Kaveh Parsa
به زبان فارسی
PICTORY
LATEST MUSIC
SEARCH
Reza Pahlavi: "The Challenge Of Implementing Democracy And Human Rights In Iran"
29-Mar-2010
Speech by Reza Pahlavi at The International Society Of Human Rights - Bonn, Germany
Saturday, March 27th, 2010
I am indeed honored and glad to be with you tonight. Let me first acknowledge and thank Mr. Martin Lessenthin for his kind introduction, and the International Society of Human Rights for inviting me to this conference.
My first and fundamental observation has been and continues to be this: the relentless pursuit of human rights is the essence of democracy. And, without democracy, human rights cannot, by definition, prevail.
My vision of a future Iran is thus inseparable from these two interdependent ideals and principles. Before I offer my views about how we could attain this goal, allow me to first share my thoughts on the current state of affairs in my homeland.
Since the establishment of the clerical regime in Iran, both democracy and human rights have been grossly compromised. Not only did the people not gain the political freedom, which some may have thought would be attained as a result of the “Islamic Revolution”, but sadly they ended up losing practically all of the social freedoms which had been attained and enjoyed for a long time, particularly since the advent of the Constitutional Revolution at the turn of the 20th century.
One of the immediate questions most people – Iranians and foreigners alike – have pondered upon and asked throughout the years is: Does the factor of religion play a crucial part in Iran’s current state of human rights abuses and lack of transparent democracy? The simple truth and ultimate answer is: Yes. However, the explanation is not so simple. In fact, it is one of the most complex issues faced by a Middle-Eastern, predominantly Moslem society, which aspires to the aforementioned goals of democracy and human dignity while suffocating under an obscurantist and totalitarian, clerical dictatorship.
Even in the most liberal and democratic societies – East and West – religion plays a role and has a place. The problem starts, however, when religion is politicized into a radical ideology, one which allows the “church” or “clergymen” to interfere in the affairs of the state, and ultimately becomes a theocracy, and actually assumes governance, in the name of such ideology and the self-serving interpretation of God’s law and rule on earth.
When one looks at Ayatollah Khomeini’s vision of an Islamic Government, one realizes that it actually had little to do with the traditional thinking of the Shi’ite establishment. I say this in the sense that his concept of the “Velayate Faghih” (Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists) has in effect violated at least two of the most cardinal principles of the Shi’ite faith. The first being that, the only time divine rule could be envisaged to have domain over us on Earth is upon the reappearance of the 12th Imam, who is considered a “Ma’soum” (or non-sinner). Until then, it is not the role of the clerics to govern society in the name of religion. The second being the principle of “Takassore Maraje’”, or the plurality of sources of emulation, in other words multiple high ranking clerical leaders, as opposed to a single source such as the Pope in Catholicism.
There is no question that these tenants of the faith were indeed violated by Ayatollah Khomeini and his supporters. This also explains why most traditional clerics opposed this new interpretation and ideology and subsequently remained outside the newly established so called system, leaving a few to take the helm of this modern day theocracy.
Hence, what ensued was the imposition of an absolutist vision of like-minded radical Islamists, leaving most of our society outside their “in-house circle”, and considering all those who objected to their ideology as blasphemers and God opposing infidels. As such, the regime has arbitrarily discriminated against women, ethnic communities, religious minorities, intellectuals, students, workers, and even men of the same cloth!
But this vision was really not meant for Iran and Iranians alone. In fact Khomeini thought to use Iran as a launching pad for the exportation of his vision beyond our borders and attain a regional hegemony with himself at the helm of a modern day Shi’ite Caliphate. This venomous, radical ideology has since been implemented by the regime’s surrogates around the globe while using Iran’s resources at the expense of the people of Iran themselves. It is understandable that the threat of a terrorist-sponsoring regime attaining a nuclear weapon of mass destruction has been the predominant concern of the free world in recent years.
I need not remind this distinguished audience of the details of the systematic violation of human rights in Iran throughout these sad years, nor do I need to inform you of what you already know about the absence of political freedom. All this has been thoroughly documented by numerous human rights organizations over the course of the last three decades, including Amnesty International, The Bouroumand Foundation, The Center for Human Rights Documentation and numerous other independent and trustworthy organizations. The United Nations is also fully aware of the high number of Iranian refugees, often living in dismal conditions in neighboring countries and elsewhere.
2009 was one of the most challenging years for millions of my compatriots – a year during which the world witnessed the most flagrant violations of both political as well as human rights of our citizens. But last year was not the exception! Sadly it has been the rule over the last 30 years. This time again, when the people attempted to seek yet another way to soften the regime while demanding their basic rights, they were met with a swift and unforgiving crackdown.
Before I go any further, allow me to draw your attention to three of the most pressing and egregious human rights situations involving my compatriots today. I call upon the world’s democracies and advocates of human rights everywhere to focus attention on the longest suffering political prisoner in Iran, Mr. Amir Entezam—who even though he is not currently in prison—because he has refused to sign the regime’s “tobeh nameh” or “decleration of guilt and repentence” is in virtual prison with no freedoms. Also noteworthy is the case of Ayatollah Bouroujerdi, who because of his belief in separation of mosque & state, is in prison—in dire conditions. It is imperative for the world community to shine a bright light on this holy man’s plight and put pressure on the regime in Tehran on his behalf. And finally the fate of tens of thousands of refugees: including journalists and bloggers and other innocents---join us in calling on the United Nations to recognize their status as political refugees & provide them with such protections & supports that only that international body can—and do so with urgency.
