country are, more or less, like this. The movement of the Iranian nation is one that is accompanied by pride, courage and a sense of responsibility. But it is based on religious teachings and religious faith. This is very valuable. That is why the dangers caused by global powers, which other nations are usually faced with and which make them waver, did not threaten the people of Iran and did not make them waver.
When the enemies wanted to impose sanctions and exert pressures they said, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"We want to impose crippling sanctions on the people of Iran.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" And they did this. Two, three days before the 22nd of Bahman, they put a new round of sanctions into the equation. Besides, a few months ago, in Mordad of this year, they did the same thing. That is to say, they increased their so-called pressures on the people before the 22nd of Bahman of this year.
What do they hope to achieve? They do these things in the hope of weakening the people. What was the response of the people? The people of Iran responded by participating in the rallies on the 22nd of Bahman more enthusiastically. All the people participated. People from different parts of the country participated. They participated with great spirit and with a smile on their faces. The people of Iran are such people. Each year on the 22nd of Bahman, the people of Iran deal a blow to the enemies. They strike the enemies and the opponents like an avalanche. This avalanche struck them this year too. I deem it necessary to express my gratitude again - even if one expresses his gratitude 100 times, one is not overdoing it - to the people of Iran for their glorious and impressive presence [in the rallies on the 22nd of Bahman]. One should bow before such insight. The people of Iran are such people.
I would tell you that in these conditions, the enemies have taken a passive role. Despite the fact that they pretend to be active, they are not active. The enemy has taken a passive role in the face of the Iranian nation. Enjoying firm determination, wisdom and faith, our people know what they want and they know the way to achieve their goals. They endure the hardships with great courage. Different political, military and economic weapons do not work on our nation. Therefore, the enemy has taken a passive role and for this reason, they make irrational moves.
I would tell you that American politicians are irrational people. They make irrational statements. They act in an irrational and thuggish way. They expect other countries to give in to their unreasonable demands and their bullying. Well, some people give in to their demands. Some governments and some political personalities in certain countries give in to their bullying. But the Iranian nation and the Islamic Republic will not give in. The Islamic Republic of Iran has many things to say. It has logical reasons. It has power and authority. For this reason, the Islamic Republic does not give in to irrational statements and actions.
In what ways are they irrational? The sign of their irrationality is the contradictions between their words and actions. Their words are not in line with their actions. No other piece of evidence can show their irrationality more clearly. A reasonable person makes a convincing comment and then he sticks by it. These men, American politicians and their western followers, are not such people. They say a certain thing and make a certain claim, but they do exactly the opposite of what they have claimed or said. I would like to give a number of examples:
They claim that they are committed to human rights. The Americans have raised the flag of human rights. They say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"We are committed to human rights not only in our country, America, but also in the entire world.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" Well, this is a claim. What have they done in practice? In practice, they inflict the most serious harm on human rights and they hurl the biggest insult at human rights in different countries. Their secret prisons throughout the world, such as their prisons in Guantanamo, in Iraq, in Abu Ghraib and their attack on civilians in Afghanistan, Pakistan and in different areas are examples of the Americans\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\' claim to support human rights. Based on the news that is reported every day from Afghanistan and Pakistan, their drones both spy for them and pressure the people. Of course, as an American journal said a few days ago, these drones will be a source of trouble for them in the future.
They say that they are committed to non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. Their pretext for attacking Iraq 11 years ago was that the regime of Saddam wanted to build nuclear weapons in Iraq. Of course, they went there and they did not find anything. It became clear that it was a lie. They say that they are committed to non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. This is while they support an evil government - the Zionist government - which has nuclear weapons and which threatens to use them. That is what they say and this is how they act.
They say that they are committed to establishment of democracy in the world - I do not want to speak about the kind of democracy America itself has. Under this claim, they constantly confront the Islamic Republic which has the most genuine democracy in the region. This is while they shamelessly support countries in the region which do not know the first thing about democracy and in which the people have not seen ballot boxes even once. This is their commitment to democracy. Notice how different their words and actions are.
They say that they want to resolve their issues with Iran. They have said this many times. Recently, they are speaking about it even more than before. They say that they want to negotiate and resolve their issues with Iran. This is what they say. But in practice, they resort to imposing sanctions and broadcasting negative propaganda. They publish inappropriate and false things about the Islamic Republic and the people of Iran.
A few days ago the President of America delivered a speech about the nuclear issue of Iran. He spoke as if the conflict between Iran and America is over Iran\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s decision to build nuclear weapons. He said that they will do everything in their power to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons. If we wanted to build nuclear weapons, how would you stop us? If Iran had decided to build nuclear weapons, America would not be able to stop it in any way.
We do not want to build nuclear weapons and this is not because this will upset America, rather it is because of our beliefs. We believe that building nuclear weapons is a crime against humanity and they should not be built. Besides, we believe that the existing nuclear weapons should be destroyed. This is our belief. It has nothing to do with you [Americans]. If we did not have this belief and if we decided to build nuclear weapons, no power could stop us, as they could not stop other countries. They could not do this in India, Pakistan and North Korea. The Americans were opposed to development of nuclear weapons in these countries, but they built nuclear weapons.
The Americans claim, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"We will not let Iran build nuclear weapons.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" This is deceptive talk. Is this an issue of nuclear weapons? Regarding Iran, the issue is not related to nuclear weapons. The issue is that you want to deny Iran its natural and inalienable right to enrich uranium and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes through using its domestic capacities. Of course, you cannot do this either and the Iranian nation will not renounce its right.
American politicians make irrational statements. One cannot use logic when he speaks to an irrational person - after all, he is irrational. Irrational means thuggish. It means somebody who speaks nonsense. This is a fact which we have become aware of through our involvement in different global issues. We understand who our opposing side is and how he should be confronted.
I have written down a few things to discuss with you dear brothers and sisters and the entire Iranian nation. Of course, these statements are addressed to the people of Iran. When they speak, when the American president speaks, when his companions and followers speak, they want to mislead public opinion -public opinion in the world, in the region or if they can, in our country. At the moment, I do not want to speak about public opinion in the world. The global media network, which is under the domination of the Zionists and the Americans, either does not reflect our statements or it reflects them in an incomplete or distorted way. Therefore, I speak to the people of Iran.
The power of the Islamic Republic has nothing to do with public opinion in the world. The Islamic Republic has not gained its power and it has not achieved dignity and glory with the help of public opinion in the world. It has achieved these things with the help of the people of Iran. The firm and solid foundation which the Iranian nation has built and the news of which is quickly spreading throughout the world is based on the Iranian nation itself. I speak to the people of Iran. I will not address other nations, but they can listen if they want to. They can reflect on my statements or not reflect on them. But the people of Iran should know about these things. Therefore, the first point is that they are unreasonable. They speak without believing in what they say and their words and actions are different.
The second point is that they have raised the issue of negotiations. They say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Iranian officials should come to us so that we can sit and negotiate.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" The same unreasonable behavior can be seen in their offer of negotiations. Their purpose is not to solve the problems and resolves the issues - I will explain this later. Their purpose is creating hype. They want to say to Muslim nations, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"This was the Islamic Republic with all that intense determination and resistance. But finally, it had to negotiate with us. Even the Iranian nation ended up like this. What can you do?\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"
They need negotiations in order to suppress countries which have just gained power, in which the breeze of Islamic Awakening has blown, countries which feel they have dignity because of Islam. They want to make these countries hopeless. Since the beginning of the Revolution, this was one of their goals. Since the beginning of the Revolution, one of their goals was to drag Iran to the negotiating table and make it deal with it. One of their goals was to gain the opportunity to say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Did you see that finally Iran - which claimed to be independent and courageous and which claimed that it has stood up against us - was forced to come and sit at the negotiating table?\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" Today, they pursue the same goal. This is an important issue. When the purpose of negotiations is not resolving the main issues and when the purpose of negotiations is creating hype, it is clear that the opposing side, the Islamic Republic, is not naïve and it has not closed its eyes. It understands what your goal is. Therefore, it responds on the basis of your intentions.
The third point is that in the eyes of the Americans and powers which seek domination, the true meaning of negotiations is accepting what they say at the negotiating table. This is their goal of negotiations. They say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Let us sit and talk so that you come to the conclusion that you should accept what you would not accept before.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" They say in their propaganda about negotiations - you may have heard about it - that they should directly negotiate with Iran and they cause a stir and create hype about it. Even the statements they made today clearly conveyed the message that they want to convince Iran to stop enriching uranium and producing nuclear energy. This is their goal. They do not say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Let us sit and negotiate so that Iran can give its own reasons and so that we stop pressuring them, imposing sanctions on them and interfering in political and security issues.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" Rather, they say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"We should negotiate so that Iran accepts what we say.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"
This kind of negotiation does not serve any purpose. It will not reach any results. Even if Iran accepts to negotiate and even if our officials sit and negotiate with the Americans, what kind of negotiations is it when their goal is this [making Iran surrender]? It is obvious that Iran will not give up its rights. During negotiations, whenever they see that the opposing side speaks reasonably and they have nothing to say against Iran, they break off negotiations. Then, they say that Iran does not want to negotiate. Political networks as well as news networks are under their control and they broadcast propaganda. We have experienced this.
During the past 15 years, two or three times the Americans sent a message about a specific issue. They insisted that there is a very important and a very critical issue and that we should sit and talk with them. Well, executive officials - usually one or two people - went to a certain place and spoke to them. As soon as these officials made their rational statements and the Americans found out that they have no response, the negotiations were broken off unilaterally. Of course, they achieved their propaganda purposes. This is our experience. Well, it is wrong to test something which has been already tested.
The fourth point is that they pretend in their propaganda that if Iran sits at the negotiating table and negotiates with America, sanctions will be lifted. This is a lie too. Their goal is to make the people of Iran become eager to negotiate with America by promising to lift sanctions. They think that the people of Iran are exhausted by the sanctions and are frustrated. They think that everything is in a mess and that they can tell us, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Well, come and negotiate with us so that we lift the sanctions.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" They think this will cause the entire Iranian nation to ask them to negotiate.
This is also one of their irrational and deceptive statements and it is a tool for bullying. First, as I said, when they ask us to negotiate with them, they do not really mean fair and rational negotiations. Negotiations mean that we should accept what they say and surrender so that they lift the sanctions. If the Iranian nation wanted to surrender, they would not have carried out a revolution. America was dominant over the issues of Iran and it did what it liked. The Iranian people carried out a revolution in order to free themselves from the yoke of America. Now should they surrender to you again? This is the first problem with their offer of negotiations.
Another problem is that the sanctions will not be lifted with negotiations. I would tell you that the purpose of sanctions is something else. The purpose of sanctions is exhausting the people of Iran and separating them from the Islamic Republic. Even if negotiations are conducted but our people stay present on the scene and stand up for their rights, sanctions will continue. What will the Iranian nation do to counter this wrong idea that the enemies have?
There is an idea in the minds of the opposing sides. Let us elaborate and analyze this idea. They say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"The Islamic Republic relies on the people. If we manage to separate the people from the Islamic Republic, the power to resist will be taken away from the Islamic Republic.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" This is how the opposing side thinks. Well, this idea has two parts. The first part, that the Islamic Republic relies on the people, is accurate. There is no source of support for the Islamic Republic except the people. The people are the fortifications that protect the country and the Islamic Revolution. The second part, that they thought they can bring the people to their knees by imposing sanctions and bullying them on international, commercial and other such issues, is false. If they think that they can take away this source of support from the Islamic Republic, they are wrong.
The Iranian nation will think of some ways to counter what the enemy wants to do. The Iranian nation is looking for economic blossoming, economic progress and complete prosperity. But it does not want to achieve this goal by being humiliated before the enemy. It wants to achieve this goal with its own capabilities, courage, advancements and with the capabilities of the youth. It does not want to achieve this with anything else. There is no doubt that sanctions exert pressures on the people and bother them. But there are two ways to approach these pressures. Weak nations surrender to the enemy when he exerts pressures and they bow and show regret before him. But a brave nation, like the Iranian nation, tries to use its own capabilities as soon as it sees that the enemy is exerting pressures and it tries to pass through the danger zone. And our nation will definitely do this. We have 30 years of experience in this regard.
There are certain countries in the region which have been under the domination of America for more than 30 years. The governments in these countries have been servants of America. They have been obedient to America and they have been taking orders from it. What is their position? The Iranian nation has been putting up a resistance against America for more than 30 years. What is the position of the Iranian nation? In the face of 30 years of pressures by America, the Iranian nation has reached such a position - in terms of scientific, economic and cultural progress and in terms of international dignity, political influence and political power - that the people and government officials during the time of Pahlavi and Qajar regimes could not even dream of.
We have experienced this. We have tested this. We have stood up against the pressures of America for 30 years. We have such a position. But there are nations which have been under the domination of America for 30 years and they are behind other countries to a great extent. We did not suffer a loss as a result of resisting. Resistance revives the inner strength of a nation. It makes it active. The sanctions which they impose will be helpful to the Iranian nation. By Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor and grace, sanctions will help the Iranian nation achieve growth and blossoming. This is an important point.
Well, you saw what the people did in the rallies. We cannot say that the people have no complaints about the high prices and the existing problems. Prices are high and there are certain economic problems and the people, particularly underprivileged people, feel them. But this did not make the people separate themselves from the Islamic Republic. The people know that the Islamic Republic, dear and powerful Islam and the officials who are committed to Islam, are the powerful hands which can solve the problems. They can solve the problems. Surrendering to the enemies will not solve any problems.
The last point is that unlike American politicians, we are reasonable. Our officials are reasonable. Our people are reasonable. We accept rational statements and rational actions. If the Americans show that they will not bully us any more, if they show that they will not commit evil deeds, if they show that they will not say and do irrational things, if they show that they will respect the rights of the Iranian nation, if they show that they will not fuel the fire of discord in the country, if they show that they will not interfere in the internal affairs of Iran - like the interference by supporting those who started the fitna in 1388 - then they will see that the Islamic Republic is benevolent and the people are reasonable.
In the fitna of the year 1388, they supported those who started the fitna and they put social networks at the service of these people. In those days, a social network wanted to close down in order to fix some technical problems. They asked the network not to close down so that they could exert influence over the fitna. If they stop doing these things, then they will see that the Islamic Republic is well-wishing. The only way to establish relations with the Islamic Republic is this and there is no other way. They can establish relations with the Islamic Republic in such a way. The Americans should prove that they have good will. They should prove that they are not after bullying. If they prove this, then they will see that the Iranian nation will make an appropriate response. If they do not commit evil deeds, if they do not interfere, if they do not bully and if they acknowledge the rights of the Iranian nation, then an appropriate response will be given by the Iranian nation.
I would like to say a few things about the internal issues of our country. This is an important issue. An event took place in the Majlis. It was a bad and inappropriate event. It made both the people and our elites unhappy. I became upset for two reasons. The first is the fact that the event itself happened and the second is the fact that the people are unhappy about this issue. In this event, the head of a certain branch made an accusation against the other two branches on the basis of an unproven allegation which had not even been considered by a court of law. This course of action was bad and inappropriate. These acts are against sharia and the law and they are immoral. They violate the basic rights of the people. One of the basic rights of the people is living in peace and in psychological and moral security.
If a person is accused of corruption, one cannot accuse other people on the basis of this accusation. Even if he is found guilty - let alone the current case in which the accused has not been found guilty, he has not been summoned by the court and he has not come to trial - one should not accuse others. Accusing other people, the Majlis and the judiciary branch on the basis of an accusation that has been leveled against another person is an appropriate course of action. It is a wrong course of action. For the time being, I offer a piece of advice. This behavior is not appropriate for the Islamic Republic.
On the other hand, the questioning [of the minister] in the Majlis was a wrong course of action. Questioning should serve a certain purpose. What is the purpose of questioning a minister - a few months before the end of this administration\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s term - over an issue which is not related to the minister? Why did they do this?
I have heard that inside the Majlis, a number of people said inappropriate things. This course of action was also wrong. All these events are inappropriate for the Islamic Republic. Neither that accusation, nor that behavior, nor that questioning was appropriate. The things which the honorable Speaker of the Majlis said in his own defense were excessive. It was not necessary to do that.
We are all brothers. When there is a common enemy in front of us and when we see plots, what should we do? Until today, the officials have always stayed by one another\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s side. Now, too, they should act like this. They should always act like this.
I have always supported the officials of the three branches and the officials of the country. I will continue to support each person who has a responsibility. I will help him. But I do not like these acts. This kind of behavior is not in line with the oaths they take and with the promises they make. Take a look at the greatness of the people. These people deserve to be treated in a different way. Today, the officials should focus all their efforts on solving economic problems. Three or four years ago, during a speech which I delivered in the beginning of the year, I explicitly said to the people and the officials that the plot of the enemies of the Iranian nation would be to focus - more than everything else - on our economic issues.
Well, you see that the enemies did this. Both the executive branch and the Majlis should focus all their efforts and all their attention on pursuing accurate economic policies. A few years ago, I wrote a letter to the heads of the three branches of government about combating economic corruption. You should combat economic corruption. This problem is not solved by speaking about it. You should combat economic corruption in practice. You repeatedly speak about economic corruption. When did you combat economic corruption? What was done in practice? What did you do in practice? These issues make one distressed.
Now that the enemies have increased their hostility, I expect the officials to strengthen their friendship. Piety, piety, piety! We expect the officials to focus all their efforts on solving the problems of the people by exercising patience, by suppressing unrestrained emotions and by taking the issues of the country into consideration. By Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, this benevolent piece of advice will draw the attention of the officials, particularly high-ranking officials. They should be committed to this issue.
I should add another point. The things that I said today and the complaints I made against a number of officials should not make some people shout slogans against such and such people. I am against this course of action. Some people label a certain person as anti-wilayat, anti-insight and anti-whatever. Then they shout slogans against him and create disruption in the Majlis. I am against these moves. I would like to speak openly about these issues. I am against the kind of events which happened in Qom. I am against the kind of events which happened at Imam Khomeini\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s (r.a.) holy shrine. I asked the officials many times to prevent these things. Those who do such things - if they are really hezbollahi and religious - should stop doing them. You can see that we consider these moves as harmful to the country. We do not benefit from them.
It is not helpful to set out to shout slogans against such and such people by releasing emotions. These slogans will not solve any problems. Keep this anger and these emotions for the time when it is necessary to express them. During the Sacred Defense Era, if basijis had decided to act at will, then the country would have been destroyed. Discipline and social order are necessary and it is necessary to take certain things into consideration. If these people do not pay any attention to these principles, then they should be treated in a different way. But those who pay attention to these principles and who believe they should not move against sharia, should take care not to make such moves.
Thankfully the people of Iran have insight. I would tell you dear youth that the day when we are gone and you are in charge, the situation of the Iranian nation will be much better in terms of material and spiritual prosperity. The Iranian nation is moving towards light. There are bright prospects for us. We should watch our behavior.
We should ask Allah the Exalted to help us. We should ask the immaculate souls of our martyrs and the immaculate soul of our magnanimous Imam (r.a.) to help us. By Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, you and I will benefit from the prayers of the Imam of the Age (may our souls be sacrificed for his sake).
Greetings be upon you and Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s mercy and blessings.
http://english.khamenei.ir//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1744&Itemid=4
Ayatollah Khamenei: Shia Against Sunni War is a US-ZIONIST Plot - آیات الله خامنه ای - English
Down with the US Military-Industrial Complex and its war machine. Down with the apartheid Zionist military outpost of the US+Western Military-Industrial Complex in the occupied Palestine,...
Down with the US Military-Industrial Complex and its war machine. Down with the apartheid Zionist military outpost of the US+Western Military-Industrial Complex in the occupied Palestine, established in 1948 through genocide, ethnic cleansing and mass expulsion of the non-Jewish native population (90-95% of total population in 1948) and their replacement with European settlers. Long Live the Islamic and democratic awakening of the Arab World against its corrupt US puppet regimes and against subjugation and domination by the US and its apartheid Zionist military outpost. Long Live the Islamic Republic of Iran and the unity of Muslim nations from Bosnia and Morocco to Indonesia and Central Asia. Do not be deceived by the US+Western Military-Industrial Complex attempting to mislead you to believe that apartheid Zionist military outpost in the occupied Palestine is a \\\"state.\\\" Just by importing poor and homeless European settlers into the occupied and ethnically-cleansed land and housing them in the perimeter areas of the apartheid Zionist military outpost does not convert the military outpost into a \\\"state.\\\"
The Military-Industrial Complex opposes Iran ONLY on one basis: Iran\\\'s opposition to the establishment of the apartheid Zionist Military outpost by the Complex in occupied Palestinian territories in 1948 through ethnic cleansing, genocide, and mass expulsion.
The Military-Industrial Complex supports and maintains the most reactionary and backward dictatorial puppet regimes in Saudia Arabia, Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Morroco and Oman but it falsely calls Iran, a constitutional government with presidential term limits, a dictatorship.
Do not be deceived by the Complex\\\'s illegitimate apartheid Zionist Military Outpost, disguised fictitiously to look like a \\\"state\\\" with the disguise provided by the imported European settlers, housed in around the perimeter areas of the outpost, to make it look like a viable state.
More...
Description:
Down with the US Military-Industrial Complex and its war machine. Down with the apartheid Zionist military outpost of the US+Western Military-Industrial Complex in the occupied Palestine, established in 1948 through genocide, ethnic cleansing and mass expulsion of the non-Jewish native population (90-95% of total population in 1948) and their replacement with European settlers. Long Live the Islamic and democratic awakening of the Arab World against its corrupt US puppet regimes and against subjugation and domination by the US and its apartheid Zionist military outpost. Long Live the Islamic Republic of Iran and the unity of Muslim nations from Bosnia and Morocco to Indonesia and Central Asia. Do not be deceived by the US+Western Military-Industrial Complex attempting to mislead you to believe that apartheid Zionist military outpost in the occupied Palestine is a \\\"state.\\\" Just by importing poor and homeless European settlers into the occupied and ethnically-cleansed land and housing them in the perimeter areas of the apartheid Zionist military outpost does not convert the military outpost into a \\\"state.\\\"
The Military-Industrial Complex opposes Iran ONLY on one basis: Iran\\\'s opposition to the establishment of the apartheid Zionist Military outpost by the Complex in occupied Palestinian territories in 1948 through ethnic cleansing, genocide, and mass expulsion.
The Military-Industrial Complex supports and maintains the most reactionary and backward dictatorial puppet regimes in Saudia Arabia, Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Morroco and Oman but it falsely calls Iran, a constitutional government with presidential term limits, a dictatorship.
Do not be deceived by the Complex\\\'s illegitimate apartheid Zionist Military Outpost, disguised fictitiously to look like a \\\"state\\\" with the disguise provided by the imported European settlers, housed in around the perimeter areas of the outpost, to make it look like a viable state.
Rare Interview with the late Shahid Dr. Beheshtey - Persian
This video clip, provided to you through MrMehdi Thaqalayn Production on YouTube, is a very rare interview with Ayatollah Sayyed Shahid Dr. Muhammad Huseiney Beheshtey. The topic in this interview,...
This video clip, provided to you through MrMehdi Thaqalayn Production on YouTube, is a very rare interview with Ayatollah Sayyed Shahid Dr. Muhammad Huseiney Beheshtey. The topic in this interview, which was held during the beginning of 1980s, was to discuss and present the Main Governmental Laws in Iran.
He was one of the strongest pillars that the Islamic revolution in Iran relied on. This revolution was successfully accomplished year 1979, and transformed the constitutional monarchy of Iran, led by the Shah (King) Muhammad Reza Pahlawi, to an Islamic Republic by referendum.
