Kharrazi's interview
(Sept. 1996)From: Payman Arabshahi payman@u.washington.edu
Source: Iran (morning daily published in Tehran)
Saturday, Sept. 7, 1996 & Saturday Sept. 14, 1996Interview By: Habibollah Moazzami
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary:
According to the permanent representative of Iran at the United Nations, as long as the United States does not accept the reality that Washington's long as the United States does not accept the reality that Washington's anti-Iranian policies are ineffective, and as long as it does not accept the reality of Iran, the political disputes between Tehran and Washington will continue. In an interview held with Iran newspaper and printed in two issues, Kamal Kharrazi discusses the U.S. policies with respect to Iran and the vice versa, as well as Iran's actions at the U.N. He declared that Iran supports Boutros Boutros-Ghali to be re-elected as the Secretary-General of the U.N. for one more term. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Text:
Q: What is your assessment about the performance of Iran's mission at the U.N. at various dimensions, and, in principle, the role of this mission in Iran's diplomacy?
A: In principle, the role of Iran's mission at the U.N. is to defend the interests of the country and ideals of the Islamic Revolution; it mobilizes interests of the country and ideals of the Islamic Revolution; it mobilizes the Third Word countries to safeguard and maintain the interests of developing countries.
Q: In view of the atmosphere created by the U.S., in its relations with Iran, has the Iranian mission at the U.N. been successful in achieving the aims you mentioned?
A: It seems that the mission is active an has taken positive and effective steps. In many cases our experts take part and play an important role in various committees and sessions in which the Third World countries face Westerners. Each group tries to direct the final decision in its favor. This is a challenge.
There is a serious struggle in these sessions. In each group there are certain countries who are distinguished and act as mediators. The Islamic Republic of Iran plays such a role, which is often valid and special.
Q: Can you name some cases in which Iran's role was determining?
A: For example, the role of Iran in disarmament is very serious. The Westerners cannot easily impose their views on the international community, and the Third World too relies on Iran. Another case is the question of Article 11 of "The Convention on Chemical Disarmament". The Western Article 11 of "The Convention on Chemical Disarmament". The Western countries made a great deal of efforts to draw up Article 11 on the basis of their own interests. However, mobilization of Third World countries and raising their awareness about this problem led to the situation in which Western countries rescinded the resolution they had drawn up, and Iran played an important role in mobilizing the Third World countries to counter these resolutions.
Q: As you know, a major part of American pressure during the years after the (Iraqi) imposed war has been concentrated in the cultural and news assault, and a great deal of investment has been made for this purpose. What steps have been taken by Iran's mission at the U.N. in this regard?
A: This delegation has taken useful steps in order to introduce the real and positive face of the IRI, and has been successful to a certain extent.
Cultural activities, carried out in the form of cultural and artistic groups invited to the U.S., have had good and favorable repercussions. In addition to that, we have established good relations with universities and institutes that follow problems of Iran. Cooperation with the Council for Extension of Persian Language and Literature, display of Iranian films, performance of genuine Iranian music, presentation of magazines and books are among other cultural activities of this mission carried out to meet cultural and artistic needs of Iranians residing in the U.S. Of course, they also influence indirectly the Americans who are in touch with Iranians.
Q: Are these activities enough compared with the extensive facilities of anti-revolutionary elements?
A: I would like to say that our opponents have a great deal of facilities in the U.S. Our resources are limited and we cannot counter them fully well. The resources of the two sides are not proportional to each other at all. But it does not mean that we should not make any efforts in this regard.
Q: Are the committed Iranians and those seeking to preserve the genuine Iranian culture active?
A: The patriotic Iranians are active too, but their facilities are more limited than those of our opponents. For example, a number of Iranians residing in the U.S. have established a television channel called "Shabakeh Aftab" (Sun Network). Its programs are of good quality. It presents a healthy cultural face of Iran today, and uses cultural and artistic, products of Iran in its programs. They have reporters in Iran too; the point is, however, that the hours of transmission of this network are limited.
Q: How do you assess the present trend of relations between Tehran and Washington? In principle, is it possible for the tension to be diminished or the situation to be improved under the present conditions?
A: We are involved in a political struggles against the U.S. at present. We cannot dispense with in dependence of our country. We would like to prove and assert ourselves. Unless Americans come to the conclusions that their anti-Iran policies are ineffective and unless they accept the reality of Iran, these fights will continue. They must respect the independence of Iran.
Q: Can you see any signs of reducing or removing tensions between the two countries, under the present conditions?
A: Any movement and struggle must naturally follow through this process. Even the Americans themselves, in their war of independence against the British, followed this course. Therefore, in my view, if Americans accept the present reality of Iran, then there will be a better chance for establishing relations and removing tension between the two countries.
Q: Do such conditions exist now?
A: At present, Americans are under the influence of others, and are affected by their own economic interests. That is why they portray Iran as a danger for the region, and try to present it as the former Soviet Union. It seems that Americans cannot live without enemies.
Q: With due regard to various threats and pressures exerted by the U.S., how can one predict the future panorama of relations?
A: In any case, the future depends on the behavior of Americans, and how much logical or adventurous they are. What is certain is that we do not seek tension or war, and will resist American adventurism with all means at our disposal.
Q: What is the reaction of American public opinion vis-a-vis the anti-Iranian policies of their government, and how sensitive are they?
A: In principle, the Americans are not politically minded, and are not concerned with what is going on in the world. They are engrossed in their own routine an daily affairs. But among them, there are some people who follow these problems; for example, researchers, academics, the press and generally all those who are either favored or harmed by the decisions of their government.