Few would argue today that the thought of reforming this regime, whether it be a domestic attempt or a foreign expectation, has proven to be unrealistic and unattainable. Why? Because the very nature of this regime, the very essence of its existence, is in direct conflict and diametrically opposed to the liberal principles of democracy as we understand it and the principles of human rights. Its survival depends on denying what the people of Iran demand. I have said all along, so long as this regime remains in power, Iran will not reverse its course.
Can the situation change in Iran, despite the regime? My answer is: Definitely. It is only a matter of time. However, my concern is for this to happen in the short term, and at minimal further cost to a citizenry that has already paid far too much with lost lives, lost opportunities, lost dignity.
Let me offer you now my vision of Iran’s future and the path I propose for its implementation. In light of the limited time I have with you today, I will only discuss the broader issues.
I believe Iranians need to give careful consideration to three predominantly important questions:
1. What is the alternative to this regime, in terms of a political system?
2. How would their rights be upheld and safeguarded under this new system? And,
3. Would this be in conflict with their faith?
In addressing the first question, I would argue history has repeatedly proven to us that a clear separation between religion and state is imperative in order to have the right circumstances for democratic governance. I would, therefore, emphasize the imperative of the “secular” nature of a future democratic system. I would further add the constitution of said democracy should, in my view, be based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This comprehensive document has established standards and principles to which I would refer in addressing all of our social, cultural, religious and political concerns.
As mentioned in the beginning, without a fully accountable democratic system, these principles would be hard to implement. But, it is not just a matter of understanding the need for this alternative. It takes a great deal of commitment and investment by each and every citizen to attain this goal.
This brings me to the second question. Would such an investment usher in a system which would indeed safeguard people’s rights? Here, allow me to offer my observation of a critical point which may have been somewhat unappreciated throughout our history. It is the fact that, as a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural society, I truly believe we Iranians have in fact two kinds of identities: one national and the other ethnic. Throughout the centuries, Iran’s national identity was the predominant factor in the preservation of our culture and civilization. Our great poet Ferdowsi is but one wonderful example of how our sense of identity has been deeply embedded in our collective psyche. However, I would add that we should also recognize the importance of the diverse ethnic and religious identities and the preservation of these cultures and faiths as well. Whether from the outside looking in or whether we introvert and self-observe as we move forward, to view Iranians as a monolithic people would be a gross mistake.
Persia has been for centuries the cradle of a broad mosaic of ethnicities and cultures, living peacefully with each other. As such Iran’s territorial integrity has been preserved, in great part on the basis and willingness of its own people. Beyond the overall political repression, the persistent discrimination of the current regime against many groups has caused great deals of concern and uproar. This is a factor that may threaten the very same territorial integrity of Iran as I just mentioned, should the status quo prevail.
Think of it this way, when a Kurdish or Balouch Sunni Moslem faces discrimination by the current Shi’ia regime, for example, by denying him the right to erect a Sunni mosque, is this justice? When an Iranian Jew or Bahai has been persecuted, simply because of his faith, is this freedom? When a woman has half the rights or voice of a man, is this equality?
I have had the great good fortune of having travelled throughout my homeland during my youth, and around the world during these years in exile. I have come to the conclusion that there are some universal aspirations among human beings, regardless of their nationality, gender, faith, ethnicity or culture. The most important is equality under the law; the guarantee that no citizen would have fewer rights than another under any pretext, and further he or she would have the liberty to believe in any political view point they choose, practice a faith they wish, and so on and so forth…
Simply stated, without such rights, such incentives, why would a citizen be willing to give his utmost to the service of his homeland, or for that matter even be willing to be part of his community instead of opting out for a different community where such rights exist?
It is precisely for this reason I put before you the premise that, without upholding such human rights, there is no democracy. Therefore, in my vision of a future Iran, I would urge my fellow compatriots to commit to a vigilant and diligent upholding of these fundamental principles. We have to be pro-active as citizens, invest ourselves fully in carrying out our civic duties, and not rely solely on the government.
It is critically important to realize it is not sufficient to simply rely on the apparatus of state and a constitution. It is imperative to nurture and strengthen a civil society in order to further assist the implementation and preservation of democratic institutions and mechanisms that serve the citizenry, such as labor unions, free press, and NGOs.
I would also emphasize the constant replenishment of such ideals and measures by relying on the single most important factor: education. It is our first and best weapon against obscurantism, fanaticism, bigotry, racism, and other sinister beliefs – this is true of all societies and cultures. After all, enlightenment was the natural outcome of the dark period of obscurantism, last witnessed during the Christian inquisition in Europe. This is why I am confident that Iran is today the cradle of a post – this time Islamic inquisition, renaissance, and the youth of today have demonstrated their bold desire to attain it by bravely sacrificing their lives for the sake of liberty. But is this a struggle against religion, some may think or argue? This brings me to the third question. Would a change in Iran’s political system be compatible or coexist with faith?
The ruling clerics have repeatedly accused those of us striving for a secular alternative of leading a campaign against religion. This is, of course, not true. On the contrary, I would argue that it is in fact in the interest of religion and the clergy itself to have a separation of religion from government. Many of our high-ranking, non-governmental clergymen have attested to this fact for many years. Since the advent of Islam in Iran, the biggest harm done, not only to people, but to the faith itself, has been under this so-called Islamic regime – which I frankly prefer to call the anti-Islamic regime!