Ayatollah Dr. Beheshtey was a highly educated scholar. He was born in 1929 in Esfahan, Iran. He dedicated his life for religious and humanitarian studies and reached the level of an academic doctor. He managed five languages fluently; Persian, Arabic, English, Germany and French. He was highly active during his life, and due to that and his endless knowledge the scholars in Qom (Iran) asked him to move to Germany to lead and organize the Muslim society in Hamburg. In 1966 he moved to Hamburg and in five years he founded many Islamic movements and he also managed to found a mosque there. In 1971 he moved back to Iran. Due to the instable political situation he was under house arrest by the governmental intelligence (Savak) then, which feared such a strong personality. This house arrest continued till the revolution was successfully accomplished. Year 1982, i.e. three years after the revolution, he and 71 other important personalities who founded and supported the revolution, were martyred in a bomb blast at the head quarter of their party, "Hezbe Jomhoori" (The Republic Party), during an important meeting they were holding. However, the bombing was carried out by the internationally blacklisted "Mojahedin-e-Khalq Organization", which Imam Khomeini (r.a.) used to refer to it as "Monafiqeen-e-Khalq", i.e. "The Hypocrites of the Creation".
Language: Persian
Further,
The Commander of the Believers, Imam Ali [a.s.] said: " ...The reward of a religious scholar is greater than the reward of a person who is fasting on days and establishes prayers during the night and fights in the Holy War for the sake of Allah. And, when a religious scholar dies, there will appear a gap in Islam which cannot be compensated except by a replacement of that (kind)." - Bihar-ul-Anwar, vol. 2, p. 43
More...
Description:
This video clip, provided to you through MrMehdi Thaqalayn Production on YouTube, is a very rare interview with Ayatollah Sayyed Shahid Dr. Muhammad Huseiney Beheshtey. The topic in this interview, which was held during the beginning of 1980s, was to discuss and present the Main Governmental Laws in Iran.
He was one of the strongest pillars that the Islamic revolution in Iran relied on. This revolution was successfully accomplished year 1979, and transformed the constitutional monarchy of Iran, led by the Shah (King) Muhammad Reza Pahlawi, to an Islamic Republic by referendum.
Ayatollah Dr. Beheshtey was a highly educated scholar. He was born in 1929 in Esfahan, Iran. He dedicated his life for religious and humanitarian studies and reached the level of an academic doctor. He managed five languages fluently; Persian, Arabic, English, Germany and French. He was highly active during his life, and due to that and his endless knowledge the scholars in Qom (Iran) asked him to move to Germany to lead and organize the Muslim society in Hamburg. In 1966 he moved to Hamburg and in five years he founded many Islamic movements and he also managed to found a mosque there. In 1971 he moved back to Iran. Due to the instable political situation he was under house arrest by the governmental intelligence (Savak) then, which feared such a strong personality. This house arrest continued till the revolution was successfully accomplished. Year 1982, i.e. three years after the revolution, he and 71 other important personalities who founded and supported the revolution, were martyred in a bomb blast at the head quarter of their party, "Hezbe Jomhoori" (The Republic Party), during an important meeting they were holding. However, the bombing was carried out by the internationally blacklisted "Mojahedin-e-Khalq Organization", which Imam Khomeini (r.a.) used to refer to it as "Monafiqeen-e-Khalq", i.e. "The Hypocrites of the Creation".
Language: Persian
Further,
The Commander of the Believers, Imam Ali [a.s.] said: " ...The reward of a religious scholar is greater than the reward of a person who is fasting on days and establishes prayers during the night and fights in the Holy War for the sake of Allah. And, when a religious scholar dies, there will appear a gap in Islam which cannot be compensated except by a replacement of that (kind)." - Bihar-ul-Anwar, vol. 2, p. 43
1:21
|
Leader Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Khamenei Justice must turn into common discussion -May17-2011 -Farsi
Justice must turn into common discussion (2011/05/17 - 17:30)
A meeting on strategic thoughts in the Islamic Republic was held Tuesday in the presence of Islamic Revolution Leader...
Justice must turn into common discussion (2011/05/17 - 17:30)
A meeting on strategic thoughts in the Islamic Republic was held Tuesday in the presence of Islamic Revolution Leader Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Khamenei where several scholars presented their papers and exchanged views with the IR Leader on the issue of social justice. This is the second meeting on such strategic thoughts ever held.
In the 4-hour session, 10 scholars expressed their views on the notion, aspects and functions of \"justice in society\".
Next, Ayatollah Khamenei delivered a speech, saying that Iranian intellectuals and thinkers must engage in a serious exchange of views until a genuine Islamic view of justice is developed based on Islamic sources and teachings.
The IR Leader appreciated the overall efforts made in the past three decades for the purpose of social justice in the country, adding however that the current status of justice in society was never satisfying the demands of Islam as the faith seek a maximum implementation of justice as a global value.
Ayatollah Khamenei called the Tuesday session a starting point, adding that the notion of justice must turn into a common discussion among the elites until it bears its blessing fruits.
Ayatollah Khamenei said justice has been a preoccupation for human being throughout history and that unlike many theories made by different intellectuals, divine faiths have played an exceptional role in the expansion of justice worldwide.
Ayatollah Khamenei said in view of the Holy Koran, the divine messengers sought justice as their main aim and that such an attention to justice has never been paid by any human school of thought. \"The divine messengers also struggled with oppressors and supported the oppressed besides elucidating the notion of justice while theorists of justice only paid lip services to the concept,\" the IR Leader said.
Ayatollah Khamenei said the divine faiths also differ from human schools of though in that they believe that human history ultimately ends in an era full of justice.
Ayatollah Khamenei said the divine faiths have all depicted a similar track for human being which eventually leads to justice and for the same reason, the issue of justice has found an exceptional status in the Islamic Republic from the advent of the Islamic Revolution of Iran and has been underscored in the national slogans and views of Imam Khomeini (R.A.)
Ayatollah Khamenei said justice has been the foremost objective of the Iranian Islamic System from the outset. He however expressed dissatisfaction over the current status of justice in the society and said that the Islamic Republic seeks a full implementation of justice and removal of the existing gaps based on Islamic views and for that purpose, serious, all-out efforts were needed.
Ayatollah Khamenei also noted that for the Islamic Iran, trial and error approach to social justice was a thing of the past and that from now on, any projects in this domain must be carried out based on a solid platform.
The IR Leader said greater decisions were needed in order to keep the current speedy national progress however the drive must go hand in hand with justice so as to avoid irreparable losses.
Ayatollah Khamenei urged the scholars to avoid any confusion of Islamic views of justice with those of other schools of thought and that the Islamic theory of justice should be purely developed through genuine Islamic sources. Ayatollah Khamenei said every school of thought defines justice based on its own ontology and for the same reason the views of human schools of thought concerning justice must be shunned in the development of the Islamic theory.
\"Islam considers implementation of justice as a divine duty unlike human schools of thoughts,\" he added.
Ayatollah Khamenei also noted that no prejudgment is allowed in the development of the theory and rather the theory must be developed through serious exchange of views between domestic scholars and the exchange of views must continue even after a theory as such was developed.
The IR Leader said the scholars were expected to arrive at a solid definition and mechanism of justice in the first place so as to be followed up in the future, long-term national projects, and afterwards, newer researches must be conducted to develop possible relevant executive methods.
Ayatollah Khamenei then proposed the university and the Howza (Islamic seminary) establish a course on justice studies and called it a useful investment for implementation of social justice and training of powerful human resources to that effect.
The IR Leader also urged building independent, Islam-based assessment indicators to see whether and to what extents social justice has been materialized, adding that many western indicators in this domain are either incomplete or totally wrong.
The Islamic Revolution Leader also urged the parliament and the Constitutional Guardian Council to heed the issue of justice in their ratifications or verifications, adding that many projects had remained to be carried out for the purpose of social justice.
Ayatollah Khamenei wrapped his remarks by saying that justice could not be implemented in a society which has no belief in God as origin of creation or Day of Resurrection as a day when people are awarded or punished for their deeds. He said every individual in the society was also expected to implement justice in his or her self and that the individual efforts would help keep the person from sins and indirectly advance the social justice.
More...
Description:
Justice must turn into common discussion (2011/05/17 - 17:30)
A meeting on strategic thoughts in the Islamic Republic was held Tuesday in the presence of Islamic Revolution Leader Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Khamenei where several scholars presented their papers and exchanged views with the IR Leader on the issue of social justice. This is the second meeting on such strategic thoughts ever held.
In the 4-hour session, 10 scholars expressed their views on the notion, aspects and functions of \"justice in society\".
Next, Ayatollah Khamenei delivered a speech, saying that Iranian intellectuals and thinkers must engage in a serious exchange of views until a genuine Islamic view of justice is developed based on Islamic sources and teachings.
The IR Leader appreciated the overall efforts made in the past three decades for the purpose of social justice in the country, adding however that the current status of justice in society was never satisfying the demands of Islam as the faith seek a maximum implementation of justice as a global value.
Ayatollah Khamenei called the Tuesday session a starting point, adding that the notion of justice must turn into a common discussion among the elites until it bears its blessing fruits.
Ayatollah Khamenei said justice has been a preoccupation for human being throughout history and that unlike many theories made by different intellectuals, divine faiths have played an exceptional role in the expansion of justice worldwide.
Ayatollah Khamenei said in view of the Holy Koran, the divine messengers sought justice as their main aim and that such an attention to justice has never been paid by any human school of thought. \"The divine messengers also struggled with oppressors and supported the oppressed besides elucidating the notion of justice while theorists of justice only paid lip services to the concept,\" the IR Leader said.
Ayatollah Khamenei said the divine faiths also differ from human schools of though in that they believe that human history ultimately ends in an era full of justice.
Ayatollah Khamenei said the divine faiths have all depicted a similar track for human being which eventually leads to justice and for the same reason, the issue of justice has found an exceptional status in the Islamic Republic from the advent of the Islamic Revolution of Iran and has been underscored in the national slogans and views of Imam Khomeini (R.A.)
Ayatollah Khamenei said justice has been the foremost objective of the Iranian Islamic System from the outset. He however expressed dissatisfaction over the current status of justice in the society and said that the Islamic Republic seeks a full implementation of justice and removal of the existing gaps based on Islamic views and for that purpose, serious, all-out efforts were needed.
Ayatollah Khamenei also noted that for the Islamic Iran, trial and error approach to social justice was a thing of the past and that from now on, any projects in this domain must be carried out based on a solid platform.
The IR Leader said greater decisions were needed in order to keep the current speedy national progress however the drive must go hand in hand with justice so as to avoid irreparable losses.
Ayatollah Khamenei urged the scholars to avoid any confusion of Islamic views of justice with those of other schools of thought and that the Islamic theory of justice should be purely developed through genuine Islamic sources. Ayatollah Khamenei said every school of thought defines justice based on its own ontology and for the same reason the views of human schools of thought concerning justice must be shunned in the development of the Islamic theory.
\"Islam considers implementation of justice as a divine duty unlike human schools of thoughts,\" he added.
Ayatollah Khamenei also noted that no prejudgment is allowed in the development of the theory and rather the theory must be developed through serious exchange of views between domestic scholars and the exchange of views must continue even after a theory as such was developed.
The IR Leader said the scholars were expected to arrive at a solid definition and mechanism of justice in the first place so as to be followed up in the future, long-term national projects, and afterwards, newer researches must be conducted to develop possible relevant executive methods.
Ayatollah Khamenei then proposed the university and the Howza (Islamic seminary) establish a course on justice studies and called it a useful investment for implementation of social justice and training of powerful human resources to that effect.
The IR Leader also urged building independent, Islam-based assessment indicators to see whether and to what extents social justice has been materialized, adding that many western indicators in this domain are either incomplete or totally wrong.
The Islamic Revolution Leader also urged the parliament and the Constitutional Guardian Council to heed the issue of justice in their ratifications or verifications, adding that many projects had remained to be carried out for the purpose of social justice.
Ayatollah Khamenei wrapped his remarks by saying that justice could not be implemented in a society which has no belief in God as origin of creation or Day of Resurrection as a day when people are awarded or punished for their deeds. He said every individual in the society was also expected to implement justice in his or her self and that the individual efforts would help keep the person from sins and indirectly advance the social justice.
34:40
|
[Arabic] لقاء خاص مع الرئيس بشار الأسد - Bashar Asad Interview - 30 May 2013
DAMASCUS, (SANA)-President Bashar al-Assad gave an interview to al-Manar TV broadcasted on Thursday,
Following is the full text of the interview:
Al-Manar: In the name of Allah, the...
DAMASCUS, (SANA)-President Bashar al-Assad gave an interview to al-Manar TV broadcasted on Thursday,
Following is the full text of the interview:
Al-Manar: In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful. Assalamu Alaikum. Bloodshed in Syria continues unabated. This is the only constant over which there is little disagreement between those loyal to the Syrian state and those opposed to it. However, there is no common ground over the other constants and details two years into the current crisis. At the time, a great deal was said about the imminent fall of the regime. Deadlines were set and missed; and all those bets were lost. Today, we are here in the heart of Damascus, enjoying the hospitality of a president who has become a source of consternation to many of his opponents who are still unable to understand the equations that have played havoc with their calculations and prevented his ouster from the Syrian political scene. This unpleasant and unexpected outcome for his opponents upset their schemes and plots because they didn’t take into account one self-evident question: what happens if the regime doesn’t fall? What if President Assad doesn’t leave the Syrian scene? Of course, there are no clear answers; and the result is more destruction, killing and bloodshed. Today there is talk of a critical juncture for Syria. The Syrian Army has moved from defense to attack, achieving one success after another. On a parallel level, stagnant diplomatic waters have been shaken by discussions over a Geneva 2 conference becoming a recurrent theme in the statements of all parties. There are many questions which need answers: political settlement, resorting to the military option to decide the outcome, the Israeli enemy’s direct interference with the course of events in the current crisis, the new equations on the Golan Heights, the relationship with opponents and friends. What is the Syrian leadership’s plan for a way out of a complex and dangerous crisis whose ramifications have started to spill over into neighboring countries? It is our great pleasure tonight to put these questions to H. E. President Bashar al-Assad. Assalamu Alaikum, Mr. President.
President Assad: Assalamu Alaikum. You are most welcome in Damascus.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, we are in the heart of the People’s Palace, two and a half years into the Syrian crisis. At the time, the bet was that the president and his regime would be overthrown within weeks. How have you managed to foil the plots of your opponents and enemies? What is the secret behind this steadfastness?
President Assad: There are a number of factors are involved. One is the Syrian factor, which thwarted their intentions; the other factor is related to those who masterminded these scenarios and ended up defeating themselves because they do not know Syria or understand in detail the situation. They started with the calls of revolution, but a real revolution requires tangible elements; you cannot create a revolution simply by paying money. When this approach failed, they shifted to using sectarian slogans in order to create a division within our society. Even though they were able to infiltrate certain pockets in Syrian society, pockets of ignorance and lack of awareness that exist in any society, they were not able to create this sectarian division. Had they succeeded, Syria would have been divided up from the beginning. They also fell into their own trap by trying to promote the notion that this was a struggle to maintain power rather than a struggle for national sovereignty. No one would fight and martyr themselves in order to secure power for anyone else.
Al-Manar: In the battle for the homeland, it seems that the Syrian leadership, and after two and a half years, is making progress on the battlefield. And here if I might ask you, why have you chosen to move from defense to attack? And don’t you think that you have been late in taking the decision to go on the offensive, and consequently incurred heavy losses, if we take of Al-Qseir as an example.
President Assad: It is not a question of defense or attack. Every battle has its own tactics. From the beginning, we did not deal with each situation from a military perspective alone. We also factored in the social and political aspects as well - many Syrians were misled in the beginning and there were many friendly countries that didn’t understand the domestic dynamics. Your actions will differ according to how much consensus there is over a particular issue. There is no doubt that as events have unfolded Syrians have been able to better understand the situation and what is really at stake. This has helped the Armed Forces to better carry out their duties and achieve results. So, what is happening now is not a shift in tactic from defense to attack, but rather a shift in the balance of power in favor of the Armed Forces.
Al-Manar: How has this balance been tipped, Mr. President? Syria is being criticized for asking for the assistance of foreign fighters, and to be fully candid, it is said that Hezbollah fighters are extending assistance. In a previous interview, you said that there are 23 million Syrians; we do not need help from anyone else. What is Hezbollah doing in Syria?
President Assad: The main reason for tipping the balance is the change in people’s opinion in areas that used to incubate armed groups, not necessarily due to lack of patriotism on their part, but because they were deceived. They were led to believe that there was a revolution against the failings of the state. This has changed; many individuals have left these terrorist groups and have returned to their normal lives. As to what is being said about Hezbollah and the participation of foreign fighters alongside the Syrian Army, this is a hugely important issue and has several factors. Each of these factors should be clearly understood. Hezbollah, the battle at Al-Qseir and the recent Israeli airstrike – these three factors cannot be looked at in isolation of the other, they are all a part of the same issue. Let’s be frank. In recent weeks, and particularly after Mr. Hasan Nasrallah’s speech, Arab and foreign media have said that Hezbollah fighters are fighting in Syria and defending the Syrian state, or to use their words “the regime.” Logically speaking, if Hezbollah or the resistance wanted to defend Syria by sending fighters, how many could they send - a few hundred, a thousand or two? We are talking about a battle in which hundreds of thousands of Syrian troops are involved against tens of thousands of terrorists, if not more because of the constant flow of fighters from neighboring and foreign countries that support those terrorists. So clearly, the number of fighters Hezbollah might contribute in order to defend the Syrian state in its battle, would be a drop in the ocean compared to the number of Syrian soldiers fighting the terrorists. When also taking into account the vast expanse of Syria, these numbers will neither protect a state nor ‘regime.’ This is from one perspective. From another, if they say they are defending the state, why now? Battles started after Ramadan in 2011 and escalated into 2012, the summer of 2012 to be precise. They started the battle to “liberate Damascus” and set a zero hour for the first time, the second time and a third time; the four generals were assassinated, a number of individuals fled Syria, and many people believed that was the time the state would collapse. It didn’t. Nevertheless, during all of these times, Hezbollah never intervened, so why would it intervene now? More importantly, why haven’t we seen Hezbollah fighting in Damascus and Aleppo? The more significant battles are in Damascus and in Aleppo, not in Al-Qseir. Al-Qseir is a small town in Homs, why haven’t we seen Hezbollah in the city of Homs? Clearly, all these assumptions are inaccurate. They say Al-Qseir is a strategic border town, but all the borders are strategic for the terrorists in order to smuggle in their fighters and weapons. So, all these propositions have nothing to do with Hezbollah. If we take into account the moans and groans of the Arab media, the statements made by Arab and foreign officials – even Ban Ki-moon expressed concern over Hezbollah in Al-Qseir – all of this is for the objective of suppressing and stifling the resistance. It has nothing to do with defending the Syrian state. The Syrian army has made significant achievements in Damascus, Aleppo, rural Damascus and many other areas; however, we haven’t heard the same moaning as we have heard in Al-Qseir.
Al-Manar: But, Mr. President, the nature of the battle that you and Hezbollah are waging in Al-Qseir seems, to your critics, to take the shape of a safe corridor connecting the coastal region with Damascus. Consequently, if Syria were to be divided, or if geographical changes were to be enforced, this would pave the way for an Alawite state. So, what is the nature of this battle, and how is it connected with the conflict with Israel.
President Assad: First, the Syrian and Lebanese coastal areas are not connected through Al-Qseir. Geographically this is not possible. Second, nobody would fight a battle in order to move towards separation. If you opt for separation, you move towards that objective without waging battles all over the country in order to be pushed into a particular corner. The nature of the battle does not indicate that we are heading for division, but rather the opposite, we are ensuring we remain a united country. Our forefathers rejected the idea of division when the French proposed this during their occupation of Syria because at the time they were very aware of its consequences. Is it possible or even fathomable that generations later, we their children, are less aware or mindful? Once again, the battle in Al-Qseir and all the bemoaning is related to Israel. The timing of the battle in Al-Qseir was synchronized with the Israeli airstrike. Their objective is to stifle the resistance. This is the same old campaign taking on a different form. Now what’s important is not al-Qseir as a town, but the borders; they want to stifle the resistance from land and from the sea. Here the question begs itself - some have said that the resistance should face the enemy and consequently remain in the south. This was said on May 7, 2008, when some of Israel’s agents in Lebanon tried to tamper with the communications system of the resistance; they claimed that the resistance turned its weapons inwards. They said the same thing about the Syrian Army; that the Syrian Army should fight on the borders with Israel. We have said very clearly that our Army will fight the enemy wherever it is. When the enemy is in the north, we move north; the same applies if the enemy comes from the east or the west. This is also the case for Hezbollah. So the question is why is Hezbollah deployed on the borders inside Lebanon or inside Syria? The answer is that our battle is a battle against the Israeli enemy and its proxies inside Syria or inside Lebanon.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, if I might ask about Israel’s involvement in the Syrian crisis through the recent airstrike against Damascus. Israel immediately attached certain messages to this airstrike by saying it doesn’t want escalation or doesn’t intend to interfere in the Syrian crisis. The question is: what does Israel want and what type of interference?
President Assad: This is exactly my point. Everything that is happening at the moment is aimed, first and foremost, at stifling the resistance. Israel’s support of the terrorists was for two purposes. The first is to stifle the resistance; the second is to strike the Syrian air defense systems. It is not interested in anything else.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, since Israel’s objectives are clear, the Syrian state was criticized for its muted response. Everyone was expecting a Syrian response, and the Syrian government stated that it reserves the right to respond at the appropriate time and place. Why didn’t the response come immediately? And is it enough for a senior source to say that missiles have been directed at the Israeli enemy and that any attack will be retaliated immediately without resorting to Army command?
President Assad: We have informed all the Arab and foreign parties - mostly foreign - that contacted us, that we will respond the next time. Of course, there has been more than one response. There have been several Israeli attempted violations to which there was immediate retaliation. But these short-term responses have no real value; they are only of a political nature. If we want to respond to Israel, the response will be of strategic significance.
Al-Manar: How? By opening the Golan front, for instance?
President Assad: This depends on public opinion, whether there is a consensus in support of the resistance or not. That’s the question. Al-Manar: How is the situation in Syria now?
President Assad: In fact, there is clear popular pressure to open the Golan front to resistance. This enthusiasm is also on the Arab level; we have received many Arab delegations wanting to know how young people might be enrolled to come and fight Israel. Of course, resistance is not easy. It is not merely a question of opening the front geographically. It is a political, ideological, and social issue, with the net result being military action.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, if we take into account the incident on the Golan Heights and Syria’s retaliation on the Israeli military vehicle that crossed the combat line, does this mean that the rules of engagement have changed? And if the rules of the game have changed, what is the new equation, so to speak?
President Assad: Real change in the rules of engagement happens when there is a popular condition pushing for resistance. Any other change is short-term, unless we are heading towards war. Any response of any kind might only appear to be a change to the rules of engagement, but I don’t think it really is. The real change is when the people move towards resistance; this is the really dramatic change.
Al-Manar: Don’t you think that this is a little late? After 40 years of quiet and a state of truce on the Golan Heights, now there is talk of a movement on that front, about new equations and about new rules of the game?
President Assad: They always talk about Syria opening the front or closing the front. A state does not create resistance. Resistance can only be called so, when it is popular and spontaneous, it cannot be created. The state can either support or oppose the resistance, - or create obstacles, as is the case with some Arab countries. I believe that a state that opposes the will of its people for resistance is reckless. The issue is not that Syria has decided, after 40 years, to move in this direction. The public’s state of mind is that our National Army is carrying out its duties to protect and liberate our land. Had there not been an army, as was the situation in Lebanon when the army and the state were divided during the civil war, there would have been resistance a long time ago. Today, in the current circumstances, there are a number of factors pushing in that direction. First, there are repeated Israeli aggressions that constitute a major factor in creating this desire and required incentive. Second, the army’s engagement in battles in more than one place throughout Syria has created a sentiment on the part of many civilians that it is their duty to move in this direction in order to support the Armed Forces on the Golan.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, Benjamin Netanyahu said that Israel would not hesitate to attack Syria if it detected that weapons are being conveyed to Hezbollah in Lebanon. If Israel carried out its threats, I want a direct answer from you: what would Syria do?