Most of them know that these sanctions and punishments are politically motivated and are due to the support of Israel. Their aim is to create obstructions and impediments for a country that wants to live in its own way. They are also aware of the fact that in the end these sanctions harm American companies, like the last sanctions where American companies incurred a great deal of loss more than anybody else, and also lost their credibility.
Q: You said that American people are not political. But American mass media, in sensitive and critical times, easily shape public opinion, and lead it to the direction they want. Is it not so?
A: Most American people are not really political and are engrossed in their personal affairs. But it is also true that American mass media have a great deal of influence and are quite capable of mobilizing people, like the case of the Persian Gulf war. They have made a great deal of investment to mobilize the public opinion against Iran. As you are aware American mass media are under the influence of Jews. Very few impartial articles and reports about Iran have been prepared and published by the American mass media in recent years. It seems that the media have been instructed to publish negative points about Iran. But the American researchers and academics, upon their return from Iran, admit that their observations were quite different from what they had heard before.
Q: Does the anti-Iranian view prevail in American ruling circle? Do differences of opinion exist among political authorities of that country?
A: There are differences of opinion among political circles in this regard between various agencies, and even sometimes within the same agency. For example, there are differences of opinion between the state department, the Defense Department and the National Security Council. But when the Administration adopts a position, nobody says anything against it and everybody adheres to the policy that has been adopted.
Q: As you said Americans cannot survive politically at the international scene without a hypothetical enemy, and are now, instead of the Soviet Union, introducing Iran as their dangerous enemy. What practical steps have the Iranian mission at the U.N. taken to counter and neutralize this move, particularly to change and reform the American public opinion?
A: This is done by various means, primarily, through publication and dissemination of information about Iran. It is carried out by various mechanisms. Now we have a file containing all kinds of information on Internet network. News, information, statistics and other items are available in this data bank. Another way of encountering Americans is to provide facilities for trips of researchers and journalists to Iran.
Q: Have you devised any programs for establishment of relations between American and Iranian researchers? For example, holding of sessions between researchers can have great effects on raising awareness of each others' points of view.
A: At present this relation is established through trips of researchers and taking part in various conferences. For example, the conferences and seminars organized by the Institute for Political and International Studies (IPIS) of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs are very effective in this regard.
In addition to that, unofficially, researchers have organizations through which they contact each other in various ways one of which is utilizing the information which is available in Internet. Besides that, other organizations are in the process of formation, in order to study the problems of Iran in a more coordinated manner.
Q: Does it mean that through establishment of relations between research circles of the two countries the public opinion in the U.S. can be influenced?
A: It must be borne in mind that although the academic community of America is regarded as a great weight for shaping the public opinion and even the minds of elites, it is not the only factor, because, in the end, politicians, through the agency of the mass media, direct public opinion and then take decisions themselves.
Q: Do you mean that in spite of opposition of researchers and elites?
A: There is no doubt that most of the researchers are opposed to the policies of the Administration in Washington. But the Administration and the ruling circles of this country, being under great influence of Zionist lobby, adopt such policies. So with full knowledge of this fact, we continue our efforts.
Q: There are a number of Iranians residing in the U.S. What is their reaction vis-a-vis American administration's anti-Iranian actions?
A: In the case of the illegal plan of (Alfons) D'Amato and the American Congress, Iranians have conducted effective group and collective moves, and a number of them have, by forming an organization, taken a stand to defend Iran and oppose the anti-Iranian actions of the U.S. Administration. This organization, called the cultural council of Americans of Iranian origin, has organized collective protests, particularly through insertion of notices in American mass media and dispatching letters of protest to the American administration, thereby reacting against this anti-Iranian plan. Of course, the Iranians' moves are taking shape and increasing; these moves have had a great impact on getting the Iranians residing in the U.S. closer together in the course of sanctions against Iran.
Q: How are the relations between the Iranian mission at the U.N. and the Iranians residing in the U.S., particularly during the reconstruction period of today when Iranian specialists residing in the U.S. can play an effective role?
A: At present, there is close relationship between Iranian specialists and the Iranian representative office at the U.N. Our ministries have taken advantage of this method and also "TOKTEN" (Transfer of Knowledge Through Expatriate Nationals) method, i.e. the U.N. project of educational aid for the Third World countries. This step has led to establishment of an organization called the "Iranians' Scientific Society". The society organizes some meetings and seminars in various specialized fields, and at the same time gives consultations to Iran.
The members of the society travel regularly to Iran and even teach in Iranian universities. This is regarded as a valuable move. The society publishes a quarterly.
Q: As the last question, I would like to deal with a point that has been the burning question in the political circles of the world for the last few years, i.e. the change of structure of the U.N. There must be many projects in this connection and every country looks at the problem from its own angle. At what stage is the question of change of structure of the U.N. at present?
A: There are many differences of opinion in this regard, the question can be discussed in two sections: One is the question of work procedure of the U.N. Security Council, and the other is number of members. As regards the work procedure of the Security Council great agreement has been reached in the course of negotiations but as far as the number of members is concerned, there are great deal of differences. There are even some differences within Western developed countries, so much so that understanding could not be obtained even after two years of efforts and negotiations.
Q: Doesn't the IRI intend to play a more active role in the U.N. and the Security Council?
A: In principle, in view of the structure of the Security Council, particularly the question of the right of veto we have not reached this decision yet; because the topic of legitimacy is at stake here. At the same time Iran's participation at the Council as a non-permanent member means confirming and legitimizing this structure. That is why we have not requested for the membership of the Council yet.
Q: What is the IRI's view regarding the next secretary general? Has it a special personality in mind?
A: We agree to extension of Mr. Boutros-Chali's office as Secretary-General by one more term.
(End)