Today, our traditional clerics lament about their loss of reverence and empty mosques. Interestingly enough, for a regime that has been chanting “Death to America” from its inception, they must be at a loss to explain why Islam is the fastest growing religion in the US, while many Iranians are turning their backs to it in Iran? I think the answer is obvious. The American Constitution and Bill of Rights values and protects the right of its citizens to freedom of religion under a political system which observes the separation of church and state. The clerical regime in Iran and its constitution obviously does not separate mosque from state, thereby rendering both institutions lacking sorely in meeting the very real needs of the citizenry in spirituality or services. Why do so many persecuted or threatened Iranians – and for that matter other nationalities – seek asylum or refuge in European democracies? Because the secular democracies of Europe offer the opportunity for experiencing a more dignified human existence, a democratic forum and a voice and the freedom to practice your faith whatever it may be. How come persecuted individuals from different countries have yet to seek asylum or refuge in The Islamic Republic of Iran, even persecuted Moslems, unless you count members of the Taliban or Al Qaida fleeing justice?
I believe the great majority of Iranians are no longer influenced by the desperate rhetoric of a regime that has lost both its political and religious legitimacy. Instead, they believe, as I do, that we should move beyond this regime and secure our aspiration to a secular, democratic system and a government which will guarantee all that this regime has denied us as a nation.
Having said all this, we must remain mindful of another dynamic, beyond what we as Iranian citizens have to contemplate and do, which plays an important role in relation to the overall evolution of our country’s situation. I am referring to the role of the international community, particularly that of western democracies. Campaigns of non-violent civil disobedience in many countries were ultimately successful as a result of explicit support from the free world. Today, Iranians expect, and I might add deserve, the same degree of commitment and support from democratic societies. Specifically, we expect the world to realize that the central issue for us is not the peripheral so called “nuclear issue”, but in fact the question of human rights and political freedom, and lack thereof in Iran.
While for many years, many western governments would – in the name of ‘real-politik’ and economic interests – brush this pivotal issue of human rights and democracy in Iran under the rug, they can no longer be indifferent and allow it to be ignored. Beyond what respective governments could or should do, the people-to-people relationship is just as important, if not more. By this I mean that Iranians could benefit from more overt expressions of solidarity by people organized under different structures the world over. For example, support from labor unions for Iranians workers in the event strikes can be organized; or support from foreign NGO’s to Iranians NGO’s to bring special attention to the plight of political prisoners and give them financial support to help them with their medical and legal expenses; or technological assistance to circumvent Internet “blocks” and cyber spying of the regime, and exposing entities or companies who, despite such a deplorable climate, continue to do business with Iran while hurting the people – Nokia & Siemens being the most recent and most egregious examples; or by putting pressure on those politicians who still insist on “talking with Tehran” while reducing this to a simple nuclear negotiation – as though leaders who sanction the rape and murder of their own children can be trusted to enter in to reliable agreements. Special funds and foundations are already in place, and more could be set up to implement important international activities in support of the Iranian people. Such an investment by the free world would help expedite a win-win outcome. There is no question that change will have to come at the hand of the Iranian people. But the cost could be heavily reduced as a result of the active participation of the international community. As Dr. Martin Luther King has said: “In the end we will forget the words of our enemies, but we will remember the silence of our friends.”
In closing, let me reiterate democracy and human rights for Iran is not just a slogan; it is our unique hope for salvation and the fundamental element which will bring long term political stability as well as put our nation back on the track of modernity, progress and prosperity. Iranians have come a long way, particularly in this last century. We have paid a heavy price while learning valuable lessons. As such, we are stronger as a society and perhaps clearer in our collective vision of a better future.
I place my faith and hope in today’s generation of the young and brave sons and daughters of Iran; a generation which not only understands the values of democracy, liberty and human dignity, but is also willing to pay the price for it; a generation which recognizes the importance of respect for diverse views and endorses tolerance and pluralism; a generation which understands that only by defending the individual or collective rights of all can one hope to have his or her own protected. Today, Iran does not lack the knowledge or the tools in the sense of both its human and natural resources. I am confident the vision I shared with you tonight, which is also shared by millions of my compatriots, will soon be attained. It is, however, through an unwavering commitment to the ideals I have enumerated tonight that we will guarantee its survival and perpetuity.
I leave you this evening with the certain knowledge that this first revolution of the 21st century, this “Twitter Revolution”, is an epic struggle for human rights and dignity waged by my compatriots. This is a battle for the soul of a nation; a nation credited with the first ever documented Declaration of Human Rights, dating back to the time of Cyrus the Great, the replica of which adorns the Great Hall of the United Nations. This struggle will end with the Iranian people reclaiming their rightful place, as the leaders they were some 3000 years ago and first appreciated the significance of the rights of each and every human being. As a Persian poem’s says: “The end of a black night is white.”