President Assad: As I have said, we have informed the relevant states that we will respond in kind. Of course, it is difficult to specify the military means that would be used, that is for our military command to decide. We plan for different scenarios, depending on the circumstances and the timing of the strike that would determine which method or weapons.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, after the airstrike that targeted Damascus, there was talk about the S300 missiles and that this missile system will tip the balance. Based on this argument, Netanyahu visited Moscow. My direct question is this: are these missiles on their way to Damascus? Is Syria now in possession of these missiles?
President Assad: It is not our policy to talk publically about military issues in terms of what we possess or what we receive. As far as Russia is concerned, the contracts have nothing to do with the crisis. We have negotiated with them on different kinds of weapons for years, and Russia is committed to honoring these contracts. What I want to say is that neither Netanyahu’s visit nor the crisis and the conditions surrounding it have influenced arms imports. All of our agreements with Russia will be implemented, some have been implemented during the past period and, together with the Russians, we will continue to implement these contracts in the future.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, we have talked about the steadfastness of the Syrian leadership and the Syrian state. We have discussed the progress being achieved on the battlefield, and strengthening the alliance between Syria and the resistance. These are all within the same front. From another perspective, there is diplomatic activity stirring waters that have been stagnant for two and a half years. Before we talk about this and about the Geneva conference and the red lines that Syria has drawn, there was a simple proposition or a simple solution suggested by the former head of the coalition, Muaz al-Khatib. He said that the president, together with 500 other dignitaries would be allowed to leave the country within 20 days, and the crisis would be over. Why don’t you meet this request and put an end to the crisis?
President Assad: I have always talked about the basic principle: that the Syrian people alone have the right to decide whether the president should remain or leave. So, anybody speaking on this subject should state which part of the Syrian people they represent and who granted them the authority to speak on their behalf. As for this initiative, I haven’t actually read it, but I was very happy that they allowed me 20 days and 500 people! I don’t know who proposed the initiative; I don’t care much about names.
Al-Manar: He actually said that you would be given 20 days, 500 people, and no guarantees. You’ll be allowed to leave but with no guarantee whatsoever on whether legal action would be taken against you or not. Mr. President, this brings us to the negotiations, I am referring to Geneva 2. The Syrian government and leadership have announced initial agreement to take part in this conference. If this conference is held, there will be a table with the Syrian flag on one side and the flag of the opposition groups on the other. How can you convince the Syrian people after two and a half years of crisis that you will sit face to face at the same negotiating table with these groups?
President Assad: First of all, regarding the flag, it is meaningless without the people it represents. When we put a flag on a table or anywhere else, we talk about the people represented by that flag. This question can be put to those who raise flags they call Syrian but are different from the official Syrian flag. So, this flag has no value when it does not represent the people. Secondly, we will attend this conference as the official delegation and legitimate representatives of the Syrian people. But, whom do they represent? When the conference is over, we return to Syria, we return home to our people. But when the conference is over, whom do they return to - five-star hotels? Or to the foreign ministries of the states that they represent – which doesn’t include Syria of course - in order to submit their reports? Or do they return to the intelligence services of those countries? So, when we attend this conference, we should know very clearly the positions of some of those sitting at the table - and I say some because the conference format is not clear yet and as such we do not have details as to how the patriotic Syrian opposition will be considered or the other opposition parties in Syria. As for the opposition groups abroad and their flag, we know that we are attending the conference not to negotiate with them, but rather with the states that back them; it will appear as though we are negotiating with the slaves, but essentially we are negotiating with their masters. This is the truth, we shouldn’t deceive ourselves.
Al-Manar: Are you, in the Syrian leadership, convinced that these negotiations will be held next month?
President Assad: We expect them to happen, unless they are obstructed by other states. As far as we are concerned in Syria, we have announced a couple of days ago that we agree in principle to attend.
Al-Manar: When you say in principle, it seems that you are considering other options.
President Assad: In principle, we are in favour of the conference as a notion, but there are no details yet. For example, will there be conditions placed before the conference? If so, these conditions may be unacceptable and we would not attend. So the idea of the conference, of a meeting, in principle is a good one. We will have to wait and see.
Al-Manar: Let’s talk, Mr. President, about the conditions put by the Syrian leadership. What are Syria’s conditions?
President Assad: Simply put, our only condition is that anything agreed upon in any meeting inside or outside the country, including the conference, is subject to the approval of the Syrian people through a popular referendum. This is the only condition. Anything else doesn’t have any value. That is why we are comfortable with going to the conference. We have no complexes. Either side can propose anything, but nothing can be implemented without the approval of the Syrian people. And as long as we are the legitimate representatives of the people, we have nothing to fear.
Al-Manar: Let’s be clear, Mr. President. There is a lot of ambiguity in Geneva 1 and Geneva 2 about the transitional period and the role of President Bashar al-Assad in that transitional period. Are you prepared to hand over all your authorities to this transitional government? And how do you understand this ambiguous term?
President Assad: This is what I made clear in the initiative I proposed in January this year. They say they want a transitional government in which the president has no role. In Syria we have a presidential system, where the President is head of the republic and the Prime Minister heads the government. They want a government with broad authorities. The Syrian constitution gives the government full authorities. The president is the commander-in-chief of the Army and Armed Forces and the head of the Supreme Judicial Council. All the other institutions report directly to the government. Changing the authorities of the president is subject to changing the constitution; the president cannot just relinquish his authorities, he doesn\'t have the constitutional right. Changing the constitution requires a popular referendum. When they want to propose such issues, they might be discussed in the conference, and when we agree on something - if we agree, we return home and put it to a popular referendum and then move on. But for them to ask for the amendment of the constitution in advance, this cannot be done neither by the president nor by the government.
Al-Manar: Frankly, Mr. President, all the international positions taken against you and all your political opponents said that they don’t want a role for al-Assad in Syria’s future. This is what the Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal said and this is what the Turks and the Qataris said, and also the Syrian opposition. Will President Assad be nominated for the forthcoming presidential elections in 2014?
President Assad: What I know is that Saud al-Faisal is a specialist in American affairs, I don’t know if he knows anything about Syrian affairs. If he wants to learn, that’s fine! As to the desires of others, I repeat what I have said earlier: the only desires relevant are those of the Syrian people. With regards to the nomination, some parties have said that it is preferable that the president shouldn’t be nominated for the 2014 elections. This issue will be determined closer to the time; it is still too early to discuss this. When the time comes, and I feel, through my meetings and interactions with the Syrian people, that there is a need and public desire for me to nominate myself, I will not hesitate. However, if I feel that the Syrian people do not want me to lead them, then naturally I will not put myself forward. They are wasting their time on such talk.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, you mentioned the Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal. This makes me ask about Syria’s relationship with Saudi Arabia, with Qatar, with Turkey, particularly if we take into account that their recent position in the Arab ministerial committee was relatively moderate. They did not directly and publically call for the ouster of President Assad. Do you feel any change or any support on the part of these countries for a political solution to the Syrian crisis? And is Syria prepared to deal once more with the Arab League, taking into account that the Syrian government asked for an apology from the Arab League?
President Assad: Concerning the Arab states, we see brief changes in their rhetoric but not in their actions. The countries that support the terrorists have not changed; they are still supporting terrorism to the same extent. Turkey also has not made any positive steps. As for Qatar, their role is also the same, the role of the funder - the bank funding the terrorists and supporting them through Turkey. So, overall, no change. As for the Arab League, in Syria we have never pinned our hopes on the Arab League. Even in the past decades, we were barely able to dismantle the mines set for us in the different meetings, whether in the summits or in meetings of the foreign ministers. So in light of this and its recent actions, can we really expect it to play a role? We are open to everybody, we never close our doors. But we should also be realistic and face the truth that they are unable to offer anything, particularly since a significant number of the Arab states are not independent. They receive their orders from the outside. Some of them are sympathetic to us in their hearts, but they cannot act on their feelings because they are not in possession of their decisions. So, no, we do not pin any hopes on the Arab League.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, this leads us to ask: if the Arab environment is as such, and taking into account the developments on the ground and the steadfastness, the Geneva conference and the negotiations, the basic question is: what if the political negotiations fail? What are the consequences of the failure of political negotiations?
President Assad: This is quite possible, because there are states that are obstructing the meeting in principle, and they are going only to avoid embarrassment. They are opposed to any dialogue whether inside or outside Syria. Even the Russians, in several statements, have dampened expectations from this conference. But we should also be accurate in defining this dialogue, particularly in relation to what is happening on the ground. Most of the factions engaged in talking about what is happening in Syria have no influence on the ground; they don’t even have direct relationships with the terrorists. In some instances these terrorists are directly linked with the states that are backing them, in other cases, they are mere gangs paid to carry out terrorist activities. So, the failure of the conference will not significantly change the reality inside Syria, because these states will not stop supporting the terrorists - conference or no conference, and the gangs will not stop their subversive activities. So it has no impact on them.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, the events in Syria are spilling over to neighboring countries. We see what’s happening in Iraq, the explosions in Al-Rihaniye in Turkey and also in Lebanon. In Ersal, Tripoli, Hezbollah taking part in the fighting in Al-Qseir. How does Syria approach the situation in Lebanon, and do you think the Lebanese policy of dissociation is still applied or accepted?
President Assad: Let me pose some questions based on the reality in Syria and in Lebanon about the policy of dissociation in order not to be accused of making a value judgment on whether this policy is right or wrong. Let’s start with some simple questions: Has Lebanon been able to prevent Lebanese interference in Syria? Has it been able to prevent the smuggling of terrorists or weapons into Syria or providing a safe haven for them in Lebanon? It hasn’t; in fact, everyone knows that Lebanon has contributed negatively to the Syrian crisis. Most recently, has Lebanon been able to protect itself against the consequences of the Syrian crisis, most markedly in Tripoli and the missiles that have been falling over different areas of Beirut or its surroundings? It hasn’t. So what kind of dissociation are we talking about? For Lebanon to dissociate itself from the crisis is one thing, and for the government to dissociate itself is another. When the government dissociates itself from a certain issue that affects the interests of the Lebanese people, it is in fact dissociating itself from the Lebanese citizens. I’m not criticizing the Lebanese government - I’m talking about general principles. I don’t want it to be said that I’m criticizing this government. If the Syrian government were to dissociate itself from issues that are of concern to the Syrian people, it would also fail. So in response to your question with regards to Lebanon’s policy of dissociation, we don’t believe this is realistically possible. When my neighbor’s house is on fire, I cannot say that it’s none of my business because sooner or later the fire will spread to my house.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, what would you say to the supporters of the axis of resistance? We are celebrating the anniversary of the victory of the resistance and the liberation of south Lebanon, in an atmosphere of promises of victory, which Mr. Hasan Nasrallah has talked about. You are saying with great confidence that you will emerge triumphant from this crisis. What would you say to all this audience? Are we about to reach the end of this dark tunnel?
President Assad: I believe that the greatest victory achieved by the Arab resistance movements in the past years and decades is primarily an intellectual victory. This resistance wouldn’t have been able to succeed militarily if they hadn’t been able to succeed and stand fast against a campaign aimed at distorting concepts and principles in this region. Before the civil war in Lebanon, some people used to say that Lebanon’s strength lies in its weakness; this is similar to saying that a man’s intelligence lies in his stupidity, or that honor is maintained through corruption. This is an illogical contradiction. The victories of the resistance at different junctures proved that this concept is not true, and it showed that Lebanon’s weakness lies in its weakness and Lebanon’s strength lies in its strength. Lebanon’s strength is in its resistance and these resistance fighters you referred to. Today, more than ever before, we are in need of these ideas, of this mindset, of this steadfastness and of these actions carried out by the resistance fighters. The events in the Arab world during the past years have distorted concepts to the extent that some Arabs have forgotten that the real enemy is still Israel and have instead created internal, sectarian, regional or national enemies. Today we pin our hopes on these resistance fighters to remind the Arab people, through their achievements, that our enemy is still the same. As for my confidence in victory, if we weren’t so confident we wouldn’t have been able to stand fast or to continue this battle after two years of a global attack. This is not a tripartite attack like the one in 1956; it is in fact a global war waged against Syria and the resistance. We have absolute confidence in our victory, and I assure them that Syria will always remain, even more so than before, supportive of the resistance and resistance fighters everywhere in the Arab world.
Al-Manar: In conclusion, it has been my great honor to conduct this interview with Your Excellency, President Bashar al-Assad of the Syrian Arab Republic. Thank you very much. President Assad: You are welcome. I would like to congratulate Al-Manar channel, the channel of resistance, on the anniversary of the liberation and to congratulate the Lebanese people and every resistance fighter in Lebanon.
Al-Manar: Thank you.
More...
Description:
DAMASCUS, (SANA)-President Bashar al-Assad gave an interview to al-Manar TV broadcasted on Thursday,
Following is the full text of the interview:
Al-Manar: In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful. Assalamu Alaikum. Bloodshed in Syria continues unabated. This is the only constant over which there is little disagreement between those loyal to the Syrian state and those opposed to it. However, there is no common ground over the other constants and details two years into the current crisis. At the time, a great deal was said about the imminent fall of the regime. Deadlines were set and missed; and all those bets were lost. Today, we are here in the heart of Damascus, enjoying the hospitality of a president who has become a source of consternation to many of his opponents who are still unable to understand the equations that have played havoc with their calculations and prevented his ouster from the Syrian political scene. This unpleasant and unexpected outcome for his opponents upset their schemes and plots because they didn’t take into account one self-evident question: what happens if the regime doesn’t fall? What if President Assad doesn’t leave the Syrian scene? Of course, there are no clear answers; and the result is more destruction, killing and bloodshed. Today there is talk of a critical juncture for Syria. The Syrian Army has moved from defense to attack, achieving one success after another. On a parallel level, stagnant diplomatic waters have been shaken by discussions over a Geneva 2 conference becoming a recurrent theme in the statements of all parties. There are many questions which need answers: political settlement, resorting to the military option to decide the outcome, the Israeli enemy’s direct interference with the course of events in the current crisis, the new equations on the Golan Heights, the relationship with opponents and friends. What is the Syrian leadership’s plan for a way out of a complex and dangerous crisis whose ramifications have started to spill over into neighboring countries? It is our great pleasure tonight to put these questions to H. E. President Bashar al-Assad. Assalamu Alaikum, Mr. President.
President Assad: Assalamu Alaikum. You are most welcome in Damascus.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, we are in the heart of the People’s Palace, two and a half years into the Syrian crisis. At the time, the bet was that the president and his regime would be overthrown within weeks. How have you managed to foil the plots of your opponents and enemies? What is the secret behind this steadfastness?
President Assad: There are a number of factors are involved. One is the Syrian factor, which thwarted their intentions; the other factor is related to those who masterminded these scenarios and ended up defeating themselves because they do not know Syria or understand in detail the situation. They started with the calls of revolution, but a real revolution requires tangible elements; you cannot create a revolution simply by paying money. When this approach failed, they shifted to using sectarian slogans in order to create a division within our society. Even though they were able to infiltrate certain pockets in Syrian society, pockets of ignorance and lack of awareness that exist in any society, they were not able to create this sectarian division. Had they succeeded, Syria would have been divided up from the beginning. They also fell into their own trap by trying to promote the notion that this was a struggle to maintain power rather than a struggle for national sovereignty. No one would fight and martyr themselves in order to secure power for anyone else.
Al-Manar: In the battle for the homeland, it seems that the Syrian leadership, and after two and a half years, is making progress on the battlefield. And here if I might ask you, why have you chosen to move from defense to attack? And don’t you think that you have been late in taking the decision to go on the offensive, and consequently incurred heavy losses, if we take of Al-Qseir as an example.
President Assad: It is not a question of defense or attack. Every battle has its own tactics. From the beginning, we did not deal with each situation from a military perspective alone. We also factored in the social and political aspects as well - many Syrians were misled in the beginning and there were many friendly countries that didn’t understand the domestic dynamics. Your actions will differ according to how much consensus there is over a particular issue. There is no doubt that as events have unfolded Syrians have been able to better understand the situation and what is really at stake. This has helped the Armed Forces to better carry out their duties and achieve results. So, what is happening now is not a shift in tactic from defense to attack, but rather a shift in the balance of power in favor of the Armed Forces.
Al-Manar: How has this balance been tipped, Mr. President? Syria is being criticized for asking for the assistance of foreign fighters, and to be fully candid, it is said that Hezbollah fighters are extending assistance. In a previous interview, you said that there are 23 million Syrians; we do not need help from anyone else. What is Hezbollah doing in Syria?
President Assad: The main reason for tipping the balance is the change in people’s opinion in areas that used to incubate armed groups, not necessarily due to lack of patriotism on their part, but because they were deceived. They were led to believe that there was a revolution against the failings of the state. This has changed; many individuals have left these terrorist groups and have returned to their normal lives. As to what is being said about Hezbollah and the participation of foreign fighters alongside the Syrian Army, this is a hugely important issue and has several factors. Each of these factors should be clearly understood. Hezbollah, the battle at Al-Qseir and the recent Israeli airstrike – these three factors cannot be looked at in isolation of the other, they are all a part of the same issue. Let’s be frank. In recent weeks, and particularly after Mr. Hasan Nasrallah’s speech, Arab and foreign media have said that Hezbollah fighters are fighting in Syria and defending the Syrian state, or to use their words “the regime.” Logically speaking, if Hezbollah or the resistance wanted to defend Syria by sending fighters, how many could they send - a few hundred, a thousand or two? We are talking about a battle in which hundreds of thousands of Syrian troops are involved against tens of thousands of terrorists, if not more because of the constant flow of fighters from neighboring and foreign countries that support those terrorists. So clearly, the number of fighters Hezbollah might contribute in order to defend the Syrian state in its battle, would be a drop in the ocean compared to the number of Syrian soldiers fighting the terrorists. When also taking into account the vast expanse of Syria, these numbers will neither protect a state nor ‘regime.’ This is from one perspective. From another, if they say they are defending the state, why now? Battles started after Ramadan in 2011 and escalated into 2012, the summer of 2012 to be precise. They started the battle to “liberate Damascus” and set a zero hour for the first time, the second time and a third time; the four generals were assassinated, a number of individuals fled Syria, and many people believed that was the time the state would collapse. It didn’t. Nevertheless, during all of these times, Hezbollah never intervened, so why would it intervene now? More importantly, why haven’t we seen Hezbollah fighting in Damascus and Aleppo? The more significant battles are in Damascus and in Aleppo, not in Al-Qseir. Al-Qseir is a small town in Homs, why haven’t we seen Hezbollah in the city of Homs? Clearly, all these assumptions are inaccurate. They say Al-Qseir is a strategic border town, but all the borders are strategic for the terrorists in order to smuggle in their fighters and weapons. So, all these propositions have nothing to do with Hezbollah. If we take into account the moans and groans of the Arab media, the statements made by Arab and foreign officials – even Ban Ki-moon expressed concern over Hezbollah in Al-Qseir – all of this is for the objective of suppressing and stifling the resistance. It has nothing to do with defending the Syrian state. The Syrian army has made significant achievements in Damascus, Aleppo, rural Damascus and many other areas; however, we haven’t heard the same moaning as we have heard in Al-Qseir.
Al-Manar: But, Mr. President, the nature of the battle that you and Hezbollah are waging in Al-Qseir seems, to your critics, to take the shape of a safe corridor connecting the coastal region with Damascus. Consequently, if Syria were to be divided, or if geographical changes were to be enforced, this would pave the way for an Alawite state. So, what is the nature of this battle, and how is it connected with the conflict with Israel.
President Assad: First, the Syrian and Lebanese coastal areas are not connected through Al-Qseir. Geographically this is not possible. Second, nobody would fight a battle in order to move towards separation. If you opt for separation, you move towards that objective without waging battles all over the country in order to be pushed into a particular corner. The nature of the battle does not indicate that we are heading for division, but rather the opposite, we are ensuring we remain a united country. Our forefathers rejected the idea of division when the French proposed this during their occupation of Syria because at the time they were very aware of its consequences. Is it possible or even fathomable that generations later, we their children, are less aware or mindful? Once again, the battle in Al-Qseir and all the bemoaning is related to Israel. The timing of the battle in Al-Qseir was synchronized with the Israeli airstrike. Their objective is to stifle the resistance. This is the same old campaign taking on a different form. Now what’s important is not al-Qseir as a town, but the borders; they want to stifle the resistance from land and from the sea. Here the question begs itself - some have said that the resistance should face the enemy and consequently remain in the south. This was said on May 7, 2008, when some of Israel’s agents in Lebanon tried to tamper with the communications system of the resistance; they claimed that the resistance turned its weapons inwards. They said the same thing about the Syrian Army; that the Syrian Army should fight on the borders with Israel. We have said very clearly that our Army will fight the enemy wherever it is. When the enemy is in the north, we move north; the same applies if the enemy comes from the east or the west. This is also the case for Hezbollah. So the question is why is Hezbollah deployed on the borders inside Lebanon or inside Syria? The answer is that our battle is a battle against the Israeli enemy and its proxies inside Syria or inside Lebanon.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, if I might ask about Israel’s involvement in the Syrian crisis through the recent airstrike against Damascus. Israel immediately attached certain messages to this airstrike by saying it doesn’t want escalation or doesn’t intend to interfere in the Syrian crisis. The question is: what does Israel want and what type of interference?
President Assad: This is exactly my point. Everything that is happening at the moment is aimed, first and foremost, at stifling the resistance. Israel’s support of the terrorists was for two purposes. The first is to stifle the resistance; the second is to strike the Syrian air defense systems. It is not interested in anything else.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, since Israel’s objectives are clear, the Syrian state was criticized for its muted response. Everyone was expecting a Syrian response, and the Syrian government stated that it reserves the right to respond at the appropriate time and place. Why didn’t the response come immediately? And is it enough for a senior source to say that missiles have been directed at the Israeli enemy and that any attack will be retaliated immediately without resorting to Army command?
President Assad: We have informed all the Arab and foreign parties - mostly foreign - that contacted us, that we will respond the next time. Of course, there has been more than one response. There have been several Israeli attempted violations to which there was immediate retaliation. But these short-term responses have no real value; they are only of a political nature. If we want to respond to Israel, the response will be of strategic significance.
Al-Manar: How? By opening the Golan front, for instance?
President Assad: This depends on public opinion, whether there is a consensus in support of the resistance or not. That’s the question. Al-Manar: How is the situation in Syria now?
President Assad: In fact, there is clear popular pressure to open the Golan front to resistance. This enthusiasm is also on the Arab level; we have received many Arab delegations wanting to know how young people might be enrolled to come and fight Israel. Of course, resistance is not easy. It is not merely a question of opening the front geographically. It is a political, ideological, and social issue, with the net result being military action.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, if we take into account the incident on the Golan Heights and Syria’s retaliation on the Israeli military vehicle that crossed the combat line, does this mean that the rules of engagement have changed? And if the rules of the game have changed, what is the new equation, so to speak?
President Assad: Real change in the rules of engagement happens when there is a popular condition pushing for resistance. Any other change is short-term, unless we are heading towards war. Any response of any kind might only appear to be a change to the rules of engagement, but I don’t think it really is. The real change is when the people move towards resistance; this is the really dramatic change.
Al-Manar: Don’t you think that this is a little late? After 40 years of quiet and a state of truce on the Golan Heights, now there is talk of a movement on that front, about new equations and about new rules of the game?
President Assad: They always talk about Syria opening the front or closing the front. A state does not create resistance. Resistance can only be called so, when it is popular and spontaneous, it cannot be created. The state can either support or oppose the resistance, - or create obstacles, as is the case with some Arab countries. I believe that a state that opposes the will of its people for resistance is reckless. The issue is not that Syria has decided, after 40 years, to move in this direction. The public’s state of mind is that our National Army is carrying out its duties to protect and liberate our land. Had there not been an army, as was the situation in Lebanon when the army and the state were divided during the civil war, there would have been resistance a long time ago. Today, in the current circumstances, there are a number of factors pushing in that direction. First, there are repeated Israeli aggressions that constitute a major factor in creating this desire and required incentive. Second, the army’s engagement in battles in more than one place throughout Syria has created a sentiment on the part of many civilians that it is their duty to move in this direction in order to support the Armed Forces on the Golan.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, Benjamin Netanyahu said that Israel would not hesitate to attack Syria if it detected that weapons are being conveyed to Hezbollah in Lebanon. If Israel carried out its threats, I want a direct answer from you: what would Syria do?
President Assad: As I have said, we have informed the relevant states that we will respond in kind. Of course, it is difficult to specify the military means that would be used, that is for our military command to decide. We plan for different scenarios, depending on the circumstances and the timing of the strike that would determine which method or weapons.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, after the airstrike that targeted Damascus, there was talk about the S300 missiles and that this missile system will tip the balance. Based on this argument, Netanyahu visited Moscow. My direct question is this: are these missiles on their way to Damascus? Is Syria now in possession of these missiles?
President Assad: It is not our policy to talk publically about military issues in terms of what we possess or what we receive. As far as Russia is concerned, the contracts have nothing to do with the crisis. We have negotiated with them on different kinds of weapons for years, and Russia is committed to honoring these contracts. What I want to say is that neither Netanyahu’s visit nor the crisis and the conditions surrounding it have influenced arms imports. All of our agreements with Russia will be implemented, some have been implemented during the past period and, together with the Russians, we will continue to implement these contracts in the future.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, we have talked about the steadfastness of the Syrian leadership and the Syrian state. We have discussed the progress being achieved on the battlefield, and strengthening the alliance between Syria and the resistance. These are all within the same front. From another perspective, there is diplomatic activity stirring waters that have been stagnant for two and a half years. Before we talk about this and about the Geneva conference and the red lines that Syria has drawn, there was a simple proposition or a simple solution suggested by the former head of the coalition, Muaz al-Khatib. He said that the president, together with 500 other dignitaries would be allowed to leave the country within 20 days, and the crisis would be over. Why don’t you meet this request and put an end to the crisis?
President Assad: I have always talked about the basic principle: that the Syrian people alone have the right to decide whether the president should remain or leave. So, anybody speaking on this subject should state which part of the Syrian people they represent and who granted them the authority to speak on their behalf. As for this initiative, I haven’t actually read it, but I was very happy that they allowed me 20 days and 500 people! I don’t know who proposed the initiative; I don’t care much about names.
Al-Manar: He actually said that you would be given 20 days, 500 people, and no guarantees. You’ll be allowed to leave but with no guarantee whatsoever on whether legal action would be taken against you or not. Mr. President, this brings us to the negotiations, I am referring to Geneva 2. The Syrian government and leadership have announced initial agreement to take part in this conference. If this conference is held, there will be a table with the Syrian flag on one side and the flag of the opposition groups on the other. How can you convince the Syrian people after two and a half years of crisis that you will sit face to face at the same negotiating table with these groups?
President Assad: First of all, regarding the flag, it is meaningless without the people it represents. When we put a flag on a table or anywhere else, we talk about the people represented by that flag. This question can be put to those who raise flags they call Syrian but are different from the official Syrian flag. So, this flag has no value when it does not represent the people. Secondly, we will attend this conference as the official delegation and legitimate representatives of the Syrian people. But, whom do they represent? When the conference is over, we return to Syria, we return home to our people. But when the conference is over, whom do they return to - five-star hotels? Or to the foreign ministries of the states that they represent – which doesn’t include Syria of course - in order to submit their reports? Or do they return to the intelligence services of those countries? So, when we attend this conference, we should know very clearly the positions of some of those sitting at the table - and I say some because the conference format is not clear yet and as such we do not have details as to how the patriotic Syrian opposition will be considered or the other opposition parties in Syria. As for the opposition groups abroad and their flag, we know that we are attending the conference not to negotiate with them, but rather with the states that back them; it will appear as though we are negotiating with the slaves, but essentially we are negotiating with their masters. This is the truth, we shouldn’t deceive ourselves.
Al-Manar: Are you, in the Syrian leadership, convinced that these negotiations will be held next month?
President Assad: We expect them to happen, unless they are obstructed by other states. As far as we are concerned in Syria, we have announced a couple of days ago that we agree in principle to attend.
Al-Manar: When you say in principle, it seems that you are considering other options.
President Assad: In principle, we are in favour of the conference as a notion, but there are no details yet. For example, will there be conditions placed before the conference? If so, these conditions may be unacceptable and we would not attend. So the idea of the conference, of a meeting, in principle is a good one. We will have to wait and see.
Al-Manar: Let’s talk, Mr. President, about the conditions put by the Syrian leadership. What are Syria’s conditions?
President Assad: Simply put, our only condition is that anything agreed upon in any meeting inside or outside the country, including the conference, is subject to the approval of the Syrian people through a popular referendum. This is the only condition. Anything else doesn’t have any value. That is why we are comfortable with going to the conference. We have no complexes. Either side can propose anything, but nothing can be implemented without the approval of the Syrian people. And as long as we are the legitimate representatives of the people, we have nothing to fear.
Al-Manar: Let’s be clear, Mr. President. There is a lot of ambiguity in Geneva 1 and Geneva 2 about the transitional period and the role of President Bashar al-Assad in that transitional period. Are you prepared to hand over all your authorities to this transitional government? And how do you understand this ambiguous term?
President Assad: This is what I made clear in the initiative I proposed in January this year. They say they want a transitional government in which the president has no role. In Syria we have a presidential system, where the President is head of the republic and the Prime Minister heads the government. They want a government with broad authorities. The Syrian constitution gives the government full authorities. The president is the commander-in-chief of the Army and Armed Forces and the head of the Supreme Judicial Council. All the other institutions report directly to the government. Changing the authorities of the president is subject to changing the constitution; the president cannot just relinquish his authorities, he doesn\'t have the constitutional right. Changing the constitution requires a popular referendum. When they want to propose such issues, they might be discussed in the conference, and when we agree on something - if we agree, we return home and put it to a popular referendum and then move on. But for them to ask for the amendment of the constitution in advance, this cannot be done neither by the president nor by the government.
Al-Manar: Frankly, Mr. President, all the international positions taken against you and all your political opponents said that they don’t want a role for al-Assad in Syria’s future. This is what the Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal said and this is what the Turks and the Qataris said, and also the Syrian opposition. Will President Assad be nominated for the forthcoming presidential elections in 2014?
President Assad: What I know is that Saud al-Faisal is a specialist in American affairs, I don’t know if he knows anything about Syrian affairs. If he wants to learn, that’s fine! As to the desires of others, I repeat what I have said earlier: the only desires relevant are those of the Syrian people. With regards to the nomination, some parties have said that it is preferable that the president shouldn’t be nominated for the 2014 elections. This issue will be determined closer to the time; it is still too early to discuss this. When the time comes, and I feel, through my meetings and interactions with the Syrian people, that there is a need and public desire for me to nominate myself, I will not hesitate. However, if I feel that the Syrian people do not want me to lead them, then naturally I will not put myself forward. They are wasting their time on such talk.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, you mentioned the Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal. This makes me ask about Syria’s relationship with Saudi Arabia, with Qatar, with Turkey, particularly if we take into account that their recent position in the Arab ministerial committee was relatively moderate. They did not directly and publically call for the ouster of President Assad. Do you feel any change or any support on the part of these countries for a political solution to the Syrian crisis? And is Syria prepared to deal once more with the Arab League, taking into account that the Syrian government asked for an apology from the Arab League?
President Assad: Concerning the Arab states, we see brief changes in their rhetoric but not in their actions. The countries that support the terrorists have not changed; they are still supporting terrorism to the same extent. Turkey also has not made any positive steps. As for Qatar, their role is also the same, the role of the funder - the bank funding the terrorists and supporting them through Turkey. So, overall, no change. As for the Arab League, in Syria we have never pinned our hopes on the Arab League. Even in the past decades, we were barely able to dismantle the mines set for us in the different meetings, whether in the summits or in meetings of the foreign ministers. So in light of this and its recent actions, can we really expect it to play a role? We are open to everybody, we never close our doors. But we should also be realistic and face the truth that they are unable to offer anything, particularly since a significant number of the Arab states are not independent. They receive their orders from the outside. Some of them are sympathetic to us in their hearts, but they cannot act on their feelings because they are not in possession of their decisions. So, no, we do not pin any hopes on the Arab League.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, this leads us to ask: if the Arab environment is as such, and taking into account the developments on the ground and the steadfastness, the Geneva conference and the negotiations, the basic question is: what if the political negotiations fail? What are the consequences of the failure of political negotiations?
President Assad: This is quite possible, because there are states that are obstructing the meeting in principle, and they are going only to avoid embarrassment. They are opposed to any dialogue whether inside or outside Syria. Even the Russians, in several statements, have dampened expectations from this conference. But we should also be accurate in defining this dialogue, particularly in relation to what is happening on the ground. Most of the factions engaged in talking about what is happening in Syria have no influence on the ground; they don’t even have direct relationships with the terrorists. In some instances these terrorists are directly linked with the states that are backing them, in other cases, they are mere gangs paid to carry out terrorist activities. So, the failure of the conference will not significantly change the reality inside Syria, because these states will not stop supporting the terrorists - conference or no conference, and the gangs will not stop their subversive activities. So it has no impact on them.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, the events in Syria are spilling over to neighboring countries. We see what’s happening in Iraq, the explosions in Al-Rihaniye in Turkey and also in Lebanon. In Ersal, Tripoli, Hezbollah taking part in the fighting in Al-Qseir. How does Syria approach the situation in Lebanon, and do you think the Lebanese policy of dissociation is still applied or accepted?
President Assad: Let me pose some questions based on the reality in Syria and in Lebanon about the policy of dissociation in order not to be accused of making a value judgment on whether this policy is right or wrong. Let’s start with some simple questions: Has Lebanon been able to prevent Lebanese interference in Syria? Has it been able to prevent the smuggling of terrorists or weapons into Syria or providing a safe haven for them in Lebanon? It hasn’t; in fact, everyone knows that Lebanon has contributed negatively to the Syrian crisis. Most recently, has Lebanon been able to protect itself against the consequences of the Syrian crisis, most markedly in Tripoli and the missiles that have been falling over different areas of Beirut or its surroundings? It hasn’t. So what kind of dissociation are we talking about? For Lebanon to dissociate itself from the crisis is one thing, and for the government to dissociate itself is another. When the government dissociates itself from a certain issue that affects the interests of the Lebanese people, it is in fact dissociating itself from the Lebanese citizens. I’m not criticizing the Lebanese government - I’m talking about general principles. I don’t want it to be said that I’m criticizing this government. If the Syrian government were to dissociate itself from issues that are of concern to the Syrian people, it would also fail. So in response to your question with regards to Lebanon’s policy of dissociation, we don’t believe this is realistically possible. When my neighbor’s house is on fire, I cannot say that it’s none of my business because sooner or later the fire will spread to my house.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, what would you say to the supporters of the axis of resistance? We are celebrating the anniversary of the victory of the resistance and the liberation of south Lebanon, in an atmosphere of promises of victory, which Mr. Hasan Nasrallah has talked about. You are saying with great confidence that you will emerge triumphant from this crisis. What would you say to all this audience? Are we about to reach the end of this dark tunnel?
President Assad: I believe that the greatest victory achieved by the Arab resistance movements in the past years and decades is primarily an intellectual victory. This resistance wouldn’t have been able to succeed militarily if they hadn’t been able to succeed and stand fast against a campaign aimed at distorting concepts and principles in this region. Before the civil war in Lebanon, some people used to say that Lebanon’s strength lies in its weakness; this is similar to saying that a man’s intelligence lies in his stupidity, or that honor is maintained through corruption. This is an illogical contradiction. The victories of the resistance at different junctures proved that this concept is not true, and it showed that Lebanon’s weakness lies in its weakness and Lebanon’s strength lies in its strength. Lebanon’s strength is in its resistance and these resistance fighters you referred to. Today, more than ever before, we are in need of these ideas, of this mindset, of this steadfastness and of these actions carried out by the resistance fighters. The events in the Arab world during the past years have distorted concepts to the extent that some Arabs have forgotten that the real enemy is still Israel and have instead created internal, sectarian, regional or national enemies. Today we pin our hopes on these resistance fighters to remind the Arab people, through their achievements, that our enemy is still the same. As for my confidence in victory, if we weren’t so confident we wouldn’t have been able to stand fast or to continue this battle after two years of a global attack. This is not a tripartite attack like the one in 1956; it is in fact a global war waged against Syria and the resistance. We have absolute confidence in our victory, and I assure them that Syria will always remain, even more so than before, supportive of the resistance and resistance fighters everywhere in the Arab world.
Al-Manar: In conclusion, it has been my great honor to conduct this interview with Your Excellency, President Bashar al-Assad of the Syrian Arab Republic. Thank you very much. President Assad: You are welcome. I would like to congratulate Al-Manar channel, the channel of resistance, on the anniversary of the liberation and to congratulate the Lebanese people and every resistance fighter in Lebanon.
Al-Manar: Thank you.
24:42
|
Vali Amr Muslimeen attends Graduation Ceremony at Imam Hossein (a.s.) University - Farsi
Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei says American officials will once again fail in their attempts to discourage public participation in Iran\\\\\\\'s upcoming elections....
Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei says American officials will once again fail in their attempts to discourage public participation in Iran\\\\\\\'s upcoming elections.
The Leader made the remarks in a meeting with the students of Imam Hussein University on Monday 27th May 2013.
Ayatollah Khamenei advised Iranians to carefully consider the words of the candidates in order to choose the most competent one.
\\\\\\\"The people should choose a candidate who can pave the way for the glory of the future of the Revolution and the country and [who] can solve the problems [of the country] and resist against enemies and can turn the Islamic Republic into a role model for the oppressed of the world.\\\\\\\"
The Leader made the remark after US Secretary of State John Kerry on Friday called into question the credibility of Iran\\\\\\\'s presidential election, criticizing the disapproving of candidates by the Guardian Council- Iran\\\\\\\'s top constitutional supervisory body.
Kerry also accused the Guardian Council of choosing candidates that represent the interests of the Iranian establishment.
Those who express opinions about Iran\\\\\\\'s election are the same people whose Guantanamo Prison, drones over the impoverished villages in Pakistan and Afghanistan, warmongering policies in the region and unconditional support for the criminal Zionist regime are a source of shame and a mark of stain, Ayatollah Khamenei said.
\\\\\\\"We do not know who will become president and to whom God will incline the hearts of people,\\\\\\\" the Leader stated.
Ayatollah Khamenei said electing the highest-ranking executive official of the country is a sensitive and important task for which there are legal procedures to be followed accordingly.
The Leader said the election atmosphere must be lively and that debates must be free from hatemongering.
Iranians will go to the polls in the nation\\\\\\\'s 11th presidential election on June 14.
More...
Description:
Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei says American officials will once again fail in their attempts to discourage public participation in Iran\\\\\\\'s upcoming elections.
The Leader made the remarks in a meeting with the students of Imam Hussein University on Monday 27th May 2013.
Ayatollah Khamenei advised Iranians to carefully consider the words of the candidates in order to choose the most competent one.
\\\\\\\"The people should choose a candidate who can pave the way for the glory of the future of the Revolution and the country and [who] can solve the problems [of the country] and resist against enemies and can turn the Islamic Republic into a role model for the oppressed of the world.\\\\\\\"
The Leader made the remark after US Secretary of State John Kerry on Friday called into question the credibility of Iran\\\\\\\'s presidential election, criticizing the disapproving of candidates by the Guardian Council- Iran\\\\\\\'s top constitutional supervisory body.
Kerry also accused the Guardian Council of choosing candidates that represent the interests of the Iranian establishment.
Those who express opinions about Iran\\\\\\\'s election are the same people whose Guantanamo Prison, drones over the impoverished villages in Pakistan and Afghanistan, warmongering policies in the region and unconditional support for the criminal Zionist regime are a source of shame and a mark of stain, Ayatollah Khamenei said.
\\\\\\\"We do not know who will become president and to whom God will incline the hearts of people,\\\\\\\" the Leader stated.
Ayatollah Khamenei said electing the highest-ranking executive official of the country is a sensitive and important task for which there are legal procedures to be followed accordingly.
The Leader said the election atmosphere must be lively and that debates must be free from hatemongering.
Iranians will go to the polls in the nation\\\\\\\'s 11th presidential election on June 14.
33:34
|
[English Translation] Interview Bashar Al-Asad - President Syria on current situation - 30 May 2013
DAMASCUS, (SANA)-President Bashar al-Assad gave an interview to al-Manar TV broadcasted on Thursday,
Following is the full text of the interview:
Al-Manar: In the name of Allah, the...
DAMASCUS, (SANA)-President Bashar al-Assad gave an interview to al-Manar TV broadcasted on Thursday,
Following is the full text of the interview:
Al-Manar: In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful. Assalamu Alaikum. Bloodshed in Syria continues unabated. This is the only constant over which there is little disagreement between those loyal to the Syrian state and those opposed to it. However, there is no common ground over the other constants and details two years into the current crisis. At the time, a great deal was said about the imminent fall of the regime. Deadlines were set and missed; and all those bets were lost. Today, we are here in the heart of Damascus, enjoying the hospitality of a president who has become a source of consternation to many of his opponents who are still unable to understand the equations that have played havoc with their calculations and prevented his ouster from the Syrian political scene. This unpleasant and unexpected outcome for his opponents upset their schemes and plots because they didn’t take into account one self-evident question: what happens if the regime doesn’t fall? What if President Assad doesn’t leave the Syrian scene? Of course, there are no clear answers; and the result is more destruction, killing and bloodshed. Today there is talk of a critical juncture for Syria. The Syrian Army has moved from defense to attack, achieving one success after another. On a parallel level, stagnant diplomatic waters have been shaken by discussions over a Geneva 2 conference becoming a recurrent theme in the statements of all parties. There are many questions which need answers: political settlement, resorting to the military option to decide the outcome, the Israeli enemy’s direct interference with the course of events in the current crisis, the new equations on the Golan Heights, the relationship with opponents and friends. What is the Syrian leadership’s plan for a way out of a complex and dangerous crisis whose ramifications have started to spill over into neighboring countries? It is our great pleasure tonight to put these questions to H. E. President Bashar al-Assad. Assalamu Alaikum, Mr. President.
President Assad: Assalamu Alaikum. You are most welcome in Damascus.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, we are in the heart of the People’s Palace, two and a half years into the Syrian crisis. At the time, the bet was that the president and his regime would be overthrown within weeks. How have you managed to foil the plots of your opponents and enemies? What is the secret behind this steadfastness?
President Assad: There are a number of factors are involved. One is the Syrian factor, which thwarted their intentions; the other factor is related to those who masterminded these scenarios and ended up defeating themselves because they do not know Syria or understand in detail the situation. They started with the calls of revolution, but a real revolution requires tangible elements; you cannot create a revolution simply by paying money. When this approach failed, they shifted to using sectarian slogans in order to create a division within our society. Even though they were able to infiltrate certain pockets in Syrian society, pockets of ignorance and lack of awareness that exist in any society, they were not able to create this sectarian division. Had they succeeded, Syria would have been divided up from the beginning. They also fell into their own trap by trying to promote the notion that this was a struggle to maintain power rather than a struggle for national sovereignty. No one would fight and martyr themselves in order to secure power for anyone else.
Al-Manar: In the battle for the homeland, it seems that the Syrian leadership, and after two and a half years, is making progress on the battlefield. And here if I might ask you, why have you chosen to move from defense to attack? And don’t you think that you have been late in taking the decision to go on the offensive, and consequently incurred heavy losses, if we take of Al-Qseir as an example.
President Assad: It is not a question of defense or attack. Every battle has its own tactics. From the beginning, we did not deal with each situation from a military perspective alone. We also factored in the social and political aspects as well - many Syrians were misled in the beginning and there were many friendly countries that didn’t understand the domestic dynamics. Your actions will differ according to how much consensus there is over a particular issue. There is no doubt that as events have unfolded Syrians have been able to better understand the situation and what is really at stake. This has helped the Armed Forces to better carry out their duties and achieve results. So, what is happening now is not a shift in tactic from defense to attack, but rather a shift in the balance of power in favor of the Armed Forces.
Al-Manar: How has this balance been tipped, Mr. President? Syria is being criticized for asking for the assistance of foreign fighters, and to be fully candid, it is said that Hezbollah fighters are extending assistance. In a previous interview, you said that there are 23 million Syrians; we do not need help from anyone else. What is Hezbollah doing in Syria?
President Assad: The main reason for tipping the balance is the change in people’s opinion in areas that used to incubate armed groups, not necessarily due to lack of patriotism on their part, but because they were deceived. They were led to believe that there was a revolution against the failings of the state. This has changed; many individuals have left these terrorist groups and have returned to their normal lives. As to what is being said about Hezbollah and the participation of foreign fighters alongside the Syrian Army, this is a hugely important issue and has several factors. Each of these factors should be clearly understood. Hezbollah, the battle at Al-Qseir and the recent Israeli airstrike – these three factors cannot be looked at in isolation of the other, they are all a part of the same issue. Let’s be frank. In recent weeks, and particularly after Mr. Hasan Nasrallah’s speech, Arab and foreign media have said that Hezbollah fighters are fighting in Syria and defending the Syrian state, or to use their words “the regime.” Logically speaking, if Hezbollah or the resistance wanted to defend Syria by sending fighters, how many could they send - a few hundred, a thousand or two? We are talking about a battle in which hundreds of thousands of Syrian troops are involved against tens of thousands of terrorists, if not more because of the constant flow of fighters from neighboring and foreign countries that support those terrorists. So clearly, the number of fighters Hezbollah might contribute in order to defend the Syrian state in its battle, would be a drop in the ocean compared to the number of Syrian soldiers fighting the terrorists. When also taking into account the vast expanse of Syria, these numbers will neither protect a state nor ‘regime.’ This is from one perspective. From another, if they say they are defending the state, why now? Battles started after Ramadan in 2011 and escalated into 2012, the summer of 2012 to be precise. They started the battle to “liberate Damascus” and set a zero hour for the first time, the second time and a third time; the four generals were assassinated, a number of individuals fled Syria, and many people believed that was the time the state would collapse. It didn’t. Nevertheless, during all of these times, Hezbollah never intervened, so why would it intervene now? More importantly, why haven’t we seen Hezbollah fighting in Damascus and Aleppo? The more significant battles are in Damascus and in Aleppo, not in Al-Qseir. Al-Qseir is a small town in Homs, why haven’t we seen Hezbollah in the city of Homs? Clearly, all these assumptions are inaccurate. They say Al-Qseir is a strategic border town, but all the borders are strategic for the terrorists in order to smuggle in their fighters and weapons. So, all these propositions have nothing to do with Hezbollah. If we take into account the moans and groans of the Arab media, the statements made by Arab and foreign officials – even Ban Ki-moon expressed concern over Hezbollah in Al-Qseir – all of this is for the objective of suppressing and stifling the resistance. It has nothing to do with defending the Syrian state. The Syrian army has made significant achievements in Damascus, Aleppo, rural Damascus and many other areas; however, we haven’t heard the same moaning as we have heard in Al-Qseir.