| Recently by Kaveh Parsa | Comments | Date |
|---|---|---|
گفتگوی پیام یزدیان با سیروس آموزگار بمناسبت درگذشت داریوش همایون | - | Jan 29, 2011 |
| Reza Phalavi Meets with the Kurdish National Congress of North America (KNC-NA) | 2 | Aug 05, 2010 |
| Dr Mossadegh, Dr Fatemi & General Rahimi would turn in their Graves!! | 11 | Aug 03, 2010 |
RECENT COMMENTS
IRANIANS OF THE DAY
| Person | About | Day |
|---|---|---|
| نسرین ستوده: زندانی روز | Dec 04 | |
| Saeed Malekpour: Prisoner of the day | Lawyer says death sentence suspended | Dec 03 |
| Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day | Iterview with mother | Dec 02 |
| احسان نراقی: جامعه شناس و نویسنده ۱۳۰۵-۱۳۹۱ | Dec 02 | |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day | 46 days on hunger strike | Dec 01 |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Graffiti | In Barcelona | Nov 30 |
| گوهر عشقی: مادر ستار بهشتی | Nov 30 | |
| Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day | Activist denied leave and family visits for 1.5 years | Nov 30 |
| محمد کلالی: یکی از حمله کنندگان به سفارت ایران در برلین | Nov 29 | |
| Habibollah Golparipour: Prisoner of the day | Kurdish Activist on Death Row | Nov 28 |
Speaking of a realistic
by benross on Tue Apr 06, 2010 03:38 AM PDTSpeaking of a realistic approach, the interim government that replaces IRI is assigned by the king (proposed by the organization). It can not be the result of an election, because it is there to restore freedom. If freedom was already there, then what it was fighting for?!
On the other point, as you noted I'm technically right and millions of people (%98 according the referendum of 30 years ago) are wrong. We go from there!
benross
by jamshid on Mon Apr 05, 2010 09:50 PM PDT"And if we don't get to that point? Then what?"
"Then nothing. What's the point of saying anything if it doesn't go anywhere? "
The point of saying anything is to change course and try something new that maybe could get us to that point.
Regarding your three points:
"A referendum between the legitimate constitution and the IRI constitution."
Technically speaking you are correct, but realistically speaking, how do you deal with the huge number of people who today consider both versions illegitimate (regardless of whehter they are right or wrong)? What we need today besides organization is a realistic approach taylored to our today's needs.
"A transition government assigned by the king to restore freedom of expression"
You meant to say assigned by the will of the people, correct? The king's role would only be to support that assignment, not to give it. If so, then I agree, otherwise, we have some serious disagreements!
I agree with your third point.
Jamshid
by benross on Mon Apr 05, 2010 07:52 PM PDTAnd if we don't get to that point? Then what?
Then nothing. What's the point of saying anything if it doesn't go anywhere? I do understand your frustration. This is for lack of organization for opposition to IRI. Something that I basically started writing in IC with that in mind. Without any organization with clear mandate, anything we say is in the air. If it does comfort you, I should remind you that in the question period in Bonn, that I saw the video here in IC, RP did mention that THE FUTURE CONSTITUTION OF IRAN IN MY VIEW SHOULD INCLUDE THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS.
Now, to get to that 'future constitution', we need a plan, a clear agenda and goal, and an organization. This is where we should focus our thoughts.
You do realize, that no matter how advanced, progressist and democratic your goals are, if they are not approved and implemented in a DEMOCRATIC process, it will become utterly undemocratic, if not unworkable. Reza Pahlavi is saying loud and clear what he wants in the FUTURE constitution. But I will be the first to revolt if he single handedly change the constitution we have NOW. That would be a total disregard to democratic process.
We have to unite around three basic goals. A referendum between the legitimate constitution and the IRI constitution. A transition government assigned by the king to restore freedom of expression, freedom of association, and enforce the security of the population, in preparation for an election for a constituent assembly to ratify the future constitution. A constitution that hopefully endorse what his majesty is hoping for by the will of people, meaning the inclusion of the charter of rights.
But if we don't organize, talk is talk as it has been for the past 30 years.
benross
by jamshid on Mon Apr 05, 2010 06:55 PM PDT"He can not add charter of human right to his legal duties -among other things you proclaim- because the constitution doesn't allow him to do so. You are effectively asking the monarch of Iran to take decisions that only a 'ruler monarch' can take, with disregard to his obligations and its limitations. He will not do that. "
So I correctly understood, RP's role today is basically limited in doing nothing at all except giving speeches?
"When we get to the point to change the constitution in our agenda, you bring on your ideas, along everybody else."
And if we don't get to that point? Then what? I hope you can see the flaw in your argument. In order to get to that point, does he not need to do something at least a little different than in the past 30 years?
MM
by benross on Mon Apr 05, 2010 12:05 PM PDTOkay. I leave it to his excellency to respond since I have no contact with him whatsoever. I wish better luck for you. But I really don't think you understood what I said.
اعلاحضرت همایون شاهنشاه ایران؛ خواهشمندم کتبی اعلام فرمایید.
MMMon Apr 05, 2010 11:24 AM PDT
OK, benross and others,
I just came back and saw your comments to the request for amendments. Since you ignored the main issues and hung on to RP(II)'s titles as your reply, I hope you approve my titles for RP(II) this time around, and excuse my Farsi spelling.
Nonetheless, the issues remain, otherwise, there is no guarantee that RP(II) will assume the Peacock Throne, the 1906 constitution will be restored as is and we will be back to 1953.
So, again, based on the speech in this blog and others, RP(II) will either declare in writing that the following policies will be implemented by the Pahlavi dynasty OR that the following amendments have been added to the 1906 constitution:
Article xxx: implementation of the UN charter of the human rights …………..