Al-Manar: But, Mr. President, the nature of the battle that you and Hezbollah are waging in Al-Qseir seems, to your critics, to take the shape of a safe corridor connecting the coastal region with Damascus. Consequently, if Syria were to be divided, or if geographical changes were to be enforced, this would pave the way for an Alawite state. So, what is the nature of this battle, and how is it connected with the conflict with Israel.
President Assad: First, the Syrian and Lebanese coastal areas are not connected through Al-Qseir. Geographically this is not possible. Second, nobody would fight a battle in order to move towards separation. If you opt for separation, you move towards that objective without waging battles all over the country in order to be pushed into a particular corner. The nature of the battle does not indicate that we are heading for division, but rather the opposite, we are ensuring we remain a united country. Our forefathers rejected the idea of division when the French proposed this during their occupation of Syria because at the time they were very aware of its consequences. Is it possible or even fathomable that generations later, we their children, are less aware or mindful? Once again, the battle in Al-Qseir and all the bemoaning is related to Israel. The timing of the battle in Al-Qseir was synchronized with the Israeli airstrike. Their objective is to stifle the resistance. This is the same old campaign taking on a different form. Now what’s important is not al-Qseir as a town, but the borders; they want to stifle the resistance from land and from the sea. Here the question begs itself - some have said that the resistance should face the enemy and consequently remain in the south. This was said on May 7, 2008, when some of Israel’s agents in Lebanon tried to tamper with the communications system of the resistance; they claimed that the resistance turned its weapons inwards. They said the same thing about the Syrian Army; that the Syrian Army should fight on the borders with Israel. We have said very clearly that our Army will fight the enemy wherever it is. When the enemy is in the north, we move north; the same applies if the enemy comes from the east or the west. This is also the case for Hezbollah. So the question is why is Hezbollah deployed on the borders inside Lebanon or inside Syria? The answer is that our battle is a battle against the Israeli enemy and its proxies inside Syria or inside Lebanon.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, if I might ask about Israel’s involvement in the Syrian crisis through the recent airstrike against Damascus. Israel immediately attached certain messages to this airstrike by saying it doesn’t want escalation or doesn’t intend to interfere in the Syrian crisis. The question is: what does Israel want and what type of interference?
President Assad: This is exactly my point. Everything that is happening at the moment is aimed, first and foremost, at stifling the resistance. Israel’s support of the terrorists was for two purposes. The first is to stifle the resistance; the second is to strike the Syrian air defense systems. It is not interested in anything else.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, since Israel’s objectives are clear, the Syrian state was criticized for its muted response. Everyone was expecting a Syrian response, and the Syrian government stated that it reserves the right to respond at the appropriate time and place. Why didn’t the response come immediately? And is it enough for a senior source to say that missiles have been directed at the Israeli enemy and that any attack will be retaliated immediately without resorting to Army command?
President Assad: We have informed all the Arab and foreign parties - mostly foreign - that contacted us, that we will respond the next time. Of course, there has been more than one response. There have been several Israeli attempted violations to which there was immediate retaliation. But these short-term responses have no real value; they are only of a political nature. If we want to respond to Israel, the response will be of strategic significance.
Al-Manar: How? By opening the Golan front, for instance?
President Assad: This depends on public opinion, whether there is a consensus in support of the resistance or not. That’s the question. Al-Manar: How is the situation in Syria now?
President Assad: In fact, there is clear popular pressure to open the Golan front to resistance. This enthusiasm is also on the Arab level; we have received many Arab delegations wanting to know how young people might be enrolled to come and fight Israel. Of course, resistance is not easy. It is not merely a question of opening the front geographically. It is a political, ideological, and social issue, with the net result being military action.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, if we take into account the incident on the Golan Heights and Syria’s retaliation on the Israeli military vehicle that crossed the combat line, does this mean that the rules of engagement have changed? And if the rules of the game have changed, what is the new equation, so to speak?
President Assad: Real change in the rules of engagement happens when there is a popular condition pushing for resistance. Any other change is short-term, unless we are heading towards war. Any response of any kind might only appear to be a change to the rules of engagement, but I don’t think it really is. The real change is when the people move towards resistance; this is the really dramatic change.
Al-Manar: Don’t you think that this is a little late? After 40 years of quiet and a state of truce on the Golan Heights, now there is talk of a movement on that front, about new equations and about new rules of the game?
President Assad: They always talk about Syria opening the front or closing the front. A state does not create resistance. Resistance can only be called so, when it is popular and spontaneous, it cannot be created. The state can either support or oppose the resistance, - or create obstacles, as is the case with some Arab countries. I believe that a state that opposes the will of its people for resistance is reckless. The issue is not that Syria has decided, after 40 years, to move in this direction. The public’s state of mind is that our National Army is carrying out its duties to protect and liberate our land. Had there not been an army, as was the situation in Lebanon when the army and the state were divided during the civil war, there would have been resistance a long time ago. Today, in the current circumstances, there are a number of factors pushing in that direction. First, there are repeated Israeli aggressions that constitute a major factor in creating this desire and required incentive. Second, the army’s engagement in battles in more than one place throughout Syria has created a sentiment on the part of many civilians that it is their duty to move in this direction in order to support the Armed Forces on the Golan.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, Benjamin Netanyahu said that Israel would not hesitate to attack Syria if it detected that weapons are being conveyed to Hezbollah in Lebanon. If Israel carried out its threats, I want a direct answer from you: what would Syria do?
President Assad: As I have said, we have informed the relevant states that we will respond in kind. Of course, it is difficult to specify the military means that would be used, that is for our military command to decide. We plan for different scenarios, depending on the circumstances and the timing of the strike that would determine which method or weapons.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, after the airstrike that targeted Damascus, there was talk about the S300 missiles and that this missile system will tip the balance. Based on this argument, Netanyahu visited Moscow. My direct question is this: are these missiles on their way to Damascus? Is Syria now in possession of these missiles?
President Assad: It is not our policy to talk publically about military issues in terms of what we possess or what we receive. As far as Russia is concerned, the contracts have nothing to do with the crisis. We have negotiated with them on different kinds of weapons for years, and Russia is committed to honoring these contracts. What I want to say is that neither Netanyahu’s visit nor the crisis and the conditions surrounding it have influenced arms imports. All of our agreements with Russia will be implemented, some have been implemented during the past period and, together with the Russians, we will continue to implement these contracts in the future.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, we have talked about the steadfastness of the Syrian leadership and the Syrian state. We have discussed the progress being achieved on the battlefield, and strengthening the alliance between Syria and the resistance. These are all within the same front. From another perspective, there is diplomatic activity stirring waters that have been stagnant for two and a half years. Before we talk about this and about the Geneva conference and the red lines that Syria has drawn, there was a simple proposition or a simple solution suggested by the former head of the coalition, Muaz al-Khatib. He said that the president, together with 500 other dignitaries would be allowed to leave the country within 20 days, and the crisis would be over. Why don’t you meet this request and put an end to the crisis?
President Assad: I have always talked about the basic principle: that the Syrian people alone have the right to decide whether the president should remain or leave. So, anybody speaking on this subject should state which part of the Syrian people they represent and who granted them the authority to speak on their behalf. As for this initiative, I haven’t actually read it, but I was very happy that they allowed me 20 days and 500 people! I don’t know who proposed the initiative; I don’t care much about names.
Al-Manar: He actually said that you would be given 20 days, 500 people, and no guarantees. You’ll be allowed to leave but with no guarantee whatsoever on whether legal action would be taken against you or not. Mr. President, this brings us to the negotiations, I am referring to Geneva 2. The Syrian government and leadership have announced initial agreement to take part in this conference. If this conference is held, there will be a table with the Syrian flag on one side and the flag of the opposition groups on the other. How can you convince the Syrian people after two and a half years of crisis that you will sit face to face at the same negotiating table with these groups?
President Assad: First of all, regarding the flag, it is meaningless without the people it represents. When we put a flag on a table or anywhere else, we talk about the people represented by that flag. This question can be put to those who raise flags they call Syrian but are different from the official Syrian flag. So, this flag has no value when it does not represent the people. Secondly, we will attend this conference as the official delegation and legitimate representatives of the Syrian people. But, whom do they represent? When the conference is over, we return to Syria, we return home to our people. But when the conference is over, whom do they return to - five-star hotels? Or to the foreign ministries of the states that they represent – which doesn’t include Syria of course - in order to submit their reports? Or do they return to the intelligence services of those countries? So, when we attend this conference, we should know very clearly the positions of some of those sitting at the table - and I say some because the conference format is not clear yet and as such we do not have details as to how the patriotic Syrian opposition will be considered or the other opposition parties in Syria. As for the opposition groups abroad and their flag, we know that we are attending the conference not to negotiate with them, but rather with the states that back them; it will appear as though we are negotiating with the slaves, but essentially we are negotiating with their masters. This is the truth, we shouldn’t deceive ourselves.
Al-Manar: Are you, in the Syrian leadership, convinced that these negotiations will be held next month?
President Assad: We expect them to happen, unless they are obstructed by other states. As far as we are concerned in Syria, we have announced a couple of days ago that we agree in principle to attend.
Al-Manar: When you say in principle, it seems that you are considering other options.
President Assad: In principle, we are in favour of the conference as a notion, but there are no details yet. For example, will there be conditions placed before the conference? If so, these conditions may be unacceptable and we would not attend. So the idea of the conference, of a meeting, in principle is a good one. We will have to wait and see.
Al-Manar: Let’s talk, Mr. President, about the conditions put by the Syrian leadership. What are Syria’s conditions?
President Assad: Simply put, our only condition is that anything agreed upon in any meeting inside or outside the country, including the conference, is subject to the approval of the Syrian people through a popular referendum. This is the only condition. Anything else doesn’t have any value. That is why we are comfortable with going to the conference. We have no complexes. Either side can propose anything, but nothing can be implemented without the approval of the Syrian people. And as long as we are the legitimate representatives of the people, we have nothing to fear.
Al-Manar: Let’s be clear, Mr. President. There is a lot of ambiguity in Geneva 1 and Geneva 2 about the transitional period and the role of President Bashar al-Assad in that transitional period. Are you prepared to hand over all your authorities to this transitional government? And how do you understand this ambiguous term?
President Assad: This is what I made clear in the initiative I proposed in January this year. They say they want a transitional government in which the president has no role. In Syria we have a presidential system, where the President is head of the republic and the Prime Minister heads the government. They want a government with broad authorities. The Syrian constitution gives the government full authorities. The president is the commander-in-chief of the Army and Armed Forces and the head of the Supreme Judicial Council. All the other institutions report directly to the government. Changing the authorities of the president is subject to changing the constitution; the president cannot just relinquish his authorities, he doesn\\\'t have the constitutional right. Changing the constitution requires a popular referendum. When they want to propose such issues, they might be discussed in the conference, and when we agree on something - if we agree, we return home and put it to a popular referendum and then move on. But for them to ask for the amendment of the constitution in advance, this cannot be done neither by the president nor by the government.
Al-Manar: Frankly, Mr. President, all the international positions taken against you and all your political opponents said that they don’t want a role for al-Assad in Syria’s future. This is what the Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal said and this is what the Turks and the Qataris said, and also the Syrian opposition. Will President Assad be nominated for the forthcoming presidential elections in 2014?
President Assad: What I know is that Saud al-Faisal is a specialist in American affairs, I don’t know if he knows anything about Syrian affairs. If he wants to learn, that’s fine! As to the desires of others, I repeat what I have said earlier: the only desires relevant are those of the Syrian people. With regards to the nomination, some parties have said that it is preferable that the president shouldn’t be nominated for the 2014 elections. This issue will be determined closer to the time; it is still too early to discuss this. When the time comes, and I feel, through my meetings and interactions with the Syrian people, that there is a need and public desire for me to nominate myself, I will not hesitate. However, if I feel that the Syrian people do not want me to lead them, then naturally I will not put myself forward. They are wasting their time on such talk.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, you mentioned the Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal. This makes me ask about Syria’s relationship with Saudi Arabia, with Qatar, with Turkey, particularly if we take into account that their recent position in the Arab ministerial committee was relatively moderate. They did not directly and publically call for the ouster of President Assad. Do you feel any change or any support on the part of these countries for a political solution to the Syrian crisis? And is Syria prepared to deal once more with the Arab League, taking into account that the Syrian government asked for an apology from the Arab League?
President Assad: Concerning the Arab states, we see brief changes in their rhetoric but not in their actions. The countries that support the terrorists have not changed; they are still supporting terrorism to the same extent. Turkey also has not made any positive steps. As for Qatar, their role is also the same, the role of the funder - the bank funding the terrorists and supporting them through Turkey. So, overall, no change. As for the Arab League, in Syria we have never pinned our hopes on the Arab League. Even in the past decades, we were barely able to dismantle the mines set for us in the different meetings, whether in the summits or in meetings of the foreign ministers. So in light of this and its recent actions, can we really expect it to play a role? We are open to everybody, we never close our doors. But we should also be realistic and face the truth that they are unable to offer anything, particularly since a significant number of the Arab states are not independent. They receive their orders from the outside. Some of them are sympathetic to us in their hearts, but they cannot act on their feelings because they are not in possession of their decisions. So, no, we do not pin any hopes on the Arab League.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, this leads us to ask: if the Arab environment is as such, and taking into account the developments on the ground and the steadfastness, the Geneva conference and the negotiations, the basic question is: what if the political negotiations fail? What are the consequences of the failure of political negotiations?
President Assad: This is quite possible, because there are states that are obstructing the meeting in principle, and they are going only to avoid embarrassment. They are opposed to any dialogue whether inside or outside Syria. Even the Russians, in several statements, have dampened expectations from this conference. But we should also be accurate in defining this dialogue, particularly in relation to what is happening on the ground. Most of the factions engaged in talking about what is happening in Syria have no influence on the ground; they don’t even have direct relationships with the terrorists. In some instances these terrorists are directly linked with the states that are backing them, in other cases, they are mere gangs paid to carry out terrorist activities. So, the failure of the conference will not significantly change the reality inside Syria, because these states will not stop supporting the terrorists - conference or no conference, and the gangs will not stop their subversive activities. So it has no impact on them.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, the events in Syria are spilling over to neighboring countries. We see what’s happening in Iraq, the explosions in Al-Rihaniye in Turkey and also in Lebanon. In Ersal, Tripoli, Hezbollah taking part in the fighting in Al-Qseir. How does Syria approach the situation in Lebanon, and do you think the Lebanese policy of dissociation is still applied or accepted?
President Assad: Let me pose some questions based on the reality in Syria and in Lebanon about the policy of dissociation in order not to be accused of making a value judgment on whether this policy is right or wrong. Let’s start with some simple questions: Has Lebanon been able to prevent Lebanese interference in Syria? Has it been able to prevent the smuggling of terrorists or weapons into Syria or providing a safe haven for them in Lebanon? It hasn’t; in fact, everyone knows that Lebanon has contributed negatively to the Syrian crisis. Most recently, has Lebanon been able to protect itself against the consequences of the Syrian crisis, most markedly in Tripoli and the missiles that have been falling over different areas of Beirut or its surroundings? It hasn’t. So what kind of dissociation are we talking about? For Lebanon to dissociate itself from the crisis is one thing, and for the government to dissociate itself is another. When the government dissociates itself from a certain issue that affects the interests of the Lebanese people, it is in fact dissociating itself from the Lebanese citizens. I’m not criticizing the Lebanese government - I’m talking about general principles. I don’t want it to be said that I’m criticizing this government. If the Syrian government were to dissociate itself from issues that are of concern to the Syrian people, it would also fail. So in response to your question with regards to Lebanon’s policy of dissociation, we don’t believe this is realistically possible. When my neighbor’s house is on fire, I cannot say that it’s none of my business because sooner or later the fire will spread to my house.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, what would you say to the supporters of the axis of resistance? We are celebrating the anniversary of the victory of the resistance and the liberation of south Lebanon, in an atmosphere of promises of victory, which Mr. Hasan Nasrallah has talked about. You are saying with great confidence that you will emerge triumphant from this crisis. What would you say to all this audience? Are we about to reach the end of this dark tunnel?
President Assad: I believe that the greatest victory achieved by the Arab resistance movements in the past years and decades is primarily an intellectual victory. This resistance wouldn’t have been able to succeed militarily if they hadn’t been able to succeed and stand fast against a campaign aimed at distorting concepts and principles in this region. Before the civil war in Lebanon, some people used to say that Lebanon’s strength lies in its weakness; this is similar to saying that a man’s intelligence lies in his stupidity, or that honor is maintained through corruption. This is an illogical contradiction. The victories of the resistance at different junctures proved that this concept is not true, and it showed that Lebanon’s weakness lies in its weakness and Lebanon’s strength lies in its strength. Lebanon’s strength is in its resistance and these resistance fighters you referred to. Today, more than ever before, we are in need of these ideas, of this mindset, of this steadfastness and of these actions carried out by the resistance fighters. The events in the Arab world during the past years have distorted concepts to the extent that some Arabs have forgotten that the real enemy is still Israel and have instead created internal, sectarian, regional or national enemies. Today we pin our hopes on these resistance fighters to remind the Arab people, through their achievements, that our enemy is still the same. As for my confidence in victory, if we weren’t so confident we wouldn’t have been able to stand fast or to continue this battle after two years of a global attack. This is not a tripartite attack like the one in 1956; it is in fact a global war waged against Syria and the resistance. We have absolute confidence in our victory, and I assure them that Syria will always remain, even more so than before, supportive of the resistance and resistance fighters everywhere in the Arab world.
Al-Manar: In conclusion, it has been my great honor to conduct this interview with Your Excellency, President Bashar al-Assad of the Syrian Arab Republic. Thank you very much. President Assad: You are welcome. I would like to congratulate Al-Manar channel, the channel of resistance, on the anniversary of the liberation and to congratulate the Lebanese people and every resistance fighter in Lebanon.
Al-Manar: Thank you.
More...
Description:
DAMASCUS, (SANA)-President Bashar al-Assad gave an interview to al-Manar TV broadcasted on Thursday,
Following is the full text of the interview:
Al-Manar: In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful. Assalamu Alaikum. Bloodshed in Syria continues unabated. This is the only constant over which there is little disagreement between those loyal to the Syrian state and those opposed to it. However, there is no common ground over the other constants and details two years into the current crisis. At the time, a great deal was said about the imminent fall of the regime. Deadlines were set and missed; and all those bets were lost. Today, we are here in the heart of Damascus, enjoying the hospitality of a president who has become a source of consternation to many of his opponents who are still unable to understand the equations that have played havoc with their calculations and prevented his ouster from the Syrian political scene. This unpleasant and unexpected outcome for his opponents upset their schemes and plots because they didn’t take into account one self-evident question: what happens if the regime doesn’t fall? What if President Assad doesn’t leave the Syrian scene? Of course, there are no clear answers; and the result is more destruction, killing and bloodshed. Today there is talk of a critical juncture for Syria. The Syrian Army has moved from defense to attack, achieving one success after another. On a parallel level, stagnant diplomatic waters have been shaken by discussions over a Geneva 2 conference becoming a recurrent theme in the statements of all parties. There are many questions which need answers: political settlement, resorting to the military option to decide the outcome, the Israeli enemy’s direct interference with the course of events in the current crisis, the new equations on the Golan Heights, the relationship with opponents and friends. What is the Syrian leadership’s plan for a way out of a complex and dangerous crisis whose ramifications have started to spill over into neighboring countries? It is our great pleasure tonight to put these questions to H. E. President Bashar al-Assad. Assalamu Alaikum, Mr. President.
President Assad: Assalamu Alaikum. You are most welcome in Damascus.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, we are in the heart of the People’s Palace, two and a half years into the Syrian crisis. At the time, the bet was that the president and his regime would be overthrown within weeks. How have you managed to foil the plots of your opponents and enemies? What is the secret behind this steadfastness?
President Assad: There are a number of factors are involved. One is the Syrian factor, which thwarted their intentions; the other factor is related to those who masterminded these scenarios and ended up defeating themselves because they do not know Syria or understand in detail the situation. They started with the calls of revolution, but a real revolution requires tangible elements; you cannot create a revolution simply by paying money. When this approach failed, they shifted to using sectarian slogans in order to create a division within our society. Even though they were able to infiltrate certain pockets in Syrian society, pockets of ignorance and lack of awareness that exist in any society, they were not able to create this sectarian division. Had they succeeded, Syria would have been divided up from the beginning. They also fell into their own trap by trying to promote the notion that this was a struggle to maintain power rather than a struggle for national sovereignty. No one would fight and martyr themselves in order to secure power for anyone else.
Al-Manar: In the battle for the homeland, it seems that the Syrian leadership, and after two and a half years, is making progress on the battlefield. And here if I might ask you, why have you chosen to move from defense to attack? And don’t you think that you have been late in taking the decision to go on the offensive, and consequently incurred heavy losses, if we take of Al-Qseir as an example.
President Assad: It is not a question of defense or attack. Every battle has its own tactics. From the beginning, we did not deal with each situation from a military perspective alone. We also factored in the social and political aspects as well - many Syrians were misled in the beginning and there were many friendly countries that didn’t understand the domestic dynamics. Your actions will differ according to how much consensus there is over a particular issue. There is no doubt that as events have unfolded Syrians have been able to better understand the situation and what is really at stake. This has helped the Armed Forces to better carry out their duties and achieve results. So, what is happening now is not a shift in tactic from defense to attack, but rather a shift in the balance of power in favor of the Armed Forces.
Al-Manar: How has this balance been tipped, Mr. President? Syria is being criticized for asking for the assistance of foreign fighters, and to be fully candid, it is said that Hezbollah fighters are extending assistance. In a previous interview, you said that there are 23 million Syrians; we do not need help from anyone else. What is Hezbollah doing in Syria?
President Assad: The main reason for tipping the balance is the change in people’s opinion in areas that used to incubate armed groups, not necessarily due to lack of patriotism on their part, but because they were deceived. They were led to believe that there was a revolution against the failings of the state. This has changed; many individuals have left these terrorist groups and have returned to their normal lives. As to what is being said about Hezbollah and the participation of foreign fighters alongside the Syrian Army, this is a hugely important issue and has several factors. Each of these factors should be clearly understood. Hezbollah, the battle at Al-Qseir and the recent Israeli airstrike – these three factors cannot be looked at in isolation of the other, they are all a part of the same issue. Let’s be frank. In recent weeks, and particularly after Mr. Hasan Nasrallah’s speech, Arab and foreign media have said that Hezbollah fighters are fighting in Syria and defending the Syrian state, or to use their words “the regime.” Logically speaking, if Hezbollah or the resistance wanted to defend Syria by sending fighters, how many could they send - a few hundred, a thousand or two? We are talking about a battle in which hundreds of thousands of Syrian troops are involved against tens of thousands of terrorists, if not more because of the constant flow of fighters from neighboring and foreign countries that support those terrorists. So clearly, the number of fighters Hezbollah might contribute in order to defend the Syrian state in its battle, would be a drop in the ocean compared to the number of Syrian soldiers fighting the terrorists. When also taking into account the vast expanse of Syria, these numbers will neither protect a state nor ‘regime.’ This is from one perspective. From another, if they say they are defending the state, why now? Battles started after Ramadan in 2011 and escalated into 2012, the summer of 2012 to be precise. They started the battle to “liberate Damascus” and set a zero hour for the first time, the second time and a third time; the four generals were assassinated, a number of individuals fled Syria, and many people believed that was the time the state would collapse. It didn’t. Nevertheless, during all of these times, Hezbollah never intervened, so why would it intervene now? More importantly, why haven’t we seen Hezbollah fighting in Damascus and Aleppo? The more significant battles are in Damascus and in Aleppo, not in Al-Qseir. Al-Qseir is a small town in Homs, why haven’t we seen Hezbollah in the city of Homs? Clearly, all these assumptions are inaccurate. They say Al-Qseir is a strategic border town, but all the borders are strategic for the terrorists in order to smuggle in their fighters and weapons. So, all these propositions have nothing to do with Hezbollah. If we take into account the moans and groans of the Arab media, the statements made by Arab and foreign officials – even Ban Ki-moon expressed concern over Hezbollah in Al-Qseir – all of this is for the objective of suppressing and stifling the resistance. It has nothing to do with defending the Syrian state. The Syrian army has made significant achievements in Damascus, Aleppo, rural Damascus and many other areas; however, we haven’t heard the same moaning as we have heard in Al-Qseir.
Al-Manar: But, Mr. President, the nature of the battle that you and Hezbollah are waging in Al-Qseir seems, to your critics, to take the shape of a safe corridor connecting the coastal region with Damascus. Consequently, if Syria were to be divided, or if geographical changes were to be enforced, this would pave the way for an Alawite state. So, what is the nature of this battle, and how is it connected with the conflict with Israel.
President Assad: First, the Syrian and Lebanese coastal areas are not connected through Al-Qseir. Geographically this is not possible. Second, nobody would fight a battle in order to move towards separation. If you opt for separation, you move towards that objective without waging battles all over the country in order to be pushed into a particular corner. The nature of the battle does not indicate that we are heading for division, but rather the opposite, we are ensuring we remain a united country. Our forefathers rejected the idea of division when the French proposed this during their occupation of Syria because at the time they were very aware of its consequences. Is it possible or even fathomable that generations later, we their children, are less aware or mindful? Once again, the battle in Al-Qseir and all the bemoaning is related to Israel. The timing of the battle in Al-Qseir was synchronized with the Israeli airstrike. Their objective is to stifle the resistance. This is the same old campaign taking on a different form. Now what’s important is not al-Qseir as a town, but the borders; they want to stifle the resistance from land and from the sea. Here the question begs itself - some have said that the resistance should face the enemy and consequently remain in the south. This was said on May 7, 2008, when some of Israel’s agents in Lebanon tried to tamper with the communications system of the resistance; they claimed that the resistance turned its weapons inwards. They said the same thing about the Syrian Army; that the Syrian Army should fight on the borders with Israel. We have said very clearly that our Army will fight the enemy wherever it is. When the enemy is in the north, we move north; the same applies if the enemy comes from the east or the west. This is also the case for Hezbollah. So the question is why is Hezbollah deployed on the borders inside Lebanon or inside Syria? The answer is that our battle is a battle against the Israeli enemy and its proxies inside Syria or inside Lebanon.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, if I might ask about Israel’s involvement in the Syrian crisis through the recent airstrike against Damascus. Israel immediately attached certain messages to this airstrike by saying it doesn’t want escalation or doesn’t intend to interfere in the Syrian crisis. The question is: what does Israel want and what type of interference?
President Assad: This is exactly my point. Everything that is happening at the moment is aimed, first and foremost, at stifling the resistance. Israel’s support of the terrorists was for two purposes. The first is to stifle the resistance; the second is to strike the Syrian air defense systems. It is not interested in anything else.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, since Israel’s objectives are clear, the Syrian state was criticized for its muted response. Everyone was expecting a Syrian response, and the Syrian government stated that it reserves the right to respond at the appropriate time and place. Why didn’t the response come immediately? And is it enough for a senior source to say that missiles have been directed at the Israeli enemy and that any attack will be retaliated immediately without resorting to Army command?
President Assad: We have informed all the Arab and foreign parties - mostly foreign - that contacted us, that we will respond the next time. Of course, there has been more than one response. There have been several Israeli attempted violations to which there was immediate retaliation. But these short-term responses have no real value; they are only of a political nature. If we want to respond to Israel, the response will be of strategic significance.
Al-Manar: How? By opening the Golan front, for instance?
President Assad: This depends on public opinion, whether there is a consensus in support of the resistance or not. That’s the question. Al-Manar: How is the situation in Syria now?
President Assad: In fact, there is clear popular pressure to open the Golan front to resistance. This enthusiasm is also on the Arab level; we have received many Arab delegations wanting to know how young people might be enrolled to come and fight Israel. Of course, resistance is not easy. It is not merely a question of opening the front geographically. It is a political, ideological, and social issue, with the net result being military action.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, if we take into account the incident on the Golan Heights and Syria’s retaliation on the Israeli military vehicle that crossed the combat line, does this mean that the rules of engagement have changed? And if the rules of the game have changed, what is the new equation, so to speak?
President Assad: Real change in the rules of engagement happens when there is a popular condition pushing for resistance. Any other change is short-term, unless we are heading towards war. Any response of any kind might only appear to be a change to the rules of engagement, but I don’t think it really is. The real change is when the people move towards resistance; this is the really dramatic change.
Al-Manar: Don’t you think that this is a little late? After 40 years of quiet and a state of truce on the Golan Heights, now there is talk of a movement on that front, about new equations and about new rules of the game?
President Assad: They always talk about Syria opening the front or closing the front. A state does not create resistance. Resistance can only be called so, when it is popular and spontaneous, it cannot be created. The state can either support or oppose the resistance, - or create obstacles, as is the case with some Arab countries. I believe that a state that opposes the will of its people for resistance is reckless. The issue is not that Syria has decided, after 40 years, to move in this direction. The public’s state of mind is that our National Army is carrying out its duties to protect and liberate our land. Had there not been an army, as was the situation in Lebanon when the army and the state were divided during the civil war, there would have been resistance a long time ago. Today, in the current circumstances, there are a number of factors pushing in that direction. First, there are repeated Israeli aggressions that constitute a major factor in creating this desire and required incentive. Second, the army’s engagement in battles in more than one place throughout Syria has created a sentiment on the part of many civilians that it is their duty to move in this direction in order to support the Armed Forces on the Golan.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, Benjamin Netanyahu said that Israel would not hesitate to attack Syria if it detected that weapons are being conveyed to Hezbollah in Lebanon. If Israel carried out its threats, I want a direct answer from you: what would Syria do?
President Assad: As I have said, we have informed the relevant states that we will respond in kind. Of course, it is difficult to specify the military means that would be used, that is for our military command to decide. We plan for different scenarios, depending on the circumstances and the timing of the strike that would determine which method or weapons.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, after the airstrike that targeted Damascus, there was talk about the S300 missiles and that this missile system will tip the balance. Based on this argument, Netanyahu visited Moscow. My direct question is this: are these missiles on their way to Damascus? Is Syria now in possession of these missiles?
President Assad: It is not our policy to talk publically about military issues in terms of what we possess or what we receive. As far as Russia is concerned, the contracts have nothing to do with the crisis. We have negotiated with them on different kinds of weapons for years, and Russia is committed to honoring these contracts. What I want to say is that neither Netanyahu’s visit nor the crisis and the conditions surrounding it have influenced arms imports. All of our agreements with Russia will be implemented, some have been implemented during the past period and, together with the Russians, we will continue to implement these contracts in the future.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, we have talked about the steadfastness of the Syrian leadership and the Syrian state. We have discussed the progress being achieved on the battlefield, and strengthening the alliance between Syria and the resistance. These are all within the same front. From another perspective, there is diplomatic activity stirring waters that have been stagnant for two and a half years. Before we talk about this and about the Geneva conference and the red lines that Syria has drawn, there was a simple proposition or a simple solution suggested by the former head of the coalition, Muaz al-Khatib. He said that the president, together with 500 other dignitaries would be allowed to leave the country within 20 days, and the crisis would be over. Why don’t you meet this request and put an end to the crisis?
President Assad: I have always talked about the basic principle: that the Syrian people alone have the right to decide whether the president should remain or leave. So, anybody speaking on this subject should state which part of the Syrian people they represent and who granted them the authority to speak on their behalf. As for this initiative, I haven’t actually read it, but I was very happy that they allowed me 20 days and 500 people! I don’t know who proposed the initiative; I don’t care much about names.
Al-Manar: He actually said that you would be given 20 days, 500 people, and no guarantees. You’ll be allowed to leave but with no guarantee whatsoever on whether legal action would be taken against you or not. Mr. President, this brings us to the negotiations, I am referring to Geneva 2. The Syrian government and leadership have announced initial agreement to take part in this conference. If this conference is held, there will be a table with the Syrian flag on one side and the flag of the opposition groups on the other. How can you convince the Syrian people after two and a half years of crisis that you will sit face to face at the same negotiating table with these groups?
President Assad: First of all, regarding the flag, it is meaningless without the people it represents. When we put a flag on a table or anywhere else, we talk about the people represented by that flag. This question can be put to those who raise flags they call Syrian but are different from the official Syrian flag. So, this flag has no value when it does not represent the people. Secondly, we will attend this conference as the official delegation and legitimate representatives of the Syrian people. But, whom do they represent? When the conference is over, we return to Syria, we return home to our people. But when the conference is over, whom do they return to - five-star hotels? Or to the foreign ministries of the states that they represent – which doesn’t include Syria of course - in order to submit their reports? Or do they return to the intelligence services of those countries? So, when we attend this conference, we should know very clearly the positions of some of those sitting at the table - and I say some because the conference format is not clear yet and as such we do not have details as to how the patriotic Syrian opposition will be considered or the other opposition parties in Syria. As for the opposition groups abroad and their flag, we know that we are attending the conference not to negotiate with them, but rather with the states that back them; it will appear as though we are negotiating with the slaves, but essentially we are negotiating with their masters. This is the truth, we shouldn’t deceive ourselves.
Al-Manar: Are you, in the Syrian leadership, convinced that these negotiations will be held next month?
President Assad: We expect them to happen, unless they are obstructed by other states. As far as we are concerned in Syria, we have announced a couple of days ago that we agree in principle to attend.
Al-Manar: When you say in principle, it seems that you are considering other options.
President Assad: In principle, we are in favour of the conference as a notion, but there are no details yet. For example, will there be conditions placed before the conference? If so, these conditions may be unacceptable and we would not attend. So the idea of the conference, of a meeting, in principle is a good one. We will have to wait and see.
Al-Manar: Let’s talk, Mr. President, about the conditions put by the Syrian leadership. What are Syria’s conditions?
President Assad: Simply put, our only condition is that anything agreed upon in any meeting inside or outside the country, including the conference, is subject to the approval of the Syrian people through a popular referendum. This is the only condition. Anything else doesn’t have any value. That is why we are comfortable with going to the conference. We have no complexes. Either side can propose anything, but nothing can be implemented without the approval of the Syrian people. And as long as we are the legitimate representatives of the people, we have nothing to fear.
Al-Manar: Let’s be clear, Mr. President. There is a lot of ambiguity in Geneva 1 and Geneva 2 about the transitional period and the role of President Bashar al-Assad in that transitional period. Are you prepared to hand over all your authorities to this transitional government? And how do you understand this ambiguous term?
President Assad: This is what I made clear in the initiative I proposed in January this year. They say they want a transitional government in which the president has no role. In Syria we have a presidential system, where the President is head of the republic and the Prime Minister heads the government. They want a government with broad authorities. The Syrian constitution gives the government full authorities. The president is the commander-in-chief of the Army and Armed Forces and the head of the Supreme Judicial Council. All the other institutions report directly to the government. Changing the authorities of the president is subject to changing the constitution; the president cannot just relinquish his authorities, he doesn\\\'t have the constitutional right. Changing the constitution requires a popular referendum. When they want to propose such issues, they might be discussed in the conference, and when we agree on something - if we agree, we return home and put it to a popular referendum and then move on. But for them to ask for the amendment of the constitution in advance, this cannot be done neither by the president nor by the government.
Al-Manar: Frankly, Mr. President, all the international positions taken against you and all your political opponents said that they don’t want a role for al-Assad in Syria’s future. This is what the Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal said and this is what the Turks and the Qataris said, and also the Syrian opposition. Will President Assad be nominated for the forthcoming presidential elections in 2014?
President Assad: What I know is that Saud al-Faisal is a specialist in American affairs, I don’t know if he knows anything about Syrian affairs. If he wants to learn, that’s fine! As to the desires of others, I repeat what I have said earlier: the only desires relevant are those of the Syrian people. With regards to the nomination, some parties have said that it is preferable that the president shouldn’t be nominated for the 2014 elections. This issue will be determined closer to the time; it is still too early to discuss this. When the time comes, and I feel, through my meetings and interactions with the Syrian people, that there is a need and public desire for me to nominate myself, I will not hesitate. However, if I feel that the Syrian people do not want me to lead them, then naturally I will not put myself forward. They are wasting their time on such talk.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, you mentioned the Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal. This makes me ask about Syria’s relationship with Saudi Arabia, with Qatar, with Turkey, particularly if we take into account that their recent position in the Arab ministerial committee was relatively moderate. They did not directly and publically call for the ouster of President Assad. Do you feel any change or any support on the part of these countries for a political solution to the Syrian crisis? And is Syria prepared to deal once more with the Arab League, taking into account that the Syrian government asked for an apology from the Arab League?
President Assad: Concerning the Arab states, we see brief changes in their rhetoric but not in their actions. The countries that support the terrorists have not changed; they are still supporting terrorism to the same extent. Turkey also has not made any positive steps. As for Qatar, their role is also the same, the role of the funder - the bank funding the terrorists and supporting them through Turkey. So, overall, no change. As for the Arab League, in Syria we have never pinned our hopes on the Arab League. Even in the past decades, we were barely able to dismantle the mines set for us in the different meetings, whether in the summits or in meetings of the foreign ministers. So in light of this and its recent actions, can we really expect it to play a role? We are open to everybody, we never close our doors. But we should also be realistic and face the truth that they are unable to offer anything, particularly since a significant number of the Arab states are not independent. They receive their orders from the outside. Some of them are sympathetic to us in their hearts, but they cannot act on their feelings because they are not in possession of their decisions. So, no, we do not pin any hopes on the Arab League.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, this leads us to ask: if the Arab environment is as such, and taking into account the developments on the ground and the steadfastness, the Geneva conference and the negotiations, the basic question is: what if the political negotiations fail? What are the consequences of the failure of political negotiations?
President Assad: This is quite possible, because there are states that are obstructing the meeting in principle, and they are going only to avoid embarrassment. They are opposed to any dialogue whether inside or outside Syria. Even the Russians, in several statements, have dampened expectations from this conference. But we should also be accurate in defining this dialogue, particularly in relation to what is happening on the ground. Most of the factions engaged in talking about what is happening in Syria have no influence on the ground; they don’t even have direct relationships with the terrorists. In some instances these terrorists are directly linked with the states that are backing them, in other cases, they are mere gangs paid to carry out terrorist activities. So, the failure of the conference will not significantly change the reality inside Syria, because these states will not stop supporting the terrorists - conference or no conference, and the gangs will not stop their subversive activities. So it has no impact on them.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, the events in Syria are spilling over to neighboring countries. We see what’s happening in Iraq, the explosions in Al-Rihaniye in Turkey and also in Lebanon. In Ersal, Tripoli, Hezbollah taking part in the fighting in Al-Qseir. How does Syria approach the situation in Lebanon, and do you think the Lebanese policy of dissociation is still applied or accepted?
President Assad: Let me pose some questions based on the reality in Syria and in Lebanon about the policy of dissociation in order not to be accused of making a value judgment on whether this policy is right or wrong. Let’s start with some simple questions: Has Lebanon been able to prevent Lebanese interference in Syria? Has it been able to prevent the smuggling of terrorists or weapons into Syria or providing a safe haven for them in Lebanon? It hasn’t; in fact, everyone knows that Lebanon has contributed negatively to the Syrian crisis. Most recently, has Lebanon been able to protect itself against the consequences of the Syrian crisis, most markedly in Tripoli and the missiles that have been falling over different areas of Beirut or its surroundings? It hasn’t. So what kind of dissociation are we talking about? For Lebanon to dissociate itself from the crisis is one thing, and for the government to dissociate itself is another. When the government dissociates itself from a certain issue that affects the interests of the Lebanese people, it is in fact dissociating itself from the Lebanese citizens. I’m not criticizing the Lebanese government - I’m talking about general principles. I don’t want it to be said that I’m criticizing this government. If the Syrian government were to dissociate itself from issues that are of concern to the Syrian people, it would also fail. So in response to your question with regards to Lebanon’s policy of dissociation, we don’t believe this is realistically possible. When my neighbor’s house is on fire, I cannot say that it’s none of my business because sooner or later the fire will spread to my house.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, what would you say to the supporters of the axis of resistance? We are celebrating the anniversary of the victory of the resistance and the liberation of south Lebanon, in an atmosphere of promises of victory, which Mr. Hasan Nasrallah has talked about. You are saying with great confidence that you will emerge triumphant from this crisis. What would you say to all this audience? Are we about to reach the end of this dark tunnel?
President Assad: I believe that the greatest victory achieved by the Arab resistance movements in the past years and decades is primarily an intellectual victory. This resistance wouldn’t have been able to succeed militarily if they hadn’t been able to succeed and stand fast against a campaign aimed at distorting concepts and principles in this region. Before the civil war in Lebanon, some people used to say that Lebanon’s strength lies in its weakness; this is similar to saying that a man’s intelligence lies in his stupidity, or that honor is maintained through corruption. This is an illogical contradiction. The victories of the resistance at different junctures proved that this concept is not true, and it showed that Lebanon’s weakness lies in its weakness and Lebanon’s strength lies in its strength. Lebanon’s strength is in its resistance and these resistance fighters you referred to. Today, more than ever before, we are in need of these ideas, of this mindset, of this steadfastness and of these actions carried out by the resistance fighters. The events in the Arab world during the past years have distorted concepts to the extent that some Arabs have forgotten that the real enemy is still Israel and have instead created internal, sectarian, regional or national enemies. Today we pin our hopes on these resistance fighters to remind the Arab people, through their achievements, that our enemy is still the same. As for my confidence in victory, if we weren’t so confident we wouldn’t have been able to stand fast or to continue this battle after two years of a global attack. This is not a tripartite attack like the one in 1956; it is in fact a global war waged against Syria and the resistance. We have absolute confidence in our victory, and I assure them that Syria will always remain, even more so than before, supportive of the resistance and resistance fighters everywhere in the Arab world.
Al-Manar: In conclusion, it has been my great honor to conduct this interview with Your Excellency, President Bashar al-Assad of the Syrian Arab Republic. Thank you very much. President Assad: You are welcome. I would like to congratulate Al-Manar channel, the channel of resistance, on the anniversary of the liberation and to congratulate the Lebanese people and every resistance fighter in Lebanon.
Al-Manar: Thank you.
61 Peaceful Anti-War protestors arrested at White House - 06Oct09 - English
61 peaceful protestors were arrested when they along with another few hundreds gathered in front of White House to protest against US Administration's absurd foreign policies. They demanded to talk...
61 peaceful protestors were arrested when they along with another few hundreds gathered in front of White House to protest against US Administration's absurd foreign policies. They demanded to talk to Obama because there has been no difference between his policies and that of Bush's. People say that they elected Obama in so that he can stop waging wars on other countries. BUT they are disappointed as the talks are to increase American troops in Afghanistan by 40,000. The Ninth year of Afghanistan invasion and killing innocent people is beginning.
The protestors were practicing their constitutional rights of 1st Admendment - freedom of speech. BUT they were arrested. Shame on the flag bearers of so-called Democracy!
More...
Description:
61 peaceful protestors were arrested when they along with another few hundreds gathered in front of White House to protest against US Administration's absurd foreign policies. They demanded to talk to Obama because there has been no difference between his policies and that of Bush's. People say that they elected Obama in so that he can stop waging wars on other countries. BUT they are disappointed as the talks are to increase American troops in Afghanistan by 40,000. The Ninth year of Afghanistan invasion and killing innocent people is beginning.
The protestors were practicing their constitutional rights of 1st Admendment - freedom of speech. BUT they were arrested. Shame on the flag bearers of so-called Democracy!
15 April: Solidarity Day with Bahrain Female Prisoners of Conscience - Arabic English
Neither in Egypt, nor in Tunisia were women assaulted during the uprisings that took place, even though many women participated and were active members in the revolutions and uprisings. As for...
Neither in Egypt, nor in Tunisia were women assaulted during the uprisings that took place, even though many women participated and were active members in the revolutions and uprisings. As for Bahrain, the Arab Gulf country which should respect the religion, dignity, culture of its women, put many of these in prison.
Hence, Ayatollah Sheikh Issa Ahmad Qassem called for a campaign in solidarity with Bahraini female prisoners for the following aims:
1- Draw international attention to the oppression the Bahraini people are subject to, particularly women.
2- Morally support the Bahraini oppressed people.
3- Defining the legitimate demands of the people most important of which is a constitutional kingdom and elected government.
4- Mobilizing international rights organizations towards the blatant violations of women's rights in Bahrain.
5- Mobilizing the international public opinion and international women's organizations concerned about prisoners of "expressing opinion".
In the same context, the Bahraini Opposition overseas issued a statement in which it said "In response to the multiple methods the Bahraini authority resorts to in order to repress the people and the popular protests in demand of their rights, the people and the opposition insist to continue their peaceful protests despite all the aggression practiced against them."
Particularly speaking about women, the Bahraini Opposition overseas added in its statement that alongside men, the women in Bahrain have stood up to the government demanding their rights, having in return to bear imprisonment, torture, and martyrdom at times. The statement further noted that despite all this aggression, the Bahraini free women are still steadfast and unyielding.
The Bahraini Opposition overseas, therefore "called on the women of the Arab Nation as well as the World, to stand in defense of the Bahraini oppressed women, by that declaring the 15tho f April a day of solidarity with the women of Bahrain under the slogan "Free Women of Bahrain"."
Also, the Opposition urged all women's rights organizations in its statement , whether Arab, Islamic, or international to declare a clear rejection of what the women in Bahrain is subject to, which falls into the category of the these organizations' legal, ethical, and humanitarian duties.
"Save the women of Bahrain...Save the free women in prisons", concluded the statement.
http://www.english.moqawama.org/essaydetails.php?eid=13903&cid=215
More...
Description:
Neither in Egypt, nor in Tunisia were women assaulted during the uprisings that took place, even though many women participated and were active members in the revolutions and uprisings. As for Bahrain, the Arab Gulf country which should respect the religion, dignity, culture of its women, put many of these in prison.
Hence, Ayatollah Sheikh Issa Ahmad Qassem called for a campaign in solidarity with Bahraini female prisoners for the following aims:
1- Draw international attention to the oppression the Bahraini people are subject to, particularly women.
2- Morally support the Bahraini oppressed people.
3- Defining the legitimate demands of the people most important of which is a constitutional kingdom and elected government.
4- Mobilizing international rights organizations towards the blatant violations of women's rights in Bahrain.
5- Mobilizing the international public opinion and international women's organizations concerned about prisoners of "expressing opinion".
In the same context, the Bahraini Opposition overseas issued a statement in which it said "In response to the multiple methods the Bahraini authority resorts to in order to repress the people and the popular protests in demand of their rights, the people and the opposition insist to continue their peaceful protests despite all the aggression practiced against them."
Particularly speaking about women, the Bahraini Opposition overseas added in its statement that alongside men, the women in Bahrain have stood up to the government demanding their rights, having in return to bear imprisonment, torture, and martyrdom at times. The statement further noted that despite all this aggression, the Bahraini free women are still steadfast and unyielding.
The Bahraini Opposition overseas, therefore "called on the women of the Arab Nation as well as the World, to stand in defense of the Bahraini oppressed women, by that declaring the 15tho f April a day of solidarity with the women of Bahrain under the slogan "Free Women of Bahrain"."
Also, the Opposition urged all women's rights organizations in its statement , whether Arab, Islamic, or international to declare a clear rejection of what the women in Bahrain is subject to, which falls into the category of the these organizations' legal, ethical, and humanitarian duties.