Article xxx+1: Support for a policy of separation of religion and the government……………
Article xxx+2: The future secular government of Iran will be elected by the people and the decision making in the day-to-day affairs as well as foreign policies will remain with the elected officials, while monarchy will assume a tashrifaati role.
benross,
I hope that you will not tell me that I have no right to ask questions nor do requests from his Excellency, the Shah of Iran! Secondly, I have said my piece and since you, Kaveh and Darius are not representatives of his Excellency, the Shah of Iran, there is no point in us arguing back and forth passed each other, and I just hope that RP(II) will hear me out.
Thanks.
" I don't quite understand what is expected of him to do"
by David ET on Mon Apr 05, 2010 12:53 AM PDTIf I get some time this month, I will write a blog answering your question.
I think the Crown Prince has
by benross on Sun Apr 04, 2010 01:04 PM PDTI think the Crown Prince has made a strong case for separation of church and state. This is what he believes and always supported. I don't quite understand what is expected of him to do.
David
by Kaveh Parsa on Sun Apr 04, 2010 12:33 PM PDTis this a history of the revolution?!!
My reading of the 400 word section that you refer to, is that in a 4000 word speech in a HR gathering in Germany, he is validating his argument in favour of secularism for a forign audience by highlighting the contraditions in the "Velayat Faghih" system, with HR priniciples & religious freedom.
darius
by David ET on Sun Apr 04, 2010 08:51 AM PDT"I think you are simply twisting the words and writing a 500 words essay to validate your intellect mind!"
I have no idea what you are talking about, I posted part of speech of Reza Pahlavi about Khoemeni, something about past that Kaveh did not find in his speech!
Mr.David
by darius on Sun Apr 04, 2010 08:38 AM PDTThis is simply amazing to assume Khomeini was a thinker .
He was man of no substance, he was a" Dahati " that the freak of history gave him a chance to become a tool for the commis and Shah
opponents. He was a pure ignorant and no one but those ignorant
and tunnel vision people followed him.
I think you are simply twisting the words and writing a 500 words essay to validate your intellect mind!
Kaveh
by David ET on Sun Apr 04, 2010 08:10 AM PDTHere:
"When one looks at Ayatollah Khomeini’s vision of an Islamic Government, one realizes that it actually had little to do with the traditional thinking of the Shi’ite establishment. I say this in the sense that his concept of the “Velayate Faghih” (Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists) has in effect violated at least two of the most cardinal principles of the Shi’ite faith. The first being that, the only time divine rule could be envisaged to have domain over us on Earth is upon the reappearance of the 12th Imam, who is considered a “Ma’soum” (or non-sinner). Until then, it is not the role of the clerics to govern society in the name of religion. The second being the principle of “Takassore Maraje’”, or the plurality of sources of emulation, in other words multiple high ranking clerical leaders, as opposed to a single source such as the Pope in Catholicism.
There is no question that these tenants of the faith were indeed violated by Ayatollah Khomeini and his supporters. This also explains why most traditional clerics opposed this new interpretation and ideology and subsequently remained outside the newly established so called system, leaving a few to take the helm of this modern day theocracy.
Hence, what ensued was the imposition of an absolutist vision of like-minded radical Islamists, leaving most of our society outside their “in-house circle”, and considering all those who objected to their ideology as blasphemers and God opposing infidels. As such, the regime has arbitrarily discriminated against women, ethnic communities, religious minorities, intellectuals, students, workers, and even men of the same cloth!
But this vision was really not meant for Iran and Iranians alone. In fact Khomeini thought to use Iran as a launching pad for the exportation of his vision beyond our borders and attain a regional hegemony with himself at the helm of a modern day Shi’ite Caliphate. This venomous, radical ideology has since been implemented by the regime’s surrogates around the globe while using Iran’s resources at the expense of the people of Iran themselves. It is understandable that the threat of a terrorist-sponsoring regime attaining a nuclear weapon of mass destruction has been the predominant concern of the free world in recent years."
ناتور دشت
benrossSun Apr 04, 2010 09:21 AM PDT
You are not the 'others' I'm talking about. You are the perpetual loser. Stay there with your crowd.
Since I am not MM, I must be the others...
by ناتور دشت on Sat Apr 03, 2010 11:56 AM PDTIt's a wise move. When you find out your leader lacks all the qualities for being, or becoming a leader; simply make him a monarch, a prince, a king to be. I'm sure you gonna send him the bill later.
MM & others
by benross on Sat Apr 03, 2010 11:47 AM PDTNo no no MM. You -along many monarchists I might add- completely missed the point, although well intentioned.
Over the years, Reza Pahlavi called himself 'Reza Pahlavi', 'human rights activists', 'an Iranian citizen'... anything BUT the 'Crown Prince'. And you, along many others, completely missed the rational behind it.
Reza Pahlavi is not the monarch of 'monarchists'. He is the monarch of Iran. He could rally monarchists and organize them from day one, for lack of which he was often accused of lack of leadership -and not only by ardent monarchists- but by almost everybody, including his ardent enemies.
The issue for RP, is that monarchy is either for the whole nation or for nobody. There can't be a political organization specifically advocating monarchy, as opposed to other political organizations specifically advocating the opposite. This defies the notion of monarchy itself, at least the way RP sees it, and I must add I am an ardent defendant.
Reza Pahlavi is the monarch of Iran, not the monarchists. Because the constitution said so. He can not add charter of human right to his legal duties -among other things you proclaim- because the constitution doesn't allow him to do so. You are effectively asking the monarch of Iran to take decisions that only a 'ruler monarch' can take, with disregard to his obligations and its limitations. He will not do that. Although it is somewhat ironic that those who are arch enemies of a monarch as a 'ruler' are effectively asking him to 'rule'!
Reza Pahlavi is the monarch of Iran, based on our only legitimate constitution. When we get to the point to change the constitution in our agenda, you bring on your ideas, along everybody else.
If I ever fault Reza Pahlavi in his policies, is exactly because he was not as successful to transfer his idea of his position and his role to the public as he should have been.
Kaveh - official Monarchist statement signed by RP(II) + contact
by MM on Sat Apr 03, 2010 10:43 AM PDTAn official Monarchist statement signed by RP(II): Based on the speech in this blog, RP(II) will either declare that the following policies will be implemented by Pahlavi Monarchists OR that the following amendments have been added to the 1906 constitution:
Article xxx: implementation of the UN charter of the human rights …………..
Article xxx+1: Support for a policy of separation of religion and the government……………
Article xxx+2: The future secular government of Iran will be elected by the people and the decision making in the day-to-day affairs as well as foreign policy will be left to the elected officials while monarchy will assume a tashrifaati role.
I have talked to several people and maybe RP(II) answers to you or DK, but he has not done it to any one that I know.
MM,
by Kaveh Parsa on Sat Apr 03, 2010 09:21 AM PDTWhat constitutes official Monarchist statement if RP’s statements & speeches don’t?
I am sure RP has repeatedly stated that nobody speaks for him & he does not have any official representative, other than his own office. I have not seen any claims by DK, Benross, or other enthusiastic supporters to claim otherwise.
As for my self, I am just a supporter and nothing more!
RP’s website has all his necessary contact details (email, Facebook, Twitter, etc), as well as all his speeches, statements & interviews in several languages. I know of a few people who have received responses to their enquiries from him.
Thanks
David
by Kaveh Parsa on Sat Apr 03, 2010 08:26 AM PDT" In his speech he talked about history of revolution etc "
I have gone through the speech again, and have to say I really don't know what your are referring to?!!
"but PLEASE stop asking people to think like you!!"
Were did I ask people to think like I do?
I pointed out your point of view (by quoting you) about moving on from the past. I didn't know the past means only the history of the revolution and not before!!
Your complaint about the Speigel interview was that he did not answer the questions about his father and that demonstrates his lack of commitment to Human Rights.
I referenced a previous (recent) interview with the BBC, in which he was quite explicit about problems during his fathers rule. I also highlighted his acknowledgment in the Speigel interview, that it is difficult for him to criticise his father on a "personal level".
"we are different and have the RIGHT to have different views"
I agree, and I expressed my different point of view. Does responding to your opinion show my sensitivity about "my prince, king, etc"? Do you expect your views to go unchallenged? Who is sensitive?
Lets move on.....
Kaveh
by David ET on Fri Apr 02, 2010 10:32 PM PDTIn his speech he talked about history of revolution etc and I said should move on and focus on present. That was a speech prepared by him that he talked about others.
The other was an interview that question were asked from him related to his father (not others) and I said he did not answer some questions.
One has nothing to do with another.
If you think he did or shouldnt have thats fine, thats your view and I respect that but PLEASE stop asking people to think like you!!
Look guys, obviously some of you are so sensitive about a human being, your crown prince, king etc...that as soon as someone gives their opinion about him, you get upset and forget that we are different and have the RIGHT to have different views.
Now if you or anyone think unity means leaving own views aside and saying nothing whatsoever , then you have a totally different understanding.
You on one hand say that , you should not be expected to leave your preferences, etc aside for the sake of unity, which makes sense and is respected but at the same time you expect others to think the same as you do about RP or you question their unity.
Unity is around common and shared thoughts not the opposite.
If you expect me to shut up and say nothing, then you have totally unrealistic expectations , just as I do not expect the same from you.
You see many parties in democarties who unite for same cause but still maintain their beliefs. One has nothing to do with another.
Kaveh, actions like declarations, amendments….. speak loudler
by MM on Fri Apr 02, 2010 09:30 PM PDTThanks for finding the remaining paragraphs in RP(II)’s interview. But, that just goes to show us that words tend to get lost in time. But, actions speak more loudly; Actions like:
* Declarations
* Legally binding findings
* Amendments to the 1906 constitution
*…..
Personally speaking, we all have formed opinions on MRP, and RP(I) was even a worse dictator than MRP. So be it.... But looking forward, RP(II) wants to claim the Peacock Throne if and when he returnes to Iran, and the Monarchists still speak about restoring the 1906 constitution. So, it is important for all of us to know how RP(II) views the past years and how he would want to sit at the throne as the next king of Iran. He can talk all he wants, but nothing speaks louder than the actions that I noted above on:
1. If the Monarchists want to restore the 1906 constitution, how would he fix the loopholes that drifted his father and RP(I) to be dictators, in writing?
2. With the 1906 constitution at hand, what are the guarantees that insure a democratic path, in writing? (Army loyalty?)
3. Declare / amend / …. in writing.
Based on the speech in this blog, let's start with an official Monarchist statement that the declaration of human rights is now amended to the 1906 constitution. Also, amended in writing are separation of religion and the government, and the future secular government of Iran will be elected.