"Save the women of Bahrain...Save the free women in prisons", concluded the statement.
http://www.english.moqawama.org/essaydetails.php?eid=13903&cid=215
Missing in Pakistan - Documentary - Urdu - English
A heartbreaking documentary by filmmaker and journalist Ziad Zafar on the disappeared people in Pakistan. Timely and to the point. Points to the two major factors that determine Pakistani politics...
A heartbreaking documentary by filmmaker and journalist Ziad Zafar on the disappeared people in Pakistan. Timely and to the point. Points to the two major factors that determine Pakistani politics - the American geo-strategic interests and the politico-economic interests of the military establishment. Important to note that religious extremism and sectarianism in Pakistan have always been the function of these two factors. The American selfish interests in the region and the failure of political process since the establishment of Pakistan are the real causes behind religious extremism. Busharrafs war on terror is failing. This war is itself a form of and a cause of growing terrorism in the region. Those individuals involved in militant organizations and terrorist activities should be brought to justice. But it should be done through given constitutional and criminal procedures instead of extra-judicial kidnappings and killings. Because illegitimate and unpopular power has its own logic. It does not distinguish between one type of body from the other - one type of citizen from another - militant or otherwise - when it comes to the question of preserving itself. The history of dictatorships in Pakistan - military or democratic - provide plenty of examples where in the name of National Integrity Development Islamization and more recently Curbing Islamic Extremism and War on Terror the state has suppressed dissent liberties and freedom of its citizens. Notice the list of missing people at the end of the documentary. Recognize the backgrounds of people through their names. Are they only what the Pakistani state likes to call the Islamic Militants. Or the list also includes the Baloch the Muhajir the Pashtoon the Sunni the Shia the Liberal the Human Rights Activist and the Journalist.
More...
Description:
A heartbreaking documentary by filmmaker and journalist Ziad Zafar on the disappeared people in Pakistan. Timely and to the point. Points to the two major factors that determine Pakistani politics - the American geo-strategic interests and the politico-economic interests of the military establishment. Important to note that religious extremism and sectarianism in Pakistan have always been the function of these two factors. The American selfish interests in the region and the failure of political process since the establishment of Pakistan are the real causes behind religious extremism. Busharrafs war on terror is failing. This war is itself a form of and a cause of growing terrorism in the region. Those individuals involved in militant organizations and terrorist activities should be brought to justice. But it should be done through given constitutional and criminal procedures instead of extra-judicial kidnappings and killings. Because illegitimate and unpopular power has its own logic. It does not distinguish between one type of body from the other - one type of citizen from another - militant or otherwise - when it comes to the question of preserving itself. The history of dictatorships in Pakistan - military or democratic - provide plenty of examples where in the name of National Integrity Development Islamization and more recently Curbing Islamic Extremism and War on Terror the state has suppressed dissent liberties and freedom of its citizens. Notice the list of missing people at the end of the documentary. Recognize the backgrounds of people through their names. Are they only what the Pakistani state likes to call the Islamic Militants. Or the list also includes the Baloch the Muhajir the Pashtoon the Sunni the Shia the Liberal the Human Rights Activist and the Journalist.
0:47
|
France Passes Anti-Burqa/Niqab (Full Face Veil) Law - English
French lawmakers approve burqa ban
French lawmakers have ratified a legislation to prohibit women from wearing face-covering veils despite right activist saying such a law violates personal and...
French lawmakers approve burqa ban
French lawmakers have ratified a legislation to prohibit women from wearing face-covering veils despite right activist saying such a law violates personal and religious freedoms.
The Senate voted 246 to 1 in favor of the bill, which has already cleared the lower chamber, the National Assembly, reported AFP.
The law will come into effect if the Constitutional Council does not question its legality.
Muslims argue that the legislation is going to discriminates against France's Muslim population, which is already facing rising level of Islamophobia.
Once in place, the law will allow authorities to arrest and fine those women who defy the ban.
A woman who continues wearing veils will receive a fine of EUR 150 (USD 195) or a course of citizenship lessons. A man who forces a woman to go veiled will be fined EUR 30,000 and imprisonment.
France is home to the largest Muslim population among the 27 European Union member states. Nearly 10 percent of the 62 million people living in French is Muslim.
In June, members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) unanimously voted against any general ban against burqa or niqab in Europe, saying Muslim women should be free to choose their clothing.
Article Source: http://www.presstv.ir/detail/142540.html
More...
Description:
French lawmakers approve burqa ban
French lawmakers have ratified a legislation to prohibit women from wearing face-covering veils despite right activist saying such a law violates personal and religious freedoms.
The Senate voted 246 to 1 in favor of the bill, which has already cleared the lower chamber, the National Assembly, reported AFP.
The law will come into effect if the Constitutional Council does not question its legality.
Muslims argue that the legislation is going to discriminates against France's Muslim population, which is already facing rising level of Islamophobia.
Once in place, the law will allow authorities to arrest and fine those women who defy the ban.
A woman who continues wearing veils will receive a fine of EUR 150 (USD 195) or a course of citizenship lessons. A man who forces a woman to go veiled will be fined EUR 30,000 and imprisonment.
France is home to the largest Muslim population among the 27 European Union member states. Nearly 10 percent of the 62 million people living in French is Muslim.
In June, members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) unanimously voted against any general ban against burqa or niqab in Europe, saying Muslim women should be free to choose their clothing.
Article Source: http://www.presstv.ir/detail/142540.html
1:29
|
Scholar details US police brutality - 01Jul2010 - English
An Iranian-American university professor and senior political analyst, Kaveh Afrasiabi, has detailed US police brutality against him while in custody in Cambridge.
Speaking to Press TV in an...
An Iranian-American university professor and senior political analyst, Kaveh Afrasiabi, has detailed US police brutality against him while in custody in Cambridge.
Speaking to Press TV in an exclusive interview on Thurday, Afrasiabi said that police denied him his constitutional rights and racially discriminated against him.
More...
Description:
An Iranian-American university professor and senior political analyst, Kaveh Afrasiabi, has detailed US police brutality against him while in custody in Cambridge.
Speaking to Press TV in an exclusive interview on Thurday, Afrasiabi said that police denied him his constitutional rights and racially discriminated against him.
47:54
|
[12 May 2012]ديدار جمعى از مداحان سراسر كشور - Wiladat Hazrat Fatima - Farsi
Supreme Leader: Hijab Brings About Dignity for Women
12/05/2012
Ayatollah Khamenei the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution met today with a group of panegyrists. Speaking at the meeting,...
Supreme Leader: Hijab Brings About Dignity for Women
12/05/2012
Ayatollah Khamenei the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution met today with a group of panegyrists. Speaking at the meeting, which was held on the occasion of Mother\'s Day, His Eminence said that hijab brings about honor and dignity for women and stressed: \"Modesty brings about respect and dignity for women in society. For this reason, Islam should be appreciated for paying attention to the issue of hijab.\"
Ayatollah Khamenei called on everybody, especially Iranian women, to follow the path of the Infallible Imams (a.s.).
The Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution referred to the history of Iranian women\'s presence in different arenas since the Constitutional Movement and reiterated: \"This effective presence shows that women can be present in all arenas and fulfill their responsibilities while observing hijab. And the honorable mothers of our martyrs are clear examples in this regard.\"
Ayatollah Khamenei said that the enemies of Iran are trying to take advantage of the existing weaknesses and added that failure to observe hijab has destructive and permanent effects on society.
More...
Description:
Supreme Leader: Hijab Brings About Dignity for Women
12/05/2012
Ayatollah Khamenei the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution met today with a group of panegyrists. Speaking at the meeting, which was held on the occasion of Mother\'s Day, His Eminence said that hijab brings about honor and dignity for women and stressed: \"Modesty brings about respect and dignity for women in society. For this reason, Islam should be appreciated for paying attention to the issue of hijab.\"
Ayatollah Khamenei called on everybody, especially Iranian women, to follow the path of the Infallible Imams (a.s.).
The Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution referred to the history of Iranian women\'s presence in different arenas since the Constitutional Movement and reiterated: \"This effective presence shows that women can be present in all arenas and fulfill their responsibilities while observing hijab. And the honorable mothers of our martyrs are clear examples in this regard.\"
Ayatollah Khamenei said that the enemies of Iran are trying to take advantage of the existing weaknesses and added that failure to observe hijab has destructive and permanent effects on society.
13:33
|
[26 May 2012] Many young Egyptians reluctant to vote - English
Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood says its candidate Mohamed Morsi will face former Prime Minister Ahmed Shafiq in the country’s presidential run-off election.
Morsi is in the lead with 25.3...
Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood says its candidate Mohamed Morsi will face former Prime Minister Ahmed Shafiq in the country’s presidential run-off election.
Morsi is in the lead with 25.3 percent of the vote, followed by Shafiq with 24.9 percent. Official results from the electoral body are expected to be announced on Tuesday.
The two candidates will compete in a run-off election on June 16 and 17. Electoral commission officials said that turnout was around 43 percent over the two days of voting on Wednesday and Thursday.
Press TV has conducted an interview with Yahia Ghanem, editor at the al-Ahram newspaper, to hear his opinion on this issue. The following is a rough transcription of the interview.
Press TV: Trying to understand these results specially Shafiq he did not do that well in his campaigning. How did he come up to this second place, finish at this point which is not really finished, it is unofficial results, what is your reaction to that?
Ghanem: Well if you talk, if you ask about the reactions I believe that partly it was a shock for a lot of number of the Egyptians whereas it was a pleasant surprise of course for some others.
So I believe that as much as Egypt and the Egyptians have been showing strong signs of being united, a united house in their march towards democracy, when it comes to the results of the first round of the elections they started showing strong signs of a house divided in terms of this splinter between Shafiq which is considered to be a remnant of the former regime and Dr. [Morsi], the candidate of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Press TV: In terms of who came out to vote we are looking at two large majorities, 60 percent saying to be from the urban areas which are farmers and then of course we are looking at the percentage of the youth in the country which is said to be 50 percent below the age of 30. But it does not seem like these results are indicating that which some are saying the silent majority came out. Do you see it that way?
Ghanem: Say it again please.
Press TV: The silent majority, do you think they were the ones that came out, tilting some of the voting in terms of the results we are seeing right now?
Ghanem: I am not quite sure if I understood your question...
Press TV: The silent majority of Egyptians is what I am getting at, did they come out, the ones who did not come out to vote for the parliamentary elections maybe came out this time to vote?
Ghanem: Well, I believe that there was a large percentage of absence from the voters because everybody expected actually a higher percentage, everybody expected that the Egyptians would break the record that they scored during the first stage of the last parliamentary elections but unfortunately it did not happen.
And I believe that there are reasons behind such absence and such reluctance of that large number of voters to practice and to exercise the right in voting the first civilian elected president but I believe that a large number of the youth who actually participated and spot the revolution, also they were reluctant to participate in these elections and I observed that while I was touring the polling stations, I believe that there were reasons actually behind such reluctance, such as the way the military council ran the whole show during the last 16 months and specially running that presidential election show.
Press TV: And of course one of the biggest troubles and challenges Yahia Ghanem is the constitution and the presidential powers. When is that going to be resolved?
Ghanem: I believe we still have to go for quite a while after the elections to sort out this issue of the right in constitution and specially that issue of writing the constitution.
But personally speaking I believe that this issue have been made an issue by certain parties with interest to complicate things in Egypt because writing constitution is not that problem actually and they complicated the whole thing by inciting all different kinds of society, all the [structure] in society to claim the right of being represented in this committee and to share or to take part in writing the constitution. No constitutions in the world are being written that way.
It is up to the specialists, the lawmakers or the professors of constitutional law to write the constitution as in many or in all the countries in the world and then for the establishing committee to discuss and to review that draft constitution but of course it does not make any sense for all representatives of all the sectors of the society and the [structure] of the society to take part in writing the constitution.
It is funny and it is not true of course.
More...
Description:
Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood says its candidate Mohamed Morsi will face former Prime Minister Ahmed Shafiq in the country’s presidential run-off election.
Morsi is in the lead with 25.3 percent of the vote, followed by Shafiq with 24.9 percent. Official results from the electoral body are expected to be announced on Tuesday.
The two candidates will compete in a run-off election on June 16 and 17. Electoral commission officials said that turnout was around 43 percent over the two days of voting on Wednesday and Thursday.
Press TV has conducted an interview with Yahia Ghanem, editor at the al-Ahram newspaper, to hear his opinion on this issue. The following is a rough transcription of the interview.
Press TV: Trying to understand these results specially Shafiq he did not do that well in his campaigning. How did he come up to this second place, finish at this point which is not really finished, it is unofficial results, what is your reaction to that?
Ghanem: Well if you talk, if you ask about the reactions I believe that partly it was a shock for a lot of number of the Egyptians whereas it was a pleasant surprise of course for some others.
So I believe that as much as Egypt and the Egyptians have been showing strong signs of being united, a united house in their march towards democracy, when it comes to the results of the first round of the elections they started showing strong signs of a house divided in terms of this splinter between Shafiq which is considered to be a remnant of the former regime and Dr. [Morsi], the candidate of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Press TV: In terms of who came out to vote we are looking at two large majorities, 60 percent saying to be from the urban areas which are farmers and then of course we are looking at the percentage of the youth in the country which is said to be 50 percent below the age of 30. But it does not seem like these results are indicating that which some are saying the silent majority came out. Do you see it that way?
Ghanem: Say it again please.
Press TV: The silent majority, do you think they were the ones that came out, tilting some of the voting in terms of the results we are seeing right now?
Ghanem: I am not quite sure if I understood your question...
Press TV: The silent majority of Egyptians is what I am getting at, did they come out, the ones who did not come out to vote for the parliamentary elections maybe came out this time to vote?
Ghanem: Well, I believe that there was a large percentage of absence from the voters because everybody expected actually a higher percentage, everybody expected that the Egyptians would break the record that they scored during the first stage of the last parliamentary elections but unfortunately it did not happen.
And I believe that there are reasons behind such absence and such reluctance of that large number of voters to practice and to exercise the right in voting the first civilian elected president but I believe that a large number of the youth who actually participated and spot the revolution, also they were reluctant to participate in these elections and I observed that while I was touring the polling stations, I believe that there were reasons actually behind such reluctance, such as the way the military council ran the whole show during the last 16 months and specially running that presidential election show.
Press TV: And of course one of the biggest troubles and challenges Yahia Ghanem is the constitution and the presidential powers. When is that going to be resolved?
Ghanem: I believe we still have to go for quite a while after the elections to sort out this issue of the right in constitution and specially that issue of writing the constitution.
But personally speaking I believe that this issue have been made an issue by certain parties with interest to complicate things in Egypt because writing constitution is not that problem actually and they complicated the whole thing by inciting all different kinds of society, all the [structure] in society to claim the right of being represented in this committee and to share or to take part in writing the constitution. No constitutions in the world are being written that way.
It is up to the specialists, the lawmakers or the professors of constitutional law to write the constitution as in many or in all the countries in the world and then for the establishing committee to discuss and to review that draft constitution but of course it does not make any sense for all representatives of all the sectors of the society and the [structure] of the society to take part in writing the constitution.
It is funny and it is not true of course.
5:02
|
[15 June 2012] Egypt rev. continues through elections - English
[15 June 2012] Egypt rev. continues through elections - English
Egypt's Supreme Constitutional Court has ordered the country's parliament dissolved saying the legislative body's election about 6...
[15 June 2012] Egypt rev. continues through elections - English
Egypt's Supreme Constitutional Court has ordered the country's parliament dissolved saying the legislative body's election about 6 months ago was unconstitutional. The Supreme Constitutional Court ruled on Thursday that one-third of the parliamentary seats were "illegitimate." The court also ruled that the parliament-approved political isolation law is unconstitutional, allowing ousted dictator Hosni Mubarak's last premier Ahmad Shafiq to stay in the presidential runoff this weekend.
The Thursday rulings come just two days ahead of a tense presidential runoff between Shafiq and Muslim Brotherhood's candidate Mohammed Morsi. Following the decision, the ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) declared full legislative authority and said that, by Friday, it will announce a 100-person assembly that will write the country's new constitution.
Press TV has conducted an interview with Waleed el-Haddad, spokesman of Freedom and Justice Party, to hear his opinion on this issue. The video also offers the opinion of an additional guest: Ezzat Abu-Moustafa, chair of the Egyptian, Arab and British Cultural Forum.
More...
Description:
[15 June 2012] Egypt rev. continues through elections - English
Egypt's Supreme Constitutional Court has ordered the country's parliament dissolved saying the legislative body's election about 6 months ago was unconstitutional. The Supreme Constitutional Court ruled on Thursday that one-third of the parliamentary seats were "illegitimate." The court also ruled that the parliament-approved political isolation law is unconstitutional, allowing ousted dictator Hosni Mubarak's last premier Ahmad Shafiq to stay in the presidential runoff this weekend.
The Thursday rulings come just two days ahead of a tense presidential runoff between Shafiq and Muslim Brotherhood's candidate Mohammed Morsi. Following the decision, the ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) declared full legislative authority and said that, by Friday, it will announce a 100-person assembly that will write the country's new constitution.
Press TV has conducted an interview with Waleed el-Haddad, spokesman of Freedom and Justice Party, to hear his opinion on this issue. The video also offers the opinion of an additional guest: Ezzat Abu-Moustafa, chair of the Egyptian, Arab and British Cultural Forum.
Anger over Pakistani support-English
Pakistan has agreed to support the king against the protestors
ONE Middle Eastern intervention makes the headlines every day. The other barely rates a mention. The first is ostensibly aimed at...
Pakistan has agreed to support the king against the protestors
ONE Middle Eastern intervention makes the headlines every day. The other barely rates a mention. The first is ostensibly aimed at protecting civilians and at facilitating change, the second at safeguarding the status quo.
Libya’s Muammar Qadhafi has been told he must go. Bahrain’s ruling Al Khalifa family, on the other hand, must stay. Some Arabs, one could be forgiven for assuming, are worthier of democracy and civil rights than others.
Yet the degree of hypocrisy may not be as great as it seems. After all, while the future of Tunisia and Egypt remains unwritten, there can be little reason to doubt that the US and its allies would prefer to preserve the basic structures of the Ben Ali and Mubarak regimes, albeit with new figureheads and, if possible, less visible signs of oppression and the odd concession to pluralism.
From their point of view, the ideal outcome in Bahrain would be similar: a few nods in the direction of cosmetic reform to placate the restive segments of society, but not much more than that — and certainly nothing that could jeopardise Bahrain’s crucial strategic relationship with the US, especially its status as a home for the Fifth Fleet. The trouble, of course, is the impossibility of rearrangements that could be passed off as regime change.
At best the prime minister, in situ for four decades, could be replaced. But he is the king’s uncle, and even if he could be persuaded, without occasioning a family split, to step aside, his successor would inevitably be another Al Khalifa.
That US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton felt obliged earlier this month to mildly berate the regime in Manama for its transgressions against mostly peaceful protesters was obviously in large part a consequence of not wishing the contrast with western actions in Libya to seem too stark. It is highly unlikely that the decision by Saudi Arabia and the UAE to send in troops was taken without Washington’s imprimatur, given that both are effectively American satrapies in geo-strategic terms.
The foreign troops, which are officially supposed to guard strategic installations, rather than assist in ‘crowd control’, were evidently despatched under a Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) agreement dating back to Saddam Hussein’s neighbour-threatening rhetoric in 1990, which preceded the invasion of Kuwait. (His stance was thoroughly embarrassing at the time for oil-rich states that had during the previous decade supported Iraq in its war against Iran.)
That was, however, a joint defence pact among the Gulf potentates, to the effect that the violation of any GCC state’s sovereignty would be construed as aggression against all. Internal unrest did not figure in their calculations. Bahrain does not face any external threat, although there can be little doubt its emissaries have, in private discussions, conjured up the bogey of a threat from Iran.
Tehran’s domestic and foreign policies are often indefensible, but cables from Bahrain-based US diplomats over recent years, released by WikiLeaks, suggest it hasn’t lately been going out of its way to interfere in Bahrain. The Gulf state’s majority Shia population resents the almost exclusively Sunni regime because of irrefutable instances of discrimination rather than because of imprecations from Iran.
Given that at least 70 per cent of Bahrainis are Shias, it is hardly surprising that the majority of those who are economically disadvantaged fall in the same category. But their exclusion from privilege is not just a matter of demographics.
For instance, in order to keep out Bahraini Shias from the security forces, the government regularly recruits troops from abroad — notably from Yemen and Pakistan. And whereas the value of public representation can be judged by the fact that a royally nominated senate can overrule the elected lower house, even so the constitutional arrangements sanctioning the latter preclude the possibility of a Shia majority.
It inevitably follows that the monarchy’s supporters are mostly Sunni and its opponents mostly Shia, and even though the protests launched last month weren’t, on the face of it, sectarian in nature, casting them in that light tends to become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Bahrain does not differ from its Gulf neighbours only in a demographic sense: it’s also relatively less well endowed with natural resources, and therefore poorer in per capita terms. And it has been rocked by popular unrest more frequently.
Referring to an uprising in the mid-1950s, Prof Fred Halliday noted in Arabia Without Sultans: “The British realised that Bahrain had a more advanced and therefore dangerous political character than any other Gulf country. Because the oil revenue and level of production was so much lower than in Kuwait, they had been unable to turn the indigenous population into a parasitic class with an enslaved migrant proletariat underneath. Their response was intensified repression, and a tightening of control by the Al Khalifa family.”
Notwithstanding the differences, however, Bahrain’s neighbours realise that if the Al Khalifas are toppled the Al Sauds, Al Nahyans and Al Jabers could follow. The marriage of tribal feudalism and modern capitalism cannot forever endure, but efforts will no doubt be made to preserve it for as long as petroleum remains crucial to meeting western energy needs.
In terms of totalitarian tactics, the Al Sauds in particular are more than a match for Qadhafi and his sons. But don’t expect any push for democracy in Saudi Arabia. Pressure for often intangible and invariably more or less meaningless reforms is at far as it will go.
Bahrain falls in the same basket, essentially. Were the situation to become too fraught, the US would probably begin disentangling itself from its intricate defence links with the troubled kingdom. In the interests of advancing potentially democratic interests, it would make much more sense to do so right away. But don’t hold your breath.
The Yemeni regime, meanwhile, will also continue, for as long as it is feasible, to enjoy the benefit of the doubt. Syria, on the other hand, is a much more likely candidate for the Libyan treatment.
More...
Description:
Pakistan has agreed to support the king against the protestors
ONE Middle Eastern intervention makes the headlines every day. The other barely rates a mention. The first is ostensibly aimed at protecting civilians and at facilitating change, the second at safeguarding the status quo.
Libya’s Muammar Qadhafi has been told he must go. Bahrain’s ruling Al Khalifa family, on the other hand, must stay. Some Arabs, one could be forgiven for assuming, are worthier of democracy and civil rights than others.
Yet the degree of hypocrisy may not be as great as it seems. After all, while the future of Tunisia and Egypt remains unwritten, there can be little reason to doubt that the US and its allies would prefer to preserve the basic structures of the Ben Ali and Mubarak regimes, albeit with new figureheads and, if possible, less visible signs of oppression and the odd concession to pluralism.
From their point of view, the ideal outcome in Bahrain would be similar: a few nods in the direction of cosmetic reform to placate the restive segments of society, but not much more than that — and certainly nothing that could jeopardise Bahrain’s crucial strategic relationship with the US, especially its status as a home for the Fifth Fleet. The trouble, of course, is the impossibility of rearrangements that could be passed off as regime change.
At best the prime minister, in situ for four decades, could be replaced. But he is the king’s uncle, and even if he could be persuaded, without occasioning a family split, to step aside, his successor would inevitably be another Al Khalifa.