4. And finally, we have been arguing about what RP(II) is thinking about through Darius Kadivar, benross and others. While I know that they are enthusiastic supporters of RP(II), I am not sure if they are official representatives of RP(II). I certainly would like more direct interactions with his official representative, and especially with RP(II) himself. Wouldn't you? If they are official representatives, please say so.
Thanks.
Dear David,
by Kaveh Parsa on Fri Apr 02, 2010 05:05 PM PDTقسمتی دیگر از گفتگو رضا پهلوی با اشپیگل:
س: آيا شما هرگز از پدرتان درباره حکومتش انتقاد کرديد؟
ج: تنها موردی که من امکان داشتم بتوانم نوعی بحث رو در رو با پدرم پيش ببرم در پايان زندگی وی و در تابستان ۷۹ بود که ما از يک کشور به کشور ديگر میرفتيم. اما وی از نظر جسمی بسيار ضعيف شده بود وو در ژوييه ۱۹۸۰ درگذشت. مشکل بود که بتوان يک گفتگوی عميق را با او پيش برد. تازه من آن زمان اين اطلاعاتی را که در طول سی سال گذشته از گروههای مختلف هموطنانم درباره حکومت وی به دست آوردهام، نداشتم. برای هر پسری دشوار است با انتقاداتی که به پدرش وارد میشود، کنار بيايد. و ا گر پدر شما، شاه ايران باشد، چه بسيار دشوارتر
RP does not choose the questions that are put to him by journalists. This interview was entirely about his father and RP openly acknowledges his difficulty (as a son) in criticising his father's rule on a personal level.
In his interview with BBC Persian a few months ago, which was also mostly about his father, his answer to whether there were HR abuses under his father's regime, were:
س: نه، من منظورم نظام پادشاهی بود قبل از انقلاب ایران
ج: خوب نه به آن توتالیتر که نمی شود گفت
س: پس چه می شود گفت
ج: نبود فضای آزاد سیاسی ......به خاطر خفقان سیاسی بود ......آزادی عمل به مفهوم سیاسی اش در آن نظام نبود
س: پادشاه ایران قانون اساسی مملکتش را زیرپا گذاشته بود و دولت و کابینه و نخست وزیر و تمام دستگاه اجرایی دولتی بی معنی شده بودند و عملا در دست یک نفر بود. اینها چقدر موثر بود که این انقلاب رخ بدهد؟
ج: من خودم به شما می گویم. تا مقدار زیادی تاثیر داشت در ایجاد آن بحران سیاسی .........باید گفت که برخی از مشکلات به خاطر برخوردی بوده که خود نظام با مسائل داشته، این را که اصلا منکرش نمی شوم.........یکی از آن فاکتورها البته نقصی است که در آن وضعیت رژیم بود که به اصطلاح از حالت مشروطه بودن خارج شده بود و به یک سیستم خودکامه تری تبدیل شده بود
For RP to admit to these, given he is his father's son, is more than any other group has done in accepting their share of responsibility.
This is what you said in your first comment on this thread:
"Having said that; overall I believe he should move beyond history of past 31 years, as most have already formed their own views and instead should focus on more discussions and actions regarding unity, organization and solutions"
And you followed it with praising Ahura ("Great Summary Ahura") for trashing the Pahlavi's and then offering the following advising:
"Covered so much of the past in 3 short paragraphs, but today and 31 years later the issue is IR and not the past regime. Only way to make a difference is for all secular democrats to unite.. "
You call for unity & say that we should move away from the past, but you, your self can not move away from it.
I am disappointed but not surprised.
Best
Kaveh
Eroonman jan
by maziar 58 on Fri Apr 02, 2010 03:14 PM PDTAs a person of 50+ yrs.of age and living in a best country in the world!! for almost 30 yrs. have never participated in any political activity in favor of any party or country, or social,civic,religiouse gathering of any kind BUT I Love both Iran as my homeland and America as being good to me and my own american family.
I don't see any need for political freedom here,I learned to live and obey under rules of law driving with in speed limit,pay my bills,taxes on timely manner,and not get caught with America's court system... Why can't we wish the same for IRAN & Iranians ? Maziar
Wow! Now I get it!
by eroonman on Fri Apr 02, 2010 02:13 PM PDTHere I was thinking that Khomeini was the bad guy and that the IRI was, wait... No... the iRI was the bad guy and the Khomeini was the b... no wait...
I am glad he also qualified himself to suggest that as a result of the revolution Iranians lost "...practically all of the social freedoms which had been attained
and enjoyed for a long time..."
Which is true if you think about it, we did enjoy Googoosh, bell bottom pants, mini-joop, and motorcycle rides up and down Pahlavi in front of Chatanoga and Bazar Safavieh.
So we had sociel freedoms, but we also had 0.00% political freedom. And it's the political freedom we didn't have that ultimately cost RPII and his Dad their jobs. Which I am sure to RPII is significant. Especially today when they aren't hiring former Dictators' sons. All we lost was our country.
x2 Mr. ET
by capt_ayhab on Fri Apr 02, 2010 01:02 PM PDTIndeed human suffering has no boarders. If one can not bring him/her self to feel the pain of human rights violation in China, Palestine, Iraq etc etc, they surely can not truly feel for people of their own country.
x2 and cosigned sir.
-YT
.......
by maziar 58 on Fri Apr 02, 2010 12:47 PM PDTgheeram pedare tu bood fazel
az fazle pedar tu ra che hassel ?
Reza Pahlavi is just wishing a change for Iran and Iranians what's wrong with that my iranian dot comers ?
If any person or entity denies the NORMAL life for all Iranian during the pahlavi then there is no unity to talk about and just to (bazak)the islamic republic without MOLLAHS in power so they can still benefit from it is not acceptable at least to my kind of thinking.
in my 19-20 years of living in Iran I can not call an incident of public hanging,my neighbor kids disappearing,my sisters being raped or haulled to jail for what ever the reason.
Mr. David E. who is mir ahmadi on your list ?>
Maziar
Dear Capt
by David ET on Fri Apr 02, 2010 10:39 AM PDTI consider myself a supporter of human rights and oppose its violation . It can be in Israel, Palestine, Iran, China, USA, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Mexico , ...... by USA, Iran, Israel, Hamas, China, UK, khamenei, Shah, ..... can be today, yesterday, happening tomorrow, 10 years ago, 40 years ago or 2010 years ago and by whoever....
If one is selective about it, being US, Iran, ..... being me , RP or you.... I think that raises a question if the commitment is true, from heart and honest or just selective...
This has nothing about legitimacy and in fact such commitment and honesty makes one 100 times more legitimate in the eyes of the world, Iranians and those whose rights had been violated than our silence to it .
We often do not realize how important the value of being open and honest is and how damaging avoiding truth is...
anyway my 2 cents.... and I know some won't like to hear it, but again I speak my mind may be it makes a difference either in others or in myself by realizing my errors when communicated.
Clerification
by capt_ayhab on Fri Apr 02, 2010 09:47 AM PDTI need for certain people to know, particularly my friend here for whom I have great deal of respect for, that my comment is not directed at them neither is it directed at any person with Monarchistic views.
Point of my comment is directed at Mr. Pahlavi and his total lack of qualification as a leader.
Mr. ET,
I do agree with you on quotes from his interview. He is obviously trying to weasel out of answering and OWNING up to the human rights violations that was committed during late shah's reign. I do not hold him personally responsible for any of those crimes that his late father committed, but not coming clean with it is the same as condoning the actions of his father.
-YT
Dariush aziz
by David ET on Fri Apr 02, 2010 09:33 AM PDTاگر هم چیزی رو امضا کردی خیلی ممنون ولی به حرف من توی یک جای دیگه ربطی نداره ! یک بیانیه برای همه است جان ما حالا هر روز منت نذار سر ما که امضا کردی ! :)
David ET You are Not Expecting an Answer ... ;0)
by Darius Kadivar on Fri Apr 02, 2010 07:22 AM PDTBut a Judgment !
Why Not ask Queen Elizabeth or Prince charles to judge Their Ancestor Henry VIII and undermine their Own Legitimacy in the eyes of their own People and constituency ?
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fadCAHjN-s
You just made me Regret to have signed Your Petition !
//iranian.com/main/blog/david-et/sign-iranian-solidarity-declaration
LOL
Besides What Are You guys complaining about ? You Got Your Republican Justice 30 years Ago by killing them all off no ?
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6w4KIXcCMg&feature=related
Let History Be Judge NOT Reza Pahlavi !
VIVE LA RESTORATION Nevertheless !
Tafre az javab?
by David ET on Fri Apr 02, 2010 03:16 AM PDTرضا پهلوی در گفتگو با اشپیگل
//www.childrenofcyrus.com/fa/articles/speach/568-2010-03-31-15-23-46.html
Example: Is this response of someone who truly believes in "human rights"?!
س: در رژيم کنونی نيز روابطی حاکم است که زمانی به همين دليل به حکومت پدر شما ايراد میگرفتند، مانند شکنجه، اعدام و جاسوسی مردم. آيا پدر شما اين چيزها را مقرر کرده بود و يا دست کم اجازه داده بود؟ و يا اينکه ساواک خودش دولتی در دولت بود؟
ج: هر کسی اين را قبول دارد که يک حکومت به نهادی برای حفظ امنيت ملت نياز دارد. ولی آيا سوء استفاده از قدرت ممکن است؟ بله. آيا عناصری وجود دارند که حقوق بشر را زير پا بگذارند؟ بله. هيچ کس نمیتواند اينها را منکر شود. اما بدون اينکه قصد بزک کردن آن دوران را داشته باشم، روابط وحشتناک امروز با مناسبات پيشين مقايسهپذير نيست. حتی يک مورد تجاوز به حقوق مردم نيز خود بسيار زياد است
Example: The question was not answered!
س: آيا اگر در ايران آزادی عقيده وجود میداشت، ممکن بود انقلاب اسلامی روی ندهد؟
ج: عوامل متعددی میتوانستند از انقلاب جلوگيری کنند. جامعه ما بر پيامدهای يک انقلاب مذهبی آگاه نبود. وقتی خمينی پای خود را بر خاک ايران گذاشت، ايران برايش مهم نبود. برای او مسئله بر سر تصور وی از يک اسلام انقلابی بود. همين اسلام انقلابی بود که خمينی قصد داست به سراسر جهان صادر کند.
again: not answering !
رهبری نظام کنونی تنها از بالا به پايين است. طبقه متوسط که میخواهد در سرنوشت کشور نقش داشته باشد، قلع و قمع میشود.
س: دقيقا همين ايراد را به پدر شما نيز میگرفتند.
ج: راست اين است که اهداف وی به درستی منتقل نشدند.