That US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton felt obliged earlier this month to mildly berate the regime in Manama for its transgressions against mostly peaceful protesters was obviously in large part a consequence of not wishing the contrast with western actions in Libya to seem too stark. It is highly unlikely that the decision by Saudi Arabia and the UAE to send in troops was taken without Washington’s imprimatur, given that both are effectively American satrapies in geo-strategic terms.
The foreign troops, which are officially supposed to guard strategic installations, rather than assist in ‘crowd control’, were evidently despatched under a Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) agreement dating back to Saddam Hussein’s neighbour-threatening rhetoric in 1990, which preceded the invasion of Kuwait. (His stance was thoroughly embarrassing at the time for oil-rich states that had during the previous decade supported Iraq in its war against Iran.)
That was, however, a joint defence pact among the Gulf potentates, to the effect that the violation of any GCC state’s sovereignty would be construed as aggression against all. Internal unrest did not figure in their calculations. Bahrain does not face any external threat, although there can be little doubt its emissaries have, in private discussions, conjured up the bogey of a threat from Iran.
Tehran’s domestic and foreign policies are often indefensible, but cables from Bahrain-based US diplomats over recent years, released by WikiLeaks, suggest it hasn’t lately been going out of its way to interfere in Bahrain. The Gulf state’s majority Shia population resents the almost exclusively Sunni regime because of irrefutable instances of discrimination rather than because of imprecations from Iran.
Given that at least 70 per cent of Bahrainis are Shias, it is hardly surprising that the majority of those who are economically disadvantaged fall in the same category. But their exclusion from privilege is not just a matter of demographics.
For instance, in order to keep out Bahraini Shias from the security forces, the government regularly recruits troops from abroad — notably from Yemen and Pakistan. And whereas the value of public representation can be judged by the fact that a royally nominated senate can overrule the elected lower house, even so the constitutional arrangements sanctioning the latter preclude the possibility of a Shia majority.
It inevitably follows that the monarchy’s supporters are mostly Sunni and its opponents mostly Shia, and even though the protests launched last month weren’t, on the face of it, sectarian in nature, casting them in that light tends to become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Bahrain does not differ from its Gulf neighbours only in a demographic sense: it’s also relatively less well endowed with natural resources, and therefore poorer in per capita terms. And it has been rocked by popular unrest more frequently.
Referring to an uprising in the mid-1950s, Prof Fred Halliday noted in Arabia Without Sultans: “The British realised that Bahrain had a more advanced and therefore dangerous political character than any other Gulf country. Because the oil revenue and level of production was so much lower than in Kuwait, they had been unable to turn the indigenous population into a parasitic class with an enslaved migrant proletariat underneath. Their response was intensified repression, and a tightening of control by the Al Khalifa family.”
Notwithstanding the differences, however, Bahrain’s neighbours realise that if the Al Khalifas are toppled the Al Sauds, Al Nahyans and Al Jabers could follow. The marriage of tribal feudalism and modern capitalism cannot forever endure, but efforts will no doubt be made to preserve it for as long as petroleum remains crucial to meeting western energy needs.
In terms of totalitarian tactics, the Al Sauds in particular are more than a match for Qadhafi and his sons. But don’t expect any push for democracy in Saudi Arabia. Pressure for often intangible and invariably more or less meaningless reforms is at far as it will go.
Bahrain falls in the same basket, essentially. Were the situation to become too fraught, the US would probably begin disentangling itself from its intricate defence links with the troubled kingdom. In the interests of advancing potentially democratic interests, it would make much more sense to do so right away. But don’t hold your breath.
The Yemeni regime, meanwhile, will also continue, for as long as it is feasible, to enjoy the benefit of the doubt. Syria, on the other hand, is a much more likely candidate for the Libyan treatment.
2:24
|
[23 July 2012] Pakistan Supreme Court takes up petitions against contempt law - English
[23 July 2012] Pakistan Supreme Court takes up petitions against contempt law - English
The Supreme Court has finally taken up 26 constitutional petitions seeking to strike down new contempt law...
[23 July 2012] Pakistan Supreme Court takes up petitions against contempt law - English
The Supreme Court has finally taken up 26 constitutional petitions seeking to strike down new contempt law which gives discriminatory immunity to Prime Minister, the President and other key public office holders from prosecution on contempt of court charges.
The petitioners pleaded before the Supreme Court that new law is designed to curtail the power of court to punish Prime Minister and other public office holder who are refusing to reopen money laundering cases of millions of dollars against President Asif Ali Zardari.
More...
Description:
[23 July 2012] Pakistan Supreme Court takes up petitions against contempt law - English
The Supreme Court has finally taken up 26 constitutional petitions seeking to strike down new contempt law which gives discriminatory immunity to Prime Minister, the President and other key public office holders from prosecution on contempt of court charges.
The petitioners pleaded before the Supreme Court that new law is designed to curtail the power of court to punish Prime Minister and other public office holder who are refusing to reopen money laundering cases of millions of dollars against President Asif Ali Zardari.
2:56
|
4:14
|
[16 Jan 2014] One student killed; several hurt in Cairo University clashes - English
In egypt, one student protester is killed and several others are injured in clashes with army supporters at the Cairo University\'s main campus.
In another incidence of violence in the capital,...
In egypt, one student protester is killed and several others are injured in clashes with army supporters at the Cairo University\'s main campus.
In another incidence of violence in the capital, a group of students attacked the administrative office\'s gates of the Ain el-Shams University. All this after a two-day constitutional referendum that was hoped to end the deadly clashes across the country. The vote was boycotted by supporters of Egypt\'s former president Mohamed Morsi and opponents of the government. Although vote-counting is still underway, some Egyptian officials have claimed the turnout has exceeded fifty percent of eligible voters.
More...
Description:
In egypt, one student protester is killed and several others are injured in clashes with army supporters at the Cairo University\'s main campus.
In another incidence of violence in the capital, a group of students attacked the administrative office\'s gates of the Ain el-Shams University. All this after a two-day constitutional referendum that was hoped to end the deadly clashes across the country. The vote was boycotted by supporters of Egypt\'s former president Mohamed Morsi and opponents of the government. Although vote-counting is still underway, some Egyptian officials have claimed the turnout has exceeded fifty percent of eligible voters.
2:57
|
Egyptians protest against military rule - 19 Nov 2011 - English
Hundreds of thousands of Protesters gathered in Tahrir Square in another Friday Demonstration dubbed " saving democracy and handing over power", the days demonstration comes after the...
Hundreds of thousands of Protesters gathered in Tahrir Square in another Friday Demonstration dubbed " saving democracy and handing over power", the days demonstration comes after the army-backed government proposed a supra-constitutional document which entailed privileges to the army regarding the privacy of its budget as well as stating that the army is protector of constitutional legitimacy, a clause many felt was paving the way for the army's intervention in state affairs even after handing power to a civilian government.
A large number of Egypt's politcal forces from far left to right participated in the demonstration but the overwhelming majority belonged to islamic factions, most prominently the Muslim brotherhood who said that they will continue adding pressure on the military council till the proposed constitutional document is withdrawn and specific dates of the transition of power to a civilian government is set in place for no later than mid 2012.
Another main demand for protesters was the immediate end to military trials for civilians. over 15,000 civilians have been trailed and are currently serving time in harsh military prisons, which is what propelled activists to launch a large campaign against these military tribunals that have been repeatedly used against those who oppose the ruling military council's political decisions.
many of those in the square felt that the there was a sense of unity among protesters despite different political affiliations, they criticized the military council's performance during the transitional period which they felt was extremely poor with ordinary egyptians still feeling economic difficulties and suffering from security conditions which have not been restored to normal since police were forced to withdraw off the streets in late january.
The proposal of the Supra-Constitutional document drove out hundreds of thousands of egyptians in protest in a seen reminiscent of the early days of the revolution and they say they will not leave till the document is withdrawn and a clear timetable to the transition of power is issued.
More...
Description:
Hundreds of thousands of Protesters gathered in Tahrir Square in another Friday Demonstration dubbed " saving democracy and handing over power", the days demonstration comes after the army-backed government proposed a supra-constitutional document which entailed privileges to the army regarding the privacy of its budget as well as stating that the army is protector of constitutional legitimacy, a clause many felt was paving the way for the army's intervention in state affairs even after handing power to a civilian government.
A large number of Egypt's politcal forces from far left to right participated in the demonstration but the overwhelming majority belonged to islamic factions, most prominently the Muslim brotherhood who said that they will continue adding pressure on the military council till the proposed constitutional document is withdrawn and specific dates of the transition of power to a civilian government is set in place for no later than mid 2012.
Another main demand for protesters was the immediate end to military trials for civilians. over 15,000 civilians have been trailed and are currently serving time in harsh military prisons, which is what propelled activists to launch a large campaign against these military tribunals that have been repeatedly used against those who oppose the ruling military council's political decisions.
many of those in the square felt that the there was a sense of unity among protesters despite different political affiliations, they criticized the military council's performance during the transitional period which they felt was extremely poor with ordinary egyptians still feeling economic difficulties and suffering from security conditions which have not been restored to normal since police were forced to withdraw off the streets in late january.
The proposal of the Supra-Constitutional document drove out hundreds of thousands of egyptians in protest in a seen reminiscent of the early days of the revolution and they say they will not leave till the document is withdrawn and a clear timetable to the transition of power is issued.
4:03
|
[18 Feb 2014] At least 5 protesters are killed, and 150 others injured in clashes with police in Kiev - English
Deadly clashes in the Ukrainian capital Kiev. At least five anti-government protesters are killed and scores of others-- including police officers-- are injured.
Reports say over 47 police...
Deadly clashes in the Ukrainian capital Kiev. At least five anti-government protesters are killed and scores of others-- including police officers-- are injured.
Reports say over 47 police officers and 150 protesters were injured in the clashes. Violence erupted as protesters gathered outside the parliament building. Opposition lawmakers unsuccessfully attempted to pass constitutional changes stripping President Viktor Yanukovych of some of his powers. A group of protesters also attacked the ruling-party headquarters. Russia blamed the policies of Western countries for the latest clashes between pro-E-U protesters and police. The E-U and the U-S on the one side and Russia on the other, have accused each other of interfering in Ukraine\'s internal affairs.
More...
Description:
Deadly clashes in the Ukrainian capital Kiev. At least five anti-government protesters are killed and scores of others-- including police officers-- are injured.
Reports say over 47 police officers and 150 protesters were injured in the clashes. Violence erupted as protesters gathered outside the parliament building. Opposition lawmakers unsuccessfully attempted to pass constitutional changes stripping President Viktor Yanukovych of some of his powers. A group of protesters also attacked the ruling-party headquarters. Russia blamed the policies of Western countries for the latest clashes between pro-E-U protesters and police. The E-U and the U-S on the one side and Russia on the other, have accused each other of interfering in Ukraine\'s internal affairs.
15:33
|
A documentary on American detainee - English
A man held without charges since 2002 has committed suicide at the Guantanamo detention center, US military officials have revealed.
Yemeni national Muhammad Ahmad Abdallah Salih was found...
A man held without charges since 2002 has committed suicide at the Guantanamo detention center, US military officials have revealed.
Yemeni national Muhammad Ahmad Abdallah Salih was found "unresponsive and not breathing" when guards checked his cell Monday night, US Southern Command spokesman Jose Ruiz said in a statement.
A prison physician pronounced the man dead after efforts to resuscitate him had failed.
A man found innocent and subsequently released from Guantanamo Bay last year expounded on the situation at the notorious detention center in an interview with Press TV earlier in 2009.
Binyam Mohamed -- a British citizen arrested in Pakistan in 2002 on suspicion of plotting a string of bomb blast in the US -- said that during the five years he spent at the detention center he was surreptitiously "tortured in medieval ways".
"It is still difficult for me to believe that I was abducted, hauled from one country to the next and tortured in medieval ways. While I want to recover and put it all as far in the past as I can, I also know I have an obligation to the people who still remain in those torture chambers," he said.
This is not the first time a Guantanamo detainee has ended his life. In a coordinated act of protest, three Guantanamo detainees hanged themselves with their sheets on June 10, 2006. Another prisoner killed himself in May 2007 by hanging himself with a noose made from bed linens.
The death is expected to cause a new wave of criticism against the military prison, which Amnesty International calls the "the gulag of our times".
"The cost of keeping Guantanamo open could not be clearer at a time like this, both for the men there and for the perception of the US in the world," says the Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents Guantanamo prisoners in habeas corpus cases.
Although US President Barack Obama has ordered an end to the 'harsh interrogation' program launched by the Bush administration, the fates of the detainees who await trials remain uncertain
www.presstv.com
More...
Description:
A man held without charges since 2002 has committed suicide at the Guantanamo detention center, US military officials have revealed.
Yemeni national Muhammad Ahmad Abdallah Salih was found "unresponsive and not breathing" when guards checked his cell Monday night, US Southern Command spokesman Jose Ruiz said in a statement.
A prison physician pronounced the man dead after efforts to resuscitate him had failed.
A man found innocent and subsequently released from Guantanamo Bay last year expounded on the situation at the notorious detention center in an interview with Press TV earlier in 2009.
Binyam Mohamed -- a British citizen arrested in Pakistan in 2002 on suspicion of plotting a string of bomb blast in the US -- said that during the five years he spent at the detention center he was surreptitiously "tortured in medieval ways".
"It is still difficult for me to believe that I was abducted, hauled from one country to the next and tortured in medieval ways. While I want to recover and put it all as far in the past as I can, I also know I have an obligation to the people who still remain in those torture chambers," he said.
This is not the first time a Guantanamo detainee has ended his life. In a coordinated act of protest, three Guantanamo detainees hanged themselves with their sheets on June 10, 2006. Another prisoner killed himself in May 2007 by hanging himself with a noose made from bed linens.
The death is expected to cause a new wave of criticism against the military prison, which Amnesty International calls the "the gulag of our times".
"The cost of keeping Guantanamo open could not be clearer at a time like this, both for the men there and for the perception of the US in the world," says the Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents Guantanamo prisoners in habeas corpus cases.
Although US President Barack Obama has ordered an end to the 'harsh interrogation' program launched by the Bush administration, the fates of the detainees who await trials remain uncertain
www.presstv.com
2:02
|
[24 Dec 2013] Fears of Presidential Vacuum High in Lebanon - English
Lebanese President Michel Suleiman is urging rival political factions to ensure the needed quorum in parliament for the election of Lebanon\\\'s next president.Suleiman\\\'s six-year-term expires...
Lebanese President Michel Suleiman is urging rival political factions to ensure the needed quorum in parliament for the election of Lebanon\\\'s next president.Suleiman\\\'s six-year-term expires in May 2014 and is preceded by a two-month constitutional period.
Lebanon\\\'s first man has also kicked off talks with Lebanese rival factions in a bid to help Prime-Minister Designate \\\"Tammam Salam\\\" form a cabinet line-up prior to the two-month constitutional period. The cabinet line-up formation however has been in limbo for the past 9 months namely due to the Saudi-backed March 14 Bloc\\\'s boycott of parliamentary sessions citing Hezbollah\\\'s intervention in Syria as a pretext. The Saudi-backed March 14th Bloc is now calling for a neutral line-up while the Hezbollah-led March 8th is calling for an all-embracing cabinet while rejecting a De-Facto one. The proposal of a neutral cabinet has also been slammed by Lebanese Druze Leader Walid Jumblat who warned it would be a \\\"leap into the unknown\\\". Meanwhile, the Free Patriotic Movement has accused the March 14th Bloc of paving the way for a presidential vacuum through the continued boycott of parliamentary sessions dubbing the movement\\\'s obstruction of government institutions as part of instructions taken from their regional allies pre-Geneva II talks. The Free Patriotic Movement MP also highlighted what he described as an alarming pledge by Riyadh\\\'s ambassador to London who vowed continued military and financial support for the foreign-backed groups fighting in Syria even if Saudi Arabia goes it alone. The MP warned the March 14th Bloc of following their Saudi ally\\\'s footsteps as well. Though Lebanon\\\'s President has vowed a smooth transition of power rebuffing any attempt to extend his mandate, fears of a vacuum at the presidential post are simmering in Beirut for their grave consequences on Lebanon. Lebanese leaders are warning that the presidential vacuum added to the cabinet limbo would tow the country into security, political and constitutional chaos.
More...
Description:
Lebanese President Michel Suleiman is urging rival political factions to ensure the needed quorum in parliament for the election of Lebanon\\\'s next president.Suleiman\\\'s six-year-term expires in May 2014 and is preceded by a two-month constitutional period.
Lebanon\\\'s first man has also kicked off talks with Lebanese rival factions in a bid to help Prime-Minister Designate \\\"Tammam Salam\\\" form a cabinet line-up prior to the two-month constitutional period. The cabinet line-up formation however has been in limbo for the past 9 months namely due to the Saudi-backed March 14 Bloc\\\'s boycott of parliamentary sessions citing Hezbollah\\\'s intervention in Syria as a pretext. The Saudi-backed March 14th Bloc is now calling for a neutral line-up while the Hezbollah-led March 8th is calling for an all-embracing cabinet while rejecting a De-Facto one. The proposal of a neutral cabinet has also been slammed by Lebanese Druze Leader Walid Jumblat who warned it would be a \\\"leap into the unknown\\\". Meanwhile, the Free Patriotic Movement has accused the March 14th Bloc of paving the way for a presidential vacuum through the continued boycott of parliamentary sessions dubbing the movement\\\'s obstruction of government institutions as part of instructions taken from their regional allies pre-Geneva II talks. The Free Patriotic Movement MP also highlighted what he described as an alarming pledge by Riyadh\\\'s ambassador to London who vowed continued military and financial support for the foreign-backed groups fighting in Syria even if Saudi Arabia goes it alone. The MP warned the March 14th Bloc of following their Saudi ally\\\'s footsteps as well. Though Lebanon\\\'s President has vowed a smooth transition of power rebuffing any attempt to extend his mandate, fears of a vacuum at the presidential post are simmering in Beirut for their grave consequences on Lebanon. Lebanese leaders are warning that the presidential vacuum added to the cabinet limbo would tow the country into security, political and constitutional chaos.
0:42
|
[17 Jan 2014] Anti regime demonstrators hold massive pro democracy rally in Bahrain - English
In Bahrain, pro-democracy protesters take to the streets in the capital Manama calling for a political solution to the crisis-hit country.
Protesters took part in a huge rally dubbed, NO TO...
In Bahrain, pro-democracy protesters take to the streets in the capital Manama calling for a political solution to the crisis-hit country.
Protesters took part in a huge rally dubbed, NO TO DICTATORSHIP, YES TO DEMOCRACY. Their demand is Bahrain be governed based on the will and rights of the people. The protesters say their rights cited in the Constitution have been violated by the regime. The demonstrators have pledged to continue their protests until their constitutional rights are restored and justice prevails. Bahrain has been hit with almost daily pro-democracy rallies since February 2011. The regime has responded with a heavy-handed crackdown.
More...
Description:
In Bahrain, pro-democracy protesters take to the streets in the capital Manama calling for a political solution to the crisis-hit country.
Protesters took part in a huge rally dubbed, NO TO DICTATORSHIP, YES TO DEMOCRACY. Their demand is Bahrain be governed based on the will and rights of the people. The protesters say their rights cited in the Constitution have been violated by the regime. The demonstrators have pledged to continue their protests until their constitutional rights are restored and justice prevails. Bahrain has been hit with almost daily pro-democracy rallies since February 2011. The regime has responded with a heavy-handed crackdown.
2:05
|
[22 Dec 2013] Egypt anti coup alliance boycotts Jan. constitutional referendum - English
In Egypt, an alliance of Islamic groups called anti-coup alliance has finally made its widely-expected announcement about the constitutional referendum slated for January.
The alliance was formed...
In Egypt, an alliance of Islamic groups called anti-coup alliance has finally made its widely-expected announcement about the constitutional referendum slated for January.
The alliance was formed following the July\'s ouster of former president Mohamed Morsi --- a move which it sees as a military coup. In its long-awaited announcement, the alliance said it had weighed the option of rallying for a No-vote, but finally decided to go for a boycott. The alliance said it\'s against the referendum, because it will be held by a government which it says has killed and detained many people following Morsi\'s ouster.
More...
Description:
In Egypt, an alliance of Islamic groups called anti-coup alliance has finally made its widely-expected announcement about the constitutional referendum slated for January.
The alliance was formed following the July\'s ouster of former president Mohamed Morsi --- a move which it sees as a military coup. In its long-awaited announcement, the alliance said it had weighed the option of rallying for a No-vote, but finally decided to go for a boycott. The alliance said it\'s against the referendum, because it will be held by a government which it says has killed and detained many people following Morsi\'s ouster.
18:46
|
[08 July 13] Egypt on the brink of civil war - English
Supporters and opponents of Egypt\'s deposed President Mohamed Morsi have remained on the streets, holding protests as tensions continue to rise across the country. Morsi\'s supporters on Sunday...
Supporters and opponents of Egypt\'s deposed President Mohamed Morsi have remained on the streets, holding protests as tensions continue to rise across the country. Morsi\'s supporters on Sunday held marches to Rabia al-Adawiya Square and Al-Nahda Square close to Cairo University, demanding his return to power. Anti-Morsi demonstrators gathered in Cairo\'s iconic Liberation Square and around the presidential palace. On July 3, General Sisi announced that President Morsi was no longer in office.
The chief justice of Egypt\'s Supreme Constitutional Court, Adli Mansour, was sworn in as interim president of Egypt on July 4. Strong Egypt Party leader Abdel Moneim Abul Fotouh has called on the interim president to step down. Growing differences among political parties have delayed the nomination of an interim prime minister in the North African country. In this edition of The Debate we take a look at the latest twists and turns out of Egypt.
More...
Description:
Supporters and opponents of Egypt\'s deposed President Mohamed Morsi have remained on the streets, holding protests as tensions continue to rise across the country. Morsi\'s supporters on Sunday held marches to Rabia al-Adawiya Square and Al-Nahda Square close to Cairo University, demanding his return to power. Anti-Morsi demonstrators gathered in Cairo\'s iconic Liberation Square and around the presidential palace. On July 3, General Sisi announced that President Morsi was no longer in office.
The chief justice of Egypt\'s Supreme Constitutional Court, Adli Mansour, was sworn in as interim president of Egypt on July 4. Strong Egypt Party leader Abdel Moneim Abul Fotouh has called on the interim president to step down. Growing differences among political parties have delayed the nomination of an interim prime minister in the North African country. In this edition of The Debate we take a look at the latest twists and turns out of Egypt.
24:56
|
[11 July 2012] Where the new Egypt is headed - News Analysis - English
[11 July 2012] Where the new Egypt is headed - News Analysis - English
Tension is building in Egypt as the Supreme Constitutional Court suspends a presidential decree reinstating the dissolved...
[11 July 2012] Where the new Egypt is headed - News Analysis - English
Tension is building in Egypt as the Supreme Constitutional Court suspends a presidential decree reinstating the dissolved parliament.
President Mohammed Morsi had ordered lawmakers to get to work and the chamber held a brief session on Tuesday.
The reinstatement of parliament is being seen as the first confrontation between Egypt's new president and the country's powerful military.
This edition of News Analysis asks where the new Egypt is headed.
More...
Description:
[11 July 2012] Where the new Egypt is headed - News Analysis - English
Tension is building in Egypt as the Supreme Constitutional Court suspends a presidential decree reinstating the dissolved parliament.
President Mohammed Morsi had ordered lawmakers to get to work and the chamber held a brief session on Tuesday.
The reinstatement of parliament is being seen as the first confrontation between Egypt's new president and the country's powerful military.
This edition of News Analysis asks where the new Egypt is headed.